Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ron Paul - NeoCon Global Government
House Web Site ^ | 6-13-2005 | Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)

Posted on 06/13/2005 10:08:34 AM PDT by jmc813

This week Congress will vote on a bill to expand the power of the United Nations beyond the dreams of even the most ardent left-wing, one-world globalists. But this time the UN power grabbers aren’t European liberals; they are American neo-conservatives, who plan to use the UN to implement their own brand of world government.

The “United Nations Reform Act of 2005” masquerades as a bill that will cut US dues to the United Nations by 50% if that organization does not complete a list of 39 reforms. On the surface any measure that threatens to cut funding to the United Nations seems very attractive, but do not be fooled: in this case reform “success” will be worse than failure. The problem is in the supposed reforms themselves-- specifically in the policy changes this bill mandates.

The proposed legislation opens the door for the United Nations to routinely become involved in matters that have never been part of its charter. Specifically, the legislation redefines terrorism very broadly for the UN’s official purposes-- and charges it to take action on behalf of both governments and international organizations.

What does this mean? The official adoption of this definition by the United Nations would have the effect of making resistance to any government or any international organization an international crime. It would make any attempt to overthrow a government an international causus belli for UN military action. Until this point a sovereign government retained the legal right to defend against or defeat any rebellion within its own territory. Now any such activity would constitute justification for United Nations action inside that country. This could be whenever any splinter group decides to resist any regime-- regardless of the nature of that regime.

What if this were in place when the Contras were fighting against the Marxist regime in Nicaragua? Or when the Afghan mujahadeen was fighting against the Soviet-installed government in the 1980s? Or during the Warsaw Ghetto uprising? The new message is clear: resistance-- even resistance to the UN itself-- is futile. Why does every incumbent government, no matter how bad, deserve UN military assistance to quell domestic unrest?

This new policy is given teeth by creating a “Peacebuilding Commission,” which will serve as the implementing force for the internationalization of what were formerly internal affairs of sovereign nations. This Commission will bring together UN Security Council members, major donors, major troop contributing countries, appropriate United Nations organizations, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund among others. This new commission will create the beginning of a global UN army. It will claim the right to intervene in any conflict anywhere on the globe, bringing the World Bank and the IMF formally into the picture as well. It is a complete new world order, but undertaken with the enthusiastic support of many of those who consider themselves among the most strident UN critics.

Conservatives who have been critical of the UN in the past have enthusiastically embraced this bill and the concept of UN reform. But what is the desired end of “UN reform”? The UN is an organization that was designed to undermine sovereignty and representative government. It is unelected and unaccountable to citizens by its very design. Will UN reform change anything about the fact that its core mission is objectionable? Do honest UN critics really want an expanded UN that functions more “efficiently”?

The real question is whether we should redouble our efforts to save a failed system, or admit its failures-- as this legislation does-- and recognize that the only reasonable option is to cease participation without further costs to the United States in blood, money, and sovereignty. Do not be fooled: it is impossible to be against the United Nations and to support “reform” of the United Nations. The only true reform of the United Nations is for the US to withdraw immediately.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 109th; ronpaul; turass; unreform
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-126 next last
To: inquest

Well, we have to look at the same question I asked BE: what, exactly, IS "the national interest?"

In the current situation, for example, it may be in OUR interests that UN troops are sent to Sudan (or Congo.) Both countries are run by slimebag despots who are wholesale eliminating parts of their population.

BUT--there are not a whole lotta US troops to spare.


101 posted on 06/20/2005 3:15:56 PM PDT by ninenot (Minister of Membership, Tomas Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk

We will HARDLY impinge on friendship over such matters as "the national interest," but I'd still love to find a definition which works and leaves sleazeball Presidents (there will be a couple more, sometime...) with little alternative in military decisions.

See my post immediately above for a situation in which the UN could actually be useful (not that they will, but...)

JPII was not stupid. I know who his #2-ranking emissary to the UN is, and that guy's not stupid, either. They knew full well that the UN has, ah, problems.

But a UN which is rightly-ordered and has integrity would certainly BE an asset to the US.


102 posted on 06/20/2005 3:22:18 PM PDT by ninenot (Minister of Membership, Tomas Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Nephi
How many opponents of the UN, on this thread, support expanding the Patriot Act?

Expanding? Nope.

Eliminating? Yep.

103 posted on 06/20/2005 3:32:33 PM PDT by houeto ("Mr. President , close our borders now!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: NJ_gent

check this...


104 posted on 06/20/2005 3:35:41 PM PDT by houeto ("Mr. President , close our borders now!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: ninenot
In the current situation, for example, it may be in OUR interests that UN troops are sent to Sudan (or Congo.)

If for some reason it's in our interests to send troops into those places to quell the situation, then we might as well send our own troops. If we don't have enough troops for that, then (I suppose) we could pay another country to go in and take care of it, which is functionally no different from having the UN do it, seeing as how we'd end up paying for it anyway. But to have a permanent establishment like the UN is not necessary, and always has a dangerous potential.

105 posted on 06/20/2005 4:48:25 PM PDT by inquest (FTAA delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
All of my adult life, I have been involved in the conservative movement and it has NEVER tolerated paleocowardice as national policy. Interventionism is conservative policy, when, where and as we choose.

Please choose Pakistan the instant you develop testicles!

106 posted on 06/20/2005 6:20:38 PM PDT by iconoclast (Conservative, not partisan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
They seem to believe that the French and Dutch plebiscitary rejections of the Euro Constitution were produced at least substantially by: World Youth Days of JP II causing religious rebellion by young Europeans against their valueless 1960s generation parents who are enemies of Church and Culture and Civilization and a widespread belief among the European young that if their radical parents are for something, they should oppose that something.

Did you catch your man George on the tube today?

He's heartsick about the EU situation. I guess it is quite a set back for the one worlders. ;o)

107 posted on 06/20/2005 6:27:51 PM PDT by iconoclast (Conservative, not partisan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: houeto
My sentiments, too.

I'm surprised no one responded to my question...maybe they thought I was making trouble? I was seriously trying to gauge the consensus of anti-UN freepers. There are so many freepers who have bought into globalism I'm trying to find true conservative freepers.

108 posted on 06/20/2005 6:59:50 PM PDT by Nephi ("I am in favor of free trade." - Karl Marx)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Nephi
Another group to watch out for are those who are opposed to the current UN but want it replaced with some pro-"democracy" organization or some such. Those people are no bigger friends of this country's sovereignty than the current supporters of the UN.
109 posted on 06/20/2005 7:06:21 PM PDT by inquest (FTAA delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Nephi; inquest; streetpreacher
I'm surprised no one responded to my question...

streetpreacher answered you and voted to eliminate Patriot also.

110 posted on 06/20/2005 7:30:48 PM PDT by houeto ("Mr. President , close our borders now!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: houeto

Thanks for noticing. :-)


111 posted on 06/20/2005 9:04:19 PM PDT by streetpreacher (If at the end of the day, 100% of both sides are not angry with me, I've failed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: ninenot; inquest; iconoclast
ninenot: There certainly are no troops to spare. The mistake du jour is in not doing whatever is necessary to bring reservists home, replace them with young regular servicemen, and escalate military pay and perks as necessary to overwhelm our "insurgent" (paid criminal) enemies in Iraq and elsewhere and bring troop strength back to Reagan era levels. We have not yet recovered from Clintonian military cuts much less restored the military strength of Reagan's era and we are trying to fight a war on the cheap (for the government) by dragging reservists back to active duty. That it is legal does not make it wise.

We can also allow Mexicans and Latin Americans to earn American citizenship through military service. With GI bill, one generation from rural Mexican poverty to college credentials and home ownership (and conservative Republicanism since they are already social conservatives and will be military conservatives) via six or so years active duty service in good behavior and reserve status thereafter.

As to Pakistan, a green light to India would do a lot. Otherwise, we will get there when we get there. What paleos think of the manhood of interventionists never has been a concern and never will be and there is no reason why it should be.

i & i: You have as much in the way of my researching for you as you are going to get. I will not honor your imagined authority to dictate what I supposedly owe you. Read despicable pantywaist Raimondo's anti-American and anti-Semitic blatherings on antiwar.com or Fleming's on Chronicles.com or not as you see fit. I owe you absolutely nothing. I personally hope that the wars place an especially heavy burden on you in material terms. I do not wish you well. You are NOT conservatives as anyone active in the movement would readily realize. Peddle your sniffles elsewhere. I will respond as I see fit or not as I see fit.

I now leave both of you to ninenot who may be closer to your views but is infinitely more rational.

112 posted on 06/21/2005 12:31:15 PM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: ninenot; iconoclast; inquest

In #112: Fleming's anti-American blatherings. I have no direct knowledge of anti-Semitism at the Institute.


113 posted on 06/21/2005 12:35:19 PM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: inquest
You prefer, maybe, pro-tyranny groups, absolute monarchy groups, socialist, fascist or communist groups? You prefer the current UN??????

American sovereignty will take care of itself when we beef up the military to Reaganite levels and buy it all the new toys that are needed.

Is your slogan: Freedom for me but not for thee??????

114 posted on 06/21/2005 12:40:03 PM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
You are NOT conservatives as anyone active in the movement would readily realize.

You're right, no "true conservative" would demand that fruit-loops who make wild charges should actually back them up, instead of rambling on about everything else under the sun and making paranoid statements about their questioners. I don't know what I could possibly have been thinking...

115 posted on 06/21/2005 12:42:28 PM PDT by inquest (FTAA delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: iconoclast
George Weigel????? George Dubya Bush????? Both conservatives unlike the paleos. Dubya is doing a Texas gubernatorial shuck and jive (See "OOOOH, I Like to Do a Little Sidestep" in Best Little Whorehouse in Texas) in response to the incessant pestilential whining of the ignorant and cowardly.

Run Ron Paul for President. See Ron Paul crushed again.

116 posted on 06/21/2005 12:44:02 PM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
I prefer getting out of the UN and replacing it with nothing. I know this may be a difficult concept for you, so don't be discouraged if you don't get it on the first read. Just take it slow.
117 posted on 06/21/2005 12:44:26 PM PDT by inquest (FTAA delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: inquest

That presupposes that you are capable of thinking which is not suggested by paleopantywaistism or your posts.


118 posted on 06/21/2005 12:45:30 PM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: inquest

I prefer getting out of the UN, replacing it with nothing, beefing up the American military, intervening unilaterally whenever and wherever the USA sees fit with the assistance of freedom-loving nations who want their part of the honor. I also favor refusing to acknowledge fraudulent claims of neo-NevilleChamberlains to the name "conservative" with or without prefixes. Cowardice as national policy is not conservatism. I also believe in aggressively attacking such fraudulent claims and claimants.


119 posted on 06/21/2005 12:49:21 PM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: inquest

If you are looking for fruit loops try Raimondo or Andrew Sullivan. One is your foreign minister. The other is just so darned concerned about the lack of luxuries for the criminal prisoners at Guantanamo.


120 posted on 06/21/2005 12:51:43 PM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-126 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson