I think this guy is hilarious; I didn't know he was a writer.
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.
Well, I thought it was pretty useful! :^)
Carolyn
More useless trivia...Did you know that the ^ in your :^) means "a broken nose"?
Carolyn
Carolyn
I know the feeling --
Carolyn
Get back to me when he raises hell about this monstrosity and I'll be happy to eat my words.
Reminds me of...
"Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Pretty cool."
Whatever. It is time for Paul to adjust his dose.
Ron Paul/Tom Tancredo 2008/20012.
Bump for later.
bump for later reading
I think this guy is hilarious; I didn't know he was a writer.
Campaign Silence Reform.
Rush thinks that concerns about the CFR and Trilateral whatsisname and all that are tinfoil kookdom.
He seems to be solely interested in party politics.
The cause of the pantywaist form of isolationism died on 12/7/41 and died again on 9/11/01.
Severing US involvement in the UN is a great idea and ought to be pursued. Unfortunately, Paul apparently would substitute a Switzerland form or foreign policy for American foreign policy. We are not Switzerland. We have self-imposed responsibilities. If the rest of the world does not like that, tooooooo baaaaaaddd!
Contrary to the fantasies of the "paleo""conservatives" and of the New Republic and of the Nation and of leftist pundits, the "neoconservatives" are a handful of surviving NYC nonogenarians who attended City College in the 1930s as Marxists but refused to remain Demonrat when the Demonrats went fully communist under McGovern.
Coincidentally, most of the actual surviving neocons are also Jewish: Norman Podhoretz, Midge Decter, Irving Kristol, Gertrude Himmelfarb, etc., which takes on a very exaggerated importance for some reason among the so-called "paleo""conservatives", particularly those of the "blood and soil" variety.
Reformulation (consistent with history and reality): There are conservatives, there are populist conservatives, there are (about twelve surviving) neoconservatives. And there are confused socially unacceptable eccentrics who wish to be known as "paleo""conservatives" when they are in actual life alcoholic poetry-spouting romantic admirers of deservedly insignificant Balkan satrapies, who favor contemplation and yak-yak over ANY EFFECTIVE ACTION WHATSOEVER in all imaginable circumstances.
There are libertarians who are very often separated from conservatives by their rank enthusiasm for such social issue heresies as abortion-on-demand and lavender canoodling legalization and encouragement. Many libertarians are also separated from conservatives by an allergic reaction to the use of military force to extend American influence and to protect our own people and their interests abroad. Many libertarians are separated from conservatives by absolute worship of materialism.
You shame Goldwater and Reagan by attempting to replace them with the radical neocon invasion of the party.
Coincidentally, most of the actual surviving neocons are also Jewish: Norman Podhoretz, Midge Decter, Irving Kristol, Gertrude Himmelfarb, etc.,
I believe that to be a disingenuous statement Mr. Elk.
You haven't even scratched the surface in terms of naming neoconservatives. Oddly, and amusingly, enough George Bush is one of the rare ELECTED ones!
You named SOME of the early ones and I challenge you to name ANY early one that was not a Communist or a red diaper baby!
Here's what I offered to another FR brother when he inquired about this late 20th century political anomaly:
"It was conceived during/at the waning of the Viet Nam War. Scoop Jackson (the Senator from Boeing) Democrats sensed that the Dim Party was losing its appetite for a strong defense and a belligerent foreign policy and migrated to Reagan's strong anticommunist stand. So far so good ... but that's nowhere near the end of the story."
Closed quote. Most of these Democrat "born again" Republicans were Jewish, You say coincidence? I ask you "at this time of neocon conception did the U.S. appear in imminent danger"?
No, we were, even then, the most powerful nation on earth. Who then was placed in jeopardy by a perceived contraction of American belligerence?
BTW, does the name Leo Strauss ring any kind of (dangerously radical) bell with you?
May I respectfully suggest you get your allegiances in order?
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.