Ron Paul - NeoCon Global Government

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.

You are invited to re-read #79 which is as much of a response to the delusions of #80 as you deserve. But, just to show that I am a generous kind of guy, the following:

1. Goldwater made me a Republican in 1964 when I was a teenager in a Democrat labor union family. Later, I thought far less of him as he became a dog in the manger over Reagan who was, by far, Barry Goldwater's superior in every way. By 1976, I would not have voted for him for dogcatcher because he had firmly established himself, on social issues, as an enemy of the US, an enemy of the GOP and an enemy of Western Civilization. See below for why Goldwater is NEVER to be confused with Reagan.

2. Goldwater suffered theinjustice of LBJ's little girl with the daisy nuclear bomb commercial in 1964. By 1976, he was cravenly campaigning for spineless "moderate" Gerald Ford and doing a voiceover asking California primary voters if they REALLY wanted Reagan's finger on the nuclear button.

3. In 1968, every 1964 Goldwater delegate who had become a 1968 delegate, was marched through Goldwater's hotel suite to be instructed by Goldwater to vote for Nixon and against Reagan.

4. Why would Goldwater stab Reagan like that????? Perhaps because first wife Peggy Goldwater served on the national board of directors of PLANNED PARENTHOOD from about 1940 until her death in about 1975. Barry was always a pro-abort and was understandably cautious in stirring up conservative opposition to himself.

5. Goldwater bragged about bringing his daughter to an abortion mill to abort his grandchild and defiantly said (after he was out of office permanently) that it was nobody's business but his that of his family. Which begs the question of how we would have found out other than by his shooting off his mouth about being an accomoplice in the killing of his grandchild.

6. In a similar vein, he bragged that his grandson's homosexuality was nobody's business. Again, his grandson is not in my socuial circle. How would I learn without Barry wanting to p.o. social conservatives. Well, Barry, mission accomplished.

7. Spineless foreign policy cowards, anti-war quislings, internationalist looney toons, isolationist John Francois Kerry, George McGovern, paleofrauds who would substitute drunken poetry whining for manhood in cultural matters, and similar flora and fauna have NO PLACE IN THE CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT and NEVER did and NEVER will.

8. Notice particularly that "neo-conservatives" are NOT as defined by the Nation Magazine or by the quislings at Chronicles and the Rockford Institute but are that dwindling and dying group of formerly left, mostly NYC, 1930s intellectuals who abandoned the Demonratic Party when it became a footstool for communism under McGovern and his allies.

9. What you and the other paleoyakfesters here regard as "neoconservatives" ARE THE CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT that nominated and elected Ronald Reagan, having made the mistake of nominating Goldwater without taking the emeasure of the man on moral questions. We invaded nothing. There was little to invade. Nixon imposed wage and price controls, kissed Chairman Mao's bootie on demand, appointed Herod Blackmun to the SCOTUS, etc., etc., etc.

10. What you and the Nation magazine call "neoconservatives" are the Republicans who believe in a kickass foreign and military policy with no restraints by treaty or otherwise, believe in free enterprise and sharp tax reductions for EVERYONE, recognize that no legitimacy attaches to anything posing as marriage or marriage-like other than one man + one woman, believe passionately in and practice the right to keep and bear arms, etc. I know the Rockford Institute crowd personally. There is NO LEADERSHIP there for a political movement. Tom Fleming brags that he does not vote, for one egregious example.

11. Scoop Jackson was a great but flawed man. He was certainly a socialist and therefore wrong on economics. He uttered the immortal words: "I take second place to no man in calling myself a liberal but that does not mean that I have to be a damn fool." That was in response to McGovernite foreign policy dishonesty and delusion now embraced by all 27 "paleocons" in America. He may well have been wrong on social issues. On those, Rep. Ron Paul has always been right but he is soooooooo wrong on foreign policy and defense and military that Houston owes a lot more to America. Likewise, neo"paleo" Rep. Walter Jones (paleodope-North Carolina), Jr., who went to a recent military funeral, heard the soldier's mother read a letter from her dead son and was soooooooooo overcome with grief and the authenticity of it all (he CRIED for 72 hours in response without known psychiatric intervention), that he wants to tell the Islamofascisti when we commit to withdraw so that they can win. Puhleeze, Mr. Jones, will your Congressional resignation be submitted immediately to the Speaker? If not, why not??????? You are obviously unfit for office.

12. You are astoundingly thick in your imagination of reality. Of course, the actual neocons were leftwingers. They were NOT communists for the most part, if ever. Midge Decter wrote a book-length treatment called "Liberal Parents/Radical Children" or something similar It details the extraordinary efforts necessary to keep her own kids on the straight and narrow and away from the influences ranging from parents of New Leftists to the flaming fudgepackers of Fire Island.

SUMMARY: Like most paleos, you have not a clue as to the history of conservatism. It is a movement dependent on ex-communists like the late Frank and Elsie Meyer, whose son Eugene runs the Federalist Society, dependent upon former Democrats like Jean Kirkpatrick, dependent on all of the original editors of National Review (other than Bill Buckley) a group that had all evacuated the left in the late 1940s, dependent upon people who could perceive the difference between social eccentrics, academic semi-nincompoops, pseudointellectual ne'er do wells, on the one hand and, on the other, actual conservatives, people who did not have to be left by the wayside as poster children for exotic behavior and atomistic self-absorption. If you want a movement that reflects your whims, it is NOT the conservative movement, never was and never will be. To date, "paleos" have accomplished NADA politically and have exhibited no likelihood that they will soon surpass other eccentrics like vegetarians, flat-earthers or the rest of the tin foil hat crowd.

My "allegiances" are quite in order and I have NO ALLEGIANCE to you or any other paleo.

If the named individuals are Jewish by ancestry (as they uncontrovertibly are) AND if the paleopantywaists lose their lunch over the very idea of allying politically with such Jewish people as those named (and they certainly do) AND if the ones who have a cow over allying with such Jewish people are of the "blood and soil" variety such as the Rockford Institute crowd (and they certainly are), then truth is always a complete defense to any charge of any kind of defamation (black letter law as we call it) including libel (which is the written variety of defamation rather than the oral variety known as slander).

Read any issue of Chronicles, the monthly paleorag of the Rockford Institute. Access the website: Chronicles.com. for up-to-date raving lunacy masquerading as "paleo""conservatism." One can also access the websites of their pals: Lavender Justin Raimondo: antiwar.com, for example. The antisemitic Raimondo, a part-timer for that Russian newspaper known as Pravda (remember back in the day?)

I will happily allow the Rockford Institute and antiwar.com to stand for themselves. Let actual conservatives access such trash and there will be no further debate.

There may be respectable conservative views that are skeptical as to whether to go to war at a particular place or a particular time against a particular enemy. The Rockford Institute and antiwar.com are not holders of respectable conservative opinion. Rather they are in the same category as such as Neville Chamberlain. Diployak is no substitute for action. If anyone dares to assume the name conservative, he or she should be prepared to lead, follow or get the heck out of the way. In this respect, Pat Buchanan and not Raimondo or Fleming is the model.

What do you imagine was "slander" or libel and why?

Do you also defend the late Samuel Francis, editor of the newspaper of what used to be called the White Citizens' Councils but more recently the "Conservative" Citizens' Councils. Atheism, coupled with "blood and soil conservatism" coupled with addressing neo-Nazi groups like American Renaissance for which he was fired by the Washington Times. He was also an atheist without other redeeming social virtues or skills.

The so-called paleos have not gotten over the fact that Reagan treated them like funny uncles not to be hired or put on display or listened to. They simply cannot imagine why and, in about 1986, when reality set in that Reagan had no use for them, they invented a useful mythology of making believe that THEY were the REAL conservatives and that the long-time Reaganauts were some sort of usurpers taking THEIR conservative movement away from them. No one in the 1960s-1970s conservative movement (YAF, YRs, CRs, etc.) ever heard of these academic exotic flora and fauna and delusionists. No one who counts as a conservative ever will hear of them. They are collectively nobody and nothing as they should be.

I don't particularly care what you or other paleodupes think about Leo Strauss. If he was good enough for Bill Buckley, he will be good enough for me. How do YOU feel about Denjis Kucinich and that Abercrombie Congresscritter from Hawaii. Your pals Ron Paul and Walter "Sniffles" Jones, Jr., sure seem to be in love with them. Based on foreign policy alone, Kucinich and Abercrombie seem to be "paleos."

Maybe if there were less whining out of this war's version of the domesticong including those who pose as "paleo""conservatives", we might be doing something in Pakistan. Other than hiding with your "paleo" heads in the sand and hoping that the bad foreigners will just go away and leave you alone with your tailfeathers in the air, what IS the "paleo" plan for dealing with the Islamofascisti????? Oh, that's right, the "paleos" believe that foreign/military policy is somehow "unconstitutional." Good thing you guys were thoroughly rejected by the American people in election after election during the WW II era. As a result, I got to study German in high school and college but it was an elective and not a required subject.

"Paleos" offer nothing of interest to draw responses, just a hopeless and emotional nostalgia for the pre-WWI and pre-WWII and pre-9/11 world as you imagine it to have been. You seem understandably reluctant to respond to reality and the perceived wisdom of mankind on which you obviously gag.

Boy, if you think Rep. Walter Jones, Jr., is powerless and obscure now, wait until the whiny baby gets back to DC where he will be no more than a less intelligent image and likeness of Ron Paul. He might also think of himself as the anti-American Jeanette Rankin of his generation. What a disgrace! Hopefully, he is primaried out of his seat or returns to the Demonratic Party from which his father defected. He can weep and sniffle full time in retirement.

I do not have a "moral equivalence" problem so long as people like GWB occupy the office. But you dismissed the argument without addressing it...

Look, BE, I have the same concern about foreign adventures as I do about the "Patriot Act" extensions (which, thank God, were defeated) and some of the initial Patriot Act legislation (sneak-and-peek, for one.)

That concern is simple: the US has elected several slimeballs to the highest office: Nixon, FDR, LBJ, and X42. Legislation enabling such slime to utilize the office for their own political ends is ill-considered, to say the least.

As to the overseas adventures, BE, I note that you've not been careful to define "our interests." I understand and wholly approve retaliation, AND I understand and (to a lesser extent,) approve selective assassinations such as those carried out by the estimable Bill Casey's CIA.

However, defining the terms will be critical, as you understand. Should GWB have really pushed so hard for the "Orange" in the former Soviet state? Now we discover that the "Orange" is distinctly anti-Christian.

It will be a lengthy exercise for the US to find and demolish ALL 'terrorist' enemies of the country--(not to mention whether such an operation could possibly be successful.) In addition, it's questionable whether the US can "align" the world with its particular interests.

It is for good reason that the Popes have spoken about retaining (albeit IMPROVING) the U.N.

I think I have already posted (and if not, let me do so now) that I really do not care a feather or a fig for those who adhere to the cowardly foreign and military policy notions that did so much for Neville Chamberlain. Believe as you please. It matters not since your belief structure died at Pearl Harbor and again at the WTC.

I see no reason to post links. If you are too lazy to type "antiwar.com" or Chronicles.com into your search engines to entertain yourselves, I am not inclined to be your servants. Anyone else truly interested in seeing what perverts like Raimondo may "think" or what Chronicles or Rockford Institute may say is invited to type those into their search engines.

Today's GOP is not your grandpa's GOP and kit never will be again. It no longer is a meeting of coupon clippers with green eyeshades and sleeve garters in the board room down at the bank on small town Main Street, Nowheresville, USA, worrying about how much it might cost to do anything worthwhile beyond the borders of your neighborhood, if there, and saying no in any event. It also no longer is limited to eight (8) senators as in FDR's heyday.

This is one conseervative who had more than a bellyful of the anti-American antiwar used food displayed by your brothers and sisters in cowardice in the 1960s and 1970s. I will NEVER change after what I saw then. I will revile for every moment of my future existence the anti-American and anti-war scum responsible for the Vietnamese people being conquered by Hanoi.

Don't stop at Ron Paul and his nauseating nightmare of restoring isolationist cowardice as national policy. Go right ahead and support John Kerry or Her Satanic Majesty. Their foreign and military policies would be no worse. If taking this nation out of the fight to crush its enemies and the enemies of freedom means nothing to you, then go party with Raimondo and his ilk.

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. As to Osama bin Laden, I would like to see his captured pelt removed and framed on the wall of the Cabinet room as a reminder to future generations and the rest of him submerged in pig blood in a televised ceremony. If "paleo"pantywaists don't like that, that is just toooooo bad.

You folks may belong to some political movement or other but it is neither conservative nor in the interests of this nation.

I firmly resolve not to allow the antiquarian Mid-west eccentricity of isolationism, nor the prudential errors of libertarianism nor my own coastline interventionism to get in the way of a good friendship. I think we should agree to disagree and to ignore one another's attacks on one another's foereign policy or internal security confreres. We are paying for the sins of our ancestors who failed to defend and advance the sainted Senator Joseph R. McCarthy.

I know you too well to take our differences personally.

We are just going to have to see to it that no more untrustworthy types get elected POTUS. We need to do that anyway.

Our interests, as a term, is a work in progress. I feel sure we disagree on that too.

The Ukrainian election and its rivals are not at the top of my priority list. I trust the Ukrainian people to figure that one out in favor of the Faith. If not immediately, then according to God's schedule.

What happened to Ernesto Che Guevara and to Salvador Allende and, hopefully, someday to Ugo Chavez and what we have failed so far to do to Fidel Castro is far preferable to civil wars and a lot easier on the innocent civilians. Regrettably, we missed altogether on Ho Chi Minh and I trust that God has taken care of that posthumously by way of his final "reward."

The war on terrorism does promise to keep our military experienced for decades to come.

Papal foreign policy has not had that old pizzazz since Paul VI came to New York and denounced the American effort in Vietnam as an exercise in racist genocide. Vatican foreign policy operations are usually in the hands of Chamberlainian Euroweenies, JP II's magnificent contributions to the fall of the Iron Curtain notwithstanding. The UN is a TRULY dangerous entity unlike the Patriot Act or the war on terror and thesooner it is destroyed the better. That day will be as happy as those on which the French (the French!!!!!!!) and the Dutch drove old Europa down.

On a happier subject, I was watching C-SPAN2 Book TV over the weekend. George Weigel and Anne Applebaum (a rare honest freedomlover columnist of the WashPost) were appearing at the Center for Ethics and Public Policy (or whatever) in DC to discuss Weigel's new book: The Cube or the Cathedral. 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. "Generation gap" is taking on a new and desireable connotation.

God bless you, yours, me, mine and ours!

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.