Time to Renounce the UN (Ron Paul on the other result of the war)

email | 3/20 | Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)

[GOPcapitalist]

Our anticipated war in Iraq has been condemned by many around the world for the worst of all reasons: namely, that America is acting without United Nations approval. The obvious implication is that an invasion of Iraq is illegitimate without such approval, but magically becomes legitimate when UN bureaucrats grant their blessing. Most Americans rightfully resent this arrogant attitude toward our national sovereignty and don’t care what the UN thinks about our war plans. Perhaps our heritage as a nation of people who do not take kindly to being told what to do is intact. Still, only the most ardent war hawks connected with the administration have begun to discuss complete withdrawal from the UN. I have advocated this for twenty years, and have introduced legislation to that effect.

The administration deserves some credit for asserting that we will go to war unilaterally if necessary, without UN authorization. But it sends a mixed message by doing everything it can to obtain such authorization. Efforts to build a “coalition” through the promise of billions in foreign aid dollars only reinforce the perception that we’re trying to buy support for the war. The message seems to be that the UN is credible when we control it and it does what we want, but lacks all credibility when it refuses to do our bidding. The bizarre irony is while we may act unilaterally in Iraq, the very justification for our invasion is that we are enforcing UN resolutions!

Our current situation in Iraq shows that we cannot allow U.S. national security to become a matter of international consensus. We don’t need UN permission to go to war; only Congress can declare war under the Constitution. The Constitution does not permit the delegation of congressional duties to international bodies. It’s bad enough when Congress relinquishes its warmaking authority to the President, but disastrous if we relinquish it to international bureaucrats who don’t care about America.

Those bureaucrats are not satisfied by meddling only in international disputes, however. The UN increasingly wants to influence our domestic environmental, trade, labor, tax, and gun laws. Its global planners fully intend to expand the UN into a true world government, complete with taxes, courts, and a standing army. This is not an alarmist statement; these facts are readily promoted on the UN’s own website. UN planners do not care about national sovereignty; in fact they are actively hostile to it. They correctly view it as an obstacle to their plans. They simply aren’t interested in our Constitution and republican form of government.

The choice is very clear: we either follow the Constitution or submit to UN global governance. American national sovereignty cannot survive if we allow our domestic laws to be crafted by an international body. This needs to be stated publicly more often. If we continue down the UN path, America as we know it will cease to exist.

Noted constitutional scholar Herb Titus has thoroughly researched the United Nations and its purported “authority.” Titus explains that the UN Charter is not a treaty at all, but rather a blueprint for supranational government that directly violates the Constitution. As such, the Charter is neither politically nor legally binding upon the American people or government. The UN has no authority to make “laws” that bind American citizens, because it does not derive its powers from the consent of the American people. We need to stop speaking of UN resolutions and edicts as if they represented legitimate laws or treaties. They do not.

The UN is neither wise nor neutral. All of the member nations have national interests that don’t simply disappear when their representatives enter the UN general assembly hall. Like any government or quasi-government body, the UN is rife with corruption and backroom deals. Worst of all, it serves as a forum for rampant anti-Americanism. Perhaps the time has finally come when more Americans will choose to rethink our participation.

[#3Fan]

Show.

[Continental Op]

Like gun-control, reduction of taxes and government beauracracy?

[dennisw]

He is pro liberty but without enough responsibility. I don't go for libertarianism.

[Wavyhill]

I disagree with you and Ron Paul much of the time, but I agree here. The UN was never anything other than a Soviet tool while the USSR existed, and now it's running on Communist autopilot. While we're at it, we should demand the UN pay back all our "dues."

[GOPcapitalist]

Show.

Excuse making. You shot your mouth off. You lied. You got caught.

[#3Fan]

Nope, this post-dates the argument.

[GOPcapitalist]

More excuse making. Bump!

[Chancellor Palpatine]

As I remember it, ol' "talk out of both sides of his mouth" Paul was touting the antiwar line.

Guess he realized, like all his Paleo buddies, that his strident anti-American bulls*** was playing hell with his continued ability to grift a gullible public.

Don't worry, the rest of us will remember.

[#3Fan]

You pinged a bunch of threads for show. If you most extensively on other topics, you should be able to find threads that predate the argument.

[GOPcapitalist]

More excuse making.

[#3Fan]

Thread's too short. Not extensive.

[GOPcapitalist]

Seems like excuses are all you have.

[#3Fan]

You don't know the meaning of the word "extensive".

[TLBSHOW]

Get rid of the UN send the rats to Paris!

[tpaine]

As I remember it, ol' "talk out of both sides of his mouth" Paul was touting the antiwar line. Guess he realized, like all his Paleo buddies, that his strident anti-American bulls*** was playing hell with his continued ability to grift a gullible public. Don't worry, the rest of us will remember.
28 -cphie-


Yep:

ol' "talk out of both sides of his mouth", --
strident, --
anti-American, --
grift, ---
gullible, ----

Quite the choice of words for one who lost all credibility on this forum some time ago.
--- Indeed, - "Don't worry, the rest of us will remember."

[Catspaw]

Ah, the company he keeps:

H.J.RES.20
Title: To repeal the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.
Sponsor: Rep DeFazio, Peter A. [OR-4] (introduced 2/5/2003)      Cosponsors: 37
Latest Major Action: 2/5/2003 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on International Relations.

---

COSPONSORS(37), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]:     (Sort: by date)

 

Rep Baldwin, Tammy - 2/5/2003 [WI-2]	Rep Blumenauer, Earl - 2/27/2003 [OR-3]
Rep Capuano, Michael E. - 2/5/2003 [MA-8]	Rep Carson, Julia - 2/5/2003 [IN-7]
Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy - 2/11/2003 [MO-1]	Rep Conyers, John, Jr. - 2/5/2003 [MI-14]
Rep Davis, Danny K. - 2/5/2003 [IL-7]	Rep Farr, Sam - 2/5/2003 [CA-17]
Rep Fattah, Chaka - 3/6/2003 [PA-2]	Rep Filner, Bob - 2/5/2003 [CA-51]
Rep Frank, Barney - 2/5/2003 [MA-4]	Rep Grijalva, Raul M. - 2/5/2003 [AZ-7]
Rep Hinchey, Maurice D. - 2/27/2003 [NY-22]	Rep Honda, Michael M. - 2/25/2003 [CA-15]
Rep Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. - 2/5/2003 [IL-2]	Rep Jones, Stephanie Tubbs - 2/5/2003 [OH-11]
Rep Kleczka, Gerald D. - 2/5/2003 [WI-4]	Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. - 2/5/2003 [OH-10]
Rep Lee, Barbara - 2/5/2003 [CA-9]	Rep Lewis, John - 3/12/2003 [GA-5]
Rep McDermott, Jim - 2/5/2003 [WA-7]	Rep McGovern, James P. - 3/18/2003 [MA-3]
Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes - 2/5/2003 [DC]	Rep Oberstar, James L. - 2/5/2003 [MN-8]
Rep Olver, John W. - 2/5/2003 [MA-1]	Rep Owens, Major R. - 2/5/2003 [NY-11]
Rep Paul, Ron - 2/5/2003 [TX-14]	Rep Rangel, Charles B. - 3/19/2003 [NY-15]
Rep Rush, Bobby L. - 2/5/2003 [IL-1]	Rep Sanders, Bernard - 2/5/2003 [VT]
Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. - 2/5/2003 [IL-9]	Rep Serrano, Jose E. - 2/5/2003 [NY-16]
Rep Stark, Fortney Pete - 2/5/2003 [CA-13]	Rep Towns, Edolphus - 2/5/2003 [NY-10]
Rep Waters, Maxine - 2/5/2003 [CA-35]	Rep Watson, Diane E. - 2/5/2003 [CA-33]
Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. - 2/5/2003 [CA-6]

[Catspaw]

DeFAZIO, PAUL INTRODUCE BILL TO REPEAL BUSH’S BLANK CHECK FOR WAR

February 05, 2003

Press Release | Contact: Kristie Greco (202) 225-6416


WASHINGTON, DC— Reps. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) and Ron Paul (R-TX) today introduced legislation to repeal the Iraq Use of Force Resolution passed by Congress and signed into law by the President last fall. Following is DeFazio’s statement:

“I heard no new evidence today from Secretary Powell’s address to the United Nations, that would convince me that military action in Iraq is necessary to improve security of Americans.

“Americans want the President to lay a clear case for immediate military action in Iraq, but the Administration’s message keeps changing- six months ago, their case hinged on regime change, three months ago it was Saddam thwarting inspections, three weeks ago it was possible possession of chemical weapons, today its tenuous terrorist links. If the case was clear, it would have been clear from day one.

“Our nation’s immediate threat is still Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda terrorist network. We have full knowledge of North Korea’s equally rapidly developing nuclear weapons program under the control of an equally diabolical leader. There’s well-published accounts of several Mid-east governments aiding and funding known terrorists. Of America’s imminent threats, Saddam Hussein is much lower on the list.

“Saddam Hussein is a brutal untrustworthy tyrant, but he is being contained, and we should allow weapons inspectors to continue their work.

“The President seeks war, this is clear. The Constitution grants the Congress sole authority to declare war, and I believe the President should come before Congress to seek that authority. Our resolution allows him that option.”

The legislation introduced today would repeal Public Law 107-243. The bill text reads in total:

"Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

Section 1. Repeal of Public Law 107-243.

The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243; 116 Stat. 1498) is hereby repealed."

The legislation repeals the broad delegation of authority Congress gave to the President in October, to launch military action against Iraq. Under this legally-binding resolution, the President would have to return to Congress to seek authority to launch a preventive attack on Iraq.

-30-

[jmc813]

Who is your favorite congressperson?