Replies

Wednesday, April 2, 2003 10:20 p.m. EST

'U.S. out of U.N.' Movement Gains Momentum

WASHINGTON - The United Nations, which has been infringing on American sovereignty for years while relying on America as its biggest cash cow, may now find that America won’t take it anymore.

Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, has reintroduced his legislation effectively telling that tower of Babel on the East River, "Adios, you’re out of here, and take your Marxist goo-goos with you."

In the past, Paul has managed to get between 30 and 40 of his colleagues to go along with his plan. This year, however, there is popular anger at the U.N., which has bowed to America’s enemies and so-called "allies" in denying support for our action against Iraq.

"We hope to mine that discontent," a spokesman for the congressman told NewsMax.com Washington correspondent Wes Vernon

In 2003, HR 1146, "The American Sovereignty Restoration Act,” as it is called, is gaining support in quarters that were not thought to be sympathetic in the past.

The measure would end all U.S. participation in the U.N. and expel the organization from its taxpayer-subsidized New York headquarters.

"Our current situation in Iraq shows we cannot allow U.S. national security to become a matter of international consensus,” Paul stated. "We don’t need U.N. permission to go to war; only Congress can declare war under our Constitution."

The maverick congressman added: "The Constitution does not permit the delegation of congressional duties to international bodies. The decision to send American troops into harm’s way cannot be made by international bureaucrats."

In the past, such sentiments have been written off as "isolationist," a term tossed around by woolly-headed internationalists who can’t discuss the substance of a given foreign policy issue. But after the U.N.'s disgraceful handling of the Iraq threat, that doesn‘t fly anymore.

In a NewsMax interview last month, author Bill Kristol ("The War Over Iraq") told Vernon that he would be open to the idea of ending America’s relationship with the world body. That was a significant statement coming from an analyst whose family members - before the wild and crazy 1960s - were Hubert Humphrey Democrats who were very much behind the U.N.

Rep. Paul’s concerns go far beyond the U.N.’s failure to follow up on its own resolutions on the bloodthirsty Iraqi regime. Much of his concern, in fact, gets closer to home.

"The U.N. increasingly wants to influence our environmental, trade, labor, tax and gun laws," he contends. "Its global planners simply aren’t interested in our Constitution and republican form of government."

"The choice," says Paul, "is very clear. We either follow the Constitution and republican form of government or submit to global governance. American national sovereignty cannot survive if we allow our domestic laws to be crafted by an international body."

This isn't just another politician sounding off for the cameras. In fact, the Texas Republican (and one-time Libertarian Party presidential candidate) has a wealth of expert opinion on his side.

Noted constitutional scholar Herb Titus has thoroughly researched the United Nations and its so-called "authority" and finds that the U.N. charter is not a treaty at all. Rather, he says, it is a blueprint for supranational government that directly violates the U.S. Constitution.

In other words, the Charter - though sacred to one-worlders for over a half century - is neither politically nor legally binding upon the American people or government.

Here’s Congressman Paul’s bottom line: "The U.N. has no authority to make 'laws' that bind American citizens, because it does not derive its power from the consent of the American people."

Legions of U.S. combat veterans and a growing number of lawmakers now agree: Based on experiences in Korea and Vietnam, U.S. forces should fight under the American flag and only when called to defend America's interests - and not under the auspices of the United Nations.

And here’s another difference between the allied war with Iraq and previous wars in Korea and Vietnam: This time, free of U.N. snoopervision, the U.S. is fighting to win.

Even the first Gulf War - widely hailed as successful - fell short of the mark when a previous president, reluctant to exceed his authority under a U.N. resolution, decided to leave Saddam Hussein in power.