|
|
Apparently, since there are still starving people in socialist countries. |
Posted on 09/07/2002 5:07:13 AM PDT by TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!
|
|
Much is made of Iraq's non-compliance with United Nations resolutions, missing the larger point: The security of the United States is threatened. That's what matters. It is not the United Nations that is responsible – legally or any other way – for the security of the United States, or of any other nation. National security is exactly what those words connote: The security of an individual nation. Security Requires Sovereignty That, in turn, is fundamentally what national sovereignty is about. In the watery eyes of globalists, who yearn for elimination of all national sovereignty and its replacement by a universal super-government, the United Nations is but an interim instrumentality of worldwide authority, a transitory forerunner of Hillary Clinton's "global village" with ubiquitous claws and limitless wealth of taxation. Anything that limits, erodes or demeans any individual nation's sovereignty is, to them, all to the good, a step nearer nirvana. Boondoggle in Manhattan The reality is that the United Nations' 185 member nations are nothing more, and frequently a lot less, than a spiffy international debating society, gaudy in costumes, Babelic in languages and ostentatious in limousines but as toothless as a confederacy of crotchety crones. Indeed, that was how it was created at the end of World War II. It was Franklin D. Roosevelt's dream – and even he had reservations – that the wartime Big Three unity among the victorious United States, Great Britain and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics might be continued into the postwar recovery period. That it might also serve as a major-powers bulwark against a recurrence of international aggression was dream, even wispier. Anachronism of the Veto In recognition of that, the Big Three gave each other a veto power, which soon became an absurdity and is today an operational aardvark. The U.N. General Assembly, where each of the 185 member nations has a seat, is still merely a place to get in out of the rain while debating. Its resolutions are utterly powerless. What little clout the United Nations possesses resides with the 15 member nations composing the Security Council, five of which are permanent members: Great Britain, France, the People's Republic of China, the Russian Federation and the United States. How the Veto Works To enact a resolution on a substantive matter takes nine affirmative votes of the 15 in the Security Council, of which five must be the votes of all five permanent members. In other words, one negative vote among the Big Five means the resolution is dead. Even if a substantive resolution is adopted, there is no practical means of enforcement unless the United States, as the world's only superpower, acts to enforce it. If the United States doesn't lend its muscle, nothing gets enforced. If only the United States acts to enforce, it will get enforced. Of No Earthly Use So who needs the United Nations? There are two answers to that question: Answer 1: Every other nation on Earth except the United States thinks it needs the United Nations – but only so long as the United States acts to enforce a Security Council resolution and pay most of the freight. Answer 2: The United States does not need the United Nations for anything, for it is the only nation with enough power to enforce any Security Council resolution. Power, in this sense, includes not merely military force. It includes also economic resources. The United States is the only nation with enough wealth to finance enforcement. Our Worthless Dependent Even in the non-enforcement arena, the United States is critical to the day-to-day life of the United Nations. Were the United States to withhold its dues, the United Nations would collapse. So all this talk about the United States' having to kowtow to the United Nations before it can take military action against Iraq is a lot of hooey. Even the United Nations, global-gaga as it is, recognizes in its charter that every member state has the right to exercise its own sovereign power as it sees fit to protect its own vital national interests. Right of Self-Defense If the United States feels that Saddam Hussein's assembly of weapons of mass destruction is a threat to American security, it has the sovereign right to do whatever it thinks it must do to remove that threat. And the same right has to be accorded to Iraq. If it feels it must engage in the production of mass-destruction weapons, that's its prerogative. There is nothing in the doctrine of national sovereignty that says a nation has no right to act with stupidity and self-destruction. Saddam Hussein might consult Adolf Hitler. Is it bad that Iraq has flouted all those Security Council resolutions these many years? Of course it is – not because the Security Council has been ignored but because, in the process, Iraq has become a greater and greater threat to American security. The Reason to Act That's why the United States should go after Iraq, destroy those stockpiled weapons, remove Saddam Hussein and his outlaw regime and liberate that country for re-entry into the world community as a nation based on democratic principles. If the United Nations General Assembly wants to spit in George W. Bush's face when he addresses its annual opening session shortly, so be it. If it wants to pay polite attention to what he has to say, that's nice. If the United Nations General Assembly wants to register a veto vote on a resolution of support for war with Iraq, so be it. If it wants to adopt such a resolution, that's nice. Getting Priorities Straight The reality is the United Nations is as irrelevant to the world as mammary glands are to a boar hog. The No. 1 business of the United States of America is to look out for the business of the United States of America. And No.1 on that agenda is the security of the American people. There's nothing shameful about that, and President Bush need make no apologies to members of the United Nations. It is they who owe the United States of America, which has repeatedly come to their rescue – United Nations or no United Nations.
|
You are right 'the country' is turning into uppity crammed homes with a gate....soon it will be nazi and or they will order the old farm homes in the country to move for U.N. land.
JUPITER - Gov. Jeb Bush celebrated Flag Day with a Marine Corps veteran who owes nearly $30,000 in fines for flying an American flag from a 12-foot pole in his front yard.
George Andres, who was stationed in the Pacific from 1956-1962, violated his homeowners association policy and a court order when he raised his flag from a pole instead of from brackets attached to his house.
Friday, Bush gave Andres a flag that flew over the state Capitol.
``Rather than just say it's unacceptable, people ought to put aside their differences and their obsession with rules and regulations, and use common sense to make decisions,'' Bush said.
Bush signed legislation in April allowing homeowners to fly Old Glory in a reasonable, respectful manner and to file suit against homeowners associations that forbid it.
In June 2001, a judge ordered Andres to pay $100 for each day the pole remains outside his town house since she ordered him to take it down in October 2000. Bush presented Andres a personal check for $100 Friday.
Steven Selz, an attorney for the association, said the group has tried to reason with Andres and told the judge not to jail him.
This story can be found at : http://www.tampatrib.com/floridametronews/MGAW6PXGI2D.html
These people need researched and exposed. They are most likely tied to the left via the U.N.
OMG!!!!! Unbelievable!
I meant post 42
Bush signed legislation in April allowing homeowners to fly Old Glory in a reasonable, respectful manner and to file suit against homeowners associations that forbid it.
The question is....what is "reasonable, respectful"???
If a marine wants to erect a flagpole as big as he wants what does anyone care to judge his business?
My worry...is what is the definition of "reasonable, respectful?"
No one being nor law should dictate what one does on and in their own property unless they are endangering others.
RIGHT?
In conclusion, the local government community remains committed to the implementation of Agenda 21. Having renewed the United Nations' commitment to the Local Agenda 21 process at the UN Conference on Human Settlements, local government organizations are preparing for the expansion of the Local Agenda 21 movement. The continued growth of this movement will require that new resources for Local Agenda 21 planning are deployed in keeping with the principles of Local Agenda 21 itself; that is, in partnership with the national, regional and international associations of local government that initiated Local Agenda 21 and that have made it such a success for the United Nations and for a growing number of cities and towns throughout the world.
Finally, Agenda 21 will never be achieved through planning alone. The ability of the Local Agenda 21 movement to achieve real, positive impacts on social and environmental conditions will require the establishment of supportive national government frameworks in each country for local sustainable development.
It looks like that is already starting to unfold. They'll most likely give money to the US government to disseminate down to the local governments who choose to institute these anti-property rights initiatives. Thus, it us up to the US government not to take the bait. However, it seems like they're already getting wrapped up in this.
|
|
Apparently, since there are still starving people in socialist countries. |
At this point in America's history, I would not object to anyone constructing an American Flag Image on the side of and sized-to-fit Pike's Peak!
They are obviously controlling our property rights through the 'homeowners association. In appallment I told MISS AMERICAN PIE to move. She should not have to.Soon this will effect all of us, are we going to sit back and do nothing until it is in OUR backyards? Is our government aware of these U.N. ties right in our back yards?
I know quite a bit about city planning, and that is part of the reason why I opted out of it. This will be set through new zoning classifications, defined "agricultural" areas and the like.
It was ridiculous, these laws may have been somewhat feasible (even accepted) in a largely populated (houses 6 feet apart shopping district.) but not where hunters hunt in the backwoods country.
Then eventually the association will encourage the Code Enforcement Dept to fine, and fine, and fine, those that have a torn screen, or trees that need trimming, until they fine them right out of their property. For instance, any old sick tree cut down, must be replaced by another tree, etc. Those that can't afford it, the elderly property owner, will be fined out of their homes.
If there is a growing fuss about it, then the government will subsidize the elderly, and of course without question the minority, another government give away, but those in the middle class that are hanging on won't qualify of course. Right now in my neighborhood HUD took over some homes, there was never a For Sale sign put up, there was never a sticker in the window saying H.U.D., then suddenly they were occupied by illegals. I had posted on this forum that H.U.D. was slipping illegals into neighborhoods. Then Tancredo Fan came up with an article about it. It's a Bush administration idea, he wants full credit for it from the illegal community.
And what's worse, this little packet talked about all the meetings in the neighborhood that had gone on, the get togethers everyone was informed and had agreed, blah, blah, blah. But no one ever informed me of meetings, get togethers and agreements to this mess.
A guy knocked on the door, handed my husband the packet and off he went, no explainations.
I just got back from the grocery store, met a neighbor there and asked her if she had received her packet. She said yes and that this gal a few blocks over was the one that started it as part of a city wide push for all neighborhoods to group off into associations. I told her that all that I had received was a polling card and she said the same for her, their claim that there were invitations sent out was bogus. The only thing she saw were a couple of little signs outside the grade school saying there would be a meeting. She said she didn't know of anyone that went to it. Now all of a sudden we are all in, like it or not, voted on or not. She was about as happy about it as I was.
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.
