Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

LET THE UN DIE [***Henry Lamb***]
http://worldnetdaily.com ^ | February 15, 2003 | HENRY LAMB

Posted on 02/15/2003 11:26:07 AM PST by ATOMIC_PUNK

Let the U.N. die


Posted: February 15, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

For more than a half-century, the United States has invested untold billions of hard-earned dollars in the United Nations. Once, there was a hope that the sprawling bureaucracy could be a forum where nations hammer out solutions to the world's problems, instead of resorting to war. That hope became a fantasy many years ago. Between bureaucratic inertia, and political posturing, the U.N. has become a bottomless pit, where good money chases bad. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the U.N.'s highest priority appears to be to contain, constrain, and ultimately, to control the United States.

Germany, aided by France and Russia, has been at the forefront of this effort for more than a decade. Their current display of solidarity on Iraq, and NATO, is far more public than normal, which suggests that they believe they now have the power to force the United States to conform to their demands.

Willy Brandt, then-Chancellor of Germany, called an emergency meeting of the world's socialist leaders in 1991, when George Bush Sr. stood up to Saddam Hussein. Out of this meeting came the Commission on Global Governance, which produced a blueprint for creating world government. That blueprint has now been substantially implemented, and the one-worlders believe they have the power to force the U.S. to acquiesce to their will.

Unlike, the Clinton administration, which supported the global governance agenda, the Bush administration has tried valiantly to keep the U.S. out of the clutches of the one-worlders, while still working within the framework of the United Nations. The selection of Lybia to head the Human Rights Commission; the selection of Iraq to head the Disarmament talks; and, now, France and Germany's determination to continue the U.N.'s 12-year "rush" to war, and their refusal to allow NATO to plan for Turkey's defense should convince even Congressional Democrats that the U.N. is a lost cause.

America's role and responsibility to the world is neither to fund, nor to conform to the wishes of the United Nations. The first responsibility of the American government is to protect U.S. citizens and to defend the U.S. Constitution. Acquiescence to the U.N.'s global governance plan would subject U.S. citizens to policies imposed by unelected bureaucrats in foreign countries, enforced by judges chosen by the very people who seek to control the United States.

It's time to let the U.N. die.

Ironically, the U.N. could not have possibly reached this stage of global governance without the financial and political support of the United States. If the United States were to stop funding this monster, it would die of starvation. To be sure, the world's socialists would close ranks and try to consolidate their global power. They could, and likely would, impose sanctions on the U.S., forcing a direct confrontation between capitalism and socialism. No contest.

Withdrawal from the U.N. is not withdrawal from the world, nor should it be. President Bush's "coalition of the willing" consists of at least 18 nations that have made a public commitment to participate against Iraq, with or without the U.N. Still, Sen. Carl Levin, among others, contend that action against Iraq without U.N. approval is "unilateral" action. This idea that the U.N. must legitimize U.S. foreign policy is to deny the concept of national sovereignty.

There are many people in America who have been taught that global governance, administered by the U.N., is the next plateau in the evolution of governance, and that failure to acquiesce to the inevitable is irresponsible. This idea is the result of a half-century of careful indoctrination by the National Education Association, UNESCO, the U.N. Association, the World Federalist Society, and a host of other one-world advocates. To those who subscribe to this point of view, the U.S. Constitution is obsolete; national sovereignty is outdated, and individual freedom must be suppressed for the greater collective good of society.

The decisions made by the United States government in the next days or weeks could well determine the future of the United States for generations. If the United States bows to the will of the U.N., America – the land of the free and the home of the brave – will be history. On the other hand, if the U.S. exercises its national sovereignty and moral authority to protect its citizens, and the U.S. Constitution – despite the objections of France, Germany, and Russia – we could see the beginning of a new era of freedom in the United States, and throughout the world.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-39 last
To: ATOMIC_PUNK
Kill it before it multiplies again.
21 posted on 02/15/2003 12:41:17 PM PST by Domestic Church (AMDG)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ATOMIC_PUNK
"Thats the biggest load of shat ive ever heard they cause more trouble than they have EVER saved!"

Tell that to F.D.R., Truman, Admiral Leahy, General Marshall, General Eisenhower, General van Fleet and several others.

"an unemployable entity is useless to anyone"

Tell that to all the alumni of our many universities, who keep the money flowing in, because they want good seats at the football games, nevermind the gross product, which is nil, as just one example.

22 posted on 02/15/2003 12:47:46 PM PST by First_Salute
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: First_Salute
The US university system is dying a lingering death but that is another thread. I don't think the UN can or wants to be fixed into a meaningful entity. It is a debating society.

If they fail to act, they will serve no purpose. the only reason they suddenly have any balls is because the USA has backed up the UN resolutions with the guarantee of force. The french and germans have forgotten that. They are no different than democrat spending other peoples money. Right now the french and germans are endangering other peoples citizens so they don't care.
23 posted on 02/15/2003 1:00:24 PM PST by longtermmemmory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: ATOMIC_PUNK
I'm unsure if the Bush administration has the stones to unilaterally reject the UN's agenda. Our trend towards wide open borders, radical environmental policies that drive people from land they've had in their familiies for generations, the assault on privacy & private property rights, our involvement utilizing our troops as global policeman in numerous locations, an education system that promotes globalism at the expense of America's heritage just reeks with a strong odor of UN intervention in our affairs. I think if Bush's little Iraq adventure blows up in his face we'll be looking at a strong global push to give the UN more teeth when dealing with "recalcitrant" nations like the USA.
24 posted on 02/15/2003 2:08:04 PM PST by american spirit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
Let the UN live, but only as what it is: a powerless debating society.

Let the U.N. meet on the deck of a rusting ship anchored permanently somewhere off the coast of Africa.

Get that band of thieves, scoundrels and scofflaws the hell out of New York. The stench is nauseating.

25 posted on 02/15/2003 2:18:16 PM PST by NoControllingLegalAuthority
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: First_Salute
"The U.N. is doing what it was meant to: prevent brute force fights between nations, from starting."

Nope. The US stays strong, which is why other nations do not invade each other. The UN has nothing to do with it.
26 posted on 02/15/2003 2:48:25 PM PST by Arthur Wildfire! March (LIBERTY or DEATH!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: NoControllingLegalAuthority
There's only one reason why I like the UN being in New York. If they ever manage to arrest a US citizen, a quick drive will be all that's necessary for many Americans to shoot UN members.
27 posted on 02/15/2003 2:50:43 PM PST by Arthur Wildfire! March (LIBERTY or DEATH!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
Bump.
28 posted on 02/15/2003 2:51:35 PM PST by First_Salute
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

Comment #29 Removed by Moderator

To: expatpat
He can't get it anyway, since he's a citizen of one of the Permanent Members of the Security Council.
Been there and done that.
Bill Clinton--Future UN Secretary General?
Article 8 The United Nations shall place no restrictions on the eligibility of men and women to participate in any capacity and under conditions of equality in its principal and subsidiary organs.
Which article of the UN Charter says that? There is a link to the UN Charter so show me, don't just tell me!
30 posted on 02/15/2003 3:14:00 PM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Stoner
Get the U.S. out of the u.n., and get the u.n. out of the U.S., NOW! ! !

It's poitically impossible to take the U.S. out of the UN in an instant. A long case must be consistently made for the proposition before the American public will be in favor.

The good news is conservatives are in a can't lose position regarding the UN. Either we attack Iraq with UN approval or without.

With UN approval - Bush demonstrates that the UN is irrelevant when it opposes legitimate U.S. concerns.

Without UN approval - The first step towards the eventual co;;aps of the UN has been taken.

31 posted on 02/15/2003 3:30:21 PM PST by CharacterCounts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: ATOMIC_PUNK
Where is Dr. Kevorkian when he can actually do some good?
32 posted on 02/15/2003 3:30:44 PM PST by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
Well, this is interesting. I made the point about Clinton being after the UN SG job on FR a while back and someone quoted me chapter and verse from the UN CHarter on why he couldn't have the job. Unfortunately, I don't have the reference. Someone should settle this once and for all, but hopefully the UN is about to die, anyway.
33 posted on 02/15/2003 4:03:22 PM PST by expatpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: expatpat
Well, this is interesting. I made the point about Clinton being after the UN SG job on FR a while back and someone quoted me chapter and verse from the UN CHarter on why he couldn't have the job. Unfortunately, I don't have the reference.
It shouldn't be too hard to find. Use the "My Comments" function to find it.
How do you think I found the article I linked above?
I notice you commented on that thread too...
Why be concerned about Clinton in the UN? He's really an undercover Republican operative. Look how successful he was in screwing up the Democrat party. Next mission: run the UN into the ground.
34 posted on 02/15/2003 4:11:07 PM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: ATOMIC_PUNK
I have never read anything that I so completely agree with as this article. Thanks for posting.
35 posted on 02/15/2003 4:17:13 PM PST by bfree (Liberals are EVIL!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madfly; FITZ; Bill Davis FR; mhking; 68-69TonkinGulfYatchClub; Elkiejg; barker; spetznaz; ...
BURMPS
36 posted on 02/15/2003 5:57:50 PM PST by ATOMIC_PUNK (An American Fellowship of Freedom loving Conservatives..... <*[[[[[><)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ATOMIC_PUNK
USA has no desire to leave the UN. The USA is the UN.
37 posted on 02/15/2003 6:11:02 PM PST by Joe Hadenuf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ATOMIC_PUNK
BURMPS

"Burmps?" Is that some kind of new-fangled fart?

38 posted on 02/16/2003 6:24:25 AM PST by mhking ("The home team Iraqis have won the toss and elected to receive...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: ATOMIC_PUNK
shouldnt this be moved to the backroom, as it contains a mean old libertarian, who might offend the weak minded?
39 posted on 02/16/2003 6:28:46 AM PST by galt-jw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-39 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson