Quit the U.N.: Joseph Farah wants pull-out, kiss-off for Clinton

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Thursday, February 20, 2003 | Joseph Farah

[JohnHuang2]

America has no business in the United Nations.

Nowhere in the Constitution do I see any provision for our federal government participating in an organization of nations that has dreams of governing the world.

I do, however, see in the writings of the founders many warnings about foreign entanglements and permanent alliances that can threaten to draw this sovereign nation into the conflicts of the old world.

If the U.N. were just a debating society, I guess my problems with it would be minimal. But too many Americans seem to think this country needs the permission of the U.N. to act in its own self-interest, to protect the security of the nation.

Let's not forget that we were attacked on Sept. 11, 2001. France wasn't attacked. Germany wasn't attacked. The U.N. wasn't attacked.

We were attacked by adherents to a fierce, fascistic ideology I call jihadism.

After that attack, President Bush rightly told the nation we would pursue those adherents to the ends of the earth. Any nation that supported them would be subject to our wrath.

The first country to feel that wrath was Afghanistan, whose rulers refused to turn over al-Qaida terrorists they had harbored and supported for years – even while receiving aid from the U.S. and the United Nations.

We didn't slaughter the civilian population of Afghanistan, but we toppled the Islamo-fascist Taliban regime and replaced it with a more enlightened one, liberating the population of the country as aside benefit of carrying out our own strategic interests. While the struggle to find Osama bin Laden continues, this war on the Islamo-fascists who attacked us is shifting to a new venue.

Iraq has supported al-Qaida for more than a decade. It provided bases. It provided money. It provided arms. It even provided the fuselage of a Boeing 707 in which al-Qaida terrorists could practice commandeering a commercial airliner – all before Sept. 11.

Did Iraq plan Sept. 11? We don't know. But we do know Baghdad is complicit because of its support of the terrorists before, during and after Sept. 11.

In addition, Iraq poses a bigger threat that the Taliban. Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction. Few doubt Baghdad would think twice about putting them in the hands of terrorists determined to deploy them in the United States.

Nevertheless, the U.N. debates. The U.N. stalls.

I say, that's fine. Let the U.N. debate, while the U.S. acts.

Why is everyone so afraid of unilateral action? The U.S. should act on its own timetable, welcome any allies who want to join in the mission of toppling Saddam Hussein, destroying his arsenal and rooting out the terrorists.

But let's stop worrying about the U.N.

If all goes well, the U.N. will continue to debate, continue to stall. Then the American people can see how irrelevant this organization is. They can see how useless it is. They can see how it serves no U.S. interest to belong. They can see that their hard-earned tax dollars are supporting an ineffective globalist power broker that is toothless without U.S. troops to carry out its will.

We should not be willing to host it any longer. We should not be willing to be members any longer. We should not be wiling to subsidize this organization any longer. It's time to pull the plug on the U.N.

Let's go about our business as a sovereign nation. Let the American people, and the American people alone, chart their own destiny, protect their own interests, take care of their own security needs.

Into this scenario walks Bill Clinton – a man without portfolio, except as a former U.S. president.

The word on the street is he wants to be the next secretary-general of the U.N. He's campaigning for it, according to one column. They say he would be the first American to run the U.N., but that isn't quite true. Because Bill Clinton has never really been an American. He's always been a citizen of the world first. He's still a politician on the make – always desperately looking for that next office. Where else can he go after serving as president?

If it's true, it would be quite fitting. Bill Clinton and the U.N. deserve each other.

Let's bid them both a fond farewell.

[JohnHuang2]

Thursday, February 20, 2003

Quote of the Day by areafiftyone

[goldstategop]

If Bill Clinton becomes U.N Secretary General I want us to get out of the U.N and tell the U.N to get the hell out of the United States pronto.

[MHGinTN]

It's time to cancel the U.N. property agreements in New York and ship the toothless debate to Paris or Bonn, along with the degenerate ex-president they feel so much kinship with. Good riddance to bad garbage.

It is repugnant that the U.N. appeaseniks circle their collective impotence around a table so close to the hallowed ground where the enemy murdered so many of our fellow countrymen. Enough of this charade.

Kick the quisling appeaseniks out and let's get on with the decapitation for the demon of Baghdad and his Ba'athist goons. Then, onto the next terror sponsoring state.

[NewYorker]

He really wants the house on Sutton Place that goes with the job. Just the ticket he needs to get out of exile in Chappaqua.

[TLBSHOW]

bump

[Eastbound]

Bump to that.

[Miss Marple]

Regardless of my contempt for the UN, I am beginning to see a reason for staying (ugh). Consider what would happen if we kicked them out.

They would no doubt set up shop in Paris. With the US no longer on the Security Council, they would probably offer a permanent seat to Germany, India, or South Africa. We would lack the veto to stop UN action against our allies. China would be free to build coalitions under the UN umbrella. Smaller countries with poisonous governments would no doubt force Israel out as well, and could then cast Israel and the US as pariah nations. Plus, since Rockefeller deeded that land in New York to the UN, they would probably demand money if it were sold, and tie up trade in retaliation.

Regrettably, I think perhaps we need to stay in the stupid thing now that it has been set up. How depressing.

[Caipirabob]

We don't need to ask the UN for permission to protect ourselves. I believe the campaign at the UN is in favor of countries that need to present the proper moral arguement for their own sheeple, not the USA. I believe the effort is being made because 1) We have the time to kill before we're ready. 2) We don't want to have to clean up the mess by ourselves. An extended occupation and commitment of troops for the rebuild of a stinking ME country would not favor immediate efforts to crush terrorism all over the world. Some help from other countries would be handy.

But overall, I agree with the premise:

UN = UN-necessary

[tm22721]

Come on, guys. Everybody knows the hidden agenda is some old grudge against Saddam Hussein. That's why the UN opposes it.

If we were just forthright and stated the real goal - to tame the countries surrounding Iraq - then at least we wouldn't be lying to ourselves

BUMP

[JohnHuang2]

How depressing.

Someone suggested the U.S. build a United Free Republics (free nations only need apply) -- how about that? ;^)

G'morning to ya, btw :^)

[Miss Marple]

Good morning!

That is not a bad idea, but I am thinking that it would end up polarizing the world, and China has a lot of clout with the Third World and in parts of Europe. It would have to be handled very deftly.

I don't know a good solution, but I am positive without a viable alternative, kicking the UN out would do more harm than good to American interests in the long run.

As I said, it is depressing but I think I am correct in this.

[MadIvan]

The statesmen of the 19th century had a better idea - the idea of a balance of power. It held the world in check and at peace for over 30 years - an enviable record.

I believe as such it is time to "circle the wagons" and form a bloc of countries that are willing to stand up to the likes of Saddam - this would include Britain, Australia and the USA at the core, and Eastern Europe as well. Perhaps India and Israel could join too.

It is clear the UN is an impediment to dealing with Saddam, Kim Jong-Il, and North Korea. It is just as clear they should be ignored.

Regards, Ivan

[JohnHuang2]

Well, if it makes you feel any better, I'm convinced the U.N. will join the League of Nation in the scrap heap if it doesnn't 'get religion' (so-to-speak) on Iraq soon, especially if France vetoes the 'time's-up' resolution being crafted as we speak, or if a majority on the Security Council aren't part of the 'Coalition of the willing'.

[Miss Marple]

Perhaps irrelevance IS the best way to go. Let it become a debating society and fade into obscurity. We retain our membership but the organization has no more use than an international convention of optometrists.

[JohnHuang2]

Well said, amigo.

[Aeronaut]

Someone suggested the U.S. build a United Free Republics (free nations only need apply) -- how about that? ;^)

There's an idea I can get behind.

[johnny7]

Stalin once asked Churchill, “How many divisions does the Pope have?”

The UN has become the League of Nations. Worthhless and impotent.

Better to worry about his partner... the most popular dem of all their voters!

If the devil is still on the job, HRC will be on the ticket in 2004.

The rapist will get a cabinet post if they win. He can do more damage there.

[JohnHuang2]

G'morning, friend.

[JohnHuang2]

I wrote this recently, thought it apropos here:

Iraq Will Soon Have Some Real Weapons Inspectors
by JohnHuang2
February 15, 2003

I'm numb from shock. Thunderstruck by what I saw at the U.N. Friday.

It was a staggering day of astounding surprises -- geopolitical bombshells were dropping and detonating at every turn. I felt overwhelmed.

Bill of particulars?

Sheesh, where, O where to begin?

First -- and boy, is this a shocker! -- after one, no, two, no, three...wait, 5, oops, 10? Okay, I forget: How many U.N. resolutions on Iraq are there? Oh, yeah, that's right -- 17. Well, after 17 U.N. resolutions, 12 years of defiance, imagine my shock -- SHOCK! -- to learn Iraq was still (gasp!) in defiance, thumbing its nose at the League of Nations, oops, I meant the United Nations

Okay, I'll admit that was low -- comparing the U.N. to the League of Nations is demeaning . . . to the League of Nations. Those clowns in New York make the Boulder, Colorado police look competent.

More stunners:

--Hans Blix told the U.N. Security Council that, after 3 months, no weapons of mass destruction have turned up -- nor has any convincing evidence that U.N. inspectors are likelier to find the stuff than, say, O.J. at finding the "real killers." You're better off calling Miss Cleo's psychic hotline. On the upside, Saddam's denials, on a credibility scale, rank right there with Michael Jackson claiming he's had only 2 operations performed on his nose. Mini-Me actor Verne Troyer will quit the boozing before Saddam quits the weapons of mass destruction habit.

--The French, often the butt of jokes as sniveling cowards, were surprisingly tough, standing up to a "brutal dictator." No brutal dictator is going to push the French around -- no siree. Problem is: In the eyes of those sniveling cowards -- the French -- Bush was the brutal dictator.

French Foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, demanded that inspections -- which are not inspections because Saddam won't give inspectors anything to inspect -- more time . . . oh, and more airplanes, more offices, more maps, more pencils, more paper, more puters, more CDs, more drones, more giger counters. Then, if all that fails, more talks! And if more talks fail, an 18th U.N. resolution calling for. . . a new round of talks!

--Russia praised Saddam for allowing interview of scientists without minders standing by -- okay with fewer minders standing by (3 minders instead of 5) -- yes! Wonderful progress! A huge leap forward! But progress didn't stop there. In his zeal to cooperate, Saddam's even planting fewer bugs at hotel rooms of U.N. inspectors. Let's see, fewer bugs, fewer minders can mean only one thing: Saddam's going wobbly. Give inspections another 12 years, and he'll cave. (For peaceniks, how's that for a slogan? "Twelve more years! Twelve more years!")

And Democrat reaction? Bush needs to build a coalition. The U.S. can't go it alone with the U.K., Spain, Portugal, Denmark, Italy, Australia, Turkey, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Albania, Hungary, Estonia, Latvia, Poland, Macedonia, Slovenia, Croatia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, Czech Republic! The 25 or so countries with us aren't, well, countries enough.

But fret not, for here's the bottom line: Iraq will soon have some Real Weapons Inspectors. How soon? Oh, just as soon as their Commander-in-Chief says, 'Go!'

"A key piece of the information leading to the recent terror alerts was fabricated," reported completely objective and neutral ABCNEWS Friday morning, fueling a big 'Ah-Ha!-We-Knew-Bush-Ginned-The-Whole-Thing-Up-To-Whip-Up-Support-For-His-War!' media splash.

"The officials said that a claim made by a captured al-Qaeda member that Washington, New York, or Florida would be hit by a 'dirty bomb' sometime this week had proven to be a product of his imagination," claimed the completely objective and neutral report, False Alarm?, by completely objective and neutral reporters, Brian Ross, Len Tepper and Jill Rackmill.

An al-Qaeda sleeper cell in Virginia or Detroit had, according to this informant, a "detailed plan" to dirty bomb "government buildings and Christian or clerical centers," having cooked up ingenious means to elude security checks.

"Former CIA counter-terrorism chief" and network consultant Vince Cannistraro (also completely objective and neutral) called the 'fabrication' "the reason for a lot of the alarm," insinuating the feds screwed up royally by raising the threat alert status based on a fabricated report before giving the "informant" a polygraph which he flunked.

So, given the feds screwed up royally by raising the threat alert status based on a fabricated report, the feds are set to reverse course -- put the thing back where it was before the goof, right?

Well, no, because, er, (as we learn only well into the article) the threat alert status was not raised based on a fabricated report but on "other (validated) intelligence that officials still believe points to a coming attack, timed to hostilities with Iraq."

In other words, completely objective and neutral ABCNEWS, in their noble zeal to cast the Bush administration in the worst possible light, based their report that the feds had screwed up royally by raising the threat alert status on a fabrication that wasn't the reason why they raised the threat alert status in the first place.

Incidentally, had the thrust of the story been correct -- it wasn't -- the worst the feds might be accused of is, well, screwing up. Nothing more venal than that.

There was, however, nothing unintentional in ABCNEWS' handling of this story. Their hyped "report" was intentionally misleading.

Anyway, that's...

My two cents...
"JohnHuang2" 

[JohnHuang2]

We retain our membership but the organization has no more use than an international convention of optometrists.

hehehe, couldn't have said it better.