Posted on 06/03/2003 5:39:36 PM PDT by sdk7x7
WorldNetDaily and CNSNews.com are currently running stories on a Congressman (http://www.cnsnews.com/Nation/Archive/200306/NAT20030602a.html) who is the only member of the House to fly the UN flag outside his office.
But get this... A NUMBER OF REPUBLICANS HAVE INTRODUCED LEGISTLATION, WITH 12 COSPONSORS, TO GET THE US OUT OF THE UNITED NATIONS!
Click the link to see the actual bill name, cosponsors, and any additional info.
-sdk
(Excerpt) Read more at thomas.loc.gov ...
This man bears watching!
2008 Presidential Candidate
Now don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that I'll vote for one of those turncoats based on this issues alone. I am not a single issue voter. But, I will definitely take a long hard look at any Republican who votes to get us out of the UN and if it comes down to it, even give him the benefit of the doubt.
For the record, only two congressmen, among the sponsor and all of the cosponsors of this bill, did not vote for either the USA Patriot Act or the Homeland Security Act. The sponsor, Ron Paul, has consistently refused to vote for any bill that attacked any part of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Also, cosponsor, Thomas Tancredo, was not in office when the Patriot Act passed and voted against the HSA.
It's hard to understand the motivation of two of the cosponsors, John Duncan and Robert Ney. Duncan voted for the Patriot Act and against the HSA. Ney, did it the other way around, voting against the Patriot Act and for the HSA. All the rest of the cosponsors voted for both the Patriot Act and HSA.
It would be a tough decision, if my turncoat Republican Congressman, Kevin Brady, should vote for this bill, except for the fact that, besides voting for both the Patriot Act and the HSA, he also rates a solid "F" on Second Amendment issues. Somehow, I don't think that I'll have to worry about that. Kevin Brady is not now and never has been a true conservative, so the chances that he will vote for this bill is absolutely nil.
But, I do feel sorry for those whose Congressman is one of those renegade pseudo-Republicans, who turns around and votes for this bill, after voting for the Patriot Act and/or the HSA. Voting for someone like that is kind of like saying thanks to a thug who has just beat off your attackers, only so he could mug you himself.
He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.
These two listed in the same paragragh is ominous. Look how long it is taking to get some judgeships through the works!!
If even a small part of Washington got serious about this all the Democrats would hi tail it to Canada to keep from voting on it!!.....
Hell!! On second thought, its a win - win situation!!
Also, although there is a definite move toward a NWO, a lot of the stuff that you cited assumes some great organized conspiracy, of which there is none - at least not aimed at a NWO. The NWO movement is nothing more that a very public attempt by many international businessmen, to create a stable world in which to do business. I don't happen to agree with all of their ideas. But, as a person who deals on the periphery of that group, I feel certain that there is no great conspiracy behind that movement - just the profit motive being acted upon in a similar manner by a lot of individuals with similar interests.
I can say that factually, because I know more than a few billionaires and the one thing that is inescapable is that none of them would want to be a part of any great plan to take over the world unless he/she was the man/woman in charge. That's just the way those people are. They'll use organizations like the CFR, the TLC and the Bilderburgers as a way to work cooperative business deals and to attempt to influence governments to loosen trade restrictions and such. But, if they are to be a part of any organization that has any real power, each and every one of them would demand to be in charge. That's a personality trait that seems dominant in everyone who had reached that level.
I have seen deals that would have netted both sides hundreds of millions of dollars blow up, all because the big fish on both sides wouldn't give up control. Asking people like that to work together on some great secret plan would be like putting a hundred fighting fish in one tank. It'll never happen.
But, take a hundred well educated and very wealthy businessmen who know how money works, but who have never met and ask them, one-at-a-time, what laws they would like to see changed, although there would be some differences, you would find a remarkable consensus. That's what you are seeing. It's no conspiracy. It's just that people with similar interests and incomes (at any income level), tend to belong to the same organizations (be it a bowling league or the CFR) and have similar political views. Certainly, politics is filled with members of the CFR, TLC and Bilderburgers. But, considering who are members of those groups, I would be surprised if there wasn't a significant number of them in politics.
Now, there are individuals, mostly those who have tasted some power, but are not those with the real power, who would like to wield their weight to create their own idea of a NWO. They make bold and stupid statements, trying to show how smart they are. But, those are generally people who have never created any jobs or built anything (i.e. UN and NATO diplomats), not the movers and shakers who make up the CFR, TLC and Bilderburgers.
There is certainly reason for concern. But, including all that conspiracy stuff only weakens your argument and worse yet, detracts from the real issues. I appreciate all of the info that you have provided. But, there is way too much for most people to digest and the conspiracy stuff is like a light switch that turns off any interest that may have been beginning to grow in the uninformed reader. It's sort of like not talking about politics or religion on the first date. If you want to talk about that stuff, wait until your target audience expresses and interest in the basics.
Having said all of that, I should say that I firmly believe that the UN has become the worlds largest and best funded anti-American organization and that I also am aware that the stated reason for the existence of NATO (the USSR) no longer exists and for those reasons, the US should withdraw from both of those organizations. As I said in an earlier post, I might even be tempted to vote for a person who voted for the Patriot Act, if he/she were to vote to get us out of the UN. Note the strategic use of the word "might".
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.