[H.R. 1146] The United Nations: It's Time to End the Farce
litehouse1776
Paul will once again introduce H.R. 1146, the American
Sovereignty Restoration Act. His bill calls for the United
States to withdraw from the United Nations. It also calls for
the United Nations to remove its headquarters from our
shores."
The United Nations:
It's Time to End the Farce
December 16, 2002
By Tom DeWeese
The world is in chaos and, quite frankly, it's the United
Nations' fault. It gives validity to zealots and petty bigots. It
helps to keep tyrannical dictators in power. It provides money
and aid to international terrorists. And it sets itself up as the
international economic and environmental standard which all
nations are to mirror. The United Nations is the root cause of
international trouble, not the answer.
Saddam Hussein is in power, able to threaten world peace
today, because the United States allowed the United Nations
to dictate the terms for the finish to the Gulf War after an
American-organized coalition all but annihilated Iraq as a war
machine. In the intervening decade, Iraq has time and again
broken the terms of that treaty. The UN's response has been
to pass 17 toothless resolutions to demand that Iraq behave
itself.
Delay. Negotiate. Recommend. Study. Reconsider. Do nothing.
This is the game the UN has played in nearly every
international crisis.
It is the reason North Korea remains a threat and its violent
dictator's son remains in power. It's the reason why
Zimbabwe's murderous dictator, Robert Mugabe, is able to
steal his election and then steal the land of white property
owners and still have a voice at the UN's Sustainable
Development Conference. It's the reason why the Communist
Chinese are able to ignore any UN rules not to their liking while
growing as an international military and economic threat. It's
the reason why a terrorist nation like Syria can be given a
seat on the UN's Human Rights Council.
The United States must share some of the blame for this
situation because we allow this circus on the East River to
exist. The only credibility the UN possesses comes from
recognition by the United States. The only financial security
the UN enjoys comes from funds provided by U.S. taxpayers.
The only military punch the UN has comes from American
military power. The United Nations is a house of cards, but it's
a very dangerous house of cards.
The UN is dangerous because its most vocal membership
stands in opposition of the American values of representative
government, justice, free enterprise, privacy of individuals and
private property rights. Most of the UN's members are nations
controlled either by communist regimes, kingdoms or mad
dictators where American values are either unknown or viewed
as a threat.
Those same UN members are busy working to implement plans
for UN global governance. Already, the UN's International
Criminal Court is in place. The UN has held an international
meeting to discuss the possibilities and methods of
implementing global taxes. More plans are under consideration
to establish a UN global army or police force.
Most member states participating in these planning sessions
are from brutal dictatorships like China and Cuba and brutal
fundamental Islamic states like Syria and Iran. Can any clear
thinking American honestly believe that the ideas coming out
of this group would have a possibility of favoring ideals readily
accepted as rights in the United States? Or expressed in the
UN's Charter?
Many Americans simply do not believe that the United States
would voluntarily give up its sovereignty to the United
Nations. They say our people would never stand for it. It is
happening incrementally with innocent-sounding policies,
treaties and protocols.
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was sold
as simply a way for American producers to broaden their
markets to the international level. Instead, many have found
that details of the treaty dictate rules and regulations,
particularly of the environmental kind, that tilt the playing field
to other nations. As a result, American markets are flooded
with foreign goods as American businesses and jobs head out
of the country. As a result of NAFTA, the American sheep
industry has all but disappeared. Other industries may soon
follow as the United States continues to cling to this
discredited policy.
The European Union was originally sold as another NAFTA
through which nations could join together to compete with the
United States in the international market. Now, once-proud
nations have given up their national sovereignty, ancient
currencies like the Italian Lira and the French Franc have
disappeared in place of the Euro. Would the citizens of
France, Italy or Greece ever have agreed to such a move had
the whole plan been put on a ballot? Now there is discussion
of an African Union, a South American Union and a North
American Union in which the United States would meld its
borders with Canada and Mexico. The move will be easy since
NAFTA has already set the precedent.
How long will it be after the establishment of all of these
geographical unions before the world moves towards one
international union? Imagine a world run by the justice of
China, with the economics of Cuba and the military might of
the United States. Such is the world of the future under the
United Nations. The United States holds all of the cards, but it
has only one vote in this cesspool of Socialism.
The United States can end it all now if it wishes. The carefully
calculated idea that the UN is a benevolent institution must
be changed. President Bush has proven that we don't need
the United Nations to grant us permission to protect our
national interests. The United States can and will fight its own
war on terrorism. It can and will organize its own coalition of
allies, use its own money, its own weapons, and its own
troops to defeat an enemy who threatens us.
When the 108th Congress opens in January, Congressman Ron
Paul will once again introduce H.R. 1146, the American
Sovereignty Restoration Act. His bill calls for the United
States to withdraw from the United Nations. It also calls for
the United Nations to remove its headquarters from our
shores. H.R. 1146 would relieve the United States from
participating in UNESCO and UN environmental policies that
endanger our economy and property rights. It would end U.S.
participation in UN peacekeeping missions, meaning we would
no longer be helping to prop up criminal governments and
enemies who seek our demise.
As the UN's irrelevance becomes clearer to Americans; as it
drags its feet, delays and passes yet anther meaningless
resolution, the time has never been better to change the
national mindset to say, "Get us out of the UN." That time is
now.
http://www.americanpolicy.org
© 2002 American Policy Center
James Anatidae
litehouse1776 <Em...@REMOVE.INVALID> wrote in message
news:8v9R9.98348$Hs2.10...@kent.svc.tds.net...
Daeron
> The world is in chaos and, quite frankly, it's the United
> helps to keep tyrannical dictators in power.
> It provides money
> and aid to international terrorists. And it sets itself up as the
> international economic and environmental standard which all
> nations are to mirror. The United States is the root cause of
> international trouble, not the answer. Political assassination,
> invasions and coups d'état have been the hallmarks of US foreign
> policy in the second half of the twentieth century.
US success stories include:
Bay of Pigs;
Soviet missiel bases in Turkey;
over throwing pro-US Iranian government in favour of islamic extremeist
government;
over throwing of democratic government in Indonesia (1965) in favour of
military dicitator for next thirty five years who's first act was to murder
one million Indonesians in case they attempted to re-instate a democracy;
instead the US prefers giving military aid to a country where the islamic
anti-US military by their law holds 1/3 of the seats of government and
effectively over-rule their 'president'.
and some dozens of south american and african countries.
just as it provided a safe harbour for Nazi officers during WW-II by
declaring itself neutral; the US still provides a safe harbour for
ex-dictators and training to the murder squads of Indonesia and other
countries.
> Saddam Hussein is in power, able to threaten world peace
> today, because the United States trained & employeed him
> and again aided him at the end of the Gulf War by expecting
> an Iraqi regiment to finish Saddam off!
> Geeze what a supprise!, Saddam found & executed his traitors.
> American-organized coalition all but annihilated Iraq as a war
> machine. In the intervening decade, Iraq has time and again
> broken the terms of that treaty. The US's response has been
> to blame its delays upon the UN and other countries who do not
> share the US's dependancy upon middle eastern oil.
>
> Delay. Negotiate. Recommend. Study. Reconsider. Do nothing.
> This is the game the US has played in nearly every
> international crisis unless its CIA is over-throwing the local
> democracy and teaching millions more to hate the US and its lies.
> As a direct result of CIA actions for fifty years there is not
> a single country on the earth which does not have good reason
> to hate the US and its people.
>
> It is the reason North Korea remains a threat and its violent
> dictator's son remains in power. It's the reason why
> Zimbabwe's murderous dictator, Robert Mugabe, is able to
> steal his election and then steal the land of white property
> owners and still have a voice at the UN's Sustainable
> Development Conference.
> Because the US is morally impotent as a result of being the
> worlds last colonising power -- the US is impotent to speak against
> Zimbabwe when it is the US that owns & operates the worlds largest
> gold & copper mine in echange for paying over a billion dollars per
> year to support the racial cleansing & ethic removal of christains
> by the Islamic goverment the US works for.
Gregory Gadow
> "When the 108th Congress opens in January, Congressman Ron
> Paul will once again introduce H.R. 1146, the American
> Sovereignty Restoration Act. His bill calls for the United
> States to withdraw from the United Nations. It also calls for
> the United Nations to remove its headquarters from our
> shores."
>
> The United Nations:
> It's Time to End the Farce
>
> December 16, 2002
>
> By Tom DeWeese
<snip>
> The UN is dangerous because its most vocal membership
> stands in opposition of the American values of representative
> government, justice, free enterprise, privacy of individuals and
> private property rights.
I find this sentence so damn ironic that I'm crying from laughter. EVERY
SINGLE international treaty put forth by the UN over the last 50 years
that promoted representative government, justice, free enterprise,
privacy of individuals and private property rights has been REJECTED by
the United States. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The
creation of a world court. Strengthening of international copyright
laws. Treaties banning the use of land mines. We bitch and moan about
North Korea breaking an agreement not to make nuclear weapons? Bush Jr.
broke the exact same US agreements two years ago, almost as his first
official act as President.
> Most of the UN's members are nations
> controlled either by communist regimes, kingdoms or mad
> dictators where American values are either unknown or viewed
> as a threat.
The most of those kingdoms (among them the Netherlands, Belgum, Spain,
Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Thailand and England, including the British
Commonwealth nations of Canada and Australia which recognize the English
monarch as their Head of State) are American allies. A surprising number
of the "mad dictators" were either supported (the Taliban) or directly
put in power (Saddam Hussein) by the United States. As for communist
regimes, there are fewer and fewer every day; and which is better, to
see them on the other side of a diplomatic table or waiting for them to
sneak up behind you?
--
Gregory Gadow
tech...@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
How long can a goverment stand that repeatedly
and deliberately violates its own fundamental
laws of governance? How long should such a
government be allowed to stand?
Eric Freeman
news:3E15AF84...@serv.net...
>
> litehouse1776 wrote:
> >
> > The UN is dangerous because its most vocal
> > membership stands in opposition of the American
> > values of representative government, justice, free
> > enterprise, privacy of individuals and private
> > property rights.
>
> I find this sentence so damn ironic that I'm crying from
> laughter. EVERY SINGLE international treaty put forth
> by the UN over the last 50 years that promoted
> representative government, justice, free enterprise,
> privacy of individuals and private property rights has
> been REJECTED by the United States. The Universal
> Declaration of Human Rights.
Have you read this document? It is not a declaration of rights, it is a
declaration of OBLIGATIONS that would take all rights away from every person
on Earth.
> The creation of a world court.
You mean the world kangaroo court. Follow the Milosovik trial (if you
can... nobody in the news media is talking about it) to see what a scam it
is.
Getting out of the UN isn't enough... we should declare war on it.
Eric
---------------------------
http://www.datasync.com/~efreeman
---------------------------
"I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up
where I intended to be."
--Douglas Adams
Jay King
"Eric Freeman" <wed...@wantnostinkingspam.com> wrote in message
news:av50jq$s3h$1...@news.datasync.com...
James Bond
even a more dangerous place without it and it is better that we do remain in
it. Reason is that we still have overwhelming clout there for many reasons.
Number one is that we owe them a lot of money. Number 2 is that we are the
most powerful nation on earth and unfortunately in this world might makes
right. Number 3 is that although the UN does help many 3rd world nations it
is the US which primarily helps the UN.
Also in the UN we can make our grievances known to the world at large.
"Jay King" <nem...@BLAHBLAHBLAHaol.com> wrote in message
news:H02S9.61035$%3.164...@twister.neo.rr.com...
Dana
"James Bond" <Buda...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:DT7S9.653678$NH2.45091@sccrnsc01...
> I agree that there is a lot wrong with the UN.
That is an understatement
> However the world would be
> even a more dangerous place without it and it is better that we do remain
in
> it.
No worse than it is today.
> Reason is that we still have overwhelming clout there for many reasons.
> Number one is that we owe them a lot of money.
We do not have much clout with the UN. Nor do we owe them any money.
The UN does nothing for us, so what do we owe them money for.
> Number 2 is that we are the
> most powerful nation on earth and unfortunately in this world might makes
> right.
So we really do not need the UN.
> Number 3 is that although the UN does help many 3rd world nations it
> is the US which primarily helps the UN.
Yeah, sure they do.
>
> Also in the UN we can make our grievances known to the world at large.
Like that would matter.
Gregory Gadow
> "Gregory Gadow" <tech...@serv.net> wrote in message
> news:3E15AF84...@serv.net...
> >
> > litehouse1776 wrote:
> > >
> > > The UN is dangerous because its most vocal
> > > membership stands in opposition of the American
> > > values of representative government, justice, free
> > > enterprise, privacy of individuals and private
> > > property rights.
> >
> > I find this sentence so damn ironic that I'm crying from
> > laughter. EVERY SINGLE international treaty put forth
> > by the UN over the last 50 years that promoted
> > representative government, justice, free enterprise,
> > privacy of individuals and private property rights has
> > been REJECTED by the United States. The Universal
> > Declaration of Human Rights.
>
> Have you read this document?
Yes, I have. I maintain a link to it on my web site. If you are interested, it
can be found at http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
> It is not a declaration of rights, it is a
> declaration of OBLIGATIONS that would take all rights away from every person
> on Earth.
It is a declaration of fundamental rights for all people. Yes, it places
obligations on national governments to guarantee those rights, obligations no
different than the obligations placed on United States government with regards
to the Bill of Rights. What, specifically, do you find so repugnant in that
document?
> > The creation of a world court.
>
> You mean the world kangaroo court. Follow the Milosovik trial (if you
> can... nobody in the news media is talking about it) to see what a scam it
> is.
I have been following it. What, specifically, do you find so objectionable?
> Getting out of the UN isn't enough... we should declare war on it.
And declare war on the one forum of diplomacy that has shown any ability to
fulfil its mandate of bringing the world together and use words rather that
weapons to solve conflict. How sad that you would prefer murder, pillage and
rapine over diplomacy. Let me guess: you voted for Bush, right?
ActualGeek
Gregory Gadow <tech...@serv.net> wrote:
> > It is not a declaration of rights, it is a
> > declaration of OBLIGATIONS that would take all rights away from every person
> > on Earth.
>
> It is a declaration of fundamental rights for all people.
No, it isn't.
Notice:
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and
is entitled to realization, through national effort and international
co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of
each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable
for his dignity and the free development of his personality.
2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for
equal work.
(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration
ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human
dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social
protection.
>Yes, it places
> obligations on national governments to guarantee those rights, obligations no
> different than the obligations placed on United States government with regards
> to the Bill of Rights. What, specifically, do you find so repugnant in that
> document?
Well, first off, half the articles conflict with the other half, and a
lot of them conflict with this:
Article 17.
(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in
association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
By the way, do you think a pipe fitter who has 20 years experience
should be paid the same as one with one years? Seems the UN does.
And who has a right to "Social security" which essentially means to live
without having to work?
That inherently violates Article 17.
> > > The creation of a world court.
> >
> > You mean the world kangaroo court. Follow the Milosovik trial (if you
> > can... nobody in the news media is talking about it) to see what a scam it
> > is.
>
> I have been following it. What, specifically, do you find so objectionable?
Milosovich is right- its a joke. Just from the proceedings I was
allowed to hear by the leftist controlled media, it is a kangeroo
court-- it deserves no respect.
Not responding logically to the things he has brought up is one thing.
While I don't like Milosovich, he has shown the court to be a fraud.
> > Getting out of the UN isn't enough... we should declare war on it.
>
> And declare war on the one forum of diplomacy that has shown any ability to
> fulfil its mandate of bringing the world together and use words rather that
> weapons to solve conflict. How sad that you would prefer murder, pillage and
> rapine over diplomacy. Let me guess: you voted for Bush, right?
The UN hasn't done any such thing. It is an agency of oppression and
subjugation.
Why are the people of somalia being murdered to put the UN puppet
governmet into power? They have thousands of years of government
tradition, and the UN is slaughtering them to instil the UN's idea of a
centralized "government" (eg: a dictator.)
> --
> Gregory Gadow
> tech...@serv.net
> http://www.serv.net/~techbear
>
> How long can a goverment stand that repeatedly
> and deliberately violates its own fundamental
> laws of governance? How long should such a
> government be allowed to stand?
One could ask the same thing of the UN.
Eric Freeman
See ActualGeek's reply for one. From the preamble on, it's nothing but
Marxist double-speak. Is "freedom from fear and want" really a right? Are
you owed everything you want? And who is obligated to provide all your
wants and what if they don't want to? The only way to enforce this "right"
is thru "tyranny and oppression" of the provider, which is prohibited later
in the preamble. And how do you provide a "common standard of achievement
for all peoples and all nations" when all people and all nations don't
achieve equally? Will they cut off Michael Jordan's feet because I can't
achieve in basketball the way he does?
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are
endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a
spirit of brotherhood." If you don't want to act in a spirit of brotherhood
(most on the political newsgroups violate this daily), will you be forced
to? And, if so, can you still be said to be free?
"Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this
Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as... political or other
opinion." Unless your opinion is "to hell with this brotherhood crap."
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment." Unless the punishment is being dished out by UN
peacekeepers, eh?
"No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile." Again,
unless the UN is doing the arresting.
"Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and
well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing
and medical care and necessary social services..." Give the world this
right and 95% of the human race will never work again.
"Education shall be free..." Does this mean that teachers won't get paid?
"Education shall be directed to the full development of the human
personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and
fundamental freedoms." Ram opinions down people's throats and then give
them freedom of opinion. Sounds like Stalinist Russia.
"Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full
development of his personality is possible." This conflicts with the
"freedom of association," guaranteed elsewhere.
"These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the
purposes and principles of the United Nations." Freedom of speech, unless
you criticize the UN?
> > > The creation of a world court.
> >
> > You mean the world kangaroo court. Follow the Milosovik trial
> > (if you can... nobody in the news media is talking about it) to
> > see what a scam it is.
>
> I have been following it. What, specifically, do you find so
> objectionable?
How about allowing the ITN fake "death camp" video to be used in evidence?
Tons more info at:
http://emperors-clothes.com/milo/gw.htm
> > Getting out of the UN isn't enough... we should declare war on it.
>
> And declare war on the one forum of diplomacy that has shown any
> ability to fulfil its mandate of bringing the world together and use
> words rather that weapons to solve conflict.
Where have they demonstrated this ability? Indonesia? Rwanda? Iraq?
> How sad that you would prefer murder, pillage and
> rapine over diplomacy.
Read up on how UN "peacekeepers" treat people.
> Let me guess: you voted for
> Bush, right?
I vote only for Libertarians.