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

Skip to comments.

Ron Paul - NeoCon Global Government
House Web Site ^ | 6-13-2005 | Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)

Posted on 06/13/2005 10:08:34 AM PDT by jmc813

This week Congress will vote on a bill to expand the power of the United Nations beyond the dreams of even the most ardent left-wing, one-world globalists. But this time the UN power grabbers aren’t European liberals; they are American neo-conservatives, who plan to use the UN to implement their own brand of world government.

The “United Nations Reform Act of 2005” masquerades as a bill that will cut US dues to the United Nations by 50% if that organization does not complete a list of 39 reforms. On the surface any measure that threatens to cut funding to the United Nations seems very attractive, but do not be fooled: in this case reform “success” will be worse than failure. The problem is in the supposed reforms themselves-- specifically in the policy changes this bill mandates.

The proposed legislation opens the door for the United Nations to routinely become involved in matters that have never been part of its charter. Specifically, the legislation redefines terrorism very broadly for the UN’s official purposes-- and charges it to take action on behalf of both governments and international organizations.

What does this mean? The official adoption of this definition by the United Nations would have the effect of making resistance to any government or any international organization an international crime. It would make any attempt to overthrow a government an international causus belli for UN military action. Until this point a sovereign government retained the legal right to defend against or defeat any rebellion within its own territory. Now any such activity would constitute justification for United Nations action inside that country. This could be whenever any splinter group decides to resist any regime-- regardless of the nature of that regime.

What if this were in place when the Contras were fighting against the Marxist regime in Nicaragua? Or when the Afghan mujahadeen was fighting against the Soviet-installed government in the 1980s? Or during the Warsaw Ghetto uprising? The new message is clear: resistance-- even resistance to the UN itself-- is futile. Why does every incumbent government, no matter how bad, deserve UN military assistance to quell domestic unrest?

This new policy is given teeth by creating a “Peacebuilding Commission,” which will serve as the implementing force for the internationalization of what were formerly internal affairs of sovereign nations. This Commission will bring together UN Security Council members, major donors, major troop contributing countries, appropriate United Nations organizations, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund among others. This new commission will create the beginning of a global UN army. It will claim the right to intervene in any conflict anywhere on the globe, bringing the World Bank and the IMF formally into the picture as well. It is a complete new world order, but undertaken with the enthusiastic support of many of those who consider themselves among the most strident UN critics.

Conservatives who have been critical of the UN in the past have enthusiastically embraced this bill and the concept of UN reform. But what is the desired end of “UN reform”? The UN is an organization that was designed to undermine sovereignty and representative government. It is unelected and unaccountable to citizens by its very design. Will UN reform change anything about the fact that its core mission is objectionable? Do honest UN critics really want an expanded UN that functions more “efficiently”?

The real question is whether we should redouble our efforts to save a failed system, or admit its failures-- as this legislation does-- and recognize that the only reasonable option is to cease participation without further costs to the United States in blood, money, and sovereignty. Do not be fooled: it is impossible to be against the United Nations and to support “reform” of the United Nations. The only true reform of the United Nations is for the US to withdraw immediately.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 109th; ronpaul; turass; unreform
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-126 next last

1 posted on 06/13/2005 10:08:34 AM PDT by jmc813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: jmc813

Actually the last line should read: Why haven't we left yet?

How many years and billions of dollars need to be thrown at this problem.


2 posted on 06/13/2005 10:23:12 AM PDT by edcoil (Reality doesn't say much - doesn't need too)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmc813

the text of this Act:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:2:./temp/~c109AtQQrJ::


3 posted on 06/13/2005 10:24:24 AM PDT by Vn_survivor_67-68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmc813

The only way we can reform the UN is by leaving the institution.


4 posted on 06/13/2005 10:31:50 AM PDT by econ_grad (The US Constitution presents no significant challenge to the government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: econ_grad

The sooner the better.


5 posted on 06/13/2005 10:36:39 AM PDT by Digger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: jmc813

"This week Congress will vote on a bill to expand the power of the United Nations beyond the dreams of even the most ardent left-wing, one-world globalists. But this time the UN power grabbers aren’t European liberals; they are American neo-conservatives, who plan to use the UN to implement their own brand of world government."

"Conservatives who have been critical of the UN in the past have enthusiastically embraced this bill and the concept of UN reform."



6 posted on 06/13/2005 10:52:11 AM PDT by Esther Ruth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: econ_grad

Am I a bad man for having small regrets that the planes didn't hit the UN building instead on Sept. 11??


7 posted on 06/13/2005 10:57:19 AM PDT by RockinRight (Conservatism is common sense, liberalism is just senseless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RockinRight

Given the choice, I would rather have them take out a few of our enemies.


8 posted on 06/13/2005 11:05:48 AM PDT by econ_grad (The US Constitution presents no significant challenge to the government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: jmc813
As a Canadian, I'm anxious to see the conservative/FReeper response to this, specifically regarding this line:

"Conservatives who have been critical of the UN in the past have enthusiastically embraced this bill and the concept of UN reform."
9 posted on 06/13/2005 11:06:15 AM PDT by Stevieboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #10 Removed by Moderator

To: Stevieboy
"What does this mean? The official adoption of this definition by the United Nations would have the effect of making resistance to any government or any international organization an international crime. It would make any attempt to overthrow a government an international causus belli for UN military action. Until this point a sovereign government retained the legal right to defend against or defeat any rebellion within its own territory."

Yea, we got a major HELLO??? here and I guess everyone who has eyes to see has long since gone some where.....else?
11 posted on 06/13/2005 11:12:57 AM PDT by Esther Ruth (Tell me I am wrong.... and everything is fine......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Stevieboy; hedgetrimmer; JesseJane

I know many on here were critical of Ron Paul for his stance on this. Guess this explains it.


12 posted on 06/13/2005 11:13:35 AM PDT by monkeywrench (Deut. 27:17 Cursed be he that removeth his neighbor's landmark)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: jmc813
Every ten years, the One Worlders seek to change the United Nations into something really onerous. As a school boy, I fought this nonsense in 1955. It is tantamount to treason, but of course, "none dare call it treason."

For a classic discussion of the whole concept of surrendering sovereignty to a League of Nations, see League of Nations.

The CFR was founded in the early 1920s by those who had backed the Wilsonian effort. The whole purpose of the CFR has been to ensnare us in a powerful international body. The time to stop this assault on our freedom is before it succeeds, not to be forced into a new American Revolution to regain what we are being asked to surrender.

William Flax

13 posted on 06/13/2005 11:21:40 AM PDT by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #14 Removed by Moderator

To: Esther Ruth
Okay, it's clear that this transfers sovereignty to the U.N., so why on Earth would any Republican be in favor of it?
15 posted on 06/13/2005 11:37:17 AM PDT by Stevieboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)

Well...the Capitol is a national monument worth saving.


16 posted on 06/13/2005 11:38:05 AM PDT by RockinRight (Conservatism is common sense, liberalism is just senseless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Stevieboy
"Conservatives who have been critical of the UN in the past have enthusiastically embraced this bill and the concept of UN reform."

UN conservative is an oxymoron, as unconservative as a loopy leftist moonbat. HTH.

17 posted on 06/13/2005 11:44:06 AM PDT by Milhous
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Stevieboy
As a Canadian, I'm anxious to see the conservative/FReeper response to this

As a longtime poster and lurker on these threads, I would be quite surprised if the first "criticism" doesn't take the form of brainless ad hominem attacks of Ron Paul. That's what people usually do when they can't back up their arguments.

18 posted on 06/13/2005 11:47:40 AM PDT by inquest (FTAA delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: jmc813
But this time the UN power grabbers aren’t European liberals; they are American neo-conservatives, who plan to use the UN to implement their own brand of world government.

That's what this whole Bolton thing is about as well. He's made it clear that he wants the UN to be more "effective". Conservatives who see his confirmation as a way of "sticking it to the UN" are sadly mistaken.

19 posted on 06/13/2005 11:49:48 AM PDT by inquest (FTAA delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan
The CFR was founded in the early 1920s by those who had backed the Wilsonian effort.

Which leads to the following recommendation:
Every candidate running for federal or state office should be vetted to determine their connection with the CFR. No CFR members or CFR political experts should be nominated or allowed to run for office by either party.

This will take invovlement in the central committees to ensure that these types of candidates are not nominated.
20 posted on 06/13/2005 12:02:39 PM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer

That was the creepy thing about the 2000 presidential election. When things stalled out, they called out James Baker and Warren Christopher, both of whom are big time CFR/Trilateralists to referee the results.

I really think we came that close (holding my fingers an inch apart) to a Constitutional crisis in 2000. When the CFR cabal openly trots out guys of that caliber to make sure things work out the way they wanted.

There appears to be two "schools" among the CFR members. One group favors an EU/Socialist model of governance. That's the Clinton/Carter school of "Internationalism." The folks who have come to be known as "neo-cons" are globalists who favor a model based on the US/Democratic model, although centralized through a UN-style world government. Neither Reagan or Bush "43" were CFR members, but their administrations were full of appointees with CFR ties. All the other presidents going back to Wilson were members of either the CFR or the Trilateral Commission (since the 1970s), or both.

They want to get this UN-reform stuff in place before 2008, because if that election is close, there is a strong chance that those UN troops might be needed to restore order. All you'd need is a candidate who refused to concede and we'd have civil war. (Think Hillary...)


21 posted on 06/13/2005 12:30:34 PM PDT by gregwest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: gregwest
They want to get this UN-reform stuff in place before 2008

Well, we'll just have to stop them.
22 posted on 06/13/2005 12:54:11 PM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: jmc813

I have a wonderful idea. How about we cut off funding either way, whether the UN adopts the reforms or not?


23 posted on 06/13/2005 2:09:26 PM PDT by Zero Sum (Marxism is the opiate of the masses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmc813

Next thing ya know they will be advocation silencing critics
and call it 'Campaign Finance Reform'


24 posted on 06/13/2005 5:21:15 PM PDT by joesnuffy (Taglines often reveal a lot about the inner person...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RockinRight
There was as much chance of a plane hitting Ben Laden's cave in Afganistan, as it would the U.N.. Same people inside.
25 posted on 06/13/2005 5:27:19 PM PDT by photodawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Stevieboy

Maybe they think they can control it; that a powerful U.N. would be a tool in American hands. I think that is far too risky, myself. I'd rather we make an effort to keep the U.N. as weak as possible.


26 posted on 06/13/2005 5:30:46 PM PDT by Ruadh (Liberty is not a means to a political end. It is itself the highest political end. — LORD ACTON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: pbrown; Coleus; B4Ranch; Paul_Denton; lodwick; texastoo; Kay Ludlow

Have you seen this yet?


27 posted on 06/13/2005 6:14:55 PM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmc813
How many opponents of the UN, on this thread, support expanding the Patriot Act? The Bush administration refuses to enforce our borders while telling us that they need more police powers to protect us from terrorists? People call this a conservative forum? Pshaw.
28 posted on 06/13/2005 6:59:22 PM PDT by Nephi ("I am in favor of free trade." - Karl Marx)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: inquest

Sort of the equivalent of electing a conservative to "make government more efficient and effective," or "save social security."

We get what we vote for and deserve, I suppose.


29 posted on 06/13/2005 7:19:06 PM PDT by LibertarianInExile (<-- sick of faux-conservatives who want federal government intervention for 'conservative things.')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Badray

hey ray, hows it going?
did you see this? thought you'd be interested.


30 posted on 06/13/2005 9:35:29 PM PDT by gdc61
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
No CFR establishment members or CFR establishment political experts should be nominated or allowed to run for office by either party.

Now you will see why this is just wishful thinking on your part. The CFR is the political ruling class of both parties... and hence, of this nation.

31 posted on 06/13/2005 10:06:22 PM PDT by streetpreacher (If at the end of the day, 100% of both sides are not angry with me, I've failed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: streetpreacher

Understood.


32 posted on 06/13/2005 10:13:15 PM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Nephi
How many opponents of the UN, on this thread, support expanding the Patriot Act?

Not me. I'd rather abolish the first act so I guess I'm two for two.

33 posted on 06/13/2005 10:14:00 PM PDT by streetpreacher (If at the end of the day, 100% of both sides are not angry with me, I've failed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: gregwest

A lot of the establishment people were trying to stop Reagan. And after he was elected he was almost killed within a couple months by that attempted assasination.


34 posted on 06/13/2005 10:41:41 PM PDT by ran15
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: gdc61

Good buddy. You?

Ya just had to piss me off, dintja? LOL

The bastards need drawn and quartered.


35 posted on 06/14/2005 12:02:50 AM PDT by Badray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: jmc813

http://www.cfr.org/pub7914/press_release/trinational_call_for_a_north_american_economic_and_security_community_by_2010.php

http://www.cfr.org/pub8104/press_release/task_force_urges_measures_to_strengthen_north_american_competitiveness_expand_trade_ensure_border_security.php

It's all coming together.


36 posted on 06/14/2005 8:33:09 AM PDT by the gillman@blacklagoon.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

Ping to this thread for coincidence value.


37 posted on 06/14/2005 8:34:10 AM PDT by the gillman@blacklagoon.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: monkeywrench

I'm mostly a lurker here, so forgive my ignorance, but why are people on FR critical of Ron Paul? He states that we should completely remove ourselves from the UN. How can a conservative argue with that?


38 posted on 06/14/2005 9:04:42 AM PDT by Rob_DSM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Rob_DSM

There are basement dwellers here, as in most forums, who have an interest in keeping the sheeple sleeping comfortably, like a big dumb Gulliver on the beach, as their masters wind string after string around the sleeping giant.


39 posted on 06/14/2005 9:27:35 AM PDT by the gillman@blacklagoon.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Rob_DSM

What he said in 39.


40 posted on 06/14/2005 9:56:32 AM PDT by monkeywrench (Deut. 27:17 Cursed be he that removeth his neighbor's landmark)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: jmc813

DANGER AHEAD!

This is flying under the radar, isn't it. How can it be up for vote without the immensity of the issues becoming front page news?

Is Rush talking about this? Who is?


41 posted on 06/14/2005 10:05:28 AM PDT by Countyline
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmc813

"The only true reform of the United Nations is for the US to withdraw immediately."

Hurrah for that.


42 posted on 06/14/2005 10:10:25 AM PDT by Countyline
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rob_DSM
How can a conservative argue with that?

Well there are conservatives, there are libertarians, there are populist conservatives, there are paleo conservatives.

And then there are the neo conservatives.

43 posted on 06/14/2005 10:41:34 AM PDT by iconoclast (Conservative, not partisan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Countyline

I've been trying to find a mention in the MSM - to see how they are treating it - but I can't find a darned thing.


44 posted on 06/14/2005 10:43:18 AM PDT by Stevieboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Nephi
People call this a conservative forum?

It has become the Forum of Latter Day Conservatives! ;o)

45 posted on 06/14/2005 11:06:12 AM PDT by iconoclast (Conservative, not partisan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Countyline
Is Rush talking about this?

It's an Administration bill.

What would you EXPECT Rush to say about it?

46 posted on 06/14/2005 11:10:22 AM PDT by iconoclast (Conservative, not partisan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: LibertarianInExile
Sort of the equivalent of electing a conservative to "make government more efficient and effective," or "save social security."

Yes, very much so. Good analogies.

47 posted on 06/14/2005 11:50:47 AM PDT by inquest (FTAA delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Rob_DSM

Here is one argument:
The U.N. is a dangerous organization over which we currently have a veto. If we withdrew, maybe it would become less dangerous, but maybe not. Without our veto it could serve as a vehicle for the rest of the world to unite against the U.S.A.


48 posted on 06/14/2005 2:08:16 PM PDT by Ruadh (Liberty is not a means to a political end. It is itself the highest political end. — LORD ACTON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Ruadh
Have you seen the "leadership" at the UN? All those countries wouldn't be able to function as a single unit. And without our funding (not just of the UN itself, but also of its affiliates such the World Bank and IMF), what we see from it now would definitely be its high-water mark. Part of the incentive many smaller countries have for even being in the UN at all is that it makes them eligible for loans from these institutions. Take that away, and membership would most likely dwindle.

Besides, these countries could unite against us any time they wanted anyway.

49 posted on 06/14/2005 2:30:53 PM PDT by inquest (FTAA delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: inquest

Good points. You have convinced me.


50 posted on 06/14/2005 6:16:51 PM PDT by Ruadh (Liberty is not a means to a political end. It is itself the highest political end. — LORD ACTON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-126 next 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