You betcha...
Click this picture & go to the "last" for the latest UN scandals:
If you aren't informed about this stuff, you will be made sick. If you are informed, you will be made mad, all over again.
Posted on 06/17/2005 11:58:24 PM PDT by ppaul
The U.S. Congress is all knowing. Just ask the leadership. The most recent proof is the proposal by the chairman of the House International Relations Committee. The Henry J. Hyde United Nations Reform Act of 2005.
This legislation would "require" Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to press for restructuring that international body. Or else. The "or else" is the United States would hold back 50 percent of its U.N. dues and obligations (an estimated $439 million in 2006).
Some of Hyde's proposals make sense, such as the creation of a U.N. ethics office or increased oversight and auditing. But this is not the way to reform the United Nations.
The United States cannot dictate reform to a world body. Real change must come from a process that builds international consensus, a patient path that's already been designed by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan. Even the Bush administration understands the importance of process. Yesterday the administration said it supported increasing the membership of the Security Council -- including Japan -- as well as directly opposing the Hyde bill. "We have serious concerns and ... we hope very much that that bill would not be passed in its present form," Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said.
Congress should be engaged with other nations in global governance and U.N. reform. But not by saying "or else."
Gag me. This article exemplifies the death wish from which the MSM suffers. The highest moral value for them would be for the US to set aside its sovereignty to the subjogation of the UN and its all-knowing leader, Koffi Kup Annan (Never mid the fact that he is implicated in the Oil For Food scandal and other graft). i.e.: UN good/US bad. Like an abused wife, the MSM keeps making up excuses for the UN's corruption and profligacy, scolding us that we need to give more and all the UN's ills will work out and we can all live in peace and harmony singing Kumbaya. Like the refrain in that old Peter, Paul, and Mary anti-war song, "O, when will they ever learn?" Apparently, as far as the MSM goes, NEVER.
Correct the US cannot dictate reform but the US sure as hell can, and hopefully will, withhold funds if acceptable reforms are not made.
This is a shame and a disgrace. They should hold back 100 percent.
It is apalling that our press actually thinks it's perfectly fine for our government to give away $439 million to the UN next year. In fact, they are demanding that our government do so! Give away the hard-earned tax dollars of hardworking Americans to some of the lowest form of corrupt grifters on the face of the earth. Makes my blood boil sometimes. But what can we do, really? Just the fact that we are giving the UN a dime makes me lose all faith in our leadership. If George W. Bush has not put an end to this, it ain't ever gonna happen. That's really depressing.
I agree with the title. We should forget the "or else" and simply stop funding the UN. The UN is a pro-communist, pro-abortion, anti-American, anti-gun, anti-God, anti-freedom cesspool. Why is it that it is so difficult for this country to walk away from out-dated, clearly failed Marxist institutions: the UN, Social Security, the income tax? The left brands those who advocate abolition of these things as "extremists". I would submit, given the utter destruction and evil that has been wrought by them, the real extremism is practiced by those who fight to keep these institutions alive.
Like the current occupier of the White House, for instance?
LMBO!!!
How much more of this do we have to take? It's too much.
Hey you all!
How about FReepin' the poll at the bottom of the article?
Just click on the link, then scroll down and vote.
FReep it!
The Bush administration does not always do what conservatives want, but maybe they are doing as much as they can. Just a few years ago, even talk of doing anything about the hellish beast that is social security was taboo. Now at least there is a chance of doing something. For all the praises that have been heaped on him by conservatives, Ronald Reagan, in some ways, was very pro-status quo on much of the Great Society legacy of governement largesse.
Yep, the MSM wants the US under the thumb of the UN. The MSM thinks they'll be safe and protected, after all their nose is UN brown, and the UN is sooo progressive, and everybody agrees, it's just so cozy.
"O, when will they ever learn?" Apparently, as far as the MSM goes, NEVER.
Right again, after years in their prison cells they'll still think it was just a misunderstanding.
You betcha...
Click this picture & go to the "last" for the latest UN scandals:
If you aren't informed about this stuff, you will be made sick. If you are informed, you will be made mad, all over again.
A more effective approach would be to take a wrecking ball to the UN Building and let it's crushed remains sink to the bottom of the East River.
It's the Seattle PI. Enough said. If you live in the Seattle area, this is no surprise coming from this newspaper. It's a left wing rag.
Thus speaks the Seattle Post Intelligencer, in expressing a clear preference for a global government that is totally unaccountable to the people.
Treason, not just to America, but to the rights of every individual on earth.
I'm not so sure nominating Bolton is a good thing. I don't want the UN to be more effective.
Move the U.N. to Cuba.
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.