Posted on 06/17/2006 7:32:22 AM PDT by antisocial
How to respond to a whining U.N.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: June 17, 2006 1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Henry Lamb
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- © 2006 WorldNetDaily.com The U.N.'s second in command, Mark Malloch Brown, is unhappy about the lack of respect U.S. citizens afford the United Nations. He is particularly unhappy that U.S. officials allow "too much unchecked U.N. bashing and stereotyping" to reach the heartland through Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. Ambassador John Bolton called on Kofi Annan to repudiate Brown's remarks; Annan refused and stood by his deputy director.
These comments come from the United Nations at a time when the U.N. is asking the United States to facilitate a $1.2 billion renovation project, and only a few weeks before the global body runs out of money if the U.S. does not approve the U.N. budget. Budget approval has been withheld pending agreement on reforms that, so far, the U.N. has been unwilling to adopt.
When will the United States realize that the U.N. is beyond repair, reform, renovation, renewal or any reason to exist?
To be sure, it is far better to have a neutral forum for nations in dispute to discuss their differences, rather than to settle those disputes on a battlefield. But the United Nations is not that forum. The U.N. neither prevents war, nor keeps the peace.
The United Nations has, instead, worked long and hard at becoming a separate governing entity with influence, and eventually authority, over all its member nations. In the process, it has become a corrupt, bloated bureaucracy with virtually no accountability to anyone. Its successes are few; its failures are legion. The oil-for-food scandal and the never-ending sex scandals of the U.N. peacekeepers in Africa make the headlines. U.N. supporters overlook these failures and criticize John Bolton for holding up the U.N. budget.
What rarely makes the headlines are the incessant efforts to expand global rule through endless treaties, agreements, commissions and agencies. Each of these U.N. offspring draws every member nation a little more securely into the U.N. web. The World Trade Organization, for example, drains a little sovereignty from each member nation that agrees to submit to decisions made by the international body.
The Law of the Sea Treaty, pushed by U.N. supporters in the U.S. State Department, and others would drain more than a little sovereignty and require the U.S. to submit to decisions made by the International Seabed Authority.
The Kyoto Protocol is trying to create its own compliance mechanism.
Rep. Ron Paul has introduced legislation to prevent the implementation of global tax policy, long desired by the United Nations. So far, only six congressmen have signed on in co-sponsorship.
Many people across the country who have watched their property rights evaporate through so-called "smart growth" plans are completely unaware that these schemes originated in the United Nations and became "internationally accepted policy" when Agenda 21 was adopted by the U.N. Conference on Environment and Development in 1992. Even when Bill Clinton's President's Council on Sustainable Development began to implement Agenda 21 through federal agencies, few people made the connection to the U.N. This is just another way that sovereignty is being eroded while the U.N. weaves another web around this nation.
The National Animal Identification System now being developed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture also originated in the international community. Most environmental laws and regulations are the result of treaty compliance or international obligations. The influence of the U.N. on domestic policy goes far beyond the headlines. This insidious force is sucking the sovereignty from our nation with the support of Congress and most Americans – who fail to see the danger.
A more visible danger is the reality that when push comes to shove in matters or war and peace, the U.N. can do nothing but talk. Action must be taken by affected members. This truth became evident when the U.N. Security Council refused to act on Iraq, even after Iraq ignored a dozen or more U.N. resolutions. Now in Iran, the U.N. Security Council can do nothing but talk about Iran's flagrant deceptions and non-compliance with prior agreements.
People who have supported the U.N. in the past should realize that the institution is beyond repair, that a new mechanism must be constructed that is truly a forum for debate, not an excuse to build a global government.
A good way to begin would be to demand that Congress enact another Ron Paul bill: the American Sovereignty Restoration Act (H.R. 1146). This is the best answer the U.S. can make to Mark Malloch Brown's complaints. This act would remove a heavy U.N. burden, and open the door to a brighter and more hopeful future.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thought you might like this article.
Nice Pic., it would look great if it were targeting the UN.
This article goes hand in hand with your latest.
Just one? Keep 'em coming!
PING
Thank you, spineless Senate.
So, this guy is upset because American citizens are "allowed" to express their opinions?
Yikes.
F. T. U. N.
I've said all along that the best way to send a message to the UN is to leave the position of Ambassador to the UN vacant. Putting in someone like Bolton, who nobody there is going to follow or listen to anyway, is a waste. But refusing to appoint a representative and instead leaving it in the hands of lower-level staff makes it clear that we don't consider the UN important enough to send someone to deal with them.
What do they expect. Have they respect the UN charter. Peacekeepers? BS. Oil for food? Just what good is the UN for? Kick them out and trash the building.
Henry Lamb, finally understanding what most any concious American has known for many years.
Get 'er done!
Absolutely! It violates the The International Bill of Human Rights which is written similarly to the Soviet constitution. It grants rights, then takes those rights away. You have freedom of speech unless it interferes with the goals of the UN.
"Thank you, spineless Senate."
Bears repeating!
"So, this guy is upset because American citizens are "allowed" to express their opinions?
Yikes."
I'm afraid that you came away with a different view of what the author was saying than I did.
I would prefer to start a new discussion society composed of only free societies, and leave the UN to die an unfunded death.
I think the UN building should be converted to appartments, and the UN sent to Sommalia.
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.