Posted on 05/16/2007 9:36:19 AM PDT by K-oneTexas
The New World Order GOP By Patrick J. Buchanan
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
A federal program, Ronald Reagan used to say, is the closest thing to eternal life here on earth. Even the Gipper conceded he failed to get control of the federal behemoth.
At least he tried. But what can be said for the conservative movement today, as one witnesses the Wall Street Journal battle to save the $400,000-a-year tax-free sinecure of World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz, imperiled because Wolfie parked his World Bank squeeze over at State at a fatter salary than Condi Rice's?
There was a time when the Republican Party would have seized on this scandal to try to defund this 63-year-old relic. No more.
Yet, what is the purpose of keeping the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, the United Nations and its agencies, and NATO, all of which date to an era long gone?
The World Bank and IMF were created when the United States was the greatest creditor on earth. The bank was to lend for the reconstruction and development of Europe and Asia. The IMF was to provide loans to help members with balance of payments problems.
When Europe and Asia recovered, the need for the World Bank came to an end. By 1971, when the United States closed the gold window and let the dollar float, the need for an IMF to maintain fixed rates of exchange, in a world of floating rates, disappeared.
Yet both institutions reinvented themselves as lenders of last resort to bankrupt Third World regimes, and Republican presidents and a Republican Congress went along. Why?
Why should the United States, now the world's largest debtor nation, go out into the capital markets and borrow billions, so the World Bank and IMF can continue to subsidize the most corrupt and least competent regimes on earth? Does this make sense?
Between them, the Japanese and Chinese have amassed $2 trillion -- two thousand billion dollars -- in reserves. Why not turn the IMF and World Bank playpens over to them?
Though the soft-loan window of the World Bank, the Institutional Development Fund, was created to help "the poorest of the poor," 8,000 of the 10,000 World Bank employees live and work in the Washington area, where "World Bank neighborhood" is a realtor's way of saying, "You can't afford it."
The United Nations is another case in point. American kids were once taught that it was the "last best hope of Earth." Now, the thing is a source of comic relief. Last year, Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was bested for top honors in the elocution contest when Hugo Chavez had the General Assembly in foot-stomping hilarity with his remarks about having been preceded on the podium by "El Diablo," the Devil -- George Bush -- who had left the stench of sulfur from hell.
This weekend, we learned the chairmanship of the U.N. Committee on Sustainable Development will be going to Zimbabwe, "Comrade Bob" Mugabe's African paradise. Four years ago, Khadafi's Libya, which was behind the air massacre of our college kids on Pan Am 103, was elected to chair the U.N. Human Rights Commission.
Ought not a self-respecting nation, as we once were, laugh at these antics, get up, pay our share of the tab, walk out and let the nutballs have the asylum? What is the matter with us?
As for NATO, it was indeed the most successful alliance in history. The United States and its partners stood guard on the Elbe until the Cold War came to an end. But what is the need for a NATO to defend Europe against the Soviet Empire and Soviet Union, when both ceased to exist more than 15 years ago?
When the Red Army went home from East Berlin, East Germany, Eastern Europe, the Baltic states and Ukraine, why did we not also come home? Forty-six years ago, Ike urged JFK to start bringing U.S. troops home, lest Europe become dependent upon us. Now, instead of ceding NATO to the Europeans and pulling out, we have moved NATO onto Russia's front porch and driven Moscow into the arms of Beijing.
Why, when the defense of Europe is done, cannot we celebrate with champagne, close up shop and go home? Why can we never let go? Why must we retain all these relics at immense cost to American taxpayers?
In the IMF, World Bank and United Nations, we are talking about scores of thousands of the highest-paid government bureaucrats around. The money we could save by ceding NATO to Europe, bringing the troops home, letting Europe pay for its own defense and using the funds saved to rebuild our armed forces would be immense.
At least Ronald Reagan said goodbye to a corrupt UNESCO, walked out, and killed the U.N. power grab of the world's oceans and their resources by refusing even to consider the Law of the Sea Treaty.
And President Bush? He has rejoined UNESCO, started paying dues again and, says WorldNetDaily, is about to push to have Congress bring the United States under the Law of the Sea Treaty.
Fortunately, the election is only 18 months off.
Pat Buchanan is a founding editor of The American Conservative magazine, and the author of many books including State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America .
©Creators Syndicate
An argument. Not THE argument. Just AN argument. Why is it so stupid anyway? We are deeply in debt as a nation. This might be an area to save some money, reduce expenses. Why not talk about it?
But for him to make a real argument, would be to admit also that, for all their problems, there are also legitimate strategic reasons for supporting one or both organizations.
Strategic reasons for supporting? Ok, let's hear them---from YOU.
Your choice of the word strategic is interesting. Would a non-bank employee choose that word? Who do you work for, WB, or IMF? Inquiring minds want to know! Afraid such talk might result in your rice bowl being taken away? Here is why outdated useless institutions persist: government JOBS; government is its own interest group; plus each job provides a revenue stream to the IRS, a constituency, a political power base.
My, my. What a predictable rejoinder.
Yeah, that Ronnie was a regular Robert Taft/Sarc.
I think thou doth protest too much. In fact, when I see protestations such as yours towards anyone who questions the actions of anyone who is or may be a Jew, it reminds me of the reaction of islamic zealots to anyone who wants to investigate any interesting point that that group might consider embarassing, the age of Mo's wife Aisha, the fact that islam is spread by the sword is another one they try to hide. Always, you must not question! You must not question! I wonder whom they learned that tactic from?
I think increasing numbers of people are starting to see that it isn't right that certain individuals are able to exercise extraordinary privileges protected behind a wall of interference put up by people like you.
In fact, your objections and name calling make me more suspicious. Now I want to know more about what he did, to see what all the fuss is about.
Growing up the neighborhood kids had a joke, a name called out, the person would say back, "that's my name, don't wear it out." Anti-semite. That is getting very worn out. It is losing its effect. Good enlightened people don't want to be bigoted but at the same time you call us anti-semite too many times and I begin to wonder what it is you have to hide. People are willing to bend backwards only so many times. Personally I hope you continue overusing that slur, it would be good for you to wear it out even faster.
Pat's article; stands on its own merits. Very good.
It's also worth pointing out that our allies in NATO joined us in going after Afghanistan, so NATO hasn't outlived it's usefulness for us (though I'd boot out the French).
However, I also agree with the vast majority of what Buchanan wrote in this article, which is extremely rare.
Going to dodge the question? You know something Pat doesn't?
Well since you aren’t supposed to be questioning them anyway, why do you need to refer to them at all?
The UN has long been useless because Russia and China veto any meaningful resolution in the Security Council, and the French have joined in in both the political obstruction and in selling weapons to our enemies.
I have little doubt that Russia would go back to it's own games if it had the power to do so and there wasn't opposition to keep them from doing so.
Pat Buchanan is delusional as the left when it comes to believing that the problems of the world are all our fault, and everyone would get along just fine if we minded our own business.
However, that doesn't mean that his points about withdrawing from useless and corrupt international institutions aren't valid.
Not to mention his declaring NATO to have had no purpose for the last 15 years, despite the fact that it was our allies in NATO that came to our aid after 9/11 and joined us in going after Afghanistan, and who are still fighting there. Obviously some allies proved more true than others, but declaring NATO useless when they are currently fighting effectively in OUR defense is more than a bit rude.
I don’t agree with Buchanan 100 percent of the time, but I do agree with 100 percent of this particular article.
There are a lot of people in the Republican party - especially Buches 41 and 43 - who are trying to move America towards a one world government. The elder Bush even loved using the phrase “new world order”. Problem is, most of the rest of the world is socialist or totalitarian. I have no intention of being subjected to their laws.
Best is the devolution of power. Get out of the IMF, the world bank, the UN, and NATO. They have outlived their usefulness, as Buchanan points out. Then force the federal government to start living under their enumerated power.
It is no mistake that in 3 years of law school, my ultralib professors never mentioned the 10th amendment. The were far more interested in just how far you can stretch the 14 amendment and commerce clauses instead. For lawyers, libs, and “one world order” Repubs, government is all about putting all power into as few hands as possible.
Would that have happened outside the NATO or not? Did we have alliances with those countries before NATO or not?
Anybody who opposes the establishment of an American Empire is anti-semitic?
So criticism of anybody who is jewish is “anti-semitic”?
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.