Posted on 02/11/2003 12:31:56 AM PST by JohnHuang2
Recent polls show that all-too-many Americans believe that the United States should not go after Saddam Hussein militarily unless the United Nations goes along. It's alarming to think that so many Americans are actually willing to subrogate our nation's ability to act in its own interests on matters of national security to the United Nations! Are we going nuts?
Speaking plainly (easy for me): This is idiotic. In order to maintain any faith at all in the American people, I have to force myself to believe that the "not unless the United Nations says so" crowd is merely reacting mindlessly to the words they hear from leftist politicians, Hollywood foreign-affairs "experts" like George Clooney, and liberal pundits.
It's easy to understand when that bloated icon of the left, Ted Kennedy, mumbles, "Whatever we're going to do ought to be done within the United Nations." This is a man who has fought hard to weaken the strength and sovereignty of the United States at every turn. But what's your excuse?
It's time for some strong talk about the United Nations – time for you to learn some things you probably didn't know.
The United Nations was designed to be, has operated as, and stands today as a fundamentally anti-American institution. Since its inception, the taxpayers of the United States have been paying the lion's share of U.N. operating costs while Third World nations have used it as a sounding board for their Yankee-go-home rhetoric.
Here's a few "betcha didn't know that" facts to chew on.
When the United Nations was formed, every single member nation got one, and only one vote in the United Nations General Assembly. Every single member nation that is, except one. That one nation was the Soviet Union. The USSR got three votes.
No single member nation is allowed to have more than one citizen sitting as a justice on the United Nations World Court at any one time – except, that is, the Soviet Union. Until the USSR dissolved, they were allowed to have three citizens sitting on the World Court.
Are you getting the picture here? From its very inception, the United Nations was designed to give the Soviet Union a greater voice in the General Assembly, and stronger representation on the World Court than the United States.
In late 1999, Bill Clinton held a little ceremony at the White House. The purpose of this gathering was to honor the greatest document in support of freedom in the history of civilization. So … which document do you think that Clinton chose to honor? The Declaration of Independence? Nope. How about the Constitution of the United States? Wrong again. OK, then, it must have been the Magna Carta. Sorry, you're out of guesses.
Clinton's affections were bestowed upon the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights – a document completely unknown in any detail to all but a handful of Americans.
So, just what do we get from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Well, for starters we get the "right to live, liberty and security of person." So far, so good. We also get the "right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law."
We are generously given "the right to own property" and "the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion." There's also the "right to freedom of opinion and expression" and "the right to peaceful assembly and association."
It all sounds pretty good, doesn't it? Pretty good until you reach Article 29 (3), which reads: "These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations."
So, there you have it. Your right to live, your right to liberty, your right to own property and to think as you please, your right to express your opinions and to gather peacefully with others are all gone … eliminated … if your exercise of those rights places you at odds with the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
We can rewrite the entire human-rights declaration in one sentence. "You folks are pretty much free to do what you want to do unless it interferes with what the government is trying to do." And this is the document that Bill Clinton hailed as the greatest document in the history of free men.
If you're still enamored of the United Nations – if you still think that our president simply must get the stamp of approval from the U.N. before he can act in what he believes to be the best interests of the United States – then consider this: Several years ago, the United Nations removed the United States from the Human Rights Commission and replaced us with … Syria.
In a few months, the United Nations is going to crank up a conference on disarmament. There will be two countries chairing this conference. One country will be Iran. The other country co-chairing the disarmament conference? Iraq.
So, tell me. Do you still want to submit our national interests to the veto of the United Nations?
Sounds a lot like National Public Radio.
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.