http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31196
Bomb the U.N.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: February 24, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com
Amidst all the talk about French perfidy, German weaselry and Turkish demands for bribery, one vital point has largely escaped the attention of the chattering class. For what may be the first time in U.S. history, the leadership of a major American political party has openly advocated the subversion of U.S. national interests to a foreign body.
This is nothing less than treason.
Last week, Sen. Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat and ranking Democratic member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services let the treacherous cat out of the bag. He went so far as to declare on Fox News that President Bush could not act unilaterally against Iraq. When Brit Hume asked the senator how he could say that the president was acting unilaterally when 18 European countries were expressly supporting U.S. action, (not to mention the small, but significant fact that British, Turkish, Iranian and Jordanian troops are already fighting alongside our troops inside Iraq), the senator said that no American military action could be considered multilateral without the consent of the United Nations.
This despicable statement is not only a wildly incorrect use of the word "multilateral," but also goes conceptually far beyond the "entangling alliances" against which George Washington warned the new republic he helped create. It is bad enough that Congress has delegated its war-making power to the executive branch – it is not only utterly unconstitutional, but criminally stupid to give a supranational organization any influence whatsoever over the exercise of American military power.
For decades, voices on the fringe have loudly opposed the deadly threat the United Nations poses to America, and for decades they have been dismissed by the mainstream. The skeptical conservative view has been that the U.N. is an international debating society, useless, perhaps, but generally harmless, whereas the optimistic Left sees the U.N. as a progressive development which will eventually lead to world peace.
Both views are wrong. Mark my words. The only peace the U.N. will ever confer is the peace of the grave.
The U.N. is not a debating society, it is an embryonic world government. It is antidemocratic, as the vast majority of governments it accepts as valid national representatives are not elected by the will of their peoples. It is anti-American, as its constitution explicitly denies the rights granted by the American Constitution – whereas an American's rights are inalienable, the rights granted in the U.N.'s Universal Declaration of Human Rights are held only at the whim of the U.N., and "may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations" according to Article 29, section 3 of the Universal Declaration. It is anti-human, proven by its strident enthusiasm for worldwide abortion and global population reduction.
It is worth noting that global population reduction is the one goal toward which the U.N. has successfully worked. There are certainly fewer people infesting the planet following U.N. interventions in Rwanda, Somalia and Bosnia.
The United States should not pull out of the U.N. because it is an expensive boondoggle, though it is. The United States should not pull out of the U.N. because it appeases dictators, though it does. The United States should not pull out of the U.N. because it elevates totalitarian governments to positions of leadership, though it has. The United States should not pull out of the U.N. because it has failed to provide world peace, though it has not.
The United States should pull out of the U.N. because it is the greatest threat to life, liberty and justice that humanity has ever known, and it has now begun to attempt to exert its will over the American people and their government.
Think about it. Even if you regard the U.N. as a force for good in the world and hope that it one day achieves its stated goal of global governance, consider the possibility – which, if history teaches us anything, is a very high probability – that it will someday be corrupted. Global governance in the hands of Hitler, a Lenin, a Pol Pot, a Mao, a Mengistu, a Mugabe, an Amin, a Genghis Khan, a Duvalier or a Committee of Public Safety would be a disaster unparalleled in human history. Only this time, there would be no army of the free West to rescue the oppressed.
As America's pilots prepare to launch their smart missiles at targets in Iraq, here's hoping they'll save a few for One United Nations Plaza and excise the globalist cancer that threatens to one day kill the United States of America.
Bomb the U.N.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: February 24, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com
Amidst all the talk about French perfidy, German weaselry and Turkish demands for bribery, one vital point has largely escaped the attention of the chattering class. For what may be the first time in U.S. history, the leadership of a major American political party has openly advocated the subversion of U.S. national interests to a foreign body.
This is nothing less than treason.
Last week, Sen. Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat and ranking Democratic member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services let the treacherous cat out of the bag. He went so far as to declare on Fox News that President Bush could not act unilaterally against Iraq. When Brit Hume asked the senator how he could say that the president was acting unilaterally when 18 European countries were expressly supporting U.S. action, (not to mention the small, but significant fact that British, Turkish, Iranian and Jordanian troops are already fighting alongside our troops inside Iraq), the senator said that no American military action could be considered multilateral without the consent of the United Nations.
This despicable statement is not only a wildly incorrect use of the word "multilateral," but also goes conceptually far beyond the "entangling alliances" against which George Washington warned the new republic he helped create. It is bad enough that Congress has delegated its war-making power to the executive branch – it is not only utterly unconstitutional, but criminally stupid to give a supranational organization any influence whatsoever over the exercise of American military power.
For decades, voices on the fringe have loudly opposed the deadly threat the United Nations poses to America, and for decades they have been dismissed by the mainstream. The skeptical conservative view has been that the U.N. is an international debating society, useless, perhaps, but generally harmless, whereas the optimistic Left sees the U.N. as a progressive development which will eventually lead to world peace.
Both views are wrong. Mark my words. The only peace the U.N. will ever confer is the peace of the grave.
The U.N. is not a debating society, it is an embryonic world government. It is antidemocratic, as the vast majority of governments it accepts as valid national representatives are not elected by the will of their peoples. It is anti-American, as its constitution explicitly denies the rights granted by the American Constitution – whereas an American's rights are inalienable, the rights granted in the U.N.'s Universal Declaration of Human Rights are held only at the whim of the U.N., and "may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations" according to Article 29, section 3 of the Universal Declaration. It is anti-human, proven by its strident enthusiasm for worldwide abortion and global population reduction.
It is worth noting that global population reduction is the one goal toward which the U.N. has successfully worked. There are certainly fewer people infesting the planet following U.N. interventions in Rwanda, Somalia and Bosnia.
The United States should not pull out of the U.N. because it is an expensive boondoggle, though it is. The United States should not pull out of the U.N. because it appeases dictators, though it does. The United States should not pull out of the U.N. because it elevates totalitarian governments to positions of leadership, though it has. The United States should not pull out of the U.N. because it has failed to provide world peace, though it has not.
The United States should pull out of the U.N. because it is the greatest threat to life, liberty and justice that humanity has ever known, and it has now begun to attempt to exert its will over the American people and their government.
Think about it. Even if you regard the U.N. as a force for good in the world and hope that it one day achieves its stated goal of global governance, consider the possibility – which, if history teaches us anything, is a very high probability – that it will someday be corrupted. Global governance in the hands of Hitler, a Lenin, a Pol Pot, a Mao, a Mengistu, a Mugabe, an Amin, a Genghis Khan, a Duvalier or a Committee of Public Safety would be a disaster unparalleled in human history. Only this time, there would be no army of the free West to rescue the oppressed.
As America's pilots prepare to launch their smart missiles at targets in Iraq, here's hoping they'll save a few for One United Nations Plaza and excise the globalist cancer that threatens to one day kill the United States of America.
