House GOP Plans to “Force Major Changes at the UN”
House Republicans, led by House Foreign Affairs Committee chair Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, plan to introduce legislation aimed to alter our United Nations funding. Some goals:
- “require the UN to adopt a voluntary budget model in which countries selectively fund UN agencies rather than according to a set formula”
- “end funding for Palestinian refugees”
- “limit use of U.S. funds to only purposes outlined by Congress”
- “stop contributions to peacekeeping operations until management changes are made.”
This last point is most interesting. In Chapter 6 of “Four Hundred Years of Gun Control” I reported extensively how United Nations “piece keepers” sexually assaulted women (and even goats) who were supposedly under their protection, spreading AIDS in countries so poor their medical system was already overloaded. In Kosovo, UN representatives partook in a sexual slavery ring.
These armed men invaded places around the world where UN regulations required everybody else to be disarmed. But because they served under the UN flag, they were legally immune to prosecution, unless the desperately poor victims traveled to the offender’s home country and initiated legal action.
In any case, tell your representatives it’s time to get the US out of the UN and the UN out of the US, and then “compromise” from there. Reducing UN funding is a compromise worth having––for now.
Who in congress has the brass to actually advocate for ending support for this despicable charade ?
We can’t even eliminate a single marginal governmental department of our own – let alone endure the howls from all the “citizen of the world” types from here and all over the planet if we make a move to end our participation and support.
Yeah, when even Hillary Clinton has a bigger set than Squeaker of the House Boehner, you have to wonder. But remember this legislation was authored by a woman.
It is a mistake to think of the UN as “the biggest human rights violator in the world”; to do so misunderstands the nature of “human rights.” “Human rights” are the antithesis of liberty.
The Framers of the Constitution sought to “secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity.” To do this, they designed a government of limited powers, and enshrined in the Bill of Rights the people’s rights against the government. This unique construction meant—still means, even if too often honored more in the breach than in the observance—that people were to have maximum liberty except for the bare minimum that their liberty needed to be circumscribed for the common good.
“Human rights” are the antithesis of this concept. They are to liberty as “South of the Border” is to Mexico—a theme village rather than the real thing. “Human rights” are invoked when a dictatorship is asked to kill its people less randomly; when it is begged to permit fewer restrictions on speech. These “human rights” do not protect liberty, but are the trappings of liberty without the substance. They are special dispensations granted at whim by oppressors, and revocable at whim by those oppressors.
In our own country, “human rights” first insinuated themselves into the language of our jurisprudence when the Marxists and separatists wrested the Civil Rights Movement from Martin Luther King, after the passage of the Voting Rights Act. The movement King spearheaded demanded that the government protect blacks’ civil rights—i.e., the right to vote—and that blacks, as citizens, not be barred from the amenities enjoyed by their fellow-citizens solely on the basis of race. But after these legal battles for the appurtenances of citizenship had been won, the demands for human rights began; the “social justice” engineering of affirmative action, set-asides, and other thumbs on the scale of liberty.
The gay-rights movement increased the domestic demands for “human rights” This movement could not claim civil rights violations as the black community could, and from its campaign for inclusion in the Dade County civil rights ordinance in 1977 has based its demands on “human rights” language. In the process, it has corrupted First Amendment protection with “hate speech” restrictions, starting with speech codes in academia.
Any appeal to “human rights” is an appeal for special dispensation from the government, whether that special dispensation is a lessening of oppression in a dictatorship, or a demand for “social justice” in the United States. As the world exponent of “human rights,” the UN is an agent of oppression—shoring up oppressive regimes abroad with the appearance of liberty, and seeking to circumscribe liberty within the United States.
Say NO! to “human rights,” and to the UN. Say YES! to liberty.
Actually, my point is to use their own criteria against them, a la Alinksy. Your point is valid, however, in that those who blather the loudest about ‘human rights’ are the greatest violators of individual liberty. So, if they truly want to promote ‘human rights’ the best thing they can do is renounce their misunderstood agenda. Second best is to die. Third best is to go set up the UN in North Korea where they can all affirm themselves without so much friction from the pro-Liberty crowd.
Thank you, Howard. Your point about turning Alinsky tactics back on the Alinskyites is well taken.
I apologize for the length of my comment above; I merely wanted to make the point that “human rights” are often—too often—equated with liberty, but the two are in reality antithetical to each other.
Dude! You’re welcome to comment away on my posts. I’m a recovering liberal, and the best way to do 12th step to those who still suffer is to speak their language. (If I fail to connect, at least I can leave them squirming in their Depends because I used their own ammo against them.) The main reason I write is to give people the tools to convert those still capable of critical thinking. Sometimes that leaves others wondering where I’m coming from.
Well, it’s not a complete withdrawal from the U.N. but is at least a way to get the discussion started.
Freudian slip, or snark?
I put it in quotes. Do I need to answer that? Did the UN actually keep the peace anywhere they deployed? Is rape, forced prostitution, and beastiality keeping the peace?
Crucial point: “[T]ell your representatives it’s time to get the US out of the UN and the UN out of the US, and then ‘compromise’ from there.”
While the House Foreign Affairs Committee chair’s recommendations are a move in the right direction, Howard is right: We need to get the US out of the boondoggle that is the UN. Now.
From Better World website: http://www.betterworldcampaign.org/issues/funding/
“The U.S. contributes more to the UN than any other country – 22 percent of the regular UN budget and 27 percent of the peacekeeping budget. For years, the U.S. shorted the UN on these dues, but last year, Congress paid in full and wiped out our significant arrears. We ask that Congress continue to pay all that we owe the UN, and on time.” … and
“Each year, Congress must pass legislation to fund the activities and obligations of the U.S. government. In Fiscal Year 2010, the U.S. sent more than $3 billion to the UN. This total included $2.125 billion for peacekeeping operations, $669 million for the regular budget, and $389 million for agencies that the U.S. contributes to …”
Anyone see a quick way to save $3 billion? Write the committe chair and your representatives today.
Best case scenario is the UN tells the US to screw off with its conditions and goes to Russia, China and Brazil for funding instead. This way, the UN will be less a puppet of US-UK-French interests.
Mr. Nemerov — thank you so much
for writing about this. Ros-Lehtinen is my congresswoman so there’s no need to write her except to give her encouragement — and thanks. She’s wonderful, bless her soul. I hope she can succeed with this effort.
The U.S. has to get out of the UN — it’s nothing but vile in every way. Some think it’s worthwhile to stay in so that we can keep an eye on, and put some breaks on them. I don’t know if that’s worth it or not. We should, though, begin another “organization” that can eventually supplant it.
I first read about the sexual atrocities of the UN “piecekeepers” … several years ago. I hadn’t any idea, but when I told “friends” about it, they didn’t believe it.
Please write much more about this — here at PJM and everywhere. Americans have a glimmer, but no real idea how deeply corrupt the UN is … but I’m sure, even most liberal Americans, if they knew, would at least support de-funding and eventually disassociating ourselves from this horror.
The UN is a work in progress first proposed by President Wilson through an older version, the League of Nations. Unfortunately, the U.S. may well be the most entrenched nation in the ‘underlying’ purposes and framework of the UN. The success of purpose relys on ‘commonality and equality’ between the global nations thus, the long standing role of the U.S. and others in nation building around the world. Most all the other framework has been long standing in place as the the U.S. and a couple of allies continue to chug away at nation building to achieve that commonality and equality component. There is another predominate group that is an essential component but far more complex and a subject for another day. Don’t look for the UN to go away! That ‘other’ component is far more powerful than any congress or sitting president.
First, I always love it when trolls won’t use their real names. It makes them bolder, I suppose. As for the rest of your confused rambling… TT, is that you?
The United Nations is a collection of corrupt nations who send their own delegates to the UN. There is no democratic process or “commonality or equality component” involved.
All an honest researcher needs to do is access data at Transparency International, Freedom House, and Heritage Foundation to determine that UN member countries are mostly corrupt, anti-individual liberty, and create predatory environments whereby regular people cannot get ahead politically, socially, or economically.
The responsibility for this rests completely with those countries. To blame the US for this is to deny reality, and enable oppression to continue existing around the world.
Howard Nemerov – spot-on. And, of course, O is against what Congress is doing. The only to stop him is to cut off all funding.