("borrowed" from a contributor to the 135th AHC's site...)

March 12, 2003

When the Soviet Union was hurled into the trash heap of history, the world didn't come to an end.

And neither will it if the United Nations is added
to the pile.

While Americans of good conscience can debate and disagree over the merits of U.S. military action in Iraq, few can any longer believe that going to
the United Nations to get "permission" for that action was a wise or necessary exercise.

Texas Rep. Ron Paul, far from being a supporter of war with Saddam Hussein, nonetheless objects to the notion that our fate be placed in the hands of a world body.

"When we seek permission, or even mere approval, from the United Nations, we give credibility to the terrible notion that American national security is a matter of international consensus," he wrote last fall. "America alone should decide whether to send its sons and daughters to war."

And as former Republican Majority Leader Dick Armey points out, it's difficult to reconcile our participation in the UN with the U.S.Constitution. At best, he maintains, it's "very, very tricky."

Founding Father George Washington, in his Farewell Address, warned that "foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government." While supporting economic trade with other countries, America's first president warned the nation to have "as little political connection
as possible."

Thomas Jefferson, in his 1801 inaugural address, called for "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations - entangling alliances with none."

Well, it's hard to imagine a more destructive entangling alliance than the one we currently "enjoy" with the United Nations.

Americans don't pledge allegiance to the flag of the United Nations of the World. And American elected officials don't take an oath to preserve and protect the Charter of the United Nations. Nor do our men and women in the military. Our duty, loyalty and concern must and should be to the United States of America. Period.

That's the constitutional argument - and it's powerful enough on its own. But then take a look at the issue from a practical standpoint.

First, this is not a new problem that only recently came to light. The Cato Institute, in its Handbook for Congress back in 1996, described the UN as "a miasma of corruption beset by inefficiency, Kafkaesque bureaucracy, and
misconceived programs." And they've gone downhill since then.

Tom DeWeese of the American Policy Center notes that the UN's most vocal members "stand in opposition of the American values of representative government, justice, free enterprise, privacy of individuals and private
property rights." I think he's sugar-coating it.

The indictment against the United Nations as a force for good - let alone world peace - is devastating. "The world is in chaos and, quite frankly, it's the United Nations' fault," DeWeese wrote last December. "The United Nations is the root cause of international trouble, not the answer."

So what to do?

Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation suggests the UN might be a positive entity "as some kind of debating forum where nations let off
steam," but should cease "to be a serious instrument of our foreign policy."

DeWeese maintains the "only way for the United States of America to reassert and reestablish its sovereignty is to get out of the United Nations."

Adds Rep. Paul, "I think the United Nations is dangerous to our republic and therefore we ought not to participate." And he's backing up his words with legislation to do just that.

Paul recently re-introduced his American Sovereignty Restoration Act which would, among other things, require the President to terminate all participation by the United States in the United Nations, force the UN to take up residence elsewhere (France?), prohibit U.S. funds from being given to the UN for any purpose, particularly military operations, and ban members
of American Armed Forces from serving under the command of the United Nations.

Yeah, and how about getting all those diplomats to pay their parking tickets, too?

Congress should commence immediate hearings to discuss the merits of Rep. Paul's legislation. It's a serious discussion that seriously needs to take place, especially in light of the brouhaha stirred up over Iraq. It's time for UN apologists in Congress to, if you'll pardon the phrase, "show their cards."

The end of the Cold War combined with the proliferation of worldwide terror has rendered the UN useless as a means of protecting American security, not to mention peace. It should be put out of its misery - and ours.

Paging Dr. Kevorkian...