I haven't spotted any mention of this nasty little piece of legislation, so I thought I'd bring it to attention. Below is an article written by U.S. Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) regarding the bill. There is also a link to the bill's text. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ NeoCon Global Government By Ron Paul June 13, 2005 This week Congress will vote on a bill to expand the power of the United Nations beyond the dreams of even the most ardent left-wing, one-world globalists. But this time the UN power grabbers aren’t European liberals; they are American neo-conservatives, who plan to use the UN to implement their own brand of world government. The “United Nations Reform Act of 2005” masquerades as a bill that will cut US dues to the United Nations by 50% if that organization does not complete a list of 39 reforms. On the surface any measure that threatens to cut funding to the United Nations seems very attractive, but do not be fooled: in this case reform “success” will be worse than failure. The problem is in the supposed reforms themselves-- specifically in the policy changes this bill mandates. The proposed legislation opens the door for the United Nations to routinely become involved in matters that have never been part of its charter. Specifically, the legislation redefines terrorism very broadly for the UN’s official purposes-- and charges it to take action on behalf of both governments and international organizations. What does this mean? The official adoption of this definition by the United Nations would have the effect of making resistance to any government or any international organization an international crime. It would make any attempt to overthrow a government an international causus belli for UN military action. Until this point a sovereign government retained the legal right to defend against or defeat any rebellion within its own territory. Now any such activity would constitute justification for United Nations action inside that country. This could be whenever any splinter group decides to resist any regime-- regardless of the nature of that regime. What if this were in place when the Contras were fighting against the Marxist regime in Nicaragua? Or when the Afghan mujahadeen was fighting against the Soviet-installed government in the 1980s? Or during the Warsaw Ghetto uprising? The new message is clear: resistance-- even resistance to the UN itself-- is futile. Why does every incumbent government, no matter how bad, deserve UN military assistance to quell domestic unrest? This new policy is given teeth by creating a “Peacebuilding Commission,” which will serve as the implementing force for the internationalization of what were formerly internal affairs of sovereign nations. This Commission will bring together UN Security Council members, major donors, major troop contributing countries, appropriate United Nations organizations, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund among others. This new commission will create the beginning of a global UN army. It will claim the right to intervene in any conflict anywhere on the globe, bringing the World Bank and the IMF formally into the picture as well. It is a complete new world order, but undertaken with the enthusiastic support of many of those who consider themselves among the most strident UN critics. Conservatives who have been critical of the UN in the past have enthusiastically embraced this bill and the concept of UN reform. But what is the desired end of “UN reform”? The UN is an organization that was designed to undermine sovereignty and representative government. It is unelected and unaccountable to citizens by its very design. Will UN reform change anything about the fact that its core mission is objectionable? Do honest UN critics really want an expanded UN that functions more “efficiently”? The real question is whether we should redouble our efforts to save a failed system, or admit its failures-- as this legislation does-- and recognize that the only reasonable option is to cease participation without further costs to the United States in blood, money, and sovereignty. Do not be fooled: it is impossible to be against the United Nations and to support “reform” of the United Nations. The only true reform of the United Nations is for the US to withdraw immediately. Full text of "United Nations Reform Act of 2005"
Like, oh my God, we need the UN!! Kofi Annan is my hero, and the UN equals peace. How can we ever live barefoot as one when the evil US and George Bush want to take over the world?? I mean, after all, George Bush is the most powerful person in the world! All the UN wants to do is protect humanity from the evil Republicans. The UN are good people and they help the poor and bring peace. So what if their soldiers rape and torture people like the evil Americans... at least they are against war. Plus, they're not American, so whatever evil they do doesn't count. Dude, we need a World Government to end war. I mean, David Rockefeller even said so. Just look at what a great man David Rockefeller is. He likes helping people through his tax-exempt foundations. He is a humanitarian! Also, Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski said World Government is good. Kissinger and Brzezinski weren't born in America, either, therefore they aren't capable of evil. AMERICANS ARE EVIL INBRED WARMONGERS!!!! BRING BACK KARL MARX FROM THE DEAD!!!!!! STOP DRINIKING OLD MILWAUKEE YOU TRAILER TRASH MONGRELS!! WHY DO YOU ALL EAT HOT DOGS AND CHEESEBURGERS AND DRIVE SUVs???? Ron Paul is a Republican, so that means he is a fascist! DUDE, WHY ARE YOU POSTING REPUBLICANS? Hello, haven't you ever heard of Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi? They want save America! Ron Paul is a Republican, so that means he loves war and George Bush. George Bush is against the UN, and FOX News even said so. Because of this, I don't believe what you say because John Bolton said he hates the UN, too. FOX News wouldn't lie because Pointbreak told me they are a reputable source. The UN loves free-minded hippies, so stop talking badly about them!! OBAMA and HILLARY in 2008! ~~**~~PeAcE, lOve aNd InCenSe~~**~~
So the right to rise up against tyrannical government as mandated to our US citizenry by our founding fathers would hence invite UN reprisals. Seems that whilst they berate and denigrate the UN the neo-cons have added a new chapter of duplicity to their already dictionary thick compendium and provided the very documented mechanism for the realisation of Kissinger's Bilderberg assertion. Yet, those not cognitively dissonant in the back of the class would have to raise their hand and ask, "do the chickenhawks themselves (who have made it clear that international law does not apply to them or their actions in any way) intend to abide by this new proscription and forego any resistance should China finally decide the need for regime change in Washington was past due?"
