At What Cost?
by Anonymous at 9/23/2004 11:35:00 AM
In 1945, the U.S. Government was riddled with Soviet spies. Joseph McCarthy was tasked with rooting them out, and as the recently declassified Venona papers prove, there were many spies there to be found. In other words, “McCarthyism” was not the witch hunt American textbooks and Public Schools make it out to have been. McCarthy's methods may not have been the best, but he wasn't reponding to hysterical paranoia - the threat was real.
Alger Hiss was accused by McCarthy of being a Soviet spy. Evidence from the Venona papers and from his trial collaborate this accusation, though a definitive answer on the matter will probably never be reached. This alleged Soviet Spy served as the first Secretary General of the United Nations, and represented the United States in the writing of the U.N. Charter. Other evidence also suggests the original purpose of the U.N as a tool of the Soviet Union. If this is true, serious reform should be undertaken or at least considered before giving them control of a large military force.
The United Nations’ charter begins with “We the People of the United Nations”, parroting the U.S. Constitution. However, the constitution of the United States was ratified by the people of the United States in special conventions held in each state. The U.N. charter can make no such claim to legitimacy, and the principles espoused within the U.N. Charter have more in common with the Constitution of the former USSR than the Constitution of the United States. Did the U.S. Ratification of the U.N. charter subordinate the U.S. Constitution and the rights espoused therein to a (communistic view of) “World Government” capable of overturning the U.S. Constitution? Probably.
From this “World Government”, unelected and unaccountable, without any provision or a separation of powers, or checks and balances upon them, we get the concept of “international legitimacy”, that coinage liberals claim is so urgently needed by the United States. However, a quick look at the U.N membership shows this body to be composed largely of countries led by despots and dictators, unelected by their people, who typically find it in their best interests to vote against the United States. The infant E.U., trying to attain Super-Power status, also finds thwarting the United States to be in their best interest. U.S. Coalition building in this environment is difficult to say the least.
This “World Government” is usurping our court system, trying to levy taxes (taxation without representation) and imposing new laws. We may even loose control of our own National parks
In the meantime, liberals within the United States believe the U.N is the best organization to oversee the fledgling democracy in Iraq, despite the U.N.’s own report of a dismal track record of Peace-Keeping (War is Peace new-speak) , and the potential corruption with the Oil for Food program and the potential interference of the self-interest of member states. Regardless of who makes a proposal (Kerry or Bush) for giving this body a military force by which it can enforce its resolutions, it is a really bad Idea. The United States has the military might to oppose such a force if it were applied to the U.S., but many other nations do not. Anyone who believes in the separation of powers and accountability of government officials should recognize the inherent danger in the structure of this institution, and realize that in its present form, it is not an appropriate vehicle for pursuing a World Government while protecting the rights of the people. Culture plays a huge part in why The United States has succeeded where many other democratic forms of government have failed. This is why the plan in Iraq is very risky, and why the U.S. should not subjugate our beliefs and system of government to a system that is an anathema to its principles
"Regardless of who makes a proposal (Kerry or Bush) for giving this body a military force by which it can enforce its resolutions, it is a really bad Idea."
Just remember who proposed it. Hint: Not Kerry! Still going to vote for Bush when he wants to permanently arm an international body that answers to no nation? :^)
Kerry on the UN: "Let there be no mistake: I will never hesitate to use force when it is required. Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response. I will never give any nation or international institution a veto over our national security."
P.S. Congrats on finally finishing the Sowell Trifecta! :^)
Not reading Sowell, really. I've read a dozen or so of his columns, including the Hyena one (in which he chastizes the leftist media for howling over Abu Ghraib) that the questions are in.
For those not familiar, he said "Two questions would destroy at least half the agenda of the political left: 'Compared to what?' and 'At what cost?'
A third question would wipe out most of the rest of the left's agenda and demolish the vision behind that agenda: 'What hard evidence do you have?'"
And I missed your seccond comment. I was probably writing mine while you were writing yours.
It was a joke, Jeff, hence the smiley. Of course you are going to vote for Bush! Just like I'm going to vote for Kerry, unless he turns out to be Kodos in disguise. I will then waste my vote on a third party.
» Post a Comment