Heh... Today is "United Nations Day"

[Starks]

What a joke.

[werdd]

a national lets globalize the world and lose our identity day

[noxagol]

Yay! It only make me want the National We got out of the United nations day even more.

[Bradley in DC]

best way to celebrate :D

[kylejack]

In honor of Michael Badnarik, let's blow it up.

[d_goddard]

Here's what some members of the Free State Project do to celebrate the United Nations at this time every year:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=4bKu1JL2nGM

Enjoy :D

[lucius]

Here's what some members of the Free State Project do to celebrate the United Nations at this time every year:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=4bKu1JL2nGM

Enjoy :D

Good people in NH!

OT

NATO was designed as a political and military subsidiary of the UN, and it has no rationale for existence apart from the world organization. This was understood at the time of NATO's creation in 1949. A State Department document published in the spring of that year entitled Foreign Affairs Outlines: Building the Peace explained that NATO was designed to "bring about world conditions which will permit the United Nations to function more efficiently." This understanding was also expressed in a March 1949 Washington, DC address by CFR member Secretary of State Dean Acheson. Acheson explained:

"[NATO] is designed to fit precisely into the framework of the United Nations and to assure practical measures for maintaining peace and security in harmony with the Charter.... The United States government and the governments with which we are associated in this treaty are convinced that it is an essential measure for strengthening the United Nations...."

(An interesting note about Acheson concerning Communist Alger Hiss, who held CFR membership in the 1940s as well. After Hiss had been exposed as a Communist agent, Secretary of State Dean Acheson, a CFR member publicly announced that he would never turn his back on Hiss - and he never did.)

[lasenorita]

Heh. I'm gonna get flamed for this, but I support the United Nations and what its various humanitarian organizations are trying to achieve. Just like the Dep't of Education and Dep't of [insert name here] has its uses, so does the UN.

It's the only organization in the world that encompasses the majority of the nations currently in existence. Each member has a say and a vote in the General Assembly. (I'm not talking about the Security Council which consists of the world's elite and imho needs reform). It provides a platform for small countries and large countries to voice their needs and goals to the rest of the world. Take, for example, Iraq. The UN was against our military intervention in their country. We ignored them and went ahead and waged war. If you think other countries have no business in telling us what we should do, you're partially right. But keep in mind that we live in a global society where the actions of one country affects the others.

Then there's the Millennium Development Goals, which believe it or not, has helped millions around the world by alleviating poverty and hunger. The UN fights against drug (we're not merely talking about medical marijuana here but other drugs that are illegal in most countries and do irreparable harm to families) and human trafficking (which is today's equivalent of slave trade). They provide food and humanitarian aid to various countries in need (even the U.S. --- we accepted their help gratefully after Hurricane Katrina). Is it better to leave it to various charities to deal with these issues? Yes. But as grassroots supporters, we know that there's strength in numbers and a common directive. And not all charities and/or countries will place an equal importance or have the resources to combat world poverty, hunger, and oppression.

Having said all that, I accept Ron Paul's position on this and recognize that US sovereignty is at stake when we join large alliances. I do not want further taxation or further regulations. And while I recognize that we live in an interconnected world, our country should not be legally bound by the rules and wishes of a supranational body.


ETA: What the heck is a Huckabee Google ad doing in a Ron Paul forum? Oh, wait... *click* :p

[kylejack]

La Senorita, Ron Paul has stated that there's room for discussion, but that it doesn't have to be done in the UN. The UN imposes too much bloat on what could be valid discussions. And yes, while we can listen to the complaints of countries, ultimately they should have no say in stopping us from doing what is fair and in our self-interest.

[ConstitutionGal]

The U.N. does VERY little good and is almost wholly supported by the U.S. Taxpayer. Any good that might be done by this overblown organization (that has NEVER nor will ever have a secretary general that is not a communist) could better be served through private charities and such. The U.N. is all about two things:

1. A world-wide, unelected, unaccountable government
2. World wide population control

Try reading the U.N. Charter. Their website is VERY difficult to find anything on but it IS there.

As regards the Fed. Dept. of Education - think No Child Left Behind (before that it was Goals 2000 and before that it was America's 2000 and before THAT it was a U.N. plan for global education/reeducation).

With the U.S. out of the U.N., the U.N. would collapse due to lack of funding for its schemes and iniatives.

..entangling alliances with none -- that means the U.N. too.

[lasenorita]

The United Nations is not wholly supported by the U.S. taxpayer. Take a look at the 2006 operating budget of the UN. Around 3/4 of $4.19 billion comes from the following countries:


United States (22%)
Japan (19.47%)
Germany (8.66%)
United Kingdom (6.13%)
France (6.03%)
Italy (4.89%)
Canada (2.81%)
Spain (2.52%)
China (2.05%)
Mexico (1.88%)

The UN has a contribution ceiling (25% to 22%) to make sure that they are not overly dependent on one member. And while the US is the only one who reaches that, we're also overdue on past payments by $1.3 billion. But, yes, it would deeply hurt the UN and disrupt its many humanitarian goals (which actually does a lot of good whether you accept it or not) if the US revokes its membership.

Also, a simple Google search of "UN Charter" produces the relevant link (http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/). While their website needs much improvement, there's no conspiracy to make it difficult to find. We were among the first to sign this Charter --- in San Francisco no less! And as far as I'm aware, the UN's primary goals focus on world peace and the international desire to prevent another world war.

While individual citizens are not able to participate in the election process, their country does. It's the General Assembly who oversees and elects the Secretary-General, the President, the 15 judges in the World Court (with approval from the Security Council), and the 54 members of the Economic and Social Council. Also, keep in mind that member states are legally bound to follow the treaties they sign and ratify. The US included.

[kylejack]

Taking money from some people forcibly for humanitarian efforts for others is unethical. There's plenty of free market organizations doing humanitarian work with donations from charitable contributors.

[Green Mountain Boy]

The IMF and World Bank (UN organizations) are rackets in which poor countries are suckered into endlesss debt while the bankers live off the interest.

[JMann]

Damn, I should of put up my UN flag today. Oh well, after Paul's elected I won't be celebrating next year.

[fj45lvr]

Here's a must see short tribute VIDEO:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7a9Syi12RJo

[lasenorita]

To be more specific, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank are autonomous organizations who work with the United Nations and other specialized agencies in the UN System. Not surprisingly, the United States exerts a strong influence on both the fund and the bank.

And, yes, forcibly taking money from others to fight poverty and hunger in other parts of the world is not a great way to go about it. But you must remember that we are currently a member of the United Nations and as such, are obligated to pay our share of the budget as determined by the General Assembly.

[kylejack]

And, yes, forcibly taking money from others to fight poverty and hunger in other parts of the world is not a great way to go about it. But you must remember that we are currently a member of the United Nations and as such, are obligated to pay our share of the budget as determined by the General Assembly.

Hence:
The desire to withdraw from the United Nations and create a new body that can be used for geo-political debate and discussion.