Home Page

Contents

U.S. Rep. Ron Paul United Nations Book of Ron Paul United Nations State Of The Republic 28 January 1998    1998 Ron Paul 2:14 The fact that of the original 35 allies in the Persian Gulf War only one remains, Great Britain, should make us question our policy in this region. This attitude in Washington should concern all Americans. It makes it too easy for our presidents to start a senseless war without considering dollar costs or threat to liberty here and abroad. Even without a major war, this policy enhances the prestige and the influence of the United Nations. United Nations State Of The Republic 28 January 1998    1998 Ron Paul 2:18 The role of the military industrial complex cannot be ignored; and since the marching orders come from the United Nations, the industrial complex is more international than ever. United Nations State Of The Republic 28 January 1998    1998 Ron Paul 2:23 At home, virtually all citizens condemn U.S. troops serving under UN command, and yet the financing and support for expanding the United Nations’ and NATO’s roles continues as the hysteria mounts on marching on Baghdad or Bosnia or Haiti or wherever our leaders decide the next monster is to be found. United Nations State Of The Republic 28 January 1998    1998 Ron Paul 2:25 Congress casually passes resolution after resolution, many times nearly unanimously, condemning some injustice in the world, and for the most part there is a true injustice, but along with the caveat that threatens some unconstitutional U.S. military interference, financial assistance, or withdrawal of assistance, or sanctions in order to force our will on someone else. And it is all done in the name of promoting the United Nations and one-world government. United Nations State Of The Republic 28 January 1998    1998 Ron Paul 2:89 The politics of it has allowed temporary withholding of IMF and U.N. funds in order to pressure the President into accepting the restrictive abortion language. Withholding these funds from the United Nations and the IMF in this case has nothing to do with the criticism of the philosophy behind the United Nations, the IMF, the World Bank, and why the international government agencies are tax burdens on the American people. United Nations State Of The Republic 28 January 1998    1998 Ron Paul 2:91 We have at least started to debate the merits of any money at all going to population control, the United Nations or the IMF. This is where the debate should be. Even though the restrictions that the Mexico City language might place on foreign expenditures probably will not change the number of abortions around the world, the vote itself does reflect, through Congress, the sentiment of the American people, and therefore, its importance cannot be denied. But I am convinced that if the American people had the option of whether or not to send any money at all, they would reject all the funding, making the restriction debate moot. United Nations Three Important Issues For America 11 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 7:10 Also, the IMF, which has to do with international finance, the IMF is under the United Nations and therefore it gets a lot of attention and we are asked to appropriate $18 billion. United Nations Three Important Issues For America 11 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 7:11 Then, once again, we have this potential for going to war in Iraq, again, not because we follow the Constitution, not because we follow the rule of law, but because the United Nations has passed a resolution. Some have even argued that the U.N. resolution passed for the Persian Gulf War is enough for our President to initiate the bombings. Others claim that just the legislation, the resolution-type legislation passed in 1990 that endorsed this process is enough for us to go and pursue this war venture. But the truth is, if we followed the rules and if we followed the law, we would never commit an act of war, which bombing is, unless we have a declaration of war here in the Congress. Somebody told me just yesterday that yes, but that is so old fashioned. United Nations Three Important Issues For America 11 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 7:48 He said, “I do not think the bombing, I don’t think it will change his behavior at all. Saddam’s goal is to go down in history as the second coming of Nebuchadnezzar by uniting the Arab world against the west. He may not mind a big strike if, after it, the United Nations lifts economic sanctions against Iraq.” United Nations Three Important Issues For America 11 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 7:73 Well, I do not think that is a legitimate argument. I do have a lot of reservation that we are so anxious to go along with getting authority elsewhere, and that is through the United Nations. When the Persian Gulf War was started, getting ready to start, it was said that we did not need the Congress to approve this because the authority came from the United Nations resolution. United Nations The Folly Of Foreign Intervention — Part 1 25 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 15:2 We have heard very much in the last few weeks about the possibility of a war being started in the Persian Gulf. It looks like this has at least been delayed a bit. There is a temporary victory brought about by Secretary General Kofi Annan of the United Nations in agreement with the government of Iraq. United Nations The Folly Of Foreign Intervention — Part 2 25 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 17:6 And the real irony of all this is that first we use the United Nations as the excuse to go in. Then, the United Nations gets a little weak on their mandates, and they themselves do not want to go in. So it is a U.N. resolution that we try to enforce, and then when it is shown that it is not a good resolution, the U.N. then backs away from it. So there is no unanimous opinion in the U.N., I think further proving that this is a poor way to do foreign policy. United Nations The Folly Of Foreign Intervention — Part 2 25 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 17:7 And those who would like to do more bombing and pursue this even more aggressively tend to agree with that. They do not like the idea that we have turned over our foreign policy making to an international body like the United Nations. United Nations Recommending An Article By R.C. Sproul, Jr. 25 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 21:8 Still others try to argue that the United Nations security council now serves that role. Again though, the Constitution says nothing about giving them this role. Neither does it say that a sufficient number of handshakes with Madelaine Albright shall be a substitute for Congressional action. United Nations U.S. Obsession With Worldwide Military Occupation Policy 10 March 1998    1998 Ron Paul 25:6 The centuries old ethnic rivalries inherent in this region, and aggravated by persistent Western influence as far back as the Crusades, will never be resolved by arbitrary threats and use of force from the United States or the United Nations. All that is being accomplished is to further alienate the factions, festering hate and pushing the region into a war of which we need no part. United Nations U.S. Obsession With Worldwide Military Occupation Policy 10 March 1998    1998 Ron Paul 25:8 But we cannot maintain two loyalties, one to a world government under the United Nations and the other to U.S. sovereignty protected by an American Congress. If we try, only chaos can result and we are moving rapidly in that direction. United Nations U.S. Obsession With Worldwide Military Occupation Policy 10 March 1998    1998 Ron Paul 25:13 Concern for American security is a proper and necessary function of the U.S. Congress. The current policy, and one pursued for decades, threatens our security, drains our wallets, and worst of all, threatens the lives of young Americans to stand tall for Americans’ defense, but not for Kofi Annan and the United Nations. United Nations Removing U.S. Armed Forces From Bosnia And Herzegovina 17 March 1998    1998 Ron Paul 26:13 But at the same time we win those kind of votes, and there is a strong sentiment here in the Congress when we are required to vote and there is certainly a strong sentiment among the American people that we ought to be dealing with our problems here at home, we ought not to assume the role of world policemen, and we ought to mind our own business, and we ought to be concerned about the sovereignty of the United States, rather than sending our troops around the world under the auspices of the United Nations and NATO and literally giving up our sovereignty to international bodies. We were very confused as to who was really in charge of foreign policy in Iraq, whether it was Kofi Annan or whether it was our President. United Nations Bombing Iraq 18 March 1998    1998 Ron Paul 27:7 The Persian Gulf War was fought with the assumption that the administration got the authority from the United Nations. If we are to express ourselves and to defend our national sovereignty, we should have the Congress vote positive on this resolution because it is so critical. United Nations Conference Report on H.R. 1757, Foreign Affairs Reform And Restructuring Act Of 1998 26 March 1998    1998 Ron Paul 28:1 Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, last year’s attempts by some in Congress to tie the Mexico City Policy to the issues of funding for the United Nations (UN) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) this week come back to haunt those of us who believe in the sanctity of human life, the inviolability of US Sovereignty, and the rights of the U.S. taxpayers to keep the fruits of their own labor. This week, we see, the “grand deal” struck which will see liberals back down from their opposition to Mexico City Language in exchange for conservative members voting to support funding of the United Nations, affirmative action, peacekeeping activities, and the National Endowment for Democracy. United Nations Conference Report on H.R. 1757, Foreign Affairs Reform And Restructuring Act Of 1998 26 March 1998    1998 Ron Paul 28:5 UNITED NATIONS The United Nations is an organization which frequently acts in a manner contrary to the sovereign interests of the United States. As such, I have sponsored legislation to get the United States out of this organization. Currently, the most pressing battle is to stop the US from paying phony “back dues” which we supposedly “owe” this organization. Congressman ROSCOE BARTLETT put forward a bill to stop any payment of this phony UN debt and I proudly cosponsored Mr. BARTLETT’s legislation. United Nations Conference Report on H.R. 1757, Foreign Affairs Reform And Restructuring Act Of 1998 26 March 1998    1998 Ron Paul 28:8 THE SO-CALLED “BARGAIN” The so-called bargain here is maintaining the flawed Mexico City language in exchange for paying the alleged back-dues to the United Nations. But this, from a true conservative standpoint, is a double negative. In a world of so-called give-and-take, this is a double-take. This is no bargain at all. Obviously, the Mexico City policy is riddled with fungibility holes in the first place. Moreover, it is morally repugnant to undermine our nation’s integrity by trading votes in this fashion. Worse still, it is now apparent how willing “some” members have become to water the Mexico City Policy down still further in order to get President Clinton to sign legislation which shouldn’t exist in the first place. Even the abortion restrictive language has been diluted to state that “the President could waive the restriction on funding groups that perform or promote abortion, but such a waiver would automatically reduce total U.S. funding for family planning activities to $356 million, 11% less then current appropriations. In other words, Abortion is A-O-K if done with 11% fewer taxpayer dollars. Now that’s not worth compromising principle. United Nations Conference Report on H.R. 1757, Foreign Affairs Reform And Restructuring Act Of 1998 26 March 1998    1998 Ron Paul 28:9 “PEACEKEEPING” This compromise authorizes $430 million for U.S. contributions to our “police the world” program carried out through various arms of the United Nations. International peacekeeping operations are currently ongoing in the Middle East, Angola, Cambodia, Western Sahara, and the former Yugoslavia. Additionally, the measure authorizes $146 million to international operation in the Sinai and Cypress. United Nations Conference Report on H.R. 1757, Foreign Affairs Reform And Restructuring Act Of 1998 26 March 1998    1998 Ron Paul 28:10 ADDTIONALLY This “agreement” authorizes $1.8 Billion for multilateral assistance in excess of the previously mentioned contribution to the United Nations; $60 million dollars for the National Endowment for Democracy; $20 million for the Asia Foundation; $22 million for the East-West Center for the study of Asian and Pacific Affairs; $1.3 billion for international migration and refugee assistance and an additional $160 million to transport refugees from the republics of the former Soviet Union to Israel. Also, $100 million is authorized to fund radio broadcasts to Cuba, Asia and a study on the feasibility of doing so in Iran. United Nations Conference Report on H.R. 1757, Foreign Affairs Reform And Restructuring Act Of 1998 26 March 1998    1998 Ron Paul 28:13 CONCLUSION Fortunately, many genuinely conservative pro-life and pro-sovereignty groups are making it known that they do not support this so-called “compromise.” I, for one, refuse to participate in any such illusion and oppose any effort to pay even one penny of U.S. taxpayer dollars to the United Nations, subsidize family planning around the world, and intervene at U.S. taxpayer expense in every corner of the globe. United Nations Unfortunate Passage Of Foreign Affairs Conference Report 27 March 1998    1998 Ron Paul 29:2 But, unfortunately, the process only adds to the cynicism that many Americans hold for the U.S. Congress. Nearly a billion dollars were appropriated for the controversial back dues to the United Nations, which for many of us was not owed. United Nations Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act 31 March 1998    1998 Ron Paul 31:2 One of the truly positive aspects of H.R. 3579 is Sec. 3002 stating that “none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be made available for the conduct of offensive operations by United States Armed Forces against Iraq for the purpose of obtaining compliance by Iraq with United Nations Security Council Resolutions relating to inspection and destruction of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq unless such operations are specifically authorized by a law enacted after the date of the enactment of this Act.” This language is virtually identical to H.R. 3208, a bill I introduced in February of this year to require Congressional consent prior to any offensive attack by the United States on the Republic of Iraq. United Nations Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act 31 March 1998    1998 Ron Paul 31:6 There is absolutely no moral or constitutional reason to go to war with Iraq or further intervene in Bosnia at this time. To go to war to enforce the dictates of the United Nations, or to play the part of ‘policemen of the world,’ offends the sensibilities of all who seek to follow the Constitution. I refuse to participate in (or fund) an action which would possibly expose even one soldier to risk when there is absolutely no immediate threat to the territory of the United States. United Nations United Nations Money Came From Defense Department 20 May 1998    1998 Ron Paul 53:3 I think another point that we ought to make is, how did they get any money already? They got it from the Defense Department. We did not even appropriate the money. They have already started it. They have used American taxpayers’ money without a direct appropriation from this Congress, and it is about time we stopped that type of legislation. That is the point. Where did the money come from? The Defense Department. It goes over into the United Nations for meddling, meddling overseas. It is taken away, literally, from defense. United Nations United Nations Money Came From Defense Department 20 May 1998    1998 Ron Paul 53:5 I think it is policy that needs to be addressed. It is the policy that allows our administration to do this, because there is too much complicity in allowing the United Nations to assume our sovereignty. United Nations United Nations Money Came From Defense Department 20 May 1998    1998 Ron Paul 53:6 That is the point here. The American people deserve better protection. They deserve better protection of their money. They deserve better protection of their youngsters who may get drafted and may get sent overseas. There is a great deal of danger in the Bosnia and Kosovo area, yet here we are talking about starting a new U.N. organization that unfortunately dwells on the term and brags about rapidly deployable. That is the last thing we need from the United Nations. I would like to slow it up, but now they want to take away our sovereignty to go and get involved more easily than ever and more quickly than ever. United Nations United Nations Money Came From Defense Department 20 May 1998    1998 Ron Paul 53:7 So this is absolutely the wrong direction that we are going in today. This is a further extension of the notion that our obligation is to police the world. We are supposed to make the world safe for democracy. Just think, since World War II, we have not had one declared war, but we sure have been fighting a lot. We have lost well over 100,000 men killed. We have lost, we have had hundreds of thousands of men injured because we have a policy that carelessly allows us to intervene in the affairs of other nations, and we allow the United Nations to assume too much control over our foreign policy. United Nations Campaign Finance Reform 16 June 1998    1998 Ron Paul 59:8 There are many groups who come to Washington who do not come to buy influence, but they come to try to influence their government, which is a very legitimate thing. Think of the groups that come here who want to defend the Second Amendment. Think of the groups that want to defend right to life. Think of the groups that want to defend the principles of the American Civil Liberties Union and the First Amendment. And then there are groups who would defend property rights, and there will be groups who will come who will be lobbyist types and influential groups, and they want to influence elections, and they may be adamantly opposed to the United Nations and interference in foreign policies overseas. They have a legitimate right to come here. United Nations Iraq — Part 1 5 October 1998    1998 Ron Paul 107:6 Just a few months ago, or last November, we passed a resolution, and the resolution was H.R. 137. It sounded very general and very benign, and it talked about the atrocities caused by Saddam Hussein, and we asked to condemn and also to set up a U.N. commission to study this and give the U.N. authority to pursue arrests and convict and try Saddam Hussein. So this is not something we are doing for the interests of the United States. We are doing this under the interests of the United Nations, but we are the spokesperson for them. United Nations Resolution On Saddam Hussein 17 December 1998    1998 Ron Paul 124:10 One evident outcome of the anti-sovereignty philosophy is our dependence on institutions such as the United Nations. It is an affront to our nation’s sovereignty and our constitution that the President presently launches war on Iraq under the aegis of a UN resolution but without the Constitutionally required authorization by the United States Congress. United Nations How Long Will The War With Iraq Go On Before Congress Notices? 2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 3:2 The recent escalation of bombing in Iraq has caused civilian casualties to mount. The Clinton administration claims U.N. resolution 687, passed in 1991, gives him the legal authority to continue this war. We have perpetuated hostilities and sanctions for more than 8 years on a country that has never threatened our security, and the legal justification comes from not the U.S. Congress, as the Constitution demands, but from a clearly unconstitutional authority, the United Nations. United Nations How Long Will The War With Iraq Go On Before Congress Notices? 2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 3:5 This all changed after World War II with our membership in the United Nations. As bad as it is to allow our presidents to usurp congressional authority to wage war, it is much worse for the President to share this sovereign right with an international organization that requires us to pay more than our fair share while we get a vote no greater than the rest. United Nations Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War 2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 4:9 This policy of allowing our Presidents unlimited authority to wage war has been in place since the end of World War II, although abuse to a lesser degree has occurred since the beginning of the 20th century. Specifically, since joining the United Nations congressional authority to determine when and if our troops will fight abroad has been seriously undermined. From Truman’s sending of troops to Korea to Bush’s Persian Gulf War, we have seen big wars fought, tens of thousands killed, hundreds of thousands wounded and hundreds of billions of dollars wasted. U.S. security, never at risk, has been needlessly jeopardized by the so-called peacekeeping missions and police exercises while constitutional law has been seriously and dangerously undermined. United Nations Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War 2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 4:13 Even the Congressional permission to pursue the Persian Gulf War was an afterthought, since President Bush emphatically stated that it was unnecessary, as he received his authority from the United Nations. United Nations Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War 2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 4:20 By what stretch of the imagination can one say that these military actions can be considered defensive in nature? The best way we can promote support for our troops is employ them in a manner that is the least provocative. They must be given a mission confined to defending the United States, not policing the world or taking orders from the United Nations or serving the special commercial interests of U.S. corporations around the world. United Nations War Power Authority Should Be Returned To Congress 9 March 1999    1999 Ron Paul 13:11 Vague police actions authorized by the United Nations or NATO, and implemented by the President without congressional approval, invites disasters with perpetual foreign military entanglements. The concept of national sovereignty and the rule of law must be respected or there is no purpose for the Constitution. United Nations Kosovo War Resolution 11 March 1999    1999 Ron Paul 18:7 Where does the President claim he gets his authority? Does he come to us? Has he asked us for this? No, he assumes he has the authority. He has already threatened that what we do here will have no effect on his decision. He is going to do what he thinks he should do anyway. He does not come and ask for permission. Where does he get this authority? Sometimes the Presidents, since World War II, have assumed it comes from the United Nations. That means that Congress has reneged on its responsibility. United Nations Kosovo War Resolution 11 March 1999    1999 Ron Paul 18:8 We do not just give it to the President, we give it to the President plus the United Nations or NATO. And when we joined NATO and the United Nations, it was explicitly said it was not to be inferred that this takes away the sovereignty and the decision-making powers of the individual countries and their legislative bodies. And yet we have now, for quite a few decades, allowed this power to gravitate into the hands of the President. United Nations War Powers Resolution 17 March 1999    1999 Ron Paul 20:4 This is even more exasperating knowing that upon joining both NATO and the United Nations it was made explicitly clear that no loss of sovereignty would occur and all legislative bodies of member States would retain their legal authority to give or deny support for any proposed military action. United Nations U.S. Military Action Taking Place in Serbia is Unconstitutional 24 March 1999    1999 Ron Paul 22:7 Only Congress can decide the issue of war. Congress cannot transfer the constitutional war power to the President or to NATO or to the United Nations. The Senate resolution, however, specifically limits the use of force to air operations and missile strikes, but no war has ever been won with air power alone. The Milosevic problem will actually get worse with our attacks, and ground troops will likely follow. United Nations U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo 21 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 29:15 The KLA took on the Serbs, not the other way around. Whether or not one is sympathetic to Kosovo’s secession is not relevant. I for one prefer many small independent governments pledged not to aggress against their neighbors over the international special interest authoritarianism of NATO, the CIA, and the United Nations. United Nations U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo 21 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 29:21 The United States, along with the United Nations, in 1992 supported an arms embargo against Kosovo essentially making it impossible for the Kosovars to defend themselves against Serbia. Helping the Albanian Muslims is interpreted by some as token appeasement to the Arab oil countries unhappy with the advantage the Serbs got from the arms embargo. United Nations U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo 21 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 29:32 When our leaders sanctioned NATO in 1949, there were many patriotic Americans who questioned the wisdom and the constitutionality of this organization. It was by its charter to be strictly a defensive organization designed to defend Western Europe from any Soviet threat. The NATO charter clearly recognized the Security Council of the United Nations was responsible for the maintenance of international peace and security. United Nations U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo 21 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 29:36 Without the Soviets to worry about, NATO needed a mission, and stopping the evil Serbs fit the bill. It was convenient to ignore the evil Croates and the Kosovars, and it certainly was easy to forget the United Nations’, NATO’s, and the United States’ policies over the past decade that contributed to the mess in Yugoslavia. United Nations U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo 21 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 29:55 What does this hodgepodge philosophy here in the Congress mean for the future of peace and prosperity in general and NATO and the United Nations in particular? Pragmatism cannot prevail. Economically and socially it breeds instability, bankruptcy, economic turmoil and factionalism here at home. Internationally it will lead to the same results. United Nations Opposing Supplemental Appropriation 18 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 48:6 But the real principle here today that we are voting on is whether or not we are going to fund an illegal, unconstitutional war. It does not follow the rules of our Constitution. It does not follow the rules of the United Nations Treaty. It does not follow the NATO Treaty. And here we are just permitting it, endorsing it but further funding it. This does not make any sense. United Nations Opposing Endless War In Kosovo 10 June 1999    1999 Ron Paul 56:7 No wonder there is anti-American hostility existing around the world, because we believe that we can tell everybody what to do. We can deliver an ultimatum to them. If they do not do exactly what we say, whether it is under NATO or the United Nations or by ourselves stating it, what happens, we say, “If you do not listen to us, we are going to bomb you.” United Nations On The United Nations And Embassy Security 19 July 1999    1999 Ron Paul 78:3 But in typical fashion, about all we have been offered so far has been just to put more money into our embassies and never raising the question about why our embassies might be more vulnerable. My amendment deals with that, because I would like to deal with the foreign policy involved with our commitment to the United Nations. United Nations On The United Nations And Embassy security 19 July 1999    1999 Ron Paul 79:2 Mr. Chairman, I am not addressing the imperfections of the United Nations. I am addressing the imperfection of our policy with the United Nations, which is a lot different. United Nations On The United Nations And Embassy security 19 July 1999    1999 Ron Paul 79:3 We ignore the rule of law; we ignore international law when it pleases us. We did not accept the United Nations role when it came to Kosovo. We did not even accept NATO when it came to Kosovo. What we did, we just totally ignored it. United Nations On The United Nations And Embassy security 19 July 1999    1999 Ron Paul 79:4 We invaded a sovereign nation. We did not abide by the rules of the United Nations. Then when we needed rescue from our policy, then we go limping to the United Nations to come in and please save our policy in Kosovo. United Nations On The United Nations And Embassy security 19 July 1999    1999 Ron Paul 79:6 So I say that we should have a policy that is designed for the sovereignty of this Nation; that we should not have troops serving under the United Nations; that we should not pretend to be a member of the United Nations and pretend to be a member of NATO and then not even follow the rules that have been laid down and that we have agreed to. United Nations On The United Nations And Embassy security 19 July 1999    1999 Ron Paul 79:7 Generally, we always make our problems worse. Our wars are endless, and our occupations are endless. Someday we are going to have to wake up and design a new policy because this will not stop as long as we capitulate to the use of the United Nations and try to sacrifice our sovereignty to these international parties. United Nations On The United Nations And Embassy security 19 July 1999    1999 Ron Paul 79:8 Now, this does not get us out of the United Nations. It is a step in that direction, obviously. But it is a step in the right direction because I think it is the proper use of our military if we do not capitulate and put it under NATO and put it in the United Nations. We need to use our military strictly in the defense of U.S. sovereignty. United Nations East Timor 28 September 1999    1999 Ron Paul 99:5 I would like to point out that some of those unintended consequences can be rather serious. I would like to call my colleagues’ attention to number 11 under the resolve clause, making these points. Number 11 says it “expresses support for a rapid and effective deployment throughout East Timor of the United Nations Security Council-endorsed multilateral force.” This means troops. United Nations East Timor 28 September 1999    1999 Ron Paul 99:9 Once again, we are endorsing the concept that, if we just subtly and quietly endorse a President’s ability and authority to go into a foreign country under the auspices of the United Nations, we do not have to deal with the real issue of war. But under 13(B), it explicitly restates the fact that a President in this situation can at least wage war for 60 days before we have much to say about it. United Nations East Timor 28 September 1999    1999 Ron Paul 99:10 I think this is dangerous. We should be going in the other direction. This is certainly what was expressed many, many times on the floor during the Kosovo debates. But we lost that debate, although we had a large number of colleagues that argued for non-involvement. We are now entrenched in Kosovo, and we are about to become entrenched in East Timor, not under the auspices of the United States, but under the United Nations. United Nations A Republic, If You Can Keep It 31 January 2000    2000 Ron Paul 2:86 In addition to the military wars, liberty has also suffered from the domestic wars on poverty, literacy, drugs, homelessness privacy and many others. We have in the last 100 years gone from the accepted and cherished notion of a sovereign Nation to one of a globalist new world order. As we once had three separate branches of our government, the United Nations proudly uses its three branches, the World Bank, the IMF and the World Trade Organization to work their will in this new era of globalism. Because the U.S. is by far the strongest military industrial power, it can dictate the terms of these international institutions, protecting what we see as our various interests such as oil, along with satisfying our military industrial complex. Our commercial interests and foreign policy are no longer separate. This allows for subsidized profits while the taxpayers are forced to protect huge corporations against any losses from overseas investments. The argument that we go about the world out of humanitarian concerns for those suffering, which was the excuse for bombing Serbia, is a farce. As bad as it is that average Americans are forced to subsidize such a system, we additionally are placed in greater danger because of our arrogant policy of bombing nations that do not submit to our wishes. This generates the hatred directed toward America, even if at times it seems suppressed, and exposes us to a greater threat of terrorism since this is the only vehicle our victims can use to retaliate against a powerful military state. United Nations A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2 2 February 2000    2000 Ron Paul 5:3 Although nearly 100,000 American battle deaths have occurred since World War II and both big and small wars have been fought almost continuously, there has not been a congressional declaration of war since 1941. Our Presidents now fight wars not only without explicit congressional approval but also in the name of the United Nations, with our troops now serving under foreign commanders. United Nations A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2 2 February 2000    2000 Ron Paul 5:109 The only way the supporters of big government can stop the Internet will be to tax, regulate, and monitor it. Although it is a major undertaking, plans are already being laid to do precisely that. Big government proponents are anxious to make the tax on the Internet an international tax, as advocated by the United Nations, apply the Eschelon principle used to monitor all overseas phone calls to the Internet, and prevent the development of private encryption that would guarantee privacy on the Internet. United Nations Amendment No. 5 Offered By Mr. Paul 30 March 2000    2000 Ron Paul 22:5 I am quite convinced that, when most of the Members go back to their districts, they never brag and they never say that, “I go to Washington, and I always vote for the United States to be the policemen of the world. enjoy deferring to the United Nations and NATO forces for us to pursue some of our policies overseas.” Quite frankly, I believe most of us go home and say that we do not believe that the United States should be the policemen of the world. United Nations WHAT IS FREE TRADE? May 2, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 29:36 This has not just happened 5 years ago, there has been a gradual erosion of the concept of national sovereignty. It occurred certainly after World War II with the introduction of the United Nations, and now, under current conditions, we do not even ask the Congress to declare war, yet we still fight a lot of wars. We send troops all over the world and we are involved in combat all the time, and our presidents tell us they get the authority from a UN resolution. So we have gradually lost the concept of national sovereignty. United Nations WHAT IS FREE TRADE? May 2, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 29:39 So it is not like it has been hidden, it is not like it is a secret. It is something that those who disagree with me about liberty and the Constitution, they believe in internationalism and the World Trade Organization and the United Nations, and they certainly have the right to that belief, but it contradicts everything America stands for and it contradicts our Constitution, so, therefore, we should not allow this to go unchallenged. United Nations WITHDRAWING APPROVAL OF UNITED STATES FROM AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION June 21, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 45:10 It is said that the WTO has no control over our sovereignty. That is like saying the U.N. has no control of our sovereignty. Yet what body in the world directs our foreign policy? Where do we send troops around the world? Why do we put our troops under U.N. command? Where do we get authority to march into Kosovo and Somalia? From the United Nations. The WTO is the same. United Nations World Trade Organization 21 June 2000    2000 Ron Paul 46:6 It is said that the WTO has no control over our sovereignty. That is like saying the U.N. has no control of our sovereignty. Yet what body in the world directs our foreign policy? Where do we send troops around the world? Why do we put our troops under U.N. command? Where do we get authority to march into Kosovo and Somalia? From the United Nations. The WTO is the same. United Nations AMERICA’S ROLE IN THE UNITED NATIONS September 18, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 77:1 Mr. Speaker, over a half a century has transpired since the United States of America became a member of the United Nations. Purporting to act pursuant to the treaty powers of the Constitution, the President of the United States signed, and the United States Senate ratified, the charter of the United Nations. Yet, the debate in government circles over the United Nations’ charter scarcely has touched on the question of the constitutional power of the United States to enter such an agreement. Instead, the only questions addressed concerned the respective roles that the President and Congress would assume upon the implementation of that charter. United Nations AMERICA’S ROLE IN THE UNITED NATIONS September 18, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 77:3 At first, it appeared that Congress would take control of America’s participation in the United Nations. But in the enactment of the United Nations’ participation act on December 20, 1945, Congress laid down several rules by which America’s participation would be governed. Among those rules was the requirement that before the President of the United States could deploy United States Armed Forces in service of the United Nations, he was required to submit to Congress for its specific approval the numbers and types of Armed Forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of the facilities and assistance including rights of passage to be made available to the United Nations Security Council on its call for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security. United Nations AMERICA’S ROLE IN THE UNITED NATIONS September 18, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 77:4 Since the passage of the United Nations Participation Act, however, congressional control of presidential foreign policy initiatives, in cooperation with the United Nations, has been more theoretical than real. Presidents from Truman to the current President have again and again presented Congress with already-begun military actions, thus forcing Congress’s hand to support United States troops or risk the accusation of having put the Nation’s servicemen and service women in unnecessary danger. Instead of seeking congressional approval of the use of the United States Armed Forces in service of the United Nations, presidents from Truman to Clinton have used the United Nations Security Council as a substitute for congressional authorization of the deployment of United States Armed Forces in that service. United Nations AMERICA’S ROLE IN THE UNITED NATIONS September 18, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 77:5 This transfer of power from Congress to the United Nations has not, however, been limited to the power to make war. Increasingly, Presidents are using the U.N. not only to implement foreign policy in pursuit of international peace, but also domestic policy in pursuit of international, environmental, economic, education, social welfare and human rights policy, both in derogation of the legislative prerogatives of Congress and of the 50 State legislatures, and further in derogation of the rights of the American people to constitute their own civil order. United Nations AMERICA’S ROLE IN THE UNITED NATIONS September 18, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 77:6 As Cornell University government professor Jeremy Rabkin has observed, although the U.N. charter specifies that none of its provisions ‘shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State,’ nothing has ever been found so ‘essentially domestic’ as to exclude U.N. intrusions. United Nations AMERICA’S ROLE IN THE UNITED NATIONS September 18, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 77:7 The release in July 2000 of the U.N. Human Development Report provides unmistakable evidence of the universality of the United Nations’ jurisdictional claims. Boldly proclaiming that global integration is eroding national borders, the report calls for the implementation and, if necessary, the imposition of global standards of economic and social justice by international agencies and tribunals. In a special contribution endorsing this call for the globalization of domestic policymaking, United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan wrote, ‘Above all, we have committed ourselves to the idea that no individual shall have his or her human rights abused or ignored. The idea is enshrined in the charter of the United Nations. The United Nations’ achievements in the area of human rights over the last 50 years are rooted in the universal acceptance of those rights enumerated in the Universal Declaration of Rights. Emerging slowly, but I believe, surely, is an international norm,’ and this is Annan’s words, ‘that must and will take precedence over concerns of State sovereignty.’ United Nations AMERICA’S ROLE IN THE UNITED NATIONS September 18, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 77:8 Although such a wholesale transfer of United States sovereignty to the United Nations as envisioned by Secretary General Annan has not yet come to pass, it will, unless Congress takes action. United Nations AMERICA’S ROLE IN THE UNITED NATIONS September 18, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 77:10 To date, Congress has attempted to curb the abuse of power of the United Nations by urging the United Nations to reform itself, threatening the nonpayment of assessments and dues allegedly owed by the United States and thereby cutting off the United Nations’ major source of funds. America’s problems with the United Nations will not, however, be solved by such reform measures. The threat posed by the United Nations to the sovereignty of the United States and independence is not that the United Nations is currently plagued by a bloated and irresponsible international bureaucracy. Rather, the threat arises from the United Nation’s Charter which — from the beginning — was a threat to sovereignty protections in the U.S. Constitution. The American people have not, however, approved of the Charter of the United Nations which, by its nature, cannot be the supreme law of the land for it was never ‘made under the Authority of the U.S.,’ as required by Article VI. United Nations AMERICA’S ROLE IN THE UNITED NATIONS September 18, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 77:11 H.R. 1146 — The American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 1999 is my solution to the continued abuses of the United Nations. The U.S. Congress can remedy its earlier unconstitutional action of embracing the Charter of the United Nations by enacting H.R. 1146. The U.S. Congress, by passing H.R. 1146, and the U.S. president, by signing H.R. 1146, will heed the wise counsel of our first president, George Washington, when he advised his countrymen to ‘steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world,’ lest the nation’s security and liberties be compromised by endless and overriding international commitments. An excerpt from Herbert W. Titus’ Constitutional Analysis of the United Nations United Nations AMERICA’S ROLE IN THE UNITED NATIONS September 18, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 77:12 In considering the recent United Nations meetings and the United States’ relation to that organization and its affront to U.S. sovereignty, we would all do well to read carefully Professor Herbert W. Titus’ paper on the United Nations of which I have provided this excerpt: United Nations AMERICA’S ROLE IN THE UNITED NATIONS September 18, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 77:13 It is commonly assumed that the Charter of the United Nations is a treaty. It is not. Instead, the Charter of the United Nations is a constitution. As such, it is illegitimate, having created a supranational government, deriving its powers not from the consent of the governed (the people of the United States of America and peoples of other member nations) but from the consent of the peoples’ government officials who have no authority to bind either the American people nor any other nation’s people to any terms of the Charter of the United Nations. United Nations AMERICA’S ROLE IN THE UNITED NATIONS September 18, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 77:14 By definition, a treaty is a contract between or among independent and sovereign nations, obligatory on the signatories only when made by competent governing authorities in accordance with the powers constitutionally conferred upon them. I Kent, Commentaries on American Law 163 (1826); Burdick, The Law of the American Constitution section 34 (1922) Even the United Nations Treaty Collection states that a treaty is (1) a binding instrument creating legal rights and duties (2) concluded by states or international organizations with treaty-making power (3) governed by international law. United Nations AMERICA’S ROLE IN THE UNITED NATIONS September 18, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 77:15 By contrast, a charter is a constitution creating a civil government for a unified nation or nations and establishing the authority of that government. Although the United Nations Treaty Collection defines a ‘charter’ as a ‘constituent treaty,’ leading international political authorities state that ‘[t]he use of the word ‘Charter’ [in reference to the founding document of the United Nations] . . . emphasizes the constitutional nature of this instrument.’ Thus, the preamble to the Charter of the United Nations declares ‘that the Peoples of the United Nations have resolved to combine their efforts to accomplish certain aims by certain means.’ The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary 46 (B. Simma, ed.) (Oxford Univ. Press, NY: 1995) (Hereinafter U.N. Charter Commentary). Consistent with this view, leading international legal authorities declare that the law of the Charter of the United Nations which governs the authority of the United Nations General Assembly and the United Nations Security Council is ‘similar . . . to national constitutional law,’ proclaiming that ‘because of its status as a constitution for the world community,’ the Charter of the United Nations must be construed broadly, making way for ‘implied powers’ to carry out the United Nations’ ‘comprehensive scope of duties, especially the maintenance of international peace and security and its orientation towards international public welfare.’ Id. at 27 United Nations AMERICA’S ROLE IN THE UNITED NATIONS September 18, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 77:16 The United Nations Treaty Collection confirms the appropriateness of this ‘constitutional interpretive’ approach to the Charter of the United Nations with its statement that the charter may be traced ‘back to the Magna Carta (the Great Charter) of 1215,’ a national constitutional document. As a constitutional document, the Magna Carta not only bound the original signatories, the English barons and the king, but all subsequent English rulers, including Parliament, conferring upon all Englishmen certain rights that five hundred years later were claimed and exercised by the English people who had colonized America. United Nations AMERICA’S ROLE IN THE UNITED NATIONS September 18, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 77:19 In like manner, the Charter of the United Nations is considered to be a permanent ‘constitution for the universal society,’ and consequently, to be construed in accordance with its broad and unchanging ends but in such a way as to meet changing times and changing relations among the nations and peoples of the world. U.N. Charter Commentary at 28-44. United Nations AMERICA’S ROLE IN THE UNITED NATIONS September 18, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 77:21 Taking advantage of the universal appeal of the American constitutional tradition, the preamble of the Charter of the United Nations opens with ‘We the peoples of the United Nations.’ But, unlike the Constitution of the United States of America, the Charter of the United Nations does not call for ratification by conventions of the elected representatives of the people of the signatory nations. Rather, Article 110 of the Charter of the United Nations provides for ratification ‘by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.’ Such a ratification process would have been politically and legally appropriate if the charter were a mere treaty. But the Charter of the United Nations is not a treaty; it is a constitution. United Nations AMERICA’S ROLE IN THE UNITED NATIONS September 18, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 77:22 First of all, Charter of the United Nations, executed as an agreement in the name of the people, legally and politically displaced previously binding agreements upon the signatory nations. Article 103 provides that ‘[i]n the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail.’ Because the 1787 Constitution of the United States of America would displace the previously adopted Articles of Confederation under which the United States was being governed, the drafters recognized that only if the elected representatives of the people at a constitutional convention ratified the proposed constitution, could it be lawfully adopted as a constitution. Otherwise, the Constitution of the United States of America would be, legally and politically, a treaty which could be altered by any state’s legislature as it saw fit. The Founders’ Constitution, supra, at 648-52. United Nations AMERICA’S ROLE IN THE UNITED NATIONS September 18, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 77:24 Article V of the Constitution of the United States of America spells out that amendment process, providing two methods for adopting constitutional changes, neither of which requires unanimous consent of the states of the Union. Had the Constitution of the United States of America been a treaty, such unanimous consent would have been required. Similarly, the Charter of the United Nations may be amended without the unanimous consent of its member states. According to Article 108 of the Charter of the United Nations, amendments may be proposed by a vote of two-thirds of the United Nations General Assembly and may become effective upon ratification by a vote of two-thirds of the members of the United Nations, including all the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. According to Article 109 of the Charter of the United Nations, a special conference of members of the United Nations may be called ‘for the purpose of reviewing the present Charter’ and any changes proposed by the conference may ‘take effect when ratified by two-thirds of the Members of the United Nations including all the permanent members of the Security Council.’ Once an amendment to the Charter of the United Nations is adopted then that amendment ‘shall come into force for all Members of the United Nations,’ even those nations who did not ratify the amendment, just as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America is effective in all of the states, even though the legislature of a state or a convention of a state refused to ratify. Such an amendment process is totally foreign to a treaty. See Id., at 575-84. United Nations AMERICA’S ROLE IN THE UNITED NATIONS September 18, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 77:26 As a direct consequence of this original power of the people to constitute a new government, the Congress under the new constitution was authorized to admit new states to join the original 13 states without submitting the admission of each state to the 13 original states. In like manner, the Charter of the United Nations, forged in the name of the ‘peoples’ of those nations, established a new international government with independent powers to admit to membership whichever nations the United Nations governing authorities chose without submitting such admissions to each individual member nation for ratification. See Charter of the United Nations, Article 4, Section 2. No treaty could legitimately confer upon the United Nations General Assembly such powers and remain within the legal and political definition of a treaty. United Nations AMERICA’S ROLE IN THE UNITED NATIONS September 18, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 77:27 By invoking the name of the ‘peoples of the United Nations,’ then, the Charter of the United Nations envisioned a new constitution creating a new civil order capable of not only imposing obligations upon the subscribing nations, but also imposing obligations directly upon the peoples of those nations. In his special contribution to the United Nations Human Development Report 2000, United Nations Secretary-General Annan made this claim crystal clear: United Nations AMERICA’S ROLE IN THE UNITED NATIONS September 18, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 77:28 Even though we are an organization of Member States, the rights and ideals the United Nations exists to protect are those of the peoples. No government has the right to hide behind national sovereignty in order to violate the human rights or fundamental freedoms of its peoples. Human Development Report 2000 31 (July 2000) [Emphasis added.] United Nations AMERICA’S ROLE IN THE UNITED NATIONS September 18, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 77:29 While no previous United Nations’ secretary general has been so bold, Annan’s proclamation of universal jurisdiction over ‘human rights and fundamental freedoms’ simply reflects the preamble of the Charter of the United Nations which contemplated a future in which the United Nations operates in perpetuity ‘to save succeeding generations from the scourge of ware . . . to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights . . . to establish conditions under which justice . . . can be maintained, and to promote social progress and between standards of life in larger freedom.’ Such lofty goals and objectives are comparable to those found in the preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America: ‘to . . . establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the Blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity . . .’ United Nations AMERICA’S ROLE IN THE UNITED NATIONS September 18, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 77:30 There is, however, one difference that must not be overlooked. The Constitution of the United States of America is a legitimate constitution, having been submitted directly to the people for ratification by their representatives elected and assembled solely for the purpose of passing on the terms of that document. The Charter of the United Nations, on the other hand, is an illegitimate constitution, having only been submitted to the Untied States Senate for ratification as a treaty. Thus, the Charter of the United Nations, not being a treaty, cannot be made the supreme law of our land by compliance with Article II, Section 2 of Constitution of the United States of America. Therefore, the Charter of the United Nations is neither politically nor legally binding upon the United States of America or upon its people. United Nations THREATS TO FINANCIAL FREEDOM October 19, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 88:33 This new cartel of high-tax nations, limping along with their huge, unsustainable welfare state budgets, are engaged in a grotesque rebirth of colonialism and imperialism of a financial nature. They are willing to trample the sovereignty of small nations. In fact, the United Nations last year said national sovereignty must be compromised in order to impose a world financial order of high taxes and no financial privacy. Such a radical demand mocks international law. It makes vassal states out of sovereign nations. United Nations CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC — February 07, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 7:89 For over 50 years, there has been a precise move toward one-world government at the expense of our own sovereignty. Our presidents claim that authority to wage war can come from the United Nations or NATO resolutions, in contradiction of our Constitution and everything our Founding Fathers believed. US troops are now required to serve under foreign commanders and wear UN insignias. Refusal to do so prompts a court martial. United Nations POTENTIAL FOR WAR February 08, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 10:15 For over 50 years, there has been a precise move towards one-world government at the expense of our own sovereignty. Our Presidents claim that our authority to wage wars come from the United Nations or NATO resolution, in contradiction to our Constitution and everything our Founding Fathers believed. United Nations Congressman Paul’s Statement on Dietary Supplement Regulation and Research March 20, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 21:5 The freedom of consumers to use, or even obtain truthful information about, dietary supplements could also be threatened by the United States participation in the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex). Codex is a part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and the World Health Organization Food Standard Program operating under the authority of the Sanitary Phytosanitary Agreement and the Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement. United Nations AMERICA NOT GETTING FAIR SHAKE FROM UNITED NATIONS — May 10, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 31:1 Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today, as we are getting ready to adjourn, we have left the foreign relations authorization bill unfinished. I serve on the Committee on International Relations, and I was anxious to present several amendments in dealing with especially the United Nations. Unfortunately, those amendments were not permitted. United Nations AMERICA NOT GETTING FAIR SHAKE FROM UNITED NATIONS — May 10, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 31:2 The amendments that we are dealing with I see as being very small token efforts to improve the bill, but not really dealing with the essence of whether or not we should be in the United Nations or further funding the peacekeeping missions and doing many of the things that I believe sincerely should not be engaged in if we followed the Constitution, and many Americans agree with this. United Nations AMERICA NOT GETTING FAIR SHAKE FROM UNITED NATIONS — May 10, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 31:3 I think we are at a point now where a growing number of Americans feel like we are not getting a fair shake from the United Nations. I have been preaching this message for quite a few years, but I believe the United Nations itself is starting to make my point. United Nations AMERICA NOT GETTING FAIR SHAKE FROM UNITED NATIONS — May 10, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 31:5 I do not see the benefits of belonging to the United Nations. I see too many disadvantages. If it were just a discussion group and trying to bring people together, that would be one thing; but we have gone to an extreme. This is an extreme position, as far as I am concerned, to belong to the United Nations and deliver so much of our sovereignty to the United Nations today. United Nations AMERICA NOT GETTING FAIR SHAKE FROM UNITED NATIONS — May 10, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 31:7 The conditions are not improving at all. They are asking for more and more funding. At the same time we sacrifice more and more of our sovereignty. On occasion we will stand up and say no, we do not want to participate in the Kyoto treaty or the International Criminal Court, and that is good. But the whole idea of this world government under the United Nations I think is something we should really challenge. United Nations AMERICA NOT GETTING FAIR SHAKE FROM UNITED NATIONS — May 10, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 31:8 Just January of this past year, it was noted that the United Nations proposed for the first time, although not ready to be passed, that we have an international tax placed on currency transactions to raise billions of dollars to be spent for international activities. Now, you say well, that is probably just a proposal and it will never happen. But even today, in Bosnia, the United Nations peacekeepers over there are tax collectors. There are not enough revenues being collected for certain governments, and the UN peacekeepers are there collecting taxes. So it is already happening that we are involved in tax collecting. United Nations AMERICA NOT GETTING FAIR SHAKE FROM UNITED NATIONS — May 10, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 31:9 I think that is the wrong way to go, and certainly we should be considering slashing these funds. I would have liked to have seen the removal of all the funds for peacekeeping missions. There is no national sovereignty reasons why we should put American troops under U.N. command in areas like Bosnia. I think that is the wrong way to go, I do not think the American people support this, and that we should reconsider our position and our relationship in the United Nations. United Nations H.R. 1646 10 May 2001    2001 Ron Paul 32:3 I will vote for the rule, recognizing the fact that it is hard to accommodate everyone, but nevertheless it is very clear that I have been an outspoken opponent of the United Nations, and the amendments that we will be discussing will really not deal with the essence of whether or not we should be involved as we are in foreign interventionism. I think we are tinkering on the edges and will not do much to improve the bill even if some of the amendments are passed, some of which I will support. United Nations H.R. 1646 10 May 2001    2001 Ron Paul 32:4 I do think there are some serious things that we must consider. One is the issue of national sovereignty. To support H.R. 1646, one has to vote to give up some of our national sovereignty to the United Nations. There is $844 million for peacekeeping missions. We know now that we live in an age when we go to war not by declaration of the U.S. Congress but we go to war under U.N. resolutions. When we vote for this bill, and if this bill is supported, that concept of giving up our sovereignty and going to war under U.N. resolutions is supported. United Nations H.R. 1646 10 May 2001    2001 Ron Paul 32:6 The United Nations have already laid plans for an international tax. This January it was proposed that the U.N. would like to put a tax on all currency transactions to raise $1.5 billion. This is abhorrent. This should be abhorrent to all of us. It should be abhorrent to all Americans that we would have an international tax imposed by the United Nations. United Nations H.R. 1646 10 May 2001    2001 Ron Paul 32:7 Already the United Nations is involved in tax collecting. In Bosnia right now, in Serbia, the U.N. has as one of their functions collecting taxes on goods coming into the country. There was a demonstration not too long ago by the Serbs objecting to this. The idea that U.N. soldiers, paid by the American taxpayers, are now tax collectors in Bosnia should arouse our concern. United Nations International Criminal Court 10 May 2001    2001 Ron Paul 33:5 The term “crimes of aggression”, as used in the treaty, is not specifically defined and therefore would, by design and effect, violate the vagueness doctrine and require the United States to receive prior United Nations Security Council approval and International Criminal Court confirmation before engaging in military action — thereby putting United States military officers in jeopardy of an International Criminal Court prosecution. The International Criminal Court Treaty creates the possibility that United States civilians, as well as United States military personnel, could be brought before a court that bypasses the due process requirements of the United States Constitution. United Nations Sudan Peace Act 13 June 2001    2001 Ron Paul 40:10 The legislative “tools” to be used to “facilitate” this aforementioned “comprehensive solution” are as frightening as the nation-building tactics. For example, “It is the sense of the Congress that . . . the United Nations should be used as a tool to facilitate peace and recovery in Sudan.” United Nations Sudan Peace Act 13 June 2001    2001 Ron Paul 40:11 One can only assume this is the same United Nations which booted the United States off its Human Rights Commission in favor of, as Canadian Sen. Jerahmiel S. Grafstein, called them recently, “those exemplars of human rights nations . . . Algeria, China, Saudi Arabia, Uganda, Armenia, Pakistan, Syria and Vietnam.” United Nations Sudan Peace Act 13 June 2001    2001 Ron Paul 40:14 Yes, Mr. Chairman, this bill truly has it all — an unconstitutional purpose, the morally bankrupt intervention in dealings between the affairs of foreign governments and their respective citizens in our attempt to police the world, more involvement by a United Nations proven inept at resolving civil conflicts abroad, the expansion of the SEC into State Department functions and a little corporate welfare for big oil, to boot. How can one not support these legislative efforts? United Nations Statement Paul Amendment to Defund the UN July 18, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 56:1 SEC. 801. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be used for any United States contribution to the United Nations or any affiliated agency of the United Nations. United Nations Statement Paul Amendment to Defund the UN July 18, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 56:4 Let me just read the amendment because it is just three lines. It says, “None of the funds appropriated in this act may be used for any United States contribution to the United Nations or any affiliated agency of the United Nations.” It would defund the United Nations. It would take away the dues that we pay the United Nations as well as the amount of money that we are paying to pay our back dues. United Nations Statement Paul Amendment to Defund the UN July 18, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 56:5 I think this is an appropriate time to discuss the reasonableness for our support for the United Nations. The government of the United States has continued to grow as our state sovereignty has gotten much smaller, but now we are losing a lot of sovereignty to an international government which is the United Nations. Just recently, the United States was humiliated by being voted off by secret ballot from the U.N. Human Rights Commission and Sudan was appointed in our place. How could anything be more humiliating. So democracy ruled, our vote counted as one, the same value as the vote of Red China or Sudan. But the whole notion that we would be put off the Human Rights Commission and Sudan, where there is a practice of slavery, is put on the Human Rights Commission should be an insult to all of us. United Nations Statement Paul Amendment to Defund the UN July 18, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 56:6 In committee, we dealt with this problem and we said, “Well, if the U.N. straightens up, then we’ll pay our dues this year; but maybe we’ll withhold our dues next year.” That is very, very weak; and it does not show any intent or show any rejection of what is going on in the United Nations. United Nations Statement Paul Amendment to Defund the UN July 18, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 56:7 It was mentioned earlier in debate on the gun issue that the U.N. is currently meeting up in New York dealing with the gun issue. There have been explicit proposals made at the United Nations to have worldwide gun control. No, they are not taking guns away from the government. They are taking guns away from civilians. United Nations Statement Paul Amendment to Defund the UN July 18, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 56:8 If anybody understands our history, they will know that taking guns from civilians is exactly opposite of what the Founders intended. In a nation like Afghanistan, they were able to defend the invasion of the Soviet Union because individuals had guns. Likewise, when the Nazis were murdering the Jews, the Jews had been denied the right to own guns. Now we are talking about the United Nations having international gun laws. There have been proposals made for an international tax on all financial transactions. Yes, it is true, it has not been passed, but these are the plans that have been laid and they are continued to be discussed and they are moving in that direction. United Nations Statement Paul Amendment to Defund the UN July 18, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 56:10 It was said the United Nations may have been set up to help preserve peace and help poor people, but it just does not happen. The poor pay the taxes and the international corporations gain the benefit. United Nations Statement Paul Amendment to Defund the UN July 18, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 56:13 But this presumption on our part that we can control the United Nations and arrest only those individuals that we do not like and allow the other ones to go free and that this will never apply to us, I think we are missing the point and it is a dangerous trend. Because you say, well, yes, we are powerful, we have the money and we have the weapons and we can dictate to the United Nations. They will not arrest us or play havoc with us. Yet at the same time we have already recognized that the U.N. Human Rights Commission which was voted on by a democratic vote kicked us in the face and kicked us off. United Nations Statement Paul Amendment to Defund the UN July 18, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 56:14 I think this is a time to think very seriously about whether this is wise to continue the funding of the United Nations. I think that a statement ought to be made. We should say, and the American people, I think, agree overwhelmingly that it is about time that we quit policing the world and paying the bills at the United Nations way out of proportion to our representation and at the same time being humiliated by being kicked off these commissions by majority vote. United Nations Banning U.S. Contributions To United Nations 18 July 2001    2001 Ron Paul 57:2 Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. PAUL: Page 108, after line 22, insert the following: TITLE VIII — ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS SEC. 801. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be used for any United States contribution for United Nations peacekeeping operations. The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House today, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) and a Member opposed each will control 10 minutes. Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition. The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. WOLF) will control 10 minutes in opposition. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL). (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) United Nations Banning U.S. Contributions To United Nations 18 July 2001    2001 Ron Paul 57:4 Mr. Chairman, quite possibly we will not have to take a long time on this. In many ways this is a similar amendment, but different with respect to as how the money would be spent after we send it to the United Nations. The amendment says, “None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be used for any United States contribution for the United Nations peacekeeping operations.” United Nations Banning U.S. Contributions To United Nations 18 July 2001    2001 Ron Paul 57:5 This is getting more specifically into the militarization of the United Nations and the unfairness of our bill that we get sent every year. We pay 31.7 percent of the peacekeeping missions. A lot of times we pay up front and pay in advance, and we do not get reimbursed. Then we hear a lot of complaints when we do not pay our dues. United Nations Banning U.S. Contributions To United Nations 18 July 2001    2001 Ron Paul 57:6 But back to what I said earlier, I just think the approach of using a United Nations standing army, which is what we are getting closer to, to go around and police the world in areas that we do not have justification based only on our national security, I see this money as being dangerously used and it invites trouble for us. United Nations Banning U.S. Contributions To United Nations 18 July 2001    2001 Ron Paul 57:11 We have given up a tremendous amount, and I believe it is time we stood up for the American people and the American taxpayer and say we ought to defend America, but we can deal with the problems of the world in a much different manner; not by militarizing and controlling it the best we can, the military operations of the United Nations, but pursuing the spreading of our values and our beliefs and the free market in a much different manner than by further taxation of the American people. United Nations Banning U.S. Contributions To United Nations 18 July 2001    2001 Ron Paul 57:14 Let me just close by saying that I urge a “yes” vote to stop the funding for the peacekeeping missions of the United Nations, believing very sincerely that they do not do much good and they do harm and potentially a great deal of harm in the future. They do not serve our national self-interests. We have the United Nations now involved in the Middle East, Sierra Leone, East Timor, Cambodia, West Sahara, and Yugoslavia. It requires a lot of money. The most likely thing to come of all of this will be more hostility toward America and more likelihood that we will be attacked by terrorists. United Nations Iran/Libya Sanctions Act 24 July 2001    2001 Ron Paul 64:2 First, the underlying Act places way too much authority both to make determinations and to grant waivers, in the hands of the President and the Executive Branch. As such, it is yet another unconstitutional delegation of authority which we ought not extend. Moreover, as the Act applies to Libya, the authority upon which the bill depends is a resolution of the United Nations. So, any member who is concerned with UN power should vote against this extension. United Nations Crazy For Kazakhstan 1 August 2001    2001 Ron Paul 69:7 [From the Washington Times, July 30, 2001] CRAZY FOR KAZAKHSTAN (By Bill Richardson) As secretary of energy and ambassador to the United Nations during the Clinton administration, I traveled three times to Kazakhstan to underscore the importance of this key Central Asian country to U.S. interests. Of all the countries rising from the ashes of the Soviet Union, few offer the promise of Kazakhstan. In terms of both economic potential and political stability, Kazakhstan is critical to the long-term success of the Central Asian nations. The Bush administration should continue our policy of engaging Kazakhstan to ensure that this key country moves towards the Western orbit and adopts continued market and political reforms. United Nations Expansion of NATO is a Bad Idea November 7, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 95:3 I, too, was a friend of Jerry Solomon. We came into the Congress together in 1978. One thing for sure that Jerry understood very clearly was the care that we must give to expanding our influence as well as sacrificing our sovereignty, because he was strongly opposed to the United Nations. United Nations Expansion of NATO is a Bad Idea November 7, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 95:4 As chairman of the Committee on Rules, he would permit my amendment to come up and at least debate the effectiveness of belonging to the United Nations, so I have fond memories of Jerry, especially in his support of my efforts to try to diminish the United Nations’ influence and the taking away of our sovereignty. United Nations The War On Terrorism November 29, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 98:22 In 1996, after five years of sanctions against Iraq and persistent bombings, CBS reporter Lesley Stahl asked our Ambassador to the United Nations, Madeline Albright, a simple question: “We have heard that a half million children have died (as a consequence of our policy against Iraq). Is the price worth it?” Albright’s response was “We think the price is worth it.” Although this interview won an Emmy award, it was rarely shown in the U.S. but widely circulated in the Middle East. Some still wonder why America is despised in this region of the world! United Nations Saddam Hussein 19 December 2001    2001 Ron Paul 107:14 As a matter of fact, if you want to go into Iraq and follow the rules and you are pretending you are following the rules, you ought to do a couple of things. If you believe in the United Nations, you have to go back to the United Nations, if you believe in the rule of law. Also you have to answer the question, why does this resolution need to be enforced versus other resolutions that have never been enforced? Why is it assumed that the United States has to enforce UN resolutions? When did it come to the point where the UN dictates foreign policy to us? United Nations Opposing Resolution For War With Iraq 19 December 2001    2001 Ron Paul 110:3 Everybody knows that I am not too keen on the United Nations, but I am not too keen on the idea that we can use the United Nations as we please. Sometimes we follow the rules, and sometimes we do not. I think if we are participating, the argument should be that we should follow the rules. United Nations Opposing Resolution For War With Iraq 19 December 2001    2001 Ron Paul 110:5 The other question I have about the rule of law and trying to follow the rules of the United Nations would be: Where have we gotten the authority to enforce the no-fly zones? The no-fly zones are really a contention in the Middle East, and have been a contention for a long time, because that, in combination with the embargoes and the sanctions against the Iraqi people is what the Arabs believe to be so detrimental to the children who have died in Iraq. United Nations Do Not Initiate War On Iraq March 20, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 19:8 Could any benefit come from all this warmongering? Possibly. Let us hope and pray so. It should be evident that big government is anathema to individual liberty. In a free society, the role of government is to protect the individual’s right to life and liberty. The biggest government of all, the U.N. consistently threatens personal liberties and U.S. sovereignty. But our recent move toward unilateralism hopefully will inadvertently weaken the United Nations. Our participation more often than not lately is conditioned on following the international rules and courts and trade agreements only when they please us, flaunting the consensus, without rejecting internationalism on principle- as we should. United Nations Do Not Initiate War On Iraq March 20, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 19:9 The way these international events will eventually play out is unknown, and in the process we expose ourselves to great danger. Instead of replacing today’s international government, (the United Nations, the IMF, the World Bank, the WTO, the international criminal court) with free and independent republics, it is more likely that we will see a rise of militant nationalism with a penchant for solving problems with arms and protectionism rather than free trade and peaceful negotiations. United Nations American Servicemember And Civilian Protection Act Of 2002 April 11, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 22:5 The Court itself, however, is an illegitimate body even by the United Nations’ own standards. The Statute of the International Criminal Court was enacted by a Conference of Diplomats convened by the United Nations General Assembly, whereas according to the UN Charter, the authority to create such a body lies only in the UN Security Council. United Nations Statement on the introduction of H. Res. 416, Expressing the Sense of the Congress regarding the International Criminal Court May 9, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 39:2 On Monday, May 6, President George W. Bush directed his representative to inform United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan that the United States "does not intend to become a party to the treaty [the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC)]." President Bush is to be highly commended for renouncing the U.S. signature on the ICC treaty, a bold first step toward protecting American servicemembers and citizens from the possibility of unwarranted and politically-motivated persecutions. United Nations Don’t Force Taxpayers to Fund Nation-Building in Afghanistan May 21, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 43:11 Among other harmful things, this legislation dramatically expands the drug war. Under the group we have installed in Afghanistan, opium production has skyrocketed. Now we are expected to go in and clean up the mess our allies have created. In addition, this bill will send some $60 million to the United Nations, to help fund its own drug eradication program. I am sure most Americans agree that we already send the United Nations too much of our tax money, yet this bill commits us to sending even more. United Nations Inspection or Invasion in Iraq? June 24, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 57:9 It is high time that Congress start questioning the hype and rhetoric emanating from the White House regarding Baghdad, because the leaked CIA plan is well timed to undermine the efforts underway in the United Nations to get weapons inspectors back to work in Iraq. In early July, the U.N. secretary-general will meet with Iraq’s foreign minister for a third round of talks on the return of the weapons monitors. A major sticking point is Iraqi concern over the use- or abuse- of such inspections by the U.S. for intelligence collection. United Nations Congress Sgould Think Twice Before Thrusting U.S. Into War September 4, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 81:12 There is a constitutional argument and a constitutional mistake that could be made. If we once again go to war, as we have done on so many occasions since World War II, without a clear declaration of war by Congress, we blatantly violate the Constitution. I fear we will once again go to war in a haphazard way, by executive order, or even by begging permission from the rotten, anti-American United Nations. This haphazard approach, combined with a lack of clearly defined goal for victory, makes it almost inevitable that true victory will not come. So we should look at this from a constitutional perspective. Congress should assume its responsibility, because war is declared by Congress, not by a President and not by a U.N. United Nations Avoid War With Iraq 4 September 2002    2002 Ron Paul 82:7 There is a constitutional argument and a constitutional mistake that could be made. If we once again go to war, as we have done on so many occasions since World War II, without a clear declaration of war and a clear goal of victory, a haphazard way of slipping into war by Executive Order or, heaven forbid, getting permission from the United Nations makes it so that it is almost inevitable that true victory will not come. United Nations The Price Of War 5 September 2002    2002 Ron Paul 83:29 If our interventions of the 20th century led to needless deaths and unwon wars and continuous unintended consequences, imagine what this new doctrine is about to unleash on the world. Our policy has prompted us to announce that our CIA will assassinate Saddam Hussein whenever it gets the chance, and that the government of Iraq is to be replaced. Evidence now has surfaced that the United Nations inspection teams in the 1990s definitely included American CIA agents who were collecting information on how to undermine the Iraqi government and continue with their routine bombing missions. United Nations The Price Of War 5 September 2002    2002 Ron Paul 83:54 We should all be aware that war is a failure of relationships between foreign powers. Since this is such a serious matter, our American tradition as established by the founders made certain that the executive is subservient to the more democratically responsive legislative branch on the issue of war. Therefore, no war is ever to be the prerogative of a President through his unconstitutional use of executive orders, nor should it ever be something where the legal authority comes from an international body such as NATO or the United Nations. Up until 50 years ago, this had been the American tradition. United Nations Questions That Will Not Be Asked About Iraq September 10, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 85:22 21. Is it not true that, contrary to current claims, the no-fly zones were set up by Britain and the United States without specific approval from the United Nations? United Nations “Say ‘No’ To UNESCO” Act 26 September 2002    2002 Ron Paul 91:1 Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the “Say ‘No’ to UNESCO” act. This bill expresses the sense of the Congress that the United States should not rejoin the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). United Nations “Say ‘No’ To UNESCO” Act 26 September 2002    2002 Ron Paul 91:6 UNESCO has been fully supportive of the United Nations’ Population Fund (UNFPA) in its assistance to China’s brutal coercive population control program. United Nations “Say ‘No’ To UNESCO” Act 26 September 2002    2002 Ron Paul 91:9 Mr. Speaker, I hope all members of this body will join me in opposing renewed United States membership in the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization by co-sponsoring the “Say ‘No’ to UNESCO” act. United Nations Is Congress Relevant with Regards to War? October 3, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 94:9 In order to get more of what we want from the United Nations, we rejoined UNESCO, which Ronald Reagan had bravely gotten us out of, and promised millions of dollars of U.S. taxpayer support to run this international agency started by Sir Julian Huxley. In addition, we read of promises by our administration that once we control Iraqi oil, it will be available for allies like France and Russia, who have been reluctant to join our efforts. United Nations Is Congress Relevant with Regards to War? October 3, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 94:11 A great irony of all this is that the United Nations Charter doesn’t permit declaring war, especially against a nation that has been in a state of peace for 12 years. The UN can only declare peace. Remember, it wasn’t a war in Korea; it was only a police action to bring about peace. But at least in Korea and Vietnam there was fighting going on, so it was a bit easier to stretch the language than it is today regarding Iraq. Since Iraq doesn’t even have an Air Force or a Navy, is incapable of waging a war, and remains defenseless against the overwhelming powers of the United States and the British, it’s difficult to claim that we’re going into Iraq to restore peace. United Nations Statement Opposing the use of Military Force against Iraq October 8, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 96:3 It does something else, though. One-half of the resolution delivers this power to the President, but it also instructs him to enforce U.N. resolutions. I happen to think I would rather listen to the President when he talks about unilateralism and national security interests, than accept this responsibility to follow all of the rules and the dictates of the United Nations. That is what this resolution does. It instructs him to follow all of the resolutions. United Nations Statement Opposing the use of Military Force against Iraq October 8, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 96:7 Also, the Christian doctrine says that the proper authority must be responsible for initiating the war. I do not believe that proper authority can be transferred to the President nor to the United Nations. United Nations Statement Opposing the use of Military Force against Iraq October 8, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 96:8 But a very practical reason why I have a great deal of reservations has to do with the issue of no-win wars that we have been involved in for so long. Once we give up our responsibilities from here in the House and the Senate to make these decisions, it seems that we depend on the United Nations for our instructions; and that is why, as a Member earlier indicated, essentially we are already at war. That is correct. We are still in the Persian Gulf War. We have been bombing for 12 years, and the reason President Bush, Sr., did not go all the way? He said the U.N. did not give him permission to. United Nations Statement Opposing the use of Military Force against Iraq October 8, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 96:20 Reality: The "no-fly zones" were never authorized by the United Nations, nor was their 12 year patrol by American and British fighter planes sanctioned by the United Nations. Under UN Security Council Resolution 688 (April, 1991), Iraq’s repression of the Kurds and Shi’ites was condemned, but there was no authorization for "no-fly zones," much less airstrikes. The resolution only calls for member states to "contribute to humanitarian relief" in the Kurd and Shi’ite areas. Yet the US and British have been bombing Iraq in the "no-fly zones" for 12 years. While one can only condemn any country firing on our pilots, isn’t the real argument whether we should continue to bomb Iraq relentlessly? Just since 1998, some 40,000 sorties have been flown over Iraq. United Nations Statement Opposing the use of Military Force against Iraq October 8, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 96:25 Three years ago, during Iraq’s six-month occupation of Kuwait, there had been an outcry when a teen-age Kuwaiti girl testified eloquently and effectively before Congress about Iraqi atrocities involving newborn infants. The girl turned out to be the daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador to Washington, Sheikh Saud Nasir al-Sabah, and her account of Iraqi soldiers flinging babies out of incubators was challenged as exaggerated both by journalists and by human-rights groups. ( Sheikh Saud was subsequently named Minister of Information in Kuwait, and he was the government official in charge of briefing the international press on the alleged assassination attempt against George Bush .) In a second incident, in August of 1991, Kuwait provoked a special session of the United Nations Security Council by claiming that twelve Iraqi vessels, including a speedboat, had been involved in an attempt to assault Bubiyan Island, long-disputed territory that was then under Kuwaiti control. The Security Council eventually concluded that, while the Iraqis had been provocative, there had been no Iraqi military raid, and that the Kuwaiti government knew there hadn’t. What did take place was nothing more than a smuggler-versus-smuggler dispute over war booty in a nearby demilitarized zone that had emerged, after the Gulf War, as an illegal marketplace for alcohol, ammunition, and livestock. United Nations Statement Opposing the use of Military Force against Iraq October 8, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 96:39 One 1986 shipment from the Virginia-based American Type Culture Collection included three strains of anthrax, six strains of the bacteria that make botulinum toxin and three strains of the bacteria that cause gas gangrene. Iraq later admitted to the United Nations that it had made weapons out of all three … United Nations Treatment Of Mr. Martin Mawyer By U.N. Officers Must Be Investigated 16 October 2002    2002 Ron Paul 100:1 Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to place into the record a copy of the Washington Observer newsletter demonstrating the treatment a citizen of the United States received at the hands of agents of the United Nations in New York City. As you can see the attached newsletter demonstrates, Mr. Martin Mawyer, President of the Christian Action Network was forcibly removed from the U.N. grounds by three or four uniformed U.N. officers. United Nations Treatment Of Mr. Martin Mawyer By U.N. Officers Must Be Investigated 16 October 2002    2002 Ron Paul 100:2 Mr. Speaker, as you are aware, Section 7, subsection (b) of the U.N. host country agreement (Establishment of Permanent Headquarters in New York; Agreement Between United Nations and United States; Joint Res. Aug. 4, 1947, ch. 482, 61 Stat. 756) states, in part “the federal, state and local law of the United States shall apply within the headquarters district.” Moreover, as Mawyer states in item #6 on his signed affidavit regarding this incident: “Without asking me to leave, he ordered his security officers, ‘Throw him out of the gates.’ ” United Nations Treatment Of Mr. Martin Mawyer By U.N. Officers Must Be Investigated 16 October 2002    2002 Ron Paul 100:5 [From the Washington Observer, Sept. 2002] U.N. ASSAULTS MARTIN MAWYER Martin Mawyer, President and Founder of THIS NATION, a Project of Christian Action Network, was violently tossed down the steps of U.N. Headquarters in New York City on Wednesday, Sept. 4, by U.N. Security officers. He was then placed under arrest after he attempted to deliver petitions to the United Nations from thousands of THIS NATION supporters. Christian Action Network is a national grassroots pro-family organization with a membership of 250,000. United Nations Treatment Of Mr. Martin Mawyer By U.N. Officers Must Be Investigated 16 October 2002    2002 Ron Paul 100:16 “It’s clear that there was no reason whatsoever to assault me, arrest me, or charge me,” said Mawyer of the incident. “In fact, they never even asked me to leave the United Nations property. They just ordered the officers to throw me out.” United Nations Say NO to UNESCO January 7, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 2:1 Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a bill expressing the sense of the Congress that the United States should not rejoin the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). United Nations Say NO to UNESCO January 7, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 2:6 UNESCO has been fully supportive of the United Nations’ Population Fund (UNFPA) in its assistance to China’s brutal coercive population control program. United Nations Say NO to UNESCO January 7, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 2:9 Mr. Speaker, I hope all members of this body will join me in opposing renewed U.S. membership in the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization by co-sponsoring this “Say NO to UNESCO” Act. United Nations Republic Versus Democracy 29 January 2003    2003 Ron Paul 6:66 Relying on authoritarian democracy and domestic and international meddling only moves us sharply away from a constitutional republic and the rule of law and toward the turbulence of a decaying democracy about which Madison and others had warned. Once the goal of liberty is replaced by a preconceived notion of the benefits and the moral justification of a democracy, a trend toward internationalism and world government follows. We certainly witnessed this throughout the 20th century. Since World War II, we have failed to follow the Constitution in taking this country to war, but instead have deferred to the collective democratic wisdom of the United Nations. United Nations Republic Versus Democracy 29 January 2003    2003 Ron Paul 6:67 Once it is recognized that ultimate authority comes from an international body, whether it is the United Nations, NATO, the WTO, the World Bank or the IMF, the contest becomes a matter of who holds the reins of power and is able to dictate what is perceived as the will of the people in the world. United Nations Republic Versus Democracy 29 January 2003    2003 Ron Paul 6:68 In the name of democracy, just as it is done in Washington, powerful nations with the most money will control the United Nations policy. Bribery, threats and intimidation are common practices used to achieve a democratic consensus, no matter how controversial and short-lived the benefits. United Nations Republic Versus Democracy 29 January 2003    2003 Ron Paul 6:69 Can one imagine what it might be like if true worldwide democracy existed and the United Nations were controlled by a world-wide, one man/one vote philosophy? The masses of China and India could vote themselves whatever they needed from the more prosperous Western countries. How long would a world system last based on this absurdity? Yet this is the principle that we are working so hard to impose on ourselves and others around the world. United Nations Condemning The Selection Of Libya To Chair The United Nations Commission On Human Rights 11 February 2003    2003 Ron Paul 19:1 Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I must reluctantly vote against this measure. We can all agree that Libya is a ridiculous choice to head a human rights commission in any civilized organization. The State Department has long listed Libya on its list of states sponsoring terrorism. Libya has shown over the years that it has no respect whatsoever for human rights, when it comes to its dealings with the rest of the world or even its own citizens. Additionally, this election just underscores what I have been saying for years about the United Nations: it is an organization that undermines American sovereignty and consistently works against U.S. interests. United Nations Introducing United States Korea Normalization Resolution Of 2003 13 February 2003    2003 Ron Paul 23:2 Sixty years ago American troops fought in a United Nations “police action” on the Korean Peninsula. More than 50,000 Americans lost their lives. Sixty years later, some 37,000 U.S. troops remain in South Korea, facing a North Korean army of nearly a million persons. After 60 years, we can no longer afford this commitment. United Nations Another United Nations War 25 February 2003    2003 Ron Paul 24:1 Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, President Bush, Sr., proudly spoke of “The New World Order,” a term used by those who promote one-world government under the United Nations. In going to war in 1991, he sought and received U.N. authority to push Iraqi forces out of Kuwait. He forcefully stated that this U.N. authority was adequate and that although a congressional resolution was acceptable, it was entirely unnecessary and he would proceed regardless. At that time, there was no discussion regarding a congressional declaration of war. The first Persian Gulf War, therefore, was clearly a U.N. political war fought within U.N. guidelines, not for U.S. security; and it was not fought through to victory. The bombings, sanctions, and harassment of the Iraqi people have never stopped. We are now about to resume the act of fighting. Although this is referred to as the Second Persian Gulf War, it is merely a continuation of a war started long ago and is likely to continue for a long time, even after Saddam Hussein is removed from power. United Nations Another United Nations War 25 February 2003    2003 Ron Paul 24:2 Our attitude toward the United Nations is quite different today compared to 1991. I have argued for years against our membership in the United Nations because it compromises our sovereignty. The U.S. has always been expected to pay an unfair percentage of U.N. expenses. I contend that membership in the United Nations has led to impractical military conflicts that were highly costly, both in lives and dollars, and that were rarely resolved. United Nations Another United Nations War 25 February 2003    2003 Ron Paul 24:4 As bad as the Vietnam nightmare was, at least we left and the U.N. was not involved. We left in defeat and Vietnam remained a unified, Communist country. The results have been much more salutary. Vietnam is now essentially non-Communist and trade with the West is routine. We did not disarm Vietnam; we never counted their weapons; and so far, no one cares. Peaceful relations have developed between our two countries not by force of arms, but through trade and friendship. No United Nations, no war, and no inspections served us well, even after many decades of war and a million deaths inflicted on the Vietnamese in an effort by both the French and the United States to force them into compliance with Western demands. United Nations Another United Nations War 25 February 2003    2003 Ron Paul 24:5 In this new battle with Iraq, our relationship with the United Nations and our allies is drawing a lot of attention. The administration now says it would be nice to have U.N. support, but it is not necessary. The President argues that a unilateralist approach is permissible with his understanding of national sovereignty, but no mention is made of the fact that the authority to go to war is not a U.N. prerogative and that such authority can only come from the U.S. Congress. United Nations Another United Nations War 25 February 2003    2003 Ron Paul 24:6 Although the argument that the United Nations cannot dictate to us what is in our best interests is correct, and we do have a right to pursue foreign policy unilaterally, it is ironic that we are making this declaration in order to pursue an unpopular war that very few people or governments throughout the world support. United Nations Another United Nations War 25 February 2003    2003 Ron Paul 24:7 But the argument for unilateralism and national sovereignty cannot be made for the purpose of enforcing U.N. security resolutions. That does not make any sense. If one wants to enforce U.N. Security Council resolutions, that authority can only come from the United Nations itself. We end up with the worst of both worlds, hated for our unilateralism, but still lending credibility to the United Nations. United Nations Another United Nations War 25 February 2003    2003 Ron Paul 24:9 Those who believe, and many sincerely do, that the United Nations serves a useful function, argue that ignoring the United Nations at this juncture will surely make it irrelevant. Even with my opposition to the United Nations, I can hardly be pleased that its irrelevancy might come about because of our rush to war against a nation that has not aggressed against us nor poses any threat to us. United Nations Another United Nations War 25 February 2003    2003 Ron Paul 24:10 From my viewpoint, the worst scenario would be for the United Nations to sanction this war, which may well occur if we offer enough U.S. taxpayer money and Iraqi oil to the reluctant countries. If that happens, we could be looking at another 58-year occupation, expanded Middle East chaos, or a dangerous spread of hostility to all of Asia or even further. United Nations Another United Nations War 25 February 2003    2003 Ron Paul 24:11 With regard to foreign affairs, the best advice comes from our Founders and the Constitution. It is better to promote peace and commerce with all nations and exclude ourselves from the entangling alliances and complex, unworkable alliances that comes from our membership in the United Nations. United Nations American Servicemember And Civilian Protection Act Of 2003 6 March 2003    2003 Ron Paul 30:5 Mr. Speaker, the Court is an illegitimate body even by the United Nations’ own standards. The Statute of the International Criminal Court was enacted by a Conference of Diplomats convened by the United Nations General Assembly, whereas according to the UN Charter, the authority to create such a body lies only in the UN Security Council. United Nations American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2003 6 March 2003    2003 Ron Paul 31:1 Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to reintroduce the American Sovereignty Restoration Act. I submitted this bill, which would end United States membership in the United Nations, in the 107th Congress and the 106th Congress and since then conditions have made its relevance and importance more evident now than ever. The United Nations assault on the sovereignty of the United States proceeds apace; it shows no signs of slowing. Mr. Speaker, since I last introduced this measure, the United Nations has convened its International Criminal Court, which claims jurisdiction even over citizens of countries that have not elected to join the court. This means that Americans — both civilians and members of our armed services — are subject to a court that even its supporters admit does not offer all the protections guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. United Nations American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2003 6 March 2003    2003 Ron Paul 31:3 As the United States faces another undeclared war for the United Nations — as is specified in the authorization for the use of force against Iraq (Public Law 107–243) — it is past time that we return to the principles of our founding fathers. United Nations American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2003 6 March 2003    2003 Ron Paul 31:4 This legislation would represent a comprehensive and complete U.S. withdrawal from the United Nations. It repeals the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 and other related laws. It directs the President to terminate U.S. participation in the United Nations, including any organ, specialized agency, commission, or other affiliated body. It requires closure of the U.S. Mission to the U.N. United Nations American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2003 6 March 2003    2003 Ron Paul 31:7 In considering the recent United Nations meetings and the United States’ relation to that organization and its affront to U.S. sovereignty, we would all do well to again read carefully Professor Herbert W. Titus’ paper on the United Nations from which I have provided this excerpt: United Nations American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2003 6 March 2003    2003 Ron Paul 31:8 It is commonly assumed that the Charter of the United Nations is a treaty. It is not. Instead, the Charter of the United Nations is a constitution. As such, it is illegitimate, having created a supranational government, deriving its powers not from the consent of the governed (the people of the United States of America and peoples of other member nations) but from the consent of the peoples’ government officials who have no authority to bind either the American people nor any other nation’s people to any terms of the Charter of the United Nations. United Nations American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2003 6 March 2003    2003 Ron Paul 31:9 By definition, a treaty is a contract between or among independent and sovereign nations, obligatory on the signatories only when by competent governing authorities in accordance with the powers constitutionally conferred upon them. I Kent, Commentaries on American Law 163 (1826); Burdick, The Law of the American Constitution section 34 (1922) Even the United Nations Treaty Collection states that a treaty is (1) a binding instrument creating legal rights and duties (2) concluded by states or international organizations with treaty-making powers (3) governed by international law. United Nations American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2003 6 March 2003    2003 Ron Paul 31:10 By contrast, a charter is a constitution creating a civil government for a unified nation or nations and establishing the authority of that government. Although the United Nations Treaty Collection defines a ‘charter’ as a ‘constituent treaty,’ leading international political authorities state that ‘[t]he use of the word ‘Charter’ [in reference to the founding document of the United Nations] . . . emphasizes the constitutional nature of this instrument.’ Thus, the preamble to the Charter of the United Nations declares ‘that the Peoples of the United Nations have resolved to combine their efforts to accomplish certain aims by certain means.’ The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary 46 (B. Simma, ed.) (Oxford Univ. Press, NY: 1995) (Hereinafter U.N. Charter Commentary). Consistent with this view, leading international legal authorities declare that the law of the Charter of the United Nations which governs the authority of the United Nations General Assembly and the United Nations Security Council is ‘similar . . . to national constitutional law,’ proclaiming that ‘because of its status as a constitution for the world community,’ the Charter of the United Nations must be construed broadly, making way for ‘implied powers’ to carry out the United Nations’ ‘comprehensive scope of duties, especially the maintenance of international peace and security and its orientation towards international public welfare.’ Id. at 27. United Nations American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2003 6 March 2003    2003 Ron Paul 31:11 The United Nations Treaty Collection confirms the appropriateness of this ‘constitutional interpretive’ approach to the Charter of the United Nations with its statement that the charter may be traced ‘back to the Magna Carta (the Great Charter) of 1215,’ a national constitutional document. As a constitutional document, the Magna Carta not only bound the original signatories,, the English barons and the king, but all subsequent English rulers, including Parliament, conferring upon all Englishmen certain rights that five hundred years later were claimed and exercised by the English people who had colonized America. United Nations American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2003 6 March 2003    2003 Ron Paul 31:14 In like manner, the Charter of the United Nations is considered to be a permanent ‘constitution for the universal society,’ and consequently, to be construed in accordance with its broad and unchanging ends but in such a way as to meet changing times and changing relations among the nations and peoples of the world. U.N. Charter Commentary at 28–44. United Nations American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2003 6 March 2003    2003 Ron Paul 31:16 Taking advantage of the universal appeal of the American constitutional tradition, the preamble of the Charter of the United Nations opens with ‘We the peoples of the United Nations.’ But, unlike the Constitution of the United States of America, the Charter of the United Nations does not call for ratification by conventions of the elected representatives of the people of the signatory nations. Rather, Article 110 of the Charter of the United Nations provides for ratification ‘by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.’ Such a ratification process would have been politically and legally appropriate if the charter were a mere treaty. But the Charter of the United Nations is not a treaty; it is a constitution. United Nations American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2003 6 March 2003    2003 Ron Paul 31:17 First of all, Charter of the United Nations, executed as an agreement in the name of the people, legally and politically displaced previously binding agreements upon the signatory nations. Article 103 provides that ‘[i]n the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail.’ Because the 1787 Constitution of the United States of America would displace the previously adopted Articles of Confederation under which the United States was being governed, the drafters recognized that only if the elected representatives of the people at a constitutional convention ratified the proposed constitution, could it be lawfully adopted as a constitution. Otherwise, the Constitution of the United States of America would be, legally and politically, a treaty which could be altered by any state’s legislature as it saw fit. The Founders’ Constitution, supra, at 648–52. United Nations American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2003 6 March 2003    2003 Ron Paul 31:19 Article V of the Constitution of the United States of America spells out that amendment process, providing two methods for adopting constitutional changes, neither of which requires unanimous consent of the states of the Union. Had the Constitution of the United States of America been a treaty, such unanimous consent would have been required. Similarly, the Charter of the United Nations may be amended without the unanimous consent of its member states. According to Article 108 of the Charter of the United Nations, amendments may be proposed by a vote of two-thirds of the United Nations General Assembly and may become effective upon ratification by a vote of two– thirds of the members of the United Nations, including all the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. According to Article 109 of the Charter of the United Nations, a special conference of members of the United Nations may be called ‘for the purpose of reviewing the present Charter’ and any changes proposed by the conference may ‘take effect when ratified by two–thirds of the Members of the United Nations including all the permanent members of the Security Council.’ Once an amendment to the Charter of the United Nations is adopted then that amendment ‘shall come into force for all Members of the United Nations,’ even those nations who did not ratify the amendment, just as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America is effective in all of the states, even though the legislature of a state or a convention of a state refused to ratify. Such an amendment process is totally foreign to a treaty. See Id., at 575–84. United Nations American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2003 6 March 2003    2003 Ron Paul 31:21 As a direct consequence of this original power of the people to constitute a new government, the Congress under the new constitution was authorized to admit new states to join the original 13 states without submitting the admission of each state to the 13 original states. In like manner, the Charter of the United Nations, forged in the name of the ‘peoples’ of those nations, established a new international government with independent powers to admit to membership whichever nations the United Nations governing authorities chose without submitting such admissions to each individual member nation for ratification. See Charter of the United Nations, Article 4, Section 2. No treaty could legitimately confer upon the United Nations General Assembly such powers and remain within the legal and political definition of a treaty. United Nations American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2003 6 March 2003    2003 Ron Paul 31:22 By invoking the name of the ‘peoples of the United Nations,’ then, the Charter of the United Nations envisioned a new constitution creating a new civil order capable of not only imposing obligations upon the subscribing nations, but also imposing obligations directly upon the peoples of those nations. In his special contribution to the United Nations Human Development Report 2000, United Nations Secretary-General Annan made this claim crystal clear: United Nations American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2003 6 March 2003    2003 Ron Paul 31:23 Even though we are an organization of Member States, the rights and ideals the United Nations exists to protect are those of the peoples. No government has the right to hide behind national sovereignty in order to violate the human rights or fundamental freedoms of its peoples. Human Development Report 2000 31 (July 2000) [Emphasis added.] United Nations American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2003 6 March 2003    2003 Ron Paul 31:24 While no previous United Nations’ secretary general has been so bold, Annan’s proclamation of universal jurisdiction over ‘human rights and fundamental freedoms’ simply reflects the preamble of the Charter of the United Nations which contemplated a future in which the United Nations operates in perpetuity ‘to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war . . . to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights . . . to establish conditions under which justice . . . can be maintained, and to promote social progress and between standards of life in larger freedom.’ Such lofty goals and objectives are comparable to those found in the preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America: ‘to . . . establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the Blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity . . .’ United Nations American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2003 6 March 2003    2003 Ron Paul 31:25 There is, however, one difference that must not be overlooked. The Constitution of the United States of America is a legitimate constitution, having been submitted directly to the people for ratification by their representatives elected and assembled solely for the purpose of passing on the terms of that document. The Charter of the United Nations, on the other hand, is an illegitimate constitution, having only been submitted to the Untied States Senate for ratification as a treaty. Thus, the Charter of the United Nations, not being a treaty, cannot be made the supreme law of our land by compliance with Article II, Section 2 of Constitution of the United States of America. Therefore, the Charter of the United Nations is neither politically nor legally binding upon the United States of America or upon its people. United Nations Reconsider The Direction Of Our Foreign Policy 20 March 2003    2003 Ron Paul 37:3 Once this war has ended we should seriously reconsider the direction of our foreign policy. The American people have seen the ineffectiveness of our reliance upon our socalled “NATO allies” and the United Nations. Hopefully this will lead us to reconsider our role in these organizations. I hope this will be the last time Americans fight under the color of U.N. resolutions. Once this war is completed I hope we will reassess our foreign entanglements, return to the traditional U.S. foreign policy of non-intervention, and return to the standard of our own national security. United Nations America National Sovereignty vs. UN “International Law” – Time for Congress to Vote April 29, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 51:1 Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge the leadership of this body to bring a very important vote to the House floor. I recently reintroduced HR 1146, the American Sovereignty Restoration Act, which would end our participation in the United Nations. Millions of Americans have begun to question why we continue to spend $300 million each year funding and housing an organization that is actively hostile to American interests. Surely Congress, which routinely spends 15 minutes renaming post offices, can spare 15 minutes to vote on this fundamental issue of American sovereignty. United Nations America National Sovereignty vs. UN “International Law” – Time for Congress to Vote April 29, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 51:6 Noted constitutional scholar Herb Titus has thoroughly researched the United Nations and its purported “authority.” Titus explains that the UN Charter is not a treaty at all, but rather a blueprint for supranational government that directly violates the Constitution. As such, the Charter is neither politically nor legally binding upon the American people or government. The UN has no authority to make “laws” that bind American citizens, because it does not derive its powers from the consent of the American people. We need to stop speaking of UN resolutions and edicts as if they represented legitimate laws or treaties. They do not. United Nations Amendment 6 To de-Fund The United Nations — Part 1 15 July 2003    2003 Ron Paul 75:1 Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. PAUL: Page 32, after line 3, insert the following (and amend the table of contents accordingly): Subtitle C — Limitations SEC. 131. LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS AUTHORIZED TO BE APPROPRIATED BY THIS ACT FOR ANY UNITED STATES CONTRIBUTION TO THE UNITED NATIONS OR ANY AFFILIATED AGENCY OF THE UNITED NATIONS. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, none of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act may be obligated or expended to pay any United States contribution to the United Nations or any affiliated agency of the United Nations. The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 316, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) and a Member opposed (Mr. HYDE) each will control 5 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL). United Nations Amendment 6 To de-Fund The United Nations — Part 1 15 July 2003    2003 Ron Paul 75:3 Mr. Chairman, this amendment takes away the funding from the United Nations as well as any affiliated U.N. agency. United Nations Amendment 6 To de-Fund The United Nations — Part 1 15 July 2003    2003 Ron Paul 75:4 Mr. Chairman, last year we spent $3.25 billion on the U.N. as well as the other agencies at the U.N. I do not believe that is money worthwhile. It is not a good investment. I do not think the money is spent well. The amendment, as I said, defunds the United Nations as well as its agencies. We pay 21 percent of the budget, and on peacekeeping missions we pay over 27 percent. I think this is essentially wasted money. United Nations Amendment 6 To de-Fund The United Nations — Part 1 15 July 2003    2003 Ron Paul 75:6 We went into Korea over 50 years ago under a U.N. resolution. We are still in Korea. We still have serious problems in Korea. There is still a confrontation that we have with the government of North Korea. I do not see where it is to our benefit, I do not see where it is a benefit to world peace to rely on the United Nations. Even though we rely on the United Nations for authority, when we want the United Nations to go along with our policy as our President asked earlier this year, it was refused. So in many ways we have a policy that does not make a whole lot of sense. We first rely on the United Nations, spend a lot of money, then they do not do our bidding. United Nations Amendment 6 To de-Fund The United Nations — Part 1 15 July 2003    2003 Ron Paul 75:8 So this I think in many ways reflects the ineptness of the United Nations and its inability to pursue any policy that is in our interest. So it is for this reason, whether it is rejoining UNESCO and throwing more money down another on another useless program, we here are spending a lot of money giving up our sovereignty. Much of this money should be spent here at home. United Nations Amendment 6 To de-Fund The United Nations — Part 2 15 July 2003    2003 Ron Paul 77:2 Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I once again urge a yes vote on this amendment to limit the funding to the United Nations and to all its agencies. United Nations Amendment 6 To de-Fund The United Nations — Part 2 15 July 2003    2003 Ron Paul 77:3 The gentleman from California (Mr. LANTOS) mentioned that there were some programs under the United Nations which were sort of “feel-good” programs, social welfare programs, and I think I would grant that some of these programs have had some benefit. That in itself is not enough for me to endorse the concept of international welfare through the United Nations. United Nations Amendment 6 To de-Fund The United Nations — Part 2 15 July 2003    2003 Ron Paul 77:4 However, too often I think they leave doing these programs that are designed to help people who are truly suffering versus getting involved with what we call peacekeeping missions. The United Nations are not allowed to declare war. They never go to war, and yet too often we get involved in war. That is why they were called peacekeepers in Korea. That is why it is a peacekeeping mission when we go to Iraq. But, still, the armies are raised, and young men are called off, and people are killed on these peacekeeping missions. Therefore, I say that the United Nations has tended to take away the responsibilities of this Congress to make these very, very important decisions. United Nations Amendment 6 To de-Fund The United Nations — Part 2 15 July 2003    2003 Ron Paul 77:5 I believe in many ways that by joining the United Nations we have allowed our Constitution to be amended merely by U.N. vote. If the U.N. votes and says something and we go along with that, we do that by majority vote here in the Congress. Where if we look to the Constitution for the authorities that we are allowed to do and what we are not permitted to do, we look to article I, section 8; and what the U.N. is doing is not permissible under the article. United Nations UNESCO 22 July 2003    2003 Ron Paul 86:2 The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. PAUL: At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following: LIMITATION ON UNITED STATES CONTRIBUTIONS TO UNESCO SEC. ll. None of the funds made available in this Act may be made available for the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). United Nations UNESCO — Part 2 22 July 2003    2003 Ron Paul 87:4 I do not think the American people want that. I think the American people do not want to sacrifice their sovereignty and they would like not to have the United Nations and UNESCO interfering in our curricula. We have enough problems ourselves here to allow our States and our local communities to manage their schools with the interference of the Federal Government. And now here we are talking about an international organization designing a curriculum for our schools. Their goals are not American. Their goals are internationalist. I quoted just a little while ago from one of their pamphlets that says they do not even believe in nationalism, that it was a bad thing, that it was a result of families teaching children bad things, to believe in nationalism. United Nations UNESCO — Part 2 22 July 2003    2003 Ron Paul 87:5 I do not believe that. I have not come around to that belief. Being a member in a world community does not mean that you have to sacrifice your sovereignty. Being a member of a world community means that we should get along with people, that we should not be fighting with people, we should be trading with people; but that does not imply the necessity of having an international government. This is what is implied here. In this day and age we go to war under U.N. resolutions; but here our children are going to war with the education system by the United Nations dictating to us educational standards. United Nations UNESCO — Part 2 22 July 2003    2003 Ron Paul 87:6 But they do other things as well. UNESCO, for instance, has been fully supportive of the United Nations Population Fund in its assistance to China’s brutal, coercive population control program. That is part of UNESCO. I do not believe the majority of the Members of Congress really believe that is a good expenditure. And you cannot control the money once it gets to UNESCO, believe me. We send the money, we send a larger amount of money than anybody else, we lose control of it and they do these things that I think are illegitimate as far as our Constitution is concerned. United Nations UNESCO — Part 2 22 July 2003    2003 Ron Paul 87:8 UNESCO’s World Heritage Convention has taken treasured American public monuments to be designated world heritage sites. This is a movement away from the concept of national sovereignty. This means that there will not be control by the American people through their Representative. That makes every single one of us less significant, not only in the issue of war but now in the issue of schools and taxation. Yes, it moves slowly, it is not overwhelming; we still have a lot of control, but we are losing it gradually. And we do know that even those who objected to the war in Iraq would have been quite happy if only the United Nations would have passed a resolution that permitted us to go to war. I do not like that kind of a world. The only oath of office I take is the oath to the U.S. Constitution and UNESCO does not conform to that oath. The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL). The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that the noes appeared to have it. United Nations Stay out of Liberia! 24 July 2003    2003 Ron Paul 90:3 But the administration is currently pondering repeated calls by some in the US and especially the United Nations to commit thousands of troops to a full-fledged American operation in Liberia. According to press reports, the Pentagon has just ordered about 4,500 sailors and marines from the Horn of Africa into the Mediterranean Sea, so as to be closer to Liberia just in case. United Nations Reject UN Gun Control! September 18, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 101:1 Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the “Right to Keep and Bear Arms Act.” This legislation prohibits US taxpayer dollars from being used to support or promote any United Nations actions that could infringe on the Second Amendment. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms Act also expresses the sense of Congress that proposals to tax, or otherwise limit, the right to keep and bear arms are “reprehensible and deserving of condemnation.” United Nations Supplemental Appropriation 16 October 2003    2003 Ron Paul 108:5 “Trying to eliminate Saddam Hussein . . . would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible . . . We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq . . . There was no available ‘exit strategy’ we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations’ mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land.” United Nations Misguided Policy Of Nation Building In Iraq 17 October 2003    2003 Ron Paul 111:11 We are very much involved in nationbuilding in Afghanistan, and the successes there are very shaky. We probably occupy one city and not much more. And everybody reads daily about the shakiness of our occupation of Iraq. And we are very much involved in internal affairs of other nations, the kind of thing our founders said do not get involved in. Do not get involved in the internal affairs of other nations. Stay out of entangling alliances. And we are very much involved. The entangling alliance that I had the strongest objection to is the entangling alliance with the United Nations. United Nations Misguided Policy Of Nation Building In Iraq 17 October 2003    2003 Ron Paul 111:12 So although it was seen by the world that we went into Iraq by defying the United Nations, if anybody would like to check and go back and look at the authorization for the use of force which was a transfer, illegal transfer of power to the President to pursue war, the United Nations was cited 16 times. There was a need to enforce the United Nations resolution. That was the justification for the Congress to transfer this power to the President in allowing him to make his own decision. United Nations Misguided Policy Of Nation Building In Iraq 17 October 2003    2003 Ron Paul 111:32 That is what our Constitution did, but because now it has drifted from the legislature, we allow our Presidents to do more than they should be able to do, and then we allow them to incorporate this into United Nations’ mandates. It means that the people have lost their control. United Nations Misguided Policy Of Nation Building In Iraq 17 October 2003    2003 Ron Paul 111:33 How do the people stay involved in this? In one way, they pay the bills and the young people die. That is what is at stake. Our economy’s at stake, our young people are at stake and our freedoms are at stake because we allow the prerogatives that were explicitly given to the Congress to drift away and get into the hands of the executive branch and into the United Nations. We do not declare war. We do not win them. They persist, they last a long time, and this is the reason why we should really and truly talk about how do we get out of this mess, instead of just expanding the mess, how do we get out and restore a policy that makes a lot more sense. United Nations A Wise Consistency February 11, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 2:18 A strong case can be made that all the conflicts, starting with the Spanish-American War up to our current conflict in the Middle East, could have been avoided. For instance, the foolish entrance into World War I to satisfy Wilson’s ego led to a disastrous peace at Versailles, practically guaranteeing World War II. Likewise, our ill-advised role in the Persian Gulf War I placed us in an ongoing guerilla war in Iraq and Afghanistan, which may become a worldwide conflict before it ends. Our foolish antics over the years have prompted our support for many thugs throughout the 20th Century — Stalin, Samoza, Batista, the Shah of Iran, Noriega, Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and many others — only to regret it once the unintended consequences became known. Many of those we supported turned on us, or our interference generated a much worse replacement — such as the Ayatollah in Iran. If we had consistently followed the wise advice of our early presidents, we could have avoided the foreign policy problems we face today. And if we had, we literally would have prevented hundreds of thousands of needless deaths over the last century. The odds are slim to none that our current failure in Afghanistan and Iraq will prompt our administration to change its policies of intervention. Ignoring the facts and rigidly sticking to a failed policy — a foolish consistency — as our leaders have repeatedly done over the past 100 years, unfortunately will prevail despite its failure and huge costs. This hostility toward principled consistency and common sense allows for gross errors in policy making. Most Americans believed, and still do, that we went to war against Saddam Hussein because he threatened us with weapons of mass destruction and his regime was connected to al Qaeda. The fact that Saddam Hussein not only did not have weapons of mass destruction, but essentially had no military force at all, seems to be of little concern to those who took us to war. It was argued, after our allies refused to join in our efforts, that a unilateral approach without the United Nations was proper under our notion of national sovereignty. Yet resolutions giving the President authority to go to war cited the United Nations 21 times, forgetting the U.S. Constitution allows only Congress to declare war. A correct declaration of war was rejected out of hand. Now with events going badly, the administration is practically begging the UN to take over the transition — except, of course, for the Iraqi Development Fund that controls the oil and all the seized financial assets. The contradictions and distortions surrounding the Iraqi conflict are too numerous to count. Those who wanted to institutionalize the doctrine of pre-emptive war were not concerned about the Constitution or consistency in our foreign policy. And for this, the American people and world peace will suffer. United Nations The Lessons of 9/11 April 22, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 27:39 Also contributing to this bi-partisan, foreign policy view is the notion that promoting world government is worthwhile. This involves support for the United Nations, NATO, control of the world’s resources through the IMF, the World Bank, the WTO, NAFTA, FTAA, and the Law of the Sea Treaty—all of which gain the support of those sympathetic to the poor and socialism, while too often the benefits accrue to the well-connected international corporations and bankers sympathetic to economic fascism. United Nations The Same Old Failed Policies in Iraq June 3, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 37:2 But something happened on the way to the coronation. The State Department finally won out in its struggle with the Pentagon to dump Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress, delivering Iraq to a competing exiled group, Dr. Iyad Allawi’s Iraqi National Accord. But never fear, both groups were CIA supported and both would be expected to govern as an American puppet. And that’s the problem. Under the conditions that currently exist in Iraq, American sponsorship of a government, or even United Nations approval, for that matter, will be rejected by a nationalistic Iraqi people. United Nations UNESCO 7 July 2004    2004 Ron Paul 47:1 Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 9. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment No. 9 offered by Mr. PAUL: At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following: TITLE VIII — ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS SEC. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to pay expenses for any United States contribution to the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). The CHAIRMAN. Points of order are reserved. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL). (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) United Nations UNESCO 7 July 2004    2004 Ron Paul 47:10 But here it is not the Federal Government taking over our Federal education system; this is the UNESCO, United Nations, taking over our educational system. It does have an influence. Sure, it is minimal now, but it will grow if we allow this to continue. United Nations Hands Off Sudan! July 23, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 65:1 Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this incredibly dangerous legislation. I hope my colleagues are not fooled by the title of this bill, “Declaring genocide in Darfur, Sudan.” This resolution is no statement of humanitarian concern for what may be happening in a country thousands of miles from the United States. Rather, it could well lead to war against the African country of Sudan. The resolution “urges the Bush Administration to seriously consider multilateral or even unilateral intervention to prevent genocide should the United Nations Security Council fail to act.” We must realize the implications of urging the President to commit the United States to intervene in an ongoing civil war in a foreign land thousands of miles away. United Nations District Of Columbia Personal Protection Act 29 September 2004    2004 Ron Paul 72:6 Enacting H.R. 3193 would be a good first step in adopting legislation to restore the Federal Government’s respect for the right to bear arms throughout the United States. The Federal Government has trampled on gun rights nationwide — not just in Washington, DC. I have introduced several pieces of legislation this Congress that would help restore respect for the right to bear arms, including the Second Amendment Protection Act, H.R. 153, that would repeal the now-sunset semi-auto ban, repeal the 5-day waiting period and “instant” background check imposed on gun purchases, and delete the “sporting purposes” test that allows the Treasury Secretary to classify a firearm as a destructive device simply because the Secretary deems the gun to be “non-sporting.” Additionally, Congress should consider my Right to Keep and Bear Arms Act, H.R. 3125, that prohibits U.S. taxpayers’ dollars from being used to support or promote any United Nations actions that could infringe on the second amendment. United Nations The 9-11 Intelligence Bill: More Bureaucracy, More Intervention, Less Freedom October 8, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 77:11 Among the most ill-considered foreign policy components of H.R. 10 is a section providing for the United States to increase support for an expansion of the United Nations “Democracy Caucus.” Worse still, the bill encourages further integration of that United Nations body into our State department. The last thing we should do if we hope to make our country safer from terrorism is expand our involvement in the United Nations. United Nations The 9-11 Intelligence Bill: More Bureaucracy, More Intervention, Less Freedom October 8, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 77:12 This bill contains a provision to train American diplomats to be more sensitive and attuned to the United Nations, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) — which will be in the US to monitor our elections next month — and other international non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Even worse, this legislation actually will create an “ambassador-at-large” position solely to work with non-governmental organizations overseas. It hardly promotes democracy abroad to accord equal status to NGOs, which, after all, are un-elected foreign pressure groups that, therefore, have no popular legitimacy whatsoever. Once again, we are saying one thing and doing the opposite. United Nations Sense Of The Congress Resolution That The United States Should Not Ratify The Law Of The Sea Treaty 10 February 2005    2005 Ron Paul 20:2 The Law of the Sea Treaty was conceived in the early 1970s by the “New International Economic Order,” a United Nations political movement designed to transfer wealth and technology from the industrial nations to communist and undeveloped nations. President Ronald Reagan recognized the threat this treaty would pose to America’s sovereignty and economic interests and rightly rejected the Treaty in 1982. United Nations Sense Of The Congress Resolution That The United States Should Not Ratify The Law Of The Sea Treaty 10 February 2005    2005 Ron Paul 20:3 Treaty proponents acted again in the 1990s, offering a separate “Agreement” that purported to amend the Treaty. This “corrected treaty” was also deemed unacceptable by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1994. Now we are once again facing a terribly flawed treaty that will hand over more of our sovereignty to a corrupt United Nations — just at a time when the extent of the United Nations’ corruption is becoming more evident through the oil for food scandal in Iraq. United Nations Sense Of The Congress Resolution That The United States Should Not Ratify The Law Of The Sea Treaty 10 February 2005    2005 Ron Paul 20:8 Mr. Speaker, the Law of the Sea Treaty is a perfect example of “taxation without representation” that our Founding Fathers rebelled against. We should under no circumstances surrender one bit of American sovereignty or treasure to the United Nations or any other global body. I hope my colleagues will join me by co-sponsoring this Sense of the Congress legislation and defeating this destructive treaty. United Nations Introducing Bill To Prohibit Any Remittance Of U.S. Voluntary And Assessed Contributions To The United Nations If The United Nations Imposes Any Tax Or Fee On Any United States Person Or Continues To Develop Or Promote Proposals For Such A Tax Or Fee 1 March 2005    2005 Ron Paul 25:1 Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a bill to prohibit any remittance of U.S. voluntary and assessed contributions to the United Nations if the United Nations imposes any tax or fee on any United States person or continues to develop or promote proposals for such a tax or fee. United Nations Introducing Bill To Prohibit Any Remittance Of U.S. Voluntary And Assessed Contributions To The United Nations If The United Nations Imposes Any Tax Or Fee On Any United States Person Or Continues To Develop Or Promote Proposals For Such A Tax Or Fee 1 March 2005    2005 Ron Paul 25:2 The United Nations has for decades been looking for a way to develop and promote a system of direct taxation on American citizens. It is bad enough that the United States has wasted more than $30 billion thus far on this corrupt and inept organization. U.N. bureaucrats want to find a way to put their hands directly in the taxpayer’s pocket and do away with the U.S. Government middle man. United Nations Introducing Bill To Prohibit Any Remittance Of U.S. Voluntary And Assessed Contributions To The United Nations If The United Nations Imposes Any Tax Or Fee On Any United States Person Or Continues To Develop Or Promote Proposals For Such A Tax Or Fee 1 March 2005    2005 Ron Paul 25:4 This is just one of many examples of the United Nations attempting to impose direct taxes on the American people. If we are to retain our sovereignty and our way of life we must reject completely any such attempt. Our forefathers rebelled against English rule over the issue of “taxation without representation is tyranny.” It makes no sense at all more than 230 years later to subject ourselves to such a tyrannical arrangement. United Nations Introducing The American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2005 8 March 2005    2005 Ron Paul 27:1 Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to re- introduce the American Sovereignty Restoration Act. I submitted this bill, which would end United States membership in the United Nations, in the 106th, 107th, and 108th Congresses and if anything, conditions have made its relevance and importance more evident now than ever. The United Nations assault on the sovereignty of the United States proceeds apace; it shows no signs of slowing. Mr. Speaker, since I last introduced this measure, the United Nations has been embroiled in scandal after scandal, from the Oil for Food Scandal to several recent particularly appalling sex scandals. United Nations Introducing The American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2005 8 March 2005    2005 Ron Paul 27:2 The United States has wasted more than 30 billion taxpayer dollars on the United Nations and has received in return only contempt from an organization that scoffs at traditional notions of limited government and sovereignty. United Nations Introducing The American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2005 8 March 2005    2005 Ron Paul 27:4 This legislation would represent a comprehensive and complete U.S. withdrawal from the United Nations. It repeals the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 and other related laws. It directs the President to terminate U.S. participation in the United Nations, including any organ, specialized agency, commission, or other affiliated body. It requires closure of the U.S. Mission to the UN. United Nations Introducing The American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2005 8 March 2005    2005 Ron Paul 27:7 In considering the recent United Nations meetings and the United States’ relation to that organization and its affront to U.S. sovereignty, we would all do well to again read carefully Professor Herbert W. Titus’ paper on the United Nations from which I have provided this excerpt: United Nations Introducing The American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2005 8 March 2005    2005 Ron Paul 27:8 It is commonly assumed that the Charter of the United Nations is a treaty. It is not. Instead, the Charter of the United Nations is a constitution. As such, it is illegitimate, having created a supranational government, deriving its powers not from the consent of the governed (the people of the United States of America and peoples of other member nations) but from the consent of the peoples’ government officials who have no authority to bind either the American people nor any other nation’s people to any terms of the Charter of the United Nations. United Nations Introducing The American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2005 8 March 2005    2005 Ron Paul 27:9 By definition, a treaty is a contract between or among independent and sovereign nations, obligatory on the signatories only when made by competent governing authorities in accordance with the powers constitutionally conferred upon them. I Kent, Commentaries on American Law 163 (1826); Burdick, The Law of the American Constitution section 34 (1922). Even the United Nations Treaty Collection states that a treaty is (1) a binding instrument creating legal rights and duties; (2) concluded by states or international organizations with treaty-making power; (3) governed by international law. United Nations Introducing The American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2005 8 March 2005    2005 Ron Paul 27:10 By contrast, a charter is a constitution creating a civil government for a unified nation or nations and establishing the authority of that government. Although the United Nations Treaty Collection defines a “charter” as a “constituent treaty,” leading international political authorities state that — “[t]he use of the word ‘Charter’ [in reference to the founding document of the United Nations] . . . emphasizes the constitutional nature of this instrument.” Thus, the preamble to the Charter of the United Nations declares “that the Peoples of the United Nations have resolved to combine their efforts to accomplish certain aims by certain means.” The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary 46 (B. Simma, ed.) (Oxford Univ. Press, NY: 1995) (Hereinafter U.N. Charter Commentary). Consistent with this view, leading international legal authorities declare that the law of the Charter of the United Nations which governs the authority of the United Nations General Assembly and the United Nations Security Council is “similar . . . to national constitutional law,” proclaiming that “because of its status as a constitution for the world community,” the Charter of the United Nations must be construed broadly, making way for “implied powers” to carry out the United Nations’ “comprehensive scope of duties, especially the maintenance of international peace and security and its orientation towards international public welfare.” Id. at 27 United Nations Introducing The American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2005 8 March 2005    2005 Ron Paul 27:11 The United Nations Treaty Collection confirms the appropriateness of this “constitutional interpretive” approach to the Charter of the United Nations with its statement that the charter may be traced “back to the Magna Carta (the Great Charter) of 1215,” a national constitutional document. As a constitutional document, the Magna Carta not only bound the original signatories, the English barons and the king, but all subsequent English rulers, including Parliament, conferring upon all Englishmen certain rights that five hundred years later were claimed and exercised by the English people who had colonized America. United Nations Introducing The American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2005 8 March 2005    2005 Ron Paul 27:14 In like manner, the Charter of the United Nations is considered to be a permanent “constitution for the universal society,” and consequently, to be construed in accordance with its broad and unchanging ends but in such a way as to meet changing times and changing relations among the nations and peoples of the world. U.N. Charter Commentary at 28–44. United Nations Introducing The American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2005 8 March 2005    2005 Ron Paul 27:16 Taking advantage of the universal appeal of the American constitutional tradition, the preamble of the Charter of the United Nations opens with “We the peoples of the United Nations.” But, unlike the Constitution of the United States of America, the Charter of the United Nations does not call for ratification by conventions of the elected representatives of the people of the signatory nations. Rather, Article 110 of the Charter of the United Nations provides for ratification “by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.” Such a ratification process would have been politically and legally appropriate if the charter were a mere treaty. But the Charter of the United Nations is not a treaty; it is a constitution. United Nations Introducing The American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2005 8 March 2005    2005 Ron Paul 27:17 First of all, Charter of the United Nations, executed as an agreement in the name of the people, legally and politically displaced previously binding agreements upon the signatory nations. Article 103 provides that “[i]n the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail.” Because the 1787 Constitution of the United States of America would displace the previously adopted Articles of Confederation under which the United States was being governed, the drafters recognized that only if the elected representatives of the people at a constitutional convention ratified the proposed constitution, could it be lawfully adopted as a constitution. Otherwise, the Constitution of the United States of America would be, legally and politically, a treaty which could be altered by any state’s legislature as it saw fit. The Founders’ Constitution, supra, at 648–52. United Nations Introducing The American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2005 8 March 2005    2005 Ron Paul 27:19 Article V of the Constitution of the United States of America spells out that amendment process, providing two methods for adopting constitutional changes, neither of which requires unanimous consent of the states of the Union. Had the Constitution of the United States of America been a treaty, such unanimous consent would have been required. Similarly, the Charter of the United Nations may be amended without the unanimous consent of its member states. According to Article 108 of the Charter of the United Nations, amendments may be proposed by a vote of two-thirds of the United Nations General Assembly and may become effective upon ratification by a vote of two- thirds of the members of the United Nations, including all the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. According to Article 109 of the Charter of the United Nations, a special conference of members of the United Nations may be called “for the purpose of reviewing the present Charter” and any changes proposed by the conference may “take effect when ratified by two-thirds of the Members of the United Nations including all the permanent members of the Security Council.” Once an amendment to the Charter of the United Nations is adopted then that amendment “shall come into force for all Members of the United Nations,” even those nations who did not ratify the amendment, just as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America is effective in all of the states, even though the legislature of a state or a convention of a state refused to ratify. Such an amendment process is totally foreign to a treaty. See Id., at 575–84. United Nations Introducing The American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2005 8 March 2005    2005 Ron Paul 27:21 As a direct consequence of this original power of the people to constitute a new government, the Congress under the new constitution was authorized to admit new states to join the original 13 states without submitting the admission of each state to the 13 original states. In like manner, the Charter of the United Nations, forged in the name of the “peoples” of those nations, established a new international government with independent powers to admit to membership whichever nations the United Nations governing authorities chose without submitting such admissions to each individual member nation for ratification. See Charter of the United Nations, Article 4, Section 2. No treaty could legitimately confer upon the United Nations General Assembly such powers and remain within the legal and political definition of a treaty. United Nations Introducing The American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2005 8 March 2005    2005 Ron Paul 27:22 By invoking the name of the “peoples of the United Nations,” then, the Charter of the United Nations envisioned a new constitution creating a new civil order capable of not only imposing obligations upon the subscribing nations, but also imposing obligations directly upon the peoples of those nations. In his special contribution to the United Nations Human Development Report 2000, United Nations Secretary-General Annan made this claim crystal clear: United Nations Introducing The American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2005 8 March 2005    2005 Ron Paul 27:23 Even though we are an organization of Member States, the rights and ideals the United Nations exists to protect are those of the peoples. No government has the right to hide behind national sovereignty in order to violate the human rights or fundamental freedoms of its peoples. Human Development Report 2000 31 (July 2000) [Emphasis added.] United Nations Introducing The American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2005 8 March 2005    2005 Ron Paul 27:24 While no previous United Nations’ secretary general has been so bold, Annan’s proclamation of universal jurisdiction over “human rights and fundamental freedoms” simply reflects the preamble of the Charter of the United Nations which contemplated a future in which the United Nations operates in perpetuity “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of ware . . . to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights . . . to establish conditions under which justice . . . can be maintained, and to promote social progress and between standards of life in larger freedom.” Such lofty goals and objectives are comparable to those found in the preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America: “to . . . establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the Blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity . . .” United Nations Introducing The American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2005 8 March 2005    2005 Ron Paul 27:25 There is, however, one difference that must not be overlooked. The Constitution of the United States of America is a legitimate constitution, having been submitted directly to the people for ratification by their representatives elected and assembled solely for the purpose of passing on the terms of that document. The Charter of the United Nations, on the other hand, is an illegitimate constitution, having only been submitted to the Untied States Senate for ratification as a treaty. Thus, the Charter of the United Nations, not being a treaty, cannot be made the supreme law of our land by compliance with Article II, Section 2 of Constitution of the United States of America. Therefore, the Charter of the United Nations is neither politically nor legally binding upon the United States of America or upon its people. United Nations Consequences Of Foreign Policy — Part 3 16 March 2005    2005 Ron Paul 32:2 Mr. Speaker, I do want to make one point about the resolution. The statement toward the ends says: The President should direct the United States Representative to the United Nations to present and secure reports for the United Nations Security Council classifying Lebanon as a captive country in calling for the immediate release of Lebanese detainees in Syria and Lebanon. United Nations The United States Should Withdraw From UNESCO 14 April 2005    2005 Ron Paul 40:1 Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a concurrent resolution expressing the sense of the Congress that the United States should withdraw from the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). United Nations The United States Should Withdraw From UNESCO 14 April 2005    2005 Ron Paul 40:6 UNESCO has been fully supportive of the United Nations’ Population Fund in its assistance to China’s brutal coercive population control program. United Nations The United States Should Withdraw From UNESCO 14 April 2005    2005 Ron Paul 40:9 Mr. Speaker, I hope all members of this body will join me in calling for an end to U.S. membership in the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization by co-sponsoring this legislation. United Nations Republicans Should Not Support a UN Court May 4, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 45:1 Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this resolution. The idea that the United States Congress should demand that Nigeria deport a former president of Liberia to stand trial in a United Nations court in Liberia is absurd! United Nations Republicans Should Not Support a UN Court May 4, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 45:2 I do not object to this legislation because I dispute the charges against Charles Taylor. Frankly, as a United States Congressman my authority does not extend to deciding whether a foreign leader has committed crimes in his own county. The charges may well be true. I do, however, dispute our authority as the United States Congress to demand that a foreign country transfer a former leader of a third country back to that country to stand trial before a United Nations kangaroo court. United Nations Republicans Should Not Support a UN Court May 4, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 45:3 As the resolution itself cites, one top UN official, Jaques Klein, has already pronounced Taylor guilty, stating “Charles Taylor is a psychopath and a killer.” But the resolution concludes that “Congress urges the Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria to expeditiously transfer Charles Ghankay Taylor, former President of the Republic of Liberia, to the jurisdiction of the Special Court for Sierra Leone to undergo a fair and open trial…” So it is probably safe to guess what kind of “trial” this will be - a Soviet-style show trial. The United Nations has no business conducting trials for anyone, regardless of the individual or the crime. It is the business of Liberia and Nigeria to determine the fate of Charles Taylor. United Nations United States Should Leave World Trade Organization 9 June 2005    2005 Ron Paul 57:14 Another area of importance to so many of us, both on the left and the right of the political spectrum, has to do with the Codex Commission regulation set up by the United Nations. How much regulation are we going to have on vitamins and nutrition products? The UN already indicated the type of regulation. Guess who may, most likely, be the enforcer of these regulations? It will be the WTO. The Europeans have much stricter regulations. This means that some day the WTO may well come to us and regulate the distribution of vitamins and nutritional supplements in this country, something that I do not think we should even contemplate. The case can be made that if they have already pressured us to do things, they may well do it once again. United Nations Amendment No. 10 Offered By Mr. Paul 15 June 2005    2005 Ron Paul 63:1 Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. PAUL: Page 108, after line 7, insert the following: TITLE VIII — ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS SEC. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act may be used by the United Nations to develop or publicize any proposal concerning taxation or fees on any United States person in order to raise revenue for the United Nations or any of its specialized or affiliated agencies. None of the funds made available in this Act may be used by the United Nations to implement or impose any such taxation or fee on any United States person. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 14, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL). United Nations Amendment No. 10 Offered By Mr. Paul 15 June 2005    2005 Ron Paul 63:3 Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is a very simple, clear amendment. It prohibits the use of any funds in this bill to be used by the United Nations to promote a world global tax. United Nations Amendment No. 10 Offered By Mr. Paul 15 June 2005    2005 Ron Paul 63:4 Over the last 10 years, there were at least five meetings in the United Nations that talked and met for the sole purpose of devising a global tax. Not too long ago the G8 met, and France and Germany proposed a global tax on airline tickets. There have been other proposals on taxes on financial services. Hans Eichel, Germany’s finance minister, stated, “No one in the G8 has said anything against it. It is now on the agenda.” United Nations Amendment No. 10 Offered By Mr. Paul 15 June 2005    2005 Ron Paul 63:6 Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that support for my amendment would be that somebody has responded. They think that nobody has, but I think the American people through us are quite willing to respond and say we are not ready, we do not think that it is a good idea that the United Nations be funded through a global tax. Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? United Nations Amendment No. 11 Offered By Mr. Paul 16 June 2005    2005 Ron Paul 66:1 Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment No. 11 offered by Mr. PAUL: Page 108, after line 7, insert the following: TITLE VIII — ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS SEC. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to pay any United States contribution to the United Nations or any affiliated agency of the United Nations. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 14, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL). (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) United Nations Amendment No. 11 Offered By Mr. Paul 16 June 2005    2005 Ron Paul 66:3 Mr. Chairman, the amendment I have is very simple, and it tells us exactly what it does, so I am just going to read it. It says, “None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to pay any United States contribution to the United Nations or any affiliated agency of the United Nations.” United Nations Amendment No. 11 Offered By Mr. Paul 16 June 2005    2005 Ron Paul 66:4 So, very simply, a vote for my amendment would be a vote to defund the United Nations, and it would be a policy statement, obviously. We have had some debate already on the United Nations, and we will be having another debate either later today or tomorrow dealing with reform of the United Nations. Yesterday we had a vote dealing with removing half of the funding from the United Nations. This would be in the same direction, but it would remove all of the funding. United Nations Amendment No. 11 Offered By Mr. Paul 16 June 2005    2005 Ron Paul 66:5 The United Nations has been under serious attack, and most Americans know there is a big problem with the United Nations. There is corruption involved with the oil-for-food scandal, as well as the abuse of human rights. There are a lot of people who believe that we can reform the United Nations and make it much more responsive to our principles. I do not happen to share that belief. United Nations Amendment No. 11 Offered By Mr. Paul 16 June 2005    2005 Ron Paul 66:6 I have been a longtime opponent of the United Nations not so much because of the goals they seek, but because of their failure to reach these goals, as well as the attack on our national sovereignty. For me, it is a sovereignty issue, and that is the reason that I believe that it does not serve our interests to be in the United Nations, and we should make a statement for the many Americans who share that particular view. United Nations Amendment No. 11 Offered By Mr. Paul 16 June 2005    2005 Ron Paul 66:7 But I would like to take a little bit of this time right now to relate my position on the United Nations with the bill that is coming up later today or tomorrow, and that is the reform bill. The reform bill is very controversial. We already have former Republican and Democrat ambassadors, Secretaries of State who are in opposition to this, and our own President has expressed opposition to this. It is not for the same reasons that I am opposed to that reform bill, but they are opposed to it because there is a threat of cutting some funding. United Nations Amendment No. 11 Offered By Mr. Paul 16 June 2005    2005 Ron Paul 66:8 But in their attack on the reform bill, they do say they support the policy changes. That is what I would like to emphasize here. Most people see the reform bill as a mere threat to the United Nations to shape up, or we are going to cut half of their funds. Yesterday we had a much more straightforward vote, because if you, also, believe in true reform, all those supporters of the reform bill should have supported the Hayworth amendment and just flat out cut half of the funding. But the reform bill says that, well, if you do certain things, we are going to give you your money. Of course, those who really like the U.N. find that offensive and think that is too intrusive on the functioning of the United Nations. United Nations Amendment No. 11 Offered By Mr. Paul 16 June 2005    2005 Ron Paul 66:10 So instead of tightening up the reins and the financial control of the United Nations and getting them to act more efficiently and effectively, what they are doing, if they do not have the ability to really strike the 50 percent, the bill institutionalizes new policy changes. United Nations Amendment No. 11 Offered By Mr. Paul 16 June 2005    2005 Ron Paul 66:12 The first thing it would do is it would change the definition of terrorism as related to United Nations, and it would change the ability and the responsibility of the United Nations to become involved. Today it is currently understood that if there is an invasion of one country by another, the United Nations is called up, and they assume responsibility, and then they can put in troops to do whatever they think is necessary. But if this new policy is adopted, it will literally institutionalize the policy that was used by our own government to go into Iraq, and that is preemptive war, preemptive strikes, to go in and either support an insurgency, or in order to get rid of a regime, or vice versa. This is a significant change and an expansion of U.N. authority. I, quite frankly, think that this is a move in the wrong direction. United Nations Amendment No. 11 Offered By Mr. Paul 16 June 2005    2005 Ron Paul 66:14 So not only do I urge my colleagues to vote for my resolution to defund the United Nations, I urge my colleagues to look very cautiously at the U.N. reform bill, because there is a lot more in there than one might think. The one thing we do not need is John Bolton and Paul Wolfowitz, the authors of our policy for regime change in Iraq, in charge of the same policy in the U.N. United Nations Henry Lamb- A Great Freedom Fighter Documents how your Dietary Supplements are Under Attack July 11, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 83:1 Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to read ”Your dietary supplements: Under attack again“ by Henry Lamb, which I am inserting into the record. Mr. Lamb explains the threat to American consumers of dietary supplements and American sovereignty by the Codex Alimentarius commission, commonly referred to simply as Codex. The United Nations created Codex to establish international standards for foods and medicines. Just last week, representatives of the United States government agreed to a final version of Codex’s standards on dietary supplements which, if implemented in the United States, could drastically reduce Americans’ ability to obtain the supplements of their choice. Members of the American bureaucracy may be hoping to achieve via international fiat what they cannot achieve through the domestic law-making process--the power to restrict consumers’ access to dietary supplements. American bureaucrats may gain this power if the World Trade Organization, which considers Codex ”guidelines“ the standard by which all other regulations are judged, decides that our failure to ”harmonize“ our regulations of dietary supplements to meet Codex’s recommendations violates international trading standards! This could occur despite the fact that American consumers do not want to be subjected to the restrictive regulations common in other parts of the world, such as the European Union. United Nations The Republican Congress Wastes Billions Overseas July 20, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 86:4 This bill spends a total of four and a half billion dollars on various United Nations activities, UN peacekeeping, and US dues to various international organizations. Forcing the taxpayer to continue to underwrite these organizations, which do not operate in our best interests, is unconscionable. United Nations The Republican Congress Wastes Billions Overseas July 20, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 86:6 I am also very concerned about several of the amendments to this legislation. First, the extremely misleading UN “reform” act was slipped into this bill even though it was already passed on the floor as a separate bill. As I have written about this terrible legislation, “it will give the United Nations unprecedented new authority to intervene in sovereign states.” United Nations Why We Fight September 8, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 95:12 Of course the routine canard for our need to fight, finance, and meddle around the world ever since the Korean War was repeated incessantly: UN Resolutions had to be enforced lest the United Nations be discredited. The odd thing was that on this occasion the United Nations itself did everything possible to stop our pre-emptive attack. And as it turned out, Saddam Hussein was a lot closer to compliance than anyone dreamed. It wasn’t long before concern for the threat of Saddam Hussein became near hysterical, drowning out any reasoned opposition to the planned war. United Nations Why We Fight September 8, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 95:22 2. “Enforce all relevant United Nations Council resolutions regarding Iraq.” United Nations Why We Fight September 8, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 95:24 The fact that Congress is not permitted under the Constitution to transfer the war power to a president was ignored. Only Congress can declare war, if we were inclined to follow the rule of law. To add insult to injury, HJ RES 114 cited United Nations resolutions as justifications for the war. Ignoring the Constitution while using the UN to justify the war showed callous disregard for the restraints carefully written in the Constitution. The authors deliberately wanted to make war difficult to enter without legislative debate, and they purposely kept the responsibility out of the hands of the executive branch. Surely they never dreamed an international government would have influence over our foreign policy or tell us when we should enter into armed conflict. United Nations Why We Fight September 8, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 95:49 It isn’t only our presidents that deserve the blame when they overstep their authority and lead the country into inappropriate wars. Congress deserves equally severe criticism for acquiescing to the demands of the executive to go needlessly to war. It has been known throughout history that kings, dictators, and the executive branch of governments are always overly eager to go to war. This is precisely why our founders tried desperately to keep decisions about going to war in the hands of the legislature. But this process has failed us for the last 65 years. Congress routinely has rubber stamped the plans of our presidents and even the United Nations to enter into war through the back door. United Nations The Blame Game December 7, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 124:14 The blame game is a political event, designed to avoid the serious philosophic debate over our foreign policy of interventionism. The mistakes made by both parties in dragging us into an unwise war are obvious, but the effort to blame one group over the other confuses the real issue. Obviously Congress failed to meet its constitutional obligation regarding war. Debate over prewar intelligence elicits charges of errors, lies, and complicity. It is now argued that those who are critical of the outcome in Iraq are just as much at fault, since they too accepted flawed intelligence when deciding to support the war. This charge is leveled at previous administrations, foreign governments, Members of Congress, and the United Nations-- all who made the same mistake of blindly accepting the prewar intelligence. Complicity, errors of judgment, and malice are hardly an excuse for such a serious commitment as a pre-emptive war against a non-existent enemy. United Nations Foreign Policy 17 December 2005    2005 Ron Paul 128:11 Since the administration is so enamored of democracy, why not have a national referendum in Iraq to see if the people want us to leave? After we left Lebanon in the 1980s, the Arab League was instrumental in brokering an end to that country’s 15-year civil war. Its chances of helping to stop the fighting in Iraq are far better than depending on the United Nations, NATO, or the United States. United Nations Foreign Policy 17 December 2005    2005 Ron Paul 128:16 It is argued that those who are now critical of the outcome are just as much at fault since they too accepted flawed intelligence when in deciding to support the war. This charge is leveled at previous administrations, foreign governments, Members of Congress, and the United Nations, all who made the same mistake of blindly accepting the pre-war intelligence. United Nations Introduction Of The Citizen Soldier Protection Act Of 2006 16 February 2006    2006 Ron Paul 5:1 Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Citizen Soldier Protection Act of 2006. This legislation will protect our American soldiers from being forced to serve under a United Nations or other foreign command and from being forced to wear the insignia of the United Nations or other foreign states. United Nations Introduction Of The Citizen Soldier Protection Act Of 2006 16 February 2006    2006 Ron Paul 5:2 Mr. Speaker, there have been instances where members of the U.S. Armed Forces were compelled, without lawful authority, to serve under United Nations or other foreign command and to wear as part of their military uniform visible indicia or insignia of the United Nations and foreign states. This is absolutely unacceptable, as the Constitutional role of the United States Armed Forces is to protect the United States of America. It is the responsibility of the U.S. Congress to ensure that the men and women who sign up for the noble duty of defending our country do not end up serving under a foreign flag or foreign commander. And American soldiers certainly should not be forced to serve the sovereignty- destroying plans of the United Nations! United Nations Agreeing To Talk To Iran Unconditionally 22 June 2006    2006 Ron Paul 48:8 As my colleagues are well aware, I am strongly opposed to the United Nations and our participation in that organization. Every Congress I introduce a bill to get us out of the U.N., but I also recognize problems with our demanding to have it both ways. On one hand, we pretend to abide by the U.N. and international laws, such as when Congress cited the U.N. on numerous occasions in its resolution authorizing the President to initiate war against Iraq. On the other hand, we feel free to completely ignore the terms of treaties, and even unilaterally demand a change in the terms of the treaties without hesitation. This leads to an increasing perception around the world that we are no longer an honest broker, that we are not to be trusted. Is this the message we want to send at this critical time? United Nations Why Are Americans So Angry? June 29, 2006    2006 Ron Paul 52:64 Our undeclared wars over the past 65 years have dragged on without precise victories. We fight to spread American values, to enforce UN resolutions, and to slay supposed Hitlers. We forget that we once spread American values by persuasion and setting an example — not by bombs and preemptive invasions. Nowhere in the Constitution are we permitted to go to war on behalf of the United Nations at the sacrifice of our national sovereignty. We repeatedly use military force against former allies, thugs we helped empower—like Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden—even when they pose no danger to us. United Nations Why Are Americans So Angry? June 29, 2006    2006 Ron Paul 52:72 Many members have confided in me that they are quite comfortable with this arrangement. They flatly do not expect, in this modern age, to formally declare war ever again. Yet no one predicts there will be fewer wars fought. It is instead assumed they will be ordered by the executive branch or the United Nations — a rather sad commentary. United Nations Why Are Americans So Angry? June 29, 2006    2006 Ron Paul 52:79 We must move quickly toward a more traditional American foreign policy of peace, friendship, and trade with all nations; entangling alliances with none. We must reject the notion that we can or should make the world safe for democracy. We must forget about being the world’s policeman. We should disengage from the unworkable and unforgiving task of nation building. We must reject the notion that our military should be used to protect natural resources, private investments, or serve the interest of any foreign government or the United Nations. Our military should be designed for one purpose: defending our national security. It’s time to come home now, before financial conditions or military weakness dictates it. United Nations Big-Government Solutions Don’t Work 7 september 2006    2006 Ron Paul 74:37 Though tens of millions of deaths are associated with these wars, it seems we haven’t learned a thing. We went into Korea by direction of the United Nations, not a Congressional declaration of war, to unify Korea. Yet that war ensured that Korea remained divided to this day. Our troops are still there. South Korea today is much more willing to reconcile differences with North Korea, and yet we obstruct such efforts. It doesn’t make much sense. United Nations Don’t Do It, Mr. President 6 February 2007    2007 Ron Paul 21:1 Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, if the President were to ask me for advice on foreign affairs, this is what I would say: Don’t do it, Mr. President. It is a bad idea. There is no need for it. There is great danger in doing it. America is against it, and Congress should be. The United Nations is against it. The Russians, the Chinese, the Indians, the Pakistanis are against it. The whole world is against it. Our allies are against it. Our enemies are against it. The Arabs are against it. The Europeans are against it. The Muslims are against it. United Nations Introducing A Bill To establish A Sunset For The Authorization For The Use Of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution Of 2002 (Public Law 107-243) 7 June 2007    2007 Ron Paul 60:2 The rationale for this sunset is that according to the 2002 authorization for Iraq, the President was authorized to use military force against Iraq to achieve the following two specific objectives only: “( 1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.” United Nations Introducing A Bill To establish A Sunset For The Authorization For The Use Of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution Of 2002 (Public Law 107-243) 7 June 2007    2007 Ron Paul 60:3 It should be obvious to both supporters and critics of our military action in Iraq that our military has achieved both legal objectives. Our military quickly removed the regime of Saddam Hussein, against whom the United Nations resolutions were targeted. And a government has been elected in post-Saddam Iraq that has met with U.S. approval, fulfilling the first objective of the authorization. United Nations Calling On The United Nations Security Council To Charge Iranian President With Certain Violations Because Of His Calls For Destruction Of Israel 18 June 2007    2007 Ron Paul 70:1 Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this resolution. This resolution is an exercise in propaganda that serves one purpose: to move us closer to initiating a war against Iran. Citing various controversial statements by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, this legislation demands that the United Nations Security Council charge Ahmadinejad with violating the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. United Nations Resolution On Situation In Burma 2 October 2007    2007 Ron Paul 97:1 Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation not because I do not sympathize with the plight of the oppressed people of Burma, particularly as demonstrated by the continued confinement of Aung San Suu Kyi. Any time a government represses its citizenry it is reprehensible. My objection to this legislation is twofold. First, the legislation calls on the United Nations Security Council to “take appropriate action” with regard to Burma and its internal conditions. This sounds like an open door for an outside military intervention under the auspices of the United Nations, which is something I do not support. United Nations COMMEMORATING 20TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE TIANANMEN SQUARE SUPPRESSION June 2, 2009    2009 Ron Paul 61:3 This resolution “calls on the People’s Republic of China to invite full and independent investigations into the Tiananmen Square crackdown, assisted by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the International Committee of the Red Cross . . .” Where do we get the authority for such a demand? I wonder how the U.S. government would respond if China demanded that the United Nations conduct a full and independent investigation into the treatment of detainees at the U.S.-operated Guantanamo facility? United Nations Rep. Paul Opposes Bill June 10, 2009    2009 Ron Paul 65:2 Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill. Some are hopeful that this will be a less militaristic approach to our foreign policy. Quite frankly, I don’t see any changes. I wish it were something that would represent a humble foreign policy, but when you put an extra $100 million into the military operations of the United Nations, I hardly think this is a change in direction. Actually, it’s $18 billion that is going into more meddling, and we don’t have $18 billion. United Nations Statement on War Supplemental Appropriations June 16, 2009    2009 Ron Paul 67:3 As Americans struggle through the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, this emergency supplemental appropriations bill sends billions of dollars overseas as foreign aid. Included in this appropriation is $660 million for Gaza, $555 million for Israel, $310 million for Egypt, $300 million for Jordan, and $420 million for Mexico. Some $889 million will be sent to the United Nations for “peacekeeping” missions. Almost one billion dollars will be sent overseas to address the global financial crisis outside our borders and nearly $8 billion will be spent to address a “potential pandemic flu.” Texas Straight Talk United Nations - Out-of-touch Congress needs to abolish IRS, not increase it 22 September 1997    Texas Straight Talk 22 September 1997 verse 11 ... Cached The federal government has no authority to erode United States sovereignty. According to the Constitution, all sovereignty, all authority, other than those delegated in the carefully delineated enumerated powers, remains vested with the people, not the federal government, and certainly not with the United Nations. United Nations - Congress continues to ignore Constitution in the appropriations process 29 September 1997    Texas Straight Talk 29 September 1997 verse 8 ... Cached Also this past week there was an amendment to the State Department appropriation which would have cut $54 million from the payment to the United Nations, because the UN owes the US for non-reimbursed expenses. While the big government advocates won, the measure did receive 165 votes. United Nations - Congress continues to ignore Constitution in the appropriations process 29 September 1997    Texas Straight Talk 29 September 1997 verse 13 ... Cached Whether the issue is subsidizing the socialists at the United Nations and their stupid wars, or covering the tail of corporate America, the US Congress needs to stop using your federal tax money on programs and activities - no matter how well intentioned or how long they have been in effect - which are not authorized by the Constitution. Just as sending our troops to fight in the undeclared wars of the UN is unconstitutional, so is forcing you to work hard to pay taxes that go to pad the pockets of corporate America as they ships jobs overseas. United Nations - Neutrality and dialogue, not intervention, will secure peace 24 November 1997    Texas Straight Talk 24 November 1997 verse 7 ... Cached There is no direct national security interests for us to be in Iraq. We are not the policeman of the world, we can't afford it, and our interventionist efforts usually backfire. Our policy in this region has been designed more to promote the United Nations than to deal with any threat to our national security. Control of the region's huge oil reserves is a much more important factor than U.S. security. United Nations - Kyoto treaty disregards science for a radical anti-American agenda 15 December 1997    Texas Straight Talk 15 December 1997 verse 11 ... Cached Also suffering under this treaty will be the sovereignty of the US and the agriculture industry. Under the still-sketchy terms of the treaty, the US will cede some control over the day-to-day policy and regulations of the American rice growers and cattle ranchers to United Nations bureaucrats. Why rice and cattle? Because rice paddies and livestock produce methane gas, which the radical environmentalists claim will destroy the planet. I hope this is not lost on anyone; the biggest threat to the planet apparently are not man-made chemicals, but rice and cows. United Nations 1998 is a new chance to change government for better 05 January 1998    Texas Straight Talk 05 January 1998 verse 11 ... Cached I will also continue my work in promoting the popular HR 1146, the American Sovereignty Restoration Act. This measure represents a step toward halting the cessation of power from the federal government to international bodies such as the United Nations, the World Trade Organization and the World Bank, by withdrawing the US from the UN. Under our Constitution, the federal government - including the President, the Congress and the courts - is not allowed to give away power and responsibility to these bodies, simply because the power is not theirs to give: Only the people have the power in our nation. Under the auspices of these international bodies, American boys have died in battle not for American interests, or in wars declared by Congress as the Constitution requires. With each of these senseless deaths - from Korea and Vietnam to Haiti and Bosnia - our national security is inherently and irreparably weakened. United Nations Abortion and National Sovereignty: No Compromises 26 January 1998    Texas Straight Talk 26 January 1998 verse 4 ... Cached Recently, there have been attempts to tie the bare-minimum pro-life "Mexico City" Policy to the issues of funding for the United Nations and the International Monetary Fund. But those attempts are now coming back to haunt those of us who believe in both the sanctity of human life and the inviolability of US sovereignty. I expect that very early in this second session of the 105th Congress, which begins Tuesday, January 27, we will see a "grand deal" struck which will see liberals "back down" from their opposition to a revised Mexico City Policy in exchange for conservative members voting to support funding of the United Nations and IMF. United Nations Abortion and National Sovereignty: No Compromises 26 January 1998    Texas Straight Talk 26 January 1998 verse 8 ... Cached Meanwhile, the United Nations and IMF are two international organizations which frequently act in a manner contrary to the sovereignty interests of the United States. As such, I have sponsored legislation to get the United States out of both of these organizations. United Nations Abortion and National Sovereignty: No Compromises 26 January 1998    Texas Straight Talk 26 January 1998 verse 13 ... Cached Worse still, it now appears that conservative congressmen are willing to water the Mexico City policy down still further in order to get President Clinton to sign legislation which shouldn't exist in the first place. Thus we have Congressional leadership again backing down from President Clinton, giving in to his demand for unrestricted public funding of abortion even while compromising America's sovereignty by providing further taxpayer funds to organizations such as IMF and the United Nations. United Nations Abortion and National Sovereignty: No Compromises 26 January 1998    Texas Straight Talk 26 January 1998 verse 14 ... Cached Fortunately many conservative pro-life and pro-sovereignty groups are making it known that they do not support this so-called "compromise." I will vocally oppose any effort to pay even one more penny of US taxpayer dollars to the United Nations or IMF. Although I believe that this "grand deal" has already been struck between the leadership of Congress and the White House I believe it is incumbent upon men and women of conscience to contact their representatives and speak out against this scheme. United Nations US must not trample Constitution to attack Iraq 16 February 1998    Texas Straight Talk 16 February 1998 verse 8 ... Cached There is absolutely no moral or constitutional reason to go to war with Iraq at this time. To go to war to enforce the dictates of the United Nations, or to play the part of 'policemen of the world,' opposes the sensibilities of all who seek to follow the Constitution. I refuse to participate in action which would possibly expose even one soldier to risk when there is absolutely no immediate threat to the US. United Nations US should stop meddling in foreign wars 16 March 1998    Texas Straight Talk 16 March 1998 verse 8 ... Cached The centuries old ethnic rivalries inherent in this region, and aggravated by persistent Western influence as far back as the Crusades, will never be resolved by arbitrary threats and use of force from the United States or the United Nations. All that is being accomplished is to further alienate the factions, festering hate and pushing the region into a war of which we need no part. United Nations US should stop meddling in foreign wars 16 March 1998    Texas Straight Talk 16 March 1998 verse 10 ... Cached But we cannot maintain two loyalties, one to a world government under the United Nations and the other to U.S. sovereignty protected by an American Congress. If we try, only chaos can result and we are moving rapidly in that direction. United Nations US should stop meddling in foreign wars 16 March 1998    Texas Straight Talk 16 March 1998 verse 15 ... Cached Concern for American security is a proper and necessary function of the U.S. Congress. The current policy, and one pursued for decades, threatens our security, drains our wallets, and worst of all, threatens the lives of young Americans to stand tall for Americans' defense, but not for Kofi Annan and the United Nations. United Nations Methods employed by Congress as bad as the legislation 30 March 1998    Texas Straight Talk 30 March 1998 verse 6 ... Cached What was in the legislation? It contained nearly a billion dollars for the controversial "back-dues" which the United Nations claims we owe them, and which many of us believe is false. Further, it forgave the very real debt the UN owes our nation for the subsidization of various UN military actions around the world. United Nations Congressional action weakens national defense 06 April 1998    Texas Straight Talk 06 April 1998 verse 6 ... Cached One of the truly positive aspects of HR 3579 was Section 3002, stating that "none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be made available for the conduct of offensive operations by United States Armed Forces against Iraq for the purpose of obtaining compliance by Iraq with United Nations Security Council Resolutions relating to inspection and destruction of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq unless such operations are specifically authorized by a law enacted after the date of the enactment of this Act." This language is virtually identical to HR 3208, a bill I introduced in February of this year to require Congressional consent prior to any offensive attack by the United States on the Republic of Iraq. United Nations Congressional action weakens national defense 06 April 1998    Texas Straight Talk 06 April 1998 verse 11 ... Cached There is absolutely no moral or constitutional reason to go to war with Iraq or further intervene in Bosnia at this time. To go to war to enforce the dictates of the United Nations, or to play the part of 'policemen of the world,' offends the sensibilities of all who seek to follow the Constitution. I refuse to participate in (or fund) an action which would possibly expose even one soldier to risk when there is absolutely no immediate threat to the territory of the United States. United Nations The Ominous Budget Deal 26 October 1998    Texas Straight Talk 26 October 1998 verse 7 ... Cached For the first time, United Nations inspectors will be allowed to operate on US soil as if we were a rogue nation threatening international stability. That we are allowing foreign governments and inspectors to dictate how we protect ourselves is unconscionable. United Nations Schizophrenic foreign policy leads to problems 23 November 1998    Texas Straight Talk 23 November 1998 verse 4 ... Cached Sabers are again being rattled by the Clinton Administration, with thousands of troops dispatched to a remote corner of the world to implement a United Nations policy which very few of the "Nations" support, and none are willing to bankroll. Who is the bad guy of the week? United Nations Unconstitutional wars gravest of crimes 21 December 1998    Texas Straight Talk 21 December 1998 verse 7 ... Cached Despite the thousands of Americans who have died in Korea, Vietnam, the Persian Gulf and other locales, there has not been a declared war since World War II. Each of those actions occurred without the constitutional requirement of a declaration of war. In reality many of our nation's young men died in the pitch of battle and war, but in the coldness of the law, they fell -- depending on the case -- in "police actions," "peacekeeping missions" or "support operations," with the authority usually coming from the United Nations, rather than the US Congress. United Nations Budget Standoff Continues 15 November 1999    Texas Straight Talk 15 November 1999 verse 9 ... Cached The five remaining appropriations bills may be rolled into one omnibus bill for which a "yes" vote will fund $1 billion in un-owed back dues to the United Nations and dictate to state and local school boards how many teachers to hire, much to the delight of the National Education Association and teachers unions. United Nations Taking the Next Step 29 November 1999    Texas Straight Talk 29 November 1999 verse 7 ... Cached I have once again introduced legislation to end US involvement in the United Nations. As this international bureaucracy continues to threaten American sovereignty and the individual liberty of American citizens, as well as demanding more and more funding from American taxpayers, it is obvious that our continued involvement is at best a drain on resources and at worst a direct contradiction of the principles the founding fathers so clearly understood when they fought to establish our Republic. United Nations Floor Votes Reviewed 06 December 1999    Texas Straight Talk 06 December 1999 verse 6 ... Cached Another amendment I introduced dealt with funding for the United Nations. Similar to an amendment I put forward in the last Congress that would have ended US participation in that international bureaucracy, this year my amendment garnered 74 votes in the House. This was a significant increase over the 54 vote total we achieved in the 105th Congress. Obviously, although we are not yet close to convincing the majority we need to enact this policy into law, we continue to build support and to see support in advancing this idea. United Nations Cosponsored Bills 20 December 1999    Texas Straight Talk 20 December 1999 verse 5 ... Cached Some of the bills I have cosponsored deal with topics on which I have already introduced legislation. These include measures dealing with second amendment rights protection, restriction of funding to the United Nations and "Sense of Congress resolutions" regarding executive orders and privacy issues. Often times, I cosponsor a bill that is not necessarily drafted in such a fashion that I believe will really get at the heart of the problem it is intended to address. Nonetheless, I decide to cosponsor such measures, as long as they take steps in the right direction. Additionally, if the issue is something that I see as significant to maintaining our liberty and restoring our Republic, I will also craft a bill that I think more directly addresses the central problem. In this way, I can lend support to other Members who are moving in the right direction while also advocating a more specific, and often times more significant, remedy to the problem. United Nations The Big Lie 13 March 2000    Texas Straight Talk 13 March 2000 verse 7 ... Cached Finally, Steele points out that the stories about Kosovo came not only from NATO officers but also from officials of the United Nations as well as from our own government. However, a few sources closely followed developments and seemed to get the story about right. Pablo Ordaz of El Pais magazine, Audrey Gillan of the London Review of Books and even two members of an inspection team sent to Kosovo for the purpose of investigating purported mass graves all challenged the stories of the propaganda machine. United Nations The Cost of War 01 May 2000    Texas Straight Talk 01 May 2000 verse 5 ... Cached The administration likes to argue that these issues are not constrained by national boundaries. They say such global issues call for global solutions, for which they usually propose global agencies such as the United Nations, and the World Trade Organization. They say these problems are global, so America must send billions of dollars in taxpayer funding to other countries to help them with their environmental, economic, and health-related problems. United Nations International Criminal Court is the Latest U.N. Outrage 08 January 2001    Texas Straight Talk 08 January 2001 verse 3 ... Cached The Clinton administration, working overtime during the eleventh hour to consolidate its pitiful "legacy," has taken another step toward imposing global government on U.S. citizens. On New Year's Eve, only hours before a United Nations midnight deadline, the President ordered a U.S. ambassador to sign the 1998 U.N. Rome treaty. This treaty purports to establish a worldwide U.N. criminal court, demonstrating the brazen willingness of global-government proponents to move forward with their plans. Once created, the international court will give the U.N. the mechanism it needs to enforce its global "laws" against American citizens. The legal apparatus represents the logical next step for ever-expanding U.N. power: first the phony "international laws" were created, and now a court system is needed to give teeth to the laws. International prisons in Geneva or Brussels cannot be far behind. All Americans concerned with our sovereignty as a nation should be very alarmed by this latest development. In fact, U.N. expert Henry Lamb recently stated that Clinton's endorsement of this treaty "may be the most egregious act of his entire tenure." United Nations Spy Plane Incident Shows a Need for New Policies 23 April 2001    Texas Straight Talk 23 April 2001 verse 6 ... Cached The irony is that we also subsidize the Chinese government and people through the United Nations and our own Export-Import Bank. Americans should be very concerned when their tax dollars are sent to the same regime portrayed as an enemy by our own government. We should not subsidize trade or provide foreign aid to any country, and it is folly to believe those dollars will not be used against us. We just witnessed a terrible example of the danger of foreign aid: the Chinese fighter threatening the lives of our crew carried Israeli missiles built with American aid dollars. Perhaps this incident will make more Americans aware of the perils of arming both our "friends" and our enemies." United Nations The Deepening United Nations Quagmire 14 May 2001    Texas Straight Talk 14 May 2001 verse 2 ... Cached The Deepening United Nations Quagmire United Nations Conflicts at the UN Conference on Racism 10 September 2001    Texas Straight Talk 10 September 2001 verse 3 ... Cached Most liberty-minded Americans already know that the United Nations seeks to impose global government on all of us in the future, but now the organization is attempting to rewrite the past as well. Its recent week-long "World Conference against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related intolerance" demonstrates just how broadly the UN views its own authority. Even though the stated goals of the conference- to map out an international strategy to combat racism and right the wrongs of the past- might seem laughably far-fetched, it's unsettling to think that the conference might be setting a precedent for more UN expansion and more phony international laws. United Nations America Retains its Sovereign Right to Respond to Attacks 08 October 2001    Texas Straight Talk 08 October 2001 verse 4 ... Cached However, the United Nations already is working to position itself as the international body responsible for addressing terrorism. UN secretary-general Annan has called for a worldwide treaty against terrorism, as though suicidal terrorists would honor such a treaty! Many supporters of global government, even some in America, believe that the US must present its military plans to the UN for approval before we act. The underlying premise is obvious: according to the globalists, we are all part of one big nation- and America has no sovereign right to use military force unilaterally. United Nations America Retains its Sovereign Right to Respond to Attacks 08 October 2001    Texas Straight Talk 08 October 2001 verse 8 ... Cached We should remember that the image of the United Nations as a benevolent peacemaker is a myth, as evidenced by the sad history of its military actions over the past 30 years. In virtually every instance its so-called "peacekeeping missions" have done nothing but intensify regional conflicts. Kosovo and Somalia are poignant examples of UN policy gone bad, creating lasting resentment and instability rather than peace. The truth is that the UN cannot create peace or end terrorism, but it can vastly expand its power over the lives of US citizens. We must resist any attempt by the UN to advance its agenda in the wake of the September 11th tragedy. United Nations Don't Believe the Hype- "Campaign Finance Reform" Serves Entrenched Interests 18 February 2002    Texas Straight Talk 18 February 2002 verse 8 ... Cached Outrageously, the new reform bill virtually outlaws criticism of incumbent politicians for 60 days before an election. Do you think citizens need to know about one prominent New York Senator's plan to confiscate firearms? Any gun rights group that speaks out between Labor Day and the November election- precisely the time when most Americans are becoming informed about the candidates and the issues- will be violating the law. Do you think voters need to know if a senior member of the important House International Relations committee puts his allegiance to the United Nations before that of his own country? An opponent making this point in a commercial during the 60-day period could end up in jail. Do we honestly think this kind of muzzle should be put on the American people? United Nations UN Planting the Seeds for a Coming Global Tax 25 March 2002    Texas Straight Talk 25 March 2002 verse 3 ... Cached April 15th is coming, and you’re getting ready to file your tax return. Throughout the year you paid federal taxes through withholding, including Social Security payroll taxes. You also paid state income taxes, unless you’re fortunate enough to live in Texas or another state without an income tax. You paid local property taxes. You paid local sales taxes every time you bought something, and you paid numerous miscellaneous taxes such as vehicle license fees and federal gas taxes. Like most people, you probably feel taxed to death by all these city, county, state, and federal taxes. Well, hold on to your wallets, because the United Nations now wants to impose a whole new level of global taxes on us. United Nations A Court of No Authority 08 April 2002    Texas Straight Talk 08 April 2002 verse 8 ... Cached The United Nations and the ICC are inherently incompatible with national sovereignty. America must either remain a constitutional republic or submit to international law, because it cannot do both. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and the conflict between adhering to the rule of law and obeying globalist planners is now staring us in the face. At present we fortunately have a President who opposes the ICC, but ultimately it is up to Congress- and concerned citizens- to insure that no American ever stands trial before an international court. United Nations The Case against War in Iraq 09 September 2002    Texas Straight Talk 09 September 2002 verse 8 ... Cached If we once again wage war without a clear declaration of war by Congress, as we have done on so many occasions since World War II, we further damage the Constitution. I fear we will engage our troops in a haphazard way, by executive order, or even by begging permission from the anti-American United Nations. This haphazard approach, combined with the lack of clearly defined goal for victory, makes it almost inevitable that true victory will not come. When Congress evades its responsibilities and allows war to be declared by the President or an international body, it ceases to represent the very people for whom the war supposedly will be fought. United Nations Entangling Alliances Distort our Foreign Policy 16 September 2002    Texas Straight Talk 16 September 2002 verse 2 ... Cached As President Bush addressed the United Nations last week, I could not help thinking we have become incredibly mired in the "entangling alliances" another President George- George Washington- warned against. Sadly, many in Washington and the media seem to consider UN approval of our war plans far more important than a congressional debate on the matter. United Nations Entangling Alliances Distort our Foreign Policy 16 September 2002    Texas Straight Talk 16 September 2002 verse 3 ... Cached America has an absolute sovereign right to defend itself. We do not need permission from the UN or anybody else to use military force. What is needed, however, is a congressional declaration of war. Our Constitution does not permit any President to initiate war simply because the UN gives him permission. 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. America alone should decide whether to send its sons and daughters to war. United Nations Entangling Alliances Distort our Foreign Policy 16 September 2002    Texas Straight Talk 16 September 2002 verse 4 ... Cached I’m disappointed that the President has chosen to further entangle the American people with the United Nations by rejoining UNESCO. For decades UNESCO has promoted its anti-American "education" agenda with our tax dollars. President Reagan was right to withdraw America from the politicized and corrupt UNESCO, especially since American taxpayers funded a whopping 25% of its budget. Our new promised financial commitment to UNESCO is at least $60 million annually. Given our present economic problems and immediate national security concerns, we surely cannot afford to send even more taxpayer dollars to the UN- especially to an organization that actively promotes values so contrary to those of most Americans. United Nations Dump UNESCO! 30 September 2002    Texas Straight Talk 30 September 2002 verse 2 ... Cached During his recent speech before the United Nations general assembly, President Bush announced that the United States would rejoin UNESCO, a UN agency that has for decades promoted an anti-American agenda. "Rejoining" of course means funding with American tax dollars. Our new commitment to UNESCO will cost $60 million annually for starters, fully one-quarter of the agency’s budget. Sadly, I believe the administration made this decision as a concession to our globalist critics, who have been relentlessly accusing the President of "unilateralism" for daring to consider acting in Iraq without UN permission. This is done to soften UN opposition to our plans to initiate war. United Nations Dump UNESCO! 30 September 2002    Texas Straight Talk 30 September 2002 verse 3 ... Cached "UNESCO" stands for United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, which sounds lofty. In truth, the agency is nothing but a mouthpiece for the usual UN causes, including international abortion and population control; politically correct UN curriculum for American schools; UN control of federal land in America; cultural relativism; and global taxation, just to name a few. President Reagan bravely withdrew the U.S. from UNESCO in 1984, citing the organization’s financial mismanagement, blatant anti-Americanism, and general hostility to freedom. Today, however, we find ourselves once again becoming further entangled with the UN- all because we lack the courage to assert our sovereignty and tell the world that our Constitution, not the UN, governs our nation. United Nations Congress Becomes Irrelevant in the War Debate 07 October 2002    Texas Straight Talk 07 October 2002 verse 3 ... Cached It’s astonishing that the authorization passed by the committee mentions the United Nations dozens of times, yet does not mention the Constitution once. Congress has allowed itself to be bypassed completely, even though much is made of the President’s generosity in "consulting" legislators about the war. The real negotiations took place between the Bush administration and the UN, replacing debate in the people’s house. By transferring its authority to declare war to the President and ultimately the UN, Congress not only violates the Constitution, but also disenfranchises the American electorate. United Nations Why Won't Congress Declare War? 14 October 2002    Texas Straight Talk 14 October 2002 verse 4 ... Cached It’s astonishing that the authorization passed by the committee mentions the United Nations 25 times, yet does not mention the Constitution once. Congress has allowed itself to be bypassed completely, even though much is made of the President’s willingness to consult some legislative leaders about the war. The real negotiations took place between the Bush administration and the UN, replacing debate in the people’s house. By transferring its authority to declare war to the President and ultimately the UN, Congress not only violates the Constitution, but also disenfranchises the American people. United Nations Honoring our Military Veterans 11 November 2002    Texas Straight Talk 11 November 2002 verse 6 ... Cached Today’s American soldiers are the veterans of the future, and they should never be sent to war without clear objectives that serve definite American national security interests. They should never fight at the behest of the United Nations or any other international agency. They should never serve under a UN flag, nor answer to a UN commander. They deserve to know that they fight for the American people and the Constitution, and that the decision to send them into battle was made by their own congress rather than by UN bureaucrats who don’t care about them. Only by using American troops judiciously and in service of the Constitution can we avoid the kind of endless military entanglements we witnessed in Korea and Vietnam. We honor our veterans by ensuring that their service to the nation is never in vain. United Nations Time to Renounce the United Nations? 17 March 2003    Texas Straight Talk 17 March 2003 verse 1 ... Cached Time to Renounce the United Nations? United Nations Time to Renounce the United Nations? 17 March 2003    Texas Straight Talk 17 March 2003 verse 2 ... Cached Our anticipated war in Iraq has been condemned by many around the world for the worst of all reasons: namely, that America is acting without United Nations approval. The obvious implication is that an invasion of Iraq is illegitimate without such approval, but magically becomes legitimate when UN bureaucrats grant their blessing. Most Americans rightfully resent this arrogant attitude toward our national sovereignty and don’t care what the UN thinks about our war plans. Perhaps our heritage as a nation of people who do not take kindly to being told what to do is intact. Still, only the most ardent war hawks connected with the administration have begun to discuss complete withdrawal from the UN. I have advocated this for twenty years, and have introduced legislation to that effect. United Nations Time to Renounce the United Nations? 17 March 2003    Texas Straight Talk 17 March 2003 verse 7 ... Cached Noted constitutional scholar Herb Titus has thoroughly researched the United Nations and its purported “authority.” Titus explains that the UN Charter is not a treaty at all, but rather a blueprint for supranational government that directly violates the Constitution. As such, the Charter is neither politically nor legally binding upon the American people or government. The UN has no authority to make “laws” that bind American citizens, because it does not derive its powers from the consent of the American people. We need to stop speaking of UN resolutions and edicts as if they represented legitimate laws or treaties. They do not. United Nations Keep the United Nations out of Iraq- and America 28 April 2003    Texas Straight Talk 28 April 2003 verse 1 ... Cached Keep the United Nations out of Iraq- and America United Nations Keep the United Nations out of Iraq- and America 28 April 2003    Texas Straight Talk 28 April 2003 verse 2 ... Cached As the heaviest fighting in Iraq comes to a close, questions about what kind of government will be established dominate the news. Looting and lawlessness are the order of the day in the inevitable vacuum created by the removal of Saddam Hussein. Not surprisingly, the United Nations- at the urging of France, Germany, and Russia- wants to fill that vacuum and play the central role in postwar Iraq. If the Iraqi people ever hope to enjoy any measure of self-determination, UN occupation must be resisted. United Nations Reject UN Gun Control 22 September 2003    Texas Straight Talk 22 September 2003 verse 4 ... Cached For more than a decade the United Nations has waged a campaign to undermine Second Amendment rights in America. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has called on members of the Security Council to address the “easy availability” of small arms and light weapons, by which he means all privately owned firearms. In response, the Security Council released a report calling for a comprehensive program of worldwide gun control, a report that admonishes the U.S. and praises the restrictive gun laws of Red China and France! Meanwhile, this past June the UN held a conference with the silly title “Week of Action against Small Arms.” United Nations Congress Goes AWOL 09 February 2004    Texas Straight Talk 09 February 2004 verse 8 ... Cached The president stated in a speech last week that had Saddam Hussein remained in power, the United Nations resolutions and condemnations would be “scraps of paper amounting to nothing.” In the eyes of many conservatives and libertarians, it is our own Constitution being treated as a meaningless scrap of paper. United Nations Iraq One Year Later 22 March 2004    Texas Straight Talk 22 March 2004 verse 5 ... Cached One justification was that Saddam Hussein ignored United Nations Security Council resolutions. Whether this was true or not was none of our concern. America should never act at the behest of the UN or help enforce its illegitimate edicts. America should never commit troops to any UN action. We should not even be a member of the UN, but rather should ignore it completely. Membership in the UN is incompatible with our Constitution and national sovereignty. It was nonsensical for conservatives suddenly to cite Iraq’s purported lack of cooperation with the UN as justification for war. United Nations LOST at Sea 05 April 2004    Texas Straight Talk 05 April 2004 verse 2 ... Cached Back in the 1970s the United Nations launched its plan for a global program of taxation without representation, called the “New International Economic Order.” The goal of this new economic order was not so new at all, however. It sought the involuntary transfer of wealth and technology from the developed world to the third world under the direction of the United Nations. A cornerstone of this dangerous attempt to loot the prosperous nations was the “Law of the Sea Treaty” (LOST). United Nations LOST at Sea 05 April 2004    Texas Straight Talk 05 April 2004 verse 4 ... Cached The Law of the Sea Treaty also would give the UN power to tax American citizens and businesses, which has been a long-time dream of the anti-sovereignty globalists. LOST also would establish an international court system to enforce its provisions and rulings. Imagine not being able to do business internationally without the approval of the United Nations! United Nations LOST at Sea 05 April 2004    Texas Straight Talk 05 April 2004 verse 10 ... Cached Together with 13 of my colleagues in the House of Representatives, I sent a letter last week to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist urging him to reject this dangerous and foolish treaty. Should the United Nations succeed in its dream of taxing American citizens when they do business abroad, how much longer will it be until they begin taxing us at home? Just last month, in fact, UN bureaucrats gathered in New York to look for ways to revive their dream of imposing UN control and a global tax on the internet. Imagine a global policy on internet content dictated by nations such as Saudi Arabia and China - and paid for by Americans! Let us hope that the Senate does the sensible thing and rejects LOST and any further UN encroachments on our sovereignty. United Nations Whose Justice? 12 April 2004    Texas Straight Talk 12 April 2004 verse 3 ... Cached Activist federal judges often view the Constitution as an anachronism that stands in the way of their visions for “social justice.” They usually view European socialism very positively, and unconditionally believe in the United Nations and international law. Accordingly, activist judges increasingly are looking outside the US for guidance when deciding cases. United Nations Whose Justice? 12 April 2004    Texas Straight Talk 12 April 2004 verse 5 ... Cached As Robert Bork explains, six of the nine Supreme Court justices have either written or joined opinions that favorably cited foreign authorities. These justices have considered the European Court of Human Rights, various United Nations conventions, international human rights treaties, and even judicial decisions from India, Jamaica, and Zimbabwe when writing their opinions! Simply put, these justices are making the incredible argument that American federal courts should consider sources other than US law when deciding cases. In the words of one justice, the Court “cannot afford to ignore the rest of the world.” United Nations Whose Justice? 12 April 2004    Texas Straight Talk 12 April 2004 verse 6 ... Cached It’s not hard to see the grave danger posed by this new trend. Anti-gun judges could cite restrictions on gun ownership in other countries approvingly when disregarding our Second amendment. Hate speech laws in other nations could be used as authority to weaken the First amendment. Our wholly domestic tax, labor, environmental, and family laws could be influenced by United Nations edicts, foreign court judgments, and international treaties which have not been ratified by the United States. United Nations Election Monitoring- Insulting yet Inevitable 16 August 2004    Texas Straight Talk 16 August 2004 verse 9 ... Cached The real issue goes much deeper than this election, foreign monitors, and the corrupt OSCE, however. The real issue is the sovereignty the United States voluntarily gives up every time it joins an international organization like the United Nations or the OSCE. We have unwisely joined organizations like this so as to meddle in the elections of other member countries, but when they wish to meddle in ours we cry “foul.” We want it both ways -- to meddle in the affairs of other countries but to be immune from their meddling in ours. But it doesn’t work that way. Having created this monster, it is now coming back to haunt us. United Nations Another UN Insult 03 January 2005    Texas Straight Talk 03 January 2005 verse 4 ... Cached You may have heard one United Nations official comment that America is being stingy with its offer of millions of dollars in aid for tsunami victims. His attitude toward your money is typical of globalist bureaucrats, who ultimately view the UN as a means for transferring wealth from America to other nations. Americans are very generous people, and undoubtedly will donate tens or even hundreds of millions to private organizations to help the victims of this terribly tragedy in Asia. We hardly need the UN to chide us about our supposed lack of generosity. United Nations Another UN Insult 03 January 2005    Texas Straight Talk 03 January 2005 verse 5 ... Cached The oil-for-food scandal brewing in the United Nations also has provoked long-overdue denunciations of the organization from several pundits and politicians on the right. Of course most of you didn’t need a scandal to convince you that the UN is anti-American, or that it egregiously wastes our tax dollars. I’m glad more Republicans are finally catching on to what many Constitutionalists, libertarians, Birchers, Goldwaterites, and religious conservatives have been saying for decades: we should get out of the UN, and get the UN out of America. I certainly agree with these newly minted critics, having advocated getting out for twenty-five years. This growing anti-UN sentiment provides an opportunity to make a larger point, namely that participation in the organization is fundamentally incompatible with American sovereignty and the Constitution. United Nations Private Help for Tsunami Victims 10 January 2005    Texas Straight Talk 10 January 2005 verse 4 ... Cached The original coalition of donor governments has been disbanded, meaning the United Nations will control all government-funded relief efforts going forward. Surely the oil-for-food scandal demonstrates that UN officials are the worst possible stewards of the tsunami relief funds, yet that’s precisely who will be overseeing the expenditure of our $350 million. Bush administration officials have promised to keep a tight watch over how those tax dollars are spent, but the truth is that we cannot control this money once it’s sent overseas for UN administration. United Nations Private Help for Tsunami Victims 10 January 2005    Texas Straight Talk 10 January 2005 verse 10 ... Cached The Asian tsunami is the worst natural disaster of our lifetimes, and we should all do everything we can to help. Investigate the charities and private groups involved, and send what you can. But let’s get governments and the United Nations out of the way, please. United Nations UN Scandals Are Not the Issue 17 January 2005    Texas Straight Talk 17 January 2005 verse 3 ... Cached Two weeks ago I discussed the growing sentiment among conservatives in America that we should consider getting out of the United Nations. Much of this sentiment has been generated by the oil-for-food scandal, but this strikes me as misguided. Sovereignty is the issue, not scandals, and many newly-minted critics of the UN were happy to support the organization when it did our foreign policy bidding. United Nations Bowing and Scraping for the WTO 28 February 2005    Texas Straight Talk 28 February 2005 verse 5 ... Cached Americans should expect to see more of the laws we live under being dictated by international bodies. Later this year, all European Union countries will unify their food supplement laws to conform with rules established by a United Nations commission. This commission, called Codex Alimentarius, calls for strict control of dietary supplements. Under the Codex rules, Europeans will need a doctor’s prescription to obtain even basic vitamins. Thanks to the WTO, Americans may find their supplements similarly restricted in an attempt to harmonize the regulatory playing field between the U.S. and Europe. After all, this is the new reality in the WTO era: no nation may enjoy an “unfair” trade or regulatory environment. United Nations Empty Rhetoric for Veterans 04 April 2005    Texas Straight Talk 04 April 2005 verse 8 ... Cached Today’s American soldiers are the veterans of the future, and they should never be sent to war without clear objectives that serve definite American national security interests. They should never fight at the behest of the United Nations or any other international agency. They should never serve under a UN flag, nor answer to a UN commander. They deserve to know that they fight for the American people and the Constitution, and that the decision to send them into battle was made by their own Congress via an express declaration of war—NOT by UN bureaucrats who don’t care about them. United Nations Why Do We Fund UNESCO? 18 April 2005    Texas Straight Talk 18 April 2005 verse 3 ... Cached At the end of 2002 President Bush announced that the United States would rejoin UNESCO, an educational agency of the United Nations. One year later the First Lady was dispatched to Paris for a ceremony marking the end of our 20-year absence from UNESCO, where she assured the world that the US would be a “full, active and enthusiastic participant” in the organization. United Nations Why Do We Fund UNESCO? 18 April 2005    Texas Straight Talk 18 April 2005 verse 5 ... Cached UNESCO stands for United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, which sounds lofty. In truth, the agency is nothing but a mouthpiece for the usual UN causes, including international abortion and population control; politically correct UN curriculum for American schools; and UN control of federal land in America through so-called World Heritage sites. United Nations Why Do We Fund UNESCO? 18 April 2005    Texas Straight Talk 18 April 2005 verse 11 ... Cached President Reagan’s politically brave withdrawal from UNESCO portended an era of greater disengagement from the United Nations itself. Congress can revitalize that worthy goal by urging the administration to rethink its terrible decision to entangle the American people with an organization as rotten as UNESCO. I recently introduced a congressional resolution urging an official withdrawal from UNESCO, and I plan to attach the resolution as an amendment to a foreign aid spending bill this summer. It will be interesting to see whether the same members of Congress who savaged the UN before the Iraq war actually vote to get America out of UNESCO. United Nations Dietary Supplements and Health Freedom 25 April 2005    Texas Straight Talk 25 April 2005 verse 19 ... Cached My regular listeners already know about another looming threat to dietary supplement freedom. The Codex Alimentarius Commission, an offshoot of the United Nations, is working to “harmonize” food and supplement rules between all nations of the world. Under Codex rules, even basic vitamins and minerals will require a doctor’s prescription. As Europe moves ever closer to adopting Codex standards, it becomes more likely that the World Trade Organization will attempt to force those standards on the United States. This is yet another example of how the WTO threatens American sovereignty. By cooperating with Codex, the FDA is blatantly ignoring the will of Congress and the American people. United Nations NeoCon Global Government 13 June 2005    Texas Straight Talk 13 June 2005 verse 3 ... Cached 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. United Nations NeoCon Global Government 13 June 2005    Texas Straight Talk 13 June 2005 verse 4 ... Cached 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. United Nations NeoCon Global Government 13 June 2005    Texas Straight Talk 13 June 2005 verse 5 ... Cached 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. United Nations NeoCon Global Government 13 June 2005    Texas Straight Talk 13 June 2005 verse 6 ... Cached 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. United Nations NeoCon Global Government 13 June 2005    Texas Straight Talk 13 June 2005 verse 8 ... Cached 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. United Nations NeoCon Global Government 13 June 2005    Texas Straight Talk 13 June 2005 verse 10 ... Cached 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. United Nations Can the UN Really be Reformed? 20 June 2005    Texas Straight Talk 20 June 2005 verse 3 ... Cached Congress voted last week to give the United Nations unprecedented new authority to intervene in sovereign states, under the guise of UN “reform.” The reform bill theoretically provides for Congress to withhold 50% of US dues to the UN, but this will never happen. The bill allows the Secretary of State to make the ultimate decision about payment, and the State department strongly opposes withholding our dues in the first place. In fact, the State department is the UN’s closest ally in the entire federal government. This talk about withholding our dues is nothing but hot air designed to dupe real conservatives outside Washington into believing Congress is getting tough with the UN. Nothing could be further from the truth. Both the congressional leadership and the Bush administration are firmly committed to globalism, as evidenced not only by their commitment to the UN, by also by their position on trade agreements like CAFTA. Mark my words, in five years nobody will be talking about UN reform and our dues payments will be higher than ever. United Nations CAFTA and Dietary Supplements 18 July 2005    Texas Straight Talk 18 July 2005 verse 4 ... Cached The Codex Alimentarius Commission, organized by the United Nations in the 1960s, is charged with “harmonizing” food and supplement rules between all nations of the world. Under Codex rules, even basic vitamins and minerals require a doctor’s prescription. The European Union already has adopted Codex-type regulations, regulations that will be in effect across Europe later this year. This raises concerns that the Europeans will challenge our relatively open market for health supplements in a WTO forum. This is hardly far-fetched, as Congress already has cravenly changed our tax laws to comply with a WTO order. United Nations Empowering the UN in the Guise of Reform 03 October 2005    Texas Straight Talk 03 October 2005 verse 3 ... Cached Last month at its “World Summit” in New York, the United Nations took another big step toward destroying national sovereignty - a step that could threaten the United States in the future. The UN passed a resolution at this summit that, among other things, establishes a “Peacebuilding Commission,” creates a worldwide UN “democracy fund,” and most troublingly codifies the dangerous “Responsibility to Protect” report as part of UN policy. The three are certainly interrelated. United Nations Empowering the UN in the Guise of Reform 03 October 2005    Texas Straight Talk 03 October 2005 verse 5 ... Cached According to the UN, this commission will bring together the UN Security Council members, major donor states, major troop contributing countries, United Nations organizations, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund to develop and integrate conflict prevention, post-conflict reconstruction, and long-term development policies and strategies. The commission will serve as the key coordinating body for the design and implementation of military, humanitarian, and civil administration aspects of complex missions. Think of this as the core of a future UN army that will claim the right to intervene in any conflict anywhere. United Nations Empowering the UN in the Guise of Reform 03 October 2005    Texas Straight Talk 03 October 2005 verse 8 ... Cached While it may be true that the United States exerts considerable control over the United Nations at present, this may not always be the case. It is certainly conceivable that at some future date a weakened US may face a financially and militarily stronger China, for example, that demands UN action within US borders after determining that the US has not lived up to its “responsibility to protect.” This is the lesson for conservatives who are cheering on a “reform” process that is actually strengthening the United Nations. What will happen when the sovereignty we undermine through measures like this turns out to be our own? United Nations Deficts at Home, Welfare Abroad 07 November 2005    Texas Straight Talk 07 November 2005 verse 10 ... Cached * $95 million in new money for the United Nations Democracy Fund, which meddles with foreign governments but never seems to change them; United Nations Deficts at Home, Welfare Abroad 07 November 2005    Texas Straight Talk 07 November 2005 verse 11 ... Cached * $34 million for the pro-abortion United Nations Population Fund, which lectures poor people about having too many children; United Nations International Taxes? 06 March 2006    Texas Straight Talk 06 March 2006 verse 3 ... Cached April 15th is once again approaching and with it the necessity of filling out your tax return. It is a good time to reflect on the taxes you do pay - and especially on the taxes you may soon be forced to pay. Throughout the year you paid federal taxes through withholding, including Social Security payroll taxes. You also paid state income taxes, unless you’re fortunate enough to live in Texas or another state without an income tax. You paid local property taxes. You paid local sales taxes and numerous miscellaneous taxes on your vehicles and gasoline and so many other things. Like most people, you probably feel taxed to death by all these layers of taxes. Well, hold on to your wallets, because the United Nations once again has launched a plan to impose a whole new level of global taxes on us. United Nations International Taxes? 06 March 2006    Texas Straight Talk 06 March 2006 verse 4 ... Cached The latest UN tax scheme was revealed at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland in January. At this conference of the world’s financial elite, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) unveiled a UN plan to take seven trillion dollars from developed nations for use by the UN to save the rest of the world from all of its problems. United Nations International Taxes? 06 March 2006    Texas Straight Talk 06 March 2006 verse 5 ... Cached The United Nations remains determined to rob from wealthy countries and, after taking a big cut for itself, send what’s left to the poor countries. Of course, most of this money will go to the very dictators whose reckless policies have impoverished their citizens. According to the international bureaucrats of the UN, wherever poverty exists in the rest of the world it is always our fault. According to them, our prosperity comes not from hard work, legal protection of property rights, and our capitalist system, but rather because we exploit the poor of the third world. Somehow, it’s always our fault. United Nations International Taxes? 06 March 2006    Texas Straight Talk 06 March 2006 verse 9 ... Cached I also introduced H. R. 1017 in the current Congress which would permanently prohibit United States contributions to the United Nations if that organization develops, implements, or publicizes any proposal to tax Americans. United Nations International Taxes? 06 March 2006    Texas Straight Talk 06 March 2006 verse 10 ... Cached Of course, my preference is that the United States end its participation in the corrupt UN entirely, and I introduce HR 1146 in every Congress to do just that. But until my colleagues are willing to take this important step, I will continue to offer measures like my amendment last year to help protect your hard-earned money from the greedy hands of the globalist United Nations. United Nations Congress Rejects UN Taxes 19 June 2006    Texas Straight Talk 19 June 2006 verse 3 ... Cached Let me ask you a question: Do you think you pay enough taxes? Throughout the year you paid federal taxes through withholding, including Social Security payroll taxes. You also paid state income taxes, unless you’re fortunate enough to live in Texas or another state without an income tax. You paid local property taxes. You paid local sales taxes every time you bought something, and you paid numerous miscellaneous taxes such as vehicle license fees and federal gas taxes. Like most people, you probably feel taxed to death by all these city, county, state, and federal taxes. Well, hold on to your wallets, because the United Nations now wants to impose a whole new level of global taxes on us. United Nations The Worldwide Gun Control Movement 26 June 2006    Texas Straight Talk 26 June 2006 verse 3 ... Cached The United Nations is holding a conference beginning this week in New York that ironically coincides with our national 4th of July holiday. It’s ironic because those attending the conference want to do away with one of our most fundamental constitutional freedoms—the right to bear arms. United Nations The Worldwide Gun Control Movement 26 June 2006    Texas Straight Talk 26 June 2006 verse 8 ... Cached For more than a decade the United Nations has waged a campaign to undermine Second Amendment rights in America. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has called on members of the Security Council to address the “easy availability” of small arms and light weapons, by which he means all privately owned firearms. In response, the Security Council released a report calling for a comprehensive program of worldwide gun control, a report that admonishes the U.S. and praises the restrictive gun laws of Red China and France! United Nations A North American United Nations? 28 August 2006    Texas Straight Talk 28 August 2006 verse 1 ... Cached A North American United Nations? United Nations Getting Iraq War Funding Wrong Again 30 April 2007    Texas Straight Talk 30 April 2007 verse 7 ... Cached What is the best way forward in Iraq? Where do we go from here? First, Congress should admit its mistake in unconstitutionally transferring war power to the president and in citing United Nations resolutions as justification for war against Iraq. We should never go to war because another nation has violated a United Nations resolution. Then we should repeal the authority given to the president in 2002 and disavow presidential discretion in starting wars. Then we should start bringing our troops home in the safest manner possible. United Nations Fixing What's Wrong With Iraq 21 May 2007    Texas Straight Talk 21 May 2007 verse 7 ... Cached (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq ” United Nations Fixing What's Wrong With Iraq 21 May 2007    Texas Straight Talk 21 May 2007 verse 8 ... Cached I was highly critical of the resolution at the time, because I don’t think the United States should ever go to war to enforce United Nations resolutions. I was also skeptical of the claim that Iraq posed a “continuing threat” to the United States . United Nations Fixing What's Wrong With Iraq 21 May 2007    Texas Straight Talk 21 May 2007 verse 9 ... Cached As it turned out, Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, no al-Qaeda activity, and no ability to attack the United States . Regardless of this, however, when we look at the original authorization for the use of force it is clearly obvious that our military has met both objectives. Our military very quickly removed the regime of Saddam Hussein, against whom the United Nations resolutions were targeted. A government approved by the United States has been elected in post-Saddam Iraq , fulfilling the first objective of the authorization. Texas Straight Talk from 20 December 1996 to 23 June 2008 (573 editions) are included in this Concordance. Texas Straight Talk after 23 June 2008 is in blog form on Rep. Paul’s Congressional website and is not included in this Concordance. Remember, not everything in the concordance is Ron Paul’s words. Some things he quoted, and he added some newspaper and magazine articles to the Congressional Record. Check the original speech to see. Home Page    Contents    Concordance   E-mail list.