HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
April 29, 2003

America National Sovereignty vs. UN "International Law"- Time for Congress to Vote
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.

Obviously many Americans now want to get out of the UN because they resent its refusal to sanction our war in Iraq. The administration deserves some credit for ultimately upholding the principle that American national security is not a matter of international consensus, and that we don’t need UN authorization to act. But the administration sent mixed signals by doing everything possible to obtain such authorization, and by citing UN resolutions as justification for our actions. The message seems to be that the UN is credible when we control it and it does what we want, but lacks all credibility when it refuses to do our bidding.

Perhaps it’s time to stop trying to manipulate the UN, and start asserting our national sovereignty.

If we do not, rest assured that the UN will continue to interfere not only in our nation’s foreign policy matters, but in our domestic policies as well. UN globalists are not satisfied by meddling only in international disputes. They increasingly want to influence our domestic environmental, trade, labor, tax, and gun laws. UN global planners fully intend to expand the organization into a true world government, complete with taxes, courts, and possibly a standing army. This is not an alarmist statement; these goals are readily promoted on the UN’s own website. UN planners do not care about national sovereignty; in fact they are openly opposed to it. They correctly view it as an obstacle to their plans. They simply aren’t interested in our Constitution and republican form of government.

The choice is very clear: we either follow the Constitution or submit to UN global governance. American national sovereignty cannot survive if we allow our domestic laws to be crafted or even influenced by an international body. This needs to be stated publicly more often. If we continue down the UN path, America as we know it will cease to exist.

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.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I’m merely asking House leadership to schedule vote on HR 1146. Americans deserve to know how their representatives stand on the critical issue of American sovereignty.

The game is NATO v. UN, with the US and Eastern-Central Europe (which is basically consolidated as a unit) bolstering NATO and balancing against the EU. Russia is the key player and holds the balance and it will be interesting to see what happens to them. Are they only a regional power? Britain will remain with both the US and the EU and have no ultimate authority in either. Germany and France, with the aid of Luxembourg and Belgium, among several other small European countries, will not seek to balance against the US per se, but will begin to redefine their defense strategies.

Two opposing paradigms:
1) The "west" is bonded and consolidated in a permanent union.

2) Confrontation is inevitable as common culture and common economy will take a back seat to political differences.
Credibility to this second argument comes from the fact that before WWI (in 1913), the world was the most interdependent and intertwined culturally and economically as it has ever been, yet WWI broke out.

Regarding the UN, remember that it has other functions other than world governance. The UN SHOULD be maintained as a channel for communication and a forum for discourse, and as an authoritative research and humanitarian aid body. Perhaps only its role as global arbitrator should be diminished while retaining its other features.

Alex

__________________
1983 300D (parked for four years)
2012 VW Sportwagen TDI Manual
2001 Miata SE
1962 Chevrolet Corvair Rampside

Problem is, that's not realistically possible.