My respomse to a piece on the U.N. and its "greatness"

Josh Brainard
WR121
Pepe
A Critique of
“Envisioning a Global Rule”

Envisioning a Global Rule of Law is a piece of literary work invented by Daniele Archibugi and Iris Young. It can only be described as a work full of fantasy and fairy tale. It is chalk-full of untruths, fallacious arguments and anti-American sentiment, all in order to promote an illusion of a one-world government. The basis of the piece centers around the United State’s response to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. Rather than a state to state response to terrorist attacks, they advocate a multinational response based on law and international cooperation. The proposed outline consists of “five principals to guide international policy to respond to threats and problems of violence”. They are: “legitimize and strengthen international institutions, coordinate law enforcement and intelligence gathering across the world, increase financial regulation, use international courts and narrow global inequalities”(Writing about the World, 169-178). They are actively advocating forfeiting our sovereignty and submitting to U.N. rule in matters of law enforcement, taxation and wealth redistribution, national defense and judiciary system. Unknown to Archibugi and Young, the U.N. is a power hungry, morally corrupt and physically incapable institution which can never provide the people of the United States with a government that protects their freedoms, interests and values.
Archibugi and Young assert early in their writing that “…a different response to these attacks based on the rule of law and international cooperation, could have been equally effective to combat terrorism…”(Writing About the World, 169) As of today, nearly seven years after the attacks of September 11, the United States is concluding two wars on terror in two regions of the world and according to Anne Bayefsky of the National Review, the U.N. is still incapable of even defining what terrorism is. When a government cannot begin to define terrorism, it makes it difficult to fight. The proposed idea that INTERPOL(international police) could fight terrorism better than the United States is preposterous. Were it an international police force combating terrorism, as Archibugi and Young propose, terrorists would never have to fear the wrath of the F-22 or the dominance of the Abrams tank or the unforgiving guns of the Apache attack helicopter. Not only this, but Al Qaeda declared war on the U.S., not the U.N. long before the U.S. responded in kind. Archibugi and Young imply a group needs to own land or represent a state to declare war on another. Might I point out the Native American Indians never owned land or represented a state yet they were notorious for warring between themselves and settlers constantly.
"To achieve One World Government it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, their loyalty to family traditions and national identification." - Brock Chisholm, while director of UN World Health Organization (http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org). The U.N. is morally bankrupt and is in no position to sit in the judgment seat above U.S. citizens. According to the U.N. website, the Human Rights Commission, since 2001, has voted in countries such as communist China, communist Vietnam and communist Cuba (all known abusers of human rights), Sudan (currently committing genocide against non-Muslims and promoting female circumcision of girls, usually ages 4-7), Libya and Iran (known state sponsors of terrorism) and Syria (a known state sponsor of terrorism) also ironically elected to supervise the war on terrorism (http://www.un.org). First, this shows the U.N.’s growing solidarity with human rights abusers and sponsors of terrorism and second, it shows the U.N. is more of a threat to human rights than it is a champion of them. Most are familiar with the “oil-for-food scandal.” The offer was to permit Saddam Hussein to trade Iraqi oil for food. As with many large government programs with little oversight, greed, bribes and corruption soon festered. While Saddam Hussein lined his pockets with millions of dollars mainly via corrupt corporations from Russia, France and Germany, his country was left without the much needed food while United Nations officials received millions in kickbacks. This is the real reason the U.N. opposed the Iraq war when President Bush requested action prior to the invasion. The U.N. was making millions and Saddam Hussein owed them millions more. While the U.N. lines their pockets, Archibugi and Young have the nerve to support this corrupt institution and then declare the U.S. selfish and stingy (pg. 177). This is a lie. The year following the publishing of this piece, Americans gave 241 billion to charities around the world with its government giving even more(http://www.aafrc.org). Never has the world seen a country so benevolent and generous as the American people.
Should the U.S. adopt Archibugi and Young’s thoughts on the U.N. taking over the judicial courts, American values will be trampled. Writings of early American settlers and forefathers including that of Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln or Benjamin Franklin would be deemed as irrelevant and unnecessary being that a new world government needs to consider the values of every state, not just the U.S. As I am writing this, Worldnetdaily.com reports the U.N. is meeting to discuss its ambitious plan to legally seize and control all small arms on a global scale including that of U.S. citizens(http://www.wnd.com). For a foreign institution funded by our government to seek out ways in which it can tread on our constitutional rights is outrageous and demonstrates the oppression of the minority the founding fathers warned about so often.
As the single largest supporter of the United Nations budget, the United States should not only scale back its massive, disproportionate funding, we should not be hosting the corrupt, institution any longer nor should we be willing to be members any longer. It's time to pull out of the U.N. and stop condoning its abhorrent behavior. Let the U.N. know Americans make decisions of the people, by the people and for the people and never ever let any foreign body seize this right and responsibility. Let the American people, and the American people alone, chart their own destiny, seek their own interests, and secure their own future. The United States of America has employed a government to serve their needs. We need not another.








References
Bayefski, Anne January 27, 2005 Never Again? The U.N. Gets a p.r. Boost August 17, 2008. <http://www.nationalreview.com/bayefsky/bayefsky200501271234.asp>
Lindsey, Hal The Great U.N. Gun Grab August 17, 2008 http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=23579
Unnamed author August 17, 2008 http://www.aafrc.org/press_releases/trustreleases/americansgive.html
unnamed author August 17, 2008 <http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org/unframes.htm>
unnamed author August 17, 2008 <http//:www.un.org>

Well done.

Please feel free to critique and add to any of my writings.

Paper 1 - Failed Government Interventionalist policies
The greatest myth in 19th century U.S. history is that laissez-faire capitalism failed at the hands of Hoover and FDR revived capitalism under the New Deal. False. The assertion that the U.S. had laissez-faire capitalism before the 1930’s is entirely untrue in itself, but the idea that New Deal programs saved capitalism is laughable. FDR was under the cockamamie idea that the low prices caused the depression, so he thought if he could increase prices through , price controls, wealth redistribution and other government interventions, the depression would go away. In reality, it was the depression that caused the low prices; a concept Roosevelt never grasped. FDR’s programs overlooked Henry Hazlitt’s broken window fallacy and served to prolong the Great Depression and hold the citizens if America on their knees for over a decade.
Established by executive order in 1935, the Works Progress Administration, later renamed the Works Projects Administration was a program designed to provide jobs. If you listen to the politicians of the day, this program was a smashing success. They created jobs, raised schools, built city halls, landscaped parks, established resorts, constructed bridges… the list goes on. This sounds great, but where did this money come from? You guessed it: taxpayers.
In every dictatorship, the hallmark is the mass movement of people. Enter the Civilian Conservation Corps. With the CCC, FDR used taxpayer money to move over 3 million men out of their homes to dig ditches and write bad poetry. How were they paid? Taxpayers.
The Agricultural Adjustment Act was yet another one of many failed government interventions in Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal. Passed in 1933, the AAA extended Hoover’s price controls on wheat and cotton by paying farmers not to grow “basic crops” which included wheat, cotton, peanuts, corn, milk, tobacco and rice. FDR used taxpayer money to hire armies complete with helicopters, tractors and all the tools necessary to make sure farmers were complicit before they received their subsidies. The 1936 U.S. Supreme court case, U.S. v. Butler declared the AAA unconstitutional in a 6-3 vote. The court declared it was unconstitutional to tax one group of individuals (producers) to subsidize the other (farmers).
The likes of Pol Pot, Lenin, Stalin, Moa and Castro taught us great lessons in centrally planned economies. They do not work. They never have worked. They never will work. Not only do they not work, they are not characteristic of liberty or sovereignty and are unconstitutional. One man in 1939 said, "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. We have never made good on our promises. I say after eight years of this administration, we have just as much unemployment as when we started. And enormous debt to boot." That man was Henry Morganthau, Roosevelt’s lifelong friend and Secretary of Treasury. Its possible Morganthau read Henry Hazlitt’s broken window fallacy. Henry Hazlitt, now a world renowned economist, was a writer for the New York Times in the 1930‘s. He outlined this fallacious idea for creating wealth in his “Broken Window Fallacy”. The idea goes like this: if a hoodlum breaks a man’s window, the man will have to pay $500 to replace the window which will allow the window repair man to go buy his favorite gun which will allow the gun shop owner to buy other products and with this first property rights violation, the economy would restart this way. The fallacy is while the victim was down $500 to replace his window, the glass repairer was up $500 so there is really no net gain. Its just rearranging the chairs on the Titanic. In this case, the government is the hoodlum by dipping into the pockets of citizens to achieve their ends. The common failure of all three of these programs is the failure to comprehend Henry Hazlitt’s broken window fallacy. Why did the New Deal fail? There was no way for it to succeed.