The New World Order is being voted on by Congress this week

NeoCon Global Government

by Rep. Ron Paul, MD

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.

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.

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.

rest of the story here www.raidersnewsupdate.com...

This is from Congressman Ron Paul (a true Patriot) he warns of the New World Order coming out of this. And he's a Republican from Texas none the less, so this is no left wing propaganda.



[edit on 15-6-2005 by NoJustice]

im not sure what to make out of this,

I can tell you one thing thou, it won't make the UN a global government, just gives them abit more power. Thats it, i think the article is making mountains out of mole hills though.

Originally posted by infinite
im not sure what to make out of this,

I can tell you one thing thou, it won't make the UN a global government, just gives them abit more power. Thats it, i think the article is making mountains out of mole hills though.

No offense but I believe this guy over your opinion. He's in Congress he's not just some nutcase.

This would just be the beginning.

[edit on 15-6-2005 by NoJustice]

Originally posted by NoJustice
No offense but I believe this guy over your opinion. He's in Congress he's not just some nutcase.

I know his is not some "nutcase" he is a respected government person.

In time though, the UN will keep getting more and more power, give it about 20 years and they will have ALOT of power

Originally posted by NoJustice
No offense but I believe this guy over your opinion. He's in Congress he's not just some nutcase.

As for my opinion on the subject.......the NWO is already here. Corporate influence andc control of government policy has been a reality since the early twentieth century, and with huge profits for those behind the curtain. This latest shuffle into the U.N. policy is an attempt by the U.S. to exert control and influence(moreof) into a governmental body that can impose restrictions on the U.S. for it's power mongering ways......The Downing Street Memo is just the beginning........
[edit on 15-6-2005 by MemoryShock]

[edit on 15-6-2005 by MemoryShock]

[edit on 15-6-2005 by MemoryShock]

Oh and infinite.......keep your nutcase ideas to yourself....

Yeah,ill try my best!

i think the council has driven me insane

*slaps paw*



[edit on 15-6-2005 by infinite]

[edited big quote -nygdan]

What the hell are you talking about? I didn't call anyone a nutcase. I said Congressman Ron Paul is not a nutcase. Reread my post a couple of times and maybe it'll soak into your brain.

EDIT: Ok maybe my post did seem like I was calling infinite a nutcase. I wasn't infinite and if thought that I apologize. I just meant that Ron Paul is not just some nutcase saying this stuff.

[edit on 15-6-2005 by NoJustice]

[edit on 15-6-2005 by Nygdan]

Now this post makes no sense just ignore it it's not relevent.

[edit on 15-6-2005 by NoJustice]

WTH are you talking about? I didn't call anyone a nutcase. I said Congressman Ron Paul is not a nutcase. Can you even read?

Actually ... I used to live in Texas. When I was there, Ron Paul WAS considered to be an elected nutcase. I used to get snail mail political spam all the time complaining about the weird things he did.

Of course, with the big swing to the right in Texas, maybe he's considered a centrist there now.

Ok maybe my post did seem like I was calling infinite a nutcase. I wasn't infinite and if thought that I apologize. I just meant that Ron Paul is not just some nutcase saying this stuff.

Its ok, your forgiven

ive been called worse

I see my edit didn't happen before it got quoted......at any rate........I don't misinterpret often and apologize for my part in derailing this thread.......

Viva La NWO!!!!! just kidding of course.....

This is a good thread, im going to keep an eye on this news cause anything related to the NWO is interesting to read

I am just now reading this bill which can be found here. Here is the way it starts out:

109TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION H. R. 2745
To reform the United Nations, and for other purposes.

[...]

SEC. 101. UNITED STATES FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE UNITED NATIONS.
(a) STATEMENTS OF POLICY.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—It shall be the policy of the United States to use its voice, vote, and influence at the United Nations to—
(A) pursue a streamlined, efficient, and accountable regular assessed budget of the UnitedNations; and
(B) shift funding mechanisms of certain organizational programs of the United Nations specified under paragraph (4) from the regular assessed budget to voluntarily funded programs.
(2) UNITED STATES CONTRIBUTIONS.—It shall be the policy of the United States to—
(A) redirect United States 1 contributions to the United Nations to achieve the policy objectives described in paragraph (1)(B); and
(B) redirect a portion of funds from the following organizational programs to pursue the policy objectives described in paragraph (1)(A):
(i) Public Information.
(ii) General Assembly affairs and conference services.
(3) FUTURE BIENNIUM BUDGETS.—It shall be the policy of the United States to use its voice, vote, and influence at the United Nations to ensure that
future biennial budgets of the United Nations, as agreed to by the General Assembly, reflect the shift in funding mechanisms described in paragraph
(1)(B) and the redirection of funds described in paragraph (2).
(4) CERTAIN ORGANIZATIONAL PROGRAMS
The organizational programs referred to in paragraph (1)(B) are the following:
(A) Economic and social affairs.
(B) Least-developed countries, landlocked developing countries and small island developing States.
(C) United Nations support for the New Partnership for Africa’s Development.
(D) Trade and development.
(E) International Trade Center UNCTAD/ WTO.
(F) Environment.
(G) Human settlements.
(H) Crime prevention and criminal justice.
(I) International drug control.
(J) Economic and social development in Africa.
(K) Economic and social development in Asia and the Pacific.
(L) Economic development in Europe.
(M) Economic and social development in in Latin America and the Caribbean.
(N) Economic and social development in Western Asia.
(O) Regular program of technical cooperation.
(P) Development account.
(Q) Protection of and assistance to refugees.
(R) Palestine refugees.

Is this saying funding for these listed programs will not be taken from the budget of the UN but will be "voluntary"? What does that mean?

I am still reading this thing, but I wanted to post this and see if this first part would concern anyone.


--------------------------------------
EDIT:

I found this link:

www.unausa.org...

Hyde Modified Original Draft

In contrast to the draft version of the legislation that had been circulated in the International Relations Committee, the version approved by the panel contains several modifications. H.R. 2745, The United Nations Reform Act of 2005, still provides for the withholding of as much as 50 percent of US assessed contributions to the United Nations, but the deadline for meeting reform conditions imposed in the legislation is extended to the latter part of 2007 rather than later this year. In addition, the Secretary of State would have some discretion in certifying compliance with the terms of the legislation in order to avoid automatic withholdings; the committee-approved bill allows for certification if at least 32 of 39 conditions are met by 2007, though the fulfillment of 14 conditions is explicitly required in any case.

Most of the provisions in the original draft remain in place, however, including the requirement that as many as thirteen programs currently funded through the UN regular budget would eventually need to be funded through voluntary rather than assessed contributions. Also retained in the panel-approved bill is a provision that would essentially prohibit the United States from approving the creation of any new peacekeeping operations, or the expansion of current operations, pending the implementation of reforms relating to a code of conduct for those involved in peace operations.

So apparently it does mean exactly that. I personally see the UN as being really useful only as a humanitarian organization, so what will it become if this bill is passed?


[edit on 15-6-2005 by smallpeeps]

nice find smallpeeps

im reading over now

Ron Paul is my kind of Congressman. Abolish the IRS? Legalize cannabis? Hang on while I join the Republican party real quick.

en.wikipedia.org...

Here's some comments from him on this proposed bill:

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.

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.

What if this were in place when the Contras were fighting against the Marxist regime in Nicaragua? Or when the Afghan mujahadeen was fighting against the Soviet-installed government in the 1980s? Or during the Warsaw Ghetto uprising? The new message is clear: resistance – even resistance to the UN itself – is futile. Why does every incumbent government, no matter how bad, deserve UN military assistance to quell domestic unrest?

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.

Conservatives who have been critical of the UN in the past have enthusiastically embraced this bill and the concept of UN reform. But what is the desired end of “UN reform”? The UN is an organization that was designed to undermine sovereignty and representative government. It is unelected and unaccountable to citizens by its very design. Will UN reform change anything about the fact that its core mission is objectionable? Do honest UN critics really want an expanded UN that functions more “efficiently”?

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.

Here's a question for all: Would it be better for the US to fully control the UN (which this bill seems to be designed for, at least tacitly) or to totally withdraw as Ron Paul suggests?

If this bill passes, and the US tries to manipulate the UN through the withholding of up to 50% of its dollars, what fallout can be expected from other members of the UN?

The US while keeping its pretence at being the world leader gets gradually undermined from the inside
The UN its leader being in trouble and being accused of corrupt dealings gets power handed over by the US surrepticiously
The EU, its mandate roundly rejected by its voting populace hands over power to the UN
The African Union hands over power as does the Asian Pacific outfit

Originally posted by infinite

In time though, the UN will keep getting more and more power, give it about 20 years and they will have ALOT of power

These people are really unpredictible. It has some logic both ways. They've been trying to put this WG since Napoleon so... whats another 20 years. However for that same reason they could've already gotten very impatient. I'd expect the worse (1 or 2 years) and hope for the best (30-40 years).

Originally posted by MisTicaL
These people are really unpredictible. It has some logic both ways. They've been trying to put this WG since Napoleon so... whats another 20 years. However for that same reason they could've already gotten very impatient. I'd expect the worse (1 or 2 years) and hope for the best (30-40 years).

Yeah i know, you cant be too sure about the UN. You never know what they are going to do

I don't think that the government will vote for it, they are a terriost (sp?) organisation and they say that they are against and won't negotite(sp?) with them, but we know that they do constantly lie!

Originally posted by speight89
I don't think that the government will vote for it, they are a terriost (sp?) organisation and they say that they are against and won't negotite(sp?) with them, but we know that they do constantly lie!

Who are a terroist organisation?

THE UN??!!?1

Originally posted by MemoryShock
The Downing Street Memo is just the beginning........
[edit on 15-6-2005 by MemoryShock]

the un is the new world order it just hasnt got all the power it wants yet

[edited big quote and correct quote codes - nygdan ]


[edit on 17-6-2005 by Nygdan]