United Nations Is Evil... More Proof.

[ironmonk]

Congress Urged to Keep Ban on Funding Groups Involved in Forced Abortions

WASHINGTON, D.C., JULY 11, 2003 (Zenit.org).- Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua urged Congress to keep the ban on U.S. funding of organizations involved in programs of coerced abortion or involuntary sterilization.

In a letter dated Thursday, the cardinal called on the House of Representatives to approve the Smith-Oberstar-Hyde Amendment when it takes up the State Department authorization bill.

This would allow the Kemp-Kasten amendment to the annual foreign operations appropriations bills to operate as it has since 1985, to prohibit funding of organizations that support, or participate in the management of, programs of coerced abortion or involuntary sterilization.

Cardinal Bevilacqua said such action is needed in order to remove the Crowley amendment from the State Department bill. Narrowly approved in committee, the Crowley amendment would earmark $50 million in funding to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) despite its participation in China's forced-abortion program.

The cardinal noted that UNFPA's participation in the Chinese program was uncovered during an investigation by Chinese human rights activists.

Cardinal Bevilacqua, archbishop of Philadelphia and chairman of the U.S. bishops' Committee for Pro-Life Activities, said: "American taxpayers must not be forced to fund organizations that support, condone or defend such violations of human rights."

Edited July 13, 2003 by ironmonk

[Winchester]

Ah yes, the only way to maintain the high status of women in society is to forcibly perform surgery on them.

I wish I was enlightened enough to understand this.

Caesar, Brutus and Judas might get relief in Hell when the monsters responsible for this start thankfully dying. Yes, monsters. These people disgust me. They are vomitous creatures unworthy of their positions in society, sickening wretches whose political power witnesses to our world's state of utter disregard for decency. In a just society, their heads would adorn the city gates, where crows would fight over their eyes.

Lest any think this severe, these people support forced sedation and surgery on women. This is akin to rape, a rape supported by our intelligentsia. Anyone who supports this form ogf government power should just pull on their jack boots and swastikas.

[Brother Adam]

Hell is a place where God is lacking. Totally. God is not in hell- thus whatever punishment these people receive- IF they go to hell- and that is NOT for us to judge, will not be God torturing them.

[Winchester]

I said "might", and that "might" goes for any of us.

[Winchester]

Oh, and the reference is to Dante's work. I never said God tortured anyone.

[Brother Adam]

Sowry, misunderstanding.

[Winchester]

It's quite an extreme statement. I would expect such a reaction from a rational person. Certainly my language was vague enough to be interpreted thus.

[Red Knight]

The American Legion Magazine has a controversial question put to Legislators every month. This month: Is The United Nations Relevant?

I will post the side I agree with, if anybody wants the other side, buy the magazine!

Really though, I will post the other side if y'all want me to.

"Is The United Nations Relevant?

Rep. Roscoe Bartlett R-Md.

NO

The United Nations has proved itself irrelevant. Article I Chapter 1 of the U.N. Charter says the first purpose of the United Nations is to "maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace."

The United Nations ignored Cambodia and Rwanda, the most shameful genocidal crises of the past 30 years. In Srebrenica, a U.N. supervised "safe zone,' 8,000 were massacred.

Consider Korea and the first Gulf War - the only successful examples of international authority against aggression in the past 50 years. You will find the United Nations, but in a subordinate role to a U.s. - led coalition.

Compare the U.N.'s 12 year failure to disarm Saddam hussein and the four-week U.S. - led coalition campaign which eliminated the regime.

Consider that while Iraqi's celebrated release from tyranny by welcoming American soldiers as liberators, the U.N. Security Council failed to condemn North Korea for its unilateral withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Consider that Saddam's Iraq was scheduled to chair the U.N. Disarmament conference. The current chair of the U.N. Human Rights Conference is Libya.

Worse than irrelevant, the United Nations supports brutal regimes. Worse than irrelevant, the undemocratic majority in the U.N. General Assembly uses democratic means to shake down productive democratic republics for billions of dollars each year.

The United nations' massive failure to disarm Iraq has opened Americans' eyes. Rep. Ron Paul's bill, H.R. 1146, to remove the United States from the United Nations, provides an excellent forum for Americans to debate it."

Gets ya thinkin'

Red Knight

[MC Just]

I dont like the Un. United Nations sounds like something an Anti-christ made.

Edited July 19, 2003 by Mc-Just†

[hyperdulia again]

the world gets creepier by the minute.

[_bc]

I think that's an outrageously populistic and shallow argument.

1) The UN is a huge, broad organization ranging from the UN Development Program and UNESCO to intellectual property rights institutions. Rep. Bartlett focuses exclusively on the headline-grabbing functions of the Security Council, pretending that almost all of the UNs functions don't exist or have no good reason for them. He also pretends that the UN can just go away, totally ignoring the need for a forum in which the nations of the world can pool their resources, manage and influence the development of globalizaton.

2) The UN has no security-related power, no soldiers of its own and no mandate to make any decisions on international security, and this is the way it was intended to be. The security council is composed of the nation states on the council at that time, including the US and the other four permanent members. That the UN didn't act in Cambodia for decades is not the fault of the UN, it is a direct consequence of the fact that the US and the USSR couldn't agree on what to do, if anything, and it was the middle of the cold war. Also, for a republican politician to blame the UN for not stopping the Khmer Rouge is hypocritical at best, considering that the KR would probably never have had any chance of gaining power in Cambodia if it hadn't been for Kissinger and Nixons determinedly immoral sideshow to the Vietnam war in that country. Similarly, if the US and the EU would have permitted the European peacekeepers in Srebrenica to use force to protect the safe havens, there wouldn't have been the Srebrenica massacres - but the states on the Security Council did not permit them to use any kind of force unless directly attacked, so they had no legal mandate and no legal permission to intervene. Also, the US itself refused to supply any troops to help protect civilians in Bosnia, so where the heck does Rep. Bartlett find the nerve to blame the UN for not preventing that massacre?

I could go on and on about this, and I would if this was a politics forum. Sorry if I sound angry, but certain sections of the American political establishment just get to my less friendly sides.

Edited July 19, 2003 by _bc

[Catholic]

The UN really smells of elderberries...

[_bc]

The UN really smells of elderberries...

Great, convincing point.

[Don John of Austria]

The U.N. Should not exist, either as Bc argues it is impotent ans there for useless or it is not impotent and therefore violates the sovriegnty of nations, either way it should go.

Please do not try and tell me-- " totally ignoring the need for a forum in which the nations of the world can pool their resources, manage and influence the development of globalizaton."

That kind of statement totally ignores the entire history of the world before the 1940's. Countries did just fine doing those things before the U.N. it is unneeded and frankly should be dismantled.

[mp15]

Amen to that Don. Why people here in the US feel the UN is needed is beyond me. I for one do not want other nations telling us, or any other countries for that matter how they should do things. Collectively working with other nations yes, but not dictating policies.

Edited July 22, 2003 by mp15