English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Jefferson, in 1800 expressed his belief that "a single consolidated government would become the most corrupt government on the earth." Twenty-one years later he remarked, "Our government is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence."
If Jefferson’s admonition was valid concerning our national government — and it was — it must apply infinitely more to a centralized global government, considering the past and present makeup of the United Nations membership, the background of the communist criminals and conspirators who founded the organization.

Addressing the Virginia Convention in 1788, Madison stated: "I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."

2007-03-28 09:07:09 · 22 answers · asked by credo quia est absurdum 7 in Politics & Government Politics

22 answers

Interesting. Quoting Jeffersons comments in relation to something established my Franklin D. Roosevelt. That's some interesting food for thought, and makes for a very good arguement.

Personally though, I don't think the UN would have any power without the United States and Great Britain there to play cheif enforcers. If either one of those nations left the UN, the results would be catostrophic as the only military power left with membership to the UN would be China. China would be the only power left who could enforce UN mandates, because I don't think some nations will cower in fear at the mention of Finland coming after them.

2007-03-28 09:26:25 · answer #1 · answered by Ryan 4 · 1 1

Short answer Yes. The UN is comprised mainly of 4th world s..t hole countries who hate the US but who constantly have their hands out looking for money from Uncle Sam or help when an earthquake, tsunami or some other disaster strikes their country. The remaining developed countries (excluding UK, Australia and a few others) are 3rd rate EuroTrash socialist nations ie. France who are jealous of the US and our countries wealth and greatness. These European countries are also a very ungratefull lot in that if it were not for our fathers and grandfathers these pathetic fools would be living under the Nazi boot heal.

So I say yes lets burn this global village to the ground.

2007-03-28 09:24:48 · answer #2 · answered by dr_methanegasman 3 · 2 0

I think you need to stop viewing Jefferson as the 'wise man on the hill' - he was a walking contradiction considering he wrote a document like the Declaration of Independence and held to his slave owning practices.

To directly address his argument, corruption is inevitable in government it is a result of the human condition. We could de-consolidate government and simply have all the smaller parts corrupted. I guess it depends on whether you prefer one big corrupted government or several small corrupted parts thereof.

The U.N. is by no means a world government it is simply an attempt to compromise among nations of the world. If anything, it acts as a check to the overweening foreign policies we have seen as of late in America. So no, by leaving the U.N. (an organization we basically founded) we are not de corrupting anything.

2007-03-28 09:12:06 · answer #3 · answered by aristotle1776 4 · 1 3

More like it's time for the UN to get the HELL out of America. Let them take up shop in one of those Muslim countries they are so proud of saving at the cost of world peace.

2007-03-28 09:16:21 · answer #4 · answered by Kevin A 6 · 2 0

UNITED NATIONS IS AGAINST JERUSALEM AND I MEAN REGARDLESS WHY, THEY IN THE END WILL BE THE CAUSE OF TROUBLE RATHER THAN I GUESS PEACE. THE ONLY THING STANDING IN THE WAY OF THE UN LETTING THE MUSLIMS DESTROY JERUSALEM IS BUSH. HILLARY CLINTON ON THE OTHER HAND IS GONNA HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO SACRIFICE JERUSALEM WHEN OR IF SHE TAKES OFFICE 1-20-09 BECAUSE AFTER ALL ISNT THAT WHAT SHES PROMISING (IN CASE IF YOU DONT KNOW). AND ITS THE UNs FAULT. IF BUSH DOESNT START ANOTHER WORLD WAR BY ARROGANTLY ATTACKING IRAN. THE NEXT WORLD WAR WILL BE STARTED BY HILLARY LISTENING TO THE UN AND WITHDRAWING TROOPS FROM IRAQ AND LEAVING JERUSALEM TO FEND FOR THEMSELVES IN WHICH TIME JERUSALEM IS GOING TO HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO GO FOR BROKE AND START FIRING NUCLEAR ARMS ESPECIALLY FROM PEOPLE OF THE LIKES WHO CLAIM TO DENY THE FREAKIN' HOLOCAUST EVER HAPPENED (IRAN).

2007-03-28 09:18:39 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

we need to get the U.N out of the U.S first then maybe the embesels will lighten up a little and see what freedoms they have when they are here versus somewhere else on this globe, but if you notice we are on our way to a one world goverment and we as Americans need to stand up now before it is to late

2007-03-28 09:17:53 · answer #6 · answered by ja man 5 · 3 0

I am amazed that we even let them put that piece of $#!+ in our country, let alone stayed in it as long as we have. Corrupt, bloated, and rotten to the core. And virulently anti-America, by the way. Thank God Kofi Annan is out!

2007-03-28 09:13:39 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4 1

The money we give to the UN to support it's anti-American bias is criminal!!! It should be sent to Moscow or Damascus where it is better suited for its rhetoric and philosophy

2007-03-28 09:12:51 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4 1

It's way past time. The UN, although a lofty ideal, has deteriorated into a joke.

2007-03-28 09:10:11 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 6 1

I'm surprised a democrat would ask a question like that.

2007-03-28 09:15:21 · answer #10 · answered by arwenlotr2 3 · 2 0

fedest.com, questions and answers