Sorry, but I've just about had my fill of the United Nations and the warped values it promotes. It is increasingly difficult to understand why the United States must continue to placate and support this misguided organization.
How can we tolerate lectures on civil rights from this body of largely freedom-repressing third world nations whose anti-Semitism alone disqualifies them from casting verbal stones at us? I sometimes see the U.N. as little more than an enormous leech of anti-Western prejudice seeking to suck the lifeblood out of this country.
The U.N. should look to America as a beacon of freedom and encourage its member nations to emulate our example in their quest for freedom and prosperity. Instead it jealously decries our success and seeks to reduce us to the common denominator of misery to which many of these nations seem to aspire.
In the meantime, we continue to participate in this bizarre dialogue with other nations trying to inject morsels of sanity into the U.N.'s warped social and political pronouncements. Why do we have to play along with this charade any longer? Do we think the U.N. truly advances the cause of world peace, and if so, at what price? Are we willing to condone its anti-Semitism and its ceaseless disparagement of western values?
The U.N.'s repeated condemnations of Israel with barely a harsh word for the Palestinian terrorists are inexcusable. But last week's vote (74-4) to condemn Israel for its West Bank "offensive" the very day the most recent virgin-seeker exploded deadly nails and metal into dozens of innocent Israelis (killing at least 15) was outrageous.
The U.N. further condemned Israel for its refusal "to cooperate with the U.N.'s fact-finding team" concerning the Jenin incursion. (Note that it has proposed sending no fact-finding teams to inquire into any of the genocidal episodes against innocent Jews.) Israel balked at the investigation of this battle, which was deliberately mischaracterized by the leftist international media as a massacre. Why? Because U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan brazenly included in his witch hunt squad Cornelio Sommargua, a known anti-Semite, who, for 12 years, blocked Israel's membership in the International Red Cross and once remarked, "If we're going to have the Shield of David, why would we not have to accept the swastika?"
If the U.N.'s flagrant anti-Semitism isn't enough to challenge your complacency about this pathetic body, then perhaps you should check the pearls of wisdom emanating from its recent world conference on children.
Over 180 countries met for the conference with hopes of adopting a document entitled "A World Fit for Children," which purports to establish worldwide standards for promoting children's health, education, protection from abuse and HIV and AIDS. But as is so often the case, "the children" are merely a prop to disguise the conference's real agenda, which has more to do with legitimizing abortion and homosexual rights than protecting children.
The Bush Administration reportedly was successful in purging language from the final document that would have affirmed the right of adolescents to receive education on reproduction and sexual health services (abortion). But it failed in its efforts to define a family as "based on marriage between a man and a woman."
The administration also succeeded in excluding a statement approving a standard for children's rights set forth in the Convention on the Rights of the Child -- an international treaty that, for example, bans spanking, urges education along U.N. principles and affirms the child's right to play.
This treaty further recommends that children be "actively involved in decision-making at all levels, and planning, implementing, monitoring and evaluating all matters affecting the rights of the child." Can you believe this psychobabble -- giving children a say in their own upbringing? The United States is one of the few nations that haven't ratified the treaty, though President Clinton signed it without submitting it to the Senate for ratification.
It's all fine and good that the Bush administration was able to keep certain damaging language out of the final document, but ultimately we're playing with fire here.
Even those not particularly exercised about the potential threats to our sovereignty that the U.N. poses, ought to be alarmed that we are legitimizing this body's authority by even participating in its various conferences that crave such far-reaching authority.
Despite some of the good the U.N. has done over the years, it is time for the United States to rethink its level of participation in it, if not the issue of its continued membership.