The U.S. Politicians and The United Nations

[nw_hunter]

I've been searching online for the Republican candidates views and opinions on the United Nations.So far the only writing I've found is from Dr Paul.
I find it strange that  questions regarding the UN have never been presented by moderators during the Republican Presidential primary.(NOT REALLY)

[font='times new roman', times, serif]I personally find the United nations to be a threat to the sovereignty of free people around the world, and would love to hear from the front runners and their opinion of the United Nations. If anyone has news clips from Romney, Santorum  or Newt on this, please post it.[/font]
[font='times new roman', times, serif]here is what Ron Paul had to say about the UN.[/font]
NOTE: This is old news, but I'm sure his stance hasn't changed.
Our anticipated war in Iraq has been condemned by many around the world for the worst of all reasons: namely, that America is acting without United Nations approval. The obvious implication is that an invasion of Iraq is illegitimate without such approval, but magically becomes legitimate when UN bureaucrats grant their blessing. Most Americans rightfully resent this arrogant attitude toward our national sovereignty and don't care what the UN thinks about our war plans. Perhaps our heritage as a nation of people who do not take kindly to being told what to do is intact. Still, only the most ardent war hawks connected with the administration have begun to discuss complete withdrawal from the UN. I have advocated this for twenty years, and have introduced legislation to that effect.
The administration deserves some credit for asserting that we will go to war unilaterally if necessary, without UN authorization. But it sends a mixed message by doing everything it can to obtain such authorization. Efforts to build a “coalition” through the promise of billions in foreign aid dollars only reinforce the perception that we're trying to buy support for the war. The message seems to be that the UN is credible when we control it and it does what we want, but lacks all credibility when it refuses to do our bidding. The bizarre irony is while we may act unilaterally in Iraq, the very justification for our invasion is that we are enforcing UN resolutions!
Our current situation in Iraq shows that we cannot allow U.S. national security to become a matter of international consensus. We don't need UN permission to go to war; only Congress can declare war under the Constitution. The Constitution does not permit the delegation of congressional duties to international bodies. It's bad enough when Congress relinquishes its warmaking authority to the President, but disastrous if we relinquish it to international bureaucrats who don't care about America.
Those bureaucrats are not satisfied by meddling only in international disputes, however. The UN increasingly wants to influence our domestic environmental, trade, labor, tax, and gun laws. Its global planners fully intend to expand the UN into a true world government, complete with taxes, courts, and a standing army. This is not an alarmist statement; these facts are readily promoted on the UN's own website. UN planners do not care about national sovereignty; in fact they are actively hostile to it. They correctly view it as an obstacle to their plans. They simply aren't interested in our Constitution and republican form of government
The choice is very clear: we either follow the Constitution or submit to UN global governance. American national sovereignty cannot survive if we allow our domestic laws to be crafted by an international body. This needs to be stated publicly more often. If we continue down the UN path, America as we know it will cease to exist.
Noted constitutional scholar Herb Titus has thoroughly researched the United Nations and its purported “authority.” Titus explains that the UN Charter is not a treaty at all, but rather a blueprint for supranational government that directly violates the Constitution. As such, the Charter is neither politically nor legally binding upon the American people or government. The UN has no authority to make “laws” that bind American citizens, because it does not derive its powers from the consent of the American people. We need to stop speaking of UN resolutions and edicts as if they represented legitimate laws or treaties. They do not.
The UN is neither wise nor neutral. All of the member nations have national interests that don't simply disappear when their representatives enter the UN general assembly hall. Like any government or quasi-government body, the UN is rife with corruption and backroom deals. Worst of all, it serves as a forum for rampant anti-Americanism. Perhaps the time has finally come when more Americans will choose to rethink our participation.

[nw_hunter]

Looks like there is very little out there about their views of the UN. I did find this on Romney and Newt, but so far nothing from Santorum.



 United Nations


Romney has been critical of the United Nations. In an April 2007 speech, Romney said, “the failures of the UN are simply astonishing.” He cited the United Nations Human Rights Council as an example of these failures. Still, Romney said, neither isolationism nor U.S. unilateralism are sound postures for foreign policy. “America's strength is amplified when it is combined with the strength of other nations.” ( SO! what does that mean?))


United Nations
Gingrich supports the ideals of the United Nations charter but believes that the organization itself is deeply corrupt and in need of reform. Gingrich served as co-chair with former senator George Mitchell on the United States Institute of Peace's Task Force on the United Nations, which issued a report calling for the abolition of the current UN Human Rights Commission and replacement with a new Human Rights Council[164] Gingrich sees the main problem at the United Nations being that a large group of developing countries, often referred to as the Group of 77, exploit the "one-country, one-vote" system in attempts to transfer wealth from the world's rich nations to themselves. Gingrich also points to fraud and embezzlement within the UN such as the Oil-for-Food scandal, anti-Western and anti-Israel bias within its human-rights organs, sexual assaults committed by peacekeepers, and a lack of sincere commitment to human rights as major problems that call for reform. Gingrich believes that the United States should spearhead an effort to reform the United Nations. Specifically, he calls for creating an independent oversight body, similar to corporate audit committees, to oversee financial matters, developing a clear-cut definition of terrorism emphasizing that violence against civilians is not acceptable, enhanced sanctions against human-rights violators, and a human rights body with rigorous standards for membership.[165]


Over the years, I've heard politicians talking about the failings of the UN, but "NO" condemnation of it. The people of this country"I think" especially the Republicans I know have nothing but disdain for the UN.I even know some party voting Democrats that think we should not be a part of it.

[gypsyman]

That was one reason I liked Bachman when she was running. She was going to shut down Dept. of Education,Energy, and severely cut money to the UN. gypsyman