Printer Friendly

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.

Inside the UN Tent

In the July 16th issue of THE NEW AMERICAN, Tom Eddlem wrote a piece entitled "Conservatives Deceived by NGOs" in which my position as an NGO delegate was not fully represented. Mr. Eddlem suggested that I hold the opinion that the only value for non-governmental organizations at the UN is to convert delegates to the pro-life cause, and that we do not have any influence over changing policy. Although there is great value in educating delegates alone, the pro-life and pro-family NGOs have had considerable success influencing international policy. For instance, at the Beijing+5 women's conference, pro-life NGOs were instrumental in blocking an attempt to make abortion an international human right. In addition, NGOs worked closely with delegates to craft an effective opposition to language that could have forced health care workers to perform and assist in abortions. Just recently, at the Special Session on HIV/AIDS, pro-family lobbyists successfully influenced several delegations to ultimately block language th at would have legitimized homosexual relationships.

I do not deny that the bureaucracy of the United Nations has a very dangerous agenda. But to suggest that pro-family NGO involvement is futile is incorrect. THE NEW AMERICAN holds that any involvement in this corrupt international organization only justifies it. Along this line of thinking, one could argue that the U.S. government and its leaders have become progressively more anti-constitutional and more corrupt. Would this require that conservative people no longer run for office or that pro-Constitution lobbyists remove themselves from participating in the law-making process?

MARK DEYOUNG

American Life League

The U.S. government was created by, and its powers were defined by, the Constitution of the United States. The U.S. government has legitimacy, and it is the proper venue for exercising those powers of governance that were delegated to it. For this reason, Mr. DeYoung is correct in observing that good Americans should run for federal office and participate in the law-making process.

The same cannot be said, however, of tile United Nations. The UN has no legitimate authority to impose its will On either tile American people or the U.S. government. In fact, tile UN was not even set up as a world government but as the framework for what the internationalists hoped would become a more highly developed and powerful organization. Suppose the UN were to declare abortion to be a human right. The only way this pro-death edict would become effective would be if nations allowed the UN to supplant their own constitutions and laws. The UN can deploy force, of course, but in order to do so it is dependent upon resources provided by still-sovereign nations, particularly the United States.

The solution to the growing UN threat is not to try to channel its deepening and widening policies of global governance in a conservative or benign direction but to Get US out! -- Ed.

Global Climate Change

Regarding "Global Warming Mythology" (July 30th issue): The truth about global warming is most likely found in a combination of theories, one of which was presented by Milutin Milankovitch in the 1930s. It tells us of the change in the elliptic of earth's orbit over 100,000 years, change in tilt over 20,000 years and change in the plane of the orbit relative to the sun over 40,000 years. It turns out ice ages correspond to each of these and we have been living in a time between the ice ages. According to the theory we are already past the warmer times.

LEWIS GUIGNARD, JR.

Charlotte, North Carolina

Neo-Cons and Nomenclature

John McManus' article on neo-conservatives (August 13th issue) stirred up something I've been thinking about for years. The fact is, they are the true Conservatives of today, since the term means "opposed to change." We're now the radicals, fighting to change back to a constitutional republic. Also, the opposition that we call "Liberals" is another misnomer, since they are about as illiberal as one can get. As for us, we are Constitutionalists. Let them try and steal that label.

WALTER A. MULLANEY

Arden, North Carolina
COPYRIGHT 2001 American Opinion Publishing, Inc.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2001, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Publication:The New American
Date:Sep 10, 2001
Words:684
Next Article:Home Schooling: The Growth of a Movement.


Related Articles
Most papers receive more letters.
'Letters to the editor' page.
More about programming. (Letters to the Editor).
Rethinking the rules. (Editor's Note).
That drama of letter writing: dramatization of 150 years of letters to the editor surprised the audience by how little life has changed -- and...
A historical point of view.
Kempling suspension appealed.
Home birth tops the British Medical Journal charts.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters