ET TU JESSE?

*

While I'm exposing Republican stalwarts who are supposed to be staunch conservatives, I might as well get the third icon:

Jesse Helms has long been one of the steadfast conservative stalwarts in congress. He has consistently scored well into the 90's on the New American ratings.

In his entire career, Jesse has only done one thing that seemed to betray his staunch conservatism. When his state decided to rescind their call for a Constitutional convention, Jesse sped back to North Carolina to
try to talk them out of it. A Con-con cannot be limited, it would open the entire Constitution and let the likes of Teddy Kennedy and Barney Frank rewrite it. That is disastrous. It is more than curious that Helms would
support such a potentially damaging thing. He could vote conservative 100% of the time and then throw it ALL away if a Con-con went through.

Is the veteran congressman really that ignorant, or is there something more sinister going on? He has long been an outspoken opponent of the UN, and New World Order internationalism. Is it all a ruse to build up a false reputation?

Well, Jesse is finally in a position where he can affect the very internationalist things he has talked about. He is Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Has his walk matched his talk?

On January 9th, 2001 Helms endorsed a payment of $585 million in back dues to the UN, even though the UN didn't comply with all the reforms he asked them to in order to receive the money.

His voting record has plummeted in the New American since he took the committee chair. Not only hasn't his walk matched his talk, but now even his talk doesn't match his talk!

At a meeting of the UN Security Council which Jesse addressed, he opined that, "All of us want a more effective United nations ..."

More effective? Like how they bombed Bosnia and disarmed Somalia? More effective "peace keeping" by murder?

8-5-05 Update: And now with the "food for oil scam that enriched UN leaders including Kofi Annan as well as Saddam Hussein, the alleged enemy, and the UN soldier's penchant for rape and child abuse on virtually every mission ("peacekeeping" or piece-keeping?), we certainly don't want a more effective UN.

Helms continued ...

"The American people want the United Nations to serve the purpose for which it was designed."

Do they? The UN was founded almost exclusively by Communists who desire world dominance. That's the purpose for which it was designed. The UN wants to take away most of the rights we enjoy as Americans. They are for total disarmament (except for the UN Force and police). They are pro-abortion (including forced abortions), pro-homosexual, pro-feminist, and even for children's rights. They are anti-Christianity and would take away the rights we enjoy to a speedy public trial, representation, jury, and the right to face our accusers. Do the American people really want that?

Helms worried that if the UN didn't make the compromises asked in exchange for the money, "it would mark the beginning of the end for U.S. support for the United Nation. And I don't want that to happen."

Why not Jesse? You said you wanted to get us out of the UN for all these years, and now that you're in a position to do so, you do a turnaround that would impress Michael Jordan.

Two months after the speech to the Security Council, he invited them to visit the U.S. Senate where he reiterated the "hope that we can work together to build a more effective United Nations."

The last thing we need is a more effective United Nations.