Many years ago a right wing group called the John Birch Society came out with a campaign to get the United States out of the United Nations. It was the 1960s and the UN was seen as a place of hope for the nations of the world to have a forum where disagreements could be worked out in peace. It was a place (we were told) that safeguarded the security of the world by providing the great powers a seat at the same table where we could all talk before the shooting started. The John Birchers were relegated to the fringe. They were painted with the same broad bush used by the Democrats in the 1964 Presidential Campaign to frighten the people out of voting for Barry Goldwater. Some of us are old enough to remember the infamous ad depicting the little girl picking the petals off of a flower superimposed with nuclear bomb going off. The politics of hysterics was born then and has been the bread and butter of the political left in this country ever since.

The politics of hysterics has been used successfully to convince a gullible public that among other things:

The poverty stricken Soviet Union was our economic rival. Communism was a benign economic system. The North Vietnamese were winning the war. The war on poverty could be won by the government. The Republicans each election year were poised to strip old people of their social security money. Opposition to anything the environmental movement says means you want us all to die from polluted water and air. The United Nations is a force for good in the world.

Fast forward to 2001.

The United Nations has long been a cesspool of anti-Americanism. Every country in the General Assembly gets an equal vote. So tiny countries, with their petty dictators, socialist governments and jealous, periodically starving, populations look for ways to take shots at the free people of the United States. Somehow it is our fault that the third world is mired in poverty even though those countries refuse to embrace the kind of free market capitalism which gives us our prosperity. Anyone with the best interests of the United States in mind ought to be able to see through the motives of the recent votes removing the US from the various commissions in the UN structure.

The Democrat Party in the US continues to be the main cheerleader for the UN in Washington and the Republicans reluctantly fund this horror because the left has won the rhetoric war. The mantra of the left is that support for the UN is our duty to the community of nations (regardless of a given policy's affect on the United States or our principles.) The Republican politicians, long on good political ideas, short on political courage have allowed this outfit to sit out on the shore of the East River like some enemy beachhead, looking for ways to degrade the host country. Well this month they found another way.

The United Nations voted to remove the United States from the Human Rights Commission and replaced us with Sudan. Now sitting on the HRC along with Sudan are those bastions of Human Rights, Libya, China and Cuba. This is kind of like putting Holland in charge of the War on Drugs, Afghanistan in charge of the Museum of Art, or France in charge of cultural exchange.

Sudan, bombed out aspirin factory aside, is a country that has been known to support terrorism and recently has been accused of conducting an active slave trade. Slavery. Human Bondage. This is the kind of nation the members of the United Nations thinks should sit on the Commission to oversee the Human Rights of the world. And the Democrats in this country want us to fork over $586 Million to keep the UN operational. Quick! Someone tell me how continuing to foot the major portion of the bill for this abomination is in the best interests of either the United States or the rest of the world? Surely we could find better uses for that particular piece of New York real estate….like a city dump, a row of crack houses, nuclear waste disposal site, or a slum. Each and everyone of these suggestions a better use of the land than the current one.