"The United Nations is the greatest fraud in all History.
Its purpose is to destroy the United States."
by:
John E. Rankin
Served 16 terms as Mississippi’s First District Representative in the U.S. House of Representatives
Date:
1945
Rating:
Categories:
 
Bookmark and Share  
Reader comments about this quote:
Rankin's statement is an early example of extreme right-wing gibberish. In fact, the U.N. has proven itself to be rather good for nothing.
 -- A.Jurgensen, Stuart, FL     
  • 3 6
    		•  
    Its good, if nothing else, is to provide a vehicle for reaching concensus... sometimes such good just takes time is all.
     -- Anonymous, Reston, VA US     
  • 1 8
    		•  
    What a ridiculous statement not worth a reply. Editor, really…
     -- Robert, Sarasota     
  • 1 8
    		•  
    Always worth a reply - good job, Editor.
     -- Logan, Memphis, TN     
  • 7
    		•  
    Why does the US need the UN? On the contrary, they need our money and troops. What a waste of lives and money. The US doesn't let other countries tell us what to do, and it is immoral to require other countries to give their CONSENT to what we (or the UN) think they should do.
     -- Joe, Rochester, MI     
  • 6
    		•  
    I, too, grew up believing in the UN -- they are for Peace, right? Aren't all the world's ambassadors meeting there trying to figure out how to stop all wars? Although, I often asked my teachers how come there are as many wars now than there ever were before the UN. Further study reveals that the UN serves the veiled agendas of the US, Israel, Russia & China -- each use the UN for their own gain -- at the expense of the poorer member nations -- often snubbing their noses to UN sactions. The UN primarily serves the IMF/World Bank. If the UN is so great, why is bankruptcy a requirement to join? What plan is there to get nations back on their own feet? Is the US government authorized to transfer responsibilities granted to it by the Constitution to the UN? Isn't that treasonous? The UN promotes globalist monopolies -- big Pharma, genetically modified foods and agriculture (seeds from fruits are infertile), WTO, WHO, etc. -- all designed to maximize profits for transnational companies and banks and to make member nations and citizens more and more dependent and less and less self-reliant. All the UN member nations have unpayable national debts -- and it is going to stay that way -- the UN's job is to make it look like it is for the best.
     -- E Archer, NYC     
  • 6 2
    		•  
    The UN is worse than useless. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, however, except for Article 29.3, is a well crafted document that outlines rights, the vast majority of which are completely compatible with the Constitution of the United States. Actually, 23 of the 30 articles had already been incorporated into the 1940 Constitution of Cuba, which was an advanced democratic society, until takeover by communists in 1959, having economic prosperity on a par with the United States, along with just social programs that exceeded any of the empty boasts of the current regime. The UN today is presided over by the worst abusers of human rights on the planet. It wastes our contributions, undermines our society, and seeks its destruction, not because it was designed to do so but because it is run by Marxists, terrorists, thieves, and totalitarians.
     -- David L. Rosenthal, Hollywood     
  • 3 1
    		•  
    David, so you are saying that shortly after Cuba introduced a Constitution similar to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights they were unable to defend a communist takeover a few years later. Hello! Anybody home? And the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is as socialistic as can be -- any country that has implemented the worst of its policies has found itself permanently in debt to the IMF/World Bank. America does NOT need the UN or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights -- our own writs and Constitution are our Laws, and they are the best protections against war -- foreign and domestic.
     -- E Archer, NYC     
  • 3
    		•  
    An ignorant opinion undeserving of ever seeing the light of day.
     -- Dick Trice, Fort Worth     
  • 5
    		•  
    I see the same people that defend socialism at home also view the UN as a philanthropic defender of human rights. Don't bother to argue with them -- I have never seen a socialist change their mind -- it usually indicates an inability to take care of oneself, a desire to get something for nothing, and/or a tendency to force conformity upon others (for their own good.).
     -- Chicago     
  • 4
    		•  
    Very well said Chicago.
     -- Logan, Memphis, TN     
  • 3
    		•  
    E. Archer: BINGO! - As for socialism being an indicator of "a desire to get something for nothing", what's all of that 'Lotto' mania about? Is 'Publisher's Clearing House' socialist? Is a national highway system 'socialist-ic'? Is a community water system 'communistic'? Are the London sewers 'socialistic' (just because they're in London)? Are your sewers 'socialistic'? Is your water supply 'socialistic'? It seems to me that we, being a 'social' species, instinctively incorporate 'socialist' aspects into our lives in innumerable ways which we don't bother to call 'socialist-ic'. I think the paradigm is more complex than a simple ('simple' has an illuminating definition) factionalization into pro-(whatever) or con-(whatever) is capable of addressing. It strikes me that there will always be some blend of 'socialism' and 'individualism' incorporated into human societies (or families, for that matter). It seems to me that the battles will always be as to what PORTION of the 'social' compact certain functions of the society will be delegated to. It also strikes me that the framers of our Constitution had a profound understanding of this sort of balance and how easily it can be subverted by the whim of 'interest groups' or 'factions' of any stripe.
     -- Terry Berg, Occidental, CA     
  • 1 2
    		•  
    This quote is spot on. And Chicago, I think in addition to the socialist traits you listed, self-hatred is also common to most socialists. Who else but a self-hater would want to enslave themselves to elitist tyrants.
     -- Ken, WA     
  • 2
    		•  
    The government does not need to provide 'social services' -- that is what the People provide -- that is what we do -- provide services to each other. If the government attempts to monopolize social services, that is socialism. Insurance is a form of gambling, but we call it 'securities' -- and now people feel 'entitled' to these 'securities'. This tendency drives socialist movements -- and, yes, the desire to get something for nothing from the government is 100% socialistic -- which is why the US has gone so far down that road already -- we observe the Communist Manifesto more than we do the Constitution -- read them both, you'll see. The worst part is that we have been so conditioned to believe that servitude is freedom. 1984 has already come...
     -- Chicago     
  • 2
    		•  
    The quote epitomizes the UN! The only thing scarier than the UN is the stupidity of those who continue to support it!!
     -- Wally, Missoula, "The Little Kremlin."     
  • 3
    		•  
    I do not support the UN. I openly and publicly advocate that we destroy it. But it remains a fact that the articles of the Declaration are overwhelmingly reasonable. "Social services" is just a term for a measure that existed before socialism and that is completely compatible with the idea of civilization. I am not talking about a free ride for bums, but necessary services to the elderly or disabled. And workers' rights must be protected to avoid severe abuses, such as have existed in industrial societies. It has little to do with socialism.
     -- David L. Rosenthal, Hollywood     
    		•  
    What rights do worker's have that employers do not? What rights do the unemployed have that the employed do not? And vice versa. Corporations do not have ANY rights -- only people do. Simple majorities cannot vote away rights of individuals -- the Common Law already provides justice for the Common Man -- we do not need to reinvent the language whereby 'rights' are 'privileges' and 'benefits' are 'rights'. Welfare checks are NOT rights. If people want to sign up for that kind of insurance or savings programs, the private sector can offer that -- and people can choose to invest or not. The fact of the matter is, David, that social security is a damned lie -- it's just another tax. For goodness sakes, the idea is well-intentioned but the truth is the country is completely bankrupt and 'servicing' an unpayable debt. It is madness, and if you can't be honest enough with yourself to see it, God help your progeny.
     -- Chicago     
  • 2
    		•  
    Perhaps you feel that laws guaranteeing protection for workers are inappropriate, but if you read some histories about the extent of abusiveness engaged in by employers in the past, perhaps you might agree that the employers have often tended to treat workers like slaves or animals. In many countries, the refusal of regimes/governments to treat workers as people has created the need for a standard that might be used to censure violators, many of who claim to be socialists but are merely tyrants using one or another ideological rhetoric to achieve their own ends. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is very compatible in most of its content with the Constitution of the United States, and despite the claims of some that it means to promote socialism, it condemns the abuses of the self-styled socialist regimes.
     -- David L. Rosenthal , Hollywood     
    		•  
    David, the French, Russians and Chinese have no business setting US labor policies -- we can do that ourselves. The question is one of jurisdiction -- by giving the UN the power to dictate to the US its domestic policy, we have lost control over our own nation -- it is as simple as that. I ask again, what rights does a 'worker' need that he doesn't have already? Unemployment insurance is not a right -- it is a business -- and a monopolistic business when instituted by the government.
     -- Chicago     
  • 2
    		•  
    Since the United States is so far ahead of the abusive regimes, as it certainly is, in supporting workers' rights, then there is really no danger of being censured by those regimes. The standard is required to highlight the utter failure of the rulers of more than a third of humanity to respect the rights of humanity. Once again, I promote the destruction of the UN. But I advocate the standardization of rights for the reasons I have already given.
     -- David L. Rosenthal, Hollywood     
    		•  
     -- Anonymous      
    Good Terry and Archer: Like many Christian's, Socialist's, and advocates of the UN their hearts are in the right place; and after all the name calling, Pigeon holing, the people compromise and that is called reason, compassion (caring for those less fortunate) and equitability. It's quite funny really because most people with their hand out are either greedy or in real need - ask both what is socialism and they wouldn't be able to tell you. From the web: 1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy. 2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved. 3. Socialism: system of social organization in which property and the distribution of income are subject to social control rather than individual determination or market forces. 4. Market Socialism: economic system representing a compromise between socialist planning and free enterprise, in which enterprises are publicly owned but production and consumption are guided by market forces rather ... 5. Guild Socialism: a movement that called for workers' control of industry through a system of national guilds operating in an implied contractual relationship with the public. The Guild Socialist movement developed ... 6. National Socialism: totalitarian movement led by Adolf Hitler as head of the Nazi Party in Germany. In its intense nationalism, mass appeal, and dictatorial rule, National Socialism shared many elements with Italian ... 7. Christian Socialism: movement of the mid-19th century that attempted to apply the social principles of Christianity to modern industrial life. The term was generally associated with the demands of Christian activists 8. African Socialism: Socialist ideas were carried to North Africa mainly by French-educated African intellectuals; in addition, many French settlers, especially schoolteachers and civil servants, were Socialists or ... Just to name a few... Let's forget names for things and behave in a compassionate manner towards our fellow human beings
     -- Robert, Sarasota     
    		•  
    Considering the date: 1945 and his Political Position ... I would say that the man had a good handle on the general planned future of America. Especially interesting are the statements of Socialist/Communist/Marxist leaders, concerning America, that are made on this site and various other sites. The inherient idea/plan for an organization such as the UN, began long before 1945. The steps of expediting said plan was not to take place overnight, but over decades. Any nation, capabile of defending itself and it's governmental system, will usually fight to protect it from outside forces that storm in to overtake them by force. HOWEVER, should it's own government join in with the effort to "convert" the present ruling power, it will do so, as in our case, a step at a time ... through lies and deceit ... conveincing the majority that it is best for them ... blinding them to the truth. The educational system is used to, quoting a Biblical direction: "Bring up a child in the way he should walk and he will not depart from it!!!" Like many such Biblical directions, they work in both the area of good and of evil. In America, even the Village Idiot is more apt to see the error of America's leadership than is the College Professor. Through a slowly established state of public apathy and complacency, America has almost given up any thought of a struggle and has chosen to follow the lemmings as they travel toward the clifts. It is a sad thing to have offered 10s of thousands of lives, billions upon billions of dollars and trillions of barrels of blood up to the Gods of War and then find that the same government who swore to "Protect and Defend you, your country, your rights and your freedoms ... is the same government has offered the same to yuor enemy. The American Constitution defines this very act as Treason! I.e., "To give aid and comfort to the enemy, in time of war (easily defined in this particular senario), is committing an Act of Treason". (in so many words).
     -- Jim Kimbrough 67, Goodwater, AL     
  • 1
    		•  
    The quote is accurate on its face. Pealing back one of the skins of this onion finds that the U.N. is a means to eradicate Christianity, liberty, individual rights and personal sovereignty anywhere it/they may be found.
     -- Mike, Norwalk     
  • 4
    		•  
    Like a lot of other bad ideas, the UN was mislabeled. Its correct name should be the IADT, the International Association of Dictators and Tyrants.
     -- Durham, Birmingham,AL     
  • 3
    		•  
    Article 29 (3) of the UN Declaration of Human Rights says, “These [your individual] rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.” That is, the purposes of the UN supersede yours, not exactly what our Bill of Rights maintains.
     -- Durham, Birmingham, AL     
  • 3
    		•  
     -- Ronw13, OR      
    Kudos to the statements of - Logan, Memphis, TN, Joe, Rochester, MI, E Archer, NYC, Chicago, Ken, WA, Wally, Missoula, "The Little Kremlin.", Mike, Norwalk, Durham, Birmingham, AL (loved your astute handle ( IADT, the International Association of Dictators and Tyrants) that you gave for the despotic UN, and David, Mannington. I highly concur with all of you, as well as John E. Rankin's descriptive vile agenda of the UN.
     -- Mary - MI     
  • 1
    		•  
    The nations of the world must understand the United States of America has honorable intentions. We are going pay back our debts we owe the world. We are going to dismantle our military. We are going to lead the planet to an advanced state of organization culminating in an eventual unification of the world's population under one recognized governing procedure, a one world nation.  The rational purpose for the nation state is this eventual development of a one world territorial planetary unification.
     -- Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown     
    		•  
    Correction: The nations of the world must understand the United States of America has honorable intentions. We are going to pay back our debts we owe to the world. We are going to dismantle our military. We are going to lead the planet to an advanced state of organization culminating in an eventual unification of the world's population under one recognized governing procedure, a one world nation. The rational purpose for the nation state is this eventual development of a one world territorial planetary unification.
     -- Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown     
    		•  
     
    Rate this quote!
    How many stars?
    0
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
     
    What do YOU think?
    Your name:
    		 Your town:
        CLICK JUST ONCE!

    Today's Quotes
    More Quotations
    Most Popular
    Recent Comments
    Get a Quote-A-Day! Free!
    Liberty Quotes sent to your mail box.
    RSS Subscribe
    Quotes & Quotations - Send This Quote to a Friend

    © 1998-2026 Liberty-Tree.ca