Rumors have been spreading for some time that former President Clinton wishes to become the Secretary-General of the United Nations. According to a recent UPI report the former President, “definitely wants to do it.” We must stop him. Letting Bill Clinton become Secretary-General would be much worse than letting John Kerry become the President.

Right now the UN is about where it should be: mostly ignored and generally despised. Certainly, only a very few deluded individuals think of it as they once did: as an embryonic world government. However, if Clinton were to be placed in charge, I think that would rapidly change.

Think about it for a second: what kind of treatment would Secretary-General Clinton get from the world media? It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that they would, the moment he took office, begin to treat him as though he were the President of the world.

It’s a disaster waiting to happen. Clinton knows a thing or two about PR. The scary thing to think about is this: he has the people around him with the skills to make it happen.

Once Clinton gains that office, everything changes. I don’t find it at all hard to imagine Secretary-General Clinton requesting world-wide television time to address the world from the UN Headquarters in New York City and getting it. It doesn’t seem at all difficult to imagine the Secretary-General’s address to the UN General Assembly transformed into the equivalent of a State of the Union address.

So: what is to be done? I propose a two track approach.

First: we must lay down a framework within which to oppose Clinton if the day should come when a push for him comes. This means laying out reasonable arguments which, to the public, do not sound as though they’re being devised by people who are getting ready to hand you a pamphlet about the threat posted by the Zionist Occupational Government.

We know how the Democrats will cast any effort to oppose the selection of Clinton: they’ll claim that it’s a manifestation of Republican partisanship and, as they tend to do, all sorts of ‘moderate’ Republicans looking to get a kind word from the New York Times will be more than happy to take a contrarian position and provide full support for Clinton.

Arguments about personal morality cannot be used to sink Clinton because the people are already tired of them. And, in truth, it won’t fly if we attempt to argue against him on partisan lines because, first, Clinton remains very popular at home and, second, it will be the rest of the world seeking to put him into power.

So, what sort of arguments are we to make against this appointment? We must, I think argue, very carefully, upon the grounds of national sovereignty. This will be a delicate minefield to walk, since a very fine line separates ideas which are seen as legitimate and those that are seen as black helicopter talk: but it is an area we manoeuvre in nonetheless.

We should not argue that the United Nations has ambitions to take over the United States, but rather this is could, under Clinton’s leadership, start to act as a sort of globalized version of the European Union (at least in the First World). We need to explain the sort of social agenda advocated by the United Nations and which could, conceivably, be imposed upon the United States by treaty and by “international law.” In particular, we need to emphasize that the United Nations has plans to tax Americans and that, with Clinton in there, it might actually get done.

Worse come to worse, President Bush can simply use US influence over the UN to block any such appointment. But that solution is, to say the very least, sub-ideal.

The second track is to give former President Clinton something else to do. Whatever may be said about his personal conduct (and there is a very great deal which may be said), there is no denying the fact that he’s an intelligent and capable man who could be usefully put to work for the sake of the country.

One way to ensure that he doesn’t take the United Nations posting would be simply to get him out of the way by giving him some other job that he’d like and in which he could creditably serve the country.

The obvious area where these objectives could be achieved is in the Middle East. Clinton could form a sort of Good Cop/Bad Cop team with President Bush. We could make Clinton the “Special Envoy for Democratic Reform” and dispatch him to various Middle Eastern regimes to tell their leaders, in all frankness, “if you don’t reform, then someone is going to make you reform.”

During this process he could also be sent into the Israeli-Palestinian morass, where the need for some action now seems to be evident. Not only would this tie up President Clinton for years, but he might also get some useful work done.

The foundation of peace did not exist when Clinton was the President. The Palestinians were ascendant, the Israelis weak and a murderous thug was in command among the Palestinians. Now, everything has changed. The Palestinian murder machine has been shattered. Israel is increasing strong and secure behind its new defenses. Israel has won its victory against terror.

While my preferred solution remains the expulsion of the Palestinians from the territories, even I recognize that such a thing is not likely to come to pass. Send in Clinton and perhaps he can do some good. Or, just as good, he can achieve nothing but be out of our hair for a few years and safely as far away from the UN in New York as possible.

I warn you: if Clinton is allowed to become Secretary-General it will be a disaster for our civilization. He’ll made that damned place visible and more relevant.

It can’t be allowed.