By: Hayes Brown on August 23, 2012 While the United Nations sometimes gets a bad rap for the things it actually does, or even attempts to do, far more confusing are the stories that have been spun issuing dire warnings of the things that the UN might do. There are conspiracy theories about the UN and then there are totally nutcase conspiracy theories. The following is an example of the latter. During the Arms Trade Treaty talks in July, there was an extremely outspoken number of people who believed that the United Nations was seeking to supersede the Second Amendment and strip American citizens of their guns. A City Councilwoman in Houston once rejected a plan for new maintenance garages for city vehicles, on the grounds that it hewed to the United Nations’ Agenda 21. (She voted for the other project she linked to Agenda 21, though, as it came in under budget.) Both of those notions seem tame compared to what was put forward by Judge Tom Head of Lubbock County, Texas. In warning against a second term for President Barack Obama, Judge Head, who comes by the title as Chief Executive of the county, maintained that a ‘civil war’ would follow should the White House remain in Obama’s hands. The local police force of course had to be built up in preparation for that conflict and the coming invasion by…the United Nations: The judge spun the elaborate conspiracy theory while calling for a 1.7 cent hike per $100 on property taxes in Lubbock County, a measure being considered by the commission there. He said he feared Obama would hand over sovereignty of the United States to the United Nations and the unrest would naturally follow. Under Head’s theory, the United Nations would then send in peacekeeping troops to try to quell the violence and that’s where he would draw the line. He vowed to stand in front of the county’s armored vehicle and stare down the U.N. troops if that happens. The full interview can be viewed on Fox 34’s website here. Judge Head later attempted to clean up his remarks, saying he was only considering a “worst-case scenario” and that his theory on the UN was only “probably not” going to come to being. Many, many holes still exist in Judge Head’s theory, which we’ll engage only as much as necessary. The largest issue is his belief that the UN could send in “peacekeeping troops” to quell violence in the US. Judge Head does manage to skirt the fact that the US would wield its veto against any infringement upon its sovereignty in the Security Council by claiming that President Obama would turn the keys of the country over to the UN. What Head fails to understand is that even in his twisted tale, the United Nations has no independent army. Instead, it depends on Troop Contributing Countries to staff its peacekeeping missions. Given that the UN is currently strapped for contributors to ongoing missions in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, South Sudan and other hotspots, it’s doubtful there will be a mad rush of volunteers to send troops into the United States. In any case, UN peacekeepers don’t “invade” countries. They are deployed to hotspots based on broad international consensus and at the invitation of the host country. The millage that Head is seeking will likely yield many municipal benefits should it pass, including the increased police force he’s been clamoring for. That strengthened force, like the ‘Tiger Repellent’ of the old joke, should be sufficient to keep the UN at bay.