This article was printed from KeepAndBearArms.com.
For more gun- and freedom-related information, visit
http://www.KeepAndBearArms.com.
----------------------------------------------------------------
|
The
Un-American United Nations (Millennium Version) NewsMax.com - Like many of you, growing up
under the tutelage of the public school system and the big three television
networks in the 1960’s and 1970’s, I recall the zealous and reverential
treatment afforded the world’s eighth wonder: the United Nations. Its ideals, they said, were homespun American
ideals. Its immediate mission: to perpetuate the same across the globe. Its
ultimate objective: to bring an end to poverty, prejudice, conflict and war.
Indeed, some envisioned and vigorously proclaimed future life under the United
Nations as the last and highest stage of evolutionary man (1).
In textbook and pamphlet, newspaper and film
clip this dream was perpetuated, and many of us longing for peace and security
in the aftermath of two consecutive world wars were swept away with the imagery
and emotion of this coming millennial Zion. It would be glorious.
So glorious that warning bells should have
broadcast throughout the land a solemn, "beware!" prior to any casting
of votes for or against the UN Charter. But the bells were muffled, the Charter
fast-tracked through the US Senate, and today we suffer under our great mistake.
Indeed, this very day, September 6, 2000, with
159 heads of state gathering on U.S. soil for a World Millennium Summit, our
mistake looms ever larger. The goal of this summit: nothing less than to bring
America’s leaders to their knees, to vow strict loyalty, this day and forever,
not to our Constitution, to which they are solemnly bound, but to the only true
loyalty, the UN Charter, or what Koffi Annan calls the "global soul."
We should be alarmed. Compelling evidence,
accumulated over the years by a few dedicated citizens and watchdog
organizations, (2) reveals this difficult truth: The UN’s idealism is less
than ideal; its similarity and loyalty to the US system, a facade; its promise
for peace and liberty more a formula for war and tyranny; it’s leaders and
founders, dedicated socialists and communists.
The UN was never intended to be our friend.
Yet, in the year 2000, we have a President, a State Department and two
presidential candidates collectively converted, not to the down-to-earth
protection of US sovereignty and liberty under the Constitution, as per their
oath of office, but to some pie-in-the-sky vision of a borderless,
socially-conscious world under the United Nations. At such a crossroad,
re-exposing the uncomfortable truth about the UN cannot be overdone.
The UN is no friend to American ideals
A. The UN’s Founders were known Communists
If it’s true that the personality, purpose
and accomplishments of an organization are highly affected by its leadership,
then membership in the United Nations spelled trouble from the start. Of the 17
individuals identified by the US State Department as having helped shape US
policy leading to the creation of the United Nations, all but one were later
identified as secret members of the Communist Party USA (3).
Joining them at the UN’s founding conference
were 43 members of the ultra influential, ultra pro-socialist, globalist
think-tank the Council On Foreign Relations, (6 of the 43 CFR members having the
additional distinction of membership in the Communist Party USA) (4). And,
importantly, the UN’s first Secretary General and orchestrator of the San
Francisco conference was the man later convicted as a Soviet agent - Alger Hiss
(5).
Not a good start.
Following in the footsteps of that unhallowed
class of ‘46, the ideological makeup of the UN’s leadership has been
constant. In its 54 year history all eight Secretary Generals of the UN have
been either dedicated socialists or communists (6), all 15 of the UN
Under-Secretary-Generals for Political and Security Council Affairs (the UN’s
military boss) have been communists (all but one from the Soviet Union/Russian
Federation) (7), and two thirds of the membership in the General Assembly, the
Security Council, and in the World Court have always been representatives of
socialist and communist nations.
Further, the collection of US employees at the
UN have not fared well either. Besides the scandal of having American communists
Alger Hiss and company as the creators of the UN, a 1952 official Senate
investigation into the then 6 year old United Nations revealed, "extensive
evidence indicating that there is today in the UN among the American employees
there, the greatest concentration of Communists that this committee has ever
encountered (8)." And these were high officials.
Twenty years later, the "anti-American,
anti-freedom" flavor of the UN continued unabated, which prompted former UN
enthusiast, Republican Senator Barry Goldwater to call for US withdrawal from
the UN, and the re-stationing of its headquarters to a place "more in
keeping with the philosophy of the majority of its voting members, somewhere
like Peking or Moscow (9)."
Things were no different by the 1980’s.
Republican President Ronald Reagan expressed the same sentiments as Goldwater,
adding that the UN was the host of the greatest concentration of spies in the
world and thus he vowed to withdraw the US from the UN. (He did boot UNESCO out
of the US)
Which leads to the next reason the UN deserves
our full measure of scorn. With a line-up of communists, socialists, and spies
founding and still running the show at the UN; it seems a bit hard to believe
that the political framework created by such notorious figures would be
consistent with the American Constitution? Isn’t it? And there is plenty of
proof..
B. The UN’s Charter is the antithesis of
the US Constitution.
Its Bill of Rights (10) creates radical new
rights to include:
The socialist right to "adequate"
housing, a "living" wage, rest and leisure, medical care, social
services, employment security, sick pay, disability pay, old age security pay,
and widow’s pay.
Its Promotion of Democratic Institutions
is a pretense. Not one UN delegate or official is
democratically elected by the people.
The 185 national delegates to the General
Assembly don’t possess real representative power anyway. They may only
"consider . . . discuss . . . advise . . . or make suggestions to the
Security Council (13)." An arrangement similar to the meaningless
representation the American Colonies suffered under the British Parliament.
However, the 15 member nations of the Security
Council (5 permanent members and ten rotating) do have substantial power and are
unchecked in this power by election or constitutional constraint. Which leads to
the next point (14).
Its Separation of Powers is an illusion.
The UN appears to have three separate branches
of government with the General Assembly and the Security Council being symbolic
of our House and Senate; the Secretary General symbolic of our President; and
the World Court symbolic of our Supreme Court.
But, as already demonstrated, the General
Assembly has only advisory powers, the Secretary General is but the chief
administrative officer of the UN, who, like the General Assembly, may only
"bring to the attention of the Security Council" matters he deems
important (15), while the World Court is subject to the Security Council’s
absolute veto upon any of its decisions.
Furthermore, the Security Council may, if it so
chooses, judge any legal matter it sees fit, only being advised to "take
into consideration that legal disputes should as a general rule be referred to
the International Court of Justice (16)."
Thus all powers legislative, executive, and
judicial reside in the Security Council, with the five permanent members being
the real power center since the non- permanent members serve but two years (17)
and lack absolute veto power (18).
Stunningly, in the serious matter of sanctions
or war, once initiated, the General Assembly is even stripped of its petty right
to consult with the Security Council, unless the Council "requests"
their input (19).
Additionally, regional military and economic
alliances, such as NATO, the EU, ASIAN, and NAFTA, are all, by their own treaty
law, and the UN Charter which authorized their existence, subject to the rule of
the UN Security Council, to whom they must report all actions "under
contemplation;" to whom they must seek the approval for any sanctions they
intend to impose; and to whom they must bow in obeisance when the Security
Council deems it necessary to delegate out enforcement actions (20).
Thus regional arrangements are part of the UN
web, and subject to the centralized control of the few men who make up the
permanent membership of the Security Council.
Monstesque taught, and the founders concurred
and improved on the principle, that the concentration of all power legislative,
executive, and judicial in one office is the very definition of tyranny (21). So
what then is the Security Council but a budding five- headed world tyrant?
Its National Sovereignty Protection
clause was and is a ploy.
Article 2, Verse 7 which forbids the UN from
intervening "in matters which are essentially within the domestic
jurisdiction of any state" was inserted as an afterthought to calm the
fears of conservatives in the US Senate 50 years ago. The clause offers no such
security.
Every other clause, every other sentence, every
other word in the UN Charter calls for international oversight over every
possible affair on the planet. Even the sovereignty clause has a mile wide
escape hatch which reads "this principle shall not prejudice the
application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII."
Chapter VII, Articles 39 through 42 include the
Security Council’s power to "determine the existence of any threat to. .
.international peace and security," and then to take whatever actions
"as may be necessary" such as "interruption of economic relations
and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of
communications," and or, "action by air, sea, or land forces."
Chapter VII, Article 50 even gives the Security Council the power to wage war or
impose sanctions on non-member nations. If that isn’t the power to intervene
in internal matters, what is?
Evidence enough, says former Top Communist
Party member, Joseph Z. Kornfeder, that it’s clearly recognizable that
"the UN "blueprint" is a communist one (22)."
The UN has not protected sovereignty, nor
promoted freedom.
A. The UN’s history confirms the above
claim.
The UN is the enemy of national sovereignty.
A few examples:
Presently, the UN is engaged in 14
"peacekeeping" operations (wars) enlisting troops from 77 nations
(world wars), and has waged war 62 times in its brief 56 years of existence.
Some peace organization! More quietly, it has murdered hundreds of thousands
through trade embargoes, a half million children in Iraq alone (24), robbing
innocent civilians of the necessities of life, all because the UN denies the
sovereign right of nations, like Iraq, to maintain a modern national defense
system.
Not surprisingly, the UN opposes the building
by the United States of a 21st Century missile defense system to protect our
sovereignty - even while the UN ignores continued Russian and Chinese targeting
of major US cities, continued Russian and Chinese missile modernization
programs, and continued Russian and Chinese First-Strike Doctrines.
And as for respecting Sovereignty, and human
rights, consider this, one of the major goals of the Millennial Summit is a call
for the establishment of a permanent standing UN Army on US soil (which Clinton
appallingly supports) who will go to war at the whim of the UN, so that the UN
may never again have to submit to the "cumbersome" process of gaining
approval of the sovereign nations and their peoples who must fight, die, and pay
for these wars.
The UN’s war on sovereignty continues.
UNESCO and the World Health Organization have
wormed their way into member governments promoting sex education, homosexuality
as normal and healthy, abortion, the right of a child to "privacy,"
population control, and scientific breeding (25).
The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP),
first led by passionate socialist and New-Ager Maurice Strong, has set
fear-driven environmental standards which are currently being implemented in the
United States and many other "free" nations. Targeted is the US, who
is the "guilty" party that must pay the world’s environmental bill.
Aligned with that charge are calls for the worldwide redistribution of wealth
and technology. And because environmental threats are in this fanatical view,
"the number 1 international security concern," national sovereignty
has been identified by UNEP as a barrier that must be breached (26).
Truth is, there are so many regulatory agencies
listed on the UN’s homepage, branching off in so many different directions
with sub-agencies, and sub-agencies of sub-agencies, that are designed to
interfere with the sovereignty of nations, that one could spend a week of
research trying to come up with an honest head count.
However, as part of the year 2000 Summit
kickoff, the UN has several more major sovereignty destroying proposals aimed
straight at the United States. 1.The elimination of the absolute veto power of
the United States, which means that two communist states, Russia and China, and
one socialist leaning member of the EU, England, or more especially France, by
majority vote can outgun the United States in the Security Council and impose
laws upon us over our protest. 2. An enlargement of the powers of the World
Court, who by Judicial Review could do more damage in one year to our
Constitution then the Supreme Court ever did in decades. 3. An expanded role for
the UN in the regulation of international commerce and as an overseer to
individual corporations. 4. A new and dangerous power to tax the world, and
thus, indefinitely fund the growth of world government. 5. Blatant confessions
by the UN’s Chief Anan that the continued protection of national sovereignty
is obsolete and dangerous.
The UN aids Communists and attacks
non-Communists and Capitalists
In the 1950’s the UN undermined freedom’s
victory in Korea by accepting rules of engagement and passing on secrets to
Russia and China which made victory impossible for South Korea and the United
States (27). They then chose silence and inaction while Soviet tanks rolled into
Hungary crushing freedom fighters who fought these tanks with sticks and stones.
In the 1960’s the UN invaded Katanga (in the
Belgium Congo) and foiled that provinces quest for independence from communist
murderer and torturer Patrice Lamumba (28); and likewise declared tiny Rhodesia
"a threat to international peace," enabling pro-Communist terrorist
Robert Mugabe to seize power. Both the result of an official UN
"anti-colonialist" (29) policy which in the name of democracy spread
communism throughout Africa, Asia, and the Americas from the 1950’s clear up
into the 1980’s. Showing their pro-Communist partisanship, Russia, China, and
Cuba’s influence on all of these revolutions was perennially and officially
denied by the UN, who dubbed all communist revolutions as
"spontaneous." uprisings of the poor and politically ostracized.
In the 1970’s, the UN admitted mass murderer
Red China, despite the Charter rule to admit "peace-loving nations
(30)" only. They added insult to injury by granting China the power and
prestige of permanent Security Council status, while simultaneously kicking out
free Taiwan. They winked while Security Council member the Soviet Union invaded
Afghanistan, but then suppressed IMF loans to Nicaragua and Iran at key moments
in their battle against communist backed revolutions in their nations, citing
"human rights" violations (31).
In the 1980’s the UN organized an
international boycott against South Africa which favored the Soviet, PLO, and
Cuban backed African National Congress, which in turn toppled the South African
government (the key UN anti-colonial victory in Africa), leading to an immediate
turn toward socialism (his first act was to socialize medicine), foreign aid,
reverse discrimination, and a nullification of a promised coalition government.
Amazingly, the UN pushed for and enforced the boycott even though Mandela upon
release from prison publicly declared his loyalty to and the ANC’s alliance
with the South African Communist Party (32).
In the 1990’s the UN disarmed anti-Communist
forces in Nicaragua; imposed economic sanctions on Iraq for invading old Soviet
friend Kuwait, hypocritically sent annual foodstuffs to communist North Korea,
imposed a coalition government on Muslims with Communists in Bosnia, opposed US
sanctions against Cuba, indicted President Pinochet for his suppression and
imprisonment of communists in Chile, and continues to support the right of
Russia and China to suppress liberty in Chechnya and Taiwan.
The UN is a Fraud, and Yet It Continues
Unabated.
Soviet Dictator Vladimir Lenin in his work
Imperialism and World Economy predicted a day of capitalistic imperialism
wherein a "new social order" would be introduced which under the
leadership of "a single world trust," would "swallow up all
enterprises and all states without exception."
Under this system, capitalism would move toward
a mixture of private capital and social production (That form of socialism
called fascism, or state monopoly capitalism). But before this melting of
"economic, political, [and] national" systems finished its job of
"world union," he predicted, "imperialism will inevitably
explode, [and] capitalism will turn into its opposite [communism] (33)."
A dire prophecy, and one which should focus our
attention on the real, more subtle communist threat in the world today - the
United Nations.
Earl Browder, general secretary of the
Communist Party USA admitted in his book Victory and After, that "the
American Communists worked energetically and tirelessly to lay the foundations
for the United Nations which we were sure would come into existence," and
that, "the United Nations is the instrument for victory [the victory of
communism] (34)."
But let us hope he was dreaming, and that
millions of Americans will wake up to the fact that they were lied to by their
state run schools, by UN generated pamphlets, and by the ‘big three’
networks. Sensible and freedom loving Americans should realize that we can do
better in our goals to achieve peace and liberty than provide moral support,
cash, and housing for such a sham for liberty and peace as the United Nations.
Footnotes:
1. See Humanist Manifesto I and II Steve Farrell is a most welcome addition to our
website, and can be reached via email at cyours76@yahoo.com.
He writes for a website you owe it to yourself to visit regularly, NewsMax.com.
|
||||||||