OUT! And right damn now
Is it time to leave the U.N.?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Henry Lamb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 1999 WorldNetDaily.com
Congressman Ron Paul, R-Texas, says yes, and has introduced legislation (HR1146) to get the job done.
The majority of Congress, the administration, and many, if not most of the American people, still believe the United Nations is the world's best hope for permanent peace. At the very least, it is time to examine this belief to see if that hope is valid, or a baseless fantasy.
The United Nations was created to provide a forum for sovereign nations to meet and discuss differences in hopes of finding peaceful solutions to those differences. No one can find fault with this purpose or this function. The United Nations itself, was never intended to possess governmental power, but only to be a meeting place to facilitate the cooperative exercise of the governmental power of sovereign nations. The purpose and function of the United Nations is changing, however, and the direction and objectives of those changes must be re-examined, and a new decision must be made as to the appropriateness of U.S. involvement. Ron Paul has made his decision; the rest of America has not.
The United Nations no longer sees itself as the facilitator for cooperative action by sovereign nations. It sees itself as the administrator of what is called "global governance." Great care is taken to distinguish "global governance" from "world government." The difference between the terms is much like the difference between the terms "king," and "dictator." Whatever it is called, the new mission of the United Nations is to consolidate the power to make, implement, and enforce international law.
Conservative organizations such as the John Birch Society, have long borne the brunt of ridicule for their warnings of U.N. ambitions. Still, the proponents of global governance try to dismiss their opposition with the label "conspiracy theorists" or "hate mongers." These labels no longer apply. The United Nations itself has published many documents which reveal both the intent and the plan to achieve global governance. The plan is quite comprehensive, and it is currently being implemented.
The plan seeks to control environmental and social policy, education, economic activity, and military action. The United Nations no longer sees its responsibilities as limited to serving its sovereign nation members. It has now assumed responsibility for providing security to all the people of the world, without regard for the sovereign authority of the nations in which those people live. The United Nations takes the position that international law supercedes national law, and when there is a conflict, international law prevails, and must be enforced.
So far, the United Nations has been able to create only two enforcement mechanisms: the World Trade Organization (WTO), and the International Criminal Court (ICC). The WTO is only the first step toward controlling economic activity; the next step, consolidation of international currency flows, is well under way. The second step is necessary before the U.N. can impose the "Tobin Tax" which will give the U.N. an independent revenue source making it truly independent of its member nations. The ICC is still getting organized, but it will have the power to enforce virtually all international law. The public was told that the ICC was a vehicle to prosecute only war criminals and international terrorists, but it is clear from the preparatory literature that its creators fully intend to amend the charter to broaden its jurisdiction to environmental and social law as well.
Efforts to control education have been less successful for the U.N. Dr. Robert Mueller's World Core Curriculum has not been widely accepted publicly, but is making headway under such names as "Goals 2000," and "School to Work," and "Outcome Based Education." As social treaties such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child become more enforceable, the education agenda will advance more rapidly.
Control of military activity is the big prize for the U.N. All the other control mechanisms are only partial steps to ultimate U.N. control. Control of military activity is the final step. And we are moving in that direction very rapidly.
When the Soviet Union collapsed, the need for NATO diminished greatly. Logically, NATO should have been disassembled. Instead, it was expanded, raising a caution flag to all U.N. watchers. NATO's intervention into Yugoslavia's civil strife, without U.N. sanction and in direct violation of the NATO charter was quite confusing, until the action is analyzed in the context of the U.N.'s ultimate objective. NATO's action is consistent with the U.N.'s objective of ignoring national sovereignty when the security of people is at stake. The U.N. could not act because of Russia's veto power in the Security Council. So NATO, not subject to such a veto, conveniently performed the objective of the U.N. by bypassing the Security Council, possible only through the complicity of the Clinton-Gore administration.
The G-8 peace plan now under discussion is designed to put the entire operation which NATO started, safely under the command and control of the U.N. NATO's action, operation, and soon, its control, are within the plan to give the U.N. control of all military action. NATO could well be the beginning of the "standing army" called for in the U.N.-funded report of the Commission on Global Governance, Our Global Neighborhood.
The published plan for global governance intends to have all military power, including the manufacture, sale, and distribution of munitions (including handguns) under the auspices of the United Nations. The plan calls for the elimination of permanent members of the Security Council and elimination of all veto power. The published plan for global governance is being implemented, particularly in the United States, despite the fact that Congress has not ratified many of the key treaties, nor has it authorized the use of U.S. military forces by the U.N.
Congressman Ron Paul obviously knows more about the United Nations than many of those who still hope that it will do what it was created to do. The U.N. has no intention of doing what it was created to do. The U.N. fully intends to create a peaceful world, in which people are forced to conform to its vision of environmental, social, and economic equity. Unless Americans are willing to surrender their military might, their right to self-governance, and their national sovereignty, they should carefully consider Ron Paul's legislation, and seriously discuss it with their own elected officials.
Being in the UN isn't tilting at windmills.
Being in the UN (and on the Security Council) is owning the damn windmill, and the lance, and the donkey, and being able to tell Don Quixote that he can go get bent.
I find UN conspiracy theories amusing- for this very reason. We run the show. They can only do what we allow them to do. Its like worrying if I'm gonna wake up and rob myself tomorrow
Maybe you should worry about that in light of the fact that the plan under the Commision on Global Governance basically says:
The G-8 peace plan now under discussion is designed to put the entire operation which NATO started, safely under the command and control of the U.N. NATO's action, operation, and soon, its control, are within the plan to give the U.N. control of all military action. NATO could well be the beginning of the "standing army" called for in the U.N.-funded report of the Commission on Global Governance, Our Global Neighborhood.
The published plan for global governance intends to have all military power, including the manufacture, sale, and distribution of munitions (including handguns) under the auspices of the United Nations. The plan calls for the elimination of permanent members of the Security Council and elimination of all veto power. The published plan for global governance is being implemented, particularly in the United States, despite the fact that Congress has not ratified many of the key treaties, nor has it authorized the use of U.S. military forces by the U.N.
No more Security Council and no more veto power
The plan will play out as follows:
1. The structure of Government under the UN Charter. You should really read it some time, side by side with the US Constitution. Its VERY similar except for ELECTED respresentation, that is responsible to the people it governs.
2. A standing army to enforce the Global "Governance". The UN
Army under the guise of NATO was deployed to Yugoslavia, because of the Russian objections to using actual UN Troops. So we used NATO to accomplish the same goal.
3. The Tobin Tax to FUND the UN Government Structure.
4. The Innternational Criminal Court to enforce the 'law'. By the
way, without a jury trial. The American Bar Associations is supporting the ICC, just so you know
Regarding the Tobin Tax, you might say 'well big deal' its just
a tax on international currency exchanges. Well, unless you buy entirely US made products, and have absolutely NO investments in the stock market, YOU will wind up paying this tax in the form of stock transactions, and increased costs of products that are produced ALL over the world. The cost will be passed on to you, the consumer, and YOU will be funding the UN to the tune of at least a TRILLION dollars per year, without even knowing it. So much for the UN needing our funding, and being at our mercy. And so much for the 'control' we extert over the Security Council.
