More on the UN

[armedandsafe]

http://www.sierratimes.com/03/06/06/farrell.htm
A Critical Look at the UN
By Steve Farrell

This just in—more evidence that the United States and the UN need to part company, forever; and the timing couldn't be better.
The evidence comes in the form of a wonderful little book, "Inside the United Nations: A Critical Look at the UN," by Robert Welch, University director and New American contributing editor, Steve Bonta.

Their book is advertised as a primer on the United Nations; and a primer it is. For those uninitiated in the history and purposes of the United Nations, this brief but informative work—full of nuts and bolts basics about the UN, its shady founding, its flawed principles, its radical goals and its gosh awful performance—is just the right place to begin.

The first thing Welch and Bonta make clear is that the Founders and the founding of the UN ought not be confused with the Founders and founding of the United States. The UN, he reminds us, began with a semisecret meeting between Roosevelt Administration officials, and British and Soviet delegates at Dumbarton Oaks, where plans were laid for a postwar security arrangement, built around an organization that would prevent future world wars.

Aside from the fact that a red flag ought to have been raised regarding the outrageously Utopian belief that big government, especially world government, could usher in a Millennium of peace and freedom—a look at the players involved, should have caused alarm bells to sound from coast to coast and border to border, that a bad idea was on the way.

Just ask yourself, "Is there something wrong with this picture: the representatives of the mass-murdering Stalinist regime—a regime that far exceeded the cruelty and criminality of the Nazis (murdering 21 million of its own, prior to Hitler's genocide)—is given equal footing and a free hand in establishing a pro-peace/ pro-democracy organization with global jurisdiction?"

Little wonder then that many of Roosevelt's aids sent there, "were either Communists or strong Communist sympathizers. A number of them, including the now-notorious Alger Hiss (who served as secretary for the conference), were eventually unmasked as spies and traitors."

Throw in the fact that Britain's leader was Roosevelt's and Hiss's partner in betraying Eastern Europe and Asia to Stalin, and you've got quite a team drawing up plans to save humanity.

But that was not enough; Roosevelt made sure Congress, (the people's representatives), the media (not as liberal as today) and representatives of the America First committee were excluded.

Was there really ever any question that the Soviet voice would be heard loud and clear, that the Soviet's interest would be served royally in the creation of the United Nations; and that the United States and freedom in general, would be the loser?

This was not Philadelphia in 1787!

The second thing they make clear is that the UN was never intended to be a peace organization. They quote constitutional authority, J. Reuben Clark Jr., former undersecretary of state and U.S. ambassador to Mexico, who made this observation at the time of the drafting of the Charter:

"The Charter is a war document not a peace document … [It] makes us a party to every international dispute arising anywhere in the world."

The United Nations "[will] not prevent future wars, [but make] it practically certain that we shall have future wars," he predicted.

It would do something else, as well:

"[A]s to such wars, it takes from us the power to declare them, to choose the side on which we shall fight, to determine what forces and military equipment we shall use in the war, and to control and command our sons who do the fighting."

In other words, the real purpose of the UN was—to exploit incessant, orchestrated cries to "keep the peace," to "save the environment," to "free the indigenous peoples," and "feed the poor;"—in order to erode national sovereignty and impose global government over a disarmed world.

Fortunately, blatant calls for world government are usually flat-out rejected. Unfortunately, while conservatives think they've secured the front door, the globalists are busy busting down the back door, raiding the kitchen and hot-wiring the house for implosion.

Wrote UN proponent, Council of Foreign Relations member Richard Gardner:

"If instant world government … [does] not provide the answers, what hope for progress is there? … [T]he 'house of world order' will have to be built from the bottom up rather than the top down. It will look like a great 'booming, buzzing confusion,' to use William James' famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old fashioned frontal assault … [F]or political as well as administrative reasons, some of these specialized arrangements should be brought into an appropriate relationship with the central institutions of the UN system."

This booming buzzing confusion Gardner proposed, this end run approach of specialized arrangements brought into an appropriate relationship with the central institutions of the UN system, is the WTO, the ICC, NATO, NAFTA, Bush's FTAA and his proposed Free Trade Zone of the Middle East, as well as many other similar groupings.

Gardner's booming buzzing confusion also refers to the ABC NGO's (so-called "civil society") which, propaganda tell us, represents a wide variety of people and natural associations, when, the truth be told, most NGO's are fringe groups, artificially propped up, legitimized and shoved in our face, thanks to government and leftist foundational grants. And, by the way, these NGO's have a habit of calling for one and the same thing—world government solutions.

As for the WTO, ICC, NATO, NAFTA, FTAA and the Free Trade Zone of the Middle East, Bonta and Welch note that few realize that these entities are recognized as regional arrangements under the UN Charter; and that they have written into their founding documents a submission to the will of the United Nations Security Council; or in other words, submission to the central institution of the UN system—where the only real power lies.

Indeed, if their analysis is correct, the Bush Administration's call for a Free Trade Zone of the Middle East, is in fact, a subtle reversal of the administration's supposed "Keep the UN out of Iraq!" policy, and likewise, not a call not for free trade, but a call for managed trade, consistent with the laws and principles of the United Nations Charter.

And what of the UN Charter? This is the next point; the Charter is not modeled after the US Constitution, as is too often advertised. He notes. 1. There is no true representation at the UN; all the officials are appointed, not elected. 2. There is no separation of powers, or checks and balances; all power, legislative, executive, and even judicial, resides in a worldwide Security Council of 15 individuals (five of whom possess absolute veto power). 3. There is no limited government; the Charter outlines all of its powers in sweeping, vague, open-ended language. 4. There are no God-given inalienable rights; the UN's Declaration of Rights reads like a reprint from the old Soviet Constitution, with every human right being subject to revocation when exercised inconsistent with the purposes and principles of the UN Charter (whatever that means—and that's the point).

Bonta and Welch hit on many of the other great fallacies regarding the UN as well; and he provides reasonable answers. For instance, to the worn out claim that "nations need a place to air their grievances, thus, we need something like the UN"—his answer is simple and inspired, "Quiet diplomacy has always been preferable to diplomacy on the stage." Citing former Secretary of Agriculture, Ezra Taft Benson, they note, "A 'forum' for airing grievances publicly is about as effective as a bickering couple involving the entire neighborhood in their problems." What happens in such a case? Neighbor is divided against neighbor and relative against relative, when the original dispute was merely between husband and wife. Holy Writ invites us to settle our disputes with others "between him and thee alone," whenever possible. This is the moral, smarter answer. These writers agree. The UN, of course, does not; and that is but another reason why the UN is bad medicine.

In the end, they believe that the UN ought not be and cannot be reformed. It was born and bred, pro-communist and anti-American; it will stay that way. They lead their readers to more literature on the subject; invite them to join up with GetUSOut.org to fight the good fight; and suggest we solicit our congressional representatives to support Ron Paul's, American Sovereignty Restoration Act, H.R. 1146 (which was recently reintroduced).

All of them, great ideas, are found in a great, little inexpensive book; a book that ought to be purchased, read and shared with friends and family, congressmen and pundits.

To order "Inside the United Nations," click here.

The Sierra Times maintains its operation only by our sponsors and our readers. As always, any contribution is desperately needed and always accepted. Thank you.

Visa, Master Card, and Paypal Contributions accepted




Copyright 2003 The Sierra Times

[Marlin]

The truth of the matter is that the United Nations Charter is modeled almost word for word on the charter documents of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), quite contrary to the belief, nurtured by the globalists so we won't notice and be alarmed, that is is patterned after our Constitution.

When the ladies posted the new thread today about the UN gun conference upcoming, I wanted to post an item that hinted the gun issue was just the tip of the iceberg. I was way-laid by my continuing heart problem and didn't get back to the computer until now.

The fact is that the UN has always and is now attacking with greater gusto than ever before and more openly and unashamedly each and every facet of our way of life and of the cherished beliefs of the founding fathers. Globalism and control of the population in every way is the watchword and goal of these attacks.

The current issue of WhsitleBlower Magazine edited by Joe Farah is solely on the subject of the U.N.'s 'New World Re-Order' and the United Nations' attack on U.S. sovereignty. It is an in-depth and detailed probe. Copies can be had from the book store at

WorldNetDaily

[Shizamus]

You are absolutely correct Marlin !


Get US out of the UN !
Get US out of the UN !
Get US out of the UN !

[Marlin]

To add to this vital discussion, below is a synopsis of just what the United Nations is up to and would impose on all peoples, most especially the United States.



THE NEW WORLD DISORDER

U.N. to host global gun-control event
Conference backs measures to track, confiscate, destroy various weapons

June 8, 2003
By Jon Dougherty

Just days after French President Jacques Chirac called for a a global tax on individual firearms purchases, the United Nations has announced it is gearing up to sponsor a global gun-control forum next month in New York City.

The July 7-11 meeting builds on a similar forum held in 2001, in which participating nations signed a "Program of Action" to "Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects."

The Program of Action, or PoA, "sets the first global norms of good behavior to reduce small-arms proliferation," says a statement by the U.N. Small Arms Conference. "By agreeing to this document, all countries have formally committed themselves to take action" regarding the proliferation of "illicit" small arms and light weapons.

Among the provisions in the PoA agreed upon by member states:

 A commitment to make "illicit gun production/possession a criminal offense";
 The establishment of a national coordination agency on small arms;
 A pledge to identify and destroy stocks of surplus weapons;
 Track "officially held guns";
 The notification of nations who were the original supplier of weapons when those weapons are re-exported;
 The marking of guns and light weapons at the point of manufacture, so they can be tracked and traced globally; and
 The maintenance of gun manufacture records.

"The purpose of the [meeting of states] in July 2003 is for governments to report their progress and lessons learned in the first two years of implementing the PoA," said the conference statement. Groups "will make their own independent report on governments' activities, as well as showcasing the important contributions that [non-governmental organizations] themselves are making to stop gun violence."
U.N. officials did not return requests for comment before press time.

News of the gun-control event comes on the heels of statements made by some Group of 8 members who say they support a global tax on individuals for every gun purchase they make.

In a speech at the annual meeting of the G8, Brazil's President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva pushed the arms-sales tax as a scheme whereby the world's wealthiest nations could fund efforts to eliminate world hunger, Bloomberg News reported earlier this week.

The G8 countries are U.S., UK, France, Germany, Italy, Canada, Japan and Russia.

Quoting the Brazilian paper Folha de S. Paulo, Bloomberg reported that Lula said such taxes would create "a global fund capable of giving food to those who are hungry and for creating the conditions to end the causes of hunger."

The idea was championed by French President Jacques Chirac, who said Lula's proposal was "forceful and convincing."

"Lula's idea is a simple one. People must be able to eat three times a day, and that is not the case today," Chirac added, according to Agence France-Presse. "This unacceptable situation must be debated."
According to CNSNews.com, Chirac also said a tax on weapons could be "quite justified."

The United Nations has a history of pushing an anti-gun agenda. As early as Sept. 24, 1999, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan called on members of the Security Council to "tackle one of the key challenges in preventing conflict in the next century" – the proliferation and "easy availability" of small arms and light weapons. Annan identified them as the "primary tools of violence" in conflicts throughout the world.

Though the terms tend to be used interchangeably, the United Nations defines small arms as weapons designed for personal use, while light weapons are those designed for several persons operating as a crew. Together, however, such weapons account for virtually every kind of firearm from revolvers, pistols, rifles, carbines and light machine guns all the way to heavy machine guns, grenade launchers, portable anti-aircraft and anti-tank guns, mortars up to 100-mm caliber, and land mines.

"Even in societies not beset by civil war, the easy availability of small arms has in many cases contributed to violence and political instability," said Annan "Controlling that easy availability is a prerequisite for a successful peace-building process."

© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

Editor's note: The current edition of WND's acclaimed Whistleblower magazine, titled "THE NEW WORLD RE-ORDER," is a startling and groundbreaking look at the ongoing battle between backers of American sovereignty and proponents of global governance under the United Nations. The issue includes a very in-depth and detailed report on efforts to bring about global gun control.

[1952Sniper]

This topic just burns me up. As if it were not bad enough with our own anti-American politicians running around trying to take away our rights, the UN is right behind them.

"Even in societies not beset by civil war, the easy availability of small arms has in many cases contributed to violence and political instability," said Annan "Controlling that easy availability is a prerequisite for a successful peace-building process."

This type of mentality is just plain stupid. It is the same mentality used by Adolf Hitler. Disarm the public in the same of crime control, and then do as you wish to them. Everywhere you look in history, gun control has always been followed by crimes against the people. Even before our own Revolutionary war, General Gage attempted to first regulate and then confiscate firearms owned by the people of the colonies.

We need a strong voice to get the US out of the UN. Online petitions ain't gonna cut it. We need a people's movement.

[Marlin]

To quote from Wayne LaPiere and James Jay Baker's Book, "Shooting Striaght" the truth of the matter is that the American Revolution was about the freedom of self-defense more than anything else:

"When the Redcoats assembled on Boston Commons and marched off toward Lexington and Concord, they were after Americans' arms. The British intended to seize the arsenals of Massachusetts and confiscate gunpowder and shot. Although our public schools may no longer emphasize this inconvenient FACT of AMERICAN HISTORY (emphasis is mine!), the Revolution was ignited by a direct assault on the ancient English right of the people to keep and bear arms.
The story of self-defense in America begins with that fact. (again emphasis mine!) It is buttressed by Paul Revere's ride, the Sons of Liberty, the fighting on Lexington Green and at Concord Bridge. Each Minuteman owned his own mucket or rifle, a bayonet, a cartridge box and thirty rounds of amunition....."

So you see, it appears that the American Revolution is not over, just continuing and this calls for all of us to stand up and be counted in the fight to protect the rights guarenteed by the 2nd Amendment. Not quite Kofi Annan's interpretation is it????????

[Shizamus]

Let's not forget that they also came after
the assault weapons of the day, I believe they
were Cannons that were being made in barns.



FIGHTING FOR FAITH, FREEDOM AND THE CONSTTUTION !


Listen to Constitutional Talk Radio, if you dare : www.gcnlive.com

www.libertygunrights.com