Posts Tagged ‘United Nations’
Support HR 1205, The American Sovereignty Restoration Act:
>>> Sign The Petition <<<
American tax dollars support the UN as it promotes:
Unrestricted abortion – (UN Human Rights Committee report 2016)
International Common-Core Education – International Baccalaureate (IB)
Abolition of the right to keep and bear arms – the UN’s Programme of Action on Small Arms and Light Weapons
Sovereignty-destroying trade pacts – NAFTA and the TPP
Control over property – Agenda 21 (now Agenda 2030)
“Refugee” relocation at the whim of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees
UN Control of US Military
We thank Congressman Rogers for introducing HR 1205. Every Congressman needs to support it, if they wish to keep their oath of office. We urge the Senate to pass companion legislation.
Additional Resources (freebies for you):
In my previous post, I discussed that the people’s loss of control over the War Powers was directly related to our membership in the United Nations. This post will further illustrate this association so that the average American can better understand the connection. Furthermore, it is important to see that the failure of the League of Nations at the end of World War I created the necessity for a World War II by the internationalists who wished to build a modern Tower of Babel; a world government – A New World Order.
How do I justify the assertion that the Second World War was engineered for the purpose of developing a New World Order? A man named Carter Glass essentially tells us this in an interview he gave to the Associated Press. The AP story was run in papers across the country including the Arizona Republic on November 3, 1943. In the article, Glass offers his firm conviction that if the United States had joined the League of Nations and the World Court, World War II would not be upon us. He should know. Glass was first and foremost a newspaperman. Later he joined Congress and served as a house member from 1902-1918 and co-sponsored the Glass-Owen Act. Yes, the very same act that created the Federal Reserve System. He also co-sponsored the Glass-Steagall Act in 1933. Then he served as Treasurer under Woodrow Wilson (1918-1920) and as a Senator (1941-1945). We are told in our history classes that the horror of two world wars woke the people to the reality that the world needed an institution capable of enforcing international law. The events leading to the second war illustrate that the goal of these wars was, in fact, World Government. It was the controlled press that conditioned the world into accepting the United Nations and it was the two great wars only a generation apart which the press used to justify the propaganda. This propaganda started in earnest in 1942 by using the term United Nations and Allied forces interchangeably. The groundwork was laid in August of 1941 when Roosevelt and Churchill met to discuss their goals for a post-war world.
If I asked you when the United Nations began, most would say June of 1945. Some would say US membership was approved on July 28, 1945. The United Nations actually began in January 1942, less than a month after the Attack on Pearl Harbor. On January 1, 1942, A Declaration by United Nations was issued at the Arcadia Conference on behalf of 26 countries. The principles which guided this United Nations Declaration were actually laid out in August 1941 in what has become known as the Atlantic Charter. The Atlantic Charter was actually a post-war policy statement issued by the United States and Great Britain even before our nation entered the war. The goals of this charter involved: reduction of trade restrictions; global cooperation to secure better economic and social conditions for all; freedom from fear and want; freedom of the seas; and abandonment of the use of force, as well as disarmament of aggressor nations. These were post-war goals. Have we seen any of these policies implemented through the United Nations? The World Trade Organization, for example, is a creature derived from the Atlantic Charter. The propaganda was carefully crafted so as to pit the Nazis and Japanese against the Charter. In this way, Americans were conditioned to believe that anyone who opposed the United Nations supported the Nazi regime. Never mind that the Communists favored the United Nations. After all, they were our allies, right? Once again, the press left the American people with no true, American, position. The issue was framed. Will you support the Communists in Russia and China or Hitler and the Nazis? Why not support the United States Constitution? Why not maintain neutrality while the position is tenable and if attacked, fight and defeat your enemy while avoiding international entanglements of a permanent nature? But no, that would never be acceptable! Instead, we must toss our Constitution on the bonfire of International Socialism! So the war was fought and while our grandparents were dying on foreign battlefields, the Roosevelt Administration held post-war conference after post-war conference to ensure that a United Nations Charter, that would destroy the very freedom that our grandparents were fighting to protect, would be adopted by the Senate. Meanwhile, the war itself was conducted in such a manner as to build and bolster the Communist menace under the cover of their ally status. This was to ensure that the need for a post-war United Nations and a desire for an International super Government would have staying power. That is exactly what “the bomb” and the cold-war accomplished. But we are getting ahead of ourselves. How did the United Nations Charter rob the American people and the Congress of the “War Powers”?
The War Powers Compromised
The United Nations Charter has several enforcement clauses. They are laid out in Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter:
Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter sets out the UN Security Council‘s powers to maintain peace. It allows the Council to “determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression” and to take military and nonmilitary action to “restore international peace and security”.
The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.
Having read Article 39, one wonders what lies in Articles 41 and 42. Article 41 outlines the non-military options of dispute resolution. I should add that the options quoted below are acts of war. They may not involve munitions, but for time memorial they have been considered acts of war and routinely precede hot wars. Article 42 takes the next logical step and invokes the power to enforce peace. That’s right, enforce peace. You can’t make this stuff up!
The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.
There’s one small problem with all of this. You see, the UN doesn’t have any money or troops of its own. How in the world is the Security Council going to enforce peace? Article 43 covers that issue:
- All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.
- Such agreement or agreements shall govern the numbers and types of forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of the facilities and assistance to be provided.
- The agreement or agreements shall be negotiated as soon as possible on the initiative of the Security Council. They shall be concluded between the Security Council and Members or between the Security Council and groups of Members and shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.
Then the Charter goes on to describe agreements among member nations to provide permanent contingency forces, etc. The entire charter undermines the lawful authority of Congress to Declare War. It gets worse. You’ll notice #3 in article 43 mentions ratification by member states along constitutional processes. To avoid unpleasant resistance down the road, Congress was presented with the United Nations Participation Act of 1945. This Act did not only rubber stamp the UN charter, it gave the President of the United States a blank check with regard to our military. Sections 5 and 6 of the UNPA addresses Articles 41-43 of the UN Charter:
…pursuant to article 41 … the President may … investigate, regulate, or prohibit, in whole or in part, economic relations or rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication between any foreign country or any national thereof or any person therein and the United States or any person subject to the jurisdiction thereof, or involving any property subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
The President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of the Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of said Charter and pursuant to such special agreement or agreements the armed forces, facilities, or assistance provided for therein: …
So now it is not so difficult to see why the Congress has not declared war since December of 1941. Amongst the propaganda barrage that swept the nation there were a few voices of sanity. One such voice came from Representative Jessie Sumner. Her testimony in opposition of the United Nations Participation Act on December 18, 1945 is a must read. Another opinion worth reading is the testimony of Catherine P. Baldwin before the Senate. She was a simple citizen from New York and her remarks were read into the Congressional record by Senator William Langer of North Dakota. We now face numerous other threats to our nation from the UN: Agenda 21 attacks our property rights, the law of the sea treaty would cede control of three-quarters of the planet to the UN, the small arms treaty is designed to disarm citizens where firearms are still permitted. This disarmament of small arms is the final step to making the United Nations all-powerful. Read the Atlantic Charter of 1941. It’s all in there, and more.
It’s time to Get US out of the United Nations and Get the United Nations Out of the US !!! House Bill HR 75 would do just that !!!! Does your representative support this Bill? What about your two Senators? Spread the word! Buy and distribute this inexpensive little pamphlet: America and the United Nations.
My Source Documents Illustrate the propaganda push from as early as August 1941 in support of the United Nations:
The Atlantic Charter August 1941
Declaration of United Nations January 1942
Moscow Pact 1943
Cairo Conference and Tehran Conference December 1943
Dumbarton Oaks Conference July 1944
Yalta Conference February 1945
Here is an account of Truman Decorating Ike for his service to the United Nations.
I had a reader request info on the UN from a religious perspective… They are intimately involved in the creation of a one-world new age religion. If you are interested in this aspect, I invite you to watch the following video presentation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmbXuZNIO-0
Here is a tremendous resource for Public Officials to help them understand and combat Agenda 21 in their communities. This is also helpful for anyone who would like to become a local official or who is supporting/courting candidates for local offices.
Presentations such as this are being conducted in front of groups in communities all across these United States. If you are a member of a community group or hold a leadership position and would like to bring in a presenter, Hal Shurtleff is busy conducting such talks and soliciting engagements. For More Information on a presentation in your town: Call Hal at 857-498-1309.
If you are engaged in a green organization, and want to help the environment without destroying private property rights, you are not alone. A presentation in front of your group or members of your group in an independent venue is a great idea so that you can continue your fine work without allowing others to destroy your rights in the process.
It seems the United Nations has been able to attract members from the great Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to join its International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives. ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability USA is a UN sponsored Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) whose main objective is to entice local governments to implement United Nations strategy, agenda, and initiatives and to create grass-roots pressure upon the County, State and Federal government to adopt these measures.
If your local government is a member of ICLEI, they are partnering directly or indirectly with other local governments the world-over to transform our very way of life into a United Nations vision of “Sustainable” living. Now there’s a lot of propaganda out there that sells these concepts. The eco-freindly terms “sustainability”, “Biodiversity”, “Multi-Stakeholder partnerships”, “Smart growth”, “comprehensive planning”, “growth management”, etc are designed to disarm and mislead local leaders. Chances are your local leaders look at this group as an aid to formulating 21st century local planning. They have no idea how deep they are in it. Unfortunately, the threat is very real. You see the United Nations knows that their Agenda 21 is so radical that they could never implement it from the top down. They have to convince local leaders that they are implementing a policy that is local in scope and benign to its citizens. The thrust of Agenda 21 is to transform traditional individual property rights into collective property rights. Through regulations, Agenda 21 seeks to develop communities that are “sustainable” on their terms. The rights of the individual are of no concern. Agenda 21 is based upon the premise that government planning should replace the western understanding of private stewardship. Carroll County Maryland agrees with this assessment. Read their Press Release here: Fighting 59th Terminates ICLEI Membership
There are also Constitutional concerns. Local governments cannot bypass the Congress of the United States and establish partnerships that are global in scope. The federal government has authority to set foreign policy. All elected local officials swear to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.
United States Constitution: Article 1 Section 10
paragraph 1. No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.
paragraph 3. No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in a war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.
ICLEI uses the population of the localities and the income level of its citizens to price their membership and they include those population totals when they boast of their membership totals. So essentially, if your local government is a member, they used your tax dollars (minimal amount) to achieve membership for yourself. You may be a member and not even know it !
Lets take a look at the Pennsylvania ICLEI delegation (hyperlinks obtained on ICLEI membership list except Forest Hills):
- Allegheny County joined in 2009
- Cranberry Township joined in 2009 (3 Climate Protection Milestones Awarded)
- East Whiteland Township joined in 2009
- Falls Township joined in 2009
- Forest Hills joined in 2010
- Haverford joined in 2007 (1 Climate Protection Milestones Awarded)
- Lower Makefield joined in 2007
- Lower Southampton Township joined in 2009
- City of Meadville joined in 2008
The City of Meadville is putting the final touches on a Greenhouse Gas Inventory. This inventory addresses the emissions from City owned facilities. Once the inventory is complete, target reductions will be identified and implemented.
- Middletown Township joined in 2009
- Montgomery Township joined in 2009
- Mt. Lebanon joined in 2008
- Narberth joined in 2008
- Nether Providence joined in 2007
- Penndel Borough joined in 2009
- Penn Hills joined in 2009
- Philadelphia joined in 2007 (3 Climate Protection Milestones Awarded)
- Pittsburgh joined in 2007 (5 Climate Protection Milestones Awarded)
- Radnor joined in 2007
- Warwick Township joined in 2011
- West Chester joined in 2007
On Topic: Short New American Article on Agenda 21; Order Hardcopy for conventional mailings and neighborhood canvassing.
Reference: ICLEI: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly (The Good talks about membership cancellations and citizen resistance)
Reference: Tom DeWeese’s American Policy Center, A leading Authority on Agenda 21
Reference: The United Nations Agenda 21
Reference: Sustainability Presentation for Local Governments Online Video from Ocala Florida
Take Action: Read the Reference Material and Contact your local officials. Use the Carroll County MD Press Release above and/or reprints of The New American Agenda 21 article to inform your local officials as to the nature of the ICLEI and the UN sustainability program. Feel free to link to my blog and formulate opinion letters in your local newspapers as well. Email your neighbors and/or hand them an article reprint about this threat.
What follows is a comparison of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and The United States Constitution (Bill of Rights) and Declaration of Independence . It may be advisable to use the above links to have copies of each in new browser windows for your consideration.
A critique should start with the preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to the preamble of the two US Documents. I have included the Declaration of Independence because it singularly summarizes the founding philosophy behind the US Constitution. As such, it is a virtual preamble to our Constitution.
The first striking difference I see is that the UN document uses the word “inalienable” whereas our Constitution uses “unalienable” as a descriptor for the rights of men. Is this a semantic difference or is there a subtle change in meaning being introduced here? I cannot say for certain, however, I found an examination of the issue online. It is clear that both “unalienable” and “inalienable” describe rights that may not be taken away. Some would argue that inalienable rights can be transferred by consent whereas; unalienable rights are a permanent part of a person and are not transferable by their very nature. The two words both seemed to have been used in drafts of the Declaration of independence. The final edited version specifically changed that word from inalienable to unalienable. I’ll leave this item for further research and discovery.
Further discovery: I found Noah Webster’s 1828 dictionary online. It was written to specifically capture the meaning of the words of the English language at the time of adoption of the Constitution. Noah Webster understood that English, unlike Latin or other languages that have gone out of use, is a living changing language. To guard against abuses of the Constitution, Noah thought it wise to capture the meaning of the words for posterity, so we would always have a way to discern the original intent of the Constitution. We owe him much for that. Here is how he defined the two terms: unalienable and inalienable. For clarity here is his definition of alienable. Noah Webster does not draw any distinction between the two. He refers to unalienable as a definition of inalienable and so the terms appear to be interchangeable.
What follows is a list of the Articles in the UN Declaration which is in conflict with the US system accompanied by some thoughts and elaboration by your author of this blog. The UN Declaration citations are referenced as (Article#). The article number is accompanied with “.s#” if there are multiple sections to the article.
We hold these truths to be self-evident:
That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
(1)All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
(2)Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
(3)Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
So this short list of rights seems pretty straight forward. What is there to be concerned about? You should be more concerned about what is not there. There is no mention of where rights come from. There is only a vague reference to inalienable rights in the preamble. No mention of God as a higher authority to man and no mention of man as a higher authority to government. There is no allusion to the idea that men create governments to serve their purpose and have right to abolish and reform them. The assumption is that government grants rights. If you doubt this assessment take a look at these entries…
(14.s1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
(14.s2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
(29.s1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
(29.s2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
(29.s3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
(30)Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
There are more problems. Our Constitution says “Congress shall make no law” and then lists the areas of restriction. The UN declaration just assumes the power to regulate these areas. Afterall, if the UN can declare something is so, it can certainly undeclare it later. Compare these statements:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
(18)Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
(19)Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
(20.s1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
(20.s2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
(21.s1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
(21.s2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
(21.s3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
Call me silly but I think there’s a big difference between “petition the Government for a redress of grievances” and “Everyone has the right to take part in the government”. What does the UN have to say about criminal proceedings?
(8)Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
(9)No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
(10)Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
(11.s1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
(11.s2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.
Where is the mention of warrants necessary for search and seizure? What about double jeopardy? Is there a right to not be compelled to testify against one’s self? What about the right to a speedy and public trial? What happened to the jury trial in the state and district where the offense was allegedly committed? Where is the mention of a right to be informed of the offense being charged and to be confronted by witnesses? Do I have a right to furnish my own witnesses and to have counsel for a defense? What about excessive bail?
So you see, this UN document is a facade. It is full of high language and idealism but it also has self-contained language to legislate away all the proposed rights enumerated. It is steeped in a philosophy which aims to rule rather than serve. In short, it is a blueprint for subjugation.