The UNs "Final Solution" For American Independence

  • Thread starter Thread starter dZ
  • Start date Start date

dZ

New member
The UN’s Charter For Global
Democracy…

The "Final Solution" For American
Independence

By Tom DeWeese

"The bedrock of every country’s international relations must be the
mission of using the United Nations system as the machinery for working
and acting together."

Shridath Ramphal, co-chairman, UN Commission on Global Governance

"Nationhood as we know it will be obsolete, all states will recognize a
single, global authority…National sovereignty wasn’t such a great idea
after all."

Strobe Talbott, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State in the Clinton
Administration

"It is simply not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by
individual nation-states, however powerful."

Maurice Strong, co-chairman, UN Commission on Global Governance

United Nation’s leadership has made no attempt to hide its contempt for
American independence and national sovereignty. On September 6,
2000, The United Nations will convene its Millennium Assembly in New
York City to restructure the UN in preparation for global governance.

The Assembly will bring together the largest gathering of world leaders
ever to meet under one roof. Their goal is to change the way
governments operate. The UN will be established as the central operating
entity. All governments will be redesigned to operate through the UN.
Independent sovereign states will essentially cease to exist. They will
instead become "partners" in global governance.

The UN’s Charter for Global Democracy has been be created to essentially
replace the UN’s fifty-year-old Charter. The Charter for Global Democracy
is written to establish the new procedures that will govern how nations will
interact with each other, as well as how they operate within their own
borders.

Republican leaders in the Congress, led by Senator Jesse Helms have
demanded that the UN reform itself or face losing U.S. support. Senator
Helms’ idea of reform was to reduce bloated budgets, bureaucracies and
wasteful paper work. Instead, the UN has used the term "reform" to mean
a stronger UN that is "retooled" to become a global government. There
simply can be no other interpretation of the Charter.

In September, when literally all of the leaders of the world gather in New
York City for the UN’s Millennium Assembly, they will meet for one
purpose – to change the world. Global Governance under the control of the
United Nations will be established. World leaders will vote to give the UN
oversight of all of the earth’s land, air and seas. They will vote to give the
UN oversight of international conflicts. They will give the UN the power to
be judge and jury over violators of international law. They will give the UN
oversight of financial institutions, commerce, trade relations, labor
relations, education and private property. Existing national, state and local
governments will remain to serve as conduits to locally carry out UN policy.

The Millennium Assembly is the final act in a UN drive for power that
began a decade ago. The UN has been preparing for global governance
over those ten years through a series of international conferences,
treaties and reports. It’s been five years since the UN released its
blueprint for global governance in a 1995 report called "Our Global
Neighborhood." That report detailed UN plans that will now be placed into
action through the Charter for Global Democracy which will be voted on
and approved by the world leaders at the Millennium Assembly.

First, the Charter will change the actual structure of the United Nations.
Officially, it calls for the consolidation of all international agencies to be
placed under the direct authority of the UN. But Maurice Strong,
co-chairman of the UN Commission on Global Governance, issued a 95
page report in 1997 which outlined the steps necessary to restructure the
UN to fulfill its mission of global governance. That restructuring would
include eliminating the veto power and permanent member status of the
Security Council. Such a move would almost completely eliminate U.S.
influence and power in the world body.

Second, Strong’s report calls for the creation of a new UN body called the
Assembly of the People. This new body is to become the real power of the
UN. It will be populated by hand-picked, non-government organizations
(NGO’s). These groups are actually nothing more than activists
representing private organizations with political agendas. The UN is the
only power than can recognize and sanction an official NGO organization.
They do not represent average people. They answer to no one but their
own agendas. They will not be elected to this post by anyone outside of
the UN structure. Leading NGO’s include radical environmental groups like
the Sierra Club and population-control groups like Planned Parenthood.
Once the Assembly of the People is in place, groups such as these will
meet and plan UN policy to govern us all. Strong’s restructuring ideas are
represented in the Charter for Global Democracy and will be voted on by
the world leaders in September.

A key issue of UN leaders is the need for more money. Almost every
paper, report and statement by UN leaders lament its lack of funding to
pay for its massive new roll in global governance. Of particular concern is
the desire for independent funding that does not rely on donations and
dues from member nations.

In 1996, then-UN Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali publicly
suggested a global tax to fund the UN. The idea was met with strong
opposition from the United States. The UN retreated from the idea and
indicated that it wasn’t really serious. Yet again, the idea is included in the
Charter for Global Democracy.

Specifically, the Charter would give the UN domain over all of the earth’s
land, air and seas. In addition it would give it the power to control all
natural resources, wild life, and energy sources, even radio waves. Such
control would allow the UN to place taxes on everything from
development; to fishing; to air travel; to shipping. Anything that could be
defined as using the earth’s resources would be subject to UN use-taxes.

The Charter also calls for the regulation by the UN of all transnational
corporations and financial institutions. In this way the UN would control
international markets and monetary policies. A massive tax called the
"Tobin Tax" has been suggested. This amounts to a tax or "fee" on every
international financial transaction. This one tax would generate an
estimated $1.5 trillion for UN coffers. For the average American it would
have a direct effect on pension funds, IRA’s and personal investment
transactions.

Such taxes would be collected by the establishment of a global IRS.
Taxpayers in the United States well know the massive power held by our
own IRS. But with the establishment of such a global power there would be
no appeal to elected representatives. There would be no chance of public
hearings to hold the agency accountable. There would be no control.

Clearly, implementation of the Charter for Global Democracy would
produce massive wealth for the UN, resulting in the concentration of
massive power. Such power would be controlled by the establishment of
an international UN army. The army would answer to no nation. It would
have the power to take action in any nation the UN directed it to. The UN
would have the power to force nations to house the soldiers on their own
soil. An international police state would replace national defense forces.
The UN army is one of the main points to be voted on in the Charter for
Global Democracy.

Finally the Charter sets up a series of international rules based on radical
environmentalism that will control property and commerce. It will require
the enforcement of all UN "Human Rights" treaties, some of which even
dictate how parents will raise their children. To assure that these
international laws are obeyed, the Charter also calls for the establishment
of an International Court of Justice that will be compulsory for all nations.

The United States Constitution guarantees every American the right to a
trial by jury; the right to face our accusers and the right to full disclosure
of the charges against us. Under the UN rules for the Criminal Court, none
of these are guaranteed. Most Americans believe that such a court is
being established to bring international outlaws like Sadam Hussein to
justice. That is not the case however. Under this new UN court, even
private citizens are subject to trial.

Will the United States fall for the UN’s trap? Will our elected leaders allow
the Charter for Global Democracy to usurp our own Constitution? The fact
is many in Congress fail to see the UN as a threat. Ask your elected
representatives if any of this is possible and most will deny it as simple
paranoia from the "black helicopter" crowd. But every word of this report
has been taken from UN documents. The Millennium Assembly will take
place in September. The world leaders will be there. And the Charter For
Global Democracy will be voted on. What other conclusion can be drawn?

Others will count on the Congress to refuse to ratify such a Charter. That
is probably true. But there is another danger. President Bill Clinton has
already stated his support for the Charter. He has a history of ignoring
Congress and implementing his agenda through the use of Executive
Order. Several UN treaties have gone unratified by Congress, including the
Biodiversity Treaty and the Kyoto Global Warming Treaty. Yet Bill Clinton
has already begun to enforce their provisions through Executive Order –
and Congress has taken no action to stop him.

In 1776, with the stroke of a pen, the Declaration of Independence
marked the beginning of the greatest experiment in national government
ever conceived. Today, however, unless Congress stands united –
determined to block not only the UN Charter, but also every effort to
implement it – it will take only the stroke of Bill Clinton’s lame-duck pen
to change our nation, and history forever.


© 2000 American Policy Center
http://www.americanpolicy.com/un/main.htm
 
I was disturbed by that but since I've been repeatedly told that it's impossible and I'm living in a delusional fantasy land and those things never happen I guess i shouldn't worry about it. Now pardon me while i go chase those damn black helicopters out of my yard, this tin foil hat doesn't seem to keep them away anymore.

sorry, i couldn't help myself - Sept. 6th is not going to go down as a good day in history. And yes, I realize that less then 20% of us see this as a problem. I just happen to be one of them, and IMO you should be too, this is serious and even if it is shot down there will be more assertment of UN policies such as disarmerment coming in the future.




[This message has been edited by scud (edited August 03, 2000).]
 
No, the world won't change on Sept. 6.

Two things to keep in mind though. One, the UN and the globalists aren't really trying to hide this anymore. Those who condemn this as "right-wing paranoia conspiracy theory fodder" simply aren't paying attention. The NWO is real and yes, the UN wants to be "the government." Just pay attention to what they say and propose.

Two, the UN will present and advocate all of this nonsense knowing it won't fly with the U.S. The real strategy here is "throw enough poo-poo at the wall and something will stick." They propose all of this nonsense to get the U.S. on board for just one little aspect of the agenda. It's a camel's nose strategy and "they" will consider it a victory if we concede just one little plank of thier overall agenda.
 
Jack the world is changing EVERY day!! So YES the World will change on Sept 6th

Just one cant know how it will change :P

------------------
Dead [Black Ops]
 
Remember my post of a few days ago on the "New World Order", which was so roundly criticized by various "experts" on this forum?

Are you guys still laughing?

Well?

NWO, coming soon to a country near YOU. Got ammo?
 
6 September 2000 is going to go down in history as just as bad a day as 1 January 2000 was.

For the same reasons.

LawDog
 
OK, the world WILL change on Sept. 6, but not because of any bold UN "vision statement."

Like I said, they're throwing all this poo-poo at the wall, just hoping something will stick.
 
So, there needs to be an 'NGO' for:

1) United States Sovereignty (We have to fight for our independence AGAIN!)

2) Right to Keep and Bear Arms or, at least for the shooting sports

3) for hunting, fishing and outdoor sports

4) preservation of individual freedoms.

On the other hand, it's probably too late. We're on the highway to hell - in a handbasket!

The time is not far distant...

(Edited to correct misspellings.)

[This message has been edited by seronac (edited August 03, 2000).]
 
I've spent quite a bit of time looking through the UN's website. They do have sort of an "agenda" like declaring war on world tobacco and turning the people of a sovereign nation against small arms (sound familiar?) to help in disarmament.

The only nice thing I can think of to say about the UN is F_ _ _ K THEM!!

------------------
"Rise like lions after slumber in invanquishable number - Shake your chains to earth like dew which in sleep had fallen on you - Ye are many - They are few."
-Percy Bysshe Shelly (1792-1822)
 
The republican take on UN.

Stewardship council?Ya anyway. I took out a paragraph about the abortion issue, if you want it go to source. Thought it long as is.

Platform holds
U.N. at arm's length
Republicans plot new course
for relationship with world body

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Mary Jo Anderson
© 2000 WorldNetDaily.com

PHILADELPHIA -- Stating boldly that the United Nations can exercise "no veto over principled American leadership" and that "American troops must never serve under United Nations command," the GOP platform unveiled in Philadelphia this week describes a very different view of the relationship between the United States and the United Nations than that of the Clinton-Gore administration.
While acknowledging that the United Nations can organize humanitarian aid efforts and serve as a "forum for nations to peacefully resolve their differences," the Republican platform stipulates that the U.N. was "not designed to summon or lead armies."

Other specific issues addressed by the platform include the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, U.S. dues payments to the U.N., environmental treaties and U.S. funding of international programs providing abortion as part of health care.

Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., an outspoken critic of the International Criminal Court, and Sen. Ashcroft, R-Mo., have raised concerns about the incompatibility of the ICC's jurisdiction and the constitutional rights of Americans, particularly military personnel. The statute for the creation of the International Criminal Court was established July 17,1998, in Rome to form a permanent world tribunal to try individuals for international crimes.

The ICC becomes operative once 60 nations have ratified the treaty. And more than a hundred nations have already signed the treaty in anticipation of having their national governments begin the ratification process that incorporates ICC provisions into domestic law.

Though international pressure for the U.S. to agree to the Court is intensifying - several allies have recently ratified the treaty, including Canada, which did so in July -- the U.S. has neither signed nor ratified the treaty.

Helms, who views the treaty as a danger to U.S. sovereignty and promised the treaty would be "dead on arrival" unless the United States held veto power, introduced the American Service Member Protection Act to the Senate last week, a measure designed to preempt international efforts to try U.S. soldiers. In June, Helms introduced legislation that prohibits U.S. cooperation with the Court and forbids ICC investigations in any territory under the jurisdiction of the United States.

According to John L.Washburn, co-chairman of the Washington Working Group on the International Criminal Court, the Republican platform provision on the ICC is "based on a misconception."

A coalition of 15 non-governmental organizations, the Washington Working Group is an educational and advocacy body whose efforts are aimed at U.S. congressmen. Washburn, a graduate of Harvard Law School, has served in the United States Foreign Service and in the office of the Secretary General of the United Nations under Javier Perez de Cuellar. He points out that the assumption "implicit in the GOP platform is that the ICC would have jurisdiction over the U.S. government or military personnel as a group." Another misconception, he said, is that nations that are not a party to the treaty would fall under the venue of the ICC. Instead, he said, the ICC incorporates the Nuremberg Principle that prosecutes individuals.

"At issue is not the nationality," he said, "but the person's individual responsibility for the very worst of international crimes."

Others, however, disagree, claiming non-party nations would not be beyond the reach of the ICC.

Kenneth Gallant, professor of Law at the University of Arkansas School of Law, explains, "If a non-signatory nation refuses to cooperate, a case can be brought to the Court by the U.N. Security Council under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter. By virtue of their membership in the U.N. -- and nearly every nation is a member -- states and their citizens are subject to a case brought to the ICC by the Security Council."

The U.S. veto power on the Security Council is also considered an insufficient safeguard in light of current discussions about ending the veto power altogether.

Although most Americans believe International Criminal Court prosecutions will be reserved for war crimes, an official U.N. information brochure says otherwise: "A decision has yet to be made as to whether the definition of crimes against humanity contained in the Statute will also include such acts when committed in peacetime. In this regard, the Yugoslavia Tribunal stated, 'It is by now a settled rule of customary international law that crimes against humanity DO NOT require a connection to international armed conflict.' "

Those concerned with American sovereignty issues point to a concern for how terms are defined. The crimes under the International Criminal Court's domain include genocide and "crimes against humanity," "AGGRESSION," "sexual slavery" and "enforced pregnancy." The ICC treaty, which will have the power to enforce U.N.-mandated social policies worldwide, was greeted by United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan as "a giant step forward in the march towards universal human rights and the rule of law."

But Richard G. Wilkins, professor of law at Brigham Young University, warns that "malleable definitions" and disagreements about what constitutes "human rights" are areas of significant dispute.


Shifman's organization, an NGO at the United Nations, is "strongly supportive of the establishment of an International Criminal Court" and sees the U.N. as a "mechanism important to the advocacy of the human rights agenda." While Equality Now was "very glad to see the GOP specifically mention sex trafficking [as a crime], we were very disappointed that they [GOP platform] will not fund abortions, because that hurts millions of women around the world."

Other issues in the platform that draw a new Republican vision of the U.S.-U.N. relationship include the prickly matter of dues owed by the United States to the U.N., as well as matters of stewardship over the environment. On the dues question, the platform calls for a "fair, not disproportionate share of the dues," to be paid to the U.N., "once it has reformed its management and taken steps to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse." The monies the U.S. has contributed toward peacekeeping missions would also be credited toward U.S. dues.

The GOP opposition to U.N. control of the global environment is a strongly worded provision: "We reject the extremist call for the United Nations to create a 'Stewardship Council' modeled on the Security Council, to oversee the global environment." The platform cites attempts of "international bureaucrats" to "by-pass" the "processes of national governments."

Gregory Gronbacher of the Grand Rapids, Mich.-based Acton Institute cites international accords on environmental issues, such as the Kyoto protocols, as an example of U.N. attempts to control how nations use their resources. An educational foundation, the Institute advises religious leaders on the moral importance of limited government and a free market economy. Gronbacher, Acton's director of academic research, observes, "The Clinton administration has signed treaties that many Americans are not comfortable with. . Some of the U.N. conference and treaty requirements are morally problematical with the founding principles of our nation."

Gronbacher added, "It appears Bush will take issues of national sovereignty and the will of the American people into consideration before signing treaties which place U.S. resources at the disposal of international bureaucrats."



[This message has been edited by oberkommando (edited August 04, 2000).]
 
I hate the UN more and more every day. How dare they say we owe them anything. We are always the ones that foot the bill for their "humanitarian" warfare. It is ironic that the UN invades more sovereign nations than any other governmental body. I think it's about time we have a candidate and a party that have a chance of pulling us out of this madness.

------------------
I twist the facts until they tell the truth. -Some intellectual sadist

The Bill of Rights is a document of brilliance, a document of wisdom, and it is the ultimate law, spoken or not, for the very concept of a society that holds liberty above the desire for ever greater power. -Me
 
The game is afoot!

I'd say throw the UN out of NY; but then
we'd lose all that "intel" and, of course, the building would be for rent.

Coupled with the old saw "Divide and Conquer" is "Keep them head down and a$$ up - so busy "just living" that they don't know what we're doing until it's too late."

I suspect that this is another European big bucks boy grab for power to make more big bucks. Europa states will fall (as usual), Africa's oil may go down, Japan will fold, as will many smaller PACrimmers. But, I don't see China kissing up - not if they must kowtow to Westerners. We, hopefully, will stand straight and strong. But, we will be the target of everything conjureable. We best start electing character, strength, and patriotism. The next decade or two will be a time NOT for pansies.

.....................

scud/Dennis Olson - I know how you feel.

[[Re discussion of "United Nations Rapid Deployment Police and Security Force" (http://www.thefiringline.com:8080/forums/showthread.php?threadid=28083)]]


Guess I don't know how to "BOLD" anymore ... sorry about the edits.
[This message has been edited by andyb (edited August 04, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by andyb (edited August 04, 2000).]
 
I don't see China kissing up - not if they must kowtow to Westerners.

Wow, *there's* a weird thought: a US/China alliance against the UN! :eek:
 
Mainland China is far too wise and proud to obey the self-destructive and incompitant UN.
China believes it has the mandate of heaven and the right to rule all it sees. Namely the Pacific and all nations therin.
China will not alter its goals for the ludicrous dreams of pseudo-marxist third worlders and spoiled European elitists.

The thought of the PLA and NORINCO altering policy for environmental reasons is laughable.

Albright and her comrades have no idea what they are dealing with.
 
I absolutely abhor and detest almost all of what the UN stands for. I would fight to my last breath to oppose any such regime. That being said....

C'mon, folks. The UN couldn't run a fever. Most of what passes for combat force for them couldn't beat Vanderbilt if you gave 'em two touchdowns. Unless and until they gain control of WMD's, they could not mount a serious threat to the Alabama National Guard. I don't believe there is any support in the US electorate for an expanded role for the UN. Stay calm....
 
Who is to say the troops have to wear UN decals ? In Austrailia the police are enforcing UN disarmerment policy as well as in canada. If you can get your policy pushed through by "any" military force there is no need for it to bear your name. This is a war of policy.
 
Does this mean that our LEO's will become U.N. "peace keeping troops"? We ARE the military might of the U.N. If they want to tax us, take our guns and enslave us, they're going to have to INVADE U.S. soil. Everyone repeat after me....

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

------------------
The first step is registration, the second step is confiscation, the final step is subjugation.
 
Back
Top