We Must Change The UN Debate - Expose Its Real Threat

Many who advocate American withdrawal from the United Nations believe theirs is a lost cause. They see little or no movement in the Congress or in American attitudes to indicate a willingness to expel the UN. Can we ever hope to win this battle and save America's precious freedoms and sovereignty?

Most elected officials and American citizens viewed the UN as a positive force in the world. Most who still think that way believe the UN is essential as a forum to debate international disputes, instead of fighting wars. That is the rhetoric used to sell the UN and continues to be its image.

But in fact, we have made great strides in the battle to get the truth out about the UN over the past few years. Not long ago, the only organized opposition to the UN was that of the John Birch Society. It was a lone voice that was quickly labeled "extremist." However today, there is great debate over America's involvement in the UN. More and more "mainstream" Conservative organizations are taking up the cry. Even the influential Heritage Foundation has called for American withdrawal from the UN. That fact alone brings the whole issue to the forefront to be debated on the front pages of the leading national newspapers instead of just in the movements mimeographed newsletters.

But there’s much more to cause the UN to have a massive headache. Several Members of Congress have stepped forward to block UN programs and treaties. Congressman Roscoe Bartlett fought a courageous and winning battle to prevent the payment of a phony debt to the UN. Congress actually passed Don Young's bill against the UN's world Heritage Sites. And a number of Congressmen in the 105th Congress stepped forward to co-sponsor Ron Paul's bill to demand the US pull completely out of the UN.

This is progress in what will be a very long battle. Step by step we are beginning to whittle away at UN support. If the battle continues, it won't be long before it becomes easier to question UN policy, UN funding and UN treaties. Once accomplished, it will become much easier to make the case for a complete pullout by the United States. (Consider, did you ever think you would witness the end of the Berlin Wall?)

Congressman Ron Paul is now ready to engage step two in his battle with plans to reintroduce his UN pullout bill. That is how it is done in Washington. You just keep coming at them and building support for the proposal, step by step.

But in order to succeed, Americans must fully understand the dangers of the UN and its true threat to American sovereignty. How many times have you said, "if only they knew what I know?" In short, you and I have to change the debate.

I have been concerned that even those who oppose the UN do so for the wrong reasons. They know little about its real agenda. Instead they get mad at the use of US soldiers in peacekeeping missions, under foreign commanders. Maddening yes, threat to our sovereignty - no. Even Senator Jessie Helms keeps calling for "UN Reform." He doesn't understand that to the UN, reform means strengthening its agenda.

That's why, as APC prepares to gear up again for the next stage of the battle and help build support for Ron Paul's bill, I have decided to reprint the article I first wrote in 1997 in support of Congressman Paul's bill. It explains in full detail why the UN is a direct threat to the sovereignty of the United States.

Help change the debate - show this article to everyone you know. And hold your head up - we are starting to win.

Tom DeWeese

Real Threat of United Nations Not Being Debated

The attitude prevails on Capitol Hill that the United Nations has a negative image simply because it is bloated with a bad bureaucracy. Most Congressmen who express opposition to the UN do so because they say it spends beyond its means, it's arrogant and is an ungrateful tenant on the Hudson.

Many Republicans object to the use of American soldiers for peace-keeping missions, particularly when those soldiers are placed under the command of foreign officers.

Still, most in Congress, Republican and Democrat, defend the need for the United Nations arguing that the world desperately needs a place for nations to hold debates and air differences as a prevention to war. Most Americans who have a favorable view of the world body are reacting to the UN's well-crafted image as a sort of international Red Cross that moves into disaster areas and keeps the peace and feeds refugees.

Because these attitudes and images prevail, it is difficult to conduct an honest debate on the true dangers of the United Nations. But, as bad as a bloated, out-of-control bureaucracy may be, and as enraged as Americans get over U.S. troops under control of foreign generals, these are not the real reasons why Americans should fear and loath the United Nations.

There is a much more dangerous agenda afoot in the bowels of the building on the Hudson. And if it is not addressed in a serious manner very soon, America will find itself merged into the international community in much the same way independent European nations are being melted into one union on the Continent. As has been reported over and over again, it is the use of supposed environmental disasters that is the driving force behind the success of the UN takeover.

Starting in 1987 the United Nations began its final drive to restructure the world's nations into one global village. That year the UN issued a report on so-called environmental disasters, particularly focusing on global warming, ozone holes, poverty of third world nations and over-population. The solution, said the UN report, could only be "a worldwide political transformation that supported sustainable development." (For more on sustainable development see page three of this Insider's Report.)

That transformation, according to UN documents, would include the down-sizing of cities and towns into new "urban clusters" where workplaces, housing and nature are blended together." America's elected form of government would be changed to include appointed federal agents and unelected members of private organizations, called "non-governmental organization" (NGO's) dictating policy at the local level. Provisions granting NGO's such power are actually written into the treaties coming out of the conferences and, once signed by the United States, become international law.

To promote that agenda the UN has held a series of these conferences around the world, each focusing on specific aspects for worldwide restructuring.

In Vienna the focus was on human rights, particularly the rights of children over their parents. In Cairo, forced abortion and sterilization were put forth as solutions for population control. In Copenhagen the United Nations revealed its daring plan for global taxes that would help finance the international restructuring scheme called for in the environmental agenda. The payment of such taxes would also help finance the UN's own independent army for enforcement purposes.

In June, 1992 the UN sponsored the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro - the largest and most ambitious international conference of all time.

Here, five major documents - to define and implement the sustainable development agenda - were negotiated.

First was the "Convention on Climate Change" that was to address the issue of global warming. Final draft of that Convention, or treaty, is to be signed this coming December. Regardless of the fact that the theory of global warming has yet to be proven by peer-reviewed science, this treaty will force the industrial nations to pull back emissions output to 1990 levels. Such strict regulations will force industry out of business, cut back on American power output by as much as 60 percent, and place massive consumption taxes on energy.That will drastically increase the price of every item in your home that is powered through the use of energy.

The real purpose of the Climate Change treaty is to redistribute technology and production to undeveloped third world nations - because, incredibly, those nations won't have to sign the treaty or be forced to obey its dictates. The treaty has nothing to do with protecting the environment. Only sixteen industrial nations will be bound by the treaty. The Climate Change Treaty will bankrupt the United States.

The second treaty negotiated in Rio was the "Biodiversity Treaty." As yet unratified by the United States Senate, this treaty would declare 50 percent of all the land in every state as wilderness. American cities would be downsized, technology and industry would be reduced and strict zoning laws would curtail development of our cities.

The third paper from the Summit was the "Rio Declaration" which called for the eradication of poverty throughout the world. What it really provides is a plan for more redistribution of the world’s wealth - particularly away from the United States.

The fourth document from Rio was the "Convention on Forest Principles" calling for international management of the worlds forests, which would essentially shut down the timber industry.

And the fifth document coming out of Rio was "Agenda 21." This one document contained the full agenda for implementing worldwide sustainable development. That plan was later elaborated upon in Istanbul, Turkey at the UN conference called Habitat II, last June. In a document produced by the United States department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), at the request of the UN for Habitat II, the blueprint was set for how American cities and towns would be restructured for sustainable development. To achieve rapid transition, the document said, all citizens will be trained to think of "ecology, or the diverse systems of earth's biosphere, as the basis" for every human activity.

Do these programs sound compatible with the Constitution of the United States? Does the UN agenda sound like something the United States should be helping to impose around the world? Can you see the patterns of redistribution and restructuring that drives the UN agenda?

As you can see, the United Nations' global restructuring agenda is much more dangerous than Congress' current debate over bloated budgets and peacekeeping forces. American taxpayers and their private property are the target being lustfully coveted by the power elite of the United Nations.

The UN is an open and direct threat to the sovereignty and constitutional rights of all Americans. The UN has chosen to set the agenda. The UN has chosen to make itself more than an international debating society. The UN has decided that it wants more power. These are the real reasons why the United States must take drastic and forceful action by getting completely out of the UN - a world body out of control.

The facts are simple. Without U.S. participation, there will be no United Nation to attack and loot the U.S. treasury. Above all, the United States doesn't need the UN to conduct foreign policy or rule or regulate international trade. The United Nations needs the United States for its survival. But the UN threatens the survival of the United States.

Congressman Don Young of Alaska is certainly addressing the threat with his American Sovereignty Protection Act. That bill will take the teeth out of the UN treaties by requiring Congressional oversight before the U.S. bureaucracy can implement their provisions.

But clearly the UN has no intention of "reforming" itself other than to get worse. There truly is no other action the United States can safely take except to get completely away from the threat of the UN. Because of the UN's own lust for power, the U.S. has no choice but to withdraw.

Congressman Ron Paul of Texas has introduced the bill to take the U.S. completely out of the UN. His bill, "The American Sovereignty Restoration Act," (H.R.1146) pulls no punches as it calls for repeal of the United Nations Participation Act of 1945, ending U.S. participation in the UN.

But Paul's bill goes even further. It would close the UN headquarters in New York. And H.R.1146 will end all U.S. participation in the UN's environmental agenda, repeal American participation in UNESCO, repeal diplomatic immunity for UN personnel, will pay no U.S. funds to the UN, and that includes stopping funds or U.S. participation in UN peacekeeping operations.

Most importantly, Congressman Paul's bill will force intense debate and shine a much needed light on the UN's real agenda - one that will result in the restructuring of the entire world.

Americans are now mostly in the dark about the UN's true agenda and its dangers to American freedom. America desperately needs that debate. America needs to enact Ron Paul's American Sovereignty Restoration Act - now.