A political shell game: by appealing to patriotism and staging made-for-TV rallies, the UN is attempting to trick Americans into supporting its bid to become the most powerful institution on Earth.
The drafters of the UN Charter vividly recalled the bitter fight in the U.S. Senate that had ended with rejection of the League of Nations after World War I. Many senators and their constituents had adamantly opposed the League of Nations Covenant because they recognized in it the potential for serious infringement of U.S. sovereignty and the entanglement of America in more foreign wars. Without U.S. membership and participation, the league withered into a powerless and insignificant shadow of the organization its designers had hoped to establish.
Many of the internationalists who had labored and schemed to build the League of Nations in the 1920s were also active players in the effort to establish the United Nations in the 1940s. In the charter's language and in their promotional speeches, articles and op-eds, they invoked the images of America's Founding Fathers and employed rhetoric that would resonate with Americans who were both war-weary and independence-minded: freedom, democracy, peace, security, and rule of law. They knew better than to advertise their real objective: creating the framework for a nascent world government that could gradually be strengthened with legislative, executive, and judicial powers--backed up by military force.
The UN designers knew also that in order to get the UN Charter ratified they would have to rush it through the Senate quickly, not allowing it to be studied and debated, as had happened with the League's covenant. They were highly organized this time around, with public support groups in place and plenty of allies in the major media organizations to give the appearance of overwhelmingly popular approval. Although the UN Charter created an organization with far more power than did the covenant, the charter was rushed to a vote and ratified less than a week after being introduced, whereas debate over the League of Nations Covenant had raged for eight weeks.
The lessons learned in that opening push for world government have served the UN promoters well, and they have continued to develop their propaganda and deception--skills into an astonishingly effective art. This was plainly manifest at the Millennium Summit in New York City in September 2000, where Secretary-General Kofi Annan released his report, We the Peoples: The Role of the United Nations in the 21st Century, to a clamorous mob composed of UN delegates, foreign dignitaries, and radical activists from the UN-approved nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). The invocation of the preamble text, "We the peoples," was intended this time to convey a sense of convergence between the goals of the founders of the U.S. and the founders of the UN, and to elicit support for the idea that world government under the latter is simply the natural and logical evolution of the process that brought about national government under the former.
Secretary-General Annan hailed the throng of NGO militants as "the new superpower" at the UN representing "global civil society." Over the past decade, the UN has built this huge rent-a-mob of radical environmentalists, feminists, homosexualists, socialists, and Communists into a highly effective lobbying force. Hundreds of extremist organizations have been given accredited NGO status at the UN, and many of them have offices at the UN Plaza Building across the street from the UN, so they can always be on hand to push for more funding for UN programs, adoption of more UN treaties, and always more empowerment for UN institutions.
With lavish funding from the large tax-exempt Insider foundations (Rockefeller, Ford, Soros, Gates, MacArthur), as well as from governments and UN agencies, these activist cadres have become fixtures not only at the UN headquarters in New York, but at summits and conferences around the world. When the one-world Insiders decide that they need a convincing display of support from "global civil society" for, say, the International Criminal Court or the Kyoto Protocol on Global Warming, it's a relatively simple matter to make demonstrators or panels of academic experts materialize on cue for the television cameras. Then heads of state, national legislators, and UN officials can claim that they are simply heeding the "will of the people," the "voice of democracy," in transferring more authority, functions, and resources to international institutions.
The UN does not represent the peoples of the world, though the NGO "civil society" charades are intended to make it appear that it does. Nor does the UN truly represent the governments of the world; it is the 15-member Security Council, not the 191-member General Assembly, that wields the real power.
During the Millennium Summit, the NGO radicals ratcheted up their calls for establishing a Global Peoples Assembly or a Global Parliament. This is not likely to happen soon, since the NGOs are already providing a fairly adequate camouflage of "peoples democracy" at the UN. However, if some sort of Peoples Assembly should be created, it would merely formalize the Soviet-style "democracy" already in use under the current NGO system. A Peoples Assembly would not exercise real power, nor would its members be legitimately elected. As in the former Soviet Union and other Communist countries, the delegates would represent approved "stakeholders," which is to say, politically correct classes and groups that could be counted on to perform as needed to promote the UN's "new world order" agenda.
The first three words of the Preambles of the U.S. Constitution and the UN Charter are almost identical, but that's where the similarity ends. The U.S. Constitution requires that each state shall have "a republican form of government." While our Constitution carefully defines the powers of the central government and strictly limits them with an intricate system of checks and balances, the charter was intentionally designed as an open-ended document virtually guaranteeing a continuous expansion and usurpation of powers. That is precisely what has happened, as the UN bureaucracy has exploded into a vast, global profusion of agencies and programs.
Many UN agencies and many of the functions that the UN has taken up are not authorized in the UN Charter. Which is to say they are illegal, according to the UN's own charter. Yet the UN commissars and their globalist brethren brazenly invoke the "rule of law" to justify their every lawless move. In his September 21, 2004 speech to the General Assembly, Kofi Annan used the phrase "rule of law" 12 times and called on UN members to "extend the rule of law throughout the world." He also appealed to the vision of "a government of laws and not of men." He knew that this phrase, like "rule of law," has a hallowed significance in the American system of constitutional law. The American Founders used these terms to signify that human laws, being a reflection of Divine Law, had a primary purpose of protecting the rights of those whom God has created. Moreover, they understood it to mean that government authority may only be exercised in accordance with the supreme law of the land, the Constitution, which could not be changed except by extraordinary means. It means further that those who make and enforce the law are themselves bound to adhere to it.
Kofi Annan and his CFR collaborators would like us to believe that they mean the same thing when they refer to the rule of law. However, what they really mean was expressed well by President Bill Clinton's National Security Advisor Anthony Lake (CFR). Lake approvingly noted: "In peacekeeping and other efforts at conflict resolution, we are literally making case law every day." Which was a stark admission that the oligarchy running UN operations, despite their sanctimonious appeals to "democracy" and "the rule of law," are really a law unto themselves.
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Title Annotation:||IMAGE VS. REALITY|
|Author:||Jasper, William F.|
|Publication:||The New American|
|Date:||Jul 11, 2005|
|Previous Article:||Who will keep us safe from the peacekeepers?|
|Next Article:||Commendable quotes.|