You can't reform a deadly disease.

A thinking person who discovers a tumor attacking a vital organ will quickly find a surgeon to cut it out. Only someone bereft of his senses will continue to feed the growth and assume that it will not hurt him. Likewise, a thinking person will not try to "reform" an institutional entity that has no worth. He will shut it down. Any careful reading of the Charter of the United Nations should lead one to the conclusion that the world body is to our nation what a cancerous tumor is to a human being. Reforming the UN will not accomplish anything of value.

From its outset, the UN was built on a series of untruths. The very first lie that was told held that acceptance of membership in the United Nations could properly be accomplished via the treaty power possessed by the president and the Senate. But a treaty has always been a solemn agreement between two or more sovereign states, and the UN has never been a sovereign state. Hence, the decision to become a member of the UN should not be considered a treaty. The agreement to join the UN was called a treaty because of the widely promoted yet totally false assertion that treaty law supersedes the Constitution and therefore, under the treaty establishing U.S. membership in the world body, the Constitution's sole grant of war-making power to Congress could be circumvented by UN mandates. But treaty law does not supersede the Constitution according to James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and Thomas Jefferson. Summing up his attitude on this extremely important point, Jefferson stated that if treaty-making power is "boundless ... then we have no Constitution."

More deceit appears at the very beginning of the UN Charter where the word "peace" or "peaceful" appears six times in the four short paragraphs of Article 1. Hence the oft-repeated claim that the UN is mankind's "peace organization." But Article 2 clearly authorizes "the application of enforcement measures" should the world body decide to compel adherence to its will. The "enforcement measures" pointed to within the charter call for "action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary" to assure "international peace and security." The UN is no "peace organization."

Article 2 of the charter further claims that the UN "is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members." The use of the word "sovereign" creates the false impression that nations joining the UN remain independent. But the charter's Article 25 later stipulates that member nations "agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council." Nations joining the UN, therefore, are required to accept dictates from the Security Council, an obvious diminishing of their own sovereignty. No American who has sworn an oath to the U.S. Constitution should ever have agreed to such a requirement.

In Articles 52 through 54, the charter grants member states permission to establish "regional arrangements" in order to counter possible aggression. NATO and SEATO were created in this way, both sold to Americans as bulwarks against Communism. So that the UN could retain control of those arrangements, the charter stipulated that every action undertaken by any "regional arrangement" must be "consistent with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations" and that the Security Council must "be kept fully informed of activities undertaken or in contemplation under regional arrangements." President Truman cited NATO as his authority to send troops to Korea and successor presidents pointed to SEATO for their authorization to commit forces to Vietnam. While in those conflicts, the U.S. told the UN--and our enemies who were part of the UN--its plans to conduct the war.

Our nation's foundational documents assert the "self-evident" truth that rights are granted by a Creator and that "Congress shall make no law" limiting or abolishing them. In stark contrast, the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights claims that rights are granted by a "constitution or by law," and that they "shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law." That is, unlike our own Declaration of Independence or Constitution, UN instruments are based on the false premise that government is the source of our rights and may therefore determine what those rights are. The contrast between the two systems could hardly be greater.

Anyone who carefully studies the reality of the United Nations should begin to understand that he or she has either been led astray by deliberate traitors or has been misled by unthinking dreamers and foolish idealists. Can any organization built on a foundation full of lies and falsehoods be reformed? The answer is NO. Yet, we note a steady stream of proposals calling for restructuring, rebuilding, and reforming the cancerous institution eating away at our nation's independence.

But just as fostering the growth of a cancer will not eliminate its threat, no amount of reform can fix the United Nations and remove its threat. The only course for Americans who Jove this country is to urge Congress to pass H.R. 1146, the American Sovereignty Restoration Act. Not calling for "reform," this legislation would bring about total withdrawal of the United States from the United Nations.