Nonsense. You just want that to be true to hold onto your thesis.
No, in order for a government to protect the unalienable rights of citizens, I merely think that a government MUST be accountable to those citizens. For that to be possible, nations MUST be sovereign, not just ours, all of them. I am thus an internationalist, not a globalist. If I was an isolationist, why would I apply for an international patent?
As a follower of the tradition of Theodore Roosevelt (which includes an interest in things like the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act, rather than no bald eagle and a poluted Hudson River), I see no problems in tackling the problems of the world through an international body that _we_ control and dictate.
You clearly follow that which never was as it has been portrayed. For example, the first National Park, Yellowstone, was in fact a political payoff, a paean to the railroads, and in effect our nation's first instance of state-subsidized eco-tourism. What it accomplished was to forever prevent any landowner from going into competition with the government in a socialist land entertainment business which has created the shortage of open space and entertainment value we see in lands adjacent to urban areas today.
The habitat management consequences of regulatory enterprise have not been as advertised either. You need to learn more about how laws such as the ESA are being used for power and profit, instead of believing the advertising that they are about endangered species at all. The system has in fact become a bureaucratic entitlement program, where distress in species is used to justify increasing scope of regulatory power that then becomes power for sale. Endangered species are being deliberately maintained in that state of distress for a whole raft of political purposes: whether to increase budgetary allocations, take resource businesses out of production as a political payoff, take land from agricultural producers at a discount to convert its use to development for fat profits... It has become a corrupt and inept system that destroys the very ecosystem attributes it purports to protect. I document that assertion extensively in my book.
Further, I spend probably the equivalent of a full time job doing habitat restoration process development on my land. In fact, my book was written for environmental reasons, so your specious inference that I don't care about such things would be offensive were you not so obviously ignorant. Perhaps you should read the opinions of the reviewers of my book to see how far from reality your wishful projections really are. The book truly represents a novel way to balance competing risks in the use of natural resources, including managing habitat for endangered species as a service business.
What I discovered in the process of writing it led to the concerns about organized political corruption in the UN I have related to you. It wasn't an intentional discovery, I assure you. It was in fact, a most depressing thing to learn. The dirty dealings that got us to this point were intended and took many decades to accomplish.
Not what you thought, was it?
The fiscal excesses of your hero, Teddy Roosevelt, in the interests of his fat-cat friends gave us the financial meltdown that led to the Federal Reserve Act. He completed his assigned task with a "Ross Perot" gambit to insure that Wilson became President, putting the power to coin money (unconstitutionally) in the hands of private individuals, who immediately initiated the forces that led to the ultimate bankruptcy of the United States in 1933 (appropriately under the aegis of his nephew). Roosevelts, Teddy and Franklin, did more to damage the Constitutional Republic than any presidents since Lincoln (no I'm not talking about slavery; it's the language of the 14th Amendment, something Lincoln came to regret; it was demanded by those who held the debt for the Civil War, intending to cash in on a nation in hock).
If the events of the past generation and a half have left the UN a sham of its former self, I suspect we have a lot of work to do in getting it back under our (read: western liberal capitalist democracy) control again.
Generation and a half? The Constitution has been under attack since before the ink was dry! This is (or was) a republic, where the rights of individuals supercede the majority claim as exercised by a civic agent.
Achieve what we can through the UN, but fear not the use of power and force in our own name when our interests are threatened.
You thus glibly negate the entire reason and justification for the Constitution, which was to limit the powers of a central government, preferring a global government accountable to no one.
No thank you. Go do your homework.