press for U.N. info
Fearful Master
here
Posted on 01/13/2002 5:10:54 PM PST by Mighty Pen
On Wednesday, June 4, 1997 there was a rollcall vote on the House floor which was overwhelmingly rejected 54 to 369, for an amendment to the State Department reauthorization bill that would have required the United States to withdraw from the United Nations (U.N.) and close the U.S. mission there. Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) the amendment's sponsor, argued that membership in the U.N. is unconstitutional, along with all the various U.N. "treaties" that have been "ratified" by the Senate. Several U.N. supporters in Congress rose in opposition to Mr. Paul's amendment. Rep. Chris Shays (R-Conn.) said, "world poverty can be eradicated only with an American presence in the U.N." Rep. Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.) said, "It has been our policy that educating the populations of the world, spreading democracy, has been in the best interests of the United States." Other amendment opponents stated that without U.S. membership in the U.N., "living standards would plummet and economies would crumble across the globe." I would love to ask these congresspeople where the U.S. Constitution authorizes such responsibilities and activities.
Judging by the large number of worthless platitudes from so many members of Congress, it is apparent that they have no idea of the history and track record of the world body, not to mention their disregard for their oath to uphold and defend the U. S. Constitution. What follows is a brief history of the U.N.; its birth, who the major players were, its record of incompetence, what its goals really are, and why we need to withdraw from it. All the information that follows can be corroborated in U. N. documents, U.S. government documents, congressional testimony, newspaper and magazine accounts, and books. It is up to you to read this information, contemplate it, investigate it, and decide for yourself whether or not the United Nations is all it's cracked up to be by the powers that be; and if you decide it is not, to use this information to spread the word; we must get the U.S. out of the United Nations.
"I am appalled at the extensive evidence indicating that there is today in the U.N. among the American employees there, the greatest concentration of Communists that this committee has ever encountered... These people occupy high positions. They have very high salaries and almost all of these people have, in the past, been employees in the U.S. government in high and sensitive positions." - U.S. Senator James O. Eastland, from Activities of U.S. Citizens Employed by the U.N. Hearings, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 1952.
"In effect, the United States is committing environmental aggression against the rest of the world. ... Isn't the only hope for our planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?" - Canadian millionaire businessman Maurice Strong, secretary-general of the 1992 U.N. Earth Summit, and number two man at the U.N.
"The house of world order" would have to be built through "an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece." - Richard Gardner, co-chairman of a Soviet-American working group on the future of the U.N. and U.N. advisor to Bill Clinton, from the April 1974 issue of Foreign Affairs.
The Charter of the United Nations was ratified at the city of San Francisco, California, on June 26, 1945. Twenty four Chapters and one hundred eleven Articles provide the blueprint for world government. The U.N. Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, its pseudo-guarantee of rights, ignores the existence of God, implies that the U.N. grants those rights, and then claims the power "as provided by law" to cancel those same rights. Please understand that if any government can place restrictions on your fundamental rights, those rights will soon cease to exist. This is the danger of any one world government, especially the one proposed by the U.N. Charter.
The United Nations was founded by and for communists/socialists. Sixteen U.S. officials who were instrumental in the formulation of the policies which led to the creation of the U.N. were later exposed in sworn testimony to be communist spies. The two most notorious were Alger Hiss, then acting director of the State Department's Office of Special Political Affairs in charge of all postwar planning and Secretary-General of the U.N. founding conference, and the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Harry Dexter White. Other high-level American communists who served as original U.N. delegates included Noel Field, Harold Glasser, Irving Kaplan, Nathan Gregory Silvermaster, Victor Perlo, Soloman Adler, Virginius Frank Coe, Lawrence Duggan, Abraham G. Silverman, William H. Taylor, William L. Ullman, John Carter Vincent, David Weintraub, and Henry Julian Wadleigh. In addition to the testimony of confessed spies Whittaker Chambers and Elizabeth Bentley, the recent release of the Venona Papers, which are U.S. government transcripts of intercepted transmissions of the communist spies and their Soviet handlers, and the opening of Soviet archives have all confirmed the communist ties of the sixteen "Americans" and others including Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer, the "father of the atom bomb." Incredibly, those U.S. negotiators agreed to give the Soviets three votes in the General Assembly to our one.
A few quotes of the many available provide further evidence of the communist design of the United Nations.
From the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) publication Political Affairs, April 1945:
"After the Charter is passed in San Francisco, it will have to be approved by two-thirds of the Senate, and this action will establish a weighty precedent for other treaties and agreements still to come. ... Great popular support and enthusiasm for the United Nations policies should be built up, well organized and fully articulate. But it is also necessary to do more than that. The opposition must be rendered so impotent that it will be unable to gather any significant support in the Senate against the United Nations Charter and the treaties which will follow."
Do you find it curious that the Soviets attached such importance to the acceptance and passage of the U.N. Charter in the United States? In 1955 Joseph Z. Kornfeder, another former top CPUSA member stated:
"Now, as to the United Nations. If you were, let's say, a building engineer, and someone were to show you a set of blueprints about a certain building, you would know from those blueprints how that building was going to look. Organization "blueprints" can be read the same way. I need not be a member of the United Nations Secretariat to know that the U.N. "blueprint" is a Communist one. I was at the Moscow headquarters of the world Communist party for nearly three years and was acquainted with most of the top leaders, and, of course, I was also a leading party worker. I went to their colleges; I learned their pattern of operations, and if I see that pattern in effect anywhere, I can recognize it ...
From the point of view of its master designers meeting at Dumbarton Oaks and Bretton Woods, and which included such masterful agents as Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter White, Lauchlin Currie, and others, the U.N. was, and is, not a failure. They and the Kremlin masterminds behind them never intended the U.N. as a peace-keeping organization. What they had in mind was a fancy and colossal Trojan horse under the wings of which their smaller agencies could more effectively operate. And in that they succeeded, even beyond their expectations. ...
Its [the U.N.'s] internal setup, Communist designed, is a pattern for sociological conquest; a pattern aimed to serve the purpose of Communist penetration of the West. It is ingenious and deceptive."
Observations and statements such as these litter government records, newspapers and magazines, books and periodicals. Is it possible that the 369 U.S. Representatives who voted to support and remain in the U. N. are not aware of this critical information? Isn't it their constitutional duty to know?
Let's take a brief look at the credentials of the seven previous U.N. Secretary Generals (SG). The first, American communist Alger Hiss, was convicted of perjury regarding testimony about his communist ties. Next was Trygve Lie, a Norwegian socialist. The Soviets championed his election to SG and the admission of Communist China to the U.N. was one of his principal preoccupations. Dag Hammarskjold was another Scandinavian socialist. About Chou-En-lai, a man who along with Mao-tse-tung was responsible for the murder of anywhere from 30 to 60 million Chinese, Hammarksjold stated: "... Chou-En-lai to me appears as the most superior brain I have so far met in the field of foreign politics." He also oversaw the planning and direction of the U.N.'s brutal war against Katanga Province of then Belgian Congo in 1961 which returned the breakaway province to communist rule. U Thant of Burma was next. His personal staff assistant was Soviet KGB officer Viktor Lessiovsky. Of Lenin, Thant said, "Lenin was a man with a mind of great clarity and incisiveness, ... and his ideas have had a profound influence on the course of contemporary history. ... Lenin's ideals of peace and peaceful coexistence among states have won widespread international acceptance and they are in line with the aims of the U.N. Charter." In 1972 Kurt Waldheim took the helm. Waldheim was a Nazi officer responsible for the deaths of Serbs, Slovenes, and other Yugoslavs. He placed over 250 Soviets in key U.N. posts during his tenure. In 1981 Javier Perez de Cuellar took over. Although lauded as a man of peace, this is what he had to say about the Tiananmen Square massacre of 1989; "Tiananmen was exaggerated. I think it was really cruel repression, but from there to say it was a tremendous, dramatic, tragic violation of human rights is an exaggeration." Egyptian socialist Boutras Boutras-Ghali was next. He was the brains behind the communist ideas of General Gamal Abdel Nasser. His claim to fame was his call for the formation of a permanent U.N. army, and the implementation of global taxing authority for the U.N. The current SG Kofi Annan has been a career U.N. employee. Also of great importance, the person in charge of U.N. military activities is the U.N. Under-Secretary-General for Political and Security Council Affairs. Fourteen individuals have held that post since the U.N.'s founding; all have been communists and all but one has been from the Soviet Union.
With this knowledge in hand, does anyone really believe that the U.N. could possibly be dedicated to democratic government and the guarantees of human rights that accompany it? Let's compare a few sections of the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights with the Communist Manifesto and the U.S. Constitution. Some U.N. "rights" include, "the right to a free education, the right to enjoy the arts, the right to an international order, the right to full development of personality, the right to equal pay, the right to marry, and the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours, and periodic holidays with pay. These U.N. "rights" are merely desires, in stark contrast to mans' natural rights. The U.N.'s ostensible "guarantees" to such true rights as religious freedom and peaceable assembly are qualified. Article 14 states; "... everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing...," language similar to the U.S. Constitution's Sixth Amendment guarantee to a "speedy and public trial." But it then goes on to state, "The press and the public may be excluded from all or part of a trial for reasons of morals, public order..." In other words, secret trials, kangaroo courts if you will, are what will prevail in a U.N. dominated world. Article 18 states; "Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. ... Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary..." Huh?! This language implies that rights come from government, in this case the U.N., and not from the Creator. Like the U.N. Declaration, the Communist Manifesto calls for a "free education for all children in public schools. Combination of education with industrial production, etc." Unfortunately this is also the model for current U.S. education policy. By contrast, the U.S. Constitution prohibits under any circumstances the suspension or termination of any of mans' natural rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. (I will address in a future article the dangers of unconstitutional presidential Executive Orders which do suspend and terminate constitutional guarantees of protection of our rights at the discretion of the President. Beware!) What American citizen in their right mind would trade their constitutional guarantees for the U.N.'s conditional guarantees?
Examining all the wars, uh, "peacekeeping operations" that the U.N. has been involved in since its founding, are there any instances where democratic governments were installed and citizens of those countries accorded constitutional protections of their rights as we have in the United States? Isn't that the purpose of U.N. interventions? Consider this editorial from the August 16, 1961 New York Times, during the U.N.'s intervention in Katanga entitled "Protest Over Berlin;"
"We must seek to discourage anti-communist revolts in order to avert bloodshed and war. We must, under our own principles, live with evil even if by doing so we help to stabilize tottering Communist regimes, as in East Germany, and perhaps even expose citadels of freedom, like West Berlin, to slow death by strangulation."
That was 1961. Has anything changed in 1997? Consider South Africa, where a Marxist government led by Nelson Mandela was installed, uh, "popularly elected." How about Haiti, where rabid anti-American Bertrand Aristede was handed the reigns of power by international forces led by the U.S.? Somalia continues to be a basket case even after U.N. intervention. If the logic of the establishment controlled New York Times reflects our official foreign policy, and I believe it does, then why did we fight and lose 53,000 American lives in Korea, a U.N. "police action," or Viet Nam and lose 58,000 American lives? Our Constitution empowers the federal government to provide for the national defense. The United States had no business in any of the numerous wars in this century. But that's another story. Since congressional ratification in 1945 of the U.N. Participation Act, every president has sent American troops to some foreign land, without a declaration of war by the Congress. This is unconstitutional and should be stopped. Bosnia is just the latest foreign entanglement that the U.S. has no business being involved in. Revelations are pouring out daily about atrocities allegedly committed by U.N. "peacekeepers" in Somalia. These are sickeningly familiar to allegations in all past U.N. interventions. Rape, murder, and pillaging are common by U.N. "peacekeepers," many of whom are from backward or undemocratic countries themselves. I have personally spoken with the father of a U.S. Marine who said his son told him U.S. commanders pulled their troops out of parts of Bosnia because they were not being protected by their fellow "peacekeepers," many of whom were Muslims who took every opportunity to expose their Christian partners to harm. It is sheer folly to expect soldiers from countries that have nothing in common when it comes to human rights and democratic self-government to work together for the common purpose of keeping peace in another occupied country like Bosnia. It is an oxymoron to believe that there is any "peace" to keep, at the end of the barrel of a gun. Once the occupying forces leave, Bosnians will revert to their centuries old feuding. The Dayton Accords are an incredible blueprint of a U.N. model of socialist government for Bosnia, a scheme that will never succeed.
Another dangerous U.N. concept coming to fruition is the training of foreign police and military troops on U.S. soil, and the opening in 1996 of a foreign military installation on U.S. soil. Since the early nineties, local police, the FBI, and the military have been training their counterparts from former(?) enemies such as the Soviet Union and East Germany, and other countries like Japan, Korea, and NATO allies. Germany presently has complete jurisdiction over a military air installation in New Mexico. What purpose does a foreign power on U.S. soil serve? The fact that we have military installations on their soil is no rationale. We don't belong there any more than they belong here. However, if one considers the U.N. goal of one world government, suddenly the basing of foreigners on U.S. soil and vice-versa makes sense. Consider the case where a government suddenly bans possession of all handguns by its citizens, like Britain has recently done. If the government wants to resort to confiscation, wouldn't it be easier to have foreigners do the dirty work, instead of the fellow countrymen of the citizenry? In April or May of 1997, there were exercises at a Louisiana military base where our troops and some foreign troops were training in mock urban environments. Why? As Americans, we can continue to trust our leaders, and bury our heads in the sand, or we can demand accountability and adherence to the Constitution, a piece of paper that is all that stands between our freedom or socialist slavery.
In an earlier article, I discussed State Department Document 7277 entitled Freedom From War, which was signed by President Kennedy in September of 1961, and implemented by Congress shortly thereafter. This document, available upon request from your congressman or senator, outlines the disarmament goals and objectives of the U.S. government in conjunction with the U.N. These include:
1. The disbanding of all national armed forces and the prohibition of their reestablishment in any form whatsoever other than those required to preserve internal order and for contributions to a United Nations Peace Force;
2. The elimination from national arsenals of all armaments, including all weapons of mass destruction and the means for their delivery, other than those required for a United Nations Peace Force and for maintaining internal order;
3. The institution of effective means for the enforcement of international agreements, for the settlement of disputes, and for the maintenance of peace in accordance with the principles of the United Nations;
4. The establishment and effective operation of an International Disarmament Organization within the framework of the United Nations to insure compliance at all times with all disarmament obligations.
Under "Governing Principles," there are five statements that basically say as states relinquish their arms, the U.N. must be progressively strengthened. "Progressive controlled disarmament would proceed to the point where no nation would have the military power to challenge the progressively strengthened U.N. Peace Force." Hmmmm. It also states that "disarmament must take place in a manner that will not affect adversely the security of any state." How can that possibly be achieved without contradicting the other four statements? Think locally. If a community cannot protect itself, its citizens are not secure. If a state cannot defend itself, it can never be secure. Does any American truly believe the U.S. would be secure as we turn over our weapons to a third party? I hope not! And make no mistake about it, NATO is the military arm of the U.N., it serves no other purpose.
The last item I will address is the proliferation of unconstitutional "treaties" with the U.N. The biggest obstacle to the internationalists/globalists in the U.S. government and the U.N. is our Constitution. Article VI of the Constitution states in part that "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land."
Our founding fathers had much to say about the treaty making power. James Madison stated;
"I do not conceive that power is given to the President and the Senate to dismember the empire, or alienate any great, essential right. I do not think the whole legislative authority have this power."
In A Manual of Parliamentary Practice, Thomas Jefferson stated;
"... 2. By the general power to make treaties, the Constitution must have intended to comprehend only those objects which are usually regulated by treaty, and cannot otherwise be regulated. 3. It must have meant to except out of those the rights reserved to the states; for surely the President and the Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way."
Jefferson is saying that it is a ludicrous idea that the founding fathers would craft a Constitution strictly limiting the powers of a federal government, but would insert a clause allowing as few as three men, the President and two-thirds of the Senators present (this could conceivably be two out of three Senators present) to alter the Constitution in any way. Article VI contains the proviso that all treaties made shall be done so "under the authority of the United States." Do you know what the authority of the United States is? It is the Constitution! So again, we see that all treaties must conform to our Constitution. Also, consider how difficult it is to pass constitutional amendments under Article V; two-thirds of both houses of Congress must pass a proposed amendment, and then it must be sent to the states where three-fourths of them must ratify it. Returning to the treaty making power, Alexander Hamilton wrote;
"The only constitutional exception to the power of making treaties is, that it shall not change the Constitution... On natural principles, a treaty, which should manifestly betray or sacrifice primary interests of the state, would be null.... A treaty cannot be made, which alters the constitution of the country or which infringes any express exceptions to the power of the Constitution of the United States."
Nineteenth century Supreme Court rulings such as New Orleans v. United States (1836) and Geofroy v. Riggs (1890) upheld the clear intent of the founders regarding the treaty power. It wasn't until the 1920 Supreme Court decision in Missouri v. Holland that "the doctrine that the treaty power is unlimited and omnipotent and may be used to override the Constitution and the Bill of Rights." On April 11, 1952, at a regional meeting of the American Bar Association in Lexington, Kentucky Secretary of State John Foster Dulles stated;
"Treaties make international law and also they make domestic law. Under our Constitution, treaties become the supreme law of the land.... Treaty law can override the Constitution. Treaties, for example, ... can cut across the rights given the people by their constitutional Bill of Rights."
I don't buy Mr. Dulles treasonous assertion and I hope you don't either. By his logic, it will be but a short time before the sovereignty of the United States is ceded to the U.N. world governement and our Constitution null and void. Notice the recent proliferation of treaties emanating from the U.N. and all too eagerly ratified by our Senate. One of the most egregious concessions of sovereign rights was President Ford's signing of the U.N. Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage on March 1, 1976. The U.S. presently has 20 World Heritage Sites and 47 Biosphere reserves, all approved by U.N. bureaucrats, NOT the U.S. Congress. As a result, it is questionable whether or not any development can take place inside these U.N. designated reserves. Congress unsuccessfully tried last year to assert their constitutional prerogative concerning U.S. lands. Unfortunately we have too many congresspeople all too willing to subordinate U.S. sovereignty to the U.N. They must be educated or replaced, and soon!
While it would be impossible for me in this space to document completely the incompatibility of the U.N. with the U.S. Constitution and our way of life, I hope this article has at least impressed upon you a different perspective of the U.N. and spurs you to investigate further why we must get the U.S. out of the U.N. The U.N. cannot be "reformed." Other U.N. related topics include UNESCO and its role as "school board to the world." As far back as 1948 it drew up the blueprint for what we now call Goals 2000. The multitude of U.N. Conventions also threaten our way of life. The 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro produced five documents that define and implement the U.N.'s "sustainable development" agenda. They are the "Convention on Climate Change," which addresses the unproven theory of global warming, the "Biodiversity Treaty," which would if ratified, declare fifty percent of all the land in every state as wilderness, the "Rio Declaration," which calls for the eradication of poverty throughout the world, and really provides for the redistribution of wealth, especially from the U.S., the "Convention on Forest Principles," calling for international management of the world's forests, thereby shutting down the timber industry, and lastly, "Agenda 21," an 800-page blueprint for global environmental controls. Beware of such terms as "sustainable development," "global warming," anything to do with "population control," and "regionalism." Please do not dismiss U.N. detractors out of hand. Our future and freedom depend on an informed citizenry armed with knowledge and possessing the desire to elect congresspeople who will take their oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution seriously. Of the many books I have read on this subject, the two best which I hereby strongly recommend are available from American Opinion Book Services, P.O. Box 8040, Appleton, Wisconsin 54913, 1-800-342-6491. The titles are Global Tyranny ... Step By Step by William F. Jasper, and Freedom On The Altar by William Norman Grigg. Their bibliographies of government documents, speeches by prominent politicians and Americans, newspaper and periodical reports, and other books are overwhelmingly complete.
I will leave you with four last quotes, as recounted in Global Tyranny.
"The U.N. has become a trap. Let's go it alone." - U.S. Senator Robert Taft.
"Until my dying day, I will regret signing the United Nations Charter." - U.S. Senator Patrick McCarran.
"The time has come to recognize the United Nations for the anti-American, anti-freedom organization that it has become. The time has come for us to cut off all financial help, withdraw as a member, and ask the United Nations to find a headquarters location outside the United States that is more in keeping with the philosophy of the majority of voting members, someplace like Moscow or Peking." - U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater.
"Unless the U.N. is completely reorganized without the communist nations in it, we should get out of it." - former President Herbert Hoover.
And when has a little thing like that stopped Congress?
I am sick and tired of this hogwash. If you think it is unconstitutional to be a member of the UN then sue the dam government for violating the Constitution or shut up.
Geezus...
2002-01-14T03:04:00Z 2002-01-14T03:06:00Z 3 1055 6016 50 12 7388 9.2720
Communist Goals for
American Takeover
|
Communist Goals (1963) Congressional Record--Appendix, pp. A34-A35 January 10, 1963 Current Communist Goals EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. A. S. HERLONG, JR. OF FLORIDA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, January 10, 1963 Mr. HERLONG. Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Patricia Nordman of De Land, Fla., is an ardent and articulate opponent of communism, and until recently published the De Land Courier, which she dedicated to the purpose of alerting the public to the dangers of communism in America. At Mrs. Nordman's request, I include in the RECORD, under unanimous consent, the following "Current Communist Goals," which she identifies as an excerpt from "The Naked Communist," by Cleon Skousen:
1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war. 2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.
Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto
It should be available at your nearest federal repository library. Call them and ask. Your college library is probably a repository; This is an excellent source of government records. Another source are your Congress Critters. They should be more than happy to help you in this matter.
California State University at San Jose Clark Library, Government Floor Phone (408) 924 2770 Microfilm Call Number:
88th Congress, 1st Session Appendix Pages A1-A2842 Jan. 9-May 7, 1963 Reel 12 |
Nathan Silvermaster Group
1,951 pages
Nathan Silvermaster was a leader of a Soviet espionage ring. This espionage investigation from 1945 to 1959 uncovered Soviet placed agents working within the U.S. Government. The case exposed twenty-seven individuals in the Silvermaster ring who gathered information from at least six federal agencies to turn over to the Soviets. No indictments for espionage were returned against any subjects in the case by any Grand Jury.
Best,
PB
Henry Julian Wadleigh
A State Department official, Wadleigh admitted to handing over hundreds of documents to Whittaker Chambers for use by Moscow. Wadleigh was not mentioned by Chambers as a source until after Chambers produced the documents in Nathan Levine's dumbwaiter in November 1948. The defense raised the possibility that Wadleigh was the source of many of the documents offered at trial, a possibility conceded by Wadleigh himself. Wadleigh was not charged with espionage because the statute of limitations had expired.
Related reading:
FReegards
They know!!!!!!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.