Volume 2, Number 1 -- February 20, 1997
When discussing some of the UN documents there are certain terms that repeatedly come up. To most laymen these terms have been poorly defined, if at all. It is essential that we understand the words being used if we are to grasp the meaning behind the documents. In this issue of our newsletter we will try to give you a better understanding of some of these terms.
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: This is a term that is sprinkled throughout United Nations Conference reports, Declarations and Treaties. What it means to you and to the general public may be entirely different from what it means to those who coined it and who use it in these writings.
You and I may think of sustainable development as any development a nation or a people can sustain based on their abilities and their resources. This is not the meaning it has for those who are continuously inserting it into their reports, their Declarations, their Treaties.
To their way of thinking your resources (such as coal, oil, gas, forests, etc.) do not belong to you, but are common resources belonging to the world. They are limited resources, therefore their use must be restricted to preserve a fair share for future generations. Also, if a nation is using more than their proportionate share of such resources, they will have to reduce their consumption and bring it into line with . . . whatever the United Nations might decide is their fair share.
Any treaty we might sign with the United Nations in which we are agreeing to develop in accordance with the sustainable development concept legally obligates us to defer to United Nations definitions as to what sustainable development means.
The term sustainable development is just a new way of saying, "From every man according to his ability, to every man according to his need." It puts the determination of the use of your private property under the control of the government -- the "world government," the United Nations.
You may think, "Well, so what? All I own is a home in the suburbs." Does that home have more
than one bedroom, more than one bath? What you already own may not fit the U.N. definition of
sustainable. You could be told you will have to share that home with a couple of other families
who are less fortunate. If you read through several of the U.N. documents, you will quickly
realize this is not beyond the realm of possibility. (One of the standards often bandied about is
three and a half families per acre of land.)
GLOBAL COMMONS: This is the term the United Nations uses to describe the air, the waters of the world, the coal and iron reserves, the oil and gas reserves, timber reserves, ores and other resources that are limited by nature.
It doesn't matter where these resources are located, according to United Nations writings they are considered to belong to all of mankind.
Under this concept, of course, the poor Indian native in some South American country is entitled to the same share of these resources as you are. If you own property on which some of these reserves are located, your ability to mine and use those resources could be subject to United Nations control.
Already the U.N. has proposed a tax on the mining of such resources. Such tax would be paid to the United Nations to be used as it might see fit. Don't for an instant think it would be used to pay the poor Indian native his share. It might well be used to pay for a standing U.N. military force that could ensure your compliance with U.N. edicts.
Whereas our Christian faith promises every man rewards according to his works, the United Nations holds to the Marxist concept that it is the State's responsibility to see that no individual goes hungry while another has food left over.
All this high sounding U.N. rhetoric about the rights of ALL people, while it may look good in theory, is actually a means to an end -- to eventually place the U.N. World Government in control of all nations. A reading of the U.N. Charter should convince even the skeptic that such a government would be socialism -- substitution of the all-powerful State for God Almighty.
NGO or NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION: NGOs are everywhere. You may even belong to one or two of them. Almost any organization can apply to the UN for NGO status -- and get it. About the only requirement is that the organization is supposed to "help further the goals of the United Nations."
Suffice it to say that the goals as outlined might sound very worthwhile, very charitable, very humane. Nowhere will the goal "to supplant national governments with a world government" be clearly stated, but for anyone who will take the time and effort to actually study the reports, treaties and declarations emanating from within the United Nations that goal is blatantly clear.
A few of the NGOs within our country are:
This is just a partial list. As you can see the variety is immense. The listing literally runs from A to Z.
Many of these organizations have signed on for perhaps a single purpose -- they may think UNICEF is a very worthwhile cause; they may believe the World Health Organization is badly needed; they may be taken-in by the environmental scare -- but there are some that are very actively working to further the globalist goals of the United Nations.
Perhaps they are sincere in believing that only through global government can mankind survive on planet earth. If that is the case, they are sincerely mistaken.
Many activist organizations such as radical feminist groups, homosexual activist groups, may also qualify as NGOs. In fact, some very radical feminists groups were official representatives of this country at the Conference on the Rights of Women held in Beijing, China last year. Pro-life groups were virtually excluded.
Not all NGOs are necessarily working to subvert American liberties, but some are. The best that can be said of others is that they are misguided.
From the size and scope of the listing of NGOs you should realize how thoroughly the American public has been deceived by UN propagandists pushing their globalist agenda. That makes the task of educating them to the truth all the more difficult. It is, however a task we must undertake if we are to have any hope of remaining a free and independent nation.
Even so, our understanding was that this was to be basically a forum where nations would meet and iron out difficulties before they reached the shooting stage. In our wildest nightmares we never envisioned the massive bureaucracy that the UN has become.
Do you remember from your study of history the great difficulty our Founding Fathers had in getting our national Constitution ratified? Do you remember why? It was because the states feared a strong national government would encroach upon their rights as sovereign states. They would no longer be able to govern themselves according to the dictates of their own needs, but would become subservient to the dictates of a growing central government, the needs of which would take precedence over theirs.
Just look around you and think.
Why should an international organization, supposedly designed to provide a talking ground for disputes between nations, be behaving like some giant government? What right does such an organization have to dictate to you how you should raise your children? How you should dispose of your waste products? How many of your trees you will be allowed to cut or how much gasoline you will be allowed to burn in your automobile?
Whether you realize it or not, these are the kinds of rules and regulations emanating from the United Nations. Through the use of international treaties, Conventions and Declarations, they are slowly but surely replacing national (and state) law with international law. Every time we ratify a UN treaty, every time we approve a UN Convention, every time we sign on to a UN Declaration, we are giving away a portion of our national and state sovereignty.
No matter how worthy the cause might sound, no matter how noble may seem the pursuit, we do not believe this is what most Americans want.
From the beginning of this great nation, its people have been known for their love of independence, for their rugged individualism. We pray to God, and we believe, that spirit still lives in the hearts of the American people. However, we also believe most of our citizens have been deceived by the proponents of the New World Order into believing the UN is a worthwhile organization that just needs a little remodeling; that at worst it is an overgrown, bloated bureaucracy gobbling up taxpayer dollars. That is what they want you to believe!
We believe (and have reams of evidence to support our belief) the UN is the serpent in the garden, and like the serpent is using deception filled with half truths to entice us into accepting the forbidden fruit that leads to death of nationhood.
ON THE HOMEFRONT
By Ann Harris
Here in Birmingham our Committee has been very busy trying to root-out the U.N.'s pervasive strongholds and subtle seductions -- in the classrooms, on the school boards, on curriculum committees, in environmental issues, in industry, in corporate business and the business round table.
Much of our effort has centered around the Jefferson County and Hoover School Boards and their MUNA (Model United Nations Assembly) programs. These are two-day conferences in which junior-high and high school students are brought together in a "mock" United Nations Assembly in order to solve world problems. At first glance this sounds like a great idea, but when you think about the true UN agenda of world government (which we have thoroughly researched and partially reported in earlier newsletters), then you realize this is nothing more than a laboratory for socialistic, philosophical brainwashing.
The "cream-of-the-crop" from our communities dress-up in the native costumes of their assigned countries and through "facilitators" and workbooks (that are carefully prepared along the line of the UN "world police" agenda -- "global cops") go about for two days brainstorming and solving either overly simplified problems that would be better kept within the countries themselves, or horrifyingly depressing "world problems," most of which have no substantial basis in fact.
A few examples from the workbook:
Remember these students are housed in a central location, away from home, surrounded by flags and symbols of an organization the Charter of which is diametrically opposed to our Constitution. They partake of a lot of fun, food and games. They get newspaper and TV coverage of their activities. Their parents are swelled with pride that they were "selected" for this prestigious honor. Is it surprising they come away from this experience with a good feeling about the United Nations? This insidious drama has been going on in Jefferson County and Hoover School Systems for about three years.
A group of concerned citizens contacted the School Board and called for a renewed emphasis on our American Heritage and our Founding Fathers, but their request was turned down by the Jefferson County Curriculum Committee.
We hope you will become as outraged as we are about what is going on in the "government" schools. Get to know your school board members, Superintendents and curriculum committee members. We of the Alabama Committee to Get US Out of the United Nations urge you to GET INVOLVED!