Article on US POLICY vs. UN - Why to get out.

[cgross 1]

Taken from: americanpolicy.org


March 3, 2003

By Tom DeWeese

There are a lot of people in this country who don't believe the United Nations is a threat to American sovereignty and independence.
Many on Capitol Hill will tell you that there is not a single word in a single UN document that says the UN will control land in this country. Technically that's true. In fact, most UN documents take great pains to include language to specifically state that each nation will maintain its own sovereignty.

Here's why the UN is in fact a threat and how it all works. Sovereignty is the
answer to the question: "who`s in charge?" You have to answer that question
before you can answer the parallel question: "who's responsible?" To have true
sovereignty over our land we the people, through our elected representatives, must be in charge of decisions over it and we must have the responsibility to carry out those decisions.

Keep in mind that you can voluntarily give up both control and responsibility.
However, even if it is voluntary, it's still loss of control. The United States has been taking that path of voluntary surrender of control for several years through acceptance of a number of United Nations treaties and agreements. It is through this matrix, this spider's web of so-called "international law" that this nation cedes control to the United Nations.

Consider just a few of the UN treaties and agreements that the United States has
already agreed to abide. They include the World Heritage Sites Treaty, UNESCO,
Agenda 21, the Convention on Climate Change, and The Man and the Biosphere
program. Each of these is part of an agenda called "Sustainable Development"
which calls for changing the very infrastructure of our nation, away from private ownership and control of property to nothing short of national zoning and a whole lot more.

In 1796, George Washington warned his new nation "Against the insidious wiles
of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow citizens) the jealousy of a free people out to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government." Washington said "The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible."

Sustainable Development combines social welfare programs with partnerships
between business and government, using environmental issues to make it all
appear to be urgent.

This environmental agenda is driven by the United Nations through two specific UN organizations, the United Nations Environmental Program and the International
Union of Conservation and Nature.

Would it surprise you to learn that six agencies of the United States government
are active members of the International Union of Conservation and Nature including the Departments of State, Interior, Agriculture and the Fish and Wildlife service? These agencies send representatives to all meetings of the UN
Environmental Program.

This kind of intergovernmental cooperation with UN policy led to a showdown over
the issue of control in 1995 when radical environmentalists and the Department of Interior wanted to stop the building of a gold mine on private land, several miles from Yellowstone National Park. This federal department simply called in the UN's World Heritage Committee to visit Yellowstone, whereupon the committee
declared the park to be the world’s first endangered heritage site. That designation was enough to stop the building of private enterprise and clearly establish who was in control.

By joining the Convention Concerning the Protection of World Culture and National Heritage, adopted in November 1972 at the 17th General Conference of UNESCO, the United States ceded control over Yellowstone National Park, the Everglades National Park, the Grand Canyon National Park, the Great Smokey Mountains National Park, Yosemite National Park, the Carlsbad Caverns National Park, and, you will find this astounding, Monticello, Jefferson?s home, and the Statue of Liberty!

Webster's defines "sovereignty" as "undisputed political power." We no longer
have this precious right, gained by the blood of patriots, over these and other
so-called World Heritage sites.

Through all of the treaties, agreements and meetings, there grows an interlocking web of policy that takes root through these federal agencies, even driving down into state and local community governments.

The treaties are the roots of the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act and the
Endangered Species Act. For Congress to back out of these laws or even to
consider reducing some of the regulations that are destroying industry or private property rights would put the United States in violation of the UN treaties!

It is not just about environmental policy that's involved. There are equally binding UN treaties and agreements covering education programs, child welfare, women's rights, as well as gun control.

Most recently, the UN abandoned all pretense of respecting sovereign
independence.

The International Criminal Court was approved when only 60 nations ratified it, but according to UN policy, the court has jurisdiction over all nations, whether they ratified it or not. Never in the history of international relations has such a policy even been proposed, let alone adopted.

Now, many of you rightly complain that you keep electing politicians who promise
to corral the size and scope of government and reinstate the rule of the
Constitution, but it never seems to happen. Why? Because we are bound by UN
treaties that say we can't and by a Federal government that says we won't.

Now ask yourselves the question again: Who's in charge? And who's responsible?

Neither George Washington nor any of the Founding Fathers would ever have put
their names to the United Nations Charter or agreed to any of these intrusive,
interlocking treaties and agreements for the simple reason that they diminish
American control, American responsibility and American sovereignty.

The only way for the United States of America to reassert and reestablish its
sovereignty is to get out of the United Nations.

[PhillyKev 0]

I agree. It's sad that we have to go to an outside party in order to protect our resources from our own government officials who would rape them for $$$.

[PhreeZone 20]

I'll only speak to the Yellowstone issue... They had proven that run off from the mine was going to directly impact the wildlife of the park and could cause possible contamination of certian streams. The private owner agrued it was his land and he could do as he wanted since he was'nt responcible once the waste left his land. Toxic dumps were hoping he'd win since that would there by give them permission to do anything they wanted to and use that as a scapegoat. How would you feel if some one decided to toss up a toxic waste storage area in you back yard? Or is it ok as long as its NIMBY?

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[cgross 1]

Well, I am pretty confident that a global organization doesn't need to look out for my good. I am faily confident in my own government. It appears from the 2 comments above here that you and the other guy are not as confident in our own gov.

Well, if that is the case, you can elect other people to do the job. If someone wanted to dump in my backyard, I would go to my local government to handle it. I certainly would gat a vote from a league of nations who don't live here. That is absurd. And what interest does "Syria, France, or England" have with my back yard.

I think My local officials would care a bit more since it may affect them or their families directly. If you think the US gov is bad, why would you suspect a "World" gov is better and less corrupt with no agenda?

Chris

[billvon 3,120]

>If someone wanted to dump in my backyard, I would go to my local
> government to handle it.

And suppose you lived in El Centro and your kids were getting sick from the discharge from Mexican refineries. What would your local government do about that?

>If you think the US gov is bad, why would you suspect a "World" gov
> is better and less corrupt with no agenda?

Both have agendas. If you're lucky, they sorta match yours. If not, then work to change them. If you can't change them because you're a minority, well, that's democracy in action.

[cgross 1]

Well the issue wasn't one country vs another. It was what we do with our own land. The UN has no business telling us we can or cannot do something on our land. And then what... take us to court. I understand the principal in rouge states or 3rd world countries, but Western Europe, the US and Canada. I don't think so.

[PhreeZone 20]

>I am faily confident in my own government.
So:
environmentalists and the Department of Interior wanted to stop the building of a gold mine

Even though the DOI was going to be overrode since they don't have jurisdiction and they appealed to a higher power they are now the evil ones?

Yellowstone has some very unique lifeforms that are not found anywhere else on Earth, it should be the entire world that fights against people/organizations that are posied to harm or emilinate entire species of animals and plants. Why should it matter to the people of South America that the rest of the world thinks its a really bad idea to burn down all their rainforests? Accourding to your logic its a local issue and can be delt with by them and we should'nt have anything to say about it.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[billvon 3,120]

>Well the issue wasn't one country vs another. It was what we do with
>our own land.

In my case, Mexico is doing whatever it wants with its own land - in this case, building huge cheap refineries that pollute so much they make your kids sick. Is that just life, do you just accept stuff like that because there's no other way?

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

It appears from the 2 comments above here that you and the other guy are not as confident in our own gov.

Well, if that is the case, you can elect other people to do the job.

I vote in every election, I attend city council meetings, I volunteer for pacs, and I had a beer with Ed Rendell last night. And no, I don't put all of my confidence in our government. I do everything I can to make sure the best person for the job gets elected, but unfortunately, the best person for the job often isn't the one with corporate backers and deep pockets. Unfortunately that's what determines who runs our government for the most part. Besides, last I heard there weren't a lot of registered voters living in the national parks. I'm not sure that the municipal government of the grand canyon has much to say about what gets done there.

The best thing that could be done to improve the state of affairs in this country and get it back in line as a true representation of the majority is campaign finance reform. Unfortunately, that issue was dropped by the wayside along with just about every other domestic issue when war drums started beating.

[wmw999 2,589]

Quote

I understand the principal in rouge states or 3rd world countries, but Western Europe, the US and Canada. I don't think so.

Does that mean that the laws that only small states vote for in Congress shouldn't apply to Texas?

It's not a matter of the western world defining what's right and what's wrong. We don't get bigger votes, even though they might agree with us.

Sucks sometimes to be in a republic, but it beats most of the other alternatives. Because only one can be the strongest, and that doesn't always make him the rightest.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[cgross 1]

No, this had nothing to do with size, it had to do with experience. 3rd world countries do not nessasarily have the $$ to build cleaner, or smarter. That Is why I would agree the UN could help provide support to those nations.

[PhreeZone 20]

And lots of private organizations don't have the money to build the cleanest either. There is a difference between a professional mining operation and some private organization trying to mine for gold. One method that none of the big boys will use is water pressure to mine. Using water under extremely high pressue will eat away at the ground and will blast through most materials up until you hit solid rock, unfortunatly this method creates HUGE amounts of runoff that contains all sorts of pollutents and contamination due to the chemicals used to make the gold flakes bond to each other and easier to find.

Its cheap do mine this way, but its not clean.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com