Role of the UN
by Colonel Dan - 07.13.01

Globalism is out of control and it's far passed time for the United States to secede from the United Nations in its present form unless we intend to ultimately surrender our national sovereignty and be ruled by an omnipotent world government.

The United Nations (UN) and the European Union (EU) have grown in both power and influence over the years and it is beyond time for us to take definitive action—action solely in the interest of the United States for a change, telling both the UN and EU to take a hike.

The UN's clear and ultimate objective is world control and the EU has been dictating how American companies can operate their business, most recently blocking the merger of GE and Honeywell. The EU now has its sights set on breaking up Microsoft—this after an American court threw out the initial break up ruling!

If we are to judge a tree by its fruit, then the tree of globalism is rotten to the roots. George Washington knew this and wisely cautioned against it.

The UN has grown steadily since it was formed and is now a strong political advocacy group for world government that is evolving into a dictatorial body whenever and wherever it can with little or no concern whatsoever for national sovereignty.

World government clearly means that nations will surrender their right of self-determination if they want to sign up to the UN Charter and share in the power.

Here is an example from a recent report using my pet passion— Guns

"The United Nations General Assembly has approved a gun control treaty that calls on all nations "to prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, their parts and components, and ammunition."

The treaty is supposed to make it easier to crack down on illegal gun trafficking by helping authorities trace the global movement of all new weapons. It must be signed and ratified by at least 40 countries before it becomes international law.

The signing period runs from July 1 through Dec. 12, 2002. Under terms of the treaty:

All new firearms would have to be marked with a serial number and the place of manufacture.

Nations would have to set up import-export licensing procedures. Countries would also be required to keep records on all guns, parts and ammunition made within their borders for 10 years.

Nations are urged to pass laws making the illicit manufacture and sale of firearms a criminal offense."

Now who do you think would determine the definition of illicit and illegal in this case? The UN. And who would enforce this attack on our right of self-defense given half a chance? The UN. "Once entered into force, the Protocol will provide an international law enforcement mechanism for crime prevention and the prosecution of traffickers."

Fortunately, for now, the United States has voiced its opposition to such insanity. Undersecretary of State John Bolton told the UN "The United States believes that the responsible use of firearms is a legitimate aspect of national life…[and] will not join consensus on a final document that contains measures contrary to our constitutional right to keep and bear arms."

The UN will not allow this to die because of Mr. Bolton's objection however. Guns are too critical to establishing government control over people and people control is what this is all about.

Will it end if and when control of illicit weapons is achieved? No. Foreign Minister Jozias van Artsen of the Netherlands publicly let the cat out of the bag when he changed the wording of "the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons" to "the uncontrolled trade in small arms and light weapons." He said, "Stopping this uncontrolled traffic is not enough. We must further regulate the legal trade in arms to prevent spillover to the illegal arms trade."

The goal is all too clear and it is not limited to "illicit gun trade." Power on a global scale at the expense of national sovereignty and human rights is the ultimate goal of the UN—even I can see that.

Any power move on the part of the UN therefore bears strong watching as surrendering even the least bit of our sovereignty for some phantom promise of security or in the spirit of international brotherhood is a terminally dangerous move down that slippery slope we all know too well. It allows foreign countries, many whose underlying interest is to orchestrate the downfall of America, to have a significant say in our future. This is totally counter to the concept of freedom. Our leadership—if concerned at all for America—must thwart this at every turn unless of course they're in on it themselves like those infamous globalists the Clintons.

Is there any role then whatsoever for the UN in my view? Yes.

The UN should be a deliberative/benevolent organization that discusses world issues, promotes trade and provides charitable assistance to and from its members on a solely voluntary basis with no power to dictate or enforce any rules whatsoever on any nation. If that means the UN dies from terminal impotence, so be it.

National sovereignty must be held supreme because the alternative is far too dangerous and threatens the very existence of every nation on earth. Sovereignty allows a country the freedom to determine its own future and how it conducts itself internally. That applies to all—Sudan and China as well as the US—meaning we would not have the grounds to interfere anywhere.

Are we willing to surrender America to any degree of foreign control in order to have a say about what goes on in Sudan and China? Not me.

Would we want to accept the UN Charter on Human Rights that views such rights as granted by the UN and exercised only as long as it doesn't interfere with the wishes, goals and objectives of the UN? Who wants such a government centric philosophy in charge of the world? Not me.

Were I President, I would inform the UN that from this moment on, America only recognizes their role as a deliberative/charitable one, and if they didn't like that role, they could just roll right out of town and completely off American soil. We will no longer recognize nor shall we respond to UN dictates of any sort.

Many nations in the UN never liked us before when we tried to be a generous global brother that paid the majority of the bills and they won't like us under my approach either so what's the difference? The difference is that America would clearly reclaim and reaffirm its sovereign independence to the world and that's a huge difference.

Just the view from my saddle…

The Colonel