Another UN Power Grab

Another well hidden UN agenda for seizure of power over the individual countries in the UN. Not terribly surprising, but frightening in how carefully hidden all of this is from the public.

This year it will be very significant indeed. For the plenary session will almost certainly pass an obscure document, now circulating in draft form among U.N. delegations, that calls on the assembled governments to reaffirm their support for the U.N.'s Millenium Declaration Goals and the other declarations of U.N. conferences over the last 30 years. It will ask them to support the achievement of these goals in a co-ordinated and integrated manner, to renew their commitment to . . .

Falling asleep already, are you? Well, that is precisely the intention of those who composed these anodyne phrases. When bureaucrats seize power, they do it not with swords but with chloroform. And this document is a power grab by people of whom you have never heard, the officials of the U.N. Secretariat, working in tandem with the diplomats of those countries and international organizations that would like to expand the power of the U.N. and its various agencies.

Its main thrust is to extend the U.N.'s power directly into countries and over the lives of citizens, corporations and private bodies. Most of the language used is mildly benevolent in tone. For instance: "We recognize that development, peace and security and human rights are interlinked and mutually reinforcing and cannot be enjoyed without each other." Sounds nice, doesn't it? Of course, it's not true. China today is enjoying economic development of almost unprecedented rapidity under a government that has only a limited regard for such human rights as free speech, freedom of association and freedom of religion.

The article goes on to describe some specific abominations that such a signature would lock us into. Things that the Executive and Legislative branches have made clear we have on intention to being party too. Such as the Kyoto Protocol and the ICC.

What I find most offensive is the tactic to get agreement by a single signature, when in reality such a treaty would require, at minimum, a senatorial agreement.

Let's not even get into discussion about putting ourselves in the hands of an organization that has shown itself to have tendencies toward corruption, and control of committees by countries who are the largest violators of the concepts they are supposed to be protecting. (i.e. the Human Rights committee)