Why United Nations Policy is a Clear and Present Danger

By Freedom Advocates Staff
December 4, 2006 

People are misled by the words “United” and “Human Rights.” Divisiveness and anti-human policies prevail.  Many of our federal, state and local agencies are implementing policies that match these divisive anti-human policies.

Have you ever heard of Non-Government Organizations (NGO’s), Vision 2020 programs, The Bay Area Alliance for Sustainable Development, ACTION Santa Cruz, Landwatch Monterey Bay, Common Ground, The Biodiversity Council, Center for Regional Leadership…? These councils work toward what is being called the “New America”, the “New Society” and the “New World.” Non-elected people create, then implement with the help of obedient elected officials, Agenda 21 policy. At the root of Agenda 21 is the United Nations Charter. Implementation of these policies overruns American principles of liberty predicated on the ideals established by the United States Declaration of Independence.

This article is intended to provide a starting point based on Herb Titus’s banquet address given at the 2006 Freedom 21 Conference. (Mr. Titus is a former ACLU attorney and a Senior Legal Advisor to Ron Paul’s Congressional Liberty Committee.)

Have you taken the time to read and contemplate the implications of the United Nations Charter in American life?

If you look at the contrasts between Agenda 21 and Freedom 21, you find that the root of that contrast is not accidental. The difference can be found by examining the provisions of the United Nations Charter, versus the United States Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

The Foundational Contrast

The Subscription Clause (the last provision) of the U.S. Constitution states:

 “Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present, the 17th day of September, in the year of our Lord, 1787 and of the Independence of the United States of America the 12th. In witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names.”

The Constitution is like a contract. It is therefore important to recognize that the Subscription Clause of the Constitution is that which makes it legally effective.

If we look to the corresponding subscription clause of the UN Charter, it reads:

“In faith whereof, the representatives of the governments of the United Nations have signed the present charter, done at the City of San Francisco, the 25th day of June, 1945.”

While one might first notice “Our Lord” is missing from the UN Charter, the usage of “faith” is even more significant. For the UN self-appointed signatories, “In faith whereof” signifies a faith in themselves and what they had done on that particular day.

Returning to the Constitution’s subscription dated “of the Independence of the United States of America the 12th”, we see that the founders are subscribing to the charter of our nation from 12 years prior with the signing of the Declaration of Independence in 1776. In the first paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence, one finds statements attesting to the “Laws of nature and of nature’s God” and that the authors “hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.”  When the founders made reference to the Declaration of Independence, they made their appeals under the supreme justice of Divine Providence and Natural Law.

Where is this appeal in the UN Charter? The United Nations creates an international court of justice as a substitute for supreme justice. The framers of the UN Charter believed that they would determine and establish justice. The UN Charter preamble reads:

“To reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights and the dignity and worth of the human person and the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small.”

Note that their faith is directed not toward natural law, but rather toward themselves.

A Government of Law or of Men?

The Constitution begins:

“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

It is in the design of the dedication that our more perfect union would be governed by the law written in this document. In 1803 Chief Justice Marshall concurred that its enforcement “was contemplated by the people who wrote the Constitution that it would be the law that governs those who govern.”  The Constitution was designed such that we would be ruled by law because the governors would be under the law, not above the law. The preamble was a commitment by the founder to the rule of law bound by our unalienable rights. Today, the Supreme Court does not believe in that premise. It now acts on the premise that what “we” say is the law.

The UN Charter Preamble declares:

 “To establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained.”

It does not say, as in U.S. Constitution, “to establish justice”, but rather to establish conditions for justice.

“To promote social progress and better standards of life in a larger freedom.” (UN Preamble)

They could only look to themselves and not to the authority of natural law, so they could not promise the establishment of justice as the Constitution does.

“To practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbors.” (UN Preamble)

Chapter Seven, Article 51 (UN Charter) states:

“Nothing in the present charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.  Measures takes by members in the exercise of this right of self defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way effect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under present charter to take at any time such actions as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.”

In short it is saying, “The United States has the right to self defense until the Security Council steps in.” It is the Security Council that determines whether or not any particular nation, in defending its borders, is acting in self-defense. This is not the rule of law. This is a rule of strength. The United Nations will “employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples.”

Consent of the Governed or Rule of the Powerful?

The U.S. Constitution secures the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity by establishing a rule of law that governs those who govern. In contrast, the UN Charter establishes an appeal to power, not to the rule of law. The Constitution, through the Declaration, affirms that it is the authority of the people to constitute the government:

“To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” (Declaration of Independence)

The Constitution is designed to bring that principle to reality.  It would not be legally binding upon any citizen of the United States unless a convention was held to which representatives of the people – elected by the people – were sent for the singular purpose of determining whether or not to be governed by this written document.

Although the UN Charter begins in a similar fashion to the Constitution (“We the peoples of the United Nations …”), its ratification clause differs greatly:

“The present charter shall be ratified by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.”

The UN Charter was submitted to the people of the United States. Did the people get an opportunity to vote for representatives to convene and decide whether or not they consented to this charter to govern them?  It was submitted to the Senate for ratification as if it were a treaty rather that what it really is, a constitution for world government. It was originally conceived as a constitution for a United Nations of the World, but it didn’t end with a ratification provision to determine whether the governed consented to be so governed.

Funding the Destruction of Mankind’s Greatest Achievement

Is the US Government purposely allowing the United Nations Charter and Universal Declaration of Human Rights to override our unalienable rights?

In light of these contrasting differences between governing documents,  recent news from Washington bears increased scrutiny:  America’s taxation without representation by the United Nations.

“The U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released a report yesterday to Dr. Coburn on contributions of U.S. taxpayers to the United Nations. Before this report, no one in the federal government had ever developed a public compilation of the total U.S. contributions, including non-monetary, to the entire U.N. system.

According to the report, in 2005, the United States gave $5.3 billion to the U.N—a 30% increase from 2004 funding level of $4.1 billion. Almost every Department of the U.S. government plus several independent agencies fund the U.N. Although the U.N. does not track this information or at least does not make such information public, most experts say the total U.N. budget is between $15-20 billion. The U.S. funded portion is between 25% and 30%.

The release of this report is a small first step toward transparency for the U.S. government. The taxpayers donate a considerable amount of cash and in-kind contributions to the U.N., but without knowing where the money is going and exactly how much, it is impossible to judge whether or not this is money well spent.” (Source: coburn.senate.gov ) Click here to read the full report (pdf)

of the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights:

This section declares that “these rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.” In effect, this section nullifies everything that might be good about the rest of the document, placing supposedly universal rights at the mercy of the whims of United Nations’ leadership.

O­ne wonders: how can rights be universal if they’re subject to revision by political elites? And if rights can be revised or revoked by political elites in this view, do we really want to subject ourselves to the whims of an unseen, self-appointed elite?

There is no reforming the U.N. Its foundational purpose is opposite to the interests of the common man.

[This article contains links to outside sources not controlled by Freedom Advocates and therefore are subject to change.]