UN Globalism...

The New American

UN Globalism 

to Replace Americanism?

Alex Newman

With the UN now acting as if America must submit to its whims and decrees, it is more important than ever to understand how significant the implications of allowing this to continue would be. The whole notion that the UN was scheming to become a global government-style institution with centralized coercive powers was once dismissed as a “conspiracy theory” for “kooks.” Today, it is obvious to anyone willing to pay attention to the news. As we reported in the companion article “UN to America: We’re the Boss,” the UN now regularly makes demands on America that fly in the face of traditional Americanism, across a broad range of crucial policy fields. And if left unchecked, this is only the start.

Ultimately, liberty, self-government, nation-states, and God-given rights will give way to total government if this is not stopped. And this is plain to see from the UN’s own documents, statements, and agreements. Liberty is literally on the line, with globalists and the Deep State seeking to replace it with a fraud that sounds similar, at least at the most superficial level, but could not be more different in reality.    

At the core of the UN’s ongoing attacks against America is the drive to replace self-government under God and the God-given rights enshrined in America’s founding documents with “global governance” and UN-granted revocable privileges described by the UN as “human rights.” And it is not exactly a secret. In fact, as The New American has documented extensively over a period of many years, the UN now brazenly and routinely claims that Americans’ inalienable rights are actually violationsof “international human rights law,” and as such, must be drastically curtailed to comply with UN demands.

Indeed, in the January 6, 2015 article headlined “United Nations Exploits Pseudo-‘Human Rights’ to Attack U.S.,” The New American magazine documented this clearly with an array of examples. Among other concerns, the article gave multiple examples of the UN and its top officials publicly claiming that “human rights” and “international law” require that governments outlaw and punish certain speech, impose more gun control, ignore due-process protections, overturn state self-defense laws, eliminate constitutional limitations on federal power, prohibit spanking of children as a disciplinary tool, fund abortion with tax money, regulate private schools to comply with UN demands, provide more welfare and subsidized housing, and much, much more.

Attacks on Free Speech, First Amendment

Since the days of the Soviet Union’s push to ban “hate speech” internationally, the UN has been waging war on free speech. The UN actually claims international human rights law now requires nations to ban all sorts of speech — basically, anything the UN deems hate, intolerance, discrimination, and so on. In 2014, for instance, two separate UN outfits, the dictator-dominated UN Human Rights Commission and the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, slammed Japan for not violating the free speech protections in its Constitution to ban speech, rallies, and groups that the UN considers “hateful.” Even “propaganda” that might “incite discrimination or hostility” must be banned, the UN demanded of Japan, specifically targeting groups and rallies perceived as being “Anti-Korean.”  

Then UN Human Rights Czar Navi Pillay, a South African who condemned the United States after the killing of Trayvon Martin, offered some chilling insight into the dictator-dominated global body’s views on the fundamental right to free speech. “Defining the line that separates protected from unprotected speech is ultimately a decision that is best made after a thorough assessment of the circumstances of each case,” she argued. In other words, every time somebody speaks, they run the risk of violating the UN-backed restrictions on free speech. And in many nations, such outlandish international schemes are being cited as justification for jailing — yes, jailing — pastors, critics of Islam, critics of homosexuality, critics of mass migration, supporters of marriage, those who disagree with escalating gender confusion, and more.

After the rally in Charlottesville over monuments that turned bloody, the UN openly called for free speech rights to be curtailed in America. In official statements, the UN said the U.S. government must “provide the necessary guarantees so that such rights [free speech] are not misused to promote racist hate speech.” First, it will be “racist hate speech.” Then, anything the UN and its member governments hate will be banned as “hate speech,” as has occurred in so many nations. The UN also called on the U.S. government to wage a propaganda campaign that would “actively contribute to the promotion of understanding, tolerance, and diversity between ethnic groups, and acknowledge their contribution to the history and diversity of the United States of America.” In other words, ban speech the UN dislikes, and use tax money to spread the UN’s ideas. 

Attacks on Gun Rights, Second Amendment  

It is not just free speech and freedom of the press that are in the UN’s crosshairs. Gun rights are under threat, too. In 2016, after a jihadist with widely reported homosexual proclivities shot up a homosexual bar in Florida, the UN immediately interjected itself. UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Hussein, an Islamic prince, claimed the U.S. government has an “obligation” to implement “robust gun regulation.” “It is hard to find a rational justification that explains the ease with which people can buy firearms,” Hussein said, claiming that “evidence” shows firearms make society less safe and that the U.S. government must intervene. 

Two years earlier, a UN report on supposed human-rights abuses in America claimed the U.S. government must adopt more gun-control legislation, including gun registration, and remove self-defense rights. Countless similar statements and reports have been disgorged by the UN in recent years. In 2013, for example, the UN released a statement by “experts” claiming the Obama administration was “required” to “amend, rescind, or nullify any laws or regulations which have the effect of creating or perpetuating racial discrimination.” Specifically, the UN was demanding an end to “stand your ground” self-defense laws in Florida and other states, along with other laws protecting fundamental rights.   

And of course, as readers of this magazine know well, the global body has been working hard to force all nations to adopt draconian gun control through the UN Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). Among other claims, the treaty purports to grant a monopoly over weaponry to “authorized state parties,” in other words to governments, ignoring the dangers signaled via the 300 million murders perpetrated by governments in the last century alone. Ammunition falls under the treaty’s prohibitions, too. And in Article 5, the UN agreement commits all national governments to “establish and maintain a national control system, including a national control list,” over “the broadest range of conventional arms.” That means all of your guns are in the crosshairs. 

It is hardly a pipe dream. In Venezuela, the UN helped socialist tyrant Hugo Chávez disarm civilians as part of a 2012 disarmament campaign that banned all private firearms. Speaking to regime-run “reporters,” UN Coordinator for Venezuela Alfredo Missair urged them to actively support the gun ban. “You are also responsible in this important fight — we need the cooperation of not only the United Nations but of the media,” Missair said. “So, we are offering all the support they require to do a good job.” Murder and crime rates promptly soared as the newly empowered regime stepped up its persecution of the opposition. Today, Venezuela has among the worst crime rates and the worst tyranny of any country on Earth.

Yet despite all that, the UN has plenty of friends in America who would love to see the same exact thing. In late 2017, Cook County Commissioner Richard Boykin went to New York City and asked the UN to send peacekeeping troops into Chicago to help deal with gun crime. “I’m hoping to appeal to the UN to actually come to Chicago and meet with victims of violence, and maybe even possibly help out in terms of peacekeeping efforts, because I think it’s so critical for us to make sure that these neighborhoods are safe,” Boykin was quoted as telling the press, claiming there was a “genocide” going on against black Americans because most victims of shootings were black. “So we must protect these population groups, and that’s what the United Nations does. They’re a peacekeeping force. They know all about keeping the peace, and so we’re hopeful that they’ll hear our appeal.”  

Aside from attacks on speech and gun rights, the UN also routinely denigrates America’s federalist system of government. In direct violation of the 10th Amendment, which states that any powers not specifically given to the U.S. government remain the province of state governments or the people themselves, the UN has long been demanding that the U.S. government usurp all sorts of powers that were never delegated to it in order to comply with UN demands. It has also repeatedly derided the American justice system with its due process protections, presumption of innocence, trial by jury, and more. This was perhaps most extreme in the wake of the Trayvon Martin shooting, but continues to this day. Under the guise of fighting “terrorism” and “crime” and other issues, the UN now routinely demands all sorts of abuses of privacy, too, including global biometric databases, national biometric IDs, support from Big Tech to censor and spy on citizens, and much more. 

In short, there are no fundamental rights enjoyed by Americans that the UN does not seek to eliminate.

UN’s “Human Rights”: Homosexual “Marriage,” Government Control

By contrast, the UN celebrated the Supreme Court’s usurpation of power to invent a right to a “homosexual marriage” as a great leap forward in human rights. “I whole-heartedly welcome this historic decision,” then-UN boss Ban said in San Francisco about Obergefell while commemorating the 70th anniversary of the signing of the UN Charter. “This is a great step forward for human rights in the United States.” In a speech given that same day at a lunch for the UN pro-homosexuality and -transgender campaign “free and equal,” Ban celebrated June 26 as “a day we celebrate not only the birth of the United Nations but marriage equality for all Americans.”

The UN’s legions of discredited “special rapporteurs,” meanwhile, have long made clear that they view “rights” in the same way the regimes enslaving the people of the Soviet Union, Cuba, Vietnam, China, and other communist nations have viewed rights. In the United Kingdom, for example, a UN special rapporteur infamous for sacrificing an animal to Karl Marx was relentlessly ridiculed for accusing the U.K. government of “human rights violations” because welfare recipients were not being given large enough houses. In Switzerland, UN bureaucrats attacked stay-at-home mothers as human-rights violators. In Canada, they claimed supposedly “low” taxes were a “human rights” violation because the government needed more resources to battle everything from obesity to inequality.

There is a method to the madness (See sidebar on page 36). The UN’s vision of human rights for the world is exactly the opposite of the views held by America’s Founding Fathers that produced the greatest and freest nation in history — not to mention the moral code outlined in the Bible that is at the core of Western civilization. As explained in the Declaration of Independence, the Founders said it was self-evident that God had created people and endowed them with unalienable rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They also said governments exist to protect those unalienable rights. The Founders literally viewed rights as a sacred gift from God, as they explained repeatedly.    

The UN, by contrast, believes that governments and international agreements confer privileges that can be revoked at any time for little to no cause. In Article 29 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, for instance, the document makes clear that rights can be limited by law under virtually any pretext. It also says that the alleged rights may “in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.” In other words, individuals have no unalienable rights under the UN’s view of human rights, only privileges that can be revoked at will by governments and international organizations.   

The UN Human Rights Council, meanwhile, is literally dominated by dictatorships, with unfree regimes holding the majority of seats. The predecessor organ-ization, the UN Human Rights Committee, was once led by the late Libyan tyrant Moammar Gadhafi. And current UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet is a known supporter of socialism and even mass-murdering communist dictatorships such as the Castro regime enslaving Cuba. In her younger years, as victims were being slaughtered trying to flee East Germany, she defected to that mass-murdering communist regime. She recently praised the “squad” of fringe left-wing congresswomen (AOC et al.) famous for hating America and Trump. “I believe that those four women are fantastic,” she said, describing them as “bright” and celebrating their alleged courage “to say what they think” about supposed U.S. deficiencies.

Nor does the UN itself respect even the most fundamental rights of people. According to the organization Hear Their Cries, UN troops and international aid workers and bureaucrats have raped and sexually exploited over 60,000 women and children just in the last decade. A poll conducted by the non-profit Save the Children revealed that just in the Ivorian town of Toulepleu, which was occupied by UN peace troops, eight out of 10 minor girls admitted to regularly being raped and forced into sexual acts by UN soldiers. Unspeakable horrors perpetrated by the UN’s “blue helmets” have been documented from Africa and Asia to Europe and the Americas and everywhere in between. And yet, because of “diplomatic immunity,” there has been virtually no accountability at all.   

The hypocrisy of the UN’s supposed quest for human rights in America is perhaps most perfectly illustrated in its hypocrisy over Communist China. While the United States is constantly under fire, the regime in Beijing does not just get a pass — top UN officials bend over backward to protect the mass-murdering dictatorship from criticism. Consider the recent case at the UN Human Rights Council, where a coalition of more than 120 organizations sought to file a formal complaint against Beijing’s network of “re-education” camps holding well over a million Uighur Muslims, but was prevented from even publishing a formal complaint at the UN Human Rights Council, in violation of its own procedures. Before that, a top UN “human rights” official was exposed by a whistleblower handing straight to Beijing the names of Chinese dissidents seeking to testify against the regime. The whistleblower was persecuted, while the highest echelons of the UN worked to cover up the whole matter by firing judges and suppressing the facts.

UN Seeking to Become Global Government

Ultimately, the globalist goal is to turn the UN into a global government that would actively deny individual rights — one that could not be effectively resisted by its victims. It already has courts, armies, self-styled “law enforcement” and “crime fighting” divisions, and much more. Former UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon repeatedly referred to the UN as the “Parliament of Humanity.” A parliament, by definition, is a law-making body of a government. Before that, Ban referred to the UN Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development Goals — essentially a roadmap to global technocratic government — as the planetary “declaration of interdependence.” The head of the UN General Assembly when the scheme was adopted, Peter Thompson, referred to it as a “master-plan for humanity.”

This has been the objective from the start, when U.S. diplomat (and Soviet agent) Alger Hiss led the conference to create the UN. Among those involved in the process who have admitted the goal was John Foster Dulles, a leading Deep State globalist who also helped create the UN and went on to become U.S. secretary of state. “The United Nations represents not a final stage in the development of world order, but only a primitive stage,” he wrote in his book War or Peace. “Therefore its primary task is to create the conditions which will make possible a more highly developed organization.” Dulles also observed in his book, “I have never seen any proposal made for collective security with ‘teeth’ in it, or for ‘world government’ or for ‘world federation,’ which could not be carried out either by the United Nations or under the United Nations Charter.”

Under President Trump, there have been some efforts to rein in the UN, including leaving some UN agencies. There have also been some tepid efforts to reverse the perverted UN view of human rights. This summer, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo created a commission to deal with the corruption of discourse about human rights. Dubbed the “Commission on Unalienable Rights,” the body was tasked with recommending “reforms of human rights discourse where it has departed from our nation’s founding principles of natural law and natural rights.” It was a nice thought. But the commission was endlessly demonized and mocked by glob-alists and totalitarians, and it is not clear that it will accomplish much, if anything.

The real solution to the UN’s escalating attacks on American sovereignty and liberty must involve getting out of the UN, something The John Birch Society, which publishes this magazine, has been advocating for over 50 years. Legislation to do that is in Congress already. One of the sponsors of the American Sovereignty Restoration Act (HR 204), Representative Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), has been a leader in the campaign for an #Amexit from the UN. He told The New American in an interview last year that there are many reasons why the U.S. government should get out of the globalist institution.

“The best thing that you can say about the United Nations is it’s mostly ineffective and a waste of money,” said Congressman Massie, who started campaigning for an “Amexit” from the UN after the British people voted for a “Brexit” from the European Union. “That’s the best thing you can say about it. So I’m glad that they are somewhat ineffective, but I don’t like that we waste the money.” But that is just the start. “It’s full of dictators, and it’s also something that I don’t think our sovereign government should defer to,” he explained. “For instance, a lot of these foreign relations bills that come in front of us in Congress and the whereas clauses — they might say ‘whereas the UN has said this,’ or ‘the UN decided this, now therefore be it resolved’ — well that’s almost an automatic no for me, because why would I defer to the United Nations if we’re a sovereign country?”

Massie also noted that many of his colleagues love the UN and would like to see the United States even more deeply ensnared within its grasp. And therein lies the problem. These members of Congress were elected by ignorant Americans who do not understand their own heritage, their freedoms, or the existential threat posed to them by the dictators club. As such, beyond simply ending U.S. membership in the UN, Americans must educate the electorate. Absolutely essential to that mission will be restoring a proper public understanding on the nature of rights, the role of government, the U.S. Constitution, and the danger of phony ideas on “human rights” that require the government to redistribute wealth extracted from others by force. Without that understanding, even an #Amexit would be only a temporary solution. By getting involved in the JBS campaign to “Get U.S. Out of the United Nations,” you can join with others and turn the tide today.

Photo credit: AP Images

This article originally appeared in the October 21, 2019 print edition ofThe New American. The New American publishes a print magazine twice a month, covering issues such as politics, money, foreign policy, environment, culture, and technology.