American Policy Center » 2003 » March
- Entangling Alliances: George Washington vs. the UN
- "Faith Based" Initiative HIJACKED BY GREENS!!!
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.
March 2, 2003
| APC is now offering you a quick and easy way to multiply your efforts and help win more battles! Simply click http://www.referralblast.com/rblast.asp?sid=5906 to send this APC Action Alert to up to TEN of your friends! It’s fast, it’s easy, and most of all, it’s extremely effective in KILLING LEFTIST POLICIES! |
Tell your Senators and Representative to vote “NO!” on sections 106 and 107 of S. 476 (The “CARE” Act)!
The Vote on S. 476 is expected THIS WEEK—IT COULD BE ANY DAY NOW!
The American Policy Center has long been opposed to the “Faith Based” Initiative because we know that it is merely a vehicle for government to get its hands on the inner workings of private charities and other organizations. Now, as APC News Wire reported lasted month, it turns out that S. 476, which began as President Bush’s Faith Based Initiative, has become a vehicle for extreme environmental groups to snatch-up MORE federal tax dollars and grab MORE private property!
Specifically, sections 106 and 107 of S. 476 provide an UNFAIR TAX ADVANTAGE to multibillion dollar land trusts like The Nature Conservancy and other radical green groups. These sections state that on sales of land and water rights, the seller will receive a 25% capital gains tax break—ONLY if he sells to an environmental group, land trust or government agency!!! HOWEVER, the usual high taxes apply to ALL sales to churches, orphanages, private schools, etc.!!!
Sections 106 and 107 of the “Faith Based” CARE Act UNDENIABLY HURT FAITH BASED ORGANIZATIONS!
When it comes time to sell, property owners will end up selling to the government or the radical land trusts so they can receive the 25% cut on their capital gains tax! MEANWHILE, churches, orphanages, and private buyers WILL BE SHUT OUT IN THE COLD because they can’t compete with that 25% benefit to the seller!
MOREOVER, as other parties are discouraged from the bidding on private land sales, the competition amongst the buyers decreases! THE ONLY BIDDERS WILL BE THE WEALTHY LAND TRUSTS AND FAT GOVERNMENT AGENCIES! These groups will undoubtedly reduce their bids SUBSTANTIALLY because they’ll be the ONLY bidders, AND they can offer the seller a 25% tax break on his profits!!! PROPERTY VALUES WILL PLUMMET!
Sections 106 and 107 of S. 476 mean:
1. MORE money, power and land for wealthy, greedy, land-grabbing environmental organizations.
2. MORE property for the land-hungry federal government.
3. FEWER opportunities for “faith-based” groups such as churches, orphanages and private schools to buy property.
4. LOWER property values for landowners.
Sections 106 and 107 MUST BE REMOVED!!!
*** Action to Take ***
1. Call your Representative and tell him or her to oppose sections 106 and 107 of the CARE Act. House Switchboard: (202) 225-3121. Simply ask for your Representative by name. THEN, once they patch you through to his/her office, ask for the staff person in charge of the CARE Act (S. 476).
2. Call both of your Senators and urge them to oppose sections 106 and 107 of the CARE Act. Senate Switchboard: (202) 224-3121. Ask for your Senator by name. THEN, once they patch you through to his/her office, ask for the staff person in charge of the CARE Act (S. 476).
3. Write your local papers, call your local radio talk shows—TELL THE WORLD about this green hijacking of the CARE Act (S. 476).
4. Click here 
to send this urgent alert to up to ten of your friends.
***PLEASE SEND TO AT LEAST FIVE MORE PEOPLE***
