Agenda for new Congress: Get U.S. out of U.N.
By Henry Lamb

Posted: November 20, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern

2004 WorldNetDaily.com

Agenda for new Congress: Get U.S. out of U.N.
By Henry Lamb

Posted: November 20, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern

2004 WorldNetDaily.com

Every day, a new outrage emerges from the United Nations bureaucracy. Kofi
Annan, once known for his deliberate, even-handed diplomacy, now openly
condemns the United States' action in Iraq as "illegal." He is offended that
the U.S. expects accountability in the oil-for-food scandal and refuses to open
the books for independent review. The corruption erupting from this single
program eclipses the intrigue that is inherent throughout the United Nations
system.

For years, individuals and organizations have warned that the United Nations is
implementing an agenda that ultimately leads to total global control. These
warnings have been discounted by the media and ridiculed by the "enlightened"
as the blathering of "black helicopter conspiracy freaks."


Putting aside, for the moment, the U.N.'s agenda, the blatant corruption,
deceit and open opposition to all things American, combined with the U.N.'s
consistent failure to stop the slaughter of refugees in the Sudan, Rwanda,
Somalia and elsewhere around the globe should have Americans asking their
congressmen why we continue to support this institution.

What exactly does the United States get for the billions of dollars invested
every year in the hundreds of U.N. agencies around the world?

We get slapped in the face by the U.N. Security Council, whose members didn't
want to disturb their profitable, private arrangements with Saddam's
oil-for-food program.

We get booted off the U.N. Human Rights Commission and replaced by nations
whose human rights practices are among the world's worst.

We get harangued at every U.N. meeting by people who blame the United States
for the world's poverty, for global warming and environmental degradation, and
worst of all, for supporting Israel.

There is virtually no benefit derived from U.N. membership that is not readily
available outside the U.N. through bi-lateral negotiations – for less cost
and much less grief.

President Bush has indicated rather strongly that his patience with the U.N.
has limits. He has also indicated his willingness to work with the U.N. in some
areas, such as UNESCO. This position is confusing, particularly to
conservatives. It could be interpreted as the president's effort to be engaged
in the international community, but not bound by it.

The United States cannot build new walls of isolation or withdraw from the
international community. The opposite must happen; the United States should
reach out to other nations and offer a hand of friendship to all nations that
share our values of freedom, individual rights and representative government.
The United Nations is not needed for this outreach. The United Nations is not
needed at all.

Why not get rid of it?

The new Congress that convenes in January could adopt Rep. Ron Paul's proposal
to completely withdraw from the U.N. Every year this bill has been introduced,
it has received more and more votes. The U.N.'s refusal to cooperate with
congressional investigations of the oil-for-food program could inspire
sufficient wrath in Congress to finally authorize withdrawal from the U.N.

Congress could stop short of withdrawal and stop all funding of the U.N.,
pending a congressional review. Each U.N. agency should be reviewed for
relevance and benefit before receiving U.S. funding. Many, if not all, U.N.
agencies would find it difficult to demonstrate a benefit to the U.S.

Should these U.N. agencies be subjected to a congressional review, what would
quickly become apparent is the presence of a comprehensive agenda. While each
U.N. agency is responsible for implementing specific programs within its
particular jurisdiction, each program and every agency is working from the same
playbook – toward a comprehensive agenda.

The ultimate goal of the agenda is to transform the system of governance for
the entire world, regardless of the type of government in any nation. The new
system of governance is best described as "Administrative Governance." In this
system, public policy is made by professionals, with input from the people only
through approved and duly accredited non-government organizations.

Public policy is then "administered" by participating governments –
regardless of the type of government – through treaties and agreements
arranged and enforced by the U.N. Implementation of public policy is policed by
the same NGOs that helped shape the policies.

The United Nations then becomes the supreme policy-making body. Each
participating nation – by treaty or agreement – becomes an administrative
unit. In the United States, each state becomes an administrative unit of the
federal government, and each local government becomes an administrative unit of
the state.

This new system of governance has arrived and is known as Agenda 21 – the
rulebook for sustainable development. There are no black helicopters or
blue-helmeted troops. But the agenda is real, just the same.

The U.N.'s agenda and its corruption provide ample reasons for the United
States to withdraw from this institution. Withdrawal should be a priority for
the new Congress.


Henry Lamb is the executive vice president of the Environmental Conservation
Organization and chairman of Sovereignty International.

Agenda for new Congress: Get U.S. out of U.N.
By Henry Lamb

Posted: November 20, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern

2004 WorldNetDaily.com

Every day, a new outrage emerges from the United Nations bureaucracy. Kofi
Annan, once known for his deliberate, even-handed diplomacy, now openly
condemns the United States' action in Iraq as "illegal." He is offended that
the U.S. expects accountability in the oil-for-food scandal and refuses to open
the books for independent review. The corruption erupting from this single
program eclipses the intrigue that is inherent throughout the United Nations
system.

For years, individuals and organizations have warned that the United Nations is
implementing an agenda that ultimately leads to total global control. These
warnings have been discounted by the media and ridiculed by the "enlightened"
as the blathering of "black helicopter conspiracy freaks."


Putting aside, for the moment, the U.N.'s agenda, the blatant corruption,
deceit and open opposition to all things American, combined with the U.N.'s
consistent failure to stop the slaughter of refugees in the Sudan, Rwanda,
Somalia and elsewhere around the globe should have Americans asking their
congressmen why we continue to support this institution.

What exactly does the United States get for the billions of dollars invested
every year in the hundreds of U.N. agencies around the world?

We get slapped in the face by the U.N. Security Council, whose members didn't
want to disturb their profitable, private arrangements with Saddam's
oil-for-food program.

We get booted off the U.N. Human Rights Commission and replaced by nations
whose human rights practices are among the world's worst.

We get harangued at every U.N. meeting by people who blame the United States
for the world's poverty, for global warming and environmental degradation, and
worst of all, for supporting Israel.

There is virtually no benefit derived from U.N. membership that is not readily
available outside the U.N. through bi-lateral negotiations – for less cost
and much less grief.

President Bush has indicated rather strongly that his patience with the U.N.
has limits. He has also indicated his willingness to work with the U.N. in some
areas, such as UNESCO. This position is confusing, particularly to
conservatives. It could be interpreted as the president's effort to be engaged
in the international community, but not bound by it.

The United States cannot build new walls of isolation or withdraw from the
international community. The opposite must happen; the United States should
reach out to other nations and offer a hand of friendship to all nations that
share our values of freedom, individual rights and representative government.
The United Nations is not needed for this outreach. The United Nations is not
needed at all.

Why not get rid of it?

The new Congress that convenes in January could adopt Rep. Ron Paul's proposal
to completely withdraw from the U.N. Every year this bill has been introduced,
it has received more and more votes. The U.N.'s refusal to cooperate with
congressional investigations of the oil-for-food program could inspire
sufficient wrath in Congress to finally authorize withdrawal from the U.N.

Congress could stop short of withdrawal and stop all funding of the U.N.,
pending a congressional review. Each U.N. agency should be reviewed for
relevance and benefit before receiving U.S. funding. Many, if not all, U.N.
agencies would find it difficult to demonstrate a benefit to the U.S.

Should these U.N. agencies be subjected to a congressional review, what would
quickly become apparent is the presence of a comprehensive agenda. While each
U.N. agency is responsible for implementing specific programs within its
particular jurisdiction, each program and every agency is working from the same
playbook – toward a comprehensive agenda.

The ultimate goal of the agenda is to transform the system of governance for
the entire world, regardless of the type of government in any nation. The new
system of governance is best described as "Administrative Governance." In this
system, public policy is made by professionals, with input from the people only
through approved and duly accredited non-government organizations.

Public policy is then "administered" by participating governments –
regardless of the type of government – through treaties and agreements
arranged and enforced by the U.N. Implementation of public policy is policed by
the same NGOs that helped shape the policies.

The United Nations then becomes the supreme policy-making body. Each
participating nation – by treaty or agreement – becomes an administrative
unit. In the United States, each state becomes an administrative unit of the
federal government, and each local government becomes an administrative unit of
the state.

This new system of governance has arrived and is known as Agenda 21 – the
rulebook for sustainable development. There are no black helicopters or
blue-helmeted troops. But the agenda is real, just the same.

The U.N.'s agenda and its corruption provide ample reasons for the United
States to withdraw from this institution. Withdrawal should be a priority for
the new Congress.


Henry Lamb is the executive vice president of the Environmental Conservation
Organization and chairman of Sovereignty International.