Frederick R. Smith Speaks: UN-American United Nations

Frederick R Smith has moved to Frederick R. Smith Speaks (substack.com)

Foreword

Alternate communication such as the Internet, books, and talk radio are excellent sources of information about the real agenda of the United Nations (U.N.). However, facts compel this author to provide readers of the Frederick R. Smith Speaks blog with his perspective on this sinister organization. To begin, it is important to note that the U.N. is a powerful network of elite people from around the world with interests in all aspects of civilization.

A Brief Timeline; The Early Years

On June 26, 1945, the founding conference of the U.N. occurred in San Francisco. The secretary-general of this conference was the notorious U.S. State Department official Alger Hiss. Others who served along with Hiss and later found to be Communists were Noel Field, Harold Glasser, Irving Kaplan, Nathan Gregory Silvermaster, Victor Perlo, Henry Julian Wadley, and Harry Dexter White. As the acting secretary-general, Hiss was the chief planner and executive of the conference. As far back as 1939, the FBI had presented solid evidence concerning Hiss’s Communist activities. The mainstream disregarded the FBI warnings but in 1950 Hiss faced conviction for lying under oath because of a Grand Jury that questioned his spying activities. While the statute of limitations had run out on the spying charges, Hiss did serve 44 months for perjury.

The 1960 “Peace Force” rollout brigade for the U.N. was its action against the people of Katanga, a province of Belgian Congo. Today, this province is a part of Zaire. Katanga did not want any part of the violent Communist revolution that was occurring elsewhere in the nation and it declared independence. “I am seceding from chaos” declared president Tshombe who was a constitutional free enterprise advocate. The U.S. State Department and the Kremlin did not tolerate this “colonialism.” So, the U.N. got the resources to attack Katanga, never mind the violence and bloody tribal warfare in the rest of the Congo. On July 14, 1960, the U.N. got the green light to send troops to the Congo – read Katanga. Forty-six doctors in Elizabethville (Belgian, Hungarian, Spanish, and Brazilian) issued a joint report detailing U.N. atrocities against innocent civilians. In addition to bombing schools, hospitals, and churches, U.N. troops machine-gunned civilians and Red Cross workers who were helping the Katangeze. Can’t find this info in history books or the U.N.’s own propaganda.

In 1961, the State Department hired the Institute for Defense Analysis to prepare a study on how disarmament would lead to world government. Later in 1962, Memorandum No. 7, “A World Effectively Controlled By the United Nations,” was published. The opening summary of this document states:

“A world effectively controlled by the United Nations in which ‘world government’ would come about through the establishment of supranational institutions, characterized by mandatory universal membership and some ability to employ physical force. Effective control would thus entail a preponderance of political power in the hands of a supranational organization… the present U.N. Charter could theoretically be revised in order to erect such an organization equal to the task envisaged, thereby codifying a radical rearrangement of power in the world.”

In 1964, the Institute for Defense Analysis for the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency produced a report called “Project Phoenix.” The project’s cornerstone was the comfortable merger between the United States and the Soviet Union. Naturally, the U.N. was to have a key role in this wonderful project. The news of President Bush “partnering” with Putin sends chills down my spine.

In 1965, the Pope visited the U.N., and the following text about this trip is from Malachi Martin in his book The Final Conclave, 1978, page 21 (emphasis added):

October 4, 1965, Paul’s Alitalia Flight #2800 touched down at Kennedy International Airport carrying Pope Paul 6, seven Cardinals, ten Vatican aides, sixty newsmen, commentators, light and sound technicians, and 200,000 covers bearing new Vatican commemorative stamps. Paul motorcaded at about 12 m.p.h. in a black, bubble-topped, flag-flying, fluorescent-lighted, leather-upholstered, seven-passenger, 1964 Lincoln convertible. ….Pope Paul proceeded to the United Nations. That was the reason for his pilgrimage. “It offers the occasion to further the cause of peace, so close to Our heart, and at the same time to promote a greater understanding among the nations of the world,” Paul had written to U Thant on March 1, 1965. “It would,” U Thant replied to Paul on April 16, 1965, “give a new and vigorous impetus to endeavors of men of good will everywhere to safeguard and strengthen world peace . . bringing humanity closer to the fulfillment of its legitimate aspirations.” ….U Thant greeted Paul at 3:13 in the afternoon that day in October 1965. He led Paul first to the Meditation Room: a windowless, unfurnished, trapezoidal chamber, 30 by 18 feet, its symmetrical walls blank but for a fresco by Swedish artist Bo Beskow, depicting geometric patterns in blue, yellow, gray, brown, white. In the center of the room, a waist-high solid block of stone and iron ore. The only illumination, a shaft of dim, yellow light striking the shimmering surface of rock.

U.N. — constitutional

The UNcrats claim “constitutional limits” for the U.N. system to make sure that the people would remain free. The sovereignty issue aside, it is a known fact that when a government grows beyond the true needs, the more oppressive it becomes. James Madison, perhaps the greatest political thinker in the history of our country, said the following on June 16, 1788, “I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”

There are a copious number of written examples of the UNcrats touting their love for world government (read exceptionally large government). Strobe Talbott, who was Bill Clinton’s Deputy Secretary of State, proclaimed in Time Magazine on July 20, 1992, that the global government he envisions “…. is not an all-powerful Leviathan or centralized superstate, but a federation, a union of separate states that allocate certain powers to a central government while retaining many others or themselves.” I believe if Madison was alive today, he would be aghast to see how our federal government has taken over so many of those tasks that in the past the states or the people themselves undertook. To suppose that any “brakes” placed on the U.N. by themselves would be adhered to is a dangerous thought process.

It is truly sickening to hear the pro-U.N. crowd say that this global monster is an international version of American ideals. A serious study reveals that its founders and the U.N. charter are indeed anything but American. It promotes phony “democracy” around the world while at the same time not one of its officials gets a democratic vote to their U.N. post. The 185 national delegates to the General Assembly only consider, discuss, advise, or make suggestions to the thirteen members of the Security Council. So, there are absolutely no checks, balances, or separation of powers. Its so-called separation of powers is an illusion. They tout the General Assembly and the Security Council as symbolic entities like our House and Senate. It tries to say that the Secretary-General is like our President and the International Criminal Court (ICC) is similar to the Judiciary.

Following September 11, 2001, the United States did not go to the U.N. General Assembly to ask permission to respond. We sent our military to Afghanistan. In contrast to the Gulf War, we ran under a U.N. resolution. The U.N. stopped us from going into Baghdad to finish the job of muzzling Saddam Hussein and his gang of thugs. After Iraq’s failed invasion of Kuwait, the U.N. withdrew its inspection teams searching for weapons of mass destruction. Why? Iraq said so. This upsets few except for those who call for the complete withdrawal from the U.N. The corruption and waste alone justify goodbye. More importantly and logically it is important to consider the overarching goal of the U.N. — world government. Those who have no clue what the U.N. really is, which is the vast majority, or those who promote it, will use the mantra “extreme right-wingers” to denounce those who speak the truth.

Democracy at the U.N. has an entirely different meaning from what this global multi-headed hydra monster touts. What they really mean is that the government has decided to allow only certain individuals to take part in selected “negotiations” relating to a policy or international law. It only allows those individuals known to be in support of the U.N.’s position to have clout. Specifically, individuals represented by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) who support its claims get comprehensive participation.

With respect to the ICC, enough counties have signed on to this U.N. treaty to make it “ratified” in the eyes of the UNcrats. So, our citizens may be subject to the ICC even though our Senate has never even considered it. Furthermore, are the UNcrats chosen by the people of their respective states (nations)? No. So, how can the U.N. even tout (really force-feed) democracy? Easy, democracy is a nice tool when a body is really a despotic machine. Even Marx and Lenin on occasion touted Democracy (the people had no choice but to vote for Communists).

One more note – in the Kyoto protocol, nations such as China would not be subject to the same carbon emissions thresholds as the U.S. Fair? One way around the “treaty problem” is to enter into agreements such as the North American Free Trade Agreement where it is possible to rule internationally by fiat. The keyword is agreement. Specifically, the President signed an agreement that is not subject to a vote in the Senate. If Joe gets to be the boss in 2021, look out!

U.N. Blue Should Be Green

There is a plethora of environmental initiatives spawned by the U.N. crowd. Surely, a clean environment is a good thing but rest assured that most solutions offered by the global green machine will lead to a loss of freedom. Remember, increased laws and regulations lead to more power in government (U.N.). The Kyoto Protocol and the International Criminal Court (ICC) are salient examples of the many treaties emanating from the U.N.

The U.S. government is adopting many of the U.N.’s policies. For example, the U.S. has signed Agenda 21 and is implementing the U.N.’s “Wildlands Project,” a plan to push millions of Americans off their land to make vast nature preserves. Under the U.N.’s 1988 Convention on Narcotics, The U.S. has adopted unconstitutional “asset forfeiture” laws that allow the seizure of property without due process. As much as I dislike illegal drugs, I, even more, deplore seizure of property without due process. What is next?

Senator Bob Smith from New Hampshire had introduced a bill called “American Land Sovereignty Protection Act” back in 2002 (2002 S 2575). This legislation, which has not passed, would require the approval of Congress before any American land could be made part of an international land preserve. Examples include the U.N. Biosphere Program and the World Heritage Program. Smith said, “The United States should not participate in these programs without assurances that American sovereignty and private rights are protected. I have been deeply concerned with the erosion of U.S. sovereignty by various international agreements for some time and have grave concerns with any action by the United Nations, or any other body that would infringe upon private property rights.” As usual, the establishment did not make a news item out of this. Silence is a big indicator where the establishment sits on this and other issues.

U.N. — equal

Currently, there are 330 million people in the USA, and we have just one vote in the U.N. General Assembly. Currently, there are 192 other members of which 130 have less than 13 million people (less than Florida). All nations have an equal vote. Obviously, the U.N. structure cares not for proportional representation. What is even more irritating is the fact that there are 31 nations in the General Assembly (remember equal votes) that have less than 500,000 people. Wyoming has more people. These nations have the same vote as the US, China, India, Russia, Great Britain Japan. Further, fourteen nations with less than 100,000 people have a vote equal to ours. They include Tuvalu (10,836), San Marino (26,937), and Liechtenstein (31,130).

In its charter, the U.N. proclaims to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war . . . to practice tolerance and live together in peace as good neighbors, to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security.” Since its start, has there been a reduction in the number of wars and conflicts around the world? No, as there are a copious number of historical facts that show the opposite. Furthermore, it can be said without question that this “international organization,” which is supposed to be an instrument of peace, has proven to be a threat to representative government and free-market initiatives. Today, the U.N. devotes itself to the global government that will end the sovereignty of all member and non-member countries through agreements, protocols, and treaties. Right now, the U.N. tinkers with all elements of life on earth from the environment to finance. It sure has found its greatest tool, the CCP Virus. The leaders of the world bow to the edicts of the U.N.’s very own W.H.O. Just by following the mainstream, one comes to the unequivocal realization that it wants global taxes, courts, and a peace force (military). Remember, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The U.N. has failed to bring about the peace that its willing partner the news media gush forth daily. So, what is extreme about telling the truth about this sham organization? Even outside the U.N. issue, I can say unequivocally that today the truth is not a popular concept. So, to shield the truth the pro-U.N. crowd will label those who wish to expose the U.N. as “extremists.” Specifically, it is not popular to say that the U.N. has failed in its peace mission and has made no impact on the abuse of human rights. To even mention the sovereignty issue brings on the xenophobia (fear of outsiders) mantra. The U.N. is a global malignancy undermining free societies everywhere. To put it in the words of one personal friend in the know — “It’s a sham organization.”

Somber Facts to Consider

The Charter of the United Nations is illegitimate, having never been lawfully ratified.
The Charter of the United Nations unlawfully transfers to the United Nations congressional and presidential war powers.
The United Nations General Assembly has no lawful power to require the United States to pay dues to the United Nations.
The Charter of the United Nations unconstitutionally usurps power reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment.

Words of the Wicked

“Treaties make international law and they also make domestic law. Under our Constitution, treaties become the supreme law of the land…. [T]reaty law can override the Constitution. Treaties, for example, …. can cut across the rights given the people by their constitutional Bill of Rights.” —Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, April 11, 1952

“We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time magazine ... whose directors have attended our meetings and respected promises of discretion for almost 40 years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to ... publicity during those years. But the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government.” — David Rockefeller, at a meeting of an elite group in Germany in 1991

“My hope is that this [Earth] charter will be a kind of Ten Commandments, a ‘Sermon on the Mount,’ that provides a guide for human behavior toward the environment in the next century and beyond.” —Mikhail Gorbachev interview with LA Times, 1997

“Syria won a seat on the U.N. Security Council ... with overwhelming global support and no opposition from the United States, despite its prominent position on the U.S. list of nations sponsoring terrorism.” — Associated Press October 8, 2001

“...nationhood as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority.” —Strobe Talbott Deputy Secretary of State, 1994-2001

“In order to stabilize world population, it is necessary to eliminate 350,000 people a day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it's just as bad not to say it.” — Oceanographer Jaques Cousteau Published in the Courier, a publication of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)

We strongly endorse community initiatives ... to encourage the disarming of civilians....” — Our Global Neighborhood, published in 1995 by the U.N.-funded Commission on Global Governance.

“I want to extend condolences to the families of those who died in the service of the United Nations.” — Al Gore, June 12, 1994, in reference to 15 U.S. Servicemen killed while enforcing a “no-fly-zone” in Iraq

“Private land ownership ... contributes to social injustice.... Public control of land use is therefore indispensable.” — United Nations “Habitat I” Conference Report, 1976

“Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali ... urged the [U.N.] to consider imposing its own taxes to become less dependent on the United States....”

“We must strengthen the United Nations as a first step toward a world government.” — Walter Cronkite

“With respect to U.S. policy, when it comes to our role as a member of the Security Council [of the United Nations] we obviously are bound by U.N. resolutions.” — Colin Powell, Secretary of State

Links About Globalization

In addition to the above books, the following Internet links are excellent sources about the true meaning of globalization.

The Bottom Line

Does the world need international law? Certainly. The core problem with the U.N. is the fact that it has grown into a bureaucracy with a penchant to rule the entire world. It needs abolishment and a new international law organization would be the ticket. This new organization’s only role would be to develop international laws only, along with a strict charter that forbids any intrusion into the sovereignty of nations.

Author and Publisher, Frederick R. Smith

Editor, Sean Tinney

Recommended Websites (bold is top shelf)

Recommend (serious) Humor

The Peoples Cube

Recommended Videos (all top shelf)

Frederick R. Smith Speaks

Saturday, November 28, 2020

UN-American United Nations