Politically Correct Problems with the United Nations

May 15, 2013 at 9:57 AM 6 comments

The United Nations has as one of its main purposes “To maintain international peace and security…”

If we can assess whether or not the UN has fulfilled its own stated missions based on its history since inception, we can unequivocally say that the UN has been a huge failure. Not only has it not adhered to its own purpose, but in many cases, it can be easily and clearly shown that it has actually allowed and even unofficially endorsed wholesale slaughters of innocent people. I realize this is a powerful charge, but facts are facts.

We need look no further than the individuals who have held the position of Secretary General of the UN and some of the things that happened in the world under their watch to determine the truthfulness of my statement above.

    • Alger Hiss – First Secretary General of UN in 1945. He turned out to be a communist spy, convicted of perjury and spent forty-four months in a federal penitentiary. He founded the United Nations.
    • Trygve Lie – Second Secretary General of UN, 1946 – 1953. Norwegian Socialist.
    • Dag Hammarskjold – Third Secretary General, 1953 – 1961. Socialist from Sweden.
    • U Thant – Fourth Secretary General, 1961 – 1972. Burmese Marxist.
    • Kurt Waldheim – Fifth Secretary General, 1972 – 1982. Nazi who yearned for one-world order.
    • Javier Perez de Cuellar – Sixth Secretary General, 1982 – 1991. Socialist.
    • Boutros Boutros-Ghali – Seventh Secretary General, 1991 – 1996. Socialist. Arab Socialist.
    • Kofi Annan – Eighth Secretary General, 1997 – 2006, Socialist.
    • Ban Ki-moon – Ninth Secretary General, 2007 – present. Socialist.

Aside from the fact that not one secretary-general has been a capitalist, it is very clear that under every one of them, atrocities occurred that could have been stopped. In many cases, communism moved ahead with no checks because that particular secretary-general did nothing to keep it from advancing.

In 1956, when the Soviet Union invaded Hungary, then secretary-general Dag Hammarskjold did absolutely nothing. When Katanga (in the Congo) attempted to gain its freedom from Communist rulers, this time, rather than doing nothing, Hammarskjold sided with the Communists in quelling the uprising, even sending UN troops to attack Katanga.

Secretary General U Thant praised Lenin “as a political leader whose ideas were reflected in the U.N. Charter.” [1] U Thant was unable to keep peace between Israel and Arabs (Six-Day War) and he failed to keep peace between Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia.

Secretary General Kurt Waldheim pushed for a one world government. Pol Pot had murdered millions and Waldheim’s UN did nothing to prevent or stop the massacres. In fact, he aided it by “sending UNICEF supplies to the Khmer Rouge” to help them in their massacre of “anti-Communist Cambodians.” [2]

Secretary General Javier Perez de Cuellar went out of his way to protect the Khmer Rouge. He also did nothing to stop Saddam Hussein’s murderous rampages.

Secretary General Boutros Boutros Ghali refused to help the Tutsis from being massacred by the Hutu. In fact, he sent (Kofi Annan, then UN Undersecretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations) to oversee the situation. Annan wound up telling the commander in charge (General Dallaire) to “stand down” and effectively abort any attempts to interfere between the Hutu and the Tutsis. 800,000 people were killed because of it.

There have been “food for oil” scandals, rape scandals, and more that are directly attributed to the UN and/or its “peacekeeping” forces. Ultimately, the more important the UN becomes, the less sovereignty member nations of the UN become.

The UN wants to accomplish a number of things. It wants an International Criminal Court established in The Hague. They would have the power to arrest and charge anyone in the world and even have the power to remove constitutional rights from Americans. In essence, the UN sees this criminal court as higher than America’s Constitution. America would lose her sovereignty to the UN.

The UN also wants to create the ability to tax internationally. This would mean that the UN would no longer need to rely so heavily on dues paid by individual nations and would have a constant source of income. Take note of how our Congress votes on these issues.

The Law of the Sea Treaty first popped up under Reagan and was rejected by our Senate. It came back in 2012 and was again defeated. Had it passed, it would have removed U.S. sovereignty or greatly reduced it because the UN would have controlled 70% of the earth’s surface.

The UN has also tried to implement the Small Arms Treaty, which to most people, seems innocuous, but nothing the UN does is innocuous. Eventually, had it passed our Senate, the UN could have changed it without gaining our Senate approval to make it illegal for Americans to own guns. The mode of change is built into the treaty and does not require approval from the US Senate once they approve it originally.

In the end, it appears that every “treaty” that the UN produces and wants member nations to sign onto, ultimately reduces or removes that nation’s individual sovereignty. America does not need the UN and without America providing up to 22% of the entire UN budget, the UN would not survive.

Why is the UN still here? Why is America still part of it, especially when it is clear that making and keeping peace is not something the UN actually does? The fact of the matter is that the UN may well be the global body through which the Antichrist rises. Certainly, it is clear that the UN’s goal is to move the world toward a one-world government with themselves as the head of it. It is needed by the global elite.

The UN isn’t going away and under Obama, it would seem that efforts continue to give America’s sovereignty to the UN. There’s really not a whole lot we can do about it except badger our senators to reject every UN treaty that comes their way.

The UN is not what it would like the world to believe. It is malevolent and nefarious. It’s goal is to reign supreme, ushering in a one-world government.

[1] B. Forrest Clayton, Suppressed History III, 2007, p.63

[2] Ibid, p. 65

Entry filed under: Life in America, Political Correctness, Politically Correct, Politics, Religious - Christian - Theology. Tags: , , .

Obama’s Mounting Troubles Common Core and Privacy Issues


  • 1. kochmachine  |  May 15, 2013 at 10:34 AM

    Dr. Fred, given your gift for writing, research and Biblical insight I’m surprised we haven’t heard your take on Common Core State Standards coming down the pike which will affect ALL education in America including private and home schoolers. I realize your friends at The Brenner Brief seem to have whitewashed it but there are some very serious and, considering the latest information-control issues with the current administration, nefarious collaborations within it. Do a search for P-20W SLDS for the infowar there. As to the UN connection it is very much imbedded into the “standards” coming for social studies. Here is a link to that:

    Click to access USP_EFS_standards_V3_11_10.pdf

    I would like to read your analysis on this.

    • 2. modres  |  May 15, 2013 at 10:49 AM

      I am still looking through things. The one glaring thing that I have come across is that the federal government is – once again – overreaching its boundaries by dictating to the states. At the same time, states are not obligated to do what the federal gov’t wants done here and if the states refuse, they do not get funding to implement it.

      I realize that people have some huge problems with it and as I say, I am still researching it. Thanks for the link to the Social Sciences PDF. I will continue to do research on it. At this point, I don’t feel I understand it enough based on simply studying the actual government documents.

      • 3. kochmachine  |  May 15, 2013 at 10:59 AM

        Understand. We are all trying to find out the facts which has not been very easy. Our local school board has been trying to do that but each meeting seems to just create more questions after hearing the same talking points from the same source none of which are definitive.
        Where can I send you some resource info that I have found to be credible?

      • 4. modres  |  May 15, 2013 at 11:09 AM

        Feel free to send anything to me at fred_deruvo@hotmail.com

        In the meantime, I will place up one brief article that deals with a very important issue that the Common Core appears to lack (among other things). My wife and I have had numerous discussions about Common Core (she is an educational consultant with over 20 years of actual classroom teaching in the special education area under her belt) and because of the tremendous amount of information out there, it has made it difficult for us to decide what it all means.

        We’ll keep researching and I hope to have some good articles up soon.

      • 5. Pam  |  May 15, 2013 at 11:26 AM

        From what we were told on Monday night, the school boards are the ones that voted to have cscope in the districts.From what we understand it is now under the control of the Superintends,and thanks for the links I will check them out

      • 6. modres  |  May 15, 2013 at 12:01 PM

        Yes, that makes sense. It is not mandatory that school districts adopt these programs. Each district must decide for themselves.

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 13,281 other followers

Our Books on Amazon

Study-Grow-Know Archives

Blog Stats

  • 1,003,659 hits

%d bloggers like this: