The Pathetic and Repulsive Thought of the United Nations

By admin On Feb 10, 2024

The Pathetic and Repulsive Thought of the United Nations – American Thinker

February 10, 2024

Section 52 of the 91 sections of the U.N.’s Agenda 2030 global takeover plan begins, “‘We the Peoples’ are the celebrated opening words of the U.N. Charter. It is ‘We the Peoples’ who are embarking today on the road to 2030.”

‘); googletag.cmd.push(function () { googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-1609268089992-0’); }); document.write(”); googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.pubads().addEventListener(‘slotRenderEnded’, function(event) { if (event.slot.getSlotElementId() == “div-hre-Americanthinker—New-3028”) { googletag.display(“div-hre-Americanthinker—New-3028”); } }); }); }

However, Americans know that those opening words appeared well before the U.N. Charter, as they are (sort of) the opening words of the U.S. Constitution. When the U.N. was founded, the endearing word “rights” — so important in our republican form of government — was used repeatedly in its first documents. In the present lead document, the word “rights” is used only once, and here the opening phrase of our Constitution is blithely claimed as belonging to the U.N. Perhaps these egotists believe that their Charter is to be considered the beacon of light for the world’s nation-states.

The U.N. through its present Agenda hopes to implement a worldwide power-grab for itself over every sector of planetary life as it expressly takes it upon itself to provide for the meeting of worldwide “needs” and ”sustainability.” Our Constitution, based on a profound study of the history of government by many of the founding fathers of the USA, wanted to build a longstanding viable system based on rationality, biblical moral values, the need for stability, and the proper balance between local and federal needs and concerns. They sought to learn from the mistakes of the past, and they believed that power should be shared between private entities and the government. The idea of a federal monolith such as we have today was far from their minds, and even farther was the idea of an international monolith superseding even the monolith we have now.

The U.N., with its megalomaniacal vision claiming international authority over sovereign nation-states, then writes in the same Section 52, “Our journey will involve Governments as well as Parliaments, the U.N. system and other international institutions, local authorities, indigenous peoples, civil society, business and the private sector, the scientific and academic community — and [you the reader will not be surprised by the last item] all people.” Business? The private sector? Indigenous people — yes, friends, that means even the decisions of tribes in remote jungles. Local authorities? Could it be that even the placement of stop signs is on the horizon line of the U.N. vision? And why do they bother capitalizing the words “Governments” and “Parliaments”? This writer would suggest that this is their pea-brained attempt to show respect to the nation-states they are now ready to supersede in authority.

‘); googletag.cmd.push(function () { googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-1609270365559-0’); }); document.write(”); googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.pubads().addEventListener(‘slotRenderEnded’, function(event) { if (event.slot.getSlotElementId() == “div-hre-Americanthinker—New-3035”) { googletag.display(“div-hre-Americanthinker—New-3035”); } }); }); }

Cooperating with this vision of international governance, the Biden administration is now trying to manipulate the U.S. into signing onto a treaty that will expand the authority of the World Health Organization thereby to some degree encroach on our health policy rights. Further, there is the fundamental question of whether or not we can participate in such a “treaty” without a two-thirds vote of the U.S. Senate whereas the Biden administration position is that we can treat a sign-on as an agreement by piggy-backing the agreement onto previous treaties that were already ratified by the Senate. This is not unlike the Iran Agreement, signed in 2015 during the Obama administration. It actually should have gone to the Senate for a treaty vote of two thirds, but through the efforts of Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), who downplayed the dangers of the deal, it was treated as an agreement and never came to a vote. This writer will forever wonder what kind of “deal” the Obama administration made with Corker to dilute Republican voting to require a two-thirds vote in order for the “deal” to pass.

In the next to last sentence of Section 52, the writers suddenly and unaccountably make an appeal to popular support as justifying the envisioned power-grab over the world. They state, “Millions have already engaged with, and will own, this Agenda.” “Millions have engaged with”? Has anyone in the world voted for this Agenda? How have they “engaged”? And millions “will own this Agenda”? This incredible rhetoric comes out of the blue and is not written elsewhere in the document. It is an injection of sophomoric fantasy — baseless, in fact, and useless in a policy paper that claims ultimate governmental authority. What if I suddenly said, “I am going to take control of the government of my city, and when I do, I will improve every lawn and garden in the city”? And then what if somebody said, “What if you are not elected to do this?,” and I in turn said, “I did not say ‘I am asking to be elected,’ but said ‘I am going to take control’”? In effect, that is what Agenda 2030 is retorting to any who might object to its positions and premises.

The last sentence of Section 52 must leave any American reader shaking his head. It reads, “It is an Agenda of the people, by the people, and for the people — and this, we believe, will ensure its success.” Here, the writers quote from the last sentence of Pres. Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. They are likening Agenda 2030 to the fight engaged in during our Civil War or the exalted vision on which the USA is based. No one has fought and died for Agenda 2030. Or perhaps they are remotely hinting that many will die if Agenda 2030 is not implemented? Or perhaps it is nonsense that was composed by someone at the U.N. who was high on some substance and just liked the sound of the words? At the risk of being accused of hyperbole, Lincoln’s quoted phrase has more substance to it than this entire 2030 document.

Section 52 in so many ways reflects the bizarre and useless mindset behind Agenda 2030. It takes timeless phrases out of context. It shares a vision of authority and power the U.N. does not legitimately possess, and by its distortions and stupidity positions Agenda 2030 as one of the most repulsive documents of all time.