The Difference between the American form of government and the UN form.

The Difference between the American form of government and the UN form.

The American form of government is much different then the UN system.

The Founders of America stated what Governments were for

Declaration of Independence



IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed

http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/dec-indep.shtml





So the Founders of America were saying that Governments are set up to SERVE THE PEOPLE!



But look at what the UNITED NATIONS says

 

UN is about slavery and Genocide


UNESCO: Its Purpose and Its Philosophy by Sir Julian Huxley (Fabian Socialist and the first director-general of UNESCO, 1946-194 is published, in which he proclaims:

Source The Globalists page 91-92
Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D.

 

what abaout securtie counsel? the UN decision is on what this counsel decide t o do.

 

The difference between American government and the UN government?


The UN is not a bloody government....

 

The whole thing is a puppet organization, its serves the will of its masters, not the nations states. Its a show. Kind of like our government today, where boths sides are one and no choice is really ever offered. They have an Agenda. See Agenda 21

 

Well the "president" of our "Government" just went to war for the UN.

If the UN isn't a government it sure thinks it is and is acting like it

 

the members o f securitie counsel controlle the UN.

 

LOL, who told you that? The people on the security council have masters.
There are many levels to the UN, which set agenda. The security council is just a part.

So are you saying, it is good that the "president" of the United States, sent the people of the United States to war on behalf of the UN?

Who does the "President" work for? Does he work for the people of the US or the UN?

Obama has commited Treason in more ways than one.



Constitution be (*)(*)(*)(*)ed!!!: Obama To Head UN Security Council
In Violation of the Constitution: Obama Takes On Chairmanship of UN Security Council.

Right Soup
September 14, 2009

Some unprecedented news today, folks. Never in the history of the United Nations has a U.S. President taken the chairmanship of the powerful UN Security Council. Perhaps it is because of what could arguably be a Constitutional prohibition against doing so. To wit: Section 9 of the Constitution says...No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

Nonetheless, the rotating chairmanship of the council goes to the U.S. this month. The normal course of business would have U.S. Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice take the gavel. However, this time will be different. Constitution be (*)(*)(*)(*)ed, Barack Hussein Obama has decided to put HIMSELF in the drivers seat, and will preside over global nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament talks slated to begin September 24th. The Financial Times says:

Barack Obama will cement the new co-operative relationship between the US and the United Nations this month when he becomes the first American president to chair its 15-member Security Council.
http://www.sodahead.com/fun/constit...bama-to-head-un-security-council/blog-153691/

Obama to Chair UN Security Council

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/politics/NATLObama-to-Chair-UN-Security-Council-58022432.html


What kind of American are you that you would defend the United Nations? Or the illegal actions of our said president?

 

What are you? Perhaps your avatar shows us.

 

Your tired old john birch society bull(*)(*)(*)(*) aside, the UN isn't even a government.

 

But it move the USA to do its will.

What is it that can move us, but not be a government?

All its writings brags and boast say they are a gov.

What is it that does something but says it is not?

US children where moved by the US to die for the vision of the UN.

What is the UN?

 

No, it doesn't. The US ignores most of the UN "agenda", we only follow the parts we want to follow.

More John Birch Society nonsense.

 

LOL

WILL YOU LIVE UNDER "THE EARTH CHARTER"?

By Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D.
January 11, 2006
NewsWithViews.com

Most people knowledgeable about global events are aware of The Earth Charter. However, what most people do not know is that the principles of this charter could be enacted into the law under which we live! You think not? Most American mayors are members of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, which on June 25, 2001, passed a resolution stating that the conference "endorses the Earth Charter and commits the organization to the realization of its aim." This means YOUR mayor has probably agreed to this!

First, the charter indicates we would live under Socialism, as one of its goals is to "promote the equitable distribution of wealth within nations and among nations." Second, the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) would become law, as the charter "affirms gender equality and equity as prerequisites to sustainable development" (note the word "equity" rather than equal opportunity). Third, population control (eugencis and abortion) would be legal, as 2 charter goals state: "Adopt patterns of reproduction that safeguard Earth's regenerative capacities" and "Ensure universal access to health care that fosters reproductive health and responsible reproduction." Fourth, education (including values and school-to-work) would be internationalized, as the charter proposes to "integrate into formal education and life-long learning the knowledge, values, and skills needed for a sustainable way of life" and "recognize the importance of moral and spiritual education for sustainable living."

Continued http://www.newswithviews.com/Cuddy/dennis54.htm

 

Bump.........................

 

Just for the record, the UN is not out to establish the NWO.

 

It is key to it. It is setting the ground work for it right now under UN AGENDA 21. Agenda 21 sets the controls in place, in every aspect of our lives.
It could be the UN itself which is the final solution, or it could be another body created by the same powers behind the UN. It matters little, simple game of masks...for the same powers. These folks have been playing these games with the people of the world for a long time. And they always have the same tricks...but the people just don't seem to gain them in their minds. We aren't evil, they are, we don't think in wicked tricks and lies. They do, its just good business to them.

 

The United Nations on paper is supposed to serve as an international organization to maintain peace. However, in reality, the United Nations serves as an international forum for governments to discuss policy that governments can adopt. The Security Council and the General Assembly are the only committees that can create action plans, or resolutions. The UN's goal is to advise governments around the world on policies that it discusses. It does not force its policies onto nations.

 

United Nations form of government experience is 67 years.
American form of government experience is 236 years.
Any questions? Want to compare humanitarian efforts? How about financial support? How about capacity to enforce (rare) UN directives? How about the courage to hold nations to task regarding unjustified execution of innocent citizens by military fiat? Forget the intellectual sophistry! Until we can provide honest people that seriously want world peace, there WILL NOT be a successful "United Nations". What is in existence now is a meeting place to fight for political and/or religious world dominance. Any rational attempt to make sense of the current UN workings based on recent events, can only result shaking one's head in dismay. Until honest representatives from each member UN nation represented can come together for the world common good no real progress can be made. First order of business is to find a way to select representatives of good character. Real progress without this prerequisite will be painfully slow!

 

Good facts and wrong conclusion.

Actually the UN items 1, 2, and 3 reflect the same principles as those addressed by the Declaration of Independence. Government protects the Rights of the People but must, based upon pragmatic necessity. restrict our Freedom to Exercise our Inalienable Rights when that Freedom to Exercise our Inalienable Rights violates the Rights of Others. That is identical to the argument made in the Declaration of Independence where it states "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,".

I know that a lot of people have this irrational fear of the United Nations and they seek a means of justifying their irrational fear but the United Nations is not inherently evil. What is inherently evil in the United Nations is the use of the powers granted to the five premanent members that use their powers, predominately the veto power, to prevent the United Nations from acting against tyranny and conflict based upon the nefarious political agenda of the five permanent nations.

For example the problem of Israel's violations of international law and refusal to comply with UN Security Council resolutions because it is protected by the veto power of the United States is a serious problem with the "permanent nation' status as are the protections of North Korea by China. Israel and North Korea both represent rogue nations in the international community of nations and they've both been protected by the veto power of the permanent members of the United Nations.

 

I see what you're saying, but that bit about not being contrary to the purposes of the U.N. doesn't necessarily mean slavery. It depends on what the purposes of the U.N. are. If you're not allowed to exercise your freedoms in a way that makes slaves out of others, or in a manner that you know will bring some other great harm to people, then I'm okay with that.

 

I don't know about the U.N. in practice. It seems funny to me that the world's biggest arms dealers all get together to decide where there should be peace (and by logical extension, where there shouldn't be). But there's so much conspiracy theory going on around the U.N., I can't tell what's real and what isn't. That's hard enough in the U.S. and I at least understand the hats in the U.S. I'm not saying I approve of the hats, I just get where the hats come from, and I have no idea where the hats in the U.N. come from, so it's harder to judge the U.N. Y'know what I mean?

The idea of the U.N. seems like a good one.

 

In truth, except for the fact that the Declaration of Independence does not define a type of government whereas the UN Charter calls for "democracy" there is no actual conflict between the two.

Always remember that a "Right" doesn't actually exist if it violates the "Rights of Others" and the "Freedom to Exercise a Right" is always logically restricted to prevent the violations of the Rights of Others which is what the UN Charter addresses.

We can also note that the United Nations is not a goverment but instead it's a Treaty Organization that the members join voluntarily and that it's Charter (i.e. the actual treaty) prohibits intervensionism in the sovereign affairs of nations although members have violated their treaty obligations related to this treaty prohibition that they volunarily agreed to.

 

There have been two historical problems related to the United Nations.

First is the refusal of some nations to comply with the treaty obligations they voluntarily agreed to by becoming member's of the United Nations.

Next is the "veto" power of the five permanent members that they have used for nefarious political purposes to prevent action by the United Nations related to international conflicts and disputes that are a result of the refusal of member nations to comply with their treaty obligations under the UN Charter.

The principles and goals of the United Nations are indeed noble but the "politicans" as usual corrupt that which is noble based upon nefarious political agendas.