53percenter's Blog

The UN has morphed from being an organization for greater world cooperation to a body strategizing for world governance. And shockingly, too many Americans are unwittingly embracing those strategies. There is a fifth column in our country that is committed to subverting our sovereignty.  However, President Donald Trump came out foursquare in defense of American sovereignty when he withdrew from the Paris Climate Accords. His announcement of that withdrawal was made in the Rose Garden almost two years ago. 

Although President Ronald Reagan’s comments often expressed love for and pride in America, the word “sovereignty” did not leap off his speech notes. Then, in post-Reagan years, conservatives were labeled American exceptionalists.  But going to the term sovereignty is more palatable and more accurate than exceptionalism.  Sovereignty draws attention more to the distinct right of a people to write its own laws, define and defend its borders, and to maintain its traditions without outside interference.  Exceptionalism suggests a superiority that some people (not this writer) find offensive.  Sovereignty draws our minds back to the aftermath of WWI when Woodrow Wilson’s League of Nations was rejected because the League was seen as an actual and potential infringement on American sovereignty. Whether we are exceptional or not (and I believe we are), our political sovereignty is a jewel that must not be diluted by global initiatives.

Recently, our President has also withdrawn the U.S. signature on the UN Arms Trade Treaty, and he has sent a letter to the U.S. Senate recommending that this pact not be considered for a vote by the Senate.  Again, the premise for formal withdrawal is the threat perceived by the President to U.S. sovereignty.

Meanwhile, Trump’s political opposition has bitterly and unconscionably turned against his emphasis on sovereignty by characterizing it first as “nationalism,” and then as “white nationalism,” and ultimately as “Hiterlian” or “Nazi-style nationalism.”  For any reasonable person who studied history in high school and in college, it is obvious that there are good nationalisms and bad nationalisms. Our Judeo-Christian ethical values, legal system, spiritual foundation, prosperity, emphasis upon rights, respect for the individual, private ownership of property, belief in autonomy and personal responsibility, and commitment to “liberty and justice for all” (always a work in progress) make for a unique and successful nation-state worthy of upholding and defending.

However, “Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” was adopted by the United Nations during the Obama Presidency (2015), and thus far has not met with any unusual objections from the Trump administration even though it poses a threat to our sovereignty. 

Although the original U.N. “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” (1948) placed its greatest emphasis upon rights, that document is now supplemented and superseded by Agenda 2030 which only mentions “rights” one time in Article 19.  In the other 90 articles of this latest document, the word “rights” does not appear.  Instead, in its stream-of-consciousness, mellifluous writing style, it repeatedly refers to “needs” and “sustainable development” as the buzz words around which to justify governance on a global scale, interference with local laws and institutions, and the ideals of a world economy that is anything but free. 

For example, consider Article 9, which states: “We envisage a world in which every country enjoys sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth and decent work for all. A world in which consumption and production patterns and use of all natural resources — from air to land, from rivers, lakes and aquifers to oceans and seas — are sustainable.”  Agenda 2030 is driven by the fear that in our race for productivity, “decent work,” and growth we will destroy our planet.  This “vision” is of a planet that cannot sustain itself because of the contamination of the planet occasioned by the intense productivity of major developed countries. 

But is there not a kind of schizophrenia built into the above conception?  On the one hand, the most developed countries have an obligation not to use up the planet’s resources and not to use resources in a way that they destroy the planet; but on the other hand, the poorer and poorest of countries will need to become more productive and need to get even more cash and more resources from the wealthier countries at the same time as those countries are presumably downsizing to “protect” the world. 

How can richer countries successfully help poorer countries unless they increase their productivity and thus their wealth?  And how can poor countries without flush toilets, regular brushing of teeth, a consistent, disciplined work ethic, viable banking and governmental institutions, and leadership with integrity, hope to increase their wealth? 

A pastor I know worked for the civil service in India — but is now happily a U.S. citizen — and was relentlessly mocked by his coworkers in India because he did not take bribes.  Yet, because he had left Hinduism for Christianity, he understood the true significance of the commandment “Thou shalt not steal.”  An important work, Tropical Gangsters: One Man’s Experience With Development And Decadence In Deepest Africa, details the problems the International Monetary Fund faces with giving money to countries where ethical standards and accounting standards are severely lacking. 

We might also want to look at Article 3 of Agenda 2030 which states, “We resolve, between now and 2030… to protect human rights and promote gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls; and to ensure the lasting protection of the planet and its natural resources.”  How does the U.N. even begin to see itself as qualified to bring the above goals into being?  Most of the societies in the U.N. are unjust and noninclusive.  And what about gender equality?  Vast numbers of countries — especially the Sharia-dominant Muslim countries — reject “gender equality and the empowerment of women.”

It is interesting to note that UN peacekeepers, referred to as “Blue Helmets,” have a Ten Point Code of Conduct pertaining to their presence in a country.  None of the points pertains to fighting, surrendering, or becoming a prisoner.  None refers to honor or duty.  In light of the U.N.’s gender equality reference in Article 3, this writer could only shake his head when reading rule #4 which states, “Do not indulge in immoral acts of sexual physical or psychological abuse or exploitation of the local population or United Nations staff, especially women and children.”  In other words, do not rape or torture any women or children. Does this “rule” show commitment to gender equality or does it show the crude level at which the peacekeepers are operating? The U.S. Military Code of Conduct has only six articles.  Article VI is particularly instructive for revealing who is more willing to respect women and children abroad, a U.S. soldier or a U.N. “Blue Helmet.” Article VI states, “I will never forget that I am an American, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free.  I will trust in my God and in the United States of America.”

The UN has morphed from being an organization for greater world cooperation to a body strategizing for world governance. And shockingly, too many Americans are unwittingly embracing those strategies. There is a fifth column in our country that is committed to subverting our sovereignty.  However, President Donald Trump came out foursquare in defense of American sovereignty when he withdrew from the Paris Climate Accords. His announcement of that withdrawal was made in the Rose Garden almost two years ago. 

Although President Ronald Reagan’s comments often expressed love for and pride in America, the word “sovereignty” did not leap off his speech notes. Then, in post-Reagan years, conservatives were labeled American exceptionalists.  But going to the term sovereignty is more palatable and more accurate than exceptionalism.  Sovereignty draws attention more to the distinct right of a people to write its own laws, define and defend its borders, and to maintain its traditions without outside interference.  Exceptionalism suggests a superiority that some people (not this writer) find offensive.  Sovereignty draws our minds back to the aftermath of WWI when Woodrow Wilson’s League of Nations was rejected because the League was seen as an actual and potential infringement on American sovereignty. Whether we are exceptional or not (and I believe we are), our political sovereignty is a jewel that must not be diluted by global initiatives.

Recently, our President has also withdrawn the U.S. signature on the UN Arms Trade Treaty, and he has sent a letter to the U.S. Senate recommending that this pact not be considered for a vote by the Senate.  Again, the premise for formal withdrawal is the threat perceived by the President to U.S. sovereignty.

Meanwhile, Trump’s political opposition has bitterly and unconscionably turned against his emphasis on sovereignty by characterizing it first as “nationalism,” and then as “white nationalism,” and ultimately as “Hiterlian” or “Nazi-style nationalism.”  For any reasonable person who studied history in high school and in college, it is obvious that there are good nationalisms and bad nationalisms. Our Judeo-Christian ethical values, legal system, spiritual foundation, prosperity, emphasis upon rights, respect for the individual, private ownership of property, belief in autonomy and personal responsibility, and commitment to “liberty and justice for all” (always a work in progress) make for a unique and successful nation-state worthy of upholding and defending.

However, “Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” was adopted by the United Nations during the Obama Presidency (2015), and thus far has not met with any unusual objections from the Trump administration even though it poses a threat to our sovereignty. 

Although the original U.N. “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” (1948) placed its greatest emphasis upon rights, that document is now supplemented and superseded by Agenda 2030 which only mentions “rights” one time in Article 19.  In the other 90 articles of this latest document, the word “rights” does not appear.  Instead, in its stream-of-consciousness, mellifluous writing style, it repeatedly refers to “needs” and “sustainable development” as the buzz words around which to justify governance on a global scale, interference with local laws and institutions, and the ideals of a world economy that is anything but free. 

For example, consider Article 9, which states: “We envisage a world in which every country enjoys sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth and decent work for all. A world in which consumption and production patterns and use of all natural resources — from air to land, from rivers, lakes and aquifers to oceans and seas — are sustainable.”  Agenda 2030 is driven by the fear that in our race for productivity, “decent work,” and growth we will destroy our planet.  This “vision” is of a planet that cannot sustain itself because of the contamination of the planet occasioned by the intense productivity of major developed countries. 

But is there not a kind of schizophrenia built into the above conception?  On the one hand, the most developed countries have an obligation not to use up the planet’s resources and not to use resources in a way that they destroy the planet; but on the other hand, the poorer and poorest of countries will need to become more productive and need to get even more cash and more resources from the wealthier countries at the same time as those countries are presumably downsizing to “protect” the world. 

How can richer countries successfully help poorer countries unless they increase their productivity and thus their wealth?  And how can poor countries without flush toilets, regular brushing of teeth, a consistent, disciplined work ethic, viable banking and governmental institutions, and leadership with integrity, hope to increase their wealth? 

A pastor I know worked for the civil service in India — but is now happily a U.S. citizen — and was relentlessly mocked by his coworkers in India because he did not take bribes.  Yet, because he had left Hinduism for Christianity, he understood the true significance of the commandment “Thou shalt not steal.”  An important work, Tropical Gangsters: One Man’s Experience With Development And Decadence In Deepest Africa, details the problems the International Monetary Fund faces with giving money to countries where ethical standards and accounting standards are severely lacking. 

We might also want to look at Article 3 of Agenda 2030 which states, “We resolve, between now and 2030… to protect human rights and promote gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls; and to ensure the lasting protection of the planet and its natural resources.”  How does the U.N. even begin to see itself as qualified to bring the above goals into being?  Most of the societies in the U.N. are unjust and noninclusive.  And what about gender equality?  Vast numbers of countries — especially the Sharia-dominant Muslim countries — reject “gender equality and the empowerment of women.”

It is interesting to note that UN peacekeepers, referred to as “Blue Helmets,” have a Ten Point Code of Conduct pertaining to their presence in a country.  None of the points pertains to fighting, surrendering, or becoming a prisoner.  None refers to honor or duty.  In light of the U.N.’s gender equality reference in Article 3, this writer could only shake his head when reading rule #4 which states, “Do not indulge in immoral acts of sexual physical or psychological abuse or exploitation of the local population or United Nations staff, especially women and children.”  In other words, do not rape or torture any women or children. Does this “rule” show commitment to gender equality or does it show the crude level at which the peacekeepers are operating? The U.S. Military Code of Conduct has only six articles.  Article VI is particularly instructive for revealing who is more willing to respect women and children abroad, a U.S. soldier or a U.N. “Blue Helmet.” Article VI states, “I will never forget that I am an American, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free.  I will trust in my God and in the United States of America.”