How the United Nations influences our decisions

By Cynthia A. Janak

In the last three weeks, there has been so much news that I did not know where to start so I researched a lot of it. I want to tell you what I found is that it all goes back to the United Nations. As I said in a previous column, that we are but a state of the United Nations. My research just further proves that point.

What I am going to do is pick out some of the more important news (in my opinion) and show you how the United Nations is influencing our policies. Believe it or not! The decision is up to you.

Let me start with the Social Security Issue. This has been going around for some time now and our Legislators need to get off their hinnies and make up their collective mind on what they want to do. We all know that the AARP is doing its best to influence the outcome of this legislation. Just a reminder as to why... they have the same plan on their website for their subscribers so they do not want the Plan to be implemented because then they would lose subscribers. They do not want to lose the market share to the government. Simple.

Now you are wondering how the United Nations is involved with this legislation. Back in October of 2000 there was a meeting at the headquarters in New York. The topic of the meeting was Policy Responses to Population Ageing and Population Decline. They had panel discussions, a review of the demographic trends and prospects, consequences and problems, policy options and research. This was a three-day meeting with representatives from around the world. The contents of all the reports would be well over 400 pages but I only printed what I felt were pertinent to the United States that was around 200+.

What I am going to reference first is a report by Judith Treas, University of California, Irvine. She feels that "because its (United States) immigration and fertility are comparatively high, it will not confront the population decline facing so many developed nations." She also references "the United States must deal with the succession of cohorts of uneven size." My question here is in the term she used "cohorts." I would like to know what her definition of cohorts is. In another place in her report, she references cohorts to mean the elderly born during the Depression. I guess to her the people that are retired or will retire are friends to some degree. Interesting.

It also stated that one-in-five new Americans are immigrants. I wonder if this figure comprises the illegals that cross the border every day. She believes that the immigration will offset the fact that "fertility" is down in the United States. Her only issue with this scenario is that the immigrants will eventually get old. Also, in this report she states that between 2000 and 2050, persons 65 years and older will increase from 12.5 to 21.7 percent of the U.S. population (United Nations, 2000b, p.132). She expects that Social Security will be tapped out by 2037 and she has three solutions to this problem. They are Cutting Benefits, Raising Taxes and Raising the retirement ages.

Where have we heard this before? I wonder, could it be in the Social Security reform discussions of the last several years. Sure sounds like it and Clinton and the Dems knew about this all along so why are they fighting it now. Is this called being two faced or flip-flopping?

Let me now take you to a report from Michael S. Teitelbaum. His contribution to this meeting was in the long-range demographics of this situation. His report is equally as interesting. He assumes that the level of undocumented migration (illegal aliens) from Mexico and Central America will not change. He feels that the flow of refugees... will increase until 2000 and then decline to 2020. He states that the Census Bureau assumes that migration to the U.S. would increase by nearly one-third... per year. What Teitelbaum sees is that this assumed increase is posited as a kind of balancing response to the projections. What this means is that these immigrants are to balance out the elderly population and support Social Security. That is my opinion.

My question for him is how are the illegal aliens going to support Social Security if the majority of them are paid cash under the table. What is wrong with this picture? Oh, I am forgetting, these figures are for the legal refugees that are coming into this country.

Here is just another piece of information for you. The United Nations immigration projection for the next 55 years (report dates 1995-2000) is for 41,800,000 and the United States immigration projections are for 50,460,000.

That is one heck of a lot of people that we will have to support. Where do these rum-dums figure we are going to come up with the jobs for these people? We do not have enough jobs for our own Americans. In fact, we are allowing American companies easy access to move operations to the overseas markets via the United Nations supported trade agreements that are to bolster the foreign economy (like India and China).

Did you know that every year the President has to report to the WTO/United Nations of our progress in promoting free trade around the world? He tells the WTO about FTAA, NAFTA, CAFTA, MEFTA, EAI, TIFA's, BIT's, AGOA and U.S.-SACU FTA. Robert F. Zoellick, United States Trade Representative, March 1, 2004 delivered one such report from the President to the WTO.

I call this alphabet soup. To me this means that more and more businesses are going to focus on the overseas market than what we have going on here. On the flip side, you will not see many foreign companies coming here to open up shop. They do not want to have to deal with the standard of living that we have here, for one. In addition, they do not want to deal with the standard of living that the labor unions have imposed on the businesses here. Because of this, we are going to be forced to rely on immigration and it does not seem to matter whether it is legal or not. This is just plainly and simply wrong.

You know what... India already has acquired the name of the IT center of the world and China is getting the reputation as the manufacturing center. Why do I see a problem with this? Do you see anything wrong with this?

The United Nations is involved in our lives more than you want to know. It has been a slow progression since Roosevelt and the New Deal. It has escalated since the Clinton years and the ball is rolling faster and faster down the slippery slope to oblivion.

It is because of the United Nations that the government (all inclusive) do not want us to close our borders. The United Nations feels that we need this immigration. We are just part of the OAS (Organization of the American States). We no longer have borders because of all the free trade agreements.

My opinion is that the United Nations wants to be mother and father to the world.

I have a file that is full of articles that were written about all the wonderful things that the border Minute Man project did. How the people that have property along the border finally felt safer. The traffic accidents because of UDA's (undocumented aliens) has gone down in these areas. Governor Schwrzenegger of California is praising the project in saying that the group's patrols against illegal immigrants have been effective.

Here is an except from the Tucson Weekly, January 8, 2004, "Wings Over the Border." Arizona Border Patrol, which is a private group, launched "Border Hawk" which is a UAV or drone. Needless to say the Army called them and expressed interest in the drone for border patrol. There have not been any follow-up reports if this technology is being used today.

The Yuma Sun talks about another group that is taking up the flag and patrolling the border. They are called the Yuma Patriots. They are patrolling a section of the Arizona border that is a hot spot for illegal entry. They are not concerned. They are patriots that feel that the United States should be safe.

What is not known here is that this is opening the doors for restrictions in this country. This is what the U.N. wants to happen. They want control. In a document CES/2003/33 page 6 states "As a result of declining mail response in the 1990 census, the U. S. Census Bureau has been concerned that individuals concerns for privacy may be playing an increasing role in their decision to provide information in our census and surveys." And "We have found that the majority of the U.S. population does not believe we keep their personal information confidential..." (Gates and Bolton, 1998) I wonder what gave them that idea. This was taken from a report to the U. N. on May 20th, 2003 to the Economic and Social Council.

Our borders cannot be closed to the illegal coming here because the studies show we need those people. That is why no one wants anything to do with that issue. The government has the U. N. mandated alphabet soup to deal with.

Look at what we have so far. We now have a national ID card that is going to have some kind of personal identifying information on it. I have not been able to find out what yet. If we just locked up our borders we would not have this issue. Question: How else is the U. N. going to know were we go and what we do? This ID card will be used to identify everything we do. It will take the place of the Census. Just watch. It is going to happen. I could put money on that one.

Wondering how this "National ID" legislation got through under the radar? Let me tell you how. Initially this legislation did not pass because some organizations felt that this was or could be an invasion of our privacy and they were right. With that, our wonderful representatives in Congress snuck this ID card into a spending bill for our military. If any of our legislators did not vote in favor of that bill, they would be labeled anti-American and so forth. My question is, "What happened to line item veto?" President Bush has not used it once during his term in office yet.

Oh, I almost forgot. I was told the other day that we now need passports to cross the borders to Canada and Mexico. Is this another means of controlling our movements. I wonder what alphabet soup will be used for the new SS?

Let's now look at the filibusters that have been going on as to the judicial nominees. This is just another method of trying to control our government by the Dems. The Dems have been in league with the U. N. since its inception (Roosevelt era). If you look at the policies of the United Nations, you will see that they are basically the same views as the Dems. The judicial nominees would actually give balance to the judicial branch and they, I hope, would uphold the Constitution and not allow some of the hogwash that is presently happening in the Judicial Branch. I do not want to see any more of our rights eroded away by the bunch that is in there presently.

Because of these liberal, egotistical, power hungry individuals, we have gun control where the law abiding citizen that has a gun is treated like some kind of criminal. They are on a registration list forever. This type of list was used in Europe to disarm the populace to gain control through force. Could or world it be used here?

We also have taken from us the right of the Christians to free speech in regards to quoting the Christian bible. You can read the Quran and other religious books but not anything that is Christian related. I call this discrimination. But, and it frightens me to think this way, isn't this similar to how the persecution of the Jews started? Could they be making Christians the enemy because the United States has the largest Christian population in the world. Could it be because we have moral values and believe in the freedom of religion? I wonder.

One last item for you. Everyone is talking about the military base closures and how it will save us money. I found a report called Restructuring and Reform: Business Development Opportunities in Military Industry Conversion to Civilian Markets. That was a mouth full. It was dated 1998. History question for you. Who was in office in 1998? You got the answer right, Clinton. You get a gold star.

I am going to give you two sentences from the forward of this document. Military industry restructuring and public sector reform are becoming ever more important endeavors, as countries continue to decrease their military budgets and reexamine the role of the state in the economy. ...The challenge posed to the world is to redeploy the human, financial and physical resources from military objectives to promote the sustainable development of all nations, while reforming the public sector.

In a report to the United Nations General Assembly on July 30, 2004, we detailed our expenditures for 2003. This is a mandate by the United Nations to its member states.

The U. N. even has training programs, workshops, seminars and meetings in regards to this around the world. The main thought of these meetings is military industry restructuring and public sector reform. You know, I am sorry, but I believe that we need to have the best military in the world. I do not want the United Nations decide how, when, where and how big our military should be. We became the greatest nation in the world because we took the initiative to protect our people by having the biggest and the best military. The idea of the United Nations controlling our military capabilities makes me sick.

The list goes on and the more issues that arise in the media the more I think we need to get back to what our founding fathers wanted for this country. We need to get back to the Constitution. We need a moratorium as to the passing of any more laws and review what we have on the books now. We need to review and repeal any laws or parts of laws that are not in line with the fundamentals of our Bill of Rights and our Constitution.

It states in our Declaration of Independence that "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. ..."

One last word. When you hear or read some news that sounds a little off base look at who presented the news and who or what it is in regards to. You need to do your research as I do to become informed of the truths.

© Cynthia A. Janak