The Beast on the East River
By Bill Steigerwald
December 02, 2006
These days nobody but rock stars, actors and grade school kids
still seem to love, trust or have much confidence in the United
Nations. And Nathan Tabor, a conservative columnist, political
activist and founder of the Web site TheConservativeVoice.com,
can tell you more than a few good reasons why. The title of his
new book, "The Beast on the East River: The U.N. Threat
to America's Sovereignty and Security," gives away his major
theme. I talked to him by telephone on Tuesday from his home
near Winston-Salem, N.C.:
Q: First we should get the
nice stuff out of the way: What's the best thing the United Nations
does for the United States and the world?
A: Very little. But of course the plans to eradicate world poverty,
world hunger, stopping the spread of AIDS and stopping the genocide
that's taking place in Third-World countries are all good objectives
to have in place.
Q: Are any of these lofty goals
A: In my opinion, no, because you have the oil-for-food scandal.
You have reports of molestation and rape in Congo, Somalia and
other places. And on the world peacekeeping efforts in Darfur,
they are begging and pleading with the United Nations to come
in and help and basically getting nowhere.
Q: Everyone is supposed to
love the U.N. We're still taught that it's a wonderful global
association of governments that's designed to bring the benefits
of international law, international security, economic development
and social equality to the whole world. Does it really?
A: In 1945, the U.N. was ratified as this world organization
to help protect the sovereignty of nations, but at the same time
be able to bring people to the table to discuss the issues. But,
over the last 30 years, it has turned into an organization that
wants full taxing authority, wants full court authority and wants
full military authority. They've gone from protecting the sovereignty
of nations to wanting to undermine, erode and basically take
Q: We've heard all these criticisms
about the U.N. -- about the bureaucracy, the corruption, the
anti-Semitism, about its tenderhearted attitude toward terrorists
and the creeps who run hellholes like China or Sudan. But what
is its worst sin?
A: I would say the worst sin of the United Nations is its education
program. It was set up by Sir John Huxley, a Marxist sympathizer
who stated that there were no universal moral absolutes. This
is a verbatim quote: "As long as the child breathes the
poisoned air of nationalism, education and world-mindedness can
produce only rather precarious results. As we have pointed out,
it is frequently the family that infects the child with extreme
Q: Is the U.N. succeeding in
this devious mission?
A: I would say overall in the United States, yes. Pick up your
child's history book or social studies book and look: Are they
teaching the Constitution? Are they teaching the Bill of Rights?
Are they teaching about the Founding Fathers? Or are they teaching
that Thomas Jefferson was a deist? That the Constitution is not
a living document; that it only served its purpose 200 years
ago and we all need to be looking at becoming part of this global
Ronald Reagan got us out of UNESCO. George W. Bush put us back
into it because he said it had reformed its "millennium
development goals." The eighth purpose in the millennium
development goals is to advance a global partnership for development.
"No Child Left Behind" was a U.N. program adopted by
Ted Kennedy and put into place by George W. Bush. That was a
liberal Democrat plan and Bush adapted it and pushed it through.
It's teaching this stuff about being part of a global community
-- which sounds good on paper: "Oh, everybody love everybody
and everybody get along and everybody be peaceful." I have
no problem with that. What I have a problem with is not teaching
the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Q: If you found yourself sitting
next to a member of The New York Times editorial page on a plane,
how would you prove to that person that the United Nations was,
as you say in your book, set up "to deliberately usurp national
A: One of the most shocking and interesting examples out there
is the military. I would say to The New York Times editor, "Look,
in 1995, then-President Bill Clinton signed Presidential Directives
13 and 25. At the time they were secret documents, but now it
is all public history in the Library of Congress. These directives
essentially put loopholes all through the Constitution to allow
U.S. soldiers to be under the control of U.N. generals. Article
II, Section 2, of the United States Constitution says the president,
the commander in chief, is to be over all the Army and Navy.
Until you amend the Constitution, what Bill Clinton did -- and
which is currently still in place -- is both illegal and unconstitutional."
Another example that would be shocking is world heritage sites.
The Statue of Liberty, Yellowstone National Park, the Great Smoky
Mountains, the Liberty Bell, Mt. Vernon are all under control
of the United Nations.
Q: We hear about this all the
time on the right-wing talk shows -- that the U.N. is taking
over the national parks. How would you prove that to someone?
A: I would direct them, hopefully, to buy my book. But if not,
go to Google and search "world heritage sites." This
was a treaty in 1972. It was UNESCO's Convention Concerning the
Protection of the World Culture and National Heritage. This was
ratified by the United States. Currently, there are 812 properties
in 137 nations. This is what it says on its Web site: "World
heritage sites belong to all the peoples of the world, irrespective
of the territory on which they are located."
Q: There's nothing that has
been implemented? No U.N. blue helmets at Yellowstone?
A: No, not yet. But if you go to Yellowstone there are plaques
that say this is a world heritage site designated by the United
Nations. But there is an example of this. In 1995, then-President
Bill Clinton got the U.N. to declare the Yellowstone Park a "world
heritage site in danger." That gave them the so-called "international
obligation" to close down a proposed gold mine about to
begin operation on private property three miles away -- the Crown
Butte Mines. They closed those mines. They were never allowed
to start operations on that.
Q: How well is the United States
doing at resisting or thwarting this U.N. power grab?
A: Right now I would say it is kind of 50-50. Bush puts us back
into the global education agenda but he takes us out of the international
criminal court, which Bill Clinton put us into. The international
criminal court is part of this organization that is getting ready
to bring Donald Rumsfeld up on war crime charges in Germany.
This vast police organization is going to have this unbelievable
authority with no distinction between who or what it wants to
prosecute. Bush has been good at fighting the U.N.'s agenda to
try to get gun registrations across the United States. He's been
good at fighting the Law of the Sea Treaty. John Bolton has been
the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. But now with the Democrats taking
over control of Congress, it's almost assured that John Bolton
is not going to be ambassador come January.
Q: So what should we do with
the United Nations beast?
A: I was just on the Glenn Beck radio program this morning, and
he had the idea that we should put everyone in a boat and ship
them back. I think we should hook a tug boat up to Turtle Bay,
to the building, and just pull it.
In all seriousness, I think we need to elect officials who believe
in the sovereignty of the United States, who believe in the Constitution
and the Bill of Rights. The second thing is that people just
need to become educated on what's taking place in the U.N. and
what its true agenda is.
Bill Steigerwald is
a columnist at the Pittsburgh Tribune- Review.
©Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, All Rights Reserved.
Distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons, Inc. to subscribers
E-mail Bill at email@example.com
Publish A Letter on SitNews Read Letters/Opinions
A Letter to the Editor
Stories In The News