Jasper-Global-Tyranny-Step-By-Step-The-United-Nations-and-the ...

"politically irresistible."18 After the hearing, Sasser told an interviewer, "Our constituents are saying
that they have borne the burden as long as they intend to."19
Yes, the bill for the UN's blue helmet operations is escalating rapidly. "Yet," said the New York Times in
its "New World Army" editorial, "in hard cash terms, peacekeeping is a bargain.... Every war prevented
saves blood and treasure, expands markets and trade." Though such an argument has a certain simplistic
appeal, it breaks down rapidly under any close examination. And although the economic cost is a
legitimate concern, a far more serious matter is the looming UN military threat to U.S. sovereignty. As
the Times itself pointed out: "Now the peacekeepers are doing more than monitoring truce lines. They
are becoming peacemakers, too. U.N. forces were asked to disarm guerrillas, conduct elections and
enforce human rights, first in Namibia, then in Cambodia and El Salvador."20
The UN itself is finding new opportunities right and left to justify expansion of its armed forces. "The
Security Council recently expanded the concept of threats to peace," the Times reported, "to include
economic, social and ecological instability."21 Talk about proliferation! This kind of assumed, openended
authority virtually guarantees unlimited interference by the United Nations in the domestic affairs
of sovereign states. And you can be sure that interference won't be directed primarily at stopping human
rights violations in repressive communist/socialist regimes or petty third world dictatorships. It will be
directed against what these internationalists consider the greatest threat to global peace and stability - the
United States of America.
Yes, America is the target. According to an Associated Press report appearing on March 12, 1992, "a
United Nations official said Wednesday ... that the United States is the greatest threat to the world's
ecological health." That official, Canadian Maurice F. Strong, who served as secretary-general of the
1992 UN Earth Summit, declared: "In effect, the United States is committing environmental aggression
against the rest of the world." He added: "At the environmental level, the United States is clearly the
greatest risk."22
This would not be the first or last time Strong and other UN envirocrats would storm against what they
consider the evils of U.S. consumption and production. It has become a standard theme at UN
environmental conferences and was the major message at the world body's 1992 Earth Summit in Brazil.
Judging from the vitriol these eco-globalists regularly throw at Americans, it's probably safe to assume
they would eagerly deploy the blue helmets (or as some advocate, environmental police in green
helmets) to close down much of the U.S.
Will UN "peacekeepers" be deployed against the U.S. to rectify economic, social, or ecological
"instabilities" determined by UN Marxists to be "threats to peace" America would never stand for it,
you say But the stage is already being set to render nations incapable of blocking such moves by the
UN.
Many of the UN's defenders claim that the organization can only send in its peacekeeping forces if they
are officially invited. Yet, President Bush has already put the United States on record officially favoring
UN action within the borders of sovereign nations. In his "Pax Universalis" speech delivered at UN
headquarters on September 23, 1991, he said there was a need for UN action to settle "nationalist
passions" within nations and also to remove an undesirable national leader from his post.23 Even New
York Times columnist Leslie Gelb (CFR) found the President's clearly stated policy "revolutionary" and
"threatening."24
According to the CFR globalists, no single nation should have veto power over whether or not the UN
should act. Writing in the Spring 1991 Foreign Affairs ("The U.N. in a New World Order"), Professors