The United Nations = New World Order

Welcome to the U.N.'s "Global Neighbor-hood: "   The United Nations Commission on Global Governance has completed a three-year study of how to implement world government by the year 2000. The report comes in the form of a 410-page gook titled Our Global Neighborhood, published by Oxford University Press. "It is simply not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation-states, however powerful," writes Maurice Strong, former head of the U.N. Enbironment Program and secretary-general of the U.N. Conference on Environment and Development. "It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the imperatives of global environmental cooperation."

Make no mistake; Strong and the U.N. have their sights set on the wealth and freedom of the United States and other western powers. The idea is to create a giant, global welfare state in which wealth and power are taken from some by force and given to others. "Although people are born into widely unequal economic and social circumstances, great disparities in their conditions or life chances are an affront to the human sense of justice," the report explains.

Environmental concerns will be the principal vehicle by which the U.N. consolidates its power. Under the plan, the U.N. Trusteeship Council would be restructured to give 23 individuals extraordinary international powers over what the report calls the "global commons." What are the global commons, you ask? "The atmosphere, outer space, the oceans and the related environment and life support systems that contribute to the support of human life," explains the report. In other words, virtually everything will be under U.N. stewardship.

Is all this just some wild pike dream? Harely. All existing international environmental treaties; about 300 of them in total, are already administered by the U.N. This new plan would simply place them under the authority of the Trusteeship Council and give the U.N. wider enforcement power. Already the U.N., claiming an interest in the area udern the 1972 World Heritage Treaty, is pushing a plan to close off development of millions of acres in the American West. Under the U.N.'s treaty provisions, the United States government is now required to get approval for development near World Heritage Sites. The Clinton administration is taking this very seriously and complying with U.N. demands.

In fact, in April of 1996, President Clinton announced a plan to designate 5 million acres in 17 national parks as wilderness areas, a move that would put those lands off limits even to tourists.

Imagine national parks off limits to tourists? Wasn't tourism the justification for the parks being nationalized in the first place?

All this is part of the United Nations bigger plan; "Agenda 21," a blueprint for global environmental dictatorship that calls for "re-wilding" at least half of the continental U.S. The premise of this agenda is that human society is a cancer on the planet and that radical surgery is reqauired to bring it under control.

Representative Helen Chenoweth says the ideas being put forth by the U.N., inspired by a religious world view; "a clody mixture of earth worship, pagan mysticism and folklore." That worldview was endorsed by Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt during an address late last year to the National Religious Partnership for the Environment. He condemned traditional Christianity and exalted pagan nature worship as the basis for a new social "covenant."

"The U.N., is in the process of acquiring its own superlative status as the primary law-making entity for the world," explains Henry Lamb, founder and chairman of the Environmental Conservation Organization. That's the message of a new book by William Knoke, founder and president of the Harvard Capital Group, as well, who writes in Bold New World: "In the 21st century, we will each retrain our 'indigenous' cultures, our unique blend of tribal affiliations, some acquired by birth, others chosen freely. Many of us will live in one place for most of our lives and take pride in the local region. Yet our passion for the large nation-state, for which our ancestors fought with their blood, will dwindle to the same emotional consequences of county or province today. A new spirit of global citizenship will evolve in its place, and with it  the ascendancy of global governance."

Knoke explains that this will happen as regional blocs; such as the North American Free Trade Agreement and the European Union, form over trade issues, desire for common currency and environmental regulations. "In each case, we are experimenting with new ways to link countrries, to yield sovereignty in exchange for something more than what is lost," Knoke writes. "What happens in Europe will very much be the model for world consolidation in the 21st century, not just economically, but politically and socially as well." He further urges the U.N., to be equipped with taxing powers, a standing army, a world police force manned by "peacekeepers" who are "a combination of social worker, policeman, riot police and Rambo-style SWAT commandos."

What's holding back this brave new world? It seems only a vacuum of leadership: that one chrismatic official capable of uniting people throughout a continent and throughout the world. The next few months may well produce some new leadership on the world stage. Within a nine-month period, Israelis, Russians, Americans and the United Nations have either held elections or will hold elections. It is entirely possible that one or more of these elections could be critical in the formation of the coming world government.

In addition, in October, the State of the World Forum will reconvene in San Francisco to plan how more and more power can be placed in the hands of fewer and fewer people. As Chairman Mikhail Gorbachev explained at the $3.5 million 1995 conference: "From the outset, I would like to suggest that we consider the establishment of a kind of global brain trust to focus on the present and the future of our civilization."

Co-chairman Thabo Mbeki, executive deputy president of South Africa, went even further: "There will be no day of days when a new world order will come into being. Step by step and here and there, it will arrive, and even as it comes into being, it will develop fresh perspectives, discover unsuspected problems and go on to new adventures. We make bold to say that some of those new adventures will consist in what we have sought to describe, the formation of a new system of goverance marked by a dynamic interaction between an empowered citizenry, national government that will have been impacted upon by the erosion and diffusion of its powers and the enhancement of global governance. What it is that 'slouches toward Bethlehem to be born' remains to be seen."

Students of Biuble prophecy know just what will be born of global government; a tyrannical world leader responsible for bringing the world little but death and destruction. [1]

Following is Laurel A. Heiskell's story: My habitat adventure began with sub-zero temperatures and unfriendly policemen. I had flown to New York City to attend the third pre-conference (PrepCom) meeting for Habitat II, the next United Nations (U.N.) conference. But I could not get into the U.N., compound. At each gate, an imposing guard informed me that I was supposed to go through a different gate. and every time I reached the next gate, it was closed.

Frustrated, I ducked into a nearby building. I thought about finding the officer in charge and filing a complaint about the rude and poorly informed policemen. But then the realization hit me: No one would listen, because the little strip of New York City that houses the U.N., does not belong to the United States. It belongs to the collective member states of the United Nations and is run by the U.N., security. I felt vulnerable, knowing that my cherished American liberties would not be given any preference. I would be treated no differently than if I lived in another country. It was a chilling thought!

Still contemplating this, I joined the hoard of people waiting. We passed through U.N., security, and I was let into the main building. There, I began to discover the intricacies of the Habitat II agenda. My adventure had begun in earnest.

Habitat II, formally called the Second United Nations Conference on Human Settlements, was held in Istanbul, Turkey, June 3-14, 1996. The official U.S. National Report for Habitat II focuses on the many problems facing our own urban centers. However, its plan to create "economically, socially and environmentally thriving urban communities" involves a lot more than meets the eye. The agenda of Habitat II actually stretches far beyond the borders of the United States. Its guiding principles are designed to re-shape the lives of every American; and the citizens of every other nation for the next century. How? Through a concept called sustainable development.

The U.N. developed a school curriculum now being used in America's classrooms. It defines sustainable development as "meeting the needs of the present generation without damaging the Earth's resources in such a way that would prevent future generations from meeting (their needs)." That innocuous definition goes on to include "changing wasteful consumption patterns" and "emphasizing equitable development" in order to "bridge the gap between rich and poor coungtries."

In practice, sustainable development is a radical economic/environmental agenda. It will limit the amount of food, energy, or general resources that citizens of a nation can consume. Rather than consuming whatever they can afford, people in "rich" nations like the U.S. would only be allowed to consume what they need to stay alive. The U.N. publication, Caring for the Earth: A Strategy for Sustainable Living, warns that to survive, all earth-dwellers "must learn to live differently" because the modern world has made life risky. The only way to eliminate those risks, declares the U.N. is to "ensure that the benefits of development are distributed equally."

"Equal distribution" simply means redistribution of wealth. This is the utopian idea upon which Marxist economic philosophy is built. Even more frightening, the U.N. has specific plans for implementing sustainable development in the United States as well as in the other nations around the world.  Habitat II's draft platform calls for national government to manage economic systems. These include public and private investment practices, consumption patterns, and public policy. A whole section of the document written for Habitat II (the draft platform) was devoted to the international community and what they should do to "help" national governments along. The platform's "goal" of "international cooperation and coordination" states: "The implementation for the Global Plan of Action will reqauire an increased flow of new and additional financial resources to developing counhtries in order to...accelerate sustainable development." In other words, the "international community" plans to force changes in the world's economic structures. Money is to be taken away from prosperous nations; like the U.S., and given to poor nations. This would have a negative effect upon economic growth and jobs here in America, as we are witnessing today with the implemtation of NAFTA and GATT.

The U.N. believes that it represents the world's internatioal community. Therefore, it believes that the implementation of the Habitat agenda depends upon U.N. oversight of national, regional, state and local governments. American citizens must realize that government management would not be limited to financial aspects of the economy. It would also include types of consumption like transportation. For example, the draft platform states: "Motorized transport and industrial production are major sources of air pollution." It proposes that "...governments at all levels should encourage... walking, cycling, and public trans-port...through appropriate pricing ...and regulatory measures."

In other words, the U.N. will coerce our government to ensure that citizens walk, ride bicycles, or take public transportation; rather than owning and operating cars. It would accomplish this through heavy taxation and regulations. Mandates like tese are the hallmark of communist nations. They do not represent the personal freedoms and liberties that U.S. citizens enjoy.

The U.N. intends to reach sustainable development by chang-ing the structure of national govern-ments. The official Habitat Ii brochure explains that this conference was to ask city administrators worldwide; and their corresponding nations, to re-design their regulations, political systems, and judicial and legislative procedures. This would accomplish the goals set forth by the U.N. In fact, the U.N. has already requrested this of lawmakers from various nations.

In February 1996, Dr. Wally N'Dow, secretary general of Habitat II (and officer in charge of the U.N. Center for Human Settlements), spoke to national lawmakers at the PrepCom. He said: "Shrinking fisheries...shrinking forests...lakes drying up...crops destroyed by heat waves...these are not sustainable... There has to be a collective effort at creating a new sustainable society...And what you do as legislators is critical...You hold the keys to all of the policies and insight in your society. Ane we count on you to push through the laws to properly reach sustainable development." Once again we hear the buzzwords for a global econocmy based on the redistribution of wealth.

Out of 185 nations, the U.S. pays one quarter of the $1.1 billion for the U.N.'s general budget and 31.7 percent of its $3.5 billion peacekeeping budget. Under President Clinton, Congress has spent almost $5 billion on the U.N. Now the U.N. estimates our shortfall at $1.5 billion and is saying, "Pay up!"

Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali has an additional plan for increasing U.N. cash flow, a blogal tax on items like air travel, ocean freight, international mail and phone calls. A 0.5 percent tax on foreign exchange has also been suggested.

In 1995, America's U.N. dues helped support many anti-Christian programs, including the following:

   * The Cairo population conference promoting contraception, abortion, and sexual liberties for adolescents.

  * All international aid for population programs costing $550 million, the U.S. paid 45 percent.

   * The U.N.-funded Women's Linkage Caucus in their successful fight for lesbian rights at the conference in Beijing.

The U.N. Is Infiltrating America's Schools : Unknown to many parents, the concept of sustainable development has already infiltrated America's schools. Some public schools use textbooks describing global citizens who are loyal to the planet rather than to their own country. And the U.N.'s school curriculum explains that the "weak trading position with the rich north" (countries like ours) is one of the things "preventing the developing countries from becoming developed."

The content of todays classrooms, said Abraham Lincoln, will be the public policies of the nation of tomorrow. Today, American youth are being exposed to curricula financed by various foundation grants, which establish the U.N. as the answer to world peace. With "tolerance" and "global peace" as the ultimate aims, educators are telling our children that equal distribution is more important than personal liberty. They teach that a responsible global citizen prefers to see everyong in the world possess equal resources; food, heat, clothing, shelter, and transportation. (Of course this does not apply to the elite, they are to have the best and as much of everything as they wish). This is more important, they reason, than looking out for one's own family and the defense of one's own nation. In the past year, many parents who object to this anti-American philosophy have discovered the war being waged deceptively on their children.

The definition of family has become a troublesome area in the Habitat II agenda. We know that one of the best ways to assure a stable society is to encourage traditional families. Yet Hatitat's draft platform says: "In different cultural, political and social systems, various forms of the family exists." This defintion of family was upheld during the third Habitat PrepCom, despite opposition from the Holy See (Vatican), the Muslims, and "G-77" a group of 77 developing nations that vote as one block.

The thrid PrepCom showed the world that the U.S. delegation is pushing a pro-homosexual agenda for Habitat II, as they did at the Beijin women's conference. That was the first U.N. conference to open the door to global acceptance of the homosexual agenda. During the Habitat PrepCom, the European Union (EU) and Canada also asked that "sexual orientation" be included as a civil rights category. Therefore, no form of public or private discrimina-tion could be made on the basis of sexual orientation. If the U.S. agrees to a platform for action that includes the words "sexual orientation,"   it will be acknowledging support for frull legal protection of any form of sexual behavior.

U.S. support for "sexual orientation" language in a U.N. document would open the door for homosexuals to "marry" and to adopt children, both here and abroad. It would also accomplish on an international level the goals that the homosexual lobby has been unable to accomplish through our own legisla-tures. Also, accep-tance of this phrase in one U.N. docu-ment would ensure that all future U.N. documents contain the same refer-ences.

Gender is another area of concern in the Habitat draft platform, as it was at the Beijing women's conference. The primary authors of the Beijing Platform for Action said they interpret "gener" as something "sociallly constructed." Moreover, national delegations steadfastly refused to define gender as "male and female." For Habit II, the Division for the Advancement of Women suggests that "gender training" be required of all "development experts and settlements' development practitioners at all levels."

The people who say "gender equals women" refuse to acknowledge gender as g"male and female." So we can logically assume that a "socially constructed gender" would include homosexuals, lesbians, bisexuals, and any other form of sexual behavikor that society imagines. That would cer5tainly invite mandatory tolerance" training of employers and "gender equity education" that would include a pro-homosexual agenda. Habitat-related documents also encourage the creation of "gendered cities." If cities can be constructed upon certain sexual preferencs, what will they think of next?

A final area of concern over Habitat centers around the subject of life. The U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA) says that population growth is a key inhibitor of sustainable development. So, in order to control the growth of populations, the U.N. wants to "encourage" all people in all nations to plan their families. Yet, historicallyt, the U.N. has defined "family planning" in terms of abortifacient IUDs, the "abortion pill" RU-486, surgical abortion, and methods like Norplant; all of which have been proven harmful to women.

An early draft of the Habitat platform specifically mentioned the need for "reproductive health services" for women in human settements. It explained that sustainable development can only be reached if "population growth is compatibhle with or smaller than the rate of the rate of economic growth." This would require government management of both economic and population growth. The world has already seen the reprehensible atrocities committed by China in its quest to control and manage its population growth. We must not adopt their "one child" policies here in the United States.

When the U.N. demands change, it ignores the sovereiggnty of nations. Unlike the U.S. the U.N. is a pure democracy. Every nation; from Tajikistan to Togo, Djibouti to Nicarauga, Barbados to Kyrgyzstan, and the United States to Lebanon, has only one vote. At the U.N. majority opinion rules. Furthermore, parliamentary procedure can be used to effectively block dissent. This was done many timesduring the Beijing conference.

The U.N. claims that implementing sustainable development through Habitat Ii will create solutions to the problems of housing, clean water, and sanitation.

Thus, the lives of underdeveloped, third world nations would improve. Sadly, their agenda is not confined to those things. It reaches into the policies and homes of every nation on earth.

Will the United States once again sell its soul on the global auction block? Will "we the people" allow the President of the United States to agree to the U.N.'s plan for radically restructuring America? No one can mistake the U.N.'s clarion call. It believes that all laws in all nations should conform to the United Nations' list of perceived good.

How much value do you place on the liberties that you, as a citizen of the United States of America, hold dear? Are you willing to trade those liberties for the U.N.'s false promise of world peace? Thomas Jefferson said, "If you sacrifice a little bit of liberty in the cause of law and order, you deserve neither, and you will lose both." We in the United States reside in a sovereign nation. Ours "was" a Republic built on personal liberty and reverence for our Creator. But with two different world views vying for supremacy, a clash is inevitable. We must choose this day whom we will serve.

On August 21, 1995, Spc. Michael New; a decorated veteran of U.S. service in Kuwait, received new orders. The 22 year old Army medic and his unit based in Germany were to be shipped to Macedonia as U.N. "peacekeepers." Not only would they wear the U.N. patches and sky blue headgear, their only ID cards would be U.N. documents. And the soldiers would have to serve under a Finnish commander. Gen. Juga Engstrom. Bypassing U.S. command entirely, he reports to the U.N. Security Council.

New; a patriotic Christian, respectfully declined to don the U.N. uniform. On October 10, he reported for duty in regulation green. U.S. Army Battle Dress, amid a sea of U.N. blue berets. He siad, "I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States [not], the U.N." New's sunit went to Macedonia.

He did not. On January 24, 1996, an Army court martial convicted him of "disobeying a lawful order" and issued a bad conduct discharge. New's attorney, Col. Ron Ray USMC (Ret.) a former defense department official, contends both the uniform order and the mission to Macedonia were "illegal." Recently, Family Voice spoke with Col. Ray:

FV: How were the orders unlawful?

Ray: The deployment violated the U.N. Participa-tion Act of 1945, which requires congressional approval for combat missions, approval that was never given. And Army regulations prohibit even the receiving of foreign insignia or badges; let alone wearing them, without prior approval by Congress.

FV: Have other American soldiers challenged similar orders?

Ray: New is the first soldier in history to delcine the [U.N.] uniform, and to challenge fighting under the U.N. flag. That's becasuse only since [President] Clinton has there been an attempt to put U.S. troops under foreign command, routinely. Sometimes this happens in the heat of battle...but never before in peacetime.

FV: Have other countries objected, too?

Ray: Both Russian soldiers and their government absolutely refused [to fight under U.N. command]. The British and French also expressed reluctance.

FV: Is a one-world army part of the U.N.'s agenda?

Ray: As far as I'm aware, the first call for a world army came in Winston Churchill's famous "Iron Curtain" speech in 1946. People didn't take it seriously then...But remember, Ezekiel 13:10 prophesied, they's cry "Peace!" when there is no peace.

God made the world; and now the U.N. wants His job. However, it cannot start by using U.N. troops; or even national lawmakers, to recreate the planet. First, the U.N. must change hearts and minds. Some have already adopted the one-world view, and are promoting it as global salvation. We offer an example:

Covenant For The 21st Century :

* We will love all plantetary citizens with all our heart, with all our wealth and with all our skill;

* We will share resources equally among all;

* We will assure sustenance in need and empower-ment;

* We will educate all children in the One Humanity;

* We will offer compassion to the suffering;

* We will amend the plight of the disenfranchised;

* We will protect the planet with all our might;

* We will encourage the weak and monitor the strong;

* We will see all beings as our own;

* We will promote alone values as empower this Covenant;

* Thus may we enter Heaven, a right we have finally birthed.

* And not very far to go, for it's now where we are, here on earth. [2]

                            Who Is Responsible For The Following?

                                         Combat Arms Survey

This questionnaire is to gather data concerning the attitudes of combat trained personnel with regard to nontraditional missions. All responses are confidnetial. Write your answersdirectly on the form. In Part II, place an "X" in the space provided for your response.

   Part I. Demographics.

1). What service are you in?

2). Waht is your pay grade?

3). What is your MOS code and description?

4). What is your highest level of education in years?

5). How many months did you sever in Operation Desert               Storm/Desert Shield?

6). How many months did you serve in Somalia?

7). What state or coungtry did you primarily reside in during childhood?

   Part II. Attitudes

Do you feel that U.S. combat troops should be used within the U.S. for any of the following missions?

8). Drug enforcement

____Strongly Disagree            ____Disagree

____Agree               ____Strongly Agree ____No Oopinion   

9). Disaster relief (e.g. hurricanes, floods, fires, earthquakes)

____Strongly Disagree            ____Disagree

____Agree               ____Strongly Agree ____No Opinion

10). Security at national events (e.g. Olympic Games, Super Bowl)

____Strongly Disagree            ____Disagree

____Agree               ____Strongly Agree ____No Opinion

11). Environmental disaster clean-up

____Strongly Disagree            ____Disagree

____Agree               ____Strongly Agree ____No Opinion

12). Substitute teachers in public schools

____Strongly Disagree            ____Disagree

____Agree               ____Srongly Agree  ____No Opinion

13). Community assistance programs (e.g. landscaping, environmental clean-up, road repair, animal control)

____Strongly Disagree            ____Disagree

____Agree               ____Strongly Agree ____No Opinion

14). Federal and State Prison Guards

____Strongly Disagree            ____Disagree

____Agree               ____Strongly Agree ____No Opinion

15). National emergency police force

____Strongly Disagree            ____Disagree

____Agree               ____Strongly Agree ____No Opinion

16). Advisors to SWAT units, the FBI, or the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms

____Strongly Disagree            ____Disagree

____Agree               ____Strongly Agree ____No Opinion

17). Border Patrol (e.g. prevention of illegal aliens into U.S. territory)

____Strongly Disagree            ____Disagree

____Agree               ____Strongly Agree ____No Opinion

18). Peace Keeping

____Strongly Disagree            ____Disagree

____Agree               ____Strongly Agree ____No Opinion

19). Nation building (reconstriuct civil government, develop public school system, develop or improve public transportation system, etc.)

____Strongly Disagree            ____Disagree

____Agree               ____Strongly Agree ____No Opinion

20). Humanitarian relief (e.g. food and medical supplies, temporary housing and clothing)

____Strongly Disagree            ____Disagree

____Agree               ____Strongly Agree ____No Opinion

Do you feel that U.S. combat troops should be used in other countries, under command of non-U.S. officers appointed by the U.N. for any of the following missions?

21). Drug enforcement

____Strongly Disagree            ____Disagree

____Agree               ____Strongly Agree ____No Opinion

22). Disaster relief (e.g. hurricanes, floods, fires, earth-

quakes)

____Strongly Disagree            ____Disagree

____Agree               ____Strongly Agree ____No Opinion

23). Environmental disaster clean-up

____Strongly Disagree            ____Disagree

____Agree               ____Strongly Agree ____No Opinion

24). Peace keeping

____Strongly Disagree            ____Disagree

____Agree               ____Strongly Agree ____No Opinion

25). Nation building (recdonstruct civil government, develop public school system, develop or improve public transportation system, etc.)

____Strongly Disagree            ____Disagree

____Agree               ____Strongly Agree ____No Opinion

26). Humanitarian relief (e.g. food and medical supplies, temprary housing and clothing)

____Strongly Disagree            ____Disagree

____Agree               ____Strongly Agree ____No Opinion

27). Police action (e.g. Korea, Vietnam, but serving under non-U.S. officers)

____Strongly Disagree            ____Disagree

____Agree               ____Strongly Agree ____No Opinion

Consider the following statements:

28). The U.S. runs a field training exercise. U.N. combat troops should be allowed to serve in U.S. combat units during these exercises under U.S. command and control.

____Strongly Disagree            ____Disagree

____Agree               ____Strongly Agree ____No Opinion

29). The U.N. runs a field training exercise. U.S. combat troops under U.S. command and control should serve in U.N. combat units during these exercises.

____Strongly Disagree            ____Disagree

____Agree               ____Strongly Agree ____No Opinion

30). The U.N. runs a field training exercise. U.S. combat troops should serve under U.N. command and control.

____Strongly Disagree            ____Disagree

____Agree               ____Strongly Agree ____No Opinion

31). U.S.combat troops should participate in U.N. missions as long as the U.S. has full command and control.

____Strongly Disagree            ____Disagree

____Agree               ____Strongly Disagree            ____No Opinion

32). U.S. combat troops shouold participate in U.N. missions under U.N. comand and control.

____Strongl y Disagree           ____Disagree

____Agree               ____Strongly Disagree            ____No Opinion

33). U.S. combat troops should be commanded by U.N. officers and non-commissioned officers at battalion and company levels while performing U.N. missions.

____Strongly Disagee             ____Disagree

____Agree               ____Strongly Disagree            ____No Opinion

34). It would make no difference ot me to have U.N. soldiers as members of my team.

____Strongly Disagree            ____Disagree

____Agee                ____Strongly Agree ____No Opinion

35). It would make no difference to me to take orders from a U.N. company commander.

____Strongly Disagree            ____Disagree

____Agree               ____Strongly Agree ____No Opinion

36). I feel the President of the U.S. has authority to pass his responsibilities as Commander-in-Chief to the U.N. Secretary General.

____Strongly Disagree            ____Disagree

____Agree               ____Strongly Agree ____No Opinion

37). I feel there is no conflict between my oath of office and serving as a U.N. soldier.

____Strongly Disagree            ____Disagree

____Agree               ____Strongly Agree ____No Opinion

38). I feel my unit's combat effectiveness would not be affected by performing humanitarian missions for the U.N.

____Strongly Disagree            ____Disagree

____Agree               ____Strongly Agree ____No Opinion

39). I feel a designated unit of U.S. combat soldiers should be permanently assigend to the command and control of the U.N.

____Strongly Disagree            ____Disagree

____Agree               ____Strongly Agree ____No Opinion

40). I would be willing to volunteer for assignment to a U.S. combat unit under a U.N. commander.

____Strongly Disagree            ____Disagree

____Agree               ____Strongly Agree ____No Opinion

41). I would like U.N. member countries, including the U.S. to give the U.N. all the soldiers necessary to maintain world peace.

____Strongly Disagree            ____Disagree

____Agree               ____Strongly Agree ____No Opinion

42). I would swear to the following code: "I am a U.N. fighting person. I serve in the forcdes which maintain world peace and every nation's way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense."

____Strongly Disagree            ____Disagree

____Agree               ____Strongly Agree ____No Opinion

43). The U.S. government declares a ban on the possession, sale, transportation and transfer of all non-sporting firearms. A 30-day amnesty period is permitted for these firearms to be turned over to the local authorities. At the end of this period, a number of citizen groups refuse to turn over their firearms.

Consider the following statement: "I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government."

____Strongly Disagree            ____Disagree

____Agree               ____Strongly Agree ____No Opinion

Words from a future member of the One-World Army? Possibly. In May, 1994, these and similar "statements" were part of a Combat Arms Survey given to 300 U.S. Marines at California's Twenty-Nine Palms base. Their opinions were solicited for a naval officer's master's thesis. He was writing on "the use of military forces in nontraditional missions."

Those missions might include: drug enforcdement, disaster relief, security at national events, environmental clean-up, teaching in public schools, advising federal agencies, and acting as a national emergency police force. In fact, such "peace operations"{ had already been discussed in a Department of Defense (DOD) review. And they are part and parcel of the United Nations' (U.N.) view of international "peacekeeping." Article 43 of the U.N. charter provides for member states to make armed forces "available to the Security Council, on its call" for the purpose of "maintaining international peace and security."

       Could America's defense forces turn into U.N. globocops; who might, one day, be deployed against U.S citizens? Since President Clinton took office, the U.S. military has moved rapidly from cooperating with the U.N. to serving under it. In 1992, top Pentagon official Joseph Nye advocated creating a 60,000 member "rapid deployment force," exclusively at the U.N.'s disposal. And Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott said, "Nationhood as we know it will be obsolete: All states will recognize a single, global authority."

In his book Global Bondage, Cliff Kincaid objected. "The intention of the Founding Fathers," he wrote, "was to have American political leaders follow the Constitution and represent the American people, not foreign or alien interests." Yet Clinton's classified Presidential Directives 13 and 25 instructed the DOD  to create a U.S. military structure under the command and control of the United Nations.

A 1993 letter from the White House to then-House Speaker Thomas Foley revealed the President's order  to deploy American soldiers in Macedonia; without congressional approval, and under foreign command. With a few strokes of a pen, more than 200 years of American sovereignty were blotted out. New-age globalists and one-world-government advocates everywhere could cheer. The Clinton administration had taken another step toward a world army; at the expense of our national interests. "Authorizing U.S. soldiers to serve under foreign command undermines America's power as a sovereign nation," cautioned Dr. Beverly LaHaye.

"Our military must rely on strict chain of command and order," Senator Larry Craig (R.ID) protested. "The men and women who have chosen to serve this nation and the American people should not be put in a position which forces them to bear allegiance to any nation or organization other than the United States of America."

But consider that in October, 1993, President Clinton gave a speech defending the U.N.-backed operation in Somalia, in which over 30 Americans were killed. He stated, "Right now we are engaging in a political process...(doing) all the things the United Nations ordered (us) to do." And recently the chief executive vetoed a defense authorization bill, in part, because it restricted his ability to place U.S. soldiers under U.N. command.

The comcept of an international army might evoke brotherly cooperation and compassion. Also, one might believe that pooling multinational forces increases military efficency. But the reality is something else entirely.

In February, 1988, Marine Col. William R. Higgins; on assignment for the U.N. in Lebanon; was kidnapped by pro-Iranian terrorists. Because Higgins was a member of a U.N. mission, he was not considered by our government to be a prisoner of war (POW), or missing in action. Thus, there were no demands to enforce the 1949 Geneva Convention, and no Red Cross visits. Finally, no posthumous POW medal was awarded after Higgins was executed by his captors.

In 1993, U.S. Army pilot Michael Durant was captured by enemy forces deuring the U.N. mission in Somalia. One military official described him as being