I don't have time to read all the posts on this thread, let alone respond to them. I did read Lefty's response though, and perhaps I will have time to go back and read a few more and respond.
As regards the comparison with an individual joining a labor union, I don't think that is an accurate comparison, not because unions don't advocate certain political positions, but because joining a labor union is an individual conscience matter. However, in the case of the Watchtower Society being affiliated as an NGO with the United Nations Organisation, they have acted as representatives of all Jehovah's Witnesses, as well as Jehovah himself. In that respect very few of Jehovah's Witnesses even know that the organization they represent has joined the UN as an NGO. That's definitely a problem. There is going to be confusion as more and more are confronted with this issue and there is the matter of trust. Now individual Witnesses are left to fend for themselves when presented with the facts. I think the Society could be faced with a PR disaster if this becomes common knowledge. It's an apostate's dream come true. The fact that they apparently suddenly withdrew their membership only creates the impression that they realized what a horrendus blunder had been made.
As for the UN's agenda to submerge national sovereignties, the John Birch Society has long been in the forefront of researching the UN's agendas and subtle policy of re-establishing a global empire. Here are a few links to the JBS as well as some who are obviously influenced by their views. Also, Lyndon LaRouche has written extensively about the Anglo-American establishment's drive to create a global government and a return to the fuedal system.
>>> http://www.sovereignty.net/center/wocsoc.shtml
>>> http://www.getusout.org/un/index.htm
>>> http://www.larouchepub.com/lar/1996/michael_new.html
>>> http://www.larouchepub.com/lar/1997/global_warm.html
>>> http://www.larouchepub.com/lar/1999/lar_sovereignty_2646.html
this is a must read >>> http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2001/10-22-2001/vo17no22_un_not_friend.htm
here's an excerpt:Many other prominent figures have insisted that the United States must surrender its sovereignty to the United Nations in order to protect its citizens from terrorism. Writing in the September 24th New York Times, Robert Wright, a visiting scholar at the University of Pennsylvania, declared that only by abandoning our national independence can we prevent a terrorist attack involving biological or nuclear weapons. According to Wright, "the extreme devotion of … conservatives to national sovereignty" has thwarted UN efforts to control the spread of weapons of mass destruction, since those efforts require "giving the world more control over your own behavior."
"Clinging to American sovereignty at all costs isn’t just wrong. It’s impossible," contends Wright. "If governments don’t respond with new forms of international organization, civilization as we’ve come to know it could truly be over. So the question isn’t whether to surrender national sovereignty. The question is how - carefully or systematically, or chaotically and catastrophically?"
