The U.N. controls our schools. They outlaw books that we grew up with and instead teach our children how to be gay. We say "NO GUNS".
The U.N. controls our Government and robs us of millions of dollars. We say "NO GUNS".
The U.N. wants an International Court so they can take away our rights to own anything. We say "NO GUNS".
The U.N. wants to take away parents rights to teach our children right from wrong. We say "NO GUNS".
The U.N. taxes each and every dollar you earn. We say "NO GUNS".
The U.N. uses our soldiers for lab animals. We say "NO GUNS".
Homosexuals are trying to destroy the Boy Scouts. We say "NO GUNS".
Pretty good job of brain washing wouldn't you say? We say "NO GUNS".
Do you not suffer paranoia everytime the word gun is mentioned. I am sure the UN knows it will be hard to separate the Americans from their obsession with a gun under every pillow or in the glove compartment of every car. Do we need all these guns? Would the streets not be safer without some of them? Look at the crack pots waving guns around out there. Is the UN in charge of anything or is that paranoia too?
Every memorial Day we Americans honor those who fought and died for the ideals we hold sacred under our form of government, under our United States Constitution. This is an overview, for entire books could be written on any name, organization, or event that is mentioned here. The purpose of this presentation is to show that a serious review of our past acts and the direction of our future acts is greatly needed.
President George Washington, as leader of our young nation, warned us against getting involved in "foreign entanglements." Perhaps his words tang true to members of the U.S. Senate who rejected, after World War I, the proposal that we join the League of Nations, a world organization whose goal would be to keep the peace among nations.
We may not have joined then, but those who thought we still needed a world government to keep peace started two organizations to further this goal: the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) based in the United States and the Royal Institute based in England. The member os these two groups hail from the elite in government, educational, economic, and media circles; indeed, they are found in places of influence in our midst. In the United States their publication, Foreign Affairs, pounds home endlessly the virtues of world government over national sovereignty of any nation.
We must remember, then, that our United States armed forces have always been pegged to defend the United States and its citizens, at home and abroad, against all enemies, foreign and domestic. First and foremost, our armed forces were meant to protect the United States, its citizens, and our national interests.
Even before World War II drew to a close, the CFR had people in high places suggesting again that a world organization was needed to maintain world peace. At the Yalta Conference, near FDR, Churchill, and Stalin, was a State Department representative, Alger Hiss, and it was he who was designated to lead the United States delegation at the United Nations meeting in San Francisco where the UN Charter was written; it was he who brought the same UN Charter back to Washington in a sealed pouch chained to his wrist, a UN Charter that had to win the approval of the U.S. Senate as a "treaty," thus making us a UN member.
Few know that more than half of the U.S. Senators never even read the details of the UN Charter before voting for its approval! While debate reigned in the Senate over acceptance of the UN Charter, a telegram came to the Senate from President Truman, who was attending the Potsdam Conference with Churchill and Stalin. Truman assured the Senate that the section in the UN Charter wherein the United States agreed to lend its armed forces in a proportionate number to those of other UN member, so as to create any UN peacekeeping force, would be "worked out" later with the other member countries. In actuality, this provision was never agreed upon; the United States thus joined the UN with this important provision never settled before U.S. Senate approval was won! It should be noted, too, that only two U.S. Senators voted against joining the UN they being Senator Langer of North Dakota and Senator Shipstead of Minnesota.
I have a copy of the speech of Senator William Langer that was delivered on the Senate floor on July 28, 1945. It warned all Americans of our joining the United Nations. Langer sent a copy of this speech, at his won expense, to every postal boxholder in his home state of North Dakota; he urged that the vote to join the UN be postponed. He said to the Senate, in the last part of that speech, the following:
...I reiterate that we ought not to vote on this charter in the absence of our 11,000,000 fighting men and women. They are now away, and we do not know what their attitude will be upon their return, after having been to the four corners of the earth and after having fought upon the seven seas. We sit here, Mr. President (presiding officer of the Senate), in our fine offices and upon this senatorial floor, blissfully ignorant of what those 11,000,000 veterans may be thinking. After all, they constitute the backbone of the common people of America. Certainly there is no reason for such a hurry to pass this charter that some steps could not have been taken to have referred the matter to the people of the country, including the men and women in the armed forces, before the final vote is taken upon it. As their representative here in the Senate, I cannot, I will not, God helping me, bore for a measure which I believe to be unlawful under our Constitution, a measure which, in my opinion, betrays the very people who sent us to the Senate as their representatives.
And so, despite the wise warning of Senator Langer in 1945, we now find ourselves saddled with an obligation to lend our armed forces to every UN whim for "peacekeeping" that meets the approval of the United Nations. I should call to your attention that the UN can REQUIRE that all member nations carry out UN directives.
Despite the fact that our President and members of Congress take an oath of office before assuming their duties to "support the Constitution of the United States," the acceptance of the UN Charter as a "treaty" thus makes the UN charter, not the Constitution of the United States, the "supreme law of the land."
It also should be known that North Dakota Congressman Usher L. Burdick argued on the floor of Congress that the UN Charter acceptance does not constitute a "treaty" acceptance at all! Unfortunately, his words fell on deaf ears.
And, it may come as a shock to many of you Americans that on the books is President Kennedy's executive order to transfer the U.S. military to UN control.
Yes, a program of national disarmament was unveiled at the UN on Sept. 25, 1961 by President Kennedy. This program was entitled "Freedom from War: The United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World." This document is one of the most revolutionary and subversive proposals ever put forward by any government official. The program originally introduced in this document became-and remains-official U.S. government policy. If you challenge this, just ask to see "Department of State Publication 7277." It calls for a three-stage disarmament process leading to the transfer of all national military forces-including those of the U.S. and the USSR-to the United Nations, and the establishment of a UN Peace Force as the unchallengeable global military power.
Thus our troops have been, and in the future will be, used beyond the original role set down in our United States Constitution. We have committed ourselves to world government by the transfer of our armed forces to an entity supposedly higher than our own sovereign government. How could we do this with our eyes wide open?
Did you know that according to the U.S. Constitution there is no authority granted to levy taxes or to contract debts to provide for foreign country, and that the United States is specified alone as the beneficiary for all tax collections? We must make it an act of treason for any United States government official to betray the U.S. Constitution. The text of the U.S. Constitution is still intact. What we must do is to see that our public officials observe the bounds set by that U.S. Constitution.
Yes, it was on July 28, 1945 that the U.S. Senate voted 89 to 2 for our nation to accept the terms of the United Nations Charter, as if said Charter were a treaty. Senators Langer and Shipstead were not heeded.
It is too often overlooked that the U.S. Senate had absolutely no authority to consider such a vote; for the UN Charter was not, in fact, a treaty at all. In our form of government, the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and if any one of the three branches of our government takes away the self-government nature of our government, then said act is unconstitutional and equivalent to treason, for such a branch of government has put above the U.S. Constitution a higher authority, which it can't do. It would thus destroy our nation's sovereignty.
Further, if the U.S. Senate exceeded its authority by making us subservient to the dictates of the United Nations, then "we, the people" can consider this as an invalid, unconstitutional act against us. Under our United States Constitution, all authority comes from the people, and "we, the people" do not recognize any authority higher than the United States Constitution. Put simply, we don't take orders from the United Nations! Or do we? Some say we do take orders from the United Nations, because by our membership we agreed to abide by the United Nations Charter, and or U.S. Senate did approve the United Nations Charter.
Some people will point the U.S. Constitution and say that Article VI, Clause 2 clearly makes treaties a part of what we know as "supreme law of the land," for the exact text reads as follows:
This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land, and the Judges in every state shall be bound thereby, and Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
On July 16, 1945, before the bore of the U.S. Senate on the UN Charter, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee issued its majority report saying: "Any attempt to give Congress power to decide every time the new world security organization could use U.S. troops against a recalcitrant would violate both the San Francisco Charter and the U.S. Constitution." Can you fathom such unfounded nonsense?
This interpretation gradually wore away all congressional war powers until, with the passage of time and the determination of the president, those powers would come to reside exclusively in the White House. A check and balance of the U.S. Constitution bit the dust!
As Charles L. Mee, Jr. has noted: "The beginning of such unchecked Presidential power dates from July 16, 1945 when the Senate voted to abridge the power of Congress to declare war-for the first time in the history of the United States." (See Charles L. Mee, Jr. "Meeting at Postdam," New York: M. Evans & Company, Inc., 1975, p.74)
It is worth noting that the legal status of the United Nations Charter itself is NOT a "treaty" on which the U.S. Senate had any right to consider or approve!
Although ratified as a treaty, the UN Charter cannot be legally considered as such. Speaking before the U.S. House of Representatives in 1954, Congressman Usher L. Burdick of North Dakota openly stated:
The first move was made at San Francisco, where many nations drew up a charter, and submitted that charter to the Senate for approval as a treaty. This document had none of the earmarks of a treaty, because the Supreme Court of the United States has held in many cases that a treaty is an agreement made between nations, to do or not to do particular things. In the case of the Charter of the United Nations, it was not an agreement made between nations. It was an agreement made by the agents of several governments, and there is no contention form any quarter tat the United Nations at that time was a nation with which we could make a treaty, but intended to make it an integral power at the first opportunity. How these forces for evil planned to make the United Nations a "nation" is clear now, since they propose at this time to build a world government by simply amending the Charter of the United Nations.
Congressman Usher L. Burdick's speech can be found in the "Congressional Record" of April 28, 1954. Was Congressman Burdick's interpretation Correct?
Indeed, Congressman Burdick was standing on firm ground. As Alexander Hamilton pointed out in essay No. 75 of the Federalist Papers regarding the power of making treaties: "Its objects are CONTRACTS with "foreign nations" which have the force of law, but derive it from the obligations of good faith. They are not rules prescribed by the sovereign to the subject, but AGREEMENTS BETWEEN SOVEREIGN AND SOVEREIGN." [My emphasis here by capitalization]
It is very important that the United States declare itself "self-governing" and not some lackey to the wishes of the United Nations! Wake up, America! Look at Article VI, Clause 2. Yes, "treaties" with foreign nations are part of our "supreme law of the land," but the approval of the United Nations Charter was NOT SUCH A TREATY!
The United Nations has no right to dictate when or where our military forces will serve. That is an exclusive power for the U.S. Congress to determine. As well, economic policies dictated by NAFTA, GATT, and the WTO attack some of our freedoms and rights under our U.S. Constitution. Has we forgotten that Article I, Section 8 of our Constitution gives Congress the exclusive power to "regulate commerce with foreign nations?" Our U.S. Congress alone must retain this power. In too many ways our UN membership is affecting our sovereignty; and if we let others take away our sovereignty, then we will lose both our political and economical well-being. So, let's get out of the UN NOW!
A UN Millennium Summit was held in Sept., 2000 in New York. The Summit Declaration calls for "global governance" under a "Charter for Global Democracy." If we accept this Charter, where then will be our rights, freedoms, and sovereignty under our cherished U.S. Constitution?
The UN entity set itself up on American soil with the full agreement of your government for a reason. Wrangle over the constitution and sovereign government all aside the UN entity is here as an invited guest of your government, but did you ever think they would be in charge?