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

For those who insist on the necessity of "world law," consider how the United Nations has repeatedly
violated its own charter in opposition to the best interests of world peace. Congressman Philip Crane (R-
IL) made these observations in 1976:
According to Article Four of the Charter of the United Nations, "Membership in the UN is
open to all peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present
Charter...." Many now seem willing to forget that communist China was condemned by the
United Nations for its aggressive role in Korea. In fact, the UN went to war to protect South
Korea against Communist aggression. Now, by stretching the definition found in Article
Four to include Communist China, the UN has shown that its own Charter is irrelevant to its
real operating procedures. It has now embraced the philosophy of "universality," a phrase
not found in the Charter, rather than the concept of "peace-loving," which is specifically set
forth. Yet "universality" does not cover Taiwan, which has been expelled; Rhodesia, against
whom an embargo has been declared; or the Republic of South Africa.47
It is a cruel mockery even to speak of world law, world peace, and world government emanating from an
organization that welcomes, honors, and treats as members-in-good-standing the world’s premier
criminals and greatest threats to peace.
World federalism merely means extending to the world arena the same federal principles
that united American colonists. How could any American oppose that
Concerning our own federation, leading federalist John Jay had this to say:
Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people — a
people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the
same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners
and customs....48
Can anything remotely similar be said of the United Nations Do we have any common ground with
practitioners of genocide, democide, and religious and political persecution Should we unite with
sponsors of international terrorism and revolution
The President must have latitude to commit U.S. forces for collective security under the
mandate of the UN Charter.
It is to defend the Constitution of the United States, not the UN Charter, that the President (and every
other U.S. official) swears an oath when entering office. The Constitution, not the Charter, is still the
"supreme law of the land." The Constitution specifies that Congress alone shall have the power to
declare war. Yet, from Korea to Vietnam to the Persian Gulf, our nation has been on an increasingly
slippery slope as a result of violating this constitutional provision.
In Essay No. 69 of The Federalist Papers, Hamilton carefully explained the executive war powers. He
said:
First. The President will have only the occasional command of such part of the militia of
the nation as by legislative provision may be called into the actual service of the Union. The
king of Great Britain and the governor of New York have at all times the entire command of
all the militia within their several jurisdictions. In this article, therefore, the power of the
President would be inferior to that of either the monarch or the governor. Second. The