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

President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and the navy of the United States. In this
respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but
in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme
command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first general and admiral of the
Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war and to the
raising and regulating of fleets and armies — all which, by the Constitution under
consideration, would appertain to the legislature.49 [Emphasis in original]
This constitutional concept is not difficult to understand; the thinking behind it is marvelously simple.
Abraham Lincoln summarized it this way:
The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress was dictated,
as I understand it, by the following reasons.... Kings had always been involving and
impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the
people was the object. This, our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all
Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should
hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us.50 [Emphasis in original]
At least the UN provides a forum where the nations of the world can come together to talk
and work out their differences.
If we had some means of assuring that the United Nations would never go beyond that function, it might
be tolerable, but the effectiveness of such a forum would still be highly dubious. Author G. Edward
Griffin offers the following analogy to illustrate the folly of expecting the UN to be a workable platform
for dealing with world grievances:
Consider what would happen if every time a small spat arose between a husband and wife
they called the entire neighborhood together and took turns airing their complaints in front
of the whole group. Gone would be any chance of reconciliation. Instead of working out
their problems, the ugly necessity of saving face, proving points, and winning popular
sympathy would likely drive them further apart. Likewise, public debates in the UN
intensify international tensions. By shouting their grievances at each other, countries allow
their differences to assume a magnitude they would otherwise never have reached. Quiet
diplomacy is always more conducive to progress than diplomacy on the stage.51
At the UN, of course, bellicose "diplomacy on the stage" has always been the order of the day. "Not
only has the United Nations become a travesty and farce as a unified system of political world
government," noted William Henry Chamberlain long ago, "but its meetings and operations have
contributed greatly to international disunity, hostility, and bellicosity. Its meetings provide an
unprecedented platform and sounding board for denunciation, vituperation, and bitter accusations."52
Interdependence is a fact; a return to isolationism would be not only counterproductive,
but dangerous.
Isolationism is a bogeyman internationalists trot out every time the American people begin to rebel
against globalist, interventionist plotting. The truth is that America has never been "isolationist"; as a
people we have always had a vigorous and extensive involvement with the peoples of other countries.
"The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations," wrote President Washington in his
farewell address, "is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political