federalexpression

This is a Republic, not a Democracy. Let's keep it that way!

Posts Tagged ‘War Powers

How The American People Lost Control of “The War Powers” Part II

leave a comment »


In my previous post, I discussed that the people’s loss of control over the War Powers was directly related to our membership in the United Nations. This post will further illustrate this association so that the average American can better understand the connection. Furthermore, it is important to see that the failure of the League of Nations at the end of World War I created the necessity for a World War II by the internationalists who wished to build a modern Tower of Babel; a world government –  A New World Order.

Carter GlassHow do I justify the assertion that the Second World War was engineered for the purpose of developing a New World Order? A man named Carter Glass essentially tells us this in an interview he gave to the Associated Press. The AP story was run in papers across the country including the Arizona Republic on November 3, 1943. In the article, Glass offers his firm conviction that if the United States had joined the League of Nations and the World Court, World War II would not be upon us. He should know. Glass was first and foremost a newspaperman. Later he joined Congress and served as a house member from 1902-1918 and co-sponsored the Glass-Owen Act. Yes, the very same act that created the Federal Reserve System. He also co-sponsored the Glass-Steagall Act in 1933. Then he served as Treasurer under Woodrow Wilson (1918-1920) and as a Senator (1941-1945).  We are told in our history classes that the horror of two world wars woke the people to the reality that the world needed an institution capable of enforcing international law. The events leading to the second war illustrate that the goal of these wars was, in fact, World Government. It was the controlled press that conditioned the world into accepting the United Nations and it was the two great wars only a generation apart which the press used to justify the propaganda. This propaganda started in earnest in 1942 by using the term United Nations and Allied forces interchangeably. The groundwork was laid in August of 1941 when Roosevelt and Churchill met to discuss their goals for a post-war world.

Atlantic-Charter-6If I asked you when the United Nations began, most would say June of 1945. Some would say US membership was approved on July 28, 1945. The United Nations actually began in January 1942, less than a month after the Attack on Pearl Harbor.  On January 1, 1942, A Declaration by United Nations was issued at the Arcadia Conference on behalf of 26 countries. The principles which guided this United Nations Declaration were actually laid out in August 1941 in what has become known as the Atlantic Charter. The Atlantic Charter was actually a post-war policy statement issued by the United States and Great Britain even before our nation entered the war. The goals of this charter involved: reduction of trade restrictions; global cooperation to secure better economic and social conditions for all; freedom from fear and want; freedom of the seas; and abandonment of the use of force, as well as disarmament of aggressor nations. These were post-war goals. Have we seen any of these policies implemented through the United Nations? The World Trade Organization, for example,  is a creature derived from the Atlantic Charter. The propaganda was carefully crafted so as to pit the Nazis and Japanese against the Charter. In this way, Americans were conditioned to believe that anyone who opposed the United Nations supported the Nazi regime. Never mind that the Communists favored the United Nations. After all, they were our allies, right? Once again, the press left the American people with no true, American, position. The issue was framed. Will you support the Communists in Russia and China or Hitler and the Nazis? Why not support the United States Constitution? Why not maintain neutrality while the position is tenable and if attacked, fAtlantic_Charter_(color)ight and defeat your enemy while avoiding international entanglements of a permanent nature? But no, that would never be acceptable! Instead, we must toss our Constitution on the bonfire of International Socialism! So the war was fought and while our grandparents were dying on foreign battlefields, the Roosevelt Administration held post-war conference after post-war conference to ensure that a United Nations Charter, that would destroy the very freedom that our grandparents were fighting to protect, would be adopted by the Senate. Meanwhile, the war itself was conducted in such a manner as to build and bolster the Communist menace under the cover of their ally status. This was to ensure that the need for a post-war United Nations and a desire for an International super Government would have staying power. That is exactly what “the bomb” and the cold-war accomplished. But we are getting ahead of ourselves. How did the United Nations Charter rob the American people and the Congress of the “War Powers”?

The War Powers Compromised
The United Nations Charter has several enforcement clauses. They are laid out in Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter:

Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter sets out the UN Security Council‘s powers to maintain peace. It allows the Council to “determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression” and to take military and nonmilitary action to “restore international peace and security”.

Article 39
The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Having read Article 39, one wonders what lies in Articles 41 and 42. Article 41 outlines the non-military options of dispute resolution. I should add that the options quoted below are acts of war. They may not involve munitions, but for time memorial they have been considered acts of war and routinely precede hot wars. Article 42 takes the next logical step and invokes the power to enforce peace. That’s right, enforce peace. You can’t make this stuff up!

Article 41
The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

Article 42
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

There’s one small problem with all of this. You see, the UN doesn’t have any money or troops of its own. How in the world is the Security Council going to enforce peace? Article 43 covers that issue:

Article 43

  1. All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.
  2. Such agreement or agreements shall govern the numbers and types of forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of the facilities and assistance to be provided.
  3. The agreement or agreements shall be negotiated as soon as possible on the initiative of the Security Council. They  shall be concluded between the Security Council and Members or between the Security Council and groups of Members and shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.

Then the Charter goes on to describe agreements among member nations to provide permanent contingency forces, etc. The entire charter undermines the lawful authority of Congress to Declare War. It gets worse. You’ll notice #3 in article 43 mentions ratification by member states along constitutional processes. To avoid unpleasant resistance down the road, Congress was presented with the United Nations Participation Act of 1945. This Act did not only rubber stamp the UN charter, it gave the President of the United States a blank check with regard to our military. Sections 5 and 6 of the UNPA addresses Articles 41-43 of the UN Charter:

Section 5
…pursuant to article 41 … the President may … investigate, regulate, or prohibit, in whole or in part, economic relations or rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication between any foreign country or any national thereof or any person therein and the United States or any person subject to the jurisdiction thereof, or involving any property subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Section 6
The President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of the Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of said Charter and pursuant to such special agreement or agreements the armed forces, facilities, or assistance provided for therein: …

So now it is not so difficult to see why the Congress has not declared war since December of 1941. Amongst the propaganda barrage that swept the nation there were a few voices of sanity. One such voice came from Representative Jessie Sumner. Her testimony in opposition of the United Nations Participation Act on December 18, 1945 is a must read. Another opinion worth reading is the testimony of Catherine P. Baldwin before the Senate. She was a simple citizen from New York and her remarks were read into the Congressional record by Senator William Langer of North Dakota. We now face numerous other threats to our nation from the UN: Agenda 21 attacks our property rights, the law of the sea treaty would cede control of three-quarters of the planet to the UN, the small arms treaty is designed to disarm citizens where firearms are still permitted. This disarmament of small arms is the final step to making the United Nations all-powerful. Read the Atlantic Charter of 1941. It’s all in there, and more.America and the United Nations

It’s time to Get US out of the United Nations and Get the United Nations Out of the US !!! House Bill HR 75 would do just that !!!! Does your representative support this Bill? What about your two Senators? Spread the word! Buy and distribute this inexpensive little pamphlet: America and the United Nations.

My Source Documents Illustrate the propaganda push from as early as August 1941 in support of the United Nations:
The Atlantic Charter August 1941

Declaration of United Nations January 1942

Moscow Pact 1943

Cairo Conference and Tehran Conference December 1943

Dumbarton Oaks Conference July 1944

Yalta Conference February 1945

Here is an account of Truman Decorating Ike for his service to the United Nations.

I had a reader request info on the UN from a religious perspective… They are intimately involved in the creation of a one-world new age religion. If you are interested in this aspect, I invite you to watch the following video presentation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmbXuZNIO-0

Advertisements

How The American People Lost Control of “The War Powers”

leave a comment »


It must be asked, How is it that the people have lost control of the war powers when the Constitution clearly stipulates that war must be declared by Congress? To answer this question, we need to travel back in time to the end of World War II. It is no coincidence that no declaration of war has been issued since the US entered the Great War. It so happens that the usurpation of the war powers began in earnest upon entry into the United Nations.

In 1945, Ambassador J. Reuben Clark, Jr., a scholar in the field of international law, prepared an analysis of the UN Charter. He concluded that the Charter “is a war document not a peace document,” and that it “is built to prepare for war, not to promote peace.”

[T]here is no provision in the Charter itself that contemplates ending war. It is true the Charter provides for force to bring peace, but such use of force is itself war…. Not only does the Charter Organization not prevent future wars, but it makes practically certain that we shall have future wars, and as to such wars it takes from us the power to declare them, to choose the side on which we shall fight, to determine what forces and military equipment we shall use in the war, and to control and command our sons who do the fighting.

This predicament could not be more alien to the intention of the framers of our Constitution. Here is what Alexander Hamilton said about the war powers in Federalist Paper #69.

Alexander Hamilton

The President is to be the “commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States, when called into the actual service of the United States.

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.

The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and 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.

It is easy to see, then that the framers wished to divide the war-powers. The executive role was to be subordinate to the legislature. In this way, it was seen that either an attack by a foreign power or an act of the legislature would be required in order to break the condition of peace. The executive’s role was to restore the peace by use of the military either in defense of an attack or by commanding the armed forces granted to his use through a declaration of war. One also notices how the states retain their militias and the federal government has no permanent use of them. Here is a check against the military held by the several states. Unfortunately our militia system is dismantled and so a State’s check against a military tyranny from Washington, DC is no longer maintained.

To summarize the Constitution, the legislature makes war; the president makes peace. The Senate ratifies the terms of the peace.

Other Related Posts:
https://federalexpression.wordpress.com/2011/09/09/treaty-power-and-the-supremacy-clause/
https://federalexpression.wordpress.com/2011/02/08/the-us-constitution-vs-the-universal-declaration-of-human-rights/
https://federalexpression.wordpress.com/2011/04/26/get-us-out-of-the-un/
https://federalexpression.wordpress.com/2011/03/10/agenda-21-the-un-is-not-your-freind/

Written by federalexpression

March 12, 2012 at 3:53 pm

%d bloggers like this: