You are not connected. Please login or register

OUT OF MIND » THE INSANITY OF REALITY » GOVERNMENT & THE NEW WORLD ORDER »  "In Defense of the World Order... US Soldiers would have to kill and die"

"In Defense of the World Order... US Soldiers would have to kill and die"

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]



"In Defense of the World Order...
US Soldiers would have to kill and die"
*Aurthur Schlesinger, Jr., July / August '95 Foreign Affairs - CFR's Flagship Publication
MICHAEL NEW, an American Soldier says NO... to a systematic plan that began decades before his birth - a plan that is at the heart of America's drift toward becoming just another "third-world outpost" of a UN controlled World Government.
This entire edition has been devoted to exposing (with documented evidence) the devious strategy of a "powerful elite...", and, most importantly, why Michael New has the lawful right to say "NO". The fate of our American Republic may depend upon the outcome.
"Hell is truth seen too late... duty neglected in its season." --Tryon Edwards
SPECIALIST MICHAEL NEW, A MEDIC with the 3rd Infantry Division in Germany, has refused to wear a UN-blue beret or insignia in October when his unit is deployed to Macedonia to conduct a UN "peacekeeping mission" there. New says, "I took an oath to the Constitution for the United States, and I can find no reference to the United Nations in it anywhere". The army says, "You took an oath to obey legal orders and you WILL comply, or you will face possible court martial, possible imprisonment, and at the least, a less-than-honorable discharge". New asks, "By what authority can you transfer my loyalty without my permission?"
On Monday, 28 August, ('95) New met with a JAG (Judge Advocate General) attorney to review his legal options. We're told New does face possible court martial for his position. According to Will Grigg of the New American, who had personal conversation with New, the military was attempting to construe his refusal to wear UN BLUE as an indication that New is a Conscientious Objector. New says he is not. New is quoted as saying there are many officers and non-coms who privately agree with his stance. Publicly, they all have family, careers and retirement to consider. The Army has issued a statement saying that New hasn't disobeyed an order until the UN insignias are handed out and he directly refuses to sew them to his uniform. New is standing firm. We assert: this is an attempt to defuse/cover-up a volatile situation which could escalate when other like-minded pro-American military personnel discover someone has the courage to stand up for his principles and his Constitutional rights.
And now, the $64,000 question: BY WHAT CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY can any one entity in this country or this world - including Clinton, or the US Congress or ANY COURT - order Michael New, an American soldier who is a sovereign citizen of the united sovereign States of America, to wear the insignia of a Global Corporate Army (UN - or NATO for that matter) which was created from the diabolical minds of self-proclaimed "world policy makers"? Perhaps the answer to this question can be found in Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.'s article titled "Back to the Womb?", from the July/August '95 edition of "Foreign Affairs"
In his article, Schlesinger laments the isolationist stance of Americans throughout history. He says the obstacles to the "commitment of troops to combat" in a world army are both political and constitutional.
"Political - How to explain to the American people why their husbands, fathers, brothers, or sons should die in conflicts in remote lands where the local outcome makes no direct difference to the United States? and... Constitutional - If a president favored US participation in a UN collective security action, must he go to Congress for specific authorization? Or could the UN Charter supersede the US Constitution?"
The answer is "NO", and obviously the answer to that question was understood even in Roosevelt's administration. Schlesinger says,
"The UN Participation Act of 1945 came up with an ingenious solution. It authorized the US to commit limited force through congressionally approved special agreements as provided for in Article 43 of the UN Charter... This formula offered a convincing way to reconcile the charter and the Constitution. Unfortunately, the Article 43 special agreement procedure soon withered on the vine."
P1. 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. [discusses numbers, types, degree of readiness of forces plus location and nature of facilities and assistance to be provided.]
3. The agreement... shall be negotiated... on the initiative of the Security Council... between the Security Council and Members... and shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.
As seen on C-Span upon his appointment as Secretary of State, Warren Christopher (cfr) was given a copy of the UN Charter by Senator Claiborne Pell (cfr) who asked Christopher to give his word he would "do everything in his power to get Article 43 ratified". In 1993, US Senators Pell, Biden and Simon introduced SJRes 112, the Collective Security Participation Resolution, proposing to ratify Article 43. It, too, died on the vine. These are U. S. Senators who swore to uphold our Constitution. According to the United Nations' Information Center in answer to our question by phone (9-95), "Article 43 has never been implemented or ratified".
In fact, even had Article 43 been ratified, it would be unConstitutional and therefore unenforceable. Schlesinger tells us that...
"When Harry S. Truman sent troops into Korea five years later, he sought neither an Article 43 agreement nor a congressional joint resolution, thereby setting the precedent that persuaded several successors that presidents possess the inherent power to go to war when they choose".
In an L.A. Times article, (7-7-94), regarding Clinton's threats to invade Haiti without Congressional approval the author, Doug Bandow, rightfully asks, "Should young Americans die to 'restore' democracy in a nation with no democratic tradition?". He states that, "proponents of executive war-making contend that ample precedent - 200 or more troop deployments without congressional approval - exists for the president to unilaterally initiate hostilities." The proponents of executive war-making are also proponents of a global system of governance under their own creation - the United Nations. Their "experts" would have us believe that because our Constitution has been violated over 200 times it is no longer in effect. That is true only if we, the American people - whose liberty is under siege - continue our false belief in and acceptance of their self-serving rhetoric.
Precedent is not law. America is a Republic.
Informed Americans want no part of "democracy". Uninformed Americans would not want it either if they became informed. We should not misconstrue the difinition of the loosely used word "democracy" which in globalist doublespeak means socialism. The aim of the globalist cartel is world Socialism, or more aptly, world corporate fascism. If you disagree, are you willing to bet your freedom on it?
In 1974, former US Senator Thomas F. Eagleton wrote a book titled, War and Presidential Power: A Chronicle of Congressional Surrender, in which he demonstrated the erosion of Congress' awareness of its own constitutional powers in the passage of the War Powers Resolution on 11-7-73 (PL 93-148)
In his book Eagleton provides a behind-the scenes account of how the war powers measure, which was intended to "recapture" Congress' power to declare war, was "kidnapped" in a House-Senate conference committee, and he states that the bill is unConstitutional since it "formally surrenders the primacy of Congress in decisions of war and peace". PL93-148 requires no specific Congressional authorization for US military involvement in hostilities until ninety days after the president engages US forces. In the meantime, the president garners public support through the use of the controlled media - eliciting Americans' patriotic empathy - thereby influencing Congress to support un-Constitutional presidential actions. Eagleton ends his book with a call to amend PL93-148 to restore the proper congressional role.
In this case Senator Eagleton did not understand his Constitutional power or obligation. The federal government (congress, president, supreme court, bureaucrats) has only the power delegated to it by our Constitution. Any other powers assumed by either elected officials or appointed bureaucrats are un-Constitutional and of no effect.
* War Powers Resolution - Not to be confused with the Emergency Banking / Trading With The Enemy Act of 1933 (most commonly referred to as the War Powers Act) when President Franklin Delano Roosevelt declared a national emergency - which has been renewed by every president since Roosevelt - and purportedly "suspended" our Constitution.
Our Constitution contains no provision which would allow it to be suspended by anyone, including the president, and any "law" declaring it so has no force or effect. No president, Congress, judge or group of powerful "world-leaders" can suspend our Constitution, either legally or lawfully. It is disturbing, indeed, to continuously read and hear from well-intended Americans who have bought into the Constitution-has-been-suspended rhetoric. We understand the laws were passed and our Constitution has been treated as though it doesn't exist and... this can stop now if Americans stop buying into and repeating these deceptions as though they are real.
[Note: 1-3-2000 - Nor does our Constitution contain any provision which would empower a president to declare martial law. Prior to the turn of the millennium - actually that occurs in 2001 - doom-and-gloom predictions hawked by the controlled media, and propagated by many "patriot" talk shows regarding impending Y2K catastrophes, thoughtless comments that: "The president will declare martial law" were bandied about loosely and irresponsibly. It isn't enough to ignore the statements when we hear them... we MUST set the record straight - THE PRESIDENT CANNOT DECLARE MARTIAL LAW... THERE IS NO SUCH THING UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION. The more often we repeat that fact, the sooner people will understand how we've been caught up in a word game. Let us begin now to cancel out the lies and replace the lies with truth. What miracles could happen?]
(This is a compilation of various U.S. Supreme Court decisions)
"... an un-Constitutional statute, whether federal or state, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose,... is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. No repeal of such an enactment is necessary."
"Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it. ....No one is bound to obey an un-Constitutional statute and no courts are bound to enforce it. ..."
Also see "Constitution of the United States of America - Revised and Annotated" - 1972. - Prepared by the Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress - Government Printing Office. On page 866, Chief Justice Marshall said:
** "The nullity of an act, inconsistent with the Constitution, is produced by the declaration, that the Constitution is the supreme law."
Translated... The president has no Constitutional authority to engage our American troops in war. The Congress has no authority to abrogate their Constitutional obligation to any other individual or body. Nor does the President have Constitutional power to make law or change law or violate the Constitution by Executive Orders or Presidential Decision Directives - i.e., Clinton's PDD-25 in which he assumes control over deployment of our military to UN "peacekeeping" missions as Commander in Chief. He doesn't become Commander in Chief unless Congress declares war.
When we spoke to Brian Merchant at the National Security Agency seeking information regarding Presidential Decision Directives and Executive Orders, he said EO's and PDD's are not law. He couldn't explain what they are.* When we stated that PDD-25 -- in which Bill Clinton gave himself authority to deploy U.S. troops to UN missions without congressional authority, among other dastardly presidential prerogatives -- is unConstitutional because only the U.S. Congress can declare war unless there is a direct attack on America, Brian Merchant replied, "Under international law, peacekeeping is not defined as war."
*[Note - 1-3-2000 - In 1996 Bill Leary from N.S.A. further explained the status of EO's,
"There is no legal or criminal penalty for failure to obey an executive order".
There is no Constitutional authority for the federal government to place Americans under International Law. This is more of their doublespeak as in Orwell's book, 1984, a classic story of a New World Order nightmare where the main slogan was, "WAR IS PEACE". The characters in Orwell's book believed it and today, we fear, many thoughtless Americans are swallowing it whole.
** [Note -1-3-2000 - The statement by Justice Marshall that the nullification of an unconstitutional act is simply the declaration of the supremacy of the Constitution, brought forth a compelling question: "Who listens when we make that declaration?" The answer is seemingly, "Nobody". Then, in view of the sovereign nature of the several states; and the maxim of the 10th Amendment in the Bill of Rights which declares that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,. . . are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people", it becomes clear that the declaration of the supremacy of the Constitution would necessarily be made by the legislatures of the several sovereign states.
FACT: The state legislators not only have the Constitutional power, they have the responsibility of declaring null and void any and all unconstitutional statutes, mandates, treaties, foreign agreements - including trade agreements - and any U.S. Supreme Court rulings which would, in effect, amend the Constitution. t is a matter of States' Rights]
Public Law 87-297, the Arms Control and Disarmament Act, one of the worst, most dangerous examples of an unConstitutional law, was passed on 9-26-61, accompanied by State Department Publication 7277, The US Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World. Section 31 A of Title 3 of PL 87-297, states that the function of the US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency is:
"the detection, identification, inspection, monitoring, limitation, reduction, control, and elimination of armed forces and armaments, including ... missiles, conventional, chemical and radiological weapons."

to continue reading use the link

Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum