Frequently Asked Questions

Getusout
Frequently Asked Questions

Source:

But we will place constitutional limits on the United Nations or any other world-state system.

The UN is the world’s last best hope for peace.

We cannot have peace as long as the world is divided into warring countries and armaments continue to proliferate. Only a disarmed world under some world authority offers an answer.

The UN will be restricted to using its military forces for "collective security" and to supervise disarmament.

Nations, like individuals must be made accountable to the rule of law. It is not possible to have world peace without world law.

World federalism merely means extending to the world arena the same federal principles that united American colonists. How could any American oppose that?

The President must have latitude to commit U.S. forces for collective security under the mandate of the UN Charter.

At least the UN provides a forum where the nations of the world can come together to talk and work out their differences.

Interdependence is a fact; a return to isolationism would be not only counterproductive, but dangerous.

But we will place constitutional limits on the United Nations or any other world-state system.

This is the plea, for instance, of Time magazine’s Editor-at-Large Strobe Talbott (CFR director, TC). His blatant appeal for world government, "The Birth of the Global Nation," appeared in the July 20, 1992 issue of Time. The global government he envisions, he claims, "is not an all-powerful Leviathan or centralized superstate, but a federation, a union of separate states that allocate certain powers to a central government while retaining many others for themselves." We hear these explanations and many others like them. Yet who but a fool believes that promises to limit world authority would be kept — even if such commitments were made in good faith by honorable men.

Addressing the Virginia Convention in 1788, Madison stated: "I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."28

Jefferson, writing in 1800 about this same concern for our new government, expressed his belief that "a single consolidated government would become the most corrupt government on the earth."29 Twenty-one years later he remarked, "Our government is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence."30

If these men could entertain such pessimistic views of government and perceive the dangers in their day when government was remarkably smaller, the populace still vigilant, and the constitutional chains still firm, how is it possible that the far greater peril from our own ever-growing government and the incalculable dangers of global government under the UN create so little apprehension?

It is painfully obvious to anyone with eyes to see that abridgements of our freedom by gradual and silent encroachments have already proceeded to the point that the federal government has very nearly become our "fearful master." And the consolidation and corruption in Washington have indeed followed the grim course outlined by Jefferson, though he could not possibly have imagined the incredible depravity to which government has sunk in our day. Certainly there is nothing in our present predicament to contradict this warning expressed by Jefferson:

When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.31

If Jefferson’s admonition was valid concerning our national government — and it was — it must apply infinitely more to a centralized global government. Considering the past and present makeup of the United Nations membership, the background of the communist criminals and conspirators who founded the organization, and the total lack of fundamental constitutional restraints in the UN Charter to protect against encroachment or usurpation, there can be no excuse whatsoever for any hope that, once vested with increased power, the UN will not abuse it. To restrain growing UN power we must contend against not only the natural tendency toward the accumulation of power in government but also a long-standing, organized conspiracy of powerful forces working to build, piece by piece, step by step, an omnipotent global government.

The Club of Rome asserts that "world policing will have to be provided under the authority of the United Nations,"32 and virtually every day brings new proposals from official sources and private groups for UN policing and control of the environment, the economy, industry — essentially every part of the globe and every aspect of our lives. Strobe Talbott’s assurances notwithstanding, UN conventions on ozone depletion, carbon dioxide and biodiversity, and the massive Agenda 21 program for global ecofascism have the potential all by themselves to turn the UN into "an all-powerful Leviathan or centralized superstate."

The UN is the world’s last best hope for peace.

This cliche has achieved near universal acceptance because of sheer repetition; it has been repeated so often that people assume it must be true. However, only by some tortured application of Orwellian "Newspeak" can the UN be referred to as a "peace" organization.

During the summer of 1945, Ambassador J. Reuben Clark, Jr., one of America’s foremost scholars in the field of international law, prepared an analysis of the UN Charter. His learned appraisal and cogent remarks fly in the face of popular platitudes and conventional "wisdom" concerning the "revered" document. Ambassador Clark’s examination led him to conclude that the Charter "is a war document not a peace document," and that it "is built to prepare for war, not to promote peace." The Ambassador noted:

[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.33

Moreover, said Ambassador Clark,

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.34

The Ambassador’s predictions were soon borne out — first in Korea and then in Vietnam, the first two wars America fought with UN involvement and the only two which the United States has ever failed to win.35

Dr. J. B. Matthews, former chief investigator for the House Committee on Un-American Activities and one of America’s outstanding scholars on Marxist-Leninist theory and practice, was but one of many leading Americans who exposed the UN-as-peace-dove myth. Dr. Matthews was not one to mince words. "I challenge the illusion that the UN is an instrument of peace," he said. "It could not be less of a cruel hoax if it had been organized in Hell for the sole purpose of aiding and abetting the destruction of the United States."36 Senator William Langer (R-ND), one of only two senators with enough courage and foresight to vote against the UN Charter, said "I feel from the bottom of my heart that the adoption of the Charter ... will mean perpetuating war."37

The UN’s monstrous war against the people of Katanga should forever lay to rest any reference to the UN as a peace organization. The UN and its supporters may persist in the charade of calling the UN’s warmaking powers "peacemaking" or "peacekeeping," but no sensible person of goodwill should give the slightest credence to such patently deceitful abuse of language.

We cannot have peace as long as the world is divided into warring countries and armaments continue to proliferate. Only a disarmed world under some world authority offers an answer.

Observing that wars are most often between nations, many people mistakenly believe that nationhood itself is the cause of war and have thus fallen for the fallacious argument that an "end to nationhood" would mean an end to war. But what are the causes of war?

The Apostle James asked this same question, "From whence come wars and fightings among you?" And he answered, "Come they not here, even of your lusts that war in your members? Ye lust, and have not; ye kill and desire to have, and cannot obtain; ye fight and war...." (James 4:1-2). His answer points us back to the faults of our own human nature. Will forming a world government change man’s basic nature? Obviously not. So how can we expect peace to come from transferring our weapons to a global authority? As Professor Rummel’s research so clearly pointed out, our paramount political concern should be with limiting and restraining existing governments. Creating an unrestrained global bureaucratic behemoth goes in the opposite direction, violates every principle of sound government, and virtually guarantees global democide.

World government, unless it be led by the Prince of Peace, can offer our world no salvation from the troubles that beset us. Even such a New World Order luminary as Princeton professor Richard A. Falk (CFR), a leading "World Peace Through World Law" proponent and a member of the World Order Models Project, has admitted, "There is nothing intrinsic about the idea of world government that precludes elitism, mass poverty, ecological decay, or even large-scale violence."38

Writing in 1955, Frank Chodorov noted:

Ten years ago the United Nations was ushered into the world as the guarantor of peace. It has failed. Despite that obvious fact, there are many whose faith in some sort of Superstate as an instrument of peace is unshaken, and who lay the failure of the UN to the limitations put upon it by the autonomy of its members. That is to say, they believe in peace through coercion; the more coercion, the more peace.

History cannot give this faith the slightest support. The grandeur that was Rome did not prevent the parts of that empire from coming into conflict with one another nor from rising up against the central authority. Even our American coalition of commonwealths came near breaking up in war, and uprisings have all but disintegrated the British Empire.39

Still, the cult of statism has continued to grow, and, most unfortunately, has converted many believers in the Bible to its cause. They fail to appreciate that statism is not only politically unwise, but is actually an idolatrous, humanist doctrine completely at odds with Christianity. Concerning this basic and neglected truth, author Douglas R. Groothuis writes:

Christian realism demands that no one political institution claim total power. Since all people are sinners and imperfect, political power should be counterbalanced between various institutions and nations. A centralization of power (statism) in a fallen world is even more dangerous than current national diversity. To put one’s hope for peace and prosperity into a world government and not God is the same idolatry committed by the builders of the tower of Babel (Gen. 11:1-9).

The Christian political conscience must reject idolatrous internationalism with as much enthusiasm as it rejects any idolatrous nationalism.40

The UN will be restricted to using its military forces for "collective security" and to supervise disarmament.

All the assurances of the UN and the CFR Establishment notwithstanding, the fact remains that once we have reached the stage "where no state would have the military power to challenge the progressively strengthened U.N. Peace Force," we will, by definition, have established a worldwide military dictatorship. At that point, so-called "restrictions" on its use of force will offer about as much protection as the paper on which they are written. As Lord Acton aptly observed: "Absolute power and restrictions on its exercise cannot exist together. It is but a new form of the old contest between the spirit of true freedom and despotism in its most dexterous disguise."41

"Every Communist must grasp the truth, ‘Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun,’" preached Mao Tse-tung. "Our principle is that the Party commands the gun ... All things grow out of the barrel of a gun."42 Following Mao’s principle, the UN-new world order globalists intend to hold all power by commanding all the guns. If they should succeed, it is certain they would also follow Mao’s program of terror and mass murder.

Nations, like individuals must be made accountable to the rule of law. It is not possible to have world peace without world law.

Such appeals are "dangerously misleading," counseled legal scholar Lyman A. Garber, because they convey "the thought that law has some self-enforcing quality. This is not so. No such thing as ‘law’ exists unless there is the combination of a court, plus adequate force."43 Which, as former American Bar Association president Frank Holman so logically pointed out, "necessarily adds up to world government."44 And again we are confronted with the dangerously insoluble problem of power.

Historian Rev. Frederick Copleston, S.J., has observed:

History shows that there never has been a truly world-wide government. It does not exist, never did exist, and never could have existed. Su‡rez maintained as we have seen, that the existence of a single political community for all men is morally impossible and that, even if possible, it would be highly inexpedient. If Aristotle was right, as he was, in saying that it is difficult to govern a very large city properly, it would be far more difficult to govern a world-State.45

Morally impossible, yes. And certainly impossible to govern properly. But the "world-State" as an immoral global dictatorship is rapidly being built. The new world order advocates can prattle all they want about "the rule of law," but the facts remain that the UN is a completely lawless organization; its charter and its actions are based not on law but on arbitrariness and caprice. And for the UN to become the basis for a fully-functioning world government, the "rule of law" in America (our constitutional system) and in every other nation must be destroyed.

What could we really expect from a world government? Cutting through the syrupy platitudes and deceitful propaganda that usually attend this topic, John F. McManus offered this realistic appraisal in 1979 in his book The Insiders:

One: Rather than improve the standard of living for other nations, world government will mean a forced redistribution of all wealth and a sharp reduction in the standard of living for Americans.

Two: Strict regimentation will become commonplace, and there will no longer be any freedom of movement, freedom of worship, private property rights, free speech, or the right to publish.

Three: World government will mean that this once glorious land of opportunity will become another socialistic nightmare where no amount of effort will produce a just reward.

Four: World order will be enforced by agents of the world government in the same way that agents of the Kremlin enforce their rule throughout Soviet Russia today.46

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 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 connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop."53 (Emphasis in original) That wise counsel remains completely valid today.

"Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground?" Washington asked. "Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?" Why indeed? Rather, he said, "Observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct."54 His is a true prescription for peace among nations. It was in this same spirit that the 19th century British statesman Richard Cobden declared: "Peace will come to this earth when her peoples have as much as possible to do with each other; their governments the least possible."55

In foreign relations as in all other areas of public affairs, government involvement beyond what is absolutely necessary was wisely viewed with suspicion and alarm during our republic’s early history. Until the ascendancy of the CFR foreign policy elitists in our State Department, private citizens engaging in real people-to-people exchange — through commerce, tourism and educational, charitable and church contacts — were considered far better ambassadors of goodwill than were professional diplomats. And they provided far less opportunity for getting America involved in foreign quarrels and intrigues.

John Quincy Adams’s "isolationist" position commends itself well to our era and offers a philosophical compass to guide us out of much of our current distress. Adams said:

America goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will recommend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standards of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force.56

Footnotes:

    28.   James Madison, speech in the Virginia Convention, June 16, 1788, quoted by John Bartlett, Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1980), p. 398.
   29.   Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Gideon Granger, Monticello, August 1800, quoted by John P. Foley (ed.), The Jeffersonian Cyclopedia (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1900), p. 130.
   30.   Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Nathaniel Macon, Monticello, 1821, quoted by Foley (ed.), p. 130.
   31.   Thomas Jefferson in a letter to C. Hammond, Monticello, 1821, quoted by Foley (ed.), p. 133.
   32.   Alexander King & Bertrand Schneider, The First Global Revolution, a report by the Council of The Club of Rome (NewYork: Pantheon Books, 1991), p. 149.
   33.   J. Reuben Clark, Jr., quote by Lee, p. 35.
   34.   Ibid.
   35.   Both the Korean War and Vietnam War were fought under the auspices of SEATO (the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization) a regional alliance under the authority of the United Nations. SEATO was formed in 1954 under the guiding hand of John Foster Dulles for the purpose of involving the U.S. militarily in Southeast Asia. The SEATO treaty states:
Article 1. The parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations ... and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.
Article 4. ... [Military] Measures taken under this paragraph shall be immediately reported to the Security Council of the United Nations....
In Korea, CFR Insiders allowed the UN to dictate the "no-win" policies that guaranteed heavy losses of our soldiers and, ultimately, defeat. Secretary of Defense George Marshall admitted that the U.S. "hot pursuit" policy allowing our pilots to pursue attacking enemy aircraft back into their own territory was abandoned because the policy had failed to win UN support. Secretary of State Dean Acheson stated: "There have been resolutions of the General Assembly which make clear the course that the General Assembly thinks wise; and the United States is endeavoring to follow the course which has tremendous international support and is not contemplating taking unilateral steps of its own."
General Douglas MacArthur, in explaining the unprecedented and unconscionable restrictions placed on his military options said: "I realized for the first time that I had actually been denied the use of my full military power to safeguard the lives of my soldiers and the safety of my army. To me, it clearly foreshadowed a future tragic situation in Korea, and left me with a sense of inexpressible shock."
Through the UN, the Communist forces were kept informed of "allied" military plans and operations. General MacArthur stated: "That there was some leak in intelligence was evident to everyone. [Brigadier General Walton] Walker continually complained to me that his operations were known to the enemy in advance through sources in Washington." General Mark Clark said: "I could not help wondering and worrying whether we were faced with open enemies across the conference table and hidden enemieswho sat with us in our most secret councils."
Red Chinese General Lin Piao made this shocking admission: "I would never have made the attack and risked my men and military reputation if I had not been assured that Washington would restrain General MacArthur from taking adequate retaliatory measures against my lines of supply and communication." He knew the fix was in in Washington.
For more in-depth coverage of the Korean and Vietnam betrayals, see especially: Robert W. Lee, The United Nations Conspiracy (Appleton, WI: Western Islands, 1981), Chap. 5, "Korea," pp. 51-60; G. Edward Griffin, The Fearful Master: A Second Look at the United Nations (Apple, WI: Western Islands, 1964), Chapter 14, "A Substitute for Victory," pp. 169-83; James Perloff, The Shadows of Power: The Council on Foreign Relations And The American Decline (Appleton, WI: Western Islands, 1988), Chap. 6, "The Truman Era," pp. 81-83, and Chap. 8, "The Estab’s War in Vietnam," pp. 120-35; Douglas MacArthur, Reminiscences (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1964); Mark Clark, From the Danube to the Yalu (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1954); and Hilaire du Berrier, Background to Betrayal: The Tragedy of Vietnam (Appleton, WI: Western Islands, 1965).
   36.   J. B. Matthews, quoted by Griffin, The Fearful Master, p. 158.
   37.   Griffin, The Fearful Master, p. 158.
   38.   Richard A. Falk, quoted by Mark Satin, New Age Politics: Healing Self and Society (West Vancouver, B.C.: Whitecap Books, 1978), p. 127.
   39.   Frank Chodorov, "One Worldism," The Freeman, March 1955, p. 334.
   40.   Douglas R. Groothuis, Unmasking the New Age (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1986), p. 128.
   41.   Lord Acton, quoted in The Freeman, March 1955, p. 373.
   42.   Mao Tse-tung, "Problems of War and Strategy" (November 6, 1938), Selected Works, Vol II, (Peking).
   43.   Lyman A. Garber, Of Men and Not of Law: How the Courts are Usurping the Political Function (New York: Devin-Adair, 1966), p. 7.
   44.   Frank E. Holman, "The Problems of the World Court and the Connally Reservation," a pamphlet (Seattle, WA: Frayn Printing Co., Seattle, July 25, 1960), quoted in Garber, p. 8.
   45.   Frederick Copleston, S.J., A History of Philosophy, Volume III: Ockham to Suarez (New York: Doubleday, 1963), p. 397.
   46.   John F. McManus, The Insiders: Architects of the New World Order, (3rd ed.) (Appleton, WI: The John Birch Society, 1992), p. 20.
   47.   Crane, p. 63.
   48.   John Jay, Essay No. 2 in The Federalist Papers, p. 38.
   49.   Alexander Hamilton, Essay No. 69 in The Federalist Papers, p. 417-18.
   50.   Abraham Lincoln to William H. Hendon, quoted by John F. McManus, "Sins of Our Fathers," The New American, April 9, 1991, p. 25.
   51.   Griffin, p. 229.
   52.   William Henry Chamberlain, "The Bankruptcy of a Policy," in Harry Elmer Barnes (ed.), Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace (Caldwell, ID: Caxton Printers, 1953), p. 523.
   53.   George Washington, Farewell Address, September 17, 1796, quoted in A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, Vol. I, p. 214.
   54.   Ibid., pp. 213-15.
   55.   Richard Cobden, quoted by Welch, p. 150.
   56.   John Quincy Adams, quoted by Barnes (ed.), frontpiece.