Submitting to UN authority. (The Last Word).On May 6, 2002, the Bush administration "unsigned unsigned
(of a letter etc.) anonymous
Adj. 1. unsigned - lacking a signature; "the message was typewritten and unsigned"
signed - having a handwritten signature; "a signed letter" " the treaty establishing an International Criminal Court. Later on May 6th, the Justice Department informed the Supreme Court that the right to keep and bear arms belonged to "individuals" and its formal brief specifically mentioned "persons who are not members of any militia."
While seemingly good, these events must be scrutinized far more carefully because they do not exist in a vacuum. We live in a distinctly UN-saturated world.
President Truman obtained UN authorization to send troops into Korea in 1950. Three presidents sent troops to Vietnam citing authority derived from SEATO SEATO: see Southeast Asia Treaty Organization.
organization formed to assure protection against communist expansion in Southeast Asia (1955–1976). [World Hist.: EB, IX: 377]
See : Cooperation , a UN subsidiary. George Bush (the elder) blatantly told Congress he didn't need its authority to attack Iraq in 1991 because he obtained authorization from the UN. And the current President Bush sought and obtained UN authorization to wage a war on terrorism Terrorist acts and the threat of Terrorism have occupied the various law enforcement agencies in the U.S. government for many years. The Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, as amended by the usa patriot act .
The U.S. Constitution states that Congress alone can declare war. But beyond the repeated trashing of this venerable document in each of these wars, THE NEW AMERICAN has previously pointed to an absolutely pivotal assessment of what has occurred: One seeks authority from a superior, not from an inferior A succession of presidents -- with increasing congressional acquiescence Conduct recognizing the existence of a transaction and intended to permit the transaction to be carried into effect; a tacit agreement; consent inferred from silence. -- has effectively acknowledged that the UN is our nation's superior. Although few will admit it, most Americans have accepted this arrangement, and, even more outrageously, so has the overwhelming majority in Congress.
If the UN is our nation's superior in matters military, is this relationship total? Are those slowly and patiently conditioning Americans to allow UN domination of our military working for eventual acceptance of complete UN domination? And where do the two moves taken on May 6th fit -- if they fit at all -- in the steady delivery of our nation to the UN?
EU, WTO See World Trade Organization. and NAFTA NAFTA
in full North American Free Trade Agreement
Trade pact signed by Canada, the U.S., and Mexico in 1992, which took effect in 1994. Inspired by the success of the European Community in reducing trade barriers among its members, NAFTA created the world's Precedents
European nations have already discovered that their membership in the European Union European Union (EU), name given since the ratification (Nov., 1993) of the Treaty of European Union, or Maastricht Treaty, to the
European Community has forced changes in laws, even an EU currency. An EU court, for example, has forced Britain to accept homosexuals in its military. The EU now reigns superior over all EU member nations.
Similarly, once our nation joined NAFTA, its officials required changes in our regulations dealing with inspection of trucks entering the U.S. from Mexico. NAFTA, therefore, has become our superior.
Likewise, entry into the World Trade Organization has resulted in surrendering more U.S. sovereignty. One indication of this transfer of independence occurred when the WTO ruled against America's tax policies. Congress has meekly accepted WTO superiority.
With these precedents in mind, consider that the UN's ICC ICC
See: International Chamber of Commerce claims judicial power over every person on Earth. And the world body's campaign against private weapons ownership is hardly a secret. How can America refuse to submit to these UN designs?
Administration Spokesmen Miss the Mark
If present U.S. leaders really mean to keep Americans free of ICC jurisdiction, why did the Bush administration's undersecretary for political affairs Political Affairs has several meanings:
He was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on March 23, 2001 and sworn in as Under Secretary for Political Affairs on March 26, 2001. , complain only about the ICC's supposed undermining of the UN Charter? Grossman didn't focus on concerns that this UN court is unconstitutional.
Also, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld issued his own May 6th statement claiming that the ICC threatens all American overseas military and official personnel with potential ICC prosecution. While correctly noting that "the ICC will not respect the U.S. decision to stay out of the treaty," Rumsfeld seemed less concerned about that than his worry that the court's all-encompassing claim of jurisdiction would "create a powerful disincentive dis·in·cen·tive
Something that prevents or discourages action; a deterrent.
something that discourages someone from behaving or acting in a particular way
Noun 1. for U.S. military engagement in the world." Why not, therefore, bring the troops home from all UN-authorized assignments?
Regarding an additional UN power grab, the Bush administration has stated that it will not sign the Kyoto Protocols supposedly designed to deal with global warming global warming, the gradual increase of the temperature of the earth's lower atmosphere as a result of the increase in greenhouse gases since the Industrial Revolution. . Government officials have stated instead that they will work to rearrange U.S. law so that much of the Kyoto agreement will be adopted unilaterally -- not in name, but in substance.
This is what can be expected regarding the "unsigning" of the ICC treaty and the attorney general's protestations regarding private ownership of weapons. Our leaders will quietly conform U.S. law to the UN's dictates. Stealth will be needed until such time as the American people's will to resist open UN domination can be broken.
If this isn't the plan, why do our leaders keep America in the United Nations?
The bottom line is clear: For anyone who believes in national sovereignty and personal freedom, there can be no course other than to have our country withdraw completely from the United Nations.