UN Charter Clashes With Free-World Constitutions

by Jane Gaffin

In his inimitable style, outspoken American radio broadcaster Paul Harvey (1918 – 2009) championed love of God and country while railing against such hardcore subjects as Big Brother government.

On September 24, 1993, he went so far as to roll out the sordid facts about the United Nations on his long-standing ABC show The Rest of the Story.

“One would think by listening to all the propaganda about the United Nations that they are some sort of benevolent, peaceful organization,” began Mr. Harvey.

“Never in the history of the United Nations has it stood for anything but killing and violence. They have never kept peace anywhere on this globe. Their sole function is to replace the U.S. military — dissolve all four branches of our armed forces.

“Their allegiance is only to the United Nations Charter which does not recognize the U.S. Constitution. This body is made up almost exclusively of communists and leaders of the bloodiest regimes on this globe.

“Their history and operating agenda is apparent to anyone who takes the time to sincerely and with an open mind, research the facts of this organization, separating truth from myth.

“Bilderberg participants — another group committed to one-world domination — in 1992 called for ‘conditioning the public to accept the idea of a U.N. army that could, by force, impose its will on the internal affairs of any nation.’ “

Too bad more people didn’t heed Mr. Harvey’s wisdom and echo his sentiments before the United Nations and Bilderberg Group succeed in gobbling down the last morsels of freedom, sovereignty and peace, which would have happened sooner except for the unexpected Internet wild card that did wonders for momentarily cooling the overheated jets of the psychopaths.

As Mr. Harvey mentioned, the UN is not an instrument of peace. Wherever one stumbles often across “peace” in the UN Charter, written in classic Orwellian Newspeak, the word literally denotes “war”.

The phrase “human rights” means those the UN deems to qualify, mainly Muslims and Communists.

“Freedom of religion” dictates that only those accepting the state’s One-World religion have “religious freedom”, which ostensibly is based on Islam.

Christians are being slain, along with their concepts of Christianity and God. The state regards anybody who owns a Christian Bible — much less reads it –to be an infidel, who, if not murdered, will be institutionalized as a certifiable nut case. Christianity has to be eradicated to easily sell the masses on the ideology that national constitutions and their Bill of Rights are outmoded folly.

Below, as a companion to Mr. Harvey’s introduction, is an undated article, U.N. Charter Clashes with Constitution, reprinted sometime after 1960 in the Masonic Home Journal.

The account mentions that an effort to make property rights a part of the UN Declaration of Human Rights failed in the United Nations in 1960.

The United Nations Charter was signed in San Francisco, California, on June 26, 1945, and ratified two days later by the U.S. Senate. As well, reference is made to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), a special agency also formed in 1945.

Although the Charter article is United States-specific, it relates closely to other sovereign nations, especially in the Western World, where people’s rights and freedoms are protected as natural, God-given, inalienable, and are rooted firmly in British Common Law, the Magna Carta of 1215 and Bill of Rights of 1689.

However, it is through the destruction of morality, spirituality and brainwashing that free-market countries, specifically the U.S., “will drop in our hands like over-ripe fruit,” as Vladimir Lenin, Bolshevik Leader of the Russian Communists, put it.

Even Communist Leader Nikita Khrushchev assured confidently that communism would take over America without firing a shot. (Basically, the world views the U.S. and Canada as a singular “America”.)

The New Order of Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Germany has stood on the world’s threshold in the form of a totalitarian One-World Order society far too long. Yet there is a glimmer of indication that at this late date the political winds may be shifting.

As recently as October, 2014, Russian President Vladimir Putin and other outspoken world leaders, disgruntled with the hegemonic United Nations and its United States lapdog dictating how sovereign nations of the world will conduct their domestic affairs, addressed a forum on the subject of New World Order: New Rules or No Rules? (See transcript here.)

And to think it all started because a warped bunch of power-hungry screwballs decided to unilaterally enshrine a destructive One-World Disorder into a damnable U.N. Charter in 1945.

Exactly what constitutes the differences between the U.S. Constitution and the United Nations’ Charter? questioned the writer of the Masonic Home Journal essay.

The Constitution is a concise document; it is very clear in its meaning and specific in its terminology — despite confused interpretations of it on high.

The UN Charter, on the other hand, is so worded that even its framers were not certain about its meaning. Its provisions have been construed in many ways.

The Constitution guarantees certain rights and Freedoms which shall not be abridged. The UN Charter threatens to eliminate such basic rights as trial by jury, a right won in 1215 A.D. by our ancestors.

The Proposed UN Covenant on Human Rights says that Freedom of the press, one of our treasured rights, may be withdrawn “if necessary for the protection of national security, public order, safety, health or morals or the rights of others.”

Article 2 of the Proposed UN Covenant goes on: “Many of the rights ostensibly guaranteed in the covenant, including Freedom of the press, may be withdrawn during an emergency officially proclaimed by the authorities.”

What about Freedom of religion?

To most of us, this is the most vital of all. On this point our Constitution says: “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

What does the UN Covenant say? “Freedom to manifest one’s religion shall be subject only to such limitations as are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.”

The question which all Freedom-loving Americans must ask is: Who is to judge whether or not our religion and the way we worship will endanger somebody’s “health and morals?”

The answer is terrifying indeed. Even a brief analysis of the UN Covenants and our own Constitution shows that we cannot live under both at the same time, because they are not in agreement — pious, high-sounding words to the contrary.

If we were to live under the terms of the United Nations, we would have to surrender the sovereignty of the United States. Once that is surrendered, we who love Freedom will have no constitutional safeguards. Neither would any part of the free world.

Remember, the Charter of the United Nations does not recognize as unalienable the freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution. It purports to grant these rights. What government can grant, it can also take away.

Americans who say they stand for both the United Nations Charter and the United States Constitution, are not familiar with the provisions of these two documents, or they are fooling themselves, or they were trying to fool somebody else.

The UN Charter and the U.S. Constitution are mutually exclusive. In studying the UN Charter, it is important to look beyond the appealing slogans; it is absolutely vital that we know what is meant by “human rights”, “equality”, “social progress” and “freedoms”. And we must analyze carefully the UN’s basic aim of establishing international peace and security in the common interest.

No one will deny that a situation of international peace and security would be ideal. It was toward this end, and with good faith, that America ratified the UN Charter shortly after World War II–without too close an examination of how this was to be accomplished.

Much depends on how such a situation would be brought about, and after that, on how security would be maintained. We need to know whether the methods used would secure Freedom or bondage. We need to understand the difference in the communist concept of “peace” and “security” and our own meaning of the words.

The main principles of the UN Charter appear, on the surface, to be “equal rights” and “fundamental freedoms”. These phrases dominate the preamble and the first two articles of the Charter.

However, close examination shows that these “principles” are not actually bases for action. They are simply to be “respected” to whatever extent is possible, while other and somewhat different principles are applied.

In Article 1, Item 2, the Charter states this as a UN purpose: “To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace.”

In America, equal rights have been recognized as a premise of Freedom, not merely a “principle” to be accorded respect when it is convenient to do so.

An unalienable right of man is the right to own private property, but there is no recognition of this right in the UN Charter.

Furthermore, an effort to make property rights a part of the UN Declaration of Human Rights was defeated in the United Nations in 1960. The UN Resolution on Nationalization, adopted in 1952, does not call for prompt and full compensation for nationalization of property and resources.

If property rights were embodied in the UN Charter, then no Marxist could subscribe to it. Karl Marx said, “In all movements, bring to the front, as the leading question in every case, the property question.”

Thus, while communists make the property question foremost in trying to destroy Freedom, patriots must regard it as foremost in trying to save Freedom.

In studying the UN Charter, special attention should be given to what it says about “international peace and security.” This is a phrase we find very frequently in communist propaganda.

The communist conspiracy intends to establish its brand of “international peace and security” in a world dominated by communists.

The methods they use include subversion, agitation and armed force. What methods are open to the UN organization?

The Charter describes several measures which may be taken by the Security Council “to maintain or restore international peace and security” and what contributions to these measures the member nations are expected to make.

The Charter adds that if the Security Council should consider these measures insufficient, “it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security.”

In other words, the UN intends to establish its brand of international peace and security by any means, including armed force. That is what the dictatorships have always advocated. The communists practice their technique, according to the tenets of dialectical materialism. The UN technique is practiced according to the tenets of what might be called dialectical internationalism.

Neither suits Freedom-loving Americans. Our technique for seeking peace should be practiced according to the principles of Freedom and unalienable rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and granted by the Creator.

There are many more Americans who are questioning the motives of the United Nations Charter. And there are many more Americans who have reached the age in life where the future of our country has little meaning to them personally; but they are concerned for their grandchildren and their great-grandchildren.

They want to leave them the heritage they received from their forefathers. They know that, despite those who argue that the United Nations is our “last hope for peace”, a responsible, sovereign and strong United States is the only defense of Freedom in the world.

United States (Democratic) Senator Frank Lausche (who served as an elected senator from Ohio between the years 1957 to 1969) offers one more example of why many people view the United Nations with increasing skepticism:

“UNESCO, an official appendage of the UN, makes the following remarkable statement in one of its publications (The United Nations Education, Science and Cultural Organization publication No. 356): ‘As long as a child breathes poisoned air of nationalism, education in world mindedness can only produce rather precarious results. It is frequently the family that infects the child with extreme nationalism. The school should use means to combat family attitudes that favor Jingoism. We shall presently recognize in nationalism the major obstacle to development of world peace.’

“It would seem, then,” said Senator Lausche, “that the ‘ideal world’ as envisioned by the UN functionaries may be brought into being at the expense of the family, and influences teaching a child to love his country. All of which may persuade fewer people to love the UN.

*******

Agenda 21: So-Called ‘Compromise’ with the Enemy is Idiotic

by Jane Gaffin

A version of this article ran in the March 21, 2001 Whitehorse Star under the banner Compromise is the Way to Failure.

So, what has been learned in those 13 years? That it is simply idiotic for Mr. and Ms. Good Guy to continue engaging in a so-called ‘compromise’ with the enemy.

The crux of all land issues and border disputes these days flow from bending over to the United Nations Agenda 21 — the blueprint for how the world will turn and slaves will behave in the 21st Century.

In other words, it is about an anti-constitutional, totalitarian New World Order society in which citizens are being denied property rights and the rule of law as is recognized to be the firmly-planted cornerstone of any democratic country.

It really is a quarter past midnight, time to forget about trying to negotiate energy-sucking, time-consuming concessions. It is high time for all sovereign nations that respect life, liberty and freedom to dismantle the corrupt international organization and get back to looking after business on respective home turfs.

From hereon, political wannabes must publicly demonstrate their sincere intentions to work toward annihilation of the U.N. along with the promise of returning taxpayers’ stolen money to homebase where it can be applied to less-wasteful causes. Candidates refusing the terms must be shown the egress.

*******

Individual landowners are feeling queasy these days.

They see the legal secure tenure to their privately-owned property weakening while the government arbitrarily extinguishes land titles through a constant stream of illegal and unconstitutional forfeiture and “civil remedy” laws. A bell-ringing example of land expropriation going on in Canada is explained by Alberta lawyer Keith Wilson in this 57 minute video: Property Rights in Alberta

Additionally, people are finding public lands sealed off to commercial ventures such as agriculture, mining, farming, ranching, logging, trapping and big-game outfitting.

Land-users who want to go off for a cross-country ski or a Sunday hike and picnic are learning that it’s harder to find wilderness areas open to lawful public use.

The easiest targets against which the green acolytes hurled their rhetorical claptrap are the recreationalists who have been demonized for their want of wide-open spaces to run and race snowmachines, all-terrain vehicles and four-wheel-drive units.

This land-grab scam has been on the drawing board for nearly 40 years but became astonishingly apparent when the environmental jihad hit its stride in the mid-1980s and the public has been losing ground since then.

The campaign has steadily grown worse because ordinary citizens are not educated or mentally equipped to deal with the United Nations Big Green Machine.

It’s a rarity to come across a person who has heard about Agenda 21, a land scheme cooked up by the United Nations whose mission is a patient chipping away until North American property owners are relegated to the endangered species list and the middle class is crushed.

No headway has been made in thwarting the expropriation measures in the 13 years since Norm Lenhart tried educating his fellow fresh-air buffs and other groups and individuals on where they had failed to combat land issues and what has to be done to fix the wrongs.

Of all the mistakes made in the past when dealing with the environmentalists, “compromise” was the greatest, emphasized the columnist in Off Road magazine back in March 2001.

His reposted article, “The Art of War Applied”, was directed at groups who could answer affirmatively to the question: “Having trouble with environmentalists?”

Taking a look at land closures around both Canada and America is a testament that “compromise” has resulted in the loss of millions of acres of once “public” land.

These are public lands which belonged at one time to all the public that have been sealed off from public use and been economically cleansed.

“On the heels of the so-named ‘extraction industry’, the outdoor recreation community comes in a close second as the target for unrelenting propaganda campaigns by the greens,” Lenhart added. “We are repeatedly portrayed as destructive, knuckle-dragging rednecks with sub-20 IQs, and ‘no compassion for nature, no sense of environmental justice’ ”.

The federal governments in both the U.S. and Canada have bent to pressures from professional environmentalists whose agenda runs counter to the most basic thought, beliefs and aspirations of a civilized and free society, he said.

The source of the government’s authority to close off public land should be by “the consent of the governed”. And the citizens did not give their respective governments’ mandates to take away public land that belongs to the public.

Lenhart’s arithmetic didn’t lie.

“When one begins with 4/4ths, and compromises half, he has a half left. The greens return a time later fighting for the other half. We agree to compromise again, and feel good knowing we have retained a quarter of what we once had,” he noted.

The process continues until the whole 4/4ths are designated as a “wilderness area”. Once it is designated as a “wilderness area” rather than just being “a wilderness area”, the area suddenly becomes off-limits for public use.

“Sadly, many of us are still caught in the throes of denial that war has been declared on us. Sadly, we have been shamed – nay, scared – into compromise by green propaganda.”

People also get hung up on shop-worn ideas like balance, negotiations and process, he continued. Hence, they end up wishing they could gracefully wiggle out of those signed initiatives, agreements and strategies.

But they don’t know how to undo what they did. “Nice guys” don’t renege on deals. They just finish last,” he said.

“In our fear of being portrayed as ‘the bad guy’, we have simply rolled over in a high number of situations where we should have held firm, fighting tooth and nail,” he stressed.

Lenhart challenged anybody to show him just one instance where compromise with any green group resulted in a gain for anyone except the green groups.

Lenhart views the idea of compromise with the greens as having a lot in common with the leftists’ beliefs that the definition of “bipartisanship” is that the right must give into the left. “Likewise, ‘compromise’ to a green means that an outdoor enthusiast must give into their demands.”

Lenhart was adamant about wholly abandoning the idea of making progress through compromise – compromising land, compromising individual rights and freedoms, compromising life and livelihood.

“(Compromise) has never gained us any land, only lost it. It has never meant victory, only defeat. We have lost both land and freedom.”

To add to Lenhart’s thought that the greens outshine their opponents when it comes to “knowing the enemy”, the guilt-ridden opponents have basically resorted to useless spluttering and grumbling among themselves but never developed any strategic plans.

Time after time, they have been stomped on the battlefield.

The second U.S. President John Adams believed that people could never preserve their rights and freedoms unless they first have a general knowledge of what they are trying to protect.

Then, they must know how to fight a war and win it – not through violence, but behind the scenes with strategy, careful planning and intrigue.

Sun Tzu’s The Art of War, written 2,000 years ago by a Chinese general, has served to teach beyond the limits of traditional warfare, advised Lenhart. The “how-to-Bible of the business” is used in corporate boardrooms, political campaigns and, yes, by the green groups as a guide for fulfilling their agenda.

Throughout many years of fighting, groups engaged in land-use battles have repeatedly set themselves up for failure, he said. “Outside the ultimate goal of victory, there has never been a cohesive, coordinated battle plan to bring the goal to fruition.”

A lot of this happens because of a house divided. Each organization must be congealed into an army that acts with one voice and one purpose before coming together as a coalition. It, too, must act with one voice and one purpose.

The Art of War leaves no room for ego. Those out to promote themselves serve only to hinder progress of the whole. Divisiveness plays right into the hands of the enemy.

“If you’re looking to make a name for yourself, look elsewhere,” he suggested. “Our own stubborn reluctance to come together has been one of the greatest weapons that the greens have. It has been used against us with devastating effectiveness.”

He’s right, of course. There is no glue to hold coalitions together. They are weakened with internal politics and fighting their allies rather than the enemy.

Professional soldiers like Norm Lenhart and Sun Tzu never count on their opponents making mistakes. They count on outwitting them. The Art of War outlines circumstances in which victory can be predicted.

He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot will be victorious; he who understands how to use both large and small forces will be victorious; he whose ranks are united in purpose will be victorious.

Also victorious will be he who is prudent and lies in wait for an enemy who is not prudent. He whose generals are able and not interfered with by the sovereign will be victorious, too.

It is of prime importance when fighting land-use battles to develop a concrete set of goals and guidelines to work with and fight from a pro-active stance, warned Lenhart.

“We’re often caught with our pants down and again forced into a position of ‘re-action’ rather than ‘action’, which places us at a significant disadvantage.”

People were alarmed when they finally became aware of the corrupt scheme of governments starting to do regulatory takings of privately-owned property and banning public lands from public use, whether for recreational purposes or for cattle watering and grazing.

And the public is paying for its own demise.

The 192 member states comprising the United Nations tax people without their knowledge or permission. The money is laundered through the central office of the respective federal governments. Then the money funnels down through the system into the coffers of well over 20,000 worldwide NGOs (non-government organizations) and goes to pay the freight bills for the greensters who go forth to seize your real estate.

In February 2011, Canada redefined the term “real estate”. It no longer means “house and lot” or a major “investment”. The government reassigned value as a “consumer item”, like a car or a carrot. This renders the confiscation process less complicated for the government than when it is seizing real property which is suppose to be protected by such inconveniences as legal security of tenure and due process of law.

It took people a long time to learn that this war against property is not about the official green partyline of “Saving the Planet”.

This war on property is about “Saving Civilization” from the Marxists who started this war, pitting one group against another, and the rest of us have no choice but to end it before we are all destroyed. If landowners lose this war, they lose everything and are doomed to spend the rest of their days existing in abject poverty under the looming Marxist UN flag of a One World (Dis)Order.

There is no room for Mr. and Ms. Nice Guy” compromises with the enemy. It is idiotic. Compromise is simply a myth that has only led to failure.

It is high time to send out troops to hijack the apparat of the United Nations and wipe its slate clean of illegal international laws, treaties, policies, accords, pograms, organizations, thievery – and especially Agenda 21 – that are threatening individual property rights, the cornerstone of any democracy, plus endangering every nations’ sovereignty under so-called “free trade” agreements.

It is high time to curtail the corruption that has oozed down through the cracks of all political and bureaucratic tiers into every corner of every community in North America and Western Europe.

Basically, it is high time that Canada, the United States and all Western European and Commonwealth countries withdraw their financial support from the United Nations, a monstrous institution that outlived its uselessness long ago.

*******