Famous Quote:
Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry
into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both
emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums
of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the
mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of
the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded
by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly
so. How do I know? For this is what I have done.
And I am Caesar. – Julius Caesar
Good Morning Everyone!
The article I am posting today is very disturbing. This article will put our
cognitive dissonance to rolling.
Let me just say that I believe that all I have been telling you about the
New World Order and its tentacles in our beloved country
is true. We have not had a president since 1913 who
has honored our Constitution and as they went so went our freedoms.
Little by little, the protections afforded us by the Constitution have
been eroded away. Now we see pro-war and anti-war protestors fighting
it out with rhetoric and deeds, we see the Constitution ignored and
everyday our freedoms eroded a little more. Many do not want to believe it
but it is true.We are now in the New World Order and do not want to
believe the truth as it stares us right in the face.Look at the news
about the United Nations.
I ask, What has this august body of little tyrants done to help
the United States? Well they have control of our national
monuments and they have a lot of our money they have stolen
through our "politicians". Here is an article in the World Net Daily
that should outrage everyone of us but I fear that the people do
not want to believe the truth.
Hold on and read this one. It is long but well worth thinking about.
God Help Us! Watch out fort he Patriot 2 Act that is now being
discussed in our austere bodies of government!
Elaine
THE NEW WORLD DISORDER
Move over Constitution,
we've got U.N. charter
Scholar: Iraq war maneuvers play into hands of internationalists
Posted: February 28, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Diana Lynne
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com
A renowned constitutional scholar predicts a United States-led war
with Iraq could result not just in the loss of Saddam Hussein's
sovereignty, but that of the U.S. as well, which in turn leads to
the loss of personal liberty for individual American citizens.
It's not that Herb Titus is anti-war. He just thinks President
George W. Bush is going about it the wrong way. Titus sees
a hidden danger in the Bush administration's need to appease
the international community by working through the diplomatic
channels of the United Nations Security Council.
Security Council members in New York continue to debate proposals
on the table that range from declaring Saddam Hussein in material
breach of Resolution 1441 and invading now, to giving Hussein
another six months to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors.
A one time dean of Regent School of Law and 1996 vice presidential
candidate on the U.S. Taxpayers Party ticket with Howard Phillips,
Titus is considered one of America's leading constitutional scholars.
He's also an author and practicing attorney specializing in constitutional
litigation and strategy.
"Presidents have substituted Security Council authorization for constitutional
declaration of war," Titus told WorldNetDaily.
And in doing so, he argues, Bush and his predecessors play into the hands
of internationalists who assert only the U.N. can authorize war and view the
U.N. charter as trumping the U.S. Constitution.
"Article I, Section 8 is inoperative," said Titus, referring to the Constitution's
mandate that the decision to go to war come from Congress: "The Congress
shall have power to ... declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and
make rules concerning captures on land and water."
"Letters of marque and reprisal" refers to limited actions of war and was often
used in the late 18th century to authorize surgical attacks on lawless Muslim
pirates harbored by Tunisia and Libya. The "captures" cited as the third
constitutional military option before Congress refers to the capture of naval vessels.
"The declaration of war is both a legal question and a practical
decision," Titus explains. "At the time of the drafting of the Constitution,
two factors were relevant: 'Do you have good, legal reason?' and 'If you
have legal grounds for war, is it practical to declare war?'
"While presidents have not said as a matter of law that the U.N.
charter trumps the Constitution, the emphasis on the practical matter
[seeking U.N. approval so that military action against Iraq isn't viewed
by the international community as aggression or U.S. imperialism
reinforces the legal claim of the internationalists," Titus continued.
He concludes that Congress has failed on both counts in allowing
presidents to make both the legal and practical decisions, and is
complicit in the presidents' giving up American sovereignty to the U.N.
Congress and war
Congress has not formally declared war since World War II.
In response to the Vietnam War, it passed the War Powers Act in
1973, which requires the president to seek congressional approval
before or shortly after ordering any military action abroad, including limited airstrikes.
At least one congressman tried to adhere to the Constitution.
Last October, Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, proposed a declaration
of war to his colleagues. Instead, Congress passed a resolution
that authorized the use of military force against Iraq, provided the
international community supports it.
"Sadly, the leadership of both parties on the International Relations
Committee fails to understand that the Constitution requires a
congressional declaration of war before our troops are sent into
battle," Paul said after his proposal was voted down. "One Republican
member stated that the constitutional requirement that Congress
declare war is an anachronism and should no longer be followed, while
a Democratic member said that a declaration of war would be 'frivolous.' I
don’t think most Americans believe our Constitution is outdated or
frivolous, and they expect Congress to follow it."
"It's an undeclared, illegal war. Not only do I object to the war," Paul
told WorldNetDaily, "but I object to the way the president is going about it."
The Iraq resolution, which came through the International Relations Committee
and was promoted by committee Chairman Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Ill., was
proposed by Bush.
"Terrorists willing to commit suicide in order to kill large numbers of innocents
cannot be stopped by the familiar conventions of deterrence," Hyde said
in a statement released while the committee was deliberating the resolution.
"To assume that these terrorists and others will remain unarmed by
Saddam is an assumption with a deadly potential. ... The president has
demonstrated his determination to act to remove this threat and has
asked the Congress for an authorizing resolution. ... In the name of
those brave souls, both living and departed, who purchased our
freedom, let us now act," he urged.
Worse than declaring nothing, Paul maintains, is that Congress transferred
the authority to go to war to the president.
"We should never have one man making the decision to send young men
to war 6,000 miles from our shore," Paul told WND. "We still haven't admitted
to the 150,000 suffering from Gulf War Syndrome – I'm convinced as a
physician there is a syndrome. We shouldn't be doing this so casually."
As WorldNetDaily reported, a group of Democratic lawmakers, soldiers
and families of servicemen agree with Paul and filed a lawsuit in federal
court, claiming war with Iraq would be illegal and unconstitutional, and
accusing lawmakers of unlawfully ceding the decision to President Bush.
"The president is not a king," the group's lead attorney, John Bonifaz, said
at a news conference announcing the suit. "He does not have the power to
wage war against another country absent a congressional declaration of war.
Congress has not declared war."
U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro dismissed the suit Monday, ruling the
judicial branch can only judge the war policies of the other two branches
of government when they're in conflict. In this case, Congress and the
president are in agreement.
"If you want constitutional government," said Titus, "don't look to the
courts for your salvation. Look to yourselves and who you're electing to office."
Bush is not the first commander in chief to be sued over his military
orders. A similar lawsuit was filed against President George H.W. Bush
before the 1991 Gulf War by 54 members of Congress. It was denied by
a federal judge in December 1990, who ruled the lawmakers did not have
legal standing.
WorldNetDaily reported in 1999 that 26 congressional members filed
a lawsuit against former President Clinton for violating both the Constitution
and the War Powers Act by allowing U.S. forces to participate in NATO air
attacks against Yugoslavia. The suit maintained that, according to the War
Powers Act, Clinton must seek congressional approval for the Balkan war
if he wished to pursue it beyond 60 days.
U.N.: Higher authority?
Bush and other administration officials present Iraqi disarmament
as the crucial next step in the "war on terror."
In his State of the Union address, Bush cited evidence from intelligence
sources, secret communications and statements by people now in
custody that Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of
Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network.
Secretary of State Colin Powell subsequently laid out the Bush
administration case in detail before the Security Council and congressional
panels, claiming an al-Qaida cell based in Baghdad coordinates movement
of people, money and supplies to and throughout Iraq and was responsible
for the ricin plot in London and other planned terrorist attacks against
countries including France, Spain, Italy, Germany and Russia.
Titus asserts officials use the word "war" as a "rhetorical device" with no
more meaning than the phrase "war on drugs" or "war on poverty." He
said the term is designed to illicit an emotional response to silence detractors.
If the term were taken seriously, Titus thinks Bush should have submitted his
cause for war in careful and specific form to members of Congress last fall
just as Powell did for members of the Security Council. He argues Congress
didn't act on the basis of specific evidence and that's why the resolution
authorizes the use of force but doesn't outright declare war.
While the Iraq resolution enables Bush to abide by the War Powers Act,
because "authorization of military force" is not "declaration of war," Titus
concurs with Paul that war on Iraq does not pass constitutional muster.
So Bush – and presidents before him – instead seeks a "higher authority," says
Titus, and subscribes to the rules of international law.
The U.N. charter was signed on Jun 26, 1945, in San Francisco, at the conclusion
of the United Nations Conference on International Organization, and came into
force on Oct. 24, 1945.
Although signed as a treaty, Titus said the charter was crafted more as
a constitution for world government. Its preamble reads like the Constitution, referring
to "we the people" as opposed to "we the member-nation governments." It also has
an amendment clause similar to Article 5 that allows amendments to the charter
approved by a two-thirds majority of the General Assembly.
Titus argues because it's a global constitution, the U.N. charter is illegitimate
because it created a supranational government that derived its powers not
from the consent of the governed but from the consent of the peoples' government
officials who have no authority to bind either the American people nor any other
nation's people to any terms of the charter.
Unlike the Constitution, the U.N. charter doesn't authorize war, only police
acts to keep the peace. In fact, the charter's preamble states the main
objective of the signatories was to "save succeeding generations from the
scourge of war."
This may, in part, explain the uphill battle Bush has faced in securing
Security Council approval for the use of military force against Iraq.
Paul maintains "police acts" is merely "1984 newspeak" for war.
"Police acts are to keep the peace. But there's no war in Iraq right now.
We can't go there to establish peace if there's no war," he said.
Four years ago, Paul founded The Liberty Committee, an organization
committed to rolling back the "socialists' authoritarian agenda" at work
in the national legislative process. Sixteen of Paul's House colleagues
joined a liberty caucus. Titus serves as senior legal adviser for the group.
The group touts one example of its successes on its website.
It cites legislation that was thwarted in December 2001 that would
have "accelerated the transformation of the U.S. military into the
standing army of the U.N. – a long-sought goal of the world socialists."
Ironically, Hyde painted the Iraq resolution in terms of America asserting
its sovereignty.
"For those convinced of Saddam’s murderous intentions, the debate has
centered on whether or not we should focus our efforts on assembling a
coalition of friends and allies and seek the enhanced legitimacy that
approval by the United Nations might render to our actions. But I believe
that is the wrong debate," he said in his statement last fall. "We have no
choice but to act as a sovereign country prepared to defend ourselves, with
our friends and allies if possible, but alone if necessary. There can be
no safety if we tie our fate to the cooperation of others, only a hope
that all will be well, a hope that eventually must fail."
Despite the rhetoric, Congress only equipped Bush with an
authorization of military force, not a declaration of war.
The difference, say Paul and Titus, boils down to subscribing to
the U.N.'s world constitution, instead of our own.
"I don't believe in resolutions that cite the U.N. as authority for our
military actions," Paul said. "America has a sovereign right to
defend itself, and we don't need U.N. permission or approval to
act in the interests of American national security. The decision
to go to war should be made by the U.S. Congress alone.
Congress should give the president full war-making authority, rather
than binding him with resolutions designed to please our U.N. detractors."
The difference is also a question of whether or not the military
force achieves victory, according to Paul, who maintains history
bears witness to the importance of a declaration of war.
"When Congress issued clear declarations of war against Japan
and Germany during World War II, the nation was committed and
victory was achieved," he said. "When Congress shirks its duty
and avoids declaring war, as with Korea and Vietnam, the nation is
less committed and the goals are less clear.
"When you don't declare war for national security reasons, you wind
up conducting war for political reasons and you don't get victory," he concluded.
My Note: Remember that VietNam and Korea were "Police Actions" and what was the
results?
My Prayer is that Jesus will come soon for His Church! Here
is a great scripture for today. This is the true answer!
Isaiah 62
5 For as a young man marrieth a virgin, so shall thy sons marry thee: and
as the bridegroom rejoiceth over the bride, so shall thy God rejoice over thee.
6 I have set watchmen upon thy walls, O Jerusalem, which shall never
hold their peace day nor night: ye that make mention of the LORD, keep
not silence,
7 And give him no rest, till he establish, and till he make
Jerusalem a praise in the earth.
