No Affiliation Alliance

The United Nations threat to American National security

The Issue of National Security

The second amendment is the final resolve in the protection of self preservation362px-Minute_Man_Statue_Lexington_Massachusetts_cropped against military attack from foreign nations and as history has taught that enemies from our past can become our allies in the future; so it is true that former allies have become our enemy. A great example of this lies south of our borders that show prior to the North American Free Trade Agreement the 31 states of Mexico had republican states compatible to the United States Constitution. Since the treaty every nation south of the border has become in degree social nationalist democracies – government for the people that is in contrast to the American standard of government by the people. The significant difference being commercial nationalism vs. Free Enterprise.

During the Civil War the Southern States (former allies) offered alliance with England and in WWI Germany attempted to make alliance with Mexico and then with Japan. This threat of invasion does not disappear with globalization – it instead increases as commercial organizations – and not governments – decide to wage war based upon profit at the sacrifice of national security.

It was the progressive ideal of President Wilson to form a league of nations with the authority to create new nations from defunct empires and hand over the authority to declare war to this organization on behave of America without consent of Congress. This ideal was simply the replacement of republican forms of government with the return of monarchical rule under commercial-nationalism; this being the main argument against America to becoming part of the league led by Senator Henry Cabot Lodge.

Currently this argument has risen again bringing to light the danger of handing over the control of international affairs to an elite organization such as the World Trade Organization and the United Nations that are made up of foreign governments; the danger to this scenario is – should the balance of governments belonging to this organization align with a political agenda that is anti American it becomes easy for these organizations of trade to form a compact to create and then to enforce international laws aimed with the intent to destroy the economics of the United States; especially when NAFTA was created with the purpose by American international corporations to undermine the construction of checks and balances formed by the Constitution of the United States to by pass and escape American labor and environmental laws.

Such a compact became a reality in 1966 when Germany began to dump its currency in exchange of American Gold that went unchallenged by the International Monetary Fund (a subsidy of the United Nations) who should have enforced the law of nations against this illegal act but didn’t.

IMF headquarters Washington D.C.

IMF headquarters Washington D.C.

Instead the IMF (International Monetary Fund), World Bank and United Nations allowed other countries to join the dumping of currency in exchange for American Gold in protest to President Johnson’s escalation of American presence in Vietnam. In essence the supposed organization that was created to mediate international conflict between foreign nations had become the co-conspirator in a scheme of economic warfare to destroy the American economy and reduce America from being a world leading power.

Since 1993 and the reorganization of international currency regulation that exchanged the GNP (Gross National Product) which allocates a countries wealth by national ownership to the GDP (Gross domestic product) which is wealth calculated by the geographical location of a product; is a system used by the IMF and World Bank Group to measure the extraction of wealth from developed nations and it’s redistribution to under developed nations in course to re-colonized under a central global system of government that the United Nations has appointed itself to be in control. The only obstacle to overcome is the American Constitution.

WilsonFirstInaugurationWoodrow Wilson became influenced in his youth by a book written by Walter Bagehot’s “The English Constitution” and viewed the United States Constitution as pre-modern, cumbersome and open to corruption. Wilson favored the parliamentary system which gave the authority to the leader the ability to exceed the congress and constitution. Something we currently are experiencing with the Obama administrations excessive use of executive mandate. Wilson wrote this statement in 1880 expressing his favor:

“I ask you to put this question to yourselves, should we not draw the Executive and Legislature closer together? Should we not, on the one hand, give the individual leaders of opinion in Congress a better chance to have an intimate party in determining who should be president, and the president, on the other hand, a better chance to approve himself a statesman, and his advisers capable men of affairs, in the guidance of Congress…”

Wilson’s progressive ideals were to dismantle the checking mechanism constructed by the Constitution which Wilson claimed “Divides the powers of executive from the legislative making it impossible to achieve accountability when government behaves badly” and he writes:

“How is the schoolmaster, the nation, to know which boy needs the whipping? … Power and strict accountability for its use are the essential constituents of good government… It is, therefore, manifestly a radical defect in our federal system that it parcels out power and confuses responsibility as it does. The main purpose of the Convention of 1787 seems to have been to accomplish this grievous mistake. The “literary theory” of checks and balances is simply a consistent account of what our Constitution makers tried to do; and those checks and balances have proved mischievous just to the extent which they have succeeded in establishing themselves.”

Like other progressives who always seem to envision; the grass is greener on the other side; progressives fail to absorb the lessons of the past that were experienced prior to the American Revolution when the Parliamentary system was indoctrinated into the colonies.

Parliament became corrupt by the first commercial-nationalist who infiltrated Parliament640px-Westminster_16C in an attempt to cover up their improprieties during their service as Royal agents of the East India Trade Company. The system of Parliamentary rule is flawed in that it removes the constructional checking mechanisms that protect the American people from factionalism and are required to maintain voters the ability to address the corruption. The mechanism that protects people from powerful factions manipulating their way to power was removed by the Fourteenth Amendment . Because of the amendments ambiguities the central government used assumption of power never granted to oversee the states from 1868 until 1913, and began the destruction of the checking mechanism.

In modern political context the choice of elected officials has come under the dominance of the Democrat and Republican national parties. The people have had their authority to influence legislation abridged by factional party groups that use state laws to control the outcome of elections by eliminating any candidate that does not support a nationalistic party agenda.

The most important point of fact being that the corruption being experienced at Wilson’s time was directly caused by the Fourteenth Amendment. The congress’s failure to make the appropriate adjustments in the checking mechanism to accommodate the new powers given to the trade organization was magnified by their failure to list the extent of Supreme Court jurisdiction in the amendment that opened the gateway for unchallenged corruption to escalate. 640px-Checks_and_balancesThe adequate solution was not the dismantlement of the checks and balances as Wilson thought, but instead the required adjustment of the checks and balances to maintain the balance of power between the states and federal common union organization in proper perspective.

Wilson claimed “that the Congressional committee system was fundamentally undemocratic in that committee chairs, who ruled by seniority, determined national policy although they were responsible to no one except their constituents; and that it facilitated corruption.” This being true because the Fourteenth Amendment placed the House of representatives in full control of the nation for the first time in American history. Prior to the amendment the decisions of the federal congress were limited to international law and inter-state commerce. Also prior to the amendment the state assemblies had an influence in the control of foreign policy where presently the state assemblies have none.

It is this concept of progressive thought that the true loyalty is owed the national party and not the constituency that have placed our legislative system in the hands of special interest under the populace opinion of media. Currently the authority of decision in foreign and domestic policy has fallen under the scheme of social political groups such as the national democrat and republican parties by creating an external branch of federal and state authority called independent agencies.

It is necessary to point out here that the Fourteenth Amendment placed the entire control of the United States in the hands of the House of Representatives640px-Obama_Health_Care_Speech_to_Joint_Session_of_Congress who held not only the power to select and appoint United States Senators: but also held control over money appropriations. In essence a House Representative could influence the making of specific laws while having the influence over its text and purpose. In hind sight the perspective of American history from immediately after the civil war is that the Fourteenth Amendment and the new “living Constitution” endorsed more racism, atrocities perpetrated against American Indians, and induced more exploitation of minorities and immigrants than the 70 years prior to the Civil War. Presently the misinterpretations of the amendment have allowed progressive factions of both parties to manipulate the election processes.

Wilson hoped that Presidents could be party leaders in the same way that British prime ministers were. Wilson also hoped that the parties could be reorganized along ideological, not geographic lines and in the early 1900’s we begin to see the surge in the use of lobbyist to write laws in Washington.

In Federalist Paper 10 James Monroe defends the institution of lobby factionalism as an ingredient of checks and balances, but at that time the common union trade organization created by the federal conventions did not have influence over the states. The undermining of state jurisdiction has by the 14 Amendment has given too much power to factions under nationalism

In Federalist Paper 10 James Monroe defends the institution of lobby factionalism as an ingredient of checks and balances, but at that time the common union trade organization created by the federal conventions did not have influence over the states. The undermining of state jurisdiction by the 14 Amendment has given too much power to factions under nationalism

This is where the exchange from the system created by the original Constitution of political debate in committee to the unstable system of populace influence of special interest that utilize the new authority of the judiciary to change existing law by interpretation and other unauthorized modes.

Wilson believed “There is no danger in power, if only it be not irresponsible. If it be divided, dealt out in share to many, it is obscured…Essentially, the items under the discretion of administration must be limited in scope, as to not block, nullify, obfuscate, or modify the implementation of governmental decree made by the executive branch.”

Wilson obviously did not understand the nature of government to increase itself unless there is a legally binding constraint to maintain excessive enlargement which if progressives would actually review ancient civil societies as the founders had; progressives would realize too that the failure of all great societies is caused by excessive government extending beyond their means of raising revenue to sustain government.

These are the implications of dictatorship in the governing system of European social-democracy (government for the people) that contradicts American democracy (government by the people). Prior to the Fourteenth Amendment the authority of the President over the states and people was limited to national emergency and foreign treaty negotiations with the authority of Congress being limited to interstate commerce and making legislation for the operation of the Federal Common Union organization and having no influence directed to the state.

The intermingling of federal power over the states created by the Fourteenth Amendment began to emerge bringing the potential risk to national security being manifested by internal factions that view the construction of checks and balances as cumbersome and necessary to overcome.

In the years of my research into the issues of political failure that since 1868 more than a dozen checking mechanisms have been breached with the most potentially destructive being the undermining of the checking mechanism that maintained the separation of American industry from foreign industry eliminated by the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1993 (NAFTA).

Since NAFTA NAFTA_logoand the inclusion of the first foreign laws (the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation and the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation) to be implemented into the United States since 1776, the Environmental Protection Agency has been encouraged to enforce environment laws that are exclusive to foreign countries that belong to NAFTA and the World Trade Organization is now becoming the international enforcer of laws being made by foreign forum and are being asserted upon American industries through treaty, through a standard of executive privilege never before used by any president until 1993; undermining yet another checking mechanism that destroyed the barrier of national security that protects domestic industry from foreign infiltration.

The United Nations Gun ban treaty threatens American national security because south of our border are thirty one nations varying from fascist dictatorship, social-democracies, to communist government systems with Mexico being in treaty alliance with China in the last few years. The relinquishing of American borders and the enforcement of gun restrictions is exposing American citizens to military threat and it was this very threat of invasion from Mexico in 1917 that brought America into WWI.

American borders are crossed illegally by thousands at the expense of American citizens and members of Congress argue the resolve is to open American borders without Mexico being annexed to the United States by Constitution.

American borders are crossed illegally by thousands at the expense of American citizens and members of Congress argue the resolve is to open American borders without Mexico being annexed to the United States by Constitution.

The potential to eliminate American borders implied by the extension of NAFTA is the greatest national security risk the American people and industry has ever had to experience. NAFTA undermines the congressional oath requiring representatives to guard and protect the American people against foreign and domestic enemies because; American international corporations under the WTO and NAFTA are allowed to negotiate in direct alliance with foreign nations that do not recognize free enterprise, patent or copyright laws or the right to own private property. This is why many sole proprietorships have become victims of government that is protecting the interest of government over the interest of domestic industry.

The fragility of American security is exposed by the Zimmermann Telegram (or Zimmermann Note) drafted in 1917 in a diplomatic proposal from the German Empire to align with Mexico WW1_TitlePicture_For_Wikipedia_Articleto make war against the United States; is the very concept that spurred the inclusion of Article 1 Section 10 of the Constitution that disallowed the ability of a state governor to make negotiations with foreign entity. When this proposal was intercepted in 1917 and decoded by British intelligence Room 40, the contents was revealed to the American public.

The outrage of the American public helped generate favorable support for the United States declaration of war on Germany. This same potential to bring war here on American territory remains and is the justification to retain an armed civilian vigilance under the Second Amendment right to bear arms especially since the removal of border restrictions by NAFTA and WTO.

Not many are aware that the charter that created the World Trade organization and the North American Free Trade Agreement grants to these two foreign international groups the ability to change any countries constitutional construction if either of these groups determine that a countries constitution in some way is obstructing the performance of international trade. Documented proof of this has occurred since the establishment of these organizations since 1993 and include the circumventing of the Constitution of the United States that have allowed American international corporations to align themselves with enemies of the American people that make us all victims to nationalized industries that franchise out American industrial secrets, patents and copyrights with the bottom line of profit being its moral justification just as profit was the retention of slavery during the Federalist conventions 1787-89.

The telegram intercepted in 1917 exposed the frailty of the American border between the two countries as the note instructed Ambassador Eckardt to approach the Mexican Government with a proposal for military alliance, with funding from Germany and as a prize for any assumed victory over the allies promised the territories of Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona back to Mexican control.

It was also the threat of France re-establishing it presence in Mexico during the Monroe Presidency James_Monroe_White_House_portrait_1819that influenced the enforcement of the Monroe Doctrine and let us not forget the Cuban Crisis of 1961 and the potential alliance between Castro and Russia. Nor shall we forget the invasion of  Pearl Harbor and the Allusion Islands of Alaska during WWII by the Japanese. It is the intention by construction of the Federal central government to protect the security of the United States and at no time was the Federal Government granted the authority to negotiate away the security of American domestic industry by allowing American international industries to come in direct alliance with foreign national government. Below is a copy of the Zimmerman letter.

“We intend to begin on the first of February unrestricted submarine warfare. We shall endeavor in spite of this to keep the United States of America neutral. In the event of this not succeeding, we make Mexico a proposal of alliance on the following basis: make war together, make peace together, generous financial support and an understanding on our part that Mexico is to re-conquer the lost territory in Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona. The settlement in detail is left to you. You will inform the President of the above most secretly as soon as the outbreak of war with the United States of America is certain and add the suggestion that he should, on his own initiative, invite Japan to immediate adherence and at the same time mediate between Japan and ourselves. Please call the President’s attention to the fact that the ruthless employment of our submarines now offers the prospect of compelling England in a few months to make peace.” Signed, ZIMMERMANN

The Mexican President responded to the offer by assigning a general to assess the feasibility of reacquiring the territories promised by the potential alliance. The mere consideration by then President Venustiano Carranza should give alert to everyone in Congress that the maintaining of Second Amendment rights is crucial to self-preservation of the United States. Especially with the main regret for Mexico not going to war against the United States was not its alliance to America, but that Mexico did not have the ability to wage war and they were not convinced Germany could support their offer to finance the endeavor; besides the only available manufacture of weapons and munitions available to Mexico was through American manufacture.

A reasonable conclusion has to be; that Mexico and its then newest communist President had the ability to war against the United States it would have. We can only question now; does the federation of 31 states of Mexico now have that ability to wage war against America that it lacked in 1917? Or could acquire in the future?

It is fact that crude oil from the southern regions of Mexico and South America do have an influence in American legislature.

he is the leader of the radical left wing group Institutional Revolutionary Party

he is the leader of the radical left wing group Institutional Revolutionary Party

The potential national security risk created by NAFTA and the WTO in allowing nations that are not in allegiance by foreign treaty to have full access to the American legislature through American international industries has unwittingly jeopardized the security of every American citizen and domestic industry across the country.

In less than a generation a majority of American international companies have become foreign in structure with boards of directors that employ less than 50% American born citizens maintain a presence in America exclusively to retain the ability to influence American law in use against American domestic businesses. The new immigration laws that grant easy access to acquire American citizenship are in design to bring in more of these highly educated and skilled workers to fill these positions. The courts determination in Peoples vs. the FEC gives international corporations flying an American logo, but have a foreign board of directors gives these corporations the ability to influence the outcome of elections with unlimited campaign contributions.

The destruction of the American culture is not being orchestrated from beyond the American borders, but is instead being directednoaffiliate from within by our very own Congress that support the abuse of treaty that allows foreign nations access to American resources free of restriction while maintaining the United States domestic industries applicable to the laws of Constitution and paying the expense of free trade without benefit.

Filed Under: Issues and Articles

RSSComments (0)

Trackback URL

Comments are closed.