Who Should U.S. Officials Take Orders From?

by James Jaeger

Many of the elected officials of the U.S. do not work for the Constitution of the United States, they work for the Charter of the United Nations.

The UN Charter -- which is ten times longer than the 4,400-word U.S. Constitution -- founded the United Nations after World War II.

"Preamble: Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations."

The UN Charter was drafted by Secretary of State, Cordell Hull in 1943, the same guy that served Franklin D. Roosevelt and drafted the federal income tax laws of 1913 and 1916. Hull was also chairman of the Democratic National Committee and elected to the U.S. Senate in 1930. He received a Nobel Peace Prize for "co-initiating the United Nations".

There are currently 196 governments in the world. Of these, 192 are now signatories to the UN Charter which sets forth the purposes of the Organization.

Specifically, the UN Preamble sets forth reasonable goals to save succeeding generations from war, reaffirm human rights AND equal rights for men and women and for large and small nations. It seeks to establish conditions under which justice can happen and social progress can be promoted. It preaches tolerance, peace and being good neighbors and seeks to unite signatory nations' strength to maintain international peace and security.

It also stipulates that armed force should not be used unless it's in the common interest (what ever that means) and international machinery should be employed for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples, which I would imagine includes Africa.

All this sounds good, until one realizes that the UN is effectively Global Government run by 15 signatory Member Governments operating in a Security Counsel that presides over the other 177 signatory Member Governments. Article 39 defines the Security Council as follows:

"The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security."

And the United Nations IS a "government" because it can use military force per Article 42, which states:

"Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations."

Further, the signatory nations must make arms available to the UN per Article 43. To wit:

"All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security."

But really the UN is actually Global Oligarchy of Oligarchies as there is an inner elite called the Military Staff Committee that actually operates the armed forces of the UN per Article 47 which reads:

"There shall be established a Military Staff Committee to advise and assist the Security Council on all questions relating to the Security Council's military requirements for the maintenance of international peace and security, the employment and command of forces placed at its disposal, the regulation of armaments, and possible disarmament."

It IS nice however that the UN grants permission to its signatory nations -- including the U.S. -- that they may use their mere Constitutional laws to defend themselves if need be, but only until the UN has a chance to take action per Article 51 which states:

"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security."

With this background, consider that five countries in West Africa -- Guinea, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Nigeria and Senegal -- have had serious outbreaks of Ebola.

Now further consider that these five countries are also UN Member countries along with the United States. This means the Republic of Equatorial Guinea, the Republic of Liberia, the Republic of Sierra Leone, the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the Republic of Senegal and the United States of America are all in bed together no matter who has Ebola and who does not.

Is it any wonder CDC Director, Tom Frieden, is not advocating a travel ban to West Africa? Being a good U.S. Government employee, he's compelled to work more in the interest of the UN Charter rather than the U.S. Constitution. After all, all signatory countries -- including the Signatory U.S. -- are expected to promote solutions for health-related problems, which would include Ebola outbreaks which began in Signatory Guinea in December 2013 and then spread to Signatory Liberia and Signatory Sierra Leone. See UN Article 55 which states:

. . . "With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the United Nations shall promote: . . . solutions of international economic, social, HEALTH, and related problems; and international cultural and educational cooperation; and . . . "

And the Global Government is pissed. But they sort a have a right to be because their trust fund division set up a goal to raise $1 billion to help deal with Ebola and so far only $100,000 of a pledged $400,000,000 has actually come in -- this, and a suspected 9,216 cases with as many as 4,555 deaths according to the World Health Organization (WHO) in a 14 October 2014 report.

So the Global Government probably feels that the rich and derelict U.S. Government, with all its dot-com billionaires should be held hostage to Ebola until it steps up with some donations.

As Frieden -- a UN apologist at the very least -- put it in his interview with Megan Kelly:

"The only way to get the risk to zero here (in the US ) is to stop the disease in Africa."

One can sympathize and even agree with the UN's mission to help the people in South Africa but there is a flaw in the argument. Since Africa barely has ANY infrastructure, such as hospitals, etc., it will be a long time before we can "stop the disease in Africa." So what is the US supposed to do in the meantime, place more of its citizens at risk?

Unfortunately, if Africa is closed off from the U.S. -- meaning that anyone that travels from the U.S. to Africa cannot travel back to America (very easily) -- fewer health care workers may want to travel to Africa to deal with the disease. Thus, the UN may rightfully be worried that the situation in its signatory nations will get even worse and the fat cats in the U.S. will continue to ignore the situation unless they have some skin in the game -- i.e., exposure to Ebola. A good strategy actually.

Unfortunately getting the "risk down to zero" is an impossibility, if not a math-challenged statement. We will NEVER get the risk down to zero because zero is an absolute and absolutes do not exist in any universe. So, since we will never be able to get the Ebola "risk to zero," we will perpetually have to send foreign aid to the UN to help Africa "stop the disease." It's the same ploy the American Cancer Society uses with their motto: "We are fighting cancer." This is an endless pursuit. Their motor should be: The American Cancer Society is determined to END all cancer once and for all, not just fight it forever."

So while the motives and the mission of the UN may be good, Frieden should be working in the strict interest of the US not the UN. Bill O'Reilly is thus probably correct in his call that he be removed and we also should stop all commercial flights in and out of Africa immediately -- as two airlines prudently have already done. This should have been done generally a month ago.

BUT when flights are shut down, U.S. health care workers should be absolutely GUARANTEED that, if they risk their lives going to Africa to help those folks, they WILL be able to get back into the U.S. by chartered flights, that is after they pass through a suitable and reasonable observation period.

Global Government breathing down our necks or not, the U.S. simply cannot have any other people like Thomas Duncan flying willy-nilly into America infecting innocent people like nurse Nina Pham and the others. This is unacceptable and future events like this must be avoided whether the UN likes it or not.

19 October 2014

Please forward this to your mailing list. The mainstream media will probably not address this subject because they have conflicts of interest with their advertisers, stockholders and the political candidates they send campaign contributions to. It's thus up to responsible citizens like you to disseminate important issues so that a healthy public discourse can be initiated or continued. Your comments and suggestions are welcome and future versions of this research paper will reflect them.

Permission is hereby granted to excerpt and publish all or part of this article provided nothing is taken out of context. Please give reference to the source URL.

Any responses you proffer in connection with this research paper when emailed or posted as an article or otherwise, may be mass-disseminated in order to continue a public discourse. Unless you are okay with this, please do not respond to anything sent out. We will make every effort, however, to remove names, emails and personal data before disseminating anything you submit.

Don't forget to watch our documentary films listed below so you will have a better understanding of what we believe fuels most of the problems under study at Jaeger Research Institute. We appreciate you referring these documentary films to others, purchasing copies for your library, screening them for home audiences and displaying them on your public-access TV channels. The proceeds from such purchases go to the production of new documentaries. Thank you.

If you wish to be removed from this mailing list go to http://www.jaegerresearchinstitute.org/mission.htm but first please be certain you are not suffering from Spamaphobia as addressed at http://www.jaegerresearchinstitute.org/articles/spamaphobia.htm


Mission | Full-Spectrum News | Books & Movies by James Jaeger | Sponsor |
Jaeger Research Institute