This "Life Line" article was reprinted on an unknown date in the Masonic Home Journal. To provide a bit of context, Frank Lausche who is quoted at the end of this piece served as an elected U.S. Democratic Senator from Ohio between the years 1957 to 1969.

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

Although the article is United States-specific, it relates closely to Canada and its laws.

Most nations of the world think of the United States and Canada as one country called America. That is the reason the Marxists are determined to drive a wedge between the two democracies and turn the unique friendship into one of disharmony--even hatred, one for the other. Separation would weaken the two countries. Then freedom and civil liberties would be easier to overthrow.

It is through psychopolitics and the destruction of morality and spirituality that both countries will "drop in our hands like over-ripe fruit," as Vladimir Lenin, Bolshevik Leader of the Russian Communists, put it. Later, Communist Leader Nikita Khruhschev echoed that promise. He said that communism would take over America without a shot being fired.

Canada is a strong socialist nation, ripe for communism, and a lapdog and role model for the United Nations. Without any notice, Canadians are losing property rights through Supreme Court of Canada rulings; the lack of entrenching property rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms; and with the introduction of the U.N.'s Agenda 21 under the environmental program.

The Marxist-minded, trying to catch the gullible off guard, pretend that Agenda 21 does not exist; those of incredible naivete have never heard of Maurice Strong, the king of environmental religion, who introduced Agenda 21 to the world.

As well, Canada is losing trial by jury through the terrorism legislation.

And the New Order of Adolf Hitler's Nazi Germany is on the threshold of America as the One-World Order. Only recently, Strong proposed a United Nations armed military to eliminate any more discourse about the freedoms for civilians to own small arms.

__________

Here is the CHARTER CLASHES WITH CONSTITUTION:

What are the differences between the U.S. Constitution and the United Nations' Charter?

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 Senator Frank Lausche 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, 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."

-- 30 --

Copyright 2006 diArmani.com