Daily Caller
Opinion: The UN Has Failed
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
On the eve of the 2024 U.S. presidential election, the post-World War II global order is in disarray — and the United Nations is clearly no longer part of the solution. With former President Donald Trump now favored to return to the White House, the United States may finally be able to address a critical question: Will we continue clinging to a bloated, corrupt and impotent international institution?
Today is United Nations Day — a day meant to celebrate the founding of an organization dedicated to safeguarding peace and security. Instead, the world is reckoning with wars in Europe and the Middle East and growing instability in the Far East. The UN’s inability to adapt to the evolving threats of the 21st century — from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine to the growing influence of authoritarian regimes — has exposed its fundamental weakness.
It also demonstrates that Trump’s past critiques of the UN were not misplaced. Decades of missed opportunities, moral contradictions and structural dysfunction signify the need for significant reform — or full-on defunding. Such actions are not an outright rejection of multilateralism, but a recognition that the current system is broken — and we have seen this all play out before.
The current global turmoil, spiraling beyond the control of the very institution designed to manage it, echoes the League of Nations‘ catastrophic failure to confront fascist aggression in the 1930s. The League, established after World War I to maintain global peace, proved incapable of preventing aggression by expansionist powers like Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan. Following its collapse, the world descended into a period of widespread conflict, culminating in World War II.
Like the League of Nations, the UN has proven to be helpless against modern-day expansionism. With China backing Russia militarily and economically, the idea that the UN serves as an impartial arbiter of peace is laughable. The League of Nations failed because it lacked enforcement power and moral clarity. The United Nations has failed for the same reasons, and we are on the precipice of a third World War.
At the center of the UN’s dysfunction is the Security Council, crippled by Russia and China’s vetoes, which have made meaningful action impossible and shielded violators from accountability. Russia, an expansionist aggressor, continues to occupy a permanent seat, even as they employ Iranian drones to devastate Ukrainian cities and North Korean troops prepare to join its offensive. These failures are not isolated incidents but part of a decades-long pattern. From the massacres in Rwanda and Bosnia to Somalia’s collapse, UN peacekeeping missions have repeatedly ended in catastrophe. The UN is paralytic — a relic incapable of enforcing peace or punishing those who threaten it.
Worse still, the UN’s actions increasingly contradict its stated values. Reports indicate that UN peacekeepers in Lebanon took bribes from Hezbollah, compromising their mission by allowing surveillance against Israel. Meanwhile, the organization has awarded Saudi Arabia — a regime notorious for the brutal oppression of women — the chairmanship of the UN Commission on the Status of Women in 2025. The irony is staggering, and the hypocrisy is undeniable. Far from being a beacon of global governance, the UN now enables the authoritarian regimes it was meant to oppose, eroding trust and betraying the principles it was established to protect.
A rejection of the UN is not isolationism but a necessary confrontation with reality that the international organization has become an obstacle to peace, not a guarantor of it. This is further evidenced by Secretary-General António Guterres’ participation in the BRICS summit — an organization openly challenging the Western-led world order. Leading members of BRICS, like Russia and China, are intent on rewriting the rules of global governance with the intent to dominate.
The 2024 election will determine whether the West continues its slow descent into irrelevance or embraces the painful but necessary changes required to restore global order. The world has split along ideological lines, and the threats posed by our enemies will not be countered by resolutions or hollow declarations. Diplomacy without power is worthless. To survive, the West must act decisively by abandoning outdated institutions which no longer represent their interests and build new alliances rooted in shared values, mutual investment and military strength.
This United Nations Day, we should not celebrate a broken institution. Instead, we must confront its failures and prepare for the future. A second Trump presidency will bring the necessary pressure to tear down the obsolete structures of the past and replace them with a stronger, clearer order — one that prioritizes accountability, strength, and action. Change is no longer optional; peace demands it.
Meaghan Mobbs, PhD, is the Director of the Center for American Safety and Security at Independent Women’s Forum.
Daily Caller
ALAN DERSHOWITZ: Can Trump Legally Send Troops Into Our Cities? The Answer Is ‘Wishy-Washy’
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
If I were still teaching a course on constitutional law, I would use President Donald Trump’s decision to send troops into cities as a classic example of an issue whose resolution is unpredictable. There are arguments on both sides, many of which are fact-specific and depend on constantly changing circumstances.
A few conclusions are fairly clear:
First, under Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the president clearly has the authority to send federal law enforcement officials to protect federal buildings or federal officials from danger. Moreover, the president gets to decide, subject to limited judicial review, whether such dangers exist. State and city officials cannot interfere with the proper exercise of such federal authority.
Dear Readers:
As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.
Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.
Thank you!
Second, and equally clear, is that if there is no federal interest that requires protection, the president has no authority to intrude on purely local matters, such as street crime. The 10th Amendment and various statutes leave local law enforcement entirely in the hands of the states.
Third, the president has greater authority over Washington, DC, even with the District of Columbia Home Rule Act of 1973, than he does over other cities.
Fourth, there are limited situations in which the president has authority, even if there is no direct federal interest in protecting a federal building or authorities. One such instance is an “insurrection.”
Yet the law is unclear as to a) the definition of an insurrection; b) who gets to decide whether an insurrection, however defined, is ongoing; and c) what is the proper role of the judiciary in reviewing a presidential decision that an insurrection is occurring.
The same is true of an invasion. This is somewhat easier to define, but there will be close cases, such as a dictator sending hordes of illegal immigrants to destabilize a nation.
How Do We Legally Define What’s Happening Now?
In a democracy, especially one with a system of checks and balances and a division of power such as ours, the question almost always comes down to who gets to decide? Our legal system recognizes the possibility ‒ indeed, the likelihood ‒ that whoever gets to make that decision may get it wrong.
So the issue becomes: Who has the right to be wrong? In most democracies, especially those with unitary parliamentary systems, the right to be wrong belongs to the elected branch of government ‒ namely, the legislature. At the federal level, that’s Congress, under Article 1 of the Constitution.
However, since the Supreme Court’s decision in Marbury v. Madison in 1803, all legislative decisions are subject to constitutional judicial review. Even a majority of the voters or their legislators are not empowered to violate the Constitution.
And if the Constitution is unclear, ambiguous or even inconsistent? I have a cartoon hanging in my office showing one of the framers saying to the others: “Just for fun, let’s make what is or isn’t constitutional kind of wishy-washy.”
Well, on the issue of presidential power to send troops into cities over the objection of local politicians, the Constitution is kind of “wishy-washy.” To paraphrase former Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, when he discussed hardcore pornography: “Perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly (defining it), but I know it when I see it.”
The same may be said of an insurrection. It’s hard to define in advance with any degree of precision except at the extremes, but not so difficult to identify if one sees it.
The Legal Endgame Here Isn’t Clear, Either
The Civil War was an insurrection. Anti-Israel protests on campuses were not. But what about the violence in cities like Portland, where left-wing protesters burned cars and buildings and blocked access in 2024?
Some of these groups would love nothing more than to incite an insurrection, but they lack the power, at least at the moment, to garner sufficient support for anything broader than a violent demonstration or riot.
Does the president have to wait until these quixotic “insurrectionists” have garnered such support? Or can he take preventive steps that include sending in federal law enforcement officials? What about federal troops? Is that different?
These questions will eventually make their way to the Supreme Court, which is likely to try to defer broadly based and categorical answer as long as possible. In the meantime, district judges in cities across the country will rule against the president, except in cases involving protection of federal buildings, federal officials and the nation’s capital.
The president will appeal, and the appellate courts will likely split, depending on the particular circumstances of the cases.
“Wishy-washy” and “we’ll know it when we see it” are the best we are going to get in this complex situation.
Alan Dershowitz is professor emeritus at Harvard Law School and the author of “Get Trump,” “Guilt by Accusation” and “The Price of Principle.” This piece is republished from the Alan Dershowitz Newsletter.
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
Democratic Michigan Sen. Elissa Slotkin posted a video to social media Tuesday morning in which she and five of her congressional colleagues called for the military and the intelligence community to “stand up” to President Donald Trump’s administration.
The half-dozen Democratic lawmakers who took part in the video titled, “Don’t give up the ship,” had all served as military or intelligence officers. In her X post of the video, Slotkin stated the lawmakers seek to “directly” tell service members and intelligence personnel that the “American people need you to stand up for our laws and our Constitution.”
“We know you are under enormous stress and pressure right now,” Slotkin, a former CIA officer, said in the video she appeared in alongside Democratic Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly, Democratic Pennsylvania Reps. Chris Deluzio and Chrissy Houlahan, Democratic New Hampshire Rep. Maggie Goodlander and Democratic Colorado Rep. Jason Crow.
“Americans trust their military,” said Houlahan, a former Air Force officer.
“But that trust is at risk,” added Deluzio, a former officer in the Navy.
“This administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens,” Kelly, a former Navy officer, said in tandem with Crow, a former Army officer, and Slotkin.
WATCH:
“Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders. You can refuse illegal orders. You must refuse illegal orders,” Kelly, Slotkin and Deluzio said later in the video.
“Like us, you all swore an oath to protect and defend this Constitution,” Kelly and Goodlander, a former naval intelligence officer who is married to Biden-era former national security adviser Jake Sullivan, charged military and intelligence personnel.
Deluzio and Crow claimed that “threats to our Constitution aren’t just coming from abroad, but from right here at home.”
The lawmakers added that they know that what they are urging is “hard” and that “it is a difficult time to be a public servant.”
“But whether you are serving in the CIA, the Army, our Navy, the Air Force, your vigilance is critical. And know that we have your back,” they continued, alternating lines. “Because now more than ever, the American people need you. We need you to stand up for our laws, our Constitution, and who we are as Americans.”
“Don’t give up, don’t give up, don’t give up, don’t give up the ship,” the Democrats concluded.
Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution states that the president is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. The president is also in charge of intelligence agencies such as the FBI and CIA, by virtue of being head of the Executive Branch of the federal government — a responsibility laid out in Article II, Section 1.
“Don’t give up the ship” is a common phrase that dates back to the War of 1812 and were the last words uttered by Navy Captain James Lawrence before he succumbed to his gunshot wound on the USS Chesapeake.
Bondi and Patel deliver explosive “Clinton Corruption Files” to Congress
Richmond Mayor Warns Property Owners That The Cowichan Case Puts Their Titles At Risk
ATA Collect $72 Million in Dues But Couldn’t Pay Striking Teachers a Dime
Sluggish homebuilding will have far-reaching effects on Canada’s economy
Federal budget: It’s not easy being green
A picture is worth a thousand spreadsheets
Parliamentary Budget Officer begs Carney to cut back on spending
-
Uncategorized2 days agoCost of bureaucracy balloons 80 per cent in 10 years: Public Accounts
-
Daily Caller1 day ago
Democrats Explicitly Tell Spy Agencies, Military To Disobey Trump
-
Addictions2 days agoActivists Claim Dealers Can Fix Canada’s Drug Problem
-
Alberta2 days agoEdmonton and Red Deer to Host 2027 IIHF World Junior Hockey Championship
-
Indigenous1 day agoTop constitutional lawyer slams Indigenous land ruling as threat to Canadian property rights
-
Carbon Tax2 days agoCarney fails to undo Trudeau’s devastating energy policies
-
Daily Caller1 day ago
ALAN DERSHOWITZ: Can Trump Legally Send Troops Into Our Cities? The Answer Is ‘Wishy-Washy’
-
Alberta20 hours agoAlberta on right path to better health care