Profound Revolution

By MARY M. DAVISON
Published By
THE GREATER NEBRASKAN
Omaha, Nebraska
April, 1966

Foreword

On December 17th, 1963, within a month after he became Chief Executive, President Lyndon Johnson appeared before the General Assembly of the United Nations and stated:

"When I entered the Congress of the United States twenty-seven years ago, it was my first great privilege to work closely with President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. As a member of the Congress I worked with him to bring about a profound but peaceful revolution.
"... That revolution brought hope and help to one-third of our nation. . . Now, on the world scale the time has come, as it came to America thirty years ago for new era of hope for that one third of mankind still beset by hunger, poverty and disease. . . . It will not be, achieved through some hopeful resolution, but through a peaceful revolution in the world." 

Now we have official proclamation of a fact stated by the late Garet Garrett in the title of his book—"The Revolution Was,"—published in 1944. The New Deal Revolution was; the World Revolution is. These are facts we must accept. We must accept also that the President worked with others to bring about the one, that he is working now to bring about the other.

Before the United States becomes further involved in profound revolution all over the world, it might be well to stop, look and, listen, to contemplate the consequences of the peaceful revolution which has been kept so secret for more than a quarter of a century. One consequence of revolution has always been a change in the form of government and, of course, a new ruling class.

The Constitutional Government of the United States had established the People as rulers of this Nation. The rule was of, for and by the People. In the "profound but peaceful revolution" described by the President, the People were not consulted; they knew nothing about it. When their Constitutional Government was overthrown, the Government of, by and for the People did "perish from the earth."

We shall take the President at his word; we will accept, for the purposes of this book, the premise that there was a successful revolution during the Franklin Roosevelt administration. The "New Deal" and the "Brain Trust" symbolized the new Revolutionary Government. It is with this new revolutionary government we must deal, for this new revolutionary government of the United States has officially stated its intention of spreading this particular revolution world- wide. Neither People nor Congress are to be consulted.

The New Deal Revolution was unique. It maintained the outward forms of the old Constitutional Government; the three Departments of Government, the Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial were, to all intents and purposes, to remain. The People, unaware that the revolution had occurred, would not be aroused by the ousting of their "duly elected" President and Congress and the appointed Judiciary. If the profound and peaceful aspects were to continue, the People would have to be deceived, kept in ignorance, while the revolutionary government was quietly eased into full power and control.

Revolutions are not organized over night, nor do they form without strong central planning and direction. The facts of the New Deal Revolution are now coming to light and the forces which put the revolution in motion are fully revealed. Astute men had long sensed the formation of a movement calculated to control the Government of the United States. The same men who instigated the revolution in 1933 were referred to by New York City's Mayor John F. Hylan as long ago as March 22nd, 1922.

"The real menace of our Republic is the invisible government which, like a giant octopus, sprawl its, slimy length over our city, state and nation. At the head is a small group of banking houses, generally referred to as 'International Bankers.' This little coterie of powerful international bankers virtually run our government for their own selfish ends. 

The International Bankers, referred to here by Mayor Hylan, had organized three years before this and formed a power structure dedicated to control of the world. Within this group was complete control of the money of the world and they intended to use it to the fullest advantage. They called themselves The Council on Foreign Relations. They have worked steadily on their project of world control by building world empire. Nothing has been permitted to stand in their way.

On December 9th, 1950, the Chicago Times, taking note of the menacing power of the Council on Foreign Relations, commented editorially:

"The members of the Council are persons of much more than average influence in the community. They have used the prestige that their wealth, their social position and their education have given them to lead their country toward bankruptcy and military debacle. They should look at their hands. There is blood on them." 

Thus, the existence and the Satanic power of the Council on Foreign Relations was recognized by men in a position to know about it, many years ago. Many warnings such as those raised by Mayor Hylan and the Chicago Times, were uttered and fell on deaf ears.

Among the International Bankers who had formed the Council on Foreign Relations and whose descendents make up the Council today were:

The House of Rockefeller	Kuhn Loeb & Company
The House of Morgan	Lehman Brothers
Goldman Sachs	Brown Brothers Harriman

There were and are others of course, but these provided the nucleus of the world power-house which was to work toward revolution for the establishment of a world empire to be ruled by themselves and their counterparts in Europe. The membership of the Council on Foreign Relations never exceeds 1400, more than 1,000 of whom are the educated elite who serve as the work-horses and lackeys of the billionaire element at the top.

The "Brain Trust" which moved into Washington with Roosevelt and set up the New Deal—their name for the "profound and peaceful revolution—almost to a man, came from the headquarters training school of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Each succeeding Administration has absorbed more and more of the Council on Foreign Relations lackey staff into the government until, at last, the Kennedy administration was more than 90% a Council on Foreign Relations operation. The revolutionary government had been firmly established. The time had come for the experienced hand to move and get the worldwide revolution rolling. This, as the President stated in his speech of December 17th, 1963, he intends to do.

This little book is written at a time when the New World Order is facing a crisis. This New World Order will pass. What then? Americans who have lived through half a century under the New Order, without knowing or even suspecting that the Constitutional Government of the United States had been quietly erased, are not equipped to deal with the problem—what now?

Students in the schools have been taught for several generations that we are building a New World Order. Their parents knew nothing about it; they would not have believed it if they had been told. They have been completely absorbed in the accumulation of material wealth, a new form of wealth, peculiar to the New Order.

In the days of the Constitutional Republic, Americans worked, saved and were free and responsible. Their wealth was invested in debt-free property and in savings in the banks. They were prepared to meet the misfortunes of life as well as its responsibilities. They had wrought mightily and they managed their wealth wisely.

Then a terrible malignancy invaded the body of the Republic. The happy and prosperous people were taken into a World War. The horrors of war, however, were soon forgotten in the unprecedented prosperity of the post-war period. For the first time, individual Americans began to borrow money to pay for unearned luxuries, to gamble in over-priced stocks. They were mortgaging their future to pay for the pleasures of the present.

The People discarded the old ways of industry, economy and thrift and embarked on a dangerous policy. No longer were savings applied to the purchase of a home, as Americans had always purchased homes, with money carefully saved for the purpose. The down payment, the mortgage on future earnings, was the trade-mark of the New Order. Americans indulging in this practice went through life, burdened by debt, never really owning anything.

New devices entered the public communications field, slick magazines, radio and eventually television. These were put to work to sell new ideas and attitudes on the debt economy. Propaganda poured upon the populace day and night and soon all trace, all memory of the Old Order had disappeared. The Credit economy had been replaced by the Debt economy. Propaganda sustained the New Order. The future was mortgaged to the hilt. Propaganda-drugged Americans accepted the theory that we do not need to worry about public debt, we owe it to ourselves, in other words, we do not have to pay the debt because we owe it to Americans. If we had owed it to foreigners we would have had to pay it. This idea was an expansion of the theory of the New Deal (New Order), that Americans could not hold or acquire gold or redeem government paper in gold. Foreigners can and do.

A state of perpetual war has come with the New Order and rebellious youth is now challenging the system which imposes upon them the debts and taxes resulting from the profligacy of other generations. They are challenging the right of any government to demand of them the sacrifices which the perpetual war of the New Order demands. Their rebellion is the crisis now confronting the New World Order.

American youth may be coming to the realization that the New World Order is not going to work to their advantage. They will have to make some important decisions, which should be based on solid facts, if they are to change things for the betterment of themselves and their children. They will have to learn to distinguish truth from falsehood, to separate fact from propaganda. They will have to understand that many of the things they have been taught are not true. Then they will have to seek out the facts for themselves, before they can hope to make sound decisions.

The New World Order has been based on lies and distortion, which must be completely debunked. First on the debunk list should be the Federal Reserve System. The Federal Reserve System is not owned by the government. The government doesn?t own a dime?s worth of stock in it. It is owned by private individuals, mostly by those who own and control the great banking and investment houses in New York City.

Congress does not coin the money and regulate its value. The privately owned Federal Reserve System issues all the money; they create the money and get it into circulation by buying debt bonds of the Federal Government. The government puts the money into circulation when they use these Federal Reserve Notes to pay the government bills. The green paper in the pockets of Americans is plainly marked; it tells its own story; it is a FEDERAL RESERVE NOTE.

The government in Washington is not a National Government. Under the New World Order, it is the government of a State in the World Government of the United Nations. This fact is accepted in a hazy sort of fashion by the student of today. His parents have never suspected it, nor would they have cared much if they had. Collectively they have long since decided to let their children work out the problems created by their own insensate desires for the unearned good things of life, here and now. The fact that the children were not being equipped to handle these problems was of no consequence to their parents. Not until the draft board takes its toll, do these parents sense danger.

It is the opinion of this writer that a factual review of the past is imperative if the youth of today is to understand the present and be prepared to assess properly the strangest and most colossal wreckage in all history, a sea of wreckage represented by split-level homes, gaudy new cars and boats, fabulous luxuries of every description,—all mortgaged to the hilt and charged to the new generation. Inquiring and rebellious youth must understand that all this did not happen without central planning and direction. He should understand also that those who planned and directed this program, which has brought perpetual war to a most peacefully inclined people, had something to gain from the adventure. He must realize that in all history there have been greedy and power-mad men who have schemed to rule the world. He should know who these men are and how they operate.

Revolution, as the average American understands the term, is a violent overthrow of existing government. The International Bankers of the Council on Foreign Relations could not hope to accomplish their purpose by such tactics, nor are they the type to engage in such perilous activity. The new revolution had to be fought with money. They would provide the money for revolution, for wars, for the wholesale bribery of the whole populace in the forms of welfare, subsidies, wage and price guarantees, social security and a host of other benefits all charged to the beneficiaries in the public debt. This debt is owed largely to these International Bankers of the Council on Foreign Relations.

In order to sustain the profound and peaceful operation of the new government, the visible form of that government must be maintained. The People will go along producing at peak capacity to support the schemes of what they believe to be their government, hence, the President, the Congress and the Supreme Court will remain in Washington and go through the motions of that government. The revolutionary government works through the United Nations, where the laws are actually made and handed down to the straw-bosses of the Member State, the President, Congress and Supreme Court for implementation. All are charged with the binding obligation of putting these laws into effect within their borders. This they do, and they are continuing to do, wittingly or unwittingly (members of Congress appear to do their part unwittingly) since we were taken into the United Nations.

The more observing youth will remember the Republican National Convention of 1964, where young Republicans rose up and ousted the former leaders of their Party. These leaders were denounced by the delegates who referred to them as the Establishment or the Eastern Establishment. The propaganda press went all-out to protect the Establishment without giving any information on the nature and make-up of this organization. The fact is that the top echelon of The Establishment is occupied by the bankers of the Federal Reserve System and a group of associated cartelists who intend to rule the World through the United Nations.

This group of billionaires and their trained agents, who occupy all top posts in the Washington government by appointment of the Establishment, are incorporated under the title, Council on Foreign Relations. It is an international combine, having counterpart organizations throughout Europe, Asia and Africa. Through their Central Banking systems, they control the wealth of the world and use this wealth and the credit of all the people in the world to advance their own objective. One of their trusted member-agents put it thus: "Our goal is government of all the world." (Elmo Roper).

The Council on Foreign Relations was organized immediately after the failure of their League of Nations scheme. They took control of both political parties through the simple expedient of getting control of the delegates of the National Conventions by whatever means necessary. Money was never a problem to them. They had control of the Federal Reserve System; it was their property.

With firm control of both political parties, their control of government was secure. The Council on Foreign Relations headquarters in New York became both a training school and a hiring hall for operatives of the Washington government. This small group of 1,400 men have literally taken over the government of the United States and eased it into the World Empire (The New World Order) of the United Nations.

The course of empire once again is littered with the dead and broken bodies of youth, the youth of the world this time. A war and debt economy on an international scale demands this; empire-building requires it. The death march goes on because American youth and their irresponsible parents are misinformed and completely misled by the propaganda of those who will destroy anything which stands in the way of their planned World Conquest.

One of the most loquacious members of the Council on Foreign Relations stood before a Committee of the United States Senate, not many years ago, and told the Senators to their faces that they (we) would have world government whether we want it or not; if we did not get it by consent, said Mr. James P. Warburg, we would get it by conquest. The whole Senate has taken his word for it. We have gotten world government by consent.

A simple question should be posed for the inquiring American and it is imperative that the answer be found right now, in this time of crisis: Why should the richest men in the United States favor World Government? It cannot be denied that they favor it and are using their vast wealth and influence to advance this objective. On Wednesday, November 10th, 1965 the New York Metropolitan Committee of the United World Federalists held their Second Annual "Publius Award" Dinner. On the dais were:

Mr. Clark M. Eichelberger
Honorable Benjamin V. Cohen
Dr. Arthur Larson
Honorable Paul G. Hoffman
Mr. Charles Rhyne
Mr. William Rand, Jr.
Ambassador Zenon G. Rossides
Mr. C. Maxwell Stanley
His Excellency Chief S. O. Adebo,
Mr. John J. McCloy
Mr. Grenville Clark
Mr. Randolph P. Compton
Mr. Norman Cousins
Dr. Arthur N. Holcombe
Honorable Constance Baker Motley
Dr. Louis B. Sohn
Mr. C. V. Nararimhan
Mr. Thomas H. Mahony
Dean Andrew W. Cordier
Mr. James P. Warburg
Mr. Lloyd K. Garrison
President John Sloan Dickey
Honorable Thomas K. Finletter
Justice William 0. Douglas

More than half of these men are members of the Council on Foreign Relations. They are among the richest men in the world. Would they be here unless the United World Federalists were promoting their interests? The reader will note the name of James P. Warburg on the list. It is he and his associates on the Council who have decreed that we will have world government whether we want it or not. The point to be stressed in this work is that we already have it. There are now two questions confronting us: Do we want it? Must we keep it? Only an enlightened America is competent to answer. This little book is intended to pro- vide an outline of the progress of World Empire, to show how it has been accomplished, who directed the operation and where we stand as a Member State.

The President of the United States has made the unequivocal statement that the United States had a revolution under the New Deal and that it was time now for a world revolution. He said the New Deal revolution had been profound but peaceful. That is why the people did not know about it and because the people did not know about it, an immediate change in the form of government was not expedient. The Constitutional form would remain; the President, the Congress, the Supreme Court, would continue to represent a visible government, while the new revolutionary government was established at a higher, invisible level.

This, then, is the story of the PROFOUND REVOLUTION.

Preface

It has often been said that truth is stranger than fiction. So it is that the truth of the political status of the United States, from 1945 to the present time, is so monstrous as to appear incredible.

The enemy group within our country, who have betrayed the people and robbed them of their former sovereignty, are keen students of human nature. They have taken full advantage of the blind trust which Americans place in their leaders and so-called representatives. They even capitalize upon the pathetic refusal of the people to believe it possible that these leaders have illegally changed their form of government behind their backs, without their knowledge or consent. The hideous farce is perpetuated by the continuing employment of the big lie technique, through an almost absolute control of the fields of communication and education. The overwhelming majority of the people have been so cleverly brainwashed that they actually believe the real traitors to be those who are trying to tell them the truth.

However incredible it may seem, the facts are that the United Nations Organization is a world government, that its Charter is the Constitution creating it, that the United States has been a member of this world government since its creation in 1945 and that our joinder therein was actually a bloodless revolution which caused the loss of our sovereignty and which illegally changed our form of government, in violation and abandonment of the United States Constitution, the Constitutions of the respective States and the inalienable rights of the people.

Since all of the aims and purposes of this book are based upon those premises, it is of fundamental importance to first establish their truth.

Is the United Nations Charter a Constitution for world government or is it merely a treaty? It is true that America's agreement to it and participation in it was effected in the manner of a treaty, as prescribed by the Constitution of the United States, by being signed by President Harry S. Truman with the advice and consent of the United States Senate. Article VI of the United States Constitution provides that the Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof and all treaties made or which shall be made under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land and that the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution and laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

It will thus be seen that in effecting the United Nations Charter as a treaty it was given a prima facie status of being the supreme law of the land.

We have had it repeatedly dinned into our ears that the document is a treaty. The blanket acceptance of that statement is almost universal. In this case, the big lie technique was so imminently successful, that it apparently did not even occur to anyone to question it until 1961, when the statement was categorically disputed for the first time by attorney Arthur J. J. Bohn of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, in the form of a letter to the respective state Governors, which has since become known as the Bohn Plan. Briefly, said letter contended that the United Nations Charter was in fact a Constitution for world government and not a treaty, that whatever it was called, it had changed our form of government and had caused the loss of our sovereignty, that our joinder in it was illegal and void from the start because it was in violation of the United States Constitution. The letter further requested that one of the States join with one citizen in filing a suit directly in the Supreme Court of the United States to challenge the constitutionality of the United Nations Charter and to force our withdrawal from that organization. The authority to file such a suit directly in the highest tribunal is found in Article III, Section 2, of our Constitution, which provides:

"2. In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a State shall be a party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. . ." 

Let us proceed to more particularly explore the facts supporting this tenet.

First of all, the word "Charter" is synonymous with the word "Constitution." I am sure that many of the readers themselves participated in the drafting of Constitutions for clubs, societies and organizations, where the ultimate document was actually called a Charter. In this instance, we are concerned with a formal, written, instrument which calls itself "Charter of the United Nations." The document, therefore, speaks for itself to the effect that it is a charter, rather than a treaty. There is no language in the body of the instrument which even indirectly implies that it is a treaty. As a matter of fact, the provisions of Article 102 of the United Nations Charter specifically demonstrate that the Charter distinguishes itself from a treaty, to-wit:

"1. Every treaty and every international agreement entered into by any member of the United Nations after the present Charter comes into force, shall as soon as possible be registered with the Secretariat and published by it.
2. No party to any such treaty or international agreement which has not been registered in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 of this Article may invoke that treaty or agreement before any organ of the United Nations." 

If the Charter itself was regarded as a treaty, it is obvious how completely nonsensical the above Article would be. It is equally self-evident from this Article that the framers of the Charter clearly intended that mere treaties and international agreements were completely distinct from and subservient to the provisions of the Charter.

Aside from this, I think it will be conceded generally that people create governments by constitutions, whereas governments create treaties by agreement. Your own dictionary will prove that the main purpose of a constitution is to create an organization and that a constitution is a written instrument creating and embodying the fundamental organic law or principles of government of a Nation, state, society or other organized body of men. On the other hand, the same source will demonstrate that a treaty is a formal, written agreement or contract between two or more already existing sovereign powers or states, customarily relating to some specific subject matter, such as a Treaty of Alliance or a Treaty of Peace. At this point, let me ask, could the member nations enter into any agreement with the United Nations until the United Nations Organization was first created? No one can enter into a contract with a non-existent entity.

Tested by these axiomatic, dictionary definitions, furthermore, the express language of the Preamble of the United Nations Charter reveals that the document is, in fact and in law, a Constitution for world government. Stripped of its deliberately confusing verbiage, it reads as follows:

"CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS
We, the peoples of the United Nations... have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations." 

That language is so simple and clear that even a child should be able to understand it. Perhaps that is why the children are not taught to read this document, since otherwise they might quickly learn how their fathers had sold them into slavery.

It is enough to say that the balance of the lengthy preamble, which outlines its reasons for creating the world government, is sandwiched between the subject of the sentence and its verbs, to the extent that by the time the average reader reaches the verbs and their object, he will likely have forgotten who was said to be doing the creating of the international organization, namely, "We, the peoples of the United Nations. . ." 

If there is any doubt left in anyone's mind concerning the fact that the United Nations Charter is a Constitution establishing a world government, let him compare the preamble of the Charter with the preamble of the United States Constitution, which reads:

"CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES
We, the people of the United States ... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." 

The significant difference, of course, was that when the people formed and created the government of the United States, the people really did it, with their full knowledge and consent, through their own elected representatives, assembled in open, constitutional assembly, whereas when the "peoples of the United Nations" allegedly formed the world government of the United Nations, it was done for them, behind their backs, without their knowledge and consent, by such notorious characters as Alger Hiss, who was Secretary General of the United Nations Conference and a member of the so-called American delegation at San Francisco in 1945, where and when this monster was spawned. The preamble of the United Nations Charter also says that the "peoples" involved were represented "through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco who have exhibited their full powers, found to be in good and due form . . ." 

I will ask, just rhetorically, do any of the readers remember ever having empowered Alger Hiss or anyone else to scrap the United States Constitution and sell them down the river into world government?

The perpetrators of this monstrosity and their ant-like retinue of "intellectual" supporters and successors, in addition to promoting the big lie that the United Nations Charter is merely a treaty, have also saturated, the field of communications with an even bigger lie, to the effect that a treaty may violate and even supersede the Constitution of the United States. The late John Foster Dulles was one of the most vocal exponents of this bigger lie, even during his tenure as our Secretary of State. Is it any wonder, then, that the people are confused?

The real truth of the matter is that a treaty must conform to the provisions of the United States Constitution. If it violates the Constitution, it is illegal and void and unenforceable. A treaty has no greater dignity than a simple law of Congress, which must conform to the Constitution. In fact, if a law of Congress conflicts with the provisions of an earlier treaty, the law of Congress voids and supersedes the treaty to the extent of the conflict.

There is nothing which can supersede the United States Constitution, excepting only an amendment to it, executed in the formal manner prescribed in its own Article V. Nothing of that nature was even attempted at San Francisco in 1945.

It is hoped that the reader will be shocked to learn that the above statement of the law is not just the writer's opinion, but a solemn judicial pronouncement of the Supreme Court of the United States, in 1957, under the Chief Justiceship of Hon. Earl Warren, in the case of Reid v. Covert (S.C.U.S.-1957) 354 U. S. 1, L Ed. (2nd) 1163, 77 S. Ct. 1222, 1231, wherein the court said:

Even though a court martial does not give an accused trial by jury and other Bill of Rights protections, the Government contends that Article 2 (11) of U.C.M.J., insofar as it provides for the military trial of dependents accompanying the armed forces in Great Britain and Japan, can be sustained as legislation which is necessary and proper to carry out the United States' obligations under the international agreements made with those countries. The obvious and decisive answer to this, of course, is that no agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or on any other branch of the government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution." 

Article VI, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution declares:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the Supreme Law of the Land. . .

There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result. These debates as well as the history that surrounds the adoption of the treaty provision in Article VI make it clear that the reason treaties were not limited to those made in "pursuance" of the Constitution was so that agreements made by the United States under the Articles of Confederation, including the important peace treaties which concluded the Revolutionary War would remain in effect. It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights—let alone alien to our entire Constitutional history and tradition—to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions (footnote 32 - See the discussions in the Virginia Convention of the adoption of the Constitution. 3 Elliott's Debates. (1836 ed.) 5000-519. In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive and the Senate combined.

There is nothing new or unique about what we say here. This Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the Supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty. (Footnote 33. E.g. U.S. v. State of Minnesota, 270 U.S. 181. 207-8, 46 S. Ct. 298, 303-306, 70 L. Ed,. 539. Holden v. Jay 17 Wall. 211, 242-243, 21 L. Ed. 523: The Cherokee Tobacco 11 Wall 616, 670 621, 20 L. Ed. 227; Doe ex den. Clark v. Braden, I6 How. 635. 657, 14 L. Ed. 1090, cf. Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137. 176-180, 2 L. Ed. 60. We recognize that executive agreements are involved here, but it cannot be contended that such an agreement rises to greater stature than a treaty).

For example, in Geofrey v. Riggs T33 U.S. 258, 267, 10 S. Ct. 295, 297, 33 L. Ed. 642, it declared:

" 'The treaty power, as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments, and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government or in that of one of the States, or a session of any portion of the latter, without its consent'."

This Court has also repeatedly taken the position that an Act of Congress, which must comply with the Constitution, is on a full parity with a treaty, and that when a statute, which is subsequent in time, is inconsistent with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict renders the treaty null. It would be completely anomalous to say that a treaty need not comply with the Constitution when such an agreement can be overridden by a Statute that must conform to that instrument.

There is nothing in State of Missouri v. Holland, 252 US. 416. 40 S. Ct. 182, 64 L. Ed. 941, which is contrary to the position taken here. There the Court carefully noted that the treaty involved was not inconsistent with any specific provision of the Constitution. The Court was concerned with the Tenth Amendment which reserves to the States or the people all power not delegated to the National Government. To the extent that the United States can validly make treaties, the people and the States have delegated their power to the National Government and the Tenth Amendment is no barrier.

In summary, we conclude that the Constitution in its entirety applied to the trials of Mrs. Smith and Mrs. Covert.

At this point, it might intelligently be asked why we are still operating under the United Nations Charter if it is so clearly illegal and void. The answer is insidiously simple. Under the principles of American law, the Charter, which as you will recall, was approved as a treaty, is presumed to be valid, until such time as it is declared invalid by a Court of competent jurisdiction. The Courts, themselves, cannot raise the question on their own initiative. The question of invalidity must be raised by some litigant in an actual, litigated case, called a justifiable controversy. The main thrust of the Bohn Plan, to which we referred earlier, was to have one of the States bring such a case directly before the Supreme Court. In view of the law as outlined in the above case of Reid v. Covert, the result of such a case should be inevitable to force our withdrawal from the illegal world government apparatus.

Why, then, has no State come forward to file such a suit? Why, moreover, has the Congress of the United States not passed a law simply voiding the alleged "Treaty"? Why, then, have the Presidents and Senate members since 1945 not acted to cancel the unconstitutional and revolutionary action which their predecessors took? There can be only one answer to these questions. Those in control of the federal agencies of the government must be dedicated world socialists, desirous of perpetuating the illegally established world government and desirous of confirming forever the destruction of the former Constitutional, Republican form of government of the United States. As to those in control of the State Agencies, there are many who have a similar ambition and identity of interest and there are undoubtedly others who simply do not have the courage to try to fight the world power, knowing that there would be immediate reprisal in the form of withdrawal of all federal handouts, sabotage of their political careers and the targeting of their States for intensive, military controls.

It might then be asked, why some individual does not start a suit to restore our Constitution and to force our withdrawal from the United Nations. The answer again is quite clear. Such a suit, absent the joinder of a State, would have to be filed in the lowest state or federal tribunal and laboriously appealed. It would be subjected to a thousand delays and legal, procedural snarls and pitfalls and very likely never even reach the Supreme Court of the United States. Even the cost of such an effort would be a roadblock to individual action.

You might finally ask. What proof is there that the provisions of the United Nations Charter established a world government? Well, we must first suggest that you read the document and judge for yourself. You will find that it assumes territorial sovereignty over the entire universe. It has established a capital in New York City. It has established a World Court and judicial system, a world legislative body and a world executive department. Through regional agencies, regional agreements, covenants, resolutions, executive agreements and conventions, it has assumed control over every field of life of which the mind can conceive and last, but certainly not least, in the so-called interest of peace and security, it has provided for its own absolute military control of the entire universe. As an example of the exercise of this power in our current history, it has involved the United States in a war with Viet Nam, without the necessity of a declaration of war by the United States Congress. This should be enough to satisfy any reasonable mind that we are not operating under the Constitution of the United States.

Incredible? Yes, but true. In this late hour, as you read on, just remember that it is only the Truth Who can set you free.

CHAPTER ONE

The World Constitution

A study of the United Nations Charter is a difficult but completely absorbing task. It contains the most amazing provisions, some of them so fantastic that the student must wonder what manner of men sat in the United States Senate in 1945 when this document was ratified. The admitted fact that the members of the Senate were not provided with copies of the lethal document they were considering may have been responsible for the obvious failure of the Senate to know what they were doing. Of course, the propaganda barrage which had drenched the nation for months was still in full cry. It would have been very bad politics indeed to have refused to ratify the Charter,—the "Last Great Hope for Mankind."

The Senate considered the Charter for only four days, while the Civil Rights Bill of 1964, spawned by the Charter, occupied the Congress for nearly six months. This might be said to shed a little light on a situation now exposed and resembling a dead mackerel in the moonlight.

What, for instance, was in the minds of Senators who ratified Article 25 of the Charter?

ARTICLE 25: "Member nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter."

That is all there is of Article 25. No conditions---no reservations, WE just agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council no matter what they are. The business about the "PRESENT CHARTER" must be noted. It indicates that somebody had in mind other Charters to come later. However, the record is clear that, the UNers had no intention, from the very beginning, of being bound by the "Present Charter."

This Charter provided that there would be a VETO in the Security Council. The Congressman of today assures the people that the Senate of 1945 would never have ratified the Charter without the protection of American interests, guaranteed (?) by the VETO. There was not much protection here either, as we shall see, as the United States Delegates, by the terms of their oaths of office, are sworn to represent the interests of the United NATIONS only. They would veto ONLY when the best interests of the U. N. required it.

The busy beavers of the U. N. left nothing to chance. They had to get rid of the veto or get around it and this they did. Accordingly, in 1950, Mr. John Foster Dulles appeared before the General Assembly with a thing which he dubbed the "Uniting for Peace" Resolution. It had nothing to do with "uniting" and even less to do with "peace". It was a scheme to permit the General Assembly to order military actions ,—to by-pass the Security Council and the veto. This resolution was adopted by the General Assembly and effectively put an end to the "present Charter" of 1945.

This fact has been recognized by the government in Washington and by the World Government of the United Nations. Under the Charter, the U. N. was required by Article 109 to review and revise or amend the Charter on the tenth year (1955) if it had not been amended before that time. Consequently, in 1954 the U. N. sent to the Senate a list of proposed Charter amendments.

This list was assigned to a special sub-committee of the Senate for study and recommendation and the subcommittee report was as follows:
Staff Study No. 2 for the Sub-Committee on the United Nations Charter of the Committee on Foreign Relations, U. S. Senate, 83rd Congress. 2nd Session, 1954:

"We are by no means examining the charter that was drafted in San Francisco in 1945. We are examining the charter of 1954 as it had, been amplified by custom and usage, resolutions of the various UN organs and treaties, like the Atlantic Pact which are consistent with the charter and have a heavy impact on the U. N. system.
"If we should proceed now to consider amendments to the old charter rather than the new, it would be very much like a surgeon planning a major operation on the basis of a diagnosis made 9 years ago."

There you have it. At the end of nine years the Charter was found to have [been] violated out of business by the U. N. itself. There was not enough left, of the Charter, ratified by the United States Senate, to amend. The U. N. and the Washington Government still recognized the binding properties of Article 109. Each year Article 109 is on the agenda and each year the obligation to review and amend the charter is "postponed."

In adopting the Charter of the United Nations as a TREATY, the United States Senate had elevated the Charter of the U. N. to a position where it superseded the Constitution of the United States. There is a loophole in the Constitution of the United States,—Article 6, Paragraph 2, which asserts:

"The Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution of laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." 

It is not for us to argue that this Article does not mean what it says.

Now here we find a sub-committee of the United States Senate reporting to the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate that this Charter, which the Senate had ratified, had been abolished by the activities of the United Nations and its staff. Why did not the Senate, right then and there, begin a REVIEW of the Charter and the subsequent actions which had wiped it out of existence? Why have they failed and refused to REVIEW it to this day?

To any close observer of the situation prevailing in Washington, where the United Nations is in question, it is evident that the whole Congress lives in TERROR of any involvement in United Nations affairs. Men who will stand up to anything else pertaining to the national welfare, cringe and run from any discussion of the United Nations. The sons of their States have died in U. N. wars and continue to die, with no relief in sight. Congress still refuses to question the U. N.—the outlaw organization operating outside its lawful Charter almost from its inception.

The position of, official Washington, with regard to this TREATY and the thousands of other TREATIES ratified under the U. N. auspices, is well stated by John Foster Dulles, then Secretary of State and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, before a regional meeting of the American Bar Association at Louisville, Kentucky, April 12, 1952:

"The treaty-making power is an extraordinary power liable to abuse. Treaties make international law and they also make domestic law. Under our Constitution, treaties become the supreme law of the land. They are indeed more supreme than ordinary laws, for Congressional laws are invalid if they do not conform. to the Constitution, whereas treaty law can override the Constitution. Treaties, for example, can take powers away from the Congress and give them to the President; they can take powers from the States and give them to the Federal Government or to some international body and they can cut across rights given to the people by their Constitutional Bill of Rights." 

It matters not whether we agree with this statement of the former Secretary of State. The whole Federal Government has accepted it and is operating under this concept.

The Charter of the United Nations was not, by any means, the end of the U. N. treaty-making operation. Long before the San Francisco Conference the UNers had been engaged in forming corporations with charters of most dubious legality. When the Senate adopted the United Nations charter as a treaty, the doors were opened for a flood of treaties. The charters of the subversive organizations, many of which became "Specialized Agencies" of the United Nations were, one by one, sent to the Senate for ratification. Adopted as treaties, they all became Law of the Land.

There were a few Senators at the time who had agreed to meet at odd hours, usually while the other members were at dinner, and ratify these treaties by votes of one or several Senators. This was possible due to another loop-hole in the Constitution (Article 2, Section 2) which enables the Senate by vote of two of the members PRESENT, to ratify a treaty. This treaty making by a few Senators continued until several thousand such treaties had been ratified. Then a full two thirds of the Members of the Senate joined in a resolution to amend the Constitution (the Bricker Amendment) to put a stop to such treaty making.

The President and his whole Administration opposed the Bricker Amendment and brought such pressure to bear on the members of the Senate that the resolution was defeated by a single vote. The President did, however, agree that there would be no more such treaty making, and perhaps there was none. There is more than one way to "skin a cat," and the UNers had some of the best skinners in the business. Law by resolution would replace treaty law and be much more effective. Resolution law would by-pass both Senate and veto.

The fact that the United Nations operators had no intention of abiding by any provisions of the Charter, unless it suited them to do so, is best illustrated in a speech delivered by the American Ambassador, Warren Austin, to the General Assembly at its very first meeting.

The reader is about to be introduced to the "semantics" of the United Nations and its official interpreters as they start right out to re- write the Charter by interpretation. Under the terms of the Charter ALL THE POWER was in the Security Council. The General Assembly was purely an advisory organ. This set-up was not exactly "Democratic" for only eleven nations would be represented on the Security Council at any one time. But whether "Democratic" or not, this was the UN Charter ratified by the United States Senate, and presumably binding on the United States and all other Member Nations and upon the United Nations itself.

CHAPTER TWO

Truth Crushed To Earth

The President pronounced, on December 17th, 1963, before the General Assembly of the United Nations that the nation had been through a revolution, a "profound but peaceful revolution," he said. This observation received the usual silent treatment from the press.

This long-delayed and official pronouncement deserves more than passing notice. A gradually awakening public is becoming aware that there is something seriously wrong in Washington. Young men of draft age and their parents are just beginning to realize that we are in a continual state of war, with troops stationed all over the world. Few can remember that prior to our involvement in the United Nations we had NO DRAFT except in time of war. Now, of course, we have the " cold war" which goes on pointlessly and endlessly. The end result is the same--death and destruction.

Fat paychecks and lush dividend checks have kept America happy. We could not be bothered with conditions which sent other men's sons to the ends of the earth. Now the wars have become "hot" wars and the draft is coming closer to home. As a Nation, we are worried. We do not understand and nobody will enlighten us.

The President has given us a hint. We should realize that a successful revolution ALWAYS brings about a CHANGE IN THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT. We did not recognize this revolution because it was "peaceful" and so we have not noticed the change in the form of government. According to the President, the revolution took place in the days of the Franklin Roosevelt regime. The new government then was identified as the New Deal. The revolution was accomplished under the direction of a strange coterie known as the Brain Trust; it went off without a hitch.

The peaceful and profound revolution produced a government by deep and devious individuals, whose criminal ruthlessness was not to come to light for nearly a quarter of a century. Their first bold stroke was to enter into a conspiracy with the War Lords of Japan to sink our own Fleet in Pearl Harbor.

Nothing in the history of civilized man can equal the INFAMY of the very top echelon of the new government. The President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of War, Secretary of the Navy, Chief of Naval Operations and other lesser lights in the Administration, fully informed of the coming attack on Pearl Harbor, deliberately sat for days, awaiting the blow and concealing the information from the Commanders at Pearl Harbor.

Victims of Establishment propaganda will denounce this statement as subversive or worse. The record is clear; it is indisputable. The best writers and historians of the period have revealed and documented the facts and their works have been banished through the silent treatment accorded them by the same press which conceals the facts about Viet-Nam today.

The Japanese code had been broken months before Pearl Harbor day. The President and high ranking officials of the United States Navy knew the day and the hour selected for the attack. They refused to notify the Commanders at Pearl Harbor for the simple reason that they WANTED this attack in order to get into the war against Germany. They were following the British suggestion that America might come in "through the back door of Japan."

Several thousand young Americans lost their lives in that treacherous action. Immediately the President took to the air-waves denouncing the Japs and the Day of Infamy. He also suggested to the American public that the murdered men were largely to blame. He intimated, without a shred of evidence, that these victims of his own treachery had been carousing the night before and were unable to meet their obligations on the fatal morning. TRUTH was crushed to earth on Pearl Harbor day. It will rise only when the facts are revealed and accepted by the American people.

Many excellent and well-documented books have been written establishing beyond question that the sinking of our fleet in Pearl Harbor was planned by the revolutionary government in Washington—although the orders probably came from Council on Foreign Relations headquarters in New York. The guiding hand in the whole scheme was that of Henry L. Stimson who BOASTS of his part in the disaster in his Diary. Stimson, who was Secretary of War, together with Secretary of the Navy, Frank Knox, and Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Stark were all member agents of the Council on Foreign Relations.

The new revolutionary government in Washington was still without a SEAT OF GOVERNMENT for their rapidly building World Empire. They still clung to the belief that the plan they had followed at the time of World War I, i.e., the League of Nations, had merit, even though it failed when the Senate of the United States refused to accept it. They would have another war and another League of Nations.

The Plans for the new World Empire, which would expand enormously following World War II, required that the People be occupied with serious problems such as would accrue from a world war. Also the People had to be CONDITIONED to accept the new Constitution without question. By this time they would be so war weary they would accept anything sold to them in the name of PEACE.

The propaganda machines of the Establishment went into high gear as they set about selling the American public on the virtues of the United Nations. Any voice raised in warning was effectively stilled. The Constitution had been carefully drawn and was all ready to "spring" on an unsuspecting world and an uninformed Congress. This, too, went off without a hitch. At war's end the World Government of the Establishment had absorbed the territory of OUR OWN ALLIES in Eastern Europe and was later to absorb that of China. The revolutionary government of the United States had not only agreed to it,—they had engineered it. The new government was outdoing its Pearl Harbor performance.

On December 9th, 1950, the Chicago Times commented editorially-

"The members of the Council (on Foreign Relations -ed.) are persons of much more than average influence in the community. They have used the prestige of their wealth, their social position and their education have given them to lead their country toward bankruptcy and military debacle. They should look at their hands: there is blood on them."

Indeed there is: the blood of Pearl Harbor; the blood of millions of World War II dead; the blood of those who died in Korea; the blood of the Cubans; the blood shed in the Dominican Republic,—and now the blood of Viet-Nam. And the voice of America is mute.

Before the "peaceful and profound" revolution, the United States was a peace-loving nation. Our people detested war and kept themselves free from its debilitating influence. We had been trapped into World War I and unitedly we vowed: NEVER AGAIN. How were Americans conditioned to accept the drastic change from normal peace and prosperity to a continuing war and its resultant economy?

The ground was prepared in 1913 when the Wilson Administration, under the domination of Edward M. House, who was later to become the prime factor in the organization of the Council on Foreign Relations, procured the enactment of the Federal Reserve Central Banking System. This system, which had provided the money to keep Europe continually at war for hundreds of years for the profit of the Bankers, was now to provide the financing which would keep the United States in a state of continual conflict.

In 1913 the Federal Income Tax (the 16th Amendment) was enacted also and served as another rich source for the financing of world wars. The most destructive of the changes in the Federal structure was the enactment of the 17th Amendment, which, in effect, ABOLISHED THE SENATE and gave us TWO HOUSES OF CONGRESS.

The 17th Amendment wrecked the Federal-State relationship and temporarily strengthened the Federal Government. The States no longer had representation in the Federal Government which was then laid wide open to the predatory operations of greedy, power-mad men who would move in to dominate the undisciplined agency and eventually take it over completely.

The control of our money and credit being firmly established, the Federal Reserve crowd moved confidently toward their goal, "government of all the world," as C.F.R. Member-agent Elmo Roper proudly proclaimed. They began training and financing the revolutionary armies who would go into Russia and overthrow the Russian Government.

They tricked the United States into World War I to cover up their take- over in Russia and to consolidate the Soviet gains. They had hoped to establish the World Government under the League of Nations and having failed in that they organized their "management and labor" divisions into the Council on Foreign Relations. The C. F. R. was formed BEFORE THEY LEFT PARIS and the British counterpart, the Royal Institute of Foreign Affairs, was organized at the same time. World Government was off and running.

Following World War I, the government began to experiment with the idea of continuing war-time "prosperity" by producing vast quantities of materials to be given away to our former allies. The working people of the United States "prospered" as never before. They had never had experience with burdensome debt up to that time, but now they began to live luxuriously—to borrow money to buy over-priced stocks and to live it up generally.

This was truly a MANAGED ECONOMY. The People had tasted luxury and they would remember these days in good times and bad. Suddenly the plug was pulled. Nobody knew what had happened; they just woke up one morning and the bottom had fallen out of the stock market, the manufacturing plants were closed and finally the banks closed. Much later they learned that the Federal Reserve Banking crowd had shipped so much gold out of the country, most of it to Germany, that the money, forced out of circulation by Federal Reserve law, left insufficient currency to carry on trade in our own country. The way was thus paved for the " profound and peaceful" revolution.

Twelve years of ensuing Depression brought the People to their knees. They were ready for a revolution and, although they did not understand it, they co-operated with it as they sought to regain the high prosperity of the post-war era. They had been CONDITIONED for the coming revolution: they had been STARVED into it.

Another holocaust was coming up. The People, still striving for the good things of life and determined to have WAR PROSPERITY WITHOUT WAR, began to resist the propaganda and the enticements of the revolutionary government. They had witnessed the terrible tyranny of the Russian Government, which had been recognized by the new revolutionary government in Washington by " EXECUTIVE ORDER." The people did not understand this either and they did not approve it. They had no stomach for any sort of partnership with the Bolsheviks.

While millions of young men were dying in the wars of Soviet conquest, other men were becoming enormously rich on the profits of those wars. Still, nobody seriously raised the question of the CAUSE OF WARS. In time and as the propaganda for World Empire held sway, the propagandists began preaching the doctrine that poverty and ignorance were the cause of wars. To get rid of wars we had to get rid of poverty and ignorance WORLD-WIDE.

Common sense became one of the first casualties of the propaganda blitz. Men in all ages past had recognized that it was theRichest Men in the warring nations who had CAUSED THE WARS, that wars were caused by greed and lust for power. Poor and illiterate men could not possibly launch major wars. It has always been the poor and illiterate who suffered most from them.

Now that we were preparing for the launching of the World Empire, it had become necessary to educate the world's illiterate in order to use them in the great industrial projects of the new World Empire. The whole world was to be put into production and the Constitution of this World Empire would provide that the People of the United States would bear the brunt of the financial burden. They could not have been persuaded to go along with this if they had known it, but the propaganda media could and did sell them this bill of goods on humanitarian grounds. Somehow wars would end if all the people in the world were made rich and literate. Everybody can agree that to end war the cause must be eliminated. The problem is to find out for certain just what that cause is.

The nation, drenched in propaganda largely through the public school system, has accepted the story that wars are caused by poverty and ignorance, that only through the elimination of poverty and ignorance worldwide will there be "peace and security." TRUTH has taken a terrible beating in this area. Reason has fled precipitously.

One thing is certain, war has not been eliminated by the new government nor by the World Government of the United Nations. It will not be until every nation has been subdued and brought into the World Empire. The new World Empire Government has its Constitution and is "in business" in a large way all over the world. It is time now to find out just WHO runs this government and HOW and WHY.

The United Nations is the direct successor to the League of Nations and was spawned by the same people or their direct antecedents. The Russian-born Leo Pasvolsky, a member-agent of the Council on Foreign Relations, was the foremost author of both the Covenant of the League of Nations and the Charter of the United Nations. He had been around in World Empire circles for a long time before his crimes caught up with him. He was an intimate associate of Alger Hiss and they collaborated closely in the preparation of the Charter. Hiss went on to become Secretary-General of the San Francisco Conference which adopted the Charter of the United Nations.

The finishing touches had been given to the Charter at the Yalta Conference just five months before the Conference at San Francisco. Hiss had been a prominent figure in the Yalta caper where Russia had been granted three votes in the General Assembly while all other nations, including the United States, were limited to one. From this Yalta Conference came the conspirators who had arranged the surrender of OUR OWN ALLIES in Eastern Europe to the Soviet branch of the World Empire. East Germany was delivered and Poland betrayed to the Soviet. The agreement was made on reparations to be collected by Russia from West Germany in the form of factories, locomotives and other machinery and equipment—BILLIONS of dollars worth of it—and a secret protocol which permitted the enslavement of German prisoners in Russian labor camps.

With this record directly behind them the representatives of the "peace-loving" countries (including Russia with her three votes) came, with pious mein, to the Peace Conference. Ten million Poles and another ten million Germans had been rendered homeless and sent streaming hopelessly down the roads to misery and death while their betrayers met for the purpose of creating a UNITED Nations—the great and abiding Hope of the World.

Secretary of State, Stettinius, had been in attendance at both the Yalta and San Francisco Conferences in his official capacity. Both times he was accompanied by and under the scrutiny of three master- minds from the Council on Foreign Relations who were also State Department "experts": H. Freeman Matthews, Alger Hiss and Wilder Foote. The young, handsome and vigorous Secretary of State, it might be mentioned, did not long survive the United Nations Conference in San Francisco. He had been a member agent of the Council on Foreign Relations, as have been later Secretaries of State Acheson, Dulles, Herter and Rusk. Dulles and Herter had also been members of The Inquiry, which was responsible for the planning of the League of Nations.

When the Government of the United States finally became involved in the United Nations officially, the President appointed five men to draw up the original draft of the Charter. These men were: Sumner Welles, Chairman of the Committee, Isaiah Bowman, Hamilton Fish Armstrong, Benjamin Cohen and Clark Eichelberger, all advocates of World Government and all members of the Council on Foreign Relations. To advise and assist this Committee, the Council sent down two member "experts"—Alger Hiss and Leo Pasvolsky. Thus the first seven men OFFICIALLY identified with the United Nations were ALL members of the Council on Foreign Relations.

CHAPTER THREE

Empire Building

Now we begin to get into the REAL purpose of the United Nations—the building of a World Empire. The United Nations masterminds hold that, in adopting the charter, all signatory members conferred upon the United Nations a MANDATE to rebuild the world and to see that everybody in the world had a good living. They were to accomplish these things in any way they could get it done,—as the United Nations Participation Act so eloquently expresses it,—"Notwithstanding the provision of any other law."

By U. N. interpretation, the meat of the charter rests in Articles 55 and 56. Here, by U. N. reasoning, the Member Nations have delegated the authority, in fact a MANDATE, to them to re-build the world. Article 55:

"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:
Higher standards of living, FULL EMPLOYMENT and conditions of economic and social progress and DEVELOPMENT:
SOLUTIONS OF ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, HEALTH and related problems and international cultural and educational cooperation, and Universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms FOR ALL without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion." 

Concealed in this hazy and innocuous language are stated the REAL purposes of the United Nations. The MANDATE to the U. N. to re-build the world is here and Member Nations have re-stated the authority and pledged full support and cooperation in Article 56:

"All Members pledge themselves to take joint and separate action in cooperation with the Organization for the achievement of the purposes set forth in Article 55." 

Now, to get back to the General Assembly address of Ambassador Warren Austin, wherein he INTERPRETS another Article of the Charter, Article 1, Par. 4, keeping in mind that the General Assembly has NO POWER under the Charter:

"The General Assembly will, we feel, explore new fields of activity as time goes on and as new fields and functions, WHICH MAY NOT BE SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED FOR in the Charter, but which are NOT PRECLUDED by the Charter are entrusted to it.
. . . "These possibilities will be realized to the extent that the General Assembly exercises its VERY BROAD powers in strict accordance with the fundamental purposes of the United Nations as set forth in Article 1, Paragraph 4, to be a center for harmonizing the actions of the nations in the attainment of these common ends." 

This interpretation is certainly a new twist in legal reckoning. The Constitution of the United States provides that all powers not specifically delegated to the Federal Government are retained by the States and by the People. The Charter provisions, by Mr. Austin's interpretation, are the reverse. All powers not delegated to the General Assembly, but NOT PROHIBITED to it by the Charter, are automatically legal and proper powers to be exercised by the General Assembly.

The ONLY power specifically denied the General Assembly by the Charter is that of interfering with the Security Council when it is functioning. Beyond this then, the General Assembly claims the authority to do anything it wishes and to bind all Member Nations by its decrees.

In order to operate under this theory of law, however, something had to be done to get around the veto. The "Uniting for Peace" resolution took care of that and now the General Assembly asserts powers far greater than those conferred upon the Security Council under the Charter. Article 25 should now read:

"Member nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council and the General Assembly." Period.

CHAPTER FOUR

Government By Resolution

The UNers are an accommodating lot. When the President said there would be no more "Senators Present" treaty making, their attitude was one of meek compliance. They abandoned treaty making as a general policy and promptly adopted the resolution method of making law. Under the Warren Austin interpretation and the "Uniting for Peace" resolution, a General Assembly resolution became law of the World. A simple resolution of the General Assembly ratified by vote of two-thirds of the Assembly is now recognized as World Law to be put into effect within the borders of each Member State.

It is an incredible fact that when the General Assembly adopts a resolution on ANY SUBJECT under the sun, that resolution becomes law throughout the world. The resolution is sent down to the heads of state of the member nations and they are obliged to implement it. If they fail to do so, the United Nations is empowered to do it for them, or to penalize them.

At this point we are having some very strange and UNconstitutional laws forced upon us. Never have we known anything like them. There is no authority VISIBLE to us to permit enactment of such laws or Court decisions upholding them. General Assembly resolution No. 1904 dealing with race and discrimination is an excellent example. And an earlier Civil Rights decision of the Supreme Court based upon a BOOK allegedly written by one Gunnar Myrdal, a Swedish Socialist who knew nothing about the Negro problem in the United States, is another.

The whole destructive race revolution has resulted from resolutions of the General Assembly. The UNers hold that total and complete integration of the races world-wide, is made MANDATORY by the Charter. The words "racial equality" spell it all out, and heads of State are required to put this Charter commitment into effect within their borders.

It would be most difficult for the President of the United States to persuade Congress to pass such legislation in the face of a hostile public opinion and the long recognized prohibitions of the Constitution. Once the resolution has been sent to him for implementation he MUST get the job done. It matters not what he thinks about it, nor what Congress or Court may think; the resolution must be put into effect within the borders of the "nation-state." In a very touchy situation subterfuge may be needed. The UN will provide the necessary "con" artists to take care of that. In the matter of implementing the race and discrimination resolutions the President and the Supreme Court did need such help and the United Nations sent their TOP AGENT to take care of the matter.

Mr. Gunnar Myrdal was by no means the poor, broken-down Swedish author, struggling to make a dollar, pictured by the Nation's press. He had been one of the very top men in the United Nations from the very beginning. During the Trygvie Lie administration he had been regarded as second only to Mr. Lie. The matter of implementing the UNconstitutional race and discrimination resolutions was a job of TOP PRIORITY and the UN sent a top priority man to do it. He was to write a book,—or get a "ghost" to write it for him. The Supreme Court would use the book as a peg on which to hang the up-coming decision. This operation was as smooth as are all UN sponsored operations. They always go off without hitch. Lawyers nation-wide were shocked at the thought of the Supreme Court basing an important decision on a book written by a foreigner. In time most lawyers came to regard this as the project of an incompetent and not overly bright Chief Justice.

General Assembly Resolution No. 1904 followed the Myrdal decision by several years. Parts of No. 1904 have already been implemented in the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965 which were closely followed by a wholesale increase in the salaries of Congressmen and Senators, a full $7,500 a year INCREASE. We will quote from No. 1904. You will note that a General Assembly Resolution does not advise or recommend; IT COMMANDS the head of State to REVISE and RESCIND laws and to PASS LEGISLATION and to do it IMMEDIATELY and effectively (and don't let us tell you again).

There is no longer any trace of sovereignty left in the Federal Government, nor does any man in Congress seriously claim there is. The Washington Government is completely under UN domination and DISCIPLINE and they all know it and conduct themselves accordingly. This is why they continue to appropriate fabulous and fantastic sums of tax money for projects all over the world, for the building of the UN World Empire.

Few people understand that "Foreign Aid" money is not, and never has been, spent for food, shelter, medication and other necessities for the people of the world. The so-called "Specialized Agencies" of the UN handle those matters. Foreign Aid money goes into the coffers of the various United Nation's EMPIRE BUILDING agencies. The Congress does not appropriate this money directly to the UN; they could not get away with that. There is an Agency of the Government known as the Agency for International Development (AID) which acts as a pipe-line between the Congress and the various UN agencies. The money is stuffed into this pipe-line by the Congress and it pours into the coffers of the UN agencies at the other end of the line.

Nor is this enough for the UNers. To get the rest of the picture we must fully understand that which very few Americans have been able to grasp, that the United States has agreed to COMPLETELY DISARM and to turn our whole military establishment over to the United Nations. This INSANE operation is well under way now and is to be completed by 1970. There will be no United States Army, Navy or Air Force. There will be just enough military machinery to keep the populace in subjection.

There is an immense incentive to the UN to get this accomplished as soon as possible. The UN has adopted, by UNANIMOUS VOTE of the General Assembly, an incredible resolution providing that when we disarm, we will turn the money, SAVED BY DISARMAMENT, over to the UN to finance empire building. This resolution was adopted on December 18th, 1962. The Defense Budget now approaches the 70 billion dollar a year figure. The spenders in the UN have been urged frequently to step up the spending in anticipation of the windfall which will result from the "total and complete disarmament" of the United States.

On November 20th, 1963, just two days before the assassination of President Kennedy, the General Assembly adopted Resolution No. 1904. The late President had sent to the Congress a Civil Rights Bill which most Congressmen agree was far less severe than the one which replaced it after his death. The latter Bill was obviously the implementation of 1904. Some of the provisions of 1904 are quoted below:

Article 2: "Particular efforts shall be made to prevent discrimination based on race, color or ethnic origin by any group, institution or INDIVIDUAL . . .

Article 3 "Particular efforts shall be made to prevent discrimination especially in the fields of civil rights, access to citizenship, education, employment, religion, occupation and housing. . . Everyone shall have equal access to any place or facility intended for use by the general public, without discrimination as to race colour or ethnic origin.

Article 4 "All States (nations - ed) shall take effective measures to REVISE GOVERNMENTAL AND OTHER POLICIES, AND TO RESCIND LAWS and regulations which have the effect of perpetuating and creating racial dis- crimination wherever it exists. They should PASS LEGISLATION for prohibiting such discrimination and take all appropriate measures to combat those prejudices which lead to racial discrimination.

Article 5 "An end shall be put without delay to governmental and other public policies of racial segregation.

Article 7 "Everyone has the right to equality before the law and to equal justice under the law. Everyone without distinction as to race, colour or ethnic origin has the right to security of person and protection by the State against violence or bodily harm whether inflicted by GOVERNMENT offcials or by any individual or group of individuals.
"Everyone shall have the right to an effective remedy and protection against any discrimination he may suffer on the ground of race, colour or ethnic origin with respect to his fundamental rights and freedoms through INDEPENDENT NATIONAL TRIBUNALS (Federal Courts - ed) competent to deal with such matters.

Article 8 "All effective steps shall be taken immediately in the fields of, teaching, education and information (propaganda? - ed) with a view of eliminating racial discrimination and prejudice and promoting tolerance and friendship among nations and racial groups as well as to PROPAGATING the PURPOSES and PRINCIPLES of the Charter of the United Nations (NOT the Charter itself, just the purposes and principles of the Charter, whatever they are - ed). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (which the U. S. Senate rejected - ed) and the Declaration on the granting of independence to colonial peoples and countries."

Note Article 8. The General Assembly now makes laws governing education in the States. No longer will the public schools teach the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights. The Government in Washington has a MANDATE from the U. N. to teach the basic documents of the new World Government.

Article 9: "In order to put into effect the purposes and principles of the present Declaration ALL STATES SHALL TAKE IMMEDIATE AND POSITIVE MEASURES including legislative and OTHER measures, to prosecute and/or OUTLAW organizations which promote or incite to racial discrimination." 

We deal here with the question of the authority of the United Nations to dictate to the Washington Government in the arrogant and authoritarian language set forth in this Declaration. We offer it as evidence that, regardless of what the American people or their Congress believe about the complete authority of the United Nations, the United Nations asserts this authority and, as we shall see, the Government of the United States recognizes it.

The question of the right or wrong of racial discrimination is not at issue here. What is of momentous importance is the recognized authority of the UN to order the Government of the United States to REVISE and RESCIND LAWS and to PASS LEGISLATION decreed by these resolutions—and to command the Government to create SPECIAL COURTS to try certain cases. Nor, so long as we remain a Member State of the United Nations may anyone properly question the authority of the United Nations to order us around like the Subject State that we have become. Article 25 was just a foot in the door. The Senate agreed to much of this before the treaty law was suspended. The Congress and the President have been responsible for much of it also. Now the authority of the UN is SUPREME. Nobody can question it.

CHAPTER FIVE

War By Resolution

Another operation in Resolution Law is currently in the news. A series of General Assembly Resolutions have been directed to Britain in the Rhodesian affair. Just as the UN may order Britain to do certain things and to go to war if it becomes necessary to carry out the orders, so may the UN dictate to us. In fact they have done it, and continue to do it. Our young men fight and die all over the world as we "accept and carry out" the decisions of the Security Council and the General Assembly. Strangely enough we find the term "one man, one vote," used frequently as the UN issues its mandates to the British Government. Quite evidently this is the source of the "one man, one vote" edict of the Supreme Court in the Re-apportionment decision.

Under the terms of the Charter, as it is interpreted by the UN, the Colonial Powers were required to give up their colonies at the end of World War Two. Southern Rhodesia was a colony of Great Britain and in 1961 Rhodesia "jumped the gun" and declared her independence. Britain knowing that she would eventually have to free Rhodesia, raised no objection. In fact Britain co-operated with Rhodesia in establishing the new government and in writing the new constitution and setting the date for elections. Everything was peaceful and harmonious.

Then the UN got into the act, demanding that Britain RESCIND the Constitution of Rhodesia.—TAKE BACK this colony and hold it under British protection until such time as Rhodesia established a new government based on the principle of "one man, one vote". The "free" press has given us the impression that Rhodesia has just recently seceded from British control. The fact set forth in the British reply to the UN MANDATE, as reported in the UN publication, Everyone's United Nations, Pg. 388, indicate the British position:

"Prior to this Assembly action the United Kingdom had stated through its representative that the United Nations had no authority to intervene in the affairs of Southern Rhodesia and he formally recorded the objection of his government to any resolutions that might be adopted. The Constitutional Position was that since 1923 his government had had no effective power to legislate for Southern Rhodesian internal affairs and could not now intervene without the consent of the Government of Southern Rhodesia. His government could not transmit information to the United Nations because it did not have the Constitutional right or power to require the Government of Southern Rhodesia to provide the United Kingdom with information." 

The General Assembly, upon receipt of the British reply, adopted another resolution condemning Britain for her position and renewing the UN demand that Britain take back Rhodesia. The UN "found" that the British Government, in effect, did not know what it was talking about. The UN held that Britain had both the power and the right to do as the General Assembly commanded and she had better get about it.

When Britain failed to comply, the General Assembly adopted another resolution invoking initial sanctions against Britain. This brought Britain to heel and she promised to try to persuade Rhodesia to cooperate and to use every means SHORT OF WAR. Britain made it very clear she would not go to war with her former colony. This brought forth another General Assembly resolution commanding Britain to subdue Rhodesia by whatever means were required to do it. If it required war, then Britain will go to war. Furthermore, the UN could order the United States to take on that war, or to help Britain. The UN could take over in its own name and commit OUR armed forces. This is the fearful power "our" Senate has conferred upon the United Nations.

These had all been General Assembly resolutions. The next resolution came from the Security Council decreeing an embargo on oil to Rhodesia. Article 25 does not mention the decisions of the General Assembly and apparently the British Parliament was not taking them very seriously, but a Security Council resolution was something else. They knew this was serious. They called in the Prime Minister demanding an explanation for the British vote in the Security Council which had been cast in favor of the embargo.

The Prime Minister attempted to throw Parliament a curve by asserting that he did not regard the Security Council resolution as "mandatory." This brought down the House. Parliament had become familiar with Article 25 and they finally came to realize the extent to which Britain was committed under the UN Charter. The indignation of Parliament was so great that the Prime Minister was obliged to sit down while the clerk restored order.

It might be noted in passing that had Britain refrained from voting for the resolution,—or had voted against it,—the resolution would have failed. A vote of ALL FIVE Permanent members is required to adopt a resolution in the Security Council. The British delegate takes the same oath of office that the American delegate takes,—he votes in the interest of the UN ONLY.

In the light of the Charter provisions, requiring the colonial powers to surrender their colonies upon accepting membership in the U. N., it is interesting to contemplate the attitude of France. Just why did France become involved in the bloody and expensive war of attrition in her former colonies in Algeria and French Indo China? Was it because the French Government delegation to the United Nations Conference,—or the French Government—did not dare tell the French people, after the long and expensive experience in World War II, that she would have to surrender her valuable colonial possessions? Had a war been necessary to convince the French that they would have to get out of Southeast Asia?

It is now being admitted in official circles,—the late Winston Churchill complains rather bitterly about it in his last book,— that toward the end of World War Two, President Roosevelt, who knew the provisions of the United Nations Charter which had been approved at Yalta, informed our allies, England, France, Belgium, and Holland, that they would have to "ease" themselves out of their colonies if they were to achieve debt cancellation and aid. The colonial powers, with an unpayable debt to cope with, had no choice. They agreed. The Marshall Plan aid followed the debt arrangements and the colonial powers, using the "student riots" as an excuse, gradually "eased" out of the colonies and in time became far richer without the colonies than they had ever been with them.

The student rioters, all trained for their positions of leadership in the Foundation financed universities of the United States and, to lesser extent in Europe, took over in one little country after the other, again without a hitch. Everything came off as though long planned and rehearsed. The Foreign Aid program of the United States began working wonders in Africa and Southeast Asia. Everything was ready for the building of a great industrial empire. More than a THOUSAND MILLION DOLLARS of Foreign Aid poured into this area within a few years. The money could not be spent,—not even by the "experts" as fast as it poured in. Time and opportunity have brought the American investment in this area to more than a hundred BILLION dollars but still it is not enough. The Empire Builders must have the SAVINGS which will result from disarmament.

Returning Senators and Congressmen complain loudly about the seemingly useless expenditure of money all over the world. They complain and they insist they do not see any sense of it, but year after year they appropriate the money for it, sometimes more than the spenders ask for.

In the early days of foreign aid they fussed about the roads and railroads that went nowhere—the dams and power plants that served nobody, the piles of expensive equipment rusting along the highways. In later years they began to understand the purpose of all this—it will be put to use as the course of empire wends its way.

CHAPTER SIX

Financing World Empire

The industrial build-up of Africa is incredible,—it is absolutely fantastic. It is all under the control of the United Nations. The United Nations is quietly and most efficiently going about the work for which it was created. There are many UN agencies engaged in this global project and other organizations from Member Nations render valuable assistance. The principal governmental organization involved is the U S Agency for International Development. Of the more than TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND "intellectuals" scouring the earth to find places to spend our money, seventy-five thousand of them are on the payroll of the Agency for International Development, commonly called AID.

Shortly after the United Nations came into being, another Charter, that of the International Bank of Reconstruction and Development, the World Bank, was ratified by the Treaty as a treaty. The UN had come equipped with its own Supreme Court,—the International Court of Justice, who's Charter had been adopted by the Senate at the same time as that of the United Nations. Now it had its own World Bank. They were losing no time in equipping themselves with the trappings of empire. Perhaps some notes on the subject of the World Bank will indicate what the UN had in mind. And it was not, by any stretch of the imagination, " international peace and security."

The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development was just one of four World banks incorporated into the UN system in its early days. The IBRD was the largest of these and was forced to "provide and facilitate international investment in projects intended to increase production, raise living standards, and help bring about a better balance in world trade." 

This bank began with a capitalization of TEN BITLTON dollars. After a few years the capitalization was raised to TWENTY-ONE BILLION dollars. Most of the money came, in one way or another, from the producers of the United States who have been forced into unpayable debt to finance the numerous world building projects of the United Nations. The 1963-64 report of the World Bank states: "The Bank began its operations in 1946. Since then it has made 349 loans amounting to more than $7,000,000,000 in 64 Member countries and overseas territories." The report continues to relate that the largest categories for bank lending are for the development of electric power ($2,235,000,000) and for transportation ($2,260,000,000). How, if ever, these "loans" are to be repaid is not stated.

A map shown on the UN publication "Helping Economic Development in Asia and the Far East" might help the reader get a preview of what is to come if UN plans go not awry. After describing the terrain of the Continent of Asia as mountainous and rocky, rendering road construction very expensive,?the article goes on to state that in the interest of international trade among the nations of Asia the UN is planning (in 1963) a network of roads in Asia which will provide 34,000 miles of hard top transportation. In case you have missed the implication of these figures it might be pointed out that this is the equivalent of TEN roads from New York to California. And this is just one of THOUSANDS of world building projects in operation or on the drawing boards of the UN and its agencies.

This sort of thing cannot be paid for in cash. There isn't that much money in the world. The wealth of the American people is being pledged for the bulk of the spending while the UN is taking the credit for it. What the UN finances, the UN controls. Page 44 of the Bank report relates:

"Agreement has been reached on the roads to be included in the network, on priorities for construction and on minimum construction standards. A code has been drawn up to govern traffic on the Asian highway." 

The code contains provisions for international driving permits, a uniform system of road signs and signals, pavement markings and road work signs. I quote from the "United Nations Development Decade," page 69:

"The plans for a Pan-American Highway (already in an advanced stage of completion) and an Asian highway show the kind of project now being undertaken. These projects will probably be considerably expanded under international auspices. Similar programs will be undertaken elsewhere, especially in Africa. Networks of the transcontinental highways will have to be planned in advance and coordinated with the general economic development plans of the countries concerned. The investment required for such large modern highways will have to be encouraged and offered adequate protection."

Page 44 of the Bank Report relates:

"In the field of railways one of ECAFE's principal achievements has been the establishment in Lahore, Pakistan, of a United Nations training center for Railway Operating and Signaling Officials . . . Studies and recommendations made by ECAFE concerning railroads have included improved methods of track construction and maintenance; speedier turn-around of rolling stock; augmented capacity of single track lines; railway track sleepers and problems of attaining higher train speeds in relation to track maintenance, and better design for rolling stock." 

In addition to the foreign aid investments of the American taxpayer, many other nations, all of whom have been, or still are, on our gift list, have been contributing to the empire building. A study of the mountain of U. N. documents on the subject gives evidence that even the fabulous sums of foreign aid and other contributions filched from our taxpayers will not pay for the grandiose plans of the more than TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND planners and spenders working on the U. N. projects.

The following might shed some light on the REAL reason the American forces are in Viet Nam:

"One of the most ambitious projects instigated and promoted by ECAFE (Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East -ed.)is the development of the lower Mekong River Basin, which is shared by Cambodia, Laos, Thailand and Viet Nam. . . the Mekong project is a unique effort in the history of international cooperation. . . The first five year programs of INVESTIGATIONS has been virtually completed. . . and a second five year INVESTIGATION programme expected to cost about 21 million dollars has been drawn up." 

Practical men might regard this as expensive investigation?more than forty million dollars worth of it—for ONE PROJECT in a two-year period. This report was made in 1962. If we can just keep in mind, if we can grasp the fact at all, the International Development in UNese means development of the whole world—putting the whole world into production-then it will be seen that the term "Empire-building" is not a clich‚, but a solid fact.

In early 1961, the President declared a Development Decade from 1960 to 1970. At the end of that Decade the U. N. expected to have Africa, Asia and South America in an advanced state of industrialization. At the end of the first half of the decade they had made great progress and have every reason to better this showing in the last half as they collect more and more of the money saved by disarmament. In the meantime, the planners and other "experts," unable to produce anything but plans and programs, go merrily along, dreaming and committing the dreams to paper while they await the time when the plans will be put into effect by PRODUCERS.

These self-styled "intellectuals" are putting in time as they await the day when the established fact of World Empire can be revealed and the whole global project set in motion. On that great day, these will become the herd masters on the International Animal Farm. They do not ask or expect command positions. They know who will be in charge. It is enough for them that they supervise the great new world of their creation and retain a place at the second table.

Nothing could better illustrate the enormity of the Empire- building project than some of the U. N. reports on the PLANNING STAGES:

"RESEARCH AND STATISTICS: No statistics are necessary to prove that the people of Asia and the Far East have relatively low standards of living, or that with a few exceptions, their agriculture is backward and their industries underdeveloped. But to tackle these problems exact information is necessary. Here we come up against a difficulty which ECAFE has faced from the beginning and has not yet overcome: the inadequacy of accurate economic data for the many countries of the region.
"Clearly the statistical basis must be improved if the questions concerning ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT are to be tackled satisfactorily. (Since its start in 1947 -ed.) ECAFE has collected and assessed statistics from the various countries of the region and has cooperated in improving methods through regional conferences of statisticians. This work gained impetus after the Conference of Asian statisticians was established as a permanent body in 1957.
"The main purpose of the Conference is to further sound statistical development within each country, and to do this expert groups meet frequently to discuss statistical problems of common interest in their countries. . . Beginning in 1957 the official publication has, in addition to a review of the current economic situation in Asia. taken up each year the study of one major economic problem, for example, types of the ECONOMY prevailing in the ECAFE region . . . post-war INDUSTRIALIZATION; post- war trade; post-war finance; economic growth; Asia's trade with Western Europe. .. import substitution and export diversification."

These multi-billion dollar "think" projects have not succeeded in getting the industrialization effort off the around. Hence the announcement by the President of the creation of the "Asian Executive Service Corps" headed by Mr. Eugene Black, former head of the World Bank, Vice-president of the Chase Manhattan Bank and Member of the Council on Foreign Relations. It may safely be assumed that Mr. Black and his associates will get things moving and that the PROFIT MOTIVE will not be overlooked in the process.

On Page 55 of The U. N. Development Decade, we find:
"The General Assembly has expressed concern over the inadequacy of what is being done to help industrial development. . . and the Economic and Social Council has stated that more technical assistance and pre- investment expenditure must be devoted to industrial development. . . The program of action proposed . . . includes research and operational activities which are complimentary and mutually supporting. They are as follows:
"Support of industrial planning and project planning. Extension of industries advisory services. Promotion of small industries, with special emphasis on industrial estates.
"Particular attention will be given to drawing up priorities for industries and making forecasts of the demand for industrial products (page 56) . . . It is proposed to assemble a group of experts with supporting staff. Each expert will be familiar with industrial planning and programming in general and with particular sectors of industry, but specialized consultants(experienced men? -ed.) will also be needed in certain cases. Close cooperation between the economic and technical experts should ensure greater coordination of, the economic and engineering aspects of industrial planning." 

Time and space do not permit further discussion of the World Industrial Development Program. There is literally hundreds of TONS of official U. N. information on the subject.

The point to be made is simply that the United Nations IS engaged in World Empire building in Africa and in Asia and the work is far advanced. It might be well to point out also that, should this vast area be put into industrial production, it will require many MILLIONS of SKILLED industrial workers and considerable skilled management. This labor and management are to be found only in highly industrialized nations, principally in the United States.

It might be suggested also, that the existing monetary systems of the civilized world will not begin to support the world-wide programs of the United Nations and that this is the real reason the International Currency is being prepared for launching. The World Government, which is the U. N., proposes to issue a WORLD CURRENCY and issue all currency through the World Bank which is a U. N. institution. Still the American people refuse to believe that the United Nations IS A WORLD GOVERNMENT.

CHAPTER SEVEN

Communication Well In Hand

Control of communications has been accepted as IMPERATIVE to the rule of the world since the days of Adam Weishaupt, two hundred years ago. The Empire-Builders in the United States have effectively gained control of communications and now we find that the United Nations is moving into this field. There is great and immediate need for controlled PROPAGANDA to keep the world producers in line before the industrialization of the world advances further. This the U. N. must provide. Page 72, U. N. Development Decade:

PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT DECADE

"Considerable experience has been gained during the past years in another aspect of the problem,—that of more effectively utilizing the technical means of communication and media of information for enlisting public support for the objectives set forth in General Assembly Resolution 1710. There is a need therefore. . . to ensure that national and international information services are concentrated more closely on the task of presenting to the world public a more meaningful picture of the importance of economic and social development to the welfare of the World as a whole and of the actual steps being taken to achieve this end.
"The primary responsibility must rest of course, with national and international media and services, public and private. However, a significant contribution to such national efforts can be made by the information services of the United Nations organizations."

This idea was propounded and put into effect through General Assembly Resolution No. 1710 MORE, THAN THREE YEARS AGO. Now, in 1965, "we" can learn practically nothing—and what little we learn is unreliable—of the war in Viet Nam, the revolution in the Dominican Republic and other vital information that we might obtain ONLY THROUGH A FREE PRESS. We might well ask at this point, just to what extent has the United Nations taken control of the news media, worldwide? We might explore the subject a little farther as space permits.

(Page 71) "A UNESCO report and a subsequent Council (Security Council -ed.) resolution No. 819 provide detailed guidance as to specific measures which may be taken for the expansion of means of mass communications as part of the United Nations Development Decade.
"The minimum standards established by UNESCO and endorsed by the Council are that for every 100 inhabitants in any country there should be at least ten copies of a daily newspaper, five radio sets, and two cinema (TV?ed.) sets. These are standards which have not yet been attained by some 2,000 million people.
"It has been roughly estimated that the establishment of new?and the expansion of existing facilities?to reach the UNESCO target would necessitate an investment of some $2,000 million. If educational television is included the total cost . . . would be $3,400 million. This is the sum required for capital expenditure only, without provision for recurring annual costs."
That the above is not just talk,—that the U. N. means business in the public communications and propaganda fields is indicated by the following:
"Development of information media in Asia is a matter of continuing concern to ECAFE. . . ECAFE is therefore cooperating closely with UNESCO (the master propaganda arm of UN-ed.) and other specialized agencies in developing information media in Asia, within the framework of national and regional development plans. A United Nations seminar on Freedom of Information in Asia . . . concluded that ECAFE was the appropriate body for initiating the planning and development of information media in the region particularly as regards telecommunications, the manufacture of low-cost radio receivers and newsprint. . . ECAFE is collaborating with ITC (International Telecommunications Commission -ed.) to prepare specifications for low cost radio receivers and studying other aspects of radio coverage as well as the design and distribution of transmitting stations. Countries in the region have also been advised to explore the possibilities of organizing regional production centers to ensure the supply of such radio receivers.
"Another problem has been the fact that while producing countries are faced with over-production of printing paper, several countries of the region are experiencing a shortage of newsprint. . .The Commission (ITC -ed.) is helping member governments affected by such shortages to explore ways of increasing supplies of newsprint and other paper. The possibility of establishing regional paper mills may also be explored." 

Be reminded again that these proclamations came from the U. N. and its agencies in 1962. There is a definite intent expressed here to exert strong influence—if not actual control—over the world's press. We have not been getting vital information through our press; in fact the press which certainly could and should have reported to the people the real purposes of the United Nations and its rapidly expanding World Empire have utterly and completely failed to do so. Instead they continue to mislead us—to lie to us—to convince us that the sole purpose of the United Nations is to keep World Peace by talking in the U. N. headquarters in New York.

Nothing has ever been said by the nation's press about the U. N. activity in the field of world-wide communications and the building of factories to supply radios and newsprint to spread its propaganda world-wide. The World Government has established the necessary means to get out ITS COMMANDS to the captive peoples of the World as soon as it announces the TAKE-OVER.

In the final analysis, we have a problem too. Millions of Americans live in fear of atom bombs and a nuclear holocaust. Our own propaganda media has instilled this fear. Other millions fear a "communist" takeover—not necessarily a "Russian" action—but something coming from WITHIN our borders. Many of these people have armed themselves with a view to resistance.

It may well be that the television is a far more menacing weapon than anything "communists", or anybody, could use against us. Just consider what would happen if the President, or somebody speaking or presumably speaking for him, appeared on the TV screen proclaiming a national emergency. All men—and perhaps women—would be directed to report at a specified station—police station, schoolhouse— anywhere men might be gathered in. Almost to a man (or woman), they would go. THEY WOULD TURN THEMSELVES IN, without question. This is the power inherent in propaganda—and the television system. Communications in the hands of an enemy—and the U. N. IS an enemy—conceivably might CONQUER THE WORLD and end the "long twilight" of world revolution.

CHAPTER EIGHT

High Jinks In Finances

Armed with the $21,000,000,000 Capitalization, the World Bank smooths the path for world development. Within a few years after the organization of the international Bank for Reconstruction and Development three other world-wide banking institutions were established. Later, branch banks came into being and finally dozens of regional and district banks were established. The U. N. has put the world in the banking business. . . .the empire-building projects of the U. N. require no less—and probably a lot more—as they insist that their activities must be DOUBLED if they are to reach their goal. This is the goal proclaimed by Council on Foreign Relations member-agent, Elmo Roper: "Our goal is Government of all the World." 

Some of the activities of the World Bank known as IDA, International Development Association (not to be confused with AID) the pipe-line which carries the money from Congress to its various U. N. destinations), ARE ENLIGHTENING. Their publication, Policies and Operations of the World Bank, offers this:

Page 55: TRANSPORTATION
"Bank lending for the development of transportation has amounted to $2,260,000,000. Funds have been lent in more than 40 countries for rail, stock, or air transport, ports, waterways, shipping, aerial ropeways and pipelines. . . While most of the money went to import locomotives or rolling stock, the loans are also assisting in the construction of new rail lines and repair shops in some countries and rehabilitation (of rail lines -ed.) in others. India alone has received $378,000,000 for the modernization and expansion of its railway system. . . The largest loan yet made was one of $72,000,000 to construct or improve approximately 1,800 miles of (OIL-RICH -ed.) Iran's highway network.
". . . Pakistan received a loan for the construction of a 350 mile natural gas pipe-line which is supplying fuel for industrial expansion . . . and bank funds are building a 41 mile oil pipeline in Tobago and Trinidad to bring fuel to a power station also being built with Bank assistance. . . Another loan helped to pay for a 412 mile oil pipe-line from the Hassi Messaoud oil field in the Sahara to the Algerian port of Bougie on the Mediterranean. Aerial rope lines being erected from coal mines to a privately owned steel mill in India will relieve congestion or the railways."

It might occur to somebody to ask just why the tax monies of the American Producer should be devoted to the building of oil and gas pipe-lines in these far off countries. Informed people everywhere know that OIL is cartelist property; those who reap the profits from oil and gas are well able to pay for their own pipelines. This should raise the question: WHO WILL OWN THIS PROPERTY in which America has so much invested--THOUSANDS OF MILLIONS of dollars worth of wealth created through OUR TAX MONEY? When we deal with the subject of INDUSTRIALIZATION we are dealing with the profit motive. If we pay for all this—who should own it?

The World Bank report sheds further light on this subject, page 57:

"INDUSTRY: Bank lending for industry now totals more than $1,129,000,000. Countries in Asia have been the largest industrial borrowers. In Japan the chief beneficiaries have been the LEADING STEEL PRODUCERS (now in competition with our own steel -ed.) In India two PRIVATE Steel companies have borrowed about $157,000,000 for their expansion programmes. Other industrial loans have included funds for manufacturers of paper products; the paper and boards industries; the development of deposits of manganese and iron ore; steel production and a wide variety of industrial undertakings in Southern Italy.
"Some of the loans have been made directly to PRIVATE industries, with government guarantees; others have been made to governments or government financing institutions which re-lend or allocate the proceeds to manufacturing or mining enterprises, and finally some have been made to development banks." 

This free-handed "lending" of tax monies is an ever-expanding project of the United Nations and its agencies. It will continue to expand until the funds dry up. The United Nations and its agencies will NEVER CURTAIL the demands and expenditures on their own initiative. They are out to build a World Empire and they are getting along famously. However, it becomes more and more apparent that they cannot complete this global industrialization program without an international currency. In the early days of the government, of course, management and labor will have to be paid. The World Government must issue its own money, which they propose to do through the International Monetary Fund.

This is not the real and imminent peril which faces America. The plans and preparation for empire-building are largely still on paper. As the plans were adopted, the money was appropriated, but, due to the lack of skilled labor and management, much of this money—nearly TWENTY THOUSAND MILLION of it, at last report—was in the pipe-line. It is available to meet payrolls for skilled labor and management for a long, long time. The Agency for International Development and other U. N. spending agencies have been given so much money by the Congress and the legislatures of other governments, that they simply could not spend it. It has become obvious to the "intellectuals"—even as it would have been obvious to an average American at a much earlier date—that the NATIVES WILL NOT, IN THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE, be able to get these plans and programs into operation. In November, 1961, (page 64), Mr. Eugene Black of the Executive Service Corps (Asia) said:

"Our experience continues to confirm that shortage of capital is not the only, and indeed not the principal, obstacle to more rapid economic progress in the less developed countries. Inexperience and lack of trained manpower at every level are even more serious handicaps."

The billions of dollars appropriated for the "development of the underdeveloped areas" were based on the "intellectual" theory that natives of Asia and Africa could be put to work in industrial production if the industries were established for them. In fact, they, the "intellectuals," believed the natives, given a little encouragement, could establish the industries on their own. It came as a terrific shock to the "intellectual" community to learn that the average native could not punch a time-clock because he could not read. Now they propose to spend more thousands of millions of dollars to "educate the natives—at least to the point where they can punch time-clocks.

Before leaving the subject of the World Bank, it might be well to consider the stability of such a "lending" institution and how the Bank "influenced" the investing money to buy its bonds. Of greater importance to many unsuspecting Americans is the question of WHO buys these bonds.

On page 82, we find that the only market able to provide funds in the Bank's early years was that of the United States. Even here the financing was difficult. The "financial community" distrusting any investment connected with international lending and in the Bank's first years federal and state laws prevented any investor from purchasing the Bank's bonds. Early in 1947, therefore, the Bank began its own propaganda operation and by 1963 the bonds, subject to various statutory and administrative qualifications, became legal investment for:

"Commercial Banks in 49 States and the District of Columbia. Savings Banks in 28 States and the District of Columbia. Life Insurance Companies in 48 States and the District of Columbia. Other insurance Companies in 46 States and the District of Columbia. Trust funds in 44 States and the District of Columbia." 

In addition, TEN STATES have passed legislation authorizing the investment of public funds in obligations of the Bank and in a number of other States IT IS BELIEVED that public funds may be invested in Bank obligations under legislation affecting the eligibility of these obligations for institutional investors. As a result, substantial investments in Bank bonds have been made by administrators of public funds, STATE EMPLOYES PENSION FUNDS being the main buyers in this category.

Anyone interested in further informaton on this subject might send to his congressman for a copy of Public Law No. 142, 81st Congress, Act of June 29, 1949. It might be well, also, for citizens of the several States to learn just how far their States are involved in the "obligations" and operations of this United Nations agency. Another item for consideration is this:

"The sale abroad of the United States dollar issues has been assisted by certain exemptions from U. S. taxes accruing to holders of World Bank bonds and notes, who are non-resident aliens or foreign corporations."

Many volumes could be consumed in discussion of the various World Banks. In this little publication nothing more can be done than barely raise the curtain in the hope that inquiring minds, attuned to financial matters, will continue a study of the subject and be prepared to help the nation meet the consequences of this high-flying financial manipulation of the property and credit of the American People.

A little time must be devoted to a report on the International Finance Corporation, one of the many off, shoots of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. "It," according to this report on the World Bank, IDA and IFC,

"provides financing in association with private investors, without government guarantee of repayment, in cases where sufficient private capital is not available on reasonable terms-
"Seeks to create investment opportunities by bringing together domestic and foreign investors and experienced management and endeavors to stimulate the flow of private capital into productive investment in member countries." 

This strange policy of mingling public and private funds in world-wide financial speculation, admittedly FOR PROFIT, takes some strange twists:

"IFC (International Finance Corporation -ed.) loans are made without government guarantee. The Corporation ordinarily does not require guarantees of repayment by banks, or parent or affiliated companies, but may request guarantees in certain cases." 

These policies are not in accordance with sound banking practices, as we understand them, in this country. This brings up the question of whether or not the Trust Funds from STATE EMPLOYEES PENSION FUNDS are safely or properly invested in the debt securities of such institutions. By their own confession, they say that these investments were frowned upon in the legitimate investment banking community and that they were forced to propagandize certain states in these United States. Apparently this was necessary in no other country, for they claim there was no market for such securities anywhere except in the United States. COMPLETELY UNINFORMED state officials had to be persuaded to enact special legislation to permit investment of public trust funds.

The Charters of these United Nations banks provide excellent study material for interested students of the world economy. All four of the major world banks have almost identical charters and all contain this provision:

"To the extent necessary to carry out the operations provided for in this Agreement and subject to the provisos of this Agreement, all property and assets of the Association shall be free from restrictions, regulations, controls and moratoria of any nature. . . All Governors, Executive Directors. Alternates, officers and employees of the Association shall be immune from legal process with respect to acts performed by them in their official capacity except when the Association waives this immunity. . ." 

The financial operations of the United Nations might well become the most absorbing subject of a twenty-five foot shelf of books. Even "our" own transactions with the U. N. Organization, in the matter of meeting "our" financial commitments, are tainted with the all-inclusive fraud of the World Government. The Constitution of the PRE-REVOLUTIONARY Government of the United States of America provided in Article 1, Section 7, Paragraph 1:

"All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives, but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as with other bills." 

Thus reads the good old plain English of the deceased Constitution of the United States of America. There is no evasion or double-talk here. A child can understand this and so it was intended. We must assume that members of BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS understand this also, unless we have become convinced that Congress lacks the mentality of the average child.

Most of the Charter provisions required implementation. Acts of Congress were required to put the Charter provisions into effect. One of the first acts of implementation was the United Nations Participation Act of 1945, as amended, October 19, 1949. Congress itself enacted this law which PLAINLY VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTION and indicates to the writer, at least, that Congress, at the time, KNEW the Constitution had been abandoned. They were prepared to abolish it completely. Section 8 of the U. N. Participation Act, as amended, provides:

"There is hereby authorized to be APPROPRIATED ANNUALLY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE OUT OF ANY MONEY IN THE TREASURY not otherwise appropriated, such sums as may be necessary for the payment by the United States of its share of the expenses of the United Nations as apportioned by the General Assembly. . ."

This is an appropriation bill which did not originate in Congress. There is nothing here to indicate that Congress needed to know anything about it. Perhaps it is none of the business of Congress to know how the Member State, UNDER U. N. DISCIPLINE, appropriates money for the World Government, nor will Congress determine the amount to be paid. The General Assembly will decree the amount of our tax money to be DRAWN DIRECTLY FROM THE TREASURY by the Secretary of State.

The General disregard, if not actual contempt, of the United Nations for the Congress of the United States was brought to light when the Congress passed a LAW that the Government of the United States could not be assessed for more than a third of the cost of the United Nations budget in any given year. The very first budget drawn up by the General Assembly, following enactment of this law, assessed the U. S. for MORE than one third and the 1965 budget called for 39% to be paid by good old Uncle Sam. What does Congress do about it? A few of them COMPLAIN, that's all. They will not tangle with the U. N., not so long, at least, as the Government of the United States is under U. N. DISCIPLINE.

We might digress for a moment to quote another provision of the U. N. Participation Act, which is illuminating. This section confers upon the President powers which were not permitted to him under the Constitution, but which became MANDATORY, by U. N. interpretation, under the Charter. The Congress is simply "implementing" Charter provisions in adopting this in Section 5. (a):

"Notwithstanding the provisions of ANY OTHER LAW, whenever the United States is called upon by the Security Council to apply measures which said Council has decided, pursuant to Article 41 of the Charter, are to be employed to give effect to its decisions under said Charter, the President may, to the extent necessary to apply such measures, THROUGH ANY AGENCY WHICH HE MAY DESIGNATE and under such orders, rules and regulations as may be prescribed by him, INVESTIGATE, REGULATE OR PROHIBIT in whole or in part, ECONOMIC RELATIONS, or rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio and other means of communication between any foreign country or any national thereof or any person therein and the United States or ANY PERSON SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION thereof, of involving any property subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
"(b) Any person who willfully violates or evades or attempts to violate or evade any order, rule or regulation issued by the President pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section shall, upon conviction be fined not more than $10,000 or, if a natural person be imprisoned for a period of not more than ten years or both the officer, director or agent of any corporation who knowingly participates in such violation or evasion shall be punished by a like fine, imprisonment or both and ANY PROPERTY, FUNDS, SECURITIES, PAPERS or other articles or documents, or any vessel, together with her tackle, apparel, furniture and equipment, or vehicle or aircraft concerned in such violation shall be forfeited to the United States."

This act of Congress was necessary to put into effect OUR COMMITMENTS to the United Nations under the Charter. The SECURITY COUNCIL was authorized to issue decrees which we were BOUND to

"ACCEPT AND CARRY OUT."

The U. N. Participation Act was the LAW permitting the President to ACCEPT AND CARRY OUT the decisions of the Security Council. No national or state law can interfere with the enforcement of any Security Council decree. Note the opening words of Section 5, which are repeated in Section 7:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of ANY OTHER LAW."

Indicative of the fraud and outlawry of the whole United Nations system is the frank and open violation in Viet-Nam, with the tacit approval of the U. N., of Section 7 (a), par. (1):

(a), par. (1):
"The detail to the United Nations under such terms and conditions as the President shall determine, of personnel of the armed forces of the United States to serve as observers, guards, or in any non-combatant capacity, but in no event shall a total of one thousand of such personnel be so detailed at any one time."

A later Chapter of this book will be devoted to Viet-Nam and our "solemn commitments" under the SEATO treaty. We point out here, that there were many times one THOUSAND men "at any one time," acting as " guards" and "observers" in Viet-Nam, before it was conceded that we were in a war.

CHAPTER NINE

American Labor UN-ternationalized

Representing, as they do, the U. N. ONLY, the delegates to the various U. N. agencies voted to appropriate the property and earning of their native countries to serve U. N. interests alone. A proper majority is two-thirds of the General Assembly and this proper majority now rests with the African and Asian block. THEY CAN MUSTER A 2/3 VOTE ON ANYTHING NOW; THEY can compel any Member State of the U. N. to "accept and carry out" anything they decree, no matter what it is.

The intentions of the delegates in exercising the UNLIMITED POWER, now in their hands, became very clear and very terrifying to men of discernment, when UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development) met in Geneva in 1964 to assert the RIGHTS proclaimed for them by numerous General As- sembly and UNESCO resolutions. These resolutions guaranteed that when the tribal nations had been put into industrial production, the Western industrialized nations would be forced to step aside and permit the production of these formerly "under-developed" nations to attain preference in the world markets.

This, too, was to be accomplished "notwithstanding the provisions of any other law" in any state or nation on earth. It was to be accomplished by TAXING the Western nations to SUBSIDIZE THEIR COMPETITION, by limiting or prohibiting the import of products from any but the "newly emerging nations" and in any other way the same purpose can be accomplished. By U. N. standards, the END ALWAYS JUSTIFIES THE MEANS.

The UNCTAD Conference was attended by delegations from seventy-seven new, emerging or under-developed nations and thirty-five industrial nations. This conference was called as soon as the "emerging nations" had the necessary two-thirds vote the seventy-seven voted right down the line for the same proposals. The report of the conference filled two hundred pages. The proposals to be voted on by the General Assembly, when the time is propitious, consist of such items as:

"Industrial countries to surrender control of existing trade and. industry to the under-developed nations; advanced countries release patents and inventions and stop technical developments that would improve their own industrial progress; industrial nations shall guarantee to buy products from under-developed nations at good prices so the poorer nations would not have to meet competition, and the industrial nations should provide the money for under-developed nations to build the plants which would make the products whose markets would be guaranteed." 

There is NOTHING NEW about all this. Literally tons of United Nations publications have proclaimed these goals repeatedly in the past ten years. The press did not report it. The Government, always deaf, dumb and blind where United Nations ambitions are at stake, failed and refused to tell the People anything about it. The reason is evident—they are not out to foment COUNTER-REVOLUTION. The Houses of Congress, presumably informed of the destructive aims and purposes of the United Nations, obediently hand out thousands of millions of tax dollars to accomplish the very purposes set forth here. Congress accepts U. N. DISCIPLINE in our names and slavishly carries out the decrees of this outlaw organization.

The President is charged with seeing that these decrees are carried out without question or equivocation. This he has attempted to do, in the matter of accepting the dictates of UNCTAD, which may already have been adopted by the General Assembly and handed down to him by RESOLUTION. The Poverty Program is a step in the right direction; the Great Society is another. Both programs proclaim great benefits, not for the American People, but for the WHOLE WORLD. This is the reason Mr. Shriver heads both the Youth Corps and the Poverty Program. They are one and the same U. N. project. There can be no benefit to the American producer, labor and management alike, in the new move to REDISTRIBUTE THE WEALTH world-wide. This intention—to redistribute the wealth of the world among all the people in the world—as long as it lasts, which will not be long—is firmly imbedded in the U. N. Charter in the oft-repeated phrase, ECONOMIC EQUALITY.

Just as "racial equality" has been interpreted to mean "one man, one vote" so "economic equality" means one man, one dollar, ruble, peso or unit of INTERNATIONAL CURRENCY. All U. N. agencies are welded together in a perfectly organized and illimitable financed move toward that goal. This is stated in their own publications a thousand times over. These publications have limited circulation. The few who do read them either favor the drive for World Empire or fail to realize the import of the very cautious and evasive language through which the UN-ers express their intentions, their "principles and purposes."

The CHIEF of the U. N. agencies is the International Labour Organization. For many years, the American delegates have been Jay Lovestone and Irving Brown, both long-recognized as "communists," both having found it advisable to move to another land. Lovestone was a charter member of the Communist Party, U. S. A. Both feel quite at home in their present surroundings. Both are C. F. R. member agents.

The International Labour Organization proposes to control Labour world- wide. It has numerous charters, some of which have been adopted by the United States Senate as Treaties. We have accepted the provisions of this organization's charters as LAW of the land and have agreed to conform to them "notwithstanding the provisions of any other law." 

The U. N. empires in Asia and Africa will require millions of skilled industrial laborers and an immense segment of industrial management. They will not be hiring the top executives. These have already been called into service. About two years ago Mr. Jacob Javits, U. S. Senator from New York, who appears to be the official spokesman for the Council on Foreign Relations in the Senate, told the Senate that he and David Rockefeller had been discussing matters and had come to the conclusion that the business situation in Africa would be helped immensely if there could be appointed an "Executive Service Corps"—a group, or committee of "distinguished" businessmen who would lead the industrial progress of Africa and, in time, of other "developing areas."

Sure enough, within a few months the President did appoint an Executive Service Corps, the Chairman—SURPRISE?—Mr. David Rockefeller. The Committee is, almost exclusively, a Council on Foreign Relations outfit. They will not necessarily go to Africa to handle things and get our tax money out of the "pipeline," but they will undertake the job of getting the whole industrial empire project moving.

Paul Hoffman and his wife, the former Anna Rosenberg. have been running the show and Paul opines that he will need 250,000 EXECUTIVES to handle the job. A brochure of the Agency for International Development (AID) has come to the desk of the writer, each page marked top and bottom, in large black print: LIMITED OFFICIAL USE. This tells of the enormous needs in man-power and materials to get the industrialization of Africa moving toward its goal. The publication asserts that the labor and industrial management needed to meet their requirements, must come from "overseas" and they hint that they do not anticipate difficulty in getting this labor and management because the United Nations has ways and means to get things done. A brief sketch of the policies of the International Labour Organization might suggest several methods.

The I. L. O., which was organized during the term of the League of Nations, was adopted into the United Nations with TREATY STATUS and so recognized by the United States Senate, has used its enormous work force to collect labor statistics world-wide. They have an enormous collection and they do not collect them as a hobby. The I. L. O. has published a little booklet,"Lasting Peace the I. L. O. Way." This little gem starts right off by informing its readers that its existence predated the information of the U. N. by many years. It then goes on to say:

"Most simply,—the I. L. O. is an ASSOCIATION OF NATIONS—an association created to do a specific job. This job is to improve working and living conditions all over the world. . . Beyond this immediate purpose is the longer range objective of helping to ESTABLISH AN INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY OF NATIONS in which all peoples may live at peace and amid steadily increasing prosperity." 

The I. L. O. has always been long on proclamation but, unfortunately, their proclamations have a weird way of becoming LAW in the United States. The little publication under discussion shows that practically ALL United States Labor Laws and many of the outlandish Agricultural Laws and directives also come from the International Labour Organization. We find that the I. L. O., at least, recognized that the SOLE purpose of the U. N. was not in maintaining "international peace and security." On Page 7, they state the whole proposition:

"Today the I. L. O. is associated with the United Nations in the great new effort to maintain peace and to FURTHER HUMAN PROGRESS that was launched with the signing of the United Nations Charter. . . The relationship is governed by an AGREEMENT in which the United Nations recognizes the I. L. O. as a Specialized Agency RESPONSIBLE FOR ACTION TO ACCOMPLISH the aims set forth in its Constitution." 

The I. L. O. promptly got into the law-making business and laid the groundwork for the TREATY RACKET which was to follow in the United Nations twenty-five years later. On page 17, we find:

"The suggestion that the I. L. O. should be an actual legislative body was rejected. Most governments (in 1919 -ed.) found it impossible to accept a plan which would give to an international agency the power to legislate for them. . .
"The Commission finally hit upon a compromise. The solution it found is one of the features that makes the I. L. O. unique among the international agencies today. "Under this scheme, the Organization would draw up draft conventions similar to treaties. These would not automatically become binding upon the Member Countries but the members would be required to consider accepting or ratifying them. And once a country has ratified a Convention it would be required to give effect to it, and to submit reports on the way it was being done."

So we find that away back in 1919, the I. L. O. had hit upon a "scheme" making it COMPULSORY for any nation ratifying a Convention?as the United States ratified the U. N. Convention (Charter), TO GIVE EFFECT TO IT." Just so, the United States Government is REQUIRED to give effect (accept and carry out) the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.

In the Spring of 1944, reports the booklet, the General Conference of the I. L. O. met in Philadelphia and drew up a declaration which the then President Roosevelt said summed up the "aspirations of an epoch which well has known two world wars and may well acquire a historical significance similar to that of the Declaration of Independence."

One of the proclamations of the I. L. O. declaration was:

"Poverty anywhere constitutes a danger to prosperity everywhere. That the war against want requires to be carried on with unrelenting vigour within each nation and by continuous and concerted international effort. . . with a view of promotion of the common welfare." (of the world -ed.)

Here we find the REAL SOURCE of the War on Poverty. It was incorporated into the Charter of one of the I. L. O. bodies which, when adopted by the U. S. Senate as a treaty, became law of the land. Treaty Law, as had been stated, was succeeded by Resolution Law when President Eisenhower agreed, in order to kill off the Bricker Amendment, that Treaty Law would be suspended. President Johnson proclaimed War Against Poverty all Over the World AT THE EXPENSE OF THE UNITED STATES. In this, he is simply implementing the Treaty Law of the I. L. O. and the Resolution Law of the United Nations itself.

The booklet then continues:

"The central aim for national and international policy, the Declaration asserts, must be the ATTAINMENT OF CONDITIONS in which all human beings have the right to pursue their material well-being and their spiritual development in conditions of freedom and dignity, of ECONOMIC SECURITY and EQUAL OPPORTUNITY."

American producers and taxpayers would do well to ponder the implications of this high-sounding rhetoric. In this country we are just beginning to experience the impact of the EQUAL OPPORTUNITY proclamations of the United Nations as IMPLEMENTED by Presidential decree, Court decision and Congressional action Equal opportunity—WORLD-WIDE—can be accomplished only through COMPULSION, compulsion which will deprive the American producer of the fruits of his production and make of him an economic slave to the lazy, the incompetent and the shiftless of the world. The declaration ends with an affirmation of the "RESPONSIBILITY" (DUTY or AUTHORITY) to examine and consider ALL international economic policies and measures in the LIGHT OF THIS OBJECTIVE.

The whole Poverty Program is taken from the Philadelphia Declaration of the International Labour Organization. A copy of the booklet, "Lasting Peace the I. L. O. Way," may be obtained from the International Labour Office, Geneva, Switzerland; price 25 cents.

Under the paragraph, "Instrument for Peace," we find the popular propaganda line, which have been completely accepted by students and teachers in the school systems and universities and by unsophisticated parsons in the nation's pulpits, that poverty and ignorance breed wars. If, we would just educate the whole world and give them EQUAL OPPORTUNITY and ECONOMIC EQUALITY there would be no more war.

This logic is so shallow that the average bamboozled student sees the light in the first few seconds when a not-so-literate upstart explains that wars have always been caused by GREED and LUST FOR POWER. Wars have always been caused by the richest men in the warring countries. If the rich and the powerful, in any nation, did not want war, there would be no war simply because these men would shut off the money to the warring leaders. No poor person or group, no illiterate person or group, or both acting in unison, could start or carry on a major war. If elimination of the cause of war is the objective, then poverty and illiteracy are not the proper targets. The I. L. O. is dead right about one thing: "To have permanent peace, the conditions for it must be established."

Under the Chapter "Attacking the Problem at the Roots" it is stated:

'"The I. L. O.'s efforts to banish poverty from the world extend beyond measures to relieve surface systems. The Organization has realized that it must come to grips with the basic causes of Impoverishment and misery if it is to achieve lasting success.
"This realization was expressed in the Declaration of Philadelphia with its assertions that national and international economic and financial policies must be judged in the light of the effect on social progress.
"The Declaration went on to say that the I. L. O. should do the judging and take economic and financial factors into account in its decisions and recommendations. Thus the I. L. O. was empowered to recommend the economic policies that it believed would result in an improvement in working and living conditions. It is only common sense that the I. L. O. should have this authority." 

At this point Labor, the United Nations and the Council on Foreign Relations would appear to be in a hopeless and conflicting jumble. If it be true that the Council on Foreign Relations RULES the United Nations and that the International Labour Organization is the CHIEF agency of the United Nations, does this mean that there is a partnership between the Billionaire Elite of the C. F. R. and LABOR? There IS such a partnership and it has existed from the beginning of both organizations.

Briefly, the relationship is this: In the first decade of the 20th Century, the labor movement., seething with discontent engendered by the tyranny of ruthless and predatory capitalists and speculators from the large cities, began to organize into unions and other organizations—socialists, syndicalists, anarchists and even "communists." Many of them openly advocated the overthrow of the government and the extermination of the "Wolves of Wall Street!"

The situation was alarming. With the advent of World War I and American involvement in that war, with troops leaving the country while the revolutionaries remained at home, the Wolves of Wall Street were in a perilous situation. Among the most trusted of the Wall Street whelps was Edward M. House. His services were enlisted and he proceeded to round up the brightest and most unscrupulous members of the Intercollegiate Socialist Society, which was making phenomenal headway in the larger universities. These he organized into The Inquiry. Some of that number (150) were put to work preparing the Covenant of the League of Nations through which their new Wall Street mentors hoped to establish World Government.Others were sent, as infiltrators, into the labor organizations where they soon acquired positions of leadership. Within a few years they had abandoned the old Intercollegiate Socialist Society and had banded together with LABOR in the League for Industrial Democracy, while still working for Wall Street and spying on labor.

In December, 1918, they joined their associates in The Inquiry and trekked to Paris to be on hand when the new World Government would go into business. When the scheme failed, The Inquiry was absorbed into the newly organized Council on Foreign Relations and the labor movement spies became respectable. They abandoned the League for Industrial Democracy and turned in sufficient information to enable the Lusk Committee to raid every radical socialist and labor headquarters in New York State (June 21, 1919) and bring in wagonloads of documentary evidence. The Wolves of Wall Street had been then"made safe for democracy."

The dates of the momentous events leading to consolidation of the labor and world government movements are significant: The I. L. O. was organized on April 11. 1919 (page 9, Lasting Peace the I. L. O. Way), the Council on Foreign Relations on May 30, 1919 and the Lusk Committee raids June 21, 1919. Among the prominent labor leaders of our time, who are, or have been, members of the Council on Foreign Relations are: Jay Lovestone, George Meany, David MacDonald, David Dubinsky, Irving Brown, Norman Thomas and the late Lee Pressman and Sidney Hillman.

Getting back to "Lasting Peace the I. L. O. Way," in particular the chapter headed, "The Operational Level," which contains solid study material for surplus industrial workers in the United States. The I. L. O. HAS authority to move labor, world-wide, at its discretion. As the time table of World Empire calls for moving industrial man-power to those sections of the world where there is a shortage of skilled industrial workers, the powers of the International Labour Organization can be brought into play. It has not happened HERE yet BUT IT HAS HAPPENED.

(Page 77) 'Because man-power problems have special regional characteristics a considerable part of the programme is being carried out through field offices. . . During 1950 the migration part of the programme war expanded considerably. This was made possible when a number of the Organization's European member countries jointly provided a special $1,000,000 fund to finance a series of activities to stimulate the transfer of workers from labour surplus to labour deficient countries.
"A number of projects under this special migration programme were launched in the latter part of 1950 ... One of these projects was to develop the most satisfactory methods for classifying into broad international groupings the occupational characteristics of potential emigrants on the one hand and the occupational requirements of immigration countries on the other.

"THE AIM OF THIS PROJECT WAS TO FACILITATE THE MATCHING OF IMMIGRANTS WITH THE IMMIGRATION OPPORTUNITIES." 

The I. L. 0 has no monopoly on the idea of moving labor. In his State of the Union Message of January 12, 1966, President Johnson said he will recommend legislation creating an agency to arrange that:

"Men and women can be easily assigned to jobs where they are most needed,."

Revolutionary Governments always get around to this.

A word to the wise INDUSTRIAL WORKER who may soon become SURPLUS: There are tens of thousands of millions of dollars of "AID" money invested in dams, roads, railroads, ports, power plants, oil drilling prospects, steel mills, etc., in the Continents of Asia and Africa. It is all ready to be used when sufficient skilled industrial labor and management can be rounded up, the United Nations operates the whole program and the I. L. O. is at the command of the U. N. In the Grand Plan for World Empire there is absolutely no provision for UNEMPLOYMENT or RELIEF. The United Nations, under Article 55 of its Charter, guarantees FULL EMPLOYMENT world-wide. Literally volumes have been written about the status of WOMEN in world-wide employment and how the children will be cared for. Not a word is said about what the World-builders plan to do with the aged and the ill. Perhaps there will be none of either in the New World Order.

CHAPTER TEN

The U. S. Has Its Own International Law

Those devoted UN-ers who try to prove their points by reference to the United, Nations Charter—just as Constitutionalists try to prove theirs by referring to the Constitution—may properly hold that both the Constitution and the Charter specifically prohibit some of the activities discussed here. It may not be in the Charter, but it is in the international law based largely on ratified treaties and on Resolution law. The Constitution no longer counts.

The fact is that the Constitutional Government of the United States of America, as it existed for more than one hundred and fifty years before we became involved in the United Nations, was quietly transferred to an international government. This was done without any suspicion on the part of the United States population of being so transferred. This fact simply does not register on the minds of the people. The human mind cannot grasp the enormity of such a transaction, cannot cope with it and cannot accept it as accomplished fact. Nothing the writer might say would add much to the ability of the reader to deal with the subject and so we must rely upon the statements made by men in authority in the United Nations, as they express in their own peculiar, and deliberately confusing language, the REAL intent and purpose of the United Nations and the extent of their progress. Nothing could be more revealing in this field than statements contained in the U. N. publication: "International Law in a Changing World." A few quotations from this significant document must suffice to support the contention that the U. N. IS World Government, as was intended from the very beginning.

"The Changing World" referred to has been changed radically by close associates of those responsible for the book. The authority for the changes and the designation of those authorized to make the changes, the UN-ers hold was all in the brief and, innocuous Charter of the United Nations. The non-UN-er might be hard put to discover this authority in the Charter, but interpretation of the Charter has become the prerogative of the U. N., the governments of the world have recognized this authority and their obligation to "accept and carry out" the decree of the United Nations. This is the BASE of INTERNATIONAL LAW at this time and will remain so until the great bulk of International Law written and codified by the U. N. International Law Commission can be put into effect in Member States. The International Law Commission was set up by the General Assembly in 1947 to establish and codify World Law. They have been working on it for eighteen years. Now to get on with some of the ideas expressed, in "International Law in a Changing World": 

(Page 18:) "Membership in the various organizations (of the U. N. -ed.) inevitably tend to restrict the freedom of the States, for the organizations are continually taking action in fields where only a short time ago each State exercised unchallenged authority. In fact nowadays, side by side with each of its governmental Ministries (the States -ed.) or EACH BRANCH of a national administration, there exists an international organization or even a number of such organizations, active in the same field.
"How far, and in what way does the action of these international organizations harmonize with those of the Member States? To what extent is the free action of States limited in our time by the intervention of International Organizations?
The activities of these organizations usually take one of two forms. The first method by which an international organization penetrates into the DOMESTIC LIFE of a Sovereign State (thereby rendering it no longer sovereign -ed.), is through the CHANNEL OF THE LAW. It does so by LEGALLY BINDING ALL ITS MEMBERS TO TAKE WITHIN THEIR OWN BORDERS STEPS AGREED UPON BY THE MAJORITY (IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY -ed.) as desirable to attain a certain objective." 

How anybody reading and understanding the above can seriously contend that the United States has not completely surrendered its sovereignty by acceptance of such decrees as this escapes the writer. What they refer to here are the General Assembly Resolutions and the Treaties negotiated in the early days of the U. N., which serve as THE LAW of this international organization until such time as they can have the NEW INTER- NATIONAL LAW prepared by the U. N. International Law Commission and accepted LEGALLY by the "Member States." This plan was revealed early in September 1965 when a former President of the American Bar Association, appearing in support of the New Law, declared that it would be presented to the United States Senate as a TREATY. He was most careful, as is the whole U. N. complex, NOT TO INDICATE THAT THE U. N. HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT. It is remarkable that the U. N. Organization, which is beneficiary of such "solid support" on the part of the American people, finds it expedient to conceal so many of its most ambitious and vital operations.

The masterly understatement is standard equipment in U. N. circles. The combination of masterly understatement and far-out interpretation of the devious provisions of the Charter and whatever it was that replaced the Charter as Law of the World—a new device built upon Treaties and Resolutions of the Security and General Assembly—AT THIS TIME form the basis for the conclusions reached and expressed in "International Law in a Changing World." Continuing from Page 18:

"Among the essential functions of the United Nations and the Specified Agencies is to SECURE THE ADOPTION of a series of international conventions (agreements, treaties, etc.-ed.) coming within their respective areas of competence. . .
When an international organization can undertake the preliminary of a draft convention, can have it considered at the periodical meetings of the LEGALLY CONSTITUTED ASSEMBLIES and CAN THEN USE ITS INFLUENCE TO SECURE RATIFICATION of such a convention, the result is a VERY GREAT INCREASE in the NUMBER of such international agreements.

There are more than three thousand of them embedded in the " Law of the Land" now. And says the author:

"the fields covered by them are being continually extended."

In the brazen assertions of these paragraphs it is hoped the readers will find at least SOME BASIS for the charge that the Constitutional Government of the United States HAS BEEN USURPED and that ALL SOVEREIGNTY of the People of the United States has been erased, as quietly and unobtrusively as a child erases an error on the blackboard. The MAJORITY of U. N. delegates in the General Assembly, representing uncivilized or half-civilized and mostly illiterate and utterly incompetent people, now ADOPT A RESOLUTION which is sent down to OUR EXECUTIVE and he must put this law into effect within HIS OWN BORDERS As it was so succinctly described earlier in this section.

"The first method by which an INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION penetrates the domestic life of a SOVEREIGN STATE is through the channel of the LAW. It does so by LEGALLY BINDING ALL ITS MEMBERS TO TAKE WITHIN THEIR OWN BORDERS THE STEPS AGREED UPON BY THE MAJORITY (of the General Assembly -ed.)

Now, if you will carefully follow the revelations of the author of this U. N. publication, you can detect his belief in the power of the U. N. and its World Law to dictate legislative policies in its Member States:

"The older International Law is thus being supplanted by an EVER MORE COMPLEX NETWORK OF LEGALLY BINDING OBLIGATIONS which States (Nations -ed.) are assuming in fields where they have abandoned, no doubt FOREVER, their FORMER, COMPLETE FREEDOM OF ACTION. . . "The International organizations are thus becoming operative in areas once strictly reserved to national government, and they are doing this more and more obviously and in various ways. The historical significance of these developments will escape no one. In half a century (since the founding of the Council on Foreign Relations -ed.) the independent sovereign State, which, in the preceding centuries, had done so much to absorb political entities within its borders, has in turn been OBLIGED TO ADMIT the existence of BROADER organizations than its own (that is, the formerly independent sovereign States -ed.) TO FOLLOW THEIR INSTRUCTIONS and to SEEK THEIR ASSISTANCE and sometimes even to STAND ASIDE, and allow them, because of their own admitted INCAPACITY, to act in its place. . . "

Both of the above most potent statements were made by Mr. Roberto Ago, Member of the International Law Commission of the United Nations and former President of the World Federation of United Nations Associations. We have his word for it that international organizations, of which the U. N. is the chief, do "penetrate" into "the domestic life of a sovereign State... by legally binding all its members to take within their own borders steps agreed upon by the majority" in the General Assembly Resolutions: as a Member-Nation of the U. N. we are a Captive Nation.

The traditional notion of independence as expressed in the word sovereignty is giving way to a fresh concept. It is to be hoped that lawyers, who still think they are practicing Constitutional Law and State Legislators, who struggle to enact State Laws conforming to the Constitution of the United States, and still are bound by the restrictions imposed upon them by the New Law, as promulgated by the U. S. Supreme Court and the strange Laws now being adopted by the Congress, will RECOGNIZE THE SOURCE of these decisions and laws.

Surely, WORLD LAW and its IMPLEMENTATION within the States has never been so well set forth as in the pages of"International Law in a Changing World." By the plain statements of those who know, the law of the United States is made by Resolutions of the International Organizations, principally the Security Council and the General Assembly of the U. N. When a proper majority of the Member Nations in U. N. headquarters adopt a Resolution, that Resolution becomes LAW OF THE WORLD, and the Executive of each Member State IS OBLIGED, "notwithstanding the provisions of any other law" (U. N. Participation Act), to put that Resolution Law into effect within its borders.

Illustrative of how this works, and of the incredibly vast area now covered by the Resolution Law of the United Nations, is a Resolution adopted UNANIMOUSLY by the General Assembly December 18, 1962. Here you will find the U. N. disposing of the tax monies of all Member Nations and directing the future tax levies of the Member States. In the early paragraphs of the Resolution, it holds that the Member Nations have had no serious problems in raising taxes for war and the implements of war. The people accepted this taxation without much protest, therefore, the Member States' governments will just continue to levy these burdensome taxes AFTER THE NATIONS ARE DISARMED. They will turn the savings, resulting from disarmament, over to the United Nations for the building of the World Empire or, as they undertake the proposition, for the "development of the less-developed countries." 

A U. N. release entitled "The Benefits of Disarmament" states this proposition and contains portions of the Resolution. It states that:

"Disarmament would free resources for expanding education, health protection and social insurance for slum clearance and low-cost housing (worldwide -ed.) "According to rough United Nations estimates, as many as 150 million families in the less developed countries are in need of adequate homes. The cost for educational requirements in under-developed countries is enormous. In Africa, for instance, the total cost of the educational program (of the U. N. -ed.) is expected (AFTER DISARMAMENT -ed.) to increase from $590 million to $2,600 million within twenty years."

You can see now why we are to be engaged in a Southeast Asian war for twenty years. We will stand for anything in war time, even to disarming the nation with savage wars in progress and others in immediate prospect.

CHAPTER ELEVEN

War By Resolution

In the Rhodesian situation, which is OBVIOUSLY an United Nations "mandated" war, Britain occupies a most precarious position. The nation is opposed to war with a former colony—Britain has had enough war—she wants peace. She had agreed, under the Charter and other considerations, to give up her colonies and she has been doing it as fast as possible. Now she is directed by the United Nations to take dominion over a colony, in which she has had little, if any, authority during the past forty years.

The British people and their government know that South Africa and Portugal are both under U. N. sanctions and all three (including Rhodesia) for the same reason. They refuse to turn their peaceful and prosperous countries over to Black rule and South Africa and Portugal have been taking the side of Rhodesia. A war with Rhodesia now might—and probably would—find Britain facing a three-pronged war which she could not win, certainly without a great deal of "outside" help. Britain has asserted that she will not go to war with Rhodesia and the U. N. has decreed that unless Britain can "persuade" Rhodesia to comply with the U. N. decree, she will have to subdue Rhodesia, war or no war.

While Britain is pondering this problem and gazing wistfully across the Atlantic, the United States is engaged in a strange unexplained and unexplainable war in Viet-Nam. This war will remain unexplained and unexplainable until such time as the gag is removed from Congress and the Congress is permitted to EXPLAIN THE U. N. and SEATO.

Any high-school student can tell us that the United States is in Viet- Nam in violation of a dozen sections of the U. N. Charter. The high school students have never been told about the Staff Report of the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate, they do not fully understand U. N. interpretation and the effect of General Assembly Resolutions. They seem to have completely overlooked Article 25: "Member Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present charter."

The government in Washington says that we went into the war in Viet-Nam because the government of Diem asked us to help them fight "communism." Under the Charter, we could not legally intervene in the domestic affairs of Viet-Nam under any circumstances. The whole idea of the Charter, so it is said, is to have the Security Council decide about ACTS OF AGGRESSION and what shall be done about them. Therefore, if Diem had an aggressive problem it was up to the Security Council to take up the matter and adjust it.

On the other side of the coin, we have the SEATO Treaty to which we have subscribed. This "solemn commitment" provides for ONLY ONE WAY in which one signatory nation may take military action within the boundaries of another. That is by INVITATION and for the purpose of defending against " communist aggression." Both provisions of the SEATO Treaty were met when Diem "invited" us in. It is utterly ridiculous to say that we are not in Viet-Nam under the SEATO Treaty, as are other signatory and volunteer forces of the region.

What is SEATO? It is a regional agency of the United Nations. The Charter explains in Articles 53 and 54 how regional agencies work. These articles do not SAY regional agencies are PART OF THE U. N. in their own devious language the Charter's authors say the U. N. recognizes regional agencies. Then Article 53 states:

"The Security Council shall where appropriate UTILIZE such regional arrangements or agencies for NO ENFORCEMENT action shall be taken under regional arrangements or by regional agencies WITHOUT THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL" (emphasis -ed.) The President, the Secretary of State and other officials of government have admitted that we are in Viet-Nam in accordance with our "solemn commitments" under the SEATO Treaty. Indeed we are; we could not legally be there otherwise. We are NOT violating the U. N. Charter or whatever has replaced it. The United Nations has made an inspection of the situation and found nothing wrong in our presence there. The U. N. has approved it; therefore, we are there by "AUTHORITY OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL."

Next, let us consider Article 54. (This is the one the Washington government would like to forget about.) Article 54:

"The Security Council shall at all times be kept FULLY INFORMED of all activities undertaken or IN CONTEMPLATION under regional arrangements or by regional agencies for the maintenance of international peace and security."

The head of the Security Council, by agreement, is now, always has been and always will be a RUSSIAN or other SOVIET CITIZEN. The HEAD of the Council bears the confusing title, "Under-secretary of Political and Security Council Affairs,"—the SECRETARY of ALL the Secretarial posts being U. Thant. For the purpose of this discussion, it matters little who is head of the Security Council; the Russian Suslov represents one of the FIVE PERMANENT members and it would be absurd to claim that one of the Big Five does not receive and inspect reports of field operations undertaken and CONTEMPLATED. The same situation prevailed during the Korean War when MacArthur was complaining that the enemy was receiving his instructions before he got them. The enemy obviously knew every move the great general would make and anticipated them With ghastly consequences to more than a HUNDRED THOUSAND young Americans. Now, in the thin trickle of information we get from Viet-Nam, we can discern the same bloody red hands pulling the same strings. Here we sit, idle, rendered helpless and unable to defend and protect our own, simply because we are not told the truth.

We have in our possession a letter from the Department of State, received by a young veteran, in reply to his inquiry as to whether or not we are reporting actions undertaken and in contemplation in Viet- Nam, as required by Article 54 of the Charter. Here is the reply— names deleted for obvious reasons:

"Dear Congressman. . . .
"Thank you for your letter of September 8 concerning the question posed by . . . regarding the meeting of our obligations under Article 54 of the United Nations Charter with respect to Viet-Nam.
"The Government of the United States has informed the Security Council promptly and fully of all of our major activities in Viet-Nam. Reporting on the conflict by the press has been comprehensive and complete, obviating any necessity to inform the United Nations on a day to day basis. If I may be of any further assistance to you, please let me know.
Yours sincerely, (signed) Douglas MacArthur, II
Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations 

The bit about the comprehensive and complete reporting of the conflict by the PRESS may be a little hard to swallow, but we become accustomed to such hokum in time.

"We" had been in Viet-Nam for one reason or another, depending on which newspaper one reads or which day it was, for nearly ten years, during which time, Congress, by their own confession, did not know what we were doing there or who had sent us there. A responsible citizenry would have been demanding that Congress find out what was going on before appropriating any more money. The uninformed People, however, did not have sufficient information to raise even this objection or to make appropriate demands upon Congress – and so we ALL just drift with the Red Tide.

The Government was running out of "explanations." They had to find some reason for the military operation in which they were engaged. Finally, on August 6th, 1964, a most providential "attack" was made against one of our cruisers. Three little "communist" PT boats actually fired shots at our giant cruiser. The affair was somewhat reminiscent of Pearl Harbor, even though we experienced no casualties. In other ways, it reminds us of Korea, where the North Koreans and Red Chinese KNEW they could shoot up our troops and the young Americans and their gallant commanders could not re- turn the fire. There is something passing strange about the " courage" of these little nobodies shooting up the Army and Navy of the United States.

At any rate, now we had been "attacked," we had a cause to declare war on the North Vietnamese. What happened? Did the Congress declare war or did they not? You be the judge. Apparently they do not know what they did, not if we are to believe what they said.

A little State Department booklet entitled, "Viet-Nam, The Struggle For Freedom," reports on page 2:

"On August 7th (the day after the "attack" -ed.) the House of Representatives in joint resolution supported and approved the measures taken by the President to repel armed attack against U. S forces and to prevent further aggression. The resolution then added:
"The United States regards as vital to its national interest and to world peace the maintenance of international peace and security in Southeast Asia. Consonant with the Constitution of the United States and the CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS and in accordance with its OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE SOUTHEAST ASIA COLLECTIVE DEFENSE TREATY (SEATO -ed.), the United States is therefore prepared as the President determines, to take all necessary steps, including the use of armed force, to assist any member or protocol State of the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty requesting assistance in defense of its freedom."

By the terms of the Charter, ONLY the Security Council can authorize military action under the SEATO Treaty. The question now is, was the Congress, or such segment of the Congress as was PRESENT when this resolution was adopted, IMPLEMENTING something ordered by the Security Council or just trying to get the Administration off the hook? It might be said that this proclamation was as close as Congress can come to a declaration of war or invoking the SEATO Treaty.Whether they declare war or not, this will be a United Nations war for the simple reason that a U. N. war is the ONLY KIND of war which can be fought by a Member State. All activities undertaken, or in contemplation, will be "promptly and fully" reported to the Security Council, as affirmed by the State Department in the letter quoted above, where the Russian Suslov will have free access to them. This is the way the U. N. fights "communism," and this is what we can expect in the future as the U. N. moves inexorably to bring us to our knees in THEIR World Empire.

CHAPTER TWELVE

Which Will It Be – U. S. or U. N. ?

Other military debacles which should be attributed to the United Nations and its New York powerhouse are Cuba and the Dominican Republic. Both were well-governed and highly prosperous little countries before the propaganda machines began attacking their Presidents, building up false images of them, asserting that these rulers were cruel and ruthless dictators and calling for their elimination.

The connection between the New York Establishment and Castro, the selected candidate for the ruler of Cuba, has, from the beginning of the Cuban "revolution," been obvious to those informed about The Establishment. The New York Times and its agent, Herbert Matthews, acted openly in this situation. The publisher of the Times is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Times is second only to the Rockefellers in the number of associates represented on the roster of the C. F. R.

Not only did the Times agent, Matthews, handle the arrangements which brought Castro to power, but Castro lost no time, after he had consolidated his gains, in coming to the United States, where he reported in at headquarters, Pratt House, home office of the C. F. R. in New York. Their annual report for that year records that Castro addressed the Council.

Incredulous people always point out that the billionaires of the Council on Foreign Relations OWNED enormous business interests in Cuba. This is true, but CUBANS had been acquiring very substantial holdings in some of the more profitable operations. The cartelists of the C. F. R. are never satisfied to own MOST of anything; they insist upon having it ALL, as they will when the United Nations has completed the establishment of the World Empire.

Then there was the case of the Dominican Republic. This little country had been the poor house of the Western Hemisphere. It had never been able to maintain a stable government. Its plight had been deplorable. Finally the United States decided that something should be done to establish a working government and we sent in the Marines to try to get things moving. The Marines, as usual, did a magnificent job. They brought the country to a state of sovereignty and solvency; they put it, in good shape.

Among the Marine troops was a young man named Rafael Trujillo Molina. When the Marines left, the Republic was in the hands of an elected ruler. He, it turned out, was not able to preserve the gains made by the Marine Corps and the economy of the country began to crack. This ruler was obliged to borrow large sums of money and the country was soon back to the same condition from which it had been rescued.

As the date for elections drew near, Trujillo decided to run for the office of President. He had become convinced that the rule imposed by the Marines was the ONLY form of government which would survive in the Dominican Republic and he told the people plainly that if he were elected he would govern by military law. He was elected and he promptly re-instated the methods of the Marines.

The country prospered as no other country had done since the colonial days of the American Republic. Within ten years ALL external debt had been paid, the whole nation was being educated, whether or not they wanted it. There was an abundance of work to be done and Trujillo saw to it that the Dominicans exerted themselves fully to get it done and they reaped un-dreamed of rewards from their labors. At the time of the assassination of Trujillo, the Dominican Republic was on 100% gold standard with a treasury surplus. Nowhere on earth was there such "peace and security" as in the Dominican Republic. Did the U. S. and the U. N. approve of this? The record says "NO." Outside agitation, led by the propaganda machines of New York City, began a systematic campaign to bring down the government of the Dominican Republic. The cry here?as in the Cuban affair?was that Trujillo refused to hold "democratic" elections and the campaign continued until Trujillo was assassinated.

Now the two most prosperous and civilized little nations in this hemisphere have been reduced to chaos and dire poverty. Their streets have run rivers of blood; the people live in a constant state of terror; there is no stability anywhere. The Establishment and their revolutionary government in Washington are happy. Two more nations have been pushed behind the "Iron Curtain" and the Western Hemisphere has been breached. The "profound" revolution was expanding; the " one man, one vote" gimmick was taking hold.

The spirit of Trujillo was still abroad in the Dominican Republic, however. Another military man, Wessin y Wessin, was in the process of leading the country back to peace and order. Then the Washington Government went after him—literally. They ousted him, drove him out of the country and began a new reign of terror calculated to compel the Dominicans to accept a form of government dictated by Washington.

Now, under the United Nations Charter, of course, "We" have no business in the Dominican Republic EXCEPT UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL. "We" were careful to call upon the Organization of American States a regional agency (as SEATO is a regional agency) of the U. N., which may operate ONLY UNDER THE AUTHORITY of the Security Council. The hand of the United Nations, in these wars, is being carefully concealed, but sometimes in the official conclaves, in headquarters and elsewhere, a hint of the REAL situation comes out.

Within the United States the sham-battle is standard equipment. From time to time the Members put on a show for the benefit of the press and the public. Such a sham-battle was staged during the heat of the Dominican outbreak, with the Czech charging the United States with Charter violations in the matter of intervention in the Dominican Republic. Mr. Francis T. P. Plimpton (former law partner of Adlai Stevenson), an American delegate to the U. N., replied (U. N. Monthly Chronicle, July 1965, pg. 34) that:

"The Organization of the American States did not need his defense. In accordance with Article 53 of the Charter it had REPORTED ALL ITS ACTIONS TO THE SECURITY COUNCIL."

As the 0. A. S. reported its actions to the Security Council, we must assume the actions taken were satisfactory to the Security Council, otherwise the Security Council, under ITS OBLIGATIONS under the Charter, would have been required to make a change. The Security Council had both the authority and the power to CONTROL the situation in the Dominican Republic. We may safely presume that IT DID and DOES. The Abominable situation in the Dominican Republic is a U. N. affair. It cannot be anything else. If it were, it would be the obligation of the U. N. to stop it.

In the Cuban affair we had an excellent example of U. N. control of a situation that was clearly a "threat to the peace." The Cuban affair also had been referred to the O. A. S., and for once the O. A. S. countries had reached an agreement. They were prepared to handle Castro. The U. N. promptly snatched the whole matter from the 0. A. S. the Security Council took it up and sent U Thant and a group of "experts" to Cuba. Mr. Thant ordered the removal of the American air power, he called off the blockade by American ships and he, Mr. U Thant in person, put the U. N. STAMP OF APPROVAL on what now exists in Cuba. The government now in control of Cuba is what the U. N. wants in Cuba and all over the world. Cuba is now firmly incorporated in the World Empire of the Establishment. It is "Behind the Iron Curtain."

The government propaganda line which "explains" why we permit the continuance of the Castro regime in Cuba has been that we are afraid to antagonize Red China. If we do not coddle Red China, we might bring on a nuclear holocaust. The same "line" was pushed during the Korean War.

An intelligent and aroused People will begin to reject the propaganda "lines" advanced by spokesmen for the Revolutionary Government who speak only under the Discipline of the United Nations and/or its C. F. R. proprietors. The People will learn how to read and understand the devious language of The New Order and to judge the proposals for what they really are, to use common sense, 4th grade arithmetic and solid self-interest in the process.

The Washington government has become conscious of an awakening at the grassroots and in the State Capitols. States are being asked to take action to protect the interests of the People. In an effort to head off any inquiry into Federal and international affairs, the Revolutionary Government proposes to " beat them to it." The President, in his State of the Union Message, has promised to appoint a commission of "the most distinguished scholars and men of public affairs, to examine our Federal System, to examine the relation between city, state, nation and citizen." For thirty years the country has been plagued with Committees and Commis- sions of "distinguished citizens" who always come from the same hatchery, the Council on Foreign Relations. They "find" what the government wants them to "find" and the States and the People are pushed a few more paces into the World Empire. There can be no doubt of the urgent need for examination of the Federal System. The States and the People should assume this responsibility, not the Masters of the present Federal System.

The President's State of the Union Message, January 12, 1966, contained some statements deliberately calculated to deceive and mislead the People. From this we can see how the People have been duped into surrendering their earnings and being burdened with debt while Foreign Aid (to billionaire cartelists) money was spent for Empire Building all over the world. These sentences are LOADED—read them carefully.

"We will place the maximum skill and resources of America in farming (the skills -ed.) and in fertilizers (the resources -ed.) at the service of those countries committed to developing a modern agriculture." 

This crack about pledging the resources of America has been said before, even more emphatically, by the top men in government since the day the U. N. Charter was adopted.

Under the Constitutional Government of the United States, the President had no power or authority to pledge American men or resources to ANYBODY ON EARTH. Men were masters of their own destiny, except in time of war, and the resources of the nation belonged to the owners. All this changed under the Revolutionary Government of the New World Order.

The point should be made?and remembered--that at no time have the real purposes, for which "Foreign Aid" money was appropriated, been explained to the Congress or the People. The enormous "Foreign Aid' budget of from 3 to 4 BILLION dollars is explained by the President in these words:

"We will conduct a worldwide attack on the problems of hunger, disease and ignorance. . . place the matchless skill and resources of America at the service of those countries committed to developing a modern agriculture, aid those who educate the young." 

"We" will do this IN FACT by building hard top roads, railroads?tens of thousands of miles of them--paper mills, radio factories, power plants, dams, ports, steel mills and more. This is the type of deception which the Revolutionary Government finds it necessary to practice in order to persuade the deluded and defrauded People to share their earnings with the Empire Builders of the United Nations. The "Foreign Aid" money is NOT used for eradicating hunger, disease and illiteracy. Funds actually used for these purposes come from the budgets of such agencies as UNESCO, International Labour and World Wealth Organizations and other specialized agencies. The Revolutionary Government has NEVER told the People the truth about "Foreign Aid" and it is not telling them the truth now.

Truth, independence and justice have been abandoned as the Washington Government surrendered to United Nations laws and decrees. Even the lives and security of the people in the States are in jeopardy. We are now subject to the infamous Nuremberg ex post facto law. The United States Senate adopted the Nu- remberg Treaty as required by the United Nations. Now Americans may be tried on criminal charges for actions which were perfectly legal at the time they were committed. Fantastic—outrageous? The U. N. itself is all that and more.

It is the hope of the writer and this revelation of the little- understood FACTS about the United Nations will arouse the American public to TAKE ACTION in the ONLY WAY action can be taken effectively. We must realize that there is no hope whatever for us or our young men in the armed services anywhere in Washington. Washington has SOLD OUT to the Empire-Builders in the United Nations. They have delivered this Nation up to World Government and do not recognize their own authority conferred upon them by the STATES. They are merely puppets for the United Nations and serve only to IMPLEMENT the decisions of the U. N. agencies.

We might retire many of them, even a majority of them, at the next election. That would not quite solve the problem; it would help, but far more drastic action is needed. Let us review AMERICAN history. The way to this problem will be found in the ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION and the Bill of Rights.

When the States formed the Federal Agency—that is what it was, simply an Agency of the States to do certain things requiring the services of an agency—they granted VERY LIMITED and clearly defined powers to this Federal Agency. All powers not specifically delegated were retained to the States and the People.

The People would elect the Congress and the Congress would represent the People. The States would elect (appoint) the Senate and the Senate would represent the States. In that way the States, which are close to the People and responsible to them, had CONTROL over the Senate which was to represent them.

Our troubles began when the first propagandists went to work in 1911 to persuade the States that the People were demanding the right to elect the Senators themselves. This, the propagandists declared, was the "democratic process." The States succumbed to the propaganda, although there was not a word of truth in it, and enacted the 17th Amendment which created TWO HOUSES OF REPRESENTATIVES and left the States with NO REPRESENTATTON in the Federal Government. Now the AGENCY has become a powerful and undisciplined GOVERNMENT.

The States have absolutely no control over it, simply because the States no longer appoint the Senators who are presumed to represent them. Enormous slush funds, donated by greedy and selfish people who sought to obtain advantage for themselves, poured into the States to influence the Senatorial elections. The Senators so elected could not long remain undisciplined. They were soon under the domination of the New York Establishment and when the Establishment set up the United Nations, the whole government accepted the DISCIPLINE of the United Nations.

It is of the opinion of the writer that the SHORTEST road to freedom and a return to Constitutional Government is by REPEAL of the 17th Amendment. This would bring home every member of the United States Senate and permit the States to appoint men who would truly REPRESENT THE STATES. They might return the incumbents if they so desired, but the STATES and NOT the United Nations or the Council on Foreign Relations, would control them.

The laws of the United States have become such a confused muddle that it is probable that only a Constitutional Convention would be equal to the appalling task of bringing order out of the prevailing chaos. As this is written, a substantial number of the States have adopted identical resolutions calling for a Constitutional Convention. A long educational campaign for the information and education of State Representatives has brought to the States the best-informed State Representatives of the century.

The tremendous events of the past few years have established a TIME FOR ACTION in the States. That time is NOW. The wars in Viet-Nam and in the Dominican Republic, both under Security Council authority and the promise of MORE and ever MORE wars under the same authority, have brought the apathy and patience of the American people to an end.

The blatant and obvious lies of the Administration and both Houses of Congress, the muzzling of press and military, the outrageous and tyrannical decisions of a Supreme Court run wild, the spread of Soviet Empire throughout the world, the bankrupting of States and People—all these coming to a head at the same time—indicate that the TIME IS RIGHT to rise up and call a halt to the DISCIPLINE of the United Nations. It may be that this evil thing will destroy itself.

Let's give it a shove.

THE END

Annex

Even as this tract was being written, a strong forward surge in empire building was being promulgated by the back-stage directors of the United Nations. You have noted that the provision of the U. N. Charter for review and revision of the Charter in 1955, if it had not been done before, became MANDATORY under Article 109 and has been steadily ignored by the U. S. They have been unable to comply with this provision, because any amendment or revision of the Charter would have to be presented to a United States Senate, far more fully informed about U. N. charters than the Senate of 1945.

The situation in the U. N. now, even after the prestige conferred upon it by the visit of the Pope, is so charged with illegality and outright criminality that they need to do something about a CHARTER, a CONSTITUTION or some semblance of law and authority for what they are doing. They have had agencies working on plans and schemes to rectify these defects and, as you have learned, there have been some tragic failures. The inability to get the new International Law presented to an unsuspecting Senate was a significant case in point. The law for the international currency was incorporated in the new International Law. As it stands now, no International Law, no International Currency, but they will continue to work on it.

For nearly ten years two United World Federalists, high in the World Empire- building scheme, Grenville Clark and Harvard professor Louis B. Sohn, have been working on a NEW CHARTER. They call it a "revised" charter and their work on it has been completed. They have launched the program in a book, "World Peace Through World Law," and it has been getting tremendous reception among supporters of World Empire, world-wide.

The NEW CHARTER will have to make the grade through a Senate already bruised by the revelations of the substance of the Old Charter, which they have consistently refused to revise or consider in relation to the interests of the United States. The World Federalists appreciate the dilemma of the Senate. They have come up with a scheme to have the nation's "free" press (see last page) initiate a propaganda blitz on the American public to persuade them to create an IRRESISTIBLE DEMAND for what they are billing as a "Conference for Charter Revision."

The obvious fact is, under Article 109, they do not need a propagandized Conference to review, revise or amend the Charter. It was required that they do this in 1955 and every year since that time. All they have to do to get a LEGAL Conference to revise the Charter is to bring up a resolution in the General Assembly and go to work on it. The document sent to 1800 of the nation's top newspapers sets forth some hint of what they hope to accomplish by the proposed "revision" of the Charter. This program will require a propaganda barrage the like of which has never been seen or heard before.

Some of the proposed "revisions" set forth in the news release indicate that what the U. N. has in mind is the NEW REVISED CHARTER of Clark and Sohn. The masterpiece of Hiss and Pasvolsky becomes a constitutional gem by comparison with the Clark-Sohn charter. These are some of the proposals submitted to the nation's press; they are all incorporated in the Clark-Sohn New Revised Charter:

"A permanent U. N. peace force to maintain international peace;
"A General Assembly EMPOWERED TO ADOPT BINDING RULES AND REGULATIONS;
"A revised voting system appropriate to the strengthened U. N. and implementing the Disarmament plan. Abolition of the present VETO POWER in the Security Council;
A system of courts (world courts -ed.) to decide issues; A WORLD DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM requiring that the WORLD (? -ed.)use a substantially larger share of its resources to promote the economic and social advancement of the less-developed nations;
"A reliable and adequate revenue system."

BINDING RULES AND REGULATIONS ARE LAWS. As Mr. Roberto Ago of the International Law Commission stated it: the U. N. controls its states by LEGALLY BINDING them to accept the decisions of the majority (in the General Assembly). What the U. N. is after here, is to LEGALIZE the utterly illegal resolutions and laws of the past ten years and to have the people exert IRRESISTIBLE pressure on the Senate to compel the Senate to LEGALIZE the BINDING AUTHORITY conferred upon the General Assembly itself.

They have been operating and running the world for the past ten years by these illegal General Assembly resolutions. Now that the people and the State Officials are learning of the resolution racket, the U. N. will try propaganda to enable them to get public support for what they offer as a "Charter Review Conference."

There is entirely too much of the Clark and Sohn New Revised Charter apparent in the U. N. suggestions here quoted to ignore the activities of Clark and Sohn in this field. These planned "revisions" are the work of these two high-ranking World Federalists. Their mouthpiece is James P. Warburg who stated, to a committee of the Senate, that WE would have World Government whether or not we wanted it: if we did not get it by CONSENT, we would get it by CONQUEST. These men know whereof they speak. The head of the organization was Elmo Roper who proclaimed that "OUR GOAL IS GOVERNMENT OF ALL THE WORLD." We discount the pronouncements of these men at our own peril and at the risk of the loss of our liberties, liberties GUARANTEED by the Constitution which will be forever ERASED by the New Revised Charter.

Consider the item dealing in circumspect terms with a "reliable and adequate revenue system." As Clark and Sohn express the "adequate revenue system" it will provide for the levy of DIRECT TAXES by the U. N. against the people of the Member Nations and for the establishment of an U. N. Internal Revenue Service with collection depots for collecting the revenue. From the Annex of "World Peace Through World Law": 

"Provision would be made for the establishment in each Member Nation of a United Nations Fiscal Office the functions of which would be to receive the taxes of those in that nation who under national laws enacted for the purpose (under General Assembly law -ed.) have been made liable to pay taxes to the United Nations and (c) to transmit the sums so received to the central treasury of the United Nations.
"(5) All Member Nations would undertake to place their tax collecting machinery at the disposal of the United Nations, for collecting U. N. levied taxes."

With regard to the United Nations COURT SYSTEM, Clark and Sohn suggest "suggestions" incorporated in the proposed propaganda blitz about which the nation's lawyers would presumably know nothing, such "revisions" as these:

"In respect to the enforcement of United Nations LAW, it is proposed to establish a system of, United Nations Regional courts subordinate to the International Court of Justice, in order to provide adequate machinery for dealing with offenses against the Charter or LAWS of the United Nations. . . "ENFORCEMENT OF UNITED NATIONS LAWS. Along with the machinery for dealing with international disputes, it is intended through a proposed system of United Nations Regional Courts, to afford effective tribunals throughout the world for the INTERPRETATION and application of the Charter, of the laws and regulations of the United Nations in respect to disarmament, and of the other provisions of the prevention of war. . . "

The Clark-Sohn Plan requires not only the abolition of the VETO in the Security Council itself. It would be replaced with an EXECUTIVE COUNCIL under DIRECTION and AUTHORITY of the General Assembly. In revising Article 25 it is provided that:

"The Member Nations agree to ACCEPT AND CARRY OUT the decision of the Executive Council, subject ONLY to the right to contest the validity of any such decisions by appeal to the (U. N. -ed.) International Court of Justice. . . " 

To NAIL THIS DOWN, Article 1.03 provides:

"The revised charter and the LAWS and REGULATIONS of the United Nations which shall be made in pursuance thereof shall be the SUPREME LAW of the United Nations and ALL AUTHORITIES of the Member Nations SHALL BE BOUND THEREBY, anything in the CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF ANY MEMBER NATION TO THE CONTRARY NOTWITHSTANDING." 

Comment by Clark and Sohn:

". . . In harmony with this conception, paragraph 2 makes definite the obligation of 'all authorities' of the member Nations to be bound by the revised Charter and the laws and regulations enacted thereunder. It follows that when necessary the constitutions of member Nations would need to be revised so as to accord with this provision."

It can't happen here? If the plans of the United World Federalists, the United Nations, and the Government in Washington can be protected from public scrutiny, it will have happened here. It actually has happened here. It is only by Divine dispensation that the U. N. has decided to LEGALIZE the performances of the past ten years and to persuade the propaganda-drugged population to apply IRRESISTLBLE pressures on the U. S. Senate to VOTE US INTO THE WORLD GOVERNMENT LEGALLY, that WE, the People, have received this period of grace in which we may counteract this propaganda and lead the way back to a Constitutional Government.

As a hint of what MIGHT happen, the Clark and Sohn New Revised Charter should serve as a guide to the wary. profound.htm

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/

TAX EXEMPT SUBVERSION

Back

TAX EXEMPT SUBVERSION by Congressman B. Carroll Reece American Mercury 56-64 (July 1957) Congressman B. Carroll Reece, Chairman of the House Special Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations, shows how the United States taxpayer is being used to further Communist aims. Reece was Chairman of the Republican National Committee (1946-1948). Tax-exempt philanthropic foundations clearly have become one principle source of Communist influence infiltration and subversion in the United States. Inquiry by four committees of Congress since 1952 has demonstrated beyond all question that eleemosynary foundations -- however laudably described in their charters -- are accountable in history for all their works. As one promising approach, the Senate Internal Security subcommittee (of the Committee on the Judiciary) recommended on February 28, 1957, that Congress withdraw the tax-exempt status from any organization "contributing funds to a Communist or Communist-front organization, or for Communist purposes." Such a law would apply to all foundations those definitions already established in the Federal Code by the Subversive Activities Control Act. Tax-exempt foundations then would be subject to citation by the SACB whenever their operations were determined to he tainted by Communist inspiration, purpose, or direction. This type of legislation would not touch reputable and law-abiding foundations. But where the hearing disclosed financial support of Kremlin programs, a foundation's tax-exempt status would be terminated automatically. This would fix a due-process death sentence upon subversive foundations. The House Committee on Tax Exempt Foundations reports there are about 7,000 foundations in the United States today. Their combined trust funds aggregate $7.5 billion, with total annual income approximating $675 million. Some 500 of the larger foundations, those holding more than $10 million each, control roughly 56 percent of the total endowments, and collect approximately 32 percent of all foundation income. Some fifty foundations were named in the hearings as supporters of studies or programs contributing to Communist purposes in the United States. "It is the conclusion of this committee that the subject of foundations urgently requires the continued attention of Congress," the House committee reported in December 1954. Under today's law, foundations administer their capital and income "with the widest freedom, bordering at times on irresponsibility. "Wide freedom is highly desirable as long as the public dedication is faithfully followed, but present laws do not compel such performance." The Committee's criticism fell, for the most part, upon foundations operating in the social sciences, as distinguished from those supporting research in the physical sciences, or missionary activities through bonafide religious organizations. In the social sciences, the power of the large foundation is enormous. "It can exercise various forms of patronage which carry with them elements of thought control. It can exert immense influence on educational institutions, upon educational processes, and upon educators. . . . It can materially predetermine the development of social and political concepts and courses of action, through the process of granting or with-holding foundation awards upon a selective basis, and by designing projects which propel research in selected directions. It can play a powerful part in the determination of academic opinion, and through this thought leadership, materially influence public opinion." This power to influence national policy is amplified tremendously when several great foundations act in concert. "There is such a concentration foundation power in the United States, operating in the social sciences and education . . . It operates in part through certain intermediary organizations supported by the foundations. It has ramifications in almost every phase of research and education, in communications, and even in government." A professional class of administrators of foundation funds already has emerged. This informal guild, as the committee describes it, "has fallen into many of the vices of a bureaucratic system, involving vast opportunities for selective patronage, preference and privilege." Through selectivity in granting funds for research projects, this vast interlocking guild of social engineers "has shown a distinct tendency to favor political opinions of the Left." One influential foundation gave heavy financial support to The Institute of Pacific Relations, which later was shown to be an all-out Moscow front working for the establishment of a communist regime in China, an aim which has since been accomplished. At one point, subversion is defined in the committee report as "the process of undermining our vitally protective concepts and principles." Several big-name foundations were found to have supported attacks upon our social and governmental systems, and to have financed "the promotion of collectivist ideas." Socialist attack upon these Congressional reports misrepresent the purposes of the committees, by suggesting that the end sought by Congress might be to bring every foundation grant under direct federal supervision. Instead, the Committees urged merely that all foundation objectives be described honestly to the public -- thus to destroy the protective shield of high-sounding public purpose as a possible cover for hateful attack upon the freedom under the law. The first principle of subversive organizations necessarily must be to defy public inquiry. "As indicated by their arrogance in dealing with this committee, the major foundations and their associated intermediary organizations have entrenched themselves behind a totality of power which presumes to place them beyond criticism," one House Committee reported. "Research in the social sciences plays a key part in the evolution of our society. Such research is now almost wholly in the control of the professional employees of the large foundations and their obedient satellites. Even the great sums allotted by the Federal Government for social science research have come into the virtual control of this professional group. The public interest in foundation funds was illustrated dramatically by Thomas H. Briggs, professor emeritus of education at Columbia University. "This right and this responsibility are derived from the fact that the public has chartered the foundations, and also that by remission of taxes it is furnishing a large part of the available revenue. In the case of the Ford Foundation, which has an annual income in excess of $30-million, the public contributes more than $27-million, or $9 to every $1 that comes from the original donor." (hearings page 96) This is the dollar value of tax-exemption to one foundation. Is it to be argued that economic privileges of this magnitude granted by public law entail no public responsibilities or accountability? Almost without exception the trustees of large foundations are active men of great affairs, often too busy with their private concerns to give minute attention to the foundation's operations. The effective decisions thus are made by the administrative officers. The trustees meet once a month, or once each quarter, to approve staff reports and recommendations. But in the case of The Ford Fund for the Advancement of Education, Professor Briggs told the House Committee he had resigned from the national advisory committee when he became satisfied that: "Not a single member of the staff, from the president down to the lowest employee, has had any experience, certainly none in recent years, that would give understanding of the problems that are met daily by the teachers and administrators of our schools." This staff had been selected, the witness continued, "by a former influential officer of The Ford Foundation who is notoriously critical -- I may even say contemptuous of the education of teachers." When the Advisory Committee suggested changes in the program submitted by the staff managers they "were glossed over without discussion." "As a former member of the so-called Advisory Committee I testify that at no time did the administration of the fund seek from it any advice on principles of operation, nor did it hospitably receive or act in accordance with such advice as was volunteered." This testimony offers a challenging commentary on the advisory-committee gimmick, which presumably protects the busy trustees in the discharge of their full fiduciary responsibility as custodians of tax~exemption. Because the trustees are recognized as eminent citizens "with many other occupations and avocations," they had no way of knowing that the Rockefeller Foundations was contributing heavily to international Communism through the Institute of Pacific Relations. Neither could the trustees of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, have been aware of the full background of Alger Hiss at the time he was confirmed as president of that endowment. Both cases illustrate the normal chasm between the trustees and office managers of the foundations. Likewise, both cases illustrate the interlocking guild which prevails among tile professional foundation managers. When lush jobs are available on the foundation projects, the guild provides the ideal candidate. Scores of incidents in the extended hearings (1952-56) underline the House Committee's conclusion that, as a general rule, "Trustees of great foundations are unable to keep their fingers on the pulse of operations, except to a very limited degree." That finding explains how the Fund for the Republic could spend considerable sums on producing, and distributing an hour-long TV film defending Dr. I. Robert Oppenheimer, following his dismissal from the Atomic Energy Commission on findings that his earlier associations with identified Communists disqualified him for access to restricted information in the AEC. It also explains why the trustees of the same foundation could not know that Mary Knowles, identified by witnesses appearing before investigating committees as an active Communist, had been granted a special citizenship award of $5,000 following her dismissal as librarian at the Plymouth Meeting of Friends, in Plymouth Township, near Philadelphia, Pa. When called before the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, on May 21,1953, Miss Knowles pleaded thee fifth amendment. No set of foundation trustees, meeting once a month, could possibly be fully aware of such devious operations. Yet these are some of the reasons why the City of Los Angeles, through formal action by its Board of Education, rejected a gift of $300,000 from the Ford Foundation for teacher training. Are the American people without any legal recourse whatever to stop these outright assaults upon freedom -- indeed upon our very national security -- with millions of dollars in the hands of men who are responsible to nobody for their actions? Reflective study of the hearings discloses that, as a rule, foundation trustees incline to delegate their fiduciary responsibility to the president and officers of the endowment; and these top administrators, in turn, delegate to department heads; and the department heads lean heavily upon the subsidiary organizations created for specific operations. Thus, in the case of the Rockefeller Foundation, the trustees are far removed from the operations of the Social Science Research Council, and the American Council of Learned Societies, which are, substantially, subsidiary off-shoots of the Foundation. The point at which the inter-locking guild of professional foundation managers touches government administration is in appointments to new federal agencies, as they come along. "We have seen many Communists and fellow-travelers recommended by foundation executives for government posts," the House committee reported. "In the case of the recommendations to the government made by the Institute of Pacific Relations and the American Council of Learned Societies for experts to be used by our occupations forces in Germany and Japan, the lists were heavily salted with Communists and their supporters." (Report p. 57). Professor Kenneth Colgrove, secretary of the American Political Science Association, also related his experience touching selection of civilian advisers for Japan: "I was shocked when I saw the list . . . I wanted to find out where the list came from, and I was told it had come from the Institute of Pacific Relations." (Hearings p. 561) Later a second list had been supplied by the American Council of Learned Societies, "and the list of the American Political Science Association had been ignored." "And so," Professor Colgrove concluded, "General MacArthur, who had very little control over the personnel that was sent to Japan at this time for civil affair -- practically no control -- had to receive a large group of very leftist, and some of them Communist, advisers in the field of political science." (Report p. 201) Testifying before the Cox Committee on December 22, 1952, Maurice Malkin, a U.S. immigration inspector in New York, told of Moscow's direct orders to American Communists to penetrate our philanthropic foundations. Malkin had been a member of the Communist Party of the U.S.A. from 1919 until 1937, when he was expelled. Ludwig Martens, the first official Soviet representative in the United States, was the transmission belt for this penetration order, Malkin related. "This Ludwig Martens came to the Party and ordered us, that instead of depending upon Moscow to finance the American party directly, we should try to work out ways and means of penetrating philanthropic charitable grants, foundations et cetera . . . to try to penetrate these organizations, in order to drain their treasuries, that they should be able to finance the Communist Party propaganda in the United States, beside the subsidies that will be granted by Moscow." (Cox hearings p. 692) This campaign of penetration was in some measure successful, Malkin continued: "We made a little headway, like trying to penetrate the Garland Fund, at that period known as the American Fund for Public Service . . . In the Garland Fund we succeeded in placing a few Communists and fellow-travelers at the controlling board, or grant board." Among the men thus placed, Malkin named as known Communist sympathizers William Z. Foster, Benjamin Gitlow, Norman Thomas, Roger Baldwin, Forest Bailey, Adelaide Shulkind. A similar penetration had been successful in the Phelps Stokes Fund, the witness recalled: "Now in these two organizations the Communist Party actually succeeded in getting in and milking the organization dry . . . Up until about 1928 these organizations actually financed the Communist Party publications, known as the Daily Worker,The Young Worker, the Masses, the Labor Herald, and Novy Mir." "Besides that, these two funds also helped to finance the organization of the Worker's School in New York in 1924, which was actually the training school for Communist leadership in the United States, which later was supplemented by what they call the Lenin Institute and Lenin School of Moscow." Critics of the Congressional. inquiries into tax-exempt foundations studiously ignore this segment of the record. "The existence of this plot was corroborated by others, and stands amply proved," the final House Committee report said; in December 1954. (Report p. 197) Another witness before the Cox Committee was Igor Bogolepov, who had served in the Soviet Foreign Office through the years 1923- 41. He renounced Communism in 1943, joined. the American occupation forces in Germany in 1947, and came to the United States early in 1952. Bogolepov told of a secret meeting in Moscow in 1930, in which Stalin had "revised one of the most basic conceptions of Marxism." "He recommended this way of thinking: that the revolution in the Western world can be made, evidently not with the hands of proletarians, who proved to he rather indifferent to the Communist conception and ideas, but through the brains of western intellectuals who, as we discovered, were very sympathetic with the Communist ideas, and with the whole construction and conception of socialism in the Soviet Union." After this directive from Stalin, Bogolepov continued, Foreign Officer Oumansky was placed in charge of the intellectual penetration operation. Later Oumansky was assigned as Soviet ambassador to Washington. "So started this big operation whose results we still see every day," the witness continued."While reading reports of the Soviet Embassy in Washington, more than once I met the name of the Carnegie Endowment and of the Rockefeller Foundation . . . I read about these foundations mostly in the reports of the Soviet ambassador in Washington, when he said what kind of people he and his officials met from these foundations in this period of time, what kind of assignments they gave to these people, or through other people, to these foundations, or to these foundations through American universities or publishing houses . . . He gave the names of the people whom he met, and the people his agents met . . . I just registered in my memory the fact that with every year the number of mentions of these foundations became more and more numerous, and the people involved in this machination of the Soviet Embassy in this country became also greater and greater." (Cox hearings, pp.677-78) In my attempt to summarize the problems presented in subversive activities supported by tax-exempt foundations, I have reviewed carefully some 3,000 pages of hearings and reports from the two House Committees established especially for that inquiry in the 82nd and 83rd Congresses, plus voluminous collateral material gathered in the House Ways and Means Committee hearings in the 84th Congress, and several bulky reports from the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee Relating to the Institute of Pacific Relations, and Interlocking Subversion in the Federal Agencies. But no reader should assume that this brief synopsis presents all facets of the problem. We have not touched, for example, upon the impact of the foundation-supported Kinsey Reports in the field of American sexual behavior, nor upon the influence of certain foundation studies upon the military or foreign policies of the United States. These are large areas remaining for future development. For the present, we seek merely to demonstrate that tax-exempt subversion presents a national problem which demands the attention of the Congress and the people. One other aspect of national policy touching foundations generally awaits attention. Many complaints have been' received, that foundations established to expand research and teaching along traditionally "conservative" lines often have been denied tax-exempt status. On the other hand, foundations which avowedly seek. to foster theories and doctrines of the political Left often have been accommodated promptly and most graciously with the tax-exempt privilege. If the administration of the law in this field has 'been influenced by discrimination or favoritism, a Congressional study on that score would quickly indicate the amendments needed to enforce practical fair, and, impartial application of the tax-exempt privilege to all research and educational foundations. It was never the intention of Congress to provide tax-exempt privileges exclusively for institutions sponsoring ideological subversion of the traditional American, principles of life and government. But I desire to emphasize, in the words of our final committee report, that "not even an inferential conclusion should be drawn from this report that foundations are undesirable. Our conclusion is the opposite. It is our intention to present critical material for the very purpose of increasing the usefulness of foundations and making their place in our society firmer and safer. We hope that such material will induce the foundations themselves to 'clean house', if that is necessary." (Report, p. 3) Finally, I would warn the reader against much violent vituperation currently prevalent in appraisals of the Congressional committee's findings. Here, J. Edgar Hoover, chief of the FBI, puts my warning in eloquent terms: "It is an established fact that whenever one has dared to the Communist threat he has invited upon himself the adroit and skilled talents of experts in character assassination." reeceart.htm

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/