Part 5: NWO: Socialist Dictatorship... Socialist Penetration & and Permeation of Religion../ Planned Destruction of the United States Through Free Trade

NWO- Socialist Dictatorship

Dr John Coleman

7 

SOCIALIST PENETRATION AND PERMEATION OF RELIGION 

"The great civilizations of the world do not produce the great religions as a kind of a by-product; in a very real sense, the great religions are the foundations on which the great civilizations rest." Christopher Dawson, Historian. 

'The Christian religion is not a suitable religion for today." Edward Lindeman. Socialist-Christian writer. 

While it is true that Fabian Socialism set its sights on penetrating all religions, the real target was always the Christian religion. In its earliest days, the Fabian Society called its one-sheet pamphlets, "tracts," the term used by Christian missionaries, and this was done to deliberately mislead the public as to Fabian Socialism's dislike of organized religion. Perhaps the most evil influence on religious beliefs was the so-called German Rationalization, which came from Bismarck and Marx, who considered religion no more than a social science. 

In the United States, the evil Socialist leader, John D. Rockefeller worked to move churches to the left, using lay preacher infiltrators. One of his servants, Paul Blanshard was used for the formation of an organization called "Protestants and Other Americans United for the Separation of Church and State." This doctrine is one of the most successful falsehoods and hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people. There is no such power in the Constitution, it does not exist. 

One of the first Christian churches in America to be "Socialized" was the Grace Church of South Boston, where The Reverend W.D. Bliss was the pastor. A great friend of Sydney Webb, Bliss' missionary zeal on behalf of the Fabian Society was commendable, but his professed Christianity did not extend to teaching the Gospel of Christ. Another corrupter of the Christian religion was Father (later Monsignor) John Augustin Ryan, whose gospel was that taught by the English Socialist, John Hobson. Ryan formed a group called the National Catholic Welfare Council which was used by Fabian Socialists to penetrate and  permeate Catholic churches all across America. Ryan went on to become known as "the padre of the New Deal" and was used by Roosevelt get the "blessing of religion for his more controversial New Deal bills." 

But the real center of Socialist-religious activity in the United States was the Riverside Church, a Rockefeller "social science Christian" church, funded by the New York City Rockefeller Foundation. From this vantage point, inroads where made into the political life of the nation, particularly through the Dulles Family, who dominated the Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America (FCCA) The FCCA was one of the very first "religious groups" to enthusiastically back Roosevelt's "New Deal." 

The 1935, the United States Navy intelligence service named the FCCA as the leader of pacifism: "...This is a large radical pacifist organization... its leadership consists of a small radical group that is always very active in any matter against national defense. 'The Dies Committee took sworn testimony from an expert witness who stated as follows: "Apparently, in lieu of promoting Christianity among its several members it (the FCCA) more represents a huge political machine and appears to meddle in radical politics. Its directorate indicates that it interlocks with many of the most radical organizations." 

In 1933, the Rev. Albert W. Beaven and 44 co-sponsors, delivered a letter to Roosevelt, in which they strongly urged him to Socialize America. Another "churchman," the Rev Dr. Kirby Page, told Roosevelt to support the Bolsheviks. "The aim of the proletariat in Russia was to establish a better life...It is difficult to find youth anywhere in this world more devoted to the cause of Christ than you'll find in Russia devoted to Stalin...," Kirby said. 

Dr. Harry F. Ward, another leading light in the FCCA, actually resigned from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in 1925 because it barred "totalitarians" from its membership. The year before, Ward — then ACLU's chairman — had spoken out in favor of defending Socialist and Communist causes. This was at a time when Ward was Professor of Christian Ethics at the Union Theological Seminary, New York. Through his excellence in penetration and permeation tactics. Ward was able to subvert three generations of future American church leaders and steer them into the Socialist camp. 

The Reverend Niebuhr was another prominent Socialist named by an expert called by Dies Committee hearings. Niebuhr held the post of Professor of Applied Christianity and Dean of the Union Theological Seminary, and was one of the very earliest American Fabian Socialists to push the book, "A New Deal" by Graham Wallas, a leading Fabian Society writer. In 1938, Niebuhr joined the Fabian Socialist American Association of University Professors, which called itself "a progressive educational body." As we know by now, "progressive" is merely another word for "Socialist." Niebuhr was also identified as being the secretary of the Students League for Industrial Democracy (SLID) (which later became the League of Industrial Democracy), the ultra Socialists student's organization that was heavily into radical politics. 

Many of the student-members of SLID went on to join the Democrat Party, rather than try to form their own Socialist Party. It was from this beginning that the Democrat Party became infested with Socialists, until today, it is estimated by intelligence specialist contacts of mine, that as much as 86 percent of Democrat Party membership is made up of hard core Socialists. Niebuhr later was to have a profound influence over the Kennedy brothers, Robert citing Niebuhr's book, "Children of Light, Children of Darkness" (a pagan cultist book) as one of the books he would take to the moon if he ever had to go there. 

Niebuhr's influence ranged far and wide, spreading his "progressive" politics among Socialist members of Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), and LID. During all of his political life, Niehbur preached the "Social Gospel" which later became known as Marxist Liberation Theology. He became a close friend of Arthur Schlesinger Jr, preaching that "capitalism was a sickness" and that violence was in the eye of the beholder. Schlesinger went on to play a very significant role in Socializing America, proving that religious Socialism was a devastating weapon in the right (or wrong) hands. Niehbur openly embraced Marxism (although a totally godless creed and strange belief for a minister said to be as teacher of the Gospel), saying that it was "essentially a correct theory and analysis of the economic realities of modern society." 

This so-called "theologian" was also active in controlling the press, having been appointed by Rockefeller to the "Commission on Freedom of the Press." Inevitably, Niehbur was appointed to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) on the instructions of David Rockefeller. Thus, in the religious theater of Socialist operations, we see that Fabian Socialism has been very busy in the United States and learned the lesson well that using religion as a means of penetration and permeation of society as a whole, was a very important one. We were led to believe that the Bolsheviks and their Socialist cousins were against all forms of religion. In fact this is not true at all. The Socialist/Bolshevik hatred of religion was directed more toward Christianity than any other religion. 

One way in which the Socialists have been able to keep their grip on organized religion is through the Fellowship of Faiths, which was first established as a Socialist organization in 1921 and just recently, completely revived in readiness for the coming One World Government — New World Order. This is an organization meant to control religion — a long-time goal of Socialism — which realized that religion can never be stamped out. Senior Statesman of the Committee of 300, Bertrand Russell put the Socialists attitude to religion in this way: "If we cannot take control of it, then we must get rid of it. " But getting rid of religion was easier said than done, so "control" was the method chosen. 

Not all wars thus fought have been able to rid the world of religion. Other  tactics had to devised, such as extensive brainwashing, using the shopworn relativistic idea that all religions are equal. Proof that the war against Christianity is increasing in ferocity and intensity can be found in the attack upon the Constitution of the United States by Socialists like Lloyd Cutler — advisor to President Carter, President Clinton and his Attorney-General, Janet Reno. Socialist Cutler seeks to weaken the Constitution so that protection and freedom to worship and follow one's religion may thereby be abridged. 

The shocking mass murder of United States citizens at Waco, Texas is a recent example of just how far the Socialists are prepared to go to do away with religious freedom. The events that led up to more Christian United States citizens being killed than Chinese students in Tiananmen Square, are too well known to be recounted here, but some aspects need clarification and amplification: 

The first item to consider is this: Where in the Constitution does it say that the Federal Government has the right to interfere in the religious affairs of ANY church, as it interfered and intervened in the affairs of the Branch Davidian Christian Church? Where in the Constitution does it say that the Federal Government has the right to decide what is a "cult" and what is not? Let Attorney General Reno show us where this power is given to federal law enforcement agencies. The truth of the matter is that it is not found; it is not in the Constitution! 

Nowhere in the delegated powers of Congress in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1-18 is the power to attack a "cult" given. To allow a Federal agency to interject itself into the Branch Davidian Church and then attack it with force of arms, as they did in Waco, would take an amendment to the Constitution of the United States. What happened in Waco was treason and sedition against the Constitution and the American people. In using military vehicles to attack civilians in a Christian church we must suppose that the intention was to terrorize citizens and deprive them of their rights: 

Article 1 of the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof; or abridge the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the right of people to peacefully assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." 

Note the use of the word "shall" which is very much stronger than "will." Also note the words, "respecting the establishment of religion." Embodied in the word "establishment" is the implicit understanding that it also means, the act of establishing, or in plain language, a NEWLY ESTABLISHED ENTITY. In this case the newly established entity was the Branch Davidian Church. Thus, the Federal Government was duty bound under the law to PROTECT the Davidians, NOT MURDER THEM. 

The Federal Government went into Waco with the express intention of prohibiting the free exercise of religion by members of the Christian Branch  Davidian Church. It prohibited the Branch Davidian members to assemble peacefully. What the Federal Government said, was, "we say that you are a cult and that we don't like your religion, and so we are going to shut your church down." 

To accomplish this, the Federal Government brought in military vehicles which they then used to assault the church buildings and kill the members of the Branch Davidian Church. On Page E7151 of July 31, 1968, Congressional Record, Justice William O. Douglas said"... It is impossible for government to draw a line between good and bad and be true to the Constitution, better to let all ideas alone." The United States Government chose to ignore this ruling and they tried to go in an simplify religion, to boil it down to good or bad, with the Federal Government the arbiters. The Federal Government tried to make religion a simple affair when it is a very complex one, in which they should not have been meddling under any conditions whatsoever. 

The first ten Amendments to the Constitution of the United States are a restriction on the Federal Government. In addition permission to legislate on religion is also denied by Article 1, Section 9 of the constitution. The Federal Government has no absolute powers. The Branch Davidians were entitled to police protection under the powers granted to the State in the 10th Amendment. The Sheriff of Waco failed in his duty when he would not respond to a call for help from a member of the Branch Davidian Church, requesting that his do his duty, that duty being to defend citizens of the State of Texas from marauding Federal agents. Had the sheriff done his duty, he would have taken his men to the site and ordered Federal agents off the property and out of the State of Texas, where they had no jurisdiction. Unfortunately, the sheriff, either our of ignorance of the Constitution or in fear of his own safety, did not interdict the armed and dangerous Federal agents, as he was bound to do by the Constitution. 

Under the Constitution of the United States, the responsibility for the protection of "life, liberty and property" belongs to the States and not to the Federal Government. The Emma Goldman case settled that forever. (The perpetrator was tried in a State court and executed by the State for the murder of President McKinley, although the murder of a President was, and still is a Federal crime.) The 14th Amendment, even though unratified did not try to shift responsibility for police protection from the States to the Federal Government. So what we had at Waco was an unauthorized attack on a religious community compounded by the abject failure of the sheriff to protect the citizens of the State of Texas against unlawful, illegal assault by Federal agents. 

In consequence, the Branch Davidian citizens of the State of Texas were unlawfully, illegally and with malice aforethought, deprived of life, liberty and property, without due process, and denied a trial by jury, while the sheriff of Waco, responsible for administering State law, stood by and did nothing to stop these attacks. Charges for failing to carry out his duties should be brought against  the sheriff of Waco. The immunity clause of Article IV, Part I was grossly violated: "The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all of the privileges and immunities of citizens in the Several States." 

The Federal Government under the Constitution of the United States has no power to rule on what is a church and what is a cult. The power of the Federal Government to decide what is a cult and what is a religion is the power to DESTROY ALL RELIGIONS as the Socialists would prefer, and which is their ultimate aim. The 1 st Amendment to the Constitution DOES NOT give this power nor is the power delegated to Congress. Instead, what we had was public opinion made by the media, with the repetition for days on end that the Branch Davidian Church was a "cult" as if that was enough legal sanction for the Federal agents to storm the church buildings. 

Waco was not the first time that the Federal Government has interfered in religious matters, and most certainly, won't be the last. In pages 11995-2209 of the Congressional Record, Senate, Feb. 16, 1882, we read with horror how the government tried to stop some Mormons from voting. On page 1197 we read part of the debate. "...That right (to vote) belonged to the American civilization and law long before the Constitution was adopted. It is like the right of bearing arms, like many other rights that might be mentioned here, which existed in behalf of the citizens in colonial times in every State; and the provisions which were introduced in the Constitution by way of amendment, as well as in the original instrument, which stand for the protection of these rights, were mere guarantees of an existing right and were not the creators of the right itself." 

The Mormons were regarded then as the Branch Davidian church was regarded by the Federal Government. In 1882, the Senate tried to pass a bill that would have appointed a commission of five people to act as judge and jury over the Mormons and stop them from voting. Apart from anything else, this was a violation of the bill of attainder. On page 1200 of pages 1195-1209, Senator Vest made the following statement: 

"...For example, no one can presume, we will contend that Congress can make any law in a Territory, respecting the establishment of a religion, or the free exercise of, or abridge freedom of the press, or the right of the people of the Territory peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for redress of grievances. Nor can Congress deny to the people the right to bear arms, nor the right to a trial by jury, nor compel anyone to be a witness against himself in a criminal proceeding. These powers, and other in relation to the rights of persons, which it is not necessary here to enumerate, are, in express and positive terms denied in the general Government; and the rights of private property have been guarded with equal care." 

Upon examination the foregoing statement of fact regarding the protection afforded by the Constitution and its Bill of Rights, we are struck with horror of  the Waco situation; The Branch Davidians were not given any protection guaranteed by the Constitution. The powers of police protection were abandoned by the Sheriff of Waco, the Federal Government attacked the members of the Branch Davidian Church, wantonly, savagely and barbarously took their lives, and utterly destroyed their property in defiance of their "rights to private property being guarded with equal care." We can see how far we have regressed since 1882, when the bill to stop the Mormons from voting was defeated.

Why were the Branch Davidians denied every single one of their rights? Why were they treated as an enemy trying to invade our shores would have been treated; with military equipment, helicopters, tanks, bulldozers, and finally, with fire that destroyed them all? Were their rights to a jury trial upheld, if, indeed the Federal Government had any legitimate charge against them before their agents went into church property with guns drawn? 

All that has happened, is that the perpetrators of the crimes say, almost blithely, that they take responsibility for the barbarous acts of their servants! What we saw at the brutal massacre at Waco was Socialism/Communism in action. The religion preached by David Koresh may one day have been accepted as an established religion, like Mary Baker Eddy's Christian Science and the Mormons are accepted religions today. These religions might, in their beginnings, have been classed as "a cult," though the word did not have the same connotation then, which it has now. But the Federal Socialist Government was afraid that is what might happen with Koresh, as it had happened with Mary Baker Eddy, so they went in and nipped it in the bud. 

Socialism is determined to control religion, and nowhere is this more evident that in their so-called "Fellowship of Faiths." Wars have not been able to rid the world of religion; the Bolsheviks took the lives of 60 million Russian people, the vast majority of whom were Christians. They turned Christian churches into houses of prostitution, stripped them of valuable art, and sold their plunder through the offices of such traitors as Armand Hammer. Christians have been persecuted and killed in terrible massacres, beginning with the Romans and continuing to this day, as we witnessed at Waco. 

The Socialists, having realized that they cannot destroy religion by killing its believers and followers, took to trying to control it. They formed the spurious One World Government "Fellowship of Faiths" as a vehicle for taking control of all religions. In tandem with religious control, we are supposed to believe that Communism is dead and that it will soon be archaic. This is not so, Communism will never change. It may do so on the surface, but at the core, there will be little change. What will change is Socialism, as it gains more power and then, when it has taken full control of the world, it will reintroduce Communism as the taskmaster of the peoples of the earth. 

Where does the Fellowship of Faiths fit in the scenario? How can it affect  political events in a profound manner as is expected of it, and anticipated by its founders? The task of the unification of religion, that is to say, "standardizing" it, fell to Socialist Kedarnath Das Gupta, an executive member of the War Resisters League, and an advocate of armed revolution against our republic. Although dreamed up in 1910, the first formal session of the Fellowship was held in Chicago in 1933. Its true nature was exposed by Sir Rabindranath Tagore, founder of a pro-Communist political movement in India. 

Bishop Montgomery Brown, the keynote speaker of the first FF seminar, said, "there will exist a complete World Fellowship of Faiths only when the Gods are banished from the skies and capitalists from earth." Clearly, the Fellowship was a Socialist enterprise from its inception. Sir Rabindranath, in his written and spoken words, stressed the need for sex education in very young children, We tend to think of sex education for the young as a curse only recently descended upon us, but it actually goes back as far as the priests of Baal and the Egyptian priesthood of Osiris. 

It would have been surprising to find Christian ministers and leaders actually accepting the idea of standardized religion and working with the haters of Christianity, were it not for the very same thing happening in the 1980s-1990s. In 1910, the World Friendship of Faiths was being promoted by Sir Francis Younghusband who pointed out that the idea of an East-West union of religions should be brought about. Sir Francis did not say the originator of the idea, Das Gupta, was a rabid Communist, seeking to promote that vile doctrine. Sir Francis gave the history of "standardized" religion as follows:

 "The idea occurred to Mr. Das Gupta and he worked for 25 years on it and latterly found a cordial co-operator in an American, Mr. Charles F. Weller...In America a Parliament of Religion assembled in 1893. In Paris in 1904 commenced a series of sessions of the International Congress of the History of Religions. Other sessions were held in Basle, Oxford and Leiden." (All centers for "standardizing" religion and the promoters today of the Marxist doctrine of Liberation Theology.) 

"In London in 1924, a Conference of the Living Religions of the Empire (the British Empire) was held. In 1913 in Chicago, continued in 1934 in New York, a Congress World Fellowship of Faiths, convened under the presidency of the Honorable Herbert Hoover and Miss Jane Addams." The presence of Miss Addams at these proceedings was a tip-off that here was rabid Socialism at work under the guise of religion. Miss Addams' history is given in the chapters on Socialist women. The idea was to submerge Christianity in a flood tide of other religions. But Christianity cannot be "standardized," it is unique and stands alone. Its teachings are the basis of capitalism which have since been replaced by Babylonialism, and today, capitalism has been so prostituted and debased as to be unrecognizable as the original system.

Without Christianity, the world will be plunged into a New Dark Age, far worse than anything that has gone before. This should help to explain why the detractors of Christianity are so eager to destroy it, or at least control it, so that it might be watered down, diluted, rendered useless. The Fellowship of Faiths sought to merge Christianity with other religions and so cause the loss of it as unique identity. The idea of a "separation of church and state doctrine" is the work of Socialists inside the United States Government. What it ought to be called, is, THE SUPPRESSION OF CHRISTIANITY WITHIN THE STATE. 

Joining the enterprise of "standardizing" religion were Keith Hardie, a Socialist member of the British Labour Party, Felix Adler, founder of the Leftwing Ethical, Culture Society of New York, H.G. Wells, the noted Socialist author, who represented Lord Bertrand Russell. Wells was a member of the secret Masonic society Kibbo Kift Kindred, "Clarte," which had its headquarters in the Grand Orient Nine Sisters Lodge in Paris, the Lodge that played a leading role in the bloody French Revolution. 

Moses Hess, an unabashed revolutionary Communist in the world at the time, joined with Wells in support of the Society for Cultural Relations with Soviet Russia. It was inside the confines of the Nine Sisters Lodge that Wells made a statement that was to brand him as a hater of Christianity: "Henceforth the new world government will not brook the competition of rival religious systems. It will have no place for Christianity. There must henceforth be only one faith in the world, the moral expression of the world community." 

Annie Besant, a notable member of the Fabian Society, stepped forward to add her name to the list of those who opposed Christianity. Besant was the spiritual successor to Madame Blavatsky, founder of the Theosophy Society and a friend of H.G. Wells. Mr. Charles Wells of the Capitalist-Communist Alliance was a millionaire in his own right at a period in history where the term "millionaire" really meant something. 

The task of organizing an American chapter of the Fellowship of Faiths was given to Weller, who quickly received the blessing of Samuel Untermeyer, a leading World Zionist and confidant of President Wilson, who immediately endorsed it after it was presented to him in the Oval Office. As Mr. Samuel Landman of the New York Zionists said, "Mr. Woodrow Wilson, for good and sufficient reasons, always attached the greatest importance to the advice of a very prominent Zionist." 

The "good and sufficient reasons" referred to by Mr. Landmann was a packet of love letters written by Wilson to a Mrs. Peck, who in exchange for help promised by Untermeyer to get her son out of a criminal corner, handed the bundle of letters tied with a pink ribbon, either to Untermeyer, or Baruch. Wilson had a great passion for affairs with married ladies, the Peck romance being a particularly long-lasting and torrid one. Foolishly, Wilson conveyed his lovelorn feelings  to Mrs. Peck — in writing. It was this indiscretion which is cited as the method used to blackmail Wilson to commit the United States to WWI, which buried the flower of Christian American manhood in the fields of Flanders, and all-but bankrupted this nation. Later, the support of the League of Neighbors, a Socialist "church" front, given to Wilson, almost carried the day for the League of Nations. 

Chairman of the Provincial Executive Committee for General Zionist Affairs, Justice Brandeis, was succeeded by Rabbi Stephen Wise, who happened to be a member of the pro-Socialist Emergency Peace Federation front as well as nineteen other fronts. Brandeis was also a member of the London Fabian Society. Many of the old "religious Socialist" organizations are still in existence today, although they have changed their names to move with changing times and circumstances. 

Upton Sinclair, rabid Socialist turned author who wrote for the "New Encyclopedia of Social Reform" and was a founder member of the American Fabian League, strongly supported the Fellowship of Faiths. Sinclair consistently gave Christianity a minus during his entire career. What neither Sinclair, Wise, Addams, nor indeed, many of the Fellowship's supporters told the public, was that it was a Freemason-inspired movement, through and through. In 1926 the Fellowship of Faiths was a well-established friend of world revolution, dominated by Rosicrucianism on the executive board and committee memberships. 

The Threefold Movement started in 1924 by Charles Weller and Das Guptas, held meetings all over the United States and Britain. By 1925 they had held 325 such meetings. Among the leaders of the Threefold Movement were M.S. Malik, a member of the Beni-Israel sect; Dr. A.D. Jilla representing the Parsees; M.A. Dard, representing Mohammedanism; Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (of Sherlock Holmes fame) representing Spiritualism (note: this was the first time it was held out to be a religion), Buddhism, represented by Anagarika Dharmapala: Theosophy represented by Annie Besant. The important point to bear in mind in all of this is that all of these religions were, and are, essentially anti-Christian. Another point is that Fellowship of Faiths literature was sold in Communist bookstores all over Britain, Western Europe and the United States. 

The First World Congress of the Fellowship of Faiths was opened in Chicago in 1933, hosted by Miss Jane Addams. One of the principal speakers was Bishop Montgomery Brown, National Chairman of the Communist Workers Relief, and a member of fifty other Communist front organizations. In his opening address, Brown said: 

'There is one place on earth where they have dared to end exploitation of man — Russia! In Russia, science has replaced religion which is being stamped out...The USSR is the forerunner of International Communism which will gradually absorb all the capitalist states which are gradually decaying away. If any government, church or institution opposes or stands in the way of this Communist  State, they must be ruthlessly overthrown and destroyed. If world unity is to be attained, it must be arrived at through international Communism, which can only be attained through the slogan: 'Banish Gods from the skies and capitalists from the earth.' Then, and then only, will there exist a complete World Fellowship of Faiths." 

Weller and Brown were effusive in their praise of Bishop Brown, Das Gupta stating, "I am sure that others feel as I do, that they have the same beliefs as Bishop Brown, but have not had the courage to speak out and admit it. I want to say that I am thoroughly in agreement with the Bishop's sentiments." Brown wrote a number of works, including one entitled, 'Teachings of Marx for Boys and Girls," plus seventeen short books on sex for children which were widely distributed. A survey conducted by the authorities found that all those who were part of the structure and membership of the Fellowship of Faiths were also Freemasons. 162s

The Freemasons established a front to cover their activities at the League of Nations conference in Paris, the organization being called The League of Nations Union. It played a profound role in the deliberations that went on at the Paris Peace Conference which virtually ensured that there would be another world war. As Sir Francis Younghusband said, "We are here to provide a firm spiritual basis for the League of Nations." We can best judge what KIND of a spiritual basis was provided, by simply studying the structure of the United Nations, the League's successor. It is in the confines of the United Nations and its religious executive arm, the World Council of Churches (WCC) that a revival of the Fellowship of Faiths is taking place. 

We, in the United States and the West in general, cannot afford to turn a blind eye to this revival. Either we believe that the Christian religion is the basis of the Constitution of the United States, and stand on that, or we shall perish. "Tolerance," "understanding," must not be allowed to blindside us to the truth, and unless we make a stand now, it may well be too late tomorrow. That is how serious the situation has become for the future of the Nation. Either Christianity is the true religion as Jesus Christ has stated, or it is totally without substance. "Tolerance" and "understanding" cannot be allowed to obscure this important principle. 

Christianity brought to the world a perfect economic system that has been deliberately prostituted, so that today, it is virtually unrecognizable. The Socialists/Marxists/Communists would have us believe that their system is superior, but when we look at the countries they have controlled — Russia, Britain, Sweden, we see ruination and misery on a grand scale. The Socialists strive mightily to bring their system to bear, which will lead to slavery. Religion is one of the most important areas that they have penetrated, and therefore, the more dangerous. This is not just a religious issue, but also a matter of survival of the  based upon the laws of God, which include immutable political and economic laws, and not a matter of "democracy" based upon the laws of man. We need to bear this in mind: Every pure democracy in the history of the world has failed. [Christianity has nothing to do with an economic system, nor did Christ say anything about establishing a religion, Christ's focus was on the person, not the group , Christ can only be found by the individual, Christ can gather His, but as a group they cannot come to Christ DC]

It is important to link these things together, particularly, as I discovered that the Fellowship of Faiths members voted en-bloc for the Socialist ticket in the 1932 elections in which Roosevelt, their Socialist idol, was successful. This was particularly true in both New York and Chicago. The anti-Christian crusade will pick up steam as the big lie spreads around the world that Communism is dead. While it is true that Communism is lying low, SOCIALISM is rampant, particularly in the United States, where our churches have been thoroughly penetrated and permeated by Socialist change agents. To accept the One World Government — New World Order Fellowship of Faiths, we would have to sacrifice Christianity. 

A most serious revolution is taking place in the United States. The Weishaupt revolution against the Christian Church has reached new levels of bestiality with the promotion of homosexuality and lesbianism, "free love" (abortion) and a general lowering of the moral standards of the Nation. One of the principal leaders in this revolution is the World Council of Churches (WCC), the religious arm of the United Nations. WCC activities have resulted in far-reaching changes in the political, religious and economic life of the Nation. The WCC has always known that religion does not stop at the portals of the church. 

The Federal Council of Churches (FCC), forerunner of the WCC, had as its plank, penetration and permeate civil government, particularly in the field of education and labor relations. Mark Starr, the British Socialist appointed by Roosevelt to a number of government posts, was used by the FCC to visit factories and distribute the Fabian Society's publication, "What the Church Thinks of Labor," a thoroughly Marxists diatribe against capitalism. The FCC was run on radical Socialist lines according to the methods laid down by Sydney and Beatrice Webb, its founders, and its membership of the Third International shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that the FCC/WCC was, and is, anti-Christian. [see what I have underlined and bolded above? when I finish part 4 of the Black Pope, you will understand who it is that really wants to undermine civil government DC]

The FCC/WCC were run by pagans for pagans as its past history reveals, and as we see it today. One such pagan was Walter Rauschenbach who visited with Sydney and Beatrice Webb and then took their ideas, plus what he had learned from reading Marx, Mazzini and Edward Bellamy, to the Second Baptist Church in New York. Instead of the Gospel of Christ, Rauschenbach preached the gospel of Socialism according to Marx, Engels, Ruskin and the Freemasonic-Socialism of Mazzini. 

The FCC/WCC claimed a membership of twenty million, but research proves that its membership was and still is, considerably less. As to the financial support the FCC received and the WCC receives today, research shows that it came from many pro-Communist organizations like the Laura Spellman Fund, the Carnegie Endowment Fund and the Rockefeller Brothers Foundation. 

The FCC set the stage for the plague of homosexuality and lesbianism, not to mention "free love" without responsibility (abortion) that has descended upon the Nation. The FCC was, and the WCC is, the staunchest supporters of homosexuality and lesbianism, and were strongly supportive of so-called "constitutional" protection for these groups. Homosexuality is not mentioned as a "right" any where in the Constitution of the United States, and is, therefore a prohibition. "Homosexual rights" are a figment of the overripe minds of Socialist legislators and certain Supreme Court Justices. 

In this the WCC was backed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), who tried to twist and squeeze the Constitution to create non-existent "rights" for those who chose the homosexual way of life. As we shall see in the chapters on law, courts, and the Congress, anyone of standing who protested the acceptance of these non existent "rights," soon found themselves in trouble. 

The Fellowship of Faiths was formed for consolidating opinions on religious matters colored with Socialism gathered from around the world One of its strongholds is the Bahai movement. Bahaism was started in Persia in 1844 (today known as Iran), by Mirza Ali Muhammad, also known as "Rab" or "Gate." Unfortunately for "Rab" he was killed by security forces in Tabriz. Bahaism teaches that Zoroaster, Buddha, Confucius and Jesus Christ were leaders who prepared the way for the coming of the Mighty World Educator, Baha u'lla (the Glory of God), whose forerunner, Abdul Baha, died in 1921. 

The Bahai movement is very strong in Iran and Australia, and to a lesser extent, England. Since Freemasonry and Theosophy are virtually indistinguishable from each other, and carry elements found in the Bahai faith, it is no wonder that the Bahai religion spread so quickly. Madame Petrova Blavatsky, Co-Mason, Vice President of the Supreme Council and Grand Master of the Supreme Council for Great Britain, creator of Theosophy, greatly favored the Bahai movement which is a convergence of these three streams. 

What happened to the Fellowship of Faiths? Shortly before WWI it almost merged with World Zionism and then emerged in the League of Nations. Then, just before WWII, it emerged as the Bahai movement in England, and in England formed itself into the Oxford Group, which was succeeded by Moral Rearmament. Following the close of WWII, it played a key role in the formation of the United Nations (UN) and penetrated the heart of American political life through such outright Socialists organizations as the following: 

American Association of University Professors 

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) 

Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) 

Committee for Economic Development Hull 

House (center for radical feminism) 

National Council of Women 

The League of Industrial Democracy 

Social Democrats USA 

Institute for Policy Studies 

NATO, political wing 

Club of Rome 

The Cini Foundation 

Cambridge Policy Studies Institute 

Committee for a Democratic Majority 

Lucius Trust 

New Democratic Coalition 

War Resisters League 

Aspen Institute 

Stanford Research 

National Organization for Women 

The Fellowship of Faiths is an "Olympian" (Committee of 300) project. This ensures that the richest and most powerful people in the world will promote its aims, as we saw in the "Class Reunion" of Fellowship of Faiths held in Chicago in 1993. The American people will have to choose between letting Christian principles go to the wall, or risk a world revolution. This was suggested by Mikhail Gorbachev when he met with Pope John Paul II. Gorbachev suggested a "convergence of religious ideals" which would be the first step toward a revived Fellowship of Faiths in its original name. [what have I been saying about frannie?He is going to throw the church under the bus, and remix it, supposedly undoing the reformation started by Luther, don't believe? just keep watching. DC]

But Pope John Paul II reminded him, "Christianity brought into this continent by the Apostles, penetrated into various parts by the actions of Benedict, Cyril, Methuselah, Adalbert, and countless hosts of Saints, is at the very root of European culture." The Pope was not talking about any other religion having bestowed the benefits of civilization upon Europe: He was talking about Christianity. He did not say the growth of a great European culture was due to the Cathars or Albigensians; it was Christianity alone, he said, that brought civilization to Europe. [JP II was a poser, and could not speak for Christianity, they ought not to have murdered the man of God before him, the clock started when they did. DC]

This is at the root of the hatred felt toward Christianity by the Communist/Marxist/Socialists, who greatly fear that the unifying force of Christianity will be the stumbling block over which their One World Government — New World Order will trip and fall. This is why the Socialist drive to negate and eventually wipe out Christianity, is a matter of urgent necessity. Lord Bertrand Russell's order to Socialism either to take over religion or destroy it, is the basis for Socialism's world-wide drive to penetrate and permeate the Christian religion in particular, and, in the manner of Weishaupt, bore away from the inside,  until there is nothing left but a hollowed-out fragile structure to be collapsed by a few strategic blows when the time is right. 

The most successful model of this tactic is found in South Africa, where a so called church leader, the Reverend Heyns bored away from inside the Dutch Reformed Church, while a so-called Anglican "bishop," Desmond Tutu, launched a frontal assault on the Anglican Church. Aided by Freemasons in high posts inside the South African Government,, who were willing to commit treason against their people, South Africa was brought down and forced under Communist rule in the person of Joe Slovo, a former colonel in the KGB who uses Nelson Mandela as a front-man puppet. The old saying, "beware of Greeks bearing gifts" can be modified: "Beware of priests and clergymen bearing false, fraudulent Socialist promises." The successful use of religion to bring Socialism into power has been amply demonstrated in Nicaragua, Peru, the Philippines, Rhodesia, South Africa. The United States is next. 

8 

PLANNED DESTRUCTION OF THE UNITED STATES THROUGH FREE TRADE 

No bigger a Trojan Horse sits inside our Republic than "free trade." Elsewhere, we have often referred to it in passing. In this section we would like to fill in some of the details of this monstrous scheme to bring about the destruction of the United States, a long-held cherished dream of the Fabian Socialist in England and their converts in the country. Socialist destruction of our Republic is carried out on many fronts, but none so venomous, seditious, surreptitious and treasonous as so-called "free trade." [You are about to find out why Trump got us out of these treaties DC]

Any person who believes in "free trade" needs to be deprogrammed and freed from Socialist propaganda-brainwashing. Go back to the beginning of this nation: Clause 1 of Section 8, Article 1, "To collect taxes, duties, imports and excises. To pay debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States, but all duties, imports and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States." Governor Morris wrote Section 8 and it is interesting to note that he implied that duties are related to paying the bills of the country. There is no mention of graduated income taxes here for that purpose. 

The Socialists came along with their treasonous schemes and tried to nullify and repeal this section of the Constitution through the unratified, ultra-vires so called 16th Amendment to the United States Constitution. They knew that Clause 1 of Section 8, Article I in the Constitution was to prevent the British from inflicting "free trade" on the Colonists. If we read the Annals of Congress and Congressional Globes of the late 1700s and early 1800s, it will quickly be impressed upon us that one of the principal causes of the American Revolution was an attempt by the British East India Company (BEIC) to impose Adam Smith's "free trade" on the colonies. 

What is "free trade?" Why, it is just a euphemism for stripping and plundering the American people of their wealth in violation of the United States Constitution. It is the old shell game, brought up to date! "Free trade" was the shell game that the British East India Company (BEIC) used to deprive the American colonists of their wealth, disguising their cut-purse tactics with nice sounding economic phrases, in themselves, meaningless. 

The Founding Fathers did not have the benefit of first hand experience to warn them of the "free trade" wars that would descend on the colonies, but they had the perspicacity and foresight to know that if allowed, "free trade" would wreck the young nation. It was for this reason that President George Washington, having witnessed the terrible devastation wrought in France for the cause of "free trade" and dubbed the "French Revolution," in 1789 declared that it was necessary and proper for the young Republic to protect itself from the machinations of the British government: 

"A free people should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent on others for essential particularly military supplies." — George Washington, First Congress of the United States, 1789. 

The Founding Fathers saw from the very beginning that protection of our trade was paramount, and made it virtually the first order of business. No nation which is serious about its sovereignty and protecting the welfare of its people, would allow "free trade." As Joseph Chamberlain said, in his Preface to "The Case Against Free Trade" in 1911: 

"Free trade is the negation of organization, of settled and consistent policy. It is a triumph of chance, the disordered and selfish competition of immediate individual interests without regard to the permanent welfare as a whole." 

Alexander Hamilton and the Founding Fathers understood that the nation would have to protect its internal market if it wanted to remain sovereign and independent. That was what made America great in the first place: the explosion of industrial progress in the nation, independent of any outside "global trade." Washington and Hamilton knew that to surrender our internal markets to the world would be tantamount to foregoing our national sovereignty. 

Socialists know the importance of getting rid of the protective trade barriers of independent nations, as opposed to only now and then breaching them, and they waited their chance to elect Woodrow Wilson for that purpose. As the new President, Wilson's first order of business was to take active measures to smash the tariff barriers erected by Washington and then enlarged and kept in place by Lincoln, Garfield and McKinley. 

As we saw earlier, the first order of business of the Fabian Socialist who put President Woodrow Wilson in power was to break down the trade barriers and protective tariffs that had made the United States a great nation in a relatively short time, relative, that is, to the age of older European powers. The NAFT Agreement and GATT take up where Wilson and Roosevelt left off. Both agreements violate the Constitution of the United States and are the work of The Fabian Society and their American cousins. 

The North American Free Trade Agreement is project of the Committee of 300 and a natural extension of the war on American industry and agriculture as set out in the Club of Rome's 1969 Post Industrial Zero Growth position papers overseen by Cyrus Vance and a team of One World Government-New World Order scientists. Breaking down the trade barriers erected by Washington, Lincoln, Garfield and McKinley was long a cherished goal of the Fabian Society. NAFTA is their concoction, their big chance to open the markets of the United States to one-way "free trade'' and through it, deal a mortal blow to the American middle class. 

NAFTA is another triumph for Florence Kelley in that it gets around the Constitution by legislative action. As Judge Cooley said in his work on Constitutional law, page 35: "The constitution itself never yields to a treaty or enactment. It neither changes with time nor does it bend to the force of circumstances." Therefore, neither NAFTA nor any other treaty can change the Constitution. NAFTA is nothing but a crooked, lying, sneaky Lowdown scheme to circumvent the Constitution, also an accurate description of GATT. 

The first known "free trade" attack on the United States came in 1769 when the Townsend Act was invented by Adam Smith to squeeze revenues out of the American colonies. The NAFTA agreement is designed to squeeze more out of the American worker, or if the workers are unwilling, the work giver will relocate abroad where wages and life are generally cheaper. In essence, NAFTA has a lot in common with the struggle of the colonists in the period 1769-1776. Tragically, in later years several presidents moved away from trade policies that protected American industry and made the United States the greatest industrialized nation in the world. 

Globalism played no part in making America great. Globalism is a catchword of the Madison Avenue media brainwashers to disguise the fact that the so-called global economy touted by Wilson, Roosevelt, Bush and Clinton will eventually reduce America's living standards to that of Third World countries. Here we have a classic case where through Socialism, Americans are fighting again the American Revolution of 1776 to set the nation free of the toils of the fraud that is called NAFTA, with an even bigger fraud called GATT waiting to march onto the battlefield. 

In 1992, Bush eagerly picked up the NAFTA ball and began to run with it. Canada was used as a measuring stick to see how well NAFTA would sit with the Canadian people. In this Bush was ably assisted by former prime minister Brian Mulroney. The purpose of NAFTA is to destroy the industrial and agricultural bases of both countries and thereby bring down the middle class. The Post Industrial plans of the Committee of 300 have not progressed fast enough. The situation is rather akin to that which Bertrand Russell described in his desire to kill off millions of "useless eaters." Russell's plan called for a return of the black plague to rid the world of what he called, "excess population." 

NAFTA represents a high point in the realignment of transnational policies and the reeducation of those future leaders of American industry and trade who are just now graduating from our institutions of learning. NAFTA may be compared with the Congress of Vienna (1814-1815) which was dominated by Prince Klemmens von Metternich. It will be recalled that Metternich played a leading role in European affairs. He was responsible for the marriage of Arch duchess Marie Louise to Napoleon, which shaped political and economic events in Europe for at least 100 years. Clinton has in essence, "married" the United States to "free trade," which will likewise have a tremendous effect upon this nation for more than 1,000 years. 

The Congress of Vienna was marked by lavish parties and glittering events, with an array of dazzling gifts for those who were willing to cooperate with Metternich instead of fighting for the best interests of their country. Similar tactics were used to force NAFTA through the House and Senate, and in the manner of the decision-making debates held behind closed doors in Vienna (the four major powers never allowed the smaller nations to participate) every agreement, every decision of note concerning NAFTA was done in secret, behind closed doors. NAFTA will have a profound deleterious effect upon the United States, the extent and depth of which we have yet to realize. 

NAFTA is the turning point in the history of North America, a watershed for the American and Canadian middle class. When combined with EC countries, phase two of the Socialist strategy to take complete of control of trade will have been completed. NAFTA will result in an income of $100 billion for Mexico; it will devastate the American economy through a great decline in its industrial base. A loss of 100,000 American jobs is expected to occur within the first two years of NAFTA being fully implemented, which will send the middle class standard of living plummeting in a manner never before experienced. Pollution will be reexported to the United States through products and food from Mexico. 

Foodstuffs from Mexico will contain levels of toxic poisons of all kinds which are forbidden by USDA regulations covering American products. Taking all things into account, the amount of money spent on NAFTA lobbying was close to $150 million. NAFTA lobbying was the most concentrated in the history of the United States, involving a veritable army of specialists and lawyers who overwhelmed the House to vote in favor of the so-called agreement. 

The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) is an instrument designed in the United States, based upon Fabian Socialist principles. I don't recall when last something was as little understood by the lawmakers than is this insidious agreement. I contacted scores of legislators, and without exception, not  one of them could provide me with an explanation, nor give me facts for which I was searching. GATT was put together at the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, held in Cuba, on March 24, 1948. The conference delegates advanced the cause of Adam Smith's "free trade" which they said, would make the world a better place for the ordinary people. While the title, GATT was to come later, the groundwork for this Socialist fraud was laid in Cuba in 1948. 

When the agreement reached in Cuba was presented to the House and Senate, it was passed, for the simple reason that it was not understood. Generally, when the House and Senate do not understand a measure before them, the measure gets passed as quickly as possible. This is what happened in the case of the Federal Reserve Act, the United Nations Treaty, the Panama Canal Treaty and NAFTA. 

By voting in favor of the NAFTA, the House transferred United States sovereignty to the One World Government in Geneva, Switzerland. This seditious act had a precedent. In 1948, a Republican-dominated House and Senate passed the Trade Agreement Act which arose from the United Nations meeting in Cuba. Hitherto, the Republican Party had held itself out to be the protector of American industry and American jobs, but it turned out to be as false as the Democrat position, and in favor of Adam Smith's Socialist "free trade." A great blow was struck against American industry and trade by the Fabian Socialists in Britain and their American cousins in the United States. The fact that the Trade Agreement Act was 100 percent unconstitutional, and yet it passed, was a cause of sweet satisfaction for the Fabian Society. 

By 1962, President John F. Kennedy was calling the sell-out of the American people, "a wholly new approach, a bold new instrument of American trade policy." In his fatally-flawed assessment of where the Fabian Socialists were taking the American people, Kennedy had been fully supported by labor leader George Meaney at the AFL — CIO convention in Florida earlier that year. Congress dutifully passed the legislation, seemingly oblivious of its unconstitutionality. 

It was unconstitutional because it gave to the president powers that belonged to Congress, powers that could not be transferred between the three branches of government. The Kennedy administration immediately instituted sweeping tariff cuts, some by as much as 50 percent on a broad range of imported goods. We saw the same unconstitutional actions by Bush and Clinton with NAFTA. Both presidents got unconstitutionally involved in the legislative branch. Bribery may have also been a factor. This is treason. 

As the United States entered the twentieth century, the country was on the road to success as no other country had been before it, dating back to antiquity. But the despoilers, the Socialists and their close cousins, the Communists, were lying in wait for America. The United States was built on a solid foundation of protectionism, sound money; there was a rapidly growing industrial base, and thanks to mechanization, agriculture was set to feed our people for centuries to come, no matter what the increase in population might be. 

The trade protection measure, the Tariff Act of 1864, which Lincoln signed, increased Customs duties by more than 47 percent. In 1861 Customs receipts brought in 95 percent of the total revenues of the United States. Lincoln, with war on his hands was determined to reinforce the traditional tariff protection and protect it at all costs. His actions on tariff protection, more than anything else, set the United States on the road to two decades of progress in industry, agriculture and commerce, progress that stunned England and made the United States an object of envy — and hatred. There is no doubt that the plot to assassinate Lincoln involved Benjamin Disraeli, England's prime minister and that the decision to murder Lincoln was taken in England because of the president's resolute stand against lowering tariffs on goods from that country. 

The United States is in a war to the death. This is not recognized, because there are no big drums of patriotism being banged; no flags flying high, no military parades, and perhaps the key to it all, the jackals of the press are playing "free trade" up as a benefit, not as the mortal enemy of the United States. It is a war on many fronts; just about the entire world is lined up against the United States. It is a war that we are fast losing, thanks to skillfully laid plans of the Committee of 300 given to the Socialists to carry out. Lincoln was one of the first casualties of the trade war. 

In 1873, the merchant bankers and City of London financiers combined with their allies on Wall Street to contrive a panic that was due entirely to artificially created causes. The prolonged depression that followed, badly hurt agriculture, as was the intention of our enemies. Most historian agree that the 1872 anti-United States action was taken to weaken protectionism. The way for yellow journalism to blame protectionism for the depression was opened and has never closed. Thanks to the scurrilous lies that appeared in the press, farmers were led to believe that their problems were caused by trade barriers stopping the flow of "free trade." 

Agents of the City of London and Wall Street, aided by the already then kept press, began pounding the pavement of public opinion, and in response to pressure from an ill-informed public, in 1872, a breach in the United States tariff barrier was opened. Custom duties were reduced by 10 percent on a broad range of imported items and by 50 percent, on salt and coal. As any economist knows, and as any properly-taught high school graduate would know, once this happens, it soon follows that manufacturing activity will begin to decline as investors stop investing in real wealth — industrial plants, agricultural implements, machine tools. 

But the invaders were partially repelled by the 1900s, and damage was confined to a breach in our redoubt, with the enemy forces unable to beak out into the hinterland. Then came Wilson and the first massive, major assault carried out by anti-tariff protection troops who not only smashed our redoubts, but put the Philistines right in the middle of our camp. 

When President Roosevelt came to the White House, the second major assault against our tariff walls was launched. Wilson had paved the way for Roosevelt, and was greatly successful in opening up a breach that led to the highway to the hinterland. Although Wilson did a great deal of damage, which was enlarged by Roosevelt, too much of the tariff wall still remained in place for the liking of Fabian Socialists, Ramsey McDonald, Gunnar Myrdal, Miss Jane Addams, Dean Acheson, Chester Bowles, William C. Bullitt, Stuart Chase, J. Kenneth Galbraith, John Maynard Keynes, Professor Harold Laski, Walter Lippmann, W. Averill Harriman, Senator Jacob Javitts, Florence Kelley and Trances Perkins. 

When George Bush was appointed by the CFR to sit in the Oval Office, he tackled his One World — New World Order assignment with energy and enthusiasm, making the NAFTA agreement one of his first priorities. But did Wilson, Roosevelt and Bush have the right to negotiate treaties covering trade matters on their own without, the advise and consent process of the Constitution being observed? Obviously not. 

Let us then examine the Constitution and see what it has to say on this vital issue: Article VI, Section 2 "...This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or shall be made, under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land..." The words, "This Constitution and the laws of the United States", says that a treaty is only a law. Law of the Land" relates to the Magna Carta, "and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or the laws of any State to the contrary no withstanding." 

The word "supreme" in part 2 is NOT "supreme" but ordinary law. To grasp this fully, one has to know the United States Constitution and the historical background that goes with it, which can be found only in the Annals of Congress, the Congressional Globes and the Congressional Records. A full and proper studies of these documents is a prerequisite for understanding what a treaty is. Unfortunately, our legislators never bother to educate themselves through a study of these marvelous journals. Law professors know still less about these mines of information, and therefore, frequently teach constitutional law that is very wide of the mark. It is a case of the blind leading the blind. 

"Supreme" was inserted to ensure that French, British and Spanish governments could not backtrack on agreements made over territories ceded to the United States. It was a sufficient way to prevent future governments of these countries on reneging on agreements, but, unfortunately, also caused many Americans to understand that a treaty is "supreme" law. It is impossible for a treaty to be "supreme" when it is only in pursuance thereof. "Can the offspring be greater than the parent? The United States Constitution is always SUPREME at all times and in all circumstances. Laws can never be "supreme" as they are alterable and may have been wrongly passed. The child cannot be greater than the parent. 

In spite of what Justice Ruth Ginsberg said about the constitution being flexible, the United States Constitution is not flexible, it is IMMUTABLE. We know that the First rule of any treaty is self preservation. We also know now, that in the United States ALL TREATIES WITHOUT EXCEPTION ARE ORDINARY LAWS AND CAN BE REPEALED AT ANYTIME. A treaty, any treaty, that seriously harms the United States violates the rule of self preservation and can be revoked, even if only by cutting off money to fund it. That is why treaties like the U.N., NAFTA, GATT, ABM, Panama Canal Treaty, are NULL AND VOID, and ought to be revoked by Congress; indeed, would be revoked, if Congress was not dominated by Socialists. 

Readers are urged to get a copy of "Law of Nations" by Vattel, the "Bible" used by our Founding Fathers and they will quickly become convinced that a treaty is only a law that can be changed by Congress. In fact a treaty might be described as a "precarious law" because, in essence, it is without substance. Thomas Jefferson said "to hold the treaty-making power boundless, is to make the Constitution blank paper by construction." Congressional Record, House, Feb. 26, 1900. 

In addition, the Constitution of the United States expressly forbids the transfer of powers from one branch of government to another. This happened all through the Free Trade Wars and is still going on. The slow, often unnoticed surrender of the legislative to the executive branch of government is what has sapped the strength of the defenders in the Trade Wars. Such actions are unconstitutional and tantamount to sedition and treason against the American people. 

The surrender of powers that belong exclusively to the legislative branch of government began with the Payne Aldrich Tariff Act, and the misshapen creature began to grow like the green bay tree. Although the Payne Aldrich Act did not achieve its first goal, it was more than successful in its second; the transfer of legislative powers to the executive. It gave powers to the President, forbidden to him by the constitution in that he could now control Customs duty rates on imports. The House delivered a mortal blow to the very people it was supposed to protect, and allowed "free trade" to rob our workers of their jobs, as manufacturing facilities unable to meet the cut-price, dumping policies of foreign made goods, were forced to close down. 

That treason and sedition was committed by those who accepted the Payne Aldrich Tariff Act of 1909 as "law," is today apparent in the NAFTA and GATT agreements. The United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 10 clearly placed matters of trade in the care of the House of Representatives. Section 10 strengthened control by the House over trade matters. The powers of the House were not and are not transferable! It is as simple as that. Any and all "laws," "executive orders," presidential decisions on matters of trade, international agreements, are null and void and must be wiped off the books as soon as government is returned to We, the People. We shall see the huge damage wrought by presidential usurpation of trade powers as we continue. 

The Payne Aldrich Tariff Act is typical of the way in which Fabian Socialism acts, always disguising its true intentions behind a facade of lies and more lies. As I have said before, the American people are the most lied to people in the world, and the Payne Aldrich Tariff Act was the high point of lies at the time. Put forward in the House as a tariff protection measure, the real meaning of the act was the exact opposite: it was one giant step forward for the enemies of the American people, the "free traders" and their City of London allies — or is masters a better description of their association? 

The Payne Aldrich Tariff Act ostensibly transferred powers to the executive, a transfer that could not and should not have taken place without a constitutional amendment having been passed. Since this did not happen, every trade agreement since 1909 is ultra-vires. If we had a Supreme Court that was not in the hands of the Philistines, we might have been able to turn to it for help, but cannot. 

Since the days of Brandeis and "Fixer" Fortas, the Supreme Court has become a Socialist-packed court which has no ears to hear the pleas of We, the People. With passage of the Payne Aldrich Tariff Act, the United States suffered a grave reverse in the Trade Wars, one from which it has never recovered. The Payne Aldrich measure was Socialist "gradualism" in the best traditions of that dishonest political entity. 

These sneak attacks on the people of the United States came at a time of our relative innocence. We knew little about Fabian Socialism or of its modus operandi. The book, "The Case Against Socialism: A Handbook for Conservative Speakers" is a guide to the dirty tricks Socialism uses to get its legislation passed and there is no greater dirty tricks Socialist player than President Clinton. 

The people of this great United States have been bamboozled by their leaders — beginning with Woodrow Wilson — into believing that such a thing as "tree trade" is beneficial for all nations. They will tell us that it was the brainchild of Adam Smith and that David Ricardo, the Socialist's favorite economist, refined the bounds and meaning of free trade. But it all just so much smoke and mirrors. The mythology of "free trade" is so ingrained in the minds of the American people that they believe it really is beneficial! The leadership of the nation, starting with the President on down, has grossly misled the people into this terrible trap. 

THE CASUALTIES FROM THIS WAR ARE ALREADY FAR GREATER THAN THE COMBINED TOTALS OF WWI AND WWII. Millions of  Americans lives have already been ruined. Millions live in despair as this relentless war continues to plow under our people. "Free trade" is the biggest single threat to the infrastructure of the nation — a greater threat than any nuclear attack could ever be. 

Just a few statistics: 

Seven hundred and fifty thousand American steelworkers have lost their jobs since the Committee of 300 unleashed Count Etienne Davignon on this particular battlefront in 1950. 

A million and a quarter of the best paying, stable, industrial jobs related to and relying upon steel products, were lost in consequence of the death of the steel industry. This was not because American steel workers were not good workers; in fact, given the old plants some had to work with, they did very well against unfair trade practices. But they could not compete with "free trade" imports that undersold U.S.-made products because foreign governments heavily subsidized them. Many of the foreign steel mills were even built with "Marshall Plan" money! By 1994, a total of forty million Americans had lost their jobs due to "free trade" attacks on their factories, textile mills, production plants. 

America grew to be an industrial giant and in the 1880s was leading England as the world's No. 1 industrial nation. This was entirely due to the protection provided local industry by trade barriers. When the Civil War broke out, and up to close of the nineteenth century, there were 140,000 factories producing heavy industrial goods with a work force of 1.5 million Americans, probably the best paid by far in the world at any period in Western history. 

By the 1950s, industry and agriculture had created the finest living standard for America's vast, stable, well-paid middle class, the largest of its kind to be found anywhere in the world. It had also created a vast market for its goods, an internal market that its well paid middle class in jobs with guaranteed lifelong job security supported and helped to enlarge and expand. AMERICA'S PROSPERITY AND JOB SECURITY DID NOT COME FROM GLOBAL TRADE. The United States did not need world markets to prosper and grow. This was a false bill of goods sold to the American people, first, by Wilson, and then eagerly, by Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Bush and Clinton. 

Thanks to the treason and sedition committed by these presidents and Congress, imports have steadily risen, until now, in 1994, we can barely keep our heads above the rising flood waters of cheap-labor imported goods. In the coming year (1995), we shall see casualties skyrocket as the assault by the "free traders" decimates the livelihood of millions more Americans. There is no end in sight, yet, our lawmakers continue to retreat, leaving millions upon millions of wrecked lives behind them. This, more than any other single issue, proves that the government is not serious about protecting our national sovereignty, WHICH IS THE FIRST DUTY OF ANY GOVERNMENT.

In this chapter we will only be able to examine a few of the more important treaties, charters and trade "agreements" forced upon the United States by the conniving, cheating, underhand, lying, seditious practices of British and American Socialists. We shall begin with so called "trade agreements." The constitution forbids the transfer of power from one branch of government to another branch. It is called the doctrine of separation of powers and is sacrosanct and immutable, or that is the way it was written by the Founding Fathers. It is illegal, even treasonous to transfer powers, yet we are supposed to believe it was legal for Bush to consult with Mexico and Canada and get the NAFTA agreement up and running. We are supposed to believe that, likewise, Clinton had every right to meddle in NAFTA and now, GATT. Wrong on both counts! Neither Bush nor Clinton had the right to interfere in matters of trade that properly belong to the House. 

On this count alone, NAFTA and GATT are illegal, and if we had a Supreme Court that was not making its own predilections instead of upholding the Constitution, it would be so declared. One of the most common tactics used by the "free trade" generals in attacking the United States is to blame "trade barriers" for economic hard times. This is palpably untrue. In looking back over newspaper reports in the "New York Times," the "Washington Post" and others, I found that they never, ever, gave the true picture of what a grave injury "free trade" was doing to this Nation. The incendiary Liberals never let on that the United States was being systematically bled dry from the time that Wilson mounted the first assault on our trade defenses. 

The much heralded "Marshall Plan" which is supposed to have saved Europe from ruination was in fact a "free trade" scam. The British people, tired of war criminal Winston Churchill, voted Labor Party leader Clement Attlee, Churchill's deputy Prime Minister and a Fabian Socialist elitist to succeed him. It was Attlee who succeeded Ramsey McDonald, sent "to spy out the land" for Socialism in the United States in the late 1890s. Attlee ranked in the Fabian lists of stars alongside Professor Harold Laski and Hugh Gaitskell, the latter a favorite of the Rockefellers, who chose Gaitskell to go to Austria in 1934 to see what Hitler was up to.

When Chamberlain was ousted because he refused to go along with the Committee's war plans, Attlee was waiting in the wings, and his turn came when he was called upon to replace Churchill. At that time, Britain had not yet repaid as WWI loans to the United States, as it had agreed to do in the Lausanne conference. Yet, in spite of this huge outstanding debt obligation, Britain contracted billions upon billions of dollars of debts that Roosevelt wanted to forget: "Let's forget those silly little dollar signs" said Roosevelt, while urging Lend Lease upon the Nation. 

With Labor in power in England, the elite of the Fabian Society immediately put their cherished Socialist schemes into practice nationalizing major industries and providing so-called cradle to grave social services. Of course the British treasury could not meet the huge new financial obligations thrust upon it by the Fabianists, without severely increasing taxes, so Attlee and fellow Socialist John Maynard Keynes, turned to the United States for help. The first artillery barrage on United States taxpayers came in the form of a $3.75 billion loan, which Roosevelt quickly and happily granted. 

The $3.75 billion American loan money was used to pay debts incurred by the Socialist government in their mad pursuit of unlimited Socialist spending and Socialist transfer programs. They had yet to come to grips with reality, and when Labor still didn't have enough cash in hand to meet its obligations, the Fabian Brain Trusters got together and dreamed up the Marshall Plan. 

Fittingly, the Marshall Plan was unveiled at Harvard University — that hotbed of Socialism in the United States — by Socialist General George Marshall. Cost to the United States taxpayers? A staggering $17 billion over the next five years, which went largely to European countries to fund their State-subsidized industries, so that they could dump their cheaper foreign made goods on the American market, resulting in the loss of millions of good paying, long term industrial jobs. 

This had been anticipated by the Fabian Socialist planners, who needed Woodrow Wilson to break open the gates of America's trade barriers, so that foreign-made goods could flood the United States market in the immediate post WWII years, which helped France, Poland, Hungary, and the United Kingdom stabilize their national incomes at the cost of the American worker! 

Is it possible that a government such as ours would do such a terrible thing to its own people? Not only is it possible, in reality, our government turned on its people, sending millions of them to stand in breadlines, without jobs and without hope. Our workforce was turned into a line of beggars, desperately trying to understand what had happened to their jobs, and how it had come to pass that instead of working at their old jobs, they were now standing in breadlines or begging for non-existent jobs at some or other employment office. 

The Founding Fathers must have turned over in their graves! Had they been around, they would, no doubt have wondered how the descendants of the Colonists, who had fought so hard to throw off taxes imposed by King George III (including a tea tax of one penny per pound), could now to stand back and meekly allow themselves to be taxed out of existence, and have their national income from Customs receipts dry up. They would also probably recoiled in horror from the loss of an estimated $17 billion in Lend Lease debts, which the Socialist-controlled Congress wiped off the books in order to rescue their fellow Socialists in Britain keep the One World Government — New World Order Fabian — Socialist pipe dream going. 

Earlier, we emphasized the great damage done to our industrial heartland by  the transfer of powers in matters of trade from the House to the executive branch of government. A few case histories will help reinforce our conclusions. But before getting to specifics, it is worthy of note that three United States Presidents, Lincoln, Garfield and McKinley, all staunch defenders of tariff and trade barriers, were murdered for their stand against the'"free trade" enemies of this nation. This is well known, but not so well known is the fact that Senator Russell B. Long, one of the most brilliant men ever to grace the Senate benches, was fiercely opposed by the "free traders." 

President Gerald R. Ford tried to staunch the severe wounds suffered by industry as imported goods of all kinds began to flood the markets of the nation. For this, he was portrayed by the jackals of the press as a bumbler, a stumbler who could not control his own balance, let alone run the nation. The "free trade" enemies made sure that Ford's stay in the White House was a brief one, especially after Ford signed the Trade Act of 1974, which was the culmination of the efforts of Senator Huey Long to stem the rising flood tide of imported goods. 

Long, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, proposed measures that would strengthen existing tariff protection through Section 201. In terms of Long's "escape clause" (Section 201) companies that were being hurt by imports no longer had to prove their case. But they still had to show that "substantial injury, or the threat thereof to their business was due to imports. Before Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974, the cumbersome, time consuming, costly task of proving their case caused many a factory to close down rather than go through a procedure heavily weighted in favor of foreign governments. A shame and a scandal? Yes, but our lawmakers were responsible for this unbelievable state of affairs, not some foreign government or collection of governments. 

The heinous fact is that ever since the Wilson presidency, foreign governments have had more standing before U.S. law than our own factory owners and their labor force in matters of trade laws. In anticipation of the move toward "global trade" the United States government even changed the name of the watchdog agency on trade matters from the Tariff Commission, to the United States INTERNATIONAL Trade Commission (ITC) Nobody protested this small step toward selling what remained of our industries down the Global Trade River. Because President Ford signed the Trade Act of 1974, he was vilified as being "anti-free trade" and his stay in office shortened.

In practice, Clause 201 did not provide the promised relief. By the time the full Senate, packed with Socialists masquerading as "liberal Democrats" had finished chewing over the bill, the already unlevel playing field now had a steep uphill gradient against local manufacturers. Notwithstanding Long's specific wording to the contrary, it came out in practice that an industry could only file a case AFTER suffering injury for some time, and even then, there was no guarantee of success, as the ITC might not rule against offending imports. Worse yet, 178 One World Order: Socialist Dictatorship even if the ITC did rule in favor of local industry, the president could still veto the measure. 

While all this was going on, hundreds of American companies were forced to close due to unfair competition from foreign goods. 

It is difficult to believe that any President of this country would put foreign interests above those of his own people, but this is what happened, time after time, and it is still happening today with the Clinton Socialists in power. The United States Constitution, Section 3 of Article 11 says: "He, (the President) shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed..." None of the Presidents from Wilson to Clinton has taken care to execute the laws protecting our trade, and for that they ought to have been impeached. 

After Ford was hit with the charges that he was "anti-free trade," he backed down in his proposed defense of the shoe industry, which had shown a clear hardship case against imported footwear. During the Johnson, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush administrations, hundreds of appeals in terms of the Trade Act of 1974 were turned aside, including representations made by the automobile, footwear, gar ment, computer and television manufacturers, and steel. Clinton is proving to be an even worse enemy of his own people than Wilson and Roosevelt. The Congress and Presidents shot their troops in the back. 

A particular case history that is worth recounting concerns the footwear industry, and there are literally scores of similar cases in other industries. At the time that Lincoln came to the White House, shoes and boots were made in small cottage-type, family enterprises scattered around the country. This changed with the advent of the Civil War, but still, thousands of small producers who could not handle Army contracts stayed in business and did very well. There was patently no need to import footwear. 

The "free traders" fixed their sights on the footwear industry, which in smaller towns was often the sole employer. Through Congress, the trade barriers against imported footwear began to come under attack. Local manufacturers were accused of causing "inflation" through higher prices. This was completely false. The shoe industry was turning out a good product at a very competitive price. But by the time Lyndon Johnson arrived at the White House, the "free traders" had secured 20 percent of the local market. Then, an alarmed Footwear Industries of America filed a case with the ITC asking for immediate relief, but, as mentioned earlier. Ford gave them no relief. 

When Carter arrived on the scene, he too was as petitioned by the Footwear Industries of America. What is wrong here of course is that the President should have had ANY say in trade matters that rightly belong with the Congress. But, having already violated the Constitution in a hundred ways, there was no stopping Carter. Instead of coming to the aid of his own people, Carter made an agreement with Taiwan and Korea that was supposed to limit their footwear exports to the United States, but which in practice, did not ameliorate the situation. The footwear market for imports shot up to 50 percent of the United States market. Carter was deaf, blind and dumb when it came to protecting the livelihood of hundreds of thousands of Americans. Yet this is the same Carter who addressed the nation on television on July 15, 1979: 

'The threat is nearly invisible in ordinary ways. It is a crisis of confidence. It is a crisis that strikes at the very heart and soul and spirit of our national will. We can see this crisis in the growing doubt about the meaning of our own lives and in the loss of unity of purpose for our nation." Indeed, and by encouraging "free trade" Carter was responsible for the crisis. 

There never was a more hypocritical message to come out of the Oval Office. In the Korean War, General Douglas MacArthur was betrayed by Dean Acheson and Harry Truman. In the Free Trade War, the Footwear Battle was lost because we were betrayed by Jimmy Carter and Robert Strauss. 

Next came "conservative" President Ronald Reagan, who did nothing to prevent the flooding of the market by huge amounts of footwear imports from Korea and Taiwan, neither of which countries has never ever imported one single pair of shoes made in the United States! So much for "free trade." As a result of Reagan's studied negligence, shoe imports now hit a new high in 1982, totaling 60 percent of our market. As a matter of grave national importance, it also pushed up the trade deficit by a whopping $2.5 billion and threw more that 120,000 workers in the footwear trade out of a job. Support industries shed 80,000 jobs, a grand total of 200,000 workers tossed on the scrap heap. 

As is usual with Socialist propaganda, those who drew attention to the desperate plight of the footwear industry were constantly vilified. "They want to increase inflation — why doesn't the local footwear industry get competitive" the Wall Street Journal, New York Times and Washington Post chorused. This is of course the function of the jackals of the press: Protect the Socialist decision maker in government and smear as "fascists" or worse, anyone who draws attention to the war. 

The truth is that the American footwear industry was very competitive and was turning out good quality products. What the industry could not compete with was the poorer-quality, HEAVILY SUBSIDIZED products coming from Taiwan and Korea, whose governments were putting billions of dollars in subsidies into their footwear industry. This is what is called "free trade." The only thing that is "free" about it is that foreign manufacturers are allowed to dump their subsidized products on the U. S. market free of charge, but our manufacturers are closed out of foreign markets by laws and restrictions — in this case there was not a single hope that American footwear manufacturers could sell in Taiwan and Korea. [and these are supposed to be our allies? clearly there is a huge difference between being awake and 'woke' DC]

To this day, no American-made footwear is sold in Taiwan or Korea. This is what is called "free trade." 180 One World Order: Socialist Dictatorship In spite of five appeals filed within ITC which found that the American footwear industry was suffering irreparable harm from a flood of imports from Korea and Taiwan, Reagan refused to do anything to stem the tide that was now drowning worker and employer alike. The footwear industry found itself out in the cold. It could not turn to Congress, because Congress had transferred its sovereignty to the executive branch, and Reagan in the grip of his Socialist advisors, turned his back on his troops and let the "free trade" enemy troops overwhelm them. 

The battle of the footwear industry was just another battle lost by our people in the ongoing Trade War, and it will not be long before we are plowed under by GATT and NAFTA. The Trojan Horse of "free trade" in the Congress will have carried the day for the enemy forces. Our battered troops have no recourse but to retire, leaving millions of wrecked lives behind them. And all of this devastation is wrought in the name of "global trade." 

It is well worth calling attention to the similarity of methods used to get the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, and NAFTA onto the books in 1993. Apart from presidential interference in the legislative department, a huge public relations campaign was mounted with the aid of the best and brightest that Madison Avenue could come up with. A press barrage was backed by Howard Peterson of the White House, and the Senate, and the Commerce Department. The pattern was repeated with NAFTA in 1993. NAFTA is on par with the treasonous Monetary Control Act of 1980, signed by Carter. 

NAFTA is an illegal "agreement" which cannot pass a constitutional test. Pages 2273-2297, Congressional Record, House, Feb 26,1900 gives the constitutional position regarding "deals" like NAFTA, the Panama Canal, GATT etc: "The Congress of the United States derives its power to legislate from the Constitution, which is the measure of its authority. Any enactment of Congress which is opposed to its provisions, or is not within the grant of powers made by it, is unconstitutional, therefore no law, and obligatory upon no one..." 

Judge Cooley, the great constitutional scholar said, "The constitution itself never yields to a treaty or enactment. It neither changes with time nor does it bend to the force of circumstances." The Congress has no constitutional authority to transfer its treaty — making powers to the President, as was done with NAFTA. This is pure sedition. Trade negotiations belong with the House: Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, "to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes." Clearly, neither Bush nor Clinton had a constitutional right to meddle in NAFTA. It is certainly treason and sedition. 

On pages 1148-1151, Congressional Record, House, March 10, 1993, "Foreign Policy or Trade, the Choice is Ours," in which the evils of "free trade" are laid bare. It has taken the Socialist 47 years to break down the wise trade barriers erected by Washington, Lincoln, Garfield and McKinley. The cause of the "French" Revolution was "free trade." British Socialists brought depression and  panic in France, which opened the doors to the seditionists and traitors, Danton, Marat, The Earl of Shelburne and Jeremy Bentham. 

On page 1151 of the above noted Congressional Record, we read: "In 1991 American workers earned an average weekly wage twenty percent below 1972 wage levels. Meanwhile, the textile and apparel industries lost over 600,000 jobs, while steel and automobiles sacrificed another 580,000 positions. Measured in declining income and jobs, the burden of global leadership thus has fallen heavily on low-skilled American workers. Labor intensive manufacturing jobs have moved abroad to low-cost Third World countries, leaving a caste of poorly skilled American workers..." 

The Socialist goal to reduce the standard of living of middle class America to that of a Third World Country is somewhere in the region of 87 percent complete, and if matters go as planned, the Clinton administration will soon put the finishing touches to the Trade War at the cost of stabbing the American people in the back. As I have often said, President Clinton was selected to carry out a Fabian Socialist mandate, and "free trade" is only one of treasonous policies he was ordered to carry out. 

"All of us have felt how much we need the United Nations if we are really move toward a New World and kinds of relationships in the world in the interests of all countries. The Soviet Union and the United States have more than enough reason to be partners in building it, in shaping new security structures in Europe and the Asian Pacific region. And also in the making of a truly global economy, indeed, the creation of a new civilization." — Mikhail Gorbachev, Stanford University speech, 1990. Substitute "Socialists" for the Soviet Union and it is easy to see that nothing has changed. 

The long-range plan of Socialism to break the Constitution of the United States through membership of foreign entities is fairly well recorded, nowhere more so than in the writings of Fabian Socialists and international socialists. We know that the Socialists expects to usher in a world dictatorship through the actions of Communism and Socialism, the one by open and direct methods, and the other by more subtle, hidden means. They expect to triumph through the financial dictatorship of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which can control governments by forcing free countries through sabotage of their monetary structures, to join international bodies such as the short-lived League of Nations, its successor, the United Nations and a host of peripheral international organizations. 

All have a common aim: Destroy the sovereignty of the intended nation — victim by suspension of credit, want of employment, stagnation of industry and agriculture and by super-imposing the laws of an international body over the laws of individual nations. In this book we shall be able to deal with only the United Nations as an example of Socialist usurpation of the life's blood of independent nation states. 

It is not within the scope of this book to examine how the United Nations charter was set up, other than that it is a Socialist enterprise from the first to the last. Some think of it a Communist enterprise. While it is true that the writers of the United Nations draft were two Soviet citizens, Leo Rosvolsky, Molotov and one American Socialist citizen, Alger Hiss, the charter is a Socialist one, a great victory for the Fabian Society and its American cousins. The United Nations charter fits right in with the Communist Manifesto of 1848. 

Had the United Nations treaty/agreement/charter been cast as Communist document, it would not have been accepted by the United States Senate. But the Socialists know their game, and so it was cast as an organization to "keep the peace." Now I have said elsewhere that when we see the word "peace," in any world government document, we must recognize it as Socialist or Communist in origin. That is precisely the nature of the United Nations charter. It is a Communist/Socialist organization. Moreover, the United Nations makes war, it does not keep the peace. 

Notwithstanding that the charter was signed by a majority of United States Senators and passed into law, the United States is not a member of this One World Government — New World Order body, and has not for a single minute been a member. There are a number of paramount reasons why this is so: Vattel's "Law of Nations," the "Bible" which provided the sum and substance upon which our Founding Father's international law was based, applies in this case and still stands. This goes back to Roman and Greek law and in itself, is a lifetime study. How many of our so-called Senators and Representatives know anything at all about such matters? Vattel's invaluable book is not part of the curriculum of law schools and is not included in high school and or university text books. The State Department is singularly unversed in this invaluable book, which is why it makes one mess after another in trying to arrange the affairs of this nation without having the faintest knowledge of Vattel's Law of Nations. The United States Constitution stands supreme over all treaties, charters and agreement of whatever stripe and cannot be supplanted by congressional and or executive action. 

For the United States to have been a member of the United Nations there would have had to be an Amendment to the United States Constitution passed by all 50 States. Since this did not occur, we are not a member of the U.N., nor have we ever been. Such an amendment would have taken away the power of the House and Senate to declare war and given it to an international body. Because former President Bush attempted to do this at the time of the Gulf War, he should have been impeached for treason against the United States and for failing to abide by his oath of office. 

The second point worthy of note is that no more than five Senators actually read the United Nations charter documents let alone properly and constitutionally debated the matter. Such a constitutional debate would have taken at least two years, yet this monstrosity was passed in 1945 in three days! Where such an agreement or bill or whatever is before the Senate and the Senators do not properly debate it, it represents an exercise of arbitrary power. Pages 287-297, Senate, Congressional Record, Dec 10, 1898: 

"As a matter of the United States is sovereign, sovereignty and nationality are correlative terms. There can be no nationality without sovereignty and there can be no sovereignty without nationality. As to every matter in the United States as a nation possessed sovereign power, except only where sovereignty has been reserved to the States and or to the people." 

Also, from Pomeroy, (on the Constitution) page 27: "There can be no nation without political sovereignty and no political sovereignty without a nation. I shall, not be able therefore to separate these ideas and to present each as a distinct from the other..." Continuing on page 29: "This nation possesses political sovereignty. It may have any organization from the purest democracy to the most absolute monarchy, but considered to its relation with the rest of mankind and its own individual members, it must exist, to the extent of enacting laws for itself as an integral, independent sovereign society among other similar nations of the earth." 

Dr. Mulford, one of the finest historians and constitutional scholars said in his book about sovereignty of a nation, on page 112: 

"The existence of sovereignty of a nation or political sovereignty, is indicated by certain signs or notes which are universal. These are independence, authority, supremacy, unity and majesty. The sovereignty of a nation or political sovereignty, implies independence. It is subject to no external control, but its action is in correspondence within its own determination. It implies authority. It has the strength inherent in its own determination to assert and maintain it. It implies supremacy. This does not presume the presence of other powers which are inferior..." 

As the late Senator Sam Ervin, one of the great Constitutional scholars of this century said many times, "there is no way under the noonday sun that we could have joined the United Nations." Examine the requirements for sovereignty outlined above and it becomes clear that the United Nations is not a nation and that it is entirely lacking in sovereignty. It does not make individual laws for the nation, because it is not a nation. It has no territory of its own, it has no unity and majesty. It is subject to external control. 

Moreover the United Nations treaty cannot stand because the United Nations lacks sovereignty. According to "Law of Nations" by Vattel, the "Bible" our Founding Fathers used to frame the Constitution, the United States is forbidden to enter into a treaty with ANY BODY, ANY ENTITY which lacks sovereignty. No one will contest that the United Nations lacks sovereignty so that the United Nations "treaty" passed by the Senate in 1945 is null and void, ultra vires. As a legal instrument it is neither a treaty or a charter and as such it is absolutely worthless, no better than a blank scrap of paper. 

The United Nations is a foreign body held together by a collection of ersatz laws, which cannot take precedence over the laws of the United States. To support a position that United Nations laws take precedence over United States laws is an act of sedition and treason. A study of Vattel's Law of Nations and Wheaton's International Law in conjunction with the Constitution will leave no doubt about the accuracy of this. Any Congressman, Senator, or government agent, who supports the United Nations is guilty of sedition. 

On pages 2063-2065 Congressional Record, House, Feb. 22nd, 1900 we find this authority: "A treaty is not superior to the Constitution." In diplomatic exchanges between the United States ambassador to France and then Secretary of State Marcy, it is again clearly spelled out: "The Constitution is to prevail over a treaty where the provisions of one conflict with the other..." 

When John Foster Dulles, a deep Socialist agent for the British crown was forced to appear before a United States Senate committee of enquiry into the United Nations, like the slippery Socialist he was, he tried to bluff his way through by implying that "international law" like domestic law, could be enforced in the United States. Enforcing "international law" is the very basic bedrock of the United Nations but it cannot be enforced in the United States. 

Our contention that the United States is not a member of the United Nations is reinforced by a reading of Congressional Record, Senate, February 14, 1879 and pages 1151-1159, Congressional Record, Senate January 26, 1897. We will not find this vital material in ANY law books. The far left-of-Marx law professors at Harvard, don't want their students to find out about these vital matters. 

It makes no difference that the United States Senate "ratified" the U.N. "treaty," charter agreement. Congress cannot pass laws that are unconstitutional, and binding United States law to the subserviency of the United Nation treaty is patently unconstitutional. Any act by Congress (House and Senate) that makes the Constitution subservient to any other body or entity, has no force in law and is of no affect. Clearly, based only on Article 25 of the United Nations treaty, the United States could not have entered into such an agreement. 

The Annals of Congress, Congressional Globes and Congressional Records are packed with information on sovereignty and a detailed examination of the material, much of which came from Vattel's "Law of Nations" makes it very clear that the United States was never a member of the United Nations nor can it ever be, unless the vote taken by the Senate in 1945 is subjected to a Constitutional amendment and then ratified by the 50 States. For further confirmation that the United States is not a member of the United States, we refer readers to pages 12267-12287 of the Congressional Record, House December 18, 1945. 

What passed for a constitutional debate on the United Nations Treaty in 1945 can be found in Congressional Record, Senate, pages 8151-8174, July 28, 1945 and in pages 10964-10974 Congressional Record, Senate, November 24, 1945. A  study of these records of the United Nations "debates" will convince even the most hardened skeptic of the incredible ignorance of the Constitution displayed by those United States Senators who "ratified" the United Nations Treaty. 

Judge Cooley, one of the great constitutional scholars of all times said: 

"The Congress of the United States derives its powers to legislate from the Constitution, which is the measure of its authority. And any enactment of the Congress which is opposed to its provisions, or is not within the grant of powers made by it, is unconstitutional, therefore no law, and obligatory upon no one." 

The 1945 vote taken by the Senate in favor of joining the United Nations is, "therefore no law, and obligatory upon no one." The 1945 vote on the United Nations agreement was an exercise in arbitrary power and is therefore, null and void, given that it was not constitutionally debated before it was passed by the Senate, in three days: "No treaty/agreement can weaken or intimidate the United States Constitution, which agreements/treaties are no more than law, and like any other law, can be repealed." 

So, far from being an immutable document, the United Nations charter/agreement (our legislators lacked the courage to call it a treaty) is null and void and of no consequence and obligatory upon no one. The military are especially enjoined from obeying the laws of a foreign entity, body, or organization, and our military leaders are duty bound to uphold their oath to protect the citizens of the United States. They cannot do this, and obey the laws of the United Nations. 

Of all of the international bodies of the One World Government abroad today, none is more insidiously evil than the IMF. We tend to forget that the IMF is the bastard child of the United Nations, both being extensions of the Committee of 300, and the IMF, like the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is becoming more openly bold about its true purposes and intentions. The same sinister forces that imposed Bolshevism on Christian Russia, are behind the IMF and its plans to take control of the so-called "global economy."

next

https://exploringrealhistory.blogspot.com/2021/03/part-6-of-6-one-world-order-socialist.html

A NATION UNDONE 187s

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. As a journalist, I am making such material available in my efforts to advance understanding of artistic, cultural, historic, religious and political issues. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Copyrighted material can be removed on the request of the owner.