Edited version of CDR Newsletter Special Edition - September, 1995 - by Jackie Patru
*Aurthur Schlesinger, Jr., July / August '95 Foreign Affairs - CFR's Flagship Publication
MICHAEL NEW, an American Soldier says NO... to a systematic plan that began decades before his birth - a plan that is at the heart of America's drift toward becoming just another "third-world outpost" of a UN controlled World Government.
This entire edition has been devoted to exposing (with documented evidence) the devious strategy of a "powerful elite...", and, most importantly, why Michael New has the lawful right to say "NO". The fate of our American Republic may depend upon the outcome.
"Hell is truth seen too late... duty neglected in its season." --Tryon Edwards
SPECIALIST MICHAEL NEW, A MEDIC with the 3rd Infantry Division in Germany, has refused to wear a UN-blue beret or insignia in October when his unit is deployed to Macedonia to conduct a UN "peacekeeping mission" there. New says, "I took an oath to the Constitution for the United States, and I can find no reference to the United Nations in it anywhere". The army says, "You took an oath to obey legal orders and you WILL comply, or you will face possible court martial, possible imprisonment, and at the least, a less-than-honorable discharge". New asks, "By what authority can you transfer my loyalty without my permission?"
On Monday, 28 August, ('95) New met with a JAG (Judge Advocate General) attorney to review his legal options. We're told New does face possible court martial for his position. According to Will Grigg of the New American, who had personal conversation with New, the military was attempting to construe his refusal to wear UN BLUE as an indication that New is a Conscientious Objector. New says he is not. New is quoted as saying there are many officers and non-coms who privately agree with his stance. Publicly, they all have family, careers and retirement to consider. The Army has issued a statement saying that New hasn't disobeyed an order until the UN insignias are handed out and he directly refuses to sew them to his uniform. New is standing firm. We assert: this is an attempt to defuse/cover-up a volatile situation which could escalate when other like-minded pro-American military personnel discover someone has the courage to stand up for his principles and his Constitutional rights.
And now, the $64,000 question: BY WHAT CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY can any one entity in this country or this world - including Clinton, or the US Congress or ANY COURT - order Michael New, an American soldier who is a sovereign citizen of the united sovereign States of America, to wear the insignia of a Global Corporate Army (UN - or NATO for that matter) which was created from the diabolical minds of self-proclaimed "world policy makers"? Perhaps the answer to this question can be found in Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.'s article titled "Back to the Womb?", from the July/August '95 edition of "Foreign Affairs"
In his article, Schlesinger laments the isolationist stance of Americans throughout history. He says the obstacles to the "commitment of troops to combat" in a world army are both political and constitutional.
"Political - How to explain to the American people why their husbands, fathers, brothers, or sons should die in conflicts in remote lands where the local outcome makes no direct difference to the United States? and... Constitutional - If a president favored US participation in a UN collective security action, must he go to Congress for specific authorization? Or could the UN Charter supersede the US Constitution?"
The answer is "NO", and obviously the answer to that question was understood even in Roosevelt's administration. Schlesinger says,
"The UN Participation Act of 1945 came up with an ingenious solution. It authorized the US to commit limited force through congressionally approved special agreements as provided for in Article 43 of the UN Charter... This formula offered a convincing way to reconcile the charter and the Constitution. Unfortunately, the Article 43 special agreement procedure soon withered on the vine."
ARTICLE 43 - UNITED NATIONS CHARTER
P1. All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.
2. [discusses numbers, types, degree of readiness of forces plus location and nature of facilities and assistance to be provided.]
3. The agreement... shall be negotiated... on the initiative of the Security Council... between the Security Council and Members... and shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.
As seen on C-Span upon his appointment as Secretary of State, Warren Christopher (cfr) was given a copy of the UN Charter by Senator Claiborne Pell (cfr) who asked Christopher to give his word he would "do everything in his power to get Article 43 ratified". In 1993, US Senators Pell, Biden and Simon introduced SJRes 112, the Collective Security Participation Resolution, proposing to ratify Article 43. It, too, died on the vine. These are U. S. Senators who swore to uphold our Constitution. According to the United Nations' Information Center in answer to our question by phone (9-95), "Article 43 has never been implemented or ratified".
In fact, even had Article 43 been ratified, it would be unConstitutional and therefore unenforceable. Schlesinger tells us that...
"When Harry S. Truman sent troops into Korea five years later, he sought neither an Article 43 agreement nor a congressional joint resolution, thereby setting the precedent that persuaded several successors that presidents possess the inherent power to go to war when they choose".
In an L.A. Times article, (7-7-94), regarding Clinton's threats to invade Haiti without Congressional approval the author, Doug Bandow, rightfully asks, "Should young Americans die to 'restore' democracy in a nation with no democratic tradition?". He states that, "proponents of executive war-making contend that ample precedent - 200 or more troop deployments without congressional approval - exists for the president to unilaterally initiate hostilities." The proponents of executive war-making are also proponents of a global system of governance under their own creation - the United Nations. Their "experts" would have us believe that because our Constitution has been violated over 200 times it is no longer in effect. That is true only if we, the American people - whose liberty is under siege - continue our false belief in and acceptance of their self-serving rhetoric.
Precedent is not law. America is a Republic.
Informed Americans want no part of "democracy". Uninformed Americans would not want it either if they became informed. We should not misconstrue the difinition of the loosely used word "democracy" which in globalist doublespeak means socialism. The aim of the globalist cartel is world Socialism, or more aptly, world corporate fascism. If you disagree, are you willing to bet your freedom on it?
THE "WAR POWERS RESOLUTION" of 1973 *
In 1974, former US Senator Thomas F. Eagleton wrote a book titled, War and Presidential Power: A Chronicle of Congressional Surrender, in which he demonstrated the erosion of Congress' awareness of its own constitutional powers in the passage of the War Powers Resolution on 11-7-73 (PL 93-148)
In his book Eagleton provides a behind-the scenes account of how the war powers measure, which was intended to "recapture" Congress' power to declare war, was "kidnapped" in a House-Senate conference committee, and he states that the bill is unConstitutional since it "formally surrenders the primacy of Congress in decisions of war and peace". PL93-148 requires no specific Congressional authorization for US military involvement in hostilities until ninety days after the president engages US forces. In the meantime, the president garners public support through the use of the controlled media - eliciting Americans' patriotic empathy - thereby influencing Congress to support un-Constitutional presidential actions. Eagleton ends his book with a call to amend PL93-148 to restore the proper congressional role.
In this case Senator Eagleton did not understand his Constitutional power or obligation. The federal government (congress, president, supreme court, bureaucrats) has only the power delegated to it by our Constitution. Any other powers assumed by either elected officials or appointed bureaucrats are un-Constitutional and of no effect.
* War Powers Resolution - Not to be confused with the Emergency Banking / Trading With The Enemy Act of 1933 (most commonly referred to as the War Powers Act) when President Franklin Delano Roosevelt declared a national emergency - which has been renewed by every president since Roosevelt - and purportedly "suspended" our Constitution.
Our Constitution contains no provision which would allow it to be suspended by anyone, including the president, and any "law" declaring it so has no force or effect. No president, Congress, judge or group of powerful "world-leaders" can suspend our Constitution, either legally or lawfully. It is disturbing, indeed, to continuously read and hear from well-intended Americans who have bought into the Constitution-has-been-suspended rhetoric. We understand the laws were passed and our Constitution has been treated as though it doesn't exist and... this can stop now if Americans stop buying into and repeating these deceptions as though they are real.
[Note: 1-3-2000 - Nor does our Constitution contain any provision which would empower a president to declare martial law. Prior to the turn of the millennium - actually that occurs in 2001 - doom-and-gloom predictions hawked by the controlled media, and propagated by many "patriot" talk shows regarding impending Y2K catastrophes, thoughtless comments that: "The president will declare martial law" were bandied about loosely and irresponsibly. It isn't enough to ignore the statements when we hear them... we MUST set the record straight - THE PRESIDENT CANNOT DECLARE MARTIAL LAW... THERE IS NO SUCH THING UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION. The more often we repeat that fact, the sooner people will understand how we've been caught up in a word game. Let us begin now to cancel out the lies and replace the lies with truth. What miracles could happen?]
FROM 16th AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE, 2nd, SECTION 256
(This is a compilation of various U.S. Supreme Court decisions)
"... an un-Constitutional statute, whether federal or state, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose,... is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. No repeal of such an enactment is necessary."
"Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it. ....No one is bound to obey an un-Constitutional statute and no courts are bound to enforce it. ..."
Also see "Constitution of the United States of America - Revised and Annotated" - 1972. - Prepared by the Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress - Government Printing Office. On page 866, Chief Justice Marshall said:
** "The nullity of an act, inconsistent with the Constitution, is produced by the declaration, that the Constitution is the supreme law."
Translated... The president has no Constitutional authority to engage our American troops in war. The Congress has no authority to abrogate their Constitutional obligation to any other individual or body. Nor does the President have Constitutional power to make law or change law or violate the Constitution by Executive Orders or Presidential Decision Directives - i.e., Clinton's PDD-25 in which he assumes control over deployment of our military to UN "peacekeeping" missions as Commander in Chief. He doesn't become Commander in Chief unless Congress declares war.
When we spoke to Brian Merchant at the National Security Agency seeking information regarding Presidential Decision Directives and Executive Orders, he said EO's and PDD's are not law. He couldn't explain what they are.* When we stated that PDD-25 -- in which Bill Clinton gave himself authority to deploy U.S. troops to UN missions without congressional authority, among other dastardly presidential prerogatives -- is unConstitutional because only the U.S. Congress can declare war unless there is a direct attack on America, Brian Merchant replied, "Under international law, peacekeeping is not defined as war."
*[Note - 1-3-2000 - In 1996 Bill Leary from N.S.A. further explained the status of EO's,
"There is no legal or criminal penalty for failure to obey an executive order".
There is no Constitutional authority for the federal government to place Americans under International Law. This is more of their doublespeak as in Orwell's book, 1984, a classic story of a New World Order nightmare where the main slogan was, "WAR IS PEACE". The characters in Orwell's book believed it and today, we fear, many thoughtless Americans are swallowing it whole.
** [Note -1-3-2000 - The statement by Justice Marshall that the nullification of an unconstitutional act is simply the declaration of the supremacy of the Constitution, brought forth a compelling question: "Who listens when we make that declaration?" The answer is seemingly, "Nobody". Then, in view of the sovereign nature of the several states; and the maxim of the 10th Amendment in the Bill of Rights which declares that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,. . . are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people", it becomes clear that the declaration of the supremacy of the Constitution would necessarily be made by the legislatures of the several sovereign states.
FACT: The state legislators not only have the Constitutional power, they have the responsibility of declaring null and void any and all unconstitutional statutes, mandates, treaties, foreign agreements - including trade agreements - and any U.S. Supreme Court rulings which would, in effect, amend the Constitution. t is a matter of States' Rights]
Public Law 87-297, the Arms Control and Disarmament Act, one of the worst, most dangerous examples of an unConstitutional law, was passed on 9-26-61, accompanied by State Department Publication 7277, The US Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World. Section 31 A of Title 3 of PL 87-297, states that the function of the US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency is:
"the detection, identification, inspection, monitoring, limitation, reduction, control, and elimination of armed forces and armaments, including ... missiles, conventional, chemical and radiological weapons."
State Department Publication 7277, while it is not a law, clearly defines the intentions of PL87-297, and that is to implement the transfer of all weapons and military personnel of all nations (including America) to the control of the United Nations global "peace-keeping" force.
Below are some excerpts from SDP 7277...
"a world in which adjustment to change takes place in accordance with the principles of the United Nations [Corporation]." "The disbanding of all national armed forces and the prohibition of their re-establishment in any form whatsoever other than those required to preserve internal order and for contributions to a United Nations [Corporation] Peace Force".
And most ominous,
"In Stage III progressive controlled disarmament and continuously developing principles and procedures of international law would proceed to a point where no state [nation] would have the military power to challenge the progressively strengthened UN [Corporation]Peace Force..."
This dismantling of our military and the transference to the UN was laid out to take effect in a three-stage plan. We are nearing the completion of Stage II and "transitioning" [sic] into the third and final stage. U.S. soldiers, "in defense of the World Order, are killing and dying" in foreign countries while our closed military bases are swarming with foreign troops under the guise of multinational training. They call it "Partnership for Peace".
As Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. said in his article...
"We are not going to achieve a new world order without paying for it in blood as well as in words and money."
Since it goes without saying Schlesinger does not intend for the "payment in blood" to come from his veins, we must ask the question... "Whose blood?"
In Stage III of the globalists' disarmament plan for America, the armed forces remaining in America will be in sufficient numbers only to preserve internal order. Under our Constitution internal order is kept by local and state police. SDP 7277 calls for a National Police Force to keep "civil obedience" - like in Nazi Germany or the good ol' Communist USSR. Do they intend to rename America the USSA - United Socialist States of America? What do you say, America?
Does SDP 7277 mean what it says? Yes, according to former Senator Joseph S. Clark of Pennsylvania (cfr) in the Congressional Record, March 1, 1962. Clark said of SDP 7277...
"this program is the fixed, determined and approved policy of the government of the United States".
Incidentally, the NRA is ignoring requests to oppose this plan, because they say PL 87-297 doesn't refer to private gun ownership. Do they really believe that the destruction or elimination of all weapons doesn't include our home defense weapons? Many of us who are members of the NRA are beginning to wonder if their leadership has been compromised. Gun Owners of America has also been conspicuously and unconscionably silent on this issue. [Note, 1-3-2000 - This report was written in 1995. The author is four years the wiser... or should we say more informed? NOT a member of the NRA or GOA]
An article from the L.A. Times, April '93 begins,
"In an event that would have been unfathomable a few years ago, former Soviet President Mikhail S. Gorbachev opened an office Friday on one of America's most hallowed military posts, the Presidio of San Francisco".
Avowed Communist, Gorbachev's office in the Presidio houses the Gorbachev Foundation, USA which Gorbachev says will (according to the 4/21/93 San Jose Mercury News) establish and direct task forces to close American military bases and ensure they are not reopened. In the News article, Gorbachev is quoted:
"This is the symbol of our irreversible transition from an era of confrontation and militaristic insanity to a new world order, one that promises dividends for all".
THE UNITED NATIONS CHARTER IS NOT THE SUPREME LAW OF THIS LAND
No law or treaty supersedes the protection of the unalienable (God given) rights of the individual as secured by our Constitution - unless We, the People, ALLOW IT !!! So... one would wonder, where does the US President get the authority to consign our American military personnel to the UN global army? HE DOES NOT HAVE IT!
Our Constitution gives the US Senate authority to ratify treaties with other nations. Americans have been propagandized into believing that those treaties become the supreme law of the land superseding our Constitution. Let's examine this deception closely and dispel the myth once and for all. Article VI of our Constitution states:
Clause 2 - "This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution [of any state] or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."
Clause 3 - "The senators and representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States [government] and of the several states, shall be bound by oath of affirmation to support this Constitution; .... "
Laws made in pursuance of this Constitution are laws which are made within the strict and limited confines of the Constitution itself. No federal, state, or international law, rule or bureaucratic regulation and no state constitution can supersede -- or be repugnant to -- this Constitution. Treaties made under the authority of the United States... the United States (federal government) was authorized by and on behalf of the people and in pursuance of this Constitution to enter into certain treaties with other governments. The United States (federal government) obtains its authority solely from the Constitution. It would be ludicrous to think that it has the power to circumvent (via treaties) that which grants it its authority.
In Clause 3, it is made clear that every elected official, both federal and state, is bound by oath to support this Constitution. Who can rightly, sanely and genuinely claim to be given the power to destroy that which they are elected and sworn to uphold? After debating, arguing and sometimes nearly coming to fists for five grueling months to draft a document which would be air-tight against a tyrannical government - IF the people remained vigilant; after recessing to go home and pray to God for guidance; after guardians of liberty of most of the 13 sovereign republics held out ratification for the addition (or promise of the addition) of the Bill of Rights, would our founders have inserted a clause that would allow those freedoms to be so easily subverted?... or more importantly, would the Constitution have been ratified at all?
The powers granted by the Constitution cannot sanely be construed to provide the authority to usurp, pre-empt or eradicate it. However, the propagators of the supremacy myth would have us believe otherwise. On 4-11-52 Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles (cfr), speaking before the American Bar Association in Louisville, Kentucky said...
"Treaties make international law and also they make domestic law. Under our Constitution, treaties become the supreme law of the land.... Treaty law can override the Constitution. Treaties, for example, ...can cut across the rights given the people by their constitutional Bill of Rights."
The Constitution for the United States of America - the Bill of Rights being part of the Constitution - did not give rights to anybody. The Constitution secures the acknowledged, unalienable, God-given rights of each individual.
[Note - 1-3-2000 - The 14th Amendment - another long story - which purportedly created another class of citizen - a U.S. Citizen - was never properly ratified and was made part of the Constitution on paper only and at the point of a gun by the federal government. This, along with the 16th, 17th, the missing 13th, and probably numerous others is part of the charade - the illusion - conjured up by the globalist elite and perpetrated by their puppets to give an appearance that they are all-powerful, all-knowing, all-seeing, ever-present. Doesn't that describe our heavenly Father / Creator? The globalist elite are, themselves, an illusion of invincibility who derive their power from our belief in their power; our belief in their invincibility; and our fear of them. They truly are the powers of darkness in this world and exist only on the negative energy we feed to them. It stands to reason, accepting that all power comes from our Father / Creator, the godless are powerless. So be it.]
Here's what Thomas Jefferson said about treaties... ON THE RIGHT TO RENOUNCE TREATIES:
"Compacts then, between a nation and a nation, are obligatory on them as by the same moral law which obliges individuals to observe their compacts. There are circumstances, however, which sometimes excuse the non-performance of contracts between man and man; so are there also between nation and nation. When performance, for instance, becomes impossible, non-performance is not immoral; so if performance becomes self-destructive to the party, the law of self-preservation overrules the law of obligation in others." pg 317 / opinion on the question whether the United States have a right to renounce their treaty with France, or to hold them suspended until the government of that country shall be established. 4-28-1793. This would include all treaties which have been made and are obviously "self-destructive" to America. Jefferson also said in a letter to Wilson C. Nicholas on Sept. 7, 1803... "Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction [interpretation]. I say the same as to the opinion of those who consider the grant of the treaty making power as boundless. If it is, then we have no Constitution." pg 573 - Both quotes taken from "The Life and Selected Writings of Thomas Jefferson," A. Koch & Wm. Peden, Random House 1944, renewed 1972.
Here's what the U.S. Supreme Court has stated regarding treaties...
"This Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty." - Reid v. Covert. October 1956,; 354 U.S. 1, pg. 17
This case involved the question: Does the NATO Status of Forces Agreement (treaty) supersede the U.S. Constitution? The Reid Court (U.S. Supreme Court) held that,
". . . No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or any other branch of government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution. Article VI, the Supremacy clause of the Constitution declares, 'This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all the Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; . . . '
There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification which even suggests such a result. . .
It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights - let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition - to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power UNDER an international agreement, without observing constitutional prohibitions. (See: Elliot's Debates 1836 ed. - pgs 500-519) In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and Senate combined. This Court has also repeatedly taken the position that an Act of Congress, which MUST comply with the Constitution, is on full parity with a treaty and that when a statute which is subsequent in time is inconsistent with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict, renders the treaty null. It would be completely anomalous to say that a treaty need not comply with the Constitution when such an agreement can be overridden by a statute that must conform to that instrument." "The treaty power as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government, or a change in the character of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter without its consent." Geofroy v. Riggs; 133 U.S. 258 at page 267
[Note: 1-3-2000 - Disclaimer: The above information on Supreme Court rulings was taken from Aid and Abet newsletter and added to the report today. We have not viewed the court records; however, if a reader has copies of the actual documents we will deeply appreciate receiving a hard copy. And, if a reader discovers a discrepancy we will appreciate hearing from you. Thank you. J.P.]
Lastly and not least, this from U.S. Senator Arlen Spector, 11-3-94 in a letter to a constituent who had expressed concerns about the Convention on the Rights of the Child...
". . . Secondly, the Convention would not override the U.S. Constitution; rather, as in the case of any treaty, any provision that conflicts with our Constitution would be void in our country".
We suspect the writer of the letter signed by Arlen Spector did not expect the letter to get into the hands of people who could put it to good use.
The Constitution authorizes the United States to enter into treaties with other nations -- the word "nation" although not explicit, is certainly implied. The United Nations is an Organization - a Global Corporate Bureaucracy. The "experts" in international commerce, banking, education, environment... ad nauseam are no more than talking heads that spew out rhetoric written for them. It is an illusion created to hopefully instill a sense of inferiority in the "common man" - their term - so we all cow-tow to their superior intelligence.
Could even the U.S. Supreme Court construe the intent of Article VI in so broad an interpretation as to suggest the U.S. was given authority to enter into treaties with a Global Corporation? The answer is self-evident. A quick fix seems to have taken place in the U.S. Senate on March 19, 1970. According to the Anaheim (Cal) Bulletin, 4-20-1970, the Senate ratified a resolution recognizing the United Nations Organization [Corporation] as a sovereign nation. That would be tantamount to recognizing General Motors as a sovereign nation. Are we beginning to get the picture? Read on.
WHO ARE THE PROPAGATORS OF THE SUPREMACY MYTH -- the proponents of Executive war making? - and how did the majority of the American people come to believe in it?
Former US Congressman B. Carroll Reece told us who they are over 40 years ago. He said.....
"An 'Elite' has emerged, in control of gigantic financial resources operating outside of our democratic processes, which is willing and able to shape the future of this nation and of mankind in the image of its own value concepts." pg viii
The above quote is from the book, Foundations - Their Power and Influence, by Rene A. Wormser. Mr. Wormser was General Counsel on the Reece Committee back in 1953 which conducted an investigation of the tax-exempt foundations and their influence in national and foreign affairs. The headline at the beginning of this article, quoted from Foreign Affairs is not an unusual stance for that publication. The Council on Foreign Relations, as the Reece Committee discovered, was established and funded by individuals who control vast fortunes of the tax-free foundations; and the same individuals created and funded the United Nations.
In view of the issue regarding Michael New's dilemma about wearing the colors and insignia of a foreign army, the time [and we believe a God-sent opportunity] to shed light upon a factious rumor is upon us. The rumor is... Only conspiracy nuts and right-wing radical whackos think there is something diabolical about the Council on Foreign Relations. Let's, then, examine this allegation very closely and dispel another myth once and for all.
Actually, an investigation was begun in 1952 by Congressman E. E. Cox of Georgia which focused predominately on the Rockefeller, Ford and Carnegie tax-free foundations, along with the Rhodes Scholarship Fund. Unfortunately during the investigations Congressman Cox was stricken ill and died. Because of the information brought forth in the unfinished Cox investigation, the following year (1953) Congressman B. Carroll Reece, against great odds from powerful opposition, reopened the investigation.
[Note: CDR featured a special four-page pull-out section in the August, '95 newsletter titled Conference of States to Call for Constitutional Convention, showing the interlink of foundation-funded "conservative" organizations which promoted the COS - a backdoor attempt to call a general Constitutional Convention. These organizations have spent hundreds of millions of dollars over the past few decades lobbying for a Constitutional Convention in order to eliminate the final obstacle of their plans for a global government - the seat of which will be (if they have their way) the United Nations. That obstacle is this Constitution. To those who claim our Constitution is "suspended" or "dead" our question has always been: "If our Constitution is suspended / dead, why the ongoing effort by the international power brokers to rewrite it?" We believe they've known Americans would one day wake up to their schemes and propaganda. The following statement is a convincing clue.
"..the house of World Order will have to be built from the bottom up rather than the top down... an end run around [American] sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault."
The above appeared in the CFR publication - Foreign Affairs, April, 1974, in a twenty-page article by Richard N. Gardner, titled, The Hard Road To World Order, which reveals the plans to implement a New World Order. Gardner is currently president Clinton's Ambassador to Spain and a member of both the CFR and the Trilateral Commission (TC), a cousin to the CFR, founded and funded by David Rockefeller. In this article, as usual, the complaint is American nationalism, isolationism, and this Constitution - their obstacle to a World Government / our protection against their tyranny. They have been eroding our Constitution "piece by piece", haven't they? Two years later - 1976 - began their nationwide effort to seduce state legislators into passing resolutions calling for a Constitutional Convention to allegedly add a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution. The scam nearly succeeded.
[See the 1935 New York Times Magazine article titled, Nine Groups Instead of the 48 States, which alluded several times to the Constitution as the impediment to their globalist schemes.]
Another glimpse at their apparent apprehension appeared in a book written by Roger Rusk, brother of globalist Dean Rusk, titled, The Other End of the World. On page 206 Roger Rusk writes, "A few years ago Mr. Robert McNamara retired as head of the World Bank. At a dinner in his honor in Washington, Mr. David Rockefeller made the following revealing statement:
'The world which we have worked to construct is threatened. The gravity of this moment, when Mr. McNamara and others are about to leave their posts while a new administration re-examines American foreign aid policy, is great. If we are going to save the international institutions we have put in place, the moment is now or never, for the struggle between the old guard and the new is going to go far beyond the reduction of capital appropriations. It is going to endanger the new world order which we have based on the alliance between Wall Street and Washington.
While we men of firms and banks organize international channels of economy and raw materials, the government is now building its own diplomatic and economic bridges between Washington and foreign governments. By our methods, our governments contribute to the stability and economic growth of the world, our multinationals benefit, and when it is necessary, they contribute their political support. Now radical conservatives are attempting to destroy all that in seeking first and foremost to serve the national interests of the United States'."
For further evidence: On September 13, 1994, at the U.N. Ambassador's dinner hosted by the Business Council for the United Nations, David Rockefeller was awarded their 1994 medal of honor for what Bill Clinton called his [Rockefeller's] "lifetime commitment to advancing world peace and cooperation". Rockefeller's acceptance speech gave evidence of his concern for what he called "ruthless advocates of ethnic nationalism" and "militant fundamentalists". While Rockefeller lauded America's current global standing at "the peak of its worldwide influence and authority", he issued a warning about the future:
"... this present window of opportunity; during which a truly peaceful and interdependent world order might be built, will not be open for too long. Already there are powerful forces at work that threaten to destroy all of our hopes and efforts to erect an enduring structure of global cooperation."
To cap this point: In the fall of 1994 Hillary Clinton spoke to the Hollywood Women's Political Committee. Barbara Streisand - who seems to be replacing Jane Fonda-Turner in her deluded propensity to abolish American sovereignty - in her introductory speech lamented the unfair claims made about Bill Clinton. She then stated:
"As if that isn't enough, there's an even more frightening threat. The radical right! They're organizing on a grass-roots level, they want to destroy our social programs... and they have strongly influenced the conservatives in 31 states! They're organizing state-by-state and school district-by-school district... and they're growing stronger! That is why we must become ever more vigilant..."
Be informed. Streisand was not talking about America's phony conservative / Christian conservative leadership (see the Council for National Policy membership roster for names). Streisand was talking about American grass-roots political activists - yes, patriots! - who were networking state-by-state to promote the 10th Amendment State Sovereignty Resolution in State Governments. At the very time of her speech 31 state legislatures had the 10th Amendment Resolution introduced and nearly 30 passed. In 1993 the same grassroots activists worked together to defeat resolutions in twelve states calling for a Constitutional Convention. In 1995 as the networking expanded the Conference of States was defeated.
Rockefeller and cronies had every right to be concerned. For the first time since the 1970's - before the onslaught of the myriads of phony conservative groups which so very effectively silenced the outcry - informed and intelligent American patriots were effectively working within their local and state governments to stay and reverse America's plummet into world government.
TAX-EXEMPT FOUNDATIONS -- ROCKEFELLER, FORD, CARNEGIE
In his book, Foundations, Rene Wormser tells us what the Reece Investigation discovered about the link between the tax-free foundations, the CFR and the United Nations (the TC wasn't formed until 1973).
"The Council on Foreign Relations, another member of the international complex, financed both by the Rockefeller and Carnegie foundations, overwhelmingly propagandizes the globalist concept. This organization became virtually an agency of the government when World War II broke out. The Rockefeller Foundation had started and financed certain studies known as 'The War and Peace Studies,' manned largely by associates of the Council [CFR]; the State Department, in due course, took these Studies over, retaining the major personnel which The Council on Foreign Relations had supplied". pg 209
"Foundation activity has nowhere had a greater impact than in the field of foreign affairs. It has conquered public opinion and has largely established the international-political goals of our country."
[Wormser lists just some of the "major instruments" as the Council on Foreign Relations, Foreign Policy Association, Institute of Pacific Relations and, United Nations Association.] pg 200
"It would be difficult to find a single foundation-supported organization of any substance which has not favored the United Nations or similar global schemes; fantastically heavy foreign aid at the burdensome expense of the taxpayer; meddling in the colonial affairs of other nations; and American military commitments over the globe. This was comparatively easy to accomplish because there was no organized or foundation-supported opposition. The influence of the foundation complex in internationalism has reached far into government, policymaking circles of Congress and State Department". pg 200-201
Wormser explains how they've gained control of our government, the media, schools and colleges - and consequently the "internationalist-globalist" leanings of today's younger generation. They promote their "teachers" and "experts" in foreign affairs; dominate the learned journals in international affairs and appoint State Department officials to foundation jobs and foundation officials to State Department jobs. Their "experts" advocate aid to underdeveloped countries "with no strings attached"; distribution of American foreign aid through the United Nations; membership for Communist China in the United Nations; and American abandonment of atomic weapons without guarantees for similar disarmament by our enemy.
Wormser says that through their "virtually monopolistic control" of the market place of ideas in the area of international relations, they exert an influence far beyond the weight of the general followers of liberal politics because,
"Their opponents enjoy little or no financial support".
We must remember that this investigation took place in 1953-54. As we can see they've progressed nicely toward their goals in forty years.
HOW DID THIS HAPPEN TO AMERICA?
"There is no indication that American public opinion, for example, would approve the establishment of a super state, or permit American membership in it. In other words, time - a long time - will be needed before world government is politically feasible... This time element might seemingly be shortened so far as American opinion is concerned by an active propaganda campaign in this country..."
Allen W. Dulles (CFR) from a UN booklet, Headline Series #59 (New York: The Foreign Policy Association., Sept.-Oct., 1946) pg 46.
"Chase and the other Rockefeller institutions are among the largest holders of network stock with substantial interests in all three networks [ABC, CBS, NBC]."
From the article, "Who Owns the Networks?", (The Nation, 11-25-78)
The author of the article mentioned above, Peter Borsnan, also states that a 1973 U.S. Senate report [by Senators Muskie and Metcalf] on disclosure of corporate ownership found that Chase Manhattan controlled 14% of CBS, He points out that, with stock widely distributed among shareholders, institutions can wield great influence or outright control with only 5%, sometimes 1 or 2% equity.
"The far-reaching power of the large foundations and of the interlock, has so influenced the press, the radio, and even the government that it has become extremely difficult for objective criticism of foundation practices to get into news channels without having first been distorted, slanted, discredited, and at times ridiculed."
US Government Printing Office, 1954, Findings of Fact and Supporting Material - US House Special Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations (Reece Investigation) - pg. 17
From the above quotes, we see clearly that Americans' 'informed' opinions have been shaped by fraud and deception at the hands of a controlled media... dis-information and lack of true information.
PRECEDENT IS NOT LAW
It was not defined as a war. It was called the Korean 'Conflict' and many American lives were lost. Let's look at that precedent-setting unConstitutional action with our eyes now opened wider. From World Book Encyclopedia, 1973, we're told that on 6-25-50 Communist armies from North Korea invaded the Republic of Korea. The UN Security Council met and ordered North Korea to withdraw its forces. Two days later the Council then voted to ask members of the UN to send troops to assist South Korea.
Ironically, the Communist USSR could not veto the action because its delegate had been "temporarily" withdrawn to protest *Nationalist China's membership on the Council. "On 7-7-50, the Council formed a UN military command under leadership of the U.S. - of the 60 UN members, 16 sent troops to Korea and 41 sent supplies. But the United States contributed more than 95% of the men and supplies."
[*Nationalist China (Taiwan) which has never been Communist, was the first of the "Chinas" to be admitted into the UN. The USSR lobbied for years to have Communist China admitted, and Communist China wouldn't join because Taiwan was a member. In 1971 our friend and free nation, Taiwan, was expelled from the UN with the support of the CFR-controlled U.S. State Department, so Communist China could become a member nation. Today, Taiwan is threatened with 'reabsorption' into Communist China]
The Korean "conflict" occurred just five years after the UN Charter was ratified by the U.S. As a UN member-nation, the Soviet Union was supplying arms to North Korea. Isn't it ludicrous? Outrageous? The UN [Corporation] Peacekeeping Organization, into which America was dragged by a presidential administration top-heavy with CFR members, gave a war in which only Americans fought and for which Americans paid. Tens of thousands of Americans lost their lives in that UN 'police action' -- many of whom had fought and lived through WWII - and they thought they were fighting for American freedom. Isn't it just possible this entire scenario was orchestrated by the world policymakers to test the waters? The Korean Conflict marked the beginning of nearly half a century of Constitutional violations which has brought Specialist Michael New and millions of other American military personnel into the hands of a dangerous, lunatic fringe of self-proclaimed world leaders whose ultimate goal is to control the world via the United Nations. It is called the New World Order. One World Government controlled by a Global Corporation. A corporation is a business... and the UN Corporation is NOT a not-for-profit corporation.
Since WWII Americans have never fought in a Constitutional war (declared by the U.S. Congress). Our Constitution hasn't changed. We've abandoned our vigilance.
CFR / TC MEMBERS [Americans] WORKING TO DESTROY AMERICA
The irrefutable facts prove the obvious... The Council on Foreign Relations has worked for decades to promote a World Government. At the San Francisco Conference in 1945, forty-three of the US delegates who were involved in the founding of the United Nations had been, were, or would become CFR members. They have held, and are holding today, key positions in our federal government including the presidency, secretary of state, secretary of defense, ambassadorships, cabinet posts and positions in the United Nations. Alger Hiss - Communist, CFR member, spy for the Soviet Union, past president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a US delegate to the UN founding and the UN's first Secretary-General - was one prime example of the American traitors who helped create the United Nations. David Rockefeller - who also served as Chairman of the Board of the CFR - formed the Trilateral Commission in 1973. Today, three-fourths of its 100 American members are also CFR members and many of them hold high positions in the US government.
[Note - 1-3-2000 - The CFR annual report for 1999, shows a breakdown of members by profession. Four hundred ninety-two (492) U.S. Government Officials are CFR members. Media executives number three hundred sixty-six (366). To get a free CFR Annual Report call 212-734-0400]]
UNITED NATIONS UNLAWFULLY HEADQUARTERED IN AMERICA
According to World Book Encyclopedia (1973), the first session of the UN General Assembly (G.A.) was held in London (1946), at which time the decision was made to base its headquarters in America. John D. Rockefeller donated $8.5 million for the purchase of 18 acres along the East River in New York and the city donated additional land. In '47 the G.A. approved plans for the buildings and in '48 the US approved an interest-free loan of $65 million for construction of the building.
How is it, we wonder, that the American people have been stuck with the greatest share of expenses of the UN? Nearly every country in the world today are members of the UN and we pay over one-third of the expenses. "From those according to their ability..."? (a familiar UN - Communist buzz-phrase)
From the Congressional Record, 12-11-67... Absence of UN Headquarters site Agreement. On 12-11-67, during a debate in the Senate, Senator Strom Thurmond was objecting to our UN Ambassador, Mr. Goldberg (cfr), bringing Viet Cong onto American soil. He said,
"...the State Department position is that we are obliged by law to allow the Vietcong to come. There is one serious weakness in the State Department position. For 20 years, the State Department and the United Nations have diligently promulgated the myth that an agreement exists between the US and the UN, pursuant to law, governing the relationships arising out of the UN's headquarters being located within the US. That agreement was never consummated."
Senator Thurmond explained as follows: On 6-26-47, Sec. of State George Marshall (cfr) and UN Secretary-General , Trygvie Lie signed a draft agreement regarding the headquarters' site. The draft was submitted to the US Senate which amended the resolution (SJRes 144) to protect US immigration laws. The House further amended and strengthened the Senate's amendments. President Truman signed SJRes 144 consisting of the original draft and five amendments which became Public Law 357 on 8-4-47. The UN approved the draft agreement of 6-26-47, with no reference to PL 357 or its amendments. Thurmond said to further confuse matters, all subsequent UN documents were printed using the original draft agreement - totally ignoring the law passed by the US Congress.
In the Congressional Record on 12-13-67 Senator Thurmond mentions a Washington Post article which claimed the State Department denied Thurmond's facts. Thurmond points out he used documents from Senate Internal Security Commission. He said, "Nevertheless, the State Department has consistently pretended that both parties to the agreement have accepted all terms, even though no legal action nor official correspondence exists to supply substance to the illusion." To date we have found no documents which refute Senator Thurmond's findings. Nor have we been able to verify that the $65 million interest-free loan to the UN was ever paid. The US State Department, dominated for decades by the Council on Foreign Relations, establishes America's foreign policy. Doesn't this explain the continuity of our foreign policy regardless of the political party in power? CFR members, under the tutelage of their masters of global governance, have been leading America down "The Hard Road to World Order", and we've almost arrived at their designated destination.
IS THE UNITED NATIONS' BILL OF RIGHTS THE PLANNED WORLD CONSTITUTION?
The Charter of the United Nations was drafted at the San Francisco Conference in 1945. By examining its founding documents one can readily see the evidence of the degree of communist/socialist influence in its creation. Its International Bill of Rights combines four covenants as described in the Introduction...
"Four major United Nations legal instruments exist to define and to guarantee the protection of human rights." These are:
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948),
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966),
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) and the
Optional Protocol to the latter.
Compare just a few of the UN "rights" with our Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) was ratified by the U.S. Senate April 2, 1992 by unrecorded voice vote.
In the ICCPR Art. 18, Sec.1: "Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.... " Sec. 3: "Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law..."
Art. 19, Sec. 2: "Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression..." Sec. 3: "The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary... for the protection of national security."
Art. 21, "The right of peaceful assembly shall be recognized. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those imposed in conformity with the law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security... "
Art. 23, 4. "States Parties to the present Covenant shall take appropriate steps to ensure equality of rights and responsibilities of spouses as to marriage... In the case of dissolution, provision shall be made for the necessary protection of any children."
Art. 24, 2. "Every child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have a name." [and a number. The above excerpts perfectly describe Marxism]
The Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions funded by the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations has drafted a Constitution for the World and a proposed Constitution for the NewStates of America. The language in these documents is very similar to that of the UN Treaty excerpted above. There are no rights - just privileges and always with exceptions. Remember - the same people whose power and money established the UN, funded the creation of these "new" constitutions, and unless we take a stand here and now, for Michael New and our Constitution, we will be living in their global nightmare.
Although they vehemently deny the fact, the world policy makers intend to establish a global government via the United Nations. To substantiate this assertion, from just one of many UN documents... UN Chronicle - March, 1993...
"The General Assembly is facing an historic challenge to truly become a functional world parliament on the basis of the United Nations Charter".
In a 1950 US Senate report on Resolutions Relative to Revision of the United Nations Charter, Atlantic Union, World Federation, Etc. pg. 494 James P. Warburg (cfr), grandson of Federal Reserve founder, Paul Warburg (cfr) testified as follows:
"... the great question of our time is not whether or not one world can be achieved, but whether or not one world can be achieved by peaceful means. We shall have world government, whether or not we like it. The question is only whether world government will be achieved by consent or by conquest."
PHONY CONSERVATIVE LEADERSHIP MORE DANGEROUS THAN LIBERALS !
Hundreds of books have been written on this subject; however, when the information is from the actual "findings" of a U.S. House Committee investigation, Congressional Records, the UN Chronicle and other Congressional reports it would be quite impossible for anybody, even including Rush Limbaugh, to refute it, wouldn't it? Rush says the CFR is "just a social club for rich people". Many of us know that the controllers of the tax-exempt foundations are the common thread linking the hundreds of non-governmental organizations responsible for the gradual (and today not-so-gradual) loss of our freedom in America as a result of a long string of continued violations of our Constitution.
To some extent we're hapless victims of the insidiously cunning and covert methods used by the self-proclaimed world policymakers and their thousands of foundations, commissions, councils, agencies, clubs, along with the NGOs, colleges, communications systems and other foundation-funded institutions, organizations and corporations. Maybe, though, the most dangerous of all are the organizations whose leaders claim to be pro-American, Christian, conservative and grass roots.
Millions of us, who over the years knew no better, financially supported and trustingly followed leaders of the hundreds of phony conservative organizations which were established by the pawns of the internationalists back in the '70's. They called themselves then "The New Right" and said, "We're ready to lead". Today they are labeled by the controlled media the "Christian Right". These organizations, by all appearances were created to gain control of the true grass roots movement against the internationalist's take-over of America, and too many of us fell for them. You will find a majority of the leaders of these organizations on the membership list of the Council for National Policy.
If you doubt the "New Right" organizations are phony - ask yourself this one simple question: "After 30 years, with millions of active members donating hundreds of millions of dollars and nearly every spare hour of their time... why, under the 'New Right' leadership, is America on the brink of disaster?" Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals - it makes no difference today. Most in places of power in our government have been placed there by the power brokers who were exposed by Congressman Reece and the subsequent book, discussed earlier in this report, Foundations. The counterfeit Christian conservatives leaders are working with and for the power brokers. Think about it... what better way to defeat your opposition than to create and lead your own opposition? It is rightly called CONTROLLED OPPOSITION
"IT IS IN THE FIELD OF EDUCATION... AND WHAT ARE CALLED THE SOCIAL SCIENCES, THAT THE GREATEST DAMAGE CAN BE DONE TO OUR SOCIETY" pg. xiii - "Foundations"
The foundations, and most especially the Carnegie Endowment, have greatly influenced our American educational system and many of the "conservative" leaders are aiding and abetting the process of "Moving the Nation Educationally to a 'New World Order" . In the conclusion of his research manual, America 2000 / Goals 2000, which explains the restructuring of our education system, Rev. James R. Patrick says,
"...we are really dealing with an international agenda to formulate and bring into being a single world government. What I find to be so fascinating is that the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission play such a dominant role... It is a total restructure of our society to create an international / global community... In addition to the very liberal agenda they postulate, it appears they have a significant influence on the conservative viewpoint. In fact, one of the main planks of the entire program is.....
.....'CHOICE IN EDUCATION'." - VOUCHERS
Rev. Patrick explains that choice involves the placing of federal funds in the form of vouchers to bring about the merger of private, parochial, and Christian schools with the public sector. This will eliminate all 'freedom of choice' as the two are merged into a single nationalistic educational program that will then comfortably merge with the international effort. He says that some of the more conservative voices are a part of the very group that seems to be moving us away from national sovereignty.
For instance, former Secretary of Education William Bennett has blasted much of the educational system. He has shown it to be a failure and has called upon a renewal of old-fashioned family values... "but he is an active participant of the restructure movement. He, in truth, has a heavy influence on James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Phyllis Schlafly and the leaders of the Christian school movement, all of whom have pushed for the passage of a voucher bill...."
Rev. Patrick asks,
"Is it possible that the very people who are working to establish a single world government have both a 'liberal' and a 'conservative' voice to manipulate and control both sides so they win... regardless of the party or office?"
He claims it is not only possible, but it appears that is exactly what is happening. He points out the uncanny similarity in the political and economic agenda of every administration since Roosevelt (the beginning of the New Deal / Socialism, CFR influence, and the United Nations in America) and most blatantly, the total restructuring of the educational program. He says the only thing that has changed in the educational program is the name - - from "AMERICA 2000" to "GOALS 2000" - from Bush to Clinton - Republican to Democrat - conservative to liberal.
According to the Reece investigation, the National Education Association (NEA) is a foundation-supported organization. The Reece Committee Report said of the Carnegie Endowment's work... "An extremely powerful propaganda machine was created." It spent many millions of dollars in mass production of material, creation and support of numerous international policy clubs and local organizations at colleges, collaboration with newspaper editors and school book publishers, establishment of professorships at colleges, training and indoctrination of teachers, etc. Although the Endowment frequently used terms such as the "education of public opinion", Reece maintained it was not public education but "molding public opinion". Further the report said, "No private group should have the power or the right to decide what should be read and taught in our schools and colleges".
It seems impossible to believe that Limbaugh, Bennett, Kemp, Robertson, Dobson, Schlafly, Larry Pratt, Howard Phillips, Paul Weyrich, Wayne LaPierre and all of the other leaders of "conservative" organizations don't know what so many of us know. To give them the benefit of the doubt, we hope you will all see to it they receive this information along with the related document packet and call upon their full support for America's sovereignty and Americans' freedom once and for all.
To reiterate and to put it simply, we Americans have been living under the Grand Illusion created for us by the money, power and influence of the tax free foundations that... "Ya can't fight City Hall. It's a law!" These thoughtless, careless and complacent attitudes have brought us to a pivotal crossroad. Maybe the stand that Michael New has taken will become the catalyst to change the deadly direction in which America is headed. If we don't, America does not deserve Michael New and we will get what we deserve.
[Note - 1-17-2000 - The following is added for your further confirmation of the at-odds motives of the Phony Conservative leaders... excerpts from an article on Allen Gottlieb, long-time CNP member, titled, The Merchant of Fear, by Jim Halpin and Paul de Armond - 1994, 1995
". . . A member of the board of governors on the powerful and ultra-secretive Council for National Policy. . . Membership is secret but is known to include such familiar right wing stalwarts as CNP president, Former Attorney General Edwin Meese, Paul Weyrich, founding president of the Heritage Foundation, Jerry Falwell and Oliver North.
In Trashing the Economy, the 1993 book he and his co-author, CDFE Vice President Ron Arnold write with startling frankness that:
'The message of the direct mail letter must appeal to three base emotions; Fear, Hate and Revenge...
[The] fund raising mailer must present you with a crisis -- a problem won't do... That crisis must frighten you... If you are not frightened, you won't send money...
Then the direct mail letter must present you with a bogeyman against whom to focus your anger...
Once you've been frightened and made to hate the bogeyman, the successful direct mail appeal must offer you a way to get revenge against the bogeyman -- the payoff for your contribution. The more soul-satisfying the revenge, the better the letter pulls.
All this must be dressed up in an appeal that appears to have a high moral tone, but which -- without you realizing it -- works on your lower emotions."
Gottlieb and Arnold are describing environmental direct-mail pitches but Arnold in an interview on Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, also told us that "in direct mail, fear, hate and revenge go a long way."
Gottlieb's letters may be blunt, but they work. He says he mails out 25 million direct-response letters every year and that recipients mail back $24 million. His costs, at 27 cents per letter, are $6.75 million, which means his mailers net $17.25 million. Put another way, $2.25 comes back for each dollar invested in direct response letters. Gottlieb may have had these figures in mind the time he told a reporter that, "All I have to do is turn the spigot on and the money just flows." [end excerpt]
Recall letters you've received from the various conservative / Christian-conservative organizations. Do they contain the requisite "bogeyman fear, hate and revenge factors to open the money spigot"?
"HE HAS SWORN TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, BUT ALSO TO TAKE ORDERS FROM THE PRESIDENT ON DOWN."
The above statement was made in a Washington Times (9-1-95) article, which also stated... "Retired Army Col. Robert Maginnis, an analyst at the conservative Family Research Council, said Spc. New has no legal standing to refuse the order." Spec. New said he voiced his objection to superiors and stated, "no one can explain to me why I am supposed to wear somebody else's uniform. Basically I have questions that no one is willing to answer."
Consider thoughtfully and seriously all of the aforementioned information. According to the Supreme Court, unConstitutional law is NO Law. If the Supreme Court ever rules otherwise, we assert that their ruling would be unConstitutional. Therefore, we must assume that every law passed by the U.S. Congress or by any State Legislative body which violates this Constitution, any charter ratified by the U.S. Senate which poses to be the "supreme law of our land", any military rule or regulation, any contract unsuspecting Americans have entered into by coercion under *color of law - such law, treaty or contract is null and void, "... by the declaration, that the Constitution is the supreme law."
* [color of law - "That which is in appearance only, and not in reality, what it purports to be, hence counterfeit, feigned, having the appearance of truth." Black's Law, 6th - "That which presents an appearance which does not correspond with the reality, or an appearance intended to conceal or to deceive." "Mere semblance of legal right." Barron's Law Dictionary 3rd]
According to a recent communication we received, Colonel Ronald Ray, USMCR (ret.) and former Asst. Sec. of Defense under president Reagan says New is on firm Constitutional ground to refuse to change his allegiance. Ray is quoted as saying [unconfirmed by CDR] "There are serious legal questions yet unanswered, not the least of which is the status of soldiers who fall into enemy hands." "... are unprotected by the Geneva Conventions. Questions like these need to be resolved before you force a man into a war zone."
We hope Colonel Ray is not insinuating that simply enacting some new regulation to afford protection for UN troops under the Geneva Convention would justify "forcing a man into a war zone". We assert - and invite all Americans to stand with us - that Spec. Michael New is protected by this Constitution for the united States of America - and by his declaration of such... along with all of his fellow Americans declaring the same.
Spec. Michael New took a stand for America. The army says "For now he is not subject to disciplinary action because he has only voiced opposition. The pivotal moment will come when he is ordered to wear the UN uniform and join his colleagues deploying to Macedonia... in late October." Continuing from the Washington Times, "The Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) requires military personnel to obey lawful orders. The Army considers orders to join the international task force in Macedonia to be lawful". The evidence in this article proves the Army is wrong.
Considering so many of our high military leaders, Clinton's State Department appointees and U.S. Congressmen and Senators are members of the infamous Council on Foreign Relations; considering the United Nations is NOT a Peacekeeping Organization but rather a Warmaking Global Corporation wanna-be World Parliamentary Government controlled by rich-beyond-our-imaginations lunatics who actually believe they are qualified and have the prerogative to "organize life on the planet"; considering the UN was foisted upon America and the world by the use of billions of our own hard-earned dollars and which buys its brainless puppets to perpetrate the globalist plans; considering these lunatics use the media to "shape the future of this nation and of mankind in the image of its [their] own value concepts" - would we dare to let down? Give up?
Should American soldiers have to obey the orders of a president who violates the Constitution at every turn? or his "superiors" who pay allegiance to the puppet-masters? Should they be subjected to any court in this country or in the UN-created World Court? Most importantly will we, as still-free Americans, stand with and honor any brave man's unwillingness to forfeit his God-given right to say NO? Let's all SAY "NO TO THE NEW WORLD ORDER". We Americans must recognize that our heritage of freedom and liberty under this Constitution is being eroded piece by piece to be replaced by the tyrannical "rule of men" under the UN Charter. We must decide now (and with God all things are possible) which future we will choose for ourselves and our posterity.
The truth is we've had it too easy for too long, and we've taken for granted that this Constitution would protect our freedom. It's time we all accept our responsibility for the state of our nation and do all within our power to recapture the American dream. . . OUR dream, not a globalist nightmare. Our Constitution lives only in the declaration of its supremacy. If each one of us will accept full responsibility for our present situation, ask our heavenly Father for guidance and be willing to place the outcome in His hands - we can expect miracles.
WHAT CAN YOU DO?
We've prepared a document packet which includes copies of nearly all of the resource material and newspaper articles to which we've referred in this article and have added documents over the past few years. It is foolish to blindly believe, or expect others to believe, information from a book or newsletter. It is impossible, without documentation, to convince most uninformed people that the information herein is the truth and a root cause of the demise of American freedom. Therefore, we urge you to get the related document packet.
Since those who occupy positions in the federal branch of our government, including the U.S. Congress, have been taking secret orders from the global elite for over a century; since the right to self-government inherently remains with we, the people, who elect officials within our respective states to act as fiduciary (state legislators); since the power of the states has been usurped by the federal government its agencies and agents only by the acquiescence of elected state government officials, the power can be reclaimed by we, the people, working through our local and state governments. This information is useless unless we get it into the hands of our elected state legislators and local elected officials. As our representatives they have a responsibility to assert States' sovereignty by declaring the supremacy of the Constitution; to protect their constituents from further federal encroachment and begin the reversal process - to BRING THE POWER BACK TO THE STATES... BACK TO THE PEOPLE.
The message should be... loud and clear... Get the UN out of America and get America out of the UN! Get all foreign troops off our soil and bring our American military personnel home! Get rid of all government appointees who are CFR or TC members and pass a law that forbids elected officials to hold membership in those or ANY organization which promotes American "Interdependence" in their damned Global Neighborhood. Get state laws passed rejecting - as unConstitutional - all self-destructive agreements (treaties) including the NAFTA and GATT/WTO. Use your own initiative to interact with your state officials and lets stop the insanity once and for all.
OTHER SUGGESTED RESOURCES
* We believe the book, "Foundations", should be read by every American. The report and findings of the Reece Committee are contained in an "Annex" in the back of the book, so once again you have invaluable documentation for the necessary proof. Covenant House Books, P.O. Box 4690, Sevierville, Tennessee, 37864 (800) 513-5054 - $12.97 includes postage. Visa & M.C. phone orders (retails for $19.95 per single copy - mention CDR to get the $12.97 price - that's 40% off!)
* Research Manual - "America 2000 / Goals 2000" - The only manual Americans need in order to understand how our educational system has been merged with the UN international curriculum - many documents reprinted - priceless reference source - including the U.S.-USSR Agreement to merge America's School Curriculum with that of Communist Soviet Russia. The Reverend James R. Patrick, Citizens for Academic Excellence, P.O. Box 1164, Moline, Illinois 61265 (309) 796-1485 $ 20
* The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America - Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt - This book will change forever the way you look at your child's education. A Chronological Paper Trail. Myth-shattering, riveting account of 100 years of education "reform" - intended to deliberately dumb down your children and your America. Fully documented. A must for ALL Americans, especially parents, teachers, elected officials. $35 includes S&H. To: 3D Research Col, 1062 Washington St., Bath, Maine - 04530
Council on Domestic Relations Home