|"To Seek out that which was Lost..."|
We present this Information and
its Links as a Service to our readers... Its inclusion should not
be construed as the Authors'
or the Relays' endorsement of our Beliefs... or as our endorsement of theirs.. the Truth will stand on its own Merit!
This is the entire chapter 13
from "Behold a Pale Horse" by William Cooper.
Light Technology Publishing ISBN 0-929385-22-5
IN HIGH PLACES"
The United Nation Treaty
The United Nations Participation Act
The Sovereignty of the United States of America
At the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention in September 1787,
Benjamin Franklin was asked, "What have you wrought?"
He answered, "...a Republic, if you can keep it."
The United States Constitution
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption
of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under
this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
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, any Thing in the
Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
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 and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or
Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever
be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the
HAVE WE ALREADY JOINED A ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT?
U.S. Sovereignty---Fact or Fiction?
The Executive, Judicial and Legislative Branches of the U.S. Government
have followed the policy that the United Nations Treaty approved under the
U.N. Participation Act of 1945 in behalf of the United States of America
by Harry S. Truman and the United States Senate, which treaty supersedes
the United States Constitution under the terms of Article VI of the United
The Council of Foreign Relations created the United Nations. Their
member agents, Alger Hiss and Leo Pasvolsky did the paperwork, but the
honors went to a special committee appointed by President Roosevelt to draw
the first draft of the Charter.
The members of the Committee were: Sumner Wells, Isaiah Bowman, Hamilton
Fish Armstrong, Benjamin Cohen, and Clark Eichelberger---all members of the
Council on Foreign Relations and members of a secret Order of the Quest
called the JASON Society.
The Charter was rushed through the U.S. Senate without printed copies to
guide the Senators: it was EXPLAINED to them by Russian-born revolutionary
The Charter conferred no real power on the General Assembly; all the
power was in the Security Council where the VETO was. The Senate would not
have ratified the Charter except that the American delegation had a right
to VETO if our interests were threatened by action of other members.
Included in this Charter was and is ARTICLE 25: "Member nations agree
to ACCEPT and CARRY OUT the decisions of the Security Council in accordance
with the PRESENT CHARTER."
No restrictions, no reservations. This is ALL of Article 25. Note the
word "present," indication that there might be OTHER charters. The VETO
was a hindrance to World Government---it had to be circumvented.
In 1950 the General Assembly, without any legal authority, met and
adopted what they named the "UNITING FOR PEACE" RESOLUTION. This, greatly
expanded since that time, permitted THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY to EXERCISE THE
POWERS OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL. I bet you didn't know that. The Government
of the United States recognizes the illegally amended Charter as the
"law of the world," overriding our Constitution. The General Assembly has
for years been making the law of the world by RATIFYING RESOLUTIONS BY A
2/3 MAJORITY VOTE. When the Resolution is ratified it is sent down to the
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MEMBER STATE and the EXECUTIVE IS OBLIGED TO ACCEPT
AND CARRY OUT the provisions in the resolution.
The governments concerned must IGNORE, ABOLISH, REVISE AND RESCIND LAWS
in their territories which conflict with the resolutions of the General
Assembly, and to PASS OTHER LAWS WHICH WILL PUT THESE RESOLUTIONS INTO
FORCE. "One man, one vote" comes through Resolution No. 1760.
There are more than 2000 of these resolutions now in effect. THEY ARE THE
LAW OF THE LAND. Our civil rights laws (the ex-post facto sections of which
come from the Nuremburg Resolutions), our agricultural laws, our health
and welfare laws, our labor laws, our foreign aid laws---all come from
resolutions of the General Assembly or treaties of the U.N. ratified by our
Any law passed in your state will be rescinded or abolished if it is in
conflict with resolutions of the General Assembly.
I can tell you, with no reservations whatsoever, that all of the
intelligence organizations of the United States work directly for the United
Nations in concert with the Secret Government toward the sole purpose of the
destruction of the sovereignty of the United States of America and the
bringing about of the one-world government. The authority cited for their
efforts is ARTICLE VI of the Constitution, the United Nations Treaty, and
the U.N. Participation Act of 1945 signed by Harry S. Truman with the advice
and consent of the U.S. Senate.
This should help you understand how our laws are being made and who is
making them! ASK YOUR SENATORS, CONGRESSMEN AND STATE LEGISLATORS IF THEY
ARE AWARE OF THESE FACTS.
The statement on the following page was made by Mr. Carl B. Rix of
Milwaukee, former president of the American Bar Association, before a Senate
subcommittee which was hearing testimony on the proposed Bricker
Amendment. It was entered into the House Record by Hon. Lawrence H. Smith,
Wisconsin, on May 11, 1955.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD (page A3220)
Statement of Carl B. Rix, Milwaukee, Wisconsin:
I appear in favor of the amendments.
Congress is no longer bound by its constitutional system of delegated
powers. Its only test is under the obligatory power to promote human rights
in these fields of endeavor: Civil, political, economic, social and
cultural. These are found in Articles 55 and 56 of the Charter of the United
Nations, a ratified and approved treaty. They are being promoted in all
parts of the world by the United Nations.
Congress may now legislate as an uninhibited body with no shackles of
delegated powers under the Constitution. Our entire system of a government
of delegated powers of Congress has been changed to a system of undelegated
powers without amendment by the people of the United States.
The authority for these statements is found in a volume entitled
Constitution of the United States of America, Annotated, issued in 1953,
prepared under the direction of the Judiciary Committee of the Senate of the
United States and under the chairmanship of Prof. Edward S. Corwin of
Princeton, aided by the legal staff of the Library of Congress. This is the
conclusion on page 427 of the Annotations: "In a word, the treaty power
cannot purport to amend the Constitution by adding to the list of Congress'
enumerated powers, but having acted, the consequence will often be that it
has provided Congress with an opportunity to enact measures which,
independently of a treaty, Congress could not pass, and the only question
that can be raised as to such measures will be whether they are 'necessary
and proper' measures for the carrying of the treaty in question into
It will be noted that one of the principal cases cited is that of the
Migratory Bird case.
These conclusions are those also of a committee of the New York State Bar
Association, of which former Attorney General Mitchell and Mr. John W. Davis
were prominent members.
Now, for some practical illustration of new-found powers under treaties
of what Congress may do:
1. It may enact a comprehensive education bill, providing for education in
any State which does not provide it. In fact, it may take over all public
education now provided by States and municipalities.
2. It may enact a prohibition act without an amendment of the Constitution.
3. It may enact a uniform divorce act.
4. It may take over all social and welfare services rendered by or through
the States or their agencies.
5. It may take over all commerce, all utility rates and service, all
labor. The list may be multiplied extensively at your will.
The new test of constitutionality will apply to all legislation by
Congress since 1945, which deals with any of the five fields of endeavor. Any
judge deciding on the validity of legislation must have two books before him
-- one, the Constitution of the United States, and the other, the Charter of
the United Nations. If he does find authority for the act in the
Constitution, he will find it in the Charter. That is the exact situation in
which Justice Holmes found himself and the other members of the Supreme Court
when they decided the Migratory Bird case. The authority was not found in
the Constitution --- it was found in the treaty with Great Britain.
The question to be answered is this: Under which form of government do the
people of the United States prefer to live? Manifestly, we cannot operate
Senators, the people of the United States have given up their sons; they
have given up billions of their substance. They should not be the only
Nation in the world to give up their form of government -- the wonder of the
world -- to discharge their obligations to the people of the world.
*THE BRICKER AMENDMENT, WHICH WOULD HAVE CHANGED THIS, WAS NOT PASSED.*
A LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Borger, Texas News Herald
Sunday, November 11, 1962
Dear Mr. Newby:
Replying to your letter Oct. 12th, also CHALLENGE for November, 1961:
quoting Patrick Henry on treaties. In the first place Patrick Henry was and
is NO AUTHORITY on either treaties or the Constitution, and he opposed it,
IF it is too late to do anything about reinstating our Constitution, then
why not just accept the traitorous U.N. Charter-Treaty without more ado? Why
didn't the American Revolutionists think it too late or too difficult to
defend their Liberty? And IF the highly-intelligent framers of the
Constitution "were well aware of the deathtrap incorporated in ARTICLE VI,"
why then did they so frame it? Did they not expect PATRIOTS, rather than
Treasonists as our elected officials, to HONOR AND ENFORCE the spirit,
letter, and intent of the Constitution?
I note you say that according to a law dictionary, the terms "legal" and
"lawful" are almost one in the same. Agreed! "Almost," but not quite. I
believe there is a fine point of difference. Taking us into the U.N. may
SEEM to have been done legally (by the President and Senate), but the act is
still unlawful, because it is unconstitutional, and the CONSTITUTION IS THE
SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. All renowned and genuine Constitutional experts
(such as Thos. M. Cooley, Thos. Jas. Norton, and Harry Atwood, to name
several) have always held that anything which contravenes, diminishes, or
perverts the Constitution is null and void and of no effect.
Neither the President or Senate has authority or power to change, diminish
or destroy the Constitution "by usurpation," treaty, or otherwise: only a
Constitutional Amendment can lawfully change it.
The Constitution is a contract that WE THE PEOPLE of the USA made with
one another, which sets up the machinery of government to carry out this
contract -- mainly for the purpose of PROTECTING INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS as well
as STATE RIGHTS, AGAINST THE POWERS OF THE GOVERNMENT: and no public official
has a right to override the provisions of that contract. To quote Thos. Jas.
Norton's Constitution of the United States, Its Application, etc., "A law
of Congress to be one of the supreme laws must be 'made in pursuance
thereof' and not in conflict with the Constitution. When not made in
pursuance thereof it is of course unconstitutional and of no effect." And
the same would similarly apply to a wonderful decision rendered by the
Supreme Court or an unlawful Treaty.
And from Norton's Undermining the Constitution, which quotes Alexander
Hamilton in No. 33 of 'The Federalist:' "It will not, I presume, have
escaped observation that it expressly confines the supremacy to laws made
pursuant to the Constitution" (emphasis by Hamilton). And from page 21,
"The General Government can claim no powers which are not granted to it by
the Constitution, and the powers actually granted must be such as are
expressly given, or given by necessary implication."
Anyone with the presumed intelligence to be President of the USA must know
that he cannot lawfully make any such far-reaching treaty with the United
Nations, or any other foreign power, as you envision by your language,
without laying himself open to the charge of TREASON under ARTICLE III,
Section 3 of the Constitution. Just ordinary common sense is required to
know that our alleged Treaty with the U.N. and acceptance of the
all-inclusive terms of its Charter by our Presidents (beginning with FDR,
who connived with Stalin at Yalta for the setting up of the U.N. in the USA)
and our Senate, is a violation of their sacred oath of office as per
ARTICLE III, Section 2 of the Constitution.
Such a Treaty makes a mockery of any genuine allegiance to OUR Flag and
Constitution. A genuine American, Abraham Lincoln, said, "Worse than
traitors-in-arms are the men who, pretending loyalty to the Flag, feast and
fatten on the misfortunes of the nation." Think of any TRUTH more applicable
to the present time?
A number of our officials, including former Secretary of State Dean
Acheson, the late John Foster Dulles, and members of our present one-world
Kennedy entourage go along with the statement that the USA now has NO
"domestic" affairs: there has been a melding ["merging"] of our domestic and
Katanga Province in the Congo thought she had some private affairs and
rights, but the U.N. soon disillusioned her. Quote from S.L. Tribune for
September 14, 1961: "U.N. Soldiers Take Over in Katanga. U.N. troops seized
Katanga's capital, Elisabethville, in a brisk battle Wednesday, and the
Congo's central government proclaimed the return of that secessionist
province." There is no doubt that the President of the USA and Senate have
surrendered certain of our rights and sovereignty to the U.N., and plan
Any informed American is aware that ARTICLE IV, Section 4, of the
Constitution automatically cancels out any allegiance to the U.N. and its
alien one-world Internationalism, the antithesis of Constitutional
Americanism founded on Washington's "NO foreign entanglements." And that said
republican representative form of government is the exact opposite of the
U.N. Charter's Soviet-initiated modifications, restrictions, and reservations
in its various "Conventions" which would nullify our Bill of Rights. Stalin,
his protege, Alger Hiss, and Russian Communist Pasvolsky figured largely in
the writing of the U.N. Charter.
To assume that a heterogeneous body composed of appointed representatives
of foreign governments (some from crude cannibalistic so called "States" and
others, from virulently atheistic Communist States) -- which Governments
DO NOT REPRESENT "We the American People" -- could exercise dictation and
control over U.S. is monstrous in the extreme. Lawfully or constitutionally,
they may not enforce any provisions of the U.N. Charter against us, or take
any action whatever affecting the Sovereign Rights of American Citizens.
Further, the United Nations is not a lawful government in the accepted
sense of the term and is not a proper body with which to make a treaty.
Actually, the U.N. has NO valid binding treaty-making power -- except as the
subversive one-worlders try to make it so. Quoting Norton's Constitution of
the United States, at page 14: "A treaty is a written contract between two
governments (not a motley assembly of unstable tribes, or enslaved peoples
calling themselves a 'government') respecting matters of mutual welfare, such
as peace, the acquisition of territory, the defining of boundaries, the needs
of trade, rights of citizenship..." etc.
And such treaties, even though "legally made," MAY be abrogated for cause.
Quoting ibid, p. 115: "A precedent for thus abrogating a treaty made by the
President and approved by the Senate may be found as far back as July 7,
1789, when Congress passed 'An Act to Declare heretofore concluded with
France no longer obligatory on the United States because they have been
repeatedly violated on the part of the French government.'" So what about
all the violations of the Treaties or agreements made by the USSR, which
dominates the U.N.? The USA is vastly outvoted in this motley aggregation
called the United Nations, even as American taxpayers foot most of the bills,
which constitutes Constitutionally forbidden confiscation of the citizens'
money (property) without just compensation therefore. This is merely
A Treaty made "pursuant to the Constitution" becomes A PART of the LAW OF
THE LAND, and should be honored; but it does NOT become "Supreme" or take
precedence over nor supersede the Constitution. It is NOT the "Law of the
Land" standing alone. And NO Treaty or Executive Agreement is binding on the
USA if made by the President alone (as has been done) with the advice of the
Senate, nor if it violates the Constitution.
Actually, Article VI, instead of setting Treaties on high or being a
"death trap," is a statement of SUPREMACY OF THE CONSTITUTION and the
NATIONAL GOVERNMENT. Lawful Treaties are a part of, but subordinate to, the
Constitution for the simple stated provision therein that ALL laws and
treaties must be made "in pursuance thereof."
Can the "creature" (or a part) become greater than its CREATOR, or the
whole??? Some American common sense is necessary in all this blather about
the supremacy of treaties, which is promulgated largely by the one-worlders
to discredit or diminish the Constitution so they can achieve their own ends.
The language and intent of the Constitution and of ARTICLE VI is clear and
forthright, and does not admit, in good faith, of any other interpretation.
But sadly enough, it is well known that many of our highest judiciary and
elected officials -- in this era of TREASON, not Reason -- do not act in
good faith nor in "pursuance of the Constitution."
With reference to fourth paragraph your letter Oct. 12th, Mr. Newby, that
the "making of treaties is without limitation, exception or reservation" and
that "no treaty has ever been declared unconstitutional or invalidated or
repealed by the Courts or Congress in the history of this nation," I think
that the foregoing invalidates your statement.
And as to ARTICLE VI being a "deathtrap" over which the Constitution gives
no control or remedy other than its explicit language in VI regarding the
law and treaties: has it occurred to you that the Supreme Court has power
and authority to rule on the constitutionality of treaties the same as the
constitutionality of any other law -- treaties being merely "part of the
Law of the Land"? ARTICLE III, Section 2 explicitly states: "The Judicial
power shall extend to all cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this
Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which
shall be made, under their authority." To quote Norton's Constitution of
the United States, page 137: "When a case arises in a State court and
involves a question of the Constitution, or an Act of Congress, or of a
treaty, it is the duty of the court to follow and enforce the National
[Constitutional] law; for the Constitution explicitly and emphatically
requires that the 'judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in
the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.'"
Any time that the President and Senate make a treaty with a foreign power
(such as the U.N.) which infringes upon or abrogates rights guaranteed to
citizens of the USA under the Constitution, the Supreme Court can declare
such treaty unconstitutional, void, and of no effect. Of course, the present
Supreme Court, being composed of political radicals rather than judicial
Constitutional experts, is not likely to take such action -- unless forced
Please re-post this message,
because the media BOWS to Federal Law enforcement
(of which MUCH is corrupt.)
*** DON'T BELIEVE ANYTHING UNTIL YOU CAN PROVE IT TO YOURSELF ***
The 2nd Amendment is the reset button for the US Constitution
Are you afraid to not pay your taxes because the government will take your
house, your car, your paycheck, and put you in jail? Funny, when the mafia
does this it's called CRIMINAL EXTORTION
Remember Waco, the murderers are still free.
DEATH TO THE NEW WORLD ORDER
LONG LIVE THE MILITIA
So... Where you wanna go... and How you wanna get there?
This is a Java applet... click on the title to
go to page... hope this works for you...
If not try the Redirect box... or the link below.
Source of the CONSTITUTION
And the PURPOSE it SERVES!!!
The FREEMEN Challenge
Please Pray For the ShaLOM of IeRUShaLeM! It must be preserved for the lost sheep of the Scattered Tribes.
Both Houses of The Twelve Tribes of the Scattered Sheep of the Children of IeShRaEL
Terrorism is EVIL - Counter Terrorism is Oppressive - We Support Neither!!
But Rather Encourage Love.
|This Page is Brought to you by:
The Assembly of IaHUShUA' MaShIaChaH
Because you need to know about these things
|Please feel Free to GRAZE our Sight!|
Even Yet Another
This page created with Netscape Navigator Gold