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.
No comments:
Post a Comment