Home | Issues | Perspective | Audio | Guests | Images | Live Chat | Links | Search | About | Contact Shadow Government Edited version of CDR Newsletter Special Edition - September, 1995 - by Jackie Patru "In Defense of the World Order... US Soldiers would have to kill and die" *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. "In Defense of the World Order... US Soldiers Would Have to Kill and Die" http://www.sweetliberty.org/s4.htm 1 of 22 11/11/2013 8:16 AM
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Home | Issues | Perspective | Audio | Guests | Images | Live Chat | Links | Search | About | Contact
Shadow Government
Edited version of CDR Newsletter Special Edition - September, 1995 - by Jackie Patru
"In Defense of the World Order...
US Soldiers would have to kill and die"
*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.
"In Defense of the World Order... US Soldiers Would Have to Kill and Die" http://www.sweetliberty.org/s4.htm
1 of 22 11/11/2013 8:16 AM
"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
"In Defense of the World Order... US Soldiers Would Have to Kill and Die" http://www.sweetliberty.org/s4.htm
2 of 22 11/11/2013 8:16 AM
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
"In Defense of the World Order... US Soldiers Would Have to Kill and Die" http://www.sweetliberty.org/s4.htm
3 of 22 11/11/2013 8:16 AM
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.
"In Defense of the World Order... US Soldiers Would Have to Kill and Die" http://www.sweetliberty.org/s4.htm
4 of 22 11/11/2013 8:16 AM
** [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]
DISARMING AMERICA
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".
"In Defense of the World Order... US Soldiers Would Have to Kill and Die" http://www.sweetliberty.org/s4.htm
5 of 22 11/11/2013 8:16 AM
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
"In Defense of the World Order... US Soldiers Would Have to Kill and Die" http://www.sweetliberty.org/s4.htm
6 of 22 11/11/2013 8:16 AM
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;
"In Defense of the World Order... US Soldiers Would Have to Kill and Die" http://www.sweetliberty.org/s4.htm
7 of 22 11/11/2013 8:16 AM
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
"In Defense of the World Order... US Soldiers Would Have to Kill and Die" http://www.sweetliberty.org/s4.htm
8 of 22 11/11/2013 8:16 AM
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
"In Defense of the World Order... US Soldiers Would Have to Kill and Die" http://www.sweetliberty.org/s4.htm
9 of 22 11/11/2013 8:16 AM
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
"In Defense of the World Order... US Soldiers Would Have to Kill and Die" http://www.sweetliberty.org/s4.htm
10 of 22 11/11/2013 8:16 AM
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
"In Defense of the World Order... US Soldiers Would Have to Kill and Die" http://www.sweetliberty.org/s4.htm
11 of 22 11/11/2013 8:16 AM
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.