DIPLOMACY BY DECEPTION
The Threat of the United Nations.
The history of how the United Nations was created is a classic case
of diplomacy by deception. The United Nations is the successor to
the defunct League of Nations, the first attempt to set up a One
World Government in the wake of the Paris Peace Conference which
gave birth to the
Treaty of Versailles.
The peace conference opened at Versailles, France on January 18,
1919, attended by 70 delegates representing the international
bankers from the 27 "victorious" allied powers. It is a fact that
delegates were under the direction of the international bankers from
the time they were selected as delegates until they returned to
their own countries, and even long after that.
Let us be perfectly clear, the peace conference was about bleeding
Germany to death; it was about securing huge sums of money for the
international brigand-bankers who had already reaped obscene re
wards alongside the terrible casualties of the five-year war (1914
1919). Britain alone suffered 1,000,000 deaths and more than
2,000,000 wounded. It is estimated by war historian Alan Brugar,
that the international bankers made a profit of $10,000 from every
soldier who fell in battle. Life is cheap when it comes to the
Committee of 300-Iluminati-Rothschilds-Warburg-Federal Reserve
bankers, who financed both sides of the war.
It is also worthwhile to remember that H.G. Wells and Lord Bertrand
Russell foresaw this terrible war in which millions — the flowers of
the mostly Christian nations — died needless deaths. The Committee
of 300 planned the war so that international bankers would profit
greatly. H.G. Wells was known as the "prophet" to the Committee of
300. It is true to say that Wells merely brought up-to-date the
ideas of the British East India Company (BEIC) which were carried
Jeremy Bentham and Adam Smith, to name two of the wreckers used by
King George III to undermine and scuttle the economic future of the
North American colonists seeking to escape the economic toils of the
Venetian Party of the North in the late 1700s.
In an article written by Wells published in the "Banker" (a copy of
which I found in the British Museum in London), Wells spelled out
the future role of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the
banker's bank, the Bank of International Settlements (BIS). Once we,
the sovereign people, understand the role of international banks in
fomenting wars, and then financing both sides, wars may well become
a thing of the past. Until then, wars will remain the favorite tool
of the international banks for raising revenues and getting rid of
unwanted populations, as Bertrand Russell so eloquently put it
In his book, "After Democracy," Wells stated that once the economic
order (social energy), of a dictatorship One World Government is
established, a political and social order will be imposed. This was
precisely what the Paris Peace Talks that began in 1919 set out to
do, based primarily upon a Royal Institute for International Affairs
The RIIA drafted a 23-point proposal which it sent to Woodrow
Wilson, who handed it to Mandel Huis, (a.k.a. Colonel House),
Wilson's Dutch-born controller. Col. House immediately left for
Magnolia, his private residence in Massachusetts, where he reduced
the number of proposals to 14, creating the basis of the "14 Points"
presented to the Paris Peace Conference by President Wilson in
December of 1918.
Wilson's arrival in Paris was greeted with wild enthusiasm by the
poor and deluded populace who had grown tired of war and who saw in
Wilson, the harbinger of eternal peace. Wilson cloaked his speeches
in true diplomacy by deception language; a new spirit of idealism —
even while intent on securing control of the world by the
international bankers through the League of Nations.
The similarity between the way the League of Nations Treaty and its
successor, the United Nations Treaty were floated, should not be
lost on the reader. German delegates were kept out of the
proceedings until the terms were ready to be submitted to the
conference. Russia was not represented, because public opinion
violently opposed Bolshevism. British Prime Minister Lloyd George
and President Wilson well knew that the Bolshevik Revolution was
about to succeed with terrible consequences for the Russian people.
From the start, the Big Ten Supreme Council (forerunners of the U.N.
Security Council) took over. The council consisted of,
representing the Black Nobility bankers of Venice)
On January 25,1919, the agenda of the RIIA won out, the conference
delegates unanimously adopted a resolution for the creation of a
League of Nations. A committee was chosen (whose members were
actually nominated by the RIIA) to deal with reparations by Germany.
On February 15,1919, Wilson returned to the United States and Lloyd
George went back to London. By March however, both men were back in
Paris to work on how best Germany could be financially ripped
apart—and the Council of Ten, having proved too cumbersome, was
reduced to the Council of Four.
The British invited Gen. Jan Christian Smuts, a Boer War veteran, to
join in the discussions, to add an aura of good faith to the
deplorable plot. Smuts was a traitor to his own people. As Prime
Minister he had led South Africa into the First World War over the
objections of 78 percent of its people who felt they had no quarrel
with Germany. Smuts became part of the committee consisting of
Wilson, House, Lord Cecil controller of the British Royal Family
(see my monograph "King Makers/King Breakers"), Bourgeois and
The League of Nations was born in January of 1920. Housed in Geneva,
it consisted of a secretary-general, a Council (chosen from the five
major powers) and a General Assembly. The German nation was sold
down the river, the terms of peace far exceeding those agreed upon
when Germany was persuaded to lay down its arms. The The
international bankers became the big winners, eventually stripping
Germany of all major assets and receiving huge "reparation"
payments. The RIIA now felt it had "everything in the bag" to quote
Wilson. But the RIIA had not reckoned with a large number of U.S.
Senators who knew the U.S. Constitution. By contrast, the number of
senators and congressman who really know the U.S. Constitution
today, number only about twenty.
For example Senator Robert Byrd, an admitted Rockefeller
said recently that a treaty is the supreme law of the land.
Apparently, Sen. Byrd does not know that for a treaty to be valid,
it has to be made with a country that has sovereignty, and the
United Nations, as we will find, has no sovereignty whatsoever. In
any case, a treaty is only a law and cannot override the U.S.
Constitution, nor can it stand when it threatens the sovereignty and
security of the United States.
If Sen. Byrd holds this view, we wonder why he voted to give the
Panama Canal away? When the United States acquired the land for the
Panama Canal from Colombia, the land became sovereign U.S.
territory. Therefore, the Panama Canal give-away was
unconstitutional and illegal, as we shall see in the chapter dealing
with the Carter-Torrijos Panama Canal Treaty.
When the League of Nations Treaty was brought before the U.S. Senate
in March of 1920, 49 senators understood the immense implications
involved, and refused to ratify it There was much discussion
compared to what passed for a debate when the U.N. Charter came
before the Senate in 1945. Several amendments to the League treaty
were submitted by the RIIA. These were acceptable to President
Wilson, but were refused by the Senate. On November 19, 1920, the
Senate rejected the treaty with and without reservations by a vote
The international bankers then directed Wilson to veto a joint
resolution of Congress, declaring the war with Germany at an end,
they could go on savaging the German nation for another whole year.
It was not until April 18, 1945 that the League of Nations dissolved
itself, transferring all of its assets (mainly money taken from the
German people after WWI, and war loans not repaid by the allies to
the United States) to the United Nations In other words, the
Committee of 300 never gave up on its plans for a One World
Government and waited until the United Nations was in existence
before dissolving the discredited League of Nations.
The money that the League of Nations transferred to the United
Nations rightfully belonged to the sovereign people of the United
States. The United States had advanced billions of dollars to
so-called allies to pull their chestnuts out of the fire after
they'd picked a quarrel with Germany in 1914 and were in dire danger
of losing the fight.
In 1923, a U.S. observer was sent to the Lausanne Conference of the
Allied Powers for discussions on repayment of the $10.4 billion owed
to the United States, and splitting up the Middle East oil-producing
countries between themselves. The international bankers objected to
U.S. intervention at Lausanne on the basis of instructions received
from Chatham House, home of the RIIA. The first repayment agreement was reached with Britain, which was to repay war loans over a
62-year period, at interest of 3.3 percent
In November of 1925 and April of 1926, the United States reached
agreements with Italy and France to repay their share of war loans
over the same period. By May of 1930,17 nations who had been loaned
money by the United States had signed agreements to repay all of
their war loans, amounting to nearly $11 billion.
In November of 1932, Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected the first
openly socialist President of the United States. Socialist
Roosevelt's arrival at the White House had its beginning in the murder of
President William McKinley, followed by the election of the fraudulent "patriot" Teddy Roosevelt, whose job it was to open the doors
to socialism which was to be ushered in by Franklin D. Roosevelt.
This contrived sequence of events is too long be recounted here. On
instructions from Chatham House, Roosevelt lost no time in winking
at the horrendous default on the loan agreements signed by the
allies. By December 15 1932, all of the nations who owed the United
States billions of dollars for war debts were in default Britain was
the largest debtor and the largest defaulter.
A substantial amount of this money, plus much of what was wrenched
from Germany after WWI, went into the coffers of the League of
Nations, and eventually wound up in the coffers of the United
Nations. Thus, not only did America needlessly sacrifice its
soldier sons on the battlefields of Europe, but had its pockets
picked as well by the nations that began the First World War. Worse
yet worthless war reparation bonds were dumped into the American
financial market, costing taxpayers additional billions of dollars.
If there is one thing that we have learned about the Committee of
300, it is that it never gives up. There is a saying that history
repeats itself; certainly this is true of the Committee of 300's
intention to force a One World Government body on the United States.
H.G.Wells, in his work "The Shape of Things to Come" described this
body as "a sort of an open conspiracy — a cult of the World State"
(i.e. a One World Government.)
The world state (OWG), Wells said, "must be the sole landowner on
earth. All roads must lead to socialism." In his book, "After
Democracy," Wells clearly said that once world economic order is
established (through the International Monetary Fund and the Bank of
International Settlements), political and social order will be
imposed. In the chapter on the
Tavistock Institute for Human
Relations, it will be explained how Tavistock's "Operation Research"
was to be the engine to bring about drastic reforms in economics and
In the case of the United States, the plan is not to overthrow the
U.S. government or its Constitution, but to "make it negligible."
This has largely been accomplished by slowly and carefully
implementing the socialist manifesto written in 1920 by the Fabian
Society, which was based on the Communist Manifesto of 1848.
Isn't this making of the Constitution "negligible" exactly what is
happening? In fact when the U.S. government violates the Constitution on an almost daily basis with total impunity, it makes the
Constitution "negligible." Executive orders, such as going to war
without a declaration of war, as in the Gulf War, have worked to
make the Constitution "negligible." There is absolutely no provision
in the Constitution for executive orders. Executive orders are only
proclamations which the president has no power or authority to
make. Only a king can make proclamations.
The warmed over League of Nations was thrust upon the U.S. Senate in
1945, dressed under a new label: the United Nations Treaty. The
senators were given only three days to discuss the implications of
the treaty, which could not have been fully examined in under least
a full 18 months of discussion. Had the senators properly understood
what they were discussing, which, apart from a few exceptions, they
did not, there would have been a demand for a proper period for
discussion. The fact is that the Senate did not understand the document and therefore should not have voted on it.
Had the senators who debated the United Nations treaty properly
understood the document it surely would have been rejected. Apart
from any other considerations, the document was so poorly written
and, in many instances, so vague, deceptive and contradictory, that
it could have been rejected on these grounds alone.
A law, which is what a treaty is, must be clearly written and
unambiguous. The U.N. Treaty was far from that. In any case, the
United States, bound by its Constitution, could not ratify the U.N.
treaty, for the following reasons:
Our Constitution rests upon the bedrock of sovereignty, without
which there can be no constitution. U.S. foreign policy is based
upon Vattel's "Law of Nations" which makes sovereignty the issue.
Although the Constitution is silent on world government and
foreign bodies, when the Constitution is silent of a power, and it
is not incidental to another power in the Constitution, then it is
an inhibition of that power, or a PROHIBITION of that power.
The United Nations is not a sovereign body, having no measurable
territory of its own. It is housed on U.S. territory in New York in
a building loaned by the Rockefellers. Under the U.S. Constitution,
we cannot make a treaty with any nation or body that lacks
sovereignty. The United States could not (and cannot) make a treaty
with a body or country having no sovereignty. The U.S. can make an
agreement with a country or body having no sovereignty, but can never
enter into a treaty with a body lacking in sovereignty.
For the Senate to have attempted to ratify a treaty with a body,
state, or country lacking sovereignty, defined boundaries,
demographics, a currency system, a set of laws or a constitution, to
whit, the United Nations, was to betray the oath to uphold the
Constitution which senators are sworn to do. This is commonly called
In order for the United States to become a member of the United
Nations, two amendments to the Constitution would have to be passed.
The first amendment would have to recognize that a world body
exists. In its present form, the Constitution cannot recognize the
United Nations as a world body. A second amendment would have to say
that the United States can have a treaty relationship with an
unsovereign world body. Neither amendment was ever offered, much
less accepted by the Senate and ratified by all of the States.
Thus, the thoroughly suspect U.N. "treaty" never was a legal law in
the United States. As matters stood in 1945, and as they stand in
1993, although the President has the power to have a say in foreign
affairs, he does not have the power, nor has he ever had the
power, to make an agreement — much less a treaty — with a world body.
This absolutely means that no other world body, specifically, the
United Nations, has jurisdiction to deploy American servicemen and
women, or to order the United States to act outside of the
Constitutional restrictions imposed by our Founding Fathers.
Sen. David I. Walsh, one of the few senators who understood the
constitutional dangers posed by the badly flawed U.N. Charter, told
his colleagues the following:
"The only acts of aggression or breaches of peace the charter is
sure to be geared up to suppress are those committed by small
nations, that is to say, by the nations which are least able and
unlikely to kindle another world conflict. Even in these cases, Mr.
President, investigation and preventative action can be arbitrarily
paralyzed by any of the big five powers, which are permanent members
of the Security Council..."
"Thus, any small nation which enjoys the patronage, or serves as a
tool or puppet of one of the big powers is as immune to interference
as the Big Five themselves. Let us face the fact In the Charter we
have an instrument for arresting acts of war by countries which lack
the power of making war. The menace of large-scale conflict does not
reside in quarrels among themselves. Such quarrels can be limited
"The menace lies rather when the small powers act in interest of a
great neighbor and are provoked into their act by that neighbor. But
in that case the veto privilege which makes the big power immune to
United Nations action can operate to make the small satellite nation
immune. The preventative machinery works smoothly until the point of
real danger is reached, the point where a nation is strong enough to
precipitate a world war is involved, and can then go dead."
"We may assume, in fact, that every small country could be under
temptation and pressure to seek a big power patron. Only in that way
can it obtain an indirect share in the monopoly of control vested in
the Big Five. One of the faults of the Charter, Mr. President, is
that its punitive and coercive leverage could be applied only
against a truly small independent nation." (Iraq is a perfect
example of the rottenness of the U.N. Charter).
"At the price of its independence, one of these nations could free
itself from coercive authority of the charter, by the simple
expedient of making a deal with a veto nation..."
Sen. Hiram W. Johnson, one of the few, apart from Sen. Walsh, who
saw through the U.N. Charter, stated as follows:
"In some respects, it is a pretty weak reed. It does nothing to stop
a war instigated by any of the big five powers; gives each nation
complete freedom to make war. Our only hope, therefore, to maintain
world peace is that none of the big five nations will choose to make
That the American people have no protection, and no recourse against
the war-making potential of the United Nations, was confirmed by the
Gulf War when President Bush ran amok, trampling the provisions of
the Constitution underfoot. Had President Bush followed the proper
procedures and attempted to obtain a declaration of war, the Gulf
War would never have happened, because he would have been turned
down. Millions of Iraqis and more than 300 U.S. servicemen and women
(at 1993) would not have needlessly lost their lives.
The president is not the Commander-In-Chief of our armed services
until a legal declaration of war has been issued by Congress and the
nation is officially at war. If the president were the
Commander-In-Chief at all times, the office would have the same
powers as a King — expressly forbidden by the Constitution. Prior to
the Gulf War, CNN accepted the false premise that Bush, as
Commander-In-Chief of our armed forces, had the right on his own to
commit the military to war. This dangerous interpretation was
quickly taken up by the media, and today is accepted as a fact when
it is not
A gross deception practiced upon the American people is that the
President is the Commander-In-Chief of the armed services at all
times. Senate and House members are so poorly informed on the
Constitution that they allowed President
George Bush to get away
with sending almost 500,000 troops to the Gulf to fight a war for
British Petroleum and to satisfy a personal hatred toward Saddam
Hussein. Bush lost the fiduciary relationship he was supposed to
enjoy with the American people right there.
President Bill Clinton
lately used this "Commander-In-Chief" misconception to try and
oblige the military to accept homosexuals in the services, which he
does not have the power to do. It is less a question of morals than
it is of the President overstepping his authority.
The tragic truth
about American servicemen being deployed to fight — as they were by
the United Nations in the Korean and Gulf Wars — is that those who
died in these wars did not die for their country, as dying for our
country under our flag, constitutes an act of sovereignty, which was
totally absent in the Korean and Gulf Wars. Since neither the
Security Council nor any council of the United Nations has any
U.N. flag is meaningless in every sense.
Not a single U.N. Security Council resolution, affecting either
directly or indirectly the United States, has any validity, as such
resolutions are made by a body which itself has no sovereignty. The
U.S. Constitution is above any so-called world body, and that,
particularly, includes the United Nations, the U.S. Constitution is
above and superior to any agreement or treaty made with any nation
or group of nations, whether connected with the United Nations or
not. But the United Nations de facto and de jure gives the president
of the United States unlimited dictatorial powers not granted by the
What President Bush did in the Gulf War bypassed the Constitution by
issuing a proclamation (an executive order) directly on behalf of
U.N. Security Council. The House and Senate, meanwhile, failed in
their constitutional duty to stop the illegal issuance of such an
order. They could have done this by refusing to fund the war.
Neither the House nor Senate had the right, nor do they have it now,
to fund an agreement (or a treaty) with a world body that sets
itself up above the
U.S. Constitution, especially where that world body has no sovereignty, and more especially, where that body threatens the security
of the United States.
Public Law 85766, Section 1602 states:
"...No part of the funds
appropriated in this or in any other Act shall be used to pay...any
person, firm or corporation, or any combination of persons, firms or
corporations to conduct a study or plan when or how or in what
circumstances the Government of the United States should surrender
this country and its people to any foreign power"
Public Law 471, Section 109 further states:
"It is illegal to use
funds for any project that promotes One World Government or One
So how has the United Nations addressed this foundation of law? The
Korean, Vietnam and Gulf Wars also violated the U.S. Constitution
because they violated Article 1, Section 8, clause 11: "Congress
shall have the power to declare war." It does not say that the State
Department the President or the U.N. has this right.
The United Nations would have us commit our country to waging war in
foreign territories, but Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1 says that
no provision shall be made whereby the United States, as a nation,
can commit itself to waging wars in foreign countries.
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, permits tax revenues to be spent
only for the following purposes:
(1)"...to pay the debts, provide for the common defense, and general
welfare of the United States."
It says nothing about paying dues (tribute) to the United Nations or
any other world body, and no powers are granted to allow this. In
addition, there is the prohibition contained in Article 1, Section
10, Clause 1, which says:
(2)"No state shall, without the consent of Congress...keep troops or
ships of war in time of peace...or engage in war, unless actually
invaded, or in such imminent danger."
Since there has been no valid Constitutional declaration of war by
Congress since the Second World War, the United States is at peace,
and therefore, our troops stationed in Saudi Arabia, or anywhere in
the Persian Gulf region, Botswana and Somalia are there in breach of
the Constitution, and should not be funded, but brought back home
The burning question for the United States should be:
"How could the
U.N. authorize the use of force against Iraq (i.e.: declare war),
when it has no sovereignty, and why did our representatives go with
such a travesty and violation of our Constitution? Why have our
Representatives gone along with such gross violations of the
Constitution they are sworn to uphold?"
Moreover, the U.N. does not
What constitutes sovereignty? It is based upon adequate territory, a
constitutional form of money, a substantial population, in clearly
demarcated borders which are definitely measurable. The United
Nations is totally lacking in these requirements, and no matter what
our politicians might say, the U.N. can never qualify as a sovereign
body in terms of the U.S. Constitution's definition of sovereignty.
Therefore, it follows that we can never have a treaty with the U.N.
Not now, not ever. The answer could be that, either out of sheer
ignorance of the Constitution, or else, as servants of the Committee
of 300, the senators, in 1945, went along with the U.N. Charter in
breach of their oath of office to defend and uphold the U.S.
The United Nations is a shiftless, rootless leech, a parasite
feeding off its U.S. host. If there are any U.N. troops in this
country, they should be ordered out forthwith, as their presence in
our land is a defilement of our Constitution, and should not,
indeed, cannot be tolerated by those who have sworn an oath to
uphold the Constitution. The United Nations is an ongoing extension
of the Fabian-Socialist platform established in 1920, of which,
every plank has now been carried out exactly in accordance with the
Fabian-Socialist blueprint for America. The United Nations presence
in Cambodia, its inaction in Bosnia-Herzegovina needs no
Some legislators saw through the U.N. agreement One such wide-awake
legislator was Rep. Jessie Sumner, of Illinois:
"Mr. Chairman, of course you know that our government peace program
is no peace. The movement is led by the same old warmongers, still
masquerading as the princes of peace, who involved us in war while
pretending their purpose was to keep us out of war (a very apt
description of diplomacy by deception). Like Lend-Lease and other
bills which involved us in war, while promising to keep us out of
war, this measure (the U.N. Treaty) will involve us in every war
Rep. Sumner was joined by another informed legislator, Rep.
"To vote for this proposal is to give approval to world communism.
Why else would it have the full support of all shades of communism
elsewhere? This (U.N.) measure strikes at the very heart of the
Constitution. It provides that the power to declare war shall be
taken from Congress and given to the President Here is the essence
of dictatorship and dictatorial control all else must inevitably
tend to follow."
Smith further stated:
"The President is given absolute powers (which the U.S. Constitution
does not give), to, at any time he elects, and upon any pretext
whatsoever, snatch our sons and daughters away from their homes to
fight and die in battle, not only for as long as he pleases, but as
may suit the majority members of the international organization.
Bear in mind, the United States will be in the minority so that the
policies relating to the length of time our soldiers will be kept in
foreign lands in any future wars, will rest more with foreign
nations than our own..."
Smith's fears proved to be well-grounded, because this is precisely
what President Bush did when he snatched our sons and daughters away
from their homes and sent them to fight in the Gulf War under color
of the United Nations, a world body that has no sovereignty. The
difference between a treaty (which the documents passed by the
Senate in 1945 purported to be) and an agreement, is that a treaty
requires sovereignty, whereas an agreement does not require sovereignty.
In 1945, the U.S. Senate debated for only three days — if one can
call that debating the issue of treaties. As we all know, treaties
have a history of thousands of years, and the Senate could not, and
indeed did not, examine the U.N. Charter to the full extent of the
resources which were available to it The U.S. State Department sent
its most devious characters to lie and confuse the senators. A good
example of this was
the testimony of the late John Foster Dulles, one of the top 13
American Illuminati, a Committee of 300 member and a One World
Government proponent down to his fingertips.
Dulles and his crew, hand-picked by the Committee of 300, were
instructed to subvert the Senate, and utterly confuse them, the bulk
of whom knew little about the Constitution, as Congressional Record
testimony proves rather clearly. Dulles talked a crooked streak,
lying blatantly and dissembling when he thought he might be caught
in a lie. An altogether treasonous, treacherous performance.
Dulles had the support of Sen. W. Lucas, the banker's agent planted
in the Senate. Here is what Sen. Lucas had to say on behalf of his
masters, the Wall Street bankers:
"...I feel very strongly about it (the U.N. Charter), because now is
the time for senators to determine what the charter means. We should
not wait for a year, or a year and a half, when conditions will be
different (from immediate post-wartime). I do not want to see any
senator withdraw judgment until a year and a half from now..."
Obviously, this tacit admission by Sen. Lucas implied that for the
Senate to examine the U.N. Charter properly, it would have taken at
least eighteen months to accomplish. It was also an admission that
if the documents were studied, the treaty would be rejected.
Why the unseemly haste? Had common sense prevailed, had the senators
done their homework, they would have seen that it would have taken
at least a year and probably two years, to properly study and vote
on the charter before them. Had the senators in 1945 done so,
thousands of servicemen would still be alive today instead of having
sacrificed their lives for the unsovereign body of the United
As shocking as the truth sounds, the stark fact is that the Korean
War was an unconstitutional war on behalf of an unsovereign body.
Our brave soldiers did not, therefore, die for their country.
Likewise in the Gulf War. There will be many more "Korean Wars"; the
Gulf War and Somalia being the repercussions of the failure of the
U.S. Senate to
In his landmark work on constitutional law, Judge
Thomas M. Cooley
"The Constitution in itself never
yields to treaty or enactment. It neither changes with time or
does it, in theory, bend to the force of circumstance... The
Congress derives its powers to legislate from the Constitution,
which is the measure of its authority. And any enactment of the Congress which is opposed to its provisions, or
is not within the grant of powers made by it, is unconstitutional,
therefore no law, and obligatory upon no one. The Constitution
imposes no restriction on power, but it is subject to implied
restrictions that nothing can be done under it which changes the
Constitution of the country, nor rob a department of government or
any of the States of its constitutional authority—Congress and the
Senate in a treaty, cannot give substance to a treaty greater than
itself, or delegated power of the Senate and House."
Professor Hermann von Hoist, in his monumental work, "Constitutional Law of the United States" wrote:
"As to the extent of a treaty power, the Constitution says nothing
(i.e. it is reserved-prohibited), but it evidently cannot be
unlimited. The power exists only under the Constitution, and every
treaty inconsistent with a provision of the Constitution, is
therefore inadmissible and, according to the Constitution law, ipso
facto null and void."
The United Nations treaty violates at least a dozen provisions of
the Constitution, and since a "treaty" cannot override the
Constitution, each and every one of its Security Council
resolutions, are null and void in so far as they affect the United
States. This includes our alleged membership in this parasitical
organization. The United States has never been a member of the
United Nations, is not now, and can never be, save and except where
we, the people agree to have the Constitution amended by the
Senate and ratified by all of the States, to permit membership in
the United Nations.
There are a great number of cases where case law backs up this
contention. Since they cannot all be included here, I'll mention the
three cases where this principle was established; Cherokee Tobacco
vs. the United States, Whitney vs. Robertson and Godfrey vs. Riggs
(133 U.S., 256.)
To sum up our position regarding U.N. membership; We, the sovereign people of the United States, are not obligated to obey any U.N.
resolutions, because enactment of the United Nations Charter by the
Senate, which purported to make the Constitution yield to United
Nations law, conflicts with the provisions of the Constitution, and
is, therefore, ipso facto, null and void.
In 1945, the senators were suborned into believing that a treaty has
powers that surpass the Constitution. Clearly, the senators had not
read what Thomas Jefferson had to say:
"To hold the treaty-making power as boundless is to make the
Constitution blank paper by construction."
If the senators in 1945
had bothered to read the wealth of information contained in the
Congressional Record as it pertains to treaty-making and agreements,
they would not have acted in ignorance by endorsing the United
The United Nations is in fact a One World Government body
put together with the objective of overriding the U.S. Constitution
clearly the intent of its original framers, Fabianists Sydney and
Beatrice Webb, Dr. Leo Posvolsky and Leonard Woolf. A good source of
confirmation of the foregoing can be found in "Fabian Freeway, High
Road to Socialism in the U.S." by Rose Martin.
The foundation of the socialist plot to subvert the United States
can be found in such papers as the "New Statesman" and the "New
Republic." Both were published circa 1915, and copies were in the
British Museum in London, when I was studying there. In 1916,
Brentanos of New York, published the same documents under the title:
"International Government," accompanied by fulsome praise from
socialists of every stripe in the U.S.
Was the United Nations Charter actually written by traitor Alger
Hiss, Molotov and Posvolsky? Evidence to the contrary abounds, but
basically what happened is that the RIIA took the Beatrice Webb
Fabian Socialist document and sent it to President Wilson to get its
provisions drafted into U.S. law. The document was not read by
President Wilson, but handed to Col. House for immediate action,
Wilson, and indeed all Presidents after him, always acted
with alacrity when addressed by our British masters in Chatham House.
Col. House retired to his summer home, "Magnolia" in Massachusetts
on July 13-14,1918, aided and abetted by professor David H. Miller
of the Harvard Enquiry Group, to work up the British proposals for a
One World Government body.
House returned to Washington with a 23 article proposal, which the
British Foreign Office accepted as forming the basis of the League
of Nations. This was nothing but an attempt to subvert the U.S.
Constitution. The "House" draft was forwarded to the British
government for its approval and thereafter reduced to 14 articles.
Thus was born Wilson's "14 Points," actually not Wilson's, but
rather those of the British government, helped by socialist Walter Lippman which then became the basis of a document presented to the
Paris Peace Conference. (When dealing with subversive secret
societies it should be noted that the word "peace" is used strictly
in a communist socialist sense.)
Had the senators done their homework in 1945 they would have
discovered in short order that the United Nations Treaty was nothing
but a warmed-over version of the socialist document dreamed up by
British Fabianists and supported by their American cousins. This
would have sounded the alarm bells. Had the senators discovered who
the League of Nations treasonous drafters really were, they would
surely have rejected the document without hesitation.
It is clear that the senators did not know what they were looking
at, judging from the remarks made by Sen. Harold A. Burton:
"We again have the chance to retrieve and establish, not a League
of Nations, but the present United Nations Charter, although 80
percent of its provisions (in the U.N. Charter) are, in substance,
the same as those of the League of Nations in 1919..."
If the senators had read the Congressional Record about the League
of Nations, particularly pages 8175-8191, they would have found
confirmation of Sen. Burton's claim that the U.N. Charter was
nothing but a refurbished League of Nations Charter. Their
suspicions ought to have been aroused about the League transferring
its assets to the proposed United Nations.
They would also have
noticed that the task of reshaping the modern version of the League
was carried out by a group of dissolute people with no interest in
the well-being of the United States: Alger Hiss, whose mentor was
the wrecker of the Constitution, Felix Frankfurter, Leo Posvolsky,
and behind them, the international bankers personified by the
Rothschilds, Warburgs and Rockefellers.
Former Congressman John Rarick put it very well, calling the United
Nations "A creature of Invisible Government". Had the senators even
glimpsed into the history of the refurbished League of Nations, they
would have found that it was resuscitated in Chatham House, and in
1941, was sent with RIIA instructions to Cordell Hull, Secretary of
State (chosen by the
Council on Foreign Relations, as every
Secretary of State has been since 1919), and ordered that it be
The timing was perfect, 14 days after Pearl Harbor, when our British
masters deemed it would not receive much public attention, and in
any case, what with the horror of Pearl Harbor, public opinion would
be favorable. So, on December 22,1941, at the behest of the
Committee of 300's international bankers, Cordell Hull was
instructed to brief President Roosevelt on his role in bringing up
the "new and improved" version of the League of Nations.
The sister-child of the RIIA, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)
recommended that Roosevelt give orders for a Presidential Advisory
Committee on Post War Foreign Policy to be set up forthwith.
how the CFR recommended the action to be taken:
"That the Charter of the United Nations become the Supreme Law of
the land, and that Judges in every state shall be bound thereby,
anything in the constitution of any state to the contrary
What the senators would have found in 1945, had they bothered to
look, was that the CFR directive was tantamount to TREASON, which
they could not have condoned and still not violate their oath to
uphold the Constitution. They would have discovered that in 1905, a
group of international bankers believed they could subvert the
Constitution by using a world body as their vehicle, and that the
CFR directive was merely a part of that ongoing process.
A treaty cannot be legally higher than the Constitution, yet the
United Nations treaty did take precedence over the Constitution. The
Constitution, or any part of it, cannot simply be repealed by
Congress, but a treaty can be overturned or scrapped altogether.
Constitution says that a treaty is only a law that can be repealed
by Congress in two ways:
Pass a law that will repeal the treaty.
Cut off funding for the treaty.
In order to avoid such abuses of power, we, the sovereign people,
must demand that our government cut off funding for the United
Nations, which is most commonly expressed as "membership dues."
Congress must pass enabling legislation to fund all United States
obligations, but it is clearly illegal for the Congress to pass
enabling funding for an illegal purpose, such as our alleged
membership of the United Nations, which has set itself above the
Constitution. If the senators in 1945 had done the proper research,
and if they had not allowed Dulles to bamboozle, lie, dissemble,
deceive and mislead them, they would have found the following
exchange between Sen. Henry M. Teller and Sen. James B. Allen and
benefited from it.
Here is a telling exchange made by two Senators:
Sen. Teller: "There can be no treaty that will bind the government
Sen. Allen: "Very well. That in its very nature, is altogether
domestic, and cannot be the subject of a treaty."
Sen. Teller: "It is not because it is domestic; it is because the
Constitution has put that business in the hands of Congress
Sen. Allen: "No, Mr. President, not necessarily so, because the
raising of revenue is purely a domestic matter. It lies at the
foundation of the life of the nation, and it must be exercised by
government alone, without the consent or participation of a foreign
power (or world body)..."
A treaty is not the supreme law of the land. It is only a law, and
not even a secure law at that. Any treaty that places the
Constitution in jeopardy is ipso facto immediately null and void.
Also, a treaty can be broken.
This is well established by Vattel's
"Law of Nations," on page 194:
"In the year 1506, the states-general of the kingdom of France assembled at Tores engaged Louis XII to break a treaty he had
concluded with the Emperor Maximilian and Archduke Philip, his son,
because the treaty was pernicious to the kingdom. They also decided
that neither the treaty nor the oath that accompanied it, could be
binding on the kingdom who had no right to alienate the property of
Certainly the United Nations treaty is destructive to the national
security and the well-being of the United States. Inasmuch as a
constitutional amendment, which is required for the United States to
be a member of the United Nations, was not passed nor accepted by
the 50 states, we are not a member of the United Nations. Such an
amendment would have subjugated the right of Congress to declare
war, and would have put the declaration of war in the hands of the
United Nations on a superior level to that of the Constitution,
placing American servicemen under the control and command of the
Additionally, it would take an amendment to the Constitution to
include a declaration of war by the United Nations and the United
States on the same document, or to even be associated with it either
directly, or by implication. On this one count alone, the United
Nations threatens the security of the Constitution and therefore on
that count alone, our membership of the United Nations is very
definitely null and void and must not be allowed to stand. Sen.
Langer, one of two senators who voted against the U.N. Charter,
warned his colleagues in July of 1945 that the treaty was fraught
with peril for America.
The late U.S. Representative, Larry McDonald, fully exposed the
massive sedition and treason of the U.N. treaty as found in the
Congressional Record, Extension of Remarks, January 27,1982, under
the title, "Get Us Out":
"The United Nations, for three and a half decades, has been
indulging in a gigantic unfettered conspiracy, mostly at the U.S.
taxpayers expense, to enslave our republic in a world government
dominated by the Soviet Union and its Third World. Having had enough
of this freewheeling conspiracy, more and more responsible
officials and thinking citizens are ready to pull out..."
McDonald was right on target, but over the last two years, we have
seen a marked change in the way the United Nations is run by
principally Britain and the United States, and we shall come to that
in due course. Under President Bush, there was an obvious desire to
remain in the United Nations, as it suited his style of politics as
well as his kingly aspirations.
In 1945, sick of war, the senators thought that the United Nations
would be a means of ending wars. Little did they know that the
United Nation's purpose was just the opposite. It is now known that
only five senators actually read the charter scripted by Alger Hiss,
before voting on the treaty.
The goal of the United Nations, or rather, the goal of the men
behind the United Nations, is not peace, even in the Communist sense
word, but is actually world revolution, the overthrow of good
government and good order and the destruction of established
religion. Socialism and communism are not in themselves necessarily
the goal; they are only the means to an end. The economic chaos now
being perpetrated against the United States is a much more powerful
means to that end.
World revolution, of which the United Nations is an integral
component, is another matter entirely; a complete overturning of
moral and spiritual values enjoyed by the Western nations for
centuries is its goal. As part of that goal, Christian leadership
must perforce, be destroyed, and that has already largely been
accomplished by placing false leaders in places where they exert
tremendous influence. Billy Graham and Robert S. Schuler are two
good examples of so-called Christian leaders who are not. Much of
this program of revolution was confirmed by Franklin D. Roosevelt in
his book, "Our Way."
If one reads between the lines of the treasonous, seditious U.N.
Charter, one will find that much of the objectives outlined in the
preceding paragraphs are implied, and, even in some instances, are
even spelled out in the pernicious "treaty," which, if we, the
people do not reverse, will trample our Constitution underfoot and
make of us slaves in a dictatorship of the most savage and
repressive kind under a One World Government.
Summed up, the goals of the spiritual and moral world revolution now
raging — and nowhere more so than in the United States — are:
The destruction of Western civilization.
Dissolution of legal government
Destruction of nationalism, and with it, the ideal of patriotism.
Bringing the people of the United States into penury via graduated
income taxes, property taxes, inheritance taxes, sales taxes and so
on, ad nauseam.
The abolition of the God-given right to private property by taxing
property out of existence and targeting inheritance with bigger and
bigger taxes. (President Clinton has already taken a giant step down
Destruction of the family unit via "free love", abortion, lesbianism
and homosexuality. (Here again, President Clinton has placed himself
firmly behind these revolutionary goals, thereby destroying any
lingering doubts about where he stands in relation to the forces of
Committee of 300 employs a vast number of specialists in
diplomacy by deception who make us believe that severely dangerous
and often disruptive changes come about through "changing times," as
though their direction could change without some force compelling
such changes. The Committee has a vast number of "teachers" and
"leaders," whose sole task in life is to dupe as many people as
possible into believing that major changes "just happen" and so, of
course, should just be accepted.
Toward this end, these "leaders" who are in the vanguard of carrying
out the Communist Manifesto's "social programs," have cleverly
Tavistock Institute for Human Relations methods like
"inner directional conditioning" and "Operation Research" to make us
accept the changes as if they were our own ideas to begin with.
A critical examination of the U.N. Charter shows that it differs
only very slightly from the Communist Manifesto of 1848, an
unabridged, unaltered copy of which is kept in the British Museum in
London. There is an extract of the manifesto, allegedly the work of
Karl Marx (Mordechai Levy) and Friedrich Engels, but was actually
written by members of
the Illuminati, which is still very active
today through their top 13 council members in the United States.
In 1945 absolutely none of this vital information was ever viewed by
the senators, who fell all over themselves in their rush to sign the
dangerous document. If our lawmakers knew the Constitution, if our
Supreme Court would uphold it then we would be able to echo the
words of the late Sen. Sam Ervin, a great constitutional scholar, so
much admired by liberals because of his work on Watergate:
is no way under the noon-day sun we ever joined the United Nations"
and force our legislators to recognize the fact that the U.S.
Constitution stands supreme over any treaty.
The United Nations is a war-making body. It strives to place power
in the hands of the executive branch instead of where it belongs: in
the legislative branch. Take the examples of the Korean War and the
Gulf War. In the latter, the United Nations, not the Senate and the
House, gave President Bush the authority to go to war against Iraq,
thereby enabling him to use diplomacy by deception as a means to
bypass the mandated Constitutional declaration of war. President
Harry Truman evoked the same unauthorized power for the Korean War.
If we, the sovereign people, continue to go on believing that the
United States is legally a member of the United Nations, then we
must be prepared for more illegal actions by our Presidents, such as
we saw in the invasion of Panama and the Gulf War. By acting under
color of Security Council resolutions, the president of the United
States can take on the powers of a king or a dictator. Those powers
are expressly forbidden in the Constitution.
Under the powers vested in the president by U.N. Security Council
resolutions, the president will be able to drag us into any future
wars he decides we must fight. The groundwork for this method of
sabotaging the declaration of war procedures mandated by the
Constitution was tested and carried out in the days before the Gulf
War, which will no doubt, forever be used as a precedent for future
undeclared wars, in furtherance of the strategy of diplomacy by
deception. Wars make far reaching changes which are unable to be
achieved by diplomacy.
So that we are perfectly clear about the procedures laid down by the
Constitution, which must be complied with BEFORE the United States
can be engaged in war, let us examine them:
Both the Senate and the House must pass separate resolutions
declaring that a state of belligerency exists between the United
States and the other nation. In this connection we need to study the
word "belligerent," for without "belligerency" there can be no
intent to go to war
The House and Senate then must separately and individually pass
resolutions declaring that a state of war exists between the
belligerent nation or nations and the United States. This officially
places America on notice that it is about to go to war.
The House and Senate then must pass individual and separate
resolutions advising the military that the United States is now at
war with the belligerent nation or nations.
The House and Senate must then decide if the war is to be an
"imperfect" or a "perfect" war. An imperfect war means that only a
single branch of the military can become involved, while a perfect
war means that every man, women and child in the United States is in
a public war with every man, women and child of the other nation or
nations. In the latter case, all branches of the armed services are
If the president does not get a constitutional declaration of war
from Congress, any and all U.S. military personnel dispatched to
fight the undeclared war must return to the United States within 60
days from the date they were dispatched (this vital provision has
mostly become null and void).
It is easy to see how the Constitution
was steamrollered by President Bush; our military are still at war
with Iraq and are still being used to enforce an illegal U.N.
blockade. If we had a government that actually upholds the
Constitution, the Gulf War would never have been started, and our
troops would not now be in the Middle East, or for that matter, in
Such declaration of war measures were designed specifically to avoid
the United States being casually thrust into a war, which is why
President Bush did an end-run around the Constitution so that we
could be railroaded into the Gulf War. Nor does the United Nations
have the authority to impose a rule on the United States that tells
us to obey an economic blockade of Iraq or any other nation —
because the United Nations has no sovereignty. We shall deal with
the Gulf War in the next chapters.
These powers, not given to the president but to the legislative
branch of government de facto, make the United Nations the most
powerful body in the world via Security Council resolutions. Since
abandoning the Jefferson form of neutrality, we have been ruled by a
series of vagabonds, one after another, who have plundered America
at will and continue to do so. It was Thomas Jefferson who issued a
stern warning, which our agents in Congress blithely disregarded,
that America would be destroyed by secret deals with foreign
governments having the desire to divide and rule the American
people, so that the interests of foreign governments would be served
before the needs of our own people.
Foreign aid, is nothing more that a program for robbing and
plundering countries of their natural resources, and handing U.S.
taxpayer's money to dictators in those countries, so that the
Committee of 300 can reap obscene benefits from the illegal plunder,
while the American people, no better than the slaves of the Egyptian
Pharaohs, groan under the huge burden of "foreign aid." In the
chapter on Assassinations we give the Belgian Congo as good example
of what we mean. The Belgian Congo was run for the benefit of the
Committee of 300, not the Congolese people.
The United Nations uses foreign aid as a means to plunder the
resources of sovereign nations. No pirate or robber ever had it so
good. Not even Kubla Kahn had it as good as
Rockefellers, Warburgs and their kin have it. If a nation should
demure in handing over its natural resources, as was the case with
the Congo, which tried to protect its natural resources.
Nations troops go in an "compel compliance", even if it means
murdering civilians which U.N. troops did in the Congo ousting and
murdering its leader, as was the case with Patrice Lumumba. The
ongoing attempt to murder President Hussein of Iraq is yet another
example of how the United Nations is subverting U.S. law and the
laws of independent nations.
The question is, how long will we, the sovereign people, go on
tolerating our illegal membership in this One World Government body?
Only we, the sovereign people, can order our agents, our servants,
in the House and Senate, to repeal forthwith our membership in a
world body, which is injurious to the well-being of our United
States of America.
Back to Contents