- I wrote this work out of deep concern
for the failure and or neglect of the Members of the House and Senate to
study and be fully qualified and proficient in the U. S. Constitution and
the Bill of Rights. Many of the legislators are lawyers; they had to pass
exams to qualify to practice law. How then is it possible that such men
don't know the first thing about the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights?
How strange that while the legal requirement for them to practice law
in the courts is a degree in law, when it comes to the HIGHEST law in the
land, the U. S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, (or to demonstrate
their proficiency in understanding it) and in most cases, having only a
smattering of education in the Constitution gained while at law schools.
Any test-exam would soon reveal the majority of legislators to be hopelessly
incompetent in this vital area.
- The American people cannot and must not
allow this to go on. A constitutional amendment must be passed requiring
would-be legislators to have completed a minimum of 5 years of intensive
study of the Annals of Congress, the Congressional Globes and the Congressional
Records, after which they will be required to pass a written and oral proficiency
test, and only then, should they be allowed to run for office. The United
States of America is on a course of destruction, simply because the vast
majority of those elected to the House and Senate are almost totally ignorant
of that which they take an oath to uphold.
- The abysmal ignorance and understanding
of these documents and consequent failure of the House and Senate to kill
proposed bills that are unconstitutional, has led to the loss of thousands
of American servicemen, killed, and wounded, in the Korean War and the
Vietnam War, and billions of dollars wastefully and needlessly expended;
two wars that could have and should have been prevented, had our legislators
been qualified to practice in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
- It is impossible to write about the Korean
and Vietnam Wars without in-depth reference to the United Nations (UN).
Let us therefore deal with the salient features of the U.N. again. Having
covered the subject elsewhere in some depth, I find there is still more
to be said. At the outset, it is necessary to reiterate that the United
States never constitutionally joined the U.N. in 1945.
- Those who signed the 100 percent treasonous
U. N. treaty/agreement document, betrayed U.S. sovereignty; those who
knew what they where doing should have been forced out of office, tried
on charges of treason and when found guilty, made to pay the price for
treason demanded by our Founding Fathers. At the head of the list of traitors
stood John Foster Dulles, Secretary of State, without whose intervention
in the Senate debate, the U.N. agreement/treaty would have been rejected.
As to the innocent Senators, those who were all at sea, bewildered and
confused, of them we can only say: "Your ignorance cost the lives
of thousands of our young servicemen and left thousands more wounded and
mentally scarred for life, and for this you cannot ever be excused."
- Without the U.N. vultures roosting on
U.S. soil, there is every likelihood that there would have been no Korean
War, no Vietnam War and no Gulf War. Acting under the auspices of the U.N.,
the Senate approved the unconstitutional Gulf of Tonkin Resolution after
only ONE DAY of debate on August 10, 1964, in Akron, Ohio, while campaigning
for re-election, Democrat President Lyndon Johnson said: "We are not
about to send American boys nine to ten thousand miles away from home to
do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves."
- Johnson ignored the fact that even as
he spoke, 20,000 "American boys" were fighting in Vietnam, "nine
to ten thousand miles away from home", and before his tenure in office
would pass, the number of American "boys" engaged in hostilities
in Vietnam would swell to 500,000. We could say the same thing about Wilson,
Roosevelt, Bush et al; all Socialists posing as Democrat or Republican
American leaders. We should have included Mr. Reagan in the gallery of
American Socialist Presidents, but then again, Regan had a change of heart
and went from a New Deal-Roosevelt Democrat to a conservative Republican.
Although I can offer no proof, it is my belief that Bush is a hard-core
Communist by virtue of his actions which speak louder than his words.
- And all those wars those past Presidents
generated! One thing emerges from the studies I have made, and that is,
the Presidents would never have gotten away with it had the Representatives
and Senators known the U. S. Constitution. But they did not, with the
exception of those Senators who rejected the League of Nations "treaty",
they really did not know the Constitution. Another thing worth mentioning;
no Senator or Representative can be an integral member of the Republic
of the United States as long as he or she remains in this state of abhorrent
ignorance. The Senators and Representatives in the House and Senate today,
don't know how a declaration of war has to be written up. Ask them, as
I did, and see how they fail this test.
- Take as an example, the Gulf of Tonkin
Resolution. In 1964 when Johnson was gearing up for full-scale war in
Vietnam, among the Senators voting on this badly-flawed declaration of
war, only two recognized it as a full declaration of war. Senator Morse
knew it was, as did Senator Gruening. The remaining 98 senators didn't
recognize it as such because they did not have the slightest idea of what
a constitutional declaration of war looked liked. Congressional Record,
Senate, Oct. 9, 1975, pages 32682--32683.
- "Resolved by the Senate and the
House of Representatives of the United States of America in the Congress
assemble; that the Congress approves and supports the determi-nation of
the President, as Commander and Chief (a falsehood--as he is not the commander
in chief until called into actual service by a joint session of Congress)
to take all the necessary measures to repel any attack against the armed
forces of the United States...Consonant with the Constitution of the United
States (an outrageous lie ) and in accordance with the Charter of the United
Nations and in accordance with its obliga-tions under the Southeast Asia
collective Defense Treaty etc., etc."
- If there is a standardized Communist
word, it is "collective." The red flag of "collective"
was ignored. The whole wording of the resolution was garbled, unclear,
imprecise, useless, a shambles, an example of how such a document should
never be written up. Any lawyer worth his salt would reject such appallingly
poor drafting of a document in the course of his business practice.
- Elsewhere, I have gone to some lengths
to explain why the Gulf of Tonkin treaty was a fraudulent document, not
only because it was written by the State Department, which has no legislative
powers, but secondly because it co-mingles the Constitution with the
United Nations agreement/treaty prohibited by the Constitution, and falsely
claimed The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution as a valid declaration of war. There
was just one day allocated for debate on the resolution; another unconstitutional
violation, an exercise in arbitrary power. The Constitution says that
all measures brought to the floor for a vote must be fully debated as to
their constitutionality, and in this case, proper debate would have taken
at least twenty days.
- Judge Story wrote three volummes on the
U.S. Constitution in which is found one of the best examples of what a
declaration of war should be, and one thing which becomes clear upon reading
the work of the learned judge is that only an amendment to the U.S. Constitution
would have permitted the State Department to write it and then to inter-mingle
its Gulf of Tonkin declaration with that of the U.N. Since there is no
such amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the Gulf of Tonkin resolution
should have been killed on the floor of the Senate as it was ultra vires
and outside the pale and ken of the Constitution.
- When the State Department wrote its Gulf
of Tonkin resolution, it short-changed the process of a constitutional
declaration of war, deceived the American people, and cost thousands upon
thousands of dead and wounded in the Korean War and the Vietnam War. What
a national disgrace that this treasonous document ever cleared the Senate,
because of the sheer constitutional ignorance of its members.
- The Gulf of Tonkin resolution did not
state what type of war was to be fought; a perfect war or an imperfect
war, a further reason why it was so grossly unconstitutional. Neither
Truman or Johnson had the slightest constitutional authority to send our
troops to foreign lands on "peace keeping" missions at the behest
of the United Nations. The United Nations charter Article 43 is an article
for war, not peace, and the United Nations wants the blood of American
servicemen to be shed and the dollars of the hard-working American people
to be squandered in such endeavors.
- Look at how foolishly we carried 95 percent
of the costs in casualties of these two Asian wars, and see if you can
find "equity among member nations" anywhere in this ghastly toll.
Again, Mr. Clinton has no authority to keep American forces in Bosnia
or the Middle East. These forces must be brought home without delay, and
the way to do it is for the House and Senate to cut off the necessary funding
for these misadventures.
- It is painful and distressing to think
that if only a few Representatives and Senators had a full knowledge of
the Constitution in 1945, the U.N. agreement/treaty would have been rejected
and thousands of lives saved in Korea and Vietnam, and hundreds of thousands
of the wounded would have been spared; not to mention the huge financial
cost of both wars. As a safeguard against a similar tragedy happening
in the future, there must be legislation passed, making it mandatory for
those who run for the House and Senate, to be fully qualified in the Constitution,
before they can offer themselves as candidates.
- Never again must We, the People, stand
aside and allow a House and Senate full of consti-tutional ignoramuses
to grant the desires of the Communist cadre inside the White House and
State Department. We can start today by prohibiting President Clinton
from unconsti-tutionally authorizing deployment of the armed forces of
the U.S. in Bosnia and the Middle East.
- A total of 98 Senators voted for the
U.N. agreement/treaty out of sheer and total ignorance of the Constitution.
I can think of no other country where such ignorance of the law of the
land would be tolerated! Through this ignorance, the Constitution and
the Bill of Rights are made of no effect! Can't we see this? President
Bush's Gulf War was another BIG LIE and again, the Senators failed their
constitutional exam here. The law of the land should have stopped the
illegal Gulf War before it got started.
- As a result of that huge constitutional
error, thousands of our Gulf War veterans are suffering from serious illnesses
which are being passed on to their families. Is it any wonder that we
should DEMAND that constitutional illiterates not be allowed to run for
office? How many more Korean, Vietnam and Gulf Wars are we going to suffer
before this nation learns its lesson?
- Had the Senators known about, and followed
a constitutional declaration of war, the Korean War, the Vietnam War and
the Gulf War could never have taken place. Because of the total ignorance
of the five steps needed for a constitutional declaration of war, the House
and Senate has three-times allowed the American people to be plunged into
foreign wars which were not in America's interests and in which George
Washington in his Farewell Address warned us not to become entangled, as
did Tench Coxe.
- The U.N. is an evil legacy left to the
United States by Communists Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter White, John Foster
Dulles, Nathan Witt, Owen Lattimore, Gregory Silvermaster, Laughlin Curry,
John Stewart Service, David Rockefeller and of course, Franklin D. Roosevelt,
all of whom should have been tried for treason.
- The United States cannot under its Constitution,
furnish armed forces to fulfill U.N. goals. The Constitution forbids
it! Where does the non- commander in chief draw his non-existent authority
to have U.S. U2 spy planes constantly overflying Iraq on behalf of the
U.N.? Someone in the Senate should rise up in indignation and demand that
Mr. Clinton show where in the U.S. Constitution does it say he has such
authority? All of his spin doctors and professional liars would not be
able to put a gloss over this truth--Mr. Clinton has no such authority,
yet, he is allowed to continue his desecration of the U.S. Constitution!
- What Dulles succeeded in doing on behalf
of the Communist One World Government--New World Order, was to persuade
the Senate to violate Article 1, section 8, Clause 11 of the U.S. Constitution,
the article in which is found the power of Congress to declare war. What
the U.N. charter, Article 43 says is that the U.N. has this power, not
the U. S. Congress. This abhorrent violation which arose from the ignorance
of the Senators in 1945 and the treachery and chicanery of Dulles and a
handful of co-conspirators, have no validity under our U.S. Constitution,
for nowhere in the U.S. Constitution is there any power that authorizes
the Congress to give or share war-making powers with the U.N. Security
Council, or with any other body. For the Senate to have authorized such
a declaration of war, power sharing agreement with the U.N., would have
required at least two amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
- Sending U.S. troops to Bosnia was a declaration
of war ipso facto. Not a declaration of war by the U.S. but one given
to the U.N. by our government to make war on our behalf, and there is not
one single place in our Constitution where such a power can be delegated.
Sending U.S. troops to Iraq under Article 43 of the U.N. charter, was
a declaration of war WITHOUT A CONST-ITUTIONALLY MANDATED declaration of
war by the Congress. This is high treason. Where does the U.N. draw power
to send troops anywhere? The answer must by now be obvious: From the Communist
Manifesto of 1848. Vattel's "Law of Nations" says the U.N. has
no authority to interfere in the sovereign affairs of sovereign nations.
- The Communists in the State Department
sent Dulles to "explain" the U.N. agreement/ treaty to the Senators,
but Dulles knew absolutely nothing about the treaty-making powers of the
Congress (he being Constitutionally as ignorant as they were), and by lying,
he confused the Senators until the debate (such as it was) turned into
a veritable nightmare of confusion.
- In the end, what the Senate gave to the
U.N. under Article 43 was the power to make war against the United States!
How could any-thing so bizarre be constitutional? The U.N. agreement/treaty
was bogus! It remains bogus! What is significant is that in the U.N. agreement/treaty
these words are only mentioned once in the introduction and the introduction
is not a part of the charter, any more than is the preamble to the U. S.
Constitution a part of the U.S. Constitution. Moreover, as the U.N. is
authorized to interfere in the sovereignty of other nations -- including
the U.S., it can have no validity under the U.S. Constitution.
- "Other nations" includes the
U.S.! Yes, the treaty/agreement allows the U.N. to make war against the
U.S.! What does this do to our sovereignty? It DESTROYS our sovereignty,
the very foundation upon which our Constitution and Bill of Rights rest.
Without sovereignty we are not a nation. Congress does not have the power
to destroy our sovereignty, thus, not only must we NOT obey the U.N. charter,
we must oust the U.N. from our shores and demand that the Constitution
be obeyed by our Representatives and Senators; that a law to this effect
be passed and executed as a matter of extreme urgency.
- It is worth repeating over and over again:
The U.S. did not sign a treaty in 1945; it signed an agreement which was
and remains altogether unconstitutional, if for no reason other than the
U.S. Constitution does not address itself to "agreements." The
U.N. treaty/agreement is so badly flawed in scores of places that it is
nothing more than a piece of paper, of no more validity under our constitutional
laws than is a blank piece of paper. Yes, the U.N. treaty/agreement is
of no more validity than is a blank piece of paper, because of the inane,
vacuous, manner in which it is written, i.e., to mean all things to all
- To mention but one example: The bottom
line of the U.N. agreement/treaty centers around Article 43 of the charter
and yet nowhere in Article 43 is "treaty" or "agreement"
mentioned nor expressly implied. "Special agreement" is in the
charter but what does that mean? It means anything under the sun and anything
the Communists in Washington and the U.N. want it to mean. The U.S. Constitution
does not recognize "agreements," only TREATIES. There is no
5th Amend-ment or "equal protection of the laws " in this U.N.
document. So how in God's name can anybody tell us the U.N. agreement
is superior to the U.S. Constitution and expect American people to go
on throwing away their freedoms as expressly guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution,
by being forced to adhere to this vile Communist-inspired document, this
U.N. treaty/agreement not worth the paper on which it is written.
- If it is argued that the U.N. agreement
is a treaty, then let it be known that a treaty is no more than an ordinary
law, and just like an ordinary law, it has to be in consonance with the
Constitution: Cherokee Tobacco v. United States (11 wall, page 616) Justice
- "A treaty cannot change the Constitution,
or be held valid, if it be in violation of that instrument. This results
from the nature and fundamental principles of our government." Judge
Cooley in "Constitutional Law" page 35:
- "The Constitution itself never yields
to a treaty or an enactment. It neither changes with time nor does it
in theory bend to force of circumstances."
- Senator Thurmond, Congressional Record,
Feb. 14, 1879, pages 1300--1312:
- "A treaty is a law according to
the Constitution and its modification or its abrogation belongs to that
department of government that makes and unmakes laws." Note that it
does not belong to the United Nations acting under Article 43.
- Now here comes the U.N. charter and rips
the foregoing all to pieces; essentially it VOIDS our Constitution. Article
43 of the U.N. treaty is called a "special agreement." Where
in the Constitution is there any provision for a "special agreement?"
It is just not there. Such "special agreement" exceeds the bounds
of the Constitution. Senator Fergusson, although confused on several points
and issues, hit the nail on he head when he stated as follows, during the
3-day debate in 1945:
- "Mr. President, the reason I am
compelled to disagree with some of the opinions expressed here today, that
this must be a treaty, is that if we are required--and we are, to make
this agreement with the United Nations Security Council, we must realize
that it is not a sovereign state, and we will agree that it is not a Superstate.
Treaties as we in law understand them, Mr. President, must be made between
sovereign nations. A treaty cannot be an agreement as it is contemplated
here with the Security Council etc."
- Because the Senate was only ignorant
of this fact, i.e. this U.N. document was not a treaty but an agreement,
they allowed the U.N. agreement to be confirmed. That act of folly and
disgrace cost 54,000 killed in Korea and 58,000 killed in Vietnam. That
total ignorance of the Constitution by the Senators in 1945, cost at least
112,000 American lives and hundreds of thousands of wounded! We need to
pound this information into our heads, so that the next time some Communist
in the White House or the Senate, wants to embroil us in a U.N. war, We
the People, will let our representatives in Washington know that it will
not be tolerated.
- The U.S. cannot allow itself to be drawn
into the role of policing the world for the Committee of 300 agent, the
U.N. The U.S. must abrogate the U.N. agreement or refuse to fund it with
one single dollar more. And that must be done immediately. Anything less
is treason against the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and those who
are guilty of prolonging our so-called membership of the U.N. deserve to
be branded as traitors.