Profound Revolution

by Mary M. Davison

Published By THE GREATER NEBRASKAN Omaha, Nebraska April, 1966

Foreword

On December 17th, 1963, within a month after he became Chief Executive, President Lyndon Johnson ap­peared before the General Assembly of the United Nations and stated:

"When I entered the Congress of the United States twenty-seven years ago, it was my first great privilege to work closely with President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. As a member of the Congress I worked with him to bring about a profound but peaceful revolution.

"... That revolution brought hope and help to one-third of our nation. . . Now, on the world scale the time has come, as it came to America thirty years ago for new era of hope for that one third of man­kind still beset by hunger, poverty and disease. . . . It will not be^, achieved through some hopeful resol­ution, but through a peaceful revolution in the world."

Now we have official proclamation of a fact stated by the late Garet Garrett in the title of his book—"The Revolution Was,"—published in 1944. The New Deal Revolution was; the World Revolution is. These are facts we must accept. We must accept also that the President worked with others to bring about the one, that he is working now to bring about the other.

Before the United States becomes further involved in profound revolution all over the world, it might be well to stop, look and, listen, to contemplate the consequences of the peaceful revolution which has been kept so secret for more than a quarter of a century. One consequence of revolution has always been a change in the form of government and, of course, a new ruling class.

The Constitutional Government of the United States had established the People as rulers of this Nation. The rule was of, for and by the People. In the "profound but peaceful revolution" described by the President, the People were not consulted; they knew nothing about it. When their Constitutional Government was overthrown, the Government of, by and for the People did "perish from the earth."

We shall take the President at his word; we will accept, for the purposes of this book, the premise that there was a successful revolution during the Franklin Roosevelt administration. The "New Deal" and the "Brain Trust" symbolized the new Revolutionary Gov­ernment. It is with this new revolutionary government we must deal, for this new revolutionary government of the United States has officially stated its intention of spreading this particular revolution world-wide. Neith­er People nor Congress are to be consulted.

The New Deal Revolution was unique. It maintain­ed the outward forms of the old Constitutional Gov­ernment; the three Departments of Government, the Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial were, to all intents and purposes, to remain. The People, unaware that the revolution had occurred, would not be aroused by the ousting of their "duly elected" President and Congress and the appointed Judiciary. If the profound and peaceful aspects were to continue, the People would have to be deceived, kept in ignorance, while the revolu­tionary government was quietly eased into full power and control.

Revolutions are not organized over night, nor do they form without strong central planning and direc­tion. The facts of the New Deal Revolution are now coming to light and the forces which put the revolution in motion are fully revealed.   Astute men had long sensed the formation of a movement calculated to control the Government of the United States. The same men who instigated the rev­olution in 1933 were referred to by New York City's Mayor John F. Hylan as long ago as March 22nd, 1922.

"The real menace of our Republic is the invisible government which, like a giant octopus, sprawl its, slimy length over our city, state and nation. At the head is a small group of banking houses, gen­erally referred to as 'International Bankers.' This little coterie of powerful international bankers virtually run our government for their own selfish ends.”

The International Bankers, referred to here by Mayor Hylan, had organized three years before this and formed a power structure dedicated to control of the world. Within this group was complete control of the money of the world and they intended to use it to the fullest advantage. They called themselves The Council on Foreign Relations. They have worked steadily on their project of world control by building world empire. Nothing has been permitted to stand in their way.

On December 9th, 1950, the Chicago Times, taking note of the menacing power of the Council on Foreign Relations, commented editorially:

"The members of the Council are persons of much more than average influence in the community. They have used the prestige that their wealth, their social position and their education have given them to lead their country toward bankruptcy and mili­tary debacle. They should look at their hands. There is blood on them."

Thus, the existence and the Satanic power of the Council on Foreign Relations was recognized by men in a position to know about it, many years ago. Many warnings such as those raised by Mayor Hylan and the Chicago Times, were uttered and fell on deaf ears.

Among the International Bankers who had formed the Council on Foreign Relations and whose descendents make up the Council today were:

The House of Rockefeller Kuhn Loeb & Company

The House of Morgan Lehman Brothers

Goldman Sachs Brown Brothers Harriman

There were and are others of course, but these provided the nucleus of the world power-house which was to work toward revolution for the establishment of a world empire to be ruled by themselves and their counterparts in Europe. The membership of the Coun­cil on Foreign Relations never exceeds 1400, more than 1,000 of whom are the educated elite who serve as the work-horses and lackeys of the billionaire element at the top.

The "Brain Trust" which moved into Washington with Roosevelt and set up the New Deal—their name for the "profound and peaceful revolution”—almost to a man, came from the headquarters training school of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Each succeeding Administration has absorbed more and more of the Council on Foreign Relations lackey staff into the government until, at last, the Kennedy administration was more than 90% a Council on For­eign Relations operation. The revolutionary govern­ment had been firmly established. The time had come for the experienced hand to move and get the world­wide revolution rolling. This, as the President stated in his speech of December 17th, 1963, he intends to do.

This little book is written at a time when the New World Order is facing a crisis. This New World Order will pass. What then? Americans who have lived through half a century under the New Order, without knowing or even suspecting that the Constitutional Gov­ernment of the United States had been quietly erased, are not equipped to deal with the problem—what now?

Students in the schools have been taught for several generations that we are building a New World Order. Their parents knew nothing about it; they would not have believed it if they had been told. They have been completely absorbed in the accumulation of material wealth, a new form of wealth, peculiar to the New Or­der.

In the days of the Constitutional Republic, Ameri­cans worked, saved and were free and responsible. Their wealth was invested in debt-free property and in sav­ings in the banks. They were prepared to meet the misfortunes of life as well as its responsibilities. They had wrought mightily and they managed their wealth wisely.

Then a terrible malignancy invaded the body of the Republic. The happy and prosperous people were taken into a World War. The horrors of war, however, were soon forgotten in the unprecedented prosperity of the post-war period. For the first time, individual Ameri­cans began to borrow money to pay for unearned luxur­ies, to gamble in over-priced stocks. They were mort­gaging their future to pay for the pleasures of the pres­ent.

The People discarded the old ways of industry, economy and thrift and embarked on a dangerous poli­cy. No longer were savings applied to the purchase of a home, as Americans had always purchased homes, with money carefully saved for the purpose. The down payment, the mortgage on future earnings, was the trade-mark of the New Order. Americans indulging in this practice went through life, burdened by debt, never really owning anything.

New devices entered the public communications field, slick magazines, radio and eventually television. These were put to work to sell new ideas and attitudes on the debt economy. Propaganda poured upon the populace day and night and soon all trace, all memory of the Old Order had disappeared. The Credit economy had been replaced by the Debt economy. Propaganda sustained the New Order. The future was mortgaged to the hilt. Propaganda drugged Americans accepted the theory that we do not need to worry about public debt, we owe it to ourselves, in other words, we do not have to pay the debt because we owe it to Americans. If we had owed it to foreigners we would have had to pay it. This idea was an expansion of the theory of the New Deal (New Order), that Americans could not hold or acquire gold or redeem government paper in gold. Foreigners can and do.

A state of perpetual war has come with the New Order and rebellious youth is now challenging the sys­tem which imposes upon them the debts and taxes re­sulting from the profligacy of other generations. They are challenging the right of any government to demand of them the sacrifices which the perpetual war of the New Order demands. Their rebellion is the crisis now confronting the New World Order.

American youth may be coming to the realization that the New World Order is not going to work to their advantage. They will have to make some important de­cisions, which should be based on solid facts, if they are to change things for the betterment of themselves and their children. They will have to learn to distinguish truth from falsehood, to separate fact from propaganda. They will have to understand that many of the things they have been taught are not true. Then they will have to seek out the facts for themselves, before they can hope to make sound decisions.

The New World Order has been based on lies and distortion, which must be completely debunked. First on the debunk list should be the Federal Reserve System. The Federal Reserve System is not owned by the government. The government doesn’t own a dime’s worth of stock in it. It is owned by private individuals, mostly by those who own and control the great banking and investment houses in New York City.

Congress does not coin the money and regulate its value. The privately owned Federal Reserve System is­sues all the money; they create the money and get it into circulation by buying debt bonds of the Federal Government. The government puts the money into circulation when they use these Federal Reserve Notes to pay the government bills. The green paper in the pockets of Americans is plainly marked; it tells its own story; it is a FEDERAL RESERVE NOTE.

The government in Washington is not a National Government. Under the New World Order, it is the government of a State in the World Government of the United Nations. This fact is accepted in a hazy sort of fashion by the student of today. His parents have never suspected it, nor would they have cared much if they had. Collectively they have long since decided to let their children work out the problems created by their own insensate desires for the unearned good things of life, here and now. The fact that the children were not being equipped to handle these problems was of no con­sequence to their parents. Not until the draft board takes its toll, do these parents sense danger.

It is the opinion of this writer that a factual review of the past is imperative if the youth of today is to un­derstand the present and be prepared to assess properly the strangest and most colossal wreckage in all history, a sea of wreckage represented by split-level homes, gaudy new cars and boats, fabulous luxuries of every description,—all mortgaged to the hilt and charged to the new generation.

Inquiring and rebellious youth must understand that all this did not happen without central planning and direction. He should understand also that those who planned and directed this program, which has brought perpetual war to a most peacefully inclined people, had something to gain from the adventure. He must realize that in all history there have been greedy and power-mad men who have schemed to rule the world. He should know who these men are and how they operate.

Revolution, as the average American understands the term, is a violent overthrow of existing government. The International Bankers of the Council on Foreign Relations could not hope to accomplish their purpose by such tactics, nor are they the type to engage in such perilous activity. The new revolution had to be fought with money. They would provide the money for revolu­tion, for wars, for the wholesale bribery of the whole populace in the forms of welfare, subsidies, wage and price guarantees, social security and a host of other benefits all charged to the beneficiaries in the public debt. This debt is owed largely to these International Bankers of the Council on Foreign Relations.

In order to sustain the profound and peaceful oper­ation of the new government, the visible form of that government must be maintained. The People will go along producing at peak capacity to support the schemes of what they believe to be their government, hence, the President, the Congress and the Supreme Court will remain in Washington and go through the motions of that government. The revolutionary government works through the United Nations, where the laws are actually made and handed down to the straw-bosses of the Member State, the President, Congress and Supreme Court for implementation. All are charged with the binding obligation of putting these laws into effect within their borders. This they do, and they are continuing to do, wittingly or unwittingly (members of Congress appear to do their part unwittingly) since we were taken into the United Nations.

The more observing youth will remember the Re­publican National Convention of 1964, where young Re­publicans rose up and ousted the former leaders of their Party. These leaders were denounced by the delegates who referred to them as the Establishment or the Eastern Establishment. The propaganda press went all-out to protect the Establishment without giving any informa­tion on the nature and make-up of this organization. The fact is that the top echelon of The Establishment is occupied by the bankers of the Federal Reserve System and a group of associated cartelists who intend to rule the World through the United Nations.

This group of billionaires and their trained agents, who occupy all top posts in the Washington government by appointment of the Establishment, are incorporated under the title, Council on Foreign Relations. It is an international combine, having counterpart organizations throughout Europe, Asia and Africa. Through their Central Banking systems, they control the wealth of the world and use this wealth and the credit of all the people in the world to advance their own objective. One of their trusted member-agents put it thus: "Our goal is government of all the world." (Elmo Roper).

The Council on Foreign Relations was organized immediately after the failure of their League of Nations scheme. They took control of both political parties through the simple expedient of getting control of the delegates of the National Conventions by whatever means necessary. Money was never a problem to them. They had control of the Federal Reserve System; it was their property.

With firm control of both political parties, their control of government was secure. The Council on Foreign Relations headquarters in New York became both a training school and a hiring hall for operatives of the Washington government. This small group of 1400 men have literally taken over the government of the United States and eased it into the World Empire (The New World Order) of the United Nations.

The course of empire once again is littered with the dead and broken bodies of youth, the youth of the world this time. A war and debt economy on an international scale demands this; empire-building requires it. The death march goes on because American youth and their irresponsible parents are misinformed and completely misled by the propaganda of those who will destroy anything which stands in the way of their planned World Conquest.

One of the most loquacious members of the Council on Foreign Relations stood before a Committee of the United States Senate, not many years ago, and told the Senators to their faces that they (we) would have world government whether we want it or not; if we did not get it by consent, said Mr. James P. Warburg, we would get it by conquest. The whole Senate has taken his word for it. We have gotten world government by consent.

A simple question should be posed for the inquiring American and it is imperative that the answer be found right now, in this time of crisis: Why should the richest men in the United States favor World Government? It cannot be denied that they favor it and are using their vast wealth and influence to advance this objective. On Wednesday, November 10th, 1965 the New York Metropolitan Committee of the United World Federalists held their Second Annual "Publius Award" Dinner. On the dais were:

Mr. Clark M. Eichelberger
Honorable Benjamin V. Cohen Dr. Arthur Larson
Honorable Paul G. Hoffman
Mr. Charles Rhyne
Mr. William Rand, Jr.
Ambassador Zenon G. Rossides
Mr. C. Maxwell Stanley
His Excellency Chief S. O. Adebo,
Mr. John J. McCloy
Mr. Grenville Clark
Mr. Randolph P. Compton
Mr. Norman Cousins
Dr. Arthur N. Holcombe
Honorable Constance Baker Motley
Dr. Louis B. Sohn
Mr. C. V. Nararimhan
Mr. Thomas H. Mahony
Dean Andrew W. Cordier
Mr. James P. Warburg
Mr. Lloyd K. Garrison
President John Sloan Dickey
Honorable Thomas K. Finletter
Justice William 0. Douglas

More than half of these men are members of the Council on Foreign Relations. They are among the richest men in the world. Would they be here unless the United World Federalists were promoting their in­terests? The reader will note the name of James P. Warburg on the list. It is he and his associates on the Council who have decreed that we will have world gov­ernment whether we want it or not. The point to be stressed in this work is that we already have it. There are now two questions confronting us: Do we want it? Must we keep it? Only an enlightened America is com­petent to answer. This little book is intended to pro­vide an outline of the progress of World Empire, to show how it has been accomplished, who directed the operation and where we stand as a Member State.

The President of the United States has made the unequivocal statement that the United States had a rev­olution under the New Deal and that it was time now for a world revolution. He said the New Deal revolu­tion had been profound but peaceful. That is why the people did not know about it and because the people did not know about it, an immediate change in the form of government was not expedient. The Constitutional form would remain; the President, the Congress, the Supreme Court, would continue to represent a visible government, while the new revolutionary government was established at a higher, invisible level.

This, then, is the story of the PROFOUND REVOLUTION.

Preface

It has often been said that truth is stranger than fiction. So it is that the truth of the political status of the United States, from 1945 to the present time, is so monstrous as to appear incredible.

The enemy group within our country, who have betrayed the people and robbed them of their former sovereignty, are keen students of human nature. They have taken full advantage of the blind trust which A­mericans place in their leaders and so-called represen­tatives. They even capitalize upon the pathetic refusal of the people to believe it possible that these leaders have illegally changed their form of government behind their backs, without their knowledge or consent. The hideous farce is perpetuated by the continuing employ­ment of the big lie technique, through an almost ab­solute control of the fields of communication and edu­cation. The overwhelming majority of the people have been so cleverly brainwashed that they actually believe the real traitors to be those who are trying to tell them the truth.

However incredible it may seem, the facts are that the United Nations Organization is a world government, that its Charter is the Constitution creating it, that the United States has been a member of this world govern­ment since its creation in 1945 and that our joinder therein was actually a bloodless revolution which caused the loss of our sovereignty and which illegally changed our form of government, in violation and abandonment of the United States Constitution, the Constitutions of the respective States and the inalienable rights of the people.

Since all of the aims and purposes of this book are based upon those premises, it is of fundamental impor­tance to first establish their truth.

Is the United Nations Charter a Constitution for world government or is it merely a treaty? It is true that America's agreement to it and participation in it was effected in the manner of a treaty, as prescribed by the Constitution of the United States, by being signed by President Harry S. Truman with the advice and con­sent of the United States Senate. Article VI of the United States Constitution provides that the 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 that the jud­ges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution and laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

It will thus be seen that in effecting the United Na­tions Charter as a treaty it was given a prima facie status of being the supreme law of the land.

We have had it repeatedly dinned into our ears that the document is a treaty. The blanket acceptance of that statement is almost universal. In this case, the big lie technique was so imminently successful, that it ap­parently did not even occur to anyone to question it until 1961, when the statement was categorically dis­puted for the first time by attorney Arthur J. J. Bohn of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, in the form of a letter to the respective state Governors, which has since become known as the Bohn Plan. Briefly, said letter contend­ed that the United Nations Charter was in fact a Con­stitution for world government and not a treaty, that whatever it was called, it had changed our form of gov­ernment and had caused the loss of our sovereignty, that our joinder in it was illegal and void from the start because it was in violation of the United States Constitution. The letter further requested that one of the States join with one citizen in filing a suit direct­ly in the Supreme Court of the United States to challenge the constitutionality of the United Nations Char­ter and to force our withdrawal from that organization. The authority to file such a suit directly in the highest tribunal is found in Article III, Section 2, of our Consti­tution, which provides:

"2. In all cases affecting ambassadors, other pub­lic ministers and consuls, and those in which a State shall be a party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. . ."

Let us proceed to more particularly explore the facts supporting this tenet.

First of all, the word "Charter" is synonymous with the word "Constitution." I am sure that many of the readers themselves participated in the drafting of Con­stitutions for clubs, societies and organizations, where the ultimate document was actually called a Charter. In this instance, we are concerned with a formal, writ­ten, instrument which calls itself "Charter of the United Nations." The document, therefore, speaks for itself to the effect that it is a charter, rather than a treaty. There is no language in the body of the instrument which even indirectly implies that it is a treaty. As a matter of fact, the provisions of Article 102 of the Unit­ed Nations Charter specifically demonstrate that the Charter distinguishes itself from a treaty, to-wit

"1. Every treaty and every international agree­ment entered into by any member of the United Na­tions after the present Charter comes into force, shall as soon as possible be registered with the Secretariat and published by it.

2. No party to any such treaty or international agreement which has not been registered in ac­cordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 of this Article may invoke that treaty or agreement be­fore any organ of the United Nations."

If the Charter itself was regarded as a treaty, it is obvious how completely nonsensical the above Article would be. It is equally self-evident from this Article that the framers of the Charter clearly intended that mere treaties and international agreements were com­pletely distinct from and subservient to the provisions of the Charter.

Aside from this, I think it will be conceded generally that people create governments by constitutions, whereas governments create treaties by agreement. Your own dictionary will prove that the main purpose of a constitution is to create an organization and that a constitution is a written instrument creating and em­bodying the fundamental organic law or principles of government of a Nation, state, society or other organ­ized body of men. On the other hand, the same source will demonstrate that a treaty is a formal, written agreement or contract between two or more already existing sovereign powers or states, customarily relating to some specific subject matter, such as a Treaty of Alliance or a Treaty of Peace. At this point, let me ask, could the member nations enter into any agreement with the United Nations until the United Nations Organization was first created? No one can enter into a contract with a non-existent entity.

Tested by these axiomatic, dictionary definitions, furthermore, the express language of the Preamble of the United Nations Charter reveals that the document is, in fact and in law, a Constitution for world gov­ernment. Stripped of its deliberately confusing verbi­age, it reads as follows:

"CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS

We, the peoples of the United Nations... have agreed to the present Charter of the United Na­tions and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Na­tions."

That language is so simple and clear that even a child should be able to understand it. Perhaps that is why the children are not taught to read this document, since otherwise they might quickly learn how their fathers had sold them into slavery.

It is enough to say that the balance of the lengthy preamble, which outlines its reasons for creating the world government, is sandwiched between the subject of the sentence and its verbs, to the extent that by the time the average reader reaches the verbs and their object, he will likely have forgotten who was said to be doing the creating of the international organiza­tion, namely, "We, the peoples of the United Nations… "

If there is any doubt left in anyone's mind concern­ing the fact that the United Nations Charter is a Con­stitution establishing a world government, let him compare the preamble of the Charter with the pre­amble of the United States Constitution, which reads:

"CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES

We, the people of the United States ... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The significant difference, of course, was that when the people formed and created the government of the United States, the people really did it, with their full knowledge and consent, through their own elected rep­resentatives, assembled in open, constitutional assembly, whereas when the "peoples of the United Nations" alleg­edly formed the world government of the United Na­tions, it was done for them, behind their backs, without their knowledge and consent, by such notorious char­acters as Alger Hiss, who was Secretary General of the United Nations Conference and a member of the so-called American delegation at San Francisco in 1945, where and when this monster was spawned. The pre­amble of the United Nations Charter also says that the "peoples" involved were represented "through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco who have exhibited their full powers, found to be in good and due form . . ."

I will ask, just rhetorically, do any of the readers remember ever having empowered Alger Hiss or any­one else to scrap the United States Constitution and sell them down the river into world government?

The perpetrators of this monstrosity and their ant-like retinue of "intellectual" supporters and succes­sors, in addition to promoting the big lie that the Unit­ed Nations Charter is merely a treaty, have also saturated, the field of communications with an even bigger lie, to the effect that a treaty may violate and even su­persede the Constitution of the United States. The late John Foster Dulles was one of the most vocal exponents of this bigger lie, even during his tenure as our Secre­tary of State. Is it any wonder, then, that the people are confused?

The real truth of the matter is that a treaty must conform to the provisions of the United States Constitution. If it violates the Constitution, it is illegal and void and unenforceable. A treaty has no greater digni­ty than a simple law of Congress, which must conform to the Constitution. In fact, if a law of Congress conflicts with the provisions of an earlier treaty, the law of Congress voids and supersedes the treaty to the extent of the conflict.

There is nothing which can supersede the United States Constitution, excepting only an amendment to it, executed in the formal manner prescribed in its own Article V. Nothing of that nature was even attempted at San Francisco in 1945.

It is hoped that the reader will be shocked to learn that the above statement of the law is not just the writer's opinion, but a solemn judicial pronouncement of the Supreme Court of the United States, in 1957, under the Chief Justiceship of Hon. Earl Warren, in the case of Reid v. Covert (S.C.U.S.-1957) 354 U. S. 1, L Ed. (2nd) 1163, 77 S. Ct. 1222, 1231, wherein the court said:

“Even though a court martial does not give an ac­cused trial by jury and other Bill of Rights protections, the Government contends that Article 2 (11) of U.C.M.J., insofar as it provides for the military trial of dependents accompanying the armed forces in Great Britain and Ja­pan, can be sustained as legislation which is necessary and proper to carry out the United States' obligations under the international agreements made with those countries. The obvious and decisive answer to this, of course, is that no agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or on any other branch of the 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 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 of the Constitution which even suggests such a result. These debates as well as the history that surrounds the adoption of the treaty provision in Article VI make it clear that the reason treaties were not limited to those made in "pursuance" of the Constitution was so that agreements made by the United States under the Articles of Con­federation, including the important peace treaties which concluded the Revolutionary War would remain in ef­fect. 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 (footnote 32 - See the discussions in the Virginia Convention of the adoption of the Constitution. 3 Elliott's Debates. (1836 ed.) 5000^-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 a^pply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive and the Senate combined.

There is nothing new or unique about what we say here. This Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the Supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty. (Footnote 33. E.g. U.S. v. State of Minnesota, 270 U.S. 181. 207-8, 46 S. Ct. 298, 303-306, 70 L. Ed^,. 539. Holden v. Jay 17 Wall. 211, 242-243, 21 L. Ed. 523: The Cherokee Tobacco 11 Wall 616, 670 621, 20 L. Ed. 227; Doe ex den. Clark v. Braden, I6 How. 635. 657, 14 L. Ed. 1090, cf. Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137. 176-180, 2 L. Ed. 60. We recognize that executive agreements are in­volved here, but it cannot be contended that such an agreement rises to greater stature than a treaty).

For example, in Geofrey v. Riggs T33 U.S. 258, 267, 10 S. Ct. 295, 297, 33 L. Ed. 642, it declared:

" ‘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 in that of one of the States, or a session of any portion of the latter, without its consent'."

This Court has also repeatedly taken the position that an Act of Congress, which must comply with the Constitution, is on a 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.

There is nothing in State of Missouri v. Holland, 252 US. 416. 40 S. Ct. 182, 64 L. Ed. 941, which is con­trary to the position taken here. There the Court carefully noted that the treaty involved was not inconsistent with any specific provision of the Constitution. The Court was concerned with the Tenth Amendment which reserves to the States or the people all power not delegated to the National Government. To the extent that the United States can validly make treaties, the people and the States have delegated their power to the Na­tional Government and the Tenth Amendment is no bar­rier.

In summary, we conclude that the Constitution in its entirety applied to the trials of Mrs. Smith and Mrs. Covert.

At this point, it might intelligently be asked why we are still operating under the United Nations Char­ter if it is so clearly illegal and void. The answer is insidiously simple. Under the principles of American law, the Charter, which as you will recall, was approved as a treaty, is presumed to be valid, until such time as it is declared invalid by a Court of competent juris­diction. The Courts, themselves, cannot raise the question on their own initiative. The question of in­validity must be raised by some litigant in an actual, litigated case, called a justifiable controversy. The main thrust of the Bohn Plan, to which wereferred earlier, was to have one of the States bring such a case directly before the Supreme Court. In view of the law as outlined in the above case of Reid v. Covert, the re­sult of such a case should be inevitable to force our withdrawal from the illegal world government appara­tus.

Why, then, has no State come forward to file such a suit? Why, moreover, has the Congress of the United States not passed a law simply voiding the alleged "Treaty"? Why, then, have the Presidents and Sen­ate members since 1945 not acted to cancel the uncon­stitutional and revolutionary action which their predecessors took? There can be only one answer to these questions. Those in control of the federal agencies of the government must be dedicated world socialists, de­sirous of perpetuating the illegally established world government and desirous of confirming forever the de­struction of the former Constitutional, Republican form of government of the United States. As to those in control of the State Agencies, there are many who have a similar ambition and identity of interest and there are undoubtedly others who simply do not have the courage to try to fight the world power, knowing that there would be immediate reprisal in the form of with­drawal of all federal handouts, sabotage of their politi­cal careers and the targeting of their States for inten­sive, military controls.

It might then be asked, why some individual does not start a suit to restore our Constitution and to force our withdrawal from the United Nations. The answer again is quite clear. Such a suit, absent the joinder of a State, would have to be filed in thelowest state or federal tribunal and laboriously appealed. It would be subjected to a thousand delays and legal, procedural snarls and pitfalls and very likely never even reach the Supreme Court of the United States. Even the cost of such an effort would be a roadblock to individual ac­tion.

You might finally ask. What proof is there that the provisions of the United Nations Charter established a world government? Well, we must first suggest that you read the document and judge for yourself. You will find that it assumes territorial sovereignty over the entire universe. It has established a capital in New York City. It has established a World Court and judi­cial system, a world legislative body and a world execu­tive department. Through regional agencies, regional agreements, covenants, resolutions, executive agree­ments and conventions, it has assumed control over every field of life of which the mind can conceive and last, but certainly not least, in the so-called interest of peace and security, it has provided for its own absolute military control of the entire universe. As an example of the exercise of this power in our current history, it has involved the United States in a war with Viet Nam, without the necessity of a declaration of war by the United States Congress. This should be enough to satisfy any reasonable mind that we are not operating un­der the Constitution of the United States.

Incredible? Yes, but true. In this late hour, as you read on, just remember that it is only the Truth Who can set you free.