Those devoted UN-ers who try to prove their points by reference to the United, Nations Charter—just as Constitutionalists try to prove theirs by referring to the Constitution—may properly hold that both the Constitution and, the Charter specifically prohibit some of the activities discussed here. It may not be in the Charter, but it is in the international law based largely on ratified treaties and on Resolution law. The Constitution no longer counts.
The fact is that the Constitutional Government of the United States of America, as it existed for more than one hundred and fifty years before we became involved in the United Nations, was quietly transferred to an international government. This was done without any suspicion on the part of the United States population of being so transferred. This fact simply does not register on the minds of the people. The human mind cannot grasp the enormity of such a transaction, cannot cope with it and cannot accept it as accomplished fact.
Nothing the writer might say would add much to the ability of the reader to deal with the subject and so we must rely upon the statements made by men in authority in the United Nations, as they express in their own peculiar, and deliberately confusing language, the REAL intent and purpose of the United Nations and the extent of their progress. Nothing could be more revealing in this field than statements contained in the U. N. publication: "International Law in a Changing World." A few quotations from this significant document must suffice to support the contention that the U. N. IS World Government, as was intended from the very beginning.
"The Changing World" referred to has been changed radically by close associates of those responsible for the book. The authority for the changes and the designation of those authorized to make the changes, the UN-ers hold was all in the brief and, innocuous Charter of the United Nations. The non-UN-er might be hard put to discover this authority in the Charter, but interpretation of the Charter has become the prerogative of the U. N., the governments of the world have recognized this authority and their obligation to "accept and carry out" the decree of the United Nations. This is the BASE of INTERNATIONAL LAW at this time and will remain so until the great bulk of International Law written and codified by the U. N. International Law Commission can be put into effect in Member States. The International Law Commission was set up by the General Assembly in 1947 to establish and codify World Law. They have been working on it for eighteen years. Now to get on with some of the ideas expressed, in "International Law in a Changing World":
(Page 18:) "Membership in the various organizations (of the U. N.—ed.) inevitably tend to restrict the freedom of the States, for the organizations are continually taking action in fields where only a short time ago each State exercised unchallenged authority. In fact nowadays, side by side with each of its governmental Ministries (the States?—ed.) or EACH BRANCH of a national administration, there exists an international organization or even a number of such organizations, active in the same field.
"How far, and in what way does the action of these international organizations harmonize with those of the Member States? To what extent is the free action of States limited in our time by the intervention of International Organizations?
The activities of these organizations usually take one of two forms. The first method by which an international organization penetrates into the DOMESTIC LIFE of a Sovereign State (thereby rendering it no longer sovereign—ed.), is through the CHANNEL OF THE LAW. It does so by LEGALLY BINDING ALL ITS MEMBERS TO TAKE WITHIN THEIR. OWN BORDERS STEPS AGREED UPON BY THE MAJORITY (IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY—ed.) as desirable to attain a certain objective."
How anybody reading and understanding the above can seriously contend that the United States has not completely surrendered its sovereignty by acceptance of such decrees as this escapes the writer. What they refer to here are the General Assembly Resolutions and the Treaties negotiated in the early days of the U. N., which serve as THE LAW of this international organization until such time as they can have the NEW INTERNATIONAL LAW prepared by the U. N. International Law Commission and accepted LEGALLY bythe "Member States." This plan was revealed early in September 1965 when a former President of the American Bar Association, appearing in support of the New Law, declared that it would be presented to the United States Senate as a TREATY. He was most careful, as is the whole U. N. complex, NOT TO INDICATE THAT THE U. N. HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT. It is remarkable that the U. N. Organization, which is beneficiary of such "solid support" on the part of the American people, finds it expedient to conceal so many of its most ambitious and vital operations.
The masterly understatement is standard equipment in U. N. circles. The combination of masterly understatement and far-out interpretation of the devious provisions of the Charter and whatever it was that replaced the Charter as Law of the World—a new device built upon Treaties and Resolutions of the Security and General Assembly—AT THIS TIME form the basis for the conclusions reached and expressed in "International Law in a Changing World." Continuing from Page 18:
"Among the essential functions of the United Nations and the Specified Agencies is to SECURE THE ADOPTION of a series of international conventions (agreements, treaties, etc.—ed.) coming within their respective areas of competence. . .
When an international organization can undertake the preliminary of a draft convention, can have it considered at the periodical meetings of the LEGALLY CONSTITUTED ASSEMBLIES and CAN THEN USE ITS INFLUENCE TO SECURE RATIFICATION of such a convention, the result is a VERY GREAT INCREASE in the NUMBER of such international agreements.
There are more than three thousand of them embedded in the "Law of the Land" now. And says the author:
"the fields covered by them are being continually extended."
In the brazen assertions of these paragraphs it is hoped the readers will find at least SOME BASIS for the charge that the Constitutional Government of the United States HAS BEEN USURPED and that ALL SOVEREIGNTY of the People of the United States has been erased, as quietly and unobtrusively as a child erases an error on the blackboard. The MAJORITY of U. N. delegates in the General Assembly, representing uncivilized or half-civilized and mostly illiterate and utterly incompetent people, now ADOPT A RESOLUTION which is sent down to OUR EXECUTIVE and he must put this law into effect within HIS OWN BORDERS As it was so succinctly described earlier in this section.
"The first method by which an INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION penetrates the domestic life of a SOVEREIGN STATE is through the channel of the LAW. It does so by LEGALLY BINDING ALL ITS MEMBERS TO TAKEWITHIN THEIR OWN BORDERS THE STEPS AGREED UPON BY THE MAJORITY (of the General Assembly—ed.)
Now, if you will carefully follow the revelations of the author of this U. N. publication, you can detect his belief in the power of the U. N. and its World Law to dictate legislative policies in its Member States:
"The older International Law is thus being supplanted by an EVER MORE COMPLEX NETWORK OF LEGALLY BINDING OBLIGATIONS which States (Nations—ed.) are assuming in fields where they have abandoned, no doubt FOREVER, their FORMER, COMPLETE FREEDOM OF ACTION. . . "The International organizations are thus becoming operative in areas once strictly reserved to national government, and they are doing this more and more obviously and in various ways. The historical significance of these developments will escape no one. In half a century (since the founding of the Council on Foreign Relations—ed.) the independent sovereign State, which, in the preceding centuries, had done so much to absorb political entities within its borders, has in turn been OBLIGED TO ADMIT the existence of BROADER organizations than its own (that is, the formerly independent sovereign States—ed.) TO FOLLOW THEIR INSTRUCTIONS and to SEEK THEIR ASSISTANCE and sometimes even to STAND ASIDE, and allow them, because of their own admitted INCAPACITY, to act in its place. . . "
Both of the above most potent statements were made by Mr. Roberto Ago, Member of the International Law Commission of the United Nations and former President of the World Federation of United Nations Associations. We have his word for it that international organizations, of which the U. N. is the chief, do "penetrate" into "the domestic life of a sovereign State... by legally binding all its members to take within their own borders steps agreed upon by the majority" in the General Assembly Resolutions: as a Member-Nation of the U. N. we are a Captive Nation.
The traditional notion of independence as expressed in the word sovereignty is giving way to a fresh concept. It is to be hoped that lawyers, who still think they are practicing Constitutional Law and State Legislators, who struggle to enact State Laws conforming to the Constitution of the United States, and stillare bound by the restrictions imposed upon them by the New Law, as promulgated by the U. S. Supreme Court and the strange Laws now being adopted by the Congress, will RECOGNIZE THE SOURCE of these decisions and laws.
Surely, WORLD LAW and its IMPLEMENTATION within the States has never been so well set forth as in the pages of "International Law in a Changing World." By the plain statements of those who know, the law of the United States is made by Resolutions of the International Organizations, principally the Security Council and the General Assembly of the U. N. When a proper majority of the Member Nations in U. N. headquarters adopt a Resolution, that Resolution becomes LAW OF THE WORLD, and the Executive of each Member State IS OBLIGED, "notwithstanding the provisions of any other law" (U. N. Participation Act), to put that Resolution Law into effect within its borders.
Illustrative of how this works, and of the incredibly vast area now covered by the Resolution Law of the United Nations, is a Resolution adopted UNANIMOUSLY by the General Assembly December 18, 1962. Here you will find the U. N. disposing of the tax monies of all Member Nations and directing the future tax levies of the Member States. In the early paragraphs of the Resolution, it holds that the Member Nations have had no serious problems in raising taxes for war and the implements of war. The people accepted this taxation without much protest, therefore, the Member States' governments will just continue to levy these burdensome taxes AFTER THE NATIONS ARE DISARMED. They will turn the savings, resulting from disarmament, over to the United Nations for the building of the World Empire or, as they undertake the proposition, for the "development of the less-developed countries."
A U. N. release entitled "The Benefits of Disarmament" states this proposition and contains portions of the Resolution. It states that:
"Disarmament would free resources for expanding education, health protection and social insurance for slum clearance and low-cost housing (worldwide—ed.)
"According to rough United Nations estimates, as many as 150 million families in the less developed countries are in need of adequate homes. The cost for educational requirements in under-developed countries is enormous. In Africa, for instance, the total cost of the educational program (of the U. N. ed.) is expected (AFTER DISARMAMENT—ed.) to increase from $590 million to $2,600 million within twenty years."
You can see now why we are to be engaged in a Southeast Asian war for twenty years. We will stand for anything in war time, even to disarming the nation with savage wars in progress and others in immediate prospect.
