FREE ELECTRONIC LIBRARY - Abstracts, books, theses

Pages:     | 1 |   ...   | 34 | 35 || 37 | 38 |   ...   | 51 |

«BEHOLD A PALE HORSE Milton William Cooper And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat upon him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And ...»

-- [ Page 36 ] --

The Constitution is a contract that WE THE PEOPLE of the USA made with one another, which sets up the machinery of government to carry out this contract —mainly for the purpose of PROTECTING INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS as well as STATE RIGHTS, AGAINST THE POWERS OF GOVERNMENT: and no public official has a right to override the provisions of that contract. To quote Thos. Jas. Norton's Constitution of the United States, Its Application, etc., "A law of Congress to be one of the supreme laws must be 'made in pursuance thereof and not in conflict with the Constitution. When not made in pursuance thereof it is of course unconstitutional and of no effect." And the same would similarly apply to a wonderful decision rendered by the Supreme Court or an unlawful Treaty.

And from Norton's Undermining the Constitution, which quotes Alexander Hamilton in No. 33 of The Federalist: "It will not, I presume, have escaped observation that it expressly confines the supremacy to laws made pursuant to the Constitution" (emphasis by Hamilton). And from page 21, "The General Government can claim no powers which are not granted to it by the Constitution, and the powers actually granted must be such as are expressly given, or given by necessary implication."

Anyone with the presumed intelligence to be President of the USA must know that he cannot lawfully make any such far-reaching treaty with

Chapter Thirteen Treason in High Places • 245

the United Nations, or any other foreign power, as you envision by your language, without laying himself open to the charge of TREASON under ARTICLE III, Section 3 of the Constitution. Just ordinary common sense is required to know that our alleged Treaty with the U.N. and acceptance of the all-inclusive terms of its Charter by our Presidents (beginning with FDR, who connived with Stalin at Yalta for the setting up of the U.N. in the USA) and our Senate, is a violation of their sacred oath of office as per ARTICLE III, Section 2 of the Constitution.

Such a Treaty makes a mockery of any genuine allegiance to OUR Flag and Constitution. A genuine American, Abraham Lincoln, said, "Worse than traitors-in-arms are the men who, pretending loyalty to the Flag, feast and fatten on the misfortunes of the nation." Think of any TRUTH more applicable to the present time?

A number of our officials, including former Secretary of State Dean Acheson, the late John Foster Dulles, and members of our present oneworld Kennedy entourage go along with the statement that the USA now has NO "domestic" affairs: there has been a melding of our domestic and foreign affairs! (Meld means to merge.) Katanga Province in the Congo thought she had some private affairs and rights, but the U.N. soon disillusioned her. Quote from S.L. Tribune for September 14,1961: "U.N. Soldiers Take Over in Katanga. U.N. troops seized Katanga's capital, Elisabethville, in a brisk battle Wednesday, and the Congo's central government proclaimed the return of that secessionist province." There is no doubt that the President of the USA and Senate have surrendered certain of our rights and Sovereignty to the U.N., and plan still more.

Any informed American is aware that ARTICLE IV, Section 4, of the Constitution automatically cancels out any allegiance to the U.N. and its alien one-world Internationalism, the antithesis of Constitutional Americanism founded on Washington's "NO foreign entanglements."

And that said republican representative form of government is the exact opposite of the U.N. Charter's Soviet-initiated modifications, restrictions, and reservations in its various "Conventions" which would nullify our Bill of Rights. Stalin, his protege, Alger Hiss, and Russian Communist Pasvolsky figured largely in the writing of the U.N. Charter.

To assume that a heterogeneous body composed of appointed representatives of foreign governments (some from crude cannibalistic so-called "States" and others, from virulently atheistic Communist States) — which Governments DO NOT REPRESENT "We the American People" — could exercise dictation and control over U.S. is monstrous in the extreme. Lawfully or constitutionally, they may not enforce any provisions of the U.N.

246 • BEHOLD A PALE HORSE William Cooper Charter against us, or take any action whatever affecting the Sovereign Rights of American Citizens.

Further, the United Nations is not a lawful government in the accepted sense of the term and is not a proper body with which to make a treaty.

Actually, the U.N. has NO valid binding treaty-making power — except as the subversive one-worlders try to make it so. Quoting Norton's Constitution of the United States, at page 14: "A treaty is a written contract between two governments (not a motley assembly of unstable tribes, or enslaved peoples calling themselves a 'government') respecting matters of mutual welfare, such as peace, the acouisition of territory, the defining of boundaries, the needs of trade, rights of citizenship..." etc.

And such treaties, even though "legally made," MAY be abrogated for cause. Quoting ibid, p. 115: "A precedent for thus abrogating a treaty made by the President and approved by the Senate may be found as far back as July 7, 1789, when Congress passed 'An Act to Declare the Treaties heretofore concluded with France no longer obligatory on the United States because they have been repeatedly violated on the part of the French government." So what about all the violations of the treaties or agreements made by the USSR, which dominates the U.N.? The USA is vastly outvoted in this motley aggregation called the United Nations, even as American taxpayers foot most of the bills, which constitutes Constitutionally forbidden confiscation of the citizens' money (property) without just compensation therefore. This is merely communistic confiscation.

A Treaty made "pursuant to the Constitution" becomes A PART of the LAW OF THE LAND, and should be honored; but it does NOT become "Supreme" or take precedence over nor supersede the Constitution. It is NOT the "Law of the Land" standing alone. And NO Treaty or Executive Agreement is binding on the USA if made by the President alone (as has been done) with the advice and consent of the Senate, nor if it violates the Constitution.

Actually, ARTICLE VI, instead of setting Treaties on high or being a "death trap," is a statement of the SUPREMACY OF THE CONSTITUTION and of the NATIONAL GOVERNMENT. Lawful Treaties are a part of, but subordinate to, the Constitution for the simple stated provision therein that ALL laws and treaties must be made "in pursuance thereof."

Can the "creature" (or a part) become greater than its CREATOR, or the whole??? Some American common sense is necessary in all this blather about the supremacy of treaties, which is promulgated largely by the one-worlders to discredit or diminish the Constitution so they can achieve their own ends.

The language and intent of the Constitution and of ARTICLE VI is Chapter Thirteen Treason in High Places • 247 clear and forthright, and does not admit, in good faith, of any other interpretation. But sadly enough, it is well known that many of our highest judiciary and elected officials — in this era of TREASON, not Reason — do not act in good faith nor in "pursuance of the Constitution."

With reference to fourth paragraph your letter Oct. 12th, Mr. Newby, that the "making of treaties is without limitation, exception or reservation" and that "no treaty has ever been declared unconstitutional or invalidated or repealed by the Courts or Congress in the history of this nation," I think that the foregoing invalidates your statement.

And as to ARTICLE VI being a "deathtrap" over which the Constitution gives no control or remedy other than its explicit language in VI regarding the law and treaties: has it occurred to you that the Supreme Court has power and authority to rule on the constitutionality of treaties the same as on the constitutionality of any other law — treaties being merely "part of the Law of the Land"? ARTICLE III, Section 2 explicitly states: "The Judicial power shall extend to all cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority." To quote Norton's Constitution of the United States, page 137: "When a case arises in a State court and involves a question of the Constitution, or an Act of Congress, or of a treaty, it is the duty of the court to follow and enforce the National [Constitional] law; for the Constitution explicitly and emphatically requires that the 'judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.'" Any time that the President and Senate make a treaty with a foreign power (such as the U.N.) which infringes upon or abrogates rights guaranteed citizens of the USA under the Constitution, the Supreme Court can declare such treaty unconstitutional, void, and of no effect. Of course, the present Supreme Court, being composed of political radicals rather than judicial Constitutional experts, is not likely to take such action — unless forced to do so by public opinion and demand.

And so, with reference to your statement in printed CHALLENGE for November, 1961, to the effect that, "under ARTICLE II, Section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution...such treaty (as with the U.N.) can be made without restriction, limitation, exception or reservation irrespective of the fact that it contravenes, violates, infringes or alienates every article of the Constitution. All that is necessary is for the President and Senate to ratify ANY treaty and it is in force." The above article and clause likewise does not stand alone, but must be construed in the light of the entire Constitution.

YOUR interpretation is not only to make idiots of the Founding Fathers and Framers of the Constitution, but to say that regardless of the solemn 248 • BEHOLD A PALE HORSE William Cooper Presidential oath of allegiance required by ARTICLE III, Section 2a, regardless of the SUPREME SOVEREIGNTY of the U.S. Constitution, and in violation of the explicit language contained in ARTICLE VI, i.e., "THIS CONSTITUTION, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties...under the authority of the United States...," as well as all authoritative rulings by genuine Constitutional authorities to the effect that anything which contravenes the Constitution of the USA is null and void, including any such acts by the Congress;

despite all of the foregoing. I reiterate that YOUR interpretation would claim that there is absolutely NO constitutional safeguard for the American People against TREASONOUS treaties (which "gives aid and comfort to our enemies" as per ARTICLE III, Section 3).

YOUR interpretation would give complete IMMUNITY to the maker...of such treaties and would constitute "changing the Constitution by usurpation" in violation of the intent, spirit, AND letter of the Constitution as a whole.

The President obviously is NOT a "free agent" by virtue of ARTICLE II, Section 2, clause 2, to make any sort of treaty he would like, but is BOUND DOWN by the chains of the entire Constitution. Nothing else makes any sense. His treaty-making acts are subject to review by the Courts.

True, we SHOULD DEMAND rescinding of the action by both Senate and Harry S. Truman in signing the U.N. Participation Act of 1945 in behalf of the USA. This would put the World on notice that we were once more



FORMER PROPER SUPREME POSITION: as well as reclaiming our Sovereignty as an Independent Republic in accordance with our Declaration of Independence.

There is not nor ever will be any true Peace, Freedom, Safety or Security for the American People under the alien U.N. Charter.

There is "NO SUBSTITUTE" for American Independence. Many men have died and "worms have eaten them" for a far lesser Cause.

And so, Mr. Newby, you and I do have one primary objective in view:



–  –  –

I guess that just about covers the U.N. Charter vs. U.S. sovereignty hoax. No one should ever be able to bullshit you on this issue again. Your job now is to make sure your Congressmen and Senators are educated on this issue.

–  –  –



So that we may join in common endeavors, welcome the future in good order, and create an adequate and self-repairing government - we, the people, do establish the Newstates of America, herein provided to be ours, and do ordain this Constitution whose supreme law it shall be until the time prescribed for it shall have run.


Rights and Responsibilities A. Rights SECTION 1.. Freedom of expression, of communication, of movement, of assembly, or of petition shall not be abridged except in declared emergency.

SECTION 2. Access to information possessed by governmental agencies shall not be denied except in interest of national security; but communications among officials necessary to decision making shall be be privileged.

SECTION 3. Public communicators may decline to reveal sources of information, but shall be responsible for hurtful disclosures.

SECTION 4. The privacy of individuals shall be respected; searches and seizures shall be made only on judicial warrant; persons shall be pursued or questioned only for the prevention of crime or the apprehension of suspected criminals, and only according to rules established under law.

SECTION 5. There shall be no discrimination because of race, creed, color, origin, or sex.

The Court of Rights and Responsibilities may determine whether selection for various occupations has been discriminatory.

SECTION 6. All persons shall have equal protection of the laws, and in all electoral procedures the vote of every eligible citizen shall count equally with others.

SECTION 7. It shall be public policy to promote discussion of public issues and to encourage peaceful public gatherings for this purpose.

Permission to hold such gatherings shall not be denied, nor shall they be interrupted, except in decalred emergency or on a showing of imminent danger to public order and on judicial warrant.

SECTION 8. The practice of religion shall be privileged; but no religion shall be imposed by some on others, and none shall have public support.

SECTION 9. Any citizen may purchase, sell, lease, hold, convey and inherit real and personal property, and shall benefit equally from all laws for security in such transactions.

SECTION 10. Those who cannot contribute to productivity shall be entitled to a share of the national product; but distribution shall be fair and the total may not exceed the amount for this purpose held in the National Sharing Fund.

SECTION 11. Education shall be provided at public expense for those who meet appropriate tests of eligibility.

SECTION 12. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. No property shall be taken without compensation.

SECTION 13. Legislatures shall define crimes and conditions requiring restraint, but confinement shall not be for punishment; and, when possible, there shall be preparation for return to freedom.

SECTION 14. No person shall be placed twice in jeopardy for the same offense.

SECTION 15. Writs of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except in declared emergency.

SECTION 16. Accused persons shall be informed of charges against them, shall have a speedy trial, shall have reasonable bail, shall be allowed to confront witnesses or to call others, and shall not be compelled to testify against themselves; at the time of arrest they shall be informed of their right to be silent and to have counsel, provided, if necessary, at public expense; and courts shall consider the contention that prosecution may be under an invalid or unjust statue.

Pages:     | 1 |   ...   | 34 | 35 || 37 | 38 |   ...   | 51 |

Similar works:


«REVIEWS OF LUIS BUÑUEL’S ABISMOS DE PASIÓN Vincent Canby, “Buñuel’s Bronte,” New York Times, Dec. 27, 1983 http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9C03EFD91538F934A15751C1A965948260 Of all of the Mexican films that Luis Buñuel made for the mass market of Spanishspeaking audiences, his 1954 screen adaptation of Emily Brontë's ''Wuthering Heights,'' called ''Abismos de Pasion'' when released in Mexico, is probably the work that's most full of riches for those of us who consider...»

«Bulletin of the British Myriapod & Isopod Group Volume 28 (2015) THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN ITALIAN FLAT-BACK MILLIPEDE, POLYDESMUS ASTHENESTATUS POCOCK, 1894 (DIPLOPODA: POLYDESMIDAE) IN IRELAND Roy Anderson 1 Belvoirview Park, Belfast BT8 7BL, N. Ireland, UK. E-mail: roy.anderson@ntlworld.com ABSTRACT Well established colonies of Polydesmus asthenestatus are reported from nine sites in north-east Ireland and one in Co Wicklow south of Dublin. This species is native to the provinces of Umbria,...»

«FFI-rapport 2009/00179 The Rocket Artillery Reference Book Ove Dullum Norwegian Defence Research Establishment (FFI) 30 June 2010 FFI-rapport 2009/00179 P: ISBN 978-82-464-1828-5 E: ISBN 978-82-464-1829-2 Keywords Ammunisjon Rakettartilleri Trusselvurdering Dødelighet Approved by Thor Engøy Project Manager Jan Ivar Botnan Director 2 FFI-rapport 2009/00179 English Summary This report contains a general overview of the current state of rocket artillery. Its aim is to give a complete picture of...»

«Is language processing identical in monolinguals and early, balanced bilinguals? Cassandra D. Foursha, Jennifer B. Austin, & Gretchen A. Van de Walle Rutgers University 1. Introduction This study investigates language-processing differences between early, balanced, adult bilinguals and monolinguals. Specifically, the study examines two questions: 1) whether there are differences between English monolinguals and early, balanced Spanish-English bilinguals in language processing speed and accuracy...»

«Animals 2012, 2, 331-346; doi:10.3390/ani2030331 OPEN ACCESS animals ISSN 2076-2615 www.mdpi.com/journal/animals Article Preliminary Investigation of Food Guarding Behavior in Shelter Dogs in the United States Heather Mohan-Gibbons 1, Emily Weiss 2,* and Margaret Slater 3 Shelter Research and Development, Community Outreach, American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA®), Ojai, CA 93024, USA; E-Mail: heather.mohan-gibbons@aspca.org Shelter Research and Development,...»

«Chapter B CONTRACT DOCUMENTS A contract package consists of the following: (a) Tender forms o Contract Tender Items List o Instructions for Tenderers o Conflict of Interest o Schedule of Provisions, Plans, Standard Drawings and Specifications o General Conditions Fairness is a Two-way Street Tax Compliance Declaration o (b) Section A – Special Provisions (c) Section B – Fair Wage Program (d) Section C – Liquidated Damages (e) Contract Drawings (f) Quantity Sheets In this chapter, contract...»

«Statement of David S. Mao The Acting Librarian of Congress Before the Subcommittee on Legislative Branch Appropriations U.S. House of Representatives Fiscal 2017 Budget Request March 2, 2016 Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Wasserman Schultz, and Members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for the privilege to provide testimony in support of the mission and fiscal 2017 budget request of the Library of Congress. The mission of the Library of Congress is to provide the Congress and the American people...»

«IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 105,024 STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. STAN SZCZYGIEL, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 22-3210(e)(1) requires that a motion to withdraw plea be brought within 1 year of: (A) the final order of the last appellate court in this state to exercise jurisdiction on a direct appeal or the termination of such appellate jurisdiction; or (B) the denial of a petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court or issuance...»

«[From: Meaning: the frontier of informatics. Informatics 9. Proceedings of a conference jointly sponsored by Aslib, the Aslib Informatics Group, and the Information Retrieval Specialist Group of the British Computer Society, King's College Cambridge, 26-27 March 1987; edited by Kevin P. Jones. (London: Aslib, 1987), p. 151-173.] SUMMARIZATION: SOME PROBLEMS AND METHODS John Hutchins University of East Anglia Abstract The provision of summaries is of crucial importance for fully effective...»

«Melanoma Skin Cancer What is melanoma skin cancer? Cancer starts when cells in the body begin to grow out of control. Cells in nearly any part of the body can become cancer, and can then spread to other areas of the body. To learn more about how cancers start and spread, see What Is Cancer? Melanoma is a cancer that usually starts in a certain type of skin cell. Types of skin cells The 3 main types of cells in the top layer of the skin (called the epidermis) are: • Squamous cells: These are...»

«New York State Office of the State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli Division of State Government Accountability Compliance With the Reimbursable Cost Manual State Education Department The Child School Report 2012-S-67R September 2015 2012-S-67R Executive Summary Purpose To determine whether the expenses reported on the Consolidated Fiscal Reports (CFRs) of The Child School (School) were calculated properly, documented adequately, and allowable pursuant to the State Education Department’s (SED)...»

<<  HOME   |    CONTACTS
2017 www.sa.i-pdf.info - Abstracts, books, theses

Materials of this site are available for review, all rights belong to their respective owners.
If you do not agree with the fact that your material is placed on this site, please, email us, we will within 1-2 business days delete him.