_In Defense of the World Order

Home | Issues | Perspective | Audio | Guests | Images | Live Chat | Links | Search | About | Contact

Shadow Government

Edited version of CDR Newsletter Special Edition - September, 1995 - by Jackie Patru

"In Defense of the World Order...

US Soldiers would have to kill and die"

*Aurthur Schlesinger, Jr., July / August '95 Foreign Affairs - CFR's Flagship Publication

MICHAEL NEW, an American Soldier says NO... to a systematic plan that began decades before his birth

- a plan that is at the heart of America's drift toward becoming just another "third-world outpost" of a UN

controlled World Government.

This entire edition has been devoted to exposing (with documented evidence) the devious strategy of a

"powerful elite...", and, most importantly, why Michael New has the lawful right to say "NO". The fate of our

American Republic may depend upon the outcome.

"Hell is truth seen too late... duty neglected in its season." --Tryon Edwards

SPECIALIST MICHAEL NEW, A MEDIC with the 3rd Infantry Division in Germany, has refused to

wear a UN-blue beret or insignia in October when his unit is deployed to Macedonia to conduct a UN

"peacekeeping mission" there. New says, "I took an oath to the Constitution for the United States, and I can

find no reference to the United Nations in it anywhere". The army says, "You took an oath to obey legal

orders and you WILL comply, or you will face possible court martial, possible imprisonment, and at the least,

a less-than-honorable discharge". New asks, "By what authority can you transfer my loyalty without my

permission?"

On Monday, 28 August, ('95) New met with a JAG (Judge Advocate General) attorney to review his legal

options. We're told New does face possible court martial for his position. According to Will Grigg of the

New American, who had personal conversation with New, the military was attempting to construe his refusal

to wear UN BLUE as an indication that New is a Conscientious Objector. New says he is not. New is quoted

as saying there are many officers and non-coms who privately agree with his stance. Publicly, they all have

family, careers and retirement to consider. The Army has issued a statement saying that New hasn't

disobeyed an order until the UN insignias are handed out and he directly refuses to sew them to his uniform.

New is standing firm. We assert: this is an attempt to defuse/cover-up a volatile situation which could

escalate when other like-minded pro-American military personnel discover someone has the courage to stand

up for his principles and his Constitutional rights.

And now, the $64,000 question: BY WHAT CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY can any one entity in

this country or this world - including Clinton, or the US Congress or ANY COURT - order Michael New, an

American soldier who is a sovereign citizen of the united sovereign States of America, to wear the insignia of

a Global Corporate Army (UN - or NATO for that matter) which was created from the diabolical minds of

self-proclaimed "world policy makers"? Perhaps the answer to this question can be found in Arthur

Schlesinger, Jr.'s article titled "Back to the Womb?", from the July/August '95 edition of "Foreign Affairs"

In his article, Schlesinger laments the isolationist stance of Americans throughout history. He says the

obstacles to the "commitment of troops to combat" in a world army are both political and constitutional.

"In Defense of the World Order... US Soldiers Would Have to Kill and Die" http://www.sweetliberty.org/s4.htm

1 of 22 11/11/2013 8:16 AM

"Political - How to explain to the American people why their husbands, fathers, brothers,

or sons should die in conflicts in remote lands where the local outcome makes no direct

difference to the United States? and... Constitutional - If a president favored US

participation in a UN collective security action, must he go to Congress for specific

authorization? Or could the UN Charter supersede the US Constitution?"

The answer is "NO", and obviously the answer to that question was understood even in Roosevelt's

administration. Schlesinger says,

"The UN Participation Act of 1945 came up with an ingenious solution. It authorized the

US to commit limited force through congressionally approved special agreements as

provided for in Article 43 of the UN Charter... This formula offered a convincing way to

reconcile the charter and the Constitution. Unfortunately, the Article 43 special agreement

procedure soon withered on the vine."

ARTICLE 43 - UNITED NATIONS CHARTER

P1. All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and

security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special

agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage necessary for

the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.

2. [discusses numbers, types, degree of readiness of forces plus location and nature of facilities and assistance

to be provided.]

3. The agreement... shall be negotiated... on the initiative of the Security Council... between the Security

Council and Members... and shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with

their respective constitutional processes.

As seen on C-Span upon his appointment as Secretary of State, Warren Christopher (cfr) was given a copy

of the UN Charter by Senator Claiborne Pell (cfr) who asked Christopher to give his word he would "do

everything in his power to get Article 43 ratified". In 1993, US Senators Pell, Biden and Simon introduced

SJRes 112, the Collective Security Participation Resolution, proposing to ratify Article 43. It, too, died on

the vine. These are U. S. Senators who swore to uphold our Constitution. According to the United Nations'

Information Center in answer to our question by phone (9-95), "Article 43 has never been implemented or

ratified".

In fact, even had Article 43 been ratified, it would be unConstitutional and therefore unenforceable.

Schlesinger tells us that...

"When Harry S. Truman sent troops into Korea five years later, he sought neither an

Article 43 agreement nor a congressional joint resolution, thereby setting the precedent

that persuaded several successors that presidents possess the inherent power to go to war

when they choose".

In an L.A. Times article, (7-7-94), regarding Clinton's threats to invade Haiti without Congressional

approval the author, Doug Bandow, rightfully asks, "Should young Americans die to 'restore' democracy in a

nation with no democratic tradition?". He states that, "proponents of executive war-making contend that

ample precedent - 200 or more troop deployments without congressional approval - exists for the president to

unilaterally initiate hostilities." The proponents of executive war-making are also proponents of a global


2 of 22 11/11/2013 8:16 AM

system of governance under their own creation - the United Nations. Their "experts" would have us believe

that because our Constitution has been violated over 200 times it is no longer in effect. That is true only if

we, the American people - whose liberty is under siege - continue our false belief in and acceptance of their

self-serving rhetoric.

Precedent is not law. America is a Republic.

Informed Americans want no part of "democracy". Uninformed Americans would not want it either if

they became informed. We should not misconstrue the difinition of the loosely used word "democracy"

which in globalist doublespeak means socialism. The aim of the globalist cartel is world Socialism, or more

aptly, world corporate fascism. If you disagree, are you willing to bet your freedom on it?

THE "WAR POWERS RESOLUTION" of 1973 *

In 1974, former US Senator Thomas F. Eagleton wrote a book titled, War and Presidential Power: A

Chronicle of Congressional Surrender, in which he demonstrated the erosion of Congress' awareness of its

own constitutional powers in the passage of the War Powers Resolution on 11-7-73 (PL 93-148)

In his book Eagleton provides a behind-the scenes account of how the war powers measure, which was

intended to "recapture" Congress' power to declare war, was "kidnapped" in a House-Senate conference

committee, and he states that the bill is unConstitutional since it "formally surrenders the primacy of

Congress in decisions of war and peace". PL93-148 requires no specific Congressional authorization for

US military involvement in hostilities until ninety days after the president engages US forces. In the

meantime, the president garners public support through the use of the controlled media - eliciting Americans'

patriotic empathy - thereby influencing Congress to support un-Constitutional presidential actions. Eagleton

ends his book with a call to amend PL93-148 to restore the proper congressional role.

In this case Senator Eagleton did not understand his Constitutional power or obligation. The federal

government (congress, president, supreme court, bureaucrats) has only the power delegated to it by our

Constitution. Any other powers assumed by either elected officials or appointed bureaucrats are

un-Constitutional and of no effect.

* War Powers Resolution - Not to be confused with the Emergency Banking / Trading With The Enemy Act

of 1933 (most commonly referred to as the War Powers Act) when President Franklin Delano Roosevelt

declared a national emergency - which has been renewed by every president since Roosevelt - and

purportedly "suspended" our Constitution.

Our Constitution contains no provision which would allow it to be suspended by anyone, including

the president, and any "law" declaring it so has no force or effect. No president, Congress, judge or group of

powerful "world-leaders" can suspend our Constitution, either legally or lawfully. It is disturbing, indeed, to

continuously read and hear from well-intended Americans who have bought into the Constitution-has-been-

suspended rhetoric. We understand the laws were passed and our Constitution has been treated as though it

doesn't exist and... this can stop now if Americans stop buying into and repeating these deceptions as though

they are real.

[Note: 1-3-2000 - Nor does our Constitution contain any provision which would empower a president to

declare martial law. Prior to the turn of the millennium - actually that occurs in 2001 - doom-and-gloom

predictions hawked by the controlled media, and propagated by many "patriot" talk shows regarding

impending Y2K catastrophes, thoughtless comments that: "The president will declare martial law" were


3 of 22 11/11/2013 8:16 AM

bandied about loosely and irresponsibly. It isn't enough to ignore the statements when we hear them... we

MUST set the record straight - THE PRESIDENT CANNOT DECLARE MARTIAL LAW... THERE IS

NO SUCH THING UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION. The more often we repeat that fact, the sooner

people will understand how we've been caught up in a word game. Let us begin now to cancel out the lies

and replace the lies with truth. What miracles could happen?]

FROM 16th

AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE, 2nd

, SECTION 256

(This is a compilation of various U.S. Supreme Court decisions)

"... an un-Constitutional statute, whether federal or state, though having the form and name of law, is in

reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose,... is as inoperative as if it had never been

passed. No repeal of such an enactment is necessary."

"Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no

rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts

performed under it. ....No one is bound to obey an un-Constitutional statute and no courts are bound to

enforce it. ..."

Also see "Constitution of the United States of America - Revised and Annotated" - 1972. - Prepared by the

Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress - Government Printing Office. On page 866, Chief

Justice Marshall said:

** "The nullity of an act, inconsistent with the Constitution, is produced by the declaration, that the

Constitution is the supreme law."

Translated... The president has no Constitutional authority to engage our American troops in war. The

Congress has no authority to abrogate their Constitutional obligation to any other individual or body. Nor

does the President have Constitutional power to make law or change law or violate the Constitution by

Executive Orders or Presidential Decision Directives - i.e., Clinton's PDD-25 in which he assumes control

over deployment of our military to UN "peacekeeping" missions as Commander in Chief. He doesn't become

Commander in Chief unless Congress declares war.

When we spoke to Brian Merchant at the National Security Agency seeking information regarding

Presidential Decision Directives and Executive Orders, he said EO's and PDD's are not law. He couldn't

explain what they are.* When we stated that PDD-25 -- in which Bill Clinton gave himself authority to

deploy U.S. troops to UN missions without congressional authority, among other dastardly presidential

prerogatives -- is unConstitutional because only the U.S. Congress can declare war unless there is a direct

attack on America, Brian Merchant replied, "Under international law, peacekeeping is not defined as

war."

*[Note - 1-3-2000 - In 1996 Bill Leary from N.S.A. further explained the status of EO's,

"There is no legal or criminal penalty for failure to obey an executive order".

There is no Constitutional authority for the federal government to place Americans under International

Law. This is more of their doublespeak as in Orwell's book, 1984, a classic story of a New World Order

nightmare where the main slogan was, "WAR IS PEACE". The characters in Orwell's book believed it and

today, we fear, many thoughtless Americans are swallowing it whole.


4 of 22 11/11/2013 8:16 AM

** [Note -1-3-2000 - The statement by Justice Marshall that the nullification of an unconstitutional act is

simply the declaration of the supremacy of the Constitution, brought forth a compelling question: "Who

listens when we make that declaration?" The answer is seemingly, "Nobody". Then, in view of the sovereign

nature of the several states; and the maxim of the 10th Amendment in the Bill of Rights which declares that

"the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,. . . are reserved to the States respectively,

or to the people", it becomes clear that the declaration of the supremacy of the Constitution would necessarily

be made by the legislatures of the several sovereign states.

FACT: The state legislators not only have the Constitutional power, they have the responsibility of declaring

null and void any and all unconstitutional statutes, mandates, treaties, foreign agreements - including trade

agreements - and any U.S. Supreme Court rulings which would, in effect, amend the Constitution. t is a

matter of States' Rights]

DISARMING AMERICA

Public Law 87-297, the Arms Control and Disarmament Act, one of the worst, most dangerous examples

of an unConstitutional law, was passed on 9-26-61, accompanied by State Department Publication 7277, The

US Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World. Section 31 A of Title 3 of PL

87-297, states that the function of the US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency is:

"the detection, identification, inspection, monitoring, limitation, reduction, control, and

elimination of armed forces and armaments, including ... missiles, conventional, chemical

and radiological weapons."

State Department Publication 7277, while it is not a law, clearly defines the intentions of PL87-297, and

that is to implement the transfer of all weapons and military personnel of all nations (including America) to

the control of the United Nations global "peace-keeping" force.

Below are some excerpts from SDP 7277...

"a world in which adjustment to change takes place in accordance with the principles of

the United Nations [Corporation]." "The disbanding of all national armed forces and the

prohibition of their re-establishment in any form whatsoever other than those required to

preserve internal order and for contributions to a United Nations [Corporation] Peace

Force".

And most ominous,

"In Stage III progressive controlled disarmament and continuously developing principles

and procedures of international law would proceed to a point where no state [nation] would

have the military power to challenge the progressively strengthened UN

[Corporation]Peace Force..."

This dismantling of our military and the transference to the UN was laid out to take effect in a three-stage

plan. We are nearing the completion of Stage II and "transitioning" [sic] into the third and final stage. U.S.

soldiers, "in defense of the World Order, are killing and dying" in foreign countries while our closed military

bases are swarming with foreign troops under the guise of multinational training. They call it "Partnership

for Peace".


5 of 22 11/11/2013 8:16 AM

As Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. said in his article...

"We are not going to achieve a new world order without paying for it in blood as well as in

words and money."

Since it goes without saying Schlesinger does not intend for the "payment in blood" to come from his

veins, we must ask the question... "Whose blood?"

In Stage III of the globalists' disarmament plan for America, the armed forces remaining in America will

be in sufficient numbers only to preserve internal order. Under our Constitution internal order is kept by

local and state police. SDP 7277 calls for a National Police Force to keep "civil obedience" - like in Nazi

Germany or the good ol' Communist USSR. Do they intend to rename America the USSA - United Socialist

States of America? What do you say, America?

Does SDP 7277 mean what it says? Yes, according to former Senator Joseph S. Clark of Pennsylvania

(cfr) in the Congressional Record, March 1, 1962. Clark said of SDP 7277...

"this program is the fixed, determined and approved policy of the government of the

United States".

Incidentally, the NRA is ignoring requests to oppose this plan, because they say PL 87-297 doesn't refer to

private gun ownership. Do they really believe that the destruction or elimination of all weapons doesn't

include our home defense weapons? Many of us who are members of the NRA are beginning to wonder if

their leadership has been compromised. Gun Owners of America has also been conspicuously and

unconscionably silent on this issue. [Note, 1-3-2000 - This report was written in 1995. The author is four

years the wiser... or should we say more informed? NOT a member of the NRA or GOA]

An article from the L.A. Times, April '93 begins,

"In an event that would have been unfathomable a few years ago, former Soviet President

Mikhail S. Gorbachev opened an office Friday on one of America's most hallowed military

posts, the Presidio of San Francisco".

Avowed Communist, Gorbachev's office in the Presidio houses the Gorbachev Foundation, USA which

Gorbachev says will (according to the 4/21/93 San Jose Mercury News) establish and direct task forces to

close American military bases and ensure they are not reopened. In the News article, Gorbachev is quoted:

"This is the symbol of our irreversible transition from an era of confrontation and

militaristic insanity to a new world order, one that promises dividends for all".

THE UNITED NATIONS CHARTER IS NOT THE SUPREME LAW OF THIS LAND

No law or treaty supersedes the protection of the unalienable (God given) rights of the individual as

secured by our Constitution - unless We, the People, ALLOW IT !!! So... one would wonder, where does the

US President get the authority to consign our American military personnel to the UN global army? HE

DOES NOT HAVE IT!

Our Constitution gives the US Senate authority to ratify treaties with other nations. Americans have been

propagandized into believing that those treaties become the supreme law of the land superseding our

Constitution. Let's examine this deception closely and dispel the myth once and for all. Article VI of our


6 of 22 11/11/2013 8:16 AM

Constitution states:

Clause 2 - "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; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution [of any state] or

laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

Clause 3 - "The senators and representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state

legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States [government] and of the several

states, shall be bound by oath of affirmation to support this Constitution; .... "

Laws made in pursuance of this Constitution are laws which are made within the strict and limited

confines of the Constitution itself. No federal, state, or international law, rule or bureaucratic regulation and

no state constitution can supersede -- or be repugnant to -- this Constitution. Treaties made under the

authority of the United States... the United States (federal government) was authorized by and on behalf of

the people and in pursuance of this Constitution to enter into certain treaties with other governments. The

United States (federal government) obtains its authority solely from the Constitution. It would be ludicrous

to think that it has the power to circumvent (via treaties) that which grants it its authority.

In Clause 3, it is made clear that every elected official, both federal and state, is bound by oath to support

this Constitution. Who can rightly, sanely and genuinely claim to be given the power to destroy that which

they are elected and sworn to uphold? After debating, arguing and sometimes nearly coming to fists for five

grueling months to draft a document which would be air-tight against a tyrannical government - IF the people

remained vigilant; after recessing to go home and pray to God for guidance; after guardians of liberty of most

of the 13 sovereign republics held out ratification for the addition (or promise of the addition) of the Bill of

Rights, would our founders have inserted a clause that would allow those freedoms to be so easily

subverted?... or more importantly, would the Constitution have been ratified at all?

The powers granted by the Constitution cannot sanely be construed to provide the authority to usurp,

pre-empt or eradicate it. However, the propagators of the supremacy myth would have us believe otherwise.

On 4-11-52 Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles (cfr), speaking before the American Bar Association in

Louisville, Kentucky said...

"Treaties make international law and also they make domestic law. Under our

Constitution, treaties become the supreme law of the land.... Treaty law can override the

Constitution. Treaties, for example, ...can cut across the rights given the people by their

constitutional Bill of Rights."

The Constitution for the United States of America - the Bill of Rights being part of the Constitution - did

not give rights to anybody. The Constitution secures the acknowledged, unalienable, God-given rights of

each individual.

[Note - 1-3-2000 - The 14th Amendment - another long story - which purportedly created another class of

citizen - a U.S. Citizen - was never properly ratified and was made part of the Constitution on paper only and

at the point of a gun by the federal government. This, along with the 16th, 17th, the missing 13th, and

probably numerous others is part of the charade - the illusion - conjured up by the globalist elite and

perpetrated by their puppets to give an appearance that they are all-powerful, all-knowing, all-seeing,

ever-present. Doesn't that describe our heavenly Father / Creator? The globalist elite are, themselves, an

illusion of invincibility who derive their power from our belief in their power; our belief in their invincibility;


7 of 22 11/11/2013 8:16 AM

and our fear of them. They truly are the powers of darkness in this world and exist only on the negative

energy we feed to them. It stands to reason, accepting that all power comes from our Father / Creator, the

godless are powerless. So be it.]

Here's what Thomas Jefferson said about treaties... ON THE RIGHT TO RENOUNCE TREATIES:

"Compacts then, between a nation and a nation, are obligatory on them as by the same

moral law which obliges individuals to observe their compacts. There are circumstances,

however, which sometimes excuse the non-performance of contracts between man and

man; so are there also between nation and nation. When performance, for instance,

becomes impossible, non-performance is not immoral; so if performance becomes

self-destructive to the party, the law of self-preservation overrules the law of obligation in

others." pg 317 / opinion on the question whether the United States have a right to

renounce their treaty with France, or to hold them suspended until the government of that

country shall be established. 4-28-1793. This would include all treaties which have been

made and are obviously "self-destructive" to America. Jefferson also said in a letter to

Wilson C. Nicholas on Sept. 7, 1803... "Our peculiar security is in the possession of a

written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction [interpretation]. I

say the same as to the opinion of those who consider the grant of the treaty making power

as boundless. If it is, then we have no Constitution." pg 573 - Both quotes taken from "The

Life and Selected Writings of Thomas Jefferson," A. Koch & Wm. Peden, Random House 1944,

renewed 1972.

Here's what the U.S. Supreme Court has stated regarding treaties...

"This Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution

over a treaty." - Reid v. Covert. October 1956,; 354 U.S. 1, pg. 17

This case involved the question: Does the NATO Status of Forces Agreement (treaty) supersede the U.S.

Constitution? The Reid Court (U.S. Supreme Court) held that,

". . . No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or any other

branch of 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 the 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 which even suggests such a result. . .

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. (See: Elliot's Debates 1836 ed. - pgs 500-519) 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 apply to all branches of the National


8 of 22 11/11/2013 8:16 AM

Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and Senate

combined. This Court has also repeatedly taken the position that an Act of Congress, which

MUST comply with the Constitution, is on 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." "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 a change in the character of the States, or a cession of any portion of the

territory of the latter without its consent." Geofroy v. Riggs; 133 U.S. 258 at page 267

[Note: 1-3-2000 - Disclaimer: The above information on Supreme Court rulings was taken from Aid and

Abet newsletter and added to the report today. We have not viewed the court records; however, if a reader

has copies of the actual documents we will deeply appreciate receiving a hard copy. And, if a reader

discovers a discrepancy we will appreciate hearing from you. Thank you. J.P.]

Lastly and not least, this from U.S. Senator Arlen Spector, 11-3-94 in a letter to a constituent who had

expressed concerns about the Convention on the Rights of the Child...

". . . Secondly, the Convention would not override the U.S. Constitution; rather, as in the

case of any treaty, any provision that conflicts with our Constitution would be void in our

country".

We suspect the writer of the letter signed by Arlen Spector did not expect the letter to get into the hands of

people who could put it to good use.

The Constitution authorizes the United States to enter into treaties with other nations -- the word "nation"

although not explicit, is certainly implied. The United Nations is an Organization - a Global Corporate

Bureaucracy. The "experts" in international commerce, banking, education, environment... ad nauseam are

no more than talking heads that spew out rhetoric written for them. It is an illusion created to hopefully

instill a sense of inferiority in the "common man" - their term - so we all cow-tow to their superior

intelligence.

Could even the U.S. Supreme Court construe the intent of Article VI in so broad an interpretation as to

suggest the U.S. was given authority to enter into treaties with a Global Corporation? The answer is

self-evident. A quick fix seems to have taken place in the U.S. Senate on March 19, 1970. According to the

Anaheim (Cal) Bulletin, 4-20-1970, the Senate ratified a resolution recognizing the United Nations

Organization [Corporation] as a sovereign nation. That would be tantamount to recognizing General Motors

as a sovereign nation. Are we beginning to get the picture? Read on.

WHO ARE THE PROPAGATORS OF THE SUPREMACY MYTH -- the proponents of Executive

war making? - and how did the majority of the American people come to believe in it?

Former US Congressman B. Carroll Reece told us who they are over 40 years ago. He said.....

"An 'Elite' has emerged, in control of gigantic financial resources operating outside of our


9 of 22 11/11/2013 8:16 AM

democratic processes, which is willing and able to shape the future of this nation and of

mankind in the image of its own value concepts." pg viii

The above quote is from the book, Foundations - Their Power and Influence, by Rene A. Wormser. Mr.

Wormser was General Counsel on the Reece Committee back in 1953 which conducted an investigation of

the tax-exempt foundations and their influence in national and foreign affairs. The headline at the beginning

of this article, quoted from Foreign Affairs is not an unusual stance for that publication. The Council on

Foreign Relations, as the Reece Committee discovered, was established and funded by individuals who

control vast fortunes of the tax-free foundations; and the same individuals created and funded the United

Nations.

In view of the issue regarding Michael New's dilemma about wearing the colors and insignia of a foreign

army, the time [and we believe a God-sent opportunity] to shed light upon a factious rumor is upon us. The

rumor is... Only conspiracy nuts and right-wing radical whackos think there is something diabolical about the

Council on Foreign Relations. Let's, then, examine this allegation very closely and dispel another myth once

and for all.

Actually, an investigation was begun in 1952 by Congressman E. E. Cox of Georgia which focused

predominately on the Rockefeller, Ford and Carnegie tax-free foundations, along with the Rhodes

Scholarship Fund. Unfortunately during the investigations Congressman Cox was stricken ill and died.

Because of the information brought forth in the unfinished Cox investigation, the following year (1953)

Congressman B. Carroll Reece, against great odds from powerful opposition, reopened the investigation.

[Note: CDR featured a special four-page pull-out section in the August, '95 newsletter titled Conference of

States to Call for Constitutional Convention, showing the interlink of foundation-funded "conservative"

organizations which promoted the COS - a backdoor attempt to call a general Constitutional Convention.

These organizations have spent hundreds of millions of dollars over the past few decades lobbying for a

Constitutional Convention in order to eliminate the final obstacle of their plans for a global government - the

seat of which will be (if they have their way) the United Nations. That obstacle is this Constitution. To those

who claim our Constitution is "suspended" or "dead" our question has always been: "If our Constitution is

suspended / dead, why the ongoing effort by the international power brokers to rewrite it?" We believe

they've known Americans would one day wake up to their schemes and propaganda. The following statement

is a convincing clue.

"..the house of World Order will have to be built from the bottom up rather than the top

down... an end run around [American] sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will

accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault."

The above appeared in the CFR publication - Foreign Affairs, April, 1974, in a twenty-page article by

Richard N. Gardner, titled, The Hard Road To World Order, which reveals the plans to implement a New

World Order. Gardner is currently president Clinton's Ambassador to Spain and a member of both the CFR

and the Trilateral Commission (TC), a cousin to the CFR, founded and funded by David Rockefeller. In this

article, as usual, the complaint is American nationalism, isolationism, and this Constitution - their obstacle to

a World Government / our protection against their tyranny. They have been eroding our Constitution "piece

by piece", haven't they? Two years later - 1976 - began their nationwide effort to seduce state legislators into

passing resolutions calling for a Constitutional Convention to allegedly add a Balanced Budget Amendment

to the Constitution. The scam nearly succeeded.

[See the 1935 New York Times Magazine article titled, Nine Groups Instead of the 48 States, which alluded


10 of 22 11/11/2013 8:16 AM

several times to the Constitution as the impediment to their globalist schemes.]

Another glimpse at their apparent apprehension appeared in a book written by Roger Rusk, brother of

globalist Dean Rusk, titled, The Other End of the World. On page 206 Roger Rusk writes, "A few years ago

Mr. Robert McNamara retired as head of the World Bank. At a dinner in his honor in Washington, Mr. David

Rockefeller made the following revealing statement:

'The world which we have worked to construct is threatened. The gravity of this moment,

when Mr. McNamara and others are about to leave their posts while a new administration

re-examines American foreign aid policy, is great. If we are going to save the international

institutions we have put in place, the moment is now or never, for the struggle between the

old guard and the new is going to go far beyond the reduction of capital appropriations. It

is going to endanger the new world order which we have based on the alliance between

Wall Street and Washington.

While we men of firms and banks organize international channels of economy and raw

materials, the government is now building its own diplomatic and economic bridges

between Washington and foreign governments. By our methods, our governments

contribute to the stability and economic growth of the world, our multinationals benefit,

and when it is necessary, they contribute their political support. Now radical conservatives

are attempting to destroy all that in seeking first and foremost to serve the national

interests of the United States'."

For further evidence: On September 13, 1994, at the U.N. Ambassador's dinner hosted by the Business

Council for the United Nations, David Rockefeller was awarded their 1994 medal of honor for what Bill

Clinton called his [Rockefeller's] "lifetime commitment to advancing world peace and cooperation".

Rockefeller's acceptance speech gave evidence of his concern for what he called "ruthless advocates of ethnic

nationalism" and "militant fundamentalists". While Rockefeller lauded America's current global standing at

"the peak of its worldwide influence and authority", he issued a warning about the future:

"... this present window of opportunity; during which a truly peaceful and interdependent

world order might be built, will not be open for too long. Already there are powerful forces

at work that threaten to destroy all of our hopes and efforts to erect an enduring structure

of global cooperation."

To cap this point: In the fall of 1994 Hillary Clinton spoke to the Hollywood Women's Political

Committee. Barbara Streisand - who seems to be replacing Jane Fonda-Turner in her deluded propensity to

abolish American sovereignty - in her introductory speech lamented the unfair claims made about Bill

Clinton. She then stated:

"As if that isn't enough, there's an even more frightening threat. The radical right!

They're organizing on a grass-roots level, they want to destroy our social programs... and

they have strongly influenced the conservatives in 31 states! They're organizing state-

by-state and school district-by-school district... and they're growing stronger! That is why

we must become ever more vigilant..."

Be informed. Streisand was not talking about America's phony conservative / Christian conservative

leadership (see the Council for National Policy membership roster for names). Streisand was talking about

American grass-roots political activists - yes, patriots! - who were networking state-by-state to promote the


11 of 22 11/11/2013 8:16 AM

10th Amendment State Sovereignty Resolution in State Governments. At the very time of her speech 31 state

legislatures had the 10th Amendment Resolution introduced and nearly 30 passed. In 1993 the same

grassroots activists worked together to defeat resolutions in twelve states calling for a Constitutional

Convention. In 1995 as the networking expanded the Conference of States was defeated.

Rockefeller and cronies had every right to be concerned. For the first time since the 1970's - before the

onslaught of the myriads of phony conservative groups which so very effectively silenced the outcry -

informed and intelligent American patriots were effectively working within their local and state governments

to stay and reverse America's plummet into world government.

TAX-EXEMPT FOUNDATIONS -- ROCKEFELLER, FORD, CARNEGIE

In his book, Foundations, Rene Wormser tells us what the Reece Investigation discovered about the link

between the tax-free foundations, the CFR and the United Nations (the TC wasn't formed until 1973).

"The Council on Foreign Relations, another member of the international complex,

financed both by the Rockefeller and Carnegie foundations, overwhelmingly propagandizes

the globalist concept. This organization became virtually an agency of the government

when World War II broke out. The Rockefeller Foundation had started and financed

certain studies known as 'The War and Peace Studies,' manned largely by associates of the

Council [CFR]; the State Department, in due course, took these Studies over, retaining the

major personnel which The Council on Foreign Relations had supplied". pg 209

"Foundation activity has nowhere had a greater impact than in the field of foreign affairs.

It has conquered public opinion and has largely established the international-political goals

of our country."

[Wormser lists just some of the "major instruments" as the Council on Foreign Relations, Foreign Policy

Association, Institute of Pacific Relations and, United Nations Association.] pg 200

"It would be difficult to find a single foundation-supported organization of any substance

which has not favored the United Nations or similar global schemes; fantastically heavy

foreign aid at the burdensome expense of the taxpayer; meddling in the colonial affairs of

other nations; and American military commitments over the globe. This was

comparatively easy to accomplish because there was no organized or foundation-supported

opposition. The influence of the foundation complex in internationalism has reached far

into government, policymaking circles of Congress and State Department". pg 200-201

Wormser explains how they've gained control of our government, the media, schools and colleges - and

consequently the "internationalist-globalist" leanings of today's younger generation. They promote their

"teachers" and "experts" in foreign affairs; dominate the learned journals in international affairs and appoint

State Department officials to foundation jobs and foundation officials to State Department jobs. Their

"experts" advocate aid to underdeveloped countries "with no strings attached"; distribution of American

foreign aid through the United Nations; membership for Communist China in the United Nations; and

American abandonment of atomic weapons without guarantees for similar disarmament by our enemy.

Wormser says that through their "virtually monopolistic control" of the market place of ideas in the area of

international relations, they exert an influence far beyond the weight of the general followers of liberal

politics because,


12 of 22 11/11/2013 8:16 AM

"Their opponents enjoy little or no financial support".

We must remember that this investigation took place in 1953-54. As we can see they've progressed nicely

toward their goals in forty years.

HOW DID THIS HAPPEN TO AMERICA?

"There is no indication that American public opinion, for example, would approve the

establishment of a super state, or permit American membership in it. In other words, time

- a long time - will be needed before world government is politically feasible... This time

element might seemingly be shortened so far as American opinion is concerned by an active

propaganda campaign in this country..."

Allen W. Dulles (CFR) from a UN booklet, Headline Series #59 (New York: The Foreign Policy

Association., Sept.-Oct., 1946) pg 46.

"Chase and the other Rockefeller institutions are among the largest holders of network

stock with substantial interests in all three networks [ABC, CBS, NBC]."

From the article, "Who Owns the Networks?", (The Nation, 11-25-78)

The author of the article mentioned above, Peter Borsnan, also states that a 1973 U.S. Senate report [by

Senators Muskie and Metcalf] on disclosure of corporate ownership found that Chase Manhattan controlled

14% of CBS, He points out that, with stock widely distributed among shareholders, institutions can wield

great influence or outright control with only 5%, sometimes 1 or 2% equity.

"The far-reaching power of the large foundations and of the interlock, has so influenced

the press, the radio, and even the government that it has become extremely difficult for

objective criticism of foundation practices to get into news channels without having first

been distorted, slanted, discredited, and at times ridiculed."

US Government Printing Office, 1954, Findings of Fact and Supporting Material - US House Special

Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations (Reece Investigation) - pg. 17

From the above quotes, we see clearly that Americans' 'informed' opinions have been shaped by fraud and

deception at the hands of a controlled media... dis-information and lack of true information.

PRECEDENT IS NOT LAW

It was not defined as a war. It was called the Korean 'Conflict' and many American lives were lost. Let's

look at that precedent-setting unConstitutional action with our eyes now opened wider. From World Book

Encyclopedia, 1973, we're told that on 6-25-50 Communist armies from North Korea invaded the Republic of

Korea. The UN Security Council met and ordered North Korea to withdraw its forces. Two days later the

Council then voted to ask members of the UN to send troops to assist South Korea.

Ironically, the Communist USSR could not veto the action because its delegate had been "temporarily"

withdrawn to protest *Nationalist China's membership on the Council. "On 7-7-50, the Council formed a

UN military command under leadership of the U.S. - of the 60 UN members, 16 sent troops to Korea

and 41 sent supplies. But the United States contributed more than 95% of the men and supplies."


13 of 22 11/11/2013 8:16 AM

[*Nationalist China (Taiwan) which has never been Communist, was the first of the "Chinas" to be admitted

into the UN. The USSR lobbied for years to have Communist China admitted, and Communist China

wouldn't join because Taiwan was a member. In 1971 our friend and free nation, Taiwan, was expelled from

the UN with the support of the CFR-controlled U.S. State Department, so Communist China could become a

member nation. Today, Taiwan is threatened with 'reabsorption' into Communist China]

The Korean "conflict" occurred just five years after the UN Charter was ratified by the U.S. As a UN

member-nation, the Soviet Union was supplying arms to North Korea. Isn't it ludicrous? Outrageous? The

UN [Corporation] Peacekeeping Organization, into which America was dragged by a presidential

administration top-heavy with CFR members, gave a war in which only Americans fought and for which

Americans paid. Tens of thousands of Americans lost their lives in that UN 'police action' -- many of whom

had fought and lived through WWII - and they thought they were fighting for American freedom. Isn't it just

possible this entire scenario was orchestrated by the world policymakers to test the waters? The Korean

Conflict marked the beginning of nearly half a century of Constitutional violations which has brought

Specialist Michael New and millions of other American military personnel into the hands of a dangerous,

lunatic fringe of self-proclaimed world leaders whose ultimate goal is to control the world via the United

Nations. It is called the New World Order. One World Government controlled by a Global Corporation. A

corporation is a business... and the UN Corporation is NOT a not-for-profit corporation.

Since WWII Americans have never fought in a Constitutional war (declared by the U.S. Congress). Our

Constitution hasn't changed. We've abandoned our vigilance.

CFR / TC MEMBERS [Americans] WORKING TO DESTROY AMERICA

The irrefutable facts prove the obvious... The Council on Foreign Relations has worked for decades to

promote a World Government. At the San Francisco Conference in 1945, forty-three of the US delegates

who were involved in the founding of the United Nations had been, were, or would become CFR members.

They have held, and are holding today, key positions in our federal government including the presidency,

secretary of state, secretary of defense, ambassadorships, cabinet posts and positions in the United Nations.

Alger Hiss - Communist, CFR member, spy for the Soviet Union, past president of the Carnegie Endowment

for International Peace, a US delegate to the UN founding and the UN's first Secretary-General - was one

prime example of the American traitors who helped create the United Nations. David Rockefeller - who also

served as Chairman of the Board of the CFR - formed the Trilateral Commission in 1973. Today, three-

fourths of its 100 American members are also CFR members and many of them hold high positions in the US

government.

[Note - 1-3-2000 - The CFR annual report for 1999, shows a breakdown of members by profession. Four

hundred ninety-two (492) U.S. Government Officials are CFR members. Media executives number three

hundred sixty-six (366). To get a free CFR Annual Report call 212-734-0400]]

UNITED NATIONS UNLAWFULLY HEADQUARTERED IN AMERICA

According to World Book Encyclopedia (1973), the first session of the UN General Assembly (G.A.) was

held in London (1946), at which time the decision was made to base its headquarters in America. John D.

Rockefeller donated $8.5 million for the purchase of 18 acres along the East River in New York and the city

donated additional land. In '47 the G.A. approved plans for the buildings and in '48 the US approved an

interest-free loan of $65 million for construction of the building.

How is it, we wonder, that the American people have been stuck with the greatest share of expenses of the


14 of 22 11/11/2013 8:16 AM

UN? Nearly every country in the world today are members of the UN and we pay over one-third of the

expenses. "From those according to their ability..."? (a familiar UN - Communist buzz-phrase)

From the Congressional Record, 12-11-67... Absence of UN Headquarters site Agreement. On

12-11-67, during a debate in the Senate, Senator Strom Thurmond was objecting to our UN Ambassador, Mr.

Goldberg (cfr), bringing Viet Cong onto American soil. He said,

"...the State Department position is that we are obliged by law to allow the Vietcong to

come. There is one serious weakness in the State Department position. For 20 years, the

State Department and the United Nations have diligently promulgated the myth that an

agreement exists between the US and the UN, pursuant to law, governing the relationships

arising out of the UN's headquarters being located within the US. That agreement was

never consummated."

Senator Thurmond explained as follows: On 6-26-47, Sec. of State George Marshall (cfr) and UN

Secretary-General , Trygvie Lie signed a draft agreement regarding the headquarters' site. The draft was

submitted to the US Senate which amended the resolution (SJRes 144) to protect US immigration laws. The

House further amended and strengthened the Senate's amendments. President Truman signed SJRes 144

consisting of the original draft and five amendments which became Public Law 357 on 8-4-47. The UN

approved the draft agreement of 6-26-47, with no reference to PL 357 or its amendments. Thurmond said to

further confuse matters, all subsequent UN documents were printed using the original draft agreement -

totally ignoring the law passed by the US Congress.

In the Congressional Record on 12-13-67 Senator Thurmond mentions a Washington Post article which

claimed the State Department denied Thurmond's facts. Thurmond points out he used documents from

Senate Internal Security Commission. He said, "Nevertheless, the State Department has consistently

pretended that both parties to the agreement have accepted all terms, even though no legal action nor official

correspondence exists to supply substance to the illusion." To date we have found no documents which

refute Senator Thurmond's findings. Nor have we been able to verify that the $65 million interest-free loan to

the UN was ever paid. The US State Department, dominated for decades by the Council on Foreign

Relations, establishes America's foreign policy. Doesn't this explain the continuity of our foreign policy

regardless of the political party in power? CFR members, under the tutelage of their masters of global

governance, have been leading America down "The Hard Road to World Order", and we've almost arrived at

their designated destination.

IS THE UNITED NATIONS' BILL OF RIGHTS THE PLANNED WORLD CONSTITUTION?

The Charter of the United Nations was drafted at the San Francisco Conference in 1945. By examining its

founding documents one can readily see the evidence of the degree of communist/socialist influence in its

creation. Its International Bill of Rights combines four covenants as described in the Introduction...

"Four major United Nations legal instruments exist to define and to guarantee the

protection of human rights." These are:

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948),

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966),

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) and the


15 of 22 11/11/2013 8:16 AM

Optional Protocol to the latter.

Compare just a few of the UN "rights" with our Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of

Rights. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) was ratified by the U.S. Senate

April 2, 1992 by unrecorded voice vote.

In the ICCPR Art. 18, Sec.1: "Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and

religion.... " Sec. 3: "Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as

are prescribed by law..."

Art. 19, Sec. 2: "Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression..." Sec. 3: "The exercise of the

rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may

therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are

necessary... for the protection of national security."

Art. 21, "The right of peaceful assembly shall be recognized. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise

of this right other than those imposed in conformity with the law and which are necessary in a democratic

society in the interests of national security... "

Art. 23, 4. "States Parties to the present Covenant shall take appropriate steps to ensure equality of rights and

responsibilities of spouses as to marriage... In the case of dissolution, provision shall be made for the

necessary protection of any children."

Art. 24, 2. "Every child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have a name." [and a number.

The above excerpts perfectly describe Marxism]

The Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions funded by the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations has

drafted a Constitution for the World and a proposed Constitution for the NewStates of America. The

language in these documents is very similar to that of the UN Treaty excerpted above. There are no rights -

just privileges and always with exceptions. Remember - the same people whose power and money established

the UN, funded the creation of these "new" constitutions, and unless we take a stand here and now, for

Michael New and our Constitution, we will be living in their global nightmare.

Although they vehemently deny the fact, the world policy makers intend to establish a global government

via the United Nations. To substantiate this assertion, from just one of many UN documents... UN Chronicle

- March, 1993...

"The General Assembly is facing an historic challenge to truly become a functional world

parliament on the basis of the United Nations Charter".

In a 1950 US Senate report on Resolutions Relative to Revision of the United Nations Charter, Atlantic

Union, World Federation, Etc. pg. 494 James P. Warburg (cfr), grandson of Federal Reserve founder, Paul

Warburg (cfr) testified as follows:

"... the great question of our time is not whether or not one world can be achieved, but

whether or not one world can be achieved by peaceful means. We shall have world

government, whether or not we like it. The question is only whether world government will

be achieved by consent or by conquest."

PHONY CONSERVATIVE LEADERSHIP MORE DANGEROUS THAN LIBERALS !


16 of 22 11/11/2013 8:16 AM

Hundreds of books have been written on this subject; however, when the information is from the actual

"findings" of a U.S. House Committee investigation, Congressional Records, the UN Chronicle and other

Congressional reports it would be quite impossible for anybody, even including Rush Limbaugh, to refute it,

wouldn't it? Rush says the CFR is "just a social club for rich people". Many of us know that the controllers

of the tax-exempt foundations are the common thread linking the hundreds of non-governmental

organizations responsible for the gradual (and today not-so-gradual) loss of our freedom in America as a

result of a long string of continued violations of our Constitution.

To some extent we're hapless victims of the insidiously cunning and covert methods used by the

self-proclaimed world policymakers and their thousands of foundations, commissions, councils, agencies,

clubs, along with the NGOs, colleges, communications systems and other foundation-funded institutions,

organizations and corporations. Maybe, though, the most dangerous of all are the organizations whose

leaders claim to be pro-American, Christian, conservative and grass roots.

Millions of us, who over the years knew no better, financially supported and trustingly followed leaders of

the hundreds of phony conservative organizations which were established by the pawns of the

internationalists back in the '70's. They called themselves then "The New Right" and said, "We're ready to

lead". Today they are labeled by the controlled media the "Christian Right". These organizations, by all

appearances were created to gain control of the true grass roots movement against the internationalist's

take-over of America, and too many of us fell for them. You will find a majority of the leaders of these

organizations on the membership list of the Council for National Policy.

If you doubt the "New Right" organizations are phony - ask yourself this one simple question: "After 30

years, with millions of active members donating hundreds of millions of dollars and nearly every spare hour

of their time... why, under the 'New Right' leadership, is America on the brink of disaster?" Republicans and

Democrats, conservatives and liberals - it makes no difference today. Most in places of power in our

government have been placed there by the power brokers who were exposed by Congressman Reece and the

subsequent book, discussed earlier in this report, Foundations. The counterfeit Christian conservatives

leaders are working with and for the power brokers. Think about it... what better way to defeat your

opposition than to create and lead your own opposition? It is rightly called CONTROLLED OPPOSITION

"IT IS IN THE FIELD OF EDUCATION... AND WHAT ARE CALLED THE SOCIAL

SCIENCES, THAT THE GREATEST DAMAGE CAN BE DONE TO OUR SOCIETY"

pg. xiii - "Foundations"

The foundations, and most especially the Carnegie Endowment, have greatly influenced our American

educational system and many of the "conservative" leaders are aiding and abetting the process of "Moving

the Nation Educationally to a 'New World Order" . In the conclusion of his research manual, America 2000

/ Goals 2000, which explains the restructuring of our education system, Rev. James R. Patrick says,

"...we are really dealing with an international agenda to formulate and bring into being a

single world government. What I find to be so fascinating is that the Council on Foreign

Relations and the Trilateral Commission play such a dominant role... It is a total

restructure of our society to create an international / global community... In addition to the

very liberal agenda they postulate, it appears they have a significant influence on the

conservative viewpoint. In fact, one of the main planks of the entire program is.....

.....'CHOICE IN EDUCATION'." - VOUCHERS


17 of 22 11/11/2013 8:16 AM

Rev. Patrick explains that choice involves the placing of federal funds in the form of vouchers to bring

about the merger of private, parochial, and Christian schools with the public sector. This will eliminate all

'freedom of choice' as the two are merged into a single nationalistic educational program that will then

comfortably merge with the international effort. He says that some of the more conservative voices are a part

of the very group that seems to be moving us away from national sovereignty.

For instance, former Secretary of Education William Bennett has blasted much of the educational system.

He has shown it to be a failure and has called upon a renewal of old-fashioned family values... "but he is an

active participant of the restructure movement. He, in truth, has a heavy influence on James Dobson, Pat

Robertson, Phyllis Schlafly and the leaders of the Christian school movement, all of whom have pushed for

the passage of a voucher bill...."

Rev. Patrick asks,

"Is it possible that the very people who are working to establish a single world government

have both a 'liberal' and a 'conservative' voice to manipulate and control both sides so they

win... regardless of the party or office?"

He claims it is not only possible, but it appears that is exactly what is happening. He points out the

uncanny similarity in the political and economic agenda of every administration since Roosevelt (the

beginning of the New Deal / Socialism, CFR influence, and the United Nations in America) and most

blatantly, the total restructuring of the educational program. He says the only thing that has changed in the

educational program is the name - - from "AMERICA 2000" to "GOALS 2000" - from Bush to Clinton -

Republican to Democrat - conservative to liberal.

According to the Reece investigation, the National Education Association (NEA) is a foundation-

supported organization. The Reece Committee Report said of the Carnegie Endowment's work... "An

extremely powerful propaganda machine was created." It spent many millions of dollars in mass production

of material, creation and support of numerous international policy clubs and local organizations at colleges,

collaboration with newspaper editors and school book publishers, establishment of professorships at colleges,

training and indoctrination of teachers, etc. Although the Endowment frequently used terms such as the

"education of public opinion", Reece maintained it was not public education but "molding public opinion".

Further the report said, "No private group should have the power or the right to decide what should be read

and taught in our schools and colleges".

It seems impossible to believe that Limbaugh, Bennett, Kemp, Robertson, Dobson, Schlafly, Larry Pratt,

Howard Phillips, Paul Weyrich, Wayne LaPierre and all of the other leaders of "conservative" organizations

don't know what so many of us know. To give them the benefit of the doubt, we hope you will all see to it

they receive this information along with the related document packet and call upon their full support for

America's sovereignty and Americans' freedom once and for all.

To reiterate and to put it simply, we Americans have been living under the Grand Illusion created for us by

the money, power and influence of the tax free foundations that... "Ya can't fight City Hall. It's a law!" These

thoughtless, careless and complacent attitudes have brought us to a pivotal crossroad. Maybe the stand that

Michael New has taken will become the catalyst to change the deadly direction in which America is headed.

If we don't, America does not deserve Michael New and we will get what we deserve.

[Note - 1-17-2000 - The following is added for your further confirmation of the at-odds motives of the Phony

Conservative leaders... excerpts from an article on Allen Gottlieb, long-time CNP member, titled, The


18 of 22 11/11/2013 8:16 AM

Merchant of Fear, by Jim Halpin and Paul de Armond - 1994, 1995

". . . A member of the board of governors on the powerful and ultra-secretive Council for National Policy. . .

Membership is secret but is known to include such familiar right wing stalwarts as CNP president, Former

Attorney General Edwin Meese, Paul Weyrich, founding president of the Heritage Foundation, Jerry Falwell

and Oliver North.

In Trashing the Economy, the 1993 book he and his co-author, CDFE Vice President Ron Arnold write with

startling frankness that:

'The message of the direct mail letter must appeal to three base emotions; Fear, Hate and Revenge...

[The] fund raising mailer must present you with a crisis -- a problem won't do... That crisis must

frighten you... If you are not frightened, you won't send money...

Then the direct mail letter must present you with a bogeyman against whom to focus your anger...

Once you've been frightened and made to hate the bogeyman, the successful direct mail appeal must

offer you a way to get revenge against the bogeyman -- the payoff for your contribution. The more

soul-satisfying the revenge, the better the letter pulls.

All this must be dressed up in an appeal that appears to have a high moral tone, but which -- without

you realizing it -- works on your lower emotions."

Gottlieb and Arnold are describing environmental direct-mail pitches but Arnold in an interview on Center

for the Defense of Free Enterprise, also told us that "in direct mail, fear, hate and revenge go a long way."

Gottlieb's letters may be blunt, but they work. He says he mails out 25 million direct-response letters

every year and that recipients mail back $24 million. His costs, at 27 cents per letter, are $6.75 million,

which means his mailers net $17.25 million. Put another way, $2.25 comes back for each dollar invested in

direct response letters. Gottlieb may have had these figures in mind the time he told a reporter that, "All I

have to do is turn the spigot on and the money just flows." [end excerpt]

Recall letters you've received from the various conservative / Christian-conservative organizations. Do they

contain the requisite "bogeyman fear, hate and revenge factors to open the money spigot"?

"HE HAS SWORN TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, BUT ALSO TO TAKE ORDERS FROM

THE PRESIDENT ON DOWN."

The above statement was made in a Washington Times (9-1-95) article, which also stated... "Retired Army

Col. Robert Maginnis, an analyst at the conservative Family Research Council, said Spc. New has no legal

standing to refuse the order." Spec. New said he voiced his objection to superiors and stated, "no one can

explain to me why I am supposed to wear somebody else's uniform. Basically I have questions that no one is

willing to answer."

Consider thoughtfully and seriously all of the aforementioned information. According to the Supreme

Court, unConstitutional law is NO Law. If the Supreme Court ever rules otherwise, we assert that their ruling

would be unConstitutional. Therefore, we must assume that every law passed by the U.S. Congress or by any

State Legislative body which violates this Constitution, any charter ratified by the U.S. Senate which poses to

be the "supreme law of our land", any military rule or regulation, any contract unsuspecting Americans have


19 of 22 11/11/2013 8:16 AM

entered into by coercion under *color of law - such law, treaty or contract is null and void, "... by the

declaration, that the Constitution is the supreme law."

* [color of law - "That which is in appearance only, and not in reality, what it purports to be, hence

counterfeit, feigned, having the appearance of truth." Black's Law, 6th - "That which presents an appearance

which does not correspond with the reality, or an appearance intended to conceal or to deceive." "Mere

semblance of legal right." Barron's Law Dictionary 3rd]

According to a recent communication we received, Colonel Ronald Ray, USMCR (ret.) and former Asst.

Sec. of Defense under president Reagan says New is on firm Constitutional ground to refuse to change his

allegiance. Ray is quoted as saying [unconfirmed by CDR] "There are serious legal questions yet

unanswered, not the least of which is the status of soldiers who fall into enemy hands." "... are unprotected by

the Geneva Conventions. Questions like these need to be resolved before you force a man into a war zone."

We hope Colonel Ray is not insinuating that simply enacting some new regulation to afford protection for

UN troops under the Geneva Convention would justify "forcing a man into a war zone". We assert - and

invite all Americans to stand with us - that Spec. Michael New is protected by this Constitution for the united

States of America - and by his declaration of such... along with all of his fellow Americans declaring the

same.

Spec. Michael New took a stand for America. The army says "For now he is not subject to disciplinary

action because he has only voiced opposition. The pivotal moment will come when he is ordered to wear the

UN uniform and join his colleagues deploying to Macedonia... in late October." Continuing from the

Washington Times, "The Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) requires military personnel to obey

lawful orders. The Army considers orders to join the international task force in Macedonia to be lawful".

The evidence in this article proves the Army is wrong.

Considering so many of our high military leaders, Clinton's State Department appointees and U.S.

Congressmen and Senators are members of the infamous Council on Foreign Relations; considering the

United Nations is NOT a Peacekeeping Organization but rather a Warmaking Global Corporation wanna-be

World Parliamentary Government controlled by rich-beyond-our-imaginations lunatics who actually believe

they are qualified and have the prerogative to "organize life on the planet"; considering the UN was foisted

upon America and the world by the use of billions of our own hard-earned dollars and which buys its

brainless puppets to perpetrate the globalist plans; considering these lunatics use the media to "shape the

future of this nation and of mankind in the image of its [their] own value concepts" - would we dare to let

down? Give up?

Should American soldiers have to obey the orders of a president who violates the Constitution at every

turn? or his "superiors" who pay allegiance to the puppet-masters? Should they be subjected to any court in

this country or in the UN-created World Court? Most importantly will we, as still-free Americans, stand with

and honor any brave man's unwillingness to forfeit his God-given right to say NO? Let's all SAY "NO TO

THE NEW WORLD ORDER". We Americans must recognize that our heritage of freedom and liberty under

this Constitution is being eroded piece by piece to be replaced by the tyrannical "rule of men" under the UN

Charter. We must decide now (and with God all things are possible) which future we will choose for

ourselves and our posterity.

The truth is we've had it too easy for too long, and we've taken for granted that this Constitution would

protect our freedom. It's time we all accept our responsibility for the state of our nation and do all within our

power to recapture the American dream. . . OUR dream, not a globalist nightmare. Our Constitution lives


20 of 22 11/11/2013 8:16 AM

only in the declaration of its supremacy. If each one of us will accept full responsibility for our present

situation, ask our heavenly Father for guidance and be willing to place the outcome in His hands - we can

expect miracles.

WHAT CAN YOU DO?

We've prepared a document packet which includes copies of nearly all of the resource material and

newspaper articles to which we've referred in this article and have added documents over the past few years.

It is foolish to blindly believe, or expect others to believe, information from a book or newsletter. It is

impossible, without documentation, to convince most uninformed people that the information herein is the

truth and a root cause of the demise of American freedom. Therefore, we urge you to get the related

document packet.

Since those who occupy positions in the federal branch of our government, including the U.S. Congress,

have been taking secret orders from the global elite for over a century; since the right to self-government

inherently remains with we, the people, who elect officials within our respective states to act as fiduciary

(state legislators); since the power of the states has been usurped by the federal government its agencies and

agents only by the acquiescence of elected state government officials, the power can be reclaimed by we, the

people, working through our local and state governments. This information is useless unless we get it into

the hands of our elected state legislators and local elected officials. As our representatives they have a

responsibility to assert States' sovereignty by declaring the supremacy of the Constitution; to protect their

constituents from further federal encroachment and begin the reversal process - to BRING THE POWER

BACK TO THE STATES... BACK TO THE PEOPLE.

The message should be... loud and clear... Get the UN out of America and get America out of the UN! Get

all foreign troops off our soil and bring our American military personnel home! Get rid of all government

appointees who are CFR or TC members and pass a law that forbids elected officials to hold membership in

those or ANY organization which promotes American "Interdependence" in their damned Global

Neighborhood. Get state laws passed rejecting - as unConstitutional - all self-destructive agreements

(treaties) including the NAFTA and GATT/WTO. Use your own initiative to interact with your state officials

and lets stop the insanity once and for all.

OTHER SUGGESTED RESOURCES

* We believe the book, "Foundations", should be read by every American. The report and findings of the

Reece Committee are contained in an "Annex" in the back of the book, so once again you have invaluable

documentation for the necessary proof. Covenant House Books, P.O. Box 4690, Sevierville, Tennessee,

37864 (800) 513-5054 - $12.97 includes postage. Visa & M.C. phone orders (retails for $19.95 per single

copy - mention CDR to get the $12.97 price - that's 40% off!)

* Research Manual - "America 2000 / Goals 2000" - The only manual Americans need in order to understand

how our educational system has been merged with the UN international curriculum - many documents

reprinted - priceless reference source - including the U.S.-USSR Agreement to merge America's School

Curriculum with that of Communist Soviet Russia. The Reverend James R. Patrick, Citizens for Academic

Excellence, P.O. Box 1164, Moline, Illinois 61265 (309) 796-1485 $ 20

* The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America - Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt - This book will change forever

the way you look at your child's education. A Chronological Paper Trail. Myth-shattering, riveting account of

100 years of education "reform" - intended to deliberately dumb down your children and your America. Fully


21 of 22 11/11/2013 8:16 AM

documented. A must for ALL Americans, especially parents, teachers, elected officials. $35 includes S&H.

To: 3D Research Col, 1062 Washington St., Bath, Maine - 04530

Council on Domestic Relations Home


22 of 22 11/11/2013 8:16 AM

Documents

_In Defense of the World Order