"If the so-called aggressor states are defeated," wrote H.G. Wells in The Fate of Man (1939), "their unfortunate common people will be saddled with the war guilt of the governments that have enslaved and ruined them. They will be made to 'pay' again. Another insincere attempt to organize 'collective security' on the lines of the League of Nations, another unstable League of victors, will simply accumulate the necessary resentments for another collapse into still more violent conflict."
The apparent stability of the United Nations, formed -- as Wells predicted it would be -- in the aftermath of the War for Greater Serbia (Part Two), belies the non-apparent purposes which this "league of victors" has consistently pursued. As many observers have noted, the Soviet-style organization of the United Nations puts it somewhere between a Politburo and a Parliament. The location of the U.N. headquarters, however, and the selection of Columbia or "royal" blue for their colors does, I believe, tell the tale. The U.N. is supposed to be the Parliament of the New World Order, and thus the immutable rule of parliaments must also be invoked, which is -- "no Parliament without a King."
Let us, then, and therefore, "walk the cat backwards" from the present moment in time to discern whether or not the United Nations can be said to have any legitimacy at all, other than by its anticipated use of naked military force (at some time that is drawing ever-closer). The United Nations is in the United States by Treaty, and the power to negotiate, establish and fund treaty obligations was set by the Constitution and laid in the hands of the Senate (for ratification), and in the presidency (for negotiation and execution). Early on in the history of our union, Alexander Hamilton wrote arguments enabling George Washington to persuade the House of Representatives that it had a duty to fund treaties which the Senate had ratified. That it was required to do this by its own authority over the budget process, which was an indicator of its legitimacy; so, too, the ratifying process in the Senate was an exclusive power which also served as an indicator of its own legitimacy.
No leader in American government in those days had the concept, nor would entertain the concept, that any treaty could modify or amend the Constitution for the United States! The sovereign authority which created the power to negotiate those treaties (contracts), could not be altered, changed or revoked by any one of those treaties, nor by all of them put together, regardless of their age or purposes!
To propose that is like saying that the cowboys and drovers could legally displace the rancher who employs them just because they have been allowed to sleep in his hacienda! It may happen -- because the vaqueros outnumber the rancher and his family, but that is anarchy -- or it might happen as the results of the tyranny of a mob in action.
That doesn't make it right, and it is not lawful, it is not moral, and it isn't even sane. It is not legitimate.
Yet the fact remains, that the United Nations, as a forum for peace or for legitimate, measured resolutions of conflicts, has some important fans and adherents. Never mind that it has been a huge failure: never mind that many persons believe this ineptitude was always in the planning, and that the U.N. bureaucracy has enjoyed its opulent standard of living for two whole generations precisely because it is ineffective, inept, and incompetent even in the face of genocide and tribal warfare.
However, many others do contend that as the corruptions and scandals of the Clinton era slowly grind down the resistance of the people of the United States, the U.N. is well-positioned to subsume all governance. They get nothing done, but they are not obviously criminal in the same ways that the Clinton gangsters are criminals. These people point to NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement), and certain other commercial protocols such as the World Trade Organization, as being the nascent governing bodies. There is great concern there.
This argument would seem to have great legitimacy: the posting which indicated that the First Crony of the Two Clintons -- Abner Mikva -- was now a judge on a NAFTA panel, ought to establish the bona fides of that position. NAFTA is not a simple trade agreement, it is an alternate governing structure, one that was probably designed to supplant the original States of the union, but which could easily be made into "Federal Gov't Lite".
So too the argument has been made that the actions of Franklin Delano Roosevelt essentially created a "state of emergency" by establishing that the federal government was "in a state of war" against the people of the United States. As I understand it, this complex legal fiction draws its legitimacy from the so-called Fourteenth or citizenship amendment, as does the power of the Internal Revenue Service when it seeks to garnish wages, seize property, investigate this-and-that and so on.
Therefore, it will come as no surprise to the readers of Rumor Mill News to learn that it was in the time of Roosevelt's greatest power that this union of sovereign States was further defrauded by that privileged class of lawyers known as "attorneys at the bar". What was the instrument of that fraud? It was the publication by the Congress, with our public monies, of the Constitution of the United States, Annotated.
Officially issued on May 14, 1938, as Senate Document 232, this version of the Constitution is based in large measure on the frauds concocted during and after the so-called Civil War, and most assuredly during Reconstruction. It is explicitly not based upon the fraud perpetrated by James Buchanan, Secretary of State, when he and Roger Taney endorsed William Hickey's version of the Constitution (published in successive editions, 1848-1854) as it does contain a reference to the original Thirteenth Amendment, prohibiting Titles of Honor and Nobility.
In a footnote to the Anti-Slavery Amendment of 1865, which has been falsely labelled as Article XIII for about 134 years, Senate Document 232 notes that there was an amendment issued by a joint resolution of Congress in 1810. However, it avers that because Louisiana joined the union in 1812, this Amendment "failed of ratification" by not getting an extra ratification by a State legislature. The footnote ignores the findings published by the federal government in a report of 1896, which sought to clarify the matter of the original Thirteenth Amendment by noting that South Carolina had not ratified it. But in that report, it was explicitly stated that only thirteen States were needed to approve the joint resolution (and the authors at that time did not have the signed receipt of the Revised Code of Virginia, which would have clearly shown that Virginia ratified the amendment as the needed thirteenth State, and in 1819).
Looking at Article V, which governs the amending process, we cannot find any such phrase as "failed of ratification." There is, in fact, no such category under the Constitution: it may only occur if an Amendment is issued by Congress with a time limit or some other provision for terminating is active life!!
To further compound the fraud done by Senate Document 232, if it was accepted by the State Legislatures that there was, and has been since 1812, a category known as "failed of ratification," then the so-called Fourteenth Amendment falls directly in it!
Forgetting that there were ten States denied their equal suffrage in the Senate (when the resolution to amend was issued by Congress and the Secretary of State on June 16, 1866), the three rejections by Louisiana, Delaware and Maryland would have effectively terminated the Fourteenth. There were, in fact, fifteen States including New Jersey where the Amendment was voted down, but Reconstruction allowed the federal military forces to evict lawfully elected Legislatures. Replaced with puppets.
Even supposing that it was right to abrogate the actions of the Legislature of Louisiana, and invalidate its rejection of the Fourteenth, that still left pro-union States like Delaware and Maryland on the opposing side, which means that there was no way to obtain the 28 of 37 States necessary for ratification. Not without using federal bayonets -- Reconstruction -- to usurp and evict State legislators in five more States, including Georgia. That is what was done. Even then the Secretary of State was made queasy by the whole process, and so Congress passed a joint resolution on July 21 of 1868, thus commanding the approval of a member of the Executive on a constitutional issue.
"Fresh brigands and adventurers will appear," wrote H.G. Wells, "trading on the shame and despair of the vanquished." It is a question of some importance to ask -- just who, exactly, did win the Second World War? Was it the Americans and their allies or was it the "brigands" who took the reins of power in secret?
The New World Order holds that the federal government has an authority directly over the lives and fortunes of its subject citizens because the Fourteenth Amendment grants this power, and has by federal law (and the action of federal courts) allowed State sovereignties to be ignored, suppressed or stripped away.
Yet we as people still live in the States, and not in our Zip Codes. It is apparently the design of the tyrants of the New World Order to "fold" what has been called national sovereignty into some kind of global governance, thus abolishing the nation-states. Here again their works are frauds.
These United States have always been sovereign members of a union and not sectional units of a national or consolidated government and the lawful votes cast by Electors for President, and tallied by the Congress, attest to that continuing reality. There is no "nation" here, but a union of sovereign states where all nationalities and ethnic groups may live! That is fact.
There is another fact which is indisputable: George W. Bush was installed lawfully by these Electors, who cast their ballots in their State legislatures; and thus, the sovereignty of their States was affirmed. Even in a debauched condition, they remain.
It is impossible to argue it any other way. The federal government does not now own the States and it cannot strip away the sovereign powers they control -- lawfully -- by the actions of any treaty, any trade agreement or any executive order. If any such thing is done it is a fraudulent or criminal action.
What is also true, is that the original Thirteenth Amendment was not issued by a Senate where lawfully appointed Senators had been denied their seats; it was not ratified by "rump" parliaments installed by military forces, and its continual publication by States which rejected it (Connecticut and Rhode Island), and by States which joined the union after it was issued (Louisiana, Indiana, Mississippi), demonstrates that men of law in the time of Andrew Jackson believed it to be correct and proper! It was the real Article XIII, and it was submerged by stealth, deceit and by the fraudulent actions of pro-slavery lawyers.
All of this has meaning here in March of 2001: it is not some obscure point of the history of Federalism and its provisions, prohibiting Titles of Honor and emoluments coming from foreign Princes and Powers have complete immediacy: from Reuters --
: Indonesian businessman James Riady, a friend of former president Bill Clinton, pleaded guilty on Monday to making illegal campaign contributions and agreed to pay a record $8.6 million in fines.
: Riady, the former chief of LippoBank, also agreed to serve two years of probation and perform 400 hours of community service as part of a plea bargain with federal prosecutors that spared him any time in prison.
: U.S. Attorney Dan O'Brien said Riady spoke to Clinton during a 1992 limousine ride and pledged to donate $1 million to his campaign for the presidency. Clinton has said he cannot recall that conversation.
: O'Brien said Riady then began supplying cash to his employee, John Huang, to contribute to the campaigns of Clinton and other U.S. politicians, in some cases reimbursing Huang by paying him hundreds of thousands of dollars in bonuses.
Campaign contributions are "emoluments:" William Jefferson Clinton accepted those emoluments from a foreign Power, the Lippo Bank, which was operating in the United States by law as a foreign corporation; to say that James Riady, who had complete control over his own banking business and was worth many billions was not and is not "a Power" is absurd. The paltry fine and the lack of any prison time for his eighty-six separate violations of the law indicate that he also holds a Title of Honor, and is being accorded special standing in a federal court. It cannot be argued any other way. What regular citizen could get this deal?
The New World Order expects that it will continue to bully and bull-dog the subject citizens of these United States because the Fourteenth Amendment is on the books -- including the Rooseveltian fraud of 1938 -- while the Titles of Nobility and Honor amendment is not there. They expect to expand their powers and to use whatever new exigencies and emergencies that may arise, to further deprive us all of our liberties and rights (what little of them as may remain). They base their powers to do these things on the fraud of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was never lawfully issued and which was implemented only by fraud and by force.
Their control over the mass media and their direct control over schools of law, professors of law (all attorneys), and 'the think tanks' where media pundits go to convalesce -- gives them an expectation that they can keep the original Thirteenth Amendment suppressed for another one hundred and fifty years. But even if that happens, they will remain illegitimate, they will remain the purveyors of fraud and deceit, and their posterity will forever be illegitimate, too.
William Jefferson Clinton violated the provisions of the original Thirteenth Amendment: the text of that amendment makes it clear that there are no secondary classes of citizenship, which does threaten the perks and privileges of the Hollywood aristocracy; but more directly, it threatens the livelihood of those agents of communism, or Satanism, who derive their monies from abroad. The former President can be accused under the provisions of the amendment, in my opinion, without the necessity of enabling laws at the federal level. The brilliant and patriotic men who concocted the original Thirteenth Amendment put a penalty directly into the Constitution itself to forever block Titles of Nobility and Honor, while granting to Congress the political control over, and approval of, emoluments, pensions, presents and so on.
The original Thirteenth Amendment was proposed to stop the British from meddling in our State elections: it is an anti-espionage and sabotage provision, as well, but mostly it is the final plank in the platform of the Bill of Rights. It guarantees the right of the people in their States, to have free and fair elections, and gives them the power to punish spies, saboteurs, freebooters and brigands. That is why the Legislature of Georgia approved it unanimously in 1811. They were then on the western frontier: they knew what they needed. It is just exactly what we need, today, as we discuss campaign finances and "reforms". However we will get the message out to the people?
