But- 움직 meant to fight. The end he is going to be full burden of Assaming. See me, I'm gonna get it. Let's go. Why? What can... Which you do? The End This is the only hour that ever was or ever will be. This is the most important hour in your entire life. For during this hour you will decide your future and thus our collective futures. You're listening to the Hour of the Time. I'm William Cooper. And I'm Carolyn Nelson. Last night, ladies and gentlemen, as I was telling you about the .375 H&H Magnum rifle that we are going to be talking about on Monday, I think I failed to mention that it must have a Mauser action. The Mauser action is the only one strong enough to withstand the modifications that we're going to do to the round that you're going to be firing through this weapon. So I wanted to straighten that out right off the bat tonight. It's got to have a Mauser action. The .375 H&H Magnum with a Mauser action should have the longest, best barrel that you can purchase. And stay tuned for Monday night and we'll tell you exactly what to do with it. Don't go away. .375 H&H Magnum. .375 H&H Magnum. .375 H&H Magnum. .375 H&H Magnum. .375 H&H Magnum. .375 H&H Magnum. .475 H&H Magnum. Nobody is here. I heard one person start a minute keep laughing. I heard the song of a woman who died in the shutters. First down of a cloudy cloud. Tonight's episode of the Hour of the Time is produced and directed by Pooh, who's here in the studio with us, overseeing everything. And, of course, sing right along with the lyrics. Thanks. She's my brown-eyed girl. Yes, sir. Tonight, 83rd Congress, second session, United States Senate document number 87. 83rd Congress, second session, United States Senate document number 87, a review of the United Nations Charter, a collection of documents, subcommittee of the United Nations Charter, pursuant to Senate Resolution 126, 83rd Congress, first session, presented by Mr. Wiley, January 7, 1954, ordered to be printed with Illustrations, United States Government Printing Office, Washington, 1954. I'll be reading selected excerpts. And we're going to start off here with section 36, act prescribing the position of the United States flag to the United States. Let me start that over again, folks. Act prescribing the position of the United Nations flag to the United States flag, July 9, 1953. An act to prohibit the display of flags of international organizations or other nations in equal or superior prominence or honor to the flag of the United States, and catch this, folks, except under specified circumstances and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, that section 3C of the joint resolution, entitled, Joint Resolution to Codify and Emphasize Existing Rules and Customs Pertaining to the Display and Use of the Flag of the United States of America, approved June 22, 1942, as amended, 36 United States Code, section 175C, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new sentence. Quote, No person shall display the flag of the United Nations or any other national or international flag equal, above, or any position of superior prominence or honor to or in place of the flag of the United States at any place within the United States or any territory or possession thereof, provided that nothing in this section shall make unlawful the continuance of the practice heretofore followed of displaying the flag of the United Nations in a position of superior prominence or honor and other national flags in positions of equal prominence or honor with that of the flag of the United States at the headquarters of the United Nations, approved July 9, 1953. Treaties and Domestic Law. View of the four sponsoring... Oh, I want to make a point on that, folks, that the United Nations flag is flown at the United Nations headquarters above the flag of the United States, and it is United States soil. Treaties and Domestic Law. View of the four sponsoring governments. Abstract of statement by Honorable John Foster Dulles, United States Delegation on Domestic Jurisdiction, Clause of the Charter, San Francisco Conference, 1945. In his exposition of the intent of Article 8, Mr. Dulles emphasized that the four-power amendment dealt with domestic jurisdiction as a basic principle, and not, has been the case, in the original Dumbarton Oaks proposals and in Article 15 of the Covenant of the League of Nations as a technical and legalistic formula designed to deal with the settlement of disputes by the Security Council. This change in concept had been caused, he explained, by the change in the character of the organization as planned in the discussions at San Francisco. The scope of the organization was now broadened to include functions which would enable the organization to eradicate the underlying causes of war as well as to deal with crises leading to war. Under the Social and Economic Council, the organization would deal with economic and social problems. This broadening of the scope of the organization constituted a great advance, but it also engendered special problems. For instance, the question had been raised as to what would be the basic relation of the organization to member states. Would the organization deal with the governments of the member states, or would the organization penetrate directly into the domestic life and social economy of the member states? As provided in the amendment of the sponsoring governments, Mr. Dulles pointed out that this principle would require the organization to deal with the governments. Under the Economic and Social Council, the organization had a mandate to raise the standards of living and foster employment, etc. But no one in the ten-member council would go behind the governments in order to impose its desires. The amendment recognized the distinct value of the individual social life of each state. In reply to the contention that domestic jurisdiction should be determined in accordance with international law, Mr. Dulles again pointed out that international law was subject to constant change and therefore escaped definition. It would, in any case, be difficult to define whether or not a given situation came within the domestic jurisdiction of a state. Interesting. In summary, Mr. Dulles stressed the virtues of the principle, its breadth, and its simplicity. The organization, and none of its branches or organs, should intervene in what was essentially the domestic life of the member states. Moreover, this principle was subject to evolution. In other words, what he just said didn't mean anything. The United States had had long experience in dealing with a parallel problem. In effect, the relationship between the 48 states and the federal government. Today, the federal government of the United States exercised an authority undreamed of when the Constitution was formed and the people of the United States were grateful for the simple conceptions contained in their Constitution. And we still are, folks. We'd like to have it back. In like manner, Mr. Dulles foresaw that if the charter contained simple and broad principles, future generations would be thankful to the men at San Francisco who had drafted it. Thank you very much, Mr. Alger Hiss, you commie devil you, you rat, you dirty, dirty rat, and all the rest of you. Boy, all but one of those who had a hand in drafting the United Nations charter, ladies and gentlemen, were eventually named as communists. And many of them were imprisoned. The chairman moved a vote of thanks to Mr. Dulles for his masterly exposition of the problem of domestic jurisdiction, and Mr. Ebbett rose to second the motion. Now we go to section 69. Say, Fujii and the State of California, Opinion of the District Court of Appeals, 2nd District Division 2, California, April 24, 1950. In the period of 30 years since the Alien Land Law was adopted, we have revised our opinions concerning the rights of other peoples out of the travail of World War II came the concept of respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion, as expressed in the Charter of the United Nations, 59 Statutes, 1035, FF, U.S. Code, Congressional Service, 79th Congress, 1945, page 964. The government of the United States has traditionally been the leader in espousing the rights of man and has championed the cause of the smaller and less privileged nations. The War of 1898 was fought in support of an oppressed country. The efforts of our government in this regard reached fruition in the convention of representatives of the nations of the earth at which the Charter of the United Nations was adopted. It was promptly ratified by the Senate of the United States, thereby proclaiming allegiance to its principles and providing precedent and example for other countries. The United States has consistently regarded its treaties with other nations as inviolate. The Charter has become, quote, the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby anything in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary, notwithstanding, unquote. Now, for all you sheeple out there who don't understand what I just read, I'm going to read it again, and all you bleeding liberals out there who claim allegiance to the Constitution but support this treason, you better listen very closely. You cannot have two masters. The Charter has become, quote, the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby anything in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary, notwithstanding, unquote. The United States Constitution, Article 6, Section 2, The Position of This Country and the Family of Nations forbids trafficking in gnosis generalities but demands that every state in the Union accept and act upon the Charter according to its plain language and its unmistakable purpose and intent. There you have it, folks. An admission by the United States Senate that the United Nations Charter is the supreme law of the land. Now, those of you who have been so obnoxious as to call me a liar, I expect to have a written apology within five days. Thank you very much. Thank you. Since the Charter is now the supreme law of the land, it becomes necessary to examine its provisions and guarantees and to interpret it in the light in which it was adopted by the participating nations. The organization determined in the preamble, quote, to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights and the dignity and worth of the human person, to promote social progress, and better standards of life and larger freedom. There is no larger freedom, ladies and gentlemen, than what we have possessed in this country. What they are talking about is democratic socialism. In other words, what the Nazis had in Germany in World War II. Social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom. Once you understand the socialist code words, it begins to make better sense to you. Remember, socialism and socialists suck. You can't put it any better than that. They're all out there somewhere sucking right this moment. Among the purposes and principles found in Article I of Chapter I are, quote, to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights, to achieve international cooperation in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion, unquote. Now, notice what they say, folks. Our forefathers said all men are created equal. Created equal. That means when they're born they have the same opportunities as anyone else. What they do with their life, however, is quite a different story. In other words, when all of a generation reach the age of 20 years old, they are not equal. Some have demonstrated that they are superior. Some remain average. And some become a burden upon everyone else and are, without a doubt, inferior. But socialists, socialists, say this. Socialists, folks, say this. Listen carefully. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights. which means everyone is equal all the time. It just ain't so, ladies and gentlemen. Never has been and never will be. No one, no one will ever have any respect for the person who makes welfare a career. who has children just for the sake of more money in their welfare check. No one will ever have any respect for a man, a man, who sits on the street corner claiming that there are no jobs when you can open any newspaper and find pages and pages of jobs available for those who would have them. for people who, when they need work, will not accept the work that may be available until they can find better work because, quote, it's beneath my dignity, unquote. If you're that kind of person, you have no dignity. You have no honor, no ethics. You have no ethics. In Article 2, it is affirmed that the organization and its members, quote, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present charter, unquote. It is agreed in Chapter 9, Article 55, that the United Nations shall promote universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion. By Article 56, it is declared that all members pledged themselves to take joint and separate action in cooperation with the organization for the achievement of the purposes set forth in Article 55. In the address of the President of the United States to the Senate on July 2, 1945, urging the prompt ratification of the charter by that body, he said, quote, it seeks to promote worldwide progress and better standards of living. It seeks to achieve universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all men and women without distinction as to race, language, or religion. It seeks to remove the economic and social causes of international conflict and unrest. It is the product of many hands and many influences. It comes from the reality of experience in a world where one generation has failed twice to keep the peace. The lessons of that experience have been written into the document, unquote. United States Code Congressional Service, Supra, pages 961-962. They don't tell you that they're the ones who caused those wars in order to bring this about. And that is well documented also. On December 10, 1948, the General Assembly of the United Nations passed and proclaimed and called upon all member countries to publicize, disseminate, and expound in schools and elsewhere a, quote, universal declaration of human rights, unquote. And you all thought it was something new, didn't you? None of this is new, folks. None of it. Affirming among other things that, quote, all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They should act toward one another in a spirit of brotherhood. I agree with that, folks, as long as it stops with being born free and equal in dignity and rights. Many people give up their freedom voluntarily, and no one beyond that point is equal in the truest sense with anyone else. Your station in life is determined by your production, your contributions to society, your ethics, and your morals. not just because you exist, not just because you occupy space and suck in air and blow out air. That means only that you are here and nothing else. Act 1, Article 1, should be Act 1. Article 1, everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this declaration without distinction of any kind such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political, or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, or other status. I agree with that. Article 2, everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. I also agree with that. In fact, the ownership of property is an absolute requirement of a free people. You will find, though, that in the resolutions passed and pending and in the many charters that the United Nations has promulgated, the right to own property is questionable at best in this totalitarian socialist order. And you can see that they are attempting huge land grabs with the excuse of environmental action. Recently, the United States Congress passed a law, and Clinton signed that law, stating that environmental inspectors have access to all personal property to inspect to see if you're endangering the green polka-dotted earthworm or some other such nonsense. So if they come to your door, you're forbidden by law to bar them entry. However, we all know it's unconstitutional, but as I just demonstrated to you, the Constitution is not in force. The Constitution has been superseded by the United Nations Charter, by the Senate's own admission in this document. Article 17. This declaration implements and emphasizes the purpose and aims of the United Nations and its charter. Democracy provides a way of life that is helpful. However, its promises of human betterment are but vain expressions of hope unless ideals of justice and equity are put into practice among governments, and as well between government and citizen, and are held to be paramount. Now, what's wrong with this statement, folks, is we do not and have never lived in a democracy. This is a republic, and if you do not know the difference, you'd better find out now. All this talk of democracy is but a code word for the creeping, all-encompassing socialism that will engulf us, swallow us whole, digest us, and secrete us as waste material in the progress of the coming to power of the all- powerful state. People don't matter in socialist governments, only the state matters. If you're a people, you better get concerned about that. Real quick. integrity and validity of the charter and the confidence which it inspires would wane and eventually be brought to naught by failure to act according to its announced purposes. Its survival is contingent upon the degree of reverence shown for it by the contracting nations, their governmental subdivisions, and their citizens as well. This nation can be true to its pledge to the other signatories to the charter only by cooperating in the purposes that are so plainly expressed in it and by removing every obstacle to the fulfillment of such purposes. A perusal of the charter renders it manifest that restrictions contained in the alien land law are in direct conflict with the plain terms of the charter above quoted and with the purposes announced therein by its framers. It is incompatible with Article 17 of the Declaration of Human Rights, which proclaims the right of everyone to own property. We have shown that the expansion by the Congress of the classes of nationals eligible to citizenship has correspondingly shrunk the group ineligible under the provisions of the alien land law to own or lease land in California until the latter now consists in reality of a very small number of Japanese. The other Asiatics who still remain on the prescribed list are so few that they need not be considered. Clearly, such a discrimination against a people of one race is contrary both to the letter and to the spirit of the charter, which as a treaty is paramount to every law of every state in conflict with it. Now, did you hear what that said, ladies and gentlemen? Any law in this country which is in conflict with the United Nations charter is null and void? The alien land law must therefore yield to the treaty as the superior authority. The restrictions of the statute based on eligibility to citizenship, but which ultimately and actually are referable to race or color must be and are therefore declared untenable and unenforceable. Judgment reversed with directions to enter a decree in favor of plaintiff in accordance with the prayer of his complaint. What they're saying there, folks, is if you're a nation trying to protect the interest of your citizens and you have a law that forbids the ownership of land by citizens of foreign countries, they say that it is not really about citizenship, but about race or color. You see how they twist things? Now, if we were a sovereign nation, there would be nothing wrong with that law. But if we were, in fact, a vassal state of the United Nations, part of a larger order to which all citizens of the world belonged, then such a law could not exist. And, in fact, doesn't. Simply because the ruling is that the United Nations Charter takes precedence over the Constitution of the United Nations, of the United States, and all laws of the United States government, and all laws of the several states. You see, ladies and gentlemen, they declared war against us long, long ago. They have been letting us believe that we have a Constitution and a Bill of Rights and that we are still the sovereign United States of America. America. It is a lie. We are, in fact, a subjugated people. We are, in fact, a peoples with an army of occupation which belongs to the United Nations, and you don't have to look for foreign troops to find it. It is called the United States Navy, the United States Army, the United States Air Force, the United States Coast Guard, and the United States Marines. And in the several states where you think you have National Guard belonging to the states, and where you think that the National Guard constitutes the militia, they are, in fact, an organization that can be federalized. And if they have accepted federal money for equipment supplies, aircraft, arms, or ammunition, or uniforms, are already federalized, which makes them another military organization of the United Nations. Wake up, sheeple, and you'd better wake up really fast. You see, it's all been done long, long ago. nämlich on Sand사를 talked about being a company that occurred in the last couple later on but Thank you. Run, run, don't walk. Run, don't walk to your nearest telephone. And it probably already is in your living room tonight. For as you've been listening to me read all these documents, there was always this nagging doubt in the back of your mind. And there was always this belief that, well, you know, he's reading from his documents and I can go check it out in the library, but it just can't really be true. Well, it is true, ladies and gentlemen. The United States of America does not exist. The Constitution of the United States of America is not in force. There are no Bill of Rights. Now, for those of us who have been wondering, why is it that the Constitution has not been amended, but all across this country they have stripped us of our rights? Protected by the Constitution and by the first ten amendments. Stripped our rights away. In case you don't know it, you cannot say whatever you want to in this nation anymore. In fact, if you say certain things in this nation, you can be arrested. You can be taken out of this country and tried in a United Nations court. And if found guilty of saying anything that hurt the feelings of any one person who is a member of a minority, you can be sentenced to death. Oh, yes. Read the genocide treaty. Read the genocide convention adopted by the United Nations. You have no more right to privacy under the fourth article in Amendment to the Constitution. You have no right anymore to protection from the seizure of your property without just compensation. In fact, it happens every day across this country and has happened to many people today, this day as we speak. Ponce Comitatus no longer applies, as you witnessed in Waco, Texas. There are no rights protected by any Constitution or by any Bill of Rights left in this nation. I can go right down every single right that you thought you had, you do not have. Not long ago, they passed a law stating that confessions obtained by beatings can no longer be thrown out of court. Which means they can beat you until you say whatever they want you to say, and that confession will stand in court. Cannot be thrown out. Don't believe it? Go look it up, sheeple. Everything I'm telling you on this program is the truth, but I do not want you to believe what I'm saying blindly. I want you to go check it. Listen to everyone. Read everything. Believe nothing. Now run. Don't walk. To your nearest phone and call 1-800-289-2646. Never mind who it is. You'll find out when they answer. 1-800-289-2646. You need their services. You need to thank them for sponsoring this program. You need to buy a bag of everything that they've got. And you need to keep it where you can pick it up and run with it at the slightest notion. 1-800-289-2646. That's 1-800-289-2646. Do it now. Don't wait another moment. What's the vision? Thank you. A perusal of the Charter renders it and manifests that restrictions contained in the alien land law are in direct conflict with the plain terms of the Charter above quoted and with the purposes announced therein by its framers. Now, skipping down, clearly such a discrimination against a people of one race is contrary both to the letter and to the spirit of the Charter, which as a treaty is paramount to every law of every state in conflict with it. The member nations to promote the observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms without distinction as to race. Plain of relies on statements in the preamble and in the Articles 1, 55 and 56 of the Charter, 59 Statutes, 1035. It is not disputed that the Charter is a treaty, and our federal Constitution provides that treaties made under the authority of the United States are part of the supreme law of the land and that the judges in every state are bound thereby. United States Constitution, Article 6. A treaty, however, does not automatically supersede local laws which are inconsistent with it unless the treaty provisions are self-executing. In the words of Chief Justice Marshall, a treaty is to be regarded in courts of justice as equivalent to an act of the legislature whenever it operates of itself, without the aid of any legislative provision. But when the treaty addresses itself to the political, not the judicial department, and the legislature must execute the contract before it becomes a rule for the court. Foster v. Nielsen, 1829, 2 Petition 253, 314, 7 L. Ed. 415 In determining whether a treaty of self-executing courts look to the intent of the signatory parties as manifested by the language of the instrument, and if the instrument is uncertain, recourse may be had to the circumstances surrounding its execution. Now this was the argument for the plaintiff in this suit. And I skipped down a little further to pertinent paragraphs. Although the member nations have obligated themselves to cooperate with the international organization in promoting respect for and observance of human rights, it is plain that it was contemplated that future legislative action by the several nations would be required to accomplish the declared objectives, and there is nothing to indicate that these provisions were intended to become rules of law for the courts of this country upon the ratification of the charter. The language used in Article 55 and 56 is not the type customarily employed in treaties which have been held to be self-executing and to create rights and duties in individuals. For example, the treaty involved in Clark v. Allen 331, United States 503, 507-508, 67 Supreme Court 1431, 1434, 91 L. Ed. 1633, relating to the rights of a national of one country to inherit real property located in another country, specifically provided that such national should be allowed a term of three years in which to sell the property and withdraw the proceeds. The provision, treated as being self-executing, was equally definite. There, each of the signatory parties agreed that no higher or other duties, charges, or taxes of any kind shall be levied by one country and removal of property therefrom by citizens of the other country than are or shall be payable in each state upon the same when removed by a citizen or subject of such state respectively. In other instances, treaty provisions were enforced without implementing legislation where they prescribed in detail the rules governing rights and obligations of individuals or specifically provided that citizens of one nation shall have the same rights while in the other country as are enjoyed by that country's own citizens. C. C. C. C. C. C. C. C. C. C. C. C. C. C. C. C. C. C. C. C. C. C. C. C. C. C. C. C. C. C. C. C. C. C. C. C.