Petrus Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. left margin of this letter, maybe you will become more aware of what this is all about. It lists the founding chairman, Theodore J. Forstman, the chairman, Malcolm S. Forbes, Jr., the vice chairman, Vin Weber, directors, William J. Bennett, Joseph A. Cannon, Nicholas C. Forstman, U.S. Congressman Newt Gingrich, Jack Kemp, Gene J. Kirkpatrick, U.S. Senator Trent Lott, Michael Novak, Julian H. Robertson, Jr., Donald Rumsfeld, Thomas W. Weissel, the president is William A. Dahl-Kahl, and the executive director is Charles M. Cooperman. Why is the Wall Street Journal interested? And where the children of Arizona attend school? What's William Bennett doing with his nose in this? They don't live in Arizona. None of these people live in Arizona, ladies and gentlemen. When you hear the answer, you'll know why. He said this, Empower America, the prospects for school choice in Arizona. A special session of the Arizona House of Representatives will be held in mid-January to consider an education reform and school choice bill entitled Essentials of Education Reform. Sponsored by Representative Lisa Graham, a Republican and chair of the House Education Committee, the bill is endorsed by Governor Fyfe-Synington and the Arizona House and Senate leadership. That's right, folks. All the traitors in Arizona. Empower America endorses the legislation. We believe the bill represents bold and comprehensive education reform and will promote school safety, accountability, decentralization, and the empowerment of parents rather than bureaucrats, and it's all lies. The proposal includes the following provisions. Parental choice program providing vouchers up to $1,500 per student to a limited number of low-income families to cover the cost of private school tuition. Open enrollment statewide. Charter schools. Public schools required to publish an annual report card detailing performance. Incentives for expanding advanced placement programs. School receives an additional $100 for each student who passes an AP test. Improvement of alternative placement program for disruptive students, making it easier to place such students in more appropriate facilities within the public school system. Decentralization and site-based management. Expansion of at-risk funding for preschool students. The parental choice component would provide parental choice grants to a limited number of low-income parents whose children are eligible for the free lunch program. In the first year of the program, 2,000 students would be eligible for the grants. Beginning in year five, 8,000 students would be eligible annually. What's wrong with this, folks? Doesn't it sound wonderful? They're going to give you a grant. They're going to give you a coupon. And they're going to let you take your kids to whatever school you want to take them to. And you just present this coupon and they're in. Sounds real good, doesn't it, folks? Except that it's not. It is, in fact, another step toward socialism. Remember when you said, Oh, gee, if we conform to these certain rules and make application to the government, they'll help us build interstate highways. And they'll give us the money from the federal government, and it won't cost us a thing. And what happened, ladies and gentlemen? You accepted the money from the federal government, and they built a portion of an interstate highway running through your state. And then they began to tell your state what to do. On not just the highway, but a whole bunch of other things. And they told your state that if they didn't go along with that, after they had accepted federal funds for that interstate highway, that they would cut off the funds. Well, you should have cut off the funds, folks. In fact, you should have never accepted it. Because by the time you pay the money that you pay for all the different things you pay, and the taxes are taken out, and you pay your income tax and all this stuff, and the money floats through the great grand bureaucracy of your state, and then Washington, D.C., and gets back to you, you've already paid five times as much for that highway as you ever would have paid in the first place. And here they're giving out coupons, $1,500 coupons per student. Now, that's wrong, folks. If they're going to do this, you should not be required to pay on your coupon any more than you pay in taxes that go toward the school system every year. And I don't know anybody that pays $1,500 in school taxes, do you? So where's this money going to come from? Of course, folks, you've got it right. It's going to be filtered down to the states from the federal government. And before you know it, quick as a wink, these private schools will not be private anymore, because the law says whoever pays the bill calls the two. People, those schools might be excellent schools now, but you wait until they're federalized and socialized and subsidized and mandated and paperworked, and then you'll see how good those schools will be. This is the beginning of bringing all schools, even private and religious schools, down to the level of the public school by coercing you into accepting money in the form of coupons to send your child to the school of your choice. Our recommendation is go to work. Earn some money. Send your child to the school of your choice. You pay for it. Keep the school private. Keep the school good. Otherwise, everybody in America will be as stupid as all of the kids who are graduating from public school today. Luckily, there are private schools and religious schools out there that you can send your children to. But if you fall for this, promoted by the Wall Street Journal, and all of these scumbags in Washington, D.C. that have nothing to do with the state of Arizona, you're going to ruin the minds of your children. Not fair, you say? You say that the poor people are entitled to send their children to whatever school they want to go to? Well, if that's the case, then they're entitled to a Cadillac if they want it. They're entitled to a share in Pepsi-Cola Corporation, in fact. We should give them a whole factory. No, folks. This is the United States of America. You're entitled to what you earn. Nothing more. Nobody owes you anything. And unless you contract a debt, you don't owe anything to anyone except to be a good, responsible citizen. You sheeple out there better wake up if it wasn't for this radio program and several other good people in this country who are doing their best and risking their lives to wake you up and try to turn this thing around. You would be absolutely gone. Gone. And maybe you are. Maybe you'll stay gone. You see, people are actually getting this, opening it up and say, oh, this is wonderful. This is wonderful. Oh, now, on top of all the other benefits we get from Daddy, from the socialist state, now we get coupons. We can send our children to any school we want to. My little Johnny's going to Harvard. Where are you sending your little Susie? Wake up, dummies. You better wake up. Let's continue with where we left off. Yesterday at the end of the early show, and I was reading an article from the Congressional Record of the Senate. And, let me see. This was from page 1962, page 3217, Congressional Record of the Senate. I'll back up just a little bit so you get the gist of what this was all about. In the first phase, all nuclear weapons tested by nations would be prohibited, production of fissionable material stopped, strategic delivery systems reduced, and conventional arms and armed forces would be cut. In the second phase, present stocks of nuclear weapons would be reduced, further cuts would be made in armed forces, armaments, and delivery systems, and military bases and facilities would be dismantled. At the same time, a peace force would be established for the United Nations. A peace force would be established for the United Nations. In the third and final phase, all nations would possess only those forces, non-nuclear armaments and establishments required for the purpose of maintaining internal order, of maintaining internal order, not defending us. They would also support and provide agreed manpower for a United Nations peace force. They would also support and provide agreed manpower for a United Nations peace force. This force would be fully functioning and would be sufficiently strong to overpower any individual nation or combination of nations resisting its will. Do you understand what I just read to you, ladies and gentlemen, right out of the Congressional record of the Senate? Let me read it again, should you have wax in your ears or some other obstruction between you and your radio. This force would be fully functioning and would be sufficiently strong to overpower any individual nation or combination of nations resisting its will. There you have it. One, two, three, bingo! The United Nations rules the world. And who rules the United Nations? That is the question. For if one moment old Nikita thinks he isn't going to rule the UN, you can bet your last Kopech he's not going to fall for a trap like this. As soon as he and Mr. Neeru, Mr. Nkrumah, Mr. Sukarno, and a few other scoundrels, count enough votes to come up with a winning combination, such a proposal will be a natural for them and there won't be any more Kopechs left for us to count. That's the beauty of the system from Mr. Khrushchev's point of view. Of course, it's heads he wins, tails we lose. And speaking of votes, one of the most interesting, if most frightening, aspects of this proposal is the line-up on an 18-nation negotiating body in the United Nations, which soon will be considering this disarmament scheme. Originally, this committee was composed of five Western nations, Britain, Canada, France, Italy, and the United States, and five Soviet bloc nations, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Romania, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. But the sharp division of these two factions resulted in a complete deadlock, and on June 27, 1960, the Soviets walked out. Then somebody came up with the bright idea of adding eight independent nations to the committee as a compromise. Two Asian, two African, two Latin American, one Middle Eastern, and one European. The future of this country and of the free world may very well depend upon how those eight nations line up. At the moment, the future is looking very dark. For from Asia, they picked Burma and India. From Africa, Nigeria, and Ethiopia. From Latin America, Mexico, and Brazil. Egypt from the Middle East, and Sweden from Europe. Five of these nations, a clear majority, recently voted in favor of ceding Red China in the United Nations and kicking Chiang out. These five nations are Burma, Egypt, Ethiopia, India, and Sweden. Moreover, Mexico was the only Latin American nation, other than Cuba, of course, to oppose flatly a resolution by the Organization of American States calling for a foreign ministers conference on the Cuban threat of communist invasion of the hemisphere. Brazil, which refused to support this same measure by abstaining on the vote, has already proclaimed its disapproval of any measures which the foreign ministers might take to deal with Castro. The Brazilian government has officially called upon the United States and other hemisphere nations to coexist with human communism. How many friends does this leave the United States on the all-important United Nations Disarmament Committee? You count them. I'm sick. From Mr. Clark, readers of the record will note that my distinguished colleague made certain statements to which I take strong dissent. First, he said, every day more and more people share a growing concern for the preoccupation of the State Department and some people in high places with the issue of disarmament. Second, he said, I think it is naive and unrealistic to be preoccupied with the question of disarmament. Third, he said, we know that the communist conspiracy has no intention of coexisting with us. Mr. President, I take strong exception to each of these three statements. In the column which the junior senator from Texas inserted in the record, its author Mr. Ken Thompson referred to what he calls, as stated in the article, one of the most incredible documents ever to emerge from the foggy quarters of the State Department is a bulletin entitled Freedom from War, the U.S. Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World. I continue to quote from Mr. Thompson, as skeptical as I have always been of the measure of good sense and loyalty within the State Department, I never would have believed that these people we call our diplomats could so completely and unabashedly advocate the surrender of American rights and sovereignty until this bulletin appeared. Mr. President, I submit that both the junior senator from Texas and Mr. Thompson are pretty far off base in the comments which I have noted. In the first place, the program entitled Freedom from War, the United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World, is not some pamphlet dreamed up in what is referred to as the foggy corridors of the State Department. It is the fixed, determined, and approved policy of the government of the United States of America. It was laid down by President of the United States, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, in a speech he made before the United Nations on September 25th of last year, a speech which I think will rain down through the corridors of history. That program, when it was submitted by the President of the United States, had the approval not only of the State Department, but also of the President's then disarmament advisor, Mr. McCloy, who was its principal author of the Department of Defense and of the Atomic Energy Commission. It represents the fixed and determined policy of the executive arm of the United States government. Ladies and gentlemen, that is an admission by Senator Clark that what I read to you several nights ago was, in fact, exactly as the document says, the official policy of the United States government. I will now continue because there is much more here. If individuals, whether on or off this floor, desire to criticize that program, they should turn their criticism not against some subordinates in the State Department, but against the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States of America, the President of the United States. I recall to members the dramatic statement made by the President in that splendid address before the United Nations to the effect that he challenged the Soviet Union to a race for peace, not a race for war. In that connection, I suggest that the program presented by our President at that time has by implication at least the full support of the Congress of the United States. President, Mr. President, my view, the President's program for total and permanent disarmament under enforceable world law, under enforceable world law, under enforceable world law, is not only that of his administration, but is also the kind of program which Congress envisioned when last summer it passed the statute creating the United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. That bill was passed on September 8th by the Senate by a vote of 73 to 14, only approximately two weeks before the President made his historic appearance before the United Nations. The bill was passed a few days later by the House of Representatives by a vote of 280 to 54, as expressed in the first annual report of the United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. Successful arms control and disarmament negotiations are, of course, the chief purpose of the agency's existence and the goal to which its energies are directed. Therefore, Mr. President, I submit that the executive and the legislative branches of our government are substantially in accord in supporting the President's program for total and complete disarmament under enforceable world law. Enforceable world law. And I suggest that it is neither naive nor unrealistic, as was suggested by the junior senator from Texas for the Congress of the United States and the people of the United States to take an active, keen, and present interest in the subject of disarmament. Far from its being naive to be preoccupied with this subject, I suggest that disarmament, world peace, and world law not only should be, but are the constant preoccupation of all intelligent and educated men and women who desire to survive in freedom. And ladies and gentlemen, I, William Cooper, tell you that's the biggest crock of bullshit that you'll ever be fed in your life. In your life. Now, let me read you the biography right out of the biographical directory of the United States Congress. The volume 1774 to 1989. Senator Clark, Joseph Still, a senator from Pennsylvania, born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, October the 21st, 1901, attended Chestnut Hill Academy, was graduated from Middlesex School in 1919, Harvard University in 1923, and the University of Pennsylvania Law School in 1926, was admitted to the bar in 1926, and commenced the practice of law in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, during the Second World War, served with the United States Army Air Corps, 1941 to 1945, attaining the rank of Colonel, City Comptroller of Philadelphia 1950 to 1952, Mayor of Philadelphia 1952 to 1956, Member of the Board of Overseers, Harvard University, 1953 to 1958. Elected as a Democrat to the United States Senate in 1956, re-elected in 1962, and served from January the 3rd, 1957 to January the 3rd, 1969. Unsuccessful candidate for re-election in 1968, Professor, Temple University, 1969, and here's the kicker, folks, President, World Federalist, United States of America. Chairman, or excuse me, President, World Federalist, United States of America. And I'm not going to go into who they are. I want you to look it up. We've already done it on past programs of the hour of the time. Just in short, though, it's a group devoted, devoted to the destruction of national sovereignty of all nations, and the united of all, all nations in a one world government. Now we go to the Congressional Record of the House, 1954, page 5065. It's the Congressional Record of the House of Representatives, 1954, page 5065. Lethal Genocide Convention Destroys Individual Rights, Extension of Remarks of Honorable Usher L. Burdick of North Dakota in the House of Representatives, Monday, April the 12th, 1954. Mr. Burdick. Mr. Speaker, the genocide convention passed by the United Nations is a fine-sounding document, but like other conventions adopted by that organization, it has an ulterior purpose. The dictionary defines genocide as the systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group of people. Very few people in this world can be found who would not be in favor of putting a stop to this barbarous practice. But in framing this convention, the United Nations used this great appeal as an instrument to shield its real purpose. In defining genocide, the United Nations has gone beyond all past understanding of its meaning, and under the terms of this organization interprets it, if anyone, anywhere, even makes a statement reflecting upon any group or a member of any group which has the effect of injuring their feelings, then a crime has been committed, and the persons, or persons making the statement, are ipso facto guilty of the crime of genocide. Knowing full well that such a law cannot be enforced in the United States, the United Nations has made elaborate preparations to implement it. Now I'm going to read this paragraph over again for you folks. In defining genocide, the United Nations has gone beyond all past understanding of its meaning, and under the terms as this organization interprets it, if anyone, anywhere, even makes a statement reflecting upon any group or a member of any group which has the effect of injuring their feelings, then a crime has been committed, and the persons, or persons making the statement, are ipso facto guilty of the crime of genocide. Knowing full well that such a law could not be enforced in the United States, the United Nations has made elaborate preparations to implement it, and wait till you hear what those preparations are. First of all, the interpretation of this law and trials conducted under it are not entrusted to the courts of this or any other country, but come under the jurisdiction of a court of its own, which the United Nations has set up, an international court of justice which has civil and criminal jurisdiction. Let me read that again to you, just in case you missed it. It is proof positive that we are nothing but a vassal state of the United Nations, on top of all the other evidence we've already presented. I quote, First of all, the interpretation of this law and trials conducted under it are not entrusted to the courts of this or any other country, but come under the jurisdiction of a court of its own, which the United Nations has set up, an international court of justice which has civil and criminal jurisdiction. Unquote. For several years now, lawyers have been working on the construction of this code. For several years now, lawyers have been working on the construction of this code. And under it, a person charged with the offense of genocide is tried wherever the United Nations may decide. The alleged offender can be taken out of this country if here is where he uttered the statements that hurt the feeling of some group or a member of a group and sent to any other country or the United Nations or wherever the United Nations deems proper for trial. I hope you've got a pad of paper and a pen with you. And I hope, I hope that you're here when I come back. Don't go away, folks. I hope that you're here when I'm here. You know, in all of the time that I was trying to get this show going. I never dreamed that we'd ever have a sponsor, to tell you the truth. I thought everybody would run away from this broadcast just as fast as they could get, but little by little we began to get sponsors. First was Backwards Home Magazine, who sponsored just one show a month for a couple, two or three months. And I liked the magazine so much that I gave them a whole bunch of spots, free gratis, just because it's my favorite magazine and they never even knew I did it. And I've done that for some other good people too. And then we had the pilot connection for a couple of months. And then we didn't have anybody for a while, but we had a lot of people apply and we put them through the investigations that we always do to find out if we could put our trust behind them. And you understand that on this show, it's not just come in and pays your money and we get on and pretend like we love your product. That's not the way we do it here. We have to believe in the product. We have to believe in the people. It has to be something that we can honestly say we formed a partnership with. And the way we do it is we don't accept any money that goes in our pockets whatsoever. Every bit of money paid for our sponsor goes directly to WWCR. It doesn't even touch my hand directly to WWCR pays for airtime. Now, don't get me wrong, folks. They didn't buy this time slot and then get me to come and fill it. I own this time slot. This is my time slot. So, Swiss America Trading withdrew the support for this program tomorrow. I would still be here tomorrow. And always in the past when we didn't have a sponsor, we would trust in God to provide. We only have two rules around here. One, trust in God. And two, just do it. The show would go on. We're happy, very happy that Swiss America Trading turned out to be the people that they are. Good, honest, Christian people. They care about this nation. They care about the hour, the time. They care about me and they care about you. They offer a good service. Everything they do is spelled out in writing. Before you're even allowed to accept shipment of anything you purchase from them, a tape recording is made of all the understandings between you and Swiss American Trading so that there can never be any question called into play. I give you my personal guarantee that if there's any problem, first, first you call Craig Smith. Try to iron it out. If you can't, call me. I will listen to what you have to say. I will then call Swiss American Trading. Listen to the salesperson and Craig Smith. And then I will listen to the tape. If they're in the wrong, if they're in the wrong, I will instruct them to return your money. Simple as that. If they refuse, I will drop them as the sponsor of this program. If I find out that you're in the wrong, I will so relay that information to you. And if you're in the wrong, that's exactly what I'm going to tell you. This is an honest company, folks, and you can't get a better guarantee than what I just gave you. I mean, that's the best in the world that I can do. Nobody else will do that. Nobody else has a sponsor on their program will do that. So, don't take a chance, ladies and gentlemen, to protect your assets against what's coming, to get a hold of some non-confiscatable, non-reportable, hard metal assets, which is exactly what you need. Call Swiss America Trading, 1-800-289-2646. That's 1-800-289-2646. There's lots of wonderful people there. Any one of them will be glad to help you. Do it now. You know that you have a tendency to procrastinate. We all do. 1-800-289-2646. That's 1-800-289-2646. We'll be glad that you did. 1-800-2942-646. At $5.00,000, we'll see. 2-800-289. David's turned to be accepted for life and time for their OH kasihsan Return to be accepted. 3-800-289. David decided to stayorer for life but is made of Thank you. I'm going to back up just one paragraph to make sure that you didn't miss anything. It may be for his life. He does not have the protection of the Constitution and the laws of the United States, but he is subject to the United Nations Code of Law and its Constitution. And sets up conditions that were not even thought of or discussed in our Constitutional Convention. The effect of this new definition of these three basic rights actually is to set aside the provisions of our own Constitution. And that's what I've been telling you all along. This, ladies and gentlemen, is Mr. Burdock, or Burdick, the Honorable Usher L. Burdick of North Dakota, making this speech in the House of Representatives on Monday, April 12, 1954. Since then, the United States has adopted in law the Genocide Convention and the Covenant of Human Rights. And it was all done within the last four years. Don't believe it? Go look, sheeple. There is no Constitution. There is no United States of America. It is a counterfeit, illegal, unlawful, unconstitutional, treasonous government sitting in Washington, D.C. today. Most of the politicians who have supposedly been serving the people of this great nation since 1933 have been traitors. I know you don't like to hear it, but it's the truth. Nobody ever likes to hear the truth, do they? I continue. Why is it necessary to abrogate our own Constitution in any particular if the only purpose of the Convention is to put a stop to the crime of genocide? Does any provision of our Constitution favor genocide? No, sir. Not a single provision. Why cannot our own courts be trusted to handle the crime of genocide? No, sir. They cannot be trusted. Hence, the United Nations builds a court of its own in defiance of the protection given by United States courts to every person charged with crime. And remember, folks, just saying something that might hurt the feelings of some person or some group is not genocide. But under this Convention, that's exactly what you will be tried for. And it's happened many times. Every move made by the United Nations in framing its various conventions are of the same character as this genocide convention. The Covenant of Human Rights is another example. It sounds well on the face of it. But immediately, it attacks the Constitution of the United States. The very Charter of the United Nations does the same thing. The United Nations is not an organization to preserve peace, but a sinister attempt to form a world government with a House and Senate, a judicial system, a tax system, and a police system. UNESCO is another attempt to destroy the United States. In that agency, patriotism is attacked. And instead of building love of country, the United Nations educational, scientific, and cultural organization directly attempts to eradicate it. Children are taught that reverence for the great men of our past tends to build a strong national spirit, and that conflicts with the United Nations' design to build a strong reverence for a world government. So they have stopped teaching these things in our schools. Nothing in the United Nations has yet proposed in any field seems willing to accept our Constitution and way of life as it is, and to proceed constitutionally. Every move made is a move to abrogate or redefine or amend our Constitution. The purpose behind this drive is to prepare the United States for entry into a world government. And under our Constitution, this cannot be done. The sovereignty of the United States is squarely and firmly based upon the Constitution. And unless it should be abrogated, our great republic cannot be taken into this spurious world government. Ours is the only government in the world that unqualifiedly exists for the people. The people built it. It was done by them. It was done for them. Most foreign countries have the opposite view. There the people exist for the government. How in the world can true loyal Americans believe that a government like ours can mix with governments of opposite views and present a mongrel world government that does not believe in our Constitution? The avowed purpose of the United Nations was to bring peace to the world. It had a great appeal to all classes because in this country the people do not want war. But time has revealed the fact that the United Nations is more concerned with changing the Constitution of the United States than it is with world peace. We would need no organization of this character to obtain peace if it were not for Russia. Russia and her satellites are the only ones indulging in aggression. Yet Russia is a member of the organization which professes peace but is actually spreading war. Russia holds a powerful position in the United Nations for the military head of that organization has always been a Russian citizen. The military head of that organization has always been a Russian citizen. The military head of the United Nations has always been a Russian citizen and always will be. For a secret agreement made in London between Molotov and Alger Hiss provides that the Russians should hold that office permanently. Did you hear what I said, ladies and gentlemen? This is out of the mouth of a congressman who knows. Russia is recognized by this country and maintains a cesspool of communists right here in this great capital city. She can speak her ism with impunity. She gets all the privileges of the United Nations, yet her daily action is absolutely against what the United Nations was validly organized for. Under the United Nations and under the recognition of our government, Russia has a powerful position of advantage from which to carry on her Cold War and cause us to expend ourselves until we are resourceless. That is, the doctrine put forward by Karl Marx and the Russians follow that course not only gladly, but thoroughly and consistently. Russia's only hope to overrun the United States is to do it by intrigue and the spread of communism among our own people. And through our recognition of her and her position in the United Nations, this process is going forward to the everlasting satisfaction of the Soviets. Joseph McCarthy, ladies and gentlemen, was absolutely right. He just didn't know what to call them. You can call them communists if you want. You can call them socialists if you want. But it all comes right out of the secret societies that are responsible for these political viewpoints. And they spawn, they spawn, they spawn more socialists and more communists. Our country today is in the hands of international socialism and communists. It's being run by members of all of these secret societies. And all you've got to do is pick up a copy of Who's Who in America, a copy of the Congressional Biographical Statements, and just go down the list of names, and you will see it's all there, ladies and gentlemen. How long will it take the American people to rise up in their might and demand our withdrawal from this communistic enterprise? I do not know. But they are becoming more enlightened as the days pass. He said that in 1954. I think they became dumber, more ignorant, more stupid, more apathetic, and more irresponsible since 1954. And his closing paragraph, Our only fear for the security of the future is the fear that our own people will fall victims to this Russian world propaganda. Well, you don't believe that the head of the military in the United Nations is a Russian and has always been a Russian and always will be a Russian, as the congressman said? He knows. And in case you don't believe him or me, I'll read to you from Try Give Lies autobiography, I should say, Try Give Lies autobiography, In the Cause of Peace, seven years with the United Nations, and he was the Secretary General. He was the Secretary General of the United Nations. His name is Try Give Lies. The name of his book, In the Cause of Peace, Seven Years with the United Nations, published by the Macmillan Company, New York, 1954, if you'd like to get a copy. And I'm going to go directly to page 45. And I'm going to read to you from the second paragraph on. Mr. Vyshynski did not delay his approach. He was the first to inform me of an understanding which the Big Five had reached in London on the appointment of a Soviet national as Assistant Secretary General for Political and Security Council Affairs. Mr. Vyshynski simply spoke of an agreement. He said nothing of its binding quality, of the right of the Big Five to arrive at it, or of the length of time it was meant to apply. Now, by the terms of the charter, the Secretary General has full authority in the disposition of the Assistant Secretary General ships with respect both to their nationality and to their personality. The authority, in fact, was the point of a hard-won decision at San Francisco which rejected an attempt to prescribe that there should be four Deputy Secretaries General appointed by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council. In the same manner as the Secretary General strictly speaking, therefore, the Big Five had no right to arrive at any understanding regarding the distribution of the offices of Assistant Secretary General which was binding upon the Secretary General. This is not to say, however, that it would have been politic of me to resist the great power accord. Moreover, I welcomed the understanding as a sign of goodwill and confidence between East and West that the Soviet Union wanted one of its nationals to fulfill the Premier Assistant Secretaryship could be taken as another indication of serious Soviet interest in the United Nations and that the United States was willing to agree to accord this key post to a national of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was evidence of an American desire to encourage this interest for the sake of world peace. Every single person occupying that position, which is the military head of all United Nations forces, is the man into whose hands all the intelligence of the United Nations is delivered, has always been a member of the USSR, is now a Russian, and will always be, ladies and gentlemen, because that is what was agreed to. Now you heard it from me, you heard it from a congressman, and you heard it from the Secretary General of the United Nations. So don't call Tamara and tell us that we're full of baloney. Because we're not. I read you now from the Congressional Record of the House of Representatives, January 15, 1962. None is so blind as he who will not see. Mr. Ute, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. The Speaker, is there any objection to the request of the gentleman from California? There was no objection. Mr. Ute, Mr. Speaker, on the opening day of the second session of the 87th Congress, I introduced House Resolution 9567, a bill to rescind and revoke membership of the United States and the United Nations and the specialized agencies thereof, and to repeal the Immunities Act relative thereto. I introduced this resolution because it is my firm conviction that this nation cannot survive as a republic as long as we are shackled to an international organization by a treaty which supersedes our Constitution. He admits, right there, they all know, they've always known, and I'm going to read this paragraph again for you. I introduced this resolution because it is my firm conviction that this nation cannot survive as a republic as long as we are shackled to an international organization by a treaty which supersedes our Constitution. Period. How about that? And down further, down further, I see up a couple of paragraphs here. To prove my point, I submit the following facts for a candid review. Our Constitution provides 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. Hence, any law enacted by Congress pursuant to a treaty becomes the supreme law of the land even though it would otherwise be unconstitutional. The supremacy of laws under a treaty was clearly set forth in the decision of the United States Supreme Court in 1920 in the Missouri v. Holland case wherein a federal law otherwise unconstitutional was held valid because of a treaty between Canada and the United States. This decision clearly held that where there was a connect between the provisions or conflict between the provisions of our Constitution and the provisions of a treaty this conflict must be resolved in favor of the treaty. You can get a record of the Supreme Court decisions and you can read it for yourself. Ladies and gentlemen, we have a copy. This same doctrine has been extended to include executive agreements. The result of this situation has been to destroy our limited form of Republican government and has denied to each state a Republican form of government as guaranteed by the Constitution and has supplanted it with a government of unlimited powers which destroys the historical separation of executive, judicial, and legislative branches of our government. This was certainly never envisioned by the framers of the Constitution. So here you've learned that according to the rulings of the Supreme Court, any treaty when in conflict with the Constitution, the conflict must be resolved in favor of the treaty and this applies also to executive agreements. Ladies and gentlemen, and it explains an awful lot of what has been happening in the world lately. He continues, when the United Nations Charter was submitted to the Senate for ratification, great stress was laid upon Article 2, subparagraph 7, which states, quote, nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter, unquote. I do not believe that the United States Senate would have ratified this treaty without relying on the above quoted paragraph. However, this paragraph has been completely and constantly ignored over the past 16 years, and every organization, commission, and covenant flowing out of the United Nations Charter has been for the sole purpose of intervening in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the member nations as well as the several states of our own union, completely destroying the sovereignty of each state to legislate in contravention of the treaty provisions. Mr. Moses Moskowitz, a noted internationalist, made the following statement in the American Bar Association Journal of April 1949, 35, ABAJ, 283, and 285. Quote, Once a matter has become in one way or another the subject of regulation by the United Nations, be it by resolution of the General Assembly or by convention between member states at the instance of the United Nations, that subject ceases to be a matter being essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the member states. As a matter of fact, such a position represents the official view of the United Nations as well as of the member states that have voted in favor, of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Hence, neither the declaration nor the projected covenant nor any agreement that may be reached in the future on the machinery of implementation of human rights can in any way be considered as violative of the letter or spirit of Article II of the Charter. Following this, the Atchison, excuse me, I should say on quote there, following this, the Atchison State Department made this official declaration. Quote, there is now no longer any real difference between domestic and foreign affairs, unquote. These statements plainly render Article II, subparagraph 7 of the Charter meaningless. Don Foster Dulles, a former Secretary of State, in a speech before the American Bar Association in Louisville, Kentucky, April 12, 1952, said this, quote, quote, treaty law can override the Constitution. They, meaning treaties, can cut across the rights given the people by the Constitutional Bill of Rights, unquote. This conversion of our limited republic to an unlimited democracy is a death blow to this nation. The realization of this tragedy was the reason for the proposal of the Bricker Amendment nearly a decade ago. The Bricker Amendment simply provided that when there was a conflict between the Constitution of the United States and a treaty, that conflict must be resolved in favor of the Constitution. And yet, the Bricker Amendment was defeated by a narrow margin under strong propaganda pressure from the Council on Foreign Relations and Politicians who gloried in the unlimited power conveyed upon them by the United Nations Charter. There were just too many politicians and too few statesmen. Did you catch that, folks? Traitors. Traitors. Treason. We have no nation. We are free to do what we will. It continues. Remember, I'm reading directly from the Congressional Record of the House of Representatives. January 15, 1962. I'm now on page 215. First paragraph, top left. Now let us look at the record according to Tragivalli, longtime Secretary General of the United Nations. He stated flatly that there was a secret agreement between Alger Hiss and Molotov to the effect that the head of the United Nations military staff should always be a communist. That agreement has never been broken, and we have had a succession of communists filling that post, the present one being Mr. Arkadav. as a first consequence of this treasonous agreement. You see, I'm not the only one who calls it treasonous. Let me repeat that again. As a first consequence of this treasonous agreement, this country lost its first military engagement in Korea at a cost to this country of more than $20 billion and $145,000 American casualties to say nothing of the honor and prestige of this nation. All battle plans of our forces in Korea, all intelligence, everything went through the communist military commander in the United Nations, who approved or disapproved, but in all cases relayed all the information directly to the Chinese communist commanders of the opposing forces. I continue. This was the first war in which we engaged not as the United States military force, but as the United Nations force, although we contributed 90% of the men and the money. How convenient this was to the communists to have one of their own men as head of the United Nations military staff. Good night, folks. I've run out of time. God bless each and every single one of you, and for God's sake, wake up. God bless each and again. God bless each and glory. God bless each and the only one of you all of you are here with her. God bless each and all beings力, so you find us here being well, you be brave, you are come back to life. God bless each and the army, so let us go. See you next邊 country 되게 Thank you.