Category Archives: World Government

Communist United Nations Convention On The Rights of the Child Makes World Government Your Childs New Parents. Loser President Bill Clinton Tried To Pass It Here In U.S.

UN flag burning

Source: Wikipedia

The United States government played an active role in the drafting of the Convention and signed it on 16 February 1995, but has not ratified it. It has been claimed that American opposition to the Convention stems primarily from political and religious conservatives.[58] For example, The Heritage Foundation sees “a civil society in which moral authority is exercised by religious congregations, family, and other private associations is fundamental to the American order”.[59] and the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) argues that the CRC threatens homeschooling.[60]

The United States had in the past permitted the execution and life imprisonment of juvenile offenders, in contravention of the Article 37 of the Convention.[1] The 2005 Supreme Court landmark decision in Roper v. Simmons declared juvenile executions to be unconstitutional as “cruel and unusual punishment“;[61][62][63] in 2012, the Court held that mandatory sentences of life without the possibility of parole are unconstitutional for juvenile offenders.[64]

State laws regarding the practice of closed adoption may also require overhaul in light of the Convention’s position that children have a right to identity from birth.

During his 2008 campaign for President, Senator Barack Obama described the failure to ratify the Convention as “embarrassing” and promised to review the issue[65][66] but he never did. No President of the United States has submitted the treaty to the United States Senate requesting its advice and consent to ratification since the US signed it in 1995.[67]

The United States has ratified two of the optional protocols to the Convention,[9][10] the Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict, and the Optional Protocol on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography.

Dana Gabriel
Borderfire Report
March 6, 2009

Through its various agencies and treaties, the United Nations seeks to undermine individual, as well as national sovereignty. It has been almost 15 years since President Clinton signed on to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). The U.S. remains one of the last holdouts as the treaty lies dormant, yet to be ratified. The UNCRC grants children new civil, social, cultural and economic rights that could override parental decisions. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), is pushing for a vote as there is a real sense that under an Obama presidency, the UNCRC could finally be ratified.

Under the guise of human rights, the UN agenda is to further breakup the family. 

If the UNCRC is ratified, parents could be prohibited from homeschooling and spanking their children. It undermines parental authority and gives more power to the state to further dictate how children are raised. It grants children dangerous new rights thus encouraging more rebellious behavior. The truth is that in many cases, children do not have the wisdom and maturity to make sound decisions. The treaty also gives children the mechanism by which they could dispute any parental judgment. The UNCRC transfers more parental authority to the state while granting children radical new rights.

Under the UNCRC, an 18-member committee has been established to review children’s rights and any other disputes that might arise. In many cases, we are already bound by international treaties and the UNCRC gives unaccountable UN bureaucrats the power to make decisions concerning our children’s well-being. Parents are being demoted to simple caregivers, while the state assumes the role of the prime authoritative figure. The UNCRC is an assault on parental authority and is essentially a blank check for governmental interference in family matters. It is meant to further promote child autonomy and freedom from parental guidance.

In the U.S., homeschooling numbers continue to rise as a growing number of parents look to better control their child’s moral instruction. Under the UNCRC, homeschooling could be interpreted as a violation of a child’s well being. Some states have tried to ban and outlaw homeschooling and the UNCRC could make it a UN-sponsored activity. Public school education is designed to correct any perceived errors in rearing and home training. The ideology of globalism and world government is at the very core of the educational system. The UN seeks to undermine parental authority, traditional values and biblical principles. They wish to gain more control over our children’s upbringing and education.

Under the guise of human rights, the UN agenda is to further breakup the family. At recent meetings held in Mexico City, United Nations Population Fund representative, Arie Hoekman, told participants that high divorce rates and out-of-wedlock births were not a social crisis, but instead a triumph for human rights. Traditional values and principles instilled by parents, are being manipulated and pushed aside. The breakdown of the family is bringing about a rise in new values. Children’s love and loyalty to their family and country is being systematically destroyed. Under a new global order, there is no room for nationalism or individuality and a strong family unit represents a threat to this system.

Being a parent is a huge responsibility and undertaking that should not be taken lightly. Parents are not always right and some may be unfit. The reality is that children thrive in an environment where there is love and structure which includes consequences for their behavior. The UNCRC infringes upon parental authority and represents a massive intrusion by the state into family affairs. It has the potential to radically alter parent-child relationships. The UN definitely has no business telling parents how to raise their children and neither does the government unless there is evidence of neglect or abuse. The UN is a morally bankrupt institution with a horrible record of protecting human rights around the world and the U.S ratifying the UNCRC will not change that.

2019 Bilderberg Group Meeting Underway

By Tim Binnall

May 30, 2019

Today marks the start of the infamous annual gathering of global power brokers known as the Bilderberg Meeting. This year, the controversial confab is being held in Montreux, Switzerland and, although the group is notoriously secretive about the details of the conversations held at the event, a press release from the organization provides some insights into both the topics to be discussed this year as well as the participants who will be on hand.

According to organizers, there will be “about 130 participants from 23 countries” in attendance this year. Per usual, the guest list is replete with major players from the worlds of finance, industry, politics, and the media. While the vast majority of the individuals scheduled to attend are not exactly household names to anyone outside of their field of expertise, there are a handful of more high profile attendees who are rather noteworthy.

Perhaps the Bilderberg participant who is drawing the most attention from geopolitical pundits and curious conspiracy theorists is President Trump’s son-in-law and senior advisor Jared Kushner. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is also reportedly expected to attend some portion of the event, although his name is, oddly, not on the official list issued by the organization. Other recognizable names who will be in Montreux this weekend are former Senate candidate from Georgia Stacey Abrams, former Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill, and frequent Bilderberg Meeting attendee Henry Kissinger.

Although only the individuals in attendance will know the specifics of what is said during the three-day-long meeting, an agenda issued by the group provides, at least, a glimpse into what issues are apparently considered pressing to the proverbial ‘powers that be’ at this time. Among the unsurprising areas set to be discussed during the event are the current state of global powers Russia, China, and Europe. Other familiar topics on the list are climate change and Brexit.

Beyond those fairly run-of-the-mill issues on the agenda are a few somewhat more exotic topics which are particularly intriguing. Specifically, attendees plan on discussing artificial intelligence and the ethics surrounding this burgeoning technology, social media becoming weaponized, and “the importance of space.” This is actually the second year in a row that AI has been featured among the talking points for the Bilderberg Meeting, which seems to suggest that this advanced realm of computing is of significant interest to the global elite.

President Trump Suspends United Nations Treaty Of Open Skies Which Allowed Russia To Conduct Aerial Surveillance Of United States.


Russian reconnaissance aircraft will fly over parts of the United States this week through Saturday as part of obligations for the Treaty on Open Skies, U.S. officials said. (REUTERS/Dmitry Petrochenko)

Open Skies Treaty

Fact Sheet:


May 18, 2009
U.S. Department Of State

Origin and Purpose

The Treaty on Open Skies entered into force on January 1, 2002, and currently has 34 States Parties. The Treaty establishes a regime of unarmed aerial observation flights over the entire territory of its participants. The Treaty is designed to enhance mutual understanding and confidence by giving all participants, regardless of size, a direct role in gathering information about military forces and activities of concern to them. Open Skies is one of the most wide-ranging international efforts to date to promote openness and transparency of military forces and activities.

The original concept of mutual aerial observation was proposed by President Eisenhower in 1955; the Treaty itself was an initiative of then-President George H.W. Bush in 1989. The Treaty was negotiated by the then-members of NATO and the Warsaw Pact, and was signed in Helsinki, Finland, on March 24, 1992. Provisional application of portions of the Treaty took place from signature in 1992 until entry into force in 2002. During that period, participants conducted joint trial flights for the purpose of training mission crews and testing equipment and sensors. With entry into force of the Treaty, formal observation flights began in August 2002. States Parties have conducted over 530 observation flights over each other’s territory.

Since the signature of the Open Skies Treaty in 1992, the security environment in Europe has changed significantly. The Open Skies Treaty continues to contribute toward European security by enhancing openness and transparency among the Parties.


The 34 States Parties to the Open Skies Treaty are: Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, United Kingdom, Ukraine, and United States. Kyrgyzstan has signed but not yet ratified. The Treaty depositaries are Canada and Hungary.

The Treaty is of unlimited duration and open to accession by other States. States of the former Soviet Union which have not already become States Parties to the Treaty may accede to it at any time. Applications from other interested States are subject to a consensus decision by the Open Skies Consultative Commission (OSCC), the Vienna-based organization charged with facilitating implementation of the Treaty, to which all States Parties belong. Eight states have acceded to the Treaty since entry into force: Finland, Sweden, Latvia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Slovenia, Estonia, and Lithuania. One application for accession is pending before the OSCC.

Basic Elements of the Treaty

Territory. The Open Skies regime covers the territory over which the State Party exercises sovereignty, including – land, islands, and internal and territorial waters. The Treaty specifies that the entire territory of a State Party is open to observation. Observation flights may only be restricted for reasons of flight safety; not for reasons of national security.

Aircraft. Observation aircraft may be provided by either the observing Party or by the observed Party (the “taxi option”), at the latter’s choice. All Open Skies aircraft and sensors must pass specific certification and pre-flight inspection procedures to ensure that they are compliant with Treaty standards. Certified Open Skies aircraft include:
Bulgaria An-30
Hungary An-26
POD Group C-130H & J (Benelux, Canada, France, Greece, Italy, Norway, Portugal, Spain)
Romania An-30
Russian Federation An-30 and TU-154
Sweden Saab-340B
Turkey Casa CN-235
Ukraine An-30B
United States OC-135B

Sensors. Open Skies aircraft may have video, optical panoramic and framing cameras for daylight photography, infra-red line scanners for a day/night capability, and synthetic aperture radar for a day/night all weather capability. Photographic image quality will permit recognition of major military equipment (e.g., permit a State Party to distinguish between a tank and a truck), thus allowing significant transparency of military forces and activities. Sensor categories may be added and capabilities improved by agreement among States Parties. All equipment used in Open Skies must be commercially available to all participants in the regime.

Quotas. Each State Party is obligated to receive observation flights per its passive quota allocation. Each State Party may conduct as many observation flights – its active quota – as its passive quota. The Russian Federation and the United States each have an annual passive quota of 42, and other States Parties have a quota of 12 or fewer. The Parties negotiate the annual distribution of the active quotas each October for the following calendar year. Over 100 observation flights are conducted each year.

Data Sharing/Availability. Imagery collected from Open Skies missions is available to any State Party upon request for the cost of reproduction. As a result, the data available to each State Party is much greater than that which it can collect itself under the Treaty quota system.

Implementation of the Treaty

In July 2008, under U.S. OSCC Chairmanship, States Parties commemorated the conduct of 500 observation flights since the Treaty entered into force.

The OSCC continues to address modalities for conducting observation missions and other implementation issues. The OSCC meets in three sessions per year, with monthly plenary meetings. The OSCC has several informal working groups that take up technical issues related to sensors, notification formats, aircraft certification and rules and procedures. The OSCC main functions are to:
consider questions relating to compliance with the Treaty;
seek to resolve ambiguities and differences of interpretation emerging during Treaty implementation;
consider and decide on applications for accession to the Treaty; and
review the distribution of active quotas annually.

The OSCC was established by Article X and Annex L of the Treaty, and has been in session since Treaty signature in March 1992. The OSCC takes decisions by consensus, and has adopted over 90 Decisions since its inception. OSCC Decisions enter into force with the Treaty and have the same duration as the Treaty.

State Department point of contact is Diana Marvin, 202-647-5357.

Note: This Treaty is not related to civil-aviation open skies agreements.

Why Russia Was Allowed to Fly a Surveillance Plane Over the Capitol and Pentagon.

AUGUST 11, 2017

With heightening concerns over conflict with North Korea and lingering allegations of Russian influence in the U.S. presidential election, you might think that the last thing Russia would do right now is fly a surveillance plane over Washington, D.C. But that’s exactly what it did Wednesday — and with clearance from the U.S. government.

The low-altitude aircraft flew over the Capitol building and the Pentagon with U.S. approval thanks to a long-standing global agreement called the Treaty on Open Skies, according to the Associated Press. The pact, which was signed and ratified by 34 nations including the U.S. and Russia in 1992, allows member countries to send unarmed observation flights over the territories of fellow members. It’s designed to promote transparency about military activity and hold participants accountable for diplomatic agreements.

But how did such a treaty come to exist in the first place?

Open Skies dates back to the beginnings of the Cold War, when President Dwight D. Eisenhower proposed the initiative between the U.S. and Soviet Union at the Geneva Conference in 1955.

The idea was similar: exchange maps revealing the location of every military installation in the respective countries, in turn allowing them to conduct aerial surveillance on each other in order to guarantee the fulfillment of established arms agreements. But while France and Britain (the other attendees of the summit as part of the “Big Four” nations) were open to the deal, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev rejected the treaty, labeling it as an “espionage plot.” The proposal sat dormant for years. All the while, tension between the U.S. and Soviet Union further escalated.

It wasn’t until 1989 that the concept of Open Skies was reintroduced by President George H.W. Bush as a means to build trust between North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and Warsaw Pact countries. The latter alliance — formed in 1955 between the Soviet Union and its eastern European satellites — ended up collapsing as the socialist state dissolved by 1991. Despite this period of geopolitical change, Bush was able to successfully negotiate the terms of the Open Skies treaty with the majority of the Warsaw Pact countries. On March 24, 1992, the treaty was signed in Helsinki, Finland.

Open Skies officially went into effect on Jan. 1, 2002. Since then, there have been more than 1,200 surveillance flights conducted by the member nations. But given recent foreign relations between the U.S. and Russia, among other countries, will the Open Skies treaty continue in this current political comment?

“The Obama administration carefully assessed the risks and benefits of remaining in the treaty and judged with our European allies that it was in our best interests to stay,” said Lynn Rusten, a senior consultant at the Nuclear Threat Initiative.

She added that the primary concern of Open Skies was the advancement of surveillance technology from film to digital cameras that are able to produce clearer images. But she said the U.S. permitted the upgrades because it felt it was worth the risk.

“It’s critical to maintain any mechanism to retain that confidence,” Rusten said. “It would do more harm than good to walk away from this treaty.”

But Stephen Sestanovich, a professor of international diplomacy at Columbia University and fellow on the Council on Foreign Relations, cast doubt over the treaty’s future.

“The Russians have been so ready to roll back or disregard norms and treaties that they’ve got people in Congress, in the military, in the intelligence world asking, ‘Why pretend to trust each other?’” he said. “In that atmosphere, virtually any agreement can be challenged.

Russian FURY After Donald Trump Ends US Surveillance Treaty Sparking ‘ARMS RACE’ Fears.

PRESIDENT Trump has blocked funding for an international surveillance treaty designed to allow countries to monitor each other’s military strength, infuriating Russia and raising fears of a new arms race.


PUBLISHED: 02:40, Wed, Aug 15, 2018 | UPDATED: 10:40, Wed, Aug 15, 2018

The measure was included in a $717 billion defence policy bill which Trump signed on Monday.

It ended US funding for the Treaty of Open Skies, an agreement between 34 states which will allow them to fly unarmed observation aircraft over each others territories.

The intention of the programme, which the UK has signed up to, is to allow countries to monitor each others militaries to deter secret buildups.

Senior Russian figures responded furiously to Trump’s decision.

Vladimir Dzhabarov, deputy chairman of the Russian Federation Council’s Foreign Affairs Committee, told the Moscow Times: “This is an attempt to hide everything the Americans will be preparing in the course of a new arms race.”

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Rybakov told a state news agency his government regrets the US decision.

The US had already accused Russia of violating the treaty by limiting surveillance flights over Kaliningrad, a Russian enclave situated between Poland and Lithuania.

There have been numerous reports of a Russian military buildup in Kaliningrad, with some satellite images suggesting the development of nuclear facilities.

Surveillance fights by unarmed aircraft are currently routine between the US, Russia and other signatories of the treaty.

The Pentagon estimates the Russians have carried out over 165 missions over the US since the agreement came into effect.

A Pentagon source told Politico: “We put together the flight plan and with a few exceptions…they are allowed to fly over pretty much the entire territory.”

In August 2017 there was controversy over a Russian reconnaissance flight which travelled over Washington D.C. and a US airforce base in Ohio.

The US State Department had previously described Open Skies as: “designed to enhance mutual understanding and confidence by giving all participants, regardless of size, a direct role in gathering information through aerial imaging on military forces.”

Tensions between Russia and the US increased last week after the Americans put new tariffs on Russia over its alleged involvement in poisoning Sergei Skripal, a former Russian spy, and his daughter in the UK earlier this year.

The new US sanctions restrain the export of so-called dual use technologies, which could have a military or civilian application.

Unless Russia takes certain actions, a second round of sanctions, tougher than the first, is expected to follow.

Former President Ronald Reagan or “Red Ronnie” Approves First World Government Law To Be Used To Prosecute Individuals In 1988.

The Genicide Treaty 



Click Here: Reagan Signs Bill Ratifying U.N. Genocide Pact 

Click Here: Official U.N. Genicide Treaty

Only a national government has the power to produce “genocide,” which is the killing of an entire race of people. And only a government, when its troops invade other nations, can attempt to destroy an entire race outside of its borders. Neither an individual nor a group of individuals can commit genocide.

And, if they try, they would quickly be jailed under already well-established criminal statutes. Thus we see that only nations can commit genocide, never individuals. Only a nation can blot out a race; an individual can only kill individuals. But now we have a new international law governing nearly every civilized nation on earth,—that is able to charge innocent citizens with “genocide” for having done something that a national government considers harmful to other religions!

On December 11, 1946, the United Nations General Assembly voted unanimously to declare genocide as a crime under international law. Nearly a year later, on December 9, 1947, the same assembly unanimously adopted what is known as the “Genocide Treaty.”

Because of obvious omissions and inherent dangers in that treaty, the United States did not ratify that treaty for decades afterward. Finally, 40 years later, under immense political pressure from various sources, the United Sates approved it on February 19, 1988 Nearly eight months later, on October 14, 1988, the Senate gave final approval to the treaty as they enacted certain legislation which would impose extremely heavy penalties to those found guilty of violating that treaty.

The Genocide Treaty (also called the “Genocide Convention”) was signed by President Reagan on November 11. On December 9, 1988, the treaty was ratified by the United States of America—and became an important law of the land—when it was formally filed by a representative of the United States president at the United Nations headquarters in Lake Success, New York.

In an official ceremony, before all the delegates in the General Assemble Hall, the document was handed to the secretary general of the United Nations. And, because it is now on the statute books of 96 different nations of earth,—the Genocide Treaty has become the first worldwide man-made law in the history of mankind!

Why was the United States hesitant for so many years to adopt the provisions of that treaty as a law governing people of the United States? Why is it considered so dangerous?

First: Under this recently enacted treaty, one man can be held as a genocidist for killing just one other man. Yet we all know that the killing of one man by another is in no way genocidal! “Genocide: the deliberate and methodical annihilation of a national or racial group” (Macmillan Dictionary), “the systematic killing of a whole group of people or a nation” (Webster’s new World Dictionary). “Genocide means the physical dismemberment and liquidation of people on large scales: an attempt by those who rule to achieve the total elimination of a subject people.”—I. Horowitz, Taking Lives:

Genocide and State Power, chapter 85.

Second: A man can be tried and found guilty of committing “genocide,” which is the destruction of an entire race of people—without having killed anyone at all! “But the treaty definition differs substantially from that of the dictionaries. 12/2/13 BREAKING NEWS!

The Genocide Treaty 2/5 It includes such items as ‘mental harm to members of the group,’ or moving them from one place to another, or even birth control. It would not be difficult to imagine a situation at a later time in which a special class of people were hailed into court on the charge of genocide. Their crime? having brought ‘mental harm’ to members of a certain religious organization, by their words, actions, or distribution of proscribed literature.”—The Genocide Treaty, October 1968, 5.

Third: If a man is accused of “genocide,” he can be hailed into a U.S. court or be sent to a foreign court to stand trial under non-U.S. laws as a Genocide Treaty violator. “[Senator Jesse] Helms had blocked action in the past, complaining that the treaty could threaten the Constitution and subject the United States to spurious lawsuits by other countries [that sought to have U.S. citizens arrested and turned over to them for trial].”—Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, February 22, 1986, 458.

Fourth: The Genocide Treaty Itself has such vague wording that leading American jurists and attorneys have declared it to be dangerous! They tell us that all kinds of people can be accused of having violated the Genocide Treaty. “The Genocide Convention [Genocide Treaty]” is such a vague and dangerous treaty that to cure its imperfections would require changes so substantial that they would have to be regarded as amendments requiring renegotiation of the convention by the United Nations itself].”—Charles Rice, Professor of Law, quoted in Congressional Record, February 13, 1986, S-1288. Many of its terms are shrouded in uncertainty.”—Senator Strom Thurmond, of South Carolina, Senate debate, October 10, 1984, in Congressional Record, December 1984. [Speaking of the Genocide Treaty] A statute which forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that man of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application, violates the first essential of due process of law.”—Orie L. Phillips, “The Genocide convention: Its Effect on Our Legal System, “American Bar Journal, 1949.

Fifth: That which makes a man’s actions to be in violation of the treaty—is the motive that others assign to those actions! “Motives” means the reason why he did it. Almost any kind of criminal action can be classified as “genocidal,” according to this treaty. “The description of the ‘crime’ of genocide provided by the restricted Genocide Convention is so expansive and allinclusive as to cover almost any wrongdoer, perpetrating almost any criminal act of violence or advocacy of violence against almost every type of victim.”— Robert A. Friedlander, “Should the U.S. Constitution Treaty-Making Power Be Used as the Basis for Enactment of Domestic Legislation?” Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, Vol. 18, No. 2, Spring 1986, 268-269.

Sixth: Instead of being worded to stop genuine genocidists— which are the national governments and political groups trying to kill races within their borders or outside of it,—this treaty gives no mention of nations or political groups, but only of individuals. And the terms of the treaty are construed against, rather than in favor of, the defendant. This is against American law. “Political genocide is nowhere mentioned in this Genocide Treaty. History relates the reason that the treaty was originally accepted by the UN members in 1948, and then signed by many of the individual nations in later years. The nations had nothing to fear from it, for the Genocide Treaty deals neither with governments nor with political actions.”—The Genocide Treaty, 7. “The definitions proffered by articles II and III of the convention (the treaty] are vague and overbroad, arbitrary and capricious, and statutorily unreasonable both in their construction and application. They are, in American Constitutional phraseology, violative of substantive due process and could not withstand strict Constitutional scrutiny by the United States federal courts, since criminal statutes in this country have to be strictly construed in favor of the defendant.”—Fiedlander, 268-269. 12/2/13 BREAKING NEWS! The Genocide Treaty 3/5

Seventh: An individual need not kill an individual of another race, but only “mentally harm” him by his words— in order to be eligible for Genocide Treaty violation. “Genocide is mass murder perpetrated by repressive government. To say, as does article IV, that private individuals commit genocide is not only pure hyperbole but, in the context of the so-called criminality of article II, it is a loaded weapon pointed at the citizenry of any signatory state.”—Friedlander 268, 271.

Eighth: One need only do or say that which appears harmful to the best interests of another religion in order to be brought into court for having violated the treaty,—where he will receive a heavy penalty. “That penalty (assigned by the U.S. Senate on October 14, 1988, to Genocide Treaty violation] was about the greatest that could be assigned, in this present generation, of no capital punishment: A fine of up to one million dollars and a twenty-year-to-life sentence in a federal penitentiary was the Senate decision in the matter! Murderers in California routinely get no fine and six years in prison, but ‘harming’ ‘part of’ a ‘religious group’ is more dangerous.”—The Genocide Treaty, 10.

Ninth: The Genocide Treaty (also known as the Genocide Convention”) threatens U.S. Constitutional sovereignty, because the United States Constitution declares that international treaties made by America take precedence above — are more important than—the internal laws of the nation. “It [the Genocide Treaty] ran afoul of conservative objections that it threatened U.S. sovereignty and Constutional objections.”—Washington Post, February 20, 1986, A27.

Tenth: No treaty signed by the United States government has ever been found unconstitutional by its Supreme Court —or any lower court for that matter. The reason: Our Constitution binds the laws of our nation to yield to the wording of treaties we enter upon with other nations. “No treaty has ever been found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Lacking explicit statutory language, the U.S. Supreme Court has been very reluctant to find Congressional abrogation of treaty right (Washington vs. Washington State, 443, U.S. 690, 99 S. Ct. 3077 (1979).”—The Genocide Treaty, 7.

Eleventh: The treaty says nothing about political crimes: only individual crimes; yet genocide is being carried on by political groups and political governments all around the world, even as I write these words. “For 37 years the convention [treaty] met with considerable opposition. Various opponents were concerned that the convention would supercede the U.S. Constitution; acts against political groups were not made criminal offenses; the convention would be enforced in ways detrimental to the U.S.”—Gist, Bureau of Public Affairs, Department of State, June 1986, 1. “The Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics signed the Genocide Treaty on December 16, 1949, yet the Soviet Union regularly imprisons Christians in Russia and its satellite countries, but the Genocide Treaty has nothing to say about government genocide of religious groups. Moscow is entirely free to continue on with such atrocities, even though it is a signatory to Genocide Treaty.”— The Genocide Treaty, 3.

Twelfth: This treaty was quickly signed by the very nations that are practicing genocide on a day-by-day basis! They signed it because its wording could not include their governments,—but could be used by those governments in bringing accusation, imprisonment, or death to their citizens! “A list of the signatories of the Genocide Treaty reveals that it includes the leading practitioners of post- World War II genocide: Albania, Bulgaria, Red China, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Vietnam, and the Soviet Union.”— The Genocide Treaty, 7.

Thirteenth: This treaty lacks proper wording for just handling cases in a court of law. “The various classifications of subject victim groups put forward by article II (national, ethnical, racial, religious, etc.) encompasses virtually all conceivable persons, except for those having a particular political affiliation . . No American citizen or resident alien (legal or otherwise) seems to be excluded from the sweep of this article. “As for the enumerated crimes, (a) ‘Killing of the group,’ does not allow for any [legal] defenses; (b) ‘Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group’ 12/2/13 BREAKING NEWS! The Genocide Treaty 4/5 does not specify the degree of mental harm or distinguish whether the injury includes psychological disorientation of a temporary nature; (c) ‘Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part’ can lead to charges raised by minority groups suffering from residential discrimination or ghetto life . . The list of possibilities for creative lawyers is practically endless.”— Friedlander, 268-269.

Fourteenth: Domestic laws—laws governing our own people—have now been decided by foreign powers. In this treaty, governments outside the United States are reshaping the regulations governing our own citizens. “The offenses listed in the Genocide Treaty are not international but domestic. That is, they concern crimes committed by Americans within our own country. Thus, for the first time in our nation’s history, a treaty has been used to invade an area of domestic law. In other words, we are letting foreigners make our laws for us, the laws that will decide which of our citizens will be imprisoned, and for what crimes”—The Genocide Treaty, 7.

Fifteenth: It is possible that those violating this treaty can be requested by foreign powers to be shipped from the United States and tried in foreign courts. “Such foreign nations, upon learning of individuals living in America even though U.S. citizens—who they can show are working to ‘destroy’ a certain religion, or part of it, can ask for extradition of those individuals so that they can be judged under a non-American tribunal in the World Court of Switzerland, in regard to the nature, extent, and punishment due their crimes.”—Op. cit., 3.

Throughout this book, we have discovered that a primary way in which mankind seeks to destroy one another— is through religious persecution. A person speaks and lives differently than is agreeable to another’s religion,—so he is persecuted for it. This newly ratified treaty permits one man to hail another man into court on the charge of genocide violation,—for having spoken words that bring “mental harm” to another person, part of a group, or entire group. We have also seen that our free land is gradually moving toward the emplacement of a National Sunday Law that, when enacted, may at first appear to be a great blessing,— but which will rapidly bring in its train persecution of minority churches, including Sabbathkeeping churches.

When religious orthodoxy becomes the law of the land, soon a narrow view of what constitutes “orthodoxy” is also legislated and enforced. The very vagueness of this treaty is such that it can be used in many ways, quite separated from what may have been the motives of its authors or enactors. This Genocide Treaty could provide a powerful tool in enforcing the National Sunday Law—when that law is finally enacted. And because it is on the statute books of 96 different nations, a rapid international aspect has been added. The entire world will be able to quickly work together to enforce Sunday observance. The crucial part is that a worldwide standardized crime has been established, with most terrible penalties for its violation.

The penalties of the Genocide Treaty could be applied at will to any individual who violated the National Sunday Law. And, because this treaty is based on a 96-nation mutual pact, or treaty, each nation will be required by all the others to search out and bring the specified criminal into court. Although commonly called the “Genocide Treaty,” technically, it is a “convention” and not a “treaty.” A treaty is a bilateral agreement between two nations; a “convention” is a multilateral agreement between many nations, in this case, most of those on our planet!

But there is no provision for a convention in the U.S. Constitution! Because it is a convention and not a treaty, every signatory nation involved is bound to defend it, adhere to it, and be ready to persecute individuals according to its ambiguous terms, as agreed upon by the member nations. This makes this genocide convention one of the most powerful international laws in the history of mankind! Yet, no matter how the nations of earth may plan and devise, there is a God in heaven who has a rule of right: the Ten Commandments.

And the time is nearing when He shall judge men according to that rule. One of the ten is the Sabbath commandment. It stands as a great memorial to the creative power of the One who made us all. And it is bulwarked by twelve great pillars of truth. Here they are, in the next chapter.

“Render therefore unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.”—Matthew 22:21. 12/2/13 BREAKING NEWS!

The Genocide Treaty 5/5 Every conceivable base is covered to make the individual Christian a prime target of any power-crazed polititan, judge, police officer, or neighborhood snitch. And STILL the scoffer believes Christian prophecy is a myth?

This law is a first of it’s kind. This is the first GLOBALLY ACCEPTED LAW on the books. That’s right! It’s a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENTAL LAW.

Now do you see why Canada has been playing games with such laws?

Are you aware that as of September 2003 Canada has had on the books a LAW that allows a homosexual to have a Christian thrown behind bars for upto FIVE YEARS for merely preaching Scripture!

Want the proof? Click here. Read book entitled “National Sunday Law Crisis” that carries the above chapter.

Globalism And Sovereignty: A Short History Of The Bricker Amendment

download (56)

Supranational Commissions Seek Veto Power Over American Policy.

Monday, April 01, 1996
By Thomas E. Woods Jr.

Mr. Woods, an Intercollegiate Studies Institute Richard M. Weaver Fellow, is a doctoral candidate in history at Columbia University.

Historically, conservatives and libertarians have always maintained a suspicion of supranational governing bodies. Their central fear has been that foreign bodies may serve to compromise self-government and American liberties in favor of egalitarian and universalist political goals.

Closely related to this fear were misgivings about the steady accretion of power in our own executive branch. American conservatives maintained that socialist projects dreamed up by global bureaucrats would be held at bay if Congress, the branch of government closest and most accountable to the people, made a determined stand for American independence. If too much control over the direction of foreign affairs were concentrated in the executive, questions of such grave import might be placed beyond the reach of popular opinion.

The coupling of executive power with an internationalist political agenda became a force on the American political scene soon after the ratification of the United Nations treaty. It quickly became clear that President Harry Truman favored a strong executive. His 1952 seizure of U.S. steel mills and his actions in Korea seemed to justify conservative apprehensions.[1] In the latter case, Truman argued repeatedly that the United Nations Charter was a treaty he had the duty to execute, and whose authority obviated the need to consult Congress for a declaration of war. If Truman could invoke the Charter to justify a measure as serious as the deployment of American troops abroad, many conservatives wondered, might he not appeal to the same authority to implement wide-ranging initiatives of social reconstruction?

Acutely aware of such concerns, the American Bar Association (ABA) and its president, Frank S. Holman, laid the intellectual groundwork in the late 1940s and 1950s for what would become the Bricker Amendment. Holman, an early opponent of the New Deal and an outspoken champion of states’ rights, viewed supranational institutions with distrust. In 1948, he ordered the ABA’s Committee on Peace and Law through the United Nations to assemble reports on several UN-proposed treaties—the Statute of the World Court, the Genocide Convention, the Freedom of Information Covenant, the News Gathering Convention, and the Covenant of Human Rights—with respect to their potential impact on American sovereignty. Alarmed by the results, the ABA in 1952 endorsed the idea of a constitutional amendment that would safeguard the Constitution from erosion by international treaty.[2]

Missouri v. Holland

Many of the concerns shared by the ABA and other proponents of what would become the Bricker Amendment can be traced to the obscure and seemingly innocuous case of Missouri v. Holland in 1920. Its rulings on state regulation of the treatment of certain species of migratory birds were ripe with significance for the future conduct of American foreign relations.

The dispute dated back to 1913, when Congress passed a measure establishing federal regulations over the killing, capturing, or selling of such birds. At the time, federal courts ruled it a usurpation of rights reserved to the states under the Tenth Amendment. But when President Woodrow Wilson codified these regulations in a 1916 treaty with Great Britain, the Supreme Court upheld them by citing the so-called supremacy clause of the Constitution. The Court concluded that if “the treaty is valid there can be no dispute about the validity of the statute . . . as a necessary and proper means to execute the power of the Government.”[3]

The decision was a fateful one, for it would be cited in several subsequent cases that served to expand the power of the central government.[4]Decades later, in the wake of U.S. ratification of the United Nations Charter, the precedent set in Missouri and subsequently elaborated in United States v. Pink (1942) took on a profound significance. The Charter had been ratified with the explicit assurance that it authorized no UN interference in the domestic concerns of the United States, or of any other member nation. There can be little doubt that the United States would never have lent its support had the document not contained such a stipulation. These Court decisions, however, raised difficult questions regarding that portion of American sovereignty that UN membership may have forced the United States to relinquish.

It would not be long before these precedents would be invoked by American social reformers to justify progressive legislation or the abolition of state and local infringements on what the UN considered “human rights.” Only a year after the ratification of the Charter the left-wing National Lawyers Guild, citing Missouri v. Holland, concluded that lynching fell under federal jurisdiction and hence anti-lynching legislation within federal authority, on the grounds that such legislation would serve to satisfy America’s human-rights obligations under the United Nations Charter.[5] Nor were such arguments limited to left-wing groups. In 1948, four Supreme Court justices offering concurring opinions in the case of Oyama v. California cited the UN Charter as a rationale for the abolition of a California law that restricted land ownership among aliens ineligible for citizenship, since in practice it applied only to Japanese aliens. Two years later, the companion case of Sei Fujii v. California yielded a similar outcome.[6]

A conservative backlash against such developments was not long in coming. The constitutional ruminations of the National Lawyers Guild and some of the legal reasoning employed in Oyama and Fujii may well have been isolated cases, but they were rich enough with implications for state autonomy to alarm right-wing congressmen who were notoriously protective of local liberties.

Senator Bricker’s Efforts to Safeguard American Sovereignty

One such legislator was the fiery Senator John Bricker of Ohio. For several months, Bricker had closely followed the discussions in the American Bar Association Journal regarding the ambiguity of the supremacy clause of the Constitution.[7] If any senator could have been expected to act on such concerns, it was John Bricker. In 1951, he had introduced Senate Resolution 177 in opposition to the proposed International Covenant on Human Rights, which the UN had unsuccessfully attempted to draft since 1949. The attempt to foist a legally binding covenant on the nations of the world, Bricker maintained, demonstrated beyond any doubt that the United Nations was attempting to establish itself as a world government. The Covenant, he insisted, “would be more appropriately entitled as a Covenant on Human Slavery or subservience to government. . . . [T]hose who drafted the Covenant on Human Rights repudiated the underlying theory of the Bill of Rights—freedom to be let alone.”[8] Significantly, Bricker cited the Fujii case as evidence of the ominous potential of UN authority over American domestic policy.[9]

In early 1952, Bricker decided that the rights of the states and the people were sufficiently imperiled to warrant the otherwise extreme recourse of introducing a constitutional amendment to safeguard them. In his view, the jurisprudential trends exemplified in Oyama and Fujii gravely jeopardized the integrity of “existing laws which are in our Bill of Rights and our Constitution, thereby forcing unacceptable theories and practices upon the citizens of the United States of America.”[10] For this reason, he warned, a constitutional amendment was critical to the long-term health, independence, and sovereignty of the American republic.

The Bricker Amendment contained several crucial provisions. First, any provision of a treaty that conflicted with the letter of the Constitution would be rendered null and void. Second, a treaty would become effective as internal law only with the passage of appropriate legislation by Congress; that is, treaties would not be self-executing. Finally, the Amendment would rein in the executive with the requirement that all executive agreements between the President and any international organization or foreign power “be made only in the manner and to the extent to be prescribed by law.” Such agreements “shall be subject to the limitations imposed on treaties, or the making of treaties.” This stipulation would ensure that the executive could not evade the requirements for treaties merely by signing executive agreements instead.[11]

The Amendment’s supporters hoped that these provisions would clear up the ambiguity in the Constitution over the exact implications of the claim in Article VI that “[t]his Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof and all treaties . . . shall be the supreme law of the land . . . anything in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.” In the pages of The Freeman, Frank Holman described the Amendment as necessary to preserve “our basic rights as protected by our own Constitution and the Bill of Rights.”[12]

The Amendment would obviously strike a forceful blow against members of Congress who may have wished to cite the Charter when drafting civil-rights measures.[13] In hearings held to discuss the Amendment, Eberhard Deutsch, a member of the ABA’s Committee on Peace and Law, cited the dangers of the Fujii case and suggested that without passage of the Bricker Amendment, the American Left could well hold “that the entire civil rights program has already effectively been imposed on the United States through the United Nations Charter itself, without the need for any congressional action whatever.”[14]

While the Bricker Amendment earned the contempt of influential members of the Washington Establishment, the libertarian journalist Garet Garrett recognized its populist origins. What was really at stake, Garrett insisted, was the people’s ability to have a voice in the kind of international agreements that would be binding on them, and the protection of everyone’s constitutional rights from the whims of executive fiat. “The people are told they know not what they do,” he wrote. “They would weaken American leadership in the world and perhaps destroy mankind’s hope of peace. But all they wanted was simply to be let alone.”[15]

The editors of the conservative weekly Human Events agreed with Garrett, gratified by the outpouring of support for the Amendment by ordinary Americans. Early in 1954 the editors exulted in the success of “The Vigilant Women of the Bricker Amendment,” who had established regional coordinators in 39 states and whose officers succeeded in bringing 500,000 signatures to Washington.[16]

Ultimately, the George Amendment, a watered-down version of Senator Bricker’s original proposal, failed by one vote to receive the necessary two-thirds majority of the Senate.

A good many Republicans, upon learning of the Eisenhower Administration’s staunch opposition to the Amendment, withdrew their support out of loyalty to the President. Not surprisingly, the vast majority of the most liberal senators in each party—whom the Old Right Chicago Tribune contemptuously described as “all the New Dealers”—also voted against it.

Positive Effects of the Bricker Amendment

Some conservatives maintained that all was not necessarily lost. Indeed, the Bricker fight may itself have had some positive effects on the conduct of U.S. foreign policy. John Foster Dulles, for example, hoped that the State Department’s refusal to ask for ratification of the Genocide Convention and its decision to end the U.S. role in securing a universal human rights covenant would help to mollify supporters of the Bricker Amendment.[17]President Eisenhower, moreover, proved himself reasonably trustworthy in his handling of foreign affairs, consulting Congress during crises in Indochina in 1954, the Far East in 1955, and the Middle East in 1957—perhaps in part as a consequence of John Bricker’s efforts and the popular support they received.

Free-market economist Henry Hazlitt even remained cautiously optimistic of future victory. One way to carry on the struggle, he proposed, would be to introduce a new amendment by which the House of Representatives, as “the body that most directly represents the people,” would be given a voice in treaty ratification. Since House members, more than their colleagues in the Senate or in the other two branches of government, were subject to swift removal by an angry populace, Hazlitt believed that they would be less likely to compromise American sovereignty. By shifting some of the authority over ratification to the House, the people would have much greater recourse if they believed their rights had been threatened by international treaties.[18]

Others were less sanguine. The editors of The Freeman lamented that the defeat symbolized the ascendancy of the Cold War notion that old-fashioned republican, constitutional government had grown outmoded and even dangerous for the United States, and that the President needed “great freedom of action” in foreign affairs. “Freedom from what?” asked the editors. “Well, freedom from the slow and meddlesome restraints of Congress, freedom from the bickerings of partisanship, freedom from a too narrow interpretation of the Constitution, and, above all, freedom from the anti-cries of the people.”[19]

The story of the Bricker Amendment is more than a historical curiosity. The 1990s have witnessed a renewed assault on American sovereignty. We have seen the ratification of trade agreements whose supranational commissions seek to exercise a kind of veto power over American trade, labor, and environmental policy. Just last year, the UN met to determine the “rights” of women and children around the globe. Before that, global functionaries were busy with plans to dictate the environmental policies of every nation on the planet.

Today the treaty power poses as grave a threat to self-government as ever before. The voices that speak for American independence are few and far between. As the twentieth century comes to a close, post-Cold War America awaits its John Bricker.

Failure To Pass The Bricker Amendment In 1953 Shows The United States Is Just Another Vassal Nation Of The United Nations.

The U.S. Constitution Has One Big Flaw.


It is agreed among most of us that the creators of the U.S. Constitution did an amazingly competent job to protect individual rights and limit the national government’s role in our lives. Of course for at least the last 50 years or so socialists parading as liberals have managed to thwart the original intent of the Constitution throughout all three branches of government but that doesn’t detract from the generally fine work of our country’s founders.

However since man is fallible and not immune to error, the Constitution contains one glaring error which enables opponents of freedom, liberty and individual rights to impose their philosophy on all of us; this mistake is in the constitutional language that makes treaties entered into by the United States the supreme law of the land; overruling all other federal and state laws and judicial decisions to the contrary.

It is harmless enough to say as it does in Article II, Section 2 that The President “shall have power, by and with Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur … “; but it was undoubtedly not envisioned that the President and the Senate would be composed of people who would want to rewrite the Constitution and diminish the rights and freedoms built into the original language of the Constitution and enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

The problem and grievous mistake is what is written in Article VI which states in part:

“This Constitution and the Laws of the United States 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, any Thing in the Constitution or the Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

In other words, all provisions in the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, and all state laws can be obliterated in one fell swoop by a treaty signed by the president and approved by two thirds of the senate. With a president like Obama and an essentially veto-proof senate (including the renegade Republicans who have already demonstrated disregard of the Constitution) treaties formulated by the United Nations in direct opposition to our constitutional rights can become de facto and de jure amendments to the Constitution.

There are many, many horrendous treaties proposed by the United Nations and signed onto by countries around the world but until now some of the most intrusive have not been approved by the U.S. Senate even though a president has signed them. Recent treaties of this sort that come to mind are treaties signed by President Clinton such as Kyoto, and the Law of the Sea Treaty. As the UN became more and more dominated by anti-American countries a plethora of treaties antagonistic to our Constitution have been produced.

But One Man Tried To Fix The Flaw In The U.S. Constitution In 1953. Senator John Bricker From Ohio.


Although never adopted, the Bricker Amendment would have reduced the president’s ability to negotiate agreements with foreign powers without congressional approval.

In 1953, John Bricker, a United States senator from Ohio, introduced an amendment to the United States Constitution. It became known as the Bricker Amendment. Bricker was upset by the United States’ involvement in the Korean War. He objected to President Harry Truman’s actions in the conflict, namely sending United States soldiers to Korea under the authority of the United Nations without prior approval of the United States Congress.

The amendment read as follows:

Section 1.A provision of a treaty which conflicts with this Constitution shall not be of any force or effect.
Section 2.A treaty shall become effective as internal law in the United States only through legislation which would be valid in the absence of treaty.
Section 3.Congress shall have power to regulate all executive and other agreements with any foreign power or international organization. All such agreements shall be subject to the limitations imposed on treaties by this article.
Section 4.The congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

The United States Senate defeated the amendment twice, first by eight votes and then, on a second vote, by a single tally. “And that single vote was from former President Lyndon Johnson who was Senate Minority Leader at the time.” Michael Difensore. While numerous groups, including anti-war groups, various women’s organizations, and veterans’ groups, supported the amendment, staunch opposition from President Dwight David Eisenhower resulted in the proposal’s defeat.

John William Bricker was born on September 6, 1893, near Mt. Sterling, Ohio. He attended public schools in Madison County and The Ohio State University. He graduated from Ohio State with an undergraduate degree in 1916. Bricker attempted to enlist in the United States Army during World War I, but the military refused to accept him because of a low pulse rate. Disappointed, Bricker did succeed in gaining entry to the Army Chaplain Corps. Upon the war’s conclusion, Bricker enrolled in the law school at The Ohio State University, graduating in 1920.

Bricker began to practice law in Columbus, Ohio, in 1920, but he also quickly pursued a political career. From 1920 to 1928, he served as the city solicitor for Grandview Heights, Ohio. From 1923 to 1927, he also worked as one of Ohio’s assistant attorney generals. In 1932, Bricker became the attorney general of Ohio, only to leave this position in 1939, following winning election as the state’s governor, a position that he had first sought unsuccessfully in 1936. As governor, Bricker had to deal with the end of the Great Depression and World War II. He succeeded in eliminating the state’s deficit and also increased funding for Ohio’s schools. He served three terms, from 1939 to 1945.

In 1944, Bricker, a Republican, had unsuccessfully run for the Vice Presidency of the United States. Upon ending his third term as governor, Bricker proceeded to win election to the United States Senate. He served two terms, from 1947 to 1959. He was unsuccessful in 1958 when he sought a third term. Bricker’s most famous act while a senator was his sponsorship of the Bricker Amendment. This act would have limited the president’s ability to enter into agreements with foreign nations. It lost by a single vote in the Senate and was never enacted. Following his defeat for reelection, Bricker returned to his law practice in Columbus. He died on March 22, 1986.

Source: By Justin Raimondo

The problem of international treaties superseding the U.S. Constitution and undermining the foundations of our Republic is not a new one. The conservative movement of the early 1950’s, which looked on the United Nations with extreme suspicion, was particularly sensitive to this threat — and they hit upon a solution: The Bricker Amendment.

Introduced into the Senate in February, 1952, as Senate Joint Resolution 130, the “Bricker Amendment” to the Constitution read as follows:

Section 1. A provision of a treaty which conflicts with this Constitution shall not be of any force or effect.

Section 2. A treaty shall become effective as internal law in the United States only through legislation which would be valid in the absence of treaty.

Section 3. Congress shall have power to regulate all executive and other agreements with any foreign power or international organization. All such agreements shall be subject to the limitations imposed on treaties by this article.

Section 4. The congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Mobilizing to support Bricker, conservatives built a grand coalition which included all the major veterans groups, the Kiwanis Clubs, the American Association of Small Business, many women’s groups, as well as the conservative activist organizations of the time, such as the Freedom Clubs and the Committee for Constitutional Government. The conservative press joined in the campaign; writing in Human Events, Frank Chodorov said that

The proposed amendment arises from a rather odd situation. A nation is threatened by invasion, not by a foreign army, but by its own legal entanglements. Not soldiers, but theoreticians and visionaries attack its independence and aim to bring its people under the rule of an agglomeration of foreign governments. This is something new in history. There have been occasions when a weak nation sought security by placing itself under the yoke of a strong one. But, here we have the richest nation in the world, and apparently the strongest, flirting with the liquidation of its independence. Nothing like that has ever happened before.

The breach in our defenses, said Chodorov, is in Article VI of the Constitution, which provides that “… All Treaties …shall be the supreme Law of the Land… any Thing in the Constitution to the contrary notwithstanding.” At the time of the Founders, the division between foreign and domestic policy was clear enough; there was never any intention, as Jefferson wrote, to enable the President and the Senate to “do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way.”

But as the concept of limited government was eroded — and under pressure from the endless stream of pacts, covenants, and executive agreements issuing forth from the United Nations and its American enthusiasts — the chink in our constitutional armor widened. Just as the growth of administrative law had threatened to overthrow the old Republic during the darkest days of the New Deal, so under Truman and Eisenhower the burgeoning body of treaty law threatened to overthrow U.S. sovereignty. Executive agreements had created administrative law of a new type; treaties which sought to regulate domestic economic and social behavior to a degree never achieved by the Brain Trusters. If the New Deal had failed to completely socialize America, to conservatives it often seemed as if the United Nations seemed determined to finish the job. According to the UN Declaration of Human Rights, human beings were endowed with all sorts of “rights,” including the right to a job and the right to “security.” There were, however, certain significant omissions, chief among them the right to own and maintain private property. Another equally glaring omission was the unqualified right to a free press, the regulation of which is left up to member nations. When three Supreme Court justices, including the Chief Justice, cited the UN Charter and the NATO treaty in support of their argument that Truman had the right to seize the steel mills, conservatives went into action — and the fight for the Bricker Amendment began in earnest.

The Eisenhower Administration, and particularly the U.S. State Department, went all out to defeat the Amendment. Leading the opposition was Secretary of State John Foster Dulles. This was the same John Foster Dulles who had said, two years previous, that “The treaty power is an extraordinary power, liable to abuse,” and warned that “Treaties can take powers away from the Congress and give them to the President. They can take powers from the states and give them to the federal government or to some international body and they can cut across the rights given to the people by their Constitutional Bill of Rights.” Hammered with this quote by Clarence Manion, Dean of Law at Notre Dame University, and a leading proponent of the Bricker Amendment, Dulles could only take refuge in the argument that this President would never compromise U.S. sovereignty.

Although the Bricker Amendment started out with fifty-six co- sponsors, it eventually went down to defeat in the U.S. Senate, 42-50, with 4 not voting. (A watered-down version, the “George proposal,” lost by a single vote.) The defection of Senators William Knowland and Alexander Wiley from conservative Republican ranks on this occasion was particularly significant, and marked the beginning not only of Wiley’s chairmanship of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, but also the decline of the movement to put and keep America first.

As Frank E. Holman, president of the American Bar Association, and the sparkplug of the Bricker Amendment movement, wrote:

In the destiny of human affairs a great issue like a righteous cause does not die. It lives on and arises again and again until rightly won. However long the fight for an adequate Constitutional Amendment on treaties and other international agreements, it will and must be won. This will be the history of the Bricker Amendment as it has been the history of all other great issues and causes.

Holman’s comments were published in 1954 as Story of the Bricker Amendment, (The First Phase) — a title which one can only hope is prophetic.

World Government Summit? What You’re Not Supposed to See.


April 4, 2019

Written by William F. Jasper

“Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain,” the fearsome electronic image of the Wizard of Oz bellowed at Dorothy. That command, of course, was aimed at directing her attention away from the real “wizard,” who was pulling the levers behind the curtain. Something similar has occurred (again) regarding the recent World Government Summit. Yes, that is the official name of the event, an annual confab of high-powered movers and shakers: “the great and the good” of globalist affairs in national governments, the United Nations, NGOs, media, academia, philanthropy, and entertainment. Since 2013, the World Government Summit (WGS), a three-day event, has drawn dictators, presidents, prime ministers, kings, emirs, sheikhs, central bankers, Nobel laureates, movie stars, corporate CEOs, and more, to Dubai, the gleaming jewel of the United Arab Emirates.

More than 4,000 high-profile notables swarmed to this year’s WGS (February 10-12), among whom were actor Harrison Ford, International Monetary Fund chief Christine Lagarde, UNICEF boss Henrietta Fore, UN General Assembly President Maria Espinoza, left-wing news maven Arianna Huffington, former Obama official and Big Brother advocate Cass Sunstein, left-wing economist and New York Times opinionator Paul Krugman, motivational guru Tony Robbins, New York University law professor Arthur R. Miller, and Columbia University professor and UN advisor Jeffrey Sachs. Opening the global affair was none other than Pope Francis, who blessed the conferees and their mission in a pre-recorded video message.

The WGS has become the desert version of the annual World Economic Forum (WEF) shindigs in Davos, Switzerland, featuring many of the same celebrities, moguls, and “public servant” VIPs, most of whom fly into the ultra-extravagant UAE on private jets (naturally) to lecture humanity on the need to “reduce, reuse, recycle” — all in the interest of reducing carbon footprints, of course. In fact, a keynote speaker at WSG 2019 was Professor Klaus Schwab, founder and executive chairman of the WEF, who presides over the Davos gatherings. His lecture this year to his esteemed World Government Summit confreres was “Globilisation 4.0.” These assembled worthies, whom the WSG describes as “world leaders, international organizations’ representatives, thinkers, and experts from over 150 countries,” weighed in on a host of heavy topics, as they discussed “shaping the future of the world.” Indeed, according to the WSG website, the organization sees itself as “a global platform dedicated to shaping the future of governments worldwide.” “Each year,” it says, “the Summit sets the agenda for the next generation of governments.”

With all the glitter, glamour, and glory on display, and with the momentous, world-affecting agenda they advocate, one might think that the star-studded WGS soirée would be a top news event, yes? But no, barely a word in the “mainstream” news, other than snippets that could pass for PR releases. Hmm. What’s happening here? Did the WGS folks forget to inform the world media organizations about the summit? Are those desert sheiks relying on incompetent Bedouin camel drivers to run their public relations department? Did Big Media not get the memo? No, no, and no, to the last three questions. Turns out Big Media did know all about the event. In fact, many of them were official partners of the conference. The WGS website lists CNN, Sky News, the New York Times, the Financial Times, Bloomberg, and CNBC among its “media partners.” And as noted above, Arianna Huffington, founder of the online Huffington Post and Thrive Global, was a featured speaker, as was CNN presenter Becky Anderson. Many of the other luminaries gracing the WGS stage are also regularly featured as “experts” on the establishment media news programs and talking-head news analysis shows.

However, chances are, unless you were reading The New American online, you probably saw or heard nary a word about this august gathering. Over the past several years, we have provided one of the few portholes regularly allowing inquiring minds worldwide to get a glimpse into this program of global engineers who are planning our future. On February 22, we published Alex Newman’s overview of WGS 2019 entitled “At ‘World Government Summit,’ Globalists Push UN Agenda 2030.” Aside from Newman’s incisive analysis, there was very scant reportage on this remarkable event. As his title suggests, a considerable focus of the summit was the promotion of the United Nations’ Agenda 2030, more formally known as the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The UN formally unveiled this master plan for humanity, comprised of 17 SDGs and 169 specific “targets,” in September 2015, with the publication of its manifesto entitled Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. (For more information about this planned transformation to global governance using sustainability as a pretext, see Alex Newman’s article online at

As to be expected, the globalist choir, including the supposed watchdogs of the Fourth Estate, generally greeted the proposed Agenda 2030/SDG program with hearty huzzahs and applause. No negative words for an agenda of global central planning and micromanagement by bureaucrats. No media protests against the fact that this scheme was confected by the UN with the help of blood-drenched communist and Islamist regimes, along with oppressive authoritarian governments and anti-freedom NGOs.

Photo credit: AP Images

This article appears in the April 8, 2019, issue of The New American. To download the issue and continue reading this story, or to subscribe, click here.

« Older Entries