All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 8, 1996 - Bill Cooper
59:50
Eagle Radio Lies, UN & World Court
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
*Piano music* This is all I can do.
That's all I can do.
I don't know.
And I'm Pooh.
Yes, once again, once again, you are listening to the Hour of the Time.
And I'm Pooh.
And I'm William Cooper.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.
And to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, invisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Thank you, Pooh.
You're welcome.
I love you.
I love you, too.
See you later, alligator.
Okay.
What happened to the crocodile?
See you later, alligator.
After a while, crocodile.
You were supposed to say that.
Bye.
Bye.
Well, folks, I got some real problems with some of you, and tonight I'm going to talk about that.
Here we've got some kind of an echo in the background, and I don't know why.
Annie, does that sound better?
Still the same.
I wonder why we would have an echo.
Is that better?
No, it's not better.
Well, I don't have anything here that would produce an echo, so I have no idea why we have an echo.
Does that sound better?
Sounds worse?
Well, let's get it up here then.
How's that?
Still the same, huh?
Okay.
Well, I don't know why.
We have an Echo, ladies and gentlemen.
And there isn't anything that I can do about it.
Nothing whatsoever.
I don't have anything here that produces an Echo.
I haven't changed anything here.
Last Friday night, I guess we were having some problems with some equipment that they installed.
I guess we're still having some problems.
If it sounds like I'm absent-minded, it's because I'm trying to look around here to see if there's anything whatsoever that I have done or can do to eliminate whatever it is that's happening.
And I've got to tell you, there isn't anything.
There's nothing.
There's nothing.
I don't have... Nothing has changed here.
There just isn't any way for me to correct it, so I'm not going to worry about it.
I'm going to go on with the broadcast.
Last week, as I am prone to do occasionally, I confronted you all with the facts in reality of the situation of the time that we live.
I didn't pull any punches.
And I didn't tell you any lies.
I told you the truth.
And I informed you, and you should know by now, that on a national level, you're not going to get anywhere.
When NAFTA was up for a vote, there was a thousand to one calls and faxes against it.
Dole and Gingrich and all of the leadership of the conservative political movement Said that it would never pass.
They would all vote against it.
They would make sure that it didn't go through because the American people didn't want it.
Now tell me, what happened?
Hmm?
And I could name you five million other examples easily.
I could show you what happened in the last election and prove to you that your vote didn't mean anything.
Unless you refrain from voting for Clinton.
But if you did, so many other people voted for him.
It didn't matter who you voted for as a conservative because the vote was split in so many different chunks.
There was no chance.
Same thing is going to happen in the next election.
And here's somebody else I saw on the internet is starting another.
A coalition of voters to field a candidate on the conservative side.
Why isn't any of this kind of thing happening on the Democratic side?
And it wouldn't matter anyway, folks.
If they split up the Democratic ticket and we all voted for Bob Dole, nothing would change.
I informed you that you do have a chance at political power at a local level.
I told you where power comes from.
Ultimately, I urged you to join patriot organizations and militia groups.
Urged you all to buy a firearm, learn how to use it.
Make it known that you have it.
Tell people you're not going to give it up no matter what.
Because that's ultimately where the power comes from.
A disarmed people has no power.
Which means to have any power in the first place, you must be armed.
Now, I don't even know a three-year-old that wouldn't understand that.
I can show you the history, and the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms ownership have documented it very, very well, and I had that as a subject of discussion on this broadcast one night.
The history of disarmed populations.
Every time a population has been disarmed, genocide has occurred.
Every single time throughout history, and the people have been enslaved.
Those are facts.
This also is a fact.
Thank you.
I see a few of those things that you don't make me see.
The biggest thing with yourself, I see.
I gotta get it, think everything's right.
I gotta get ready to make everything right.
Monday Night Football coming on tonight.
Are you ready?
Are you ready?
Are you ready, ready?
Are you ready for the football?
A Monday Night Party. .
Hey, when the clock is ringing, baby, you're in good time, sonny.
We've got to get some of these things right from the start.
All my rowdy friends are back for Monday night.
Now, everyone who watches this primetime show, everyone who watches this primetime show, New York, Nashville, San Francisco.
We love to watch the kickoff and the game begin.
Pretty soon it'll be the big last big win.
The crowd in the line, like you said, slammin' the quarterback with the cradles in their hands.
The kids are comin', the back are cuttin' in time.
You can come from the back of the country inside.
Everybody, turn it up.
Monday night.
Everybody, turn it up.
Everybody, turn it up.
Hut one!
Hut two!
Hut three!
We got the wings and the wings, right?
Oh, my God, it's where the wings are.
Oh, my God.
Now, sack, huck one, huck two, huck three.
I'm back with a vengeance.
You people better listen to me tonight.
Because I am also angry.
Thank you.
I was listening to a broadcast Saturday night on the Eagle Radio Network, around about midnight.
Some of the things I heard were very disturbing.
I heard some outright blatant lies.
And I'm going to set them straight, but first I'm going to read you a fax.
As always, if someone requests that I not use their name, I do not do that.
But I'm going to read this fax to you, because this includes some of the bullshit that I heard on the Eagle Radio Network on Saturday night from people that I thought knew better, but apparently they don't.
It says, Mr. Cooper, I'm glad you're recovering from your recent illness.
I have been listening to the Hour of the Time lately and am concerned about several things.
I want to thank you sincerely for your concern about my illness.
I am feeling much better, for all of those who are wondering.
I want to thank all of you for your cards and Letters and phone calls and everything else.
And most of all, for your prayers.
He continues.
First of all, it was very informative to have Jeff Ganapofsky on in a question-answer-and-guest-host format with the man from Swiss America.
I forget his name.
It's Frank.
Considering the large response mentioned It is apparent that many people are looking for the knowledge Jeff has.
What happened to Jeff?
What has happened to the man from Swiss America?
It seems to me they've either been abruptly canned or have chosen not to come on again.
I'm left wondering if there's a personal conflict or other problem.
That would be a real shame.
I'd like to hear more from Jeff and people like him, even if their views don't precisely match yours.
Or they won't take an oath to uphold a certain document because of conscience.
This diversity makes your show even more interesting as a useful gathering place and encourages constructive discourse.
It's difficult for me to address that paragraph, ladies and gentlemen, because this shows that the gentleman is coming from a position of ignorance that is beyond my capability to cope with.
The first thing I want to tell you, my friend, and everybody else who's thinking along those lines, this is my program.
The hour of the time belongs to me, William Cooper, nobody else.
It doesn't belong to the sponsor.
It doesn't belong to anybody.
It belongs to me.
I have no problem with Jeff or Frank.
Frank, in fact, is a good friend of mine and is a member of the Intelligence Service.
Jeff, I believe, I met in Atlanta a long time ago, but it's been so long that I'm not sure if this is the same Jeff or not.
Frank stood in for me as a personal favor because I was so sick and my voice was gone.
I couldn't do the show.
If I was just ill, even if I was dying, I would have crawled in here and done it, but I didn't have a voice.
So Frank stood in as a personal favor to me.
Frank called his friend Jeff and asked him to be a guest.
Long before Jeff was ever on this broadcast, I was talking about the subjects that he covered for four solid years, my friend.
And where were you?
You know, some of you drive me wild.
And the reason I'm reading this is because I've gotten a whole bunch of this crap from idiots.
Personal conflict.
What are you talking about?
I had him on my broadcast, didn't I?
Frank is here every Thursday night, if you'll just listen.
I don't know what happened last Thursday night, but he'll be here this Thursday night, and every Thursday night, unless something happens.
Jeff?
I don't know, Jeff.
I think I met him in Atlanta, if it's the same Jeff.
But it's been so long ago, I don't know.
But he was on my broadcast, wasn't he?
I don't understand your problem.
I don't understand a lot of your problems.
It's like you've got something missing between your ears.
And he continues, Your denunciation Friday night of the people in Texas Which is a blatant lie.
I did not denounce anybody in Texas.
In fact, I said specifically that if they could prove to me that what they're doing is legal and right within the law, I would support them 100%.
I like what they're doing.
But you see, I don't come from an emotional belief system point of view.
I don't get involved in something unless I know it's right.
I have to examine it.
I have to study it.
I have to know that it's the right thing to do before I jump on anybody's bandwagon.
Last Friday night, I had just gotten their documents.
He says, your denunciation Friday night of the people in Texas and mocking, mocking their good faith efforts at lawful process and procedures was shocking.
Well, what is more shocking than anything is that you even got anything near that out of that broadcast.
I specifically stated that I didn't want them to stop.
If they can prove that what they're doing is right and legal in the law, and the principles that they're basing their actions upon in history, and the historical incidents that they're citing Are really true and correct.
I did call their attention to a mistake that they are making.
And I'll address that a little bit further later.
He says, such behavior shows both hubris and a lack of understanding in these matters.
Now listen to this.
Pay attention to this folks.
He's telling me I have no understanding in these matters.
That no amount of qualifying remarks can cure.
And then he makes this incredible statement.
He says, and I quote, I have not read their paperwork.
You're telling me that I have a lack of understanding in these matters, and then you tell me that you're calling me to task and you haven't even read or seen their paperwork.
You don't know what you're talking about.
You are a blithering idiot.
In fact, you're a fool.
And that's the truth.
he says it seems your conclusion that these people brought themselves under the world court under United Nations jurisdiction is without foundation and mistaken well in just a few minutes before this broadcast is over
I'm going to show you prove to you that what I said that they brought themselves under the world court under United Nations jurisdiction is absolutely standing on the firmest foundation than you will ever believe and And there's no mistake about it.
It is the truth.
You see, I'm going through this, folks, because a lot of this is what I heard on Eagle Radio Network Saturday night.
From a representative of the Texas Independence Movement, And from Richard, whom I thought knew better.
But apparently he doesn't.
He goes on.
Samuel Adams said well that free men have the natural right to enter and leave any society they wish.
So what if the Republic of Texas is a ghost town right now?
I don't even know what he's talking about now.
I never said it's a ghost town.
I have no idea what he's talking about.
He says, those living in the state of Arizona are welcome to choose a different path for themselves.
I don't know what he's talking about there, either.
Because unless you operate under the law, you're not free to do that, unless you leave the country.
He says, the signers of the Declaration of Independence acknowledge that decent respect To the opinions of mankind required that they should serve notice upon a candid world by declaring the causes which impel them to their actions.
I have no problem with that.
That's what sovereigns do, declare themselves to the world, not to a world court or a United Nations.
And they know that there could be consequences for their actions.
They know an army could be brought against them.
He says at that time there was no court over Great Britain except King George's.
Serving notice upon the world court that today presumably has some jurisdiction over the bankrupt United States government by and through various agreements and acquired deficiencies in international law is not asking for their permission or authority to do anything, but is well recognized as due process and all kinds of law, but is well recognized as due process and all kinds of law, and that, if you know anything about the concept of sovereignty, is a crock of Here.
The first consideration in any legal action is the matter of jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction.
Ask any judge.
Consult any law book.
Talk to anyone who has gone through the sovereignty process.
Look at the history of the behavior of nations.
He says, if I recall correctly, you then went on to say basically that these people in Texas didn't have any military force or support from citizens of the state of Texas. .
That it was all a big joke.
Yes, that's right.
Absolutely 100% correct.
A big joke.
Without the political support and the military support of the people of the state of Texas, what they're doing is a joke.
Now, if you don't understand that, well, from what I've already read, you probably don't and won't understand that.
Even the signers of the Declaration of Independence were smart enough to know that their firm reliance was on the protection of divine providence.
History demonstrates that confidence in men leads to destruction.
I believe that probably several hundred thousand Christians who were thrown to the lions had a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence.
That's something we say.
That's something we believe.
That's something that gives us strength and courage.
That's something that we can fall back on in hopeless situations when we know we are right.
But I'm going to tell you right now, my friends, all of those of you who are listening to me right now, you had better listen and listen good.
Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's.
And while you're walking in the flesh on this earth and you're faced with an enemy army that will pick your children up by the heels and dash their brains against the wall, You had better be prepared to fight your own battles.
And if you are right, and if you fight, I believe that Divine Providence will help you.
But I'm going to tell you right now, if you've got 200 people Meeting in a hall in the state of Texas, or in the state of Illinois, or in the state of New Jersey, or in the state of poverty, I don't care.
And you are pretending to speak for ten million people who don't even know of your existence.
And you are going to do things that could possibly affect their lives and they don't know of your existence and don't understand what you're doing and think you're a bunch of wacko kooks and you have no political base or power amongst that ten million people and you have no military force to back you up.
you are doomed.
Now you can laugh and you can point fingers and you can send me faxes until the moon turns purple.
you are playing stupid little children's fool's games.
And if you don't understand that...
That I don't care if you can prove what you're doing right, if you don't understand the very basic premises in common sense, then I won't help you because I can't.
And neither can anybody else.
Your seeming repudiation to all reference to Christian or Jesus Christ, as used in lawful process and procedure, has no basis in light of early American as used in lawful process and procedure, has no basis in light of early American My friend, we're not living in early America.
We're living in 1996.
And whether you agree with the law or not, the courts in which you're going to find yourself aren't run by the language that you use.
It's also guaranteed to demonize you.
It's also guaranteed to label you as cults and kooks and idiots.
And I want to tell you something.
Don't throw Christian and Jesus Christ up to me.
I am a Christian.
And I want to tell you something else.
Christianity is fractured worse than the conservative movement and election ever will be.
There are Quakers, and Catholics, and Lutherans, and Baptists, and Branch Davidians, and the Church of the Seventh-day Adventist, and Jesus Christ of the Latter-day Saints, and I can go on, and go on, and go on, and go on, and go on, and none of them agree about almost anything.
I don't preach religion on this broadcast because of it.
And because it is our right, protected under the Constitution, to worship at the altar of our choice.
And this is not a Christian government.
Never was.
Never was meant to be.
Cannot be.
And unless the lunatics in this country are successful, will never be.
And the day that it is, the burning of witches and the burning of heretics at the stake will start all over again.
And I, for one, would fight it as a Christian.
The founding fathers of this nation left Europe because they were persecuted religiously.
Thank you.
For the most part, they were Protestants, but they belonged to a whole bunch of different Protestant sects and religions and dogmas, and most of them, on subjects of religion, could not agree on very much.
They established this government as a secular nation to protect the rights of all of them so that none of them would ever be persecuted again.
When you see things of a religious nature that emanated from government, it did not emanate from the government, but from the people who held positions in the government.
This government We'll always reflect the religious beliefs, ethics, and morals of those who occupy the positions in the government.
In the early history of this country, most of those who occupied the positions of power in this government—in the Senate, the House of Representatives, the President, the Vice President, and the members of the Cabinet—were, for the most part, devout Christians.
And so it appeared It appeared, but was never true, that this was a Christian government.
The government does not go to church.
The government has no dogma.
The government is two pieces of paper.
It is the Constitution for the United States of America and the first ten amendments known as the Bill of Rights.
That is the government and nowhere within either one of those two documents will you find the word God or Jesus Christ or Christian mentioned.
And those of you who believe that stuff and want to shove your religion down everyone's throats are more dangerous than any new world order.
Look back in history and see what happened when religions came to power as the government.
And you will find that hundreds and thousands and over the years, millions and millions of people were killed in the name of that religion.
And if you think it wouldn't happen again in the future, you're wrong.
Because that is the nature of religion.
And don't tell me it's not.
And don't tell me Christians would never do such a thing.
I can take you by the back of the neck and shove your face into a history book and prove you wrong on every single count of it.
He goes on to say, these are terms used by free inhabitants these are terms used by free inhabitants referring to the true lawgiver. - Sure.
Whose natural law, see Declaration of Independence, supersedes all others, including the commercial agreement known as the Constitution for the United States of America.
You use two things there that are not compatible with each other.
First, you talk about free, free inhabitants, and then you take away their freedom by saying that they will all agree with your statement here.
Free means free to choose.
Free means without restrictions.
Free means according to your own beliefs and not the beliefs of others.
And I'm going to tell you something else about this natural law.
You won't find that in the Bible.
You see, the natural law comes out of the mystery schools.
It refers to the laws and the God of nature, the God of this world, Lucifer.
He used to be called Bacchus, or Pan.
Many of our founding fathers, including Thomas Jefferson, were members of the mystery schools, the mystery religion, were members of the Illuminati, were deists, as a matter of fact.
And I didn't used to believe that.
In fact, if you'd have told me that 15 years ago, I'd have called you a liar to your face.
But when I got into the books and began to read and study and study properly by throwing my preconceived notions and prejudices out the window, I found out what the truth was.
Thomas Jefferson hated the Bible.
He hated the God of the Bible.
He ripped the Bible to pieces and wrote his own Bible.
Benjamin Franklin was a whoremonger.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Married two women.
Not married.
Lived with two women.
Out of wedlock.
Sired children by both of them.
when he was sent to France to represent this nation as a diplomat, an ambassador.
Because somebody told you so and you didn't bother to do any research yourself.
And just like Bill Clinton lies to the American people today, many of our forefathers back then lied to the American people then.
Politics is politics.
Thomas Jefferson kept slaves, yet railed against slavery.
He helped write documents making the white citizen superior to all others.
Yet he fathered children from a black slave.
These are facts.
This is not conjecture.
Now, let's go to Texas.
I have the documents here.
And this is a whole fistful of documents that they have sent to various people, including the President of the United States, the World Court, also known as the Court of International Justice.
Now, the representative from the Texas Independence Movement on Saturday night blatantly lied to the radio audience, and Richard, the host, backed him up 100%.
Again, coming from a point of emotional belief.
Liking it, wanting to believe it, and so backing it 100%, and it was a lie.
He said that the World Court had nothing to do with the United Nations and was, in fact, in existence before World War I. I'm going to prove that's a lie here in just a few minutes.
Total lie.
Richard backed him up.
Then they began to castigate me for telling you the truth.
Richard made a statement that I believe that I'm the only source of information.
And I've told you over and over again that that's not true.
So Richard lied to you.
I've told you over and over again not to believe anybody, not even me.
I've admonished my audience for four years and I've told you that.
I have told you to listen to everyone, read everything, believe no one unless you can prove it.
I've admonished you that you are the only true source of information, and only if you have proven that it is correct.
I have told you that this broadcast will not mislead you.
That everything that we put out on this broadcast is documented.
Documented.
And we give you the sources.
And if it's not documented or it can't be proven, then I tell you that it's my opinion.
And if I make a mistake, I correct that mistake on the air.
If you can prove that I've made a mistake, and I've made several, and I have corrected them on the air.
We do the same thing in Veritas when we make a mistake, only we publish the retraction and correct it on the front page of our newspaper.
Nobody else in the country does that.
If you can even get them to correct a mistake, you'll find it buried in some way back page where nobody ever sees it in fine print, mixed in with the auto for sale ads.
Now, this Texas Independence Movement has sent these documents for approval to the Registrar of the International Court of Justice.
Attention, Gene Jocks, Arnolda's Deputy Registrar, 2517 K.J.
The Hague, The Peace Palace, The Netherlands.
Please find and close an international abatement law of the previous appearance by notice of intent to perfect and notice to the Security Council of the United Nations with incorporated exhibits and original instruments for the provisional government of the Republic of Texas.
This final filing now perfects the referenced international process to reclaim the sovereign nation-state of the Republic of Texas.
They're asking for a jurisdictional decision.
They're asking for the International Court of Justice, also known as the World Court, and the Security Council of the United Nations to recognize them as an independent nation-state under their jurisdiction and to order the United States government to let them go.
Now, if there's anybody out there that can't understand what I just read to you, turn off your radio and don't ever turn it on again.
you are beyond the capacity of me to deal with you what I'm going to read to you is from the 83rd Congress second session Senate document number 164 164, Review of the United Nations Charter, and I have on this desk six other books which all say the same thing.
Compilation of Staff Studies Prepared for the Use of the Subcommittee on the United Nations Charter of the Committee on Foreign Relations Pursuant to Senate Resolution 126, 83rd Congress.
Presented by Mr. Wiley.
August 2nd, Legislative Day, July 2nd, 1954, ordered to be printed with illustrations, United States Government Printing Office, Washington, 1955.
The International Court of Justice.
Listen carefully, you blathering idiots, and especially you people in Texas.
And let me tell you something about dealing with research.
You'd better be the best researcher in the world before you call me to task on something that I have documented and said on this broadcast, because I will chop you down to your toenails!
The International Court of Justice has probably had virtually a uniformly favorable acceptance among the member states of the United Nations.
Perhaps the two most important factors in this acceptance are these.
The court has continued to maintain the high standards of jurisprudence which characterize predecessor tribunals, and two, it has handled a limited number of cases which have not generally involved the more controversial political issues of the day.
The fact that the court has been used only infrequently is not a critical reflection on the court.
Its primary function, as in the case of any court, is to interpret and apply the principles of the legal system of the society which it serves, so that the society may conduct its affairs in a peaceful and orderly manner.
Seen from this point of view, the court reflects the realities of the international system.
It is not, as in the case of domestic courts, a part of a society which, for example, has a legislative body to enact laws, an executive to administer laws, and a police force to enforce the law and the decisions of the court.
Now, remember, this was written in 1955.
Since then, it does make laws.
Since then, it does make laws.
It does enforce laws, and the military forces of the United States government are the police force for the United Nations.
Given the present state of world society, some would go so far as to say that the court's intrinsic value at this time is to be measured not so much by its contribution to Pacific settlement, settlement of disputes as by its contribution to the development of international law.
When they say Pacific in this text, ladies and gentlemen, they're not referring to the Pacific Ocean or the Pacific Rim, but to Pacific as peaceful.
Bearing these qualifications in mind, this staff study examines briefly the background of the International Court of Justice, also known as the World Court.
Its position within the United Nations, its organization, procedures and jurisdiction, the volume and nature of its work and certain proposals to change the nature of the court are to broaden its jurisdiction.
Remember, this was 1955.
It has a much greater jurisdiction today and is recognized by all nations.
The International Court of Justice evolved out of the Permanent Court of International Justice established in 1921 in accordance with the Covenant of the League of Nations.
The origins of both courts, however, are to be found in the modern development of efforts to settle international disputes on the basis of law.
The first steps in this direction being the establishment of arbitration procedures, and the first court was a court of arbitration.
Throughout this development, the United States has played a leading role.
And along those lines, ladies and gentlemen, let me inform you right now, in case you haven't figured it out, the United States is the United Nations.
The United States created the United Nations.
The United States has always funded the United Nations.
The United States military forces are the police forces of the United Nations.
And I could go on and on and on.
The first notable instance of international arbitration in modern times, for example, was the provision in the American-British Treaty of 1794, known as the Jay Treaty.
Significant advances with respect to international arbitration were made at the Hague Conferences in 1899 and 1907.
The United States played a prominent part in both conferences.
At the latter conference, the first serious effort was made to establish a true international You see, a court of arbitration is not, in fact, a court, but is where both parties agree to present their case and be bound by whatever the decision is of the arbiter.
Again, it was the United States that took the lead.
The nations represented at the conference proceeded to draw up plans for an international court of arbitral justice.
The project failed because the large nations and the small nations could not agree on a method for selecting the judges.
Now let me repeat again.
The project failed.
The first world court was established through and in close connection with the League of Nations.
Though never a party to the statute of the court, the United States had an important part in its establishment.
This country signed the Protocol of Signature of 1920, to which the statue of the new court was attached.
And in 1923, President Harding asked of the Senate for its advice and consent to ratification.
Following action by the Senate in 1926, setting forth reservations and conditions under which the United States might ratify, negotiations were carried on over a period of years with the parties to the statute and with members of the League of Nations.
The statute was revised in an effort to meet the Senate's views, but in 1935, the Senate, by a vote of 52-4 and 36-against, failed to provide the necessary two-thirds majority for approval.
The Permanent Court of International Justice sat from 1922 until 1940.
Do you understand that?
until 1940.
Do you understand that?
1922 until 1940.
During this period, it rendered 32 judgments and 27 advisory opinions.
The Court is generally regarded as having performed its duties fairly and competently, and there was no instance of its decisions being disregarded.
During the negotiations concerning post-World War II arrangements, it was fully agreed that the record of the old Court was such that it should be reinstituted or a new one established along the same general lines.
You people ought to know better than to tell lies in public on me.
Most of you, not all of you, some of you are really good researchers.
Most of you don't even know what the meaning of the word is.
Research to you is asking somebody.
You blow my mind, especially if you've been listening to this broadcast for as long as some of you who do these things say you have.
I should have taught you better by now.
The Dumbarton Oaks proposals drawn up in 1944 provided that there should be an international court as the principal judicial organ of the proposed new international organization and that the statue of the court should be a part of the charter.
Now, I'm going to tell you right now, if you even knew, if you even knew your ear from a hole in the ground, You would have at least read the United Nations Charter if you're going to appeal to the United Nations for approval of your new state.
Because the formation of the World Court, the International Court of Justice, is a part of the United Nations Charter.
At San Francisco, it was decided, because of the practical difficulties involved in reconstituting the Permanent Court, which was the old To establish a new court to be called the International Court of Justice.
The change was largely formal, for the new statute approved at San Francisco was very similar to the old.
The new court is one of the principal organs of the United Nations.
Amen.
I hope you're listening.
I forgot your name.
The man who is a part of the independence, the Texas Independence Organization, the one who was speaking for the Texas Republic Saturday night, who said that I was a liar and that the world court is not a part of the United Nations.
I hope you're listening.
I hope you hang your head in shame.
And I hope you go back to your people and start to set things right so that you can be supported.
Because until you do, nobody can support you.
Especially when you're lying to the people and telling them that the world court that you submitted your papers to for approval is not a part of the United Nations.
Why did you lie to the people Saturday night during that broadcast?
I want to know!
Because one of the questions brought up by some of the callers was, why would you want to form a sovereign nation state and then appeal to the United Nations for approval and give up your sovereignty in the same breath?
That was a question that I also asked.
Unless it was intended that the sovereignty be given up.
Not just for you, but all of us.
And what leads credence to that thought is when you turn around and lie to the American people and tell them that the world court is not a part of the United Nations.
when it is where at the old court though it had close connections with the league of nations was not an integral part of it This is, in fact, the major point of difference between the two courts.
The position of the new court in the United Nations is defined in Chapter 14 Articles 92 through 96 of the Charter.
The Court is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, and the statute of the Court is an integral part of the present Charter.
All members of the United Nations are automatically parties to the statute, and other states may become parties to the statute on conditions determined by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.
Each member of the United Nations undertakes to comply with the decision of the International Court of Justice in any case to which it is a party.
If any party fails to perform the obligations incumbent upon it under a judgment of the court, The other party may have recourse to the Security Council.
That body may make recommendations or decide upon measures to be taken to carry out the judgment, including military." Do you understand?
I think some of you do.
I think some of you are seething with rage, jumping up and down, your faces turning red.
You can't stand it.
Because you've been caught in a lie, in a deception, in a manipulation.
And it's going to come back on you.
I'm going to tell you right now.
There's lots of information all over this country.
It flows out of every orifice and every book and every library, every newspaper.
You're going to stand on the street corner and get information.
But the only place you're going to get information that's documented and that you can count on, that if you go look it up, is going to be true, is on the hour of the time.
In other places, you're going to get some true information.
here.
You may even get a lot of it.
You're also going to get some bullshit, some lies, some disinformation that furthers agendas that is bullshit, misinformation that is mistakes.
And if you don't know how to sort through it and do your own research, you're always going to be led around by these clowns who lie to you.
Thank you.
Listen to me carefully.
99% of every single piece of information by word of mouth, by fax, by writing, are purported to be an official document that passes through the so-called patriot and militia networks, is fake, phony, are purported to be an official document that passes through the so-called patriot and militia
99% of every single piece of information.
The court is permanently in session.
It is authorized to establish its own rules of procedure and did, in fact, adopt those of its predecessor.
The expenses of the court are provided for in the United Nations budget.
The salaries of the judges are fixed by the General Assembly and may not be decreased during the term of office.
The court has two different types of jurisdiction.
One is jurisdiction with respect to contending parties, the so-called contentions cases.
The other is its role with regard to the rendering of advisory opinions.
In contentious cases, only states, not individuals or international organizations, may be parties before the court.
It is open to states which accept the jurisdiction of the court and which adhere to the statute, and to other states on conditions laid down by the Security Council.
There are states that have accepted the jurisdiction of the Court of International Justice by treaty and by agreement.
If you are not under the jurisdiction of the court.
Jurisdiction is established when you submit documents to the court for filing a consideration.
and in the event of a dispute as to whether the court has jurisdiction the matter shall be settled by the decision of the court so you can
submit to it by treaty or written agreement by submitting paperwork or documents for filing or for consideration or for ruling or the matter can be settled by the decision of the court the court It has been noted that under Article 36 provision is made for the automatic or compulsory jurisdiction of the court is between states under certain conditions.
As applied to international disputes, the origin of compulsory jurisdiction is to be found in the history of efforts made to provide for obligatory arbitration.
Some sort of special agreement between the disputants was nearly always necessary in order to bring arbitration machinery into operation, so that in the last analysis, each party to a dispute was in a position to decide for itself whether the agreement to arbitrate was applicable.
These people didn't even do their research In order to find out if the court had the jurisdiction to order the United States to obey it.
In the treaty, the United States, the United States, ladies and gentlemen, made a provision.
Where is it?
Let me find it so I can read it to you exactly.
Here it is.
The United States filed a Declaration of Acceptance of the Court's Compulsory Jurisdiction in 1946 on a reciprocity basis and subject to termination after five years on six months' notice.
The United States has renewed it religiously every time it's expired.
The United States Declaration further stipulates That the Declaration does not apply to a. disputes the solution of which the party shall entrust to other tribunals by virtue of agreements already in existence or which may be concluded in the future, or b. disputes with regard to matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the United States of America as determined by the United States of America.
And they are going to determine that any dispute with the state of Texas is a domestic jurisdiction, unless the World Court rules that it is in their jurisdiction.
But since you submitted the paperwork, whether the United States agrees or not, the state of Texas, not the state under the United States, but the newly formed state formed by these 200 people, is.
Under the jurisdiction of the World Court.
You gave them jurisdiction merely by filing your documentation, you blathering idiots.
And then you get on the radio and tell me that I'm full of crap?
you better grow up.
Our seed.
Disputes arising under a multilateral treaty unless one, all parties to the treaty affected by the decision are also parties to the case before the court, or two, the United States of America specially agrees to jurisdiction.
So there you have it.
There you have it.
Now, there were a lot of other lies and bullshit spouted on Saturday night that I'm not even going to get into because it's a waste of my time.
Total waste.
And it has nothing to do with most of the American people anyway.
But the major lies that were told have been exposed tonight.
And now you know.
And when they get up and tell you their lies again, boo them right out of whatever hall they're speaking at.
You cannot be a sovereign nation if you submit to the jurisdiction of a higher nation, or of a court.
The laws of nations, if you'll go back and really study them, were what was agreed upon as proper behavior between nations, as to military forces, treaties, trade, the exchange of ambassadors, and such, and there was no world court that decided these things.
Sovereigns don't ask for permission from anyone.
And that's why if you don't have a strong military to back up what you're doing, what you're doing is masturbating.
Good night, and God bless you all.
Good night.
Good night. .
I, I, I'm a little lazy, but that's just the way it is.
What are you gonna take it, baby, if you want to?
If you really want to, baby, We'd like to get your hands on some real money, folks.
Come on.
Come on, brother.
Come on, Frank.
Let's get this thing together.
How's it going?
How do you do with your hands?
Catch your brain to the morning's woods And right away your best turn is just Johnny and you're just dancing Baby, what is just a neighbor?
Good night, you do what you want Do what you want You can make it big.
You can make it bigger than life.
Steering ain't so nice.
Up on the right side, right side, right side.
You have a little faith in yourself.
In everything that you do.
I know you're gonna make it big.
If you want to be.
If you really want to be.
You can make it big.
▲
Export Selection