Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 3, 1999 - Bill Cooper

02:04:43

Treason Documented #4

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Thanks for watching! Please subscribe!
	The arts are all about good and good things, and good and bad things.
	So, good and bad.
	Good and bad.
	You're listening to the Hour of the Time.
	the movie
	that is leading us into a one-world totalitarian socialist
	government that is The end result, eventually, somewhere down the line, will be world communism.
	You can bet on it.
	You can take it to the bank.
	And if you don't believe it, you stay tuned and listen to the proof.
	I defy you.
	I dare you to prove me wrong.
	Listen to everybody.
	Read everything.
	Believe absolutely nothing unless you can prove it in your own research.
	We give you the source of the information.
	We give you the documents.
	We tell you where you can find them.
	Don't believe what I say.
	You go out.
	You look it up.
	And if I'm right, you must join the fight for freedom in this country.
	If you don't, you are sentencing your children and grandchildren to a life of slavery and
	in one world totalitarian socialists which will eventually become a communist government.
	Brazil, which refused to support this same measure by abstaining on the vote, has already
	proclaimed its disapproval of any measures which the foreign ministers might take to
	deal with Castro.
	The Brazilian government has officially called upon the United States and other hemisphere nations to co-exist with Cuman Communism.
	How many friends does this leave the United States on the all-important United Nations Disarmament Committee?
	You count them.
	I'm sick.
	from Mr. Clark.
	Readers of the record will note that my distinguished colleague made certain statements to which I take strong dissent.
	First, he said, every day more and more people share a growing concern for the preoccupation of the State Department and some people in high places with the issue of disarmament.
	Second, he said, I think it is naive and unrealistic to be preoccupied with the question of disarmament.
	Third, he said, we know that the Communist conspiracy has no intention of coexisting with us.
	Mr. President, I take strong exception to each of these three statements.
	In the column which the junior senator from Texas inserted in the record, its author, Mr. Ken Thompson, referred to what he calls, as stated in the article, One of the most incredible documents ever to emerge from the foggy corridors of the State Department is a bulletin entitled, Freedom From War, the U.S.
	Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World.
	I continue to quote from Mr. Thompson.
	As skeptical as I have always been of the measure of good sense and loyalty within the State Department, I never would have believed that these people we call our diplomats could so completely and unabashedly advocate the surrender of American rights and sovereignty until this bulletin appeared.
	Mr. President, I submit that both the junior senator from Texas and Mr. Thompson are pretty far off base in the comments which I have noted.
	In the first place, the program entitled Freedom From War, the United States program for general and complete disarmament in a peaceful world, is not some pamphlet dreamed up in what is referred to as the foggy corridors of the State Department.
	It is the fixed, determined, and approved policy of the Government of the United States of America.
	It was laid down by President of the United States, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, in a speech he made before the United Nations on September 25th of last year, a speech which I think will rain down through the corridors of history.
	That program, when it was submitted by the President of the United States, had the approval not only of the State Department, but also of the President's then Disarmament Advisor, Mr. McCloy, who was its principal author of the Department of Defense and of the Atomic Energy Commission.
	It represents the fixed and determined policy of the executive arm of the United States government.
	Ladies and gentlemen, that is an admission by Senator Clark that what I read to you several nights ago was, in fact, exactly as the document says, the official policy of the United States government.
	I will now continue, because there's much more here.
	If individuals, whether on or off this floor, desire to criticize that program, they should
	turn their criticism not against some subordinates in the State Department, but against the Commander
	in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States of America, the President of the United
	States.
	I recall to members the dramatic statement made by the President in that splendid address
	before the United Nations to the effect that he challenged the Soviet Union to a race for
	peace, not a race for war.
	In that connection, I suggest that the program presented by our President at that time has
	by implication at least the full support of the Congress of the United States.
	Thank you.
	Mr. President, my view, the President's program for total and permanent disarmament under enforceable world law, under enforceable world law, under enforceable world law, Is not only that of his administration, but is also the kind of program which Congress envisioned when last summer it passed the statute creating the United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency.
	That bill was passed on September 8th by the Senate by a vote of 73 to 14 only approximately two weeks before the President made his historic appearance before the United Nations.
	The bill was passed a few days later by the House of Representatives by a vote of 280 to 54, as expressed in the first annual report of the United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency.
	Successful arms control and disarmament negotiations are, of course, the chief purpose of the Agency's existence and the goal to which its energies are directed.
	Therefore, Mr. President, I submit that the executive and the legislative branches of our government are substantially in accord in supporting the President's program for total and complete disarmament under enforceable world law.
	Enforceable world law.
	And I suggest that it is neither naive nor unrealistic, as was suggested by the Junior Senator from Texas, for the Congress of the United States and the people of the United States to take an active, keen, and present interest in the subject of disarmament.
	Far from its being naïve to be preoccupied with this subject, I suggest that disarmament, world peace, and world law not only should be, but are, the constant preoccupation of all intelligent and educated men and women who desire to survive in freedom.
	And ladies and gentlemen, I, William Cooper, tell you that's the biggest crock of bullshit that you'll ever be fed in your life.
	In your life.
	Now, let me read you the biography right out of the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, the volume 1774-1989.
	Senator Clark Joseph Still, a Senator from Pennsylvania, born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
	October 21, 1901, attended Chestnut Hill Academy, was graduated from Middlesex School in 1919,
	Harvard University in 1923, and the University of Pennsylvania Law School in 1926, was admitted
	to the bar in 1926, and commenced the practice of law in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, during
	the Second World War, served with the United States Army Air Corps, 1941 to 1945, attaining
	the rank of Colonel, City Comptroller of Philadelphia, 1950 to 1952, Mayor of Philadelphia, 1952
	to 1956, Member of the Board of Overseers, Harvard University, 1952 to 1953, and the
	Elected as a Democrat to the United States Senate in 1956.
	Re-elected in 1962 and served from January 3, 1957 to January 3, 1969.
	Unsuccessful candidate for re-election in 1968.
	Professor, Temple University, 1969.
	And here's the kicker, folks.
	You have served from January 3, 1957 to January 3, 1969.
	Unsuccessful candidate for re-election in 1968.
	Professor, Temple University, 1969.
	And here's the kicker, folks.
	President, World Federalist, United States of America.
	Chair, excuse me.
	President, World Federalist, United States of America.
	Thank you.
	I'm not going to go into who they are.
	I want you to look it up.
	We've already done it on past programs of the Hour of the Time.
	Just in short, though, it's a group devoted, devoted to the destruction of national sovereignty of all nations and the uniting of all, all nations in a one world government.
	Now we go to the Congressional Record of the House, 1954, page 5065.
	This is the Congressional Record of the House of Representatives, 1954, page 5065.
	Lethal Genocide Convention Destroys Individual Rights Extension of Remarks of Honorable Usher L. Burdick of North Dakota in the House of Representatives, Monday, April the 12th, 1954.
	Mr. Burdick.
	Mr. Speaker, the genocide convention passed by the United Nations is a fine-sounding document, but like other conventions adopted by that organization, it has an ulterior purpose.
	The dictionary defines genocide as the systematic destruction of a racial, political or cultural group of people.
	Very few people in this world can be found who would not be in favor of putting a stop to this barbarous practice, but in framing this convention The United Nations used this great appeal as an instrument to shield its real purpose.
	In defining genocide, the United Nations has gone beyond all past understanding of its meaning, and under the terms of this organization, interprets it, if anyone, anywhere, Even makes a statement reflecting upon any group or a member of any group which has the effect of injuring their feelings that a crime has been committed and the persons or persons making the statement are ipso facto guilty of the crime of genocide.
	Knowing full well that such a law could not be enforced in the United States, the United Nations has made elaborate preparations to implement it.
	Now I'm going to read this paragraph over again for you folks.
	In defining genocide, the United Nations has gone beyond all past understanding of its meaning, and under the terms as this organization interprets it, if anyone anywhere even makes a statement reflecting upon any group, or a member of any group, which has the effect of injuring their feelings, then a crime has been committed and the persons making the statement are ipso facto guilty of the crime of genocide.
	Knowing full well that such a law could not be enforced in the United States, the United Nations has made elaborate preparations to implement it, and wait till you hear what those preparations are.
	First of all, the interpretation of this law, and trials conducted under it, are not entrusted to the courts of this or any other country, but come under the jurisdiction of a court of its own, which the United Nations has set up, an International Court of Justice Which has civil and criminal jurisdiction.
	Let me read that again to you, just in case you missed it.
	It is proof positive that we are nothing but a vassal state of the United Nations.
	On top of all the other evidence we've already presented.
	I quote, First of all, the interpretation of this law, and trials conducted under it, are not entrusted to the courts of this or any other country.
	But come under the jurisdiction of a court of its own which the United Nations has set up, an international court of justice which has civil and criminal jurisdiction."
	For several years now, lawyers have been working on the construction of this code.
	For several years now, lawyers have been working on the construction of this code.
	And under it a person charged with the offense of genocide is tried wherever the United Nations may decide.
	The alleged offender can be taken out of this country if here is where he uttered the statements that hurt the feeling of some group or a member of a group and sent to any other country or the United Nations or wherever the United Nations deems proper for trial.
	I hope you've got a pad of paper and a pen with you, and I hope, I hope that you're here when I come back.
	don't go away I'm going to be a good boy.
	I'm going to be a good boy.
	Thanks, anyway.
	For several years now, lawyers have been working on the construction of this code, and under it, a person charged with the offense of genocide is tried wherever the United Nations may decide.
	The alleged offender can be taken out of this country if here is where he uttered the statements that hurt the feeling of some group or a member of a group and sent to any country the United Nations deems proper for trial.
	When he is tried, and it may be for his life, he does not have the protection of the Constitution and the laws of the United States, but he is subject to the United Nations Code of Law and its Constitution.
	In order to get around the provision of our Constitution in regard to free speech, a free press, and free religion, and deny the citizens of this country that protection, the Genocide Convention and the Covenant of Human Rights bodily attempt to redefine these landmarks of liberty And a new definition of free speech, a free press and free religion appear.
	It flatly denies the terms of our Constitution which guarantee these fundamental rights to the people of this country and sets up conditions that were not even thought of or discussed in our Constitutional Convention.
	The effect of this new definition of these three basic rights actually is to set aside the provisions of our own Constitution and that's what I've been telling you This, ladies and gentlemen, is Mr. Burdick, the Honorable Usher L. Burdick of North Dakota, making this speech in the House of Representatives on Monday, April 12, 1954.
	Since then, the United States has adopted, in law, the Genocide Convention and the Covenant of Human Rights.
	It was all done within the last four years.
	Don't believe it?
	Go look, sheeple.
	There is no Constitution.
	There is no United States of America.
	It is a counterfeit, illegal, unlawful, unconstitutional, treasonous government sitting in Washington, D.C.
	today.
	Most of the politicians Who have supposedly been serving the people of this great nation since 1933 have been traitors.
	I know you don't like to hear it, but it's the truth.
	Nobody ever likes to hear the truth, do they?
	I continue.
	Why is it necessary to abrogate our own Constitution in any particular if the only purpose of the Convention is to put a stop to the crime of genocide?
	Does any provision of our Constitution favor genocide?
	No, sir.
	Not a single provision.
	Why cannot our own courts be trusted to handle the crime of genocide?
	No, sir, they cannot be trusted.
	Hence, the United Nations bills a court of its own in defiance of the protection given by United States courts to every person charged with crime.
	And remember, folks, just saying something that might hurt the feelings of some person or some group is not genocide.
	But under this convention, that's exactly what you will be tried for.
	And it's happened many times.
	Every move made by the United Nations in framing its various conventions are of the same character as this genocide convention.
	The Covenant of Human Rights is another example.
	It sounds well in the face of it.
	It attacks the Constitution of the United States.
	The very Charter of the United Nations does the same thing.
	The United Nations is not an organization to preserve peace, but a sinister attempt to form a world government with a House and Senate, a judicial system, a tax system, and a police system.
	UNESCO is another attempt to destroy the United States.
	In that agency, patriotism is attacked.
	And instead of building love of country, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization directly attempts to eradicate it.
	Children are taught that reverence for the great men of our past tends to build a strong national spirit, and that conflicts with the United Nations' design to build a strong reverence for a world government.
	So they have stopped teaching these things in our schools.
	Nothing in the United Nations has yet proposed In any field seems willing to accept our Constitution and way of life as it is and to proceed constitutionally.
	Every move made is a move to abrogate or redefine or amend our Constitution.
	The purpose behind this drive is to prepare the United States for entry into a world government, and under our Constitution this cannot be done.
	The sovereignty of the United States is squarely and firmly based upon the Constitution.
	And unless it can be abrogated, our great republic cannot be taken into this spurious world government.
	Ours is the only government in the world that unqualifiedly exists for the people.
	The people built it.
	It was done by them.
	It was done for them.
	Most foreign countries have the opposite view.
	There the people exist for the government.
	How in the world can true loyal Americans believe that a government like ours can mix with governments of opposite views and present a mongrel world government that does not believe in our Constitution?
	The avowed purpose of the United Nations was to bring peace to the world.
	It had a great appeal to all classes, because in this country the people do not want war.
	But time has revealed the fact that the United Nations is more concerned with changing the Constitution of the United States Than it is with world peace.
	We would need no organization of this character to obtain peace if it were not for Russia.
	Russia and her satellites are the only ones indulging in aggression.
	Yet Russia is a member of the organization which professes peace, but is actually spreading war.
	Russia holds a powerful position in the United Nations, for the military head of that organization has always been a Russian citizen.
	The military head of that organization has always been a Russian citizen.
	The military head of the United Nations has always been a Russian citizen, and always will be, for a secret agreement made in London between Molotov and Alger Hiss provides that the Russians should hold that office permanently.
	Did you hear what I said, ladies and gentlemen?
	This is out of the mouth of a congressman who knows.
	Russia is recognized by this country and maintains a cesspool of communists right here in this great capital city.
	She can speak her ism with impunity.
	She gets all the privileges of the United Nations, yet her daily action is absolutely against what the United Nations was avowedly organized for.
	Under the United Nations and under the recognition of our government, Russia has a powerful position of advantage from which to carry on her Cold War and cause us to expend ourselves until we are resourceless.
	That is the doctrine put forward by Karl Marx, and the Russians follow that course not only but thoroughly and consistently.
	Russia's only hope to overrun the United States is to do it by intrigue and the spread of Communism among our own people.
	And through our recognition of her and her position in the United Nations, this process is going forward to the everlasting satisfaction of the Soviets.
	Joseph McCarthy, ladies and gentlemen, was absolutely right.
	He just didn't know what to call them.
	You can call them communists if you want, you can call them socialists if you want, but it all comes right out of the secret societies that are responsible for these political viewpoints, and they spawn, they spawn more socialists and more communists.
	Our country today is in the hands of international socialism and communists.
	It's being run by members of all of these secret societies.
	And all you've got to do is pick up a copy of Who's Who in America, a copy of the Congressional Biographical Statements, and just go down the list of names, and you will see it's all there, ladies and gentlemen.
	How long will it take the American people to rise up in their might and demand our withdrawal from this communistic enterprise?
	I do not know.
	But they are becoming more enlightened as the days pass.
	He said that in 1954.
	I think they became dumber, more ignorant, more stupid, more apathetic, and more irresponsible since 1954.
	And his closing paragraph, our only fear for the security of the future is the fear that our own people will fall victims to this Russian world propaganda.
	Well, you don't believe that the head of the military in the United Nations is a Russian and has always been a Russian and always will be a Russian, as the Congressman said?
	He knows.
	And in case you don't believe him or me, I can read to you.
	From Trygve Lie's autobiography, In the Cause of Peace, Seven Years with the United Nations, and he was the Secretary General.
	He was the Secretary General of the United Nations.
	His name is Trygve Lie.
	The name of his book, In the Cause of Peace, Seven Years with the United Nations, published by the Macmillan Company, New York, 1954, if you'd like to get a copy.
	And I'm going to go directly to page 45, and I'm going to read to you from the second paragraph on.
	Mr. Vyshinski did not delay his approach.
	He was the first to inform me of an understanding which the Big Five had reached in London on the appointment of a Soviet national as Assistant Secretary General for Political and Security Council Affairs.
	Mr. Vyshinski simply spoke of an agreement.
	He said nothing of its binding quality, of the right of the Big Five to arrive at it, or of the length of time it was meant to apply.
	Now, by the terms of the Charter, the Secretary General has full authority in the disposition of the Assistant Secretary General's ships with respect both to their nationality and to their personality.
	The authority, in fact, was the point of a hard-won decision at San Francisco which rejected an attempt to prescribe that there should be four Deputy Secretaries General Appointed by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.
	In the same manner as the Secretary General strictly speaking, therefore, the Big Five had no right to arrive at any understanding regarding the distribution of the offices of Assistant Secretary General which was binding upon the Secretary General.
	This is not to say, however, that it would have been politic of me to resist the Great Power Accord.
	Moreover, I welcome the understanding as a sign of goodwill and confidence between East and West.
	That the Soviet Union wanted one of its nationals to fulfill the premier assistant secretaryship could be taken as another indication of serious Soviet interest in the United Nations, and that the United States was willing to agree to accord this key post to a national of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was evidence of an American desire to encourage this interest for the sake of world peace.
	That person occupying that position, which is the military head of all United Nations forces, is the man into whose hands all the intelligence of the United Nations is delivered, has always been a member of the USSR, and is now a Russian, and will always be, ladies and gentlemen, because that is what was agreed to.
	Now you've heard it from me, you've heard it from a congressman, and you've heard it from the Secretary General of the United Nations.
	So don't call Samara and tell us that we're full of baloney.
	Because we're not.
	I read you now from the Congressional Record of the House of Representatives, January 15, 1962.
	None is so blind as he who will not see.
	Mr. Ute.
	Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for one minute to revise and extend my remarks.
	The Speaker, is there any objection to the request of the gentleman from California?
	There was no objection.
	Mr. Ute.
	Mr. Speaker, on the opening day of the second session of the 87th Congress, I introduced House Resolution 9567, A bill to rescind and revoke membership of the United States and the United Nations and the specialized agencies thereof, and to repeal the Immunities Act relative thereto.
	I introduce this resolution because it is my firm conviction that this nation cannot survive as a republic as long as we are shackled to an international organization by a treaty which supersedes our Constitution.
	He admits right there.
	They all know.
	They've always known.
	And I'm going to read this paragraph again for you.
	I introduced this resolution because it is my firm conviction that this nation cannot survive as a republic as long as we are shackled to an international organization by a treaty which supersedes our Constitution.
	Period.
	How about that?
	And down further, down further, let's skip a couple of paragraphs here.
	To prove my point, I submit the following facts for a candid review.
	Our Constitution provides, This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made, in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land.
	Hence, any law, enacted by Congress, pursuant to a treaty, becomes the supreme law of the land, even though it would otherwise be unconstitutional.
	The supremacy of laws under a treaty was clearly set forth in the decision of the United States Supreme Court in 1920 in the Missouri v. Holland case wherein a federal law, otherwise unconstitutional, was held valid because of a treaty between Canada and the United States.
	This decision clearly held that where there was a connect between the provisions or conflict between the provisions of our Constitution and the provisions of a treaty, This conflict must be resolved in favor of the treaty.
	You can get a record of the Supreme Court decisions and you can read it for yourself,
	ladies and gentlemen.
	We have a copy.
	This same doctrine has been extended to include executive agreements.
	The result of this situation has been to destroy our limited form of Republican government
	and has denied to each state a Republican form of government as guaranteed by the Constitution
	and has supplanted it with a government of unlimited powers which destroys the historical
	separation of executive, judicial and legislative branches of our government.
	This was certainly never envisioned by the framers of the Constitution.
	So here you've learned that according to the rulings of the Supreme Court, any treaty When in conflict with the Constitution, the conflict must be resolved in favor of the treaty.
	And this applies also to executive agreements, ladies and gentlemen.
	And it explains an awful lot of what has been happening in the world lately.
	He continues, when the United Nations Charter was submitted to the Senate for ratification, Great stress was laid upon Article 2, subparagraph 7, which states, quote, Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State, or shall require the members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter, unquote.
	I do not believe that the United States Senate would have ratified this treaty without relying on the above quoted paragraph.
	However, this paragraph has been completely and constantly ignored over the past sixteen years, and every organization, commission, and covenant flowing out of the United Nations Charter has been for the sole purpose of intervening in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the member nations as well as the several states of our own Union, completely destroying the sovereignty of each state to legislate in contravention of the treaty provisions.
	Mr. Moses Moskowitz, the noted internationalist, made the following statement in the American
	Bar Association Journal of April 1949, 35, ABAJ 283 and 285, QUOTE, Once a matter has become in one way or another the
	subject of regulation by the United Nations, be it by resolution of the General Assembly
	or by convention between member states at the instance of the United Nations, that
	subject ceases to be a matter being essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the
	member states.
	As a matter of fact, such a position represents the official view of the United Nations, as well as of the Member States that have voted in favor of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
	Hence, neither the Declaration, nor the projected Covenant, nor any agreement that may be reached in the future on the machinery of implementation of human rights can in any way be considered as violative of the letter or spirit of Article II of the Charter.
	Following this, the Atchison State Department made this official declaration, "...there is now no longer any real difference between domestic and foreign affairs."
	These statements plainly render Article II, subparagraph 7 of the Charter, meaningless.
	John Foster Dulles, a former Secretary of State, in a speech before the American Bar Association in Louisville, Kentucky, April 12, 1952, said this, quote, Treaty law can override the Constitution.
	They, meaning treaties, can cut across the rights given the people by the Constitutional Bill of Rights, unquote.
	This conversion of our limited republic to an unlimited democracy is a death blow to this nation.
	The realization of this tragedy was the reason for the proposal of the Bricker Amendment nearly a decade ago.
	The Bricker Amendment simply provided that when there was a conflict between the Constitution of the United States and a treaty, that conflict must be resolved in favor of the Constitution.
	And yet, the Bricker Amendment was defeated by a narrow margin under strong propaganda pressure from the Council on Foreign Relations And politicians who gloried in the unlimited power conveyed upon them by the United Nations Charter.
	There were just too many politicians and too few statesmen.
	Did you catch that, folks?
	Traitors.
	Traitors.
	Treason.
	We have no nation.
	We are free to do what we will.
	Continues.
	Remember, I'm reading directly from the Congressional Record of the House of Representatives.
	January 15th, 1962.
	I'm now on page 215.
	First paragraph, top left.
	Now let us look at the record according to Trygve Lie, longtime Secretary General of the United Nations.
	He stated flatly that there was a secret agreement between Alger Hiss and Molotov to the effect that the head of the United Nations military Staff should always be a communist.
	That agreement has never been broken, and we have had a succession of communists filling that post, the present one being Mr. Arkadoff.
	As a first consequence of this treasonous agreement, you see, I'm not the only one who calls it treasonous.
	Let me repeat that again.
	As a first consequence of this treasonous agreement, This country lost its first military engagement in Korea at a cost to this country of more than $20 billion and 145,000 American casualties to say nothing of the honor and prestige of this nation.
	All battle plans of our forces in Korea, all intelligence, everything went through the Communist military commander in the United Nations, who approved or disapproved, but in all cases relayed all
	the information directly to the Chinese Communist commanders of the
	opposing forces.
	I continue.
	This was the first war in which we engaged not as the United States military force, but
	as a United Nations force, although we contributed ninety percent of the men and the money.
	How convenient this was to the Communists to have one of their own men as head of the
	How convenient this was to the Communists to have one of their own men as head of the
	United Nations military staff.
	United Nations military staff.
	♪♪ ♪♪
	♪♪ ♪♪
	♪♪ Yes, ladies and gentlemen, we are right now living in a
	state of war.
	This state of war was actually declared in an executive order written by the President, in which the people of the United States of America are declared to be the enemy.
	This executive order was written in 1933, and we will get to that much later.
	They are in the process of creating, in one world, totalitarian socialist governments.
	They're justifying in the eyes of the people.
	They're creating the Hegelian dialectic of political conflict resolutions.
	Through the clash of opposites, the people cry for the solution, which will be the One World Government.
	During all of the broadcasts of this show, during and beginning on May 4, 1992, we have been revealing this to you, and we're the only ones who have revealed it to you.
	And the truth to you, and the true enemy to you, and have cited, page, book, document, quoted from their own words, there is no doubt we are engaged in a spiritual battle, folks, a spiritual battle, which, if you don't get out of the foggy, foggy dew that your mind is residing in, we're going to lose.
	And I, for one, am not a loser, do not want to lose.
	And so I have embarked upon a great crusade to wake you up.
	Why?
	Well, I've been called a fool.
	I've been told that all you will ever do is spit in my face and turn against me.
	I've been told that I am beating my head against the wall.
	I've been asked to join the other side because of what I know and because they say that you are nothing but cattle and will never wake up.
	And I just can't do it.
	For some reason, folks, I love you.
	I love this nation.
	I love the Constitution.
	I love the Bill of Rights.
	I know what they all mean.
	I know what they all are.
	And I will not abandon what has proven throughout the history of the world to be the very best that has ever existed.
	I will not go backwards.
	I will not relegate the future of my children to a dismal, dismal, miserable life.
	in a totalitarian, socialist order, where you pretend to work and they pretend to pay you,
	and all the last vestiges of human dignity, morality, and worth are stripped from the human race.
	Thank you.
	You are listening to a special presentation of the documentation and sourcing of the treason that has occurred
	in this country over all the years.
	Make sure you have pen and paper by your side.
	Take copious notes.
	I will now begin where I left off.
	However, as always, I will back up just a little bit so that I don't start somewhere where it doesn't make any sense.
	Now let us look At the record, and by the way, I'm quoting once again from the Congressional Record from the House of Representatives, January 15, 1962, page 215.
	Now let us look at the record.
	According to Tregevly, long-time Secretary General of the United Nations, he stated flatly that there was a secret agreement between Alger Hiss and Molotov to the effect that the head of the United Nations military staff should always be a communist.
	Break here, folks, to let you know.
	Alger Hiss was himself a communist, was arrested, tried, and convicted of espionage against the United States government working for the Soviet Union, was sentenced to prison.
	The liberals in the nation now have been trying to get him exonerated.
	He cannot be exonerated, because it is the truth.
	He was the one responsible for the writing of the United Nations Charter.
	He is the one that made this agreement with Molotov that the head of the military forces for the United Nations would always be a communist.
	If you will check the record, you will find that the head of the military forces for the United Nations has always been a communist, is now a communist, and according to agreement, always will be a communist.
	That needed to be explained.
	And I continue.
	That agreement has never been broken, and we have had a succession of Communists filling that post, the present one being Mr. Arkadoff.
	As a first consequence of this treasonous agreement, this country lost its first military engagement in Korea at a cost to this country of more than $20 billion and 145,000 American casualties, to say nothing of the honor and prestige of this nation.
	This was the first war in which we engaged not as the United States military forces, but as a United Nations force, although we contributed ninety percent of the men and the money.
	How convenient this was to the Communists to have one of their own men as head of the United Nations military staff who reviewed all orders going from the Pentagon to General MacArthur and gave them to our enemy before General MacArthur even received them.
	The enemy, which consisted of the Red Communist Army and Russian equipment and flyers, was driven back to the Yalu River and given sanctuary on the other side.
	General MacArthur could have destroyed the enemy in short order, had he been permitted to pursue them across the river from whence they came.
	Because General MacArthur could not in good conscience follow these orders, he was recalled, and the Korean War ended in dismal defeat thanks to Harry S. Truman, 33rd Degree Freemason of the Scottish Rite and was past Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry of the State of Missouri.
	He is the one who signed the New United Nations Treaty, pushed through Congress and passed and signed into law the UN Participation Act, created the Veil of National Security, the Central Intelligence Agency, and staffed them with members of the secret societies to work in secret To destroy the sovereignty of all nations and bring about a one-world, totalitarian, socialist government.
	There are traitors all around us.
	Joseph McCarthy, ladies and gentlemen, was correct.
	He just didn't know what to call them, and he didn't have a chance once the socialist-controlled
	press began to vilify him.
	Thank you.
	We were sold the United Nations on a promise of peace, but we failed to realize that this peace was to be on Communist terms.
	In fact, it was to be a total victory for the international Communist conspiracy.
	Our faith in this hope was so firm that we were lulled into a state of false security while the Communist world gobbled up thirteen or fourteen countries, bringing eight hundred million people under their domination.
	Russia has used the veto power nearly a hundred times.
	The United Nations has been completely unable to bring any degree of peace, and Russia itself has created thirteen or fourteen military conflicts between the East and the West.
	Now, bear in mind, this is from the Congressional Record of the House of Representatives, dated January the 15th, 1962, folks.
	1962, folks. 1962. I continue. The United Nations has not as yet passed a resolution
	1962.
	of censorship against Russia for its Hungarian bloodbath, but rather stood idly by and helped
	to betray the Hungarian freedom fighters into the hands of Russia.
	It's a great way to get involved.
	It could not even get a censorship resolution against India for its military invasion of Portuguese enclaves.
	Further, Mr. Speaker, What, may I ask, is the United Nations doing to prevent President Sukarno of Indonesia from carrying out his military attack against the island-possession of Holland, which lies more than a thousand miles away from Indonesia?
	Is colonialism under Holland a bad thing, but colonialism under pro-communist Indonesia a good thing?
	I have been unable to get any rationale on this question.
	In fact, it has passed no resolutions of condemnation against Russia or any of its satellites, or against the so-called neutral countries, but busies itself with resolutions of condemnation against our allies such as Portugal, Holland and France.
	Our defeat in the aborted Cuban invasion can be laid on the doorstep of the United Nations, as the United Nations Treaty prohibits us from engaging in any military operations without the consent of the United Nations Security Council,
	in which Russia holds the veto power.
	At this point, Mr. Speaker, may I remind the members of the House and the people of America
	that the Cuban situation was not even mentioned in the President's State of the Union message
	on January 11, although the so-called White Paper Issued by the Department of State, declares that Cuba constitutes a Sino-Soviet bridgehead in the Western Hemisphere, and that the military power of Cuba is second only to that of the United States in the Western Hemisphere, due, of course, to the millions of dollars of armaments, equipment, and technicians, and money furnished by the Communist countries to Fidel Castro.
	You can expect to see a one-world government, Communist-controlled, under the United Nations You will see the United Nations run up astronomical debts which we, under the terms of the treaty, are bound to pay.
	In a book by William Z. Foster, former head of the Communist Party, USA, entitled Towards Soviet America, he gives a complete blueprint of the conquests of America by the international Communist conspiracy.
	It is as clear a blueprint as given by Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf.
	Following are some of the things you may look for under the controlled Communist America, as stated by William Z. Foster.
	The final aim of the Communist International is to overthrow world capitalism and replace it by world communism.
	The Communist Party of the United States is the American section of the Communist International.
	The Communist Internationale carries out a united revolutionary program on a world scale.
	The American Soviet government will be organized along the broad lines of the Russian Soviets.
	Under the dictatorship, all the capitalist parties—Republican, Democratic, Progressive, Socialist, etc.—will be liquidated.
	Likewise, will be dissolved all other organizations, including Chambers of Commerce, employers'
	associations, Rotary Clubs, American Legion, YMCA, and such fraternal orders as the Masons,
	Odd Fellows, Elks, Knights of Columbus, etc.
	Lawyers will be abolished.
	The press, the motion pictures, the radio, the theater will be taken over by the government.
	The police will be revolutionized, being cleansed of religious, patriotic, and other features
	of the bourgeois ideology.
	The decisions of the Soviets are enforced by the armed Red Guard.
	Citizenship is restricted to those who do useful work.
	Capitalists, landlords, clericals and other non-producers being disenfranchised.
	In the so-called Black Belt of the South, where the Negroes are in the majority, they will have the fullest right to govern themselves and also such white minorities as may live in this section.
	Where the party elects its candidates to legislative bodies, they make use of these public forums
	to bring forward the communist program.
	The trade unions are the great schools for communism.
	Religion has sanctified every war and every tyrant, no matter how murderous and reactionary.
	The free American women, like her Russian sister, will spawn the whole of bourgeois
	sex, hypocrisy, and prudery.
	Ladies and gentlemen, as I've been saying on this show, all of you who are helping to
	bring this about will be the first ones, according to their own admission, whom they will eliminate.
	Thank you.
	And these fools don't even understand that.
	These are the same people that Stalin eliminated when he took power in Russia.
	These are the same people that were eliminated in Cuba.
	These are the same people that were eliminated After the French Revolution.
	So on, and so on, and so on, right down the line, folks.
	The same people who bring them to power are the first ones that they always destroy.
	The intelligentsia always bring them to power in concert with the secret societies who infiltrate and work from within, and these are the people that they always destroy first.
	It's never failed.
	Once they come to power, they know how they got there, and they destroy the people who brought them to power so that someone else cannot be brought up to depose them.
	These are also the people who will soon discover that the system doesn't work.
	Here in America, I cannot believe the number of people who buy the Socialist agenda, who look around the world and see that everywhere that has been put into place It has brought on nothing but suffering and death and misery and labor camps and the destruction of the human spirit.
	We have everything to live for in this country.
	We have had more than any nation and any people on the face of this earth.
	Yet these stupid fools, these socialist puppets, these ignoramuses, these no-brain, air-headed twits want to destroy this nation.
	and make it another socialist puppet.
	It is beyond my understanding, folks, how this happens.
	It's beyond my understanding how people can even think like this.
	It's beyond my understanding how they can rationalize and justify why everyone else is going to suffer, but not them.
	Not them.
	And if you talk to them, you'll find out that that's exactly what they think.
	It's just like It's just like when Jane Fonda was campaigning all over California and the nation for gun control, for gun control, for gun control, and she was stopped in her car on a freeway in California, and the police found the car was full of guns, and you know what she said?
	She said, that's for everybody else.
	I'm a famous person and I need protection.
	So it was okay for her to have guns in her car.
	But she was traveling around the nation with his car full of guns, promoting gun control.
	It's the typical, typical socialist mindset.
	It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
	Never has, and as far as I can see, never will.
	The socialist system has never, ever been a success in any experiment where it has ever been tried.
	where it has ever been put to work, in any country where socialism has prevailed, it
	has always failed.
	Ladies and gentlemen, again, from the Congressional Record of the House, our Declaration of Independence
	concludes with these words, And...
	And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor."
	Now, does that mean that all of you out there listening refuse to pledge your lives?
	Have you gone back on this?
	You'd rather have your fortunes than your freedom?
	And I guess you don't have any sacred honor.
	Because I don't see too many of you standing up and doing anything about it.
	Let me read that to you again, folks.
	It concludes, our Declaration of Independence concludes with these words, and I would recommend that you read the entire document, by the way, if you don't have a copy.
	You're really not an American, anyway.
	Quote, And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.
	This, folks, is a full and complete acknowledgment of divine guidance.
	Nowhere in the United Nations Charter or any of its subsidiaries do you find any reference to a Supreme Being.
	The Bible says, quote, Unless the Lord build in house, they labor in vain who build it, unquote.
	Socialists don't believe in God.
	They don't believe in anything.
	That's why they are socialists.
	That's why they need the big, protective, all-encompassing, all-powerful socialist state, which to them is their daddy, to protect them against the cruelties of the world, to powder their butts, to change their diapers, to send them off to school, to learn the little socialist catechism, to clothe them and to feed them and to make sure that they have a job.
	Whether they know how to work or not doesn't make any difference.
	And they all pretend to work, and Daddy pretends to pay them.
	And then, just like in the Soviet Union, everybody jumps into a bottle of vodka and lives in the fantasy that the great Soviet state or the Socialist state is, in fact, the world utopia.
	I continue from the Congressional record.
	There is indeed no evidence of the Lord's work in the United Nations.
	I know that I will be accused of being irresponsible and fanatical, but I find myself in good company.
	The testimony of five of our greatest fighting men, General Clark, General Van Fleet, General Stratmire, Admiral Joy, and Lieutenant General Almond, before the General Committee in 1954, is summed up in the words of General Stratmire, We were required to lose the Korean War."
	Lord Beaverbrook, noted British publisher, said, Here in New York City, you Americans have the biggest fifth column in the world, the United Nations.
	Why do you think the United Nations was built upon American soil?
	Dear listeners, where did the land come from?
	Boy, my English teacher would sure smack me upside the head for that.
	Where did the land come from?
	Why, it was purchased and donated by the Rockefeller family.
	Ladies and gentlemen, the Rockefeller family is a Zionist family.
	Behind all of this in the world today, as you will ultimately come to find out at the end of our series on Mystery Babylon, is International Zionism.
	It has nothing to do with re-establishing the State of Israel, and the Jews have a rude awakening for their being used in this plot, this plan.
	And all of you who believe that it's the Jews bringing it about, you better think again.
	For it is Queen Elizabeth, sitting on her throne in England, who claims to be the ruler of Israel.
	And she claims that the stone, the stone which is held under her throne, is Jacob's pillar.
	And it is that claim, she claims, that gives her the right to rule.
	She claims direct descendancy from the house of David.
	And if you've read prophecy, you know what that means.
	And all of these identity Christian groups who are being taught lies are being used also to help bring this about, to help bring it about.
	If you study the history of the Anglo-Aryan races in Northern Europe, you will find they have no connection to Israel.
	No Hebrew root in their language, and they were, in fact, terrible.
	Terrifying.
	Naked murderers, thieves, vagabonds, and pagans through and through.
	There is no trace of the religion that Jesus Christ gave to us in the Middle East anywhere to be found in the ancient history of the Anglo-Aryan peoples.
	They are not the tribe of Israel.
	We will prove that on this program, to help bring it about.
	If you study the history of the Anglo-Aryan races in Northern Europe, you will find they have no connection to Israel.
	No Hebrew root in their language, and they were, in fact, terrible.
	Terrified.
	Naked murderers, thieves, vagabonds, and pagans through and through.
	There is no trace of the religion that Jesus Christ gave to us in the Middle East anywhere to be found in the ancient history of the Anglo-Aryan peoples.
	They are not the tribe of Israel.
	We will prove that on this program, ladies and gentlemen, if you've got the patience
	to stick it out.
	At this point, continuing in the Congressional Record of the House, at this point may I say,
	Mr. Speaker, that Alger Hiss recommended the first 500 employees for the United Nations.
	Then, after that, the late Robert Taft said, The United Nations has become a trap.
	Let's go it alone.
	Herbert Hoover said, unless the United Nations is completely reorganized without the Communist nations in it, we should get out of it.
	Winston Churchill said, don't pay attention to the United Nations.
	Charles de Gaulle has warned the United Nations to stay out of Algeria.
	Now, Mr. Speaker, let us look at the present management of the United Nations.
	Russia had been demanding a troika To supplant the United Nations Secretariat after the death of Hammersholt.
	The failure of Russia to secure this troika was hailed as a great victory for the West.
	But was it?
	U Thant of Burma, a self-styled Marxist, was chosen and he agreed to invite a limited number of United Nations undersecretaries to act as my principal advisors on important questions.
	So far he has indicated two.
	George P. Arkhatov, a Communist from the Soviet Union, the head of the military forces for the United Nations, and Ralph Bunch of the United States.
	This was a Communist victory in that Russia now has its troika.
	One an avowed Marxist, the second a dedicated Communist, and the third with a pro-Communist bias.
	A resume of Dr. Bunch's record, prepared by Archibald B. Roosevelt, son of Theodore Roosevelt, includes this paragraph.
	Dr. Bunch was part of the editorial apparatus of an openly Communist magazine, Science and Society, for over four years.
	He contributed to this publication and added his name and prestige as a professor of Howard University even after the Communists in their publication.
	The Communists openly state that Science and Society magazine had as its function to help Marxist-word-moving students and intellectuals to come closer to Marxism-Leninism to bring Communist thought into academic circles.
	In a Senate probe by the Internal Security Subcommittee, it was brought out that Dr.
	Bunch had repeatedly pressured persons in charge of United Nations employment to hire
	a notorious Communist agent, in spite of the fact that here was a derogatory report against
	the individual by a security agency of the government.
	Dr. Bunch was a high official in the Institute of Pacific Relations, an organization investigated
	thoroughly by the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee and described as follows,
	The effective leadership of the IPR used IPR prestige to promote the interests of the Soviet
	Union in the United States.
	Let me read that again.
	The effective leadership of the IPR used IPR prestige to promote the interests of the Soviet Union in the United States.
	Dr. Bunch is on record as supporting the position of the IPR leadership in this matter.
	This troika arrangement engineered by the Communists is frightening and devastating.
	When you consider the United States of America has no foreign policy of its own except the United Nations.
	And we covered that previously and proved it.
	This is it, Mr. Speaker.
	If this republic is to perish, we ourselves, within our own household, will be the architect and finisher of our fate.
	Don't go away, folks.
	I'll be right back after this very short pause.
	I now continue from the United States Congress.
	I now continue from the United States Code 1988 Edition Supplement 3.
	That's the United States Code, 1988 Edition, Supplement 3, containing the general and permanent laws of the United States enacted during the 101st Congress and 102nd Congress, First Session, prepared and published under authority of Title II, U.S.
	Code Section 285B by the Office of the Law Revision Council of the House of Representatives, January 3rd, 1989 to January 2nd, 1992.
	Volume 2, Title 12, Banks and Banking to Title 22, Foreign Relations and Intercourse, United States Government Printing Office, Washington, 1992.
	Pay attention.
	Make sure you have your pencil and pad of paper by your side.
	It's important that you understand these things.
	On page 1637, Title 22, Foreign Relations and Intercourse, Section 2551, Chapter 35, Arms Control and Disarmament.
	Go down to Subchapter 1, General Provisions, Congressional Statement of Purpose.
	Short Title of 1989 Amendment, Public Law 101-216, Section 1, December 11, 1989.
	Amendment, Public Law 101-216, Section 1, December 11, 1989.
	103 Statutes at Large, 1853, provided that this Act, enacting Sections 257, 7A and 2595
	to 2595C of this Title, amending Sections 2563, 2567, 2588 and 2589 of this Title, and
	enacting provisions set out as notes under Sections 2565 and 2567 of this Title, may
	be cited as the Arms Control and Disarmament Amendments Act of 1989.
	Thank you.
	Paragraph.
	Soviet Weapons Destruction.
	Soviet Weapons Destruction.
	Public Law, 102-228, Title II, December 12, 1991, 105 Statutes, looks like 1693, provided
	that this writing is very tiny, folks.
	Section 201.
	Short title.
	This title may be cited as the Soviet Nuclear Threat Reduction Act of 1991.
	National Defense of Soviet Weapons Destruction.
	Findings.
	The Congress finds that the Soviet President Gorbachev has requested Western help in dismantling nuclear weapons and President Bush has proposed United States cooperation on the storage, transportation, dismantling and destruction of Soviet nuclear weapons And we're being told that that hasn't occurred.
	And it's a lie.
	1.
	Making a substantial investment of its resources for dismantling or destroying such weapons.
	2.
	Foregoing any military modernization program that exerts legitimate defense requirements and foregoing the replacement of destroyed weapons of mass destruction.
	3.
	Forgoing any use of fissionable and other components of destroyed nuclear weapons and new nuclear weapons.
	4.
	Facilitating United States verification of weapons destruction carried out under Section 212.
	5.
	Complying with all relevant arms control agreements.
	6.
	Observing internationally recognized human rights including the protection of minorities.
	I told you folks, the United States of America and the United Nations are one and the same.
	One and the same.
	You want to see Mystery Babylon?
	Go look in the mirror.
	Destroy nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, and other weapons.
	Transport, store, disable, and safeguard weapons In connection with their destruction and three established verifiable safeguards against the proliferation of such weapons.
	This is 1989, ladies and gentlemen.
	1989, ladies and gentlemen.
	1989, when we were told that no such thing was taking place.
	When did the Berlin Wall fall?
	We have been deceived big time.
	Big time.
	Bigger time than you ever will probably know in your entire life, regardless of what you hear on the show.
	Listen to this.
	Administration of Nuclear Threat Reduction Programs.
	Funding.
	Transfer Authority.
	The President may, to the extent provided in an Appropriations Act or Joint Resolution, transfer to the appropriate defense accounts From amounts appropriated to the Department of Defense for fiscal year 1992 for operation and maintenance or from balance in working capital accounts established under Section 2208 of Title 10 United States Code not to exceed $400 million for use in reducing the Soviet military threat under Part B.
	In other words, we paid for it.
	People, we paid for it.
	Before the Berlin Wall fell.
	Folks.
	Section 2567.
	This makes me sick.
	Special Representatives for Arms Control and Disarmament Negotiations, Appointments, Powers and Duties.
	The President may appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, two special representatives for arms control and disarmament negotiations, one of whom should serve as special representative for conventional arms control negotiations.
	That means your weapons, ladies and gentlemen.
	And the other should serve as special representative and chief science advisor to the Director.
	The two special representatives shall perform their duties and exercise their power under
	the direction of the President and the Secretary of State, acting through the Director.
	The President shall then lead the two special representatives to perform their duties and
	exercise their power under the direction of the Secretary of State, acting through the
	Director of the United States of America, acting through the Director of the United
	Information and Database.
	The Agency shall allocate sufficient resources to develop and maintain a comprehensive information and database on verification concepts, research technologies, and systems.
	The Agency shall collect, maintain, analyze and disseminate information pertaining to
	arms control verification and monitoring, including information regarding
	a.) all current United States bilateral and multilateral arms treaties and
	b.) proposed, prospective and potential bilateral or multilateral arms treaties in the areas
	of nuclear, conventional, chemical and space weapons.
	2.
	The Agency shall seek to improve United States verification and monitoring activities through
	the monitoring and support of relevant research and analysis.
	Under Appropriations, amount to carry out the purposes of this chapter, they are authorized
	to be appropriated, and this is on top of what I have already given you,
	1.
	$44,527,000 for fiscal year 1992 and 2.
	such additional amounts as may be necessary for each fiscal year, for which an authorization
	of appropriations is provided in paragraph 1 for increases in salary, pay, retirement,
	other employee benefits, authorized by law, and, here's where it comes, folks, other
	non-discretionary costs, and to offset adverse fluctuations in foreign currency exchange
	rates.
	We have searched for those figures, and they are, of course, classified.
	Subchapter 5 On-Site Inspection Activities The Congress finds that 1.
	Under this chapter, the United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency is charged with the formulation and implementation of United States arms control and disarmament policy in a manner which will promote the national security.
	2.
	As defined in this chapter, the terms arms control and disarmament mean, listen to this, the identification, verification, inspection, Did you hear that, Chiefal?
	elimination, control, reduction, elimination of armed forces and armaments of all kinds
	under international agreement to establish an effective system of international control."
	Did you hear that, Chief-o?
	I hope so.
	Going down to paragraph five, the on-site inspection agency has additional responsibilities
	to those specified in paragraph four, including the monitoring of nuclear tests pursuant to
	the Threshold Test Ban Treaty and the Peaceful Nuclear Explosions Treaty, and the monitoring
	of the inspection provisions of such additional arms control agreements, as the President
	additional arms control agreements, as the President may direct.
	The on-site inspection agency includes civilian technical experts, civilian support personnel,
	and members of the armed forces.
	And over here, the United States is currently engaged in multilateral and bilateral negotiations
	seeking to achieve treaties or agreements to reduce or eliminate various types of military
	weapons and to make certain reductions in military personnel levels.
	These negotiations include negotiations for A, reductions in strategic forces, conventional
	armaments, and military personnel levels, regimes for monitoring nuclear testing, and
	C, the complete elimination of chemical weapons.
	Down in five, on-site inspection procedures are likely to be an integral part of any future arms control treaty agreement.
	And that's all I'm going to read on that page.
	There's lots more.
	Lots more, folks.
	I'm just trying to pick out what's pertinent because I still have a huge pile of paperwork here.
	Okay.
	And that's about auditing.
	Let's get over here.
	Public Law 102-228 H.R. 3807.
	December 12, 1991, Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty Implementation Act of 1991.
	An act to amend the Arms Export Control Act to authorize the President to transfer battle
	tanks, artillery pieces, and armored combat vehicles to member countries of the North
	Atlantic Treaty Organization in conjunction with implementation of the Treaty on Conventional
	Armed Forces in Europe.
	acceptance of NATO assistance in meeting certain compliance with the CFE Treaty.
	Mandated obligations for destruction of conventional armaments and equipment limited by the C.F.E.
	Treaty, the United States may utilize services of funds provided by NATO or any NATO C.F.E.
	country.
	Section 25 definitions as used in this chapter.
	The term C.F.E.
	Treaty means the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe, signed at Paris, November
	19, 1990. The term, Conventional Armaments and Equipment, limited by the CFE Treaty,
	has the same meaning as the term, Conventional Armaments and Equipment, limited by the Treaty,
	does under paragraph 1J of Article 2 of the CFE Treaty, and 3, the term NATO means the
	North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Findings in Program Authority A findings the Congress
	finds that Soviet President Gorbachev has requested Western help in dismantling nuclear
	weapons and President Bush has proposed United States cooperation on the storage, transportation,
	and destruction of Soviet nuclear weapons. And again, it talks about we're going to do
	it and we're going to pay for it.
	Thank you.
	And I already read that section, so I won't do it again.
	Some of these documents, even though they're different documents, under different laws
	and things, repeat what we've already read.
	Arms Control and Disarmament Act, Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, Authorization of Appropriations,
	and...
	And this is $36,000,000 for the year 1990.
	$37,316,000 for the fiscal year 1991.
	$44,527,000 for fiscal year 1992.
	$45,862,000 for fiscal year 1993.
	1990, $37,316,000 for the fiscal year 1991, $44,527,000 for fiscal year 1992, $45,862,000
	for fiscal year 1993.
	And always working in concert with the Soviet Union or Russia
	as it is now.
	We are.
	Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty Implementation Act of 1991.
	Mr. Bashel.
	Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill H.R.
	3807 to amend the Arms Export Control Act to authorize the President to transfer battle tanks, artillery pieces, and armored
	combat vehicles to member countries of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in conjunction
	with implementation of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe."
	Now, bear in mind, folks, that the proposal that is on the table is to allow Russia and
	other Eastern Bloc nations to join the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance.
	Here in these documents we will prove that NATO was formed to hasten, ladies and gentlemen,
	the formation of the One World Government and a UN peacekeeping force.
	And all of these plans were laid many, many years ago.
	The Act was, in fact, passed.
	Implementation of the CFE Treaty will involve one of the largest disarmament programs in I'm reading from the Congressional Record House, November 19, 1991, page H10560.
	Implementation of the CFE Treaty will involve one of the largest disarmament programs in history.
	The Soviet Union alone will have to destroy the military capacity of many thousands of tanks, artillery, and other pieces of equipment.
	Furthermore, it will constrain Soviet conventional forces even within the Western Soviet Union.
	When the treaty is fully implemented, the Soviets will retain in Europe only 35% of the equipment they held in 1983.
	Moreover, a provision of the treaty known as the Sufficiency Rule will prevent any, any nation from creating a conventional force greater than one-third of the total armaments permitted in the area.
	Did you hear that?
	Permitted in the area!
	Which means the U.N.
	is dictating to us How much armaments are permitted in our area and we're only allowed, we're only allowed to have, well let me read this.
	The treaty known as the Sufficiency Rule will prevent any nation from creating a conventional force greater than one-third of the total armaments permitted in the area.
	Which means if we're only allowed to have one-third of the total armaments permitted in our area, Where are the other two-thirds going to come from, ladies and gentlemen?
	It says, this provision applies to all treaty signatories.
	I'm going to read this whole paragraph again for you.
	Implementation of the CFE Treaty will involve one of the largest disarmament programs in history.
	The Soviet Union alone will have to destroy the military capacity of many thousands of tanks.
	Many thousands of tanks?
	Artillery pieces?
	and other pieces of equipment.
	Furthermore, it will constrain Soviet conventional forces even within the Western Soviet Union.
	When the treaty is fully implemented, and listen to this closely, you must grasp this, you must understand, when the treaty is fully implemented, the Soviets will retain in Europe only 35% of the equipment they held in 1983.
	Moreover, a provision of the treaty known as the Sufficiency Rule We'll prevent any nation, including us folks, from creating a conventional force greater than one-third of the total armaments permitted in the area.
	This provision applies to all treaty signatories.
	Ladies and gentlemen, who is going to supply the other two-thirds of the armaments and
	troops that will be located in our area?
	Well, the rock still rolls, the beat goes on, after all this time.
	Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to be moving to the stereo.
	Well tonight, ladies and gentlemen, is number nine in our treason series.
	You know, I was looking at our stack of documentation, and I have to tell you, we have not even yet... I thought we had covered quite a bit of material.
	We haven't even started.
	We've done eight hours and we haven't even started.
	Tonight is hour number nine.
	We're going to skip ahead in time.
	We're going to skip ahead in time to March 11th, 1992.
	March 11th, 1992.
	From the Congressional Record of the House.
	House.
	Page H1181.
	March 11th, 1992.
	Congressional Record of the House.
	That's page H1181.
	By Mr. Owens of New York.
	March 11, 1992 Congressional Record of the House, that's page H1181.
	By Mr. Owens of New York.
	Mr. Owens of New York.
	House Joint Resolution 438.
	Joint Resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States repealing the Second Amendment to the Constitution to the Committee on the Judiciary.
	And we'll go to the Congressional Record Index, page 123, and you can see that it is duly registered under firearms constitutional amendment to repeal Amendment relative to the right to bear arms, House Joint Resolution 438.
	Introduced the 11th of March, 1992.
	And on that day, when this legislation was introduced, on page H1168 of the Congressional Record of the House, March 11th, 1992, I quote, The second amendment to the Constitution reads as follows.
	Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Owens, is recognized for
	sixty minutes.
	Mr. Owens of New York, Madam Speaker, today I have introduced a resolution which calls
	for the repeal of the Second Amendment to the Constitution.
	The Second Amendment to the Constitution reads as follows.
	A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of
	the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
	Thank you.
	Madam Speaker, is the Second Amendment still necessary in 1992, and does the Second Amendment, the existence of it, give the right to the manufacturers of guns, the distributors of guns, the fanatics who must have automatic weapons of all kinds, does it provide a right to them?
	Madam Speaker, I have been told that the Second Amendment does not guarantee that right, but it is because the Second Amendment has been distorted and is often misquoted to mislead the American people to believe that because the Second Amendment exists, we should not and we cannot regulate the manufacture, the sale and the distribution of guns in the United States.
	As a result of the notion being promulgated that we cannot regulate the sale and distribution and manufacture of guns, we have a paralysis by legislators across the country and by the Congress.
	Repeatedly, public opinion polls have shown that the American people do want more gun control.
	They want more regulation of guns.
	Of course, a number one issue across the nation is crime and solutions to the problem of crime.
	Madam Speaker, crimes of all kinds I abhor, but crime which results in the death of individuals is of particular concern and should be of particular concern to all of us.
	I break here to tell those of you who may have tuned in late, these are not my beliefs.
	This is a speech.
	Read to the House of Representatives by Mr. Owens of New York, who introduced a bill to repeal the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.
	And I continue.
	The recent tragic shootings of two young persons at Thomas Jefferson High School in New York City has renewed interest in some kind of immediate urgent action to deal with guns and the gun culture.
	Madam Speaker, two young persons, one named Ian Moore and the other's name is Tyrone Sinclair.
	They happen to live, or they happened to live, in my congressional district.
	The tense is important here.
	Thomas Jefferson School is not located in the district, but these young people resided in the 12th congressional district.
	Somehow, their shooting has shocked even New York City, which has too many homicides and too many guns, despite the fact that we have very tight gun control laws in both New York City and New York State.
	The fact is, folks, they have the tightest gun control laws.
	This man is suggesting, he's suggesting that if the federal government passes the same laws that have already been passed by New York, that this will somehow stop guns from appearing on the streets of America.
	I'm sure, I'm sure that you can see the absurdity of this.
	If the existing laws can't do it, what makes him think that repealing the Second Article and Amendment to the Constitution will do it?
	What makes any of you think that you can do it?
	I continue.
	The fact is that these youngsters were murdered in cold blood in a school.
	The fact is that the young man who pulled out the gun and shot them has no fear of being caught and no concern about snuffing out human life and taking his punishment subsequently.
	Mr. Owens, are you telling me that the liberal view that the criminal is not guilty of a crime and should not be punished is now beginning to bother you?
	I doubt it very seriously.
	You're using your rhetoric as a ploy to pull some sympathy from those who don't understand what it is that you're really saying.
	And I continue, in addition to the two persons being shot that day, their lives being snuffed out immediately, another young person who was a friend of theirs went home and with a gun committed suicide, took his own life.
	Mr. Speaker, in the space of five days in New York City there were about ten shootings.
	About five people were killed with guns.
	That is, in New York City, which is highly visible.
	They got a lot of publicity and all the world knows about it.
	But what my colleagues do not know about is that all around the country, in both rural communities and suburban communities, young people are taking their lies, and taking each other's lies, in large numbers.
	We know about the mass murders, when automatic weapons are being taken into post office buildings, and people getting revenge for various reasons have snuffed out the life of dozens of people.
	This is another lie, and a blatant lie, ladies and gentlemen.
	None of those people were using automatic weapons.
	They throw the term automatic weapons around to scare people.
	An automatic weapon is a machine gun.
	You pull the trigger and it keeps firing until you let go of the trigger.
	In case you don't know.
	They like to scare people with that.
	The truth is, you're safer if someone is shooting a machine gun at you, an automatic weapon, than if they are taking steady aim with a single shot rifle.
	This is amazing.
	Absolutely amazing.
	Mr. Speaker, I've been invited to serve as a moderator for a panel, a teleconference entitled, Challenges and Choices, Violence in the Schools.
	This teleconference is sponsored by the National Association of Secondary School Principals, Urban Services Office.
	It is going to take place next Wednesday.
	The brochure that was sent to me starts as follows.
	It relates to incidents where young people were murdered or young people were guilty of murdering people in schools.
	In Pinellas County, Florida, for example, an assistant high school principal was killed and another administrator and teacher at that school injured by students who were armed with stolen revolvers.
	You understand, folks?
	He wants to pass a resolution, a resolution, ladies and gentlemen, to repeal the second article in amendment to the Constitution and he's citing as examples all this ridiculous baloney.
	And I continue.
	These guys stole, stole their weapons.
	Stolen revolvers, ladies and gentlemen.
	In Garden, Kansas, two teachers and a junior high school principal were killed by a 14-year-old boy with an automatic rifle.
	That's another lie.
	He did not have an automatic rifle.
	Very few people in this entire country have an automatic rifle, and I'm going to tell you right now that no crime, no crime is on the books.
	that has ever been committed with an automatic rifle.
	Do you understand that, folks?
	If you don't believe it, go look it up.
	These are buzzwords to scare you.
	They're blatant, blatant lies.
	I continue.
	My colleague did not hear any headlines about this, and there are numerous other incidents that are taking place all across the country that we do not read the headlines.
	We do not see them on television.
	They are not in New York City with the media present to publicize it.
	But it is happening all over.
	The culture of the gun, the culture of violence.
	That's another blatant lie, ladies and gentlemen.
	The media jumps on every incident involving any kind of a firearms weapon, and this scumbag knows it.
	He knows it.
	The fact is, if you don't see it in the media, it did not happen.
	Do you understand?
	It did not happen.
	He goes on to say, I think he's referring to the culture of violence that has
	taken hold in this generation, which we could call the Wham-Bo generation, because they are fed by films and videos that
	glorify violence.
	I agree with that.
	The Rambo generation marches on.
	Marches on to the tune, the Pied Piper, Bobo Gritz, to the shock of having two young people murdered in high school is appropriate.
	And I want to break off here to remind you folks that the movies Rambo were not patterned after Bobo Gritz.
	I have talked to the people who wrote the scripts of those movies.
	I know where the stories came from.
	Had nothing to do with Bobo Gritz, in fact.
	And if you saw any of the Rambo movies, Rambo was an enlisted man.
	And if you had any brains at all, you saw that the Colonel was the bad guy.
	The Colonel was the bad guy who betrayed his own men, time after time, after movie after movie.
	Rambo was an enlisted man.
	In his first movie, he suffered from Post Traumatic Delayed Stress Syndrome.
	Bobo Gritz is a Lieutenant Colonel.
	If the movies Rambo were patterned after Bobo Grintz, then he is indeed the bad guy.
	How do you like that, you Bobo-heads?
	See, Rush Limbaugh has his ditto-heads, and Bobo Grintz has his Bobo-heads.
	I continue, Mr. Speaker, it means that we are one step closer to the collapse of civilization.
	Now he's saying that the entire civilization is going to collapse.
	If he doesn't pass this resolution repealing the Second Particle Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
	Now, do you know why Socialism sucks?
	It's because Socialists suck.
	They're very, very deceptive people.
	Almost every other word of their life is a lie.
	And yes, I meant what I said.
	Out of their life.
	Life, folks.
	One step closer to the collapse of our society, and I tell you that the moment the guns disappear from the hands of Americans, that will signal the collapse of our society and the rise of a one-world totalitarian socialist government who will bring the Grim Reaper across the land, and if you think Stalin murdered a lot of people, you just wait and see what these people Have in store for you.
	He says, what will happen next?
	We will have young people carrying guns into churches and murdering people in churches.
	It would be another step closer to the collapse of civilization as we know it.
	Well, the facts are, folks, is these people went down to a church and killed all the young people who didn't have any guns.
	Simply because their parents legally owned weapons The right of which is guaranteed by the second article in amendment to the Constitution.
	I'm talking about the massacre that occurred in Waco, Texas, conducted by World Socialism.
	He goes on, What are we doing to protect our youth from senseless killing?
	What are we doing as adults, as parents, and most important, those people who are most responsible for how our society works?
	What are we doing as legislators?
	What an ego!
	He really believes that he's most responsible for how our society works, folks.
	The truth is, is the legislature is the most responsible for the destruction of our society in recent years.
	It has not been fulfilling its mandate at all.
	They're not reflecting the desires of their peers.
	Isn't this amazing?
	Are we doing all we can?
	Or are we whimpishly bowing to a gun lobby and not a committee?
	Civilized actions to be taken in order to control this manufacture, the sale and distribution of guns.
	What is different?
	What is the difference between our society and other industrialized societies?
	Well, mister, mister, oh my gosh, what an invitation!
	Mr. Owens, this is incredible!
	You don't know the difference between our society and other industrialized societies.
	Is that why you are trying so quickly to destroy it?
	You don't understand that our society was the biggest, the best, the most promising,
	gave us the most opportunity, we had the most freedom, we were the most affluent in the
	entire world, possessed the greatest technology and the penultimate of the military might
	that had ever existed upon the face of this earth, and you are asking, what is the difference
	between our society and other industrialized societies?
	.
	Who are the fools, Mr. Owens, who sent you to Congress?
	You see, it really isn't your fault.
	Somebody mistook you for someone with some brains, instead of recognizing you for the mental patient that you should be.
	And what are you people in New York doing about this twit?
	How do you care?
	Do you even understand what's happening?
	Do you realize that if everybody in New York City carried a gun, the crime statistics would drop overnight and there would not be another citizen killed by one of these creeps?
	No.
	No, that's attributing too much, too much reasoning power to the sheeple.
	The truth is, the only places where these things continuously occur are where the criminals know that the citizens do not possess weapons.
	The highest crime statistics in the country are in the places where they have the tightest, most restrictive gun laws, and where they have legislation which prohibits the ownership of any type of firearms.
	The crime rate is out of sight far exceeds any other city, county, or state in this nation.
	I'm talking, Mr. Owens, about the city where you live, Washington, D.C., where you have passed just such legislation, taking the guns away from the people because they have no rights under the Constitution.
	And we can all see that it doesn't work, but still the stupid sheeple cry, cry to have the guns taken off the streets, believing that this is going to solve our problems.
	No, folks.
	Holding parents responsible and accountable would begin to solve our problems.
	Restoring discipline to the schools.
	Thank you.
	Bye-bye.
	Bye-bye.
	Thank you.
	It would just be a beginning to solving our problems.
	And he goes on to say, Japan or Germany or Great Britain or France.
	Why is it these industrialized societies have a far lower set of casualties as a result of gunplay?
	Why is it that it goes way, way down, the comparisons with Great Britain and Germany and Japan?
	Well, ladies and gentlemen, there is no comparison.
	You see, they've taken the authority of the way from the parents in this country and out of the schools.
	If you go to Japan, Germany, or Great Britain, or France, you will see that the children
	receive the proper discipline in the home and in the school.
	And in Japan, discipline, folks, is more than a way of life.
	Thank you.
	It is almost a religion.
	Now, I doubt if Mr. Owen knows that, because he's probably never been out of the country except to go to Washington, D.C., and then back to New York.
	But I've lived in Japan, I've been to France, I've been to Germany, and I've been to Great Britain.
	They also have a long, long history of tradition, of respect for their elders and their peers, something that's being quickly In this country, we are exposed to hour after hour after hour of violence.
	If you take a small child and raise him in that environment, or her, they begin to believe that that is the way that their problems should be solved, and that is the way that the world conducts its business.
	The truth, as we all know, is quite different.
	We also know, ladies and gentlemen, that the statistics tell a quite different story than what this man, Mr. Owens, is propounding to his fellow congressmen.
	He goes on to say that these societies are able and willing to control the manufacture, distribution and sale of guns, and this society is not.
	That's true, folks.
	In Japan, Germany, Great Britain and France, None of the law-abiding citizens have weapons, except in some instances hunting weapons—shotguns, small-caliber rifles—which are registered and are strictly controlled.
	But the criminals, you see, have every type of gun that you can imagine, and they always will.
	And that, dear sheeple, is the truth.
	He goes on to say, the savage, barbaric behavior of a young man who whips out a pistol and
	shoots dead two students in a high school is horrendous.
	These pauses are caused, folks, because I'm having a problem with the irrepressible urge
	to cough.
	Don't go away, we're going to take a little break.
	It's a beautiful day.
	♪♪♪ ♪♪♪
	♪♪♪ ♪♪♪
	land of the free and the home of the brave?
	Till all our strife are won, from the land of the free and the home of the brave?
	♪ Every air will be holy ♪ Oh, say does that star-spangled banner yet wave, o'er the
	Oh, say does that star-spangled banner yet wave, o'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?
	While the storms of yore are across the sea, let us swear our allegiance to the land of the free.
	For the land of the free and the home of the brave?
	For the land of the free and the home of the brave?
	God, our God, stand beside her, guide her through the night with the light from above.
	From the mountains to the valleys, through the oceans, high to low,
	God, our God, stand beside her, guide her through the night with the light from above.
	God, our God, stand beside her, guide her through the night with the light from above.
	Well, I'm going to have to take it easy.
	I hate to have to take it easy because some things, you can't see me, so the voice has to convey what I'm trying to get across, what I feel.
	And if I can't do that, then the message gets a little distorted, folks.
	But I'm going to try.
	Without breaking anything or straining anything to continue and take it easy here.
	See if I can manage that.
	And if I start feeling that familiar tickle again, you're going to hear a little bit of music again while I sip a little orange juice and suck on the lozenges.
	So I'll take some of the I'm going to go ahead, instead of reading all of this, I'm going to read some of the pertinent points.
	He says, Failing to respond, the members of Congress and any other state legislatures or city legislatures are equally as savage and equally as barbaric if they do not take steps to use their power to control the manufacturer's sale and distribution of guns.
	I say that if they do, They're traitors.
	Traitors.
	You see, because if the second article in amendment is correct, if it is correct, ladies and gentlemen, and I know that it is, because all I have to do is look at history.
	If it is correct, and it means what it says, a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, do you understand what that says?
	It says a free state cannot exist Now, state does not mean the federal government, ladies and gentlemen.
	State means just that, the state of Arizona, the state of California, the state of Illinois.
	Now, state does not mean the federal government, ladies and gentlemen.
	State means just that, the state of Arizona, the state of California, the state of Illinois.
	And all you have to do is look in the definition of terms pertaining to the Constitution to
	find out.
	you Listen to what our forefathers said.
	Read what they wrote.
	You see, they never intended the federal government to become a state.
	It is, in fact, unconstitutional for Washington, D.C.
	to ever become a state, yet they're pushing for it.
	And if it becomes a reality, it's just another proof that there is no Constitution, ladies A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.
	They're saying that without a well-regulated militia, no free state can exist.
	And to guarantee it, they give us the right to keep and bear arms.
	And they don't give it to the government.
	They don't give the right to the National Guard or to the military.
	In fact, all of these things are illegal under the Constitution.
	Were you aware of that?
	And that's another proof.
	You see, our forefathers put into place mechanisms to prevent the United States from ever having a standing army.
	In fact, the only legal military force that exists in the United States of America under the Constitution where it, in effect, is the United States Navy.
	All other standing armies and military forces, no matter what they're called, are illegal.
	Under the Constitution they are, in fact, unconstitutional.
	The militia, according to the law and according to the definition of our forefathers, is the whole people.
	The law breaks it down further and says all able-bodied men and boys were able to carry and fire a weapon between the ages of seventeen and forty-three.
	How about that?
	Does that get your dander up?
	See, most of you have never heard these things before, never knew them.
	I know that most of you can read, but you've never looked.
	You've never bothered to find out.
	It's amazing that the things we pretend to care most about, we know nothing about.
	Don't even make the slightest effort to find out about.
	That bothers me.
	Bothers me a lot.
	An awful lot.
	He says, quote, I have offered this resolution to repeal the Second Amendment very seriously, unquote.
	And he goes on, and the need to control the sale, manufacture, and distribution of guns in our society.
	Polls have clearly shown that 75 to 85% of the people want some form of gun control, but we do not have gun control, except to a very limited extent.
	That's not true, folks.
	85% of the people do not want gun control.
	That is a lie.
	But one might be tempted to think that if one were to read the papers every day and listen to the news on television and watch the silly, stupid lies.
	You see?
	There is no poll that has ever shown that 85% of the people want some form of gun control.
	This man is a consummate liar.
	And for those of you listening in New York, he represents you.
	Doesn't that bother you?
	If he lies about this, he'll lie about everything.
	The truth is, all socialists lie continuously all the time.
	That's the only way they can win, folks.
	On that, Rush Limbaugh is absolutely correct.
	Absolutely correct.
	he called that shot absolutely, perfectly, 100% right.
	["The Star-Spangled Banner"]
	It's a beautiful thing.
	the the
	♪♪ ♪♪
	the ♪♪
	♪♪

▲