Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

much could be done which would multiply its dangerous potentials from the American point of view.

For example, it is widely proposed that the sole revision which we would propose or accept is the elimination of the present veto power by members of the Security Council. The arguments advanced for this revision seem plausible enough at first glance-the fact that the U. S. S. R. has used the veto on numerous occasions, whereas we have not, which would make it appear that the veto is a Soviet weapon of which they would be deprived by the simple method of removing the veto power entirely.

This argument, however, fails to take into account the fact that all othe nations with the exception of Liberia already have an effective veto authority in their own constitutions, which require formal ratification of all U. N. agreements before they become effective; whereas the United States has no such protection. Our courts have ruled that executive agreements, which need no ratification, have the force and effect of treaties; and that treaties and/or executive agreements, under our Constitution, supersede our own internal laws and even the Constitution itself.

Thus the existing veto power which we possess in the present Charter of the U. N. is the only effective veto authority of the United States. Although we have not yet used it, therefore, our right to use it must never be surrendered.

4. It is clear, however, that the exercise of our veto power in the U. N. at the international level would affect only external affairs, but would not be effective as to the application of U. N. treaties, executive agreements, or other covenants, to the internal laws of the United States.

For this reason, it is our view that of far greater importance than the consideration of any possible revision of the Charter of the United Nations, is the enactment of the proposed Bricker amendment to the Constitution, which would restore to the United States Constitution the supremacy needed for the preservation of a free and independent Republic. Respectfully submitted.

(Mrs.) MILDRED MACHADO, Coordinator.

AUBURN, CALIF., March 26, 1955.

Re U. N. hearing, San Francisco, April 9, 1955.
Hon. WALTER F. GEORGE,

Chairman Foreign Relations Subcommittee,
Care of Mr. Robert J. Dolan, Executive Secretary,

Mayor of San Francisco,

San Francisco, Calif.

DEAR SENATOR GEORGE: Petition of redress by Mrs. G. S. Malcolm (Marion), 133 Olive Street, Auburn, Calif. Am chairman of North California Minute Women, United States of America, Inc; member of Auburn Republican Women; and charter member of the Emigrant Trail Chapter, DAR, Auburn.

Corinthians II, Chapter 6, verse 14: "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?"

Quote from Stand on What Is Right With America, by Emma Dunn :

* * *

"But the central principle of the Constitution—that no one is above the law, nor beneath the law, that all citizens are 'equal before equal law'-is derived directly from the Bible. In Leviticus 19:15, it is provided: 'Ye shall do not unrighteous judgment thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honor, the person of the mighty.' The Master's commandment, "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.' is enforced by the first provision of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution. The things of the spirit: the things that are God's,' are placed by the Constitution beyond the power of the Government to seize, suppress, control, or tamper with. They are sacred and secure from Caesar,' but only as we awake and use them. Each one may think himself unimportant, but this is not true, and never can be in a true Republic. Each one is part of the whole. Perhaps you know that our Constitution provides not a democracy, but a Republic. You will not find the word 'democracy' in the Constitution; in the Declaration of Independence; in Lincoln's Gettysburg speech; or in Washington's Farewell Address: and in our Allegiance to the Flag, we do not say 'to the democracy for which it stands,' but 'to the "Republic" for which it stands'."

Mr. Frank Holman, former president of the American Bar Association, and Senator John W. Bricker of Ohio have spearheaded the drive for a constitutional amendment necessitated by the advent of the U. N. and the United Nations Charter, ratified July 28, 1945, which was adopted as a treaty which, according to article VI of our Constitution, becomes the supreme law of the land. As pointed out by Mr. Holman, the danger arises because of the fundamental difference between our constitutional conception and the structural nature of the United Nations Charter, unholy notions. That difference is that American citizenship rights are not given to the people by Constitution or law, but are consider to be inalienable-God-given-and possessed by the people before we ever had a constitution for the purpose of keeping our Government, any government, from interfering with those rights.

Treaties, as the Covenant on Human Rights and the Genocide would nullify our rights as set forth in the Bill of Rights. World-government schemes as set forth by the world parliamentarians; Atlantic Union committee; United World Federalists; American Association for United Nations, and others are in direct conflict with basic Americanism and our Constitution.

On February 9, 1955, Senator Estes Kefauver, Tennessee, reintroduced his Senate Concurrent Resolution 12 and in the House are House Concurrent Resolution 62, 73 through 80 and 84 for Atlantic Union or Federal Union which reads as follows: "Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that it should be a fundamental objective of the foreign policy of the United States to support and strengthen the United Nations and to seek its development into a world federation open to all nations with defined and limited powers adequate to preserve peace and prevent aggression through enactment, interpretation, and enforcement of world law."

"The democracies must learn that the world is now too small for the rigid concepts of national sovereignty that developed in a time when the nations were self-sufficient and self-dependent for their own well-being and safety." (italic added). From Crusade in Europe-Dwight David Eisenhower, page 477. The Constitution directs that the President shall take the following oath or affirmation: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." (Custom decrees the use of the words 'So help me God" at the end of the oath when taken by the President-elect, his left hand on the Bible for the duration of the oath, with his right hand slightly raised.) The judicial oath is similar.

The Yalta secret agreement, dictated by the godless Kremlin, formed the basis of the U. N. Charter with Hiss, as one of the architects. The post of Secretary of Security Council Affairs was made a permanent Russian post at Yalta. Russia is a permanent member of the Security Council and Soviet officers are members of the military staff committee that makes United Nations strategy, as per article 47, paragraph 2. Russia has, with her satellites, 5 votes to our 1. Does the strengthening or revising of the United Nations Charter mean full and complete conversion of the United Nations-alias UNholy Notions-into a world government with the forfeiture of our sovereignty? Is this a plot to supplant a government of law by a government by men?

If so, then our past and present Presidents, with some of our duly elected legislatures, who support world-government schemes, committed treason, after having sworn, on oath, to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution? Subsquent to Committee on Appropriations, United States Senate, 82d Congress, 2d session on H. R. 7289 (testimony of Major General Lowry), Public Law 495 was passed which states:

"None of the funds appropriated in this title shall be used

"(1) to pay the United States contribution to any international organization which engages in the direct or indirect promotion of the principle of world citizenship;

"(2) for the promotion, direct or indirect, of the principle or doctrine of one-world government, or one-world citizenship."

Why is it this law is not enforced to outlaw the U. N. Charter and such agencies as UNESCO? Since this was voted into law, how can our Congress vote funds for support of the United Nations and agencies?

My suggestions to the subcommittee on changes or amendments to the UNholy Notions Charter which would be totally in the interest of the United States and world peace are as follows:

1. Turn the U. N. modern tower of Babel into apartments for the "underprivileged."

2. Scrap the U. N. Charter and celebrate the U. S. Day once again.

3. Deport all fifth amendment employees of the U. N. back to Russia.

4. Demand the release of our 944 prisoners of war and the 11 United States flyers in Red China.

5. Sever diplomatic relations with the Kremlin and regain the respect of our former allies-particularly the Nationalist Chinese.

6. Retain control of the nuclear weapons; U. N. control means Communist control and subjugation of all freedom-loving peoples.

7. Repudiate all secret agreements.

8. Rout all one-worlders, Socialists, internationalists, and Communists.

9. Give direct assistance to the enslaved in Communist-held countries.

10. Return the Government of America back to Congress.

11. Reinstate the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as the law of the land; repeal the 16th amendment; protect States' rights.

12. Reinstate the dignity of the Supreme Court on the side of America.

13. Pass the Bricker amendment; repudiate the status of forces treaty. 14. Revoke American citizenship of all U. N. employees who take the U. N. oath. 15. Make no amendments to "strengthen" the U. N. Charter, which ultimately means world government.

All our acquiescence to coexistence and the cold war is handing the freedomloving peoples of the world over to the Communist-dominated Kremlin by default. The subcommittee could better use their time and the taxpayers' money in saving a sovereign America rather than strengthening the Charter of the U. N. under the smokescreen of peace.

Thank you for this privilege to express my views since I am doing so as an individual and an American housewife and mother.

Mrs. G. S. MALCOLM.

God forbid that the U. N. spiderwork rag fly any place at any time in this our beloved land.

SACRAMENTO, CALIF., April 4, 1955.

Hon. WALTER F. GEORGE,

Chairman, Foreign Relations Subcommittee,

City Hall, San Francisco, Calif.

DEAR SENATOR GEORGE: Are these United Nations Charter hearings for the purpose of learning the sentiments of the people of the various states at the so-called grassroots?

If that is true, it is a far cry from what will really happen.

It is now April 4, and the meeting is scheduled for April 9. To date, there is no mention of it in either of our two Sacramento daily papers which serve the large superior California area. How then is the general public to even know about it in time to prepare an expression? Then too, 12 copies of anything is not usually within the possible realm of the housewife, the farmer, or the general public.

It would appear that only a few who receive special notice or learn by accident as I did, that there is a meeting called in San Francisco.

Will that be a grassroots expression?

In the first place, the United Nations Charter was written and its provisions particularly shaped in the most part by the Russian Communists and a certain Alger Hiss, since convicted in our courts for perjury when he denied sending secret material to the Soviet Union representatives.

Is anyone naive enough to believe that he would do otherwise than conceive and set up provisions to further Soviet goals?

These are some of the facts that strengthen that belief.

1. The United Nations Charter was written to apply as a treaty. This was aimed at the United States since it seems to be understood that a treaty can be construed to supersede our Constitution, though our Founding Fathers had no intention of subverting our own sovereignty. In view of the fact that ours is the only member nation of the United Nations whose Constitution could be superseded, this was not accidental.

Let us withdraw while we can. It will further world peace. Posterity will hold us to account.

2. The International Court of Justice of the United Nations would take from the courts of this country their traditional powers.

Article 36 of the International Court of Justice provides "The jurisdiction of the court in all legal disputes concerning: (a) the interpretation of a treaty; (b) any question of international law; (c) the existence of any fact which, if established (and who has found the Communists or the Soviet truthful in boasts or propaganda), would constitute a breach of any international obligation.

This is in direct violation of the Constitution of the United States, section 2, article III, "The judicial power shall extend to all cases in law and equity, arising under the Constitution, the law of the United States; or treaties made or which shall be made, under their authority."

Do we want our Constitution violated and our courts eliminated from their jurisdiction?

Definitely not. In the name of peace and liberty let us withdraw. Posterity will hold us to account.

3. The people at the grassroots level have not been informed of the real objects of the United Nations Charter. If they knew or understood they would arise in indignation.

Our press is generally most remiss in putting forth anything about the United Nations Charter except its purported peace objective. This should be to their everlasting discredit. "Man's judgment is no better than his information" is so true.

In the case of the United Nations Charter, the information has been sketchy, apparently with a definite plan for the withholding of critical data.

Certainly we all want peace but not at the price of liberty as we understand it in the United States. Shall we forget Patrick Henry's "give me liberty or give me death"?

What about slave labor and prison camps in the so-called liberated satellite countries?

4. A world government which would eliminate national sovereignty is the last thing the people of our country desire. Is not the United Nations Charter written to do just that? How many grassroots people have the faintest idea of such a deal? It is carefully concealed in general newspaper articles.

People in various walks of life refuse to believe the facts. "Our Congress would never allow that," is the feeling. They have the "It can't happen here" confidence in the men they trust to hold intact for us all our traditional liberty, and the sovereignty of our own country.

How could a one-world government preserve the individual freedom and liberty as we understand it when the vast bulk of the world population do not yet understand what we mean in this country by individual freedom and liberty? I should like to see some process of educating the world masses in these concepts but not at the desperate risk of losing what we have achieved in this country.

Congress should then do some retracting and eliminate the dangers of the United Nations Charter and all its agencies, particularly UNESCO.

The United States is not an aggressor. Today it is being destroyed from within and without.

We should withdraw from the present U. N. and remove it from our country. That would indeed be the opinion of the grassroot citizens if they knew the situation and had the facilities to make known their wishes.

Freed of the dangers of the U. N. we would be in a better position to help promote peace.

The U. N. has failed to bring peace to the world. There is more distrust than

ever.

Today there is fighting in many parts of the world, undoubtedly kept alive by Communist activities. It is their avowed intention for world revolution. The U. N. has failed to bring our wrongly imprisoned boys out of Red China. The U. N. has failed to keep peace between Israel and the Arab States. The U. N. has failed to prevent the Indonesian and Korean armistice agreement from being broken by the Communists.

How can we be so gullible as to believe the high-sounding aims that are fed to us when the avowed intent of Russian communism is to revolutionize the world into a Communist state? She does not keep covenants nor does she intend to, unless they suit her purpose.

We all want world friendliness, brotherhood, and peace, but not a one-world government.

The very least we can do immediately is to eliminate the U. N. as a treaty, then proceed to withdraw as fast as possible.

The Bricker amendment should be passed as quickly as possible. How can anyone object to it when it is only a means of protecting ourselves and our children?

We are proud of the heritage of liberty our forefathers gave us. Can we do less for posterity? We will be held to account by posterity and justly so. I wish this letter to be printed in full in the record, please.

Sincerely yours,

(Mrs.) MARJORY K. LAFORGE.

STATEMENT BY VIRGINIA S. COLEMAN

Ten years ago this month the United Nations was organized in San Francisco. It was an experiment in hope-hope that Soviet Russia and the western nations could and would cooperate in establishing and maintaining a just peace. That hope was based on a fundamental misconception as to the nature and aims of international communism.

Had the leaders of the Western World bothered to read what Communist leaders from Marx, Lenin, and Stalin in Europe to Foster and Tractenberg in the United States have written, they might have realized that peace to the Communist means the subjection of all nations to a world Communist dictatorship, and the destruction of the free society-for these objectives have been stated again and again in the most explicit language.

Subsequent events since the organization of the United Nations, have only served to confirm the fact that the Soviet Government has never had and does not now have any intention of cooperating with the free wrld. Sworn testimony in the reports of congressinal cmmittees reveals that

1. Communists were ordered to infiltrate postwar French military establishments.

2. Soviet representatives on the Allied Control Commission in Germany applied all means available to sabotage the work of the Commission from the time of its establishment.

3. Soviet economic officers in Germany were amazed at the naivete of Americans in transmitting honest and conscientious information on the Western Zone of Germany to the Soviets. The Soviet did not reciprocate, or if they did, the information transmitted was false and misleading.

4. Soviet espionage apparatus attempted to penetrate and subvert the military organization and the foreign policy of the United States.

5. Practically every Soviet representative in the United States is engaged in espionage of one sort or another.

6. Soviet Russia uses her position in the United Nations to launch subversive propaganda and for liaison between foreign Communists and the Communist party of the United States.

7. Tons of propaganda printed in Moscow enters the United States ports daily.

The sum total of these activities has been to increase the prestige and vocal range of communism in all its evil work, bring about the enslavement of 600 million people by the Soviet Union, and contributed considerably to the suffocation of freedom movements in the satellite countries. This should do much to explain why the United Nations has not been able to

1. Stop aggression.

2. Stop cold war and subversion the world around.

3. Limit armaments or contribute anything to peacetime application of atomic power.

4. Contribute anything to world economic stability, nor to the security of foreign capital investment and development.

The one outstanding accomplishment of the United Nations has been to breathe the breath of life into pagan communism, give it intimate daily access to all the political and military secrets of the world. The United Nations Charter, as we see it now, was a gigantic bear trap-a carefully wrought scheme to clothe communism in the robes of respectability and give it a place at the world council table.

If there is any hope for the ideals of the United Nations, that hope lies in a new organization in which Alger Hiss and his ilk can have no creative part-and without the Soviet Union or any other Communist state included in its membership.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »