Freedom-Fighters Forum

The Constitutional Broadside
V1 N9 A PUBLICATION OF THE TWENTY FIRST CENTURY COUNCIL
Hosea 4:6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.

GENOCIDE: A new name for an old crime

Hitler and his henchmen murdered over six million persons who were called “Jews” Soviet dictators butchered even more millions of Kulaks and decimated Ukrainian Catholic and Orthodox churches by torture, by planned, man-made famine and by deportation.

These were extermination programs. The object was to destroy or so badly weaken groups of people within a nation that they would cease to exist as distinct cultures.

Such mass brutality by insane, power hungry rulers has been so commonplace for so long that most people simply ignore its reality. Some thirty million Chinese were murdered in a decade and the event hardly drew sub-topic space in the average American newspaper.

NOT EVERYONE IS ASLEEP.

Once in a hundred years or so some lone person may awaken his faculties and recognize that something is amiss. It may be with the help of god, but he sees a problem. He thinks about it. He is a man of action; a do-er rather than just a dreamer. He looks around to see who is working for a solution. More often than not, he discovers that most folks, if they see the problem at all, just grumble and complain. They are usually content to say, “Why don’t they do something about that?”

One of those rare, special men lived in Poland during the campaigns of Hitler and Stalin. He saw the butchery of millions all around him. He waded in gore that flowed freely from the broken hearts of his countrymen. From the depths of the agony of his bleeding nation, he looked ahead of him down the stream of time and saw the possibility of a better day for man; a day when the murder of a whole people would be outlawed as a crime against humanity.

DR. RAPHAEL LEMKIN was that great and noble man. He saw the challenge. He went to work on it. He wrapped his mind around the problem and dedicated his whole like to the task of preventing the mass murder of innocent groups of people because they were “different”

Dr. Lemkin recognized that it is a crime before God to kill a whole people. He thought up a name to fit the crime. The name he gave it was one that he coined himself. He had to make it up because in all the languages of the world there was not a single word that properly symbolized, or named the crime. He created the word, Genocide. Its roots are in the Greek and Latin, meaning. Roughly, to kill life. Dr. Lemkin committed his life and soul from that day on to help the world understand the problem of saving the life of special peoples; to insure man’s rights of survival and liberty in specially cultured groups within a nation.

PEACE, PEACE, PEACE

Towards the end of WWII almost everyone said they wanted “peace on earth” They were sick of war. They said war should be outlawed. The cry went up for men to gather around the council tables and structure a new world that would be based on better codes of international law. That seemed too many to be a worthy goal.

During the 1940’s activists connected with The United Nations engaged in a strenuous effort to restructure governments of nations and to change the process of governing peoples around the world.

Many of these people did then, and surviving ones still do, consider themselves to be noble and enlighten leaders. Others were concerned only with grabbing for themselves more and more power over the minds and bodies of men.

THE UNITED NATIONS was designed originally in the minds of people who believed in world-government; a one-world organization that would over-ride, and eventually control, all nations on earth.

It was to have a structure of government that would include a law-making body, an administrative structure, a world court, and an international army, or “police force” that would compel obedience to a code of international law.

Many people thought that The United Nations concept was man’s last best hope for world-wide peace through international law.

Others, some of them wolves in sheep’s clothing, saw in The United Nations idea and structure an avenue they could follow that would guide them to world domination and control for their own personal advantage; an open road to world dictatorship.

TWISTED SEMANTICS

All of these forces, those favoring liberty and those working to create one world government, use the same language to speak of peace. They use the same words in their speeches but each of them gives his own meanings to the words he speaks.

The net result is that while a dialogue goes on using a common set of worlds every man tends to hear his own thoughts coming out of the language he listens to. He hears what he wants to have spoken. When he speaks, he expects others to react as if they were hearing and accepting the concepts he holds in his own mind. But they hear from his words only what is in their own minds before he speaks.

THE UNITED NATIONS

The whole coterie of United Nations enthusiasts realize that the existing laws of nations presently constituted stand as a bar against accomplishing their ideal of world government. They have used, and continue to advocate every conceivable method of bringing about the changes they want.

In the early stages of developing The United Nations, activists seized upon the idea of changing laws by means of treaties. They saw that by this method they could bring about many changes in our laws that could not be accomplished by constitutional legislative methods.

For this purpose, a special type of “treaty” was conceived. It was to be world-wide in nature and would be joined by many nations. Instead of calling it a “treaty” it was to be called a “convention”

Many such “treaties” or “conventions”, such as UNESCO, have been put into effect by supporters of One-World Government through means of The United Nations.

THE GENOCIDE CONVENTION

The Genocide convention is one of many treaties that have been offered to the nations of the world through The United Nations. It certainly expresses a noble objective: The outlawing of programs of destruction designed to eliminate groups of people thought by other groups to be undesirable.

It seems to us that no right-thinking person could object to such a goal. We must favor allowing grow unmolested any group of people anyplace in the world so long as they restrain themselves from molesting us.

We believe that the Laws of God already express both the rights of man and the best method of securing those rights. Unfortunately, Stan is loose in the world. He has, for what is to most men, an incomprehensible power to express views of law that are against the Laws of God. He is the greatest of all geniuses in the art of taking hold of a good think and twisting it for a bad purpose.

It is our objective to suggest what our research indicates are the good and the bad- the constitutional and the unconstitutional – aspect of The Genocide convention.

This whole issue is an extremely complex matter; much too detailed and extensive to cover fully in this paper. At best we can no more than hope we will have introduced the subject and pointed to some of the major problems needing resolution.

We must rely upon the goodness and the intelligence of others to join in the battle for the right.

UN-CONSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS OF THE CONVENTION

We reproduce here the first nine Articles of the 29 Articles of The Genocide convention. These are the significant ones in the treaty. We list them as UN-CONSTITUTIONAL. If they are ratified in their present form, they will become the law of our land.

As such, they would revolutionize our present form of government.

Many “authorities” argue that this is a ridiculous charge. On the other hand, a great many others of equal qualifications say it is true.

In any event, before we adopt this treaty, wouldn’t you want to be certain of what it actually says and what it really means? If you don’t like what it truly does say, wouldn’t you want the Senate to make reservations and exceptions on those points that reduce our constitutional liberty?

We have briefed Article I and the introduction of Article II for lack of space. Nothing significant is omitted.

THE GENOCIDE CONVENTION

Article I defines Genocide as an international crime. Article II lists specific crimes that are “outlawed” as follows.:

(a) Killing members of the group
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
( c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

Article III

The following acts shall be punishable:
(a) Genocide;
(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide
( c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide
(d) Attempt to commit genocide complicity in genocide

Article IV

Person committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.

Article V
The contracting parties undertake to enact, in accordance with their respective constitutions, the necessary legislation to give effect to the provisions of the present convention and, in particular to provide effective penalties for persons guilty of genocide or of any of the other acts enumerated in article III

Article VI
Persons charged with genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be tried by a competent tribunal of the State in the territory of which the act was committed, or by such international penal tribunal as may have jurisdiction with respect to those contracting parties which shall have accepted its jurisdiction

Article VII
Genocide and the other acts enumerated in article II shall not be considered as political crimes for the purpose of extradition. The contracting parties pledge themselves in such cases to grant extradition in accordance with their laws and treaties in force.

Article VIII
Any contracting party may call upon the competent organs of the United Nations to take such action under the charter of the United Nations as they consider appropriate for the prevention and suppression of acts of genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III.

Article IX
Disputes between the contracting parties relating to the interpretation, application or fulfillment of the present convention, including those relating to the responsibility of a State for genocide or for any of the other acts enumerated in Article III, shall be submitted to the international courts of justice at the request of any of the parties to the dispute.

THE LAW OF NATIONS

The constitution refers to the law of nations without defining what the term means.

Article I, Sec. 8 Clause 10 says, “Congress shall have the power to define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas and offenses against the law of nations.”

In this way the constitution implies either the need for or the existence of laws between nations. Our courts have not denied the existence of such law but have instead recognized and acted pursuant to such laws.

The rules governing the conduct of our nation in its relationships with other nations would fall into the category of THE LAW OF NATIONS.

TREATIES

So far as The United States is concerned, The Law of Nations is created by the process of making treaties with other nations. A treaty is a formal agreement duly ratified by the government of two or more nations.

Article II, Sec. 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution says, “The President shall have the power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided that two-thirds of the Senators present concur.”

Anything that has to do with the affairs of our Nation outside its borders is a proper subject to be covered by treaties.

Thus, The Law of Nations was left subject to very significant control of State Legislators because of their control fo Senators who in turn could say no to the President. Hence, the citizens had a significant voice in the creation of The Law of Nations.

THE POWER OF TREATIES

Article VI, Clause 2 says, “The 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 and judges of every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”

THE CONSTITUTION vs. TREATY LAW: Many powerful arguments have been advanced which claim that treaties over-ride and change the Constitution if they are in conflict with its provisions, Eminent “authorities” on Constitutional Law do not all agree on this issue.

On the other hand, some Supreme Court Decisions seem to indicate that in certain cases a head-on collision between treaty law and constitutional law is to be resolved in favor of the constitution.

However, Congress has debated this question in great depth without resolving it. The Connolly, Bricker and Vandenberg “reservations” were attempts by eminent and able Senators to place restrictions upon treaty law when it might conflict with the Constitution. In spite of their efforts, none of these, or many others who have attempted it, have won a clear victory over internationalist viewpoints that want to leave the gate open for vast changes in The Law of Nations.

Besides these real problems, the history of many court battles on this debate suggests extreme caution be exercised in passing treaties. This is particularly important today because of the growing tendency of courts to rule by a relatively new device called A COURT ORDER. Then further, there is the growing tendency of the Supreme Court to legislate by means of court decisions, many of them on 5 to 4 votes by which the Court is alleged to “determine the nature of law” even in areas where the Congress has never legislated and where the Constitution is changed as to their interpretations of its nature.

In addition to all these dangers, we cannot ignore the increasing tendency of the Government in the Executive Branch to rule, legislate, and judge, by means of a new device called Presidential Executive Orders. This danger cannot be over-stated.

LIMITATIONS UPON GOVERNMENT

The founding Fathers of our Nation intended that our government should have very limited powers. It was planned that way by the inspiration of God.

George Washington, in his farewell address as President, pleaded with his countrymen and with their descendants for all time to come, to avoid entangling alliances with other nations. Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, Franklin, and many others, had been burned as it were, many times by powerful government and by intrigue and jealousy of others nations.

The separation of powers doctrine was made very clear indeed. Legislative, Executive, and Judicial powers were fully separated. Each department was forbidden either to assume the powers and duties of another or to delegate its own powers.

The Founders did not stop there. They left the States as sovereign independent Republics. The States retained government of all the affairs of the people that required protection of citizens from each other. Control of crime was a state function. Rather than to control the states or the citizens, the Federal Government was to be controlled and limited by the states and the people. The object was to protect the people from all government, including their own.

INTERNATIONAL LAW, genocide variety.

The genocide Convention proposes to add new and sharper teeth to the so-called LAW OF NATIONS.

It proposes to establish a new international court, a penal court, a court which does not now exist. It would have control over people who might be accused of genocide. It also provides for The World court of International Justice that now sits at The Hague, a United Nations Court, to get its “Camel’s Head” under the tent of our American Constitutional Liberty. It requires that our Congress pass new legislation that would implement the terms and conditions of the genocide Treaty.

Under Article 8 it authorizes the United Nations to prevent and suppress acts of genocide in countries that have ratified the convention. Besides all this, the treaty itself does not give the slightest real clue as to what its terms really mean.

SHOULD WE RATIFY THE GENOCIDE CONVENTION?

The answer is NO!

If for no other reason, there is no way to define “mental harm” as this term is used in Art. II (b) of the convention treaty.

With this “treaty” law in force, any Judge could make an arbitrary interpretation based on his personal “prejudice”

Beyond this; the treaty would turn over to the United Nations the power to control citizens of the United States. This treaty cannot be made constitutional.

HOW IS YOUR BELT?

A LOT OF FOLKS LAUGHED when Lyndon B. Johnson tried to start a campaign to turn off lights in the White House when they were not actually needed.

THE GHOST OF L.B.J. may have the last laugh.

LOOK AT THE FACTS TODAY – Five years ago, the U.S. had a surplus in our international balance of trade account. Every year for decades past we had shipped abroad more wealth than we had imported.

BUT WE WERE 5 BILLION SHORT in our 1972 balance of trade. We imported more than we sold.

BY 1980 OUR TRADE DEFICIT for energy alone will be 20 to 30 billion dollars annually. We will have to buy abroad and pay out that much for light, heat and power.

OUR PETROLEUM IMPORTS right now amount to over 20% of the energy we consume in our own country.

OUR DEMAND FOR ENERGY increases every year and our production in relationship to use falls off.

WHAT ABOUT OUR COAL? We’ve got enough for a hundred years. But we are not mining it as fast as demand is increasing why’s that?

ECOLOGISTS FIGHT every effort to use fossil fuel for energy production. It smokes and fumes.

EVEN WITHOUT ECOLOGISTS it would take 8 to 10 years to gear up production of coal, atomic energy or any other known source fast enough to meet increasing demand for power.

PRODUCTION LAG just won’t go away.

SO WHAT?

EITHER WE CUT DOWN our rate and trend of energy use, or (shades of L.G.J.) we increase our rate and amount of imports of petroleum energy.

If we continue to insist on living it up, eating the fat of the land, in that event all we’ve got left is our fiat money.

THE ARABS HAVE THE OIL.

Do we go to war and fight them for it?

In that unlikely event, could we whip the Russians? They beat us in Vietnam or at least they threatened us out of a good honest fight for the liberty of a bunch of rebels who wanted to do their own noncommunist thing.

SINCE WE SHOULDN’T and can’t fight a war for oil, all we’ve got left to offer is paper. Their oil is worth more than our paper money.

THEY CAN BUY GREEN INK IN BARRELS they can get paper from the mill and the Germans will trade them a printing press for a few barrels of oil.

IF WE IMPORT, we must pay.

THE ARABS HAVE LEARNED that our Federal Reserve Green Stamp money is shriveling up in the heat of present international trade wars.

SO WHAT? How strong is your belt?

Belt tightening will be very fashionable if the gas goes off in your furnace and the refrigerator won’t run for want of power.

THE MESSAGE IS CLEAR: Either get a strong belt or prepare to redeem our dollars with real wealth.

IF THE CITIZENS WON’T, the government won’t. We must – or bust.