返回列表 發帖
本帖最後由 erwincdw 於 2017-10-19 17:24 編輯

必然的結論


THE CONCLUSIONS ARE INESCAPABLE:


(1)秘密權力階層也許認為出於人們的無知,或出於神意旨,地球在不久將來將會毁滅。這些人真心相信他們的所作所為是對的,是為了拯救人類。但極為諷刺的是他們合作的夥伴自身就是個面臨滅絕的外星種族,在這個合作中許多道德和法律議題都被妥協了,這些妥協是錯的,應該要修正。他們的行為應負起責任,我能了解他們決定不讓大眾知情時心中面對的恐懼和急迫感,但我並不同意這決定。

整個歷史中不斷有一小撮權力精英,認為只憑他們少數幾人就能決定多數人的命運,但歷史洪流顯示他們錯了。我們這偉大的國家是建立在自由和民主的原則之上,我真心認為如果美國這國家違背了這原則,再怎麼努力也不可能成功。對大眾的全面揭露是必要的,我們應該共同努力來挽救人類。


(2)我們被人類/外星聯盟操縱,目標是達成對人類某種程度奴役的單一世界政府。有必要面對一個最基本的問題:「誰能代表地球?」他們認為人類的進化程度還不足以面對外星種族,我們自己在不同民族間的問題已夠多了,再加上一個外星種族情況會變成什麼樣?它們會不會被羞辱、虐待、殺害?即使隔離但一旦相遇發生衝突,外星人優越的科技是否會造成人類的厄運?世界領袖是否已決定要把人類關進圍欄了?要避免這些情況的惟方式,是讓人類的意識有個進化的躍進,思惟模式必需改變。我不知道要如何做到這點,但我知道非做不可,而且要儘快、但不著痕跡的做。


(3)外星勢力完全欺騙了我們政府,也操控了我們,這導致了人類的全面奴役和毁壞。我們必需拿出任何可行的方法來制止。


(4)如果以上都是錯的,就表示發生的是其它超出找們目前可理解範圍的事。我們更必需強迫揭露所有的事實,以從中發掘出真相。這現況是由於過去44年來我們的所作所為,或無所作為,這是我們自己的錯,只有我們能改變未來。在我看來教育是解決辦法中最主要的一部份,其餘的就是不能再對大眾隱瞞。


(5)不能排除一種可能,就是我被利用了,整個外星議題是人類史上最大騙局,是虛構出外星威脅以促成單一世界政府的議程。我有找到支持這觀點的證據,我把它放在附錄中,我建議你們不要排除這個可能性。

出於無知和誤導,我們人民已放棄了監督政府的責任,我們的政府是「民有、民治、民享」,沒有理由要放棄監督的責任,而盲目的信任只那幾個時常進行秘密會議的少數人,任由他們決定我們的命運。事實上我們的政府組織是設計來預防這情形的,如果我們有儘到公民的責任,事情就不會演變到今日這情形。大部份的人對政府基本功能都完全無知,我們真的已成為羊群之國,而羊群的結局就是被屠宰。是時候像我們先輩一樣像個男人般挺直腰桿了。讓我提醒你們,歐洲猶太人雖已收到警告,但仍不相信事實可能是真的,仍乖乖走進牢籠中。當外面世界收到訊息,說歐洲的希特勒在進行大屠殺時,仍不相信。

你們要了解,不論外星人是真是假,這議題真被用來做為消滅不同地區人口的藉口。「別擔心,神聖的宇宙兄弟會來拯救我們。」這想法也可用來配合外星威脅論:「外星人會吃人」,促成新世界秩序的進程。決定你們未來行動的最重要資訊是,新世界秩序會摧毁每個國家的主權,包括美國。新世界秩序不可能允許我們憲法的存在,它會是個全然的極權式社會主義國家,我們將被無現金經濟系統所奴役。

如果我在海軍情報單位看過的資料是真實的,那麼你們剛才讀到的就應該是最接近真相的了。如果外星人是個騙局,那你們讀到的則是光明會要讓你們相信的事。我可以向你們保證,撇開所有迷團,那些科技絕對是真的。由人類駕駛的反重力飛船的確存在,我和數以百萬計的人都看過它們,它們是金屬製、是機器、有各種形狀和大小,很明顯是智慧生物所操縱。


雷根總統至戈巴契夫:

如果突然出現來自別的星球,別的種族對我們世界的威脅,我們將會抛開彼此國家間的所有微不足道的歧異,明白其實我們都是地球上的人類。

SOURCES
Andrews, George C, Extra-Terrestrials Among Us, Llewellyn Publications, St.
Paul, Minnesota.
Bamford, James, The Puzzle Palace, Houghton Mifflin, Boston.
Borklund, C. W., The Department of Defense, Frederick A. Praeger, New York.
Collier, Peter and David Horowitz, Rockefellers: An American Dynasty, Holt.
Rinehart and Winston, New York.
Cooper, Vicki and Sherie Stark, eds., UFO (magazine — several issues since
Spring 1988), Los Angeles, California.
Cooper, William, "Operation Majority, Final Release/ Fullerton, California.
Corson, William R., The Armies of Ignorance, The Dial Press/James Wade, New
York.
Curry, Richard O., ed., Freedom at Risk, Temple University Press, Philadelphia.
Deyo, Stan, The Cosmic Conspiracy and The Vindictor Scrolls, West Australian
Texas Trading, Perth, Australia.
English, Bill, "Report on Grudge/Blue Book #13," John A. Lear, Las Vegas
Nevada.
Friend, Lt. Col. and Dr. J. Allen Hynek, "GRUDGE/Blue Book Report #13"
(Top Secret). Last seen at the headquarters of the Commander in Chief
of the Pacific Fleet (CINCPACFLT), Hawaii.
Graubard, Stephen, Kissinger, Portrait of a Mind, W.W. Norton & Co., New
York.
Gulley, Bill with Mary Ellen Reese, Breaking Cover, Simon & Schuster, New
York.
Hawking, Stephen W., A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes,
Bantam Books, New York.
Isaacson, Walter and Evan Thomas, The Wise Men, Simon & Schuster, New
York.
Kissinger, Henry, Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy, Harper & Brothers, New
York.
Kwitny, Jonathan, The Crimes of Patriots, W.W. Norton & Co., New York.
Chapter Twelve The Secret Government • 237
Lear, John A., "The John Lear Hypothesis," Las Vegas, Nevada. Partially true;
the rest is disinformation.
Lear, John A. and John Grace, "The Krill Papers Hoax."
Ledeen, Michael A., Perilous Statecraft, Charles Scribner & Sons, New York.
"MAJIC/Operation Majority" (Top Secret). Presidential briefing document
by Majesty Twelve. Last seen at the headquarters of the Commander in
Chief of the Pacific Fleet (CINCPACFLT), Hawaii.
Mickus, Tom, 'The Larry Fenwick Interview," Canada.
Moscow, Alvin, The Rockefeller Inheritance, Doubleday & Co., New York.
"Operation MAJESTIC TWELVE," Eisenhower Briefing Document. Author
unknown, released by the research team of Moore, Shandera, and Friedman.
Pea Research, Government Involvement in the UFO Cover-up: Chronology, Pea
Research, California.
Ranelagh, John, The Agency: The Rise and Decline of the CIA, Simon & Schuster,
New York.
Schulzinger, Robert D., The Wise Men of Foreign Affairs, Columbia University
Press, New York.
Shoup, Laurence H. and William Minter, Imperial Brain Trust: The Council on
Foreign Relations & United States Foreign Policy, Monthly Review Press,New York.
Steckling, Fred, We Discovered Alien Bases on the Moon, G.A.F. International,
California.
Steiger, Brad, The UFO Abductors, Berkley Books, New York,
Stienman, William, The Crash at Aztec, William Stienman, La Mirada, California,
Strieber, Whitley, Communion and Majestic, Avon, New York.
Valerian, Valdamar, The Matrix, Arcturus Book Service, Stone Mountain,
Georgia.

======================================
第十二章完,後續十三、十四章麻煩 awepp兄負責,謝謝。

TOP

本帖最後由 awepp 於 2017-10-23 09:16 編輯

13章探討的是聯合國,相信各位看完對聯合國會有全然不一樣的認識。本章有較多的法條內容,如有翻譯錯誤敬請告知。
非常討厭法條很喜歡將一件事描述的很複雜,加一堆專有名詞,好讓民眾看不懂?
仔細看美國憲法第六條。
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chapter 13

TREASON IN HIGH

PLACES

高位置的背叛

The United Nations Treaty

and

The United Nations Participation Act

vs.

The Sovereignty of the United States of America

聯合國條約

聯合國參與法

對上

美國主權

At the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention

in September 1787, Benjamin Franklin was asked,

"What have you wrought?"

He answered,

"...a Republic, if you can keep it."

在制憲會議議定後,在1787年9月,班傑明.富蘭克林被問道,

"你已做了什麼?"

他回答,

"....一個共和國,如果你可以維持它的話。"

The United States Constitution

Article VI

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption

of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under

this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

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; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in

the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members

of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers,

both of the United States and of the several States,shall be bound by Oath

or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever

be required as a Qualification to any Office or publicTrust under the

United States.

美國憲法第六條(以下翻譯,部分來自維基)

所有在此憲法正式通過前的債務合約及約定,在此憲法下,同邦聯時期,對合眾國是有效的。

本憲法和依本憲法所制定的合眾國法律,以及根據合眾國的權力已締結或將締結的一切條約,都是全國的最高法律;每個州的法官都應受其約束,即使州的憲法和法律中有與之相牴觸的內容。

上述參議員和眾議員,各州州議會議員,以及合眾國和各州所有行政和司法官員,應宣誓或作代誓宣言擁護本憲法;但決不得以宗教信仰作為擔任合眾國屬下任何官職或公職的必要資格

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

第1、3段各位應該都沒疑問,看得懂。重點在第2段,我看了老半天才知道意思....

意思是所有美國及將或已簽訂的條約,等同美國憲法的至高地位。

有個解釋美國憲法非常棒的中文網站:https://web-archive-2017.ait.org.tw/infousa/zhtw/PUBS/Constitution/constitution.htm

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HAVE WE ALREADY JOINED A ONE-WORLD

GOVERNMENT?

U.S. Sovereignty — Fact or Fiction?

我們已經加入世界政府了嗎?

美國主權-事實或小說?

The Executive, Judicial and Legislative Branches of the U.S. Government

have followed the policy that the United Nations Treaty approved

under the U.N. Participation Act of 1945 in behalf of the United States of

America by Harry S. Truman and the United States Senate,which treaty

supersedes the United States Constitution under the terms of Article VI of

the United States Constitution.

美國政府的行政、司法、立法部門,已經跟隨聯合國條約通過的政策,在1945聯合國參與法下,由哈里S.杜魯門及參議院代表簽署,此條約根據憲法第六條取代美國憲法。

The Council of Foreign Relations created the United Nations. Their

member agents, Alger Hiss and Leo Pasvolsky did the paperwork, but the

honors went to a special committee appointed by President Roosevelt to

draw the first draft of the Charter.

外交關係委員會成立了聯合國。他們的成員代理人,阿爾傑.希斯(Alger Hiss)利奧.帕斯沃爾斯基(Leo Pasvolsky)做文書工作,但光輝終於來到,羅斯福總統指派一個特別的委員會去寫出聯合國憲章第一草案。

The members of the Committee were: Sumner Wells, Isaiah Bowman,

Hamilton Fish Armstrong, Benjamin Cohen, and Clark Eichelberger — all

members of the Council on Foreign Relations and members of a secret

Order of the Quest called the JASON Society.

委員會的成員有: Sumner WellsIsaiah BowmanHamilton Fish ArmstrongBenjamin CohenClark Eichelberger-所有外交關係委員會成員及一個秘密秩序追求團體(Order of the Quest)傑森會社(JASON Society)的成員。

The Charter was rushed through the U.S. Senate without printed

copies to guide the Senators: it was EXPLAINED to them by Russian-born

revolutionary Leo Pasvolsky.

憲章闖過參議院,且沒有任何影本給參議員審查:而是由俄國出生的革命家利奧.帕斯沃爾斯基(Leo Pasvolsky)向議員們解釋

The Charter conferred no real power on the General Assembly; all the

power was in the Security Council where the VETO was. The Senate

would not have ratified the Charter except that the American delegation

had a right to VETO if our interests were threatened by action of other

members.

憲章沒有賦予聯合國大會實權;所有權力都在安理會的否決權裡。參議院不需批准憲章,美國代表團擁有否決的權力,如果我們利益受到其他成員行為的威脅。

Included in this Charter was and is ARTICLE 25:"Member nations

agree to ACCEPT and CARRY OUT the decisions of the Security Council in

accordance with the PRESENT CHARTER"

在憲章的25條:"根據目前憲章,會員國同意去接受執行安理會的決定"

No restrictions, no reservations. This is ALL of Article 25. Note the

word "present," indicating that there might be OTHER charters. The

VETO was a hindrance to World Government — it had to be circumvented.

In 1950 the General Assembly, without any legal authority, met and

adopted what they named the "UNITING FOR PEACE"RESOLUTION.

沒有限制,沒有保留。這就是25條的全部。注意"目前"這個詞,暗示著可能將會是其他憲章。否決權是個世界政府的阻礙-它必須被規避。

1950年的聯合國大會,在沒有任何法律權力下做出他們名為" (UNITING FOR PEACE)聯合一致共策和平 "的決議。

This, greatly expanded since that time, permitted THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY

to EXERCISE THE POWERS OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL. I

bet you didn't know that. The Government of the United States recognizes

the illegally amended Charter as the "law of theworld," overriding our

Constitution. The General Assembly has for years been making the law of

the world by RATIFYING RESOLUTIONS BY A 2/3 MAJORITY VOTE.

When the Resolution is ratified it is sent down to the CHIEF EXECUTIVE

OF THE MEMBER STATE and the EXECUTIVE IS OBLIGED TOACCEPT

AND CARRY OUT the provisions in the resolution.

從這點之後大大地擴張,允許大會去行使安理會的力量。我打賭你不知道。美國政府意識到非法修改憲章(作為世界法)將壓垮我們的憲法。聯合國大會多年下來已經制定許多世界法,藉由2/3多數票來通過決議當決議批准並送到會員國的行政首長時,行政首長必須強制接受及執行決議中的規定。

The governments concerned must IGNORE, ABOLISH, REVISEAND

RESCIND LAWS in their territories which conflict with there solutions of

the General Assembly, and to PASS OTHER LAWS WHICH WILL PUT

THESE RESOLUTIONS INTO FORCE. "One man, one vote" comes

through Resolution No. 1760.

There are more than 2000 of these resolutions now in effect. THEY

ARE THE LAW OF THE LAND. Our civil rights laws (the ex-post facto

sections of which come from the Nuremberg Resolutions),our agricultural

laws, our health and welfare laws, our labor laws, our foreign aid laws —

all come from resolutions of the General Assembly or treaties of the U.N.

ratified by our Senate.

政府們的憂慮必須忽略、肅清、修改及廢除它們的國土法,那些與大會決議相衝突的國土,然後通過其他將會強制執行的法律。"一人一票"導至1760號決議通過。

現在有超過2000個決議生效。他們是國內法。我們的民權法(事實上部分來自紐倫堡決議)、我們的農業法、我們的健康及福利法、我們的勞工法、我們的對外援助法-全部來自聯合國大會決議,或由我們參議院批准的聯合國條約。

Any law passed in your state will be rescinded or abolished if it is in

conflict with resolutions of the General Assembly.

I can tell you, with no reservations whatsoever, that all of the intelligence

organizations of the United States work directly for the United

Nations in concert with the Secret Government toward the sole purpose of

the destruction of the sovereignty of the United States of America and the

bringing about of the one-world government. The authority cited for their

efforts is ARTICLE VI of the Constitution, the United Nations Treaty, and

the U.N. Participation Act of 1949 signed by Harry S.Truman with the

advice and consent of the U.S. Senate.

所有你的州通過的法律,與聯合國大會決議相衝突的話,將會撤銷或廢除。我可以毫無保留通通告訴你,所有美國的情報組織直接為聯合國工作,並與秘密政府合作為了唯一目的,摧毀美國主權及產生世界政府。他們所為的權力來自憲法第6條、聯合國條約、及1949年聯合國參與法,在參議院的建議和批准下,由杜魯門簽署。

This should help you understand how our laws are being made and

who is making them! ASK YOUR SENATORS, CONGRESSMEN AND

STATE LEGISLATORS IF THEY ARE AWARE OF THESE FACTS.

The following statement was made by Mr. Carl B. Rix of Milwaukee,

former president of the American Bar Association, before a Senate subcommittee

which was hearing testimony on the proposed Bricker Amendment.

It was entered into the House Record by Hon. Lawrence H.Smith, Wisconsin,

on May 11,1955.

這樣應該可以幫助你了解,我們的法律是如何制定及誰制定它們!詢問你的參議員、眾議員及州立法者,是否他們察覺到這些事實。接下來的是來自Milwaukee密爾沃基Carl B. Rix先生的陳述,前美國律師協會會長,在參議院的一個小組委員會(Bricker修正案的聽證會),這由Hon. Lawrence H. Smith列入會議紀錄,威斯康辛州,1955年5月11號。

註: Bricker修正案是個統稱,這些修正案都有關一個項目,使美國法律、政策免受國外條約、行政協議、國際法、聯合國的影響。

TOP

本帖最後由 awepp 於 2017-10-23 09:20 編輯

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD (page A3220)

Statement of Carl B. Rix, Milwaukee, Wisconsin:

I appear in favor of the amendments.

Congress is no longer bound by its constitutional systemof delegated

powers. Its only test is under the obligatory power topromote human

rights in these fields of endeavor: Civil, political,economic, social and

cultural. These are found in Articles 55 and 56 of theCharter of the United

Nations, a ratified and approved treaty. They are beingpromoted in all

parts of the world by the United Nations.

會議記錄(A3220頁)

Carl B. Rix, Milwaukee, Wisconsin的聲明:

我贊成修正案。

國會不再受到其憲法託付權力的約束。其唯一的考驗是在強制力下,努力推動以下領域的人權:公民、政治、經濟、社會及文化。這些在聯合國,一個批准及認可的條約,第55及56條發現。這些正由聯合國在全世界各地推動。(這裡指的條約是聯合國憲章)

註:

聯合國憲章55條:

為造成國際間以尊重人民平等權利及自決原則為根據之和平友好關係所必要之安定及福利條件起見,聯合國應促進:
(1)較高之生活程度,全民就業,及經濟與社會進展。
(2)國際間經濟、社會、衛生、及有關問題之解決;國際間文化及教育合作。
(3)全體人類之人權及基本自由之普遍尊重與遵守,不分種族、性別、語言、或宗教。

56條:
各會員國擔允採取共同及個別行動與本組織合作,以達成第五十五條所載之宗旨。

Congress may now legislate as an uninhibited body with noshackles

of delegated powers under the Constitution. Our entiresystem of a

government of delegated powers of Congress has beenchanged to a system

of undelegated powers without amendment by the people ofthe

United States.

國會現在可以是個無約束的立法機構,在沒有憲法委付權力的枷鎖下。我們整個系統下國會的委付權力,已經轉變成一個非托付權力,且未經美國人民的修正。

The authority for these statements is found in a volumeentitled Constitution

of the United States of America, Annotated, issued in1953, prepared

under the direction of the Judiciary Committee of theSenate of the United

States and under the chairmanship of Prof. Edward S.Corwin of Princeton,

aided by the legal staff of the Library of Congress. Thisis the conclusion on

page 427 of the Annotations: "In a word, the treatypower cannot purport

to amend the Constitution by adding to the list ofCongress' enumerated

powers, but having acted, the consequence will often bethat it has

provided Congress with an opportunity to enact measureswhich, independently

of a treaty, Congress could not pass, and the onlyquestion that

can be raised as to such measures will be whether theyare 'necessary and

proper' measures for the carrying of the treaty inquestion into operation."

It will be noted that one of the principal cases cited isthat of the

Migratory Bird case.

這些陳述的依據是在一卷名稱為"美國憲法,註釋"上發現的,1953年發佈,由參議院司法委員會籌備指導,普林斯頓大學教授Edward S. Corwin擔任主席國會圖書館法務人員輔助。這是此註釋427頁的結論:"總之,締約權不能藉由增加國會權力列舉,來修改憲法,但卻有效,結果通常會是,國會有機會去制定一些措施,而這原本是無法通過的,所以唯一的問題會是,這些措施哪些是"必須且恰當的"好將條約問題變成行動。"

值得注意的最重要例子是候鳥例子(Migratory Bird case.)

These conclusions are those also of a committee of theNew York State

Bar Association, of which former Attorney GeneralMitchell and Mr. John

W. Davis were prominent members.

Now, for some practical illustration of new-found powersunder treaties of what Congress may do:

紐約律師聯合會也同樣作出這些結論,前司法部長MitchellMr. John W. Davis是其優秀成員。現在,關於國會議員也許會做的一些實際例證是:

1. It may enact a comprehensive education bill, providingfor education

in any State which does not provide it. In fact, it maytake over all

public education now provided by States andmunicipalities.

1.制定一個詳盡的教育法案給所有沒有這的州。事實上,這可以接管所有州及自治區的公共教育。

2. It may enact a prohibition act without an amendment ofthe Constitution.

2.可以在不修憲的情況下,制定禁止令。

3. It may enact a uniform divorce act.

3.可以制訂統一的離婚法。

4. It may take over all social and welfare servicesrendered by or

through the States or their agencies.

4.可以接管所有社會及福利服務。

5. It may take over all commerce, all utility rates andservice, all labor.

The list may be multiplied extensively at your will.

5.可以接管所有商業、所有公共事業費率及服務、所有勞工。

列表也許會倍增你的意願。

The new test of constitutionality will apply to alllegislation by Congress

since 1945, which deals with any of the five fields ofendeavor. Any

judge deciding on the validity of legislation must havetwo books before

him — one, the Constitution of the United States, and theother, the Charter

of the United Nations. If he does not find authority forthe act in the

Constitution, he will find it in the Charter. That is theexact situation in

which Justice Holmes found himself and the other membersof the

Supreme Court when they decided the Migratory Bird case.The authority

was not found in the Constitution — it was found in thetreaty with Great

Britain.

新的測試合憲性將會在,1945年後的國會在五領域(公民、政治、經濟、社會及文化)的立法上。所有法官在判決法律的合法性必須要有兩本書,一個是美國憲法,另一個本是聯合國憲章。如果對某法律他在找不到任何憲法給予的權限,他會找憲章。當Holmes法官及其他最高法院成員在決定候鳥例子時,正是這樣的情況,他發現無法在憲法上找到授權--而在與大不列顛簽訂的條約上發現。

The question to be answered is this: Under which form ofgovernment

do the people of the United States prefer to live?Manifestly, we cannot

operate under both.

Senators, the people of the United States have given uptheir sons; they

have given up billions of their substance. They shouldnot be the only

Nation in the world to give up their form of government —the wonder of

the world — to discharge their obligations to the peopleof the world.

對於問題的回答是:美國人民會比較喜歡生活在哪種形式下的政府?顯然,我們無法在兩者情況下運作。參議員,合眾國已放棄他們的兒子;他們已經放棄數十億的財產。美國不應該是世界唯一放棄他們政府的國家-世界奇蹟-卸下他們對人民的義務在全世界。

THE BRICKER AMENDMENT, WHICH WOULD HAVE CHANGED THIS,

WAS NOT PASSED.

BRICKER修正案將會改變它,所以不會通過。

A LETTER TO THE EDITOR

給編者的信

BRI Borger, Texas News Herald

Sunday, November 11,1962 1962年11月11日,星期日

Dear Mr. Newby:

親愛的紐比先生:

Replying to your letter Oct. 12th, also CHALLENGE forNovember,

1961: quoting Patrick Henry on treaties. In the firstplace Patrick Henry

was and is NO AUTHORITY on either treaties or theConstitution, and he

opposed it, IF it is too late to do anything aboutreinstating our Constitution,

then why not just accept the traitorous U.N.Charter-Treaty without

more ado? Why didn't the American Revolutionists think ittoo late or too

difficult to defend their Liberty? And IF thehighly-intelligent framers of

the Constitution "were well aware of the deathtrapincorporated in ARTICLE

VI," why then did they so frame it? Did they notexpect PATRIOTS,

rather than Treasonists as our elected officials, toHONOR AND ENFORCE

the spirit, letter, and intent of the Constitution?

回覆你10月12日的信,也挑戰你1961年11月的文章:引用(Patrick Henry)派屈克.亨利在條約。最早他沒有對條約或憲法的權力,然後他反對它,是否這時作行動來恢復我們憲法已經太遲,為何不直接接受賣國的聯合國憲章-條約就不用這麼累了?為何美國革命家們不認為捍衛他們自由太遲或太難?然後是否那些高智商的憲法制訂者們"有非常注意到憲法第6章上的死亡陷阱"為何他們還制定了它?作為民選官員,難道他們不是我們期望的愛國者而是個叛國者,以榮耀及執行憲法的精神、文字、意圖?

I note you say that according to a law dictionary, theterms "legal" and

"lawful" are almost one and the same. Agreed!"Almost," but not quite. I

believe there is a fine point of difference. Taking usinto the U.N. may

SEEM to have been done legally (by the President andSenate), but the act

is still unlawful, because it is unconstitutional, andthe CONSTITUTION IS

THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. All renowned and genuineConstitutional

experts (such as Thos. M. Cooley, Thos. Jas. Norton, andHarry

Atwood, to name several) have always held that anythingwhich contravenes,

diminishes, or perverts the Constitution is null and voidand of

no effect.

我注意到你說,根據法律詞典,術語" legal"和" lawful"幾乎意思一樣。同意!"幾乎"但不完全是。我相信這有個很好的點來說明不同之處。想想我們(美國)進入聯合國也許看似合法地(legally)(由總統及參議院),但行為仍然是非法的(unlawful),因為這違憲,憲法是國土上的最高法律。所有著名及真誠的憲法專家(如Thos. M. Cooley, Thos. Jas.Norton, and Harry Atwood等等)一直認為任何違反、削弱、曲解憲法的東西、行為是無效、無用的。

Neither the President or Senate has authority or power tochange,

diminish, or destroy the Constitution "byusurpation," treaty, or otherwise:

only a Constitutional Amendment can lawfully change it.

總統及參議院都沒有權力或權威,藉由篡奪、條約或其它方式,挑戰、裁減、摧毀憲法。只有憲法修正案可以合法地改變它。

The Constitution is a contract that WE THE PEOPLE of theUSA made

with one another, which sets up the machinery ofgovernment to carry out

this contract —mainly for the purpose of PROTECTINGINDIVIDUAL

RIGHTS as well as STATE RIGHTS, AGAINST THE POWERS OF

GOVERNMENT: and no public official has a right tooverride the

provisions of that contract. To quote Thos. Jas. Norton'sConstitution of the

United States, Its Application, etc., "A law ofCongress to be one of the

supreme laws must be 'made in pursuance thereof and notin conflict with

the Constitution. When not made in pursuance thereof itis of course

unconstitutional and of no effect." And the samewould similarly apply to

a wonderful decision rendered by the Supreme Court or anunlawful

Treaty.

憲法是個我們美國人民與美國之間的契約,以建立政府機制去執行這契約-主要目的是為了個人及州的權力,抵抗政府權力:沒有公職人員可以廢除這條約之條款。引用Thos. Jas.Norton的美國憲法,"國會立法的最高規則是,制定時必須奉行不與憲法相衝突。當制定內容、過程違憲,則無效。"同樣的規則也適用做判別,在最高法院或違法的條約上。

And from Norton's Undermining the Constitution, whichquotes

Alexander Hamilton in No. 33 of The Federalist: "Itwill not, I presume,

have escaped observation that it expressly confines thesupremacy to laws

made pursuant to the Constitution" (emphasis byHamilton). And from

page 21, "The General Government can claim no powerswhich are not

granted to it by the Constitution, and the powersactually granted must be

such as are expressly given, or given by necessaryimplication."

從諾頓Norton的破壞憲法,引用亞力山大.漢密頓(Alexander Hamilton)的33號聯邦主義:"我認為這將不會逃離監視,它明確嚴格管制立法須根據憲法 "(漢密頓強調)。然後第21頁,"總政府在無憲法授權下將無權力,其權力授予必須明確地給出,或由必要的意涵給出"

Anyone with the presumed intelligence to be President ofthe USA

must know that he cannot lawfully make any suchfar-reaching treaty with

the United Nations, or any other foreign power, as youenvision by your

language, without laying himself open to the charge ofTREASON under

ARTICLE III, Section 3 of the Constitution. Just ordinarycommon sense is

required to know that our alleged Treaty with the U.N.and acceptance of

the all-inclusive terms of its Charter by our Presidents(beginning with

FDR, who connived with Stalin at Yalta for the setting upof the U.N. in the

USA) and our Senate, is a violation of their sacred oathof office as per

ARTICLE III, Section 2 of the Constitution.

任何有點智力的人當上了美國總統,一定知道他無法和聯合國、其他國外力量,或你想像到的語言,合法地做出如此深遠的條約,使他自己不會遭遇背叛憲法第3條第3款(叛國罪)的嫌疑。簡單需要知道的常識是,我們所謂與聯合國的條約,以及對包羅萬象的憲章所作的承諾,由我們總統(由羅斯福開始,他與史達林共謀成立聯合國,在美國雅爾達)及參議院做出的決定,是違反他們就職時的神聖誓言,在憲法第3條第2款。

註:這就是雅爾達會議。

Such a Treaty makes a mockery of any genuine allegianceto OUR Flag

and Constitution. A genuine American, Abraham Lincoln,said, "Worse

than traitors-in-arms are the men who, pretending loyaltyto the Flag, feast

and fatten on the misfortunes of the nation." Thinkof any TRUTH more

applicable to the present time?

這樣子的條約蔑視任何對我們國旗憲法真正的忠誠。一位真正的美國人,亞伯拉罕.林肯說:"更糟的是,武裝叛國者是一群人,假裝對國旗忠誠,在國家發生不幸時盡情吃喝然後肥胖起來。"想看看任何更多可適用於現在的事實。

A number of our officials, including former Secretary ofState Dean

Acheson, the late John Foster Dulles, and members of ourpresent oneworld

Kennedy entourage go along with the statement that theUSA now

has NO "domestic" affairs: there has been amelding of our domestic and

foreign affairs! (Meld means to merge.)

我們一些官員,包含前國務卿迪安.艾奇遜(Dean Acheson),後來的約翰.福斯特.杜勒斯(John Foster Dulles),以及許多現今甘迺迪隨員都認同這陳述,美國現在已經沒有"國內"事務:已經融和我們國內及過外事務!(融合意思是合併)

TOP

本帖最後由 awepp 於 2017-10-23 10:45 編輯

Katanga Province in the Congo thought she had some private affairs

and rights, but the U.N. soon disillusioned her. Quote from S.L. Tribune for

September 14,1961: "U.N. Soldiers Take Over in Katanga. U.N. troops

seized Katanga's capital, Elisabethville, in a brisk battle Wednesday, and

the Congo's central government proclaimed the return of that secessionist

province." There is no doubt that the President of the USA and Senate have

surrendered certain of our rights and Sovereignty to the U.N., and plan still

more.

剛果的加丹加省想要獨立,但很快的聯合國使其幻想破滅。引自1961年9月14日的S.L. Tribune:"聯合國士兵接管了加丹加省。聯合國軍隊在星期三的輕快戰鬥後,奪取了加丹加省首都,伊莉莎白城(現在稱盧本巴希),然後剛果的中央政府宣佈從分離主義者手上收復該省。"美國總統及參議院毫無疑問地有放棄某些我們的權力及主權給聯合國。然後計劃更多。"

Any informed American is aware that ARTICLE IV, Section 4, of the

Constitution automatically cancels out any allegiance to the U.N. and its

alien one-world Internationalism, the antithesis of Constitutional

Americanism founded on Washington's "NO foreign entanglements."

And that said republican representative form of government is the exact

opposite of the U.N. Charter's Soviet-initiated modifications, restrictions,

and reservations in its various "Conventions"which would nullify our Bill

of Rights. Stalin, his protege, Alger Hiss, and Russian Communist Pasvolsky

figured largely in the writing of the U.N. Charter.

任何知情的美國人都知道憲法第4條第4款,會自動取消任何,對於聯合國及其外來的單一世界國際主義的忠誠(相反於合憲的美國精神,華盛頓創立的"無外國糾纏"),而這說明共和國的政府形式是完全與聯合國相反的。聯合國憲章(由蘇聯發起、修改、限制、保留)在其底下的各種"大會",將會廢止我們的權力法案。史達林、他的門徒Alger Hiss俄羅斯共產黨員Pasvolsky是聯合國憲章的主要執筆者。

To assume that a heterogeneous body composed of appointed representatives

of foreign governments (some from crude cannibalisticso-called

"States" and others, from virulently atheistic Communist States) — which

Governments DO NOT REPRESENT "We the AmericanPeople" — could

exercise dictation and control over U.S. is monstrous in the extreme. Lawfully

or constitutionally, they may not enforce any provisions of the U.N. Charter against us, or take any action whatever affecting the Sovereign

Rights of American Citizens.

假設外國政府委任的代表是由混雜的人組成(一些來自粗俗的食人族,稱為所謂的"國家",還有其他來自惡毒的無神論共產國家)-這些政府們並不代表"我們美國人民"-可以命令及控制聯合國,這是極度怪異的。從合法性及憲法上來說,他們不能對我們執行任何聯合國憲章的規定,或者做出任合影響至高美國公民權力的行為。

Further, the United Nations is not a lawful government in the accepted

sense of the term and is not a proper body with which to make a treaty.

Actually, the U.N. has NO valid binding treaty-making power — except as

the subversive one-worlders try to make it so. Quoting Norton's Constitution

of the United States, at page 14: "A treaty is a written contract between

two governments (not a motley assembly of unstable tribes, or enslaved

peoples calling themselves a 'government') respecting matters of mutual

welfare, such as peace, the acouisition of territory, the defining of boundaries,

the needs of trade, rights of citizenship..." etc.

此外,聯合國在這術語的意義,公認不是一個合法政府,它不是個能做出條約的適當機構。事實上,聯合國沒有制訂條約的權力-除了那些從事顛覆工作的單一世界份子,試圖讓它如此。引用諾頓(Norton)美國憲法的第14頁:"條約是個在兩政府間,關於彼此福利的書寫合同(不是個不穩定部落的叢雜集合,或者被奴役的人們自稱為一個'政府'),像是和平、領土獲取、邊界界定、貿易需求、公民權...."等....

And such treaties, even though "legally made,"MAY be abrogated for

cause. Quoting ibid, p. 115: "A precedent for thus abrogating a treaty made

by the President and approved by the Senate may be found as far back as

July 7, 1789, when Congress passed 'An Act to Declare the Treaties

heretofore concluded with France no longer obligatory on the United States

because they have been repeatedly violated on the part of the French

government." So what about all the violations of the treaties or agreements

made by the USSR, which dominates the U.N.? The USA is vastly

outvoted in this motley aggregation called the United Nations, even as

American taxpayers foot most of the bills, which constitutes Constitutionally

forbidden confiscation of the citizens' money (property)without just

compensation therefore. This is merely communistic confiscation.

而這些甚至是"合法"的條約,也可能因為一些原因被廢止。引用同上,115頁:"一個廢除條約的先例是,早在1789年7月7號,由總統經過參議院准許廢止,當國會通過'宣布條約法'後,過去與法國締結的條約,美國將不在有義務遵守,因為他們已經遭法國政府多次侵犯。"而那這些所有由蘇聯制定的侵犯條約或協議,而它又支配著聯合國呢?美國是巨大的雜色聚合的聯合國家,由美國納稅人支付大多數的帳單,而這組成憲法上禁止沒收公民的錢(財產)而沒支付賠償金。因此,這僅僅是共產式的沒收。

A Treaty made "pursuant to the Constitution"becomes A PART of the

LAW OF THE LAND, and should be honored; but it does NOT become

"Supreme" or take precedence over nor supersede the Constitution. It is

NOT the "Law of the Land" standing alone. And NO Treaty or Executive

Agreement is binding on the USA if made by the President alone (as has

been done) with the advice and consent of the Senate, nor if it violates the

Constitution.

一個"根據憲法"制定的條約,會成為國內法(LAW OF THE LAND)的一部分,而且得到榮耀;但它不會是"至高"或優先於憲法。它不是唯一的"國內法"。而且如果單單由總統制定(已經這麼做),並且在參議院的建議及同意下的條約或行政協議,都對美國沒有約束力,就算它不違反憲法。

Actually, ARTICLE VI, instead of setting Treaties on high or being a

"death trap," is a statement of the SUPREMACY OF THE CONSTITUTION

and of the NATIONAL GOVERNMENT. Lawful Treaties are apart

of, but subordinate to, the Constitution for the simple stated provision

therein that ALL laws and treaties must be made "in pursuance thereof."

事實上,憲法第六條,如果取代這些形容用語,像來自上級的設定條約,或一個死亡陷阱,那是一個憲法至高地位國家政府的陳述,合法的條約是從屬憲法的一部分,憲法它的簡單陳述規定,所有法律及條約必須"以此"制定。

Can the "creature" (or a part) become greater than its CREATOR, or

the whole??? Some American common sense is necessary in all this blather

about the supremacy of treaties, which is promulgated largely by the

one-worlders to discredit or diminish the Constitution so they can achieve

their own ends.

"被創造物"(或部分)能比其創造者,或整體更強大嗎? 條約享有至高地位,這句話如同廢話般,一些美國常識是必須的,這條約頒布大量的單一世界措施,去詆毀或削弱憲法,所以他們能完成他們的目的。

The language and intent of the Constitution and of ARTICLE VI is

clear and forthright, and does not admit, in good faith,of any other interpretation.

But sadly enough, it is well known that many of our highest

judiciary and elected officials — in this era of TREASON,not Reason — do

not act in good faith nor in "pursuance of the Constitution."

憲法第六條的意圖是清楚且爽快的,在其他任何解釋裡沒找到承認、真誠。更可悲的是,許多著名的最高法院法官及選舉官員-是背叛、不合理的-行為不真誠也不"根據憲法"。

With reference to fourth paragraph your letter Oct. 12th,Mr. Newby,

that the "making of treaties is without limitation,exception or reservation"

and that "no treaty has ever been declared unconstitutional or invalidated

or repealed by the Courts or Congress in the history of this nation," I think

that the foregoing invalidates your statement.

參考你在10月12號的信第4段,紐比先生,"制定條約是沒有限制、例外、保留的"還有"沒有條約在本國曾被宣佈說是違憲或無效,或由法院或國會廢止,"我想我上述的已經破除你的陳述了。

And as to ARTICLE VI being a "deathtrap" over which the Constitution

gives no control or remedy other than its explicit language in VI

regarding the law and treaties: has it occurred to you that the Supreme

Court has power and authority to rule on the constitutionality of treaties

the same as on the constitutionality of any other law —treaties being

merely "part of the Law of the Land"? ARTICLE III, Section 2 explicitly

states: "The Judicial power shall extend to all cases, in Law and Equity,

arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and treaties

made, or which shall be made, under their authority."

而憲法第六條成為一個"死亡陷阱",使憲法無法控制或補救,因其第六條上,有法律及條約這明確的語言。最高法院有權去判定合條約的憲性,同樣的對於任何法律的合憲性-這樣有使你發現條約僅僅是"國內法的一部分"?憲法第3條第2款明確規定:"司法權的適用範圍包括:由於本憲法、合眾國法律和根據合眾國權力已締結或將締結的條約而產生的一切普通法和衡平法的案件。"

To quote Norton's

Constitution of the United States, page 137: "When a case arises in a State

court and involves a question of the Constitution, or an Act of Congress, or

of a treaty, it is the duty of the court to follow and enforce the National

[Constitional] law; for the Constitution explicitly andemphatically requires

that the 'judges in every State shall be bound thereby,anything in

the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.'"

Any time that the President and Senate make a treaty with a foreign

power (such as the U.N.) which infringes upon or abrogates rights guaranteed

citizens of the USA under the Constitution, the Supreme Court can

declare such treaty unconstitutional, void, and of no effect. Of course, the

present Supreme Court, being composed of political radicals rather than

judicial Constitutional experts, is not likely to take such action — unless

forced to do so by public opinion and demand.

引用諾頓的美國憲法,137頁:"當國家法院遇到包含憲法的問題,或國會立法,或條約,法院的責任是遵循及執行國家法[憲法];因為憲法明白地且強調地要求"每個州的法官都應受其約束,即使州的憲法和法律中有與之相牴觸的內容。""任何時候總統及參議院與國外力量(像聯合國)做出條約,侵犯或廢除憲法對美國公民所作的權力保證,最高法院可以宣佈這樣子的條約違憲,廢止及無效。當然,現在的最高法院已經被政治激進份子佔據,而不是公正擁護憲法的專家,所以不太可能會採取這樣的行動-直到被輿論要求強迫這麼做為止。

And so, with reference to your statement in printed CHALLENGE for

November, 1961, to the effect that, "under ARTICLEII, Section 2, clause 2

of the Constitution...such treaty (as with the U.N.) can be made without

restriction, limitation, exception or reservation irrespective of the fact that

it contravenes, violates, infringes or alienates every article of the Constitution.

所以根據你1961年11月的陳述挑戰你:"在憲法第2條第2款第2節....這樣的條約(像跟聯合國)可以不需限制、局限、例外或保留,不管它確實有違反、違背、侵犯、沒收憲法裡的每一條"。

All that is necessary is for the President and Senate to ratify ANY

treaty and it is in force." The above article and clause likewise does not

stand alone, but must be construed in the light of the entire Constitution.

YOUR interpretation is not only to make idiots of the Founding Fathers

and Framers of the Constitution, but to say that regardless of the solemn

Presidential oath of allegiance required by ARTICLE III,Section 2a, regardless

of the SUPREME SOVEREIGNTY of the U.S. Constitution, and in

violation of the explicit language contained in ARTICLE VI, i.e., "THIS

CONSTITUTION, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in

pursuance thereof; and all treaties...under the authority of the United

States...," as well as all authoritative rulings by genuine Constitutional

authorities to the effect that anything which contravenes the Constitution

of the USA is null and void, including any such acts by the Congress;

despite all of the foregoing. I reiterate that YOUR interpretation would

claim that there is absolutely NO constitutional safeguard for the American

People against TREASONOUS treaties (which "gives aid and comfort to

our enemies" as per ARTICLE III, Section 3).

"所有需要做的只是總統及參議院批准,然後就生效了。"以上文章及條文也不是獨立的,必須按照整部憲法解釋。你的解釋不僅愚弄了國父及憲法的創立者,也無視憲法第2條第1款第8節要求的總統就職誓詞,無視美國憲法至高主權,侵犯憲法第6條上的明確語言"本憲法和依本憲法所制定的合眾國法律;所有條約....在合眾國權力下...."以及真正憲法所裁斷的全部權威性,以致所有任何違反美國憲法的東西都是無效及廢止的,包含任何國會此類之行為;儘管所有前述的。我重申,你的解釋將宣稱美國民眾對於不忠的條約("這援助及舒適我們敵人"見憲法第3條第3款),完全無憲法上保障。

YOUR interpretation would give complete IMMUNITY to the

maker...of such treaties and would constitute"changing the Constitution

by usurpation" in violation of the intent, spirit,AND letter of the Constitution

as a whole.

你的解釋將會給那些條約的制訂者,完全的抵抗力,並且構成"透過篡奪改變憲法",違反憲法的意圖、精神、條文,全部。

The President obviously is NOT a "free agent"by virtue of ARTICLE

II, Section 2, clause 2, to make any sort of treaty he would like, but is

BOUND DOWN by the chains of the entire Constitution.Nothing else

makes any sense. His treaty-making acts are subject to review by the

Courts.

總統顯然不是個"自由權力的人",依照憲法第2條第2款第2節,他可做任何他想做的條約,但受到整個憲法鏈條的束縛。沒有其他理由。他條約制訂行為必須受到法院審查。

True, we SHOULD DEMAND rescinding of the action by both Senate

and Harry S. Truman in signing the U.N. Participation Act of 1945 in behalf

of the USA. This would put the World on notice that we were once more

HONORING OUR OWN CONSTITUTION (CHARTER OF FREEDOM)

AS THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, AND REINSTATING IT TO ITS

FORMER PROPER SUPREME POSITION: as well as reclaiming our

Sovereignty as an Independent Republic in accordance with our Declaration

of Independence.

當然我們應該要求廢除,由參議院及杜魯門所共同簽署的1945年聯合國參與法,這將使世界注意到我們再次榮耀我們憲法(自由憲章),作為國土上的至高法律,恢復它先前適當的至高位置:以及根據我們的獨立宣言,作為一個獨立共和國,收回我們的主權。

There is not nor ever will be any true Peace, Freedom,Safety or

Security for the American People under the alien U.N.Charter.

There is "NO SUBSTITUTE" for American Independence. Many men

have died and "worms have eaten them" for a far lesser Cause.

And so, Mr. Newby, you and I do have one primary objective in view:

GET THE U.S. OUT OF THE U.N., AND THE SUBVERSIVE U.N. OUT OF

THE USA!

Most sincerely yours,

Marilyn R. Allen

美國人民在外來的聯合國憲章下,將不會有任何真正和平、自由、安全、保障。美國獨立沒有任何的替代品。許多男人已經死亡,"蠕蟲已經吃了他們"因為一個極小的原因。所以,紐比先生,你跟我看起來有個主要目標:把聯合國趕出美國,當一位在美國的聯合國顛覆份子!

最真誠你的

瑪莉蓮.艾倫

I guess that just about covers the U.N. Charter vs. U.S.sovereignty hoax. No

one should ever be able to bullshit you on this issue again. Your job now is to

make sure your Congressmen and Senators are educated on this issue.

GET TO WORK — NOW!

我猜這就是掩護聯合國憲章對上美國主權的騙術。沒有人曾有能力在你的論點上,多次對你放屁。你現在的工作是確保你眾、參議員在此議題上,有受過教育。

現在馬上行動!

---------------------第13章完---------------------------------

TOP

本帖最後由 awepp 於 2017-10-23 13:38 編輯

我看到了一位老師對台灣女權(不是正常的女權!特別強調)的看法,讓我非常驚訝!絕對是我看過最精闢、精準的論述。因為還沒得到當事人同意,所以我大概轉述內容。

女權主義最終形態是消滅性別,這跟共產主義消滅私產一樣,是很激進的意識形態。
這些激進份子經過了共產主義失敗,已經學到躁進的教訓,一步一步,用自由、平等
、愛來包裝,滲透進校園、媒體、政府,表面是這樣,實際上刻意隱藏其黑暗面,
許多國家都已經淪陷,反對者就會被冠上性別歧視、反人權的帽子,常聽的其中理由
是各國都這樣,我們不做就是落後。
那些納粹份子、蘇聯的共產份子都去哪了呢?都消失了嗎?如同黑色貴族,如果我們
都以為那些人已經消失,並且遺忘,那真的是大錯特錯!
聯合國的終極目標就是單一世界政府,憲章的起草人是蘇聯的共產份子也就完全是合
情合理。(會員國要遵守大會決議,這個每個人聽起來都像廢話的話,這規定就會造成
每個國家推行的政策越來越一致,實質上變成聯合國就是單一世界政府)
感覺上蘇聯的解體代表著時機點已到,可退場,進入下個階段?

一個問題是,中華民國不是會員國,但是當時國民黨政府有代表在憲章上簽字,這樣
對中華民國有沒有約束力?
台灣女權、同志權益目前已經在世界名列前茅,未來實在令人憂心。

TOP

返回列表