President of the Universe

The ultimate goal of the Insider conspirators is an all-powerful World Superstate, which they will control. The cartelists and monopolists will then be able to parcel out franchises on the world's natural resources, transportation, finance, and commerce to their own clique of oligarchs. The Insiders won't have to worry about pesky upstart competitors, because there won't be any competitors. You won't be able to be in business without a license from the monolithic World Superstate. This explains the seeming contradiction of so many of the super-rich advocating a world socialist government. There will be only two classes—the Insiders with their managerial elite and their enforcers at the top, and the other 99 percent of the population, made up of slave-drones, at the bottom. These are the same conditions that prevail today in the Communist countries, where, contrary to Communist philosophy, some are much more equal than others. Even Red China provides Rolls Royces for its high mucky-mucks, or did, while the workers in that proletarian paradise are fortunate if they own bicycles. Marxists have always worked to eliminate the middle class, and Marxism is the tool of the superwealthy Insiders.

Speaking for the Insiders, James Warburg, whose father was primarily responsible for the creation of the Federal Reserve System and whose relatives financed the Communist Revolution in Russia, told a Senate Committee on February 17, 1950: "We shall have world government whether or not you like it—by conquest or consent."

Selling the American people the idea of world government has not been an easy task. The aftermath of World War I, during which all of the secret treaties and double-dealings surfaced at Versailles, convinced isolation-inclined America that foreign entanglements were to be avoided. Only the growth of international Communism, always carefully nurtured by what would appear to be its arch-enemy, the super-rich international bankers, has altered America's attitude toward foreign entanglements. But while Americans have accepted defense alliances, they are still wary of world government, because they realize that, with 5 percent of the world's people and 50 percent of the world's wealth, we would literally be looted to pay the taxes for the world superstate.

The Liberal media have created an image of those who oppose "internationalism" or the "America last" foreign policy as rabid chauvinists who despise everything and everyone that is not American. Those who believe we should mind our own business and let other countries mind theirs have been given the name "isolationists," a term that has been made synonymous with bigotry and backwardness. In truth, for almost one hundred and fifty years Americans had traded with the rest of the world, importing and exporting goods and carrying on normal diplomatic relations with all legitimate governments. But America had stayed strictly neutral in all foreign wars and had neither tried to set the policies of foreign governments nor let them establish ours. Prejudice, hatred, and provincialism had nothing to do with it.

In his Farewell Address, George Washington had warned:

"Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence, the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican government."

Since abandoning this philosophy America has been involved in a perpetual war for perpetual peace in which we fight one foreign war after another, each one propagandized as the war that will lead to permanent peace.

Ever ready to play both sides of the street, the Ultra-Left has now largely become "neo-isolationist," by which is meant favoring the termination of even the semblance of resistance to the advance of Communism. This perverted isolationism applies only to the military, as the "neo-isolationists" would actually step up foreign aid to socialist and Communist countries.

Leftists have always advocated centralization of power in government. When there is only one central government to infiltrate and take over, instead of thousands of local governments, the job is infinitely simplified for the would-be totalitarian dictators. Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto clearly implied the eventual establishment of a single world socialist state—a world government. In 1915, in No. 40 of the Russian organ, he Socialist Democrat, Nicolai Lenin proposed a "United States of the world." The program of the Communist International of 1936 says that:

"World dictatorship "can be established only by the victory of socialism in different countries or groups of countries, after which the Proletariat Republics would unite on federal lines with those already in existence, and this system would expand . . . at length forming the world union of Soviet Socialist Republics."

Joseph Stalin divided his plan for achievement of this Communist world federalism into three stages: (1) Socialize the economies of all nations, particularly the Western capitalistic democracies; (2) bring about federal union of various groupings of these socialized nations; and (3) amalgamate all of the federal unions into one world-wide union of socialist states.

World government has a strong emotional appeal for Americans, based on their universal desire for world peace. The Insiders have the Communists rattling their sabers with one hand and dangling the olive branch with the other. Naturally everyone gravitates towards the olive branch, not realizing that the olive branch is controlled by another arm of the entity that is rattling the sabers.

There are basically two tightly interlocked groups promoting world government. The first, the United World Federalists, proposes turning the UN into a world government that would include the Communists. The other, the Atlantic Unionists, would form a new nation, the United States of Atlantica, built around the NATO countries, as a supposed deterrent to Communism. The Insiders manipulating the world government movement work both sides of the street, taking advantage of those who wish to appease Communism and those who wish to oppose it. Richard Nixon has been associated with both factions of the world government pincers movement.

In the October 1949 issue of their magazine, World Government News, the United World Federalists stated: "The Movement, while supporting the efforts of the United Nations, shall work to transform it by fundamental amendment into a world federal government."

The United World Federalists organization was born in 1947, when three hundred assorted Liberals, socialists, and Communists from a number of one-world groups met at Asheville, North Carolina, and combined into a single group. The UWF is an affiliate of the World Movement for World Federal Government, which was established in Switzerland in 1946. UWF is the largest world government group in the United States (except for the Communists), and the most vigorously active in its propaganda. UWF wants a "world government" that will make world law and enforce it directly upon individuals, who will thereafter be "world citizens" no longer citizens of their respective nations.

This movement has attracted more persons influential in business life than any other, and has branches in fifteen countries. In its "Beliefs, Purposes and Policies" (revised November 1-2, 1947), the UWF stated:

". . . World peace can be created and maintained only under a world federal government, universal and strong enough to prevent armed conflict between nations, and having direct jurisdiction over the individual and those matters within its authority."

To accomplish this, UWF leader Grenville Clark stated:

"The manufacture of all war weapons would be prohibited to the member nations. Such manufacture would be confined to those arms required by the world police force and would be conducted solely in arsenals owned and operated by the United Nations."

In an effort to bring about the world police force, the UWF is very active in lobbying for various disarmament bills, gloating, for example, in its official newspaper, The Federalists, in November 1963, "Perhaps the Test Ban Treaty didn't introduce the millennium, but it put an end to yesterday."

In September of 1952, at a conference held in London by the World Association of Parliamentarians for World Government, representatives of the United World Federalists worked with members of that organization in the preparation of a plan for a world police force and occupation armies to enforce "peace."

The Plan established that after they had succeeded in revising the U.N. Charter (at some future date) and converting the United Nations into a world government, these conspirators would deploy "peace-keeping" forces around the globe. According to this formally prepared scheme, there would be a "World Dictator," the eight "Zone Directors," and fifty-one "Regional Directors," none of whom would ever be allowed to serve in their respective countries. That, of course, would ensure "impartiality."

The Plan, exposed by Colonel Eugene Pomeroy and the internationally famous journalist Douglas Reed, provided that no American troops of the "Peace" force would ever be stationed in or even near the United States, but our nation and Canada would be occupied by armies from Russia, Mongolia, and probably East Germany. Red troops from other countries as well would be scattered over the rest of the six regions into which it was decided to divide North America, in order to enforce the authority of the new world government and prevent Americans from engaging in the "crime" of "sheltering behind national allegiance."

Because of their tremendous populations, the Chinese Communists and their Soviet Comrades would dominate the World Parliament of such a government. If this chilling plan is allowed to reach fruition—as the conspirators intend that it shall—America is dead.

Since UWF advocates "union now" with the Communists, it is not surprising that it also strongly backs aid and trade with the enemy.

UWF sponsored resolutions in the various state legislatures calling for world government. By 1953 the resolution had passed twenty-three states, but in that year California rescinded its approval and sixteen other states thereafter followed California. The world government forces, however, did not give up. They simply changed their tactics. Direct action through legislation having been blocked, they now turned their propaganda assault to the "strengthening" of the United Nations Charter.

We could, literally, list for a hundred pages the Communist and Leftist front affiliations of those who founded the United World Federalists. Even our necessarily limited file of Senate and House Committee documents shows seven hundred forty affiliations of the forty-two key founders of the United World Federalists with officially cited Communist fronts and projects. And, going just a step further, we find from a similar scanning of the public records of some one hundred eighty officials and members—one-sixth of whom are members of the CFR —that a total of one hundred sixteen have somehow managed to amass at least 1,250 affiliations with Communist fronts and publications.

While most members of the UWF are Democrats, the organization also has strong support from modern Republicans. In a message to the United World Federalists in May 1963, former President Eisenhower stated: "The United World Federalists, adhering to common standards of justice and international conduct, requires the continued support of all those dedicated to freedom."

Also supporting the UWF is Modern Republican Jacob Javits, who sent this message to the one-worlders:

"I want to commend the World Federalists for their continued fine efforts on behalf of world peace under a world rule of law, for your outstanding contribution on behalf of the United Nations, and your spirited tradition of service."

In September of 1968, candidates for public office received a letter from the United World Federalists that stated:

"Our organization has been endorsed and commended by all U.S. presidents in the last 20 years and by the current nominees for the presidency. As examples we quote as follows:

"Richard Nixon: 'Your organization can perform an important service by continuing to emphasize that world peace can only come thru world law. Our goal is world peace. Our instrument for achieving peace will be law and justice. If we concentrate our energies toward these ends, I am hopeful that real progress can be made.'

"Hubert H. Humphrey: 'Every one of us is committed to brotherhood among all nations, but no one pursues these goals with more dignity and dedication than the United World Federalists.'"

There really was not a dime's worth of difference. Voters were given the choice between CFR world government advocate Nixon and CFR world government advocate Humphrey. Only the rhetoric was changed to fool the public.

Richard Nixon is, of course, far too clever to actually join the UWF, but he has supported their legislative program since his early days in Congress. In the October 1948 issue of the UWF publication World Government News, on page 14, there appears the following announcement: "Richard Nixon: Introduced world government resolution (HCR 68) 1947, and ABC (World Government) resolution 1948."

Of special interest to the UWF throughout its history has been its campaign to repeal the Connally Reservation, whereby the United States has reserved to itself the power to decide what matters are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the U.S. and may not be brought under the jurisdiction of the World Court. The UWF wants repeal of the Connally Reservation, which would mean that the United States would accept "as binding the rulings of the International Court of Justice [World Court] on disarmament, on interpretation of the U.N. Charter and laws, and of international treaties."

The abolition of the Connally Reservation would leave us at the mercy of the Afro-Asian and Iron Curtain blocs that dominate the U.N. It would be tantamount to surrendering the sovereignty of the U.S. to its enemies, and would thus be a gross violation of the Presidential oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Yet Richard Nixon for many years has advocated the repeal of the Connally Reservation. Incredulous patriots who wrote Nixon about his advocacy of its repeal were sent a copy of a letter dated April 14, 1960, from Richard Nixon to Eugene Pulliam, publisher of the Phoenix Republic and Gazette, in which Nixon flatly stated that he favored repeal. In the letter Nixon said:

"I believe . . . that the intervening years have shown that our so-called 'self-judging reservation' is no longer necessary."

Actually, the intervening years—during which the U.N. has expanded to take in the Afro-Asian mini-states, whose common denominator is a hatred of the United States and a desire to get their hands on our wealth—have shown that the protection of the Connally Reservation is more necessary than ever.

President Nixon actually goes far beyond mere repeal of the amendment embodying the reservation, to advocate "world rule through world law"—the official slogan of the UWF—in which the World Court is to be made the Supreme Court of the World. (Mr. Nixon does not mention whether Earl Warren should be made its Chief Justice.) The New York Times of April 14, 1959, commenting on a speech made by Mr. Nixon the day before, stated:

"An important and far-reaching proposal for realizing the guiding ideal of both the United States and the United Nations was made by Vice President Nixon in his speech before the Academy of Political Science.

"The ideal, long proclaimed by American statesmen, in particular President Eisenhower, and embodied in the United Nations Charter, is to establish a peaceful world in which the rule of force will be replaced by the rule of law.

"To that end Mr. Nixon proposes to elevate the International Court of Justice at The Hague to a real Supreme Court of the world with far wider jurisdiction and employment in international disputes and with the power to make binding decisions especially in cases involving differing interpretations of international treaties and agreements that have been a dominant element in the conflict between the free world and the Communist bloc . . .

"Mr. Nixon characterized his proposal as still unofficial. But he has wide Administration backing for it and, in line with President Eisenhower's State of the Union message, forecast Administration recommendations to Congress to give effect to it by modifying American reservations [the Connally Reservation] as to the court's jurisdiction which set a pattern for other nations .. . . Mr. Nixon's proposal deserves both study and support."

Giving the World Court power over America and Americans has been a long-time UWF goal. And Mr. Nixon is in the process of revitalizing the court. According to the Los Angeles Times of May 3, 1970:

"Among those interested are Secretary of State William P. Rogers and his undersecretary, Elliot Richardson, who have both made recent speeches urging revival and extension of the court; an assortment of high federal judges; a bipartisan group of congressmen led by Rep. Paul Findley (R.-Ill.); U.N. Secretary General U Thant—and, somewhere in the wings. President Nixon . . .

"It is not accident, then, that certain State Department leaders are already hard at work trying to scrape up some cases from dusty files to take to the court . . . "

The other major world government movement is the Atlantic Union group, which believes that getting half a loaf is half way to getting a whole loaf. Like Stalin, they believe that circumstances necessitate a nation's going through a regional government set-up before going on to world government. Although the UWF seeks immediate amalgamation with the Communist countries, that idea is often hard to sell; so the Insiders have Atlantic Union, which is ostensibly anti-Communist. And indeed, there are some sincere, if naive, anti-Communists in the Atlantic Union movement who support abolishing the United States and forming, with the countries of Western Europe, a new nation, the United States of Atlantica. Most members of Atlantic Union, however, are extreme Liberals from whom seldom is heard an anti-communist word, except when they are urging the necessity of joining in a United States of Europe to guard against the advance of Communism.

The idea of Atlantic Union is not new. In fact, it had its origin in the fertile brain of an Englishman named Cecil Rhodes, whose idea was to reconquer the United States and make it an integral part of the British Empire. To this end he established the Rhodes Foundation, providing for the education in England of bright young Americans. Andrew Carnegie, the steel magnate, in return for the promise of a dukedom in his native Scotland, was persuaded to assist in the plan, and in 1910 the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace was established.

In 1939, a Rhodes Scholar and old-time one-worlder by the name of Clarence Streit wrote a book called Union Now, which advocated a gradual approach to final world union by way of regional unions, starting with the union between the U.S. and Britain. According to the Carnegie Year Book of 1940, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace financed the placing of four hundred copies of the Streit book in libraries of the United States and sent over one thousand copies to carefully selected editors, newspapers, and journalists in the United States and Canada. Committees were set up all over America, and Mr. Streit reported that over two million Americans had signed petitions asking for union with Britain. In Union Now, Streit, who has been a close associate of Communists and socialists all his adult life, had said that the more complex the world becomes, "the more urgent [is] its need for world government." On page 256 of his book he stated:

"Into this world came Union Now, challenging the dogma of absolute national sovereignty and asserting that a world organization not only was necessary, but must be stronger than the League of Nations, must be based upon different principles, on citizenship rather than national sovereignty. It [Union Now] proclaimed the need of world government and insisted that no country needed this more urgently than the United States."

In Streit's own words (page 257), Atlantic Union was the first step towards complete world government:

"Union Now held the formation of a free federal government to be the eventual goal and urges the first step towards its Union Now of the democracies . . ."

In 1941, Streit published another book, entitled Union Now with Britain, in which he claimed that the union he advocated would be a step toward the formation of a free world government; but the book itself made it clear that by joining a union with other nations, America would be amalgamated with the socialist and Communist systems that existed in these other nations.

In the Washington Evening Star of January 5, 1942, an ad appeared under the heading: "In Union Now Lies the Power to Win the War and the Peace—a Petition." The petition said:

"We gain from the fact that all the Soviet Republics are now united in one government, as also are all the Chinese-speaking peoples once so divided. Surely we and they must agree that union now of the democracies wherever possible is equally to the general advantage. Let us begin now a world United States."

A resolution urged a federal union with common citizenship, direct taxation of citizens, responsibility for law enforcement, authority to coin and borrow money, a monopoly of armed forces, and the ability to admit new members. At one time Streit's organization favored including the Russians.

On April 27, 1942, the board of directors of Federal Union adopted a new policy statement, which said:

"We believe that we can best preserve and extend those basic freedoms which are the heritage of western civilization by forming now . . . a federal union with those peoples with whom we have compelling natural ties . . . We believe that the world imperatively needs an all-inclusive international organization in which the United States . . . Russia . . . and other powers known as the United Nations should take the lead."

Following World War II, when the idea of forming a union with Russia became unpalatable to the American public, Streit, showing the agility possessed by all one-worlders, reversed his field and announced that Union Now would be a bulwark against world Communism!

Streit, who may have gotten his ideas on Atlantic Union from various tracts on the subject published by the Fabian Socialist Society in England, clearly has no hostility towards collectivism. He said in Union Now: "Democracy not only allows mankind to choose freely between capitalism and collectivism, but it includes Marxist governments."

In his pamphlets Streit asks the question: "Does the rise of socialism in some Western European democracies prevent our federating with them?" He answers with an emphatic "No!"

Streit's organization to promote Union Now was called Federal Union, and was financed by grants from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, of which Communist spy Alger Hiss was later to become president.

In March 1949, Federal Union set up a political action unit called the Atlantic Union Committee. The first president of this Committee was former Supreme Court Justice Owen J. Roberts, who testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee in 1950 that joining Union Now would mean the United States government would have to surrender its rights and power to coin money, levy taxes and tariffs, regulate immigration, enact citizenship laws, declare war, and maintain standing armies. Roberts has said he considers national sovereignty a "silly shibboleth" and believes that U.S. and Western European union "must be built on a common citizenship."

The Los Angeles Examiner on February 8, 1951, described what Atlantic Union meant to America:

"What Senator Kefauver actually is proposing is that the United States summon the nations of Western Europe and offer to abolish itself as a nation, surrendering its sovereign powers to those nations.

"They would impose their socialism in place of our republican self-government, extract taxes from us as they pleased, draft our men for their armies and our women for their factories, appropriate the bulk of our productive wealth for their own enrichment.

"How can any Senator or Representative elected to represent the people of the United States bring himself to advocate so clear a policy of national self-destruction? How can any adult American even consider such an idea?

Yet less than a dozen years after its founding the Atlantic Union Committee had grown to eight hundred seventy-one wealthy and influential members, one hundred seven of whom were members of the CFR, and thirty, members of the United World Federalists. Elmo Roper (CFR and UWF), the pollster, formerly President of the Atlantic Union Committee, in his book, The Goal Is Government of All the World, betrayed how Atlantic Union fits into the world government scheme:

"Some of us who have been interested in World Government for several years now have come together to form the Atlantic Union Committee. Our objective in this committee is to have the Congress pass a resolution supporting the call of a Constitutional Convention of at least the Atlantic Pact nations."

Under the subtitle "How Federal Union Will Work," Mr. Roper stated:

"Such a union would have the right to conduct foreign relations, maintain armed forces, issue currency, regulate commerce and communications between states in the union and grant citizenship. The union must have the power to tax . . . There would be nothing, there must be nothing, in such a union which would be out of consonance with the aims and objectives of the United Nations."

A resolution calling for an Atlantic Union Convention was introduced into Congress in 1949. Senator Estes Kefauver of Tennessee took the lead in pushing the resolution, which had the support of Senators William Fulbright (CFR), Hubert Humphrey (CFR), Jacob Javits (CFR), Herbert Lehman (CFR), and Richard Nixon. Others in and out of Congress who supported this or succeeding bipartisan bills included William Benton (CFR), John Foster Dulles (CFR), Milton Eisenhower (CFR), Thomas Finletter (CFR), Henry Ford II (CFR), William C. Foster (CFR), Clark Kerr (CFR), Mr. Nixon's alter ego, Henry Kissinger (CFR), John V. Lindsay (CFR), George C. Marshall (CFR), Eugene McCarthy (CFR), Charles S. Rhyne (CFR), Arthur Schlesinger Jr. (CFR), Adlai Stevenson (CFR), and Thomas Watson (CFR). The bill has never passed Congress, although it has been introduced again and again by world government promoters, some calling themselves Democrats and some Republicans. In February 1951, World Government News, the official publication of the United World Federalists (pages 8 and 9), hailed Richard Nixon for sponsoring the Atlantic Union Resolution the second time it was introduced into the Senate.

The one-world advocates never give up. John Foster Dulles, two days after he had been selected by President Eisenhower to be our Secretary of State, wired the Second Congress of the Atlantic Union Committee, which was meeting in Buffalo (November 22, 1952), expressing his support of their idea and suggesting that NATO be converted into a federal union. The NATO Treaty had been ratified in 1949, under Truman, as a military alliance to protect the free world against expanding Communism. Many had ideas of expanding this into a federal union.

In an article on world government, U.S. News & World Report of February 24, 1956, stated:

"Among Republicans, President Eisenhower has endorsed the idea of some form of union. Vice-President Richard Nixon and Governor Christian Herter of Massachusetts, as members of the Senate and the House a few years ago, introduced resolutions calling for conventions to study the question of unity. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles has endorsed such a study."

Not all Republicans, however, bought the globaloney. U.S. News & World Report quoted Senator Bricker of Ohio as calling the bill to set up an Atlantic Union convention an "exploration of the desirability of junking the American Declaration of Independence." Bricker regarded the plan as one under which "the United States would become a vassal province in a regional superstate evolving out of NATO," and the American Bill of Rights would go down the drain.

Streit and his organization are undaunted by the fact that they have yet to force their plan past Congress, despite strong bipartisan support, and they continue to push and gain momentum. A report from Atlantic Union on the "Remarkable Advance of the Atlantic Federal Union Concept in 1966" boasted that Atlanticans had strong potential Presidential support. Freedom and Union magazine of March 1966 listed as backers who had endorsed the Atlantic Union Delegation Barry Goldwater, Mark Hatfield, Richard Nixon, Nelson Rockefeller, George Romney, and William Scranton. Congressman Paul Findley (R.-Ill.), who introduced the latest Atlantic Union bill in Congress, stated:

"Based on these endorsements, I predict that the next Republican President will work to achieve Atlantic union . . . Virtually all the presidential level leadership of the Republican party thus supports the most promising proposal for uniting free people since the American Revolution, 1776-89."

Richard Nixon, in his letter of endorsement to Findley, said: "As Clarence Streit probably told you I have supported this resolution for many years and I wish you every success in your efforts." During 1964 Nixon had taken time off from his campaign to send the committee this statement, dated September 1: "It is fitting that the United States, the world's first truly federal government, should be a main force behind the effort to find a basis for a broad federation of the Atlantica nations." The message forthrightly concluded: "The Atlantic Union Resolution is a forward-looking proposal which acknowledges the depth and breadth of the incredible change which is going on in the world around us. I urge its adoption."

Nixon was merely echoing the beliefs and aims of Nelson Rockefeller. The same issue of Freedom and Union magazine quoted Rockefeller as maintaining:

"Our generation is called on for . . . political creativity and economic construction—on an inter-continental basis . . . I have followed with sympathy and interest the development of the joint resolution [for an Atlantic Union Convention] and deeply believe that its enactment would be an historic milestone in the annals of human freedom and world peace."

All this bipartisan support elated Streit, who gloated:

"In the past, the main support for Atlantic Union resolutions came from the Democrats; the Republicans—with notable exceptions—were indifferent or hostile. This year the proposal, without losing its Democratic backing, gained leadership at the presidential level. It also gained a higher percentage of support from Republican and Democratic membership in the House despite this being an election year. This advance is highly important for it insures full bi-partisan support should the President decide to lead toward Atlantic Union . . . "

Whenever Mr. Nixon has been queried on his support of dissolving the United States into the new nation of Atlantica, he has vociferously denied that Atlantic Union has anything to do with mouse-trapping America into a world superstate, and his verbiage is designed to make it appear that anyone who intimates such a thing is guilty of a monstrous unfounded slander against him. Only those who have actually taken time to study the facts know who is doing the truth-twisting. Atlantic Union, which has a great deal of dual membership with UWF, makes no bones about the fact that it is the halfway house to world government. On the twenty-fifth anniversary of Atlantic Union in 1964, Clarence Streit admitted, once again, his organization's one world ambitions:

"The Atlantic Union it means to see constituted now will be but a nucleus designed to grow in peace through generations to come, until the Federation of the Free embraces the whole race of mortal man. "

Since becoming President, Mr. Nixon has remained very quiet about the Atlantic Union movement. No doubt, any move in this direction is being saved until after 1972. Atlantic Union, however, has not forgotten Mr. Nixon. At Federal Union's Award Dinner in Washington, D.C., on November 20, 1970, founder Clarence Streit presented the Atlantic Union Pioneer Award to Richard Nixon for eighteen years of championing the cause of establishing "the United States of Atlantica." The award bears this inscription:

RICHARD M. NIXON, President of the United States.
Farseeing Senator, he Co-sponsored in 1951
the Original Atlantic Union Resolution.

As Vice President, his Bold Action Led to the 1962 Atlantic Convention in Paris. Alone among Presidential Aspirants, he wrote the 1966 House Hearing, Urging a Stronger Bill—Still Pending—With these Words that History will Remember:

"The United States should be a Main Force for a Federation of Free Atlantic Nations . . . In the Age of the Rocket, Dreams become Reality with a Speed Difficult to Imagine. The Atlantic Union Resolution . . . a Forward-looking Proposal . . . Acknowledges the . . . Incredible Change Going on Around Us. I Urge its Adoption."

Mr. Nixon has taken a major step toward surrendering American sovereignty with his advocacy of Senate ratification of the United Nations' Genocide Convention. This treaty is so Leftist-oriented and so dangerous that no President in twenty-one years has succeeded in shoving it through the Senate. The Genocide Convention was first submitted to the Senate by President Truman in 1950. Public opposition caused it to be bottled up in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where it has lain dormant ever since.

In 1953 President Eisenhower tried to get the treaty revivified and ratified, but opposition was too great and the attempt was abandoned. The same thing happened under President Johnson in 1966. Now President Nixon has put the prestige and pressure of his administration solidly behind the effort to obtain ratification, despite the fact that the American Bar Association has all along been on record as strongly opposing this giveaway of American rights and sovereignty. Liberal Democrats Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson could not achieve passage of this misnamed treaty, but Nixon may well succeed where others have failed, simply because most Americans accept the Madison Avenue image of Mr. Nixon as a staunch defender against the Left.

The convention was adopted by the U.N. in 1948, and since then some seventy-five nations have ratified the instrument, among them the Soviet Union—a sponsor of the treaty. Columnist James J. Kilpatrick comments:

"And if it seems remarkable that the masters of the Kremlin should have signed this document, wiping their hands still stained with the blood of Katyn, it is because the Genocide Convention does not apply to political or revolutionary groups. It applies only to "national, ethnical, racial or religious groups," and the Kremlin hardly ever seeks to eliminate them as such. The camps of Siberia house nothing but bums?"

Kilpatrick continues:

"The Soviet Union's ratification of the treaty has this importance only: It is being used by proponents of the convention as a club for beating on the Senate. The Russians, we are told, are ashamed of the United States. How could we fail to embrace a treaty so enlightened and humane? "

Yes, how could we fail to be suckered into this trap? Who could be opposed to a treaty outlawing the killing of human beings? The Washington Post has called our failure to ratify the treaty an "unsightly stain on the good name" of the U.S.A. Also demanding passage are such Leftist organizations as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the American Humanist Committee, Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), the League for Industrial Democracy (LID), the Unitarian- Universalist Association, the United Auto Workers, the National Council of Churches, and the Communist Party. William Loeb, publisher of the Manchester (N.H.) Union Leader, commented:

". . . the genocide treaty is actually an old Communist trick: Put a nice label on something—like "home or mother"—and you can count on the customers (or the voters) not reading the fine print. It is in the fine print where the Communists hook you. The genocide treaty, if passed, would go far towards destroying freedom of speech for every American, it would put weapons in the hands of the state which could make it very easy to imprison almost any individual."

The dangers in the United States' ratifying of the U.N.'s Genocide Convention were spelled out by Kilpatrick:

"One of the forbidden acts [of the Genocide Convention] is 'causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group.' Either 'mental harm' means something, or it means nothing. It means, we must suppose, whatever it may some day be construed to mean by judges, foreign or domestic, presiding at the trial of some public official or private person charged with this gauzy crime.

"Another forbidden act is 'deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.' Criminal statutes, we are taught, must be strictly construed. Who can construe this clause? What is meant, at another point, by 'public incitement?' What is meant by 'complicity in genocide?' Who knows?"

The treaty also provides for an "international penal tribunal" to have jurisdiction in such cases. This group would have the power to yank Americans before it and try them for the crime of causing "mental harm" to some minority group. We have had plenty of experience with civil rights groups seeing "racism" under every bed, and one can imagine that they would go hog-wild if they could haul any person or group against whom they have a gripe, real or imaginary, before a sympathetic group of international magistrates. This could conceivably lead to secret seizures, deportations, and trials. Americans would be stripped of the protections guaranteed them by the Constitution. Mr. Nixon made sure of this when as Vice President he worked behind the scenes to engineer the defeat of the Bricker Amendment, which would have guaranteed that no treaty could supersede the Constitution's protections.

Columnist Holmes Alexander, in writing of Nixon's recommendation to the Senate (which, incidentally, has the backing of "Conservative" Attorney General John N. Mitchell), says, in effect, that the President is only kidding. Nixon, Alexander says, knows the tenor of the Senate and that it would not ratify so monstrous a thing. So, he writes, we shouldn't worry about Nixon's recommendation, no matter how dangerous it might be. As columnist John Synon remarked:

"How cynical. That's like saying not to worry about handing a loaded gun to a nitwit. The United States Senate, I'm here to tell you, is capable of ratifying anything, genocide, homicide, or suicide. The Senate will succeed in ratifying it only if a number of weak-kneed Republicans who would normally oppose it submit to threats, arm twisting, and promises of pork barrel projects for their home states."

If Mr. Nixon has been only kidding about his devotion to forging the links in the chain of the World Superstate that is to be welded around America's wrists, then he is a consummate hypocrite. But his commitment to world government goes back nearly a quarter of a century, and indeed he would not now be in the White House if he were not committed to this ultimate goal of the Insiders. It is Mr. Alexander and the millions of other complacent Republicans who are fooling themselves by rationalizing that Mr. Nixon does not mean business every step of the way to world government.

For those who can read between the lines, Mr. Nixon's devotion to world government is quite obvious. However, he never uses the term "world government," which would produce a strong reaction, but rather the euphemistic standard code words of the world government addicts, "world order." Mr. Nixon often speaks of "building a new world order," but that phrase is meaningless to all but a few. If the Insiders are successful, the "new world order" will probably be built, ultimately, on the existing U.N. structure. President Nixon has long been a U.N. enthusiast, despite the fact that, of all people, he knows best that the primary author of the U.N. Charter, Alger Hiss, was a Soviet spy—for he helped to convict him.

Although the United Nations has lost much of its luster for the public, it has still been the beneficiary of the greatest propaganda build-up in history, despite the fact that its creation had the full support of the Communists. The Communists knew they could manipulate it, and Political Affairs, the official theoretical journal of the Communist Party, U.S.A., in its April 1945 issue told the comrades:

"Great popular support and enthusiasm for the United Nations policies should be built up, well organized, and articulate. But it is necessary to do more than that. The opposition must be rendered so impotent that it will be unable to gather any significant support in the Senate against the United Nations Charter and the treaties which are to follow." [Emphasis added.]

Shortly after his election President Nixon and his Secretary of State-designate William Rogers visited the U.N.

". . . .so that by this visit," Nixon said, "we could indicate our continuing support of the United Nations and our intention in these years ahead to do everything that we can to strengthen this organization as it works in the cause of peace throughout the world."

All of this really should not be surprising. The President was quoted in a favorable biography, Nixon, by Earl Mazo and Stephen Hess, as saying: "Am I a conservative or a liberal? My answer is that I'm an internationalist." An internationalist is one who is not a nationalist. He is one who puts other nations, or the world, ahead of his own country. He is one who advocates peace by yoking America in an organization with the world's most murderous warmakers. He is one who believes that sovereignty over the United States should reside outside the United States.

This may seem like a rather curious position for one who has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, which set up a sovereign nation, but Mr. Nixon is not alone in this contradiction. It is the Liberal position, and Mr. Nixon has stated unequivocally numerous times: "I'm a liberal on foreign policy." But most people are not aware of this statement. They are only aware of his campaign oratory, in which he has denounced in the strongest possible terms the architects of disaster who have led America in stumbling from one foreign policy disaster to another for over twenty-five years. Once in office he followed the same pro-Communist policies as his predecessors. As ultra-Liberal Dr. Lincoln P. Bloomfield has explained: "If the communist dynamic was greatly abated the west might lose whatever incentive it has for world government."

The reason that Mr. Nixon has followed the same policies, and even kept the same "architects" in positions of power, is that he is committed to these policies. If he were not, he would today be a prosperous lawyer in California, but a political has-been.

Rather than a political has-been, Richard Nixon today is President of the United States. The Insiders reward well those who are willing to play their game. Many students of the Insiders' conspiracy believe that they intend to establish their totalitarian world superstate during Mr. Nixon's second term. It would doubtless come about through a series of precipitated and manipulated crises involving a world-wide monetary debacle, a major depression in America, major moves around the world by the Soviets, and possibly war in the Mid-East. World government would come as a savior, promising world peace and an end to the Communist threat. Most Americans would not realize until it is too late that the problems were created in order that world government might be accepted as a solution.

A world government by its very nature must be a socialist government. The planners want to extend their plans over the entire world. The Insiders want to control the economy of the whole planet. A world government requires a world supreme court, and Mr. Nixon is on record in favor of a world supreme court. And a world government must have a world police force to enforce the laws of the World Superstate and keep the slaves from rebelling.

The Los Angeles Examiner of October 28, 1950, reported that Congressman Richard Nixon had introduced a "resolution calling for the establishment of a United Nations police force . . . " So we know where Mr. Nixon stands on that one! But why would Mr. Nixon want to see the United States sucked into the world government trap? Could it be that the Insiders have promised him that he will be the organization's first president? You must admit it beats being an attorney in bucolic Whittier.