eustace mullins - the great betrayal; the general welfare clause of the constitution (1991)

8/8/2019 Eustace Mullins - The Great Betrayal; The General Welfare Clause of the Constitution (1991)

1/25


2/25

THE GREAT BETRAYAL

The GeneralWelfareClauseof the Constitution

by

EustaceMullins

ConstitutionalCommi sionThe National Commissionor JudicialReform


3/25

iil

TIM GREAT BETRAYALTheGeneralWelfareClauseof tle ConstitutionPnblishedby theNationalCommissionor JudicialReformP.O.Box 1105Staunton, irginia2M0l

First &litionCopyright1991EustaceMullins

ALL RIGIITS RESERVEDNo partof this publicationmaybereproduced, toredn a retrievalsystem, or transmitted n any forrn by any means- electronic,mechanical,photocopy, ecordingor othenvise without expressprior permission,with the exceptionof brief excerptsn magazinearticles and/or eviews.Printed n theUnitedStates f America


4/25

Booksby EustaceMullins

Mullins on the FederalReserveMy Life in Christ

This Difficult Individual, Ezra PoundThe Yorld Order

A Writ for MartyrsTheCumeof CanaanMurder by Injection

Secrets f the FederalReserveThe Rapeof Justice

forGeorgeMurraya Writer's writer


5/25

FOREWORI)

This is the story of the Great Behayal. During the twentiethcentur5/,Americans increasingly havebecome nured, evendesensi-tized, to the continuousaccusations, estimony,and public hearingswhich have detailed the many betrayalsof our Republic. Why havethere been so many betrayals, rather than one calamitous act oftreason?The history of this century has borne out the strengthof theadmirable edifice which was rearedupby our Founding Fathers.Theyincluded in it so many safeguards, omany far-sighted defenses, omany shields or the security of the succeedinggenerations, hat nosingle act of conspiracycould bring t down.No BenedictArnold, noFranklin Delano Roosevelt,acting alone, no matter how seasonedthey might be n the affairs of treason, ouldweaken his greatedificeto the extent that the ever-waiting barbarians, he Thuggeesof old,could pour into thebreachand akepossession f our culturewithouta fight. For that reason, the processof betrayal hasbeen an ongoingone, continuing over a period of many years.In tracing and reconstructing the operationsof this process, hepresentwriter has devotedsome ifty years o investigation, assidu-ously trying to locate the missing key, a GoldenKey of Destruction,that single instrument which had the deadly ability to plunge ournation into its present abysmal state.Our Colossusof Liberty, soartfully constructed,could fend off the snarlingdogs and the multi-tudinous abbleof our enemiesor aconsiderableime,but nevitably,at somedark moment, herecame hepoignant nstant when he bladewas thrust into the heart of the nation. During those decades, hiswriter, like alatterday SherlockHolmes,busiedhimself with obtainingthe evidence,seekingpiecemeal hehiddenproofsand hernost initedocumentationof thecrimesof the enemyagainstus.Therewas morethanenoughsuch estimony o keepme occupied or manyyears,but,with each new piece of evidence, addedanother and even morcmeaningful piece to the puzzle,and thus came another step towardscompleting the entire picture. Even as my assemblageof evidencegrew more mountainous, their patternbecameever more simplified,until, at last, I realized that I was on the verge of revealing the final

apostasyof thosewho haddedicated heir lives to bringing down theAmerican Republic. I found this last, and most damningproof, not insome obscure protocol of the conspirators, hidden in some dustyrecess,but in the imposing building of our National Archives. Thesecretwasound nthe languageof ourmostsacred ext, he Constitutionof the United Statesof America.Did this discovery mean hat, deepwithin the provisions of theConstitution, the Founding Fathershad ignorantly, or perhaps,evenby design, ncluded sometrick phrase which would later become theAchilles Heel of our country? Not at all. If the Founding Fathershaderred,twas onthesideofzeal,becausetheywenttouchgreateffortsto make certain that no door was left open, no possible avenue ofbetrayal inadvertently left unguarded, which might give aid andcomfort to those vipers who, working from within or from abroad,would overlook no opportunity to end his Republic,and hus deliverthe coupde grace o mankind'smostnobleexperiment n freedom. nthe entire Constitution, there are few phrases which, despite thefrenetic efforts of demagoguesand renegades, ould lend themselvesto suchgrossmisrepresentation.However,I did find, in onephraseofthis greatdocument, words which reflected the highestaspirations ofthe Founding Fathers, a phrasewhich occurs in the Preamble to theConstitution, andwhich appearsagain n Article I, SectionEight. Thisphrase s "the general welfare". It would be difficult to read into thisphraseany ambiguity, or any opportunity for demagoguery,and yetsuchpurposewas found. In this book, we have a dual purpose, irst,to explainhow ruthlessmenadopted his phrase o further their greatconspiracyagainstAmerica, and second, he techniqueswhich theyemployed to incorporate this phrase as the very keystone of theirWelfare State,a creationwhich they intendedas he replacement orthe reeRepublic of the United States.From thepowersderived fromthatoverthrow, they confidently anticipate that theywill now initiatewhat they fondly refer to as"the New World Ordet''.


6/25

ABOUTTIIE AUTHOR INTRODUCTIONForalmosthalfacentury,EustacMulli$ hasbeetlsechhg This molographwas ciginally deliveredas a Lcgal Opinion,and writing about mattels of pressing atiooal ittepst. To elch 'Mullias on theGeneralWelfare Clauseof theConstitutio! of thesubject,he bdngs a uDiquepeNtsonaloint of view which is rcye( UDitedStates"atthe Observance ffre EightietbADdvelsaryoftheswayedby anypolitical or financid influence.A nativeVirginian, he SecretWriting of the FederalRe,sf,vecl itr the Jeky[ Isl.nd Club,is 8 directdescndant f WillismMullins, asignerofthe Mayflower Jekylllslad, Georgia-twas givenbyEustaceMullinsintheFederal

Compacl tte first codeofgoveNrEert Foducd tr the New Wodd. ReserveRoom 8t the meeting of the awlence Patte$on FinansialHe sefved bity-ight months n tbeUaitcd Slate8ArDy Air Fo(ce ShategyOrganizationunder he auspices f "Crimi[al Politics", onduring World War tr. He was educ.ted at Washirgtm and Ire February1,1991,University,Ohio StateUniversity, he Uniyetsity of North Dakot4New YGk University, Escuelades Bellas ArGs, Satr Miguel deAltrende, nd he hstitute ofcontemponry Arts.His giver larne, Eustace,meatrs lustice" in Aramaic, thelanguage po&eNry JesusChrist A frlrther bguistic defirdtionofthisname E"God's equalustice asprorrised or all".Theseunny decades finvestigative wort weremadepossibleby EustaceMullirs being aunched poo hir caleeras heprotcgofthepoetEzraPoun4 four of whosstudenb,William Butler Yeats,James oyce,BrhestHemitgwat 8trdT. S. Eliot, werEsubsquentlyswardedhe NobelPdze or Literature.He slsob8meheprotegeof GeorgeStimpnou,founderofheNationalPre,ssClubitWashitrgtotr,D,C., who wasknown as he most espectedjoumalistinWashington;andof HJ-.Hunt,a businessman ho evinceda ifelotg concemwithgoodgovernme . As a memorial o the workofEzra Pound,BustaceMullins fourdedthe Ezra Pound nstitutc of Civili zfioi n ln2, inorder to cotrtinuePound'sgroud-brcaking work itr literan[e andeconomics.


7/25

ChapterOneChapter woChapterThreeChapterFour

ChapterFiveChapterSix

ContentsJefferson nd"/or amilton.. .......1TheWelfare tate.......,. .............8TheConstitution ......................14The Welfare StateasCriminalSyndicalism ..............20ThisHonorable ourt ..............28TheFuture f America ............36

CHAPTER ONEJEFFERSON and/or HAMILTON

Duringthepastfiftyyears,Ihavefoundarecurringleitmotifthroughout th" "nid"o"" *hich I haveamasseddetailing subterraneaninlluences which have been working to wreck our nation' Thisleitmotif is to be found againandagain n the history of the Americanpeople. It is the record of the opposition of the ideals of two rnen,tno*u, Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton, who epitomizedthroughout their political careers wo divergent strainsof thought, theirreconcilable andstill unresolvedconflict berween hosewho believein the peopleof theunited States,asdid ThomasJefferson,and hosewho believe only in the unrestrained machinations of a hiddenoligarchy, asdid-Alexander Hamilton. In my first published work,tntouinson heFederalReserve,Idiscussedheopposing orceswhichthese wo menrepresentedhroughout their lives, and he nfluence ofthose forces opon th" subsequenthistory of this nation. Those unre-solvedconflictswerepreseni andbecameapparent, uring theactualwriting of the Constitution n Philadelphia n1787 -Article I, SectionEight,treatsmanyofthepointsonwhichJeffersonandHamiltonremained n contention,oneof themost mportantbeing heprovisionthat'"The Congtessshall have power"' to coin money' regulate hevaluethereof,andof foreign coin,andfixthe Standardofweights andMeasures."This crucial matter soonbecameonewhich wasbrought out intothe open,after the adoption of the Constitution by the states,whenAlexander Hamilton soughta govemment charter or a new centralbank, the Bank of the united States.ThomasJefferson, n abrilliantdisquisition,publishedt}reprincipalandmostcohesiveargumentsaginst the lranting of thi charter. Jefferson's expose failed todiscouragettre powerful influences from Europe which were deter-minedto foist their centralbankonthepeopleof theunited S ates,andthe charterwas granted.However, it subsequentlywas not renewed'a denial which resulted in the War of l}l2,as the Europeanbankerssought o force the American people o accept heir foreign creatureas a native creation. A SecondBank of the united states was thenchartered, nder heauspices f NicholasBiddle of Philadelphia,who


8/25

was acting as the agent or the Rothschilds of Europe.This secondbank also met its Waterloo, in the presenceof PresidentAndrewJackson,a fiery patriot who swore to destroy the bank. He refused orenew its charter, whichbrought quickretaliation fromthe bankersofEurope, a financial crisis which becameknown as hePanic of 1837.The struggle between the forces represented by AlexanderHamilton, andthose epresentedby ThomasJefferson, husseesawedback and forth throughout the nineteenthcentury, with flrst one side,and then the other, gaining a temporary advantage. However,theproponents of the Hamiltonian monetary systemgained momentumwith the creation of giant corporations ust after the Civil War, andwith these esources, heystagemanagedanother inancial panic, hePanic of 1907 which stampeded he American people nto calling fora central bank, which was to be misleadingly titled "the FederalReserveSystem".In 1948, the poet Ezra Pound, who was then being held as apolitical prisonerby the governmentof the United States,ntroducedme to the machinationsof theFederalReserve entralbankers. havesincedevotedalmosta half centuryto chronicling its activities, withthe ultimate goal, that oncethe peoplehad this documented nforma-tion, they couldthenbegintotakeremedial action hrough hepowersenshrined n the Constitution. However, while I was occupiedwiththis seemingly unending task, I failed to realize that the bankersthemselves were aware that the Babylonian monetary system, whichthey had enshrined in their creation of an American central bank,could not go undetectedorever, and hat they had prudentlydeviseda secondHamiltonian strategy,one which also hadbeen covered nArticle I, SectionEight of theConstitution. This strategypromised obring theconspiratorsevengreaterpower,andgreaterprofits, han heFederalReserveSystem tself. This new strategywasbasedupon heprovisions of the Constitution, which axe o be found, first, in thePreamble, hat Congressshallhavepower o provide for the cofirmondefenseandthe general welfare of theUnited States,and repeated nArticle I, SectionEight, "Congressshall have Power,..... ...to rovidcfor the common defenceand generalwelfare of the United States."The languageof this provision is cmcial. For some ifty years,there hasbeena general understandingamong the American peoplcthat the Constitution makesprovision for "the generalwelfareof thc

2

peopleof theUnited States".However, herehas neverbeenany suchlanguage n the Constitution. '"The general welfare of the UnitedStates" means he preservationof the compactof the States,whichwas expressly drawn up by the Constitution. The welfare of "thepeople of the United States"was,according o that language'and isstill, the province reserved o the individual States.Each Americancitizen is a citizen of a State of theUnited States.That State s a signerof the compactof the Stateswhich is the Constitution, and whichforms the United Statesof America. There is no provision for "theUnited States" to take direct action concerning any citizen of theUnited States, ecausehe UnitedStates asnopeopleandno citizens.Only the Stateshave citizens.Nevertheless, he opportunity or misinterpretationand misun-derstandingprovided by thisprovision of the Constitution, which hasbecomeknown as"the generalwelfare clause"gave heconspiratorswith the vehicle by which they havegradually, during the past sixtyyears, replaced the compact of the Stateswith a new creation, theWelfare State.The Welfare State s a device which hasbeen erectedupon the premise hat the govemmentshould take responsibility forthe individual well being of each and every citizen of the UnitedStates,usurping this function from the States n order to create atotalitarian corporatestatewhich nowpresumes, rom its Washingtonfortress, to direct the most minute daily activities of each of ourcitizens.Not only has hereneverbeenany egalbasis or any of theseinterventions,butthe languageof theConstitution, n the far-sightedprovisions inserted by the Founding Fathers, expressly sought toforbid and prevent any such development at any time in our subse-quent history. It is this Welfare Statewhich is confidently predictedto ultimately replace he control of our nation by the machinationsoftheFederalReserveSystemwithanevengreaterandmore ron-fistedcontrol, that of the welfare State.This present gigantic edifice isnothing less han a modernTower of Babel, greaterand more awe-inspiring than the original, but one which was built upon identicalgoals and aspirations of thosewho seek o control every act of everyAmerican, forever.How were he conspirators ble o visit suchacalamity uPonournation? As usual, they set he stagewith their sceneryandplot whichwas designed o make sucha denouementnevitable. Their vehicle


9/25

was he StockMarket Crashof Black Friday n lgzg,followed by theGreatDepression,aneconomicdisasterwhichcouldhave easilybeenremedied n a few months, but which the conspirators,ably assistedby their stagemanager, PresidentFranklin Delano Roosevelt, man-aged o prolong from 1931 until Pearl Harbor in 1941.During thisperiod, the Federal Reserve System, n concert with the central banksof Europe, kept the Hamiltonian methodsof monetary managementin operation, and effectively preventedany economic recovery fromtaking place in this nation. How was this done? It was done by theFederal Reserve Board of Governors,who exerciseddaily controloverthe price of money and hequantity of money.By manipulatingthe nterest ate, hat s , thepriceof money, hey controlledbank oansand the interest which thoseAmericanswho still had savings couldreceive for their invesfrnents. They controlled the quantity of moneyby the operations of the Federal Reserve Open Market Committee,which daily bought or sold on the Open Market many millions ofdollars worth of government bonds,which themselveswere createdfrom nothing, morebookkeepingentrieson he edgersof theFederalReserve System.By deliberately keeping the American people in thethrall of the Great Depression, and unable to benefit from anyeconomic recovery, he conspiratorsnot only maintained heir mon-etary profits and their political power, they also delivered the Ameri-can people nto the handsof their new vehicleof nationaland eternalslavery, the Welfare State.

At no time was the new Welfare Stateever advertised as such.Instead, it waspromoted by PresidentFranklin Delano Roosevelt, inhis quavering, high-pitched voice, a delivery which was popularlysupposed o be thatof the "old aristocracy",as ntheNew Deal". In hisFireside Chats, adio speeches hich went directly nto everyAmeri-can home, Roosevelt assured the people that they were indeed tobecome hebeneficiariesof his New Deal. They soon ound out whatthe New Deal was.From the outset, t was the iron fist hidden in avelvet glove.The New Deal did ndeedpromise,anddeliver,handoutsof onekind or another,surplus ood,which, nsteadofbeing destroyedin deliberate maneuversby the commoditiesbrokers o keep up pricesand ncrease heir profits, was, n some nstances, ctually deliveredto needy families. fobs were also createdby the government, but inevery instance, such obs were "make work", non-productive work4

which deliberately was invented to ensure that there would be nocompetition with the profit-making enterprises of the conspirators.One of these efforts, the Civilian Conservation Corps, was modeledafter the Hitler Youth of Nazi Germany and the Fascist Corps ofMussolini's Germany. In fact, much of the New Deal, as one of itsprincipal promoters, Gerard Swope, proudly pointed out, had beentaken directly from the principles of the corporate statewhich hadbeen setup in ltaly. The New Deal rapidly became he new corporatestate, erected upon the ashesof the Constitution. To institute itstotalitarian decrees,a ragtail group of demagoguesand traitors nowdescendedupon Washington. Many of them were active espionageagentsof the world Communist Party; otherswere fascists;still otherswerewell groomedandpersonableagentsof the nternational bankers,who hadbeeneducatedat the most expensiveschools,clothedby themost expensive ailors, and polished in the tenets of internationalsociety. In fact, many of the New Deal agents ncorporated in theirpresencemore hanone,and sometimesall threeof theaforementionedcategories.They found no incongruity in living off the proceedsofinvestmentsor tnrst funds, engaging n the most surreptitiouscon-spiracies of a world revolution, and at the same time, joining ordropping out of such entities as the Communist Party or the FascistParfy.Typicalof theseNew Dealerswas alanky, wellspokentechno-crat namedAlger Hiss.He would later become he personal onfidantof hesident Rooseveltat theWhite House,andstill later, hewould bechosenaspresidentof the highly respected oundation, heCarnegieEndowment for International Peace,by Republican leadersDwightD.Eisenhowerand John Foster Dulles.The eaderof the New Deal task orceswas himselfa remarkableman, who, like, his predecessor,Woodrow Wilson, had been thepersonal protege of the international wheeler and dealer, ColonelEdward Mandel House.Franklin Delano Roosevelt grew up with thetraditional silver spoon in his mouth, the spoon being providedthrough the enterprise of his grandfather, Warren Delano, who hadbecomethe most prominent opium dealer in Hong Kong. Althoughhis grandsonneverpersonally participated in the world drug trade,henever urnedhis backon anyonewho was soengaged, or did he evercomplain of any taint on the money which provided him with hisopulent ife style. Roosevelthimself rarely participated n the espio-5


10/25

nageactivities on behalf of Soviet Russiaand he world CommunistParty which had now became centered n New Deal Washington.Such esponsibilitieswere urnedoverto his associates, uchasAlgerHiss and Bella Moscowitz. When Franklin Delano Roosevelt waselectedpresident, he unseenarchitectof this accomplishment,BellaMoscowitz, remained in the background. She had achieved thcseeminglymiraculous ransformationof a helpless ripple n awheel-chair, an amiablearistocratwho had neverworked a day n his ife, buthad always lived off of the dopeproceeds eft by his grandfather, ntoa vigorous, ambitious and personablenational politician, who wassubsequently to be transformed even more miraculously into theleader of the "Free World" during the approachingSecondWorldWar.

Before Roosevelt's nauguration,Bella Moscowitz was robbedof hermomentoftriumph, whenshefell downthestairs.Whetherthiswas oneof those accidents" owhich suchconspirators repronewasnever nvestigated;however, shewas promptly replacedas he headof the Washington espionagegroup by an even more devious anddisreputable evolutionary, aVienneseemigrantnamedFelix Frank-furter. Frankfurter, who now took up his duties n Washingtonas hesecretheadof the ubiquitous Communistespionage roup known asthe Harold Ware cell, had been denouncedby his mentor's owncousinn ormer PresidentTheodoreRoosevelt,as hemostdangerousCommunist in America. Throughout the 1930s,Frankfurter staffedthe agenciesof the new Welfare Statewith his own proteges,whowereknown as"the little Weenies",or'the Happy Hot Dogs". Thest:bureaucrats,one and all, were irst, under he discipline of the worklCommunist Party; second, dedicated to the erection of the ncwWelfare State; and hird, sworn to the destructionand dissolutionol^the Constitution of the United States and the ending of all of thc,safeguardswhich the FoundingFathershad nculcated n that docu"ment to preserve the individual liberties of each and every citizen ol'the United States.The mmediateresultwas hat any Americanwho wascontaclerlby oneof these agentsquickly learned hat he was now dealingwitlra bureaucratwho refused o acknowledge hat any American coultlstill benefi from individual rights. nstead, hebureaucrats f thenr:wWelfare State delivered decrees.Anyone who failed to obey thelr6

fullywouldbecame avictimof force. Thefullpowers of federal, stateand ocal police, the courts, and even the National Guard would becalled into play to enforce any andevery decree of theWelfare State.Of course this was merely the first incarnation of what out presentpoliticians fondly referto as"the New World Ordet''. They are verybashful about describing this new entity, but on the rare occasionswhen they do reveal some itillat ing aspectof its existence, hey arequick to remind us that t is always basedupon force. The New WorldOrder does not intend to pamperany American citizen who refu ses oabide by its dictatorial decrees.


11/25

ChapterTWoThe Welfare State

Now that we have said goodbye to the Constitution, and ac-cepted, however reluctantly, the ministrations of the new WelfareState, we can pause and conjecture that, however impersonal itsagents might be, if they are truly dedicated to our general welfare,perhaps he Welfare State s not suchabad idea.This impression canbe comfortably maintained until that unhappy day when you haveyour first encounterwith any bureaucrat,whether an agentof a ocal,state on national agency.All of theseofficials are trained to operatein the same manner. First, they are not interested in any particularaspectof your problem. To the bureaucrats f the Welfare State,youare the problem, and, somewheren their regulations, here will beinstructions as to how they should solve that problem, that is, rulesdetailingwhat s to be donewith you.You maybe appalled o discoverthat this "solution" may not have any direct relationship to yourdilemma,and hat t maybedevastatingo your personalsituation,butonce the Juggemauthasbeenset n motion, therecan be no turningback.Yourmost practicalsolution s to ie downand etthe Juggernautroll over you. As its greatwheelsarecrushingyour bones,you maybriefly wonder, "Is this what welfare really means?"

An understanding of the present Welfare State reveals that theoriginal concept, or its origins, were not necessarilydesigned t


12/25

This cruel state s the ultimate perversionof the ancient Nordicconcept of welfare, which originated n the social consciousness fthis people, and in their determination that no one in their nationshould be n want or go hungry, as ong as anyonehad food to share.Such a resolvealsooriginates n the companionword, general, n thephrase"general welfare" as t appears n the Constitution. It comesfrom genus,meaning a class, a kind or a race, as opposed o theparticular citizen or individual. Thus generalwelfare means welfarefor all, not for carefully selected ndividuals. As we shall see, heWelfare State n its manipulation of thepeople,never ntends welfarefor all, but only for certain carefully chosen ndividuals or groups,who will receive such welfare only if they "qualify". The qualifica-tions include, first of all, total submission,second, some specialcharacteristic enabling them to "qualify", which may be economic,ethnic, or religious, and h ird, whatever nterpretation he bureaucratchooses to put on these "qualifications". One person may fullyqualify, but be rejected becauseof some personal animus by thebureaucrat towards that person or his group. Another, who has notqualified, is allowed to receive all the benefits because of somepersonal decisionby the bureaucrat.Such determinationscannotbeconsidered criticisms of the Welfare State, because its primaryfunction is tocarry out the egulations.Although these egulationsarelaid down in very strict conforrnance, n practice they canbe carriedout on the ocal level by whateverdeterminations he officials decideto make. This is not injustice, or even malice,because he WelfareState unctions, howeverunjustly or inefficiently, by its regulations.In the early yearsoftheUnited Statesasan ndependentRepublic,the plight of poor or homelesspeoplewas neverconsidereda matterof national concern. Not only was it not addressedby the federalgovernment,but, by theprovisionsof theConstitution, t was eservedto the States o care orthe needyas hey saw it. This legalprecedenthas neverbeen amendedby any egislative act. Nevertheless,at thebeginningof Roosevelt's New Deal, hephrase generalwelfare" stiremained in the Preamble o the Constitution, and n Article I SectionEight. It may have beenFelix Frankfurter himself, who, during hisyearsasDean of theHarvardLaw School,hadbegunto fancyhimselfas an expert on "the law", who first noted the potentialities nherentin this phrase. Never mind that the language specifically failed to10

mentionthe "welfare of thepeopleof theUnited States"orthat suchmattershadbeen eservedasa Statepower.Frankfurterandothersuch"legal brains" devoted their lives to rewriting or expunging suchdetails rom our nationalConstitution.The fact that he erm "generalwelfare of the United States" was preceded n each nstance in theConstitution by the phrase "for the corrmon defense" was ampleevidence hat t was ndeedthe continuanceof thenational entity, andnot thatof any ndividual citizen,which was hepropersubjectof thisprovision. Legislation to provide a stnndingArmy fulfilled the re-quirement o provide for the cornmondefense,and also fulfilled therequirement to maintain the general welfare of the United States.Conversely,any legislative act which is intended o reward or com-pensateany particular individual or group is in violation of thisprovision of the Constitution, and cannotbe maintained.The legal foundations for this judicial opinion are impressive,althoughmany dictionariesand legal authoritiesdo not discuss hephrase "general welfare". Black's Law Dictionary cites it withoutcommentpro or con. Webster'sandotherdictionariesdo notmentionit, nordoes hatmostdefinitive source, heOxfordEnglishDictionary.In theDeclarationof Independence, e ind neither he erm "welfare"nor "generalwelfare". Instead, heDeclarationof Independence itesthe right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Initially, theFoundingFathersdid not consider t necessary o make any specificreferenceso the rightsof individuals in theConstitution,because hedocument was intended to refer only to the activities of a nationalentity, the United States. When George Mason refused o sign theConstitution until until some provision was made for individual

rights, a Bill of Rights was written andaddedas anappendageo theConstitution. However,notably acking in the Bill of Rights was anyreference o a citizen's right to receive welfare from the nationalgovernment. Why did not the Founding Fathers nclude such aprovision, if indeed it had been considered n their deliberations?Because the national government can legislate only for nationalentities. This is why the Constitution akesup suchmattersas oreignpolicy, the right to issuemoney, and other prerogativesof nationalsovereignty. Theproblems of individual citizens are amatter of Statesovereignty.Only after a Welfare Statehas epealedStatesovereignty,a processwhich began with the conclusion of the Civil War, can11


13/25

legislation come out of Washington which deals with individunlproblems. The very meaningof thephrase generalwelfare" mean$,not applicable to individuals. General, from genus, as we havcpreviously pointed out, refersto class,kind, race. It doesnot mean hcindividual, the particular or the singular.Despite the well-understood meaning of the phrase "generalwelfare", national politicians began o cast covetousglancesat thctempting sight of individual rights shortly after the Civil War. Thclawyers forthe new giant corporations,who soonbecamepoliticianson the national level, began to rail against he niquities of the rich,with their baronialmansionsat Newport, the conspicuous onsumP-tion, which became the target of economists such as ThorsteinVeblen, andagainst he njusticescommittedagainsthe working manby their employers. In retrospect, we can see hat each of thesesupposedlywell-intendedgoalswould become he oot in the door, norder to visit upon the newly emergingmiddle classall of thepoliticaland economic nequitieswhich were yet the provinceof the poor.Although the income tax became he goal of choice of thesc"muckrakers" and welfare careerists, hild labor was also a favoritetarget. At the dawn of the twentieth century, the plight of childworkers in the United Stateswas a nationaldisgrace. n 1904, herewere wo million child workers n theUnitedStates.Now that we haveextensive egislation "correcting" this situation, n 1991we have womillion child workers in the United States.Although their workingconditions may not be asprimitive as hey were n 1900,we cannotignore the fact that they perform tedious and repetitive tasks at verylow pay, which is disguisedby such favorite terms of the welfarccareeristsas'"vocational training".One of the first attemptsby the national governmentto assert tspowers n the realm of indiv idual welfare camewith the Child LaborAct of 1916, he Keating-OwenBill. On June8, 1918, he SupremeCourt declared that the Act was unconstitutional. (Hammer v.Dagenhart, 247 US 251). This decision discouraged he federalgovernment rom legislatingwelfareprojectsuntil thecrisis afinospherecreatedby he GreatDepression,which gaveFranklinDelanoRooseveltthe opportunity to enact"emergency" legislation.From the outset, heclaimed Constitutionality of ttreseactswas hegeneral welfare clauscof the Constitution. Apparently, during the subsequentdebates nt2

Washington onthegeneralwelfare clause,neither theproponentsnorthe opponentsof social egislationeverread he actualwording of theConstitution orcited ts napplicability to any ndividual or group.Thewelfare careerists, in their anxiety to set up their Welfare State,steadfastly refused o allow any cogentexamination or discussionoftheir plans.However, both the origins and the ideals of the Constitu-tion, if they hadbeen ntroduced into suchdebate,would haveclosedthe door on any further such legislation.

t3


14/25

CTIAPTERTHREEThe Constitution

The concept of writing, or of needing, such a document as aconstitution was he result of the developmentof a movementknownas modern constitutionalism, which itself was a political movementbasedupon the conceptof the dignity of man, and the rights of thcindividual. As such, t was a naturalhuman esponseo the excessesimposedupon humanity during some ive thousandyearsof history,during which suffering populationshadendured herepression nflictedby Oriental despotism,by European absolute monarchies,and bydictatorial revolutionary tribunals. No mafter whether the tyrantsdeclared hemselveso be epublicans, emocrats, rmonarchists, hetumbrils rolled andthe own squaresranredwithhumanblood. As theresult of these atrocities, the survivors insisted upon a politicaldevelopment, constitutionalism, which sought dual goals, irst, therestrictions upon the awful powers of the ruler, and second, heconsensualpower of the ruled. Throughout ts history, modern con-stitutionalism has emphasized he consensual actor as ts primarygoal,a act which is seldommentioned n our universities.Professors,who by the natureof their task, o maintaindiscipline n theclassroom,are autocratic, end to be fascinatedby dictatorsand warlords, and,conversely, they ignore amiable, kind-heartedrulers during whoseperiod of government the people are happy, prosperous,and nooutrages,massacres r wars of aggression ccur.

Modern constitutionalismhasalwaysopposed he useof force ngovernment. n opposition to this concept,another deal of govern-ment was proposed during the Age of Enlightenment, the SocialContract. In his basic work, Leviathan, Thomas Hobbesnotes hatmen havecontractedwith eachother o setup a common sovereign ortheir self-preservation. n so doing, Hobbes claims that they mustrelinquish many rights, which opens the door for an absolutistgovernment. JohnLocke refined Hobbes'conceptby redef ining thcnation asa civil society,which is organized or the commonprotectionof life andproperfy. He included the all important provision that, f thcsystembecame oo abusive, he citizens had heright to resist.Other

leading English thinkers elaboratedon this concept, notably SirEdward coke, whosePetitionof Right in 1628posed he irst seriouschallenge o theabsolutistmonarchyofEngland. His petition,presentedin response o the absolute eign of King charles the First, initiatedopposition to the King which finally, although Coke had played nopart in this, led to his imprisonmentand subsequent eheading.Historians in the united stateshave given insufficient recogni-tion to the importanceof coke's Petition of Right as he first step nwhat later became he demandsof the American colonists for inde-pendence,and which is now recognizedas hehistorical predecessorto ourDeclaration of Independence. ankers n Amsterdam,who hadbeenplotting against he English hrone,were encouraged y Coke'sactivities, and aunched heir campaign o unseatKing charles andreplacehim with the regimeof Oliver Cromwell. When Cromwell,srule failed to survive afterhim, the bankersbided their time until theyfound anotherand more ikely candidate,William of Orange,whomthey financed o overthrowKing JamesI of theStuartmonarchy.HebecameKing William III of England,andsoon hereafter,he grantedthe charterof theBankof England n l694,one of themostsignificantdates n modernhistory. The adventof william III as he protegeofthe Amsterdambankersmarked he end of the absolutemonarchy nEngland,whenWilliam signed heDeclarationof Rightson February13, 1689.This concessionwas ollowed by anevenmoremeaningfulgestureofthe monarchy, heActof Succession,which established heconceptof the "limited monarchy" n England,by making the thronedependentupon annualgrants rom Parliament.This Act hashardlycondemned he English monarchs o penury, as the presenteueen

Elizabeth s known as herichestwoman n the world, with apersonalfortuneof$15.8billion.This astounding umhasbeenamassedwhilethe English rulersused heannualgrants rom Parliament o maintaintheirestablishments, hile theirown ax-free ncomeand nvestments,such as their stock in the Bank of England, continued to increaseexponentially.Suchriches are far beyondany conceptof the Social Contract,which pertains only to those citizens who have no prospect ofamassing ifteen billion, or evena ortuneof onebillion, but who willcontinue to pay a substantialportion of their earnings n taxes tomaintain their betters n the living style to which they havebecomel5

r i

i

ill ltl

rlii4


15/25

accustomed,during ever more "democratic" regimes. The phihrsophical conceptof the Social Contract features wo elements, ltopactumunionis, the agreementwhich forms the body politic, and hcpactum subjectionis,which organizes he political authority into uconstitutional government.However,neither of thesepacts n itscll'cancreatewhatwe know as hemodern State,an nstitution which irknown as"the mortal god" becauset has he capacity to be killecl hyits creators. Constitutionalism, as a modern political movemcttl,maintained as ts goal the ability to restrain and even to abolish theState,when it railed to function in thebest nterestsof its citizens.

It is this vulnerability of the modern State,which always factsthe possibility of being amendedor amelioratedout of existencc,which hasgivenrise to a essvulnerableentity, theWelfare State.TltcWelfare State,asa conspiratorialentity, envisions tsown mmortalityfor a number of reasons first, all citizens must become dependcntupon it; second,all citizens mustbecomesubmissive o it; and hird,all citizens must give up any hopethat the Welfare State will ever b*overcome or disappear.Thesedraconic conditions are made morcacceptable by the disguising of the forcible aspectof the WelfaroState. t is alwayspresented s he mailed i st,hidden n avelvetglovc,which is prominently labelled'Caring and Compassion".

The antithesisof this states theAmericanRepublic,which camcinto being argelybecause fan unrecognizedorce n its creation, hcHuguenot immigration. Many thousandsof Huguenot refugeeshadcome oAmericafrom France, leeingarelentlesseligiouspersecution.In 1581, he Huguenotshadpublishedadefinitive treatise,VindiciaeContrat Tyrannos, which posited a twofold contract, one betweenGod and he people,which bound hepeople o obey God's Will, andone between the people and the prince, which bound the people toobey heir prince,but only as ong ashe continued o obeyGod' s Law.should he fail to do this, the contract authorized he people o resisthim.

In constitutional nations, he SocialContract tself has ncreas-ingly become more Social and less Contract; that is, the Socialaspects, he claims of thepartyof the irst part,theWeHare State,morcand more take precedenceover theconhactors, the people, thepartyof the secondpart,whose claimsreceive essand essaffention. n thcUnited States, he Welfare Statehas made ts socialcontract he law

16

of the land, by the simple expedient of banning constitutional lawfrom the courtsandreplacing t with the aw merchant,which is alsoknown as he law of contract, or admiralty law. These egal conceptsarenot somuch interchangeable,as hey might seem rom the listinghere,as hey arereplaceableand successive,n American litigation.The aw merchant,orcivil contract,carriesnopunitive penalties,but,when the Welfare State brings an American citizen into court onchargesof havingviolatedsamepartof thesocial contract. he s frstdenied the protection of Constitutional law; he is then tried andconvicted under the law of conhact, the Welfare State claiming thatthereexists a binding contractbetween tself and the citizen, throughoneor moreprovisionsof thewelfareactivities, he paymentof socialsecurity, which involves a claimed paymentof income taxes o thefederalgovernment,a paymentwhich is invalidatedby the fact thatthe federal governmenthas no citizens{rscomponents,and thus hasno direct jurisdiction over them. Because he violation of a civilcontract cannot result in the invoking of criminal penalties, theWelfare State,at the ime of sentencing,urtherreplaces he civil lawof contractwith admiralty aw,which as heKing' s Law aboarda shipat sea, nvolved criminal penaltiesup to and including the deathpenalty.Our federal udges,with suchpenaltiesat their disposal, eelthat they arebeing overly kind in not sentencing ax offenders,andother personswho have violatedsomedecreeof theWelfareState, odeath,and hat hey shouldbegrateful o be et off with a wenty yearsto ife term of imprisonment.Thus heAmerican citizen,appearingnone of our courts, comes into the jurisdiction of a four tier legalsystem,onewhich in the irst tier denieshim theprotectionof theBill

of Rights andother Constitutional provisions; n the second ier, thecitizen is charged with the violation of a civil contract with theWelfare State; n the third tier, he is made to defend himself as anA*ificial Personor private corporation; and n the fourth tier of thisjudicial operation,he is convictedand sentenced nder he criminalpenaltiesof admiralty aw, whereupon, o ongeranArtificial Person,he is hauled off as a physical body, a living American citizen, toendurehis physical punishment n prison. At no time during any ofthese uccessivejudicial perations ndentities s thecitizen nformedas to what is going on, neither the judge, the prosecutor or hisdefendingattorneyseeing it to advisehim of his situation,or that thet7


16/25

court is solely concernedwith pursuing his obligation to the WelfareState, rather than securing him any protection or rights against thcencroachmentof the Welfare State.The result is that when the celldoor slams againsthim, he is overcome by the despair resulting fromhis realization that he has beenvictimiz.edby a grave injustice, andthat he can look for no assistanceor any appeal of the verdict whichhasbeen enderedagainsthim. This Kafkaesque ituation s theresultof one ffng, and one thing only, that when the protection of theConstitution is removed from an American citizen, no otherprotec-tion femains to him, nor can he look anywhere for assistance. t wasjust this situation which gaverise to modernconstitutionalismasapolitical movement.Whenwe loseourconstitutional safeguards,wconce again becomesubjects of an absolutistgovernment.It was thisgoalwhich theconspiratorssoughtattheconclusionof the CivilWar,when the Fourteenth Arnendment claimed to have revoked andrevised the requirements of American citizenship, and to have setupa new Statepower,in which all citizensare "subjects" of a nationalgovemment. In effect, the FourteenthAmendmentsought o revoketheBill of Rights, and t is often cited o thateffect,particularlyby thcjustices of appellate courts and the Supreme Court of the UnitedStates,whentheyuphold the admiralty law punishmentof an Americancitizen who has claimed protection under the Bill of Rights againstsomepronunciamentoof theWelfare State.This dilemma has comcaboutbecauseof the very origin of the United States.OurConstitutionwasnot aSocial Contractbetweenagovemmentand ts people. t wasa Political Compact between the individual States, which wercinhabited by private citizens of eachState, o createanational entityto be known as the United States of America. Subsequent egaldecisions have resulted in a strangedichotomy; one in which thcfederalgovernment,seated n the District of Columbia, s recognizeclas a distinct political entity which governsthe collective politicalStates whose agreement created it, and two, an all powerfirl andabsolutist federal government, presently operating as the WelfarcState.Because his Welfare Statenow notonly operates n anationallevel, but alsoon a stateand ocal level, any official issuing a decrccof the Welfare State on any of thesethree levels now has the fullauthority of thenational government o enforce hat decreeagainst hc"subjects", the FourteenthAmendmentcitizensof the severalStates,

l8

whono ongerhaveany ightsasstatecitizens,andwhoaresubjectedto thefull authorityof thewelfare stateon a national,stateor locallevel. By this means,hewelfare statehasnow become he instru-mentof oriental despotism,whichdenies o Americancitizensanyandall ameliorationof their socialor political condition,whichwasformerlyguaranteedo themby theconstitutionof theunited states.


17/25

CHAPTER FOURThe Welfare State as Criminal Syndicalism

"Wellness" hasalwaysbeena concernof thepeople,not merelya state of being well, of maintaining good health, but also of beingwell-bred, well-informed, andahostof similarly rootedwords,whichtakeup same hirty oversizedpagesn theOxford EnglishDictionary.Thesewords ran the ength of the alphabet, rom well-accustomed owell-wrought. The desire or wellnesshasneverbeenconfined to thcindividual forhimself, but hasusually beenextendedohiscommunity,to his S ate,and ohis nation. t is hisdesirewhichwe now call "socialconsciousness",andwhich, extendedsolely thoughthe useof force,by a compulsory government, becomes Socialism, or the WelfareState. As we have pointed out, it was the Nordic people who firstexhibited sucha social consciousness, ndwho coined the word forwelfare, the well-being of all, ascontrastedo the one well-being ofthe individual. Socialism,with its compulsory"sharing" insiststhatpersonalassetsmustbe confiscated,so hat hey can be redistributedto those n need. t hasbecamea ruism hat n thisprocess, heWelfareState etainsand consumeshe ion's shareof the confiscatedassets,so that very little trickles down to thosewho need t. Thus Socialismbecomes a perverted orm of a genuine eeling of social conscious-ness, which we see n its most virulent form, not in the Slavic orOriental countries,but in the Nordic nations. t is Sweden,with itscradle to thegrave orm of Socialism,which exhibitsevery excessofthe Socialistphilosophy today. TheUnited States,which was heavilysettledby Nordic peoplesduring the nineteenth entury,and by theircollateral relatives, the German and Anglo-Saxon peoples, now,passively ollows thatcradle o thegravephilosophy,while its people,because of this Nordic heritage, accept without protest the mostoutrageous aggressionsof the Welfare State.This socialconsciousnessanbe raced arback in the historyofthesepeoples. n England, as agovernmentconcept, t made ts firstappearancen Englandduring the reign of King Edward III' in 1349.It was a welfare concept which becameknown as the StatutesofLaborers. Since the beginning of history, there have always been

20

beggarsand homelesspeople n many populations,personswho, byone mishapor another, had lost their possessions.n the Orient, theseunfortunateshave survived on individual actsof charity, rather thanon govemment handouts. In Europe and America, their plight hasbecame hesubjectof government ntervention.Scholars orcenturieshavewritten on this problem. As early as 1526,a Spanishhumanist,Jean ,ouis Vives, wrote atact, De SubventionePauperum,whichcalled for the alleviation of the plight of the poor. This work hadconsiderable influence throughout Europe, and was followed bymany other demands that the problems of the poor must be met.However, the economic problems which created hese situationsusually proved too intractable to allow asolution. Charity has alwaysbeenone of the virtues. It stems from the Old French word charite,meaning Christian love, which itself came from the Latin word,caritas,which meant, nitially, God's love for man, and secondarily,man's love of God and of his neighbor. Thus charity, as well aswelfare, was seenprimarily as a religious impulse, rather than as agovemmentalconcern. The Constitution, with its general welfareclausewhich referredonly to the preservationof the United States,was n harmony with this concept,andwas so observeduntil the NewDeal of Franklin Delano Roosevelt.Although the United Stateshad emainedaJeffersoniandemoc-racy until 1933 and the advent of the New Deal, the Hamiltonianprinciplesofmonetary controlhadbeensteadilygaining groundsincethe end of the Civil War. The passageof theFederalReserve Act byCongressn 1913,and he Presidentialsignature f Woodrow Wilsonwhichgave tthe powerof law, represented newhigh watermarkforthe Hamiltonians. With their new monetarypower, that s, thecontrolofthemoney andcreditof allthe peopleoftheUnited States,heynowmoved to extend their new powers to the courts and to the nationalgovemment.Because he banking powers always operatedsubrosa,as a conspiratorialgroup, there hasnevefbeena "Bankers' Party" inthe United States. They have preferred to operatefrom behind thescenes, sing irstone partyandthen another,ofurthertheirprogram.The maintainingof secrecyand he useof agentswho neveracknowl-edged their hidden affiliations in the promotion of Hamiltonianprinciples to the detriment of Jeffersonian deals removed thesemachinations rom the acceptedpolitical process,and elegatedthem

2l

:l,

ii

i1ii


18/25

to the area of criminal syndicalism. It is well established n law thatthe operationsof acriminal syndicatedenytheequalprotectionof thelaws to citizens. In order to guaranteehe equalprotectionof the aws,the state must act againstcriminal syndicalism. The presentstatutesoffer ample legal justification for such action.CorpusJuris Secundum 6:Constitutional Law 2 3(10)providesthat "The Constitutional guaranteeof freedom of speechdoes notinclude the right to advocate, or conspire to effect, the violent

destruction or overthrow of the governmentor the criminal destruc-tion ofproperty. Section214 urther states:TheConstitutionalguarantyof the right of assemblywasnever ntendedas a icense or illegalityor invitation for fraud - the right of freedom of assemblymay beabusedbyusing assembly oinciteviolence andcrime,and hepeoplethrough heir legislaturesmay protect hemselves gainst he abuse."

Thus theoperationof supra-governmental rganizations uchasthe Council on Foreign Relations,or other syndicalist operations suchas the tax exempt Rockefeller Foundation is not only subject to thelaws against fraud (because heir charters claim they are engaged npublic philanthropy) but also the laws against criminal syndicalism,because heseorganizationsnever statewhat theirunderlying purposeis, where their secretallegiances eally lie, and why they have chosenthe direction of their syndicalism. We employ the phrase"criminalsyndicalism" becausea syndicate tself can be a egal operation. It isonly when it seeks llegal goals by illegal means hat it becomes acriminal matter.The OxfordEnglishDictionarytells us hatthe wordsyndicatestems rom "syndic" It then definesa syndicas "an officerof government,a chief, magistrate,a deputy." In 1601, R.Johnsonwrote in Kingd and commonw of "especialmen,called Syndiques,who have the managing of the whole commonwealth".

During my nvestigationof suchorganizations s heRockefellerFoundation and ts affiliates or subsidiaries, uchas heRussell SageFoundation and he Carnegie oundations, found that thesegroupsare ndeed carrying out a program of managing heentire common-wealth of the United States.However, they are doing so secretly,above and beyondthe establishedagenciesof government,and forpuqposeswhich they refuse to reveal. They have formed a super-government, which acts in secret, and thwarts the protections guar-anteed he American peopleby the Constitution of the United States.

22

The oED furtherdefines a syndic as"acensorof the actions ofanother.To accuse."This is an accuratedefinitions of the functions ofa Welfare State bureaucrat.He does not merely intervene in youraffairs on behalf of the Welfare State. He acts to censor you, andpunishyou, for personalviews or actionswhich areno offenseunderthe Constitution,but which violate somedecreeof theWelfare State.The bureaucratbrings the accusation,he then ries you, anddeliversthe sentence.n manycases, e s entrustedwith your punishment aswell, which may be the deprivation of sarnegrant, or a term ofimprisonment.Hamiltonian origins of criminal syndicalismmay be found in afurtherOED definition of a "syndicate","A combinationof capitalistsand financiersentered nto for the purposeof prosecutinga schemerequiring largesources f capital,especiallyone having the objectofobtainingcontrolof themarket n aparticularcommodity." Thiscouldhardly be moreprecise n its description of the conspiratorial meetingsand subsequentegislativeoperations n Congress o give the Ham-iltonian central bankers"control of the market in a particular com-modity", that is, money. This scheme required large sources ofcapital, which came from the Bank of England and its Wall Streetminions, to set up the privately owned Federal Reserve bankingsystemunder the guiseof a quasi-governmentagency.CorpusJurisSecundum 2A pointsout that"In aprosecution orbeinga memberof an organizationwhich abets riminal syndicalism,evidencesof crimes committed by past or present membersof theorganization n their capacityas members s admissible o show itscharacter. eoplev. LaRue,2l6P 627 C.A.276." Suchprosecutioncouldbring n evidenceof anymemberbeingengagedn internationalconspiracies o inflict wars, revolutions or financial panics uponentiregroupsof people.Since heseactivitiesare constantwithin thesecretmeetings f these riminal syndicalistgroups' f evidenceisnotavailableexposing heirarcane ndeavors,hecircumstantialevidenceof events ranspiring ollowing the meetingsof suchgroupswould beampleto obtain convictions n the courts.

CorpusJuris Secundum}2, Criminal Law 185 (lOc) on Con-spiracy andMonopolies, orders that "Where the statutemakesmeremembership in an organization formed to promote syndicalism acrime, without anovertact, his offense s indictable in anycounty into

23

iiiil,1 ll ,'


19/25

which a member may go during the continuance of his membership,andthis s tme although suchmembercomes nto a county nvoluntarily.Peoplev.Johansen, 26 P 634, 66 C.A. 343."

CorpusJuris Secundum2Z,Criminal Law sec182(3) states, Aprosecution for conspiracy to commit an offense againstthe UnitedStates may also be tried in any district wherein any overt act infurtheranceof the conspiracy s performed.U.S. v. Cohen C.A.N.J.197F 2d26."This meanshat anypublicationofone ofthesecriminal syndicalistoperations, sent into any county in the United States, or the appear-anceof any member of such anorganization n any country the UnitedStates,gives the officials of that county the legal authority to bringcharges against the organization or any member thereof, whetherpresentor active in that country or not.

Very broad authority also s found in CorpusJuris Secundum46,Insurrection and Sedition, sec.461 (c). "Sabotageand syndicalismaiming to abolish the present political and social system, ncludingdirect action and sabotage."Not only individuals, but businesses ndcorporationswhich subsidize or otherwiseparticipatein the activitiesof any criminal syndicalist operation, are fully liable. Corpus JurisSecundum46, sec 462@) says, Statutesagainstcriminal syndical-ism apply to corporations as well as to individuals organizing orbelonging to criminal syndicalist society; evidenceof the characterand activities of other organizationswith which the organization inwhich the accuseds a member s affiliated s admissible."Because fthe close interlocking of the officials of many criminal syndicalistoperationswithin the United States, ndictmentsof theseofficials canbe a simple matter.It is now necessary o clarify the introduction of criminalsyndicalist control into a legal monograph on the general welfareclauseof the constitution of the United States.The establishmentoftheWelfare Statebecame politicalreality through he very criminalsyndicalist operationswhich are covered n the above statutes. norder to enact he sweeping ecommendations f the New Deal, theconspiratorsound t necessaryogoaboveandbeyond heestablishedlegislativeprocesses, nd ooperate hroughclandestineorces.Theirinitial accomplishments,during the famous Hundred Days of the NewDeal, were invalidated by the decisions of the SupremeCourt, au

developmentwhich required hat he New Dealersembarkupon anewmodeof operations.From that ime on, the Washington bureaucracyfunctioned as a criminal syndicaliststructure.Fromthe naugurationof FranklinDelanoRooseveltasPresidenton March 4,1933, Washingtonunderwenta not so subtle transfor-mation. The media was quick to rhapsodizeabout the new era ingovernment. In Collier's magazine, Ray Tucker hailed the newregime as one which had transformedWashington "from a placid,leisurely, Southern own, with frozen faces andcustoms, nto a gay,breezy, sophisticatedand metropolitan center." Although the termgay did not have ts later meaning n the early 1930s, herewas nodoubt that Washington was well on the way to becoming a "gay"center.Arthur Krock, Washingtoncorrespondentof the New YorkTimes reported hat "They area merry group, he New Dealers.Theylike singing, dancing,and a fair amountof drinking'" Many of thewealthiest families in the United States were represented n thehighestechelonsof the New Deal, from Franklin D.Roosevelthim-self, to his closeassociates,uchasFrancisBiddle, Averell Harrimanandhissister,Mary Rumsey,rwis Douglas,severalofthe RockefellersandWhitneys, and otherbluebloods,many of them membersof thesupersecretSkull andBonesSocietyof Yale.Therewasno doubt hat hey hadcome o Washington o changethings, nfact, to changeeverything.Wemight wonderwhy the superrich would wish to seesuch evolutionaryalterations n the Americanway of doing things,until we realize hat it was thesesame amilieswho hadsetup thegreat oundations,who hadbeenbank rolling-theCommunist system n Russiasincewell before 1900,and who weredetermined to introduce the American people to a state imposedWelfare systemwhich would bring to a close heera of constitutionalgovernment n the United States.This was the criminal syndicalistsystem t he op.On a ower evel, t consi tedof dedicatedmembersof the Communist Party, who were placed in key roles in federalagenciesby Felix Frankfurter hrough the Harold Ware cell. Haroldware himself hadnecently eturned rom the obligatory service n theSovietUnion,wherehis workhad earned raise romthe greatLeninhimself. Ware was the son of the famous agitprop operative, EllaReeveBloor. After he eturned o Washington o takechargeof Soviet


20/25

espionage here,his top secretmeetingswereheld n his sister'smusicstudio on Connecticut avenue.The Deparffnent of Agriculture be*came the center of Communist intrigue in Washington, where thepower of the infiltrators was soon proven by the issuing of a newruling - the Department of Agriculture issued a directive that "A manin the employ of theGovernment hasust asmuch right to be amemberof the Communist Party ashehas to be a member of the Democraticor RepublicanParty." firis sentiment was echoedby the Presidenthimself on severaloccasions.Becauseofthe financial crisiswhich had affectedevery Americanfamily, Roosevelt was able to rush through a number of importantmeasures uring his first days n of fice. The well publicized HundredDays had been adoptedas a direct mitation of Napoleon's riumphsduring his Hundred Day seizureof power. The new regime wishedeveryone to know that a new emperor had arrived in the nation'scapital. The Bank Holiday, which wascalled the EmergencyBankingAct, waspassed n March 9; the EconomyAct waspassed nMarch20; onMarch 31, the Civilian ConservationCorps was established;,on April 19, the gold standard was abandoned; on May 12, theAgricultural AdjustmentAct waspassed,which established nationalagricultural policy, with an additional amendment which conferredon the Presidenthepowersof monetaryexpansion; hat sameday, heEmergency Farm Mortgage Act was also passed;on May 18, theTennesseeValley Authority Act was passed;on June 5, the goldclause n public andprivate contractswasabrogated;and on, a singleday, June 16, four major measures f the new Welfare State wererushed hrough Congress the National Industrial Recovery Act, theGlass-SteagallBanking Act, the Farm Credit Act, and the RailroadCoordination Act. Roosevelt now had a rubber stamp Congress,which, despitesomemurmurings rom uncommitted members,gavehim a comfortable majority in the approvalof thesemeasures.In December of 1932, Harry Hopkins had sent a letter toRoosevelt calling for the establishment f a federal welfare agency.When he received no reply, hehadFrancesPerkins obtain apersonalaudience or him. Roosevelt istened o his plan, and on March 21,1933,he sent to Congressa bill to establisha Federal EmergencyRelief Administration, with an nitial budget of $500million. Within

a few weeks, t had passedboth the Senateand the House. Hopkinsthensetupa Civil Works Administration,which soonhad our millionpeople n its employ.These rapid-fire successes oded well for the future of the

welfare State.However, the actsof a supinecongress, and he refu salof its membersto debate he constitutional merits of theseIneasures'did not go unnoticed. Soon, heemergency ills were o come beforethe SupremeCourt, where the Jeffersonianswould make one laststandbefore the new Juggernaut olled over them.

,6 )1


21/25

CHAPTBR FTVETHIS HONORABLE COURT

Despitethe prestigeand the power of the backersof the NewDeal, they had failed to secureonebastion n Washington, the powerbrokers who were to be denouncedas "the Nine Old Men". TheJusticesof theSupremeCourt were n fact vigorous andactive in theirdeliberations,particularly thosewho most vehemently opposed heNew Deal enactments.Within afew months, the Supreme Cout hadstnrck down such emergencymeasuresas hepower of the Presidentto control the flow of oil under authority of the NRA, (PanamaRefining Co. v. Ryan, 293 U.S. 388); the Railroad Retirement Act(RailroadRetirementBoardv. Alton Railroad Corp . 295U. S. 330 ),and the National Recovery Administration (SchecterPoultry co. v.u.s.,295 .S.495).On January 6,1936, the SupremeCourt declared he Agricul-tural Adjustment Act unconstitutionalbecausehe AAA processingtaxes were to support a system of federal regulation of agriculturewhich wasoutsideof thepowerswhich heConstitutionhad delegatedto Congress.The Court also held in this decision that the generalwelfare clauseof the Constitution was not an independentgrant ofpower, but was directly linked to taxation. Within a few months,Justice Cardozo wasto reverse his decision,and to give the federalgovernment full authority to proceedwith the establishmentof theWelfare State.

In Juneof l936,the SupremeCourt, n a 5-4 decision,nullifieda New York statutewhich had fixed a minimum wage standardforwomen in industry (U.S.v. Butler, 297 U.S.l.) This proved to be thelast setbackof the Welfare State n the SupremeCourt. A new windwas soon o blow through hat hallowed nstitution. On Feb. 5,1937,PresidentRoosevelt, lushedwith thesuccess f his overwhelmingre-election victory, delivereda specialmessageo Congress,n which hecalled for packing the SupremeCourt, that s, increasing he numberofjudges on the supposition hat ts presentmemberswere mpairedby their age, he nine old men.Although the court-packingplannevermaterialized, he hreathad ts effect.Never againwould theSupreme

Courtvote 5-4againsta Welfare Statemeasure. nsteadt would nowapprove hem by a seriesof 5-4 decisionsOn March29,1937 the SupremeCourt reversedts recent ulingon the minimum wage aw, the first of a ong line of 5-4 decisions nfavor of theNew Deal. The new majority was ed by Justices Stoneand Cardozo. Cardozo held the traditional "Jewish" seat on theSupremeCourt which was actually a Zionist seatestablishedby thenation's mostprominentZionist leader,JusticeLouisBrandeis. AfterCardozo,who serveduntil 1939, his seatwas given to Felix Frank-furter. In threehistoric Social Securitycases,Cardozo n a majorityopinion claimed that the general welfare clauseof the Constitutiongave he ederalgovernment hepower otax andspendor thegeneralwelfare.We hadnow entered hepolitical era of Harry Hopkins, whocoined hepolitical formula of the New Deal, "Tax and ax, spendandspend,elect and elect."

JusticeCardozo's interpretation of the general welfare clauserepresented he final triumph of the Hamiltonian philosophy ofgovernmentover that of ThomasJefferson. n the Annotated Con-stitution,we find that Article I, SectionEight of the Constitution, isannotatedas ollows:

"SPENDING FOR THE GENERAL WELFARE - The grantofpower to "provide * * * for the general welfare" raisesa two-foldquestion:How may Congressprovide for "the generalwelfare" andwhat s "the generalwelfare" which it is authorizedtopromote?Thefrst half of this question was answeredby ThomasJefferson n hisOpinionon heBank as ollows: " tc t the aying of taxes s thepower,and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to beexercised.They (Congress)are not to lay taxesad libitum for anypurpose hey please;but only to pay the debtsor provide for thewelfare of the Union. In like manner, hey arenot to do anything theyplease o provide for thegeneralwelfare, but only to lay taxes or thatpurpose." efferson'sopinion forbade he Congresso enactany of thesocial egislationwhich was aterproducedby theNew Deal. Writin gsof Thomas Jefferson, In, 147-149, Library Edition, 1904). Thecommentarycontinues;"The clause, n shofi, is not an ndependentgrantof power, but a qualification of the taxing power. Although abroaderview hasoccasionallybeenassertedJames rancisLawson,THE GENERAL WELFARE CLAUSE, 1926),Congress has not

29


22/25

acted upon t and the Courts have hadno occasion o adjudicate hepoint. "The Annotated Edition of the Constitution continues the dis-cussion as a point of contention between Hamilton and Madison.

"Hamilton v.Madison. With respect to the meaning of the 'generalwelfare' thepagesof the Federalist tself disclosea sharpdivergenceof views between its two principal authors. Hamilton adopted theliteral, broadmeaningof the clause. TheFederalistNos. 30 and34).Madison contended that the powers of taxation andappropriation ofthe proposedgovernment should be regardedasmerely instrumentalto its remainingpowers, n other, words, as ittle more than apowerof self-support. FederalistNo. 41)."Triumph of the Hamiltonian Theory. The scopeof thenationalspendingpower was brought before the SupremeCourt at least ivetimes prior to l936,but the Court disposedof four of them withoutconstruing he 'general welfare' clause. n the PacificRailway Casesand Smith v. KansasCity Title and Trust Company, t affirmed thepowerof Congress o constructinternal mprovements,and o charterand purchase he capital stock offederal land banks,by reference othepowersof the NationalGovernmentovercommercehepost oadsand fiscal operations,and to its war powers.Decisionson the meritswere withheld in two other cases- Massachusetts . Mellon andFrothingham v. Mellon - on theground hat neither a Statenor an Yindividual citizen is entitled to a remedy in the courts against anunconstitutional appropriationof national funds. n United Statesv.Gettysburg Electric Railway Co., however, the Court had invoked'the greatpower of taxation to be exercised or thecolnmondefenceand thegeneralwelfare' to sustain he right of the FederalGovernmentto acquire and within a State or use asa nationalpark. Finally, inUnited States .Butler, the Court gave ts unqualifiedendorsementoHamilton's views on the taxing power."

None of these egal opinionshaseveraddressedhe crucial textof the Constitution itself. Article I, Section Eight provides ,or "thegeneralwelfare of the United States"but offers no authority o enactany measure or "the people", either collectively or as individualcitizens. Even the Nine Old Men never squarely faced up to orcommented upon this all important wording of the Constitution.During the all toobrief periodwhen the SupremeCourtwas actively

30

challenginghemeasurcsl'thcN*w l)r'ul, l rrrk'rl nrnrrinrlrr*ly'throwouttheNationalRecovcrycl ,wlrit'lrwrrstrxrn,r.vr"lt'rtrntr.rrtdefeatn his entirepolitical areer.I'hiswar lirlkrwrrl ry lrr,. ** r t' qmling, headlined n the New York Tinrcs on l)t:c.1. t) 1\, ( '{ fAlCONTROL HELD IIWALID By Court. GENEltAl. wtrl,t;AtiliDEN IED: '"Theattempt y Congresso control he bitulrrinous rxrlindustry through the Guffey Act was declaredunconstiturionatby uFederalcourt here odaybecausehe tax levied on non-conformers tothe coal code is ' a penalty to coerce the plaintiff to submit' toregulation. As to the general welfare contention, Congress has nospeciallyassigned owerunder heConstitution o makeprovision forthegeneralwelfare, hecourtheld. The generalwelfareof thepeoplecan only be promoted, and can best be served, by a prudent andsalutary exercise of the powers specifically granted in the Constitu-tion. Encroachmentupon the wisely reseryedpowers of the Statesdoesnotpromotethegeneralwelfare,butwouldtend inevitably to thedestruction of local authority and would sound the death knell ofdemocraticgovernment."

TheNew York Timeson January 7, 1936 caried anotherbannerheadline, SupremeCourtFinds AAA unconstitutional 6-3. VerdictDooms Other New Deal Laws. by Arthur Krock, Washington Cor-respondent. an.6. TheSupremeCourt by a two-thirds majority votetoday demolished the Agricultural Adjustment Act as completely aslast year's court destroyed he NRA."Further commentaryquoted he court's decisionthat "the gov-ernment elies uponArticle I SectionEight of theConstitution,whichcontains he axationandgeneralwelfareclauses.We ive undera dualform of government, Federal and State. The Federal Union is agbvernmentsolely of delegatedpowers. The Stateshave all other.Agriculture, as the Court has often said about mining and manufac-ture, is a purely local activity. Therefore, the powers of Article ISectionEight do not apply. JusticeStory pointed out that the generalwelfareclausecouldbe constuedo conveyunlimited Federalpower.In this case he governmenthas asked he court to say that Congressat all times decides what is the general welfare. The AAA isunconstitutional for anotherreason. It invades the rights reservedtothe States.The regulation of agriculture is beyond the enumeratedpowersof Congress."

3l


23/25

The courtdecision fuither quotesJusticeStory,as ollows, .'thcConstitution was, from its very origin, contemplated o be the frameof anational government,of specialandenumeratedpowers, nd notof generalorunlimited powers. (Sec.9M, Story's Commentariesonthe Constitution, 5th ed. v.l). A power to lay taxes or the commondefenceand generalwelfare s not in anysenseageneralpower. It islimited to thoseobjectives.(Ibid. Sec 922)"The Times follows thesequoteswith a quote from AlexanderHamilton; "Hamilton states n his well-known report on manufac-tures, that the purpose must be general, and not local. (Works v.3,p.250).The SupremeCourt's decisions nvalidating themost mportantgoals of the new Welfare State brought howls of anguish fromRoosevelt's supporters n the unions and in the Communist party.Veteranunion leader William Green,head of the American Federa-tion of Labor, demanded hat the Court be curbed,after he heard thedecision nvalidating the NRA. The New York Timesnoted,June7,

1935, that "Rep. Keller of Illinois introduced a constitutionalamendmentwhich would conferblanket poweron Congresso makelaws which itjudges necessaryor thegeneralweHareof the people'Such an amendment,Keller said, would prevent he SupremeCourtfrom invalidating laws for welfare." In fact, a few months ater, theSupremeCourt begana long processof reversal of its opposition toNew Deal measures,without the pressureof a Constitutionalamendment.On November 30, 1935, Alfred Lilienthal had a long letterpublished n the New York Times, in which he stated, he Supremecourt of theunited States as ime andagaindeclaredhat hissectionof the Constitution, Art.f, Section8, cannotsustainany broad egis-lation for general welfare, and is merely a limitation on the taxingpower. JusticeStory, n his Commentaries, ec.923, says, To laytaxes o provide for the general welfare of the United States s to laytaxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare. For thelaying of taxes s the power and the generalwe are the purpose orwhich the power is to be exercised.' Like Mr. Jansen,AlexanderHamilton sought to derive from Art.I Sec 8 broad Congressional

power to legislate or any and every object which might benefit thepeople,but on six separate ccasions his view was refusedby the_3L

ConstitutionalConvention.As lateas 926,thepresent Chief Justice,speaking efore he FederalOil ConservationBoard,said, It hasbeenurged that the Congresshasthe power to exerciseany power that itmight think necessaryor expedient for the common defence or thegeneral welfare of the United States.Of course,under such a con-striction, the Congressof the United Stateswould cease o be one ofenumeratedpowers, and thosepowers of the Stateswould be whollyillusory, and would be at any time subject to be controlled in anymannerby the dominant Federal will exercisedby Congresson theground that the general welfare might generally be advanced. That,howevef, s not the accepted iew of the Constitution."

On Novernber 15, 1935, the editorial page of the New YorkTimes carried a statementunder the headingof "GENERAL WEL-FARE', "The SupremeCourt has alreadydecided hat the article inquestioncontains no grantof power to Congressor to any agencyofthe Government."

It would seem hat no legal opinion could be more direct thanthat,particularly as t wasbasedupon hewritings of JusticeStory andotherprominent Constitutionalists.A further letter n a serieswhichhadbeenprompted by theseobservationsappearedon the New YorkTimes editorial pageon Nov. 17, 1935, n a letter from Boyd C.Darling. Mr. Darling wrote, "Hamilton said that Congresshad thepowerunderthe Constitution o tax for apurposeoutside hecircle ofits enumeratedpowers.Madisonsaid t did not have he power. Whowas right, Hamilton or Madison?Twice the SupremeCourt has beenasked o decide. Twice it has declined". Mr. Darling then cited thecases, 43U.S.695,and 163U.S.433.

The New York Times concluded his seriesof letters with aneditorial on June l,193'l, pointing out in relation to the above citedopinions, hat, oThose ho hold hat hegeneralwelfare clauses a ullwarrant to Congress o enact any legislation it may deem in thenational nterest, hat t is anadditionalpower,has eceivedno supportin any of the decisions."

Although thesecitations seemed o point out that those whosought he most liberal interpretation of thegeneral welfare clause ofthe Constitution were doomed to defeat, n fact, eventssoon provedjust the opposite. From this day on, the SupremeCourt began itsrubberstampapprovalof New Deal measures, nd he Congresswas

aa


24/25

able o proceed ull speedaheadwith its versionof the Welfare State.PresidentRooseveltopened he campaignwith anotherFiresideChat,in which he inferred that the Constitution actually authorized theCongress o enact egislation "for thegeneralwelfare of thepeopleofthe United States". This deliberate misquotation brought a fieryresponse rom Governor Hoffman of New Jersey,who wasquoted nthe New YorkTimes, May 2, 1937as ollows:' GovernorHoffman ofNew Jerseycharged hat President Roosevelt's interpretation of theConstitution n afireside chatwould permitCongresso exerciseanypower it deemed o be for the generalwelfare and would put suchactionbeyondjudicial decision." The GovernordenouncedRoosevelt' sclaim as unconstitutional, and called for the establishmentof StateCommittees of Correspondenceto take up theproblem of avertingthe threat of the creation of a single authoritariangovernment."TheNew York Times noted that Governor Hoffman accusedFranklinD.Roosevelt of a false interpretationof the generalwelfare clause."Governor Hoffman accusedMr. Rooseveltof deliberatelyomittingessentialwords from the text of the Constitution o establisha falsepremise upon which to basea false conclusion."

Headlines on the front pageof the New York Times on May 25,1937 heralded the official inauguration of the new Welfare State...SUPREMECOURT BACKS SECURITY ACT AND JOBINSUR-ANCE 5". Rooseveltnow had his SupremeCourt majority in favor ofthe New Deal. The Times quoted the majority opinion of JusticeCardozo,"the conceptof the generalwelfareclausecannotbe static,he held.'nJusticeMcReynolds dissented, tating hat "The Constitu-tion looks to an indestructible union composed of indestructiblestates."William Greenof the AFL voiced a contrary opinion, callingthe decision n favor of the Social SecurityAct "one of the finest thecourt has ever rendered."

Senator Robert F. Wagner of New York declared that theSupremeCourt decision "makes it certain now that Congressmayenact aws to fix maximum hours,minimum wages,and abolish childlabor." Wagner declaredhis intention to establisha FederalDepart-mentof Public WeHare,with the directorholding Cabinetrank. Thiscame o pass,but, despiteSenatorWagner's onfidentprediction hatthecourt decisionwould abolishchild labor, n fact we have as many

child laborers n l99l aswe had n 1937.Not only that,but in 1937,mostwomen nthe United Stateswere athome, rearing heirchildrenand maintaining the home. Today, they must work outside of thehome, to pay ruinous ta:rationand interest rates,while their childrenwander the streets,unattended, and at the mercy of drug dealers,rapists and child molesters.The American way of life, which hadmanaged o survive the worst favagesof the Depression,was now tobe banishedforever by the ministrations of the new Welfare State.

35


25/25

CHAPTER SIXTIIE FI]TURE OF AMERICA

The outcomeof themachinations, he conspiracies, nd heactsof criminal syndicalismwhichAmericahasendured n recentdecadesis the Welfare State.But, just as John Adams remarked, after theadoptionof the Constitution,"You have a Republic, f you cankeepit"' So the American citizen canretort today to theconspirators,"Youhave a Welfare State,f youcankeep t!" The law in thesystemwhichthe Welfare Statehassetup s subterfrrge.t can unction only as ongas the people remain ignorant of what is actually going on, that theWelfare State, far from being a Fountain of Plenty, is merely anagencyof ruthless exploitation, that it is rapidly wasting the assetsofthe nation, and that, ndeed, t hasprobably alreadypassedhepointof no return in nationalbankruptcy.This farce, or shadowplay, thatit cannotcontinue o provide "assistance" rbenefits to anyonen theUnited Stateswithout continuing to borrow money, s now exposedasan entertainment or which we had to buy tickets - it is not free.The conspirators have been successful n persuading us torelinquish our Constitutional ights n favor of "entitlements", hat s,governmentbenefiits,as Webster'sDictionary points out in its defi-nition of "entitlement - a means of obtaining or the right to benefitsfrom state unemployment compensation, or federal old age andsurvivors nsurance".The funds for paymentof "entitlements"mustcome from government it in turn must raise he funds by taxation-but a point of no return has been eached,a point where the numberof entitledpersonsoutnumbers hepersonswho are o be taxed o paythe entitlements. After some utile financial maneuvers, he govern-ment s forced to admit that he Welfare Statecan no onger unction.At this point, we can return to Constitutional government,we cansubmit to some form of dictatorship or other forcible emergencygovernment, or we can sink into anarchy.The most positive step is to admit what has been documentedhere, that the Welfare State procured the authority to issue itsentitlementsby a fraudulent nterpretationof Article I, SectionEightof the Constitution of the United States; hat this interpretationwas

sought after and foisted upon the Arnerican people by a groupcomposedof international inanciers,Mamist conspirators,andotherwreckers whose motivations may not be apparenteven at this latedate;and that thejudicial systemwhich from the SupremeCourt ondown hasbeenpressed nto service o give this conspiracy he colorof legality is no longer valid. The vast federal, state and localbureaucraciesare now hoist upon their own petard. They cannotproduceanything which will aid in their dilemma,because,by theirvery nature, they are not only nonproductive, they are counter-productive. In the face of this crisis, the United Statescan only looklorward to a political andeconomic mpassesuchas hat which nowfaces he Soviet Union, an impassewhich can only end in a majorpolitical dissolutionand eorganization.We neednotdependupontheold political standby, hat of armed evolution' as his is a product ofthe Age of Enlightenmentwhich hasalreadyoutlived its usefulness.Insteadof looking for suchan outmodedsolution,we must renewtheimpulse and resolutionwhich brought the United Statesof Americaintt being, that is, patriots, men of good will, who are capable ofmeeting together and devising a more perfect union in which thecitizenswill onceagainbeguaranteedhe right to life, liberty, and thepursuit ofhappiness.The greatesterror which citizenscan commit is their feeling ofpanicand oss, that theyhave"lost" something.we Americanshavecertainlybeen obbed,but we still haveeverything hat God gave us.The only mistakewe canmakeat hispointis to continue o follow thethieves,believe the liars, and give allegiance o the traitors- Thesecriminals can no longer hide behind their elaboratemasks' Theirdeeds aveexposedhem oall of us.We haveonly to ook upon hem,to seewhat they are,and o resolvethat neveragainwill we bedupedby suchshallow and transparent ricksters.Americans, the hour isyours!

37

eustace mullins - the great betrayal; the general welfare clause of the constitution (1991)

Documents