All American advocates of supra-national government, or world government, claim their principal motive is to achieve world peace. Yet, these are generally the same Americans whose eager interventionism helped push America into the two world wars of this century.

The propaganda for involving America in the bloodshed and hatreds of Europe–in World War I and World War II–was the same as that now being used to push us into world government. In World War I, we rushed our soldiers across the wide seas to die in the cause of making the world safe for democracy–of eliminating evil in the world so that there would not be any more war! This was precisely what the world-government interventionists wanted us to do. The so-called American isolationists were not pacifists who recommended refusal to take up arms in defense of their own country: most of them were patriots who would have been among the foremost to fight in defense of America. Being intelligent citizens of a peaceful and civilized nation, they wanted to keep it that way.

The world-government interventionists used the extraordinary arguments of a man who, though living in an orderly and law-abiding neighborhood, says that he must go carousing around in adjoining communities and get involved in every street fight and barroom brawl he can find in order to avoid violence! Such a man not only becomes a party to lawless violence which he claims to deplore, but also creates hatreds and resentments which will ultimately bring to the sane citizens of his own peaceful neighborhood the evils which they had managed to keep out.

This is what Woodrow Wilson's intervention in World War I did to the United States. It sacrificed the lives of 250,000 American men–not to mention the hundreds of thousands crippled and otherwise wrecked by war. But this sacrifice of American youth did not make the world safe for anything. It helped make the world a breeding place for communism, fascism, naziism, and other varieties of socialism; and it planted the seeds for a second world war more destructive than the first.

But the world-government interventionists–when their bloody crusade proved worse than a tragic failure–did not admit error. They tried to place all the blame on the isolationists who had tried to keep us from making the ghastly mistake.

If we had stayed out of World War I, the European powers would have arrived, as they have been doing for thousands of years, at some kind of negotiated peace which would have saved not only hundreds of thousands of American lives, but millions of European lives as well. By entering World War I, we merely converted it into total war, prolonged it, and made it more savage.

The destruction and slaughter of World War I created power vacuums and imbalances and economic chaos, which inevitably led to World War II.

Again, the world-government advocates, who claimed to want peace, insisted that we go to war. They also intensified their efforts to entangle America, irretrievably, in political and economic union with European nations so that there would never again be any possibility of the United States staying out of the endless wars and turmoil of the old world.

It is, perhaps, fruitless to question the motives of people leading the campaign to push America into world government. All organizations which have been active in this movement–World Fellowship, Inc., Federal Union, Inc., Atlantic Union Committee, United World Federalists, and so on–have had a sprinkling of communist-fronters among their directors and members. But they have also had the official support of many prominent and respected Americans: Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy, Richard Nixon, Estes Kefauver, John Sparkman, Adlai Stevenson, Dean Acheson, John Foster Dulles, Christian Herter, cabinet officers; senators and congressmen; Supreme Court justices; prominent churchmen, businessmen, financiers, entertainers, judges, union officials; newspaper and magazine editors; famous columnists and radio-television commentators.

Although the cry of "peace" is the perennial clarion call of all world-government advocates, many of them have, in recent years, added the claim that their recommendations (for converting America into a province of world government) are means of "fighting communism." Indeed, some of the most vigorous advocates of one-worldism have wide reputations as anti-communists–Walter Judd, a Republican Congressman from Minnesota, for example. Even Clarence Streit (leader of the now-defunct Federal Union, Inc., and father of that organization's very active and influential tax-exempt successor, Atlantic Union Committee) has ugly things to say about communism.

The fact is that every step the United States takes toward political and economic entanglements with the rest of the world is a step toward realization of the end objective of communism: creating a one-world socialist political and economic system in which we will be one of the subjugated provinces.

Because of the wealth we have created as a free and independent nation, we would be the most heavily taxed province in any conceivable supra-national government–whether in a "limited, federal union of the western democracies," which is what the Atlantic Union Committee people say they want; or in a total one-world system, which is what all advocates of international union really have as their final goal.

Because of our population, however, we would have minority representation in any supra-national government now being planned.

Americans would be subjected to laws enacted by an international parliament in which we would have little influence; taxing us, regulating our economic activities, controlling our schools, and dictating our social and cultural relations with each other and with the rest of the world.

America was founded, populated, and developed by people seeking escape from oppressive governments in Europe. Now our own leaders ask us to give up the freedom and independence which our forebears won for us with blood and toil and valorous devotion to high ideals, to become subjects in a governmental system that would inevitably be more tyrannical than any which our forefathers rebelled against or any that presently exist. If the world government included the despotic and oligarchic and militaristic, and feudalistic and primitive systems of Asia, the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America, it would necessarily become the bloodiest and most oppressive tyranny the world has ever known.

Nowadays, when two or more nations amalgamate their economic, political, and social systems they necessarily take the lowest common denominator of freedom rather than the highest. In fact, they must take something lower than the lowest: the union government will be more restrictive than the government of any of the nations which formed the union.

This will be true of any supra-national government that the United States might get into: the union will not extend American freedom to other nations; it will extend to all nations in the union the most restrictive controls of the most oppressive government which enters the union, and make even those controls worse than they were before the union was formed–because the American principle of federalism has been discarded by the "liberals" who manage our national affairs; and American federalism is the only political principle ever to exist in the history of the world that can make individual human freedom possible in a federation of states.

Hard core American communists know (and some admit) that any move toward American membership in any kind of supra-national government is a move toward the Soviet objective of a one-world socialist dictatorship; but all other American advocates of international union claim their schemes are intended to repeat and extend the marvelous achievement of 13 American states which, by forming a political union, created a free and powerful nation.

All United States advocates of any kind of world government point to the founding of America: 13 sovereign states, each one proud and nationalistic, all with special interests that were divergent from or in conflict with the interests of the others; yet, they managed to surrender enough sovereignty to join a federal union which gave the united strength of all, while retaining the individuality and freedom of each.

The 13 American states, in forming a federal union, did not take the lowest common denominator of freedom; they took the highest, and elevated that.

The American principle of federalism (indeed, the whole American constitutional system) grew out of the philosophical doctrine (or, rather, statement of faith) which Jefferson wrote into the Declaration of Independence:

"...all men are ... endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights..."

Men get their rights from God, not from government. Government, a man-made creature, has nothing except what it takes from God-created men. Government can give the people nothing that it has not first taken away from them. Hence, if man is to remain free, he must have a government which will play a very limited and negative role in his private affairs.

The United States is the only nation, ever, whose institutions and organic law were founded on this principle. The United Nations' Declaration of Human Rights; the Constitution of the Soviet Union; and the written and unwritten constitutions of every other nation in the world are all built on a political principle exactly opposite in meaning to the basic principle of Americanism. That is, the Constitution of the Soviet Union, and of every UN agency, and of all other nations, specify a large number of rights and privileges which citizens should have, if possible, and which government will grant them if government can, and if government thinks proper.

Contrast this with the American Constitution and Bill of Rights which do not contain one statement or inference that the federal government has any responsibility, or power, to grant the people rights, privileges, or benefits of any kind. The total emphasis in these American documents is on telling the federal government what it cannot do to and for the people–on ordering the federal government to stay out of the private affairs of citizens and to leave their God-given rights alone.

This negative, restricted role of the federal government, and this assumption that God and not government is the source of man's rights and privileges, are clearly stated in the Preamble to our Constitution. The Preamble says that this Constitution is being ordained and established, not to grant liberties to the people, but to secure the liberties which the people already had (before the government was ever formed) as blessings.

The essence of the American constitutional system, which made freedom in a federal union possible, is clearly stated in the first sentence of the first Article of our Constitution and in the last Article (the Tenth Amendment) of our Bill of Rights.

The first Article of our Constitution begins with the phrase, "All legislative Powers herein granted...." That obviously meant the federal government had no powers which were not granted to it by the Constitution. The Tenth Amendment restates the same thing with emphasis:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Clearly and emphatically, our Constitution says that the federal government cannot legally do anything which is not authorized by a specific grant of power in the Constitution.

This is the one constitutional concept that made the American governmental system different from all others; it is the one which left our people so free and unmolested by their own government that they converted the backward, American continent into the land of freedom, the most fruitful and powerful nation in history.

And this was the constitutional proviso which created the American principle of federalism. The Constitution made no grant, or even inferred a grant, of power to the federal government for meddling, to any extent, or for any purpose whatever, in the private cultural, economic, social, educational, religious, or political affairs of individual citizens–or in the legitimate governmental activities of the individual states which became members of the federal union. Hence, states could join the federal union without sacrificing the freedom of their citizens.

Modern "liberalism" which has been continuously in control of the federal government (and of most opinion-forming institutions and media throughout our society) since Franklin D. Roosevelt's first inauguration, March 4, 1933, has, by ignoring constitutional restraints, changed our Federal government with limited powers into a Central government with limitless power over the individual states and their people.

Modern "liberalism" has abandoned American constitutional government and replaced it with democratic centralism, which, in fundamental theory, is identical with the democratic centralism of the Soviet Union, and of every other major nation existing today.

It was possible to enlarge the size of the old American federal union without diminishing freedom for the people. When you enlarge the land area and population controlled by democratic centralism you must necessarily diminish freedom for the people, because the problems of centralized government increase with the size of population and area which it controls.

Look at what has happened to America since our federal government was converted into a centralized absolutism. The central government in Washington arrogated to itself the unconstitutional power and responsibility of regulating the relationships between private employers and their employees, enacting laws which established "collective bargaining" as "national policy," and which, to that end, gave international unions a virtual monopoly over large segments of the labor market.

It follows that a minor labor dispute between two unions on the waterfront of New York is no longer a concern only of the people and police in that neighborhood. A handful of union members who have no grievance whatever against their employers but who are in a jurisdictional struggle with another union, can shut down the greatest railroad systems in the world, throw thousands out of work, and paralyze vital transportation for business firms and millions of citizens all over the nation.

Harry Bridges on the West Coast can order a political demonstration having nothing to do with "labor" matters, and paralyze the economy of half the nation.

Imagine what it will be like if we join a world government. Then a dock strike in London will cripple, not just the British Isles but the whole world.

Now, the central government in Washington sends troops into local communities to enforce, at bayonet point, the illegal edicts of a Washington judicial oligarchy concerning the operation of local schools. If we join world government, the edict and the troops will come (depending on what nations are in the international union, of course) from India and Japan and the Congo.

There was a time when Americans, learning of suffering and want in a distant land, could respond to their Christian promptings and native kindliness by making voluntary contributions for relief to their fellow human beings abroad. Our central government's foreign aid programs have already taken much of that freedom away from American citizens–taxing them so heavily for what government wants to give away, that private citizens can't spend their own money the way they would like to.

What will it be like if we join a world government that embraces the real have-not nations of the earth? The impoverished subcontinent of India, because of population, would have more representatives in the international parliament than we would have. They, with the support of representatives from Latin America and Africa, could easily vote to lay a tax on "surplus" incomes for the benefit of all illiterate and hungry people everywhere; and outvoted Americans would be the only people in the world with incomes high enough to meet the international definition of "surplus."

We read with horror of Soviet slaughter in Hungary when the Soviets suppress a local rebellion against their partial world-government. What kind of horror would we feel after we join a world government and see troops from Europe and Africa and the Middle East machinegunning people on the streets of United States cities in order to suppress a rebellion of young Americans who somehow heard about the magnificent constitutional system and glorious freedom their fathers used to have and who are trying to make a public demonstration of protest against the international tyranny being imposed upon them?

A genuine world government might eliminate the armed conflict (between nations) which we now call war; but it would cause an endless series of bloody uprisings and bloody suppressions, and would cause more human misery than total war itself.

In 1936, the Communist International formally presented its three-stage plan for achieving world government–Stage 1: socialize the economies of all nations, particularly the Western "capitalistic democracies" (most particularly, the United States); Stage 2: bring about federal unions of various groupings of these socialized nations; Stage 3: amalgamate all of the federal unions into one world-wide union of socialist states. The following passage is from the official program of the 1936 Communist International:

"...dictatorship can be established only by a 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 of federal unions would expand ... at length forming the World Union of Socialist Soviet Republics."

In 1939 (three years after this communist program was outlined) Clarence K. Streit (a Rhodes scholar who was foreign correspondent for The New York Times, covering League of Nations activities from 1929-1939) wrote Union Now, a book advocating a gradual approach through regional unions to final world union–an approach identical with that of the communists, except that Streit did not say his scheme was intended to achieve world dictatorship, and did not characterize the end result of his scheme as a "World Union of Socialist Soviet Republics."

In 1940, Clarence K. Streit (together with Percival F. Brundage, later a Director of the Budget for Eisenhower; and Melvin Ryder, publisher of the Army Times) formed Federal Union, Inc., to work for the goals outlined in Streit's book, Union Now, published the year before.

In 1941, Streit published another book: Union Now With Britain. He claims that the union he advocated would be a step toward "formation of free world government." But the arguments of his book make it very clear that in joining a union with other nations, the United States would not bring to the union old American constitutional concepts of free-enterprise and individual freedom under limited government, but would rather amalgamate with the socialistic-communistic systems that exist in the other nations which became members of the union.

The following passages are from page 192 of Streit's Union Now With Britain:

"Democrats cannot ... quarrel with Soviet Russia or any other nation because of its economic collectivism, for democracy itself introduced the idea of collective machinery into politics. It is a profound mistake to identify democracy and Union necessarily or entirely with either capitalist or socialist society, with either the method of individual or collective enterprise. There is room for both of these methods in democracy....

"Democracy not only allows mankind to choose freely between capitalism and collectivism, but it includes marxist governments, parties and press...."

When the year 1941 ended, America was in World War II; and all American advocates of world-peace-through-world-law-and-world-government jubilantly struck while the iron was hot–using the hysteria and confusion of the early days of our involvement in the great catastrophe as a means of pushing us into one or another of the schemes for union with other nations.

Clarence Streit states it this way, in his most recent book (Freedom's Frontier Atlantic Union Now, 1961):

"Japan Pearl Harbored us into the war we had sought to avoid by disunion.... Now, we Americans had the white heat of war to help leaders form the nuclear Atlantic Union."

On January 5, 1942 (when we had been at war less than a month), Clarence Streit's Federal Union, Inc., bought advertising space in major newspapers for a petition urging Congress to adopt a joint resolution favoring immediate union of the United States with several specified foreign nations. Such people as Harold L. Ickes (Roosevelt cabinet officer), Owen J. Roberts (Supreme Court Justice), and John Foster Dulles (later Eisenhower's Secretary of State) signed this newspaper ad petitioning Congress to drag America into world government. In fact, these notables (especially John Foster Dulles) had actually written the Joint Resolution which Federal Union wanted Congress to adopt.

The world government resolution (urged upon Congress in January, 1942) provided among other things that in the federal union of nations to be formed, the "union" government would have the right: (1) to impose a common citizenship; (2) to tax citizens directly; (3) to make and enforce all laws; (4) to coin and borrow money; (5) to have a monopoly on all armed forces; and (6) to admit new members.

The following is from a Federal Union, Inc., ad published in The Washington Evening Star, January 5, 1942, urging upon the people and Congress of America an immediate plunge into world government:

"....Resolved:

"That the President of the United States submit to Congress a program for forming a powerful union of free peoples to win the war, the peace, the future;

"That this program unite our people, on the broad lines of our Constitution, with the people of Canada, the United Kingdom, Eire, Australia, New Zealand, and the Union of South Africa, together with such other free peoples, both in the Old World and the New as may be found ready and able to unite on this federal basis....

"We gain from the fact that all the Soviet republics are already united in one government, as are also all the Chinese-speaking people, 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....

"The surest way to shorten and to win this war is also the surest way to guarantee to ourselves, and our friends and foes, that this war will end in a union of the free. The surest way to do all this is for us to start that union now."

World Fellowship, Inc., was also busy putting pressure on Congress in January, 1942. World Fellowship, Inc., is one of the oldest world government organizations. It was founded in 1918 as the "League of Neighbors."

In 1924, the League of Neighbors united with the Union of East and West (which had been founded in India). In 1933, this combined organization reorganized and changed its name to World Fellowship of Faiths. In late 1941, it changed its name again and incorporated–and has operated since that time as World Fellowship, Inc.

Dr. Willard Uphaus, a notorious communist-fronter, has been Executive Director of World Fellowship, Inc., since February, 1953. Here is a Joint Resolution which World Fellowship, Inc., urged Congress to adopt on or before January 30, 1942–as a birthday present to President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

"Now, therefore, be it

"Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That the Congress of the United States of America does hereby solemnly declare that all peoples of the earth should now be united in a commonwealth of nations to be known as the United Nations of the World, and to that end it hereby gives to the President of the United States of America all the needed authority and powers of every kind and description, without limitations of any kind that are necessary in his sole and absolute discretion to set up and create the Federation of the World, a world peace government under the title of the 'United Nations of the World,' including its constitution and personnel and all other matters needed or appertaining thereto to the end that all nations of the world may by voluntary action become a part thereof under the same terms and conditions.

"There is hereby authorised to be appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of 100 million dollars or so much thereof as may be necessary, to be expended by the President in his sole and absolute discretion, to effectuate the purposes of this joint resolution, and in addition, the sum of 1 billion dollars for the immediate use of the United Nations of the World under its constitution as set up and created by the President of the United States of America as provided in this joint resolution...."

Congress rejected the world-government resolutions urged upon it in 1942 by Federal Union, Inc., and by World Fellowship, Inc.

But the formation of the United Nations in 1945 was a tremendous step in the direction these two organizations were travelling. The "world peace" aspects of the United Nations were emphasized to enlist support of the American public. Few Americans noticed that the UN Charter really creates a worldwide social, cultural, economic, educational, and political alliance–and commits each member nation to a program of total socialism for itself and to the support of total socialism for all other nations.

The United Nations is, to be sure, a weaker alliance than world government advocates want; but the UN was the starting point and framework for world government.

The massive UN propaganda during the first few years after the formation of the UN (1945) was so effective in brainwashing the American people, that the United World Federalists, beginning with the State Assembly of California, managed to get 27 state legislatures to pass resolutions demanding that Congress call a Constitutional Convention for the purpose of amending our Constitution in order to "expedite and insure" participation of the United States in a world government. When the American people found out what was going on, all of these "resolutions" were repealed–most of them before the end of 1950.

But 1949 was a great year for American world government advocates.

On April 4, 1949, Dean Acheson's "brainchild," the North Atlantic Treaty, was ratified by the United States. President Truman signed the proclamation putting NATO in force on August 24, 1949. Most Americans were happy with this organization. It was supposedly a military alliance to protect the free world against communism. But few Americans bothered to read the brief, 14-article treaty. If they had, Article 2 would have sounded rather strange and out of place in a military alliance. Here is Article 2 of the NATO Treaty:

"The parties will contribute toward the future development of peaceful and friendly international relations by strengthening their free institutions, by bringing about a better understanding of the principles upon which these institutions are founded, and by promoting conditions of stability and well being. They will seek to eliminate conflict in their international economic policies and will encourage economic collaboration between any or all of them."

Here in this "military" treaty, which re-affirms the participants' "faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations," is the legal basis for a union, an Atlantic Union, a supra-national government, all under the United Nations.

Immediately upon the formation of NATO, Clarence K. Streit created (in 1949) the Atlantic Union Committee, Inc. Strait's old Federal Union was permitted to become virtually defunct (although it technically still exists, as publisher of Streit's books, and so on). Streit got federal tax exemption for the Atlantic Union Committee by writing into its charter a proviso that the organisation would not "attempt to influence legislation by propaganda or otherwise."

Yet, the charter of AUC states its purposes as follows:

"To promote support for congressional action requesting the President of the United States to invite the other democracies which sponsored the North Atlantic Treaty to name delegates, representing their principal political parties, to meet with delegates of the United States in a federal convention to explore how far their peoples, and the peoples of such other democracies as the convention may invite to send delegates, can apply among them, within the framework of the United Nations, the principles of free federal union."

An Atlantic Union Committee Resolution, providing for the calling of an international convention to "explore" steps toward a limited world government, was actually introduced in the Congress in 1949–with the support of a frightful number of "liberals" then in the Congress.

The Resolution did not come to a vote in the 81st Congress (1949-1950). Estes Kefauver (Democrat, Tennessee) gravitated to the leadership in pushing for the Resolution in subsequent Congresses; and he had the support of the top leadership of both parties, Republican and Democrat, north and south–including people like Richard Nixon, William Fulbright, Lister Hill, Hubert Humphrey, Mike Mansfield, Kenneth Keating, Jacob Javits, Christian Herter, and so on.

From 1949 to 1959, the Atlantic Union Resolution was introduced in each Congress–except the one Republican-controlled Congress (83rd–1953).

In 1959, Atlantic Union advocates, having got nowhere in ten years of trying to push their Resolution through Congress, changed tactics. In 1959, Streit's Atlantic Union Committee published a pamphlet entitled, Our One Best Hope–For Us–For The United Nations–For All Mankind, recommending an "action" program to "strengthen the UN." This "action" program asks the U.S. Congress to pass a Resolution calling for an international convention which would accomplish certain "fundamental objectives," to wit:

"That only reasonably experienced democracies be asked to participate; and that the number asked to participate should be small enough to enhance the chance for early agreement, yet large enough to create, if united, a preponderance of power on the side of freedom.

"That the delegates be officially appointed but that they be uninstructed by their governments so that they shall be free to act in accordance with their own individual consciences.

"That, whatever the phraseology, it should not be such as to preclude any proposal which, in the wisdom of the convention, is the most practical step.

"That the findings of the delegates could be only recommendations, later to be accepted or rejected by their legislatures and their fellow citizens."

The NATO Citizens Commission Law of 1960 fully carries out the purposes and intent of the new Atlantic Union strategy fabricated in 1959 to replace the old Resolution which had failed for ten years.

The roll-call vote on this law (published in the February 27, 1961, issue of The Dan Smoot Report) shows what a powerful array of United States Congressmen and Senators are for this step toward world government.

The debates in House and Senate (Senate: Congressional Record, June 15, 1960, pp. 11724 ff; House: Congressional Record, August 24, 1960, pp. 16261 ff) show something even more significant.

While denying that the NATO Citizens Commission Law had any relation to the old Atlantic Union Resolution which Congress had refused for ten years to consider, "liberals" in both Senate and House used language right out of the Atlantic Union Committee pamphlet of 1959 (Our Best Hope ...) to "prove" that this NATO Citizens Commission proposal was not dangerous: They argued, for example, that Commission members would be free to act in accordance with their own individual consciences; that the meetings of the Commission would be purely exploratory, and that Commission findings would be "only recommendations," not binding on the U.S. government.

Congressional "liberals" supporting the NATO Citizens Commission also tried to establish the respectability of the Commission by arguing that it was merely being created to explore means of implementing Article 2 of the NATO Treaty. Are these "liberal" congressmen and senators so ignorant that they do not know the whole Atlantic Union movement is built under the canopy of "implementing Article 2 of this NATO Treaty?" Or, are they too stupid to understand this? Or, are they so dishonest that they distort the facts, thinking that the public is too confused or ignorant to discover the truth?

Although the liberals in Congress loudly denied that the NATO Citizens Commission Law of 1960 had anything to do with Atlantic Union, Clarence Streit knew better–or was more honest. As soon as the law was passed, Streit began a hasty revision of his old Union Now. Early in 1961, Harper & Brothers published the revision, under the title Freedom's Frontier Atlantic Union Now.

In this new book, Streit expresses jubilation about the NATO Citizens Commission Law; and, on the second page of the first chapter, he says:

"One change in the picture, which has seemed too slight or too recent to be noted yet by the general public, seems to me so significant as to give in itself reason enough for new faith in freedom's future, and for this new effort to advance it. On September 7, 1960, President Eisenhower signed an act of Congress authorizing a United States Citizens Commission on NATO to organize and participate in a Convention of Citizens of North Atlantic Democracies with a view to exploring fully and recommending concretely how to unite their peoples better."

The Atlantic Union News (published by the Atlantic Union Committee, Inc.) in the September, 1960, issue presents an exultant article under the headline "AUC Victorious: Resolution Signed by President Becomes Public Law 86-719."

The article says:

"Members of the Atlantic Union Committee could certainly be forgiven if by now they had decided that the Resolution for an Atlantic Exploratory Convention would never pass both Houses of Congress. However, it has just done so. It was signed into law by the President September 7, 1960. The incredible size of this victory is hard, even for us in Washington, to comprehend...."

Who actually runs Clarence Streit's Atlantic Union Committee which finally succeeded in ordering the Congress and the President of the United States to take this sinister step toward world government? The Council on Foreign Relations! The three top officials of the Atlantic Union Committee are members of the CFR: Elmo Roper, President; William L. Clayton, Vice President; and Lithgow Osborne, Secretary.

As of December, 1960, there were 871 members of the Atlantic Union Committee. Of these, 107 were also members of the Council on Foreign Relations. The December, 1960, membership list of the AUC is in Appendix II of this volume. Each Council on Foreign Relations member is designated on that list with CFR in parentheses after his name.

The NATO Citizens Commission Law of 1960 provided that the Speaker of the House and the Vice President should select 20 persons to serve on the Commission. In March, 1961, Sam Rayburn and Lyndon Johnson appointed the following persons as members of the Commission:

Donald G. Agger; Will L. Clayton; Charles William Engelhard, Jr.; George J. Feldman; Morris Forgash; Christian A. Herter; Dr. Francis S. Hutchins; Eric Johnston; William F. Knowland; Hugh Moore; Ralph D. Pittman, Ben Regan; David Rockefeller; Elmo B. Roper (Jr.); Mrs. Edith S. Sampson; Adolph W. Schmidt; Oliver C. Schroeder; Burr S. Swezey, Sr.; Alex Warden; and Douglas Wynn.

Of the 20 members of the NATO Citizens Commission, 7 are members of the Council on Foreign Relations: Clayton, Herter, Johnston, Moore, Rockefeller, Roper, Schmidt. Roper is President and Clayton is Vice President of the Atlantic Union Committee. The others are generally second-level affiliates of the CFR.

The United World Federalists does not have as much power and influence as Clarence Streit's Atlantic Union, but is clearly the second most influential organization working for world government.

The specific objective of the United World Federalists is rapid transformation (through expansion of the jurisdiction of the World Court, establishment of an international "police force," and so on) of the United Nations into an all-powerful world government.

The aim of the UWF organization, as expressed in its own literature (the most revealing piece of which is a pamphlet called Beliefs, Purposes and Policies) is:

"To create a world federal government with authority to enact, interpret, and enforce world law adequate to maintain peace."

The world federal government would be,

"based upon the following principles and include the following powers....

"Membership open to all nations without the right of secession.... World law should be enforceable directly upon individuals.... The world government should have direct taxing power independent of national taxation."

The UWF scheme provides for a world police force and the prohibition of "possession by any nation of armaments and forces beyond an approved level required for internal policing."

The UWF proposes to work toward its world government scheme,

"By making use of the amendment process of the United Nations to transform it into such a world federal government;

"By participating in world constituent assemblies, whether of private individuals, parliamentary or other groups seeking to produce draft constitutions for consideration and possible adoption by the United Nations or by national governments...."

Norman Cousins and James P. Warburg (both prominent Council on Foreign Relations members) formed the United World Federalists in February, 1947, at Ashville, North Carolina, by amalgamating three small organizations (World Federalists, Student Federalists, and Americans United For World Government).

Cousins is still honorary president of UWF. Walter Reuther (a "second-level" affiliate of the CFR), Cousins, and Warburg actually run the UWF at the top. Other Council on Foreign Relations members who are officials in the UWF include Harry A. Bullis, Arthur H. Bunker, Cass Canfield, Mark F. Ethridge, Douglas Fairbanks, Jr., Harold K. Guinzburg, Isador Lubin, Cord Meyer, Jr., Lewis Mumford, Harry Scherman, Raymond Gram Swing, Paul C. Smith, Walter Wanger, James D. Zellerbach.

The Institute for International Order, 11 West 42nd Street, New York 36, New York, is another organization working for world government. It was founded on November 17, 1948, at Washington, D.C., as the Association for Education in World Government. On May 17, 1952, it changed its name to Institute for International Government. On May 7, 1954, it changed names again, to the present Institute for International Order.

The purpose of this organization has remained constant, through all the name changing, since it was originally founded in 1948: to strengthen the United Nations into a genuine world government. And it is a part of the interlocking apparatus which constitutes our invisible government.

The Institute for International Order gets 75% of its income from foundations which members of the Council on Foreign Relations control; and the following CFR members are officers of the Institute: Earl D. Osborn (President), Henry B. Cabot (Vice President), Edward W. Barrett, Paul G. Hoffman, and Irving Salomon.

In 1948, the State Department created the U.S. Committee for the UN (mentioned in Chapter VIII, in connection with the Advertising Council) as a semi-official organization to propagandize for the UN in the United States, with emphasis on promoting "UN Day" each year.

The Council on Foreign Relations dominates the U.S. Committee for the UN. Such persons as Stanley C. Allyn, Ralph Bunche, Gardner Cowles, H. J. Heinz, II, Eric Johnston, Milton Katz, Stanley Marcus, Hugh Moore, John Nason, Earl D. Osborn, Jack I. Straus, and Walter Wheeler, Jr.–all Council on Foreign Relations members–are members of the U.S. Committee for the United Nations.

Walter Wheeler, Jr., (last name in the list above) is President of Pitney-Bowes, maker of postage meter machines. In 1961, Mr. Wheeler tried to stop all Pitney-Bowes customers from using, on their meter machines, the American patriotic slogan, "This is a republic, not a democracy: let's keep it that way." Mr. Wheeler said this slogan was controversial. But Mr. Wheeler supported a campaign to get the slogan of international socialism, UN We Believe, used on Pitney-Bowes postage meter machines–probably the most controversial slogan ever to appear in American advertising, as we shall see presently.

The American Association for the United Nations–AAUN–is another tax-exempt, "semi-private" organization set up (not directly by the CFR, but by the State Department which the Council runs) as a propaganda agency for the UN. It serves as an outlet for UN pamphlets and, with chapters in most key cities throughout the United States, as an organizer of meetings, lecture-series, and other programs which propagandize about the ineffable goodness and greatness of the United Nations as the maker and keeper of world peace.

The Council on Foreign Relations dominates the AAUN. Some of the leading CFR members who run the AAUN are: Ralph J. Bunche, Cass Canfield, Benjamin V. Cohen, John Cowles, Clark M. Eichelberger, Ernest A. Gross, Paul G. Hoffman, Palmer Hoyt, Herbert Lehman, Oscar de Lima, Irving Salomon, James T. Shotwell, Sumner Welles, Quincy Wright.

In 1958, the United States Committee for the UN created an Industry Participation Division for the specific purpose of getting the UN emblem and UN We Believe slogan displayed on the commercial vehicles, stationery, business forms, office buildings, flag poles, and advertising layouts of American business firms. The first major firm to plunge conspicuously into this pro-UN propaganda drive was United Air Lines.

W. A. Patterson, President of United, is an official of the Committee For Economic Development, a major Council on Foreign Relations propaganda affiliate, and has served on the Business-Education Committee of the CED. Mr. Patterson had the UN We Believe emblem painted in a conspicuous place on every plane in the United Air Lines fleet. There was a massive protest from Americans who know that the UN is part of the great scheme to destroy America as a free and independent republic. Mr. Patterson had the UN emblems removed from his planes.

In 1961, the American Association for the United Nations and the U. S. Committee for the UN (both enjoying federal tax exemption, as "educational" in the "public interest") created another tax-exempt organization to plaster the UN emblem all over the American landscape.

The new organization is called UN We Believe. Here is an article from the May-June, 1961, issue of Weldwood News, a house organ of United States Plywood Corporation (New York 36, New York):

"A. W. (Al) Teichmeier, USP director of merchandising, is the Company's closest physical link to the United Nations–he's President of UN We Believe.

"UN We Believe, under joint auspices of the American Association for the UN and the U. S. Committee for the UN, is a non-profit, year-round program geared to convince industry, organizations and individuals how important public support can mean in preserving world peace.

"USP uses the seal ... (UN emblem and UN We Believe slogan) on its postage meters for all New York mailings. Among some other active companies in the program are CIT, General Telephone, Texaco, American Sugar Refining, P. Lorillard Co., and KLM Dutch Airlines."

Plywood companies (small ones, producing hardwood plywood, if not big ones like USP) have been grievously hurt by the trade and foreign-aid policies which the UN, international-socialist crowd is responsible for.

Lenin is said to have remarked that when it comes time for communists to hang all capitalists, the capitalists will bid against each other for contracts to sell the rope.

The article from Weldwood News, quoted above, was quoted in the July 17, 1961, issue of The Dan Smoot Report. The companies mentioned received some mail, criticizing them for supporting UN We Believe. The Texaco Company denied that it had ever been active in UN We Believe and said that the editor of Weldwood News had apologized for the error in publishing the reference to Texaco and had expressed regret for "the embarrassment caused" Texaco.

While denying support for UN We Believe, however, Mr. Augustus C. Long, Chairman of the Board of Texaco (and a member of the Business Advisory Council) gave unqualified endorsement of the Council on Foreign Relations. In a letter dated August 17, 1961, Mr. Long said:

"The Council on Foreign Relations is one of the most effective organizations in this country devoted to spreading information on international problems. The officers and directors of the Council are men of reputation and stature. We believe that the Council through its study groups makes an outstanding contribution to public information concerning foreign policy issues."