From: dennis@bluemoon.rn.com (Dennis Carney)
Subject: PROponent March 1992 -- Article "APRIL 21, 1935 (New World Order?)"
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[024])
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 92 01:19:11 EDT

The following article is from the March 1992 issue of the PROponent,
the monthly newsletter published by The Peoples Rights Organization
(PRO), a pro gun, pro constitutional rights group based in Columbus,
Ohio.

As a member of the PRO -- Electronic Information Committee,
I am posting this article for information only. Questions or
comments may be directed to:

PEOPLES RIGHTS ORGANIZATION
5 E. Long St., Suite 412
Columbus, OH 43215
(614) 268-0122

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

(Begin article "APRIL 21, 1935" from March 1992 PROponent)

 
APRIL 21, 1935...

     The New York Times Magazine of April 21, 1935 published an
article by Delbert Clark, "Nine Groups Instead of the 48 States".
"A Proposal for rebuilding the Structure of Government In Order to
Deal With Issues on a National Scale."  It seems as if the New
World Order and the Newstates Constitution aren't that new, after
all.



     According to the article, the map of the United States might
be redrawn by the "Revisionists" to abolish the 48 states and
create nine groups.  These groups would consist of:  the Dept. of
New England, Dept. of the Middle Atlantic, Dept. of the South
Atlantic, Dept. of the Mississippi, Dept. of the Great Lakes, Dept.
of the Prairies, Dept. of the Southwest, Dept. of the Rockies, and
the Dept. of the Pacific.  Ohio would be included with the Dept. of
the Great Lakes, along with Michigan, Indiana and Illinois.
     In today's reality, Administrative Units of United Nations
Command changes our 50 states into 11 divisions and is reported to
be in an official government publication.  In the 1991 version,
Ohio is still linked with the Great Lakes states.
     In his article of 1935, Clark stated "There is a growing
sentiment-it is still too inchoate to be termed a movement- among
certain members of Congress with advanced social views and a
willingness to break with tradition, in favor of drastic change in
our form of government to facilitate nation-wide reforms frequently
blocked by the very nature of our confederation.  Since, obviously,
there is political dynamite in any proposal to abolish states in so
far as they provide a check upon the Federal government, no one has
yet dared to broach publicly the thesis that the abolition would be
in the public interest and is, in fact, a distinct possibility in
the some-what distant future.  Yet there are those that feel that
the change should be made."
     Clark sites as examples the difficulties that were faced when
the government instituted the income tax during the Wilson
administration, and the implementation of prohibition.  These items
of continued concern to the American populace were implemented by
the tedious process of Constitutional Amendments.  And it is a
tribute to our founding fathers that the process is so involved and
convoluted; that the Constitution would not be changed whenever a
vocal segment of the population wished it changed; but after long
and serious thought and debate.
     What the revisionists were trying to facilitate were changes
in the country that were for the "National good" instead of the
welfare of each individual state.  They argued that "State
sovereignty must be forgotten for the common welfare. Emergency
acts of the Federal Government can be effectively nullified by the
fact there exist State lines which cannot be crossed by that great
national policeman."
     "The time has come, they say, when we should realize that the
functions of the Federal Government have become much more than
those of a peace officer, when the progressive welding of
forty-eight States into one nation calls for recognition, through
revision of what has become a cumbersome instrument of government."
     In Clark's opinion, the revisionist talk sprang from the New
Deal, implemented by President Roosevelt, during his four terms of
office.  They felt that the urgent national problems confronting
our nation at that time could only be handled by the Federal
Government, and were "checkmated by the fact of State sovereignty."
They cited the National Industrial Recovery Act as a prime example;
and how the "inferior" Federal Courts repeatedly ruled it
unconstitutional.
     Many attacks on the constitutionality of the development of
power by the Federal Government occurred, especially concerning
national resources of lumber and oil and slum clearances.  They
even attacked the state of New York, which was ordered by the
Supreme Court, to cease and desist their price control of
out-of-state milk.  While the revisionists did not necessarily
quarrel with these decisions, they were tremendously irked with the
system that made them possible.
     Senator Wagner, of New York, was one of those that felt that
"courts should accept social and economic change as a controlling
factor in approving or nullifying legislation, and was profoundly
dissatisfied with the artificial barriers provided by State lines.
Senator Wagner was the sponsor of the Wagner Act (The National
Industrial Recovery Act), and of much social reform legislation.
He felt that "adherence to the letter of a document adopted nearly
150 years ago by 13 seaboard states, with few of our present
problems, tends to make of that document a dead thing, rather than
the living organism it was intended to be."  He foresaw what might
amount to a blockade of "public welfare legislation unless State
frontiers cease to be barriers in the path of social advancement."
     The problem, as it existed then, was how to bring about a
greater cohesion, this enhancement of the Federal government's
powers to cross State lines for the general good "The most
common-albeit the most startling proposal- is to abolish so-called
States' rights entirely, preserving State lines only for
sentimental reasons, and reapportion the United States into eight
or ten great departments, to be locally self-governed but without
the power to hamstring the national government in its legislative
acts."
     "Aside from the strictly legal and mechanical problems
involved, clearly the greatest difficulty in the path of such a
profound reorganization of our political system is sheer pride of
statehood.  There has appeared of late a remarkable resurgence of
State consciousness, a self-assertiveness on the part of States
some of which in the old pre-depression days hardly knew they had
boundaries.
     Whether the issue will ever be raised is a moot question.  The
revisionists may never be heard from publicly-especially if the
Federal courts soon experience a miraculous transformation and
begin with unanimity interpreting law in the light of social
change."
     This "idea" of the Newstates of America was rejected in the
1930's, and by 1942 the National Resources Planning Board was shut
down. It has laid, dormant, festering, until a leader could pull it
from the shadows where it lay and give it re-birth.  President
Nixon, in 1969, partitioned the United States into 10 districts.
President Bush, after eight years of Reagan, has given new life to
abolishing States' rights.
     This comes to light in the "Crime Package" that President Bush
has so vigorously pushed for.  In it, he asks for suspension of the
Writ of Habeas Corpus, expanded police powers in regards to
searches and seizures, and the limitation of the American public to
a certain type of firearm.  This also includes the Brady Bill,
which imposes a waiting period, among other heinous clauses, which
our President has done little or nothing to halt.
     Does this also come forth in the inability of the Federal
government to stem the tsunami of illegal drugs flooding our
country, or their inability to stop the spread of the epidemic of
AIDS.
     Do we see the Supreme Court bowing to public pressure, instead
of staying within Constitutional law?
     Is this eminent dis-armament of the American citizen the
prelude to the fulfillment of FDR's World Government plans?
     When the Federal government has stolen our Second Amendment
Right, and the new world order is instituted, will life change for
American residents?  The plans today are the same as they were then
"to disintegrate the states and counties and to substitute a
socialist management system.  The new management system is not only
geographical in change-it is a totally different concept of
government, socially and economically.  It means complete control
-a totally centralized government in Washington, D.C..  It is both
totalitarianism and dictatorship commanded under the United Nations
system."
     When the states are abolished entirely (which could happen
very soon if a Constitutional Convention is convened) our palladium
of freedom and liberty will simultaneously be abolished.  The
regional system is military in full operation.

(Editor`s Note:  Part of the information in the above article was
derived from the Committee For Constitutional Treaties, P.O. Box
1776, Hanford, California 93230.  In upcoming issues there will be
more on the Hanford Initiative.)

 
(End article "APRIL 21, 1935" from March 1992 PROponent)

This is from:
    dennis@bluemoon.rn.com
---- The Soviet Union Died, But the Communists Live On ----