“Yes, we did produce a near-perfect republic. But will they keep it? Or will they, in the enjoyment of plenty, lose the memory of freedom? Material abundance without character is the path of destruction.” Thomas Jefferson
Rexford G. Tugwell
Rexford G. Tugwell’s, “The Emerging Constitution,” was also published in 1974 by “The Fund for the Republic, Inc.,” which still is in existence today. Their staff includes none other than Harvard Professor, and Con-Con proponent, Lawrence Lessig, who we discussed in Part 2 of this article.
Rexford Tugwell stated in his book that the nation has a constitutional crisis. He says, “The obsolescence of the federal government established by the Constitution, and unchanged since 1787–the twenty-six amendments (the twenty-seventh in 1992) adopted during that time made no important changes in structure–obviously called for reform, but none affecting the legislative branch could be made because that branch controlled the amending process.
He goes on to say, “Because many of the Constitution’s clauses were ambiguous and decisions had to be made about their meaning, the Supreme Court began to define their implications, and has continued this practice. This was manifestly undemocratic, but it was the only way of adapting an obsolete basic law to changing circumstances.
There is absolutely nothing obsolete or ambiguous about our Constitution or the rights granted by God, those rights that precede the very document that recorded them for every American citizen. The New World Order elites have been selling this same propaganda for decades.
Tugwell claimed the problems with our Constitution seemed so intractable and so urgently in need of solution that the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions began, and carried out for more than a decade, repeated explorations of their consequences, together with possible “solutions.” The result of these discussions was embodied in repeated drafts of model constitutions. The latest of those models appears in Tugwell’s book, including chapters explaining and supporting its provisions.
It was the Ford Foundation, in 1964, who funded and orchestrated the drafting of a new constitution for America. As mentioned, this was done via the tax-exempt Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, an offshoot of “The Fund for the Republic, Inc., which had been established with a $15 million grant from the Ford Foundation.
This model constitution, drawing upon the efforts of more than 100 people, took ten years to write. The 40th draft was the one published in Rexford G. Tugwell’s book, “The Emerging Constitution.” The project cost $2.5 million per year, or a total of $25 million, and produced the
Proposed Constitution for the Newstates of America.
Tugwell was for Regional Governance. This is Communism in all its vicious and rotten glory.
After the completion of the proposed Newstates Constitution (1974), Nelson Rockefeller, then president of the U.S. Senate, engineered the introduction of HCR 28 calling for an unlimited Constitutional Convention (Con-Con) in 1976. Public opposition defeated this effort so the convention backers then went to the states promoting a “limited convention” for the ostensible purpose of adding a balanced budget amendment. As I mentioned in Part 1 of this article, we defeated this effort as well.
After the bombing of Hiroshima, University of Chicago Chancellor,
Robert Maynard Hutchins decided to sponsor and lead a distinguished group of academics, most of which were University of Chicago academics, to craft an outline of a government for the world. Among these elite were Beardsley Ruml, a former dean at Chicago, and by 1945, the chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank in New York; Mortimer Adler, who had advocated world government in his book, How to Think about War and Peace; and economist Rexford Guy Tugwell, who wished to eliminate our 1787 Constitution. Link Tugwell would replace it with
Regional Governance, or to make it more clear, Communitarianism.
In January, 1934, the Phillip County News, Malta, Montana, printed the article, “Tugwell Predicts New Regulations for Land With Federal Control.” If you believe the United Nations Agenda 21’s Smart Growth and Sustainability is something relatively new, you are mistaken. It is as old as satan himself.
As Assistant Secretary of Agriculture, Tugwell stated, “Use of all land, public and private will be controlled by the federal government in the future.” “Land which cannot be operated effectively under private ownership will be held by the government as public forests, parks, game preserves, grazing ranges, recreation centers and the like,” He also advocated controlling the total volume of farm products by limiting the area available for production, the government acquiring and devoting to other uses all land in excess of that needed for production. “Private control has failed to use wisely its control of the land.” he concluded. “We are preparing a land program not merely for the benefit of those who held title to it, but for the greater welfare of all the citizens of the country.” THIS IS COMMUNISM FOLKS…there are no individual rights granted in these statements. Communitarianism is the ‘balancing’ or subsuming of individual rights below the needs of the ‘community.’
“Through appropriate land use planning, it is his (the physical planner’s) job to help this transfer of land to occur in an orderly fashion by reconciling the rights of the individual with the interests of the community.” From Planning Metropolitan Areas and New Towns, United Nations – New York, 1967, U.N. Publications Sales No. 67.IV.5 This is Regional Governance and what Tugwell promoted.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt with his advisors: Cary Grayson, Norman
Davies, Raymond Moley, Rexford Tugwell and William Woodin in 1932.
From the Journal of State Government, Oct-Dec., 1991, “State governments have an important role to play, not only in understanding where they fit in, but also in erecting what President George Bush has called the New World Order. This order – if implemented properly – will emphasize collective security, (world Army under NATO-UN) international cooperation, and a dependence on international law (no more Constitution for the United States of America) to resolve conflicts, promote economic and social development and create a respect for human rights… We must prudently, yet forcefully seize the opportunity and be constructive players.” This was Tugwell’s desire when he was Assistant Secretary of Agriculture under FDR.
This proposed “Newstates Constitution,” or one very like it, is waiting in the wings to be unfurled for the American citizens once they’ve fallen prey to a Constitutional Convention.
The Newstates Constitution
The New States Constitution illustrates with chilling clarity the final objective of regional governance conspirators. The goal is a corporate state concentrating economic, political and social powers in the hands of a ruling elite, and the right is holding the door open for the left to accomplish this goal!
The people who took it upon themselves to write this new constitution on our behalf were, of course, not elected representatives, or in any other way our representatives. As a tax-exempt foundation, they were able to do political work on what amounts to a subsidy taken from our taxes, but we were never asked if we wanted a new constitution written. Indeed, only a very tiny fraction of the people in the United States even know that a newly written constitution exists. It has been made known to practically no one, except a select category of influential people whose views and interests generally coincide with those of the people who wrote it. The American people as a whole are still in the dark about it, and this situation is deliberate. It is therefore truly a “secret” constitution.
The Newstates of America Constitution has a Preamble like our 1787 Constitution. Instead of “justice and domestic tranquility”, the new constitution seeks only “good order” without defining what that means. The very first words are “So that we may join in common endeavors,” and the body of the new constitution makes it clear that this means an end to individual endeavors.
Their new constitution expressly states it is good only for a prescribed period of 25 years. No reference is made in the Preamble to our defense or general welfare. Worst of all, the matter of liberty, which is so central to our present Constitution, is totally ignored in the Preamble of the new one, which seeks only, “an adequate and self-repairing government.”
The emphasis throughout the new constitution is on the government – not on the people. “Adequate” really means, “too powerful to be challenged.” “Self-repairing” means that the laws and governmental structures can be continually changed and shifted to permit anything our rulers wish to do.
As an example, Article I is divided into two parts defining “Rights” and “Responsibilities.” It turns out that some of our present rights totally disappear, and practically all of the rest become conditional and fragile, able to be terminated on the whim of the government. The responsibilities, however, which are obligations of the citizen to the government, are absolute and unconditional.
Article II defines what are called the “Newstates.” The 50 states we have now become 10 in number. That initial step was completed by Nixon’s executive order. States would be eliminated as will elected representation by and for the people, replaced by over-seers in the 10 regions with appointed (unelected, i.e. Soviet) bureaucrats to keep their subjects in line. It is no accident that our federal government for the past several years has managed its outlying activities through ten federal regions. Obama actually has appointed 10 governors over the 10 regions. These 10 new states will be completely subservient to the federal government and creatures of it. This is the plan of the International elite, and would enable full control of all Americans under their intended World Government, the head of which would be the United Nations.
One needs to understand, the “Newstates” constitution is written in an “obverse” style which means “forming a counterpart.” As an example, Article I, Section 11 states, “Education shall be provided at public expense for those who meet appropriate test of eligibility.” The “obverse” of this statement is just as important as the statement itself and means, “All education shall be at public expense.” In other words, all education will be government controlled and funded by taxpayer dollars, there will be no private schools that are not controlled by the federal government. We also must ask the question, what is the “appropriate test of eligibility?”
The 1787 Bill of Rights would be replaced by “privileges” given to us by the world government and taken away at its whim. For example…
Article 1-A Sec.1 – “Freedom of expression shall not be abridged except in declared emergency.” This is not defined…leaving it to the whim of those in power.
Article 1A Sec.8 – “The practice of religion shall be privileged.” What does that mean? We can only practice our faith if we are granted permission?
Article 1B Sec. 8 – “Bearing of arms shall be confined to the police, members of the armed forces, and those licensed under law.” Ahhh, the teeth of the 1787 Constitution is finally eliminated!
Article VIII states that the judge decides if there is to be a jury. This is communism. There would be little chance of those who disagree with the direction of the government ever receiving a fair trial.
SECTION 10. Those who cannot contribute to productivity shall be entitled to a share of the national product; but distribution shall be fair and the total may not exceed the amount for this purpose held in the National Sharing Fund. The National Sharing Fund, I wonder how much those who work will have to “donate” to this fund.
SECTION 12. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. No property shall be taken without compensation. What kind of compensation? The word “just” compensation is missing in this document.
It goes on and on. Print out a copy for yourselves and read it. See what the elitists have in store for us should we open a new Constitutional Convention.
The same old tactics are used to convince new uneducated generations that we need a Constitutional Convention. The first step is to convince Americans into believing that their Constitution is obsolete and outdated, and no longer works for the huge society and problems we have today. The proponents tell us, “The 1787 Constitution is dangerously inefficient even in time of peace and fatally inadequate for total war.”
One of many ways to condition Americans into believing that their Constitution should be thrown out and a new Constitution promoted, is to hold “town meetings” across the country. The proponents indulge the public into examining the “inefficiencies” of our Constitution and analyzing new proposed changes, (BBA), which will strengthen and/or repair the Constitution we have now.
The Con-Con proponents tell the electorate the fault lies with the inefficient 1787 Constitution for today’s huge society. The reality is, the incompetence and inefficiency resides with those who are supposed to “serve” in government. They refuse to obey the oath they took to the Constitution when they were sworn into office. The longer they remain in those offices, the farther they stray from the tenets of our Constitution.
The remedy is to enforce the Constitution, not change it. The states and the people must forcefully reject the Article V Convention, and the Balanced Budget Amendment, called for by the Compact for America Initiative, ALEC, and all the other special interest groups, political action committees, corporations, and politicians. A new convention would be beyond the control of the people, and would result in potentially fatal and irreversible alterations to our Constitution.
Our founders were honorable men. They were men who understood liberty and freedom. They understood our God-given unalienable rights, and wrote them down in our 1787 Constitution to be the law of the land. Should we lose this Constitution, then all the other battles we are waging against tyranny are lost.
Find out now if your state has a new call for a Constitutional Convention in the legislature. If it does, then you must rally the people to stop the call and apply pressure to the legislators. If two-thirds of the states, that’s 34 states, put in for a call, then the Convention will convene. The decision belongs to us. Pray and act!