Hey, wanna be a member of the Truth & Justice club?
We all know governance is controlled by the interests of multi-national corporations.
THE WTO
The decision-making body within the WTO is the Ministerial Conference, which consists of trade representatives from various countries (none of these representatives are elected by popular vote—they consist of corporate lawyers and trade officials appointed by their respective governments). Underneath the Ministerial Conference is the General Council, which forms various Committees to handle different areas of the economy. Representation within WTO is theoretically on a one-nation one-vote basis, but no actual votes are ever taken—issues are taken up by the economically-powerful nations (called "Green Room negotiations") and then presented to the rest as a fait accompli an irreversible decision. Small nations realize they can’t even hope to engage in a trade war with the richer nations, and have no choice but to agree with whatever is presented--small nations who opposed some WTO rule are then threatened with loss of IMF or World Bank funding if they continued to object....
Any WTO member may file a complaint against policies implemented by any other member. When a charge is filed, it goes to a panel which meets in secret. Theoretically, the decisions can be appealed, but in reality, an appeal isn’t possible, since the panel’s decision can only be overturned by a unanimous vote of the Conference—which of course includes the nation who just won the disputed ruling....
Although the citizens of democratic nations have no say in the making, interpretation or enforcement of any WTO rule or policy, the WTO has the authority to order any member nation to modify or withdraw any national law or policy that conflicts with WTO decisions. In addition, any national regulations in areas such as environment, workplace safety, product safety, labor laws, etc., must be "least trade restrictive"—in other words, if WTO decides unilaterally that the same aim could be done with a more business-friendly policy, then the regulation is ruled more burdensome than necessary and an illegal violation of free trade. In WTO hearings, the argument that a given policy is necessary "for the public good" is specifically disallowed.... In essence, the WTO has literal veto power over the democratically-decided public laws of any member nation. And indeed in many cases, the WTO has actively forced nations to withdraw laws that they had passed through the democratic process....
The one thing to break that lock is of course the principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution of the United States.
If you believe in We The People and our Constitution, print up the following letter and send it to your members of Congress to see how they reply.
Dear Senator/Representative
I’m writing you today concerning information I’ve recently become aware of. Our Constitution, which you’ve sworn an oath to protect and defend, contains a convention clause in Article V. It is a right of the people to join together in a deliberative assembly on the authority of the Constitution, to debate and propose amendments.
As you may or may not know, and what I’ve recently discovered is that all fifty states have cast hundreds of applications for the Article V Convention, and one session of Congress after the next has simply ignored its constitutional obligation to issue the call.
Having now been exposed to this information yourself, you’re obligated to raise this issue in the Senate/House, and failing to do so renders you a federal criminal:
Federal law regulating oath of office by government officials is divided into four parts along with an executive order which further defines the law for purposes of enforcement. 5 U.S.C. 3331, provides the text of the actual oath of office you were required to take before assuming office. 5 U.S.C. 3333 required you to sign an affidavit that you took the oath of office required by 5 U.S.C. 3331 and have not nor will violate that oath during your tenure of office as defined by the third part of the law, 5 U.S.C. 7311, which explicitly makes it a federal criminal offense for anyone employed in the United States Government to "advocate the overthrow of our constitutional form of government." The fourth federal law, 18 U.S.C. 1918 provides penalties for violation of oath office described in 5 U.S.C. 7311 which include: removal from office, imprisonment, and a fine.
The definition of "advocate" is further specified in Executive Order 10450 which for purposes of enforcement supplements 5 U.S.C. 7311. One provision of Executive Order 10450 specifies it is a violation of 5 U.S.C. 7311 for any person taking the oath of office to advocate "the alteration...of the form of the government of the United States by unconstitutional means." Our form of government is defined by the Constitution of the United States. It can only be "altered" by constitutional amendment. Thus, according to Executive Order 10450 (and therefore 5 U.S. 7311) any act taken by government officials who have taken the oath of office prescribed by 5 U.S.C. 3331 which alters the form of government other than by amendment, is a criminal violation of the 5 U.S.C. 7311.
The U.S. Congress has never altered the convention clause by constitutional amendment. The original language written by the Framers and its original intent remains undisturbed and intact. The Constitution mandates a convention call when the requisite number of states have applied and uses the word "shall" to state this. The states have applied. When members of Congress disobey the Constitution and refuse to issue the call for the Article V Convention when required to do so by law, they/you have asserted a veto power where none exists nor was ever intended to exist. This veto alters the constitutional form of our government by removing one of the methods of amendment proposal the Constitution created. Such alteration without amendment is a criminal violation of 5 U.S.C. 7311 and 18 U.S.C. 1918.
5 U.S.C. 7311 clearly specifies it is a criminal violation for any federal official to advocate the overthrow of our constitutional form of government. The definition of the word "advocate" is to: "Defend by argument before a tribunal or the public: support or recommend publicly."
That said, I’d like you to respond as to what your position is, and what action you intend to take having now been informed of the matter.
Sincerely,
Of course you can rewrite the start and end to your liking, with whatever flourish you care to add, but by printing this letter and sending it off, you become a member of the club.
Here is an example of a state application for the Article V Convention: http://foa5c.org/...
