Tag Archives: Ford Foundation

Constitutional Convention Call Redux – Part 4

“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. Check out this cartoon from the Chicago Tribune 1934, and notice Tugwell is driving! The caption is Planned Economy or Planned Destruction!

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.

Conclusion

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!

Constitutional Convention Call Redux – Part 1

“I have also repeatedly given my opinion that there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitution Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congressmen might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention would obey it.” -Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, Warren E. Burger

“Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention, I would tremble for the result of the second.” -James Madison, Father of the Constitution and fourth President of the United States

“All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree.” James Madison, speech at the Constitutional Convention, July 11, 1787

We could lose our God given rights, secured by the 1787 Constitution if a new call for a Con-Con is successful. The Constitution is about the specific powers we delegated to the federal government. Our rights pre-date and pre-exist the Constitution. The sole purpose of civil government is to secure those rights. Knowing what is waiting in the wings, if we lose this Constitution, all will finally be lost, and the war for our freedoms would be over. If you never read another one of my articles, I beg you to read and disseminate this one. Then contact your state legislators and find out where your state stands regarding a call for a Constitutional Convention.

Thirty Years Ago

In the early 1980’s, we did not have home computers, lap tops, or IPADs; neither did we have unlimited long-distance telephone rates. We only had our Fax machines and our telephones. Yet, the nation’s patriotic groups, and the Kitchen Militia gals, worked tirelessly to stave off a call for another Constitutional Convention. We knew the dangers, we knew the precedents, and we knew what was waiting in the wings to replace the Constitution given to us by honorable men. We knew that if we lost our Constitution and Bill of Rights, that the great experiment in freedom and liberty would be lost forever.

We worked to inform people of what a new Constitutional Convention would bode for America. Thirty-two of the necessary 34 states needed to call a new Con-Con had petitioned the Congress for the purpose of proposing a Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA).

(An amendment to the Constitution is first proposed by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a Constitutional Convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by Constitutional Convention. This is the way we’ve ratified amendments since the Bill of Rights. It is then sent to the states for their votes. If 38 of the states ratify the amendment, it will be added to the Constitution. The danger in the ratifying process is that Congress decides whether it will be ratified by the legislators of 38 states, or by special Ratifying Conventions. As well, the legislators who called for the Convention can be totally circumvented – having no voice in the outcome, thus opening a Pandora’s Box and powerless to close it.)

Thirteen states finally recalled their calls; Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Idaho, Utah, North Dakota, Arizona, Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, Wyoming, Oklahoma, and in 2010, Tennessee. Link Now some are again calling for a Con-Con.

Our Constitution is still a barrier to the globalists, and they hate this document. The elite have always wanted to destroy it because, as Patrick Henry said, The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government — lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.” The One Worlders have a new constitution waiting in the wings which will grant us privileges by the state. The distinctive characteristic of our Constitution is that it created a federal government of only limited, defined, and enumerated powers! We must focus on the limited powers we delegated instead of our “rights.” Rights pre-date and pre-exist the Constitution. Only with this conception of rights can we avoid having black-robed federal judges determine the scope and extent of our rights.

We have elected officials in local, state, and federal governments who have no problem trampling our Constitution. We have heard the cries from the right and left for a BBA via an Article V Constitutional Convention. The Constitution LIMITS what the federal government is allowed to spend with taxpayer dollars. It is so limited that the funding of outrageous items today would fill an encyclopedia. Our Constitution does not authorize foreign aid, or museums about rock stars, or studying of the blue lizard, or Chinese prostitutes, or unconstitutional wars, etc., etc., ad nauseam. We have a majority of Republicans in congress today…so why in heaven’s name aren’t they balancing the budget now without an amendment?

Of course, unknown to most of the electorate, the BBA would actually legalize the unconstitutional spending the Congress has been doing for decades. See Publius Huldah’s most important article “Why the Balanced Budget Amendment is a Hoax and a Deadly Trap.”

Forty-five Republican Senators and the majority of Republican Representatives absolutely love the BBA and desire its passage, including Rand Paul. They talk openly about it to the dumbed down electorate, never telling us that it would LEGALIZE UNCONSTITUTIONAL SPENDING. This would give Congress a free hand to spend whatever they want to on any frivolous item that floats past their desks. The Constitution limits CONGRESS alone to the spending of money!

The BBA will usher in a totalitarian dictatorship. Pursuant to the unconstitutional Budget Act of 1921, the President has been preparing the budget. Since the Budget Act is unconstitutional, the President’s preparation of the budget has been likewise unconstitutional. Section 3 of the BBA would legalize what is now unconstitutional and unlawful, but Section 3 of the BBA does more than merely legalize the unlawful. It actually transfers the Constitutional power to make the appropriations and to determine taxes to the President. Congress will simply become a rubber stamp.  Senate bill from 112th Congress. House bill from 113th Congress.

Former Senator Jim DeMint, and Senator Mike Lee, (neo-cons) are determined to jam this down our throats along with Congressional representatives like Michelle Bachmann. Don’t tell me they don’t understand what they’re doing, because all of them love the out-of-control spending and the BBA would legalize it. In the July 7, 2011, WSJ, Jim DeMint joined with that bastion of conservative politics, Maine’s Senator Olympia Snowe, to push the BBA, stating it is The Only Reform That Will Restrain Spending. Liars and thieves!

The 1787 Convention

In 1787, delegates gathered in a Conference of States (not a Constitutional Convention) to discuss problems with interstate commerce. They were given strict instructions by the Congress that they were to meet only for “the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation.” Eleven of the twelve states present, specifically instructed their delegates to discuss nothing more than the commerce issue.

Once convened, the delegates of the twelve states, formed a “committee of the whole” (chaired by the elected George Washington, President of the Conference), took a vote, and declared the Articles of Confederation null and void! For five months they debated behind closed doors and emerged with an entirely new form of government. Our 1787 Constitution was the result. The Conference of the States had become a runaway Constitutional Convention! It happened then, and we are certain it will happen again if we don’t stop the process. The precedent was set.

An Article V Constitutional Convention today would undoubtedly mutate the same way the 1787 “Conference of States” mutated into a Constitutional Convention. A Constitutional Convention makes its own rules, cannot be limited, and could indeed throw out the entire structure, including the narrowly defined, limited and enumerated powers granted the federal government, just like the framers threw out the Articles of Confederation in 1787! Remember, the Bill of Rights tells the federal government what it CANNOT do!

About 50 of the 55 delegates at the Constitutional Convention were practicing Christians, so the Constitution they wrote was rooted squarely in the Word of God and the Ten Commandments. It maximized individual liberty while at the same time limiting government power.   There are absolutely no Constitutional guarantees that the legal precedent of the first Convention will not be repeated by the second one, the result being a new Constitution. However, you can rest assured that this one will not be from Godly Christian men. Back in the early 80s, many of the states that called for a one-item Convention like the BBA, wrote limiting language into their calls, (thinking they could indeed control the agenda, and stating they would secede from the Convention if it overstepped the bounds). Nevertheless, the precedent of the first Convention is the basis for American jurisprudence. A Con-Con is not just the amendment that is at issue. The entire document is taken down from its pedestal and is put on the table and people go to work on it, tearing it apart. There are NO RULES!

As well, the Unbridled Power of the delegates to a Con-Con has been acknowledged several times by various State Supreme Courts, and a letter from former U.S. Chief Justice Warren Burger confirms the danger. In his letter Justice Burger said:

” . . . there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. . . After a convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the convention if we don’t like its agenda.”

James Madison is the “Father” of our Constitution. At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, James Madison proposed the plan to divide the central government into three branches. He discovered this model of government from the Perfect Governor, as he read Isaiah 33:22; “For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; He will save us.” (Judicial, Legislative, Executive)

There were delegates from twelve of the thirteen states in attendance at the original 1787 Convention. Rhode Island did not send delegates. The most notable statesmen present were Washington, Franklin, Madison, and Hamilton, all of whom signed the final Constitution. Ultimately, 39 of the original 55 delegates ended up signing, but it is likely that none were completely satisfied. Their views were summed up by Benjamin Franklin, who said,

“There are several parts of this Constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them. … I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution. … It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies…”

The names of several prominent Founders are notable for their not having participated in the Constitutional Convention. Thomas Jefferson was abroad, serving as the minister to France (nonetheless, Jefferson, in a letter to John Adams, would describe the delegates approvingly as a gathering of “demi-gods”). Jefferson later stated that had he been present at the Convention, he would have urged term limits for politicians. John Adams was in Britain, serving as minister to that country, but he wrote home to encourage the delegates. Patrick Henry refused to participate because he “smelt a rat in Philadelphia, tending toward the monarchy.” Also absent were John Hancock and Samuel Adams. Many of the states’ older and more experienced leaders may have simply been too busy with the local affairs of their states to attend the Convention, which had originally been planned to strengthen the existing Articles of Confederation, not to write a Constitution for a completely new national government.

Now, think about the delegates and leaders of the 1787 Constitutional Convention. They were men of letters, with integrity, honor, and love of liberty and freedom. The Founders of America were patriots, visionaries, revolutionaries, world shakers, and nation builders. They joined together to protect America’s citizens from an over reaching, all powerful, centralized federal government. Although imperfect men, they were statesmen who understood government needed to be chained to protect the people.

Can you imagine the delegates we would get from the states today? It would be the same Congress which gave us a $16 trillion plus debt, which won’t stand up to Obama, that passed the Patriot Act, the NDAA, and all the other egregious bills they’ve signed on to. Can you see the delight of the globalists in destroying the Constitution that binds them? Can you imagine today’s Washington D.C. leaders deciding how to change our Constitution? I tremble at the very thought.

Who is behind the push for a Con-Con call today? What is the Compact for America? Who is ALEC? Who was Henry Hazlitt and Rexford Tugwell? What new Constitution is waiting in the wings, written by the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations? We will answer these questions in subsequent articles.

Finally, a special thank you to my friend, retired attorney, Publius Huldah, for her help with this article.

 

 

Enemies on the Left, False Friends on the Right – Part 2

By Kelleigh Nelson

“We are told that there are conservatives, liberals and independents in America. We wish this were true, so that our task would not be so great. The truth is that 99% of Americans are liberals. They do not know it and they cannot help it, until they relearn what conservatism is and what it is not. The Don Bell Report 

Now let’s take a closer look at this huge organization called, The Council for National Policy. The CNP was Founded in 1981, allegedly to counter the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). It was also heralded as an umbrella organization which wanted limited government, believed in “traditional Judeo-Christian values,” and a strong National Defense. So then, why did they have five CFR members on their initial roster?

One of the most famous CFR members was Arnaud de Borchgrave. He was the former editor-in-chief from 1985 to 1991 of the Washington Times, and of Insight magazine between 1998 to 2001, both of which are publications owned by Sun Myung Moon’s Unification Church. After his CEO turn at Sun Myung Moon’s UPI, he retained associations with both Moon’s Unification Church media outlets, as “Editor-at-Large” of The Washington Times and UPI, writing regular columns published by either or both. He also serves as Project Director for Transnational Threats (TNT) and Senior Advisor for The Center for Strategic and International Studies. (The board of trustees includes many former senior government officials including Soviet agent Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, William Cohen, George Argyros and Brent Scowcroft.) He is also contributor to The Globalist, a daily online magazine.

arnaudArnaud de Borchgrave

The other very famous CFR member on the original CNP membership list was none other than J. Peter Grace of W. R. Grace Company. (1984-1985 list) Grace was a member of the Sovereign Military Order of the Knights of Malta, (SMOM), and was instrumental in Operation Paperclip, which was conducted by the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), now the CIA. The program was used to recruit the scientists of Nazi Germany for employment by the United States in the aftermath of World War II.

In 1948, the SMOM gave one of its highest awards of honor, the Gran Croci al Merito con Placca, to General Reinhard Gehlen, Adolf Hitler’s chief anti-Soviet spy. (Only three other people received this award.) Gehlen, was touted as a formidable ally in the holy crusade against godless Marxism. After the war, he and his well-developed spy apparatus—staffed largely by ex-Nazis—joined the fledgling CIA operated by Allen Dulles. Eventually, hundreds more Nazis ended up on the U.S. government’s payroll. Among them was Klaus Barbie. Link

GehlenGehlen 2

Peter Grace and Project Paperclip

On January 16, 1980, ABCTV broadcast a special “News Close Up,” “Escape from Justice: Nazi War Criminals in America,” which discussed Grace’s Role in Project Paperclip.

grace 2

The transcript of the program, available from ABC on request, states:

Project Paperclip, from the end of WW II to the mid-1950’s, brought more than 900 German scientists to the United States. Otto Ambros was a chemist and a Director of the notorious I.G. Farben Company which supplied gasoline and rubber for Hitler’s war effort. Ambros played a supervisory role in the construction of Farben’s plant in the Polish village of Auschwitz. For I.G. Farben, Auschwitz concentration inmates provided a plentiful source of cheap labor. The Nuremberg prosecution charged that each day at Farben’s plant, one hundred people died from sheer exhaustion. Otto Ambros was convicted of slavery and mass murder and sentenced to eight years in prison. But even while on trial at Nuremberg, Ambros was a target for U.S. recruiters from ‘Project Paperclip.’ His prison sentence was commuted after only three years by American officials and he was helped in a bid to enter the United States by J. Peter Grace, President of W. R. Grace, a major American chemical company. An internal State Department document describes how J. Peter Grace helped Otto Ambros in his efforts to enter the U.S. In a memorandum to the U.S. Ambassador to Germany, Grace acknowledges that Ambros was a war criminal. But he adds that in the years he’s known Ambros, ‘we have developed a very deep admiration, not only for his ability, but more important, for his character in terms of truthfulness and integrity.’ Otto Ambros did consulting work tor W. R. Grace and Company and lived in Mannheim, Germany. In a recent telephone interview Ambros [said] ‘I’m happy to still be working as a chemist, but it’s funny, now I’m helping the Americans.’ ” In June 1981, largely in response to the efforts of well known war crimes researcher Charles Allen, Yeshiva University cancelled a $150-a-plate dinner it had organized to honor Grace. (See also, Joe Conason and Martin A. Rosenblatt, “The Corporate State of Grace,” ‘Village Voice’, April 12, 1983.) When the scandal broke in West Germany over the Flick Company paying huge sums of money to various politicians and parties, it was learned that additionally Flick had taken improper tax waivers and used the money to pump millions of dollars into W. R. Grace Co., becoming a major shareholder. Friedrich Karl Flick himself sits on the Grace Board. As the Moscow New Times reminded its readers (No. 8, 1983, citing Der Spiegel), Friedrich Karl’s father, Flick Sr., had poured money into the coffers of the Nazi party in January 1933, and, ”after Goering had promised the Ruhr magnates that the March 5 elections will be the last elections in this decade and perhaps in this century,” he contributed another 200,000 marks; this sum was handed to SS Reich Fuhrer Himmler. Flick Sr. was subsequently sentenced at Nuremberg to seven years for using slave labor, spoliation and being an accessory to the crimes of the SS. To ensure a good beginning for his son, the war criminal sent him after the war for early training with W. R. Grace.

Grace was also a founder of Citizens Against Government Waste, along with Vin Webber, (fellow CNP and CFR member, as well as a member of the globalist Aspen Institute, funded largely by the Carnegie Corporation, The Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Ford Foundation ). Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) is a non-profit group that has campaigned on behalf of the tobacco industry and in favor of Microsoft and against open source software. Up until April 2013, they were members of American Legislative Exchange Council. Link Peter Grace was also a member of Yale’s secret organization, Scroll and Key.

The CNP still has CFR members on their roster today. The Republicans in federal, state, and local legislatures are all connected to both the CNP and CFR, as well as other nefarious leftist organizations. The destruction of old-right Constitutional conservatism was well planned. We’ll discuss this and the many and varied founders of the CNP, as well as their backgrounds in Part 3.