C O N S T I T U T I O N A L    C O N V E N T I O N

                         (C O N  -  C O N)

             C O N S T I T U T I O N A L    A S S A U L T


This text is derived from the book, New World Order: The Ancient Plan 
of Secret Societies, by William T. Still, 1990.  Publisher is 
Huntington House Publishers, P.O. Box 53788, Lafayette, LA 70505

Still's book, New World Order: The Ancient Plan of Secret Societies, 
provides an excellent summation of the problem facing freedom 
fighters and patriots in our struggle to maintain constitutional 
government in America.

                         THIS IS IMPORTANT!

                    THE CONSTITUTIONAL ASSAULT

                        by William T. Still


---------------------------------------------------------------------
File set for 62 lines page length --- Begin:

    Though surprisingly few people are aware of it, one of the 
gravest dangers to American freedoms is the threat of a 
constitutional convention, and tax-exempt foundations have sponsored 
the attempt several times this century.

    There are only two ways of changing the U.S. Constitution: (1) by 
a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress, or (2) If two-thirds of 
the state legislatures pass resolutions for a constitutional 
convention.

    After the resignation of President Nixon in August, 1974, the 
push began to have two-thirds of the state legislatures pass 
resolutions asking Congress to call a constitutional convention, as 
stipulated in Article Five of the U.S. Constitution.  In 1975 the 
first six states did so. (Note 1)

    Only four years later, a total of thirty of the necessary 
thirty-four states passed resolutions calling for a constitutional 
convention, but getting the last four states proved to be difficult.  
By 1983, the total stood at thirty-two of the needed thirty-four.  
Since then, three states have rescinded their calls for a convention, 
but there is confusion over whether these withdrawals will be ignored 
or considered legally valid.

    Legal scholars differ over whether there is a time limit 
restricting these resolutions.  Some say the resolutions of the first 
six states to approve a Con-Con call will run out in 1991.  Others 
say they are operative in perpetuity unless rescinded.  Opponents 
fear that it is just a matter of time before the overwhelming 
financial, organizational, and political power of the Con-Con 
proponents convinces the additional states to pass Con-Con 
resolutions.




    Although the battle rages every year in the remaining eighteen 
state legislatures which have yet to issue, calls, details of the 
Con-Con battle rarely appear in the media.

    Even the legislators are frequently confused.  Proponents of the 
Con-Con always fraudulently claim that the convention will be limited 
to a single issue.  Of the thirty-two states which have passed 
Con-Con "budget" resolutions, however, twenty of them have also 
issued calls for a convention to consider a Right-To-Life amend- 
ment.  You certainly can't have it both ways.  Whatever the issue, 
all the legislators are incorrectly told that the entire Constitution 
would not be opened for massive change.

    Former Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Warren Burger, is 
outspoken in his criticism of the Con-Con.  In a January 30, 1987 
speech in Detroit, he said, "There is no way to put a muzzle on a 
constitutional convention." (Note 2)

    Less than nine months after the thirty-second state called for a 
Con-Con, former Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird was concerned 
enough to write an article in the Washington Post in which he 
outlined the dangers of a constitutional convention:

        "There is no certainty that our nation would survive
        a modern day convention with its basic structures
        intact and its citizen's traditional rights retained.
        The convening of a federal constitutional convention
        would be an act fraught with danger and recklessness...
        There is little or no historical or constitutional
        guidance as to its proper powers and scope." (Note 3)

    Those who think a Con-Con could be restricted to just one issue, 
would do well to consider Secretary Laird's analysis:

        "The only precedent we have for a constitutional conven-
        tion took place in Philadelphia in 1787.  That convention,
        it must be remembered, broke every legal restraint designed
        to limit its power and agenda."  (Note 4)

     The Dean of the William and Mary Law School, former U.S. Senator 
William B. Spong, Jr. wrote in 1987:

        "It is doubtful that a modern convention could be limited
        to a single issue.  There is no guarantee that, once the
        delegates are convened, Pandora's Box would not be opened
        by groups concerned with a single interest, placing at risk
        all of the language of the Constitution, including the Bill
        of Rights."  (Note 5)

     It must be pointed out that most state legislatures who have 
voted for a Con-Con have done so with the best intentions, but with 
little thought for the larger issues at hand.  According to Laird:

        "Ironically, while a constitutional convention could totally
        alter our way of life, the petitions for a convention...have
        often been acted upon hastily at the state legislature level
        in a cavalier manner.  Over one-half of the states calling
        for a convention have done so without the benefit of public
        hearings, debate or recorded vote.  This momentous decision,




         in other words, is being made surreptitiously, as if
         it cannot withstand the scrutiny and discussion of a
         concerned and intelligent citizenry."  (Note 6)

     Why a Con-Con?  The idea is not new.  President Woodrow Wilson's 
closest advisor, Colonel House, thought the U.S. Constitution was the 
product of eighteenth-century minds, and was so thoroughly outdated 
that it should be "scrapped and rewritten".  (Note 7)

     In 1947, two prominent CFR members, Norman Cousins and James P. 
Warburg, formed something called the United World Federalists to try 
to merge the U.S. into the United Nations.  Ronald Reagan was 
associated with the United World Federalists before he became a 
conservative in the early 1960s.  (Note 8)  This group actually got 
twenty-seven state legislatures to pass resolutions demanding a 
Con-Con to "expedite and insure" U.S. participation in a world 
government.  By the end of 1950, however, most states had repealed 
the resolutions once the consequences of a Con-Con became clear.

     In 1954, Senator William Jenner warned that the Con-Con idea was 
not dead, but only sleeping:

         "We have operating within our government and political
         system, another body representing another form of
         government, a bureaucratic elite which believes our
         Constitution is outmoded and is sure that it is the
         winning side...All the strange developments in foreign
         policy agreements may be traced to this group who are
         going to make us over to suit their pleasure." (Note 9)

     In 1974, the same year that President Nixon resigned his 
Presidency, Rexford Guy Tugwell, one of the "academic liberals" from 
the old FDR "brain trust" of the 1930s published a book called The 
Emerging Constitution.  It claimed that our old Constitution was too 
cubmersome and needed drastic change.  It proposed something called a 
"Constitution for the Newstates of America."  The Newstates Constit- 
ution proposed to replace the fifty states with between ten and 
twenty regional Newstates "which would not be states at all but 
rather subservient departments of the national government.  The gov- 
ernment would be empowered to abridge freedom of expression, 
communication, movement and assembly in a 'declared emergency' ".  
(Note 10)

     In other words the Bill of Rights would be discarded.  In 
addition, private ownership of guns would be prohibited and "the 
bearing of arms or the possession of lethal weapons shall be confined 
to the police, members of the armed forces, and those licensed under 
law."  Freedom of religion would no longer be considered a "right," 
but a revocable "privilege."

     In addition, the Newstates Constitution would have given the 
president of the Newstates of America a nine-year term, and allow him 
to appoint most of the 100 Senators to lifetime terms.  The House of 
Representatives would have 100 members elected at-large as a single 
ticket with the president and vice-president (for nine-year terms).  
(Note 11)





     In the 1970s the Ford Foundation spent $25 million over ten 
years to produce and promote the Newstates Constitution.  In late 
1975, something called the World Affairs Council sponsored the 
preparation of a new founding document which was called "A 
Declaration of INTERdependence."  Written by CFR member Henry Steel 
Commager, it was meant to replace the Declaration of Independence in 
time for it's 200th birthday at a ceremony in Philadelphia in 1976.  
The declaration includes the following:

        "Two centuries ago our forefathers brought forth a new
        nation; now we must join with others to bring forth a new
        world order...To establish a new world order of compassion,
        peace, justice and security, it is essential that mankind
        free itself from the limitations of national prejudice
        and acknowledge that...all people are part of one global
        community."

        "We call upon all nations to strengthen and to sustain the
        United Nations and its specialized agencies, and other
        institutions of world order...that we may preside over a
        reign of law that will not only end wars but end as well
        that mindless violence which terrorizes our society even
        in times of peace."  (Note 12)

     This was signed by more than 100 U.S. Senators and Congressman, 
including Senator Charles Mathias, also a member of both CCS and the 
CFR; Senator Alan Cranston, CFR; and Senator Claiborne Pell, CFR.  
Also signing were House members Paul Simon, Patricia Schroeder, Louis 
Stokes, Edward Boland, and Les Aspin.  (Note 13)

     After the Declaration of INTERdependence became a subject of 
controversy, many withdrew their support.  But we shouldn't be too 
hard on those who did support it.  The world is emerging as a global 
electronic community, and as the years go by the pressure to blur all 
national distinctions will grow increasingly great in response to 
world-wide environmental concerns, such as the destruction of the 
ozone layer of the earth's atmosphere.

     The error in logic, though, is subtle and worth repeating.  As 
predicted in biblical prophesy, once the power vested in nations is 
transferred to a single worldly authority, we can be sure that the 
reign of the Antichrist will begin.  Without a system of checks and 
balances, no earthly authority is "corruption-proof."

     Since 1975, as many as forty draft versions of the revised con- 
stitution have been prepared.  (Note 14)  By 1984, a more toned-down 
version was presented by a group known as the Committee on the 
Constitutional System (CCS).  This has been the group anticipating 
the results of the Con-Con drive, spearheaded by the National 
Taxpayer's Association since 1980.  The CCS proposal includes the 
following:

           Permit the President to dissolve Congress (when he thinks
              Congress is intractable)

           Eliminate the 22nd Amendment which limits a President to
              two terms.




           Reduce the cost of Presidential and Congressional elect-
              ions by holding them at irregular intervals so that the
              date would not be known very far in advance.  (Note 15)

      The true intentions of this group, however may be revealed by 
one of its board members, James MacGregor Burns, a professor and 
historian who in 1984 wrote the following analysis of the situation 
for CCS members:

        "Let us face reality.  The framers [of the Constitution]
        have simply been too shrewd for us.  They have outwitted us.
        They designed separate institutions that cannot be unified
        by mechanical linkages, frail bridges, [or] tinkering.  If
        we are to turn the founders upside down...we must directly
        confront the Constitutional structure they erected."
        (Note 16)

     What are they after?  Basically, they want power centralized.  
They would like to see the concept of the separation of powers as 
manifested in the current Constitution eliminated in the future.  
Certainly, once power was centralized, the federal government would 
be more streamlined, just as would world affairs under an empowered 
United Nations, but the result would be dictatorship in either 
scenario.

     Regardless of the level at which it exists -- from personal 
relations, to the realm of the international -- unchecked power leads 
inevitably to tyranny.  According to professor Alexander DeConde, 
this was the feeling of second U.S. President John Adams, who 
asserted that "the idea of government by a single legislative 
assembly...was the framework of despotism."  (Note 17)

     The separation of powers concept is that the judicial, the 
executive, and the legislative branches of the federal government are 
separate yet equal, and therefore it is difficult to bring to a state 
of dictatorship.  The U.S. Constitution even separates the Congress 
into two bodies.  The debate over the utility of the separation of 
powers is, of course, nothing new.  It has raged throughout the 
history of the United States.  To John Adams, a government without 
checks and balances was unworkable and, according to professor 
DeConde, "the first step toward anarchy."  On the other hand, to 
Thomas Jefferson, the concept of separation of powers was like having 
"a red rag waved before an enraged bull."  (Note 18)

     Realizing that the separation of powers concept will be diff- 
icult to eliminate, the planners of the New World Order have only two 
options:  A Con-Con, where the changes can be done in wholesale 
fashion; or a gradual approach where changes are made slowly enough 
so that no effective opposition to them can form.  Henry Hazlitt, a 
chief Con-Con proponent and advisor to the National Taxpayer's Union, 
addressed this vexing problem in his 1974 book A New Constitution 
Now:

        "The very minimum change necessary, if our Constitution
        is to have any real flexibility...is a change from our
        present method of constitutional amendment itself...




        Conceivably Congress could frame a lengthy amendment
        providing for a parliamentary of government and submit
        it to the state legislatures or to "conventions" in the
        prescribed manner.  But the advantages of approaching 
        this goal by two or more steps, rather than by one, seem
        to me of determining importance."  (Note 19)

     Of course, under the parliamentary form of government, once in 
power the party can reign supreme.  Though it has worked well in 
Great Britain, it certainly didn't work so well in 1930s Germany 
where it allowed Hitler to create one of the most evil dictatorships 
the world has ever known.

     Who is behind all this?  The CCS has a prestigious membership 
roster, with about one-third of their directors also being CFR 
members.  The group is chaired by C. Douglas Dillon, former Secretary 
of the Treasury and a powerful Wall Street figure; Lloyd N. Cutler, 
former counsel to President Jimmy Carter; and Senator Nancy 
Kassebaum.  Other members include former Defense Secretary Robert 
McNamara, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Senator Charles Mathias, 
Senator J. William Fullbright, representatives from the Brookings 
Institute, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Woodrow Wilson Center. 
 (Note 20)

     Why these powerful men and women want to radically alter our way 
of government is for them alone to answer.  It is clear, however, 
that the forces of radical Constitutional change certainly appear to 
be waiting in the wings as soon as the doors of the constitutional 
convention swing open.

     Melvin Laird wrote in a Washington Post article in 1984:

        "The concept that a constitutional convention would be
        harmless is not conservative, moderate or liberal phil-
        osophy.  That concept is profoundly radical, born either
        of naivete or the opportunistic thought that the ends
        justifies the means."

     States still to ratify a call for a Constitutional Convention as 
of early 1990 are California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, 
Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New 
York, Ohio, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and West 
Virginia.  All others have already done so.  Every year that these 
state legislatures meet, the well-paid, pro-Con-Con lobbyists are 
there.  And every year, ordinary citizens are there to oppose them, 
and they have been remarkably successful.

     In 1989, the State of Nevada also rescinded its call for a 
Con-Con, but went much further than Florida or Alabama.  Nevada 
actually had its 1979 call "expunged" from the record of proceedings 
as if it never existed, saying the legislature was initially led to 
vote for the Con-Con on the basis of fraudulent representation that 
the convention would be limited to a single issue.  (Note 21)  The 
vote by the Nevada Assembly to rescind its call for a constitutional 
convention was unanimous.




     Even though no state has passed a Con-Con resolution since 1983, 
the issue doesn't seem to go away.  According to Con-Con observer 
Marshall Peters:

        "You would think something as damning as the Nevada
        expungement would stop the Con-Con movement right in
        its tracks, but they just keep marching straight ahead.
        Some of these people are making a living trying to get
        Con-Con passed, and as long as they are being paid by
        whoever is paying them, the fight will continue."
        (Note 22)

     If your state has already passed a resolution calling for a 
Con-Con, start a petition to have your state legislator introduce a 
resolution to have it withdrawn.  You will be surprised that most 
state legislators have little or knowledge of the resolution, and 
will, in most cases, be quite anxious to jump on the issue once the 
simple facts are explained to them.

     If your state has not passed a Con-Con resolution, find out who 
is heading up the organization to stop it in your state.  If the 
organization has not been started, start it yourself.  If your state 
has passed a Con-Con resolution, work to have yhour state legislator 
rescind its call, as Florida did in the spring of 1988.  Basic 
einformation packetsare available by writing to: Joan Collins, 
Coordinator, 5737 Corporate Way, West Palm Beach, Florida 33407.


                     I N   C O N C L U S I O N


     So what has been accomplished?  We started with the Nixon Coup 
of 1973.  It is not yet known exactly what the scope of coup-planning 
was at that time.  Surely those brazen enough to consider such a plot 
were surprised and embarrassed by the swift and negative reaction by 
the military officers and government officials who helped expose it 
at the time.  Memoirs of several of the principals, such as Alexander 
Haig, are due out in the near future.  Eventually, the whole truth 
will be known, and hopefully, this book will have helped stimulate 
it.

     Regardless, this book has offered a highly probable hypothesis 
-- that the coup-planning was merely one option being explored in the 
century-old plans fo secret societies to wrench the Constitution from 
the citizens of the United States.  As long as the Constitution is in 
place as is, their plans for their New World Order are much more 
difficult to achieve.

     Until the dawn of the twentieth century, this plan for a New 
World Order was centered in Masonry, then Illuminated Masonry, but 
with the advent of the Round Table Groups (which still exist today), 
and their American brethren, the Council on Foreign Relations, the 
torch has been passed from century to century.  (Note 23)




This book has shown the following:

     1.  There has been an elite group hidden within secret societies 
for thousands of years whose primary goal is to create a world 
government which they call the New World Order.  This group tries to 
convince mankind that world government is necessary for world peace, 
but in reality, a single world government can only lead to world 
dictatorship.  This group was primarily responsible for coup-planning 
during the Nixon administration.

     2.  The elite of the secret societies financed Communism and has 
used it ever since to help further their goals.  Their influence in 
world events has been very significant, yet previously little-known.

     3.  By keeping the Soviet Union strong, this group has cost 
America trillions of dollars and tens of millions of lives.  Just as 
President Roosevelt did in the 1940s with Lend-Lease, this group will 
again try to persuade the American taxpayer to pump billions of 
dollars into the ailing Soviet economy.  The United States would be 
wise to consider its course of action very carefully.

     4.  This group operates on a number of fronts.  They not only 
try to control international events but the domestic policies of 
nations, including their economic, educational, and religious 
policies.  Their power is multiplied because they have at least 
substantial influence on the news media.

     5.  In order to function, this group has developed methods to 
deceive normally good men.  Don't be too quick to condemn these good 
men.  Just because your neighbor is a Mason, or even a member of the 
prestigious CFR, that doesn't mean he is evil.  Yes, most, if not all 
the time, a CFR member has bought the concept of the New World Order, 
but most of them just don't understand that world government by 
definition must culminate in world dictatorship.  To lump them all 
together, however, and call them all conspirators only alienates 
potential friends, and magnifies the strength of the enemy.

     6.  This group thrives under an illusion of invincibility.  
Although they are rich and powerful, they constantly make mistakes.  
They are not invulnerable.  They do not control everything.  After 
all, we are still able to debate these questions openly.  The average 
person can have an effect.

     7.  Finally, be prepared to deal with this issue permanently.  
The New World Order is not going away.  Until Jesus returns, we will 
have to face it, and we will have to teach our children how to do so. 
 The future will be a minefield of political trickery and spiritual 
deception.  We have to resign ourselves as individuals, and as a 
nation, to oppose the New World Order as long as we can.




     Merely knowing about this "Great Plan" of the secret societies 
-- what it is, who is behind it, and what they are after in today's 
world -- empowers us and weakens the enemy.  Like all creatures of 
darkness, they do not function well in the light of public scrutiny:

        "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against
        principalities, against powers, against the rulers of
        the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness
        in high places.
   
        Therefore, we take up the full armor of God, that you may
        be able to resist in the evil day, and having done every-
        thing, to stand firm.

        Stand firm therefore, having girded your loins with truth,
        and having put on the breastplate of righteousness,

        and having shod your feet with the preparation of the
        gospel of peace;

        in addition to all, taking up the shield of faith with
        which you will be able to extinguish all the flaming
        missiles of the evil one.

        And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the
        Spirit, which is the word of God.

                            ---- Ephesians 6:12-17





---------------------------------------------------------------------
Book author William Still's Notes follow on page 10.

California state Senator Wadie Deddeh (Chula Vista) headed up this 
year's Con-Con event in Sacramento.  Wadie Deddeh should be chastised 
privately and punished publicly for his role in foisting this evil 
upon the People of California.  Suitable public punishment?  Try 
wide, scathing exposure and a decisive and resounding defeat at the 
polls.

California State Assembly Speaker Willie Brown has repeatedly 
sponsored legislation which virtually eliminates counties and county 
governments and divides California into regions.  In a two-pronged 
effort to achieve "regionalization" of California, the Brown Cabal 
advanced the "Big Green" ballot measure which would have given 
unprecedented power to an "Environmental Czar" over a California 
divided into regions.  The Brown Cabal hoped that they could pass one 
or the other.  Neither passed, this time.  You can be sure that; even 
though the supporters of one-world socialist tyranny in Sacramento, 
are being slowed by down term-limitations (Prop. 140); they will keep 
trying.  -- Natti Bumpo for Bill of Rights BBS East/West

Uploaded to Bill of Rights BBS East by Natti Bumpo. (04/22/91).
Transcribed by Natti Bumpo and staff of San Diego Bill of Rights 
Hotsheet --- FreedomNet-1 (04/27/91).




                             N O T E S

                               F O R


             C O N S T I T U T I O N A L    A S S A U L T


                        by William T. Still


     1.   It has been erroneously reported that only three states
            passed resolutions in 1975.  The confusion stems from the
            fact that at least three states passed more than one Con-
            Con resolution.  The six states which passed Con-Con res-
            olutions in 1975 were Alabama, Delaware, Louisiana, Mary-
            land, Mississippi and North Dakota.

     2.   Warren Burger, speech, as quoted by Irene Mitchell and
            Elaine Donnelly, "Update on Campaign for a Constitutional
            Convention", Republican Women's Federation of Michigan,
            September 16, 1987, p. 1.

     3.   Melvin R. Laird, "James Madison Wouldn't Approve,"
            Washington Post, February 13, 1984, p. A-13.

     4.   Ibid.

     5.   Senator William B. Spong, Jr., "An Enduring Document",
            London Times Mirror, July 2, 1987.

     6.   Laird, "Madison Wouldn't Approve."

     7.   Perloff, Shadows of Power, p. 28.

     8.   Bertram F. Collins, "Anatomy of a Conspiracy: The
            Constitutional Convention Con Game", (West Palm Beach, FL
            Bertram F. Collins Awareness/Action Seminars, 1988), p.6.

     9.   Perloff, p. 4.

    10.   Robert L. Preston, "The Plot to Replace the Constitution"
            (Salt Lake City: Hawkes Publishing, 1972).  The original
            document, written by Rexford Guy Tugwell, entitled
            "Constitution for the Newstates of America", Article 1,
            Section A-8, was published in 1974 as part of his book,
            "The Emerging Constitution".  Details of publication
            unknown because the orginal book has become extremely
            rare.

    11.   Colonel Curtis B. Dall and E. Stanley Rittenhouse,
            "A Review and Commentary on Rexford G. Tugwell's
            Book 'The Emerging Constitution' (Washington, DC:
            Liberty Lobby) p. 4, 3, 8, and 9.

    12.   Henry Steele Commager, "A Declaration of INTERdependence",
            (Philadelphia: World Affairs Council 1975), photocopy of
            original document.




    13.   Marshall Peters, "How To Stop The Crisis: Plot to Rewrite
            the U.S. Constitution, (Feeland, MD: self-published,
            no date). p. 5.

    14.   Nita Scoggan, "Prayer Alert" (Manassas, VA: Royalty
            Publishing Company, 1989). p. 51.

    15.   The Phyllis Schafly Report, Dec. 1984, p. 4.

    16.   Burns, "The Power to Lead", p. 160.

    17.   DeConde, "Entangling Alliance", p. 175.

    18.   Ibid.

    19.   Henry Hazlitt, "A New Constitution Now", (Irvington-on-
            Hudson, NY: Arlington House, 1974); originally published
            in New York by McGraw-Hill and London by Whittlesey
            House.  (The Arlington House edition notes that some 80
            pages of material was deleted from the original edition),
            p. 132.

    20.   Ruth Marcus, "Constitution in Need of a 200-Year Tune-Up?
            Washington Post, Jan. 15, 1987.

    21.   Nevada Assembly Resolution 20, June 24, 1989.

    22.   Personal telephone interview, February 2, 1990.

    23.   Although the author does not have the date, during the
            initial talks concerning German reunification in early
            1990, it was announced on NBC's evening news that the
            planning for reunification was being handled by the
            German Round Table.

------------------------------------------------
(This file was found elsewhere on the Internet and uploaded to the
Patriot FTP site by S.P.I.R.A.L., the Society for the Protection of
Individual Rights and Liberties. E-mail alex@spiral.org)