Tuesday, November 17, 2009


Globalist Enemy of America Defeated in New Jersey

A Small Victory.....Maybe!

The voters of New Jersey, a state affectionately referred to by many freedom fans as “The People's Republic of New Jersey,” rejected the re-election bid of Governor John Corzine, Globalist Bilderberg attendee.

In a rally in which Uncle Tom Obama boosted Corzine, Corzine announced that he planned to reduce spending in New Jersey by consolidating local governments. Consolidation of local (and state governments) is sought by those advancing world government because it will facilitate a merger of the United States into such a world government or into a regional super-state (North American Union) as a first step. Part of the plan, ongoing since at least the early 1920's, can be found in the “Regionalism – Death of the American System” post in this blog.

I say “maybe” a victory because a very real possibility exists that the people just replaced one traitor with an identical political twin. New Jersey also had a Republican governor, Christie Whitman, who was a Bilderberg attendee. Understand that people are not invited to Bilderberg meetings unless they share a globalist philosophy.

A “change” from a Democrat to a Republican or from a Republican to a Democrat is very rarely a change at all. Christie will have to be watched closely by the people of New Jersey or he, too, will likely try to rob them of their local governments while siding with those who would rob us all of our Republic and our Constitution.

Speaking of the Constitution brings us to something of vital importance. There are those who, while pretending to be friends of our Republic and limited constitutional government, support, even promote, a constitutional convention to rewrite the Constitution. Those in power have long been seeking to legalize the crimes against the Constitution and the people that they have already committed. Only fools and wishful thinkers could believe that we, the people, would have any control over the product of such a convention.

Regionalism, the destruction of our State and local governments, is one of the crimes many seeking a convention hope to legalize. The following is taken from The Don Bell Report, May 20, 1977. Bell quotes Col. Archibald Roberts:

“The Federal Regionalism Concept...has a flaw...which is never questioned by the press, by elected officials, or by the people. That flaw is this: The Federal Regionalism Concept is unconstitutional.”

Roberts quotes from the Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, 2nd Section, 177:

“An unconstitutional statute though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but wholly null and void and ineffective for any purpose. It imposes no duty, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on acts performed under it. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional statute and no courts are bound to enforce it.”

Bell warned us that those seeking to impose this unconstitutional Federal Regionalism on us know that it's unconstitutional. He tells us that Barbara G. Culver, then president of the National Association of Regional Councils, was quoted in their official publication as saying “In 10 short years, without any authority or power, regional councils have changed local government relationships with each other and relationships with the Federal system.”

Yes! They know that what they (the government and the criminal element in it) are doing is illegal. What they want to do is rewrite the Constitution to make their crimes legal after the fact. Trust no one who calls for a Constitutional convention. While some of them may be naïve enough to believe that supporters of limited government could control such a convention, remember what happened when the first one was called. It was authorized to revise the Articles of Confederation. Instead, we were given a blueprint for a national tyranny and only alert men like Methacton Smith, Jefferson, and Richard Henry Lee slowed down the quest for power with the First Ten Amendments.

Bell lists New Dealer Rexford Tugwell as one who had written a new constitution to replace our “outmoded” Constitution. This is the slight of hand enemies of our Republic often use to justify usurpation of powers never granted by the Constitution. They say, “times have changed,” and say the Constitution must be changed to fit the times. But the Constitution wasn't written to govern times, it was written to govern men and men have not changed. There are still those among us who would reduce their fellow man to slavery and they are doing a damned good job. They are succeeding because we did not listen when Jefferson warned us to “bind them down with the chains of the Constitution.” The enemies of our Republic have broken the chains and are now fastening them to us and to all the peoples of the world.

Bell felt that, because of the difficulty those undermining our country may face in getting a new constitution ratified, they might prefer to continue to erode it through Supreme Court decision. Still, if that is blocked, they will go for the convention.

I strongly recommend reading Bell's article. It does the subject greater justice than I can. Some, who will not learn from history or who would dissuade others from learning, will whine that it's not valid today because it dates from 1977. As I pointed out in “Regionalism – Death of the American System” , regionalists have been attacking our State and local governments on behalf of the globalists at least since the early 1920's. In many respects, they've been attacking them since the Constitution was reported out of the Convention, maybe not on behalf of globalists, but certainly on behalf of interstate commerce interests who wanted all power to lie in a central government.

Because I couldn't find the PDF version on the site from which I copied it, I've reproduced it here in text format.

* * * * * * * * * *

Don Bell Reports
Year Twenty-Four---------------------Number Twenty-----------------May 20, 1977



“The Federal Regionalism Concept . . . has a flaw . . . which is never questioned by the people. That flaw is this: The Federal Regionalism Concept is unconstitutional.”

So Wrote Col. Arch Roberts in “The Republic: Decline and Future Promise.*” He then cited pertinent parts of the United States Constitution that were violated by the Federal Regionalism Concept, and concluded the statement by quoting from Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, 2nd Section, 177, which reads:

“An unconstitutional statue though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but wholly null and void and ineffective for any purpose. It imposes no duty, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on acts performed under it. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional statute and no courts are bound to enforce it.”

So much for the Law and the Constitution which upholds the Law. It is also important to know that those persons who are forcing this unconstitutional Federal Regionalism Concept upon us also know that it is unconstitutional!

Barbara G. Culver, current president of the National Association of Regional Councils, is quoted on the front page of the Dec.-Jan. Edition of the organization's official publication, as stating: “In 10 short years, without any authority or power, regional councils have changed local government relationships with each other and relationships with the Federal system.”

Rexford Guy Tugwell, the old New Dealer who has written the new constitution that he and the Trilateral Commission intend to use as a replacement for our “outmoded” U.S. Constitution, points out in his book promoting the Newstates, that:

“Regionalism now is being carried out without any real constitutional authority, but is based on flimsy court-rulings.”

In addition, there is the testimony of Mr. Clem Marley, president of the Legislative Research Associates of Springfield, Illinois, an organization opposed to regionalism. Mr. Marley refers to a position paper that was delivered by the multinational corporation capitalist, Fletcher Byrom, chairman of the board of Koppers, Inc. Byrom “recommended that there must be more and more economic planning in tthis country as a method of improving the economy. He recommended a national constitutional convention, saying, 'abolition of our sovereign states may be one way to improve the economy'.”

Quoting now from Illinois Common Sense, publication of the Legislative Research Associates, April 1977:

“At first Marley was puzzled as to how abolition of the states could 'improve the economy.' Then he realized that by creating huge impersonal regions under the direction of schooled appointees the way would be paved for all kinds of regional projects, and all to be paid for largely from imposed property taxes. No longer having states and counties and townships, and no longer having meaningful referendum on tax issues would mean that there would no longer be any barrier on government building projects. Thus the economy would be 'improved'.”

“Here we have...in the very shadows of the Capitol Building,” concluded Mr. Marley, “deadly serious regional planners advocating the elimination of state governments. Without state government where will your legislators be? Where will any of us be when not only the state government but also municipal, county and township government become things of the past and huge impersonal regions run by appointees take their place?” (Condensed from the testimony of Clem Marley prepared for the State Committee hearing on Regionalism, March 17, 1977).

SUMMARY: The Regionalists would prefer to do away with our present Constitution. But, that would require a Constitutional Convention and ratification of the newstates constitution and the long, tedious and very questionable act of ratification. So, the easier way would be to install Regional Governance while slowly eliminating State and County Governments, while making such action appear to be constitutional!
[My comment: Since this was written by Bell, we've had over thirty years of conditioning of our youth in what is euphemistically called our “educational system.” It may not be so difficult to get such a new constitution ratified. Also, we now have electronic “voting.” - Phree]

So, while Jimmy Carter has popular support for his plan of remodeling the federal government structure, he is to strengthen the Regional Governance power and authority over established State and County Governments, so that Regionalism becomes irreplaceable. At the same time:

The United States Congress will be induced to pass legislation which will promote the Federal Regionalism Concept. Once the Congress has given its stamp of approval to Carter's Regional Reorganization plan, the presently constituted Supreme Court will declare the Federal Regionalism Concept to be “constitutional,” and the Regionalists can proceed unmolested with the program of converting the Regionalized United States into one “Region” of a Regionalized World Government (or “Global Community,” if we use the new name made popular by the Trilateral Commissioners.”


In accordance with the above programming, Jimmy Carter the Candidate addressed the National Association of Regional Councils (NARC) in October, 1977, telling the convened Regionalists: “I believe that regional organizations should be strengthened. If elected President, I intend first to upgrade the role of regional councils representing the federal government to assist state and local officials, as well as private citizens, in dealing with federal agencies....I also intend to encourage the development of regional councils representing state and local governments.”

Note the deceptiveness of this statement: Carter stresses the importance of “state and local” regional councils because, if it can be made to appear that the “state and local” councils are willingly and voluntarily co-operating with the federal regional councils, then the impression will be made that Federal Regionalism is “constitutional.” Of course, there is no mention of the fact that every “state and local” council must gain the approval of the respective federal council before it can proceed with a project; and it must abide by the federal agency's guidelines if it is to be granted any “revenue sharing” or other federal funds. Thus, the “state and local” councils are merely captive agents of the federal bureaucracy, and the state and local individuals involved are usually prompted by the money or political influence, or both, which it gives them.

When Carter became President he followed through on his commitment to NARC. He sent a memorandum to the heads of all departments and agencies, again stressing the importance of cultivating and developing the “state and local” regional councils. Here are quotations from the memorandum, dated February 25, 1977:

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

State and local sectors constitute the delivery mechanisms for most of the actual services the federal government provides. State and local concerns, as well as their expertise, should be considered as programs are being developed in order to ensure the practicality of and effectiveness of the programs. Such early participation by state and local officials in our planning process will help ensure broad-based support for the proposals that are eventually developed. It will ensure that priorities developed at the federal level will work in conjunction with, and not at cross purposes to, priorities at the state and local level....

In order to assure that these objectives are met, please include any major policy, budget or reorganization proposal which has significant state and local impact, a brief description of how you fulfill this commitment on my behalf. It is not necessary to hold large and time-consuming public hearings, or to establish large task forces to accomplish this goal. Selecting state and local officials expert in a particular issue and asking for their assistance in developing a program will often serve our purpose.
(end of quotation)
* * * * * * * * * * * * *

From The American Sunbeam of May 16, 1977 we learn that yet another memo was sent by President Carter, this one to the Secretaries of the Cabinet-level Departments. It said:

“I would like you to form a working policy group on urban and regional development. The purpose of the group will be to conduct a comprehensive review of all federal programs which impact on urban and regional areas; to seek perspectives of state and local officials concerning the role of the federal government in urban and regional development; and to submit appropriate administrative and legislative recommendations.”

The “working policy group” was to include representatives from the Treasury, Commerce, Labor, Health, Education and Welfare, Housing and Urban Development, and Transportation; and was to be headed by Jack Watson, assistant to the President for inter-governmental relations, and co-chaired by Stuart Eizenstat, President Carter's assistant for domestic affairs.

According to the Congressional Quarterly of April 8, 1977, Jack Watson was to coordinate a comprehensive review of the 10 federal regional councils. Also, W. Harrison Wellford, Deputy Associate Director for reorganization and management for the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) was said to be spending considerable time on a review of the regional councils.

It seems that, in the eyes of Carter and his Trilateral Commission advisers, the Federal Regionalism Concept began to languish and lose effectiveness after Richard Nixon ran into difficulties with his sponsors and was replaced by Gerald Ford. Carter intends to revive and give greater authority to the Federal Regionalism Concept, and the strengthening of the Regional Councils in the ten Regional Capitols, is the first step. Hence the creation of this “working policy group” which is already on the road and working.

We have a report of the group's first official stop: at Boston, the Capitol of Region No. 1. This report is by Lou Cannon of the Washington Post, appeared in that paper's edition of Snday, May 15, 1977. For reasons that need not be detailed at this time, we doubt the authenticity of the report and suspect that it is slanted to a considerable degree. However, the article does indicate that Jack H. Watson is doing exactly what the boss ordered: increasing the importance and adding clout to the Commission which rules Federal Region Number One. Here are brief quotes from the article.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *
-By Lou Cannon

Boston – Jack H. Watson, the President's assistant for intergovernmental relations, came to town last week to find out how the Federal Regional Council in New England was doing. Among other things he learned that Boston Mayor Kevin White didn't know what a Federal Regional Council was. It turned out that the Boston mayor was not alone . . . . All this is a far cry from the blare of trumpets that greeted the creation of the councils by the Nixon administration . . . .

One of Carter's directives in reorganization of the federal government was that Watson assess the 'federal regional presence' and report to him on the options. That report, still unwritten, is scheduled to be sent to Carter this week for his decision . . . . But the view Watson heard over and over again in Boston . . . was that some sort of federal regional coordinating mechanism is badly needed . . . .

One widely discussed proposal for change is to chair every council with a presidential appointee who would be solely concerned with coordinating the federal agencies in the region and helping them relate to state and local governments. At present the chair of each council is rotated among regional directors of the different agencies. They serve part-time and are usually loyal to their own agency. An independent chairman presumably would be (a) person attuned to the politics of his region, perhaps a former mayor or governor. This would give local government officials access to an important federal official in their own region who in turn would have access to the White House . . . .
(end of quotation)
* * * * * * * * * * * * *

Making local officials feel that they really have some authority over regional programs, and making them believe that they have a direct access to the White House; this is the Carter formula for strengthening the Federal Regional Governance system, while at the same time making the local politicians happy at being puppets controlled by the strings of revenue sharing and federal guidelines.

With such a formula, Regionalism is bound to replace the representative republican form of government we once enjoyed; this especially so long as the Supreme Court continues to affirm the “constitutionality” of administrative law (federal rules and regulations made by federa agencies and not by the Congress), and so long as that same Supreme Court declares that federal agencies have the right to try their cases without a Federal Judge presiding and without a jury of one's peers determining the guilt or innocence of the accused.

When Carter's concept of “Human Rights” replaces the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights, then almost anything can be called “Constitutional,” including Regional Governance.

While the Executive Department under Carter is striving to strengthen and solidify the concept of regionalism as a new level of government, certain members of Congress are busily promoting legislation which would make regional governance official and legal (though is will still be unconstitutional.) This action is centered in what is called the “Intergovernmental Coordination Act of 1977.” It was introduced in the Senate by Magnuson (D.-Wash-) and Mathias (R.-Md.) and was given the number S. 892. In the House the bill was introduced by Rep. Ashley (D.-Ohio) and is known as H.R. 4406. This is its second time around: the bill was originally prepared by NARC (the same to which candidate Carter made his commitment in October, 1976) and it was introduced in the 94th Congress by Magnuson and Mathias; but action on the bill was never completed. So, they're trying again and, this time, there is an excellent chance that it will pass and that President Carter will sign it into law. Thus, the unconstitutional activities of the Regionalists and their appointees will have become “legal” and binding.

S.892 is “A bill to establish a national policy on areawide planning and its coordination, to encourage the use of organizations composed of local elected officials to perform federally assisted or required areawide planning, to require use of planning districts established by States in Federal planning programs, to require certain Federal land use actions to be consistent with State, areawide, and local planning, to authorize the Office of Management and Budget to prescribe rules and regulations thereto, and for other purposes.”

The “land use” section of this bill reads as follows: “Sec. 501. It is the purpose of this title to promote more harmonious inter-governmental relations and to encourage sound planning, zoning, and land-use practices by prescribing uniform policies and procedures whereby Federal agencies or departments shall acquire, use, and dispose of land in order that land transactions entered into by such Federal agencies of departments shall, to the greatest extent practicable, be consistent with zoning and land use policies and practices and shall be made to the greatest extent practicable in accordance with planning and development objectives of the State and local governments concerned.” Under this title, whenever the Federal government decides to “acquire real property,” it must notify the State, the appropriate areawide agency, and the local unit of government of the intent to acquire such property; unless . . . “the head of a Federal agency or department determines that such advance notice would have an adverse impact on the proposed purchase . . . , then notification would be required after the acquisition of the land.

The bill is filled with such loopholes, and it is made very clear that Federal assistance will be withheld unless certain criteria are met. Furthermore, quoting again from the bill: “The Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall establish rules and regulations governing the formulation, evaluation, and review of areawide development plans. Such rules and regulations shall include clear criteria which will provide for achievement of the objectives of the development assistance policies of the Inter-governmental Cooperation Act of 1968 . . . and shall also require that to the greatest extent practicable the areawide development plans to be consistent with national urban growth and rural development policies.”

Behind this barrage of verbiage that seems to promise cooperation between the various levels of government, in this bill there lies the clear intent to give the Federal government, through its regional agencies, the ultimate control over State and local affairs, and to reinforce the power of the Federal government, through administrative rules and regulations, to set the standards and goals of any State or local government policy.

“Federalism-old style-is dead. Yet Federalism-new style-is alive and well and living in the United States. Its name is intergovernmental relations.” So wrote a liberal professor of political science. He might have added that “intergovernmental relations” really means centralized control by the federal government operating through regional councils, with State and local governments becoming nothing more than administrative agencies of that centralized federal government.

Because the United States Constitution stands in the way of any such Regional Governance, the “New Federalism” seeks to amend the Constitution through Supreme Court decisions (such as rescinding the 7th Amendment), and through Congressional legislation (such as this Intergovernmental Coordination Act of 1977).

This “New Federalism” makes it clear that the separation of legislative, executive, and judicial powers no longer exists. Now it is busy destroying that balance of power that once existed between the Sovereign States and their agent, the Federal Government. Federal Regionalism is the basic ingredient of the New Federalism; and if the Constitution stands in the way, then a new constitution has been prepared to replace it.

Return to Table of Contents

Saturday, June 20, 2009

A Prophecy from England

I received an email from a friend of liberty containing the prophetic words of an Englishman awakened to all the “benefits” of the EU. I say “prophetic” because this will also be our fate if we allow the traitors without and within our government to continue to push for the North American Union. Don't believe for an instant that it'll just be a trade union. Remember that the EU began with the Common Market, then went to a common currency, and now complete loss of liberty and national sovereignty. Remember, too, that the NAU will not stop with merger into Canada and Mexico, but will include Central America and Greenland at a minimum. That is the case unless the plan the globalists outlined in 1941 has changed. That is unlikely. It will be the case unless we, the people, get off our butts and stop it.


A cry of pain from a great Englishman.

To U.S. citizens,

This should be a warning against allowing REGIONAL UNIFICATION of sovereign nations, especially in so-called Common Markets and/or Free Trade Agreements. These were the schemes used that eventually brought Great Britain and other European nations into a European Union, run from its capital in Brussels.


Politicians cannot be in doubt about the reasons for low turnouts at elections.

The reasons are numerous but basically built upon distrust. Ever since entry into the Common Market we have been spoon fed propaganda and outright lies no matter whichever party has been in government. It is not only committment to the undemocratic EU that is at fault but the poor quality of so many of our self centred elected representatives added to class divisions.

The majority of national politicians have proved ineffective or unwilling to stop the rot that has undermined our Parliament. They have allowed a system to dominate alien to our own Constitution and ignored the wishes of the public more than half of the public who now want to be out of the EU. The fact that the Labour executive now governs through the media and not through time homoured democratic institutions and Parliamentary procedures fills me with dismay. The near empty benches of the Commons for all but half an hour each week, the bullying power of the Whips, the growth of Select Committees also often poorly attended, the near farce of the European Scrutiny Committee, the growth of political correctness and supression of freedom of speech, the planting of questions, the avoidance of our unelected Prime Minister to answer except by waffle, the selection process of MP candidates to guarantee submission to executive will, the growth of corruption, the disgraceful yahoo atmosphere within the Commons on Wednesdays, the increase of holidays, the "fact finding" tours abroad, all saddened me and make me wonder how long it will take to restore the authority of our Parliament and the right to govern our own country free from alien jurisdiction.

It would appear that the most influential politicians of all main parties have conspired for years to take the Great out of Great Britain by reducing morale in the UK and making more and more of our young people want to leave this country of ours.

The answer, and surely there is one, is for more people to exercise their vote and not to give career candidates and sitting MPs the means to further deny us our rights whilst they arrogantly ignore us. We have to at the next general election set aside tribal allegiances to all parties and thoroughly consider the character, ethics and determination of individual candidates. The will of the British public will only be carried in the next Parliament by sending to Westminster people of the right incorruptible character determined to vote on their own consciences and the will of their constituents, let alone honour their mandate so badly betrayed in the past by all the main parties.

Surely we have had enough of our lives being dominted by Brussels just as we have watched our Crown, Parliament, Courts and people being bye-passed by legislation we cannot prevent ever since Edward Heath introduced Clause 2:1 in the 1973 EC Act which gave blanket approval for all such legislation to be made law in the UK "without further encactment."

I find it hard to believe the suffering that our ancestors endured to fight for liberty and freedom throughout Europe at such high cost to our country and families only to see those freedoms given away.

When I speak of my dismay I strongly object to those questionnable people who are parachuted into the Lords either to enable them to sit in Cabinet or as a reward for services to trade unions That service caused our trade unions along with the 1970s and 1980s Labour party to turn away from not wanting to be in the Common Market because people like Jacques Delors promised them a future future which they now find to their great financial advantage by sitting on the red leather in the House of Lords. If we are to reform the Lords let us start by stop using the place as a political dustbin now accommodating people such as the Kinnocks and Mandelson to name only three.

It is within the power of every British person to rescue our Parliament once they begin to understand that sovereignty and power rests with the British people and that we all decide to whom we lend that pwer ever five years or so. Let the hoodwinking, spin and propaganda be brought to an end by casting out of Parliament at the next general election those who pretend but will not listen to the British people to act upon our right to make our own laws. This is not "isolationism" or "xenophobic" for we continue to be at the heart , not of the EU because that is another fabrication, but at the heart of democracy, freedom and liberty, maintaining friendly relationships with other countries whilst respecting national. political, legal, cultural and religous differences.

To put the Great back into Great Britain is not to infer any superiority but simply to assert our values, traditions and customs built over centuries often by the blood shed by our people and Commonwealth allies willing to die in defence of those principles.

Our children and too many adults were deliberately not taught our Constition at school. Here we are now with an entrapment EU Constitution on our threshhold and a new and p[otentially dangerous Constitution Reform Bill to come soon before Parliament.

Whether we are soon to see an end to Britain as we have known it in the past or a new beginning is yet to be seen but it will rest upon the British people and not by what we have been shackled these past thirty years or so. Those who have done nothing to protest will hopefully soon be stirred to take democratic action rather than do nothing as though "politics" has nothing to do with them or the future of their children.

George West
Campaign for an Independent Britain



Return to TOC

Friday, May 1, 2009

The Revolution Was

I thought it appropriate to follow propagandawerks' post with this excerpt from Garet Garrett. He dates the revolution that killed America to the New Deal era. The full story can be found at these and other sites.


by Garet Garrett


There are those who still think they are holding the pass against a revolution that may be coming up the road. But they are gazing in the wrong direction. The revolution is behind them. It went by in the Night of Depression, singing songs to freedom.

There are those who have never ceased to say very earnestly, "Something is going to happen to the American form of government if we don't watch out." These were the innocent disarmers. Their trust was in words. They had forgotten their Aristotle. More than 2,000 years ago he wrote of what can happen within the form, when "one thing takes the place of another, so that the ancient laws will remain, while the power will be in the hands of those who have brought about revolution in the state."

Worse outwitted were those who kept trying to make sense of the New Deal from the point of view of all that was implicit in the American scheme, charging it therefore with contradiction, fallacy, economic ignorance, and general incompetence to govern.

But it could not be so embarrassed and all that line was wasted, because, in the first place, it never intended to make that kind of sense, and secondly, it took off from nothing that was implicit in the American scheme. It took off from a revolutionary base. The design was European. Regarded from the point of view of revolutionary technic it made perfect sense. Its meaning was revolutionary and it had no other. For what it meant to do it was from the beginning consistent in principle, resourceful, intelligent, masterly in workmanship, and it made not one mistake.

The test came in the first one hundred days.

No matter how carefully a revolution may have been planned there is bound to be a crucial time. That comes when the actual seizure of power is taking place. In this case certain steps were necessary. They were difficult and daring steps. But more than that, they had to be taken in a certain sequence, with forethought and precision of timing. One out of place might have been fatal. What happened was that one followed another in exactly the right order, not one out of time or out of place.

Having passed this crisis, the New Deal went on from one problem to another, taking them in the proper order, according to revolutionary technic; and if the handling of one was inconsistent with the handling of another, even to the point of nullity, that was blunder in reverse. The effect was to keep people excited about one thing at a time, and divided, while steadily through all the uproar of outrage and confusion a certain end, held constantly in view, was pursued by main intention.

The end held constantly in view was power.

In a revolutionary situation mistakes and failures are not what they seem. They are scaffolding. Error is not repealed. It is compounded by a longer law, by more decrees and regulations, by further extensions of the administrative hand. As deLawd said in The Green Pastures, that when you have passed a miracle you have to pass another one to take care of it, so it was with the New Deal. Every miracle it passed, whether it went right or wrong, had one result. Executive power over the social and economic life of the nation was increased. Draw a curve to represent the rise of executive power and look there for the mistakes. You will not find them. The curve is consistent.

At the end of the first year, in his annual message to the Congress, January 4, 1934, President Roosevelt said: "It is to the eternal credit of the American people that this tremendous readjustment of our national life is being accomplished peacefully."

Peacefully if possible — of course.

But the revolutionary historian will go much further. Writing at some distance in time he will be much less impressed by the fact that it was peacefully accomplished than by the marvelous technic of bringing it to pass not only within the form but within the word, so that people were all the while fixed in the delusion that they were talking about the same things because they were using the same words. Opposite and violently hostile ideas were represented by the same word signs. This was the American people's first experience with dialectic according to Marx and Lenin.

Until it was too late few understood one like Julius C. Smith, of the American Bar Association, saying: "Is there any labor leader, any businessman, any lawyer or any other citizen of America so blind that he cannot see that this country is drifting at an accelerated pace into administrative absolutism similar to that which prevailed in the governments of antiquity, the governments of the Middle Ages, and in the great totalitarian governments of today? Make no mistake about it. Even as Mussolini and Hitler rose to absolute power under the forms of law... so may administrative absolutism be fastened upon this country within the Constitution and within the forms of law."

Return to TOC

Good Summary of Our Current Condition

[I regret that the article is no longer available at "propagandawerks" blog. The blog has moved to word press and apparently much of the old posts of value have been lost. The author says he is taking a different approach. Unfortunately, the nude woman seems to have taken a more prominent position, so, with regret, I've removed the blog from my favorites.] [Note added 3/29/10]

I stole the following verbatim from "propagandawerks" blog. (See my favorite blogs list) I tended to shy away from this site at first because some of his (her?) posts seemed a little crude, especially the one with the nude photos of a woman with a thinly veiled suggestion that it's Obama's mother, but, what the hell. The enemies of liberty may put up a air of politeness and decorum, but that doesn't stop them from stealing everything we have and murdering our sons and daughters and the sons and daughters of the many peoples of the world in their wars for global empire. An ally is an ally, and I think this ally is a good one. Let's make bare knuckle fighting respectable again! BTW, my answer to his question is: "My America died in 1913."


"Is America dead? I have to ask this question because the answer may have serious ramifications to our lives. Each successive generation does not know what it has lost from the previous generations. This country has been in a steady decline to the point we find ourselves now.

This country as of this moment represents absolutely none of its former glory. Think about that for a moment and what that means. We are no beacon of light to the world. Oh sure, third worlders view our nation as an improvement, but to a roach... a kitchen is Shangri La.

People have been under an organized attack for a long time, and due to our lack of resistance they have been taking our liberties slowly and deliberately. Our state of affairs is so poor that our flag should be flown upside down in a state of emergency. Our constitution is so weak from our lack of interest that it barely protects us anymore.

Inch by inch America is being overthrown. September the 11th was the incident that put an already in motion agenda on a fast track. We are one step away from total chaos with tyranny looming in the background.

What is their one big dilemma? How to get an armed society to surrender it's guns and submit to a high tech nanny state. Take off your shoes citizen, your flip flops may be wired. Get chipped citizen, your identity must be known. Give up your sovereignty citizen, the global community awaits.

Citizen slave. This is your reward for not giving a shit, for not resisting, for caring more about Paris Hilton than your own freedoms, for allowing yourself to be divided on every issue. And it's not just this generation. This result is the outcome of the apathy of our parents and grandparents as well. For allowing the Central Banks to steal our gold standard from us in the dark of night, to waging bogus wars for empire in our name... on and on.

Get pissed off and fight. Not against smokers or old cars that smoke... but for your freedom. Fight for America not in foreign lands, but here at home. Take your own oath to defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. Don't accept being put on a terrorist watch list for some trumped up reason you don't even know of. Stop acting like a caged animal and identify what freedom means to you and fight for it. What do you have to lose? A bunch of shit you don't own anyway? A night without American Idol?"

Return to TOC

Monday, February 9, 2009

Resistance Continues

The resistance to federal intrusion in our State affairs is growing. Let's hope it's not too late. The blog below lists a number of States in which resolutions have been introduced to get Washington out of the States. They should remember that that will mean getting "federal" money out of the States also. A prerequisite to that will be abolishing the Federal Reserve and probably the fractional reserve banking system along with it.

A blog vital to those interested in restoring American Liberty.


Return to TOC