LostLiberty

2012-01-03T03:00:00.000-08:00

The purpose of this TOC is to make it easier to get to posts that might be of particular interest to the visitors. To this end, I've added a brief description of what can be found in each post. To get to the post, just click the title in the TOC. No need to use the archives. To return just click the "Return to TOC" label at the end of each post.

When I created this TOC I just followed the order entry, but this just leaves what I feel are the most important posts under the pile. These were the reason I started the blog. It was my intention to make available information not as well known nor so readily available on the internet. What I am doing now is bringing those posts to the front of the TOC. Chronological order is still maintained in the archives. For now, as I decide what is the best order. I’m also thinking of just adding the links to the related posts in the description of the main topic. This will be a work in progress.

I'd appreciate it if you'd drop me a comment if you find this useful.

Also, I've added a translator 01/21/11. I've had bad luck with them in the past and doubt their effectiveness. I would appreciate it if anyone with a fair working knowledge of English who translates any part of this blog would let me know if the meaning is badly distorted. Thanks.

New World Order - Death of America 1940's map of the world showing the globalists' plans for placing the sheeples of the world into regional superstates as a first step toward world government. The plan accompanying the map is given separately. That is followed by my take on the map plan as it is still evolving today. A long list of quotes about a “New World Order” or world government shows that this idea has a long history and was not an invention of George H.W. Bush as some still think. NOTE: Newer graphics programs may be able to handle jpeg 2000. If you have one that does, the download of the map from the Library of Congress is now easy and worth it.

Regionalism – The Death of the American System The federal program to eliminate our States and local governments or to render them provinces of the Washingtonian Empire. A number of maps include the 1930's plan to consolidate the States into federal regions, the “Crime of '54”, Nixon's follow up on the 30's plan and others.

---------------------------------------------------

The regular order begins below.

---------------------------------------------------
Pizza Registration
One of the two stories here is an absurd fiction and the other the truth. Can you tell which is which?

Merry Christmas
A few things to ponder this Christmas Day.

Myths, Misconceptions, and Misdirections
A few thoughts and concepts I've developed or adopted over the years about some popular but questionable ideas. Some of those ideas can have serious consequences if widely accepted.

Jury Nullification
Trial by Jury - When used properly is the ultimate check against tyranny.

Earth Day - A Failed Conservation Attempt

The fate of the Liberty Tree?

Dream? Or Nightmare of Reality?

Were the sacrifices of so many all in vain?

Unique Terrorists

Our enemy, the Department of (in)Justice, continues to catagorize Americans who don't Goosestep to the government's marching music as terrorists and extremists. In this case it's Bernard von NotHaus, developer of the "Liberty Dollar" and any who speak the truth about our fraudulent monetary system.

A Retraction

After further reading, I lost hope of Canada being a beacon of freedom.

Canadian Liberty...Lost...Regained...Lost Again

Brief email exchange shows how Canada freed itself from the economic yoke placed on it by the bankers and how the yoke was once more put in place with disastrous consequences.

Go Ahead. Tread On Me

Following the shootings in Arizona, we are likely to be faced with another drive to leave us defenseless in the face of an ever more aggressive and oppressive government. Those who prefer to deal with obedient servants rather than free men will attempt to further disarm us. This is a timely reminder from the annals of Paul Harvey of what happens to disarmed people.

Some Old Thoughts My responses to a 1996 survey mailed by the Republican National Convention and titled "Mandate for Leadership. I just found it in files I'd taken from an old computer. I think the answers are just as valid today.

PLEASE HELP!!!

UK Times article shedding light on the plight of the poor investment bankers and my personal appeal for help for them.

Regulation, Reform, and My Uncle Remus

Some interesting information from the UK's Financial Times and some words of wisdom from my Uncle Remus on the use of regulation and reform by big business to destroy competition.

Still Working The Plan

Update On Fulfillment of the 1941-42 Plan for China.

Platform of the Maine Republican Party

This is the current platform of the Maine Republican Party. If sincere, it represents a solid step toward restoring the Constitution, State sovereignty, and saving our national sovereignty. It should be adopted and adhered to by more State parties.

Obamacare Simplified

Contains a link to a roadmap of Obamacare. Makes understanding the plan simple. Download the PDF to explain the plan to your friends and family and gain their respect.

North American Union

A Canadian view of the North American Union in an article posted by the Canadian Action Party. It's a great start on understanding what the NAU is all about. You can also see the future of the NAU by following the machinations of the European Union which is the same idea but has a headstart. Refer also to the post "New World Order -- Death of America."

Government of Money, by Money, and for Money

Lysander Spooner's assessment of the link between money and government.

Boycott Seattle

Seattle and a couple of other U.S. cities have had the audacity to attack Arizona for its defence of our borders and sovereignty.

A Pairadocs

I sent a copy of Hardy Wright's AllVoices post to an internet doctor friend and received this inside view of the health care situation.

Ugly Face of ObamaCare Revealed

Government publication reveals that the opponents of ObamaCare who were accused of lying, fear mongering, partisan politics, and even racism were telling the truth in the face of the Obama Mob lies.

Truth Has Fallen and Taken Liberty with It

I don't know how, in his career, Dr. Paul Craig Roberts could have written anything more important than this excellent analysis of the sorry state of our union. If I were to try to sum it up, I couldn't do better than these two sentences that comprise his second paragraph and the two paragraphs that close the article:

"Today Americans are ruled by propaganda. Americans have little regard for truth, little access to it, and little ability to recognize it."

"With over 21 per cent unemployment as measured by the methodology of 1980, with American jobs, GDP, and technology having been given to China and India, with war being Washington’s greatest commitment, with the dollar over-burdened with debt, with civil liberty sacrificed to the “war on terror,” the liberty and prosperity of the American people have been thrown into the trash bin of history.

The militarism of the U.S. and Israeli states, and Wall Street and corporate greed, will now run their course. As the pen is censored and its might extinguished, I am signing off."

The Lies Won't Stop

An email from 8th Congressional District Gauleiter Patrick Murphy continuing the lies and demagoguery used by proponents throughout the campaign, together with my comments and a letter I'd written to the local paper.

Healthcare Obamanation

This monstrosity will kill healthcare in America. I predict that if it goes through, two things will happen. Firstly, a huge bureaucracy will be created that will allow Obama to claim jobs creation. In reality it will be institutionalized unemployment. Secondly, ten years from now there will be a steady stream of wetbacks crossing the Rio Grande at night seeking healthcare--in Mexico.

Hen House Safe - Fox in Charge of Security

"Our" government has appointed one of the principle architects of the derivatives scheme to a key position in AIG management. Management of "risks" will be one of his functions.

Regionalism - Death of the French System

Regionalism, the cancer that is eating State, local, and national governments is seen in France in this report from the UK Financial Times. Some of the points made by Times reporter Hollinger closely parallel the scheme being foisted on America.

A Small Victory - Maybe!

The people of NJ defeat globalist Corzine who wanted to lower cost of NJ government by eliminating the towns and boroughs. This was just a continuation of the scheme outlined in the "Regionalism - Death of the American System" post in this blog.

A report from 1977 shows how the regionalists are working to make their crimes legal by changing the Constitution, either by a convention or by Supreme Court perversions.

A Prophecy From England

An Englishman talks of the losses to British sovereignty and rights under the European Union and thereby gives us a preview of what to expect when our national sovereignty fades into the murky depths of the North American Union.

The Revolution Was

An excerpt from Garet Garret's treatise on the “New Deal.” Stop looking for a revolution that will destroy the American system. It already happened.

Good Summary of Our Current Condition

Taken verbatim from the propagandawerks blog, this gives an all too real evaluation of the State of the Union....maybe of the world.

Resistance - Continues

Resistance to usurpation of the rights of the States is growing. We can only hope it's not too late. The ohiorepublic blogspot is tracking progress. Follow the link in the post.

Regionalism - Resistance

Resistance to federal encroachment in Oklahoma has been spurred by a federal injunction against one of the most sensible illegal aliens law in the States. A resolution by OK representative Charles Key stalled at a 24-24 vote, but at least there are 24 Americans in the Oklahoma legislature. The text of the resolution is here.

New Voice

The prestigious Financial Times, British counterpart of the Wall Street Journal, now sees the coming of a world government, in fact, reporter Gideon Rachman practically gloats over it. There are some interesting revelations in the article, but perhaps the most revealing is the fact that European Union measures are obtained more easily when they are “pushed through” without reference to the people. The globalists preach democracy when they can sucker the people into following their plans, but when they can't, then we get “leadership,” you know, “Das Fuehrer Prinzip.”

New World Order - Death of America

1940's map of the world showing the globalists' plans for placing the sheeples of the world into regional superstates as a first step toward world government. The plan accompanying the map is given separately. That is followed by my take on the map plan as it is still evolving today. A long list of quotes about a “New World Order” or world government shows that this idea has a long history and was not an invention of George H.W. Bush as some still think.
NOTE: Newer graphics programs may be able to handle jpeg 2000. If you have one that does, the download of the map from the Library of Congress is now easy and worth it.

Regionalism – The Death of the American System

The federal program to eliminate our States and local governments or to render them provinces of the Washingtonian Empire. A number of maps include the 1930's plan to consolidate the States into federal regions, the “Crime of '54”, Nixon's follow up on the 30's plan and others.

Pizza Registration

2012-01-02T23:32:00.000-08:00

The office of the White House Press Secretary today announced the plan of President Obama to issue an Executive Order requiring all Pizzas made for sale in the United States to be registered with the DOJ's Counter Terrorism Unit. This coming in the wake of an increase in acts of terror being committed by Pizza wielding extremists.

The President is not ready to release details on his E.O., because, as in the case of the Health Care bill, the Order will be a skeleton that will be fleshed out by agencies, existing or created, that will be responsible for formulating, implementing, and executing the plan established. For this President Obama has called an emergency meeting of the heads of all existing departments involved.

Tops on the list of things to be discussed is limiting the size of pizza to 6” in diameter and creation of a microchip to be embedded in each pizza sold. Preliminary requirements for the chip have already been released to Intel and AMD so they will be able to make proposals at the proper time. Each has been given a ten billion dollar grant for research and development. The value of the contract that will be awarded is expected to be in the Trillions. Most of the cost, according to the Office of Management and Budget, will eventually be passed on to the Pizza Restaurants and the consumer.

Minimum requirements have been set for the embedded chip. It must blend into the cheese and be easily swallowed. To facilitate tracking of potentially harmful ingredients such as explosively hot pepperoni, the chip must survive the trip through the digestive system until it exits the body. It must continue to be fully functional until destroyed by the processes used in sewage treatment facilities.

Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton will be addressing the next meeting of the U.N. General Assembly. She is expected to appeal for a world-wide Anchovy Proliferation Treaty.

[Obviously, the above report is false. I just wanted to see if I could come up with fiction more absurd than fact. I failed miserably.]

The story that beats my fiction by a mile comes from Bob Unruh of World Net Daily via David Theroux at The Beacon, http://blog.independent.org/2011/12/28/public-school-clamps-down-on-ten-year-old-for-pizza-gun/ the blog of the Independent Institute http://www.independent.org

....

In the past, a gunmaker’s name on a pen and a drawing of a space weapon have been enough to bring down school officials’ wrath on students; now it’s a piece of pizza.

At an elementary school in Smyrna, Tenn., student Nicholas Taylor, 10, has been ordered to spend lunches for the rest of the semester at the lunchroom’s “silent table” because he allegedly picked up a piece of pizza and waved it around like a gun.

According to a WKRN television report, school officials say Taylor “threatened” other students “with a piece of pizza with bites out of it so it looked like a gun.”

The station said his mother, LeAnn Taylor, described the punishment as “absolutely ridiculous” and said her son never said anything derogatory or anything about shooting.

“The kid across the table from him said it looked like a gun so he picked it up and started shooting it in the air,” she said, according the television report.

A school official, James Evans, said the punishment actually is because “some students reported he was making some threatening hand gestures, that he was shooting at other kids at the table, and they reported it to a teacher.”

. . . .

“In addition to the stigma of silent lunch, Nicholas was required to meet with the school resource officer to learn about gun safety. I submit that the school should have further required that the child … meet with the dietitian to discuss pizza safety.”

The controversy developed, according to the WKRN report, a few days ago at David Youree Elementary School in Smyrna, a part of the Rutherford County School District.

Evans wrote, “I realize some might say we are going overboard but the principal is just trying to use an abundance of caution and send the message that we don’t play about guns and it’s not something we joke around about.”

Taylor told the station the school made it clear if her son eats his pizza into the shape of a gun again and there is another incident, he would be suspended.
....

See the whole story at http://www.wnd.com/2011/12/381781/ including a TV interview of two Tennessee representatives. Can you pick the airhead?

Let's just be thankful it wasn't a piece of French Bread Pizza. School officials might have thought it was a rocket launcher and poor Nicholas would already be in Gitmo.

Return to TOC

MERRY CHRISTMAS

2011-12-23T23:36:00.000-08:00

Merry Christmas

Yesterday I finished my Christmas shopping. It was almost impossible to find much with made in America labels. For that matter, it was almost impossible to find anything made in any of the countries euphemistically called the “free world.” Almost everything had a made in China label. The closest I could come to finding something not made with slave labor was a couple of items that said “Assembled in the USA from parts made in China.”

Years ago, when Chinese goods started flooding our markets, I conducted a one man boycott, but too few joined me. Once, when I'd accidently bought something made in China, I was extremely upset. [See: http://phreedomphan-americasenemies.blogspot.com/2009/07/i-had-dream.html ]

I realize now that there is no longer much choice. It's no longer a case of sacrificing principles to save a buck. The federal policy that nobody and nothing should work in America is pretty much in place.

Still, there is one thing I just can't understand. How can people who call themselves “Christians” buy Nativity Scenes and other religious symbols made in a country whose regime has traditionally suppressed all religions. They don't belong in our Christmas celebrations.

We should all think of the sacrifice of Jesus to bring us this Holy Day. We should think of the sacrifices of the Chinese people laboring in sweat shops for very low wages to bring us our Christmas presents and decorations. We should think of the unemployed Americans scrimping to save enough money for a package of Turkey Dogs for Christmas dinner. Then we should just forget it all and have a

Merry Christmas

http://rense.com/1.mpicons/deesA1.htm
(click to enlarge)

Return to TOC

Myths, Misconceptions, and Misdirections

2011-12-05T19:34:00.000-08:00

These are just a few thoughts and concepts I've developed or adopted over the years. I've used them often in various political discussion groups, usually having to rewrite them each time because I couldn't find them in my files. I decided to put them up here in case someone might be interested. Hopefully, they'll stimulate some thought on the subjects.

My original intent was to classify each item under one of the above categories. I found it difficult to apply those labels. What starts as a misconception by some, can be picked up and used by those wanting to misdirect the people. As the misconception or misdirection grows in acceptance and expands through repetition and expansion by large numbers of people, it can assume almost mythical proportions. Because of the trouble I was having in classifying them, I decided instead to let readers, if there are any, decide for themselves which is applicable.

Democracy or Republic?

When I first got involved in politics, maybe I should say, “counter-politics”, I got caught up in the discussion of Democracy vs. Republic. Those who favored limited government liked to say, “We're a Republic not a Democracy.” Their argument was that in a Democracy 50%+1 of the population could “democratically” vote away the rights and property of those who lacked that extra 1. Supposedly, this couldn't happen in a Republic. It made sense to me in my political infancy, so I dutifully parroted the mantra.

Fortunately, or maybe unfortunately for my peace of mind, I tend to analyze ideas even after initially accepting them. As I gave it more thought, something seemed to be missing in the Democracy vs. Republic argument. To see if a Republic, a Representative Democracy, could protect against minority rule, I developed a spreadsheet taking the voting age population at the time divided into its legislative districts.

I found that a minority much smaller than the 50%+1 needed to control a Democracy could control a Republic. I've long since lost that spreadsheet and I haven't the time, desire, nor ambition to try to duplicate it, but I will use a hypothetical Republic. Its concept is sound and it is much easier to illustrate. It works the same even in a country the size of the U.S.

My Republic is small. There are 1.1 million and 11 eligible voters equally divided among 11 states with one legislative district in each, so state and legislative district are interchangeable terms and its legislative body consists of 11 representatives. My hypothetical voter count is chosen to allow for a 50%+1 majority in a district.

About 65% of the population of the republic has blue eyes and 35% brown. If in six of its districts the voters elect, on a vote count of 50,001 to 50,000, a representative who promises to confiscate the wealth of all with blue eyes and give it to those with brown then the “redistributionists” would have a 6 to 5 majority in their “Congress” and could make such a program law. It doesn't matter if the other five representatives were elected by the approximately 7 to 1 majority remaining in their districts or states. The will of the 35% would have carried.

A Senate doesn't even have to be considered because, for example, in the U.S., an even smaller minority can control if they have majorities in the smaller States. If you want to prove that to yourself, just sum the populations of the 26 smallest States who could elect a majority in the Senate. Divide 51% of that number by the total population of the U.S. to see what percentage could control the Senate.

My conclusion is that a republic, far from protecting anyone's rights from a majority of 50%+1, actually creates the opportunity for a minority to rule over the majority.

Why is this? Many people are convinced that our status as a Republic gives us greater protection than a Democracy would. Why isn't that true?

Monarchy, Democracy, Republic, Oligarchy, and myriad other types of government are nothing but forms. What determines the rights and freedom of the individual is not the form but the substance of government. By substance I mean how much power the sovereign has over the people. It doesn’t matter if the sovereign is a king, a handful of people, a congress or parliament, or the people as a whole. Unless there is a bedrock law, a constitution that limits the power of the sovereign, the individual is not free to go his own way, but must run with the herd or be trampled. It was the substance, the limitations on the power of government set by our Constitution that made the individual citizen of the U.S. relatively free in that age long gone. Now that our Constitution has been swept aside, it matters little whether you call it a Democracy or a Republic. Our government is totalitarian. Today's collective “freedom,” even if a majority supports it, is a lie. Without individual freedom guaranteed by a written constitution, there is no freedom!

Fraudulent Political Spectrum

The media frequently carries stories of “Right-Wing Dictatorships” in various countries, usually those on our hit list. We also hear of “Right-Wing” extremist groups here that would like to set up a “Right-Wing Dictatorship” in this country. More often than not, these are groups who oppose the totalitarianism imposed by Washington and, like the “Right-Wing Dictators,” have made it to the government's hit list.

When we give it a little thought and analysis, the fraud becomes obvious. To speak of a "Right-Wing Dictatorship" is shear nonsense. The concept of the political spectrum presently being foisted on the public consists of Communism on the left, German National Socialism or Fascism on the right, and British/American Fabian Socialism in the center. All are slightly variant forms of socialism. All are rooted in the Hegelian philosophy that holds the individual worthless except when he functions as a cog in the gears of the machinery of the state. All of these socialisms are totalitarian. In effect, this spectrum gives us a choice of totalitarian government on the left, on the right, and in the center. Nowhere are we offered limited government based on libertarian principles as created by the “Bill of Rights” of our Constitution, nor the complete absence of government, which is anarchy.

When we speak of a "spectrum," we usually refer to a complete sequence or range of something, from one extreme to the other. So, if we place communism on the left, then we must also place socialism, fascism, unlimited monarchy, and all other forms of totalitarianism on the left. The opposite of total government must logically be no government at all, or, anarchy. Therefore, the extreme right of the political spectrum is anarchy. Obviously, to speak of a dictatorship of no government is ludicrous. There are as many "Right-Wing Dictatorships" in this world as there are unicorns.

However, if we desired, we could speak of a spectrum of totalitarianism. In this case, if we place communism (total ownership by government) on the left, socialism (ownership of key industries by government and control of everything else) in the middle, then we might place fascism (total control but no ownership by government) on the right. Thus, we could speak of a "Right-Wing Dictatorship," but only in the limited sense of a totalitarian spectrum.

The American people today are being given a choice of totalitarianisms by our “leaders” and the news media. We are being deceived into believing that the only opposition to communism is fascism, and to avoid either "extreme", we must accept "middle-of-the-road" Fabian Socialism. Nowhere are we given an option of any form of limited government. Nowhere are we given an option that restricts the power of the sovereign. Nowhere are we given an option that reserves to the people the right to live their own lives and pursue their own interests free of constant interference from government. Apparently, freedom is not one of our options.

Our Constitution is Outmoded

This suggests another category – outright lies. The criminals who have usurped powers not granted by the Constitution frequently use this argument to justify those usurpations, even to argue for a Constitutional Convention to allow them to legalize their crimes after the fact.

They tell us that “times have changed” and we can no longer be bound by a Constitution written 200 years ago under different circumstances. The argument sounds plausible and many, if not most, will repeat it and think themselves wise. From this the lie has grown to almost mythological proportion, but is it true?

It is certainly true that “times have changed,” but the Constitution was not written to govern times. The Constitution was written to govern men, and men have not changed in 200 years, we have not changed in 2000 years. We still have among us those who would enslave their fellow man, who would use them to kill and maim and to be killed and maimed in wars fought solely for the aggrandizement of the wealth and power of those who rule us.

Yes, times have changed, but the need to put limitation on the greed and power lusts of men have not. We need to restore the Constitution to its proper place as the Supreme Law of the Land. If we do this, freedom will thrive and America will once again prosper and be a light of liberty for the world.

Return to TOC

Jury Nullification

2011-11-06T07:13:00.000-08:00

The little known power of the jury.

In London in 1670, Quakers Penn and Meade were tried on charges of unlawful assembly. The evidence was against the Quakers, so the jury was instructed to find them guilty. Apparently the jury believed the Quakers had the right to assemble and acquitted them. For ignoring the instructions of the judge, the jury members were fined. A juror, Bushell, refused to pay and was imprisoned. He sued his writ of habeas corpus from the court of common pleas. Chief-justice Vaughn found that a jury could not be fined for acquitting a defendant against both the weight of evidence and instructions of the judge. In effect, this decision acknowledged the right of the jury members to vote their conscience and acquit those accused of violating an unjust law. It was clear that the jury could judge not only the facts, but the law itself.

This is how the jury trial entered America through the British Common Law. It was, at the founding of this nation, a recognized power of the jury to nullify unjust laws by refusing to convict. This was affirmed by several Supreme Court justices.

"The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy."

John Jay, 1st Chief Justice of the United States supreme Court, 1789

"The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts."

Samuel Chase, U.S. supreme Court Justice, 1796, Signer of the unanimous Declaration

"the jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both law and fact."

Oliver Wendell Holmes, U.S. supreme Court Justice, 1902

"The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided."

Harlan F. Stone, 12th Chief Justice U.S. supreme Court, 1941

The opinion of these Justices makes it clear that the intent of the Jury Trial went beyond mere unbiased determination of the facts. The Jury was one of the checks and balances against tyrannical laws, whether emanating from the Federal or the State and local governments. We, the people, were empowered to nullify unjust laws by making them unenforceable.

The rulings of Holmes and Stone, as recently as the last century, might suggest that the concept of Jury Nullification is still strong. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Since the victory of the forces favoring a strong central government in the Civil War, the federal government has been chipping away at that right and duty of the jury. At one point, the courts, while admitting we had the right as jurors to effectively nullify unjust laws, said a judge does not have to inform the jury of that right. That happened in the late 1800's. Since then it has gotten worse. Today, if a judge thinks a juror is finding for a not guilty verdict on the basis of injustice or unconstitutionality of the law, he/she will likely remove the juror. So a word to the wise. If your “not guilty” vote is based on your right to nullify a law, don't let it be known that that is the case. Try to find a subtle way to clue your fellow jurors. No matter what, be an American. Stick to your guns regardless of what the other jurors might think.

A growing number of people are beginning to realize that the majority of laws now enacted by the federal government are unconstitutional, that they act in areas reserved to the States and/or infringe on the rights of the people. The Supreme Court of the United States has given its blessings to these crimes against the Constitution and the people. Jury Nullification can override this sanctioning of crime by the SCOTUS and make the people the Ultimate Supreme Court. That is how it should be. For my part, I would never find anyone guilty in a federal court. The federal government has violated virtually every significant clause of the Constitution. That alone makes it the biggest crime syndicate in the United States – possibly in the world. In addition to aiding its banker masters in the theft of the wealth of the American people, it has become a global Murder, Inc. through the waging of unconstitutional wars and political assassinations. I will be damned to Hell before I will help big crooks put little crooks, if, in fact, they are crooks, in jail.

For an example of how the Department of (in)Justice, the federal agency in charge of administering justice in this country, has not only proven itself an enemy of America, constitutional government, and the American people, but has also shown itself to be an uncommon criminal, see:

http://phreedomphan-americasenemies.blogspot.com/2011/11/uncommon-criminals.html

A flicker of the Light of Truth at the end of the tunnel from the Fully Informed Jury Association:

http://www.fija.org/docs/JG_state_language_on_jury_nullification.pdf

Sources:

The Constitutional History of England, Hallam, 3 volumes, 1865

http://www.fija.org/

http://www.isil.org/resources/lit/history-jury-null.html

For additional information and sources, search “Jury Nullification”

Return to TOC

Earth Day - A Failed Conservation Attempt

2011-04-22T16:04:00.000-07:00

A little while back I came across a copy of a speech I'd given many years ago when I ran for County Treasurer on the old Constitutional Party of PA ticket. I think it fits in well for Earth Day.

“I was walking through the woods the other day enjoying the brisk Autumn air when I saw something that almost broke my heart. The branches of the most beautiful tree in Creation, the Liberty Tree, were sagging almost to the ground under the weight of thousands upon thousands of Dofermee Birds. Their strident cry broke the Autumn stillness, 'Waddayagonnadofermee-dofermee-dofermee.' From the upper branches of the Tree, Silver-Tongued Lie-Hatchers answered, 'Iflected-iflected-imgonna-doferya-doferya-doferya.'

The Lie-Hatchers had promised to pick the fruits of the Liberty Tree and pass them down to the Dofermees below. But they had glutted themselves on the fruits and the only thing left to pass down to the Dofermees was that which Pigeons pass down to pedestrians on city streets.

I'm here tonight to ask you to join the conservation efforts of the Constitutional Party. Help us to drive the Lie-Hatchers from the Tree so that the Dofermees can molt their yellow feathers and don once more their brown, white, and golden plumage and soar again, as they were meant to soar, as American Eagles. If we can do this, the Liberty Tree will thrive once more and bear fruit for all of us.”

Unfortunately, we got little support. Many sympathized with us but could not overcome the “Lesser-of- Two” Syndrome.

A couple of weeks ago I returned to that spot in the woods looking for the tree. All I could find was a rotted, termite-infested stump.

Return To TOC

Dream? or A Nightmare of Reality?

2011-03-30T07:11:00.000-07:00

The other night I had a dream. Maybe it would better be described as a nightmare.

I was walking over snow covered hills near Valley Forge when I spotted a red trail in the snow. On inspection it appeared to be blood. Thinking it might be a wounded animal and that I might be able to help it, I followed the trail. It seemed to go on for miles, but ended abruptly in a ditch.

There lay a young man, maybe in his early twenties. His body was emaciated, still his hands suggested the power of a farmer or tradesman. He had a hole in his chest, but the blood had not come from the hole. It had come from his feet. They were bloody and wrapped in rags. He had marched for miles in the snow and bitter cold without shoes.

Then I realized he was still alive. He was crying. I knew there was nothing I could do for him, but I knelt down, hoping to comfort him in some way. I told him not to be frightened. He was going to a better place. He told me he had seen a better place. A place that he had helped create.

For a moment, he said, when the ball struck his chest, he was filled with despair. He thought of the incredible odds against which he was fighting and he thought his death was in vain. Liberty was unattainable. Slavery was the fate of man.

Then an angel came to him and showed him a great land populated by a courageous, high sprited, idealistic people, driven by their love of liberty. The angel told him that land was born of his sacrifice. I guessed that the tears were tears of joy, tears of happiness. For a moment a weight was lifted from my heart. But he continued to speak.

A second angel came--a dark angel. It showed him the great land, now withered and dying. It was ruled by evil men and filled with cowardly, souless people, a people without spirit, a people who gave lip service to freedom, but it wasn’t in their hearts. They were pragmatists and not idealists. They were willing to support evil if they thought good could not win, and so the land and liberty died.

Yes, the boy had been crying as much for us as for himself. But then he closed his eyes and the crying stopped. I closed mine. I didn't cry, but my heart screamed inside my chest. I felt the pain of the ball striking that boy.

You see, I live in the land of the dark angel.

Return to TOC

Unique Terrorists

2011-03-29T18:27:00.000-07:00

The publication, “Investigating Terrorism and Criminal Extremism—Terms and Concepts is a publication of the Bureau of Justice Assistance U.S. Department of Justice Version 1.0 dated September 2005-2009” was sent to law enforcement agencies in State and local governments. It has earned the Department of (in)Justice dishonorable mention in my americasenemies blog.

In it, the DOJ names as “terrorists” and “criminal extremists” those groups that are loyal to America and defend our national sovereignty calling them “patriot” groups (always in quotation marks). Those who believe in limited constitutional government (Constitutionalists) are also named, as are those who believe in majority rule and oppose government use of minorities to oppress and control that majority.

http://phreedomphan-americasenemies.blogspot.com/2010/10/department-of-justice.html

I didn't think the gangsterment could top that, but top it they did. They've come up with a whole new class of criminal extremists called “unique terrorists.”

Jon Roland brought this to light in his blog:

http://constitutionalism.blogspot.com/2011/03/following-is-message-from-bernard-von.html

The heart of his post is a letter from Bernard von NotHaus, convicted of “counterfeiting.” What he did was mint pure silver coins that were not replicas of any US coins, but only resembled some. A major difference is that his coins contained more silver than any U.S. mint dollar.

In his letter, Mr. von NotHaus makes this incredible revelation concerning a DOJ press release: “The alarming statement in the Department of Justice press release by U.S. Attorney Anna Tompkins should concern every American. Tompkins said: 'Attempts to undermine the legitimate currency of this country are simply a unique form of domestic terrorism. While these forms of anti-government activities do not involve violence, they are every bit as insidious and represent a clear and present danger to the economic stability of this country. We are determined to meet these threats through infiltration, disruption, and dismantling of organizations which seek to challenge the legitimacy of our democratic form of government.' ”

I have to wonder what might be included under “attempts to undermine the legitimate currency of this country?” Would spreading the truth that exposes it as a massive fraud designed to transfer all of the wealth of the American people to international bankers be considered such an attempt? I believe suppression of this truth is exactly what this DOJ action intends.

I'm also puzzled as to what “legitimate currency” Ms. Tompkins is talking about. Surely she can't mean the totally unconstitutional Federal Reserve Notes nor the incredible sum of Etherbacks existing only on the books of the banking sydicate. Mr. von NotHaus's Liberty Dollars are a much better fit to that mandated by the Constitution.

The audacity of these Justapo agents openly admitting their intent to infiltrate, disrupt, and dismantle citizen organizations trying to restore legitimate constitutional government to this country is mind boggling. Of course, in typical Orwellian Double-Think, Ms. Tompkins says these groups are challenging “the legitimacy of our democratic form of government.” The question of constitutionality is studiously ignore by the DOJ, and with good reason. The federal government totally ignores the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, thereby making it an illegitimate form of government that certainly should be challenged.

Von NotHaus guilty on all counts
http://www.coinworld.com/articles/von-nothaus-guilty-on-all-counts/

In an article in Coin World announcing that von NotHaus had been found guilty of all four counts against him, Mary Jane Skala said NotHaus will appeal, but an appeal cannot be filed until after the sentencing, and U.S. District Judge Richard L. Voorhees said that a date for that would not be set for several months.

Skala reports, “von NotHaus, of Honolulu, was found guilty on all four counts — “of making coins resembling and similar to United States coins; of issuing, passing, selling, and possessing Liberty Dollar coins; of issuing and passing Liberty Dollar coins intended for use as current money; and of conspiracy against the United States,” according to the Department of Justice.

Two things are worth highlighting. First, what is essentially one act by NotHaus is broken down in a way to make it four counts. Clearly this is done to stack the deck against the accused. It gives the government four chances to have the accused found guilty, a clever avoidance of our constitutional protection against double-jeopardy. The other is the charge of conspiracy against the United States. I think the latter is absolutely incredible. Hasn't anyone told the Department of (in)Justice that there is no such thing as a conspiracy. Unless, of course, we're talking about the conspiracy of the gangsters in Washington against the American Constitution, the American people, and our national sovereignty. But then, those crimes are not nearly as serious as issuing bullion coins far more valuable than worthless Fed Notes and bank Etherbacks.

Further evidence that our government is a criminal organization more guilty than von NotHaus is shown by the fact that the man was forced to use government provided attorneys because, even though he had not yet been convicted of any crime, his assets were stolen by the government – maybe for a future bank bailout?

Did Bernard von NotHaus Counterfeit Coins?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/82406.html

In the Lew Rockwell blog, Michael S. Rozeff presents an excellent analysis of the words used by Tompkins, calling them fantastical and hyperbole. He points out, “There is no threat of economic instability when private citizens agree on a non-governmental means of payment. It’s just the opposite! Such an activity adds value for the users and, by moving away from U.S. currency, increases stability, if anything.” Furthermore, he reminds us that nothing in the Constitution prohibits private citizens from using whatever they chose as a medium of exchange. However, it does authorize Congress to “coin,” [not print], money.

I would add to Mr. Rozeff's remarks that nothing in the Constitution authorizes Congress to delegate its power to “coin money” and to “regulate the value thereof” to any other branch of government or organization, certainly not to a private banking consortium. The Federal Reserve Note is the real counterfeit that has destabilized our economy and the economies of much of the world.

A ‘Unique’ Form of ‘Terrorism’ by Sun editor Seth Lipsky
http://www.nysun.com/editorials/a-unique-form-of-terrorism/87269/

Speaking of the Federal Reserve Note, Seth Lipsky, editor of the New York Sun makes an interesting observation. He notes that two men issued “money,” one coins of gold and silver and the other notes of paper. The gold and silver coins are worth more today than when issued. The paper has dropped from a value of a 265^th of an ounce of gold at the start of the Bush administration to less than a 1400^th of an ounce today. One faces a possibility of years in prison for what he did, and the other holds a prestigious office of extreme power. The man who issued the coins that have gained in value is Bernard von NotHaus. The DOJ says his coins will destabilize our economy. The man whose organization issued the worthless paper and is apparently responsible for our current economic “stability” is Fed Chairman, Ben Bernanke. You may recall that it was one of his predecessors, Paul Volcker, who said, “The standard of living of the average American must come down.” They made damned sure of that.

Department of (in)Justice sees no threat to stability here.

http://rense.com/1.mpicons/deesA1.htm

Press Release by the FBI of Charlotte...
http://charlotte.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/pressrel11/ce031811.htm

The FBI's press release contained all of the lies and constitutional perversions used against von NotHaus, but also announced of what they plan to do with the loot from their raid. In addition to the penalties prescribed by law for the “crimes” of which he was convicted, the DOJ gangsters, seeking to give the illusion of legality to their theft of about $7 million of von NotHaus's property, have initiated a “forfeiture trial.” United States District Court Judge Richard Voorhees, the same federal agent who presided over the criminal trial, will preside over Sham II.

The New Face Of Terror by Chris Duane
http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/03.11/liberty.html

Chris Duane writing for the Silver Bear Cafe has some good information and some funny tongue-in-cheek observations. I'm not going to get too deeply into it here, but I think it well worth a look. He points an accusing finger at an organization in Florida that has a forty-seven square mile compound which is very hard to get into, especially in the summer. This organization blatantly and brazenly prints its own money which it calls dollars. This is significant because the inclusion of “dollar” on the Liberty-Dollar coins was part of the “evidence” against von NotHaus. Yet another similarity to U.S. notes is the sequential numbering of the bills. The Florida counterfeiters began printing (not coining) their “official currency” in 1987 in $1 and $5 denominations. In 1989 they added a $10 bill. Duane has offered to assist the DOJ should they decide to take action.

Product of Florida Counterfeiters
aka Unique Terrorists

http://www.explorethemagic.com/disney-dollars.asp

I don't know the full motivation behind this action by the international crime syndicate behind our government, but I strongly suspect that part of it is to prepare a scapegoat.

Almost a century of treasonous meddling with our monetary system has us on the brink of total destruction. It's anybody's guess what form it will take, whether massive inflation or a disastrous deflationary collapse. I believe that will be determined by what the majority of people hedge against. If they hedge against inflation, the manipulators will deflate. If they hedge against deflation, the manipulators will inflate. Whichever will best fill their coffers. When this happens, they will be positioned to blame it on "unique terrorists."

I'll be working on a post listing Tompkins and some of her co-conspirators in the DOJ plot to crush our freedom of speech and of association for my americasenemies blog.

Return to TOC

A Retraction

2011-02-15T23:21:00.000-08:00

Last week I published a post here that included emails that passed between the Executive Director of the Canadian Action Party and me. Tim McCormick told me that the Bank of Canada was owned by the Canadian taxpayers and that, initially, Canada was able to function well without massive debt. But as a result of the G8 conference, commitments were made that caused the debt to skyrocket. This told me that the international money powers were still in control.

Still, I had hopes that, if the CAP was successful, Canada could one day be a beacon of liberty to guide us back to freedom. With that thought in mind, I listened to their radio program that I spotlighted in a temporary “Alert” post.

I really didn't like what I heard. The speaker talked of “human capital” and spoke of government financed education. “Human capital” reminds me of the change I witnessed here, starting about 30 to 35 years ago. Personnel departments began changing to departments of “human resources.” People were becoming “resources,” much like a ton of coal, a pig of iron, or a barrel of oil to be used up in the manufacturing process and then disposed of as industrial waste. Here we have human beings as the capital used to build the economy of the State through education.

I have a special loathing for the idea of government “educating” the people. Both Hitler and Mao are sometimes credited with having said, “Give me the child at three and he's mine for life.” The Fabians may or may not have said the same, but they've certainly practiced control through “education.” Still, I don't think it's necessary for the state to control the child's mind as early as three. Many parents here have noted a marked change in their children's thinking after attending a few years of college. An intensive indoctrination campaign, even one begun at a later age, can work wonders.

One advocate of universal education by the state was Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson is one of my heroes. He was one of the wisest men I know of, but his wisdom was born of 20-20 hindsight. He was well read in history and was able to learn from the mistakes of the past such as the threat to liberty of combining the power of the state with the power of the church. But I don't think there were enough examples for him to see the dangers of combining the state with education, so he made the mistake of thinking state sponsored education a means to further liberty. Maybe this would be true if we had saints to run the state, but then, liberty might also be furthered by a bank run nation if we had saints to run the banks.

After reading a few more of CAP's newsletters, I couldn't escape the conclusion that the party is a socialist party. I don't think they try to hide it. While there is an element of nationalism, of patriotism, in the Canadian Action Party that can make them a worthy ally in the fight against NAFTA, CAFTA, and the North American Union, beyond that we cannot look to them as an ally in the fight for freedom. Socialism can never be a path to freedom. The four major socialisms of the past century, Communism, British/American Fabianism, German National Socialism, and Fascism are all rooted in the philosophy of Hegel. Hegel saw the individual as worthless except as a cog in the gears of the State machinery. Socialism, in any of its forms, is a negation of the individual. As such, it can never be a beacon of liberty.

Return to TOC

Canadian Liberty...Lost...Regained...Lost Again

2011-02-09T21:44:00.000-08:00

On February 4, I sent this email to the Canadian Action Party prompted by a newsletter I'd received from them:

Although I'm not a Canadian, I've been on your mailing list for awhile. We definitely have a common enemy in NAFTA and the NAU. I'm sure you're aware that the consolidation of Canada, the U.S., and Mexico is only phase one. The rest of North and Central America will be brought under the thumb later.

I was curious. How does the CAP stand on Canada's relationship to England. It's my personal belief that England, especially the Bank of England, has run America since shortly after the Revolutionary (Secessionary) War. When Hamilton and Washington set up "our" first national bank liberty was doomed. I know your connection to England is more open, at least on the surface. How deep does it run? Is the Bank of Canada a part of the international banking cartel?

I received this response from Tim McCormick, Executive Director, Canadian Action Party:

Agreed, NAFTA has done nothing but harm to decent, honest, hardworking Americans and Canadians, while enriching the top 1%.

Strangely enough Rick, we the taxpayers own the Bank of Canada. It was started by the same money powers behind the Bank of England and the Federal Reserve in 1935, but Prime Minister William Lyon MacKenzie King realized the importance of the government having monetary control. He nationalized it in 1938 and we used it until 1972 experiencing the countries most productive years. However, in 1972, we were persuaded to take a seat at the G8 which required us to outsource for government borrowing. Our deficit went from 15 billion to 588 in about 20 years and remains over half a trillion today. For a country of 35 million, that's a lot of money, but of course I don't have to tell you about debt or the dire consequences it can have on the future of society.

Our number one platform issue is monetary control followed by sovereignty (ending NAFTA). We are a no nonsense truth telling party. We are anti-war and very leary of the corporate assimilation of Canada, North America and the world. Many CAP members are admirers of Ron Paul because of his stance on monetary policy, the corporate agenda and the military.

There it is. Full circle from monetary slavery to liberty and back to monetary slavery.

For a very short time, the United States was a beacon of freedom to guide the world. That beacon was quickly extinguished by Hamilton and the bankers. All Americans should pray for the success of the Canadian Action Party. If it can restore economic freedom to the Canadian people and their country, Canada may one day be a beacon to guide us back to freedom.

Return To TOC

Go Ahead. Tread On Me.

2011-01-15T20:16:00.000-08:00

I was very concerned that the alleged assassination attempt on Gabrielle Giffords would draw the anti-Gun Nuts out of the woodwork. It looks like this may already be happening.

Bruce Reed has been selected by Joe Biden as his chief of staff. Dennis Hennigan of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence said he thinks Reed “has his heart in the right place on guns” and will want to do the “right thing on guns” says a Politico news story on the Reed appointment.

No doubt the “right thing” will be further unconstitutional infringements on our fundamental human right to keep and bear arms to protect ourselves, our loved ones, and our country from criminal elements in our streets and in our governments. As “our” government becomes more and more tyrannical with each passing day, it's a good time to remind ourselves of what happens to disarmed citizens when faced with such tyranny.

The following are the words of Paul Harvey. I regret that my source did not list the date this aired.

********

Something To Think About
Paul Harvey on Guns

Are you considering backing gun control laws ? Do you think that because you may not own a gun, the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment doesn't matter?

Consider: In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control.

From 1929 to 1953 approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, Jehovah's Witnesses, and others, who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

That places total victims who lost their lives because of gun control at approximately 56 million in the last century. Since we should learn from the mistakes of history, the next time someone talks in favor of gun control find out which group of citizens they wish to have exterminated.

It has not been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed, a program costing the government more than $500 million dollars. The results Australia-wide:

Homicides are up 3.2%, Assaults are up 8%, Armed robberies are up 44% in that country's state of Victoria, homicides with firearms are up 300%.

It's time to state it plainly: Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws only affect the law-abiding citizens.

********

There are a couple of lessons for Americans to learn from our own history. Remember that the right to keep and bear arms is a natural right and is automatic for citizens of any nation. It is, however, not a right of subjects or slaves.

The American colonies experienced an attempt at gun control at Lexington and Concord. The British tried to deprive their American subjects of their arms. That attempt failed and, after a long struggle using the arms retained, a new nation was born, a nation of citizens not subjects.

We see another example of restriction of the right in the old deep South. Slaves were not permitted to keep arms. It makes sense when you think of it. Had they been permitted to bear arms even close to the quality born by their masters, they wouldn't likely have been slaves very long.

If we give up our right to keep and bear arms, we will be saying, “Go ahead. Tread on me.”

Return To TOC

Some Old Thoughts

2010-12-12T22:06:00.000-08:00

In 1996 the Republican Party sent out a propaganda piece titled: Mandate for Leadership. I just found this while going through some files from an old computer. It was my response to the survey. I attached it to the form before returning it. My comments are just as valid today as they were 14 years ago.

MANDATE for REPRESENTATION

The following are my answers to the questions on the Republican National Committee’s survey, “Mandate for Leadership”:

1. Which of the following do you think is most important for Congress to do in 1996? (Lower taxes - Cut federal spending - Both)

The most important thing for Congress to do in 1996 is return the federal government to the bounds set by the Constitution. Do that, and reduced federal spending and lower taxes will follow.

2. Do you support Republican efforts to balance the federal budget by the year 2002? (Yes-No-Undecided)

Neither party has any intention of balancing the budget. The moneyed aristocracy of the New World Order would not permit it. Under the landed aristocracy of the old order, the serf was bound to the land. The American serf is bound to the national debt. Still, restore the Constitution and a balanced budget will follow. [I didn't say this at the time, but it is becoming obvious to more people that this applies to the serfs of all nations.]

3. Should this Congress try to simplify America’s tax code? (Yes-No-Undecided)

This is a joke--right? The tax code is complex by design. The idea has always been to create hidden “loopholes” so that those who benefit most from extravagant government spending can escape the crushing burden of taxes levied on the rest of us. “Tax Reform” usually comes when too many of us have learned of the “loopholes” and are using them. The code is then restructured to create new “loopholes” for the super-rich. Congress will not “simplify” the tax code.

4. Would you support abolishing the current tax rates and imposing a simple, flat tax rate, so that everyone pays the same percentage of taxes on their income?
(Yes-No-Undecided)

No one should be forced to pay someone else’s bill. Taxes should be apportioned according to benefit received. This means a “fee for service” concept of government wherever possible. A very low flat tax would probably be the fairest way to apportion the minimal cost of Constitutional government (see answer to question one) not covered by use fees. Of course, if taxation was based on a percentage of representation in Washington today, then the super- rich would pay one hundred percent of the taxes.

5. To create new jobs and protect current ones, should Congress focus primarily on policies to make the private sector economy grow, or should they try to create and fund new government jobs programs through higher taxes?
(Focus on private sector saving & investment policies-Create and fund new jobs programs-Other_____________________)

Government jobs are institutionalized unemployment. Once created they are unlikely to go away. They increase the burden on the productive (private) sector of the economy. This causes more unemployment and a “need” for more government “jobs”. The cycle continues until the economy collapses. Restore constitutional government. The Federal Reserve and the bulk of the Federal bureaucracy will be eliminated immediately. The giant corporations will gradually crumble under their own weight. Free enterprise will be restored. A free American people will restore the economy.

6. Do you believe our Social Security system is financially sound for future generations? (Yes-No-Undecided)

A pyramid scheme is a confidence game based on trickery and deceit. It can never be “financially sound” for its victims—present or future.

7. Of all the following issues, which do you think is the most important for Congress to achieve in 1996? (Lower taxes - Create new jobs - Repeal Social Security tax increase - Cut federal spending - Simplify tax code - Cut government regulation/red tape)

Restoring the Constitution is the most important thing Congress could do. All of the choices given in this question will naturally follow.

8. Do you want to see Bill Clinton defeated in 1996?
(Yes-No-Undecided)

Bill Clinton is a Rhodes scholar. Cecil Rhodes, the wealthy British Imperialist who established the scholarships, dreamed of the day America would police the world for the empire. At Oxford, Rhodes Scholars are indoctrinated in Fabian Socialism as a domestic policy and British Imperialism (euphemistically called “globalism”) as a foreign policy. Clinton and other Rhodes Scholars should be registered as agents of a foreign government. They should not be allowed to serve as President. The Tories have controlled America too long. British domestic policy has been our domestic policy. British foreign policy has been our foreign policy. Rhodes’ dream has become America’s nightmare.

We need an American in the White House. Someone who will stop the squandering of young American lives all over the world and of our wealth at home and abroad. We need someone who believes in true internationalism as expressed by George Washington — friendship to all and entangling alliances with none — and who will work with Congress (not over or around) to bring an end to the interventionism that now posses as internationalism.

Unfortunately, globalist Dole is no more qualified for that role than Clinton.

9. Will you support the RNC and its effort to send out this Mandate for Leadership Survey to thousands of taxpayers in the next 60 days.
(Yes-No-Undecided)

No American can support a Mandate for “Leadership”. The basic principle of American government is representation not “leadership”. The leadership principle (das Führerprinzip) was born in Nazi Germany and should have been buried with the Führer (the Leader). America was built on the premise that the people are better able to manage their own affairs than are a gaggle of bureaucrats and politicians. I’m wary of megalomaniacs who want to “lead” a whole nation. I’m wary of would be Führers. The people should be, too!

Return to TOC

PLEASE HELP!!!

2010-10-29T17:39:00.000-07:00

It was never my intention to make money from this blog or to use it to solicit funds for any cause, but a crisis has arisen that makes it a humanitarian necessity.

On October 26, 2010 an article by Megan Murphy in the UK's Financial Times has revealed a heart-rending story of a devastating financial crisis that has hit a small segment of the world's population.

A Swiss bank, hit hard by the financial crisis, is trying to get the Swiss financial regulator, Finma, to drop a $1m cash bonus cap for its top bankers. The bank has received “complaints it has strained some executives’ personal finances.”

The bonuses are not limited to $1m, but remainders are to be paid in deferred cash and share awards. The bank wants the additional cash for “their top earners” says the Times.

According to one UBS banker, the limits are creating a hardship making it tough for the top earners to make their mortgage payments and keep their kids in [elite] schools. [Heaven forbid their kids have to go to public schools and rub shoulders with our kids.]

Murphy reports that other investment banks such as Credit Suisse, Barclays and Goldman Sachs, are having the same problems. To get around it some have increased base pay for these executives. The Times says, “A managing director at a global investment bank, for example, can now expect to earn a $500,000 salary before bonus, up from $200,000 to $250,000 before the crisis.”

It's very important that we be especially kind to that incredibly well dressed family that just moved in next to us in one of the many tent cities springing up all over the globe. They may have just had their villa on the Riviera foreclosed.

But just being kind may not be enough. I'm now soliciting funds to help bailout the bank executives. I'm asking everyone to send what they can up to regulatory limits*. Please send checks or money orders (no cash please) payable in Uzbekistanian Som. Make checks payable to “Save Our Bankers” and send to the West Bank of the Delaware. On behalf of S.O.B. and the S. O. B.'s we're helping, I thank you.

*International rules require a limit of 500 in whatever currency is used for private charitable donations to help out bankers. Please do not exceed the limit.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a3eded6c-e133-11df-90b7-00144feabdc0.html?ftcamp=rss&ftcamp=crm/email/20101026/nbe/AsiaMorningHeadlines/product

Return to TOC

Regulation, Reform, and My Uncle Remus

2010-09-18T12:22:00.000-07:00

Regulation, Reform, and My Uncle Remus

People often say that Big Business controls the government. I agree wholeheartedly, but when those making the statement are asked, “What can we do about it?” the answer usually comes back, “We have to give Congress more power to control Big Business.” Duhhh! If Big Business controls the government, and if we give more power to the government, then we're giving Big Business more power to destroy their competition through regulation and taxation. That's exactly what has been happening.

The old mantra was regulation, today it's “reform.” I caught onto “regulation” a long time ago and I think I have a pretty good handle on the meaning of “reform” if experience with tax “reform” is any indicator. Every ten or fifteen years, politicians, bureaucrats, and the media are “shocked” to learn of massive loopholes in the tax laws through which extreme wealth escapes taxes. Usually, this happens after the loopholes have become more generally known and many less wealthy people are beginning to use them. The laws are “reformed,” and the cycle begins again. It then takes another fifteen years for the new loopholes built in for the wealthy to become more generally known and then the “shock” and “reform” repeats.

One of the latest developments in the regulation and “reform” arena is reported by Brooke Masters, Quentin Peel and Francesco Guerrera of the UK Times Sept. 12 & 13. The subject was a meeting of the global regulators of the Bank for International Settlements in Basel where new global bank capital standards were being set.

The reporters indicated that most BIG [emphasis mine] US and European banks would not have much difficulty, but smaller banks could struggle to meet the new requirements. [Nothing to worry about. The big guys will be happy to absorb their business.]

The Times does report warnings that the new, stricter requirements might crimp economic recovery, but not all agreed (or at least admitted it).

Still, Masters, Peel and Guerrera tell us “One senior banking executive said the rules would prompt banks to hoard capital and cut lending capacity at a time when the US economy is struggling...”

“There is nothing we can do: more capital on our balance sheet means less capital available to the rest of the economy,” the executive is quoted.

Welcoming the agreement, the Times informs us, is Tim Geithner, US Treason secretary and CFR and Trilateral Commission member who the Times quotes as calling it the “next step on the way to strong global financial reforms.” There you have it. The money powers behind the CFR and Trilateral Commission want these “global financial reforms” and national sovereignty and the well-being of the peoples of the world be damned.

In light of this development, I thought it might be appropriate to relate this little story my Uncle Remus told me a long time ago, when “regulation” was the buzzword. Uncle said:

“One fahn day, ole small businessman Brer Fox finally caught da corporate monopolist Brer Rabbit and was decidin' what ta do wit him. Jus' den Brer Rabbit he say to Brer Fox, 'Yo can do anythin' yo want ta me, but please, please, please don't fling me in dat thar heavily go'ment regoolated en controlled economy. Hearin' dat, Brer Fox he chuckle' to hisself en flung dat rabbit right smack dab inta da middle o' dat regoolated economy.

Fo' a while Brer Fox he jus' listen' en laugh' at da loud weepin' en wailin' en gnashin' o' teeth comin' from dat regoolated economy. Den dere was nuttin'. Hah!, thunk Brer Fox. Ahv'e finally done away wit thet selfish, greedy rabbit. But, soon, Brer Fox he hear laughin' en singin' en da clinkin' o' gold coins from da regoolated economy. Den da rabbit he call' out, “Brer Fox, Ah tol' yo not to fling me in hayah. It was in da medieval economies o' Europe, heavily regoolated by da trade guilds en corporations, dat mah family grow' en prosper'. We loves da go'ment regoolated en controlled economy becuz we controls da go'ment.”

Today, Mom and Pop Fox's little store is gone, replaced by a unit of the Lickety Split chain. The tiny Fox Manufacturing Co. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Rabbit Enterprises, Inc., and the Brer Fox Savings and Loan, having been lured into an economic trap by agents of Bunny Investments, has been swallowed up by the First Hare Commercial Bank of America. Brer Fox himself ended his days as unskilled labor, barely scratching out a living in a division of Rabbit Enterprises. Sadly, as John L. Lewis predicted,* his sons were killed in the New Dealers' War.

*In 1940, John L. Lewis, head of the United Mine Workers Union, urged his followers to vote against Roosevelt or he would make cannon fodder of their sons. This at a time when the whole New Deal swore we would stay out of Europe's war. The “New Deal” turned out to be the same old dirty deal from the bottom of a stacked deck.

Return to TOC

Still Working The Plan

2010-09-10T12:47:00.000-07:00

Still Working The Plan

In a recent UK Financial Times' article, Times writers Whipp and Anderlini reported that China is on its way to passing Japan as the world's second largest economy.

Understandably, Japan's per capita GDP remains well ahead of China's.

Regardless of the per capita standings, according to the Times reporters, Cornell professor Eswar Prasad, a former head of the China division of the IMF said China passed Japan in influence and dynamism long ago.

I don't think anyone should be surprised. We've been working for decades to make China the premier economic and military power in Asia. This is being done to facilitate creation of the United Republics of China encompassing most of Asia as depicted in the New World Moral Order map and plan from 1941-42. I noted that this was going to happen when I first posted segments of the map in various political discussion group galleries some 15 years ago.

http://phreedomphan-lostliberty.blogspot.com/2008/07/new-world-order-death-of-america.html

Return to TOC

Platform of the Main Republican Party

2010-08-16T13:57:00.000-07:00

The following is the Platform of the Maine Republican Party. While not quite perfect, it would make a good start toward restoring this country to what it should be – a Constitutional Republic with severely limited central power.

I've added a few short comments of my own within the document and a longer one at the end. I've enclosed these in [brackets].

Platform of the Maine Republican Party
Adopted by the Maine Republican State Convention on May 8, 2010

Preamble:
In the course of a nation’s history, it is natural that political philosophies will evolve which run contrary to the original principles evident at the time of that nation’s founding. A nation founded in tyranny will by its nature spawn sentiment in direct opposition to that tyranny. Conversely, a nation which is dedicated to protecting the rights of its people, and seeks to bind the excesses of power which naturally accrue to governments, is subject to the evolution of factions which strive to throw off those shackles of restraint and gather power and influence over the people. Freedom is not a pre-existing condition into which everyone is delivered. Freedom and personal liberty are conditions of existence which are hard fought for and once won, must be maintained. Each generation must be taught anew the importance of eternal vigilance against those who would disregard the limits imposed on government, and usurp powers not granted to them by the people.

Today this state and the nation are in crisis precisely because we as a people have failed to maintain that vigilance. We have failed to pass down from one generation to another the critical knowledge and lessons that history provides. We have let rot from within, the foundation upon which freedom and prosperity must be built for it to survive.

This election cycle is unique in the history of both this state and our nation. We are presented with a situation in which WE THE PEOPLE, must re-educate ourselves and our neighbors, and put the knowledge of liberty to work in the elections this November. Years of neglect have allowed factions detrimental to the core principles of this nation, to entrench themselves in both political parties, and undermine the education of Constitutional principles vital to the survival of the republic. [Those factions have had their tentacles wrapped around us since the ratification of the Constitution which was a blueprint for a central tyranny. Only the alertness of men like Richard Henry Lee, Methacton Smith, and Thomas Jefferson slowed them down with the “Bill of Rights.” Nevertheless, when Hamilton and Washington set up the first national bank, the stage was set for eventual creation of the centralized tyranny first sought.]

The Tea Party movement is reminiscent of the principled revolt that led to the birth of the Republican Party in 1854. In June of that year, Horace Greeley referred to the newly formed Republicans as “…united to restore the Union to its true mission of champion and promulgator of Liberty…". This year it is incumbent upon those Republicans who strive to protect and defend our Constitution, to reclaim that heritage.

It is within this context that We, the citizens of Maine united by free association as Republicans, dedicated to seeing the principles which brought forth the birth and ascendance of this State and these United States once again made dominant and pledge our unwavering allegiance, not to a political party, but to the Constitution of the State of Maine and the Constitution of the United States of America. The Republican Party is the vehicle through which we seek to better unify and promote those in pursuit of these goals.

The principles upon which the Republican Party was founded, to which we as Citizens seek return, and to which we demand our elected representatives abide, are summarized as follows:
The Constitutions, both State and Federal, are the framework to which any and all legislation must adhere.
State sovereignty must be regained and retained on all issues specifically relegated to the States by the constitution. [To see how the attack on that State sovereignty is being carried out, see the “Regionalism – Death of the American System” in this blog.]
National sovereignty shall be preserved and retained as dominant over any attempted unconstitutional usurpations of such by international treaty.
It is the responsibility and duty, of “We the People”, to educate both ourselves and others; to demand honest elections free of corruption, and to hold our elected officials to the highest standards of honesty, integrity and loyalty to the constitution.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
In pursuit of these principles we endorse and shall promote the following initiatives.

I. To Form a More perfect Union
a. All legislation must adhere to the restrictions outlined in the Constitution to protect the individual from intrusive government.
b. Direct the State of Maine to join with other states in asserting our 10th amendment sovereignty rights which protect us from unconstitutional federal government intrusions.[Stop taking “federal funds.” The strings attached are being used to strangle State sovereignty. Stop the federal government from getting or creating those funds in the first place.]
c. Insist on strict adherence to our 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms.
d. Pass a “Read the Bill” act, to insure clarity, and eliminate the corruption associated with side issues, earmarks, pork or riders.
e. Oppose “Localism and Diversity”, the Fairness Doctrine or whatever else such attempted restrictions are labeled. Any restriction on speech is by definition NOT free speech.
f. Reject the Employee free -choice Elimination- act, as an unconscionable affront to the right to a secret vote.
g. Restore integrity to the electoral process:
i. Prohibit any public funding of advocacy groups such as ACORN, no matter what it or its affiliate organizations rename themselves; New York Communities for Change, New England United for Justice etc.; Conduct thorough investigation of their activities and voter fraud and prosecute violations.
ii. Eliminate motor voter and other voter fraud mechanisms; institute secure voter registration and identification systems.
iii. Reject any effort to give foreign citizens the right to vote in the US in any situation or capacity.
h. Oppose any and all treaties with the UN or any other organization or country which surrenders US sovereignty. Specifically:
i. Reject the UN Treaty on Rights of the Child.
ii. Reject “LOST” the Law Of The Sea Treaty.
iii. Reject any agreement which seeks to confiscate our firearms.
i. Restore the process of assimilation of immigrants to preserve the benefits of an advanced educated and prosperous society. Rescind Maine’s sanctuary State status. No amnesty, no benefits, no citizenship -ever- for anyone in the country illegally. Arrest and detain, for a specified period of time, anyone here illegally, and then deport, period.
j. Pass a Congressional reform act which includes the following provisions:
i. Term Limits: 12 years only, in any capacity.
1. Two Six year Senate terms
2. Six Two year House terms
3. One Six year Senate term and three Two Year House terms
ii. No Pension
iii. Congress participates in Social Security under the same rules as the general public.
iv. Congress can no longer vote themselves a pay raise.
v. Congress participates in the same health care plan as the general public. No preferential plans or treatment.
vi. Congress is subject to and must abide by all the laws they impose on the general public.

II. To Establish Justice:
a. Restore “Constitutional law” as the basis for the Judiciary.
b. Reassert the principle that “Freedom of Religion” does not mean “freedom from religion”.

III. To Insure Domestic tranquility:
a. Promote family values.
i. Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman.
ii. Parents, not government, are responsible for making decisions in the best interest of their children, whether disciplinary, educational, or medical.
iii. We recognize the sanctity of life, which includes the unborn.

IV. To Provide for the Common Defense:
a. Discard political correctness, make public the declaration of war (Jihad), made against the US on 23 Feb 1998, and fight the war against the United States by radical Islam to win.
b. Seal the border and protect US citizens along the border and everywhere, as is the prime directive of the Federal Government.

V. To Promote the General Welfare:
a. Return to the principles of Austrian Economics, and redirect the economy back to one of incentives to save and invest.
b. Cut spending, balance the budget, and institute a plan for paying down debt. Proclaim that generational debt shifting is immoral and unconscionable and will not be tolerated!
c. Pass and implement Fed bill #1207 (Introduced by Ron Paul), to Audit the Federal Reserve, as the first step in Ending the Fed.
d. Return to transparent and honest reporting of economic statistics free of gimmicks and distortions.
e. Require the government and all its agencies adhere to the same GAAP accounting rules that businesses must follow.
f. Restore the provisions of welfare reform removed with the stimulus bill.
g. Defeat Cap and Trade, investigate collusion between government and industry in the global warming myth, and prosecute any illegal collusion.
h. Freeze current stimulus funds, prohibit any further stimulus bills, and apply all unspent funds towards the debt they created.
i. Promote energy independence aggressively by removing the obstacles created by government to allow private development of our resources; natural gas, oil, coal, and nuclear power.
j. Institute Zero based budgeting on all programs.
k. Espouse and follow the principle: It is immoral to steal the property rightfully earned by one person, and give it to another who has no claim or right to its benefits.
l. Clarify that healthcare is not a right. It is a service. As a compassionate society we will aid those in need. However, the government takeover of healthcare is not only unconstitutional, but detrimental to the entire healthcare system. Only market based solutions will solve the problems. [But they must be free market based solutions. The controlled and manipulated markets we have now will continue to serve the wealthiest segment of our society – the segment that now controls it.]
i. In the state of Maine:
1. Remove the restrictions on health providers, (as was done in New Hampshire), to increase competition, drive down the costs, and increase the options available.
a. Bring Maine standards in line with national average.
b. Allow purchase of insurance across state lines. LD 290
c. Enact tort reform as exemplified by Texas.
d. Eliminate Dirigo

VI. To Secure the Blessings of Liberty:
a. Restore a vigorous grounding in the history and precepts of liberty, freedom, and the constitution to the educational process. As Thomas Jefferson said, “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.”
i. Eliminate the Department of Education and restore schools to local control as specified in the constitution.
b. Repeal and prohibit any participation in efforts to create a one world government.

--------------------------------------------------------------

[Without prolonged study, I think this a good start, but I find several weaknesses in the platform. I don't like the phrase “To Form A More Perfect Union” taken from the Preamble. This has been used incorrectly by opponents of the right of the States to secede.
The phrase “fight the war against the United States by radical Islam to win” sounds like a call to continue the policies of Daddy and Baby Bush and Uncle Tom Obama of indiscriminate murder of men, women, and children in the Middle East and of transferring the wealth of the American people to the bankers and munitions makers. We might end or greatly reduce the desire of others to terrorize us if we stop terrorizing others.
While I agree with the concept of restoring Constitutional government, I would like to see some more concrete stands such as: i End the Imperial Presidency by stripping the Admin Branch of the unconstitutional powers to legislate and to adjudicate given it during the FDR administration. ii Forget a “first step” toward eliminating the Fed. Abolish it now and put an end to the commercial banks' power to enrich themselves at our expense by issuing bookkeeping entry Etherbacks. Restore control and issuance of our money supply to Congress and the Treasury where it belongs. iii Repeal the 17th Amendment to restore to the States the power to check usurpation of power by the federal government.
Liberty has no time left on the clock. We must make it plain to those who promise to restore the Constitution, to get us out of foreign entanglements, and to end the tyranny of a banker run America that they must honor those promises. We can tolerate no further breach of trust. We must make it clear to these people that if we can't get representative government through electoral action, then we will get it through executive action. We, ourselves, must decided whether to live as slaves or die as a free people and hope that it's not too late for a third option – to live as a free people.]

Return to TOC

Obamacare Simplified

2010-08-03T14:50:00.000-07:00

Obamacare Simplified – an Addendum to “Healthcare Obamanation”

Prior to writing “Healthcare Obamanation,” I spent many hours trying to make sense of it before concluding it couldn't be done, that its meaning would have to be determined by the courts (after flesh was put on the bones). I may have erred. The Ohio Project was able to analyze it and create an easy to follow road map of the healthcare program created. A copy was printed in The Ohio Republic blog. Anyone who is confused by the legislation should take a close look at the map in order to get a clearer understanding.

[The link to the expandable version of the chart is no longer available. The link immediately below should take you to the file in my Google Documents. To best view the chart, click "file" in the menu at the upper left and then click "download original." If it doesn't work, please leave me a note. Thanks!]

Download the PDF and use it to explain the plan to your friends and family and impress them with your knowledge
.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B35Ji7I8cJNhNWM0ODAyZjItOWEyOS00ZjgwLTlhODktOWMzYzZhZjg0ZGY0&hl=en_US

The links below no longer work properly for this, but are still good links to those sites.

[http://ohiorepublic.blogspot.com/2010/07/lost-in-maze.html

The above link will take you to the ohiorepublic page with the map. Clicking on the map no longer takes you to the PDF file in the OhioProject.

Below is a link to the ohioproject main page.

http://www.theohioproject.com/]

Return to TOC

North American Union

2010-07-21T15:46:00.000-07:00

Until now I haven't gotten deeply into the North American Union. Since it's an integral part of the One Worlders' plans, I think its time.

I'll start first with this excellent article from Canada. It's a great start, from a Canadian view point, on understanding what is happening to us. After reading it, you might want to read or re-read the post "New World Order – Death of America" in this blog. Maybe I should have said, "Death of North America" or, for that matter, "Death of World Liberty." Take notice that, unless the WWII plans have changed, Central America and the rest of North America is to be included in the planned "United States of America." The current plan for the NAU, following the lead of NAFTA, is only the first phase. CAFTA suggests Central America is not far behind.

The urls below lead to the website of the Canadian Action Party, but not to the article.

http://www.canadianactionparty.ca/
http://www.canadianactionparty.ca/campaigns/275-stop-the-north-american-union

The Metamorphosis and Sabotage of Canada by Our Own Government. It is informed and detailed journalism of a calibre we do not see nearly often enough.

Of course, the Party is condemned to a narrow platform because it is operating within the existing liberal political milieu, so whether the radicalism can be summoned to really change things remains to be seen.

Part One: The North American Union

Introduction

The North American continent is being transformed from three sovereign nations Canada, USA, Mexico) into one regional corporate power base, the North American Union. Unlike the creation of the European Union, there is no public political/ academic discourse on the merits, or pros and cons of a North American Union building up to a vote within each nation as to the wish of the people to join such a union. Instead the union is being created by stealth, is already well on its way to fruition, and is being imposed on us by our own elected representatives and government with no opposition.

The driving force is corporate. The Chief Executive Officers of the most powerful corporations operating in the three countries want this union and have been working for some time devising their strategies and goals. Their facilitators are first, unelected officials and bureaucrats who move easily between corporations and government; second, former elected officials like John Manley , former Deputy Prime Minister of Canada; third, the heads of the three nations, Martin, Bush, and Fox; and finally, the governments and the rest of the elected members who apparently just rubber stamp what is put in front of them by the unelected officials- few questions, if any asked.

The ultimate enforcement mechanism for the North American Union is a police state.
The tools for the police state are “anti-terrorist” laws which, in themselves, are a ruse to strip the citizens of civil liberties in order to prevent dissent against the police state.
The Orwellian justification is “security”, “safety”.

Canadian patriots have been focusing on the wrong threat- annexation to the U.S.A with no voting rights, only colony status like a Gibraltar. The real plan emerges. The fact is that we are now already metamorphosing into something else- A North American Union comprised of Canada, U.S.A.,and Mexico. The goal is an internally borderless North America rid of the constitutional structures and rules of the separate nations that created and protected the democratic fabric of the respective peoples.

This Union is planned, directed, organized and coordinated by unelected, unaccountable people of the military /industrial complex with a few academic apologists thrown in for good measure. It is being facilitated by all three elected governments. This is the same military/industrial complex that General Eisenhower warned against.

This group is creating a despotic regime for the pursuit of their interest (rapacious greed and power) which is diametrically opposed to the needs and interests of the citizens in all three countries. Their plan is to make all of North America their power base acting in their interest only. Forget the people

The two bodies (one corporate, one military) which have been functioning for some time to create this treasonous union are well advanced in that formation. They are: the Canada-U.S.A-Mexico task force and The Binational Military Planning Group.

1. The corporate side: the Canada-U.S.A-Mexico task force

The Canada-U.S.A-Mexico Task Force is comprised of the leading CEOs of the most powerful corporations from Canada, USA and Mexico, prominent former officials, businessmen, and academic apologists from all three countries. They are: (a.) From U.S.A. - Council on Foreign Relations;
(b). From Mexico- the Consejo Mexicano de Asuntos Internacionales;
(c.) From Canada: Canadian Council of Chief Executives- Founded in 1976, the Canadian Council of Chief Executives is Canada’s premier business association composed of the chief executives of 150 leading Canadian enterprises. The CCCE was the Canadian private sector
leader in the development and promotion of the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement during the 1980s and of the subsequent trilateral North American Free Trade Agreement.

This task force is currently headed by Canada’s own former Liberal Deputy Prime Minister, John Manley (who allegedly seeks to replace Paul Martin as Prime Minister).

This task force was sanctioned by the three leaders, Prime Minister Martin, President Bush and President Fox, in March of 2005 at a special meeting in Texas at Bush’s ranch at which the three leaders signed the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America.

In practice, the elected governments of the three countries are the willing dupes promulgating laws that impose a police state in order to enforce rules that enable the new regime. Some would call this treason.

(2) The military side: The Binational Military Planning Group-

Founded in late 2002, its mandate is to lay the groundwork for the integration of a Canada -US military command structure, and the militarization of civilian law enforcement, and judicial function in Canada and the USA. Their stated mandate is first to prepare contingency plans to respond to land and sea threats, and attacks, and other major emergencies; and second, to plan for coordinated response for military assistance to civil authorities in the event of threat or attack, and for civil emergency in Canada and the USA.

Neither of the Task Force nor the Military Planning group is accountable to the US Congress, nor to the Canadian House of Commons, nor to the Mexican government, and certainly Not to the citizenry.

1. Let’s focus first on the corporate side, the Canada- USA- Mexico task force.

See: Trilateral Task Force Recommendations
http://www.usembassycanada.gov/conte...y_TF_final.pdf

And: Trilateral Commission website
http://www.trilateral.org/

And: Council on Foreign Relations: Trinational call for a North American Economic and Security Community by 2010
http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=7914

These Canadian, U.S., and Mexican elites are the same players who gave us the FTA and the NAFTA. They continue their work creating a North American union that integrates our economies and transforms our total policy-making capacity away from the public interest and away from the public good.

This plan goes by various names:
· Deep Integration
· Harmonization
· NAFTA-plus
· the “Big Idea” (C.D. Howe Institute)
· the “North American Security and Prosperity Initiative”
· Americanization

The plan of this Canada-U.S.-Mexico task force is to establish a continent-wide customs union with a common approach to trade, energy, immigration, law enforcement and security that would virtually eliminate existing national borders. The task force released its recommendations for a common North America in May 17/18 2005.There was minor reference to it in mainstream media- no headline presentation. The recommendations include:

* * a common security perimeter by 2010.
* * a North American Border Pass with biometric identifiers.
* * a unified border and expanded customs facilities.
** a single economic space: (It is this area that would destroy any opportunity to bring back the use of our Bank of Canada.)
* * a common external tariff.
* * seamless movement of goods within North America.
* * Full labor mobility between Canada and the U.S. (Note they apparently do not want the Mexican labourers??)
* * A North American energy strategy -as a regional alternative to Kyoto.
* * Review those sectors of NAFTA that were excluded.
* * A North American regulatory plan that would include “open skies and open roads” and a unified approach on food, health, and the environment.
* * Expand temporary worker programs and create a “North American preference” for immigration for citizens of North America.
* * A North American Investment Fund to build infrastructure to connect Mexico’s poorer regions in the south to the market to the north.
* * Restructure and reform Mexico’s public finances.
* * Fully develop Mexican energy resources (Mexico wisely kept their energy out of NAFTA)
* * A permanent tribunal for trade and investment disputes.( Here is where any vestige of democratic government disappears)
* * An annual North American summit meeting.
* * A Tri-national Competition Commission with a common approach to trade remedies.
* * Scholarships for a network of Centers for North American Studies. (To serve the corporations)

Below is the list of the Members of the Independent Task Force on North America- Many are members of the Trilateral Commission - a similar corporate interest group from the USA, Japan and Western Europe )

Minister Pedro Aspe (Mexican co-chair), Protego
Mr. Thomas S. Axworthy, Queen’s University
Ms. Heidi S. Cruz, Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.
Mr. Nelson W. Cunningham, Kissinger McLarty Associates
Mr. Thomas P. d’Aquino (Canadian co-vice chair), Canadian Council of Chief Executives
Mr. Alfonso de Angoitia, Grupo Televisa, S.A.
Dr. Luis de La Calle Pardo, De la Calle, Madrazo, Mancera, S.C.
TC - Professor Wendy K. Dobson, University of Toronto
Dr. Robert A. Pastor (U.S. co-vice chair), American University
Mr. Andréés Rozental, (Mexican co-vice chair), Consejo Mexicano de Asuntos Internacionales
Dr. Richard A. Falkenrath, The Brookings Institution
Dr. Rafael Fernandez de Castro, Instituto Tecnolóógico Autóónomo de Mééxico
Mr. Ramóón Alberto Garza, Montemedia
The Honorable Gordon D. Giffin, McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP
TC - Mr. Allan Gotlieb, Donner Canadian Foundation
Mr. Michael Hart, Norman Paterson School of International Affairs
TC - Mr. Carlos Heredia, Consejo Mexicano de Asuntos Internacionales
TC - The Honorable Carla A. Hills, Hills & Company
Dr. Gary C. Hufbauer, Institute for International Economics
TC - Dr. Luis Rubio, CIDAC
Dr. Jeffrey J. Schott, Institute for International Economics
Mr. Pierre Marc Johnson, Heenan Blaikie
The Honorable James R. Jones, Manatt Jones Global Strategies
Dr. Chappell H. Lawson (Task Force Director), Massachusetts Institute of Technology
TC - The Honourable John P. Manley (Canadian co-chair), McCarthy Tetrault
Mr. David McD. Mann, Cox Hanson O’Reilly Matheson
Ms. Doris M. Meissner, Migration Policy Institute
The Honorable Thomas M.T. Niles, Institute for International Economics
The Honorable William F. Weld (U.S. co-chair),Leeds Weld & Co.
Mr. Raul H. Yzaguirre

The few media references to the task force parrot the Orwellian double speak of the task force and politicians. The effect is to trick the people into believing this process is something good for us. But if you read carefully, you can identify that the regime change is all about the greed of an elite few. In order to manipulate us into accepting the regime change, they pretend it will protect us from “terrorists”. Terrorism has become the external threat, the bogey- man replacing Communism, just as Moslems have replaced Jews as scapegoats..

From Reuters:

“NEW YORK (Reuters) - The United States, Canada and Mexico should establish a common security perimeter to guard against terrorism in North America, a tri-national independent task force said in a report released onTuesday.

The countries should police their borders together to help border trade, allow easier movement of citizens and to keep out potential security threats, the task force said at New York’s Council on Foreign Relations.

‘If our two borders, the one between Canada and the United States and the U.S. and Mexico, became a frontline for security the impact that would have on normal relations and economic relations would be profound,’ said co-chairman John Manley, a former Canadian Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance.”

From All American Patriots News:

“May 17, 2005--North America is vulnerable on several fronts: the region faces terrorist and criminal security threats, increased economic
competition from abroad, and uneven economic development at home. In response to these challenges, a tri-national, Independent Task Force on the Future of North America has developed a roadmap to promote North American security and advance the well-being of citizens of all three countries.

Pointing to increased competition from the European Union and rising economic powers such as India and China in the eleven years since NAFTA took effect, co-chair Pedro C. Aspe, former Finance Minister of Mexico, said, ‘We need a vision for North America to address the new challenges.’
The Task Force establishes a blueprint for a powerhouse North American trading area that allows for the seamless movement of goods, increased labor mobility, and energy security.

John P. Manley, Former Canadian Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance said, ‘We are asking the leaders of the United States, Mexico, and Canada to be bold and adopt a vision of the future that is bigger than, and beyond, the immediate problems of the present,’ ‘They could be the architects of a new community of North America, not mere custodians of the status quo.’”

In other words, forget Canada; forget the United States of America; forget the United States of Mexico. Some might consider this rather treasonous!!

Let us be very clear here. What the task force addresses is an economic/legal system in their interest with a police state to enforce it.

This task force is extrapolating the globalization process into a North American unit. Under the mantle of the WTO (an agreement in its own right,) there is in process a transformation of the forces of power in the world from sovereign national control of resources over to the global corporate control. It is what they call “deregulation” and”privatization”. That is why they called all the agreements “Free Trade”. They meant free from regulations and controls that protect consumers and the public generally, including protections from theft of the commons.

Now the intent is for transfer from global corporate control to regional corporate control, e.g., European Union, North American Union; that is, corporate political control free from government accountability to electors. The North American task force seeks to create a unit even freer from the vestigial citizen involvement that exists in the E.U. (Britain and Australia are lackeys of the United States.)

The FTA, the NAFTA, are well known. The Canadian Action Party and other concerned Canadians have been detailing the harm of these agreements for years. CAP has steadfastly called for the abrogation of the FTA and NAFTA. We have always said,” Issue the 6 month notice to abrogate!” The most recent justification for abrogation is the U.S.’s refusal to pay back $5 billion they owe our lumber industry for illegal duties the U.S. charged.

Despite years of proof of uneven and unfair use by the USA of the rules of the FTA and NAFTA, including the unfair closing of the U.S side of the border to Canadian beef, the Liberals, Conservatives, the NDP, and the Bloc Quebecois have refused to call for abrogation. It is only in the face of the clarity of this latest U.S. abuse of Canada that all of them are beginning to pretend they are not wimps or complicit dupes. Still, none of them is willing to say, “Abrogate, period!” How much longer are we willing to tolerate these politicians who not only meekly submit to being stomped on, but then turn to their attacker and apologize for being victimized?

Why do they do this? It is because all of their most influential leaders are members of this elite group who seek to remove democracy and entrench plutocracy. It is not a question of what is good for the citizens of Canada, U.S.A or Mexico. Note that the United States is turning that $5 billion which has been stolen from the Canadian lumber industry over to their own lumber barons, not their general body of citizens.

This North American Impetus is a natural political extension and outgrowth of all these global economic arrangements as the greedy financial elite look around for the best ways to effect their goals. It has everything to do with the destruction of democracy and the death of freedom. These corporate bodies have no allegiance to the nation they happen to operate in, or to its people.

Other harmful international agreements include the General Agreement on Trade and Services, (GATS), the Financial Services Investment Agreement, (FSIA), the Free Trade Area of the Americas, (FTAA), the Central American Free Trade Agreement, (CAFTA). All of these grow out of the World Trade Organization, (WTO), itself being an agreement that commands an ongoing deregulation and privatization process.

The eventual goal is to have all of North and South America as one regional power block stronger than anything in Europe or Asia. Fortunately for human beings, South America has not been the easy pushover that the corporations presumed, so they have to settle for a North American Union for now. (Why do you think Pat Robertson, a U.S. religious leader, on national U.S. media, and on Canada’s C.B.C., recently called for the Assassination of Hugo Chavez, the Leader of Venezuela?)

There exists a North America Bureau of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. See: http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/can-am/..._bureau-en.asp

The role of the North America Bureau is twofold:

* to advance, in cooperation with other parts of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Canadian diplomatic missions in the United States and Mexico, and other Canadian Government departments and agencies, Canada’s wide-ranging interests in its relations with the United
States and Mexico; and

* to promote Canada’s broad foreign policy objectives within and through the Canada-US and the Canada-Mexico bilateral relationships.

In fulfilling this role, the Bureau is organized into four divisions:

* the United States Relations Division,
* the United States Transboundary Division, and
* the United States Business Development Division and
* The Mexico Division

2. Let’s now look at the second body, The Binational Military Planning
Group. (Source Michel Chossudovsky. http://www.globalresearch.ca
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CH0411C.html

Chossudovsky says the people of NORAD and the Binational Planning Group are the same . They operate the same command. NORAD has essentially been scrapped. It has been integrated into US Northern Command, and Canada has become a de facto member of NORTHCOM under the auspices of the Bi-national Planning Group. (BPG).

So, when Prime Minister Paul Martin said “no” to Star Wars, he did not really say no. He lied to us.

The Binational Planning Group was set up in late 2002 after Prime Minster Chrétien refused to join NORTHCOM. The creation of Northcom had been announced unilaterally in April 2002 by Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfield who dictated that the US Northern Command would have jurisdiction over the entire North American region. Canada and Mexico were presented with a fait accompli. US Northern Command’s jurisdiction set out in the US DoD includes the continental US ,all of Canada, Mexico, portions of the Caribbean, contiguous waters in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans up to 500 miles off the Mexican, US and Canadian coastlines, as well as the Canadian arctic.

Northcom was being quietly negotiated with Ottawa’s Department of Defence and the PMO. Under NORTHCOM the US military will cross the border and deploy troops anywhere in Canada, in our provinces as well as station American warships in Canadian territorial waters. The locale for these
discussions is not in Canada, but at the Peterson Air Force base in
Colorado, the headquarters of the US Northern Command(Northcom) .

Chossudovsky reports that Rumsfeld is said to have boasted that “the
NORTHCOM with all of North America as its geographic command ‘is part of
the greatest transformation of the Unified Command Plan (UCP) since its
inceptions in 1947’”

When PM Chretien refused to sign on the dotted line, Rumsfield et al, the
military establishment, both US and Canadian, refused to take no for an answer. They immediately created a new name to accommodate the concept of NORTHCOM and called it the Binational Planning group . It is still operating out of the Peterson Air force base. It was supposed to last only for two years but its mandate has been renewed to spring of 2006. (Note- look for a Canadian election before the expiry date.)

The BPG has a staff of 50 US and Canadian military planners laying the groundwork fo the integration of Canada -US military command structures. The BPG works in close coordination with the Canada-US Military Cooperation Committee at the Pentagon- responsible for detailed
joint military planning.

Respecting missile defence, Martin told the press on February 22,2005: “[The Americans] were told we will not participate.” “It is a firm ‘no.’”

Chossudovsky reminds us that simultaneously, Frank McKenna ambassador designate to the US, in a contradictory statement, told the media “ Canada’s participation in the controversial BMD is a “done deal”. It’s de facto. It was part of a negotiation process initiated two years ago.

“We’re part of it now and the question is what more do we need?” said McKenna. “There’s no doubt, in looking back, ... that the NORAD amendment has given, has created part, in fact a great deal, of what the United States means in terms of being able to get the input for defensive weaponry.”

What Ambassador McKenna was hinting at, without revealing the substance of US-Canada negotiations (behind closed doors), is that NORAD is a defunct military body.

So the military side of this treason is waiting for government sanction in the spring of 2006 after our next election. Once again the arrogant confidence is at least irritating if not alarming.

Even though there is no official sanction yet, de facto sanctions exist as Canada is participating more and more in the US wars.. Now we have more troops in Afghanistan, and General Hilliard is warning Canadians to be prepared for the body bags returning to Canada. There is something really wrong with this picture.

In a comprehensive report prepared shortly before the Bush-Martin talks November 2004, the BPG made recommendations on: “ how the two countries’ militaries can work together more effectively to counter these [terrorist] threats. ... formalizing cooperation already taking place on an informal basis.” (Statement of BPG spokesman, US Department of Defence Information, November 3, 2004)

With regard to military negotiations, McKenna knows what is happening behind the scenes. He was on the board of directors of the Carlyle Group together with Bush Senior and Frank Carlucci (The bin Laden family were investors in Carlyle until 9/11).

Carlyle, is the leading private equity investor in the aerospace and defence industries in the US and Canada. It plays a key role in the formulation of US defence and foreign policy. It has a vested interest in Canada’s integration into NORTHCOM. Michel Chossusdovsky points out that “Canada’s participation in the
Bilateral Planning Group and hence the Northern Command implies Canada’s acceptance not only of Star Wars, but of the entire US war agenda, requiring significant hikes in Canada’s defence spending. The latter are intended to fuel the military-industrial complex. Canada’s defence contractors are supportive of this process.”

Chossudovsky points to Canada’s February 2005 budget, released on the day following P.M. PaulMartin’s categorical “No” to the Missile Defence Program. Chossudovsky notes that “an additional $12.8 billion dollars (Cdn) (over the next five years), has added to Canada’s spiralling defence budget. The stated objective is to ‘burnish the country’s credibility as a global peacekeeping partner’.”

Chossudovsky notes further that the budget is not meant to refurbish the country’s conventional military hardware, but rather will be channelled to Canadian weapons producers, many of which are affiliates of US defence conglomerates, upon Canada’s accession to NORTHCOM.. He lists some major players in Canada’s defence industry: General Dynamics (Canada), Bell Helicopter Textron (Canada), General Motors Defense, CAE Inc, Bombardier,
SNC-Lavalin Group, etc.

So we can see that those two bodies, the trilateral task force and the Bilateral Planning group, are well entrenched in process.

The fact is that most Canadians oppose this deep economic and military integration.

Now the greedy corporations are staking out a claim on more and more land in a region of North America in order to be bigger, and better and more profitable than a group of corporations from another regional block. The European Union was the first block. There is a rising Asian block. I am not the first to see the USA attacks on the middle east as a means of preventing the Asian blocks from becoming the most powerful . The third region is the Americas. South America has not been an easy go for the globalizers. So the focus is concentrating for now on North America.)

By examination of the arrangements and deals happening under our noses but by stealth, we can see that our worries expressed over the years are coming to fruition. The globalizers are well into the process of implementing a clear regime run by them, about them, for them, and enforced by governments. The masses of people do not count except as cannon fodder in the wars of conquest and as slaves for the production process .

There is every intention of regime change from democracy to tyranny. Our governments are already the willing whipping boys being the instruments of social control. They have no shame in removing our civil liberties and destroying our constitutional protections .This is happening all around the world with the USA, Britain, Australia and Canada being the most advanced in the regime change process. It is an outrage and a disgrace that Canada is now competing with Britain to become the lowliest lick spittle groveling agent to the USA led regime change process. There is nothing good in this regime change process for the citizen.

[On the whole this is an excellent summary. It does fall down in the last two sentences, but it is understandable. Even in the United States, very few are aware of some excellent arguments that we never really broke away from England. Certainly, the Bank of England has been a major player in the formulation of our foreign and domestic policy since Hamilton and Washington set up the first national bank.

Anyone familiar with the Round-Table groups should know that they have had substantial influence over us since Wilson, to the extent that the total Royalist/Tory effort resulted in our fighting two wars for Mutha England. Control over FDR resulted in the mass importation of Fabian Socialism to this country with its accompanying Hegelian statist philosophy now being perpetrated on a global scale -- the “regime change” mentioned in the article.]

Return to TOC

Government of Money, by Money, and for Money

2010-06-16T12:49:00.000-07:00

Although it doesn’t fit any scheme of idealism, the fact is that government is the power of money. It is to the misfortune of all the peoples of the world that money is now global and seeks power on a global level to promote its interests. It’s unfortunate that the Anglo-American Empire is busying itself with the spreading of this global dominance of money in the name of “democracy." Use of American military power to do this fulfills Cecil Rhodes dream of the U.S. taking over Britain's self-appointed role of world policeman.

Discussing the subject of Southern Secession and the Draconian and very unconstitutional means Lincoln used to suppress it and showing that suppression to be money motivated, M A Johnson, an aol group member, posted this from Lysander Spooner in a group a number of years ago:

----------

Spooner also hits upon the true reason for Lincoln's war, namely, the need to keep money flowing into the federal treasury via enforcement of the protective tariff:

All political power, so called, rests practically upon this matter of money. Any number of scoundrels, having money enough to start with, can establish themselves as a "government"; because, with money, they can hire soldiers, and with soldiers extort more money; and also compel general obedience to their will. It is with government, as Caesar said it was in war, that money and soldiers mutually supported each other; that with money he could hire soldiers, and with soldiers extort money. So these villains, who call themselves governments, well understand that their power rests primarily upon money. With money they can hire soldiers, and with soldiers extort money. And, when their authority is denied, the first use they always make of money, is to hire soldiers to kill or subdue all who refuse them more money.

The love of money is the root of all evil. And it is omnipotent government which is best able to carry out the evil plans of those who love money.

-------

I would add to this that money need not always resort to soldiers. Buying “intellectuals" to cloak their crimes in garb of "reason" or “progress" can sometimes reduce the need for soldiers by quelling the masses through the narcotic effect of well developed though meaningless and fallacious rhetoric.

Back to TOC

Boycott Seattle

2010-05-22T12:06:00.000-07:00

“City Council backs Arizona boycott,” News, May 18. So read a headline concerning the actions of the Seattle City Council. They were, of course, completely out of line.

According to an Associated Press release printed in the Seattle Times, the Seattle City Council voted 7-0 Monday to boycott Arizona. In so doing they've joined cities such as L.A., San Diego, and Austin in urging boycotts or protests against Arizona's new anti-illegal immigration law.

The Times notes the hypocrisy in the Council's boycott. It was written, says the paper, “to protect the only substantial contract Seattle has with an Arizona company - a $106,000-a-month deal with American Traffic Solutions.”

Seattle, sitting “Way Up North” can have no idea of the problems illegal immigration causes a border state like Arizona. True, Washington is also a “border” state, but the “flood” of illegal immigrants seeking to escape Canada for a better life in the U.S. has not yet become such a serious problem to Washington as the Mexican illegals have become to Arizona. Arizona is bearing the brunt of the invasion, having to fight, not only the illegal immigrant traffic, but the drug trafficking that accompanies it. Naturally, the cry “racism” can be heard. Trying to stop people from entering the country illegally is now “racist.”

Also emulating the Boy Who Cried “Racist,” the Los Angeles' resolution claims that the Arizona law “encourages racial profiling.” May we presume this could be solved by instructing police to stop only Eskimos to see if they are illegal Mexican aliens?

Many Seattle residents have written letters to the editor opposing this action of the council. They say, and rightfully, that neither the city of Seattle nor the State of Washington has any right to interfere in the laws of another State. Some have even suggested that under the circumstances other States and cities might boycott Seattle and/or Washington State. I think that's a great idea!

I, for one, will never drink a cup of Starbucks coffee again. I'd like to add that I will never travel to Seattle, but—who would want to? Maybe rain wear or umbrella manufacturers might want to hold a convention there, but other than that the place is only fit for ducks.

I believe I saw this “joke” in Reader's Digest. A woman moves to Seattle. It rains every day for a week. She looks out of her apartment window and sees a little boy sitting on the building's steps in the rain. Frustrated to the point she can hardly bear it, she calls down, “Little boy! Does it ever stop raining here?” The little boy answers, “I don't know, lady. I'm only six.”

I will also try to avoid products of L.A., San Diego, and Austin.

The url for the Seattle Times is: http://www.seattletimes.com/
Please don't use it unless you absolutely have to!

While we're boycotting the creep cities, how about giving some support to the Arizona Cattlemen's Association whose members are manning the front line in the American people's war against illegal invasion. They're fighting a tough fight with illegals in front and traitors at the rear.

Thursday, May 20, 2010
RESTORE OUR BORDER -In honor of ROB KRENTZ
Please go to the web site below and endorse the Restore Our Border (ROB) plan named for Rob Krentz who was murdered by an illegal alien on his own land. The Arizona Cattle Growers need lots of endorsements.

Thank you for your consideration.http://www.azcattlemensassoc.org/rob-plan-endorsement-form.html

Return to TOC

A Pairadocs

2010-05-11T10:41:00.000-07:00

I sent Hardy Wright's post to an internet friend. She and her husband are doctors. I received this reply:

Rick, I don't think this was at all unanticipated by people very familiar with the inner workings of the health care industry, especially those who understand the money flows.

Probably the single most problematic monkey wrench for health care centralizers is that they are counting on a large pool of healthy Americans currently uninsured to switch gears and start paying their tribute to the insurance mafia. The problem is that most of these people are just getting by as it is and can't rationalize paying out $3000 or more a year in premiums (and, typically, the policy includes a very large deductible and sizable co-pays, so, in effect, they can't afford to use it and it becomes, by default, simply catastrophic insurance).

Something related to elderly care cutbacks that concerns me, as I have already observed this trend several times in the last 10 years with family members and friends of our family suffering from terminal or degenerative diseases, is the covert agenda to hasten death in those who should still have a few years or more left to live if given proper care. There is a big push to institutionalize these people in nursing homes or hospice where, without a doubt, their health will rapidly decline from absent or inadequate protocols for the administration of essentials such as needed fluids. From there, they can expect that any sign of discomfort or dementia will be treated with "terminal sedation". Terminal sedation involves sedating patients into a state of unconsciousness so they no longer want to take in food or water and thus die months or years sooner they would otherwise would have. The way this is being handled is highly paternalistic and violates all standards of patient autonomy since patient consent is not a prerequisite. Terminal sedation is easily foisted on patients and family members because most are very intimidated by physicians and usually don't know the first thing about basic medicine having been made woefully medically illiterate by our societal system of dumbing down.

I certainly don't advocate wasteful and expensive health care for the elderly or anyone else, for that matter. What I am talking about is the loss of compassion that reflects rampant greed and self-absorption. It is completely debasing our essential humanity and distorting our view of the importance of family and community.

Return To TOC

Ugly Face of ObamaCare Revealed

2010-05-08T11:32:00.000-07:00

This is part of a memorandum published by the Office of the Actuary of the Department of Health & Human Services. The copy I took from the Internet was in PDF form that did not allow copying, so what I took verbatim I had to retype. I don't have time to retype the whole document to try to pull out all important details, so I stuck with their own summary. I've also incorporated parts of a report on the subject in AllVoices by Hardy Wright from an email he’d received. Memorandum content is in italics, my comments are in regular type, those from Hardy's report in brackets [] as are page numbers.

This memorandum summarizes the Office of the Actuary's estimates of the financial and coverage effects through fiscal year 2019 of selected provisions of the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” (P.L. 111-148) as enacted on March 23, 2010 and amended by the “Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010” (P.L. 111-152) as enacted on March 30, 2010.

Included are the estimated net Federal expenditures in support of expanded health insurance coverage, the associated numbers of people by insured status, the changes in Medicare and Medicaid expenditures and revenues, and the overall impact on total national health expenditures. Except where noted, we have not estimated the impact of the various tax and fee provisions of the impact on income and payroll taxes due to economic effects of the legislation. Similarly, the impact on Federal administrative expenses is excluded. A summary of the data, assumptions, and methodology underlying our national health reform estimates will be available in a forthcoming memorandum by the OACT Health Reform Modeling Team.

Possibly the most significant factor here is that federal administration expenses are not included. If the government intends to read, analyze, and act on the tons of reporting that will be required, we're probably looking at many more hundreds of billions. But that's just the direct cost of bureaucracy to the taxpayers. Add to that cost what will likely be an equivalent monstrous cost to the medical and insurance providers to fill out and file all of the mandated plans and reports – costs that will, must, be passed on to the health care consumer.

In addition, the actuary admits that the costs do not reflect the full 10-year cost for the new legislation. The strange reasons given are: ...these transition effects and the fact that most of the coverage provisions would be in effect for only 6 of the 10 years of the budget period, the cost estimates shown in this memorandum do not represent a full 10-year cost for the new legislation. What I can't understand is why they can't make an estimate for the “transition” period and why would there be costs (hidden?) for the four years that the coverage provisions would not be in effect.

Earlier estimates of the cost of this bill ranged from over $800 billion to about $2.2 trillion. The new figures, as reported by Wright are lower:

[Health Care Costs Increase: National health expenditures under the health reform act would increase by a total of $311 billion (0.9 percent) during calendar years 2010-2019. [Page 4]]

The bulk of the reduction from the original estimates is realized by slashing medicare which could reduce senior access to healthcare. As Hardy reports:

[Over One-Half Trillion in Medicare Cuts: The Medicare actuaries found that the new health law cuts $575 billion [Page 4] from Medicare]

Seniors’ Access to Care Jeopardized: As a result of the cuts to Medicare, the actuaries found that, absent legislative intervention, [providers]m ight end their participation in the program (possibly jeopardizing access to care for beneficiaries). [Page 10]]

One of the reasons health care providers might end their participation in the program is: (iii) lower payments and payment updates for Medicare services. [Page 4]

A still more astonishing admission by the actuarials is shown below. It's astonishing because it's exactly what many opponents of the legislation had been arguing and for which they were called liars, extremists, kooks, partisan politicians, and even racists for opposing this plan Obama was selling for the insurance companies.

The actual future impacts of the PPACA on health expenditures, insured status, individual decisions, and employer behavior are very uncertain. The legislation would result in numerous changes in the way that health care insurance is provided and paid for in the U.S., and the scope and magnitude of these changes are such that few precedents exist for use in estimation. Consequently, the estimates presented here are subject to a substantially greater degree of uncertainty than is usually the case with more routine health care legislation.

In estimating the financial impacts of the PPACA, we assumed that the increased demand for health care services could be met without market disruptions. In practice, supply constraints might initially interfere with providing the services desired by the additional 34 million insured persons. Price reactions — that is, providers successfully negotiating higher fees in response to the greater demand – could result in higher total expenditures or in some of this demand being unsatisfied. Alternatively, providers might tend to accept more patients who have private insurance (with relatively attractive payment rates) and fewer Medicare or Medicaid patients, exacerbating existing access problems for Medicaid enrollees. Either outcome (or a combination of both) should be considered plausible and even probable initially.

The latter possibility is especially likely in the case of the substantially higher volume of Medicaid services, for which provider payment rates are well below average. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that a significant portion of the increased demand for Medicaid would be difficult to meet, particularly over the first few years. (More amazing truth – higher costs and less service.)

As I pointed out in the Healthcare Obamanation post in this blog, nobody can say what this beast will look like when it's grotesque skeleton is fleshed out. In some cases, the actuaries don't even try:

We have not attempted to model that impact or other plausible supply and price effects, such as supplier entry and exit or cost-shifting towards private payers. A specific estimate of these potential outcomes is impracticable at this time, given the uncertainty associated with both the magnitude of these effects and the interrelationships among these market dynamics. We may incorporate such factors in future estimates, should we determine that they can be estimated with a reasonable degree of confidence....

The last sentence of the above paragraph is evaluated by Hardy as follows:

[Long Wait Lines Resulting From A Shortage of Doctors and Hospitals: ...For now, we believe that consideration should be given to the potential consequences of a significant increase in demand for health care meeting a relatively fixed supply of health care providers and services. In other words, Americans should be prepared for doctor and hospital shortages under the new law. [Page 20]]

Further support of Hardy's conclusions can be found in this paragraph: As stated in the section on Medicare estimates, reductions in payment updates to health care providers, based on economy-wide productivity gains, are unlikely to be sustainable on a permanent annual basis. If these reductions were to prove unworkable within the 10-year period 2010-2019 (as appears probable for significant numbers of hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, and home health agencies), then the actual Medicare savings from these provisions would be less than shown in this memorandum. Similarly, the further reductions in Medicare growth rates mandated for 2015 through 2019 through the Independent Payment Advisory Board may be difficult to achieve in practice.

That Seniors, all Americans for that matter, will see a considerably reduced availability of health care is no surprise to me. The more I see the government regulating and controlling all aspects of our lives “for” us, the more I'm reminded of an experience I had while hitch-hiking through Yugoslavia in 1967.

It took me three rides to get the relatively short distance from Sarajevo to the coast. The last was with a Czechoslovakian couple. You may remember that Czechoslovakia was one of the “peoples' paradises.” Everything was well regulated and controlled. Wages and prices were fixed so that everyone could afford everything. The only catch — there was nothing! These folks had waited 11 years on a list to buy their new car.

Now it's the American people's turn. Our Socialist/Fascist government is going to regulate all aspects of our healthcare so that all Americans can afford all of the healthcare we need. The minor inconvenience of waiting 11 years for that heart operation is such a small price to pay.

The whole campaign by Obama's Washington Mob was a pack of lies as I hope this is showing.

As I pointed out in “Healthcare Obamanation,” most of the people who voted for it had no understanding of how insurance works. Constant attacks on the insurance industry for not accepting “pre-existing” conditions were nothing but the lowest form of Obamagoguery. Now Hardy reveals the truth:

[False Promise to Those With Pre-Existing Conditions: By 2011 and 2012 the initial $5 billion in Federal funding for [high risk pools] would be exhausted, resulting in substantial premium increases to sustain the program. [Page 16]]

They also continue to make the claim that the bill will lead to a balanced budget in ten years. The bulk of the balancing act appears to be substantial new taxes and fees which, no matter who they appear to be levied on, we will eventually pay. I'd bet the farm we'll get the taxes, but I won't hold my breath waiting for a balanced budget.

…..Federal revenues will be increased through an excise tax on high-cost insurance plans; higher Hospital Insurance payroll taxes for high-income taxpayers; a new tax on investment revenues and other unearned income, and other provisions.

Some of those paying will be the people with health benefits at work. Hardy notes: [Millions Will See Their Health Benefits Taxed for the First Time: It should be noted, however, that an estimated 12 percent of insured workers in 2019 would be in employer plans with benefit values in excess of the thresholds [before changes to reduce benefits] and that this percentage would increase rapidly thereafter. [Page 13]]

The next sentence in this passage really hit me. The effect of the excise tax on reducing health care cost growth would depend on its ongoing application to an expanding share of employer plans and on an increasing scope of benefit reductions for affected plans. If I'm interpreting this correctly, one of the purposes of the tax is to reduce money available for healthcare.

The lies and deception never stop. Hardie's article points out:

[New “Medicare Tax” Doesn’t Go To Medicare: The Reconciliation Act amendments introduced a new 3.8-percent “unearned income Medicare contribution” on income from interest, dividends, annuities, and other non-earnings sources for individual taxpayers with incomes above $200,000 and couples filing joint returns with incomes above $250,000. Despite the title of this tax, this provision is unrelated to Medicare; in particular, the revenues generated by the tax on unearned income are not allocated to the Medicare trust funds. [Page 9]]

You can view Hardy Wright's article to pick up anything I missed at:
http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/5693063-health-care-more-costly-than-anticpated

Return to TOC

Truth Has Fallen & Taken Liberty with It

2010-03-28T20:36:00.000-07:00

It's hard not to feel sorry for a great athlete who continues to play long after he should have retired. This article by Paul Craig Roberts shows that, if this is his final good-bye, he retires in his prime.

Because of its importance, Truth Has Fallen has appeared in numerous sites throughout the Web. For that reason I do not cite any, choosing only to mirror it here in the hopes it will reach and awaken still more people.

------

March 24, 2010

Good-Bye

Truth Has Fallen and Taken Liberty With It

By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

There was a time when the pen was mightier than the sword. That was a time when people believed in truth and regarded truth as an independent power and not as an auxiliary for government, class, race, ideological, personal, or financial interest.

Today Americans are ruled by propaganda. Americans have little regard for truth, little access to it, and little ability to recognize it.

Truth is an unwelcome entity. It is disturbing. It is off limits. Those who speak it run the risk of being branded “anti-American,” “anti-semite” or “conspiracy theorist.”

Truth is an inconvenience for government and for the interest groups whose campaign contributions control government.

Truth is an inconvenience for prosecutors who want convictions, not the discovery of innocence or guilt.

Truth is inconvenient for ideologues.

Today many whose goal once was the discovery of truth are now paid handsomely to hide it. “Free market economists” are paid to sell offshoring to the American people. High-productivity, high value-added American jobs are denigrated as dirty, old industrial jobs. Relicts from long ago, we are best shed of them. Their place has been taken by “the New Economy,” a mythical economy that allegedly consists of high-tech white collar jobs in which Americans innovate and finance activities that occur offshore. All Americans need in order to participate in this “new economy” are finance degrees from Ivy League universities, and then they will work on Wall Street at million dollar jobs.

Economists who were once respectable took money to contribute to this myth of “the New Economy.”

And not only economists sell their souls for filthy lucre. Recently we have had reports of medical doctors who, for money, have published in peer-reviewed journals concocted “studies” that hype this or that new medicine produced by pharmaceutical companies that paid for the “studies.”

The Council of Europe is investigating the drug companies’ role in hyping a false swine flu pandemic in order to gain billions of dollars in sales of the vaccine.

The media helped the US military hype its recent Marja offensive in Afghanistan, describing Marja as a city of 80,000 under Taliban control. It turns out that Marja is not urban but a collection of village farms.

And there is the global warming scandal, in which NGOs. the UN, and the nuclear industry colluded in concocting a doomsday scenario in order to create profit in pollution.

Wherever one looks, truth has fallen to money.

Wherever money is insufficient to bury the truth, ignorance, propaganda, and short memories finish the job.

I remember when, following CIA director William Colby’s testimony before the Church Committee in the mid-1970s, presidents Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan issued executive orders preventing the CIA and U.S. black-op groups from assassinating foreign leaders. In 2010 the US Congress was told by Dennis Blair, head of national intelligence, that the US now assassinates its own citizens in addition to foreign leaders.

When Blair told the House Intelligence Committee that US citizens no longer needed to be arrested, charged, tried, and convicted of a capital crime, just murdered on suspicion alone of being a “threat,” he wasn’t impeached. No investigation pursued. Nothing happened. There was no Church Committee. In the mid-1970s the CIA got into trouble for plots to kill Castro. Today it is American citizens who are on the hit list. Whatever objections there might be don’t carry any weight. No one in government is in any trouble over the assassination of U.S. citizens by the U.S. government.

As an economist, I am astonished that the American economics profession has no awareness whatsoever that the U.S. economy has been destroyed by the offshoring of U.S. GDP to overseas countries. U.S. corporations, in pursuit of absolute advantage or lowest labor costs and maximum CEO “performance bonuses,” have moved the production of goods and services marketed to Americans to China, India, and elsewhere abroad. When I read economists describe offshoring as free trade based on comparative advantage, I realize that there is no intelligence or integrity in the American economics profession.

Intelligence and integrity have been purchased by money. The transnational or global U.S. corporations pay multi-million dollar compensation packages to top managers, who achieve these “performance awards” by replacing U.S. labor with foreign labor. While Washington worries about “the Muslim threat,” Wall Street, U.S. corporations and “free market” shills destroy the U.S. economy and the prospects of tens of millions of Americans.

Americans, or most of them, have proved to be putty in the hands of the police state.

Americans have bought into the government’s claim that security requires the suspension of civil liberties and accountable government. Astonishingly, Americans, or most of them, believe that civil liberties, such as habeas corpus and due process, protect “terrorists,” and not themselves. Many also believe that the Constitution is a tired old document that prevents government from exercising the kind of police state powers necessary to keep Americans safe and free.

Most Americans are unlikely to hear from anyone who would tell them any different.

I was associate editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal. I was Business Week’s first outside columnist, a position I held for 15 years. I was columnist for a decade for Scripps Howard News Service, carried in 300 newspapers. I was a columnist for the Washington Times and for newspapers in France and Italy and for a magazine in Germany. I was a contributor to the New York Times and a regular feature in the Los Angeles Times. Today I cannot publish in, or appear on, the American “mainstream media.”

For the last six years I have been banned from the “mainstream media.” My last column in the New York Times appeared in January, 2004, coauthored with Democratic U.S. Senator Charles Schumer representing New York. We addressed the offshoring of U.S. jobs. Our op-ed article produced a conference at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C. and live coverage by C-Span. A debate was launched. No such thing could happen today.

For years I was a mainstay at the Washington Times, producing credibility for the Moony newspaper as a Business Week columnist, former Wall Street Journal editor, and former Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury. But when I began criticizing Bush’s wars of aggression, the order came down to Mary Lou Forbes to cancel my column.

The American corporate media does not serve the truth. It serves the government and the interest groups that empower the government.

America’s fate was sealed when the public and the anti-war movement bought the government’s 9/11 conspiracy theory. The government’s account of 9/11 is contradicted by much evidence. Nevertheless, this defining event of our time, which has launched the US on interminable wars of aggression and a domestic police state, is a taboo topic for investigation in the media. It is pointless to complain of war and a police state when one accepts the premise upon which they are based.

These trillion dollar wars have created financing problems for Washington’s deficits and threaten the U.S. dollar’s role as world reserve currency. The wars and the pressure that the budget deficits put on the dollar’s value have put Social Security and Medicare on the chopping block. Former Goldman Sachs chairman and U.S. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson is after these protections for the elderly. Fed chairman Bernanke is also after them. The Republicans are after them as well. These protections are called “entitlements” as if they are some sort of welfare that people have not paid for in payroll taxes all their working lives.

With over 21 per cent unemployment as measured by the methodology of 1980, with American jobs, GDP, and technology having been given to China and India, with war being Washington’s greatest commitment, with the dollar over-burdened with debt, with civil liberty sacrificed to the “war on terror,” the liberty and prosperity of the American people have been thrown into the trash bin of history.

The militarism of the U.S. and Israeli states, and Wall Street and corporate greed, will now run their course. As the pen is censored and its might extinguished, I am signing off.

Paul Craig Roberts was an editor of the Wall Street Journal and an Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury. His latest book, HOW THE ECONOMY WAS LOST, has just been published by CounterPunch/AK Press. He can be reached at: PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com

Return to TOC

The Lies Won't Stop

2010-03-24T15:45:00.000-07:00

I received this mistitled email from Congressman Patrick Murphy. My responses are in brackets.

March 23, 2010

Mr. Rick Lutz
Levittown, PA 19057

Dear Mr. Lutz,

Yesterday, we passed one of the most important bills in a generation.

[One of the most destructive.]

Despite the confusion and outright lies that have surrounded this bill, make no mistake: health insurance reform will provide crucial protections to ensure that Americans get the healthcare that they and their children need.

[This is, of course, one of the biggest lies. Promoters have been making myriad wild claims about the benefits of this “plan,” but, no one can say honestly if this will provide any benefits at all. As I pointed out in my post “Healthcare Obamanation,”, it's just the skeleton that will be fleshed out by bureaucrats and healthcare dictators. The very “envelope” this email came in was a lie. It was titled “Reply From Congressman Patrick Murphy.” To my shame, I never sent an email to the Congressman (Gauleiter?), although I don't know what good it would do since he has already said he doesn't care what his constituents want. I did write a letter to the editor of the local rag.]

Forty million American families and four million small businesses will benefit from the largest middle-class healthcare tax credit in history. Barbara in Feasterville worked hard for forty years before losing her job at the age of 58. Overnight, Barbara was facing $1,300 in monthly premiums - more than her pension and more than she can afford. Her healthcare plan? Hope that she doesn't fall seriously ill before she qualifies for Medicare. This tax credit protects Barb, and millions like her, by ensuring access to high-quality and affordable insurance.

[More benefit lies coupled with the vilest form of demagoguery--sob stories designed to deflect rational thought with emotion. I have several from the other side in my collection. These tell of the hardships of those living under similar government run healthcare programs who are forced to leave their homelands to seek care in the U.S.A. I was above using them in my blog.]

Small businesses are not required to purchase insurance but will get tax credits if they do. Insurance reform provides $40 billion in small businesses tax credits to help companies cover up to half the cost of providing insurance for their workers.

[More than likely small businesses will find themselves driven under as has so often been the case with government “reform.” Their businesses will be absorbed by the giant chains and corporations.]

Seniors will see stronger and improved Medicare benefits. And you don't have to take my word for it: AARP has endorsed the bill stating that it "cracks down on insurance company abuses and protects and strengthens guaranteed benefits in Medicare, the program millions of our members depend on and in which millions more will soon enroll."

[I was a member of AARP for maybe a year. I joined to get discounts that might be voluntarily offered by businesses I deal with. I soon started receiving mail from AARP touting some lobbying efforts they were making to get more from the taxpayers for “seniors.” I quickly concluded they were nothing but a bunch of socialist gimme gangsters out for what they could steal. I dropped my membership. An endorsement from them is hardly a confidence builder. BTW, you can find the AARP in the list of corporate members of the CFR, Americas Ruling Party, in my americasenemies blog.]

Tony in Levittown needs an expensive medication to treat his thyroid condition and is pushed into the Medicare Part D donut hole earlier and earlier each year. Tony, along with 11,200 other seniors in Bucks County, will benefit from lower prescription drug costs, as the Part D "donut hole" is closed. And seniors' Medicare program is put on a stable financial footing, ensuring this vital program will be there to serve seniors today and those of future generations.

[Many of us who are “seniors” now may not be alive to see the eventual “fruits” of this bill, or rather of the plan that will be written by the Healthcare Commissioner and the Secretary of Health and Human Services, if it hasn't already been written, as I suspect, by the largest insurance companies in the nation and maybe the world. I do believe that those of future generations will be able to confront Murphy with “Liar! Liar! Pants on fire!]

Insurance companies no longer have free reign over our health insurance system, as we prohibited the egregious practices they've gotten away with for far too long. Insurers can no longer turn people away, or charge more, because someone has arthritis, diabetes, is a cancer survivor, is pregnant - or has any other "pre-existing condition." And they can no longer pull the rug out from families by taking away their coverage just when someone gets sick and needs coverage the most. These important changes will benefit everyone and those on the frontlines of our healthcare system agree: the doctors, nurses, and hospital associations have all endorsed the bill.

[Egregious is a good word to apply to both the demagoguery and ignorance of the insurance business displayed by this paragraph. Insurance companies not covering pre-existing conditions has been a big part of “Uncle Tom” Obama's inflammatory rhetoric. If the politicians understood how insurance works they would know that insurance companies can't cover pre-existing conditions. The whole idea behind any insurance program is shared risk. We buy insurance to cover things that might happen to us that could be financially ruinous and hope we never have to use it. Some people decide to take the risk and spend their money on other things. If insurance companies are forced to take people who wait until they have a problem to get insurance, then there is no incentive for anyone to buy insurance. All anyone would have to do is wait until they're sick. This would ruin the insurance industry. It simply couldn't operate that way. I would ask the Congressman and Obama this, if I die tomorrow, and my wife applies for a $250,000 life policy on me the day after tomorrow, can the insurance industry refuse to write the policy on the grounds of a pre-existing condition? But maybe that's the reason for the police-state mandate that all must have health coverage. Incidentally, I've yet to find a doctor, nurse, pharmacist or any other healthcare worker who thinks this is a good plan. More than likely the "leadership" of their associations has been bought.]

And children will be able to stay on their parents' insurance until they are 26 years old, helping out recent high-school or college graduates like Valerie from Dublin who is unable to find a job that offers benefits.

[Poor Valerie! If only she could have grown up in a free society where the economy had not been destroyed by big government she might have had other options than flipping burgers or, if she has her masters, managing a flipping location for a burger chain.]

When my two kids grow up, they will know that their dad stood up to the special interests to fight for Barb, Tony, and every middle-class American family whose wallets are being stretched thin by crushing healthcare costs. They will be able to look upon yesterday as the day Congress stopped kicking the can down the road and finally tackled one of the greatest challenges of our day.

[Why you hypocritical windbag. Our wallets have already been emptied by you big spenders in Washington who toady to those special interests while ranting about fighting them. You who have already looted our wallets, pockets, closets, and anywhere else we might have hidden a dime to transfer it to those special interests through bailouts and cap and trade. I would imagine your benefits package for serving Daddy Big Bucks will include health benefits for your whole family – maybe for life. When you've crushed healthcare for the rest of us, you'll probably still be able to get care in special hospitals not open to us peons.]

If you'd like to learn more about what this bill means for you and your family, I encourage you to visit my website at www.patrickmurphy.house.gov. There you can read the legislation, find detailed summaries of the bill, and find out more about what's in it for you. Also, please do not hesitate to contact me if I can help in any way. You can reach my office in Washington at (202) 225-4276, or either of my district offices in Doylestown at (215) 348-1194 or Bristol at (215) 826-1963.

[Thanks, but I'll opt out of the extra helping of meadow muffins at your website for now. However, if you are sincere about helping me in anyway, how about this:

return some of the money the Federal government has stolen from us over the years
cut the government in half (as a starter) to permit business, especially wealth producing businesses like manufacturing, farming, construction and the like to flourish once again
restore Republican principles, not the principles of the Republican party which I know is as unprincipled as the Democratic, but the principles of representative government
end special privileges for collectives such as corporations and unions and treat all citizens equally
kill the leader principle that you and the Democratic party seem to have embraced so that it might finally be buried as it should have been in 1945 along with The Leader*
restore the Constitution as the supreme law of the land]

*[To be fair, despite all of the fanfare about opposition when they knew, as we did, that it would pass, the Republinazi party was no better under Adolph Bush than is the Demonazi party under Adolph Obama.]

Sincerely,

Patrick J. Murphy

MEMBER OF CONGRESS

PJM/lm

Was the Congressman ”replying” to this letter to the editor or was his email just labeled that way to keep it out of the spam folder where it belonged?

Editor
Bucks County Courier Times

Dear Editor:

John W. Whitehead's commentary on Tuesday points to similarity between the willingness of the German people to follow “The Leader” and the willingness of the American people to accept, almost without question, the dictates of an overblown and uncontrolled government in Washington and to follow our “leaders” like sheep.

A guest opinion in the same issue praises Patrick Murphy for leadership and for “fighting for us.” If “us” is the money powers, then his votes for bail-outs, cap and trade, and the healthcare obamanation supports the latter assessment. I can attest to the accuracy of the former. He has said it was his “duty” as a “leader” to vote as he chooses despite the wishes of his constituency. He has rebuked the republican principles on which our country was founded and embraced the leadership principle that destroyed Germany. Murphy should be reminded he is elected to represent us and not to lead us.

Sooner or later we must decide if we want Congressmen to represent us or Gauleiters to lead us. The decision may soon be out of our hands...if it isn't already.

Rick Lutz
Levittown, PA 19057

I plan to list all who voted for healthcare ruination in my americasenemies blog. Murphy has earned special mention in that post.

[A copy of this post, less this comment, will be sent as an email answer to the Congressman.]

Return to TOC

HEALTHCARE OBAMANATION

2010-03-19T23:33:00.000-07:00

I started to write this several months ago, but I have been having difficulties with motivation for about five months. When I do sit down to write, I have difficulty. The reason I'm saying this is because a number of changes have been bounced back and forth since I analyzed the bill myself, but I'm confident the changes made little material difference.

My experience with counter-political groups in the past, particularly with their legislative committees, leaves me little concerned that any significant change has taken place. In cases of “controversial” legislation like this, laws the people don't want but the money powers do, a great show is usually made about changes being made to the bill and different versions being sent back and forth between committees and between the Senate and the House. These changes are usually cosmetic, but they give Senators and Representatives (Gauleiters?) an opportunity to go back to constituents with claims that they fought hard to stop the bill in its original form. In the end, they “compromised” and voted for this “improved” plan as the only means to stop the original. This show also makes it extremely difficult for those of us who have lives to lead to keep up with those minor changes. It gives those pushing the bill a chance to attack opposition on insignificant “errors” in their analysis created by those minor changes. Knowing fully that I will be vulnerable, I'm still publishing this based on my original analysis of an earlier house Bill with some updates from other sources.

A lot has been written by both sides of the argument about “Obama's” healthcare plan. Each side tries to analyze it from its own perspective and explain what is in it and what it will do. All is futility.

The plan, as represented by the Bill passed by the House of Representatives*, can't be analyzed in terms of content or effect. It is a grotesque skeleton that will be fleshed out later by the new monstreaucracy it creates and by the courts that will hear what is likely to be a storm of lawsuits to try to limit or to expand its meaning and scope.

Much of the job of fleshing out; that is, actually creating the “health care” system falls on two people and the massive bureaucracy that will by necessary to do the actual work. When I first examined this atrocity, I thought it set up what was, in effect, a Health Care Dictator. A “Health Choices Commissioner” is created and is mentioned over 200 times, usually establishing his/her considerable powers, discretions, and dutes. However, as I delved further into the bill, I found that the Commissioner, while having incredible power in his own right, may be subservient to a higher level dictator – the “Secretary of Health and Human Services.”

Again, the “Health Care Commissioner and his duties are mentioned over 200 times in the bill. Among those duties are:

defining what a “dependent” is, - the bill doesn't even define something as basic as a dependent
establishing rules for Exchange-participating health benefits plans
establishing a “grace period” whereby, for plan years beginning after the end of the 5-year period beginning with Y1, an employment-based health plan in operation as of the day before the first day of Y1 must meet the same requirements as apply to a qualified health benefits plan [so much for not effecting your current plan]
specifying age categories wherein limited age variation [premium] is permitted
specifying, in consultation with State insurance regulators, variations permitted by premium rating area [note that it requires such consultation but doesn't require the Commissioner to listen to the State regulators – it will probably be left to the courts to settle any jurisdictional arguments]
specifying conditions for family enrollment variations (such as variations within catagories and compositions of families) as specified under State law and consistent with rules of the Commissioner [no specification in the bill as to which takes priority creating an area for ongoing legal battles]
defining a “medical loss ratio” that must be met by a qualified health benefits plan

This is just a very small sampling. The defining, establishing, and specifying, not to mention requiring reports and, in turn, writing reports, goes on for most of the 200 plus times the Commissioner is mentioned.

As regards reports required of the “qualified health benefits plans,” I found this section fascinating.

The Health-care Commissioner is charged with establishing standards with which a “qualified health benefits plan” must comply “for the accurate and timely disclosure of plan documents, plan terms and conditions, claims payment policies and practices, periodic financial disclosure, data on enrollment, data on disenrollment, data on the number of claims denials, data on rating practices, information on cost-sharing and payments with respect to any out-of-network coverage, and other information as determined appropriate by the Commissioner. The Commissioner shall require that such disclosure be provided in plain language.” According to the bill, “plain language” means “language that the intended audience, including individuals with limited English proficiency, can readily understand and use because that language is clean, concise, well-organized, and follows other best practices of plain language writing.”

I find this section fascinating for several reasons:

Firstly, the number and nature of things the plan providers, and presumably, the health care providers must keep statistics on and report to the Commissioner. How can anyone even guess what the cost of this record keeping and reporting is going to be? Estimates of the cost of this bill have ranged from $800 million to $2 or 3.5 trillion. Is that just for the medical coverage or does it includes this massive record keeping and reporting? Is it only for the record keeping and reporting? I doubt that even the people who made the estimates could tell us.
Secondly, and this I find both fascinating and enlightening, is that “plain language” is defined as language that an intended audience which would include those whose English no so pretty much good. Would that include illegal aliens? Is ability to speak English not a requirement for naturalization? It must not be for the users of the system. What use would most patients have for such statistics? Is it intended for the health care providers? Maybe they've already anticipated driving all American doctors from the field and having to replace them with foreign doctors. On the other hand, maybe this is just a smokescreen to hide the inability of the bureaucrats and elected officials who are promising to “reform” health care and the insurance industry to speak the language of either.
Finally, and this should be good, the Commissioner is charged with developing and issuing guidance on best practices of plain language writing. Isn't that a kicker? These people, famous for unintelligible bureauese, will be providing “guidance” for plain English writing. Of course they might be planing to subcontract the writing to technical writers in China or India. You know—the ones who wrote the manuals for your computer, home appliances, and the items you bought that said “some assembly required.” Maybe they're planning to make Henry Kissinger Secretary of Plain English.

The “Secretary” is mentioned close to 1100 times. Again, when mentioned, the bill does not give detailed instructions to the “Secretary,” rather, as in the case of the “Commissioner,” it specifies the powers and duties of the “Secretary” which again entail considerable discretionary latitude.

A couple of examples:

the Secretary is given the power to define and develop methodology for “Interim Rules for determining how to calculate the medical loss ratio which will subsequently be built on by the Commissioner
receives recommendations from the Health Benefits Advisory Committee on benefit standards [Behold! A bureaucracy within a bureaucracy!]

There are then several paragraphs regarding the Secretary accepting or rejecting the recommendations which he apparently must do as a package. If he/she doesn't accept, the package is sent back to the committee for revision. Most of those paragraphs is written in “plain English” I suppose, so I have no idea what they are saying. But finally, we get to this:

the Secretary shall, through the rulemaking process consistent with subsection (a), adopt an initial set of benefit standards. [anyone want to guess what the “rulemaking process” is?]

There have been many articles written on this subject. I'm afraid if I try to summarize the ones I have it will be months more before I publish this. I'll just include this summary of a Fred Lucas article in cnsnews. Lucas debunks many of Obama's claims.

According to Obama, abortions would not be funded, but according to Lucas, the House bill mandates that government-run insurance exchanges provide at least one plan that covers abortion. Even if this interpretation is not correct, a number of amendments that would have specifically excluded abortion from government (taxpayer) subsidies have been rejected.

When asked if her amendment added to a Senate version of the bill would fund abortion , Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-Md) replied, “It would provide for any service deemed medically necessary or medically appropriate.” Apparently, all it would take is for a “doctor” to say carrying a child to full term would have adverse affects on the mother's mental and/or physical health and, regardless of how strong your religious beliefs may be against the unnecessary taking of a human life, you will be forced to be an accessory through your tax dollars.

Then there is the Obama claim that the “healthcare” plan will be “deficit neutral.” The Office of Management and Budget has estimated the bill and the bureaucratic monstrosity it creates will add over a trillion dollars to the budget over the next ten years. Since that estimate, OMB has reduced its projection to some 800-900 billion. Supposedly, this is due to some changes in a possible compromise bill.

But, not content to let one lie stand alone, it now claims a deficit reduction will occur. I think I recall a number in the 1 to 2 hundred million. If that's the case, then Congress should try to expand the bill to create a ten year cost in thousands of trillions of dollars. In ten years our national debt could be wiped out.

Back to reality. It is highly unlikely Obama plans to cut spending in other areas, so the only way to avoid added deficits to fund this outrageous program is to increase taxes. Obama said from the beginning of his campaign that he wanted change. I have said that his predecessors, Republican and Democrat alike, have stolen all of our dollars. Now Obama wants our to steal our change to fund his scheme.

Lucas points out that Obama claims of the number of uninsured Americans are overstated and gives evidence to support his contention. Interestingly, in a town meeting in Portsmouth NH in August, Obama said “nearly 46 million Americans don’t have health insurance coverage today,” but also said “46 million of our fellow citizens have no coverage.” Given that Obama, questions of birth certificates aside, said in Berlin that he is “a citizen of the world,” the two statements may not be synonomous.

Obama also claims that charges that illegal aliens will receive benefits are false and, in fact, the bill does exclude illegals, but attempts to introduce amendments to require verification of legal status have been rejected.

Obama also gave this half-truth to assure people that they would not have to change plans if they liked what they have: “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor,” Obama said. “If you like your private insurance plan, you can keep your plan. Period.” While it is true that the bill does not coerce change, Lucas says that it does provide incentives to employers to change their plans covering their employees. You can read the entire article at:

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/53695

Just a couple of more points:

I regret I can't give credits for this. I received it in an email that did not give the source.

From the Bucks County Courier Times
Friday March 12, 2010

Return to TOC

Hen House Safe – Fox In Charge of Security

2010-02-08T16:52:00.000-08:00

According to the UK's Financial Times, a “respected financial expert,” Peter Hancock, vice-chairman at KeyCorp, has been appointed executive vice-president in charge of, among other things, AIG's “risk.” According to Times reporter Francesco Guerrera, his new role will “position” him to succeed current CEO, Robert Benmosche. Benmosche is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Mr. Hancock is not on any of the lists I have. Can he fill Benmosche's spot at AIG without filling his spot on the CFR?

Certainly, the new “fox” has some experience in risk management. The Times credits him with being one of the inventors, while at JPMorgan, of the credit derivatives that played a dominant role in the current collapse. Mr. Hancock's lieutenants helped protect JPMorgan from the brunt of the collapse. Morgan even gained some advantage from the collapse reports the Times. What a surprise. Those with a suspicious nature might start thinking Morgan set the whole thing up. Personally, I get a distinct scent of the Savings & Loan fiasco that wiped out most of the commercial banks' competition. Anyone have the heart to tell George Bailey that it's not such a wonderful life here in the United Pottervilles of America?

Anyway, Mr. Hancock is apparently feeling remorse for the horrible financial mess into which he's put us and most of the world. He's practically working pro bono on this job. Those “familiar with the matter” says the Times, say he'll only receive a compensation package of up to $7.5 million. Reports are that Kenneth Feinberg, Obama's “pay tsar,” has signed off on the package.

At least with Morgan and Hancock doing so well, those who lost their life savings, their pensions, businesses, homes, and other livelihoods can feel some consolation in knowing not everyone is doing so badly.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0df37f30-142d-11df-8847-00144feab49a.html

Return To TOC

Regionalism - Death of the French System

2010-01-31T11:13:00.000-08:00

An article in the UK's Financial Times, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/aa3a268c-0a19-11df-8b23-00144feabdc0.html 1/26/10, indicates that a scheme of consolidation of local governments, similar to that being perpetrated here, is being foisted off on the French people.

In the Times article, Peggy Hollinger speaks of France's attachment to “local roots” and cites a “plethora” of tiny villages to support this.

According to Hollinger, France has 36,682 local governments, or 40% of the total municipalities in the EU. More than half have populations less than 500. As in the U.S., this is called “fragmentation.” In reality, it's people living where they want to with the government they want. This is unacceptable to the globalists who would rather bribe and control fewer officials in their efforts to control all aspects of our lives.

Paralleling efforts in the U.S. to rob us of our local governments, President Sarkozy wants to consolidate many public services and encourage “merger” of the small towns using “financial incentives for bigger entities.” In other words, the same bribery and extortion techniques used here are to be used against the French to destroy their local governments. Naturally, as is the case with us, the pretext is made that the locals are financially strapped and that bigger, more remote government will somehow solve the problem. I know that in this country, the economic plight of State and local government is largely a result of “help” received from the Federal government which offered seed money for programs Washington wanted. The locals were left holding the bag once a sufficient “clientèle” was created to demand the programs be continued. I don't know if this is the case in France, but I strongly suspect it.

When we fought “Home Rule,” (the destruction of local government) here in Bucks County PA, the media insisted that the only opposition came from local politicians afraid of losing their power. This despite the claim of the regionalists that no power would be lost. Apparently, the same tack is being used in France with the Times' reporting that Sarkozy's proposals “have sparked an outcry from French mayors” who feel threatened by the move. But the promoters of “Home Rule” here, when defeated, had to admit it was the people acting through their taxpayer and civic associations, not the politicians, that beat their scheme. I hope this is true, too, in France. I hope it will be the free spirit of the French that will stop this power grab and, perhaps, put another nail in the coffins of the EU and of the New World Order.

A final comment. Hollinger reports that small towns are growing as populations shift from the big cities. This creates “real fears,” she says, that reforms [created by the growth?] “will leave small communes unable to fund new duties.” Am I the only one who thinks that the idea that economic problems caused by the growth of small communities into larger ones can be solved by merging small communities into larger ones is absurd?

To see the program in America, click on “Regionalism – Death of the American System” in the Table of Contents. You can also find many articles in PDF form at http://www.pennsylvaniacrier.com

You can find much information in the back issues of the Crier as well as in separate articles posted on the site.

Return to Table of Contents

A SMALL VICTORY - MAYBE!

2009-11-17T20:20:00.000-08:00

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 ATTEMPTS TO MAKE REGIONALISM CONSTITUTIONAL

THE NEW FEDERALISM CONCEPT AND THE GLOBAL COMMUNITY

“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.”

CARTER CARRIES THROUGH

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.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *
REGIONAL COUNCIL'S ROLE
BEING REASSESSED
-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.

LEGISLATIVE REGIONALISM
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

A Prophecy from England

2009-06-20T09:08:00.000-07:00

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
Chairman
Campaign for an Independent Britain

www.eurosceptic.org.uk

--------------------------------------------------

Return to TOC

The Revolution Was

2009-05-01T14:03:00.000-07:00

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.

http://mises.org/story/2726#4
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/revolutn.html

THE REVOLUTION WAS
by Garet Garrett

1938

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

2009-05-01T09:28:00.000-07:00

[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."

http://propagandawerks.blogspot.com/

"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

Resistance Continues

2009-02-09T09:36:00.000-08:00

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.

http://ohiorepublic.blogspot.com/2009/02/state-sovereignty-resolutions.html

Return to TOC

REGIONALISM - RESISTANCE

2008-12-29T20:32:00.000-08:00

A Spark to Kindle a Flame or Just a Dying Ember?

On June 16, 2008 World Net Daily carried an article about new resistance to federal usurpation of States Rights. The resistance is coming from Oklahoma where State Representative Charles Key introduced Joint House Resolution 1089. The resolution, passed in the House by a 92-3 vote, says it is “serving notice to the federal government to cease and desist certain mandates.”

The fuel for this resistance is a U.S. District Judge’s injunction against enforcement of certain mandates of the Oklahoma Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act of 2007 which USA Today said was "arguably the nation's toughest state law targeting illegal immigration."

According to WorldNetDaily, the statute prohibits illegal immigrants from receiving tax-supported services and makes it a state crime to transport or harbor illegal immigrants. It also mandates that businesses take measures to verify the work eligibility of employees and independent contractors.

I would say this is arguably the nation’s most sensible illegal immigration law. It should be adopted by the federal government. In no case should Washington interfere with such laws in the States.

Representatives of big business don’t agree. The court action was apparently in response to challenges by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other chambers in Oklahoma to certain of the mandates. This is not surprising. Being representative of monied interests, the chambers are often on the side of bigger government at the expense of the people.

The article quotes Representative Key: "The more we stand by and watch the federal government get involved in areas where it has no legal authority, we kill the Constitution a little at a time. "The last few decades, the Constitution has been hanging by a thread."

This comment is somewhat belated and a bit naive. The “thread” on which the old concept of the Constitution hung was cut a long time ago. A new concept of a “living Constitution” replaced it. “Living Constitution is a New-Speak term that translates to “no Constitution.”

As the old concept falls into the totalitarian conflagration, we can only hope that its flames are more than just a momentary flare and that it will continue to burn until it ignites the funeral pyres of the Washingtonian Empire and of the New World Order.

At the time this article appeared in World Net Daily, the resolution had stalled in the Oklahoma Senate with a 24-24 vote. I hope to follow up on this in another post. I have not been able to determine the final resolution. I will try to contact Representative Key.

The Resolution

STATE OF OKLAHOMA
2nd Session of the 51st Legislature (2008)

HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 1089 By: Key

AS INTRODUCED
A Joint Resolution claiming sovereignty under theTenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States over certain powers; serving notice to thefederal government to cease and desist certain mandates; and directing distribution.

WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."; and

WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more; and WHEREAS, the scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and

WHEREAS, today, in 2008, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government; and

WHEREAS, many federal mandates are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and

WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states; and

WHEREAS, a number of proposals from previous administrations and some now pending from the present administration and from Congress may further violate the Constitution of the United States.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
AND THE SENATE OF THE 2ND SESSION OF THE 51ST OKLAHOMA LEGISLATURE:

THAT the State of Oklahoma hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States.

THAT this serve as Notice and Demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.

THAT a copy of this resolution be distributed to the President of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate of each state's legislature of the United States of America, and each member of the Oklahoma Congressional Delegation.

51-2-9466 SD 12/31/07

Return to TOC

NEW VOICE

2008-12-10T21:50:00.000-08:00

On December 8, 2008, the voices of those warning of the creation of a dictatorial world government were joined by the voice of the widely read and highly respected Financial Times, British counterpart of the Wall Street Journal.

But the Times does not warn. It greets the prospect with joyful anticipation. Little wonder! Martin H. Wolf - Associate Editor and Economics Commentator for the Times is a Trilateral Commission member and an attendee from Great Britain at the 2003 Bilderberg meeting in Versailles, Paris, France.

In his times article, "And now for a world government," Gideon Rachman says he never before believed there was a "plot to take over the US," but he now believes world government is possible.

This according to Rachman, "would involve much more than co-operation between nations." He says that the European Union, "a continental government for 27 countries" with a supreme court, a common currency, reams of law, a large bureaucracy, and military power, could be a model.

The author cites three reasons why he thinks the EU model could be used for a world government.

The first reason is the "international" nature of problems facing national governments. These include: global warming, global financial crisis, and the "war on terror."

The second, says Gideon, is the transportation and communications advancements that "have shrunk the world." Apparently it is no longer over 25,000 miles in circumference at the Equator. Regardless, I don’t see how that pertains specifically to the European Union "model." Never-the-less, that’s what he says.

The third Rachman says, most important to those who expect "change" for the better with Obama, is "a change in the political atmosphere" that could speed the coming of "global governance."

Rachman rehashes global warming and the financial crisis, but then adds that president elect Obama "does not share the Bush administration’s disdain for international agreements and treaties." I’ll admit I’m a little confused about the Bush administration’s disdain for international agreements. If it has such disdain, why has Bush been involved in negotiations for a North American Union? Anyway, Mr. Rachman quotes Obama’s book, The Audacity of Hope: "When the world’s sole superpower willingly restrains its power and abides by internationally agreed-upon standards of conduct, it sends a message that these are rules worth following." Like the European Union, it doesn’t seem to matter if the government must surrender part or all of national sovereignty over, under, or around the people if they can’t do it through them.

Further proof of the importance of the UN to Obama, according to the author, is his appointment of Susan Rice [Trilateral Commission and Council on Foreign Relations member] as ambassador to the UN at cabinet level.

In addition, Obama and his team are apparently being influenced by a Managing Global Insecurity project report. Project advisors include John Podesta the co-chair of Obama’s transition team and Strobe Talbott, the president of the Brookings Institution and member of the Trilateral Commission.

Rachman says, "The MGI report argues for the creation of a UN high commissioner for counter-terrorist activity, a legally binding climate-change agreement negotiated under the auspices of the UN and the creation of a 50,000-strong UN peacekeeping force. Once countries had pledged troops to this reserve army, the UN would have first call upon them." I’ll have to take his word for it because every attempt I made to download a PDF copy hung my computer.

Rachman continues, "These are the kind of ideas that get people reaching for their rifles in America’s talk-radio heartland." Let’s be thankful they still have those rifles and hope they have a good place to hide them when the FedStapo comes to collect them. I suppose if the peoples of Europe don’t have rifles, they will reach for their balls and chains, pick them up, and move in the direction their EU Masters tell them.

I like the way Rachman refers to the "soothing language" used by the MGI report, such as "responsible sovereignty." Responsible sovereignty to MGI means a nation’s leaders must consider the welfare of the people of other nations as well as their own. I interpret that as put others first if need be. If I’m right in my assessment, then "responsible sovereignty" is certainly more "soothing language" than treason.

A telling part of the article is a quote of Jacques Attali, an adviser to President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, he believes that the "core of the international financial crisis is that we have global financial markets and no global rule of law". I’ve said this for a long time. International finance and the multi-national megacorporations want power to lie at the level of their economic interests so all can be manipulated to protect and further those interests. The interests of the peoples of the world be damned.

Despite apparent "progress" toward world government, Rachman laments that achievement of "global governance" "will be a painful, slow process." He cites as a bad reason for this the national and political leaders’ "lack of will and determination." They are, he opines, "more focused on their next election."

Incomprehensibly to me, he says this "hints at a more welcome reason" for slow "progress" toward "global governance." This sounds as if he wants slow "progress." Regardless, while he calls the EU the "heartland of law-based international government" he admits the idea is unpopular. When the EU has attempted to implement its plans through referendum, he says the voters have handed it a "series of humiliating defeats."

But progress has been fastest, according to Rachman, when "far-reaching deals" have been "pushed through" without reference to the citizens (subjects?). He notes a tendency of "international governance" to be effective only when anti-democratic. Could it be that conditioning the people to obey the dictates of the EU power elite in this way is why it is welcome in Rachman’s eyes? It seems clear to me that the author’s idea of "law-based" government is dictatorship. Heaven forbid that "leaders" be more concerned about the will of the people than about the will of international finance.

Rachman concludes that "the world’s most pressing political problems may indeed be international in nature, but the average citizen’s political identity remains stubbornly local. Until somebody cracks this problem, that plan for world government may have to stay locked away in a safe at the UN."

I don’t know if Rachman is aware that it’s too late to hide the plan from the people. It was already published along with a map showing the plans that were current when compiled and published in 1941-42.

Cracking the problem of the people "stubbornly" identifying themselves with their country, their heritage, and their customs and beliefs; cracking the problem of the peoples’ unwillingness to surrender what liberty and individuality they have left to be worker bugs in the great world corporate anthill, may not be as difficult as Rachman thinks. After all, the New World Order will have its 50,000 man "peacekeeping" force.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7a03e5b6-c541-11dd-b516-000077b07658.html

Return to TOC

NEW WORLD ORDER -- DEATH OF AMERICA

2008-07-30T12:59:00.000-07:00

Double click to enlarge or use links below to go to websites.

The map above was copyrighted in 1942 and published in Philadelphia PA. It was likely compiled before Pearl Harbor and a copy was received by the Library of Congress on Feb. 25, 1942 as shown by the stamp. Another stamp suggests it was entered into the map collection on Mar. 31, 1942. I regret I had to sacrifice a bit of quality to reduce loading time here.

[Since I first posted this map, the enlargement by clicking seems to have been reduced substantially by Google (unless it's my browser). Moreover, the link at the University of San Diego seems to have been taken down. The L of C link still works, but it's still not easy to manipulate. I've found the map on the following site. Its enlargement is terrific. Details are easily seen. I believe it, too, was taken from the U of SD site as was mine.]
http://endtimepilgrim.org/nwomapbig.jpg

Below is the plan outlined at the bottom of the map. I removed it from the map to speed up the display. The image at the U. of S.D. shows this attached. A bit is clipped off at the right. Links to this site and that of the Library of Congress are given in the section Some Thoughts On The Map following the plan outline.

OUR POLICY SHALL BE THIS:

1. “We, the U.S.A., in cooperation with our allies, for reasons of our national safety and in the interests of international morality, are determined to crush and completely destroy, the military power of the Axis aggressors and their satellites regardless of cost, effort and time necessary to accomplish this task.

2. The old world order of colonial oppression, exploitation of dominions, rival imperialisms and mercenary balance of power diplomacy; of majesties, dictators, privileged minorities, plutocratic monopolists and similar social parasites; the corrupted order responsible for the present world cataclysm, endangering our national safety and peaceful progress, shall never rise again.

3. A New World Moral Order for permanent peace and freedom shall be established at the successful conclusion of the present war.

4. For reasons of history, economic structure, favorable geography and the welfare of mankind, the USA must, altruistically, assume the leadership of the newly established, democratic world order.

5. To reduce the burden and criminal waste of armaments expenditures everywhere in the world, the USA, with the cooperation of Latin- America, the British Commonwealth of Nations, and the USSR shall undertake to guarantee peace to the nations which will be permanently disarmed and demilitarized after the conclusion of the present war.

6. In order to be able, in fulfillment of our obligations, to effectively prevent the possibility of a recurrence of another world cataclysm, the invincibility of the USA as a military, naval and air power, shall be the major prerequisite.

7. For realistic considerations of strategy and our invulnerability, it is imperative that the USA shall obtain relinquishment of controls of their possessions from all foreign Powers in the entire Western Hemisphere, its surrounding waters and strategic island outposts as outlined on accompanying map.

8. For considerations of hemispheric defense and in the spirit and tradition of the new Monroe Doctrine of hemispheric solidarity and the “Good Neighbor” policy, the USA, with the consent of the Latin-American Republics, shall obtain control and protectorate rights of the relinquished territories.

9. To strengthen our position in the Caribbean area which is of obvious importance to hemispheric defense, all possible inducements shall be offered to our neighbors of Central America and the West Indies to facilitate their entrance as equal states of the USA as outlined on map.

10. To fortify the politico-economic unity of the Western Hemisphere, the USA shall ‘promote and assist the unification of South America into a well organized, democratic, federated “United States of South America”.

11. The liberated British, French and Netherlands Guianas shall be reorganized as one state of the U.S.S.A.

12. All Powers shall relinquish their controls of their colonial, mandate and strategic island possessions everywhere in the world.

13. The British Commonwealth of Nations, the second military and naval Power of importance cooperating in a binding compact with the USA as a Power for freedom, shall retain and acquire control of such territories, peace-security bases and strategic island outposts essential for the maintenance of world peace and freedom of the seas as outlined on map.

14. The USSR, the third military Power of importance cooperating with the USA as a Power for freedom and the maintenance of world peace, shall acquire control of the liberated, disorganized adjacent areas and those of Germany-Austria to be reeducated and eventually incorporated as equal republics of the USSR, as approximately outlined on map.

15. A World League of Nationalities with arbitration and supervision powers shall be organized.

16. A World Court with punitive powers of absolute boycott, quarantine blockade and occupation by international police, against lawbreakers of international morality shall be organized.

17. The USA, with the close cooperation of the United States of South America, the British Commonweaith of Nations, the USSR and the World League of Nationalities, shall promote and assist in the unification of the relinquished territories and the areas at present unsoundly divided into well organized, democratic and absolutely demilitarized federated republics as approximately outlined on map.

18. The areas known as Netherlands, Belgium, Luxemburg, Switzerland, France, Spain, Portugal, the ls1and of Corsica, and eventually Italy and the islands of Sardinia and Sicily shall be unified as a demilitarized, federated “United States of Europe”.

19. The areas known as Sweden, Norway, Denmark and the Spitsbergen islands shall be unified as a demilitarized, federated “United States ot Scandinavia”.

20. The continent of Africa shall be reorganized and unified as a demilitarized federated “Union of African Republics”.

21. The areas known as Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Hejas, Yemen, Aden and Oman, shall be unified as a demilitarized union of “ Arabian Federated Republics.”

22. The areas known as India, including Afghanistan, Baluchistan, Nepal, Bhutan and Burma shall be unified as a demilitarized “Federated Republics of India”.

23. The areas known as China, Inner Mongolia, Tibet, Thailand, Malaya, Indo-China and Korea, shall be unified as a demilitarized, federated “United Republics of China”.

24. The areas known as Greece, Macedonia, Albania, Crete, Dodecanese and adjacent islands in the Aegean Sea shall be unified as a demilitarized “Federated Republic of Greece”.

25. The areas known as Eire and Northern Ireland shall be unified as a demilitarized independent republic of “Eire”.

26. The area of the Holy Land of the ancient Hebrews, at present known as Palestine and Trans-Jordan, and the adjacent requisite regions as outlined on map, for considerations of history and the imperative necessity to alleviate a post-war refugee problem, shall be unified as a demilitarized independent republic of “Hebrewland”.

27. The area known as European Turkey, adjacent to the Dardanelles, sea of Marmora and Bosphorus, for considerations of realistic peace strategy shall be placed under joint control of USSR and Turkey.

28. The area known as Turkey shall be a demilitarized independent republic of “Turkey”.

29. All problems of exchange, transfer and repatriation of populations shall be administered by the World League of Nationalities.

30. The criminal perpetrators and their partners in guilt of this hideous war shall be brought to justice and unforgetable punishment administered.

31. All subjects of Japan and all persons of Japanese origin of doubtful loyalty shall be permanently expelled from the entire Western Hemisphere, USA protectorates and strategic island outposts and their property confiscated for post-war reconstruction needs.

32. All subjects of Germany and Italy and all persons of German and Italian origin known as active supporters of nazi and fascist ideologies shall be treated similarly.

33. German, Italian and Japanese immigration to the Western Hemisphere, its protectorates and is1and outposts shall be indefinitely stopped.

34. All persons of German origin in East Prussia and the Rhineland shall be transferred to inner Germany and the regions permanently de-Prussianized.

35. All persons of German, Italian and Japanese origin shall be permanently expelled from their now conquered territories and their property confiscated for post-war reconstruction needs.

36. To cleanse the .populations of the defeated Axis aggressors of the intoxication of military chauvinism; to effectuate the removal and destruction of their potential military establishments; to recover the accumulated loot and to re-educate them for their eventual membership in the Family of Nations, the areas of Germany-Austria, Italy and Japan shall be hermetically and indefinitely quarantined and administered by appointed Governors subject to supervision by the World League of Nationalities.

37. All resources, industrial and 1abor capacity of the quarantined areas shall be employed for the post-war restoration and reconstruction needs.

38. To reduce the numerical power of the aggressor nations, as a potential military advantage, a Population Control Policy shall be elaborated and applied in the quarantined areas.

39. In the New World Moral Order which we seek to establish, beside the
essential political freedom, the following fundamental economic changes are imperative:

(a) Nationalization of all natural resources and equitable distribution of same to all nations everywhere in the world;

(b) Nationalization of international banking, foreign investments, railroads and power plants - everywhere in the world;

(c) Nationalization of an armaments producing establishments by all remaining military powers;

(d) Federal controll of foreign commerce and shipping;

(e) The establishment of a world common monetary system;

(f) World-wide limitations of interest rates to maximum of two percent.

40. To retain the victory and leadership of our united democratic effort the aim of which is not vengeance or exploitation, but freedom and security to all nations for peaceful progress - the unified “Supreme War Command of the United Nations” at the conclusion of the present war, shall be reorganized and transformed into a permanent “Supreme Military and Economic Council” collaborating with the “World League of Nationalities” in post-war reconstruction and to enforce world peace.

41. The “Supreme Military and Economic Council” shall appoint the Governors to administer the quarantined areas until their eventual parole. For this purposeful beginning we must fight until absolute victory.

Maurice Gomberg

Some Thoughts On The Map

This article accompanies and explains the map posted here.

To view the original map, go to the Library of Congress. It is a lot harder to navigate and you have to have special software to download, but I include it here for those who want to see the original.
http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.gmd/g3200.ct001256

Alternatively, you can go directly to the source copy of the map I posted at the Univ. of San Diego site. A little got clipped off the map when the U. of S.D. copied it from the L. of C., but it's the easiest to navigate and to download if that interests you.
http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/maps/1900s/1942world4000.jpg

The map is titled “Outline of Post-War New World Map” and calls for the U.S. to take the lead in establishing a “New World Moral Order”. It was copyrighted and published in Philadelphia, Pa. in 1942 by Maurice Gomberg. Most of us who were aware of the map believe it was actually compiled before Pearl Harbor. It was certainly not put together overnight.

Not all of the changes called for have been realized--yet, but many have. There are probably many reasons why not all have been attained. For one, the plans made by this New World “Moral” Order may have changed. What seemed advantageous to them in 1941 or 42 may not have been in 1945 and still may not be today. For another, it was an incredibly ambitious plan and much resistance was probably felt and time was needed in those areas where force of arms was not expedient. The Moslems also seem to have resisted strongly and been a major stumbling block. Of more importance are those areas where they were successful and in others where progress toward their goals continues slowly to this day.

Examine carefully the area of Eastern Europe and you’ll see such places as the Polish SSR, the Czechian SSR, the Rumanian SSR, and so on. The countries we were told were ceded to the Soviet Union at Yalta by a “sick” FDR already had there fates sealed in 1941 or 42, not in Moscow, but in Philadelphia. You will also see some unrealized segments of the plan such as the Finnish SSR and the Iranian SSR. Too, the eastern block has broken away from the Soviet Union, or so it appears. Is the plan falling apart? Not likely. It’s more likely that the planners see a greater advantage in releasing those countries from their former captivity, possibly to eventually become part of the “United States of Europe (EU).” The EU would otherwise be too small to constitute a regional superstate, which seems to be at least an intermediate goal of these "planners." (At the time I originally wrote this, there was no visible movement toward including those countries in the EU.)

The consolidation of Europe is one of the phases that has been slowly continuing. The first step was the common market. The latest major step was the Euro Dollar. With the countries of Europe sharing a common money supply, it will be difficult to avoid the ultimate end--their sovereignty lost in the European Union. In the meantime, conditioning of the people to accept it will continue. (Again, much of this has been accomplished since I first wrote this.)

Turning to Africa, we see another consolidation--the Union of African Republics. Major stumbling blocks have been removed from the road to this goal -- the white governments of Rhodesia and South Africa. Did it seem just a tad inconsistent and hypocritical when our government condemned and embargoed South Africa for “human rights violations” while granting “Most Favored Nation” status to the country that had savagely raped Tibet?--the country whose government is probably the most brutal and oppressive in history? If you thought it hypocritical, I agree with you. If you thought it inconsistent, I would ask, “With what?” If you’ve taken or will take the time to look at Asia, you’ll see that that peaceful but unfortunate land had already been predestined to be part of the United Republics of China. So the actions of our government in relation to Africa and Asia were consistent with the plans published in 1942. While black Americans and “liberals” cheered the “liberation” of the blacks in Rhodesia and South Africa, the way was cleared to enslave the entire continent.

Again, if we look at Asia, we see poor Tibet already merged into China, along with Sinkiang, Inner Mongolia, Korea, Indo China, and Thailand. With the fall of Vietnam, Laos, and North Korea to Chinese Communism, it shouldn’t take much to make them United “Republics”. As we continue to make China the premiere economic, military, and political power in Asia, it will be difficult for South Korea and Thailand to avoid absorption--if that is still the plan.

The Federal Republics of India were a failure, or so it would seem. Moslem Pakistan didn’t go along with the plan and I wonder how Buddist Burma was to be integrated into India. It would have made more sense as part of China. True, the game in Europe for centuries has been to make sure territorial changes after each war placed a sizable minority in new area gained by the victor. That assured grounds for another war. Maybe that was the idea. If Burma (now Myanmar, I think) were joined to India today, and Thailand became part of China, it would provide an excellent opportunity for war along an extended border in a narrow strip of land.

The best I saved for last--the United States of America. Take notice that the entire North American continent, including Greenland, Canada, Mexico, and Central America are part of the United States. Think it can’t happen here? NAFTA? CAFTA? Like the Common Market, NAFTA and CAFTA are the first steps. Is illegal immigration from Mexico unstoppable or is it a means of creating a sort of Fifth Column that might eventually ease the merger with Mexico? If the planners of this New World “Moral” Order do get their way, our sovereignty and our Constitution will be lost forever. (At the time of the writing of this revision, negotiations are already underway between Bush, Martin of Canada, and Fox of Mexico to create a North American Union. The claim is made that this is for trade purposes only and not a political union, but you can bet the political union will follow. Eventually, the rest of North America will be included. As plans for the NAU continue behind the backs of the American people a “Trans-Texas Highway” is also in progress. Called by many the “NAFTA Highway,” it will disect Texas and terminate initially in Kansas City at a Mexican customs building. That building will have the same status as an Embassy. It will be considered Mexican soil. Cargo-tainers will be offloaded from Chinese ships in Mexican ports, by-passing the Longshoremen and our West Coast ports. More jobs for Mexicans at the expense of Americans.)

Be sure to read the outline of the plan. To cut the map size, I posted a separate file. For those who can connect the dots, it explains a lot of what has been happening in recent years. By the way, the idea of the U.S. as world policeman was not new. Cecil Rhodes dreamed of the U.S. taking over England's self-appointed role more than a century ago.

I've had my blueprint copy of the map for over thirty years. Those of us who had a copy or knew of it are not certain who was behind it, but we made a strong guess that it was the World Federalists. They and other similar organizations have enjoyed substantial support from the international financiers and their tax free foundations. Some have suggested the Carnegie Funds and Foundations are behind it. The financiers seek a world government of, by, and for themselves. The larger and more remote the government is the less control we at the bottom will have as power shifts to the top. Through the control of all natural resources as the outline of the plan shows, the international financiers and the multi-national megacorporations will come to own or control all means of production.

World Government is propagandized as a great boon to mankind, but the humanity will be sucked from us as the entire human race is reduced to serfdom or slavery—to the status of cattle.

World Order Through Over A Century

There may be some who think George H. W. Bush was the first to talk of a New World Order. It's understandable why. The media stumbled all over itself to diffuse what appeared to be a bomb. But those media people must have been the most uninformed ever to carry a press card because the word had been out for a long time. Here are quotes related to a "world order" or a "new world order," capitalized and not capitalized, from as far back as the late 19th Century.

"It [a League] will mean, however, a certain limitation upon their [large and powerful states] freedom of action; they must renounce any claim to overcome the weaker by their superior strength, and they must forego the right in any dispute to resort straightway to force; they must be prepared to use their power in behalf of the established law though their own rights be not immediately endangered. Secret treaties and alliances must be forbidden, and disarmament be brought about." --from Woodrow Wilson's, "The State", 1898, Special Edition revised by Edward Elliott, D. C. Heath & Co., 1918.

"The old world order changed when this war-storm broke. The old international order passed away as suddenly, as unexpectedly, and as completely as if it had been wiped out by a gigantic flood, by a great tempest, or by a volcanic eruption. The old world order died with the setting of that day's sun and a new world order is being born while I speak, with birth-pangs so terrible that it seems almost incredible that life could come out of such fearful suffering and such overwhelming sorrow." -- Nicholas Murray Butler, in an address delivered before the Union League of Philadelphia, Nov. 27, 1915

"The peace conference has assembled. It will make the most momentous decisions in history, and upon these decisions will rest the stability of the new world order and the future peace of the world." -- M. C. Alexander, Executive Secretary of the American Association for International Conciliation, in a subscription letter for the periodical International Conciliation (1919)

"If there are those who think we are to jump immediately into a new world order, actuated by complete understanding and brotherly love, they are doomed to disappointment. If we are ever to approach that time, it will be after patient and persistent effort of long duration. The present international situation of mistrust and fear can only be corrected by a formula of equal status, continuously applied, to every phase of international contacts, until the cobwebs of the old order are brushed out of the minds of the people of all lands." -- Dr. Augustus O. Thomas, president of the World Federation of Education Associations (August 1927), quoted in the book "International Understanding: Agencies Educating for a New World" (1931)

"This World Youth movement claims to represent and affect the politico-social activities of a grand total of forty million adherents - under the age of thirty...It may play an important and increasing role in the consolidation of a new world order." -- H.G. Wells The Fate of Man 1939

"... when the struggle seems to be drifting definitely towards a world social democracy, there may still be very great delays and disappointments before it becomes an efficient and beneficent world system. Countless people ... will hate the new world order ... and will die protesting against it. When we attempt to evaluate its promise, we have to bear in mind the distress of a generation or so of malcontents, many of them quite gallant and graceful-looking people." -- from "The New World Order", H. G. Wells, (1939)

The term Internationalism has been popularized in recent years to cover an interlocking financial, political, and economic world force for the purpose of establishing a World Government. Today Internationalism is heralded from pulpit and platform as a 'League of Nations' or a 'Federated Union' to which the United States must surrender a definite part of its National Sovereignty. The World Government plan is being advocated under such alluring names as the 'New International Order,' 'The New World Order,' 'World Union Now,' 'World Commonwealth of Nations,' 'World Community,' etc. All the terms have the same objective; however, the line of approach may be religious or political according to the taste or training of the individual." -- excerpt from A Memorial to be Addressed to the House of Bishops and the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies of the Protestant Episcopal Church in General Convention (October 1940)

"In the first public declaration on the Jewish question since the outbreak of the war, Arthur Greenwood, member without portfolio in the British War Cabinet, assured the Jews of the United States that when victory was achieved an effort would be made to found a new world order based on the ideals of 'justice and peace.'" -- excerpt from article entitled "New World Order Pledged to Jews," in the New York Times (October 1940)

"If totalitarianism wins this conflict, the world will be ruled by tyrants, and individuals will be slaves. If democracy wins, the nations of the earth will be united in a commonwealth of free peoples, and individuals, wherever found, will be the sovereign units of the new world order." -- The Declaration of the Federation of the World, produced by the Congress on World Federation, adopted by the Legislatures of North Carolina (1941), New Jersey (1942), Pennsylvania (1943), and possibly other states.

"...until The Union shall gradually become the government of all mankind and armament be reduced to a world police force." -- from "Union Now with Britain, Rhodes Scholar Clarence Streit, Harper and Brothers, 1941

"Twenty years ago the majority of us began to wreck the new world order for which all of us had fought." -- from Streit.
And we were told the WW's were fought "to make the world safe for democracy".

"The very nature of my Trade Union work has compelled the study of international affairs and has caused me to examine the obstacles which were preventing humanity from coming together and establishing a world order." -- from "The Balance Sheet of the Future", The "Rt. Hon." [quotes mine] Ernest Bevens, Minister of Labor and National Service, Member of the British War Cabinet, Robert M. McBride & Co., 1941.

"At the end of the last war we struggled to establish a World Order..." -- from Bevens."

...one of the striking things in the "Atlantic Charter deals with raw materials, and I think that what applies to raw materials will apply largely to certain primary foods like wheat. There must be an acceptance that raw materials must no longer be the prerogative of scramble and speculation. There must be organization and control." -- from Bevens
Did you get that? If the Anglo-American led New World Order wins, they will control not only raw materials but the primary food supply as well. Kiss liberty goodbye!!!

"It is on that that our liberties really depend at the last resort, and by which the future Government of the world will be determined." -- from Bevens.

"On that day, after triumph over the forces of aggression, free men and women can set to work to build a new world order, whose foundation shall be social security and liberty." -- from Bevens"

...the next stage in human development must be directed toward world order. Anything [or anybody?] which stands in the way of achieving the consummation of that desirable end to which humanity is striving must be subordinated to the greater purpose." -- from Bevens"

That we use the whole of our democratic strength to contribute to progress and the establishment of a world order." -- from Bevens.

"New World Order Needed for Peace: State Sovereignty Must Go, Declares Notre Dame Professor" -- title of article in The Tablet (Brooklyn) (March 1942)

"Undersecretary of State Sumner Welles tonight called for the early creation of an international organization of anti-Axis nations to control the world during the period between the armistice at the end of the present war and the setting up of a new world order on a permanent basis." -- from an article in the Philadelphia Inquirer (June 1942)

"The statement went on to say that the spiritual teachings of religion must become the foundation for the new world order and that national sovereignty must be subordinate to the higher moral law of God." -- American Institute of Judaism, excerpt from article in the New York Times (December 1942)

"To win this peace three things seem to me necessary--first, we must plan now for peace on a world basis; second, the world must be free, politically and economically, for nations and for men, that peace may exist in it; third, America must play an active, constructive part in freeing it and keeping its peace."-- from "One World", Wendell L. Willkie, Simon & Schuster, 1943.

"There are some plain common-sense considerations applicable to all these attempts at world planning. They can be briefly stated: 1. To talk of blueprints for the future or building a world order is, if properly understood, suggestive, but it is also dangerous. Societies grow far more truly than they are built. A constitution for a new world order is never like a blueprint for a skyscraper." -- Norman Thomas, in his book "What Is Our Destiny" (1944)

"He [John Foster Dulles] stated directly to me that he had every reason to believe that the Governor [Thomas E. Dewey of New York] accepts his point of view and that he is personally convinced that this is the policy that he would promote with great vigor if elected. So it is fair to say that on the first round the Sphinx of Albany has established himself as a prima facie champion of a strong and definite new world order." -- excerpt from article by Ralph W. Page in the Philadelphia Bulletin (May 1944)

"National Socialism will use its own revolution for establishing of a new world order."
Adolph Hitler during World War II

"World law should be enforceable directly upon individuals." -- a part of the 1948 platform of the World Federalists contained in Appendix A of The World Must Be Governed, Vernon Nash, Harper, 1949. Cited in "Power and International Relations", Inis L. Claude, Jr., Random House, 1962

“We shall have World Government whether or not we like it. The only question is, whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent.”
James P. Warburg before the U.S. Senate (Feb. 17, 1950) quoted in “Conquest or Consent” by Wickliffe B. Vennard, Sr., Forum Publications, 1965.

"If there is a violation [in world order or disarmament], the control organ must have power to move to meet it: and must be empowered to move against individuals, not to wage war against states." from "The Price of Peace: A Plan for Disarmament", Charles Bolte', Beacon, 1956. Cited in Claude.

"All law in a disarmed society must be applicable to, and enforced upon, individuals." from "The League of Nations: Another Rope of Sand", Vernon Nash, Current History, August 1960. Cited in Claude.
We didn't attack Afghanistan, we attacked Osama Bin Laden. We haven't been waging war against Iraq! We've been waging war against Saddam and other "individuals" to "liberate" the Iraqi people.

"To destroy arms, however, is not enough. We must create even as we destroy - creating world-wide law and law enforcement as we outlaw world-wide war and weapons." John F. Kennedy Future of the United Nations Organizations 1961

Grenville Clark and Louis B. Clark: "...an effective system of enforceable world law in the limited field of war prevention." -- from "World Peace Through World Law", 2nd ed., Harvard U. Press, 1960. Cited in Chapter 6: "World Government: Monopoly of Power" of "Power and International Relations", Inis L. Claude, Jr., Random House, 1962

"A major theme in the theory of world government is the subjection of the individual to the disciplinary authority and power of a central regime, in so far as this may be essential to the preservation of world order......the distinctiveness of the world government solution is assumed to lie in its prescription for abandoning the effort to impose order upon states in favor of the effort to regulate individual behavior." from "Power and International Relations", Claude, 1962.

Norman Cousins: "...the answer must lie in the establishment of an authority which takes away from nations, summarily and completely, not only the machinery of battle that can wage war, but the machinery of decision that can start a war." from "In Place of Folly", Harper, 1961. Cited in Claude, 1962.

"'The United Nations', he told an audience at Harvard University, 'has not been able--nor can it be able--to shape a new world order which events so compellingly demand. ... The new world order that will answer economic, military, and political problems', he said, 'urgently requires, I believe, that the United States take the leadership among all free peoples to make the underlying concepts and aspirations of national sovereignty truly meaningful through the federal approach.'" -- Gov. Nelson Rockefeller of New York, in an article entitled "Rockefeller Bids Free Lands Unite: Calls at Harvard for Drive to Build New World Order" -- New York Times (February 1962).
Two things to note here. One is that the UN is to be superceded by a US led organization and the second is the Orwellian double-speak idea of making the underlying concepts and aspirations of national sovereignty meaningful by eliminating national sovereignty.

"The prediction for Latin America, then, is that it will forge ahead to prosperity and copartnership with Europe and Anglo-America under an effective superstate, or will, in its various parts, remain economically and politically dependent on outside countries--North American, West European, or Russian, with the Chinese possibly taking a hand. The most probable outcome is that it will, following the lead of Europe, gradually form a superstate and become an advanced member of the Atlantic Community." -- from "The Coming World Transformation", Ferdinand Lundberg, Doubleday & Co., Inc., 1963.

"Instead of world rule by the Comintern, what is much more likely prospect is eventual rule of most of the world by a federation of the continental superstates outlined--United Europe, the United States (eventually including Canada), United Latin America, United Central Africa, United North Africa, and a United Far East."-- Lundberg.
The United States as outlined on the New World Moral Order map included Canada, Greenland, Mexico, and Central America. NAFTA is the first step as the Common Market was the first toward the “United States of Europe” shown on the map.

"For the central purpose of the international community to flourish with vitality and appeal equal to that of basic national purposes, peoples must be convinced that their individual and collective interests, presently cared for by the state, can better be served by the larger world community, and they must be capable of sublimating their loyalty to the global dominium." -- from "International Integration: Purpose, Progress, and Prospects," by Elmer Plischke in "Systems of Integrating the International Community," Ed. by Elmer Plischke, D. Van Nostrand Co., 1964.

"Only within the past half century have governments been willing to take the major step of establishing a global, general international confederation possessing broad powers of peacekeeping and empowered to deal with political as well as social, economic, humanitarian, and juridical matters." -- from Plischke

"In recent years, as noted, many new global and regional confederations, multipartite diplomatic forums, supranational communities, and intergovernmental councils, commissions, and agencies have been created--each intended to afford some aspect of interstate institutionalization." -- from Plischke

"...The United Nations Disarmament Committee, which had been dormant for several years, suddenly came to life when the Soviet Union evinced an unexpected interest in a proposal for a treaty to prohibit the "dissemination" of nuclear weapons by any nuclear power to any non-nuclear power....Many Americans and Britons saw the anti-dissemination treaty as an important new step toward world peace and joined the opposition to an Atlantic nuclear force, on the ground that it was the only remaining obstacle to agreement with the Soviet Union." -- from "The Atlantic Idea and Its European Rivals, Harold van B. Cleveland, published for the Council on Foreign Relations by McGraw-Hill, 1966.

"The developing coherence of Asian regional thinking is reflected in a disposition to consider problems and loyalties in regional terms, and to evolve regional approaches to development needs and to the evolution of a new world order." -- Richard Nixon, in Foreign Affairs (October 1967)

"He [President Nixon] spoke of the talks as a beginning, saying nothing more about the prospects for future contacts and merely reiterating the belief he brought to China that both nations share an interest in peace and building 'a new world order.'" -- excerpt from an article in the New York Times (February 1972)

"If instant world government, Charter review, and a greatly strengthened International Court do not provide the answers, what hope for progress is there? The answer will not satisfy those who seek simple solutions to complex problems, but it comes down essentially to this: The hope for the foreseeable lies, not in building up a few ambitious central institutions of universal membership and general jurisdiction as was envisaged at the end of the last war, but rather in the much more decentralized, disorderly and pragmatic process of inventing or adapting institutions of limited jurisdiction and selected membership to deal with specific problems on a case-by-case basis ... In short, the 'house of world order' will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down. It will look like a great 'booming, buzzing confusion,' to use William James' famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault." -- Richard N. Gardner, in Foreign Affairs (April 1974)Wow!!! An "end run around national sovereignty!!!" Might that be anything like a "coalition?" Perhaps international treaties resulting from engineered scares such as “man made” global warming?

"The existing order is breaking down at a very rapid rate, and the main uncertainty is whether mankind can exert a positive role in shaping a new world order or is doomed to await collapse in a passive posture. We believe a new order will be born no later than early in the next century and that the death throes of the old and the birth pangs of the new will be a testing time for the human species." -- Richard A. Falk, in an article entitled "Toward a New World Order: Modest Methods and Drastic Visions," in the book "On the Creation of a Just World Order" (1975)

"My country's history, Mr. President, tells us that it is possible to fashion unity while cherishing diversity, that common action is possible despite the variety of races, interests, and beliefs we see here in this chamber. Progress and peace and justice are attainable. So we say to all peoples and governments: Let us fashion together a new world order." -- Henry Kissinger, in address before the General Assembly of the United Nations, October (1975)

"At the old Inter-American Office in the Commerce Building here in Roosevelt's time, as Assistant Secretary of State for Latin American Affairs under President Truman, as chief whip with Adlai Stevenson and Tom Finletter at the founding of the United Nations in San Francisco, Nelson Rockefeller was in the forefront of the struggle to establish not only an American system of political and economic security but a new world order." -- part of article in the New York Times (November 1975)

"Our nation is uniquely endowed to play a creative and decisive role in the new order which is taking form around us."
Henry Kissinger Seattle Post Intelligence (1975)

"Two centuries ago our forefathers brought forth a new nation; now we must join with others to bring forth a new world order."
The Declaration of Interdependence (1976)

"A New World Order" -- title of article on commencement address at the University of Pennsylvania by Hubert H. Humphrey, printed in the Pennsylvania Gazette (June 1977)

"We must establish a new world order based on justice, on equity, and on peace."
Fidel Castro United Nations (1979)

"For American programmes to make sense at home, they must also make sense in global terms. Opinion polls cannot convey the unarticulated growth in awareness and maturation of the American people, who are all too often alienated from the cruder methods of bribery and flattery employed by the brokers of opinion, engineers of social change and vociferous contestants for political power." -- from "Novus Ordo Seclorum:America and the Global Community Towards the Year 2000", Indian Rhodes Scholar Raghavan Iyer, Concord Grove Press, (1983).

"The globalization of America needs to be begun." from Iyer.

"We are moving toward a new world order, the world of communism. We shall never turn off that road."
Mikhail Gorbachev (1987)

"Further global progress is now possible only through a quest for universal consensus in the movement towards a new world order." -- Mikhail Gorbachev, in an address at the United Nations (December 1988)

"Ultimately, our objective is to welcome the Soviet Union back into the world order. Perhaps the world order of the future will truly be a family of nations." President George Bush Texas A&M University (1989)

“We can see beyond the present shadows of war in the Middle East to a new world order where the strong work together to deter and stop aggression. This was precisely Franklin Roosevelt's and Winston Churchill's vision for peace for the post-war period." -- Richard Gephardt, in the Wall Street Journal (September 1990)

"We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations a new world order, a world where the rule of law, not the rule of the jungle, governs the conduct of nations. When we are successful, and we will be, we have a real chance at this new world order, an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the U.N.'s founders." President George Bush (1991)

"For two centuries we've done the hard work of freedom. And tonight we lead the world in facing down a threat to decency and humanity. What is at stake is more than one small country, it is a big idea - a new world order, where diverse nations are drawn together in common cause to achieve the universal aspirations of mankind: peace and security, freedom, and the rule of law. Such is a world worthy of our struggle, and worthy of our children's future."
President George Bush State of the Union Address (1991)

"We will succeed in the Gulf. And when we do, the world community will have sent an enduring warning to any dictator or despot, present or future, who contemplates outlaw aggression. The world can therefore seize this opportunity to fufill the long-held promise of a new world order - where brutality will go unrewarded, and aggression will meet collective resistance."
President George Bush State of the Union Address (1991)

"If we do not follow the dictates of our inner moral compass and stand up for human life, then his lawlessness will threaten the peace and democracy of the emerging new world order we now see, this long dreamed-of vision we've all worked toward for so long." -- President George Bush (January 1991). Reference to Saddam's refusal to obey the New World Order.

"But it became clear as time went on that in Mr. Bush's mind the New World Order was founded on a convergence of goals and interests between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, so strong and permanent that they would work as a team through the U.N. Security Council." -- excerpt from A. M. Rosenthal, in the New York Times (January 1991)

"I would support a Presidential candidate who pledged to take the following steps: ... At the end of the war in the Persian Gulf, press for a comprehensive Middle East settlement and for a 'new world order' based not on Pax Americana but on peace through law with a stronger U.N. and World Court." -- George McGovern, in the New York Times (February 1991)

"... it's Bush's baby, even if he shares its popularization with Gorbachev. Forget the Hitler 'new order' root; F.D.R. used the phrase earlier." -- William Safire, in the New York Times (February 1991)

"Our efforts to create a sustainable world society and economy demands that we diminish the profligate lifestyles in the industrialized countries through a slow down in consumption--which may, in any case be forced on us by environmental contraints." -- from "The First Global Revolution: A Report by the Council of The Club of Rome", Alexander King & Bertrand Schneider, Pantheon Books, (1991).

"We believe we are creating the beginning of a new world order coming out of the collapse of the U.S.-Soviet antagonisms." -- Brent Scowcroft (August 1990), quoted in the Washington Post (May 1991)

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries." - David Rockefeller Baden-Baden, Germany (1991)

"The task of saving the earth's environment must and will become the central organizing principle of the post-Cold War world." Senator Al Gore Putting People First (1992)
Is that the motivation for Gore’s film? Erode national sovereignty piecemeal to “organize” the world?

“How I Learned to Love the New World Order" -- article by Sen. Joseph R. Biden, Jr. in the Wall Street Journal (April 1992)

"How to Achieve The New World Order" -- title of book excerpt by Henry Kissinger, in Time magazine (March 1994)

"The Final Act of the Uruguay Round, marking the conclusion of the most ambitious trade negotiation of our century, will give birth - in Morocco - to the World Trade Organization, the third pillar of the New World Order, along with the United Nations and the International Monetary Fund." -- part of full-page advertisement by the government of Morocco in the New York Times (April 1994)

"New World Order: The Rise of the Region-State" -- title of article by Kenichi Ohmae, political reform leader in Japan, in the Wall Street Journal (August 1994)

The "new world order that is in the making must focus on the creation of a world of democracy, peace and prosperity for all." -- Nelson Mandela, in the Philadelphia Inquirer (October 1994)

The renewal of the nonproliferation treaty was described as important "for the welfare of the whole world and the new world order." -- President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, in the New York Times (April 1995)

"Alchemy for a New World Order" -- article by Stephen John Stedman in Foreign Affairs (May/June 1995)

"We are not going to achieve a new world order without paying for it in blood as well as in words and money." -- Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., in Foreign Affairs (July/August 1995)

At the White House, Mr. Bush said the United States will help other nations deal with terrorists. "If governments need training or resources to meet this commitment, America will help."He also said September 11 is creating a new world order in which former foes become U.S. allies.--The Washington Times (March 12, 2002)

"Do not fear; put your trust in him! The life-giving power of his light is an incentive for building a new world order based on just ethical and economic relationships,"
Pope Benedict, Vatican City (Dec 25, 2005)
Life giving power of whose light? God's? Jesus'? Lucifer's?

These quotations, and many others like them, demonstrate clearly that the concept of a world order and the words "new world order" have been in use for decades and did not originate with President George Bush in 1990. The "old world order" is one based on independent nation-states. The "new world order" involves the elimination of the sovereignty and independence of nation-states and some form of world government. This means the end of the United States of America, the U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights as we now know them. Many of the new world order proposals involve the conversion of the United Nations and its agencies to a world government, complete with a world army, a world parliament, a World Court, global taxation, and numerous other agencies to control every aspect of human life (education, nutrition, health care, population, immigration, communications, transportation, commerce, agriculture, finance, the environment, etc.). The various notions of the "new world order" differ as to details and scale, but agree on the basic principle and substance.

Return to TOC

REGIONALISM--DEATH OF THE AMERICAN SYSTEM

2008-07-30T06:59:00.000-07:00

I wrote this article a long time ago for a group I was involved in. We were fighting regionalism in Bucks County PA, so much of it is directed at our situation although the regionalization program is nationwide. I have made some minor updates since.

Ironically, I had a book "Beware Metro" by Phoebe Courtney at the time, but I never read it. I've recently found it as an ebook. If anyone wants a better look at the national scope, they can download the book at:

http://www.sweetliberty.org/beware_metro.html

This regional scheme to destroy our State and local governments parallels the efforts to destroy our national sovereignty.

REGIONALISM -- DEATH OF THE AMERICAN SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT

"If the day should ever arrive, (which God forbid!), when the people of the different parts of our country shall allow their local affairs to be administered by prefects sent from Washington, and when the self-government of the states shall have been so far lost as that of the departments of France, or even so far as that of the counties of England--on that day the progressive political career of the American people will have come to an end, and the hopes that have been built upon it for the future happiness and prosperity of mankind will be wrecked forever." - John Fiske, historian, quoted in "Our Changing Constitution" by Charles W. Pierson, Doubleday, Page & Company, 1922.

Unfortunately, God did not forbid it, and the day of control of local affairs by Washington is here. It comes in the form of "regionalism" and the weapon for imposing it is federal "revenue-sharing".

Regionalism is the consolidation of local and state governments into large regional units and the centralization of power in bureaucratic authorities, boards, and commissions whose primary function will be to administer plans and programs dictated by Washington.

We've found traces of Regionalism as far back as the 1920's, in fact, the 1922 book mentioned above dealt with the federal incursions into state and local affairs and the Constitutional perversions used to justify it.

Earlier still, though we don't know if it had any connection with the present federal drive for empire, the consolidation of Philadelphia in 1854 is a good example of one of the main goals of modern regionalism -- the reduction of the number of local governments and elected officials. In that case, six boroughs, thirteen townships, and nine districts were combined into one city. Prior to that, we had such places as Germantown Borough, Germantown Twp., Roxborough Borough, etc, and, of course, Philadelphia County. In some sections of the city the action is still called the "crime of 1854". And a crime it was! The people of the townships and boroughs were robbed of a substantial part of their representation and all of their local control.

Regardless of any connection that may have had with events today, it is clear that the underlying motive of the present drive for regional government is the consolidation of state and local governments into regional units under total federal control. The people will be excluded from the political and governmental processes.

The stage was set in 1913 for this federal usurpation of those powers delegated by the Constitution to the states and to the people. The Federal Reserve Act, together with the 16th Amendment permitting the graduated income tax, assured the Federal Government economic dominance of the states, and the 17th Amendment, sold to the people as a great triumph of democracy, took away state control of the Senate, thereby eliminating one of the most important Constitutional checks for maintaining the balance of power between the States and the Federal Government.

The promoters of centralization wasted no time in taking advantage of their new powers. In the revised 1923 edition of his 1915 book, "The New American Government and Its Work", (Note the term "New"--implying the replacement of an "Old"!), James T. Young says, "Whenever it appears that the Constitution hinders a transfer of power from the States to Congress, those interested seek some expedient by which to evade this obstacle...". He then cites "judicial interpretation" and "commerce regulating power" as two methods and continues, "The third, and at present most promising way is the subsidy plan. Congress grants to the States a fund under its power to tax and to appropriate for the general welfare. This fund is given only on condition that the States appropriate a similar sum and that the total amount be used for a definite purpose fixed in the Federal Law. This purpose may be, and often is, entirely outside the regulating authority of Congress." That is the principle method used today to promote "Regionalism" (Federal takeover). It is commonly known as the "carrot and stick" method. The legal term is, "Bribery and Extortion".

This might be a good point to interrupt the history of regionalism and discuss what's wrong with it. The most important thing we can think of is that it effectively removes the people from the electoral process. It does this by concentrating power in units of government that are increasingly larger and more remote from the people and by establishing commissions and authorities composed of appointed officials who do not answer to the people.

As government moves to higher levels, towns to counties to "sub-state regions" to states to "federal regions" to the federal government itself, the per capita representation goes down and the people lose all control over elections. In a small town of thousands, a few knowledgeable citizens can inform enough others to oust corrupt officials. It's almost impossible in a county with hundreds of thousands, or a state with millions. When it comes to a national government of hundreds of millions, only those who finance the nation and the elections can influence the elected officials and unelected bureaucrats.

Resuming the background, it's fairly common knowledge, certainly among those who have fought the growth of government, that centralization received a major boost in the 1930's as a result of the depression (which we were told the Federal Reserve was created to prevent -- were we lied to?). Less known today is the plan announced in the New York Times Magazine on April 24, 1935, to divide the nation into nine "Departments". Under the plan, States' rights would have been abolished. The plan, so boldly announced, undoubtedly met very stiff opposition, so nothing came of it--at the time. In fact, in 1943, Governor Carr of Colorado said he had uncovered a government plan to set up "regional dictatorships". Carr said that regional authorities would be setup "ostensibly to regulate physical resources". Of course, government officials denied any knowledge of such a plan. However, in 1972, Richard Nixon, by Executive Order 11647, divided the country into ten "Federal Regions". In typical Orwellian “Double-Speak”, he called it "decentralization". In 1979, by E.O. 12149, Jimmy Carter established Federal Regional Councils for each of those districts. This has been the pattern--announce the plan, deny in the face of opposition, continue in darkness, then slip quietly into the light again. Under heat of opposition to the reemerged scheme, Ronald Reagan, so we understand, rescinded those E.O.'s, but we have to believe that, if true, the program just slid back into the cover of darkness again.

In the 1960's, prior to Nixon's E.O. 11647, the drive had picked up momentum again in the form of various "revenue- sharing" schemes. Federal officials pointed out that, now collecting over 70% of the nations tax revenues, Washington was in a better financial position to solve the problems of the states and our local governments. The Federal Deficit was apparently not noticed. That many of the problems were caused by prior Federal meddling in state and local affairs was ignored.

Possibly the most damning piece of evidence as to the intent of "Revenue-Sharing" is the audaciously honest book "Revenue-Sharing" by Congressman Henry Reuss. Reuss, a leading sponsor of the program, makes it clear in the book that "Revenue- Sharing" should be used as "an incentive" to states to "modernize" their local governments. To qualify for the federal handouts, states would have to submit a "good faith" plan showing how they intend to implement this "modernization" of local government. Among the things to be included are: consolidation of the "too many", "fragmented", "balkanized", "minuscule", "jungle of", "outmoded", "horse and buggy" local governments; establishment of regional planning mechanisms; state constitutional changes to permit "interstate compacts"; steps to reduce the number of elected officials and to replace them with appointed ones (because being "forced" to vote for too many officials confuses the voters); and finally, to make provisions for state income taxes--the more "progressive", the better. He also wants the larger governmental units created by the program to be able to setup more "services", borrow with less state restriction, and, of course, be able to levy more taxes in addition to the increased funds from federal and state programs. The "federal" money (the carrot) will come on the condition that the states and locals use it for ends consistent with a "national purpose". If not, the funds will be withheld (the stick).

Even before Reuss's book was published, it is evident that the intent of Congress was known. Some states had already begun complying. In 1968, for example, Pennsylvania amended its constitution to permit interstate compacts, boundary changes, and to "free" the expansion and taxing powers of local governments. It is through the expansion of "services" and taxing powers that the local governments will become such unbearable burdens that the people will demand that they be abolished. The regionalists will be able to say, "We only gave the people what they wanted".

In 1972, the Pennsylvania State Legislature, yielding to the federal pressure, passed Act 62 of 1972, the so-called, "Home Rule and Optional Plans Act". Act 62 is designed to carry out the federal plans to destroy (modernize) local government while creating an illusion of a “grass roots movement”. It permits almost unlimited expansion of local government and taxes, and the transfer of powers from one government to another. To create the “grass roots” illusion, the method of implementation provided by Act 62 is “citizen referendum”. A commission is elected to “study” the present form of government, be it township, borough, or county. After an allotted time specified in the Act, they issue their report. They may recommend keeping the present form, adopting a “Home Rule” charter, or changing to one of the “Optional Plans” provided in Act 62.

This last point must be emphasized. The only recommendations the commission can make regarding changing the form of government are: keep the present form, write a Charter, or adopt an “Optional Plan”. The Masters of Deceit in the Department of Community Affairs (now the Department of Community and Economic Development) try to tell us that if we don’t like Act 62 government after we’ve tried it, “it appears” we can go back to the old codes. We can’t! Act 62 does not give any provision for placing a question on the ballot for going back. When we asked state “consultants” to the Bucks County’s second commission to cite statutes that would authorize such a question, they could not.

How will the new forms destroy our townships and boroughs? In two ways. The slow way is to get a majority of them under Act 62 and then expand them under the new powers granted. Eventually, they will become such an intrusive and costly burden that the people will demand they be eliminated.

A much quicker method is through adoption of a “Home Rule” Charter or an optional plan at the county level. Again, through the broad grant of powers to tax and spend (pronounced: provide services) the county will ultimately come to dwarf the local units. The argument will then be made that the townships and boroughs are insignificant and superfluous, and they will be eliminated. The counties will become “cities”. Preparing the way for further consolidation of those “cities”, the governor, by Executive Directive 48 dated August 28, 1972, divided Pennsylvania into 10 sub-state regions.

Of course, proponents of Home Rule or Optional Plan Government vehemently deny that is regionalism--now! But at first they admitted, almost gloated, over the prospects of regionalizing local government through the Act. Like typical utopian gurus expecting the sheep (that’s us) to see immediately the brilliance of their ‘enlightened” schemes, they announced it openly. Denial began when we refused to follow the pipers and push our local governments into the sea. But they were too late. It was their words that we used to defeat them three times in Bucks County.

A word of caution. There are some who think that they can beat the intent of the Act by writing clauses in a “Home Rule” Charter that in some way limits the broad grant of powers or expands the “Opt-Out” clause. There are others who will do it to deliberately deceive the voters. Don’t be fooled. They can’t! Act 62 is the law. A local charter commission can’t amend acts of the legislature, and the “broad grant of power” and the provisions for a local government to “opt-out” are clear. Citizens of a county who accept a charter or Optional Plan because they think they can beat the Act will likely learn the hard way, and the price will be high. It will eventually cost them their townships and boroughs.

Despite the three "Home Rule"/Optional Plan victories at the county level in Bucks, we've hardly put a dent in regionalism, because Act 62 is only one part of a multi-pronged attack on local representative government. It is intended to give an appearance of a "grass-roots" origin to any changes, to make the people think it is their idea. However, if the people can't be fooled, there are also COGS (Councils of Government), Regional Planning Commissions, special purpose authorities, "Urban County" status, etc. These are designed to bring in regionalism over, under, and around the people and their local officials if they can't get through them. Still, because the illusion of a “grass-roots” source of regional government is important to those promoting it, the “Home Rule and Optional Plans Act” is their preferred method of achieving regional government.

We'll end this article as we began it, quoting from Pierson's "Our Changing Constitution". We've chosen a few pertinent comments by the author himself.

"What then of the future? Is the Constitution hopelessly out of date? Are the states to be submerged and virtually obliterated in the drift toward centralization? No thoughtful patriot can view such a possibility without the gravest misgivings. The integrity of the states was a cardinal principle of our governmental scheme. Abandon that and we are adrift from the moorings which to the minds of statesmen of past generations constituted the safety of the republic."

"There is another aspect of the matter, however. The burden of federal bureaucracy is beginning to be felt by the average man. He is being regulated more and more in his meats and drinks, his morals and the activities of his daily life, from Washington. If he will only stop and think he must realize that no one central authority can supervise the daily lives of a hundred million people scattered over half a continent, without becoming top-heavy."

"In the very nature of things there is bound to be a reaction against centralization sooner or later. The real question is whether it will come in time to save the present constitutional scheme."

That was 1922! We've sunk a long way, baby!

[Maps mentioned in this post are at the end of the blog following the comments. When I created this blog, I didn't know how to embed them in the post. More recent attempts to move them into it failed. If this regionalism scheme concerns you, just scroll down. You should find the maps worth viewing.]

Return to TOC

LostLiberty

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Pizza Registration

MERRY CHRISTMAS

Myths, Misconceptions, and Misdirections

Jury Nullification

Earth Day - A Failed Conservation Attempt

Dream? or A Nightmare of Reality?

Unique Terrorists

A Retraction

Canadian Liberty...Lost...Regained...Lost Again

Go Ahead. Tread On Me.

Some Old Thoughts

PLEASE HELP!!!

Regulation, Reform, and My Uncle Remus

Still Working The Plan

Platform of the Main Republican Party

Obamacare Simplified

North American Union

Government of Money, by Money, and for Money

Boycott Seattle

A Pairadocs

Ugly Face of ObamaCare Revealed

Truth Has Fallen & Taken Liberty with It

The Lies Won't Stop

HEALTHCARE OBAMANATION

Hen House Safe – Fox In Charge of Security

Regionalism - Death of the French System

A SMALL VICTORY - MAYBE!

A Prophecy from England

The Revolution Was

Good Summary of Our Current Condition

Resistance Continues

REGIONALISM - RESISTANCE

NEW VOICE

NEW WORLD ORDER -- DEATH OF AMERICA

REGIONALISM--DEATH OF THE AMERICAN SYSTEM