America and Islamophobia

First published 3/18/12.  This edit reflects material added when this was reposted in WordPress on 7/15/12.

When the money powers behind our government sought to embark us on the path of imperialism, the Spanish were vilified by the propaganda machine to get the American people to fight. Terrible atrocities were attributed to Spanish soldiers. They were, of course, lies, but they, together with the “accidental” sinking of the Maine [was this a prelude to the recent “false flag” events?] were enough to precipitate the Spanish American War and send young Americans to fight, kill, and die for such a “just” cause. The real reason for the war, as in the Middle East wars of today, was a regime change desired in Washington, or, at least, by those controlling it.

When Wilson promised the British that he would bring America into the war against Germany, some of the same atrocity stories were trotted out. This time the soldiers wore German uniforms. When the British set up the Lusitania for a torpedo attack it was icing on the cake. The American people were not told that her escort had been withdrawn while she was sailing in waters the British knew were submarine infested. They certainly were not aware of conversations revealed in this excerpt from “The Intimate Papers of Colonel House” edited by Charles Seymour, Houghton Mifflin, 1926:

On the morning of May 7, House and Grey drove out to Kew. 'We spoke of the probability of an ocean liner being sunk,' recorded House, 'and I told him if this were done, a flame of indignation would sweep across America, which would in itself probably carry us into the war.' An hour later, House was with King George in Buckingham Palace. 'We fell to talking, strangely enough,' the Colonel wrote that night, 'of the probability of Germany sinking a trans-Atlantic liner....He said, “Suppose they should sink the Lusitania with American passengers on board....'”

That evening House dined at the American Embassy. A despatch came in, stating that at two in the afternoon a German submarine had torpedoed and sunk the Lusitania off the soulthern coast of Ireland. Many lives had been lost.

The British had been planning the set up and they knew they could count on House not to blow the whistle.

Less than fifty years later, the Germans became the bad guys once again. This time the American people were even more determined that they would not be suckered into another war for the British Empire (the Empire of the Bank), so another horrible, inhuman enemy had to be created. It was the Japanese. The money powers wanted war and FDR was their willing stooge. He committed several acts of war against the Japanese, but they wouldn't bite. Finally, under the pretext of good faith negotiation, he sent them an ultimatum that he knew would leave the Japanese no alternative but war. He set up Pearl for a “sneak” attack that would prove how “treacherous” the Japanese were and would drive the American people to fight. This resulted in the opportunity FDR wanted to get into the “European War” for Mutha England or maybe for his beloved Bolshevik Russia.

Now Islam appears to be the last obstacle in the plans of the money powers to control the entire world through their “New World Order.” The Islamic countries must go, or a government of the money powers, by the money powers, and for the money powers must be installed in each. To help these international gangsters to achieve their plans, Americans have been given a new enemy complete with unspeakable atrocities.

It's sad, but I truly believe that not one American soldier, sailor, or airman has died fighting for America in over a hundred years. They thought they were fighting for America, but they were fighting to establish the hegemony of international finance and multinational corporations. There is little doubt of that now.

Today, that hegemony has total control of our military. An article in Off the Grid News on 031012 told it all.

On March 8, testifying at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Martin Dempsey indicated that international permission was the legal basis for any military action taken by the United States. Congressional approval wasn't required.

When specifically asked by Senator Sessions, Panetta indicated that Congress had no say in the matter of the use of U.S. military force. This was up to the “international community.” In sane times, Panetta and General Dempsey would be hanged for treason.

Not long ago, I saw a video of "American" troops returning from the Middle East. They were wearing blue berets and a U.N. patch on their uniforms. They were not American soldiers. They were U.N. soldiers. Any war crimes they may have committed should be laid at the feet of the U.N. officials and they should be put on trial.

Back to Islam. Take a look at the map in the “New World Order – Death of America” post in this blog. You can see that the 1941-42 plans for the Mideast have been largely thwarted by Islam.

http://lostliberty1.wordpress.com/2012/04/09/new-world-order-death-of-america/

[Note: I'm removing maps and graphics from my blogspot blogs. Google seems to be in league with some sort of spy sites. Clinking on maps or pictures in the blogs redirects to those sites. Google claims to know nothing about it, at least as of 5/28/12.]

When the “international community” [the bankers of the NWO] dictates, we will attack Iran or any other country that stands in their way.

Of course, the American people would not go along with a hate campaign just because the bankers and our bank owned government want them to. Just as incidents had to be contrived to generate hatred for Spain, Germany, Japan, and others, an incident had to be contrived to make the American people hate Muslims and the Muslim countries that wouldn’t play ball with the banksters. That contrived incident was 9/11.

More and more people are demanding a legitimate investigation into who and what was behind the destruction of the Twin Towers and what really brought them down. Those people include first responders who were at the scene, architects and engineers who say the buildings could not have been brought down by planes crashing into them or the ensuing fires, and airline pilots who think it absurd that an inexperienced pilot who couldn’t even fly a single engine plane could have put a huge commercial airliner through the manuevres involved in hitting the Pentagon. Some say the plane could not have withstood the stresses, it was, after all, a commercial liner and not a jet fighter built to be flown that way.

Naturally, there are those who believe all of this is “conspiracy theory,” or at least they claim to believe that. Not all are fools. No doubt many have a vested interest in getting the American public to go along with the government version of 9/11 and hate all Muslims and support invasion of their countries and the slaughter of their people. They want us to believe the 9/11 conspiracy theory promoted by the government. As this U-Tube video shows, it is the most absurd conspiracy theory yet to come out of 9/11:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98&feature=player_embedded

An interesting side note is this video of mysterious (convenient?) deaths of witnesses and people involved in the search for 9/11 truth:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=bvay28lZiHU

Not all consider this conspiracy theory. An individual using the screenname \IV/ posted this commentary on Sodahead 6/20/12. He suggests a religious movement.

->A new religious movement was born September 11th, 2001. This movement was conceived by the American government and comprises many members of the American and European elite, politicians, editors of mass and so-called alternative media, publishers and academics. The movement’s unifying faith is the legend of 9/11, namely that 19 Arab terrorists hijacked four airliners and flew these airliners into the known landmarks in a suicide operation. The legend of 9/11 is composed of a number of distinct beliefs. Here are ten of the most tenacious beliefs that unite cult members:

1. They believe that 4 young pilots who love money, alcohol and sex, could be convinced to kill themselves for a religious purpose.

2. They believe that four teams of four to five rather smallish men could subdue 40 to 80 passengers without using firearms and without raising the suspicion of the pilots.

3. They believe it is possible to subdue a pilot and co-pilot in their flight cabin before either can transmit a hijacking code, a verbal Mayday message, or raise the suspicion of the crew.

4. They believe a person who could hardly control a one-engine Cessna can fly a Boeing passenger airliner on instruments alone for more than an hour in a foreign country and crash this airliner at 500 mph into the side of a building 20 feet above ground.

5. They believe the capital of the United States, Washington, D.C. , is undefended against approaching unidentified aircraft.

6. They believe crashing aircraft can disintegrate, leaving no visible debris such as fuselage, wings, tail or engine.

7. They believe an airliner with 45 passengers can crash without leaving visible bodies and blood.

8. They believe debris from a crashing airplane can be found eight miles away.

9. They believe it is possible to induce a free-fall collapse of a skyscraper by hitting it with an airplane (even if the skycraper was designed to withstand such a strike) and then letting the resulting fire bring it down.

10. They believe that 19 Arab terrorists actually boarded the four aircraft that crashed on 9/11.

Religious movements are generally peaceful, but this is not the case with the 9/11 Cult. The cult’s members control weapons of mass destruction and the information flow to the public. When such powers are concentrated in the hands of cult members who base their decisions on irrational and unsubstantiated beliefs, rather than on facts, everyone is in danger.

Members of this cult, no matter their status, fame or power, must be designated as madmen. It is important to secure the removal of such madmen from positions of influence and power as soon as possible, in order to give international peace and security a chance.<- \IV/

I would add a great big religious “Amen” to that last paragraph.

Return to TOC

Then and Now

While cleaning a storage space last week, I found this pamphlet I'd published when I ran for PA General Assembly sometime in the late 70's or early 80's. For the most part, my positions haven't changed, although I do have a little better understanding of what is going on than I did then. For instance, I said here that we would lose our freedom. That came from a naïve viewpoint. I now realize we lost our freedom in 1913 – maybe we never really had it. I also no longer believe it is enough to simply throw out those who do not listen to us. The only choices the Republican and Democratic Party give us are the same and more of the same. The Republican wing of our ruling party could give us a choice this time in Ron Paul, but they won't. He speaks too much truth for the powers that be to tolerate, so he is ignored as much as possible. We will be offered lily white Zionists to replace the off-white Zionist we have. Whoever we elect will remain steadfastly loyal to Israel and send our young people to die for her just as the Tories sent our young to die for England in two world wars. Besides, when we throw “the rascals out”, those they served will have nice, well paid jobs for them as a reward for the service rendered and for betraying America, the people, and the people of the world.

One other important thing. I was completely taken in by the Commie vs. us dog and pony show. I now realize that Communism, like the other major socialisms, Fabianism, National Socialism, and Fascism is totally owned and operated by the financial capitalists and used as a tool to herd all of us. The enemy has been within since Hamilton and Washington set up the national bank against the advice of Jefferson.

Here are my positions. It should be obvious that I wasn't expecting to get many votes. Human nature being what it is, most people will go down the list and, no matter how many things they agree with, they will find something they disagree with that will cause them to vote Republican or Democrat. After all, the Reps and Dems stood firmly for Baseball, Motherhood, and Apple Pie. What American could disagree with those?

RICK

INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE

GENERAL ASSEMBLY

141^st DISTRICT

The following are my views on issues which I believe are among the most important facing us.

I have straddled no fences. I have presented a straight forward stand on each issue.

In each case, my stand is founded on principle and is not subject to change for political expediency.

EDUCATION

General- I believe we, as parents, must bear a large part of the blame for the failures of our educational system. We have not payed enough attention to our children's progress (or lack of progress) nor have we voiced sufficient objection to the havoc being wreaked by the so called "progressives" in our educational system. We must stop teaching children how to analyze and find fault with themselves and their parents and teach them how to read and write and to have confidence in themselves and respect for their parents.

Busing- I am militantly opposed to busing for integration, either by direct means or by underhanded methods such as magnet schools. The busing orders issued by the courts are illegal. Even the unconstitutional "Civil Rights Act of 1964" states, "desegregation shall not mean the assignment of students to public schools in order to overcome racial imbalance." I firmly believe that if we are too weak to fight for the safety and well being of our children, then we no longer deserve, and most certainly will lose, our freedom.

State and Federal Aid? to Education- A nice phrase meaning interference with and control of our schools. I think it should be stopped. It is interesting to note that public schools are spending more and more money but are teaching less and less, while private schools are maintaining their high standards with comparatively less money. State and federally mandated programs are wasting our money and hurting our schools. We are selling the right to control our schools locally for our own tax money. If the state and federal governments have revenue to "share" then they are taking too much to begin with. I favor repeal of the state income tax and a reduction of the sales tax. The Federal Government should reduce taxes and institute a voucher system. These measures would aid all schools and taxpayers without sacrificing control over our schools and our children.

MASS TRANSIT

I am opposed to a state subsidized mass transit system. One SEPTA mess is too much. Regardless of whether we use the system or not, we pay part of the fare for those who do. I believe each of us should pay his own way. The inevitable result of a government operated, taxpayer subsidized mass transit will be the limitation of auto ownership to a wealthy elite. You and I will ride the bus or walk.

LAND USE AND PLANNING

This is a local matter best left to the people who know their community and not to the "masterplanners" in Harrisburg. I strongly resent the forced growth and land grab programs being forced on us by Washington and Harrisburg.

ABORTION

I am against abortion except in life for life situations. It is curious that the same "liberals" who cry out for mercy for convicted cold blooded murderers, who call the death penalty for monsters such as Manson "cruel and unusual punishment," can advocate imposing the death penalty on unborn, innocent babies. They say a woman has a right to do what she wants with her own body. That's fine, but I know of no woman who would submit her own body to the torture that the infant is subjected to when aborted. It is not her body that is cut to pieces or pickled alive, it is the body of an unborn child that receives such treatment. I realize that unborn children have no vote, but I intend to fight for the child's right to live, the women who would abort will have to look elsewhere for representation.

CRIME

I believe in severe penalties for serious crimes, including the death penalty for murder. It is another curious matter that the politicians who said that the death penalty was not a deterent, passed laws permitting the death penalty for those who murder, you guessed it, politicians. Sounds like Orwell's "All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others."

WELFARE

Welfare is a monster that feeds on itself. The larger the welfare lines grow, the worse our economic situation becomes and the longer the welfare lines grow, in an unending circle. New York City has shown this. I favor a gradual cut-back of all state welfare programs to the barest minimum necessary to support those who truly cannot support themselves. I would cut the number of offices for complaints in half immediately.

GUN CONTROL
The worst thing the American people can do is allow the government to take away their right to keep and bear arms. Without that right, all other rights become privileges, extended or retracted at the whim of the government. Crime is on the rise, not because we have guns, but because the courts are playing "Patty-Cake" with convicted criminals.

VOTER REGISTRATION
Personal- I am registered and active with the Constitutional Party. I joined the Constitutional Party when I realized that there was little hope of clearing the muddy, polluted waters of the Republican and Democratic Party.

General- I think the high number of unregistered people is a disgrace. I realize that many people are disgustedwith what is happening but that is no excuse for not register-ing or not voting. The American way is to fight harder when you are down, not to quit. Politicians don't give a damn what we think if we are not registered. They'll behave only if they know that if they don't, then we will work hard to throw them out. We must stop waiting for someone to "give" us good government. Like everything else worthwhile it must be earned. We can earn it by becoming informed, registering, and voting in every election. We should work for and actively support the candidates of our choice and, if we are not satisfied with those who are running, then we should run ourselves.

CONGRESS

I believe that the candidates offered by the Republican and Democratic Party are carbon copies of those who have put us in the hole. If we don't start throwing the grave diggers out of Washington, they will soon bury us. We need strong, courageous, and consistant foreign policy to win back our friends and regain our lost position of world leadership. At home we need to get "big brother" off our backs and return to sound economic policies rather than Utopian daydreams. I feel that the Constitutional Party candidate, Bob Graham, is the only candidate for the 8th District who is both able and willing to work toward a sensible solution to our foreign and domestic problems.

THE RECORD

The elected and appointed officials from the Republican and Democratic Party have compiled the following record:

-Government created inflation which has destroyed the value of the savings and pensions of our old people.

-Virtual bankruptcy of our cities, states, and federal governments and the amassing of huge deficits which will be borne by our children.

-Neglect of our National Defense and slandering and deserting our allies while aiding our enemies and helping to build their military might.

-The murder of our sons in deliberate no win wars that sap our strength, weaken our will to resist, and encourage the Communists to further their global plans of aggression.

-Rapidly increasing crime in our streets caused by leniency in the courts and in the penal system.

-Busing of our children into hostile neighborhoods against our wishes.
-Stealing between 40% and 50% of our incomes and literally taxing us out of our homes.

The next time a politician says he is running on his record, hit him with an egg.

****

One last thing. This was not on the pamphlet. I ran as an independent to support our Constitutional Party candidate for Congress. The election laws are so written that, even if a third (second?) party does get on the ballot, it will be almost impossible to maintain that ballot position unless they have a lot of money behind them. In this case, we didn't have sufficient registration for us to run a candidate in my district, nor did we have the funds to conduct a registration drive.


Return to TOC

Myths, Misconceptions, and Misdirections

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

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

Unique Terrorists

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

Go Ahead. Tread On Me.

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

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

A SMALL VICTORY - MAYBE!

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