From the Radio Free Michigan archives ftp://141.209.3.26/pub/patriot If you have any other files you'd like to contribute, e-mail them to bj496@Cleveland.Freenet.Edu. ------------------------------------------------ America ... Occupied! By Donald L. Cline What follows is a hurried, very rough draft outline of a book I am writing, and therefore what I say here is "copyright january 1991 by Donald L. Cline," and "all rights reserved." As you will note, there are some quotes and other sources I have quoted specifically; there are some others I have paraphrased as best I can from memory -- in those cases, please rest assured I have seen the documentation; in most cases I have the documentation in my files and will find it when I flesh this out more in the next draft, and in any case I know where to find the source documenta tion when I need it. When I write the final manuscript the quotes and dates and times and places will be as specific and as precise as it is possible to be. In the interest of getting this completed quickly and onto the bbs, however, I have not bothered to search out some of the more obscure items for this piece. I think you will find more than enough documentation in support of the title, however, and there is more -- lots more -- available to anyone who will look for it. Disclaimer: nothing I say here is legal advice. This is my opinion based upon extensive research into the political history of our nation, who is destroying it, who is getting paid, and why. The following is an exercise of my right of political expression. I'm am going to begin with a quotation which, I believe, accurately expresses the general mood of the founding fathers of our nation (those who were in favor of revolution, at least) at the time of our conflict with britain: "if ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget ye were our country men." -- Samuel adams (1722-1803) And I am going to add the following: Warning! If you use any of your inherited and unalienable rights, includ ing those secured to you by the constitution of the united states of america, to resist abusive and unconstitutional government, you may be prosecuted and imprisoned as a criminal; you may lose your job; you may lose your home; you may lose your friends and family; you may lose your life, and you will most assuredly be confronted by any one or more of the several government, quasi- government, and non-government agents and agencies (pretending to represent government) for your stand. You must be prepared to accept this adversity as the price you pay for liberty. If you cannot do this, do not take the first steps! -- (Included on the first page of the freedom books offered by the national commodity & barter association (ncba), 8000 e. Girard avenue, #215, denver, co 80231, as a benefit of member ship.) The past does not always foretell the future, but those who fail to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it. We, as a people, and as a nation, have been down this path before, and with one exception we have never failed to fall into the trap. The one exception was the american revolution. This was the only time in history we, or any people of any nation in the world, knew who we were fighting, knew we were fighting the actual enemy and not his proxy, and knew what we were fighting against (economic and political feudalism) and knew what we were fighting for (liberty and equal justice under the law). Even at that, only about 3% of the american population sup ported the american revolution. The rest were either tories (wanting to stay english) or didn't care one way or the other. We won the american revolution against the best-trained and most modern, in both tactical training and materiel, military machine of the world. And we won it, primarily, because england was distracted by several other brushfires licking at its breech es, and couldn't devote its full attention to us. Can you imagine the apoplectic fury of the english lords at the sheer effrontery of those rebels? "My gawd!" Many undoubtedly profaned, "we are englishmen! Those yanks are mere rabble! We have a right to the riches of the new world; we colonized it! We supported those damnably expensive colonies through all these years of drought and famine, and now they have the unmitigated gall to tell us to shove off! This is insufferable! I won't have it, I tell you!" (I don't do english lords very well; you'll have to pretend. But I hope you get my point.) England lost a great deal when the american colonies thumbed their nose and went their own way, and I don't believe the old line aristocratic families have ever forgiven us for it. Ameri ca, on the other hand, wasn't doing too well either: the arti cles of confederation weren't working well, primarily due to their failure to address the question of a stable medium of exchange that all people could depend upon. The history books tell us there was also the problem of collecting taxes to pay for the national government; the articles had no teeth in them and the various states paid taxes, or didn't, at their whim. In actual fact, however, the problem of taxation was second ary: the real, number-one problem was a fluctuating medium of exchange: in other words, untrustworthy money. How confident would you be in the stability of your world if the day before yesterday you bought a loaf of bread for a dollar, and yesterday it cost you five, and today three dollars, and in all likelihood it will cost you 45 cents tomorrow, and next week the price might be nine dollars? How would you feel if you were a working tradesman, and this client paid you in connecticut dollars, and that one paid in massachusetts dollars, and another in north carolina dollars, and you knew that pennsylvania dollars held up pretty well but all the rest would vary in value from zip to half face value before you could get to the bank? These were the problems facing our country on the eve of the constitutional convention. "The wheels of government are clogged, and we are descending into the vale of confusion and darkness. No day was ever more clouded than the present. We are fast verging to anarchy and confusion." -- George washington, in a letter to james madison on the eve of the constitutional con vention. The sole purpose of the constitutional convention, as de scribed by alexander hamilton in a report to congress in 1786 recommending that there be a convention, was "to take into con sideration the trade and commerce of the united states." Prior to the constitutional convention, a man by the name of roger sherman wrote a book called "a caveat against injustice." The two remaining copies in existence were located a few years ago by f. Tupper saussy, and reprinted, with the re-publisher's comment that it was positively appalling (and I agree!) that the communist manifesto, by a professional bum named karl marx, had, down through the decades, enjoyed a worldwide publishing rate second only to the bible, while this book -- arguably the most important book on economic theory ever published, and very defi nitely the basis for the economic provisions of the u.s. Consti tution -- was suppressed, hidden, burned, and having dwindled to only two fragile and crumbly copies, was completely unknown to the scholars of the 20th century. Roger sherman, by the way, was the only man whose signature appears on all four of the main documents formative of our na tion: the "declaration of the causes and necessity of taking up arms, july 6, 1775", the "declaration of independence," the "articles of confederation," and the "united states constitution." According to thomas jefferson, roger sherman wrote the economic-related passages of the u.s. Constitution, and also (according to thomas jefferson) "never said a foolish thing in his life." A mere nine months after the u.s. Constitution was ratified, the december 16th, 1789 edition of the pennsylvania gazette had this to say: "since the federal constitution has removed all danger of our having a paper tender, our trade has advanced fifty percent. Our monied people can trust their cash abroad, and have brought their coin into circulation." In june, 1790, george washington wrote his friend, the mar quis de lafayette that "our revenues have been considerably more productive than it was imagined they would be. I mention this to show the spirit of enterprise that prevails." Washington also alluded to the fantastic industry and prosperity and spirit of enterprise forming the u.s. Economy, based upon gold and silver coin and not upon intrinsically worthless paper money, in his first state of the union address. But the english lords didn't like it. They considered the upstart colonies were taking caviar out of their mouths. The war of 1812, the so-called "war that no one understood" was fought over ships blockading the u.s. In an attempt to disrupt our economy. It finally fizzled out when it was discovered that both our economy and our willingness to fight were too strong (and that britain had repealed the laws causing the conflict two days before the hostilities broke out; international communications were slow.) The monied international aristocratic cartel, allied with various nations at one time or another, tried seven times between 1812 and 1913 to bring our economy to its knees by unfair trade restrictions, tariffs, withholding payments for our exports, quibbling over interest rates, and even restricting the coinage of their own money and the money of their allies. In every case, they found they hurt themselves and the economy of the rest of the entire world, but they couldn't hurt us. They couldn't bring us to our knees. Oh, we felt it, all right. Those seven attempts caused seven economic "depressions" in the u.s., and life was hard during those times. But the depressions were a whole lot deeper every where else in the world, and the only positive result obtained by the english was a tool of disinformation: these seven worldwide depressions resulted in "official recognition" of what was false ly described as the "regular boom-and-bust cycles of unrestrained commerce." This claim is sheer balderdash: no such cycles occur in an economy both unrestrained and unmanipulated. The economy most beneficial to the producers of wealth -- that's us working stiffs, folks -- is the unrestrained economy in which there is a chronic labor shortage and there is always something to do and money to be made if a worker is willing to work. The economy most beneficial to the elitists -- those who consider themselves above common labor and who prefer to exploit the labor of others to their own ends -- is the stagnant economy in which jobs are scarce, pay and benefits are low, and the business owners (and the financiers!) can pick and choose their labor, are not constrained to pay them what they are worth, and if a worker won't play the game by the owner's (and ultimately the financier's) rules, then the worker doesn't work and ulti mately starves (which gets him out of the way of the political agendas operated by the financiers). Coincident with the ratification of the constitution of the United States and later ratification of the bill of rights, and during the next 122 years to 1913, several worldwide events took place: 1. The beginnings of the industrial revolution (actually more an increase in the rate of technological evolution) were well underway and accelerating by 1790. This resulted in the emergence of the "middle class," a development not particularly appreciated by the landed aristocracy, and one of the main causes of the french revolution and other great turmoils in europe, and probably a significant factor among the causes of the american revolution. 2. The french revolution occurred between the years of 1789 and 1799, almost coincident with the ratification of our consti tution and formation of our new nation. 3. The aforementioned war of 1812, fought over british interference with american shipping. 4. Karl marx, supported first by his financially-strapped lawyer father, and later by elitist front-man frederic engels, published his communist manifesto in 1848, in which he promoted the idea that the means of production should not be in the hands of the people, but in the hands of government. I recommend anyone who wants to know what marx and engels were really up to obtain a copy of the communist manifesto, with foreword by fred eric engels and introduced by william p. Fall, published by american opinion. Karl marx was a professional bum who bled everyone around him dry including his own family, engaged in drunken and drug-induced rampages and orgies, and allowed at least one of his own children to die of neglect. 5. Abraham lincoln became the first president elected by the republican party, on november 6, 1860, was re-elected on november 8, 1864, and was shot by john wilkes booth april 14, 1865, only 5 days after the south surrendered. Never, until the assassination of john f. Kennedy, has the people of america been lied to so thoroughly about the killing of a national figure. According to some writings based upon evidence contained in the national archives, john wilkes booth belonged to a troupe of actors tour ing the country and using their off-hours to proselytize to the public about the wild philosophies of karl marx. He was said to be mentally-unbalanced (most people were level-headed enough in those days to believe that anyone spouting that kind of nonsense had to be mentally unbalanced). Apparently he was as ideal a hit-man against lincoln as lee harvey oswald was against kennedy; and documents were found in booth's belongings, containing the seal of a certain bank president, which lended credence to the theory that he was hired to do the job. Why? Certainly not because booth was a virginian, and on the side of the south, but rather, because the bankers wanted lincoln to finance the civil war by borrowing money from the american representatives of the banking cartel, but lincoln refused. Instead, he paid for the war by selling war bonds to the american people. 6. On april 12, 1861, southern artillery shelled fort sumt er, in the harbor of charleston, s.c., and the war between the states was joined. It lasted four years, to april 9, 1865, and took more american lives than any war in history. Contrary to the "conventional wisdom," often given excessive emphasis in public schools, slavery, while an issue presented to the public as the main cause of the war, was actually a major side-issue. The main issue was the economic domination of the industrial- and banking-based north over the agricultural, aristocratic south, and the demand, by the northern states, that the south pay pro tective tariffs to the north. 7. In 1869, marx formed the "social democratic party" of germany. What does that tell you? 8. The british fabian society was formed in london, england, in 1884, for the purpose of exporting communism to the rest of the world under the guise of socialism. Playwright george ber nard shaw and author h. G. Wells were very prominent members. (The only difference between a communist and a socialist is that the communist believes his ideas can only be established by violent revolution, whereas the socialist believes his ideas can be established by social reform -- the ideas, in each case, are identical.) it is believed to be the fabian society which sup ported the "social democratic party" (there's that bunch again!) in russia, resulting in the violently bloody bolshevik revolution and the rise to power of lenin and his fanatical belief in commu nism. It also established the "league of industrial democracy" in the united states to expand the teachings of socialism/commu nism: columbia university was one of its most notable success stories, and columbia university has trained over ninety percent of the educators and education administrators of our nation's public school system ever since. 9. My memory of the details are rather vague, but it was also around 1900, plus or minus 20 years, that the "illuminati" (the eye in the pyramid) group was formed, and also a group which became known as the "bilderbergers" after the name of the hotel in which they first met as a group. See back issues of the spotlight for extremely precise details. My impression, from memory, is that these two groups are pretty much the same thing, or the same group, but that impression could be faulty. In any event it was these groups -- basically the international monied aristocrat banking cartel -- behind the concerted move to get the federal reserve system installed in america. (All these groups are interrelated, I.e., had and have over lapping memberships, evolved from one another, etc. These groups are the precursors to todays' "council on foreign relations," formed to sponsor obliteration of national boundaries and estab lishment of one world rule, and "trilateral commission," formed to consolidate international banking and commercial interests by seizing political control of the united states (direct quote, "with no apologies," by senator barry goldwater). President bush, all of his cabinet, most of congress, most of the federal judiciary, a great many federal bureaucrats, and 97% of the publishers of major metropolitan newspapers in the u.s. Are members of one or both of these organizations. Write to johnny stewart, f.r.e.e., 1807 columbus avenue, box 8616, waco, tx 76710. Include 5 bucks postage/handling for lots of information. Meanwhile, during this period from the ratification of the constitution to 1913, america was being flooded with immigrants. And -- except during those hard times brought on by the overseas financier-run governments -- there was always something for an enterprising and hard-working immigrant to do. America was the land of milk and honey, the land of opportunity. America was the land where even a cotton-farmer or backwoods hick lawyer could become president if he set his mind to it; the land where woods men and indian fighters could become senators and congressmen. Many immigrants did enter government, which at once was both the strength and the downfall of our republic: many of those that did had no appreciation of the finer points of commerce and power developed by the old world aristocratic financiers over thousands of years to enslave the masses. They had no apprecia tion of how those financial power principles, well understood and so effectively brought under control by the framers of our con stitution to prevent oppression of the people, could enslave the people once more if again unleashed. Having failed seven times over approximately one hundred years of almost unrelenting american prosperity and expansion, the elitists finally succeeded in 1913, and they did so by subterfuge and deception: in the last days of the congressional session, just prior to the christmas break, when most of the senators and congressmen had gone home for the christmas holidays, congress passed the federal reserve act. The state of ohio was the pivo tal vote. Only ohio was not a state in 1913, and it is not a state today. Your encyclopedia will tell you ohio was admitted to the union on march 1, 1803. However, the congressional record re veals that ohio was denied statehood in 1803 -- some kind of dispute over annexation of land not belonging to it. We can only guess, today, what kind of shenanigans went on in congress to cover up the illegality of permitting ohio to vote, but it was, obviously, covered up. It is apparent that the enemies of liber ty were already well entrenched in the u.s. Congress in 1803, and this is confirmed by thomas jefferson's complaint about the congress only ten years after the constitution was ratified: I can't remember the exact words, but it was to the effect that congress had already thrown away everything the founding fathers had fought and died for in the american revolution, all to their own personal gain through greed and avarice and an unrelenting appetite for power. (In 1951 a bill was introduced in congress to 'correct' this 'oversight' (the fact that ohio had been denied statehood): a bill to 'retroactively' make ohio a state as of march 1, 1803. The bill was passed, and promptly forgotten [except by a couple of people who have had a lawsuit pending for at least a decade now, and it seems likely it will never be heard]. But that 1951 'law' is null and void also: article I, section 9, clause 3 of the constitution of the united states says: "no bill of attain der or ex post facto law shall be passed.") AMERICA ... OCCUPIED! (Continued) Basically translated from the Latin, "ex post facto" means "retroactive." Therefore, Ohio is not a State -- period. For other aspects of this deception, and its effects upon the pre sumed legitimacy of the government of the United States, consider the fact that a U.S. President must be, according to Article 2, Section 1, Clause 4 of the Constitution, "a natural-born citizen" of the United States, and Ohio -- not one of the several States of the United States -- has been the birthplace of a whole bunch of U.S. Presidents. Moving right along: The Federal Reserve Act, which unlawful ly and unConstitutionally delegated the authority of the govern ment of the United States to Coin Money to a PRIVATE, FEDERALLY- CHARTERED CORPORATION (The Fed is NOT a government agency!), was followed in rapid succession by the Internal Revenue Act (which was struck down by the courts as being unConstitutional and followed almost immediately by the 16th [Income Tax] Amendment), and then by the 17th Amendment, which completely turned our system of government upside down. Neither of these Amendments were ratified, and neither have any force or weight of law. Let's take the 16th first: A Monta na man by the name of Red Beckman sponsored a former IRS agent by the name of Bill Benson to research the legislative records of all states which purportedly ratified the 16th Amendment. Bill Benson obtained CERTIFIED COPIES of those legislative records (which are admissible as evidence in court) and published them in a book called "THE LAW THAT NEVER WAS." Those records reveal conclusively that out of the 38 States listed on the Congression al Records as having ratified the 16th Amendment, ONLY TWO actu ally did so: the rest either RE-WROTE the amendment in their attempt to ratify (which means they did not ratify the amendment proposed by Congress) or, in at least one case (Kentucky) voted to DEFEAT the bill to ratify and then listed the bill as having "carried" in the legislative record on the same page as the overwhelming vote to defeat! Thusly, the 16th Amendment was never ratified. Therefore Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 of the Constitution remains valid, with full force and weight of law: "No Capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken." [Bill Benson, by the way, is currently in prison on trumped up tax evasion charges because of his part in the book, and until word got out and officials were deluged with letters from patri ots around the country, was forced to undergo some kind of drug program that left him bedridden and on the verge of death. The last I heard now, he's sitting up in a wheelchair and at least able to take nourishment. Public response DOES COUNT!] The Income Tax, that tax we are illegally required to pay in order to exercise our inherited and unalienable right to work in an occupation of common right, does not lawfully exist. It COULD not lawfully exist in any event; the exercise of inherited and unalienable rights cannot lawfully be taxed; to do so is an infringement of that right. But we have to exercise and claim and defend and sometimes die to protect our rights, and we have n't been doing that nearly enough. That's why we are losing them. Now to the 17th Amendment: The Constitution of the United States conveys NO POWER to the government of the United States over private citizens, unless those citizens are 1) engaged in interstate commerce; 2) a member of the militia of one of the several States which is actually engaged in the defense of the United States; or 3) a public official (in which case he is no longer a 'private citizen'). As aforesaid, the 17th Amendment, which turned our system of government completely upside down and made it possible to bring the full weight and might of the U.S. government down on any private citizen who opposed it, was also not ratified. Here is how the deed was done: Article I Section 1 of the Constitution states that "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, ...", and then goes on to DEFINE the "Congress of the United States" as "... a Senate and a House of Representatives." Article I Section 2 of the Constitution DEFINES "House of Representatives" as being "... composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several States, ..." Article I Section 3 of the Constitution DEFINES "Senate of the United States" as "... two Senators from each State, chosen by the legislature thereof ..." This arrangement WAS and IS of vital importance to our liber ty. It results in a system of government in which the PEOPLE control the STATE GOVERNMENTS, and the PEOPLE and the STATE GOVERNMENTS, as separate entities operating in concert, control the U.S. government. Power flows from the Sovereign People, through the Constitution, and splits: half goes to the State Governments; the other half goes direct to the Government of the United States. When a majority of the Senate, representing the State Governments, and a majority of the House, representing the People, agree, then the re-combined power flows to the government of the U.S. to impose a new law and enforce it -- IF subject matter jurisdiction is delegated to the government of the U.S. by the Constitution in the first place. This arrangement is SO vital to our liberty that Article V of the Constitution contains a near-complete prohibition against changing it: Article V provides the methods by which the Consti tution may lawfully be amended, and the last sentence of Article V specifically states: "... no State without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate." The 17th Amendment, as proposed, and as purportedly ratified, turned the Senate into another House of Representatives. It provided that Senators would be elected by the popular vote, thus depriving the States, as the separate entities they legally and constitutionally are, from their suffrage in the Senate. Two States, Delaware and (I have the other State somewhere if you want it) specifically and expressly denied their consent to being deprived of their suffrage in the Senate: they voted the Amendment down. Eight other States passively and silently withheld their consent to being deprived of their suffrage in the Senate by taking no action at all on the proposed 17th Amendment. Thus the 17th Amendment was NOT ratified. Thus, by Constitu tional definition (Art. I, Sec. 3) we have no Senate. Thus, by Constitutional definition (Art. I, Sec. 1) we have no CONGRESS. What does this do to all the so-called 'laws' this august body of imposters has foisted upon the unsuspecting American people over the last nearly 80 years? It appears to me that it invalidates them. Also, appointments to the Presidential Cabinet and to the Judicial Branch must be 'ratified' by the Senate. What does the non-existent 17th Amendment do to all those appointments? It appears to me they were invalidated because there was no Senate to consider ratification, much less ratify. In short form, what does this do to the existence of any lawful government of the United States at all over the last nearly 80 years? In my view, it invalidates it with extreme prejudice. Since 1913, the States, as separate entities with sovereign rights of their own, and sovereign RESPONSIBILITIES of their own (specifically to protect the rights of their citizens against oppression by the federal government), were out of the equation. In one fell swoop, America ceased being a lawful Constitutional Republic unique in all the world, with a government deriving its lawful power from the Constitution and the Consent of the Gov erned (as conveyed by the Constitution), and became a de facto "federal republic" -- the same kind of government Britain has, Australia has, and most other western nations have, which derive their authority to govern from the vague and nebulous concept that the Elitists just automatically have a "divine right" to govern because they are better than anyone else, regardless of who is elected. The aforementioned abdication of power by the lawful govern ment of the United States has had the direct result that today, politicians and bureaucrats and judges alike are of the opinion, expressed only privately amongst themselves, that "The Constitu tion is dissolved, and is dissolved perfectly." Well, I'm sorry, it isn't. Check that -- I'm NOT sorry, but it isn't! The Constitution is as powerful a document as it ever was. It is the GOVERNMENT of the United States that is dissolved and is dissolved perfectly, and by its own hand. However, until We, the People, start fulfilling our responsibility to defend the Constitution and the liberty it compels government to honor, our liberty will continue to be degraded and our situation will continue to deteriorate. Until We, the People, require government to obey the Consti tution, We, the People will continue to have an OCCUPATION GOV ERNMENT -- one deriving no authority from the Constitution of the United States, and no authority from the Consent of the Governed, but deriving all its illegal POWER, without lawful authority, from the ACQUIESCENCE of We, the People. The overseas "federal republic" is the kind of government where the right to even exist as a citizen flows from the head of state down through the hierarchy, bypassing the State governments altogether, to the citizen. The States exist merely as catspaws of the federal government, collecting taxes from the citizenry, forwarding ALL that money to the federal government, and then going hat in hand to Parliament/Congress seeking handouts to maintain their operating budget, and getting money not according to need or established law, but according to political favors and political blackballs and their compliance with federal "public policy." Under a "federal republic," national security -- what GOVERN MENT says is national security, and what the courts call 'compel ling need' -- is superior to the rights of anyone and everyone. And anything which threatens to reduce the horrendous power of U.S. government officials, is, in their view, a threat to "na tional security." In the U.S. version of the "federal republic," the only thing different is that a private organization, not established by any law and NOT EVEN ESTABLISHED AS A CORPORATION UNDER CIVIL LAW, collects taxes, enters the amounts into ledgers, turns the money over to another private organization, the Federal Reserve Bank, to be shredded, and turns the figures entered in the ledger over to the federal government. The amount shredded is entered in the records as amounts repaid to the Fed; when government wants more money it borrows it from Fed-member banks and other private credit-givers, and meanwhile the Fed prints money in whatever amount the Federal Reserve Board thinks is necessary to control the economy. The Fed then lends that money to its member banks at interest, who put it into circulation by lending it to their customers -- including the U.S. government and also including foreign countries which haven't a hope in hell of ever repaying it. When those foreign countries default on their loans, the banks let them get away with it indefinitely as long as they pay at least the interest. When they stop paying even the interest, the banks lobby the federal government to give foreign aid to these countries so that they can repay their loans. Thus, as usual, the American taxpayer foots the bill -- it is OUR SUBSTANCE that is being robbed from us by an illegal organi zation to give to our illegal government, so our illegal govern ment can illegally give the money away to foreign countries (nothing in the Constitution authorizes this), who may, some times, maybe partially, give it back to those U.S. banks, who in turn give it back to the privately-owned Federal Reserve Bank. And meanwhile we are being oppressed by the horrendous weight of not only all this deficit, but also by the INTEREST on all this deficit, and the Fed has never printed the money with which to pay the interest! If every single Federal Reserve Note ever printed was turned in to the Fed tomorrow to repay the national debt, we would still owe many TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS in interest -- and there is nothing left to pay it with but the collateral our criminal 'government' has put up to secure the debt. The interest on the national debt is equal to an amount, today, greater than the sum total value of all real estate under the jurisdiction of the U.S. government, all improvements upon that real estate, plus our best-prediction total gross national product for the next 150 years. Guess who owns the Fed? Through a myriad of financial hold ing companies, international banks, and other fronts, guess who ultimately owns all the shares in the federally-chartered private corporation known as the "Federal Reserve Bank"? Answer: The five richest families of Europe. The same fami lies, several generations later, as those who considered the American Revolutionaries as conducting "sheer effrontery" to their natural masters. They didn't get mad; they got even. But I digress. Back to our muttons: Immediately on the heels of the passage of the Federal Reserve Act in 1913 came the beginning of World War I: "The War To End All Wars." WWI cost the Allies 337 trillion dollars, most of which was borrowed. Three guesses from whom it was borrowed! Two years after the war ended in 1918, an economist and British Baron (what else?) by the name of John Maynard Keynes, who, according to at least one source never even graduated from college, wrote his epic monument to economic fraud. In this book he wrote the following passage: "By a continuing process of inflation, governments can con fiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. There is no subtler, no surer means of over turning the existing basis of society than to debauch the curren cy. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose." -- THE ECONOMIC CONSE QUENCES OF THE PEACE, 1920, by John Maynard Keynes. The economic theory proposed by this sophomoric, myopic neanderthal grabbed the attention of the international elitist syndicate of families, who immediately set about incorporating his theory into the economy of every nation in the world. Only there was a hitch: While the international elitists had, through the Federal Reserve Bank, finally managed to acquire a modicum of control over our nation's economy, it was still limited by the fact that the paper money it printed had to be 'backed' by the face value amount in gold or silver coin. How could it establish a "continuing process of inflation," and "confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth" of American citizens as long as American currency was backed by gold and silver coin? From 1776 to 1913, for example, the total accumulated infla tion rate in America was less than one-tenth of one percent, and America was the most prosperous and industrious nation in the world, all because of the Constitutional requirement of a mone tary system based upon precious metals of intrinsic value. We were also politically the most independent nation of the world, because people worked and had a right to the fruits of their labors, and because their money had intrinsic value, the people had greater economic clout than government con artists and song- and-dance men. Government truly was by the Consent of the Gov erned, and government was painfully aware that it depended upon the good will of the working people of America for its continued existence. How could the international syndicate of monied shysters separate Americans from that unseemly authority over their gov ernment, gain control of the government themselves, and get even for the stinging slap in the face this unblushing rabble had administered to them in the American Revolution? They quickly thought of a way. It would take a little time for their new toehold in America, the Federal Reserve Bank, to settle in and become part of the scenery, and meanwhile the rest of the world was suffering a debilitating and devastating Great Depression while America seem to prosper, but they WOULD get even, all right! In 1929, the hammer fell and they slapped us down, HARD. All they did was slow the printing presses; slow down the production of new currency. Money in circulation decreased; people began to feel a slowdown in the economy; they began digging into their cash reserves to keep going. To keep their cash reserves solvent they put onto the stock market some of their investments previ ously withheld, and others, eager to snap them up, depleted cash reserves further. The buying frenzy of these newly-available stocks sent the market through the roof, and as cash reserves became critical and people panicked and sold out, it took a shrieking nosedive into the cellar. This was the single, exclusive, one and only cause of the Crash of '29: the foreign-owned Fed slowed the printing presses down to a near stop. In one fell swoop the world monied inter ests had slapped us down hard for our stinging rebuke to them in the American Revolution, imposed the same suffering on America as was being endured by the rest of the world, and set the stage for the removal of the monetary backing by gold and silver coin. That, they knew, would result in the easy acquisition of total political control over the government of the United States and total economic control over the people of the United States. Now we were hurting. Now America was no longer prosperous. Within 3 years, one out of four American workers had lost their jobs. Many lost their homes due to their inability to pay their mortgages. Breadlines were long and somber. Now it became difficult to make our repayments for the money borrowed to prose cute World War I. Now the gold going overseas to make those payments, as well as the gold sent overseas to purchase imports, when other countries had no gold to buy our exports with, was a significant percentage of the total gold coined by the United States, and we began to suffer from a bad case of "gold drain." Along came Franklin Delano Roosevelt: He and his "brain trust" of close advisors decided the way to keep gold from flow ing out of the United States was to remove the gold backing from our currency. How convenient that this was exactly what the international banking cartel wanted! Only problem is, the remov al of the gold backing ONLY applies to you and I! If you read the Gold Reserve Act of 1934, you will find, in the second para graph, a clause EXEMPTING the currency of the United States from having its backing removed. All that happened, really, was that now government could offer "foreign aid" to foreign countries instead of gold. Mean while, no private individual could go into a bank or Treasury office or Federal Reserve office, as previously, and redeem their paper money in gold. The Gold Reserve Act of 1934 also prohibited the private ownership of gold, thus completely depriving the people of what ever economic clout, based upon their gold wealth, they may have had to stop government and "quasi"-government criminality. The World Book Encyclopedia, 1964: "Many of his (John May nard Keynes) ideas were included in President Franklin D. Roose velt's New Deal program in the 1930's (see NEW DEAL)." Since those hurt most by the Crash and Great Depression were the little people who, unable to work due to age or infirmity, were living on their investments, and since the Crash wiped out their investments, F.D.R. offered the people "Social Security": "Here, sign your liberty and soul away on this application, get a government-issued Social Security Number so that you too may be listed as a 'Government-owned Commercial Commodity Unit' in the files of the Department of Commerce, and government will provide for your retirement!" Whoopee! everyone cheered. (Well, not everyone, but who listens to someone who knows what they're talking about when government is saying the opposite?) When the Supreme Court began taking a dim view of playing fast and loose with the U.S. Constitution, F.D.R. flew into a rage and began trying to "pack" the Supreme Court. Congress didn't quite go along with his demands, but he was successful enough that with attrition due to retirement and death in office, only two Justices of the Supreme Court were NOT Roosevelt ap pointees as late as 1944. AMERICA ... OCCUPIED! (Continued) (I've read some of the rulings handed down by the Roosevelt Court, and I'll tell you: they are INCREDIBLE. It is abundantly clear that not only were these judges incompetent as to the law, they weren't even capable of reading plain English! The Consti tution would say one thing in plain English and they would rule, without a shred of precedent or justification, that it said exactly the opposite or, alternatively, that it said nothing at all about the controversy in question when it clearly addressed the issue directly and to the point. We still suffer greatly, as a nation, because of approximately ten years of incompetency and severe leftist ideology on the Supreme Court, and a significant measure of that incompetency and leftist ideology endures even today.) Baron Von Rothschild, at that time reputed to be patriarch of THE most wealthy family in the world and the Capo de Capo of the International Banking Cartel, is quoted as having told an inter national conference of financial interests in 1937: "Give me control of a nation's currency, and I care not who makes its laws." I cannot help but feel he said it with a very self-satis fied smirk. World War II started in 1939, and F.D.R. couldn't wait to get the U.S. into the thick of it. His wish was granted when the Japanese hit Pearl Harbor, and if ever the international banking syndicate gave thanks for an ideal opportunity to make a profit by exploiting America's war effort, December 7th, 1941 was the day. The cartel supported all sides of the war; Hitler's Chan cellor of the Exchequer was the brother (or brother-in-law, I've forgotten which) of the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury; Standard Oil (owned by British financial interests [guess who?]) sold oil to Germany AND the U.S. up until the last year or so of the war, a 'War Tax' was instituted, and a 'Withholding Tax' with a two- year sunset clause was passed to enforce it (you'll note it is still with us; few sage observers of the time figured it would be otherwise), and our debt to the international banking cartel obliterated the ceiling on the way to the Moon. (Note that I do not decry World War II as being anything less than absolutely necessary, any more than I decry the Persian Gulf War. I just object to the filthy profits made out of it by the banksters, and to the continued destruction of our Constitution as a limit on government. In both cases the war was necessary because of really bad mistakes and planned intrigues conducted much earlier for the specific purpose of making war necessary.) Franklin Delano Roosevelt died of a cerebral hemorrhage on April 12th, 1945. My encyclopedia strangely ignores F.D.R.'s last words, at tributing to him in their place the phrase "I have a terrific headache," but it is worth noting multiple reports that F.D.R.'s actual last words, on his deathbed, was a cry of agony: "Oh, my God! I have betrayed my country!" He sure did. In all fairness, F.D.R. was typical of that breed of man who puts compassion for others above principle, who rejected what, to him, were nebulous (and inedible) ideals of liberty and personal responsibility and a government of law, not of men, in favor of overwhelmingly destructive ideals of "rescu ing" anyone and everyone who faced any difficulty. He seemed to totally reject the axiom "That Which Doesn't Kill Us, Strengthens Us." He was ably assisted in this endeavour by what became known as "Roosevelt's Brain Trust," who were disciples of Keynesian Economics to a man. His compassionate but oppressive shadow has not yet faded from our land, and will not for generations to come (in the absence of our sudden destruction, of course). Moving right along: On April 18th, 1946, the United Nations came into being for the purpose of settling disputes between nations without the necessity of the scourge of war. It's estab lishment was concurrent with the dissolution of the old League of Nations, founded in 1920 by then President Woodrow Wilson, who was unable to get the United States to join it. The U.S. was one of the primary members of the U.N., however, and has paid the bulk of its operating costs ever since. While the purpose of both the League of Nations and the United Nations has been to "prevent war," hindsight reveals that rather than preventing war, all the U.N. does is reserve to itself the authority to wage war in the name of "police action," and it does so in a manner insuring that the REAL instigators of the conflict do not have to enter into the fighting -- the U.N. provides the proxies to prosecute the fight so the real protago nists don't have to get their hands and their countries bloodied. Usually the proxies sent to fight consist of U.S. forces and ignorant, brainwashed hordes of people funded and advised by the Soviet Union. The Korean Conflict, the Viet Nam Conflict, the Nicarauguan Conflict, the El Salvador Conflict, and now the Persian Gulf Conflict, all meet this definition: we send our young men (and women) into harm's way to fight someone else's fight and to make a fortune for the members of the International Banking Cartel. To the banksters, it matters not who wins or loses, or if anyone does. It matters only that the war drags on, costing us billions. The longer it goes on, the better for them. If Commu nism, which the Fabian Society exported to the rest of world, had achieved dominance in the world over capitalism, then they (or another organization they created) would start exporting capital ism. It is not right or wrong; it is not liberty or oppression; it is the conflict between the two which matters to them and which fills their lives with money and power and influence. They play both sides of every fence. And We, the People work and slave and sacrifice in unwitting involuntary servitude to support not our own desires for a reasonably comfortable existence, or a better world for our children, but to support the insatiable, rapacious appetite of those of wealthy international ambitions. THE PRESENT: 1. The "Keep The People In The Program" program: The Internal Revenue Service is another illegal outgrowth of the shenanigans of 1913 and is NOT a government agency. Title 31 United States Code, Chapter 3, Subchapter 1, lists all the agen cies, departments, bureaus, "services," etc., under the control and authority and responsibility of the Department of the Treas ury. According to a House report it is a complete list, but the so-called "Internal Revenue Service" is not listed. It's too complex to go into here, but suffice to say that if the IRS WERE a government agency, it would be struck down as unConstitutional. That's why it is not: Since it is a non- government entity, the protection of rights afforded by the Constitution may be ignored. Businesses, especially those who have asked permission of government to exist (corporations, among others) have no rights anyway because they are not natural indi viduals; they are "Law Merchants" or "commercial entities." Government has the power to control their every action, including whom they may hire and whom they may not. They are prohibited from hiring "natural individuals at law" by government's require ment that their every "employee" have a government-issued serial number (Social Security Number.) So, basically, you can't get a job unless you are a govern ment-owned and serial-numbered Commercial Commodity Unit. But you are not COMPELLED to become a government-owned serial-num bered Commercial Commodity Unit, and therefore if you do so (to enjoy the luxury of feeding your family, for example) you are doing so VOLUNTARILY. If you do so voluntarily, then you are under CONTRACT to government and by the essence of that contract, you, too, are a "Law Merchant" and/or "commercial entity" and government has absolute power over your every action. "And gee," government apologizes, "if you aren't a natural individual at law (one whose rights are sovereign over government whim), then we aren't going to hear your complaint that the IRS has no lawful authority over you. It has authority over you because we WANT it to have authority over you, and without any interference from 'law' -- after all, we are now a nation of very powerful men, not of law." (The way fight this [it is not a way out, but it gives stand ing to your fight] is to not do so voluntarily. Don't sign up for it unless you absolutely have to, and then do it under du ress. More information upon request.) In 1964, President "Tricky Dicky" Nixon pulled the same stunt as F.D.R. pulled in 1934, for the same given reasons: he removed the SILVER backing of the paper dollar. From that moment on, our currency has been totally worthless: it costs one and one-third cent to print a 'dollar' bill of any denomination, and the gov ernment of the United States (and therefore the People of the United States) owe the Federal Reserve Bank one dollar, mandated by law as a specified measure of gold or silver, for each dollar amount of Federal Reserve Note bills so printed. Plus interest. (A 'note' is defined by law as an 'I.O.U.') Now you might understand why we have so many huge areas of the United States designated as "wilderness" areas, not to be improved or developed: these areas are collateral for what we owe the foreign-owned Federal Reserve Bank! I noted once again, for example, as soon as the recent humongous budget and tax increase was passed, another 3800 acres of Arizona was set aside as "Wilderness." You may have heard of similar events in your own State, with any connection to the budget conveniently omit ted. Less than 4% of the land area of Arizona is in private hands; the rest is in either corporate or government hands -- and Arizona is one of the 'GOOD' States in this regard! There is a problem with Keynesian Economics which completely escaped our ivory-tower pseudo-intellectual John Maynard Keynes: Sooner or later, you have to pay the piper. The only way to stave off having to pay the piper (having your whole economic house of cards collapse upon you), is to either periodically enter into a "limited" war (which gets rid of a lot of hardware and excess population and requires hard work to repay the accumu lated debt and still make a living) or to continually be opening new debt markets to exploit and drain dry: In 1975-76, our nation was just about SATURATED with debt. Hardly anyone owned anything; practically everyone was in hock to the hilt, the citizens, the businesses, and the government in cluded. There were even movements afoot to open up credit to teenagers in an effort to expand the debt market. So, assuming the mantle of the hardy pioneer exploring new lands, our 'own' (Bllicchh! God, I hated saying that!) David Rockefeller, Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and North American Chairman of the Trilateral Commission (TC), and front man for the European Financial Empire (the banking cartel), paid a private (non-State) visit to the Soviet Union. Shortly thereafter, billboards extolling the virtues (!) of Mastercard and VISA began appearing in Moscow. Within a very few short months, a really sweetheart of a nice guy (and former head of the KGB!) by the name of Mikhail Gorbachev popped up in the Soviet Union and started sweet-talking the West. Along about the same time, a wimpy sweetheart of a nice guy (and former head of the CIA!) by the name of George Bush popped up in the U.S. of A and began sweet-talking the Soviets. George Bush is the first President in American history to enter the Oval Office KNOWING IN ADVANCE who his masters were; he had been groomed in politics for years and years by those mas ters, and agrees with their agenda -- he wants to be one of those "masters" himself. All the previous Presidents, a naive actor by the name of Ronald Reagan included, didn't find out until after they were in the Oval Office. In Reagan's case, for example, his advisors managed to cover up his lack of control while main taining his image as the "cutting back on government" President, and meanwhile he signed a half-dozen or more bills increasing federal intrusion into the private financial affairs of the People: including the infamous TEFRA Act, which requires you to I.D. yourself and give your personal data, for later followup by the IRS, if you decide to sell any precious metals. President John F. Kennedy didn't find out until almost two years into his term of office -- or perhaps he found out immedi ately and refused to accept the facts until nearly two years into his term. At any rate, ten days before his assassination, he gave a speech at Columbia University in which he stated that he had learned the Office of the President was under the control of organizations and individuals outside the purview of American politics, and that before he left office he would have to "inform the American People of his (the President's) plight." Ten days later he was dead. Very shortly after that, and very convenient ly, the man who purportedly shot him was also dead. It is doubt ful the truth of that assassination in terms of who the trigger man was, who the back-up man was, who set up the fall guy, and who got paid and by exactly whom will ever be known. Concurrent with the construction of oil fields in Alaska, circa late 1960's to early 1970's, we had an oil embargo against us -- remember that? Remember the oil tankers sitting off the coast waiting weeks to unload, and not doing so, while cars lined up for blocks at the gas pumps and the cost of gasoline jumped from around 25-35 cents a gallon to well over a dollar? What was the objective of that exercise? The objective was fourfold: 1) to get the cost of U.S. gasoline firmly over a dollar a gallon, closer to what Europeans were paying for it (of which well over half of that cost is taxes); 2) to give greater importance to the completion of the Alaskan Oil Fields and the Oil Pipeline; and 3) paradoxically, to give President Jimmy Carter a strong incentive to throw every stumbling block he could, in the form of EPA regulations and others, in front of the efforts by the oil companies to develop the Alaskan Fields. (And 4, the 'Elitist Syndrome': Elitists are extremely annoyed when 'mere rabble' (that is, non-elitists) drive around in big flossy Yank Tanks and other expensive energy-consuming flash cars -- after all, the understated manifestation of wealth of a Rolls Royce limosine isn't worth much if your gardener drives a Cadil lac or Pontiac or Oldsmobile and its costs him less than your Rolls costs you. [I mean, Gawd, Jenkins, the EFFRONTERY of these Yanks!]) There was, reportedly, enough oil under the Alaskan shelf to fill the energy needs of the U.S. for 200 years. Why was there a necessity of costing the oil companies so much? So that they would eventually give up and sell out to Japanese (and Arabian!) investors, SO THAT NOW WE HAVE TO BUY OUR OWN OIL BACK FROM FOREIGNERS! In short, the objective was to keep us from becoming energy independent. If we became energy independent, we wouldn't be interested in throwing billions of dollars and who knows how many American lives away fighting an illegal war in the Persian Gulf. Think about it. The puppet-masters engage in VERY long-range planning. Read Hal Lindsey's book on the Alaskan Oil Fields; he was a Chaplain up there. I wish I could remember the name of the book; I thought I had a copy. In 1984, President Jimmy Carter signed a classified Execu tive Order authorizing the construction of some 25 "prison camps" (concentration camps) capable of housing up to 25,000 prisoners each, spread throughout the United States. Most of these were built on military reservations. The program was known by the codename "REX '84," and only came to light when some middle- to high-ranking military officers leaked the information to the underground press. They did so because the creation of these camps raised, in their mind, serious constitutional issues. When questioned by the press, the administration passed off the neces sity for these camps as the expected results of the "drug war," an explanation which satisfied no one except perhaps the lick spittle mass media. A map and listing of the location of these camps was pub lished by the UPRIGHT OSTRICH a few months ago, and by the SPOT LIGHT a few months before that. I believe these camps were established to deal with the extreme civil turmoil, bordering on revolution or more so, which will result when America is brought into the Internationalist's "New World Order" (one-world dicta torship government) now touted by George "Renegade" Bush as the end-all to be-all of world problems, and into which his middle east adventurism (regardless of its manufactured necessity) is now pulling us headlong. In March/April of 1990, Ambassador Fitzgerald, he of extreme Washington influence in political and economic (banking!) cir cles, wrote a "White Paper" (opinion paper) on the necessity of disarming Saddam Hussein's burgeoning military machine. At the same time, Senator Bob Dole and his entourage travelled to Bagh dad to request that Saddam disarm "in the interests of Middle East stability." Saddam declined on the grounds that Israel maintains an arsenal of 100 nuclear weapons and delivery systems. Senator Dole then returned to Washington and immediately intro duced the "Dole Initiative," cutting off all food purchases (up to $3 billion a year) by Iraq. Britain did exactly the same thing at the same time at the behest of the Internationalists (who, of course, were also behind Fitzgerald's White Paper and Dole's trip to Iraq and Dole's subsequent reaction to Saddam's rebuff.) As reinforcement for the Dole Initiative, Fitzgerald's "White Paper" was published and circulated in Congress as the Initiative was introduced. The U.S. Congress also wrangled over the national budget for a LONG time and finally passed one that was NO LESS THAN TWO AND ONE-HALF PERCENT BIGGER than any budget ever passed before, and this under circumstances which made such a large budget totally unnecessary EVEN IF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY HAD THEIR WAY ALL THE WAY DOWN THE PAGE! The excuse given was the "deficit" and the "national debt," both of which are serious problems, but neither of which will EVER be solved by raising taxes, and they know it. This budget was passed to finance the Gulf War THEY KNEW WAS COMING. I therefore submit that Saddam Hussein was the ideal target for the Internationalist's scam and was manipulated into invading Kuwait. Now, I do not deny for an instant the fact that Saddam had just completed (without resolution one way or the other) an 8-year war with Iran, and instead of fighting that war and build ing his military machine he COULD have been putting that money back into food production and other economic elements of his own country. But Saddam is Saddam: he did not improve his own country's economy; he built a war machine, and he tested his war machine for eight years against Iran to enable his soldiers to gain combat experience. That is why he was the ideal pawn of the Internationalists and THEIR pawns, the British and U.S. govern ments. The other Coalition partners went along with us primarily because their own narrow focus perceived Saddam as a threat, and also because the U.S. government bought 'em off. From the Internationalists' point of view, the purpose of the Gulf Crisis is to 1) run the U.S. economy deeper into red ink than it has EVER been before; 2) to deepen the U.S. recession -- perhaps into a full-fledged Depression; 3) to make the American worker cry out ONCE AGAIN for relief in the form of more oppres sive laws to redistribute the wealth from the Middle Class into the Poverty Class (the Elitists can't STAND the existence of a Middle Class; it threatens their authority); and 4) to expose us to international terrorism in hopes of getting us to accept draconian firearm control laws because their plan is going to come apart like an egg in a blender if Americans are still armed when the crunch comes. The "crunch," by the way, was planned as far back as 1941: A map surfaced in 1941, purportedly from sources within the inter national cartel, which showed the entire world carved up into "Regions" not obeying any national borders existing then or now, and including plans revealing that each region was to be assigned troops from different areas of the world (so they would not identify with the locals) to "keep order." The map was also published in the UPRIGHT OSTRICH a few months ago, and I recom mend obtaining a copy and comparing it to the ten "Regions" established in the U.S. by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for "administrative" purposes. AMERICA ... OCCUPIED! (Continued) Russian advisors orchestrated the other side in Korea and Viet Nam, and (of course) in El Salvador and Nicaraugua, and now we're doing it again in the Persian Gulf: We are fighting anoth er war against a Russian surrogate. If there is a difference (and I am not sure there is) it APPEARS as though Russia has abandoned its surrogate in this case. Don McAlvany ("Don McAlva ny's Intelligence Report") claims that there is no difference; that Russia had 10,000 troops in Iraq when Iraq invaded Kuwait, and has 7,000 troops there now. (I doubt these numbers; we would have heard reports of it by now -- maybe . . . (or maybe not).) He also claims the invasion of Kuwait and the defensive lines were designed by Russia's top tactical warfare general, and that Saddam is being guarded by a company of Russian Spetsnatz. Either or both of these are possible, even though we haven't heard of it. He also claims that 24 nuclear-tipped ICBM missiles which were in E. Germany when the Berlin Wall came down are not there now, and they are not in Europe, and they are not in the Soviet Union. (I don't know how he 'knows' the missiles are NOT some where, but well . . . maybe.) His inference is that they may be in Iraq, though he is quick to point out that he has no evidence that they are. I am not overly concerned about this even if they are in Iraq; these are Inter-CONTINENTAL ballistic missiles: they wouldn't work against forces as close as our troops (well, with extremely accurate targeting they might be sent out into space for an hour or so and then return, but targeting would be VERY difficult.) I doubt they could be targeted there and I doubt they could be targeted here without months of computer ballistic calculations (the way things are going, they may have months to calculate ballistics!). But, I think we would have heard some thing about these, too, if they were in the war theater. However, those missiles might be elsewhere, in a region already ballistically calculated for a trajectory to mainland U.S. I mention this only to be honest about the possibilities; I really don't believe we are in for a significant nuclear ex change. The reason is simple: There are too many plums in the pie, for the world Elitists, to allow the pie to be burned to a cinder. But accidents do happen, and people do lose their tem pers, and some people do insist upon engaging in that "final act of defiance." One is reminded that Nostradamus predicted, according to at least one interpretation, that Russia would bomb the hell out of the West Coast of the U.S. and then leave us alone -- i.e., not follow up with invasion or other engagement. For some reason I have not been able to explain or justify, even to myself, I expect that prediction to come true -- but I don't know when, and I don't think it will be soon, and I have nothing of any sub stance at all to support my dark suspicion that it will happen eventually. Soviet Chess Champion Gary Kasparov, writing in the April/May 1990 issue of GLASNOST, published by the Centre for Democracy in the USSR (358 West 30th St., Suite 1-A, New York NY 10001) [which article served as notes for his address to the Second Biennial RAND-Hoover Symposium, and was reprinted in THE CANADIAN INTELLI GENCE OBSERVER (Bag 78, High River, Alberta T0L 1B0) and in the UPRIGHT OSTRICH (The Order of the Upright Ostrich, P. O. Box 11691, Milwaukee, WI 53211] says that the West is mistaken if it believe Gorbachev EVER had intentions of liberating the Soviet Union from Communism. He says that Gorbachev's conflict is between the New Communism (represented by Gorbachev at the top post of the New World Order) and the Old Communism, represented by Moscow's Old Guard of hard-line Communists. He says the demonstrations of the people in the Baltic States is not because they have found courage, and not because Gorbachev gave them "permission" to demonstrate and then took it away -- it is, rather, because they have lost all hope of peaceful reform. He says that if the West gives aid, it must be given to democratic institutions within the USSR and not the State itself, or if given to the State, it must be conditioned upon the scrap ping of the Central Planning Authority of the Communist Party and the actual recognition of individual rights by the Communist Party. He says that the people of the USSR WILL regain their freedom regardless of whether we aid them or aid the Party or offer no aid at all -- but if we aid the Party or offer no aid at all, tens of thousands of people will die in the conflict and the Russian People will not soon forget our betrayal. Also, of course, the attempted assassination of the Pope was a KGB plot, just as McElvany said it was a week after it happened and as it was admitted a year later. The assassination attempt was because the current Pope ALSO sees himself as filling the top post in the "New World Order." The Vatican, believe it or not, is a contender to the level of Superpower. So you see, the entire WORLD is reaching critical mass, not just the Persian Gulf. AMERICA ... OCCUPIED! (Continued) BEFORE you read this file, PLEASE go back and read 'America.1' through 'America.4' in the FILES section. What I am about to say will make a lot more sense to you, and carry a lot more weight, if you do. Besides, I think YOU will be able to more accurately predict events in areas I haven't covered if you know the background. As I said at the end of the last File, 'America.4,' "Do you see? The entire WORLD is reaching critical mass, not just the Persian Gulf." Keep that in mind, and especially keep in mind the strong factor of unpredictability in wartime, and ESPECIALLY that unpredictability among Allies who support us mainly because we bought 'em off. It has been suggested by some astute Middle East advisors that all Saddam Hussein has to do is make a peace offer to King Faud, and offer him part of Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia will politely, and forthwith, ask the U.S. to go home. Bush certainly isn't prepared for that. But then, he should know better than to stick his beak into someone else's argument. If, somehow, the world does not reach critical mass and explode in our face in the next two years, THERE WILL BE a New World Order within five years. United Europe will become the new 'hegemon' of the world; THE Super Power. America's influence will decline virtually to that of a Third World Nation because we will have wasted our next five hundred years or so of gross national product on an illegal (by Constitutional Law) war the Arab sympathizers of Saddam Hussein are already calling "the Hundred Year War." I do not call this a "theory"; I consider this a FAIT ACCOMPLI -- there is no chance of it NOT happening if the world doesn't mostly self-destruct in the meantime. I have before me a copy of an article published in the Dec. 31, 1990 issue of U.S. News & World Report, by David Lawday, in Europe, titled "EUROPE WITHOUT THATCHER", and subtitled "America Is Dead Wrong To Think Things Won't Change." The article con firms again the fact that Margaret Thatcher was forced out be cause she refused to surrender Britain's sovereignty to European Unity (the European one-third of the 'New World Order'). It goes on to say, and I quote: "Since 1992 popularly caught on as the slogan for European integration, the timetable has had a one-date look. In fact, 1991 now becomes the key year in which EC members will hammer out new treaties locking themselves into monetary and political union. Then follows completion of a common internal market at the end of 1992, and, at the start of 1994, the launching of streamlined unity in the form of common foreign policy, the foundations of a common defense and a start on a common currency." The world, she is a-changing, folks, and it is extremely doubtful there is a danged thing any of us can do about it. About all we can do is keep our eyes open, our powder dry, and be ready to duck. It won't help to cut and run; there won't be any place to run to. We can expect some or all of the following to occur over the next couple of years or so: 1. We will see increased calls for laws banning the private ownership of firearms, and even unilateral Executive or Legisla tive action to this purpose in direct opposition to the will of the people -- "in the interests of public safety and national security," of course. Rigid, draconian gun control laws are absolutely essential to the Elitists' plan and they know it. Otherwise, they know, sooner or later their house of cards is going to come tumbling down and bury them under it. 2. We will see increased instances of Executive Branch indictment of Legislative Branch members at the federal and state levels, the objective being to de-stabilize the tripartite con stitutional element of government and eventually do away with the legislative branch altogether, or at least so castrate it that by all measurable criteria, we again have a monarchy -- even if it is a monarchy by unelected committee. Before then, however, while these Executive Branch assaults against members of the Legislative Branch are going on at both the State and Federal levels (and in most cases are RICHLY deserved!), there will be a shift toward concentrating on State Legislatures, and more and more upon State Executive officers. The object here is to de- stabilize the State governments and get the people really annoyed at their State government officials -- then the people will support the dissolution of States altogether, in favor of the ten Federally-managed Regions desired by the de facto Federal Govern ment. 3. We will see institution of a "War Tax," and I won't be surprised to see an additional "War Sur-Tax" on top of the "War Tax." (I saw a table of figures recently purportedly from the recent U.S. Census. According to this table, a person without a high school education earns around 9400 frns a year, and takes home about 5100 of it. An Engineer or Scientist or Chief Execu tive Officer may earn as much as 51,000 a year, and takes home about 48,000 of it. Makes it obvious their taxation priorities, doesn't it?) (One of the primary goals of this manufactured war is taxes -- not merely another increase, but I'm talking about a 'grinding the people into the dirt' level of taxation; ultimately -- if they can deprive us of our weapons -- a taxation rate of 90% or more. Of course, this means an economy not worthy of the name, but that's okay to them -- they don't care whether the people make it or not so long as they get everything the people make and have the political enforcement machine to force us to make more. 4. We will see further deterioration of what we regard as our "rights:" Stops for random drug testing, for example, which will gravitate into searches for "subversive literature" and other "contraband" such as MONEY: So-called "laws" are already in place permitting federal enforcement goons to confiscate cash in excess of 5-10,000 frns if found on an individual, whether in legal possession or not, and in most cases the money will not be returned. Being required to have "travel papers" to cross a State line, for another example, to prevent the free travel of terrorists (of course). Trials on charges of Sedition, the one 'crime' Thomas Jefferson said could never be a crime in the U.S. Increased emphasis on the collection of taxes, with even more horrendous powers unlawfully delegated to officers of the Illegal Racketeering Service (IRS). Greater control of interstate com merce, to better control what areas (regions) get essential items like food, etc., to control dissent. Requirements that individuals out of work because of the 'Recession' (Depression) not receive unemployment benefits unless they go to work at whatever dirt job government says needs doing ('Workfare' has already been instituted in some States, requiring welfare recipients to go to work if they want welfare -- not a bad plan, since welfare is illegal anyway, but the problem arises when a free American is REQUIRED to work 'in the interests of national security.' This is pure and simple enslavement, and Red China has required this of their people for years.) Etc., etc. 5. We will see further indications that the illegal de facto government of our country, whom we elected (we think; sometimes I have doubts), are not accountable to the People OR to the Consti tution, but are accountable only to foreign political organiza tions such as the United Nations and 'New World Order.' 6. We will see the introduction of the "New Money" designed with some electronic means built in so that every federal reserve note (frn) can be kept track of in every transaction every time it goes through a bank account. (That way you don't need to file a "return;" the IRS will just send you a bill each year.) Before that, there will also be increased surveillance of bank accounts and all transactions in an effort to curtail "money laundering" -- an Elitist euphemism for any financial transaction, even those otherwise perfectly legal, they don't know about and can't tax. The political, legal, and actual physical machinery, and person nel, are already in place to scrutinize every transaction that goes through any financial institution in America and most of those overseas, and these operations are being given more and more funding to accomplish their mission. 7. We will see increasing use of plastic credit cards for every kind of purchase imaginable; even purchases between private individuals. Another way to keep track of our financial activi ties. [In Shanghai, China, right now, you cannot buy groceries with cash -- you MUST have a 'credit card' (debt card).] Eventu ally it will be illegal to use cash or barter for any transaction -- according to Don McAlvany, it will be illegal to do so within the decade. 8. And, on top of all this, we will see terrorism from the Middle East to justify all the rest of it. If there isn't any terrorism, our occupation government will find it necessary to create some. This includes the possibility of chemical, biologi cal, and/or nuclear attacks, though they will not be across a broad front -- they will be individual and isolated, to keep us scared and ready to follow orders, but not dead. (Most of us, anyway.) There will also be the possibility -- probability -- of actual nuclear exchanges in a very limited fashion, just to keep us from believing the nuclear threat is all a government hoax. In one area I disagree with Don McAlvany: He seems to be lieve our government would like to keep our economy going, and that the Fed (and its Elitist owners) would like to keep our economy going, and McAlvany explores things Bush COULD do to help the economy, and says Bush might be successful if he does these things and is lucky. I don't think the Elitists want our economy to "keep going." For example, America comprises about 2% of the world popula tion, but consumes about 25% of the world's oil. I think the Elitists want to bring us to a complete halt. I think they want to reduce our consumption to about 2%, and increase their own consumption to improve the European standard of living, and make us pay for it. I think they want to do to us what they did to us in 1929, only worse: Slap us down so hard we beg for relief, and then they will give us relief (through the one-world government puppets) by telling us what jobs they want us to do, when to do it, where to do it, and how much of a subsistence-level living we will make when we do it, and how many times we're going to be shot if we don't do it. I believe this is a very high-stakes game they are playing, and their objective is no less than total, absolute, unrelenting totalitarian control over the entire planet. Once they achieve that, the only conflicts in the world will be in the boardrooms and on the secretarial couches, unless they decide to hold a war -- just for the Roman Games amusement of it all, you see. Once they bring us to a complete halt, they can dictate the rules we survive by -- if we let them. And our occupation gov ernment will do everything in its power to make sure we let them. So what can we do about all this? Not a hell of a lot, unfortunately -- we should have been vigilant and laying down our lives for liberty all these decades, but we've been too interest ed in the good life. We've let them sneak up behind us and put a noose around our neck. But there are things we can do, even as individuals, which will help. As Mother 'O' (Upright Ostrich) says, "one person doing SOMETHING is better than 250 million doing NOTHING." (I think Ann Landers and/or Abigail Van Buren said the same thing.) And who knows, as things deteriorate, maybe these ideas will snowball: Never, EVER give your Social Security Number for any reason other than getting a job, and don't do that unless you have to, and do it then only "under duress." It is against the law for any agency to compel a SS# number in exchange for any service, and they can be fined 1,000 frns if they do, and if the fine is levied, the fine is paid to the victim. Never, EVER give ANYONE, and certainly not any public offi cial or agency, ANY private information about yourself just because they ask for it. Here 'while back, for example, some jerk in the Arizona State Legislature introduced a bill to "protect" runaway minor children by requiring ALL public and private school students to provide evidence of identity in the form of a birth certificate, upon pain of the school authorities "turning the case over to law enforcement for investigation." Enough to scare the hell out of almost any dimwit, right? The bill passed, of course, and we were duly notified of our "respon sibility" in this matter. We wrote back and told the school officials that if and when the law enforcement agencies acquired "reasonable probable cause" to believe our child was a runaway, THEN they had legal cause to "investigate," and not before. Until then, any further attempt to intrude upon our privacy would be responded to with a lawsuit under Titles 18 and 42 of the United States Code. Never heard a another word from 'em. The above rule even applies to the U.S. Census, which the Constitution empowers the government to perform for the purpose of COUNTING PEOPLE (to adjust Congressional representation), and nothing more. Accordingly, we gave our names only and declined to answer all the rest of those incredibly ridiculous and intru sive questions which do absolutely nothing but inform government as to how much it can squeeze the people for taxes during the next ten years. We received one notice that we would be visited by a census taker, to which we responded by saying that we had mailed the form in (which we had). Never heard another word. You don't think they WANT their lack of authority tested in court, do you? Of course not. GET OUT OF YOUR BANKS!!! Close all credit accounts as quick ly as possible. Stop giving government free access to all your private financial data. If you "own" land, and are still paying on it, what can I say? In any event, know that you never did "own" it and you never will -- you haven't paid for it with anything of any intrinsic value; a paper dollar has no intrinsic value and therefore no commodity of intrinsic value has changed hands, and therefore no title has changed hands. Mealy-mouthed court rulings have asserted that paying for land (or anything else, for that matter) with paper money does not acquire title; all it does is "satisfy the obligation to pay" while at the same time not transferring title. Actually, title is in the hands of the occupation government; you are allowed to "manage" the property so long as you pay an annual leasehold rental in the form of "property taxes," which aren't legal under common law ownership. (When our money was gold and silver coin, THEN you could lawfully acquire all right, title, and interest in proper ty.) Get involved in political protests against government and quasi-government intrusion into private rights. For example, April 15th next (April Fool's Day) there will be political ral lies and picketing at post offices around the country to protest the grip the Illegal Racketeering Service (IRS) has on our coun try. Contact National Commodity & Barter Association, 8000 E. Girard Avenue, #215, Denver, CO 80231, 1-303-337-9617, for de tails, and ask for a copy of THE PETITIONER. Write letters to politicians. Be polite, DON'T THREATEN, but make it clear that We, the People have had it up to here with this illegal occupation government and the Plans it has for us, and that you intend to re-elect NO ONE! Do that: 'Next Fall, Fire 'Em All: RE-ELECT NOBODY! Start thinking about measures you can take to protect your firearms from confiscation, in terms of hiding them, etc. If caught doing something you have a right to do but govern ment doesn't like, STAND UP FOR YOUR RIGHTS! Don't acknowledge anyone's authority over YOUR RIGHTS. They are YOURS -- they are your property, and no one else's, and if you don't stand up for them it's a darned cinch no one else will. One example of what I mean is a traffic ticket. I don't recommend this procedure with traffic tickets because we have bigger fish to fry, but it gives you an idea how government works, and it works this way EVERY TIME it wants to separate you from your rights: The cop will give you the ticket book so you can sign the ticket. He'll tell you this is NOT AN ADMISSION OF GUILT, but is merely a promise to appear in court or pay the fine. He is being truthful when he says it is not an admission of guilt, but he is lying to you when he says it's 'only' a promise to appear or pay the fine. It's not an admission of guilt, but it IS a contract which indicates you are volunteering under his authority at Equity, where you haven't ANY RIGHTS AT ALL if the judge decides to ignore your rights. You're under contract; the purpose of a contract is to waive some rights in exchange for some considera tion of value (in this case, the 'privilege' of travelling about in the commonly-accepted mode of transportation of the day.) As I say, doing this with a traffic ticket is a VERY BIG HASSLE for a very minor return; if we win on the big issues the little ones like this will fall apart anyway. But if you are being railroaded, this is a way to make it expensive for them (and you). Maybe, just maybe -- it is hoping against overwhelming de spair, but MAYBE, if enough people wise up, research the REAL law in this country, and start handing out Constitutions and Declara tions of Independence and JURY HANDBOOKS, and start REFUSING TO COOPERATE with illegal government, and STOP GIVING UP, well . . . MAYBE the land of the free and home of the brave will stand a half chance of surviving with something of what our country stands for intact. But know this: we have already passed the point at which government figures it can get away with just mowing down mobs with machine guns if it wants to. It hasn't happened yet, but I think it eventually will, just like Tiananman Square. I know government figures it has a right to do it now if it feels the need. The longer we let government proceed in the direction it is now headed, the more confident it will become that it can do anything it wants to do "in the interests of 'national security.'" Read, research, spend your hard-earned money on underground political publications, and gird your loins for a fight, because if you don't you might as well just roll over now. You won't even get thanked. ------------------------------------------------ (This file was found elsewhere on the Internet and uploaded to the Radio Free Michigan archives by the archive maintainer. All files are ZIP archives for fast download. E-mail bj496@Cleveland.Freenet.Edu)