Part 3:Treason....Fooling the People....State Rights and the Federal Government

Treason 

the New World Order 

by Gurudas

Chapter V 

Fooling the People 

“The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion.” 

Edmund Burke 

“Political language...is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind....The first step in liquidating a people is to erase its memory.” 

George Orwell 

There are many reasons why most people do not understand that our rights are being lost. People think we have a democracy with the people in charge, because this is what the controlled national media tells us. Certain agencies like the CIA use public relations firms, authors, and journalists to fool the public and to perform roles the government cannot legally do. 1 In the 1970s it was revealed that the CIA had hired hundreds of journalists to shape public opinion. 2 It would be extremely naive to not appreciate that such disinformation continues to manipulate and confuse the people. 

This propaganda along with various mind control techniques over the years created a paradigm as described by the philosopher Thomas S. Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. A paradigm represents a model or shared beliefs of the way the world works for most people. Theories help create facts, and people who exist inside a paradigm are quite comfortable with the facts they are told. People who present information outside the existing paradigm are initially called silly, but gradually as different views become a threat to the status quo, people with new ideas are demonized as crazy, extremist, or racist. Conflicting paradigms are sharply resisted. 

This helps explain why almost no one in the Western intelligence community foresaw the collapse of the Soviet Union. Everyone believed this would never happen so the possibility was ignored by all but a few people, like Senator Moynihan. One intelligence officer said in the late 1980s he would have been put in a mental hospital if he had said the Soviet Union was soon going to collapse. Despite growing contrary evidence inside the paradigm everyone felt the Soviet Union remained a powerful and dangerous enemy. Other evidence was ignored or disbelieved.3 

A crisis may cause the formation of a new paradigm as many people work to reconstruct society with new institutions. Then society is divided into separate factions, one defending the old paradigm, while the other group seeks to establish new ideas and institutions. Once this happens normal political interaction may fail, and serious conflict is possible. Political revolutions may occur when groups in the population realize that existing institutions have ceased to properly meet the needs of the people. Then the question is, can the new paradigm solve the problems that created a crisis in the old paradigm? 4 Millions remain in a state of denial today, thinking all is well, while the Patriot movement is getting stronger partly because many people have broken out of the corporate managed paradigm of America. 

Previously propaganda and controlled elections were sufficient to control the people. Now, along with controlling the media and subverting society, a key part of the strategy of the secret government is to keep the people distracted with issues that will not interfere with their goal of establishing tighter control and a one world government. This is done by using various propaganda techniques to redirect the people's actions. Emotional debates and conflicts are created so many people are too busy to notice what is happening to our constitutional rights. The object is to keep the people stupid and ignorant, watching television and sports or other amusements diverting attention and keeping people from organizing. In certain respects our country is like the Roman Empire in its dying days. Then citizens watched people being eaten by lions; today, we are fed hundreds of stories involving crime, sex, and sports. Eduardo Galeano said “The majority must resign itself to the consumption of fantasy. Illusions of wealth are sold to the poor, illusions of freedom to the oppressed,...dreams of victory to the defeated and of power to the weak.” Arthur Miller in Democratic Dictatorship called this process the tyranny of technology. Franz Neumann said: “The higher the state of technological development, the greater the concentration of political power.” People will be made to enjoy their enslavement. 

A classic example of this strategy is the abortion debate. America is the only nation where the abortion issue is such an intense focus for many. In no other country, even where the Catholic church is much stronger, is there such an intense abortion debate. The secret government often places provocateurs on opposing sides of an issue to arouse the people. Whether the issue is child abuse, racial tension, the environment, capital punishment, affirmative action, or women's right, there are many intensely debated issues in our society where this quiet manipulation proceeds. I do not question the sincere beliefs that people have regarding abortion and these other issues, but it is also obvious that millions of people are so involved in these debates that they have little time to examine what is happening to our Constitution and the government. I also do not claim that the secret government is at work in every issue debated in our society, but at times this is a key hidden factor. 

The corporate elite will sometimes set up front groups that supposedly support a cause while they work to weaken the entire movement. Money is donated and provocateurs are planted in various groups the secret government wants to control. A classical example of this is corporate infiltration of the environmental movement. Large corporations and foundations support certain environmental groups like the Wilderness Society. The David and Lucile Packard Foundation supports the Wilderness Society, which never challenged Hewlett Packard's poor land management in the Challis National Forest. One member of the board of the Wilderness Society is Walter Minnick C.E.O. of a multinational timber company, T J International, which is partly owned and allied with other timber companies that are constantly cutting timber with little regard for the environment. 

An obvious diversion for many years was the communist threat. The result was and is that anything could be done to justify the national security state. Historically, after each war America substantially dismantled the military and related industries that supported it, but this did not occur after World War II and the cold war. Some try to justify continuing the defense/security apparatus by speaking of nuclear proliferation, militias, war on drugs, and third world terrorism, or by using the military for national emergencies to stay on a permanent war footing. On the CBS Evening News, March 19, 1995, there was a report on growing Muslim fundamentalism and its threat to the U.S. Senator John Glenn and the NATO Secretary General described Islamic fundamentalism as even more dangerous than communism. At least one reporter called this “absurd” and suggested that NATO needed a new threat to justify its existence. 5 

Bertram Gross, in Friendly Fascism, said technology and corporate central government power were gradually shifting the U.S. towards totalitarianism. Buttressed by constitutional restraints and splits among the elites, he felt that fascism would come gradually through silent encroachments, and the great danger would be that this slow process would be unnoticed by most Americans. It is essential to preserve the facade of democracy while gradually shifting to a police state. The goal is to “accustom the American people to the destruction of their freedoms.” By the time people realize what is happening it could be too late. In America, fascism will come from “powerful tendencies within the Establishment,” not from the right or left. The American model of fascism will be “pluralistic in nature” with “no charismatic dictator, no one-party rule, no mass fascist party, no glorification of the state, no dissolution of legislatures, no discontinuation of elections....” William Shirer, author of The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, said America may be the first country in which fascism takes power through democratic elections. 

The forces that have prevented friendly fascism from developing, such as strong labor unions and a free press, have been subverted by the large corporations. Many labor leaders have become bureaucrats unable to represent their members. Through “mind management and sophisticated repression” incentives, punishments, and escape valves are provided to pave the way for friendly fascism. Widespread diversions such as sex, drugs, cults, mental illness, and sports are used to control people, so they will accept servitude and not oppose government policies. The “soma pills” described by Aldous Huxley, in Brave New World, have arrived. 

In Brave New World, Aldous Huxley said the especially efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the political bosses and managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude. To make people love their slavery is the task today assigned to totalitarian states. We accept our bondage partly because we don't even realize that we have become enslaved by the addiction of television and other forms of modern day propaganda. To become free, we must first recognize our entrapment. 

A major strategy to delude the people is to transform the country gradually into a dictatorship, not upsetting the people. CFR member Henry Morgenthau, who was FDR's Secretary of the Treasury, said: “We can hardly expect the nation state to make itself superfluous, at least not overnight....The transition will not be dramatic, but a gradual one.” CFR member Philip C. Jessup, in The International Problems of Governing Mankind, said: “I agree that national sovereignty is the root of the evil....The question of procedure remains. Can the root be pulled up by one mighty revolutionary heave, or should it first be loosened by digging around it and cutting the rootlets one by one?” The Fabian Socialist H.G. Wells said Roosevelt's New Deal was “the most effective instrument possible for the coming of the new world order....He is continuously revolutionary in the new way without ever provoking a stark revolutionary crisis.” 

In 1955 Milton Mayer wrote a remarkable book, They Thought They Were Free. Ten dedicated Nazis, people from the middle class, for example a policeman and cabinetmaker, were interviewed to explain how Hitler took control. People should study this book especially the chapter entitled “But Then It Was Too Late” to understand how the tactic of gradualism can transform a free people to slavery. Daniel Webster cautioned: “If this Constitution be picked away by piecemeal, it is gone as effectively as if a military despot had grasped it, trampled it underfoot and scattered it to the winds.” 

An important strategy the secret government uses to maintain control is to support ambitious people early in their careers. People are promoted if they have demonstrated intelligence, ambition, leadership, and few morals. These people are corrupted though sex, money, and drugs with evidence of criminality gathered to blackmail them, if necessary. They must follow orders, or their careers will be ruined and they may go to jail. This principle is applied to many politicians, but is applied with special care to senior officials, like presidents. Once the invisible government chooses someone to become president, the instruments of corporate power distort the news to protect the chosen one. The people are only allowed to participate by voting, which is why many no longer bother. Who will win is decided long before election day. The CFR and TC don't care which party elects the president, as long as they control each candidate and the people continue to be fooled. This system guarantees a corrupt leadership and a disillusioned populace. 

In FDR, My Exploited Father-In-Law, C.B. Dall said: “Politics is the gentle art of having to pretend to be something that you know you are not, for vote catching purposes, while being aided by our press....Usually, carefully screened leading 'actors' are picked well in advance of election day by a small group, picked for both major parties, thereby reducing the promotional risk to just about zero....It is desirable for such a candidate to have great personal ambition and, perchance, to be vulnerable to blackmail for some past occurrences; hence, someone not apt to become too independent in time, but always amenable to 'suggestions' on the policy level.” Colonel House, the chief aide to Woodrow Wilson, knew that, along with great personal ambition, Wilson was vulnerable to blackmail. Dall said Wilson appointed Brandeis to the Supreme Court because he was being blackmailed and couldn't obtain $250,000 to get back certain letters. 6 

While President, Eisenhower made a speech at a park Bernard Baruch had founded. He said: “Twenty-five years ago as a young and unknown major I took the wisest step in my life—I consulted Mr. Baruch.” When the war started Eisenhower was promoted over at least 150 senior officers to head the allied war effort in Europe. For many years Baruch protected the interests of Wall Street in Washington. 7 

In 1969 Alexander Haig was a colonel, but within several years he became a senior White House aide and later head of NATO, because he hitched his career to Henry Kissinger. Colin Powell and Jimmy Carter were promoted by the CFR beginning in the early 1970s. Lamar Alexander turned one dollar into $620,000. Even Hillary Clinton couldn't match such corruption. General John M. Shalikashvili was advanced over many officers to become chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Hillary Clinton's commodities trade was an obvious set-up. The massive corruption of Clinton is clear to many as are his drug and sexual appetites. 

On November 18, 1993 in The Wanderer, a national newspaper, James K. Fitzpatrick a prominent journalist revealed that while he has never believed in stories of a secret government or the Illuminati, Clinton's support of NAFTA made him wonder, especially because of statements made by Clinton. During his acceptance speech when nominated by the Democrats, Clinton spoke about the influence his old professor Carroll Quigley, author of Tragedy and Hope, had on his life. After his election Clinton told reporters how Quigley had spoken and written about a secret shadow government of powerful businessmen and bankers who controlled our political agenda. Clinton said, while a student, he decided to work with this secret group to enhance his political career. Fitzpatrick, not understanding how controlled our news is, was shocked that this interview wasn't discussed in the media. That this technique of controlling our leaders has long existed helps explain why attention should be directed to stop the corporate leaders. The politicians are just agents who can easily be replaced. 

In recent years, the growing use of computerized vote machines has provided new opportunities to control elections. There have been dozens of instances of vote fraud throughout the country such as in Florida, Wisconsin, and California; and sometimes judges throw out election results. The growing problems with these machines is being documented by Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility in Palo Alto, Election Watch in Pacific Palisades, California, and Cincinnatus in Cincinnati. Even the national media, including the New York Times and Wall Street Journal, have discussed the dangers of computerized voting machines. 8 On November 7, 1988 the New Yorker had a 23 page report on the dangers of computerized voting machines. Science News explained how modern vote machines help steal elections. 9 Amazingly, when vote results are challenged the computer programs usually aren't analyzed because the manufacturers have successfully claimed they are proprietary. Private corporations increasingly own our elections. Computer scientist Peter G. Neumann, in Computer-Related Risks, said: “The opportunities for rigging elections (are) child's play for vendors and knowledgeable election officials.” In the 1988 New Hampshire primary, Dole won the precincts that used paper ballots while Bush won the computerized ones. 

Even more threatening is the fact that, in many states, election results are reported to the New York City based News Election Service (NES), a private company owned by ABC, CBS, NBC, and the Associated Press (AP). The book Votescam: The Stealing of America documents the dangers of this operation. 10 There is no system to challenge the announced results. For instance, each caucus in the Iowa primary reports the results to the NES. In Dubuque County, Iowa, Buchanan got 870 votes, but the next day the Cedar Rapids Gazette quoted the AP saying Buchanan got 757 votes and Dole's total was increased. When people complained, they were told there could be no final count until April. Numerous other instances of suspicious behavior occurred, and Buchanan may have been cheated out of victory in Iowa, Arizona, and South Carolina. This is why thousands came to see Buchanan, while only a few voters came to see Dole. It is rather suspicious that Buchanan refused to complain about this. 

The most dangerous scam used against the people are presidential edicts. Every president has issued orders and directives which are often called Executive Orders (EO); however, in the 20th century the use, scope, and authority of EOs greatly increased. These edicts have the force and effect of law; however, there is no constitutional basis for a president to make laws. Congress should make the law and the president should administer and enforce it. There is much room for abuse of presidential power with these edicts. Nowhere does the Constitution say that a president can issue an EO, nor do any federal statutes exist defining the purpose or permissible subject matter of EO's. 

Previously, most EO's dealt with routine administrative issues such as land use and civil service regulations. EO's now exist for the Feds to seize all communications (EO 10995), to takeover all food supplies and farms (EO 10998), to control all transportation (EO 10999), to force all civilians into work brigades (slave labor) (EO 11000), to takeover all health and education activities (EO 11001), and for the post office to register everyone (EO 11002). These and other EO's have been combined into EO 11490, which Carter signed in 1979. This is a dictatorship in waiting. One can only image the horrors of the secret EOs that have never been published or leaked. 

The greatest abuse of presidential authority lies in presidents declaring a national emergency and martial law. Presidents have already signed EOs declaring national emergencies because of events in the Middle East, Yugoslavia, South Africa, Kuwait, and chemical/biological problems. How these events require a national emergency in the U.S. defies reality. In 1985 the New York Times asked why there had to be a national emergency in the U.S. over South Africa. 11 Having a national emergency with a weakened Constitution has become the norm to gradually get people used to the conditions of a police state. 

EO 9066 issued February 19, 1942 by President Roosevelt caused the internment of 120,000 Japanese Americans in glorified concentration camps. Along with being imprisoned for several years, these people, 75,000 of whom were American citizens, lost most of their assets. For this to happen just because a president signed one piece of paper shows how dangerous things are. If a phony emergency is declared, Clinton could then call for the surrender of all arms and the arrest of his political opponents who would be called a threat to national security. Passing especially dangerous EO's started March 9, 1933 when Roosevelt weakened the Constitution by declaring a national emergency that put us into a state of war. 12 On June 17, 1995 the Texas Republican party issued Resolution 5 calling for a return to constitutional government and an end to Roosevelt's emergency rule and weakening of the Constitution. The press responded with a resounding silence. 

Recent EO's have become absurd. On October 21, 1994 Clinton issued an EO requiring schools to expel students who bring a gun to school. Such students should receive serious punishment, but Clinton has no constitutional authority to decided how schools deal with local problems. Clinton is only the president. Clinton's speech announcing this policy received wide publicity yet no one in the media complained about this abuse of power. Must we now get used to a president announcing new laws on the most minute details of our lives. Just after the November, 1994 elections, The Washington Post reported that Clinton and his staff planned to govern more with executive orders and regulations. 13 Clinton was elected president, not king or dictator. 

When Rep. Jack Brooks in March, 1987 asked presidential aide Frank Carlucci to provide a list of all presidential edicts issued since 1981 he refused to comply. Speaker of the House Jim Wright said: “Congress cannot react responsibly to new dictates for national policy set in operation by the executive branch behind closed doors.” Presidential edicts are often classified with no one in Congress even aware of their subject matter. 

Control by Congress over executive rule making has been replaced by a powerful executive branch which is destroying the checks and balances designed by the Constitution. In Myers v. U.S. (1926) the Supreme Court said: “The doctrine of the separation of powers was adopted by the Convention of 1787, not to promote efficiency but to preclude the exercise of arbitrary power. The purpose was, not to avoid friction, but, by means of the inevitable friction incident to the distribution of the governmental powers among three departments, to save the people from autocracy....Speed and efficiency, however, are not the proper ends of government. If they were, the framers would have created a dictatorship.” Rule by executive edict means that a president can sign a piece of paper and pass unpopular laws that are totally against the will of Congress and the people, as we saw when Clinton used an EO to loan money to Mexico. 

Those promoting the new world order are deliberately changing our history and culture. A good book that describes how history books are confusing and distorting our history is Lies My Teacher Told Me, by James W. Loewen. Text book publishers avoid controversies, only present a positive tone, and ignore much American history. Schools socialize students to be good and obedient citizens. The racial prejudice of people like President Wilson, the contributions of women, and the role of militias in founding our Republic are removed from history. Issues such as General Butler and the planned military coup, the munitions hearings in the 1930s, and corporate treason during World War II are rarely discussed in history books. Loewen, to his credit, said there may be an upper-class conspiracy “manipulated by elite white male capitalists who orchestrate how history is written as part of their scheme to perpetuate their own power and privilege at the expense of the rest of us.” 14 State-controlled curricula promote corporate-influenced distortions of our heritage. 

It will be much harder for the younger generation to stand up for constitutional government because of the distortions being taught in the schools. In November, 1995 the U.S. Department of Education released a report based on questioning 22,000 school children about our history. Fifty percent of the children weren't even aware that the cold war existed! A 1994 study by the National Assessment of Educational Progress revealed that 57 percent of public high school seniors lack a basic understanding of U.S. history. With poor schooling and TV addiction, for many history started with the New Deal. People no longer remember the values of our Republic and the wisdom of the Founders. The shift to outcome based education, Goals 2000, and multiculturalism means that if the corporate controllers aren't stopped, one day few people will defend the Constitution because few will even remember that it once existed. Multiculturalism has played a key role in destroying Canada 15 as a nation state, and this is also why it is being pushed in the U.S. It is one more strategy being used to weaken national sovereignty, to move towards a world government. 

Multiculturalism is also being used to separate us from our Christian heritage and Western culture. Other cultures are highlighted while ours is undermined. The California Teachers Association released a calendar that doesn't identify July 4th. It includes Buddhist Nirvana day and Ramadan but not Christmas or Thanksgiving. The National Educational Association passed out millions of calendars to teachers that listed UN day and various Buddhist and Muslim holidays but did not mention Christmas. Listing various religious holidays is fine, but to remove traditional American religious and patriotic holidays is outrageous. 

Increasingly, basic American constitutional and political history is not being taught. Under the new world order, within a few generations our history will be forgotten, because it will be banned. On May 16, 1993 Parade Magazine published an article about putting false words in the mouth of dead people. It cited as an example the supposedly false words of Patrick Henry “Give me liberty or give me death.” 16 In fact, Henry said these noble words, March 23, 1775, at St. John's Church in Richmond Virginia in conjunction with the second Virginia convention. 17 Karl Marx said: “If you can cut people off from their history they can be easily persuaded.” 

An important book is The Rewriting of America's History by Catherine Millard. A librarian at the Library of Congress, she documents many instances where our Christian heritage and memorial to the Founding Fathers are being erased or distorted. Independence Square in Philadelphia, where the Constitution and Declaration of Independence were signed, had a National Museum which was taken over by the Independence National Historic Park in 1951. The museum was disbanded with its contents dispersed to different buildings and many of the exhibits are no longer available to the public. Important Christian markers and plaques around Philadelphia have been replaced with humanistic plaques. The Liberty Bell has been moved from its original site and it is now called a “symbol of world freedom.” An important painting “The First Prayer in Congress” has been lost. In Christ Church in Philadelphia, often called the Nation's Church, famous stained glass such as “Patriots Window” and “Liberty Window” were moved, supposedly to be cleaned, but instead they have been replaced by plain glass. 18 

Sections of the Library of Congress have been closed for renovations, but the “improvements” made it much harder for librarians and researchers to use the facilities. The main card catalogue was almost deliberately destroyed except that the librarians and their union prevented this by threatening to sue. The computerized replacement has an error rate of 50 percent. The new head librarian in October 15, 1987 fired many people with no replacements, leaving various departments disorganized and understaffed. In an especially disgusting display of what is happening, religious scenes in the Library of Congress were replaced during renovations by grotesque gargoyle paintings. This exemplifies how Christ will be replaced by atheism or worse in the new world order. 

In the Library of Congress rare books pertaining to our Christian heritage and the Founding Fathers are now listed as “missing in inventory” and “changed to the rare book collection,” which means the public cannot see these books. In some instances, Millard found that books listed as missing were in their correct place. Millard listed groups of books that were all removed from circulation at the same time. There is an organized campaign to remove from public reach rare books on Christianity and the Founding Fathers. In some historical and religious exhibits, American history has been greatly altered and falsified. Millard was refused promotions and salary raises when she fought these changes. 

Deborah Maceda works for the Library of Congress as a police detective in its Protective Services Office. For several years she complained about many books being damaged and stolen. One would expect that she would have been thanked for doing her job. Instead her many memos, which also included ways to improve security, were ignored until she was transferred. There were proceedings to fire her until Congress intervened. Now several agencies, including the FBI are investigating the Library of Congress which a union called “out of control.” 19 On July 6, 1996 CBS Evening News said the Library of Congress was often using psychiatrist testing, which are generally illegal in the workplace, to harass and fire whistleblowers. 

“If people are stripped of the ability...to make their own things and their own history, they may continue to act properly, but they lose the capacity to learn for themselves about their own rightness. They stagnate or surrender....Those who steal their right to make their own history...can be condemned, for they steal from people the right to know what they know, the right to become human....History is culture.” 20 Our history is being cleansed to fit what our corporate controllers want. 

Since 1670 when a jury refused to convict William Penn, it has been part of our heritage that juries have a right to decide a case based on the law as well as the facts of the case. In 1794 Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Jay said in Georgia v. Brailsford: “The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.” Alexander Hamilton said: “Jurors should acquit, even against the judge's instruction...if exercising their judgement with discretion and honesty they have a clear conviction that the charge of the court is wrong.” The Constitutions of four states—Maryland, Indiana, Oregon, and Georgia— specifically guarantee the right of jurors to “judge the law.” Today 23 states declare the right of jury nullification (the right of a jury to judge a law) in freedom of speech regarding libel and sedition. Throughout the 1800s this principle was primarily challenged only once when Congress passed an anti-slave law which northern juries refused to support. Then the government was close to the people, so laws were rarely passed that were against the people's wishes. However, in 1895 in Sparf and Hansen v. U.S., the Supreme Court ruled that while juries still had the right to judge the law a judge didn't have to inform a jury of this. 21 

In the 1900s we have been swamped with laws that many are against because government often no longer represents the people. The Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA) informs citizens of the right to reject a law while on a jury despite what a judge states. 2 2 People informing perspective jurors of this right have been harassed by the authorities, and some have been arrested and tried for jury tampering. In other words, people just quoting the words of the Founding Fathers like Thomas Jefferson are being arrested. The authorities are getting desperate, because increasingly juries in various cases are voting not guilty as word gets out. Perhaps next people telling perspective jurors about the right to free speech and freedom of worship will also be arrested. Where will it stop? On June 19, 1995 CBS Evening News completely distorted our history. A judge said letting a jury decide the law would create anarchy and this would be taking the law into their own hands. The head of the FIJA was interviewed and while he discussed the views of the Founders supporting the right of jury nullification, this was censored from what appeared on TV.

After the Oklahoma bombing, the Wall Street Journal wrote a propaganda piece defining jury-power activism as a racist and anti-Semitic militia plot. That the Founders and many justices have long supported this right, which exists to this day, was ignored. 23 The Village Voice quoted this article suggesting that jury rights people may well be extremists and racists. 24 It was stated in the Wall Street Journal, so it must be true! Disinformation creates more lies and our heritage is gradually forgotten. A few public trials like the O.J. case are now being used as an excuse to attack and change the jury system to further weaken our civil rights. 

Another strategy is to create more crime and a false war on drugs by deliberately flooding the country with illegal drugs. “U.S. officials had undercut the war on drugs for so long, and exposes had dribbled out so sporadically, that public outrage never reached critical mass.” 25 This is being done to scare people into giving up certain constitutionally protected rights such as the right to bear arms. Chaos and fear have historically been used to create a totalitarian state. Rather than trying to seize all guns, a far better solution to crime would be to resolve the issues that have turned people to criminal activity and to stop the government from flooding the country with illegal drugs. 

On one radio show, a student quoted his college professor as saying the main reason why the Founders wanted people to own a gun was to prevent government tyranny. The “expert” on the show, who had written a book on gun control, said this was a myth. Most historians and legal scholars understand that the student and his professor are correct, but many now say otherwise. One reason we no longer have constitutional government is because our constitutional heritage is being relegated to the level of a myth. On May 9, 1994 ABC ran Day One: America Under the Gun. A reporter said with so much crime the Constitution is becoming a luxury. 

The media constantly tells us that crime keeps getting worse when that is not true. The Washington Center for Media and Public Affairs found that between 1992 and 1993 the number of crime stories reported on ABC, CBS, and NBC had doubled. The drug scare is being used as an excuse to tighten government control over the people and to strengthen the national security state. Crime is being used as an excuse to federalize and militarize state and local police into a unified national police force. 

An obvious example of how drugs have been used to control and demoralize the people is exemplified by the black ghettos being flooded with illegal drugs. Ample supply helped create demand. The radical black movement of the 1960s became submerged in a drug haze. Louis Farrakhan was quite right to state, when being interviewed by Barbara Walters on ABC in 1994, that in the mid-1960s the black community was suddenly flooded with illegal drugs and this was done by the government. Norval Morris, a law professor, interviewed almost 100 experts in law enforcement and they called the war on drugs a war against blacks. White people buy and sell most illegal drugs, but most people imprisoned are black. 26 

It is much easier to control and manipulate a society that loses its will to drugs. Drug use weakens will power and the ability for independent thinking. This can be illegal drugs like cocaine or legal drugs like Prozac or Valium. Many schools post “Drug Free Zone” signs and proceed to drug the children with Ritalin to control them. The end result is that people have difficulty thinking clearly and defending their rights, which are slowly being lost. When Japan ruled China during World War II, it flooded China with opium, as did England in the 1800s, to control the populace and raise money for government operations. 27 

Besides these key strategies, many other techniques are used to fool the people. Reasonable goals are proclaimed that most would support, while hidden objectives are promoted that support the one world government. Noble objectives are promoted that also provide more wealth and control for the corporate elite while weakening the rights of the people. False promises of greater material wealth, jobs, and environmental protection were used to promote NAFTA and GATT, while these treaties actually foster the destruction of the middle class and U.S. sovereignty. Under President Carter there was a call to help third world nations with their debt crisis. Many decent people wanted to raise the standard of living in these nations, so they supported a plan to provide assistance. Instead that money was used to pay interest on multinational bank loans. 

Asset forfeiture laws show that laws are passed, supposedly to protect the people against criminals, and then the laws are enforced well beyond their original intent or language to remove the people's rights. These laws were originally passed to seize the property of drug dealers and mafia leaders, but today they are often applied to innocent citizens while the criminals hide their assets so they cannot be seized. These laws are being enacted supposedly to protect the people, when in fact constitutional rights are violated. 

Another strategy is to introduce an especially egregious law or program in a less-populated state where there is less media coverage. If the law passes, it is introduced in other states. If there is great resistance, the government backs down, always watching how the people react, perhaps presenting the same law in another state with certain changes. In 1989 Oklahoma passed a law requiring everyone to register their assets, with a heavy fine if you refused or hid any assets, so similar laws may be passed in other states. As discussed in Chapter XV, today the National Guard has basically established martial law in parts of Puerto Rico. This has been going on for several years with little press coverage. It is done in the name of protecting the people from crime, as the people lose their rights. How long will it be before this occurs in many states? 

Very long laws are passed that include obscure clauses that are difficult to find and that few would support. These clauses are rarely discussed by the press or in Congress. After Senator Brown read NAFTA, a 2,000 page document, he was shocked enough to reverse his vote and reject it. The GATT treaty establishing the World Trade Organization contains 22,000 pages. Provisions in GATT make it harder for Americans to save for retirement. The amount U.S. employees can contribute to 401(k) plans has been reduced to compensate for lost revenue due to tariffs being reduced. A UN food safety and trade commission will help set GATT standards, which may lower or remove many U.S. consumer safety laws such as pesticide use. We may soon be flooded with radiated products because other nations will insist on this under GATT. Under the Constitution, Article 1, Section 8 Clause 3, Congress shall “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations....” This has been illegally surrendered by GATT—to a foreign entity. 

GATT created a new commission, CODEX, under the UN World Health Organization. It is now in the process of establishing strict international standards which will require a doctor's prescription to obtain supplements, because this is what the large drug companies want. This will cause many problems in the alternative health movement, and many health food stores will close. Politicians like Clinton and Dole will complain for five minutes, and then pass more laws destroying U.S. sovereignty. 

After the Oklahoma bombing, I constantly read and heard the right wing attacked in the national media as being conspiracy nuts, partly because it felt the UN was a serious threat to the U.S. Never once was mere a discussion of the huge body of evidence supporting such concerns. A classic example of this propaganda took place in late October, 1995 on Talk of the Nation, a PBS talk radio show. The topic was the UN and the three guests were all pro-UN. Sure enough, as the show began, the announcer asked about right-wing concerns over the UN controlling the U.S. The three guests immediately agreed this was foolish. This was like asking a Marxist to criticize communism. When you debate a topic and have three guests, at least one should take an opposing position. Otherwise, you just get propaganda. 

It is not that the UN alone is a threat, it is the large corporations that have always controlled the UN, and the concern is what they plan to do with it. Right from the start the UN has been a corporate front. The CFR, led by the Soviet agent Alger Hiss, played a key role in establishing the UN, and its headquarters are built on Rockefeller-donated land. The U.S. delegation to form the UN included many CFR members. The press declares that the UN is quite disorganized and incompetent, and an example of this is the failed UN peacekeeping operations. This is a convenient excuse to hide the future plans for the UN to be the center of a one world government. C.B. Dall, FDR, My Exploited Father-in-Law, said: “The UN is but a long-range, international-banking apparatus neatly set up for financial and economic profit by a small group of powerful One-World Revolutionaries, hungry for profit and power.” 28 

Truman signed the UN Participation Act on December 20, 1945. Under this act “The President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of the Congress” to provide troops to the UN security council as the president desired. The constitutional requirement that only Congress can declare a war was illegally weakened by this treaty. Rep. Frederick Smith said: “This measure strikes at the very heart of the Constitution. It provides that the power to declare war shall be taken from Congress and given to the President. Here is the essence of dictatorship, and dictatorial control over all else must inevitably tend to follow.” Time is proving him correct. Congress has little influence over how the U.S. votes at the UN. The UN, not Congress, approved the Korean War. At the UN on October 24, 1950 Truman said: “The men who laid down their lives for the UN in Korea...died in order that the UN might live.” Are you prepared to die for the UN? Ask the relatives of the 54,000 soldiers killed in that “non-war” if we should be concerned about the UN. To this day U.S. troops serving in Korea serve under the UN. When U.S. serviceman David Hilemon was killed over North Korea in 1994, his body was returned in a casket covered with a UN flag. On April 25, 1996, Anthony Lake, Clinton's national security adviser, said in a lecture we need to be a “global 911” to manage the world's crises. 

While many criticize the actions of UN peacekeepers, people don't understand that NATO is a military arm of the UN. NATO and SEATO were created as collective defense organizations under Article 51 of the UN charter. Articles 1, 5, 7, and 12 in the NATO treaty show the reliance of NATO on the UN for its legitimacy. On December 15, 1995, the UN Security Council approved the NATO mission to Bosnia. This approval was necessary for NATO to act. Supporting the policy of the UN being used to create a one world government, the new head of NATO is a Spanish Marxist. Rep. Funderburk and 35 others in Congress attacked this appointment.[The despicable crap they pulled in Yugoslavia was nothing but an outright genocide D.C] 

Led by members of the CFR in 1961, the U.S. State Department issued a publication, Freedom From War, outlining in detail plans to disarm the U.S. military and establish a UN army. The U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, also established in 1961, is working towards this goal. Books like A World Effectively Controlled By the UN, Introduction to World Peace Through World Law, and World Peace Through World Law describe these plans in great detail. Aside from local police who will carry small arms, the entire world is to be disarmed except for a powerful UN army and police force. In 1992, UN Secretary General Boutros Ghali presented An Agenda for Peace calling for a permanent UN army. The report said: “The time of absolute and exclusive sovereignty has passed,” and it listed reasons that would justify the UN using its army to intervene in a nation. Senator Boren, in the New York Times August 26, 1992, said the world needs a UN army to create the new world order. On June 27, 1995 the New York Times called for a UN world army that could be paid for by people paying dues as UN citizens. Articles 42 and 43 of the UN charter provide the basis for creating a UN army under the UN Security Council. 29 In the April 11, 1993 Washington Post, the prominent journalist George Will said “Article 43 is the law of the land—our land.” Why weren't the American people asked to approve this change? 

For years there have been calls for ensuring UN domination by transferring all nuclear weapons to a UN army. No nation will be allowed to have nuclear weapons. On December 17, 1995 the Rocky Mountain News said Clinton transferred a ton of plutonium at Rocky Flats and 199 tons of nuclear material in Oak Ridge, Tennessee to the UN. Done without congressional approval, this represents 20 percent of U.S. strategic nuclear reserves. 

Foreign Policy, a corporate mouthpiece, presented an article that actually listed nations to be taken over by the UN. 30 The use of UN troops in Somalia and Haiti exemplifies the coming trend. Clinton used U.S. troops to enter Haiti after receiving UN permission; he refused to seek the approval of Congress as required by the Constitution. Strobe Talbott, a CFR member and Deputy Secretary of State, said “once a country utterly loses its ability to govern itself, it also loses its claim to sovereignty and should become a ward of the UN.” 31 Under the Dayton Accord, Bosnia got a new Constitution which surrendered sovereignty and required that it become a UN protectorate. Foreign judges will be appointed and a UN representative will be “the final authority in theatre.” 32 Rep. Duncan Hunter, in the January 26, 1996 Human Events, said Bosnia will be controlled for five years and that our commitment to reshape this society is much deeper and longer than the American people understand. Already the New York Times reported on June 13, 1996 that U.S. troops may have to remain in Bosnia beyond 1996. The Bosnia horror may have been deliberately created so the UN solution could be provided as a test case to end a nation's sovereignty. William Pfaff in the International Herald Tribune, which is owned by the Washington Post and New York Times, said: “The principle of absolute national sovereignty is being overturned....The civil war in Yugoslavia has rendered this service to us.” 

Another example of this pattern occurred in late July, 1991 on CNN. Stansfield Turner, ex-head of the CIA, said about Iraq: “We have a much bigger objective. We've got to look at the long run here. This is an example—the situation between the UN and Iraq—where the UN is deliberately intruding into the sovereignty of a sovereign nation....Now this is a marvelous precedent (for) all countries of the world....” In 1933 H.G. Wells, in The Shape of Things to Come, said the new world order would develop in around 50 years out of a conflict near Basra, Iraq when “Russia is ready to assimilate.” With the Gulf War, he was almost correct. 

Already an international police force has formed and is serving in Bosnia. The Daily Universe quoted Kissinger associate Lawrence Eagleburger's speech at Brigham Young University on November 8, 1994. He said: The U.S. “can either become the world policeman, or an international policing force must be established with adequate authority and force to maintain world peace....We have to be the world's thought policemen to create a world police force.” In 1995 the U.S. contributed millions of dollars to establish an international police training center in Hungary. 

The Chicago Tribune, on September 29, 1993 presented an editorial by Bob Greene describing the many problems in the U.S. He said a UN multinational force is desperately needed in the U.S. On April 16, 1996 NBC Evening News said “5,000 police officers from around the world” will protect the Olympics in Atlanta. Newsweek on June 24 said “foreign law enforcement agencies” would protect the Olympics. The Economist said on June 22 that over 2,000 international police would be on hand. Obviously, the U.S. has enough trained people to provide proper security, but this exercise will help get Americans used to foreign troops patrolling our streets. 

The unofficial word in the U.S. military is that, to get ahead in their careers officers must promote working under the UN in various peacekeeping missions. Traditional patriotism is no longer sufficient. This new role was described by James J. Schneider in the April, 1995 military journal Special Warfare. Schneider teaches at the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College. He said: “The U.S. Army of the future will face its greatest challenge since the end of the Civil War....The future will be dominated by a single overwhelming presence—the United Nations. The resurgence and growing influence of the UN will not only affect our soldiers but may change the very structure of the nation-state....” There is growing pressure on military officers to adjust to the new world order or to resign. 

On May 24, 1994 the UN Disarmament Commission adopted a working paper proposing the control of guns in the U.S. and other nations to limit international arms trafficking. Clinton supports this objective. Foreign Affairs called for the prompt global control of small arms and weapons, because such weapons allow militias to challenge UN and U.S. troops. There may one day be a treaty requiring strict gun control in the U.S. 33 

There are growing calls for a world UN tax. In 1993 the Ford Foundation financed a study, Financing an Effective United Nations, by TC and CFR members. This report called for a UN tax. The UN's Human Development Report, in 1994 called for a UN tax. A global UN tax was discussed at the UN conference in Copenhagen in 1995. Sweden's Prime Minister Ingvar Carlsson, Australia's Foreign Minister Gareth Evans and, and Pakistan's Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto have called for a UN tax. Jon Stewart wrote a column that appeared in many newspapers calling for a UN tax. Reportedly the International Court of Justice may force Congress to pay this future tax. 34 On January 15, 1996 and in the March/April 1996 issue of Foreign Affairs, Boutros Ghali called for a UN tax and said ultimately such a tax would be applied. On May 13, 1996 The Nation called for a world flat tax to support the UN and other global institutions. According to this article “A global flat tax...would be in the interest of working and middle class Americans.” If you prefer to think that concern about a new world order is foolish fantasy, you will one day look back and think how low your taxes once were. In the new world order, there will be a new direct tax to support the world government. The U.S., which strongly supports the UN, could easily pay the money it owes the UN. However, using congressional resistance, the government may be deliberately creating a crisis, so that the UN will be given the authority to tax people directly. 

In 1994 the Congressional Research Service published a revised version of a 1990 report “An International Criminal Court” stating that the UN is gradually trying to establish a permanent criminal court. In the future U.S. citizens may be tried before such a court for many different crimes. Foreign Affairs called for the examination of bank deposits in all nations and to establish a Global Bank Police to enhance banking security and limit money laundering. 35 Certain sites, like Yellowstone, have been declared World Heritage Sites by the UN. Park rangers in certain Colorado parks admit off the record that some land is now controlled by the UN. In other countries the UN has intervened in how land is used. The recent book Our Global Neighborhood in 410 pages outlined in great detail the coming world government. The plan, in the next few years, is to quietly sign treaties that will force all nations to join a world government. There are many books that explain how dangerous the UN is. As with many of the issues discussed in this chapter, this is a complex topic I will discuss in more detail in a future book. 

Manipulating statistics is another widely used gimmick to fool the people. Clinton said domestic violence is the number one “health risk for women between the ages of 15 and 44 in our country” as he announced federal grants of $26 million to prevent this violence. According to the AP on March 22, 1995, the government released shocking statistics such as a claim that three to four million women a year are victims of domestic violence, to support Clinton's claim. Various authorities challenged this claim with some questioning what the government defines as violence. Detroit News columnist Tony Snow said typically in Washington “When you want to persuade people to do something that they see no need to do, don't reason with them. Make up a statistic so stunning that they will feel obligated to go along.” Naturally, one result is more government control over our lives. 

Other statistics are hidden from the people. We are constantly told that gun control is essential to ease the crime problem, yet when statistics suggest otherwise they are hidden or denied. Since Florida passed a law in 1987, 100,000 people have obtained a license to carry concealed handguns. There have been few abuses with only 17 licenses revoked because of a crime committed with a licensed gun. The national murder rate increased 12 percent between 1987 and 1992 but it dropped 21 percent in Florida. In this same period, Florida crime rose 17.8 percent but nationally it rose 24 percent. 

Typically when a scandal surfaces and the public is aroused, an investigation is held but the people doing the investigating are carefully chosen, so that some information is released to satisfy the public but the full story is suppressed. This is done to convince people that the system still works. And officials may lie or not call certain witnesses during an investigation to cover-up unpleasant facts. After the Ames case broke, the CIA director said he would propose that Brent Scowcroft and Harold Brown should head a committee to review U.S. intelligence operations. It is business as usual with these CFR members. In the recent Whitewater hearings, Congress refused to question key people like Larry Nichols. Bo Gritz was only called at the last minute at the end of the Randy Weaver hearings with little press coverage. 

The Task Force on Radiation and Human Rights tried to get people who were more sympathetic to the victims added to the government's recent investigation of secret government radiation experiments on people, but the White House was not responsive. Key people on the government's committee have links to the radiation experiments they are now investigating. Some panel members were from the same institutions being investigated. 36 One member of the government's investigation, Jay Katz, a medical ethics specialist said: “We don't want to pass severe moral judgments, because it's really more important to look at the present.” 37 The standards have changed little from the 1940s, when the 1946 Nuremberg Code was established which required the agreement of people in experiments. 38 Already the Clinton regime is showing signs of wanting to get done with this story without revealing too much. The investigating committee released an Interim Report in October, 1994, and reported that various government agencies including the CIA are not providing the required information. 

The three events that provided a convenient rationale for big government, and thus greater corporate power in the 20th century, were the two world wars and the great depression, with the resulting New Deal. In each instance the large corporations manipulated the people by using the Hegelian principle of creating a problem, then creating opposing views, and finally providing solutions that the people would otherwise never have accepted. Often one position has definite weaknesses, so the people will unknowingly accept the choice of the corporate elite. 

During these emergencies, the government needed to borrow money which allowed the bankers to gain influence and profit. In such emergencies, the government surrendered more of its sovereignty to the large banks as collateral. This strategy has been used many times to create wasteful bureaucracies further enhancing federal corporate power. During a national crisis, normal constitutional restraints are forgotten, and once the federal government gets new powers it rarely gives them up. The constitutional scholar, Edward S. Corwin, said the New Deal and World War II greatly increased presidential powers and was leading to the dissolution of constitutional government and law. Our constitutional system of dual federalism and the doctrine of separation of powers has been radically altered as tremendous power shifted to the central government. 39 

During the great depression many like, Charles A. Beard in The Open Door At Home, felt the U.S. would best develop though regional trade, high tariffs, and self-sufficiency. The CFR used the depression to claim that it was partly caused by limiting trade and that global free trade would help solve the depression. 40 It is a deliberately created myth that the Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act of 1930 and “laissezfaire capitalism” of the 1920s caused the 1929 crash and great depression, so that big government was needed to control the excesses of capitalism. In previous depressions, the government didn't intervene, and the depression was settled much sooner and with far lower unemployment than in the 1930s. Extensive government intervention in the New Deal guaranteed a long and deep depression. 41 

Business cycles, especially depressions, are very influenced by government monetary intervention. Murray N. Rothbard and the Ludwig von Mises Institute have provided ample evidence that government intervention with loose bank credit during the 1920s played a key role in creating the great depression. There was a major increase in money supply from 1921 until July, 1929 primarily from an increase in bank deposits and bank credits. A House hearing on stabilizing the dollar disclosed, in 1928, that the Federal Reserve was working closely with European central banks and a major crash was planned. 42 The Federal Reserve followed a policy of continuous credit and a low discount during the 1920s causing inflation and foreign lending. By manipulating interest rates they inflated stock prices and then a tightened money supply caused a collapse in stock prices. Even Alan Greenspan, current head of the Federal Reserve admitted in The Objectivist July, 1966, that Fed excess credit policies in the 1920s “nearly destroyed the economies of the world.” 

Various bankers, such as J.P. Morgan, deliberately created several artificial panics to pressure the formation of a central bank. In the panic of 1893, Senator Robert Owen testified before a congressional committee about the Panic Circular of 1893 that his bank received. It said: “You will at once retire one-third of your circulation and call in one-half of your loans....” Life magazine on April 25, 1949, discussed the role of the Morgan bank in creating the panic of 1907. 43 William Bryan in The United States Unresolved Monetary and Political Problems described how the New York banks methodically called in broker call loans which meant stocks had to be sold which helped start the market collapse. After the Federal Reserve was created Rep. Charles Lindberg said: “From now on depressions will be scientifically created.” 

Rep. Louis McFadden, Chairman of the House Banking Committee, said: “It (the depression) was not accidental. It was a carefully contrived occurrence....The international bankers sought to bring about a condition of despair here so that they might emerge as the rulers of us all.” On November 21, 1971 the New York Times Magazine quoted Rep. McFadden as stating the Federal Reserve Act established “a world banking system...a super-state controlled by international bankers and international industrialists acting together to enslave the world for their own pleasure.” Every American should read McFadden's nine page statement about the Fed in the Congressional Record on June 10, 1932. 

People were fooled into buying more stocks so they desperately needed government help after the market crashed. The Fed encouraged short-term borrowing then, at the appointed time, it called in the loans. Wealthy individuals aware of this manipulation sold slocks short or stayed out of the market and men made a fortune during the depression by buying stocks at sharply discounted prices. In FDR, My Exploited Father-In-Law, C.B. Dall said: the depression “was the calculated 'shearing' of the public by the World-Money powers, triggered by the planned sudden shortage of the supply of call money in the New York money market." Dall worked on the New York stock exchange floor during the depression. He said each day Ben Smith, supported by Tom Bragg and Joe Kennedy and their brokers, sold stocks short to undercut the entire market. 44 

In 1913 just before Christmas with only a few members present, Congress passed the Federal Reserve Act. No one challenged the false claim that the states had ratified this act. The Ninth Circuit court held in Lewis v. U.S. (1982) the “Federal Reserve Banks are privately owned, locally controlled corporations.” Title 12 U.S. C. 283 and Title 12 U.S. C. 287 even list stock valuation information for this private corporation. The Fed is owned by various U.S. and European banks, yet under the Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, only Congress has the power “To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof....” If the U.S. Treasury prints money, there is no interest. Instead the government borrows billions of dollars a year paying about $250 billion a year just in interest for Federal Reserve notes that have no real value, while the media perpetuates the myth that the Federal Reserve is part of the U.S. government. The federal debt developed after the Federal Reserve was established, while gold and silver certificates were replaced by Federal Reserve notes. Congress cannot even investigate the daily activities of the Fed. This fraud worked because the politicians committed treason, and the people were asleep. In FDR, My Exploited Father-in-Law, C.B. Dall said: “The One World Government leaders and their ever-close bankers...have now acquired full control of the money and credit machinery of the U.S....,via the creation...of the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank.” 45 

Like any private corporation, the Fed takes actions to protect its stockholders; it does not represent the American people or even the federal government. This is why so many criticize Fed policies over interest rates. Your IRS checks are deposited into this private bank not in the U.S. Treasury, with no real accountability as to where the funds actually go. President Kennedy was assassinated partly because he printed U.S. Treasury notes along with the usual Federal Reserve notes. The Fed is the only profit-making corporation in the U.S. that isn't taxed. The talk about balancing the budget is an attempt to deflect the people's attention about the illegal activities of the Federal Reserve and the fact that the U.S. is bankrupt. Someday people will look back and wonder in amazement that so many people could have been so fooled for so many years by this scam. 

The New Deal reforms were originally presented to extend and share governing power to assist the weak and unrepresented. The proclaimed goal was to create new forums and agencies for decision making, to provide a vehicle for citizens to be more involved in a representative government. Instead the New Deal enhanced government power over the people, created a national emergency that continues today, and allowed the power of the moneyed interests to spread. The federal government that has existed since the New Deal is an aberration that is anathema to our political heritage. Constitutional restraints were removed in the name of more democracy and greater equality. In 1936 former Senator James A. Reed, previously a supporter of the New Deal, attacked it as a “tyrannical” measure “leading to despotism, sought by its sponsors under the communistic cry of 'social justice.'” On the Senate floor he said Roosevelt's family “is one of the largest stockholders in” GE, and FDR was a “hired man for the economic royalists” on Wall Street. 

The New Deal welfare state was set up with the intention of having a free people become addicted to big government. The welfare state represents government addiction. The process was like drug dealers who go to schools and give away free drugs, so people will become addicted and buy more and more. Then it is that much easier to manipulate and control the people. The myth was created that big government is good and that it should take care of everyone. The foremost principle of the Founding Fathers was that people should be allowed to lead their lives without government interference. With the New Deal we achieved the exact opposite. Our tradition of limited constitutional government with a system of checks and balances was forgotten. The mythology that Roosevelt saved America from the great depression and helped lead us through the second world war covers up the fact that we were once a free and independent people with little government interference except in clearly delineated areas. In the New Deal people sacrificed freedom and a belief that our rights come from God for a false sense of economic security. The paternalistic welfare system perpetuates dependency and weakness while robbing us of self-reliance and citizenship. A primary goal today should be not just to reinvent government but to restore responsible citizenship. 

Numerous historians have pondered why there weren't more radical changes during the New Deal. William E. Leuchtenburg, author of Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal 1932-1940 and a widely respected scholar of the New Deal, called it a “halfway revolution.” He concluded that Roosevelt carefully prevented challenges to vested interests, while the unorganized people rarely benefited. The National Recovery Administration did little to speed recovery and probably hindered it, the Agricultural Adjustment Agency curbed farm production when people were hungry which also hurt tenant farmers, and the Home Owners Loan Corporation helped refinance homes but also foreclosed on 100,000 mortgages. 

Walter Karp in Indispensable Enemies has perhaps presented the best summary and analysis of Roosevelt's phony policies. “Roosevelt almost never fought for reform until it was forced upon him by overwhelming popular pressure, whereupon he saw to it that the reform enacted was as minimal as he could make it....Roosevelt's duplicity was a heinous act of bad faith and betrayal.” 46 For instance, the Emergency Banking Relief Act was a very conservative document that restored the bankers' power at public expense, despite what reformers wanted. 

Richard Hofstadter in The Age of Reform criticized the New Deal for opportunism and stressed the discontinuity of the New Deal with the populist reform tradition. Howard Zinn said Roosevelt was cautious about supporting candidates who wanted bold economic and social change, and he never created new political forces among the poor and disadvantaged who would have helped bring about a more complete economic transformation and redistribution of wealth. 47 

Barton J. Bernstein said most New Deal reforms accomplished far less than many claimed. “Though vigorous in rhetoric and experimental in tone, the New Deal was narrow in its goals and wary of bold economic reform.” The “maneuvers in social reform were limited to cautious excursions.” The New Deal reforms did not transform the American system; there was no real redistribution of income. Corporations did not become more responsible, and the political power of businesses was never weakened. Instead it grew stronger. Many Americans received no assistance in the 1930s, and while most ultimately didn't starve, there was little improvement in the economic lives of people aside from the rhetoric. 48 

I have discussed the New Deal partly because of another gigantic hoax called the Contract With America. This is another sophisticated plan to give the large corporations more money and power, 49 and it is another diversion to distract the people and Congress while more of our rights are removed. Amazingly many consider this contract revolutionary. Arthur Schlesinger, Jr feels the Republican attempts to dismantle the federal government is bringing the country back to the Articles of Confederation 50

Money magazine explained how, under the guise of attacking greedy lawyers, both houses with the aid of powerful financial lobbyists approved a law that seriously cripples the rights of investors to be protected against fraudulent financial advisors. The Republicans also strengthened federal controls and eliminated state laws that protected individual investors, supposedly to help the people. The representatives pushing this received large sums of money from groups like J.P. Morgan, Citicorp, and Merrill Lynch. The people want less federal control, but Congress won't really listen because the bankers and corporate elite control the Democratic/Republican party. 51 Tort reform includes corporate friendly clauses that limit punitive damages and the amount that can be collected in personal injury cases. In addition, tax money still goes to Washington, and the push for more federal control over crime continues. 

The National Security Restoration Act was supposed to prevent U.S. troops from serving under UN command. On January 26, 1995, Secretary of State Warren Christopher lied before the House International Relations Committee declaring this provision unconstitutional. The resulting bill was so watered down that it is worthless. If the president certifies that service under the UN is in the vital national interest of the U.S., it is allowed, despite the Constitution. Article 1, Section 8 grants Congress the exclusive authority to declare war and raise and support the military. 

The Brookings Institution released a report, Fine Print, saying the Contract With America is not a radical break with big government. Instead it “represents the final consolidation” of federal power; it will not significantly lessen federal government control over our lives. “The Contract preserves the national government's role in making, administering, and funding the vast and varied array of post-New Deal and post-Great Society domestic policies and programs.” 52 

The contract and other Republican policies have been handled so poorly perhaps because there is a deliberate plan to defeat the freshmen members of the House. The corporate controllers don't really care who is in power in the Democratic/Republican party, unless there are individuals who threaten their influence as is the case with many of the new Republicans. An obvious move for Wall Street is to bring back the big government Democrats. Unfortunately, these new Republicans are too naive to understand who is really in control. In 1936 Roosevelt had a serious problem when so many liberal democrats were elected. Not wanting real reforms that would help the people and injure corporate power, Roosevelt took steps that rolled back the liberal tide in 1938. We may be seeing the same maneuver today. 

The principle of providing government benefits to make the people more dependent on the government has been applied in hundreds of programs. Rep. Lamar Smith and Senator Simpson introduced bills to control immigration by creating a new federal computer system to identify every American hired. This would create a vast new federal bureaucracy and tighten federal control over the people despite GOP rhetoric. A national identification system is part of the plan. 

The Clinton health plan was supposed to benefit the people's health but it would have increased federal control with a smart card introduced for better surveillance over our lives. A universal Health Security Card would have become a national ID card, and it would have been harder to use alternative healing methods under Clinton's plan. Presently smart cards can store 1,600 pages of information.In 1992 candidate Clinton said: “Everyone will carry a smart card, encoded with his or her personal medical information.” 53 

There is a serious risk that our Constitution will be replaced with a corporate approved version. Several new Constitutions have already been prepared. For instance, in 1964, the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations spent millions of dollars preparing the Proposed Constitution for the New States of America. In it the Bill of Rights was replaced by the grant of certain privileges. Our God given rights would be assigned and granted by the state when it deemed appropriate. The World Constitution and Parliament Association in Lakewood, Colorado has already prepared a world Constitution for the planned world government. Steven Boyd in Alternative Constitutions for the U.S. presents 10 proposed new Constitutions. If the one world government takes over, the present Constitution will be banned as a subversive document. Phil Marsh a tax protester was brought to trial. One count involved him sending the Constitution through the mail. When McVeigh's sister was initially questioned about the Oklahoma bombing, the press said she was found with extremist literature like the Constitution. 

For years there have been attempts to hold a constitutional convention under the guise of weakening federal power and restoring state rights. In May, 1994 Utah Governor Mike Leavitt, a leader of the National Conference of State Legislatures which is supported by the Rockefeller and Carnegie Foundations, called for a Conference of States (COS). Leavitt said: “Our national government...is outdated and old-fashioned....There is a much better way.” According to the May 25, 1994 Salt Lake Tribune, Governor Leavitt called for a constitutional convention but people were so angry at this that he soon denied making such a statement. In 1995 the National Governor's Association joined in the call to hold this meeting in Philadelphia October 22-25, the 50th anniversary of the U.N's founding. With little public awareness, attending this convention was approved in various states, often with no debate, because of pressure by local political leaders. 

In each state people quietly promoted this convention, denying it would be a constitutional convention despite the gathering evidence. It was claimed that the meeting would not have the force of law, so why was each state legislator required to pass a Resolution of Participation? They required that two-thirds of the states pass the resolution which is what is required to hold a constitutional convention. The conference would make its own rules and, per the Constitution, could petition Congress to hold a Constitutional convention and do whatever they wanted, even though the American people would have no idea the meeting was even taking place. This would have been the first meeting of all the states since the original Constitutional convention, but the national media rarely discussed this plan. 

Senators Helms and Brown introduced Resolution 82 asking the states to convene a COS to add amendments to the Constitution “and that such states then consider whether it is necessary for the states to convene a constitutional convention pursuant to Article V of the Constitution of the U.S., in order to adopt such Amendment.” Some people promoting COS, like Charles Cooper, openly call for changing our constitutional form of government. Paul Weyrich founder of the American Legislative Exchange Council which is also pushing COS said in a March 8, 1987 editorial in the Washington Post “Our national strategy is outdated, dysfunctional and insupportable....If we are going to be a serious nation, we need a serious system...we need some type of shadow government....” The clearest expression of subversion came in the book Reforming American Government released by the Committee on the Constitutional System, another CFR controlled group pushing for parliamentary government in America. One of it directors James M. Burn's, using text from The Power to Lead, said: “Let us face reality. The framers have simply been too shrewd for us. They have outwitted us. They designed separated institutions that cannot be unified by mechanical linkages, frail bridges, tinkering. If we are to 'turn the founders upside down'...we must directly confront the constitutional structure they erected.” 54 

The Patriot movement got numerous state legislators to reject attending this convention, so the necessary number of states required for it to convene was not attained and it was cancelled. There was an intense debate in about 25 states. The Philadelphia city council voted unanimously March 16, 1995 not to support holding the meeting. The Wall Street Journal pushed for a constitutional convention, 55 while the New York Times in frustration announced that extreme right wing conspiracy theorists had blocked the meeting. 56 

This is a classic example of how the corporate view decides what is politically correct in America. The states rejected this phony conference because so many Americans complained to their state legislators. When America speaks and it doesn't reflect the corporate view the left or right is slandered. The canceling of this phony convention demonstrated the patriotism and influence of the Patriot movement. It also angered and scared the corporate elite. The call for this conference is coming from the large corporations, not from the people. 

Before, the plan was to quietly get the states to agree to hold this meeting without anyone noticing. Now the plan is to use money. The corporate elite, including Mobile, Chevron, and Philip Morris, have already announced plans to redouble their efforts and to donate millions of dollars to various legislators to hold this convention, which is now called a Federalism Summit, in 1996. A meeting was held in Cincinnati October 22, 1995 to plan the strategy. Contact your local representatives and tell them not to allow this convention, which would change the Constitution and remove many of our rights. 

James Weinstein, in The Corporate Idea in the Liberal State, 1900-1918, described how the liberal social reforms of the 20th century, from the New Deal to the New Frontier and the Great Society, ultimately were developed and managed by the corporations, not by progressive elements. The purpose always was to prevent anti-corporate sentiment and to control the marketplace. Weinstein describes “a conscious and successful effort to guide the economic and social policies of federal, state, and municipal governments by various business groupings in their own long-range interest as they perceived it.” 

The special interest groups, especially the large corporations, remain in control of the federal government and various schemes are used to fool the people about this. As shown in the 1994 election many people are fed up with the overwhelming power of the federal government; yet there are few attempts by Congress to return power to the states and the people. Programs by the states to make changes in welfare still require money to come from the federal government. The Contract With America didn't even include lobbying and campaign-finance reforms. Most people remain convinced that the source of many problems is the government, when in fact it is that the large corporations control the government. This reality has been deflected by careful propaganda. We have all been lied to for so long that that we are losing sight of our heritage and the truth can be quite shocking.

Chapter VI 

State Rights and the 

Federal Government 

“I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.” 

James Madison 

“When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will...become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we are separated....I believe the states can best govern our home concerns and the general government our foreign ones.” 

Thomas Jefferson 

The first attempt at federation occurred in 1643. For defense purposes four New England colonies formed the United Colonies of New England which was called a firm and perpetual union. In 1686 the union was disbanded. The original Articles of Confederation were abandoned because the central government was too weak. Now we have gone to the other extreme. As stated in the Declaration of Independence July 4, 1776, “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, (described freedoms) it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government....” Our Constitution does not state that the federal government shall exist in perpetuity, partly because the Articles of Confederation were four times declared to exist in perpetuity yet that agreement soon failed. 

The federal government was created by 13 sovereign and free nations. Great Britain recognized the sovereign independence of each state at the 1783 Paris peace treaty. In Sturges vs. Crowninshield (1819), Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Marshall said at the beginning “we were divided into independent states, united for some purposes, but in most respects sovereign.” These independent states decided on their own to accept the new Constitution. Before the Civil War the words used in various federal documents were “the U.S. are” but than that was changed to “the U.S. is.” In older versions of the Bill of Rights the word “State” was always in capital letter but that is no longer true. Each of the 13 colonies performed the duties of sovereign states such as having a legislature to raise taxes and conduct war, raise a militia, and have relations with other states. To this day many states have economic relations with foreign nations to increase commerce. 

Before accepting the new Constitution, Massachusetts demanded “that it be explicitly declared that all powers not delegated by the aforesaid Constitution are reserved to the several States, to be by them exercised.” According to the New Hampshire Constitution, “The people of this Commonwealth have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent State; and do and forever hereafter shall exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right which is not, or may not hereafter be, by them, expressly delegated to the U.S.” 

When Virginia joined the new Union on June 25, 1788, it declared “the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the U.S., may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression....” When New York joined the Union on July 25, 1788, it said: “That the powers of Government may be re-assumed by the people, whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness....” Rhode Island and North Carolina did not join the Union for over a year after the Union had been approved. They were considered independent sovereign nations by the other states. Upon joining the Union, Rhode Island declared: “That the powers of Government may be resumed by the people, whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness....” Other state constitutions, like Texas, have similar protections. 

William Rawle wrote Views of the Constitution in 1825, suiting: “It depends on the State itself to retain or abolish the principle of representation, because it depends on itself whether or not it will continue a member of the Union. To deny this right would be inconsistent with the principle on which all our political systems are founded, which is, that the people have in all cases, a right to determine how they will be governed....The secession of a State from the Union depends on the will of the people of such a State.” Rawles, born in Philadelphia, was a friend of Benjamin Franklin and George Washington. His book was widely used in constitutional law courses at various colleges throughout the country, including at West Point. 

Before the Civil War, the states sometimes challenged federal authority. Many patriots today would draw inspiration from the debates in the late 1700s. The Alien and Sedition Acts angered many, and if Jefferson hadn't become president in 1800 and rejected these laws, the country might have split apart. Many considered the federal government the enemy of the people, and newspaper criticism was widespread. In 1797 Jefferson said the federal government represented “foreign jurisdiction.” 

The right of nullification was initially proclaimed in 1798, with the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, which were written by Madison and Jefferson. The doctrine of nullification is based on the understanding that the Union is an agreement among sovereign states, that the states have the right to judge violations of the Constitution, and the states don't have to follow the laws set forth by their agent, the federal government. Kentucky said nullification was the “rightful remedy” for violating the Constitution. Madison said federal inherent or implied powers were “creatures of ambition” which would ultimately “swallow up the State sovereignties.” Since the states and the people created the Constitution, a state had a right to nullify or reject an unconstitutional federal law. 1 The federal government is an agent for the states that created it and who are its principals. Congress does not have the right to pass laws that violate the Constitution. Any such laws are invalid, because the federal government is not above the Constitution.

The U.S. did poorly in the War of 1812 partly because some states refused to provide a militia. They felt this was strictly a war between England and the federal government. In 1814 the New England states met in Hartford to consider seceding  from the Union because the war had cost them considerable trade losses. They proclaimed the right of nullification. 

In 1831 John Calhoun said: “The great and leading principle is that the general government emanated from the people of the several states, forming distinct political communities, and acting in their separate and sovereign capacity, and not from all the people forming one aggregate political community.” Calhoun also said: “The object of a Constitution is to restrain the government, as that of laws is to restrain individuals.” In the 1830s Georgia refused to follow several Supreme Court decisions regarding the Cherokee Indians. In 1832 South Carolina declared certain federal tariffs null and void. President Andrew Jackson, on December 10, 1832, called nullification rebellion and treason, but both sides backed down. In the 1850s various northern States nullified the 1850 Fugitive Slave Law by passing personal liberty laws. Slavery was a constant source of tension before the Civil War. 

In 1848 Abraham Lincoln said: “Any people anywhere being inclined and having the power have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better.” In 1860, when confronted with these words, Lincoln defended his view of maintaining the Union by turning to God and the mystical belief that the Union must be saved at all costs. The power of the federal government increased tremendously during and after the Civil War. Supreme Court Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase said state sovereignty died at Appomattox. 

In 1868 the Fourteenth Amendment was passed unconstitutionally. This act created a new class of citizenship. The Senate then consisted of 72 members, including 22 southerners. Since the Senate did not have the required 48 votes to pass the Fourteenth amendment, it would not seat the southerners. As a result, only 34 votes were needed. However, they were still one vote short so, without a hearing, they illegally unseated a New Jersey senator who was against the amendment because he had only been elected by a plurality. Such an election was legal in New Jersey and in other states so this act was illegal but the conspirators used this strategy because they did not have the required two-third vote needed to expel a seated senator. The Fourteenth Amendment was passed by 33 of 49 senators. In a similar manner, the House would not seat 58 southern representatives, so the 182 northern members only needed 122 votes to pass the amendment. Although the vote was two short of the two-thirds required, the amendment was declared passed with 120 votes. 

By March, 1867 only 17 of 37 states had ratified the amendment. Then the Reconstruction Act was passed, legalizing military occupation of all southern states except Tennessee—which had approved the new amendment. Under the military occupation most southern whites lost the right to vote, and six southern states were forced to pass the Fourteenth Amendment. This insured that the required 29 states were reached. Although Ohio and New Jersey repealed their earlier approval, disgusted with these events, they were still counted and the amendment was ratified.2 [effing disgusting,rule of law my ass DC]

In Dyett v. Turner (1967) the Utah Supreme Court attacked the method by which the Fourteenth Amendment was passed. In State v. Phillips (1975) the Utah Supreme Court said: “No court in full possession of its faculties could honestly hold that the amendment (Fourteenth) was properly approved and adopted.” The Fourteenth Amendment has been used to expand federal power “not only not  granted to it, but expressly forbidden to it....History is strewn with other examples which demonstrate that undue, uncontrolled and unwieldy concentrations of power in any individual or institution tends to destroy itself. It is our opinion that this is the evil which the founders feared so keenly and tried so zealously to guard against, but which is now rife upon us.” Although the Fourteenth Amendment has often been used to expand federal power, the Supreme Court has never ruled on its constitutionality. 

Until early this century people still felt primarily loyal to their state. The federal government was a distant body that had little direct impact on people's lives. This is a key reason why so many southerners left the Union during the Civil War. It is difficult for us to appreciate such state loyalty today. The federal government was greatly enhanced when the Sixteenth Amendment, to collect income taxes, was falsely passed in 1913. This directly linked the federal government to every taxpayer and gradually played a further role in weakening state sovereignty. 

The Ninth and Tenth Amendments strictly limit the federal government to those powers defined in the Constitution to protect state sovereignty and the people's rights. The evidence clearly shows that “the ratifying States regarded this statement of reserved powers as a vital, indeed an absolutely necessary addition to the Constitution.” 3 And the first article of the Constitution states: “All legislative Powers herein granted....” which means the federal government only has the powers granted to it by the Constitution. That these amendments have been greatly weakened in this century, in violation of the Constitution, is the heart of our problem. The federal government has a role to play but it should be strictly within the Constitution. 

Under the Constitution, the states agreed to give certain of their sovereign powers to the federal government. However, these few powers were specifically outlined with all other powers reserved to the states and the people. During the debate over ratifying the Constitution, this principle was widely understood, so many wondered in amazement how anyone could ever imagine that the federal government would usurp state sovereignty. Alexander Hamilton said in, The Federalist Papers, number 9: “The proposed Constitution so far from implying an abolition of the state governments, makes them constituent parts of the national sovereignty, by allowing them a direct representation in the Senate, and leaves in their possession certain exclusive and very important portions of sovereign power.” In The Federalist Papers, number 17, Hamilton added: “Allowing the utmost latitude to the love of power which any reasonable man can require, I confess I am at a loss to discover what temptation the persons entrusted with the administration of the general (federal) government could ever feel to divest the states of the authorities of that description....It will always be far more easy for the state governments to encroach upon the national authorities, than for the national government to encroach upon the state authorities.” 

James Madison said in The Federalist Papers, number 45: “The state governments may be regarded as constituent and essential parts of the federal government; whilst the latter is nowise essential to the operation or organization of the former....The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiations, and foreign commerce....The powers  reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the state.” This hardly sounds like our present government. Leaving most powers including those undefined to the states and people and only a few defined powers to the federal government was a deliberate system of checks and balances to prevent the tyranny that is so common in concentrated government power. Today Washington has forgotten that the ultimate purpose of separate government powers is to protect the people from government tyranny. 

During the ratification debate in Virginia, Patrick Henry and George Mason opposed the new Constitution. Henry said: “Be extremely cautious, watchful, and jealous of your liberty. Instead of securing your rights, you may lose them forever. There will be no checks, no real balances, in this government.” 4 George Mason said having a central government “is totally subversive of every principle which has hitherto governed us. This power is calculated to annihilate totally the State governments....These two concurrent powers cannot exist long together; the one will destroy the other....” Mason was also very critical of the taxing power which he said “must carry everything before it.” 5 

In 1816 Thomas Jefferson wrote: “The way to have good and safe government is not to trust it all to one, but to divide it among the many....Let the national government be entrusted with the defense of the nation and its foreign and federal relations; the state governments with the civil rights, laws, police and administration of what concerns the state generally; the counties with the local concerns of the counties....What has destroyed the liberty and the rights of man in every government which has ever existed under the sun? The generalizing and concentrating of cares and powers into one body.” 6 

State and federal governments have legitimate functions, but the Constitution should be used as a guideline to set proper boundaries. This is rarely done today. The federal government has no legal authority to intervene in the affairs of states, except in the areas delegated under the Constitution. “The genius of the U.S. Constitution is that it's the world's only anti-government Constitution. The Founders understood clearly that the principle threat to the American people was then, and would always be, our own government.” 7 

The states created a federal government partly because they found that a few issues such as diplomacy, interstate commerce, defense, and disputes among the states could best be settled by a national government. However, since the New Deal, it has been believed that all problems must be solved on a national level. The Constitution is supposed to be a system of restraints against the natural tendency of government to continue growing, but the federal government has gone way beyond its constitutional mandate; it has violated the rights of the states and the people. The New Deal represented a fundamental change in federal authority, but the Constitution was never changed to legalize this power. 

History has shown time and again how corrupting the influence of power can be. Edmund Burke said: “The greater the power the more dangerous the abuse.” In 1888 John Fiske, a Harvard historian, said: “If the day should ever arrive when the people of the different parts of our country shall allow their local affairs to be administered by prefects sent from Washington...on that day the progressive political career of the American people will have come to an end, and the hopes that have been built upon it for the future happiness and prosperity of mankind will be wrecked forever.”[well seeing that we have a generation or two, who do not even know what the Constitution is,I would say,that day is upon us DC] 

Passage of the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913 meant that senators were chosen in a general election instead of being elected by state legislatures. On a practical level, state legislators were much more able to see that senators protected state rights than is the case with voters involved in many varied activities. Federal programs like unfunded mandates would never have passed if senators were still elected by state legislators. The removal of this important protection established by the Founders played a major role in weakening state sovereignty. It is not by chance that the federal government grew so large in the years after this amendment was passed. 

It has been increasingly accepted that the federal government has a right and duty to exercise greater and greater power. This view represents “the first principle of totalitarianism: that the state is competent to do all things and is limited in what it actually does only by the will of those who control the state.” 8 The New Deal made people think that government was the source of our happiness. The federal government is supposed to be the agent of the states, but today it is the other way around. The federal government has gone from being a servant with few powers to a master with virtually unlimited power. The Constitution is ignored, the principle of limited government is forgotten, and great power has been transferred to fewer people. “Like so many other nations before us, we may succumb through internal weakness rather than fall before a foreign foe.”9 

The bureaucracy and executive branch have become much more powerful, while the legislature has conceded many of its powers, such as the power of the purse and declaration of war. Constitutional government has been replaced by bureaucratic decrees. There is a growing conflict between the people and the experts who make policy. These experts rarely reflect the real values and concerns of the American people. Yankelovich calls this “creeping expertism” and says “it undermines the country's ability to reach consensus on how to resolve important issues.” 10 Think tanks have narrowed the political debate using statistics to support any position. 

Administration has replaced electoral politics, and policy is decided in the executive bureaucracy. The bureaucracy is used by those who distrust the people as another layer to separate the ruling elite from the people. Alexis de Tocqueville called this “administrative despotism.” Bureaucracy is undemocratic, because it rests on the belief that an expert's opinion has more value than a non-expert's. Eugene McCarthy warned: “The only thing that saves us from bureaucracy is inefficiency. An efficient bureaucracy is the greatest threat to liberty.” Too often local and state officials are overruled by federal bureaucrats who often think they are above the law. If constitutional government is restored, there must also be a serious debate about the role of bureaucracy and administrative law in our Republic. This is long overdue. Administrative agencies are not even described in the Constitution. 

Rep. J.D. Hayworth has introduced H.R. 2727, requiring that regulatory rulings would not take effect unless Congress voted for them. For too long legislative power has unconstitutionally shifted to administrative agencies. 11 The public must become more involved and educated, while the bureaucrats must be more willing to listen and let people become involved in decisions. The experts and technocrats have encroached on the people's territory. This problem is one more reason why fewer people vote. Whoever wins, few promises are kept and little changes. People increasingly understand that the bureaucrats and ruling elite make the decisions with little input from the people or regard for what they want. 

That people have wanted greater federal involvement in their lives weakened state rights. Only since the 1994 election has state rights again become a national priority. There has yet to be much discussion of the fact that the federalization of so many government functions has also greatly weakened the basic rights of the individual. People should understand that as they demand more aid from the federal government, it increasingly comes at a very heavy price—the loss of our freedoms. As a consequence of so many functions being federalized, we as a people have become far too dependent on the federal bureaucracy. We are being bribed into slavery! Fortunately people are awakening to this reality, and bringing federal projects to your district no longer guarantees reelection. 12 

A key part of the problem is that lobbyists represent millions of Americans, not just a few special interests. The entitlement programs represent about one sixth of all personal income. The federal government has gotten too big partly because most people love entitlement programs. “The ultimate problem with all process reforms is that lobbies are us, and you cannot isolate a democratic government from its own society.” 13 People must be willing to make fewer demands on government. That people think federal programs are free is a distorted view. Money for federal programs ultimately comes from the people, and an increase in federal programs promotes an increase in federal control over our lives. 

Reviving state rights is solidly grounded in our constitutional history. Under the Constitution the federal government doesn't have the authority to set up many of the programs that it has instituted in this century. It is remarkable that the federal government owns or controls one-third of all land in America. There are many federal programs that should be cancelled, consolidated, or transferred to the states. These programs include welfare, housing, energy, commerce, agriculture, education, environment, public power, and most forms of crime prevention. 

Limiting areas the federal government could regulate worked for 150 years, partly because the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce was narrowly interpreted. In 1895 the Supreme Court stopped federal regulation of sugar in U.S. v. E.C. Knight Co. because interstate commerce was narrowly affected. In 1937, under pressure from Roosevelt, the Supreme Court used the commerce and general welfare clauses in Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution to expand the power of the federal government into many areas always reserved to the states. The general welfare clause was meant to limit federal spending; instead, especially since the New Deal, it has been used in just the opposite manner. It was meant to benefit the nation and people as a whole, such as in national defense, not to benefit individuals or special interest groups. In 1798 Thomas Jefferson said: “Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.” 14 

The first Agriculture Adjustment Act passed in 1933 under the general welfare clause of the Constitution was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Butler (1936). Congress responded by passing similar legislation under the guise of interstate commerce, and the Supreme Court declared this similar law constitutional in Wickard v. Filburn (1942). Filburn grew crops only for his family. The court said if a farmer had not used his own feed, he might have bought someone else's wheat, which might affect the price of wheat which was transported  in interstate commerce. Henceforth the commerce clause was extended to cover what wasn't interstate or even commerce. Through such machinations our Constitution has been subverted by the courts and politicians. Previously, intrastate commerce only conducted within a state was left to the states to regulate. The Supreme Court had said that production is inherently local. 

Alexander Hamilton warned in The Federalist Papers, number 17: “Supervision of agriculture and of other concerns of a similar nature...which are proper to be provided for by local legislation, can never be desirable cares of a general jurisdiction. It is therefore improbable that there should exist a disposition in the Federal councils to usurp the powers with which they are connected; because the attempt to exercise those powers would be as troublesome as it would be nugatory.” 

In recent years many federal environment, welfare, civil rights, and crime laws have passed using the commerce and general welfare clauses. In Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S. the 1964 Civil Rights Act was upheld under the interstate commerce clause. Since 1965 the federal government has been using preemption statutes transferring entire areas of authority from the states to the federal authorities, with national standards being established. While I strongly support the civil rights revolution, to continuously increase federal authority will ultimately cause our demise as a free people. As Time magazine noted, despite what the federal government likes us to believe, areas such as crime prevention and education are reserved to the states under the Constitution. 15 

After the Civil War, Congress gradually expanded federal criminal jurisdiction regarding federal agencies, such as activities involving interstate commerce. The Post Office Code of 1872 made it a crime to promote obscenity, fraud, or lotteries. In 1896 Congress provided funds to build the first federal prison. Only in this century have we seen a vast increase in federal crimes and the establishment of federal police such as the FBI. In 1910 it became a federal offense to take a woman across state lines for immoral purposes, and in 1919 transporting a stolen car across state lines became a federal crime. The 1994 crime bill placed under federal jurisdiction numerous acts involving drugs, guns, and juveniles that have traditionally been controlled by state and local governments. Even car-jacking and child support are now federal concerns. 

Despite Clinton's “Mandate for Change” describing crime as an area in which “no federal role is justified,” we got the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 and the Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. Senator D'Amato and other Republicans call for more federal involvement in crime prevention while at the same time proclaiming that they are cutting the federal government. Senator Biden said on August 22, 1994, that under the Violence Against Women Act, which is part of the 1994 federal crime law, if officers do not make arrests in domestic violence cases, police department can lose federal funds; yet on the same day Senator Biden said Washington wasn't exerting control over local police. Senator Feingold voted against the 1994 crime bill saying “The architects of our nation purposely did not establish a national police force and largely left law enforcement as a state and local responsibility....Some members of this body are no longer committed to this aspect of federalism and local control. They apparently would have us federalize almost every crime that has made a headline anywhere in our nation.” 

Wilson Nicholas, a delegate to the Virginia convention that ratified the Constitution, said: “Congress has power to define and punish piracies, counterfeiting, and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the laws of nations; but they cannot define or prescribe the punishment of any other crime whatsoever without violating the Constitution.” In Brown v. Maryland (1827) Chief Justice Marshall said: “The police power, unquestionably remains, and ought to remain, with the States.” Until this century federal courts upheld the view that the federal government could only deal with crimes specifically mentioned in the Constitution. In 1911 the Supreme Court said: “Among the powers of the State not surrendered—which powers therefore remain with the State—is the power to so regulate the relative rights and duties of all within its jurisdiction as to guard the public morals, the public safety, and the public health, as well as to promote the public convenience and the common good.” At the founding of this Republic, there were only four federal crimes: treason, counterfeiting, piracy, and crimes against the laws of nations. Now there are 3,000 federal crimes, 300,000 federal administrative regulations, and about 85,000 local governments with 513,200 elected officials, or one in every 500 people. Our Republic is being destroyed by thousands of laws and enforcers. 

While conservatives in Congress attack social-welfare spending programs as wasteful, no one in Congress proclaims that there is no authority under the Constitution to spend the people's money on the welfare state. Such spending is unconstitutional because the Constitution does not grant the federal government the authority to spend such money. In 1794 James Madison criticized aid to French refugees: “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” In 1854 President Franklin Pierce vetoed a bill for the mentally ill saying: “I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity.” To provide such financing would be “subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of the States is founded.” In the late 1800s Congress increasingly appropriated money for veterans' pensions and public charity based on the “general welfare.” President Grover Cleveland rejected hundreds of these bills saying, “I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution.” I happen to support providing some public support for people in need, but it should only be done by the states. The federal government has no constitutional basis to provide such aid. 16 

Since the New Deal, states have had to rely on the federal government for money to run many programs. With most tax dollars going to the federal government, the states don't have the fiscal independence to serve their constituents and preserve their sovereignty. The power of taxation has been largely transferred to the federal government, with the important policies of the day established by Washington. By the 1960s states and cities generally received 25 percent of their funding from the federal government, which made it much easier for the federal government to dictate policy. If federal taxes were lowered, state taxes could be increased proportionally, per the wishes of the people so that people paid about the same taxes each year, depending on what programs the states established. The states would then have the funds to pay for many programs now being run by the federal government. For instance, if the U.S. Education Department was closed, it would be possible to calculate what that department was spending each year and then lower federal taxes based on that rate. Time should be allotted before these federal programs are closed, so people in each state could decide what federal programs they might want to establish and how much funding would be needed. 

Returning government to the states would ease the growing sense of alienation and loss of control over their lives that millions now feel. Thomas Hobbes said: “Freedom is government divided into small fragments.” This shift back to the states would also be an effective means to restore the Constitution and prevent tyranny yet still assist people as they gradually get over the addiction of government aid. A weakened federal government would have less power to blackmail states into accepting more federal control or lose federal money. 

States are much better able to handle programs partly because they are closer to the people and are thus more efficient and responsive. Local authorities get faster feedback to improve programs. Local problems are better handled by local governments than by a distant federal bureaucracy, and states cannot create money so their potential for abusive powers is limited. Already many states have reformed their welfare rules with many improvements, and people are gradually being weaned off welfare. With such poor results from the huge sums spent for the war on poverty, it is time for a change. 17 

Returning many federal government activities to the states would weaken the power of the lobby groups. They would have to divide their resources for 50 states. Various states could test different solutions and programs to see what worked best, and there would be more competition and variety. If one state becomes too rigid, people and businesses can move to other states. New York and California, with high taxes, have made it difficult for businesses, so many companies have moved. 

Transferring certain federal powers back to the states is not a new idea. Presidents Eisenhower and Nixon formed commissions to study this. Eisenhower warned in the 1950s: “Those who would be free must stand eternal watch against concentration of power in government.” He appointed the Kestenbaum Commission to study ways federal programs and powers could be transferred to the states, but nothing was accomplished. When the Advisory Committee on Intergovernmental Relations made a few proposals in 1969, again nothing was done. 

More recently this same committee suggested a three-part pragmatic test to determine which government should be involved in various programs. First, the federal government should not be involved in programs where there is a strong history of local involvement. Education and police enforcement exemplify this. Little of value is accomplished by federal intrusion in these areas. Second, what is the relative amount of federal financing in relation to total government spending? For instance, highway construction, law enforcement, and education receive far less money from the federal government than does welfare aid. Third, would ending federal aid cause destructive competition among the states? Should there be federal equalization of standards in some areas such as with environment or welfare laws, so that states with strict standards will not be punished when other states have lax standards? A fourth criterion is whether a particular program is really of national concern. Bruce Babbitt, currently Clinton's Secretary of the Interior, said in 1981, as governor of Arizona, “Congress ought to be worrying about arms control and defense instead of potholes in the street.” 18 

When Senator Kerry ran for president in 1992 he promised to reduce the number of cabinet posts by half and to reduce non-entitlement domestic spending by a quarter. Shortly before the 1994 elections, Utah governor Mike Leavitt said “The common citizen may not use the term 'unfunded mandate,' but they know intuitively that the federal government is reaching beyond what was intended.” In 1992 the Brookings Institution published a book, Reviving the American Dream, by Alice M. Rivlin, who became deputy director of the Clinton Administration's Office of Management and Budget. She said “The federal government has taken on too much responsibility and should return some of its functions to the states. A clearer division of responsibilities between the states and the federal government could make both levels operate more effectively.” The Republicans trounced the Democrats in the 1994 election partly because of a promise to diminish government. 

On November 6, 1994 CBS released a poll in which 63 percent of the public felt the federal government should be doing less for us and 30 percent felt that it should be doing more. We have to dismantle much of the federal government because it has gotten too large, out of control, and distant from the people which it no longer represents. Not only would this be in accord with the Constitution, it would provide more effective government for individuals and many businesses and lessen the power of lobbyists. Americans must give up the idea that the federal government can solve all problems. 

When the Wall Street Journal reviewed the book, Lost Rights, the heading was “Fix Washington Before It Enslaves Us All.” 19 Even this bastion of the establishment is getting the picture. A sad example of how ridiculous things have become was shown on the evening news in early December, 1994. Federal legislation will require cities to change most of their street signs so they are more legible to the Washington bureaucrats. Denver, for example, will have to spend $2 million to satisfy this requirement. Allowing the federal government to interfere this much in our daily lives was never the intent of the Founders. If they understood that the federal government would one day control the shape of street signs there would never have been a federal government. 

There has been a move to restore more responsible representation by establishing new local governments. In 1992 Staten Island voted overwhelmingly to secede from New York City. Nine counties in Kansas and parts of Texas, Colorado, and Oklahoma are trying to become a new state in Western Kansas. People in several regions of Washington state are trying to establish new counties, as that state's Constitution allows, and there is a move to divide California into three states for better representation. 20 

State, local, and federal authorities should privatize and deregulate many government functions as many other countries have done in recent years. Private businesses can collect garbage more efficiently than the government, and tens of billions of dollars could be saved and earned by selling various federal agencies, such as Amtrak and low income housing. 21 Only recently did Congress agree to sell the helium reserve from the 1920s, although special interests assure us this reserve remains vital to national security. Deregulation of the trucking industry is expected to save up to $20 billion a year as the shipping industry is freed from the clutches of the ICC. 22 

There are often problems in distributing federal grant money. When the Justice Department recently awarded money to local communities to ease crime, Indianapolis lost to a suburb with a much lower crime rate. Politics, not local need and efficiency, too often decide federal grant money. This issue would remain a problem if states took over many federal programs, but state and local grants would receive closer scrutiny, and local officials would have a better understanding of local problems. 

In Demosclerosis, Jonathan Rauch describes how democracy is being weakened by an inability of government to act and make things work. “In principle, the U.S. government's situation is like the Soviet economy's....In both, the method of trial and error reached the point of critical failure. In Washington, old programs and policies cannot be gotten rid of, and yet they continue to suck up money and energy. As a result, there is less and less money or energy for new programs and policies.” 23 

Every federal program takes on a life of its own, so it will be extremely difficult to transfer power from the federal government to the states. It is difficult to change, much less kill or transfer, a federal program once it has been established, even after it has served its usefulness. We will only reverse the trend towards greater federal power when we elect people who want to rid themselves of the power they have been given. The New Deal view of an all-powerful, beneficent central government must be replaced with a return to federalism and a separation of powers. 

Gradually states are taking more aggressive action to curtail the federal government. California and 21 other states passed a resolution asserting state sovereign rights under the Tenth Amendment. The California joint resolution 44 said: “Whereas, the scope of power defined by the 10th Amendment means that the federal government was created by the States specifically to be an agent of the States; and Whereas, In the year 1994 the States are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government; and...whereas, Many federal mandates are directly in violation of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the U.S.” The resolution also demanded that the federal government immediately stop mandates that are beyond the scope of its constitutionally delegated powers. Similar resolutions have been introduced in most other states. 

A more radical solution has been proposed by the Committee of 50 states which is chaired by former Utah governor J. Bracken Lee. The goal is to get 38 states to pass the Ultimate Resolution so if Congress allows the national debt to reach six trillion dollars, or if Congress or the president by any means including by Executive Order (EO) ever attempt to abolish or suspend the Constitution, then the Union will automatically be dissolved back to 50 sovereign states. By 1996 the national debt had reached over five trillion dollars. 

The objective is not to actually dissolve the Union but to establish the legal principle that this power will automatically exist to be exercised if the federal government goes too far in removing our rights. For instance, if the president signed an Executive Order declaring martial law and removing all guns from the people or restricting travel, this resolution would automatically take hold, if approved and the federal government would be dissolved. In such a situation this solution would be far more effective and necessary than nullification. By March, 1994 this resolution had been introduced in nine states; it missed passing in the Arizona House by a 27-26 vote. There have already been two sanctioned instances of secession—West Virginia was formed out of Virginia, and Vermont from New Hampshire. 24 

The Sovereignty Resolution calls for Congress to use its constitutional mandate (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 5) to provide interest free loans of up to $360 billion over four years to local tax-supported bodies to pay current debts and to finance capital projects. This would create many jobs, help local businesses, improve the economy, and restore the deteriorating infrastructure. By January 1, 1996 this had been endorsed by 3,295 local governments including the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the Michigan legislature. As usual the corporate controlled press won't discuss this resolution despite its growing popularity. Banks would earn no interest under this plan. 25 

After the large corporations, the greatest factor causing the end of constitutional government in America has been judicial tyranny by federal judges. Thomas Jefferson said: “It is a very dangerous doctrine to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions. It is one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.” Federal judges will inevitably increase federal power. The Supreme Court has gone from being an arbitrator of constitutional questions to protecting the power of the corporations and the federal government, especially the executive branch. In Dyett v. Turner (1967) the Utah Supreme Court said: “The U.S. Supreme Court...has departed from the Constitution as it has been interpreted from its inception and has followed the urgings of social reformers....It has amended the Constitution in a manner unknown to the document itself...The federal courts have arrogated unto themselves the powers and duties which rightfully belong to the state courts.” 

Increasingly in the last 100 years, powerful corporate interests have deliberately subverted the intent of the Founders by appointing judges who would enhance corporate and federal power and weaken the constitutional system of checks and balances. While many today attack the New Deal as representing the demise of constitutional government in America, this attack really began in the late 1800s, when the federal courts led by the Supreme Court started destroying state sovereignty and allowed the federal government to take over numerous duties and responsibilities that under the Constitution had been left to the people and the states. States did not turn to the Supreme Court to leave the Union before the Civil War partly because the Constitution does not grant federal courts the right to control state sovereignty. The Constitution did not create judicial supremacy, and there is extensive evidence that the Founders never granted the Supreme Court the power to rule over the president, Congress, or the states. 26 

Congress should reaffirm the Tenth Amendment, and courts should be instructed to not preempt state or local authority unless specifically permitted by the Constitution. Congress, as it did after the Civil War per the Constitution, Article III, Section 2, should specifically limit the jurisdiction of courts to act in ways that limit state sovereignty. 27 On September 6, 1995 Rep. John Shadegg introduced H.R. 2270, while Senator Spencer Abraham introduced a similar bill in the Senate, requiring Congress to identify the constitutional authority for all bills. 

In U.S. v. Conner the court found invalid the Anti Car Theft Act of 1992 because the Feds had no authority under the interstate commerce clause to extend its authority here. This decision was reversed by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. In 1988 Congress passed the Indian Gambling Regulation Act to regulate gambling on Indian reservations. Three courts found this violated the Tenth Amendment, but they were reversed by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. 28 These appeals judges should be impeached and fired. 

Several recent Supreme Court decisions offer some hope, but it is too early to tell if the court is determined to enforce the Tenth Amendment and support state sovereignty. The Supreme Court in New York v. U.S. (1992) supported New York, which refused to accept radioactive waste, because New York was a sovereign state protected under the Tenth Amendment. The court said “Congress cannot commandeer the legislative or regulatory processes of the states” and the “Constitution divides authority between federal and state governments for the protection of individuals.” 

In U.S. v. Lopez (1995) the Supreme Court ruled that the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act was unconstitutional. Congress had no right to decide that it was illegal for schools to allow guns in or near schools. This was a clear misuse of the commerce clause and a gross overextension of federal powers. In the decision Justice Thomas wisely warned: “The substantial effects test suffers from the further flaw that it appears to grant Congress a police power over the nation.” The government told the court it could not even list any limits to federal government power under the commerce clause. An observer in Forbes magazine warned, if there are no limits to the power of the federal government then “we have a totalitarian state.” 29 Amazingly, the dissenting justices said the court cannot go against the main views of public opinion. Apparently they haven't yet seen the 1994 election results. Clinton was horrified at this decision saying: “I am determined to keep guns out of our schools.” He instructed the attorney general to find a way around this court ruling, again showing his contempt for the Constitution. Forty states already have laws preventing guns near schools. 

Many want to maintain federal authority. The New York Times said, in response to this decision, to weaken congressional power would be a return “to the misguided rulings of earlier times.” One member of Congress said this ruling could invalidate hundreds of federal laws. That is just the point! The commerce and general welfare clauses have been misused since 1937 to break with 150 years of constitutional government. Before 1937 the Tenth Amendment curtailed federal power. The Supreme Court has played a major role in severely damaging our system of constitutional checks and balances. Hopefully, this will now be reversed. Federal judges in 1994 told Congress it was improper to federalize many crimes. 

Instead of the states deciding what powers will be delegated to the Feds, the federal government and courts have taken many powers from the people and states, which completely violates the Constitution and the stated wishes of the Founding Fathers. Yet the Washington politicians wonder why they are held in such contempt by the people. Tocqueville warned against the habit of centralization and the survival of a free people. He said: “I am of the opinion that a centralized administration is fit only to enervate the nations in which it exists, by incessantly diminishing their local spirit.” 30 

None of the original 13 States would have ratified the U.S. Constitution if the people understood that the federal government would someday have such tremendous power. We must encourage competition among the sovereign states and protect the rights of individuals to limit government and prevent tyranny and monopoly power. This will also weaken the influence of interest group politics. 31 If the federal government cannot be significantly disbanded, we should start over with 50 sovereign states keeping the Constitution, making some slight adjustments as the people desire and try for a fourth time to establish a federation among the states—being more careful to control a new federal government and to protect the rights of the people and the sovereign states.   

next
Early Signs of Treason

footnotes
Chapter V Fooling the People 
1 Rodney Stich, Defrauding America (Alamo, Ca: Diablo Western Press, Inc., 1993), p. 517. 
2 Carl Bernstein, “The CIA and the Media,” Rolling Stone, Number 250 October 20, 1977, p. 25. 
3 Daniel Patrick Moynihan, “Reforming the CIA?” Unclassified, VI (June-August, 1994), 6-8. 
4 Thomas Kuhn, Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970), p. 92. 
5 Ray Moseley, “West's Fear of Islam Overblown,” San Francisco Examiner, February 19, 1995, p. A33. 
6 C.B. Dall, FDR, My Exploited Father-in-Law (Tulsa, Ok: Christian Crusade Publications, 1968), p. 22-23, 109, 140-141. 
7 A K. Chesterton, The New Unhappy Lords (London: The Candour Publishing Co., 1965), p. 36. 
8 John Sullivan, “In Considering Electronic Voting, Giuliani Faces the Fraud Factor,” New York Times, August 26, 1995, p. A11; “Voting Early and Often,” Wall Street Journal, December 19, 1994, p. A14. 
9 Ivars Peterson, “Making Votes Count,” Science News, October 30, 1993, p. 282. 
10 Jonathan Vankin, Conspiracies Cover-Ups and Crimes (N.Y: Dell Publishing, 1995), p. 22-38. 
11 “What National Emergency?” The Los Angeles Daily Journal, September 27, 1995, p. 4. 
12 Eugene Schroder, Constitution Fact or Fiction (Cleburne, Texas: Buffalo Creek Press, 1995). 
13 Ruth Marcus, “President Says He Shares the Blame for Defeats,” Washington Post, November 10, 1994, p. A1. 
14 James W. Loewen, Lies My 'Teacher Told Me (N.Y: The New Press, 1995), p. 267. 274 Treason The New World order 
15 Mark I. Schwartz, “What Multiculturalism Did to Canada,” Wall Street Journal, April 5, 1996, p. A9. 
16 Ralph Keyes, “Did They Really Say It,” Parade Magazine, May 16, 1993, p. 10. 
17 Lewis Copeland and Lawrence W. Lamin, eds., The World's Greatest Speeches (N.Y: Dover Publications, Inc., 1973), p. 232-234. 
18 Catherine Millard, The Rewriting of America's History (Camp Hill, Pa: Horizon House Publishers, 1991), p. 229, 240, 247, 258-263. 
19 Elizabeth Gleick, “She Spoke Volumes,” Time, September 25, 1995, p. 52. 
20 Henry Glassie, Passing the Time in Ballymenone: Culture and History of an Ulster Community (Philadelphia: U. of Pennsylvania Press, 1982), p. 652. 
21 Don Doig, “The Independent Jury's Secret Veto Power,” Media Bypass, II (December, 1994), 25-29. 
22 For further information 1-800-835-5879 JIFA P.O. Box 59 Helmville, Mt. 59843. Joining this organization is an excellent way to protect the people's rights. 
23 Wade Lambert, “Militias Are Joining Jury-Power Activists To Fight Government,” Wall Street Journal, May 25, 1995, p. A1, A8. 
24 James Ledbetter, “Press Clips,” Village Voice, June 13, 1995, p. A9. 
25 Mort Rosenblum, “Hidden Agendas,” Vanity Fair, 53 (March, 1990), 120. 
26 Ron Harris, “Experts Say the War on Drugs Has Turned Into a War on Blacks,” San Francisco Chronicle, April 24, 1990, p. A12. 
27 Arnold C. Brackman, The Other Nuremberg: The Untold Story of the Tokyo War Crimes Trials (N.Y: William Morrow and Co., 1987), p. 190-195. 
28 Dall, op. cit., Note 6, p. 59. 
29 David Boren, “The World Needs An Army on Call,” New York Times, August 26, 1992, p. A21; Ronnie Dugger, “Create a World Army,” New York Times, June 27, 1995, p. A15; Warren Getler, “Uncle Sam Should Strengthen U.N., Not Boss It,” Wall Street Journal, August 20, 1992, p. A9. 
30 Gerald B. Helman and Steven R. Ratner, “Saving Failed States,” Foreign Policy, 89 (Winter, 1992-1993), 3-21. 
31 Strobe Talbolt, “Dealing With Anti-Countries,” Time, December 14, 1992, p. 35. 
32 Duncan Hunter, “Bosnia Becomes Anthony Lake's Laboratory,” Washington Times National Weekly, February 12-18, 1996, p. 34. 
33 Stephen D. Goose and Frank Smyth, “Arming Genocide in Rwanda,” Foreign Affairs, 73 (September/October, 1994), 86-96. 
34 Jon Stewart, “New Ways to Pay the U.N. Piper,” San Francisco Chronicle, May 7, 1995, p. 6. 
35 David A. Andelman, “The Drug Money Maze,” Foreign Affairs, 73 (July/August, 1994), 94-108. 
36 “Radiation Victims Protest Biased Investigation,” The Progressive, 58 (December, 1994), 14. 
37 Robin Rauzi, “Victims Lawyer Wants Scientist Punished for Radiation Tests,” Albuquerque Tribune, December. 15, 1994, p. A6. 
38 Glenn Alcalay, “Damage Control on Human Radiation Experiments,” Covert Action, Number 52 (Spring, 1995), 46-47. 
39 Edward S. Corwin, Presidential Power and the Constitution (Ithaca, N.Y: Cornel University Press, 1976), p. 143. Notes 275 
40 William Minter and Laurence H. Shoup, Imperial Brain Trust: The Council on Foreign Relations and United States Foreign Policy (N.Y: Monthly Review Press, 1977). p. 24-27. 
41 Murray N. Rothbard, America's Great Depression (Kansas City: Sheed and Ward, Inc., 1972). 
42 Gary Allen, None Dare Call It Conspiracy (Seal Beach, Ca: Concord Press, 1971), p. 54. 
43 Ibid., p. 43-5. 
44 C.B. Dall, FDR, My Exploited Father-in-law (Tulsa, Ok: Christian Crusade Publications, 1968), p. 49, 119-120. 
45 Ibid., p. 59. 
46 Walter Karp, Indispensable Enemies (N.Y: Saturday Review Press, 1973), p. 110-111, 128. 
47 Howard Zinn, The Politics of History (Boston: Beacon Press, 1970), p. 118- 136. 48 Barton Bernstein, “The New Deal: The Conservative Achievements of Liberal Reform,” in Towards A New Past Dissenting Essays in American History, ed. by Barton Bernstein (N. Y: Pantheon Books, 1968), p. 263-288. 
49 James Petras and Steve Vieux, “The New Shape of the Imperial State,” Z Magazine, VIII (September, 1995), 43-50. 
50 Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., “In Defense of Government,” Wall Street Journal, June 7, 1995, p. A14. 
51 Ruth Simon, “How Washington Could Tip the Scales Against Investors,” Money, XXIV (October, 1995), p. 122-124, 127-128; Jeffrey Taylor, “Congress Sends Business a Christmas Gift,” Wall Street Journal, December 26, 1995, p. A2. 
52 John J. DiIulio, Jr. and Donald F. Kettl, “Fine Print,” (Washington, D.C: The Brookings Institution, 1995), p. 60. 
53 William M. Bulkeley, “Get Ready for Smart Cards in Health Care,” The Wall Street Journal, May 3, 1993, p. Bl1 . 
54 James M. Burns, “The Power to Lead,” in Reforming American Government, editor Donald L. Robinson, (Boulder, Co: Westview Press, 1985), p. 160. 
55 Michael S. Paulsen, “The Case for a Constitutional Convention,” Wall Street Journal, May 3, 1995, p. A15. 
56 Dirk Johnson, “Conspiracy Theories' Impact Reverberates in Legislatures,” New York Times, July 6, 1995, p. A1, A12. 

Chapter VI State Rights and 
the Federal Government 
1 Joyce Rosenwald, “Conceived in Liberty,” Media Bypass, III (July, 1995), 50- 5 1 . 
2 Pickney G. McElwee, “The 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United State s and the Threat That It Poses to Our Democratic Government,” South Carolina Quarterly, Vol II (1959), 484-519. 
3 James J Kilpatrick, The Sovereign States (Chicago: Henry Regnery Co., 1957), p. 47. 
4 David Robertson, Debates and Other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia (Richmond, 1805), p. 27. 
5 Ibid., p. 32. 276 Treason The New World order 
6 From a letter to Joseph C. Cabell, February 2, 1816, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson (Washington, D.C: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1905), Vol. 14, p. 421. 
7 Alfred Adask, “Fed Fear,” AntiShyster, V (Spring, 1995), 6. 
8 Barry Goldwater, The Conscience of A Conservative (Shepherdsville, Ky: Victor Publishing Co., Inc., 1960), p. 16. 
9 Ibid., p. 21-22. 
10 Daniel Yankelovich, Coming to Public Judgment (Syracuse, N.Y: Syracuse University Press, 1991). 
11 David Schoenbrod, “It's Time Congress Took Back Its Power to Make Laws,” Wall Street Journal, December 6, 1995, p. A21. 
12 Michael Shanahan and Miles Benson, “Pork Losing Some Sheen for Voters,” San Francisco Examiner, October 23, 1994, p. A2. 
13 Jonathan Rauch, Demosclerosis (N.Y: Random House, 1994), p. 164. 
14 Stephen Moore, “The Unconstitutional Congress,” Policy Review, (Spring, 1995), p. 25. 
15 Kevin Fedarko, “A Gun Ban is Shot Down,” Time, May 8, 1995, p. 85. 
16 Moore, op. cit., Note 14, p. 22-27. 
17 William F. Weld, “Release Us From Federal Nonsense,” Wall Street Journal, December 11, 1995, p. A14; Paul C. Roberts, “Welfare: Maybe the States Can Figure Out What Works,” Business Week, December 4, 1995, p. 21. 
18 Bruce Babbitt, “States Rights for Liberals,” The New Republic, January 24, 1981, p. 21-23. 
19 Tom Bethell, “Fix Washington Before It Enslaves Us All,” Wall Street Journal, December 2, 1994, p. A12. 
20 Paul Roberts, “America's Secessionist Boom The Goodbye Whirl,” The New Republic, November 21, 1994, p. 11-12. 
21 Warren Cohen, David Hage, and Robert F. Black, “Reversing the Tide,” U.S. News & World Report, April 3, 1995, p. 42-47, 49; Robert W. Poole Jr., “The Asset Test: A Privatization Agenda,” Reason, IX (February, 1995), 34-36. 
22 David R. Henderson, “The Case For Small Government,” Fortune, June 26, 1995, p. 39-40. 
23 Rauch, op. cit., Note 13, p. 142. 
24 Wesley A. Riddle, “Secession and the Moral Compact,” Vital Speeches, August 1, 1995, p. 638. 
25 To learn more contact Ken Bohnsack 1154 West Logan Street Freeport, II. 61032 (815)-232-8737. 
26 Louis Fisher, “The Curious Belief in Judicial Supremacy,” Suffolk University Law Review, XXV (Spring, 1991), 85-116. 
27 Pete Du Pont, “Pleading the Tenth,” National Review, November 27, 1995, p. 50-53. 
28 “The Tenth Amendment: A Barrier Against Congress' Grab For Power,” Judicial Watch, III (Winter, 1995), 1-4. 
29 Thomas Sowell, “Is the Constitution Superfluous?” Forbes, June 5, 1995, p. 6 1 . 
30 Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Vol. I (N.Y: Vintage Books, 1990). 
31 Richard A. Epstein, “Self Interest and the Constitution,” Journal of Legal Education, XXXVII (June, 1987), p. 153-161.