Most Americans realize there is something terribly wrong in our country today. However, people these days are too busy trying to further their careers, pay their taxes and have a little fun in their leisure time to pay much attention to the loss of liberties. After all, the loss of liberties is not broadcast on the six o'clock news, is it?
I heard a story some time ago about a goldfish and his goldfish bowl. The goldfish was losing two drops of water a day from his goldfish bowl. When confronted with this fact, the goldfish looked around his bowl and laughed as he replied "I've got the greatest goldfish bowl in all the world and it will never run out of water." Of course as time passed by the two drops a day added up and one sad day the little goldfish found himself flapping around on his side until he died.
The moral of the story? As Americans we have been losing our freedoms a little bit at a time for a very long time. If you are like the goldfish you may be under the impression you will never lose all your freedoms. Please think again! It is a terrible mistake to assume that freedom is free and without cost. The freedoms we enjoy and take for granted have been paid for in blood, from the bloody footprints in the snow and ice of Valley Forge to foreign shores.
As an American just how much do you know about our country? As Woodrow Wilson so wisely stated "if we do not know where we came from or what we have been about." How on earth can we understand what our nation has become today? How do you know what an American agenda is as opposed to a Marxist agenda? Better yet, what is Marxism? Do you know what that is, what it means, or is it merely just a word to you?
Anyone who has attended a Communist Party meeting can tell you that these communists rarely speak of communism; however, they often speak of "socialism" and how wonderful socialism is. They never tell the fools who listen to them that 85 percent of the wealth stays at the very top and only about 15 percent is divided among the peons. Fifteen percent isn't a lot of money to be divided among all the people, is it?
You may be wondering what is the communist agenda in America. You may be even one of those people that believes communism is dead. Think again! Let's review what was presented to the United States Congress in 1963. You can use it as a checklist to see how far along the "leftist liberal" road we have traveled as a nation.
Congressional Record Appendix
January 10, 1963 Appendix F Pages A34 & A35
Current Communist Goals Extension of Remarks of Hon. A. S. Herlong, Jr. of Florida in the House of Representatives Thursday, January 10, 1963.
Mr. HERLONG. Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Patrica Nordman of De Land, Fla., is an ardent and articulate opponent of communism, and until recently published the De Land Courier, which she dedicated to the purpose of alerting the public to the dangers of communism in America.
At Mrs. Nordman's request, I include in the RECORD, under unanimous consent, the following 'Current Communist Goals,' which she identifies as an excerpt from 'The Naked Communist,' by Cleon Skousen.
[From 'The Naked Communist,' by Cleon Skousen]
1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.
2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.
3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.
4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.
5. Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.
6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.
7. Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N.
8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev's promise in 1955 to settle the German question by free elections under supervision of the U.N.
9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the United States has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.
10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.
11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)
12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.
13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.
14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.
15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.
16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control for teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
18. Gain control of all student newspapers.
19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which is under Communist attack.
20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions.
21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to 'eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms.'
23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. 'Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art.'
24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them 'censorship' and a violation of free speech and free press.
25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as 'normal, natural, healthy.'
27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with 'social' religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a 'religious crutch.'
28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of 'separation of church and state.'
29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the 'common man.'
31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was a minor part of the 'big picture.' Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.
32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture -- education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.
33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.
34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.
35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.
36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.
37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.
38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].
39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those oppose Communist goals.
40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.
42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use united force to solve economic, political or social problems.
43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.
44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.
45. Repeal the Connelly reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction [over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction] over nations and individuals alike."
The above was placed in the Congressional Record on January 10th, 1963. So my friends you know where to find this same information if you doubt the veracity of what you are reading here. I do hope you checked all that has come to pass so far and better understand who is behind this agenda. They are much more than just liberals, aren't they? And so the Marxist agenda marches on here in America.
Perhaps now you can better understand "Gay Rights" and why so many American children are taking mind-altering drugs Prozac and Ritalin in order to attend the public school (fool) system.
It isn't often that mainstream media prints anything relating to a communist takeover here in America. So I was amazed at what I read in a local newspaper a short while ago. What follows is a copy of that article.
"Communist plot may be at work right now Drug use , casual sex, destruction of religion may be tools of the left
Suppose that all the bad stuff happening in our society is happening on purpose.
Suppose, as the Italian communist Antonio Gramsci advocated, that an attempt is being made to control the Western mind? Suppose that 'control of the Western mind is to be achieved not only by means of the dishonest use of language, but also through operations to demoralize the West through corrosive attacks on society's institutions, the active promotion of drug abuse, and the spread of agnosticism, nihilism, permissiveness and concerted attacks on the family in order to destabilize the society.'
The quotation is from a forward to the book 'The Perestroika Deception' by Anatoliy Golitsyn, a former KGB officer who defected in 1961. Even though this book was published in 1995, it is Golitsyn's earlier book 'New Lies For Old,' published in 1980, that lends credibility to Golitsyn.
In the first book, nearly a decade before it happened, Golitsyn predicted the fall of the Berlin Wall, the apparent collapse of communism and the apparent liberalization of Soviet society. He said it was all part of a grand strategy of strategic deception. He hasn't changed his mind.
The idea is to lull the West into disarmament and to create the conditions in the West that would make it easy for it to converge into a new world order, run, of course, by the communists. Is it true or is it paranoia?
The world of intelligence and counterintelligence has been called a wilderness of mirrors. It's very easy to get lost in suspicion, and it's very difficult to find out the truth.
It is a fact that drug abuse has been and is being promoted. It is a fact that nihilism, agnosticism and permissiveness are spreading among Americans, particularly young Americans. A recent survey by Rutgers University found a majority of the 20-somethings saying they are interested only in casual sex and making money. Other surveys consistently show a high percentage of American students admit to cheating on tests.
It is an axiom among communists that religion and the traditional cultural and moral hegemony must first be destroyed before the revolution can be successful.
Religion is under such constant attack by secularists that most journalists think that routine beliefs about the Bible are 'controversial.' There is, for example, no question whatsoever that the Christian Bible condemns homosexual behavior and clearly does not authorize women to be pastors or priests. That might be news to the secular crowd, but it's ancient history to those of us who grew up in that old-time religion.
Is all this just happening, or are agents of influence promoting it? Well, too bad, but one of the things the American press never covers is the American left. How many stories have you ever seen about the U. S. Communist Party? To most journalists, all the boogeymen are on the right, and there are only saints and well-intentioned souls on the left.
At the end of World War II, there was a de-Nazification program, but there has been no de-communization program. Communists are still there, some still wearing the label and others wearing different labels. But, by and large, many of the people in control before the collapse of communism are in control now.
If the cold war really ended, why didn't the Russians give us a list of their covert spies, their agents of influence and their sleeper agents? Instead, the spying kept right on going.
Question: Is the collapse of communism all a deception, or is what Golitsyn has written disinformation? Truth has become as elusive as a bat on a foggy night. It's enough to keep a fellow from a good nights sleep."
(Source: The Fort Pierce Tribune, 21 June, 2000, A7.)
Communist Conspiracy: Fact or Fiction?
One with the least bit of intelligence must ask this question. After all that has happened in the past hundred years, is it just by chance or manipulation, deception, betrayal and design that America has drifted so far to the left? We should ask has communism creeped in through the backdoor ever so quietly? Have we forgotten or perhaps have we never been educated as to what communism really is?
I'm quite sure almost everyone will agree that communism is bad for America. Have you ever sat down and gone over the Communist Manifesto? Within this book that Karl Marx wrote you will find the "Ten Planks of Communism." Now my question to you: How many of those ten planks are in existence in our country today?
The Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto
1. Eliminate private property ownership
2. A heavy progressive tax
3. Abolish the right of inheritance
4. Confiscate all properties owned by emigrants and rebels
5. Establish a central bank
6. Government control of communications and transportation
7. Government ownership of factories and agriculture
8. Government control of all labor
9. Combine agriculture and manufacturing
10. Government controlled free public education
Right away those who own their property must be thinking that the first plank of the Communist Manifesto is nonexistent in America. Well think again, think long and hard. Who takes "your property" away if you do not pay your (rent) property tax? The government (landlord) takes "your property" away if you don't pay (rent) your property taxes. Then they sell "your property" for back (rent) taxes. If you owned your property they could not take it away from you, could they? Why do you need "permits" to build on "your property"? Simple, it's not really yours or you would not need permission from government to build on "your own property."
Two of the more obvious planks would be the third and the tenth. We all have heard of the "Death Tax," haven't we? Also, education system today in America is most certainly "government controlled" free public education.
What are the two major planks of communism that must be put in place in order to establish a socialist/communist state? It's not very hard to figure out if you understand what communism/socialism is all about. Of course to build this socialist state you need the founding stones of communism, a "central bank" and a "progressive tax." My friends, both these communist planks are in place in America today. As a matter of fact they've been in place since 1913.
The following is a story from The North Florida Advocate, July 2000, page 6.
"Fed Up With The Fed! By a member of the Citizens for Better Government.
On December 23, 1913, Congress passed the Federal Reserve Act. The result? The greatest theft in the history of the world! A federal debt of over $5,000,000,000,000, the loss of America's gold and silver reserves, and the devastation of our economy!
Few know that the Federal Reserve is not a U.S. government agency but a privately-owned banking system. You don't believe that? Mr. Lewis was injured by a Federal Reserve vehicle and sued the U.S. Government for damages. On April 17, 1982, the court ruled: '. . . that since the Federal Reserve System and its twelve branch banks are private corporations, the federal government could not be held responsible' Lewis vs U.S., 608 F.2d 1239 (1982) (emphasis added).
Previous Federal Banking History
'I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies' Thomas Jefferson
Alexander Hamilton lobbied for the first privately-owned Federal Bank, and in 1789 Congress chartered the bank for 20 years. In 1811, President Jefferson refused to renew the charter, reaffirming the position that: 'If the American people ever allow the banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property, until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers occupied.' Thomas Jefferson in a letter to James Madison.
In 1816, Congress established the second federal bank. But President Jackson, overriding Congress, closed it in 1836 commenting, 'The bold effort the present bank had made to control the government . . . are but premonition of the fate that awaits the American people should they be deluded into a perpetuation of this institution or the establishment of another like it.'
And We Never Learn!
Congress held hearings on the 'Money Trusts' early in 1913. They found' . . .outstanding control over credit resources of the country by J.P. Morgan and allied investment firms.' Congressional Report 1593, 62nd Congress, 3rd Session.
'Since it would be fatal to Senator Aldrich's plan to have it known that he was calling on anybody from Wall Street to help him in preparing his report and bill, precautions were taken . . . Asked to go were Henry Davidson, Paul Warburg, Ben Strong and myself. From Washington come A. Piatt Andrew Jr. . . . We were told to leave our names behind us. . . We were instructed to come one at a time and as unobtrusively as possible to the railroad terminal. . . when Senator Aldrich's private car would be in readiness. . . Discovery, we knew, simply must not happen. . . If it were to be exposed publicly that our particular group had written a banking bill, that bill have no chance whatever of passage by Congress. . . although the Aldrich Federal Reserve Plan was defeated its essential points were contained in the plan that was finally adopted. . .' Frank Vanderlip - 'From Farm Boy to Financier,' Saturday Evening Post, 5 February 1935 (they represented, J. P. Morgan, Rockefeller, Rothschild and Warburg)
But the Supreme Court has ruled, 'Congress may not abdicate or transfer to others its legitimate functions.' - Schecter vs U.S. 29,495, U.S. 837, 842 (1935) [sic]
'The new (Federal Reserve) law will create inflation whenever the trusts want a period of inflation. . . they figure they can unload the stocks on the people at high prices during the excitement and then bring on a panic and buy them back at low prices. . . The people may not know it immediately, but the day of reckoning is only a few years removed' - Congressman Lindberg, Congressional Record, Dec 22, 1913.
1929 - The Crash
In 1913, Congress established the Fed to end periods of inflation and recession. Sixteen years later, as predicated by Lindburg, came the worst financial depression in U.S. history.
Though many economists state that the depression resulted from the Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act, which increased duties on imports, it should be noted that the Hawley-Smoot bill was not signed into law until April 1930, eight months after the crash. What happened?
'When business in the United States underwent a mild contraction in 1927, the Federal Reserve created more paper currency in the hope of forestalling any possible bank reserve shortage. . . More disastrous, however, was the Federal Reserve's attempt to assist Great Britain. . . The excess credit spilled over into the stock market - triggering a fantastic speculative boom. . . As a result, the American economy collapsed.' Alan Greenspan, Chairman, Federal Reserve - 'Gold and Economic Freedom.'
Incidentally, the 'Money Trust' bankers made fortunes in the crash. Amazingly, they had all removed their funds from the market just before the crash. 'It was not an accident, it was a carefully contrived occurrence. The international bankers sought to bring about a condition of despair here so that they might emerge as rulers of us all.' Louis B. McFadden, Chairman, House Banking Committee, 75th Congress."
I hope the above story helps you see that the Federal Reserve is not federal and most certainly not a reserve. Senator Alrich (John D. Rockefeller's father-in-law) was not the only politician involved in this conspiracy, this act of treason. Serving under Woodrow Wilson was the Colonel Edward Mandel House, a person who admittingly dreamed of "Marxism."
"The Insiders sheep dog who controlled Wilson and guided the program through Congress was the mysterious 'Colonel' Edward Mandel House, the British-educated son of a representative of England's financial interests in the American South. The title was honorary; House never served in the military. He was strictly a behind-the-scenes wire-puller and is regarded by many historians as the real President of the United States during the Wilson years. House authored a book, Philip Dru: Administrator, in which he wrote of establishing 'Socialism as dreamed by Karl Marx.' As steps toward his goal, House, both in his book and in real life, called for passage of a graduated income tax and a central bank providing 'a flexible (inflatable paper) currency.' The graduated income tax and a central bank are two of the ten planks of The Communist Manifesto." (Source: Gary Allen,"None Dare Call It Conspiracy," p. 49 (Rossmoor, California, Concord Press, 1971).)
In 1921 Col. House, after a falling out with President Wilson, assembled the Council on Foreign Relations. The CFR was created after the League of Nations (another brainchild of Col. House) failed to take America into the New World Order. The CFR gained financing from the Rockefeller and Carnegie Foundations. It soon attracted men of power and influence. In 1940, at the invitation of the socialist President Roosevelt, members of the CFR gained control of the State Department and maintain that control to this day. Today the CFR and its offspring, the Trilateral Commission and the Bilderberger's, dominate key positions in todays government, industries, news media and its outlets, educational foundations and institutions.
[End of Publisher's Note]
"Enter the IRS
Another bill co-sponsored by Senator Aldrich was the 16th Amendment creating an Income Tax. The Internal Revenue Service was never authorized by Congress (Media Bypass magazine, 'Public Notice,' Mar. 1997). And, though the income tax was supposedly enacted to compensate for tariff losses resulting from the Underwood Trade Bill, which canceled most tariffs, the IRS has been used to support the Fed.
Doubting the 16th Amendment was actually ratified, Bill Benson and Red Beckman traveled to 48 states, gathering certified documents. According to the two-volume work, 'The Law That Never Was,' the amendment was not properly ratified by even one state. Yet, in 1913, Philander Knox, Secretary of State, announced, 'The Federal Reserve Act seems to have been ratified.'
Imagine a Congress which has permitted the IRS to acquire such powers that even they are intimidated by the agency? Talk about negligence!
The Final Touches
In 1933, President Roosevelt confiscated our gold. In 1965 under President Johnson silver was removed from coins. And in 1978, during President Carter's Administration, Congress took us off the gold standard. The American people were robbed, and they did nothing. Even if you have cash it isn't true money. Read it; it's a Federal Reserve Note. It is not lawful money.
Money is usual and ordinary acceptation. . . Does not embrace notes. . . Black's Law Dictionary - 6th. Ed.
Lawful Money. . . To mean gold and silver coin of the United States. United States Code, Title 12, Section 152.
Worse yet, it's an unsecured note, an indebtedness for which no security has been pledged. It's fiat money. Because it is not backed by anything of true value, our currency can be devalued at any time. It has been the devaluation of the dollar, not inflation, which has reduced the buying power!
The Federal Reserve Way
'Banks create money by monetizing debt.' 'I Bet You Thought' - Federal Reserve Bank of Boston. If the Fed issues $100 billion at 10% to the banks, the banks must repay $110 billion after a year. But only $100 billion was put into circulation. There isn't $110 billion available. The $10 billion shortage becomes debt. All money is borrowed from banks, and is known as debt money. If someone borrows $100,000 at 10% to open a company, they put the money into circulation and the economy improves. But when they repay the loan to the bank, the money is removed from circulation and the economy suffers. Of course, since the interest money was not issued into the economy, some businesses must fail in order to supply the interest money. With debt money, if all debts were repaid, there would be no money in circulation!
The Fractional Reserve
Equally as bad is Fractional Reserve Banking. Banks, and the Fed, loan additional money above their cash assets at an interest rate set by the Fed. For example, if the fractional reserve is set at 10%, and a bank has $1 million on deposit (which is 10% of 10 million), they can loan an additional $9 million - money they do not have! But they charge interest on this imaginary money that they loan! Thus banks are printing money in the form of checks. It is fraudulent and unconstitutional, but as long as banks, businesses, and people honor the checks, it functions as money.
'. . .(a) more important element of public interest in the operation of banks beside the safekeeping of money; banks can 'create' money.' - 'A Day's Work at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York' - Federal Reserve Bank of New York. When the Fed issued the new $100 bill they doubled the amount of money in circulation!
'The truth is the Federal Reserve Board has usurped the Government of the United States by the arrogant credit monopoly. . .' Louis B. McFadden, Chairman, House Banking Committee, Congressional Record, 75th. Congress, 12595 - 12603.
How The Fed Operates
This may sound impossible, but the Fed writes a check on an account in which there is no money. The check is accepted as money by the creditor's bank, and it eventually returns to the Fed.
When Congress needs more money, the Fed sells Treasury Bonds (pieces of paper) for the amount required. These bonds are sold at an interest rate set by the Fed. Treasury then sends the printed currency to the Fed which pays a few pennies for each printed bill (with that 'magic' checkbook). The money is then sent to banks for issue as debt money.
The Federal Reserve pays no federal taxes but they do pay real estate taxes. They also pay postage on mail because they are not a government agency.
They Don't Even Work For Us!
Although the president appoints members of the Federal Reserve, Board of Governors, their 14 year terms mean they can outlast presidential influence. All other Federal Reserve employees are not in the Federal Civil Service.
In Secrets of the Federal Reserve, Eustace Mullins states that the principal shareholders of the Fed are: the Rothschilds (London & Berlin), Lazard Bros. (Paris), Israel Seiff (Italy), Kuhn-Loeb (Germany), Warburg Co. (Hamburg & Amsterdam), Lehman Bros. (NY), Goldman Sachs (NY), The Rockefeller family (NY), and J.P. Morgan interests (NY). To whom does the Fed owe its allegiance?
On April 2, 1792, Congress, acting on the powers granted under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, specified lawful money to be only gold and silver. Originally, these precious metals were sent by owners to the mint and transformed into coins. This money was then spent into the economy and remained in circulation. Every dollar improved the economy of the country and, in an exchange of goods for money, the seller received gold or silver, or redeemable gold or silver certificates.
Why does Congress continue to support the Fed? Because, with a currency not backed by gold, they know the Fed will provide them with the money. They will not have to raise taxes - they just put us deeper in debt!
In its entire history, the Fed has never been audited!" (Source: "Fed Up With The Fed," The North Florida Advocate, July, 2000, p. 6.)
Deception and Betrayal
For those of you interested in the conspiracy that formed this monster, the Federal Reserve and more, I suggest reading the following books: None Dare Call It Conspiracy, by Gary Allen; The Creature From Jekyll Island, by G. Edward Griffin and Blood Money and Greed, by Clif Ford.
It may be of interest to understand that these same international bankers financed the rise of communism in Europe. The fact of the matter is these international bankers that hold shares in our "central bank," the Federal Reserve, financed the Russian revolution. The gold was made available by the Rothchilds, Rockefellers, Warburgs and other banking families and paid (in gold) by the Bank of New York and the Bank of England.
"According to his grandson John, Jacob Schiff, long-time associate of the Rothschilds, financed the Communist Revolution in Russia to the tune of $20 million. According to a report on file with the State Department, his firm, Kuhn Loeb and Co. bankrolled the first five year plan for Stalin. Schiff's partner and relative, Paul Warburg, engineered the establishment of the Federal Reserve System while on the Kuhn Loeb payroll. Schiff's descendants are active in the Council on Foreign Relations today." (Source: Gary Allen, "None Dare Call It Conspiracy," p. 74 (Rossmoor, California, Concord Press, (1971).)
Another interesting point of this treasonous era of 1913. This year of deceit and deception changed the Congress of the United States. Many Americans today don't realize how our form of government was originally set up. Before 1913, each Senator was "not" elected by the people, but "was by appointment by the State Legislatures." The reason for this was to ensure "States Rights."
There are two houses in Congress, the Senate and the House of Representatives. The members of the House of Representatives were the elected part of the Congress, "by the people for the people."
Today one might ask who's looking after States Rights in our present form of Congress. Before 1913, a Senator, if he failed to perform his duties in accordance with his "State," he would be recalled to his respective state and replaced by the State Legislature with someone more fitting to represent the State.
You surely could not replace one of these publicly elected powerful Senators so easily today, could you? Why the change? The simplest answer would have to be control. The state government no longer has "control" of "their" senator, thereby diminishing "States Rights."
If you were an enemy of the United States and you wanted to gain influence in government, wouldn't it be easier to do the influencing in the Senate, as opposed to the larger body of government, the House of Representatives? Again simply ask why the change from a system that worked so well to guard freedom and ensure "States Rights?"
I do believe anyone with just a wee bit of common sense can clearly see America is being deceived and betrayed by these men of influence and political power. Yes my friends, the year 1913 was a disastrous year for our nation and clearly a conspiracy took our country by storm, a quiet storm unnoticed by the general public.
For naive individuals allow me to give a very simple example of what's wrong with your money today as compared to the real money of yesteryear. In 1929, a $20.00 bill would buy you the best suit in town, so would a $20.00 gold piece. However, today that same $20.00 gold piece will still buy you a darn nice suit, but that $20.00 bill (FRN) might buy a fairly good tie or perhaps a cheap pair of shoes. It's plain to see which of the two held its "value," isn't it? Today it would cost about 500 of your one dollar Federal Reserve notes to purchase one $20 .00 gold piece.
Americans Declared Enemies of the State!
The United States Congress passed the "Trading With The Enemies Act" toward the end of WWI, in 1917. Of course this law was passed to stop any trading with our enemies at the time, which was Germany. This gave broad powers to the government: confiscation of property, broadening powers of taxation and the decision of just who the enemies of state are.
In 1929, the great stock market crashed into the ground sending the American economy into a tailspin. By 1933, unemployment was up to about 50% and there were runs on the banks. Mr. Socialism, Franklin D. Roosevelt, was President. The Congress declared a "Banking Holiday" while the banks were closed. America in essence declared bankruptcy. At this time the American banking system went from a "barter system" to a "debtor system."
It was at this time in our history the Federal Government committed a treasonous act against "We the People." Evoking the "Trading With The Enemies Act," all American citizens were declared enemies of the state. Gold was then confiscated from the American public. The gold was shipped to London, England all through the 1930s. America lost its real wealth. I might add that by the end of WWII, America belonged to the bankers and remains so to this day.
"Representative Traficant Reports On The Bankruptcy Of The United States
United States Congressional Record, March 1, 1993 VOL. 33, page H-1303 The Speaker - Rep. James Traficant, Jr. (Ohio) addressing the House.
"Mr. Speaker, we are here now in chapter 11. . .Members of Congress are official trustees presiding over the greatest reorganization of any Bankrupt entity in world history, the U.S. Government. We are setting forth hopefully, a blueprint for our future. There are some who say it is a coroner's report that will lead to our demise.
It is an established fact that the United States Federal Government has been dissolved by the Emergency Banking Act, March 9, 1933, 48 Stat. 1, Public Law 89-719; Declared by President Roosevelt, being bankrupt and insolvent. H.J.R. 192, 73rd Congress in session June 5, 1933 - Joint Resolution To Suspend The Gold Standard and Abrogate The Gold Clause dissolved the Sovereign Authority of the United States and the official capacities of all United States Government Offices, Officers, and Departments and is further evidence that the United States Federal G,p.overnment exists today in name only.
The receivers of the United States Bankruptcy are the International Bankers, via the United Nations, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. All United States Offices, Officials, and Departments are now operating within a defacto status in name only under Emergency War Powers. With the Constitutional Republican form of Government now dissolved, the receivers of the Bankruptcy have adopted a new form of government for the United States. This new form of government is known as a Democracy, being an established Socialist/Communist order under a new governor for America. This act was instituted and established by transferring and/or placing the Office of the Secretary of Treasury to that of the Governor of the International Monetary Fund. Public Law 94-564, page 8, Section H.R. 13955 reads in part: 'The U.S. Secretary of Treasury receives no compensation for representing the United States?'
Gold and silver were such a powerful money during the founding of the United States of America, that the founding fathers declared that only gold and silver coins can be 'money' in America. Since gold and silver coinage were heavy and inconvenient for a lot of transactions, they were stored in banks and a claim check was issued as a money substitute. People traded their coupons as money, or 'currency.' Currency is not money, but a money substitute. Redeemable currency must promise to pay a dollar equivalent in gold or silver money. Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) make no such promises, and are not 'money.' A Federal Reserve Note is a debt obligation of the federal United States government, not 'money.' The federal United States government and the U.S. Congress were not and have never been authorized by the Constitution for the United States of America to issue currency of any kind, but only lawful money, - gold and silver coin.
It is essential that we comprehend the distinction between real money, and paper money substitute. One cannot get rich by accumulating money substitutes, one can only get deeper in debt. We the People no longer have any 'money.' Most Americans have not been paid any 'money' for a very long time, perhaps not in their entire life. Now do you comprehend why you feel broke? Now, do you understand why you are 'bankrupt,' along with the rest of the country?
Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) are unsigned checks written on a closed account. FRNs are an inflatable paper system designed to create debt through inflation (devaluation of currency). Whenever there is an increase of the supply of a money substitute in the economy without a corresponding increase in the gold and silver backing, inflation occurs.
Inflation is an invisible form of taxation that irresponsible governments inflict on their citizens. The Federal Reserve Bank who controls the supply and movement of FRNs has everybody fooled. They have access to an unlimited supply of FRNs, paying only for the printing costs of what they need. FRNs are nothing more than promissory notes for U.S. Treasury securities (T-Bills) - a promise to pay the debt to the Federal Reserve Bank.
There is a fundamental difference between 'paying' and 'discharging' a debt. To pay a debt, you must pay with value or substance (i.e. gold, sliver, barter or a commodity). With FRNs, you can only discharge a debt. You cannot pay a debt with a debt currency system. You cannot service a debt with a currency that has no backing in value or substance. No contract in Common law is valid unless it involves an exchange of 'good and valuable consideration.' Unpayable debt transfers power and control to the sovereign power structure that has no interest in money, law, equity or justice because they have so much wealth already.
Their lust is for power and control. Since the inception of central banking, they have controlled the fates of nations.
The Federal Reserve System, is based on the Canon law and the principles of sovereignty protected in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. In fact, the international bankers used a 'Canon Law Trust' as their model, adding stock and naming it a 'Joint Stock Trust.' The U.S. Congress had passed a law making it illegal for any legal 'person' to duplicate a 'Joint Stock Trust' in 1873. The Federal Reserve Act was legislated post-facto (1870), although post-facto laws are strictly forbidden by the Constitution. (1:9:3)
The Federal Reserve System is a sovereign power structure separate and distinct from the federal United States government. The Federal Reserve is a maritime lender, and/or maritime insurance underwriter to the federal United States operating exclusively under Admiralty/Maritime law. The lender underwriter bears the risks, and the Maritime law compelling specific performance in paying the interest, or premiums are the same.
Assets of the debtor can also be hypothecated (to pledge something as a security without taking possession of it) as security by the lender or underwriter. The Federal Reserve Act stipulated that the interest on the debt was to be paid in gold. There was no stipulation in the Federal Reserve Act for ever paying the principal.
Prior to 1913, most Americans owned clear, allodial title to property, free and clear of any liens or mortgages until Federal Reserve Act (1913).
'Hypothecated' all property within the federal United States to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, - in which the Trustees (stockholders) held legal title, the U.S. citizen (tenant, franchisee) was registered as a 'beneficiary' of the trust via his/her birth certificate. In 1933, the federal United States hypothecated all of the present and future properties, assets and labor of their 'subjects,' the 14th Amendment U.S. citizen, to the Federal Reserve System.
In return, the Federal Reserve System agreed to extend the federal United States corporation all the credit 'money substitute' it needed. Like any other debtor, the federal United States government had to assign collateral and security to their creditors as a condition of the loan. Since the federal United States didn't have any assets, they assigned the private property of their 'economic slaves,' the U.S. citizens, as collateral against the unpayable federal debt. They also pledge the unincorporated federal territories, national parks forest, birth certificates, and nonprofit organizations, as collateral against the federal debt. All has already been transferred as payment to the international bankers.
Unwittingly, America has returned to its pre-American Revolution, Feudal roots whereby all land is held by a sovereign and the common people had no rights to hold allodial title to property. Once again, We the People are the tenants and sharecroppers renting our own property from a Sovereign in the guise of the Federal Reserve Bank. We the people have exchanged one master for another.
This has been going on for over eighty years without the 'informed' knowledge: Of the American people, without a voice protesting loud enough. Now it's easy to grasp why America is fundamentally bankrupt.
Why don't more people own their properties outright?
Why are 90% of Americans mortgaged to the hilt and have little or no assets after all debts and liabilities have been paid? Why does it feel like you are working harder and harder and getting less and less?
We are reaping what has been sown, and the result of our harvest is a painful bankruptcy, and a foreclosure on American property, precious liberties, and a way of life. Few of our elected representatives in Washington, D.C. have dared to tell the truth. The federal United States is bankrupt. Our children will inherit this unpayable debt, and the tyranny to enforce paying it.
America has become completely bankrupt in world leadership, financial credit and its reputation for courage, vision and human rights. This is an undeclared economic war. Bankruptcy, and economic slavery of the most corrupt order! Wake up America! Take back your Country." (Source: September, 2000 issue of the North Florida Advocate, pages 1 and 15. U. S. Congressional Record, March 1, 1993, Vol. 33, page H-1303 )
Separation of Church and State and Socialist Education
"All who have meditated on the art of governing mankind are convinced that the fate of empires depends on the education of youth." Aristotle
Items 16-19, 28-31 on the list presented to Congress in the Congressional Record, Appendix, pages A34 and A35 of January 10, 1963, all have to do with this issue in one way or another. At the early part of the last century, an Italian communist by the name of Antonio Gramsci wrote from his prison cell "It would take a long march through the institutions." Do you know the first thing on the communist list of priorities? Subverting and undermining the belief in God. It's long been known that communists are anti-God, anti-Christian.
It is known that America was founded as a Christian nation. From the Declaration of Independence ("Nature's God, Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"), the many statements and writings of the founding fathers -- George Washington's oath of office as he ended it by adding the words "so help me God." Just look on the back of your money: the words "In God We Trust" are there. How about the Pledge of Allegiance? Don't you remember the part about "one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all"?
I can't help but wonder how many people reading this booklet have ever taken the time to read and understand our most precious documents, perhaps the most wonderful documents ever written in human political history: The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution of the United States of America and the Ten Amendments of our Bill of Rights. Personally, I challenge you to show me where there's a "Wall of Separation Between Church and State" in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. You can't nor can anyone else for the very simple fact it's not found there in our First Amendment, it isn't there now nor has it ever been there.
For those whom have never read the First Amendment, please read the following complete quotation of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The issue of religion was of utmost importance to the founding fathers of this great nation. If you check the Congressional Record of June 7, 1789 to September 25, 1789, one can clearly see everyone understood what religion founded America. The debate was more over any one denomination, rather than what religion.
The first draft presented to Congress read as follows: "Congress shall not make any law establishing any religious denomination."
The second attempt read as follows: "Congress shall make no law establishing any particular denomination."
The third attempt again referred to "denomination" more than religion itself and it read as follows: "Congress shall make no law establishing any particular denomination in preference to others."
The final version is our First Amendment today. The Christian religion was the founding cornerstone of our wonderful Republic. The concern was that no one wanted any "one" particular denomination as the "national" religion, as it was the case in some European countries at that time and in previous histories of world governments.
Perhaps the words of that most wonderful founder Patrick Henry, that gallant gentleman most remembered for his "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death" speech, had words of equal importance on the type of nation we are. "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians, not on religion, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here."
In October 7, 1801, Thomas Jefferson received a letter from the Danbury Baptist Association. They were concerned about religious liberty in this new nation. One must remember at that time in our history "religious freedom" was of the utmost importance to everyone. On January 1, 1802, Thomas Jefferson replied to the Danbury Baptists with a letter of assurance that their religious liberty was assured by our Bill of Rights because there was a "Wall of Separation Between Church and State."
To better understand this matter please read the following two letters. The first from the Danbury Baptist Association on October 7, 1801 to President Thomas Jefferson.
To Thomas Jefferson, Esq., President of the United States of America
Among the many millions in America and Europe who rejoice in your Election to office, we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoyed in our collective capacity, since your Inauguration, to express our great satisfaction, in your appointment to the chief Magistracy in the United States. And though our mode of expression may be less courtly and pompous than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, Sir, to believe that none is more sincere.
Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty: that Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals, that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions, [and] that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor. But sir, our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter, together with the laws made coincident therewith, were adapted as the basis of our government at the time of our revolution. And such has been our laws and usages, and such still are, [so] that Religion is considered as the first object of Legislation, and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights. And these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgments, as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore, if those who seek after power and gain, under the pretense of government and Religion, should reproach their fellow men, [or] should reproach their Chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dares not, assume the prerogative of Jehovah and make laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.
Sir, we are sensible that the President of the United States is not the National Legislator and also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the laws of each State, but our hopes are strong that the sentiment of our beloved President, which have had such genial effect already, like the radiant beams of the sun, will shine and prevail through all these States -- and all the world -- until hierarchy and tyranny be destroyed from the earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow of philanthropy and goodwill shining forth in a course of more than thirty years, we have reason to believe that America's God has raised you up to fill the Chair of State out of that goodwill which he bears to the millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for the arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you -- to sustain and support you and your Administration against all the predetermined opposition of those who wish to rise to wealth and importance on the poverty and subjection of the people.
And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his Heavenly Kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator."
(Source: Letter of Oct. 7, 1801 from Danbury (CT) Baptist Assoc. to Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington D.C.)
On January 1, 1802, in response to the above letter from the Danbury Baptist Association, Thomas Jefferson wrote:
"Messrs. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, and Stephen S. Nelson
A Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association, in the State of Connecticut.
Washington, January 1, 1802
Gentlemen, -- The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which are so good to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all of his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessings of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.
(Sources: Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert E. Bergh, ed. (Washington D. C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association of the United States, 1904) , Vol. XVI, pp. 281-282. Robert S. Alley, Professor of Humanites, Emeritus, University of Richmond, from his article, "Public Education and the Public Good," published in William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, Vol. 4, Issue 1, Summer 1995.)
Reading Jefferson's letter, one can see and understand clearly the manner in which Thomas Jefferson used the phrase "Separation of Church and State." He never had any intent to remove prayer or Christian Bibles from public schools. In fact, Thomas Jefferson himself mandated Bibles be a part of every classroom. Jefferson clearly understood that government does not have the authority to prohibit the "free" exercise of religion.
Anyone with knowledge of communists and communist countries understands these people are well-adapted and equipped to set up front groups and organizations to further their goals of a communist globalist government. They can set up these groups and organizations so as they sound and appear to be as American as apple pie. Just think for a moment, what one group or organization do you know of that attacks anything to do with the Christian faith in public schools and public life?
This one group has shaken our very foundation. This one communist group continues to attack successfully the very cornerstone of the United States of America, the founding block of liberty itself, the Christian faith.
"The only foundation for a republic is to be laid in Religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments."
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people it is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
Let there be no misunderstanding, the founding fathers knew what type of nation they founded in 1776 -- a Christian nation! They didn't need anyone to explain it to them.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) was founded in 1920 by Roger Baldwin. Some of the founding board members were proud cardholders of the American Communist Party. (Source: Dr. William Donohue, "Twilight of Liberty," n.p., n.d.)
Two of the founding members later became heads of the American Communist Party. Today, the ACLU is one of the most powerful of the communist organizations in the United States and it is well-funded by various wealthy foundations.
In 1931, a special House Committee investigated the ACLU and it found: "The American Civil Liberties Union is closely affiliated with the communist movement in the United States. And fully ninety percent of its efforts are on behalf of the communists."
Roger Baldwin, founder of the ACLU, wrote: "Communism is the goal." (Source: Peggy Lamson, "Roger Baldwin: Founder of the Civil Liberties Union (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1972), 192.)
Knowing Roger Baldwin and other founding members of the ACLU were profoundly committed communists, what is the ACLU as an organization? It stands to reason, if this group was founded by communists, it endeavors to promote the communist agenda in America.
"When that power of the working class is once achieved, as it has been only in the Soviet Union, I am for maintaining it by any means whatsoever." (Source: Roger Baldwin, "Freedom in the USA and the U.S.S.R.," Soviet Russia Today, September 1934.)
Communism has never been anything more than one big lie! Communism is not nor has it ever been for the working class. The working class, as Baldwin calls them, own roughly 15% of the wealth. You may ask where is the remaining 85%? Well, that 85% stays at the very top with the elite. So don't be fooled into thinking communism/socialism is for the working class, it's not! One must ask who profits from communism? Remember that plank in the Communist Manifesto, the Central Bank? The international bankers profit off the labor of the so-called working class.
In 1947, this communistic group of lawyers successfully subverted the Constitution of the United States, with help from the Supreme Court. Four good American Justices voted against the ACLU's action, but four un-American Justices voted in favor of their "liberal comrades." To break the split decision, Justice Black, a fitting name for this was a dark day in American history, sided with his liberal colleagues.
From the 1947 case of Everson v. Board of Education, a suit filed by the ACLU, the Justices used the following words:
"The First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable."
That unholy day was indeed a triumph for the American Communist Party and a defeat for the American people and this nation. The very course of history was changed on that unholy day. Someone should have went out and lowered the flag that day. After all if you remove the foundation of a house, doesn't the house fall?
For well over a hundred and fifty years, Christian prayers were heard in American schools and the Christian Bible was read openly and used as a valued textbook. Many of the founding fathers expressed concern should the Bible ever be removed from the classroom, crime and vice would increase. Needless to say, it has.
I have no doubt whatsoever had this ruling from the Supreme Court occurred back in the days of those great founding fathers, those brave hearted gentlemen would have rushed to Washington, D.C. to hang all five members of the Supreme Court along with every member of the ACLU. Back in those days it was called the "thirteen knots of justice." Back then religion was of the utmost importance to the people of the United States.
"The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." This saying is attributed to Edmund Burke.
Obviously the good people of America did nothing and the communist agenda marches on til this very day. The ACLU, using its lethal weapon handed to them by the Supreme Court "A Wall of Seperation of Church and State," has repeatedly beaten Christians over the heads with this unholy club. Such was the case in another suit brought by the ACLU.
The ruling of Stone v. Graham: "If the posted copies of the Ten Commandments are to have any effect at all, it will be to induce the school children to read, meditate upon, perhaps to venerate and to obey the Ten Commandments. Which is not a permissible objective."
We must remember communism is anti-God and of course anti-Christian. Their hate for God as well as their fear of the youth of America learning anything about the Christian faith is apparent in both the aforementioned cases. "That wall must be kept high and impregnable." One can only ask why must this wall be kept so high and so impregnable? Just what are these communist bastards (illegitimate children of the United States of America) afraid of?
Note the last sentence of Stone v. Graham "Which is not a permissible objective." The most reasonable question would be "not a permissible objective" to whom? It was certainly permissible for American schools to display the Ten Commandments for over one hundred and fifty years of our history. This being the case it must not be a "permissible objective" in accordance with the American Communist Party. I can't seem to come up with a better answer, can you?
"We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not on the power of government, but upon the capacity of each and every one of us to govern ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." James Madison
We must remember the ACLU took Thomas Jefferson's written statement out of context, only using the phrase "a wall of separation of church and state." The Supreme Court had to be well-aware of another case involving Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists. After all, each Justice has his own legal staff and research team. No one can tell me these Justices were not aware of the 1878 case of Reynolds v. United States. That Supreme Court back then reviewed the entire letter, not just one phrase from the letter and friends, that Supreme Court ruling of 1878 upheld the First Amendment.
"Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere [religious] opinions, but was left free to reach [only those religious] actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order."
The intent to subvert our Constitution was clear on the part of the ACLU, with their underhanded approach, their unmistakably deceiving intent. After all, isn't it their job as a communist front group to undermine the religious foundation in America? I'd say they've done an excellent job.
Perhaps to describe these five so-called Supreme Court Justices as liberals is an understatement! These so-called liberals knowingly violated their very oath of office! This should not surprise anyone in today's America as all the so-called liberal politicians do this on a regular basis. They violate their oath every time they attack the Constitution, the very same Constitution these people took an oath to uphold, defend and protect. It's hard to defend something when these liberals are the very ones attacking it, isn't it?
Where is your outrage as Christians, as Americans? You must commend the Communism Party. After all, these people are committed to fight tooth and nail for what they believe in. Where is your commitment America? Why is it no one holds these so-called liberals accountable to their oath of office? In case you have forgotten, it's up to us to keep an eye on these politicians. It is up to us to hold them accountable for their actions. But far too many Americans today just don't seem to give a damn one way or the other. How unfortunate for our country!
"We've depended upon the courts as a vehicle by which we assert our interpretation of the constitution." Roger Baldwin (Source: Dr. William Donohue's taped interview in 1981, before Baldwin's death.)
In case after case Roger Baldwin's words ring so true, as our history from that awful day in 1947 bears witness. What a shame it is in America when a public school child can't tell you whose birthday it is at our "national holiday" of Christmas without being reprimanded by their teacher or principal; when children can no longer pray over their food before eating it; denying the youth of America their religious freedom as per our First Amendment "right" "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The Supreme Court has clearly violated a God-given right!
"Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure."
The ACLU has had many victories which have helped to undermine the American culture. For most of Americas history the biblical story of creation was taught in American schools. Thanks to this communist front group only the theory of evolution is taught today.
"Clarence Darrow once argued in the 1925 Scopes Trial that it is 'bigotry for public schools to teach only one theory of origins.' Now that evolution is entrenched in public education, the American Civil Liberties Union, despite its own cries on behalf of pluralism, insists that only one theory of origins be taught. Bigotry has returned to the public classroom." (Source: Robert Flood, " The Rebirth of America," (Philadelphia: Arthur S. DeMoss Foundation, 1986), 81.)
We must understand just what the communists have accomplished in America. First, there are no more moral absolutes, no moral codes of God. These so-called educators teach the youth of America that it's up to the person to decide what's right or wrong and at the same time they teach that the children are nothing more than animals.
Why does everyone seem to be so shocked, surprised, bewildered when kids kill kids? You know what people say all the time nowadays "if it feels good just do it." After all the children see themselves as on the same level as animals so what reasonable person can be surprised when they act like "animals."
"We cannot diminish the value of one category of human life [the unborn] without diminishing the value of all human life. There is no cause more important." President Ronald Reagan
Second,what most Americans do not realize is that abortion is a communist tool for population control. So we can thank these communist bastards (illegitimate children of America) for controlling America's population by aborting thirty five to forty million little babies. Little babies that never lived to see the light of day in the land that guarantees all Americans "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
Is it any wonder why children kill children? A turtle's egg is protected in the state of Florida. Should you destroy that turtle's egg, you will receive a heavy fine and maybe imprisonment. This begs a dumb question. Are turtles more valuable than human beings?
Yes my friends this long march of Marxist agendas has sunk a dagger deep into the heart of American culture. This long march leaves the American people with the bloodstained hands of the unborn. The worst possible genocide; women murdering their own babies, their own flesh and blood. Even an animal protects its young, so what happened with the women in America? It's a simple answer really, Marxism begetting feminism begetting permissiveness. Please note my friends, characteristic with most Marxist movements; the usage of the phrase "liberation."
Third, the public education system has become a total disgrace, with America spending more per capita than any other nation on earth with far too little results. So-called teachers are more focused on "indoctrination" than education. Please go back to that itemized list within the Congressional Record, Appendix, January 10, 1963, presented on page 3 and read item 26. Encouraging children to try these different life styles for themselves! Is this what you send your child to school for?
A sixth grader's test of problem solving in 1906 would be the equivalent of a modern day four years of college. Before you say that can't be -- research the matter for yourself, you will be amazed at just how far our standards have fallen. Today's education is the equivalent of third-world nations along the Ivory Coast. What a shame America!
What amazes me is history. Your child learns world history and black history, yet have you tried asking them about "American history"? Most youngsters coming out of the school system today don't have a clue about American history. Dear friends, ask your children a few questions on American history, questions that you feel they should know. Simple questions, like who did America go to war with in 1776, who was it that said "give me liberty or give me death," who was John Adams, Noah Webster, George Washington, John Jay, James Madison? Test them to see how little they know.
From the August 23rd, 2000 Reuters newswire: "State education officials announced Tuesday that more than half of the fourth-graders in New Jersey, who are typically aged 10, failed the language arts section of a skills assessment test that requires open-ended answers to questions on reading comprehension and writing."
One must ask some simple questions about the modern education system we have in America today. Why are American children failing to be educated in the three R's? Can these same children be "honor students"? I'm sure you have seen the bumper stickers: "My child is an honor student at ---." Perhaps these bumper stickers should read " My child has successfully been socialistically indoctrinated."
"A nation which does not remember what it was yesterday, does not know what it is today, nor what it is trying to do. We are trying to do a futile thing if we do not know where we came from or what we have been about." Woodrow Wilson
One can only ask the simplest question of the public (fool) school system educators. Why are our most important, most precious documents, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America not reviewed, discussed at length? After all, isn't our Constitution the law of the land and every American should know and understand clearly what the law of the land is. Can it be possible that this so-called education system has become a "dumbing down" system more so than anything else?
Why is this revisionist history being taught to the youth of America? Why has our right as Americans to know our rich American history, our very heritage, pushed aside by these so-called liberals, the secular, humanist society, this New Age movement? There has to be a reason why the public school system does not educate the youth of America, but indoctrinates the youth of America with socialist flawed ideal (Marxism).
Think for a moment. If you wanted to capture, rule the most powerful and awesome nation upon the face of the earth and knowing fully well you could not overpower this nation by force, how then would you conquer this nation? By using the communist long march that the Italian communist Antonio Gramsci wrote about in the early twentieth century.
Let us not forget the words of wisdom of that Greek philosopher Aristotle: "All who have meditated on the art of governing mankind are convinced that the fate of empires depends on the education of youth."
The youth of America no longer know or understand how we emerged as a nation or why. Our very foundation was based on Judeo-Christian beliefs. The roots of this great nation were firmly planted in God and God's Laws. Our precious Republic was founded upon the absolute laws of God, whoses laws never change.
Our founding fathers, those wonderful sons of liberty, knew all too well that democracies have failed throughout history. Those great men gave us a Republic to be ruled by religious principles and morality. These great men of our past knew that this new Republic had to reflect their religious sentiment for they also knew that in a democracy laws would change, like men do. The wind blows this way today, that way tomorrow. And to which direction will it blow the next?
"Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." James Madison, Federalist Papers No. 10.
The Greek philosopher Plato also had great words on this subject of democracies: "Unrestricted democracy must result in dictatorship."
It was only a short while after the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 that politicians began referring to the United States as a democracy. Before that time America was referred to as a Republic. It is interesting to note that at the same time in history as we began being called a democracy, the rise of communism began in Europe. Mere coincidence?
It is amazing today as we watch all these "wonderful democracies" emerge around the world. South Africa is now a so-called democracy, but what was Nelson Mandela in prison for? Why did he spend so many years in prison? For those with short memories, Nelson Mandela was a communist and he spent so many years in prison because he would not renounce the Communist Party. Isn't Russia today another "wonderful democracy," with a former KGB agent at its helm?
Wake up people! Here in America the former Communist Party used to run their candidates under the "Socialist Party" label. What happened when they could not win in America? They became liberals and it is obvious that they are now members of the Democratic (socialist) Party.
Will Multiculturalism Destroy America?
Isn't this an United Nations agenda and not an American agenda? One must stop and think for a moment. Why would an American form of government want to change its very structure by destroy the majority base and replacing it with minority factions? It doesn't make much sense, does it? Again why? There must be a reason for this type of action, don't you think? What do you think the founding fathers had in mind for us?
"Citizens by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of AMERICAN, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same Religion, Manners, Habits and political Principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together. The independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint efforts; of common dangers, sufferings, and successes." George Washington's Farewell Address September 19, 1796.
"With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits and political principles." Can you see the wisdom in our founding father's words? At that time in our history there was no question about what religion this nation was founded upon or about the majority of people who founded it. This great nation was founded as a Christian nation by the Europeans.
Knowing that the founding of America was of basically one people and one religion, . . . why the change? Our original immigration laws were radically changed under President Lyndon Johnson. Originally our immigration laws were very strict; we had a controlled immigration policy.
However today we have an immigration policy that is deliberately out of control. Legal and illegal immigrants are pouring in by the millions lining up for their food stamps and whatever other welfare benefits they can finagle from our present American socialist system.
You must remember that's our hard-earned tax money I'm talking about. Is it any wonder that couples must work in order to support this insane system? Have you looked at your paycheck lately? When the early immigrants came here, it was for freedom, not for free programs and cash giveaways. Years ago immigrants had to work hard in order to make some kind of a living, for you see back then there were no socialist handouts of our hard-earned money.
If you know your true American history, not this liberal revised historical version, you will understand one of the important charter points of Americans: independence from government not dependence on government. Today more so than not the American people are becoming dependent on government and America is dependent on this global economy.
One can not help but wonder why all this diversity in our country. To whom does it benefit? Will we end up like Yugoslavia, broken up into mini countries? Will this melting pot be the undoing of America as it is stirred by mainstream media and slowly brought to a boil, thereby becoming the boiling pot and no longer the melting pot?
"A tide of new immigration threatens to divide Americans unless they set aside fear of foreigners and accept that in the 21st. century there will be no majority race in the nation, President Clinton said Saturday.
'We should share our country with immigrants, not shun them or shut them out,' the president said in a commencement address Saturday to the graduating class of Portland State University, their friends, families and faculty.
'But mark my words: Unless we handle this well, immigration of this sweep and scope can threaten the bonds of our union,' he told the 3,000 black-and-blue-robed graduates, of whom 5 percent are citizens of other countries." (Source: Robert Burns, "Clinton Hails Cultural Diversity," The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 14 June 1998, A3.)
Create the problem - create the solution! I've said this with the so-called Drug War, and this new War on Terrorism. Now I tell you the same with this massive immigration problem. Doesn't anyone in America remember the term "divide and conquer"?
In the above article Comrade Clinton further states; "They are afraid the America they know and love is becoming a foreign land. This reaction may be understandable, but it is wrong." An obvious question would have to be, what on earth would this Marxist disgrace to America know about right and wrong?
The American people are not "afraid," but rather have the intelligence to realize that there is something very wrong here. Why all this immigration while under NAFTA and GATT, American businesses and industries are making a mass exodus? The American people question the fact that there are fewer and fewer labels that read "Made in the U.S.A."
So again, we must ask, what is the agenda here? Why are these so-called liberals so hell-bent on destroying the very structure of America and shipping our industry to foreign lands?
"Immigrants Reject 'Melting Pot'" was the headline for the November 19, 1999, page 19 of the Spotlight newspaper. A most interesting story as you will see as I share parts of it with you.
"Slowly, but surely, it's beginning to dawn even on immigration experts that the mass immigration the United States has received over the last two decades is changing us more than we are changing the immigrants. Last week, The Washington Post reported yet more evidence that the 'new Americans' who have flocked to these shores in recent decades are not assimilating to the political and cultural civilization they find here.
"As if immigrant crime rates, the erosion of the English language, the blossoming of non-Western customs and expressions of outright racial and cultural hatred of Americans and whites weren't enough to show that assimilation hasn't happened and isn't going to happen anytime soon, the Post reported that a mere one-third of the nation's immigrants have even bothered to obtain U.S. citizenship.
"The data come from a study just published by the U.S. Census Bureau, and, as the Post notes, the study 'raises questions about how well the record numbers of immigrants arriving here are integrating into American life.'
"Actually, those questions were raised some years ago, but some of the experts weren't paying attention.
"When the champions of mass immigration send such messages to older Americans as the remark of California Hispanic leader Mario Obledo, that 'California is going to be a Hispanic state. Anyone who doesn't like it should leave,' you sort of get the impression that lots of immigrants don't much care about becoming Americans and are more interested in America becoming part of them. If that's what they want, why should they become citizens at all."
The Spotlight goes on to give the statistics of the Census Bureau for the declining rates for citizenship. Today only 30% of immigrants want to become American citizens. Only 30 years ago that rate was 90%. Remember that in America today these immigrants are fully entitled to all the wonderful socialist programs: food stamps, public housing, medical care and welfare checks regardless of citizenship.
Doesn't it just warm your heart to know how "your" hard-earned money is being spent by the Washington bureaucrats? It sounds to me as though we are paying for our own demise. Then again we must remember, without the income tax system (progressive tax as per the Communist Manifesto), we couldn't have support this socialist system, could we?
"The Census Bureau's findings on the decline of naturalization among immigrants is further evidence not only that current immigrants are not assimilating but also that they are beginning to form their own civilization - if that is quite the right word for it - in the belly of the existing one. Hence, they import their own languages, their own customs, their own religions, their own standards of taste and conduct, their own political folkways. And as their numbers prevail over those of the real Americans, their ways prevail over American ways.
That is precisely how one civilization dies and another is born - not by armed conquest and suppression so much as by simple displacement of the people who carry one civilization in their heads by a different people that carries a different civilization in theirs. Maybe, when the Census Bureau has published a few more studies and even more statistics have been collected, enough members of the old American civilization will come to understand that the only way to preserve their way of life is to stop the invasion of immigrants who are displacing it." (Source: Spotlight, 22 November 1999, 19.)
Thank God we still have publications like the Spotlight that print the truth in the true sprit of an American free press. I'm sure most Americans are uneasy about the lack of reporting by the mainstream media. Mainstream media is controlled by "political correctness" which is nothing more than cultured communism, thereby making it impossible to be a free press.
I've reviewed hundreds of articles on the immigration issue in my research of this story you are reading today. However, there is that one story that I keep returning to, and it is that one I am going to share with you now in its entirety. It was written by William Norman Grigg and published in The New American Magazine, Vol. 12, No. 4, February 19, 1996. [http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1996/vo12no04/vo12no04_revolution.htm]
"Revolution in America
There's more behind the immigration problem than illegal aliens
I am not an American. There is nothing about me that is American. I don't want to be an American, and I have just as much right to be here as any of you.' Thus spoke one individual identified as a 'Latino activist' during a session of the 'National Conversation on American Pluralism and Identity,' a $4 million project funded by the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH). NEH Director Sheldon Hackney reacted to this hateful outburst by cooing, 'What an American thing to say - squarely in the great tradition of American dissent. He was affirming his American identity even as he was denying it.'
An Ethnic Babel
From Hackney's perspective, there are none so American as those who hate this country. Unfortunately, a similar concept of the American identity governs our present immigration policies. Guided by the dogma of 'diversity,' the political establishment has rejected the traditional goal of assimilation, choosing instead to create a Babel of querulous ethnic interest groups squabbling over government largesse and united only through the political power of the state. Illustrations of the public impact of our immigration policies abound:
The Sacramento Bee reports, 'Nearly one in four students in California's public schools - more than 1.25 million kids - understands little or no English.'
In his book Dictatorship of Virtue, New York Times reporter Richard Bernstein describes School District 24 in the borough of Queens, New York, 'where 27,000 students are said to speak eighty-three languages. One-third of these students are not fluent in English, leading to one of the most ambitious bilingual education programs in the country.' New York's public institutions presuppose a complete failure of immigrants to assimilate: Driver's license exams are offered in 22 languages, and multilingual ballots permit those who have not mastered the language of our public institutions the opportunity to help shape public policy.
In Luna County, New Mexico, Mexican children are bused across the border from Palomas, Mexico to schools in Columbus and Deming at a cost of $1 million annually. In 1993, a lawsuit was filed by Luna County residents to stop the practice, which they contend is an untenable burden on local schools and taxpayers and a violation of the state constitution. The lawsuit was immediately condemned by political leaders on both sides of the border. Columbus Mayor Phoebe Watson defended the subsidized education of Mexican children as a moral obligation: 'We believe in humanity here, not laws.' Palomas Mayor Julieta Avina has mastered the language of victimology: 'To me, the lawsuit is racist, and I think this issue could lead to international problems along this part of the border.' As for New Mexico residents who object to subsidizing Mexican children, Avina tells them to find some other place to live: 'If they don't like Mexico they ought to move to Canada.'
The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court recently struck down the English Language Amendment to Arizona's state constitution, which requires 'the state and all political subdivisions to act in English and in no other language.' The court held, in effect, that there is a First Amendment 'right' to 'language diversity,' and that it is unconstitutional to require public officials to conduct the business of government in English. The plaintiff in the case was state insurance claims processor Maria-Kelley Yniguez, who had been producing some of her reports in Spanish - in spite of the fact that her supervisor understood only English. Federal Judge Stephen Reinhardt, who wrote the majority opinion, insisted that in such circumstances the burden is on the supervisor to learn Spanish, rather than the employee to learn English.
In 1986, Nicaraguan defector Alberto Suhr related to U.S. reporters what he and other Sandinista cadres had been told by Tomas Borge, the Sandinista interior minister. Borge, a ruthless henchman trained by Castro's DGI, instructed his comrades: 'We have Nicaragua, soon we will have El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Costa Rica and Mexico. One day, tomorrow or 15 years from now, we're going to take 5 to 10 million Mexicans and they're going to have one thing in mind - cross the border, go into Dallas, go into Houston, go into New Mexico, go into San Diego, and each one has embedded in his mind the idea of killing 10 Americans.'
When Borge made that boast, he already had a sizable fifth column of propagandists, foot soldiers, and narco-terrorists operating within the United States. Since then, several million more illegal aliens have entered the U.S., the Communist EZLN 'Zapatista' forces in Mexico's Chiapas state have declared war on Mexico's corrupt and bankrupt ruling PRI regime, the Mexican economy has imploded, the drug cartels have taken control over much of Mexico, and the militant 'Aztlan' movement has experienced a remarkable resurgence in U.S. Hispanic communities.
'[J]ust as the American nation was made with unusual speed,' warns immigration reform advocate Peter Brimelow, 'so it is perfectly possible that it could be un-made.' Indeed, America's enemies understand the revolutionary implications of our suicidal immigration policies. Marxist theoretician Mike Davis, author of the book Prisoners of the American Dream, has written of 'a prospective alliance of non-white Americans and Third World revolutionaries, all taking their marching orders from white Leninists.' According to Davis, unassimilated immigrants are the 'real weak link' in America's political system:
This is a nation within a nation, society within a society, that alone possesses the numerical and positional strength to undermine the American empire from within. . . . . [T]his 'nation within a nation' can act to bring 'socialism' to North America by virtue of a combined hemispheric process of revolt that overlaps boundaries and interlaces movements.
Davis' prediction is coming to pass in California, where the so-called 'Immigrant Rights' movement recruits immigrants - both legal and illegal - into revolutionary politics.
The Privilege of Citizenship
America is not yet entirely 'un-made,' nor is our national suicide through open borders a preordained fate. To understand how the present state of affairs came about, and how it may be remedied, it is necessary to review America's traditional immigration policy.
Throughout its history, America's philosophy of God-given individual rights and institutions of ordered liberty have attracted immigrants from around the globe. However, from our nation's founding until 1965, America policymakers understood that immigration is a privilege, not an unalienable right - and that this nation, like every sovereign nation, may properly regulate immigration in its own interests. Dr. Charles Rice, a professor of law at Notre Dame University, observes that 'with respect to nonresident aliens, their admission to the country is subject to the virtually plenary power of Congress.'
This is not to say that Congress may regard aliens as 'non-persons'; rather, it is to acknowledge that such people do not possess the procedural rights and immunities which are enjoyed by American citizens, and that their admission to this country is contingent on their qualifications for productive citizenship. In his report on immigration to the First Congress, James Madison urged that America 'welcome every person of good fame [who] really means to incorporate himself into our society, but repel all who will not be a real addition to the wealth and strength of the United States.'
America's political system, economy, and cultural institutions are derivative of Anglo-European traditions; accordingly, American immigration policies traditionally favored English-speaking immigrants from Europe who could be readily assimilated into our society. Additionally, during the last 'great wave' of immigration (which lasted roughly from 1890 to 1920), the absence of a welfare state made assimilation a necessity. Peter Brimelow estimates, 'At the turn of the century, 40 percent of all immigrants went home, basically becaused they failed in the work force.' However, millions of immigrants succeeded in America's economy and embraced American ideals.
Even before the advent of the welfare state, however, social pressures attendant to the 'great wave' created support for tighter immigration controls. The Immigration acts of 1921 and 1924 were intended to preserve a stable status quo by imposing a national origins quota system. The McCarran-Walter Act of 1952 retained the basic structure of the 1924 measure, while adding important provisions intended to prevent the admission of known subversives to America's shores.
However, the passage of the Immigration Reform Act of 1965 infused an entirely different set of values and priorities into our basic immigration law. Simply put, the effect of the 1965 immigration law was to define American immigration policies by our nation's supposed obligation to the rest of the world, rather than by sound definition of our own national interest. As Senator Robert F. Kennedy (D-NY) stated during the debate over the 1965 law, the measure assumed that 'the relevant community is not merely the nation, but all men of goodwill.'
One expressed intention of the measure was proportionately to increase immigration from non-Western nations; this was accomplished by abolishing the national origins quota system. Furthermore, although the formal immigration quota was raised only slightly, the measure allowed for theoretically unlimited 'non-quota' immigration for refugees, asylum seekers, and relatives of naturalized citizens for purposes of 'family reunification' (also known as 'chain immigration').
Many critics of the 1965 measure predicted that its passage would result in a torrential surge of unassimilable immigrants, resulting in profound social dislocations. Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA), who served as Senate floor manager for S. 500 (the Senate version of the measure), parried such objections by offering these assurances of what the bill supposedly would not do:
First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same. . . . Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset. . . . Contrary to the charges in some quarters, S. 500 will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and economically deprived nations of Africa and Asia. . . . In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think.
Availing himself of a familiar weapon from the rhetorical arsenal of collectivism, Kennedy accused critics of the 1965 law of acting on bigoted and 'un-American' motives: 'The changes I have mentioned are highly emotional, irrational, and with little foundation in fact. They are out of line with the obligations of responsible citizenship. They breed hate of our heritage. . . . "
Had he the capacity for honesty, Senator Kennedy today would admit that critics of the 1965 law have been vindicated in every particular, and that their objections were based on a sound understanding of the measure, rather than on malign motives.
Post - '65 Tidal Wave
As Peter Brimelow observes, 'Every one of Senator Kennedy's assurances has proven false. Immigration levels did surge upward. They are now running at around a million a year, not counting illegals. Immigrants do come predominantly from one area - some 85 percent of the 16.7 million legal immigrants arriving in the United States between 1968 and 1993 came from the Third World: 47 percent from Latin America and the Caribbean; 34 percent from Asia. . . . Also, immigrants did come disproportionately from one country - 20 percent from Mexico.' Nearly two million immigrants arrived in 1991 alone, and the present rate is at least one million immigrants per year - a figure which exceeds the number of immigrants admitted by the rest of the industrial nations combined.
Taken by itself, such an influx would have enormously unsettling social, cultural, and economic effects. However, when coupled with the welfare state and racial spoils system which presently exist in this country, the post-1965 immigrant wave has proven to be uniquely disruptive. Liberal commentator Michael Lind, who does not reject the welfare/affirmative action state in principle, points out, 'As a proportion of U.S. population, the groups eligible for racial preference benefits are rapidly growing, thanks to mass immigration from Latin America and Asia.'
While earlier European immigrants were under the necessity of assimilating quickly, Lind observes that 'today's Hispanic and Asian immigrants are tempted by a variety of rewards for retaining their distinctive racial identities, even their different languages':
The moment a Mexican or Chinese immigrant becomes a naturalized citizen of the United States, he can qualify for special consideration in admission to colleges and universities, at the expense of better-qualified white Americans; expect and receive special treatment in employment; apply for minority business subsidies denied to his neighbors; and even demand to have congressional district lines redrawn to maximize the likelihood of electing someone of his race or ethnic group. . . .
These perks and privileges are sources of ethnic tensions and considerable public expense. In a 1993 study, economist Donald Huddle of Rice University documented that 'immigrants cost the American taxpayer more than $42.5 billion in 1992 alone' for services such as subsidized education, Medicaid, health and welfare services, bilingual education, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. Should the present immigration policies remain in place, Huddle asserted, the cost of welfare subsidies to immigrants between 1993 to 2002 would average '$67 billion per year in 1992 dollars, a net total of $668.5 billion after taxes over the decade.'
Breakdown at the Border
Beyond the problems created by legal immigration are those precipitated by the breakdown of the 'thin green line' - the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and its Border Patrol, which are supposed to maintain the integrity of our borders against illegal immigration. 'Illegal immigrants come from all over the world,' reported the November 26, 1993 Los Angeles Times. 'They come in rickety boats. They arrive on jetliners with valid business, student or tourist visas and then ignore the expiration date and stay here illegally. They enter on forged documents or fraudulent employment visas. They contract sham marriages to U.S. citizens.' Most illegal immigrants enter the U.S. across our 2,000-mile border with Mexico.
How many illegals enter the U.S. every year? 'We don't know - that's the bottom line,' INS spokesman Robert Stiev told The New American. 'It's almost as if we were asked, "How many fish didn't you catch?" An INS study in 1992 estimated that 3.4 million illegal immigrants had taken up residence in the United States, with another 300,000 arriving every year. To stem this tide, the Border Patrol has been assigned fewer than 5,000 agents and allocated a budget of $584 million - a pitiful pool of resources when compared, for example, to the 32,000 U.S. servicemen and $2 billion to $3 billion which has been set aside to patrol the artifical borders of the 'nation' of Bosnia.
When President Jimmy Carter took office in 1977, he appointed immigrant 'rights' activist Leonel J. Castillo to head the INS. Castillo adopted the grotesque euphemism 'undocumented workers' as the official INS designation for illegal immigrants. In an address to the Border Patrol Academy in June 1977, Castillo described border guards as 'the front-line soldiers in President Carter's war against human rights violators. Possibly no other government agency has a greater opportunity to demonstrate to the world our concern for human rights than those of us in the immigration service.'
In April 1997, President Carter announced that his vision of 'human rights' would require some variety of general amnesty for illegal immigrants. In August of that same year he submitted to Congress a framework for immigration reform which included various forms of amnesty for illegal aliens, as well as penalties for employers who knowingly hired illegals and a modest increase in funding for the INS and Border Patrol. When those proposals were rejected by Congress, Carter assembled a commission headed by Reverend Theodore Hesburgh with a mandate to create another framework for immigration reform.
In May 1981, the Hesburgh Commission issued its 'findings,' which essentially regurgitated the Carter Administration's rejected proposals: A general amnesty for illegal aliens, coupled with employer sanctions and a modest increase in funding for border enforcement. These recommendations were incorporated into the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), which was sold to an anxious American public as a definitive 'solution' to the crisis of illegal immigration. Alas, like so many other 'solutions' urged upon us by the ruling Establishment, the IRCA exacerbated the problem it was supposedly intended to fix.
On May 5, 1987, the INS opened 107 'legalization centers' across the country to begin granting amnesty to millions of illegal aliens residing here. Under the provisions of the IRCA, illegal aliens who could demonstrate continuous residence in the U.S. since January 1, 1982 had one year to apply for legal resident status, and were eligible for citizenship within five years. This was an unforgivable affront to law-abiding Americans, including immigrants who had patiently undergone the trying process of acquiring legal citizenship. It was also an act of capitulation which emboldened millions of others to violate our borders in anticipation of similar amnesties in the future.
Among the INS agents who helped implement the IRCA's amnesty provisions was William King, a former chief of the Border Patrol and the first director of the Border Patrol Academy. 'IRCA was supposed to be a three-legged stool,' King recalled to The New American. 'A lot of us who had served in the Border Patrol weren't happy with amnesty, but we thought it might be a good trade-off in exchange for employer sanctions and border enhancement.'
However, observes King, the only tangible result of the IRCA has been a pool of 'several hundred thousand people who have broken our laws who now have green cards and are becoming eligible for citizenship. And once they do, they can begin the process of 'chain immigration' by bringing in their relatives.'
Writing in 1782, Thomas Jefferson expressed misgivings about the potential impact of immigration on American society. He was concerned that immigrants would 'bring with them the principles of the government they leave' and that 'their principles, along with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their numbers, they will share with us in the legislation.'
The increasingly visible enclaves of undigested Asian, African, and Latin American immigrants which have sprung up in California, New York, Illinois, Florida, and elsewhere testify of Jefferson's prescience.
Immigration reform advocate Richard Estrada observes that unrestrained immigration is producing 'a leveling down of American society, which in turn could be accompanied by an intensification of tribalist politics, ethnic and linguistic separatism, and finally the further debasement of the coin of individual initiative, freedom, and liberty.' The fissiparous tendencies which concern Estrada are most pronounced along America's border with Mexico.
According to Henry Cisneros, the Clinton Administration's Secretary of Health and Human Services, the effective breakdown of the border between the U.S. and Mexico is resulting in 'the Hispanization of America. . . . It is already happening and it is inescapable.' Less sanguine observers would refer to this development as an invasion. While some might shrink from using the term, 'invasion' was the word used to describe the Mexican exodus to the U.S. in a 1982 article published in Excelsior, Mexico's equivalent of the New York Times. In 'The Great Invasion: Mexico Recovers Its Own,' Excelsior columnist Carios Loret de Mola examined the cultural and political implications of uncontrolled Mexican immigration to the U.S.:
'A peaceful mass of people. . . carries out slowly and patiently an unstoppable invasion, the most important in human history. You cannot give me a similar example of such a large migratory wave by an ant-like multitude, stubborn, unarmed, and carried on in the face of the most powerful and best-armed nation on earth. . . . [Neither] barbed-wire fences, nor aggressive border guards, nor campaigns, nor laws, nor police raids against the undocumented, have stopped this movement of the masses that is unprecedented in any part of the world.'
According to Loret, the migrant invasion 'seems to be slowly returning [the southwestern United States] to the jurisdiction of Mexico without the firing of a single shot, nor requiring the least diplomatic action, by means of a steady, spontaneous, and uninterrupted occupation.' The effects of Mexico's immigration invasion were even then visible in Los Angeles, which Loret cheekily referred to as 'the second largest Mexican city in the world.'
Loret's essay invoked the irredentist fantasy that California, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, and Texas - the states created in the territory obtained from Mexico through the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848 - compose 'Aztlan,' the mythical homeland of the Aztec Indians, and that those states must be wrested from the United States in order to create a new Chicano homeland. More than a quarter of a century ago, political analyst Patty Newman warned that 'the basic concept of El Plan de Aztlan is endorsed by most of the major Mexican-American organizations on campus and off, liberal and supposedly conservative.' Believers in the Aztlan legend insist upon the indivisibility of 'la Raza' (the Mexican race) and the need to abolish the border between the U.S. and Mexico; one of their preferred slogans is, 'We didn't cross the border - the border crossed us.'
The Aztlan cult, which is composed of people who unabashedly hate the United States, is the loudest and most insistent element of the immigrant lobby in California. Inebriated with a sense of righteous victimhood, entranced by fascist myths of a heroic racial past, and equipped with a paramilitary auxiliary, the 'Brown Berets de Aztlan,' devotees of the Aztlan cult are rapidly extending their influence within California's Hispanic population, particularly among students in the university system.
Although the literature of radical Chicano activists is replete with criticism of the Mexican government and praise for the anti-government Zapatista insurrection the Mexican establishment is actually pursuing the same ends which define the Chicano movement in the U.S.: The effective eradication of the border and the political consolidation of Mexicans within this country. The December 10th New York Times reported that the Mexican regime 'is campaigning hard for an amendment to the Mexican Constitution that would allow Mexicans living in the United States to retain Mexican nationality rights even when they adopt American citizenship.' [Chief Executive Editor's Note: This has already happened.]
Like their supposed enemies in the radical Chicano movement, Mexican officials do not shy away from expressions of racial and ethnic solidarity with Hispanics residing in this country. During a recent speech to Mexican- American politicians in Dallas, Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo declared, 'You're Mexicans - Mexicans who live north of the border.' Jose Angel Gurria, Mexico's foreign minister, has explained that the 'double nationality amendment [is] designed to stress our common language. . . culture, [and] history' across national borders. The proposed amendment is intended to create a political fifth column under the influence of the Mexican regime. As Rodolfo O. de la Garza, a professor of government at the University of Texas, observes, 'As Mexican-Americans become more powerful, the Mexican government wants them to defend Mexican interests here in the United States.'
The next logical step would be to extend the voting franchise to immigrants who are not citizens - a possibility which is being openly discussed by open borders activists in California and elsewhere. Jorge Casteada, an influential Mexican intellectual and a columnist for the Los Angeles Times, defends the idea in his new book The Mexican Shock: Its Meaning for the U.S.:
'Immigration from Mexico is likely to continue regardless of what enthusiasts of free trade, peace in Central America, or the closing of the border may say or do. The only realistic way to alter the negative effect of Mexican influence on California, then, is to change the nature of its origin by legalizing immigration [that is, extending another amnesty to illegals] and giving foreigners the right to vote in state and local elections.'
In his book Importing Revolution: Open Borders and the Radical Agenda, William Hawkins of the Hamilton Center for National Strategy observes, 'Non-citizen voting for local government has already been implemented in the liberal suburban enclave of Tacoma Park, Maryland. . . . Nearby in Washington, DC, City Councilman Frank Smith has endorsed legislation to allow non-citizens to vote in local elections in the nation's capital.' Jamin Raskin, a law professor at American University, has noted, 'Increasingly, advocates for immigrants in New York - as in Washington, Los Angeles and several smaller cities across the nation - have begun exploring the sensitive issue of securing voting privileges for immigrants who are not citizens.' Raskin insists that 'noncitizen voting is the suffrage movement of the decade' and predicts:
'[I]f picked up by large cities - like Los Angeles, Washington, New York and Houston - it could strengthen American democracy by including in the crucial processes of local government many hundreds of thousands of people born elsewhere. . . . There are 10 million legal immigrants who are not United States citizens. In number, at least, they represent a potential political force of some diversity and dimension, particularly in such cities as New York.'
The enfranchisement of foreigners would lead to the literal 'un-making' of America as a sovereign, independent nation. While such a prospect is presently shocking, it is not in principle significantly different from the logic of our post - 1965 immigration policy. After all, if everyone has an unconstitutional 'right' to come to America and feast at the welfare trough, why should there be any defining advantages to citizenship? Why not eliminate our borders altogether, and extend all of the rights and privileges of citizenship to anyone who happens to occupy our nation at any given time?
The Targeted Class
Although there are many immigrants activists who are motivated by sincere - if often unreliable - humanitarian impulses, there are many others who seek to use unassimilated immigrants, including illegal aliens, as a political resource.
William Hawkins observes, 'For the alienated radical, there is only one truth over all time: America is a bad country and its "conservative" native-born are a defective people; only distant lands are on the road of progress; only other peoples are intimate with social justice.'
But the radical left has not created the immigration revolution by itself. Its indispensable ally has been the political Elite, which is variously known as the 'Establishment,' the 'Overclass,' or the 'New Class.' In his book The Revolt of the Elites, the late Christopher Lasch, a widely respected author and social critic, lamented: 'Those who control the international flow of money and information, preside over the philanthropic foundations and institutions of higher learning, manage the instruments of cultural production and thus set the terms of public debate . . . have lost faith in the values, or what remains of them, of the West.'
Many of the most influential members of the Elite, Lasch observed, 'have ceased to think of themselves as Americans in any important sense, implicated in America's destiny for better or worse'; as a result, they are 'deeply indifferent to the prospect of American decline.' Like the Marxist radical network referred to by Hawkins, the Establishment heartily reviles 'Middle America,' a term which 'has come to symbolize everything that stands in the way of progress': patriotism, religious devotion, strong family commitments, and conventional morality.
The Establishment is similarly antagonistic to national sovereignty. As Peter Brimelow points out, the Establishment 'dislikes the national-state for exactly the same reason it dislikes the free market: both are machines that run of themselves, with no need for New Class-directed government intervention.' 'From the point of view of the members of the American New Class,' continues Brimelow, 'immigration is manna from heaven. It gives them endless excuses to intervene in society.' Furthermore, 'the self-interest of this New Class is internationalism: cooperation with the New Classes of other countries above the heads of their population.'
Defeating the designs of the 'New Class' and its radical allies will require that Americans of all ethnic backgrounds who understand our shared heritage - and cherish our free institutions - act with dispatch to restore our borders."
That was an amazing story by the New American Magazine. I take my hat off to them for doing such an excellent job. How unfortunate mainstream media is no longer "allowed" to print stories of this caliber. That's why I always urge the American people to get their news from more than one source. There are many good news sources other than the controlled mainstream media. Get some of them and get away from the controlled press.
"New Legislation Helps Promote Dual Citizenship"
That headline is from the January 24, 2000 issue of The Spotlight. "While a group of Mexican radicals clamor for 'liberation' of the Southwest U.S. and politicians rob U.S. tax coffers to defend Israel, Egypt and dozens of other countries, many wonder how dual loyalists have infiltrated America.
The New World Order crowd has systematically undercut the traditional concept of U.S. citizenship." I must agree with the Spotlight report one hundred percent. How can a person be loyal to two countries? One loyalty must override the other at times. As the Spotlight asked, "When is it okay for immigrants not to be loyal Americans? You figure it out."
We must wonder who is in charge of America today? Is it the shadow government, these unelected officials of the CFR, the long arm of the Rockefellers, Warburgs, Rothchilds and other international bankers? The very people that supported the rise of socialism/communism in the world? The very people behind the establishment of the Marxist United Nations?
We can clearly see it is "not" We The People as it is supposed to be in accordance with our Constitution. Please take action on this matter and call your Congressman today and demand that these floodgates of immigration be closed now! Get all your friends and family to do the same. Thank You!
We must remember too that there are other groups within our borders that want a part of America. We have the Nation of Islam, the New African Republic, and of course there's the Marxist Black Panthers, who can march with guns in hand down American streets without interference from the police. Just let white Americans try that and I'd bet you would not only have your little black-booted SWAT out, but the jackbooted thugs of the FBI and ATF would join in stopping the march dead cold in its tracks.
We hear so many people apologizing nowadays for the Christian Crusades, for the Holocaust, for blacks enslaved here in America and so on. It gets to be sickening after a while! Many of these people call themselves historians; hogwash is the only word I can think of for these so-called historians. These modern day historians are in the same class as our politically correct so-called free press! A historian cannot be politically correct and give a true account of history, nor can a reporter report only the politically correct news and be called himself a reporter for a "free press."
You can clearly see that political correctness cannot be free speech since you must operate within the confines of what is acceptable. A better term might be cultural communism! The same holds true with historians, you cannot take history out of context and call it history, for then it becomes revisionist history.
Take for example slavery here in America. Historians fail to express that in ancient times slavery was commonplace. With the Roman Empire, half the world was free, the other half in bondage. Slavery is still practiced in Sudan, Africa, today. Long before any white man entered the continent of Africa, slavery was a common practice. Many unfortunate slaves of these African Chiefs were sacrificed to pagan gods. In most cases it wasn't to appease the pagan god's inasmuch as to rid themselves of the growing number of slaves.
Slavery unfortunately is not a thing of the past as it is reappearing in today's world. About two years ago I wrote an article of a Georgia business man who lost his business because he could not compete with his competitors, the Federal Prison Labor Force. I believe in Red China, we call them slave labor camps.
There's No Need for Apologies
"In one of John Wayne's old movies, he would often say to a young lieutenant, 'Never apologize, Mr. Cahill. It's a sign of weakness.'
Well, I don't agree that apologizing for a wrong you actually committed is a sign of weakness, but this current fad of apologizing for things that happened in the past is definitely a sign of a weak mind.
An English wit once observed that not even God can rewrite history, though historians do it all the time. What happened in the past happened, and since we were not there, we bear no responsibility for it. Not only should we never apologize for things that happened in the past, we can't apologize for it without making a fool out of ourselves. In other words, it's goofy to apologize for something you had nothing to do with. And it's even goofier to apologize to people who were not even victimized by whatever it is you're apologizing for.
The idea (which is floating around in the corners of Congress) of paying reparations for slavery is plain stupid. There are no slaves and no ex-slaves. There are no slave owners and no ex-slave owners. Furthermore, American slaves were enslaved by Africans. They were emancipated by white Americans and white Europeans.
Not all blacks are descendants of slaves. There have always been free blacks in America. In fact, the 1830 census listed nearly 4,000 free blacks who owned slaves. In 1860, there were about 160,000 free blacks living in the South.
As for the claim that the present condition of some blacks in the late 20th century is a result of their ancestors being slaves, I say that's a load of horse apples. To quote Cassius, 'The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in the stars but in ourselves that we are underlings.' [Julius Caesar 1.2.139-40]
Amen brother Cassius (one of the plotters against Julius Caesar). Neither stars nor ancestors are responsible for our lives. We are. To try to lay the blame for our failures on our ancestors is the ultimate cop-out.
I have to say, though, that if there is a psychic disease of epidemic proportions in America among people of all races, religions and ethnic backgrounds today, it is avoiding responsibility. The U.S. government ought to change the national motto to 'It Ain't My Fault.' That, of course, is a sure-fire way to guarantee failure because anybody who wastes energy blaming others for his or her shortcomings is a loser, pure and simple.
As a matter of fact, that's a common characteristic of petty criminals. Whatever they did, it's never their fault. Whenever you hear people repeating that theme, you might as well write them off. They are and always will be worthless to themselves, to their families and to their countries.
It's important to study the past because it's easier in hindsight to see what worked and what didn't work. But it's a big mistake to get hung up in the past. The present is our time, our world and our responsibility.
Better to make sure we don't foul up than to waste time pointing fingers at people long dead.
All we owe the people of the past is to look at them in the context of their own time, not in the context of our time. They, like us, fell out of the womb into an already existing society with already existing beliefs and institutions. Like us, they had no choice but to play the cards God dealt them.
It's our play now, and the pot is the future." (Source: "There's No Need for Apologies," The Spotlight, 4 September 2000, 17.)
Gun Control = People Control
Yes my friends it is our play now and we had better wake up before it's too late. Gun control is an issue we hear all the time nowadays, mostly from these so-called liberals. This one issue of gun control is of the utmost importance to the survival of the United States of America. The founding fathers knew just how important it was, that's why it's our Second Amendment right, number two of the ten Amendments of our Bill of Rights, our Creator-endowed rights, our God-given rights, not to be infringed upon by government.
The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The written Constitution for the United States of America is the supreme law of the land; any statute to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the written Constitution of the United States of America and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, whether federal or state, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose. Since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it, an unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed and never existed, that is, it is void ab initio. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office or liabilities, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, is incapable of creating any rights or obligations, does not allow for the granting of any relief, and justifies no acts performed under it. . . .
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it. Once a statute has been declared unconstitutional, courts thereafter have no jurisdiction over alleged violations. Persons convicted and fined under a statute subsequently held unconstitutional may recover the fines paid.
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. And an unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. Since an unconstitutional statute cannot repeal or in any way affect an existing one, if a repealing statute is unconstitutional, the statute which it attempts to repeal remains in full force and effect. And where a clause repealing a prior law is inserted in an act, which act is unconstitutional and void, the provision for the repeal of the prior law will usually fall with it and will not be permitted to operate as repealing such prior law." (Source: 16A Am. Jur. 2d Constitutional Law Section 203 (1998).)
The above should be given to all police officers and their unions. In this matter they should understand they, (the police) as police officers are "not obligated" to enforce "any illegitimate laws" that violate the law of the land, which is the Constitution of the United States of America. Our Bill of Rights are most certainly a part of the Constitution!
Whether you may be pro-gun or anti-gun, the "Right to Keep and Bear Arms," must never be "allowed" to be infringed upon by government. The "Right to Keep and Bear Arms" was never meant for target shooting or hunting, it was and remains so the right to defend one's self, family, friends and property, should our "government" get so far out of line, to stop such tyranny with the force of arms. As per the Declaration of Independence, it's not only your right, but it's your duty as an American to seek such armed redress. How on earth can a disarmed people stand up against tyranny?
"The Biggest Reason to be a Gun Owner
I haven't always been a strong advocate of Second Amendment rights. I have always been raised around guns, but as far as the importance of the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms goes I am somewhat of a recent convert.
I grew up on a hundred-acre farm with 70 acres of timber and only 30 tillable. We always had guns on the farm. We hunted on the timberland and so did a lot of our friends from town. I got my first shotgun when I was a young boy, but it wasn't until I saw the information I am about to share with you that I became convinced of the importance of the Second Amendment.
The Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership group chronicles the relationship between gun restriction, confiscation and the genocide that has taken place around the world. Here is the record. It speaks for itself.
The Soviet Union established gun control in 1929. From 1929 to 1953, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Turkey established gun control in 1911. From 1915 to 1917 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1976 20 million anti-Communists, Christians, political dissidents and pro-reform groups, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938. From 1939 to 1945 13 million Jews, Gypsies, mentally ill people and other "mongrelized peoples," unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977 1 million "educated people," unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and executed.
If you add up the numbers, that amounts to more than 55 million innocent people who have been slaughtered by their own governments. The first step was always the same - rendering citizens defenseless by restricting or confiscating their firearms.
Freedom-loving people are at far more risk from their own government than from all the criminals in the world combined! An armed man/woman has a chance to defend himself/herself against any would-be gangster or criminal. An unarmed man/woman has no chance at all against anybody, especially an oppressive, tyrannical government.
An armed citizenry is the only force that ensures freedom. It isn't the militias that can [ensure] freedom. It is simply the fact that if nearly every home owner is also a gun owner there isn't an army in the world big or strong enough to take the freedom of an armed populace like that, and tyrants know that.
Listen to Adolf Hitler: 'The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed the subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty.' (Adolf Hitler H.R. Trevor-Roper, Hitler's Table Talks 1941-1944 London: Widenfeld and Nicolson, 1953, p. 425-426)
Even Mahatma Gandhi agreed that an armed citizenry is of extreme importance. 'Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.' (Mahatma Gandhi, 'Gandhi, An Autobiography', M. K. Gandhi, page 446)
The purpose of owning a gun is not to be a part of a militia, wear camouflage, and play soldier. The hope is that as long as we enjoy an armed citizenry we will never have to use those guns for anything other than sport. I would rather own guns and never need them than to not own one and wish I had.
Look what Jesus himself said: 'When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace.' (Jesus Christ, Luke 11:21-22 King James Version) He also said if his disciples didn't own a sword they better sell their clothes and go buy one. (Luke 22:36)" (Source: Mark E Howerter The Other Side of the News, September 20, 1999 [http://www.otherside.net/gunowner.htm])
Governments do kill far more people than common criminals do!
The Black Book of Communism reports on the horror of the communist movement. Death, terror and brutal police states are how communists not only gain power but maintain power over the people. The Black Book of Communism gives a far better picture of what communism is about, much more so than most Americans perceive.
Mr. Courtois, a former communist himself, estimates that one hundred million people have been slaughtered, exterminated, executed by this red plague of communism.
"U.S.S.R.: 20 million deaths
China: 65 million deaths
Vietnam: 1 million deaths North Korea: 2 million deaths
Cambodia: 2 million deaths
Eastern Europe: 1 million deaths
Latin America: 150,000 deaths
Africa: 1.7 million deaths
Afghanistan: 1.5 million deaths
The international Communist movement and Communist parties not in power: about 10,000 deaths
The total approaches 100 million people killed.
The immense number of deaths conceals some wide disparities according to context. Unquestionably, if we approach these figures in terms of relative weight, first place goes to Cambodia, where Pol Pot, in three and a half years, engaged in the most atrocious slaughter, through torture and widespread famine, of about one-fourth of the country's total population. However, China's experience under Mao is unprecedented in terms of the sheer number of people who lost their lives. As for the Soviet Union of Lenin and Stalin, the blood turns cold at its venture into planned, logical, and 'politically correct' mass slaughter." (Source: Stephane Courtois et al., The Black Book of Communism, trans. Jonathan Murphy and Mark Kramer (Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1999), 4-5.)
Yes my friends literally millions upon millions have lost their lives because they did not have the means, the necessary tools, the guns to fight this inhuman beast of tyranny! For those of you foolish enough to think "it can never happen here," please think again. Our country has continuously been moving to the left for almost one hundred years now! The final takeover of any country by these communist bastards is always a disorderly bloodbath. I believe it was Thomas Jefferson that said the only time the people will need the Second Amendment is when government tries to remove it.
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." George Washington
In 1775 Thomas Jefferson copied the words of an Italian philosopher, Cesare Beclaria: "False is the idea of unity that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it, that has no remedy for evils except destruction (of liberty). The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes, such laws serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man maybe attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
In our country where illegitimate gun control laws have been passed, crime always increases. Just look at Washington, D.C., a criminal's paradise. England, where a bow and arrow are outlawed, now has a soaring crime rate. Same holds true with Austria, since the loss of their guns, the crime rate has been souring. The facts speak for themselves, in states where you can carry a gun, crime is down, in states where you cannot carry a gun, crime is up
A Dangerous Time for America - (Marxism) - Wolves in sheeps' clothing
One must ask the question? . . . WHY.? . . Why are these so-called liberals so hell-bent on getting guns out of the hands of the law-abiding American people? Can it be these so-called liberals are afraid of Americans with guns? If that is the case, perhaps we are the ones that should be afraid.
"Congress' Red Army Caucus
I'm a little surprised, since I first wrote about this group of socialist subversives back in July -- warning that its approximately 60 members, including Maxine Waters, Barney Frank and John Conyers, represent a large unyielding voting and lobbying bloc pushing the government inevitably toward the goals of its Democratic Socialists of America sponsors. I referred to the group then and again now as Congress' Red Army Caucus. No other shorthand description could possibly do them justice.
Think about it. There are at least five Bolsheviks on the House Judiciary Committee. Do you think anything -- any evidence -- could ever persuade them to break with their party line against impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton. Imagine the outcry if there were five members belonging to some other extremist hate group -- American Nazi Party, Ku Klux Klan, etc.
Yet, there's no moral difference. The Democratic Socialists' goal is clear from their own literature. The goal is Communism. Never mind that the history of that system is littered with more death, oppression and destruction than any other 'ism.' Never mind that it has been discredited everywhere it has been tried. The DSA believes the right people just haven't been in charge. They want to try it here -- in the United States of America.
The Progressive Caucus and congressional members are a big part of their game plan. The Democratic Socialists actively seek out 'celebrities' for outreach purposes. They use them to recruit -- to achieve mainstream credibility.
'While it's certainly true that one can't build a mass socialist movement simply by recruiting celebrities, they are very important in legitimizing both the organization and the concept of socialism,' explains an organizational document geared toward its youth program. 'When you tell someone that Ron Dellums, Barbara Eisenreich, Gloria Steinem, Wimpy Winpisinger and Ed Asner are members,' it helps take the horns off of socialism.
Furthermore, the Democratic Socialists' chief organizing goal is to work within the Democratic Party.
'Stress our Democratic Party strategy and electoral work,' the same document explains. 'The Democratic Party is something the public understands, and association with it takes the edge off. Stressing our Democratic Party work will establish some distance from the radical subculture and help integrate you to milieu of the young liberals.'
Yet, that radical subculture is alive and well within the Democratic Socialists of America and its affiliate group, the Progressive Caucus of Congress.
Take the song list at the DSA Website. It features, first and foremost, 'The Internationale,' the worldwide anthem of Communism and socialism. Another classic is 'Red Revolution' sung to the tune of 'Red Robin.' Here are the lyrics for that little ditty: 'When the Red Revolution brings its solution along, along, there'll be no more lootin' when we start shootin' that Wall Street throng.' . . . Then there's that memorable old ballad, 'Are You Sleeping, Bourgeoisie?' Never heard that one? You haven't been in the Congressional Progressive Caucus, lately, I guess: 'Are you sleeping? Are you sleeping? Bourgeoisie, Bourgeoisie. And when the revolution comes, We'll kill you all with knives and guns, Bourgeoisie, Bourgeoisie.'
Gee, imagine what the totalitarians in the Progressive Caucus would do if they found that kind of extremist 'hate speech' on the Website of a right-wing congressional caucus.
Make no mistake. These folks are revolutionaries. They may dress in suit and tie. They may not carry guns and bandoleers. But the Red Army Caucus in Congress is at the vanguard of a Communist movement that has no respect for the U.S. Constitution, individual rights and the freedoms America takes for granted today.
Their rhetoric is a little more sophisticated at times than Stalin's, but the goals are the same -- a dictatorship of the proletariat, that oh, so elusive workers paradise, re-education camps, you get the picture.
In one article on the DSA site, a 'fundamental restructuring of our socio-economic order' is demanded.
'While the freedoms of democratic capitalism are gains of popular struggle to be cherished, democratic socialists argue that the values of liberal democracy can only be fulfilled when the economy as well as the state is democratically controlled.'
Gee, I can hardly wait" (Source: www.WorldNetDaily.com, November 23, 1998, "Congress' Red Army Caucus -- part 2")
Isn't it nice to know how "wisely" we chose our leaders. We have about sixty Marxist bastards (illegitimate children of America) sitting in the United States Congress! Wake up! Wake up before it's too late! Did our men, our valiant American soldiers, did they bleed and die for nothing?!
"When a citizen gives his (vote) to a man of known immorality he abuses his trust; he sacrifices not only his own interest, but that of his neighbor; he betrays the interest of his country." Noah Webster
No one in this great nation should ever forget what the "red" in the American flag signifies, the blood of American men who paid the high price for "your freedoms." We as a nation can never forget those first Americans that thirsted for freedom so badly, they marched through the ice and snow of Valley Forge barefooted leaving a trail of bloody footprints in that ice and snow. Yes, Freedom has a very high price tag, and if you as an American are unwilling to pay for what you posses, then you must not be an American, but a coward unwilling to ensure freedom.
"What we obtain too cheaply, we esteem too lightly; it is dearness only that gives everything its value. Heaven knows how to put a price upon its goods, and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as freedom should be highly rated." Thomas Paine, 1776
Now if you think having about sixty Marxist Congressmen and Congresswomen filling those seats in the United States Congress is bad enough. What on earth would you think about a Marxist President? I know, you must think I'm joking, but I'm not!
"America's First Marxist President
By Chuck Baldwin
WorldNetDaily.com recently published an interview with retired U.S. Army Brigadier General Albion Knight, Jr. According to WND, 'During the 1980s, Knight was involved in a unique project. He and others were asked by members of the Reagan administration to draft a list of goals that would be the framework of a Marxist president if one were to be elected to lead the United States.' What follows is the list that General Knight came up with. (Remember that this is over a decade before anyone ever heard the name Bill Clinton.)
* A Marxist and/or communist president would focus on the transfer of national sovereignty at every opportunity to international organizations.
* He or she would weaken the armed forces physically, mentally and spiritually.
* The 'dumbing down' of our public school education system would also accelerate.
* A Marxist president would assist all or most of America's enemies - Russia, China, Cuba, radical Islam, North Korea and others.
* He would disregard the Constitution at every opportunity and rule by decree, meaning executive orders would earmark such an administration.
* Bogus arms control agreements would be a major goal.
* He would buy off Congress by stealing FBI files of its members.
* He would attempt to intimidate and control the media.
General Knight is quoted by WND as saying 'He (Clinton) has hit every one of the above actions and more.' He continues, 'Clinton has helped Marxists and terrorists and their 'world revolution' at every opportunity. Cultural Marxism is also a key Clinton goal. He has been giving us a bad example that it is all right to lie, cheat, steal, threaten and even rape women if it is done in high office. There is a steady movement toward a Gestapo-like control over people. There is today in the U.S. a total lack of any sense of national and its protection as required by his oath-of-office. Furthermore, Clinton has been selling and giving our nuclear and other technology secrets to communist China and giving Russia the money to re-arm at U.S. taxpayers expense.'
General Knight was 'right-as-rain' in predicting the conduct and policies of Bill Clinton. What he could not have foreseen is how quickly it would happen. No one could have predicted that.
If America survives the Clinton presidency (which is yet unclear), history will record this abysmal period with scathing indictments. Certainly, the propaganda press that has protected and covered up for this man will suffer the disdain of history. Members of Congress from both parties will likewise be forever impugned as the cowards they are for refusing to hold this corrupt Machiavellian accountable to the U.S. Constitution and laws of our country. Pulpits, too (Like those of Nazi Germany), are not blameless. They have traded their souls and the soul of this nation for thirty pieces of silver. In so doing, a beast has been allowed to roam freely in our land devouring the country's conscience and character." (Source: Chuck Baldwin, The North Florida Advocate, June 2000, p. 15.)
Sometimes I ask myself what is it going to take for the American people to realize, to wake up to exactly what is going on in government today? Is it that our people have been so dumbed down, so brainwashed, that they can no longer see the danger at hand? Perhaps it is just the fact that we as a people don't understand the horror of a Communist regime takeover. Can it be that our people's lack of knowledge on this matter, be to the greatest advantage of the Marxist here in power now?
Unfortunately for our nation today, these socialists/communists wield a great deal of political power in Washington, the Congress and the White House. Bill Clinton and Al Gore both have ties to the Russian and Red Chinese Communists.
William Jefferson Clinton had a paid vacation, compliments of the Russian KGB in 1970. (Source: "Death Count," Free American News Magazine, Oct. 1998, p. 44.)
There are FBI documents that link Bill and Hillary Clinton to a Marxist terrorist network. (Ibid.)
Perhaps that may explain somewhat the dead body count surrounding the Clintons.
In the aforementioned magazine you can find a story on Al Gore, Sr. and Al Gore, Jr. links to the Russian KGB.
Most of America has heard of the illegal technology transfers to the Red Chinese. My friends isn't that Treason? Are we to forget the Communist Red Chinese illegal contributions for the Clinton/Gore campaigns? Wasn't this just the Red Chinese lining the pockets of their comrades here in the United States?
"--And during this period of time, President Clinton was successfully stopping the deployment of a national missile defense system, exposing every American life to a missile attack, leaving us with no defense against an intercontinental ballistic missile.
Mr. President, China's theft of secret data on the so-called 'W-88' nuclear warhead may be one of the most serious breaches of national security in our lifetimes. . . . . More serious than Aldrich Ames. Perhaps more serious than the Rosenbergs. (Source: Part of James M. Inhofe U.S. Senate Floor Statement, March 15, 1999.)
Thank God Senator Inhofe had 41 years experience as a pilot, for only a short while after the above floor statement, (May 1999) he was on his way from northeastern Oklahoma to Oklahoma City to meet (Comrade Bill) President Clinton, when his propeller "just fell off his airplane."
It's funny, I didn't think propellers just fall off airplanes! Aren't they doubly secured? Not to worry, the FBI is investigating. Perhaps our grandchildren or our great grandchildren will one day find out what happen. You'll have to pardon me if I don't hold my breath while waiting for the answer of the FBI's investigation. I wouldn't want to turn blue.
Do you know what else is funny? The Rosenbergs were executed for Treason, for putting Americans in far less danger than what the Clinton/Gore administration has done. I would strongly suggest all Americans should read the book "Year of the Rat," to get a better understanding of the Clinton/Gore treason. And for those on the Internet, you may want to check out the Web site http://www.traitorbill.com/ for some interesting insight on this matter of treason.
Tyranny Is Here
If this story doesn't raise the hairs on the back of your neck, then please go back to sleep. The First Amendment right of free speech, do we still have it? One must ask has this "political correctness" destroyed free speech in America, our God-given right of free speech? As Americans we must remember the first TEN Amendments of the Bill of Rights are for we the people, never to ever be infringed upon by government. I don't believe I have read a better story than the one from NewsMax.Com on the subject of political correctness.
"NewsMax.Com, Tyranny Is Here, by Paul Craig Roberts, Sept. 27, 2000
Tyranny is creeping up on us. If you don't believe it, consider the most prominent hallmarks of the Nazi and Communist regimes, which sought to supplant democracy in the 20th century.
In National Socialist Germany and the Soviet Union, there were no First Amendment rights. No one could voice an opinion contrary to the politically correct views enforced by the Gestapo and the KGB. Media and education were used to instill politically correct thinking and bring denunciation upon anyone who departed from politically correct thinking.
This is precisely the situation that exists today in the vast majority of American colleges and universities. Verbal and facial expressions that are contrary to political correctness result in sensitivity training (a form of brainwashing) or expulsion for the offender, who may have done nothing more than laugh. If the source of mirth is an ethnic joke, a blonde joke or a hilarious claim by a multiculturalist, the hapless offender discovers that his constitutional protections do not exist.
In Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, there were victim groups that were championed and oppressor groups that were suppressed. In Germany, the 'victims' were Aryans, who were said to be under the financial hegemony of Jews. In the Soviet Union, the hegemonic group was the bourgeoisie, who allegedly held sway over an oppressed proletariat. In both countries, victims were permitted to exercise violent language and actions against oppressors.
In the United States today, white heterosexual able-bodied males constitute the hegemonic group. Everyone else is a member of a victim group.
In Germany and the Soviet Union, the abstract and imaginary group roles of oppressor and victim were given a frightful reality by ideologues. Race and class categories became the basis for discrimination and new legal systems that favored victims' groups with preferences.
On American campuses, multicultural ideology has revived the concepts of race and class oppression, and added new ones based on gender and sexual orientation. Men oppress women, and heterosexuals oppress homosexuals.
According to multiculturalists, our culture and values reflect nothing but the arbitrary domination of society by white heterosexual males. University of Pennsylvania professor Alan Kors says that, thanks to multiculturalism, 'half a century after the defeat of Nazism, we distinguish by blood and we equate blood with culture.' We now think like Nazis and explain our society and culture in terms of race (and gender) hegemony.
Tyrannical states attack the family. Both the Nazis and Communists are infamous for state intrusions in family affairs. In the United States, similar bureaucratic and political intrusions come from family courts. Most Americans are unaware of the existence of these relatively new 'courts.' Howard University professor Stephen Baskerville is the leading authority on these courts. He says family courts are 'the most dangerous institution posing a threat to constitutional rights in our society. The only parallels are the ideological-bureaucratic dictatorships of the last century.'
Family courts claim immunity from the Constitution and from scrutiny by federal courts. Baskerville describes them as follows:
'Their proceedings are secret and unrecorded. Their orders are enforced by bureaucratic police who do not wear uniforms and whose sole responsibility is to conduct surveillance over families and private lives. As such, these police are akin to secret police. By the very nature of their jurisdiction, these courts and police are the most intrusive and invasive arm of government, and yet they are accountable to virtually no one. Such an institution is intolerable in a free society.'
Recently a family court judge ordered the parents of a 7-year-old boy in Berne, N.Y., to put their child on Ritalin, a behavior-control drug. The alternative was to be found guilty of 'educational neglect,' an offense that would open the possibility of their child being seized by Child Protective Services - a Hillary Clinton 'village' institution straight from the pages of the Gestapo. The child suffered serious side effects from the drug, but parents no longer have the right to decide what is best for their children.
Tyrannical states assault the individual in the inner recesses of his consciousness. He is not permitted to think certain thoughts or to express a prohibited thought privately to anyone.
Recently, Janice Barton encountered a Spanish-speaking couple while leaving a restaurant in Manistee, Mich. She turned to her mother and said, 'I wish these (ethnic slur) would learn to speak English.' An off-duty deputy sheriff overheard the private remark, followed the woman to her car and noted her tag number. Janice Barton was sentenced to 45 days in jail for her thought crime.
This couldn't happen in a free country.
Dr. Roberts' latest book, 'The Tyranny of Good Intentions,' has just been released by Prima Publishers.
Paul Craig Roberts is the John M. Olin fellow at the Institute for Political Economy, research fellow at the Independent Institute and senior research fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University." (Source: NewsMax.com, Sept. 27, 2000)
Is It Liberalism or Marxism That's Destroying America?
My friends you need not be a rocket scientist to figure out what's wrong in our country today. It's not liberalism, it is Marxism. That long march, as the Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci advocated, has and is occurring right now here in America. Our country as it stands now can better be described as the United Socialist States of America.
Today television propaganda and social indoctrination are molding the way you think and act. Almost all the programming you view on television is socially engineered to shape your views on any given issue, politically correctness, would seem to be what the television industry is all about today. A massive propaganda tool for the "liberals." The very same holds true with Hollywood movie makers. All one needs to do is realize what's going on and then it's much easier to pick out these socialist engineered agendas. Pay close attention to the "victims" and the "oppressors," and see if Hollywood is pro-American or pro-Marxist.
If you read "Communist Goals In America," in the beginning of this report, you yourself can clearly see they have achieved their goals. You can use that list to measure the success of the Marxist movement here in "our" country. It's sad but true.
The recent election is a clear indicator of the division among the American people. The heartland of America voted in line with the American sprit, why the largely populated big city areas voted for the Marxist left. This is self- evident when one views the map of the states Geroge W. Bush took as opposed to those Al Gore took in the 2000 election.
Gore and Lieberman unmistakably exposed their Marxist idealism's in the tax cut issue. These two so-called liberals would pick and chose who would receive a tax cut and who would not. In communist terms, they call it "the haves and the have nots." This in itself is anti-American!
On November 6, 2000, WorldNetDaily.com ran a story "Communist Party USA supporting Gore." And yes the story is and was true. I checked the Web site of the Communist Party USA and they were indeed supporting Al Gore and Sen. Lieberman. Surprised? I'm not.
After reading this booklet you should have a much better understanding of not only what's happening, but why. You will undoubtedly agree there was certainly a conspiracy that took place in 1913. A betrayal of trust and treasonous actions against our country and our people.
The loss of state's rights, the right of the State Legislature to select their U.S. Senators to represent their state in Washington, D.C. The establishment of two major planks right out of the Communist Manifesto, a Central Bank (the Federal Reserve) and a Progressive Tax (Income Tax).
From 1913, we have reviewed the growth of the Marxist agenda. The same international bankers that own our Federal Reserve, financed the rise of communism in Europe. The formation of the ACLU and their communistic roots. Two other groups I have not mentioned early are the ADL and the NAACP, both brainchilds of none other than international banker Jacob Schiff.
One must remember when hearing the socialist/communist lies that Socialism/Communism has never been for the working people or for the downtrodden. Socialism/Communistism is nothing but a devious scheme, a plot to enslave the world, control coming from the top, the wealthiest of men, the international bankers.
The lust for such power is a mystery to most. It's a bewildering thought when one contemplates on the facts of the matter. A chilling thought when you think there are people that believe they know what's best for you. They know better than you what's better for your child. That they should control the way you think, talk and act; in essence it's total control that they desire.
The control these international bankers have today over the nations of the world is mind-boggling. The political and economic strangle-hold enables them to control governments. Yes my friends they are in control of our nation as well, as the CFR and its offspring hold control from the Executive Office on down, make no mistake about it. In every nation and in every case you can follow the money trail right back to the very same elite international banking families.
These, as I call them, intellectual fools who believe in this Marxist myth of some human utopia, fail to grasp human history. Although these intellectuals possess great knowledge they lack the wisdom to use it. In most all cases they seem to overlook or ignore the "human-nature" factor, a factor that hasn't changed much over the course of human history. Perhaps we should call it the battle of good and evil.
Just a short glance at history will prove that fact. Look back in time to the barbarians with their bloodthirsty attacks on others. Now compare them to the Marxist movement in the 20th century. Remember the "conservative" (body count of 100 million) estimates from the "Black Book of Communism." Looking in hindsight, wouldn't this red plague of Marxism with their bloodstained hands fall in the same class as those barbarians of ages ago?
The founding fathers of this nation not only had great knowledge of their day, they had the wisdom to use their knowledge. The understanding of human nature, the good and evil character of mankind. The founding fathers gave us a "limited" form of government, as boundaries were set for each branch of government with the understanding that in some men lurks the lust and greed for power over others.
Those boundaries set forth by those great men of our past have been infringed upon in our modern-day form of government. The Bill of Rights, those "creator endowed rights," are disappearing before our eyes with the continued attacks from the left. Politicians violate their oath of office and seem to ignore the very "law" they are ruled by, the law of the land, the Constitution of the United States.
Yes my friends this "New America" is far off course and much too far to the left. It's becoming apparent in this socialist, new America you are free . . . free to obey! Then again as history has so proven over the past century Marxism leads to the dictates of a brutal police state. Look at the nation's police today, running around in military uniforms. Look at the various SWAT teams across America, in what could be described as Darth Vader uniforms, with automatic weapons.
Most Americans no longer understand this nation was founded as a limited government with our people to be "self-governed."
"We have staked the whole future of America civilization, not on the power of government, but upon the capacity of each and every one of us to govern ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."
"The History of Liberty is a history of limitations of governmental power, not the increase of it. When we resist, therefore the concentration of power, we are resisting the powers of death, because concentration of power is what always precedes the destruction of human liberties."
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
Wake up America! What's happening in our country has nothing to do with liberalism and everything to do with Marxism! As a nation we are on a crash course with the "Red Plague" of the 20th century. As the mask of liberalism is removed, the terror, the horror, the death, the destruction, the nightmare of Marxism will show its ugly face here in these United States of America. The winds of war already rage across our nation as our people awaken and realize there's something very wrong in our country.
An armed man can protect his family, his property, his friends, but an unarmed man can only beg upon his knees for mercy from the red bastards who have no mercy. One can only ask a simple question, why do these Marxist bastards "FEAR" Americans with guns?
With an armed population these so-called liberals don't have a chance to overpower the American people. So when they take upon themselves to violate the "law of the land," drop 'em dead where they stand. In accordance with the Declaration of Independence, it's not only your "right" as an American, it's your "duty" as an American! God Bless America now and forever more!
Written by: Howard M. Lance
Chief Executive Editor Ivan Santana