|
|
EMERGENCY & WAR POWERS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
| Section |
|
Page |
| 1 |
Table of Contents |
1 |
| 2 |
National Emergency |
3 |
| |
1933 Congressman Beck on the doctrine of emergency |
3 |
| |
Since 9 Mar 33, US in State of Declared National Emergency |
4 |
| |
The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus |
4 |
| |
The 5th Amendment |
5 |
| |
The powers to suspend the Constitution |
5 |
| |
Congress makes the President a dictator (12 USC 95 (b)) |
5 |
| |
Roosevelt requests emergency declared to suspend the Constitution |
6 |
| |
The rule of necessity overrides the law |
6 |
| |
Trading with Enemy Act (excludes US Citizens) |
7 |
| |
Trading with Enemy Act (now includes US Citizens) |
7 |
| |
Contracts not valid between enemies |
9 |
| |
Law of prize |
9 |
| |
No intercourse can be conducted without a license |
9 |
| |
Ultimate ownership of all property is the state, not individuals |
10 |
| |
Seizure of property without just compensation |
10 |
| |
Federal Reserve declares national emergency |
12 |
| |
Roosevelt declares holiday by Executive Order to keep banks closed |
13 |
| |
The gold is taken out of the country |
13 |
| |
Everyone is ordered to turn in their gold |
14 |
| |
Federal Reserve Notes are issued |
15 |
| |
Dictatorship over finance in the US |
15 |
| |
Citizens are now collateral backing the Federal Reserve
Notes |
16 |
| |
Seizure of agricultural industry by means of license authority |
16 |
| |
Farm leasers ask Roosevelt to take control of agriculture industry |
17 |
| |
During emergency, Common Law & Constitution is abolished |
18 |
| |
Statutory Law and no personal standing in the courts |
19 |
| |
Abraham Lincoln was a Constitutional Dictator first 6 weeks |
19 |
| |
No President has been willing to suspend the proclamation |
21 |
| |
Tax is only for support of government |
21 |
| |
Supreme Court declares Act as Unconstitutional |
21 |
| |
Roosevelt stacks court and reverses Supreme Court decision |
21 |
| |
Roosevelt takes political jurisdiction away from the courts |
21 |
| |
The question of booty |
22 |
| |
Congress abolishes Common Law |
23 |
| |
American people declared public enemy |
23 |
| |
Gold fringe around the flag designates Admiralty Jurisdiction |
23 |
| |
Treason defined |
24 |
| |
Conclusion |
26 |
Emergency & War Powers Act
NATIONAL EMERGENCY: (as defined in Black's Law Dictionary) A state of
national crisis; a situation demanding immediate and extraordinary national or
federal action. Congress has made little or no distinction between a "state of
national emergency" and a "state of war". Brown v. Bernstein, D.C.Pa., 49
F.Supp. 728, 732.
This report begins with a series of documents which are representative
(Exhibits 1 through 7), of the documents contained in this Report. We will be
quoting from in many cases, reports, Senate and Congressional reports, hearings
before National Emergency Committees, Presidential Papers, Statutes at Large,
and the United States Code.
Exhibit 8 is taken from a book written by Swisher called Constitutional
Development. Let's read the first paragraph. It says:
"We may well wonder in view of the
precedents now established," said Charles E. Hughes, (Supreme Court Justice)
in 1920, "whether constitutional government as heretofore maintained in this
Republic could survive another great war even victoriously waged."
How could that happen? Surely, if we go out and fight a war and win it, we'd
have to end up stronger than the day we started, wouldn't we? Justice Hughes
goes on to say:
"The conflict known as the World War
had ended as far as military hostilities were concerned, but was not yet
officially terminated. Most of the war statutes were still in effect, many of
the emergency organizations were still in operation."
What is this man talking about when he speaks of "war statutes in effect and
emergency organizations still in operation"?
In 1933 (Exhibit 9), Congressman Beck, speaking from the Congressional
Record, states:
"I think of all the damnable heresies
that have ever been suggested in connection with the Constitution, the
doctrine of emergency is the worst. It means that when Congress declares an
emergency, there is no Constitution. This means its death. It is the very
doctrine that the German chancellor is invoking today in the dying hours of
the parliamentary body of the German republic, namely, that because of an
emergency, it should grant to the German chancellor absolute power to pass any
law, even though the law contradicts the Constitution of the German republic.
Chancellor Hitler is at least frank about it. We pay the Constitution lip
service, but the result is the same."
Congressman Beck is saying that, of all the damnable heresies that ever
existed, this doctrine of emergency has got to be the worst, because once
Congress declares an emergency, there is no Constitution. He goes on to say:
"But the Constitution of the United
States, as a restraining influence in keeping the federal government within
the carefully prescribed channels of power, is moribund, if not dead. We are
witnessing its death-agonies, for when this bill becomes a law, if unhappily
it becomes a law, there is no longer any workable Constitution to keep the
Congress within the limits of its Constitutional powers."
What bill is Congressman Beck talking about? In 1933, "the House passed the
Farm Bill by a vote of more than three to one." Again, we see the doctrine of
emergency. Once an emergency is declared, there is no Constitution. The cause
and effect of the doctrine of emergency is the subject of this Report. In 1973,
in Senate Report 93-549 (Exhibit 10), the first sentence reads:
"Since March the 9th, 1933, the United
States has been in a state of declared national
emergency."
Let's go back to Exhibit 9 just before this. What did that say? It says that
if a national emergency is declared, there is no Constitution. Now, let us
return to Exhibit 10. Since March the 9th of 1933, the United States has been,
in fact, in a state of declared national emergency.
Referring to the middle of this exhibit:
"This vast range of powers, taken
together, confer enough authority to rule the country without reference to
normal constitutional processes. Under the powers delegated by these statutes,
the President may: seize property; organize and control the means of
production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute
martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate
the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of
particular ways, control the lives of all American
citizens"
and this situation has continued uninterrupted since March the 9th of 1933.
In the introduction to Senate Report 93-549 (Exhibit 11):
"A majority of the people of the United
States have lived all their lives under emergency rule."
Remember, this report was produced in 1973. The introduction goes on to
say:
"For 40 years, freedoms and
governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying
degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national
emergency."
The introduction continues:
"And, in the United States, actions
taken by the government in times of great crisis have from, at least, the
Civil War, in important ways shaped the present phenomenon of a permanent
state of national emergency."
How many people were taught that in school? How could it possibly be that
something which could suspend our Constitution would not be taught in school?
Amazing, isn't it?
Where does this (Exhibit 12) come from? Is it possible that, in our
Constitution, there could be some section which could contemplate what these
previous documents are referring to? In Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution
of the United States of America, we find the following words:
"The privilege of the Writ of Habeas
Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion,
the public Safety may require it."
Habeas Corpus - the Great Writ of Liberty. This is the writ which guarantees
that the government cannot charge us and hold us with any crime, unless they
follow the procedure of due process of law. This writ also says, in effect, that
the privilege of due process of law cannot be suspended, and that the government
cannot not operate its arbitrary prerogative power against We the People. But we
see that the great Writ of Liberty can, in fact, under the Constitution, be
suspended when an invasion or a rebellion necessitates it.
In the 5th Amendment to the Constitution (Exhibit 13), it says:
"No person shall be held to answer for
a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment
of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in
the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public
danger..."
We reserved the charging power for ourselves, didn't we? We didn't give that
power to the government. And we also said that the government would be powerless
to charge one of the citizens or one of the peoples of the United States with a
crime unless We, the People, through our grand jury, orders it to do so through
an indictment or a presentment. And if We, the People, don't order it, the
government cannot do it. If it tried to do it, we would simply follow the Writ
of Habeas Corpus, and they would have to release us, wouldn't they? They could
not hold us.
But let us recall that, in Exhibit 13, it says:
"except in cases arising in the land or
naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in times of War or
public danger."
We can see here that the framers of the Constitution were already
contemplating times when there would be conditions under which it might be
necessary to suspend the guarantees of the Constitution.
Also from Senate Report 93-549 (Exhibit 14), and remember that our
congressmen wrote these reports and these documents and they're talking about
these emergency powers and they say:
"They are quite careful and restrictive
on the power, but the power to suspend is specifically contemplated by the
Constitution in the Writ of Habeas
Corpus."
Now, this is well known. This is not a concept that was not known to rulers
for many, many years. The concepts of constitutional dictatorship went clear
back to the Roman Republic. And there, it was determined that, in times of dire
emergencies, yes, the constitution and the rights of the people could be
suspended, temporarily, until the crisis, whatever its nature, could be
resolved.
But once it was done, the Constitution was to be returned to its peacetime
position of authority. In France, the situation under which the constitution
could be suspended is called the State of
Siege. In Great Britain, it's called the Defense of the Realm Acts. In
Germany, in which Hitler became a dictator, it was simply called Article 48. In
the United States, it is called the War Powers.
If that was, in fact, the case, and we are under a war emergency in this
country, then there should be evidence of that war emergency in the current law
that exists today. That means we should be able to go to the federal code known
as the USC or United States Code, and find that statute, that law, in existence.
And if we went to the library today and picked up a copy of 12 USC and went to
Section 95 (b) (Exhibit 15), we will find a law which states:
"The actions, regulations, rules,
licenses, orders and proclamations heretofore or hereafter taken, promulgated,
made, or issued by the President of the United States or the Secretary of the
Treasury since March the 4th, 1933, pursuant to the authority conferred by
Subsection (b) of Section 5 of the Act of October 6th, 1917, as amended [12
USCS Sec. 95a], are hereby approved and confirmed. (Mar. 9, 1933, c. 1, Title
I, Sec. 1, 48 Stat. 1.)".
Now, what does this mean? It means that everything the President or the
Secretary of the Treasury has done since March the 4th of 1933, or anything that
the President or the Secretary of the Treasury is hereafter going to do, is
automatically approved and confirmed. Referring back to Exhibit 10, let us
remember that, according to the Congressional Record of 1973, the United States
has been in a state of national emergency since 1933. Then we realize that 12
USC, Section 95 (b) is current law. This is the law that exists over this United
States this moment.
If that be the case, let us see if we can understand what is being said here.
As every action, rule or law put into effect by the President or the Secretary
of the Treasury since March the 4th of 1933 has or will be confirmed and
approved, let us determine the significance of that date in history. What
happened on March the 4th of 1933?
On March the 4th of 1933, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was inaugurated as
President of the United States. Referring to his inaugural address, which was
given at a time when the country was in the throes of the Great Depression, we
read (Exhibit 16):
"I am prepared under my constitutional
duty to recommend the measures that a stricken nation in the midst of a
stricken world may require. These measures, or such other measures as the
Congress may build out of its experience and wisdom, I shall seek, within my
constitutional authority, to bring to speedy adoption. But in the event that
the Congress shall fall to take one of these two courses, and in the event
that the national emergency is still critical, I shall not evade the clear
course of duty that will then confront me. I shall ask the Congress for the
one remaining instrument to meet the crisis broad Executive power to wage a
war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given to me if
we were in fact invaded by a foreign
foe."
On March the 4th, 1933, at his inaugural, President Roosevelt was saying that
he was going to ask Congress for the extraordinary authority available to him
under the War Powers Act. Let's see if he got it.
On March the 5th, President Roosevelt asked for a special and extraordinary
session of Congress in Proclamation 2038.
He called for the special session of Congress to meet on March the 9th at
noon. And at that Congress, he presented a bill, an Act, to provide for relief
in the existing national emergency in banking and for other purposes.
In the enabling portion of that Act (Exhibit 17), it states:
"Be it enacted by the Senate and the
House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress
assembled, That the Congress hereby declares that a serious emergency exists
and that it is imperatively necessary speedily to put into effect remedies of
uniform national application."
What is the concept of the rule of necessity, referred to in the enabling
portion of the act as "imperatively necessary speedily"? The rule of necessity
is a rule of law which states that necessity knows no law. A good example of the
rule of necessity would be the concept of self-defense. The law says, "Thou
shalt not kill". But also know that, if you are in dire danger, in danger of
losing your life, then you have the absolute right of self-defense. You have the
right to kill to protect your own life. That is the ultimate rule of
necessity.
Thus we see that the rule of necessity overrides all other law, and, in fact,
allows one to do that which would normally be against the law. So it is
reasonable to assume that the wording of the enabling portion of the Act of
March 9, 1933, is an indication that what follows is something which will
probably be against the law. It will probably be against the Constitution of the
United States, or it would not require that the rule of necessity be invoked to
enact it.
In the Act of March 9, 1933 (Exhibit 17), it further states in Title 1,
Section 1:
"The actions, regulations, rules,
licenses, orders and proclamations heretofore or hereafter taken, promulgated,
made, or issued by the President of the United States or the Secretary of the
Treasury since March the 4th, 1933, pursuant to the authority conferred by
subdivision (b) of Section 5 of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended, are
hereby approved and confirmed."
Where have we read those words before? This is the exact same wording as is
found (Exhibit 15) today in Title 12, USC 95B.The language in Title 12, USC 95
(b) is exactly the same as that found in the Act of March 9, 1933, Chapter 1,
Title 1, Section 48, Statute 1. The Act of March 9, 1933, is still in full force
and effect today. We are still under the Rule of Necessity. We are still in a
declared state of national emergency, a state of emergency which has existed,
uninterrupted, since 1933, or for over sixty years.
As you may remember, the authority to do this is conferred by Subsection (b)
of Section 5 of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended. What was the authority
which was used to declare and enact the emergency in this Act? If we look at the
Act of October 6, 1917 (Exhibit 18), we see that at the top right-hand part of
the page, it states that this was:
"An Act To define, regulate, and punish
trading with the enemy, and for other
purposes."
By the year 1917, the United States was involved in World War 1; at that
point, it was recognized that there were probably enemies of the United States,
or allies of enemies of the United States, living within the continental borders
of our nation in a time of war.
Therefore, Congress passed this act which identified who could be declared
enemies of the United States, and, in this act, we gave the government total
authority over those enemies to do with as it saw fit. We also see, however, in
Section 2, Subdivision (c) in the middle, and again at the bottom of the
page:
"other than citizens of the United
States."
The act specifically excluded citizens of the United States, because we
realized in 1917 that the citizens of the United States were not enemies. Thus,
we were excluded from the war powers over enemies in this act.
Section 5 (b) of the same act (Exhibit 19), states:
"That the President may investigate,
regulate, or prohibit, under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe,
by means of licenses or otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange,
export or ear markings of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency,
transfers of credit in any form (other than credits relating solely to
transactions to be executed wholly within the United States)".
Again, we see here that citizens, and the transactions of citizens made
wholly within the United States, were specifically excluded from the war powers
of this act. "We the People", were not enemies of our country; therefore, the
government did not have total authority over us as they were given over our
enemies.
It is important to draw attention again to the fact that citizens of the
United States in October, 1917, were not called enemies. Consequently the
government, under the war powers of this act, did not have authority over us; we
were still protected by the Constitution. Granted, over enemies of this nation,
the government was empowered to do anything it deemed necessary, but not over
us. The distinction made between enemies of the United States and citizens of
the United States will become crucial later on.
In Section 2 of the Act of March 9, 1933 (Exhibit 17),
"Subdivision (b) of Section 5 of the
Act of October 6, 1917 (40 Stat. L. 411), as amended, is hereby amended to
read as follows;"
So we see that they are now going to amend Section 5 (b). Now let's see how
it reads after it's amended. The amended version of Section 5 (b) reads
(emphasis added):
"During time of war or during any other
period of national emergency declared by the President, the President may,
through any agency that be may designate, or otherwise, investigate, regulate,
or prohibit, under such rules and regulations as be may prescribe, by means of
licenses or otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange, transfers of
credit between or payments by banking institutions as defined by the President
and export, hoarding, melting, or ear markings of gold or silver coin or
bullion or currency, by any person within the United States or anyplace
subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
What just happened? At as far as commercial, monetary or business
transactions were concerned, the people of the United States were no longer
differentiated from any other enemy of the United States. We had lost that
crucial distinction. Comparing Exhibit 17 with Exhibit 19, we can see that the
phrase which excluded transactions executed wholly within the United States has
been removed from the amended version of Section 5 (b) of the Act of March 9,
1933, Section 2, and replaced with "by any person within the United States or
anyplace subject to the jurisdiction thereof'. All monetary transactions,
whether domestic or international in scope, were now placed at the whim of the
President of the United States through the authority given to him by the Trading
with the Enemy Act.
To summarize this critical point: On October the 6th of 1917, at the
beginning of America's involvement in World War 1, Congress passed a Trading
with the Enemy Act empowering the government to take control over any and all
commercial, monetary or business transactions conducted by enemies or allies of
enemies within our continental borders. That act also defined the term "enemy"
and excluded from that definition citizens of the United States.
In Section 5 (b) of this act, we see that the President was given unlimited
authority to control the commercial transactions of defined enemies, but we see
that credits relating solely to transactions executed wholly within the United
States were excluded from that controlling authority. As transactions wholly
domestic in nature were excluded from authority, the government had no
extraordinary control over the daily business conducted by the citizens of the
United States, because we were certainly not enemies.
Citizens of the United States were not enemies of their country in 1917, and
the transactions conducted by citizens within this country were not considered
to be enemy transactions. But in looking again at Section 2 of the Act of March
9, 1933, (Exhibit 17), we can see that the phrase excluding wholly domestic
transactions has been removed from the amended version and replaced with "by any
person within the United States or anyplace subject to the jurisdiction
thereof'.
The people of the United States were now subject to the power of the Trading
with the Enemy Act of October 6,1917, as amended. For the purposes of all
commercial, monetary, and, in effect, all business transactions. "We the
People", became the same as the enemy, and were treated no differently. There
was no longer any distinction.
It is important here to note that, in the Acts of October 6, 1917 and March
9, 1933, it states: "during times of war or during any other national emergency
declared by the President...". So we now see that the war powers not only
included a period of war, but also a period of "national emergency" as defined
by the President of the United States. When either of these two situations
occur, the President may, (Exhibit 17)
"through any agency that he may
designate, or otherwise, investigate, regulate or prohibit under such rules
and regulations as he may prescribe by means of licenses or otherwise, any
transactions in foreign exchange, transfers of credit between or payments by
banking institutions as defined by the President and export, boarding, melting
or earmarking of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency by any person
within the United States or anyplace subject to the jurisdiction
thereof."
What can the President do now to the We, the People, under this Section? He
can do anything he wants to do. It's purely at his discretion, and he can use
any agency or any license that he desires to control it. This is called a
constitutional dictatorship.
In Senate Document 93-549 (Exhibit 20), Congress declared that a serious
emergency exists, at:
"48 Stat. 1. The exclusion of domestic
transactions, formerly found in the Act, was deleted from Sect. 5 (b) at this
time."
Our Congress wrote that in the year 1973. Now let's find out about the
Trading with the Enemy Act of October 6, 1917. Quoting from a Supreme Court
decision (Exhibit 21), Stoehr v. Wallace, 1921:
"The Trading With the Enemy Act,
originally and as amended, is strictly a war measure, and finds its sanction
in the provision empowering Congress "to declare war, grant letters of marque
and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water" Const.
Art. 1, Sect. 8, c1. 11. P.241".
Remember your Constitution? "Congress shall have the power to declare war,
grant letters of marque and reprisal and make all rules concerning the captures
on the land and the water of the enemies," all rules.
If that be the case, let us look at the memorandum of law that now covers
trading with the enemy, the "Memorandum of American Cases and Recent English
Cases on The Law of Trading With the Enemy" (Exhibit 22), remembering that we
are now the same as the enemy. In this memorandum, we read:
"Every species of intercourse with the
enemy is illegal. This prohibition is not limited to mere commercial
intercourse."
This is the case of The Rapid (1814). Additionally,
"No contract is considered as valid
between enemies, at least so far as to give them a remedy in the courts of
either government, and they have, in the language of the civil law, no ability
to sustain a persona standi in judicio".
In other words, they have no personal lights at law in court. This is the
case of The Julia (1813).
In the next case, the case of The Sally (1814) (Exhibit 23), we read the
words:
"By the general law of prize, property
engaged in an illegal intercourse with the enemy is deemed enemy property. It
is of no consequence whether it belong to an ally or to a citizen; the illegal
traffic stamps it with the hostile character, and attaches to it all the penal
consequences of enemy ownership".
Reading further in the memorandum, again from the case of The Rapid:
"The law of prize is part of the law of
nations. In it, a hostile character is attached to trade, independently of the
character of the trader who pursues or directs it. Condemnation to the use of
the captor is equally the fate of the property of the belligerent and of the
property found engaged in anti-neutral trade. But a citizen or an ally may be
engaged in a hostile trade, and thereby involve his property in the fate of
those in whose cause he embarks".
Again from the memorandum (Exhibit 24):
"The produce of the soil of the hostile
territory, as well as other property engaged in the commerce of the hostile
power, as the source of its wealth and strength, are always regarded as
legitimate prize, without regard to the domicile of the
owner".
From the case (Exhibit 25) of The William Bagaley (1866):
"In general, during war, contracts
with, or powers of attorney or agency from, the enemy executed after outbreak
of war are illegal and void; contracts entered into with the enemy prior to
the war are either suspended or are absolutely terminated; partnerships with
an enemy are dissolved; powers of attorney from the enemy, with certain
exceptions, lapse; payments to the enemy (except to agents in the United
States appointed prior to the war and confirmed since the war) are illegal and
void; all rights of an enemy to sue in the courts are suspended."
From Senate Report No. 113 (Exhibit 26), in which we find An Act to Define,
Regulate, and Punish Trading with the Enemy, and For Other Purposes, we
read:
"The trade or commerce regulated or
prohibited is defined in Subsections (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e), page 4. This
trade covers almost every imaginable transaction, and is forbidden and made
unlawful except when allowed under the form of licenses issued by the
Secretary of Commerce (p. 4, sec. 3, line 18). This authorization of trading
under licenses constitutes the principal modification of the rule of
international law forbidding trade between the citizens of belligerents, for
the power to grant such licenses, and therefore exemption from the operation
of law, is given by the bill."
It says no trade can be conducted or no intercourse can be conducted without
a license, because, by mere definition of the enemy, and under the prize law,
all intercourse is illegal.
That was the first case we looked at, Exhibit 22, wasn't it? So once we were
declared enemies, all intercourse became illegal for us. The only way we could
now do business or any type of legal intercourse was to obtain permission from
our government by means of a license. We are certainly required to have a Social
Security Card, which is a license to work, and a Drivers License, which gives
the government the ability to restrict travel; all business in which we engage
ourselves requires us to have a license, does it not?
Returning once again to the Memorandum of Law: (Exhibit 27)
"But it is necessary always to bear in
mind that a war cannot be carried on without hurting somebody, even, at times,
our own citizens. The public good, however, must prevail over private gain. As
we said in Bishop v. Jones (28 Texas, 294), there cannot be "a war for arms
and a peace for commerce". One of the most important features of the bill is
that which provides for the temporary taking over of the enemy property."
This point of law is important to keep in mind, for it authorizes the
temporary takeover of enemy property. The question is: Once the war terminates,
the property must be returned, mustn't it?
The property that is confiscated, and the belligerent night of the government
during the period of war, must be returned when the war terminates. Let us take
the case of a ship in harbor; war breaks out, and the Admiral says, "I'm
seizing your ship." Can you stop him? No. But when the war is over, the
Admiral must return your ship to you. This point is important to bear in mind,
for we will return to, and expand upon, it later in the report.
Reading from (Exhibit 28) Senate Document No. 43, "Contracts Payable in Gold"
written in 1933:
"The ultimate ownership of all property
is in the State; individual so-called "ownership" is only by virtue of
government, i. e., law, amounting to mere user; and use must be in accordance
with law and subordinate to the necessities of the
State."
Who owns all the property? Who owns the property you call "yours"? Who has
the authority to mortgage property? Let us continue with a Supreme Court
decision, (Exhibit 29) United States v. Russell:
"Private property, the Constitution
provides, shall not be taken for public use without just
compensation..."
That is the peacetime clause, isn't it? Further (emphasis added),
"Extraordinary and unforeseen occasions
arise, however, beyond all doubt, in cases of extreme necessity in time of war
or of immediate and impending public danger, in which private property may be
impressed into the public service, or may be seized or appropriated to public
use, or may even be destroyed without the consent of the
owner..."
This quote, and indeed this case, provides a vivid frustration of the
potential power of the government.
Now, let us return to the period of time after March 4, 1933, and take a
close look at what really occurred. On March 4, 1933, in his inaugural address,
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt asked for the authority of the war powers,
and called a special session of Congress for the purpose of having those powers
conferred to him.
On March the 2nd, 1933, however, we find that Herbert Hoover had written a
letter to the Federal Reserve Board of New York, asking them for recommendations
for action based on the over-all situation at the time. The Federal Reserve
Board responded with a resolution (Exhibit 30) which they had adopted, an
excerpt from which follows:
"Resolution Adopted By The Federal
Reserve Board Of New York. Whereas, in the opinion of the Board of Directors
of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the continued and increasing
withdrawal of currency and gold from the banks of the country has now created
a national emergency ..."
In order to fully appreciate the significance of this last quote, we must
recall that, in 1913, The Federal Reserve Act was passed, authorizing the
creation of a central bank, the thought of which had already been noted in the
Constitution. The basic idea of the central bank was, among other things, for it
to act as a secure repository for the gold of the people. We, the People, would
bring our gold to the huge, strong vaults of the Federal Reserve, and we would
be issued a note which said, in effect, that, at any time we desired, we could
bring that note back to the bank and be given back our gold which we had
deposited.
Until 1933, that agreement, that contract between the Federal Reserve and its
depositors, was honored. Federal Reserve notes, prior to 1933, were indeed
redeemable in gold. After 1933, the situation changed drastically. In 1933,
during the depths of the Depression, at the time when We, the People, were
struggling to stay alive and keep our families fed, the bankers began to say:
"People are coming in now, wanting their gold, wanting us to honor this contract
we have made with them to give them their gold on demand, and this contractual
obligation is creating a national emergency."
How could that happen? Reading from the Public Papers of Herbert Hoover
(Exhibit 31):
"Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, that,
in this emergency, the Federal Reserve Board is hereby requested to urge the
President of the United States to declare a bank holiday, Saturday, March 4,
and Monday, March 6.
In other words, President Roosevelt was urged to close down the banking
system and make it unavailable make it unavailable for a short period of time.
What was to happen during that period of time?
Reading again from the Federal Reserve Board resolution (Exhibit 31), we find
a proposal for an executive order, to be worded as follows:
"Whereas, it is provided in Section 5
(b) of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended, that "the President may
investigate, regulate, or prohibit, under such rules and regulations as he may
prescribe, by means of licenses or otherwise, any transactions in foreign
exchange and the export, hoarding, melting, or ear markings of gold or silver
coin or bullion or currency, *** "
Now, in any normal usage of the American language, the standard accepted
meaning of a series of three asterisks after a quotation means that what follows
also must be quoted exactly, doesn't it? If it's not, that's a fraudulent use of
the American language. At that point where that, *** " began, what did the
original Act of October 6, 1917, say?
Referring back to Exhibit 19, we find that the remainder of Section 5 (b) of
the Act of October 6, 1917 says:
"(other than credits relating solely to
transactions to be executed wholly within the United States)."
This portion of Section 5 (b) specifically prohibited the government from
taking control of We, the People's money and transactions, didn't it?
However, let us now read the remainder of Section 5 (b) of the Act of October
6, 1917, as amended on March 9, 1933 (Exhibit 17):
"by any person within the United States
or any place subject to the Jurisdiction
thereof."
Comparing the original with the amended version of Section 5 (b), we can see
the full significance of the amended version, wherein the exclusion of domestic
transactions from the powers of the Act was deleted, and "any person" became
subject to the extraordinary powers conferred by the act. Further, we can now
see that the usage of *** " was, in all to likelihood, meant be deliberately
misleading, if not fraudulent in nature.
Further, in the next section of the Federal Reserve Board's proposal, we find
that anyone violating any provision of this act will be fined not more than
$10,000.00, or imprisoned for not more than ten years, or both. A severe enough
penalty at any time, but one made all the more harsh by the economic conditions
in which most Americans found themselves at the time. And where were these
alterations and amendments to be found? Not from the government itself,
initially; no, they are first to be found in a proposal from the Federal Reserve
Board of New York, a banking institution.
Let us recall the chronology of events: Herbert Hoover, in his last days as
President of the United States, asked for a recommendation from the Federal
Reserve Board of New York, and they responded with their proposals. We see that
President Hoover did not act on the recommendation, and believed the actions
were "neither justified nor necessary" (Appendix, Public Papers of Herbert
Hoover, p. 1088) . Let us see what happened; remember on March 4, 1933, Franklin
Delano Roosevelt was inaugurated as President of the United States. On March 5,
1933, President Roosevelt called for an extraordinary session of Congress to be
held on March 9,1933, as can be seen in Exhibit 32:
"Whereas, public interests require that
the Congress of the United States should be convened in extra session at
twelve o'clock, noon, on the Ninth day of March, 1933, to receive such
communication as may be made by the Executive."
On the next day, March 6, 1933, President Roosevelt issued Proclamation 2039,
which has been included in this report, starting at the bottom of Exhibit 32. In
Exhibit 32, we find the following:
"Whereas there have been heavy and
unwarranted withdrawals of gold and currency from our banking institutions for
the purpose of hoarding"
Right at the beginning, we have a problem. And the problem rests in the
question of who should be the judge of whether or not my gold, on deposit at the
Federal Reserve, with which I have a contract which says, in effect, that I may
withdraw my gold at my discretion, is being withdrawn by me in an "unwarranted"
manner.
Remember, the people of the United States were in dire economic straits at
this point. If I had gold at the Federal Reserve, I would consider withdrawing
as much of my gold as I needed for my family and myself a "warranted" action.
But the decision was not left up to We, the People.
It is also important to note that it is stated that the gold is being
withdrawn for the purpose of "hoarding". The significance of this phrase becomes
clearer when we reach Proclamation 2039, wherein the term "hoarding" is inserted
into the amended version of Section 5(b). The term, "hoarding", was not to be
found in the original version of Section 5(b) of the Act of October 6, 1917. It
was a term which was used by President Roosevelt to help support his contention
that the United States was in the middle of a national emergency, and his
assertion that the extraordinary powers conferred to him by the War Powers Act
were needed to deal with that emergency.
Let us now go on to the middle of Proclamation 2039, at the top of the next
page, Exhibit 33. In reading from Exhibit 33, we find the following:
"Whereas, it is provided in Section 5
(b) of the Act of October 6, 1917, (40 Stat. L. 411) as amended, " that the
President may investigate, regulate, or prohibit, under such rules and
regulations as he may prescribe, by means of licenses or otherwise, any
transaction in foreign exchange and the export, hoarding, melting, or
earmarkings of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency * * *
"
exactly as was first proposed by the Federal Reserve Board of New York
(Exhibit 31).
If we return to 48 Statute 1 (Exhibit 17), Title 1, Section 1, we find that
the amended Section 5 (b) with its added phrase:
"by any person within the United States
or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
Is this becoming clearer as to exactly what happened? On March 5, 1933,
President Roosevelt called for an extra session of Congress, and on March 6,
1933, issued Proclamation 2039 (Exhibits 32-33). On March 9th, Roosevelt issued
Proclamation 2040. We looked at Proclamation 2039 on Exhibits 32 and 33, and
now, on Exhibit 33 (a), let's see what Roosevelt is hiking about in Proclamation
2040:
"Whereas, on March 6, 1933, I, Franklin
D. Roosevelt, President of the United States of America, by Proclamation
declared the existence of a national emergency and proclaimed a bank
holiday... "
We see that Roosevelt declared a national emergency and a bank holiday. Let's
read on:
"Whereas, under the Act of March 9,
1933, all Proclamations heretofore or hereafter issued by the President
pursuant to the authority conferred by section 5 (b) of the Act of October 6,
1917, as amended, are approved and confirmed;"
This section of the Proclamation clearly states that all proclamations
heretofore or hereafter issued by the President are approved and confirmed,
citing the authority of Section 5 (b). The key words here being "all"
and "approved". Further:
"Whereas, said national emergency still
continues, and it is necessary to take further measures extending beyond March
9, 1933, in order to accomplish such
purposes"
We again clearly see that there is more to come, evidenced by the phrase,
"further measures extending beyond March 9, 1933 ...". Could this be the
beginning of a new deal? Possibly a one-sided deal. How long can this type of
action continue? Let's find out.
"Now, therefore, I, Franklin D.
Roosevelt, President of the United States of America, in view of such
continuing national emergency and by virtue of the authority vested in me by
Section 5 (b) of the Act of October 6, 1917 (40 Stat. L. 411) as amended by
the Act of March 9, 1933, do hereby proclaim, order, direct and declare that
all the terms and provisions of said Proclamation of March 6, 1933, and the
regulations and orders issued thereunder are hereby continued in full force
and effect until further proclamation by the President."
We now understand that the Proclamation 2039, of March 6, 1933 and
Proclamation 2040 of March 9, 1933, will continue until such time as another
proclamation is made by "the President". Note that the term "the President" is
not specific to President Roosevelt; it is a generic term which can equally
apply to any President from Roosevelt to the present, and beyond.
So here we have President Roosevelt declaring a national emergency (we are
now beginning to realize the full significance of those words) and closing the
national banks for two days, by Executive Order. Further, he states that the
Proclamations bringing about these actions will continue "in full force and
effect" until such time as the President, and only the President, changes
the situation.
It is important to note the fact that these Proclamations were made on March
6, 1933, three days before Congress was due to convene its extra session. Yet
references are made to such things as the amended Section 5 (b), which had not
yet even been confirmed by Congress. President Roosevelt must have been
supremely confident of Congress' confirmation of his actions. And indeed, we
find that confidence was justified. For on March 9, 1933, without individual
Congressmen even having the opportunity to read for themselves the bill they
were to confirm, Congress did indeed approve the amendment of Section 5 (b) of
the Act of October 6, 1917.
Referring to the Public Papers of Herbert Hoover (Exhibit 34):
"That those speculators and insiders
were right was plain enough later on. This first contract of the
'moneychangers' with the New Deal netted those who removed their money from
the country a profit of up to 60 percent when the dollar was
debased."
Where had our gold gone? Our gold had already been moved offshore. The gold
was not in the banks, and when We, the People lined up at the door attempting to
have our contracts honored, the deception was exposed. What happened then? The
laws were changed to prevent us from asking again, and the military was brought
in to protect the Federal Reserve. We, the People, were declared to be, the same
as public enemy and placed under military authority.
Going now to another section of 48 Statute 1 (Exhibit 35):
"Whenever in the judgment of the
Secretary of the Treasury, such action is necessary to protect the currency
system of the United States, the Secretary of the Treasury, in his discretion,
may require any or all individuals, partnerships, associations and
corporations to pay and deliver to the Treasurer of the United States any or
all gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates owned by such individuals,
partnerships, associations and corporations."
By this Statute, everyone was required to turn in their gold. Failure to do
so would constitute a violation of this provision, such violation to be
punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000.00 and imprisonment for not more
than ten years. It was a seizure. Whose property may be seized without due
process of law under the Trading With the Enemy Act? The enemy's. Whose gold was
seized? Ours - the gold of the people of the United States.
From the Roosevelt Papers (Exhibit 36):
"During this banking holiday it was at
first believed that some form of scrip or emergency currency would be
necessary for the conduct of ordinary business. We knew that it would be
essential when the banks reopened to have an adequate supply of currency to
meet all possible demands of depositors. Consideration was given by government
officials and various government officials and various local agencies to the
advisability of issuing clearinghouse certificates or some similar form of
local emergency currency. On March 7, 1933, the Secretary of the Treasury
issued a regulation authorizing clearing houses to issue demand certificates
against sound assets of the banking institutions, but this authority was not
to become effective until March 10th. In many cities, the printing of these
certificates was actually begun, but after the passage of the Emergency
Banking Relief Act of March 9, 1933 (48 Stat. 1), it became evident that they
would not be needed, because the Act made possible the issue of the necessary
amount of emergency currency in the form of Federal Reserve banknotes which
could be based on any sound assets owned by banks."
Roosevelt could now issue emergency currency under the Act of March 9, 1933
and this currency was to be called Federal Reserve bank notes. From Title 4 of
the Act of March 9, 1933 (Exhibit 37):
"Upon the deposit with the Treasurer of
the United States, (a) of any direct obligations of the United States or (b)
of any notes, drafts, bills of exchange, or bankers' acceptances acquired
under the provisions of this act, any Federal reserve bank making such deposit
in the manner prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury shall be entitled to
receive from the Comptroller of the currency circulating notes in blank, duly
registered and countersigned."
What is this saying? It says (emphasis added): "Upon the deposit with the
Treasurer of the United States, (a) of any direct obligation of the United
States ..." What is a direct obligation of the United States? It's a treasury
note, which is an obligation upon whom? Upon "We the People" to perform. It's a
taxpayer obligation, isn't it?
Title 4 goes on: "or (b) of my notes, drafts, bills of exchange or bankers'
acceptances..." What's a note? If you go to the bank and sign a note on your
home, that's a note, isn't it? A note is a private obligation upon We, the
People. And if the Federal Reserve Bank deposits either (a) public and/or (b)
private obligation of We, the People, with the Treasury, the Comptroller of the
currency will issue this circulating note endorsed in blank, duly registered and
countersigned, an emergency currency based on the (a) public and/or (b) private
obligations of the people of the United States.
In the Congressional Record of March 9, 1933 (Exhibit 38), we find evidence
that our congressmen didn't even have individual copies of the bill to read, on
which they were about to vote. A copy of the bill was passed around for
approximately 40 minutes.
Congressman McFadden made the comment,
"Mr. Speaker, I regret that the
membership of the House has had no opportunity to consider or even read this
bill. The first opportunity I had to know what this legislation is, was when
it was read from the clerk's desk. It is an important banking bill. It is a
dictatorship over finance in the United States. It is complete control over
the banking system in the United States ... It is difficult under the
circumstances to discuss this bill. The first section of the bill, as I
grasped it, is practically the war powers that were given back in 1917."
Congressman McFadden later says,
"I would like to ask the chairman of
the committee if this is a plan to change the holding of the security back of
the Federal Reserve notes to the Treasury of the United States rather than the
Federal Reserve agent."
Keep in mind, here, that, prior to 1933, the Federal Reserve bank held our
gold as security, in return for Federal Reserve gold notes which we could redeem
at any time we wanted. Now, however, Congressman McFadden is asking if this
proposed bill is a plan to change who's going to hold the security, from the
Federal Reserve to the Treasury.
Chairman Steagall's response to Congressman McFadden's question, again from
the Congressional Record:
"This provision is for the issuance of
Federal Reserve bank notes; and not for Federal Reserve notes; and the
security back of it is the obligations, notes, drafts, bills of exchange, bank
acceptances, outlined in the section to which the gentleman has
referred."
We were backed by gold, and our gold was seized, wasn't it? We were
penniless, and now our money would be secured, not by gold, but by notes and
obligations on which We, the People, were the collateral security.
Congressman McFadden then questioned,
"Then the new circulation is to be
Federal Reserve bank notes and not Federal Reserve notes. Is that
true?"
Mr. Steagall replied,
"Insofar as the provisions of this
section are concerned, yes."
Does that sound familiar? Next we hear from Congressman Britten, as noted in
the Congressional Record (Exhibit 39):
"From my observations of the bill as it
was read to the House, it would appear that the amount of bank notes that
might be issued by the Federal Reserve System is not limited. That will depend
entirely upon the amount of collateral that is presented from time to time for
exchange for bank notes. Is that not correct?"
Who is the collateral? We are chattel, aren't we? We have no rights. Our
rights were suspended along with the Constitution. We became chattel property to
the corporate government, our transactions and obligations the collateral for
the issuance of Federal Reserve bank notes.
Congressman Patman, speaking from the Congressional Record (Exhibit 40):
"The money will be worth l00 cents on
the dollar because it is backed by the credit of the Nation. It will represent
a mortgage on all the homes and other property of all the people in the
Nation."
It now is no wonder that credit became so available after the Depression. It
was needed to back our monetary system. Our debts, our obligations, our homes,
our jobs... we were now slaves for the system.
From Statutes at Large, in the Congressional Record (Exhibit 41):
"When required to do so by the
Secretary of the Treasury, each Federal Reserve agent shall act as agent of
the Treasurer of the United States or of the Comptroller of the currency, or
both, for the performance of any functions which the Treasurer or the
Comptroller may be called upon to perform in carrying out the provisions of
this paragraph."
The Federal Reserve was taken over by the Treasury. The Treasury holds the
assets. We are the collateral... ourselves and our property.
To summarize briefly: On March 9, 1933 the American people in all their
domestic, daily, and commercial transactions became the same as the enemy. The
President of the United States, through licenses or any other form, was given
the power to regulate and control the actions of enemies. He made We, the
People, chattel property; he seized our gold, our property and our rights; and
he suspended the Constitution. And we know that current law, to this day, says
that all proclamations issued heretofore or hereafter by the President or the
Secretary of the Treasury are approved and confirmed by Congress. Pretty broad,
sweeping approval to be automatic, wouldn't you agree?
On March 11, 1933, President Roosevelt, in his first radio "Fireside Chat"
(Exhibit 42), makes the following statement:
"The Secretary of the Treasury will
issue licenses to banks which are members of the Federal Reserve system,
whether national bank or state, located in each of the 12 Federal Reserve bank
cities, to open Monday morning."
It was by this action that the Treasury took over the banking system.
Black's Law Dictionary defines the Bank Holiday of 1933 (Exhibit 42a) in the
following words:
"Presidential Proclamations No. 2039,
issued March 6, 1933, and No. 2040, issued March 9, 1933, temporarily
suspended banking transactions by member banks of the Federal Reserve System.
Normal banking functions were resumed on March 13, subject to certain
restrictions. The first proclamation, it was held, had no authority in law
until the passage on March 9, 1933, of a ratifying act (12 U.S.C.A. Sect.95b).
Anthony v. Bank of Wiggins, 183 Miss. 883, 184 So. 626. The present law
forbids member banks of the Federal Reserve System to transact banking
business, except under regulations of the Secretary of the Treasury, during an
emergency proclaimed by the President 12 USCA Sect 95."
Take special note of the last sentence of this definition, especially the
phrase, "present law". The fact that banks are under regulation of the
Treasury today, is evidence that the state of emergency still exists, by virtue
of the definition. Not that, at this point, we need any more evidence to prove
we are still in a declared state of national emergency.
From the Agricultural Adjustment Act of May 12, 1933 (Exhibit 43):
"To issue licenses permitting
processors, associations of producers and others to engage in the handling, in
the current of interstate or foreign commerce, of any agricultural commodity
or product thereof."
This is the seizure of the agricultural industry by means of licensing
authority.
In the first hundred days of the reign of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, similar
seizures by licensing authority were successfully completed by the government
over a plethora of other industries, among them transportation, communications,
public utilities, securities, oil, labor, and all natural resources. The first
hundred days of FDR saw the nationalization of the United States, its people and
its assets. What has Bill Clinton talked about during his campaign and early
presidency? His first hundred days.
Now, we know that they took over all contracts, for we have already read in
Exhibit 22:
"No contract is considered as valid as
between enemies, at least so far as to give them a remedy in the courts of law
of either government, and they have, in the language of civil law, no ability
to sustain a persona standi in judicio."
They have no personal nights at law. Therefore, we should expect that we
would see in the statutes a time when the contract between the, Federal Reserve
and We, the People, in which the Federal Reserve had to give us our gold on
demand, was made null and void.
Referring to House Joint Resolution 192 (June 5, 1933) (Exhibit 44):
"That (a) every provision contained in
or made with respect to any obligation which purports to give the obligee a
right to require payment in gold or a particular- kind of coin or currency, or
in an amount of money of the United States measured thereby is declared to be
against public policy; and no such policy shall be contained in or made with
respect to any obligation hereafter incurred."
Indeed, our contract with the Federal Reserve was invalidated at the end of
Roosevelt's hundred days. We lost our night to require our gold back from the
bank in which we had deposited it.
Returning once again to the Roosevelt Papers (Exhibit 45):
"This conference of fifty farm leaders
met on March 10, 1933. They agreed on recommendations for a bill, which were
presented to me at the White House on March 11th by a committee of the
conference, who requested me to call upon the Congress for the same broad
powers to meet the emergency in agriculture as I had requested for solving the
bank crisis."
What was the "broad powers"? That was the War Powers, wasn't it? And now we
see the farm leaders asking President Roosevelt to use the same War Powers to
take control of the agricultural industry. Well, needless to say, he did. We
should wonder about all that took place at this conference, for it to result in
the eventual acquiescence of farm leadership to the governmental takeover of
their livelihoods.
Reading from the Agricultural Adjustment Act, May the 12th, Declaration of
Emergency (Exhibit 46):
"That the present acute economic
emergency being in part the consequence of a severe and increasing disparity
between the prices of agriculture and other commodities, which disparity bas
largely destroyed the purchasing power of farmers for industrial products, has
broken down the orderly exchange of commodities, and has seriously impaired
the agricultural assets supporting the national credit structure, it is hereby
declared that these conditions in the basic industry of agriculture have
affected transactions in agricultural commodities with a national public
interest, have burdened and obstructed the normal currents of commerce in such
commodities and rendered imperative the immediate enactment of Title 1 of this
act."
Now here we see that he is saying that the agricultural assets support the
national credit structure. Did he take the titles of all the land? Remember
"Contracts payable in gold!" President Roosevelt needed the support, and
agriculture was critical, because of all the millions of acres of farmland at
that time, and the value of that farmland. The mortgage on that farmland was
what supported the emergency credit. So President Roosevelt had to do something
to stabilize the price of land and Federal Reserve Bank notes to create money,
didn't he? So he impressed agriculture into the public interest. The farming
industry was nationalized.
Continuing with the Agricultural Adjustment Act, Declaration of Emergency
(Exhibit 47):
"It is hereby declared to the public
policy of Congress ..."
Referring now back to Prize Cases (1862) (2 Black, 674) (Exhibit 24):
"But in defining the meaning of the
term 'enemies' property,' we will be led into error if we refer to Fleta or
Lord Coke for their definition of the word, 'enemy'. It is a technical phrase
peculiar to prize courts, and depends upon principles of public policy as
distinguished from the common law."
Once the emergency is declared, the common law is abolished, the Constitution
is abolished and we fall under the absolute will of Government, public
policy.
All the government needs to continue is to have public opinion on their side.
If public opinion can be kept, in sufficient degree, on the side of the
government, statutes, laws and bills can continue to be passed. The Constitution
has no meaning. The Constitution is suspended. It has been for 60 years. We're
not under law. Law has been abolished.
We're under a system of public policy, (War Powers). So when you go into that
courtroom with your Constitution and the common law in your hand, what does that
judge tell you? He tells you that you have no persona standi in judicio. You
have no personal standing at law. He tells you not to bother bringing the
Constitution into his court, because it is not a Constitutional court, but an
executive tribunal operating under a totally different jurisdiction.
From Section 93-549 (Exhibit 48) (emphasis added):
"Under this procedure we retain
Government by law, special, temporary law, perhaps, but law nonetheless. The
public may know the extent and the limitations of the powers that can be
asserted, and the persons affected may be informed by the statute of their
rights and their duties."
If you have any rights, the only reason you have them is because they have
been statutorily declared, and your duties well spelled out, and if you violate
the orders of those statutes, you will be charged, not with a crime, but with an
offense.
Again from 93-549, from the words of Mr. Katzenbach (Exhibit 49):
"My recollection is that almost every
executive order ever issued straddles on several grounds, but it almost always
includes the Trading With the Enemy Act because the language of that act Is so
broad, it would 'justify almost anything."
Speaking on the subject of a challenge to the Act by the people, Justice
Clark then says,
"Most difficult from a standpoint of
standing to sue. The Court, you might say, has enlarged the standing rule in
favor of the litigant. But I don't think it has reached the point, presently,
that would permit many such cases to be litigated to the merits."
Senator Church then made the comment:
"What you're saying, then, is that if
Congress doesn't act to standardize, restrict, or eliminate the emergency
powers, that no one else is very likely to get a standing in court to
contest."
No persona standi n judicio, - no personal standing in the courts.
Continuing with Senate Report 93-549 (Exhibit 50):
"The interesting aspect of the
legislation lies in the fact that it created a permanent agency designed to
eradicate an emergency condition in the sphere of agriculture."
These agencies, of which there are now thousands, and which now control every
aspect of our lives, were ostensibly created as temporary agencies meant to last
only as long as the national emergency. They have become, in fact, permanent
agencies, as has the state of national emergency itself. As Franklin Delano
Roosevelt said: "We will never go back to the old order." That quote takes on a
different meaning in light of what we have seen so far.
In Exhibit 51, Senate Report 93-549, we find a quote from Senator Church:
"If the President can create crimes by
fiat and without congressional approval, our system is not much different from
that of the Communists, which allegedly threatens our existence."
We see on this same document, at the bottom right-hand side of the page, as a
Title, the words,
"Enormous Scope of Powers... A Time
Bomb".
Remember, this is Congress' own document, from the year 1973.
Most people might not look to agriculture to provide them with this type of
information. But let us look at Title III of the Agricultural Adjustment Act,
which is also called the Emergency Farm Mortgage Act of 1933 (Exhibit 52):
"Title III - Financing - And Exercising
Power Conferred by Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution: To Coin Money
And To Regulate the Value Thereof."
From Section 43 of Exhibit 52:
"Whenever the President finds upon
investigation that the foreign commerce of the United States is adversely
affected ... and an expansion of credit is necessary to secure by
international agreement a stabilization at proper levels of the currencies of
various governments, the President is authorized, in his discretion ... To
direct the Secretary of the Treasury to enter into agreements with the several
Federal Reserve banks..."
Remember that in the Constitution it states that Congress has the authority
to coin all money and regulate the value thereof. How can it be then that the
Executive branch is issuing an emergency currency, and quoting the Constitution
as its authority to do so?
Under Section 1 of the same Act (Exhibit 53) we find the following:
"To direct the Secretary of the
treasury to cause to be issued in such amount or amounts as he may from time
to time order, United States notes, as provided in the Act entitled "An Act to
authorize the issue of United States notes and for the redemption of funding
thereof and for funding the floating debt of the United States, approved
February 25, 1862, and Acts supplementary thereto and amendatory
thereof"
What is the Act of February 25, 1862? It is the Greenback Act of President
Abraham Lincoln. Let us remember that, when Abraham Lincoln was elected and
inaugurated, he didn't even have a Congress for the first six weeks. He did not,
however, call an extra session of Congress. He issued money, he declared war, he
suspended habeas corpus, it was an absolute Constitutional dictatorship.
There was not even a Congress in session for six weeks.
When Lincoln's Congress came into session six weeks later, they entered the
following statement into the Congressional record: "The actions, rules,
regulations, licenses, heretofore or hereafter taken, are hereby approved and
confirmed..." This is the exact language of March 9, 1933 and Title 12, USC,
Section 95(b), today.
We now come to the question of how to terminate these extraordinary powers
granted under a declaration of national emergency. We have learned that, in
order for the extraordinary powers to be terminated, the national emergency
itself must be canceled.
Reading from the Agricultural Act, Section 13 (Exhibit 54):
"This title shall cease to be in effect
whenever the President finds and proclaims that the national economic
emergency in relation to agriculture has been
ended."
Whenever the President finds by proclamation that the proclamation issued on
March 6, 1933 has terminated, it has to terminate through presidential
proclamation just as it came into effect. Congress had already delegated all of
that authority, and therefore was in no position to take it back.
In Senate Report 93-549, we find the following statement from Congress
(Exhibit 55):
"Furthermore, it would be largely
futile task unless we have the President's active collaboration. Having
delegated this authority to the President in ways that permit him to determine
how long it shall continue, simply through the device of keeping emergency
declarations alive - we now find ourselves in a position where we cannot
reclaim the power without the President's acquiescence. We are unable to
terminate these declarations without the President's signature, so we need a
large measure of Presidential cooperation".
It appears that no president has been willing to give up this extraordinary
power, and, if they will not sign the termination proclamation, the access to,
and usage of, extraordinary powers does not terminate. At least, it has not
terminated for over 60 years.
Now, that's no definite indication that a President from Bill Clinton on
might not eventually sign the termination proclamation, but 60 years of
experience would lead one to doubt that day will ever come by itself But the
question now to ask is this: How many times have We, the People, asked the
President to terminate his access to extraordinary powers, or the situation on
which it is based, the declared national emergency? Who has ever demanded that
this be done? How many of us even knew that it had been done? And, without the
knowledge contained in this report, how long do you think the blindness of the
American public to this situation would have continued, and with it the
abolishment of the Constitution? But we're not quite as in the dark as we were,
are we?
In Senate Report 93-549 (Exhibit 56), we find the following statement from
Senator Church:
"These powers, if exercised, would
confer upon the President total authority to do anything he
pleased."
Elsewhere in Senate Report 93-549, Senator Church makes the remarkable
statement (Exhibit 57):
"Like a loaded gun laying around the
house, the plethora of delegated authority and institutions to meet almost
every kind of conceivable crisis stand ready for use for purposes other than
their original intention ... Machiavelli, in his "Discourses of Livy,"
acknowledged that great power may have to be given to the Executive if the
State is to survive, but warned of great dangers in doing so. He cautioned:
Nor is it sufficient if this power be conferred upon good men; for men are
frail, and easily corrupted, and then in a short time, he that is absolute may
easily corrupt the people."
Now, a quote from an exclusive reply (Exhibit 58) written May 21, 1973, by
the Attorney General of the United States regarding studies undertaken by the
Justice Department on the question of the termination of the standing national
emergency:
"As a consequence, a "national
emergency" is now a practical necessity in order to carry out what has become
the regular and normal method of governmental actions. What were intended by
Congress as delegations of power to be used only in the most extreme
situations, and for the most limited duration's, have become everyday powers,
and a state of "emergency" has become a permanent
condition."
From United States v. Butler (Supreme Court, 1935) (Exhibit 59):
"A tax, in the general understanding
and in the strict Constitutional sense, is an exaction for the support of
government; the term does not connote the expropriation of money from one
group to be expended for another, as a necessary means in a plan of
regulation, such as the plan for regulating agricultural production set up in
the Agricultural Adjustment Act."
What is being said here is that a tax can only be an exaction for the support
of government, not for an expropriation from one group for the use of another.
That would be socialism, wouldn't it?
Quoting further from United States v. Butler (Exhibit 60):
"The regulation of farmer's activities
under the statute, though in form subject to his own will, is in fact coercion
through economic pressure; his right of choice is illusory. Even if a farmer's
consent were purely voluntary, the Act would stand no better. At best it is a
scheme for purchasing with federal funds submission to federal regulation of a
subject reserved to the states."
Speaking of contracts, those contracts are coercion contracts. They are
adhesion contracts made by a superior over an inferior. They are under the
belligerent capacity of government over enemies. They are not valid
contracts.
Again from United States v. Butler (Exhibit 61):
"If the novel view of the General
Welfare Clause now advanced in support of the tax were accepted, this clause
would not only enable Congress to supplant the states in the regulation of
agriculture and all other industries as well, but would furnish the means
whereby all of the other provisions of the Constitution, sedulously framed to
define and limit the powers of the United States and preserve the powers of
the states, could be broken down, the independence of the individual states
obliterated, and the United States converted into a central government
exercising uncontrolled police power throughout the union superseding all
local control over local concerns."
Please, read the above paragraph again. The understanding of its meaning is
vital.
The United States Supreme Court ruled the New Deal, the nationalization,
unconstitutional in the Agricultural Adjustment Act and they turned it down
flat. The Supreme Court declared it to be unconstitutional. They said, in
effect, "You're turning the federal government into an uncontrolled police
state, exercising uncontrolled police power." What did Roosevelt do next? He
stacked the Supreme Court, didn't he? And in 1937, United States v. Butler
was overturned.
From the 65th Congress, 1st Session Doc. 87, under the section entitled
Constitutional Sources of Laws of War, Page 7, Clause II, we find (Exhibit
62):
"The existence of war and the
restoration of peace are to be determined by the political department of the
government, and such determination is binding and conclusive upon the courts,
and deprives the courts of the power of hearing proof and determining as a
question of fact either that war exists or has ceased to
exist."
The courts will tell you that is a political question, for they (the courts)
do not have jurisdiction over the common law.
The courts were deprived of the Constitution. They were deprived of the
common law. There are now courts of prize over the enemies, and we have no
persona standi in judicio. We have no personal standing under the law. Also from
the 65th Congress, under the section entitled Constitutional Sources of Laws of
War, we find (Exhibit 63):
"When the sovereign authority shall
choose to bring it into operation, the judicial department must give effect to
its will. But until that will shall be expressed, no power of condemnation can
exist in the court."
From Senate Report 93-549 (Exhibit 64):
"Just how effective a limitation on
crisis action this makes of the court is hard to say. In light of the recent
war, the court today would seem to be a fairly harmless observer of the
emergency activities of the President and Congress. It is highly unlikely that
the separation of powers and the 10th Amendment will be called upon again to
hamstring the efforts of the government to deal resolutely with a serious
national emergency."
So much for our Constitutional system of checks and balances. And from that
same Senate Report, in the section entitled, "Emergency Administration", a
continuation of Exhibit 64:
"Organizationally, in dealing with the
depression, it was Roosevelt's general policy to assign new, emergency
functions to newly created agencies, rather than to already existing
departments."
Thus, thousands of "temporary" emergency agencies, are now sitting out there
with emergency functions to rule us in all cases whatsoever.
Finally, let us look briefly at the courts, specifically with regard to the
question of "booty". The following definition of the term, "prize" is to be
found in Bouvier's Law Dictionary (Exhibit 65):
"Goods taken on land from a public
enemy are called booty; and the distinction between a prize and booty consists
in this, that the former is taken at sea and the latter on land."
This significance of the distinction between these two terms is critical, a
fact which will become quite clear shortly.
Let us now remember that "Congress shall have the power to make rules on
all captures on the land and the water." To reiterate, captures on the land
are booty, and captures on the water are prize.
Now, the Constitution says that Congress shall have the power to provide and
maintain a navy, even during peacetime. It also says that Congress shall have
the power to raise and support an army, but no appropriations of money for that
purpose shall be for greater than two years. Here we can see that an army is not
a permanent standing body, because, in times of peace, armies were held by the
sovereign states as militia. So the United States had a navy during peacetime,
but no standing army; we had instead the individual state militias.
Consequently, the federal government had a standing prize court, due to the
fact that it had a standing navy, whether in times of peace or war. But in times
of peace, there could be no federal police power over the continental United
States, because there was to be no army.
From the report The Law of Civil Government in Territory Subject to
Military Occupation by Military Forces of the United States, published by
order of the Secretary of War in 1902, under the heading entitled The
Confiscation of Private Property of Enemies in War (Exhibit 66), comes the
following quote:
"4. Should the President desire to
utilize the services of the Federal courts of the United States in promoting
this purpose or military undertaking, since these courts derive their
jurisdiction from Congress and do not constitute a part of the military
establishment, they must secure from Congress the necessary action to confer
such jurisdiction upon said courts."
This means that, if the government is going to confiscate property within the
continental United States on the land (booty), it must obtain statutory
authority.
In this same section (Exhibit 66), we find the following words:
"5. The laws and usage's of war make a
distinction between enemies' property captured on the sea and property
captured on land. The jurisdiction of the courts of the United States over
property captured at sea is held not to attach to property captured on land in
the absence of Congressional action."
There is no standing prize court over the land. Once war is declared,
Congress must give jurisdiction to particular courts over captures on the land
by positive Congressional action. To continue with (Exhibit 66):
"The right of confiscation is a
sovereign right. In times of peace, the exercise of this right is limited and
controlled by the domestic Constitution and institutions of the government. In
times of war, when the right is exercised against enemies' property as a war
measure, such right becomes a belligerent right, and as such is not subject to
the restrictions imposed by domestic institutions, but is regulated and
controlled by the laws and usage's of
war."
So we see that our government can operate in two capacities: (a) in its
sovereign peacetime capacity, with the limitations placed upon it by the
Constitution and restrictions placed upon it by We, the People, or (b) in a
wartime capacity, where it may operate in its belligerent capacity governed not
by the Constitution, but only by the laws of war.
In Section 17 of the Act of October 6, 1917, the Trading With the Enemy Act
(Exhibit 67):
"That the district courts of the United
States are hereby given jurisdiction to make and enter all such rules as to
notice and otherwise; and all such orders and decrees; and to issue such
process as may be necessary and proper in the premises to enforce the
provisions of this act."
Here we have Congress conferring upon the district courts of the United
States the booty jurisdiction, the jurisdiction over enemy property within the
continental United States. And at the time of the original, unamended, Trading
with the Enemy Act, we were indeed at war, a World war, and so booty
jurisdiction over enemies' property in the courts was appropriate. At that time,
remember, we were not yet declared the enemy. We were excluded from the
provisions of the original act.
In 1934 Congress passed an Act merging equity and law abolishing common law.
This Act, known as the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures Act, was not to come
into effect until 6 months after the letter of transmittal from the Supreme
Court to Congress. The Supreme Court refused transmittal and the transmittal did
not occur until Franklin D. Roosevelt stacked the Supreme Court in 1938
(Exhibits 67(a) and (b)).
But on March the 9th of 1933, the American people were declared to be the
public enemy under the amended version of the Trading With the Enemy Act. What
jurisdiction were We, the People, then placed under? We were now the booty
jurisdiction given to the district courts by Congress.
It was no longer be necessary, or of any value at all, to bring the
Constitution of the United States with us upon entering a courtroom, for that
court was no longer a court of common law, but a tribunal under wartime booty
jurisdiction. Take a look at the American flag in most American courtrooms. The
gold fringe around our flag designates Admiralty jurisdiction.
Executive Order No. 11677 issued by President Richard M. Nixon August 1, 1972
(Exhibit 68) states:
"Continuing the Regulation of Exports;
By virtue of the authority vested in the President by the Constitution and
statutes of the United States, including Section 5 (b) of the Act of October
6, 1917, as amended (12 U. S. C. 95a), and in view of the continued existence
of the national emergencies..."
Later, in the same Executive Order (Exhibit 69), we find the following:
"...under the authority vested in me as
President of the United States by Section 5(b) of the Act of October 6, 1917,
as amended. (12 U. S. C 95a).
Section 5(b) certainly seems to be a one-sided support for Presidential
authority, doesn't it? Surely the reason for this can be found by referring back
to Exhibit 49, the words of Mr. Katzenbach in Senate Report 93-549:
"My recollection is that almost every
executive order ever issued straddles on several grounds, but it almost always
includes the Trading With the Enemy Act because the language of that act is so
broad, it would justify almost anything."
The question here, and it should be a question of grave concern to every
American, is what type of acts can "almost anything" cover? What has been, and
is being, done, by our government under the cloak of authority conferred by
Section 5(b) ? By now, I think we are beginning to know.
Has the termination of the national emergency ever been considered? In Public
Law 94412, September 14, 1976 (Exhibit 70), we find that Congress had finally
finished their exhaustive study on the national emergencies, and the words of
their findings were that they would terminate the existing national emergencies.
We should be able to heave a sigh of relief at this decision, for with the
termination of the national emergencies will come the corresponding termination
of extraordinary Presidential power, won't it? But yet we have learned two
difficult lessons: that we are still in the national emergency, and that power,
once grasped, is difficult to let go. And so now it should come as no surprise
when we read, in the last section of the Act, Section 502 (Exhibit 71), the
following words:
"(a): The provisions of this act shall
not apply to the following provisions of law, the powers and authorities
conferred thereby and actions taken thereunder (1) Section 5(b) of the Act of
October 6,1917, as amended (12 U. S. C 95a; 50 U. S. C. App.
5b)"
The bleak reality is, the situation has not changed at all. The alarming
situation in which We, the People, find ourselves today causes us to think back
to a time over two hundred years ago in our nation's history when our
forefathers were also laboring under the burden of governmental usurpation of
individual rights. Their response, written in 1774, two years before the signing
of the Declaration of Independence, to the attempts of Great Britain to retain
extraordinary powers it had held during a time of war became known as the
"Declaration of Rights" (Exhibit 72). And in that document, we find these
words:
"Whereas, since the close of the last
war, the British Parliament, claiming a power of right to bind the people of
America, by statute, in all cases whatsoever, hath in some acts expressly
imposed taxes on them. and in others, under various pretenses, but in fact for
the purpose of raising a revenue, hath imposed rates and duties payable in
these colonies established a board of commissioners, with unconstitutional
powers, and extended the jurisdiction of the courts of admiralty, not only for
collecting the said duties, but for the trial of causes merely arising within
the body of a county."
We can see now that we have come full circle to the situation which existed
in 1774, but with one crucial difference. In 1774, Americans were protesting
against a colonial power which sought to bind and control its colony by wartime
powers in a time of peace. In 1994, it is our own government which has sought,
successfully to date, to bind its own people by the same subtle, insidious
method.
Article 3, Section 3, of our Constitution states:
"Treason against the United States,
shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their
Enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason
unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on
Confession in open Court."
Is the Act of March 9, 1933, treason? That would be for the common law courts
to decide. At this point in our nation's history, the point is moot, for common
law, and indeed the Constitution itself, do not operate or exist at present.
Whether governmental acts of theft of the nation's money, the citizens'
property, and American liberty as an ideal and a reality which have occurred
since 1933 is treason against the people of the United States, as the term is
defined by the Constitution of the United States cannot even be determined or
argued in the legal sense until the Constitution itself is reestablished. For
our part, however, we firmly believe that, "by their fruits ye shall know them",
and on that authority we rest our case.
END OF REPORT
CONCLUSION
As you have just witnessed, the United States of America continues to exist
in a governmentally ordained state of national emergency. Under such a state of
emergency, our Constitution has been set aside, ostensibly for the public good,
until the emergency is canceled.
But, as experience painfully shows, it has not been to the public's good that
our government has used its unrestricted power, unhampered by the Constitution's
restraining force. The governmental edicts and actions over the past six decades
have led us to the desperate state in which we find ourselves today. Besieged on
every side, corroding from within, frightened and in despair, we as a nation are
being torn asunder.
There is a national emergency today, one of life and death proportions, but
it is not the emergency used by our government to continue its abuse of power.
It is this very abuse, this unbridled rape of the American spirit, that is the
crux of the emergency we are in today. But this true emergency cannot be cured
by setting aside the Constitution; no, it can only be controlled by returning to
the laws of God and Country which have been stolen from us by those in whom we
placed our trust to protect the national interest.
We are a nation whose government is based upon those immortal words, "a
government of the people, by the people, for the people". One has only to walk
down the highways and byways of this great land to know all too well that this
is not a government of the people or for the people. Actions speak louder than
words, and the actions taken over the past decades have resulted in an
unparalleled decline of American economic and political power, and a weakening
of American values and spirit.
This is not a crisis in which the taking up of arms is the answer. No, this
is a situation in which we firmly believe that the pen will be mightier than the
sword. That a state of emergency exists cannot be disputed. That the emergency
is one which should concern every American alive cannot be denied. That we must
stand together, laying aside our individual differences, to fight the common
foe, is of vital importance, for the time to act is now. But this is not a
battle of swords, but of knowledge, for only when the deception is exposed to
the light of day can the healing process begin.
Truth stands tall in the light of day, and it is the truth we bring to you
today. Let it be known and understood that it is our intention to make this
information available to every concerned American who desires to know the true
State of the Union. This is an undertaking of immense proportions, but we have
dedicated ourselves to bringing this information to the light of day, and with
the help of "We, the People", we will be successful in our efforts.
Every American who is thankful for the opportunity to call themselves
American must also accept the responsibility that comes with that title. We the
People have not only a right, but a responsibility to each other and to those
who have gone before us to learn what our government is doing, and to judge
whether actions taken benefit the people who will bear the costs. We have been
in the dark long enough, content to rest on our past glories and let the
government take its course. In a way, we have been like children, trusting in
our parents to act in our best interest. But as we have too frequently seen in
the nightly news, not all parents have their children's best interest at
heart.
The time has come for us to take off our blinders and accept reality, for the
time of national reckoning has arrived. The majority of our elected and
appointed officials are no more responsible for the current state of affairs
than are we. The strings are being manipulated at far higher levels than the
positions most officials occupy. They are working with little knowledge or
authority, trying to control problems far bigger than even they realize. Their
programs and actions may seek to cure the symptoms, but the time has now come to
attack the disease. They are no more guilty than we are, nor will they be any
more protected when the nation collapses on us all.
If we blame them for this national emergency, we must also truly blame
ourselves, for it is "We the People" to whom this nation was given and whose
duty it was to keep a watchful eye on those who direct the sails of the ship of
state. We have, however, fallen asleep, and while we were dreaming the American
dream, a band of pirates stole the Constitution and put our people into
slavery.
And since that terrible day when our Constitution was cast aside, not one
President or Congress, nor one Supreme Court justice has been able or willing to
return it to its rightful owners. Given the current state of the union, there is
no reason to expect this situation to change unless we ourselves cause it to be
so.
Let us put the childish emotions of pity and self-deception away, stand up,
stand together and fight back. Now is the time to stop dreaming, and start the
long work before us. Now is the time to turn back to the principles and ideals
on which this nation was founded, the strong foundation from which our national
identity springs.
When does tolerance become anarchy? When does protection become slavery? When
is enough enough? Now is when - here and now.
Now is the time to return to the laws set forth by God, and throw off these
chains of ignorance and bondage which grip our nation to the point of death. Let
us return to the source, the standard of excellence set for us long ago. Our
message to Congress and all elected and appointed officials must be, "Let my
people go!", for we are all laboring under a system which will eventually crush
us, regardless of our religion, our sex, or the color of our skin.
We must let those at all levels of governmental authority know that we have
learned of the deception which lies at the core of our national malaise. We must
tell them in no uncertain terms that we will tolerate this great lie no longer,
and we must put them on notice that we expect them to resign if they have not
the courage and the resolve to help this nation in its hour of need.
We have been fools long enough. No matter how long after the date you read
this report, start each and every week without fail to give a copy of this
information to at least one person you know. We also ask you to write a letter
to Congress telling them to "Let our People go", or you can use the form letter
you will find enclosed in the report.
We must let our elected officials know that we expect them as servants of the
people to help us reestablish law and order and restore our national pride. They
must, repeal proclamation 2039, 2040, and Title 12 USC 95(a) and 95(b), thereby
canceling the National Emergency, and reestablish the Constitution of this
nation.
Now is the time for excellence of action. We demand it and will accept
nothing less. This is our country, to protect and defend, no matter the cost. To
do nothing out of fear or apathy is exactly what those in power are hoping for,
for it is ignorance and apathy that the darkness likes best. We must not be a
party to the darkness enveloping our nation any longer. We must come into the
light, and give our every drop of blood, sweat and tears to bring our nation
back with us.
We must acknowledge that if we do nothing, if we are not willing to act now
and act boldly, without fear but with faith and a firm resolve, our freedom to
act, at all may soon be taken away altogether. New bills, new laws are being
presented dally which will effectively serve to tighten the chains of bondage
already encircling this nation.
My friends, we are not going into slavery, we are already there. Make no
mistake those in power are already tightening the chains, but they are doing so
slowly, quietly and with great caution, for fear of awakening the slumbering
lion which is the voice of the American people. There is yet still time for us
to slip loose the chains which bind us, and for us to bring about the
restoration of this nation.
If we act, if we make our concerns known and shout out our refusal to accept
the future which has been planned for us by those who hold no allegiance to this
great land of ours, we can yet demand and see come to pass the day when the
state of emergency is canceled and the Constitution is restored to her rightful
place as the watchdog of those for whom absolute power corrupts absolutely. If
we repent of our ignorance and our apathy, and return to the God-given laws on
which this nation was founded, we may yet be free.
We will continue to hold meetings and offer this information until everyone
in America has had an opportunity to hear it and we have set our nation free. We
will not tolerate less. We are Americans and that means far more than most of us
realize.
If it first it seems you are working alone, do not give up, for as this
information spreads across the land to the great cities and small towns, you
will find yourself in excellent company. You already are as only one, for behind
you stand all the heroes of our history who fought and died to keep this nation
free.
Again, we must stress that we are not asking you to pick up guns; in fact, we
implore you not to, no matter how angry the news of this deception has made you.
Turn your anger into a steely resolve, a fierce determination not to give up
until the battle has been won. We are not asking you for lots of money; that's
their game, the "almighty dollar". It is the substitution of wealth and
possessions for integrity and honor that helped get us into this true state of
emergency in which we find ourselves now. We are not asking you for more time
than you can give, although we do ask you to give what time you can to get this
information out.
What we ask from you is your commitment to stand with those around you to
help us restore this nation to her rightful place in history, both that written
and that yet to be told. Abraham Lincoln once said, "We the People are the
rightful masters of both Congress and the Courts - not to overthrow the
Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution". We must
stand together now in this, our national hour of need. As the United States
Supreme Court once said, "It is not the function of our government to keep the
citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the
government from falling into error".
Each individual, their attitudes and actions, forges their own special link
in the great chain of history. Now is the time to add to that precious
inheritance of honor and duty which has kept America alive because the choices
we make and the actions we take today are a part of history as well as our
future.
The vision for America has not died; the "land of the free and the home of
the brave" still exists. There is still time to turn the tide for this great
land, but we must join together to make it happen. We have a debt of honor to
the past and the future, a call to glory to rescue out homeland from the hands
of those who would see her fall. We cannot, we must not fail
Prior |
Tell us what you think |
Next

|