lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him.

"Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks.

He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.

Later, when asked by a friend, why he had opposed the appropriation, Crockett gave this explanation:

"Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made homeless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them. The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and pushed it through as soon as it could be done.

"The next summer, when it began to be time to think about the election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up. When riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up, I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly.

"I began: 'Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and --

"'Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.'

"This was a sockdolager...I begged him to tell me what was the matter.

"'It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more money than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much the thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand and for robbing the people on the other. No. Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week's pay, it would have made over $l3,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them of the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else.

Everything beyond this is stipulation, and a violation of the Constitution.

"'So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you.'"

"I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go talking, he would set others to talking, and in that district I was gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him and the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:

"'Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.'

"He laughingly replied: 'Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and, perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way.'

"'If I don't, said I, I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it.'

"'No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you.'

"'Well, I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-by. I must know your name.'

"'My name is Bunce.'

"'Not Horatio Bunce?'

~'Yes.'

"'Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend.'

"It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible integrity, and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.

"At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an

interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before.

"Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before.

"I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him -- no that is not the word -- I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if every one who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.

"But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue, and to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted--at least, they all knew me.

"In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:

"'Fellow-citizens--I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had hereto-fore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only.'

"I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation and then told them that I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:

"'And now, fellow-citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error. "`It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit for it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so.'

"He came upon the stand and said:

"'Fellow-citizens -- it affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today.'

"He went down, and there went up from the crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.

"I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.

"Now, sir," concluded Crockett, "you know why I made that speech yesterday.

"There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You remember that I pro-posed to give a week's pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men--men who think nothing of spending a week's pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased - a debt which could not be paid by money - and the insignificance and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $l0,000.00, when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it."

Independence declares that the sole purpose of government is the protection of our inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as endowed by our Creator, not by government.

It is not the purpose of government to redistribute the wealth (to take forcibly through taxation from a worker and give it to a non-worker). This is not charity; it is legalized theft. Charity by its nature must be voluntary.

It is in our best interest to give financial and active moral support to those who believe in limiting government to its purpose in order to drive the deliberate and well-intentioned thieves out of public office.

---Jack Harper

Justice Times l5 Feb. l983

Secret, Veiled and Obscure -- The President's Emergency Powers

We are living in a national state of emergency. That means the President can appropriate your car, your food or your house, right now. In the language of emergency management, your car is "transportation resource capacity!"

In l973, Senate Report 93-459 began, "Since l933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency. A majority of the people of the United States have lived all their lives under emergency rule. 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."

Emergency Powers allow suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus, and the Constitution as a whole. The Federal Reserve has had a major role in developing emergency powers. Under an emergency, almost everything except the financial sector will be subject to greatly increased regulation. The Federal Reserve will remain virtually autonomous, and can probably look forward to huge profits from lending, on its own terms, to finance the emergency.

What is a state of Emergency? In l9l7, it meant that the country was at war. In l933, at the request of the Federal Reserve and with the collaboration of President Roosevelt, the definition was expanded to include any state of national crisis declared by the President or Congress. States of Emergency can be declared in times of financial crisis, civil unrest, drug crisis, or whenever the President wishes.

In practice, States of Emergency are always declared (and occasionally revoked, but not without replacement) by the President. The purpose is to give the President extra-ordinary powers to cope with whatever crisis is supposed to be happening.

According to Senate Report 93-459: "The 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 transport and communication, regulate the operation of private enterprise, restrict travel, and in a plethora of particular ways control the lives of American citizens."

There are at least two separate States of Emergency now in effect. They both date from the l99l Persian Gulf crisis. According to the President, one is because chemical and biological warfare represent a continuous and growing threat to the nation. The other is because Congress failed to renew an act that provided special control of exports. So, according to the President, we are now in an emergency situation where the crisis is caused by Congress!

In the interim, the Federal Reserve asked Roosevelt to close the banks. This was done without permission from Congress, citing the authority of the Emergency Banking Act, which had not yet been passed! Roosevelt issued a Proclamation that states, "Whereas there have been heavy and unwarranted withdrawals of gold and currency from our banking institutions for the purpose of hoarding..."

The Emergency Banking Act was passed before the banks reopened. Federal Reserve Bank Notes created under the auspices of the Executive branch were now the new currency, and no longer redeemable for gold. The Act retroactively approved the earlier Presidential actions taking emergency power. The "financial crisis" was declared to be a national State of Emergency. Privately owned gold had to be turned in to banks, with a $l0,000 penalty for failure to comply. The Federal Reserve got everything it wanted.

The Emergency Banking Act made important changes to the Trading With The Enemy Act. It included United States citizens under the definition of "enemy," placing them under the extraordinary powers. It made "hoarding" illegal. It allowed for War Powers to be invoked under any emergency, not just war. However, the most important effect of the Emergency Banking Act had nothing to do with banking. It provided that all Presidential actions (Proclamations and Executive Orders) made pursuant to the Trading With The Enemy Act, before or since March 9, l933, would automatically be approved and confirmed by Congress without the need for any Congressional scrutiny or action! The Trading With The Enemy Act, as amended in l933, remains in effect today. For this reason, until recently almost all Executive Orders related to emergencies have cited this Act as the basis for Presidential authority. The Act is so broadly written as to justify almost anything.

Since the l930s, there has been a steady shift of power away from Congress in favor of the President. Temporary agencies set up under Emergency Powers have almost always become permanent. Since the l970s, Executive Orders have emphasized emergency preparedness rather than actual emergency actions. Almost all arms of the Executive Branch, which devote substantial resources to this, are ready to act quickly whenever the President requires it.

In l969, Richard Nixon consolidated most of the Emergency Powers to seize cars, etc., under the infamous Executive Order ll490. This was replaced by Reagan in l988 with EO l2656.

In l973, the Senate required the Justice Department to study termination of the state of emergency that had existed uninterrupted since l933. The Attorney General said: "A 'National Emergency' is now a practical necessity in order to carry out what has become the regular and normal method of government actions. What were intended by Congress to be delegations of power used only in the most extreme situations, and for the most limited durations, have become everyday powers, and a state of emergency has become a permanent condition."

In l976, Congress finished its exhaustive studies of the State of Emergency, and concluded, in Public Law 94-l2, that all the emergencies were over. However, they left intact all the Presidential laws and powers set up under the authority of the Trading With the Enemy Act!

The President no longer bothers to cite the Trading With The Enemy Act as the authority for taking emergency power, which means that in these cases the blanket authority given by Congress in l933 no longer applies. Present practice is to claim authority under more recent Acts of Congress. In l988, Reagan used EO l2656 to confer emergency planning authority on the President, permanently.

EO l2656, which defines most of the Emergency Powers today, says it is pursuant to the National Security Act of l947, the Defense Production Act of l950, and the Federal Civil Defense Act. These Acts confer very little actual authority on the President. Most of their content has been superseded or repealed. Thus, the Presidential Authority for emergency action is becoming increasingly obscure, simply a matter of accepted procedure.

EO l29l9 is the most recent expansion of emergency power. It became law on June 7, l994, and is based on the Defense Production Act of l950. Formerly, Presidents only amend-ed other Presidential Proclamations and Executive Orders. In this case, the Executive Order is amending an Act of Congress, and Congress has no say in the procedures! This EO also cites the Defense Production Act as the basis for Presidential authority. U.S. Code Title 50, which is the law governing Defense and Emergencies, is now an entangled mass of Congressional legislation and Presidential decree.

Present Emergency Management Structure

The Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs oversees the activities of FEMA, and the NSC, which are the two agencies responsible for emergency management. Other arms of government, such as the Treasury and the Postal service, operate under the authority of these agencies.

The National Security Council was appointed by EO l2656 as the principal body responsible for developing emergency power. This allows the government to increase domestic surveillance of U.S. citizens, and to restrict freedom of movement within the country. The government has the right to categorize and isolate large groups of civilians. The National Guard may be used to seal the borders and take control of U.S. air space and all ports of entry.

The NSC is hidden behind secrecy. Most requests for information about it under the Freedom of Information Act are denied, on the grounds that NSC's sole function is to advise the President, which makes it exempt from FOIA. The Director of FEMA is a member of the NSC.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was created by EO l2l48 as the agency with overall responsibility for implementing emergency power and coordinating all other government agencies. It is the most powerful agency in the country, after the Federal Reserve. Both the NSC and FEMA operate with minimal Congressional scrutiny.

FEMA's responsibilities include relief for victims of the recent Los Angeles earthquake. FEMA received very favorable press coverage for granting financial aid quickly and on favorable terms. Now that the publicity has died own, many earthquake victims are being told that their grants were given in error, and are immediately repayable in full!

FEMA spends about 6% of its budget on relief of this type. Most of its funding has been used for constructing secret underground facilities to assure "continuity of government," and to build prisons and "holding facilities."

Some Actual Emergency Powers Now in Force

Emergency powers begin to take effect in "the period following initial indication of a probable national security emergency" -- in other words, well in advance of an actual emergency. This is to allow full emergency powers to take effect as rapidly as possible. Where proposed actions are illegal, each agency is now responsible for identifying these situations and making the necessary adjustments to law.

Emergency powers will be funded by borrowing. On June 7, l994, the Federal Reserve was given the right to specify the procedures, forms, rates of interest, fees and terms for this borrowing.

Using FinCEN, the Treasury will cooperate with the Attorney General in law enforcement, including the control of people entering and leaving the United States. Treasury will emphasize measures to minimize inflation (raising interest rates) and minimize reliance on direct control of the financial system.

A full non-elected "shadow government" has been created under EO l29l9, under the director of FEMA. It will include prominent bankers and members of the Council on Foreign Relations, among others. Called the "National Defense Executive Reserve," it consists of "persons of recognized expertise from various segments of the private sector, and from government, except full-time federal staff." Their training is now taking place.

FEMA will be responsible for propaganda, called "public information, education and training programs to assist -- implementing national security emergency programs."

The Secretary of Transportation will control all civil transportation, vehicle repair facilities and related storage facilities. This includes "movement of persons and property by all modes of transportation in interstate, intrastate or foreign commerce within the United States..." The Department of Transportation will be responsible for "allocation of transportation resource capacity, and emergency management and control of civilian transportation resources and systems, including privately owned automobiles..."

The Secretary of Agriculture will control all human and animal food resources and agricultural vehicles. Food resources include wool, cotton, tobacco and hemp. What hemp? All these resources will be allocated to military and civilian users according to priorities determined by FEMA.

The Department of Defense, with FEMA and the Secretary of Labor, will "ensure that the nation's human resources are available to meet essential military needs ..." DoD and the Attorney General will arrange procedures to add military assistance to civilian law enforcement authorities. The Department of Labor will ensure effective use of civilian labor resources. The military draft will be controlled by the Selective Service System, which will "provide by induction, personnel required by the armed forces..."

The General Services Agency will control "acquisition, assignment and priority of occupancy of real property ... and develop plans for the use of excess and surplus real and personal property by Federal entities." The government will appraise your personal property, and decide if it is "excess and surplus."

The U.S. Postal Service, usually regarded as benign, will assist in registration of nationals of enemy countries residing in the United States, and develop plans to locate and lease privately owned property. USPS, under EO ll490, is responsible for registering persons and families, which is why, in collaboration with IRS and the Welfare Department, it has taken a lead in developing the U.S. Card, a smart identity card soon to be issued to all Americans.

In l933 Congressional Record, Congressman Beck 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 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."

YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED...... From Perceptions, Fall l994

Violations of the Oath to Protect and Preserve the Constitution

(dated material 1995)

What kind of person do we want to run the United States for the next four (or eight) years?

We want a man who will always honor his oath of office: "I do solemnly declare that I will faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

They all say it, it's a tradition, but we need one who means what he says.

We want a President who will at all times OBEY the Constitution. The sitting President and Senator Robert Dole, have both failed to obey the Constitution on a number of occasions, in violation of the oath the President took, and the oath taken by Senator Dole.

Our President would "solemnly declare that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true allegiance to the same, that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office of which I am about to enter, so help me God."

Neither the supporters of the President nor Sen. Dole can claim that either of these officials has met or lived up to their solemn undertaking to defend (OBEY) the constitution.

We need someone with the ability to clean up the terrible mess left behind by the failure of Pres. Clinton to be a President to all Americans, not just the special interest groups and string pullers of the Royal Institute for International Affairs (RIIA), the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the Socialists.

President Clinton has probably written more so-called executive orders (proclamations) than any other President, although Republican Presidents have likewise been guilty of writing equally dangerous proclamations.

President Bush took our country to war in the Persian Gulf without a declaration of war, in gross violation of the Constitution. Clinton has done the same thing in the Bosnia situation.

President Bush pushed hard for passage of the unconstitutional NAFTA and GATT agreements, and Pres. Clinton with the help of Sen. Dole, forced these agreements through Congress.

Dole has no right to hold his present high office, he violated his oath to defend the Constitution by cooperating fully with President Clinton in ramming GATT through the Senate, by forcing a vote without debate on the measure, called the "fast track" method.

Senator Dole knows that every bill must be constitutionally debated. Few members of the House and Senate carry out their oath to support and uphold the constitution by debating the constitutionally of each proposed bill. His tactics are indicative of oppression under a totalitarian form of government.

The President should not sign legislation that is not properly, constitutionally debated. He should have refused to sign the GATT agreement on the grounds that it represent-ed an act of arbitrary power. By signing it, he chose to ignore the Constitution.

Regarding the Second Amendment -- in Colonial America the right to keep and bear arms of any type and in any quantity was well recognized, it dates back several thousand years to the Roman Empire. It is a right NOT a privilege. The Founding Fathers added nothing to this right, but they made sure it became an integral part of THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.

IF the President knows the Constitution, he knows that the right to keep and bear arms cannot be abridged under any circumstances whatsoever. Yet the President, fully supported by Senator Dole, signed bills that presumed to override the Constitution - The Brady Bill. Such "gun control" efforts constitute tampering with the Constitution and all are unconstitutional. Without Dole's support the Brady Bill would not have passed the Senate.

Both Clinton and Dole violated Article IV, Section 4 of the United States Constitution: "... The United States shall guarantee to every State in the Union, a republican form of government and shall protect each one of them against invasion" ... The Crime Bill, NAFTA and GATT violate a guaranteed republican form of government for the States and this Constitutional provision makes NAFTA, GATT, and gun control measures unconstitutional, null and void, NO LAW.

If these men do not know what they are doing is unconstitutional, they are not fit to hold their high positions. Do they know what a republican form of government is? How many of our Senators and Representatives know? It is a guarantee of sovereignty which cannot be voided or violated by the federal government.

Dole and Clinton have violated the separation of powers in the so-called "enhanced recession", which means LINE ITEM VETO POWERS, a violation of the separation of powers of the three branches of government. The Constitution does not give Congress the right to transfer its powers to the Executive. Senator Byrd said, on line item veto power, "The tensions between the executive and the legislative branches would rise to the boiling point as Congress found itself more and more subservient to an aggressive and politically partisan President. The nation would suffer the consequences of such power shift, and the constitutional system of checks and balances would be reduced to rubble. With the occupant of the Oval Office in such swollen power, the chief executive would not only become the chief legislator, he would be a king in everything but name only. And what's in a name when a pickle smells just as sour..." [Why do we need a Congress?] To give the President line item veto power would require an amendment to the Constitution.

Willful, treasonous, disregard of the Constitution is why the United States has been dragged into one war after another. We have endured a series of Presidents who sought to destroy the Constitution, for their own egotistical reasons, or as puppets of the international bankers.

At the Buckingham Palace tea party given by Queen Elizabeth to honor James Baker III, one of her American servants, he told her he would not allow the Constitution to interfere in the Gulf War discussion--an act of treason, for failing to uphold his oath of office. Until WE, the PEOPLE, put teeth into the meaning and penalty for treason, the traitors will continue to get away with their appalling deeds. The Constitution cannot be compromised or it becomes a blank paper. George Bush should have been impeached for treason.

There is no provision in the Constitution for intelligence agencies. Dole and Clinton continue to support funding for these agencies. The CIA is not required to disclose its budget, which is unconstitutional.

Lincoln was the only President ever to receive the right from Congress to sign a proclamation, when a war was raging. The House and Senate conveyed the privilege in Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 of the U. S. Constitution, to declare habeas corpus on the grounds of a national state of emergency. Even so, Lincoln admitted that he was wrong and that he was violating the Constitution. Have the House and Senate ever conveyed upon Presidents Reagan, Bush and Clinton the right to declare habeas corpus?

WE the PEOPLE, dare not have men who condone and actively violate the Constitution to be at the head of the affairs of the United States. Let l996 be the year of a massive, nation-wide outpouring of determination by the American people, to oblige those seeking office to come before State committees who will have the authority and determination to question such persons as to their knowledge of the United States Constitution. Let such committees warn aspiring candidates that violating their oath of office is treason, which carries the ultimate penalty. Unless WE institute such a State system, we will have only OURSELVES to blame when the United States goes the way of once-mighty Rome.

In May, I took some information from John Coleman's World in Review for ll/95. Part of that information concerned activity at the bank. I do not have a bank account, but unfortunately I have to take a small social security check. I needed to make a deposit to my daughter's account, but didn't want to give her all of the check, so I was given a stamp pad and told to put my thumb print on the check in order to get cash back. I told them to give the check back to me. They know me very well, and don't need identification. Just this week, I sent a money order to a bank in Las Vegas, Nevada, to make a payment. On it I wrote "UCC l-207 Discharged without prejudice", which I have been putting on my government check and all money orders, to pay financial institutions, the utility company, etc. That bank would not accept the money order with that statement on it and returned it. They said they would not accept payment with restrictions. We've been doing this for several years to assert our independence from the government. They own every part of our lives, the postal system, the banking institutions, the utility companies, you name it. Now they have evidently told banks, and possibly other businesses not to let us use the Uniform Commercial code.

More from Mr. Coleman: He suggests that we can do without political parties, that we could draft our own bills for presentation to the legislature; also, we don't need a Congress the size of the present one. The House, the Senate and the office of the president should be reconstituted on a much different, smaller, basis than at present. The Colonists didn't need a President to fight the War of Independence. Their fresh experience with tyrants like King George III made them wary, and distrustful of centralized power. Daniel Webster said:

"Throughout the history of the contest for liberty executive power has been regarded as a lion which must be caged. So far from being the object of enlightened popular trust, as far from being considered the natural protector of popular right, it has been dreaded, uniformly always dreaded the source of its danger."

One wonders what Webster would think of Clinton's so-called executive orders were he alive today. We, the People have endangered our sovereignty by un-caging the lion and making no protest against so-called executive orders. There is no confusion over executive orders which have been used in a runaway fashion to get around the restrictions of the Constitution in l0l cases.

This power grab began with President Lincoln in an attempt to pressure slaves to re-volt in the Confederate States. Neither Lincoln nor the Congress had the right to free the slaves, as, under the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision, slaves were private property protected by states rights.

If the House and Senate met only three months of the year, they would have less time to promote anarchy, chaos and confusion by constantly passing legislation that is l00% un-constitutional. For the most part the work done by Congress consists of dreaming up new ways to attack states rights.

Representative Charles Schumer, for example, has used a very large part of his time dreaming up new ways to deprive the people of their right to bear arms, and a whole tribe of "liberals" (Marxist/Socialists) stand up in the House and Senate and berate and intimidate the citizens of the States on a variety of measures that they have no right to bring up. Schumer said that he and his colleagues had tried every compromise, examined every counter proposal until there were "no excuses left" for not passing the "Crime bill."

Secretary of Agriculture, Washington, D. C.

Dear Sir,

My friend, Ed Peterson, over at Red Oak, Iowa, received $l,000 from the government for not raising 50 hogs. So, I want to go into the "not raising hogs" business next year.

What I want to know is, in your opinion, what is the best kind of farm to not raise hogs on, and what is the best breed of hogs not to raise? I want to be sure that I approach this endeavor in keeping with all government policies. I would prefer not to raise razorbacks, being that Clinton is originally from Arkansas, but if that is not a good breed not to raise, then I will just as gladly not raise Yorkshires or Durocs, or whatever you think best.

As I see it, the hardest part of this program will be in keeping an accurate inventory of how many hogs I haven't raised.

My friend Peterson is very joyful about the future of the business. He has been

raising hogs for 20 years or so, and the best he ever made was $422 in l986, until this year when he got your check for $l,000 for not raising hogs.

If I get $l,000 for not raising 50 hogs, will I get $2,000 for not raising l00 hogs? I plan to operate on a small scale at first, holding myself down to about 4,000 hogs not raised, which will mean about $80,000 the first year.

Now, another thing --, these hogs I will not raise will not eat l00,000 bushels of corn. I understand that you also pay farmers for not raising corn and wheat. Will I qualify for payments for not raising corn and wheat not to feed the 4,000 hogs I am not going to raise?

I want to get started as soon as possible as this seems to be a good time of year to not raise hogs and grain.

Also, I am considering the "not milking cows" business, so please send me any information on that too.

In view of these circumstances you understand that I will be unemployed and I plan to file for unemployment and food stamps.

Be assured that your progressive administration will have my vote in the next election.

Patriotically yours,

The Contract with America

Includes: A balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution; line-item veto power to the President; Tax credit of $500 per child; expanded Individual Retirement Ac-counts; tax cuts that will enable everyone to save, invest and keep more of their income; ban the placing of U.S. troops under United Nations' command; ban welfare payments to illegal aliens; raise Social Security earnings limit; require 3/5 majority vote to pass any tax increase! Some additional things needed are: To put God and the Ten Commandments back into our public schools.

Thirty two years ago the fanatics pressured the Warren Supreme Court to order all prayer and Bible-reading out of our public schools. Madalyn Murray led this drive with the help of the left-wing American Civil Liberties Union and the Communist Party, U.S.A.

Karl Marx, the top Communist always said, "My two-fold purpose in life is to de-throne God and destroy Capitalism." This was it for our public schools!

Soon after that came the juvenile crime waves, the drive-by shootings, the wild sex drives, the abortion clinics killing millions of babies, the drugs and guns in the schools, the metal detectors, all to keep guns and knowledge of God out of our public schools!

George Washington said, "The people know it is impossible to rightly govern without God and the Bible." In our public schools today we can no longer recognize the source of our freedom. Thomas Jefferson stated it clearly in the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights--that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Opinion polls prove that the great majority of the American people still believe in God and want their children to be taught these basic truths.

Nature abhors a vacuum. When the Faith of our Fathers was taken out of our schools, the faith of the atheists was taken in. That is Humanism, the Godless religion that believes that man is almighty and that there is no greater power over man. The Communists are atheists and humanists.

James Madison said, "We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, but upon the capacity of mankind for self-government." William Penn said l00 years before the Declaration of Independence was written: "Those people who will not be governed by God will be ruled by tyrants."

Many of our great national leaders...Presidents Washington, Jackson, Lincoln ... paid tribute to the surpassing influence of the Bible in our country's development, as in the words of Pres. Jackson that the Bible is "the rock on which our Republic rests";

"Hillsdale College and the Western Tradition: Exploring the Roots of Freedom"

Robert W. Blackstock

The last two hundred years of freedom and prosperity in America, and our success in pulling together as one united people, have been the direct result of the Western tradition and the ideas, habits, customs, prescriptions, and views it embraces. I am not claiming, of course, that the Western tradition is the only tradition or the only worthy one; indeed there are many, and one of the West's strengths has been its willingness to borrow and adapt the good ideas of others. But the ideas of the West are without equal in the world, and we ignore them at our peril.

A University of Chicago Professor Richard Weaver observed that "Ideas have consequences." People generally act consistently with the ideas they embrace.

Hillside College President George Roche said, "Ideas rule the world." How else can we possibly explain, for example, the post-war record of the Japanese who, with almost no natural resources, have enjoyed a rapidly rising standard of living, while the Russians, with almost boundless natural resources, have suffered levels of poverty and deprivation that are most commonly associated with Third World countries? The difference is that the Japanese system, patterned in many ways after the American system, is to a greater degree built on freedom, and unleashes the great creative powers of the human mind. The former Soviet system, on the other hand, could not have been better designed to oppress the individual, crush the human spirit, and stifle the creative impulse.

The "ideas of freedom" are the core of the Western tradition and were once part and parcel of every American's vocabulary as well as their emotional, philosophical, and intellectual makeup. While not perfect, they are the best set of ideas the world has ever known.

We also find in Christianity an unprecedented respect for the individual. In an era when life was held cheap, and women and children, as well as slaves, were mere property, Christ, the "Just One," insisted that all human beings are of infinite value in the eyes of their Creator and that they ought to be treated equally in the eyes of the law.

It is astonishing that these ideas are now being cast aside as so much rubbish. "Political correctness" and all its works are arrogant assaults on the Western tradition. Sometimes the assault has been direct, as when, several years ago, Reverend Jesse Jackson led Stanford University students and faculty in the chant, "Hey, hey, ho, ho, Western Civ has got to go." Sometimes it has been more subtle, as when "educational experts" and government bureaucrats have sought to diminish these ideas through "diversity" and "multiculturalism" in the curriculum at the elementary, secondary, and collegiate levels.

By casting doubt on the Western tradition, they are also casting doubt on the key institutions and principles it has inspired: limited, constitutional government; private property and free markets, equal justice before the law; traditional morality; and com-mitment to truth and excellence.

After the heroic struggle of our ancestors to create this land of freedom, we are in danger of becoming emasculated shadows of our former selves--without sufficient reserves

of character, strength, or virtue to live independent of government. How far we have come from the ancients' pursuit of the heroic and the ideal! How far we have come from our own heroic roots!

Too many of us have come to take our prosperity for granted and too few of us under-

stand the relationship between character and freedom. The Western tradition has proved to be the most effective encouragement of good citizenship and sound character the world has ever seen. It instructs us in the value of human life, the rule of law, and freedom.

Throughout all of history, it has been a shining beacon.

This beacon, while sometimes dimly perceived, has been understood to represent truth, goodness, righteousness, and fairness--what may be called, in a word "justice". Even today, almost as a whisper from the past, most dictionaries still define justice as "fairness" and "moral or absolute rightness."

Less and less, it seems, do we depend on the values and ideas of the Western tradition as the basis of our actions and more and more do we look to personal gratification, moral relativism, and the cult of the "Now." Even worse, we allow our children to be taught that this is all there is to life. Without a commitment to justice and to other tenets of the Western tradition, what compelling reason do we have to be fair in our dealings with others? Why should we ensure that justice is administered impartially? Why should we regard individuals on the basis of merit instead of on the basis of their race, gender of class status? Truth, goodness, righteousness and justice have meaning and authority over us only if they are the demands of an authority higher than ourselves.

The real triumph of the Western tradition lies in taking diverse and seemingly inconsistent bodies of knowledge--bodies of knowledge that often appear to be at great odds with one another--and weaving them into a pattern of ideas that harmonizes and gives strength to its components and that speaks to the human mind and soul in a way that elevates not only the individual but an entire civilization.

The ancients were not perfect, but their education gave them a tool that we, as a civilization, no longer possess in any considerable measure. It was the ongoing dialogue about any and all questions of interest - the result of "a philosophic habit of mind." Through this dialogue (dialectic) the ancients vigorously questioned not only "what is," but "what ought to be," and not just "what are we doing?" but "what should we do?" That is why the Western tradition has always vigorously defended free speech and open inquiry. Only by asking what we ought to do and exposing the most basic issues to the light of free and open deliberation, can we, as individuals or society, hope to prosper.

We have lost the rich backdrop of past inquiries that, if remembered, would have enabled us to move on. Instead, we are left, even at this late date arguing the fundamentals: that character and decency matter; that truth exists and can be taught; that big government is destructive of a spontaneous and free social order. And in abandoning the literature of the West, we have lost our shared heroes and ideals that once bound us together as one people in the pursuit of shared goals.

Hillsdale College is an independent, non-sectarian institution of higher learning founded in l844 by men and women "grateful to God for the inestimable blessing" resulting from civil and religious liberty and "believing that the diffusion of learning is essential to the perpetuity of these blessings." Hillsdale's message is: Let us first take our bearings, assess our condition, and determine our common goals--and let us do so with an unwavering commitment to truth.

We cannot redirect the hearts and minds of our countrymen by force or by law. We must win them over with the fire of our ideas. Our answer must be found in a newly regenerate clarity of thought and purpose and in a willingness to take the ideas of freedom boldly into the public square. From "IMPRIMIS" Thanks to the person who put me on the mailing list. Anyone interested may make a tax deductible contribution to Hillsdale College by sending any amount to Hillsdale College, Hillsdale, Michigan 49242 Subscription free upon request.

MATCHING RUSSIA

Turning the United States into a socialist society continues to be the bizarre goal of economic theorists who loathe free enterprise.

Former California Governor Ronald Reagan has some statistics on what America would have to do to match Russia's record after 50 years of socialism.

"We'd have to cut our paychecks by more than 80 percent.

"Move 33 million workers back to the farm.

"Destroy 59 million television sets.

"Tear up l4 of every l5 miles of highway.

"Junk l9 of every 20 automobiles.

"Tear up two-thirds of our railroad track.

"Knock down 70 per cent of our houses and rip out nine out of every l0

telephones.

Then all we have to do is find a capitalist country to sell us wheat on credit to keep us from starving." 7/2l/75 L.C.

The Sixties Are Dead: Long Live the Nineties

From Imprimis, Jan. l995

The Sixties marked the beginning of a passionate social debate that still divides us.

No generation has ever heard more extravagant promises. i.e. (l) The promise to end poverty. The "public welfare program" led one wag to comment, "God is dead but 50,000 social workers have risen to take His place." (2) The promise of liberation from the traditional family. The life of mother and homemaker was defined as "comfortable, empty, purposeless days" lacking any possibility for a woman to "grow and realize one's full potential." (3) The promise of sexual freedom. "Do your own thing," "smash monogamy". Marriage began to replace cohabitation as the unpardonable sin. The youth culture began to experiment with group sex and homosexuality out of a sense of political obligation, and a yearning to be trendy. (4) The promise of pharmaceutical enlightenment. Happiness and drug use became synonymous. (5) The promise of progressive education. The ideologies gained in the sixties claimed that the fundamental intellectual principles of Western culture were illegitimate and must be overthrown. Terms like "truth", "good," "evil," and "soul" could be discarded." (6) The promise of unrestrained expression. Please kids by shocking their parents. (7) The promise of God's death. Abbie Hoffman proclaimed, "God is dead, and we did it for the kids."

To fight poverty, the government has spent beyond the wildest dreams of avarice. They have conducted the greatest social experiment the world has ever seen with $3.5 trillion in government funds. Yet poverty is still on the increase.

Feminist disdain for the family and the sexual revolution have given millions of women the chance to realize their full potential - of abandonment and poverty, that has "liberated" countless children from the affection and care of their parents. Only 39% of children born in l988 will live with both parents until their l8th birthday. Over 40% of all American children have no set goals, limited education and a sense of hopelessness about their lives. The doctrine of the dispensable two-parent family turned out to be a lie.

Progressive education has generally left students entirely in the dark. Professors denounce falsehood and injustice while teaching that truth and justice are illusions.

J. Allen Smith confessed: "The trouble with us reformers is that we have made reform a crusade against all standards. Well, we have smashed them all, and now neither we nor anyone else has anything left."

The revolution that was meant to solve every problem became the problem. An abandoned child. An overdosed teenager. A trapped welfare mother. An ignorant student. A victim of venereal disease. Each could ask, "Where was my liberation?"

Social science documents the importance of strong families and individual character; it has documented the result when these things are absent in society. No-fault father-hood can cripple poor children faster than lead paint and the two-parent home is the best defense against poverty, crime, and despair. For children, two-parent families are superior to single parent and stepfamilies. About l.2 million children are being born annually in single-parent homes. Without mature males as role models they are growing up un-socialized, unsuitable for employment, and without prospects of hope. Pres. Clinton said, "Our problems go way beyond the reach of government. They are rooted in the loss

of values... and the breakdown of our families... We are a people of faith... It is religion that helps to give our people the character without which a democracy cannot survive." We cannot build an orderly society when there is disorder in our souls. ... Social order is the public evidence of private conscience.

Sixties' liberalism is dead at its core--killed by truths it denied but could not escape. Every promise of the sixties has been broken, but the future is bright and full of life.

POWER OF JURORS

The individual juror is the Supreme Judge of the rightness of the Law. He is the final authority and sovereign of a Republic under God. He is above the Legislature, Executive and Judicial branches of the government and it is his power which can enforce and nullify all Law. This is his inalienable right!

"It is not only his right, but his duty ... to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court." John Adams, 2nd U.S. President in l77l (Yale Law Journal, 74 (l964):l73

"Every jury in the land is tampered with and falsely instructed by the judge when it is told it must take (or accept) as the Law that which has been given to them, or that they must bring in a certain verdict, or that they can decide only the facts of the case." Lord Denman, C.J. O'Connel v.r. (l884) From Destiny Digest 7/93.

The Right to Protest

Federal prosecutors in Reno, Nevada, decided last month to charge a 50-year old Reno grandmother and wholesale florist with "jury tampering". Yvonne Regas is charged with causing brochures to be placed under windshield wipers in the federal courthouse parking lot -- brochures printed up and distributed nationally by the Fully Informed Jury Association.

What was in this hideous brochure? True or False? the cover asked, "When you sit on a jury, you have the right to vote your conscience." Inside the Fully Informed Jury folks answer, "True ... but it's extremely unlikely the judge will tell you this, because the law doesn't require it. Instead, expect the judge to tell you that you may consider 'only the facts' of the case and you are not to let your conscience, your opinion of the law, or the defendant's motives affect your decision.

"How can people get fair trials if the jurors can't use conscience? Many people don/t get fair trials. Far too often, jurors actually end up apologizing to the person they've convicted. ..."

"The pages of history shine upon instances of a jury's exercise of its prerogative

to disregard instructions of the judge," wrote the D.C. Court of Appeals in l972, as cited in the FIJA brochure, "for example, acquittals under the fugitive slave law."

Then comes the really scurrilous stuff, as the brochure quotes such dangerous radicals as John Adams, our second president, who said of the American juror two centuries ago: "It is not only his right, but his duty, ...to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court."

Prosecutor Ron Rachow confirms that this case is all about the brochures. "Her attorney may think this is a First Amendment issue, but not all speech is constitutionally protected," he says.

The question is: If the free-speech right of Yvonne Regas to distribute brochures in a public parking lot, brochures which quote the likes of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, is no longer "constitutionally protected," what other, previously protected free speech right must fall next to the same logic?

If Yvonne Regas circulated notes reading "Jurors call me; I'll pay $5,000 for the 'right vote," then throw the book at her, by all means. But based on the case presented so far, this prosecution is a blatant violation of the First Amendment, and should be dismissed. From Las Vegas Review-Journal of Mar. l7, l994

NOT YOURS TO GIVE

Violations of the Oath to Protect and Preserve the Constitution

"Hillsdale College and the Western Tradition: Exploring the Roots of Freedom"

MATCHING RUSSIA

The Sixties Are Dead: Long Live the Nineties

The Right to Protest