An Introduction to Conspiracy
by William Clifford: Kern
http://members.theglobe.com/kcwills/
All assumptions are wrong. You must remember that in the intelligence
world, every truth is part lie and every lie is based on some truth. If you
try to separate the two, you will only wind up confused and frustrated. "If
you are an outsider, you will slowly learn that there is no separation of
the two; the lies and the truth are just two of the many sides of the same
ever-flipping coin.
"If you are an insider, you will slowly and often painfully learn that
sometimes the coin lands by chance, sometimes the way it lands is rigged by
you'll never know whom, and that sometimes there is not even a coin at all.
"If you are lucky and work hard, you will find some of the truth. If you
are lucky and work really hard, you might find the whole truth...as someone
wants you to know it. If you are phenomenally lucky and really work your
tail off, you might even go on to find the real truth.
"But no outsider...and in fact, very few insiders ever...ever...learn the
whole real truth." Former Intelligence Officer
I am a conspiracy researcher, but not a raving fundamentalist, a statist, a
theorist, a theist, a theosophist, an egoist, fascist, communist, humanist,
apologist for political or religious groups, or any other "ist" which you
may be tempted to hang on me if you continue to read the information which
is presented here. I am neither Democrat nor Republican; neither Anarchist
nor Libertarian. I display no banners. I do not vote. I do not contribute
time or money to candidates for public offices. I reject all authority
outside of myself. I am my own temple.
I am a member of no fraternal organization. I watch very little television
and only documentaries at that. I have not watched a sitcom for perhaps 17
years. I have been to only three motion pictures in the same period of
time. I do not know the names of movie stars or sound recording artists
because I believe they are not worth my time. I don't know the name of the
Representative for this district, either State of Federal and for the same
reason. I know and talk to most of my neighbors. I do not go out to eat. I
am a good cook. I can build houses. I can repair automobiles. I believe
Americans should grow as much food as they can for their own use and for
sharing with neighbors.
I think for myself but I am willing to read and hear the expressions of
others and to use them in forming my personal goals if they make sense. It
might be argued that I am a deist* in that I suspect the presence of an
extra mundane "Cause" (that which there may be none greater than) but do
not attend the church of any religion. I reject the title, however, simply
because I am not wise enough to accurately interpret the unknowable "Cause"
to be that which others call "supreme being" or "God." *Deism is defined in
Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary, 1941, as: "[From Latin Deus; God, Deity]
The doctrine or creed of a Deist." And Deist is defined in the same
dictionary as: "One who believes in the existence of a God or supreme being
but denies revealed religion,* basing his belief on the light of nature and
reason." *see the link at my website to GWF Hegel's essay on Revealed
Religions to find out what the "founding fathers" thought.
Deists believe that a Prime Source created the cosmos and everything in it,
including us, but does not intervene in human affairs, it (God) having gone
on to other places to do other things. In other words, God created us but
has no interest at all about what we do with or to ourselves or the planet.
It is important to remember that the "founding fathers" read, admired and
followed the precepts and formulas found in the "enlightened" literature of
Europe. Those concepts are so closely related to Socialism and Communism
that no intelligent person can wonder why America has evolved into a
Socialist nation. I believe it was founded as such!
FOUNDING FATHERS WERE NOT "CHRISTIANS"
Now...rejecting "revealed" religions (religions communicated to man by
revelations) means that one might also reject the so-called prophets of
those religions since the words, deeds and teachings of those prophets have
come down to man by so-called "revelation." Those of you who have always
believed the lie that America is a "Christian nation" are in for a rude
awakening. Many of the so-called "founding fathers" and other famous
influential American scholars and politicians were not Christians at all,
but were Deists or Unitarians, and among them were Abigail Adams*, John
Adams*, John Quincy Adams*, Ethan Allen, John C. Calhoun, William S. Cohen,
Paul H. Douglas, Emily Taft Douglas, Millard Fillmore*, Benjamin Franklin*,
Horace Greeley*, Hannibal Hamlin, Thomas Jefferson*, James Madison, Thomas
Paine*, William J. Perry, Paul Revere*, Elliot L. Richardson, Francis
George Shaw, Col. Robert Gould Shaw, Adlai Stevenson (1900-1965)*, William
Howard Taft*, George Washington* and Daniel Webster* . * People marked with
an asterisk have appeared on postage stamps (in most cases, US stamps).
Unitarian-n.
1. An adherent of Unitarian Universalism. subscribes to the universal
oneness (unity) of humankind.
2. A monotheist who is not a Christian. believes in one God but does not
subscribe to the dogma of Christianity
3. A Christian who is not a Trinitarian. subscribes to the ideals of Jesus
(Emmanuel) but not the dogma of the triune godhead.
Colonel Ethan Allen's essay, Reason: The Only Oracle of Man, contains these
words and I urge you to read it:
Though "none by searching can find out God, or the Almighty to perfection,"
yet I am persuaded, that if mankind would dare to exercise their reason as
freely on those divine topics as they do in the common concerns of life,
they would, in a great measure, rid themselves of their blindness and
superstition, gain more exalted ideas of God and their obligations to him
and one another, and be proportionally delighted and blessed with the views
of his moral government, make better members of society, and acquire manly
powerful incentives to the practice of morality, which is the last and
greatest perfection that human nature is capable of.
The Unitarian ideal, embracing the concept of all humankind as equally the
children of one Creator, is best summed up by the words of Thomas Jefferson:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal;
that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable
rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;
that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving
their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form
of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the
people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its
foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as
to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."
--Declaration of Independence as originally written by Thomas Jefferson,
1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:315
Unitarians, like Deists, believe in a Prime Source by do not subscribe to
the dogma of any church or "holy" book. Neither utters a creed of belief.
Both embrace the humanitarian ideals of Jesus (Emmanuel), but not the
bastardized messianic history of his life in the form in which it later
appeared in the KJV of the Bible. In addition to introduction of a Bill
concerning Freedom of Religion, Thomas Jefferson, using the text of the KJV
Bible, wrote a chronology of the life, ministry and death of Jesus
(Emmanuel). The book has come to be improperly known as "The Jefferson Bible."
THE INFLUENCE OF FREEMASONRY
All but one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were
Freemasons and, to my understanding, Freemasonry, being a nonsectarian
organization, disavows "revealed" religions outright, while allowing each
members to practice any revealed religion according to his own wishes,
albeit not within the Lodge. "Revealed" religions include Christianity,
Islam and Judaism. There are others, of course. Each supports its exclusive
claim by a "holy" book, supposedly "revealed" to the mind of man by "God."
But if there is but one supreme being, one "God," why so many religions,
and why so many different revelations? Could it be that "God" is not wise
enough to communicate the same message to all of humankind the same way at
the same time? Or could it be, as I suspect, that humankind has erred in
the interpretation of the so-called "revelation?"
I AM NOT A FREEMASON, BUT...
One of the most perplexing contradictions circulating within the so-called
"patriot movement" in America is the claim that the Declaration of
Independence and the federal Constitution, both of which were formulated
and written by so many Freemasons, are such sacred documents, but that
Freemasons are somehow involved in a conspiracy to destroy the Republic
they so laboriously and with so much blood have formed. No one has been
able to explain this contradiction to my satisfaction.
If the so-called "patriots" believe the Masons are involved in this evil
conspiracy, why do they (the "patriots") insist that the infamous documents
originally created by Freemasonry be "restored?" It was, to my
understanding, Freemasons who insisted on inclusion of the Bill of Rights
as amendments to the federal Constitution. Can someone explain how this can
be part of a conspiracy against Americans?
"[The first step is] to concur in a declaration of rights, at least, so
that the nation may be acknowledged to have some fundamental rights not
alterable by their ordinary legislature, and that this may form a ground
work for future improvements."
--Thomas Jefferson to John Jay, 1788. ME 7:18, Papers 13:190
"I consider the foundation of the [Federal] Constitution as laid on this
ground: That "all powers not delegated to the United States, by the
Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the
States or to the people." [10th Amendment] To take a single step beyond the
boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress is to take
possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any
definition."
--Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791. ME 3:146
"I was in Europe when the Constitution was planned, and never saw it till
after it was established. On receiving it, I wrote strongly to Mr. Madison,
urging the want of provision for... an express reservation to the States of
all rights not specifically granted to the Union."
--Thomas Jefferson to Joseph Priestley, 1802. ME 10:325
"Whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are
unauthoritative, void, and of no force."
--Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:380
"[An] act of the Congress of the United States... which assumes powers...
not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void and
of no force." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:383
THOSE WHO BELIEVE AMERICA IS A "CHRISTIAN NATION"
SHOULD PAY PARTICULAR HEED:
The Treaty of Tripoli, passed by the U.S. Senate in 1797, reads in part:
"The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the
Christian religion."
The treaty was written during the Washington administration, and sent to
the Senate during the Adams administration.
It was read aloud to the Senate, and each Senator received a printed copy.
This was the 339th time that a recorded vote was required by the Senate,
but only the third time a vote was unanimous (the next time was to honor
George Washington). There is no record of any debate or dissension on the
treaty. It was reprinted in full in three newspapers - two in Philadelphia,
one in New York City. There is no record of public outcry or complaint in
subsequent editions of the papers.
The link at my website explains the treaty in detail and gives brief
biographies of several prominent "founding fathers."
Okay...the closest you might come--if you must categorize me-- is to say
that I am a nonpartisan iconoclast, but only in the narrowest confine of
each word.
1. impartial, nonaligned, neutral. A non-voter. iconoclast (h-kÄn-õ-klast) n.
1. One who attacks traditional or popular ideas, institutions or
misconceptions.
I say in the narrowest confine of each word because Charles Fort has
written, and I concur:
Honest Opinion (p. 92)
"Our own acceptance is that justice cannot be in an intermediate existence,
in which there can be approximation only to justice or to injustice; that
to be fair is to have no opinion at all; that to be honest is to be
uninterested; that to investigate is to admit prejudice; that nobody has
ever really investigated anything, but has always sought positively to
prove or disprove something that was conceived of, or suspected, in advance."
No mortal is ever completely fair and no mortal can ever be completely
disinterested, particularly if one's pleasure is attacking popular social,
political or religious misconceptions. If you feel compelled to comment on
this letter or any of the reports you find on my website, please be kind
enough to leave all acrimonious phillipic out of your comments.
I will trash them straightaway for I have no time to entertain hate mail.
The worst will be forwarded to the Postmaster or to your web server for
action. If it contains anything close to a death threat, the message,
complete with your mail / email address, goes to the local FBI. Period.
Because I am reasonably well read and have a desire for questioning the
authority of propaganda from any source, left, right or center; social,
political or religious, I have spent the better part of my 65 years digging
for "the truth." During ten of my twenty years in the naval service I was
assigned to duties within the intelligence community, including a tour at
NRTSC in Suitland, Maryland, and a tour at DIA in Arlington, Virginia. In
the middle years of that service I read as many as 300 books per year (more
than most people will read in a lifetime) trying to inch my way closer to
the truth. Let me assure you that the truth is only rarely accessible.
Too many times I've discovered to my everlasting dismay, after months of
research, that truth is cloaked in misdirection and outright
disinformation. And as you will soon discover in the following essays, your
own city, county, state and federal governments would prefer that you never
know the whole real truth about most of the activities in which they are
engaged. But not knowing at least some of the truth could cost you your
life. It has most certainly cost you your freedom.
It was once observed that nobody ever changed anything unless someone or
something was pricking at their psyche. That is my mission--to prick holes
in your psyche. Still, some of you will simply adopt a position of outright
denial--like the ostrich with its head in the sand; perhaps if you refuse
to see then it cannot harm you! Sadly, that is not the case for ostriches
or for humans. Those who refuse to accept any of the information here are
like the lost explorer feeding his tucker to the alligators, hoping they
will get full before they reach him or, at the least, eat him last, which
is nothing more than delaying the inevitable.
Unlike the secular media, which endeavors to present only one side of any
issue; that is, the side which represents the ideas and concepts which they
wish most to implant in your mind as being the only valid ideas, I will, at
times, present ideas which may appear to be contrary to the current
"patriot" viewpoint. I do so because I believe it is important to
understand counterpoint to vital issues. Such essays may change your views
about certain things or they may serve to strengthen your strongly-held
convictions.
The point is that by presenting more than one boring side of the world, you
may be induced to think more introspectively about what you feel you
believe. We cannot again be a free people if we cling miserably to old lies
and misconceptions. At the beginning of the Vietnam conflict, while serving
a tour of duty at DIA, I was soundly chastised by a tradition-shod officer
for reading the works of Chairman Mao.
He accused me of being a communist. "But, sir," I replied, "how can we
expect to defeat our enemies if we do not understand his political agenda
and philosophical concepts?" He had no answer, but confiscated my book
nonetheless. I hope he had the good common sense to read it but I suspect,
since America lost that conflict, neither he nor most of his colleagues
read Chairman Mao (or Jefferson, Henry, Spooner, Marx, Engels or Trotsky,
for that matter).
***** To find out why America (and all other nations) will eventually be
absorbed into a global government with no military or civil police forces
at all, go here when you reach my website. This will make you gnash your
teeth and tear your shirt! You military people and law enforcement agencies
pay particular attention to this essay. But whence originated this
incredible, insane idea to rid all nations of their armies and local
police, and to place all military power and civil law enforcement into the
hands of unelected foreign socialists at the United Nations? Right here:
I saw Trotsky again this summer (the summer of 1922) and asked him what he
had done about reducing the army. Of course, because of the new economic
policy, a Labor Army was out of the question. He told me that he had
reduced the army from 5,300,000 to 800,000, including the navy.
A greater reduction than that, he said, was impossible. "We stand always
ready to reduce our army," said Trotsky, "even to liquidating it fully,
whenever our closest and our farthest neighbors accept a program of
disarmament. In January we offered disarmament. Europe refused even the
suggestion. Later we asked our close neighbors, with the same result. If
America would only take the initiative in this respect," he shrugged and
smiled, "well, we would support her with our whole heart."
Mirrors of Moscow: "Trotsky, Soviet War Lord;" 1923
Trotsky (a Jew) was born Lev Davydovich Bronstein, his father's name being
Davyd "Lyova" Leontiyevich Bronstein. "Lyova" is one of the many similar
diminutives of Lev, which literally means "Lion."
(Incidentally, Communism, Fascism and Capitalism are, all three, socialist
economic experiments of Zionist Jews).
I guarantee you that your enemies and mine will read these pages. They read
them to get a sense of our determination, to get a handle on our agenda and
philosophy, to see how far we are from finding proper solutions, and to
revel in our failures and petty bickerings. And, occasionally, when they
see something here that is truth, they begin writing foul-mouthed
accusations and death-threats.
How To Recognize Infiltrators and Agents Provocateurs:
Here are some key "buzz words" and phrases to look for when trying to spot
infiltrators or industry mouthpieces:
* saying "anecdote" is inferior to "solid scientific studies performed by
experts" to discredit/invalidate victim's personal stories.
*"where's your proof?" or "can you prove that?"
* "who told you that!?"
* correcting your grammar, spelling. Use "speak the King's English" insult.
* personal attacks/ sniper attacks to shut down talk on a specific topic in
an open discussion. Sarcastic referral to mainstream media like "you've
been watching Buffy The Vampire Slayer" and "reading too much Ladies Home
Journal" or comments such as: "they border on the ruminations of tragic
Shakespearean characters just short of the denouement. They are private
thoughts that will neither help your cause nor the cause of other victims
of medical negligence, political intrigue or globalist conspiracies."
* put-down comments about your presumed lack of "emotional," "spiritual,"
"mental," or educational" prowess.
* calling you a fascist or communist or labeling you as a "dangerous
militant radical," or the same thing, a "Christian!"
* rewriting history. Insisting something is true when it clearly is not,
and accusing you of rewriting history!
* Channeling direction in a conversation hitting too close to the truth to
a more benign cause: "But to say that doctors are involved in a conspiracy
of silence to protect their own is not to say that doctors are malevolent
or malicious on average. The picture you and Dr. XXXXX paint is one that
cannot be believed even if it is true"
* using the "painting with a broad brush" analogy. "This means that we must
be careful not to paint with too broad a brush lest we turn potential
allies into neutrals or even enemies."
* accusation words like "extremist," "radical," "idiot," "brain-dead," when
an "unapproved" topic (the truth) has been presented.
* deliberate channeling of the "unapproved" topics to the "approved" list
to halt further discussion.
* outright or veiled death threats to frighten away the more timid
researchers.
On the surface, they claim to be conservatives, anarchists or libertarians
dedicated to reforming oppressive governments; yet, with their death
threats, prove they would be as ruthless or more so than the governments
they claim they want to replace "when or if the revolution begins." The
agents provocateurs claim to reserve the "right" to "eliminate with
prejudice all idiots, radicals and brain-dead extremists" as soon as they
seize power from the present government.
In other words, to kill anyone who does not agree with them; rather like
the Stalinist purges or the actions of the present U. S. federal
government, I'd say. This is what they are taught. It is that standardized
Tavistock rote-response conditioning methodology. The formal name is
Hegalian Trap or Hegalian Dialect*.
They are taught this....and that is why the trained lackeys say the same
words and phrases over and over like broken records: they perform exactly
as they have been trained...like a bunch of mindless, unfeeling robots:
"When the researcher says so-and-so, you respond with this approved reply."
*Don't knock Hegel until you read Hegel.
ARE PATRIOTS READING THE WRONG LITERATURE FIRST?
ARE PATRIOTS NOT READING IMPORTANT LITERATURE AT ALL?
DO "PATRIOTS" EVEN UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY ARE TRYING TO ACHIEVE?
Hegel proposed that man was and should be free in a free society with a
free economy. It was only those who came later who bastardized and used
Hegel's philosophy to forge a nationalist/fascist state in Germany and the
Soviet State in Russia. Click this link when you reach my website to read
the Section entitled, Revealed Religions, of Hegel's Phenomenology of Mind,
his first important work. Here is a link, via my website, to the entire
book. It appears in about 50 sections. Quite large. And, incidentally, I am
not suggesting that I either agree or disagree with anything or everything
that Hegel or other writers propose.
You will also find works by Marx, Engels, Trotsky and others at this link.
It is amazing how the writings and rantings of so-called modern "patriots"
often echoes and parrots completely or in part the writings of these
proponents of global Socialism! It is for that reason that I am not
affiliated with any "patriot" organization. I feel that most of them
haven't a clue about what they want to achieve or where they are leading
their generally uneducated and mostly illiterate herds of sheep.
You don't have to believe everything presented here. Indeed, I will be
disappointed if you do believe these essays without first investigating on
your own to verify the information. Those who claim their answers are the
only answers and that everyone else is either uninformed or lying outright
generally do not have your best interests at heart, particularly those who
insist that Americans are somehow "protected" by the by-laws (constitution)
of a bankrupt corporation known as the United States. The by-laws of a
corporation are a legal contract affecting only members of the corporation
who agreed to and signed the contract. Believe me, you aren't a member
except, perhaps, by covert agreements!
The "Constitution" was a legal contract binding only upon those who
originally signed it. They are all dead. And when the last of them died,
their legal contract died with them. It was not binding upon anyone who
came after them and, indeed, was not even binding upon any of their
contemporaries who had not signed it.
Federalism as a Basis
Despite their common heritage, background, and homogeneity, the original
states were 13 different and distinct political entities, each commanding
considerable loyalty from its citizenry. However much the framers wanted a
strong central government, they knew that they could establish one only by
allowing the states to retain power or by making it appear that they did.
They realized, or at least Hamilton did, that, as a practical matter, there
could not be a double sovereignty; the framers persuaded the public to
accept the Constitution by claiming that sovereignty was indeed divisible.
Under the federal system they devised, the national government was given
the authority to exercise only the enumerated powers granted it, but it had
supreme authority in those areas.
State sovereignty was therefore largely a fiction; it was destined to have
a stormy future, involving a bloody civil war. The corporation known as the
United States is chartered by the royal family of England. The United
States is legally--by charter and treaty---a colony of England! The
"Constitution" was rewritten by King George's barristers and approved by
the king himself to his advantage, not ours, before it was presented to the
states for ratification.
No subject discussed within the so-called "patriot movement" in America
arouses the anger and blood lust of those who believe they are protected by
a constitution as does the mere mention that such belief is in complete
error. The federalists, of course, want you to believe that the by-laws
still exist and that you are protected by them. As long as you believe, you
will always look in the wrong direction for answers and never find the
solutions for the many violations to freedom that now exist in America. The
first requisite in planning a covert operation is to create a diversion
(the Restore the Constitution Movement, UTDC, CONSCON, etc.) so people
cannot see the thieves running out the back door with the family
silverware. The federalists and globalists understand that better than
anyone else and have used it successfully to the disadvantage of the
American patriot community.
Twelve states (all but Rhode Island) named 73 delegates to the
Constitutional Convention. Of these, 55 came but only 39 signed the
original Constitution on Sept. 17, 1787.
The leaders of the convention were statesmen who in modern parlance would
be called middle-of-the-road: George WASHINGTON, Alexander HAMILTON, James
MADISON, John JAY, and Benjamin FRANKLIN.
Conspicuous by their absence were the firebrands of freedom, Patrick Henry
and Sam Adams, and the author of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas
Jefferson.
One of the greatest fears of the proponents of the constitution was the
power of a free and diverse people, and they planned and organized their
new government and its by-laws to prevent a free people from having much
decision about it. In his keynote address at the Constitutional convention,
Edmund RANDOLPH said: "Our chief danger arises from the democratic parts of
our {state} constitutions. It is a maxim which I hold incontrovertible,
that the powers of government exercised by the people swallow up the other
branches."
----------------------
An Introduction to Conspiracy
Part 2
by William Clifford: Kern
http://members.theglobe.com/kcwills/
FRAMEWORK
The framework of government established in the Constitution emphasizes four
overriding concepts: popular control without majority rule; the limitation
of governmental power; federalism; and a tripartite government.
Popular Control but NOT Majority Rule as Claimed!
The framers provided for ultimate control of the government by the people
through the electoral process. Such control, however, was not to be
exercised either easily or immediately, except perhaps over the House of
Representatives. Originally, senators were to be chosen by the state
legislatures and the president by the electors in the Electoral College.
Since the state legislatures controlled the selection of senators, and
presidential electors and seats in the state legislature were won in
popular elections, it was assumed that the popular will would eventually
have an effect on the choice of senators and presidents. It could also be
argued that the people would have a voice in the choice of federal
officials appointed by the president, with the advice and consent of the
Senate, but this could be true of federal judges only in the long run,
since they were given virtually lifetime tenure.
The framers, with their complex views on government, felt that the popular
majority must be represented in the federal legislature. At the same time,
they felt that they must not give over all legislative power to a popular
majority. Consequently, they approved an arrangement by which one house of
the legislature represented majority will and another house served as a
negation of the first.
So it really isn't a "government of, by, and for the people," is it?
Article II Section 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President of
the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of
four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same
Term, be elected, as follows:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may
direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and
Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no
Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit
under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for
two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same
State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted
for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and
certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United
States, directed to the President of the Senate.
The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House
of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be
counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the
President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors
appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have
an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall
immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person
have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House
shall in like Manner chuse the President.
But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the
Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose
shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a
Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case,
after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of
Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President.
But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate
shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.
A perennial difficulty in the constitutional interpretation of presidential
power is the meaning of the first sentence of Article II:
"The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of
America."
What is executive power? Presidents have held differing views of the powers
inherent in their office. William Howard Taft took the view that the
president had only the powers expressly given him in the other sections of
Article II. In contrast, Theodore Roosevelt held that by virtue of the
opening sentence of Article II the president, as steward of all the people,
could do anything on behalf of the people that was not expressly denied him
in the Constitution.
On several momentous occasions Franklin D. Roosevelt asserted the power to
do things expressly forbidden by the Constitution. For example, before the
United States entered World War II, he traded some old destroyers to
Britain in exchange for military bases, although Article IV, Section 3 of
the Constitution gives Congress the exclusive power to dispose of property
belonging to the United States. Abraham Lincoln also suggested that a
president must occasionally suspend part of the Constitution to preserve
the whole. And, of course, he did.
Section 1 of Article II describes the electoral college system for electing
the president. Paragraph 3 was superseded by another set of rules, the 12th
Amendment.
How is it they believed they had either the right or the power to tell free
people how and when they could or could not decide who their "leaders"
would be, or even that there should be "leaders" at all? Everything they
wrote only reinforces the false idea that free people should be ruled by an
elitist class. But what do you think about it?
They didn't bother to ask your ancestors before they made the rules and
they don't bother to ask you now. They claim to have the "law of the land"
and that law makes you anything but free! Tell you what: You write a
constitution and send it to me with the claim that it is now the law of the
land and that it makes me free and that I and my family must abide by it or
face censure as traitors and enemies of your State.
What do you suppose my reaction to your scrap of paper will be?
The "Constitution" does not make Americans free; it makes them complete and
total slaves to a centralized federal government. Does any thinking person
imagine that people (excluding those held as bondsmen or slaves), in this
country were not free before the writing and enactment of the Constitution;
that the writing of the Constitution suddenly made a whole nation of people
"free?"
How absurd! But even if Americans were, somehow, "protected" and made
miraculously "free" under a corporation's by-laws, the 13th Amendment, the
14th Amendment, and the 16th Amendment, which have been found to be
completely fraudulent, renders the entire contract invalid on its face, not
only for Americans, but for all the members of the corporation. Do you see
now why the President routinely legislates outside the restrictions of
their constitution--so called? If any part of a contract is found to be
fraudulent, the entire document is dishonored.
ROMAN CIVIL LAW ESTABLISHED:
NO PROTECTION IN ANY EVENT!
Eighty-five years after the Independence of the united states, seven
Southern states of America walked out of the Second Session of the
Thirty-Sixth Congress on March 27, 1861. In so doing, the Constitutional
quorum necessary for Congress to vote was lost, and Congress was adjourned
sine die, or "without day". This meant that there was no quorum to set a
specific day and time to reconvene which, according to Robert's Rules of
Order, dissolved Congress since there were no provisions within the
Constitution allowing the passage of any Congressional vote without a
quorum of the States.
Since there was no longer a Congress, there was no longer any by-laws.
Since there were no by-laws, there was no Presidency. Lincoln's second
Executive Order unlawfully called Congress back into session days later,
but not under the authority of the Constitution. As Commander-in-Chief,
Congress was called into session under the Martial Law and rule of Lincoln.
Congress has never reconvened under the provisions of the U.S. Constitution
since that day. The corporate United States has been without a valid
Constitution (by-laws) since March, 1861 and America has been under Martial
Law, in a constant state of "emergency" ever since. Lincoln, quite
literally, became a dictator. His executive orders established a system of
Roman Civil Law in America and that system has prevailed uninterrupted
since April 1861.
It was during this period that the original lawfully ratified 13th
Amendment, "Titles of Nobility and Honor" was covertly removed from the
original by-laws, to be replaced later by the present 13th Amendment known
as the "Emancipation Proclamation," into a new set of by-laws which has
never been ratified by anyone! Everyone just pretended that the
constitutiton was still valid. The so-called Constitution which exists
today is a complete fraud. The first was dissolved and nullified in 1861,
and the replacement has never been ratified. In short, the entire so-called
federal government of the corporate United States is an unlawful
organization. It has no jurisdiction over anyone--and actually never
did--except at the point of a gun! It is fascism in the extreme, precisely
as the United Nations will be when they replace your constitution with
another equally invalid set of rules.
Have you not heard of Roosevelt's "War and Emergency Powers Act" that
officially and legally (but not lawfully) made every American an "enemy of
the State" with no rights in court?
How can "enemies of the State" with no rights be "protected" under the
State's by-laws, for crying-out-loud!? The State's "enemies" are
specifically excluded!
Don't you get it?
All "laws" are nothing more than Executive Orders (dictats) because the
so-called constitution and Congress have been non-issues since April 1861.
The "State" is the corporation and the "courts" are their tribunals, the
common law courts having been forever abolished.
Does anyone imagine that the "enemies" of the Nazi State, regardless of who
they were-and they were legion-could have been equally "protected" by the
State's Constitution? Wake up! Open your eyes! Open your mind!
Read all of these essays and you will understand.
And, by the way... if the lawfully dissolved Congress has reconvened
covertly and unlawfully; that is to say, outside the limits of their own
defunct constitution--so-called, does that not mean that all the "laws"
they've foisted upon us since Lincoln's War are without meaning and
invalid? Does it not mean that they are nothing more than a cartel of
slick, well-organized criminals keeping us as slaves to provide them with
the manpower, resources and cannon fodder to help them enslave
(democratize) the rest of the world?
SO WHO IS THE ENEMY HERE?
Native American Indians understood that the enemy "is a state of mind."
Stockpiling guns to defend ourselves against the State or trying to get
elected to some office may seem like powerful strategies, but, in fact,
they are not. Both mimic the enemy, by attempting to fight the State on its
own ground. Such strategies are doomed to failure because they only
reinforce the attitudes that make it possible for the State to exist in the
first place; i.e., that the "State" is a real thing with a life and
existence outside of the human mind.
If we want to deal voluntarily with other people, and have them deal with
us likewise, then we need to practice freedom and liberty in our own lives.
It may seem difficult to "resist not evil," but there are powerful reasons,
both moral and utilitarian, for heeding that advice. "Those who fight evil
necessarily take on the characteristics of the enemy and become evil
themselves." from David McKells If you vote, you compound the problem by
validating the State's power over you! Casting a vote for a politician is
akin to driving the getaway car for a gang of bank robbers and putting your
stamp of approval on plunder of the public treasury. You become an
accessory to an on-going monumental crime against all of America!
An Anti-Electorate Manifesto
We, the Anti-Electorate, do not believe there is a need for "strong
leadership" in government.
We are not drawn to 'intellectual' authorities and political 'heroes.'
We are not impressed with titles, ranks, and pecking orders politicians,
celebrities, and gurus.
We do not struggle for control of organizations, social circles, and
government.
We do not lobby the State for favors or permission to control those with
whom we disagree.
Rather, we advocate freedom.
By its very nature, the State does not.
Exercise your right to say 'No' to the warfare-welfare system.
Refuse to vote. Then tell your friends.
Wally Conger, OUT OF STEP, June 1994.
(146-A North Canyon Blvd, Monrovia, CA 91016)
HALF A TRUTH IS A LIE!
I am forever astonished at the ability of some people in the so-called
"patriot movement" to proclaim the truth only half-way. I mean that
whatever they have set in their minds as truth they pass on to others who
accept it as gospel, but any other concept outside that envelope of
understanding, although quite as valid as any other discovery, is condemned
as the "subversive propaganda of communists." It is exactly this failure to
accept any new discovery of truth (derived, as you can see, from existing
documents which are easily obtainable) as having validity that prevents
Americans from shedding the yoke of slavery.
If you think you are not a slave as you labor under your chains, you will
never seek the means for attaining liberty. "Patriots" hold dear the words
of the "founding fathers" almost as fervently as they do Bible text. If a
founding father said something during the building of this nation, then it
must be "the truth," particularly as it applies to the so-called
"Constitution."
But Patrick Henry, who urged his fellow Americans to proclaim liberty by
arming themselves for the coming battle with the king's armies, also said
this about those who wrote and enacted the so-called Constitution:
"What right had they to say, We, the People? My political curiosity,
exclusive of my anxious solicitude for the public welfare, leads me to ask:
Who authorized them to speak the language of We, the People...? The people
gave them no power to use their name. That they exceeded their power is
perfectly clear."
Patrick Henry, Son of Thunder
They exceeded their power before they wrote it, they exceeded their power
as they wrote it, and have they exceeded their power ever since.
Common sense tells us that they did so and continue to do so to deceive the
rest of America. But patriots, who find this concept contrary to all they
think they know and understand, will condemn this statement as "communist
propaganda" or some such, and they will discount it without ever
investigating to see whether or not it is true. The reason "patriots" fear
such statements is because they clearly show that the so-called
"Constitution" was not and is not the "people's Constitution" but is a set
of by-laws intended only as a set of rules governing the actions of the
newly-formed federal government, the truth of which is attested to by
Henry's and Jefferson's statements.
In the context of the "Constitution" being a contract, then, "We, the
people," meant only those who agreed to and signed the by-laws, nothing
more, nothing less.
During the framing of the so-called constitution, to be considered one of
"the people" one had to own property as real property and a certain number
of other human beings as slaves. If you held no property, you were not one
of "We, the people."
Woman held no property and could not vote. Most men held no property and
could not vote. Slaves, white or black or any other color, could not vote
even after they were freed. Poor people could not vote. Only rich land
holders/slave owners were considered to be "people."
And this concept holds true today. Since we do not own property, we are not
"people." We are chattel, the property of the elite rich. Before the
introduction of the "Constitution," all eligible Americans were "electors."
Now they allow us to believe we are "voters" and that voting for an
"elector" under the so-called constitution, is a "right." But if Americans
are free and voting is a right, why do you have to register in order to
cast your decision?
If you have to register, then it is a privilege, NOT a right and you are
NOT free! If you don't register, then you don't vote. How can you call that
freedom? If you have to register your automobile or home, then they do not
belong to you; they belong to the State in which they are "registered." If
you register your children with a "birth certificate," then those children
do NOT belong to you; they belong to those who purchase the certificates
from the hospital, which, by the way, are legally known as "ports of
entry"--as into a foreign country (you figure it out).
The purchaser of your birth certificate and your child's birth certificate
is the Federal Reserve Bank. They own you, your home, your consummable
goods, your children and all your life energy until death as pay back in
the form of taxation on the so-called "national debt" which they created
out of thin air in the first place. Those "Federal Reserve Notes" you think
are "money" are really nothing more than fancy IOUs!
No matter what the politicians claim, we can't "pay down" a debt with paper
IOUs. No matter what you think you believe, you cannot "buy" consummable
goods with paper IOUs. No matter what the politicians try to implant in
your head, the over-collection of "taxes" (the "surplus") they claim they
will return to you are nothing more than IOUs. More debt for you!
No matter who keeps the money, they win! Get it?
GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS AND CHURCHES
TAUGHT YOU NOTHING OF VALUE!
. . . Without a doubt, the most effective method by which the state creates
a mystique is through control of education. The evolution of compulsory
state-controlled schooling reads like a history of political maneuvering,
in which the goal of teaching children literacy skills plays a minor role.
Public education is by no means inept or disordered as it is made out to
be. It is an ice-cold, superb machine designed to perform one very
important job. The problem is not that public schools do not work well, but
rather that they do. The first goal and primary function of schools is not
to educate good people, but good citizens.
It is the function which we normally label "state indoctrination." "The
simple step of a courageous individual is not to take part in the
falsehood. One word of truth outweighs the world."
Alexander Solzhenitsyn
Jesus (Yeshua ben Joseph) was condemned by the lawyer-politicians
(Pharisees) in power during his ministry as "a dangerous militant radical"
because he wished to change the established order of things.
It is for that reason and none other that the Pharisees implored the local
UN cops (Romans and their Centurions) to crucify him. And if he ever
returns, the local cops... most of whom now call themselves "Christians"
(I'm rolling on the floor here)...FBI, ATF, CIA, DEA, IRS, Delta Force,
Rangers, Intrepid, Sheriffs, Marshals, and any other armed thugs the
Pharisees* can muster up, will rush out and try to crucify him again
because no established order can tolerate "dangerous militant radicals,"
who want to change things once more, even if their bloodline allegedly
traces back to the House of David.
*Pharisaic law has continued unbroken from a time well before the ministry
of the young rabbi, Yeshua ben Joseph, to the present day. What? You are
indignant because you are one of those "Christians" working for federal law
enforcement? You say you would not murder the anointed prophet of God?
Listen to me: you are either a federal gunman (a Centurion) employed to
preserve Roman Civil Law and to kill as many Christians (demonized by the
secular media as dangerous militant radicals and cultists) as possible when
your department head or division officer demands it, or you are a
Christian. You cannot be both. At best you are a Paulinist. At worst you
are just a stupid damned hypocrite. For how do you imagine that you alone
will be wise enough to discern whether or not that "dangerous militant
radical" in the crosshairs is your promised messiah?
End of discussion.
Patriot: "Where do you go around here if you have a complaint about the
government?"
Politician: "Usually to prison."
Gunman: "To the morgue. Duh... one round, one kill."
And there you have the Centurion mentality in a thimble.
Until we unite with a single agenda, a single purpose, and armed with
truth, we will merely be confounded observers standing at the bottom of a
dark, deep pit, fervently hoping to save the world, but really doing little
more than breaking the fall of compatriots who are pushed in on top of us.
Only by uniting in an especial effort devoid of conflicting paradigms and
pretentious pedantics will we be able to form the human ladder upon which
we may ascend to freedom. That is the real and true meaning of the term,
'united states'; in the modern sense, the people of the separate and
sovereign republics united to defeat the eternal enemy of all humankind.
"Man is but a microbe lost in immensity. He peers about him and, by the
uncertain light of his small intelligence, reads here a word, there a line
in the great Book of Nature, and putting together these scattered
fragments, makes a "Faith" which he defends with fanatical fervor. Dare to
call in question its most inconsequential thesis and you are branded as an
heretic; deny it in toto and you are denounced as an enemy of the Almighty!
The curses of Brother Balaam no longer kill the body, but they are expected
to play sad havoc with the soul! When the priest of Baal was en route to
Moab's capital for cursing purposes an angel tried to withhold him, and
even his burro rebuked him, but neither angels nor asses are exempt from
the law of evolution. Now when a priest or preacher lets slip a curse at
those who presume to question the supernal wisdom of his creed, the angels
are supposed to flap their wings until Heaven is filled with flying
feathers, while every blatant jackass who takes his spiritual fodder at
that particular rick unbraids his ears and brays approvingly."
Last paragraph of Volume One; Brann the Iconoclast
SO YOU BELIEVE YOU ARE FREE?
SO YOU BELIEVE YOU HAVE "RIGHTS?"
Edward Mandel House (a Jew) to Woodrow Wilson (a Jew): Chattel
Edward Mandell House had this to say in a private meeting with Woodrow
Wilson (President) [1913-1921]
"[Very] soon, every American will be required to register their biological
property in a national system designed to keep track of the people and that
will operate under the ancient system of pledging. By such methodology, we
can compel people to submit to our agenda, which will effect our security
as a chargeback for our fiat paper currency. "Every American will be forced
to register or suffer being able to work and earn a living.
They will be our chattel, and we will hold the security interest over them
forever, by operation of the law merchant under the scheme of secured
transactions. Americans, by unknowingly or unwittingly delivering the bills
of lading to us will be rendered bankrupt and insolvent, secured by their
pledges.
"They will be stripped of their rights and given a commercial value
designed to make us a profit and they will be none the wiser, for not one
man in a million could ever figure our plans and, if by accident one or two
should figure it out, we have in our arsenal plausible deniability.
"After all, this is the only logical way to fund government, by floating
liens and debt to the registrants in the form of benefits and privileges.
"This will inevitably reap to us huge profits beyond our wildest
expectations and leave every American a contributor to this fraud which we
will call "Social Insurance." Without realizing it, every American will
unknowingly be our servant, however begrudgingly. "The people will become
helpless and without any hope for their redemption and we will employ the
high office of the President of our dummy corporation to foment this plot
against America."
This infamous Ponzi scheme is called "Social Security." And I assure you
that no politician will ever try to "undo" it. If it seems to you that this
concept is self-destructive; that those who devised that plan to destroy
Americans will also eventually destroy themselves when there is no more
money to be stolen from the people, you are right . Why then, would anyone
with any intelligence at all do such a thing? You may be interested, or
amazed, or horrified, or even angered (if you are a Jew), to learn that
Adolf Frankenberger Shicklegruber Hitler (himself a Jew) had it all figured
out way back in 1923 when, obviously referring as much to his own
destructive tendencies as to what he perceived to be the destructive
behaviour of Jews in general, he uttered these words:
"The truth," he said, "is, indeed, as you once wrote: one can only
understand the Jew when one knows what his ultimate goal is. And that goal
is, beyond world domination, the annihilation of the world. He must wear
down all the rest of mankind, he persuades himself, in order to prepare a
paradise on earth. He has made himself believe that only he is capable of
this great task, and, considering his ideas of paradise, that is certainly so.
But one sees, if only in the means which he employs, that he is secretly
driven to something else. While he pretends to himself to be elevating
mankind, he torments men to despair, to madness, to ruin. If a halt is not
ordered, he will destroy all men. His nature compels him to that goal, even
though he dimly realizes that he must thereby destroy himself.
There is no other way for him; he must act thus. This realization of the
unconditional dependence of his own existence upon that of his victims
appears to me to be the main cause for his hatred. To be obliged to try and
annihilate us with all his might, but at the same time to suspect that it
must lead inevitably to his own ruin, therein lies, if you will, the
tragedy of Lucifer."
For the complete dialogue, originally published in Munich in March 1924
from unfinished notes on which Dietrich Eckart had been working in the
autumn of 1923, "A Dialogue Between Hitler and Me," click here when you
reach my website.
We may never, in our lifetimes, discover the whole real truth concerning
the evil agenda to strip humankind of all freedom but, sooner or later, if
you read far enough, as I have done, you will discover a thread of both
similarity and familiarity running through the reports; the same things
repeated over and over by different people at different times in human
history, and in different ways--what I call, "the inkling of truth," as we
are able to perceive it. Whether you choose to act on the information or
not is solely your business.
Respectfully submitted, William Clifford: Kern
|