Read the last page first. It shows what agencies are included in the combined statement and those that are excluded. You will see the ones excluded from the report as being the primary cash and investment agencies. Are they worried that if they were included that the balance sheet would show positive assets in the trillions ?? hmmm... To see the requirement recommendation submitted by GFOA to the Feds in 1979 of which was enacted in 1982 through transmittal letter 1, requiring local governments (City, County and States) not already having a CAFR to prepare a CAFR report go to this Internet site: The power granted in the interstate commerce clause was a power over the state power of regulation. To prevent state power from interfering with commerce. Not to regulate commerce itself with positive law. How we have come to our apparent present condition is beyond my understanding except that the states using emergency power did in the 1935 Declaration of Governmental Interdependence make grants of power beyond those in the original grant of 1787. This Declaration and all pendent legislation is all extra constitutional (Author's Note: I beg to differ--not if the people contract into the "exclusive jurisdiction" of Congress. And, of course, this is what the lawyers are doing--making the contracts available.), however, having no other foundation than martial or emergency powers rule by necessity. In other words, law martial rule. Subject: Re: ComLaw> LOPEZ decision and IRS/FDA/Motor Vehicles There is some misunderstanding in this message. In Art. I Sec. 8 Congress is delegated power to regulate only interstate commerce, but it was also delegated power to tax all commerce, both interstate and intrastate. There is some error in this statement. First a seemingly minor, but possibly significant point. The Power to regulate was precisely to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes; The point I wish to make here is difficult to grasp if the point is valid. It seems regulating interstate commerce would include setting load limits, hours of work without sleep, etc., while regulating commerce among the several States would be more limited to the interchange of merchandise. Proper regulation of commerce would result in fair trade. Other provisions add to understanding the function and purpose of the power delegated. Article I. Section 9, Clause 5: No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state. No preference shall be given for any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another: nor shall vessels bound to, or from, one state, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay duties in another. The power to tax all commerce was not delegated. Taxing exports from a State was forbidden. I would like to hear some other opinions but It seems the only way to tax without taxing exports from a State would be to tax only foreign imports. A key distinction that needs to be understood is that in the original Constitution (before the dubious income tax amendment), excise taxes, duties, tariffs, etc, could only be indirect taxes. That is, only taxes on a business which can pass on the tax to a customer as a higher price. A tax which cannot be passed on, but which is borne by an individual taxpayer, is a direct tax, and it must be apportioned by the population of a state. I cannot say authoritatively that a direct tax is not what is alleged here, but I believe it is not. Before I get into this question I would like to know of an example of a direct tax that was by apportionment. If there has never in the history of the United States been an apportioned direct tax, I will insist the Constitution was not followed, and the meaning of direct tax subverted. Can any one give me a historic example? The original concept of a direct tax only contemplated an ad valorem property tax and a head tax, that is, a flat tax of so much per person. Of course, a tax on the value of property could be on land not used to produce a product for sale, but a tax on the product sold of land used as a business would be taxable. Not constitutionally if the product was an export from a State. By this distinction, there can be excise taxes on the income of a sole proprietary business, such as on its rents, dividends, interest, or capital gains (which is the decision in the Brushaber case), but not on wages for labor, because the former is indirect and the latter direct. Of course, the prohibition of a direct tax not apportioned by population seems meaningless as no power to impose a direct tax was delegated. It seems to be a way of saying that excise taxes, duties, tariffs, etc, could only be on the sales or income of businesses, and not on the value of things or on persons or their wages. There are two other issues related to the commerce clause. One is whether the power to regulate something implies, under the necessary and proper clause, the power to prohibit something, or the power to impose criminal penalties (disablement of life or liberty) or only civil penalties (disablement of property). One of the Principles of '98, set forth in the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, was that it did not include criminal penalties. Other sources show that the power to regulate is not the power to completely prohibit something in some form, under some conditions. In other words, to regulate means being able to legitimately prescribe the form, manner, route, timing, condition, measure, labeling, etc., but anything has to eventually be allowed in some form, in some manner, along some route, on some schedule, in some condition, in some measure, with some labeling, etc. Fair trade among individual States being the purpose of the power granted I would think proper regulations would give those who suffered loss due to violations of the regulations, grounds for suits in law and equity, against the violators. It is not reasonable to believe the United States was delegated authority to create new crimes that were not crimes before, when the United States was not even delegated authority to try criminal cases. Only cases in law and equity extending to specified parties. Constitution Society More than anything, the preceding and following sections were included here to show you the real work being done to correct America. The "political process" has nothing to do with the real Americans involved in this work. I have also included much of this to show you that there are different opinions around about the "problem", and I do not want you to think my opinion, and the opinion of the men I work with, is the only one around. There are a great many men who are still convinced that the Constitution is the greatest document ever written by man, and it is nearly impossible to change most of those minds. But even those who do not accept the work on the Constitution showing the direct connection to Britain (the archival work by a number of men shows this conclusively), do accept the "exclusive jurisdiction" information. The problem with many of them is they do not grasp the absolute criminal aspect of such power being given to men. Much of the work shown in this paper was developed during the third quarter of 1998, so you should understand that information like this is a work in progress, not something complete. Understand; this is the real work, not some rally for the republicans or democrats, and the libertarians have nothing to do with the real America either. You can not vote--you can not exercise the franchise issued from Washington, DC--without becoming subject to the "exclusive jurisdiction" of Congress, and without losing all Rights. You should find the following very interesting--especially those of you who believe that the problem starts with the FEDS!!! SUBJECT: Compact of States Underlying Cooperative Federalism Greetings to another excellent researcher who is among the many coming on line in the effort to put a historical and factual base under the constitutionalist movement: John R. Prukof, who bills himself as a legal researcher and serves as Executive Director of the Citizens For A Constitutional Washington, Puyallup, Washington. I need to acknowledge John in particular as he has done research by way of "The Book of the States" and connection of the National Governor's Conference and other such organizations that participate on the State side of Cooperative Federalism. "The Book of the States" is published every other year by The Council of State Governments, which has headquarters at Lexington, Kentucky. To demonstrate the import of this research, I will reproduce a paragraph John quoted in a November 17, 1998 composition on the subject he transmitted to people in his communications circle. This paragraph comes from Volume 2, Book 2 of "The Book of the States", as reported from the Third General Assembly, the Thursday evening session held January 21, 1937: "The call of our day is for a union of the States more perfect than the formal Union we have inherited. That Union must and shall be achieved through the further enhancement of federal power... We meet to further this [process] across State lines through the extension of voluntary cooperation. Efficiency of centralized power (Author's Note: Now, tell me this does not sound exactly like the centralized planning done in the Soviet Union!) must itself depend upon this spirit in the states for any full measure of success... The balance of power may swing from time to time between Nation and State. That swing we may abide cheerfully, however it goes, if only we can give it the cooperative setting furnished by the Council of State Governments. To furnish the form of Federalism, then, with the spirit of State cooperation is our fate and fortune. As "Royalty" said to "Romance": "This is the way we can 'abdicake' and eat it too"... The noble spirit necessary to our present cause -- the spirit of intrepidity working its wonders in creating opportunity for cooperation." In his research, John tracks the basic alliance as being the "Declaration of Interdependence" signed January 22, 1937, with a second such instrument issuing January 30, 1976. My research suggests that there was a predecessor signed in Denver in 1935. The statement in the first line of the paragraph above conveys what should be self-evident: Those who participated in the compact, most of whom were elected and appointed officers of Federal, State, county, and local government units, mutually pledged to displace and subvert the Constitution of the United States in order to substitute what in their respective and collective minds is a more perfect union. To see the flavor of objectives this message conveys, read President Franklin Roosevelt's 1934 State of the Union Address -- he openly championed the Socialist agenda, and warned "partisans" who might insist on preserving the constitutional republic. In this particular submission, we might examine how this compact came to pass. The control provision is at Article I, Sec. 10, clause 3 of the Constitution: "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty on Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit to delay." The original enactment which authorized compacts relating to criminal enforcement was the Act of June 6, 1934, ch. 406, 48 Stat. 909. The section was originally classified as Sec. 420 of Title 18 of the United States Code, 1940 ed., but was moved to Title 4 of the United States Code by Act of May 24, 1949. The little darling, as amended several times since, is now at 4 U.S.C. § 112: "Sec. 112. Compacts between States for cooperation in prevention of crime; consent of Congress "(a) The consent of Congress is hereby given to any two or more States to enter into agreements or compacts for cooperative effort and mutual assistance in the prevention of crime and in the enforcement of their respective criminal laws and policies, and to establish such agencies, joint or otherwise, as they may deem desirable for making effective such agreements and compacts. "(b) For the purpose of this section, the term "States" means the several States and Alaska, Hawaii, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the District of Columbia." The original statute did not include insular possessions of the United States, but by the 1940's, as governments of the several States increasingly moved under Congress' plenary power in territory of the United States, the amendment to what is now 4 U.S.C. § 112(b) was expanded to include virtually all insular possessions of the United States. Alaska and Hawaii were admitted as States of the Union in 1959, of course. According to the 1991-92 edition of "The Book of the States", the following Federal possessions participate in the various compacts: District of Columbia, American Samoa, Federated States of Micronesia, Guam, Marshall Islands, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, Republic of Belau, and the U. S. Virgin Islands. (Author's Note: I’ll bet this is news to most of you!) Also in the 1991-92 edition, in an article titled "Interstate Compacts and Agreements", by Benjamin J. Jones and Deborah Reuter, the following is said about compacts established under the above authority: "A compact has both the effect of a statute in each state and the features of a binding, legal contract. Therefore, when a state adopts a compact, the state may not renounce or leave the compact except as may be provided for by compact provisions providing for withdrawal. As contracts, interstate compacts take precedence over laws that conflict with their provisions. When these characteristics are taken into consideration, it is apparent that interstate compacts are the most binding legal instruments establishing formal cooperation among states." John cited another section from the 1991-92 edition, and it so happens that Gail, my wife, purchased that particular edition for half a dollar when the local municipal library was clearing out old books. The Federal Depository Library at Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, has all editions of the "Book of the States" beginning with the 1935 edition, and other Federal Depository Libraries across the country should keep them, too. As research into Cooperative Federalism, the newly created Federal "United States of America", and other relevant subjects gets into the meat of things, this particular series of books will be invaluable for tracking sources and the corpus of social-economic engineering that has compromised sovereignty and solvency of the nation. Over the last couple of years, my focus has been primarily on the Federal side of Cooperative Federalism, but here are a couple of threads people researching the State side might follow up: In Oklahoma, elected and appointed officers take an oath prescribed in the Oklahoma constitution, then a second statutory oath that is to the "Constitution of the United States of America" (Constitution of the United States is the law of the land in Oklahoma). Additionally, our original cession laws which authorize cession of land for purposes set out at Article I, Sec. 8, clause 17 of the Constitution, provide for ceding land to the "United States", where later laws in this category provide for lands owned by the "United States of America". State, county, and municipal employees other than elected and appointed officers take only the statutory oath. The obvious flaw in this scheme is that Congress may not amend the Constitution of the United States by treaty, and governments of the several States may not exceed authority delegated by or amend constitutions of the several States by compact or contract. In the constitutional system, government officials may exercise only powers delegated by their respective and applicable constitutions. One of the more obvious examples of unlawful enactment’s is the Uniform Commercial Code, which was adopted by legislatures of each of the several States by 1966: The UCC is to the best of my knowledge the only "law" on the face of the earth that acknowledges the Federal Reserve Note as a legitimate medium of exchange -- the "money or money's worth" notion. Article I, Sec. 10, clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States prohibits governments of the several States from making any thing but gold and silver coin a legal tender for payment of debt. Therefore, the UCC stands contrary to the "law of the land" and can have no lawful effect. Legislatures of the several States clearly usurped power in the face of a strict constitutional prohibition, so the capacity in which they respectively acted can legitimately be described as "outlaw". The compact, contract, statute, or whatever which exceeds constitutionally enumerated powers has the same legitimacy as me signing President Clinton's name to something would. An elected or appointed public servant in our system has no authority other than authority vested in him by the sovereign people he serves. If and when he usurps power by exceeding constitutionally enumerated powers, he is in breach of the public trust, and has forfeited the cloak of governmental immunity. In the closing paragraphs of his discourse, John states another obvious conclusion: All trails lead to the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (World Bank or simply Bank) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF or Fund). By way of their respective charters, the Bank and Fund are autonomous -- they are not subject to direction of any State or Nation. These entities were established under auspices of the United Nations in the wake of World War II, and in my opinion, they are the hinge pins to the gates of modern Babylon. /s/ Dan Meador. Author's Note: The last paragraph is very true. And in that vein, the next report is very important, because what is being talked about can not be done without the direct approval of the [private] banks named above. David This mornings news announced a plan for ALL banks to make accounts available to American's receiving ANY/ALL forms of money from the FEDERAL government (SOCIAL SECURITY, RETIREMENT ETC. ETC.), and currently do not have a bank account. They claim 10 million Americans are without bank accounts, and the FDIC is suggesting those new accounts be set up with a 3.00 monthly fee with no minimum balance for all Americans who cannot afford and do not currently to do business with a bank! They also mentioned that REGULATIONS will be available in the spring! This bit of news will REALLY strike home after you read the following article. URGENT * URGENT * URGENT * URGENT * URGENT Dear Friends: I have just finished analyzing a 29 page document obtained from a U. S. Congressman who, for the moment and at his request must remain anonymous. The document is a Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) document and is entitled Minimum Security Devices and Procedures and Bank Secrecy Act Compliance. To set the tone for the following discussion let me remind you that since January 1992, the Federal Government has set its sights on establishing federal controls over EVERY ASPECT of every individual American’s personal life and liberties. For example; 1. The federal government has established PROFILES for various so-called criminally inclined personalities. Now as one travels about the country, especially in air ports, the government spies look you over and if you happen to resemble one of those criminally inclined personality profiles, in appearance, conduct or mannerisms, YOU are taken into police custody and then you are required to prove that you are indeed not a criminal or even a potential criminal. 2. Even our school children are now being profiled so that the federal government can identify those children who, in the opinion of certain government agents, require psychological evaluation and subsequent psychological treatment (reprogramming) in order to instill in that child government standards of behavior to prevent that child from committing criminal acts later in life (so they think). 3. NOW the Federal Government, working through the FDIC, plans to PROFILE YOUR PERSONAL FINANCIAL ACTIVITIES. The following is direct quote from the first page of FDIC document (6174-01) (12 CFR Part 326) Notice of proposed rule making. SUMMARY: The FDIC is proposing to issue a regulation requiring insured nonmember banks to adopt and maintain Know Your Customer programs. As proposed, the regulation would require each nonmember bank to develop a program designed to determine the identity of its customers; determine its customers' sources of funds; determine the normal and expected transactions of its customers; monitor account activity for transactions that are inconsistent with those normal and expected transactions; and report any transactions of its customers that are determined to be suspicious, in accordance with the FDIC's existing suspicious activity reporting regulation. The things to be very concerned about in this case are the PROFILE PARAMETERS that in turn define the various limits that when exceeded, qualify as an exception to the norm and thus must be reported to another federal agency, as a suspicious transaction. There is virtually no limit to the number or type of profile parameters that can be established. For example, is the customer an 8 foot tall white male weighing in excess of 400 pounds or is the customer a four foot tall black female weighing less than 90 pounds. The question or questions (and there are many questions) then becomes, who will be responsible for establishing, defining and controlling the limitless number of possible profile parameters? Who will be responsible for adding, changing and deleting established profile parameters? Who will be responsible for insuring that this awesome and massive capability will not be misused and abused by the various departments of the Federal Government. In other words, is the 8 foot tall white male an exception to the norm or is the 4 foot tall black female the exception or, are both the upper limit and the lower limit considered as an exception to the norm. How about all those in between? As noted in the quoted SUMMARY of the document identified above, the key operative statements are as follows; 1. Identify its customers. 2. Determine its customers' source of funds. 3. Determine the normal and expected transactions of its customers. 4. Monitor account activity for transactions that are inconsistent with those normal and expected transactions. 5. Report any transactions of its customers that are determined to be suspicious. Before we briefly examine the five individual requirements noted above, and so that you will understand where I am coming from, please be aware of the fact that, in addition to being a Baptist Preacher, I have been a Data Processing Systems Analyst for some 48+ years. At least half of that time was spent working for the Federal Government, designing and installing total Data Processing Facilities, from the Presidents Battle Staff, to the Congress, to the Department of defense, to the local Church name and address data base. I have written and taught several college courses; (a) Management of Data Processing Facilities and (b) Systems Analysis. One of the first things that I always tell the new students in my Systems Analysis class is in the field of electronic data processing, your only limitation is your own imagination. If you can rationalize it in your mind, 'electronic' data processing can do it. Now, given that background and qualifications let me tell you, in no uncertain terms, -- I know exactly what the Federal Government is up to. I know exactly what information they are looking for; I know exactly how to get that information and I know exactly how they plan to eventually use that information. Requirement # 1: Identify its customers. I have no problem with this requirement so long as that identifying information is limited to name, mailing address and an account number generated by the local financial institution and assigned to a particular account to provide unique identification, but absolutely nothing more. (Author's Note: Yeah, and if you believe this will happen, you have no connection to reality!) Requirement # 2: Determine its customers' source of funds. This I have a BIG problem with. Even though the government would like for you to believe that this requirement is related to identifying possible illegal money laundering by drug traffickers, that is not the only reason they want to know the source of your finances. Remember now, the ultimate objective of the vast majority of government regulations and programs are directed at controlling the individual. This item required that you advise the bank of all the sources that you will be receiving money from that you will be depositing in this particular account. We will expand this item in more detail below. Requirement # 3. Determine the normal and expected transactions of its customers. For purposed of this discussion we will consider only four primary parameters related to deposits and withdrawals against this particular account. First: When you established a new checking account you will be required to identify the number of deposits you expect to make each month and the average amount of each deposit. For example (a) military retirement pay = $2,000.00, (b) Social Security Income = $400.00, (c) Rent from income property = $750.00, (d) Interest from stocks & bonds = $ 300.00, and so on. Second: You will be required to identify the number of withdrawals you expect to make each month from this account and the estimated amount of each withdrawal. For example; (a) Mortgage payment = $800.00, (b) Car Payment = $250.00, (c) College tuition = $ 1,000.00). Once the average number of deposits and the average amount of each deposit has been determined and the average number of withdrawals and the average amount of each withdrawal has been established, it will be very easy to identify all transactions, in and out, that exceed the established norms for this particular account. For example should you find a paper bag on the side of the highway containing 10,000 well used one dollar bills, or Aunt Sue passed away and left you 10,000 well used one dollar bills and you deposited that windfall in your checking or savings account, that would immediately be detected as exceeding the established norms for your account. Requirement # 4. Monitor account activity for transactions that are inconsistent with those normal and expected transactions. This requirement establishes the requirement that each financial institution establish a procedure to monitor your financial accounts on a regular basis for any transactions that exceed the established norms as illustrated above. Requirement # 5. Report any transactions of its customers that are determined to be suspicious ---. This requirement requires that all financial institutions immediately report any and all suspicious transactions detected as a result of deposits or withdrawals that exceed the established norms for your account. As I was reviewing the aforementioned FDIC document, as quoted above, I called a long time friend of mine who is vice president of a local bank that I do business with. I ask my vice president friend to identify the government agency(s) to which he would report such a suspicious transaction. His response was, the IRS and the FBI, at the national level. My friends, as a long time ADP/EDP Systems Analyst I want you to pay particular attention to the following. Whenever a good and successful Information (Data) Processing Systems Analyst designs a large scale information processing system, such as what we have been talking about above, he will ALWAYS allow for future expansion of existing applications and processing capabilities and his design work will also allow for additional applications and processing capabilities to be added with a minimum of additional effort and cost. Based on my 48+ plus years in the business, let me tell you what you can expect in the very near future if the proposed rule making provisions as defined in the FDIC document identified above are allowed to be implemented. Please, read the following very carefully because it lays out the route our government is taking toward a cashless society as required by the design of a one world government under the United Nations. 1. PRESENTLY ALL recipients of military retirement pay MUST have a bank account into which their monthly retirement pay is electronically transferred. The government will no longer pay individual retirees directly, or send their retirement pay to a home address. This is part of an over all plan to extend more absolute control over the individual. It has absolutely nothing to do with economy as the government would have you to believe. 2. In the very near future look for legislation that will require ALL government employees, federal, state and local, to have a bank account into which their salary will also be electronically transferred, just like the retired military. In as much as most government employees already have the direct deposit option available, it requires only vary simple legislation to complete this phase of the plan. 3. Next you will see legislation that will outlaw the direct payment of all wages or salaries to any individual, by an employer. All employees who work for a wage or salary, will also be required to have a bank account into which the employer will be required to direct deposit their salary. And once again the legislation necessary to accomplish this phase of the plan is very simple and easy to implement, simply because most businesses would welcome the reduced payroll cost. The government’s objective here is to eventually make the local financial institution the only source of legal tender for the individual. At this point and for the purpose of this paper, legal tender is defined as dollars, debit cards or other credit cards. When objectives 2 & 3 above have been fully accomplished, it will then be a very simple matter to implement the rest of the plan. Let me explain it this way. The total plan equates to $1.00 (One dollar) When steps 2 & 3 have been fully implemented, as step 1 has already been accomplished, that will equate to $ .95 cents of that $1.00. The rest of the plan equates to only 5 cents out of that one dollar. And just what is the rest of the plan? It's very simple. After steps 1, 2 and 3 as noted above have been fully implemented, the only thing left to do then would be to outlaw all cash transactions and require all transactions now involving cash, be accomplished through the use of checks or smart cards followed by the eventual elimination of the checks. At that point the federal government can then trace, track AND CONTROL ALL TRANSACTIONS, simply because all transactions will then be processed by massive computer systems controlled by the federal government. Given the above accomplishments and current electronic capabilities, the ability to exercise absolute control over individuals provided by the additional five cents noted above are absolutely mind boggling. There are many, many more reasons that all Americans should and must oppose implementation of the five (5) requirements identified above. There are TWO things that every American should do, immediately. First: All Americans should send a letter to the FDIC expressing their STRONG objection and opposition to the plan to PROFILE individual bank accounts for what ever purpose. The FDIC will be accepting public comments until December 27. Send your comments to: Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary Attention: Comments/OES, FDIC 550 17th Street, NW Washington, DC 20429 Be sure to include the following information at the top of your letter: 6374-01 FDIC 12 CFR 326 Minimum Security Devices and Procedures and Bank Secrecy Act Compliance Notice of proposed rule making Second: All Americans should immediately destroy ALL debit cards and credit cards and revert to using cash (dollars) in all business transactions instead of checks, debit cards and credit cards. Please forward this alert to the maximum extent possible. Rev. Curt Tomlin Major USA Ret President TCAN Inc. *********** Author's Note: I hope you can see the future unfolding in these reports. I strongly recommend that you move to eliminate all debt, leave the city (I really don’t care how much "money" you think you are making there) and establish some type of vehicle, preferably partly off-shore, to protect your assets--perhaps an Oversoul foundation based on the Catholic Church model in the states, or a Costa Rican Corporation off-shore, with a banking debit card connection. I also hope, as you read this, other things are becoming clearer. The next time you attend a wedding, and you hear the words "By the power vested in me by the State of ____________ , I now pronounce you man and wife," you hear the absolute blasphemy in the statement. In all the history of the world, the vast majority of the people who have lived did not consider themselves to be pagan idolaters. They were simply doing whatever the vast majority of their fellow men were doing, and obeying the common laws of the day. But you reveal which god you follow by the laws you study and keep. Does your 501 (c)3 church offer you a tax deduction for a tax you do not owe, and for what reason? Is your 501 (c)3 church prevented--by the same "state" which "invests the ‘licensed’ minister with the power to perform marriages," to discuss anything you are reading in these reports? Then, since you spend time "worshipping" with that minister, in that 501 (c)3 church, what god’s laws are you following? And why is America being cursed, I wonder? WHAT difference? The Republicrats are no different from the Demopublicans, except they might increase the size of the WELFARE state only 95 percent as quickly as the other half of the "Incumbent Party," while beefing up the POLICE state about 120 percent as fast. It's the "freedom-loving, lower-tax, smaller government" Republican Congress which has given us the new National ID cards, the so-called national "deadbeat dad" and "child immunization" tracking centers to track ALL Americans, national gun registration (coming Dec. 1), limits on how much cash you can withdraw from your own bank account without explanation to the government, new laws which will soon allow armed soldiers to patrol our airports with M-16s, looking for "drug smugglers and terrorists" (the former harmless, the latter non-existent ... so far), armed ATF agents murdering California gun store owners in their shops, armed U.S. Marines murdering little shepherd boys in Texas... and which in its spare time has passed the Clinton-Feinstein "gun-free school zone" bill... twice. I have never "touted a conservative line." I'm a Libertarian, and proud of it. Libertarians are not conservatives; we seek radical change... back to the pre-1912 free society of the Constitution. (Author's Note: But, by all means, THE CONSTITUTION!) I did not support the socialist Democrat. I voted for the Libertarian. If a plurality of Nevadans voted socialist, it's not my responsibility. I keep shouting as loud as I can, every week. If given the choice between feeding your children to a bear or a tiger, are you telling me you would dutifully make that choice as ordered -- that it would never even occur to you to shoot the bear, the tiger, AND the guy who told you only had two choices? It's "Democrat Lite" Republicans like you, with your "lesser of two evils" rationalizations for giving our seal of approval to tyranny, who have brought this nation to the brink of armed dictatorship, and/or violent secession. (Author's Note: Sorry, I disagree. I believe the reason is because the people of America are worshipping the false god of the state, and not god’s laws.) Which are the proud successes of four years of GOP congressional control -- in terms of restoring our lost liberties -- to which you would proudly point? Name any. As for "trashing the Republican candidate in Nevada," my newspaper endorsed both Republican Senate candidate John Ensign, and Republican congressional candidate Don Chairez... and I personally wrote repeatedly in favor of Don Chairez, a decent and thoughtful judge (Author's Note: It makes sense to me--a judge is a lawyer first... ummmm, I wonder where the problem is here?) who took on the political powers of this town to overrule an illegal eminent-domain property seizure from a widowed Greek grandmother (among others.) In fact, I recently wrote a column on the "six brightest new faces" in Nevada politics in election 98, and not one was a Libertarian; every one was a Republican. On Nov. 3, all but one of those six lost -- and that one got elected to the entirely ceremonial post of lieutenant governor. It’s not my fault these Republicans decided not to run on the kind of libertarian issues (however modest and watered-down) that worked so well for them in 1994. Many of us URGED John Ensign and Don Chairez to run on issues like property rights and restoring the Second and 10th amendments. But they (or their assigned handlers from the Republican National Committee) were afraaaaid. They didn't want to be called "far-right wackos." So they ran by claiming they wanted to "protect Social Security" and "make public education better." In other words, they ran on the platform of the WRONG PARTY. At which point, having declined to identify themselves with any popular libertarian issues (these guys weren't even willing to openly embrace medical marijuana, a "controversial" measure which Nevada voters approved by a whopping 59-to-41 percent margin), they opened themselves to being defined by their opponents as nothing but "Democrats who hate homosexuals and want to ban abortion." Oh, there's a winning formula! As another commentator said last week, "When you hold an election between a Democrat and a Democrat, you can pretty much assume it'll be won by a Democrat." Usually, the real one. Vin Suprynowicz is the assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Readers may contact him via e-mail at vin@lvrj.com. The evils of tyranny are rarely seen but by him who resists it. -- John Hay, 1872 Author's Note: Do you think Vin "gets it" or, possibly, only a small part of it? Before you investigate the following site, you should be aware of the "bill" passed by that great republican Congress several years ago called the "land for debt swap". In this bill, the authority for the following was established, and actual ownership of much of the natural wonders and natural resources of America is to be turned over to the IMF through the UN. So when you see something like the creation of a new "federal protection" area, like recently happened in Utah over the largest known deposit of high grade, low sulfur coal in the world, you can understand what is really going on. Now, the possibility of coal production in Utah does not exist, but... In twenty of thirty years, after America has been properly reduced to third world status, in the national interest and "for the economic interest" of the now destitute American worker, these areas will be re-opened by the "correct" multi-national corporations owned by the "correct" elite. I also wish to once again point out the research work being done by a group of men who have identified the UN as the present day existence of the old British East Indies Company. Biosphere maps can be found on this web site. I think this is what you were asking about with the biodiversity map. UN Heritage Sites and UN Biospheres are under United Nations ownership. Any way I can help I will be happy to. Try Yahoo search engine. Kathy http://www.nwi.org/Maps/Wilderness.html Author's Note: The following is extremely timely for America at this time. Pay close attention to it. Nothing of the sort being talked of the Y2K "bug" is possible unless somewhere the decision was made to "permit" it to happen. By "permit", I mean that someone, somewhere, made the active decision to "help" the bug along. Is it going to be as bad as portrayed? I do not know, but I would hate to bet the lives of my family on it not being this bad. Senator Bennett Speaks Frankly to a Local Mormon Group I received this as an e-mail. I regard it as authentic and important. Senator Bennett is the Chairman of the Special Senate Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem. This document indicates that Senator Bennett takes y2k very seriously, and that the senior officers of the LDS take it seriously. The day that 20% of the LDS members take it this seriously, you can forget about ordering a year's supply of stored food from a specialist retailer. The supply lines will be permanently jammed. I think his question about what the LDS will do when a member has been unemployed for three months is a good one. What will churches do for their members when this happens, which will surely happen in 2000? Note: a "stake" is the local meeting place of the LDS. "Here are some interesting comments that Senator Bennett said about the year 2,000 computer problem. He spoke at a McLean Stake Fireside in October. The following are notes taken at the fireside: Notes taken by Steve Nichols, a member of the Arlington Ward, McLean, Virginia Stake in October 1998. On Sunday, our stake had a family preparedness fireside on the year 2000 (Y2K). The speaker was Senator Bennett of Utah who is the chairman of the Senate Committee on Y2K. I went to the fireside thinking that it would be interesting, but also thinking that Y2K was not a big deal. Senator Bennett convinced me otherwise. The Y2K problem will be an unbelievably widespread problem that we each need to start preparing for right now. Anything that is controlled by a computer or a computer chip may malfunction in dangerous and unpredictable ways at the beginning of the year 2000. Unfortunately, everything is controlled by a computer these days. To illustrate the problem, Senator Bennett told the following stories: To test a water treatment plant, the plant management rolled the clocks ahead to 2000 to see how the computer systems of the plant would react. The computer responded by immediately dumping all the chemicals it had into the water supply instead of slowing dispensing the chemicals as it was supposed to do. The water was then poison and unusable. (Author's Note: Public drinking water is basically unusable now, due to the same chemicals mentioned above. It is just that the slow poisoning is not noticed by the people.) At a General Motors factory, the management also rolled the clocks ahead to see what would happen. The result was that none of the robots on the assembly line would work. The factory was useless. Moreover, when the inspectors tried to leave, the security system refused to let them out of the building. Elevators have to be inspected regularly by law. When the year 2000 hits, elevators may think they have not been inspected for 99 years. When an inspection is missed, most elevators are programmed to go immediately to the basement and close their doors until the inspector comes. Don't get in an elevator New Year's Eve 1999. In January 2000, Senator Bennett does not think that the national power grid will fail, but thinks that some areas will inevitably experience extended brown and black-cuts. Supplies of natural gas and telephone communications could also be interrupted. Long distance telephone communications will almost certainly be interrupted. The FAA has been unable to guarantee that its air-traffic control system will not fail in January 2000. This may reduce domestic flight by 40% and make it necessary to ration air travel. International travel will be worse. The Federal Reserve thinks that it will be able to continue to clear checks and other bank transactions for the country, but each individual bank or brokerage may be unable to continue to do business. Chairman Greenspan informed Senator Bennett that the Fed is printing an extra ten billion in paper money to handle the run on the banks that is expected as people convert their money into cash before Y2K. Senator Bennett told of warning one of his daughters about these problems. His daughter asked if he has spoken to the Church. He thought that was good idea, so he contacted an employee at Church headquarters responsible for worrying about these kinds of problems. That employee assured Senator Bennett that the Church has, or is, upgrading all of its computer systems to deal with the problem. Senator Bennett then asked if he could question this Church employee. The senator wanted to know how the Church is going to contact missions, temples and members around the world when the international and national phone systems won't work; how the Church is going to transfer funds around the world with the banking systems not working; how the Church will respond to members who are out of work for three months or more because the equipment at the factory or office where they are employed is malfunctioning. The Church employee had to admit that while the Church has fixed its own systems, they had never considered how they would be affected by other systems that had not been fixed. Senator Bennett was then invited to a meeting with the First Presidency, Council of the Twelve, Presiding Bishopric, etc. to brief them on the Y2K problem. Senator Bennett told the Brethren that he had been asked by someone in government when the Mormons were going to start warning their people to get ready for the year 2000. President Faust immediately responded, "We've been warning them for thirty years." A major complication of the Y2K problem is that it will be a problem world-wide. While all the problems I have described above will happen in the U.S., we will be relatively well off. Senator Bennett said only five countries in the world including the U.S. are doing anything significant to address the Y2K problem (Japan is NOT one of the five. The five are the U.S., Canada, Great Britain, Singapore and one other). This will cause huge economic upheaval in many countries. Senator Bennett was informed that the New York Stock Exchange has been refitting and testing its computers and thinks it will be able to continue trading in the year 2000. However, the Senator expects most exchanges in foreign countries to be shut down. For this reason, he cautioned us about investing in foreign stocks. It is anticipated that the economies of some countries will be devastated for decades by the Y2K problem. This anticipated turmoil around the globe will inevitably cause a deep recession, at least, in the United States. You may wonder why we don't just fix this problem before it's too late. The answer is, it isn't possible. Senator Bennett has been informed that there are 160 billion lines of computer code around the world that have the Y2K problem. For every four lines that are fixed another error in the program is created. Therefore, everything has to be fixed, tested and then re-fixed. There simply are not enough skilled people or time left to do the job. Moreover, that does not include checking all the embedded computer chips that run everything from your car's transmission to your thermostat to your elevators to your children's toys. Senator Bennett illustrated the cause of the Y2K problem with the following Allegory. A new wife was making a ham for her new husband. She cut off both ends. When the husband asked why, she replied that it makes the ham taste better. "Who told you that?"' he asked. "My mother," she replied. The husband went to his mother-in-law and asked if she cut off the ends of ham. She replied that she did. When he asked why, she replied that it made the ham taste better. When asked who had told her that, she indicated that she had learned it from her mother. The husband then went to his wife's grandmother and asked if she cut the ends off a ham before cooking it. She said she did. When he asked why, she replied that it was just habit, when she was young, the family oven was too small for a whole ham, so they cut the ends off to make it fit. When computers were first being developed, they were not powerful enough to easily process dates with a four digit year. Early programmers used a two-digit year and saved millions of dollars. The early programmers, working in the '60s assumed that their programs would be obsolete by the year 2000 and that later programmers would use four digit years. The new programmers learned from copying the old programmers, and nobody ever started using four-digit years. Anyway, that's the problem, the question is what should you do about it. Here are Senator Bennett's suggestions: (1) Check with all your banks, brokerages, and other financial institutions as to their preparedness for the year 2000. If they can't assure you that they will be able to continue to do business as usual, move your assets to a place that can. (2) Keep hard copies of your financial records and get up-to-date hard copies near the end of December 1999. (3) Have everything you need on hand for at least three months by December 1999 (food, water and fuel -- January is cold). (4) Expect a recession in 2000 and plan your finances accordingly. Keep some cash on hand. Needless to say, after listening to Senator Bennett we are very concerned and are trying to get better prepared for this-crisis. We hope this warning may help you do the same. Cathi Darrington, Administrative Officer, School of Business Administration, The University of Montana, (406) 243-6195. The point that should be made here is how this ties into the desire of some to eliminate the transfer of information between people, particularly over the Internet. To understand what is coming in America, simply look at China. There, access to the Internet is strictly controlled, and violators are picked up and put into prison. I am quite sure that the wide use of computers will be blamed for the coming problems and those who use them demonized eventually. Only the "state" has the "ability" and the "necessity" to use computers wisely. Also, the firm we use off-shore has the above problem in mind, and is taking steps to avoid it. Research page for State Law, Gov't, Legislative: http://lawlib.wuacc.edu/washlaw/uslaw/statelaw.html This URL has links to all states State Law - gov't - legislative. It has a search option and I think it one that you may find helpful. Author's Note: This last part is just for your potential research projects. Anything that you find which is of interest, please verify and share. Back at the end of Part IV, I asked you to please help two others start on this work. Now, I hope you are understanding why. We need many to study and understand. Is this the only way to bring others to understanding? No, it is not. I am hoping to short-circuit the time needed for many to really start learning, and helping America. I know how long it took me, and many others, to understand. I do not believe we have that much time anymore. The fact is, for many of the people on Free Republic and other forums, if you gave them this paper, Part VIII, or PART IX or X first, they would simply dismiss it as "those radicals again". This is also why I asked to not share this information with others, but please let them start with me at the beginning and ask questions as they go along. Now, please start answering posts about this information and, if you feel strongly enough about it, asking others to start what you are so close to finishing. All my best, David Part IX will show you how we got trapped in this mess to begin with, and why the Constitution does not apply to you or any other United States citizen, and why it never has.