The Silent Revolution of Federal Regionalism - A Solution

Welcome to the Committee to Restore the Constitution
3/23/2015
http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/
Go
APR AUG NOV
157 captures
28
2 Dec 98 - 25 O ct 07
2004 2005 2006
Close
Help
W elcome to the Committee to Restore the Constitution. . .

a Colorado Non Profit Corporation which addresses hidden facts behind national crisis, defines constitutional powers to halt
economic/political exploitation and offers procedures to aid citizens to defend freedoms of person and property guaranteed to them
by the Constitution of the United States.
2218 West Prospect Road P.O. Box 986, Ft. Collins, CO 80522
(970) 484-2575 (Col. Roberts)
comminc@webaccess.net
The United Nations War in Yugoslavia - A Solution

The Silent Revolution of Federal Regionalism - A Solution
Federal Regionalism seeks to overthrow the Constitution, change the form of government, seize control of property and production,
and reduce you to the status of an economic serf on the land which once was yours.
Unless exposed and neutralized, Federal Regionalism will dissolve county government, building block of the American political
system, and destroy representative government in your state.
There are over three thousand county governments in the United States, each one a self-contained, lawful authority, charged with
doing whatever is necessary to enforce articles of the Constitution within the county. County law-enforcing, law-interpreting and lawmaking powers are derived directly from the residents of the county.
The sheriff, county judge and county commissioner are representatives of the people who reside in the county. They are personally
accountable to you for the proper discharge of their duties. They are the greatest potential challenge to the misuse of authority by a
central corporate government in Washington - and to the ten federal regional capitols ... when they are informed. Many are now
misdirected and confused.
You should place the highest priority in motivating these county officials; first, to reject Federal Regionalism and those who promote it,
and next, to demand investigation of Federal Regionalism by your state legislature with the objective of outlawing regional operations
in your state.
Remedy to the seditious conspiracy of Federal Regionalism is offered in an eleven part series, beginning with, "Council of State
Governments," including tactical operations you can initiate in your county.
Part 1 COUNCIL OF STATE GOVERNMENTS

with, "County Resolution Rejecting Regional Government"
Part 2 FEDERAL REGIONALISM - A SOCIALIST AMERICA IN YOUR LIFETIME

with, "Bill to Provide for Enforcement of the United States Constitution with Regard to Federal Regionalism"
Part 3 CHARACTERISTICS OF GOVERNMENT

Part 4 THE FEUDAL STATE - AMERICAN SERFS LABOR FOR DIRECTORS OF THE FEDERAL CORPORATION
with, "National Crisis and Executive Orders"
Part 5AMERICA'S PLUNGE INTO SLAVERY

with, "The Mattoid Syndrome"
Part 6 THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION - CORE OF INTERLOCKING SUBVERSION IN GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS

with, "Fatal Steps to Dictatorship"
Part 7 SUPREME COURT DECISION DESTROYS 'HOME RULE' GOVERNANCE

with, "A Legal Opinion,"
plus, "The Fatal Flaw of Federal Regionalism Concept is the Fact that it is Unconstitutional"
with, "The Indictables,"
http://web.archive.org/web/20050828152950/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/
1 / 85
Welcome to the Committee to Restore the Constitution
3/23/2015
Part 8 SPECTATORSHIP VS PARTICIPATION

with, "Tugwell: Government Will Control All Land"
plus, "Proof: Destruction of Private Property Rights Via Regionalism"
and, " House Joint Resolution No. 33 of the Ohio House of Representatives"
and, "A Petition to the State Legislature"
Part 9 A CONSTITUTION FOR THE NEWSTATES OF AMERICA

with, "Regionalism: the Quiet Revolution"
Part 10 A PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL MODEL FOR THE NEWSTATES OF AMERICA,

text, Preamble and Article I through Article VI of "A Constitution for the Newstates of America"
Part 11 A PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL MODEL FOR THE NEWSTATES OF AMERICA - CONCLUSION

text, Article VII through Article XII of "A Constitution for the Newstates of America"
For best results, use Netscape 2.0 or later.
http://web.archive.org/web/20050828152950/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/
2 / 85
Council of State Governments
3/23/2015
http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/Council.html
Go
APR
SEP OCT
29 captures
12
21 F eb 99 - 12 Sep 05
2004 2005 2006
Close
Help
Committee to Restore the Constitution

Part 1
The Council of State Governments
A Pivotal Date in the 39 Year History of the Regional Movement
Representative Walter Meyer of Missouri, Vice Chairman, Midwestern Conference Committee on Government Operations and
Urban Affairs, Council of State Governments, Chicago, invited Colonel Roberts, Director, Committee to Restore the Constitution,
Colorado, to address the Committee's Midwestern Conference, 19 April 1974, at the Sheraton-O'Hare North.
Seventeen influential State Senators and Representatives from twelve Midwestern States, three regionalism promoters, one retired
Army Colonel, and one journalist met in a small room at the Sheraton Hotel in Chicago, April 19, 1974. If a history of the 39 year old
regionalism movement is ever written, this date will be identified as being of pivotal importance.
The occasion was a meeting of the Government Operations and Urban Affairs Committee of the Midwestern Conference of the
Council of State Governments, an adjunct of the "1313" Public Administration Clearing House.
The subject of the afternoon: Regionalism.
The meeting was the first manifestation of a new policy adopted by the NARC (National Association of Regional Councils) at their Los
Angeles Convention March 9-13. In our March 25 edition, the Sunbeam interviewed Mr. James Dowden, Deputy Director of NARC.
Mr. Dowden stated that the general pattern of regionalism promotion would change in 1974 in recognition of the fact that the "game is
shifting to the States". Attention will be given to "beefing-up" the State regional relationship, he said, so when federal legislation is
finally released the State regional unit will be prepared to receive and implement it.
It is no coincidence that 1313's Council of State Governments should first reflect NARC's change in strategy since NARC, under its
former name of National Service to Regional Councils, was also a satellite of "1313".
The April 19th program contrasted markedly with previous regionalism indoctrination sessions simply because a speaker for the
opposition was invited to state his viewpoint. Colonel Archibald E. Roberts, Director of the Committee to Restore the Constitution,
shared the billing with one regional planner, and two regional bureaucrats.
Beginning at 1:30 p.m., the meeting ran until nearly 5 p.m. The temperature rose steadily in the small, poorly ventilated room as the
debate intensified and legislators from other Council of State Government Committees forsook their scheduled meetings and
crowded into the Governmental Operations room. Eventually legislators were seated two-deep around much of the table, in the
anteroom adjoining the meeting place, in the doorway, and out into the hall.
The reason for their interest is simply explained: there has never been a discussion of regionalism such as that which occurred on the
afternoon of April 19, 1974, and the majority of legislators present were obviously hungry for information concerning this new
phenomenon which, they were belatedly realizing, was transforming the structure of State, as well as County, Municipal and Federal
government.
One of Ten
Mr. Norman Erbe, former Governor of the State of Iowa, and appointed Chairman of the Federal Regional Council of Region V.
(Minnesota, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana, and Ohio - federal capitol - Chicago) was the first speaker.
His presentation was surprising in that it was the most basic of primers regarding regionalism, even to the point of explaining to one of
the legislators which region included his state. It was obvious from Mr. Erbe's speech that he did not consider the legislators to be
familiar with the issue.
Power to the People?

The second speaker, Mr. Gerald Chistenson, a Minnesota State Planner, is recognized as having advanced the cause of regionalism
substantially in that state. He discussed regionalism on the sub-state level.
The questioning following Mr. Christenson's presentation was prolonged and hostile. His thesis, that regionalism was an important
lever to be used to personalize big government and return the power to the people, was repeatedly challenged by legislators who
stated that the facts of the regionalism movement belie his theory. Before the session was complete, and despite Mr. Christenson's
untenable apologia, regionalism was identified as the "disease of which it fancies itself the cure".
An Interlude
Third on the agenda was Ms. Dianne Semingson, "Special Assistant to Regional Administrator for Regional Council Affairs, Region V
HUD".
http://web.archive.org/web/20050912175306/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/Council.html
3 / 85
3/23/2015
Somewhat out of step with the general tenor of the meeting, Ms. Semingson presented a speech concerning three separate versions
of the Better Communities Development Act soon to be considered, or reconsidered by Congress. Poorly organized, and too
technical in nature to be comprehensible in an oral report, her speech was essentially an interlude between discussions, of
fundamental issues.
The Fourth Speaker

Throughout the afternoon the State legislators had expressed deep concern, in some cases quite dramatically, with the progress of
regionalism.
The fourth speaker, Colonel Arch E. Roberts (retired), summarized and amplified their protests in a direct, hard-hitting attack against
regionalism, and the "political con-men" who promote it under the guise of strengthening local elected officials.
Col. Roberts introduced and substantiated three ideas: 1) regionalism is blatantly unconstitutional; 2) regionalism is the product of a
master plan designed by an elite conspiracy for the purpose of centralizing power and establishing the United States as a corporate
state; and 3) the Rockefeller family is deeply involved in said conspiracy.
As the sun slanted low through the windows the meeting adjourned, and it was obvious that regionalism had been subjected to a test
such as it had never before been forced to endure: the test of exposure and open debate between those familiar with the product in
actual fact, not theory.
Regionalism flunked the test.
State legislators from throughout the Midwest had been assembled in order to be informed, by the proper authorities, of what the
future would hold. Instead, the legislators spoke, and through their statements made it quite clear that the battle, rather than being over,
has simply not begun.
Verbatum
For those of our readers who wish to experience the action of April 19, 1974, in a more direct form, we have transcribed below
pertinent excerpts from the Chicago meeting. Verbatum quotations are printed as indented blocks.
Mr. Norman Erbe introducing his speech and, in effect, explaining the reason for the program.
ERBE: Frankly, as far as the FRC [Federal Regional Council] is concerned, we have felt that there has been a gap in our
input and information, dissemination and assistance with respect to the legislative bodies. In fact we just received a letter
yesterday from the - one of the legislators from Illinois - who gave us a real hard time because we had not been relating
with the legislature. We wrote him back and said that we were extremely sorry that we hadn't been able to relate with the
legislature but we just haven't been able to do it yet.
I hope that today is the beginning of a new day, with the FRC relating with, and being responsive to members of the
legislative bodies because I feel that you gentlemen and ladies have a big stake in federal programs.
Mr. Erbe then explained, in the most general terms, what federal-regionalism is and the federal actions upon which it is based.
A question and answer session followed the former Governor's comments:
MISSOURI LEGISLATOR: Governor, why have these regions been set up above the legislature? There is no input. There
is no correlation between these regional governments and the legislature. It's done through the Governor's office. All we
know about it is the appropriations. Give you the money. That's the only contact we have with you.
ERBE: That's our problem. That's why we'd like to relate with you.
MISSOURI LEGISLATOR: This is my whole problem. This is why I'm here. These creatures are created without any input,
without direct representation from the people.
ERBE: Well, this is not a representative body.
MISSOURI: Well you better believe it. That's what I'm concerned about.
ERBE: We represent - we are the field organization, or field arm of the Secretary's Office [Secretary of HUD, OEO, EPA,
etc.] in each case, and it was set up to hopefully - you folks, or those who you serve won't have to go to Washington to get
answers to your questions. Go to Kansas City and get your answers there.
MISSOURI: Yes, but this is the problem. You say they can go to Kansas City but the legislature can't even go to Kansas
City because they don't even know what is the real set-up.
Mr. Gerald Christenson, a Minnesota State Planner decrying the fragmentation of government today, and seeking a plan for
"comprehensive government":
CHRISTENSON: And really sometimes, with all the variety of federal, state, and local programs you wonder if sometimes
things are just going to stop working. It's so terribly complex, and sometimes these programs are working at cross
purposes ...
We're in a losing battle. Government is becoming more fragmented all the time ...
4 / 85
3/23/2015
We think that the regional thing gives us the opportunity to allow local officials to finally get a handle on this integrated
approach to government ... What we've got to do is strengthen the hold of the elected officials ...
The weakness, I think, is there has been the fragmentation of local government. Now with those twelve state regions
working together [Minnesota sub-state regions] adequate staff - I think we have a chance to get at a more comprehensive
approach ...
I've had a number of state legislators, a couple of them elected in opposition to regional government, come up to me and
say we're on the right track. I opposed it. I was wrong. This is the way to go.
I think the key to this is they've got to see it not as a way of taking away power from the local government, but enhancing [it].
A question and answer period followed the planner's statements:
OHIO: Where does resident participation enter into this picture at all, or does it enter into the picture? This is the thing I'm
concerned about ... For the first time the people are saying: Hey! We want to be a part of this action ... Where do they fit
into your scheme?
CHRISTENSON: I would place major thrust upon making the political system work and giving them, the elected officials,
the kind of staff they need ... When it comes to operation we'll have a strong role for County Commissioners. There will be
a role for citizen participation, but it will be under the umbrella of those elected officials who make up the regional
development commission.
OHIO: I agree with what you're saying, but you say under the umbrella. Where under the umbrella? This is what bothers me.
MISSOURI: It bothers everyone.
CHRISTENSON: We're moving cautiously on this thing. I don't think that any of us know where it's going to end up.
IOWA: The thing which I disagree with is ... this idea of more and more staff, because, as far as I'm concerned, it takes
more away from the people themselves ... I think it's one of the big problems with the Congress. They've got so _____
much staff ...
Then when I see Regionalism coming ... Our kids right now in the schools, as far as I'm concerned, are being almost
brainwashed into a regional concept. They came out in their "Weekly Reader" with an idea of doing away with the State
government, and going into regionalism. And we won't have a State of Iowa. Our daughter came home from school with
something that we of Storm Lake - which is Northwest Iowa - part of a new - what they're going to call a Plains State. And I
see this coming throughout, this breakdown of government ...
And we've got this regional planning, and as far as I'm concerned, and I'm being very sincere, they're doing their level best
to do away with county government and put it on a regional basis ...
I really believe that we're going away from the people. Whereas you're telling a story that's making local government more
responsive, I say I disagree - I totally disagree because we're putting too much emphasis on staff ... instead of having the
elected people be what I consider the Board of Directors. Obviously I'm in total - basically total disagreement with what's
going on.
CHRISTENSON: I could agree with part of your sentiments, but I guess I disagree with the solution you've got ... David
Broger is, I think, one of the best political writers in this country. He had a column back in December ... he concluded by
saying, the mood of the country, the disgust of the people with their government is so strong, that there is a climate for a
demagogue to move in, and I really believe that people - poll after poll shows - that people just don't trust their government.
It's not responsive. They don't think it's working. Now why in the world would we continue down that track?
IOWA: I agree! But the thing you're getting to is this. You're not making less government, you're making more government,
and that's exactly what the people are afraid of and they have every right to be afraid of - more ____ government!
CHRISTENSON: Listen! I'm with you when it comes to faceless bureaucrats running things, and that's exactly what I'm
after. What I've been saying is ____
OHIO: Oh no. But see CHRISTENSON: But the fact is - let me just - really - I've worked at the federal level, I've worked at the state level, and I've
worked at the local level, and I'm absolutely convinced that today the functional experts are tending to run things. Congress
passes a bill, whether it's a housing bill, or a transportation bill, or whatever OHIO: O.K. but answer me one question at this point, Jerry. Who the ____ drew the bill? Staff! That's who drew it, and
that's the problem! ...
...and they give it all to the staff. The staff wrote, we vote it, and I guarantee they don't know what they're voting on. If they
did, they would never have voted OSHA [Occupational Safety and Health Act].
CHRISTENSON: Let me take that one step beyond. See I think a lot of power goes to the officials ... Congress passes a
bill, then they turn it over to a department, HEW [Health, Education, and Welfare] or Labor or whatever, to administer, and
those rules and regulations are written, and the law is administered. You've got to meet the federal law, but there are a lot
of ways to meet that intent of Congress. What I'm contending is that too much power is in the hands of those faceless
5 / 85
3/23/2015
bureaucrats.
OHIO: ... the exception to what you're saying is that the bills are not properly drawn in that we give all the authority to the
bureaucrats who wrote the ____ rules.
The Congress is spending too much time on every little thing and they're letting staff do the work, and I'm scared to death
of staff.
MISSOURI: Jerry, bear with me, but you speak just like a planner. That's your job. But this is a government of the people
and by the people. The people are left out in every one of these plans.
We got a COG [Council of Governments] that you proposed for our metropolitan area - your staff did - but there's no place
in there for the people. That's what's wrong with these plans. The people are not involved in the thing.
A real problem might be that you might think this is the greatest thing for them, but if you want to go back and lose our
democratic form of government, let's go to a dictator. Then he says this, and this, and this shall be done! That's the most
effective form of government we have! But we are a democracy! And as long as you think those little cities don't mean a
____ hill of beans - but the people think they mean something though. They voted for them. They support them. They're
paying for them ...
Why not have ten states! What the ____! They're more effective. They should cost less. Why not have ten big supergovernments running? Why fifty states? We don't need them. They can't plan properly. They can't coordinate properly. Why
do we need Iowa? Why do we need Missouri? Let's put them all together. Let's form an industrial state.
What you're saying is ... that bigness is efficiency. Our federal government should be the most efficient organization in this
world. Yet I just read in Virginia we built a 520 million dollar regional transportation system - we got to spend two million to
blow it up! They don't know what to do with it ...
We just spent in the City of St. Louis - about two or three years ago, a program to get the minorities out to McDonald to
work ... Do you know the money it cost they could have sent the people in taxicabs, and paid for it? Taxicabs to work every
day.
They paid a man $17,000 that HUD said to get out door-to-door to get the minorities to ride the bus. That was a ____ of a
job for two years, to go door-to-door.
CHRISTENSON: I just must say I think you're completely misinterpreting what I'm saying. I am not for power to planners. I'm
for decreasing the power of bureaucrats, and I'm for strengthening the power of elected officials at every level, and that's
what I'm saying.
MISSOURI: I don't understand. You lost all of us.
OHIO: But then you didn't count the people in.
MISSOURI: Are the people going to vote for this?
IOWA: There's an organization called Midwest Research in Kansas City. Nobody knows a ____ thing about it. I don't. I
tried to find things but I can't But here's the interesting thing. They established an Iowa Center for Regional Progress which
is a branch of Midwest Research. Now these people are planners - they just kind of move in and out. You just don't know
where the ____ they are except they're on every interim committee we've got - somebody from the Iowa Center for
Regional Progress and these planners funneling all of the information, and all of a sudden it's a group of planners who are
putting all the input in, all of the ideas, and it scares me. It really does.
CHRISTENSON: It does me too, and I don't want it.
MISSOURI: But that's exactly what's happening!
I've been attending this, they call it SLACOG [St. Louis Area Council of Governments.]. I call it SLYCOG. They're trying to
put it over - they didn't want a hearing, they didn't want it exposed to the people ... The legislature didn't have any input.
The only reason that I could be there - we have an open meeting law and I stick my nose in every ____ meeting. They just
detest it that I'm there, but I'm going to be [at] as many as I can find out.
He, [the top state planner], said: We had a bill for SLYCOG to implement it, and then there's a little catch-all phrase at the
bottom. What we don't cover in the bill, the rules and regulations of the Community Affairs [State Planning agency] will
solve the problems.
OHIO: That's it exactly.
MISSOURI: And he says we've got to have it.
So, you mean you've got to get a bill ninety pages long to try to cover all of the sneaky things they're going to do ahead of
time ... This is where the bureaucrats come in, Jer. They run the whole thing. The little citizen can't get past the secretary at
the door.
CHRISTENSON: And you want to keep it that way!
6 / 85
3/23/2015
MISSOURI: No! You tell me how not [to].

CHRISTENSON: We're trying.
IOWA (2): We have problems in Iowa the same way. My district is primarily working people ... There is the Office of
Programming and Planning. My people call it the Office of Political Patronage. That's what they think.
IOWA (1): Isn't it?
IOWA (2): Do you agree with me then?
IOWA (1): That thing went from six years ago ... we started with ten people. What have we got, ninety or a hundred now?
Nobody knows who's over there! We don't even have them represented in the state complex, yet they're putting all the input
in.
MISSOURI: The only time we hear from them is when we cut the budget.
The following are excerpts from Col. Roberts prepared statement:
The first step is to create the problem. The second step is to generate opposition to the problem (fear, panic, hysteria).
The third step is to offer THE solution to the problem - change which would have been impossible to impose on the people
without the proper psychological conditioning achieved by stages one and two.
The objective of the resulting economic, social, and political convulsion is the establishing of regional government
throughout the land.
"The Federal Regionalism Concept" seeks to dissolve county and state governments, transfer political power to a central
authority in Washington, administer the affairs of U.S. citizens through a network of federal regions and state planning
districts, seize control of the land and production facilities, change the form of government from one of elected officials to
one of appointed controllers, and reduce Americans to the status of economic serfs on the land which once was theirs.
"The Federal Regionalism Concept," however, has a feature which is never questioned by the press, by elected officials,
or by the people. That flaw is this:
The Federal Regionalism Concept is unconstitutional!

Let us consider the events of March, 1969.
The White House, on 27 March, 1969, announced that the United States had been divided into ten federal regions by
presidential proclamation. In so doing, Nixon and his controllers set in motion a series of pre-planned events which would,
by 12, February, 1972, place virtually every facet of the lives of U.S. citizens under the domination of socialist planners.
In addition to its inherent immorality, the merging of sovereign states by executive order is, of course, a violation of
paragraph 1, Section 3, Article IV, United States Constitution.
Such transformation of our republican, elective form of government to an appointed, federal form of government, is a gross
violation of Section 4, Article IV, U.S. Constitution ...
The most cursory examination of "The Federal Regionalism Concept" reveals its unconstitutionality, and its flouting of the
most basic freedoms guaranteed to the people by the Constitution.
It is quite clear that individuals, both public and private, who promote or otherwise participate in the conspiracy known as
"The Federal Regionalism Concept" are in violation of Section 2384, Title 18, United States Code, and must be held to
answer for such crimes by the people and by the elected officials who represent the people.
Today, our Constitution is dismantled, our heritage denied, and our destiny turned to dust.
The stark truth is that America is passing from a constitutional republic to a totalitarian, corporate state.
The mission of all conscientious citizens should be to inspire corrective action by the respective state legislatures, to
challenge usurpation of constitutional authority, and begin the task of reversing the mindless march toward dictatorship.
Nothing less than the survival of the American civilization is at stake.
A question and answer session followed the Colonel's presentation:
MISSOURI: You cite all the problems, and I think we, as legislators, see some of these problems. What is your answer? ...
My only answer is for the states to assume more of the responsibility, instead of letting somebody else do it. We're great
for that. And then it comes back and returns to haunt us because we didn't take the time to worry about the program.
ROBERTS: Precisely. Representative, I think this might be capsulated by pointing out that the three agencies of the
federal government were created by the states in the first three Articles of the Constitution. Therefore the states are the
principle in the Constitutional contract, and the agencies of the federal government are therefore, in fact, agents of the
states. We have come to a reversal of roles, unfortunately, and the only way this can be corrected is by corrective action of
the state government. In other words by challenging the illegal actions, the unconstitutional actions of the federal agents.
7 / 85
3/23/2015
An example: Public Law 90577 by the Congress of the United States is an alleged law, it is not a true statute ... because it
is in violation of the Constitution. It purports to transfer law-making powers from the Congress to the President who, in turn,
transfers this power down to his grant-making agencies in the federal regions. This is, of course, in violation of the
Constitution which separates the three agents of government and states that no power may overlap. And the mere fact that
it is permitted merely shows that the states are remiss in their authority and responsibility to challenge unconstitutional
actions of the federal government.
UNIDENTIFIED NEWCOMER: I think many of us here in the recent years, at least in the past five years, are becoming
more and more aware of the powers Congress has transferred over to the President ... Now my question is - you
mentioned restore the Constitution. How far back are you going to restore it? ... At one time the Constitution said it was
legal to have slaves. Now, do you want to go back that far?
ROBERTS: No. The Constitution never said that, Sir. The Constitution never said that. Let's not create a Constitution that
didn't exist.
I'd like to point out, Sir, that the origin of all our problems here must ultimately go back to the Charter of the United Nations.
Why? Because we find that the authority for the so-called regional government programs emanate from articles 55 and 56
of the U.N. Charter. And therefore, in this context, we must realize that by the so-called passage of the U.N. Charter in
1945, that the Senate of the U.S. allegedly transferred the powers of the Constitution into an international body.
In fact, in 1963, in Senate Document 87, on page 293 if I recall correctly, the Senate of the United States declared, and I
quote: The Charter of the United Nations has become the supreme law of the land, and the judges of every state shall be
bound thereby, anything in the laws of the State or the Constitution to the contrary notwithstanding - end of quote.
Now this means, in the eyes of the Senate of the United States, their ratification of the so-called U.N. Treaty did, in fact,
destroy the Constitution, and the aberrations which we now see emanating from the Congress ... are, in fact, based not
upon the Constitution, but upon specific articles on the Charter of the United Nations.
Go on
to the second section of Part 1:
"Restore, Defend, Preserve"
Go back
to the homepage for
The Committee to Restore the Constitution.
Send a message
to
Col. Roberts.
bin/counter.exe?link=www.webaccess.net/comminc&style=led&width=7" align=bottom>
8 / 85
County Resolution Rejecting Regional Government
3/23/2015
http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/Resolution.html
Go
APR
SEP OCT
30 captures
11
2 Dec 98 - 11 Sep 05
2004 2005 2006
Close
Help

Part 1
County Resolution Rejecting Regional Govenment
MODEL RESOLUTION, County Commission
RESOLUTION OF THE _____________ COUNTY COMMISSION REJECTING THE SEDITIOUS CONSPIRACY OF REGIONAL
GOVERNANCE AND REQUESTING INVESTIGATION BY A JOINT COMMITTEE _____________ STATE SENATE AND HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES, OF THE IMPROPER TRANSFER AND POWER OF AUTHORITY, DELEGATED BY THE PEOPLE TO
ELECTED OFFICIALS OF COUNTY GOVERNMENTS, TO APPOINTED AGENTS OF FEDERAL REGION _____________ AND
ITS _____________ STATE SUB-DIVISIONS.
WHEREAS, the Governor and his administration have divided the State of _____________ into multi-county planning districts or substates in which appointed regional councils and agents thereof will assume authority previously and properly reserved to elected
municipal and county officials, and will assume control and regulation over land, business, development utilities, production, services,
property, and people, which control and regulation has never been delegated to any government or agency by the people of
_____________ County; and
WHEREAS, various comprehensive planning acts, environmental land and water management acts, and funding bills, introduced by
regional governance agents before the _____________ State Legislature in compliance with the provisions of the unconstitutional
"Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968" (Public Law 90-577, 90th Congress, S.698, October 16, 1968), will establish regional
governance in the State of _____________ and _____________ County; and
WHEREAS, the regional division of the State of _____________ and their respective regional councils correspond in function and
regulation with the division of the United States into ten Standard Federal Regions, ordered by the President in his unconstitutional
"Statement by the President on Restructuring of Government Service Systems," dated March 27, 1969, and by virtue of ultra vires
Executive Order #11647, "Federal Regional Councils," dated February 12, 1972; and
WHEREAS, the resulting federal region sub-state regional governance system consolidated the State of _____________ and
_____________ other states into Standard Federal Region _____________ is in violation of par. 1, sec. 4, Art. IV, United States
Constitution; and
WHEREAS, it is the declared objective of such regional governance system to seize the power and authority, which properly belongs
to county governments, and even of the sovereign State of _____________ , and bypass these traditional and constitutional
governmental bodies, and usurp the rights and freedoms of individuals citizens guaranteed by the Constitution of the State of
_____________ and the Constitution of the United States of America.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE _____________ COUNTY COMMISSION THAT:
SECTION 1. The above recitals are adopted.
SECTION 2. Various _____________ State comprehensive planning acts, environmental land and water management acts, and
funding bills, and executive orders, introduced by agents of regional governance, be repealed.
SECTION 3. There be created a joint committee of the _____________ Senate and House of Representatives to conduct an
investigation into regional governance, particularly as it usurps the power, jurisdiction, and authority of local governmental bodies, and
prepare recommendation for the enactment of corrective legislation.
SECTION 4. A copy of this resolution, accompanied by appropriate documents and proof of the seditious conspiracy of regional
governance be forwarded to the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, majority leader of Senate and House, to the State
Legislative Delegation, _____________ County, and to the President, _____________ State Association of County Commissions,
requesting enabling resolution and/or legislation.
SECTION 5. A copy of this resolution, accompanied by appropriate proofs of the seditious conspiracy of regional governance, be
forwarded to the two _____________ U.S. Senators and to the U.S. district representative, and to the appropriate State Senators
and State Representative, State of _____________ , requesting an account of their stewardship relating to federal and state regional
governance legislation.
The resolution, introduced by _____________ , seconded by _____________ and unanimously approved, is declared duly passed
and adopted this _____________ day of _____________ , 19 _____.
BY: , Chairman
http://web.archive.org/web/20050911001221/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/Resolution.html
9 / 85
County Resolution Rejecting Regional Government
3/23/2015
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY:

_________________________, Counsel
EXHIBIT D, page 91, "THE REPUBLIC: Decline and Future Promise" (1975), by Archibald Roberts, LtCol, AUS, ret, 101 pages (81/2x11) quality softcover: $3.95, BETSY ROSS PRESS, P.O. Box 986, Ft. Collins, CO 80522.
Prepared by T. David Horton, Atty, counsel, Committee to Restore the Constitution, Inc.
Go on
to the last section of Part 1:
"Federal Regions"
Go back
to the homepage for
Send a message
to
Col. Roberts.
http://web.archive.org/web/20050911001221/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/Resolution.html
10 / 85
A Socialist America In Your Lifetime
3/23/2015
http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/SocAmer.html
Go
APR
SEP OCT
27 captures
10
2 Dec 00 - 25 O ct 07
2004 2005 2007
Close
Help

Part 2
Federal Regionalism - A Socialist America In Your Lifetime
On July 2, 1976, at the Indiana State Capitol Building, Indianapolis, in the chambers of the House of Representatives, the following
presentation was made by Colonel Arch E Roberts, Director, Committee to Restore the Constitution, Fort Collins, Colorado, before
the Indiana Interim Study Committee.
The Interim Study Committee was set up by the 1976 Indiana legislature as a result of House Concurrent Resolution No. 26, entered
by Representative Robert H Bales, to investigate Federal Regionalism and to make recommendation based on their findings to the
1977 General Assembly. Proponents of Regional Government, testifying before the Interim Study Committee ahead of Colonel
Roberts, included speakers from the National Association of Regional Councils, Washington, DC; U.S. Department of Labor; Federal
Region V, Chicago; and Michiana Area Council of Governments, South Bend, Indiana.
Mr. Chairman, my testimony will show that Federal Regionalism is a seditious conspiracy which has as its objective the
dismantling of local government, the abrogation of the freedom of person and property guaranteed to the people by the
Constitution, and overthrow of the Constitution of the United States.
We are therefore talking about a revolution, a real revolution in the Government of the United States, to the detriment of the American
people. And, despite the soft phrases and propaganda that regionalism is not only "good" for you but is "inevitable", we oppose that
philosophy vehemently and will show that it is the responsibility of the State Legislatures to reject this seditious conspiracy. And we will
at the end of my presentation, if we have time, go into some of the details on how the Indiana State Legislature may act with the vast
authority and power inherent in that office, to reverse this mindless march toward dictatorship and restore government to the people.
We are very concerned about the fact that we have become lost in triviality when in reality we are talking about survival, survival of the
individual citizen and of this nation as a Republic. If we accept the philosophy of the planners we will indeed go back to the middle
ages, to a serf society in which the individual citizen is merely an economic unit living on the land that is no longer his.
Since we have mentioned land, let us understand that those who control the land control the people who live on it. Therefore, a central
objective of regional planning is to condition the people to give up their private property and to permit the Government to make all
decisions effecting private property.
Our own former Lt. Governor John Vanderhoof, in an address before the Cattlemen's Association in Colorado Springs not long ago,
declared, and I quote, that "By 1985 the individual citizen, whether he be a rancher, a farmer or an urbanite, will have very little to say
about the use of his own property" because he said, "That person, that property owner, will be required to place his application for the
use of his property into a local computer and the local computer would be tied into a master computer in Denver, Colorado. The
master computer will make the decision as to whether or not the citizen could use the property in the manner he desires."
Now, we are not talking about computers. We are talking about planning input which makes the decision. Planners who are not
elected by the people, but are appointees and therefore not responsive to the will of the people. The revolution is absolute.
Before we get into the details of this subversion, I would like to comment on the concealed objective of Federal Regionalism and land
control so that we can clearly understand the real objective of those planners who now approach us with soft words of conciliation. We
are now witness to a major change in government. Regional revolutionaries seek to erect a new government in the United States to
verify and validate Federal Regionalism and the ten regions created in 1969, by erecting a new Constitution called a Newstates
Constitution. This Newstates Constitution, a copy of which I have here, was written by Rexford G. Tugwell, an old revolutionary going
back to 1933. This Newstates Constitution is taken out of his book "The Emerging Constitution". The Newstates Constitution was
written by Tugwell, in concord with 100 other social changers, at the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions in Santa Barbara,
California. A unique feature about this program is that the Newstates Constitution cost twenty five million dollars. The Center for the
Study of Democratic Institutions was financed by the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations over a period of ten years in the amount of 2
1/2 million dollars a year. We do not believe that this investment in the Newstates Constitution is intended to be merely an exercise in
political theory. We believe that the work is serious, that the planners, the programmers, are serious when they seek to impose a new
constitution upon the people as we enter our third century.
The Newstates Constitution

To give you some indication as to the impact of the Newstates Constitution (which deals with the 10 federal regions and not the
sovereign states, therefore, giving the appearance of legality to criminal actions of the planners and the Congress which has
precipitated the conspiracy), I would point out some of the unique features in this constitution. One of these is that there is no Bill of
http://web.archive.org/web/20050910013053/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/SocAmer.html
11 / 85
3/23/2015
Rights in the Newstates Constitution. There is no protection of Assembly, of Press, of Religion, or of any of the other guarantees of
person and property that are in the Constitution of the United States. This is also a constitution of appointed officials. Under this
program of the new constitution, the Senate is to be appointed and the units of government, (and we are going to explain the
significance of the term - Units of Government) the units of Government which are, in fact, the Councils of Government comprising a
composition of counties, are to deal directly with the Federal Government, bypassing counties and state legislative bodies as has
already been pointed out in the testimony preceding my appearance, (testimony by regional government proponents).
And, so this is the kind of Government we are headed for under Federal Regionalism, with the final act now imminent. I say imminent
because there are now two bills before the Congress of the United States. This first is House Concurrent Resolution 28, the other is
Senate Bill 22, calling for a Constitutional Convention to be held in Philadelphia to introduce this new Constitution. You may remember
that in the first week of April of this year, there was a blue-ribbon panel which met in Philadelphia, comprising representatives from the
Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, most of the major universities in the United States, the League of Women Voters and
other similarly oriented groups, for the purpose of reviewing the Constitution of the United States to see how it could be improved. This
is part of the psychological conditioning of the American people to make us believe that we need a modern streamlined Constitution
as we enter our third century.
I think it's clear to most that the Bi-Centennial Celebration itself is being used as a means of conditioning people, to shatter the system
of Government that we now have, by suggesting that we must have a new Government in order to cope with the complicated society in
which we now live.
Here's an example of that; A full-page ad from the New York Times which appeared on the 31st of March of last year, headed "A BICENTENNIAL DECLARATION." This Bi-Centennial Declaration ad appeared in major newspapers across the United States and it
was inserted by the Bi-Centennial Celebration Committee, an agency of the Rockefeller dynasty. We have found that the names listed
in this ad as members of the Bi-Centennial Committee are members of the Rockefeller inner circle of planners.
So, now we're getting down to the real originators of this "Quiet Revolution", as Mr. Nixon called it. It is a Revolution financed and
directed by the financial elite in the United States.
Mr. Chairman, I submit as my first exhibit a copy of this Newstates Constitution.
Provincial Capitols of Regionalism

So much for the introduction as to the objective of Federal Regionalism. Its objective is to change local government by merging county
governments into planning districts which then evolve into Councils of Government, which have as their purpose the elimination of
elected officials, county commissioners, etc., and to transfer real political power into the hands of the planners who control the flow of
revenue sharing funds and thereby control political policy.
It is also envisaged under this program that the States, the States themselves, shall become satrapies of the central government. I
think this is clear from the merger of the States into Federal Regions.
For example, the State of Indiana is but one of six states comprising Federal Region V with a new provincial capital in Chicago. It was
demonstrated here today that planners, unelected bureaucrats, do not confer with the State Legislatures on the raising of funds or the
securing of so-called Free Revenue Sharing Funds. They go to Chicago. They go to Chicago because that is the capital of Federal
Region V. The Indiana State capital here in Indianapolis has become merely a sounding board for opinion, and is gradually being
destroyed as a policy decision making body as it was intended to be. Elected officials are being destroyed as representatives of the
people by the interjection of a new layer of government called the Administrative Class.
The Administrative Class, in turn, are graduates or are trainees of the Administrative Clearing House in Chicago, which is a
Rockefeller front.
Now let us, for a few moments, get into the procedures of the origin of Federal Regionalism and land control, because the two of them
are interlocked, and then we will go into a specific example of how the procedure is being applied to destroy local government.
I would like first to remind all that Federal Regionalism was launched by a declaration by Mr. Nixon, then President of the United
States, who stated that he had divided the United States into 10 Federal Regions. On the 27th of March, 1969, Mr. Nixon stated that
he had created a new kind of government, although he didn't call it that. He said that by his act of merging sovereign states into new
units of government called Federal Regions, he was bringing government closer to the people. He was, he said, economizing and
modernizing local government. In actual fact, as he knew very well of course, he was doing no such thing.
Here again we are not speaking about Mr. Nixon acting independently because Mr. Nixon was influenced and directed by his hidden
sponsors, who we will identify a little later.
In any event, you may also remember, on the 12th of February 1972, Mr. Nixon staffed each of these 10 Federal Regional
Headquarters with the grant making agencies of the Federal Government. These grant making agencies, which we will identify a little
later, now have the authority of allocating so-called Revenue Sharing free government money to local units of the government. By so
doing, real decision making was removed from the elected official and placed in the hands of the planners. Those who control funds
obviously control policy in the application of those funds. An integral part of this control is the A-95 Review System which was
mentioned here earlier.
Fiscal Blackmail Through Revenue Sharing

12 / 85
3/23/2015
The A-95 Review System is a control mechanism to make sure that every local unit of government, whether it be a community, a
county, or whatever, that makes application for funds from the Federal Government, any one of these nine agencies comprising the
grant-making agencies, complies with the bylaws and the guidelines presented by the Federal Government. If the local unit of
government does not comply with these guidelines, it doesn't get the money.
Now there has been some pretense made that the units of government do not have to be a member of a council of government in
order to qualify for revenue-sharing funds. But, you try to get the money it you do not join.
I think it is also clear that there was created in the United States a new system of government by the establishment of these Federal
Regions. At the same time that the Federal Government was reorganizing the States into provinces under Federal Regionalism, the
governors of the respective States also were directed, and did divide their State into planning districts, which have since evolved into
Councils of Government. That is, by the merger of counties, the governors have created Councils of Government within the States, to
parallel the merging of the States into federal regions by the Federal Government. Now, this act is very significant because the county
is the political building block of America. Three thousand plus counties in the United States represent the greatest threat to tyranny by
a central government, or any other kind of threat that may exist. The people live in the counties and the people, individuals with
sovereign authority and working through their elected officials; county commissioners, judges and sheriffs, can oppose any kind of
forcefinancial or otherwise, which may be brought against them. So one of the central objectives, the target area of the planners, is to
destroy county governments, to neutralize county governments, to eliminate elected officials at county governments, so that the
counties become merely an homogenous mass in a Council of Governments ruled by planners.
This, then, is the reality of Councils of Government. It is not intended to offer better services, or more sophisticated techniques, or to
assist in fund raising from the Federal government. This is window dressing. This is propaganda. Councils of Government is a means
of convincing elected officials to give up their authority and to willingly abandon their responsibility to their constituents. We are very
concerned about this, because through the technique of revenue sharing funds we find again and again that many local officials
believe there is a free lunch. And we know there is no free lunch. Every time a local official receives a grant, any kind of revenue
sharing funds, he must give up a part of his authority which you gave him by electing him to represent you. And, when he does this, he
has begun the system which will eventually remove him from office. More importantly, his surrender will deprive you of representative
government. The vote is central to constitutional government. When we lose the right to elect our representatives and find instead that
our decisions are made for us by planners, we have abandoned the central principal of constitutional government.
Now let me go back to point out some of the unconstitutionalities inherent in federal regionalism. Without that knowledge we cannot
understand the real implication involved in the seditious conspiracy of Federal Regionalism.
First, the merger of states into larger political units called Federal Regions is in direct violation of the prohibitions of Section 3, Article
IV of the Constitution which prohibits the merging of two or more states into larger or new political units, without the approval of the
States and the Congress of the United States. The President of the United States, who has taken an oath of office to defend and
preserve the Constitution, has unilaterally violated that oath by merging, or attempting to merge, the States into new political units
called Federal Regions.
We also should point out that Section 4, Article IV guarantees to the States and their people a Republican form of government,
meaning an elective process of government. Regionalists say they are better qualified, because of their expertise, to make those
political decisions for us, therefore, eventually eliminating the elective process, and nullifying the vote. If you can't elect a man, you can't
unelect him either. Planners are not subject to being removed from office by the people.
So, we are confronted with violation after violation of Constitutional prohibitions. We'll get into some of the application of correcting
this imbalance, these ultra-vires acts, a little later.
Since we're running short of time, I would like to use a specific example. Before I do, Mr. Chairman, I would like to present for the
record, copies of our July Bulletin of the Committee to Restore the Constitution in which we have reprinted the testimony given by our
Counsel T. David Horton, before the Indiana Commission, this Commission, some three weeks ago. The bulletin is titled, "Indiana
Begins Regionalism Investigation."
What Is the Law?

I would also point out, Mr. Chairman, that Indiana is not standing alone in legislative challenge of Constitutional usurpation. On
Tuesday, last week, I testified before the Missouri State Legislature. A select senate committee doing exactly the job that you
gentlemen are doing herenamely, to clarify the law. "What is the law?" That's the central question. We are not concerned with better
federal delivery services, or the propaganda that regionalism brings government closer to the people, or you can get free government
funding if you join Regional Government. What we are concerned about is one question only, and that is "What is the law?" Well, the
law is the Constitution of the United States, and as we are beginning to prove, if Regional Government is in violation of the
Constitution it is criminal. In order to correct criminal activity by the Federal Government it is encumbent upon the State to pass
corrective statutes. Only a legislative body, Mr. Chairman, can correct the excesses of the Federal Government.
Mr. Horton explained in some detail this Principal versus Agent concept. Because the States created a Federal government by the
first three articles of the Constitution, it is clear that those agencies in government, including the President and the Congress and the
Supreme Court, are all subject to correction by the Principal, the State. The State must do this by a positive act. Having found, as we
have found in our own research material, that Federal Regionalism is unconstitutional, these so-called legislative acts of the Congress
which created Federal Regionalism by the Reorganization Act and Federal Region Executive Orders, Revenue Sharing Act, etc.; that
these acts which created the monster of Federal Regionalism are all unconstitutional. It is within the authority of the State legislature,
Mr. Chairman, to correct the ultra-vires acts by first defining the law and, second, to pass corrective legislation.
13 / 85
3/23/2015
I present as my next exhibit, a copy of my newest book, THE REPUBLIC: DECLINE AND FUTURE PROMISE, in which we have
reprinted the research on Federal Regionalism to show its unconstitutionality and its criminal origin, and how regionalism has
destroyed local government, Mr. Chairman.
Now, if I may, I would like to get into a specific example because I believe that by showing a specific example of how Federal
Regionalism destroys local and State government, that we may apply these principles to Indiana. When we speak of regionalism we
are not talking about a situation unique to Indiana. We are talking about a national conspiracy which is, in fact, not only effecting the
people of America, but is international in scopebut we don't have time to get into that aspect.
I think that it is clear that in order to validate ultra-vires acts of the kind we have described, some means must be made for bringing the
people into the plot, to give authority to the criminal activities of elected officials.
Now, this has been done in a program in the state of Montana. In a rather extensive examination of the Montana rip-off we found a
pattern of subversion which applies in the State of Indiana and every other State; because it is through the appearance of the people
approving federal regionalism that federal regionalism will become a permanent fixture in America. And, as we have seen, the New
Constitution for the Newstates of America is intended to give that kind of authority. But, behind the new federal constitution are other
new constitutionsfor the States.
The Montana Rip-off

Here is one of them. This is called the Montana State Constitution and it was allegedly ratified by the people on the 6th of June, 1972.
The people went through a referendum. They were given the opportunity to either vote for or against the new constitution. The people
of Montana defeated this constitution by a majority vote of 1,380. But the Governor, Thomas L. Judge, of Montana declared, that
because of the necessity of the time, he, by executive order, validated the new constitution for the State of Montana.
Now, we are talking about a criminal conspiracy and this is as good an example as any. By this example I mean to show that elected
officials, at the highest level in the State, are being subverted by regional money, free money, and other pressures, into pushing
Federal Regional government upon the very people who reject it. And, so it is not enough, and certainly insufficient from the standpoint
of authority, to suggest that the people have sufficient knowledge to make decisions about whether or not they want Regional
Government. Because even when they vote against regionalism, they get it. Resolution of the problem must be made forthrightly by
elected officials at the state legislature.
Now another interesting facet of this so called New Constitution for the State of Montana is the fact that the State has no boundaries.
Now the State of Montana has no boundaries under the new constitution because it is no longer a sovereign state, you see. The State
of Montana has been reduced to a satrapy of Federal Region VIII with a new provincial capital in Denver, Colorado. All real political
decisions are now being made at the new provincial capital in Denver, ignoring, by and large, the will of the people acting through their
elected officials at the State Legislature.
We don't have time to get into all of the aspects of this operation, but I would like to mention two articles of the new Montana
Constitution so that we understand what we are talking about.
Article 11, of the New Constitution, called LOCAL GOVERNMENT, explains the subversion of local government in great detail. I would
point out, incidentally, that this new State Constitution was not the work of the State Legislature of the State of Montana. The Concept
was lifted from what is called the ACIR Bluebook, the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, in Washington, D.C. The
ACIR has a branch in every State capitol. You have one just down the hall here, as a matter of fact. The ACIR is a mail order legislative
mill. It prepares legislation to advance policy of the Rockefeller's and others who are financing the "quiet revolution" and it passes this
legislation, in the form of recommended statutes, down to local state legislatures through the local ACIR branch and other agencies.
The local agencies of government, the state legislatures, then give the program or these statutes a rubber stamp. This is what
happened in the case of the New Constitution of Montana, and Louisiana, and other states which have adopted a New Constitution.
None of them originate in the halls of the legislature. They are all taken out of the bluebook. In fact, last year, in 1975, the ACIR came
out with a series of 10 books of proposed legislation or recommended legislation at the State level of government - to tell the
legislators, your legislators, how they should act, what they should pass, and how to implement federal regionalism programs. And,
this is a very alarming development. But there are two of these sections that I would like to comment on very briefly.
The first is section 7, which is called INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION. The essence of this provision of the new Constitution
is this - that the new units of government, that's the expression, new units of government, shall deal directly with the Federal
Government. What this means is the Councils of Government, that is the compression of counties into Councils of Government, shall
deal directly with the grant making agencies of the Federal Regions. In this case, going to Chicago as former people testified, to get
the free money which is then brought back to you, and your property taxes go up to pay for it.
This then is the idea - to circumvent the authority of local government and the State government by directing these new units of
government to deal directly with the grant making agencies.
Incidentally, although I didn't say so, there is one thing retained from the old Constitution of Montana - they still have their State Flower.
Voter Review of Local Government

In section 9 of the new constitution, called VOTER REVIEW OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT we find the real nitty gritty of how to change
government without arousing the people. This is how it works.
14 / 85
3/23/2015
On examining Voter Review of Local Government we found a succession of acts and programs which were intended to advance or
implement the provisions of section 9 of the New Constitution. The first of these was a booklet called Modernizing Local Government.
Modernizing Local Government, this green booklet, was prepared by the Cooperative Extension Service at the Montana State
University in Bozeman. What this green booklet did was to expand on section 9 of the New Constitution, to explain to elected officials
what their responsibilities would be on implementing section 9, so as to establish these "review commissions."
Now, I'm not going to get into details here, but to point out that this green booklet was distributed to every elected official in the State
down to and including the counties, to prepare them for their part in the revolution. I would like to make a couple of quotations directly
from this green booklet. The first one is from Thomas Judge, Governor of the State of Montana, who declared that the University of
Montana had executed a tremendous service for the people of Montana. Well of course it did because what this program is intended
to do is validate the criminal action of Mr. Judge in his division of the State of Montana into planning districts.
But the real issue, I think, is clearly stated on the next page. This is a letter from a Mr. Robert C. Rosenheim, Chairman, Mountain
Plains Federal Regional Council, Denver, Colorado. This is the provincial capital for a six-state region, including Colorado and
Montana and other states. Here is a man, a commissar, advising the people of Montana that he approves of what they are doing. This
is what he said, "What is happening in Montana is right in line with President Nixon's concept of the new federalism." Well, of course it
is because this is the implementation of Federal Regionalism in the State of Montana.
Another important aspect that I would like to bring to your attention is the grant making agencies in Federal Region VIII. You have the
same grant making agencies in Federal Region V in Chicago. By identifying these agencies, you can see how, by the use of Federal
Revenue Sharing Funds, elected officials become manipulated and real policy is made by these grant-making agencies rather than
elected officials.
Mr. Chairman, here are the grant making agencies: The Department of Health, Education and Welfare, the Department of Housing
and Urban Development, the Department of Labor, the Department of Transportation, the Office of Economic Opportunity, the
Environmental Protection Agency.
I think I had better talk about the Environmental Protection Agency because as we mentioned in the beginning, a central objective of
federal regionalism to seize control of private property. Planners are doing it through the apparatus of the Environmental Protection
Agency. Here is the way it has worked out.
In 1968 Mr. Nixon declared that the greatest issue before the American people is the environment. Remember that? Environmental
concern. Now, this was the problem. Mr. Nixon, at the request of his controllers, set up a problem - environmental concern. Now, from
that problem, they went to the next step. The next step was to create panic and hysteria because of environmental concern. We're
losing control of our water, our air is polluted, our rivers are polluted, and the people who are developing the land are exploiting the
land to the disadvantage of the American people. All of these were propaganda techniques to irritate the American people and to
prepare them for the next step.
The next step, as we have now seen, is that the solution to environmental concern is that the Government must control all private
property. Now this is called the Hegelian Principal of change. It envisages a three-step process: Thesis, Antithesis, and Synthesis. In
other words, creating problems to arrive at a solution which would not have been accepted by the people without the first two steps of
psychological conditioning.
Land Control Bills

Now, let's take this next step. You may remember that the Senate of the United States, a couple of years ago, passed a land-control
bill and that the following House Bill, called the Udall Bill, was defeated in the House. Remember that? But, what you may not recall,
Mr. Chairman, is the fact that, although defeated in the House, the Udall Bill was taken by Mr. Russell Train, head of the Environmental
Protection Agency. And Mr. Train inserted the Udall Bill, or at least the pertinent parts of the Udall Bill, into the Federal Register. Now,
Mr. Chairman, this is a very sophisticated way to pass what is called Administrative Law, which, in itself, is a contradiction in terms,
because there can be no such thing as Administrative Law. Only legislators can make law, and certainly Mr. Train is incapable of
making laws. He is an appointee, a planner, just as the people who have appeared here before this Committee are planners.
Now, what we are witnessing is that Mr. Train, as an unelected official, Mr. Chairman, was able to circumvent the will of the Congress
and the people by inserting into the Federal Register what is called an Administrative Law - and it became binding upon the people of
America. The Administrative Law technique has grown out of the revolutionary philosophy of those who now occupy positions of
authority in Washington.
In the beginning, the executive, that is the President, was able to insert administrative procedures and guidelines into the Federal
Register and it became means by which the departments of government could better manage their programs. But, just as the planners
now say they don't have any decision making, so too, this instrument of subversion of government has been taken over by the
administrators. They now use it to create Administrative Law which is binding upon the people. Now, this is why we find that all States
have either passed or are in the process of passing land control bills. When I testified before the Colorado Senate Land Control
Commission last year, I pointed out that the so-called Land Control Bill for the State of Colorado was not a bill which originated in the
House or the Senate of the State of Colorado. It was, instead, lifted bodily from the ACIR bluebook, the mail order catalog for mail
order legislation. In this regard, the legislators were merely rubber stamping a central authority which had presented them with the
recommended solution to "environmental" problems. And, this is going on all over the United States.
When I testified before the Texas State Legislature three years ago, we pointed out that 26 bills, passed by the State Legislature that
year, were taken bodily out of the ACIR bluebook. This is the proof of the conspiracy. Unfortunately, the press never questioned this
symptom of degradation of local government. They never questioned the fact that simultaneously, all over the United States, an
15 / 85
3/23/2015
identical action was taken by the State Legislatures. They never questioned this, despite the fact of differences in geography, climate
and, of course, the composition of the people themselves. The solution to a created "problem" is always identical. The problem. The
reaction. The solution. The procedure is always successful because the people, and the press, do not challenge it, or even question it.
But, nevertheless, this is the technique of subversion.
The Environmental Protection Agency is very deeply involved in this authority, or this pretended authority, to take your property. As a
matter of fact, when Mr. Robert Weaver, Mr. Chairman, when Mr. Robert Weaver, former head of Housing and Urban Development,
testified before the California State Legislature a few years ago, he made this astounding statement. "Federal Regionalism means
absolute control of all the land in the United States wherever it may be." He also said, Mr. Chairman, that the government had given
away the land to the people and now it must take back the land in order to control it. Land control is a central issue of Federal
Regionalism, because, those who control the land, control the people who live on it.
LEAA: A National Police Force

There is also the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration. Now here's a perfect example of the subversion of local units of
government by a grant making agency - the LEAA. Mr. Chairman, the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration is today, involved
in using so-called revenue sharing funds as a means of subverting local police forces, because, they offer better communications
systems or other advantageous purchases with revenue sharing funds. The LEAA also offers special training programs to local police
units. These special training programs, financed by and for LEAA, have as their objective the merging of the independent Police
Forces of America into a National Police Force, just as every dictatorship must have a central police force. In America we find the
LEAA is being used as a means for bringing together all of the independent Police Forces of America under a central control, just as
the government is now being centralized. As a matter of fact, LEAA funds are also used by local Police Forces to train them as SWAT
units. Now I am sure, Mr. Chairman, you are aware of the real objective of SWAT training. SWAT training is to put down counterrevolutionaries, that is, people who deplore tyranny and rise against it. In Kansas City two months ago where I spoke, just two days
before my public appearance before 500 concerned citizens, the Police Department of Kansas City had been given this SWAT
training. They don't go out into the streets with billy-clubs, they go out into the streets with armored cars and heavy weapons. This is a
counter-revolutionary force. LEAA funds are also used to train the National Guard as SWAT units. We are now witnessing the
transformation of our local Police into an instrument of coercion against the people rather than in support of the people.
Now, this is a very alarming development because it means we are already in the revolution and that the planners in back of this
Regional Government Program are a part of the revolution. I do not deny that several of them are very charming individuals, but, this is
not the point. Regardless of their charm and presentation, the real issue is, are we going to permit the Planners to destroy our
government and create a dictatorship in the United States, under the guise of humanitarianism? Tyranny never marches into a country
with a placard on his breast bearing his name. He always approaches the people under the guise of "humanitarianism."
So, we see the same techniques being used in America today.
Soon after the publication of this Green booklet, and I've taken more time than I should, the same organizationthat is the Cooperative
Extension Service of the University of Montana in Bozemanpublished this yellow throw-away. This went out to the people of Montana
by the hundreds of thousands. The pamphlet is titled REVIEW OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT, and it explains the implementation of
Section 9 of the New Montana Constitution, namely that the citizens shall become involved in the review of local government to see
how it can be improved. Very briefly, what this little booklet says is that the citizens will be elected into a position of authority so that
groups of these citizens can look at their local government to determine how it can be streamlined, modernized, improved, and
otherwise give better delivery services to the people. This is what happened in Montana. That is, the people of Montana did elect the
review commission, five from each incorporated community, seven from each county, and they are now sitting down to review their
local government. And, of course the same system of "Hegelian" change applies here as well. Because, now these inexperienced
citizens on the planning commissions, and there are 187 in all, are suddenly confronted by an awesome responsibility. That is,
responsibility to change local government, without any knowledge of government or of the conspiracy of Federal Regionalism.
Citizens Become Own Executioners

And so what happens? Well, what happens is that they are given expert advice by their legal counsel who suddenly appears in their
midst. A man who assumes the appearance of an expert. He says, "Don't worry about your responsibilities, I'll help you".
This little booklet also suggests that the local review commissions need not be concerned too much with the detail of changing
government because they will receive assistance from the ACIR at Helena, Montana, the State Capital.
They also suggest that the review commissions can get information and assistance from the League of Women Voters and other
good people. So the plan has been set in motion and finally, in almost the last paragraph, the brochure suggests that perhaps the best
way to improve local government is to merge counties into planning districts. Isn't that a surprise?
Mr. Chairman, this is the means by which Regional Government planners have brought the people of Montana into the conspiracy as
their own executioners. Today each one of these so-called Review Commissions is being given a typewritten "approved solution", and
that "approved solution" is being dutifully examined by these inexperienced citizens. They are urged by their counsel, by their planner,
to sign the "approved solution". They dutifully sign the "approved solution". This "approved solution" is then transferred to the State
Legislature in Helena. It has become the basis for Legislative action by the State Legislature to, first, consolidate all of the counties
into planning districts or Councils of Government, and, ultimately to destroy the State Legislature because this is one of the objectives.
And so, in this instance - this microcosm - is what is happening all over the United States. I would point out that as a result of our
16 / 85
3/23/2015
experience in Montana, we have an in depth examination of the origins of these planners. We found that the University of Montana, Mr.
Chairman, did not originate the ideas and these concepts at all. All of these "regionalism" concepts came from the ACIR in
Washington, D.C., and were transmitted to the University of Montana by the local ACIR branch at the State capital. The Local
Government Review Commission was therefore a model, an instrument, which implemented the provisions of the New Constitution.
We were not satisfied merely to examine the ACIR, Mr. Chairman. We knew that there had to be something more behind the ACIR,
because we knew that Nelson Rockefeller had, in 1966, proposed the organization of the ACIR, Advisory Commission on
Intergovernmental Relations. Later, in 1968 or 1969, he persuaded Mr. Nixon to give ACIR the appearance of law by having the
Congress give validity to the ACIR and it became a quasi legal organization. Nonetheless, we realize that this was, by and large,
merely a collating agency. Although the ACIR had many important names on its letterhead; governors, mayors and even some
members of the President's cabinet - most of whom are now in jail - that this was in fact, a letterhead organization. The real policy was
made by others. The ACIR merely translated policy into legislative acts for proposed legislature. We knew we had to get behind the
ACIR in order to find out the origin of real policy. And so we did. We examined the ACIR and we found that there is another
organization behind the ACIR called the Brookings Institution. The Brookings Institution, we found, was one of seven major policy
making organizations controlled and financed by the Rockefeller dynasty. We were getting pretty close to the center of the policy
making organization. Now we were getting into the organizations which had such power. We have talked about revolution, Mr.
Chairman, and I think that is clear that this kind of revolution, the vast changes in America that we are talking about, couldn't be
financed, could not be inspired, could not be directed by the university revolutionary, or the black community, or the Chicano, or the
Indiana Movement. None of these could originate the kind of vast changes in government that we are talking about.
So, Mr. Chairman, we realized that in order to get to the origin of the seditious conspiracy of Federal Regionalism, we had to go back
to a source of such financial power, which is what we did. We went back to the Library in New York City, which is one of the largest
repositories of reference matter in the world, and we examined the tax exempt foundations to determine which of these, or
combination of these, could, in fact, create the kind of revolution that we now witness happening in America. Where proliferation of
agency upon agency is now effectively destroying local government by creating trained agents who become "change agents" in local
government. And we found, Mr. Chairman, that only one of these tax exempt foundations had the apparatus we were looking for, and
that was the Rockefeller Foundation.
The Rockefeller Foundation: Core of Subversion

Mr. Chairman, I would like to identify the seven major policy agencies funded by the Rockefeller Foundation so we may understand the
interlocking subversion and the influence of these agencies upon the Federal Government and, in turn, down to and including local
government. Because by understanding this vast apparatus, I think we can better understand the kind of power we are talking about.
Oh, incidentally, although I did not mention it, the Brookings Institution which is one of the major policy centers, has its apparatus, its
conduit, in every major university in the United States. This is why they exploited the University of Montana, for example, and used the
University's brains and expertise, to condition the people of Montana to change the government - just as your own Universities here in
the State of Indiana are being exploited for the same purpose. This conduit is a two-way street. First there is the injection of socialist
ideas and the expression of these socialist ideas through the various legislative remedies that are offered by the ACIR. There is also
feedback, and the feedback may work in this fashion.
Let us assume that the problem is this - "How do we change the government of the United States without arousing the people?" That's
the question, that's the problem. Well, coming back to the universities and the "think tanks", because the Brookings Institution also has
its feelers into every "think tank" in the United States, including the Rand Corporation, etc., and of course, into every major tax exempt
foundation which then can hire the best brains in the United States. The input coming back from these sources is this. "The best way to
change the government of the United States is to use the existing agencies of government to destroy themselves." And, of course, this
is what we are talking about, is it not?
Now, Mr. Chairman, let me identify these agencies controlled by the Rockefeller Foundation and perhaps we can then understand the
extent, the scope, the vast powers behind this revolution. Here they are:
First there is the Social Science Research Council. Social Science Research Council, that is one of seven, has as its mission the
conditioning of the American people to accept changes in government.
The Russian Institute at Columbia University. The Russian Institute at Columbia University, Mr. Chairman, has as its mission, the
conditioning of the American mentality to accept a merger of America and Russia into World government. And, the proof of that, I think
is the fact that last year the Chase Manhattan Bank whose president is David Rockefeller, opened a branch bank in Moscow. Through
the Moscow branch of the New York Chase Manhattan Bank flow tax dollars of the American citizens to build the greatest truck factory
in the world, in Russia, with your tax dollars. The Chase Manhattan Bank is also funding with your tax dollars the exploitation of gas, oil,
potash, other natural resources in Russia, using slave labor of Russia, in order to develop these resources to profit international
banking interests.
There is also the Council on Foreign Relations, Mr. Chairman, which many Americans have identified as the Secret Government of the
United States. The so-called Council on Foreign Relations is a secret government in a sense in that of the 1500 members comprising
this semi-secret organization, vast numbers occupy key positions in government. That is federal and local government receive impulse
from the Rockefeller dynasty. The C.F.R. is a means of conditioning and control because the organization itself, that is this Council on
Foreign Relations, is made up of members from the highest strata of the society; professors, military personalities, industry, banking,
mass media, every important facet of society at the higher level, have become members of this elite organization.
There is also the National Bureau of Economic Research which is now developing a world currency and other concepts.
17 / 85
3/23/2015
There is also the Public Administration Clearing House in Chicago which we have mentioned. The Administrative Clearing House, Mr.
Chairman, is made up of 26 agencies, each specifically designed to train particular agents for various levels of government. There is
the U.S. Conference of Mayors, for example, and the Governors Conference. The Governors conference brings together the governors
of the United States from time to time - not, as you may have been told, to improve their expertise in dealing with local problems, but
more accurately to condition State governors for the next step of Federal Regionalism in the New Government being prepared for us.
Then there is the Brookings Institution, which we have mentioned.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, the Institute of Pacific Relations. I believe that by identifying the activity of the IPR we can properly identify the
real conspirators and the kind of philosophy that motivates them. Because the IPR, Mr. Chairman, was investigated by the Senate of
the United States after World War II, and the Senate of the United States found that the Institute of Pacific Relations, a Rockefeller
Organization, was largely responsible for the creation of a propaganda climate in America which permitted the erection of a
Communist government in China.
You may remember that it was the Agrarian Reform in China which was given publicity in the U.S. press, due largely to the efforts of
the Institute of Pacific Relations.
So, thanks to the Rockefellers and their Institute of Pacific Relations, we fought a war in Korea against the Chinese Communists and
lost 45,000 young men. This is the kind of subversion we are talking about. Mr. Chairman, this is a realism - this is not a matter of
political double-talk. This is real - it's happening in America and it is happening because we have failed to understand the extent of the
origin of the conspiracy itself.
Solution to Constitutional Subversion

Finally, I would like to state again that the solution to constitutional usurpation is within the power and authority of this legislative body
to resolve.
Go on
"Bill to Provide for Enforcement of the United States Constitution with Regard to Federal Regionalism"
Go back
to the homepage for
Send a message
to
Col. Roberts.
18 / 85
A Bill to Provide Enforcement of the United States Constitution
3/23/2015
http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/Bill.html
Go
APR
SEP DEC
33 captures
10
21 F eb 99 - 25 O ct 07
2004 2005 2007
Close
Help

Part 2
Bill to Provide for Enforcement of the United States Constitution with Regard to Federal Regionalism
MODEL BILL, State Legislature
WHEREAS, By Agreement with her sister States, the State of __________ is duty-bound to enforce the Constitution of the United
States within her borders; and
WHEREAS, the Legislature of this State has inquired into the question of whether any authority was granted to any of the agencies
created under the terms of the Constitution of the United States either to group several sovereign states into one "region" or to coerce
the division of any state into sub-state "regions"; and
WHEREAS, no authority for any such purported act was granted under the terms of the Constitution of the United States; and
WHEREAS, such ultra vires acts by any Federal Agency abridges rights and liberties of this State and her People without lawful
authority; and
WHEREAS, by means of a purported act falsely claiming to have lawful authority, a former President of the United States claimed
under so-calle Executive Order No. 11647 to divide the Parties to the Constitutional Compact into ten so-called regions, but such
purported act was ultra vires and void for the reasons that:
1. Being legislative in nature, said purported act was interdicted, inter alia, by Article I of the U. S. Constitution which vests "all
legislative power herein granted" in the congress, and
2. No authority was granted by the States even by the Congress to exercise any such "regional" control, over any one or any group of
the Parties to the Constitutional Compact, now therefore
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF __________, in conformity with the duty of the State of __________
to her People and to her sister States, and in further conformity with the oath of office taken by the governmental officials thereof, which
said oath binds said officials to support the U. S. Constitution:
1. Any purported act by any agency created by the States under the Constitution of the United States claiming to group any state or
group of states into a so-called region is beyond the authority granted under the Constitution of the United States and is therefore, null,
void and of no effect within the jurisdiction of this State, and any attempt to enforce the provisions of any such Executive Order within
this State is unlawful.
2. Any person who shall commit an act in violation of the provisions of this statute shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction
thereof, shall be fined not less than $2,000.00 nor more than $100,000.00, or confined in the State Penitentiary not less than three
years nor more than twenty years, or both.
3. Any State officeholder, or any Member of the United States Congress from the State of __________ who shall attempt to violate
the provisions of this Act shall, by that attempt, automatically vacate his office, and any citizen of this State may bring quo warranto
proceedings, in the county in which said offender last resided or was last known to be, to force the abandonment of any pretext of
filling said office by the person so disqualified.
4. Any person aggrieved by a State officeholder or by any other person acting in violation of the within statute shall retain his private
action against the offender and all of his aiders, advisors and abettors, jointly and severally, and shall recover triple costs, besides
double damages, which no jury, no Court sitting without a jury, shall assess at less than $2,500.00.
5. Any person convicted of any crimial offense under the provisions of this statute shall be incapable of receiving pardon, and shall be
incapable of receiving parole or suspension of sentence of confinment.
6. Any person being a defendant in a civil action brought under the provisions of this statute, who shall have judgment rendered
against him which has become final by the expiration of time for apeal or by final determination of an Apellate Court shall be denied all
exemptions from execution under said judgment.
7. Each Representative of this State in the House of Representatives of the United States and in the Senate of the United States,
before his election to office must be certified, shall be sworn in the County of his residence in this State, by Oath or Affirmation, to be
bound to support the Constitution of the United States, and for breach of this Oath shall be punished as provided by any or all of the
provisions of paragraphs 2 through 6 above.
http://web.archive.org/web/20050910155830/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/Bill.html
19 / 85
A Bill to Provide Enforcement of the United States Constitution
3/23/2015
"A Bill to Provide for Enforcement of the United States Constitution with Regard to Federal Regionalism", prepared by T. David
Horton, Atty, counsel, Committee to Restore the Constitution, Inc.
Go back
to the homepage for
Send a message
to
Col. Roberts.
http://web.archive.org/web/20050910155830/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/Bill.html
20 / 85
Characteristics of Government
3/23/2015
http://www.webaccess.net/%7Ecomminc/Character.html
Go
FEB APR MAY
36 captures
21 F eb 99 - 8 A pr 05
2004 2005 2006
Close
Help

Part 3
The Characteristics of State Government
Testimony, Attorney T. David Horton, before State Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Topeka, Kansas 23 August 1979.
"Whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void and of no force.
That to this contract (the Constitution) each State acceded as a State and is an integral Party, its co-States forming as to
itself the other Party. That government created by this Contract was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of
the powers delegated to itself, since that would have made its discretion and not the Constitution the measure of its
powers. But that, as in all other cases of compact among parties having no common judge, each Party has an equal right
to judge for itself as well of infraction as of the mode and measure of redress."
KENTUCKY STATE LEGISLATURE
19 November 1799
If we study the Constitutional history and the principles of agencies that are involved in this agreement called the Constitution of the
United States, we'll see that the ... States are in fact the principal. Each of the specified agencies in Washington is just that: a special
or limited agency, not a general agent. For example, the legislative power of this body (Kansas Interim Judiciary Committee) is a
general legislative power. A State legislature has authority to do anything it sees fit as long as it is not prohibited by either the state or
the federal constitution. This distinction is very clearly spelled out in the Virginia Blue Book of the Virginia Legislature if you want to get
a broader view, or broader statement, of it. But, the federal legislature on the other hand has to look at that Agreement and that
Agreement alone to find specific authorization for what it does. They haven't been doing that as everybody knows. That's part of the
problem. And along with the problem comes a question of what to do about it. But in order to see more clearly what the nature of the
Agreement is and who's responsibility it is in the constitutional sense, to cure infractions, I think it is sometimes important to look at
what some of the framers of the Agreement thought about it. If anybody knows what that Agreement said and what it meant, it ought to
be the people who wrote it.
We have here for example a statement from James Madison whose role in the formation of the agreement between the states is very
well known. He says, "The ultimate right of the parties to the constitutional compact to judge whether that compact has been
dangerously violated must extend to violations by one delegated authority as well as another. By the judiciary as well as by the
executive, or the legislature." That particular quote you will find reprinted in the little pamphlet called Nevada's Public Lands, copies of
which have been distributed to the Committee.
In addition, we have the further consideration that something else is happening in connection with how things are run and we have a lot
of people trying to have somebody else make our decisions for us. It's very easy copout to say "Well we've got a problem. Why don't
we have somebody else come in here and decide the problem for us. That way we won't have the responsibility of making the
decision ourselves." Of course, the Constitution doesn't provide for things to be run that way, but until we find out a better way, that's
generally the way it goes.
If we look to some very capable attorneys, one of whom was Abraham Lincoln, we'll find a quotation from him that examines one of the
processes of the law that has been developed, or misdeveloped, to substitute for Constitutional government, and that is the process
whereby we expect the Myrmidons on the Potomac every Monday morning to pronounce from Olympus some new rules for us to go
by. And all lawyers offices are filled with volumes of this stuff. We are kept poor keeping the legal publishers in business, by
necessarily having copies of all this material. However, the scope that is being given to what goes on in Washington, particularly with
regard, let's say, to the Supreme Court, is much broader than the Constitution provides, and much broader than any member to this
Constitutional Compact ever agreed to. We find Mr. Lincoln saying in his first Inaugural Address, "I do not forget the position assumed
by some, that constitutional questions" (Of course, the word used in the Constitution is cases, not questions. We start playing games
with our terminology and frequently we find our ability to accurately gain concepts of what we are dealing with is compromised.)
Lincoln says, "that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court. Nor do I deny that such decisions must be
binding in any case upon the parties of a suit, as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to a very high respect and
consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision
may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effects flowing from it, being limited to that particular case with a chance that it may
be overruled and never become a precedent in other cases, can better be borne than the evils of a different practice. At the same
time" continues Lincoln, "the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole
people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties
and personal actions, then the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their
government into the hands of that emminent tribunal.
"Nor is there in this view" concludes Lincoln, "any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink to
decide cases properly brought before them, and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decision to political purposes."
http://web.archive.org/web/20050408080915/http://www.webaccess.net/%7Ecomminc/Character.html
21 / 85
3/23/2015
Political purposes, of course, have to do with policy. And if we are to allow members of the court, who have only judicial power not
legislative power, to assume a role of telling us what to do in the legislative area, then we will be doing precisely what Lincoln was
warning us against, namely, resigning our government into the hands of the members of the Court. They can't act as a Court if they go
beyond the authority specifically granted. But the members of the Court can do anything they see fit, and they can get the Clerk to put
the seal of the Court on it, and to the casual observer it might appear to be what the Court has done. However, if they lack authority,
just as was found in the case of Marbury v. Madison with regard to a purported statute, what the Court attempts to do that is beyond its
authority is void and it is just as void as an unauthorized statute or act of the administration would be.
When it comes to deciding what kind of remedy to apply, again, I think that we can find some interesting and instructive material in
considering the conclusions of those who were a little closer than we are today to the framers of the agreement. We have for example,
this passage out of the report of the Kentucky Legislature of November 19, 1799, which says
Whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void and of no force. That
to this contract (that is the Constitution) each State acceded as a State and is an integral Party, its co-States forming as to
itself the other Party. That government created by this Contract was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of
the powers delegated to itself, since that would have made its discretion and not the Constitution the measure of its
powers. But that, as in all other cases of compact among parties having no common judge, each Party has an equal right
to judge for itself as well of infraction as of the mode and measure of redress.
Returning to President Madison we find in Mr. Madison's Report specific reference to the judiciary and the manner in which we may
be departing from the heritage that most of us have been taught to believe is a good one. Mr. Madison said in his report, "If the
decision of the judiciary be raised above the authority of the sovereign parties to the Constitution" (of which Kansas is one) "the
decisions of the other departments not carried by the forms of the Constitution before the judiciary must be equally authoritative and
final with the decisions of that department. However true, therefore, it may be that the judicial department is, in all questions submitted
to it by the forms of the Constitution to decide in the last resort, this resort must necessarily be deemed the last in relation to the
authority of the other departments of the government, not in relation to the rights of the parties to the Constitutional Compact, from
which the judicial, as well as the other departments, hold their delegated trust. On any other hypothesis" continues Madison, "the
delegation of the judicial power would annul the authority delegating it, and the concurrence of this department with the others in
usurped powers, might subvert forever and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the very Constitution which all were
instituted to preserve."
So if we see what the Parties to the Constitutional Compact had to say about it, we find that they understood where the Constitution
began much better than we do. And that shouldn't surprise us because they figured out the Constitution. If we look at the text itself, we'll
see a number of things that frequently escape our notice. For example, the fact that it is an agreement between sovereignties. We
sometimes say that sovereignty inheres in the State and that all legitimate power, all power, whether legitimate (or illegitimate for that
matter) originates in the State, both the power that is delegated to county governments and municipalities and the power that is
lawfully exercised by the common agents of the States in Washington, Also, illegitimately exercised power arises from these
sovereignties, and when usurpation occurs, it is the State power that is being seized ordinarily. Sometimes (and we'll get to it in
another quotation from Judge Pine on this subject) sometimes there are encroachments by one branch on the functions of another.
But the principal problem that we are dealing with today is the overall grab for power by the agencies in Washington, most of it being
exercised by nameless and faceless bureaucrats where even the President can't find out who is exercising the power. We have a little
anecdote about that that I can regale you with if you are interested with regard to Nevada's public lands. But the first thing I'd invite your
attention to with regard to the Constitution itself would be the signatures themselves that appear at the end of the Agreement. The first
signature here, for example, is George Washington, and he is described as President. He was selected President of the
Constitutional Convention. But the rest of his title is what shows he had any authority to be there at all. And that language is, "and
Deputy from Virginia." Now if Virginia had not been willing to agree to the Constitutional Compact or agree to send a representative to
the Convention, George Washington would never have made it.
Likewise, we find in the text of the Agreement itself, in Article VII, "the ratification of the conventions of nine states shall be sufficient for
the establishment of this constitution between the states so ratifying the same." In other words, unless and until they had nine states
agree to it they didn't have any Constitution. And each of the states up to that point, even those that had ratified, retained their
complete and independent sovereignty, that was recognized by the Treaty of Paris that concluded the Revolutionary War, each of
them having power to declare war; and each of them having the supreme prerogative of government, the power to issue its own
money, which many of them did, prior to the formation of this Agreement. And it was only the signature of the ninth state, the
agreement of the ninth state, that made it operable with regard to those nine. It happened, of course that the other four agreed.
However, this makes it unmistakably clear that this is an agreement between sovereignties. And when Kansas or Nevada comes in on
an equal footing with the thirteen original Nations, it means that the only entity that the Congress has authority to admit to this union is a
sovereignty. And in the constitutional sense, the term State, remember what Louis the Fourteenth said, "I etat ce moi," I am the State.
The term State means sovereignty. And, we have tended to get away from this concept some with the passage of time because we
have such free communication between the various Parties. We have lost sight of the fact that each of the Parties to the Constitutional
Compact is just that a principal under the Constitution. So, we find basically that the text that is frequently quoted, namely the Ninth
and Tenth Amendments of the Constitution, is what we lawyers sometimes refer to as mere surplusage. It doesn't add anything to
what's already there. The fact that you have an Agreement between the sovereign Parties to begin with would basically mean
everything that I have referred to in the Constitution itself. But in addition, the fact that you had representatives of the sovereignties
there drafting the agreement; and you have the individual sovereignties ratify for themselves and no one else. These things indicate
that it is an Agreement between sovereignties. It makes it (the ninth and tenth amendments make it) much more difficult for those who
don't want to be bound by this principle of limited government to pretend that those limitations aren't there.
One of the principal limitations that was incorporated into the Agreement was the limitation that, number one, it is an agreement
between Sovereignties. What the agents have as any legitimate authority, had to come from those sovereignties by specific and
22 / 85
3/23/2015
limited delegation for authority.

There are some other points that I think sometimes have an effect to clarify our thinking of the matter. For example, on pages three
through five on this little pamphlet that has been distributed entitled, Stop Usurpation, with State Action, you will see the report of the
New York Legislature of 1833. It goes on to some considerable extent and I won't quote it to you, but it will point out I think that the
language that some of us as school kids even memorized in the Preamble of the Constitution, We the people of the United States,
does not mean all the peoples, the several peoples in the United States, but it refers to the individual States and the political societies
within those particular states, each acting in it's highest sovereign capacity, which it must do in forming an Agreement with a sister
State. I believe it was the Virginia Commission on Constitutional Government that some years ago brought out a rather thick volume
on documents relating to the formation of the Union and they entitled this volume, interestingly enough, We the States. James
Kilpatrick was the editor of that volume. And he was at that time unaware of the strong support for that interesting selection of title that
is to be found in the report of the New York Legislature of 1833 which also approves a similar finding made by the Virginia
Legislature.
So if we look at all the historical authorities, we'll see that there is a position that the state can and should assume that it is being
neglected and that is the position of a sovereign Party to this Agreement. This blindness on our part, a number of people have come
up with different theories as to how we come to ignore sometimes the most simple of truths. I suppose we lawyers are the most guilty
of anyone, because we are looked at as the gurus of the law, and they say, "We have a legal problem here - the Constitution seems to
be dismantled - what are you lawyers going to do about it?" Those who have been spared the humiliation of a law school education
find it considerably difficult to understand that the course that we get taught in law school called 'Constitutional Law' has very little to do
with the Constitution. I nearly got thrown out of my first course in Constitutional Law for having the temerity to suggest to the professor
that because this was advertised in the catalog as a course in constitutional law maybe we ought to read the Constitution. I was told in
unmistakable terms that Dowling on Constitutional Law, the case book, is this course, and anybody who doesn't like it is at liberty to
leave. Well, I wasn't about to leave. I wanted to see what they were up to. But this was the process that was used in the graduate
school and in the law school - all of these various areas where they teach courses in constitutional law. They would be amazed, the
professors themselves would be amazed, to find how far they are going from the Constitution in the process of pretending to teach
constitutional law.
There is an anecdote that comes from the recently deceased Dean Clarence Manion that points this out very clearly. I won't burden
you with it but in summary it shows that even Clarence Manion, who taught constitutional law for 22 years, blew a basic question on it
when he was asked, because he was dealing with case books. He wasn't dealing with the Constitution. He was straightened out
interestingly enough by Louis Budenz, a former Communist, who had studied our institutions to the point where he knew what the
Constitution was all about and it's rather an interesting side light that many of us in the legal profession where we answer legal
questions all the time find ourselves as babes in the woods when it comes to dealing with basic constitutional principles.
That's what the movement for state action to enforce the Constitution is all about. Because this is where the power started and this is
where corrections of the Constitution have to take place if they are to be corrected and there is a very interesting reason for this. That
is summarized in greater detail in this little pamphlet, Stop Usurpation. I will review it briefly for you. If the party or a particular party that
has jurisdiction over a given State - and that means the state legislature - if the party does not correct an infraction that is committed
through usurpation, by one or another of its common agents in Washington, then the agent that starts out having no authority whatever
under the Constitution can end up bossing the citizens around - even in violation of the Constitution - because the Party to the
Constitutional Compact did not correct the unlawful act of its agent.
Sometimes we use a rather homely analogy (which can be rather dangerous, analogies frequently are) but it points up this particular
relationship. We say "Farmer Brown sends his hired hand to market with a load of potatoes to sell the potatoes and the hired hand
sells the team and wagon." We have a specific or limited agency, that the hired hand ignores. Another hired hand can say "Charlie,
you knew that was Farmer Brown's favorite team and wagon, you shouldn't have sold it." But all such scoldings are ineffectual if
Farmer Brown doesn't do anything about it. And that agent starts out having no authority whatever to begin with ends up with giving
good title to that team and wagon, that is good even against the Farmer himself.
The farmer has three options. (1) He can do the obvious thing and repudiate. (2) He can find out how much Charlie got for the team
and wagon and if it was a good enough price, he can ratify and get a bill of sale, and even though the hired hand didn't start out having
any authority, the deal is perfected and consummated by the later authorization of the principal. (3) Or he can do a third thing. And this
is what the States have been doing. It is not really a third separate thing because it results in one of the other two things happening,
and that is he can do nothing.
If he does nothing, he implicitly ratifies the unauthorized act of his agent. Some of us get confused when we talk about ratification, and
we think that since we've left this thing go on so long, maybe we can't undo it. But I invite your attention to the fact that the State, being
a sovereign, is never estopped. It is the state legislature that determines what your statute of limitations shall be, for example. On
murder, frequently there is no statute; on a written contract it might be four years or six years; on a personal injury action it might be
one or two years. But these are decisions that are made by the sovereign power of the Legislature and any estoppel that is worked by
an inaction is good only insofar as what has happened. It cannot be prospective. You cannot bind, as you are frequently told, you
cannot bind the acts of a subsequent Legislature. Even by inaction, this can't be done. So the option remains open to any State
Legislature that wishes to do so to use it's legislative powers to correct constitutional infractions whether this comes from the
Congress or from the executive or the judiciary.
With regard to how this is done and why don't we let somebody else do it, and "can't we bring a suit and have somebody else decide
it for us," I'm afraid the answer to this last question is, no, we really can't, no matter how convenient that might be. It is nevertheless, our
responsibility, and there is the good news and the bad news. As Pogo says, "We has met the enemy and they is us." If this is the case
we may have to take the blame for things going wrong that we've previously tried to slough off onto someone else. But there is good
news there. That good news is - that if it really is our fault, then we can fix it. It is only if it is our fault that we have the power to fix it. And
we find that as we study more deeply into the subject, that we have almost unlimited power to fix these infractions - if we dig far
enough.
23 / 85
3/23/2015
Judge David Pine is a district judge in Washington, D.C. You may remember him - he is the one who decided when Harry Truman
tried to grab the steel companies that Pine was the district judge who said, "No, you're not allowed to do that." And he was sustained
by the United States Supreme Court (by a vote of 6 to 3) but nevertheless, it shows that he gave a certain amount of attention to this
question of constitutional limitation. In a speech that was printed by the American Bar Association in November of 1954, he points out
a number of things that deal with this general subject of usurpation. He starts by quoting from Washington's Farewell Address which is
read on the floor of each House every February 22nd and regarded by most as very sound advice. (How much it is followed by the
people who are supposed to listen to it is anybody's guess.) It is nevertheless, very sound advice - particularly insofar as it deals with
the subject of usurpation. Washington says, "the spirit of encroachment, tends to consolidate all powers of governments in one and
thus to create, from whatever the form of government, a real despotism." Then Pine quotes from Madison and the Federalist Papers,
"The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judicial, in the same hands whether of one, a few, or many, whether
hereditary, self-appointed or elective, may just be pronounced the very definition of tyranny." In Nevada it is a very express violation of
our Constitution - Article 3 is unmistakable in its terms. It says, if you exercise legislative authority, you may not exercise either
executive or judicial authority with such exceptions as the Constitution, and only the Constitution, may provide. These exceptions would
include such things as the Governor's legislative veto which does have something to do with the legislative power. He does have this
authority - to veto a legislative bill. It is not a complete or uncontrolled legislative authority, but is an authority that we have entrusted to
our state executive. It is nevertheless specified in the Constitution and therefore, it is lawfully exercised. However, we find in Nevada
we are doing what maybe you have done here and adopted in the State a so-called "Administrative Procedures Act."
Under the Federal Administrative Procedures Act, nameless and faceless bureaucrats, if they don't have any success in using our tax
money to lobby their bills through our legislature to give them power over us, they have another expedient. That is to stick it into the
Federal Register record. That is what the federal bureaucrats did with the duplicate mining regulations in Nevada. They were shot
down in Congress and on the 23rd of December, shortly before Christmas, here these same regulations came full blown, published
out in the Federal Register and as I mentioned, even Jimmy Carter can't find out who did it. If we find in administrative procedures that
by use of the Federal Register bureaucrats are making policy making decisions, they are exercising legislative power.
They even have such anomalous sounding offices as "administrative law judges." In those three words they have succeeded in
contradicting themselves twice. Because if it is law, it has to come from the legislature. If it's administrative, they are not allowed to
exercise it if they happen to be a member of the legislature or a member of the judiciary. And further, if they are judges, then they are
not allowed to be either administrative or policy making. Yet, they have with considerable boldness combined into one title one of the
very problems that Judge Pine is concerned with. He says,
The moral to which I said I would point before concluding my remarks is this. Follow the example of the founding fathers
and be as alertly fearful as they were of usurpation of power, and forerunner of tyranny and oppression. When you say that
that is seeing ghosts, the Constitution stands in the way - it is in no jeopardy, and is held in such high esteem and
reverence as to be immune from destruction, I agree, if you refer to a frontal attack. But what I ask you to fear are attacks
on the flanks, made in the cause of expediency and supported by vast popular demand at the moment. (Witness Davy
Crockett.)
The technique of the subverters will be the argument that the Constitution is a living thing and therefore susceptible to "growth" and
must be adaptable and flexible enough to allow for changes in the social and economic life of the country.
Judge Pine continues,
In recent years there has been a trend toward enhancement of the powers of the federal government. Now all of us are
aware of this. This has been accomplished by the expansion of what was formerly believed to be the limits of the interstate
commerce power and the taxing and spending powers and the federal government has thereby taken over the control of
great fields of activity formerly considered the province of the states. There has also been a disposition in the federal
government itself toward encroachment by one department upon the other. Particularly the executive upon the legislative
and the judicial. That is not to say that the legislative has not cast covetous eyes toward the executive nor that the judicial
has been demurely free from flirtations with the legislative powers. But at the moment, as I see it, the executive advances
predominate.
That is an interesting comment to be coming from a pretty well versed gentleman in the affairs of Washington. He concludes that, "I am
aware that the view I expressed has vocal opponents. But on consideration of their argument I detect that beneath their reasoning a
predisposition to authoritarian government. So often, such people are willing to exchange liberty for efficiency, and freedom for
temporary security or reward."
I don't think that we lawyers are completely absent in our contributions to a solution to this. More often, our reported remarks are likely
to be confined to an examination of a problem rather than an examination of a solution and that's one reason why I think this committee
is to be particularly commended for having the opportunity to inquire into this basic question of "Is regional government constitutional?"
and to possibly make some recommendations as to the course that the Kansas legislature might take in the event that they find, as a
number of other committees have found in a similar study of the subject, that there are indeed numerous and flagrant infractions of the
Constitutional Agreement.
T. David Horton, Attorney at Law, counsel, Committee to Restore the Constitution, Inc., Sweetland Building, 305 North Carson Street,
Carson City, Nevada, 89701, (702) 883-1966. Member, District of Columbia, Virginia and Nevada State Bar; member United States
9th Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia; Chairman, Executive Council, Defenders of the American Constitution, Inc;
Publisher, Square Dollar Series; Professional Witness before numerous congressional committees in matters pertaining to
constitutional inquiries; Graduate Ohio State University, Post Graduate Studies American University, Washington D.C., Catholic
University, Washington, D.C., and Hamilton College, Clinton, New York.
24 / 85
3/23/2015
Go on
"The Safety of the State Begins With You"
Go back
to the homepage for
Send a message
to
Col. Roberts.
25 / 85
The Feudal State
3/23/2015
http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/Feudal.html
Go
APR
SEP OCT
34 captures
29
22 F eb 99 - 29 Sep 05
2004 2005 2006
Close
Help

Part 4
The Feudal State: American Serfs Labor for Directors of The Federal Corporation
"The great cause, therefore, of the devastating march of revolutions, and the total subversion which they in general effect in the
liberties of the people, is the fundamental change in laws and institutions which they effect." Alison1
The constitutional crisis arises from attempts by federal agencies to centralize political power in the hands of private interests. The
instrument of subversion is the Council on Foreign Relations. Its agents are concealed in the departments of the federal government.
Semi-secret and quasi-official, the Council on Foreign Relations is dominated by the Rockefeller brothers, David Rockefeller being
Chairman of the Board.
Some researchers declare that the Rockefeller Family represents the U.S. interests of an international banking cartel founded by
Meyer Anseim Rothschild in the eighteenth century.
"The C.F.R.," says Don Bell, editor of CLOSER UP,2 "is a 'conglomerate of leaders' wherein are banded together - for purposes of
control and direction - the principal policy makers and opinion molders of the Nation. Membership," he says, "includes international
bankers, multinational moguls, conglomerate chieftains, labor leaders, religious luminaries, educationalists, and media managers,
journalists, columnists, commentators, authors, editors and publishers."
To Overthrow the Constitution

The objective of this "conglomerate of leaders" is overthrow of the United States Constitution and the erection of a federal corporation
upon the ruins of the Republic. Directors of the new federal corporation are the masters of the financial/industrial cabal who head the
Council on Foreign Relations.
Devastation of individual freedom and property rights, twin goals of C.F.R. planners, is a technique of revolution. An eighteenth century
barrister, Sir Archibald Alison, noted the inevitable consequence of overthrowing the established order by revolutionary techniques:
"When it is said that institutions formed by the wisdom of our former ages should not be changed, it is not meant that our ancestors
were gifted with any extraordinary sagacity, or were in any respect superior to what we are - what is meant is, that the customs which
they adopted were the result of experienced utility and known necessity; and that the collection of usages, called the constitution, is
more perfect than any human wisdom could at once have framed, because it has arisen out of social wants, and been adapted to the
exigencies of actual practice, during a long course of ages."
The Constitution of the United States has just such a lineage, having been based upon ancient records of human endeavor, among
these being the Magna Charta.
An Incomparable Evil
"To demolish and reconstruct such a constitution," Alison warned, "to remove power from the hands in which it was formerly vested,
and throw it into channels where it never was accustomed to flow, is an evil incomparably greater, an experiment infinitely more
hazardous, than the total subversion of the liberties of the people by an ambitious monarch or a military usurper, because it not only
destroys the balance of power at the moment, but renders it impossible for the nation to right itself at the close of the tyranny, and
raises up a host of separate revolutionary interests, vested at the moment with supreme authority, and dependent for their existence
upon the continuance of the revolutionary regime. It is to government," Alison explained, "what a total change of landed property is to
body politic; a wound from which, as Ireland sufficiently proves, a nation can never recover."
The capability for revolutionary change of this magnitude by the Council on Foreign Relations is difficult to comprehend unless the
power behind the Rockefeller name is understood. One must visualize the interlocking relationships that exist between the corporate
royalists and the banker barons.
One example may serve to illustrate this interlock:
Corporate Royalists and Banker Barons

Sir John J. Loudon of London is chairman of the international advisory committee of the Rockefeller Chase Manhattan Bank of New
York, and a board member of the Chase Manhattan Corporation which controls the Chase Manhattan Bank, with world-wide branches.
Sir Loudon is also chairman of Royal Dutch Petroleum, The Hague, as well as director of Shell Petroleum Company Limited. Royal
Dutch Shell is ranked number one among some five hundred of the largest corporations in Europe. Significantly, Loudon of London is
also a trustee of the Ford Foundation.
http://web.archive.org/web/20050929061704/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/Feudal.html
26 / 85
The Feudal State
3/23/2015
CLOSER UP, 4 January issue, lists no less than eleven corporate royalist/banker barons holding similar interlocking policy-making
positions in the new federal corporation.
The parallel between the political revolution currently in progress in America and the transformation which ultimately overturned the
British system, was drawn by Sir Alison, English historian and barrister in, "Alison's Miscellaneous Essay," over one hundred years
ago. The comparisons are shockingly familiar.
The New/Old Revolution

"As the Reform Bill proposes to throw a large part of the political power in the State into new and inexperienced hands," said Alison,
"the change thereby contemplated is incomparably greater and more perilous than the most complete prostration of the liberties,
either of the people or the aristocracy, by a passing tyranny. It is the creation of new and formidable revolutionary interests which will
never expire; the vesting of power in hands jealous of its possession, in proportion to the novelty of its acquisition, and their own
unfitness to wield it, which is the insuperable evil. Such a calamity," he said, "is inflicted as effectually by the tranquil and pacific
formation of a new constitution as by the most terrible civil war, or the severest military oppression. The liberties of England survived
the Wars of the Roses, the fury of the Covenant, and the tyranny of Henry VIII; but those of France were at once destroyed by the
insane innovations of the Constituent Assembly. And this destruction took place without any bloodshed or opposition, under the
auspices of a reforming king, a conceding nobility, and an intoxicated people, by the mere unresisted votes of the States-General."
As though inspired by today's headlines Sir Alison then stated:
"The example of France is so extremely and exactly applicable to our changes - the pacific and applauded march of its innovations
was so precisely similar to that which has so long been pressed upon the legislature of this country, that it is not surprising that it
should be an extremely sore subject with the Reformers that they should endeavor, by every method of ingenuity, misrepresentation,
and concealment, to withdraw the public attention from so damning a precedent."
Sir Alison, a voice of reason from an earlier age, might well be heeded in contemplating the distractions of Watergate.
CFR-Appointed Public Administrators

Since Watergate we no longer have an accurate list of CFR members who are also employees of the Executive Branch of
government. We do know that, in his first term, Nixon appointed over one hundred CFR members to his staff of advisors, assistants,
bureau chiefs, agency heads, and other key positions. It may safely be assumed that the Rockefeller-CFR interlock has full control
over the federal government.
Don Bell points out that, shortly after the Rockefellers gained mastery of the Council on Foreign Relations and began to use it to direct
U.S. foreign policy, there was also established in Chicago, on ground donated to the University of Chicago by the Rockefeller Family,
a Public Administration Clearing House, better known as "1313". The Rockefeller-financed center has been responsible for the
training and placement of appointed public administrators who now control all levels of domestic government. Transfer of
responsibility from elected officials at State, county and municipal levels of government has been going on for fifty years and few
Americans have been aware of this, or of its implications.
CFR domination of communications media effectively prevents the majority of American citizens from knowing that a revolutionary
level of government has been installed in this nation and that it is rapidly replacing State and local governments. These traditional and
constitutional governmental bodies are being phased out of the society as the new federal corporation is phased in.
Vast Federal Control System

How many Americans realize that Roy Ash, former president of a multinational conglomerate, the Litton Industries, was appointed
chairman of the President's Advisory Council on Executive Organization. The Advisory Council on Executive Organization fathered the
restructuring of the Federal System into a Federal Corporation.
Roy Ash was then brought in as head of this vast new federal control system which spreads itself from the Executive Office of the
President, through the Office of Management and Budget, then to the Undersecretaries of the various federal administrations, down to
the Ten Federal Regional Councils that are scattered throughout the temporarily existing States.
This revolutionary level of government is complete within itself, Don Bell reports. Acting as chairman and absolute dictator,
responsible only to Roy Ash, is the Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget. The Deputy Director of OMB chairs the
Undersecretaries Group for Regional Operations.
The Undersecretaries Group controls, in turn, the Ten Federal Regional Councils, with their seats of government at the ten Federal
Region capitols in Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, Dallas/Fort Worth, Kansas City, Denver, San Francisco, and Seattle.
Thirty years ago James Burnham, in his book, "The Managerial Revolution," predicted the rise of a new ruling class whose ascent to
power if not challenged was inevitable. Burnham identified these "managers" as a type of professional with command training quite
distinct and towering above the capabilities needed for routine jobs. Rule over the United States, he predicted, would be obtained
through state (federal) ownership and control, with appointed managers rather than elected officials heading the departments of
government.
Elected Officials Now Order Takers

Burnham's "new ruling class" is here. The issue is no longer who is the candidate in an election - any charismatic can be president,
governor, or mayor - if he can take and deliver orders.
27 / 85
The Feudal State
3/23/2015
The new breed of appointed managers was conceived, nourished, trained, and placed in position by the use of funds supplied by taxexempt foundations - Ford, Rockefeller, Carnegie, Alfred P. Sloan, and others. Foundation funds are used to finance special courses
at colleges and universities where these new public managers are trained. Post-graduate courses are provided to special persons by
the Council on Foreign Relations and its branches; Henry Kissinger being such a foreign affairs trainee.
Meantime, "1313" was able to unionize and provide job placement for their domestic experts as city mangers, metro managers,
regional council officials, and other take-over positions within local governments. Big business, of course, provided top-echelon
directors for the new revolutionary government.
Thus has developed the New Federal Corporation, with its new ruling class operating through trained appointed managers.
These revolutionary programs reveal a systematic attack upon the American people. Corporate royalists and banker barons have
gained control of the federal government and employ its agencies to cancel the rights of person and property guaranteed to the
people by the Constitution.
The Way Back to Public Safety

The Constitutional Compact does not permit usurpation of constitutional powers. Transformation of our elective form of government to
an appointed form of government is specifically prohibited by its articles. Lacking constitutional authority, acts by federal agents which
effect such change are against the law. Being unlawful, they must be put down.
The law is clear on this point:
"The general rule," the Court has declared, "is that an unconstitutional act of the legislature protects no one. It is said that all persons
are presumed to know the law, meaning that ignorance of the law excuses no one; if any person acts under an unconstitutional statute
he does so at his peril and must take the consequences."3
State officeholders, therefore, have a positive duty to enforce the provisions of the Constitution. It is a continuing obligation and may
not be met merely by an empty oath taken upon accepting public office.
In the past State legislators have found it necessary to reaffirm the restrictions placed upon the federal government by the
Constitutional Compact. Such a case arose from the oppressive Sedition Act of 14 July, 1798, by which the United States Congress
attempted to abridge freedom of the press. This act elicited the Kentucky Resolution of 19 November, 1799, repudiating the
unauthorized acts of the Congress.
Historical Precedent Challenges Tyranny

The Kentucky Resolution, to which all sister States became party, holds special importance for modern lawmakers in the respective
State legislatures.
"Resolved that the several States composing the United States of America," declared the Kentucky Legislature, "are not united on the
principles of unlimited submission to their general government; but that by Compact under the style and title of a Constitution, for the
United States and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes, delegated to that government
certain definite powers, reserving to each State to itself the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever
the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force; that to this Compact each
State acceded as a State and is an integral party, its co-states forming as to itself the other party; that the government created by this
Compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the power delegated to itself since that would have made ITS
discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its power; but that as in all other cases of Compact among parties having no
common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress."
People Must Act to Restore Law

The reason that the people of each State are burdened by illegal acts of federal agents, and their surrender of the powers of
government to private interests, is because the State has not repudiated the attempts of its agents in Washington to act beyond their
authority. These unlawful acts have the effect of "law" not by reason of a nonexistent authority of the federal agent, but because of the
authority the State gave to these acts by failing to challenge the attempts of its federal agents to exceed their authority.
To meet the constitutional crisis the people, acting through officials they have elected to represent them, must force the State
legislature to insure that all provisions of the Constitution are respected and enforced within the boundaries of the State.
The State, acting at its highest sovereign capacity, must wrest control of its destiny from the evil hands of those unfit to wield such
power. Federal regulation over land, business, development, utilities, production, service, property, and people has never been
delegated to any government or federal agency by the people of the State. Only by corrective action by the State legislature can the
insane innovations of the revolutionary federal corporation be terminated and the laws and institutions of the Republic restored.
The place to begin is at the county level of government, the government closest to the people.
1 (Sir Archibald Alison (1792-1867)
2 CLOSER UP & DON BELL REPORTS, P.O. Box 2223, Palm Beach, Florida 33480.
3 16 Am Jur, 2nd Sec. 178, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
* From THE REPUBLIC: DECLINE AND FUTURE PROMISE (1975) by Archibald E. Roberts, LtCol, AUS, ret, 101 pages (8 1/2 x
11): $3.95 BETSY ROSS PRESS, P.O. Box 986, Ft Collins, CO 80522.
28 / 85
The Feudal State
3/23/2015
11): $3.95 BETSY ROSS PRESS, P.O. Box 986, Ft Collins, CO 80522.
Go on
"Regional Governance"
Go back
to the homepage for
Send a message
to
Col. Roberts.
29 / 85
National Crisis and Executive Orders
3/23/2015
http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/Crisis.html
Go
APR
SEP DEC
40 captures
21 F eb 99 - 25 O ct 07
2004 2005 2007
Close
Help

Part 4
The Feudal State: National Crisis and Executive Orders*
EXECUTIVE ORDERS, listed below, plus many additional directives centralizing political power at the federal level of government,
have been consolidated in omnibus Executive Order #11490, "Assigning Emergency Preparedness Functions to Federal
Departments and Agencies," FEDERAL REGISTER, 30 October, 1969. These Executive Orders have the authority of "law," and may
be implemented "by an order or directive issued by the President" in any "national emergency type of situation." (See Proclamation
#4074 by President Nixon, FEDERAL REGISTER, 17 August, 1971, announcing a state of national emergency.)
CREATED CHAOS
The problems Americans face today are deliberately created and exploited to produce a state of chaos which will induce the people
to demand the setting-up of a central government authority as the only solution short of total anarchy.
A rapidly deteriorating political climate may signal impending climax.
Study below, reprinted from a 1971 bulletin, Committee to Restore the Constitution, shows how a dictatorship may be established in
America in the guise of "national security."
The state of "national emergency" declared by President Nixon in August "legalized" the imposition of Executive Orders and other
socialist directives under the guise of a "time of increased international tension, and economic and financial crisis."
When published in the FEDERAL REGISTER Executive Orders without any concurring action by the Congress, become law. In
combination these documents achieve the objective of those who have long sought to dismantle the Constitution and erect a socialist
state upon the ruins of the Republic.
The implications of "national emergency" may be best understood by examining a few of the Executive Orders published in the
FEDERAL REGISTER during February and September, 1962:
EXECUTIVE ORDERS
Executive Order No. 11051 Details responsibility of the Office of Emergency Planning and gives authorization to put all Executive
Orders into effect in times of increased international tensions and economic or financial crisis.
Executive Order No. 10995 Provides for the takeover of communication media.
Executive Order No. 10997 Provides for the takeover of all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels, and minerals.
Executive Order No. 10998 Provides for the takeover of food resources and farms.
Executive Order No. 10990 Provides for the takeover of all modes of transportation and control of highways, seaports, etc.
Executive Order No. 11000 Provides for mobilization of civilians into work brigades under government supervision.
Executive Order No. 11001 Provides for government takeover of health, education, and welfare functions.
Executive Order No. 11002 Designates the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons.
Executive Order No. 11003 Provides for the government takeover of airports and aircraft.
Executive Order No. 11004 Provides for the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, build new housing with public
funds, designate areas to be abandoned, and established new locations for populations.
Executive Order No. 11005 Provides for the government to take over railroads, inland waterways, public storage facilities.
Executive Order No. 11310 Published in the FEDERAL REGISTER, 11 October, 1966, grants authority to the Department of Justice
to enforce the plans set out in Executive Orders, to institute industry support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all
aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions, and to advise and assist the President.
In all respects the Attorney General will be an all powerful commissar with live and death authority over virtually all aspects of American
life.
http://web.archive.org/web/20050906172012/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/Crisis.html
30 / 85
National Crisis and Executive Orders
3/23/2015
WORLD GOVERNMENT
In a public speech at Casper, Wyoming, 7 March, 1969, I predicted that, "America is within two years of being taken over by an
international cartel," and, "Nixon will be the one to lead us into total world government."
"An international monetary crisis will be the tip-off to the takeover of the world by an organization of large bankers and businessmen
intent on power," I said.
Contemporary events confirm our worst apprehensions.
On 15 August, 1971, President Richard M. Nixon, in Proclamation No. 4074, announced, "I hereby declare a national emergency,"
thus effecting delivery of the United States to a cabal of international money lenders and industrialists. Pressures of economic
coercion spelled out in Executive Order No. 11615 of the same date, are intended to expedite the transfer of Americans into an
Orwellian, 1984, animal farm.
The Order of "Stabilization of Prices, Rents, Wages, and Salaries," which is the title of Executive Order 11615, reveals that Arthur F.
Burns, Chairman of the Board of Governors, Federal Reserve System, is the advisor (controller) of the "stabilization" Council.
INTERNATIONAL BANKERS
The Federal Reserve System is a private banking cartel which controls the American economy by regulating the flow of Federal
Reserve notes in circulation, by controlling interest rates, the stock market, and other facets of American life.
The Council (read Federal Reserve System) is also charged under the Order with the responsibility for developing additional policies,
mechanism, and procedures to control prices, rents, wages, and salaries "after the expiration of the 90-day period."
In consonance with the provisions of Executive Order 11310 dated 11 October, 1966, the Order of 15 August, 1971, directs the
Department of Justice to "bring actions or injunctions" whenever it appears that any person has violated the regulations set out by the
Council (F.R.S.).
It will take a little time for the loose ends to be tidied up - three months say the planners - but ultimately all of us will experience the
crunch of a controlled society.
The die is cast in Proclamation 4074 and companion Executive Order 11615.
Through these acts, and certain other Executive Orders published during the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations, one man, on
behalf of hidden sponsors, has completely ignored the Constitution, the authority of Congress, and the people.
By implementing Executive Orders a dictatorship can be imposed on the American people.
DAY OF THE WIZARD

This is the political reality of Mr. Nixon's declaration of a state of "national emergency."
All else is rhetoric.
The success of the conspiracy can, however, be temporaryif the people will it. Covert control of the Federal Government is
dependent upon secrecy until full consolidation of power is achieved.
The moment an aroused and indignant people commit themselves to exposing and neutralizing the FINANCIAL "ELITE" who pull the
strings the "DAY OF THE WIZARD" will end.
REF: "Proclamation 4074," and "Executive Order 11615" THE FEDERAL REGISTER, Vol. 36, No. 149, Tuesday, August 17, 1971,
pp 15724-15729.
*By Archibald E. Roberts, LtCol, AUS, ret, Director Committee to Restore the Constitution, INc., from, "Crisis Management", August,
1992 CRC bulletin, a reprint from June 1975 Committee bulletin.
Go back
to the homepage for
Send a message
to
Col. Roberts.
http://web.archive.org/web/20050906172012/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/Crisis.html
31 / 85
America's Plunge Into Slavery
3/23/2015
http://www.webaccess.net/%7Ecomminc/Plunge.html
Go
MAY AUG SEP
35 captures
30
23 F eb 99 - 30 A ug 05
2004 2005 2006
Close
Help

Part 5
When the final terror begins, when revolution is unleashed, it will then be found that the standing army which society maintains to
defend itself, i.e., policemen, soldiers, judges, legislators and other agencies of order, is neutralized, captured, subverted and
compromised. It will be found that the power structure of the civilization has been covertly transferred from the hands of those who
created it to an alien control. And, it will be found that subversion of the social order and the concealed recruitment of the legions of
revolt have been accomplished by those who pose as the benefactors and protectors of humanity.
The Anatomy of a Revolution (1968) by Archibald E. Roberts, LtCol, AUS, ret

About 80 years ago a program was begun to condition American "peasants" for entry into the planned New World Order. That
program is now being fulfilled with the installation of the Clinton Co-Presidency reign. According to Emmanuel Josephson, author of
"Rockefeller Internationalist, the Man Who Misrules the World," (Chedney Press, 1952), it all began when John D. Rockefeller invited
to dinner a special group of international bankers, multinationalist businessmen, university presidents and some ranking religionists,
where they talked of controlling American education. John D. Sr. offered a million dollars over a period of ten years for the "noble"
purpose of influencing "all education as desired, without regard to sex, race or creed." The assembled worthies leaped to the bait and
the General Education Board was born. They announced its true purpose in Occasional Letter No. 1. Josephson wrote:
"The letter is a frank and open statement of the basic totalitarian conspiracy that underlies all of the Rockefeller 'philanthropies.' Their
avowed scheme was to gain the confidence of the people by a show of sham 'benevolence' and then, when they 'yield' themselves
with perfect docility to our molding hands, to work our own good will upon them through a Rockefeller dictatorship. In this conspiracy
they are largely succeeding." The basic statement in this Occasional Letter reads: "In our dreams we have limitless resources and the
people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hands. The present educational conventions fade from our minds and,
unhampered by tradition, we work our good will upon a grateful rural folk..."
Now let's notice how "their dreams" are becoming reality eighty years later. The Christian conservative newsletter author, Donald
McAlvany writes and we quote with his permission:
"There is a black cloud rolling across America. The great majority of Americans cannot even see it as they live on in a
contented, complacent comfort zone that sees no evil, hears no evil, and feels no evil. There are powerful forces at work in
America today which have a well-strategized design to move America into a socialist police state and a globalist New
World Order. These forces have accelerated tremendously over the past five years and especially over the past six
months. They believe that there is virtually no resistance to their plan to control and subjugate the American people into
their globalist vision of 'a world that will be as one' by the year 2000. Certainly there is no resistance from a Congress or
judiciary which is going along with 98% of the agenda which the Establishment has for America. There is no resistance
from the media, which is a not-so-silent partner and servant to the Establishment in keeping the American people asleep,
and psychologically preparing them for Global 2000 and the dawning of the Age of Aquarius. There is no resistance from
the churches of America which are also in a very complacent comfort zone - the mainliners supporting the Establishment's
goals; the fundamentalist evangelicals are too busy 'loving the brethren' and striving 'to feel good about themselves' to
notice the evil sweeping across America (or lift a finger to oppose it); and most Christians (real, nominal or pseudo) in a
complacent comfort zone that is presently very difficult to disturb. It is as if a spirit of blindness or delusion has settled over
Americans in general and the Christian Church in America in particular, and as the affronts, the insults and attacks against
our traditional, Constitutional, and Biblical values in America grow every day, almost geometrically, the average Christian
in America goes even more deeply asleep. And there is no resistance from the general American population which
continues in its comfort zone of prosperity and affluence as the government and media hypnotize, mesmerize, and pacify
them, even as America descends into an economic, social, political, moral and spiritual free fall. America is much like
Nazi Germany in the late 1920s and early '30s - in moral, spiritual and political decline, and psychologically ripe to accept
the New World Order.
"But there is some resistance from a small handful of Americans (probably no more than a million or two) who do see the
handwriting on the wall, who do see the moral, spiritual, social, political free fall which America is in today, who do
recognize the evil emanating from Washington, from our courts, our media and our educational system...Whatever the
religious or political persuasion of this remnant, they have discernment about the dangers America faces, they have a love
for our traditional way of life, and they have a loathing (or hatred) for evil. It is this remnant, this potential resistance to the
socialization and globalization of America, which the Establishment fears and hates at this point. If this remnant were to
suddenly grow from a few million to 25 to 50 to 75 or even 100 million Americans, the Establishment's New World
Order/New Age blueprint for Americans would go up in smoke - and the Establishment knows it. This remnant, and the
http://web.archive.org/web/20050830160339/http://www.webaccess.net/%7Ecomminc/Plunge.html
32 / 85
3/23/2015
intervening hand of God, are (in the opinion of this writer) the only things which can reverse America's present free fall and
plunge into slavery. So, they must move to stamp out the remnant, the dissidents, the potential resistance - as swiftly, totally
and ruthlessly as Lenin, Stalin, Hitler and Mao did as they were rising to power in the '20s, '30s, '40s and '50s. The
government (Establishment) attacks on the remnant have begun. Groups to be targeted include the tax resistors, the gun
owners (especially the hard core ones), the pro-lifers, believers in financial privacy and cash, and 'hard core' fundamental,
evangelical Christians - especially those who believe strongly in (and defend) traditional family values and in Bible
prophecy and the so-called 'end times security' (and timetable). Government attacks against these groups are now
accelerating rapidly and can be expected to grow five to 10-fold over the next few years. Many will have their assets
seized; many will be jailed; some will be killed. Just as Lenin, Stalin, Hitler and Mao knew that they must stamp out the
resistance to their tyranny if their revolutions were to succeed, so the Liberal Eastern Establishment knows they must do
the same in America today. These potential resistors could ignite a counter-revolution which could completely expose and
derail the Establishment. They must be silenced or neutralized...The seige at Ruby Creek against the Weaver family and
Operation Waco will be seen in retrospect as watershed events in the government's escalating attacks against the
remnant." (from The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor, July , 1993. P.O. Box 84904, Phoenix, AZ 85071).
To prepare the people to become obedient, passive serfs in a Socialist America and in the New World Order, and to control, jail or kill
those who refuse to go along contentedly and happily, police state methods must be used. The Waco incident was a forerunner of
what may be expected in the future. The book, Putting People First, said to have been written by Bill Clinton and Al Gore proposes the
creation of a national police force of 100,000 members, this apparently to be drawn from the national guard. General Colin Powell,
head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has said that "the government plans to unify all the various states' National Guard under one command
to deal with national emergencies and disasters." In addition to the unified National Guard there will also be the various Federal
agencies: BATF, FBI, DEA, EPA and about a dozen other agencies that will have the power to exercise the "forfeiture scam" and
similar means that were strictly unconstitutional so long as that document was honored as "The Law of the Land." In state, county and
local police departments, officers are said to be in training to cooperate, as some did at Waco. Officers who resist this training are
allegedly being reported to resign or get fired.
It should be understood that this national police force in no way interferes with the creation of a UN global police force. The two merely
complement each other, with the UN in command of both. In this connection, the following item is important:
"In mid-June the Army formally abandoned its fighting doctrine and quietly marched into the New World Order. A new
guide, dubbed FM-105 Operations focuses on 'power projection,' the ability to move troops quickly around the world to
conduct operations other than war; on such things as peacekeeping missions (Macedonia), humanitarian assistance
(Somalia), disaster relief (Hurricane Andrew), counter-narcotics actions (South and Central America), relations with
nations in need of democratic assistance (Persian Gulf), and riot control. 'No longer focusing on battling Warsaw pact
nations in central Europe, the Army will mix and match its forces and will not operate alone.' Gen. Federal Franks is the
publication's architect. Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Sullivan said, 'It guides our approach to the future'." (from
NewsScam 7/93), P.O. Box 582, Canton, TX 75103-0582. Twelve issues, $25.00).
With the Army no longer designed to defend the United States but instead to become a UN peacemaking and peacekeeping force,
the following notice portends danger for American citizens: "The UN World Conference on Human Rights was held in Vienna, with US
Undersecretary of State Tim Wirth (Council on Foreign Relations member) recommending that UN peacekeeping activities include
soldiers monitoring human rights violations. This would include 'racial discrimination' and allow for UN intervention in American
domestic affairs." ...With the alleged 'collapse' of the Soviet Union, pressure mounted for drastic reduction in our military capabilities,
thereby forcing us to rely more on the UN for global peacekeeping missions. With the fragmented USSR now controlling about 13
votes rather than the earlier three votes in the UN, one can see the Soviet's 'winning by losing' strategy, and remember regarding the
Russian 'Bear' the 1898 words of Rudyard Kipling: 'When he shows at seeking quarter, with paws like hand in prayer, that is the time
of peril the time of the Truce of the Bear.'
World socialist government and economy is the goal, and World Trade (March 1993) quoted crypto-Marxist Will Swaim
opining that the new homogenized global economy "may become just the kind of grim, unthinkable place that Marx hoped
it might: The launching pad for the worldwide socialist revolution." And if Americans begin to object to the New World
Order, foreign troops here might be used to handle those situations, as newspapers in early May 1991 reported: "German
lawmakers and UN officials reacted favorably to the idea of a permanent German military presence in the US." (Dennis L.
Cuddy, Ph.D. in the 5/29/93 issue of the Manchester New Hampshire's Union Leader.)
While our federal government was busy planning ways to complete the socialization of and establish totalitarian rule over the people of
the US, planners at the global level were just as busy. The two principal groups promoting the economic and political new world order,
the Bilderbergers and the Trilateral Commissioners, had their annual spring meetings. Little is ever published concerning what actually
transpires at these secret meetings. But it is known that two new policies were adopted and sent to the G-7 governments to be
approved. So, a G-7 Summit was called, held in Tokyo July 7-9. Supposedly called to iron out long-standing difficulties that were
holding up the Uruguay Round of GATT, unreported by the media were two other very important decisions to be agreed upon by the G7 governments (US, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and Canada). First was the decision that the UN would have its own army
for global peace-keeping, peacemaking and other purposes. Some time ago Secretary General Boutras Ghali of the UN wrote his
"Agenda for Peace," which calls for a UN standing army accountable only to the UN Security Council. This called for the approval by
the nations who have their own standing armies and would lose much sovereignty if a superseding military force were to be
established. So the G-7 governments dutifully approved. The text of the G-7's joint communique supports "preventive diplomacy,
peacemaking, peacekeeping, and post-conflict building in the context of the secretary-general's Agenda for Peace." This UN army
would accept volunteers from various countries and eventually would replace all national armies. These UN soldiers would be
authorized to operate within the borders of countries, arrest any individuals or groups that violate any international law (which is the
supreme law of the world). Of course, there's nothing new about such action. George Bush undertook the invasion of the sovereign
state of Somalia, and that supposedly established a precedent for such action in the future in that Bill Clinton left American soldiers
there under the command of a UN general from Turkey. More recently Clinton sent US troops to Macedonia where they are under the
33 / 85
3/23/2015
command of a Danish general.

The second important decision of G-7 had to do with the now official recognition of a third regional world government. So now it is
official: The world is to be divided into three principal regions: The European Community (called EUROPE), the American Community
(NAFTA), and the Pacific Community, headquartering in Tokyo.
Conclusion. It has been called "a black cloud rolling across the land." By our own federal government and with the permission or
indifference of the great majority of our people were are being moved irresistibly toward a socialist police state. Strong pressure is
being brought against Constitutionalists, Christians, pro-lifers, gun owners and other resistors against slavery. We have forgotten that
this is a land where Christ is our King. And we are paying the price. Ours has become a spiritual battle and we must remember that
"We wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world,
against spiritual wickedness in high places." (Ephesians 6:12).
from Don Bell Reports, 2 August 1993 issue, by Don Bell, Council member, Committee to Restore the Constitution. Published every
other Friday: $40/yr, DON BELL REPORTS, P.O. Box 2223, Palm Beach, FL 33480.
Go on
"The Mattoid Syndrome."
Go back
to the homepage for
Send a message
to
Col. Roberts.
34 / 85
The Mattiod Syndrome
3/23/2015
http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/Mattoid.html
Go
APR AUG NOV
42 captures
29
22 F eb 99 - 25 O ct 07
2004 2005 2007
Close
Help

Part 5
The Mattoid Syndrome
It is appallingly clear that America the beautiful has fallen into the hands of political madmen!
Our people are exploited and terrorized by coercive domestic policy at home; our sons are betrayed in "no-win" military adventures
abroad; and our national honor and integrity are compromised all over the globe.
An increasing number of U.S. citizens, seeking recovery of national reason, recommend and endorse a public examination of this
strategy of defeat. They believe, as you believe, that the peril of political madness can be ignored only on pain of extinction of the
State. Americans must, they warn, isolate the psychology of those who promote rebellion and inspire a study of the anatomy of
revolution.
One of these alarmed Americans is David O. Woodbury, author of 23 books of science, who said in the "Manchester Union Leader,"
"We are confronted by a horde of madmen. Mad in the same sense that Hitler was mad - a fact which the whole world accepts. Mad in
the sense that their conduct, their aspiration, their reasoning, their actions are those of minds out of control, irrational, unsound, blown
by a hurricane of willful insistence upon principles that civilization has proved over and over again to be specious and often
degenerate." (1)
It is also apparent that insanity has recruited a vast apparatus of propaganda and employs a diabolical cleverness in posing as the
protector and benefactor of mankind while actually furthering nihilistic objectives.
Contemporary history, in fact, convincingly suggests that those who head the Federal Government are manipulated by mattoids - by
men of unbalanced and dangerous brilliance. These hidden exploiters of the United States power structure apply an inverted psychoeugenic science as a weapon against the people. They have, seemingly, perfected a sophisticated and systematized plan,
incorporating brainwashing and genetic prostitution, to achieve soviet-style control over the American social order.
To escape the dolorous fate of yesterday's people, Americans can dispel this doctrine of darkness by disseminating definitive
intelligence and by adopting corrective political action. Power-entrenched mattoids can only be overthrown by an informed and
indignant electorate.
It is proposed that the psychopathic malignancy threatening the American civilization be examined in depth and the knowledge gained
thereby be applied with surgical finality. Let us begin by defining the nature of the foe.
Sociologist Max Nordau has identified three classifications of the mattoid.
"A mattoid or half-fool," Nordau said, "who is full of organic feelings of dislike, generalizes his subjective state into a system of
pessimism, of 'Weltschmertz' - weariness of life.
"Another, in whom a loveless egoism dominates all thought and feeling, so that the whole exterior world seems to him hostile,
organizes his anti-social instincts into the theory of anarchism.
"A third, who suffers from moral insensibility, so that no bond of sympathy links him with his fellow man or with any living thing, and who
is obsessed by vanity amounting to megalomania, preaches a doctrine of the Superman, who is to know no consideration and no
compassion, be bound by no moral principle, but 'live his own life' without regard for others.
"When these half-fools, as often happens, speak an excited language," said Nordau, "when their imaginations, unbridled by logic or
understanding, supplies them with odd, startling fancies and surprising associations and images - their writings make a strong
impression on thought in the cultivated circles of their times." (2)
Irrational political decisions at policy-making levels force upon perceptive Americans the conclusion that an invisible government of
men "unbridled by logic or understanding" has acquired ultimate power and influence in the United States. Furthermore, the imagebuilding manipulations of these mattoids favor the development of similar attitudes in others and give thousands - perhaps millions - of
normally well-balanced persons the courage to overtly engage in absurd or infamous acts.
"... Through the influence of the teachings of degenerate half-fools," Nordau continued, "conditions arise which do not, like the cases of
insanity and crime, admit of expression in figures, but can nevertheless in the end be defined through their political and social effects.
We gradually observe a general loosening of morality, a disappearance of logic from thought and action, a morbid irritability and
vacillation of public opinion, a relaxation of character. Offenses are treated with a frivolous or sentimental indulgence which
encourages rascals of all kinds. People lose the power of moral indignation, and accustom themselves to despise it as something
banal, unadvanced, inelegant, unintelligent. Deeds that would formerly have disqualified a man forever from public life are no longer an
http://web.archive.org/web/20050829190834/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/Mattoid.html
35 / 85
3/23/2015
obstacle in his career, so that suspicious and tainted personalities find it possible to rise to responsible positions ... Nobody is
shocked by the most absurd proposals, measures, and fashions, and folly rules in legislation, administration, domestic and foreign
politics ... Everybody harps upon his 'rights' and rebels against every limitation of his arbitrary desires by law or custom. Everybody
tries to escape from the compulsion of discipline and shake off the burden of duty." (3)
Published fifty-six years ago, Nordau's commentary, "The Degeneration of Classes and Peoples," is a shocking prophecy of the
mattoid-directed malaise besetting America today. The destructive social doctrines of our own time, attractive on the surface but
basically subversive, are essentially the product of unsound reasoning by unsound brains. Sociologist Nordau ably analyzed the
enormous harm done by such individuals preaching negative dogma. They lead astray vast numbers of average people whose
intelligence is not high enough to protect them against clever fallacies clothed in emotional appeal, and they arouse the degenerate
elements and primitive types in society.
In his book, "The Revolt Against Civilization," Lothrop Stoddard indicts these political madmen and suggests the manner in which
protectors of the American civilization may meet the challenge of our day.
Stoddard observed, "... Construction and destruction, progress and regress, evolution and revolution, are alike the work of dynamic
minorities. Numerically small, talented elites create and advance high civilizations; while Jacobine France and Bolshevic Russia prove
how a small but ruthless revolutionary faction can wreck a social order and tyrannize a great population. "Of course," he said, "these
dynamic groups are composed primarily of leaders - they are the officers' corps of much larger armies which mobilize instinctively
when crises arise." (4)
The profound effect which a numerically insignificant intellectual elite can have on the progress of a civilization is illustrated by the
classic Athenian example.
"In the two centuries between 500 and 300 B.C.," reported geneticist Edwin Conklin, "the small and relatively barren country of Attica,
with an area and total population about equal to that of the present State of Rhode Island, but with less than one-fifth as many free
persons, produced at least 25 illustrious men. Among statesmen and commanders there were: Miltiades, Themistocles, Aristides,
Cimon, Pericles, Phocion; among poets, Aeschylus, Euripides, Sophocles, Aristophanes; among philosophers and men of science,
Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Demetrius, Theophrastus; among architects and artists, Ictinus, Phidias, Praxiteles, Polygnotus; among
historians, Thucydides and Xenophon; among orators, Aeschines, Demosthenes, Isocrates, Lysias.
"In this small country," said Conklin, "in the space of two centuries there appeared such a galaxy of illustrious men as has never been
found on the whole earth in any two centuries since that time. Galton (5) concludes that the average ability of the Athenian race of that
period was, on the lowest estimate, as much greater than that of the English race of the present day as the latter is above that of the
African Negro." (6)
Eugenically, civilization has been a catastrophe to the race which has created it. Geneticist Samuel J. Holmes, Ph.D., in his book,
"The Trend of the Race," quotes from an earlier authority, Lapouge, who noted the depressing effects which selective agencies have
had on ancient and modern societies. Both of these authorities determined that robust blood lines are consumed by an advancing
culture, while those of little worth are artificially protected and, eventually, overwhelm the established order. The morbid statistics of
decline were discussed in Lapouge's work, "Les Selections Sociales," published in 1869. Lapouge described the operation of
several forms of social selection, i.e., military, political, religious, moral, legal, economic and systematic, all of which are brought into
play as a consequence of the development of civilization.
"The racial influence of civilization," concluded Holmes, "is therefore bad." (7) It will continue to be "bad" until advanced societies learn
to cope successfully with overt and covert forces inimical to the bearers of the social order.
The decay of ancient races and civilizations may have been tolerable to man at a time when there were available evolved and
millenial-tempered races to move into the vacuum created by the fall of a preceding culture. Such reservoirs of high-quality lineage,
however, no longer exist; and none appear visible on the genetic horizon.
The attritional loss of "talented elites" has been further accelerated in our era by the introduction into society of chromosomaldamaging chemicals - a genetic horror which Lapouge and Holmes could not have imagined in their studies of agencies affecting
selection in man. Mankind's twentieth-century threat, psychedelic drugs, has the dimensions of a genocidal time bomb.
The American civilization, no less than did the Athenian, depends upon the quality of the men and women who are the bearers of it. All
the accumulations of instruments and ideas, massed and welded into marvelous structures, rest upon living foundations. Should these
living foundations decay by attrition, crumble by subversion, or be destroyed by artificial means the mightiest civilization will sag,
crack, and at last crash down in ruin.
"The revolt against civilization," said Stoddard, "goes deeper than we are apt to suppose. However elaborate and persuasive may be
the modern doctrines of rebellion, they are mere rationalizations of an instinctive, primitive urge." (8)
A factor carefully avoided in today's studies of the rise and progress of revolution is the fact that individuals or groups placed at cultural
levels above their capacities instinctively revert to lower and more congenial surroundings. Atavistic forces forever seek to disrupt
advanced societies and drag them down to more aboriginal levels. The high-placed mattoid recruits, molds, inflames, and then
unleashes these forces against the existing social order, to bring it crashing down in "ruin."
Stoddard stated a self-evident fact, to which all of us may subscribe: Revolutions do not spring from nothing. Behind the revolt against
an established society, there lies a long formative period during which the forces of chaos gather while the forces of order decline.
Revolutions thus give ample warning of their approach.
The symptoms of revolution, Stoddard observed, may be categorized in three stages: (1) destructive criticism of the existing order, (2)
revolutionary theorizing and agitation, and (3) revolutionary action. (9)
36 / 85
3/23/2015
Americans have witnessed the promotion and implementation of the first two stages of incipient revolution and now behold the
beginnings of revolutionary action aimed at toppling this social order - all the work of degenerate forces which have gained decisive
position in the social structure for the purpose of destroying it. Strong societies are not overturned by revolution. Before revolution can
succeed, the social order must be undermined and morally compromised. Subverting the existing order is a genetic compulsion of the
mattoid. Sick-brained men, occupying rarified position, have nailed the revolutionary banner of "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" to the
mast of our ship of state. Behind a concealing curtain of "humanitarianism," they now direct the course of our nation to chaos, to
oblivion, to a soviet twilight zone.
The cynical program of these madmen will lead, unless reversed, to the eclipse of the American civilization.
Paul Popenow and Roswell H. Johnson, in their book, "Applied Eugenics," question the so-called "Law of Civilization and Decay."
They and other eugenics authorities suggest that a civilization might be immortal if its high-type genetic stock continues to produce an
adequate quota of superior individuals.
Stoddard declared that this has never occurred because of three destructive tendencies which have, in times past, always brought
civilizations to decline and ruin. These three tendencies, he said, are (1) the tendency to structural overloading, (2) the tendency to
biological regression, and (3) the tendency to atavistic revolt. (10)
The shock troops for the American revolution of the 1960's are the same type of congenital savage, the same kind of eugenic
degenerate, and the same rejected humanity employed to overturn the social order in France, in Russia, and in a succession of
similar national convulsions. Comprehending the emotional mechanisms which trigger the human power base of revolution is a prime
requisite to devising a counter-force. These factors are unchanging and predictable, and have been successfully exploited for
generations by those who promote rebellion.
The attitude of the unadaptable toward the civilization which rejects him is certainly one of instinctive opposition and discontent. These
feelings vary from unreasoning dislike to flaming hatred. This volcano of emotion is finally directed, not merely against imperfections in
the social order, but against the social order itself. This is a point which is rarely mentioned or understood. Nevertheless, it is the most
important issue of the whole matter.
"We must realize clearly that the basic attitude of the Under Man," Stoddard said, "is an instinctive and natural revolt against
civilization. The reform of abuses may diminish the intensity of social discontent. It may also diminish the numbers of the discontented,
because social abuses precipitate into the depths many persons who do not really belong there; persons who were innately capable
of achieving the social order if they had a fair chance. But, excluding all such anomalous cases, there remains a vast residue of
unadaptable, depreciated humanity, essentially uncivilizable and incorrigibly hostile to civilization. Every society engenders within itself
hordes of savages and barbarians, ripe for revolt and ever ready to pour forth and destroy." (11)
When a civilization falters beneath its own weight and by the genetic decay of its human foundations; when its "marvelous structures"
are shaken by war, dissension, or calamity; then the long-repressed forces of atavistic revolt are marshaled and launched in
screaming hatred against the existing social order.
When the final terror begins, when revolution is unleashed, it will then be found that the standing army which society maintains to
defend itself, i.e., policemen, soldiers, judges, legislators and other agencies of order, is neutralized, captured, subverted and
compromised. It will be found that the power structure of the civilization has been covertly transferred from the hands of those who
created it to an alien control. And, it will be found that subversion of the social order and the concealed recruitment of the legions of
revolt have been accomplished by those who pose as the benefactors and protectors of humanity.
For nothing is secret that shall not be made manifest; Neither anything hid, that shall not be known and come abroad. - LUKE 8:17.
From The Anatomy of a Revolution (1968) by Archibald Roberts, LtCol, AUS, ret. Self-documented research study traces origins of
world revolution from Adam Weishaupt to David Rockefeller. Vital to understanding forces underlying U.S. social, economic and
political convulsions. Indexed, 34 pages: $3.00, COMMITTEE TO RESTORE THE CONSTITUTION, Inc., P.O. Box 986, Ft. Collins,
CO 80522.
Footnotes
1. David O. Woodbury, "The Madmen," Manchester, N.H., Union Leader, January 17, 1966.
2. Max Nordau, "The Degeneration of Classes and Peoples," Hibbert Journal, July, 1912.
3. Ibid.
4. Lothrop Stoddard, The Revolt Against Civilization, p 224.
5. Sir Francis Galton, English anthropologist and originator of eugenics theory.
6. Edwin Grant Conklin, Heredity and Environment, p 276.
7. Samuel J. Holmes, The Trend of Race, p 3.
8. Ibid, p 125.
37 / 85
3/23/2015
9. Ibid, p 126.
10. Ibid, p 11.
Go back
to the homepage for
Send a message
to
Col. Roberts.
38 / 85
The Rockefeller Foundation
3/23/2015
http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/Rockefeller.html
Go
APR
SEP NOV
42 captures
24 F eb 99 - 25 O ct 07
2004 2005 2007
Close
Help

Part 6
The Rockefeller Foundation: Interlocking Subversion in Government Departments
Dramatically revealed to perceptive Americans is the secret alliance of financial and revolutionary power which seeks to overturn the
Constitution and erect a dictatorship upon the ruins of the Republic.
Acceleration of social and economic pressure, crisis in food and fuel, and a burgeoning depression to force betrayed and befuddled
citizens beyond the point of no return, is anticipated.
Far from being bleak, however, the national emergency presents to those courageous enough to seize the opportunity the potential for
leading the way back to sanity in U.S. foreign and domestic policy.
The common denominator to survival of freedom is the conscientious action of the individual.
In the present period of transition the option for corrective action is clearly fleeting. Decision now is the best hope for reversing the
mindless march toward the world corporate state.
Each patriot must extend energy and influence in his community, county and State to establish, as talent and resources permit, the
parallel goals of public education and political organization.
Objective is to expose and neutralize the usurpers.
Now it can be revealed that the nearly invisible threads of control over United States foreign and domestic policy lead to the
Rockefeller dynasty.
Over the years, under the legacy of its founder the late John D. Rockefeller, Sr., the family has established affiliate associations to
harness the brainpower and financial resources of America to their dream of world government.
The Rockefeller Foundation, thought by some researcher to be the Rothschild conglomerate in America, claims sponsorship for no
less than seven political decision centers. These seats of power grossly influence the course of history. Federal, state, county, and
community levels of government are manipulated by the Rockefeller Dynasty through these agencies to achieve world dominion.
Examination of the Rockefeller organizations listed at the end of this article show that members of the Family are at the core of every
diabolical scheme that is destroying this nation. Of these Rockefeller Foundation subsidiaries the Brookings Institution appears to
occupy a preeminent position in transforming the American Republic into a regional dictatorship.
Students of world government know that the Advisory Commission for Intergovernmental Relations drafts the "regional" bills which are
subsequently passed by elected officials. Until now there has been small evidence to identify the powers which inspire ACIR
legislation.
There is a Clear Pattern of Uniformity.

On the state level all fifty legislatures appear to become simultaneously concerned about solving a particular problem in identical
fashion. On the local level, the same thing happens in thousands of City Halls and County Seats. This strange coincidence is never
questioned by the press or by the public.
Members of citizens committees formed to consider local issues have little to say about how a local problem should be resolved. A
written text is always prepared for them to follow, and they receive expert advice of "staff" in arriving at the correct solution. Once in a
while some "malcontent" files a minority report, but ordinarily, the members agree unanimously with whatever plan is put before them.
One would assume that the Advisory Commission for Intergovernmental Relations would be different. This prestigious body of leaders
from the U.S. Senate, the Congress, the States, and the Executive Department should originate, deliberate, and solve problems
among themselves.
This Is Not So.

The enlightening experience of a civic-minded Californian, veteran of many "citizens committees," reveals the same mechanism of
control.
"I attended a public hearing held by the Advisory Commission for Intergovernmental Relations in San Francisco," reported Anne
Garni. "The first day they sat on an elevated platform and heard speakers from various public administration organizations, and, of
course, the usual representative from the local League of Women Voters.
http://web.archive.org/web/20050909004015/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/Rockefeller.html
39 / 85
3/23/2015
"The second day," she continued, "the men gathered around a conference table where they were given a three-hundred page
typewritten text to discuss. They didn't comment on the previous day's hearing but concentrated on the written text, changing a word to
two, but accepting the whole ball of wax that was given to them. This group was handled and manipulated just like every other
committee that is appointed to carry out a particular plan - but all of them somehow going in the same direction as though they were
guided by one brain.
"So Who Feeds the ACIR?" Asks Mrs. Garni.

The Rockefeller financed Brookings Institution seems to have the answer.
The Brookings Institution, 1775 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C., is a self-declared non-profit, private organization
"devoted to research, education, and publication in economics, government, foreign policy, and the social sciences." Chairman of the
organization is Douglas Dillon, Chairman and Director, United States Foreign Securities Corporation, New York. Robert S.
McNamara, President, International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, is a board member.
In its program for 1973 the Institution declared that it functions as an independent analyst and critic, committed to publishing its
findings for the information of the public. Its officers say that it serves as a bridge between scholarship and public policy, "bringing new
knowledge to the attention of decision makers and affording scholars a better insight into policy issues."
The Institution activities, states President Kermit Gordon, are carried out through three research programs. These are an Economics
Studies Program, a Governmental Studies Program, and a Foreign Policy Studies Program. In addition the Institution includes in its
activities a Social Science Computation Center, an Advanced Study Program, and a Publications Program.
"Upon request the Institute undertakes some government contract studies," admits President Gordon.
Examination of Some of These Programs is Most Instructive.

The Economics Studies Program includes cooperative research with major universities on the regulation of economic activity in the
following field: International Economics, Economic Growth and Stability, Regulations of Economic Activity, Public Finance, Social
Economics, and Labor Economics.
The Governmental Studies Program deals with the problems of electoral process, social policy, urban governance, administrative
organizations, and intergovernmental relations.
The Advanced Study Program, significantly, provides opportunities for leaders in government, business, and the professions "to
develop increased understanding of public policy issues." The Program, says director James M. Mitchell, contributes to the
strengthening of government services at all levels and to the preparation of leaders in private life for more active and enlightened
participation in public affairs.
Under "Activities for Government Officials" the Institution conducts Executive Conferences for top-level officials "bringing to their
attention knowledge that may assist them in formulating policy and policy recommendations." Each year, says the Institution, at least
five two-week conferences are held for senior management and program executives in the federal government, and four one-week
conferences are held for top-level federal scientists, engineers, and science administrators. These conferences, allegedly, provide
opportunities for study, analysis, and discussion of major issues in public policy. "Emphasis is on the fundamental political, social, and
economic factors that affect these issues and their resolution," we are told.
Conferences for other officials, such as members of Congress and professional staff, presidential appointees to independent boards
and commissioners, general counsels, and financial management officers are held from time to time.
Policy Conferences Key "Regionalism"

"Policy Conferences" are conducted by the Institution to bring the knowledge of scholars, specialists, and executives to bear on
particular policy problems. These conferences consider alternatives for action, define needs for further research, "and bring new
research findings to the attention of decision makers."
"Policy Conferences" have been held at the request of the Agency for International Development, the Department of Health, Education
and Welfare, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Department of Labor. All of these agencies, with the
exception of the Agency for International Development, are grant-making agencies of the ten Federal Regions.
"Urban Policy Conferences," such as those attended by members of "citizens committees," bring together public officials and civic
leaders, along with scholars and practitioners, "in an effort to use social science research and knowledge to help solve urban
problems."
We have seen how these "local problem solvers" operate.
With such professional, erudite counseling and guidance as is now provided by the Brookings Institution the continued existence of
elected officials at the federal, state, county, and community levels of government seems redundant. This, quite possibly, may be just
what the Rockefeller Dynasty has in mind.

111 West 50th Street,
New York, New York 10020
40 / 85
3/23/2015
A brief summary concerning Rockefeller Foundation philanthropies from the files of the Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial,
Rockefeller Foundation Archives, which are open for scholarly research. Original grants have little relationship to subsequent funding.
Social Science Research Council

Formed in May, 1923, by the American Economic Association, the American Sociological Society, and the American Political
Science Association. It was at first referred to as the Social Research Council; the longer name was used as early as November,
1923. The Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial contributed $20,500 to the organization in 1924; $18,000 of this was for the use of
the National Bureau of Economic Research. On December 29, 1925, the Memorial appropriated $25,000 to the Council to be
expended at a rate of $5,000 per year over the period 1926-1930. The Council also had support from the Russell Sage Foundation,
the Carnegie Corporation, and the Commonwealth Fund. After it absorbed the Memorial in 1929, The Rockefeller Foundation
continued to support the Council.
Russian Institute, Columbia University

The Rockefeller Foundation established the Institute in 1945 with a grant of $250,000. This grant was announced in the NEW YORK
TIMES of June 20, 1945.
Council on Foreign Relations

Incorporated on July 25, 1921, in New York State. It was supported by memberships and contributions and began publication of the
quarterly, Foreign Affairs. The Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial appropriated $150,000 in 1927 to be expended over the period
1928-1932 for research programs on foreign policy. This grant was conditional on the raising of an additional $13,600 per year from
other sources. After the merger with the Memorial, the Rockefeller Foundation continued to support the Council.
National Bureau of Economic Research

The Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial aided this organization through the Social Science Research Council. It did not participate
in the founding of the Bureau. The Rockefeller Foundation first supported the Bureau in 1929 and made another grant in the 1930's.
Public Administration Clearing House, Chicago

This organization was formed in 1930 at which time it received a grant from the Spelman Fund of New York; this was done in
cooperation with the Social Science Research Council. By 1930, the Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial had been merged with the
Rockefeller Foundation. At the time of this merger in 1929, the Spelman Fund of New York was created to continue some of the
interests of the Memorial. The Memorial had been interested in public administration: in 1927, it made grants to an organization called
the National Institute of Public Administration. The Rockefeller Foundation also support public administration projects through direct
grants and through the Social Science Research Council and other institutions.
Brookings Institution
The Graduate School of Economics and Government, Washington University, St. Louis, located in Washington, D.C., in 1924 became
known as the Robert Brookings Graduate School of Economics and Government. The Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial in 1924
appropriated $40,000 for the year 1925 and $75,000 per year for each of the six following years. In 1928, the name was changed to
the Robert Brookings Institution, Inc. and the Memorial's appropriation was transferred accordingly. In April, 1928, the Memorial
appropriated $2,000,000 for the Brookings Institution, Inc., as part of its general endowment. This grant was conditional on the raising
of $4,000,000 more, but this requirement was reduced in 1931 to $2,000,000 in additional funds. The Rockefeller Foundation
appropriated funds to the Brookings Institution in the 1930's for specific purposes.
Institute of Pacific Relations

The Institute was established in 1925. It received a grant from the Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial on July 1, 1926, the
Memorial's grant was $10,000 conditional upon the raising of $50,000 from other sources toward the United States' quota. The
Institute was supported also by funds from other nations and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, which made a grant in
1926 prior to the Memorial's grant. The Institute sponsored research and held conferences on social sciences in the Pacific. It
received later support from the Memorial and the Rockefeller Foundation.
To this list of Rockefeller affiliates should be added The United Nations Organization and its propaganda arm, The United States
Association for the United Nations.
Go on
"Fatal Steps to Dictatorship"
Go back
to the homepage for
Send a message
to
Col. Roberts.
41 / 85
Fatal Steps to Dictatorship
3/23/2015
http://www.webaccess.net/%7Ecomminc/Fatal_Steps.html
Go
FEB APR OCT
34 captures
22 F eb 99 - 25 O ct 07
2004 2005 2007
Close
Help

Part 6
Accurately predicting imminent dissolution of the Republic a spokesman for the Committee to Restore the Constitution
asserted, on 6 March, 1969, that America would be taken over by an international cartel "within two years."
"Nixon will be the one to lead us into total world government," said Archibald E. Roberts, director of the national organization.
("Roberts Says U.S. Within Two Years of 'Take-Over'," CASPER WYOMING STAR TRIBUNE, Friday, March 7, 1969.)
Exactly three weeks later, on 27 March, 1969, President Richard M. Nixon announced that he had divided the United States into eight
(subsequently ten) Federal Regions. The President, by his act, set in motion a series of events which, unless reversed, will dissolve
sovereign state governments, disfranchise the electorate, and merge the American pioneer spirit in an amorphous "world citizenship."
Financial Cabal
In the intervening years, by stealth and subterfuge, the American people have been moved into the orbit of a financial/industrial cabal
who control their corporate world state through the United Nations, the U.S. Congress, and other front organizations.
The fatal steps which transformed the Republic into a dictatorship of the financial elite are set out in the following Congressional
statutes, executive orders, and proclamations which trace a seditious conspiracy of interlocking subversion in government
departments during the period 16 October, 1968 to 20 October, 1972. (Many important supplementary statutes and regulations have
been omitted for reasons of space.)
Dispossessed Majority
The "Dispossessed Majority" can, of course, eject the criminal cabal from their seats of power and restore the American society to
health and vigor - providing that the genetic will to survive has not been bred out of our people during the past four-hundred years of
nation-building on the North American continent.
The answer to that question will be revealed in the months immediately ahead.
Fatal Step Number One ... 16 October, 1968

PUBLIC LAW 90-577, 90th Congress, S. 698
Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968
"To achieve the fullest cooperation and coordination of activities among the levels of government ... to establish coordinated
intergovernmental policy and administration ... to provide for the acquisition, use, and disposition of land within urban areas by
Federal agencies."
Public Law 90-577 destroyed the separation of powers which is the principle of the U.S. Constitution. By its Title IV the U.S. Congress
purported to yield legislative power to the President. He, in turn, allegedly transferred that law-making power to his appointed directors
in the grant-making agencies of the Federal Regions per section 403 of the bill. Out of that arrangement has grown the A-95 regional
clearing house review system, designed by the Office of Management and Budget. The resulting Federal Region-Sub State control
system straps regional governance (control by regulation) as a way of life over all America.
Fatal Step Number Two ... 27 March, 1969

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT ON RESTRUCTURING OF GOVERNMENT SERVICE SYSTEMS, the White House.
Quoting the Reorganization Act, signed the same day, as his authority President Nixon divided the United States into eight (later ten)
Federal Regions or provinces, each with a new provincial capitol. Coordination and control of the ten Federal Regions would be
administered from Washington. Formation of such "super states" is, of course, a violation of paragraph 1, section 3, Article IV, United
States Constitution.
Objective: To transfer political power from the respective sovereign State governments to appointed Federal agencies, whose
controllers are the directors of the corporate world state.
Fatal Step Number Three ... 30 October, 1969

EXECUTIVE ORDER #11490, "Assigning Emergency Preparedness Functions to Federal Departments and Agencies," The Federal
Register
E.O. 11490 consolidated executive orders of previous administrations into one omnibus directive, and provided for implementation of
http://web.archive.org/web/20050408090348/http://www.webaccess.net/%7Ecomminc/Fatal_Steps.html
42 / 85
3/23/2015
E.O. 11490 consolidated executive orders of previous administrations into one omnibus directive, and provided for implementation of
its powers "by an order or directive issued by the President in any national emergency type of situation."
E.O. 11490 authorizes the Office of Emergency Planning to put all controls into effect "in times of increased international tensions and
economic or financial crisis." Takeover by government agencies includes: communications media; all electrical power, gas, petroleum
fuels, and minerals; food resources and farms; all modes of transportation and control of highways, seaports, etc.; health, education,
and welfare functions; airports and aircraft. Provision is also made for the mobilization of civilians into work brigades under
government supervision. The order directs the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons; permits the
Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, and grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out
in E.O. 11490, and to operate penal and correctional institutions.
Fatal Step Number Four ... 15 August, 1971

EXECUTIVE ORDER #11615, "Providing for Stabilization of Prices, Rents, Wages, and Salaries," the Federal Register.
E.O. 11615 designated the Chairman, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System as the director of a Cost of Living Council,
with authority to request the Department of Justice to bring actions for injunctions "whenever it appears to the Council that any person
has engaged, is engaged, or is about to engage in any acts or practices constituting a violation of any regulation or order issued
pursuant to this Order." (See EO 11490.)
The Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board thus became czar over prices, rents, wages, and salaries, in addition to his control over
money, interest rates, and the stock market, granted under the provisions of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.
Fatal Step Number Five ... 15 August, 1971

PROCLAMATION #4074, "Imposition of Supplemental Duty for Balance of Payments Purposes," The President
The principal objective of Proclamation 4074 was to "declare a national emergency" and so establish stand-by authority to implement
any or all of the provisions of Executive Order #11490 at such time as the American people had been conditioned to accept
dictatorship. The people are now being brainwashed to accept, in fact, demand, full government control over their lives and property.
Fatal Step Number Six ... 12 February, 1972

EXECUTIVE ORDER #11647, "Federal Regional Council", The Federal Register
E.O. #11647 "... established a Federal Regional Council for each of the ten standard Federal Regions" which Nixon effected by
proclamation on 27 March, 1969. The Office of Management and Budget was designated the control agency.
By this order the ten provincial capitols were staffed by the directors of the grant-making agencies: Department of Labor, Health,
Education and Welfare, and Housing and Urban Development, the Secretarial Representatives of the Department Transportation, and
the directors of the regional offices of the Office of Economic Opportunity, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Law
Enforcement Assistance Administration.
The President subsequently appointed a commissar for each Federal Region.
Fatal Step Number Seven ... 20 October, 1972

PUBLIC LAW 95-512, 92nd Congress, H.R. 14370
Federal-State revenue sharing
"To ... authorize Federal collection of State individual income taxes, and for other purposes."
The primary function of P. 92-512 is to provide that, "after January 1, 1974, if two or more States request it of the U.S. government,
and at the option of the individual States, all State taxes may be collected and administered by the federal government." (The decision
is irreversible.)
Under this Act state and county governments will, in time, wither for lack of tax funds, representative government will die (although the
trappings of a republican form of government may be retained to fool the people), and dictatorial control over people and property will
be imposed upon once free Americans. (See One through Six, above.)
Go back
to the homepage for
Send a message
to
Col. Roberts.
http://web.archive.org/web/20050408090348/http://www.webaccess.net/%7Ecomminc/Fatal_Steps.html
43 / 85
Supreme Court Decision Destroys 'Home Rule' Governance
3/23/2015
http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/Decision.html
Go
APR
JUL MAY
31 captures
19
21 F eb 99 - 22 Mar 07
2004 2005 2007
Close
Help

Part 7
"As this Court stated long ago, all sovereign authority (within the geographical limits of the United States) resides either with 'The
Government of the United States, or (with) The States of the Union'. There exists within the broad domain of sovereignty but these two.
There may be cities, countries and other organized bodies with limited legislative functions, but they are all derived from or exist in,
subordination to one or the other of these."
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
Protected by private guards, opponents of 'home rule' governance recently filed signatures of 18,177 registered voters with Summit
County (Ohio) Board of Elections thus guaranteeing a position on the November ballot for their, "Petition to Repeal Summit County
Charter".
Charter governance, home rule, metro and other forms of regional government are structured in compliance with 'models' published in
the STATE LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM of the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, a Washington-based think tank.
Representing labor organizations, deputy sheriffs, Fraternal Order of Police, county elected officials, professional societies, township
trustees, clergy, farmers and housewives, a "Coalition for Elected Government", has given Summit County citizens the opportunity to
strike a blow for representative government.
"Charter government has made Summit County a 'city state within a state', thus denying inhabitants the protection of state laws",
declared Mrs. Marjorie Sofranko, Akron, President, Summit County Chapter, Committee to Restore the Constitution, and Chairman,
"Coalition for Elected Government".
Charging that the present appointed form of charter governance violates their right to representative government provided by Article
IV, Section 4, Constitution of the United States, and parallel authorities in the Ohio State Constitution, Summit County electors,
"believing that they can better govern themselves by returning to the statutory commissioner type of County Government now
prevailing in all of the other 87 counties in the State of Ohio", demand repeal of Summit County Charter and its amendments.
The United States Supreme Court has enunciated this issue very clearly.
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule-making or legislation which would abrogate them". Key
No. 73, Miranda vs. State of Arizona, 86, S. Ct. 1602, 1966
"Law repugnant to the Constitution is void". Maybury vs. Madision, 1803, L Ed. 60; Cra. 137; ref 6 Whea: 246 & Wal 601
Tempted by the promise of 'free' revenue-sharing funds and federal grants, state lawmakers, in many instances, have adopted 'home
rule' statutes prepared by the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. These acts have had the effect of disfranchising
the electorate and centralizing political power in the hands of regional government administrative appointees.
Summit County Charter, for example, divests elected officials of real political authority and reduces County Council to a perfunctory
role. All real decision-making is held by the County Executive, who:
(1) Appoints, suspends, disciplines and removes county personnel, (2) Appoints officers and members of boards and agencies, (3)
Approves or vetoes ordinances and resolutions, (4) Serves on the County Board of Revision, (5) Executes contracts, (6) Attends
meetings of the County Council, (7) Submits to the Council operating budgets, and (8) Submits to the Council capital improvement
programs.
Summit County citizens are considered submissive serfs under Charter governance, permitted little or no input in decisions affecting
their lives, liberty and property.
How elected officials are induced to become agents in their own destruction is revealed in the ACIR STATE LEGISLATIVE
PROGRAM, Book 2, "Local Government Modernization". Book 2 constitutes 196 pages of model statutes, resolutions and suggested
procedure for creating a centralized government. Programs are designed for implementation by state and local governments.
"The suggested legislation", ACIR says assuringly in Book 2, "was circulated in draft form to the following national organizations for
their review and comment: Council of State Governments, International City Management Association, National Association of
Counties, National Conference of State Legislatures, National Governors' Conference, National League of Cities, U.S. Conference of
Mayors."
All of these organizations are interlocked with ACIR.
http://web.archive.org/web/20050719173742/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/Decision.html
44 / 85
3/23/2015
"Home Rule Powers of Local Governments", page 55 of Book 2, offers the following guidelines for transforming the Republic from a
free society to a controlled society:
"The following suggested constitutional amendments (to the state constitution) would grant all functional powers to municipalities and
counties, or selected units, that are not otherwise specifically denied in the state constitution or by law".
ACIR then thoughtfully provides a detailed model statute for adoption by the respective state legislatures. The "suggested legislation",
is titled, "An Act to Provide for the Modernized Government of Counties; Providing Optional Forms of Government, Consolidation of
County Officers, Authority to Perform Full Government Services in Both Unincorporated and Municipal Areas, and Authority to
Establish Subordinate Service Areas".
This 'home rule' bill would permit the state legislature to grant all functional powers to the municipalities and counties, or selected units
of government, that are not otherwise denied by the state constitutions.
"While freeing the bonds of local (home rule) government", ACIR suggest, "the state should, at the same time, exert greater leadership
in resolving problems that are interlocal or that affect many localities in the state".
Translation: Turn the burdensome duties of government over to ACIR sub-state regions and agencies.
ACIR objectives are clearly stated on page 66, "County Modernization", of the same book.
"The streamlining of county government is also impeded by the number of elective officers mandated by many state constitutions.
'Constitutionally protected' officers - such as the sheriff, county clerk, treasurer, auditor, coroner, attorney general, assessor, and
county judicial officials - present the voter with an overly long ballot In addition, many of these officials are virtually immune from
direction by the county chief administrative officer. Placing all county officerson a statutory rather than constitutional basis is a major
way of streamlining county structure."
Summit County Charter governance reveals how, "constitutionally protected" county officials may be 'appointed, suspended,
disciplined and removed' by the county executive officer.
ACIR claims that there are "several thousand" local jurisdictions with 'home rule' authority. Your city and/or county may be one of them.
Billions of dollars have been sent to ACIR sub-state units of government - linking towns and counties under regional governance without involving state authorities. 'Home rule' officials thus appear to hold down taxes. At the same time, however, federal taxes and
deficits skyrocket.
The scheme also gives ACIR agencies direct control over local affairs, with state governments having little or no say.
Summit County voters will, in November, decide whether they will be dictated to by Washington bureaucrats or live under constitutional
laws of Ohio.
Of vital concern to the State Auditor, Attorney General, Secretary of State, and members of the Ohio State Legislature, Summit County
campaign to repeal charter (home rule) governance has generated anxiety in adjoining counties, in Northeast Ohio Four-County
Planning and Coordinating Agency (NEFCO), Federal Region V (Chicago), and in Federal regional governmental agencies.
"This is democracy in action", said Summit County Clerk of Courts James McCarthy, head of the repeal group, as petitions were
turned in to the Election Board.
William Bantz, the Coalition's lawyer, said that the organization is confident voters will repeal the Charter.
"The tendency to one-man government in this country is against all precepts of representative government", said Bantz. "It was about
200 years ago that the colonists dissented to one-man rule of King George III. We are not about to allow a new reign of King John I to
head our county government", said Bantz referring to County Executive John Morgan.
The United States Supreme Court has, fortuitously, come to the aid of beleaguered Summit County citizens.
In the case before it, "Community Communications Company, Inc. v. City of Boulder (Colorado) S. Ct. 835, 13 January, 1982 (Case
#80-1350), the Court declared:
"We find nothing in the language of the Sherman (Anti-trust) Act or in its history which suggests that its purpose was to restrain a state
or its officers or agents from activities directed by its legislature. In a dual system of government in which, under the Constitution, the
states are sovereign, save only as Congress may constitutionally subtract from their authority, an unexpressed purpose to nullify a
state's control over its officers and agents is not lightly to be attributed to the Congress", 317 U.S., at 350-351, 63, S. Ct. at 3313-14.
and,
"Cities are not themselves sovereign; they do not receive all the federal deference of the States that create them. Parker's limitation of
the exemption to 'official action directed by the state,' is consistent with the fact that the States' subdivisions generally have not been
treated as equivalents of the States themselves. In light of the serious economic dislocation which could result if cities were free to
place their own parochial interests above the Nation's economic goals reflected in the anti-trust laws, we are especially unwilling to
presume that Congress intended to exclude anticompetative action from their reach." 435 U.S. at 412-413, 98, S. Ct., at 1136-37.
ACIR MAGAZINE, Spring, 1982, admitted the 'home rule' crisis caused by the Court's decision. In an article, "A Legal Opinion", by
Attorney Tom Madden, he stated:
45 / 85
3/23/2015
"During the five months since the Supreme Court's controversial decision in Community Communications Co. v. Boulder, speculation
about its effects on municipal (home rule) governance has run the gamut from sheer panic to relative sanguinity. To say the least, the
January 13 decision sent shock waves through the nation's localities, for the Court held in Boulder that: "Ours is a 'dual system of
government,' which has no place for sovereign cities. (Boulder's) ordinance cannot be exempt from (antitrust) scrutiny unless it
constitutes either the action of the state itself in its sovereign capacity or municipal action in furtherance or implementation of clearly
articulated and affirmatively expressed state policy'."
ACIR counsel Madden stated that the Court's decision has two significant effects. First, it appears to have reduced municipal 'home
rule' authority and consequently, altered state-local relations. Second, it opens cities, already reeling under the weight of expensive
lawsuits, to even more litigation. It is, he said, a potential pandora's box of a case. He then concluded with these revealing remarks.
"What effect the Boulder decision will have upon municipal (home rule) governance and state-local relations can only be speculated.
Despite legal uncertainty, the decision's dissenting judge, Justice Rehnquist, believes it will be devastating. Apparently, broad
blankets of granted authority such as home rule are insufficient to protect municipalities from anti-trust liability.
"In the view of Justice Rehnquist, the decision in Boulder 'effectively destroys the home rule movement in the country'."
A state that allows its municipalities to do as they please, said the Court in its decision, can hardly be said to have 'contemplated' the
specific anti-competitive actions for which municipal liability is sought (in Community Communications Co. v. Boulder). Nor can these
actions be since the term 'granted' necessarily implies an affirmative addressing of the subject by the State, said the Court.
"Indeed", charged the Court, "respondent argues that as to local matters regulated by a home rule city, the Colorado General
Assembly is without power to act Acceptance of such a proposition - that the general grant of power to enact ordinances necessarily
implies state authorization to enact specific anti-competitive ordinances - would wholly eviscerate the concepts of 'clear articulation
and affirmative expression' that our precedents require".
Vigorous pursuit of the Supreme Court decision by citizens laboring under 'home rule' governance is anticipated.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, Case No. 80-1350, "Community Communications Co., Inc. v. City of Boulder,
Colorado, et al," decided January 13, 1982, published UNITED STATES REPORTS (Reporter of Decisions). Copy available from
Members of Congress, or Committee to Restore the constitution, Inc.
Go on
"A Legal Opinion"
Go back
to the homepage for
Send a message
to
Col. Roberts.
46 / 85
3/23/2015
http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/Opinion.html
Go
APR
SEP OCT
32 captures
23 F eb 99 - 7 Sep 05
2004 2005 2006
Close
Help

Part 7
A LegalOpinion
by Tom Madden, Attorney, Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hays and Handler, published in Spring edition, A.C.I.R. (Advisory
Commission on Intergovernmental Relations) Magazine, 1982, Vol. 8, #2.
During the five months since the Supreme Court's controversial decision in Community Communications Co. v. Boulder, speculation
about its effects on municipal governance has run the gamut from sheer panic to relative sanguinity. To say the least, the January 13
decision sent shock waves throughout the nation's localities, for the Court held in Boulder that:
Ours is a "dual system of government," which has no place for sovereign cities. [Boulder's] ordinance cannot be exempt
from [antitrust] scrutiny unless it constitutes either the action of the state itself in its sovereign capacity or municipal action
in furtherance or implementation of clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed state policy.
The decision initially has two significant effects. First, it appears to have reduced municipal "home rule" authority and, consequently,
altered state-local relations. Second, it opens cities, already reeling under the weight of expensive lawsuits, to even more litigation. It
is, if nothing else, a potential pandora's box of a case.
At issue in the Boulder case was a revocable, nonexclusive, cable television service license assigned to Community Communications
Company, Inc., in 1966. In 1979, when Community Communication sought to expand its service area in Boulder, another cable
provider, Boulder Communication Company (BCC), asked the city's permission to enter the market as a competitor. The city, upon
receiving the expansion request of Community Communications, enacted an "emergency" ordinance setting a three-month
moratorium. The purpose of the moratorium was to prevent Community Communications from expanding further - and thereby
discouraging potential competitors - while the city council drafted a model cable television ordinance and invited new cable
companies to enter Boulder.
Community Communications sued the city in federal court, claiming that the imposition of the moratorium violated Section I of the
Sherman Antitrust Act. The act provides, in pertinent part, that "every contract, combination...or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or
commerce among the several statesis declared to be illegal." The company's suit alleged a conspiracy between BBC and the City
of Boulder to restrict competition. The suit requested treble damages as provided by applicable antitrust statutes.
In its defense, Boulder maintained that it passed the emergency ordinance pursuant to home rule powers granted by the Colorado
State Constitution and that, in regulating cable television, it therefore was acting as the state in local matters. Thus, Boulder argued
that it was immune from antitrust suits under the "state action" doctrine of Parker v. Brown:
[W]e find nothing in the language of the Sherman Act or its history which suggests that its purpose was to restrain a state
or its officers or agents from activities directed by its legislature. In a dual system of government in which, under the
Constitution the states are sovereign save only as Congress may constitutionally subtract from their authority, an
unexpressed purpose to nullify a state's control over its officers and agents is not lightly to be attributed to Congress.
Boulder further contended that even allowing for certain ambiguities in Parker, its home rule "guarantee of local autonomy" was
sufficient to meet the "clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed" state policy test of New Motor Vehicle Board v. Orrin W. Fox C.
The Supreme Court rejected Boulder's arguments. Instead, Justice William Brennan's majority opinion noted that:
[P]lainly the requirement of "clear articulation and affirmative expression" is not satisfied when the state's position is one of
mere neutrality respecting the municipal actions challenged as anticompetitive. A state that allows its municipalities to do
as they please can hardly be said to have "contemplated" the specific anticompetitive actions for which municipal liability
is sought. Nor can these actions be truly described as "comprehended within powers granted," since the term, "granted,"
necessarily implies an affirmative addressing of the subject by the state.
Thereafter, the Court remanded the case back to the lower courts to determine whether Boulder had in fact violated antitrust law.
Although the Supreme Court had earlier held in the City of Lafayette v. Louisiana Power and Light Co. that a municipally operated
power company, which allegedly engaged in predatory conduct aimed at its nonpublic competitors, could be sued for antitrust
violations, it was assumed by many that this case was limited by the narrow fact that the City of Lafayette was operating a business
which was in direct competition with public utility companies. In Boulder, however, the Supreme Court extended the decision in City of
Lafayette to an action taken by a city acting in its sovereign capacity in furtherance of its traditional government powers to protect by
regulatory action public health, safety, and welfare.
http://web.archive.org/web/20050907080810/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/Opinion.html
47 / 85
3/23/2015
What effect the Boulder decision will have upon municipal governance and state-local relations can only be speculated. Despite legal
uncertainty, the decision's dissenting judge, Justice Rehnquist, believes it will be devastating:
The Court's decision in this case...will...impede, if not paralyze, local governments' efforts to enact ordinances and
regulations aimed at protecting public health, safety, and welfare, for fear of subjecting the local government to liability
under the Sherman Act...
Indeed, the ruling does not merely influence municipal regulation of cable television. Cities, after all, routinely regulate zoning, land use,
housing, various professions, health care, sport and recreation facilities, the collection of trash - the list could go on for pages.
Certainly, if localities were unable to perform such functions it would mean the end of viable municipal government. The problems
engendered by Boulder are many and complex, but the "destruction-of-local-government" scenario seems highly unlikely. However, a
range of less heinous effects in probable. These effects, and the potential for mitigating them, were the subject of a recent meeting of
the National League of Cities (NLC).
A panel of attorneys at the NLC session first concluded that while cities probably will be flooded with lawsuits as a result of the
decision, they have, at the same time, an excellent chance of winning in many cases. Moreover, cities have been given some
assurance that the U.S. Justice Department does not intend to actively pursue municipal antitrust cases.
Just as important as the question of antitrust qua antitrust is the new twist Boulder has given state-local relations. The case exposes
some strain in those relations since 23 state attorneys general filed briefs in support of Community Communications. Although the
friction may be clear, practical reality of the situation remains somewhat opaque. Apparently, broad blankets of granted authority such
as home rule are insufficient to protect municipalities from antitrust liability. In lieu of some federal exemption, states may therefore
have to give statutory blessing to every single local decision in order to insure immunity. The latter scenario, according to former U.S.
Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti, speaking at the NLC conference, may mean that cities will have to accept "difficult trade-offs" in
exchange for state legislation.
The explanation for the Court's ruling in Boulder presumably lies in its historic concern for protection of the statutory policy favoring
competition embodied in the antitrust laws. The state action doctrine of Parker v. Brown has been narrowly construed and the
Supreme Court was certainly aware that there are several thousand local jurisdictions with home rule authority, all of whom could have
been immune from the antitrust laws if they passed a patchwork of ordinances restricting competitions. Unfortunately the decision in
Boulder appears to seriously undermine the more fundamental principle of federalism which is historical and Constitutional in nature.
This principle has allowed states to determine the fundamental and essential ways in which they structure their operations. The home
rule movement is in many respects an embodiment of that precept. In the view of Justice Rehnquist, the decision in Boulder
"effectively destroys the home rule movement in the country."
In order to avoid an antitrust liability and the very real cost of such liability, the states will be required to pass new laws, amend
constitutions, and perhaps even realign functions between state and local governments. In addition, under previous Supreme Court
rulings, it is possible a state may only be able to confer its antitrust immunity under Parker v. Brown to a city or county if the
implementation of the policy that purports to create the immunity for a city or county is "actively supervised" by the state itself. The
Supreme Court reserved its judgment on this point for subsequent decisions.
(footnotes deleted)
Go on
to the third section of Part 7:
"The Fatal Flaw of the 'Federal Regionalsim Concept'"
Go back
to the homepage for
Send a message
to
Col. Roberts.
http://web.archive.org/web/20050907080810/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/Opinion.html
48 / 85
The Fatal Flaw of the "Federal Regionalism Concept"
3/23/2015
http://www.webaccess.net/%7Ecomminc/Fatal_Flaw.html
Go
FEB APR MAY
32 captures
21 F eb 99 - 8 A pr 05
2004 2005 2006
Close
Help

Part 7
The Fatal Flaw of the "Federal Regionalism Concept" Is the Fact That It Is Unconstitutional !
Two ultra vires acts by President Richard M. Nixon, establishing the federal regional concept as a new form of government in the
United States, violate Article IV, Section 3 & Section 4, and the Tenth Amendment, United States Constitution. The first illegal
presidential act is, "Statement by the President on Restructuring of Government Service Systems," dated 27 March, 1969. The
second illegal presidential act is Executive Order No. 11647, "The Federal Regional Councils," dated 12 February, 1972.
Federal and state land use regulations, which seek to transfer control of private property to federal agents, are in violation of the
Fifth and fourteenth Amendments, United States Constitution.
AUTHORITY:
"Law repugnant to the Constitution is void." (U.S. Sup. Ct., Maybury vs. Madison. 1803, L Ed. 60; Cra. 137; ref 6
Whea:246 & Wal 601.
AUTHORITY:
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rulemaking or legislation which would abrogate
them." Key no. 73, Miranda vs. State of Arizona, 86 S. Ct. 1602 (1966).
AUTHORITY:
"An unconstitutional statute though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly null and void and
ineffective for any purpose. It imposes no duty, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on
anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional statute
and no courts are bound to enforce it." 16 Am Jur, 2nd Sec. 177.
Correction of federal usurpation of constitutional powers is a lawful responsibility of the State legislature acting in its highest sovereign
capacity. Each State is required, by constitutional compact, to enforce the "Supreme Law of the Land" within its borders, and to
declare null and void any ultra vires acts of its agents in Washington.
Under the federal regional concept federal agents, acting beyond their delegated powers, seek to erect a new kind of government, a
corporate state, upon the ruins of the Republic without the knowledge or consent of the State or its people.
UNITED STATES CODE, Title 18, Section 2384, defines such attempts as "Seditious Conspiracy" and provides criminal sanctions
for persons found guilty under the law:
SEDITIOUS CONSPIRACY; if two or more persons in any State or territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States; or to levy war
against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder or delay the execution of any law of
the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof,
they shall each be fined not more than $20,000.00, or be imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
AUTHORITY of the United States is the CONSTITUTION. The FORCE need not be limited to military force but can be "legal" coercion,
psychological persuasion, economic power, etc.
Persons involved in the regional governance conspiracy are unlawfully attempting to alter the form of government in the respective
States, and in the United States, and are subject to prosecution.
"The general rule is that an unconstitutional act of the legislature protects no one. It is said that all persons are presumed to
know the law, meaning that ignorance of the law excuses no one; if any person acts under a unconstitutional statute, he
does so at his peril and must take the consequence." AM JUR, 2ND SEC. 178.
Go on
"The Indictables"
http://web.archive.org/web/20050408090257/http://www.webaccess.net/%7Ecomminc/Fatal_Flaw.html
49 / 85
The Fatal Flaw of the "Federal Regionalism Concept"
3/23/2015
Go back
to the homepage for
Send a message
to
Col. Roberts.
http://web.archive.org/web/20050408090257/http://www.webaccess.net/%7Ecomminc/Fatal_Flaw.html
50 / 85
The Indictables
3/23/2015
http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/Indictables.html
Go
APR
SEP OCT
36 captures
22 F eb 99 - 25 O ct 07
2004 2005 2007
Close
Help

Part 7
The Indictables
Extract from, "The World Order", by Eustace Mullins, Bankers Research Institute, Post Office Box 1105, Staunton, VA
24401.
Although the World Order has control of the legal system and the courts, it remains vulnerable to any enforcement of the pre-existing
body of law which the host had formulated to protect his society. This body of law forbids everything that the parasite is doing, and
forces the parasite to maintain a precarious existence outside of the law. If the law were to be enforced at any time, the parasite would
be dislodged. The existing body of law clearly forbids the operation of criminal syndicates, which is precisely what the hegemony of
parasitism and its World Order is. Criminal syndicalism denies the equal protection of the law to citizens. Only by acting against
criminal syndicalism can the state protect its citizens.
Corpus Juris Secundum 16: Constitutional Law 213 (10) states: "The Constitutional guaranty of freedom of speech does not include
the right to advocate, or conspire to effect, the violent destruction or overthrow of the government or the criminal destruction of
property. 214: The Constitutional guaranty of the right of assembly was never intended as a license for illegality or invitation for fraudthe right of freedom of assembly may be abused by using assembly to incite violence and crime, and the people through their
legislatures may protect themselves against the abuse."
The assembly of any World Order organization, such as the Council on Foreign Relations or any foundation, is subject to the laws
against fraud (their charters claim they are engaged in philanthropy), and enforcement of the laws against criminal syndicalism would
end the institutions through which the World Order illegally rules the people of the United States, the illegal conspiracies and the
introduction of alien laws into our system by the foundations instructions to Congress.
We have already shown that the Rockefeller Foundation and other key organizations of the World Order are "Syndicates", which are
engaged in the practice of criminal syndicalism. But what is a "syndicate"? The Oxford English Dictionary notes that the world stems
from "syndic". A syndic is defined as "an officer of government, a chief magistrate, a deputy". In 1601 R. Johnson wrote in Kingd and
commonw "especiall men, called Syndiques, who have the managing of the whole commonwealth." Thus the Rockefeller Foundation
and its associated groups are carrying out their delegated function of managing the entire commonwealth, but not for the benefit of the
people, or of any government except the secret super-government, the World Order, which they serve. The OED further defines a
syndic as "a censor of the actions of another. To accuse." Here too, the syndicate functions, according to its definition-the syndicate
censors all thought and media, primarily to protect its own power. It also brings accusations-as many American citizens have found to
their sorrow. Not even Sir Walter Raleigh was immune. When he interfered with the international money trade, he was accused of
"treason" and beheaded.
The OED defines a "syndicate" as follows: "3. A combination of capitalists and financiers entered into for the purpose of prosecuting
a scheme requiring large sources of capital, expecially one having the object of obtaining control of the market in a particular
commodity. To control, manage or effect by a syndicate." Note the key words in this definition-a combination-prosecuting-obtaining
control. The scheme does not require "large capital"-it requires "large sources of capital", the bank of England or the Federal Reserve
System.
Corpus Juris Secundum 22A says of Criminal Syndicalism, "In a prosecution for being a member of an organization which teaches
and abets criminal syndicalism, evidences of crimes committed by past or present members of the organization in their capacity as
members is admissible to show its character." People v. LaRue 216 P 627 C.A. 276. Thus testimony about John Foster Dulles
financing the Nazi Government of Germany, his telegram starting the Korean War, and other evidence can be used to indict any
member of the Rockefeller Foundation in any state or locality in which the Rockefeller Foundation has ever been active in any way.
Since these organizations are all closely interlocked, and there is so much available evidence of their illegal operations, it will be
relatively simple to obtain criminal convictions against them for their criminal syndicalist operations.
Corpus Juris Secundum 22, Criminal Law 185(10); Conspiracy and Monopolies: "Where the statute makes mere membership in an
organization formed to promote syndicalism a crime, without an overt act, this offense is indictable in any county into which a member
may go during the continuance of his membership, and this is true although such member comes into a county involuntarily. People v.
Johansen, 226 P 634, 66 C.A. 343."
Corpus Juris Secundum 22, Criminal Law sec. 182(3) states, "A prosecution for conspiracy to commit an offense against the U.S.
may also be tried in any district wherein any overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy is performed. U.S. v. Cohen C.A.N.J. 197 F 2d
26." Thus a publication by the Council on Foreign Relations promoting the stripping of sovereignty of the United States of America,
mailed into any county of the U.S.; the county authorities can bring the Council on Foreign Relations, or any member therein, to trial in
that county, and any action by any member of the Council on Foreign Relations in the past is admissible as evidence, such as starting
http://web.archive.org/web/20050908073743/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/Indictables.html
51 / 85
The Indictables
3/23/2015
World War II, subsidizing the Nazi Government, or subsidizing the USSR.
Criminal syndicalism can also be prosecuted according to Corpus Juris Secundum 46, Insurrection and Sedition: sec. 461 c.
"Sabotage and syndicalism aiming to abolish the present political and social system, including direct action or sabotage." Thus any
program of a foundation which seeks to abolish the present political or social system of the United States can be prosecuted. Of
course every foundation program seeks to accomplish just that, and is indictable.
Not only individuals, but any corporation supporting criminal syndicalism can be prosecuted, according to Corpus Juris Secundum 46
462b. Criminal Syndicalism. "Statutes against criminal syndicalism apply to corporations as well as to individuals organizing or
belonging to criminal syndicalist society; evidence of the character and activities of other organizations with which the organization in
which the accused is a member is affiliated is admissible."
Not only can the members of the World Order be arrested and tried anywhere, since they function worldwide in their conspiratorial
activities to undermine and overthrow all governments and nations, but because their organizations are so tightly interlocked, any
evidence about any one of them can be introduced in prosecuting any member of other organizations in any part of the U.S. or the
world. Their attempts to undermine the political and social orders of all peoples make them subject to legal retribution. The People of
the U.S. must begin at once to enforce the statutes outlawing criminal syndicalist activities, and bring the criminals to justice.
Go back
to the homepage for
Send a message
to
Col. Roberts.
http://web.archive.org/web/20050908073743/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/Indictables.html
52 / 85
Spectatorship vs Participation
3/23/2015
http://www.webaccess.net/%7Ecomminc/Spectatorship.html
Go
APR
SEP OCT
32 captures
24 F eb 99 - 21 Sep 05
2004 2005 2006
Close
Help

Part 8
The political reality of today is the fact that after fifty years of "fighting communism" the great array of anticommunists
have failed to deter the rising tide of revolution. Patriotic organizations still have no real strategy for effective action
because of the failure to recognize the obvious; The real enemy of the people lurks in New York and Washington, D.C.
Conservative leaders must come to realize that a mattoid "elite" has seized control of policy-making and conflict management in the
United States. International financiers and industrialists, in secret alliance with revolutionary forces, are merging American and Soviet
societies under a master plan of infiltration, subversion and rebellion.
General reaction of the muzzled majority to increasing exploitation and oppression has been a defense of the status quo. Yet, it must
be clear that a political system perpetually on the defensive is doomed to ultimate defeat. Somewhere, somehow, we must
counterattack!
The problem might be considered as basically one of inducing movement and action. Relatively few people in America are procommunist, or even socialists. Still, revolutionaries in government retain an iron grip on American domestic and foreign policy,
manipulating economic, social and political disciplines to expand their dream of world empire at the expense of the Republic.
Meanwhile, the vast majority of the people, both captives and targets, remain relatively passive.
This passivity is not accidental. World government conflict managers have long realized the significance of the vast gulf between
spectators and participants. Their whole strategy is geared to maximize the victim's spectatorship and minimize his participation in
the struggle.
That principle was shown in South Vietnam. It is estimated that out of every hundred people in rural areas, twenty were actively aiding
the Communist Viet Cong, forty were passively anti-communist, and forty were neutral. That active twenty was enough to turn the
country into a major battlefield leading to ultimate defeat of American forces - aided and abetted, of course, by concealed conflict
managers in New York and Washington.
Conservative attempts to influence the spectator-participant ratio have been mainly confined to vague educational programs, insipid
protest and generalized talk - none of which has been able to inspire much favorable movement. Indeed, many conservative
organizations obviously regard the national crisis as a popularity contest, not a war for survival.
In contrast, fear has been the mattoid's chief weapon; economic, political and social coercion, for maximizing passivity and
spectatorship. Effective though it is, oppression is a two-edged weapon. Its application generates potential reaction. These
suppressed reactions can explode with sudden violence. Channeling anger and frustration into constructive action is the task of
knowledgeable Americans everywhere. The individual can do nothing to protect himself and his family until he is armed with
knowledge and a plan of action.
Defeat of the mattoids now leading America into the twilight zone of national disaster demands intelligent acceptance of the facts
behind the crisis. And, it requires a courageous marshalling of resources, and the commitment of motivated citizens who will take
whatever action is necessary to reverse the mindless march toward dictatorship.
We have clearly lost control of our government. The solution to economic chaos, social rebellion, and political revolution is planned
action at the county level of government to force the respective state legislatures to protect the lives and property of the people.
Political theorizing and personal knowledge of the conspiracy must be translated into practical plans and implemented at a level of
government which the individual can effectively influence. American citizens, if they are to escape the socialist society planned for
them, must bring their authority to bear at the point of jurisdictional decision: County and State government.
No amount of agonizing or protest to a distant congressman will change the design of the mattoids who seek to overthrow the
Constitution and reduce Americans to the status of economic serfs on the land which once was theirs. Only the individual can demand
that his County official act to defend and preserve Life, Liberty and Property. He must do this by a positive act, by challenging "the
secret government of monetary power" at its weakest point - the County.
Although all sovereignty originates from the State, the states delegated a few of their powers to their common agents in Washington.
However, the vast governmental powers that touch our lives every day are placed in the hands of County Governments, that are closest
to the people.
One historian who has commented on the point is R.J. Rushdoony, whose book, The Nature of the American System, first published
http://web.archive.org/web/20050909011117/http://www.webaccess.net/%7Ecomminc/Spectatorship.html
53 / 85
3/23/2015
in 1965, has an analysis of the County in early American history. Important as the States are, they are not the basic unit of the
American system. The basic unit is clearly and without question the COUNTY, said Rushdoony.
Significantly, one of the first steps toward independence was taken by Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, May 31, 1775,
in order to prevent a legal vacuum ...
First, the PROPERTY TAX remained in the hands of the county, which early established its jurisdiction. The people of an
area thus controlled their tax assessor and their county supervisors, so that the taxing power was not beyond their
jurisdiction. When the power to tax leaves the county, tyranny will then begin in the United States. Socialism or communism
will be only a step away. The people of a county will be helpless as their property is taxed to the point of expropriation.
Second, CRIMINAL LAW was and is county law in essence. That was an important safeguard against tyranny and against
the political use of criminal law. Law enforcement officers, including judges, were and are officers of the county, in the
main, or of its constituent units. As T. Robert Ingram has pointed out, not too many years ago executions were also held at
the county seat. Police power and criminal law are thus matters of local jurisdiction in the American system.
The third, CIVIL LAW, is also county law to a great degree, enforced by local courts and by locally elected officials. The
American citizen is thus for the most part under county government. His basic instruments of civil government are local,
residing in the county, and the county is his historic line of defense against the encroachments of state and federal
governments. In early America, town and county elections were properly regarded as more important than state and
federal elections, and property qualifications were strict on the local level.
Go on
"Tugwell: Government will control all land."
Go back
to the homepage for
Send a message
to
Col. Roberts.
http://web.archive.org/web/20050909011117/http://www.webaccess.net/%7Ecomminc/Spectatorship.html
54 / 85
Tugwell: Government Will Control All Land
3/23/2015
http://www.webaccess.net/%7Ecomminc/Tugwell.html
Go
APR
SEP OCT
34 captures
24 F eb 99 - 24 Sep 05
2004 2005 2006
Close
Help

Part 8
U.S. Backs UN Plan to Control Land
Helena. (UP) - Use of all land, public and private will be controlled by the federal government in the future, Assistant Secretary of
Agriculture Rexford Tugwell predicted this week.
Land which cannot be operated effectively under private ownership will be held by the government as public forests, parks, game
preserves, grazing ranges, recreation centers and the like, Tugwell asserted.
Privately owned land will be controlled "to whatever extent is found necessary for maintaining continuous productivity," he said.
State officials here were studying Tugwell's statement today to see how they might affect Montana.
"We have depended too long on the hope that private ownership and control would operate somehow for the benefit of society as a
whole. That hope has not been realized."
Tugwell said present acreage reductions plans were only an emergency stop gap.
"What is done is merely to keep a part of each field of each farm out of use," he said. "It seems to me obvious that this cannot be
characteristic feature of a permanent policy."
As an alternative, Tugwell advocated controlling the total volume of farm products by limiting the area available for production, the
government acquiring and devoting to other uses all land in excess of that needed for production.
He envisioned "a commercial agriculture made up of the most efficient farmers operating the best of our lands."
Contrary to the desired trend 2,000,000 persons have returned to farms during the depression, he said.
"We already had too many farmers," Tugwell said. "We could probably raise all the farm products we need with half our present
farmers, or 12 and one-half percent of our total working population."
"Private control has failed to use wisely its control of the land," he concluded. "We are preparing a land program not merely for the
benefit of those who held title to it but for the greater welfare of all the citizens of the country."
A resolution favoring sharp restrictions on the private ownership of property was endorsed by a United Nations conference and
supported by the United States on June 11.
The UN's Conference on Human Settlement recently met in Vancouver, British Columbia, and asked that land be managed as a public
resource rather than a profit-generating commodity. It called for redistribution of land in poor countries and for a more equitable
distribution of wealth.
"Land, because of its unique nature and the crucial role it plays in human settlement, cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled
by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market," the conference declared.
In a scathing attack on human rights, the conference added, "Private land ownership also is a principal instrument of accumulation and
concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked it may become a major obstacle in the planning and
implementation of development schemes."
The U.S. delegation, headed by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Carla Hills, endorsed virtually all of the resolutions.
The U.S. delegation said that the land-management proposals were not inconsistent with established national practices in the United
States.
Although the conference's resolutions are nonbinding, they will be introduced to the General Assembly for ratification. With support
from both the U.S. State Department and communist nations, the measures are certain to be approved.
The Utah Independent, July 22, 1976.
Reprint of an article, "Tugwell Predicts New Regulations for Land With Federal Control," PHILLIP COUNTY NEWS, Malta,
Montana, dated Thursday, January 4, 1934. Rexford G. Tugwell, longtime propagandist for international banking interests,
authored THE NEWSTATES CONSTITUTION which seeks to "legalize" federal regionalism, reduce Americans to the status of
http://web.archive.org/web/20050908004546/http://www.webaccess.net/%7Ecomminc/Tugwell.html
55 / 85
3/23/2015
economic serfs on the land which once was theirs, and erect a dictatorship of the financial elite upon the ruins of the Republic. The
Newstates Constitution, produced at the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, was funded by the Ford Foundation at a
cost of $25,000,000.00.
Go on
to the third section of Part 8:
"Proof: Destruction of Private Property Rights Via Regionalism."
Go back
to the homepage for
Send a message
to
Col. Roberts.
http://web.archive.org/web/20050908004546/http://www.webaccess.net/%7Ecomminc/Tugwell.html
56 / 85
Proof: Destruction of Private Property Rights Via Regionalism
3/23/2015
http://www.webaccess.net/%7Ecomminc/Proof.html
Go
FEB APR MAY
34 captures
23 F eb 99 - 4 A pr 05
2004 2005 2006
Close
Help

Part 8
Proof: Destruction of Private Property Rights Via Regionalsim
Mr. Calvin C. Steinberger, President, Oklahoma Committee to Restore the Constitution, answered a constituents inquiry concerning
"proof" of the destruction of private property rights under federal regionalism. Numerous requests to the national headquarters, CRC,
prompts republication of Mr. Steinberger's list of documents and personal observations, first printed in a 1973 CRC release.
Dear ...
Thank you for writing. Please be advised that in order to "prove" your point as to the destruction of our private property rights that you
will need copies of the following documents:
1. P.L. 89-136 entitled "Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965". This act is the basis for the manner in which the
10 Federal Regions are to be governed by a "Multi-State Regional Commission". It also states that the Secretary of Commerce
has the power to "acquire in any lawful manner, any property (real or personal) whenever deemed necessary".
2. Nixon's EO of May 21, 1969 established the outline of the 10 Federal Regions based upon the authority of the above 1965 Act.
His EO 11647 dated Feb. 1972 established that Federal Regional Councils of federal bureaucrats were to be established
within each Region. His EO 11490 dated Oct. 1969 consolidated past EO of previous presidents and enabled him to declare
his "national emergency" on August 15, 1971 and to thereby have the dictatorial powers so enumerated in EO 11490. The
American people are now being "conditioned" to accept the controls of EO 11490.
3. In my State of Oklahoma, there was passed in April 1969 SB 290 which authorized the Oklahoma Industrial Development and
Park Commission to outline the planning "Districts" which would conform to the larger Federal Regions. On May 24, 1971 by
Executive Order our Governor (David Hall) froze all counties into their respective Economic Development Districts.
4. Seventeen days later, or on June 10, 1971, there was passed SB 101 which gave our Conservation District Directors the power
to eminent domain over all private property (both real and personal) in the State. This applies to not only rural properties but to
urban properties as well. This was the enforcement legislation needed to enforce No. (1) above.
5. P.L. 92-512 known as the Revenue Sharing Act was passed on Oct. 20, 1972. The primary function of this Act was to provide
that: "after Jan. 1, 1974 if two or more States request it of the US government, and at the option of the individual States, all State
taxes may be collected and administered by the federal government". It further provides a "ceiling and floor" for State Income
Taxes, and states that no State may thereafter alter its tax structure without first obtaining permission of the federal government.
It further provides for the manner in which State and local "boundary changes, and government reorganization" could be handled.
6. P.L. 91-596 dated Dec. 29, 1970 known as the "Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970" was passed. This Act was
necessary in order to gain control of private property "usage". The Act specifically limited itself to private businesses and
excluded State, County, Municipal, School District, and Conservation District governing bodies. It set forth that its enabling
legislation must provide that the above State government and its political subdivisions must also abide by the standards set forth
in the federal Act.
7. There is presently pending in Oklahoma, SB 168 which is known as the OSMA of 1973. This Oklahoma Act is the State
enabling legislation of No. 6 above. It further expands the federal Act to include all employers of whatever size (whereas the
federal Act as amended limits record keeping requirements to employers of over 7 employees.)
8. P.L. 92-500 dated Oct. 18, 1972 which is known as the "Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972" was passed
which set forth that States may assume pollution control enforcement on all businesses, land owners, and their equipment and
land. As did the OSMA Act of No. (6) above. This Act provides an effective "informer system" for citizens and employees to
squeal on their neighbors and/or employers. It also creates a body corporate to be known as the Environmental. Financing
Authority to have the power to acquire private property (real or personal) by whatever means and to also sell or lease said
property. It also set forth that if the States desired to assume the enforcement duties of the federal government that it - the State must enact enabling legislation which must be approved by the federal government.
9. There is presently pending in Oklahoma SB 9 which is known as "The Environmental Quality Management Act of 1973" which
would conform to the desires of the federal Act of No. (8) above. This Act further combines the State Noise Control Agency, Air
Pollution Control Agency, Water Pollution Control Agency, Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Agency, and General
Environmental Protection Agency into one all encompassing "Environmental Quality Management Board". Such Board would
issue all permits necessary to be issued to businesses and PSMA. All of this pollution control legislation is necessary, because
you see the bureaucrats have included the OSMA as an attempt to control the "environmental containment" known as the
"working environment". This is actually written up in our local INCOG "Regional Pollution Study" book.
http://web.archive.org/web/20050404011611/http://www.webaccess.net/%7Ecomminc/Proof.html
57 / 85
Proof: Destruction of Private Property Rights Via Regionalism
3/23/2015
10. There is presently pending in the U.S. House of Representatives S 268 which was passed by the Senate on January 9, 1973.
This Act is known as the "Land Use Policy and Planning Assistance Act of 1973". It provides that a State must conform to the
future land-use guidelines of the federal government, and that it - the State's - enabling legislation must include the authority of
the State to prohibit, under State police powers, the use of land within areas which have been designated as "areas of critical
environmental concern". It further provides the definition of "areas of critical environmental concern" to be, among other things,
"such additional areas as the State determines to be of critical environmental concern."
Needless to say, the key points to remember throughout all of your studies concerning the conspiracy are: (1) The attack is always
against property. (2) There is a centralization of police power. And, (3) Rule is to be by appointed officials and controlled by the
Executive Branch of our government.
As you can see, there is no one "Act" that you can use for definite "proof". They are all being enacted to "fit into place".
S/Calvin C. Steinberger
Calvin C. Steinberger
NOTE: Though defeated in the U.S. House of Representatives, pertinent sections of the "Land Use Policy and Planning Assistance
Act of 1973 (No. 10 above), called "The Udall Bill", were surreptitiously inserted into THE FEDERAL REGISTER by Mr. Russell Train,
Director, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Land Control" thus became the law of the land in contradiction to the will of
Congress and the interest of the people. It is upon the spurious "administrative law" of Mr. Train that subsequent "land control laws"
were mandated by the respective state legislatures in violation of the prohibitions of the Fifth Amendment, United States Constitution.
Go on
to the fourth section of Part 8:
"House Joint Resolution No. 33, Ohio House of Representatives."
Go back
to the homepage for
Send a message
to
Col. Roberts.
http://web.archive.org/web/20050404011611/http://www.webaccess.net/%7Ecomminc/Proof.html
58 / 85
House Joint Resolution No. 33, Ohio House of Representatives.
3/23/2015
http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/Ohio.html
Go
APR
SEP OCT
28 captures
22 F eb 99 - 3 Sep 05
2004 2005 2006
Close
Help

Part 8
House Joint Resolution No. 33, Ohio House of Representatives
MR. FOX
Relative to the creation of a joint legislative committee to study the operations of the federal regional system as they affect state and
local governments.
WHEREAS, The United States was divided into ten federal service regions in 1972 by presidential Executive Order 11647 and the
states, encouraged by the promise of federal dollars or threat of the withdrawal of federal dollars, have further divided into planning
and service districts; and
WHEREAS, In violation of the basic tenet of our Republic, that the people shall govern through their elected representatives, these
multistate and substate regional offices, operated by appointed officials, bypass the duly elected state and local officials. In addition,
the imposition of a federally-delineated regional system raises the serious question of whether the constitutional provisions requiring
the separation of state and federal governments is being violated; and
WHEREAS, The federal regional system was designed to provide the people with more direct access to government services. In
operation, the regional offices have merely established another level of government bureaucracy and further removed the people from
those who make the decisions; therefore be it
RESOLVED, That a six member select legislative committee be created to inquire into the effect on the people of Ohio of the
establishment and operation of the federal regions in general, and Region V, which includes Ohio, in particular. The six members of
the committee shall be members of the General Assembly who shall be appointed as follows: three by the president pro tem of the
Senate, not more than two of whom shall be of the same political party; three by the speaker of the House of Representatives, not
more than two of whom shall be of the same political party The speaker of the House shall designate from the appointed members a
permanent chairman of the select committee, and the president pro tem of the Senate shall designate the permanent vice chairman in
the same manner. The members shall be appointed no later than fifteen days following the adoption of this resolution, and within
fifteen days of their appointment, the committee shall meet at the call of the chairman; and be it further
RESOLVED, That to assure an open and objective investigation, the committee chairman shall not be someone who is already
committed to the advancement of regional government; and be it further
RESOLVED, That the select committee inquire into whether the federal regional system facilitates or deters state and local
governments' delivery of services, whether Ohio local governments' access to federal funds is actually improved by the existence of
Region V, and whether the operations of the federal regional council system are, in fact, an infringement on state powers; and be it
further
RESOLVED, That said committee be directed to conduct a thorough investigation into regional governance, in all its aspects and
under whatever name or form, and particularly as it usurps the power, jurisdiction and authority of state and local government bodies,
and to take testimony, hold hearings, and call expert witnesses to assist in carrying out the purposes of this joint resolution; and be it
further
RESOLVED, That the Senate and House confer upon this committee the power to subpoena witnesses from any part of Ohio to
appear before such committee at the time and place designated in the subpoena to testify concerning matters of inquiry committed to
such committee and the power to require the production of books, papers, and records by such witnesses. That the Committee is
directed to report its findings to the General Assembly not later than December 30, 1977, and shall cease to exist at that time.
Go on
"A Petition to the State Legislature."
Go back
to the homepage for
http://web.archive.org/web/20050903134220/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/Ohio.html
59 / 85
House Joint Resolution No. 33, Ohio House of Representatives.
3/23/2015
Send a message
to
Col. Roberts.
http://web.archive.org/web/20050903134220/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/Ohio.html
60 / 85
A Petition to the State Legislature.
3/23/2015
http://www.webaccess.net/%7Ecomminc/Petition.html
Go
FEB APR MAY
35 captures
23 F eb 99 - 8 A pr 05
2004 2005 2006
Close
Help

Part 8
A Petition to the State Legislature
REQUESTING PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE FEDERAL REGIONAL CONCEPT AND LAND
CONTROL EDICTS LEADING TO CORRECTIVE LEGISLATION.
WHEREAS: It is the opinion of the undersigned that continued membership of _______________________ State in regional
government, under whatever name, is a real and present danger to the freedom of person and property guaranteed to the people by
the U.S. Constitution, and to the sovereignty and interest of the people, State of __________________; and
WHEREAS: Many responsible authorities on constitutional law declare that the Federal Regional Concept is a direct violation of
Article IV, Sections 3 & 4, and of the Tenth Amendment, U.S. Constitution; and
WHEREAS: The announced goal of regionalization of local, state and federal governments under federal regionalism is centralization
of power and authority, which rightfully and constitutionally belongs to these several governments; transference of custody of the public
purse to appointed officials; and usurpation of the rights and freedoms of the citizens; and
WHEREAS: State Legislators and other elected officials, have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution, and must hold as sacred trust
their responsibility to protect the personal freedom and liberty of the citizens.
THEREFORE: We, the undersigned residents of __________________________________________ State, do hereby petition the
_________________________State Legislature to hold public hearings on the constitutionality of the Federal Regional Concept, to
hear evidence and testimony by witnesses made available by the ______________________ Committee to Restore the
Constitution, and to take whatever action is necessary to defend the freedoms of person and property guaranteed to the residents of
__________________________ State, pursuant to this Petition.
SIGNED:__________________________ADDRESS:__________________________
________________________________ _________________________________
________________________________ _________________________________
________________________________ _________________________________
________________________________ _________________________________
________________________________ _________________________________
________________________________ _________________________________
________________________________ _________________________________
________________________________ _________________________________
________________________________ _________________________________
________________________________ _________________________________
Upon completion please return to:
(address)
(sponsoring CRC chapter)
Go back
to the homepage for
http://web.archive.org/web/20050408094818/http://www.webaccess.net/%7Ecomminc/Petition.html
61 / 85
A Petition to the State Legislature.
3/23/2015
Send a message
to
Col. Roberts.
http://web.archive.org/web/20050408094818/http://www.webaccess.net/%7Ecomminc/Petition.html
62 / 85
A Constitution for the Newstates of America
3/23/2015
http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/Newstates.html
Go
APR
SEP NOV
47 captures
11
22 F eb 99 - 25 O ct 07
2004 2005 2006
Close
Help

Part 9
A CONSTITUTION FOR THE NEWSTATES OF AMERICA, from the book, THE EMERGING CONSTITUTION by Rexford G. Tugwell,
published 1974 (Harper & Row: $20.00) illustrates with chilling clarity the final objective of regional governance conspirators. The goal
is a corporate state concentrating economic, political and social powers in the hands of a ruling elite. "A Constitution for the
Newstates of America", is the fortieth version of this revolutionary document prepared by a team of social experimenters at the
CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS, Fund for the Republic (Ford Foundation), Post Office Box 4068,
Santa Barbara, California 93103.
The Center, its first objective accomplished, has appointed socialist-oriented University of Denver Chancellor Maurice B. Mitchell as
its new head and may merge with the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies, a Colorado-based world government policy promotion
agency.
Aspen Institute Chairman is Robert O. Anderson, chief executive officer, Atlantic Richfield Company; member, Committee for
Economic Development (laid ground work for regional government), and advisory board member, Institute for International Education.
Anderson is the principal figure in campaign aimed at seizing control of the National Rifle Association.
The Constitutional Convention Technique

Constitutional Convention is the procedure of choice for removing the annoyance of the United States Constitution and
erecting in its stead the Newstates Constitution as the 'Law of the Land'. The Bicentennial Celebration provided the first
test for this plan for merging the United States with the "New World Order".
On 14 January, 1975 the United States Congress set the Constitutional Convention plot in motion with House Concurrent Resolution
No. 28, introduced by Mr. Pettis, Republican legislator from California:
WHEREAS, two-thirds of the several States have, during the past twenty years, applied to Congress under Article V of the
Constitution of the United States for a convention for proposing amendments to such Constitution: NOW THEREFORE BE
IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
(The Senate Concurring), that a convention shall be convened for the purpose of proposing amendment to the Constitution
of the United States.
SECTION 2. The Convention shall be held in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
SECTION 3. Each State shall be entitled to send delegates.
SECTION 4. Proceedings of the convention shall be conducted n accordance with such rules as the convention may
adopt.
SECTION 5. Not later than July 4, 1976, or not later than the date which is three months after the date on which the
convention is convened, whichever is the later, the convention shall transmit to the Congress (Amendments) for ratification
for submission to the States.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE (Nelson Rockefeller) and the speaker of the House of Representatives (Carl Alberts)
shall make all necessary arrangements for the convening of the convention.
Skillful manipulation of public emotion to justify and authenticate the Constitutional Convention quickly followed.
On 28 September 1975 the World Affairs Council of Philadelphia announced a five part Bicentennial Program centering on a
'declaration of interdependence'. A first step in a thirteen-year program, said the Council, is the need to deal with the reality of global
interdependence.
Also featured: A convocation of the World Court of the United Nations in Philadelphia; An 'interdependence curriculum' for schools;
Congressional ceremonies and adoption of a Declaration of Interdependence, and 'interdependence assemblies' by organizations
having a broad input into the determination of America's global relationships.
THE PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER, a newspaper controlled by the Council on Foreign Relations, announced on 14 March 1976 plans
for a "national critical appraisal of the American Constitution". Congressmen, professors, judges, historians and sociologists attended
the conference, 5-8 April, to examine the origins of the Constitution, its influence on American life and its adequacy to meet the needs
http://web.archive.org/web/20050911121147/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/Newstates.html
63 / 85
3/23/2015
of modern American Society.

The clear mission was to publicly demean the United States Constitution by a panel of 'experts' thus creating a propaganda climate
favoring adoption of the Newstates Constitution.
Orchestrated by Nelson Rockefeller and sponsored by the American Academy of Political and Social Science, the conference
included twenty university professors, a dozen lawyers and judges, senators, congressmen and business executives. Among those
attending were William T. Coleman, Secretary of Transportation; Hedley Donovan, Editor-in-Chief, Time, Inc., and leaders of such
organizations as the League of Women Voters, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the United Auto
Workers, the National Urban League, the National Council of Churches and Common Cause.
Also represented were the Center for the Study of Federalism at Temple University; the Center of International Studies at Princeton
University; the Center for Social and Policy Studies at Swarthmore College; the Center for the Study of the Presidency; the Aspen
Institute for Humanistic Studies, Colorado; the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan, and the Center for the Study
of Democratic Institutions, Santa Barbara, California.
Visible collusion of the United States Congress with world government organizations created a public backlash which doomed the
grandiose Fourth of July Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. Though several important intermediate goals were achieved the
main thrust was defeated. Arrogance was the seed of its undoing.
Abandoning plan one the conspirators moved directly to the respective state legislatures and, operating behind a screen of
'conservative' organizations, introduced resolutions memorializing Congress to call a Constitutional Convention.
Well-meaning but ill-informed patriotic groups, exploited by socialist change artists using various emotion-evoking amendments and
factional issues as bait, are trapped in the Constitutional Convention plot. Some believe that such a Constitutional Convention can be
limited in scope to a particular issue: i.e.; tax relief, right to life, gun control, or other causes. In actual fact, the options open to a
Constitutional Convention, particularly one dominated by the Rockefeller dynasty and State delegates chosen on the basis of their
regional governance allegiance, are endless.
Voiding the Constitution of the United States and adoption of the Newstates Constitution, "...to meet the needs of modern American
society", is the real objective of those who promote a Constitutional Convention - whatever surface purposes are declared.
A CONSTITUTION FOR THE NEWSTATES OF AMERICA

Review by Dr. Peter David Beter, political economist, author and lecturer (deceased).
In 1964, the writing of a new constitution for America began, at a tax-exempt foundation with the misleading name, Center for the
Study of Democratic Institutions.
The people who took it upon themselves to write this new constitution on our behalf were, of course, not elected representatives, or in
any other way our representatives. As a tax-exempt foundation, they were able to do political work on what amounts to a subsidy taken
from your taxes, but you and I were never asked if we wanted a new constitution written. Indeed, only a very tiny fraction of the people
in the United States even know that it exists: it has been made known to practically no one except a select category of influential
people whose views and interest generally coincide with those of the people who wrote it. The American people as a whole are still in
the dark about it, and this situation is deliberate. It is therefore truly a "secret" constitution.
This model constitution took ten years to write, drawing upon the efforts of more than 100 people. A preliminary version was published
in 1970 and given exposure in limited circles. But, in 1974, an essentially final version was quietly published in a book entitled THE
EMERGING CONSTITUTION by Rexford G. Tugwell (Harper & Row, $20), the man who directed the formulation of the new
constitution. It is the fortieth draft. During most of the time that their constitution was being written, the Center for Study of Democratic
Institutions was lavishly funded to the tune of $2,500,000 annually.
DR. BETER'S CRITICAL ANALYSIS

Certain powerful forces hope to celebrate our nation's Bicentennial in 1976 by replacing the freedoms guaranteed in our present
Constitution with their own dictatorship - a cleverly disguised dictatorship. It has been made to superficially resemble the government
that we have now, so that we will not recognize it for what it is - until too late. They are using every propaganda trick at their command
to make us lower our guard. And they are about to put us all in a condition of economic desperation to persuade us to accept their
cleverly disguised dictatorship.
Our U.S. Constitution, according to the Preamble, is intended to provide for justice, domestic tranquillity, common defense and
general welfare, and to secure the blessings of liberty not only to ourselves, but to our posterity These were the goals that shaped our
Constitution. And this is the Constitution that enabled America to become a great nation of free people.
TWENTY-FIVE YEAR CONSTITUTION

The Newstates of America Constitution has a Preamble, too - it mentions not one of the objectives of our present Constitution. Instead
of "justice and domestic tranquillity", the new constitution seeks only "good order" without defining what that means. The very first
words are "So that we may join in common endeavors" - and the body of the new constitution makes it clear that this means an end to
individual endeavors. Their new constitution is expressly states to be good only for a prescribed period of 25 years: our posterity is left
to fend for itself. No reference is made in the Preamble to our defense or general welfare. Worst of all: the matter of liberty - so central
to our present Constitution - is totally ignored in the Preamble of the new one, which seeks only, "an adequate and self-repairing
government". The emphasis throughout their new constitution is on the government - not on the people. "Adequate" turns out to mean:
too powerful to be challenged. And "self-repairing" means that the laws and governmental structures can be continually changed and
64 / 85
3/23/2015
shifted to permit anything our rulers wish to do.

Before I explore some of the details of their secret new constitution, let me give you a bird's-eye view: Article I is divided into two parts
defining "Rights" and "Responsibilities." It turns out that some of our present rights disappear outright, and practically all of the rest
become conditional and fragile, able to be terminated on the whim of the government. The responsibilities, however, which are
obligations of the citizen to the government, are absolute and unconditional.
TEN FEDERAL REGION NEWSTATES

Article II defines what are called the "Newstates". The 50 states we have now become 10 in number. It is no accident that our federal
government for the past several years has managed its outlying activities through ten federal regions. These 10 new states will be
completely subservient to the federal government and creatures of it.
Articles III through VIII of their new constitution define the independent branches of government and their powers and duties. Under our
present Constitution, the federal government is divided into three co-equal branches - the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. They
were carefully set up according to a system of checks and balances in order to protect our freedoms from arbitrary government. But
under their new constitution, there would not be three, but six branches, so structured that our present system of checks and balances
are totally destroyed.
The counterparts of our present three branches will be greatly changed, and would be joined by a Regulatory Branch, to control our
everyday affairs; a Planning Branch, to plan our nation's economy; and, an Electoral Branch to oversee, monitor, finance, and regulate
all elections throughout the country.
Article XI provides new procedures for constitutional amendment which are totally different from and more dangerous than those which
now exist.
Finally, Article XII provides for transition from our present representative and republican form of government to the new, cleverly
disguised dictatorship under their new constitution.
Every word of their new constitution has been chosen carefully and for a purpose. Its basic nature and provisions are very revealing.
"RIGHTS" SUBJECT TO CONTROL

First, consider the matter of individual citizens' right. One right which is under powerful attack right now, and which disappears in the
new constitution, is THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. Instead, "The bearing of arms or the possession of lethal weapons shall be
confined to the police, members of the armed forces, and those licensed under law". Regardless of what you may think about the ins
and outs of the controversial "Gun Control" issue, you should be aware of the historical fact that disarming of the populace is always a
part of any totalitarian scheme.
Another right which disappears is that of trial by jury. Instead, as defined in Article VIII on the Judicial Branch, a presiding judge may
decide whether a trial is to be of the investigatory or adversary type. An investigatory trial is the type used, for example, in the Soviet
Union, you are presumed guilty, and must prove your innocence before a panel of judges. If an adversary trial there is to be a jury, and
how many jurors there shall be. There's no provision to prevent your jury, if any, from being a jury of one who as easily as not, could be
you bitter enemy.
As for how you might wind up in court in the first place, the section on "Rights" provides that "Searches and seizures shall be made
only on judicial warrant." That sounds reassuring, until you discover that nowhere is the new constitution are there any criteria given for
the issuance of judicial warrant. In other words, it could be completely arbitrary.
The practice of religion is said to be "privileged". That is not the same as freedom of religion, legally. A right is something which
cannot be revoked. A privilege, however, is something you hold only at the pleasure of the government, which can revoke it at will.
CONDITIONAL PROPERTY RIGHTS

Or consider the matter of property rights. Their new constitution states "No property shall be taken without compensation". But it does
not say "just" compensation. The omission of that little word "just" - after 40 drafts - cannot be accidental. It would leave the
government to seize your house, give you $1.00, and say "we gave you compensation".
The preoccupation with declared emergency is prominent with respect to rights. In Article VI of their new constitution, the reasons and
procedures for declaration of emergency are prescribed. Among other things, it states that emergency can be declared for no better
reason than "if an extra-ordinary advantage be anticipated". It does not say, advantage to whom, but obviously it means advantage to
the government.
With this in mind, observe that Article I of their constitution says that freedom of expression, of communication, of movement, of
assembly, and of petition are abridged in declared emergency. Peaceful public gatherings to discuss public issues may also be
interrupted or denied. Writs of habeas corpus are also suspended in declared emergency, which means you could be locked up and
held indefinitely without the preferring of charges.
"RESPONSIBILITIES" DEFINED
With respect to the so-called "Responsibilities" defined in their new constitution, the potential dangers tend to be a more subtle: "Each
citizen SHALL participate in the processes of democracy, assisting in the selection of officials and in the monitoring of their conduct in
office". Several points even in this one sentence would merit comment, but simply consider the word "shall". THIS IS A COMMAND.
You shall participate, not that you have the discretion to participate. And if you do not do so, you would be violating the most basic law
65 / 85
3/23/2015
of the land, the new constitution. Compare the constitutions of all communist-led countries.
The Newstates are simply puppets of the federal government. "If governments of the Newstates fail to carry out fully their constitutional
duties, their officials shall be warned, and may be required by the Senate on the recommendation of the Watchkeeper, to forfeit
revenues from the Newstates of America". You have no doubt already heard of various cases in which certain localities have been
forced to forfeit their REVENUE SHARING funds because of failure to comply with federal "guidelines", so-called.
SIX BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT

Turning to the six new branches of government under their new constitution, which in the constitution is simply called "The Presidency",
in Article V. This is entirely appropriate under their constitution, the President is a "strong man", able to call all the shots. He is to serve
for a single term of 9 years. You may have noticed the "single term" idea popping up lately, and even the 9-year length has been
suggested by some in print and speech. Their secret new constitution is where the idea came from.
There are also two Vice-Presidents - one designated for "General Affairs", first in line of Presidential succession in case of disability;
the other designated for "Internal Affairs", and second in line. There are detailed provisions for Presidential and Vice Presidential
disability, with appointment playing a key role as in our present 25th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Note especially that Section
5 of Article V provides that "Candidates for the presidency and the vice-president shall be natural-born citizens". The key word here is
"Candidates". All a foreign-born person need say is "I am doing nothing to become a candidate", or, "I said I was not a candidate"; or,
"I am not even a candidate, so therefore I cannot remove myself as a candidate for the vice-presidency"; or, "I am out to support the
President's programs, how can I remove myself when I am not on it." Under this section, therefore, a foreign-born person could well
become president once he is nominated by a president in the event there is an office vacancy in one or both of the vice-presidencies,
followed by succession when a president becomes disabled for any reason.
A provision which exemplifies the power of the president is "Treaties or agreements with other nations negotiated under the
President's authority shall be in effect unless objected to by a majority of the Senate within 90 days". Here is a pattern which
permeates the new constitution, wherein all sorts of actions take effect unless objected to by a majority, instead of resulting from
positive approval by a majority. This even applies in the matter of constitutional amendment, in which amendments generated by the
Judicial Branch take effect unless turned down by a majority of the people.
POLICE STATE POWERS

Under the Presidency, there is also to be a new official called the "Intendant", whose powers are potentially those of the commander of
a nationwide Gestapo. The actual wording, of course, sounds relatively mild to the unwary; the danger lies in what is not said, and the
limits that are not imposed. He is to supervise offices for Intelligence and Investigation, as well as an Office of Emergency
Organization. His role here reflects a preoccupation with emergency that crops up again and again throughout the new constitution.
The word "emergency" appears 134 times in the new constitution; it does not even appear once in our present Constitution.
Constitutional provisions for declaration of emergency, of course, have been used time after time in recent years to terminate freedom
in other countries.
The Intendant is also given the authority to charter tax-exempt foundations or corporations that are "determined by him to be for useful
public purposes". There is no check whatsoever on his authority to do this. This only reflects the unbridled authority of the President
himself under the new constitution, however. It does not provide for accountability of an unscrupulous President.
Their constitution gives the President all the tools he needs to establish unchallenged authority during the transition period from our
present to the new constitution, as described in Article XII. This open invitation for him to assume any and all powers he deems
appropriate speaks for itself.
Furthermore, with respect to the replacement of present governmental functions by those defined by their constitution, "The President
shall determine when replacement is complete". Since only the President is given this power, there is really nothing to prevent him
from freezing the process partway through, for example, after abolishing our present Congress and before appointing the new one. It
is very possible that these two very short passages are the real crux of their secret new constitution. But just to round out the
President's guarantees of invulnerability, the framers of their new constitution also contains a remarkable license to lie. In Article IX. Of
the three exceptions noted therein, "treason" is of no force and effect, since it is nowhere defined in their new constitution.
GOVERNMENT BY APPOINTEES
Given the power of the President under their new constitution, the rest would really have only whatever status their President allowed it
to have. However, the Legislative Branch would consist of a Senate and House of Representatives, but there the similarities end.
Senators would no longer be elected at all; instead they would be hand-picked appointees of the President, plus former Presidents
and Vice Presidents, and would serve for life. The House of Representatives would have 400 members, but there would only be 100
congressional districts. Each district would elect 3 representatives, who would serve for 3-year terms. These would be expected to
compete with one another instead of speaking with one voice, so this device would effectively undermine local representation at the
national level. There would also be 100 representatives elected "at large", from the nation as a whole instead of individual district. The
"at-large" members would form the backbone of what little is left to the House: they would serve for 9-year terms, and would be the
ones eligible to become committee chairmen.
The Judicial Branch would be presided over by a Principal Justice, chosen by the President's hand-picked or rubber-stamp Senate.
He would be a judicial "czar", controlling the entire judicial system of the nation with the aid of a Judicial Council and Judiciary
Assembly. The Judicial Council would be the originator of all constitutional amendments, and would have the duty to consider
amending their constitution to legalize unconstitutional steps taken by the government from time to time.
The new Regulatory Branch is foreshadowed by many current developments. But, the most notable feature of this Branch, aside from
66 / 85
3/23/2015
its grip on the nation's enterprises generally, is the blessing given to cartel arrangements called "Authorities". It states "Member
enterprises of an Authority shall be exempt from other regulation", it says "Nonmembers shall be required to maintain the same
standards as those prescribed for members". The "Standards" prescribed would be those agreed upon by the cartel members, and
nonmembers would not be allowed even to exceed those standards if they wanted to for competitive reasons.
PLANNED, COMPUTERIZED SOCIETY

The Planning Branch is foreshadowed by the increasing clamor for "economic planning" by the present Domestic Council of the White
House, by the national land-use planning legislation, and so forth. It would consist of a 15-member board appointed by the President.
They would prepare 6 and 12-year plans and budgets to reflect the desires of the President, who would submit the budgets to the
House of Representatives for their rubber-stamp approval each year.
Finally, the electoral Branch is also on its way piecemeal, through public financing of election campaigns, quota systems, and now the
newly operational Federal Election Commission, whose regulations do not apply to the present vice presidency office.
Under their new constitution, there is to be an electoral "Overseer" in charge of the Electoral Branch, chosen by the President's handpicked Senate, and he is to "supervise the organization of national and district parties, arrange for discussion among them, and
provide for the nomination and election of candidates for public office". All electoral processes are to be paid for out of tax money, and
no party can run candidates if it is not "recognized" by the Overseer. There are quota systems for apportionment of public funds that
clearly would help drive out small parties and tend ultimately toward a one-party system. Furthermore, the Overseer is to monitor,
supervise, and regulate the election process completely. All the power necessary to convert elections into a meaningless exercise is
provided the Electoral Branch under their secret new constitution.
TO RESTORE THE REPUBLIC

To sum up: I can only observe that their secret new constitution is not new at all. It is actually a prescription for the oldest kind of
government of all: one-man rule. It is the slippage backward into the bad old ways of the past that we have seen increasingly during
our lifetime, brought about by increasingly ignoring our own Constitution, which is still the newest idea in government.
Go on
"Regionalism: the Quiet Revolution."
Go back
to the homepage for
Send a message
to
Col. Roberts.
67 / 85
3/23/2015
http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/Quiet_Revolution.html
Go
APR AUG FEB
37 captures
14
27 A pr 99 - 30 Dec 06
2004 2005 2006
Close
Help

Part 9
Regionalsim: the Quiet Revolution
"New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of
any other State; nor any State be formed by the junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the consent of the
Legislatures of the States concerned, as well as the Congress".
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
Art. IV, section 3, paragraph 1
Transformation of the United States Republic to a dictatorship of the "financial elite", the New World Order fashioned for Americans by
the Council on Foreign Relations, reached political reality in 1972 under the administration of President Richard M. Nixon.
Although given little publicity, the White House, on March 27, 1969, pronounced that the United States had been divided into ten Metro
regions.1 In doing so, President Nixon and his controllers set in motion a series of pre-planned events which would, by February 12,
1972, place virtually every facet of the lives of U.S. citizens under the domination of socialist planners.
Flouting the prohibitions of Article IV, United States Constitution, Mr. Nixon, in his statement of 1969, "Restructuring of Government
Service Systems", purported to "streamline" the Department of Labor, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, the
Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Office of Economic Opportunity, and the Small Business Administration by
establishing "uniform boundaries and regional office locations".
Significantly, regional boundaries and the boundaries of major United Nations programs, and Federal Reserve System areas, in the
United States were made co-terminus.
Few realized then, or comprehend now, that regional governance is a new form of government which has been covertly engineered to
replace the city, county, state, and school district system. Boundary lines of these familiar political subdivisions are to be dropped and
a new set of geo-political lines followed.2
Under regional government there are now ten U.S. provinces, or regions. Each province has a designated "capitol" to handle all
matters within that particular province. Offices of HUD, OEO, SBA, and Labor were moved into the new capitols of each province, with
more agencies added later. The objective is to establish the mechanics for controlling the lives and ambitions of the people from a
central authority in Washington, and to direct their efforts into channels ordered by a Bureaucratic Civil Service.
An examination of the type of government proposed under regional government shows that it is a government by appointed rather than
elected officials. Under regional government dis-franchised U.S. Citizens are to be held in bondage, in perpetuity, as producers and
servers for a self-appointed Oligarchy.
The ten new political subdivisions to which the fifty States have been allocated by this unconstitutional decree are:
REGION 1 - Capitol: Boston
Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont.
REGION II - Capitol: New York City
New York, New Jersey, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands
REGION III - Capitol: Philadelphia
Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, District of Columbia
REGION IV - Capitol: Atlanta
Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee
REGION V - Capitol: Chicago
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin
REGION VI - Capitol: Dallas - Fort Worth
Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas
REGION VII - Capitol: Kansas City
Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska
REGION VIII - Capitol: Denver
http://web.archive.org/web/20050814084047/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/Quiet_Revolution.html
68 / 85
3/23/2015
Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming

REGION IX - Capitol: San Francisco
Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada
REGION X - Capitol: Seattle
Alaska, Oregon, Washington, Idaho
One of the federal money bills designed to finance Metro governance in the nation was H.R. 2519, introduced by Congressman
Reuss, January, 1969. This bill was to provide bloc grants if regional "modernization" conditions were met by the States.
To qualify for the promised grants the States were required to enact legislation enabling, or mandating in some instances, the
collectivizing of counties into subregions which would fit neatly into the federal ten-region governance formed by Presidential
proclamation.
Following the White House pronouncement of March 27, 1969, the same measure was renumbered H.R. 11764 and reintroduced on
May 28 by the same congressman. Sections were added to give control over twenty-two and a half billion tax dollars for Metro funding
to one man, President Nixon.
On February 12, 1972, Mr. Nixon dropped the other shoe.
By Executive Order 11647, Federal Regional Councils (Federal Register No. 30) the President authorized staffing of the ten regional
capitols and effected appointment of a chairman, or commissar for each province.3
"Three years ago", said Mr. Nixon in his order, "I directed the senior regional officials of certain of the grant-making agencies to
convene themselves in regional councils to better coordinate their services to Governors, Mayors and the Public.
"Now, therefore, by virtue of the authority vested in me as President of the United States it is hereby ordered as follows:
SECTION 1, Federal Regional Councils (a) There is hereby established a Federal Regional Council for each of the ten
standard Federal regions. Each Council shall be composed of the directors of the regional offices of the Department of
Labor, Health, Education, and Welfare, and Housing and Urban Development, the Secretarial Representative of the
Department of Transportation, and the directors of the regional offices of the Office of Economic Opportunity, and the
Environmental Protection Agency, and the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration. The President shall designate
one member of each such Council as Chairman of that Council and such Chairman shall serve at the pleasure of the
President. Representatives of the Office of Management and Budget may participate in any deliberations of each
Council".
It is intended, of course, that regional council members will assume all real authority over State governments and the people they
represent. The people and the States will be reduced to political impotency.
The image of a police state becomes chillingly real under the provisions of Executive Order 11490, "Assigning Emergency
Preparedness Functions to Federal Departments" (Federal Register, October 30, 1969). By this order regional council members,
under color of law, can control all food supply, money and credit, transportation, communications, public utilities and other facets of the
lives of every citizen.4, 5, 6, 7
Seizure of private property [homes, businesses, and farms] via the ploy of reassessment under United Nations tax guidelines is a
concurrent objective of the madmen who now direct national policy.
Robert C. Weaver, former Chief, Department of Housing and Urban Development, said of Metro governance:
"Regional government means absolute Federal control over all property and its development regardless of location,
anywhere in the United States, to be administered n the Federal official's determination. It [regional government] would
supersede state and local laws. Through this authority we seek to recapture control of the use of land, most of which the
government has already given to the people".
World government planners hope to achieve federalization of all land, resources, and production facilities under regional government
authority without serious public challenge. Self-rule and self-determination are to be phased out of the society, the Constitution
overthrown, and the citizen made an economic serf in the country that once was his.
President Nixon, in his plea for cooperation in "revenue sharing" (another technique for financing Metro governance) admitted that we
are experiencing a "New American Revolution". Proof that the "New American Revolution" is an actual revolution is born out by
evidence from "Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Urban Affairs of the Joint Economic Committee", United States Congress,
May 19-26, 1971:
"Local Government is changing itself in an effort to better meet the needs of the people. Across the nation, cities, counties, towns, and
school districts that serve a common area are joining together in a regional effort to solve mutual problems. In a quiet way, regionalism
is a revolution in the structure of our Federal system."
The impact of Metro governance on the freedoms of person and property formerly guaranteed to the people by the Constitution is
obvious.
Interlocking subversion in government departments can, however, be successfully challenged by an informed electorate motivated to
act within the authority of the U.S. Constitution.
69 / 85
3/23/2015
The law involved is the fundamental law of agency: Actions of an agent are not binding on the principal if those actions are not
authorized by the principal. Constitutionally, States are Principals and federal departments are Agents of the State.
To escape the "New World Order" being prepared for us by the Council on Foreign Relations and the aristocracy of finance.
Americans must demand that their State lawmakers investigate the illegal actions of federal agents who attempt to abridge the U.S.
Constitution in violation of their oath of office.
EXHIBITS DELETED FOR LACK OF SPACE.

1. Exhibit A: STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT ON RESTRUCTURING OF GOVERNMENT SERVICE SYSTEMS, The White
House, March 27, 1969. (deleted)
2. Exhibit B: PRESS CONFERENCE OF DANIEL P. MOYNIHAN, ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT FOR URBAN AFFAIRS;
PHILIP S. HUGHES, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF THE BUDGET; AND RON ZIEGLER, PRESS SECRETARY TO THE
PRESIDENT, Office of the White House Press Secretary, March 27, 1969. (deleted)
3. Exhibit C: EXECUTIVE ORDER 11647, "Federal Regional Councils", The President, Federal Register No. 30, February 12,
1972. (deleted)
4. Exhibit D: STATE OF NATIONAL EMERGENCY AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS, Hon. John R. Rarick, The Congressional
Record, September 27, 1972 (deleted)
5. Exhibit E. EXECUTIVE ORDER 11615, "Providing for the stabilization of prices, rents, wages, and salaries", (From the Federal
Register, Vol. 36, No. 159, August 17, 1971) Hon. John R. Rarick, The Congressional Record, September 27, 1971. (deleted)
6. Exhibit F. EXECUTIVE ORDER 11490, "Assigning Emergency Preparedness Functions To Federal Departments and
Agencies", (From the Federal Register, vol. 34, No. 209, October 30, 1969) Hon. John R. Rarick, The Congressional Record,
September 27, 1971. (deleted)
7. Exhibit G: STATE OF NATIONAL EMERGENCY LEGALIZES THE EXECUTIVE ORDERS, by Archibald E. Roberts, LtCol,
AUS, ret (from the Borger (Tex) News Herald, Sept. 19, 1971) Entered in The Congressional Record, September 27, 1971, by the
Hon. John R. Rarick. (deleted)
8. Exhibit H: THE "NEW LOOK" OF THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, Don Bell Reports May 5, 1972. (deleted)
Go back
to the homepage for
Send a message
to
Col. Roberts.
70 / 85
Proposed Newstates Constitution - Part 1
3/23/2015
http://www.webaccess.net/%7Ecomminc/Constitution_1.html
Go
FEB APR MAY
32 captures
16 A ug 00 - 8 A pr 05
2004 2005 2006
Close
Help

Part 10
A Proposed Constitutional Model for the Newstates of America
A CONSTITUTION FOR THE NEWSTATES OF AMERICA, from the book, THE EMERGING CONSTITUTION by Rexford
G. Tugwell, published 1974 (Harper & Row: $20.00) illustrates with chilling clarity the final objective of regional governance
conspirators. The goal is a corporate state concentrating economic, political and social powers in the hands of a ruling
elite. "A Constitution for the Newstates of America", is the fortieth version of this revolutionary document prepared by a
team of social experimenters at the CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS, Fund for the Republic
(Ford Foundation), Post Office Box 4068, Santa Barbara, California 93103.
The Center, its first objective accomplished, has appointed socialist-oriented University of Denver Chancellor Maurice B.
Mitchell as its new head and may merge with the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies, a Colorado-based world
government policy promotion agency.
Aspen Institute Chairman is Robert O. Anderson, chief executive officer, Atlantic Richfield Company; member, Committee
for Economic Development (laid ground work for regional government), and advisory board member, Institute for
International Education. Anderson is the principal figure in campaign aimed at seizing control of the National Rifle
Association.
PREAMBLE
So that we may join in common endeavors, welcome the future in good order, and create an adequate and self-repairing government we, the people, do establish the Newstates of America, herein provided to be ours, and do ordain this Constitution whose supreme
law it shall be until the time prescribed for it shall have run.
ARTICLE I
Rights and Responsibilities
A. Rights
SECTION 1. Freedom of expression, of communication, of movement, of assembly, or of petition shall not be abridged except in
declared emergency.
SECTION 2. Access to information possessed by governmental agencies shall not be denied except in the interest of national
security; but communications among officials necessary to decisionmaking shall be privileged.
SECTION 3. Public communicators may decline to reveal sources of information, but shall be responsible for hurtful disclosures.
SECTION 4. The privacy of individuals shall be respected; searches and seizures shall be made only on judicial warrant; persons shall
be pursued or questioned only for the prevention of crime or the apprehension of suspected criminals, and only according to rules
established under law.
SECTION 5. There shall be no discrimination because of race, creed, color, origin, or sex. The Court of Rights and Responsibilities
may determine whether selection for various occupations has been discriminatory.
SECTION 6. All persons shall have equal protection of the laws, and in all electoral procedures the vote of every eligible citizen shall
count equally with others.
SECTION 7. It shall be public policy to promote discussion of public issues and to encourage peaceful public gatherings for this
purpose. Permission to hold such gatherings shall not be denied, nor shall they be interrupted, except in declared emergency or on a
showing of imminent danger to public order and on judicial warrant.
SECTION 8. The practice of religion shall be privileged; but no religion shall be imposed by some on others, and none shall have
public support.
SECTION 9. Any citizen may purchase, sell, lease, hold, convey, and inherit real and personal property, and shall benefit equally from
all laws for security in such transactions.
SECTION 10. Those who cannot contribute to productivity shall be entitled to a share of the national product; but distribution shall be
http://web.archive.org/web/20050408082300/http://www.webaccess.net/%7Ecomminc/Constitution_1.html
71 / 85
3/23/2015
fair and the total may not exceed the amount for this purpose held in the National Sharing Fund.
SECTION 11. Education shall be provided at public expense for those who meet appropriate tests of eligibility.
SECTION 12. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. No property shall be taken without
compensation.
SECTION 13. Legislatures shall define crimes and conditions requiring restraint, but confinement shall not be for punishment; and,
when possible, there shall be preparation for return to freedom.
SECTION 14. No person shall be placed twice in jeopardy for the same offense.
SECTION 15. Writs of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except in declared emergency.
SECTION 16. Accused persons shall be informed of charges against them, shall have a speedy trial, shall have reasonable bail, shall
be allowed to confront witnesses or to call others, and shall not be compelled to testify against themselves; at the time of arrest they
shall be informed of their right to be silent and to have counsel, provided, if necessary, at public expense; and courts shall consider the
contention that prosecution may be under an invalid or unjust statute.
B. Responsibilities
SECTION 1. Each freedom of the citizen shall prescribe a corresponding responsibility not to diminish that of others: of speech,
communication, assembly, and petition, to grant the same freedom to others; of religion, to respect that of others; of privacy, not to
invade that of others; of the holding and disposal of property, the obligation to extend the same privilege to others.
SECTION 2. Individuals and enterprises holding themselves out to serve the public shall serve all equally and without intention to
misrepresent, conforming to such standards as may improve health and welfare.
SECTION 3. Protection of the law shall be repaid by assistance in its enforcement; this shall include respect for the procedures of
justice, apprehension of lawbreakers, and testimony at trial.
SECTION 4. Each citizen shall participate in the processes of democracy, assisting in the selection of officials and in the monitoring
of their conduct in office.
SECTION 5. Each shall render such services to the nation as may be uniformly required by law, objection by reason of conscience
being adjudicated as hereinafter provided; and none shall expect or may receive special privileges unless they be for a public
purpose defined by law.
SECTION 6. Each shall pay whatever share of governmental costs is consistent with fairness to all.
SECTION 7. Each shall refuse awards or titles from other nations or their representatives except as they be authorized by law.
SECTION 8. There shall be a responsibility to avoid violence and to keep the peace; for this reason the bearing of arms or the
possession of lethal weapons shall be confined to the police, members of the armed forces, and those licensed under law.
SECTION 9. Each shall assist in preserving the endowments of nature and enlarging the inheritance of future generations.
SECTION 10. Those granted the use of public lands, the air, or waters shall have a responsibility for using these resources so that, if
irreplaceable, they are conserved and, if replaceable, they are put back as they were.
SECTION 11. Retired officers of the armed forces, of the senior civil service, and of the Senate shall regard their service as a
permanent obligation and shall not engage in enterprise seeking profit from the government.
SECTION 12. The devising or controlling of devices for management or technology shall establish responsibility for resulting costs.
SECTION 13. All rights and responsibilities defined herein shall extend to such associations of citizens as may be authorized by law.
ARTICLE II
The Newstates
SECTION 1. There shall be Newstates, each comprising no less than 5 percent of the whole population. Existing states may continue
and may have the status of Newstates if the Boundary Commission, hereinafter provided, shall so decide. The Commission shall be
guided in its recommendations by the probability of accommodation to the conditions for effective government. States electing by
referendum to continue if the Commission recommend otherwise shall nevertheless accept all Newstate obligations.
SECTION 2. The Newstates shall have constitutions formulated and adopted by processes hereinafter prescribed.
SECTION 3. They shall have Governors, legislatures, and planning, administrative, and judicial systems.
SECTION 4. Their political procedures shall be organized and supervised by electoral Overseers; but their elections shall not be in
years of presidential election.
SECTION 5. The electoral apparatus of the Newstates of America shall be available to them, and they may be allotted funds under
rules agreed to by the national Overseer; but expenditures may not be made by or for any candidate except they be approved by the
Overseer; and requirements of residence in a voting district shall be no longer than thirty days.
72 / 85
3/23/2015
SECTION 6. They may charter subsidiary governments, urban or rural, and may delegate to them powers appropriate to their
responsibilities.
SECTION 7. They may lay, or may delegate the laying of, taxes; but these shall conform to the restraints stated hereinafter for the
Newstates of America.
SECTION 8. They may not tax exports, may not tax with intent to prevent imports, and may not impose any tax forbidden by laws of the
Newstates of America; but the objects appropriate for taxation shall be clearly designated.
SECTION 9. Taxes on land may be at higher rates than those on its improvements.
SECTION 10. They shall be responsible for the administration of public services not reserved to the government of the Newstates of
America, such activities being concerted with those of corresponding national agencies, where these exist, under arrangements
common to all.
SECTION 11. The rights and responsibilities prescribed in this Constitution shall be effective in the Newstates and shall be
suspended only in emergency when declared by Governors and not disapproved by the Senate of the Newstates of America.
SECTION 12. Police powers of the Newstates shall extend to all matters not reserved to the Newstates of America; but preempted
powers shall not be impaired.
SECTION 13. Newstates may not enter into any treaty, alliance, confederation, or agreement unless approved by the Boundary
Commission hereinafter provided.
They may not coin money, provide for the payment of debts in any but legal tender, or make any charge for inter-Newstate services.
They may not enact ex post facto laws or ones impairing the obligation of contracts.
SECTION 14. Newstates may not impose barriers to imports from other jurisdictions or impose any hindrance to citizens' freedom of
movement.
SECTION 15. If governments of the Newstates fail to carry out fully their constitutional duties, their officials shall be warned and may be
required by the Senate, on the recommendation of the Watchkeeper, to forfeit revenues from the Newstates of America.
ARTICLE III
The Electoral Branch
SECTION 1. To arrange for participation by the electorate in the determination of policies and the selection of officials, there shall be
an Electoral Branch.
SECTION 2. An Overseer of electoral procedures shall be chosen by majority of the Senate and may be removed by a two-thirds vote.
It shall be the Overseer's duty to supervise the organization of national and district parties, arrange for discussion among them, and
provide for the nomination and election of candidates for public office. While in office the Overseer shall belong to no political
organization; and after each presidential election shall offer to resign.
SECTION 3. A national party shall be one having had at least a 5 percent affiliation in the latest general election; but a new party shall
be recognized when valid petitions have been signed by at least 2 percent of the voters in each of 30 percent of the districts drawn for
the House of Representatives. Recognition shall be suspended upon failure to gain 5 percent of the votes at a second election, 10
percent at a third, or 15 percent at further elections.
District parties shall be recognized when at least 2 percent of the voters shall have signed petitions of affiliation; but recognition shall
be withdrawn upon failure to attract the same percentages as are necessary for the continuance of national parties.
SECTION 4. Recognition by the Overseer shall bring parties within established regulations and entitle them to common privileges.
SECTION 5. The Overseer shall promulgate rules for party conduct and shall see that fair practices are maintained, and for this
purpose shall appoint deputies in each district and shall supervise the choice, in district and national conventions, of party
administrators. Regulations and appointments may be objected to by the Senate.
SECTION 6. The Overseer, with the administrators and other officials, shall:
a. Provide the means for discussion, in each party, of public issues, and, for this purpose, ensure that members have adequate
facilities for participation.
b. Arrange for discussion, in annual district meetings, of the President's views, of the findings of the Planning Branch, and such other
information as may be pertinent for enlightened political discussion.
c. Arrange, on the first Saturday in each month, for enrollment, valid for one year, of voters at convenient places.
SECTION 7. The Overseer shall also:
a. Assist the parties in nominating candidates for district members of the House of Representatives each three years; and for this
purpose designate one hundred districts, each with a similar number of eligible voters, redrawing districts after each election. In these
there shall be party conventions having no more than three hundred delegates, so distributed that representation of voters be
73 / 85
3/23/2015
approximately equal.
Candidates for delegate may become eligible by presenting petitions signed by two hundred registered voters. They shall be elected
by party members on the first Tuesday in March, those having the largest number of votes being chosen until the three hundred be
complete. Ten alternates shall also be chosen by the same process.
District conventions shall be held on the first Tuesday in April. Delegates shall choose three candidates for membership in the House
of Representatives, the three having the most votes becoming candidates.
b. Arrange for the election each three years of three members of the House of Representatives in each district from among the
candidates chosen in party conventions, the three having the most votes to be elected.
a. Arrange for national conventions to meet nine years after previous presidential elections, with an equal number of delegates from
each district, the whole number not to exceed one thousand.
Candidates for delegates shall be eligible when petitions signed by five hundred registered voters have been filed. Those with the
most votes, together with two alternates, being those next in number of votes, shall be chosen in each district.
b. Approve procedures in these conventions for choosing one hundred candidates to be members-at-large of the House of
Representatives, whose terms shall be coterminous with that of the President. For this purpose delegates shall file one choice with
convention officials. Voting on submissions shall proceed until one hundred achieve 10 percent, but not more than three candidates
may be resident in any one district; if any district have more than three, those with the fewest votes shall be eliminated, others being
added from the districts having less than three, until equality be reached. Of those added, those having the most votes shall be chosen
first.
c. Arrange procedures for the consideration and approval of party objectives by the convention.
d. Formulate rules for the nomination in these conventions of candidates for President and Vice-Presidents when the offices are to fall
vacant, candidates for nomination to be recognized when petitions shall have been presented by one hundred or more delegates,
pledged to continue support until candidates can no longer win or until they consent to withdraw. Presidents and Vice-Presidents,
together with Representatives-at-large, shall submit to referendum after serving for three years, and if they are rejected, new
conventions shall be held within one month and candidates shall be chosen as for vacant offices.
Candidates for President and Vice-Presidents shall be nominated on attaining a majority.
e. Arrange for the election on the first Tuesday in June, in appropriate years, of new candidates for President and Vice-Presidents,
and members-at-large of the House of Representatives, all being presented to the nation's voters as a ticket; if no ticket achieve a
majority, the Overseer shall arrange another election, on the third Tuesday in June, between the two persons having the most votes;
and if referendum so determine he shall provide similar arrangements for the nomination and election of candidates.
In this election, the one having the most votes shall prevail.
a. Arrange for the convening of the national legislative houses on the fourth Tuesday of July.
b. Arrange for inauguration of the President and Vice-Presidents on the second Tuesday of August.
SECTION 10. All costs of electoral procedures shall be paid from public funds, and there shall be no private contributions to parties or
candidates; no contributions or expenditures for meetings, conventions, or campaigns shall be made; and no candidate for office may
make any personal expenditures unless authorized by a uniform rule of the Overseer; and persons or groups making expenditures,
directly or indirectly, in support of prospective candidates shall report to the Overseer and shall conform to his regulations.
SECTION 11. Expenses of the Electoral Branch shall be met by the addition of one percent to the net annual taxable income returns of
taxpayers, this sum to be held by the Chancellor of Financial Affairs for disposition by the Overseer.
Funds shall be distributed to parties in proportion to the respective number of votes cast for the President and Governors at the last
election, except that new parties, on being recognized, shall share in proportion to their number. Party administrators shall make
allocations to legislative candidates in amounts proportional to the party vote at the last election.
Expenditures shall be audited by the Watchkeeper; and sums not expended within four years shall be returned to the Treasury.
It shall be a condition of every communications franchise that reasonable facilities shall be available for allocations by the Overseer.
ARTICLE IV
The Planning Branch
SECTION 1. There shall be a Planning Branch to formulate and administer plans and to prepare budgets for the uses of expected
income in pursuit of policies formulated by the processes provided herein.
SECTION 2. There shall be a National Planning Board of fifteen members appointed by the President; the first members shall have
terms designated by the President of one to fifteen years, thereafter one shall be appointed each year; the President shall appoint a
74 / 85
3/23/2015
Chairman who shall serve for fifteen years unless removed by him.
SECTION 3. The Chairman shall appoint, and shall supervise, a planning administrator, together with such deputies as may be
agreed to by the Board.
SECTION 4. The Chairman shall present to the Board six- and twelve-year development plans prepared by the planning staff. They
shall be revised each year after public hearings, and finally in the year before they are to take effect. They shall be submitted to the
President on the fourth Tuesday in July for transmission to the Senate on September 1 with his comments.
If members of the Board fail to approve the budget proposals by the forwarding date, the Chairman shall nevertheless make
submission to the President with notations of reservation by such members. The President shall transmit this proposal, with his
comments, to the House of Representatives on September 1.
SECTION 5. It shall be recognized that the six-and twelve-year development plans represent national intentions tempered by the
appraisal of possibilities. The twelve-year plan shall be a general estimate of probable progress, both governmental and private; the
six-year plan shall be more specific as to estimated income and expenditure and shall take account of necessary revisions.
The purpose shall be to advance, through every agency of government, the excellence of national life. It shall be the further purpose to
anticipate innovations, to estimate their impact, to assimilate them into existing institutions, and to moderate deleterious effects on the
environment and on society.
The six- and twelve-year plans shall be disseminated for discussion and the opinions expressed shall be considered in the formulation
of plans for each succeeding year with special attention to detail in proposing the budget.
SECTION 6. For both plans an extension of one year into the future shall be made each year and the estimates for all other years shall
be revised accordingly. For nongovernmental activities the estimate of developments shall be calculated to indicate the need for
enlargement or restriction.
SECTION 7. If there be objection by the President or the Senate to the six- or twelve-year plans, they shall be returned for restudy and
resubmission. If there still be differences, and if the President and the Senate agree, they shall prevail. If they do not agree, the Senate
shall prevail and the plan shall be revised accordingly.
SECTION 8. The Newstates, on June 1, shall submit proposals for development to be considered for inclusion in those for the
Newstates of America. Researches and administration shall be delegated, when convenient, to planning agencies of the Newstates.
SECTION 9. There shall be submissions from private individuals or from organized associations affected with a public interest, as
defined by the Board. They shall report intentions to expand or contract, estimates of production and demand, probable uses of
resources, numbers expected to be employed, and other essential information.
SECTION 10. The Planning Branch shall make and have custody of official maps, and these shall be documents of reference for future
developments both public and private; on them the location of facilities, with extension indicated, and the intended use of all areas
shall be marked out.
Official maps shall also be maintained by the planning agencies of the Newstates, and in matters not exclusively national the National
Planning Board may rely on these.
Undertakings in violation of official designation shall be at the risk of the venturer, and there shall be no recourse; but losses from
designations after acquisition shall be recoverable in actions before the Court of Claims.
SECTION 11. The Planning Branch shall have available to it funds equal to one-half of one percent of the approved national budget
(not including debt services or payments from trust funds). They shall be held by the Chancellor of Financial Affairs and expended
according to rules approved by the Board; but funds not expended within six years shall be available for other uses.
SECTION 12. Allocations may be made for the planning agencies of the Newstates; but only the maps and plans of the national
Board, or those approved by them, shall have status at law.
SECTION 13. In making plans, there shall be due regard to the interests of other nations and such cooperation with their intentions as
may be approved by the Board.
SECTION 14. There may also be cooperation with international agencies and such contributions to their work as are not disapproved
by the President.
ARTICLE V
The Presidency
SECTION 1. The President of the Newstates of America shall be the head of government, shaper of its commitments, expositor of its
policies, and supreme commander of its protective forces; shall have one term of nine years, unless rejected by 60 percent of the
electorate after three years; shall take care that the nation's resources are estimated and are apportioned to its more exigent needs;
shall recommend such plans, legislation, and action as may be necessary; and shall address the legislators each year on the state of
the nation, calling upon them to do their part for the general good.
SECTION 2. There shall be two Vice-Presidents elected with the President; at the time of taking office the President shall designate
one Vice-President to supervise internal affairs; and one to be deputy for general affairs. The deputy for general affairs shall succeed
if the presidency be vacated; the Vice-President for internal affairs shall be second in succession. If either Vice-President shall die or
75 / 85
3/23/2015
be incapacitated, the President, with the consent of the Senate, shall appoint a successor. Vice-Presidents shall serve during an
extended term with such assignments as the President may make.
If the presidency fall vacant through the disability of both Vice-Presidents, the Senate shall elect successors from among its members
to serve until the next general election.
With the Vice-Presidents and other officials the President shall see to it that the laws are faithfully executed and shall pay attention to
the findings and recommendations of the Planning Board, the National Regulatory Board, and the Watchkeeper in formulating national
policies.
SECTION 3. Responsible to the Vice-President for General Affairs there shall be Chancellors of External, Financial, Legal, and
Military Affairs.
The Chancellor of External Affairs shall assist in conducting relations with other nations.
The Chancellor of Financial Affairs shall supervise the nation's financial and monetary systems, regulating its capital markets and
credit-issuing institutions as they may be established by law; and this shall include lending institutions for operations in other nations or
in cooperation with them, except that treaties may determine their purposes and standards.
The Chancellor of Legal Affairs shall advise governmental agencies and represent them before the courts.
The Chancellor of Military Affairs shall act for the presidency in disposing all armed forces except militia commanded by governors;
but these shall be available for national service at the President's convenience.
Except in declared emergency, the deployment of forces in far waters or in other nations without their consent shall be notified in
advance to a national security committee of the Senate hereinafter provided.
SECTION 4. Responsible to the Vice-President for Internal Affairs there shall be chancellors of such departments as the President
may find necessary for performing the services of government and are not rejected by a two-thirds vote when the succeeding budget
is considered.
SECTION 5. Candidates for the presidency and the vice-presidencies shall be natural-born citizens. Their suitability may be
questioned by the Senate within ten days of their nomination, and if two-thirds of the whole agree, they shall be ineligible and a
nominating convention shall be reconvened. At the time of his nomination no candidate shall be a member of the Senate and none
shall be on active service in the armed forces or a senior civil servant.
SECTION 6. The President may take leave because of illness or for an interval of relief, and the Vice-President in charge of General
Affairs shall act. The President may resign if the Senate agree; and, if the term shall have more than two years to run, the Overseer
shall arrange for a special election for President and Vice-President.
SECTION 7. The Vice-Presidents may be directed to perform such ministerial duties as the President may find convenient; but their
instructions shall be of record, and their actions shall be taken as his deputy.
SECTION 8. Incapacitation may be established without concurrence of the President by a three-quarters vote of the Senate,
whereupon a successor shall become Acting President until the disability be declared, by a similar vote, to be ended or to have
become permanent. Similarly the other Vice-President shall succeed if a predecessor die or be disabled. Special elections, in these
contingencies, may be required by the Senate.
Acting Presidents may appoint deputies, unless the Senate object, to assume their duties until the next election.
SECTION 9. The Vice-Presidents, together with such other officials as the President may designate from time to time, may constitute
a cabinet or council; but this shall not include officials of other branches.
SECTION 10. Treaties or agreements with other nations, negotiated under the President's authority, shall be in effect unless objected
to by a majority of the Senate within ninety days. If they are objected to, the President may resubmit and the Senate reconsider. If a
majority still object, the Senate shall prevail.
SECTION 11. All officers, except those of other branches, shall be appointed and may be removed by the President. A majority of the
Senate may object to appointments within sixty days, and alternative candidates shall be offered until it agrees.
SECTION 12. The President shall notify the Planning Board and the House of Representatives, on the fourth Tuesday in June, what the
maximum allowable expenditures for the ensuing fiscal year shall be.
The President may determine to make expenditures less than provided in appropriations; but, except in declared emergency, none
shall be made in excess of appropriations. Reduction shall be because of changes in requirements and shall not be such as to impair
the integrity of budgetary procedures.
SECTION 13. There shall be a Public Custodian, appointed by the President and removable by him, who shall have charge of
properties belonging to the government, but not allocated to specific agencies, who shall administer common public services, shall
have charge of building construction and rentals, and shall have such other duties as may be designated by the President or the
designated Vice-Presidents.
SECTION 14. There shall be an Intendant responsible to the President who shall supervise Offices for Intelligence and Investigation;
also an Office of Emergency Organization with the duty of providing plans and procedures for such contingencies as can be
anticipated.
76 / 85
3/23/2015
The Intendant shall also charter nonprofit corporations (or foundations), unless the President shall object, determined by him to be for
useful public purposes. Such corporations shall be exempt from taxation but shall conduct no profitmaking enterprises.
SECTION 15. The Intendant shall also be a counselor for the coordination of scientific and cultural experiments, and for studies within
the government and elsewhere, and for this purpose shall employ such assistance as may be found necessary.
SECTION 16. Offices for other purposes may be established and may be discontinued by presidential order within the funds allocated
in the procedures of appropriation.
ARTICLE VI
The Legislative Branch
(The Senate and the House of Representatives)
A. The Senate
SECTION 1. There shall be a Senate with membership as follows: If they so desire, former Presidents, Vice-Presidents, Principal
Justices, Overseers, Chairmen of the Planning and Regulatory Boards, Governors having had more than seven years' service, and
unsuccessful candidates for the presidency and vice-presidency who have received at least 30 percent of the vote. To be appointed
by the President, three persons who have been Chancellors, two officials from the civil services, two officials from the diplomatic
services, two senior military officers, also one person from a panel of three, elected in a process approved by the Overseer, by each
of twelve such groups or associations as the President may recognize from time to time to be nationally representative, but none shall
be a political or religious group, no individual selected shall have been paid by any private interest to influence government, and any
association objected to by the Senate shall not be recognized. Similarly, to be appointed by the Principal Justice, two persons
distinguished in public law and two former members of the High Courts or the Judicial Council. Also, to be elected by the House of
Representatives, three members who have served six or more years.
Vacancies shall be filled as they occur.
SECTION 2. Membership shall continue for life, except that absences not provided for by rule shall constitute retirement, and that
Senators may retire voluntarily.
SECTION 3. The Senate shall elect as presiding officer a Convener who shall serve for two years, when his further service may be
discontinued by a majority vote. Other officers, including a Deputy, shall be appointed by the Convener unless the Senate shall object.
SECTION 4. The Senate shall meet each year on the second Tuesday in July and shall be in continuous session, but may adjourn to
the call of the Convener. A quorum shall be more than three-fifths of the whole membership.
SECTION 5. The Senate shall consider, and return within thirty days, all measures approved by the House of Representatives (except
the annual budget). Approval or disapproval shall be by a majority vote of those present. Objection shall stand unless the House of
Representatives shall overcome it by a majority vote plus one; if no return be made, approval by the House of Representatives shall be
final.
For consideration of laws passed by the House of Representatives or for other purposes, the Convener may appoint appropriate
committees.
SECTION 6. The Senate may ask advice from the Principal Justice concerning the constitutionality of measures before it; and if this
be done, the time for return to the House of Representatives may extend to ninety days.
SECTION 7. If requested, the Senate may advise the President on matters of public interest; or, if not requested, by resolution
approved by two-thirds of those present. There shall be a special duty to note expressions of concern during party conventions and
commitments made during campaigns; and if these be neglected, to remind the President and the House of Representatives that
these undertakings are to be considered.
SECTION 8. In time of present or prospective danger caused by cataclysm, by attack, or by insurrection, the Senate may declare a
national emergency and may authorize the President to take appropriate action. If the Senate be dispersed, and no quorum available,
the President may proclaim the emergency, and may terminate it unless the Senate shall have acted. If the President be not available,
and the circumstances extreme, the senior serving member of the presidential succession may act until a quorum assembles.
SECTION 9. The Senate may also define and declare a limited emergency in time of prospective danger, or of local or regional
disaster, or if an extraordinary advantage be anticipated. It shall be considered by the House of Representatives within three days
and, unless disapproved, may extend for a designated period and for a limited area before renewal.
Extraordinary expenditures during emergency may be approved, without regard to usual budget procedures, by the House of
Representatives with the concurrence of the President.
SECTION 10. The Senate, at the beginning of each session, shall select three of its members to constitute a National Security
Committee to be consulted by the President in emergencies requiring the deployment of the armed forces abroad. If the Committee
dissent from the President's proposal, it shall report to the Senate, whose decision shall be final.
SECTION 11. The Senate shall elect, or may remove, a National Watchkeeper, and shall oversee, through a standing committee, a
Watchkeeping Service conducted according to rules formulated for their approval.
77 / 85
3/23/2015
With the assistance of an appropriate staff the Watchkeeper shall gather and organize information concerning the adequacy,
competence, and integrity of governmental agencies and their personnel, as well as their continued usefulness; and shall also suggest
the need for new or expanded services, making report concerning any agency of the deleterious effect of its activities on citizens or on
the environment.
The Watchkeeper shall entertain petitions for the redress of grievances and shall advise the appropriate agencies if there be need for
action.
For all these purposes, personnel may be appointed, investigations made, witnesses examined, postaudits made, and information
required.
The Convener shall present the Watchkeeper's findings to the Senate, and if it be judged to be in the public interest, they shall be
made public or, without being made public, be sent to the appropriate agency for its guidance and such action as may be needed. On
recommendation of the Watchkeeper the Senate may initiate corrective measures to be voted on by the House of Representatives
within thirty days. When approved by a majority and not vetoed by the President, they shall become law.
For the Watchkeeping Service one-quarter of one percent of individual net taxable incomes shall be held by the Chancellor of
Financial Affairs; but amounts not expended in any fiscal year shall be available for general use.
B. The House of Representatives
SECTION 1. The House of Representatives shall be the original lawmaking body of the Newstates of America.
SECTION 2. It shall convene each year on the second Tuesday in July and shall remain in continuous session except that it may
adjourn to the call of a Speaker, elected by majority vote from among the Representatives-at-large, who shall be its presiding officer.
SECTION 3. It shall be a duty to implement the provisions of this constitution and, in legislating, to be guided by them.
SECTION 4. Party leaders and their deputies shall be chosen by caucus at the beginning of each session.
SECTION 5. Standing and temporary committees shall be selected as follows:
Committees dealing with the calendaring and management of bills shall have a majority of members nominated to party caucuses by
the Speaker; other members shall be nominated by minority leaders. Membership shall correspond to the parties' proportions at the
last election. If nominations be not approved by a majority of the caucus, the Speaker or the minority leaders shall nominate others
until a majority shall approve.
Members of other committees shall be chosen by party caucus in proportion to the results of the last election. Chairmen shall be
elected annually from among at-large members.
Bills referred to committees shall be returned to the house with recommendations within sixty days unless extension be voted by the
House.
In all committee actions names of those voting for and against shall be recorded.
No committee chairman may serve longer than six years.
SECTION 6. Approved legislation, not objected to by the Senate within the alloted time, shall be presented to the President for his
approval or disapproval. If the President disapprove, and three-quarters of the House membership still approve, it shall become law.
The names of those voting for and against shall be recorded. Bills not returned within eleven days shall become law.
SECTION 7. The President may have thirty days to consider measures approved by the House unless they shall have been submitted
twelve days previous to adjournment.
SECTION 8. The House shall consider promptly the annual budget; if there be objection, it shall be notified to the Planning Board; the
Board shall then resubmit through the President; and, with his comments, it shall be returned to the House. If there still be objection by
a two-thirds majority, the House shall prevail. Objection must be by whole title; titles not objected to when voted on shall constitute
appropriation.
The budget for the fiscal year shall be in effect on January 1. Titles not yet acted on shall be as in the former budget until action be
completed.
SECTION 9. It shall be the duty of the House to make laws concerning taxes.
1. For their laying and collection:
a. They shall be uniform, and shall not be retroactive.
b. Except such as may be authorized by law to be laid by Authorities, or by the Newstates, all collections shall be made by a national
revenue agency. This shall include collections for trust funds hereinafter authorized.
c. Except for corporate levies to be held in the National Sharing Fund, hereinafter authorized, taxes may be collected only from
individuals and only from incomes; but there may be withholding from current incomes.
d. To assist in the maintenance of economic stability, the President may be authorized to alter rates by executive order.
78 / 85
3/23/2015
e. They shall be imposed on profitmaking enterprises owned or conducted by religious establishments or other nonprofit
organizations.
f. There shall be none on food, medicines, residential rentals, or commodities or services designated by law as necessities; and there
shall be no double taxation.
g. None shall be levied for registering ownership or transfer of property.
2. For expenditures from revenues:
a. For the purposes detailed in the annual budget unless objection be made by the procedure prescribed herein.
b. For such other purposes as the House may indicate and require the Planning Branch to include in revisions of the budget; but,
except in declared emergency, the total may not exceed the President's estimate of available funds.
3. For fixing the percentage of net corporate taxable incomes to be paid into a National Sharing Fund to be held in the custody of the
Chancellor of Financial Affairs and made available for such welfare and environmental purposes as are authorized by law.
4. To provide for the regulation of commerce with other nations and among the Newstates, Possessions, Territories; or, as shall be
mutually agreed, with other organized governments; but exports shall not be taxed; and imports shall not be taxed except on
recommendation of the President at rates whose allowable variation shall have been fixed bylaw. There shall be no quotas, and no
nations favored by special rates, unless by special acts requiring two-thirds majorities.
5. To establish, or provide for the establishment of, institutuions for the safekeeping of savings, for the gathering and distribution of
capital, for the issuance of credit, for regulating the coinage of money, for controlling them edia of exchange, and for stabilizing prices;
but such institutions, when not public or semipublic, shall be regarded as affected with the public interest and shall be supervised by
the Chancellor of Financial Affairs.
6. To establish institutions for insurance against risks and liabilities, or to provide suitable agencies for the regulation of such as are
not public.
7. To ensure the maintenance, by ownership or regulation, of facilities for communication, transportation, and others commonly used
and necessary for public convenience.
8. To assist in the maintenance of world order, and, for this purpose, when the President shall recommend, to vest jurisdiction in
international legislative, judicial, or administrative agencies.
9. To develop with other peoples, and for the benefit of all, the resources of space, of other bodies in the universe, and of the seas
beyond twelve miles from low-water shores unless treaties shall provide other limits.
10. To assist other peoples who have not attained satisfactory levels of well-being; to delegate the administration of funds for
assistance, whenever possible, to international agencies; and to invest in or contribute to the furthering of development in other parts
of the world.
11. To assure, or to assist in assuring, adequate and equal facilities for education; for training in occupations citizens may be fitted to
pursue; and to reeducate or retrain those whose occupations may become obsolete.
12. To establish or to assist institutions devoted to higher education, to research, or to technical training.
13. To establish and maintain, or assist in maintaining, libraries, archives, monuments, and other places of historic interest.
14. To assist in the advancement of sciences and technologies; and to encourage cultural activities.
15. To conserve natural resources by purchase, by withdrawal from use, or by regulation; to provide, or to assist in providing, facilities
for recreation; to establish and maintain parks, forests, wilderness areas, wetlands, and prairies; to improve streams and other
waters; to ensure the purity of air and water; to control the erosion of soils; and to provide for all else necessary for the protection and
common use of the national heritage.
16. To acquire property and improvements for public use at costs to be fixed, if necessary, by the Court of Claims.
17. To prevent the stoppage or hindrance of governmental procedures, or of other activities affected with a public interest as defined
by law, by reason of disputes between employers and employees, or for other reasons, and for this purpose to provide for conclusive
arbitration if adquate provision for collective bargaining fail. From such finding there may be appeal to the Court of Arbitration Review;
but such proceedings may not stay the acceptance of findings.
18. To support an adequate civil service for the performance of such duties as may be designated by administrators; and for this
purpose to refrain from interference with the processes of appointment or placement, asking advice or testimony before committees
only with the consent of appropriate superiors.
19. To provide for the maintenance of armed forces.
20. To enact such measures as will assist families in making adjustment to future conditions, using estimates concerning population
and resources made by the Planning Board.
21. To vote within ninety days on such measures as the President may designate as urgent.
79 / 85
3/23/2015
Go back
to the homepage for
Send a message
to
Col. Roberts.
80 / 85
Proposed Newstates Constitution - Conclusion
3/23/2015
http://www.webaccess.net/%7Ecomminc/Constitution_2.html
Go
FEB APR MAY
39 captures
21 F eb 99 - 8 A pr 05
2003 2005 2006
Close
Help

Part 11
A Proposed Constitutional Model for the Newstates of America (conclusion)
A CONSTITUTION FOR THE NEWSTATES OF AMERICA, from the book, THE EMERGING CONSTITUTION, by Rexford
G. Tugwell, published 1974 (Harper & Row: $20.00) illustrates with chilling clarity the final objective of regional governance
conspirators. The goal is a corporate state concentrating economic, political and social powers in the hands of a ruling
elite.
Reprinted with permission, EMERGING STRUGGLE FOR STATE SOVEREIGNTY (1979) by Archibald E. Roberts, LtCol,
AUS ret, pages 258-275. OUT OF PRINT
ARTICLE VII
The Regulatory Branch
SECTION 1. There shall be a Regulatory Branch, and there shall be a National Regulator chosen by majority vote of the Senate and
remoable by a two-thirds vote of that body. His term shall be seven years, and he shall preside over a National Regulatory Board.
Together they shall make and administer rules for the conduct of all economic enterprises.
The Regulatory Branch shall have such agencies as the Board may find necessary and are not disapproved by law.
SECTION 2. The Regulatory Board shall consist of seventeen members recommended to the Senate by the Regulator. Unless
rejected by majority vote they shall act with the Regulator as a lawmaking body for industry.
They shall initially have terms of one or seventeen years, one being replaced each year and serving for seventeen years. They shall be
compensated and shall have no other occupation.
SECTION 3. Under procedures approved by the board, the Regulator shall charter all corporations or enterprises except those
exempted because of sixe or other characteristics, or those supervised by the Chancellor of Financial Affairs, or by the Intendant, or
those whose activities are confined to one Newstate.
Charters shall describe proposed activities, and departure from these shall require amendment on penalty of revocation. For this
purpose there shall be investigation and enforcement services under the direction of the Regulator.
SECTION 4. Chartered enterprises in similar industries or occupations may organize joint Authorities. These may formulate among
themselves codes to ensure fair competition, meet external costs, set standards for quality and service, expand trade, increase
production, eliminate waste, and assist in standardization. Authorities may maintain for common use services for research and
communcation; but membership shall be open to all eligible enterprises. Nonmembers shall be required to maintain the same
standards at those prescribed for members.
SECTION 5. Authorities shall have governing committees of five, two being appointed by the Regulator to represent the public. they
shall serve as he may determine; they shall be compensated; and he shall take care that there be no conflicts of interest. The Board
may approve or prescribe rules for the distribution of profits to stockholders, allowable amounts of working capital, and reserves.
Costing and all other practices affecting the public interest shall be monitored.
All codes shall be subject to review by the Regulator with his Board.
SECTION 6. Member enterprises of an Authority shall be exempt from other regulation.
SECTION 7. The Regulator, with his Board, shall fix standards and procedures for mergers of enterprises or the acquisition of some
by others; and these shall be in effect unless rejected by the Court of Administrative Settlements. The purpose shall be to encourage
adaptation to change and to further approved intentions for the nation.
SECTION 8. The charters of enterprises may be revoked and Authorities may be dissolved by the Regulator, with the concurrence of
the Board, if they restrict the production of goods and services, or controls of their prices; also if external costs are not assessed to
their originators or if the ecological impacts of their operations are deleterious.
SECTION 9. Operations extending abroad shall conform to policies notified to the Regulator by the President; and he shall restrict or
control such activities as appear to injure the national interest.
81 / 85
3/23/2015
SECTION 10. The Regulator shall make rules for and shall supervise marketplaces for goods and services; but this shall not include
security exchanges regulated by the Chancellor of Financial Affairs.
SECTION 11. Designation of enterprises affected with a public interest, rules for conduct of enterprises and of their Authorities, and
other actions of the Regulator or of the Board may be appealed to the Court of Administrative Settlements, whose judgments shall be
informed by the intention to establish fairness to consumer and competitors and stability in economic affairs.
SECTION 12. Responsible also to the Regulator, there shall be an Operations Commission appointed by the Regulator, unless the
Senate object, for the supervision of enterprises owned in whole or in part by government. The commission shall choose its chairman,
and he shall be the executive head of a supervisory staff. He may require reports, conduct investigations, and make rules and
recommendations concerning surpluses or deficits, the absorption of external costs, standards of service, and rates or oprices
charged for services or goods.
Each enterprise shall have a director, chosen and removable by the Commission; and he shall conduct its affairs in accordance with
standards fixed by the Commission.
ARTICLE VIII
The Judicial Branch
SECTION 1. There shall be a Principal Justice of the Newstates of America; a Judicial Council; and a Judicial Assembly. There shall
also be a Supreme Court and a High Court of Appeals; also Courts of Claims, Rights and Duties, Administrative Review, Arbitration
Settlements, Tax Appeals, and Appeals from Watchkeeper's Findings. There shall be Circuit Courts to be of first resort in suits
brought under national law; and they shall hear appeals from courts of the Newstates.
Other courts may be established by law on recommendation of the Principal Justice with the Judicial Council.
SECTION 2. The Principal Justice shall preside over the judicial system, shall appoint the members of all national courts, and, unless
the Judicial Council object, shall make its rules; also, through an Administrator, supervise its operations.
SECTION 3. The Judicial Assembly shall consist of Circuit Court Judges, together with those of the High Courts of the Newstates of
America and those of the highest courts of the Newstates. It shall meet annually, or at the call of the Principal Justice, to consider the
state of the Judiciary and such other matters as may be laid before it.
It shall also meet at the call of the Convener to nominate three candidates for the Principal Justiceship whenever a vacancy shall
occur. From these nominees the Senate shall choose the one having the most votes.
SECTION 4. The Principal Justice, unless the Senate object to any, shall appoint a Judicial Council of five members to serve during
his incumbency. He shall designate a senior member who shall preside in his absence.
It shall be the duty of the Council, under the direction of the Principal Justice, to study the courts in operation, to prepare codes of
ethics to be observed by members, and to suggest changes in procedure. The Council may ask the advice of the Judicial Assembly.
It shall also be a duty of the Council, as hereinafter provided, to suggest constitutional amendments when they appear to be
necessary; and it shall also draft revisions if they shall be required. Further, it shall examine, and from time to time cause to be revised,
civil and criminal codes; these, when approved by the Judicial Assembly, shall be in effect throughout the nation.
SECTION 5. The Principal Justice shall have a term of eleven years; but if at any time the incumbent resign to be disabled from
continuing in office, as may be determined by the Senate, replacement shall be by the senior member of the Judicial Council until a
new selection be made. After six years the Assembly may provide, by a two-thirds vote, for discontinuance in office, and a successor
shall then be chosen.
SECTION 6. The Principal Justice may suspend members of any court for incapacity or violation of rules; and the separation shall be
final if a majority of the Council agree.
For each court the Principal Justice shall, from time to time, appoint a member sho shall preside.
SECTION 7. A presiding judge may decide, with the concurrence of the senior judge, that there may be pretrial proceedings, that
criminal trials shall be conducted by either investigatory or adversary proceedings, and whether there shall be a jury and what the
number of jurors shall be; but investigatory proceedings shall require a bench of three.
SECTION 8. In deciding on the concordance of statutes with the Constitution, the Supreme Court shall return to the House of
Representatives such as it cannot construe. If the House fail to make return within ninety days the Court may interpret.
SECTION 9. The Principal Justice, or the President, may grant pardons or reprieves.
SECTION 10. The High Courts shall have thirteen members; but nine members, chosen by their senior justices from time to time, shall
constitute a court. The justices on leave shall be subject to recall.
Other courts shall have nine members; but seven, chosen by their seniors, shall constitute a court.
All shall be in continuous session except for recesses approved by the Principal Justice.
SECTION 11. The Principal Justice, with the Council, may advise the Senate, when requested, concerning the appropriateness of
measures approved by the House of Representatives; and may also advise the President, when requested, on matters he may refer
82 / 85
3/23/2015
for consultation.
SECTION 12. It shall be for other branches to accept and to enforce judicial decrees.
SECTION 13. The High Court of Appeals may select applications for further consideration by the Supreme Court, of decisions
reached by other courts, including those of the Newstates. If it agree that there be a constitutional issue it may make preliminary
judgment to be reviewed without hearing, and finally, by the Supreme Court.
SECTION 14. The Supreme Court may decide:
a. Whether, in litigation coming to it on appeal, constitutional provisions have been violated or standards have not been met.
b. On the application of constitutional provisions to suits involving the Newstates.
c. Whether international law, as recognized in treaties, United Nations agreements, or arranagements with other nations, has been
ignored or violated.
d. Other causes involving the interpretation of constitutional provisions; except that in holding any branch to have exceeded its powers
the decision shall be suspended until the Judicial Council shall have determined whether, in order to avoid confrontation, procedures
for amendment of the Constitution are appropriate.
If amendatory proceedings are instituted, decision shall await the outcome.
SECTION 15. The Courts of the Newstates shall have initial jurisdiction in cases arising under their laws except those involving the
Newstate itself or those reserved for national courts by a rule of the Principal Justice with the Judicial Council.
ARTICLE IX
General Provisions
SECTION 1. Qualifications for participation in democratic procedures as a citizen, and eligibility for office, shall be subject to
repeated study and redefinition; but any change in qualification or eligibility shall become effective only if not disapproved by the
Congress.
For this purpose a permanent Citizenship and Qualifications Commission shall be constituted, four members to be appointed by the
President, three by the Convener of the Senate, three by the Speaker of the House, and three by the Principal Justice. Vacancies shall
be filled as they occur. The members shall choose a chairman; they shall have suitable assistants and accommodations; and they may
have other occupations. Recommendations of the commission shall be presented to the President and shall be transmitted to the
House of Representatives with comments. They shall have a preferred place on the calendar and, if approved, shall be in effect.
SECTION 2. Areas necessary for the uses of government may be acquired at its valuation and may be maintained as the public
interest may require. Such areas shall have self-government in matters of local concern.
SECTION 3. The President may negotiate for the acquisition of areas outside the Newstates of America, and, if the Senate approve,
may provide for their organization as Possessions or Territories.
SECTION 4. The President may make agreements with other organized peoples for a relation other than full membership in the
Newstates of America. They may become citizens and may participate in the selection of officials. They may receive assistance for
their development or from the National Sharing Fund if they conform to its requirements; and they may serve in civilian or military
services, but only as volunteers. They shall be represented in the House of Representatives by members elected at large, their number
proportional to their constituencies; but each shall have at least one; and each shall in the same way choose one permanent member
of the Senate.
SECTION 5. The President, the Vice-Presidents, and members of the legislative houses shall in all cases except treason, felony, and
breach of the peace by exempt from penalty for anything they may say while pursuing public duties; but the Judicial Council may make
restraining rules.
SECTION 6. Except as otherwise provided by this Constitution, each legislative house shall establish its requirements for
membership and may make rules for the conduct of members, including conflicts of interest, providing its own disciplines for their
infraction.
SECTION 7. No Newstate shall interfere with officials of the Newstates of America in the performance of their duties, and all shall give
full faith and credit to the Acts of other Newstates and of the Newstates of America.
SECTION 8. Public funds shall be expended only as authorized in this Constitution.
ARTICLE X
Governmental Arranagements
SECTION 1. Officers of the Newstates of America shall be those named in this Constitution, including those of the legislative houses
and others authorized by law to be appointed; they shall be compensated, and none may have other paid occupation unless they be
excepted by law; none shall occupy more than one position in government; and no gift or favor shall be accepted if in any way related
to official duty.
83 / 85
3/23/2015
No income from former employments or associations shall continue for their benefits; but their properties may be put in trust and
managed without their intervention during continuance in office. Hardships under this rule may be considered by the Court of Rights
and Duties, and exceptions may be made with due regard to the general intention.
SECTION 2. The President, the Vice-Presidents, and the Principal Justice shall have households appropriate to their duties. The
President, the Vice-President, the Principal Justice, the Chairman of the Planning Board, the Regulator, the Watchkeeper, and the
Overseer shall have salaries fixed by law and continued for life; but if they become members of the Senate, they shall have senatorial
compensation and shall conform to senatorial requirements.
Justices of the High Courts shall have no term; and their salaries shall be two-thirds that of the Principal Justice; they, and members of
the Judicial Council, unless they shall have become Senators, shall be permanent members of the Judiciary and shall be available for
assignment by the Principal Justice.
Salaries for members of the Senate shall be the same as for Justices of the High Court of Appeals.
SECTION 3. Unless otherwise provided herein, officials designated by the head of a branch as sharers in policymaking may be
appointed by him with the President's concurrence and unless the Senate shall object.
SECTION 4. There shall be administrators:
a. for executive offices and official households, appointed by authority of the President;
b. for the national courts, appointed by the Principal Justice;
c. for the Legislative Branch, selected by a committee of members from each house (chosen by the Convener and the Speaker), three
from the House of Representatives and four from the Senate.
Appropriations shall be made to them; but those for the Presidency shall not be reduced during his term unless with his consent; and
those for the Judicial Branch shall not be reduced during five years succeeding their determination, unless with the consent of the
Principal Justice.
SECTION 5. The fiscal year shall be the same as the calendar year, with new appropriations available at its beginning.
SECTION 6. There shall be an Officials' Protective Service to guard the President, the Vice-Presidents, the Principal Justice, and
other officials whose safety may be at hazard; and there shall be a Protector appointed by and responsible to a standing committee of
the Senate. Protected officials shall be guided by procedures approved by the committee.
The service, at the request of the Political Overseer, may extend its protection to candidates for office; or to other officials, if the
committee so decide.
SECTION 7. A suitable contingency fund shall be made available to the President for purposes defined by law.
SECTION 8. The Senate shall try officers of government other than legislators when such officers are impeached by a two-third vote of
the House of Representatives for conduct prejudicial to the public interest. If Presidents or Vice-Presidents are to be tried, the Senate,
as constituted, shall conduct the trial. Judgments shall not extend beyond removal from office and disqualification for holding further
office; but the convicted official shall be liable to further prosecution.
SECTION 9. Members of legislative houses may be impeached by the Judicial Council; but for trials it shall be enlarged to seventeen
by Justices of the High Courts appointed by the Principal Justice. If convicted, members shall be expelled and be ineligible for future
public office; and they shall also be liable for trial as citizens.
ARTICLE XI
Amendment
SECTION 1. It being the special duty of the Judicial Council to formulate and suggest amendments to this Constitution, it shall, from
time to time, make proposals, through the Principal Justice, to the Senate. The Senate, if it approve, and if the President agree, shall
instruct the Overseer to arrange at the next national election for submission of the amendment to the electorate. If not disapproved by
a majority, it shall become part of this Constitution. If rejected, it may be restudied and a new proposal submitted.
It shall be the purpose of the amending procedure to correct deficiencies in the Constitution, to extend it when new responsibilities
require, and to make government responsible to needs of the people, making use of advances in managerial competence and
establishing security and stability; also to preclude changes in the Constitution resulting from interpretation.
SECTION 2. When this Constitution shall have been in effect for twenty-five years the Overseer shall ask, by referendum, whether a
new Constitution shall be prepared. If a majority so decide, the Council, making use of such advice as may be available, and
consulting those who have made complaint, shall prepare a new draft for submission at the next election. If not disapproved by a
majority it shall be in effect. If disapproved it shall be redrafted and resubmitted with such changes as may be then appropriate to the
circumstances, and it shall be submitted to the voters at the following election.
If not disapproved by a majority it shall be in effect. If disapproved it shall be restudied and resubmitted.
ARTICLE XII
Transition
84 / 85
3/23/2015
SECTION 1. The President is authorized to assume such powers, make such appointments, and use such funds as are necessary to
make this Constitution effective as soon as possible after acceptance by a referendum he may initiate.
SECTION 2. Such members of the Senate as may be at once available shall convene and, if at least half, shall constitute sufficient
membership while others are being added. They shall appoint an Overseer to arrange for electoral organization and elections for the
offices of government; but the President and Vice-Presidents shall serve out their terms and then become members of the Senate. At
that time the presidency shall be constituted as provided in this Constitution.
SECTION 3. Until each indicated change in the government shall have been completed the provisions of the existing Constitution and
the organs of government shall be in effect.
SECTION 4. All operations of the national government shall cease as they are replaced by those authorized under this Constitution.
The President shall determine when replacement is complete.
The President shall cause to be constituted an appropriate commission to designate existing laws inconsistent with this Constitution,
and they shall be void; also the commission shall assist the President and the legislative houses in the formulating of such laws as
may be consistent with the Constitution and necessary to its implementation.
SECTION 5. For establishing Newstates boundaries a commission of thirteen, appointed by the President, shall make
recommendations within one year. For this purpose the members may take advice and commission studies concerning resources,
population, transportation, communication, economic and social arranagements, and such other conditions as may be significant. The
President shall transmit the commission's report to the Senate. After entertaining, if convenient, petitions for revision, the Senate shall
report whether the recommendations are satisfactory but the President shall decide whether they shall be accepted or shall be
returned for revision.
Existing states shall not be divided unless metropolitan areas extending over more than one state are to be included in one Newstate,
or unless other compelling circumstances exist; and each Newstate shall possess harmonious regional characteristics.
The Commission shall continue while the Newstates make adjustments among themselves and shall have jurisdiction in disputes
arising among them.
SECTION 6. Constitution of the Newstates shall be established as arranged by the Judicial Council and the Principal Justice.
These procedures shall be as follows: Constitutions shall be drafted by the highest courts of the Newstates. There shall then be a
convention of one hundred delegates chosen in special elections in a procedure approved by the Overseer. If the Constitution be not
rejected it shall be in effect and the government shall be constituted. If it be rejected, the Principal Justice, advised by the Judicial
Council, shall promulgate a Constitution and initiate revisions to be submitted for approval at a time he shall appoint. If it again be
rejected he shall promulgate another, taking account of objections, and it shall be in effect. A Constitution, once in effect, shall be valid
for twenty-five years as herein provided.
SECTION 7. Until Governors and legislatures of the Newstates are seated, their governments shall continue, except that the President
may appoint temporary Governors to act as executives until suceeded by those regularly elected. These Governors shall succeed to
the executive functions of the states as they become one of the Newstates of America.
SECTION 8. The indicated appointments, elections, and other arrangements shall be made with all deliberate speed.
SECTIONN 9. The first Judicial Assembly for selecting a register of candidates for the Principal Justiceship of the Newstates of
America shall be called by the incumbent Chief Justice immediately upon ratification.
SECTION 10. Newstates electing by referendum not to comply with recommendations of the Boundary Commission, as approved by
the Senate, shall have deducted from taxes collected by the Newstates of America for transmission to them a percentage equal to the
loss in efficiency from failure to comply.
Estimates shall be made by the Chancellor of Financial Affairs and approved by the President; but the deduction shall not be less than
7 percent.
SECTION 11. When this Constitution has been implemented the President may delete by proclamation appropriate parts of this
article.
Go back
to the homepage for
Send a message
to
Col. Roberts.
85 / 85

The Silent Revolution of Federal Regionalism - A Solution

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Silent Revolution of Federal Regionalism - A Solution

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Welcome to the Committee to Restore the Constitution

APR AUG NOV

2004 2005 2006

W elcome to the Committee to Restore the Constitution. . .

The United Nations War in Yugoslavia - A Solution

Part 1 COUNCIL OF STATE GOVERNMENTS

Part 2 FEDERAL REGIONALISM - A SOCIALIST AMERICA IN YOUR LIFETIME

Part 3 CHARACTERISTICS OF GOVERNMENT

Part 5AMERICA'S PLUNGE INTO SLAVERY

Part 6 THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION - CORE OF INTERLOCKING SUBVERSION IN GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS

Part 7 SUPREME COURT DECISION DESTROYS 'HOME RULE' GOVERNANCE

Welcome to the Committee to Restore the Constitution

Part 8 SPECTATORSHIP VS PARTICIPATION

Part 9 A CONSTITUTION FOR THE NEWSTATES OF AMERICA

Part 10 A PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL MODEL FOR THE NEWSTATES OF AMERICA,

Part 11 A PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL MODEL FOR THE NEWSTATES OF AMERICA - CONCLUSION

Council of State Governments

2004 2005 2006

Committee to Restore the Constitution

Power to the People?

Council of State Governments

The Fourth Speaker

Council of State Governments

Council of State Governments

Council of State Governments

MISSOURI: No! You tell me how not [to].

The Federal Regionalism Concept is unconstitutional!

Council of State Governments

"Restore, Defend, Preserve"

The Committee to Restore the Constitution.

County Resolution Rejecting Regional Government

2004 2005 2006

Committee to Restore the Constitution

County Resolution Rejecting Regional Government

APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY:

The Committee to Restore the Constitution.

A Socialist America In Your Lifetime

2004 2005 2007

Committee to Restore the Constitution

The Newstates Constitution

A Socialist America In Your Lifetime

Provincial Capitols of Regionalism

Fiscal Blackmail Through Revenue Sharing

A Socialist America In Your Lifetime

What Is the Law?

A Socialist America In Your Lifetime

The Montana Rip-off

Voter Review of Local Government

A Socialist America In Your Lifetime

Land Control Bills

A Socialist America In Your Lifetime

LEAA: A National Police Force

Citizens Become Own Executioners

A Socialist America In Your Lifetime

The Rockefeller Foundation: Core of Subversion

A Socialist America In Your Lifetime

Solution to Constitutional Subversion

The Committee to Restore the Constitution.

A Bill to Provide Enforcement of the United States Constitution

2004 2005 2007

Committee to Restore the Constitution

A Bill to Provide Enforcement of the United States Constitution

The Committee to Restore the Constitution.

FEB APR MAY