4/6 페이지 처음처음 1 2 3 4 5 6 마지막마지막
Results 7 to 8 of 12

제목: PJ#015, RAPE OF THE CONSTITUTION; DEATH OF FREEDOM, RRPP-VOL. II

  1. #7
    宇宙生命一家, 無次 Justice Future Society Institute wave's Avatar
    가입일
    2004-07-16
    게시글
    1,180
    힐링에너지
    100

    Default

    PJ 15
    CHAPTER 11
    REC #1 HATONN

    TUESDAY, MAY 29, 1990 12:07 P.M. YEAR 3 DAY 286
    BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT: CRUEL FRAUD ON

    AMERICANS
    The logical alternative to holding a second convention would be for Congress to act upon its own volition, and pass a Balanced Budget Amendment if that is what is actually intended. But Congress obviously won't tie its own spendthrift hands with such an amendment.

    So far the proposed ones are simply fraud on the American public. In fact, it is now the consensus of opinion that the BBA's proposed to date don't do anything at all to end deficit spending by the government. How can this be? Simple. It's because of five "hidden flaws".

    FLAW #1: THE BBA'S FAIL TO DEFINE KEY WORDS.

    Key words are not defined. This is important, because words such as "receipt" and "outlay" can have their entire meanings changed within the clear context of the amendment itself. How? By any act of Congress removing an item from the "official" budget and declaring it an "off-budget" item.

    FLAW #2: THE BBA'S HAVE BUILT-IN "ESCAPE CLAUSES."

    The proposed BBA's usually contain special provisions, called "escape clauses", which give Congress the ability to vote to IGNORE the provisions of the amendment. You can imagine how easy it would be, even under a "tough" BBA, to get today's big-spending Congress to vote to circumvent key provisions of the amendment in order to push through more spending bills. Instead of eliminating deficit spending, the BBA's merely formalize the process, and legitimatize its use.

    FLAW #3: THE BBA'S CONTINUE TO ALLOW BORROWING.

    Deficit spending is caused by borrowing. There will never be a balanced federal budget as long as borrowing continues to finance last year's programs and cost overruns. Since the BBA's except borrowed funds from being counted as a receipt, the maintenance of the status quo is inevitable. The borrowing, and spending, continue as usual.

    FLAW #4: THE BBA'S FAIL TO COVER "CONTRIBUTING FAC­TORS".

    All of the major factors that contribute to federal deficits -- borrowing, interest payments, monetization of foreign debt, loan agreements, etc., must be included in any budget-balancing proposal, if its stated goal of "balancing the budget" is truly to be achieved. Unfortunately, there is nothing in the proposed BBA's that would disallow foreign or domestic loan guarantee agreements, or the monetizing of foreign debts. Both are MAJOR contributors to inflation, which helps cause deficits, which necessitate borrowing, which results in interest payments, which drain revenue from circulation, which necessitates additional borrowing, and so on ad infinitum. This is already a worsening cycle.

    FLAW #5: THE BBA'S ARE BASED ON "GUESSTIMATES".

    The proposed BBA's are based chiefly on Congress' ability to predict the future and they can't even work on intelligence from the "past". In other words, a budget that is "balanced" on paper is completely Constitutional as far as the BBA is concerned -- even though that budget is based largely on long ­term projections, estimates, predictions, averages, and guesses -- statistics can be arranged to meet any need what-so-ever to suit the writer and who would ever even check it out? For instance, if revenue fails to be generated "as pre­dicted" in the budget, the resulting deficit would not be considered in violation. Therefore, the federal government could and would continue to pile up huge deficits, all the while claiming to have "balanced the budget." How convenient!

    You can see that passing a BBA would do nothing to solve the government's monetary problems. It also must become obvious that a CRC would not improve the situation -- so you must realize that this is only a cover, touted as need, for a CRC. Therefore, in conclusion, the BBA is one of the cruelest and most blatant frauds ever foisted upon the taxpayer. A Constitutional Con­vention certainly would not improve the situation.. . ..especially when your cur­rent Constitution has a safe, sane, fool-proof method for balancing the budget built right into it and we shall look at it next.

    BALANCE THE BUDGET CONSTITUTIONALLY -- AS IS!

    You can accomplish a balanced budget the same way you did the first 150 years of existence.

    Constitutional scholars have long recognized that the power of direct taxation included in the Constitution is the only legitimate, historically-proven and fully-Constitutional means with which to effect a balanced annual federal budget. This power of direct taxation for balancing the federal budget can be found by an attentive reading of Article I of the Constitution, and within the official legislative history of both America and the Constitution.

    * "Representatives and Direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included in this Union, according to their respective Numbers..."

    * "No Capitation, or other Direct Tax shall be laid unless in proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

    (Source: Article I, Section 2, Clause 3; and Article I, Section 9, Clause 4, respectively.)

    Now, do not misunderstand what I say to you. I am neither taking pro or con sides to the topic of taxation; we are speaking of "Balancing" a budget and pointing out that you already have that which you need--in the Constitution.

    How about those first 150 years? Congress was to first use tariffs to fund the needs of the nation. Then, if more money was needed, they could use excise taxes. After that, if the federal government still needed more money to fund its various projects and obligations, then Congress would send each of the State Legislatures a bill for their share of the amount of funding needed.

    The determination of how much money each state's "share" should be was based on the Census formula -- the same rule which determines the number of members each state receives in the House of Representatives. Upon receiving their "bill" from Congress, the individual state legislatures would then determine the best ways to raise the needed money from among the resi­dents of the state.

    WHAT IS GOOD ABOUT THIS? IF THE "BILLS" SENT TO THE STATE LEGISLATURES BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT STARTED GETTING EXCESSIVE, THE GOVERNORS AND PEOPLE OF EACH STATE COULD SIMPLY AND HONESTLY POINT TO THEIR OWN STATE'S DELEGATION TO CONGRESS AND CALL THEM TO ACCOUNT FOR IRRESPONSIBLE SPENDING HABITS IN CONGRESS. Then, come election time, the people of each state would vote out any big-spending Congressional representatives, and replace them with individuals who were more apt to vote "No"! on anything that even appeared to increase federal spending. In this way, excessive federal government spending was minimized, the federal budget was balanced annually, and the tax burden of each citizen was kept to a bare minimum.

    Today, however, Congress appears quite afraid to use those Constitutionally-mandated powers of direct taxation. The reasons for this are four-fold:

    #1. THEY ARE VERY APT TO UNCOVER THE FACT THAT THE INCOME TAX LAW IS UNLAWFUL, NULL AND VOID (16TH AMENDMENT) AND THEN THE FAT WOULD HIT THE FIRE AND EXPLODE.

    #2. Congress has been telling you for years that there is no way out of your present deficit crisis without a Constitutional amendment mandating a balanced federal budget--in order to get a CRC and really blast you taxpayers. Therefore, for Congress to even admit the existence of this proven method for balancing the budget, they would also have to admit they've been looking you right in the eye and lying to you all along.

    #3. Some members of Congress WANT a CRC to he convened, so limita­tions on Congressional powers can be removed, and the balance of power can shift in their favor. Having to admit the existence of a Constitutional power that eliminates deficits almost overnight would take the wind right out of the sails of those who claim to support a CRC for the purpose of eliminating those very same federal deficits.

    #4. Today's big-spending Congressional representatives do not want to impose a direct tax on the states. Why? Because they know that to do so would force them to be held accountable to the governor, legislature and citi­zenry of their own state. Instead of being able to vote indiscriminately in favor of legislation that drives federal spending higher and higher, they would have to justify every new expenditure to you the people. DON'T BE LONGER FOOLED, THE CRC IS TO IMPOSE LAWS AND CHANGE LAWS--NOT BALANCE A BUDGET OR STOP FLAG BURNING!

    Keep in mind, beloved friends, that the very ones who are pushing for a convention are the very ones directly set up by the "Cartel" who would have global control--it is not even well-hidden. Please note that you are so brainwashed that you don't even notice who the enemy actually is. You fall into the old trap of believing these global puppet masters are the good and altruistic philanthropists. Nay, and you will pay dearly with your freedom and your material goods. Look very, very carefully at that which is being foisted upon you in your inattention.

    Hatonn to clear please. Thank you.


    STOP THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION

    REC/T #4 SANANDA
    THURSDAY, MAY 31, 1990 7:15 P.M. YEAR 3 DAY 288
    I Am here Thomas, thank you for hearing me. I Am SANANDA and I come in Radiance, the light of the Father. Blessings unto thee. The Word must go forth, for the time draws near when man must make of his decisions. Where will man be? Where will he stand? Will all freedom be lost? Will the Constitution go by way of the Articles of Confederation? Will anyone notice? If the Conspirators black-out the mention of it on your controlled news pro­grams, will you even know what has taken place? Will you care?

    Oh, man will care alright...always, if history is any indication, when it is too late. Your college students protest this and that, mostly over they know not what, yet still they have of the right to do so! Oh, but that all of the energy that is spent flailing to and fro aimlessly be focused for a brief time, just long enough to leverage enough influence to STOP THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. Let freedom ring throughout the land, let the cry of the phoenix awaken man before the Great Fall. For the Call went forth throughout the land, and who would hear? Who would hear? We shall see...we shall see.

    Do you ones not think we of the higher realms could work on more pleasant and beauteous projects? But that is neither here nor there for I Am sent to do a job, and the hosts of heaven are sent with me to stretch out the hand of light to offer unto you--a starving, lost people--the way back home, to freedom and glory. We are your help, your cries have been answered, your prayers heard! Now who will accept the help openly offered? Who will be brave amidst the judgement of brother, one against another? Who will speak out when the right to such speech is in the final throws of being silenced forever?

    I come with ones from other worlds, your brothers. What thought you of my return? Did you think I would ride up in a cloud? Well I am on a wondrous magnificent space craft which you ones will perceive as a swirling silver cloud, but my brothers and I are real indeed, and soon you shall see the hosts of heaven descend and I say, "Fear not!" Your government has efforted and continues to put forth the lies concerning the brothers of other planets...it is a lie. The space beings, as you often call them, are of a much more highly evolved frequency, a finer vibration which is much more in alignment with the Father. Do you think that your God is only the God to Earth? Think you that? Think you that your God could not create other worlds in his house with many mansions? God is unlimited, unlimited. And in his great glory he has sent me with an army of light beings to assist planet Earth in the time of Great Transition. For you must know that Earth is moving into a higher, finer di­mension. Your planet is moving into a period of great cleansing and there will be tremendous upheavals, floods, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions. The brothers from the Pleiades come to help Earth man! They have been with me for a long while and I tell thee absolutely, they are the hosts of heaven sent to help you. Listen to what is being given to help you through this difficult period. Do not turn away without exploring for yourself the truth therein. Man has been lost, pained, crying unto the Father to hear...to send help. Well he has heard you and the help is here if you will but open of thy ears and hear! What possibly do you have to lose by reading what is being said? Are you so filled with fear that by reading a book you think your mind will be lost? Have you lost all sense of discernment and good judgement? Can you no longer decide for yourself what is worthy of further exploration without the minister or preacher or courtroom judge telling you not to read that? If anyone tells you not to read the Phoenix Journals, or any book, read it and you decide. There is an effort to ban the Phoenix Journals in America. Why do you suppose that is? Aren't you curious? Well get curious! And when you read what is therein, there I will be. For I Am thy Lord God, I Am SANANDA, Jesus Immanuel of old, returned to do what I long ago promised. I said that I go to prepare a place. I have done that. And now I Am returned. Come unto me beloved ones. Ask of me. Ask of God. Ask in Light. For the light which you are is crying out to be whole and free again. Do not lose both thy Con­stitutional freedoms and thy spiritual freedom, too. I implore you. Take action.

    I Am SANANDA Come home
    PJ 15
    CHAPTER 12

    REC #1 HATONN

    THURSDAY, MAY 31, 1990 10:11 A.M. YEAR 3 DAY 288

    WHO WOULD DESTROY YOUR CONSTITUTION?
    Who would want a Constitutional convention? Well, imagine a scenario: The U.S. Supreme Court declares the Gramm-Rudman "balanced budget" law un-­Constitutional. (Don't distract over the inoperability of that law thus far--this is an example.) A Constitutional crisis ensues.

    Public officials, including members of Congress, the administration, "learned" lawyers and "scholars" from think tanks conclude that the only way left to balance the budget and save your nation from economic ruin is to have a Constitutional Convention (CC).

    The Establishment media--which has reported precious little about the 16 year effort to call a "Con con"--starts beating the drums by pronouncing the views of all the "experts" who insist that a CC is needed to balance the budget and resolve this crisis. They will do this just as soon as the flag is dropped and the start gun fired. They have given you just enough to have infiltrated into your subconscious mind and it will seem very familiar when it hits the public media, let me assure you--and further, it will sound as if it is the only solution available unto you.

    The public is genuinely frightened of America's mounting deficits and national debt and is readily persuaded a CC is a must. Farfetched? Not at all. Some people wanted to utilize the celebration of the bicentennial in 1987 to turn the ideas of your Founding Fathers upside down. The Supreme Court Judges in their black robes (Black robes, brothers, is the color of Satan's justice--where are your "white" robes which indicate justice?) have all but overruled all facets of your Constitution in one way or another. They are not on the team of "you the people".

    The Supreme Court has already heard oral arguments on the Constitu­tionality of the Gramm-Rudman and wanted the splash of issuing it forth, like on the 4th of July, etc. Now, I will go through this one action so that you have an example to which to refer. I will endeavor to be brief.

    Rep. Mike Synar (D-Okla.) and 11 other congressmen had filed a lawsuit charging the automatic budget cuts mandated by Gramm-Rudman violated the rule of separation of powers outlined in the Constitution. (The Constitu­tion gives spending and revenue collecting authority solely to Congress.)

    By giving budget cutting authority to the General Accounting Office (GAO), the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget, Congress is seeking to avoid being held responsible for federal deficits.

    In February, a three-judge panel decided Gramm-Rudman was un-Con­stitutional. However, it gave convoluted reasoning for its ruling. In effect, the rationale reversed your Founding Fathers' concept of the separation of powers.

    Accounts from the oral arguments presented before the Supreme Court indicated the justices seemed to be leaning toward the opinion that Gramm-Rudman would be un-Constitutional.

    The attorney representing the case of the comptroller general (head of the GAO) before the court was Lloyd Cutler, a high-powered Washington lawyer and former counsel to President Carter. Cutler is a key member of the elite group of internationalists who want to restructure your republic into a parliamentary form of government identical to England. You, friends, are naught but a functioning part of England no matter what you thought at the time of the revolution! For the world controllers have simply come in and in the name of brotherhood and friendship have put you further behind than you were at the point of the revolution and founding of a new country.

    Rep. John LaFalce (D-N.Y.), noted that Gramm-Rudman itself installs parliamentary changes into your governmental system by giving the executive branch powers exclusively authorized to Congress under your Constitution. While it is therefore no surprise that Cutler would be defending Gramm-Rudman, he and his associates would win either way, you see. Of course "you the people" couldn't have understood all this--but now, it is urgent that you pay attention and learn to understand these things lest it become too late to act against the octopus of evil destroyers.

    If the law would be declared un-Constitutional, the Committee on the Constitutional System (CCS) could then implement its structural changes to your Constitution at a CC.

    Cutler and his colleagues in the Rockefeller-funded CCS wanted to make it easier to ratify treaties by reducing the two-thirds Senate requirement to simple majority; to force citizens to vote a straight-party line for president, vice president, senators and congressman; to allow the president to appoint members of Congress in addition to those elected; to eliminate the 22nd Amendment, which limits the president to two terms in office, among many other proposals that would erode the separation of powers.

    President Ronald Reagan said he felt so strongly about the need to balance the budget that he was "willing to risk what might happen" (now, whose side do you suppose he was really on?) at a CC--this despite the fact that he had never submitted a balanced budget to Congress while he was President. In fact, he had presided over the biggest deficits in history of any nation any­where on earth--ever!

    Perhaps Reagan viewed the CC as a perfect opportunity to repeal the 22nd Amendment, which he repeatedly said he would like to do, so he could remain in office "for the good of the nation".

    The balanced budget amendment in Congress and the Gramm-Rudman bill were used to set up a phony debate, to contrive a situation whereby the American people would be convinced that the structure of your government could not work and that a CC would be needed to remedy the situation.

    AGENTS OF CHANGE--MID-1984,

    IN FULL SWINGING BATTLE

    A powerful group of internationalists, financed in part by David Rockefeller and including on its board of directors Robert Strange McNamara, unveiled plans to change the "political structure" of the United States and make parliamentary-style amendments to the Constitution.

    The group, the Committee on the Constitutional System (CCS), revealed some of its proposals at a May 30, 1984 press conference in Washington. This is most important for background in order to understand the unfolding of events. To locate some of these named individuals you will have to refer to the section on the Rockefeller Syndicate, i.e., McNamara, etc.

    CCS set up proposals to:

    * Legally erode the separation of powers now existing in the Constitution between the executive and legislative branches of government;

    * Impose methods to remove the president from office short of impeachment;

    * Permit the president to dissolve Congress and call for new Congressional elections;

    * Facilitate treaty ratification by requiring a simple majority rather than two-thirds majority of the Senate;

    * Study possible Constitutional reforms in the area of federal and state powers and regional organization, keeping in mind "the need for regional forms of government in metropolitan areas that cross state lines";

    * Examine proposals to have U.S. taxpayers finance House and Senate elections; and

    * Delete the requirement in the Constitution that revenue-raising bills originate in the House, "since in actual practice they also originate in the Senate."
    CCS PLANS TIMELY
    CCS's plans for Constitutional reform were timely: 32 states had petitioned Congress for a Constitutional convention to ostensibly balance the budget (two later rescinded). Michigan was soon expected to become the 33rd state due to pressure from the National Taxpayers Union, and California's voters were expected to approve such a call on its November, 1984 ballot. (Can you see how very close you squeaked by?)

    That meant that on Election Day the 34th state could have approved its petition for a convention, fulfilling the Constitutional requirement that once two-thirds of the states had so acted, Congress would be forced to call the convention.

    Well financed, well organized, and boasting a long list of supporters well known in Establishment circles, CCS predicted its recommendations could "stimulate a very active and constructive national dialog" during the 1987 bicentennial of the Constitution.

    Among those listed on CCS's board of directors were: Robert McNamara, former secretary of defense; Lloyd Cutler, former counsel to President Ford and member of the Council on Foreign Relations and Trilateral Commission; C. Douglas Dillon, former treasury secretary under Presidents Kennedy and Johnson; and former Congressmen Johnathan Bingham, Richard Bolling, Robert McClory and Henry Reuss.

    Also: former Senators Nicholas Brady and J. William Fulbright; Senator Nancy Kassenbaum (R-Kan); James Sunquist and Bruce MacLaury, senior fellow and president, respectively, of the Brookings Institution; and James MacGregor Burns, author of THE POWER TO LEAD: THE CRISIS OF THE AMERICAN PRESIDENCY and enthusiast of parliamentary government and Admiralty law.

    Others who would have attended CCS's third meeting on September 9-10, 1984, but could not do so were: David Rockefeller; Elliot Richardson, former secretary of defense; Senators Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-N.Y.), Lloyd Bentsen (D-Texas), Bob Dole (R-Kan.), Pete Domenici (R-N.M.), Carl Levin (D-Mich.), Charles Mathias (R-Md.) and Claiborne Pell (D-R.I.).

    Also: Reps. Michael Barnes (D-Md.), Richard Cheney (oh, yes--same one! R- Wyo.), John Dingell (D-Mich.), Thomas Foley (D-Wash.), Lee Hamilton (D-Ind.), Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), Peter Rodino (D-N.J.), Patricia Schroeder (D-Colo.) and Jim Wright (same old boy; D-Texas).

    Rodino's interest in CCS was noteworthy because of the crucial role he would play in Congress on the Constitutional Convention/balanced budget issue. If Congress did not pass a balanced budget amendment before its expected adjournment in July (1984) it appeared inevitable--barring a serious drive by populists interested in preserving your Constitution to get states to repeal their calls to Congress--that a convention would be convened.

    "Conservatives" in Congress, particularly members of Congressional Leaders United for a Balanced Budget (CLUBB), predicted that the Republican-controlled Senate would pass a balanced budget amendment with little resistance, but that the House "liberals" would hold up actions, as they had done in 1982.

    Convention advocates predicted that Rodino, who typically voted in the big spending, pro-social welfare, left-wing mode, would use his considerable powers as chairman of the House Judiciary Committee to foil efforts of "conservatives" to force Congress to act on the balanced budget amendment because he didn't want to balance the budget.

    What seemed more likely at the time, however, was that Rodino was bottling up the amendment in committee to force the convening of a convention, a perfect opportunity for CCS and others to impose their Constitutional changes.

    At a press conference, a representative of the Populist Party's national committee asked Cutler to respond to the opinion of Americans that the problems your nation faces were not a result of an antiquated Constitution, but rather were consequences of your government, particularly Congress, acting in flagrant disobedience to the Constitution.

    Cutler answered that the Constitution was "vague" and subject to "wide interpretation" by the Supreme Court. He refused to blame the public servants (who were already serving the government and not the people). Al­though he was on record as supporting key aspects of parliamentary government in testimony before former Rep. Henry Reuss's Joint Economic Committee (now stay with me, chelas--go back and see that Ruess was on the board of CCS). Cutler then lied through his teeth, as is typical even if truth would serve better, and denied that he endorsed a parliamentary system of government and stated that "others have merely misinterpreted me". Of course published records already stated the truth of it.

    CCS's contention that inadequacies and defects in your Constitution, rather than the un-Constitutional actions and questionable motives of your public servants, were responsible for the political crises facing your nation played on the lack of understanding Americans have regarding their own Constitution. Now here, chelas, is the best point made in the entire scenario--why don't Americans know about your own wondrous and blessed Constitution?

    Mr. Dillon (B-Dir., CCS) said, "Our governmental problems do not lie with the quality of character of our elected representatives... Rather they lie with a system which promotes divisiveness and makes it difficult, if not impossible, to develop truly national policies." He contended that the division of power between the President and the Congress "makes stalemate inevitable" and "no one" can place the blame. Well, speaking of "quality of character", Wright is history and Mr. Cheney moved right on up into unlimited terrorist status.

    When one studies James Madison's notes from the debates at the 1787 Constitutional convention, the ratifications of the states, and the "Federalist Papers", a complete understanding of the intent of your Founding Fathers can be discovered. It becomes clear that the Constitution mandates a separation of powers among the legislative, executive and judicial branches of gov­ernment, and that your government is today violating that command con­stantly and more flagrantly moment by moment.

    For example, the Constitution gives lawmaking authority only to the Congress. In flagrant violation of this authorization, the executive branch routinely makes law--the President with his issuance of executive orders and agencies like the IRS through its codemaking as recorded in the "Federal Register"--and the judicial branch, through the Supreme Court's basing its decisions on public policy rather than expounding on the Founding Fathers' intent. All of these things are UNLAWFUL ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION!

    Rather than trying to get your government to practice this separation of powers mandate, CCS wants to legalize current practices and even expand on such activity, with proposals that echo the practices in countries possessing a parliamentary form of government.

    Dear one, does it begin to come clear why Sister T would discount your work? She is totally misinformed by Donald Keys of the U.N. and the United Nations has been most active of all in impacting the changing of your National Constitution toward One World Government. There have been others who brought false information regarding UFOs, etc., and she was given into the believing of it for the intent was to render both space brethren and Sananda invalid. God created your wondrous country, He would not work to tear it down; Satan works through all he can dupe to carry forth his work and none are spared in the duping--even blessed receivers in their shadow years of the nineties. As we continue to unravel this entangled web you will become more comfortable in the standing forth undaunted, albeit terribly painful during onslaught, against those who have denounced you and we of the Command. Truth shall uncover the facts of the matter and it is now to come forth in fulness. Be patient, chelas, for truth shall set ye free!

    If "reason" in truth cannot prevail then it is sad indeed. All the insulting and "warning" threats against you from ones who refuse to sign papers, etc., is all the more "proof' for the contempt felt for your work of truthful unfoldment. Just to be on Kissinger's "hit list" must tell you the truth of that which you write in our behalf. If Mr. Mullins thought it bad to be on the FBI "wipe out" list--I tell you now, Kissinger surpasses Hoover in insanity by all means of measurement. PROTECT ONE ANOTHER! IT IS TERRIFYING IN­DEED! PERHAPS EUSTACE WOULD LIKE TO START ADVISING YOU OF MOVES REGARDING THIS PROPERTY AND YOU CAN ADVISE HIM AS TO HOW TO "LOSE" YOURSELF! BARTER IS A GOOD THING!

    PACK TO THE CCS

    Among suggestions:

    * Interlocking the executive and legislative branches by allowing the President to appoint members of Congress to some or all Cabinet positions. The thinking is that this system might promote teamwork between the President and Congress and facilitate public policy consensus;

    * Creation of a joint executive-legislative council to involve congressional leaders in policymaking;

    * Linking more closely the electoral fates of candidates for President and Congress by either increasing House terms to four years with elections in presidential election years or by linking with a single vote the presidential and vice presidential candidates with House and perhaps Senate candidates;

    * Giving Congress a greater role in the presidential nominating process as well as allowing members of Congress to serve as presidential electors (does this not tell you how manipulated the system already is?).

    * (Hold your breath on this one who keeps the Holocaust and bitterness going.): A discussion of the German system wherein a significant number of legislative seats are allocated on a proportional basis to the political parties that receive more than 5 percent of the vote. CCS reasons that allocating House seats on a similar at-large basis would increase the likelihood that the political party of the president would also control the House.

    CCS DENIED THE CHARGES--HO HUM!

    Along those lines, CCS denied that it was trying to promote a parliamentary system by explaining: "In a parliamentary system, the chief executive is selected from the parliament (legislature). The U.S. tradition of a chief executive elected from the nation as a whole has worked well in general and has strong public support. It should be preserved". But what about the suggestion above?

    Contrary to this statement, CCS is nonetheless exploring such a reform just as quickly as they can determine how to force it upon the sleepy public. At a CCS meeting, J. William Fulbright, member of the board of directors, strongly supported the suggestion to change the Constitution to remove the prohibition against members of congress serving as electors to enable Congress to play a large role in electing the President.

    In response, Cutler said that he and many in CCS preferred to enhance the power of a party's congressional candidates and the holdover senators in selecting the presidential candidate of that party.

    On the question of whether CCS would try to implement its proposals at a possible Constitutional convention, the group said: "If a Constitutional convention is called for a balanced budget amendment and is opened up to broader matters. . . such carefully-researched structural amendments as the committee may produce could contribute to a constructive convention." If you aren't getting sick by now, you don't understand the situation!

    CCS "has held numerous national and regional meetings and will conduct further meetings in preparation for a tentative September, 1985 unveiling of their final plans. The committee says it wants to give Congress, the states and the national political parties enough time to study CCS's recommendations in preparation for the 1987 bicentennial," was openly stated in many widespread documents.

    PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM FEATURE

    A fundamental feature of the parliamentary system is the dissolution of the legislature, which CCS is seriously considering. This could be done by amending the Constitution to allow the President to dissolve Congress and call for new congressional elections. A President frustrated by an uncooperative Congress would find this a powerful weapon because even if not used, the simple threat of congressional dissolution would keep many members in line. Congress could also be given "compensating enhancements" along with four-year terms.

    CCS studies the possibility of removing the President from office for reasons of ineffectiveness. The only way a president can now be forced from office, aside from losing a re-election bid, is through impeachment for committing high crimes and misdemeanors. This is not apt to happen as was seen in the handling of Nixon.

    Professor Donald Robinson of Smith College, who edits CCS's "workbook", acknowledges that "the Founding Fathers restricted the removal of the President to impeachment because they wanted to keep the President im­mune from politics so laws, once made, could be administered in a non­political way.' But Robinson says this philosophy "has changed with time. . .the modern presidency cannot be a non-political office." Ah so, and you can see how new attitudes simply pervade the subtle mind acceptance of a "thing".

    CCS has also discussed the possibility of a six-year presidential term, now practiced in Mexico, which has a one-party system. Also under consideration is repeal of the Constitution's 22nd Amendment, which limits the presidency to two terms. Please read the section to follow, on the new Constitution, very carefully. Then study the comparison section for short, succinct insight.

    One proposal that the CCS panel charged with discussing budget matters was in complete agreement on was that there was no need for a Constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget. I hope your mind is somewhat confused for if it isn't--you are NOT HUMAN! This was the precise reason given why there was pushing for a Constitutional convention. The panel con­cluded that this "does not have to be in the Constitution to be achieved".

    Robert McClory, former congressman from Illinois, went on record as believing that the framers of the Constitution assumed that "of course" you would "balance the budget each year".

    The CCS panel, and particularly McClory, either did not know or did not care that the Constitution already mandates a balanced budget. Your Founding Fathers wanted to extinguish the debt each fiscal year by requiring Congress, whenever enough revenues had not been collected through imposts, excises, and duties to pay its expenditures, to apportion among the states according to their congressional representation the remaining needed taxes as I have previ­ously pointed out to you.

    This requirement--Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution--has never been repealed and Congress is still required to invoke it to balance the budget. While you slept and fiddled--America burned!

    CCS is now financed on a tax-deductible basis via contributions to the left-wing Brookings Institute (Rockefeller), which is tax exempt. Cutler said that once CCS was incorporated, it would apply for a tax exemption under Section 501(c)(3) of the IRS code. (All you good little incorporators paying attention?) It could then receive contributions and membership fees that would be tax deductible. Besides you could depend on it to never show a profit for taxable purposes.

    Detailed planning for CCS began in 1982 with contributions from the Dillon fund. Since then grants have been made by the American Express and Hewlett Foundations (Rockefeller) and by David Rockefeller.

    A ". .massive thrust would be put into action to cause the CCS to make the public understand 'why' the Constitution should be amended. It would program general education including media coverage and activity by appro­priate and selected organizations. A major lobbying effort would also be pursued to convince Congress and the states to adopt such Constitutional changes."

    Let us close this section and allow a little digestion to take place. In the next portion we shall take up the lie which claims a CC can be somehow "limited in proceedings".

    GOD COMES JUST IN TIME

    REC/T #1 SANANDA

    TUESDAY, JUNE 5, 1990 5:50 A.M. YEAR 3 DAY 293
    Blessings and peace. I Am Sananda, Jesus of old, Immanuel, it matters not the label. I come in the glorious light of the most high Father. Be at peace in these troubled times.

    Peace does not mean inaction, rather it means calm within...always you will need constructive action without.

    Your land is in great peril...so few of your people understand the dangers immediately before you that it seems all but impossible to turn of the tide. Not so, for you must remember two very important things: I am returned with the heavenly host and, All is possible WITH God. Do you think God would come too late to offer you this help, to save a glorious country founded on the principles of freedom from downfall? You will learn that God comes just in time. Hold that one very close to your hearts, but this does not mean to "kick­back" and let God or another handle of it...the course of this ship would be irreversible.

    How many of you free peoples understand your Constitution? How many of you free peoples have read your Constitution and Bill of Rights? Why not? How many of you have a passport?...better be getting one while you can. The threat of a Constitutional Convention is so great that it simply must not take place. The Controllers have laid their Plan so carefully, so diabolically, that you the people walk right into the lion's den. How could you have known when it is not projected on your controlled news programs? Of course you couldn't have known. But you know now and you had better be taking this newly acquired knowledge and converting it into some very real action to bring an end to this real threat to your freedoms.

    Why do you think they want to ban the Phoenix Journals in this country? Why do you think they want to kill Dhanna? Because what Hatonn and I, Sananda, tell you are the truth of God and they know it and they will stop at nothing to keep the lid of silence closed over you the people. Do not allow it! And the way you may not allow it is to read this material and become in­formed -- share with others -- call your elected representatives or go there, write letters, send telegrams -- they are your representatives, remember? And why is it, by not knowing your Constitutional rights, that you have overlooked the most obvious of all...that your current income tax by the Internal Revenue Service is Unconstitutional? Wake-up, wake-up, wake-up!

    The tenacity and drive for freedom that was within the Founding Fathers seems to have been lost to Monday night football and lite-beer! Well that is fine, but when the TV is off because there's no power, and all energy is spent securing food, beer won't seem that important. Besides, you won't be all that free to drink it anyway in this New State. Think carefully the path you are on...for the freedoms you are so quick to toss away may be the very ones you need the most.

    "The Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." Have you forgotten? Did you ever know? And, by the way, did you not ever wonder why your very country's flag contains within it a field of stars? Because, dear blessed ones, that is where God is, that is where I Am, and I Am come with a heavenly host from Pleiades to bring you through. Hear the Word and the Word shall set you free...but...it still requires action.

    I know that many of you are simply overwhelmed by all of this information, there's just so much! Yes, there is so much because you have slept while your country, your world, has been taken over by evil forces, as predicted for these End Times. It is true there is a great deal of information in these Journals, but you have slept for too long and it's time to play catch-up -- RAPIDLY NOW. How could you have been so stupid? How could you not have known that all of these things were taking place? Because the One World Planners are master manipulators and your news media is totally controlled...how could you have known? Well you know now and the primary point of focus now should be WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT??

    It would be wise indeed for you to use to your full advantage those freedoms you have remaining...and, and this will sound strange perhaps coming from Jesus Sananda, the right to bear arms is one, having a passport is another. There will be an all out effort to disarm you as a people, for that is a necessary first step before full control may be gleaned. Oh, most of you will willingly hand them over...after all it's to get the guns away from the dealers and criminals, right? (Then why are they going to take yours?) "The Right to Bear Arms," remember? This, and so so many other things shall be destroyed by a Constitutional Convention, for you see, once held they will do what was done the last time, only not with the foresight with your interests in mind that the Founding Fathers had. Caution, caution...your nation is on the very brink of disaster, do not allow this to happen or your freedoms will be lost. Hear my brother, Hatonn, he speaks truth. Honor those brave men and women who have dared to do the research and writing to expose the heinous things on your place. But become informed! A knowledgeable public is dangerous to the Controllers, for only you may bring an end to this tyranny before you, before it is too late.

    God pours blessings onto this land. I Am asking that you hear what is being said to you, for time is of the essence in this matter. If you want to do research and confirm this and other of the material, fine, excellent. However, the time for action is now to stop the Constitutional Convention. You are the hands and feet of God. If you do not do it, who will?

    Blessings,
    I Am Sananda In Light
    of our Father

  2. #8
    宇宙生命一家, 無次 Justice Future Society Institute wave's Avatar
    가입일
    2004-07-16
    게시글
    1,180
    힐링에너지
    100

    Default

    PJ 15
    CHAPTER 13

    REC #2 HATONN

    THURSDAY, MAY 31, 1990 2:48 P.M. YEAR 3 DAY 288

    PULLING A FAST ONE
    By August of 1985 things were heated up and the curtain of lies descending. Congress was pulling a fast one on the American people to believe it could limit the proceedings of a CC specifically to a balanced budget amendment (BBA)--especially when there was really no intent to even have a BBA.

    Two legal scholars held this viewpoint and were considered "Constitutional `experts'". They were called to testify before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights on July 31, 1985. Now mind you, they would testify before a "loaded" Subcommittee because you ceased to have any other kind long prior to 1985. These two were professors Walter Dellinger (of Duke University Law School in Durham, North Carolina) and Gerald Gunther (Stanford Law School in Palo Alto, California). Now, if this isn't a good example of mutually exclusive terms, I have never seen one--Law Professors and Constitutional Experts! Oh well, let's get on with the "stuff' pumped out to "you the public"!

    Gunther said the attitude by members of Congress that it could control and approve whatever comes out of a Constitutional Convention and dictate its agenda is due to Congress's "institutional egomania". Boy, when you have the lawyers and the politicians, you have about as bad a co-destroyer as possible. These groups could only be aided and abetted in total horror by the assistance of the Medical "Regressfession" and the Religious "quacktitioners". Onward, Dharma .

    Arguing that a "Con Con" could be limited was Dean John Feerick (Of Fordham Law School in the Bronx, New York), basing his testimony on a 1973 American Bar Association special committee report. 1973 Bar Association report? What ever happened to the obvious disaster of the revi­sion of the original Articles of Confederation? That would seem a much more likely precedent to cite.

    The testimony of both Gunther and Dellinger brought into serious question the validity of congressional legislation that purports to set guidelines for a Constitutional convention. Such a bill, entitled 'The Constitutional Convention Implementation Act of 1985" (S. 40), had been approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee. The measure, in these scholars' opinions, went beyond the purview of a single balanced budget amendment by making ref­erence to any "subject matter' discussed at a CC.

    Referring to the wording of the 32 petitions sent by the states to Congress calling for a CC, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said: "To the extent that a petition was required to be precise, either with respect to the specific amendment sought, or the specific language sought, there would be little use for the convention itself. To limit the convention to the consideration of a single, meticulously worded amendment is to make the convention a farce."

    Gunther, who has spoken and written extensively on the uncertain circumstances surrounding a CC, testified that there are no legitimate and effective means to limit a convention to a "single subject specified in advance". Regardless of what state petitions list as the subject matter for a CC and what Congress directs, he said that ultimately the convention is empowered to set its own agenda.

    "The convention delegates", he said, "will have a valid claim to consider and propose amendments on any subject of Constitutional dimension of concern to the electorate who chose them." He added that it would be "highly unlikely" Congress would question any unauthorized changes made in your Constitution in the ratification process.

    'PRIMARY' ROLE?
    Feerick, who participated in the 1971 commission set up by the ABA, argued that Article V of the Constitution delegates to Congress a "primary role" in deciding whether or not to ratify whatever emerges from a CC.

    Actually, Article V's wording says that amendments approved by a CC need only be approved by three-fourths of the State legislatures or state conventions, and that Congress is only empowered to select the mode of ratification: by state convention or state legislature. It says nothing about Congress giving its own stamp of approval or rejection notice during the ratification process.

    WELL, BUT WHO IS OUT TO WRECK

    THE CONSTITUTION?

    You still must go back at least as far as 1984 to get the picture and then see how facts balance against information we have already given you and shall yet give you. It goes farther back than this, but we are not giving you the entire history at this point--just the urgent information.

    It became increasingly evidenced that the drive for a CC was not simply an effort by "conservatives" who wanted to "balance the budget" but was instead a covert attempt to destroy the U.S. Constitution and replace it with a Soviet or British parliamentary-style constitution with total top-end control.

    Thirty-two states had petitioned Congress to call for a Constitutional Convention, in 1984, for the purpose of passing a balanced budget/tax limitation amendment. Michigan's state Senate had approved the petition to Congress and enough signatures had been collected to place the convention issue on the ballot in California in that November.

    If Michigan, or any of the remaining 17 states, passed its convention petition, thus becoming the 33rd state to do so, and no other state followed suit, then California would be the 34th state to call for a convention. This would then fulfill the Constitutional requirement that two-thirds of the states must file petitions to force Congress to call the convention. Now here is an interesting note; if California voters OK'd the petition for a convention, the state Legislature would be forced to pass the measure or suffer loss in salary. The California referendum initiative would get a lot of publicity, but would misrepresent the actual grass-roots support for a CC.

    Some of the state legislatures that passed petitions to Congress for a convention did not even hold public hearings. Exact figures are difficult to obtain. The NTU, the group spearheading the move for a CC for the previous decade, claimed to not have accurate records as to when states held hearings, debate and recorded votes on the issue.

    According to David Keating, who handled the balanced budget amendment for NTU, "at least 20 public hearings were held" and some states passed the petitions by voice vote. "A voice vote just means it was passed unanimously", he said. Now you know how it goes, a little old AHO and you can sweep out your entire Constitution if nobody objects, dear ones.

    Since 32 states had petitioned Congress, and only 20 public hearings were even discussed as to having been held then isn't there still something wrong under the worst of circumstances? That would mean that a minimum of 12 states had never had any kind of hearing or vote, oral or otherwise. That number was obviously higher since some states could have held more than one hearing and if they paid attention at all, would have had many. However, an "exact figure" was not available, according to the NTU, because "the states haven't kept very good records". Why don't you ones try that "good reason" with the IRS!

    BRING INTO THE OPEN

    Proponents of a Constitutional convention, notably Rep. Larry Craig (R-Idaho), leader of Congressional Leaders United for a Balanced Budget (CLUBB), defended their position by pointing out how polls indicated that 70-80 percent of Americans wanted Congress to balance the budget. But do those same Americans also want a Constitutional convention? One does not necessarily represent the other, it would appear to me.

    Not only were the Americans not polled, but more than likely 70-80 percent of Americans were not even aware that within mere months Congress would be calling for the convening of a CC and if they were aware, they certainly would have no way of knowing what it was about.

    If the move for a convention was a legitimate effort by "conservatives" to balance the budget, why wouldn't your President Reagan make a nationwide address to discuss the fact that a convention was imminent? Well, for one thing he would have to point out that the IRS and tax-system is unlawful and un-Constitutional and the people would know the blinding truth of their total robbery at the hands of an unlawful and unconstitutional government of force-mongers in what has become a police-state. You see, it is intended to slip the necessary documentation and amendments through the convention to cover those little presently unlawful matters and you the public would never notice. Do you not think the budget might get really unbalanced if the American people really KNOW THE TRUTH?

    Why wasn't this issue being openly discussed and debated in the national media if there was no under-handed motive? Why do so few, aside from certain Washington circles and nationwide patriotic groups, even know about such a convention? Well, same answer!

    If there were nothing to hide, why did NTU Treasurer William Bonner admit he wished former California Governor Jerry Brown had not publicized his support for the convention?

    "There is no point in heating things up," said Bonner. "When Brown announced, we had to go more public. It would have been better to let a sleeping dog lie." And that is still the attitude--believe me!

    When NTU founder Jim Davidson was asked whether a convention could be restricted to just the balanced budget issue, he answered that it could but didn't want to explain how to end deficit spending: "Let's get the Con­stitutional restriction and then let's argue later about what programs get cut or what taxes get raised."

    Other points brought out by Gunther:

    * An examination of the text, history and structure of Article V indicates that the CC was to be a genuinely deliberative body with considerable autonomy, entitled to consider all major Constitutional issues of concern to the nation at the time of delegate selection, and not controllable by the applying states or Congress;

    * Congress is given the responsibilities to call a convention when 34 states have applied for one and to "set up housekeeping details regarding the receipt of applications and the convening of the convention", and to choose the mode of ratification.

    Dellinger said: "Virtually everyone (supporters as well as opponents of holding a convention) now concedes that it would be either impractical or un-Constitutional to limit the convention as the state legislative petitions specify." As examples he named the Senate Judiciary Committee and the National Taxpayers Union, which for the 10 years had publicly been the main force behind the CC effort.

    Dellinger also noted:

    * The framers of Article V of the existing U.S. Constitution clearly intended that the CC was to be "free of the control of existing governmental institutions", whether the state legislatures or Congress.

    * All of the 32 state CC calls would be invalid under S.40 because the applications refer specifically to a balanced budget amendment, while the Hatch bill refers to broader subject matter.

    * Six state applications say their calls are to be null and void if a CC extends beyond the subject of a balanced budget amendment.

    CHANGING THEIR TUNE

    Dellinger said state legislatures that have passed CC petitions were assured by lobbying groups, including the National Taxpayers Union and the National Tax Limitation Committee, that a CC could be limited to a balanced budget amendment. But "now that the last two states are within sight", he said, these groups "are changing their story. What happened to assurances that were given to the state legislatures back in 1979 that a convention could consider, only the amendment contained in the state legislative proposal?"

    Feerick argued that a CC can be limited. However, the American Bar Association report states: "While we believe that Congress has the power to establish standards for making available to the states a limited convention when they petition for that type of convention, we consider it essential that implementing legislation not preclude the states from applying for a general convention.

    "Legislation that did so would be of questionable validity since neither the language nor history of Article V reveals an intention to prohibit another general convention.'

    A state application would not be "proper", Feerick said, if it called for a CC for the purposes of voting on a specific amendment since a CC "should have latitude to amend, as Congress does, by evaluating and dealing with a problem".

    Feerick's testimony came from the 1973 study and he seemed to lack any update on the issue. It had been since that time that the 32 state petitions were filed with Congress. Feerick said he was not familiar with the wording of the petitions.

    SERIOUS SUBJECT

    Although Rep. Don Edwards (D-Calif.) was the subcommittee chairman, he was only present for a short period; Rep. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) sat in as acting chairman. Subcommittee members acknowledged the seriousness of the subject. Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.) called the CC "the most important piece of legislation this subcommittee and Congress will confront this year'.

    Schumer said he "might sleep better at night" if he were as confident as some that a CC could he limited to a single subject. Rep. Robert Kastenmeier (D­-Wis.) argued that "to empower a new arm of government (The Con Con 'CC') with unlimited power to rewrite the Constitution is a threatening matter".

    Gunther said he became interested in this issue when he heard former California Gov. Jerry Brown endorse a CC after passage of a tax limitation amendment in his state. Furthermore, Jerry Brown is up to and over his eyes into this monster, dear Californians. He is also back into the political progression mode of operation. Gunther recalled that Brown gave assurances that he had checked with "every Constitutional scholar in California" and had been repeatedly told that, without doubt, a CC could be limited to a single subject--so much for scholars and experts!

    But Gunther discovered Brown had not been so thorough (now would he lie to you?) and that his guarantee of a limited CC was based on one single little memo giving split opinions on the question!

    On the issue of the time limitation on the validity of the state petitions, Gunther said seven years is a "universally recognized principle" and chided Hatch's bill for including a "grandfather clause" allowing seven years from the date of passage of a state petition "plus whatever it takes to get the last petitions passed". He said most of the states passing CC calls "acted in igno­rance". And so, what else is new?

    Schumer said the subcommittee would hold at least one additional hearing on the subject before it would take any action.

    NULL AND VOID!

    Dellinger said he asked National Taxpayer Union Chairman (of course you heard of this--in the Rockefeller Syndicate material--and you thought it was a Union working in your behalf?!?---sic sic) Jim Davidson if a CC would be limited to one issue and he said "no". The petition of the state of Idaho, Dellinger noted, indicated it was "not completely assured by the snake oil salesmen who lobbied them". He cited the specific wording of the call to Congress that it wanted a CC for the "specific and exclusive purpose of a balanced budget amendment".

    The petition says that the call is null and void if the CC goes beyond that.

    Six states have such "null and void" provisions in them: Colorado, Delaware, Louisiana, Idaho, North Carolina and Utah. However, this language, which Dellinger said was crystal clear, is discounted by a libertarian-laissez-faire think tank, the Cato Institute (ouch!), which argues that such language is "surplus-age" that "must be disregarded", whatever that might mean!

    Davidson, in an interview revealed he was sympathetic to the libertarian view, and numerous individuals associated with the National Taxpayers Union have agreed with libertarian and/or anarchistic ideology.

    Feerick said that many state constitutional conventions have been held and that he was "not aware that they had any problems". However, it was revealed that New Hampshire held a CC in 1983 wherein all the major committees and CC business were controlled by lawyers, judges and members of the state Legislature.

    The American Bar Association argued that it would be desirable to include in implementing legislation a "limited judicial review of congressional determina­tions made in the convention process". This was criticized by Gunther, who argued that this judicial review would be conducted by the Supreme Court, part of the national government which would be contrary to the intent of the framers of the U.S. Constitution: "It would be an example of another branch of government squelching actions of the states."

    Dellinger said the ABA report was inconsistent with Article V and that the idea of Congress's passing judgment on the product of a CC "trivializes" the framers' intent and is "fundamentally inconsistent with the purpose of having a Constitutional convention."

    Dellinger and Gunther basically concurred with each other. But they differed on the validity of state applications to Congress for a CC. While Dellinger said petitions that stated they would be null and void should a CC go beyond a specific amendment would be invalid, Gunther said they would still be valid because the CC itself would be empowered to do what it wants.

    Dellinger said 1979 marked the first public hearings at all on the issue.

    Gunther estimated that more than 20 of the 32 applications before Congress were adopted in 1978 (oops) or earlier. This means that at the most 12 of the 32 petitions to Congress were passed with any public hearings.

    According to Gunther, no states passing petitions to Congress calling for a CC prior to 1979 held any public hearings. These states were: Alabama, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Maryland, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and Wyoming. In these states, dear friends--how many of you citizens even heard of such a thing?

    Arizona, Louisiana and Nevada, according to the NTU, passed CC resolutions again in 1979 and it is possible that no hearings were held at that time either. Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, New Hampshire, North Carolina, South Dakota and Utah were listed as passing CC calls in 1979. Information on whether public hearings were held in those states seemed to remain mys­teriously missing. How many of you citizens want to own up to attendance? Voting'? Are you citizens or not?

    Gunther called the Hatch bill a "badly flawed product of 10 to 12 years' off­ and-on attention". In discussions during Senate Judiciary Committee meetings, all committee members have acted and spoken as if they had unquestioned authority to dictate what a CC can do and to approve or reject proposals decided on by a CC.

    The hearing testimony would, however, apparently not affect Rep. Larry Craig's (R-Idaho) efforts for a Constitutional convention on the issue of a balanced budget. Craig was the head of Congressional Leaders United for a Balanced Budget. Although Craig had been assuring constituents critical of his pro-CC position that the fear of a runaway convention was a "smokescreen", the congressman's administrative assistant said the testimony that a CC cannot be limited was not new information!

    "I don't want a convention", the spokesman said publicly, "and I don't think we're ever going to have one. However, something like 'The Newstates Constitution of America' would never make it through the ratification process, nor would a parliamentary form of government." And if you readers believe this, let us just close down the efforts right now. The actions from the in-Justice system and political system as a whole already utilizes the methods and control allotted in the New Constitution--AND NONE OF YOU EVEN TRIED TO STOP THEM! IF YOU DON'T DO SOMETHING NOW, IT WILL SIMPLY FALL INTO ACCEPTANCE BY DEFAULT AND THAT WILL BE THAT! WORSE, THE CONGRESS IS CONTROLLED BY FOREIGN LOBBY AND THEREFORE, PARLIAMENTARIAN GOV­ERNMENT IS ALREADY A FACT AND IS MORE HEINOUS BECAUSE THE ZIONISTS CONTROL OVER 60 PERCENT OF YOUR CONGRESS.

    Does the congressman's aide believe, as does the ABA spokesman, that Article V says Congress has a primary role in deciding whether to choose to ratify whatever comes out of a CC? "In explicit terms, Article V doesn't say that," said Craig's staff member. "That would depend on what the convening legislation [Hatch's implementation bill] says."

    The NTU, which was accused by Gunther and Dellinger of being "snake oil salesmen" deceiving state legislatures into believing that there is no danger of a runaway CC, was reluctant to comment on the hearing. Of course, dear one, the conspirators all play the elusive game of hide and seek, show and lie in order to get you ones to give them exactly what they wanted in the first place. That is why you must know WHO is behind the organizations in order to realize the intended goal. The National Taxpayers Union is not for the citizen taxpayer in any remote sense of the definition of the word.

    Adrienne Cordova, NTU director of public affairs at that time, said no one from the group attended the hearing due to a schedule conflict, this despite the fact that the NTU publicly has been the group in the forefront of pushing for CC for the previous decade. Miss Cordova said she did not feel comfortable about responding to the charges against NTU until she read the testimony herself. She acknowledged that there was a conflict of opinion among legal scholars on the issue of whether or not a CC could be limited.

    However, the NTU flatly stated in its literature over the years that a CC could be limited and that any talk of a runaway convention was a smokescreen used by those opposed to a balanced budget.

    The NTU was not the only proponent of a CC that missed the hearing. Now isn't this interesting? No member from Craig's staff attended. The Washington Times, which editorialized extensively over the past years in favor of a balanced budget amendment and a CC, had a reporter at the hearing but failed to report on it in the newspaper.

    According to Times reporter Tom Brandt: "We didn't have time to produce a story on the hearing. There was a time and space crunch. Besides, it was not a pivotal hearing". But the Times did run an article the following day about a seminar by the Cato Institute, supporting a CC.

    BILL PROVISIONS

    Hatch's bill, cosponsored by Senators. Dennis DeConcini (D-Ariz.) and Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.), provides:

    * Within 45 days after Congress decides that a sufficient number of valid petitions to call a CC have been sent by the states, Congress must pass a concurrent resolution calling for such a convention. This resolution will set the time and place of the meeting and indicate the "subject matter of the amendment or amendments" for consideration.

    * Delegates will be elected in the manner of Congress's rep­resentation: two at large from each state and one from each congressional district. Members of Congress and those "holding an office of trust or profit under the United States" will not be permitted to be delegates. Delegates will "in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest' and "shall not be questioned in any other place" on anything said at the CC.

    * The President of the Senate and the speaker of the House (in 1984, George Bush and Tip O'Neill, respectively) will convene the CC and preside until delegates elect an officer.

    * Delegates will take an oath to "comply with" the Constitution.

    * Delegates will get paid a salary equal to that of members of Congress, as well as any travel expenses--from the U.S. treasury. If such sums are not available, the costs will be "apportioned" among the states.

    * Procedurally, each delegate has one vote. Minutes will be kept (in the tradition of James Madison's notes on the 1787 convention), and the CC will meet for no longer than six months unless Congress passes a resolution extending that time.

    * No amendments may be proposed other than the "subject matter" stated in Congress's concurrent resolution calling the CC.

    * Upon notification of the CC's actions, Congress must within six months decide, as provided by Article V, what mode of ratification it prefers, or reject the CC's proposals. If Congress refuses to facilitate the ratification process and the states believe the CC's proposals are consistent with Congress's original orders, the states can file a lawsuit.

    * Proposed amendments become law upon ratification of three-fourths of the states and any state can rescind its ratification up until that time.

    Let us leave this for a rest please. We can continue on this topic at our next sitting as I do not like to cause the chapters to be greater than this in length.

    THE SPIRITUAL WAR

    REC/T #2 SANANDA

    WEDNESDAY, MAY 30, 1990 4:00 P.M. YEAR 3 DAY 287
    Let us continue please. I Am Sananda and I come in the golden radiance. I have come to feed a starving world the food which will nourish all men back unto health and strength. So be it. So lost is man that he sees not, nor does he hear...he moves about his daily life in arrogance and avarice...never giving thought to other than the satisfying of the basest of needs. Did not the Father tell you it would be thusly? Indeed so, and it shall get much, much worse...so bad will it get that the ugliness of man's thoughts will be worn like a death shroud for all to see...still they will deny and turn from me. Oh poor, poor of spirit man, how I have wept for thee! Yet it now is the time to dry of the tears and roll up of thy sleeves and get to the business before thee of putting to right that which has been spoiled.

    In every quarter the sword shall strike, to the very bone of evil, for it shall be a war, a war beyond all others. I speak not of a literal war, though that will manifest also, for it must come to pass as collective man wills it...I speak here of the spiritual war between myself and the one Cast Down -- for his army has all but overrun the planet in every quarter and if it were not true that all is possible within God, then surely the battle would already be lost. Hold firmly in knowledge that God is All and All is possible within his Being, for he works in ways which are complex beyond description, yet simplicity itself in the sheer beauty of outcome. Oh man, oh man I beg of thee to hear these words being offered by my brothers who come to assist you -- take the hand I have outstretched, let me lead the way, for I have walked the path and I know well the pitfalls. Come to Father in petition, for he hears All, knows All! What have you to lose? Your pride? Pride goeth before the fall, and the fall this time will be the fall for a very long time in your soul counting -- hold firmly to the Light which I Am and ask for guidance, for surely you will be shown the way. The path ahead is dark indeed, yea even black, yet the tiniest spark lights of the way and with an army of men sparked with knowledge the path before you may be traversed in splendor and glory. Amen.

    Let me speak of Fear, for it is fear that paralyzes man to not even read that which is offered to feed the starving collective -- does not the Bible, your own Holy Book, ill named, give you instructions for receiving of Spirit? If ye demand in the name of Holy God for all darkness to remove itself from you and call on God or Jesus to shield thee while you read there is naught to fear...hear me, there is naught to fear! If you were to do this with all you read you, man in general, would come into wisdom and understanding much sooner and the spark of hope would be kindled -- for remember, with God there is always the hope of the Great Transformation. Hold it in your hearts dear ones, hold it in your hearts.

    Hear what Spirit says unto Spirit, hear what Light says unto Light, hear what thy Lord God says unto thee -- his peoples -- for God so loved man that he granted free will -- won't you come back into the wisdom to use of it in kindness within love, toward community in purity for the greater good? Oh, would that these not be mere abstractions but actual fact. In time man will gain the wisdom to act responsibly...how many hundred, thousand, million will die first? How many?

    I take my leave, be at peace, I hold you close.

    I Am Sananda
    Do you hear me?


    THE RETURN TO GOD-NESS

    REC/T #1 SANANDA

    THURSDAY, MAY 31, 1990 7:50 A.M. YEAR 3 DAY 288
    Are you settled? Please let's effort at an earlier start. Thank you. I Am Sananda, and I come in Radiance. Yes, Thomas, I Am Light. Let us begin.

    Long has man been rebellious. Even before the pirates were the Vikings...and always it has been the same...rape, pillage, plunger -- sex, drink, and money. How much has man changed? How much has he? "Oh, but we are civilized, educated." Oh, are you? Ask the Panamanians about civilized behavior and you will get a far different response.

    There is only one way that man will ever become civilized, and that is through a return to Godness -- a return to God and the Laws laid forth long ago in your counting. The question is, will man turn back toward God in time... for look around thee, do you see it changing? Do you? How many among you would give up one thing you do to move toward God? How many will give up even one beer a day to be closer to God? "Oh, anything but that one beer, Lord." Oh? How about sports, dirty movies, judging others, or or or...? I thought not.

    While the ones who stand back and cast stones at these workers bringing forth the Word in integrity, yes, I said integrity, those casting of the stones are drawn further into the web of deceit, the lie itself. When will man tire enough of his plight to want to know truth? Then, when will he get off his rear-end and actually seek it out? You have forgotten how to even find out in your sluggishness for you have slept far too long, far too long indeed. And now when you go to the bookstore you find a barrage of books, entire New Age sections...where do you go for it? Who do you read first? How do you know what you are reading isn't the figment of an overactive imagination? One book tells you to sit quietly and breathe for twenty minutes, another tells you to give up everything, while still another tells you to pray hard...yet still, you hear no voices, hear no angels singing. What do you do once you have reached the point of really wanting to know? The answer, dear ones, is that you sit in the Light of God, which I Am, and you ask to be guided to the truth. And do you know what happens then? Well...you'll meet someone who just read a book that's perfect for you, or you'll go into a bookstore and one particular book will verily seem to jump off the shelf to you, or you'll be driving and suddenly get an idea to check something out and there you will find a newsletter that speaks to the heart-place.

    Don't you see? Don't you see, first there must be the asking, the opening...then all else will be added unto thee. But man, collective man, has forgotten how to ask, so independent and arrogant in his wisdom, his ed­ucated ways...and so the stumbling blindly continues, in a fog filled maze, never knowing which turn is the correct turn. Oh man, please, please hear me -- ask of God, God the Father is real, He is real! Not only is He real, but He hears you! If you actually pray, even if you feel you do not know how to do so, if the desire or wish or intent matches the heartplace it is done in that instant! It is granted! Prayers are answered and shun any who tell you otherwise. Now I am not saying that the church evangelist is the only one who knows how to pray and where you should take lessons...man does not need those kind of lessons. Man needs an opening of the heart. Man needs to learn how to ask for help, as well as how to receive it. There is no loss of dignity in asking for help, dear ones. There is a loss of dignity in the confusion of daily living without asking for and receiving help. Don't you see?

    We must come back into a way of life that allows for the neighbor to help of the neighbor rather than war against that neighbor. Don't you see how it could be? Nay, mostly man does not see, for the lie has been fed to you from birth...and if it is not loud, and fast, and filled with bullets and blood it is not exciting. Oh dear lost children, come home to me...come back to the gentle­ness of love, brotherly love. That is not to say don't ever fight, for the time is coming when ye will have to fight and take up arms...but defense of country and family are another matter which I shall discuss later on, for now we are speaking of community and the return to cooperative effort of man to live in brotherly harmony. Does this seem wishy-washy to you? Does this seem abstract? Does this seem a pipe-dream -- that is because the TV and movies have trained you, yes, I said trained you to want more conflict -- for the media has ingrained confusion and conflict in the peoples and it will come to a stop before I Am through with that which I have been sent by the Father to do. So be it.

    It matters not to me whether you believe what I say unto you...for all will come into their own understanding, one way or another. How painful, how drawn out that process is is entirely up to you. Don't you see how it could be? Oh lost, lost ones, come back, come back.

    The so called 'light at the end of the tunnel' is much more magnificent than anything you've seen on that dense place. Try opening the heart in compassion and love for one another and see if that tunnel doesn't open in your life. What have you to lose? Only your soul, only your soul.

    Be at peace little one. We will continue.

    I Am Sananda

    I am come with an army!

    THE REVOLUTION OF THE SPIRIT
    REC/T #2 SANANDA

    THURSDAY, MAY 31, 1990 9:50 A.M. YEAR 3 DAY 288
    Let us continue, please. I Am Sananda and I come in the full Light of our Father.

    Conflict lies ever to the surface of man, it is a part of his very being. Man has forgotten the inner peace that comes with full knowledge of your connection with God...the impact of your daily lives is ever upon thee, constant bombardment, motion, activity, noise. It is rare indeed today that man will slow of himself long enough to even attempt to hear that inner voice that cries from within him to make that connection that has long been lost and forgot­ten. Man must come back into memory. And when that small spark of memory springs forth, then the journey homeward may begin. Then the realization of the lie is possible. For man has become so enamored with the lie that he knows not the truth that is before him in full radiance. Yea, man himself seems to fear the very light which is the source of his being.

    Please do not misunderstand what I tell thee. I use man to mean men and women, it is not sexist, it is a generic term, please.

    Man has become so comfortable with the darkness that he confuses the life in the cave for spirituality, when in fact returning to God is a journey out of the cave and into the full light of day. Oh the wondrous journey before man if he will but awaken in time to change the marching masses. For it is thy own destruction that lies, yea, at thy very doorstep if ye do not take up responsible action.

    Do I speak of revolution? I speak of revolution of the spirit, revolution of the spirit that will move man to act so responsibly that it will preserve the very Re­publican form of government guaranteed by your Constitution. Do not let this be put aside...your very lives and future are on the bargaining table. Hear me, I implore you!

    Let us break 'til later this day, you are fragmenting, I need full focus. Thank you.

    I Am Sananda

    Will you awaken in time?
    PJ 15
    CHAPTER 14

    REC #2 HATONN

    FRIDAY, JUNE 1, 1990 10:11 A.M. YEAR 3 DAY 289
    Hatonn in the Light of Radiance and truth to speak of timely matters before we go further in this document. It is fair that the public readers have the same information which I have given unto this small group. You of the public must begin to understand and know that which is foisted upon you. I will be very brief for I will give no in depth information at this writing for our needs for time are pressing for this Journal.

    LOOK VERY CLOSELY

    As you watch the "summit" unfold, be aware that the Gorbachevs which are presented unto you are impostors. It is more of the cover-up of the elite world conspiracy to defraud you of the masses. Look very closely at the pictures as they are usually taken from distance and "close-ups" in the press are not current pictures. Further, you will note varying degrees of mannerisms which are copied and perceived deception is countered with "they are weary", etc., etc. There have been MANY impostors set forth in important places and we will devote an entire section of a forthcoming Journal to that fact--we have not time in this one. Reagan was a replacement, Nixon was a replacement and the Pope of Rome is a replacement. It is time for the awakening. I invite all of you who know the truth of this to now come forward and confirm this that the public can come into comfort with the truth of it.

    Moreso, the meetings will be held at the private facility of Camp David where "you the public" will never know who attends. The guidelines and decisions are already made and in place from the meetings of the Trilateral Commission and the Bilderbergers who met in May for this very purpose. This is just another segment to lead you blindly into thinking great world change is coming about. All you need do is look to the countries floundering in the abyss to know the truth of it. Even the world earthquakes have been set forth as distractors--what of killing a few peasants?!

    It is time for "you the people" to take these things seriously and stop your dawdling and dreaming and "wishing" it would all go away and leave you to your hapless meditations. No, it will not go away and you had better begin to look very carefully at just WHO ARE YOUR ENEMIES FOR YOUR FREEDOM IS ALL BUT "DOWN THE TUBES"!

    Oh, you don't believe this? You had best look around you at that which is being perpetrated--it matters not to me! You the people are the ones marked for enslavement--not me! THIS IS THE PLAN IN ACTION, DEAR ONES-- IN ACTION!!

    You think you can't be fooled? Oh yes you can--easily! All you have to do is look at the "fabulous fakes" who entertain at parties and talk shows--it is easy to deceive the masses for it is so far-fetched in concept that "they" know you won't take notice but rather cheer and whoop and roar approval for the crumbs of peace they will toss out to you. When will you have had enough? Flow long must the daring ones, such as this scribe, carry the cross? When will you wake up, world? This "game" is all but finished and, so far, the dark conspiracy is ahead a million to one.

    The "planners" set it up so that the stuff shown on T.V. is neither interesting nor informative--note that the lead heading on CNN was that Jane Fonda attended the elite dinner-party and sat with the "great" ones. Could that be that she beds with Ted Turner who owns CNN and is a brother-friend now of David Rockefeller? Why was Henry Kissinger next in line at the banquet table--taking charge of all conversation? WHO DO YOU THINK WILL RUN THINGS AT CAMP DAVID--EVEN WITH THE IMPOSTORS? OH MY, LITTLE BLIND MICE, HERE COMES THE FARMER'S WIFE WITH THE BUTCHER KNIFE! AND WORSE, THE TAILS HAVE NOW BEEN SEVERED RIGHT UP TO YOUR PROVERBIAL "NECKS"- -DO YOU NOTE ANYTHING MISSING - LIKE PERHAPS FREEDOM? SO BE IT AND SELAH!

    Back to the Constitution Rip-off, Dharma, just to make a few points of "proof'. Be ye so blind as to not check into it? Yes, most will be that blind and later wonder what hit them--it is thine free-will right to do whatever you desire! Oh yes, God most certainly will allow you to fall, for that is your choice!

    REASON TO FEAR

    There is a good reason for patriots to fear that the drive for a Constitutional convention is actually an attempt to destroy your Constitution by legalizing what the government has already done. First of all, the Constitution already mandates that the budget be balanced so this is truly nothing but a facade to fool you people into believing this is a way to "require balancing the budget". As far back as 1984 this information was given to legislators such as Larry Craig and Ron Paul, etc., and this was unknown information to them--most people at any level simply have no idea of what is in the Constitution. Worse, the higher one appears to progress up the ladder of position, the more is given unto staff to research and it never occurs to staff to investigate such things.

    POLITICAL REALITIES

    Although no legislator or staff member has been able to refute any of the facts presented them that the Constitution already mandates a balanced budget, not one will publicly support the state rate tax or convey to Americans this information. The most common excuse for remaining silent is that "political realities" are such that the formula could never be invoked, or that it would be "impractical" to do so.

    The aides to several members of Congressional Leaders United for a Balanced Budget (CLUBB) admitted that it was unlikely that their bosses could back away from supporting the call for a Constitutional convention to balance the budget because, "it wouldn't look good to admit he was wrong after all the time and energy he invested."

    A number of CLUBB members claim they really want Congress to pass its own amendment and that the idea of a Constitutional convention (CC) frightens them. Rep. Mickey Edwards (R-Okla.) said if one more state passes its petition to Congress, he would personally try to get a state to rescind its call; Ron Paul said he thought the balanced budget amendment was "worthless" but that he supported the convention call "for public relations rea­sons". Dear me, this was in mid-1984. Do any of you remember anything about it at all? Then don't come forth and tell me "they can't foist off im­postors upon your blind side!"

    There would be real cause for concern even if Congress passed its own balanced budget amendment--you see, the ones in Congress do not want a balanced budget; they like it the way it is with no answering to be done to the public. Why do you think the entire thing is structured by the foxes for the foxes? They DO NOT want a balanced budget--they want a CC to wipe out all the freedoms they have not yet destroyed.

    BIG SCAM

    Let me tell you about the situation a bit for the problem may have been overlooked in the S&L and Pension Fund collapse.

    One of the biggest scams that the taxpayer has to finance is the U.S. government securities and bonds issued when the government borrows money. These T-bills and T-notes are issued by and large to banks and other wealthy groups and individuals at no risk to the investor. These investments have been encouraged and pushed and encouraged and pushed! "Take stock in America", your impostor President Reagan pleaded--buy and spend and "save the economy". If he really had cared, along with the other free-loaders, they would have been urging you to invest in your failing industries, which would be a real risk but at least "honest". As it is, the average American, who could not afford to invest himself, has to pay dividends on these government securities to the wealthy, and theoretically, has to pay the principal when these bonds are redeemed. You can see the result in the S&L bail-out alone and this is only added on top of that which you have already been supporting.

    The most heinous criminals of your world are now being slapped a gentle reassurance to the fingers, their felony charges reduced to slapped charges" so that no Constitutional or legal rights are in jeopardy, and they go to Club Fed to continue tennis lessons and have a bit of R&R at your further expense. Meanwhile a Texas black man is sentenced to $10,000 in fines and 99 years in prison--FOR TRYING TO STEAL A PACK OF KOOL CIGARETTES--HE DIDN'T EVEN GET THE CIGARETTES. THIS IS YOUR CURRENT JUSTICE, DEAR ONES--WHEN WILL IT BE YOUR TURN TO HANG?

    THERE IS AN ALL OUT EFFORT TO TAKE DHARMA AND OBERLI'S PROPERTY AND KILL THEM FOR THERE IS NOTHING WITH WHICH TO LEGALLY "CHARGE" THEM. WE CAN'T EVEN LET THE PROPERTY AND HOME GO INTO THEIR TITLE BECAUSE THEY WOULD PLANT DRUGS OR OTHER INCRIMINATING EVI­DENCE AND SEND THEM AWAY FOR LIFE. WHEN THE PROP­ERTY COMES UNDER CONTROL, IT WILL NOT EVER BE PLACED IN THEIR NAMES OR CONTROL SO THAT THERE IS NO LEGAL WAY OF CONFISCATION. YES IT IS SAD, BUT IT IS THE WAY IT IS!

    You see, thus far they could prevail--for they have followed the instructions we have given them from corporate structuring to divesting of all assets-right to the kitchen food. If you have nothing they can find (which has been easy in this instance for they have "had" to set it up in this manner for they have noth­ing--all has gone forth for the work), they cannot or will not bother to continue the harassment.

    There was a time--(ask Eustace Mullins) when the FBI would just get you and lock you away as insane and that would be the end of that. These ones are a bit too known to do that little trick for all the rest of you would be out there at all the mental prisons looking for them. Mr. Mullins was not alerted to the conspiracy until years had passed whereby he escaped by the sheer will of God placing him out of their path sufficiently to hide him. Ignorance is sometimes more effective until ones come into realization of the mission. If ones do not understand soon enough and continue to work "outside" the shield, they will be removed as has been Dr. King. Oh, it wasn't association with this group--it was the last document he has written and couldn't get published through the usual routes. His truth telling finally got too dangerous to the "system". These are confirmations you the public can get from two-legged participants right in your midst--you do not need listen to a space cadet! Further, the conspiracy will always send workers within the group to spy and tell. It doesn't matter too much in this instance for we know who it is and who they tell. Further, the computers are wired for instant surveillance, the phones--the walls themselves. We are doing nothing but efforting at writing and building good business activities. Frankly, we are not in the least interested in the conspiracy--OUR MISSION IS TO AWAKEN YOU SLEEPING PEOPLE AND BRING THE WORD OF TRUTH--WE INTEND TO DO NOTHING ELSE. WHAT IS DONE--YOU WILL DO OR IT WON'T BE DONE. IT IS ALREADY NOW TOO LATE TO STOP THE WORD OF TRUTH FROM GOING FORTH. AHO!

    The balanced budget amendment would, if added to your Constitution, legalize the further swindling of you the taxpayers. There are many other negative aspects, also. Let us overlook the current perturbations of distraction in a world perceived to be moving toward freedom--it is a lie of lies and let us not get sidetracked into the matter. Let us effort to stay on this subject. You can see by just what is given unto you in tid-bits of non-truth-­that the war is in no manner off. Two thirds of all people on Earth are marked for annihilation--and all of you fall into that category--just the elitist are planned survivors--any of you still can't believe they would send forth a couple of insignificant impostors? Dear me, what does it require to get your attention?

    SOVIET LINKS

    This portion which I shall simply project in full quotes, was written by one we shall hold in security, in June (11th), 1984:

    Quote:

    Information linking proponents of the balanced budget amend­ment/Constitutional convention to British and/or Soviet influences should be of concern to all Americans interested in preserving our Constitution.

    The National Taxpayers Union, the group mostly responsible for the states petitioning Congress to call a Constitution convention, should be investigated more closely to reveal whether their push for a convention goes beyond a desire to "balance the budget."

    Several members of NTU's original board of advisers included Noam Chomsky, a leader of the anti-Vietnam War movement; Ernie Fitzgerald, a 1960s "whistle blower" on defense waste; and Karl Hess III. (Hatonn: Oh, it looks good so far? Remember, all these are set up and funded by the same source--your deadly enemy!) All three had close ties with the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), a liberal think tank. In 1982, IPS hosted a gathering in Minneapolis of Soviet scientists and KGB agents. Also included on this advisory board was Murray Rothbard (Hatonn: Yes, be patient--I shall get on with this man for he is touted as "big, big cheese by the Von Mises Institute), a noted libertarian economist. NTU is notable to espouse "libertarian" viewpoints.

    NTU's founder, Jim Davidson, who is now canvassing the states to get a 33rd state to petition Congress, was educated at Oxford University and now co-edits the newsletter "London Washington Report" with Sir William Rees-Mogg.

    REDUCE AMERICA

    There are those who believe that some British have never given up on once again reducing America to one of their colonies, strange as it may seem. (Hatonn: Remember, G.B. is the largest "foreign" owner of U.S. business/property/assets in the world.) Efforts to hold a con­vention to revise the Constitution began as early as 1788--a year after its ratification. The first attempt was made by Albert Gallatin, best known as treasury secretary to Thomas Jefferson. Gallatin, an immigrant from Switzerland, came from an oligarchic family with ties to British intelligence. The reason Gallatin wanted a convention was the same as those promoting a convention today give: that Congress was spending too much, resulting in a national debt that must be reduced, and that it needed restraints imposed to cut its budget. (Hatonn: But you see, as far back as that, they very carefully did not utilize the powers already laid forth in the Constitution.)

    The political theories of Gallatin, including "fiscal conservatism" are carried on today by such "conservatives" as economist Milton Fried­man, Federal Reserve Board Chairman Paul Volcker and Rep. Jack Kemp. (Hatonn: Keep in mind the very people referred to in the section on the "Rockefeller Syndicate".) These individuals, and in fact, most Republicans and "conservatives" today, are not espousing American economic principles but are rather promoting British monetarism. (Hatonn: They also dived off into Austrian economics which was a direct dovetailing with the British methods who owned the cartel from the original Rothschild Foundation. This is also why Dr. John King was taken-out! He called the lie and became respected as hitting the truth of it and he was becoming too respected in his own right as the economist who told truth!)

    Friedman began pushing the concept of a "flat rate tax" back in the early 1970s, along with a Constitutional amendment to balance the budget.

    COALITION

    Now endorsing the call for a Constitutional convention to balance the budget is Richard Viguerie's Populist Conservative Tax Coalition, which includes an umbrella of about 75 other conservative leaders, including Howard Phillips. These "conservative" groups also promote the flat rate tax (un-Constitutional because it allows wages and salaries to be taxed, and dangerous because it could be hiked up to whatever percentage is desired very easily--and the 'big-boys' would have their way around it by incorporations) and fraudulent balanced budget amendments, and have also recently formed a public alliance with a "conservative" party in ISRAEL.

    Other groups interested in rewriting our constitution include the Committee on the Constitutional System, which includes in its membership Robert McNamara, Lloyd Cutler and Douglas Dillon. They'd like to change our form of government from a republic to a parliamentary democracy and plan to unveil their program by 1987--exactly 200 years after our first and only Constitutional convention.

    IN THE WINGS

    Rexford Guy Tugwell's "Newstates Constitution of America" is waiting in the wings should a convention be held. It was promoted by the tax-exempt foundation known as the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions. (Hatonn: Of course a lot of you supported it; it sounded good didn't it? So be it.) A copy of that model consti­tution, which makes the practice of religion a privilege and certain freedoms usurped from the people at the whim of government, is available, along with a line-by-line analysis. (Hatonn: Just hold on with us and keep reading--it is all going to be in this Journal before the end.)

    The Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions has now changed its name to the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies, but it has not changed its desire to scrap the U.S. Constitution. In a 1978 interview, the Institute's President Joseph Slater remarked that, "In the next decades, not just years, we will be concerned with a fundamental review of the U.S. 'Constitution'--with a small and big 'c'."

    Questioned on Tugwell's book 'The Emerging Constitution" Slater replied: "I have read some of it. I do not subscribe to some of the proposals. The fact that he has written it makes it interesting material to review as many of us go forward and look at that par­ticular thesis."

    INFLUENCE

    To those who would dismiss the Aspen Institute as a non-influential think tank, consider some of the members on its National Commission on Coping with Interdependence: Henry Kissinger, who recently led the Central American commission whose report Sen. Jesse Helms has exposed as a blueprint for socialism financed by the U.S. taxpayer, and Daniel Boorstin, former member of the Communist Party who is now the librarian of Congress. Also friendly with the institute is the ubiquitous Robert McNamara.

    Its chairman is Robert O. Anderson, who funded a group called Citizens for America. That group is led by Lewis Lehrman, a board member of the Heritage Foundation. Lehrman co-wrote the book "The Case for Gold" with Rep. Ron Paul.

    COMMISSIONERS RULE

    Helmet Kimpel, President of the World Service Authority, which advocates global government, said in a January interview that he favored a Constitutional convention to rewrite our Constitution. He said he was undecided as to what vehicle encompassing a global parliament that could pass laws superceding those of other nations, with "commissioners" administering world government.

    Economists pushing for a national industrial policy have advocated the use of such commissioners. Such an industrial policy, where the government would join with leaders of industry and labor to dictate industrial policy, is gaining widespread support in Congress.

    Other groups advocating new constitutions include the World Future Society, which is having a "one-worlders" convention in Washington in June, and the Association to Unite the Democracies, which is endorsed by Sen. Barry Goldwater.

    ARGUMENTS WRONG

    Two points that Constitutional convention advocates mention to calm fears of a runaway convention are that whatever comes out of a convention would have to be approved by Congress and by three-fourths of the state legislatures, and that neither would likely approve anything that would usurp our rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

    But their arguments are incorrect: Article V of the Constitution, which provides for the amending of the constitution, excludes Congress from ratifying anything emerging from a convention.

    But Congress does have the power to decide the mode of ratification, which means it can decide to have whatever document emerges from a convention to be ratified by state conventions rather than by state legislatures.

    The only precedent we have for what might happen at a Consti­tutional convention is the 1787 convention. The delegates were instructed to amend the Articles of Confederation in specific ways, but once behind closed doors, they illegally exceeded the authority granted to them and ended up throwing away the Articles and writing an entirely new document, our U.S. Constitution. The convention proceedings were held in secret, and Madison's notes, the most accurate record of the convention, were not released until 30 years later.

    And finally, would a Constitutional convention be an opportunity for "the people" to participate in the political process?
    END QUOTE.

    OH WHAT TANGLED WEBS THEY ARE WEAVING, WHEN FIRST YOU ONES ALLOW DECEIVING!

    Oh Dharma, really chela, your media even slipped and told you that Noriega is an impostor who somehow "eluded" two massive armies to end up in the Pope's embassy. I am disappointed in you--I shall assume you are simply overworked.

    I will however, allow for a rest at this point for the writing started very early this morning regarding other matters. I will move to stand-by. Thank you for your service as this concludes this chapter at any rate.

    Salu,

    Hatonn to stand-by and clearing frequencies, please. Saalome.


    GOD IS WITHIN
    REC/T #1 SANANDA
    FRIDAY, JUNE 1, 1990 6:30 A.M. YEAR 3 DAY 289

    Then let us begin. Good morning, Thomas.

    Man has long...(Please identify yourself. If you are of darkness I demand that
    you remove yourself in the name of God-Aton.) I Am Sananda, be at peace.
    For I come this day in the Radiance of the gracious Father. May we proceed?

    Man has long searched to find meaning "outside" himself. He has been drawn to look to the stars for that meaning. Ancient astrologers thought that by somehow drawing charts and maps of the various placements of planetary bodies that this would somehow indicate pulls and influences which would give a fuller understanding of man's purpose. My beloved ones of Earth, the Father is within thee, He is within thee. I said it almost daily in the time of old...the Father is within. When will man quiet himself long enough to listen to that voice that is crying to be heard? When will man come to know that his life may be lived in harmony and fullness and abundance if he will but listen to the voice...for the divine spark within man is exactly that, divine.

    So little man knows about his own soul, his own journey on this place. For it is the density of this place that leads to such forgetfulness that purposes are lost, meaning clouded, and heart's broken. It needn't be this way dear ones. But in order for man to regain his soul connection there must be true intent or de­sire. Only through a desire to align with what you refer to as the "Father's Will" will the internal "opening" take place that allows for hearing that voice within. For man is ever seeking fulfilment -- it is the return to God that all men seek. It is just that man forgets what it is that brings real happiness, ful­filment, peace. When I view your place there is such great sorrow, a wall of tears pours forth, and the calls to Father to help, help--please, Father, help! Do you think that God does not weep? God ever wants to bring all of his creatures home. And further, God refers to his creations as creatures. Are you offended by that? Why would man be offended by that, for I, Jesus Im­manuel Sananda am a creature of the Father? You will come into your understanding and knowledge. It is the cries that have been heard by the Fa­ther. The prayers are answered, for he has sent his beloved host of beautiful beings to help you. Won't you hear them? Won't you listen to how it is possible to move back to grace for life with and near the Father rather than away from him into the dark coldness of evil, pain, and suffering? Do you not long to surrender up your strong willed actions to guidance by that inner voice that calls to you to love another? Is kindness such a difficult thing for you ones?

    Man has a long journey back into the way of community. You must come back into the desire to work for the good of one another. It is not a difficult concept, truly. If you live in a small township, does it make sense to cheat a customer? Does it? Do you think that type of behavior will not come back on thee ten-fold? You have forgotten what friendship and good business are about. But you will remember, you will remember. It's the pain and hardship of the journey before you that my brothers effort at easing. Won't you listen to the "better way" being put before you? The times ahead are difficult indeed and you will need to come into community, friendship, good business...for these will be the very things that will allow you to come through this Transition with your vehicles intact.

    Do you realize how much energy man expends in the casting of stones at others? Oh, would that this same energy be spent to build a wall of stone, or a house of stone, poor misguided man, how you have strayed from your path. The forest is thick and deep...we have come to light of the path that you may journey through. There is naught to fear, but action, constructive action is required...or what lies before you will be painful and hard to swallow indeed. Regain of thy God given courage. Regain of thy love.

    In the Light which I Am
    I Am Sananda
    I Am Thy Lord God

주제글 정보

Users Browsing this Thread

이 주제글은 현재 3명이 열람중입니다. (0명의 회원과 3명의 손님)

유사한 글

  1. PJ#014, RAPE, RAVAGE, PILLAGE AND PLUNDER OF THE PHOENIX, VOL. I
    By wave in forum Phoenix Journals Archives
    관련글: 13
    최신 글: 2011-01-18, 02:37

이 주제글의 글단추(태그)

글쓰기 규칙

  • 새 글 작성이 불가능함
  • 응답글 작성이 불가능함
  • 파일 첨부가 불가능함
  • 내 글 수정이 불가능함
  •