PJ#100, BUTTERFLIES, MIND CONTROL-- THE RAZOR'S EDGE

[wave]

PJ 100

CHAPTER 9

MOSCOW PRESS CONFERENCE SPEECH
by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

April 28, 1994

ANNO HELLENBROICH: Good afternoon, ladies and gentle-men. My name is Anno Hellenbroich from Germany. I would like to welcome you to this afternoon press conference and I'm very happy that today with us is Mr. LaRouche, who has been having private meetings in Moscow for the last few days. We thought that it is probably appropriate to have discussion with people from the media, to have a chance to put some questions about physical economy and on those aspects of the work of Mr. LaRouche.

Mr. LaRouche will begin with short, introductory remarks and then we'll take questions.

Opening Statement

LYNDON LAROUCHE: I of course have come here primarily on matters of scientific interest, to discuss with not only members of the Universal Ecological Academy, but also with branches of the Russian Academy of Sciences and others.

The principal subject of these meetings is the principles of physical economy as they are applicable to today's situation. The particular point of my general emphasis has been the fact that the so-called free market system is about to collapse. To seek relief in the so-called free enterprise system is like a young egg trying to find its future underneath a dead hen.

Thus, here, as in other countries, one must not talk about how to survive under the free market system, but how to survive after its death, which will be very soon. Thus we have to talk about (physical economy); that is, the kind of economic principles which must guide us to maintain economic life under conditions of (general global collapse) of the present dominant financial and monetary systems around the world.

I have warned, of course, that there is a certain degree of un-certainty as to (timing) of the collapse. We have already seen, in the past six or seven weeks, on international markets, a great degree of financial collapse. This has so far hit publicly both the major speculators--the wildest speculators--and banking and private financial institutions which have been heavily involved in such speculation. And we have the prospect of the spectacle of a group of gangsters going to their banker to collect their money with their guns drawn, and finding that he has no money--which means that we are no longer discussing the question of the rela-tive virtues of the former Communist or the so-called free trade system, but looking for the third system which will survive this collapse.

I have emphasized that, under conditions of a global financial collapse, one of the greatest assets of Russia is the scientific community, especially that which, of course, was involved in economic activities such as aerospace and military; and of course the protection of the machine-tool sector inside the Russian economy. This scientific potential of Russia is its greatest economic asset internationally, which, to my dismay, has been somewhat dissipated under the present financial and economic conditions.

At the same time, we have been discussing with the scientists some of the more advanced and profound implications in mathematics in particular, and in mathematical analysis (as by com-puter methods), of my discoveries in the field.

In conclusion, I can only say that I have so far enjoyed this visit very much.

Questions and Answers

VIKTOR KUZIN, Bureau for Human Rights Defense Without Borders: It is now obvious for the whole world that the free market policy is no way out for Russia, because this system pro­ceeds from the principle of freedom taken to the absurd.

What, however, indicates to you that the collapse can take place in the near future? What are the concrete indications of this?

MR. LAROUCHE: One has to look at the structure of the fi­nancial speculation. The structure is based on a number of fac­tors which are new to "bubbles" in history. We have had finan­cial bubbles in history before, but this one has certain new fea­tures. One is the very significant role of (radical deregulation) in the international financial system. People are engaging in forms of so-called "legal" transactions for which one would have been shot in the former civilized nations. These formerly illegal things, which would be considered almost high treason, are being perpetrated by leading financial institutions. Never before has there been in modern history such (unregulated) speculation.

Secondly, the (method of thinking) by the speculators is derived from the work of John Von Neumann in economic systems, who is one of the greatest and most successful criminals in the history of mathematics: a man utterly without the slightest shred of morality about anything, including science. The popularity of Von Neumann's system depends upon the popularity of comput­ers, especially the widespread, increasing use of computers in the Western European, Japanese and North American markets.

The result is the introduction of so-called "program trading," which is automatic trading, using sophisticated communications links.

It is difficult to state precisely what the total physical product of the planet Earth is. But it is in the order of magnitude of a cou­ple tens of trillions of dollars. The current turnover in admitted speculative instruments on various financial markets which are exposed, is {over $16 trillion}. There is in addition to that, an unexposed, very large amount, maybe almost as large, in hidden markets. The total transaction of turnover in these speculative markets, is probably in excess of $300 trillion a year.

This bubble exists by {sucking the blood,} in the form of various kinds of profit and yield from the real economy at the base. The principal method of growth, is what is called asset-stripping.

Take a situation in Russia as an example of asset stripping. The value of the Ruble is artificially low. This is done by managed speculative exchange markets which tell the Russians, "Your ruble is worth only so much in dollars." So if the Russian wishes to buy, the Russian must have hard currency--not only to buy foreign products, but now, to buy many of the internal products. The result is a vast {looting} of the Russian economy through the exchange process.

Take, for example, Russian flats [apartments, which are now being privatized--ed.]. Look at the value of those flats in 1989; and you must compare the income of the average Russian household with the price they paid for the flat. Take the same flats today. Compare them with the average Russian income of the flat holder. The flats are taken; people are killed to get their flats. What happens? Somebody sells the flat, for profit--or for desperation.

When they sell the flat, somebody buys the flat. Someone then goes to the bank, to get money to buy the flat. The Russian banking system is therefore full of mortgages on flats. These flats are priced at prices on the mortgage, {way above} any price in London or Berlin or New York, and so forth; which means the price of the flat on the bank's books is {fraudulent}.

The Russian banking system now uses this as a capital base in international hard-currency exchange markets. So therefore, Russian gangsters and others now deliver the blood of the Rus­sian people to these foreign speculators. This is what's hap­pening inside Germany; less severe, but the same thing. The collapse of Credit Lyonnais, one of the great banks of France, is the result of the same process. This is going on inside the United States.

So to sustain this bubble, this flow of looting must come out of the economy. Also, as a result of this, there is no credit for industry or farms. The employment base of the economy shrinks. The tax revenue base of the state shrinks. The bubble gets bigger.

This is like a cancer in the final stage. The cancer eats the living, good tissue of the human being. One day the cancer dies because the human being has died. The cancer has eaten up its food supply. So the international financial system--the so-called "free market system"--is nothing bat a giant parasite sucking the blood out of the world economy. {What happens when it can no longer squeeze a sufficient additional amount out of the real economy?) It collapses at a geometric speed. Very slight fluctuations in borrowing can cause tens or hundreds of billion of dollars of fluctuation in this market; very slight disturbances can cause financial explosions. George Soros has already lost a great amount of money, in the billions magnitude. That's only typical.

Now, what we've seen in the past six to seven weeks in international bond markets, and in the collapse of derivatives speculation, is like the first echo of a coming major earthquake. Since financial markets, particularly speculative markets, are depen-dent upon purely political considerations otherwise, it is impossible to say on what day the whole thing will totally collapse. Maybe next week, maybe next month, maybe the fall; maybe next year.

It's like predicting the day on which a cancer victim will die. You don't know when the person will die. But the person knows, the doctors know, he's going to die, but can't say when. And so, with the unpredictable factors, they know he's going to die soon.

In the same sense, this thing is {finished). It {cannot} survive. And when it collapses, it will collapse the political power of those who are {owned) by it. So you say this is not a {cyclical} financial crisis, it is a {systemic} one.

MR. KUZIN: It is important for us in Russia to understand pre-cisely who and what institutions personify the threat to Russia from this type of activity. And the other, sub-question: What institutions or organizations represent the most serious opposi-tion to this course of events, and thus danger to it?

MR. LAROUCHE: Well, it is centered in the system that the British set up.

The bubble began in 1971-75, with the collapse of the Bretton Woods gold reserve agreements. Then you had the oil price cri-sis of 1973-75, which established a floating-exchange rate inter-national financial system. That was consolidated by the Ram-bouillet agreements in 1975 in France, the international monetary agreements.

The center of the bubble has the London market. The vehicle is now become the United Nations, particularly the International Monetary Fund, which is a subsidiary of the United Nations; and the World Bank and so forth and so on. This goes together with an international policy which has two aspects, which are centered in the economic and social council of the United Nations Organization, which is a completely ideological collection of witches. What would you call it in Russian--the Baba Yaga Memorial Society?

These are the people who ideologically were responsible for trying to turn the world toward population reduction, toward ending scientific and technological progress, toward eliminating all systems of education that develop the cognitive power of students. These are the fanatics of the New Age.

So in addition to the {sickness) itself of speculation, it has a running dog in the form of these {New Age ideologues).

For example: If you say "IMF policies are killing more people in Africa than Hitler killed during World War II," they will say "Yes, that's true; that is very fortunate. Because Africa is overpopulated."

These are the people who, if you talk to them about the effect of shock therapy on Russia, and you ask, "What are you doing to Russia? If they become desperate, they have thermonuclear weapons." And the Russians will say, "We have thermonuclear weapons, why should we be hungry?" They will say, "No, it is {necessary} to administer shock therapy, to destroy Russia's potential as an economy. Besides, the looting of Russia is helping to prop up the bubble."

In Poland, the situation is an absolute catastrophe; they're down to about 30 percent of their 1989 production per capita; and it's become a graveyard in which the United Nations people are happy to invest. In Moscow, they say the Polish model is a great success which we must imitate. In London, their ideo­logues will say, as will some in the United States, "We must establish a one-world empire."

If you look at what is being done to the countries of Central and South America and Africa, the attempts to start wars among In­dia, Pakistan, Kashmir, and so forth, you see that the same peo­ple are trying to destroy every nation on this planet.

You have to go back to the 1930s to understand these people. Hitler, contrary to rumor, was not put into power by Germans. Germany at the time was under Anglo-American occupation. The entire banking system of Germany was controlled by the Anglo-American bankers. In 1932, when the von Schleicher government was being developed and installed, people in Lon­don and in New York decided to overthrow the government and to put Hitler into power. At that time, they were afraid that von Schleicher would introduce economic cooperation with Russia, as a certain section of the German military had done already, with the so-called Black Reichswehr projects.

So they used the Social Democrats to help them overthrow the von Schleicher government. Then, George Bush's father, who was an official of Harriman and Company, moved the money from the banks into Hitler's party coffers to make the coup.

From 1932 to 1938, the leading circles in London and in New York supported Adolf Hitler's regime--because they wished a war between Germany and Russia, hoping that this would ac­complish the mutual destruction of the two countries.

We are dealing with the same kind of mentality today. The only difference between Thatcher and George Bush and their prede­cessors of the 1920s and 1930s, is that George Bush is much stupider than his father.

We are dealing with {ideologues}; not with men who calculate profit, but ideologues who have certain utopian impulses: to re­duce the people of the world in numbers and in intelligence. If you wish to rule over the cows, you breed them for stupidity, which is the way the British attempted to perpetuate their rule over their colonies: not with guns, but by inculcating stupidity in the people selected to be leaders. Destroy everybody who is a leading force who represents national interest impulses and who has intelligence and courage. And put dumb cows in power! And then come and milk the cow.

And that's what they're doing. They're doing it deliberately, out of a desire that somehow their families will rule the world forever in some kind of crazy utopia. And they recognize--as anyone who studied history should recognize--the thing that pre­vented the Babylonian Empire from conquering Greece, that a small Greek population that the Persian Empire (which is merely a name for the Babylonian Empire) could not conquer from 600 B.C. until Alexander destroyed the Persian Empire in the middle of the fourth century.

These ideologues recognize three enemies: the nation-state as an institution; scientific and technological progress; and the mass education of the people to be able to generate and to use scientific and technological progress. That's the mean­ing of their ideology.

LEONID LEVIN, {Oppositsiya} newspaper: It has become the practice here in Russia for one person to combine two jobs, one as a government official, especially the executive branch, and the other in some business structure.

My question is does this happen in other countries; and how in your opinion would this affect the economic situation in Russia?

MR. LAROUCHE: In the United States, even today, it would be considered corruption. Of course, the United States, not the present President, but the former President, would encourage that.

When Bush picked a man known to me, Robert Strauss, to become the U.S. ambassador in Moscow my reaction was the United States has sent the prince of thieves to organize crime.

One of the ways in which you induce a country to destroy itself, is by organizing crime within it.

For example, in the case of Italy, the charge was that all the political parties were corrupt. The basis for the charge of corruption, was that the Italian industries or businesses financed the parties. In 1943-45, the American and British occupying authorities set up a system of political parties in Italy and arranged that all the parties would exist on the basis of financing by industry.

Here, the same thing is going on. Certain influences are trying to foster, in Russia, the kinds of corruption which will prevent a solid national government from determining an independent policy.

I could show you--it would be a longer story--documents to show that it is a policy of a certain section of the U.S. Government to foster organized crime within countries as the way to create a free market, and to destroy the possibility that the nation will be able to govern itself by creating a system in which the political parties are financed by gangsters. If a nation is conscious that these dangers exist, of course, it doesn't work.

FELIKS BELELYUBSKY, {Pravda): How do you see the pro-cess that has occurred, of Russia being transformed into a semi-colonial status as part of, if you will, the periphery of the rest of the world?

MR. LAROUCHE: Well, the objective always was--you've seen it, therefore you know these things, you've been around.

In 1955, you had four representatives of Khrushchev who went to meet in London, at a public conference, with Bertrand Russell. The basis for the meeting was a program which Russell had laid out many times, but especially in the October 1946 edi-tion of the {Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists). Russell stated that the purpose of his faction in Britain was to establish world government. He proposed that the U.S. use its monopoly in nu-clear weapons (which the U.S. did not have at that moment, they'd run out of them), to blackmail Stalin into coming back into the {British) interpretation of the Yalta agreements. He said this must be done before Russia develops nuclear weapons; and he said privately he hoped that Stalin would die soon in order to facilitate the agreement with Stalin's successors.

Stalin may have had many faults, but he was a complete Russian Third Romer; and the British understood that they had misunderstood Stalin; so they then wanted to kill him. And maybe they did--or who knows what?

As soon as Stalin was dead, there was a scramble for a new regime in Moscow. You had the Beria succession and so forth and so on, and finally Khrushchev managed to edge out Bulganin, which consolidated a new regime.

At that point, Khrushchev sent an offer to 'Bertrand Russell: You can probably find, in some of the old pages of {Pravda,) what was said about Bertrand Russell while Stalin was still alive. I think the Russian vocabulary for invective was used up.

So Khrushchev made the agreement. It was uneven; but the Pugwash policy of Leo Szilard of 1958 was finally adopted. The United States and Britain, those behind this agreement, believed that they had established a global condominium between two adversaries. The next step, they hoped, in the long term, was to eliminate the adversary and have only the Empire.

The same logic persists today from the same quarters: to use the remaining power of Russia as a subordinated force to London. And if you watch what the British fellows do here whenever a conflict comes between London and Washington, you see exactly how it's being played.

What they're trying to do today is destroy Russia by the same means as the Morgenthau Plan for occupied Germany. One of the things that worries me, is that these fellows in London would like to have a {civil war) occur within the territory of the former Soviet Union to induce Russia to accept a "Blue Helmet" [UN Forces] arrangement within the territory of the former Soviet Union. These forces wish to have a war of some kind between Ukraine and Russia; an aggravation of the Transcaucasus crisis; a civil war in Kazakhstan; and so forth. In the process, they believe that they can use Russia's remaining power and loot it and conquer it, and create the basis for a world empire.

MR. BELELYUBSKY: I have another question. How do you view the analysis of our internal political strife that's circulating now, according to which, the pro-American Yeltsin group would be battling against a pro-European comprador bourgeoisie layer?

MR. LAROUCHE: That's a false picture of the situation. I , have some knowledge of the Clinton Administration. The forces which are behind the attempt to destroy Russia as such, are the British and their friends. Not all the British; there are factions in Britain which say that what their government is doing, is in-sane. And this includes some British intelligence circles which have long been specialists in Russian affairs. We know, because we talk to them.

But the conflict between London and the Clinton administration is the key to understanding how to look at this business; and to recognize that George Bush is {essentially) the same as Mrs. Thatcher.

The Clinton Administration is a small group of people--even within the Democratic Party--which is not distinguished for its boldness. I'm considered very tough in comparison with Clinton, for example.

But certain warnings, including those we transmitted, about what they were doing to Russia were received by the Clinton administration--the only warning that they received from any intelligence sources in the United States, where we said you cannot do this to Russia, we indicated what would happen if they continued the policy. You observed how Clinton reacted to the events of very late September and early October. You probably noticed a small insertion in a speech made by Clinton on the Russia business. You probably noticed the statements here by the Vice President, the statements by Strobe Talbott, that there had been too much shock therapy on Russia.

The Clinton Administration has a policy of trying to develop a policy toward Russia, a Russia policy. There are some people in the Congress and other circles who share that concern. The result of Clinton's concern was an attack upon the Clinton Administration and Clinton himself by British intelligence, by the Hollinger Corporation, which is associated with the {Daily Telegraph). This was entirely straight British intelligence; Hollinger Corporation {is} British intelligence. This is Lord Carrington, this is Henry Kissinger--the whole crowd.

The chief ally of the Hollinger-Thatcher and so forth crowd, was what is called the Bush crowd in the United States. For the present time, since I'm a tough old fox, I was able to intervene with some information to expose the structure of this operation. So temporarily at least the problem that Clinton faced, has been stopped.

What I'm fighting for, is a change in policy by the U.S. Government--not the Clinton policy, which is to be {lenient) with Russia, but to understand what positive steps must be taken for cooperation.

The problem with the Clinton Administration is twofold. They're weak and somewhat vacillating, because first of all, they have not decided exactly what they think they should do; and the inertia is to play the game (I'll come back to what the game is) which was established under Bush.

MR. BELELYUBSKY: Excuse me, what do you mean by con­structive cooperation?

MR. LAROUCHE: Well, my view is the two things I indi­cated. First, we're heading into the greatest financial collapse globally in history. The financial system globally will collapse. I don't think that we're going to be able to change fundamen­tally the policies which are looting the world until that collapse comes, because of a cowardice or weakness among political forces that would want to change it.

My view is that we must have clear objectives and work to see to it that the capabilities of those who will make the changes, will survive until the time comes.

For example, the scientific-military-aerospace technology of the former Soviet Union as it is in Russian hands in particular, {must be kept alive}. So anything that can be done in the form of cooperation to stabilize that situation for the time being, I be­lieve should be done. The Russian Machine-tool sector must be kept intact for the future. Any cooperation which would assist in that effect should be considered.

There should be informational exchanges on analysis of the na­ture of the crisis and the measures which must be eventually taken. This must involve countries such as Japan, such as Ger­many, and so forth. We must have a group of countries which are prepared to cooperate at the moment of a financial break­down to set up a new system.

My concern is to educate the Clinton Administration and certain people around it on these considerations. I'm not in a position to {tell) them what to do, but I'm in a position to present to them a picture.

MR. BELELYUBSKY: Does George' Soros have a correct evaluation of these realities?

MR. LAROUCHE: No. He's British. He's an American citi­zen, but he's a British property. He's owned through the Roth­schilds, by the British royal family, who set up this operation. That's easily traced. It's obvious. There are complications with George Soros, but essentially, when you come down to the peo­ple who can pull the strings that make him live or die, that's where they are.

MR. BELELYUBSKY: My last question would be: How do you evaluate the foreign policy of Germany today? I don't have quite the breadth of information that you have.

MR. LAROUCHE: Vacillating [laughs]. Vacillating. There is no clear government of Germany. The German Government is in trouble. People inside Germany as well as outside, are trying to destabilize the Kohl regime. The elites of Germany no longer have the strength of will and understanding that they had, say, in the 1970s. The last leading German banker of any imagina­tion was Herrhausen, and he was shot.

However, if the United States, or even a section of the Estab­lishment of the United States around the presidency, were to adopt a policy, this would strongly influence the position of Germany. And I'm very hopeful that will occur.

ANDREI MIRONOV: I specialize in human rights. I'm inter­ested in your remark about the parallels with the Italian devel­opment, especially insofar as it is quite apparent to anybody who knows even a little bit about the Italian political system that the way the political electoral practices line up in Russia, they are a rather exact replica of the Italian postwar system.

In that connection, do you believe that the accession of the Berlusconi Government has adequately now shifted the situation in Italy; and if so, in what direction?

MR. LAROUCHE: No. What it's done, is gone to a new phase of instability. Let me give you an example.

Shift your attention briefly to South Africa. I saw broadcasts on the subject of the coming election in South Africa, while I was here in Moscow (I was watching CNN and some German TV broadcasts). Since I know the situation in South Africa rather well from behind the scenes, I would say, the great danger in South Africa today, is that after Mandela Is elected, someone will kill him.

This is consistent with the purpose of people such as Tiny Row­land and the Oppenheimer/DeBeers crowd, which orchestrated the whole thing in the beginning.

Now, in Italy, you have a somewhat different thing. I don't think anybody will shoot Berluscon. I think the difficulty would be finding a vital organ to hit.

But there are two ways to destroy a nation. One is to shoot the head of state; the other is to put a complete clown into the presi­dency or the prime ministership.

What you have in Italy is not politics any more, but a circus. Until this is reversed, you have a government which is totally detached from the people, from the reality of the Italian situa­tion.

Remember this whole operation was put into place by a meeting on the British royal family's yacht off the coast of Italy, in which all the actors planned the whole operation. And they destabilized Italy for the purpose of destroying its government. They have now created, in Italian politics, not a government, but a clown show. Virtually all the old parties, corrupt as some of them were, have disappeared.

You have a totally British operation, which is the Lega Nord. A public relations airhead--Berlusconi--who has no understanding of politics, no concern about it, until recently. He's a com­mentator on politics, not a maker of politics. You have a cap­tive fascist party, which is openly, completely, Benito Mussolini restored. You have the remains of the former Communist Party of Italy, or part of the remains of it, offstage.

This is not capable of governing the country; and this was put together--orchestrated--with the intent that it wouldn't govern the country. It's horrible. The old corruption was better.

MR. MIRONOV: Two questions then, if I may. First of all, in the past, it was also quite typical in Italy to run into people who would say, "Ah, the government's completely corrupt, it's no good. But it doesn't interfere with our lives, so God be with them. We'll live our lives and the government can do what it wants."

MR. LAROUCHE: This is like an Italian wife saying, "My husband plays around with a lot of other women. I wish he'd come home."

MR. MIRONOV: Respecting what you're saying about Britain, it's clear even to the man in the street, you don't have to be an expert to see that the quality of life, the standard of living in Britain, is significantly lower than, say, in Italy.

This is not a place that's rich or better off.

MR. LAROUCHE: But the British people have nothing to do with British imperialism. It was never run for their interests.

Today, of course obviously, the British Empire, the flag, is gone. But if you think of Britain and its empire as a breeder of cows, of turning human beings into cows, the British Empire exists in a system of cows.

For example, what they've done, is {British ideology} dominates the world, and therefore British intelligence operates today on the basis of cultural-ideological influences which through the course of developments of the eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth centuries, has made the acceptance of British ideology dominant.

For example, let's take the case of Adam Smith:"

Modern economic science was developed beginning the fifteenth century. The founder of modern economic science in that sense was a Greek by the name of Plethon, otherwise known as " George Gemisthos Plethon, who lived about 100 years, from the middle of the fourteenth century to the middle of the fifteen century. He wrote a series of reports for the Byzantine Empire, the Paleologues, on a strategy for defending the Empire after the 1401 defeat of the Seljuk Turks by Tamerlane.

He presented an updated version of this report to Cosimo de Medici in Florence in the fifteenth century. In the middle of the fifteenth century, he became one of the most influential minds in the Italian Renaissance, and was responsible for the renewed circulation of Classical Greek knowledge throughout Western Europe.

Out of this came a movement in France, Italy, elsewhere, which is known as {cameralism). Then Colbert established economics almost as a science. Economics as a science was established by Leibniz--as anyone who looks at the history of the St. Peters-burg Academy would understand. Sound economics existed in Russia {long before} Adam Smith existed. It went down the ' drain here in Russia for political reasons, but nonetheless it existed.

In 1763, a student of Giammaria Ortes (a Venetian writer), called Adam Smith was picked up by a guy called the Earl of Shelburne, William Petty, the Second Earl of Shelburne, and as-signed to write a book that was completely traudulent, had no correlation with any economic reality, to be used as a design for destroying the economies of the English colonies in North America, and the economy of France.

Adam Smith's (Wealth of Nations) is a complete fraud. It has no basis in economics. But {Britain was able to establish an empire and to establish the London market as the dominant financial agency in the world.)

Take free trade in Russia today. Does anything happen, in the terms of free trade, to put the Russian physical economy back info production?

Quite the contrary: it's used to loot Russia.

{There is not a single case of a nation which actually accepted a free trade policy, which did not become bankrupt in the matter of less than a decade.)

The first application of free trade was by the Treaty of Paris in 1783, in which Lord Shelburne dictated the policy to France and the United States as a condition of peace. By 1789, both France and the United States were bankrupt. The 'United States recovered, because we had a Constitution which outlawed free trade. The King of France did riot use his head, so he lost it.

{Every time a free trade policy was introduced in the United States' history, the United States nearly went bankrupt.) Every success of the U.S. economy and every success in the German economy in particular, was based on what was called protectionism, which was a rejection of free trade.

Admittedly, the United States today, particularly since the 1970s, has been totally free trade in its tendencies. But for the political power of the United States to exact concessions, the United States today would be absolutely bankrupt economically. So it never worked.

But why do people believe in free trade? Because the British won the war in 1763 against France. The British prevailed over France and other countries in the Treaty of Vienna, 1814/1815. The British designed the policies of Versailles. It was the British, not the Americans, who designed the essential postwar policies of the IMF.

If you trace the history of ideas, you'll find, as in the case of free trade, ideas of British empiricism and related ideas {dominate} education in the world today.

The analogy one can use, is the case of a goldfish. You have a pet goldfish you keep in a small bowl in your house. Now you take the goldfish and you fill your bathtub with water. You put the goldfish in the bathtub; he swims in small circles. To the degree that the gold fish has a mind, you may say the goldfish's problem is not a physical one, it's a mental one.
If you can induce people to accept certain intellectual axioms, you can manipulate them forever. And the world is manipulated by the acceptance of the words "free" trade. Someone says, "Free trade; ah! we like freedom, so we'll have free trade."

The only way we free ourselves from that, is to look at reality and say, "These ideas are foolish from the standpoint of reality."

The hero of such a story is the little boy in the famous fairy tale by Hans Christian Andersen under the title "The Emperor's New Suit of Clothes."

Sometimes you get the great professors and the great ideologues and all the authentic dispensers of public attitudes and public opinions, who are absurd. But a little boy stands up arid says of the Emperor's new clothes: "But daddy, he has nothing on!"

I think many Russian people today, are saying that of free trade. But it's obvious sometimes, that until we stand up like the little boy, and say, "But he has nothing on," that we tend to become prisoners of these kinds of false ideas. In that sense, there is a British Empire of institutions and ideas which lives in the after-math of the collapse of the British Empire as a British Empire.

And only two British, imperialist institutions of any importance exist: the objective power of the British Empire lies in the City of London and associated financial institutions.' The second thing is in the intelligence service, which does not serve the people of Britain, but serves the financial interests of the City of London.

If you go back to the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century history of Venice, and look at Venice's power and read the reports of the Venetian ambassadors, which are published, you will see how the Venetian intelligence service, together with the Venetian financial system, had dominated the world (or at least of the Mediterranean) for a long time. And the British Empire can be thought of, in that sense, today, as only a ghost; but the Venice of the North.

CHAPTER 10

SECRET MILITARY MANEUVERS
THE SPOTLIGHT

"Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with
all thy getting, get understanding."--Proverbs 4:7

VOLUME XX NUMBER 26 June 27, 1994

SECRET MILITARY MANEUVERS
CONCERNAL AMERICANS

Foreign Combat Vehicles Spotted Across the U.S.

You haven't been seeing things. There have been, a number of strange military-related maneuvers around the country lately.

EXCLUSIVE TO THE SPOTLIGHT
by Mike Blair

The SPOTLIGHT has obtained irrefutable evidence that hun­dreds--perhaps thousands--of foreign military vehicles and ar­mor are in the United States, including vehicles intended for use by the UN.

At the same time, President Bill Clinton has signed new Execu­tive Orders, giving wide-ranging new powers to the UN to command U.S. military forces and delegating new powers to the National Security Council and the office of National Security Adviser to the President, a post currently held by Anthony Lake.

Hundreds of railroad flatcars bearing Russian military vehicles and armor and some UN vehicles and armor have been spotted in several states, including Montana, Colorado and Wyoming in the West and Pennsylvania in the East.

In addition, in Mississippi, hundreds of Russian-built vehicles, obtained from what was formerly East Germany and apparently being refurbished for the UN, are located in a massive depot. Many of the vehicles were designed for chemical and biological warfare purposes.

PHOTOS OBTAINED

The SPOTLIGHT has obtained photographs of railroad flat­cars filled with Russian and UN trucks and armor spotted in the Western states, along with others taken of the massive depot in Mississippi.

The SPOTLIGHT has also obtained copies of bills of lading for Russian vehicles obtained for UN purposes from what was for­merly East Germany, which have been shipped to the United States, landing at Gulfport dock facilities in Mississippi and driven to the depot, located three miles south of Saucier, and 45 miles north of Biloxi, along Mississippi Highway 49.

The depot is surrounded with a chain-link fence, topped with barbed wire, and guard dogs are reported to be used to protect the area from intruders.

A videotape taken of the area and obtained by The SPOTLIGHT shows dozens of the vehicles, including several chemical and bi­ological warfare decontamination trucks that have been painted white, presumably for UN use.

The bill of lading, indicating that the vehicles were obtained through a West German firm s operating under the name of Beesch Merkator, lists dozens of Russian-built military trucks intended for UN purposes.

The vehicles include several varieties of Russian ZIL-131 heavy trucks, including some listed to be of the ARS-14 type, which are chemical and biological warfare decontamination vehicles, and two varieties of ZIL-157 heavy trucks.

OTHERS AT DEPOT

However, photographs obtained by The SPOTLIGHT of the truck depot near Saucier also include other Russian-built trucks, including some of what appear to be the MAZ-500 series.

A detailed report has been obtained that confirms a large road, about 35 feet in width, has been built to connect the truck depot with the Stennis NASA Space Center, located about 20 miles southeast of the depot near the Mississippi-Louisiana border.

There have also been reports that the vehicles are being shipped by barges on the Pearl River, which runs along the border of the two states, north to some unknown destination.

Late last March, a train with 100 flatbed cars bearing Russian-type jeeps, trucks and U.S. armored personnel carriers, some painted white with UN markings on their sides, were seen and photographed at a railroad crossing at Rye Gate, Montana, about 10 miles north of interstate Route 12, south of the east­ernmost section of the Lewis and Clark National Forest, and about 60 miles northeast of Bozeman.

RUSSIAN ARMOR

On the train were Russian BMP-40 armored cars, loaded four to a flatcar. The BMP-40 was designed for urban warfare and as a rapid-assault offensive vehicle. Protruding from the vehicles' turrets could be seen short-barreled 75 millimeter cannons. The Soviets also equipped the vehicles with Sagger anti-tank mis­siles. The armored cars are built for amphibious use.

Also on the train were Russian UAZ-469B light, jeep-like vehi­cles, what appears to be more ZIL-131 trucks and KamAZ 5320 Russian trucks.

Some of the flatcars were loaded with American-built M113 ar­mored personnel carriers, some of which were painted white and bore the letters "UN" on the sides.

On May 29 at about 6 pm, a long train of 100 flat cars loaded with tanks and armored vehicles, some of which were believed to be of foreign manufacture, was spotted heading from the northeast toward the west along Horseshoe Curve at Altoona, Pennsylvania.

Then, on May 31 at about 2 am, what may have been the same train was seen by an Air Force police officer returning to Mal­strom Air Force Base at Great Falls, Montana, while he was driving through Wheatland, Wyoming, about 60 miles north of Cheyenne.

TRAINS GUARDED

At the crossing in Wheatland, according to the airman, three trains were stopped, two heading north and one heading south, to allow an eastbound train to pass.

While the three trains, all of which carried military vehicles, were stopped, they were guarded, according to the airman, by soldiers in black field uniforms. The three trains were carrying what he said were armored vehicles, some of which attracted his attention. Due to the darkness, he could not identify the vehi­cles as to type or origin.

Two days later, what was thought to have been one of the northbound trains was spotted on a siding at Sun Prairie, north of Great Falls, Montana.

Another reported sighting of a long train loaded with military vehicles was reported in Colorado at about the same time.

Meanwhile, five train-loads of armored vehicles have been re­ported to have arrived at Fort Chafee, Arkansas, where ob­servers have spotted large stockpiles of barbed wire and the re­cent arrival of some 5,000 mattresses.

Sources estimate that there are currently from 2,000 to 3,000 armored vehicles at Fort Chafee.

After thousands of supposed Cuban refugees were allowed into the United States by President Jimmy Carter in 1978, many who were found to be mental patients and criminals were confined at Fort Chafee, which is, along with Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania, and Fort Drum, New York, among locations that have been secretly selected as detention centers for dissidents during some future declared "national emergency," according to persistent rumors

NEW EXECUTIVE ORDERS
SMACK OF TOTALITARIANISM

Is President Clinton preparing to assume dictatorial powers? The machinery is in place, thanks to new Executive Orders signed during his term.

EXCLUSIVE TO THE SPOTLIGHT
bv Mike Blair

The SPOTLIGHT has learned that President Clinton has signed at least two new so-called Executive Orders dealing with nation security matters since taking office.

Executive Orders, signed by previous presidents going back to at least Franklin Delanor Roosevelt, allow for martial law to be declared in the United States with a simple stroke of the pen by the president.

President Carter, as an example, signed Executive Order 12148, which delegated the power to run the country under martial law to the shadowy Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in the event of a declared "national emergency."

Even presidential powers were put in the hands of the director of FEMA, which included the power to suspend all rights guar-anteed Americans under the Constitution.

Clinton on June 3 signed an Executive Order dealing with "National Defense Industrial Resources Preparedness," which now subordinates the power of FEMA to deal with industrial and natural resources, labor, and matters dealing with energy to the National Security Council and the National Security Advisor.

In the complex order, various matters dealing with resources are delegated under the National Security Council and National Security Advisor to, among others, the Secretaries of Defense, Treasury, Commerce, etc.

The order closes with the ominous note:

"Judicial Review: This order is not intended to create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by a party against the United States, its agencies, its officers or any person."

BEYOND COURTS

It would appear that the order exempts federal agencies and officials operating under the order from review by the federal judiciary.

Earlier, on May 5, President Clinton signed what is known as Presidential Decision Directive 25 (PDD-25), which deals with placing U.S. military forces under UN command.

Rep. Jim Lightfoot (R-Iowa) is attempting to have the directive declassified, either by inserting it into the official records of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations or the Congressional Record, the compilation of daily activities on Capitol Hill.

A Lightfoot aide told The SPOTLIGHT the congressman was awaiting an opinion of the House counsel regarding the declassification process.

"With this administration, actions speak louder than words," Lightfoot said. "And when [UM Secretary General [Boutros] Boutros-Ghali says 'jump,' it appears President Clinton asks 'how high?' "

Apparently, according to Lightfoot, the directive was originally written as Presidential Review Directive 13 (PRD 13) and included language inserted by then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Colin Powell, which "allowed U.S. commanders under UN command to not comply with orders which they believe are: (1) outside the mandate of the mission, (2) illegal under U.S. law, or (3) militarily imprudent or unsound."

"After Gen. Powell retired," Lightfoot said, "that language was changed to read that commanders of U.S. Forces, instead of acting on their training and initiative, would refer the matter to higher U.S. authorities. Sen. Strom Thurmond [R-S.C.] has de-risively referred to this as the 'phone home' clause."

Two points about PDD-25 should be noted:

First, it does not specify where U.S. Forces might be serving under UN command, which could mean either on foreign soil or domestically.

Secondly, it appears that deployment of "less that 100 troops" would be exempt from any restrictions against obeying UN commands.

This, as one military expert advised The SPOTLIGHT, would mean that so-called Special Operations deployments, which are nearly always in forces of less than 100 men and include such highly-specialized units as Army Special Forces, Navy SEALs, Marines Force Recon Etc., could be ordered by the president to be undertaken under UN command without restrictions by U.S. military authority.

Working with Rep. Lightfoot in attempting to force the classified PDD-25 to be made public is Rep. Craig Thomas (R-Wyo.).

WHO 'S WHO ATTENDEES AT

BILDERBERG MEETING

During the first week of June, the movers and shakers of the world met in Finland to decide your future.

Following are the participants at the Bilderberg meeting in Helsinki, Finland June 2.5.

Chairman: Peter Carrington, former chairman of the board, Christie's International plc; former secretary general, NATO.

Honorary Secretary-General for Europe and Canada: Victor Halberstadt, professor of public economics, Leiden University, Netherlands.

Honorary Secretary-General for U.S.: Casimir A. Yost, director, Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University, Washington.

* * *

Preceding the name of each of the following participants is the code for his/her country.

Key: (A) Austria; (B) Belgium; (CDN) Canada; (CH) Switzerland; (D) Germany; (DK) Denmark; (E) Spain; (F) France; (FIN) Finland; (GB) Great Britain; (GR) Greece; (I) Italy; (ICE) Iceland; (INT) International; (IRL) Ireland; (L) Luxemburg; (N) Norway; (NL) Netherlands; (P) Portugal; (PL) Poland; (S) Sweden; (TR) Turkey and (US) United States.
(I) Giovanni Agnelli, chairman, Fiat SpA.
(I) Umberto Agnelli, chairman IFIL.
(FIN) Krister Ahlstrom, president and CEO, Ahlstrom Group.
(FIN) Esko Aho, prime minister.
(FIN) Martti Ahtisaari, president of the Republic of Finland.
(US) Paul A. Allaire, chairman, Xerox Corp.
(TR) Ali Hikmet Alp, ambassador, permanent representative of Turkey to the CSCE.
(I) Alfredo Ambrosetti, chairman, Ambrosetti Group.
(US) Dwayne O. Andreas, chairman, Archer-Daniels-Mid­land Co. Inc.
(GR) Gerasimos Arsenis, minister of defense.
(P) Francisco Pinto Balsemao, professor of mass communica­tions, New University, Lisbon; chairman, Sojornal sari; former prime minister.
(S) Percy Barnevik, president and CEO, ABB Asea Brown Boveri Ltd.
(P) Jose Manuel Durao Barrosso, minister for foreign affairs.
(US) Douglas J. Bennet, assistant secretary of state for in­ternational organizations.
(S) Hans Bergstrom, political editor, Dagens Nyheter.
(I) Franco Bernabe, managing director, Ente Nazionale Idrocar­buri (ENI).
(D) Christoph Bertram, diplomatic correspondent, Die Zeit; former director, International Institute for Strategic Studies.
(NL) Ernst H. van der Beugel, emeritus professor international relations, Leiden University; former honorary secretary general of Bilderberg meetings for Europe and Canada.
(TR) Selahattin Beyazit, director of companies.
(CDN) Conrad M. Black, chairman, The Telegraph plc.
(D) Birgit Breuel, chairman, Treuhandanstalt.
(GR) Costa Carras, director of companies.
(E) Jaime Carvajal Urquijo, chairman and general manager, Iberfomento.
(I) Innocenzo Cipolletta, director general, Confindustria. (B) Willy Claes, minister of foreign affairs.
(US) E. Gerald Corrigan, former president, Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
(US) Ramon C. Cortines, chancellor, New York City Board of Education.
(CH) Flavio Cotti, federal councilor and minister for foreign af­fairs.
(GB) Percy Cradock, former ambassador to China; former for­eign policy adviser to the prime minister.
(US) Kenneth W. Dam, Max Pam Professor of American and Foreign Law, University of Chicago Law School; former deputy secretary of state.
(B) Etienne Davignon, chairman, Societe Generale de Belgique; former vice chairman of the Commission of the European Communities.
(I) Mario Draghi, director general, Ministry of the Treasury.
(CDN) Marie-Josee Drouin, executive director, Hunson Institute of Canada.
(FIN) Georg Ehrnrooth, president and CEO, Metra Corp.
(DK) Uffe Ellemann-Jensen, member of parliament; former minister for foreign affairs.
(US) Mike Espy, secretary of agriculture.
(F) Laurent Fabius, member of parliament, former prime min­ister, former chairman of parliament.
(US) James J. Florio, former governor of New Jersey.
(US) Stephen Freedman, chairman, Goldman Sachs & Co.
(US) Louis V. Gerstner Jr., chairman, IBM Corp.
(US) Katharine Graham, chairman of the executive commit­tee, the Washington Post Co.
(FIN) Sirkka Hamalainen, chairman of the board, Bank of Fin­land.
(GB) Nicholas Henderson, former ambassador to Poland, Ger­many, France and the U.S.
(NL) Cor A.J. Herkstroter, chairman, Royal Dutch Shell.
(N) Westye Hoegh, chairman of the board, Leif Hoegh & Co. AS; president, Norwegian Shipowners' Association.
(US) Robert E. Hunter, U.S. representative to NATO. (B) Jan Huyghebaert, chairman, Almanij-Krediebank Group.
(FIN) Jaako Ihamuotila, chairman of the board and CEO, Neste Corp.
(FIN) Jaako Iloniemi, managing director, Centre for Finnish Business and Policy Studies, former ambassador to the U.S.
(L) Pierre Jaans, general manager, Institut Monetaire Luxem­bourgeois.
(F) Philippe Jaffre, chairman and CEO, Elf Aquitaine.
(FIN) Max Jakobson, consultant; former ambassador to the UN and Sweden.
(A) Peter Jankowitsch, ambassador to the OECD; former fed­eral minister for foreign affairs.
(US) Vernon E. Jordan Jr., senior partner, Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, attorneys at law.
(US) Henry Kissinger, former secretary of state; chairman, Kissinger Associates, Inc.
(GB) Andrew Knight, chairman, News International plc.
(TR) Rahmi M. Koc, chairman of the board of directors, Koc Holding A.S.
(FIN) Jan Kohler, president, Finnish Forest Industries Federa­tion.
(INT) Max Kohnstamm, former secretary general, Action Committee for Europe; former president, European University Institute.
(D) Hilmar Kopper, spokesman of the board of managing di­rectors, Deutsch Bank A.G.
(NL) Pieter Korteweg, president and CEO, Robeco Group; honorary treasurer of Bilderberg meetings.
(A) Max Kothbauer, deputy chairman, Creditanstalt­Bankverein.
(US) Peter F. Krogh, dean, School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University.
(S) Stig Larsson, president and director general, Swedish Rail­ways.
(F) Andre Levy-Lang, chairman, Banque Paribas.
(NL) Ruud F.M. Lubbers, prime minister.
(CDN) Roy MacLaren, minister for international trade.
(US) Charles W. Maynes, editor, Foreign Policy.
(CDN) Frank McKenna, premier of New Brunswick.
(US) David McLaughlin, president, the Aspen Institute.
(F) Thierry de Montbrial, director, French Institute of Interna­tional Relations, professor of Economics, Ecole Polytechinique.
(I) Mario Monti, rector and professor of economics, Bocconi University, Milan.
(NL) Her Majesty Queen Beatrix.
(US) Joseph S. Nye Jr., chairman, National Intelligence Council.
(ICE) David Oddsson, prime minister.
(PL) Andrzej Olechowski, minister of foreign affairs.
(FIN) Jorma 01lila, president and CEO, Nokia Corp.
(US) Thomas R. Pickering, U.S. ambassador to Russia.
(CH) David de Pury, chairman, BBC Brown Boveri Ltd. and co-chairman, ABB Asea Brown Boveri Group.
(F) Jean-Bernard Raimond, member of parliament; former min­ister of foreign affairs.
(E) Rodrigo de Rato Figaredo, parliamentary leader of the Mi­nority Group (Partido Popular).
(US) Rozanne L. Ridgway, co-chair, Atlantic Council of the United States.
(US) David Rockefeller, chairman, Chase Manhattan Bank International Advisory Committee.
(GB) Eric Roll, president, S.G. Warburg Group plc.
(I) Renato Ruggiero, executive vice-chairman, International Ad­visory Board, Fiat SpA; former minister of trade.
(D) Volker Ruhe, minister of defense.
(US) Robert A. Scalapino, Robson Research Professor of Government emeritus, University of California, Berkeley.
(CH) Stephan Schmidheiny, chairman, ANOVA Holdings Ltd.; former chairman, Business Council for Sustainable Develop­ment.
(D) Jurgen E. Schrempp, CEO, Daimler-Benz-Luft-und-Raum­fahrt Holding AG.
(CH) Wolfgang Schurer, chairman, MS Management Service AG.
(US) Brent Scowcroft, former assistant to the president for national security affairs.
(DK) Toger Scidenfaden, editor-in-chief, Politiken.
(US) Jack Sheinkman, president, Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union, AFL-CIO-CLC.
(US) George Soros, president, Soros Fund Management.
(E) Her Majesty Queen Sofia.
(US) James B. Steinberg, director for policy planning, State Department.
(N) Thorvald Stoltenberg, co-chairman, International Confer­ence on the Former Yugoslavia; former minister for foreign af­fairs; former minister of defense.
(D) Jurgen Strube, chairman of the board of executive director, BASF AG.
(IRL) Peter D. Sutherland, director general, GATT; former member, Commission of the European Community; former chairman, Allied Irish Banks plc.
(GB) J. Martin Taylor, chief executive, Barclays Bank plc.
(CDN) William Thorsell, editor, The Globe and Mail.
(P) Miguel Veiga, lawyer.
(FIN) Gerhard M.H. Wendt, president, Kone Corp.
(CDN) Peter G. White, chairman of Unimedia; former head of the prime minister's office.
(US) John C. Whitehead, former deputy secretary of state.
(US) Frank G. Wisner, under-secretary for policy, Department of Defense.
(US) James D. Wolfensohn, president and CEO, James D. Wolfensohn, Inc.
(D) Otto Wolff von Amerongen, chairman and CEO, Otto Wolff GmbH.
(US) Paul D. Wolfowitz, dean, SAIS, Johns Hopkins University.
(US) Mortimer B. Zuckerman, editor, U.S. News and World Report.
Rapporteurs:
(US) Grant F. Winthrop, partner, Milbank, Winthrop & Co.
(US) Alice Victor, executive assistant, Rockefeller Financial Services, Inc.
In Attendance:
(NL) Maja Banck, executive secretary, Bilderberg meeting.
(SF) Mirja Jarimo-Lehtinen, local organizer, 1994.(CH) Margrit Markstaller.
(US) Charles W. Muller, president, Murden & Co.; adviser, American Friends of Bilderberg, Inc.

[wave]

PJ 100

CHAPTER 11

THE MILITIA

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a freestate, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The following accounts regarding "militias" will explain why our founding fathers included the militia in the 2nd Amendment when they had already provided provisions for the militia in the first and second Articles of the Constitution, and reflects the ur-gent requirement for a "militia" today.

HISTORY OF THE MILITIA

The history of the militia goes back almost to the beginning of time. I will cover just a few examples as to how the militia was used.

54 B.C.: CAESAR'S INVASION OF BRITAIN

On this day Caesar landed at Britain with 23,000 troops, with some 800 support vessels. The total number of full time military facing them was numbered at about 500 in all between the "four Kings of Kent".

A man by the name of Cassivellaunus was made the commander-in-chief of the forces of Britain. Cassivellaunus knew that he wouldn't stand a chance against Caesar's 23,000 troops. It was time to call out the militia. Cassivellaunus martialed the individual forces of the land owners, freemen and men at arms. Thenceforth, they set out on a campaign of harassment against Caesar.

To make a long story short, on the 13th of August after, in Caesar's words, "in extracting tribute and prisoners for the Brits" embarked and left Britain forever more, having "conquered" the coveted British Isles for the glory of Rome.

The fact is, the militia defended Britain and forced Caesar and his army to leave.

FINLAND

In little Finland, when Russian troops attacked, they were ready, and for several months the militia were able to respond and not only repel the invading Russian troops, but actually gain territory from them in bitter winter fighting. When Russia made a secret defense pact with China, who was embroiled in a civil war itself, it allowed it to move troops into Finland and fight them to a stand still, then take territory, but in such bitter fighting that a peace treaty followed. It was not as a result of the standing army, nor mass enlistments and training during the conflict. Finland's freedom was the result of its militia. After World War II Finland was the only former German friend or ally be-sides Spain that did not fall into the Soviet sphere of influence, or came under the heel of occupation by a foreign power. But, Spain had not participated in any hostilities as Finland had. Why? Because Finland and its militia was once again ready to defend itself from Russia or from the invading victorious Allies.

AFGHANISTAN

In Afghanistan, the central government was corrupted, and be-came a Communist-Marxist state instead of a Moslem-socialist state as mandated by it constitution. A civil war broke out between the standing army of Afghanistan and the citizens of the state who would not give up the Moslem religion. The people hastily formed militia units who fought a protracted civil war against the oppressive central government and its ally, the Soviet Union, for 11 years, finally winning. Never did the several militias ever unite, or become uniformed, trained, or equipped into a formal standing army. They retained, for the entire 11 years, the militia organization, training, methods and small arms equipment, and defeated the largest military power in the world doing so. Remember, Afghanistan was the Russian equivalent to America's war in Vietnam.

"A MAN'S HOME IS HIS CASTLE"
THE MAGNA CHARTA

On the 19th of June, 1215, the barons of King John appeared before him, bearing arms, compelling him under force, to sign what is called the Manga Charta (Magna Carta). This great Charter was a pact between the crown and the citizens of Eng-land, declaring the rights and liberties of the citizens, which included the right to "keep and bare arms". The arms spoken of were not specified, but was implied to be the articles of war that were necessary to go into battle. Thus, for the Knights and Nobles, this likewise meant castles with moats, ramparts, draw bridges, etc., and all of the other paraphernalia of a castle and needs to secure it. Thus comes the comment, "a man's home is his castle" meaning that a man had a right to fortify his home against any who may assault it, and likewise, have right to defend it in like manner.

The right to keep and near arms and defending his home "like a castle" was passed down from generation to generation.

THE MILITIA AND THE

FOUNDING OF AMERICA

Our founding fathers were schooled in these lessons of history, in fact most of them were quite fluent in Latin, Greek, and many of them in Hebrew. They read and knew of the Gaelic Campaigns of Caesar, The Greek City States, and many other books written about the military history of each of the nations and why they either excelled as a nation, or failed as a society.

Our founding fathers were wise to the ways of the world in Eu-rope, Asia, and in the Spanish possessions in Central and South America. They knew that without the militia they would never succeed--and so history has proven.

THE TRUE PURPOSE OF
THE 2ND AMENDMENT

There was much discussion during the constitutional convention as to how the states would secure their sovereignty and liberties from a national government. They were afraid that sooner or later there would come a time that this nation might be attacked or that the government would turn into a monarchy. They established the three branches of government, with the separation of powers. To further ensure that this nation could not be subverted from within, they protected the right of the militia of the several states to keep and bear arms through the second amendment.

The majority of Americans today, believe the reason that our forefathers wanted the people to have the right to keep and bear arms was for the purpose of self defense against criminals, hunting, etc. This is NOT the primary reason for the enactment of the 2nd Amendment. Let's let Thomas Jefferson explain it for US.

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

--Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson also understood that those who would attempt to take away the liberty of the citizens of this nation must first disarm them. He knew what their argument for infringing on the second amendment would be and what their argument would be for abusing it. We are all familiar with the Anti-gun advocates argument, that if we take away the guns of the people, we will lower the crime rate.

But this argument was dealt with by Thomas Jefferson when he copied in his Commonplace Book, the words of the Italian philosopher Cesare Beccaria in 1775:

"False is the idea of utility...that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction (of liberty). The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes such laws serve rather to encourage than to pre-vent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

Our founding fathers were very familiar with the words of Beccaria, and they no doubt knew this quote by Lord George Littleton:

"To argue against any breach of liberty from the ill use that may be made of it, is to argue against liberty itself, since all is capable of being abused."

Most of our founding fathers served in the militia, including George Washington, who commanded the Virginia Militia during the French-Indian War. They all had a vision and intimate knowledge of the militia as being the source for the protection of the rights of the people, local government rights and the Constitution. They had fought the French Regular Army and along side their brothers the British Army, as militia. During the Revolution, they had fought, some as militia and others as regular troops of the Army of the United States of America, along side the French Army, against both Tory Militia, Regular British and German troops.

They also knew that if in the future that our Constitution was not interpreted according to the history in which it was drafted, we would not have a proper understanding of the original intent of our founding fathers, or in the words of James Madison, primary author and supreme expert on the Constitution:

"do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted bastardized form of illegitimate government."

THE MILITIA IN FOREIGN NATIONS

The militia is not new or unique to America. There are many nations who have had both good and bad experiences with the militia.

In current Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and Yugoslavia, we have seen that it has been by and through the militia that Croatia gained its independence, Bosnia would have been overrun by the regular forces of Yugoslavia without a militia, and Yugoslavia would be under attack from a foreign nation if it were not for a nearly one million man armed militia.

In Iraq, there exist two separate militia forces, one in the North, and one on the South. Currently the United States, and United Nations, are in the process of helping those militia maintain peace and security from their own country and President from attacking them. If it were not for the militia of the Kurds and Suni Muslims in Iraq, it is a documented fact that the nation in which they live would be practicing a genocidal war upon them. The militia of the Kurds and Suni is the only thing that stands between them and death.

In Greece, Rome and Israel, a militia was used for many years. However, as these nations passed into time and history, they all went away from the concept of a militia as the security back­bone, to a standing army, and finally to either a king or emperor who had total control over the military just as the National Guard Act does currently in the United States. The result is ob­vious, Greece, Rome and Israel all passed into oblivion.

NATIONAL GUARD vs THE MILITIA

Most Americans today believe that The National Guard is the Militia reserved to the states in the State Constitutions and the Constitution of the United States of America. Nothing could be further from the truth.

To begin with, the National Guard did not even exist in 1775, 1787, 1791 or even all of the 1800s. It was created by Congress as the Act of January 21, 1903, known by the name of its spon­sor as the "The Dick Act". In fact, the 1982 Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Senate Judiciary Committee, says this:

"That the National Guard is not the 'militia' referred to in the Second Amendment is even clearer today. Congress had orga­nized the National Guard under its power to 'raise and support armies' and not its power to 'Provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia.' The modern National Guard was specifically intended to avoid status as the constitutional militia, a distinction recognized by 10 U.S.C. 311(a)."

Also the arms and ammunition, etc., of the National Guard are owned and controlled by the government, not by "the people" as clearly stipulated in the Second Amendment.

In 1913 as the potential for war in Europe began to be taken se­riously, President Wilson enacted the Reserve Officer Training Act, and put with colleges small military units that were to train officers for the reserve forces of the U.S. Army. In 1916, when the war was then in full bloom, Teddy Roosevelt asked Wilson for a commission as a General, and volunteered to raise a militia army, just as he did in the Spanish-American War, and lead it into battle in Europe, as he did in Cuba. Wilson reacted as any cold blooded politician would, and eliminated the militia in the United States, unilaterally, on June 3 with U.S. Code, Title 32, which completely altered the definition of the militia and it ser­vice, who controlled it, and what it was. Without knowing it or realizing it, title 32 violated every article and section of the Constitution and the Second Amendment. For instance the law:

* Made the National Guard part of the Armed Forces of the United States.

* Made the National Guard "federally recognized," instead of state recognized.

* Active duty was now at the discretion of the U.S. military, not by call out of governor of legislature.

* Finances the National Guard from the U.S. Treasury.

* The Guard is placed under the direct command of the "staff corps of the Army as the Secretary of the Army may authorize." Thus also placing them under the direct command of the Secre­tary of the Army.

* Made the president the commanding officer of the national guard, not a president, but as the senior officer, making it a pri­vate army of the president. (32 USCS 104, c,d,e,f)

* On July 9, 1918, the difference between National Guard and Regular Army was swept away, and became a personnel pay folder classification only, thus nationalizing the entire National Guard into the Regular standing Armies of the United States.

* If the state does not conform to the law, all money to the state may be withheld by order of the president. (Section 108)

And in Section 110, finally puts the nail in the coffin of every principle of freedom and liberty in America with:

* "The President shall prescribe regulations, and issue orders necessary to organize, discipline, and govern the National Guard."

thus, making the president a dictator over the very people that were thought by the Founding Fathers to be the last vestiges of hope in keeping and maintaining the vigil against tyranny, op­pression and a dictatorship.

STATE REACTION

Each state was forced to quickly comply to new law, or risk loss of funding, aid, and support from the federal government. In Montana, the legislature responded with Title 10, Military Af­fairs and Disaster and Emergency Services, which states in 10­1-104 MCA: Federal regulations to govern.

"Federal laws and regulations, forms, precedents, and usages relating to and governing the armed forces of the United States and militia, including The Uniform code of Military Justice, shall, insofar as they are applicable and not inconsistent with the constitution of this state, apply to and govern the military forces of this state, including all members of the National Guard on active duty within the state as active duty guard/ reserve (AGR) personnel under Title 32, U.S.C."

Other states quickly capitulated, with Massachusetts being the last, in the 1950s. Besides the State of Montana stating that the federal rules and regulations were to be in compliance with the state constitution they also reserved to themselves by definition and organization a remnant of the militia. In title 10-1-104 they provided:

"Classes of militia. The classes of the militia are:
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Montana home guard;
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the organized militia."

They divided the militia into two classes, the organized militia which consists of the National Guard and the Montana Home Guard, both of these must follow all rules and regulations of the federal government. The second class of militia is the unorga­nized militia. The unorganized militia is made up of all able-bodied citizens of this state who are not members of the orga­nized and as such are not recognized or supported by the federal government, therefor, the unorganized militia conforms with "Militia" as provided for in the second amendment.

MILITIAS THAT HAVE BEEN DISBANDED

What has happened in nations where the militia once existed and then was disbanded. We do not hear of little East Timor, who, by the power of a militia overthrew a central government op­pressive to the right of the people, and was backed by the for­eign nation of Indonesia. When they won the war, the militia was disbanded, and weapons collected. In three months, Indonesia attacked, with the aid of the United States, and captured and annexed East Timor, as a nation it no longer exists. Enough Said!

Is this a unique example? No. The loss of militia organization to the civilian populace has always been followed by a change in government. We can look at the examples of Poland, after World War II, and the extensive role that militia, called partisans, played in the freeing of that nation from the grasp of Hitler's Germany, and after the war the government ended the militia, and began regulations on the kind of arms the citizens could posses. The result was that two years later, a backroom revolution brought Poland into the family of Communist nations. Nor is Poland an isolated example, Czechoslovakia followed the experience, as did Hungary, Romania, and Yugoslavia who had the largest militia armies at the close of the war.

In the cases of the communist takeovers, the governments them-selves precipitated the crises to subvert the people and eliminate the militia within each nation. It was not that the people them-selves could not own a weapon, even up until its formal demise you could own a shot gun or hunting rifle in the Soviet Union. Italy, Germany, all of the communist nations have gun control laws that allow the citizen to keep arms. What all of those nations have eliminated was the ability to be organized and bare the arms. In each and every one of the communist nations there was a backroom take over of the central governments, the elimination of organizations and leadership that would have al-lowed for a militia or any kind of training and preparation was eliminated prior to the political haggling that brought down the free government to be replaced with the socialist government.

THE BRADY BILL

Handgun Control, Inc., was founded by Sarah Brady to lead in the legislation of the disarming of America. Sarah Brady is not for the rights of Americans, she is a Socialist through and through. In her own words she states:

"Our task of creating a SOCIALIST America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been TOTALLY DISARMED."
(emphasis added)

Who would oppose Mrs. Brady in her task? The Militia. Remember Thomas Jefferson's words that the primary purpose of tile second amendment was to ensure that Americans as a last resort would be able to defend themselves against a tyrannical government.

Also, Sarah Brady was awarded by special lobbyist organizations to the tune of $250,000 for getting the Brady Bill passed.

MILITIA VERSUS ARMS

Many feel that it is too much to have a militia, that we need to just settle for the possession of arms, or that a militia is too militaristic sounding and out of date. Has it been out of date for Bosnia, Croatia, the Kurds, Suni? A gun and a few hundred rounds of ammunition? This is not the concept of the Founding Fathers and the purpose and level of preparation of the militia. The militia, under the second amendment, is to be able to bare arms, meaning to use them in a military confrontation, not just pack them around the house, yard or forest. To stand on the second amendment means that you are willing, able, and have desires of belonging to a militia, to whom the right of keeping and bearing arms is guaranteed.

The security of a free state is not found in the citizens having guns in the closet. It is found in the citizenry being trained, pre-pared, organized, equipped and lead properly so that if the government uses its force against the citizens, the people can respond with a superior amount of arms, and appropriately defend their rights.

The framers had learned that the regular Army would not protect the rights of the people when the bureaucracy or a truant went mad with power. It was not the army, or the bureaucratic officials, members of parliament or Governors who made up the Revolutionary militia, Continental Congress, or Committees of Correspondence that started the war to protect the rights of man. It was John Q. Public--the common man. Thus, the right of the people to keep and bears is the essential element of a well regulated militia, which is the right of a free state for its defense and security.

Our government by passing these Crime Bills and the Brady Bill have shown us that they are attempting to disarm the militias of the several states. With the National Guard belonging to the Armed Forces of the United States the several states will have lost their power to protect and defend the citizens and property of their state.

It is not enough to have a gun, it takes knowing how to use it, when, and who you can trust and rely upon.

The lessons of history should not be lost on us. History if not studied is bound to be repeated. Its up to us to know and appreciate what our Founding Fathers gave us, and how hard they had to study to give it to us.

If the army has control of the militia, the militia will be obedient to the command of the army, which is in the command of government. If the militia is independent and viable, then only laws which are right and just will come forth from the government, keeping the populace supportive and loyal to the government. To balance the military power of the nation, with the might of the militia, will put at odds any scheme by government officials to use the force of the government against the people. Therefore, when the codes and statutes are unjust for the majority of the people, the people will rightly revolt, and the government will have to acquiesce without a shot being fired, because the militia stands vigilant in carrying out the will of the people in defense of rights, liberty and freedom.

The purpose of government is in the protection of the rights of the people, when it does not accomplish this, the militia is the crusader who steps forward, and upon it rests the mantle of defense of the rights of the people.

The United States of America, formerly a Republic, now hangs in the balance. We can leave our fate in the hands of corrupted, self serving, foreign mercenaries, trust our fate to their decisions, which are fostered by agencies of our government and private corporations in its employ, denying us the freedom to "keep and bare arms", which is "necessary to the security of a free State", or we can return to the original intent of our Founding Fathers (who bled and died for this country), in the defense of our God given unalienable rights, protected by the Constitution, and guaranteed to us as citizens, by the Second Amendment.

Put simply, one cannot believe in the Right to keep and bear arms without believing in the "Militia" .

YOUR CHOICE: FREEDOM OR SLAVERY

"The security of a state wholly depends upon this, the good graces of the citizens upon whose back it rests. When the individual citizen no longer takes an active part in the defense of his nation, that nation is soon to fall."

* * * * *

M.O.M.
C/O P.O. Box 1486
Noxon, Montana 59853

(406)847-2246

THE MILITIA OF MONTANA
SANDERS COUNTY, UNIT ALPHA
RULES AND REGULATIONS

We, the able-bodied Citizens of Sanders County, of the State of Montana, in Order to fulfill our Duty as members of the unorganized Militia of the State of Montana, in the most efficient manner, and to further the attached Declaration, do hereby establish these Rules and Regulations for Unit Alpha of the unorganized Militia of Montana, in Sanders County.

CHAPTER I
RANK AND STRUCTURE

1. Unit Leadership. The leadership of the Unit shall consist of a Commander, supported by Officers, the number and rank of which will be required by the Structure of this Unit.

2. Appointment of Officers.

a. The Unit commander shall be chosen by unanimous voice by the members of the Unit. If a Commander can not achieve unanimous voice of the members who shall serve under his command, dissatisfied members of Unit Alpha may resign from Unit Alpha, for the purpose of forming a separate and indepen­dent Unit in Sanders County as another volunteer organization, within Sanders County, for the purpose of supporting the unor­ganized "Militia of Montana."

b. Officers shall be chosen by the Unit Commander, which shall be sustained by two-thirds vote of men who shall serve un­der his command.

3. Uniform. The uniform of the Unit shall consist of Blue Jeans and a Gray (medium shade) shirt, with exceptions to be based upon the need of the Unit and its purpose and location of service.

4. Conformity with Organized Militia. The Unit shall conform as closely as possible to the rank and structure of the organized Militia of the State of Montana without violating 10-1-614 of the MCA, but if the Unit' becomes engaged in active services of the State of Montana, Unit Alpha shall then be organized into such ranks as conforms to the branch of service of the organized militia, which they are in service with.

5. Officers. Officers shall receive a Rank that would be appli­cable to the number of men under his command and/or his type of service in the Unit.

6. Selection of New Officers.

a. The selection of new officers shall be made by appoint­ment of the Unit Commander and with the concurrence of two-thirds of the men who shall serve under his command.

b. Replacement of the Unit Commander shall require a unanimous vote by all members of the Unit and such replace­ment shall be a man who has served in the Unit for a minimum of one year.

7. New Members. New members may join the Unit by:

a. Age. The qualifications for service shall be all able-bod­ied Citizens of the State of Montana, inhabiting the County of Sanders, who have obtained the age of 20 or older, in no case may this be waived for youth younger than 18.

b. Reading the Declaration and Covenant. Having the Dec­laration read to them, they shall state to the Officer reading the Declaration that they agree and support such document; the new member shall also declare his support and loyalty to the Unit and them by a vote of three-fourths affirmation by the Unit, the Unit Commander shall accept such membership; the new mem­ber is then presented to the Unit, where all members sustain him in full brotherhood. Upon acceptance as a member of the Unit, the new member shall be enlisted with the covenant of service as follows:

"I (state name) shall faithfully execute the constitutional laws of the Union of the United States of America, and the State of Montana, to the best of my ability; to protect, defend and up­hold the Constitution of the United States of America and the State of Montana against all enemies foreign and domestic."

CHAPTER II
TAKING UP ARMS

I. Call-Out. The Unit, shall send a representative to appear be­fore the Sheriff, and the County Commissioners, with a letter of greetings and notice of ability to serve.

a. The Unit may not be called into service without the sus­taining vote of the Unit. (See Part 4 of this Chapter.)

b. The Unit may not be used against the unarmed citizens of the State of Montana, nor against armed Citizens in defense of the Constitutions of the State of Montana and of the United States of America.

c. The Unit may not be used against the police or govern­mental authority within the State of Montana, except by call out by the representative authority of the government, with the sus­taining vote of the Unit, and only after such determination has been made, justified, and notice delivered to such violating en­tity, and then only for the crimes of violation of their oath of of­fice, and such sections or articles of the Constitution of the United States of America and of this State as may apply.

d. Only the Unit Commander, the Governor of the State of Montana, the County Commissioners of Sanders County or the Sheriff of Sanders County may call the Unit into service, with the exceptions listed in Chapter VII, part 1, Section d.

2. Taking Up Arms. At the point of extremis, where-in the Unit is called up by the Unit Commander to exercise the right of defense, it shall be only for the protection of the lives, families and properties of the Citizens of the State of Montana. The un­alienable right of maintaining and protecting the Constitution of the United States of America, the constitution of the State of Montana and the form of government guaranteed to us by our founding fathers, shall always be a viable right of calling out the Unit and the bearing of arms against all enemies foreign and domestic.

3. Moral conflict. No member of the Unit shall be compelled to serve in a conflict which he can not morally support in his heart with all of his might and strength. No member shall be forced to take up arms that is otherwise unwilling to do so. There shall be no penalty towards any member so unwilling, ex­cept he shall be released from any authority, status, or service with the Unit.

4. Sustaining the Conflict. At the time of the "call to arms", each man shall verbally sustain such call, to his immediate Offi­cer, and in the roll call, "all voices present" shall be presented to the Unit Commander as unanimous for the impending action and service.

5. Lawful Call-out to Service. The Unit may be called immediately into service by the Sheriff's office, a judge of competent jurisdiction, or other political office, with the Unit Comman­der's concurrence, to protect the rights of the citizens where time does not permit the lengthy approval process.

6. Assistance and aid requested from other Units. Upon re­quest for assistance and aid in the form of a Call-out to this Unit from another Unit, located within the State of Montana, the Unit Commander shall immediately call for a voice affirmation from the Unit Members. Upon a unanimous vote of all Unit Mem­bers and the concurrence of the Unit Commander, the Unit shall provide the assistance and aid requested.

7. Service outside the State Boundaries. The Unit may Not be used outside the state boundaries, except in times of invasion of the State of Montana or one of the several States of the Union; or in Regular United States Army, or Navy units without the unanimous approval of the Unit members, Unit Commander, as well as permission of the Governor and majority note of the Sanders County Commissioners.

CHAPTER III
OFFICERS AND MEMBERS

1. Terms of Commission. The Unit Commander and his Offi­cers shall serve for a term of two years, except in times of gen­eral call-out, when continuity of the Unit may not be main­tained. No Unit Commander or Officer shall serve for more that two consecutive terms in his present position.

2. Loss of commission.

a. Unit Commander. The Unit Commander shall lose his commission upon leaving the Unit, or for conduct unbecoming an Officer as determined by a vote of three-fourths of the mem-bers of the Unit.

b. Officers. An Officer shall lose his commission upon leaving the Unit, or for conduct unbecoming an Officer as de-termined by a vote of tow-thirds of the members of the Unit.

3. Disobedience of Orders. The penalty for disobedience of a Lawful order of a superior shall be grounds for dismissal from the Unit.

4. Removal from Unit. A member may be removed from Unit Mpha by a vote of two-thirds of the Unit.

5. Fair Hearing. No member, regardless of position, may be removed from Unit Alpha without a fair hearing determining the validity of the charges and/or allegations brought against him.

6. Pay and Allowances.

a. Pay. The Unit shall consist of members who are all vol-unteers and there shall be no paid positions.

b. Uniforms. Responsibility and cost of all uniforms shall be that of each member.

c. Equipment. Responsibility and cost of all personal equipment shall be that of each member.

d. Exceptions. Upon request by a member to the Unit Commander for assistance in procuring a uniform and/or equipment, the Unit Commander shall call for a vote from the Unit. Upon availablility will such request be granted.

CHAPTER IV

FUNDING AND PROPERTY

1. Funding.

a. Dues. The Unit shall operate by the dues required from each member.

b. Donations. The Unit will accept donations. However, The Unit shall not accept donations which would place any obligation upon The Unit.

c. Federal, State and/or Local Funding, Grants, Loans, etc. The Unit shall not accept any type of funding from any political entity, except in times of general call out. No interference by the federal government shall be tolerated.

2. Property.

a. Private. No property shall be used by the Unit without written consent of the lawful owner.

b. Unit. Upon a unanimous vote and if funds are available, the Unit may purchase property (real and/or personal) for the use of the Unit.

3. Debt. At no time will the Unit go into debt. At no time will the Unit accept any donations in the form of funding or property (personal or real) from any member or non-member, unless that donation is free from all indebtedness.

CHAPTER V
ASSOCIATION

1. Association. This Unite shall provide support and informa-tion to other Units within the unorganized "Militia of Montana" for the most efficient accomplishment of the several Units, to whatever extent deemed appropriate regarding its mission and purpose.

2. Dues. Each member of this Unit shall render to the Unit a $20.00 application fee at joining, and $5.00 per month for the administrative costs, supplies and equipment of the Unit.

3. Civil Crimes. Commission of crimes against the constitution of the State of Montana and/or the Constitution of the United States of America shall be grounds for a hearing to determine the continued status of membership within the Unit.

4. Discipline: Rules and Regulations. The rules and regulations governing the discipline of this Unit shall by made by the Unit Commander, in consultation with his Officers, and with two-thirds majority vote of the members of the Unit.

CHAPTER VI
LAW AND JUSTICE

1. Sustaining Law. The Unit shall, at all times, sustain and support all of the Laws that are not in contradistinction to the Constitution of the United States of America and the Constitu-tion of the State of Montana and the Laws of Nature (see Article VI, Par. 2, Constitution of the United States of America).

2. Justice. The Unit shall, at all times, be interested in fairness and justice. No member shall at any time exercise extortion, force, coercion or intimidation in receiving help or aid in his Unit's cause of efforts. No man shall ever receive into himself a personal emolument or benefit that is not available to all, not a reward or recompense for service or loss.

3. Code of Conduct.. Members of the Unit shall always be under the authority of, and be subject to, the penalties of the Constitutional laws of the land and shall also be subject to the highest of moral standards, and when in the status of being called up as a member of a the Organized Militia, all applicable rules land regulation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, will apply.

CHAPTER VII
GENERAL PROVISIONS

1. Cooperation with Civil Authorities.

a. The Unit will at all times be respectful of the Rights of the citizens of this state, and respective of the civil authorities wherein it serves.

b. It is the responsibility and duty of every member of this Unit, and all officers who direct them. to NOT perform any action which is injurious to the rights, life, liberty, or property, of the citizens of the State of Montana without due and just cause for the defense of the State of Montana and/or the United States of America, in the spirit and letter of the Constitutions of the aforementioned entities, and in upholding the aforesaid rights, life, liberty and property of all the citizens therein.

c. Put Down Insurrections. The Unit shall be used to sup-press insurrection against the laws of the State of Montana and/or the County of Sander which are held to be Constitutional under the Constitution of the State of Montana and/or the Constitution of the United States of America.

d. Repel Invasion of Armed Force of Men. The Unit may be called into service by any law enforcement officer, government official of the city, county of state, or any private citizen who directly observes an armed force of men within the State of Montana who are not authorized to assemble within the state by the Constitution of the State or the laws held secure thereunder.

e. Provides for Domestic Tranquility. The Unit may be used to insure domestic tranquility in the performance of service necessary to maintain the same: such as at times of earthquakes or other natural or man made disasters which would inhibit the ability of civil authorities to maintain the peace and in such ser-vice as is necessary to secure the safety, peace and just laws of the state under the Constitution of the State.

f. Sections c, d and e of this chapter shall be subject to Chapter II, Part 5 of these Rules and Regulations.

2. Enforcement of Rules and Regulations. The Unit Commander shall be responsible for enforcing these Rules and Regulations of Unit Alpha, to the best of his ability.

Assembled

, February , 1994

Members Present

_
Interim Unit Commander

Note: If you would life more information on how to set up the actual grassroots network that you will need for instituting this action, please contact us immediately.

CHAPTER 12

INTERPRETING THE MEANING & PURPOSE OF THE
SECOND AMENDMENT

by Bernadine Smith

Editor's note: The following discussion is a continuation of material in the previous chapter.

The framers of the Constitution were quite skilled in the use and drafting of the English language. By putting the militia at the forefront of the sentence which composes the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights, they stressed the importance of the collective use of the right to arms. The collective use has equal status with the individual aspects of this absolute right.

When the 1787 Constitution was ready to be submitted to the governors of the states for ratification, Patrick Henry, the im­mortal voice for liberty, lectured daily against it in the Virginia State House for three weeks, criticizing the Constitution, warn­ing that it had been written "as if only good men will take of­fice!" He asked what they would do "when evil men took of­fice!" "When evil men take office, the whole gang will be in collusion," he declared, "and they will keep the people in utter ignorance and steal their liberty by ambuscade!" (Entrapment from a concealed position.)

Henry asked, "What resistance could be made if the people have no guns?" "Your laws on treason are a sham and a mockery because of their mutual implication." He told them that a major reason for objecting to the Constitution was that "it does not leave us the means for defending our rights or waging war against tyrants!" "This Constitution will trample on your fallen liberty!" he declared. Henry warned that the new federal gov­ernment was being given "too much money and too much power" and that it would end up consolidating all power unto it­self, converting us "into one solid empire." Among other things, one of the areas he felt needed modification and limitation was the use of the treaty power, an area in which he forecast that "the president would lead in treason." His fervor and graphic description of "execrable tyranny" which would befall the peo­ple if they could not take arms against evil men who might take office, placed Patrick Henry in the fore-front of the effort to protect the natural rights of the people. He wanted the immedi­ate opening of another Constitutional Convention to strengthen particular areas in the Constitution. That suggestion not being workable, he said, "The least you can do is guard it with a Bill of Rights!"

Young James Madison saw no need for a Bill of Rights since the new federal government was to exercise only those powers which were delegated to them. Henry said, "Let Mr. Madison tell me when did liberty ever exist when the sword and the purse were given up from the people? Unless a miracle shall inter­pose, no nation ever did, nor ever can retain its liberty after the loss of the sword and the purse." At first Madison could not en­vision the possibility of tyranny happening under this Constitu­tion. Madison was blocked from taking a seat in the first Senate. That blow to one who had been the secretary of the Constitu­tional Convention caused him to re-think the probability of the danger. His promise to follow through with a proposed Bill of Rights garnered support for him to take a seat in the first House of Representatives. So it was that the Bill of Rights, palladium of man's natural rights, was finalized on Dec. 15, 1791 and it became the unrevokable and superior part of the Constitution. Patrick Henry placed all his hopes upon the vigilance of the people of the future to protect the liberty that he helped win in the War for Independence by their standing behind the Bill of Rights, forbidding any infringement or curtailment of not only the Second Amendment, but the sworn oath taken "to support and defend the Constitution".

Thomas Jefferson, our 3rd president, supported the idea of a Bill of Rights, confirming the authority of the people by saying: "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." May the words Patrick Henry spoke always be heeded through all the ages to come, as he cautioned: "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel! Unfortunately, nothing will pre­serve it but downright force and whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined!"

MILITIA OF MONTANA

DECLARATION

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for the Citizens of this State, to exercise their right to protect and defend their lives, families, property and the right of this State to be free and independent, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights, which are guaranteed and protected by the Constitution of the United States of America.

We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (property). That to secure these rights, gov­ernments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. The history of the present federal government is a history of the establishment of absolute power and control over the citizen's of the State of Montana, and' likewise, the rest of the several states of the union. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

TRAIN OF ABUSES

("The Declaration of Independence of 1776" was used as the outline for the following "Train of Abuses". Present day exam­ples and connotations have been added.)

The present federal government has bribed the several states and their local governments into obeying their rules and regulations (which are contrary to the Constitution of the State of Montana and the Constitution of the United States of America) or they would withhold any grants and/or funds to said governments (do this or else);

For deteriorating our abilities to trade with one another without _ federal intervention, manipulation and control;

For imposing taxes on us without our consent;

For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury (all tax fore-closures) and the disadvantage deprived of proper defense;

For quartering large bodies of armed foreign troops among us and protecting them, by mock trials, from punishment for any murders which they have committed on the innocent inhabitants (Weaver, Waco, etc.) of these free and independent states;

The federal government has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance; often these officers being under foreign control and finance;

The federal government has given it's consent to agencies who have unconstitutionally plundered our homes, ravaged our property, burned our homes, and destroyed the lives of our peo­ple as well as murdering innocent citizens of the United States.

For endeavoring to take away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our government, which our Founding Fathers bled and died for; without the consent of the governed, which is their right as free and independent citizens;

The federal government has rendered the several states de­fenseless by taking away their militia from them (incorporated same in the national army), and is now in the process of dis­arming the unorganized militia by laws which are unconstitu­tional and detrimental to a free and independent State, thus, ren­dering the several states to all the dangers of invasion and con­vulsions from without as well as from within;

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms; to the judiciary, the legislative and the executive branches of this present government; our re-peated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury.

Nor have we remained silent to our fellow citizens. We have warned them from time to time of the usurpations and travesties that this present federal government has done to them and continues to do to them; Some have listened; Some have not;

This present federal government has, by its actions, declared war upon its citizens;

As our fellow citizens have not consented to altering or abolishing the form of government guaranteed to us through the Constitution of the United States of America and the Constitution of the State of Montana, we, therefore, the able-bodied citizens of the State of Montana, do , by and through the authority of the citizens of the State of Montana and the citizens of the several States united, have the right to protect and defend our lives, families, property and the right of the State of Montana to be a free and independent State, in the form our Founding Fathers enacted for our use;

THE FEDERALIST PAPERS,

No. 28_Hamilton_The militia is a voluntary force not associated or under the control of the state except when called out; a permanent or long standing force would be entirely different in make-up and call.

No. 46_Madison_The highest number to which a standing army can be carried in any country does not exceed one hundredth part of the number of the souls, or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties and united and conducted by governments possessing their affection and confidence. It may well be doubted whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Besides the - advantage of being armed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit to. The governments of Europe are afraid to trust the people with arms. If they did, the people would certainly shake off the yoke of tyranny, as Americans did. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession than the de-based subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors.

No. 69_Hamilton_The president, and government, will only control the militia when a part of them is in the actual service of the federal government, else, they are independent and not un-der the command of the president or the government. The state would control the militia, only when called out into the service of the state, and then the governor would be commander in chief where enumerated in the respective state constitution.

AUTHORITY

CONSTITUTTON OF THE UNITED STATES

OF AMERICA

Article Section 8.
Powers granted Congress

#15. Calling Out Militia. To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrection and repel Invasions;

#16. Regulating Militia. To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the authority of training the Militia to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Article II. Section 2.
Powers of the President

1. Military Power; Executive Departments; Reprieves and Pardons. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;

Amendment H.
Right to Keep and Bear Arms

People Retain Rights to a Militia. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment IX.
Enumeration of Rights

Certain Rights Retained by the People. The enumeration of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others by the people.

Amendment X.
Reservation of Rights

Rights Reserved to State or People. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The Constitution of the United States of America is to be interpreted by the intent of the writers of the Constitution, at the time it was written, as per James Madison, primary author and supreme expert on the Constitution:

"do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government."

CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

Article II. Section 3

Inalienable rights. All persons are born free and have certain inalienable rights. They include the right to a clean and healthful environment and the rights or pursuing life's basic necessities, enjoying and defending their lives and liberties, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and seeking their safety, health, and happiness in all lawful ways. In enjoying these rights, all persons recognize corresponding responsibilities.

Article II. Section 12

Right to bear arms. The right of any person to keep or bear arms in defense of his own home, person, and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but nothing herein contained shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons.

Article VI. Section 13

Militia. (1) The governor is commander-in-chief of the militia forces of the state, except when they are in the actual service of the United States. He may call out any part or all of the forces to aid in the execution of the laws, suppress insurrection, repel invasion, or protect life and property in natural disasters.

(2) The militia forces shall consist of all able-bodied citizens of the state except those exempted by law.

Article II. Section 34

Unenumerated Rights. The enumeration in the constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny, impair, or disparage others retained by the people.

Article VI. Par. 2

Constitution of the
United States of America

Law of the Land. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the Supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, and anything in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwith­standing.

DUTY

"Nothing will ruin this country if the people themselves un­dertake its safety. Nothing will save it if they leave it in any hands but their own."

-- Daniel Webster

"As Americans, we cannot but believe that our political creed goes down in its foundations to the solid rock of truth...Thus the DUTY rests today, more heavily than ever, upon each Ameri­can citizen to make good to the world those principles upon which this government was built."

-- Winston Churchill

"When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny."

-- Thomas Jefferson

"A Government which will turn its tanks upon its people, for any reason, is a government with a taste of blood and a thirst for power and must either be smartly rebuked, or blindly obeyed in deadly fear."

-- John Salter

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

-- Thomas Jefferson

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

--Edmund Burke

INTENT

We, the able-bodied Citizen's of Montana, hold these Truths to be self-evident, that when government is instituted among men for the purpose of protecting their rights and liberties, turns against the people that empowered it, and strives to take away their rights and liberties, it is the DUTY of man to put on the cloak of liberty for the sake of protecting man-kind from gov­ernment that is out of control and that has transformed itself into a Tyrant. Just as our Founding Fathers of this Country shook off their shackles of bondage, so must we.
THEREFORE, we, hereby solemnly publish and declare that as free, able-bodied Citizens of the State of Montana do hereby pledge to exercise our right to protect and defend our lives, families and properties, by and through the authority of the free people of this state and of this nation; and to further this protec­tion, we hereby form as members of the unorganized militia of the State of Montana, a volunteer organization to be known as the "Militia of MontanaCounty, Unit".

Editor's note: For more information on freedom see June 21, 1994 CONTACT for article Freedom Of The Press.