"Anyone can get excited and enthusiastic, given a sufficient amount of stimulation or inducement. Excitement will get you going, but it is not enough to keep you going. Excitement, by its very nature, wears off.

       Beyond the initial excitement, success requires commitment. Commitment keeps you going long after the novelty has worn off. Excitement begins the process of achievement. Commitment sees it through to completion.

       Excitement is a reaction. Commitment is an intentional decision. Success occurs when you're able to transform the energy of your excitement into a solid and lasting commitment. That's not easy. It takes effort. It takes dedication and focus. It demands a level of motivation that goes beyond the thrill of the moment. To be committed, you must find a personally meaningful, driving reason to support your commitment, and then continually remind yourself of that reason.

       Excitement is so satisfying and energizing because of the promise it makes. Commitment is what actually delivers on that promise." -Ralph Marston

"If you are interested in Dan's article on "Institutionalized Tyranny", go to the "Kay County Patriots" website at http://idt.net/~tmccrory I believe Dan is very good at assembling information where everyone can follow and understand.

From: Dan Meador

Subject: 1934 edition, United States of America Code

Date: Thursday, November 05, 1998 6:33 PM

SUBJECT: 1934 Ed. United States of America Code

Dear Friends & Fellow Americans:

Yesterday we received the promised shipment of the "United States of America Code" from the friend who is scouring the nation for all law books. Included in the shipment were the following: 3 supplements to the 1925 edition; the complete 1934 edition, and four supplements, 1935-38, for the 1934 edition. These books will be on display at the meeting sponsored by the Kay County Patriots at 1 p.m., Saturday, Nov. 7 at the Conestoga Restaurant located west of the Ponca City-Tonkawa exit of I-35.

The importance of these books; ­ most everyone who is engaged in research is used to using the "United States Code", not the "United States of America Code". The relevancy will be immediately obvious to those who have read my recent research article, "Institutionalized Tyranny: The Character & Color of Authority", as one of the major points demonstrated in the discourse is that the "United States of America" is a government foreign to the "United States" that has no constitutional or statutory standing in the Union of several States.

Additionally, another section in the discourse defaults the United States Code as not being law of the United States. In recent months, I and other researchers, most notably Paul Mitchell, concluded that the United States Code is municipal law ­ what amounts to local law in the "geographical" United States. Paul made that conclusion relating to the Internal Revenue Code. The United States Code is not applicable in the Union of several States party to the Constitution where Congress may exercise only constitutionally-enumerated powers. (Note: When he refers to "municipal" law, he is referring to the municipal code of Washington, DC.)

The styling on the title page is as follows: "THE CODE OF THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA OF A GENERAL AND PERMANENT CHARACTER IN FORCE JANUARY 3, 1935, 1934 EDITION". It was published by the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON: 1935.

On page XLIX, following organic law of the United States (Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, Ordinance of 1787, and the Constitution), the following authority for the original, the 1925 edition, is cited (act of June 30, 1925, H.R. 10000, Public, No. 440, Chapter 712):

"AN ACT TO consolidate, codify, and set forth the general and permanent laws of the United States in force December seventh, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-five; "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the fifty titles hereinafter set forth are intended to embrace the laws of the United States, general and permanent in their nature, in force on the 7th day of December, 1925, compiled into a single volume under the authority of Congress, and designated "The Code of the Laws of the United States of America."

"Sec. 2. In all courts, tribunals and public offices of the United States, at home or abroad, of the District of Columbia, and of each State, Territory, or insular possession of the United States ­ "(a) The matter set forth in the Code, evidenced as hereinafter in this section provided, shall establish prima facie the laws of the United States, general and permanent in their nature, in force on the 7th day of December, 1925; but nothing in this Act shall be construed as repealing or amending any such law, or as enacting as new law any matter contained in the Code. In case of any inconsistency arising through omission or otherwise between the provisions of any section of this Code and the corresponding portion of legislation heretofore enacted effect shall be given for all purposes whatsoever to such enactment’s.

"(b) Copies of this Act printed at the Government Printing Office and bearing its imprint shall be conclusive evidence of the original of the Code in the custody of the Secretary of State.

"(c ) The Code may be cited as ‘U.S.C.’"

Implications of the above act may not be immediately conspicuous to those who haven’t followed recent research, but there are several fatal disclosures. The chief is this: The Constitution vests authority in a governmental entity designated and known as the United States; the Constitution was implemented for the United States of America (Preamble), but no authority was vested in the United States of America.

But this original "United States of America", formally established in Article I of the Articles of Confederation, isn’t the "United States of America" specified in the Code. It is a new creation ­ a coalition or political compact of Federal territories and insular possessions that was very probably effected under the guise of a municipal corporation (Washington, DC, as I mentioned above.)

This entity is presently classified as an "agency" of the United States -­ see notes following the current 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1001, and 18 U.S.C.

Sec. 6. This is clarified in Sec. 80 of the 1934 edition of the United States of America Code, which puts the "United States" and the "United States of America" in the same section, and stipulates that the United States will in some cases represent United States of America interests:

" § 80. (Criminal Code, section 35, amended.) Presenting false claims.

Whoever shall make or cause to be made or present or cause to be presented, for payment or approval, to or by any person or officer in the civil, military, or naval service of the United States, or any department thereof, or any corporation in which the United States of America is a stockholder, any claim upon or against the Government of the United States, or any department or officer thereof, or any corporation in which the United States of America is a stockholder, knowing such claim to be false, fictitious, or fraudulent; or whoever shall knowingly and willfully falsify or conceal or cover up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact, or make or cause to be made any false or fraudulent statements or representations, or make or use or cause to be made or used any false bill, receipt, voucher, roll, account, claim, certificate, affidavit, or deposition, knowing the same to contain any fraudulent or fictitious statement or entry, in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or of any corporation in which the United States of America is a stockholder shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. (R.S. § 5438; May 30, 1908, c. 235, 35 Stat. 555; Mar. 4, 1909, c. 321, § 35, 35 Stat. 1095; Oct. 23, 1918, c. 194, 40 Stat. 1015; June 18, 1934, c. 587, 48 Stat. 996)"

The United States is clearly not the United States of America; the 1934 edition of the Code is the Code of the United States of America, not the United States; and the United States of America is defined as an agency of the United States in Title 18 of the United States Code. The United States and the United States of America are identified as separate and distinct entities in the 1934 section reproduced above. I have Titles 18 & 28 of the 1934 edition of the United States Code, also printed by the Government Printing Office, and inside the covers the two Codes are identical, including 18 U.S.C. Sec. 80. It isn’t coincidental that virtually all Federal civil and criminal prosecution presently proceeds in the name and by authority of the "United States of America" in what are supposed to be courts of the United States.

It appears that those behind the Cooperative Federalism scheme had considerable difficulty deciding how they were going to operate to impose the nonconstitutional deception that would eventually unleash unbridled Federal authority in the several States. To the best of my knowledge, the "United States of America" Code is no longer produced, and in fact I would guess that the 1934 edition was probably the last printed duplicate. However, it is more than possible that most of the material evidencing the fraud is reproduced somewhere in newer editions of the United States Code as thus far we’ve been able to track down variations and amalgamations of most more straight-forward sections in 1934 & 1940 editions of the U.S.C.

As I was looking the old prize over, a couple of sections from Title 1 jumped off the page to further secure the conclusion that the United States Code and the United States of America Code, which will prove to be one and the same, are municipal law applicable only in the "geographical" United States. I’ll reproduce sections 30a & applicable portions of 54 to demonstrate:

"§ 30a. ‘Little and Brown’s’ edition of laws and treaties competent evidence of Acts of Congress. The edition of the laws and treaties of the United States, published by Little & Brown, shall be competent evidence of the several public and private acts of Congress, and of the several treaties therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the United States, and of the several States, without any further proof or authentication thereof. (R.S. § 908)"

"§ 54. Codes and Supplements as establishing prima facie the Laws of United States and District of Columbia; citation of Codes and supplements. In all courts, tribunals, and public offices of the United States, at home and abroad, of the District of Columbia, and of each State, Territory, or insular possession of the United States ­ "(a) Code of Laws of the United States; effect as prima facie the law.

The matter set forth in the edition of the Code of Laws of the United States current at any time shall, together with the then current supplement, if any, establish prima facie the laws of the United States, general and permanent in their nature, in force on the day preceding the commencement of the session following the last session the legislation of which is included."

Oklahoma, Texas, Colorado, California, New York, etc., are not "States of the United States". The District of Columbia is a "State" of the United States, as are current insular possessions such as Puerto Rico. Our respective State republics are States of the Union of several States. (As you are reading this, think about the implications of being "United States citizens" under the laws the way they are currently structured, and of participating in the so-called elections!) And our States, respectively, are supposed to have courts of law and equity; lawful courts of the United States operate primarily as courts of "law", being common law, and under Article III, Sec. 2, clause 1 of the Constitution, have equity and admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. In these courts, the edition of laws and treaties of the United States published by Little and Brown are "competent evidence of the several public and private acts of Congress..," where the Federal Code, whether the United States Code or the United States of America Code, is "prima facie the law" (law by appearance) only in "courts, tribunals, and public offices of the United States … of the District of Columbia, and of each State, Territory, or insular possession of the United States…"

These States, Territories, and insular possessions of the United States are party to a political compact or alliance designated as the "United States of America" that is presently defined as an agency of the United States.

Hopefully this reasonably short address of the United States vs. the United States of America subject helps orient those who have had difficulty with distinction. Once you are oriented, the riddle is reasonably simple to understand: The confederation of States that joined under the Articles of Confederation to fight the American Revolution was formally designated as the "United States of America" in Article I of the Articles of Confederation.

This confederation is mentioned in the Preamble and in Article II of the Constitution. However, both the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution, respectively, vested authority in a governmental entity which acts as agent of the original compact, the governmental agent designated as the "United States". The Constitution, drafted in 1787, (However, there is considerable difference between what was drafted in 1787 and what was adopted as the Constitution in 1792. The differences are the changes made in England before it was approved for adoption here.) is the Constitution of the United States, which We the People enacted for the United States of America. The Constitution vests all enumerated powers in the United States, not the United States of America.

However, under Article IV, Sec. 3, clause 2, the Constitution gives Congress what amounts to absolute power over territory belonging to the United States. So far as the Union of several States is concerned, Congress may enact legislation only within the confines of constitutionally-enumerated powers, but where territory belonging to the United States is concerned, Congress has what amounts to the combined power of State and National governments. (Remember; Article I, Section 8, Clause 17.)

As Congress acquired outlying insular possessions such as Puerto Rico, Guam, etc., United States Government was increasingly moved under Congress’ territorial authority in Article IV. These insular possessions, and the District of Columbia, are joined under an alliance or compact, probably structured as a municipal corporation, designated as the "United States of America".

Maybe this explanation can be distilled: United States Government has two distinct capacities, and there are two entities known as the "United States of America". The original confederation was comprised of the several States joined to fight the American Revolution; the latter is a new creation which joins the District of Columbia and insular possessions of the United States. The Constitution of the United States vests no authority in the United States of America other than by way of the electoral college to elect the President of the United States of America who is subsequently sworn in as the President of the United >> States.

Read Institutionalized Tyranny: The Character & Color of Authority to see that "United States of America" jurisdiction is foreign to jurisdiction of the United States and the several States. The two sections above pertaining to the Little & Brown publication vs. Government Printing Office of the Code pretty well demonstrates the point, but there are far more evidences in the research paper. The research paper, which is downloading at 112 or 113 pages, can be accessed via the Kay County Patriots web site:

http://idt.net/~tmccrory/

Unfortunately, I don’t have easy access to the Statutes at Large, so it would be handy if someone who does would follow the "United States of America" trail in Statutes at Large cites for 1926 enacting legislation and cites following 1934 ed., 18 U.S.C. § 80. The old snake is stinking enough we’re bound to find his den. God bless, Dan."

"The following article appeared in The American's Bulletin, September 1998. This article concerns a case docketed in the U.S. Supreme Court that centers around 26 USC 83. In nearly 6 years of litigation, the Section 83 Equation remains off limits to those who argue it. Applicable to ALL compensation for services, the statute only permits the excess over what you paid for your paycheck to be taxed as gross income or profit, and it DOES NOT provide that the whole payment is gross income.

The Secret Statute Gets Docketed -- Again!

from: David Myrland

The U.S. Supreme Court has again docketed a client of mine seeking a determination as to the language of 26 USC 83 Property Transferred in Connection with the Performance of Services. In five attempts, two Citizens arguing § 83 have been docketed, the first dismissed on procedural grounds.

While the first four to petition were appealing from Federal courts, this latest case is one involving state income tax imposed by adopted Federal statutes, and this includes 26 USC 83, a statute said to apply to any and all compensation for services but one that prescribes that only the excess over the amount paid is to be counted as profit.

In five years of litigation, I have gotten the courts to narrow the free labor argument down to these factors:

1. Labor is excluded from consideration as a cost because it is property that costs the laborer nothing to receive;

2. the controlling provisions are 26 CFR 1.1012-1(a) and 1.83-3(g); and,

3. If you argue the fact that these provisions embrace all property as a cost, including Labor, you will be penalized thousands of dollars for doing so.

In all of the U.S. Tax Court cases and in those cases taken to the fourth and ninth Circuit, my book about IRC § 83 was filed as Exhibit A, and in every instance, the IRS has failed miserably to justify the exclusion of Labor from cost in light of the Code's contrary stance.

The Fourth Circuit Court allowed McCall onto appeal with nine new issues not raised in Tax Court after seeing its pattern of abuse of those who raised these issues. New issues are not allowed on appeal absent a fundamental error and/or miscarriage of justice, which was my argument for refraining from raising the issues in Tax Court; the Fourth Circuit agreed.

Later, the Fourth Circuit let stand Tax Court's penalty of $6500 against S. Talmage for "I will concede all facts of the case today if they would just tell me how to comply with § 83." Why is the penalty once viewed as miscarriage suddenly viewed by the same court as proper and fitting of the obnoxious behavior of inquiring about the law? To kill the argument, that's why. Where, in the language of 26 CFR 1.83-3(g) and/or 1.1012-1(a) is any property excluded from cost because it cost the laborer nothing? This is the question causing all of the hoopla and civil atrocities, so much so that the U.S. Supreme Court has again docketed the issue.

In the most recently docketed case, the state administrative tax court penalized the litigant $5000 after admitting at length that the tax is not imposed by clear language, an act calculated to overturn more than 15 Supreme Court decisions stating that the taxpayer wins when unclear language imposes the tax. The IRS agent of 17 years. (purposely?) missed 11 checks from a single account that were deposited into a retirement account in her audit, the "court" agreed with the state that 26 USC 83 as adopted did not apply to the Citizen's money compensation, a notion that contradicts 6 Federal Circuit Courts.

We permitted the IRS agent to use a pseudonym "Patricia Wakefield" while on the stand due to the sensitive nature of her duties such as investigating "right wing" and "tax protester" groups. When pressed for proof of jurisdiction outside of Wa. D.C. she failed miserably. (See 4 USC 72) My client had also received a 2358C letter from the IRS stating that he needn't file a return per the IRS' request and based it upon his having inquired about § 83 in a reply to a request for his tax returns.

Patricia Wakefield admitted that her determination that the Citizen owed taxes on his pay was directly opposed to the determination of Timothy Towns (IRS Chief of Compliance) who clearly thought no balance was owed, evidenced by the 2358C letter.

Long story short - such a mess was made of the state's case on the administrative level, and so many issues cried out for justice, that that state's supreme court simply passed on all issues, upholding the $5k penalty in light of the "unclear language" admission.

All of these privacy issues and faulty audit techniques were dropped from our U.S. Supreme Court effort, opting to keep the Petition simple; property rights and § 83 only. We are pleading against the judiciary's obvious pattern of abuse of those raising issues found within the tax Code itself, the fact that the lower court placed the Citizen in an exemption from taxation (unclear language) but upheld penalties, the lower court's holding that § 83 is inapplicable, and the lower courts' refusal to address the plain language of statute which deprives the Citizen of his right to arrange his own affairs according to law, a right that cannot be doubted.

In the Petition, we kept the questions simple, asking as our relief that the High Court either remand the case back to the state Supreme Court for proper adjudication, or to hear the issue itself because the statute in question is in fact a Federal statute, the Federal Courts having inflicted the most oppression in these cases. We prefer that the High Court hear the issue and not remand the case back to the state, thus relieving both state and Federal taxpayers of the same problems at once.

What's going to happen? From past experience I must admit that I have no clue. Will the High Court choose to protect the IRS and avoid the language of applicable statutes? Will the High Court adhere to the obvious protections in the provisions relied upon? Will the High Court ignore that lower court's admission of unclear language and let the penalties stand, or will it defend its decisions that the taxpayer wins in such an instance?

I think the biggest thing to take from all of this is -- KEEP TRYING! I had issues that I developed, ones that nobody else was litigating, and I wanted answers! In 1988 the IRS came to my door flashing a badge. I now have taken five people to the U.S. Supreme Court on the same issues, appeared several times as an expert witness, written several books and manuals, written a new Tax Code, and sell professional opinions through the Research Foundation in Hawaii (The Reliance Defense). Look at my efforts and method, and demand from others who try to sell you their "findings" or pleadings/process that they disclose their method, their track record, their experience.

The Petition itself is published to professional standards in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 33 (6" x 9") and is available to all readers of the Bulletin through the advertisement in this Edition. Even if taxes are not your focus, this document is invaluable if you envision yourself approaching the U.S. Supreme Court for a determination.

I do still harbor optimism, reserved and silent optimism, that statute will indeed prevail, and I see this climate as a favorable one, the IRS being attacked on all sides such as it is. The law, the truth, our Constitutional rights, who needs more? With these things on your side, the government remains the sole occupant of the hot seat. Knowledge is power!"

End.

IRS IS NOT A U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCY

The Internal Revenue Service is not an agency of the United States government. It is true that not only can it NOT be found in Title 31, but it is nowhere to be found in the entirety of Title 5 U.S.C.

Congress THOUGHT it created it but it didn't. Just look at the 1100 manual and it tells you so. Congress only created the Commissioner's Office. He then hired the private collection agency people and used them as the tax collectors. In fact, I defy you to find any IRS employee listed as an Employee of the United States Government with a United States Employee Identification number that has been hired by any District Director in the country. Now I suggest you look at 27 Code of Federal Regulations Section 250.11 and therein you will find the definition of "Revenue agent." That definition reads "Any duly authorized Commonwealth Internal Revenue Agent of the Department of the Treasury of Puerto Rico."

I now refer you to the "Secretary" described in 26 U.S.C. 6301. Does it not state, "The Secretary shall collect the taxes imposed by the internal revenue laws?" Yes it does. Now Congress mandated this by 68A Stat 775 and you cannot disagree. Does not 26 U.S.C. state that this "Secretary" may make a return based on the information he has if a person does not make a return? Yes it does. Does not 26 U.S.C. 6001, 6011 and 6012 refer to this "Secretary?" Yes it does.

Now, if the Revenue agent decides to prosecute, he approaches the Attorney General and this "Secretary" as noted in 26 USC 7401 to prosecute upon concurrence between both the Attorney General and this "Secretary," is this not correct? Yes it is and all the above is indisputable. Is it now contrary to any rational man that this "Secretary" can only be one person and not many?

Now, I direct your attention to 27 CFR 250.11 again for the definition of "Secretary" as found in all the above. The defining term for "Secretary" is, "The Secretary of the Treasury of Puerto Rico." That man is Manual Diaz Saldana. Those revenue agents operating in the all the states are not United States employees. The Statute mandated to be at the end of each regulation by 1 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) is 68A State 775 (26 USC 6301). (The men I work with sue Manual Diaz Saldana directly in every IRS case they take on.)

I now direct your attention to the House of Representatives, 39th Congress, 2nd Session, Ex. Doc. 99, titled Salary Tax Upon Clerks to Postmasters, LETTER from THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY dated Feb. 20, 1867, referred to the House Ways and Means committee and ordered to be printed. I am now going to prove that the IRS agents are not now nor were they ever employees of the United States. You can obtain the document faster than the man on the street. The postmaster wanted to know why postal clerks had to pay income taxes and why the IRS clerks did not have to. The "clerks" are today called "revenue agents." I quote part of the response that is not taken out of context concerning the IRS employees. Why should I, because it is verifiable by anyone.

"No money is advanced by the United States for the payment of such salaries, nor do the assessors perform the duties of disbursing agents of the United States in paying their clerks. The entire amount allowed is paid directly to the assessor, and he is not accountable to the United States for its payment to his clerks, for the reason he has paid them in advance, out of his own funds, and this is reimbursement to him of such amount as the department decides to be reasonable. No salary tax is therefore collected, or required by the Treasury Department to be accounted for, or paid, on account of payments to assessors' clerks, as the United States pays no such clerks nor has them in its employ or service, and they do not come within the provisions of existing laws imposing such a tax." This was signed by H. McCULLOCH Secretary of the Treasury.

Then to clarify it he included Section 165 which states that the only people to pay income taxes are, and I quote ". . persons in the civil, military, naval, or other employment service of the United States, including senators and representatives and delegates in Congress, "

Since the postal clerks are paid by the United States and the IRS agents were not, those revenue agents were just like me and the millions that do not work or contract with the United States. Therefore they were not subject to the income tax. And so it is today, and that explains why the private collection agency agents cannot be sued under 26 USC 7214 because they are not employees of the United States. Today they are based out of and under the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury of Puerto Rico, strictly to collect alcohol, tobacco, and firearms taxable activities.

The identity of the Secretary is not found in title 26 U.S.C.. The only reference to the identity of the Secretary of the Treasury is in 27 C.F.R. at section 250.11 (definitions) which specifically states: "Secretary means Secretary of the Treasury of Puerto Rico".

Departamento De Hacienda

Secretary of the Treasury

Manuel Diaz Saldana

P.O. Box 4515

San Juan, Puerto Rico, 00902

1-787-721-2020

He's the head honcho. Also, you are usually dealing with an agent with a title of "Revenue Agent." The only definition of revenue agent is in 27 C.F.R.section 250.11 and is defined as: "Revenue Agent means any duly authorized Commonwealth Internal Revenue Agent of the Department of the Treasury of Puerto Rico."

THE PRION, why have you not heard more about it ? Why the cover-up? What is the purpose of an overbearing government if not to at least ALERT the public to this potential time bomb. I will contrast this in the next post with the LIFESTYLE POLICE. They determine what is real and what is not real, what matters and does not, what you don’t need to know, DON’T THINK, JUST DO. That is the mantra they want you humming. Their goal of 90 % now appears feasible...

by Brander C. Kitchin, M.D.

The cattle of England are mad before they die. It seems likely that the British dairy and beef industry may be destroyed in the near future and the British people themselves over the next few decades. And there is reason to believe that the trail of death will not end at this little isle of historic beef-eaters.

Its all about a disease called transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (TSE) which has existed for centuries confined to sheep as a fatal malady called scrapie. Only recently has it become a scourge throughout the mammalian kingdom including man. It turns the brain into a sponge like mass by filling it full of holes. The result is gradual deterioration of brain function leading inevitably to death over a period of months to a few years.

There is no treatment nor is there likely to be. In England, mad cow disease as it was dubbed first raised the red flag of alarm when it was found that some young persons were dying of a disease that clinically and pathologically resembled a speeded up form of an extremely rare disease of the elderly called Creutzfeld-Jacob Disease (CJD). CJD of the elderly had been considered most likely to be a genetically-based condition and not due to an infectious agent. It still is and may simply represent a symptom complex based on spongiform degeneration of the brain that can have more than a single cause.

It was through his interest in the rare Creutzfeld-Jacob disease of the elderly that Stanley Prusiner working at the University of California School of Medicine in San Francisco during the 1970's discovered a new life form. It is a strange sort of thing being neither bacterium nor virus. It is no more than a molecule of protein and is devoid of genetic material. Dr. Prusiner named it a prion for proteinacious infectious particle. His idea that such a molecule so simple and without genetic material when compared even to a virus could actually cause disease brought him worldwide ridicule at first and, finally, the Nobel Prize for Medicine with its million dollar reward. His thing, his quasi-creature, is real and deadly.

Proteins are the building blocks of life. They are huge molecules made up of even thousands of atoms. The identical atomic constituents of such a molecule can exist in different configurations with different biological properties for each change in shape.

Prions are like that. A molecule of identical atomic makeup to the prion exists normally in mammals but in a harmless shape or configuration. Prions, the infectious and pathological version or shape of the same atomic makeup is believed to have the ability, by means unknown, to change the shape of the normally present molecule into its own malevolent image.

This is a comparatively slow process. The incubation period -- the time between infection by ingesting, one way or another, the prion and the appearance of symptoms -- may be three to five years in cattle and ten years, more or less, in humans. The effect is probably cumulative. In other words, a large dose of prions would be likely to cause disease and death in short order while repeated small doses ingested with infected food would more gradually accumulate, postponing the inevitable end.

The end is inevitable because there is no treatment. Apparently the body's immune system does not recognize as an enemy the same protein reshaped from a benign to a malignant form. The body can rally no natural defense. And the prion molecule itself is extremely resistant to destruction. Antibiotics, of course, could have no effect because this thing is not really alive -- at least as we think we know what life is. The heat of normal cooking temperatures do not affect it. While meat well- done throughout is safe from bacterial contamination, this does not render it safe from the standpoint of prions. Even formaldehyde does not destroy it.

So -- how did this thing which apparently has existed for hundreds of years confined comparatively innocuously to sheep wait until the 1980's to branch out to infect cattle and then other mammals? It is through the process of rendering by which the inedible remains of slaughtered animals, including dead pets and road-kills, are ground up and cooked into a horrible unidentifiable mess that is fed to all food animals including beef and dairy cows as a protein supplement in order to increase the quantities of beef and milk.

Man has turned a benign ruminant into a cannibal. And there are many products of this mess of the unpalatable remains of dead things. Much of it goes into pet food. Gelatin, for instance, which goes into the capsules that make medicines convenient to take is a product of this mess. Interestingly, on April 24, 1997, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration quietly removed animal gelatin from its list of GRAS (Generally Regarded As Safe) products. This action was necessary, they say, because there was no assurance that gelatin was not contaminated by prions since there is no chemical test for their presence. Somehow, this rather significant action did not reach the controlled mass media.

So, it is thought, the sheep prions got to the cattle from feeding them these protein supplements. The trouble is, this process of rendering has been going on a long time. Why, all of a sudden, did these previously innocuous sheep prions become agents of widespread disease? This remains a valid question.

In an effort to confine the disease, Britain undertook a massive program which included rejection of a process of rendering they had recently adopted from the United States method and the killing of thousands upon thousands of cattle. These cattle cannot be buried because of the likelihood of contamination of the soil and water table. They must be burned. Facilities for burning are overburdened, so corpses are piling up.

But, despite an embargo on the export of British beef, prion disease has popped up on the continent and elsewhere. Why should that be a surprise? After all, the practice of feeding the product of rendering called offal to food animals has been worldwide for a long time. One public health official has actually predicted a world-wide epidemic with hundreds of thousands afflicted and dead.

Worse than AIDS, some think.

And this should not be a surprise either. Transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (TSE) has been found in all animals that make up the domestic meat supply including chickens and even free-living salmon released from government hatcheries where they had been fed the products of offal as hatchlings. Even mink raised for their coats and wild-living elk and mule deer in Montana and Wyoming have been found to carry the disease. And since intrauterine transmission of the prion from a cow to her calf occurs, why not from the chicken to her egg?

Such widespread dissemination of the prion disease should have been expected -- if, indeed, it was not. The problem of the disposal of thousands of tons of offal, not even fit for hamburger, from slaughtered animals is profitably solved by providing a cheap nutritional supplement that, at the same time, increases the profit of the meat industry.

That, like it or not, includes us! There is even concern that the use of offal- or sewage-derived fertilizers may result in the transmission of the prion molecule to food crops.

But even so, we in the good old United States of America are blessed. The controlled media continue to assure us that U.S. cattle are free of the disease. Although cattle feed, particularly of dairy cattle in order to enable the prodigious milk production per milk cow demanded by the industry in order to enhance profits, has been supplemented with the packaged remains of their parents, brothers, sisters and others less closely related for decades, we are not to worry.

U.S. cattle just do not have mad cow disease, we are assured.

The reason is simple. In the U.S., it is called downer cow syndrome instead! An estimated 300,000 to one million U.S. cattle die yearly of downer cow syndrome. They die of an encephalopathy which appears to be a variant of bovine spongiform encephalopathy. It is here, it is dangerous -- and it is being covered up! That it is a privately recognized hazard in this country would seem to be proved by the action of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in admitting that gelatin could no longer be considered safe for human consumption.

Why should such behavior be no surprise? Our government has shown itself to be so corrupt that it cannot speak the truth about anything. Many of us have learned to decipher federal pronouncements by reversing the meaning of anything they tell us.

Only in this way can we find the truth! When we were told that there was no such thing as the Gulf War Syndrome, we knew there was. When we were told that the virus that causes AIDS was concocted by green monkeys in Africa, we knew it probably had been man-made.

And now we have a brand new role for an old, old disease of sheep. The causative agent finally is discovered by research so brilliant that it is rewarded the Nobel Prize for Medicine! It is a heretofore unknown life-form so strange that its acceptance by medical science as a real thing took many years. The next we know, all of a sudden there is a brand new disease to fit this old, old life- form which somehow changed its spots and became a widely-capable fatal pathogen. One cannot help but wonder just a little. Could this be the story of AIDS and the apparently infectious element of Gulf War Syndrome all over again? And could this strange little non-creature be responsible for the near-epidemic of Alzheimer's Disease over the past decade or more? That question has been raised by Dr. Prusiner himself. Spongiform changes have been found in the brains of the victims of this disease also.

While the media continue to say as little as possible about TSE and then only to reassure the boobs of their safety, a trip to the corner grocery raises a twinge of doubt. Perhaps everyone is not as sanguine about the freedom from pathogenic prions in U.S. meat products as we are told to be.

The labels of all fruit, cereal and vegetable baby food products of a well-known purveyor bear the familiar kosher mark. This means that it is perfectly safe for Jewish people to feed this properly blessed and taxed stuff to their babies. They can even eat it themselves with safety. But none of the meat-containing products of this manufacturer bear the kosher sign. This says, clearly, if you are a good Jewish person, do not feed this stuff to your baby.

Does this mean simply that the sources of meat in baby foods cannot be traced and that the rabbi cannot guarantee that all have been properly blessed at slaughter or do they know something that we do not? But then, perhaps Nature herself is trying to tell us something. After all, science has proved that we are not obligate carnivores.

TO ORDER possibly one of the MOST IMPORTANT PERIODICALS

AVAILABLE TODAY: [read terms below]

WRITE:

THE RESISTER

Post Office Box 35046

Fayetteville, NC 28303 USA

Attn:TRIDOT

Current Issues: $10.00

Four Issues: $35.00(One Year)

___New ___Renewal START WITH___CURRENT___NEXT ISSUE

TERMS: Cash, money order, or check.

(Please leave "PAY TO THE ORDER OF "blank".)

Please allow up to 5 weeks for your distribution to begin since it

comes out quarterly.

The sooner you Order the sooner you get it, SO

SO ORDER TODAY ! That’s an ORDER !

QUOTE of the DAY:

"Non Jewish members of the Masonic lodges seem to ignore

the fact that the motto of Freemasonry is to return all

the wealth of the world to King Solomon's Temple in

Jerusalem."

"El Nino helped weather systems dump up to 20 feet of snow on eastern Colorado. Many cattlemen lost entire herds. Coyotes surviving the winter have opted for rabbit, then some calves, but refuse to touch mature bovines. By the end of May, carcasses remained unclaimed by wildlife. Apparently cows loaded with vaccines and medicines are not considered proper diet by coyotes. Can the human animal prosper on such fare?"

WASHINGTON - Looking beyond his election as House speaker, Republican Rep. Bob Livingston says his first bill in the new Congress would remove Social Security from the federal balance sheet, where he says it is used to mask an overall budget deficit. If he succeeds, however, the projected $63 billion budget surplus would become a $54 billion deficit, potentially ending conservatives' hopes for a big tax cut. Both parties agree that Social Security, while currently flush with cash, must change to ensure solvency when the baby boomers retire. For now, however, the program produces so much extra revenue beyond what it pays out that it masks the fact that the rest of the government operates at a deficit.

"Interest never sleeps nor sickens nor dies; it never goes to the hospital; it works on Sundays and holidays; it never takes a vacation; it never visits nor travels; it takes no pleasure; it is never laid off work nor discharged from employment; it never works on reduced hours; it never has short crops nor droughts; it never pays taxes; it buys no food; it wears no clothes; it is unhoused and without home and so has no repairs, no replacements, no shingling, plumbing, painting, or whitewashing; it has neither wife, children, father, mother, nor kinfolk to watch over and care for; it has no expense of living; it has neither weddings nor births nor deaths; it has no love, no sympathy; it is as hard and soulless as a granite cliff. Once in debt, interest is your companion every minute of the day and night; you cannot shun it or slip away from it; you cannot dismiss it; it yields neither to entreaties, demands, or orders; and whenever you get in its way or cross its course or fail to meet its demands, it crushes you." J. Reuben Clark’s classic statement in interest -- April, 1938.