Next, have him remove his fingers from the plastic glass and insert his fingers into the glass of water (sorry, I couldn’t resist). Once again, pull down on his arm. You will find, as he will also, that it is much harder to pull his arm down now because the "live" water in the glass has re-energized his muscles, and he has control of them once again.

This is important. It has strong implications for your children, and you, if you insist on using plastic glasses for them to drink from. One of the most important parts of the young body is the formation of the eyes. When children are young, they badly need live water to help with this formation. When you deny it to them, for whatever reason, they will need glasses, usually very early in life.

How about your eyes? Your eyes been real tired lately from reading or looking at the computer screen? The same is true for you. You must have live water to keep your eyes healthy, and to stop the problems with eye strain and weakening of the eyes. As people become more concentrated in cities, you will see more and more demand for glasses; I wonder why.

This also has very ominous implications if you believe, as so many do, that you can simply ignore the poisons in the city water supply by buying bottled water. Most all bottled water, and there are laws on the books to ensure this now, strictly for your protection, of course, come in plastic jugs. The profit in the manufacture of plastic jugs, un-reusable of course, is immense, but the chemicals given off by the same plastic, which you ingest when you drink the water, is also impressive, for population control. I refer you once again to the book The Cure for All Diseases." As I have stated before, it is not possible to live cleanly in a city, and think about the implications for your children and your wife/husband if not for yourself.

And consider what you are doing when you store food in plastic containers, and particularly if you then take the plastic out and put it into the microwave. There is no microwave in my home, and their never will be again. They are banned in the Soviet Union and other locations because of the damage they do to people, and because of how they change the nature of the food you prepare in them. Once you understand electricity and its uses in our bodies, cooking in general becomes at least somewhat suspect, but to prepare food in a microwave, and in particular in plastic containers where you are releasing chemicals directly into the food from the heated plastic is not justifiable under any circumstances!

There are, of course, other implications to this as well. If you get serious about health and nutrition, at some point you will run into the term "live food." The problem is that their is never an explanation for this except that "it is much better to eat fresh food" than to eat frozen, canned, stored, or processed food, and etc. This is not the point; "live food" recharges our bodies, and without live food, children can not build their bodies correctly, nor can your body heal itself. "Aging" also increases at an exponential rate as you get further and further from the last live food you ate.

Pay close attention here; live food is food directly from the plant to your plate. There is no provision with live food for "fresh produce" to be picked in California and then having the complete properties designed in them by God when it reaches your table one or two weeks later. That is a physical impossibility. The electricity which makes up live food is long gone by then, and the benefits to you are greatly reduced when you consume them. Perhaps, after understanding this, the provisions in the Bible which command us to look carefully into our source of foods becomes more understandable.

Also, because of the electrical nature of our food, we really have little grasp as yet as to how food actually works in our bodies when they are a complete item. For this reason, even good supplements must be suspect as regards how much good they may do within for us because they are only a part of what God intended for us, and as I have shown, His plan is rather complete, so I suspect that our food should be also.

This is not to say that supplements are not necessary. With the normal diet of Americans, good, clean, natural supplements from a trusted source are a necessity, not an option. You just must understand that they can only do so much, and more is required of you. Do not depend upon the supplements a cure all for what does or may ail you.

Within this framework, meat, which I have mentioned before, because much less of a vital addition to a diet as you understand more. That is, unless you are used to cutting a prime steak off a still living cow and consuming it, raw, on the spot!

There is another lesson here as well. That lesson has to do with so-called diets and the information sold by "doctors" or others and which is so incomplete that it is virtually worthless. I did mention a book early on about the correct diet for your blood type. I did so because that book has information that is vital to understanding a lot about our bodies, and because he does make the point about pop, pork and other foods. That being said, you can judge from the forgoing how incomplete the message is and how important it is for you to continue to study and learn.

Our bodies operate on very strict scientific principles; principles established by God. He does not allow any deviation from these principles. None! So when you see the nonsense in the paper about "unraveling" the DNA strands and "discovering" the real causes of dis-ease, perhaps you can apply the Scriptural rule to the stories; the LOVE of money is the root of ALL evil.

Here is a fact; children do not go to the store and bring home toxins in bright colored packages. You do. This includes white bread, white flour, pop, ALL canned food (all canned food is manufactured from "approved" water sources; this means poisoned water), processed meats, spam, and everything else that is "convenient" so that the mothers can be proper wage earners and taxpayers. And children learn their eating habits from you, not from some genetic twist in their DNA, as many idiots are claiming about obesity now.

Let me give you my view of children and the world. Children are smart. If you will learn, and teach them, you will have no trouble with proper nutrition, provided you accept the Laws. Children seldom rebel when they understand. As I said above, children are smart, and they understand the Truth. It is only when we have convinced them that white is black and up is down that they become confused and surly. But to do this, we must break the conditioning that we have been subjected to. We must learn, and we must change, first.

Instead, this is what happens. A woman becomes pregnant. Normally, this is the happiest time in her life. But, her "church" has taught her nothing about the Law, nutrition or health, so she is left floundering. Yes, she understands not to smoke, and is very careful about alcohol. The problem is that this is only a very small part of the picture.

She trusts the local Supermarket to supply her with good food, cooks everything properly and is careful to clean the kitchen well, so her obligation is ended, right? The pork roast she served her family when she was six months pregnant that was infested with liver flukes, which infested her fetus, certainly was not her fault! And that strange fever that she ran when she was three months pregnant, after eating that wonderful shell fish dinner at the local restaurant that her loving husband took her to could not have been the cause for the mongolation of her child! There are other, "scientific" reasons, probably genetic, for such occurrences!

Now she has three children, one is mentally impaired, another runs a fever all the time, and the third is so hyper that the school insists that she keep him on ritilan. She is nervous all the time and barely able to keep her marriage on a level keel with her husband. She is under a tremendous amount of pressure at work, and the biopsy is do back about the lump she found in her breast. The family is a month behind on the car payment, the house payment has been late every month for the last six months and the credit cards are full and the payments over due. She needs to take the children to the doctor again, but there is no money.

She and her husband are under counseling with their pastor, and the best advice he has come up with so far has been to "learn to manage your debt a little bit better." Never a single word from the pastor about the Laws she and her husband have violated. And the same is true of her doctor, never a single word about the causes of breast cancer. When she gets the biopsy back, and the doctor schedules an insurance paid (how lucky!) operation to remove her breasts, the doctor never bothers to tell her (if he knew) that the three main causes of breast cancer are few or no children, little or no breast feeding (the doctor gave her the shot to stop the production of milk so she could get right back to work), and the use of "the pill" to stop pregnancy. "The pill" she has been on for eight or nine years now, so she can work and pay her "share" of the bills.

The other worry she has is the two pack a day cigarette habit of her husbands and the constant coughing he is now doing, and she knows that if he will only break down and go see the doctor, the problem that she is sure he has can be caught in time and he can be "saved." She has never seen the information about smoking that has come to light in recent years, and if she had, chances are it would have meant nothing to her. She has little need or ability to think anymore. But the information is interesting, as it is about how for hundreds of years people suffered no ill effects from the use of tobacco, but that the lawsuits against the cigarette companies have revealed that cigarettes today contain over 600 different chemicals. Many of these chemicals are known carcinogens, and others are very addictive, but she knows how weak her husband is, and figures that is the problem.

Now she is about forty of fifty pounds overweight, and her husband a good thirty pounds over his highest possible "ideal" weight, and the many diets she has been on do not seem to help at all. She is tired all the time, and her body feels wore out. It was bad before the last child was born, but it is worse now, and getting worse day by day it seems. She thinks back at her "child bearing" years and wonders if she could have done anything different.

She does not know nor understand that her body was designed to produce babies. When her body is put to work in this capacity it will overrule all other considerations except the immediate need for life. When the growing fetus within her demands certain minerals or vitamins for growth, her body will supply them no matter what the cost may be in the future for her. The demands of the baby will be met. And lacking proper nutrition, which is virtually impossible today, her body will rob itself of all things necessary. This will leave her body in a very poor state of health, weak, and with an immune system which is subject to easy attack. And it will leave her permanently tired, unless she acts to supply her body with what was taken from it.

When she has time, in between fights with her husband, boss, or children to stop for a minute, if she bothers to think about God at all, all she thinks about God is why He has Cursed her so much. And I have known this woman, and many others just like her, and I feel so sorry for them. I lay most of the blame for this on the so-called churches. But then, there are other answers as well. This information, about the live food and how the earth works, I have never seen put together in one piece before. Even the man who first explained to me how the earth actually works did not grasp the significance of food and water in the scheme of things in conjunction with the electricity. I had to put the pieces together over a long period of time as I gained understanding and knowledge. We are, truly, an ignorant people.

There are only three lessons which are necessary in order to understand the Universe. Just three. No more.

• He is God, and His Word is the Law. I am a man, and not a god. I have no power and no authority, therefore I must serve.

• His Will be Done, and His Will is The Law, which is Perfect.

• His Will. Think about that, and think about what you are learning here about health and nutrition, then apply the same standard to the rest of His Laws, because I assure you, the same standards apply. His Will be done. We have no choice in the matter; His Will be done. It will be done, because His Law is that exacting. Vengeance is Mine, sayth God. It is the Truth!

There is no other lessons to be learned in life. And all the nonsense about politics is just that; nonsense for the gain of a few unprincipled men who wish to make laws to entrap you for their own gain. Keep this thought in mind as you read the rest of this.

Charles Hardy <chardy@es.com>

To: lputah@qsicorp.com

Subject: WW in DN--War Between the States

Civil War was about controls, not slavery By Walter Williams

The problems that led to the Civil War are the same problems today -- big, intrusive government. The reason we don't face the specter of another Civil War is because today's Americans don't have yesteryear's spirit of liberty and constitutional respect, and political statesmanship is in short supply.

Actually, the war of 1861 was not a civil war. A civil war is a conflict between two or more factions trying to take over a government. In 1861, Confederate President Jefferson Davis was no more interested in taking over Washington than George Washington was interested in taking over England in 1776. Like Washington, Davis was seeking independence. Therefore, the war of 1861 should be called "The War Between the States" or the "War for Southern Independence."

History books have misled today's Americans to believe the war was fought to free slaves. Statements from the time suggest otherwise. In President Lincoln's first inaugural address, he said, "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so."

During the war, in an 1862 letter to New York Daily Tribune editor Horace Greeley, Lincoln said, "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery."

Lincoln's intentions, as well as that of many Northern politicians, were summarized by Stephen Douglas during the presidential debates. Douglas accused Lincoln of wanting to "impose on the nation a uniformity of local laws and institutions and a moral homogeneity dictated by the central government" that "place at defiance the intentions of the republic's founders." Douglas was right, and Lincoln's vision for our nation has now been accomplished beyond anything he could have possibly dreamed.

A precursor for a War Between the States came in 1832, when South Carolina called a convention to nullify tariff acts of 1828 and 1832, referred to as the "Tariffs of Abominations." A compromise lowering the tariff was reached, averting secession and possibly war.

The North favored protective tariffs for its manufacturing industry. The South, which exported agricultural products to and imported manufactured goods from Europe, favored free trade and was hurt by the tariffs. Plus, a Northern-dominated Congress enacted laws similar to Britain's Navigation Acts to protect Northern shipping interests.

Shortly after Lincoln's election, Congress passed the highly protectionist Morrill tariffs. That's when the South seceded, setting up a new government. Its constitution was nearly identical to the U.S. Constitution except that it outlawed protectionist tariffs, business handouts and mandated a two-thirds majority vote for all spending measures.

States should again challenge Washington's unconstitutional acts through nullification. But you tell me where we can find leaders with the love, courage and respect for our Constitution like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and John C. Calhoun. Creators Syndicate Inc.

See how dangerous it is to read things like this without more knowledge than the average American has? The basic premise he speaks of about the south is true, as far as it goes. But he has little knowledge or understanding of the Constitution, or of the control of the South by the banking interests through the "loans" granted to the South for the prosecution of the Civil War. He has not even identified the correct parts of the Constitution that have caused the problems in America.

Of course, any time you establish a "government" which gives man the power to make law, what you see today is what you will get. There has never and can never be an exception to this fact of nature.

The following is a case in point.

Congress - John Norrell 16:21:40 12/03/98 (5)]

Listen.......I think I hear a 'fife and drum'.......I DO. And..........it's getting CLOSER!!!!!!!

Reply-To: "Mitchell C. McDowell" <mcm72964@sprintmail.com>

I just took this off Vollmers Semi-ad forum board. This is SCARY!

www.fjvollmer.com/general/index.html

Posted by John Norrell on December 03, 1998 at 16:21:40:

The following is meant to be just a brief summary of some of the interesting high points of the Brady II Bill before Congress. For details please read the bill itself. You may want to sit down while reading this.

High Points / Summary of the Brady II Bill John Norrell 12-98

1. It shall be unlawful for any person to sell, deliver, or trade a handgun or handgun ammunition to anyone that is not either a FFL dealer or an individual with a State handgun license. A 7 day wait on handguns will apply to all non-FFL holders. The term handgun ammunition includes bullets, primer and powder. Section 101

2. It shall be unlawful for any person to store or leave a loaded firearm, or an unloaded firearm and ammunition at any place where a juvenile is likely to gain access. Section 203

3. It shall be unlawful for a person to possess more than 20 firearms or more than 1,000 rounds of ammunition unless that person is a FFL holder or has a $300 ( for three years) Arsenal License. Holders of arsenal licenses shall be subject to all obligations and requirements pertaining to licensed dealers. Section 204

4. It shall be unlawful to sell more than one handgun during any 30-day period to any one individual except law enforcement officers, FFL holders, security guards, etc. It shall be unlawful for a non-FFL holder to purchase more than one handgun during any 30 day period. Section 301

5. New FFL fees will range from $1,000 to $10,000. Section 303

6. Inspections of FFL premises and individual holders of arsenal licenses by BATF may occur up to 3 times a year with no notice. Section 305

7. It shall be unlawful for a FFL holder to not have personal bodily injury protection (insurance) that covers the handgun purchaser or victim if the handgun is used in a negligent manner. Minimum policy limit is $100,000. Section 306 (Of course, the insurance lobby, controlled by the bankers, had nothing to do with this provision, just as they had nothing to do with all of the insurance requirements which are law in all states! -- David)

8. It shall be unlawful for a FFL holder to sell, deliver, or otherwise transfer a firearm (of any type) at a location other than the location specified on the license. Section 309 (No more gun shows. -- David)

9. The definition of a firearm will include all component parts such as barrels, stocks, magazines, or any part of the action. Section 312

10. Prohibited weapons will now include revolvers with a barrel shorter than 3 inches, any handgun that utilizes .22 short, .25 cal. , or .32 cal ammunition. Section 401

11. Prohibited ammunition will include Dragons' Breath, .50 cal BMG, incendiary, a bullet larger than.45 cal, or handgun ammunition that exceeds 1,200 foot pounds of energy. Section 401

12. Prohibited magazines will include any that accept more than 6 rounds of ammunition and included all magazine replacement parts for higher capacity magazines . Section 401

13. Articles taxable at 30% & 50% will include handguns and handgun ammunition. Section 403

14. Gun "turn in programs" will allow individuals to turn in firearms for a full value tax deduction on federal income tax up to 5% of taxable income. Section501

?For a "full value tax reduction" for a tax they do not owe, but have volunteered for. Somehow, this actually makes sense. The next program, if what I see coming in America is close to true, will be a turn-in program so you can trade guns for food.

?The bankers understand guns. And power, and they understand that power comes out of the end of a gun. Perhaps the following makes more sense that way. It certainly does to me.

"WHAT GOOD CAN A HANDGUN DO AGAINST AN ARMY.....?"

A friend of mine recently forwarded me a question a friend of his had posed: "If/when our Federal Government comes to pilfer, pillage, plunder our property and destroy our lives, what good can a handgun do against an army with advanced weaponry, tanks, missiles, planes, or whatever else they might have at their disposal to achieve their nefarious goals? (I'm not being facetious: I accept the possibility that what happened in Germany, or similar, could happen here; I'm just not sure that the potential good from an armed citizenry in such a situation outweighs the day-to-day problems caused by masses of idiots who own guns.)"

If I may, I'd like to try to answer that question. I certainly do not think the writer facetious for asking it. The subject is a serious one that I have given much research and considerable thought to. I believe that upon the answer to this question depends the future of our Constitutional republic, our liberty and perhaps our lives. My friend Aaron Zelman, one of the founders of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership told me once: "If every Jewish and anti-nazi family in Germany had owned a Mauser rifle and twenty rounds of ammunition AND THE WILL TO USE IT (emphasis supplied, MV), Adolf Hitler would be a little-known footnote to the history of the Weimar Republic."

Note well that phrase: "and the will to use it," for the simply-stated question, "What good can a handgun do against an army?", is in fact a complex one and must be answered at length and carefully. It is a military question. It is also a political question. But above all it is a moral question which strikes to the heart of what makes men free, and what makes them slaves. First, let's answer the military question.

Most military questions have both a strategic and a tactical component. Let's consider the tactical.

A friend of mine owns an instructive piece of history. It is a small, crude pistol, made out of sheet-metal stampings by the U.S. during World War II. While it fits in the palm of your hand and is a slowly-operated, single-shot arm, it's powerful .45 caliber projectile will kill a man with brutal efficiency. With a short, smooth-bore barrel it can reliably kill only at point blank ranges, so its use requires the will (brave or foolhardy) to get in close before firing. It is less a soldier's weapon than an assassin's tool. The U.S. manufactured them by the million during the war, not for our own forces but rather to be air-dropped behind German lines to resistance units in occupied Europe. Crude and slow (the fired case had to be knocked out of the breech by means of a little wooden dowel, a fresh round procured from the storage area in the grip and then manually reloaded and cocked) and so wildly inaccurate it couldn't hit the broad side of a French barn at 50 meters, to the Resistance man or woman who had no firearm it still looked pretty darn good.

The theory and practice of it was this: First, you approach a German sentry with your little pistol hidden in your coat pocket and, with Academy-award sincerity, ask him for a light for your cigarette (or the time the train leaves for Paris, or if he wants to buy some non-army-issue food or a half-hour with your "sister"). When he smiles and casts a nervous glance down the street to see where his Sergeant is at, you blow his brains out with your first and only shot, then take his rifle and ammunition. Your next few minutes are occupied with "getting out of Dodge," for such critters generally go around in packs. After that (assuming you evade your late benefactor's friends) you keep the rifle and hand your little pistol to a fellow Resistance fighter so they can go get their own rifle.

Or maybe you then use your rifle to get a submachine gun from the Sergeant when he comes running. Perhaps you get very lucky and pickup a light machine gun, two boxes of ammunition and a haversack of hand grenades. With two of the grenades and the expenditure of a half-a-box of ammunition at a hasty roadblock the next night, you and your friends get a truck full of arms and ammunition. (Some of the cargo is sticky with "Boche" blood, but you don't mind terribly.)

Pretty soon you've got the best armed little marquis unit in your part of France, all from that cheap little pistol and the guts to use it. (One wonders if the current political elite's opposition to so-called "Saturday Night Specials" doesn't come from some adopted racial memory of previous failed tyrants. Even cheap little pistols are a threat to oppressive regimes.)

They called the pistol the "Liberator." Not a bad name, all in all.

Now let's consider the strategic aspect of the question, "What good can a handgun do against an army....?" We have seen that even a poor pistol can make a great deal of difference to the military career and postwar plans of one enemy soldier. That's tactical. But consider what a million pistols, or a hundred million pistols (which may approach the actual number of handguns in the U.S. today), can mean to the military planner who seeks to carry out operations against a populace so armed. Mention "Afghanistan" or "Chechnya" to a member of the current Russian military hierarchy and watch them shudder at the bloody memories. Then you begin to get the idea that modern munitions, air superiority and overwhelming, precision-guided violence still are not enough to make victory certain when the targets are not sitting Christmas-present fashion out in the middle of the desert.

I forget the name of the Senator who observed, "You know, a million here and a million there, and pretty soon you're talking about serious money." Consider that there are at least as many firearms-- handguns, rifles and shotguns-- as there are citizens of the United States. Consider that last year there were more than 14 million Americans who bought licenses to hunt deer in the country. 14 million-- that's a number greater than the largest five professional armies in the world combined. Consider also that those deer hunters are not only armed, but they own items of military utility-- everything from camouflage clothing to infrared "game finders", Global Positioning System devices and night vision scopes.

Consider also that quite a few of these hunters are military veterans. Just as moving around in the woods and stalking game are second nature, military operations are no mystery to them, especially those who were on the receiving end of guerrilla war in Southeast Asia. Indeed, such men, aging though they may be, may be more psychologically prepared for the exigencies of civil war (for this is what we are talking about) than their younger active-duty brother-soldiers whose only military experience involved neatly defined enemies and fronts in the Grand Campaign against Saddam. Not since 1861-1865 has the American military attempted to wage a war athwart its own logistical tail (nor indeed has it ever had to use modern conventional munitions on the Main Streets of its own hometowns and through its' relatives backyards, nor has it tested the obedience of soldiers who took a very different oath with orders to kill their "rebellious" neighbors, but that touches on the political aspect of the question).

But forget the psychological and political for a moment, and consider just the numbers. To paraphrase the Senator, "A million pistols here, a million rifles there, pretty soon you're talking serious firepower." No one, repeat, no one, will conquer America, from within or without, until its citizenry are disarmed. We remain, as a British officer had reason to complain at the start of our Revolution, "a people numerous and armed."

The Second Amendment is a political issue today only because of the military reality that underlies it. Politicians who fear the people seek to disarm them. People who fear their government's intentions refuse to be disarmed. The Founders understood this. So, too, does every tyrant who ever lived. Liberty-loving Americans forget it at their peril. Until they do, American gun owners in the aggregate represent a strategic military fact and an impediment to foreign tyranny. They also represent the greatest political challenge to home-grown would-be tyrants. If the people cannot be forcibly disarmed against their will, then they must be persuaded to give up their arms voluntarily. This is the siren song of "gun control," which is to say "government control of all guns," although few self-respecting gun-grabbers would be quite so bold as to phrase it so honestly.

Joseph Stalin, when informed after World War II that the Pope disapproved of Russian troops occupying Trieste, turned to his advisors and asked, "The Pope? The Pope? How many divisions does he have?" Dictators are unmoved by moral suasion. Fortunately, our Founders saw the wisdom of backing the First Amendment up with the Second. The "divisions" of the army of American constitutional liberty get into their cars and drive to work in this country every day to jobs that are hardly military in nature. Most of them are unmindful of the service they provide. Their arms depots may be found in innumerable closets, gun racks and gun safes. They have no appointed officers, nor will they need any until they are mobilized by events. Such guardians of our liberty perform this service merely by existing. And although they may be an ever-diminishing minority within their own country, as gun ownership is demonized and discouraged by the ruling elite, still they are as yet more than enough to perform their vital task. And if they are unaware of the impediment they present to their would-be rulers, their would-be rulers are painfully aware of these "divisions of liberty", as evidenced by their incessant calls for individual disarmament. They understand moral versus military force just as clearly as Stalin, but they would not be so indelicate as to quote him.

The Roman Republic failed because they could not successfully answer the question, "Who Shall Guard the Guards?" The Founders of this Republic answered that question with both the First and Second Amendments. Like Stalin, the Clintonistas could care less what common folk say about them, but the concept of the armed citizenry as guarantors of their own liberties sets their teeth on edge and disturbs their statist sleep.

Governments, some great men once avowed, derive their legitimacy from "the consent of the governed." In the country that these men founded, it should not be required to remind anyone that the people do not obtain their natural, God-given liberties by "the consent of the Government." Yet in this century, our once great constitutional republic has been so profaned in the pursuit of power and social engineering by corrupt leaders as to be unrecognizable to the Founders. And in large measure we have ourselves to blame because at each crucial step along the way the usurpers of our liberties have obtained the consent of a majority of the governed to do what they have done, often in the name of "democracy"-- a political system rejected by the Founders. Another good friend of mine gave the best description of pure democracy I have ever heard. "Democracy," he concluded, "is three wolves and a sheep sitting down to vote on what to have for dinner." The rights of the sheep in this system are by no means guaranteed.

Now it is true that our present wolf-like, would-be rulers do not as yet seek to eat that sheep and its peaceable woolly cousins (We, the people). They are, however, most desirous that the sheep be shorn of taxes, and if possible and when necessary, be reminded of their rightful place in society as "good citizen sheep" whose safety from the big bad wolves outside their barn doors is only guaranteed by the omni-presence in the barn of the "good wolves" of the government. Indeed, they do not present themselves as wolves at all, but rather these lupines parade around in sheep's clothing, bleating insistently in falsetto about the welfare of the flock and the necessity to surrender liberty and property "for the children", er, ah, I mean "the lambs." In order to ensure future generations of compliant sheep, they are careful to educate the lambs in the way of "political correctness," tutoring them in the totalitarian faiths that "it takes a barnyard to raise a lamb" and "all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

Every now and then, some tough old independent-minded ram refuses to be shorn and tries to remind the flock that they once decided affairs themselves according to the rule of law of their ancestors, and without the help of their "betters." When that happens, the fangs become apparent and the conspicuously unwilling are shunned, cowed, driven off or (occasionally) killed. But flashing teeth or not, the majority of the flock has learned over time not to resist the Lupine-Mandarin class which herds it. Their Founders, who were fiercely independent rams, would have long ago chased off such usurpers. Any present members of the flock who think like that are denounced as antediluvian or mentally deranged.

There are some of these dissidents the lupines would like to punish, but they dare not-- for their teeth are every bit as long as their "betters." Indeed, this is the reason the wolves haven't eaten any sheep in generations. To the wolves chagrin, this portion of the flock is armed and they outnumber the wolves by a considerable margin. For now the wolves are content are content to watch the numbers of these "armed sheep" diminish, as long teeth are no longer fashionable in polite society. (Indeed, they are considered by the literati to be an anachronism best forgotten and such sheep are dismissed by the Mandarins as "Tooth Nuts" or "Right Leg Fanatics".) When the numbers of armed sheep fall below a level that wolves can feel safe to do so, the eating will begin. The wolves are patient, and proceed by infinitesimal degrees like the slowly-boiling frog. It took them generations to lull the sheep into accepting them as rulers instead of elected representatives. If it takes another generation or two of sheep to complete the process, the wolves can wait. This is our "Animal Farm," without apology to George Orwell.

Even so, the truth is that one man with a pistol CAN defeat an army, given a righteous cause to fight for, enough determination to risk death for that cause, and enough brains, luck and friends to win the struggle. This is true in war but also in politics, and it is not necessary to be a Prussian militarist to see it. The dirty little secret of today's ruling elite as represented by the Clintonistas is that they want people of conscience and principle to be divided in as many ways as possible ("wedge issues" the consultants call them) so that they may be more easily manipulated. No issue of race, religion, class or economics is left unexploited. Lost in the din of jostling special interests are the few voices who point out that if we refuse to be divided from what truly unites us as a people, we cannot be defeated on the large issues of principle, faith, the constitutional republic and the rule of law. More importantly, woe and ridicule will be heaped upon anyone who points out that like the blustering Wizard of Oz, the federal tax and regulation machine is not as omniscient, omnipotent or fearsome as they would have us believe. Like the Wizard, they fan the scary flames higher and shout, "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"

For the truth is, they are frightened that we will find out how pitifully few they are compared to the mass of the citizenry they seek to frighten into compliance with their tax collections, property seizures and bureaucratic, unconstitutional power-shifting. I strongly recommend everyone see the new animated movie "A Bug's Life". Simple truths may often be found sheltering beneath unlikely overhangs, there protected by the pelting storm of lies that soak us everyday. "A Bug's Life", a children’s' movie of all things, is just such a place.

The plot revolves around an ant hill on an unnamed island, where the ants placate predatory grasshoppers by offering them each year one-half of the food they gather (sounds a lot like the IRS, right?). Driven to desperation by the insatiable tax demands of the large, fearsome grasshoppers, one enterprising ant goes abroad seeking bug mercenaries who will return with him and defend the anthill when the grasshoppers return. (If this sounds a lot like an animated "Magnificent Seven", you're right.)

The grasshoppers (who roar about like some biker gang or perhaps the ATF in black helicopters, take your pick) are, at one point in the movie, lounging around in a bug cantina down in Mexico, living off the bounty of the land. The harvest seeds they eat are dispensed one at a time from an upturned bar bottle. Two grasshoppers suggest to their leader, a menacing fellow named "Hopper" (whose voice characterization by Kevin Spacey is suitably evil personified), that they should forget about the poor ants on the island. Here, they say, we can live off the fat of the land, why worry about some upstart ants? Hopper turns on them instantly. "Would you like a seed?" he quietly asks one. "Sure," answers the skeptical grasshopper thug. "Would you like one?" Hopper asks the other. "Yeah," says he. Hopper manipulates the spigot on the bar bottle twice, and distributes the seeds to them.

"So, you want to know why we have to go back to the island, do you?" Hopper asks menacingly as the thugs munch on their seeds. "I'll show you why!" he shouts, removing the cap from the bottle entirely with one quick blow. The seeds, no longer restrained by the cap, respond to gravity and rush out all at once, inundating the two grasshoppers and crushing them. Hopper turns to his remaining fellow grasshoppers and shrieks, "That's why!"

I'm paraphrasing from memory here, for I've only seen the movie once. But Hopper then explains, "Don't you remember the upstart ant on that island? They outnumber us a hundred to one. How long do you think we'll last if they ever figure that out?"

"If the ants are not frightened of us," Hopper tells them, "our game is finished. We're finished."

Of course it comes as no surprise that in the end the ants figure that out. Would that liberty-loving Americans were as smart as animated ants.

Courage to stand against tyranny, fortunately, is not only found on videotape. Courage flowers from the heart, from the twin roots of deeply-held principle and faith in God. There are American heroes living today who have not yet performed the deeds of principled courage that future history books will record. They have not yet had to stand in the gap, to plug it with their own fragile bodies and lives against the evil that portends. Not yet have they been required to pledge "their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor." Yet they will have to. I believe with all my heart the lesson that history teaches: That each and every generation of Americans is given, along with the liberty and opportunity that is their heritage, the duty to defend America against the tyrannies of their day. Our father's father's fathers fought this same fight. Our mother's mother's mothers fought it as well. From the Revolution through the world wars, from the Cold War through to the Gulf, they fought to secure their liberty in conflicts great and small, within and without.

They stood faithful to the oath that our Founders gave us: To bear true faith and allegiance-- not to a man; not to the land; not to a political party, but to an idea. The idea is liberty, as codified in the Constitution of the United States. We swear, as did they, an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. And throughout the years they paid in blood and treasure the terrible price of that oath. That was their day. This is ours. The clouds we can see on the horizon may be a simple rain or a vast hurricane, but there is a storm coming. Make no mistake.

Lincoln said that this nation cannot long exist half slave and half free. I say, if I may humbly paraphrase, that this nation cannot long exist one-third slave, one-third uncommitted, and one-third free. The slavery today is of the mind and soul not the body, but is slavery without a doubt that the Clintons and their toadies are pushing.

It is slavery to worship our nominally-elected representatives as our rulers instead of requiring their trustworthiness as our servants. It is slavery of the mind and soul that demands that God-given rights that our Forefathers secured with their blood and sacrifice be traded for false security of a nanny-state which will tend to our "legitimate needs" as they are perceived by that government.

It is slavery to worship humanism as religion and slavery to deny life and liberty to unborn Americans. As people of faith in God, whatever our denomination, we are in bondage to a plantation system that steals our money; seizes our property; denies our ancient liberties; denies even our very history, supplanting it with sanitized and politicized "correctness"; denies our children a real public education; denies them even the mention of God in school; denies, in fact, the very existence of God.

So finally we are faced with, we must return to, the moral component of the question: "What good can a handgun do against an army?" The answer is "Nothing," or "Everything." The outcome depends upon the mind and heart and soul of the man or woman who holds it. One may also ask, "What good can a sling in the hands of a boy do against a marauding giant?" If your cause is just and righteous much can be done, nut only if you are willing to risk the consequences of failure and to bear the burdens of eternal vigilance.

A new friend of mine gave me a plaque the other day. Upon it is written these words by Winston Churchill, a man who knew much about fighting tyranny: "Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."

The Spartans at Thermopolae knew this. The fighting Jews of Masada knew this, when every man, woman and child died rather than submit to Roman tyranny. The Texans who died at the Alamo knew this. The frozen patriots of Valley Forge knew this. The "expendable men" of Bataan and Corregidor knew this. If there is one lesson of Hitlerism and the Holocaust, it is that free men, if they wish to remain free, must resist would-be tyrants at the first opportunity and at every opportunity. Remember that whether they the come as conquerors or elected officials, the men who secretly wish to be your murderers must first convince you that you must accept them as your masters. Free men and women must not wait until they are "selected", divided and herded into Warsaw Ghettos, there to finally fight desperately, almost without weapons, and die outnumbered.

The tyrant must be met at the door when he appears. At your door, or mine, wherever he shows his bloody appetite. He must be met by the pistol which can defeat an army. He must be met at every door, for in truth we outnumber him and his henchmen. It matters not whether they call themselves Communists or Nazis or something else. It matters not what flag they fly, nor what uniform they wear. It matters not what excuses they give for stealing your liberty, your property or your life. "By their works ye shall know them."

The time is late. Those who once has trouble reading the hour on their watches have no trouble seeing by the glare of the fire at Waco. Few of us realized at the time that the Constitution was burning right along with the Davidians. Now we know better.

We have had the advantage of that horrible illumination for more than five years now-- five years in which the rule of law and the battered old parchment of our beloved Constitution have been smashed, shredded and besmirched by the Clintonistas. In this process they have been aided and abetted by the cowardly incompetence of the "opposition" Republican leadership, a fact made crystal clear by the Waco hearings. They have forgotten Daniel Webster's warning: "Miracles do not cluster. Hold on to the Constitution of the United States of America and the Republic for which it stands-- what has happened once in six thousand years may never happen again. Hold on to your Constitution, for if the American Constitution shall fail there will be anarchy throughout the world." (This is true, but not in the sense that we take it to mean! -- David)

Yet being able to see what has happened has not helped us reverse, or even slow, the process. The sad fact is that we may have to resign ourselves to the prospect of having to maintain our principles and our liberty in the face of becoming a disenfranchised minority within our own country.

The middle third of the populace, it seems, will continue to waffle in favor of the enemies of the Constitution until their comfort level with the economy is endangered. They've got theirs, Jack. The Republicans, who we thought could represent our interests and protect the Constitution and the rule of law, have been demonstrated to be political eunuchs. Alan Keyes was dead right when he characterized the last election as one between "the lawless Democrats and the gutless Republicans." The spectacular political failures of our current leaders are unrivaled in our history unless you recall the unprincipled jockeying for position and tragic-comedy of misunderstanding and miscommunication which lead to our first Civil War.

And make no mistake, it is civil war which may be the most horrible corollary of the Law of Unintended Consequences as it applies to the Clintonistas and their destruction of the rule of law. Because such people have no cause for which they are willing to die (all morality being relativistic to them, and all principles compromisable), they cannot fathom the motives or behavior of people who believe that there are some principles worth fighting and dying for. Out of such failures of understanding come wars. Particularly because although such elitists would not risk their own necks in a fight, they have no compunction about ordering others in their pay to fight for them. It is not the deaths of others, but their own deaths, that they fear. As a Christian, I cannot fear my own death, but rather I am commanded by my God to live in such a way as to make my death a homecoming. That this makes me incomprehensible and threatening to those who wish to be my masters is something I can do little about. I would suggest to them that they not poke their godless, tyrannical noses down my alley. As the coiled rattlesnake flag of the Revolution bluntly stated: "Don't Tread on Me!" Or, as our state motto here in Alabama says: "We Dare Defend Our Rights."

But can a handgun defeat an army? Yes. It remains to be seen whether the struggle of our generation against the tyrants of our day in the first decade of the 21st Century will bring a restoration of liberty and the rule of law or a dark and bloody descent into chaos and slavery.

If it is to be the former, I will meet you at the new Yorktown. If it is to be the latter, I will meet you at Masada. But I will not be a slave. And I know that whether we succeed or fail, if we should fall along the way our graves will one day be visited by other free Americans, thanking us that we did not forget that, with the help of Almighty God, in the hands of a free man a handgun CAN defeat a tyrant's army.

-- Mike Vanderboegh

P.O. Box 926

Pinson, AL 35126

Mo10Cav@aol.com

Copyright 1998.

Pretty interesting. But a lot more interesting when you have enough information to judge what is being said. For instance, the information on the real basis of health. If this was taught in our schools, do you imagine for one moment that so many could be convinced to live in cities!? So they can be the wage slaves of the elite in the corporations that control the world? And, one other factor in proper food, is the increased ability to think. Definitely not something to be promoted by those who would be in charge.

I wonder, whenever I read something like the above, if the writer is still a "taxpayer" and know the answer. Words, not actions.

How many things are truly important in this world? Perhaps the best way to judge this is to count only those things which, once we are dead, we take with us. What, are you surprised that we take something with us when we die? Why is that?

And let me assure you of one thing; you will die, just as I will die. That is what makes most of this world so unimportant. Once you understand this, the impressive steps that so many take to accumulate so much of this world will leave you with pity for them just as it does me. These men will never learn this lesson, just as they will never understand that there are things you take with you when you die.

The first of these is His Word. His Word is the foundation of the Universe, and we can not escape from it. Never. That is how simple this subject is: Never. Only those who fight to escape from His Word will pay the price talked of in Scripture; to burn forever in a lake of fire. Now, is there really a lake of fire, or is this symbolism? I do not know, and, frankly, I do not care. Understanding health and science has led me to the understanding of Him just a little bit better; the little bit I need to accept. The understanding of how His Law works perfectly.

Is there anything else we take with us? Well, now that you mentioned it, yes, there is. Our children. They are the only legacy we can leave on this earth, and they are the only legacy we have which will last for all eternity. The people who lived two or three hundred generations ago are still alive here through this legacy, and it will be the only one we leave as well. Scary thought, that! Particularly if we are feeding them filth and not teaching them properly. We teach; not the public schools. Children learn by example, and seldom by rote. They can be programmed by rote, but not taught.

By our example the children are led to sin or to Him. Choose now which it is to be, and be aware that you will face that decision for all of eternity.

The other thing that we take with us when we die is our spouse. From my understanding, I believe this to be true, because I truly believe that Scripture does not lie, and that man is not complete without woman. You can not be incomplete through eternity, so there is some permanent connection between a man and a woman that will last forever. I do not understand this, nor do I grasp the real significance of it, but it really has a bearing on how I now treat fidelity!

And there is another part of this that I do not as yet grasp, but it has to do with Scripture, and I believe it is as real as anything else. We are told in Scripture to judge not lest you be judged. To walk up to a soldier and kill him for his rifle, is to judge. Now, do not misunderstand. We have an absolute duty to defend our homes and our family and friends from danger. The operative word here is "defend." (For reference, see Pickets Charge at Gettsburg.)

If you walk up to a soldier and kill him, without having observed him in the act of committing a crime defined in Scripture, are you not judging him? What if this is the soldier who saved the three children last week, or the one who is stopping some of the worst abuses by his fellow troops? And what, exactly, has this soldier done to the people of America? Now, on the other hand, he may be actively engaged in suppressing the "residents" who live in America, and work in the United States, but that is a different matter entirely. You could say, as the quote at the beginning of this Part did, that the difference is as plain as night and day. And it is.

Most of the people who inhabit America are dedicated to the government of man, and will fight and die for it, and for the papers which form that government. Isn’t it silly to die for paper? Just as silly as dying for a flag? They are convinced, and you can see that conviction in much of the information I have reproduced, that the Constitution must be saved. From itself, I guess, because they are not talking about changing the Constitution; they are only concerned with bringing it back to where they believe it belongs. And that soldier the writer of the previous piece was referring to is simply here to keep one group of men in control, as opposed to a different set of men taking over. Not much difference in my book, and I refuse to judge the difference between them.

On the other hand, I will defend my family, my home and my friends. And, if I observe that same soldier raping a woman or killing a child, I will kill him. It is what I do, according to the Word. On the other hand, the man who wrote above would "arrest" the soldier for prosecution under man’s law, if he acted at all in the matter. As I said above, the difference is as great as night and day.

That soldier, and his companions, are here to bring judgment against the unbeliever. The same is true of lawyers and judges. It is what they do, while they, also unbelievers, bring judgment against themselves. They all serve a purpose, and that purpose is to force the People to wake up. And the People will not awaken until the pain becomes so great that they can not ignore it and must react. The problem is that many of them will react just as the man above will, because they do not have enough knowledge to do otherwise, having waited until the last minute, having waited until the pain was so extreme that reaction was the only alternative.

Do you know any lawyers, judges or police? Look at them closely. If you can find it, read about the divorce and drug problems these people suffer, and the drug and alcohol problems that their children fight. When I said above they bring judgment against themselves, I meant every word. They do, and against their families as well. The judgment that they face in the next world begins here, under His Law, as it must.

I saw an interesting story a short time ago in a newspaper, and then saw it talked about on TV as well. The story was about a woman reporter with the Washington Post, I think, and there were pictures of her, before and after. Before, that is, she started treatment for cancer. The after pictures showed her as very thin and bald, as is proper when you let the poisoners work on your body. The story detailed her "great courage" in continuing to work while she faced the "greatest threat" of her life.

I am sure she is probably dead by now, but she served her purpose, and showed everyone the "proper" course when cancer strikes. Have "faith" in the "system." The "system" will take care of you, because God can not. As I said earlier, she could not read these papers even if she were alive, because her blindness would not allow it.

4 Babies By George F. Will

Thursday, December 3, 1998; Page A23

CHINO HILLS, Calif.–Where Route 71 crosses over Payton Drive, at the bottom of the steeply sloping embankment, two boys, who were playing nearby, found the boxes. The boys bicycled home and said they had found boxes of "babies."

Do not be impatient with the imprecision of their language. They have not read the apposite Supreme Court opinions. So when they stumbled on the boxes stuffed with 54 fetuses, which looked a lot like babies, they jumped to conclusions. Besides, young boys are apt to believe their eyes rather than the Supreme Court.

The first count came to a lot less than 54. Forgive the counters' imprecision. Many fetuses had been dismembered -- hands, arms, legs, heads jumbled together -- by the abortionist's vigor. An accurate count required a lot of sorting out.

The fetuses had been dumped here, about 30 miles east of Los Angeles, on March 14, 1997, by a trucker who may not have known what the Los Angeles abortion clinic had hired him to dispose of. He later served 71 days in jail for the improper disposal of medical waste. Society must be strict about its important standards.

What local authorities dealt with as a problem of solid waste disposal struck a few local residents as rather more troubling than that. They started talking to each other, and one thing led to another, and to the formation of Cradles of Love, which had the modest purpose of providing a burial for the 54 babies.

The members of Cradles of Love -- just a few normal walking-around middle-class Americans -- called them babies, and still do. These people are opposed to abortion, in spite of the Supreme Court's assurance in 1973 that abortions end only "potential life." (Twenty-five years later the Supreme Court has not yet explained how a life that is merely "potential" can be ended.)

Some will say the members of Cradles of Love, who are churchgoers, have been unduly influenced by theology. (Of course, I would be willingly to bet they still take their tax deduction from that same church, and help to support the same thing they weep and moan about. Talk is much easier than action. -- David) Or perhaps the real culprit is biology. It teaches that after the DNA of the sperm fuse with those of the ovum a new and unique DNA complex is formed that directs the growth of the organism. It soon is called a fetus, which takes in nourishment and converts it to energy through its own distinct, unique organic functioning, and very soon it looks a lot like a baby.

Anyway, theology or biology or maybe their eyes told the members of Cradles of Love that there were some babies in need of burials. So they asked the coroner to give them the fetuses. Then the American Civil Liberties Union was heard from.

It professed itself scandalized by this threat to . . . what? The ACLU frequently works itself into lathers of anxiety about threats to the separation of church and state. It is difficult, however, to identify any person whose civil liberties were going to be menaced if the fetuses were (these are the ACLU's words) "released to the church groups for the express purpose of holding religious services." The ACLU said it opposed "facilitation" of services by a public official.

The ACLU's attack on the constitutionally protected right to the free exercise of religion failed to intimidate, and in October the babies were buried in a plot provided at no charge by a cemetery in nearby Riverside. Each baby was given a name by a participating church group. Each name was engraved on a brass plate that was affixed to each of the 54 small, white, wooden caskets made, at no charge, by a volunteer who took three days off from work to do it. Fifty clergy and four persons active in the right-to-life movement carried the caskets. Each baby's name is inscribed on a large headstone, also provided at no charge. Fifty-four doves, provided at no charge by the cemetery, were released at the services.

The ACLU trembled for the Constitution.

We hear much about the few "extremists" in the right-to-life movement. But the vast majority of the movement's members are like the kindly, peaceable people here, who were minding their own business until some of the results of the abortion culture tumbled down a roadside embankment and into their lives.

Which is not to say that this episode was untainted by ugly extremism. It would be nice if the media, which are nothing if not diligent in documenting and deploring right-to-life extremism, could bring themselves to disapprove the extremism of the ACLU, which here attempted a bullying nastiness unredeemed by any connection to a civic purpose.

There is some good information, and insight, here. Particularly as to where life begins, and why. And the danger of playing god and interfering with that same process in life. Think about the shield that once existed around the earth, and what happened when it was pierced. ACRES USA goes into this subject, about the possible (I call it probable) destruction of much of our food sources if the plans for genetic engineering continue. I assure you, they will continue, for the potential profits, in the eyes of the multi-nationals, are immense. The LOVE of money is the root of ALL evil.

The other point here is the nature of the people. Here is an "activism" that they could participate in with little danger, and end up feeling good about themselves. Did it really accomplish anything, except make them feel good, and look good in the eyes of their brethren? Did the fifty pastors carrying the caskets accomplish anything? Did it change how they preached, or how carefully they continue to follow their instructions, so that they do not violate their tax exempt status. Probably not.

In this regard, perhaps another small piece of knowledge will help. Most ministers do not write their own sermons. They come canned from a "service" which the "church" provides for it’s ministers. This, of course, saves the minister a lot of time he would other wise waste on the Word and insurers that incorrect information does not creep into the church discussion. Sixty-eight percent of the Bible concerns government. Surprised? Why? God did not leave us here on the earth clueless. Everything we need for Paradise on earth is in the Bible. Health, nutrition, relations with our Brethren, government, everything! And this is why the reading of the Bible, particularly I a 501 (c)3 church can not be allowed. Everything must be tightly controlled.

When control begins, control continues, until their is nothing left, except control.

"Patriot Information"<piml@egroups.com>

From: ICE <ice@coolmedia.net>

Subject: Fwd: CIA and Drugs and the Secret government

All, of course, many of you already know or suspect that the reason the current "investigations" in D.C. are keeping hands off the CIA/Clinton/drug connection is because Republican administrations are up to their neck in the mess as well. For those who are unaware, this stuff can be a real eye-opener -- or drive them straight into denial. ICE

From: "John L. Monkus" <aabbeama@gnv.fdt.net> Subject: CIA and Drugs and the Secret government

Dear ICE,

A friend called up and had me to look up a site recommended by Mark Philips on the Internet for him. It puts a new light on many things. It leaves no doubt that " the U.S. government to be as morally bankrupt as the Third Reich." -John

I strongly recommend that you look at this site and pass it on to as many of your doubting friends as possible. The Internet is a great way to get information that we would never have had otherwise!

What started the present day income tax was the 1909 Corporation Income tax. Since the Pollack decision in 1894, the Congress, the criminals, has tried to steal the people's money under false pretenses. In order to do this they created the Corporation Income Tax of 1909. Then with the help of the personnel of the Federal Reserve in 1913 they took the corporation tax act and merged it with a few words to make it look like all the people had to pay an income tax.

How this was done can be see when reading in its entirety, the 1913 income tax from the Statutes at Large, March 1913 to March 1915, Vol XXXVIII, Sixty-Third Congress, Sess. I, Ch. 16, 1913. It starts on page 166 at section II and ends at page 202. The only reference to what people call today the "individual income tax," is found in Section II, A. Subdivision 1. This pertains to only the United States and that is Washington D.C. and its employees. From Subdivision 2 on, it only pertains to corporations. What they did will be shown in about three paragraphs. Only the first paragraph is what the criminals (Congress) rely upon to deceive the people of America into thinking they have to pay an income tax.

And so I start:

Section II. A. Subdivision 1. That there shall be levied, assessed, collected and paid annually upon the entire net income arising or accruing from all sources in the preceding calendar year to every citizen of the United States, whether residing at home or abroad, and to every person residing in the United States, though not a citizen thereof, a tax of 1 percentum, per annum upon such income, except as hereinafter provided and a like tax shall be assessed, levied, collected, and paid annually upon the entire net income from all property owned and of every business, trade, or profession carried on in the United States by persons residing elsewhere.

I discussed the above in great detail in my book, Which One Are you, published back in 1990. But for those that have not seen it I will make one comment on the above phrase "at home." That phrase is found in Webster's 1911 unabridged dictionary. I use every dictionary for the time period I am investigating to find out what those words mean for that time period. You will not find that phrase in modern dictionaries. The phrase "at home" meant "the seat of government." Now that you have a better understanding of that phrase it sheds a whole new light on Subdivision 1. The United States does not mean the whole of the 48 States at that time but only Washington D.C. and its possessions called "federal States." So only those people receiving source income from within the United States (Washington, D.C. and its possessions) were subject to the tax.

Point of fact is the statement from the IRS that is showing up on more correspondence than before and this is a quote from an IRS disclosure officer. "The IRC imposes law upon all citizens and residents of the United States." From the above subsection are you a citizen or resident of the seat of government ("at home")? And if you claim to be then anywhere you go in the world you are required to pay an income tax based on this subdivision. This is a blanket statement because there are a whole other factors to contend with, BUT this is what the IRS and all government workers and the majority of the people believe.

Now reading Subdivision 2, which starts on page 166, you will see that for the main, that only those corporations chartered by Congress or private corporations contracting and working within the "United States" were subject to the tax. Here is where the 1909 Corporation Tax Act was incorporated into what everyone believes to be a personal income tax:

Subsection 2. "In addition to the income tax provided under this section (herein referred to as the normal income tax) there shall be levied, assessed, and collected upon the net income of every. individual an additional income tax (herein referred to as the additional tax) of 1 per centum per annum upon the amount by which the total net income exceeds $20,000 and does not exceed $50,000, and 2 per centum per annum upon the amount by which the total net income exceeds $50,000 and does not exceed $75,000, 3 per centum per annum upon the amount by which the total net income exceeds $75,000 and does not exceed $100,000, 4 per centum per annum upon the amount by which the total net income exceeds $100,000 and does not exceed $250,000, 5 per centum per annum upon the amount by which the total net income exceeds $250,000 and does not exceed $500,000, and 6 per centum per annum upon the amount by which the total net income exceeds $500,000. All the provisions of this section relating to individuals who are to be chargeable with the normal income tax, so far as they are applicable and are not inconsistent with this subdivision of paragraph A, shall apply to the levy, assessment, and collection of the additional tax imposed under this section. Every person subject to this additional tax shall, for the purpose of its assessment and collection, make a personal return of his total net income from all sources, corporate or otherwise, for the preceding calendar year, trader rules and regulations to be prescribed by the Commissioner of internal Revenue and approved by the Secretary of the Treasury. For the purpose of this additional tax the taxable income of any individual shall embrace the share to which he would be entitled of the gains and profits, if divided or distributed, whether divided or distributed or not, of all corporations, joint-stock companies, or associations however created or organized, formed or fraudulently availed of for the purpose of preventing the imposition of such tax through the medium of permitting such gains and profits to accumulate instead of being divided or distributed; and the fact that any such corporation, joint-stock company ..."

Just looking at the dollar figure and remembering that the average people at that time were making about 5 dollars a week or less. There is no way they are talking about even the above average man on the street. Only corporations were making this amount of money. I remember when my mother, working in 1936, was making 9 dollars a week working for Westinghouse.

Now in G.(a) on page 172, it becomes more clear that the income tax is corporate as shown below:

G. (a) "That the normal tax hereinbefore imposed upon individuals likewise shall be levied, assessed, and paid annually upon the entire net income arising or accruing from all sources during the preceding calendar year to every corporation, joint-stock company or association, and every insurance company, organized in the United States, no matter how created or organized, not including partnerships; but if organized, authorized, or existing under the laws of any foreign country, then upon the amount of net income accruing from business transacted and capital invested within the United States during such year: Provided however, That nothing in this section shall apply to labor, agricultural, or horticultural organizations, or to mutual savings banks not having a capital stock represented by shares, or to fraternal beneficiary societies, orders, or associations operating under the lodge system or for the exclusive benefit of the members of a fraternity itself operating under the lodge system, and providing for the payment of life, sick, accident, and other benefits to the members of such societies, orders, or associations and dependents of such members, nor to domestic building and loan associations, nor to cemetery companies, organized aria operated exclusively for the mutual benefit of their members, nor to any corporation or association organized and operated exclusively for religions, charitable, scientific, or educational purposes, no part of the net income of which inures to the benefit of any private stockholder or individual, nor to business leagues, nor to chambers of commerce or boards of trade, not organized for profit or no part of the net income of which inures to the benefit of the private stockholder or individual; nor to any civic league or organization not organized for profit, but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare: Provided further, That there shall not be taxed under this section any income derived from any public utility or from the exercise of any essential governmental function accruing to any State, Territory, or the District of Columbia, or any political subdivision of a State, Territory, or the District of Columbia, nor any income accruing to the government of the Philippine Islands or Porto Rico, or of any political subdivision of the Philippine Islands or Porto Rico; Provided, That whenever any State, Territory, or the District of Columbia or any political subdivision of a State or Territory, has, prior to the passage of this Act, entered in good faith into a contract with any person or corporation, the object and purpose of which is to acquire, construct, operate or maintain a public utility, no tax shall be levied under the provisions of this Act upon the income derived from the operation of such public utility, so far as the payment thereof will impose a loss or burden upon such State, Territory, or the District of Columbia, or a political subdivision of a Stateor Territory; but this provision is not intended to confer upon such person or corporation any financial gain or exemption or to relieve such person or corporation from the payment of a tax as provided for in this section upon the part or portion of the said income to which such person or corporation shall be entitled under such contract."

Now the meat of the law comes into being at page 202, the last page. Who has the time to read 37 pages? How many of you have read all 37 pages of the Income tax statutes at large of 1913? Those of you who started and read thru maybe three pages were satisfied. Well government depends on people not reading a lot so they bury the good portions where you least to expect it. The following tells to whom the tax applies and it become evident when reading it that YOU, average man on the street, were not targeted for paying a tax on your contracted pay unless it came from a source within the United States, were a government employee or claim to be a citizen of the United States by registering to vote for the corporate officers, residing at a place called "at home" or in one of its possessions, became involved in one of its corporations wherein the United States paid your wages. Read this page 202 very carefully as I will capitalize those words that apply to the whole income tax act of 1913 and you will see it is nothing more than a corporation excise tax which the IRS cannot deny:

"(S.) duty, section thirty-nine, authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to borrow on the credit of the United States to defray expenditures on account of the Panama Canal, section forty, authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to borrow to meet public expenditures: Provided further, THAT ALL EXCISE TAXES UPON CORPORATIONS IMPOSED BY SECTION THIRTY-EIGHT, THAT HAVE ACCRUED OR HAVE BEEN IMPOSED FOR THE YEAR ENDING DECEMBER THIRTY-FIRST, NINETEEN HUNDRED AND TWELVE, SHALL BE RETURNED, ASSESSED, AND COLLECTED IN THE SAME MANNER, AND UNDER THE SAME PROVISIONS, LIENS, AND PENALTIES AS IF SECTION THIRTY-EIGHT CONTINUED IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT: AND PROVIDED FURTHER, THAT A SPECIAL EXCISE TAX WITH RESPECT TO THE CARRYING ON OR DOING OF BUSINESS, EQUIVALENT TO 1 PER CENTUM UPON THEIR ENTIRE NET INCOME, SHALL BE LEVIED, ASSESSED, AND COLLECTED UPON CORPORATIONS, JOINT STOCK COMPANIES OR ASSOCIATIONS, AND INSURANCE COMPANIES, OF THE CHARACTER DESCRIBED IN SECTION THIRTY-EIGHT OF THE ACT OF AUGUST FIFTH, NINETEEN HUNDRED AND NINE, FOR THE PERIOD FROM JANUARY FIRST TO FEBRUARY TWENTY EIGHTH, NINETEEN HUNDRED AND THIRTEEN, both dates inclusive, which said tax shall be computed upon one-sixth of the entire net income of said corporations, joint stock companies or associations, and insurance companies, for said year, said net income to be ascertained in accordance with the provisions of subsection G of section two of this Act: PROVIDED FURTHER, THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SAID SECTION THIRTY-EIGHT OF THE ACT OF AUGUST FIFTH, NINETEEN HUNDRED AND NINE, RELATIVE TO THE COLLECTION OF THE TAX THEREIN IMPOSED SHALL REMAIN IN FORCE FOR THE COLLECTION OF THE EXCISE TAX HEREIN PROVIDED, BUT FOR THE YEAR NINETEEN HUNDRED AND THIRTEEN IT SHALL NOT BE NECESSARY TO MAKE MORE THAN ONE RETURN AND ASSESSMENT FOR ALL THE TAXES IMPOSED HEREIN UPON SAID CORPORATIONS, JOINT STOCK COMPANIES OR ASSOCIATIONS, AND INSURANCE COMPANIES, EITHER BY WAY OF INCOME OR EXCISE, WHICH RETURN AND ASSESSMENT SHALL BE MADE AT THE TIMES AND IN THE MANNER PROVIDED IN THIS ACT; but the repeal of existing laws or modifications thereof embraced in this, Act shall not affect any act done, or any right accruing or accrued, or any suit or proceeding had or commenced in any civil case before the said repeal or modification; but all rights and liabilities under said laws shall continue and may be enforced in the same manner as if said repeal or modifications had not been made. Any offenses committed and all penalties or forfeitures or liabilities recurred prior to the passage of this Act under any statute embraced in or changed, modified, or repealed by this Act may be prosecuted or punished in the same manner and with the same effect as if this Act had not been passed. No Acts of limitation now in force, whether applicable to civil causes and proceedings or to the prosecution of offenses or for the recovery of penalties or forfeitures embraced in or modified, changed, or repealed by this Act shall be affected thereby so far as they affect any suits, proceedings, or prosecutions, whether civil or criminal, for causes arising or acts done or committed prior to the passage of this Act, which may be commenced and prosecuted within the same time and with the same effect as if this Act had not been passed.

T. If any clause, sentence, paragraph, or part of this Act shall for ) any reason be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such judgment shall not affect, impair, or invalidate the remainder of said Act, but shall be confined in its operation to the clause, sentence, paragraph, or part thereof directly involved in the controversy in which such judgment shall have been rendered.

U. That unless otherwise herein specially provided, this Act shall take effect on the day following its passage. Approved, 9.10 p. m., October 3, 1913."

Well I hope this will get you to go to the library and pull the entire Act and see for yourself that you have been had by the most corrupt bunch of criminals that Mark Twain said existed as Congress. You will become so outraged that halfway through the Act you will be ready to do just about anything to those real criminals. To have even further high blood pressure read the 1909 Corporation Tax Act and lay it side by side with the 1913 Act. Even better yet read President Taft's speech where he is telling Congress that we had better incorporate this 1909 tax into an income tax, that the Supreme court in the Pollack decision declared unconstitutional, so all people can pay it and they won't know it.

Sincerely, The Informer

The above information is pretty complete, and, to the best of my knowledge, correct. It is interesting to read, and then get in a discussion with someone who has been programmed that "we all must pay our fair share!" And they are very adamant about it!

At 05:45 PM 12/5/98 -0500, you wrote: Greetings,

Just a short note in reply to your request for assistance. I and certain acquaintance's have been over this road several times. I personally traveled for over 2 years with a "Freeman" status identification placard on my conveyances (More that one consecutive). My sheriff had been noticed up prior to the time I started and when he saw the tag all he said was "The person who owns that car should get a plate", and walked away.

I personally HATE COURTS, LAWYERS, JUDGES AND all that commercial law enforcement growth industry. They will all go to HELL in a speeding moment when the time comes.

We do most all our fighting in the administrative procedures arena as, according to the Supreme court, that is the public's "First line of defense."

Dumb question #1: Have you at any time(During this particular confrontation) engaged in any regulatable business, trade, commercial activity or industry on the public highway?

Dumb question #2: Have you ever requested an administrative ruling & determination as to the specific state of facts of your controversy, from your secretary of state department of motor vehicles.

Dumb question #3: Who made the accusation that you were a party required [By your participation in a regulatable activity] to have all those government forms? What evidence was submitted to substantiate that testimony? Is there any "reasonable basis" for the "assumption" you were a party required.

Dumb question #4: Did you fully understand all that was happening around you? Did you tell that to the judge?

Dumb question #5: When he said you were incompetent, did you agree or dis-agree? Why?

Dumb question #6 If you were originally incompetent to understand the charges, how and when did that change?

Matthew 5:25 "Agree with thine adversary..." And counter-claim the fools.

Three rules of thumb for dealing with bureaucrats:

1. I don't understand...

2. I don't believe that applies to me...

3. Please provide me the law and the reasonable basis for your determination that it applies to me, my land, my car, my house, my wife, my kids, my hunting, my fishing, my life, ad nauseum...!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Look up "insane delusion" in a good law dictionary and then please explain why you do not "believe" it applies to all bureaucrats in all government at all levels.

Insane delusion: An "insane Delusion" is a conception of a disordered mind which imagines facts to exist of which there is no evidence and belief in which is adhered to against all evidence and argument to contrary, and which cannot be accounted for on any reasonable hypothesis. Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition.

Yahweh bless you and yours in your fight against the "Workers of Iniquity".

?Interesting definition. Take into court documents which show you have severed all ties, wish no connection to the corporation or benefits therefrom, all dutifully signed, sealed,, and filed into the public record, and the judge will use secret information only he has access to, most probably in his mind as much as anywhere, to "prove" jurisdiction.

?Naturally, I can say the same about people in general. Give them the case law to illustrate that things are not as the have been led to believe, and they reject all proofs out of hand. The reaction of many people to Part I is a case in point. They will not do the study needed to learn the truth, they simply reject all information not in line with their previous programming. TV is a wonderful tool, for those who understand it’s uses and have the money, sorry, credit, to control it.

?Within that statement is a powerful lesson. One I learned some time ago, but which I had confirmed several times since. At seminars in the past I use to explain to people what was being done to their children through their watching television. Most paid no attention to what I said, but there were exceptions. One woman in particular came to a different lecture about a year later in a different city and took me aside during a break, thanking me for the information about television and programming of children.

?She had been worried prior to hearing me and used my talk as an excuse to act. When she returned home, she disconnected the TV, and later, without the help of her husband who was ambivalent about the whole thing, went up on the roof and removed the TV antenna.

?As she explained, the first month was h---! The children did not take well to this change, and even her husband had a couple of choice words when his "programming" was coming on. But she stuck to her guns, keep the VCR and rented movies a few times, and went to the store and bought a game that the children could play on TV. As she related to me, she followed my advise; she was bigger than the children and they were not going to buffalo her!

?It worked. After the first month, the withdrawal pains lessened, and other activities took over, including reading and games among the family members. But that was not the remarkable part.

?Within two months, she related how different trips to the store, any store, with the children, and her husband, now were, not to mention how she had changed! There was no longer this constant cry for this, or that, or Mommy! I have just got to have one of these! Why? Because the children were no longer being programmed to want all the garbage being advertised on the TV. The husband was the same, and so was she. She found her budget all of a sudden livable, expenses down, less garbage to take out, better, more healthful food being bought and consumed (and I knew little about health and nutrition then) and very little being put on their credit cards. In fact, she had reduced their credit card debt to almost zero by the time she saw me again.

?I have had similar conversations with several people along these same lines, although hers was by far the most complete information that I have heard. Perhaps, if you take this into account, you can now better judge why Janet Reno has a strong aversion to those who do not like the television.

From: "National Institute for Taxation Education" <taxgate@erols.com>

And if you do not do it the employer can always smack you around with 3401(e).

Sorry, just the facts. Thurston P. Bell Executive Researcher/N.I.T.E.

Ignorantia facti excusat, juris non excusat http://www.taxgate.com

All, I just have to comment on this, as thurston is quite correct, and frankly I had not noticed the last sentence in this section. Section 3401(e) is yet another hilarious example of Title 26 presumption of everyone's presumption (and gullibility). Please read 3401(e) at:

http://www.tns.lcs.mit.edu/uscode/TITLE_26/Subtitle_C/CHAPTER_24/Sec._3401.html

"(e) Number of withholding exemptions claimed

For purposes of this chapter, the term 'number of withholding exemptions claimed' means the number of withholding exemptions claimed in a withholding exemption certificate in effect under section 3402(f), or in effect under the corresponding section of prior law, except that if no such certificate is in effect, the number of withholding exemptions claimed shall be considered to be zero."

Well, now. If "no (w-4) certificate is 'in effect', then obviously the number of withholding exemptions claimed would be considered to be zero!!! Not having authorized any withholding at all, naturally you also would not be claiming any "exemptions", would you?!? Without a w-4 certificate or other authorization, you have not authorized any withholding period, have you? And, guess what, there is no language in that section authorizing withholding in the absence of a w-4 or other authorization from the "employee", is there? You see how they use words to create presumptions in the minds of people!

I'm sure I'm not telling Thurston anything he hasn't already noticed. And, of course, he is quite correct that virtually all employers are going to "smack you around" with the last sentence of that section! Just remember to "smack back" with the above thought! ICE

Original Message-----From: ICE [mailto:ice@coolmedia.net]

Subject: Fwd: W-4 From: bigal123@juno.com (bill d bradley)

I have been given permission to print this for your information concerning what the IRS says about the W-4. You can show your employer this when not wanting to file anymore W-4's or to obtain a job without filing one. I am sure P. McPhaden of the IRS would gladly verify what he stated to this man in his response letter. What, is he now going to deny what he said in writing? Big Al

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE

600 Arch Street

Philadelphia, PA 19106

Attn: E:1403PM

Department of the Treasury Person to Contact P. McPhaden

Telephone Number: (215) 597-0555 Ext . 108 Fax Number: (215) 597-3041

Refer Reply To: E: 1403 PM

Date: 9 April 1998

To: Sean K. 0'Hara

c/o P.O. Box 184

Glenolden, PA 19036

Dear Mr. O'Hara: Re: Your letter dated 24 March 1998 [Personal data deleted]

In conclusion, the filing of a Form W-4 with your Social Security Number with an employer is voluntary. If there are any additional questions or concerns, please contact me at the above number. Sincerely, Pegerie W. McPhaden, CPA International Examiner

?Please pay close attention to the title of the man named McPhaden; International Examiner. You can not be a United States citizen, resident in one of the several states, and have this opinion successfully used for you. He works "within" the United States and understands the difference between where he is, resident in Philadelphia, and you as living in one of the States united. As has been said, the difference is as great as night and day.

ICE ice@coolmedia.net

"If all bank loans were paid ... there would not be a dollar of coin or currency in circulation. Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in circulation. We are absolutely without a permanent money system". - Robert Hemphill, Federal Reserve Bank in Atlanta, in foreword to "100% Money" by Irving Fisher

In the sound file on the above ICE page you can listen to U.S. Representative John Ensign respond when asked to please state the law that requires Americans to file 1040's and pay an income tax. This recording is the very epitome of what we face in American gov't today. The good congressman flatly states that he cannot cite any law that requires an American to file returns or pay an income tax. I really suspect that he could make a good stab at it if he really thought it mattered. However, Rep. Ensign blithely paints the de facto reality by stating that there may not be a clear statute, but (paraphrasing) "just see what happens if you don't file and pay; the courts have ruled on this time and again." There may not be a law, but you will be penalized if you don't "comply", and the courts will apply, enforce and uphold the penalties -- law or no law. So much for the "rule of law". So much for the sanity and integrity of our "elected representatives"! Oh, and please don't trot out the "contract" arguments. Rep. Ensign, were he a man of any integrity or knowledge, whatsoever, could have "enlightened" his Town Meeting with the "truth" about any "contractual nexus" which requires Americans to file returns and pay an income tax, as opposed to merely stating that he can't cite a law, but "you better do it or else" -- the retort of a tyrant!

jay rutledge wrote:

"It is possible, although I think it is improbable, that we will eventually find a connection between that original "trust" and the "United States of America" that appears to have come into being after 1909."

I suggest you keep the concept of Constructive Trust in mind in your research.

Subject: Re: [teaparty] Re: Cause of Action MEADOR REPLY

The constructive trust plays a role, but what we're searching for is very probably an "existent" entity. However, people involved in legal matters should be aware of the constructive trust as it is the vehicle that operates against them in statutory courts that proceed "in the course of the civil law." It's an integral part of "presumption".

Consider the logical syllogism: If A and B, then C. The Vin diagram is the model: We have over-lapping circles, circle A and circle B, with the area where they over-lap being C. Each of the circles represents a premise, with the over-lapping C being the conclusion.

We'll use a word model to demonstrate: A is, "All dogs have fleas,", B is, "Vince is a dog," so we have conclusion C, "Vince has fleas."

In "the course of the civil law," which is contrary to due process in the course of the common law, there is hidden presumption, nearly always the major premise A, and usually the minor premise B. The beginning-point for litigation, whether civil or criminal prosecution, is with conclusion C -- "Vince has fleas."

Let's take a practical example: The U.S. Attorney files charges against our victim in the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, which is private, it isn't an Article III or even a territorial court of the United States, and the case issues in this manner: "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. JOHN DOE".

Here we actually have three hidden presumptions: Is the United States District Court a lawful court of the United States? No. Does the United States of America have constitutional or statutory authority in the several States party to the Constitution? No. Is John Doe the alias JOHN DOE? No.

The constructive trust is predicated on this assumption: No action beyond the presumptions is unlawful. (See the definition above of "insane delusion." - David) The presumptions in and of themselves may be unlawful and false, but if the presumptions aren't challenged and broken, all action beyond that is legitimate so long as the presumption stands.

This is the reason it is necessary to attack the underlying premises. If we disprove A or B, the conclusion C falls. If C stands, it becomes a presumption in all ensuing action, and even though the judge and prosecuting attorney may be fully aware that A & B are false, constructive trust rationale justifies whatever plunder they take and servitude they impose.

This is the reason I've taken several months to track and establish underlying authorities in the two memorandums I've completed and posted on the Kay County Patriot web site and am working on additional material that should be of value to most everyone who wants to find a peaceful means to restore constitutional rule. (The operative word being "rule." -- David) We have to get to the bedrock of law and legitimate authority so we can expose the fraudulent workings of Cooperative Federalism. Do we want to go to a private court, or what is really a pirate court, to secure redress of grievance and lawful relief? What justice is there if we appeal to a band of thieves? /s/ Dan Meador

Subject: Bill Gates $100 million donation to W.H.O.

Americans PLEASE wake up and respond as I have to this one. Following is the fax Dr. Leonard Horowitz and Ingri Cassel sent to Bill Gates. You too can respond by communicating to Mr. Gates in one of 4 ways: 1) Write to him at - 1 Microsoft Lane, Redmond, WA 98052 or 2) Call his office at - 425-882-8080 or 3) Fax him at - 425-936-7329 or 4) e-mail him at - askbill@microsoft.com.

Subject: $100 million to W.H.O. "so that no child go unprotected"!!!!!? We are shocked and outraged by your recent announcement via the media of your exorbitant contribution to "save" the world's children through vaccinations. The documentation presented in the book, Emerging Viruses: AIDS and Ebola - Nature, Accident or Intentional? by, Dr. Leonard G. Horowitz proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that our vaccines are contaminated with man-made viruses. Not only that, but research has shown that third world children need an adequate diet more than they need vaccines. This has been dramatically illustrated by Drs. Dettman and Kalokerinos of Australia. Dr. Kalokerinos documents in his book, Every Second Child, his experience working in the outback of Australia with aborigine children. Along with Dr. Dettman, they were told to vaccinate these children and were losing over 50% of these children as a direct result of the vaccines! These children were somewhat malnourished and had a condition known as scorbutic cachexia or borderline scurvy, better known as vitamin C deficiency. Although these two doctors' attempts to warn their superiors of their horrifying results using vaccines to kill children rather than save them, they were unable to stop the mental mindset (or political pressure?) and were told they had to continue to give these toxic vaccines to these children. They discovered that if they injected them with a dose of ascorbic acid prior to the vaccine injection, a significantly higher percentage of children survived. These two doctors eventually went on a worldwide campaign to warn us of the dangers of mass vaccination programs but, as you know, they got very little media support due to the control of much of the media by the pharmaceutical industry and its interests. In light of the volumes of evidence which points to the essential toxicity of vaccines (i.e. DTP vaccine contains formaldehyde, thimeorsol - a mercury derivative, aluminum and sodium phosphate as adjuvants) and the rapid increase in auto-immune diseases with new ones constantly appearing, it would seem more appropriate to earmark your $100 million for "independent" research into the real causes of these diseases. We feel that the link to vaccines is indisputable and would hope that you will recant your recent pledge to the World "Disease" Organization. The following is a list of Americans, who were also appalled by the announcement of your contribution, are resources of information on the essential harmfulness of vaccines: Jo Szczesny, director Leonard G. Horowitz, director The Vaccine Research Institute Tetrahedron Publishing Group P.O. Box 4182 P.O. Box 2033 Northbrook, IL 60065 Sandpoint, ID 83864 (208)265-2575; Walene James, director Vaccination Liberation Mary Carlson 2101 Pallets Court 9S040 Lake Drive #11-108 Virginia Beach, VA 23454 Clarendon Hills, IL 60514 (757)486-3129 (630)789-0805 Kristine Severyn, director Ingri Cassel, president Vaccine Policy Institute Vaccination Liberation - N. Idaho Chapter 251 W. Ridgeway Drive 110 W. Cosgrove #20 Dayton, OH 45459-4711 Coeur d'Alene, ID 83815 (937)435-4750 (208)267-8037 Barbara Mullarkey, co-director Marge Grant, founder Illinois Vaccine Awareness Coalition DPT-SHOT P.O. Box 946 P.O. Box 543 Oak Park, IL 60303 Beaver Dam, WI 53916

Concerning vaccinations, we all demand the right to choose and the freedom to abstain. Illinois Vaccine Awareness Coalition

The information above is known to those in "power." They understand very well what is going on and intend the result being achieved. Most of these results are contained in agreements, memorandums and treaties signed and agreed to years ago. The same is true of health. THEY UNDERSTAND! Baron Rothschild has a garden from which fresh food is picked and served to him within thirty minutes. THEY UNDERSTAND! We do not, for we have lost the knowledge. As I said before, in many ways, we are among the most ignorant people who have ever lived, and the vast majority of our descendants will be more ignorant still, unless we rediscover the knowledge and pass it on. Much of it is already available; it is up to you to learn it and teach it to your children, relatives, friends and neighbors. If this generation loses this information, and neglects to teach it to our children, I fear it may be lost for a thousand years!

And when you begin to talk of the information that many need, they have no ears to hear with, for their programming is so complete, that they have no grasp of what you are talking about, nor how it could possibly apply to them!

Let me give you a brief example of what I am talking about. Laws, of man. I see posts and information coming across the Internet all the time about how laws that were passed for specific reasons are being abused and used in an entirely unintended manner. The endangered species act or the asset confiscation program being two good examples of what I mean.

How absurd!

?The men making such assertions assume that you can believe what is told to the common people about some law being passed. Rest assured, those who write and pass laws understand perfectly what the intended result of that law is, and intend exactly that result! There are hundreds of man-hours spent designing the prefect word structure for every law which is passed, and we can not tell what the intended result of a law is until it has been enforce for a period of time. For instance, the endangered species act.

If you truly want to understand this, simply go to the information about the Biosphere and other land uses being planned by the UN "within" the United States and you will see what the real intent is and has been. They will use this law to confiscate the land they can not tax people off of in order to come into line with the plans of the UN which have already been accepted by the United States through treaty.

It is literally absurd to think that the men writing laws do not understand what it is they do!

To: Friendly Patriotic Exchange <fpe@egroups.com>

Subject: [fpe] Y2K and Your Food Supplies (Seeing is Believing!)

The following was passed on to the BC Family of Noah's Ark. It is provided here for your information also.

Dear BC Family,

Last night on Art Bell, Gary North was interviewed for 4 hours. Though there was not a lot of new information presented for folks already well-versed in this very real problem, it is good reinforcement material. If you want to hear this program, go to

http://ww2.broadcast.com/artbell/archive98.html#dec98 and click on Friday

Night/Saturday Morning 12/04/1998. This will allow you to hear the show archived if you have Real Player. If not, you can download it for free on Art's site http://www.artbell.com

Another good piece of information can be found at

http://www.y2knewswire.com/dominoes.htm It shows graphically how Y2K problems affect different areas of our lives. It does make a rather drastic statement: "there is an 86% chance that the Y2K problem will result in the complete collapse of modern civilization." We don't know on what this figure is based and perhaps it is a bit extreme, but there is good information and like Gary North last night, underscores the absolute necessity of water to keep civilization on an even keel.

Let us share our personal feelings on the matter. Stan and I do NOT envision a total collapse of civilization and government, but we don't feel things will roll along like normal either. There is simply no way of accurately predicting how Y2K will affect us. The problem is simply too big. For a variety of reasons:

*companies lie

*companies don't even bother to file reporting information

*they forget where some of the embedded chips are

*it's too expensive to fix

*chips are inaccessible or some are unintentionally overlooked.

Because of this overall lack of accurate Y2K compliant data, it is impossible to present a true picture what we can expect, regardless of what the experts tell you.

Regarding the collapse of government, especially in the US and other developed countries, don't look to it as a solution for not paying taxes, etc. We know for fact there are numerous underground bases both in the US and in Australia - we can't speak for other countries. The underground facilities have been well-equipped to sustain life for - selected individuals - numbering into the 1000s. These bases have been filled with all food, water, communication supplies and equipment required to carry on.

A few tidbits of information from North last night is that telecommunications are probably in the best shape of all industry areas. One of the least? Nuclear plants.

From Danise Codekas in Washington, she shares findings in her continuing Y2K investigation:

"Yesterday I worked in the MIS department of the largest food supplies distributor in the Northwestern States. I found out that they are not Y2K compliant as all coding is still 2 digit year codes. Food for all grocery stores is ordered 2 days in advance usually, with some of the larger places, like the military bases, ordering 2-4 weeks in advance.

It is December 4th today and most stores were ordering for the 8-10th of December with some ordering for Jan.1-6, but very few. The distribution company has all the food shipments delivered here and all trucking companies delivering goods are still using 2 digits placement for the years. I suddenly realized why I was sent there when I was looking at the coding for the software. Yow!!! Frightening! If more people could actually see these orders, they would realize the problems we could be encountering by Thanksgiving next year (or before).

Tens of millions of dollars worth of food will be sitting in these places, rotting, if nothing can get shipped out. Their insurance companies would cover losses; however, many of the insurance companies are not going to be sued from small stores and chains, since the federal and state governments are allowing them to not be held liable for any claims arising from Y2K non-compliance problems. (Looks to me like the government wants to be sure their are problems. - David) Looks to me like insurance industry and government are making sure they don't lose any money. It looks like things will be dangerous by next Thanksgiving if stores don't have food deliveries."

Danise is a researcher/investigator, author, lecturer and photographer with an extensive background in communications. Danise is a regular contributor to our Building Community messages due to her investigative 'nose' and her desire to help inform everyone. She will be speaking again shortly and is available for Y2K lectures to any groups in the Pacific northwest. If you would like to contact her about speaking to your group, E-mail Danise at Codekas@aol.com.

To underscore the importance of getting supplies together well in advance, another person shared this information regarding anticipated Y2K unrest.

Her sister-in-law is highly placed in the Colorado State Patrol. This past week numerous special meetings and training sessions were held for this police department. They were informed to expect riots and unrest with the Y2K problem. They are also using "new" weapons and will take "stronger" measures than ever before for riot control.

Colorado State Patrol officers were told to go home, store food and water and make sure that their families can either find safe havens or know how to "batten down the hatches". Colorado, my old home state, has always been known for its liberal laws. If these precautions are taken Colorado, what is planned for your state?

As a reminder, New York's fiscal year is April 1, 1999 rather than January 1, 2000. Possibly their resulting Y2K problems will be a barometer for the rest of the country.

Lastly, when we finished digging out the dam renovations, the bore driller, Chris, stopped to chat. Predictably, Stan felt him out for Y2K awareness and other events. Chris seemed to be an unusually bright and outgoing fellow, but you know what his response was to Y2K preparedness? "Oh yeah, I've heard of it, but guess I'll wait to do anything till it happens."

With affection, Holly and Stan, mystified in Miners Rest Seismo and Taco, "patrolling" the birds and blowflies

AUSTRALIAN site: http://www.ballarat.net.au/~standeyo/

AMERICAN sites: http://www.millennium-ark.net

http://buddyebsen.com/standeyo/

Emergency Preparedness: http://www.millennium-ark.net/News_Files/Hollys.html

Forwarded to you by: Washington Grassroots E-mail Network idzrus@earthlink.net

Check the messageboard every day for new posts:

http://www.InsideTheWeb.com/mbs.cgi/mb70701

?What is going on with Y2K? Does anyone understand? Well, I am reasonably sure that there are a few well placed criminally intended individuals who think they do. Are they sure? In their own minds they are, and you and I and the rest of the world will suffer, I am sure. But are they going to be able to control what will happen? Again, refer to the definition of "insane delusion." But does this mean that they are not preparing for problems?

Look, there is information you need to begin accessing. For instance, the state of the food supply in America. We are no longer a net exporter of food. Much of our food comes form foreign countries now, and in our major cities, there exists at any given time no more than a three days supply of food. Hungry people are not pleasant people, and plans WILL exist to take care of the coming created problems. (I expect, from what I have learned, that there is at any time less than a thirty day supply of food for the entire country now.)

?Have you read much about Pol Pot and the Cambodian nightmare? When he ordered his troops to move the people enmass out of the cities and into the countryside where they were put to work on collective farms? I have good reason to understand that the plans that Pol Pot used were developed by a think tank in Washington, DC, so perhaps you can gain a little insight about the future from the following. You see, taxes are not the only question in town.

Check this out, also my prophetic website [concerning visions, dreams, & prophecies concerning America], at: >>http://www.angelfire.com/ut/branton/proph.html

In peace; Alan

To: "zeropoint (moderator)" <zap@dnai.com>, Mike McDonough

<ufotech@holman.net>

From: doc <maxim777@northlink.com>

Subject: UN TROOPS AND WAR MATERIEL IN AMERICA.

From: Ralph (ralph@teaminfinity.com)

Subject: Re: Foreign Troops

Here is some of what I have. I will send more if you remind me. Also please look at BORDER XXI. Please share whatever you have.

What you are about to read I obtained from David J. Smith who can be reached at 1420 West Ross, Waxahachie Texas 75165. Would love more details from anyone who has them and VERIFICATION. ralph@TeamInfinity.com I basically have paraphrased what I saw on a raw Satellite broadcast of David's over 6 months ago. The reason I bring it up now is that as time has passed David's report herein paraphrased by me only seems to ring more and more true with COSCO, border 21, Panama canal being controled by Chinese, Luftwaffe in New Mexico etc. etc.

The details in the paraphrase by me of David’s work are quite alarming to say the least. Please excuse the spelling and grammatical problems, I wish we all had more time. Toodleloo, ralph@TeamInfinity.com

11/94 Hawaiian Islands: State S.W.A.T. team, against orders, came out to investigate 4 Russian Generals conducting military maneuvers involving Russian secret Speksnaz forces, Nepalese Gurkas all over the 5 Hawaiian Islands.

Speksnaz are highly trained forces who specialize in nuclear power, electrical power, and communications sabotage, and infiltration.

Speksnaz for several years have been seen coming into US via Alaska, first one at a time, then 10 at a time, now, 100s at a time, to preassigned jobs here in the US.

JFK in 1961 and 62, signed into law State Department Document 7277, a three step plan to completely and generally disarm the United States, we are now in step 2.

9/2/1992 - George Bush said: "US is prepared to make available our bases and lands for multinational field exercises. " Formerly defunct Fort Dix, in New Jersey is turned over for use by the United Nations and converted into a base for UN "Peace" keeping training. There are signs on the base pointing to a Prisoner of War Compound. I have seen video of this. Brand new razor wire on the ground surrounds many parts of this UN base.

UN Charter - No such thing as "Peace Keeping" forces. They have the EXCLUSIVE "right" to declare ware anywhere in the world. Peace Keepers or War Mongerers ? If they have all the guns who can make war against the beast. (see rev 13:4) No one can of course.

Fort Dix NJ, is a 50 sq. mile base handed over to the United Nations Organization to train foreign troops there RENT FREE !!

There are 19,000 United Nations Organization Troops in Fort Polk Louisiana, French and

Pakistani, 2 Battalions of Russian soldiers, on war footing according to an insider of that compound who told his parents, who also says this same compound has VAST underground facilities for storing equipment and other materiel.

NAPA California Sentinel reports 50,000 National Guard and United Nations Organization Troops based near Barstow California. Forces are held on stand by in case of rioting in Los Angeles area. (Please note that all National Guard troops are federal; they have never been state troops. - David)

There are 40,000 United Nations Organization Foreign troops based near Sacramento California. These anti-American Foreign Soldiers are based nearby in El Dorado National Forest.

Southern California, another hot bead of United Nations Organization military activity, bases more than 40,000 United Nations Organization Troops in San Diego, another 22,000 combat ready UN troops stationed just south of Los Angeles.

Thousands of Russian troops are stationed in secret military bases in Nevada, people have heard of Area 51 and there are other areas. They are under the auspices of the United Nations Organization, and a special instruction manual has already been written and passed out for Russian soldiers in the United States. It teaches them how to do door to door seizures and searches and the correct procedure for weapons seizure. The manual is written for the Russians.

Can there be any doubt why the TROJAN horse, the United Nations, is on the soil of America ? It was placed here to takeover, subvert our sovereignty for world government. The ONLY way they could get troops and equipment on American soil was through the United Nations Organization.

Supposedly, by brainwashing the American people to believe that it was an organization to bring world peace instead of world tyranny and slavery. There is a 43,000 man United Nations Organization battle group which is stationed in the Texas Pan Handle by Oklahoma and New Mexico, Anchorage Alaska has 14,000 United Nations Troops dispersed throughout the area. And more are coming in every week. These anti-American soldiers wear black uniforms, they usually drive dark unmarked military vehicles.

United Nations Organization Gurka troops from Nepal can be found near Yakima Washington. These are very ruthless individuals known to be merciless killers. They are stationed at a U.S. military reservation known as the Yakima Firing Range.

A 20,000 man contingent, once again UN Troops were kept in a state of alert during the Ruby Ridge siege on the Weaver family in Idaho. The plan was to have them to join with the US Marshalls if called upon by their bosses. Why should our US leaders TREASONOUSLY offer to house and equip a hostile standing United Nations Organization Standing army on an American Military base? It's because NO ONE has called it treason against the people of this country. This opened the flood gates for 10s of thousands of Foreign troops to pour into our country because no one says anything against it. (Of course not; Congress has already agreed to the principles of World Government and anyone in the military who complains ends up dead or stationed in a little out-of-the-way-location where they are no bother. And, the press is certainly not going to say anything! - David)

Russian Naval transport ships have been spotted numerous times in the Gulf of California. Part of the Russian fleet is anchored with 4 floating dry docks near Gulf Port Mississippi. 4 Russian subs are docked with normal shipping in Alabama's Mobile Bay. These are equipped with 22 Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles and each of these can hit 10 different targets in the United States.

United States Service Personnel are seeing foreign troops on military bases all over the nation. There are foreign military personnel on our bases and foreign troop movement and activity is going on in the Gulf of Mexico coastal region west of Gulf Port in Mississippi near the border of Louisiana, to be exact, United Nations Organization troops wear Vietnamese style uniforms, no insignias or emblems in some areas, these soldiers ride armed guard on barges going north of the Gulf up the Pearl River. The Pearl River is a river that one would cross to get to Alabama or Florida from that area. These barges are loaded with military equipment vehicles and supplies, their destination is the HUGE NASA Test Facility which borders the Pearl River. United Nations Organization mercenaries, all of whom despise Americans such as you and me, because they are not in general Christian or moral, and have no conscious will to stop any orders against the American people who might be Christian or moral. They are quartered and undergoing special training at the NASA facility attached to the Pearl River. Included are Russian, East German, Koreans and other nationalities. The Spotlight newspaper obtained several years ago irrefutable evidence, photographs, 100 of photographs, showing THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of foreign military vehicles and armor going ALL over the United States, including vehicles being used by the UN. We even have film footage we have taken ourselves in Gulf Port Mississippi, and Beumont Texas, showing United Nations Organization vehicles on trucks being transported in this country.

Our president Bill Clinton, has signed Executive Orders as well as other presidents before him, giving very wide ranging powers to the United Nations Organization to command our military forces. This means the National Security Council has now delegated these powers to the United Nations Organization. Bill Clinton signed on July 15, 1996, Executive Order 13010. Within the context of this Executive Order it states VERY CLEARLY that if there is ANY type of emergency whatsoever of terrorism, especially like a black out of electricity, that DOD has all the powers of the president. Well, our nation basically has 9 separate power grids like TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority) that supply all the electrical power in the US. So 9 key positions need to be taken out and we will have the conditions necessary for take over by law. (Who forgot about the massive power outs that occurred last year in the West ?)

100s of Railroad flat cars bearing Russian military vehicles and armor and even some United Nations Organization vehicles (painted white with UN letters) all over America, especially Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Nashville Tennessee, along Interstate 24, west of Nashville we received two calls telling us of HUGE fuselages with UN letters heading toward a military base. So yes they are all over.

In Mississippi, 100s of Russian built military vehicles obtained from what was East Germany are, according to officials on the base (we attempted to tape the facilities when we were confronted by an official who explained to us the specifics herein) the vehicles were being refurbished under the auspices of the United Nations Organization. Without doubt. This MASSIVE depot in Gulf Port Mississippi, behind barbed wire, anybody can go there can see it from Highway 49, 6-8 miles north of Interstate 10.

20 miles of newly built road lead directly from this MASSIVE depot directly into NASA's Stennis Space Center. WHY? Every American needs to know why. Why are our representatives silent? Many of the vehicles have been spotted (we have pictures) are for chemical and biological warfare purposes. Why when this is banned by treaty ?

El Jeffe, El Capiton, Generalissimo Klintonista speaks out about the US Constitution:

"When we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans..."

"And so a lot of people say there's too much personal freedom. When personal freedom's being abused, you have to move to limit it. That's what we did in the announcement I made last weekend on the public housing projects, about how we're going to have weapon sweeps and more things like that to try to make people safer in their communities."

President Bill Clinton, 3-22-94, MTV's "Enough is Enough"

"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans ..."

Bill Clinton (USA TODAY, 11 March 1993, page 2A)

Why can’t any of these be considered a violation of the oath of office to uphold the Constitution and qualify as TREASON !!

?Because they are not treason, that’s why. The King was forced to accept the Bill of Rights in order to get the Constitution passed, but that does not mean that he liked it! And he will do what ever is necessary to avoid it as long as possible. When the time comes when it is no longer necessary to avoid it, things will come more out into the open, as they are now. But this will not change the nature of most men; they will still believe that the Constitution is whatever they have been programmed to think it is.

?Is the above information true? I don’t know, but, that being said, I have personally seen a train load of UN equipment moving through Colorado, so there is an element of truth no matter what else is said. Also, I have looked at some length into the COSCO (COSCO is an extension of the Chinese government, supposedly for merchandising, but it is directly controlled by the Chinese People’s Army. Think about this the next time you go there to take advantage of the "great" prices.) attempt to take over the Long Beach Naval Station in Long Beach, California.

?In doing so, I spoke face to face with a couple of men who were well involved in the process of attempting to stop the action. As they explained to me, there already existed, seventy miles inland for Long Beach, a three-hundred and fifty square mile reserve which had been turned over to a COSCO subsidiary and plans existed to build a railroad directly from the naval station in Long Beach to this reserve. To the best of their knowledge, there were also existing plans to build an ammunition plant on the reserve, which would be directly controlled, I assure you, by the People’s Army.

?So how much of the above report is true is anyone’s guess, but it stands to reason that there are plans afoot as regards the Y2K situation, and when you couple this with the Euro dollar coming on line, and what that will do to this economy, things could well be reaching the "interesting" stage in America. I have left the sources intact in the above report, so please verify as much as you can, and let me know your results, please.

The really important part of the above information is simply that the cities are and always have been targets. How else can it be? This is where the vast majority of Americans are concentrated, so they will obviously be targets, and if there is blood shed, it will be concentrated in the cities and in the eastern time zone, so the above information simply tell us that we should do what we should do anyway: leave the cities and band with those of like mind. We need to be near to those who will help to protect us, and I am reasonably sure that time for much of this is short.

The following is an excerpt from:

<http://www.devvy.com/taxcourt/tcindex.html>. EVERY CITIZEN of the State of Washington, or any other State of the Union of the Fifty States would do well to read the entire document, but this excerpt states the bottom line very clearly... and imposes this question upon YOU: ARE YOU THE VICTIM OF A CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD??? -- John R. Prukop/CCW Coalition

THE BOTTOM LINE IS THIS: The reason for this absence of a challenge to such alleged requirement to have a social security number for any reason, let alone employment, can only be explained by analyzing the act itself to determine if there is such a requirement. Because Congress lacks the constitutional authority to compel membership in Social Security, the act simply imposes no such requirement and I challenge Respondent to provide a specific section in 42 U.S.C. where it states such a requirement.

The modern version of the act is codified at 42 U.S.C., section 301-433. If there were a requirement that every American join the Social Security scheme, one would expect to find language in the act similar to the following:

"Every American of the age of 18 years or older shall submit an application with the Social Security Administration and shall provide thereon the information required by regulations prescribed by the Secretary. Every member of Social Security shall pay the taxes imposed herein and records of such payments shall be kept by the Secretary for determining the amount of benefits to which such member is entitled hereunder."

Amazingly, no such or similar language appears within the act anywhere, and particularly there is no section thereof which could remotely be considered as a mandate that anyone join Social Security. The closest section of the act which might relate to this point is the requirement that anyone seeking benefits under the act must apply for the same. But, this relates to an entirely different point than a requirement that one join.

Since the statutory scheme fails to impose such requirement, the next question to be asked if whether perhaps the Social Security regulations themselves might impose such duty. But here, the regulations are no broader than the act itself, and the duty to apply for and obtain a Social Security card or number boils down to the following found at 20 C.F.R., section 422.103:

"(b) Applying for a number. (1) Form SS-5. An individual needing a social security number may apply for one by filing a signed Form SS-5, 'Application for a Social Security Card,' at any social security office and submitting the required evidence...

"(2) Birth Registration Document. The Social Security Administration (SSA) may enter into an agreement with officials of a state...to establish, as part of the official birth registration process, a procedure to assist SSA in assigning social security numbers to newborn children. Where an agreement is in effect, a parent, as part of the official birth registration process, need not complete a Form SS-5 and may request that SSA assign a social security number to the newborn child.

"(c) How numbers are assigned. (1) Request on form SS-5. If the applicant has completed a Form SS-5, the social security office...that receives the completed Form SS-5 will require the applicant to furnish documentary evidence... After review of the documentary evidence, the completed Form SS-5 if forwarded...to SSA's central office... If the electronic screening or other investigation does not disclose a previously assigned number, SSA's central office assigns a number and issues a social security number card...

"(2) Request on birth registration document. Where a parent has requested a social security number for a newborn child as part of an official birth registration process described in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, the State vital statistics office will electronically transmit the request to SSA's central office... Using this information, SSA will assign a number to the child and send the social security number card to the child at the mother's address."

Every American has the RIGHT to be fully informed of the law and the consequences of entering into any contract that binds them to any program. Forcing a newborn, incapable of understanding anything other than life giving functions such as food and shelter or a teenager to enter into a contract, which is nothing more than the assignment of a number for a benefit program disguised as a tax, is reprehensible and flies in the fact of all the principles of freedom and free choice that this nation was founded upon.

The purported duty to apply for and obtain a Social Security number therefore boils down to this: you get it if you want it or request it. There is no legal compulsion to do so and the Respondent cannot provide any evidence to the contrary.

Registrant: One who registers; particularly, one who registers anything for the purpose of securing a right or privilege granted by law on condition of such registration. Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition.

?How does anyone register a child or themselves with the government, supposedly the agent for We, the People, accept a right or a privilege granted by the supposed "law" written and enforced by that said "agent" and maintain their freedom?

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance does whatever is dictated to it." --Thomas Paine, Rights of Man

The following is a free Y2K alert + analysis from Y2KNEWSWIRE.COM. You signed up for this. Removal / unsubscribe instructions and e-mail contacts are at the bottom of this e-mail.

NETWORK DATE FAILURE STRIKES LONDON BANKS

As yet more proof that bringing software on-line that you thought was Y2K compliant often causes system failures, this Computer Weekly story reports, "The installation of millennium-compliant software by a telecommunications supplier left dozens of London investment banks and brokers suffering from a network failure at the end of last month."

Twenty-five of 300 fiber optic rings failed, affecting market data services. Most importantly, as the story reports, "...Users of the network had previously been told such a failure was unlikely, as the supplier had said any breakdown to any part of the network would be over-ridden by emergency back-up procedures."

Sounds familiar, doesn't it? We hear this all the time: don't worry, we've tested it and even if it fails, the backup system will take care of it. And yet networks are crashing all around us -- even BEFORE 2000 -- as companies who thought they were ahead of the curve actually try to put their remediated systems on-line. We've seen it with the FAA, with banks, and now with this communications network in London that affected dozens of banks.

What happens on January 1, 2000, when every company and communications system on the planet is forced to operate in the post-rollover era? Naturally, they've all been assured things will be fine. John Koskinen, Clinton's Y2K czar, even claims the federal government will have no Y2K problems whatsoever. All the Y2K skeptics are certain everything will be fixed on time... or, as Gartner Group suggests, 90% of the problems that weren't fixed in the last decade will magically be fixed within three days. That's now widely known as the "Three day miracle."

As we approach the end of 1998, the foolishness of the Y2K skeptics is becoming more and more apparent. With Y2K remediation costs unexpectedly skyrocketing, exceeding even Gartner Group’s estimates of $600 billion, with systems testing revealing major problems that people thought were already fixed, and with the federal government continuing to receive a "D" grade on its Year 2000 progress (yet again), it takes an immense effort of selective focus to continue proclaiming Y2K is no big deal.

Story at: (requires free registration) http://www.computerweekly.co

uk/cwarchive/news/19981210/cwcontainer.asp?name=D12.html

26 PREDICTIONS FOR THE NEXT 18 MONTHS: Y2KNEWSWIRE predicted in September that no federal agency would meet the September 30, 1998 deadline. We were right, although agencies later claimed it wasn't a real deadline after all. (It was just a "goal.")

Now we're going on the record to make some NEW predictions for 1999 and 2000. Print this out, staple it to your wall. And watch as they come to pass. We're betting we'll be right on at least 75% of the predictions. The time frame for these predictions is the next two years (including both 1999 and 2000).

AIRPLANES: There will be at least one Y2K-related mid-air collision or landing / taking off accident, causing at least one plane to fall from the sky.

WATER: At least one municipality in the United States will fail to operate correctly, either leaving citizens without water or allowing untreated water to reach the population, resulting in sickness.

FOOD: Food supplies will be threatened in many areas, and the National Guard or the Red Cross will be needed to deliver emergency food supplies.

NATIONAL EMERGENCY: The President will declare a national emergency.

BANK RUNS: Bank runs will begin but will be halted by aggressive action from the Fed, Congress and the White House.

DOMESTIC TERRORISM: At least one deadly act of terrorism will take place on U.S. soil or at a U.S. base overseas as foreign enemies of the United States take advantage of the Y2K turmoil.

911: Multiple 911 systems will fail across the country, and in at least one city, riots will result.

DEFENSE: The Dept. of Defense will suffer massive communications failures.

NUCLEAR POWER: At least one nuclear power plant will be shut down due to Y2K-related safety concerns.

OIL: Supplies and deliveries of oil will be disrupted due to Y2K. Prices of gasoline will rise.

MEDICAL EQUIPMENT: There will be multiple deaths from Y2K-related failures of medical equipment.

ELECTRICITY: Power outages will affect at least ten cities in the United States.

MARCH 1999 DEADLINE: In March, multiple federal agencies will announce they have achieved compliance. In the following year, at least half of them will experience Y2K-related problems they didn't expect.

PANIC BUYING: Panic buying of supplies will be in full swing by November of 1999. Sam's Club will see record sales of canned goods, and generators will be difficult to find.

CASH WITHDRAWALS: New limits will be placed on either the withdrawing of cash or the use of cash in transactions.

FIREARMS: Firearms sales will increase dramatically in the Summer or Fall of 1999, and the FBI's new Instant-Check system will be tremendously overloaded.

AUTOMOBILES: Some automobiles will be unable to run correctly.

UNEMPLOYMENT: Before the end of 2000, thanks to Y2K-related company failures, unemployment will exceed 12%.

ECONOMY: By the end of 2000, the U.S. economy will be in a recession (at minimum).

STOCK MARKET: The Dow will drop well below 6000, due, in part, to Y2K fears and Y2K-related company failures. The failure of Japanese banks will also play an important role in the falling U. S. stock market.

TRAINS: The running of trains will be disrupted for at least three days in some areas, causing expensive delivery delays and disrupting industry.

INTERNET: Some segments of the Internet will stay up, but telecommunications failures will bring it down in many areas.

PRISONS: At least one prison riot will result from the Year 2000 rollover, causing several deaths.

TRAFFIC LIGHTS: In at least one major city, traffic light disruptions will cause gridlock..

NUCLEAR MELTDOWN: There will not be a nuclear core meltdown in the United States, although there will be one outside the United States before the end of 2000.

MILITARY FORCES: Military forces will indeed be walking the streets of at least one U.S. city before the Summer of 2000.

BANK FEARS HIT AUSTRALIA

December 1999 bank bill futures are being affected RIGHT NOW by fears over the Millennium Bug. According to this Financial Review article, "The market and banking authorities are anticipating a massive withdrawal of cash from the banking system by people afraid of technological havoc caused by the Y2K computer bug."

It goes on to say: "People are afraid that banks will crash," said Mr. Phil O'Sullivan, strategist at Bankers Trust Australia. "The speculation is that what will happen leading into 2000 is that people will be concerned that the banks' computer systems won't handle it, and they will withdraw cash from the banks more than usual and force up short-term rates."

Furthermore, the story repeats something Y2KNEWSWIRE has been warning readers about for months: the drying-up of loan capital and subsequent monetary deflation. The story reports, "It's dawned on people that over the end of 1999, banks may just decide not to lend any money at all because they don't want to risk lending money to someone who gets hammered by the Y2K bug," said one market participant. "People are realizing that money at the end of 1999 might be pretty expensive."

It's not difficult to imagine loan rates exceeding 25%. And if that happens, it means anybody who leaves their money in the banks in order to earn a measly 2% is getting the shaft.

Think about it: as we cross the 2000 horizon, would YOU loan money to a business for a paltry 10% return? Especially if there was a risk the company wouldn't be Y2K-compliant and could go bankrupt? Most rational people wouldn't take that bet. But if you deposit your money into a bank, you ARE an investor. You're loaning your money to that bank. Worse yet, you're only getting 2% interest for risking 100% of your money.

That's why diversifying your money by pulling some of it out of the bank is not at all an "unnatural" act, as claimed by some Y2K skeptics. It is, in fact, one of the smartest things you can do. During this great 1990's stock market explosion, you've heard repeated, over and over again, "Diversify!" Now, all of a sudden, the people in the financial industry are telling you diversification is radical and unnatural. They don't want you to diversify at all, especially if that means cutting into their profits. It turns out they really only wanted you to diversify under THEM, putting all your eggs in one basket but imagining you were actually putting them in a dozen smaller baskets. But it was all under the same banking system, the same stock market.

But you're smart. You already know diversification is a GREAT strategy in times of uncertainty, and for most people that means owning some land, some precious metals, some cash, some bank deposits, a little stock in Y2K-proof companies, and having plenty of supplies. Convert electronic money to real-world "stuff." That's called diversification, and anybody who tries to convince you that diversifying right now is a stupid strategy is lying to you.

Here's the story from Australia:

http://www.afr.com.au/content/981210/market/markets1.html

Another story from The Age, states, "Investors are betting through the futures markets that the Millennium Bug will cripple the banking system on 1January 2000." It even goes on to say, "...if the banks were paralyzed for even a short period the resulting shortage of dollars would temporarily drive interest rates higher."

Check it out yourself at: http://www.theage.com.au/daily/981211/bus/bus7.html

ARMY NEEDS MORE MONEY FOR Y2K

The Army needs a lot more Y2K-fixing cash than they thought. Now they're cutting budgets in other areas to redirect money to solving the Y2K problem.

Solving this problem is obviously critical to the Army, since they'll be the troops sent out to American cities to help the people who didn't prepare. And if the Army can't get compliant, the entire rescue operation is in trouble. Citizens who aren't preparing right now are going to be relying on a branch of the military that can't even get the funds it needs to get compliant.

Read about the increase at:

http://www.fcw.com/pubs/fcw/1998/1207/web-armyy2k-12-9-98.html

ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS DEMANDS NUKE PLANT SHUTDOWN

Reuters reports, "An environmental group Thursday submitted a petition to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission asking that nuclear power plants be shut down if they cannot prove themselves free of Year 2000 computer bugs."

We knew it was going to happen sooner or later. Faced with the possibility that nuclear power plants won't be compliant, this group is doing the right thing by demanding they be taken off-line rather than risk a meltdown (or other accident). The group demands nuclear power plants prove they are compliant before they are allowed to operate.

Proving it is practically impossible, thanks to embedded systems. The only way to completely simulate a Year 2000 rollover is to wait for it. The vast majority of embedded systems can't be "fooled" into thinking it's 2000, so actually proving the compliance of any nuclear power plant is all but impossible.

"Nuclear Information and Resource Service officials said if the nation's 104 commercial nuclear power plants are not properly tested and declared free of the Y2K threat, there could be 'severe safety and environmental problems' caused by date-sensitive electronic systems failing when 2000 starts."

Odds are, at least one plant is going to have a safety problem. And the worst-case problem is a Chernobyl-style meltdown. In order to avoid such an event, the only rational action to take is shutting down the plants early that can't be proven compliant.

Nuclear power plants provide approximately 40% of the electricity used by the Eastern half of the United States. Losing 40% of the power results in a blackout. According to power industry experts, the system can't run on just 60%. You'd have to disconnect segments of the grid, resulting in SOME cities having full power and OTHER cities having none. And if you happen to live in one of the "none" cities, you get to experience a full-scale, long-term blackout.

So faced with this choice, what will the NRC do? Will they take the risk of a meltdown and allow unproven nuclear power plants to operate? Will they manage to prove compliance of all the plants in time? Will they restrict some plants but allow others to run?

It's fascinating to watch what happens here. The NRC is working hard to solve this thing. The problem is not in their intentions: it's in the magnitude of the problem itself. Even the best intentions don't solve non-compliant embedded systems.

Read it at: http://dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/wr/story.html?

s=v/nm/19981210/wr/nukes_1.html

WIRED also reports on the request and reveals that some nuclear power plants do indeed have Y2K problems: "A November 1998 government audit of the Seabrook, New Hampshire, nuclear plant found that reactor coolant level monitoring systems, fuel handling systems, reactor vessel level indication systems, and the computer system that oversees digital controllers would not work properly in the year 2000. Of 1,304 programs and embedded systems afflicted with Y2K, the audit said 12 had "safety implications."

WIRED also reports, "Nuclear reactors require backup power to cool their cores and fuel pools after they are shut down."

This is important because it means you can't just shut down a plant in one day. It takes almost four months to properly cool the fuel of a nuclear power plant. Fortunately, plants have backup power systems to handle that, even if they lose all power from the grid. But have those backup systems been determined to be Y2K-compliant? If not, won't these plants have to be powered down on September 1, 1999 to allow four months for cooling?

http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/16772.html

Get ready for Y2K, read the Y2K Sourcebook Get the inside sources for stocking up now http://www.y2ksupply.com/index.asp?pageid=sourcebook

Tell a friend about the free Y2KNEWSWIRE.COM e-mail alert:

http://www.y2knewswire.com/tellafriend.htm

Join the "believers-only" free Y2K e-mail newsletter:

http://www.y2ksupply.com/believers.htm

?The following shows exactly how the elite viewed the Declaration of Independence.

History may view it differently, but one senses we are living today in unheroic times. Our senators argue the cruciality of their retaining free parking space at the National Airport, while our president wails that no other one leader has suffered as he has been made to suffer -- at the hands of those cynical radio talk-show hosts. Contrast this self-indulgence and self-pity with the spirit of the forgotten heroes of 1776, the men who pledged "lives, fortunes and sacred honor" to defend their declaration of Independence.

Disaster struck "Honest John" Hart first. Just months after he signed, British and Hessian troops invaded New Jersey, forcing him and his family to flee. His wife did not survive. Broken in health from hiding in barns all winter, Hart went home to find his farm destroyed. Rebuilding proved too great a task. By the spring of 1779, John Hart was dead.

New Jersey's Richard Stockton, suffered a similar fate. After rescuing his wife and children from advancing British troops, he was betrayed by a loyalist, imprisoned, beaten and nearly starved. He returned an invalid to find his home gutted, his library and papers burned. He, too, never recovered, dying in 1781 a broken man. Hart and Stockton lost all they had, but honor.

William Ellery of Rhode Island, who marveled that he had seen only "undaunted resolution" in the faces of his co-signers, had his home burned also. Francis Lewis' Long Island home, too, was looted and gutted, his wife thrown into a damp dark prison cell without a bed. Health ruined, Mrs. Lewis died in two years. Lewis' son would die in British captivity.

Only days after Lewis Morris of New Your signed, British troops ravaged his 2,000-acre estate, butchered his cattle and drove his family off the land. Three of Morris' sons fought the British.

"The time is now at hand, when we shall see whether America has virtue enough to be free," Josiah Bartlett of New Hampshire had said at Philadelphia. In that summer of '76, she surely did.

When the British seized the New Your houses of the wealthy Philip Livingston, he sold off everything else, gave the money to the Revolution and died in 1778.

Arthur Middleton, Edward Rutledge and Thomas Heyward Jr. went home to South Carolina to fight. In the British invasion of the South, Heyward was wounded and all three were captured. As he rotted on a prison ship in St. Augustine, Heyward's plantation was raided, buildings burned, and his wife, who witnessed it all, died. Other Southern signers suffered the same fate.

Among the first to sign had been John Hancock, who wrote in big, bold script so George III "could read my name without spectacles and could now double his reward for 500 pounds for my head." If the cause of the revolution commands it, roared Hancock, "Burn Boston and make John Hancock a beggar!"

Here were men who believed in a cause far beyond themselves.

But perhaps the most inspiring example of that "undaunted resolution" was Thomas Nelson Jr. Returning from Philadelphia to become Governor of Virginia, Nelson joined Washington's army just outside Yorktown. Observing during that battle that his artillery men were directing fire all over the town, but were being careful to avoid the area where his own beautiful home was located, Nelson asked why they were not firing in that direction.

"Out of respect to you, Sir," came the reply.

Nelson stepped forward to the nearest cannon, aimed it at his house and fired. The other guns joined in: his home was destroyed.

These stories of what became of the men who defied a king to give birth to a country were lovingly gathered by a great patriot, former Gov. Meldrim Thomson Jr. of New Hampshire. Gov. Thomson put them all in his patriots book, "One Hundred Famous Founders."

As Gov. Thomson relates on his death bead John Adams, most famous of the signers save only Thomas Jefferson, who had taken the presidency from him, was asked to make a toast.

"Independence forever" Adams cried. That was the spirit of the old man, as it had been of the young. He and Jefferson, with whom he had long since reconciled died the same day, July 4, 1826, 50 years to the day they had together cast their vote for American independence.

We shall not see their like again.

?On the other hand, no such list of problems for the signers of the Constitution can be put together because, even given the problems of the War of 1812, none of them had any such "bad luck.." Strange, isn’t it, until you know the truth.

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance does whatever is dictated to it." --Thomas Paine, Rights of Man

Now that you have finished Part XII, and if you are comfortable, please E-mail <coffee@infotech.net.mx> and request Part XIII. All my prayers and best wishes are with you. David