POPEYE

There is no lawful consideration for Federal Reserve Notes to circulate as money

FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES
DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL
NULL AND VOID BY THE COURT

MARTIN V. MAHONEY JUSTICE OF THE PEACE
CREDIT RIVER TOWNSHIP SCOTT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
On January 6, 1969 this Court filed a Notice of Refusal to Allow Appeal with the Clerk at the District Court, Hugo L. Hentges, for the County of Scott and the State of Minnesota, which is as follows:

 

NOTICE OF REFUSAL TO ALLOW APPEAL
TO: Hugo L. Hentges, Clerk of District Court, Plaintiff, First National Bank of Montgomery and Defendant Jerome Daly:

You will Please take Notice that the undersigned Justice of the Peace, Martin V. Mahoney, hereby, pursuant to law, refuses to allow the Appeal in the above entitled action, and refuses to make an entry of such allowance in the undersigned’s Docket. The undersigned also refuses to file in the office of the clerk of the District Court in and for Scott County, Minnesota, a transcript of all the entries made in my Docket, together with all process and other papers relating to the action and filed with me as Justice of the Peace. The undersigned concludes and determines that M.S.A. 532.38 was not complied with within 10 days after entry of Judgment in my Justice of the Peace Court Subdivision 4 thereof requires that $2.00 shall be paid within 10 days to the Clerk of the District Court for the use of the Justice before whom the cause was tried. Two so-called "One Dollar" Federal Reserve Notes issued by the Federal Reserve Bank at San Francisco L1278283C and Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis Serial No. 18041C697A were deposited with the Clerk of the District Court to be tendered to me.

These Federal Reserve Notes are not lawful money within the contemplation of the Constitution of the United States and are null and void. Further, the Notes on their face are not redeemable in Gold or Silver Coin nor is there a fund set aside anywhere for the redemption of said Notes.

However, this is a determination of a question of Law and Fact by the undersigned pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Minnesota. Plaintiff is entitled to be accorded full due process of Law before the Court in this present determination not to allow the Appeal.

If Plaintiff will file a brief on the Law and the Facts with this Court within 10 days, or if Plaintiff will file an application for a full and complete hearing before this Court on the determination, a prompt hearing will be set and if Plaintiff can satisfy this Court that said Notes are lawful money issued in pursuance of and under the authority of the Constitution of the United States of America the undersigned will stand ready and willing to reverse himself in this determination.

TAKE NOTICE AND GOVERN YOURSELVES ACCORDINGLY.
Dated January 6, 1969

BY THE COURT
/s/ Martin V. Mahoney
MARTIN V. MAHONEY
JUSTICE OF THE PEACE
CREDIT RIVER TOWNSHIP
SCOTT COUNTY, MINNESOTA

MEMO
I am bound by oath to support the Constitution of the United States and laws passed pursuant thereto and the Constitution and Laws of Minnesota not in conflict therewith. This is an important Case to both parties and involves issues, apparently, not previously decided before. It is also important to the public. The Clerk of the District Court is an officer of the Judicial Branch of the State of Minnesota. His act is the Act of the State. U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 10 provides "No State Shall make any Thing but Gold and Silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts." The tender of the two Federal Reserve Notes runs counter to the fundamental Law of the land, the Constitution of the United States of America. It appears on the face of it that the Notes are ineffectual for any purpose and that I am not justified in taking any steps toward the allowance of an Appeal in this case.

It is, however, the Order of this Court that the parties are entitled to a full hearing before this Court, and, if requested a full hearing will be granted.

Dated January 6, 1969

BY THE COURT
/s/ Martin V. Mahoney
MARTIN V. MAHONEY
JUSTICE OF THE PEACE
CREDIT RIVER TOWNSHIP
SCOTT COUNTY, MINNESOTA

 

 

Minnesota Statutes Annotated 532.38 required that the Appellant, First National Bank of Montgomery deposit with the Clerk of the District Court within ten (10) days, Two ($2.00) Dollars (lawful money of the United States) for payment to the Justice of the Peace before whom the cause was tried. This is one of the conditions for the allowance of an appeal.

Two One ($1.00) Dollar Federal Reserve Notes were deposited with the Clerk of the District Court. One was issued by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, bearing Serial No. L12782836 and the other on deposit was issued by the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis bearing Serial No. 180410697A.

This Court determined that said Notes on their face were contrary to Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution of the United States and also based upon the evidence deduced at the hearing on December 7, 1968, the Notes were without any lawful consideration and therefore were void; however, this Court indicated it would give the Plaintiff, First National Bank of Montgomery, a full and complete hearing with reference to this issue.

No hearing was requested by Plaintiff, First National Bank. This Court was ordered to show cause before the District Court. The Order to Show Cause is as follows:

 

IN DISTRICT COURT STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF SCOTT
FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

 

First National Bank
    of Montgomery, Minnesota,
           Plaintiff,
          vs.
Jerome Daly,
           Defendant.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
On reading the application for an Order attached hereto, and on Motion and Affidavit of Theodore R. Melby, Attorney for Plaintiff, due showing having been made that an exigency exists.

IT IS ORDERED, that Martin V. Mahoney, Justice of the Peace, Credit River Township, County of Scott, State of Minnesota, appear in person before the above Court at 10:00 a.m., Friday, January 17, 1969, at the Special Term of Court of Scott, State of Minnesota or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard to show cause why he should not file in the office of the Clerk of District Court, First Judicial District, County of Scott, State of Minnesota, a transcript of all the entries made in his docket, together with all process and other papers relating to the above identified cause of action in his possession or the possession of any other Justice of the Peace of the State of Minnesota.

LET THIS ORDER APPLICATION FOR ORDER, AFFIDAVIT, all heretofore attached, be served on Martin V. Mahoney by leaving with him copies of the same and exhibiting this original ORDER with the signature of the Judge of District Court hereto, affixed, service to be made forthwith.

Dated at Shakopee, Minnesota this 8th day of January, 1969.

BY THE COURT /s/ Harold E. Flynn Judge of District Court, Therefore, upon Motion of Defendant Jerome Daly, this Court ordered a hearing before this Court on January 22, 1969 at 7:00 p.m.. The First National Bank of Montgomery made no appearance although service of the Motion and Order was served upon Ralph Hendrickson, its Cashier on January 20, 1969. No continuance was requested by Plaintiff or its Attorney. The Defendant appeared by and on behalf of himself. After waiting for one hour for the Bank or its representative to appear the Court received the testimony of Defendant bearing upon the issue of the validity of the Federal Reserve Notes. Now, Therefore based upon all the files, records and proceedings herein and the evidence offered, this Court makes the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Judgment and Determination with reference to the allowance of an appeal.

 

FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, JUDGMENT AND DETERMINATION.
That the Federal Reserve Banking Corporation, is a United States Corporation with twelve (12) banks throughout the United States, including New York, Minneapolis and San Francisco. That the First National Bank of Montgomery is also a United States Corporation incorporated and existing under the laws of the United States and is a member of the Federal Reserve System, and more specifically, of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.

That because of the interlocking control activities, transactions and practices, the Federal Reserve Banks and the National Banks are for all practical purposes, in the law, one and the same bank.

As is evidenced from the book: "The Federal Reserve System; Its Purposes and Functions,"; (1st Ed.) pages 74 to 78 and 177 and 180, put out by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, D.C., 1963, and from other evidence adduced herein, the said Federal Reserve Banks and National Banks create money and credit upon their books and exercise the ultimate prerogative of expanding and reducing the supply of money or credit in the United States. See especially page 75 of the Manual.

This creation of money or credit upon the Books of the Banks constitutes the creation of fiat money by bookkeeping entry.

Ninety per cent or more of the credit never leaves the books of the Banks as the Banks produce no specie as backing.

When the Federal Reserve Banks and National Banks acquire United States Bonds and Securities, State Bonds and Securities, State Subdivision Bonds and Securities, mortgages on private Real property and mortgages on private personal property, the said banks create the money and credit upon their books by bookkeeping entry. The first time that the money comes into existence is when they create it on their bank books by bookkeeping entry. The banks create it out of nothing. No substantial fund of gold or silver is back of it, or any fund at all.

The mechanics followed in the acquisition of United States Bonds are as follows: The Federal Reserve Bank places its name on a United States Bond and goes to its banking books and credits the United States Government for an equal amount of the face value of the bonds. The money or credit first comes into existence when they create it on the books of the bank. National Banks do the same except they must have One ($1.00) Dollar in Credit on hand for every Four ($4.00) Dollars they create.

The Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis obtains Federal Reserve Notes in denominations of One ($1.00) Dollar, Five, Ten, Twenty, Fifty, One Hundred, Five Hundred, One Thousand, Ten Thousand, and One Hundred Thousand Dollars for the cost of the printing of each note, which is less than one cent. The Federal Reserve Bank must deposit with the Treasurer of the United States a like amount of Bonds for the Notes it receives. The Bonds are without lawful consideration, as the Federal Reserve Bank created the money and credit upon their books by which they acquired the Bond. With their bookkeeping created credit, National Banks obtain these notes from the Federal Reserve banks.

The net effect of the entire transaction is that the Federal Reserve Bank and the National Banks obtain Federal Reserve Notes comparable to the ones they placed on file with the Clerk of District Court, and a specimen of which is above, for the cost of printing only. Title 31 U.S.C., Section 462 (392) attempts to make Federal Reserve Notes a legal tender for all debts, public and private. See page 72. From 1913 down to date, the Federal Reserve Banks and the National Banks are privately owned. As of March 18, 1968, all gold backing is removed from the said Federal Reserve Notes. No gold or silver backs up these notes.

The Federal Reserve Notes in question in this case are unlawful and void upon the following grounds.

Said Notes are fiat money, not redeemable in gold or silver coin upon their face, not backed by gold or silver, and the notes are in want of some real or substantial fund being provided for their payment in redemption. There is no mode provided for enforcing the payment of the same. There is no mode provided for the enforcement of the payment of the Notes in anything of value.

The Notes are obviously not gold or silver coin.

The sole consideration paid for the One Dollar Federal Reserve Notes is in the neighborhood of nine-tenths of one cent, and therefore, there is no lawful consideration behind said Notes.

That said Federal Reserve Notes do not conform to Title 12, United States Code, Sections 411 and 418. Title 31 USC, Section 462 (392), insofar as it attempts to make Federal Reserve Notes and circulating Notes of Federal Reserve Banks and National Banking Associations a legal tender for all debts, public and private, it is unconstitutional and void, being contrary to Article I, Section 10, of the Constitution of the United States, which prohibits any State from making anything but gold and silver coin a tender, or impairing the obligation of contracts.

Now, therefore, by virtue of the authority vested in me pursuant to the Declaration of Independence, the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, the Constitution of the United States of America and the Constitution of the State of Minnesota,

It is hereby DETERMINED, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, that the Appeals Statutes of the State of Minnesota for Civil Appeals from the Court to the District Court is not complied with within 10 days after entry of Judgement. Therefore the Appeal is not allowed by this Court and my docket so shows.

Dated February 5, 1969

BY THE COURT
/s/ Martin V. Mahoney
MARTIN V. MAHONEY
JUSTICE OF THE PEACE
CREDIT RIVER TOWNSHIP
SCOTT COUNTY MINNESOTA

 

MEMORANDUM
The division and separation of the three great powers of government, the Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial and the principle that these powers should be forever kept separate and distinct as of vital importance to the maintenance and establishment of a free government, without which this Republic cannot possibly survive.

The particular wording of the Declaration of Independence which set up an obsolete cut off with the British form of Government is contained in the first two paragraphs thereof.

Thereafter the Constitution was ordained and established as a law for the government by the People of the United States.

All legislative powers granted are vested in the Congress of the United States consisting of a House of Representatives and a Senate elected as representatives of all the people.

"Judicial Power" is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary as the authority vested by Courts and Judges, as distinguished from the Executive and Legislative power.

"Cases and Controversies" is defined in Blacks’ Law Dictionary – "This term as used in the Constitution of the United States embraces claims or contentions of litigants brought before the Court for adjudication by regular proceedings for the protection of wrongs; and whenever the claim or contention of a party takes such a form that the Judicial Power is capable of acting upon it, it has become a case or controversy." See Interstate Commerce Commission vs. Brimson, 154 U.S. 447, 14 Sup. Crt. 1125, 38 Law Ed. 1047; Smith vs. Adams, 130 U.S. 1679, 32 L.Ed.. 895.

Under our form of government every American, individually or by representation, is the high and supreme sovereign authority. The authority at each of the three departments of government is defined and established.

It is entirely fitting and proper to observe that in all instances between the states and the United States, and the people, there is no such thing as the idea of a compact between the people on one side and the government on the other. The compact is that of the people with each other to produce and constitute a government.

To suppose that any government can be a party to a compact with the whole people, is supposing it to have an existence before it can have a right to exist.

The only instance in which a compact can take place between the people and those who exercise the government, is that the people shall pay them while they choose to employ them.

A Constitution is the property of the nation and more specifically of the individual, and not those who exercise the government. All the Constitutions of America are declared to be established in the authority of the people.

The authority of the Constitution is grounded upon the absolute, God-given free agency of each individual, and this is the basis of all powers granted, reserved or withheld in the authorization of every word, phrase, clause or paragraph of the Constitution. Any attempt by Congress, the President or the Courts to limit, change or enlarge even the most claimed insignificant provision is therefore ultra vires and void ab initio.

When considering the United States Constitution, one must absolutely and completely clear his mind of all British, monarchical, papal, clergical, continental, financial, or other alien influences or conceptions of government the rights of the individual and what is Constitutional.

Our Constitution stands absolute and alone.

It must be read in the light of all engagements entered into before its adoption including the Declaration of Independence and the privileges and immunities secured by Common Law confirmed by Magna Charta and other English Charters, excepting there from all clerical, papal and monarchical nonsense.

No one applying the Constitution to any situation has any business, right or duty to look in any direction for sovereignty but toward the people. Any attempt or inclination to do so is a violation of one’s oath and continuing duty to uphold, maintain and support the Constitution of the United States of America.

See Waring vs. Mayor of Savannah, 60 Georgia, Page 93, where it is quoted as follows:

"In this State as well as in all republics, it is not the Legislature, however transcendent its powers, who are supreme – but the people – and to suppose that they may violate the fundamental law, is, as has been most eloquently expressed, to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master, that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of delegated power may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid."
The law is made by the Legislature, but applied by the Courts.

See generally Mr. Justice Story’s commentaries on the Constitution found in Story on the Constitution, Vol. 1, Section 198 through 280 on the History of the Revolution and the Confederation, origin of the Confederation, analysis of the Articles of the Confederation and the Decline and Fall of the Confederation including the reasons for it, which in chief was a debasement of our money and currency by the banks, similar to what is taking place in the United States today.

For authority to support the proposition that an Act of Congress in violation of the Constitution confers no rights or privileges see 16 Am. Jur. 2d "Constitutional Law,"; Sections 177 thru 179

Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution provides that no State shall make any Thing but gold and silver coin a legal tender in payment of debts.

The act of the Clerk of the District Court is the act of the State. The Clerk of the District Court is the agent of the Judicial Branch of the Government of the State of Minnesota. See Briscoe et al vs. The Bank of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, 11 Peters Reports at Page 319, "A State can act only through its agents; and it would be absurd to say that any act was not done by a State which was done by its authorized agents."

For the Justice Fees the bank deposited with the Clerk of District Court the two Federal Reserve Notes. The Clerk tendered the Notes to me. My sworn duty compelled me to refuse the tender. This is contrary to the Constitution of the United States. The States have no power to make bank notes a legal tender. See 35 Amer. Jur. on Money, Section 13. Only gold and silver coin is a lawful tender.

See also 36 Am. Jur. on Money, Section 9. Bank Notes are a good tender on money unless specifically objected to. Their consent and usage is based upon the convertibility of such notes to coin at the pleasure of the holder upon presentation to the bank for redemption. When the inability of a bank to redeem its notes is openly avowed they instantly lose their character as money and their circulation as currency ceases.

There is also no lawful consideration for these notes to circulate as money. The banks actually obtained these notes for the cost of the printing. There is no lawful consideration for said Notes.

A lawful consideration must exist for these Notes to circulate as money. The banks actually obtained these notes for the cost of the printing. There is no lawful consideration for said Notes.

A lawful consideration must exist for a Note. See 17 Amer. Jur. 2d on Contracts, Section 85 and also Sections 215, 216 and 217 of 11 Amer. Jur. 2nd on Bills and Notes. As a matter of fact, the "Notes"; are not Notes at all as they contain no promise to pay.

The activity of the Federal Reserve Banks of Minneapolis, San Francisco and the First National Bank of Montgomery is contrary to public policy and the Constitution of the United States and constitutes an unlawful creation of money and credit is not warranted by the Constitution of the United States.

The Federal Reserve and National Banks exercise an exclusive monopoly and privilege of creating credit and issuing their Notes at the expense of the public, which does not receive a fair equivalent. This scheme is obliquely designed for the benefit of an idle monopoly to rob, blackmail and oppress the producers of wealth.

The Federal Reserve Act and the National Bank Act is in its operation and effect contrary to the whole letter and spirit of the Constitution of the United States, confers an unlawful and unnecessary power on private parties; holds all of our fellow citizens in dependence; is subversive to the rights and liberties of the people. It has defied the lawfully constituted Government of the United States. The Federal Reserve and National Banking Acts and Sec. 462 (392) of Title 31, U.S.C. are not necessary and proper for carrying into execution the legislative powers granted to Congress or any other powers vested in the Government of the United States, but, on the contrary, are subversive to the rights of the People in their rights to life, liberty and Property. The aforementioned acts of Congress are unconstitutional and void and I so hold.

The meaning of the Constitutional provision "No State Shall make any Thing but Gold and Silver Coin a tender in payment of debts" is direct, clear, unambiguous and without any qualification. This Court is without authority to interpolate any exception. My duty is simple to execute it, as written, and to pronounce the legal result. From an examination of the case of Edwards v. Kearzev, 96 U.S. 595, the Federal Reserve Notes (fiat money), which are attempted to be made a legal tender, are exactly what the authors of the Constitution of the United States intended to prohibit. No State can make these Notes a legal tender, are exactly what the authors of the Constitution of the United States intended to prohibit. No State can make these Notes a legal tender. Congress is incompetent to authorize a State to make the Notes a legal tender. For the effect of binding Constitutional provisions see Cooke v. Iverson, 108 M. 388 and State v. Sutton, 63 M. 147. This fraudulent Federal Reserve System and National Banking System has impaired the obligation of Contract, promoted disrespect for the Constitution and Law and has shaken society to its foundations.

The Court is at a loss, because of the non-appearance of Plaintiff to determine upon what legal theory Plaintiff could possibly claim that the Notes in question are a legal tender. If they have any validity it must come from the Constitution of the United States and laws passed pursuant thereto. Inquiry was made of Mr. Daly as to what laws these Notes could be possibly based upon to sustain their validity. To aid the Court he presented the following: Section 411, 412, 417, 418, 420 of USC Title 12 and Title 31, USC Sec. 462 (392).

On the one hand Section 411 holds and states that the Notes are to be used for the purpose of making advances to Federal Reserve Banks through Federal Reserve Agents and for no other purposes. Then Title 31, Section 462 (392) states: "All Federal Reserve Notes and circulating Notes of Federal Reserve Banks and National Banking Associations heretofore or hereafter issued, shall be legal tender for all debts public and private."

The Constitution states, "No State shall make any Thing but Gold and Silver Coin a legal tender in payment of debts." The above referred to enactments of Congress state that the Notes are a legal tender. There is a direct conflict between the Constitution and the Acts of Congress. If the Constitution is not controlling then Congress is above and has superior authority from the Constitution and the People who ordained and established it.

Title 31 USC, Section 462 (392) is in direct conflict with the Constitution insofar at least, that it attempts to make Federal Reserve Notes a Legal Tender, the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. Sec. 462 (392) is not a law which is made in pursuance of the U.S. Constitution. It is unconstitutional and void and I so hold. Therefore, the two Federal Reserve Notes are null and void for any lawful purpose so far as this case is concerned and are not a valid deposit of $2.00 with the Clerk of the District Court. I hold that the case has not been lawfully removed from the Court and jurisdiction thereof is still vested in the Court.

However; there is a second ground of invalidity of these Federal Reserve Notes previously discussed and that is the Notes are invalid because on no theory are they based upon a valid, adequate or lawful consideration.

At the hearing scheduled for January 22, 1969 at 7:00 p.m., Mr. Morgan, nor anyone else from or representing the Bank, attended to aid the Court in making a correct determination.

Mr. Morgan appeared at the trial on December 7, 1969 and appeared as a witness to be candid, open, direct, experienced and truthful. He testified to 20 years of experience with the Bank of America in Los Angeles, the Marquette National Bank of Minneapolis and the Plaintiff in this case. He seemed to be familiar with the operations of the Federal Reserve System. He freely admitted that his Bank created all of the money or credit upon its books with which it acquired the Note and Mortgage of May 8, 1964. The credit first came into existence when the Bank created it upon its books. Further he freely admitted that no United States Law gave the bank the authority to do this. There was obviously no lawful consideration for the Note. The Bank parted with absolutely nothing except a little ink. In this case the evidence was on January 22, 1969 that the Federal Reserve Banks obtain the Notes for the cost of the printing only. This seems to be confirmed by Title 12 USC, Section 420. The cost is about 9/10ths of a cent per Note, regardless of the amount of the Note. The Federal Reserve Banks create all of the Money and Credit upon their books by bookkeeping entry by which they acquire United States and State Securities. The collateral required to obtain the Notes is, by Section 412, USC, Title 12, a deposit of a like amount of Bonds, Bonds which the Banks acquired by creating money and credit by bookkeeping entry.

No rights can be acquired by fraud. The Federal Reserve Notes are acquired through the use of unconstitutional statutes and fraud.

The Common Law requires a lawful consideration for any Contract or Note. These Notes are void for failure of a lawful consideration at Common Law, entirely apart from any Constitutional Considerations upon this ground the Notes are ineffectual for any purpose. This seems to be the principal objection to paper fiat money and the cause of its depreciation and failure down through the ages. If allowed to continue Federal Reserve Notes will meet the same fate. From the evidence introduced on January 22, 1969, this Court finds that as of March 18, 1968 all Gold and Silver backing is removed from Federal Reserve Notes.

The law leaves wrongdoers where it finds them. See 1 Amer. Jur. 2nd on Actions, Sections 50, 51 and 52.

This Court further observes that the jurisdiction of the Court is conferred by Article 6, Sec. 1 of the Minnesota Constitution. "Sec. 1. The judicial power of the state is hereby vested in a Supreme Court, a District Court, a Probate Court and such other Courts, minor judicial officers and commissioners with jurisdiction inferior to the District Court as the legislative may establish." Pursuant thereto an Act of the legislature credited this Court.

Nothing on the Constitution or laws of the United States limits the jurisdiction of this Court. The Constitution of Minnesota does not limit the jurisdiction of this Court. It therefore has complete Jurisdiction to render justice in this cause in accordance with and agreeable to the Supreme Law of the Land. See 16 Am. Jur. 2d on Constitutional Law Sections 210 thru 222.

"When a Court is created by Act of the Legislature the Judicial Power is conferred by the Constitution and not by the Act creating the Court. If its Jurisdiction is to be limited it must be limited by the Constitution." See Minn, Const. "Bill of Rights."; In any event the Banks has not raised any question as to the jurisdiction of this Court.

Slavery and all its incidents including Peonage thralldom and debt created by fraud is universally prohibited in the United States. This case represents but another refined form of Slavery by the Bankers. Their position is not supported by the Constitution of the United States. The People have spoken their will in terms which cannot be misunderstood. It is indispensable to the preservation of the Union and independence and liberties of the people that his Court adhere only to the mandates of the Constitution and administer it as written. I therefore hold the Notes in question void and not effectual for any purpose.

January 30, 1969

/s/ Martin V. Mahoney
MARTIN V. MAHONEY
JUSTICE OF THE PEACE
CREDIT RIVER TOWNSHIP
SCOTT COUNTY, MINNESOTA

The Defendant, (Attorney) Jerome Daley, shortly after the above Court declared the above decision, again brought the issue of the Federal Reserve Notes before the Courts. On Appeal to a Federal Court; the Federal Judicial Officers publicly ridiculed Mr. Daley for challenging the validity of the Notes of the Federal Reserve Bank and had Mr. Daley "disbarred"; from practicing law (United States v. Jerome Daly, 481 F.2d. 28). This "act" of our Federal Judicial Officers to "disbar" a fellow member of the "Bar" for questioning the validity of the monetary system of the United States raises the question as to who the Federal Judicial Officers are employed by? It is obvious that they are employed by the International Banking Cartels; NOT THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES.

usa-the-republic.com/banks/bank_1.html

Albert Pike, The NWO, & Their 3 World Wars

 


ALBERT PIKEVery few outsiders know about the intimate plans of Albert Pike and the architects of the New World Order.   In the 19th Century Albert Pike established a framework for bringing about the One World Order.  Based on a vision revealed to him, Albert Pike wrote a blueprint of events that would play themselves out in the 20th century, with even more of these events yet to come.  It is this blueprint which we believe unseen leaders are following today, knowingly or not, to engineer the planned Third and Final World War.

Albert Pike was born on December 29, 1809, in Boston, and was the oldest of six children born to Benjamin and Sarah Andrews Pike.  He studied at Harvard, and later served as a Brigadier-General in the Confederate Army. After the Civil War, Pike was found guilty of treason and jailed, only to be pardoned by fellow Freemason President Andrew Johnson on April 22, 1866, who met with him the next day at the White House. On June 20, 1867, Scottish Rite officials conferred upon Johnson the 4th to 32nd Freemasonry degrees, and he later went to Boston to dedicate a Masonic Temple.

Pike was said to be a genius, able to read and write in 16 different languages, although I cannot find a record anywhere of what those languages were.  In addition, he is widely accused of plagiarism, so take with a pinch of salt.   At various stages of his life we was a poet, philosopher, frontiersman, soldier, humanitarian and philanthropist.  A 33rd degree Mason, he was one of the founding fathers, and head of the Ancient Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, being the Grand Commander of North American Freemasonry from 1859 and retained that position until his death in 1891. In 1869, he was a top leader in the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan.

Pike was said to be a Satanist, who indulged in the occult, and he apparently possessed a bracelet which he used to summon Lucifer, with whom he had constant communication. He was the Grand Master of a Luciferian group known as the Order of the Palladium (or Sovereign Council of Wisdom), which had been founded in Paris in 1737. Palladism had been brought to Greece from Egypt by Pythagoras in the fifth century, and it was this cult of Satan that was introduced to the inner circle of the Masonic lodges. It was aligned with the Palladium of the Templars. In 1801, Issac Long, a Jew, brought a statue of Baphomet (Satan) to Charleston, South Carolina, where he helped to establish the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite. Long apparently chose Charleston because it was geographically located on the 33rd parallel of latitude (incidentally, so is Baghdad), and this council is considered to be the Mother Supreme Council of all Masonic Lodges of the World.

 

Pike was Long’s successor, and he changed the name of the Order to the New and Reformed Palladian Rite (or Reformed Palladium). The Order contained two degrees:

Adelph (or Brother), and

Companion of Ulysses (or Companion of Penelope).

Pike’s right-hand man was Phileas Walder, from Switzerland, who was a former Lutheran minister, a Masonic leader, occultist, and spiritualist. Pike also worked closely with Giusseppe Mazzini of Italy (1805-1872) who was a 33rd degree Mason, who became head of the Illuminati in 1834, and who founded the Mafia in 1860. Together with Mazzini, Lord Henry Palmerston of England (1784-1865, 33rd degree Mason), and Otto von Bismarck from Germany (1815-1898, 33rd degree Mason), Albert Pike intended to use the Palladian Rite to create a Satanic umbrella group that would tie all Masonic groups together.

Albert Pike died on April 2, 1891, and was buried in Oak Hill Cemetery, although the corpse of Pike currently lies in the headquarters of the Council of the 33rd degree of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry in Washington, D.C.  (see The Deadly Deception, by Jim Shaw – former 33rd degree Mason and Past Master of all Scottish Rite bodies.)

The Albert Pike Monument
Albert Pike made his mark before the war in Arkansas as a lawyer and writer, but as a Confederate Brigadier General, he was, according to the Arkansas Democrat of July 31, 1978, a complete “WASH-OUT,” not a hero.  Yet, Gen. Albert Pike is the only Confederate general with a statue on federal property in Washington, DC. He was honoured, not as a commander or even as a lawyer, but as Southern regional leader of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry. The statue stands on a pedestal near the foot of Capitol Hill, between the Department of Labor building and the Municipal Building, between 3rd and 4th Streets, on D Street, NW.  More detail about the monument, including a photo and map can be found here.  Further background on the colorful history of the statue can be found at the Masonic Info website.  During the 1992 presidential campaign, Lyndon H. LaRouche and his vice presidential running mate, the Reverend James Bevel, launched a mobilization to remove the statue of General Albert Pike from Washington, D.C.’s Judiciary Square. On February 1, the campaign drew an angry attack from freemasonic leader C. Fred Kleinknecht, who attempted to defend both Pike and the Ku Klux Klan from LaRouche and Bevel’s attack.  A speech given by LaRouche defending his actions can be found here (March 20, 1992).  And a speech by Anton Chaitkin entitled ‘Why Albert Pike’s Statue Must Fall’ can be found here (September 21, 1992).

The Illuminati and Albert Pike
Adam Weishaupt (1748 – 1811) formed the Order of Perfectibilists on May 1, 1776 (to this day celebrated as May Day throughout many western countries), which later became known as the Illuminati, a secret society whose name means “Enlightened Ones”.  Although the Order was founded to provide an opportunity for the free exchange of ideas, Weishaupt’s background as a Jesuit seems to have influenced the actual character of the society, such that the express aim of this Order became to abolish Christianity, and overturn all civil government.

An Italian revolutionary leader, Giusseppe Mazzini (1805-1872), a 33rd degree Mason, was selected by the Illuminati to head their worldwide operations in 1834.  (Mazzini also founded the Mafia in 1860).  Because of Mazzini’s revolutionary activities in Europe, the Bavarian government cracked down on the Illuminati and other secret societies for allegedly plotting a massive overthrow of Europe’s monarchies.  As the secrets of the Illuminati were revealed, they were persecuted and eventually disbanded, only to re-establish themselves in the depths of other organizations, of which Freemasonry was one.

During his leadership, Mazzini enticed Albert Pike into the (now formally disbanded, but still operating) Illuminati. Pike was fascinated by the idea of a one world government, and when asked by Mazzini, readily agreed to write a ritual tome that guided the transition from average high-ranking mason into a top-ranking Illuminati mason (33rd degree). Since Mazzini also wanted Pike to head the Illuminati’s American chapter, he clearly felt Pike was worthy of such a task. Mazzini’s intention was that once a mason had made his way up the Freemason ladder and proven himself worthy, the highest ranking members would offer membership to the secret ‘society within a society’.

It is for this reason that most Freemasons vehemently deny the evil intentions of their fraternity.  Since the vast majority never reach the 30th degree, they would not be aware of the real purpose behind Masonry.  When instructing Pike how the tome should be developed, Mazzini wrote the following to Pike in a letter dated January 22, 1870.  Remember that Freemasonry wasn’t started by Pike – rather it was infiltrated by the Illuminati who were looking for a respectable forum in which to hide their clandestine activities:

“We must allow all the federations to continue just as they are, with their systems, their central authorities and their diverse modes of correspondence between high grades of the same rite, organized as they are at the present, but we must create a super rite, which will remain unknown, to which we will call those Masons of high degree whom we shall select. With regard to our brothers in Masonry, these men must be pledges to the strictest secrecy. Through this supreme rite, we will govern all Freemasonry which will become the one international center, the more powerful because its direction will be unknown.”

In 1871, Pike published the 861 page Masonic handbook known as the Morals and Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry.

After Mazzini’s death on March 11, 1872, Pike appointed Adriano Lemmi (1822-1896, 33rd degree Mason), a banker from Florence, Italy, to run their subversive activities in Europe. Lemmi was a supporter of patriot and revolutionary Giuseppe Garibaldi, and may have been active in the Luciferian Society founded by Pike.  Lemmi, in turn, was succeeded by Lenin and Trotsky, then by Stalin. The revolutionary activities of all these men were financed by British, French, German, and American international bankers; all of them dominated by the House of Rothschild.

Between 1859 and 1871, Pike worked out a military blueprint for three world wars and various revolutions throughout the world which he considered would forward the conspiracy to its final stage in the 20th Century.

In addition to the Supreme Council in Charleston, South Carolina, Pike established Supreme Councils in Rome, Italy (led by Mazzini); London, England (led by Palmerston); and Berlin, Germany (led by Bismarck). He set up 23 subordinate councils in strategic places throughout the world, including five Grand Central Directories in Washington, DC (North America), Montevideo (South America), Naples (Europe), Calcutta (Asia), and Mauritius (Africa), which were used to gather information. All of these branches have been the secret headquarters for the Illuminati’s activities ever since.

Albert Pike received a vision, which he described in a letter that he wrote to Mazzini, dated August 15, 1871. This letter graphically outlined plans for three world wars that were seen as necessary to bring about the One World Order, and we can marvel at how accurately it has predicted events that have already taken place.

Pike’s Letter to Mazzini
It is a commonly believed fallacy that for a short time, the Pike letter to Mazzini was on display in the British Museum Library in London, and it was copied by William Guy Carr, former Intelligence Officer in the Royal Canadian Navy.  The British Library has confirmed in writing to me that such a document has never been in their possession.  Furthermore, in Carr’s book, Satan, Prince of this World, Carr includes the following footnote:

“The Keeper of Manuscripts recently informed the author that this letter is NOT catalogued in the British Museum Library.  It seems strange that a man of Cardinal Rodriguez’s knowledge should have said that it WAS in 1925”.

It appears that Carr learned about this letter from Cardinal Caro y Rodriguez of Santiago, Chile, who wrote The Mystery of Freemasonry Unveiled.

To date, no conclusive proof exists to show that this letter was ever written.  Nevertheless, the letter is widely quoted and the topic of much discussion.

Following are apparently extracts of the letter, showing how Three World Wars have been planned for many generations.

“The First World War must be brought about in order to permit the Illuminati to overthrow the power of the Czars in Russia and of making that country a fortress of atheistic Communism. The divergences caused by the “agentur” (agents) of the Illuminati between the British and Germanic Empires will be used to foment this war. At the end of the war, Communism will be built and used in order to destroy the other governments and in order to weaken the religions.”

Students of history will recognize that the political alliances of England on one side and Germany on the other, forged between 1871 and 1898 by Otto von Bismarck, co-conspirator of Albert Pike, were instrumental in bringing about the First World War.

“The Second World War must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences between the Fascists and the political Zionists. This war must be brought about so that Nazism is destroyed and that the political Zionism be strong enough to institute a sovereign state of Israel in Palestine. During the Second World War, International Communism must become strong enough in order to balance Christendom, which would be then restrained and held in check until the time when we would need it for the final social cataclysm.”

After this Second World War, Communism was made strong enough to begin taking over weaker governments. In 1945, at the Potsdam Conference between Truman, Churchill, and Stalin, a large portion of Europe was simply handed over to Russia, and on the other side of the world, the aftermath of the war with Japan helped to sweep the tide of Communism into China.

(Readers who argue that the terms Nazism and Zionism were not known in 1871 should remember that the Illuminati invented both these movements.  In addition, Communism as an ideology, and as a coined phrase, originates in France during the Revolution.  In 1785, Restif coined the phrase four years before revolution broke out.  Restif and Babeuf, in turn, were influenced by Rousseau – as was the most famous conspirator of them all, Adam Weishaupt.)

“The Third World War must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences caused by the “agentur” of the “Illuminati” between the political Zionists and the leaders of Islamic World. The war must be conducted in such a way that Islam (the Moslem Arabic World) and political Zionism (the State of Israel) mutually destroy each other. Meanwhile the other nations, once more divided on this issue will be constrained to fight to the point of complete physical, moral, spiritual and economical exhaustion…We shall unleash the Nihilists and the atheists, and we shall provoke a formidable social cataclysm which in all its horror will show clearly to the nations the effect of absolute atheism, origin of savagery and of the most bloody turmoil. Then everywhere, the citizens, obliged to defend themselves against the world minority of revolutionaries, will exterminate those destroyers of civilization, and the multitude, disillusioned with Christianity, whose deistic spirits will from that moment be without compass or direction, anxious for an ideal, but without knowing where to render its adoration, will receive the true light through the universal manifestation of the pure doctrine of Lucifer, brought finally out in the public view. This manifestation will result from the general reactionary movement which will follow the destruction of Christianity and atheism, both conquered and exterminated at the same time.”

Since the terrorist attacks of Sept 11, 2001, world events, and in particular in the Middle East, show a growing unrest and instability between Modern Zionism and the Arabic World. This is completely in line with the call for a Third World War to be fought between the two, and their allies on both sides. This Third World War is still to come, and recent events show us that it is not far off.

www.threeworldwars.com/albert-pike.htm

U.S. moving toward czarism, away from democracy

(David Sirota – San Francisco Chronicle)  History’s great American parables teach that if anything unified our founders, it was a deep antipathy to dictatorship. As bourgeois revolutionaries from Boston to Philadelphia courageously split with the British crown in 1776, they created three equal branches of government to prevent, in the words of James Madison, "a tyrannical concentration of all the powers" in a president’s hands.

For two centuries since, civics books, Hollywood biopics and party convention speeches have constructed a mythology insisting that this democratic commitment to checks and balances makes our country a beacon of freedom – the "shining city on a hill" overlooking a despotic world below. We are told that democracy’s tumult – its messy debates, legislative sausage-making and electoral friction – is the best way to guarantee that public policy represents public will, therefore making us a strong and durable nation.

If that is true, then every patriot should be concerned about the intensifying efforts to supplant democracy with something far more authoritarian. Call it American czarism.

That term should be as impossibly oxymoronic as crash landings and deafening silence, considering our Constitution’s desire to create a "government of laws and not of men," as John Adams said. But politics is filled with paradoxes from Reagan Democrats to Obama Republicans, and czars – i.e., policymakers granted extralegal, cross-agency powers – have become increasingly prevalent in our government over the past century.

After the Great Flood of 1927, for instance, President Calvin Coolidge named Herbert Hoover the federal government czar overseeing relief efforts, and Hoover subsequently appointed "dictators" (he actually used that term) to help coordinate the response.

During the power consolidations of the New Deal in the 1930s, a Time magazine story headlined "Dictator or Democrat" reported on the "suspicions of those throughout the nation who have an uneasy feeling that [President Franklin] Roosevelt, under cover of the emergency, is trying ‘to slip something over’ on democracy." In the 1940s and 1950s, parks commissioner Robert Moses – famously known as "the power broker" – amassed so much personal authority that he was able to almost single-handedly redesign New York City. And lately, presidents have given us poverty, energy, drug, health and even Iraq war czars.

Until now, this slow lurch toward czarism has primarily reflected the ancient, almost innate human desire for power and paternalistic leadership. The current president reminded us that executives see all-powerful "deciders" when they look in the mirror. And Americans – sans kings to rally around – have been elevating commanders in chief to superhero status well before Barack Obama’s Marvel comic-book debut and George Bush’s flight-suited "Top Gun" impression in 2003.

In recent years, this culture of "presidentialism," as Vanderbilt Professor Dana Nelson calls it, has justified the Patriot Act, warrantless wiretaps and a radical theory of the "unitary executive" that aims to provide a jurisprudential rationale for total White House supremacy over all government. But only in the past three months has American czarism metastasized from a troubling slow-growth tumor to a potentially deadly cancer.

In October, Congress relinquished its most basic oversight powers and gave Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson sole authority to dole out billions of bailout dollars to Wall Street. At the same time, it did nothing when Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke used fiats to commit "$5 trillion worth of new money, loan guarantees and loosened lending requirements," according to Politico – all while he refused to tell the public who is receiving the largesse.

And the Washington Post has reported that lawmakers may appoint a "car czar" who "would essentially control the purse strings" of an auto industry bailout and "could force Detroit’s Big Three automakers into bankruptcy" if he or she didn’t like their behavior.

Put bluntly, the unprecedented usurpation of spending power by the executive branch and the Federal Reserve is systematically undermining our democracy’s most sacrosanct principle – the one that is supposed to ensure "the legislative department alone has access to the pockets of the people," as Madison said. And this new czarism is so strident because it reflects both executive power lust and the 21st century economy.

Today, keystrokes and mouse-clicks instantly whisk trillions of dollars across the planet, and many of those keystrokes and mouse-clicks are uninhibited by the grindingly slow processes of democracy.

Saudi princes don’t have to publish announcements in a federal register before moving cash from sovereign wealth funds into foreign investments. China’s rulers aren’t obligated to obtain legislative approval when buying or dumping U.S. Treasury bills; and transnational corporations will not wait for public hearings before shuttering offices, eliminating jobs and cutting off credit.

Our nation is integrally connected to this fast-moving globalized economy, and American czarism effectively posits that in order to compete, we must anoint strongmen as saviors, prioritize speed instead of sobriety and emulate dictatorship instead of democracy.

Indeed, the Economist magazine’s prediction that the "economic crisis may increase the attractiveness of the Chinese model of authoritarian capitalism" is coming true right here at home, as we seem ever more intent on replicating – rather than resisting – that model.

This, as much as personal hubris, explains why Paulson and Bernanke sought unprecedented latitude in spending trillions – they want to be able to move as fast as their autocratic counterparts in other countries, and believe congressional oversight will slow them down.

It explains why UC Berkeley economist Laura Tyson says we need an auto czar who will "take a number of approaches to this problem that are already known, that have been discussed endlessly, and force it through" – because to economists, a czar quickly "forcing it through" is more important than any consideration for democratic deliberation.

And it explains why when Obama aides this week demanded complete control over the second half of the Wall Street bailout funds, House Financial Services Committee chairman Rep. Barney Frank, D- Mass., shirked his oversight duties and said he’s "willing to accept their word" that they will spend the money responsibly. In czarism, that’s what legislators do: "accept the word" of the czar.

In sum, it explains why the age-old struggle between capitalism and democracy is once again defining our politics – and why capitalism is now winning.

That triumph may be terrific for the czars and great for their industry suitors, but as the founders would likely agree, it is a pyrrhic victory for America.

www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi

U.S. moving toward czarism, away from democracy

(David Sirota – San Francisco Chronicle)  History’s great American parables teach that if anything unified our founders, it was a deep antipathy to dictatorship. As bourgeois revolutionaries from Boston to Philadelphia courageously split with the British crown in 1776, they created three equal branches of government to prevent, in the words of James Madison, "a tyrannical concentration of all the powers" in a president’s hands.

For two centuries since, civics books, Hollywood biopics and party convention speeches have constructed a mythology insisting that this democratic commitment to checks and balances makes our country a beacon of freedom – the "shining city on a hill" overlooking a despotic world below. We are told that democracy’s tumult – its messy debates, legislative sausage-making and electoral friction – is the best way to guarantee that public policy represents public will, therefore making us a strong and durable nation.

If that is true, then every patriot should be concerned about the intensifying efforts to supplant democracy with something far more authoritarian. Call it American czarism.

That term should be as impossibly oxymoronic as crash landings and deafening silence, considering our Constitution’s desire to create a "government of laws and not of men," as John Adams said. But politics is filled with paradoxes from Reagan Democrats to Obama Republicans, and czars – i.e., policymakers granted extralegal, cross-agency powers – have become increasingly prevalent in our government over the past century.

After the Great Flood of 1927, for instance, President Calvin Coolidge named Herbert Hoover the federal government czar overseeing relief efforts, and Hoover subsequently appointed "dictators" (he actually used that term) to help coordinate the response.

During the power consolidations of the New Deal in the 1930s, a Time magazine story headlined "Dictator or Democrat" reported on the "suspicions of those throughout the nation who have an uneasy feeling that [President Franklin] Roosevelt, under cover of the emergency, is trying ‘to slip something over’ on democracy." In the 1940s and 1950s, parks commissioner Robert Moses – famously known as "the power broker" – amassed so much personal authority that he was able to almost single-handedly redesign New York City. And lately, presidents have given us poverty, energy, drug, health and even Iraq war czars.

Until now, this slow lurch toward czarism has primarily reflected the ancient, almost innate human desire for power and paternalistic leadership. The current president reminded us that executives see all-powerful "deciders" when they look in the mirror. And Americans – sans kings to rally around – have been elevating commanders in chief to superhero status well before Barack Obama’s Marvel comic-book debut and George Bush’s flight-suited "Top Gun" impression in 2003.

In recent years, this culture of "presidentialism," as Vanderbilt Professor Dana Nelson calls it, has justified the Patriot Act, warrantless wiretaps and a radical theory of the "unitary executive" that aims to provide a jurisprudential rationale for total White House supremacy over all government. But only in the past three months has American czarism metastasized from a troubling slow-growth tumor to a potentially deadly cancer.

In October, Congress relinquished its most basic oversight powers and gave Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson sole authority to dole out billions of bailout dollars to Wall Street. At the same time, it did nothing when Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke used fiats to commit "$5 trillion worth of new money, loan guarantees and loosened lending requirements," according to Politico – all while he refused to tell the public who is receiving the largesse.

And the Washington Post has reported that lawmakers may appoint a "car czar" who "would essentially control the purse strings" of an auto industry bailout and "could force Detroit’s Big Three automakers into bankruptcy" if he or she didn’t like their behavior.

Put bluntly, the unprecedented usurpation of spending power by the executive branch and the Federal Reserve is systematically undermining our democracy’s most sacrosanct principle – the one that is supposed to ensure "the legislative department alone has access to the pockets of the people," as Madison said. And this new czarism is so strident because it reflects both executive power lust and the 21st century economy.

Today, keystrokes and mouse-clicks instantly whisk trillions of dollars across the planet, and many of those keystrokes and mouse-clicks are uninhibited by the grindingly slow processes of democracy.

Saudi princes don’t have to publish announcements in a federal register before moving cash from sovereign wealth funds into foreign investments. China’s rulers aren’t obligated to obtain legislative approval when buying or dumping U.S. Treasury bills; and transnational corporations will not wait for public hearings before shuttering offices, eliminating jobs and cutting off credit.

Our nation is integrally connected to this fast-moving globalized economy, and American czarism effectively posits that in order to compete, we must anoint strongmen as saviors, prioritize speed instead of sobriety and emulate dictatorship instead of democracy.

Indeed, the Economist magazine’s prediction that the "economic crisis may increase the attractiveness of the Chinese model of authoritarian capitalism" is coming true right here at home, as we seem ever more intent on replicating – rather than resisting – that model.

This, as much as personal hubris, explains why Paulson and Bernanke sought unprecedented latitude in spending trillions – they want to be able to move as fast as their autocratic counterparts in other countries, and believe congressional oversight will slow them down.

It explains why UC Berkeley economist Laura Tyson says we need an auto czar who will "take a number of approaches to this problem that are already known, that have been discussed endlessly, and force it through" – because to economists, a czar quickly "forcing it through" is more important than any consideration for democratic deliberation.

And it explains why when Obama aides this week demanded complete control over the second half of the Wall Street bailout funds, House Financial Services Committee chairman Rep. Barney Frank, D- Mass., shirked his oversight duties and said he’s "willing to accept their word" that they will spend the money responsibly. In czarism, that’s what legislators do: "accept the word" of the czar.

In sum, it explains why the age-old struggle between capitalism and democracy is once again defining our politics – and why capitalism is now winning.

That triumph may be terrific for the czars and great for their industry suitors, but as the founders would likely agree, it is a pyrrhic victory for America.

www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi

Americans don’t know civics

(Michelle Healy – USA TODAY) – From high-school dropouts to college graduates to elected officials, Americans are "alarmingly uninformed" about the USA’s history, founding principles and economy — knowledge needed to participate wisely in civic life, says a report scheduled to be released Thursday.
The study, the third in a series by the non-profit Intercollegiate Studies Institute, finds that half of U.S. adults can name all three branches of government, and 54% know that the power to declare war belongs to Congress. Almost 40% incorrectly said that it belongs to the president.

 

And while 56% can name Paula Abdul as a judge on American Idol, only 21% know that the phrase "government of the people, by the people, for the people" comes from Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. Just 54% can correctly identify a basic description of the free enterprise system.

Those who have held elected office lack civic knowledge; 43% do not know the Electoral College is a constitutionally mandated assembly that elects the president. One in five thinks it "trains those aspiring for higher office" or "was established to supervise the first televised presidential debates."

"Without knowledge of your country’s history, key texts and institutions, you don’t have a frame of reference to judge the politics and policies of today," says Richard Brake, head of the institute’s American Civic Literacy Program.

Earlier reports focused solely on college students; the new study expands the focus and concludes Americans across all economic, educational and political/social backgrounds are equally lacking. Among findings:

• 71% earn an F; the average score was 49%. Ages 25 to 34 had an average score of 46%; ages 45 to 64 had a 52% average. Of 164 respondents who say they have held elected office, 44% was average.

• Those with bachelor’s degrees had an average score of 57% vs. 44% for those with a high-school diploma. The average score for advanced degree-holders inches up to 65%, or a D.

• Civic knowledge declines in proportion to time spent using passive media, such as TV. Reading and talking about history and current events, using the Internet and being involved in political activities has a positive effect.

www.usatoday.com/news/education/2008-11-19-civics_N.htm

Americans don’t know civics

(Michelle Healy – USA TODAY) – From high-school dropouts to college graduates to elected officials, Americans are "alarmingly uninformed" about the USA’s history, founding principles and economy — knowledge needed to participate wisely in civic life, says a report scheduled to be released Thursday.
The study, the third in a series by the non-profit Intercollegiate Studies Institute, finds that half of U.S. adults can name all three branches of government, and 54% know that the power to declare war belongs to Congress. Almost 40% incorrectly said that it belongs to the president.

 

And while 56% can name Paula Abdul as a judge on American Idol, only 21% know that the phrase "government of the people, by the people, for the people" comes from Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. Just 54% can correctly identify a basic description of the free enterprise system.

Those who have held elected office lack civic knowledge; 43% do not know the Electoral College is a constitutionally mandated assembly that elects the president. One in five thinks it "trains those aspiring for higher office" or "was established to supervise the first televised presidential debates."

"Without knowledge of your country’s history, key texts and institutions, you don’t have a frame of reference to judge the politics and policies of today," says Richard Brake, head of the institute’s American Civic Literacy Program.

Earlier reports focused solely on college students; the new study expands the focus and concludes Americans across all economic, educational and political/social backgrounds are equally lacking. Among findings:

• 71% earn an F; the average score was 49%. Ages 25 to 34 had an average score of 46%; ages 45 to 64 had a 52% average. Of 164 respondents who say they have held elected office, 44% was average.

• Those with bachelor’s degrees had an average score of 57% vs. 44% for those with a high-school diploma. The average score for advanced degree-holders inches up to 65%, or a D.

• Civic knowledge declines in proportion to time spent using passive media, such as TV. Reading and talking about history and current events, using the Internet and being involved in political activities has a positive effect.

www.usatoday.com/news/education/2008-11-19-civics_N.htm

Eric Holder Was a Gun Control Nightmare

(Newsmax) – Barack Obama’s nomination of Eric Holder for attorney general will not sit well with advocates of Second Amendment rights — Holder has consistently championed stronger gun-control measures.

As deputy attorney general in the Bill Clinton administration from 1997 to 2001, Holder “was a strong supporter of restrictive gun control,” according to The Volokh Conspiracy, a Web site that focuses on the legal system and the courts.

He advocated federal licensing of handgun owners, a three-day waiting period on handgun sales, rationing handgun sales to no more than one per month, banning possession of handguns and so-called "assault weapons" by anyone under age 21, a gun show restriction bill that would have given the federal government the power to shut down all gun shows, and national gun registration.

“He also promoted the factoid that ‘Every day that goes by, about 12, 13 more children in this country die from gun violence’ — a statistic that is true only if one counts 18-year-old gangsters who shoot each other as ‘children,’” noted the Web site, founded by law professor Alexander Volokh.

After the 9/11 attacks, Holder wrote an opinion piece for The Washington Post arguing that a new law should give "the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms a record of every firearm sale." He also said prospective gun buyers should be checked against the secret "watch lists" compiled by various government entities.

Earlier this year, Holder — who would become the first African-American attorney general — co-signed an amicus brief in support of the District of Columbia’s ban on all handguns and on the use of any firearm for self-defense in the home.

Holder also played a key role in the snatching of 6-year-old Cuban Elian Gonzalez from his Miami relatives’ home in April 2000, according to the Web site. Gonzalez was to be sent to Cuba where his father lived.

Although a photo clearly showed a federal agent pointing a gun at the man who was holding the terrified child, Holder claimed that the federal agents sent to capture Gonzalez had acted "very sensitively."

David Kopel, author of the Volokh Conspiracy report, observed: “If Mr. Holder believes that breaking down a door with a battering ram, pointing guns at children (not just Elian), and yelling ‘Get down, get down, we’ll shoot’ is an example of acting ‘very sensitively,’ his judgment about the responsible use of firearms is not as acute as would be desirable for a cabinet officer who would be in charge of thousands and thousands of armed federal agents, many of them paramilitary agents with machine guns.”

Holder has already come under fire due to his involvement in the Mark Rich pardon in the final hours of the Clinton presidency.

Billionaire Rich renounced his U.S. citizenship and moved to Switzerland to avoid prosecution for racketeering, wire fraud, tax fraud, tax evasion, and illegal trades with Iran in violation of the U.S. embargo following the 1979-80 hostage crisis.

Seventeen years later, Rich wanted a pardon, and he retained Jack Quinn, former counsel to the president, to lobby his old boss.

Holder had originally recommended Quinn to one of Rich’s advisers, political analyst Dick Morris reported. And he gave substantive advice to Quinn along the way.

Once the pardon was granted, Holder sent his congratulations to Quinn.

 


© 2008 Newsmax.

www.newsmax.com/insidecover/holder_gun_control/2008/11/21/153808.html

Show some support!

We are 100% Listener & User supported!! Every little bit helps us continue. Donations help fund the site and keep all the free information on it. Thanks in advance and KEEP UP THE FIGHT!!!

Visitor Map

Subscribe For New Posts & Updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to FederalJack and Popeyeradio and you will receive notifications of new posts by email.

News Categories
The Wigner Effect
Col. L Fletcher Prouty: Secret Team