The Education of LOVE
The Education of LOVE
by Alvin B. Kuhn
* Electronically typed and edited by Juan Schoch for educational research purposes. This notice is not to be removed.
In a recent article in the NEW OUTLOOK – “Why Not Try Love?” – we suggested in the final sentence that Prof. Ashley Montagu (author of On Being Human) should now write a book on The Education of Love. A NEW OUTLOOK editor was moved to propose that perhaps we should try our hand at the job in the meantime, and so this article will be a hesitant and tentative effort to present some ideas on this tremendous theme.
To begin with, the attempt is complicated by the fact that in the eyes of the world-at-large love just does not need any education. Love is, in this respect, regarded somewhat as being equivalent to the sex feeling, which without any particular education knows what it is commissioned to do, dictates its own terms, and sweeps through spontaneously to its objectives. Love and sex are indeed closely akin to each other, as integrated aspects of the same great force, and love should be, and in very great measure surely is, the generator of education. Indeed, it probably outranks all other motivations as a force driving humans to educative activities. Love of music, love of adventure, of philosophy, of power, of money, of nature, of humanity; romantic love and Platonic love – all inspire or drive us to train, discipline and educate ourselves.
With this view goes the common presumption that love is unerring and infallible in its aim and in its wisdom. Love is sure that it can never be wrong; it seems to carry its own justification with it, furnishes its own proof, and ever vindicates its rightness. To this universal opinion it may be necessary, in an ultimate sense, to give assent. One must surely be rightly oriented with life and truth if one’s actions are generated and inspired by love. Yet default of Love is the great human shortcoming, the saddest and most tragic human dereliction, the deplorable cause of most of man’s gross inhumanity to man.
If our answer is correct, if our analysis stands up, love can never be wrong in its motivation, in its aim and objective, but it can be quite wrong in the choice of objective and its particularized mode of striving toward that objective.
Love is a principle evolved by Life to further its advance toward its own objective, which is, ultimately, the greater evolution of consciousness, and as such, love can never be wrong. But love as the force that dictates given actions in given cases, love as the judge that determines the choice of particular procedures, may (and all too frequently does) err in its judgments. One may love the wrong thing or the wrong person. Too often we love things, hobbies, interests, addictions, or people that work to our detriment and injure others as well as ourselves. We love our minor or major forms of habit, our pet foibles; we cling to our vices or our insane habitudes.
Perhaps this is using the word “love” in a sense not fully consistent with what it should connote for the purposes envisaged in our discussion. But if we deal with the word we must take it in the connotations it carries in common speech and common thought. There can not be too wide a distinction made between variant uses of the term – between love of such things as card-playing, baseball, dancing, fishing, an automobile, a person, a pet dog, a book, a sonata, on the one hand; and love of beauty, truth and goodness in the abstract, on the other.
In all such cases, love is the set or cast of feeing directed upon or wrapped up in the particular object loved. It is psychologically the same kind of force poured out upon a variety of things. The difference in the things loved may mark distinctions in its character, its purity, its measures of force, or differentiations in its feeling modes. But all its manifestations must still be subsumed under one nature and definition. Love is still one thing, however wide the range and difference of its objectives. One can even be in love with love itself, just as consciousness can be made the object of its own activity.
Again, it is strange that love should be ideally regarded as infallible when another universal shibboleth says that “love is blind.” This old adage seems to say that in the sweep and strength of its great nobility of motive, love will overlook all considerations of advantage or disadvantage, gain or loss, good or evil choice. It sees only the glory of its main consecration in an all-enveloping aura of attractiveness, and by the very beauty of this picture it will be prevented from seeing subsidiary facts or items that may come in to defeat its splendid expectations.
Oddly, too, while revered Scriptures assert love to be the consummate attribute, the synthetic principle of all righteousness, and the fulfillment of all law, they do not give it the first place in a practical program of human effort. They do not say “without love the people perish,” but, “without vision the people perish.” They do not say, with all thy getting get love, as more precious than rubies, and sweeter than honey, and greater than all the things one can desire. The Scriptures say, first and foremost, get wisdom, get understanding.
We are not told that the cause of all human ill and tragedy is the want or default of love; that one great cause is named ignorance. The Buddha ascribed all human suffering to ignorance alone. Hermes – greatest, perhaps, of all teachers – says that “the vice of a soul is ignorance; the virtue of a soul is knowledge.”
Socrates and Plato spent years in the search to find and name what constitutes the good in life, and the conclusion to which dialectical reasoning forced them, every time, was that the ultimate good thing is knowledge. The want of knowledge, they found, generated all evil. In short, they demonstrated, by the most invincible logic, that being or doing good in every case depended on knowing: knowing first what was the good thing to do, then knowing best how to do it.
Platonic philosophy institutes a distinction – and a crucial one – between what is good and what is right. It determines that a thing is good only and always when it is also right. The “good” motive or objective of an act guarantees neither its rectitude nor its beneficence. It provides no certainty that the act might not inflict wreckage or do injury, as it will if guided by a wrong course of procedure. Thus, we may conclude, Love will wish to do that which is always good.
But, the philosophers asked, how is the always fallible human going to know of a certainty what the good thing is? Love may be yearning and aching to perform the good service; but does it know surely how that service can best be rendered? The necessity of having love-impulses directed by knowledge is obvious, and it should simplify our discussion to realize that if love yearns to achieve its objectives it must know how to implement the procedures that will bring them about.
Both abstruse Greek dialectic and plain simple thinking, therefore, give us the proper answer to the query about love’s education. We have it in the obvious realization that love as an emotion is only one half of the potential, the other half – almost always left out of consideration – being knowledge. And this amounts to saying (what idealists are too often impatient and reluctant to hear) that if the deep and loving aspirations and devotions of the heart are to eventuate in good, and not run the imminent risk of working injury, they must call in the services of the head.
Now, it is a striking fact that in all highly “spiritual” religious philosophy, the “heart” attributes of man’s consciousness have been given precedence in importance and vital function over the “head” qualities. Nearly all movements in religious history aiming to bring about the spiritual unity and fraternity of mankind, have worked on the presumption that if only the heart of the masses can be brought to an attitude of mutual love and brotherhood, the ideal of a world at peace in the community of love can be directly achieved.
The odd thing about this belief is that, judging by the multitudinous prevalence and the sincere and earnest character of the movements so generated and motivated, the “heart” is already in right posture and relation to the task! Thousands of religious movements and cults, practically without exception, proclaim their consecration to the principle of a loving attitude and purpose, and their wish to extend their love to all others; or to meet all others in the spirit of love.
What is it, then, that continues to hold such movements aloof from each other and defeat their fraternization? The sad answer is: the head. While “hearts” beat together in a common accord and good will, minds generate points of disagreement. It is ever the head that blocks the way to what the heart approves or desires, and because the mind is the perpetual obstacle and divider, it has gained the disfavor and obloquy of religionists generally. The tendency, then, has mostly been to ignore, disregard and suppress the mind, so that the force of pure spiritual love may drive unobstructed toward its goal.
A better discernment makes it apparent that this attitude is mistaken. It disowns and dodges the obligation to take action for unity in the very quarter where right action would bring positive results! Granted, the mind causes difference and division, and blocks the road to amity. Then, must it not be through the mind that the possibility of unity can be recognized?
The pacifist spirit of most religionism has dictated the policy of avoiding the clash of opposing views, and shying away from religious controversy. The result has been a reciprocity of sullen silence, broken only by occasional insinuations of error, or mild protest and criticism. Love is thus perpetually deprived of its chance to exercise its miracle-working power of dissolving hatreds and reconciling differences. If we are to love our enemies, we must at least have the opportunity to come to know them – even if, at first, we know them only as embattled opponents. Love cannot fight in the dark or at too great a distance.
If the mind divides, then the mind must learn how to bring dissident elements together in harmony, and to discover the grounds for harmony. There lies the field and the necessity of the mind’s education.
As Plato and Socrates so clearly demonstrated, love must end its blindness, open its mental eyes, and become intelligent. Else its sweet and gentle overtures, put out in the welter of human ignorance and passions, greeds and lusts, will merely make it the sheep-like sacrificial victim led to the slaughter – and that, perhaps, with little really sweet savor rising from the altar to titillate the nostrils of deity! I suggest that in all likelihood the Scriptural injunction urging spiritual aspirants to be both gentle as doves and wise as serpents was motivated by this understanding.
Thus it is evident that the education of love lies in the realm of the mind, it being assumed that the heart – the disposition to love one’s fellows – is already rightly oriented to the task. This shifts the problem from the heart to the head, from right feeling to right intelligence.
At once this conclusion seems to the ardent idealist to throw a wet blanket over the glowing fire of the love-motive, to check or even to extinguish the flame of divine beauty. It is felt that love is its own law, and should not need to undergo rigorous training, the dull routine of learning, of discipline. Its spontaneous impulses of beauty and generosity are deemed sufficient to set their own standards of wisdom. Love, it will be said, can be trusted to bring to all questions and situations its own automatic discernment and decisive understanding.
To this faith, there can only be offered the contrary verdict of both history and general observation. The glowing claims of love’s certitude and invariable rightness must give way before the record of its constant blundering. Or, if it does often act with happy consequences, this is evidence that, to some extent, it must have already had much education. We must recognize as a self-evident fact that to love effectively, beneficently, one must love wisely. If nothing else does so, marriage definitely has proved that the business of loving, faces almost certain wreckage or failure, unless it is salvaged by the counsels of the head.
To bring out the sweet melodies and harmonies of the love-capability in the human psyche, one must master the infinitely complex artistry of striking the right chords on all four of the elements of our psychic life: sense, emotion, thought, and highest spirit. Whether the realization chills or thrills us, loving is not merely a matter of the sheer vehemence of our fervent love-impulse. It is rather a matter of being able, when highly inspired by love’s divine ardor, to strike those chords that will blend in sweet and soothing harmony, instead of producing a rasping discord. Ultimately, this demands adeptship in the whole science of living.
October 5, 2015 | Permalink
Francis Bacon and the Merchant of Venice: An amazing talk and demonstration given by Simon Miles
Wonderfully amazing and spectacular Simon!
Ref: http://sirbacon.org (thank you Larry!)
Francis Bacon and the Merchant of Venice
Launcelot : "This making of Christians will raise the price of hogs;
rasher: Late 16th century [Origin unknown] A thin slice of bacon or ham.
What difference does it make that Francis Bacon wrote the works of "Shakespeare"? Well for one thing, it helps makes sense of some of the best jokes in the plays. One of these jests not only resolves a nagging question at the heart of The Merchant of Venice, but does so with such biting wit and apt metaphor as to leave no other conclusion than: Bacon wrote this play.
The Merchant of Venice tells the story of Antonio, (the merchant of the title), and his friend Bassanio. For reasons not explicitly spelled out in the play, Bassanio has run up debts. As he needs more money urgently, Antonio kindly agrees to provide security on a loan from the Jewish moneylender, Shylock. The condition of forfeit of the loan on which Shylock insists is the "pound of flesh" which provides the striking image at the core of the play's action:
Shylock "...let the forfeit
For all its gruesome fascination, Shylock's choice of this particular forfeit for the loan of a "pound of flesh" is never really explained in the play. With the opportunity to strike any terms that met his heart's desire, why would he, indeed why would anyone, want such a reward? It's apparent cruelty is matched only by its seeming pointlessness.
When Antonio's ventures fail, and the forfeit inevitably falls due, the matter comes to trial in Act IV. Even when questioned here, Shylock himself seems unwilling or unable to quite put his finger on why he wants it. The Duke tells Shylock he expects him to change his mind at the last-minute, rather than go through with such a "strange" idea:
Duke: "I think...thou'lt show thy mercy and remorse, more strange
In response, Shylock shows he can understand that they are itching to know why he demands this particular forfeit, but equally makes clear that he need not, nor will not, satisfy their curiousity in order to collect his right and due.
Shylock: "You'll ask me why I rather choose to have
A little later, he asks the question again:
Shylock: "Pray you tell me this;
For the citizens of Venice, not to mention audiences, Shylock's motivation for his strange request remains unpursued and the answer left hanging. The author is inviting us to figure it out: why the pound of flesh?
One suggestion of commentators is that Shylock is referring to circumcision; that perhaps the Jew is talking about Antonio's foreskin. For all it's ingenuity, this solution falls short. It might account for the "flesh", but hardly for the "pound". Without further information, it would seem that the question resists a straightforward answer. For example, if one could know that the play was based on the author's own experience, perhaps there might be a clue there. For unyielding adherents to the quaint doctrine that the actor Shaxper from Stratford wrote the plays, no such possibility exists and the question remains not only unanswered, but unasked.
Indeed, orthodox scholar Harold Bloom writing about The Merchant of Venice in his recent book, Shakespeare and the Invention of the Human, laments that we cannot know such biographical details, and yet acknowledges an intuition that this play might be based on experience:
"Leslie Fiedler once wrote that Antonio was a "projection of the author's private distress" which counts as interesting guesswork, but no more."
By recognising that the core action of the play reflects an incident from the life of Francis Bacon, we shall be able to leave behind "interesting guesswork".
At the time the play is generally accepted to have been written (1600), Francis Bacon was constantly in and out of debt. Left virtually penniless by his omission from his father Sir Nicholas Bacon's will, he was, for all intents and purposes, a briefless barrister with no visible means of support. Nevertheless, he managed to maintain and employ a group of writers he refers to as as his "scrivenery", or "company of good pens", throughout this period. This enterprise, literally creating from the ground up the English literary rennaissance by translating, writing, collating and printing all manner of books, undoubtedly soaked up considerable funds. This was in addition to his living expenses, maintenance of Twickenham Lodge, and his chambers and lodgings at Grays Inn. Throughout this period, even his orthodox biographers agree: he was without apparent means.
The hidden source of funds which kept him afloat came from Queen Elizabeth, his unacknowledged mother, as Alfred Dodd conclusively demonstrates in Francis Bacon's Personal Life Story. However, he was also frequently obliged to resort to borrowing money to keep his enterprises afloat. On one occasion, he narrowly avoided going to debtors prison for a small sum (300 Pounds) he owed to a Jewish moneylender named Sympson. It was his dearly loved brother Anthony who rescued him on that occasion, and who frequently came to his financial assistance throughout this period of his life. The details of the incident with the moneylender are described in two letters which have come down to us .(Spedding, Vol IX, 106 to 108).
The play is based around Francis and Anthony Bacon's experience at that time. This is confirmed by the names of the characters. The helpful brother is Antonio, standing for Anthony, while Bassanio represents the Francis Bacon figure. As Virginia Fellows points out:
"Even more obviously directed to Antony is Francis's loyalty in friendship as enacted in The Merchant of Venice, the friendship between Antonio (Antony) and Bassanio (Bacon - in French and Italian a single "c" is pronounced "s")"
In other words, if one were to read the name "Bacon" in Italian, the letter "c" would take the soft pronunciation, and one would pronounce it "Basson". Hence: Bassanio!
The Merchant of Venice gives therefore both the names and the circumstances of Francis and his brother Anthony Bacon at the time the play was written. With this in mind, much of the emotional landscape of the play springs into focus. For example, commentators have puzzled over the exact nature of Antonio and Bassanio's close relationship. The real reason Antonio is perfectly willing to help his "dear friend" Bassanio is not because they are homosexual lovers, as some Stratfordian wits would have it, but because they are brothers.
The identification of Bassanio as Francis Bacon also sheds light on the reason, not given explicitly within the play, for his outstanding debts. The funds have been spent on the maintenance of the "company of good pens", that is, on the heavy expenses of printing and publishing the endless stream of books being made available in English. Anthony Bacon was an intimate co-worker with Francis in this project, so that he can assume that Antonio knows what he is referring to when he describes his financial situation in Act 1:
Bassanio: "Tis not unknown to you, Antonio,
In other words, Bassanio is saying: "Antonio: you know that all my resources have gone into funding a certain 'something' which costs much more than the means I have". That 'something' was the making of books, and making books costs money.
If it's true then that identifying Bacon as the author of Merchant of Venice sheds light on some of the questions left unanswered in the play, what about the "pound of flesh" riddle? Keeping in mind that Shylock's forfeit is due from the brothers Bacon, the question answers itself:
Why did Shylock the Jew want a pound of Antonio's flesh?
Because it was a pound of Bacon!
This pun must have been all but irresistible to Francis, who as a contemporary described him "could never pass up the oppportunity for a jest". Aside from providing such an arresting image around which to arrange the plot furniture, it is also a penetrating observation on the strength of the taboo-breaking urge. The "pound of flesh" represents that thing, in Shylock, or in any of us, that we unconsciously desire more than anything else. Often, this is the same as the very thing we are forbidden to have. For a Jew, it's the old joke of "kosher bacon". Steven Spielberg tells in an interview of dreaming of eating a bacon sandwich, something he has taken great pains to avoid all his (waking) life.
Shylock is unconsciously revealing his attraction for the very thing which he has denied and suppressed. This then is the answer which Shylock himself could not give, precisely because it was the expression of his unspoken unconscious desire.
Rereading the play with this joke in mind enlivens the frequent metaphors revolving around eating: for example, dining seems to be on everyone's mind in Act One:
Lorenzo: My Lord Bassanio, since you have found Antonio,
Food is also the first topic of conversation between Shylock and Bassanio, when the moneylender rejects out-of-hand any possibility of eating with the gentile:
Shylock: May I speak with Antonio?
Curiously, a little later in the play, he relents, and decides to share a meal with the brothers. The words he uses provide confirmation that the author is indeed playing with the pun of "flesh" being "bacon", by stating plainly that he will "feed upon" his rival:
Shylock: I am bid forth for supper, Jessica...But yet I'll go in hate, to feed upon the prodigal Christian
If indeed Bacon did make a joke about his name in The Merchant of Venice, it certainly would not be the first or only time he made such a pun. Francis employed the image of the boar in his heraldic coat of arms. It also turns up frequently in other symbolic devices appearing in the outpouring of Rosicrucian and other books of the time. Then there is the line in Merry Wives of Windsor "hang-hog is Latin for Bacon". Alfred Dodd discusses Bacon's use of exactly this joke, in the context of another of the names under which he masks his identity:
"If we take the last syllable of the name as an open hint, "Ham", we may not be far wrong in assuming the identity of the writer as Bacon, for is not Bacon, "Ham"? And if we remember that the word "lean" was sounded like the first syllable, "Lane", we get the anonymous letter writer jesting at the name of Bacon. He is a "Lean Ham", i.e. Laneham. This idea of playing with words to convey other meanings was quite characteristic of Francis Bacon's humour."
Macauley called Bacons Apopthegms the "finest jest-book in the language", so we can be certain Francis loved to do comedy. The Merchant of Venice was a gift to his brother Anthony in thanks for helping him in this part of this life. Something very similar appears to be also going on within the play itself. One could even say that the action of the play comes down to Bassanio's attempt to cheer Antonio up. At least, this is the conceit of the opening scene of the play. In the very first speech, Antonio/Anthony tells his companions Salararino and Solarino that he is feeling sad, for reasons he can't quite figure out...
Antonio: "In sooth, I know not why I am so sad:
His companions fail to cheer him up, nor are they any help him to him in understanding the cause of his "want-wit sadness". This is Antonio's real predicament. Then Bassanio takes the stage, and signals immediately his intention to provide the antidote to Antonio's blue mood: a good laugh.
If The Merchant of Venice is Francis Bacon's "thank you" gift to his brother, Anthony, it's also a joke to cheer him up. And now that we too are in on the gag, perhaps, some 400 years later, we can finally make a reply to Bassanio's opening question : when shall we laugh? Say, when? Ok, now we get it. The "pound of flesh" is a "pound of Bacon"! Nice one, Francis, nice one!
SupremeLaw SPECIAL OFFER -and- I need your help
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 4:19 AM
Subject: SPECIAL OFFER from SupremeLaw -and- I need your help.
To: SupremeLaw <email@example.com>
due to my abduction during most of 2014
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, Civil RICO: 18 U.S.C. 1964;
http://supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)
All Rights Reserved (cf. UCC 1-308 https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/1/1-308)
The Establishment want to get rid of Donald Trump / They want Bush to be the next US President. Is the fix in?
By Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall
September 15, 2015
NWO wants Bush to be the next US President. Is the fix in?
This 2016 pre-election season with 17 Republican candidates (now 16 with the withdrawal of former Texas Governor Rick Perry) is specifically designed to give the Republicans another loser: Jeb Bush.
“Oh,” you say, “that can’t happen. Donald Trump, Ben Carson, Ted Cruz and Carly Fiorina are far ahead of Jeb Bush in the polls, and it looks like we’ll get a conservative nominee this time. Jeb Bush has very little support from voters.”
Delegate votes rather than popularity of a candidate determine Presidential nominees. That system has been skewed by those who control the Republican National Committee (RNC) which, in turn, controls state and county Republican committees. This system has given us middle-of-the-road loser candidates like John McCain and Mitt Romney. Don’t get me wrong... I liked Mitt Romney, but though he was a fiscal conservative, he was a social liberal. I have no doubt Mitt would have been a far better President than the current White House occupant.
There is little doubt that conservatives have a very difficult time getting a conservative candidate nominated. Ronald Reagan is the last conservative Republican candidate nominated and that was 1980 and 1984 – and he was an anomaly. It is equally true that the GOP cannot win a national election without the support of conservative voters. What a nice conundrum!
If it’s impossible for Republicans to win a national election without conservative votes, it makes sense for the RNC to give the GOP a conservative Republican candidate. But politics isn’t about making sense. It’s about power... in this case, corrupted power run amok.
If a person who is more committed to the people than to the party is elected to the Presidency, that person can change the power structure of the Republican Party. The existing power structure of the Republican Party would rather see a Democrat elected than lose their power base. It’s as simple as that.
The problem for the powers that be is that people now know the system is totally corrupt and are demanding change. The problem for the people demanding change is they don’t understand the system and so don’t know what specific demands for change to make. The people see their freedoms lost – it used to be one-by-one, but is now a system-by-system loss: the system of justice which now decides which laws it will enforce, the system of legislative, judicial and executive balance set forth by the Constitution, our guaranteed rights to freedom of religion, the right to own guns, the right for business owners to refuse service to anyone they choose, and on and on.
So what is the GOP’s plan to surreptitiously nominate Jeb Bush?
To understand the process, you must understand the structure of the system. You must especially understand what is termed “proportional allocation of delegates,” especially in early-voting states.
Citizens appointed or elected as county and then state delegates are the ones who at the Republican Convention nominate the presidential candidate. It would take a book chapter not an article to explain the various rules and regulations in place in different states regarding winner-take-all versus proportional allocation rules. Since I don’t have a book or a chapter available, the following paragraphs will give you an overview. For more in-depth explanations, go here, and here, and here.
We tend to think that delegate votes reflect voter choice in primaries or state conventions. It’s a reasonable assumption but the RNC has put into place rules and regulations that thwart that logical approach. It’s the only way it can protect the liberal progressive power base currently controlling the Republican Party.
After the 2012 nomination of Mitt Romney, the RNC changed party rules designed to prevent a candidate of the people rather than of the party (read “conservative”) from getting the nomination. These rules require all state contests held from March 1st through March 14th, whether in caucus/convention or primary states, to allocate delegate committed votes on a proportional basis. As I understand it, that means if a candidate gets 20% of the vote in a state’s Congressional district, he/she gets 20% of the delegates from that district. If the candidate wins 5%, the state commits to the candidate 5% of the district’s delegates, etc.
Only four states are permitted to hold their caucuses/convention or primaries prior to March 1st of any national election year: Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada. The rules adopted by the RNC make it all but impossible for any candidate to run up a sizeable delegate lead in the early state contests because there are numerous candidates still running. The states that are more conservative – the Southern states (including Texas, Virginia and North Carolina) have scheduled their contests during this time. Colorado, Iowa and Minnesota are also good voting grounds for conservatives and may hold their nominee contests by the March 15th deadline.
So what’s wrong with deciding which candidate the selected delegates will support on a proportional basis? What’s wrong with giving all candidates the percentage of delegates based on voter or convention results... the percentage of votes they received?
A popular candidate – like the four leading conservative candidates, Trump, Carson, Cruz and Fiorina -- could gain major delegate leads in these early, mostly conservative state primaries and conventions if it wasn’t for proportional allocation of delegates. Does the RNC believe the concept of proportional allocation of votes reflects the will of the people? If they did, Al Gore would have become President of the United States in 2000.
Instead, we have 16 candidates, each carefully selected for one of several reasons, so populist candidates will get far fewer delegates under proportional allocation because candidates that don’t stand a chance get one or two or three delegates. In other words, conservative candidates cannot build a lead during the time frame most conservative states hold their conventions and/or primaries.
If that doesn’t explain to you how important it is for you to get involved in local politics, nothing will. It is the only way we can take back control of our state and county Republican parties. If conservatives didn’t so dislike group power-based activities we could make a huge difference in the way things are forced upon conservatives. If you have time for church activities, for local service clubs, for bowling nights, you have time to devote to freedom which makes all of them possible.
In 2012, Mitt Romney won the Ohio nominating contest by only one point, but got 13 more delegates than Rick Santorum who came in second. Wisconsin is a winner-take-all state which Romney won by eight points and got all 24 delegates. Santorum won the North Dakota caucus but Romney was awarded 20 of the state’s 28 delegates to Santorum’s 6. How did this happen? Proportional allocation of delegates versus winner-take-all and the timing of each... the requirement that forces those states that hold their caucus/conventions or primaries during the March 1st through March 14th dates to allocate delegates on a proportional basis.
It is quite clear that the RNC has taken the nominating process from the hands of the people and placed it in the hands of... the Republican National Committee. It’s a bit like re-districting was handled when Congressman Allen West ran for re-election in Florida. The State of Florida carved out a district in which it was impossible for any conservative to win. Why? Col. West is a conservative and the Republicans wanted to get rid of him.
That’s how these rats are micro-managing and manipulating the nominating process so we cannot get conservative candidates elected.
However, there are even more maddening ploys being put in play to ensure Jeb Bush will be the Republican nominee for President.
It’s actually quite a dark plot – worthy of those who understand how to manipulate the political system to thwart the desires of the people. Understanding that a plan is in place answers a lot of questions. For example: “George Pataki? Why in the world would he enter the Republican race for the Presidency? Does anyone but New Yorkers know who he is?” For an answer, look at the number of delegate votes in high-population states. Or, “John Kasich? They know who he is in Ohio... but in Montana or Idaho?” Ohio is a high-population, high-delegate state. Former Virginia Governor, Jim Gilmore? Rick Santorum? High delegate states. Ted Cruz? High delegate state (though I don’t think Cruz would play ball in this kind of game).
First, why do we have 16 candidates in this ridiculous parade of mostly politicians who know – and knew from the day they entered the Presidential race – they have no chance of winning? Was it ego? Money? Patriotism? Or are they part of a plan to siphon delegates to Jeb Bush?
This is more than a conspiracy theory. It is a plot that makes all the sense in the world when you look at it through the dirty window of politics.
On March 1st – Super Tuesday – 601 delegates will be proportionally determined in Texas, Alabama, Tennessee, Vermont, Arkansas, Georgia, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and Virginia. Look at how many of these states tend to vote conservative and remember how proportional assignment of delegates harms conservatives.
On Tuesday, March 8th, 130 delegates will be proportionally determined in Michigan, Idaho, and Mississippi.
On Sunday, March 13th, Puerto Rico (with 23 delegates) holds its delegate-assigning contest.
On Tuesday, March 15th, 234 delegates will be proportionally determined in Florida, Ohio, and Illinois.
A total of 974 delegates will be assigned to one candidate or another under the proportion allocation system. It only takes a couple of hundred more votes to gain the nomination!
In Ohio, John Kasich will get a lot of votes because he’s the Governor of that state and a favorite son. Does Kasich have a chance to win the nomination? He’s pretty far down in the polls so to say “it’s possible” is a bit of a stretch. Proportionally, he’s popular and will get a lot of delegates.
In Florida, Marco Rubio is a popular Senator and will draw many votes. In Virginia, people know who Jim Gilmore is and some will vote for him. Mike Huckabee will draw votes because he's the ex-Governor of that state – and he will draw votes from other Southern states because he’s a southerner. And he’ll pull votes from the Christian voter block in all states. He is a former pastor. Rick Santorum is well-known in Pennsylvania and will get Christian votes – especially Catholic votes – in all Bible Belt states... Oklahoma, Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama, etc. Rand Paul is popular in Kentucky and will get Libertarian votes in most states.
Do you see how carefully these candidates were selected for their ability to draw votes away from very popular conservative candidates?
Will any of these people actually win these contests? Donald Trump is (currently) so popular, it’s not likely (Kasich might in Ohio, Cruz might in Texas, Rubio might in Florida... all big delegate states).
What happens after the primaries and conventions... after delegates have been determined and promised to support this candidate or that? What happens is that we move on to the Republican National Convention where the candidate for the Office of the President of the United States is decided.
What happens when the Convention Secretary reads each state by name and each state responds by giving a list of candidates to whom proportional votes have committed delegates FOR THE FIRST ROUND OF VOTING?
Unless I’m mistaken, if no candidate is gets the required votes to gain the nomination as President of the United States on the first ballot, delegates may be released to vote for candidates of their choice. Or, the 16 candidates who never won a primary – maybe never even got more than 20% of the vote – can give their delegate votes to another candidate. And that’s why we had 17 presidential candidates from high population states with large numbers of delegates who have strong appeal to certain conservative splinter groups. Of those candidates, about half were plants, the rest were legitimate candidates. That’s why we had so many candidates who appeal to conservative splinter groups – anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, anti-Obamacare, anti-Planned Parenthood, etc.
Do not be surprised if the candidate to whom they give their votes is named Jeb Bush. When that happens, it will tell you much about the character of the person who assigns his or her votes to Governor Bush. It will also tell you why they entered the race because this was their purpose from day one.
There is much more that could be said about the political mess we’ve allowed the National Republican Committee to make of the once proud and conservative-based party, but as I said, I only have one article, not a chapter or a book.
As we listen to the debates and as we near the caucus/convention and primary seasons, it is critically important that you vote and work for the best possible candidate, not a favorite son candidate or a favorite issue candidate. Find the best candidate with the best chance to win and vote for him or her.
© 2015 Marilyn M. Barnewall - All Rights Reserved
Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall began her career in 1956 as a journalist with the Wyoming Eagle in Cheyenne. During her 20 years (plus) as a banker and bank consultant, she wrote extensively for The American Banker, Bank Marketing Magazine, Trust Marketing Magazine, was U.S. Consulting Editor for Private Banker International (London/Dublin), and other major banking industry publications. She has written seven non-fiction books about banking and taught private banking at Colorado University for the American Bankers Association. She has authored seven banking books, one dog book, and two works of fiction (about banking, of course). She has served on numerous Boards in her community.
Barnewall is the former editor of The National Peace Officer Magazine and as a journalist has written guest editorials for the Denver Post, Rocky Mountain News and Newsweek, among others. On the Internet, she has written for News With Views, World Net Daily, Canada Free Press, Christian Business Daily, Business Reform, and others. She has been quoted in Time, Forbes, Wall Street Journal and other national and international publications. She can be found in Who's Who in America, Who's Who of American Women, Who's Who in Finance and Business, and Who's Who in the World.
Web site: http://marilynwrites.blogspot.com
Judge clears way for House of Representatives lawsuit challenging health law
Published September 09, 2015
WASHINGTON – A federal judge cleared the way Wednesday for a legal challenge by congressional Republicans to President Obama's health care law to proceed.
U.S. District Court Judge Rosemary M. Collyer ruled the House can pursue its claim that the administration violated the Constitution when it spent public money that was not appropriated by Congress. At issue is the more than $175 billion the government is paying health insurance companies over a decade to reimburse them for offering reduced health care co-payments for lower-income people.
The House argues that Congress never specifically approved spending that money, and in fact denied the administration's request for it. The Obama administration insists it is instead relying on previously allocated money that it is allowed to use.
"The House of Representatives as an institution would suffer a concrete, particularized injury if the Executive were able to draw funds from the Treasury without a valid appropriation," wrote Collyer, who was appointed to the federal bench in 2003 by President George W. Bush.
Department of Justice spokesman Patrick Rodenbush said the administration will seek to appeal the court's decision.
The lawsuit was filed last year against the departments of Health and Human Services and Treasury by Republicans frustrated by their inability to torpedo the President's signature heath care law through legislative action. The House has voted more than 50 times to repeal all or parts of the law known as Obamacare, only to be stymied in the Senate.
House Speaker John Boehner praised Wednesday's ruling, calling Obama's actions a "historic overreach." He said the House will press its case in the court. Collyer stressed that her ruling was merely procedural, and that Congress would still have to prove the merits of its case.
Federal Reserve, Remarks in Congress,  AN ASTOUNDING EXPOSURE
Federal Reserve, Remarks in Congress, 1934 AN ASTOUNDING EXPOSURE
|Henry Morgan <firstname.lastname@example.org>||Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 2:09 PM|
The founding generation, those who fought and won their independence from the British Monarchy in 1776.... to become free men and women instead of "subjects"...... with no one in this world to answer to but each to himself.....tried mightily to ensure......that the legacy of individual liberty that they had won.....would be passed on to their descendants.
When I was a very young child my mother sought to impress upon me how lucky I was to have been born into the only truly free country on earth. She told me it meant that when I grew up, I could go anywhere I wanted, do anything I wanted, and be anything I wanted.....so long as I accomplished those things by my own efforts
without doing harm to anyone else or their property. (You don't hit people or take their stuff.)
I have gradually come to know over my 7 plus decades.....that she was right about what the founders intended......but that......unknown to her.....a change in our laws
had been made in 1913...a quarter century before I was born.....a half decade before she was born.......which had effectively suspended our birthright of true liberty......and made us all economic slaves. She was totally unaware that I had been born into a subtle form of economic slavery and that she too was enslaved.
Since 1913, a large portion of each American's productivity has been quietly siphoned off. It's as if a vampire bat had attached itself to the back of the neck of Paul Bunion (America) and it was, without his knowing, drinking a larger portion of his "blood" than slave owners had gotten from their slaves before slavery was abolished.
The "vampire" is a very small group of top international bankers. It is a parasite that is still, today, "drinking our blood", gradually killing America, destroying our inheritance of liberty, and causing wars, chaos and destruction on a planetary scale.
The vampire even succeeded in getting our Constitution amended twice, and just two laws passed in order to make their enormous "blood drinking" enslavement of Americans possible.
We can remove the vampire. It is within our power. We can restore the true liberty that the founders wanted us to have.....and pass it on to our children.
All it would take is the repeal of two bad Constitutional amendments and two bad laws.......and the vampire would dry up and blow away.
He never did create anything of value to us. He has always been just a clever parasite.
Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.
Well the vampire has been fooling us, "eating our lunch", for a hundred and two years now.
Shame on us.
Here's how he did it.......
From: Barb Sponaugle [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2015 6:31 PM
Subject: Federal Reserve, Remarks in Congress, 1934 AN ASTOUNDING EXPOSURE
Long compilation on the Fed that was worth my time to read. See Congressman McFadden’s old speeches further down this page, remarkable.
Obviously, PC was not cowering Americans in the early twentieth century. The media, ruled by six companies, is reducing the populace to sheep. Trump is throwing off the chains and, surprise, no one is dying from straightforward language. It’s refreshing and hopefully contagious. Barb
Woodrow Wilson waits until on his death bed to lament the Federal Reserve Act: Gee thanks: Is There a Doctor in the House of Representatives?
Once elected, President Wilson obeyed his dark masters and enacted unprecedented changes to our great Constitution. In that single year of 1913,President Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act and the Revenue Act of 1913, chaining all future Americans to the dual horrors of the FED and the IRS. In order to make these acts binding and appear legitimate to Americans, President Wilson pushed through Congress two Constitutional Amendments: the 16th and 17th Amendments. These two amendments remain in our Constitution like a malignant cancer destroying the once healthy body of our great nation.
The year 1913 stands as the year that America changed forever and the seminal year in Federal Reserve history. It is time to repeal these amendments, and right the wrongs that Wilson did to our great nation.
President Wilson knew what he did was wrong. After serving the dark forces, he would later lament in his diary, “I have unwittingly ruined my country.”
Wilson also broke his campaign promises and took America into WW1, and later the failed League of Nations. Wilson shows us a revelation that Americans must guard against elected officials who guide us into unrighteous wars and desire to establish entangling international systems of rules, organizations and government.
Key Quote: “I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit… all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world, no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.”
Drs. Ron & Rand Paul were not the first Patriots to condemn the Federal Reserve.
On May 23, 1933, Congressman, Louis T. McFadden, brought formal charges against the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Bank system, The Comptroller of the Currency and the Secretary of United States Treasury for numerous criminal acts, including but not limited to, CONSPIRACY, FRAUD, UNLAWFUL CONVERSION, AND TREASON.
The petition for Articles of Impeachment was thereafter referred to the Judiciary Committee and has
YET TO BE ACTED ON.
So, this ELECTRONIC BOOKLET should be reprinted, reposted,
set up on web pages and circulated far and wide.
on the Federal Reserve Corporation
Remarks in Congress, 1934
AN ASTOUNDING EXPOSURE
Reprinted by permission 1978 Arizona Caucus Club
Congressman McFadden's Speech
On the Federal Reserve Corporation
Quotations from several speeches made on the Floor of the House of Representatives by the Honorable Louis T. McFadden of Pennsylvania. Mr. McFadden, due to his having served as Chairman of the Banking and Currency Committee for more than 10 years, was the best posted man on these matters in America and was in a position to speak with authority of the vast ramifications of this gigantic private credit monopoly. As Representative of a State which was among the first to declare its freedom from foreign money tyrants it is fitting that Pennsylvania, the cradle of liberty, be again given the credit for producing a son that was not afraid to hurl defiance in the face of the money-bund. Whereas Mr. McFadden was elected to the high office on both the Democratic and Republican tickets, there can be no accusation of partisanship lodged against him. Because these speeches are set out in full in the Congressional Record, they carry weight that no amount of condemnation on the part of private individuals could hope to carry.
The Federal Reserve-A Corrupt Institution
"Mr. Chairman, we have in this Country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks, hereinafter called the Fed. The Fed has cheated the Government of these United States and the people of the United States out of enough money to pay the Nation's debt. The depredations and iniquities of the Fed has cost enough money to pay the National debt several times over.
"This evil institution has impoverished and ruined the people of these United States, has bankrupted itself, and has practically bankrupted our Government. It has done this through the defects of the law under which it operates, through the maladministration of that law by the Fed and through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it.
"Some people who think that the Federal Reserve Banks United States Government institutions. They are private monopolies which prey upon the people of these United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; and rich and predatory money lender. In that dark crew of financial pirates there are those who would cut a man's throat to get a dollar out of his pocket; there are those who send money into states to buy votes to control our legislatures; there are those who maintain International propaganda for the purpose of deceiving us into granting of new concessions which will permit them to cover up their past misdeeds and set again in motion their gigantic train of crime.
"These twelve private credit monopolies were deceitfully and disloyally foisted upon this Country by the bankers who came here from Europe and repaid us our hospitality by undermining our American institutions. Those bankers took money out of this Country to finance Japan in a war against Russia. They created a reign of terror in Russia with our money in order to help that war along. They instigated the separate peace between Germany and Russia, and thus drove a wedge between the allies in World War. They financed Trotsky's passage from New York to Russia so that he might assist in the destruction of the Russian Empire. They fomented and instigated the Russian Revolution, and placed a large fund of American dollars at Trotsky's disposal in one of their branch banks in Sweden so that through him Russian homes might be thoroughly broken up and Russian children flung far and wide from their natural protectors. They have since begun breaking up of American homes and the dispersal of American children. "Mr. Chairman, there should be no partisanship in matters concerning banking and currency affairs in this Country, and I do not speak with any.
"In 1912 the National Monetary Association, under the chairmanship of the late Senator Nelson W. Aldrich, made a report and presented a vicious bill called the National Reserve Association bill. This bill is usually spoken of as the Aldrich bill. Senator Aldrich did not write the Aldrich bill. He was the tool, if not the accomplice, of the European bankers who for nearly twenty years had been scheming to set up a central bank in this Country and who in 1912 has spent and were continuing to spend vast sums of money to accomplish their purpose.
"We were opposed to the Aldrich plan for a central bank. The men who rule the Democratic Party then promised the people that if they were returned to power there would be no central bank established here while they held the reigns of government. Thirteen months later that promise was broken, and the Wilson administration, under the tutelage of those sinister Wall Street figures who stood behind Colonel House, established here in our free Country the worm-eaten monarchical institution of the "King's Bank" to control us from the top downward, and from the cradle to the grave.
"The Federal Reserve Bank destroyed our old and characteristic way of doing business. It discriminated against our 1-name commercial paper, the finest in the world, and it set up the antiquated 2-name paper, which is the present curse of this Country and which wrecked every country which has ever given it scope; it fastened down upon the Country the very tyranny from which the framers of the Constitution sough to save us.
PRESIDENT JACKSON'S TIME
"One of the greatest battles for the preservation of this Republic was fought out here in Jackson's time; when the second Bank of the United States, founded on the same false principles of those which are here exemplified in the Fed was hurled out of existence. After that, in 1837, the Country was warned against the dangers that might ensue if the predatory interests after being cast out should come back in disguise and unite themselves to the Executive and through him acquire control of the Government. That is what the predatory interests did when they came back in the livery of hypocrisy and under false pretenses obtained the passage of the Fed.
"The danger that the Country was warned against came upon us and is shown in the long train of horrors attendant upon the affairs of the traitorous and dishonest Fed. Look around you when you leave this Chamber and you will see evidences of it in all sides. This is an era of misery and for the conditions that caused that misery, the Fed are fully liable. This is an era of financed crime and in the financing of crime the Fed does not play the part of a disinterested spectator.
"It has been said that the draughts man who was employed to write the text of the Aldrich bill because that had been drawn up by lawyers, by acceptance bankers of European origin in New York. It was a copy, in general a translation of the statues of the Reichsbank and other European central banks. One-half million dollars was spent on the part of the propaganda organized by these bankers for the purpose of misleading public opinion and giving Congress the impression that there was an overwhelming popular demand for it and the kind of currency that goes with it, namely, an asset currency based on human debts and obligations. Dr. H. Parker Willis had been employed by Wall Street and propagandists, and when the Aldrich measure failed- he obtained employment with Carter Glass, to assist in drawing the banking bill for the Wilson administration. He appropriated the text of the Aldrich bill. There is no secret about it. The test of the Federal Reserve Act was tainted from the first.
"A few days before the bill came to a vote, Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, of Massachusetts, wrote to Senator John W. Weeks as follows:
New York City,
December 17, 1913
"'My Dear Senator Weeks:
"'Throughout my public life I have supported all measures designed to take the Government out of the banking business. This bill puts the Government into the banking business as never before in our history. "'The powers vested in the Federal Reserve Board seen to me highly dangerous especially where there is political control of the Board. I should be sorry to hold stock in a bank subject to such dominations. The bill as it stands seems to me to open the way to a vast inflation of the currency. "'I had hoped to support this bill, but I cannot vote for it cause it seems to me to contain features and to rest upon principles in the highest degree menacing to our prosperity, to stability in business, and to the general welfare of the people of the United States.
Very Truly Yours,
Henry Cabot Lodge.'"
"In eighteen years that have passed since Senator Lodge wrote that letter of warning all of his predictions have come true. The Government is in the banking business as never before. Against its will it has been made the backer of horse thieves and card sharps, bootlegger's smugglers, speculators, and swindlers in all parts of the world. Through the Fed the riffraff of every country is operating on the public credit of the United States Government.
THE GREAT DEPRESSION
"Meanwhile and on account of it, we ourselves are in the midst of the greatest depression we have ever known. From the Atlantic to the Pacific, our Country has been ravaged and laid waste by the evil practices of the Fed and the interests which control them. At no time in our history, has the general welfare of the people been at a lower level or the minds of the people so full of despair.
"Recently in one of our States, 60,000 dwelling houses and farms were brought under the hammer in a single day. 71,000 houses and farms in Oakland County, Michigan, were sold and their erstwhile owners dispossessed. The people who have thus been driven out are the wastage of the Fed. They are the victims of the Fed. Their children are the new slaves of the auction blocks in the revival of the institution of human slavery.
The Scheme of the Fed
"In 1913, before the Senate Banking and Currency Committee, Mr. Alexander Lassen made the following statement: "The whole scheme of the Fed with its commercial paper is an impractical, cumbersome machinery- is simply a cover to secure the privilege of issuing money, and to evade payment of as much tax upon circulation as possible and then control the issue and maintain, instead of reducing interest rates. It will prove to the advantage of the few and the detriment of the people. It will mean continued shortage of actual money and further extension of credits, for when there is a shortage of money people have to borrow to their cost.' "A few days before the Fed passed, Senator Root denounced the Fed as an outrage on our liberties. He predicted: 'Long before we wake up from our dream of prosperity through an inflated currency, our gold- which alone could have kept us from catastrophe- will have vanished and no rate of interest will tempt it to return.'
"If ever a prophecy came true, that one did.
"The Fed became law the day before Christmas Eve, in the year 1913, and shortly afterwards, the German International bankers, Kuhn, Loeb and Co. sent one of their partners here to run it.
"The Fed Note is essentially unsound. It is the worst currency and the most dangerous that this Country has ever known. When the proponents of the act saw that the Democratic doctrine would not permit them to let the proposed banks issue the new currency as bank notes, they should have stopped at that. They should not have foisted that kind of currency, namely, an asset currency, on the United States Government. They should not have made the Government [liable on the private] debts of individuals and corporations, and, least of all, on the private debts of foreigners. "As Kemerer says: 'The Fed Notes, therefore, in form, have some of the qualities of Government paper money, but in substance, are almost a pure asset currency possessing a Government guarantee against which contingency the Government has made no provision whatever.'
"Hon. L.J.Hill, a former member of the House, said, and truly: "They are obligations of the Government for which the United States received nothing and for the payment of which at any time, it assumes the responsibility: looking to the Fed to recoup itself.'
"If this United States is to redeem the Fed Notes, when the General Public finds it costs to deliver this paper to the Fed, and if the Government has made no provisions for redeeming them, the first element of unsoundness is not far to seek.
"Before the Banking and Currency Committee, when the bill was under discussion Mr. Crozier of Cincinnati said: 'The imperial power of elasticity of the public currency is wielded exclusively by the central corporations owned by the banks. This is a life and death power over all local banks and all business. It can be used to create or destroy prosperity, to ward off or cause stringencies and panics. By making money artificially scarce, interest rates throughout the Country can be arbitrarily raised and the bank tax on all business and cost of living increased for the profit of the banks owning these regional central banks, and without the slightest benefit to the people. The 12 Corporations together cover y and monopolize and use for private gain- every dollar of the public currency and all public revenue of the United States. Not a dollar can be put into circulation among the people by their Government, without the consent of and on terms fixed by these 12 private money trusts.'
"In defiance of this and all other warnings, the proponents of the Fed created the 12 private credit corporations and gave them an absolute monopoly of the currency of these United States- not of the Fed Notes alone- but of all other currency! The Fed Act providing ways and means by which the gold and general currency in the hands of the American people could be obtained by the Fed in exchange for Fed Notes- which are not money- but mere promises to pay.
"Since the evil day when this was done, the initial monopoly has been extended by vicious amendments to the Fed and by the unlawful and treasonable practices of the Fed.
Money for the Scottish Distillers
"Mr. Chairman, if a Scottish distiller wishes to send a cargo of Scotch whiskey to these United States, he can draw his bill against the purchasing bootlegger in dollars and after the bootlegger has accepted it by writing his name across the face of it, the Scotch distiller can send that bill to the nefarious open discount market in New York City where the Fed will buy it and use it as collateral for a new issue of Fed Notes. Thus the Government of these United States pay the Scotch distiller for the whiskey before it is shipped, and if it is lost on the way, or if the Coast Guard seizes it and destroys it, the Fed simply write off the loss and the government never recovers the money that was paid to the Scotch distiller.
"While we are attempting to enforce prohibition here, the Fed are in the distillery business in Europe and paying bootlegger bills with public credit of these United States. "Mr. Chairman, by the same process, they compel our Government to pay the German brewer for his beer. Why should the Fed be permitted to finance the brewing industry in Germany either in this way or as they do by compelling small and fearful United States Banks to take stock in the Isenbeck Brewery and in the German Bank for brewing industries? "Mr. Chairman, if Dynamit Nobel of Germany, wishes to sell dynamite in Japan to use in Manchuria or elsewhere, it can drew its bill against the Japanese customers in dollars and send that bill to the nefarious open discount market in New York City where the Fed will buy it and use it as collateral for a new issue of Fed Notes- while at the same time the Fed will be helping Dynamit Nobel by stuffing its stock into the United States banking system.
"Why should we send our representatives to the disarmament conference at Geneva- while the Fed is making our Government pay Japanese debts to German Munitions makers?
"Mr. Chairman, if a German wishes to raise a crop of beans and sell them to a Japanese customer, he can draw a bill against his prospective Japanese customer in dollars and have it purchased by the Fed and get the money out of this Country at the expense of the American people before he has even planted the beans in the ground. "Mr. Chairman, if a German in Germany wishes to export goods to South America, or any other Country, he can draw his bill against his customers and send it to these United States and get the money out of this Country before he ships, or even manufactures the goods.
"Mr. Chairman, why should the currency of these United States be issued on the strength of German Beer? Why should it be issued on the crop of unplanted beans to be grown in Chili for Japanese consumption? Why should these United States be compelled to issue many billions of dollars every year to pay the debts of one foreigner to another foreigner? "Was it for this that our National Bank depositors had their money taken out of our banks and shipped abroad? Was it for this that they had to lose it? Why should the public credit of these United States and likewise money belonging to our National Bank depositors be used to support foreign brewers, narcotic drug vendors, whiskey distillers, wig makes, human hair merchants, Chilean bean growers, to finance the munition factories of Germany and Soviet Russia?
THE UNITED STATES HAS BEEN RANSACKED
"The United States has been ransacked and pillaged. Our structures have been gutted and only the walls are left standing. While being perpetrated, everything the world would rake up to sell us was brought in here at our expense by the Fed until our markets were swamped with unneeded and unwanted imported goods priced far above their value and make to equal the dollar volume of our honest exports, and to kill or reduce our favorite balance of trade. As Agents of the foreign central banks the Fed try by every means in their power to reduce our favorable balance of trade. They act for their foreign principal and they accept fees from foreigners for acting against the best interests of these United States. Naturally there has been great competition among among foreigners for the favors of the Fed.
"What we need to do is to send the reserves of our National Banks home to the people who earned and produced them and who still own them and to the banks which were compelled to surrender them to predatory interests.
"Mr. Chairman, there is nothing like the Fed pool of confiscated bank deposits in the world. It is a public trough of American wealth in which the foreigners claim rights, equal to or greater than Americans. The Fed are the agents of the foreign central banks. They use our bank depositors' money for the benefit of their foreign principals. They barter the public credit of the United States Government and hire it our to foreigners at a profit to themselves.
"All this is done at the expense of the United States Government, and at a sickening loss to the American people. Only our great wealth enabled us to stand the drain of it as long as we did.
"We need to destroy the Fed wherein our national reserves are impounded for the benefit of the foreigners. "We need to save America for Americans.
"Mr. Chairman, when you hold a $10.00 Fed Note in your hand, you are holding apiece of paper which sooner or later is going to cost the United States Government $10.00 in gold (unless the Government is obliged to go off the gold standard). It is based on limburger cheese (reported to be in foreign warehouses) or in cans purported to contain peas (but may contain salt water instead), or horse meat, illicit drugs, bootleggers fancies, rags and bones from Soviet Russia (of which these United States imported over a million dollars worth last year), on wines whiskey, natural gas, goat and dog fur, garlic on the string, and Bombay ducks.
"If you like to have paper money- which is secured by such commodities- you have it in Fed Note. If you desire to obtain the thing of value upon which this paper currency is based, that is, the limburger cheese, the whiskey, the illicit drugs, or any of the other staples- you will have a very hard time finding them.
"Many of these worshipful commodities are in foreign Countries. Are you going to Germany to inspect her warehouses to see if the specified things of value are there? I think more, I do not think that you would find them there if you did go.
"On April 27, 1932, the Fed outfit sent $750,000 belonging to American bank depositors in gold to Germany. A week later another $300,000 in gold was shipped to Germany. About the middle of May $12,000,000 in gold was shipped to Germany by the Fed. Almost every week there is a shipment of gold to Germany. These shipments are not made for profit on the exchange since the German marks are blow parity with the dollar.
"Mr. Chairman, I believe that the National Bank depositors of these United States have a right to know what the Fed are doing with their money. There are millions of National Bank depositors in the Country who do not know that a percentage of every dollar they deposit in a Member Bank of the Fed goes automatically to American Agents of the foreign banks and that all their deposits can be paid away to foreigners without their knowledge or consent by the crooked machinery of the Fed and the questionable practices of the Fed.
[Ed. Note- Problem with next paragraph in original] "Mr. Chairman, the American people should be told the truth by their servants in office. In 1930, we had over a half billion dollars outstanding daily to finance foreign goods stored in or shipped between several billion dollars. What goods are these on which the Fed yearly pledge several billions of dollars. In its yearly total, this item amounts to several billions of dollars of the public credit of these United States?
"What goods are those which are hidden in European and Asiatic stores have not been seen by any officer of our Government but which are being financed on the public credit of the United States Government? What goods are those upon which the 17 United States Government is being obligated by the Fed to issue Fed Notes to the extent of several billions of dollars a year?
The Bankers' Acceptance Racket
"The Fed have been International Banks from the beginning, with these United States as their enforced banker and supplier of currency. But it is none the less extraordinary to see these these twelve private credit monopolies, buying the debts of foreigners against foreigners, in all parts of the world and asking the Government of these United States for new issues of Fed notes in exchange for them. "The magnitude of the acceptance racket as it has been developed by the Fed, their foreign correspondents, and the predatory European born bankers, who set up the Fed here and taught your own, by and of pirates, how to loot the people: I say the magnitude of this racket is estimated to be in the neighborhood of 9,000,000,000 per year. In the past ten years it is said to have amounted to $90,000,000,000.00. In my opinion it has amounted to several times that much. coupled to this you have to the extent of billions of dollars, the gambling in the United States securities, which takes place in the same open discount market- a gambling on which the Fed is now spending $100,000,000.00 per week.
"Fed Notes are taken from the U.S. Government in unlimited quantities. Is is strange that the burden of supplying these immense sums of money to the gambling fraternity has at last proved too heavy for the American people to endure? Would it not be a national [calamity to] again bind down this burden on the backs of the American people and by means of a long rawhide whip of the credit masters, compel them to enter another seventeen years of slavery?
"They are trying to do that now. They are trying to take $100,000,000.00 of the public credit of the United States every week, in addition to all their other seizures and they are sending that money to the nefarious open market in a desperate gamble to reestablish their graft as a going concern.
"They are putting the United States Government in debt to the extent of $100,000,000 a week, and with the money they are buying our Government securities for themselves and their foreign principals. Our people are disgusted with the experiences of the Fed. The Fed is not producing a loaf of bread, a yard of cloth, a bushel of corn, or a pile of cordwood by its check-kiting operations in the money market.
"Mr. Speaker, on the 13th of January of this year I addressed the House on the subject of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation. In the course of my remarks I made the following statement: In 1928 the member banks of the Fed borrowed $60,598,690,000. from the Fed on their fifteen-day promissory notes. Think of it. Sixty billion dollars payable on demand in gold in the course of one single year. The actual amount of such obligations called for six times as much monetary gold as there is in the world. Such transactions represent a grant in the course of one single years of about $7,000,000 to every member of the Fed.
"Is it any wonder that American labor which ultimately pays the cost of all banking operations of this Country has at last proved unequal to the task of supplying this huge total of cash and credit for the benefit of the stock market manipulators and foreign swindlers? "In 1933 the Fed presented the staggering amount of $60,598,690,000 to its member banks at the expense of the wage earners and tax payers of these United States. In 1929, the year of the stock market crash, the Fed advanced $58,000,000,000 to member banks.
"In 1930 while the speculating banks were getting out of the stock market at the expense of the general public, the Fed advanced them $13,022,782,000. This shows that when the banks were gambling on the public credit of these United States as represented by the Fed currency they were subsidized to any amount they required by the Fed. When the swindle began to fall, the bankers knew it in advance and withdrew from the market. They got out with whole skins- and left the people of these United States to pay the piper. "My friend from Kansas, Mr. McGugin, has stated that he thought the Fed lent money on rediscounting. So they do, but they lend comparatively little that way. The real discounting that they do has been called a mere penny in the slot business. It is too slow for genuine high flyers. They discourage it. They prefer to subsidize their favorite banks by making them $60,000,000,000 advances and they prefer to acquire assistance in the notorious open discount market in New York, where they can use it to control the price of stocks and bonds on the exchanges.
"For every dollar they advanced on discounts in 1928, they lent $33.00 to their favorite banks for whom they do a business of several billion dollars income tax on their profits to these United States.
The John Law Swindle
"This is the John Law swindle over again. The theft of Teapot Dome was trifling compared to it. What King ever robbed his subject to such an extent as the Fed has robbed us? Is it any wonder that there have been lately ninety cases of starvation in one of the New York hospitals? Is there any wonder that the children are being abandoned?
"The government and the people of these United States have been swindled by swindlers deluxe to whom the acquisition of American or a parcel of Fed Notes presented no more difficulty than the drawing up of a worthless acceptance in a Country not subject to the laws of these United States, by sharpers not subject to the jurisdiction of these United States, sharpers with strong banking "fence" on this side of the water, a "fence" acting as a receiver of a worthless paper coming from abroad, endorsing it and getting the currency out of the Fed for it as quickly as possible exchanging that currency for gold and in turn transmitting the gold to its foreign confederates.
Ivar Kreuger, the Match King!
"Such were the exploits of Ivar Krueger, Mr. Hoover's friend, and his rotten Wall Street bakers. Every dollar of the billions Kreuger and his gang drew out of this Country on acceptances was drawn from the government and the people of the United States through the Fed. The credit of the United States Government was peddled to him by the Fed for their own private gain. That is what the Fed has been doing for many years.
"They have been peddling the credit of this Government and the [signature of this] Government to the swindlers and speculators of all nations. That is what happens when a Country forsakes its Constitution and gives its sovereignty over the public currency to private interests. Give them the flag and they will sell it.
"The nature of Kreuger's organized swindle and the bankrupt condition of Kreuger's combine was known here last June when Hoover sought to exempt Krueger's loan to Germany of $125,000,000 from the operation of the Hoover Moratorium. The bankrupt condition of Krueger's swindle was known her last summer when $30,000,000 was taken from the American taxpayers by certain bankers in New York for the ostensible purpose of permitting Krueger to make a loan to Colombia. Colombia never saw that money.
"The nature of Krueger's swindle was known here in January when he visited his friend, Mr. Hoover, at the White House. It was known here in March before he went to Paris and committed suicide.
"Mr. Chairman, I think the people of the United States are entitled to know how many billions of dollars were placed at the disposal of Krueger and his gigantic combine by the Fed, and to know how much of our Government currency was issued and lost in the financing of that great swindle in the years during which the Fed took care of Krueger's requirements.
"A few days ago, the President of the United States with a white face and shaking hands, went before the Senate of behalf of the moneyed interests and asked the Senate to levy a tax on the people so that foreigners might know that these United States would pay its debt to them.
"Most Americans thought it was the other way around. What does these United States owe foreigners? When and by whom was the debt incurred? It was incurred by the Fed, when they peddled the signature of the Government to foreigners- for a Price. It is what the United States Government has to pay to redeem the obligations of the Fed.
Thieves Go Scot Free
"Are you going to let these thieves get off scot free? Is there one law for the looter who drives up to the door of the United States Treasury in his limousine and another for the United States Veterans who are sleeping on the floor of a dilapidated house on the outskirts of Washington?
"The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad is here asking for a large loan from the people, and the wage earners and the taxpayers of these United States. It is begging for a handout from the Government. It is standing, cap in hand, at the door of the R.F.C. where all the jackals have gathered to the feast. It is asking for money that was raised from the people by taxation and wants this money of the poor for the benefit of Kuhn, Loeb and Co., the German International Bankers.
"Is there one law for the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad and another for the hungry veterans it threw off its freight cars the other day? Is there one law for sleek and prosperous swindlers who call themselves bankers and another law for the soldiers who defended the flag? "The R.F.C. is taking over these worthless securities from the Investment Trusts with United States Treasury money at the expense of the American taxpayer and the wage earner.
"It will take twenty years to redeem our Government. Twenty years of penal servitude to pay off the gambling debts of the traitorous Fed and to vast flood of American wages and savings, bank deposits, and the United States Government credit which the Fed exported out of this country to their foreign principals.
"The Fed lately conducted an anti-hoarding campaign here. They they took that extra money which they had persuaded the American people to put into the banks- they sent it to Europe- along with the rest. In the last several months, they have sent $1,300,000,000 in gold to their foreign employers, their foreign masters, and every dollar of that gold belonged to the people of these United States and was unlawfully taken from them.
"Mr. Chairman, within the limits of the time allowed me, I cannot enter into a particularized discussion of the Fed. I have singled out the Fed currency for a few remarks because there has lately been some talk here of "fiat money". What kind of money is being pumped into the open discount market and through it into foreign channels and stock exchanges? Mr. Mills of the Treasury has spoken here of his horror of the printing presses and his horror of dishonest money. He has no horror of dishonest money. If he had, he would be no party to the present gambling of the Fed in the nefarious open discount market of New York, a market in which the sellers are represented by 10 discount corporations owned and organized by the very banks which own and control the Fed.
"Fiat money, indeed!
"What Mr. Mills is fighting for is the preservation, whole and entire, of the banker's monopoly of all the currency of the United States Government.
"Mr. Chairman, last December, I introduced a resolution here asking for an examination and an audit of the Fed and all related matters. If the House sees fit to make such an investigation, the people of these United States will obtain information of great value. This is a Government of the people, by the people, for the people. Consequently, nothing should be concealed from the people. The man who deceives the people is a traitor to these United States.
"The man who knows or suspects that a crime has been committed and who conceals and covers up that crime is an accessory to it. Mr. Speaker, it is a monstrous thing for this great nation of people to have its destinies presided over by a traitorous government board acting in secret concert with international usurers.
"Every effort has been made by the Fed to conceal its powers- but the truth is- the Fed has usurped the Government. It controls everything here and it controls all of our foreign relations. It makes and breaks governments at will.
"No man and no body of men is more entrenched in power than the arrogant credit monopoly which operated the Fed. What National Government has permitted the Fed to steal from the people should now be restored to the people. The people have a valid claim against the Fed. If that claim is enforced the Americans will not need to stand in the bread line, or to suffer and die of starvation in the streets. Women will be saved, families will be kept together, and American children will not be dispersed and abandoned.
"Here is a Fed Note. Immense numbers of the notes are now held abroad. I am told that they amount to upwards of a billion dollars. They constitute a claim against our Government and likewise a claim against our peoples' money to the extent of $1,300,000,000 which has within the last few months been shipped abroad to redeem Fed Notes and to pay other gambling debts of the traitorous Fed. The greater part of our money stock has been shipped to other lands.
"Why should we promise to pay the debts of foreigners to foreigners? Why should the Fed be permitted to finance our competitors in all parts of the world? Do you know why the tariff was raised? It was raised to shut out the flood of Fed Goods pouring in here from every quarter of the globe- cheap goods, produced by cheaply paid foreign labor, on unlimited supplies of money and credit sent out of this Country by the dishonest and unscrupulous Fed.
"The Fed are spending $100,000,000 a week buying government securities in the open market and are making a great bid for foreign business. They are trying to make rates so attractive that the human hair merchants and the distillers and other business entities in foreign land will come her and hire more of the public credit of the United States Government to pay the Fed outfit for getting it for them.
World Enslavement Planned
"Mr. Chairman, when the Fed was passed, the people of these United States did not perceive that a world system was being set up here which would make the savings of the American school teacher available to a narcotic-drug vendor in Acapulco. They did not perceive that these United States was to be lowered to the position of a coolie country which has nothing but raw material and heart, that Russia was destined to supply the man power and that this country was to supply the financial power to an "international superstate". A superstate controlled by international bankers, and international industrialists acting together to enslave the world for their own pleasure?
"The people of these United States are being greatly wronged. They have been driven from their employments. They have been dispossessed from their homes. They have been evicted from their rented quarters. They have lost their children. They have been left to suffer and die for lack of shelter, food, clothing and medicine.
"The wealth of these United States and the working capital have been taken away from them and has either been locked in the vaults of certain banks and the great corporations or exported to foreign countries for the benefit of the foreign customers of these banks and corporations. So far as the people of the United States are concerned, the cupboard is bare.
"It is true that the warehouses and coal yards and grain elevators are full, but these are padlocked, and the great banks and corporations hold the keys.
"The sack of these United States by the Fed is the greatest crime in history.
"Mr. Chairman, a serious situation confronts the House of Representatives today. We are trustees of the people and the rights of the people are being taken away from them. Through the Fed the people are losing the rights guaranteed to them by the Constitution. Their property has been taken from them without due process of law. Mr. Chairman, common decency requires us to examine the public accounts of the Government and see what crimes against the public welfare have been committed.
"What is needed here is a return to the Constitution of these United States.
"The old struggle that was fought out here in Jackson's time must be fought our over again. The independent United States Treasury should be reestablished and the Government should keep its own money under lock and key in the building the people provided for that purpose.
"Asset currency, the devise of the swindler, should be done away with. The Fed should be abolished and the State boundaries should be respected. Bank reserves should be kept within the boundaries of the States whose people own them, and this reserve money of the people should be protected so that the International Bankers and acceptance bankers and discount dealers cannot draw it away from them.
"The Fed should be repealed, and the Fed Banks, having violated their charters, should be liquidated immediately. Faithless Government officials who have violated their oaths of office should be impeached and brought to trial.
"Unless this is done by us, I predict, that the American people, outraged, pillaged, insulted and betrayed as they are in their own land, will rise in their wrath, and will sweep the money changers out of the temple.
"Mr. Chairman, the United States is bankrupt: It has been bankrupted by the corrupt and dishonest Fed. It has repudiated its debts to its own citizens. Its chief foreign creditor is Great Britain, and a British bailiff has been at the White House and the British Agents are in the United States Treasury making inventory arranging terms of liquidations!
Great Britain, Partner in Blackmail
"Mr. Chairman, the Fed has offered to collect the British claims in full from the American public by trickery and corruption, if Great Britain will help to conceal its crimes. The British are shielding their agents, the Fed, because they do not wish that system of robbery to be destroyed here. They wish it to continue for their benefit! By means of it, Great Britain has become the financial mistress of the world. She has regained the position she occupied before the World War.
"For several years she has been a silent partner in the business of the Fed. Under threat of blackmail, or by their bribery, or by their native treachery to the people of the United States, the officials in charge of the Fed unwisely gave Great Britain immense gold loans running into hundreds of millions of dollars. They did this against the law! Those gold loans were not single transactions. They gave Great Britain a borrowing power in the United States of billions. She squeezed billions out of this Country by means of her control of the Fed.
"As soon as the Hoover Moratorium was announced, Great Britain moved to consolidate her gains. After the treacherous signing away of American rights at the 7-power conference at London in July, 1931, which put the Fed under the control of the Bank of International Settlements, Great Britain began to tighten the hangman's noose around the neck of the United States.
"She abandoned the gold standard and embarked on a campaign of buying up the claims of foreigners against the Fed in all parts of the world. She has now sent her bailiff, Ramsey MacDonald, here to get her war debt to this country canceled. But she has a club in her hands! She has title to the gambling debts which the corrupt and dishonest Fed incurred abroad.
"Ramsey MacDonald, the labor party deserter, has come here to compel the President to sign on the dotted line, and that is what Roosevelt is about to do! Roosevelt will endeavor to conceal the nature of his action from the American people. But he will obey the International Bankers and transfer the war debt that Great Britain should pay to the American people, to the shoulders of the American taxpayers.
"Mr. Chairman, the bank holiday in the several States was brought about by the corrupt and dishonest Fed. These institutions manipulated money and credit, and caused the States to order bank holidays.
"These holidays were frame-ups! "They were dress rehearsals for the national bank holiday which Franklin D. Roosevelt promised Sir Ramsey MacDonald that he would declare.
"There was no national emergency here when Franklin D. Roosevelt took office excepting the bankruptcy of the Fed- a bankruptcy which has been going on under cover for several years and which has been concealed from the people so that the people would continue to permit their bank deposits and their bank reserves and their gold and the funds of the United States Treasury to be impounded in these bankrupt institutions.
"Under cover, the predatory International Bankers have been stealthily transferring the burden of the Fed debts to the people's Treasury and to the people themselves. They the farms and the homes of the United States to pay for their thievery! That is the only national emergency that there has been here since the depression began.
"The week before the bank holiday ws declared in New York State, the deposits in the New York savings banks were greater than the withdrawals. There were no runs on New York Banks. There was no need of a bank holiday in New York, or of a national holiday.
Roosevelt and the International Bankers
"Roosevelt did what the International Bankers ordered him to do!
"Do not deceive yourself, Mr. Chairman, or permit yourself to be deceived by others into the belief that Roosevelt's dictatorship is in any way intended to benefit the people of the United States: he is preparing to sign on the dotted line! "He is preparing to cancel the war debts by fraud!
"He is preparing to internationalize this Country and to destroy our Constitution itself in order to keep the Fed intact as a money institution for foreigners. "Mr. Chairman, I see no reason why citizens of the United States should be terrorized into surrendering their property to the International Bankers who own and control the Fed. The statement that gold would be taken from its lawful owners if they did not voluntarily surrender it, to private interests, show that there is an anarchist in our Government.
"The statement that it is necessary for the people to give their gold- the only real money- to the banks in order to protect the currency, is a statement of calculated dishonesty!
"By his unlawful usurpation of power on the night of March 5, 1933, and by his proclamation, which in my opinion was in violation of the Constitution of the United States, Roosevelt divorced the currency of the United States from gold, and the United States currency is no longer protected by gold. It is therefore sheer dishonesty to say that the people's gold is needed to protect the currency.
"Roosevelt ordered the people to give their gold to private interests- that is, to banks, and he took control of the banks so that all the gold and gold values in them, or given into them, might be handed over to the predatory International Bankers who own and control the Fed.
"Roosevelt cast his lot with the usurers. "He agreed to save the corrupt and dishonest at the expense of the people of the United States.
"He took advantage of the people's confusion and weariness and spread the dragnet over the United States to capture everything of value that was left in it. He made a great haul for the International Bankers.
"The Prime Minister of England came here for money! He came here to collect cash!
"He came here with Fed Currency and other claims against the Fed which England had bought up in all parts of the world. And he has presented them for redemption in gold.
"Mr. Chairman, I am in favor of compelling the Fed to pay their own debts. I see no reason why the general public should be forced to pay the gambling debts of the International Bankers.
Roosevelt Seizes the Gold
"By his action in closing the banks of the United States, Roosevelt seized the gold value of forty billions or more of bank deposits in the United States banks. Those deposits were deposits of gold values. By his action he has rendered them payable to the depositors in paper only, if payable at all, and the paper money he proposes to pay out to bank depositors and to the people generally in lieu of their hard earned gold values in itself, and being based on nothing into which the people can convert it the said paper money is of negligible value altogether.
"It is the money of slaves, not of free men. If the people of the United States permit it to be imposed upon them at the will of their credit masters, the next step in their downward progress will be their acceptance of orders on company stores for what they eat and wear. Their case will be similar to that of starving coal miners. They, too, will be paid with orders on Company stores for food and clothing, both of indifferent quality and be forced to live in Company-owned houses from which they may be evicted at the drop of a hat. More of them will be forced into conscript labor camps under supervision.
"At noon on the 4th of March, 1933, FDR with his hand on the Bible, took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the U.S. At midnight on the 5th of March, 1933, he confiscated the property of American citizens. He took the currency of the United States standard of value. He repudiated the internal debt of the Government to its own citizens. He destroyed the value of the American dollar. He released, or endeavored to release, the Fed from their contractual liability to redeem Fed currency in gold or lawful money on a parity with gold. He depreciated the value of the national currency.
"The people of the U.S. are now using unredeemable paper slips for money. The Treasury cannot redeem that paper in gold or silver. The gold and silver of the Treasury has unlawfully been given to the corrupt and dishonest Fed. And the Administration has since had the effrontery to raid the country for more gold for the private interests by telling our patriotic citizens that their gold is needed to protect the currency.
"It is not being used to protect the currency! It is being used to protect the corrupt and dishonest Fed. "The directors of these institutions have committed criminal offense against the United States Government, including the offense of making false entries on their books, and the still more serious offense of unlawfully abstracting funds from the United States Treasury! "Roosevelt's gold raid is intended to help them out of the pit they dug for themselves when they gambled away the wealth and savings of the American people.
"The International Bankers set up a dictatorship here because they wanted a dictator who would protect them. They wanted a dictator who would protect them. They wanted a dictator who would issue a proclamation giving the Fed an absolute and unconditional release from their special currency in gold, or lawful money of any Fed Bank.
"Has Roosevelt relieved any other class of debtors in this country from the necessity of paying their debts? Has he made a proclamation telling the farmers that they need not pay their mortgages? Has he made a proclamation to the effect that mothers of starving children need not pay their milk bills? Has he made a proclamation relieving householders from the necessity of paying rent?
Roosevelt's Two Kinds of Laws
"Not he! He has issued one kind of proclamation only, and that is a proclamation to relieve international bankers and the foreign debtors of the United States Government.
"Mr. Chairman, the gold in the banks of this country belongs to the American people who have paper money contracts for it in the form of national currency. If the Fed cannot keep their contracts with United States citizens to redeem their paper money in gold, or lawful money, then the Fed must be taken over by the United States Government and their officers must be put on trial.
"There must be a day of reckoning. If the Fed have looted the Treasury so that the Treasury cannot redeem the United States currency for which it is liable in gold, then the Fed must be driven out of the Treasury.
"Mr. Chairman, a gold certificate is a warehouse receipt for gold in the Treasury, and the man who has a gold certificate is the actual owner of a corresponding amount of gold stacked in the Treasury subject to his order.
"Now comes Roosevelt who seeks to render the money of the United States worthless by unlawfully declaring that it may No Longer be converted into gold at the will of the holder.
"Roosevelt's next haul for the International Bankers was the reduction in the pay of all Federal employees.
"Next in order are the veterans of all wars, many of whom are aged and inform, and other sick and disabled. These men had their lives adjusted for them by acts of Congress determining the amounts of the pensions, and, while it is meant that every citizen should sacrifice himself for the good of the United States, I see no reason why those poor people, these aged Civil War Veterans and war widows and half-starved veterans of the World War, should be compelled to give up their pensions for the financial benefit of the International vultures who have looted the Treasury, bankrupted the country and traitorously delivered the United States to a foreign foe.
"There are many ways of raising revenue that are better than that barbaric act of injustice.
"Why not collect from the Fed the amount they owe the U.S. Treasury in interest on all the Fed currency they have taken from the Government? That would put billions of dollars into the U.S. Treasury.
"If FDR is as honest as he pretends to be, he will have that done immediately. And in addition, why not compel the Fed to disclose their profits and to pay the Government its share?
"Until this is done, it is rank dishonesty to talk of maintaining the credit of the U.S. Government. "My own salary as a member of Congress has been reduced, and while I am willing to give my part of it that has been taken away from me to the U.S. Government, I regret that the U.S. has suffered itself to be brought so low by the vultures and crooks who are operating the roulette wheels and faro tables in the Fed, that is now obliged to throw itself on the mercy of its legislators and charwomen, its clerks, and it poor pensioners and to take money out of our pockets to make good the defalcations of the International Bankers who were placed in control of the Treasury and given the monopoly of U.S. Currency by the misbegotten Fed. "I am well aware that the International Bankers who drive up to the door of the United States Treasury in their limousines, look down with scorn upon members of Congress because we work for so little, while they draw millions a year. The difference is that we earn, or try to earn, what we get- and they steal the greater part of their takings.
Enemies of the People They Rob
"I do not like to see vivisections performed on human beings. I do not like to see the American people used for experimental purposes by the credit masters of the United States. They predicted among themselves that they would be able to produce a condition here in which American citizens would be completely humbled and left starving and penniless in the streets.
"The fact that they made that assertion while they were fomenting their conspiracy against the United States that they like to see a human being, especially an American, stumbling from hunger when he walks. "Something should be done about it, they say. Five-cent meals, or something! "But FDR will not permit the House of Representatives to investigate the condition of the Fed. FDR will not do that. He has certain International Bankers to serve. They not look to him as the man Higher Up who will protect them from the just wrath of an outraged people.
"The International Bankers have always hated our pensioners. A man with a small pension is a ward of the Government. He is not dependent upon them for a salary or wages. They cannot control him. They do not like him. It gave them great pleasure, therefore, to slash the veterans.
"But FDR will never do anything to embarrass his financial supporters. He will cover up the crimes of the Fed.
"Before he was elected, Mr. Roosevelt advocated a return to the earlier practices of the Fed, thus admitting its corruptness. The Democratic platform advocated a change in the personnel of the Fed. These were campaign bait. As a prominent Democrat lately remarked to me; "There is no new deal. The same old crowd is in control."
"The claims of foreign creditors of the Fed have no validity in law. The foreign creditors were the receivers- and the willing receivers- of stolen goods! They have received through their banking fences immense amounts of currency, and that currency was unlawfully taken from the United States Treasury by the Fed.
"England discovered the irregularities of the Fed quite early in its operations and through fear, apparently, the Fed have for years suffered themselves to be blackmailed and dragooning England to share in the business of the Fed. "The Fed have unlawfully taken many millions of dollars of the public credit of the United States and have given it to foreign sellers on the security of the Debt paper of foreign buyers in purely foreign transactions, and when the foreign buyers refused to meet their obligations and the Fed saw no honest way of getting the stolen goods back into their possession, they decided by control of the executive to make the American people pay their losses!
Conspiracy of War Debts
"They likewise entered into a conspiracy to deprive the people of the U.S. of their title to the war debts and not being able to do that in the way they intended, they are now engaged in an effort to debase the American dollar so that foreign governments will have their debts to this country cut in two, and then by means of other vicious underhanded arrangements, they propose to remit the remainder.
"So far as the U.S. is concerned, the gambling counters have no legal standing. The U.S. Treasury cannot be compelled to make good the gambling ventures of the corrupt and dishonest Fed. Still less should the bank deposits of the U.S. be used for that purpose. Still less should the national currency have been made irredeemable in gold so that the gold which was massed and stored to redeem the currency for American citizens may be used to pay the gambling debts of the Fed for England's benefit. "The American people should have their gold in their own possession where it cannot be held under secret agreement for any foreign control bank, or world bank, or foreign nation. Our own citizens have the prior claim to it. The paper [money men] have in their possession deserves redemption far more than U.S. currency and credit which was stolen from the U.S. Treasury and bootlegged abroad.
"Why should the foreigners be made preferred creditors of the bankrupt U.S.? Why should the U.S. be treated as bankrupt at all? This Government has immense sums due it from the Fed. The directors of these institutions are men of great wealth. Why should the guilty escape the consequences of their misdeeds? Why should the people of these U.S. surrender the value of their gold bank deposits to pay off the gambling debts of these bankers? Why should Roosevelt promise foreigners that the U.S. will play the part of a good neighbor, 'meeting its obligations'?
"Let the Fed meet their own obligations.
"Every member of the Fed should be compelled to disgorge, and every acceptance banker and every discount corporation which has made illegal profits by means of public credit unlawfully bootlegged out of the U.S. Treasury and hired out by the crooks and vultures of the Fed should be compelled to disgorge.
Federal Reserve Pays No Taxes
"Gambling debts due to foreign receivers of stolen goods should not be paid by sacrificing our title to our war debts, the assets of the U.S. Treasury- which belong to all the people of the U.S. and which it is our duty to preserve inviolate in the people's treasury.
"The U.S. Treasury cannot be made liable for them. The Fed currency must be redeemed by the Fed banks or else these Fed banks must be liquidated.
"We know from assertions made here by the Hon. John N. Garner, Vice-President of the U.S. that there is a condition in the [United States such] would cause American citizens, if they knew what it was, to lose all confidence in their government.
"That is a condition that Roosevelt will not have investigated. He has brought with him from Wall Street, James Warburg, the son of Paul M. Warburg. Mr. Warburg, alien born, and the son of an alien who did not become naturalized here until several years after this Warburg's birth, is a son of a former partner of Kuhn, Loeb and Co., a grandson of another partner, a nephew of a former partner, and a nephew of a present partner.
"He holds no office in our Government, but I am told that he is in daily attendance at the Treasury, and that he has private quarters there! In other words, Mr. Chairman, Kuhn, Loeb and Company now has control and occupy the U.S. Treasury.
Preferred Treatment for Foreigners
"The text of the Executive order which seems to place an embargo on shipments of gold permits the Secretary of the Treasury, a former director of the corrupt, to issue licenses at his discretion for the export of gold coin, or bullion, earmarked or held in trust for a recognized foreign government or foreign central bank for international settlement. Now, Mr. Chairman, if gold held in trust for those foreign institutions may be sent to them, I see no reason why gold held in trust for American as evidenced by their gold certificates and other currency issued by the U.S. Government should not be paid to them. "I think that American citizens should be entitled to treatment at least as good as that which the person is extending to foreign governments, foreign central banks, and the bank of International Settlements. I think a veteran of the world war, with a $20.00 gold certificate, is at least as much entitled to receive his own gold for it, as any international banker in the city of New York or London.
"By the terms of this executive order, gold may be exported if it is actually required, for the fulfillment of any contract entered into prior to the date of this order by an applicant who, in obedience to the executive order of April 5, 1933, has delivered gold coin, gold bullion, or gold certificates. "This means that gold may be exported to pay the obligations abroad of the Fed which were incurred prior to the date of the order, namely, April 20, 1933.
"If a European Bank should send 100,000,000 dollars in Fed currency to a bank in this country for redemption, that bank could easily ship gold to Europe in exchange for that currency. Such Fed currency would represent "contracts" entered into prior to the date of the order. If the Bank of International Settlements or any other foreign bank holding any of the present gambling debt paper of the Fed should draw a draft for the settlement of such obligation, gold would be shopped to them because the debt contract would have been entered into prior to the date of order.
Crimes and Criminals
"Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of constitutional privilege.
"Whereas, I charge. . .Eugene Meyer, Roy A. Young, Edmund Platt, Eugene B. Black, Adolph Casper Miller, Charles S. Hamlin, George R. James, Andrew W. Mellon, Ogden L. Mills, William H. Woo W. Poole, J.F.T. O'Connor, members of the Federal Reserve Board; F. H. Curtis, J.H. Chane, R.L. Austin, George De Camp, L.B. Williams, W.W. Hoxton, Oscar Newton, E.M. Stevens, J.S. Wood, J.N. Payton, M.L. McClure, C.C. Walsh, Isaac B. Newton, Federal Reserve Agents, jointly and severally, with violations of the Constitution and laws of the United States, and whereas I charge them with having taken funds from the U.S Treasury which were not appropriated by the Congress of the United States, and I charge them with having unlawfully taken over $80,000,000,000 from the U.S. Government in the year 1928, the said unlawful taking consisting of the unlawful creation of claims against the U.S. Treasury to the extent of over $80,000,000,000 in the year 1928; and I charge them with similar thefts committed in 1929, 1930, 1931, 1932 and 1933, and in years previous to 1928, amounting to billions of dollars; and
"Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally with having unlawfully created claims against the U.S. Treasury by unlawfully placing U.S. Government credit in specific amounts to the credit of foreign governments and foreign central banks of issue; private interests and commercial and private banks of the U.S. and foreign countries, and branches of foreign banks doing business in the U.S., to the extent of billions of dollars; and with having made unlawful contracts in the name of the U.S. Government and the U.S. Treasury; and with having made false entries on books of account; and
"Whereas I charge them jointly and severally, with having taken Fed Notes from the U.S. Treasury and with having put Fed Notes into circulation without obeying the mandatory provision of the Fed Act which requires the Fed Board to fix an interest rate on all issues of Fed Notes supplied to Fed Banks, the interest resulting therefrom to be paid by the Fed Banks to the government of the U.S. for the use of the Fed Notes, and I charge them of having defrauded the U.S. Government and the people of the U.S. of billions of dollars by the commission of this crime, and
"Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with having purchased U.S. Government securities with U.S. Government credit unlawfully taken and with having sold the said U.S. Government securities back to the people of the U.S. for gold or gold values and with having again purchased U.S. Government securities with U.S. Government credit unlawfully taken and with having again sold the said U.S. Government security for gold or gold values, and I charge them with having defrauded the U.S. Government and the people of the U.S. by this rotary process; and
"Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with having unlawfully negotiated U.S. Government securities, upon which the Government liability was extinguished, as collateral security for Fed Notes and with having substituted such securities for gold which was being held as collateral security for Fed Notes, and with having by the process defrauded the U.S. Government and the people of the U.S., and I charge them with the theft of all the gold and currency they obtained by this process; and
"Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with having unlawfully issued Fed currency on false, worthless and fictitious acceptances and other circulating evidence of debt, and with having made unlawful advances of Fed currency, and with having unlawfully permitted renewals of acceptances and renewals of other circulating evidences of debt, and with having permitted acceptance bankers and discount dealer corporations and other private bankers to violate the banking laws of the U.S.; and
"Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with having conspired to have evidences of debt to the extent of $1,000,000,000 artificially created at the end of February, 1933, and early in March 1933, and with having made unlawful issues and advances of Fed currency on the security of said artificially created evidences of debt for a sinister purpose, and with having assisted in the execution of said sinister purpose; and
"Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with having brought about the repudiation of the currency obligations of the Fed Banks to the people of the U.S. and with having conspired to obtain a release for the Fed Board and the Fed Banks from their contractual liability to redeem all Fed currency in gold or lawful money at the Fed Bank and with having defrauded the holders of Fed currency, and with having conspired to have the debts and losses of the Fed Board and the Fed Banks unlawfully transferred to the Government and the people of the U.S., and
"Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with having unlawfully substituted Fed currency and other irredeemable paper currency for gold in the hands of the people after the decision to repudiate the Fed currency and the national currency was made known to them, and with thus having obtained money under false pretenses; and
"Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with having brought about a repudiation of the notes of the U.S. in order that the gold value of the said currency might be given to private interests, foreign governments, foreign central banks of issues, and the Bank of International Settlements, and the people of the U.S. to be left without gold or lawful money and with no currency other that a paper currency irredeemable in gold, and I charge them with having done this for the benefit of private interests, foreign governments, foreign central banks of issue, and the bank of International Settlements; and
"Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with conniving with the Edge Law banks, and other Edge Law institutions, accepting banks, and discount corporations, foreign central banks of issue, foreign commercial banks, foreign corporations, and foreign individuals with funds unlawfully taken from the U.S. Treasury; and I charge them with having unlawfully permitted and made possible 'new financing' for foreigners at the expense of the U.S. Treasury to the extent of billions of dollars and with having unlawfully permitted and made possible the bringing into the United States of immense quantities of foreign securities, created in foreign countries for export to the U.S. and with having unlawfully permitted the said foreign securities to be imported into the U.S. instead of gold, which was lawfully due to the U.S. on trade balances and otherwise, and with having lawfully permitted and facilitated the sale of the said foreign securities in the U.S., and
"Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with having unlawfully exported U.S. coins and currency for a sinister purpose, and with having deprived the people of the U.S. of their lawful medium of exchange, and I charge them with having arbitrarily and unlawfully reduced the amount of money and currency in circulation in the U.S. to the lowest rate per capita in the history of the Government, so that the great mass of the people have been left without a sufficient medium of exchange, and I charge them with concealment and evasion in refusing to make known the amount of U.S. money in coins and paper currency exported and the amount remaining in the U.S. as a result of which refusal the Congress of the U.S. is unable to ascertain where the U.S. coins and issues of currency are at the present time, and what amount of U.S. currency is now held abroad; and
"Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with having arbitrarily and unlawfully raised and lowered the rates of money and with having arbitrarily increased and diminished the volume of currency in circulation for the benefit of private interests at the expense of the Government and the people of the U.S. and with having unlawfully manipulated money rates, wages, salaries and property values both real and personal, in the U.S. by unlawful operations in the open discount market and by resale and repurchase agreements unsanctioned by law, and
"Whereas I charge them jointly and severally, with having brought about the decline in prices on the New York Stock Exchange and other exchanges in October, 1929, by unlawful manipulation of money rates and the volume of U.S. money and currency in circulation: by theft of funds from the U.S. Treasury by gambling in acceptances and U.S. Government securities; by service rendered to foreign and domestic speculators and politicians, and by unlawful sale of U.S. gold reserves abroad, and
"Whereas the unconstitutional inflation law imbedded in the so-called Farm Relief Act by which the Fed Banks are given permission to buy U.S. Government securities to the extent of $3,000,000,000 and to drew forth currency from the people's Treasury to the extent of $3,000,000,000 is likely to result in connivance on the part of said accused with others in the purchase by the Fed of the U.S. Government securities to the extent of $3,000,000,000 with U.S. Government's own credit unlawfully taken, it being obvious that the Fed do no not intend to pay anything of value to the U.S. Government for the said U.S. Government securities no provision for payment in gold or lawful money appearing in the so-called Farm Relief bill- and the U.S. Government will thus be placed in a position of conferring a gift of $3,000,000,000 in the U.S. Government securities on the Fed to enable them to pay more on their bad debts to foreign governments, foreign central banks of issue, private interests, and private and commercial banks, both foreign and domestic, and the Bank of International Settlements, and
"Whereas the U.S. Government will thus go into debt to the extent of $3,000,000,000 and will then have an additional claim of $3,000,000,000 in currency unlawfully created against it and whereas no private interest should be permitted to buy U.S. Government securities with the Government's own credit unlawfully taken and whereas currency should not be issued for the benefit of said private interest or any interests on U.S. Government securities so acquired, and whereas it has been publicly stated and not denied that the inflation amendment of the Farm Relief Act is the matter of benefit which was secured by Ramsey MacDonald, the Prime Minister of Great Britain, upon the occasion of his latest visit to the U.S. Treasury, and whereas there is grave danger that the accused will employ the provision creating U.S. Government securities to the extent of $3,000,000,000 and three millions in currency to be issuable thereupon for the benefit of themselves and their foreign principals, and that they will convert the currency so obtained to the uses of Great Britain by secret arrangements with the Bank of England of which they are the agents, and for which they maintain an account and perform services at the expense of the U.S. Treasury, and that they will likewise confer benefits upon the Bank of International Settlements for which they maintain an account and perform services at the expense of the U.S. Treasury; and
"Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with having concealed the insolvency of the Fed and with having failed to report the insolvency of the Fed to the Congress and with having conspired to have the said insolvent institutions continue in operation, and with having permitted the said insolvent institutions to receive U.S. Government funds and other deposits, and with having permitted them to exercise control over the gold reserves of the U.S. and with having permitted them to transfer upward of $100,000,000,000 of their debts and losses to the general public and the Government of the U.S., and with having permitted foreign debts of the Fed to be paid with the property, the savings, the wages, and the salaries of the people of the U.S. and with the farms and the homes of the American people, and whereas I charge them with forcing the bad debts of the Fed upon the general public covertly and dishonestly and and with taking the general wealth and savings of the people of the U.S. under false pretenses, to pay the debts of the Fed to foreigners; and
"Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with violations of the Fed Act and other laws; with maladministration of the h evasions of the Fed Law and other laws; and with having unlawfully failed to report violations of law on the part of the Fed Banks which, if known, would have caused the Fed Banks to lose their charters, and
"Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with failure to protect and maintain the gold reserves and the gold stock and gold coinage of the U.S. and with having sold the gold reserves of the U.S to foreign Governments, foreign central banks of issue, foreign commercial and private banks, and other foreign institutions and individuals at a profit to themselves, and I charge them with having sold gold reserves of the U.S. so that between 1924 and 1928 the U.S. gained no gold on net account but suffered a decline in its percentage of central gold reserves from the 45.9 percent in 1924 to 37.5 percent in 1928 notwithstanding the fact that the U.S. had a favorable balance of trade throughout that period, and
"Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with having conspired to concentrate U.S. Government securities and thus the national debt of the U.S. in the hands of foreigners and international money lenders and with having conspired to transfer to foreigners and international money lenders title to and control of the financial resources of the U.S.; and
"Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with having fictitiously paid installments on the national debt with Government credit unlawfully taken; and
"Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with the loss of the U.S. Government funds entrusted to their care; and
"Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with having destroyed independent banks in the U.S. and with having thereby caused losses amounting to billions of dollars to the said banks, and to the general public of the U.S., and
"Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with the failure to furnish true reports of the business operations and the true conditions of the Fed to the Congress and the people, and having furnished false and misleading reports to the congress of the U.S., and
"Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with having published false and misleading propaganda intended to deceive the American people and to cause the U.S. to lose its independence; and
"Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with unlawfully allowing Great Britain to share in the profits of the Fed at the expense of the Government and the people of the U.S.; and
"Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with having entered into secret agreements and illegal transactions with Montague Norman, Governor of the Bank of England; and
"Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with swindling the U.S. Treasury and the people of the U.S. in pretending to have received payment from Great Britain of the amount due on the British ware debt to the U.S. in December, 1932; and
"Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with having conspired with their foreign principals and others to defraud the U.S. Government and to prevent the people of the U.S. from receiving payment of the war debts due to the U.S. from foreign nations; and
"Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with having robbed the U.S Government and the people of the U.S. by their theft and sale of the gold reserves of the U.S. and other unlawful transactions created a deficit in the U.S. Treasury, which has necessitated to a large extent the destruction of our national defense and the reduction of the U.S. Army and the U.S. Navy and other branches of the national defense; and
"Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, of having reduced the U.S. from a first class power to one that is dependent, and with having reduced the U.S. from a rich and powerful nation to one that is internationally poor; and
"Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with the crime of having treasonable conspired and acted against the peace and security of the U.S. and with having treasonable conspired to destroy constitutional Government in the U.S.
"Resolve, That the Committee on the Judiciary is authorized and directed as a whole or by subcommittee, to investigate the official conduct of the Fed agents to determine whether, in the opinion of the said committee, they have been guilty of any high crime or misdemeanor which in the contemplation the Constitution requires the interposition of the Constitutional powers of the House. Such Committee shall report its finding to the House, together with such resolution or resolutions of impeachment or other recommendations as it deems proper.
"For the purpose of this resolution the Committee is authorized to sit and act during the present Congress at such times and places in the District of Columbia or elsewhere, whether or not the House is sitting, has recessed or has adjourned, to hold such clerical, stenographic, and other assistants, to require of such witnesses and the production of such books, papers, and documents, to take such testimony, to have such printing and binding done, and to make such expenditures as it deems necessary."
After some discussion and upon the motion of Mr. Byrns, the resolution and charge was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
"Attacks on McFadden's Life Reported"
Commenting on Former Congressman Louis T. McFaddens's "heart-failure sudden-death" on Oct. 3, 1936, after a "dose" of "intestinal flu," "Pelley's Weekly" of Oct. 14 said:
Now that this sterling American patriot has made the Passing, it can be revealed that not long after his public utterance against the encroaching powers of Judah, it became known among his intimates that he had suffered two attacks against his life. The first attack came in the form of two revolver shots fired at him from ambush as he was alighting from a cab in front of one of the Capital hotels. Fortunately both shots missed him, the bullets burying themselves in the structure of the cab.
"He became violently ill after partaking of food at a political banquet at Washington. His life was only saved from what was subsequently announced as a poisoning by the presence of a physician friend at the banquet, who at once procured a stomach pump and subjected the Congressman to emergency treatment."
/s/ Robert Edward Edmondson (Publicist-Economist)
President Andrew Jackson stated in reference to the bankers at the start of his administration:
"You are a den of vipers and thieves.
I intend to rout you out, and by the Eternal God, I will rout you out."
On May 23, 1933, Congressman, Louis T. McFadden, brought formal charges against the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Bank system, The Comptroller of the Currency and the Secretary of United States Treasury for numerous criminal acts, including but not limited to, CONSPIRACY, FRAUD, UNLAWFUL CONVERSION, AND TREASON.
The petition for Articles of Impeachment was thereafter referred to the Judiciary Committee and has
YET TO BE ACTED ON.
The Doctrine of Discovery (2015)
Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 5:03 PM
Lôôk at what my friend Bob sent to me in three separate emails. I have placed each article in order in a single email for your review. I have been arguing the issues of Divine Right of Kings and The Doctrine of Discovery for over 20 years as being nothing more then King James and Papal BULL! And, for the past 5 years as to these being in direct conflict with the United Nations' Declaration on Rights of Indigenous People.
In the Federal Court Case of UNITED STATES OF AMERICA verses five Chief of Akwesasne (Three Feathers Case), the US Attorner in his opening remarks to the jury claimed the Divine Right of Kings and that the UNITED STATES held that right as king over all of North America. Please note he did not claim right over land supposedly under the control of the UNITED STATES, he claimed right to the land of all of North America.
We had filed Notice and Demand to Strike the US Attorners pleadings against Three Feathers based on the United Nations' Declaration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples and Harry Daniels v Her Majesty the Queen, which declares that Onkwehonwe have the right of self-determination and self-governance; and need not the recognition of some superior lord or master (government).
Also, moved to recuse Judge Hurd for be a bigot, and he did step down; however, the new assigned Judge, in an ex-parte Star-Chamber proceeding, immediately dismissed our Notice and Demand to Strike. (Hurd's view of Onkwehonwe are that they are just dumb sheople waiting to be fleeced or led to slaughter.) Thankfully, at the next hearing Rarahkwisere refiled that Notice and Demand to Strike in open court. The US Attorner immediately moved to have it stricken from the Record. The Judge looked down at him and said I think not, since I have a feeling that they intended to appeal. When documents are filed in open Court it is very difficult for the Court to bury said documents, and those documents can be brought forward on appeal.
Also see Writ of Habeas that was filed by Bishop David-Andrew as next-of-friend on behalf of Rarahkwisere before the US Supreme Court. That Writ has never been heard by the Supreme Court, nor has it been returned or money refunded. It is quite obvious that that Writ was too hot to handle since it was the first time that any challenge as to the constitutionality of US Indian Law has ever been made before the US Supreme Court. If the US Supreme Court were to hear the Writ, they would be required to rule US Indian Law as unconstitutional, and if they return the Writ they would admit the sovereignty of an Onkwehonwe Nation. Three United States Districts Court have already admitted to that right of sovereignty.
Rarahkwisere, Kani, Bishop David-Andrew and Raonhaa Okwaho, thought that they were alone in this fight, however from the following information it is obvious that several others have been in the fight for the past 5 years, as well. It should, also, be noted the the Canadian government for the past 2 years has been trying to gut or have the Harry Daniels v Her Majesty the Queen decision overturned, since both Queen Elizabeth and the Canadian government still peddle the notion of Divine Right of Kings, which is rex lex (king is law), and not lex rex (law is king).
I will be posting this information and links on http://lonewolfterritory.com the official website of the sovereign Onkwehonwe Nation, in spite of the claims by the corporate State of New York and corporate United States, and the fraudulent claims of liens by Saint Lawrence County Supreme CT (a private corporation trust and subsidiary of Corporation Trust Corporation, which is owned by the British Crown), who have no jurisdiction here, since Lone Wolf Territory is without their jurisdiction and has been since April 2011.
Sad to say most so-called Onkwehonwe nations have waived their rights to sovereignty in that they have set themselves up as mere corporate entities or corporation trusts of the District of Criminals or one of its territorial States. Only corporation soles are not subject to superior lords or masters (government), since they are the superior lords and masters. See definition for corporation and corporation sole in Webster's 1828 Editions, which can be found online.
My friend Bob also sent me another article on The Doctrine of Discovery. I will follow this email with an article published by the United Nations, which documents that the European Crown Royals and the Vatican still claim to own North, Central and South America. Why do you think that the Pope is coming to the Americas? He is coming to lay claim just as the Queen came to lay her claim to North America back in 2007. They claimed the Americas because none of the Nations thereon had posted their borders. "A nation without (posted) borders, is not a nation," in accordance to Roman Law. To this day very few Onkwehonwe Nations have bothered to post their borders.
The Doctrine of Discovery (2015)
Workshop on the Doctrine of Discovery and UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Washington DC, 25-26 June 2015
This is part two on the Doctrine of Discovery.
My friend Bob sent me several more emails on Doctrine of Discovery. The article at the end is about US Supreme Court rulings. The of the first articles were published by the United Nations, which documents that the European Crown Royals and the Vatican still claim to own North, Central and South America.
Why do you think that the Pope is coming to the Americas? He is coming to lay claim just as the Queen came to lay her claim to North America back in 2007. They claimed the Americas because none of the Nations thereon had posted their borders. "A nation without (posted) borders, is not a nation," in accordance to Roman Law. To this day very few Onkwehonwe Nations have bothered to post their borders.
These are two documents that you need to take a look at and read what is stated here:
The Iroquois and the Cherokee Nations are the sons of Joseph, Ephraim and Manasseh. Many of the descendants of Joseph and the descendants of his brother Benjamin left Canaan Land about 700 to 800 BC by sail ships, prior to the Babylonian invasion.
(Those, who propagate the doctrine of British Israelism, teach that England is Ephraim and that the Anglo-Saxon Americans are Manasseh. What HOGWASH! Queen Elizabeth was not crowned Queen of England, she was crowned Queen of Israel, a claim of right that she abdicated in October 1996 and returned King David's Throne Chair to Edinburgh Castle in May 1997.)
The descendants of Benjamin settled what is now called Iceland. In actuality the descendants of Ephraim and Manasseh are the true discoverers of North America. They lived in the land which flowed with milk and honey from sea to shinning sea in virtual peace, the land of unwalled cities for over 2000 years. And, like their father Joseph, who welcomed his brothers in Egypt, they too welcomed their brothers (Scots and Irish are descendants of Judah) when they came to America (heavenly kingdom), where the Great Spirit (Yah) was worshiped.
However, then came the Zionist slave traders (the Beast) and the Roman Catholic Church (the Image to the Beast) to eat out the substance of the land and to enslave or murder the People, destroying all of their cities; and there has been no peace in the land ever since.
For those, who have interest about half way through the United Nations' report there is a brief statement by OREN LYONS, speaking on behalf of the Onondaga Nation. Most Onkwehonwe, who know Oren Lyons know that he is a Seneca and not an Onondaga as he claims, that he is a Masonic demoniac and a sellout. Some people know that he is also a cold blooded murderer, though it is still not known as to whether he personally dismembered Ronnie Jones or hired the hit. This is a burning question that I have always wanted to ask him to his face and came close to doing such one day at a gas station, but he hurriedly drove away. It always amazes me as to how and why Uncle Toms are supposedly so popular, even though it is known that they are enriching themselves at the expense of others.
Sad to say, most representatives, who speak before the United Nations are sellouts who are there to give flowery speeches with no intent on producing any meaningful results; while seeking personal gain, expecting to have their palms greased for selling out their people's hopes and dreams.
It also, amazes me that the United Nations is so unwilling to live up to its own Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples for the past 4 to 8 years, by still denying Onkwehonwe the right of self-determination and demanding that Onkwehonwe Nations receive recognition of three member nation States before being consider for membership. And that the United Postal Union, a division of the UN, refuses to issue Onkwehonwe Nations their own postal (zip) codes without first receiving United Nations recognition. It sure looks as they are all involved in racketeering at the expense of the small nation States.
It appears that the United Nations Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples is just mere window dressing to appease Onkwehonwe of the world, since the action of the United Nations' membership has been absolute hypocrisy. The little guys are not allowed to play with big boys toys, nor are they being allowed equal standing as claimed by the United Nations' own Charter.
While Great Britain and the United States (the Beast or Lion with Eagles Wings) are allowed to suppress, invade or destroy one Nation after another with Vatican approval, and obviously with UN approval, as well, exacting genocide upon those people and forcing their Nations to submit to the dictates of this evil beast.
Also, may I recommend that you take six minutes and watch Rod Taylor, an Oneida, explain the nanny state in which we live. This may prove the most valuable six minutes that you have ever spent, since he just might effect the way you think about government. http://sirdavidandrew.com/videos/you_are_a_slave_to_the_Government.flv
Pay close attention, since Rod states some very valid points for consideration. I think that I should post links to Rod's lecture on http://lonewolfterritory.com website, as well, for all the world to see and hear. This video has been posted on the above website for at least 4 years and on YouTube even longer then that.
‘Doctrine of Discovery’, Used for Centuries to Justify Seizure of Indigenous Land, Subjugate Peoples, Must Be Repudiated by United Nations, Permanent Forum Told | Meetings Coverage and Press Releases
- ‘Doctrine of Discovery’, Used for Centuries to Justify Seizure of Indigenous Land, Subjugate Peoples, Must Be Repudiated by United Nations, Permanent Forum Told
‘Doctrine of Discovery’, Used for Centuries to Justify Seizure of Indigenous Land, Subjugate Peoples, Must Be Repudiated by United Nations, Permanent Forum Told
‘Doctrine of Discovery’, Used for Centuries to Justify Seizure of Indigenous Land, Subjugate Peoples, Must Be Repudiated by United Nations, Permanent Forum Told
|Department of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York|
Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues
3rd & 4th Meetings (AM & PM)
‘Doctrine of Discovery’, Used for Centuries to Justify Seizure of Indigenous Land,
Subjugate Peoples, Must Be Repudiated by United Nations, Permanent Forum Told
Speakers Call for Mechanism to Investigate Historical Land Claims;
Also Holds Dialogue on Land Use and Participatory Mechanisms in Arctic
The Doctrine of Discovery had been used for centuries to expropriate indigenous lands and facilitate their transfer to colonizing or dominating nations, speakers in the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues stressed today, urging the expert body to study the creation of a special mechanism, under United Nations auspices, to investigate historical land claims.
Those forceful calls came amid continued debate on this year’s special theme: the enduring impact of the Discovery Doctrine on indigenous peoples and the right to redress for past conquests covered under articles 28 and 37 of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Throughout the day, representatives of indigenous groups, Governments and United Nations funds, agencies and programmes aired their views on the need to more justly reflect indigenous rights and freedoms in national constitutions and other comprehensive agreements.
Indigenous and native peoples spoke out against continued use of the internationally recognized principle of “terra nullius” — which describes land belonging to no one but that could, in some cases, be acquired through occupation — as well as anachronistic norms, like the Regalian Doctrine, under which private land title emanates from the Spanish crown. Such principles were based on racist, unscientific assumptions, many said, and could not be used by States to justify the “theft” of native lands, territories or natural resources.
Others argued that the Discovery Doctrine — and its contemporary effect — should be studied by the Permanent Forum, as should indigenous legal systems to understand how they regarded its application. The term “conquest” should not be used in a manner to suggest that conquest had occurred. Echoing the comments of many, Steven Newcomb of the North American Caucus said the original free and independent existence of indigenous peoples — and their relationship with their territories — predated domination by western Christendom. That free existence was the source of their birthright.
For their part, Government representatives described efforts to compensate indigenous peoples for past and present inequities. Mexico’s delegate said electoral justice was one way to guarantee rights. “With electoral justice, we redress social injustice”, he declared. It was important to recognize customary law and respect the rights to self-determination and self-recognition. Consultations were needed to understand whether elections should take place under ordinary systems, or in accordance with traditional systems.
Chile’s representative said his country had participated in negotiations to create the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and had voted in favour of the text in the General Assembly. Chile recognized First Peoples as a fundamental part of the nation’s identity and culture. That commitment was reflected in a policy intended to fill the gap between the “two populations”.
Still other speakers pointed out that “terra nullius” had impeded conservation practices, contrary to the intended purpose of those measures. Gonzalo Oviedo, Senior Advisor on Social Policy at the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) highlighted the need to correct those processes in cases where indigenous peoples had suffered losses. IUCN was working with the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the President of the Permanent Forum to improve processes for naming international heritage sites.
Robert Williams, Professor of Native American Studies, University of Arizona, who spoke on yesterday’s panel on the Discovery Doctrine, said that outrage over the Doctrine explained the repeated and compelling calls for the General Assembly to renounce such documents, and to make it clear that they could not be used by States to claim indigenous lands, territories or natural resources. Assembly action was essential, he said, because of the false position that territorial sovereignty asserted under those doctrines was a “we’re sorry, we can’t do anything about it” fact.
Panellist Moana Jackson, Maori Lawyer from New Zealand, added that one could only surmise from the “astounding” silence by States that had benefitted from the Doctrine that they presumed it held legitimacy. “That is, at best, unfortunate, and at worst, an evasion of their responsibilities,” he said.
Going forward, redefining relationships through constitutional review was important for outlining a vision of reconciliation, peace and justice, said Valmaine Toki, Permanent Forum Member from New Zealand. She suggested a return to an indigenous perspective in such constructive agreements.
In other business, Expert Dalee Sambo Dorough, from the United States, introduced the Permanent Forum’s study on the Indigenous participatory mechanisms in the Arctic Council, the Circumpolar Inuit Declaration on Resource Development principles in the Inuit Nuaat and the Laponia management system (document E/CN.9/2012/10.), and Expert Anna Naykachina, from Russian Federation, introduced the study on the impacts of land use change and climate change on indigenous reindeer herders’ livelihoods and land management, including culturally adjusted Criteria for indigenous land use (document E/CN.19/2014.4).
Participating in the debate on the “Doctrine of Discovery” were representatives of the following: Asian Indigenous People’s Caucus, Indigenous People’s of Africa Coordinating Committee, Pacific Indigenous Caucus, Latin American Indigenous Peoples Caucus, Indigenous Parliament of Venezuela, United Federation of Taino Peoples/Project Access Global Training Caucus, International Indigenous Forum for Women (FIMI), International Indian Treaty Council, Maori Caucus, San Caucus, Onondaga Nation, Australia Human Rights Commission, Global Indigenous Youth Caucus, Indian Confederation of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples International, North East Zone, Continental Network of Indigenous Women of the Americas, National Native Title Council of Australia, Consejo nacional de Ayllus y Markas del Qullasuyu, Centro para la Autonomia y Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indigenas, and the North Africa Indigenous Caucus (TUNFA)
Speaking as Observers in the Forum were the representatives of Paraguay, Bolivia, Brazil, Guyana, and Australia.
The Deputy Head of the Delegation of the European Union spoke on that topic, as did a representative of the Holy See.
The representatives of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), also participated in that debate.
Also making brief statements were Permanent Forum members Saul Vicente Vazquez, of Mexico, Valmaine Toki, of New Zealand, and Alvaro Esteban Pop of Guatemala.
Speaking on the studies introduced were the representatives of the Arctic Caucus, Association of the indigenous Peoples of the North, Siberia and the Far East Russian Federation (RAIPON), Association of World Reindeer Herders, and the Saami Council.
Representatives of Russian Federation, Sweden, and Finland also commented on the reports, as did a representative of the Government of Greenland (Denmark).
A representative of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) also spoke.
The United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues will reconvene at 10 a.m. Wednesday to continue its dialogue on the on the special theme for the session, the impact of the “Discovery Doctrine”.
The Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues continued its open debate on the special theme for the year: “The Doctrine of Discovery: its enduring impact on indigenous peoples and the right to redress for past conquests (articles 28 and 37 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples)”. For more information, see Press Release HR/5086.
JACQUELINE BERNADETTE CARINO, Asia Caucus, said the Regalian Doctrine referred to the rights of the King of Spain, conferred through his conquest of the Philippines. The Doctrine provided the basis for subsequent laws depriving indigenous peoples of their lands, by outlining that title must be traced to the Spanish crown, or thereafter, to the United States Government, which contravened indigenous rights. The Philippines Constitution stated that all lands and natural resources in the public domain belonged to the State. The Regalian Doctrine was at the core of the conflict between indigenous peoples and the Philippines Government. Indigenous peoples were asserting their right to self-determination when confronted with mining, logging and dam projects. On the other hand, the Government was insisting on the right to take over resources for the public good. That resulted in serious violations of the rights enshrined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
The Doctrine of Native Title had arisen from a 1909 United States Supreme Court decision in a case that had been filed by her great grandfather versus the colonial Government in the Philippines, she said. That Government had appropriated indigenous lands for the establishment of a military camp. The Supreme Court had declared that, because the land had been held by individuals prior to the Spanish conquest, it hence would be held in the same manner. The lands had not been in the public domain prior to the Spanish conquest. She insisted that the Doctrine of Discovery, including the Regalian Doctrine, be abrogated; that the Doctrine of Native Title be upheld; and that all laws and policies under the Regalian Doctrine be reversed.
CARLOS MARIA AQUINO, Vice Minister of Justice of Paraguay, said indigenous peoples — recognized as existing prior to the formation of the Paraguayan State — had the right to freely apply their political, economic, social and cultural systems, and observe customary norms, provided those norms did not violate the Constitution. Paraguay had ratified International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention No. 169 through its law 234 (1993). The national plan for human rights was launched in 2011 in full compliance with the Vienna Programme of Action.
He said it outlined four strategic axes, one of which sought to guarantee the property and possession of lands by indigenous peoples, respecting those living in voluntary isolation. It also proposed awareness-building about the multicultural nature of Paraguay. The Government planned to design human rights indicators — a self-assessment mechanism — based on methodological guidelines. Among other efforts, the Human Rights Ministry had published information on ILO Convention No. 169, while the Supreme Court of Justice had organized an international seminar on the property rights of indigenous peoples. New challenges required new orientations in public policy and a deep respect for the identity of indigenous peoples.
IOANNIS VRAILAS, Deputy Head of the Delegation of the European Union, encouraged all States to increase their efforts to ensure the full respect for indigenous peoples’ rights. Supporting the core United Nations mechanisms addressing indigenous issues — the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and the Permanent Forum — he welcomed the current focus on violence against indigenous women and girls, as it was important to recognize that poverty and discrimination increased the risk of such abuse.
He said indigenous rights were being mainstreamed into the Union’s development cooperation, noting that a rights-based approach was taken in the financial support for indigenous peoples around the world. The key principle for safeguarding indigenous peoples’ rights was to ensure their full participation and the free and prior informed consent of the communities concerned. The Union provided financial support for the development of the Arctic region, and neighbouring areas, through a regional approach. He cited the “Kolarctic” programme in that regard. Voicing deep concern about the threats of climate change, he said the Union had participated in activities carried out under the Convention on Biological Diversity by supporting indigenous peoples’ contribution to the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity.
AGNES LEINA, Indigenous Peoples of Africa Coordinating Committee, said that her delegation would urge the Permanent Forum and the Special Rapporteur on the human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples to hold a special dialogue session with the African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights to study the importance of the Richtersveld constitutional case and the problem of “terra nullius” — “land belonging to no one” — which had inspired legal discrimination across Africa. It should also cooperate to identify specific problems faced by nomadic indigenous peoples in relation to land and natural resource tenure, as a result of “terra nullius” and agricultural and sedentary biases in colonial and post-colonial legislation and constitutions. That work should be carried out in cooperation with the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).
The end result of such a session should be a broad-based study on the situation of indigenous peoples of Africa that would consider the impact of principles that had long led to land seizures by colonial Powers. As most indigenous people in Africa were mobile land users, they had been unable to show that they were permanent residents on their land, even if they had used, or lived on, it for centuries. The first major effort to address legal issues regarding the annexation of aboriginal land and titles had taken place only in 2001, when the Constitutional Court of South Africa had ruled on the land and mineral rights issue of the indigenous Nama pastoralists against mining interests. She said that, going forward, the Forum should stress the importance of indigenous traditions and cultures in the context of land rights and stewardship.
JULIA RAMOS (Bolivia) said that indigenous people and communities continued to face the “harsh reality” of the effects of the Doctrine of Discovery. Yet, those people, especially indigenous women, continued to stand firm, live on their lands and seek better lives. For the first time, Bolivia had elected a President that truly understood the needs and demands of the country’s indigenous people.
“Whatever the colour of our skin, whatever the texture of our hair, we deserve the same opportunities. We deserve to live decent lives,” she declared, adding that grass roots movements in Bolivia were making solid progress in areas such as food security, which would ultimately help the entire country. While much remained to be done, she said indigenous people were determined “to get out from under the table and sit at it” to work with the State to ensure that all people were on an equal footing. She also said that professional women should share their experiences with women in the informal sector, who also had important life lessons to share.
SERENA HECKLER, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, drew attention to some of the agency’s activities to promote the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, including pressing ahead with work on its policy to engage with those peoples. That process, begun in 2010, aimed to appropriately position UNESCO’s programmes, procedures and activities with respect to the new international landscape that was emerging, in the wake of the adoption of the Declaration. It also sought to build awareness and provide guidance to staff and committees, in order to effectively implement the Convention in all UNESCO’s work.
As education was at the core of its mandate, UNESCO was carrying out a range of relevant activities, she said, mentioning, among others, an Asia multilingual Education working group that was working to remove barriers of access to quality education for ethno-linguistic communities, through coordinating technical and substantive support to relevant initiatives throughout Asia. She also cited UNESCO’s Local and Indigenous Knowledge System (LINKS), which collaborated with indigenous education experts, local communities and education ministers to implement projects in Nicaragua and the Solomon Islands aimed at reinforcing mother language education and incorporating indigenous knowledge into education materials and curriculums.
LOPAKA LUIS ULUMAHEIHEI, Pacific Indigenous Caucus, urged all Member States to ensure that their respective national legislative bodies undid colonial legal structures and ensured that all polices and laws were in line with the tenets of the Declaration. Such national authorities must also submit to a periodic review of their land tenure policies. They should provide indigenous peoples the legal and political mandate to “decolonize” national constitutions, especially concerning land rights. He also recommended that the Forum “be bold” in advocating the dismantling of the Discovery Doctrine across all Member States.
He went on to say that, for centuries, there had been a concerted effort to evict indigenous and first peoples from their sovereign and sacred lands. The ongoing project to disenfranchise those people had amounted to “one of the greatest crimes known to humankind”, and had altered the trajectory of indigenous men, women and future generations. For indigenous people of the Pacific region, the Doctrine continued to impact their efforts to use or gain access to their ancestral lands. That Doctrine, which had been significantly cited to support legal decisions that ignored or invalidated aboriginal land possession in favour of colonial or post-colonial Governments, had reinforced the concept of genocide for countless people in the region, including in the Hawaiian islands. He called for the demilitarization of the Hawaiian Islands, where the native people continued to live in deplorable conditions.
In another example of the impact of the Doctrine, he said the arrogance of Australia’s colonizers continued to negatively affect the aboriginal peoples of the Torres Island Strait through the forcible removal from their lands, segregation and assimilation. At the same time, non-indigenous people had been given immense opportunities to lease, purchase, inherit and exploit the lands and resources to the detriment of the traditional and sovereign powers. The Caucus, therefore, called urgently on States to overturn legal philosophies and decisions that had enabled the dispossession of indigenous peoples from their lands and waters.
STEVEN NEWCOMB, North American Caucus, recommended that the United Nations confirm that the Doctrine of Discovery was legally and morally wrong, and could not be relied upon by Governments in law-making or litigation. The Permanent Forum should safeguard indigenous peoples’ sovereignty in European-derived frameworks, and be encouraged — in cooperation with States — to study the effects of the Doctrine of Discovery on indigenous lands, as well as its use by States as a basis for policies and laws. The findings of such studies should be presented to the Forum.
He also recommended that a meeting be held to study the effects of domination on indigenous peoples. The Permanent Forum should urge States to repeal laws based on the Doctrine. Further, there must be educational opportunities for young people to learn about the Doctrine and refute it. Appropriate United Nations bodies should carry out an educational campaign to raise awareness. The term “conquest” should not be used by the Permanent Forum in a manner to suggest that conquest had occurred. The original free and independent existence of indigenous peoples, and their relationship with their territories, predated the domination of western Christendom. That free existence was the source of their birthright.
DIEGO MOREJÓN (Brazil) said 13 per cent of his country was recognized as indigenous land. Some 400 of those lands had been formally declared as such, while 300 others were currently being formalized. Brazil respected the autonomy of dozens of isolated indigenous peoples, with policies aimed at protecting their lands to prevent peoples from being affected — in the twenty-first century — by the mistakes of colonization.
He said Brazil considered indigenous peoples as “protagonists” in the upcoming Rio+20 Conference. Brazil’s policy on the protection of indigenous lands was one of redress. Put into practice by the Brazilian National Indigenous Foundation, it took into account indigenous human rights, as well as historical, social and cultural characteristics. The assurance of full ownership by indigenous peoples of their lands was an indispensable measure to foster demographic recovery. Brazil’s redress policy aimed at correcting “asymmetries” stemming from colonization. On 2 May, the Supreme Federal Court confirmed the rights of the Pataxó Hã-hã-hãe people over the Caramuru Paraguassu indigenous land, in the state of Bahia, ending a legal dispute that had endured for almost a century.
GONZALO OVIEDO, Senior Advisor on Social Policy, International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN), recognized that the despoilment of indigenous lands derived from the Doctrine of Discovery. Some conservation practices — including the establishment of protected areas — had, at times, deprived peoples of their rights and lands from being protected, through “terra nullius”. He was aware of the need to correct those processes in cases where indigenous peoples had suffered losses. Progress had been made in having a rights-based focus, through work to promote indigenous peoples’ rights in conservation throughout the world. IUCN had worked to promote better governance, as a fundamental part of environmental sustainability.
With other advisory bodies last November, IUCN worked with the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the President of the Permanent Forum to improve processes for naming international heritage sites. In that context, he urged that the principle of free, prior and informed consent be respected in the United Nations Collaborative Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries (UN-REDD), and other environmental conservation practices. IUCN’s fifth international congress would identify opportunities to apply rights-based focuses in support of human well-being and environmental sustainability. Discussion would centre on how to ensure more indigenous peoples could join IUCN, and he urged them to apply for membership.
ORTENZIA HIDALGO, Latin American Indigenous Peoples Caucus, said European conquerors used the cross and the sword to impose their doctrine; one god and one king. They obtained a papal dispensation to Christianize indigenous peoples — and created the criminal notion of superior and inferior races. That was the cruel origin of capitalism. Today, multinational corporations prioritized economies based on extractive activities, especially in petroleum, water and timber. They invaded indigenous territories and systematically violated rights.
“The new god is free trade”, she said, and Mother Earth was being abused. That “extractionist” neoliberal model was reaching its end. World summits did not provide any real space for indigenous peoples to participate. Those responsible for climate change talked about a “green economy” only as a way to persist in policies that pillaged mother earth. She urged the United Nations to ensure that indigenous peoples exercised their rights to self-determination, and to free, prior and informed consultation and consent, especially on any climate change or sustainable development programme that impacted indigenous rights. She also called for a moratorium on extractive activities on indigenous lands.
ESTEBAN RAMOS, President of the Indigenous Parliament of Venezuela, said that, as had been the case of other countries in the region, the Discovery Doctrine had been used to strip the people of their land in the name of Christianity. While Simon Bolivar had liberated the indigenous people from reservations and had ensured their rights were respected, many of those innovations had been later thrown out.
In that regard, the current Bolivarian progressive Government had worked assiduously to undo the structures of the Doctrine that remained in place. The current Constitution included a chapter on the rights of indigenous people, with a specific focus on ancestral land rights. The Constitution also set out the framework for a true multi-ethnic and plurinational society. There was no doubt that the Government had undertaken great efforts to return the lands to indigenous people for their benefit.
PAULINE SUKHAI, Minister of Amerindian Affairs of Guyana, said that her country had not escaped colonialism and its impact. The earlier post-independence period had offered little consolation regarding the redress of wrongs against indigenous peoples. Against such a backdrop, Guyana, home to some 70,000 indigenous peoples, had taken on the challenge of ensuring that issues regarding indigenous peoples were mainstreamed into national development priorities, thus providing a solid platform for those peoples to participate at all levels in national development. It would also allow them to self-govern village-level projects and developments.
She went on to say that the rights of indigenous peoples were entrenched in Guyana’s Constitution through the 2006 Amerindian Act. That legislation provided for, among others, land rights, resource management, self-governance and other aspects of indigenous livelihood. In many ways, the Constitution and the relevant legislative polices echoed the Declaration, she said, adding that indigenous peoples were also represented in the institutions dealing with matters relating to their well-being. “ Guyana, however, is not blinded by its progress and recognizes that there is much to be done to further enhance indigenous priorities into the national development process,” she concluded.
PELLICIER MIGDALIA, Unified Confederation of Taino Peoples, Project Access Global Training Caucus, said the impacts of the Discovery Doctrine were still blatantly prevalent today in, among others, deforestation, mining, the proliferation of environmental toxins, and the construction of hydro-electric dams and other mega projects. She unequivocally rejected the Discovery Doctrine, the principle of “terra nullius”, and the use of the term “conquest” to describe the process of non-indigenous settlement in the lands and territories of indigenous peoples.
She said that her group also noted the recent decision of the Human Rights Council to appoint a Special Rapporteur on truth, justice and reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence. It proposed that the Permanent Forum’s Expert Group Meeting consider, within the next year, the development of conflict resolution and peacebuilding models, based on a framework set out in the relevant articles of the Declaration. Finally, she proposed that traditional and indigenous holders of knowledge and practice, as well as indigenous women and youth, attend the Expert Group Meetings.
DAVID LAWSON, United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) representative to the Congo and Director of the UNFPA Country Office in Gabon, said that with the numbers of indigenous peoples of Congo having decreased sharply since 2007, their very existence was at risk. Indigenous communities in that country struggled with high maternal mortality, and increased vulnerability to sexual violence due to isolation. Another key challenge was that those communities continued to practice medicine in ways that contradicted modern medical procedures. Yet, the Congo Government was committed to addressing the situation and had drawn on the advantages of UNFPA to provide technical and other assistance in that regard.
He said the agency’s main objective was to reduce maternal and infant mortality among indigenous women and newborns, and to prevent HIV infections and adolescent pregnancies. UNFPA had contributed to a legal reform process under way in the country, including in the formulation of policies and programmes that recognized the importance of increasing access to culturally acceptable sexual and reproductive health services.
He also noted that, with legislative elections set to be held this year, the Fund was working with indigenous women, local authorities, parliamentarians and the Congo Government, with financial support from the United States, on an innovative programme aimed at enhancing indigenous women’s participation in policy decision-making processes. That initiative would help ensure they would be able to vote in July and in local polls next year, as well as prepare them to run for elections themselves.
ANGEL PEREZ, Comisión de la Juventud Indígena/FIMI, recommended that States implement constitutional reforms in order to: include the individual and collective rights of indigenous peoples; implement mechanisms for their participation in a constitutional review; implement sensitization campaigns and training for authorities charged with the administration of justice; design and implement measures to ensure compliance with international conventions, such as the Declaration; and implement mechanisms to promote the participation of indigenous youth in political processes. In sum, she affirmed her commitment to the Permanent Forum, saying she would fight for recognition of all indigenous peoples’ rights.
JUAN PABLO CRISOSTONO (Chile) said his country had participated in negotiations for the establishment of the Declaration and had voted in favour of the text in the General Assembly. Discussing Chilean policy, he highlighted the recognition of the “first peoples” as a fundamental part of national identity and culture. That commitment was reflected in a policy that respected first peoples’ customs, and was intended to fill the gap between the “two populations” in Chile. A participatory view was needed to protect indigenous peoples, including their culture, identity and education.
He said that Chile, to work with indigenous peoples — at times in a broadened institutional structure — had adopted instruments with an indigenous focus. To encourage participation — and compliance with ILO Convention 169 — Chile had developed, with indigenous peoples, plans for development, training and support. Chile was working hard to ensure it had regulations to govern a consultation process. From 2012-2013, the Government would undertake constitutional reforms to recognize indigenous peoples and the multicultural nature of Chile. Scholarships had been given to first peoples, especially for university studies. Indigenous peoples were meeting the Millennium Development Goals and the Government was working to obtain better information, so that policies could be better focused on indigenous peoples.
DANIKA LITTLECHILD, International Indian Treaty Council, condemned the Doctrine of Discovery in its past and current manifestations. Its devastating impact had been seen in continued violence, imposed development, destruction of sacred sites and forced relocation of indigenous peoples. She recognized recent advances in the international arena in dispute resolution between indigenous peoples and States. She cited the 20 April 2012 adoption of strong language at the fourteenth session of negotiations for the proposed American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in Washington, D.C.
In that context, she recommended the development of models for conflict resolution, restitution, redress and peacebuilding using the framework offered through the Declaration in articles 27, 28 and 40. The Expert Group Meeting would offer indigenous peoples a chance to discuss such ideas. She strongly urged the Permanent Forum to recommend that its name be changed to the “United Nations Permanent Forum on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples”.
ALEJANDRO LUNA RAMOS (Mexico) shared the Forum’s belief that there must be compensation for the exclusion that indigenous peoples faced. He referred to the Doctrine of Discovery in that context, and policies of domination. Mexico understood the need to combat the exclusion faced by indigenous communities, especially by providing electoral justice to guarantee peoples rights and defend the rights of citizens and communities. “With electoral justice, we redress social injustice,” he said.
In Oaxaca and Michoacán, actions had been taken in defence of electoral justice, he explained, describing the findings of one particular case. In that context, he underlined the importance of full recognition of indigenous customary law; the exercise of redressing deficiencies in reports presented by indigenous peoples; respect for the rights to self-determination and self-recognition; and respect for the right to consultations, in order to understand whether elections should take place under the ordinary system or in accordance with the traditional system.
CATHERINE DAVIS, Maori Caucus, recommended that, in recognizing the urgent imperative to remedy the profound prejudice her peoples faced, the Permanent Forum should urge the Government of New Zealand not to implement any findings from its current constitutional review process without the free, prior and informed consent of the Maori peoples. New Zealand’s human rights protections were fragile, as Parliament could routinely pass discriminatory legislation.
While she noted that yesterday the Government’s representative had noted the “fundamental importance” of the Waitangi Treaty, she stressed that it was the Maori translation — not the English version — that remained of fundamental importance. Her delegation also believed that the ongoing constitutional review was merely cosmetic and that many of the changes under consideration were not in line with the aims of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
TINE MOREH SMITH (Norway) said the rights of the Saami people had been protected in that country since 1988. The relevant provisions of the Constitution had stressed that the Norwegian Government would ensure that the Saami culture and way of life was to be maintained and considered “a natural and historic” part of Norwegian society. It also stated that Norway had been founded on the land of two peoples, Saami and Norwegian.
SAUL VICENTE VASQUEZ, Permanent Forum expert from Mexico, said large multinational corporations continued to implement the Discovery Doctrine today, with “conquests” that included seizure of land and the erasing of fragile indigenous cultures. He cited relevant reports that hundreds of millions of hectares of land were sold each year “in the name of so-called civilization”. What was worse was that solutions to many of today’s challenges — climate change, food insecurity — actually perpetuated the conditions that had led to them, including consolidating power in a few countries and placing a handful of institutions in charge of implementing so-called globally agreed initiatives.
“The Declaration is the instrument we need to oppose and reverse the effects of the Doctrine of Discovery,” he said, calling for full recognition of the rights of indigenous people in all laws and polices worldwide. He also called for the name of the Forum to be changed to the “Permanent Forum of the United Nations for the Rights of Indigenous Peoples”. In addition, he called for a study on the creation of a mechanism to solve disputes between nation States and their indigenous peoples.
JOB MORRIS, San Caucus, said that the San of Southern Africa called for recognition of their land and resource rights in all the categories of land in that region — State land, freehold land, communal land, conservancies, wildlife management areas and reserved areas. The group also called for close consultation on all development projects, including those involving extractive resource exploration and exploitation. In all that, there should be no involuntary relocation from protected areas, including national parks, game reserves and monuments. He went on to say that San and other Africans rejected the Discovery Doctrine. “We have lived on the African continent for millions of years and occupied and utilized all of the habitats of the continent for years before Europeans arrived,” and he called on Southern African Governments, the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and the African Union to recognize their role “as stewards and custodians of the Earth”.
Closing Remarks on the Special Theme
Panellist ROBERT WILLIAMS, Professor of Native American Studies, University of Arizona, said a number of interventions had been heard on the Doctrine of Discovery, and the use of legal principles to justify the expropriation and theft of indigenous lands. Speakers had cited the use of “terra nullius” in Australia and Africa, and the Regalian Doctrine in the Philippines. Regardless of the names of such instruments, their intent was the same: to expropriate indigenous lands and facilitate their transfer to the colonizing or dominating nation.
It was indisputable that such principles were clearly based on racist and unscientific assumptions, he said, which explained the repeated and compelling calls for the General Assembly to renounce such documents, and to make it clear that they were illegitimate, and could not be used by States as claims to indigenous lands, territories or natural resources. Assembly action was essential because of the false position that territorial sovereignty asserted under those doctrines was a fact — a “we’re sorry, we can’t do anything about it” approach. On the issue of temporality, there was a view that unlawfulness must be determined by prevailing law at a given time, he said, but which law: that of the colonizer or the indigenous people?
A colonial mindset was reflected in many State approaches in trying to resolve land claims, he said, citing Canada’s land claims process in that regard, which was typical of a failed approach. Canada had negotiated treaties with the proviso that the treaties were not intended to resolve historical claims. Rather, Canada said they were designed to assert certainty — notably by modifying Aboriginal rights title. “We’re told they must be forward-looking to provide a basis for economic development,” he said. He had been impressed by a suggestion by the Saami for a special mechanism to be created under United Nations auspices to investigate land claims. That would help ensure implementation of articles 28 and 37.
Panellist MOANA JACKSON, Maori Lawyer, New Zealand, said that during the discussion, there had been an “astounding” silence by States that had benefitted from the Doctrine of Discovery. One could only surmise that they presumed that the legitimacy under the Doctrine still held. “That is, at best, unfortunate and at worst an evasion of their responsibilities,” he said. New Zealand’s remarks were “blatantly dishonest” in the assertion that its relationship with indigenous peoples was particular and based on the Treaty of Waitangi. The delegate failed to say that while that treaty was being negotiated, the British had exercised the Doctrine of Discovery over the land twice. It was remarkable that New Zealand had chosen to ignore that fact.
Examination of the Doctrine of Discovery — and notions of its contemporary effect — should consider the question of legitimacy, he said. Indigenous peoples had no legitimacy at the time of the Doctrine’s promulgation. He agreed it should be studied, as should indigenous legal systems for how they regarded its application. Further, any study of the Doctrine should include use of the term “conquest”, which was tied into its ethos. He complimented all participants for their forthright views and their eloquence in expressing them. Finally, he had heard the disturbing news that the youth caucus had been banned from attending future sessions of the Permanent Forum. Some had had their badges removed because they had protested this morning. It was unacceptable that any young people should be banned simply for stating their rights. “That is at best a colonizing action on the part of this organization,” he said.Rounding out the discussion, VALMAINE TOKI, Permanent Forum Member from New Zealand, said it was undisputed that the Doctrine of Discovery had been used to alienate and violate indigenous rights to land and culture. The process of redefining relationships through constitutional reviews provided an important lens to understanding the Doctrine, and outlining a vision for reconciliation, peace and justice. She suggested a return to an indigenous perspective in such constructive agreements. It was imperative that discussions continue among States, the United Nations and indigenous peoples, in order to build a future based on mutual respect, trust, equity and justice.
Chief OREN LYONS, speaking on behalf of the Onondaga Nation, said that with the General Assembly’s adoption of the Declaration in 2007, indigenous people had finally “taken their places at the table of humanity.” Being at the table was very important because, according to an old Native American adage “if you’re not at the table, you’re probably on the menu.” And feasting had indeed been going on, with the ancestral lands of indigenous people the main course. But, after centuries of carnage that could be traced back to the Catholic Church and the Christian Crusades, the first peoples were now demanding an accounting.What the world community now called “international law” actually amounted to six centuries of crimes against humanity. The laws of nature, which were at the core of the lives and livelihoods of indigenous peoples, would “eventually win out.” Meanwhile, all peoples of the world would need to cooperate; living in a spirit of collaboration rather than competition. That was vital because the planet was “out of balance” and in order to save it and all the species that dwelled upon it, the past would have to reconciled, and the future would need to be secured through collaborative efforts. Finally, he called for a study on the construct of the Discovery Doctrine and its impact to be compiled and submitted to the Permanent Forum by 2014. As for the work of the Forum, he asked: “When are we going to become ‘peoples’ instead of ‘issues’?”
Dialogue on Studies on Land Use and Participatory Mechanisms in the ArcticThe Permanent Forum turned briefly from its consideration of the Doctrine of Discovery and Expert Dalee Sambo Dorough, from the United States, introduced the Permanent Forum’s study on the Indigenous participatory mechanisms in the Arctic Council, the Circumpolar Inuit Declaration on resource development principles in the Inuit Nuaat and the Laponia management system (document E/CN.9/2012/10.), while Expert Anna Naykachina, from the Russian Federation, introduced the study on the impacts of land use change and climate change on indigenous reindeer herders’ livelihoods and land management, including culturally adjusted criteria for indigenous land use (document E/CN.19/2014.4).
AYASA MUKABENOVA, Senior Councillor, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, said reindeer husbandry was practiced by indigenous communities. It was a way of life for many peoples and it was protected by the Government, despite the lack of a federal law. She said that reindeer enterprises and large companies should establish partnerships, including regarding ownership. She said that reindeer husbandry was being negatively impacted by climate change and that should have been better reflected in the study. There was also a need to ensure that future studies focused on Canada and Alaska, in order to ensure the document was more balanced. She suggested deleting paragraphs 48, 47 and 53 in the study and replacing them with recommendations for all concerned Governments dealing with reindeer herding.AQQALUQ LYNGE, Arctic Indigenous Peoples Caucus, welcomed the comprehensive study of the work of the Arctic Council, and said that it constantly worked to strengthen its capacity, an endeavour that required a great deal of fundraising. In the future, the Arctic Council and its Secretariat would be located in Norway. He noted that the Council had last year negotiated the historic agreement on “Aeronautical and Maritime Search and Rescue in the Arctic”. The Council was a unique institution where indigenous peoples, organizations and Governments were working together and could be a model for other regions of the world, “if the respective Governments were democratically motivated”.
He went on to say that climate change was driving many trends in the Arctic region, including increased exploration of what multinational corporations were beginning to refer to as “the last frontier”, which might change demography of the region by importing cheap labour for large-scale projects. “The world needs to know that the Arctic is already inhabited; it is not a scientific laboratory; it is not a museum. It is our home,” he declared.MÅRTEN GRUNDITZ (Sweden) said his country was currently the 2011-2013 Chair of the Arctic Council. The region was heavily affected by climate change, technological development and increasing commercial activities. Temperatures were rising twice as fast as in other places on the planet. People living in the region had developed unrivalled coping and resilience skills. The Council provided a good example for how indigenous peoples participated in an intergovernmental structure. The six permanent participant organizations were integral to its work. The Council made decisions on programmes and projects that were relevant for sustainable development.
He said Sweden’s chairmanship prioritized issues to promote environmentally sustainable development, and consolidated the positive cooperation between the Arctic States and indigenous peoples. Highlighting some of those efforts, he said the profile of Arctic issues in international forums on climate change had been raised. Measures to reduce the presence of short-lived climate forcers — such as black carbon and methane — could play a significant role in limiting climate change. Environmental protection measures were under way, one of which aimed at increased use of environmental impact assessments for mining, shipping and oil extraction. Other efforts focused on the people of the Arctic, prioritizing food and water security, as well as language preservation.
SERENA HECKLER, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), said UNESCO attended the first board meeting of the Sustaining Arctic Observing Network in Tromso, Norway, in January, where it presented a proposal to support community-based observing systems, based on indigenous knowledge. On climate change, she said UNESCO would co-convene with the International Council for Science a session during the Forum on Science, Technology and Innovation for Sustainable Development during the Rio+20 Conference.
It also would launch a technical report on indigenous knowledge and climate change assessment and adaptation, she said. UNESCO recognized the key role of culture in sustainable development, as well as the nexus between biological diversity and cultural diversity. In June 2010 and April 2012, UNESCO and the secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity organized conferences on their joint programme of work related to biological and cultural diversity.
RODION SULYANDZIGA, Association of Indigenous Peoples of the North, Siberia and Far East of the Russian Federation (RAIPON), said indigenous peoples had the right to self-determination and could freely determine their political status. They had the right to territory, land and resources that historically belonged to them. They had the right to determine their own identities, in line with their own customs and traditions. States should cooperate with indigenous peoples, so they could receive free, prior and informed consent from indigenous peoples to develop indigenous resources. The industrialization of the Arctic region was taking place in the context of climate change.
He said the next decade would see serious trials for ethnic survival and development, amid the impact of climate change on traditional land use and expanding access to mineral resources. There would also be trials for Governments and businesses, and new standards set for social responsibility. He welcomed the Arctic Council as an example of cooperation between States and indigenous peoples. Indigenous rights to land were a most pressing issue. “The North should not be a colony for the use of resources,” he said. The main resource was not oil or gas, but people.
SUVIKKI SILVENNOINEN (Finland) said that, despite their rich cultures and identities, indigenous peoples were often among the most marginalized groups in society, deprived of participation in decision-making that affected their lives. Finland’s Constitution guaranteed the inviolability of human dignity and equality of every person’s fundamental rights. It recognized the status of the Saami as an indigenous people, and protected their right to collectively maintain and develop their language and culture.
She said an objective of the rights reform carried out in the 1990s was to increase the direct applicability of human rights by the courts in their decisions. Thereafter, they referred increasingly to those rights in the reasoning for their decisions. Legislative amendments had been made to improve the consideration of the status of the Saami as an indigenous people. The new Mining Act and Water Act, adopted in March 2011, prohibited measures that impaired their opportunities to engage in their culture and traditional livelihoods. They included provisions on hearing the Saami Parliament and on the right of that Parliament to appeal against decisions made pursuant to those laws.
MIKHAIL POGODAEV, Association of World Reindeer Herders, said that reindeer husbandry was an ancient way of life for at least 20 indigenous groups living in at least nine countries. As economic development expanded and climate change encroached, a new relationship must be forged among herders, national authorities, industries, and environmentalists. Authorities must be provided with better management tools. He said the permanent loss of pasture was the most critical issue for herders. There was a need to find a way to counter the impacts of climate change, as well as to develop and implement sustainable management plans.
With that in mind, he recommended that the Permanent Forum carry out a new study on the impact on herders of the loss of land. Moreover, the Forum should work to ensure that any changes to policies and arrangements that affected the world’s reindeer herding communities must be based on herders’ traditional knowledge and ensure that herders and other nomadic societies were actively included in decision-making processes.
MARIANNE LYKKE THOMSEN, Senior Policy Adviser, Government of Greenland (Denmark), encouraged the Permanent Forum to continue its good practice of carrying out thematic studies as a means to fostering information exchange and sharing of best practices among stakeholders. She said that while the Arctic Council was still a relatively young body, it had drawn increasing international attention because of its unique structure and methodology, especially concerning its studies on the impacts of climate change on the region. It had, over time, increased its focus on the human dimension and she expected that practice to continue in the future.
ANJA JONASSEN, Sami Council, said that since 2006, the Norwegian Supreme Court had held that reindeer husbandry would be governed by property laws. While that could have been seen as a step forward, in practical terms the livelihoods of reindeer herders were still being denied in favour of companies that wished to use traditional land and pastures for their own purposes. To achieve proper compensation and protect Saami livelihoods, the herders must be given the opportunity to take their claims to court. However, a single herder could not bear the costs of what were traditionally lengthy judicial proceedings. Therefore, she said, legal aid was absolutely necessary to help herders protect their livelihoods.
Discussion on Doctrine of Discovery
RAJA DEVASISH ROY, Permanent Forum expert from Bangladesh, agreed that the Discovery Doctrine had no legal standing. It was a racist exercise in legal gymnastics, which was dead. The Permanent Forum could best use its time in dealing with its legacies, which, unfortunately, were “alive and kicking” in national laws and policies on land, forests and natural resources, whether contrary to or in line with national constitutions. Most national constitutions declared that the State belonged to its citizens, including indigenous peoples. Thus, in theory, lands, territories and resources belonged to indigenous peoples. But, indigenous peoples in most countries remained “on the margins of power, law-making and policy-making”. By default, law-making remained an undemocratic exercise.
It was vital that States explore different ways to ensure indigenous participation in governance, he said, which was the only way that indigenous peoples could develop a partnership. They could then undo the legacies of “terra nullius” principles, the Regalian Doctrine and eminent domain, and replace them with a more plebeian people’s doctrine based on customary laws. Undoing the legacies of the Doctrine required compensation and other means of redress for violated land and territorial rights. Article 28 must be read in conjunction with article 27, which referred to indigenous peoples’ laws, traditions, customs and land tenure systems in the context of adjudication and recognition. The process must be fair, impartial and transparent.
KATE GUMLEY (Australia) said her country’s legal and political systems looked to address the legacy of European settlement and work toward a reconciled future. On 2 June 1992, the High Court handed down the landmark “Mabo” decision, recognizing for the first time the existence of a category of indigenous settlement to land that had, in some circumstances, survived contact: “native title”. The Government was committed to building stronger relationships with indigenous peoples based on mutual respect, which was why it delivered a national apology to indigenous Australians on 13 February 2008.
Moreover, Australia was building goodwill by establishing the National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples, she said. The “Closing the Gap” strategy aimed to improve the lives of indigenous Australians in education, housing and employment. On 8 May 2012, the Government released its 2011-2012 budget, which provided $526 million over the next five years to close the gap by boosting education, health and family services. It aimed to increase opportunities for economic participation and employment for indigenous Australians.
MICHAEL GOODA, Australia Human Rights Commission, recommended the Permanent Forum urge States to respond to the First and Second Decades on the World’s Indigenous Peoples Programmes of Action by reviewing their constitutions and laws to ensure indigenous identities and rights were protected. The Permanent Forum should commend those States engaged in processes to recognize indigenous peoples in their constitutions and encourage them to ensure that the process of recognition adhered to the Declaration’s principles. It should also urge States to engage with indigenous peoples on what was necessary to bring the laws into compliance with the Declaration and the core treaty rights it incorporated.
He said the Australian Constitution had originally prevented Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people from being counted as Australians. To this day, it allowed voting restrictions based on race. It did not recognize the rights that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples had by virtue of being indigenous peoples of Australia. Anti-discrimination laws passed by Parliament could be amended, suspended, repealed or overruled by subsequent legislation. Australia must entrench non-discrimination in the Constitution. In 2010, an expert panel was appointed to consider options for recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. He urged the Government to consult with them to ensure a positive outcome when Australians were asked to vote.
LUCAS SWANEPOEL, Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See, reiterated that indigenous peoples and others that were to be discovered by Christians were not to be deprived of their liberty. They could enjoy liberty and possession of their property. That behaviour was outlined in the 1537 Papal bull, and reinforced in 1741 through other encyclicals and decrees. In 1987, Pope John Paul II reaffirmed that position. The forced conversion of non-Christians was condemned by the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council.
The idea that “wars of conquest” were justifiable was incompatible with the documents of that same Vatican Council, he explained. The Church recognized indigenous rights to education and development. The Holy See had always sought dialogue and reconciliation. It had conducted dialogues with indigenous peoples from around the world to reconcile the past and build a future that respected all peoples’ rights.
BRIGHTON DAWN FINGER, Global Indigenous Youth Caucus, reminded the Permanent Forum that earlier in the day, while some of the Caucus’ members had stood peaceably to bring attention to the lack of participation of youth in the Forum’s work, many youth participants had had their accreditation revoked or had been escorted from the premises, while still others had been barred from entering the United Nations “simply because of the way they looked”. All that was clear proof that the effects of the Discovery Doctrine were still being felt and the rights of indigenous people were still being denied.
She went on to say that Doctrine was a perpetuation of global human rights violations that had yet to be properly recognized and remediated on the international stage. It was being used to separate indigenous youth from their families by the border enforcement policies of States. She said that such borders, which divided indigenous lands, communities and territories, had been drawn without free, prior and informed consent and, therefore, infringed on the rights of indigenous families and youth. The crux of the distinct rights of indigenous nations and peoples was the right to self-determination, and that principle was subjugated under the social constructions of superiority and the heart of the “Doctrine of Discovery and Domination”.
With all that in mind, the Youth Caucus recommended that the United Nations fully recognize the “criminality and dehumanization” perpetuated by the Doctrine. That situation actually required a specific set of human rights protections. Truth meant nothing without acknowledging the crimes committed. Overall healing would depend on the willingness of those that had inherited the legacy of the crimes in question, including the Pope, to fully denounce the Doctrine and embrace recommendations for healing.
Finally, she called for the General Assembly to cancel altogether the mandate of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) — “the world piracy organization” — as that agency’s policies continued the exploitation of cultural heritage through the market economy and attempted to “legitimize theft from the inner sanctum of life itself”. The “bio-colonialism” perpetrated by the Convention on Biodiversity’s Nagoya Protocol, in conjunction with the World Trade Organization agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs), must also be rejected.
MUNDA MEENAKASHI, Indian Confederation of Indigenous Tribal Peoples, North East Zone, discussed the history and ethnicity of north-east India and explained that the indigenous communities there wished to ensure the implementation by the Government of acts that guaranteed the protection and promotion of their rights, reversed colonial and post-colonial decisions and structures, and which could eventually lead to tribal self-rule. Land acquisition and mining should only take place in indigenous areas with the free, prior and informed consent of those communities. She called for the proper implementation of the articles of the United Nations Convention.
CELIA HERNANDEZ RODRIGUEZ, Continental Network of Indigenous Women of the Americas, said that the Discovery Doctrine had changed the face of indigenous societies, and had been especially harmful to women and children. As it was based on European Feudalism, the Doctrine had imposed those views on marriage and home life and had raised the needs and wishes of men over and above those of women and children. The binding effects of that had been the loss of leadership roles by women and the overall denegation of their position in society. The Doctrine aimed to ensure that women “could never be other than what general society thought she should be”. The use of violence against indigenous women and the restrictions placed on those women continued to ensure that they could not exercise autonomy over their own bodies. To repudiate and reverse the Doctrine’s ill-effects, she called for States to review and repeal laws that reflected the sexist and ethno-centric elements of the dogma. All States must adopt the Declaration and integrate its Articles as binding national laws, she said.
BRIAN WYATT, National Native Title Council of Australia, recommend that the Human Right’s Council’s universal periodic review process include a call on all States to report on implementation of the Indigenous Rights Convention, in particular the impact of the Discovery Doctrine and actions taken to redress it. The Forum should ensure that States were aware that the lingering effects of the Doctrine had led to unequal development. It should call on all segments of society to raise awareness about more modern doctrines of cultural superiority, which created obstacles for indigenous peoples today. The legal justification for the colonization of Australia had a “confused history”, but the impact of the Doctrine continued to be disastrous for the indigenous peoples of Australia and other former British colonies. The colonies of the area now known as Tasmania had been established more on the basis of arrogance than legal theory, he said, providing examples of how territories in Australia had, for hundreds of years, been acquired through “mediaeval fiction”. He called on the Permanent Forum to raise awareness about the situation of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, who continued to be severely marginalized.
DAVID CRISPIN ESPINOZA, Consejo Nacional de Ayllus y Markas del Qullasuyu (CONAMAQ), said that in Bolivia, there was a distinction between constitutional design and practice. Just as one “could not cover the sun with a finger”, one could not overlook the violation of collective rights. He urged that the State Constitution be respected. “We are being prevented from exercising our rights to autonomy and self-government,” he said, adding that indigenous people must regularly tackle financial and institutional obstacles. They had not been allowed to elect their representatives through their own procedures. A number of candidates self-identified as indigenous peoples had been subjected to a process of “pre-selection”. Community democracy practices had been ignored. That was an act of bad faith.
He said the Government had been urged to guarantee indigenous peoples’ right to consultation and to free, prior, and informed consent, in line with the Constitution. The Government had not complied with those principles, as it wished to consult only after it carried out its activities. Such unconstitutional consultations had serious consequences, as had been seen in recent clashes over mining concessions. To avoid such conflict, CONAMAQ had proposed a consultation framework, to which the Government had not complied. He urged the United Nations to activate sanctions, due to Bolivia’s non-compliance, in order to stop the hostility towards indigenous peoples.
LLOYD BUSHEY, Centro para la Autonomía y Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indígenas, said Governments were temporary. The Doctrine of Discovery was a pretext to justify the looting of indigenous peoples. Nation States then emerged — the heirs to past monarchies. Indigenous peoples were losing hope in the idea of their full rights being fully restored. In the near future, indigenous youth would be assimilated by non-indigenous mainstream society, due to globalization and a lack of opportunity. Some Governments had given positive signals, but much remained to be done.
He said the time had come for Governments and indigenous leaders to make greater commitments. The Permanent Forum must also make a “qualitative leap” by insisting that its resolutions be binding in nature, rather than weak recommendations that, in many cases, were simply filed away. “What we need is unity”, he said, suggesting that next year, the Forum discuss the co-opting of indigenous leaders by Governments and political parties. Often, when an indigenous leader held a post, the grass-roots felt they were no longer represented.
ABUBAKAR AL-BASHIR, North African Indigenous Caucus (TUNFA), said his caucus dealt with the situation of nomadic and traditional communities in a diverse group of countries that included Algeria, Libya, Niger, Mali and Burkina Faso. He added that in the name of socio-economic development, Governments in his region generally pursued policies that either marginalized indigenous peoples or tried to push them towards economic assimilation. That situation needed to be addressed, especially regarding territorial and pastoral structures. One major factor in finding solutions to that issue was access to and control over water sources. Such access was vital for the survival of nomadic communities in and around the Sahel. Tuareg groups were being particularly affected by the policies of regional Governments that contravened the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.ALVARO ESTEBAN POP, Permanent Forum Expert from Guatemala, said indigenous peoples must continue to strive for political participation in a world that basically ignored their perspectives. Moreover, indigenous peoples often did not communicate through dominant languages, and their cultures often did not require documentation that was considered appropriate for participation in national electoral processes. With that being the case, he believed the Permanent Forum should continue to press for recognition of indigenous traditions in democratic structures.
* *** *
Meetings Coverage & Press Releases
United Nations © 2014, New York, NY 10017
News & Media Resources
Supreme Court denies the petition—but because of extraordinary intervening circumstances the case is not over.
- On what, exactly, the district court relies for authority to exercise jurisdiction, despite the fact that Petitioner resides (and Petitioner’s property is located) without the territory over which the court has jurisdiction;
- The particular section of the Internal Revenue Code that is used to ensnare American nontaxpayers into an implied contract that makes them liable to Federal income taxes no matter where they may reside, but also provides the exact procedure whereby any such American can reverse the process, extinguish the implied contract, and be relieved of liability to Federal income taxes;
- The precise meaning of the definition of the most important statutory term in existence, around which literally everything else revolves: “United States”;
- The universal and simple but semi-secret rules of statutory construction (used by Congress to legislate the law into existence and every Federal judge and magistrate and Supreme Court Justice to interpret and pronounce it thereafter) that allow anyone to determine the exact meaning of any definition (no matter how vague, complicated, or confusing) of any statutory term in any body of law; and
Documentary evidence in the record of the case that shows that the district judge is not an impartial arbiter but rather an agent of the plaintiff, i.e., the United States, secretly working in its behalf to defeat Petitioner—a setting known as a kangaroo court:kangaroo court. A self-appointed tribunal or mock court in which the principles of law and justice are disregarded, perverted, or parodied. . . . 2. A court or tribunal characterized by unauthorized or irregular procedures, esp. so as to render a fair proceeding impossible. 3. A sham legal proceeding. Black’s Law Dictionary 7th ed., p. 359* * * *
The Doctrines of Discovery TRUMP ALL jurisdictions.
"Doctrine of Christian Discovery: After Repudiation, What Next?" May 24-25 2014 . Conference: Videos. Papal Bulls of the 15th century gave Christian explorers ...
The Discovery doctrine is a concept of public international law expounded by the United States Supreme Court in a series of decisions, most notably Johnson v.
This “Doctrine of Discovery” became the basis of all European claims in the Americas as well as the foundation for the United States' western expansion. In the ...
Origins of the Doctrine of Discovery. To understand the connection between Christendom's principle of discovery and the laws of the United States, we need to ...
The Doctrine of Discovery is a key premise for non-Indigenous government claims to legitimacy on and sovereignty over Indigenous lands and territories.
"No person shall be…deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…" This idea, which is a bedrock of American democracy, is from the Fifth ...
Sep 9, 2014 ... The Doctrine of Discovery is a series of papal bulls, or decrees, that gave Christian explorers the right to lay claim to any land that was not ...
May 8, 2012 ... The Doctrine of Discovery had been used for centuries to expropriate indigenous lands and facilitate their transfer to colonizing or dominating ...
Vitvan (one who knows), in a Nutshell
Vitvan In A Nutshell
"Fruit tree yielding fruit whose seed is inside itself."
The entire teaching may be found to rest in the
1. The I AM, which is my true Self, is the Power with which I AM conscious of my world.
2. May the Peace and the Power of the Infinite Spirit, which passes all understanding,
Hold us and keep us, in the Love of the Christed Consciousness,
While we are seemingly separated one from another.
3. May the Blessed Ones lead us from Darkness into Light.
4. Sortem Suam Quisque Amet
"May each one love their destiny."
BY WHICH WE UNDERSTAND
Our separation is only seemingly so
WE ALL ARE THE I AM
ALWAYS ALREADY OF AND FROM CHRISTED LIGHT
LED BY OUR BLESSED SELVES TO REMEMBER OUR-SELVES
IN THE DESTINY WE CHOOSE FOR OUR-SELVES.
WE ARE THE ONES [ONE] WE SEEK.
Morgan Stanley – $2.041 trillion
Merrill Lynch – $1.949 trillion
Bank of America – $1.344 trillion
Barclays PLC – $868 billion
Bear Sterns – $853 billion
Goldman Sachs – $814 billion
Royal Bank of Scotland – $541 billion
JP Morgan Chase – $391 billion
Deutsche Bank – $354 billion
UBS – $287 billion
Credit Suisse – $262 billion
Lehman Brothers – $183 billion
Bank of Scotland – $181 billion
BNP Paribas – $175 billion
Wells Fargo – $159 billion
Dexia – $159 billion
Wachovia – $142 billion
Dresdner Bank – $135 billion
Societe Generale – $124 billion
“All Other Borrowers” – $2.639 trillion
Never believe anything until the government officially denies it. –Unknown
All out Warfare on Political Correctness
The Banking Oligarchs
By Nelson Hultberg
Is Trump the Real Deal?
By Nelson Hultberg
How The President Can Secure The Borders
The President could authorize the States to enforce the immigration laws of the United States under statutory authority relating specifically to immigration. The President would not need not take direct command of the Militia which might be called forth to secure the borders and otherwise to police illegal immigrants.......
by Dr, Edwin Vieira, JD, Ph.D.
The Plot to Impose a National Sales Tax or a Value Added Tax
A devilish plot is afoot to impose new national taxes on the American People. It is a masterful piece of trickery because the authorization for the new national taxes is buried within Compact for America’s version of a balanced budget amendment to the US Constitution. Furthermore, the balanced budget amendment does nothing to control federal spending; and transforms our Constitution from one of limited and defined powers to one of general and unlimited powers.......
by Publius Huldah
Planned Parenthood and Federal Threats
We are now seeing the possible prosecution of states that seek to defund Planned Parenthood.
by Al Benson Jr.
A Suggested Survival List
And if you have not been able to find a local church where the pastor isn’t afraid to deal with the kind of issues like I am dealing with in this column, I invite you to worship online with us at Liberty Fellowship. People all over America who are tired of these 501c3, establishment churches--that have no clue as to what is going on and who wouldn’t take a stand if they did--are tuning in to hear my messages at Liberty Fellowship every Sunday afternoon at 2:30pm Mountain Time.......
by Pastor Chuck Baldwin
Please like my Freedom Watch Facebook page and share it with friends:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/3729 et seq.
We just assembled this comprehensive list of findings and conclusions:
The object of civil RICO is thus not merely to compensate victims but to turn them into prosecutors, "private attorneys general," dedicated to eliminating racketeering activity. 3 Id., at 187 (citing Malley-Duff, 483 U.S., at 151 ) (civil RICO specifically has a "further purpose [of] encouraging potential private plaintiffs diligently to investigate"). The provision for treble damages is accordingly justified by the expected benefit of suppressing racketeering activity, an object pursued the sooner the better.
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, Civil RICO: 18 U.S.C. 1964;
Hello Paul,You were briefly a member of the law club and Tam Worth, a close associate, has shared with me some communications you've had with him.I've seen some of the invoices you've issued to the black robes and I'm interested in helping any way I can. I am quite familiar with commercial processes and, while I'm certainly no expert on the matter, nor am I a trained attorney, I do have some experience and have studied the issue closely over the years.I'd be interested to know more about the basis for the invoices and what has been done to perfect the obligation in commercial terms. As you know, an invoice is a reflection of, or a demand upon a pre-existing obligation. So in other words, the question is, how exactly was the liability created and perfected?it is possible to securitize those obligations. In fact there are a couple chapters in my book dealing with some folks who learned exactly how to do that in a way which the banks and the U.S. Treasury accepted and monetized.of course you know you're playing with fire, but fire can be a great tool when controlled properly!I hope to hear from you.MarkWhere empowerment begins... Tyranny ends!