A WEEKLY COMMENTARY
Year Twenty-Nine ... Number Thirty-Three ... August 29, 1982
"ON PRESENTATION ... OF A GRAND JURY"
They're doing it to us again. With variations, of course, so people won't notice what's being done to them. But it's the same old double-cross that was employed so successfully by the Money Barons seventy years ago. We refer to the grand scheme to so divide the majority of voters in such a way that a minority group is sure to win the next election; this time in November, less than three months away. Here's how the scam was worked back in 1912:
In 1907 the people were told that the American economy was going into bankruptcy unless we had a Central Bank. A panic developed because J.P. Morgan spread rumors that the Knickerbocker Bank and Trust Company of America was insolvent. The public believed it, started a run on the bank, and the rumor came true. Next, Congress set up a National Monetary Commission to study how central banking could be brought to the United States. Senator Nelson Aldrich (David Rockefeller's maternal grandfather) headed a group of sixteen Congressmen that spent two years at taxpayer's expense studying central banking in London, Berlin, Paris, Rome, etc. Nothing much came of this particular study. But Paul Warburg, a German banker, came to the United States, worked as an employee of Kuhn, Loeb & Company at a salary of $500,000 a yaer. Quite a salary in 1907. Warburg took charge of the project and where the Aldrich Committee failed, Warburg had great success. However, a presidential election was coming up in 1912, and the man most likely to win, William Howard Taft, was an enemy of the central banking system. So, the Money Barons worked a double whammy. First, they got Teddy Roosevelt to come out of semi-retirement and organize the Bull Moose Party and thus take votes away from Taft. Meanwhile, the Morgan agent Edward Mandell House took charge of the election in 1912, because the Republicans had been divided into two camps. Even so, the Central Bank scheme would never have been approved except by a clever deception. The ones who wanted the central bank to be established appeared to be against it. That swayed enough Congressmen to vote for the bill (the Federal Reserve Act) because they thought the bankers were against it! The smokescreen of opposition worked, so that on December 22, 1913 the Federal Reserve Act was passed, and President Wilson signed it that night.
The obviously unconstitutional Federal Reserve Act was passed because:
We say the Federal Reserve Act was -- and is -- unconstitutional for two obvious reasons. First, the Constitution declares that Congress alone shall have the power "to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin." This power has been transferred to a private corporation over which neither the Congress nor the President has any real control. Secondly: "No State shall .. make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in payment of Debts;" One of the purposes of this provision in the Constitution was to prevent States from permitting the payment of debts in paper money! Although officials choose to ignore this provision, the fact remains that when you pay your taxes in anything other than gold or silver coin, and when the State accepts anything other than gold and silver coin, you both are violating the Law of the Land! The Fed has made it impossible for you or the State to comply, however, by doing away with both gold and silver coin; so that we no longer have a legal dollar; only unredeemable pieces of paper.
Now, notice how this same "divide and conquer" technique is being used by the Money Barons to solve a current problem. We quote from the lead article appearing in Human Events of August 21, 1982:
|
"It was quite a spectacle in the Nation's Capital last week -- the President of the United States, flanked by his old political comrade, Lyn Notzinger, twisting the arms of Reaganite Republicans to support the largest tax hike in U.S. History. Conservatives could hardly believe what was going on. Hadn't this President told them over and over again that it was wrong -- positively harmful -- to weigh the economy does with tax increases, let alone burden it during a recession? Hadn't he repeatedly and vigorously -- stressed that the country can't tax itself into prosperity or a balanced budget or lower interest rates? Well, he had, but last week he was singing a far different tune. "The irony was there for all to contemplate. Here was Ronald Reagan leading the charge for a huge tax hike .. and he had his avid supporters: liberal Democrats, the New York Times, the Washington Post and The New Republic. The most conservative President we've ever had, had also decided to pit himself against his strongest conservative supporters. In the Congress, he was battling such stellear Reaganites as Representatives Mickey Edwards (Okla.), Jack Kemp (N.Y.), New Gingrich (Ga.) and Bob Walker (Pa.). He was at odds with virtually every prominent conservative organization in the country -- from the American Conservative Union to the Conservative Caucus to the Chamber of Commerce. Not a single prominent conservative publication was in his corner, and virtually every conservative columnist ... was vehemently in opposition to this 'revenue enhancement' measure. Nevertheless, the President was pushing hard, insisting that defeat of this kingsized hike would be a disaster to the country. He posed the problem to the country this way: 'For a conservative President like me to have to put his arms around a multi-billion-dollar deficit ... well, it's like holding your nose and embracing a pig.' And so unless his revenue raising measure passes, he contended, the alternative is 'larger budget deficits, higher interest rates and higher unemployment.'" |
So here we see a repeat of the Teddy Roosevelt act of 1912, with this variation: This time it is the "great conservative leader" who becames the "great liberal spender" and splits the conservatives right down the middle, some to follow the lead of their conscience, others to follow their leader. The huge tax bill passed narrowly, may be challenged because of its unconstitutionality, but it makes little difference in that the liberals will have won all those seals they lost to the conservatives in 1980. Reagan has become the Money Baron's political Judas. You see, the stockholders in the Federal Reserve Corporation aren't interested in balanced budgets, or tax reductions, or smaller deficits. The more the federal government owes as a national debt, the more interest they will collect. To them, the principal means nothing, except when it increases the interest to be paid them. So, they're not about to let a Jack Kemp alter their system. And Reagan was their man from the very beginning. That should have become very obvious when Bush became this running mate, and when he named members of the Trilateral Commission or the Council on Foreign Relations to every post having to do with foreign affairs, or federal finances.
Not only is this "divide and conquer" scam similar to that used when the Federal Reserve Act was sneaked in and enacted into law; there is yet another important similarity in that this 1982 taxscam is patently unconstitutional. This measure originated in the Senate. It was introduced by Senator Robert Dole of Kansas, was passed by the Senate, and then sent to the House for discussion and eventual approval. The Constitution, however, is very specific in that "All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other bills." There are rumors that this huge tax bill may be challenged because of its constutitional origin; although this fact was ignored or considered unimportant by a majority in both the Senate and the House. So much for our "representatives" regard for the covenant they swore to uphold and protect when they assumed public office.
WE ARE CONVINCED THAT NO TAX BILL, no budget-balancing amendment, no deficit-diminishing action, no man-made measure of any kind is going to solve our economic and monetary problems. The economy will continue to be strangled, interest rates will remain high, inflation will continue and unemployment will remain a problem just so long as our national economy is based on dishonest, debt money. No matter what type of variation of Keynesian-Monetarist-Supply Side man-made measure of relief is attemped, nothing is going to help so long as the dollar is an I.O.U. nothing. And fighting to get our Nation into an attitude where God will heal our land is going to be a painful battle. Because our first enemy is the solidly implanted Federal Reserve System. And its owners aren't about to let us see even an audit of their private corporation.
However, recently there has been brought to our attention a way in which the battle against the Fed might be won. The controlled communications media have done their best to have the story killed. But thanks to an independent partiotic news service including such publications as The Main Street Journal, The Review of the News, The Upright Ostrich and certain newsletters, the story is being told. And it's an important story. (See footnotes below for addresses and other information).
To begin at our story's beginning, last year "Red" Beckman of Billings, Montana wrote a paperback, "Born Again Republic," in which he explained the forgotten importance of the Grand Jury system. The Grand Jury, by the way, like our common law, comes to us from England. Back in the 12th century, Henry II established it as a means of reducing the power of the baronial and ecclesiastical courts of medieval England. It evolved into a protection against tyranny and injustice, but also could be misused because of the power of its jury members. The grand jury is mentioned in our U.S. Constitution: "Article V. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury." This is repeated at the beginning of the Fifth Amendment. In his book, Beckman points out that "The Grand Jury is made up of people like you and me. The fifth amendment tells us the government must get permission from the Grand Jury in the form of an indictment for violation of government-passed law. The government must go to the people for permission to even prosecute. The Grand Jury also has tremendous investigative power to keep watch on governmental activities. Beckmann adds:
"If a Grand Jury gives the U.S. Attorney General permission to prosecute an individual, the Jury becomes the final check on our system. The Jury must first try the law, as to whether it is a just law and if it is good for the country. Remember this law was written by politicians who may be very dishonest, so when we are on the Jury we have an opportunity to approve or disapprove of our politicians' performance." Later Beckman writes: "We need informed people on our Grand Juries to investigate the Federal Reserve Bank system and find out why our government has no control. We need Grand Juries who will indict any who would promote Democracy as our form of government. 'We the people' have not understood our power when we serve on the Grand Jury.
In June 1981, 23 American citizens from various walks of the life "got the message." They became a Federal Grand Jury impanelled at the United States Court House on Main Street in Salt Lake City, Utah. Meeting regularly to discuss possible violations of the law, and to try the laws with which they were dealing, they came to the conclusion last March that there is no gold and silver coin in circulation today, that this is due to some high-level trickery in our Nation's banking agency, the Federal Reserve System, and that there was evidence of criminal activity in the way the Federal Reserve System was being operated. So, the Grand Jury indicted the Federal Reserve system. But, as might be expected, the indictment was dismissed by Judge David K. Winder. The Grand Jury handed down a second indictment. It met the same fate. But Jury Foreman Hans V. Anderson wouldn't give up. This time a quorum of Grand Jury members rewrote the dismissed indictments and submitted it as a petition for a civil suit against the Fed. A Salt Lake City attorney, Gary James Joslin helped out. Fearing that "the sanctity of the Grand Jury system under common law and the Constitution is at stake," he filed a petition with the court on behalf of the Grand Jury, charging that Judge Winder and U.S. Attorney Brent Ward "were designedly thwarting, obstructing and otherwise refusing to assist the Grand Jury in this investigation."
And what was the reaction of the Fed when this story broke? Absolute denial. A concerned citizen, Emil Grohman, wrote to his Senator, Carl Levin (Mich.), asking for information. Sen. Levin in turn wrote to the Fed and received a reply on a letterhead of the "Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System," signed by Donald J. Winn, Assistant to the Board. The letter said in part: "The Board has no knowledge of any such indictment. Staff of the Board's Legal Division contacted Brent D. Ward, Esq., the United States Attorney for the State of Utah, to discuss the facts described in Mr. Grohman's letter. Mr. Ward said that the Federal Reserve System has not been the subject of a U.S. Grand Jury indictment, and thus, he had not 'quashed' any such indictment. Moreover, after searching the major news services, the Board's Legal Division has found no stories remotely similar to the story described by Mr. Grohman. I hope this information is helpful to you. Please le me know if I can be of further assistance."
We have no knowledge of the Fed's reaction after the Utah indictment became a civil suit. But there must be much concern because in addition to the Grand Jury action, two State Legislatures have taken action against the Fed. Legislators in Alabama, encouraged by Governor James, passed a resolution which calls the Fed "an oppressive and extortionate privately owned economic monopoly," and calls for passage of H.R. 4358, a bill introduced by U.S. Congressman Henry Gonzales of Texas, demanding a repeal of the Federal Reserve Act. Also, both houses of the State of Washington passed a resolution requesting that a suit be brought in the U.S. Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of the Federal Reserve and demanding that an independent audit be made of the system. It is hoped that other Grand Juries, and other State Legislatures, will follow suit; and maybe we'll really have the unconstitutionally and nation-devouring Fed on the run.
Extra copies of this Newsletter: 1 copy: 25 cents, 10 copies: $1.50, 20 copies: $3.00, 30 copies: $4.50, 40 copies: $6.00, 50 copies: $7.50, 100 copies: $10.00. More than 100 copies: 10 cents each. Please include extra if 1st class postage is desired. Subscription rates: $24 per year. Foreign airmail: $30 per year. DON BELL REPORTS Weekly, emphasizing the Christian American point of view. Address all orders: DON BELL REPORTS, P.O. BOX 2223, PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33480