Voluntary Society - Conditioning - Conspiracy

False Flag - War of Separation

Derived from USChronology.com

1861 January 6 - New York Mayor Fernando Wood proposes secession from the united States to the City Council to transform New York City into a massive free-trade zone without protective Whig/Republican tariffs. Mercantilists are firmly in control of the Whig Party and its President, Lincoln. The southern states are angry with the federal government, not the northern states.

1861 January 9 - South Carolina supplies Ft. Sumpter with food and water on the condition that no Union naval vessels try to land at the fort. The South Carolina Militia fires on the USS Star of the West attempting to re-supply the Army of the federal garrison at Fort Sumter in Charleston harbor with two hundred fresh soldiers and additional armaments with which to enforce duties borne mostly by the southern States whose slave owners buy English products to repay the loan of slaves by the English East Indian Trading Company.

1861 January 21 - Mississippi Senator Jefferson Davis delivers his farewell address to the Senate: "I feel no hostility to you, Senators from the North. I am sure there is not one of you, whatever sharp discussion there may have been between us, to whom I cannot now say, in the presence of my God, I wish you well; and such, I am sure, is the feeling of the people whom I represent towards those whom you represent. I therefore feel that I but express their desire when I say I hope, and they hope, for peaceful relations with you, though we must part. They may be mutually beneficial to us in the future, as they have been in the past, if you so will it. The reverse may bring disaster on every portion of the country."

1861 March 2 - As feared, President Buchanan signs the Morrill Tariff Act, placing tariff duties on imported raw materials, purchased primarily by the northern States of 5 to 10%, and duties on imported manufactured goods, purchased primarily by the southern States, of 25 to 30%. In a last ditch effort to restore the Union before relinquishing Congress to the Republicans the following December, the Democratic 37th Congress proposes a 13th amendment (the Corwin Amendment), which would require any future amendments on the subject of slavery be unanimous: "No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws [statutes] of said State." It is hoped that the Confederate States will ratify this amendment thereby peacefully rejoin the Union, but at the price of the highest tariffs in U.S. history. The message was clear to the southern Senators as they exited the Senate.

1861 March 11 - The Confederate Constitutional Convention frames its version of the federal Constitution for the seceded States clarifying what they feel were the ambiguities and shortcomings of the Constitution for the united States:

1861 April 6 - Secretary of State William H. Seward covertly assures Confederate Commissioner and former constitutionalist Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the federal United States John A. Campbell that Fort Sumter will be evacuated. Realizing that he has been lied to by the united States government, Democratic Governor Francis W. Pickens of the Independent Republic of South Carolina orders the Militia to fire on Fort Sumter before a flotilla sent by Republican President Lincoln arrives to enforce the Morrill Tariff Act. On 1861 July 3 President Lincoln confides to Republican Senator Orville H. Browning of Illinois, "[T]he plan succeeded. They [the rebels] attacked Sumter -- it fell, and thus, did more service than it otherwise could."

Notes for future work:

Subject:     Death of a Republic
Date:        9/18/02 1:36 PM
Received:    9/18/02 9:30 PM
From:        Jim Lorenz, brojim@charter.net

Worth reading, though I have come to the conclusion that the Republic was stabbed in the back by the very first Republican president on March 4, 1861, and while the incumbent parties in power wave a bloody toga from time to time, they have never moved to restore that  Republic, or to even give it a decent memorial service. And we think the Russians are stupid to leave Saint Lenin on display, when we have not razed our monuments to Saint Lincoln and Saint Roosevelt II.


Subject:     Lincoln, Enemy of Freedom ... & Wellness?
Date:        7/17/01 11:50 AM
Received:    7/18/01 12:34 AM
From:        "BOB WYNMAN", bobalou@wynman.com

This piece by Bill Bonner in the last two days has altered my thinking about our history substantially.  I'd been thinking ... & telling folks foolish enough to ask ... that the decline of our freedoms began in earnest in 1913 when the government illegally created both the Federal Reserve System and the Income Tax.

Now it's apparent that the major acceleration of the attack on our liberty may have been was with ol' Abe Lincoln, a figure I've sorta respected all my life as a great leader, a simple, brilliant man.  Seems that while he probably said lots of fine quotable things, his actions were a bit more tyrannical than most politicians and government thugs.

Probably this should not surprise me.  I suspect that Doug Casey is ultimately correct, the origin of the attacks on our freedoms likely began when that first horde of bandits rode into town & decided it would be a lot easier to set up shop in town & sell "protection" to the inhabitants (who then became "subjects", now euphemistically called "citizens") for 10% (now 50-90%) of their productive effort.  That was the likely origin of "government".

The combination of Mr. Lincoln's War + Pasteur's fallacious Germ Theory is what destroyed the colleges educating folks on Natural Hygiene.  I'm told that in the 1850's Natural Hygiene was about to become the healthful model for allopathic medicine & that when those medical schools were destroyed in the War Between the States, they were rebuilt on the Germ Theory which set progress in wellness back over a century.  Pro-health thinking did not make a popular come-back 'til Tilden, Trall, Shelton, Fry & the Diamonds wrote in 1900's.  The Wellness Revolution is about to explode due to the pioneering work of organizations like Nikken as recognized by Paul Zane Pilzer in his soon-to-be-best-seller "The Next Trillion", explaining the inevitability of the huge "Wellness Industry" now beginning.

Enjoy Bonner's report:

We have been searching for the 'why?'
Why does no one say "the United States are...?" Since the War Between the States, the United States has become singular.

Before 1860, the United States were not even a nation. Instead, they were a union of sovereign states. But Lincoln used the word 'nation' five times in his Gettysburg address. And now it is 'one nation, indivisible.'

Before that time, Americans had assumed that free people had the right to take a union apart just as they had the right to put one together. Even Lincoln favored the right of secession, when it suited him. After Virginia seceded from the union, Lincoln plotted with unionists in Virginia's western counties - and thus encouraged them to secede from Virginia, forming the new state of West Virginia.

You may recall how this series of letters began. Why, in the land of the free and home of the brave, I wondered, do people give up a third of their usufructs to the tax collectors? Why do they let themselves be bossed around by every half-wit regulator with a GS number? Why do they allow politicians to tell them what money they shall use...and permit public servants to set - by decree - the rates at which banks borrow from the central banking authority?

In searching for the why, we have - so far - only stumbled upon the 'when.' But I feel we are on the trail of something big. For we are looking into the heart of darkness - the 'Chaos and Dark' of the human condition.

Going back to the 'when,' we have discovered the birth of central banking and managed paper currency in America. Today, we look again at that period - when the whelp was still newly born and still dewy and wet...soft as a sponge and fragile as a campaign promise.

Let us see what sired this hound...and what bitch delivered it...and then, perhaps we will even get a glimpse of the 'what' it may become...before it darts into the dense forgotten underbrush of financial history..

After his inauguration, had Mr. Lincoln allowed the Deep South to go its own way, commented The Times of London, "the result might fairly have been quoted as illustrating the advantages of Democracy, but when Republicans put empire above liberty, and restored political oppression and war rather than suffer any abatement of national power, it was clear that nature at Washington was precisely the same as nature at St. Petersburg...Democracy broke down not when the Union ceased to be agreeable to all its constituent States, but when it was upheld, like any other Empire, by force of arms."

The force of arms is expensive. Unlike a good business deal or a good marriage, a political transaction (that is, one that relies upon the force of arms) is never a win-win situation. Nor is it even a win-lose situation, such as a gambling wager - in which the amount won by one party is equal to the amount lost by the other. Instead, political deals involve what economists call 'deadweight losses." Though one side may gain an advantage at the expense of the other, the net result to the whole society is negative. In the aggregate, everyone loses.

This was true of slavery, and of the war that was supposedly fought to end it.

Plantation owners - the south's antebellum aristocracy - were the only winners from slavery. Most whites, even in the South, gained nothing. Instead, they were forced to compete with unpaid slave labor.

In the North, whites didn't like the idea of competing with black laborers - even if they were paid market wages. So great was the Irish immigrants' indignation that they rioted in New York city in mid-July of 1863. In fact, the riot - in which mobs attacked rich white men and poor black men - left 1,000 people dead. It was put down on this day - July 17th - by federal troops coming directly from the battle of Gettysburg.

But even in the case of chattel slavery, the market works her own leveling wonders. A white man in the early 1800s might decide to use his $1,000 or so to buy a slave. Or he might buy government bonds. The return on either one would be about the same, according to Jeffrey Rogers Hummel in his book "Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men," between 8% and 12% - or about what you might have gotten in stocks during the following century.

One of the big differences between a bond and a black slave, however, was that the bond had no legs. It didn't run away.

How much would a bond be worth if it could get away from you and disappear down a dark alley? That was the problem with slavery. The South was sparsely inhabited and rich in swamps, hills and impenetrable thickets. Slaves often ran away and hid - sometimes intermarrying with local Indian tribes and forming whole new communities.

In the border states, runaways could make their way to the free states and be gone forever. So great was the risk of loss that in states such as Maryland, by the middle of the 19th century, the capital value of slaves was in decline and slavery itself rapidly disintegrating. Who would pay the equivalent of $21,000 in today's money to buy an asset that could walk away to nearby Pennsylvania within a few hours?

Slavery, worldwide, was doomed in the 19th century. Even in Brazil, so many slaves escaped to the Amazon jungle that it became impossible to make a go of it. The value of slaves fell by 80% in mid-century and the institution was abolished in 1888.

Slaves would not long be a profitable investment in America either, without the cooperation of the entire union. The northern states had to agree to send back escaped slaves...or the 'peculiar institution' was finished.

"Slavery was doomed politically even if Lincoln had permitted the small Gulf Coast Confederacy [when Lincoln took office only a few states in the Deep South had bolted] to depart in peace," writes Hummel, "The Republican- controlled Congress would have been able to work toward emancipation within the border states, where slavery was already declining. In due course, the Radicals could have repealed the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850. With chattels feeling across the border and raising slavery's enforcement costs, the peculiar institution's final destruction within an independent cotton South was inevitable."

"Slavery [is] much more secure in the Union that out of it," said Alexander Stephens, who would become Vice President of the Confederacy.

Thus, Abraham Lincoln, running for president and seeking votes wherever he could get them, pledged to enforce the slave recovery provisions passed by Congress. Northern abolitionists were appalled. They even suggested that the North should secede from the union - so that escaping blacks could find sanctuary north of the Mason-Dixon line.

There is no foolishness to which a man will not stoop, dear reader, if he has a mob at his back and a public office within his grasp. Instead of letting the Deep South do as it pleased...Mr. Lincoln decided he would tell them what to do.

But Mr. Lincoln's war - like slavery - was expensive, and turned out to be the biggest lose-lose proposition of America's entire history.

At first, the introduction of greenbacks and huge new demand for war supplies triggered an economic boom. "The farms teem, the workshops and the factories whir, and the bustle of trade fills the streets," the New York Times reported in 1863.

But it was mostly an illusion - like the recent bubble in high tech. "Adjusting for inflation," says Hummel, "workers' wages actually fell by one-third... [and] The 1860s saw the American economy's worst performance of any decade between 1840 and 1930, with real income per capita falling by 3%."

Of course, that was just the beginning of the losses. The total cost of the war was about $6.6 billion, split more or less evenly between the two sides. "The North's side alone," Hummel observes, "was enough to buy all slaves and set up each family with forty acres and a mule."

Instead, Lincoln's war left one dead soldier for every 6 slaves liberated. And it left blacks in the South as destitute as whites.

It also provided inspiration for future wars. General Sherman, marching through Georgia as Ludendorf would later march through Belgium, issued an order to shoot Southern prisoners: "should a Union man be murdered, then a rebel selected by lot will be shot...In aggravated cases, retaliation will be extended as high as five for one."
More on Thursday...on what is likely to happen hereafter...
Bill Bonner

The bitterness of low quality is remembered long after the sweetness  of low price is forgotten...
lou & dr. bob wynman, lake tahoe
http://www.wynman.com is getting pretty interesting ...  we recently learned how to break the sugar addiction that's causing obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular problems, attention disorders, dental disease, etc. ... details at http://www.wynman.com/jimburns.html  ... and http://www.5pillars.com/wynman just became a mind-blower, check THAT one out!

Subject:     More Bonner on Lincoln's war
Date:        7/19/01 10:22 AM
Received:    7/20/01 12:39 AM
From:        "BOB WYNMAN", bobalou@wynman.com

"I ought to go upright and vital, and speak the rude truth in all ways. If malice and vanity wear the coat of philanthropy, shall that pass? If an angry bigot assumes this bountiful cause of Abolition, and comes to me with his last news from Barbados, why should I not say to him, 'Go love thy infant; love thy wood-chopper: be good natured and modest: have that grace, and never varnish your hard, uncharitable ambition with this incredible tenderness for black folk a thousand miles off. Thy love afar is spite at home." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Baltimore, once known as the 'Monumental City,' has edifices honoring soldiers on both sides of the war between the states. Here at the Daily Reckoning, we have little doubt they died valiantly, or at least honestly...no matter which fool's errand they were on at the time.
 But the whole undertaking turned out to be a deadweight loss for America, like the 'Cultural Revolution' in China in the 1960s...or the campaigns of Bonaparte for France. Or the purges and liquidations in the Soviet Union.
 On a per-capita basis, the United States suffered a loss 6 times higher than WWII. Gettysburg alone produced more casualties than all previous U.S. wars.
 And for what? Except for a bloody slave revolt in Haiti, slavery was eliminated throughout the rest of the Americas without much violence or expense. The peculiar institution simply dissolved, like the Soviet Union in the 1980s. Brazil, for example, outlawed slavery peacefully in 1888. There was no need for reconstruction. No carpet baggers. No scalawags. No Ku Klux Klan. No Jim Crow.

Mr. Lincoln's hard, uncharitable ambition looked to the outside world like a civil war, but it was really a revolution. The principles of limited government, self-
reliance, and liberty were overthrown. Lincoln had shown
that he could do pretty much anything he pleased - and get away with it. Few future presidents or Congresses missed the lesson.
 This revolution has been recognized by historians, but misinterpreted. They see the philanthropy and miss the malice.
 It is frequently said that the U.S. Constitution rests on two incompatible principles - liberty and equality - and that prior to Mr. Lincoln, liberty was dominant. Post-Lincoln, equality has been emphasized. Thus historians flatter force - dressing up violence to make it look respectable, like putting a tuxedo on a mass murderer.

When a man willingly exchanges a sack of potatoes for a chicken, both he and the person he trades with come out ahead. Each gets something he wants.

But when a thief steals a chicken... or a government confiscates it in the name of income redistribution... the entire society is poorer. The chicken thief contributes nothing. And the farmer spends time and effort trying to avoid another theft - instead of raising more chickens. If enough chickens are taken from him, he may even decide to begin stealing chickens himself.
 Roughly, the more violence and theft in a society, the more primitive, poor and barbaric the people are. The Soviet Union demonstrated how this works. Claiming to make citizens equal, the Bolsheviks seized almost all the resources and output of the country and distributed them as they saw fit. Anyone who resisted or got in their way was liquidated.

But the gap between rich and poor did not disappear - it widened. Party bosses and top-level apparatchiks controlled more wealth, proportionally, than the 'robber barons' of the U.S. They had their dachas on the Black
Sea...their fleets of chauffeured limousines and airplanes...their support staffs.

And just like a Gates or a Carnegie, they could 'invest' resources in huge, capital-intensive projects - dams, railroads, factories. The only difference was they didn't have to show a profit, compete for customers,
or answer to investors.
 "War is the health of the state,' it is said. But war does almost no one else any good. Lincoln left a healthy state - after 4 years of America's most costly war, while the deadweight of government over the next 135 years did nothing to increase equality.

People are less free since Lincoln's war. But how are they more equal? Do men enjoy the charms of the beautiful women more democratically? Do people eat the same mush in the fancy restaurants as in the cheap ones? Do they pay the same tax rates?

Or is 'equality' merely the coat of philanthropy... tossed over the shoulders of a grasping politician?
More tomorrow...as I return to money, I promise!
Bill Bonner 

The bitterness of low quality is remembered long after the sweetness  of low price is forgotten...

lou & dr. bob wynman, lake tahoe
http://www.wynman.com is getting pretty interesting ...  we recently learned how to break the sugar addiction that's causing obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular problems, attention disorders, dental disease, etc. ... details at http://www.wynman.com/jimburns.html  ... and http://www.5pillars.com/wynman just became a mind-blower, check THAT one out!

Subject:     Your Money, Your Freedom, Your Life
Date:        7/16/01 11:40 AM
Received:    7/16/01 9:42 PM
From:        "BOB WYNMAN", bobalou@wynman.com


This arrived today from Bill Bonner, writer, historian, much respected human.  A bit different version than we were taught in our government schools?  Enjoy:

Our beat, here at the Daily Reckoning, is money - how it is earned, and how it is preserved.  How can we fail to notice that our biggest single expense - taxes - is something for which we get no obvious return?  How did this come about?
You will recall that a certain pettifogging busybody - writing a column in the national press - wants to regulate financial newsletter writers, such as this correspondent.  Why is it that some people always want to boss others around?  Why would citizens of a free country submit to regulation of almost every aspect of their lives and to a tax burden higher than that paid by serfs in the Dark Ages?
Even our money itself is no longer a matter of free choice - but of government decree.  Until the War Between the States, people could decide for themselves whose bank notes they would accept.  The coins of Britain and other sovereign nations circulated freely in the Americas and could be used by anyone who chose to do so.
"There was no nationally chartered central bank," explains Jeffrey Rogers Hummel in his history of the period, "Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men."  The only legally recognized money was specie, that is, gold or silver coins.  The economy's currency consisted solely of bank notes redeemable in specie on demand.  Private competition thus regulated the circulation of paper money."
But by 1862, Lincoln's government was toting up the cost of killing Southerners - and it was more than the Northern bankers were willing to lend. 
The constitution limited the federal government's ability to raise money and spend it.  But Lincoln was not a man to let the constitution stand in his way.  
He had already suspended the ancient protection of habeas corpus and had sent troops to occupy Maryland.  Marylanders favoring secession were thrown into jail, without trial.  Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, sitting as a circuit judge, ruled the practice unconstitutional.  "If Lincoln's act is allowed to stand," he wrote, "the people of the United States are no longer living under a government of laws, but every citizen holds life, liberty and property at the will and pleasure of the army officer in whose military district he may happen to be found."
Lincoln's order stood.  In fact, Lincoln ordered the chief justice arrested, too - a violation of separation of powers doctrine so shocking that federal marshals would never carry it out.
And then, in an act worthy of a Latin American dictator, Lincoln moved on the rest of the Marylanders - arresting 31 legislators, Baltimore's mayor, one of the state's congressmen, as well as any newspaper editors unsympathetic to Lincoln.
At the beginning of Lincoln's term in office, the states of the Deep South had declared their independence.  Many in the North would have been happy to let them go.  "No Union with Slaveholders," was a popular abolitionist slogan. 
But the urge to boss people around was too great.  Lincoln called up the militia.  It was the first of these troops, from Massachusetts - marching between train stations as they made their way through Baltimore - that stirred up a mob and brought Lincoln's retaliation.  Baltimore wanted no armed soldiers from the north - and burnt its railway bridge to prevent future arrivals. Lincoln turned the whole state into an occupied zone, denounced by the Maryland legislature, accurately, as "a flagrant violation of the constitution." 
It was Lincoln's bellicose reaction to secession - calling up 75,000 militia - that pushed the wavering slave states of the upper south into the secessionist camp.  Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas joined the confederacy... along with several Indian tribes, including the Cherokees, Choctaws, Chickasaws, Creeks and Seminoles.
"At a single stroke of the pen, Lincoln had more than double the Confederacy's white population and material resource," writes Hummel.  And made a long, very expensive war almost inevitable.
Hardly a year later, the federal government was already straining under the financial burden.  Lincoln sought relief in the familiar way.  A Legal Tender Act was passed in early 1862, permitting the federal government to issue paper money.  "The Greenbacks," writes Hummel, "were unbacked, directly issued by the government, and made legal tender through fiat for all payments, public and private, except tariff duties and interest on the Treasury's debt."
Is it really necessary, asked Senator Charles Sumner, "to suffer the stain upon our national faith [of inconvertible paper money] - to bear the stigma of a seeming repudiation...? It is hard - very hard - to think that such a country, so powerful, so rich, and so beloved, should be compelled to adopt a policy of even questionable propriety."
The results were predictable.  By 1863, the Union's money supply doubled.  Greenbacks soon began to fall in value - against gold, losing 65% of their value by 1864.  
People tried to protect themselves - by dumping Greenbacks and hoarding gold and silver coins.  Soon private minting of coins was made illegal.  And Congress tried to "shut down trading in contracts promising future delivery of gold."  
In those days, however, the greenback did not enjoy the universal confidence that it does today, so Lincoln's government was forced to backtrack.  Foreign governments still required gold-backing.
More tomorrow, on the War Between the States, bossing people around...and, of course, money...
Bill Bonner
The Daily Reckoning is a FREE e-mail service of Agora Financial
Publishing - If you'd like practical advice about profiting
based on the ideas in this e-mail, then simply enroll in our
premium "Blue Service" - For Serious Investors Only!

Right now you can save up to 50% off the regular price.
To subscribe or get more information easily call
1-888-897-9576 and ask for code 7991. Or visit:

"If you're all thinking alike, somebody isn't thinking." --  General Patton

lou & dr. bob wynman, lake tahoe
http://www.wynman.com is getting pretty interesting ...  we recently learned how to break the sugar addiction that's causing obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular problems, attention disorders, dental disease, etc. ... details at http://www.wynman.com/jimburns.html  ... and http://www.5pillars.com/wynman just became a mind-blower, check THAT one out!

Subject:     Fw: [We The People]  The Right to Petition:  Use it or Lose it.  Th
Date:        10/9/02 5:08 PM
Received:    10/10/02 9:32 AM
From:        Jim Lorenz, brojim@charter.net
To:          LPUtah@yahoogroups.com
CC:          billholmes, billholmes@adelphia.net
             Tom Caldwell, tcaldwel@so.quik.com
             Dave Seely, dseely@sginet.com
             harry contry, hcontry@hotmail.com
             Russell McGonigle, rdm3006@yahoo.com
             Bob Kelly, bobkelly@infowest.com

Right to Petition: Use it or Lose it.Well, well, well. Looky here. I've read their stuff, and they are essentially correct. What you choose to do about it remains your business. I do suggest passing it around to stump the hustings with these developments.
We the People has produced a 4, VCD set, which asks over 430 sharp, i.e., unanswerable, questions of the IRS, DoJ, et al.
----- Original Message -----
From: Bob Schulz (DO NOT REPLY - Unmonitored Mailbox)
To: brojim@charter.net
Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 12:05 PM
Subject: [We The People] The Right to Petition: Use it or Lose it. They Are Ready to Sign!

If you can't read this, visit http://www.givemeliberty.org/mailroom to see the message.

                  The Right of Petition:                                                                                       Use it Now or Lose It Forever.

                  It's Time to Sign.

                  Although explicitly required by our Constitution, our government is readying to deploy our forces to wage military battles against, and inside, a foreign nation without a formal Declaration of War.

                  In hasty response to widespread fear and panic, our elected representatives passed a bill into law, (without reading it), that by its plain language deprives and seizes the unalienable rights of the People.

                  Our government has relinquished direct control of the monetary system of this nation to a privately owned central bank. A significant portion of that ownership is held by foreign entities.

                  For decades, the People have been forced, under threat of loss of property and liberty, to endure a system of taxation that is morally repugnant and violates virtually every Constitutionally protected right of the People.

                  Are these despotic acts of our government to be tolerated by the People?

                  Let us thank our forefathers for their vision, foresight and innate understanding of the nature of man, political power, and government corruption in recognizing the explicit right of the People to petition their government for redress.

                  In early November, as the focal point of Freedom Drive 2002, the People will formally submit to our government petitions for redress of grievances concerning several of the most appalling abuses of government power that our nation currently confronts.

                  Four petitions have been drafted by the We The People Foundation and now await the       signatures of the People of this nation.

                  The petitions cover the War Powers Clauses of the Constitution, the "USA Patriot Act", the Federal Reserve and the federal income tax system.

                  On November 14, the People will peaceably assemble, en masse, on the Mall in DC and await the responses of our government.

                  Every adult in this nation has a personal duty and moral responsibility that stems directly from his or her right of citizenship, to repel the tyrannical acts of those that the People have granted explicit, and limited powers to.

                  The right to Petition is the foundation of Popular Sovereignty and is the direct vehicle for the peaceful, non-violent resolution of matters concerning violations of right, law and limited governance.  This right is the procedural mechanism that enables the People to call any branch of the servant government before them.

                  The following paragraphs were excerpted from Bob Schulz's letter of June, 2002 to IRS Commissioner Charles Rossotti explaining why he will not pay income taxes again. These brief citations succinctly describe why the right to petition must be exercised fully by the People, and why the government MUST respond:

                          "In America, there are only two things that stand between the people and government tyranny -- our Constitution, and our will as a free people to protect and defend it.
                        In America, the right to petition our government for redress of grievances is the basis of our liberty. Our founders explicitly recognized this right in the first amendment to our constitution -- for they understood that without it, we could not have a servant government whose power is defined and limited by the consent of the people.

                        In America, the right to petition our government for a redress of grievances is an unalienable right. It derives from our faith in a supreme being - an ultimate moral authority from whom we gain our understanding of equality, justice and the rule of law. Implicit in our first amendment constitutional right to petition our government for a redress of grievances, is the government's absolute moral and legal obligation to respond honestly and completely to the people's petition.

                        This is the essential cornerstone of Popular Sovereignty -- a government of the People, by the People and for the People.

                        In 1791, the right to petition became the primary right of the People of the United States of America, expressed in the First Amendment to the federal Constitution.

                        Some would now have us believe that our First Amendment right of petition is nothing more than a guarantee of free speech; that this vital constitutional protection - the very basis of our liberty - is simply a right to voice our grievances to the government. Some would try to convince us that We The People do not have the absolute right to an honest and complete response to our petition -- or the authority to demand that our government correct the abuses and violations of our liberties that caused our petition.

                        What nonsense! This is dangerous talk to a free people. We will not listen to those who would denigrate our Constitution, and undermine the principles of liberty and justice that gave birth to our nation. At best they are imbeciles, and at worst they are tyrants -- or "sharing bedrooms" with tyrants.

                        We must steel ourselves to this nonsense. We must harden our hearts to these false notions that government is God. Government has but one legitimate purpose -- to serve and protect all of the people equally. Government is not God. It is our servant. It is accountable to the People.

                        The right to Petition for Redress of Grievances is the final protection -- the final, peaceful check and balance in our system of Constitutional government in which the government derives its limited powers from the consent of the sovereign people. This is the right which publicly reveals and reiterates for all, who is Master and who is Servant."

                  These petitions are about us -- We The People. They are proof of our resolve to correct our government's abusive and unlawful behaviors.

                  As a nation, who are we -- and who we want to be?  Will we tolerate tyranny to be comfortable?

                  What kind of country do we want to leave to our children and future generations of Americans?

                  Again, we ask: What does a free People do when confronted with a government that refuses to honor, and systemically schemes to evade, the boundaries and limitations established for it by We The People?

                  On the afternoon of November 14th, Americans will gather peacefully on the Mall in Washington to await our government's answers. It is critical that every congressional district be fully represented in these petitions.  Pass word of these petitions across our land to every person you know.  The People must speak.

                  We stand at the brink of a Constitutionally unauthorized war and the meltdown of a monetary system based on the endless conjuring of debt.  To "protect" us from terrorists, our most fundamental rights have been seized and we have been deprived of their protections.  To finance it all, the IRS and DOJ use the intimidation and power of the police state to enforce and prosecute offenses of tax "laws" --- yet they continue to refuse to cite the specific legal authority that purportedly allows them to enforce those laws.        

                  If the government, once again, refuses to respond, and the People fail to act, we will lose forever the chapter in human history when We The People reigned sovereign, and the chains of a written constitution bound our servant government.  We have a choice.  YOU have a choice.

                  Join with those that demand that our government obey the Constitution of this Republic. 

                  Sign the petitions.  Get to DC.

                         Click Here to Sign the Petitions   (You may sign any or all of the petitions)

                  If you represent a recognized rights group and would like to submit a petition regarding another specific right or freedom issue, please contact us at bob@givemeliberty.org.  If your request is approved, you may transmit your petition for review and we will post it for electronic signatures, announce the petition publicly and deliver it to the government with the other petitions.

                   Join Us.  Take the Drive to DC.   Click Here to go to the main Freedom Drive information page.   http://www.givemeliberty.org/FreedomDrive
                       Participants of Freedom Drive are reminded to order their official FD flags, posters, soon !

            Click Here To get the full details of Schulz's October Speaking Schedule (locations, times, directions, contacts, etc.)  http://www.givemeliberty.org/FreedomDrive/RoadSchedSE.htm

                  Wednesday   Oct. 9  Greensboro, NC
                  Thursday    Oct. 10  Raleigh/Cary NC
                  Friday     Oct. 11 Hampton, VA  

                  Send new new Freedom Drive Media Kit  to your talk show host or newspaper

                   Click Here   Schulz doesn't file or pay.   Learn about the Schulz "Tax Termination" package.

Subject:     Fw: corrections.swf... And comment on Truth in History
Date:        10/9/02 2:36 PM
Received:    10/10/02 9:32 AM
From:        Jim Lorenz, brojim@charter.net

I have gotten this brilliant Fiore animation (corrections.swf.url)  from many sources. Thanks to all.
Declaration of War, Or a Resolution to Use Force?
Jim Lorenz, 10/9/2002, Free to quote, intact, with all attributions.
What would an innocent (ignorant by other's design) pre-draft age young man make of this cartoon?...when connected to the false 'War Powers' that Lincoln discovered inside a penumbra of the Constitution?

"But the current administration isn't like that, are they?"

Yes, Virginia and Virgil, to date the same pattern has continued at least from March 4, 1861. That's the inaugural date of the  first Republican President, and the last U.S. President, elected to office under the Old Constitution (O.C.).

Every president-elect since, including A. Lincoln for his second term, swore to keep and uphold the, or some, New, "American System", Constitution, (N.A.S.C.) according to Thomas DiLorenzo, in his book, "The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War," 2002, www.primabooks.com  on page 116, and I quote:

    Ostrowski [professor of law] presents an ingenious thought experiment that illustrates the absurdity of the notion that Lincoln's suppression of the Southern secession (not the secession itself) was constitutional. In order for such acts to have been agreed upon by the attendees of the constitutional convention, which barely ratified the Constitution as it was, they would have to agree to the following stipulations:

    1. No state may secede from the Union for any reason.

    2. If any state attempts to secede, the federal government shall invade such a state with sufficient military force to suppress the secession.

    3. The federal government may require all states to raise militias to be used to suppress the seceding state (or states).

    4. After suppressing the secession, the federal government may rule by martial law until such time as the [suppressed] state accepts permanent federal supremacy (as occurred during "Reconstruction").

    5. After the secession is suppressed, the federal government may force the states to adopt new state constitutions imposed upon them by federal military authorities (as also occurred during "Reconstruction").

    6. The president may, on his own authority and without consulting any other branch of government, suspend the Bill of Rights and the writ of habeas corpus (as Lincoln did in the first months of his presidency).

[The endnote references: James Ostrowski, "Was Invasion of the Confederate States a Lawful Act?" in Secession, State and Liberty, ed. David Gordon (New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction, 1998, p.169-179.] End quote.

This must be 'modern' Republican/Democrat dogma, since both parties discovered the unlawful, but overpowering techniques of a private credit bank, linked to a police state for collections and control. No wonder the R.P. attracts such demagogues as Alan Keyes and Patrick Buchanan, etc.
This silent, but enforced, N.A.S.C., must be the one that the current crop of incumbent politicians swear to uphold and enforce? If it isn't, what possible version of the O.C. can they have in mind?

More importantly, if the N.A.S.C. is the de facto Law of the Land, sans Lawful Amendments,what is the government's school teaching our precious children about our actual history? (From election results, we are forced to conclude that all of the false 'amendments', 13, 14, 15, 16 & 17, are taught as facts of law, instead of the direct abrogations that they remain.)

Don't we need a private, morally straight, honest, accurate, learning/teaching tool for our children and young adults, not in any way connected to the N.A.S.C?

Winston Churchill, (ca 1945) called the Soviet Union, behind its newly created Iron Curtain, a mystery inside a riddle wrapped in an enigma.  Meaning that the Supreme Soviet apparently operated on whim and caprice, and not according to any discernable moral compass, except the Marxist dialectic, which excuses any act that advances any socialist state's control.

What have we here, today, outside the Old Constitution, and under the New "American System" 'Constitution'? I contend that it is a government in the shadow (penumbra) of the O.C., and operates on the "American System" dialectic which excuses any act that advances this fascist/socialist state's control.

I think this can be asserted with a clear conscience. I just read in "The Real Lincoln," that it was Lincoln's precedents of 1861-1865, that influenced Kaiser Wilhelm, and Bismarck in 1871-1875, to model the combined German and Prussian states on an autocratic basis. Leading to the disastrous wars of the 20th century, which seem to persist. "What goes around, comes around." Bismarck introduced a social security plan, adopted from his friend Alfried Krupp, which FDR adopted to the N.A.S.C. in 1935, and which most of you pay into today.
Thank you.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Seely" <dseely@sginet.com>
To: "Rick Cannon" <rickc@condorsys.com>; "Roger Cannon" <rogbag@sbcglobal.net>; "Jim Lorenz" <brojim@charter.net>; "Bryan Hyde" <bryanh@simmonsmedia.net>; "Bob Kelly" <bobkelly@infowest.com>
Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 7:37 AM
Subject: corrections.swf

Subject:     Fw: Recommended....READING
Date:        9/13/02 9:31 PM
Received:    9/16/02 10:05 PM
From:        Jim Lorenz, brojim@charter.net

I agree. It should be required reading for the followers of Marriner Eccles, et al, who were party to the good 'ole FED. There is a prominent monument to Banker Eccles on the south side of the State Capitol, below the stairs, on your left facing up the stairs. 

There cannot be a banker above the rank of teller trainee, who does not soon come to understand this scam, as they are in the front of the line, by statute, the FRA, for which is based on the precedents of Hamilton, a 'la the Bank of England, and Lincoln and his pal Salmon P. Chase
Old news to lots of us, it is a very good précis.

Looks like de CONgress hab screwed all us slaves to de wheel of perpetual debt, so it can buy votes as long as de balloon stay up. My daddy sez "What goes up, must come down."

If this isn't proof of just one of the massive seditious frauds since March 4, 1861, when Republican Lincoln (16), "...raised his hand to swear an oath he had no intention of keeping." Liberty,Oct.,2002. The LTE writer says this date was the death of the Republic, under and within the Constitution. His first Secretary of the Treasury, Salmon P.(ortland) Chase, helped 'Honest Abe' finagle the issue of paper money, in the face of the Constitution, to pay for an unnecessary and costly war, sans proper Declaration of War by Congress. The very definition of tyranny. And, since these evils have not been reversed by any subsequent President, of any stripe, but have been exacerbated by many, including the Congresses, starting with #37 and #38.
Perhaps the reason it is not exposed, it is so vast, so all encompassing, it is the phony plasma that acts as the blood of the economy, by fiat, by private law, privilege. It has so much credibility, and so much momentum, huge amounts of productive capital and savings are denominated by it, taxes are paid in it, savings are in it, the rent and the groceries are in it. It can't be false, why it says right on it, "In God We Trust". We can't think that such pious folks would violate the First Amendment just to make Emergency Scrip look better. Can we, do we dare?

Fiat Justicia, ruat coleum.

What are some Key Dates?
Magna Charta 1215
The Bloodless Revolution of 1688
The Declaration of Independence 1776
The Constitution with Bill of Rights of 1791
Lincoln's First Inauguration 1861
Woodrow Wilson's two terms, worst year 1913
FDR's New Deals, worst year 1933
and down hill ever since.
----- Original Message -----
From: Krim
To: brojim@charter.net
Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2002 1:04 PM
Subject: Recommended....READING


I think you might find this of interest!       http://rense.com/general29/ringring.htm 

Subject:     Letter to possible champions of Digital Truth in History
Date:        10/7/02 1:33 PM
Received:    10/8/02 9:35 AM
From:        Jim Lorenz, brojim@charter.net
To:          Scott Hildebrandt, shildebrandt@eknowledge.com

Letter to possible champions of Truth in History [DRAFT]
 Sunday, September 22, 2002
Jim Lorenz, All Rights Reserved

A critical review of U.S. History: The story of our nation." Fogware Publishing Inc. Content attributed to ZANE Publishing, Copyright 2002
The PC presentation feature is Trademarked, "PowerCD"
This package of 4 CDs was purchased 9/21/2002 at COSTCO in St George, Utah, COSTCO #497224. $14.99 +Tax, per package, "U.S. History" [for] WINDOWS 95/98/ME/2000/XP[.] The label also contains the statement: "Product not licensed for use in schools, colleges, or public libraries[.] ZANE Publishing", etc.

What I feel is most important, is the teaching power of the medium and the proven availability of a mass market. Please consider how this type of presentation could be so effective, in reaching our precious youth, before they are brainwashed with the Big Pink Lie. I quote from ZANE:
"The Great Depression
Explore the economic and social conditions that contributed to the Great Depression, and witness the upheavals triggered by the stock market's collapse in 1929. A 70 minute multimedia presentation examines the excesses of the Roaring Twenties, reveals the effects of the depression on American society, and shows how President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal programs attempted to pull the country out of economic crises."
That's a blurb verbatim from the box. I took the time to view this Great Depression. CD, and it is a tissue of lies, large and small. Its concluding thesis is that FDR's New Deal saved capitalism and democracy from the naked greed of Wall Street.
As examples of this red tinged bias, I include several blatant AGITPROP tricks, direct from ZANE's  CD Glossary. ZANE says:
"Abrogation  The destruction or annulment of a former law by an act of
legislation, by usage, or by constitutional authority."
[Main Entry: 2ab·ro·gate    Pronunciation Guide
Pronunciation: abrgt, usu -d.+V
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -ed/-ing/-s
Etymology: Latin abrogatus, past participle of abrogare, from ab- 1ab- + rogare to ask, propose a law -- more at RIGHT
1 : to abolish by authoritative, official, or formal action : ANNUL, REPEAL <neither a court decision nor a statute can, however, abrogate a treaty as an international contract -- F.A.Ogg & P.O.Ray> <special legal privileges for foreigners should be abrogated -- New Republic>
2 : to put an end to : do away with : set aside <we are not thereby called upon to abrogate the standards of values that are fixed -- J.L.Lowes> <he declined to abrogate his conscience -- Walter H. Page>
synonym see NULLIFY.> http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?book=Third&va=abrogating <
So it seems that ZANE doesn't agree with a major arbiter of American-English. The error seems deliberate and attempts to discolor an innocent's  appreciation of Art. V, of the Lawfully ratified Constitution, and the many warnings from the Founders to adhere to our organic Law. JL]

Let's try another ZANE-ism:
"Autocracy  Literally, self-rule; rule or government by an individual who is not held responsible for his or her actions through any normal political process."
[Main Entry: au·toc·ra·cy    Pronunciation Guide
Pronunciation: täkrs, -si
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): -es
Etymology: probably from autocrat, after such pairs as English aristocrat: aristocracy
1 : a form of government in which one person possesses unlimited power -- compare ABSOLUTISM
2 : the unlimited authority or rule of an autocrat
3 : a community or state governed by autocracy : an autocratic community or state. >http://unabridged.merriamwebster.com/cgibin/unabridged?va=Autocracy&x=10&y=8< Isn't that interesting, individuality snidely made a crime, with no reference to autocratic presidents?  By ZANE's definition Lincoln was a tyrant because J.W. Booth killed him, "Sic Semper Tyrannis!" JL]

Here's another classic of pedagogical misdirection, ZANE says:
"Capitalism  An economic system in which most of the means of producing and managing goods and services are privately owned and operated in competition with others for a profit." [Emphasis added. JL]
[Main Entry: cap·i·tal·ism    Pronunciation Guide
Pronunciation: ()lizm, Brit also kpitli-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): -s
Etymology: 2capital (wealth) + -ism
: an economic system characterized by private or corporation ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision rather than by state control, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly in a free market -- compare INDUSTRIALISM, LIBERALISM, SOCIALISM. > http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=capitalism&x=26&y=11<

I am forced to conclude that the authors, editors and publishers of this "U.S. History" material are either blind to reality, or they were raised as Red-diaper babies, and have yet to see the light. Yet this format is a very effective teaching tool.

Since we know, from bitter experience, that re-educating government school, Red-classroom kids, is very difficult, after they 'graduate' with a 'diploma' that falsely assures them they are educated to be 'good' Americans. We know that most of our precious young adults haven't a clue as to the actual and proximate causes of The Great Depression, honest economics, and the real actors in that tragedy; ditto our verified, actual history from whatever date you prefer.

Please consider the effect on parents, honest Home-schoolers, who want clear thinking students to carry on their families, without fascist/socialist beliefs. Who will make effective decisions as adults, and in turn teach their children the Truth, the Whole Truth, and nothing but the truth. Wouldn't that be the best gift for our children, and their children?

How could we, clear and critical thinkers, provide such a gift that may last for generation?

Here's one way: Redo this excellent example of The Big Lie, with the same effective techniques, but with the truth of language, economics, and the facts, then make it available to the specific and general markets, in direct competition with the false and dangerous.

What can we do to produce a CD learning tool of equal or better teaching value, than the subject CD under review? And as important, one that is an accurate, truthful, an honest history from a Constitutionalist, libertarian, point of view?  As in Caldwell's Constitutional Chronology: >www.USchronology.com < {With registered purchase of the CD set, at retail margins, an annual, or monthly subscription could be offered to licensees for online updates to their installed program, which they can burn onto a fresh CD. Or, receive revised, updated CD(s) monthly, a 'la the various profitable book club models. DVDs hold up to 4.7 Gigabytes, while CDs hold 700MB, about one seventh that of a DVD. What the future will bring, I don't know, except it will be digital, or have digital capability.}

It should be self-contained, but provide www access via Hotlinks, for those that are connected. Since all is digitized, the step up to DVD production should be within reach. In fact I see the layout for this project as the storyboard for agonizingly accurate feature productions combining Documentary and Docudrama, as well as every other art of light and sound, available to the Constitutionalist propagandist.

Most, well, at least as important, might be for the replacement value. That is for every one of these "True Verdict Of History," CDs I'm thinking and writing about. Probably not doing either very well but, since we know what is being offered, which is almost pure socialist/fascist propaganda, so it seems we have chance to tell the truth and cancel a sale for a false history.

I hope you agree with me that reaching the curious youth, with the documented facts, in an interestingly presented real history of the Federal Reserve System, Lawful vs. Legal, The real cause and effect of unlawful 'money.' And so on. Wouldn't it be better if we caught their minds while still open, rather than trying to re-educate them in their thirties and forties, after they have miss-voted many times and their kids are already infected with the big pink lie?
Bill; I'm sorry but the end run or sweep around their line of attack, to hit them from their rear with a major and insurmountable force, and to replace the present generation's socialist/fascist mindset the ideas of what is proper, and what is not, in the minds of their children, who now know that much of what they think they know, was never true in any particular. They will realize, without being told, that their 'free-education' in the government school has been closer to Pavlovian conditioning than to true enlightenment. This 2002 class of 8-18 year olds may be the first income tax free generation in 90 years. All through the press of a few keys. In anybody's home, on anybody's desk, connected or not. On-line folks of course can use all of the Hotlinks provided, to go off exploring wherever they want to go at any time. But the core data is not censorable, yet can be copied to email, say for LTE purposes. Wow! That's irrefutable logical leverage.
There is usually some change in the style du monde that marks profound changes in how people see the world and their personal place in it all. I think of hemlines, which have been boring for 30 years. Musical 'taste' is constantly moving, only now leaving clusters of digital notes, where before there was silence. Light my pipe, doesn't always mean what it used to mean in the Sixties. Once the truth is known, and can be reinforced in the young, giving them a logical, non-threatening, fair way to deal with other people and other entities. Regardless of which prophet you choose to quote, all are in favor of the Golden Rule, plus or minus various cultural exceptions and prohibitions. That being the Rule, the Universal Law of humankind must be never to initiate force or fraud, lethal self-defense is OK. Arms are carried concealed and in the open, at the option of the wearer. Robbers ply their trade seldom, if at all. Too dangerous, too quick, no ten minute wait for the cops, but shot and down in dirty underwear, and with an empty stomach. Very high risk for not very much return. The Repeal of Prohibition-1933, then the criminalization of marijuana in 1935...
We've got to get to the children, ASAP, they need time to think about the Principle of non-initiation of force or fraud, before the Draft is re-instated. If we get embroiled with millions of Arab-Muslims, aren't we going to need replacement armies and navies and their combined air/space assets? Must these troops be clothed, fed and housed decently? Of course. Isn't that expensive?  Very. Is what the government is doing today just and proper, according to the Golden Rule? Cite and discuss. Do we choose a form of National Socialism, or a government once again, under and within the Limits of the Constitution?
Here's a tough game with the easy parts first (Socialist model) Vs. the game with the hard parts first, gaining power through knowledge, such as in the dungeon/monster games with a libertarian editor (Free-Market model). This to reinforce the evils of a Private Banker to the King, for which quid pro quo, the King uses force to pay all debts, that he has imposed on the People, and in their every possession; this from one phrase, "on the full faith and credit of the United States."  That means to the limit of taxation, permitted by the People, and guised in the statutes.
Not a very pretty picture. Somebody has to stand up and say, "Enough is Enough, vote for lower taxes! When it is the thought of the majority of teenagers, not to waste their lives paying for the waste of others, and who are empowered to make the government their servant by enforcing the Bill of Rights against it, then the IRS will come down as the Berlin Wall fell in 1989.

Since I would hope that the gentle reader would agree with me that we wouldn't want the same thing to happen here, as has been happening in the economic morass of post-Soviet Russian Federation; so what's our best defense? The best defense is a good offense, the footballers say.

Will you help us to restore the Constitution in the minds of American youth?

Subject:     Re: Alan Keyes Iron Questions and Some Answers
Date:        9/27/02 4:53 PM
Received:    9/27/02 6:16 PM
From:        Jim Lorenz, brojim@charter.net

To the Editor;
Jim Lorenz, Libertarian emeritus, Washington County, Utah

There must have been two separate patriotic rallies the evening of 9/25/2002, in St George, at DSC's Burns Arena.
I think I heard, among other comments, 'If there is perpetual war, then there will be perpetual change to the Constitution.' The flock , huddled in the center sections, cheered. That from the Harvard 'educated' hero of conservative values, who assumes that unfettered political power is the proper course of action, if in the hands of the right people. The fact that The Spectrum, 9/26/2002, doesn't get the difference between "principals" and "principles"on the front page, reflects the apparent fact that Dr. Keyes can't either.

PhD Keyes excoriated partial-birth-abortion, which is not a federal matter; my tattered copy of the frayed Constitution refers to "No Person except a natural born Citizen...All persons born..." , and made no mention of the 80% of the federal government that nakedly operates outside of its organic law.

And while a tragic and rarely used procedure, PBA is a minor threat to the liberties of we the living, when compared to that posed by a militaristic government that only uses the Constitution to schedule the perpetual re-election of its incumbents, though, I must admit PBA is an emotional hot-button with the mob, I'm not in favor of it either. Then again, I'm not female, not a fetus, not a physician and thankfully, not a Republican or Democrat.

Alan Keyes is a demagogue, a ranter and a raver. From what he said, he is no Libertarian.

If he is a principal spokesman of the Republican Party, then what are its principles?

These are their self-evident principal principles, which they freely share with their Democrat colleagues: To get elected, to get re-elected, and to do favors for our 'friends' and damage to our 'enemies.'

 Fascist/socialists do not need to talk about the rising police state, in fact they are the constructors of it, outside the blueprints . They like power, they love power, they enjoy seeing it used to make others obey. The fact that one military adventure imposed on a country far away may kill more babies, and their mothers and fathers, than as many years of U.S. abortions, as Orrin Hatch has 'served' in the Senate, is waved away with politically correct balloons of gaseous platitudes and 'patriotic' bunting.

"Lincoln" was bandied about as the creator god of the Republican Party, and of wholesome American virtues, neither of which is true. Its first candidate in 1856, was John C. Fremont, another advocate of Henry Clay's "American Plan", which has always been for high taxes, high tariffs, and 'public improvements', paid for by federal taxes, actually an early form of national socialism, brought into modern America by FDR's New Deal, et seqitur.

If one looks at the Lincoln Memorial, and at the decor of the House of Representatives, one will see on the front legs of Lincoln's throne, and on the flanks of the Speaker's rostrum "fasces,1 : a bundle of rods having among them an ax with the blade projecting, borne before Roman magistrates as a badge of authority in ancient Rome. 2 : the authority symbolized by the fasces." (Webster's Dict.)
This style of government was later adopted by Mussolini, Hitler and Franco. It is called fascism, "...Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, political group + -ismo -ism
1 often capitalized : the principles of the Fascisti; also : the movement or governmental regime embodying their principles. 2 a : any program for setting up a centralized autocratic national regime with severely nationalistic policies, exercising regimentation of industry, commerce, and finance, rigid censorship, and forcible suppression of opposition b : any tendency toward or actual exercise of severe autocratic or dictatorial control (as over others within an organization) <the nascent fascism of a detective who is not content merely to do his duty -- George Nobbe> <early instances of army fascism and brutality -- J.W.Aldridge> <a kind of personal fascism, a dictatorship of the ego over the more generous elements of the soul -- Edmond Taylor." (Op cit.) [Emphasis added. JL]

Rah! Rah! Sis-Boom-Bah!
Our team, OUR TEAM!!!
Rah! Rah! Rah!

I almost barfed in my constitutionalist's tricorner hat. Lincoln's unnecessary war killed 620,000 American soldiers and another 40,000 civilians, to abrogate the Constitution by force of arms. Which might be called a continuing series of partial birth amendments since March 4, 1861. A vile practice that, once understood, causes lovers of the Rule of Law, to weep and cry aloud. These horrors may yet kill millions of innocents with the guilty.

Now you know why the Lincoln Memorial and the House, are not decorated with text of the Constitution  and the Bill of Rights, but with the symbols of former enemies and discredited regimes.
These Lawful, principled elements are too tacky, and old fashioned, to be displayed. If the voting public actually saw these honorable words on our public walls, where they could be readily compared to the unlawful behavior within them, then some innocent child might ask why the government's officers and wannabes, are dancing naked outside the Law, around the private offices of the Federal Reserve System, Congress's never empty cookies-for-votes jar.

No! The text of the Law of the Land, is inappropriate. But distracting symbols are, such as the fasces and large quantities of national flags, those are A-OK. The backdrop of the 'Patriotic Rally' was a huge 50 star, 13 stripe flag. It is a good thing that the gods we are officially encouraged to trust, are slow to act, else we could all have been killed by the lightning, the fire or the flood of paper 'money' to come.

Those who sow the wind will reap the whirlwind. Most of us will not even notice the change in the political weather. Have a nice trip. Good luck with the 'homeland security system.' As Alan Keyes might say, 'You deserve it, it's for your own good! And its support will prevent partial birth abortions!'
----- Original Message -----
  From: Dave Seely
  To: Jim Lorenz
  The present Republican administration has not recieved a declaration of war from Congress, has not issued letters of marque and reprisal, is threatening Iraq when Saudi Arabians constituted 19 of the 20 high jackers, has shown support for the UN and it's charter surrendering US Sovereignty to this Communist inspired organization and is clearly operating outside of the Constitution.  So the question is this:  Is there a guiding principle that the Republicans honor above all else?  Let me ask it another way;  If the Republicans refuse to be limited by the Constitution then what are the limits?
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Jim Lorenz
    To: Dave Seely
    Yes. Ask him if he agrees that The Golden Rule, wherein all People treat others as they want to be treated, should be followed? He will probably fall all over himself to agree with Buddha, Jesus,and its other teachers, then ask him why the Republican party is such a violator of it.

    What is the guiding principle of the Republican Party?

    Is there any Moral Law, that the Republicans honor above all others?

    Is there any moral standard expected of any Republican, such as the Libertarian's Pledge, to refrain from the initiation of force and fraud to gain any political or social goals?

    Would he act to charge the FBI to enforce the Bill of Rights, verbatim, literally word for word, against all violators, to the limits of the law, in this country?

    Can he say why the present R. Admin. has chosen not to Declare War, legislate on Pirates of the land, sea and air, or issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal?

    Can he say why the R. party has signed onto the Communist inspired UN, agreeing to surrender U.S. sovereignty to an foreign, unelected, anti-republican, anti-democratic cabal?

    If 19 of 20, 9/11/01 Air pirates and murderers, are Saudis by birth, and Saudis provide death awards to Wahibi suicide murderer's families, does he think that Riyadh, and Mecca should be attacked along with Baghdad and Damascus?

    Is he sponsoring any legislation to incorporate the American Bill of Rights into the UN Charter?

    If not, why not?

    Hasn't the Republican Party, since its inception in 1854, always been a high tariff, high spending, larger central government, party, echoing the fascist/federalist poison of Henry Clay? When was it ever in favor of obedience to the Constitution, except for Lawful Amendments? (Ans. Never, and to date.) 

    If the present government is acting to collect taxes, and conduct military operations, outside the limits of the Constitution, where are the limits and who, or what, establishes them? Are Public Opinion Polls the Republican's "Bill of What We Can Get Away With?" as contrasted to the properly ratified, Bill of Rights?

    If "In God We Trust" on federal reserve bank notes [unlawful money] and "under God", [to socialist Bellamy's flag ritual] are Congressional enactments [which they most certainly are] what words in the First Amendment, don't the Republican Members of Congress understand?


                Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,  or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    Do you know the definition of "demagogue"? I do:
    Ans. Main Entry: 1dem·a·gogue    Pronunciation Guide
    Variant(s): or dem·a·gog \gäg sometimes -gg\
    Function: noun
    Inflected Form(s): -s
    Etymology: Greek dmaggos, from dm- dem- + aggos leading, from agein to lead -- more at AGENT
    1 : a leader or orator in ancient times who championed the cause of the common people : a leader of the popular or plebeian party or faction in the state
    2 : one who employs demagogic methods; especially : a political leader who seeks to gain personal or partisan advantage by specious or extravagant claims, promises, or charges : RABBLE-ROUSER <play statesman one moment and demagogue the next -- Economist>
    demagogic: ... : characteristic of or like a demagogue <a demagogic concept of Americanism> <took demagogic advantage of a press interview> <the use of demagogic terminology> : tending or aiming to gain personal or partisan advantage by arousing or appealing to popular passions or prejudices especially by making specious or extravagant claims, promises, or charges : RABBLE-ROUSING <a demagogic attack on the "plutocracy"> <a demagogic manner of speech> <demagogic laws that he never meant to implement>
    - dem·a·gog·i·cal·ly \]k()l, -li\ adverb
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Dave Seely
      To: Jim Lorenz
      Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 9:16 AM
      Subject: Alan Keyes

      Alan Keyes is going to be on Bryan's show this afternoon, 4:00 hour I think.  Any good questions?  Like; You claim to be a Constitutionalist and yet you continue in the Republican party that ignores the Constitutions limits, how do morally justify this?  You claim to be in favor of a two year mandatory community service or draft, isn't this just human slavery?  Doesn't it just continue the socialistic education of our youth?

Subject:     Re: History CD
Date:        10/3/02 8:48 PM
Received:    10/4/02 7:54 PM
From:        Jim Lorenz, brojim@charter.net

Thanks for your prompt and comprehensive production analysis. I just did the R/T to SLC and I need to rest, but my organizing committee already has seven members. I'll write a report by, say Wed. of next week:October 9, 2002. 

Fiat justicia, ruat coleum, sine vi aut dolo. "Let justice be done, though the heavens fall, without force or fraud,"

Thanks again, your work is a great start. It is just the seed I asked for. 

I'm sure this is doable, it is Hannibal at Cannae.

This History as the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. No force no fraud, just the inflexible standard of the facts. When all children know about the FRS, IRS, SSA, etc., how are they going to tolerate their parents unlawful, but 'legal', "compliance."?

Please all see www.givemeliberty.org , and imagine a similar digital multilevel, multimedia PC learning tool aimed at K-12, in series, telling the truth about FDR, Wilson, the Great Depression, and all of our favorite problems caused by government interference, not 'market failures.'


Jim Lorenz
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Scott Hildebrandt
  To: brojim@charter.net
  Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 5:42 PM
  Subject: History CD

  Hello Jim, 

  I enjoyed speaking with you. I have outlined the rough idea, schedule, and costs associated with this project. If you need additional info or have questions, please contact me. I look forward to working with you. I tend to agree with Mr. Steele, and with Dave Seely on Principle; that is if "All men are created equal.", which must be true, at least in the eyes of the universal law, commonly called the Golden Rule, then prior restraint is an immoral application of force.

Since we are already flying over Iraq to 'enforce' the UN decreed 'no-fly-zones', and since we have whole networks of "eyes-in-the-sky" in the nature of orbiting satellites using infra-red, optical, RADAR and radio spectrum sensors, that can detect any missile launch within seconds of lift off, why not prepare, and advertise, what is planned, on confirmation of first evidence of deliberate aggression against us? We could even refurbish our SR-71 Blackbirds, and photograph every inch of the Middle East, from 80,000 feet, within one meter of resolution.

FDR, for all his evil thoughts and actions, knew that this country would not go to war with the will to win, unless we got our commonsense, obliterated with euphoric war-rage hysteria. That's why he set up Pearl Harbor, as the bait to take the fall, carefully removing the only 3 carriers, and their modern battle groups in the entire Pacific, safely away from the known target. For those of you who don't know the facts, please look up "Pearl Harbor" or Dec. 7, 1941, on www.USchronology.com , we have documented this very thoroughly, from independent sources.

Bush41 and Bush43 may not be as devious as FDR32, who, as a liar, is in the world class with Wilson28, and Lincoln16, but the Bushes are equally as disinterested in the Lawful boundaries of the Constitution, as they are interested in unquestioned power. I don't think either of these had the wit, or control, to set up crackpot Arabs, to do a specific dirty deed, but our interventionist foreign policy has set the world stage for endless vendettas and reprisals. Why aren't the Arabs bombing Switzerland? Its flag is a white cross on a red field.

Isn't it true that warfare is the welfare of the state? I'd be happy to be proven wrong. Give it your best shot.

This is all the fault of Moses, who was old, and staggering under the sudden weight of those hot tablets of stone. He thought he heard, "Shamaa Israel", ("Next year in Israel") modern Israelis think Y-W said "Shamaa L.A.", but I suspect the truth was hidden by the smoke and thunder, as an all powerful, all knowing Y-W must surely have said "Shamaa Arabia. Read the law, but study geology."

As to this once Republic, formed and created and limited by the Constitution, it was murdered by Abraham Lincoln on March 4, 1861, when he put his hand on a bible and swore his sacred oath:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Which he had no intention of honoring, which is proven by his subsequent behavior. Sadly, he was murdered by another fanatic, and is remembered as a fallen martyr, not as the monster he was, all things considered.

We can blame Lincoln for the first military draft, first income tax, first federal paper 'money', first "In God We Trust" motto on that bad money, first dictated suspension of Habeas Corpus, Forced suspension of some newspapers, military prisons for political prisoners, and the needless deaths of some 620,000 Americans. And following Lincoln's War, the false 13th, 14th and 15th 'amendments', which have been used to enslave us all.

To date, 9/16/2002, no President, no CONgress, no "supreme Court" has moved to restore the Constitution of Original Intent. Ever wonder why? Could it be that such a restoration would be profitable for the People and not for our parasites? (The only qualified exception has been Nixon37, who abolished the forced military draft, but allowed the registration mechanism to remain in place.)

Lincoln set these vile, repugnant, precedents, and the various feather merchants in the 37th and 38th CONgresses, et sequitur, voted him ex-post-facto fawning approval, "I mean, after all there is a popular war on, and I need to get re-elected. War first, declaration later!" 'Ole Honest Abe's' lie about not reinforcing Fort Sumter, tricked the hotheads of the S.C. militia to shoot first, giving 'Good Old Abe', the hick country (railroad) lawyer, his "causa bellum", very much like Pearl Harbor served FDR.

Honest people, who truly want the best outcome for their nation, and all nations, will deplore the loss of confidence in the Rule of Law. They will forgo buying any more flags, and show their true patriotism by reading our founding documents for understanding, with their families and loved ones, with the money and time saved. Please also see http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nat-gen/2002/sep/05/090508507.html for a current analysis of the fading Bill of Rights.

Bill of Rights Day celebrates 1791's December 15, which this year falls on a Sunday. Perhaps these Ten American Commandments could be read to all of the faithful? But I have little hope. Less in Utah, where the Sabbath must not be profaned by celebrations of human freedom, except in those years where national holidays do not conflict with local religious doctrine. (I was thinking of the last 4th of July, as compared to the Days of '47.)

One might ask why aren't we dropping leaflets of the Bill of Rights, translated into Middle Eastern languages? Wouldn't that make real local problems for the dictators and Mullahs? No? Oh, because that would be seen as hypocritical, as the world knows we don't take our own advice? Yes, might as well drop the bombs, at least they engender unreasoning fear and hate, which we can readily understand and deal with. That will also avoid any discussion of why our own, "Born in the USA" government, has such a tough time in following the Law of the Land. Doesn't the bible say, "As ye sow, so shall ye reap."?

Bombs away! Enjoy the harvest.

Pre-Emptive Self Defense
(Just Don't Call It War)

by Edgar J. Steele

September 15, 2002

Come a little closer, huh, a-will ya, huh?
Close enough to look in my eyes, Sharona
Keepin' it a mystery, it gets to me…

MY SHARONA - written by Doug Fieger and Berton Avarre, recorded by The Knack, 1979

Gonna kick Saddam's butt.  Gonna root out terrorists.  Gonna make the world safe for democracy.

Whoa, you say.  Starting a war is illegal under both the UN Charter and the US Constitution?  No problem.  We just call it self defense!  Yeah,that's it!  We're just defending ourselves.  Don't need to bother with them pesky congresscritters, either.

Thus has evolved George Bush's newfound doctrine of self defense by pre-emptive strikes upon Iraq.  War, it used to be called.  But, America does not initiate war, by definition, so it must be something else, of course.

This is the latest Orwellian doubletalk coming from Washington. Conjures up images of the playing cards painting the Queen's roses red.

Excuse me while I take a couple of aspirin and lay down for a while. Maybe this headache will just go away.  On the other hand, maybe what we're having is a brain aneurism.   A nationwide head case is what we've become. Just ask almost any European.

Bush and Blair, the current sock puppets for Greater Israel's NWO hegemonic ambitions, leaders of the free world and protectors of democracy, claim to have the goods on Saddam.  As with Osama, though, the goods are not for our eyes.  In fact, Blair urges, merely having established a connection between Osama and Saddam should be enough.  No, we can't be trusted with the proof of that, either, of course.

Every time I become self-righteously indignant because these guys
actually expect us to believe this tripe, I am stunned anew by the realization that, apparently, most Americans actually do believe it!  Hope springs eternal, but I fear that P.T. Barnum was right.

It's tough being among the awake in the early hours.  Actually, these aren't really the early hours, anymore.  While more and more are tumbling to what's going on, it doesn't seem to be nearly fast enough to save the Union.  Increasingly, I doubt the worth of saving it, anyway.

If George Washington and Thomas Jefferson suddenly were brought to life today, I like to think they would buy a bazooka and a road map to Washington, DC.  Throw in a red '61 Cadillac convertible and you've got a toga road trip to make Hunter S. Thompson proud!  Now, there is reality TV that I might actually watch.

Bush says we should invade Iraq because it has violated 16 UN Security Council Resolutions.  But, not a peep about over a hundred resolutions being ignored by Israel, of course, or America, for that matter.  Then he says the UN will be irrelevant if it doesn't sign on to our war against Israel's enemies.  More of that "If'n you ain't with us, you be agin us" business.

Will we be strafing the UN building next?

Put it back in your pants, George.


"I didn't say it would be easy.  I just said it would be the truth." - Morpheus

Copyright © Edgar J. Steele, 2002

Forward as you wish.  Permission is granted to circulate among private individuals and roups, post on all Internet sites and publish in full in all not-for-profit publications.  Contact author for all other rights, which are reserved.

Write to me at Steele@ConspiracyPenPal.com
Subscribe: Send blank email to   subscribe@conspiracypenpal.com

Make a difference!  The Patriot Civil Liberties Union (PCLU) needs your support to continue its work fighting for the right of Americans to be free of government tyranny at all levels and for restoration of the US Constitution as America's guiding charter.  Please mail donations toPCLU, PO Box 1255, Sagle, Idaho 83860.  Credit cards: PayPal.com for Donate@PCLU.org.

ear Letters Editor
Bushes True Republicans
Jim Lorenz, Libertarian emeritus, a political opinion, 3/7/2003
718 words
All of this horrible stuff that Republican Bush(43) is doing now is based on precedents established by Republican Lincoln(16). I quote from reading "The Real Lincoln..." by Thomas J. DiLorenzo, Forum Books, (2002) ISBN 0-7615-3641-8, Chap. 6, "Was Lincoln A Dictator" p.131-2,  though I have changed the layout, and added the enumeration. JL quoting:

All of these events [1810 Northeast secession crises, Alien & Sedition Acts, etc.] illustrate the devotion the founding generation had to constitutional liberty, even when facing the very real threat of disunion. Not so with Abraham Lincoln. Even though the large majority of Americans, North and South, believed in the right of secession as of 1861, upon taking office Lincoln implemented a series of unconstitutional acts, including
[1]launching an invasion of the South without consulting Congress, as required by the Constitution;
[2]declaring martial law;
[3]blockading the Southern ports;
[4]suspending the writ of habeas corpus for the duration of his administration;
[5]imprisoning without trial thousands of Northern citizens;
[6]arresting and imprisoning newspaper publishers who were critical of him; [7]censoring all telegraph communication;
[8]nationalizing the railroads;
[9]creating several new states without the consent of the citizens of those states; [West Virginia and Nevada]
[10]ordering Federal troops to interfere with [multiple] elections in the North by intimidating Democratic voters;
[11]deporting a member of Congress, Clement L. Vallandigham of Ohio, for criticizing the administration’s income tax proposal at a Democratic Party rally;
[12]confiscating private property;
[13]confiscating firearms in violation of the Second Amendment;
[14]and effectively gutting the Ninth and Tenth amendments to the Constitution, among other things.
    “This amazing disregard for the …Constitution,” wrote historian Clinton Rossiter, “was considered by nobody as legal.” Rossiter generally praised Lincoln, however, as a “great dictator” and a “true democrat,” two phrases that are not normally considered to be consistent with one another.
    Having suspended habeas corpus, Lincoln ordered the arrest and imprisonment of virtually anyone who disagreed with his views—views that were new, radical, and not yet subject to any debate by the people’s representatives in Congress, or by the judiciary. In retrospect, no man who had the least bit of respect for constitutional liberty could have ever done such things. It would have been simply unthinkable to Jefferson, Madison, or Washington. [End quote.]

What is different today? Today’s media are controlled by subtler means, licensing, ownership control, etc., The internet has superceded the telegraph, and a large part of the telephone business. Now we can see our Constitution violated in living color, and hear it violated in Dolby 5.1 sound. Not much change in the direct methods of police states, they are tried and true.
They are also the methods of all terrorists from Babeuf and Robespierre, through Mussolini, Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Hitler, including Hussein and many others.
The 14 crimes referenced above were lost in the sea of blood from the 630,00 killed, and the million and a half, merely horribly wounded. Not to detail the racial hatred that was the outcome of Reconstruction, etc.
How many times will we have to see this bloody story in re-runs, until we get the picture when we hear the overture?

Last night (3/6/2003) Republican Bush (43) said he was bound by his oath to support and defend the Constitution. He said it twice or more. Why doesn’t he read the Constitution, or obey it? (Perhaps Laura could read it to him?) He even added that he swore his oath with his left hand on a bible. So did Lincoln, and all of the rest. (Doesn’t add much credibility to the Good Book’s vengeful Y--h.) In any case Republican Bush (43) did not ask the Republican majority in Congress for a Declaration of War, he did not ask for new and sharper legislation to combat Piracy at sea, and in the air, he did  not ask for a review of U.S. foreign policy regarding excessive foreign entanglements. He did not say that the primary duty of his administration was to obey the Constitution, but to create peace by going to war. “War is Peace,” right out of Orwell’s “1984.” Ghastly to libertarians of every stripe.

But, I must give credit to Republicans Bush (41) and Bush, (43) they are faithful, unto the death of untold thousands, to the principles and precedents of the Republican Party of Henry Clay, John Charles Fremont and Abraham Lincoln.

As you read the below article, a question may rise to mind, "Why do Americans, in general, have such a poor understanding of how government is supposed to operate, and are so foolishly trusting when led to war?"

We know why. The historical and economic truth, of the record, of reality, is either not taught, or mistaught in what must be a deliberate propaganda campaign to advance statism by the government's schools.
Proof: If the government's schools wanted to produce a free people, it would insist on teaching the Bill of Rights, each and every one of them, then the Constitution, phrase by phrase, then the Federalist Papers, Madison's Notes, Eliot's Debates, Adam Smith, John Locke, J. B. Say, et al.
It or they, do not. It does have time for the bloody UN, the 'Pledge to the Flag', Latino History month and Earth Day, which cannot be a threat to the status quo.

Solution: A privately produced VCD/CD/DVD that is a superb independent teaching/learning tool, loaded with enough detail to carry any logical argument to a conclusion. Multilevel, as to detail and Quiz difficulty, multimedia, to use the most illustrative format for the case in question. Will run on most PCs, does not require a government licensed teacher to operate and understand. (It may include the "Government's school's preferred 'answer,' for gaming purposes.)

The threat: An educated student body of aware Citizens, ready to claim their majority, and effect political and social change, based on realistic, honest, economics (Austrian school) and the knowable facts of U.S. and World history, with a constitutionalist, libertarian, emphasis.
An army of innocents, armed with the truthful facts, and aware of the traps and snares of a deceitful government; may they be, "Harmless as doves, as wise as serpents."
If we reach that coming generation, it is they who will restore the Rule of Law, and faithfully teach their children the benefits of a national/federal government, defined and limited by The Constitution, as Lawfully ratified. We may reach a few thousand adults, they will be a bonus. The target remains the children. Do our American kids deserve the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I'm sure my grandkids do.

Michael, Scott, Bill, Marguerite and Tom;
        I mailed you each a copy of ZANE's "U.S. History" yesterday, with draft copies of a cover package. Please be kind enough to review the CD, "The Great Depression."  I bought all six on Costco's table, so if I've done nothing else, I've saved six innocent families from this rape of history. It begs an answer.
Comments welcome from all. This is in preparation for a formal presentation to _________(make your list) and will include _______________________ (please suggest) and a copy, as above, of a perfectly horrible example, of good art, that sells a very bad idea.

Thanks for helping me work out the product definition. Jim Lorenz


No More "Great Presidents"
By Robert Higgs*
My idea of a great president is one who acts in accordance with his oath of office to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." Not since the presidency of Grover Cleveland has any president achieved greatness by this standard. Worse, the most admired have been those who failed most miserably. Evidently my standard differs from that employed by others who judge presidential greatness.

In the New York Times Magazine for December 15, 1996, Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., presented the results of a poll of historians asked to rank the presidents (excepting only William Henry Harrison and Zachary Taylor, who held office very briefly). Thirty historians plus politicos Mario M. Cuomo and Paul Simon were asked to rank the nation's chief executives as Great, Near Great, Average, Below Average, or Failure. The ranking applies to performance in the White House, not to lifetime accomplishments, and the historians used their own judgment as to what constitutes greatness or failure.

The results of the poll correspond well with the results of a number of earlier polls, especially in the set of presidents regarded as Great or Near Great. The three Great ones are Washington, Lincoln, and Franklin D. Roosevelt. The Near Great comprise Jefferson, Jackson, Polk, Theodore Roosevelt, Wilson, and Truman. The Failures are Pierce, Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Grant, Harding, Hoover, and Nixon, the last ranking at the very bottom of the heap.

What are we to make of this ranking? Well, it helps to know that the historians (and two politicians) doing the ranking are nearly all left-liberals. In this regard they faithfully represent the historical profession in the United States today. In making their judgments, such historians bring to bear left-liberal beliefs and values. Thus, one respondent, James MacGregor Burns, asks: "How can one evaluate such an idiosyncratic President [as Nixon], so brilliant and so morally lacking?"-as if Nixon were, in this crowd, uniquely immoral.

One need not ponder the rankings long, however, to discover a remarkable correlation: all but one of the presidents ranked as Great or Near Great had an intimate association with war, either in office or by reputation before taking office. Of the top-ranking "nine immortals," five (Lincoln, FDR, Polk, Wilson, and Truman) were commander in chief when the nation went to war, and three (Washington, Jackson, and Teddy Roosevelt) were best known prior to becoming president for their martial exploits. The one exception, Jefferson, confined his presidential bellicosity to authorizing, with Congressional consent, the naval engagements against the Barbary pirates. (Of course, he had been a revolutionary official during the War of Independence.)

In contrast, of the eleven presidents ranked as Below Average or Failure, all but one (Nixon) managed to keep the nation at peace during their terms in office, and even Nixon ultimately extracted the United States from the quagmire of the war in Vietnam, though not until many more lives had been squandered.

The lesson seems obvious. Any president who craves a high place in the annals of history should hasten to thrust the American people into an orgy of death and destruction. It does not matter how ill-conceived the war may be. Lincoln achieved his presidential immortality by quite unnecessarily plunging America into its greatest bloodbath-ostensibly to maintain the boundaries of an existing federal union, as if those boundaries possessed some sacred status. Wilson, on his own initiative and against the preference of a clear majority of the American people, propelled the country into a grotesquely senseless, shockingly barbarous clash of European dynasties in which the United States had no substantial national interest. On such savage and foolish foundations is presidential greatness constructed.

I hold no brief for John Quincy Adams, Martin Van Buren, or Chester Arthur. But give them their due; at least they did not spill the blood of their fellow citizens. Grant and Harding, who always rank near the bottom, do not deserve such contempt. Schlesinger observes that "their sin was excessive loyalty to crooked friends"-a sin that, in truth, many presidents have committed. And even Schlesinger admits: "Scandal and corruption are indefensible, but they may injure the general welfare less than misconceived policies."

Indeed, scandal and corruption, which not surprisingly have tainted most administrations to some degree, pale by comparison to the damage presidential policy decisions have wreaked. What weight does Grant's Credit Mobilier scandal have in comparison to Lincoln's 620,000 dead in the Civil War? Harding's Teapot Dome affair is but a drop in the ocean compared to the global horrors set in train by Wilson's decision to take the United States into World War I: Allied victory, a harsh Versailles treaty, German resentment, the rise of Nazism, and World War II, not to speak of the rise of Communism, which also followed in World War I's wake. Why do the historians, and following them the public, place on pedestals the leaders responsible for such utter catastrophes?

I have a theory: left-liberal historians worship political power, and idolize those who wield it most lavishly in the service of left-liberal causes. How else can one account for the beatification of Lincoln, Wilson, and Franklin Roosevelt? Truman, now so elevated in the estimation of the historians, left office in unpopularity bordering on disgrace because of his Korean War disaster, but the historians forgive him, admiring his use of nuclear weapons and attempts to preserve and extend the New Deal. Theodore Roosevelt, a bloodthirsty proto-fascist, evokes admiration because of his public flogging of big business, a perennial left-liberal whipping boy.

Were I to rank the presidents, I would not quite turn the historians ranking on its head, but I would move in that direction. Certainly Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, Truman, and Lyndon Johnson belong at the bottom, for their statist economic policies as well as their supremely catastrophic war policies.

Finding presidents to put at the top of the list poses more difficulty, especially in choosing among those who have held office during the past century. Grover Cleveland, though far from perfect, may have been the best. He kept the country at peace. He respected the Constitution, acknowledging that the national government has only a limited mission to perform and shaping his policies accordingly. He fought to lower tariffs; preserved the gold standard in its time of crisis; and restored order forcibly when hoodlums disturbed the peace on a wide front during the great railroad strike of 1894.

Washington, I think, actually does deserve a high rating-not even the historians can be wrong all the time. He established the precedent of stepping down after two terms, which lasted until it clashed with FDR's insatiable ambition, and he prescribed the sensible foreign policy, later slandered as "isolationism," that served the nation well for more than a century. Other early presidents who were not entirely reprehensible in office include Jefferson and Jackson, though each committed grave derelictions.

Of the presidents since Cleveland, I rank Coolidge the highest. He sponsored sharp tax cuts and greatly reduced the national debt. As H.L. Mencken wrote, "There were no thrills while he reigned, but neither were there any headaches. He had no ideas, and he was not a nuisance"-high praise in view of the execrable performance of other twentieth-century presidents. Taft and Eisenhower were a cut above the rest, but that's not saying much.

Unfortunately, under FDR the Constitution suffered damage that none of his successors has repaired and most have made worse. Certainly since 1932-and, one might well argue, since 1896-no president has been true to his oath of office. Realizing the ambitions harbored by Teddy Roosevelt and Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt created the "imperial presidency," and we have been the worse for it ever since.

The people who ratified the original Constitution never intended the presidency to be a powerful office spawning "great men." Article II, Sections 2-4, which enumerate the powers of the president, comprise but four paragraphs, most of which deal with appointments and minor duties.

The president is to act as commander in chief of the army and navy, but Congress alone can commit the nation to war, that is, "declare war." The president is to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed," but only Congress can enact laws, and then only within the scope of its limited, enumerated powers. The presidency was intended to be a largely ceremonial position whose occupant would confine himself to enforcing federal laws.

But over time, abruptly during Lincoln's presidency and progressively during the twentieth century, presidents seized more and more power.

Just before Clinton took office in 1993, the Seattle Times crowned an opinion article with the stunningly stupid headline, "Can Bill Clinton Save America?"

American liberty will never be reestablished so long as elites and masses alike look to the president to perform supernatural feats and therefore tolerate his virtually unlimited exercise of power. Until we can restore limited, constitutional government in this country, God save us from great presidents.


*Robert Higgs is Senior Fellow in Political Economy at The Independent Institute and editor of The Independent Review. Among Dr. Higgs's books are Crisis and Leviathan: Critical Episodes in the Growth of American Government and Arms, Politics and the Economy: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives.

This article is reprinted  permission from the March 1997 issue of The Free Market. © Copyright 1997, Ludwig von Mises Institute, 518 W. Magnolia Avenue, Auburn, AL 36832-4528.

| Home | Conditioning | Conspiracy |