Drastic changes to government are underway across the globe.
By the year 2020 we will all be governed by a new system of law.
2020 by Niki Raapana with Nordica Friedrich.
http://nord.twu.net/acl/amerhist.html
|
".. Some historians have depicted the United States as a society centered around Lockean values, those of rights and liberty 8. Actually, it is now widely agreed that the United States had, from its inception, both a strong communitarian and individualistic strand, a synthesis of republican virtues and liberal values 9." Amitai Etzioni in The Emerging Global Normative Synthesis (pdf file) published in The Journal of Political Philosophy Volume 12, Number 2, 2004 pp. 214-244.(bold added) {Editor's note: Thesis v. Antithesis = Synthesis, aka The Hegelian dialectic} |
![[ Death ]](http://www.holoweb.net/~liam/pictures/oldbooks/Death-titlepage.jpg)
Religious
President McKinley was a prominent Freemason: "His Masonic record is almost equally impressive. He never forgot Masonry and, holding the full range of York Rite Degrees, he delivered the address at the centennial of Washington's death. On December 14, 1899, at Mount Vernon, Bro. McKinley addressed the Masonic observance of the centennial saying: "The Fraternity justly claims the immortal patriot as one of its members; and the whole human family acknowledges him as one of the greatest benefactors."
He regularly visited Lodges in his national travels and in Washington, D.C. A delegation from Columbia Lodge No. 2397 visited him in the White House and gave him a certificate of membership in that Lodge in London, England. He attended a reception in his honor at California Commandery No. 1 in San Francisco, on May 22, 1901./During an Imperial Council meeting in Washington, he received the Shriners at the White House, and, also at the White House, tendered a reception for the Scottish Rite's Supreme Council, Southern Jurisdiction, on October 23, 1899. Those activities typified his regular promotion of and participation in our honorable institution./
Anarchist Leon Czolgosz killed the man, but he could not kill his exemplary record of humanitarian achievements and public service. Bro. McKinley's remains were accompanied from the White House to the Capitol by five Commanderies of Knights Templar. He lay in state two days, and on September 19, 1901, uniformed Knights Templar, some two thousand strong, formed one full division of the funeral escort."|
"No one knows just how old Freemasonry is because the actual origins have been lost in time. Most scholars believe Masonry arose from the guilds of stonemasons who built the majestic castles and cathedrals of the middle ages. In 1717, Masonry created a formal organization when four Lodges in London joined in forming England's first Grand Lodge. By 1731, when Benjamin Franklin joined the Fraternity, there were already several Lodges in the Colonies, and in Canada the first Lodge was established in 1738." |
| "French aristocrat Marie-Joseph-Paul-Yves-Roch-Gilbert du Motier, marquis de Lafayette, fought with American colonists against the British and, as a leader of the liberal aristocrats and outspoken advocate of religious toleration, was a powerful influence in the first few years of the French Revolution. There is no question that Lafayette was a freemason, for the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania received him with distinguished honours during his last visit to the USA, and the Grand Lodge of Tennessee made him an honorary member when Andrew Jackson, seventh USA president (1829-1836), introduced him to that Grand Lodge in 1825. Where he was made a freemason though, remains an unanswered question." |
|
"It was not my intention to doubt that, the Doctrines of the Illuminati, and principles of Jacobinism had not spread in the United States. On the contrary, no one is more truly satisfied of this fact than I am...
The idea that I meant to convey, was, that I did not believe that the Lodges of Free Masons in this Country had, as Societies, endeavoured to propagate the diabolical tenets of the first, or pernicious principles of the latter (if they are susceptible of seperation). That Individuals of them may have done it, or that the founder, or instrument employed to found, the Democratic Societies in the United States, may have had these objects; and actually had a seperation of the People from their Government in view, is too evident to be questioned." The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources, 1745-1799. John C. Fitzpatrick, Editor. Mount Vernon, October 24, 1798. |
|
A war rages today for the heart, mind and soul of man. It has boiled below the surface, hidden and in stealth, for several generations. At stake is nothing less than the complete indoctrination of America and the world into an utterly alien manner of thinking and living. This book ties together various knowledge and documentation to illustrate, without the shadow of a doubt, that there has been an agenda behind the scenes to control world events, and ultimately mankind itself. It provides sure evidence that a global structure exists that few could imagine, a structure commonly called the “shadow government.” This book is not a walk in the park on a sunny spring day. It will rattle you to the core of your existence because many of your previous beliefs will need to be rethought. It will question many areas where you thought you were intellectually and emotionally safe. It will also cause you to question the news and other information in a much more penetrating way. At first blush, it could cause you to think that the material is borne from the tree of a right wing radical, an extremist, a Constitutionalist, a member of a militia, the John Birch Society, the Christian Coalition, or other groups that would be considered right of center. However, I am none of the above, not even a member of the National Rifle Association. I am merely a scribe who has read for nearly twenty-five years on this subject, seen that clear patterns exist, and gradually patched together a quilt from disparate information. I am not alone. It is not a question of being a Democrat, Republican or member of the Reform party. It is much deeper than that because the stench is institutional and has existed for generations. People from all different political and sociological backgrounds are seeing that the material presented in this book is not as far-fetched as one would think. When you are finished, there will be absolutely no doubt that it is true. Your perception of reality will be altered. Those who will gain the most will be those who drop the baggage they carry from preconceived notions. Most of what you think about the world is really from the news you read, but most every news organization is controlled by a global elite that has been conditioning you without your even knowing it. When someone can do that, it is genius, and we are dealing with pure unadulterated genius with this group. This group has no affections or ideologies; it is solely about control. There is a plan for a One World Order, a New World Order, a new way of thinking. It is not emerging; it is here now, and with a vengeance. A paradigm shift has occurred wherein everything that you were ever taught about government can no longer explain what is really happening behind the scenes. America’s demise is the result of an orchestrated effort designed to force us to approach the negotiating table as an equal to everyone in the world. It is an insidious plot hatched in sophisticated clubs and restaurants where the general public never pokes its eyes or ears. There is a group of global elitists who plan to rule the world on the terms that they have legislated into existence. Who are they? Where do they work? What are their professions? What is their nationality? They are an elite group of bankers, philanthropists, and senior level policy wonks who have signed on to the theory that the world needs rehabilitation because it doesn’t work the way they perceive it should work. It springs from a Hegelian doctrine that believes man is best when he serves the State. They seek to impose an impossible utopia. No sense of the Divine will be allowed, in fact it must be forcefully eradicated if a New World is to emerge, because people must have nothing independent of that world to believe in. It operates so quietly you don’t even know it exists. This secrecy and camouflage represent its closest proximity to perfection, for barely anyone knows it is there. The One World Order and One World religion, both of the same beast, will be required thinking; conformity will be mandatory. Those considered politically incorrect will be marginalized out of the circle of influence and will lose their ability to exist in the public marketplace. Independent thought, and those who embrace it, will be cast out of accepted society. And don’t think that you will be able to sit by and watch idly as a neutral without opinion, for no fence sitting will be possible. You will be either in or out." |
|
Anti-Federalist Paper, #84 (BRUTUS) ON THE LACK OF A BILL OF RIGHTS When a building is to be erected which is intended to stand for ages, the foundation should be firmly laid. The Constitution proposed to your acceptance is designed, not for yourselves alone, but for generations yet unborn. The principles, therefore, upon which the social compact is founded, ought to have been clearly and precisely stated, and the most express and full declaration of rights to have been made. But on this subject there is almost an entire silence. If we may collect the sentiments of the people of America, from their own most solemn declarations, they hold this truth as self-evident, that all men are by nature free. No one man, therefore, or any class of men, have a right, by the law of nature, or of God, to assume or exercise authority over their fellows. The origin of society, then, is to be sought, not in any natural right which one man has to exercise authority over another, but in the united consent of those who associate. The mutual wants of men at first dictated the propriety of forming societies: and when they were established, protection and defense pointed out the necessity of instituting government. In a state of nature every individual pursues his own interest; in this pursuit it frequently happened, that the possessions or enjoyments of one were sacrificed to the views and designs of another; thus the weak were a prey to the strong, the simple and unwary were subject to impositions from those who were more crafty and designing. In this state of things, every individual was insecure; common interest, therefore, directed that government should be established, in which the force of the whole community should be collected, and under such directions, as to protect and defend every one who composed it. The common good, therefore, is the end of civil government, and common consent, the foundation on which it is established. To effect this end, it was necessary that a certain portion of natural liberty should be surrendered, in order that what remained should be preserved. How great a proportion of natural freedom is necessary to be yielded by individuals, when they submit to government, I shall not inquire. So much, however, must be given, as will be sufficient to enable those to whom the administration of the government is committed, to establish laws for the promoting the happiness of the community, and to carry those laws into effect. But it is not necessary, for this purpose, that individuals should relinquish all their natural rights. Some are of such a nature that they cannot be surrendered. Of this kind are the rights of conscience, the right of enjoying and defending life, etc. Others are not necessary to be resigned in order to attain the end for which government is instituted; these therefore ought not to be given up. To surrender them, would counteract the very end of government, to wit, the common good. From these observations it appears, that in forming a government on its true principles, the foundation should be laid in the manner I before stated, by expressly reserving to the people such of their essential rights as are not necessary to be parted with. The same reasons which at first induced mankind to associate and institute government, will operate to influence them to observe this precaution. If they had been disposed to conform themselves to the rule of immutable righteousness, government would not have been requisite. It was because one part exercised fraud, oppression and violence, on the other, that men came together, and agreed that certain rules should be formed to regulate the conduct of all, and the power of the whole community lodged in the hands of rulers to enforce an obedience to them. But rulers have the same propensities as other men; they are as likely to use the power with which they are vested, for private purposes, and to the injury and oppression of those over whom they are placed, as individuals in a state of nature are to injure and oppress one another. It is therefore as proper that bounds should be set to their authority, as that government should have at first been instituted to restrain private injuries. This principle, which seems so evidently founded in the reason and nature of things, is confirmed by universal experience. Those who have governed, have been found in all ages ever active to enlarge their powers and abridge the public liberty. This has induced the people in all countries, where any sense of freedom remained, to fix barriers against the encroachments of their rulers. The country from which we have derived our origin, is an eminent example of this. Their magna charta and bill of rights have long been the boast, as well as the security of that nation. I need say no more, I presume, to an American, than that this principle is a fundamental one, in all the Constitutions of our own States; there is not one of them but what is either founded on a declaration or bill of rights, or has certain express reservation of rights interwoven in the body of them. From this it appears, that at a time when the pulse of liberty beat high, and when an appeal was made to the people to form Constitutions for the government of themselves, it was their universal sense, that such declarations should make a part of their frames of government. It is, therefore, the more astonishing, that this grand security to the rights of the people is not to be found in this Constitution. It has been said, in answer to this objection, that such declarations of rights, however requisite they might be in the Constitutions of the States, are not necessary in the general Constitution, because, "in the former case, every thing which is not reserved is given; but in the latter, the reverse of the proposition prevails, and every thing which is not given is reserved." It requires but little attention to discover, that this mode of reasoning is rather specious than solid. The powers, rights and authority, granted to the general government by this Constitution, are as complete, with respect to every object to which they extend, as that of any State government-it reaches to every thing which concerns human happiness-life, liberty, and property are under its control. There is the same reason, therefore, that the exercise of power, in this case, should be restrained within proper limits, as in that of the State governments. To set this matter in a clear light, permit me to instance some of the articles of the bills of rights of the individual States, and apply them to the case in question. For the security of life, in criminal prosecutions, the bills of rights of most of the States have declared, that no man shall be held to answer for a crime until he is made fully acquainted with the charge brought against him; he shall not be compelled to accuse, or furnish evidence against himself-the witnesses against him shall be brought face to face, and he shall be fully heard by himself or counsel. That it is essential to the security of life and liberty, that trial of facts be in the vicinity where they happen. Are not provisions of this kind as necessary in the general government, as in that of a particular State? The powers vested in the new Congress extend in many cases to life; they are authorized to provide for the punishment of a variety of capital crimes, and no restraint is laid upon them in its exercise, save only, that "the trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be in the State where the said crimes shall have been committed." No man is secure of a trial in the county where he is charged to have committed a crime; he may be brought from Niagara to New York, or carried from Kentucky to Richmond for trial for an offense supposed to be committed. What security is there, that a man shall be furnished with a full and plain description of the charges against him? That he shall be allowed to produce all proof he can in his favor? That he shall see the witnesses against him face to face, or that he shall be fully heard in his own defense by himself or counsel? For the security of liberty it has been declared, "that excessive bail should not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel or unusual punishments inflicted. That all warrants, without oath or affirmation, to search suspected places, or seize any person, his papers or property, are grievous and oppressive." These provisions are as necessary under the general government as under that of the individual States; for the power of the former is as complete to the purpose of requiring bail, imposing fines, inflicting punishments, granting search warrants, and seizing persons, papers, or property, in certain cases, as the other. For the purpose of securing the property of the citizens, it is declared by all the States, "that in all controversies at law, respecting property, the ancient mode of trial by jury is one of the best securities of the rights of the people, and ought to remain sacred and inviolable." Does not the same necessity exist of reserving this right under their national compact, as in that of the States? Yet nothing is said respecting it. In the bills of rights of the States it is declared, that a well regulated militia is the proper and natural defense of a free government; that as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous, they are not to be kept up, and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and controlled by, the civil power. The same security is as necessary in this Constitution, and much more so; for the general government will have the sole power to raise and to pay armies, and are under no control in the exercise of it; yet nothing of this is to be found in this new system. I might proceed to instance a number of other rights, which were as necessary to be reserved, such as, that elections should be free, that the liberty of the press should be held sacred; but the instances adduced are sufficient to prove that this argument is without foundation. Besides, it is evident that the reason here assigned was not the true one, why the framers of this Constitution omitted a bill of rights; if it had been, they would not have made certain reservations, while they totally omitted others of more importance. We find they have, in the ninth section of the first article declared, that the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless in cases of rebellion,-that no bill of attainder, or ex post facto law, shall be passed,-that no title of nobility shall be granted by the United States, etc. If every thing which is not given is reserved, what propriety is there in these exceptions? Does this Constitution any where grant the power of suspending the habeas corpus, to make ex post facto laws, pass bills of attainder, or grant titles of nobility? It certainly does not in express terms. The only answer that can be given is, that these are implied in the general powers granted. With equal truth it may be said, that all the powers which the bills of rights guard against the abuse of, are contained or implied in the general ones granted by this Constitution. So far is it from being true, that a bill of rights is less necessary in the general Constitution than in those of the States, the contrary is evidently the fact. This system, if it is possible for the people of America to accede to it, will be an original compact; and being the last wilt, in the nature of things, vacate every former agreement inconsistent with it. For it being a plan of government received and ratified by the whole people, all other forms which are in existence at the time of its adoption, must yield to it. This is expressed in positive and unequivocal terms in the sixth article: "That this Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution, or laws of any State, to the contrary notwithstanding." "The senators and representatives before-mentioned, and the members of the several State legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States, and of the several States, shall be bound, by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution." It is therefore not only necessarily implied thereby, but positively expressed, that the different State Constitutions are repealed and entirely done away, so far as they are inconsistent with this, with the laws which shall be made in pursuance thereof, or with treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States. Of what avail will the Constitutions of the respective States be to preserve the rights of its citizens? Should they be pled, the answer would be, the Constitution of the United States, and the laws made in pursuance thereof, is the supreme law, and all legislatures and judicial officers, whether of the General or State governments, are bound by oath to support it. No privilege, reserved by the bills of rights, or secured by the State governments, can limit the power granted by this, or restrain any laws made in pursuance of it. It stands, therefore, on its own bottom, and must receive a construction by itself, without any reference to any other. And hence it was of the highest importance, that the most precise and express declarations and reservations of rights should have been made. This will appear the more necessary, when it is considered, that not only the Constitution and laws made in pursuance thereof, but all treaties made, under the authority of the United States, are the supreme law of the land, and supersede the Constitutions of all the States. The power to make treaties, is vested in the president, by and with the advice and consent of two-thirds of the senate. I do not find any limitation or restriction to the exercise of this power. The most important article in any Constitution may therefore be repealed, even without a legislative act. Ought not a government, vested with such extensive and indefinite authority, to have been restricted by a declaration of rights? It certainly ought. So clear a point is this, that I cannot help suspecting that persons who attempt to persuade people that such reservations were less necessary under this Constitution than under those of the States, are wilfully endeavoring to deceive, and to lead you into an absolute state of vassalage. BRUTUS |