Many years ago (1957-67) the United States was divided up between NATO & SEATO. The exact divisional will be found in the Archives of the old St. Louis Post (copy in file).

NATO is run by Spain, which is known SOCIALIST aka COMMUNIST. On the other hand, the FASCIST is run by THE WORLD BANK/IMF and the UNITED NATIONS. Each are run by what is called THE BANKING CONTROL GROUP previously consisting of THREE BANKING CARTELS; A fourth has entered the picture being THE ASIAN MONETARY DEVELOPMENT BANK. These Cartel Control Groups are the ones who plan events 25-50-75 & 99 years in advance which effects every living soul, every person, in every nation.

Very disturbing events are happening, globally; Especially in S. Africa. To find out what is headed our way go to:
http://www.AfricanCrisis.org and review everything on that web site. Most assuredly, you as equally as I, will find this most disturbing. You will also find it in similarity to those HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS presently being litigated in Latin America against Henry Kissinger as related to THE CONTRA AFFAIRS. Henry Kissinger, at this time is on trial for HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS. The United States will not allow EXTRADITION of Mr. Kissinger as requested by these Latin American Nations. You have not seen this in the news, have you?

Nor, have you seen the NUREMBERG COURTS "Attempts to try cases against former and present U.S. Federal Government "Officers" having formerly held offices of Public Trust of the United States, also being subject to VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS.

Someone has to exercise their FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press in order "THE PUBLIC CAN BE FULLY INFORMED, TO DEFEND THEMSELVES AGAINST CORRUPT GOVERNMENTAL PRACTICES AND CORRUPT POLITICAL BODIES. A well informed Public is a Well Armed Public, Armed with Knowledge for Self Defense."

I now quote from Pastor Martin Niemoller:
"First they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.
Then, they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out for me."


The far Right has awakened to these movements designed to divvy up the world by the Communist and Fascists. It would have worked "swimmingly" had not the Islamic's, Buddhists, Mohammedans awakened in timely fashion, then commenced their own "defensive measures" by opening THE ASIAN MONETARY DEVELOPMENT FUND BANK. This is a Gold Bank designed to upgrade those Asian Nations from perpetual poverty, perpetual "usury" and "predatory banking practices" used by the other three cartels.

This "Gold Backed Banking" has been the banking practices of Civilized Nations for thousands of years. Only "un-civilized nations" use the non gold backed currencies backed by nothing other than "Goods and Services, and Product of the nation involved."

When "goods, services and product" are gone, your nations have no industry, no manufacturing, no jobs, and the people are having homes foreclosed on at a rate of the average of 50,000 HOMES ALONE, per month, per State of the Union.

Let's run the numbers. 50,000 Xs 50=s 2,500,000 homes per month. Let's take a look at the amount of people left homeless. Multiply 2,500,000. Xs 2.5 which =s 6,250,000 homeless per state, per month. This has been ongoing for over the past year.
Multiply again.
Multiply 50,000 Xs 50 states, Xs 12 months. This equals 30,000,000 (thirty million) homes foreclosed on over the past year.
Multiply 30 Million Xs 2.5. This equals 75 Million American Homeless in the last ONE YEAR PERIOD?

Keep in mind; This does not include FORECLOSURES/BANKRUPTCIES OF AMERICAN (U.S.) BUSINESS'S. The main news medias send the "disinformation" that "joblessness is down"... No. Those jobless people simply were excluded from THE UN-EMPLOYMENT PAYMENTS ROLLS in each state. They will never be accounted for. They simply got lost in the PAPER SHUFFLING of "Quasi" Federal Government "Corporation/Agencies".

Many of you do not know what "quasi" means. Quasi means (Black Law): [quote]
"Quasi. Lat. As if; almost as it were: analogous to. This term is used in legal phraseology to indicate that one subject resembles another, with which it is compared, in certain characteristics, but that there are intrinsic and material differences between them.
A term used to mark a resemblance, and supposes a difference between two objects. It is exclusively a term of classification. It implies that conception to which it serves as index is connected with conception with which comparison is instituted by strong superficial analogy or resemblance. Moreover it negatives idea of identity, but points out that the conception are sufficiently similar for one to be classed as the equal of the other. It is often prefixed to English words, implying mere appearance or want of reality." [end quote]

One should note; V.K. Durham has more than often posted the results of these "Quasi" U.S. Federal Agencies/Corporations in her articles posted at
http://www.theantechamber.net for many months in regards to: Executive Order 12803of April 30, 1992. 57 FR 19063 /May 4, 1992, and Counterfeiting of Gold Instruments, Brady Bonds, 1991 Bank Failures, Texas Two Step, Billionaire Boys Club etc Articles. These articles have left a "Banking Trail" so to speak, leading to the current events plaguing the Global Population of People at this time.

Recently, the president lifted the "Tariffs" on Imported Steel? He found he was in a battle with THE EUROPEAN UNION and CHINA for imposition of "Tariffs"... Lets take a look at CONSTITUTIONAL LAW standing IN RES (previously decided by the judicial process) regarding these matters.

Without going through the entire case, brief notations will be made. You can go on line to pull the case up (mine comes from my own Library of old Constitutional Law Books).
This particular Case should also stand in Res in regards to THE HOMELAND DEFENSE and PATRIOT ACT invasion of Constitutional Rights and Civil Liberties.

Mr. JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court.

"In this case we must determine whether certain provisions of the Agriculture Adjustment Act, 1933, conflict with the Federal Constitution.

Title 1 of the statute is captioned "Agricultural Adjustment."
Section 1 recites that an economic emergency has arisen, due to disparity between prices of agricultural and other commodities, with consequent destruction of farmers' purchasing power and breakdown in orderly exchange, which, in turn, have affected transactions in agricultural commodities with a national public interest and burden and obstructed the normal currents of commerce, calling for the enactment of legislation.
Sec. 2. declares it to be the policy of Congress:
"To establish and maintain such balance between the production and consumption of agricultural commodities, and such marketing conditions therefore, as will reestablish prices to farmers at a level that will give agricultural commodities a purchasing power with respect to articles that farmers buy, equivalent to the purchasing power of agricultural commodities in the base period."
The base period, in the case of cotton, and all other commodities except tobacco, is designated as that between August, 1909, and July 1914.
The further policies announced are an approach to the desired equality by gradual correction of present inequities " at as rapid a rate as is deemed feasible in view of the current consumption demand in domestic and foreign markets," and the protection of consumers' interest by readjusting farm production at such level as will not increase the percentage of the consumers' retail expenditures for agricultural commodities or products derived therefrom, which is returned to the farmer, above the percentage returned to him in the base period.

(snip)
The tax plays an indispensable part in the plan of regulation. (Section 11.) "The whole revenue from the levy is appropriated in aid of crop control; none of it is made available for general governmental use.
The statute not only avows an aim foreign to the procurement of revenue for the support of government, but by its operation shows the exaction laid upon processors to be the necessary means for the intended control of agricultural production.
In these aspects the tax, so-called, closely resembles that laid by the Act of August 3, 1882, entitled "An Act to Regulate Immigration," which came from this court in the Head Money Cases, 112 U.S. 580. The statute directed that there should be levied, collected, and paid a duty of 50 cents for each alien passenger who should come by vessel from a foreign port to one of the United States.
(snip)
Various objections to the act were presented. In answering them the court said (112 U.S. 595):
"But the true answer to all these objections is that the power exercised in this instance is not the taxing power. The sum demanded of him is not, therefore, strictly speaking, a tax or duty within the meaning of the Constitution. The money thus raised, though paid into the Treasury, is appropriated in advance to the uses of the statute, and does not go to the general support of the government."
(snip)
Article 1, Sec. 8 of the Constitution, authorizes the contemplated expenditure of funds raised by the tax. This contention presents the great and the controlling question in the case._²
The clause thought to authorize the legislation,---the first,---confers upon the Congress power "to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States. . ." It is not contended that this provision grants power to regulate agricultural production upon the theory that such legislation would promote the general welfare. The Government concedes that the phrase "to provide for the General welfare" qualifies the power "to lay and collect taxes." The view that the clause grants power to provide for the general welfare, independently of the taxing power,has never been authoratively accepted. Mr. Justice Story points out that, if it were adopted, ' it is obvious that under color of the generality of the words, to "provide for the common defense and general welfare,' the government of the United States is, in reality, a government of general and unlimited powers, notwithstanding the subsequent enumeration of specific powers." The true construction undoubtedly is that the only thing granted is the power to tax for the purpose of providing funds for payment of the nation's debts and making provision for the general welfare."

Nevertheless, the Government asserts that warrant is found in this clause for the adoption of the Agricultural Adjustment Act (Note: Emergency Powers Act). The argument is that
(1) Congress may appropriate and authorize the spending of moneys for the "general welfare"'
(2) the phrase should be liberally construed to cover anything conducive to national welfare;
(3) that decision as to what will promote such welfare rests with Congress alone, (4) and the courts may not review its determination, and, finally, (5) that the appropriation under attack was in fact for the general welfare of the United States (numbers of points added by me).

The Congress is expressly empowered to lay taxes to provide for the general welfare. Funds in Treasury as a result of taxation that may be expended only through appropriation.
(Article 1. Section 9, cl. 7.) They can never accomplish the objects for which they were collected, unless the power to appropriate is as broad as the power to tax. The necessary implication from the terms of the grant is that the public funds may be appropriated "to provide for the general welfare of the United States." These words cannot be meaningless, else they would not have been used. The conclusion must be that they were intended to limit and define the granted power to raise and to expend money. How shall they be construed to effectuate the intent of the instrument?
Since the foundation of the Nation, sharp differences of opinion have persisted as to the true interpretation of the phrase. Madison asserted it amounted to no more than a reference to the other powers enumerated in the subsequent clauses of the same section; that, as the United States is a government of limited and enumerated powers, the grant of power to tax and spend for the general national welfare must be confined to the enumerated legislative fields committed to the Congress.
Hamilton , on the other hand, maintained the clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated, is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be (mandatory) exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States.
(snip)
While there the exaction was sustained as an appropriate element in a plan within the power of Congress "to regulate commerce with foreign nations," no question was made of the standing of the ship owner to raise the question of the validity of the scheme, and consequently of the action which was incident of it.
It is inaccurate and misleading to speak of the exaction from processors prescribed by the challenged act as a tax, or to say that as a tax it is subject to no infirmity. A tax, in the general understanding of the term, and as used in the Constitution, signifies an exaction for the support of Government. The word has never been thought to connote the expropriation of money from one group for the benefit of another.
(end snippets)

Back to Ex. Ord. 12803 of April 30, 1992. 57 FR 19063 /May 4, 1992. Then review the prior U.S. Supreme Court Case (Supreme Court of the United States, 1936. 297 U.S. 1, 80 L.Ed. 477, 102 A.L.R. 914, 56 S.Ct. 312.) which acknowledges "Limited Powers of Congress".. Then ask the question: Did President George H.W. Bush (#41) have the Constitutional and/or Congressional, Duly Constituted (authorized by the Constitution) to "Privatize, Sell off and/or Lease American Tax Payer Properties?"

The answer is a resounding NO. He, as the President of the United States, nor did the U.S. House of Representatives or the U.S. Senate have the CONSTITUTIONAL POWER to "make American Citizens "subjects to the Queen of England" as cited in STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS. 1997 No. 1778. SOCIAL SECURITY. The Social Security (United States of America) Order 1997. Made 22nd July 1997. At the Court at Buckingham Palace 22nd day of July 1997 (document posted by Ms. Durham previously in entirety at
http://www.theantechamber.net/V_K_Durham/ActsOfTreason.html ).

The executive power of the United States, by the constitution is vested in the President. It belongs to his department therefore to execute every law, which congress have authority to make under the constitution. 9 Wheat. 733. But, if the President should make mistake the construction of an act of Congress, and in consequence of it, should give instructions not warranted by the act, any aggrieved party might recover damages against the officer acting under those instructions, which though given by the President, would furnish no justification or excuse. See 2 Cranch, 119.
For the same reason, the President cannot alter the effect or operation of a law by his proclamation. But, in general, it would seem, that where a particular duty devolves on the President, but the means are to be used in the discharge of it are not pointed out, he may adopt those which are most proper for that purpose, provided they are not repugnant to the constitution, and are not forbidden by any act of congress.
Under the constitution (article ii. section 2) the President has a power to nominate, and by and with the consent of the Senate, appoint certain officers of high standing and great responsibility. In the same section power is given to congress, to vest the appointment of such inferior offices, as they shall think proper, either in the President alone, or the courts of law, or, in the heads of departments. Congress has exercised this authority by the creation of such offices as the public occasions require, the appointments to which have been distributed accordingly.
Where the President is entrusted by the Constitution with a discretionary power, his acts in the exercise of it are not subjected to the examination of the Supreme Court of the United States. But, if a specific duty is assigned to him by law, and the rights of individuals, depend on the performance of that duty, if the President should refuse to perform it, any individual injured by the refusal, has a right to resort to the laws of his country for a remedy. See 1 Cranch, 155.
(Note: The Laws of the United States are the ARTICLE VI "Supremacy Clause" Law of the Land also known as The United States Statutes at Large, codified 1787).
It is the Duty of the President to cause all constitutional laws to be enforced, and there does not appear to be any pretence of constitutional right on his part, to decline the performance of any duty assigned to him by an act of Congress, on the ground that such law is unconstitutional.
The question of the constitutionality of a law, is no where submitted to him by the Constitution Such question belongs to the Supreme Court of the United States alone, and his single opinion would be a very insufficient counterpoise to the wisdom of the two houses of congress.
(VETO POWERS? Not hardly)
If therefore a law should be unconstitutional, he incurs no responsibility by putting it into force, until the Supreme Court decide it be so.
"And here it may not be amiss to consider what remedy is provided by the Constitution, in case the President should be guilty of any official misconduct. By Article. Sect. 4, the President, &c. &c (etceteras) is made liable to impeachment for treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors. It will be unnecessary in this place to make any comments on treason and bribery and other high crimes, but in relation to misdemeanors in office, it may very properly be asked in what they can consist, as contradistinguished from the three former charges.
To answer this question clearly, will be rendered more easy, by considering in what respects the President may violate his official duty.
This, it is apparent, may take place in three ways, viz.;
1. By refusing to execute the laws and treaties of the United States.
2. By usurping a power not confided to him by the constitution; though in some cases this may amount to treason.
3. By arbitrary and corrupt use of authority lawful in itself, but which was intended to be exercised with a single view to the public good, to answer the purpose of selfish intrigue.

Again, the question: Did the President possess the Constitutional Authority to divest the American People of American Tax Payer Properties as in Ex. Ord. 12803, or to sell of, grant, trade, give away, barter or otherwise convey FEDERAL INSURANCE RETIREMENT BENEFITS as held in the TRUST (U.S. Statutes at Large. Vol. XLIX. Old Age Pension Act (1935) the PROPERTY of the AMERICAN CITIZENS? NO!

DID THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND/OR THE U.S. SENATE "HAVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER" to assist the President in "Treasonous Acts, Overthrowing the Civil Authority (the People) of the United States by MAKING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE "SUBJECTS TO THE QUEEN OF ENGLAND?"

NO! Not by any stretch of the burned out, drugged, brain damaged, Potomac FEVER water "IMAGINATION" of this SEX & DRUG CRAZED PAST AND PRESENT "ADMINISTRATIONS."

With former U.S. Federal Government Officials, and present U.S. Federal Government Officials "on trial" for Human Rights Violations in Latin America and the International Courts... This should tell the global community of mankind; something very bad, something very wrong is going on. But, WHAT is going on?

This current "divvying up" of global citizenry under either COMMUNISM or FASCISM is bringing us all, square on with THE FOURTH REICH as Ms. Durham has so often pointed out in her articles, and her research materials posted at
http://www.theantechamber.net along with documents supporting the ladies statements.

Ms. Durham has formally retired. Her retirement was long over due. Her work has been non stop since the murder of her husband, not allowing her the time for "closure." She was too busy "using her vast knowledge to protect all of you from these oncoming events."

Having worked with Ms. Durham for many years, I will continue her work, and continue working with her in researching the valuable materials needed to support the Law of the Land, and the Rights of the People.

We all wish her a "quiet retirement" however, as we all know; She will never truly retire.. All of you have been her "reason for living" and going forth into areas where even (as she has said so many times) "Where even the angels fear to flutter their wings lightly."

Hopefully, you will be as eager to read RadJack as you were to read Ms. Durham's Articles. She and I will be working daily on "research materials." That being the case; I will also be using her computers for research and communications of articles.

Soon, we are hopeful of having a extended web site for
http://www.theantechamber.net with enough web space to put up these old Laws of the Land, supported by THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES for all of you to understand what this nation was intended to be, as opposed to what it has become.

RadJack