Saturday, February 28, 2009

Another Article On Brain Scanning Technologies Which Cites The Ethical Questions Regarding The Violation Of One's Privacy

Brain Scanning Technology & Its Legal Implications


The following article would have been timely in the late 1970's when the National Security Agency was busy cataloguing the brain fingerprints of the American population into its computer database, in order to remotely track them, while electronically brain scanning those persons of interest -- something the NSA has been doing illegally and on a large scale since at least 1980.

A furtive crime of satellite predation which deprives the target of both their physical privacy, as well as their privacy of thought, in addition to denying them their right to legal counsel and due process of law.

However, the article is better late than never; especially since it is by far one of the best articles written on mind control weaponry and the implications of such covert technology on an unwitting modern day culture.

The article, which was written by a London psychoanalyst named Carole Smith, for the Australian publication Dissent Magazine, is what Washington science writer Sheila Weinberger should have written in regard to this technology, instead of the "Mind Games" article, which while touching on the subject of such technology, tended to make those who've made allegations of being targeted for such non consensual human experimentation, sound more like paranoid cranks in need of psychiatric help, than the legitimate victims that they are.

Ms. Smith also brings up the crucial fact that the controversy over the biometric ID card (RFID chipped cards) appears to have been used as nothing more than an effective smokescreen in which to redirect attention away from technologies which use Terahertz and the infrared spectrum in which to target humans by way of their own EMF fields as well as the unique spectral gas signature of each person -- systems which agencies like the NSA covertly put into place decades ago, in order to remotely spy on and control the global population.

For the past few years I have stated that the RFID chip controversy in the United States is in essence a red herring, being used by the U.S. Intelligence community, in order to misdirect the *public away from the NSA's more sophisticated Signals Intelligence technology -- even though in my opinion the biometric technology will have a myriad of uses as an adjunct to the aforesaid Terahertz technology, which exploits the infrared spectrum in order to electronically brand humans by way of their own bioelectric fields; those who are then defenseless to avoid the types of satellite predation that Intel agencies like the FBI, CIA and NSA are notorious for furtively perpetrating against the human population.

(*Such red herrings are especially useful in misdirecting privacy activist groups like the one listed below, as well as RFID experts like Katharine Albrecht and Liz McIntire, who co-wrote the timely and provocative book on RFID technology and its applications in our everyday lives; an excellent book entitled "Spy Chips.")

"Liberty, and Lawyers for Liberty have staunchly maintained a thorough- going campaign against the protracted government plan to issue biometric ID cards, taking the case to the House of Lords where they have gained support. In view of the undisclosed work being carried out which will enable direct access to the brain through the technology coming to light, and using light, one cannot but suspect that the biometric ID card is but an adjunct to the tracking and data sourcing of citizens, and as such has fulfilled the function of a very effective smokescreen, having deflected the energies of the protectors of individual liberties in terms of thousands of hours of concentrated protest effort, with enormous expenditure spent on their campaign."

And while there are myriad legal and human rights issues in regard to this technology, especially those pertinent to the moral and ethical aspects of utilizing such sophisticated spying equipment capable of both remotely reading as well as manipulating the thoughts of those being subjected to such abject violations of their privacy, we must remember that the Nazis have never concerned themselves with violating the privacy of others. Nor have they ever been bothered by pangs of conscience as has been evidenced by the atrocities which they perpetrated against the Jews during the Holocaust.

In the case of the Nazi inhabited American Intelligence community, once again, neither ethics nor moral issues have in the past, or are they in the modern day of any concern to these miscreants, as illustrated by their use of spy satellites in which to perpetrate such crimes of electronic warfare predation against American citizens.

However, not getting caught using such technology has in the past been of paramount importance to the Intel community, since such flagrant disregard for the U.S. Bill of Rights as well as assault on human rights legislation like the Geneva Convention and Nuremberg Code, would truly identify these agencies as the Nazi subversives that they have always been; dating back to the post World War II smuggling of Nazi war criminals into the United States under the treasonous secret program known as Project Paperclip.

A program which the Illuminati controlled CIA used in which to foment a plot to overthrow the United States Federal Government; a plot which was successful, given the Nazi's total subversion of the United States Intelligence Community and Federal Government since the 1950's.

As a long-term target of non consensual human experimentation through the NSA's Orwellian Signals Intelligence computer to brain link technology, I am well aware that there is nothing legal in regard to what the NSA is doing in utilizing myself or anyone else in which to hone this technology, in order to maximize its future potential as a tool for spying on and extracting information from the American population by way of the infrared spectrum (as well as those of other countries).

Moreover, when dealing with those who espouse such Nazi doctrine, they are not about to admit any culpability in such egregious civil and human rights violations. Instead, it is far more likely that they will entertain the idea of smearing the reputations of any persons who learn that they have been illegally targeted for such disturbing human rights violations (and who identify the perpetrators publicly as I have done with the FBI, NSA and DHS), in order to demonize them with the public.

This being done in efforts to discredit their allegations regarding the remote mind reading/influencing technologies which Intel organizations like the NSA have depended on for decades, in order to extract such information through the infrared spectrum; classified technologies which Intel simply cannot afford to have the public learning about for obvious enough reasons.

The following article is important in that it acknowledges the type of computer to brain link technology which the NSA has used for decades in which to electronically hack into the human mind, as well as the "electronic spectral gas signature" that all humans emanate, and which also helps to identify them from one another.

However, like other articles of its kind, the following one leads the readers to believe that this technology is a thing of the future, instead of the truth; that it has been in existence and deployed by the National Security Agency and Central Intelligence Agency against the American people for several decades. And even more to the point, that if it's not totally perfected at this point in time, it's well on its way to becoming so.

The New World Order has come to America in the way of an artificial intelligence computer controlled satellite spy network known as Echelon. And it has quite literally made unwitting prisoners out of the American population, who in their media induced stupors, have yet to realize their own vulnerability to this technology. However, I am hopeful that in the near future, with the information that I and others targeted for this technology are providing within the public domain, that all Americans will become aware of their own vulnerability to such government orchestrated satellite predation, and stand up for their constitutional and inalienable rights as citizens of the United States, and inhabitants of this planet.

Their only alternative to enforcing these inherent rights, is to acquiesce to their own electronic enslavement at the hands of New World Order controlled organizations like those which have successfully propagated within the U.S. Intel community -- the Nazi's stronghold within America.

Intrusive Brain Reading Surveillance Technology: Hacking the Mind

By Carole Smith

Global Research, December 13, 2007
Dissent Magazine, Australia, Summer 2007/2008

“Carole Smith describes claims that neuroscientists are developing brain scans that can read people’s intentions in the absence of serious discussions about the ethical issues this raises, despite the fact that the research has been backed by government in the UK and US.”


“We need a program of psychosurgery for political control of our society. The purpose is physical control of the mind. Everyone who deviates from the given norm can be surgically mutilated.

The individual may think that the most important reality is his own existence, but this is only his personal point of view. This lacks historical perspective. Man does not have the right to develop his own mind. This kind of liberal orientation has great appeal. We must electronically control the brain. Someday armies and generals will be controlled by electric stimulation of the brain.

Dr José Delgado.Director of Neuropsychiatry, Yale University Medical School Congressional Record, No. 26, Vol. 118 February 24, 1974.

The Guardian newspaper, that defender of truth in the United Kingdom, published an article by the Science Correspondent, Ian Sample, on 9 February 2007 entitled:

‘The Brain Scan that can read people’s intentions’, with the sub-heading: ‘Call for ethical debate over possible use of new technology in interrogation”.

“Using the scanner, we could look around the brain for this information and read out something that from the outside there's no way you could possibly tell is in there. It's like shining a torch around, looking for writing on a wall”, the scientists were reported as saying.

At the same time, London’s Science Museum was holding an exhibition entitled ‘Neurobotics: The Future of Thinking’. This venue had been chosen for the launch in October 2006 of the news that human thoughts could be read using a scanner. Dr Geraint Rees’ smiling face could be seen in a photograph at the Neurobotics website[1], under the heading “The Mind Reader”. Dr Rees is one of the scientists who have apparently cracked the problem which has preoccupied philosophers and scientists since before Plato: they had made entry into the conscious mind. Such a reversal of human historical evolution, announced in such a pedestrian fashion, makes one wonder what factors have been in play, and what omissions made, in getting together this show, at once banal and extraordinary. The announcement arrives as if out of a vacuum. The neuroscientist - modern-style hunter-gatherer of information and darling of the “Need to Know” policies of modern government - does little to explain how he achieved this goal of entering the conscious mind, nor does he put his work into any historical context. Instead, we are asked in the Science Museum’s programme notes:

How would you feel if someone could read your innermost thoughts? Geraint Rees of UCL says he can. By using brain-imaging technology he's beginning to decode thought and explore the difference between the conscious and unconscious mind. But how far will it go? And shouldn’t your thoughts remain your personal business?

If Dr Rees has decoded the mind sufficiently for such an announcement to be made in an exhibition devoted to it, presumably somewhere is the mind which has been, and is continuing to be, decoded. He is not merely continuing his experiments using functional magnetic resolution scanning (fMRI) in the way neuroscientists have been observing their subjects under scanning devices for years, asking them to explain what they feel or think while the scientists watch to see which area lights up, and what the cerebral flow in the brain indicates for various brain areas. Dr Rees is decoding the mind in terms of conscious and unconscious processes. For that, one must have accessed consciousness itself. Whose consciousness? Where is the owner of that consciousness – and unconsciousness? How did he/she feel? Why not ask them to tell us how it feels, instead of asking us.

The Neurobotics Exhibition was clearly set up to make these exciting new discoveries an occasion for family fun, and there were lots of games for visitors to play. One gets the distinct impression that we are being softened up for the introduction of radical new technology which will, perhaps, make the mind a communal pool rather than an individual possession. Information technology seeks to connect us all to each other in as many ways as possible, but also, presumably, to those vast data banks which allow government control not only to access all information about our lives, but now also to our thoughts, even to our unconscious processing. Does anyone care?

One of the most popular exhibits was the ‘Mindball’ game, which required two players to go literally head-to-head in a battle for brainpower, and used ‘brainpower’ alone. Strapped up with headbands which pick up brain waves, the game uses neurofeedback, but the person who is calm and relaxed wins the game. One received the impression that this calmness was the spirit that the organisers wished to reinforce, to deflect any undue public panic that might arise from the news that private thoughts could now be read with a scanner.[2] The ingress into the mind as a private place was primarily an event to be enjoyed with the family on an afternoon out:

Imagine being able to control a computer with only the power of your mind. Or read people’s thoughts and know if they’re lying. And what if a magnetic shock to the brain could make you more creative…but should we be able to engineer our minds?

Think your thoughts are private? Ever told a lie and been caught red-handed? Using brain-scanning technology, scientists are beginning to probe our minds and tell if we’re lying. Other scientists are decoding our desires and exploring the difference between our conscious and unconscious mind. But can you really trust the technology?

Other searching questions are raised in the program notes, and more games:

Find out if you’ve got what it takes to be a modern-day spy in this new interactive family exhibition. After being recruited as a trainee spy, explore the skills and abilities required by real agents and use some of the latest technologies that help spies gather and analyse information. Later go on and discover what it’s like to be spied upon. Uncover a secret store of prototype gadgets that give you a glimpse into the future of spy technologies and finally use everything you’ve learnt to escape before qualifying as a fully-fledged agent!

There were also demonstrations of grateful paraplegics and quadriplegics showing how the gods of science have so unselfishly liberated them from their prisons: this was the serious Nobel Prize side of the show. But there was no-one representing Her Majesty’s government to demonstrate how these very same devices[3] can be used quite freely, and with relative ease, in our wireless age[4], to conduct experiments on free-ranging civilians tracked anywhere in the world, and using an infinitely extendable form of electrode which doesn’t require visible contact with the scalp at all. Electrodes, like electricity, can also take an invisible form – an electrode is a terminal of an electric source through which electrical energy or current may flow in or out.

The brain itself is an electrical circuit. Every brain has its own unique resonating frequency. The brain is an infinitely more sensitive receiver and transmitter than the computer, and even in the wireless age, the comprehension of how wireless networks operate appears not to extend to the workings of the brain.

The monotonous demonstration of scalps with electrodes attached to them, in order to demonstrate the contained conduction of electrical charges, is a scientific fatuity, in so far as it is intended to demonstrate comprehensively the capability of conveying charges to the brain, or for that matter, to any nerve in the body, as a form of invisible torture.

As Neurobotics claims: ‘Your brain is amazing’, but the power and control over brains and nervous systems achieved by targeting brain frequencies with radiowaves must have been secretly amazing government scientists for many years. The problem that now arises, at the point of readiness when so much has been achieved, is how to put the technology into action in such a way, as it will be acceptable in the public domain.

This requires getting it through wider government and legal bodies, and for that, it must be seen to spring from the unbiased scientific investigations into the workings of the brain, in the best tradition of the leading universities. It is given over to Dr Rees and his colleague, Professor Haynes, endowed with the disclosure for weightier Guardian readers, to carry the torch for the government. Those involved may also have noted the need to show the neuroscientist in a more responsible light, following US neuroengineer for government sponsored Lockheed Martin, John Norseen’s, ingenuous comment, in 2000, about his belief about the consequences of his work in fMRI:

‘If this research pans out’, said Norseen, ‘you can begin to manipulate what someone is thinking even before they know it.’ And added: “The ethics don’t concern me, but they should concern someone else.”

While the neuroscientists report their discovery (without even so much as the specific frequency of the light employed by this scanner/torch), issuing ethical warnings while incongruously continuing with their mind-blowing work, the government which sponsors them, remains absolutely mute. The present probing of people’s intentions, minds, background thoughts, hopes and emotions[5] is being expanded into the more complex and subtle aspects of thinking and feeling. We have, however, next to no technical information about their methods. The description of ‘shining a torch around the brain’ is as absurd a report as one could read of a scientific endeavour, especially one that carries such enormous implications for the future of mankind. What is this announcement, with its technical obfuscation, preparing us for?

Writing in Wired[6] contributing editor Steve Silberman points out that the lie-detection capability of fMRI is ‘poised to transform the security system, the judicial system, and our fundamental notions of privacy’. He quotes Cephos founder, Steven Laken, whose company plans to market the new technology for lie detection. Laken cites detainees held without charge at Guantanamo Bay as a potential example. ‘If these detainees have information we haven’t been able to extract that could prevent another 9/11, I think most Americans would agree that we should be doing whatever it takes to extract it’.

Silberman also quotes Paul Root Wolpe, a senior fellow at the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, who describes the accelerated advances in fMRI as ‘ a textbook example of how something can be pushed forward by the convergence of basic science, the government directing research through funding, and special interests who desire a particular technology’. Are we to believe that with the implied capability to scan jurors’ brains, the judiciary, the accused and the defendant alike, influencing[7] one at the expense of the other, that the legal implications alone of mind-accessing scanners on university campuses, would not rouse the Minister for Justice from his bench to say a few words about these potential mind weapons?

So what of the ethical debate called for by the busy scientists and the Guardian’s science reporter?[8] Can this technology- more powerful in subverting thought itself than anything in prior history – really be confined to deciding whether the ubiquitously invoked terrorist has had the serious intention of blowing up the train, or whether it was perhaps a foolish prank to make a bomb out of chapatti flour? We can assume that the government would certainly not give the go-ahead to the Science Museum Exhibition, linked to Imperial College, a major government-sponsored institution in laser-physics, if it was detrimental to surveillance programs. It is salutary to bear in mind that government intelligence research is at least ten years ahead of any public disclosure. It is implicit from history that whatever affords the undetectable entry by the gatekeepers of society into the brain and mind, will not only be sanctioned, but funded and employed by the State, more specifically by trained operatives in the security forces, given powers over defenceless citizens, and unaccountable to them.[9]

The actual technology which is now said to be honing the technique ‘to distinguish between passing thoughts and genuine intentions’ is described by Professor John-Dylan Haynes in the Guardian in the most disarmingly untechnical language which must surely not have been intended to enlighten.

The Guardian piece ran as follows:

A team of world-leading neuroscientists has developed a powerful technique that allows them to look deep inside a person’s brain and read their intentions before they act.

The research breaks controversial new ground in scientists’ ability to probe people’s minds and eavesdrop on their thoughts, and raises serious ethical issues over how brain-reading technology may be used in the future.

‘Using the scanner, we could look around the brain for this information and read out something that from the outside there's no way you could possibly tell is in there. It's like shining a torch around, looking for writing on a wall,’ said John-Dylan Haynes at the Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences in Germany, who led the study with colleagues at University College London and Oxford University.

We know therefore that they are using light, but fMRI has been used for many years to attempt the unravelling of neuronal activity, and while there have been many efforts to record conscious and unconscious processes, with particular emphasis on the visual cortex, there has been no progress into consciousness itself. We can be sure that we are not being told the real story.

Just as rats and chimpanzees have been used to demonstrate findings from remote experiments on humans, electrode implants used on cockroaches to remotely control them, lasers used to steer fruit-flies[10] [11], and worms engineered so that their nerves and muscles can be controlled with pinpricks of light[12], the information and techniques that have been ruthlessly forged using opportunistic onslaughts on defenceless humans as guinea pigs - used for myriad purposes from creating 3D haptic gloves in computer games to creating artificial intelligence to send visual processing into outer space - require appropriate replication for peer group approval and to meet ethical demands for scientific and public probity.

The use of light to peer into the brain is almost certainly that of terahertz, which occurs in the wavelengths which lie between 30mm and 1mm of the electromagnetic spectrum. Terahertz has the ability to penetrate deep into organic materials, without (it is said) the damage associated with ionising radiation such as x-rays. It can distinguish between materials with varying water content – for example fat versus lean meat. These properties lend themselves to applications in process and quality control as well as biomedical imaging. Terahertz can penetrate bricks, and also human skulls. Other applications can be learnt from the major developer of terahertz in the UK, Teraview, which is in Cambridge, and partially owned by Toshiba.

Efforts to alert human rights’ groups about the loss of the mind as a place to call your own, have met with little discernible reaction, in spite of reports about over decades of the dangers of remote manipulation using technology to access the mind[13], Dr Nick Begich’s book, Controlling the human mind[14], being an important recent contribution. A different approach did in fact, elicit a response. When informed of the use of terahertz at Heathrow and Luton airports in the UK to scan passengers, the news that passengers would be revealed naked by a machine which looked directly through their clothes produced a small, but highly indignant, article in the spring 2007 edition of the leading human rights organisation, Liberty.[15] If the reading of the mind met with no protest, seeing through one’s clothes certainly did. It seems humans’ assumption of the mind as a private place has been so secured by evolution that it will take a sustained battle to convince the public that, through events of which we are not yet fully informed, such former innocence has been lost.

Trained light, targeted atomic spectroscopy, the use of powerful magnets to absorb moisture from human tissues, the transfer of radiative energy – these have replaced the microwave harassment which was used to transmit auditory messages directly into the hearing.[16] With the discovery of light to disentangle thousands of neurons and encode signals from the complex circuitry of the brain, present programs will not even present the symptoms which simulated schizoid states. Medically, even if terahertz does not ionise, we do not yet know how the sustained application of intense light will affect the delicate workings of the brain and how cells might be damaged, dehydrated, stretched, obliterated.

This year, 2007, has also brought the news that terahertz lasers small enough to incorporate into portable devices had been developed.[17]

Sandia National Laboratories in the US in collaboration with MIT have produced a transmitter-receiver (transceiver) that enables a number of applications. In addition to scanning for explosives, we may also assume their integration into hand-held communication systems. ‘These semiconductor devices have output powers which previously could only be obtained by molecular gas lasers occupying cubic meters and weighing more than 100kg, or free electron lasers weighing tons and occupying buildings.’ As far back as 1996 the US Air Force Scientific Advisory Board predicted that the development of electromagnetic energy sources would ‘open the door for the development of some novel capabilities that can be used in armed conflict, in terrorist/hostage situations, and in training’ and ‘new weapons that offer the opportunity of control of an adversary … can be developed around this concept’.[18]

The surveillance technology of today is the surveillance of the human mind and, through access to the brain and nervous system, the control of behaviour and the body’s functions. The messaging of auditory hallucinations has given way to silent techniques of influencing and implanting thoughts.

The development of the terahertz technologies has illuminated the workings of the brain, facilitated the capture of emitted photons which are derived from the visual cortex which processes picture formation in the brain, and enabled the microelectronic receiver which has, in turn, been developed by growing unique semi-conductor crystals. In this way, the technology is now in place for the detection and reading of spectral ‘signatures’ of gases. All humans emit gases. Humans, like explosives, emit their own spectral signature in the form of a gas.

With the reading of the brain’s electrical frequency, and of the spectral gas signature, the systems have been established for the control of populations – and with the necessary technology integrated into a cell-phone.

‘We are very optimistic about working in the terahertz electromagnetic spectrum,’ says the principal investigator of the Terahertz Microelectronics Transceiver at Sandia: ‘This is an unexplored area, and a lot of science can come out of it. We are just beginning to scratch the surface of what THz can do to improve national security’.

Carole Smith was born and educated in Australia, where she gained a Bachelor of Arts degree at Sydney University. She trained as a psychoanalyst in London where she has had a private practice. In recent years she has been a researcher into the invasive methods of accessing minds using technological means, and has published papers on the subject. She has written the first draft of a book entitled: “The Controlled Society”.



At the time of writing it is still accessible. The exhibition ran from October 2006 to April 2007.

[2] Where are the scanners? Who controls them? Are they guarded by police to avoid them being stolen by terrorists? How many are they in number? Are they going into mass production? Do we have any say about their deployment? It is perhaps not unduly paranoid to want to have some answers to these questions.

[3] There is insufficient space here to deal with microchips, the covert implantation of radio transmitting devices which were referred to in Senator Glenn’s extraordinary speech to Congress on the occasion of his attempt to introduce the Human Research Subject Protection Act in 1997:

[4] Ref: The Coming Wireless revolution: When Everything Connects: The Economist: 26 April 2007.

[5] Guardian: ‘The Brain Scan that can read people’s intentions’: 9 February 2007.,2009229,00.html


[7] I say, ‘influencing’, advisedly since the technology that enables thoughts to be accessed, certainly also allows for the dulling of mental processes, the interference of memory, the excitation of mental or bodily processes, the infliction of pain on any organ or nerve, the increase of blood pressure, breathing or the slowing down of these, as well as the activation of rage, sadness, hysteria, or inappropriate behaviour. Ref:John Norseen’s work: Images of Mind: The Semiotic Alphabet. The implantation of silent messages, experienced as thoughts arising in the mind, is now possible.

[8] Despite three letters to the Guardian science correspondent, and Editor, I had no reply from them, having asked them to consider my points, as psychoanalyst and researcher, for the ethical debate which was called for. Nor was there any response from my approach to the Cambridge ethicists and scientists who were said to be forming a committee. I have seen no correspondence nor reference to the whole matter since February, 2007. There was some marked regression in the New Scientist about worms being used for experiments for remote control

See: Douglas Fox, ‘Remote Control Brains: a neuroscience revolution’, New Scientist, 18 July 2007.

[9] The covert action group in the newly formed CIA recommended to President Eisenhower in 1954 that the US must pursue “a fundamentally repugnant philosophy”, and that they must learn to “subvert, sabotage and destroy” its enemies by “more clever and more ruthless methods” than those of its opponents:

Ref: James Doolittle et al: “The Central Intelligence Agency: History and Documents (Univ.Alabama Press, 1984.

[10] Fruit flies share to a remarkable degree, the DNA of humans.

[11] Fruit Flies and You: NASA sends fruit flies into Space:

[12] Ref: New Scientist, 18 July 2007: ‘Remote Control Brains: a neuroscience revolution’:

[13] See author’s paper:

[14] Nick Begich, Controlling the human mind: the technologies of political control or tools for peak performance, Earthpulse Press Publications.

[15] Liberty, and Lawyers for Liberty have staunchly maintained a thorough-going campaign against the protracted government plan to issue biometric ID cards, taking the case to the House of Lords where they have gained support. In view of the undisclosed work being carried out which will enable direct access to the brain through the technology coming to light, and using light, one cannot but suspect that the biometric ID card is but an adjunct to the tracking and data sourcing of citizens, and as such has fulfilled the function of a very effective smokescreen, having deflected the energies of the protectors of individual liberties in terms of thousands of hours of concentrated protest effort, with enormous expenditure spent on their campaign.

[16] Human subjects, once computers for research experiments program them, remain targeted, even if the original reasons for their usage have become obsolete. Some have been continuously abused for over thirty years.

[17] Thz Lasers Small Enough for Screening Devices: news/2007/February/7/86317.aspx



Friday, February 27, 2009

Zecharia Sitchen's Earth Chronicles Research Finds Its Way Into Hi-End Audio

Will wonders never cease? Dr. Zecharia Sitchen, well known for his translations of the ancient and arcane language known as Akkadian, and whose Earth Chronicles' series of books has forced many people to completely reconsider the basic foundation of their religious beliefs, is now being honored in a new line of audiophile equipment. A phono preamplifier called the Nibiru; named after the 12TH Planet in our solar system which Dr. Sitchin believes has never been identified by modern astronomers because of a very long elliptical orbit which takes roughly 3600 years for Nibiru to complete.

An integrated amplifier called the Tiamat, after what Sitchin says was the origin of the planet Earth before it was struck by Nibiru and separated into what would become the Earth, the Earth's satellite moon, and the Milky Way asteroid belt; which Sitchen has stated is actually the Heaven of the Roman Catholic Bible.

Filling out these "Earth Chronicles" Hi-Fi components is a high performance outboard power supply called the Enlil, whom Sitchin claims was the eldest son of the head of the extraterrestrial species the Anunnaki; a God named Anu. And who along with his brother Enki, oversaw the development of the Earth and the creation of the human species through genetic engineering (something which was said to have taken place more than one hundred thousand years before the birth of Jesus Christ).

According to Dr. Sitchin, humans are a hybrid of the prehistoric apeman's DNA and extraterrestrial DNA. Created as slave labor to work the gold mines (which Sitchin has claimed were represented as the Hell of the Roman Catholic Bible), humans did not evolve in the way in which Charles Darwin has claimed, but were instead created through DNA gene splicing technologies that the Anunnaki were expert in more than a half a million years ago, and from time to time subjected to "refinements" in order to improve our intelligence.

See the components at this Website. When you get to the site click on the Products logo, then Hi-Fi.

Also See Dr. Sitchin's Website to learn more about his research regarding the Anunnaki.

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Alternative Journalist Christopher Bollyn - Has He Been Intimidated Into Toning Down His Hard Hitting 9-11 Investigative Reporting?

Christopher Bollyn Under Attack For His 9-11 Reports

Is The John Birch Society Supporting The 9-11 Mega LIE?

Those who have heard of Christopher Bollyn may first remember him for the article he wrote in regard to a beating that he received at the hands of the Chicago police back in 2006. An assault which Bollyn associated with his public challenge of the U.S. Federal Government's whitewash of the facts regarding the attacks on 9-11-2001.

There was also a rumour being floated by another well known alternative journalist named Eric Hufschmid, in which Hufschmid alleged that in the Summer of 2007, Christopher Bollyn and his family had been kidnapped, and that when Bollyn reappeared, he had notably toned down his aggressive journalistic style.

Bollyn replied that Eric Hufschmid had blatantly lied on his Website, when he made the statement that Bollyn and his family had been kidnapped. However, Bollyn was aggressively voicing his beating at the hands of the Chicago cops back in 2006, when they invaded his home and according to Bollyn tortured him for nearly six hours. So it is possible that he could have been "neutralized" at a later date if the initial attack failed to prevent him from doing any further investigative research into 9-11.

What follows is an *article which Bollyn posted accusing the John Birch Society of acquiescing to the official 9-11 account/lie.

*Bollyn's letter to Hufshmid can be seen after this article.

The readers will note Bollyn's aggressive style in the JBS article. His articles prior to the accusations that he had been kidnapped were of equal tenacity.

Moreover, note the following quote by Christopher Bollyn, which he included at the end of an article in which he described his arrest and torture at the hands of the Chicago police back in 2006.

"I am shocked at how I was treated, because although my journalism gets me into trouble with police in many places, I have never been treated so brutally in my life. I honestly believe this brutal treatment is connected to my 9/11 research. I intend to seek asylum in Norway or Switzerland. I can read the writing on the wall. Investigative journalists are not safe in Iraq – or the United States."

Given this statement by Bollyn, Eric Hufschmid's allegations that Bollyn may have at some point been kidnapped and intimidated into silence for his aggressive exposition of the 9-11 fraud, may be plausible. However, only Christopher Bollyn knows for certain. And of course it's also possible that he was never was kidnapped at all.

However, there's no doubt that he was severely traumatized from the vicious attack that he received at the hands of the Chicago police back in 2006, and that those within the federal government who pulled off the attacks on 9-11, did not want credible sources like Bollyn going against the grain, by proving that the official 9-11 investigation was nothing but a lie.

Regardless of who's telling the truth here, one thing's for certain. Both Christopher Bollyn and Eric *Hufshmid have made very important contributions to the 9-11 Truth Movement, as well as their exposition of the Zionism angle in the attacks on 9-11. And this makes them targets of those whose intention is for the official government whitewash of the facts to be maintained at any and all costs.

*Hufshmid's interest in regard to WTC7 as the focal point for the attacks on 9-11 also has a lot of merit, given that it housed the offices of several alphabet agencies (including the SEC), and contained myriad files regarding federal investigations which were ongoing at the time that WTC7 was imploded, and these files were destroyed. Very convenient for those who were under investigation and further evidence of the breadth of this treasonous conspiracy.

Source: American Free Press



By Christopher Bollyn
American Free Press

The New American, mouthpiece for the John Birch Society, is trying to bolster the official version of the 9/11 attacks by ignoring crucial evidence and unfairly attacking independent researchers.

The government's refusal to release evidence, "even to congressional committees," has invited and "even incited" public suspicion about the events of 9/11, William F. Jasper, senior editor of The New American, wrote in the conservative magazine's May 2 cover story "9/11 Conspiracy Fact & Fiction."

Jasper laments the government's continuing "pattern of secrecy and cover-up," but rather than criticize the government for withholding evidence, Jasper attacks independent 9/11 researchers who make use of the available evidence.

"Our objective," Jasper wrote, "is to expose a few of the hoaxes."

The "hoaxes" The New American wants to expose appear to be any explanation that differs from the official version, put forth by the same government that refuses to release crucial evidence, such as the confiscated videos from the Pentagon attack.

"The official version of the Pentagon attack has been the main target of the critics," Jasper writes. Jasper tries to defend three points on which the official version has been criticized: the small hole in the building in relation to a 757, the lack of aircraft debris, and the difficulty of the flying maneuver.

Two noteworthy critics of the official version that Jasper names are Eric Hufschmid, author of the book Painful Questions, and Dave vonKleist, producer of the video In Plane Site.

Both vonKleist and Hufschmid have presented photographic evidence showing a turbine wheel from a jet engine “ much smaller than a 757's “ found at the Pentagon, an object American Free Press has investigated.

A new video on 9/11, Loose Change, by Dylan Avery (available through features AFP research on the unexplained engine part and shows two other parts found at the Pentagon, which it claims are not from a 757.

"If they could prove it, they would," Col. George Nelson (USAF, retired) told AFP about the government's failure to produce one piece of trackable aircraft debris from the 9/11 crash sites, "but they can't.

"It is impossible for all of the time change parts that have these serial numbers that are trackable…to be totally destroyed," Nelson, a 30-year career aircraft maintenance officer, said.

"I have never in my career ever seen a landing gear that was completely destroyed," Nelson said. "That landing gear is indestructible."

Loose Change also has an interview with the head of the flight school at the Maryland airport where Hani Hanjour, allegedly the pilot of the plane that struck the Pentagon, received low marks for his flying ability.

"Jasper is trying to distract the public,"; Hufschmid said. "It is important for the public to see the evidence. People around the world are questioning the official explanation of the September 11th attack. Anger towards the American government is increasing, but the public is not going to understand what is happening unless they look at the material that started this controversy."

Jasper did not contact either Hufschmid or vonKleist for the article. Instead he relies on comments provided by Brig. Gen. Benton K. Partin (USAF, retired) to try and prove that a Boeing 757 crashed into the ground floor of the Pentagon at 530 mph.

PAPartin, former director of the U.S. Air Force Armaments Technology Laboratory, says much of the aluminum-bodied aircraft vaporized on impact causing the white explosion at the Pentagon. The brief white flashes seen as the planes struck the twin towers were caused by the same phenomenon, Partin said.

When you slam an aluminum aircraft at high velocity into a concrete structure, it's going to do exactly what we saw happen at the Pentagon on 9/11, Partin said. If you look at the frontal mass cross-section of the plane, you see a cylinder of aluminum skin with stringers. When it impacts with the exterior wall at 700-800 feet per second, much of the kinetic energy of the plane converts to thermal energy, and much of the aluminum converts to vapor, burning to aluminum oxide.

That's why on the still photos from [the] Pentagon surveillance camera, you first see the frame with that brilliant white luminescent flash just before the frame of the orange fireball, the jet fuel burning. The aluminum cylinder “ the plane fuselage “ is acting like a shaped charge penetrating a steel plate. It keeps penetrating until it is consumed, Partin said. "The Boeing 757 is over 150 feet long, so it's going to penetrate quite a ways before it's spent. The wings have a much lower mass cross-section and are loaded with fuel besides, so there is little left of them except small bits and pieces.

"Like a cookie cutter through dough,"; Partin told AFP. According to Partin, the airplane's aluminum fuselage was traveling faster than a pistol bullet as it pierced the limestone clad exterior and bored through nine feet of reinforced concrete in the three outer rings of the Pentagon ending at the 12-foot hole in the inner wall of the "C" ring.

The same phenomenon caused the flashes seen at the twin towers in the vonKleist video, Partin said: "When the noses of the aircraft hit the buildings, you have a bright aluminum flash, the same as we saw at the Pentagon. That's obvious to anyone familiar with physics, chemistry, and what happens when aluminum hits a structure at a high rate of speed."

However, the white explosion seen at the Pentagon and the flashes seen as the planes struck the towers are very different. The white flash at the Pentagon is the initial blast of an explosion that turns orange, while the tower flashes are very brief and occur a fraction of a second before the planes impact each tower.

Critics, such as vonKleist, say the white flashes are evidence of missiles striking the buildings. In Plane Site focuses on a structural anomaly on the bottom of the aircraft striking the South Tower, which vonKleist says appears to be a missile pod.

A white object is seen being emitted from the bottom of the plane as it nears the tower. This object creates a white flash as it impacts the wall, slightly to the right of the aircraft fuselage. These missiles are thought to be depleted uranium penetrators used to ignite the conflagrations. This could explain the extensive decontamination done on the workers at the Pentagon site, according to Hufschmid.

About Partin's theory that parts of the aluminum aircraft vaporized on impact while the thin-skinned fuselage bored through nine feet of reinforced concrete, Paul F. Mlakar, technical director of the Pentagon Building Performance Report sponsored by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), told AFP, "I'm a little skeptical."
r>Mlakar, with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, thinks the 12-foot hole in the "C" ring was caused by an "avalanche of debris." That's where the black box was found, Mlakar said. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), who received the black box, told Mlakar the plane was traveling 460 knots, or 530 mph. The NTSB refuses to say anything about the black boxes saying it has turned over all data to the FBI.

757s don't go that fast. The airplane will just not do that, Russ Wittenberg, a retired pilot with United and Pan Am airlines, told AFP. "Its exceeding its air speed and mach speed limitations. The airplane just won't perform those maneuvers. The mach limit for a 757 is about 360 knots at 23,000 feet,"; Wittenberg said.

About the sharp descending turn made by the aircraft that hit the Pentagon at ground level, Wittenberg said: "The only air vehicle that could perform that would be a high-performance fighter jet, a remote controlled jet-powered drone, or a cruise missile."

The fuselage of a 757 did not open that 16-foot hole, Wittenberg said. The aluminum of the fuselage would have crumbled like an egg shell on impact. Aluminum doesn't vaporize."

There is no armor-piercing titanium on the tip of a 757, Wittenberg said. The white flash in the Pentagon video is the explosion of a high-energy explosive. The 12-foot hole is from the missile or the single jet engine aircraft that carried the missile. If a 757 had hit the Pentagon there would be two of these holes.

"Boeing's not going to say," spokesperson Liz Verdier responded when asked about the 757's mach limit, "What does it matter?" she said, "How fast it was going is immaterial."

Asked about Partin's theory that an aluminum-bodied aircraft both vaporized on impact and penetrated more than 9 feet of reinforced concrete, Marion Fulk, a retired chemical physicist and depleted uranium expert, told AFP: "I think what he's saying is nonsense. The titanium engines would be more likely to penetrate than the fuselage."



Reporter Christopher Bollyn Beaten by Chicago Cops

By Christopher Bollyn
American Free Press
<>>August 16th, 2006
Interview on RBN
Current Issues TV

It’s after 2 a.m. in the morning, my deadline is tomorrow, and I have been beaten up by the local police and my right elbow is sorely hurting, but I need to write down exactly what happened to me today before I go to sleep. Otherwise I will forget important details.

I was harassed, beaten, and shocked with a Tazer-like gun in my front yard before my wife and children, and then abused for 6 hours by the ADL-trained local police. I have every reason to believe it is because of my journalistic investigation into 9/11. I have been threatened before in my career as a journalist, but this is the first time I have been intentionally beaten and abused – by the cops.

I have investigated 9/11 since it happened and looked into the many unanswered questions of the terror attacks. I discovered last year that I had had at least two FBI informants crawling around my house for years. This is the main reason I do not feel safe in the United States. It is also why I spend much of the time in Europe or at safe houses in this country, with fellow 9/11 researchers like Ellen Mariani and Eric Hufschmid. I have two small children.

I have only been at my old home in Hoffman Estates for a couple of weeks, mainly because my road-weary children dearly love this old red house, which is the only home they have ever known. It is just a simple Hoffman-Rosner suburban Chicago tract home that my late parents bought in 1957, but it’s home.

I had noticed an unusual amount of police activity around my house since I returned. We live on a quiet side street where one might normally see a police cruiser once or twice a week. Since I returned I have noticed all kinds of police cars and devices in the immediate proximity of my house.

But yesterday there was something very unusual around my house. It was an unmarked car with three armed men with body armor driving around my block as I rode my bike to the store. Who in the heck is that? I thought to myself. It looks like they are going to my house, but I won’t be there, I thought.

Then today, the same time and the same car with three men passed slowly by my house where the neighborhood kids were playing. “Hello, FBI,” I said from my porch and waved.

The man in the front passenger seat waved back. I immediately alerted my wife and kids. Helje said I should stop them and ask them what they want.

For background, today I was working on two rather big stories and I made a lot of phone calls to the Embassy of Israel, the S.E.C., the office of the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, and to an old Israeli living in New York who I have suspicions may be a key player in 9/11. I’d like to discuss this lead but I can’t at this point.

All of my calls were about 9/11 related, except for the calls to the Embassy and local consulate of Israel. These were standard journalistic inquiries about Israel casualties and losses in Lebanon. The Embassy press department didn’t like my questions, but I told them it’s my job. I wanted to know about the number of dead and wounded and if 60 Merkava tanks had been taken out, as Hezbollah claims.

Then I also asked where exactly the two Israeli soldiers had been abducted. I told them that there were at least 15 newswire stories that said the soldiers had been captured in the Lebanese village of Aitaa al-Shaab – inside Lebanon. He was surprised to hear that, too.

Apart from my un-disclosable investigation, the other calls were about how Jacob “Kobi” Alexander was able to flee with more than $60 million dollars last week, several months after it was public knowledge that he and the other Israelis working with Comverse Technology, Ltd. had swindled hundred of millions through fraudulent stock options trades. This has been going on for years, and The Wall Street Journal and Globes (Israel) reported the names and the amounts last March. For crying out loud, my newspaper, American Free Press, reported it in April 2005.

I wanted to know from the SEC and the U.S. Attorney’s office how this Kobi Alexander was able to wire $60 million to his account in Israel and flee New York without any body stopping him. “If I wired $5 million to Norway the whole NSA and FBI would be all over me,” I said.

The U.S. Attorney’s office said they “expect” Kobi will turn himself in. Note to the wise: Don’t count on it.
r>Kobi Alexander was one of the owners and developers of Odigo software which allowed Israelis to communicate instantly on 9/11. It was via the “buddy system” on Odigo software, which allows one to communicate to a large group of people that share a trait, such as the Hebrew language, that thousands of Israelis were warned not to go to the twin towers on 9/11.
r>Kobi Alexander’s Mossad-linked company, Comverse Technology, was a developer and owner of Odigo since early 2000, something The New York Times does not consider to be part of “All the News that’s Fit to Print.” Comverse makes a black box system called the “Audio Disk” that police, intelligence and security agencies, and governments around the world, have attached to their phone networks. This simple device allows the Israeli employees of Comverse back in Tel Aviv to hear and intercept all the data being exchanged by these naive agencies…everything.


I had finished all of my calls and watched the first part of the Lou Dobb’s news program on CNN and was on my way to the store, when I stepped out on the stoop and saw this threatening dark car full of obvious agents of some sort. I immediately warned my wife and kids and rode the bike to the store.

Something is not right, I said to myself, and I stopped at the local wine shop and asked to use the phone. I called 911 and told them that a strange car with armed men is driving around my neighborhood for no apparent reason. I was told that a police car would meet me at my house in 20 minutes.

I was just in my house a few minutes when the very same suspicious car stopped in front of my house and three armor-clad men stood on my driveway. I had just been calling the police department and put down the phone. I was more than a little surprised to see these armor-clad thugs on my driveway.

My wife and 8-year old daughter were already there and I asked these men who they were and why they were harassing my street. Why are you driving around with this unmarked car around my house, I asked? Who are you, anyway? They were not at all willing to identify themselves and were very confrontational, to say the least.

I ran to my front door to call my brother when the three of them tackled me and shocked me with some sort of stun-gun. The three men then sat on me and pushed my face in the dirt, handcuffed me and put me in their car.

Remember, I had called 911 because of a suspicious car in my neighborhood, a neighborhood I have known since 1957, when my parents helped found this town.

I have two small children, after all, and this car looked very threatening to me. This is what I call my normal neighborhood obligations, but I discovered that they are actually watching us. They even joked about it at the station later. “We are watching you,” they said.

It should be noted that my neighborhood does not have any crime or gangs or anything of that nature that would warrant an undercover squad to patrol around my house day after day. This is why it is so suspicious. And why are they patrolling around my house?

As they pummeled me, my wife was pleading for me and my daughter was crying. I really wanted my brother, my neighbors, and my son to come help me but before even one minute had passed there were dozens of cops and firemen in my front yard.

Where did they all come from so quickly? How were so many police in my neighborhood at the same time? This is most unusual, as Hoffman Estates is spread out all over northwest Cook County, but there were at least 5 squad cars and at least 10 officers in my front yard within one minute of my being beaten up on my lawn.

Sitting in the squad car with handcuffs on is when the private abuse began. Officer Fitzgerald indulged in offending me, my late mother, a village pioneer, and then threatened to beat me.

When another officer came to the car, he told me that this guy was going to beat the —- out of me. When I repeated what he said word for word, he would say, “I didn’t say that.”

He then started to drive me to the station, which is about three miles away from the old village center where I live. Bombarded with continuous verbal abuse, when I would say something from the back-seat he would slam on the brakes so that my head hit the plexi-glass separation window. Typical Chicago cop torture treatment; rough the guy up on the way to the station. This is exactly the kind of thing that I ran against when I ran for mayor of this town in 2001.

I decided to lean back on the seat and not say another word.

When we got to the station, there was a host of white-gloved cops waiting for me in the police garage. When Officer Fitzgerald drove in to the garage, he told the 10-12 waiting cops: “He says cops are a bunch of ……….. You can take care of him now.”

When they took me out, I informed them that I am a journalist and will write about their treatment. The verbal abuse now came from all sides. They told me I should get out of town, etc. I told them that my dear parents had founded Hoffman Estates, but they didn’t care.

When I was in the station they forcibly stripped off my belt and tore of my shirt leaving me clad only in shorts and undershirt. I asked why I was being detained and they told me that I had resisted arrest and threatened the police with my fists, two complete lies.

I was never the subject of any arrest. I had called to police to report a suspicious vehicle driving around my home!

I was thrown into a cell with no water. I asked for a drink of water and was told, “Drink from the toilet.”

Why am I being treated this way, I wondered?

At midnight, an officer came to my cell and asked if I could pay $100 to get out. What I am being charged with, I asked? I called the police and they beat me up in my front yard, I protested.

What did I do to deserve that?

My older brother had posted bail and shortly after midnight, I was pushed out onto the street with a good two-mile walk home.

I am shocked at how I was treated, because although my journalism gets me into trouble with police in many places, I have never been treated so brutally in my life. I honestly believe this brutal treatment is connected to my 9/11 research.

I intend to seek asylum in Norway or Switzerland. I can read the writing on the wall.

Investigative journalists are not safe in Iraq – or the United States.

Source: American Free Press

* * * * * * *

In Response To: The Zionist Gatekeeper Greg Palast & His Attack on Dr. Jones and 9-11 Truth *PIC* (ChristopherBollyn)

Open Letter to Eric Hufschmid about Spreading False News and Baseless Accusations

Christopher Bollyn


I have known you since 2002 when you were first writing Painful Questions, which I still consider to be the best book about 9-11. I helped you with the editing and since then you have helped me a great deal in my 9-11 research. I can safely say that you have been my biggest supporter since then.

You and I participated in Jimmy Walter’s 9-11 tour throughout Europe in May-June 2005. During the tour you saw how different Zionist agents desperately tried to prevent me from speaking about the evidence of Israeli involvement in the terror attacks of 9-11 and the key role that the Israeli-American Asst. Attorney General Michael Chertoff played in covering up the truth of what happened.

You remember how I was not allowed to speak in Vienna because of the efforts of Jenna Orkin to scare Jimmy and the local PR firm that my comments would be seen as illegal in Austria. You saw how that strange fellow in Paris and London begged me not to mention Chertoff in my speech.

You have also known that since November 2001 I have been targeted and unfairly smeared by Zionist agents, primarily the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith (ADL). When we visited you in May of 2006, I told you that we did not feel safe at our home in Illinois due to the intrusive FBI snoops.

Since then you have produced an excellent website,, with which you have done an excellent job in educating your readers and listeners about the history of Zionism and its control in the U.S. media and government.

As I told you then, if we want to win the hearts and minds of the public we have to have better websites to provide the essential information. On your website you have done an excellent job in posting some of my articles about 9-11 and Zionism, for which I am grateful.

When the police cranked up their intrusive snooping of me to the next level and invaded my home and brutally assaulted me, you used your website to bring attention to my plight in the corrupt courts of Cook County. I am very grateful for that.

I sincerely applaud your efforts to educate the public about Zionism and wish you continued success. The struggle against the crimes of Zionism is an extremely important battle which deserves our best efforts, which is why I am writing this open letter.

In order to win the struggle against the Zionist criminal network, we need to keep to the moral high ground and let the evidence and truth reveal the criminals. This is also my philosophy about exposing the truth about 9-11. The facts will reveal the criminals behind the crime.

If your website is to succeed in reaching a larger audience you have to stick to the truth and maintain the highest moral standards. It is essential for your success that you are fair and honest.

There are several areas where you have not stuck to the moral high ground and it has hurt your credibility immensely:

1. You have spread false news. 2. You have damaged my business and reputation by spreading false news.

3. You engage in baseless allegations against serious 9-11 researchers, like Dr. Steven E. Jones, and others.

4. You use violent and hateful language.


“Christopher Bollyn is still MIA, but don’t let that frighten you!”

For nearly two months, you and your colleague on The French Connection have said that I am M.I.A. and that I, and my family, have been kidnapped or killed. You, however, know very well that this is not true because we have been exchanging emails and spoken on the phone several times during this time.

This is spreading false news.

You know very well that I have not been kidnapped and I have told you so in plain English on several occasions since June that this is complete nonsense. So why do you continue to post such rubbish?

To this day the opening lines on your website say this:

Daryl Bradford Smith firmly believes that Linda Shelton is a principal in the bizarre disappearance of the Bollyn family, and calls for a full investigation into the actions and associations of this woman.

I understand that you work together with Mr. Smith but that you have never even met him. You know that I have not been kidnapped but you are unable to convince your associate on The French Connection of this?

What kind of partnership do you have with Mr. Smith? Does he not believe you, the webmaster and producer of his radio show?

Why do you allow him to spread false news which you know full well is absolutely false? Don’t you realize that this is like crying “wolf” and will only hurt your credibility?

Why have you spread alarm among my supporters with false news?


You certainly realize that it was your criticism of American Free Press that allowed that organization to fire me in October 2006. Although I was not even aware of the article that you had written, AFP used it against me by saying that I was an “associate” of yours. So it was guilt by association which cost me my job.

Because you wrote a critical article about AFP on your website, I lost my job.

Since I lost my income from AFP, I have had to rely on donations, editing jobs, and selling my book for children, ABC Zoo. At the same time I have had to defend myself against malicious prosecution in the Cook County courts.

For the past two months or so, you have spread false information on my links which go through your website saying: “Note: we are not sure what happens if you donate money or order books from Bollyn!”

This “note” has obviously discouraged people from donating to my work or buying my book. Why would you do such a thing unless you really wanted to hurt my income and business?


In your “Battle Plan” of 17 August 2007 you make some very unfair accusations and exhibit a very bizarre prejudice:

Under the subtitle “Professors, engineers, architects, and other phony ‘truth seekers’” you (or Mr. Smith) wrote:

“Some of these people may simply be naive, but they should all be considered guilty until proven innocent. Professor Steven Jones, for example, has been associating with Jim Hoffman for years.”

“Guilty until proven innocent?”

Guilty of what, may I ask?

Professor Jones has done more to explain the presence of molten metal in the rubble of the World Trade Center than anyone. His research has been extremely important in understanding what caused the buildings to collapse. For this he has suffered the slings and arrows of Zionist agents who grossly defamed him and caused him to lose his teaching position.


Your baseless accusations against Jones put you on the same side as those Zionist agents who defamed the good professor in September 2006, namely Doug Fabrizio, Robert Goldberg, Gary Fine, and William Tumpowsky of the United Jewish Federation.

Whatever your motivation might be, you have done the same thing to Professor Jones as these Zionist agents. Why would you and Mr. Smith want to do that? Don’t you see that you are effectively carrying water for the Zionists and those who would hide the truth of 9-11 by making such baseless accusations against Dr. Jones?

How does it advance the cause of 9-11 truth to say that Professor Jones is “guilty until proven innocent?”

This is what I am in the Zionist-dominated court of Cook County. This is what I am in the eyes of Zionist-run CNN.

This is why I am now an exile.

I am considered guilty until proven innocent and despite an abundance of evidence that I am innocent - I was found “guilty.”

Don’t you know what it means to consider somebody guilty until proven innocent? It is absolutely outrageous to think or say such things.

Who do you think will accept such mean-spirited and un-American logic? How can you complain about being marginalized when you say such things on your website? Don’t you see that you and Mr. Smith are your own worst enemies?

Do you realize that “guilty until proven innocent” is exactly how President George W. Bush treated Saddam Hussein in relation to weapons of mass destruction? You are asking Jones to prove a negative - that he is not guilty?

You are saying that Jones is guilty because he “associates” with Jim Hoffman? Guilty of what?

Daryl B. Smith, your associate on The French Connection, evidently said some very nasty and untrue things about me after he met me in November 2005, yet I have never held you accountable for your association with the person who evidently slandered me.

This evil and malicious slander could have only come from him because it concerned my visit to his home in France during which he and his wife were the only people present besides me and my family. Ask yourself why Mr. Smith, or is it Dr. Smith, would spread evil slander about me and then avoid me for nearly a year.

I asked you if you have ever met Mr. Smith and you said he is “just a voice on the phone.” You do all this work for “a voice on the phone?”

Eric, do you really know who you are associating with? Does Mr. Smith really have your best interest at heart? Is he really after the truth of 9-11? If so, why would he say such evil and false things about me and my family?

After he slandered me, I spoke with you and Mr. Smith on your radio show. I did not hold this evil and harmful slander against you or your him. I thought it was more important to get the information about 9-11 out than to discuss our differences.

Now, however, I see that there is a pattern to this madness that is dangerous and harmful. I can no longer ignore the warning flags.


The last point concerns language used in the “Battle Plan” you and Mr. Smith have on your website. You use language that suggests or implies that violence needs to be used to regain control of our money supply, government, and media.

You, or Mr. Smith, wrote:

“Alex Jones and other Zionist Deniers often imply that the only way to stop “them” is with violence. We should consider the possibility that he is telling us the truth. The Rothschilds, Oppenheimers, Chertoffs, and everybody else in this Zionist crime network may never give up. We may have to kill all of them.” “If violence erupts, the FBI and police may have to be our first targets.”


As I wrote in my Statement on the Importance of Non-Violence:

This language could easily be seen as “hate speech” or inciting violence. With comments like these Hufschmid and Smith are going out on very thin ice - legally. This is nowhere I would want to go. I would strongly urge them to remove such comments and stick to the moral high ground. Such violent language marginalizes them - and their message. Don’t they see that? Hufschmid urges me to speak on his Internet radio show but I simply cannot and would not want be seen as supporting such calls for violence. I can not associate myself with people who are seen as supporting violence. It is that simple.


I am compelled to write this open letter because my private communications with you obviously failed to produce any changes concerning the false news about me. You and Mr. Smith have lied about me and hurt my business. Your irresponsible and reckless comments can hurt you more than you think.

I urgently and strongly urge you to consider my comments and stick to the facts and the moral high ground. You must remove any comments that can be see as inciting violence. You must not make baseless allegations against others and you must stick to the truth. There is no other way.

Christopher Bollyn

More Evidence That The Police In The United States Have Been Turned Into A Militarized Squad Of Mercenaries -- Woman Punched In Face By Lunatic Cop

The following video shows a woman riding a bicycle being pulled over by a policeman for riding on a sidewalk, knocked off her bike, and then ganged up on by three cops while the one who initially confronted her punches her in the face four times.

Also note that this genius of a cop in attempting to wrongfully spray mace in this woman's face, ends up spraying himself in the face instead. Once the woman is pinned on the ground and handcuffed by two other cops, the original cop then walks over to the woman and punches her in the face four times, as she screams out, "why are you hitting me, I am handcuffed?"

Why punch the woman in the face when it was this idiot and sadist of cop who ended up macing himself instead of the woman, who appears to have given no legitimate reason for being maced?

She was riding her bicycle on the sidewalk, not holding up a bank!

This is law enforcement? More like a well paid New World Order squad of vigilante thugs who are intent on terrorizing the American Proletariat, knowing that they will likely not be held accountable for their violent crimes. This is evidence of the New World Order at its worst.

And these crimes are no longer an anomaly, but instead happening on a regular basis.

What happened to this woman's rights? The fact that she also appears to be African American also raises the issue of racial profiling.

Do you think the FBI will be called in to investigate here? Not likely, but given the FBI's track record of aiding and abetting criminal cops, there's little doubt that the FBI would attempt to smear this woman's name instead of holding the thug cop who punched her in the face responsible for doing so. If she punched this cop in the face she'd be looking at prison time. So why shouldn't this cop being looking at the same?

Female cyclist punched in face by rogue cop:

Also see boy tased and then punched in the face 13 times:

Also see the following post regarding the racial profiling of former minor league baseball player Robbie Tolan, who was shot and nearly killed by a racist cop who had wrongfully accused Tolan of driving a stolen car:

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

Imagine The Dissolution Of Unconstitutional Federal Agencies Like The FBI, NSA, CIA, DHS, DIA, FEMA, And A Host Of Other Illuminati Pawns

Dissolve the USA as it presently stands, and you get rid of the U.S. Federal Government as well as its Nazi run Intelligence community. All 50 states become sovereign nations . This would be a crushing blow to the Illuminati who've maintained control of the U.S. Federal Government through the privately held Federal Reserve System since 1913, and who are also directly responsible for the present state of ruination that the United States is in. Imagine not having this massive over bloated federal government or the Federal Reserve System vacuuming out your pockets every year. We'd be back on the gold standard which would destroy the inflationary cycles which have led to the devaluation of the Federal Reserve Note.

The individual states would again be able to prosper without being suffocated by a massive and corrupt federal government being controlled by an Illuminati run central bank. The central banks have always been the way in which the Illuminati have taken over countries, by indebting their governments to these banks.

And while the CIA controlled U.S. Media has not mentioned it, there is at present the intention by several American states, to in fact secede from the union, invoking their 10TH Amendment right in which to do so.

This is discussed in greater detail in the second of the following two articles. And given the Federal Reserve System's orchestration of the present depression that Americans now find themselves in, there will likely be many more states seeking to either secede from or abolish the U.S. Federal Government altogether within the near future.

Americans are now witnessing history in the making here. A situation as meaningful and dramatic as that of the original 13 colonies breaking away from the British crown in the 18TH Century and declaring their independence after having fought and won the American Revolutionary War. Interestingly enough, given the abject deceptions by the U.S. Federal Government of the American Proletariat, the American middle class has even more reason in the modern day to secede from this union, than the original 13 Colonies did back in the 1700's when they declared their independence from the tyrant, King George III.

See how the Illuminati played a role in all of this and in how they cleverly infiltrated America long before their creation of the privately held Federal Reserve System; the tool which they used to completely overun the American people.

The Illuminati spreads to America:

On Dissolving the United States of America
by Michael S. Rozeff

The United States of America is a political union of fifty states and a federal district, commonly considered to be operating under the authority of the U.S. Constitution that was first adopted in 1787. The Union known as the U.S.A. was a creation of the then-existing thirteen states of the Union.

Lysander Spooner has provided ironclad arguments that this Constitution is an invalid authority for Americans of today. If that is so, and I believe it is, then no "legal" moves need to be taken to dissolve the U.S.A. It is already an entity that has no legal authority. In this case, the Union does not legally exist.

To demonstrate that fact and make it operative, however, requires that the Union be effectively shattered; and that requires the successful secession of any person or any political entity within the jurisdiction of the U.S.A. This avenue was tried in 1860 by several southern states. The result was the War for Southern Independence, which was won by those states who supported the Union. This victory established the Union as a power and as a central or national state dominant over the individual states, not by legal consent but by force of arms. The southern states were beaten into submission, and the subsequent legal political authority of the U.S.A., such as it is, rests on its military victory in 1865.

Realistically, then, most people and the individual states do not today challenge the authority of the Constitution. They accept the U.S.A. as a legal entity. Under that condition, dissolving the U.S.A. requires a certain degree of legal maneuvering, although the secession route is still a viable option that can be exercised at any time and with justification. Now, under the Constitution, provisionally assuming its sway if not legally but in reality, amendment is possible in two ways according to Article V. The only way that has been used to date is that both houses of Congress approve an amendment by a two-thirds vote followed by approval by three-fourths of the state legislatures within seven years. The other way, never used, is that two-thirds of the state legislatures agree to a convention at which constitutional amendments can be introduced. These need to pass by a three-fourths vote. Both methods show clearly that the Constitution is sustained by the states. If three-fourths of them want to dissolve it, they can. Naturally, such a step involves many other legal ramifications and changes. However, the country has an ample corps of Washington, New York, and other lawyers that is up to the task.

Dissolving the Union can therefore be done in two basic ways, either by an effective set of secessions or by amending the Constitution so as to gut the Union. There are any number of other, less well-defined and more messy ways. In fact, secessions would probably result in a messy process that would, for a time, create uncertainty and indeterminacy as to the final political results.

I endorse dissolving the U.S.A. This does not mean that I endorse the 50 states or whatever political combinations of states result as a final ideal political system. I simply view that outcome, which ends the national (usually called the federal) government as greatly preferable to what we now have. Individual states could profitably break up too, but that is another matter.

The idea of dissolving the U.S.A. and its Constitution is not really as radical or extreme as it seems at first sight. The United Kingdom is on its way to dissolving. Majorities in both Scotland and England favor full independence for Scotland. The Soviet Union, in 1990-1991, dissolved into 15 separate states. Although this entailed some bloodshed, turmoil, and uncertainty over a 2-year period, it was by and large not at all a terrible happening. There was no major civil war anything like the War for Southern Independence. The aftermath of the dissolution of the Soviet Union has certainly been largely benign as at least some of the individual states that resulted have moved in the direction of free-market policies that have benefited them. The progress of Russia itself has been far greater than when it was part of the Soviet Union.

The secession or independence movement failed in the case of the Chechen Republic after two wars with Russia. Dissolution of a political unit can lead to serious conflict when states insist on territorial sovereignty and believe that it can be maintained by force of arms.

Why should the U.S.A. be dissolved? Why should we get rid of our national (federal) government? Why should Americans have something of a fresh start politically? The reasons for doing this are voluminous. The evidence that it should be done is extraordinarily one-sided. It is covered in detail by hundreds of publications that comprise a "freedom" literature.

What is amazing is that there is so little discussion of the matter of dissolving the U.S.A. We may as well say that for all practical purposes there is none. The influential figures of our nation do not raise this as an issue. It is certainly not on the agenda of our dominant political parties or their members. There is no ongoing debate about dissolving the Union.

If those individuals who favor retaining the national government think that it is such a good idea, then let them debate it. Let them show why the Union should be our form of government. Let them show how wonderful the Union has been for us. Let them go toe-to-toe with those of us who think the opposite. Of course, they do not want to debate this matter at such a basic level. To concede that the Union could even have serious and uncorrectable flaws would be to yield too much ground. It would grant the possibility that the Union is a detriment to the American people. Merely entertaining this possibility in public might make too many people stop and think. It might make them question the existing system, and such doubts might threaten the power, wealth, privilege, and position of those who benefit from the Union.

Rather than debate Union, the supporters of the national government have a better strategy. It goes way beyond stonewalling, which is not even on the horizon. It is to build support for the Union incessantly, to hammer the need for more and more laws passed within the Union’s ambit, and to pass these laws by constantly appealing to the fears of Americans. Rocking the boat, even if that boat is sinking, even if we are all swallowing sea water, is damned as a course that we all must avoid as a risk to our very lives and well-being. Almost any action of government, however ridiculous, stupid, or counter-productive, is painted as enhancing our security, even when it is obvious that the opposite is the case. The security theme is implicit in the notion of unity. We are always asked to obey the laws, pull together after votes are taken, end our dissent, be as one, and be as one nation. We are always asked to accept the laws, for fear that if we do not, we will be attacked, or not have medical care, or not have gasoline, or not have income in our old age. Unity and security are objectives interlarded with the element of fear. Even in the Federalist papers, written in support of the national Union, the appeals for unity were frequently based on heightening fears of European countries attacking the defenseless states and of states fighting with one another.

Beyond the psychological strategy of arousing fear, which has not changed in over 200 years, the tacit assumption held by almost everyone is that the Union is some sort of permanent political entity that deserves to be maintained and that has the worth and value to be maintained. The tacit assumption is that no other political arrangement would serve the American people better. The applause given to national laws is always based on how much good those laws will do.

These two assumptions are both false. The federal government is inept, inefficient, overbearing, power-hungry, dictatorial, and unjust. And it is becoming more so as time passes. The record on war-making alone is enough to show the negative value produced by the Union. Without the Union, the American people would either have avoided nearly every war they have fought in or would have had a greatly reduced role in these wars. Other wars and conflicts may have occurred had there been no Union, but they could not possibly have been at the scale of the wars that Americans have fought under their Union. With many independent states, the incentives for making internecine wars would have been vastly reduced, because the costs of fighting would have fallen far more directly on the individual states that chose to participate.

With the Union, a central power existed that could extract resources from every individual state’s citizens and could force every American in every state into major conflicts that those individual states would never have entered by themselves and which they could never have paid for by themselves. The Union became the vehicle for making more and bigger wars, simply by forcibly amalgamating the combined resources of all the individual states. Far from avoiding wars by a position of deterrent combined strength, the Union engaged in more and larger wars using that strength.

As matters stand, the existence of the Union made possible at greatly enhanced scale the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the War for Southern Independence, the Spanish-American War, the Philippine-American War, World Wars I and II, the Cold War, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Afghanistan War, several Iraq Wars, and countless other interventions and hostile actions in other countries. Only with the Union would we have what we today have: a bloated Empire saddled with trouble spots all over the world. These bring us only insecurity, even as we are made to believe that American troops and interference overseas will assuage our fears. Only with the Union could we possibly have major political figures from both parties who promise us that we will be at war for the next 100 or 1,000 years!

There is nothing that the Union accomplishes that is good, if there be anything, that cannot equally well or better be accomplished by the 50 states or subsets thereof acting alone or in federations with one another. And there is much that is bad that the Union does that will be avoided if the Union is dissolved.

The Union is now a coercive monopoly force at the apex of our political system. It gained the monopoly role by defeating the southern states, and it is continually enhancing its position of dominant power by obtaining political changes, such as the direct election of senators and the broadening of the popular vote. It is not stretching reality too far to say that our national government is becoming more and more like the Soviet Union’s Central Committee (although that was a party organization) or like the Politburo. A tiny group of men and women run the country, sustain and increase their power, gradually diminish civil liberties, gradually regulate every aspect of the economy, and gradually make every citizen fearful of even speaking out against their actions.

What is the logical result of Union? Centralization of power and an increase in oppression and the likelihood of further oppression. If we do not think about dissolving the U.S.A. now, we will be thinking about it later when we, as did the citizens of the Soviet Union, begin to chafe and grumble at how bad things are. But why wait for those sad days that are nearing when Medicare and Social Security both fail, or when bombs are dropping on American cities, or when our roads develop even more potholes, or even more bridges collapse, or we find that our dollars are worthless? Why wait?

Dissolving the U.S.A. is becoming more and more an urgent and visible matter. Let us do a favor for ourselves and for our children and grandchildren. Let us place dissolving the U.S.A. at the top of our political agenda.

January 15, 2008

Michael S. Rozeff [send him mail] is a retired Professor of Finance living in East Amherst, New York.

Copyright © 2008

Also See the following article:


Page 1 of 2

Firestorm Brewing Between U.S. States and Federal Government

by Lance L. Landon

States May Be Getting Ready To Dissolve Our Federal Government

Could this be an ominous shadow drawing on the end of the United States of America? For years the Federal Government has presumed to be the all-powerful force governing our country, but it just could be that the Federal Government only exists at the pleasure of the state governments and the citizens thereof. States declaring sovereignty sounds like an act of secession and revolution. However the federal government can apparently be dissolved and another one formed anew at the discretion of the states. The existing Federal government may not leave willingly like so many European governments that are replaced routinely and it may engage a military effort with our own soldiers or the likes of a Black Water illegal military invasion to retain total control over us.

United States Federal Government laws are often in violation of the Tenth Amendment, which is perturbing, these events. This is predicated on an earlier provision of the Articles of Confederation, which states that, “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation [now Federation] expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.”

A growing number of states are declaring their sovereignty afforded under the U S Constitution’s Tenth Amendment however the conventional news media are not telling you about what is happening. The State of Washington on Wednesday - 11 February 2009 and most recently, New Hampshire [2009], Montana [2009], Hawaii [2009], Michigan [2009], Missouri [2009], Arizona [2008], Oklahoma [2008], Georgia [1996], and California [1994] all of which have introduced bills and resolutions declaring and reaffirming their sovereignty. Some other states have done this in the past but then let the issue go. Additionally, the states of Colorado, Hawaii, Pennsylvania, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Alaska, Kansas, Alabama, Nevada, Maine, and Illinois are considering similar measures. More well may follow, such as Wyoming and Mississippi.

The Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791 and states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Historically, this was done to reassert the assignment of the remaining rights to the states and the people of our country if they were not specifically delegated by our Constitution to the United States Government. Further, Amendment Nine on the Construction of the Constitution, Ratified on 15 December 1791 states, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

The Arizona State Legislature is currently formulating a bill that declares their state sovereignty. Their bill further asserts their state’s right during martial law to call back servicemen to protect Arizona state, "…if the President or any other federal entity attempts to institute martial law or its equivalent without an official declaration in one or more of the states without the consent of that state …” There is more near the end of this article.

A lot of this recent activity has come about due to the reckless demise of the banking system now and also in memory of the past during the great depression that fomented during 1929. There is a Russian academic, Igor Panarin who recently predicted that the United States would break apart into about six separate regions by 2010. Predictions of similar persuasion have been made before, rather they are right or not some big problems may soon ensue.

Much of the presidential character of the cabinet assembled by President Obama is representative of that of the previous administration. Obama perhaps is keeping the Adage, “keep your friends close and keep your enemies even closer.” A disrespect for our so-called leaders is met from our so-called leaders disrespect for us the citizens of our country. Should this be the case yet again, this would establish further reason for the states course of recent action

It may seem ironic that as we have a President from the land of Lincoln, and one who admires Lincoln, that another civil war could be brewing. It’s further ironic that states are beginning to fight back. Many individuals that were imprisoned by Abraham Lincoln for advocating their free speech on issues of the day. These times may be as exciting and revolutionary as when our country was beginning. Benjamin Franklin said something on the order of, “if we do not hang together, we most certainly will hang separately.” Its also ironic that our revolutionary war was with Great Britain and that the so-called Federal Reserve Board (The Banksters) is a corporate instrument of Great Britain, still engorging itself with our blood, our wealth and our money.

The state sovereignty issue was discussed on late night radio on Coast-to-Coast AM. Comments reflected by Alex Jones indicate federal misjurisdiction of its authority that is infringing on state matters and on individual rights. States formed this federal government and it may be disempowered by 34 states [2/3rds]. The Federal government may have disenfranchised itself by making treatise that subvert its powers. As such the Federal government may already be insolvent even though it’s still operating. There is mostly Republican, some Democratic and much nonpartisan sponsorship on recreating state sovereignty to resolve these issues. Take a look at these links: click here and here.

Strings attached by the federal government to returning state money for federal programs may be invalid. States are rejecting federal intervention. Issues at hand involve the National Guard, Posse Commentates, and FEMA Prisons for events of rebellion [or civil demonstration] and revolution and a reimposition of the concept of establishing a North American Union. Take a look at Jerome Corsi’s book, “The Late Great USA”.

Federal negation of states’ rights is selling us out and is treasonous is among the repressive efforts against the states. States may dissolve this federal government. An effort in Missouri to push for sovereignty began three years ago when Missouri started to revive interest in its sovereignty. Other issues are 2nd Amendment Rights being taken away and the institution of civil disobedience, revolution and re-evaluation of where we want our government to go.

Unfunded mandates are forcing issues that the states will block is just one of many issues at hand. The Federal Government essentially has succeeded from our union. PDD-51, part of The National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive, allows for martial law a lot too easily; this is really not in the best interest of the citizens of the United States.

The negation of Congressional authority by the Executive branch is further ammunition for the states to declare their sovereignty. Congress has become a ceremonial branch of the government with no real power left. Congress has just given up its power by not reading the legislation it is being persuaded to pass hurriedly. Nobody in Congress seems to read the bills they pass. We must educate ourselves or suffer the consequences for lack of knowledge. Presidents have become front men for wealthier world powers.

Generally all state resolutions and bills to regain states inherent rights are a perfectly legitimate concept. While succession could be a possibility, the dissolution of the entire federal government and the institution of a new one predicated mostly on our current one is a distinct possibility.

It has come to the point where the banks are controlling Washington DC [or, is it the Bilderbergers as part of the new world order?]. Or is it just the old world order they are trying to recreate? The use of crises to terrorize us and promote a new world order, based not on what is good for us, but for them! Any world government that should arise must be democratic and not arbitrary. Actually, it is still the Old World Order that the new world order advocates guised in the remains of globalism misused.

The primary Constitutional responsibilities of the Federal government are to control our borders, our currency and our military of which they are abdicating on all of these. Granted there is an enumeration in Article I, Section 8 of our Constitution providing for eighteen or so in total responsibilities and rights. Clause 18, considered the expansion or elastic clause states, “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” The union is already gone and America has been sold out to foreign banks. States have the right to dissolve the federal government in order to reconstitute it. There is a non-democratic globalist effort that is stealthily moving ahead with its plan for a world government and economy made in their image, not ours.

The Constitutional principle in the Tenth Amendment is reflective of Federalism in that by providing that powers not granted to the National government nor prohibited to the states are reserved to the states and to the people. In the Articles of Confederation, a precursor to our Federal Government today, "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."

Once our Constitution was ratified, many desired the addition of a similar amendment limiting the Federal government to powers to those "expressly" delegated; this would have denied the use of implied powers. These powers result under the Elastic Clause the Constitution. Those implied powers are powers not given to the government directly through the Constitution, but are considered to be implied in Section Eight of our Constitution.

This document lets the government create Legislation and laws they considered necessary and proper so that they may remain in force, to meet as then or in the future unanticipated applications of the Constitution. The word "expressly" did not appear in the final version of the Tenth Amendment as it then was ratified.

Some state representatives on late night radio Coast to Coast AM were Matt Shea - WA, Jim Guest - MO, Dan Itse - NH, & Charles Key – OK provided a range of views on this subject. Click here.

In response to increasing federal encroachment, a growing number of states have passed and proposed resolutions to assert the Tenth Amendment and the Bill of Rights of the Constitution.

The Declaration Of Independence states: "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government"

A new vision for America is in the works. This is not just about state sovereignty, but America’s Sovereignty. We will be rebuilding America in the image we want, not what outsiders want. We are not ending America, but providing it a new beginning.

Here in are some of the resolutions and portions thereof:

A small portion from the resolution in Arizona created in 2009: “Be it resolved by the House of Representatives of the State of Arizona, the Senate concurring, that:

1. That the State of Arizona hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States.

2. That this Resolution serves as notice and demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.

3. That all compulsory federal legislation that directs states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties or sanctions or requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding be prohibited or repealed.”


Each state’s resolution has some language that is about the same but also has more to say in many cases. The California Resolution initiated in 1994 reads thusly,

“WHEREAS, The 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"; and

WHEREAS, The 10th Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the United States Constitution and no more; and

WHEREAS, The scope of power defined by the 10th Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and

WHEREAS, In the year 1994, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government; and

WHEREAS, Numerous resolutions have been forwarded to the federal government by the California Legislature without any response or result from Congress or the federal government; and

WHEREAS, Many federal mandates are directly in violation of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and

WHEREAS, The United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states; and

WHEREAS, A number of proposals from previous administrations and some now pending from the present administration and from Congress may further violate the United States Constitution; now, therefore, be it

Firestorm Brewing Between U.S. States and Federal Government

by Lance L. Landon Page 2 of 2 page(s)

Resolved by the Senate and Assembly of the State of California, jointly, That the State of California hereby claims sovereignty under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the United States Constitution and that this measure shall serve as notice and demand to the federal government to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of its constitutionally delegated powers; and be it further

Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate transmit copies of this resolution to the President and Vice President of the United States, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the President pro Tempore of the United States Senate, each Senator and Representative from California in the Congress of the United States and to the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate of each state legislature in the United States of America.”


While each State Resolution and/or Bill is written somewhat differently but expresses much of the same determination. New Hampshire has a rather interesting and long dissertation in its resolution, excerpted here are some poignant points,

“That any Act by the Congress of the United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States of America or Judicial Order by the Judicatories of the United States of America which assumes a power not delegated to the government of United States of America by the Constitution for the United States of America and which serves to diminish the liberty of the any of the several States or their citizens shall constitute a nullification of the Constitution for the United States of America by the government of the United States of America. Acts which would cause such a nullification include, but are not limited to:

I. Establishing martial law or a state of emergency within one of the States comprising the United States of America without the consent of the legislature of that State.

II. Requiring involuntary servitude, or governmental service other than a draft during a declared war, or pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

III. Requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of persons under the age of 18 other than pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

IV. Surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government.

V. Any act regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press.

VI. Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition; and

That should any such act of Congress become law or Executive Order or Judicial Order be put into force, all powers previously delegated to the United States of America by the Constitution for the United States shall revert to the several States individually. Any future government of the United States of America shall require ratification of three quarters of the States seeking to form a government of the United States of America and shall not be binding upon any State not seeking to form such a government . . .”
untitled.bmp (image)


Wikio - Top Blogs

"The Mother Of All Black Ops" Earns A Wikio's Top Blog Rating

Julian Assange's WikiLeaks Alternative Media's Been Wrongfully Bankrupted By The U.S. Military Intelligence Complex

Rating for

Website Of The Late Investigative Journalist Sherman Skolnick