Tuesday, March 31, 2009


Common Law Grand Jury


The government must accept the Magna Carta as common law if pleaded as such.
Source: Confirmatio Cartarum, Article 1

Basic requirements and procedures for a common law grand jury:
Source: Magna Carta, Articles 52 & 61


Grand jury members must be elected by the people (not citizens) of the jurisdiction in which they are operating.

There are no rules defining a procedure for how they are elected. The people, without the influence of government, decide for themselves how the grand jury members are elected.

There must be 25 members.


The members must be “people” of the jurisdiction and not “citizens” of the jurisdiction.

For example, they must be “People of the United States,” or “People of California,” or “People of the State of California”; not “citizen of the United States,” nor “citizen of California,” nor “citizen of the State of California.”

Each member must be sworn in and promise to observe all of these rules and, so far as within his power, cause all the rules to be observed.


When the grand jury meets, if any are absent after being summoned, then those present constitute a quorum.

All decisions of grand jury are decided by majority vote of members present.

If any member dies or leaves the country, or in any other way is prevented from carrying out the grand jury’s decisions, the remaining grand jurors shall choose another to fill his place and he shall likewise be sworn in.


No decision of a grand jury is reviewable in any court of the government.


Any government transgression against anyone in any respect.

Any government breaking of articles of peace or security.

Any dispute regarding anyone who has been disseized or removed, by the government without a legal sentence of his peers, from his lands, castles, liberties or lawful right.

Dispute Settlement

If the grand jury is informed of any dispute regarding anyone who has been disseized or removed (by the government without a legal sentence of his peers) from his lands, castles, liberties or lawful right, then the dispute shall be settled by the grand jury.


Four of the members must be shown that because of the government,
A. A transgression has occurred against any one in any respect, or
B. Some one of the articles of peace or security has been broken

The four members must show to the government the government’s error.

The four members must ask the government to amend that error without delay.

If the government does not amend the error within 40 days after being shown the error, then the four members shall refer the matter to the remainder of the grand jury.

The grand jury may distrain and oppress the government in every way in their power, namely, by taking the homes, lands, possessions, and any way else they can until amends shall have been made according to the sole judgment of the grand jury.


The grand jury may not imprison or execute any government personnel or their children.


Anyone (people or citizen) who chooses to help enforce the grand jury decision must first swear that he will obey the mandates of the grand jury, and that with them to the extent of his power he will impose the grand jury’s decisions upon the government.

The authority to support the grand jury is pre-authorized by the government.

If anyone refuses to support a grand jury decision, the government will force him to swear his support of the grand jury.


The government is prohibited from doing anything to diminish the effect of the grand jury.

If the government does prohibit or diminish the effectiveness of the grand jury, it shall be vain and invalid and may not be used in any later proceeding by the government or anyone else.


When all issues are settled to the satisfaction of the grand jury, things shall return to normal as they were before. No grudges.

Coming Soon: “Barack Obama v. The Law”

Coming Soon: “Barack Obama v. The Law”

Evil Conservative Radio and NMATV have teamed up to produce an upcoming documentary, “Barack Obama v. The Law”:

Dr. Orly Taitz, Attorney Mario Apuzzo, and WOR talk show host Steve Malzberg make the case about Barack Obama and his eligibility for the presidency. Produced and directed for NMATV by Bob Parks.

RedState also chimes in:
I am not personally convinced the birth certificate is an issue, but I have to say, I have no leg to stand on but my “feeling” that it isn’t relevant because we’ve not seen actual birth certificate to butress my “feeling.” So, what do I tell people that insist this is an important issue?

I have nothing logical to tell them to disabuse them of their notion because I can’t prove them wrong.

So, why won’t Obama just publish the real birth certificate?

This is yet another avenue that activists believe they can use to raise awareness of the eligibility issue.

If the Judiciary won’t hear the case for whatever legitimate reasons and the Legislative dismisses having a discussion thereof, then it makes sense to go after the proverbial court of public opinion.

This is not the hope - change we were looking for!

Beware the Cult of Obama

Beware the Cult of Obama
Written by Gene Healy
Tuesday, 31 March 2009 15:31
From the D.C. Examiner:

You’ve met them. They may be friends of yours, or family members. You may even be one of them (in which case you’ll hate this column). I’m referring to those who’ve heard the Call of Obama.

Tucker Carlson compares it to a dog whistle: Inaudible to most, but irresistible to those who can hear it.

Obama "walks into a room and you want to follow him somewhere, anywhere," George Clooney gushed to Charlie Rose.

"I’ll collect paper cups off the ground to make [Obama’s] pathway clear,” Halle Berry recently told the Philadelphia Daily News, “I’ll do whatever he says.” (Does Michelle know about this?)

Hollywood stars aren’t known for their political wisdom. More disturbing is how starstruck the mainstream media has become. Hardball host Chris Matthews isn’t the only one who gets a “thrill” up his leg at the very thought of our new president.

Last summer, San Francisco Chronicle columnist Mark Morford wrote that "Many spiritually advanced people I know … identify Obama as a Lightworker, that rare kind of attuned being who … can actually help usher in a new way of being on the planet."

The Politico recently ran a 900-word article entitled "The Power of Obama's Hand," reverentially describing how the president "uses touch to control and console simultaneously," laying hands on supporters and opponents alike.

And in February, author Judith Warner used her New York Times blog to confess that “The other night I dreamt of Barack Obama. He was taking a shower right when I needed to get into the bathroom to shave my legs.”

Instead of keeping that information to herself, Warner “launched an email inquiry,” which revealed that “many women—not too surprisingly—were dreaming about sex with the president.” Those of us who like to point out that the Emperor has no clothes now have to worry that when we do, we may give rise to a new round of lurid cougar fantasies.

Conservatives like to think they're above this sort of thing. Their attitude is summed up by the subtitle of Jerome Corsi's recent bestseller: Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality.

But any conservative who thinks cultishness is exclusively a leftist phenomenon ought to take a good long look in the mirror. Because many of those who decry the "cult of Obama" are the same people who made a flight-suited action figure hero out of such common clay as George W. Bush.

Peggy Noonan called Bush's post-9/11 address to Congress "a God-touched moment and a God-touched speech." Fred Barnes wrote that "the stage was set for Bush to be God's agent of wrath." National Review Online ran ads for the Bush "Top Gun" action figure, and an article about how wonderful it was to have a presidential superhero to complement your GI Joe collection.

On Hardball, after the "Mission Accomplished" speech, G. Gordon Liddy got graphic enough to embarrass Judith Warner: "Here comes George Bush. You know, he's in his flight suit, he's striding across the deck, and he's wearing his parachute harness.... and it makes the best of his manly characteristic&hellip. He has just won every woman's vote in the United States of America!"

Presidential cultishness can be found all across the political spectrum. It’s a pathology that needs to be rooted out, because when we swoon over the man who holds the office, we risk making the presidency far more powerful than it was ever intended to be.

William Hazlitt, the 19th-century English essayist, argued that man was by nature "a worshipper of idols and a lover of kings." As savages, Hazlitt wrote, we fashioned “gods of wood and stone and brass,” but now, thinking ourselves above superstition, “we make kings of common men, and are proud of our own handiwork.”

But America’s very existence repudiates the idea that we’re hard-wired for leader-worship. We became a nation by throwing off a king, and our Founders gave us a Constitution that’s based on the notion that all men are flawed and none should be trusted with too much power.

Americans, of all people, should recognize how bizarre and dangerous it is to fawn over professional politicians.

Examiner columnist Gene Healy is a vice president at the Cato Institute and the author of The Cult of the Presidency.


Tuesday, March 31, 2009
WorldNetDaily Exclusive

Million red envelopes deluge White House'A message to a man that Godhears the cry of innocent blood'
Posted: March 30, 20092:52 pm Eastern
By Drew Zahn

Over one million, empty, red envelopes have poured into the White House mail room, symbolizing the empty promise of lives snuffed out in abortion; and with Red Envelope Day planned for tomorrow, coordinators estimate that number could more than double.

The Red Envelope Project is an idea sparked in the mind and prayers of a Massachusetts man, Christ Otto, who envisioned in January thousands of red envelopes sent to the White House, a visual expression of moral outrage over the president's position on abortion.

On the backs of the envelopes, senders write a message Otto composed: "This envelope represents one child who died in abortion. It is empty because that life was unable to offer anything to the world. Responsibility begins with conception."

"We are trying to change the president's heart," Otto writes on a website explaining the project. "This is a message to a man that God hears the cry of innocent blood. It is not a political stunt, although I hope it changes policy in Washington. If the capital is flooded with so many letters that no one can deny it, I am hoping the image will be burned into Barack Obama's mind that this is about human blood, and that he lies awake at night until he cannot resist doing something about it."

The original project began small, but when Otto sent out an email to friends asking them to join him in the envelope effort, the symbolic gesture spread through the Internet like wildfire.

"I sent an email to 120 people who pray for me daily, and asked them if they wouldn't mind sending a red envelope, and if they thought it was a good idea, forwarding it on to their friends," Otto told WND. "About a week and half later, a friend told me to Google it, and I found about 30 blogs dedicated to the red envelopes."

Otto told WND a few days later, he began receiving contacts from national pro-life organizations and churches that had taken up the cause.

By February, Otto learned of a Texas man named Brian Potter, who set March 31 as Red Envelope Day, a date when supporters would drop hundreds of thousands of the envelopes in the mail, presumably being delivered to the White House near the beginning of Holy Week, just prior to the start of Passover.

Potter's Red Envelope Day website has also partnered with AmazingCauses.com to enable supporters to send the red envelopes online in one easy and coordinated effort, so that, in Potter's words, "they will send out a truckload of envelopes to the White House."

Visitors to Otto's site have testified to over 1.1 million envelopes sent so far; Potter's website records more than 125,000 envelopes waiting to be sent on March 31; and Otto told WND churches around the country are piling up envelopes, thousands at a time, preparing to mail an estimated quarter of a million tomorrow.

The Catholic News Agency reports that a consortium of 11 different student groups at the University of Notre Dame, in protest of the university's invitation of Barack Obama to speak at graduation, plan to hand deliver a surge of the red envelopes to the pro-abortion president when he arrives to give the commencement address in May.

Otto told WND the message on the backs of the envelopes was crafted in response to a previous Obama speech, his inaugural address.

"The president spoke for a long time about creating a culture of responsibility, and part of creating a culture of responsibility was not taking the lives of the innocent. He actually said that in his inaugural address," Otto said. "That was why I added the line, 'Responsibility begins with conception.'"

Otto's FAQ page about the project also explains why the color red was chosen:
"The envelopes represent the innocent blood shed through abortion, and the plea for the blood of Jesus over the sin of our nation," writes Otto. "This campaign is a symbolic act to flood the mail with red. The more we send, the more powerful this symbol will be."

Otto told WND he thought a few thousand red envelopes would simply be a statement, showing that there are still people who care about the abortion issue deeply. As more and more people have joined him, however, Otto says the red envelopes are having an effect.

"Do I think it will change the President? I don't know," Otto writes on his website. "Last week I received an unsolicited call from a senator's office. They thought that I was in Washington, and that I must have a huge PAC. This gave me indication that someone on Capitol Hill knows about these envelopes. So, I guess it is making a difference."

Otto told WND, "As I've watched this grow, it's become clearer and clearer to me that the thing I'd like people to see is that they can make a difference in whatever they do. The message of my life is to listen to God and do what he tells you. And if you listen to God and do what he tells you and live a live of prayer and obedience, you can make a difference.

"I know this has empowered many people who felt powerless before this came along," Otto continued. "I know that there are thousands of people involved – there are a quarter of a million on Facebook alone – and if people can see that they still have a voice, to me, that means it's a success."

Details on how to participate, including specific instructions to ensure envelopes aren't sent to the dead letter bin, are available at RedEnvelopeDay.com and The Red Envelope Project website.


Research from my best source - Bloggers welcome

My best researcher wants to remain anonymous. Maybe when this is all over I will be able to give a medal or a trophy. A tireless worker with a real knack for finding details that lead to gold mines of information. This is all available for other researchers.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

First, I will start with a little info on me. I worked with my husband for years, searching for answers in our business. God gave me the gift to dig and with his guidance, I find what I’m looking for. I also get a terrible feeling in my gut when I shouldn’t trust someone, and can’t stand people lying to me. So when I take on a job I give it my all. Right now I’m giving my all to you and my country. I am 100% American born and raised. I believe in God and I will stand at attention and place my hand on my heart when I hear our National Anthem. I thank God for our Military and I have respect for the people who have died to keep us safe. I have been researching the Commercial Club of Chicago and what part it has to play, in our Government and Universities for 5 months. I do not get paid for what I’m doing, It all comes from my heart and the love for my country. Freedom comes with a price and it’s not always money or about money. Sometimes we just need to stand up against evil people. After all the information I have found proved and shared with many, I refuse to listen to the people that don’t care enough to read the information that I’ve laid before them, because it’s too much effort for them. The funny part I see is they still carry a strong opinion of nothing they are will to get the facts on. So please forgive me if I seem a little anal on the information I give you, I’d rather give too much information than to forget an important fact. Please, I encourage every American that loves living in our country and loves their freedom, that reads my research, please don’t stop there. Please share and use my research as a tool to find more information and answers.

The best place to start is Chicago newspapers. Most of the people that have to deal with the Chicago Machine Politics are pretty fed up and willing to give their opinion, it’s just the rest of us that trust too much and never had to deal or put up with it this type of behavior! So only if you want to check me and I encourage you to, click on the links I’ve provided.
Ayers, Obama, Philanthropy, Corruption: What Big Media Refuses to Disclose about Obama’s Checkered Past in Chicago Machine Politics

Now what I’m finding is the unbelievable amount of people that are trustee’s in our Universities. The University of Chicago http://www.muckety.com/University-of-Chicago/5001965.muckety and Northwestern University http://www.muckety.com/Northwestern-University/5001396.muckety you will find a concentrated amount of members of the Commercial Club of Chicago as well as William (Bill) Ayers wife, Bernardine Dohrn http://www.law.northwestern.edu/faculty/profiles/BernardineDohrn William (Bill) Ayers is currently a Professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago http://education.uic.edu/directory/faculty_info.cfm?netid=bayers Mayor Richard M. Daley (His brother William M.Daley currently in the White House) praised the Ayers http://polizeros.com/2008/10/10/mayor-daley-of-chicago-has-praised-ayers and for anyone who needs to catch up on who Bernardine Dohrn, William (Bill) Ayers and the Weather Underground are, here is a great article written by David Horowitz September 17, 2001,
Allies in War http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=63512670-BF7C-42A0-B41D-5D0FB9E09C09 . Personally, I think the article on The Steady Drip would go nicely right about here http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/03/frankfurt-school-its-not-theory-it-is.html it’s called the Frankfurt School, It’s not a Theory it’s happening now! It’s kinda like a Chess game, you gotta put all your pawns in place before you can take over the board. When God was removed from our schools over 50 years ago they became a breeding ground for the socialist minds to teach and brainwash their warped views to our children. The results coming out of these breeding grounds are the product of their teaching that you are now seeing in our Government. Now, on to Princeton, University.

What I’ve done here is a break down the people that had and interest, worked or graduated etc. at Princeton University. There are deeper connections with all of these people, if you chose to dig beyond what I’m showing you and don’t discount what their relatives are willing to do in the name of family or money.

Starting with Ben S. Bernanke, last year http://www.muckety.com/Ben-S-Bernanke/5221.muckety he was a participant at the 2008 Bilderberg conference. This link will give some history on the Bilderberg conference. http://www.bilderberg.org/bilder.htm At the 2008 Bilderberg conference, reporters were able to get some pictures, but were not allowed into the conference. http://cryptome.info/bilderberg08/bilderberg08.htm According to http://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/bios/board/bernanke.htm . Ben S. Bernanke, Chairman and a member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Bio. From 1994 to 1996, Dr. Bernanke was the Class of 1926 Professor of Economics and Public Affairs at Princeton University. He was the Howard Harrison and Gabrielle Snyder Beck Professor of Economics and Public Affairs and Chair of the Economics Department at the university from 1996 to 2002. Dr. Bernanke had been a Professor of Economics and Public Affairs at Princeton since 1985.

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg's, daughter also went to Princeton University. http://www.muckety.com/Princeton-University/5001549.muckety In 2004, her father donated $36 million to Princeton to construct a new dormitory, Emma B. Bloomberg Hall. Dennis J. Keller and Robert S. Murley are trustee’s at Princeton University and members of the Commercial Club of Chicago.

John W. Rogers Jr., http://www.muckety.com/John-W-Rogers-Jr/4564.muckety a friend of Michelle Obama was a student & basketball player and graduate & basketball team captain at Princeton University. John W. Rogers Jr. and his wife Desiree G. Rogers are both members of the Commercial Club of Chicago, Desiree G. Rogers is also a director of the Executives' Club of Chicago.

Michelle Obama’s brother, Craig M. Robinson was a student & basketball player at Princeton University.

Robert D. Stuart Jr. was a trustee at Princeton University and is a member of the Commercial Club of Chicago.

Christina D. Romer was an assistant professor at Princeton University and is now, council of economic advisers chairman for the Barack Obama administration.

Crystal Nix Hines was a trustee at Princeton University, a supervising editor at Harvard Law Review, Barack Obama was a president at the Harvard Law Review.

Eric E. Schmidt is a trustee at Princeton University, chairman & CEO, for Google Inc. and he is a 2008 Barack Obama presidential campaign supporter http://news.techwhack.com/9095-eric-schmidt-barack-obama Eric E. Schmidt is Obama-Biden economic advisory team member and he was also a 2008 Bilderberg conference participant. Google, has been censoring China since January 25, 2006. http://www.seochat.com/c/a/Search-Engine-News/Google-Censors-China-Search-A-Dangerous-Game Now Google censors in the United States http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/11/sandboxed-black.html .

Peter R. Orszag a Princeton University graduate, a Robert E. Rubin protégé and is currently Barack Obama’s administration budget director.

Christopher Lu, another graduate from Princeton University, is listed as Barack Obama’s legislative director and White House cabinet secretary for the Barack Obama Administration.

John F. McDonnell is a benefactor at Princeton University and was a chairman for the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis and is currently a director at Boeing Company. This is a interesting connection, William M. Daley, he is currently in the White house and he is Mayor Richard M. Daley’s brother serves as director at the Boeing Company, Edward M. Liddy is a director at Boeing and AIG’s chairman & CEO. Liddy and both Daley brothers are members of the Commercial Club of Chicago. William M. Daley and Edward M. Liddy can also be traced to the Northwestern University serving as trustee’s as well as a number of other members of the Commercial Club of Chicago.

Rishi S. Jaitly is a Trustee at Princeton University and a policy analyst for Google inc. http://www.muckety.com/Rishi-S-Jaitly/10340.muckety

Shirley M. Tilghman is the President at Princeton University and director at Google inc. http://www.muckety.com/Shirley-M-Tilghman/1498.muckety

Beth A. Wilkinson is a Princeton University graduate and EVP & general counsel for Fannie Mae. http://www.muckety.com/Beth-A-Wilkinson/13505.muckety

I think there is a very sophisticated networking system through our Universities. Now let’s break down the information at Harvard Law Review where Barack Obama held title of President.

Harvard Law Review
All these people went to Harvard Law Review with Barack Obama and most did benefit from knowing him as well as the people at Princeton the went to the University with Michelle Obama’s brother. So when I would watch him on the Television trying to make his choices, well, as you can see they already knew who there picks were.

Christopher C. Cox was editor at Harvard Law Review and was also a Harvard Business School’s professor http://www.muckety.com/Christopher-C-Cox/17056.muckety One of his current Relationships is director for the National Endowment for Democracy http://www.ned.org a couple of his past relationships include U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission - chairman and World Economic Forum 2008 - attendee

Michael B.G. Froman was an editor at Harvard Law Review http://www.muckety.com/Michael-B-G-Froman/10274.muckety he’s a personal law school friend of Barack Obama. He is currently in Barack Obama administration, serving as deputy assistant to the president. His current relationships are, managing director, for Citigroup Inc. (Citigroup inc. was one of the banks receiving federal investment. Here is more information on the 2008-2009 Financial Bailout http://www.muckety.com/2008-2009-financial-bailout/5056529.muckety . He is a Council on Foreign Relations - member, Harvard Law School - graduate, Trilateral Commission – member http://www.trilateral.org/about.htm More past relationships, were 2008 Barack Obama presidential campaign - fundraiser, 2008 Obama-Biden transition team - advisory board member, National Security Council - director, international economic affairs, Robert E. Rubin - chief of staff, U.S. Department of the Treasury - deputy assistant secretary.) Listed above notice, Peter R. Orszag a Princeton University graduate, and a Robert E. Rubin protégé, currently Barack Obama’s administration budget director.

Allan E. Gotlieb was an editor for the Harvard Law Review http://www.muckety.com/Allan-E-Gotlieb/2666.muckety the following are his current relationships, All Souls College – visiting, Almatis - executive chairman, Davis + Henderson, Income Trust - director, Donner Canadian Foundation – chairman, Hollinger International Inc. – director, Julius Baer Investment Advisory Ltd. - senior adviser, Ontario Heritage Foundation - chairman, Order of Canada - companion, Sotheby's Canada - chairman, Stikeman Elliott Toronto - senior adviser, Trilateral Commission - North American deputy chairman http://www.trilateral.org/about.htm Past Relationships, Banque Industrielle Mobiliere et Privee - chairman, Canada Council - chairman, Chase Manhattan Bank, - director for Europe, Harvard University - professor, Midland Bank - director & chief executive international, Societe Generale de Belgique - chief executive, United States - Canadian ambassador, Wadham College – fellow)

Michael J. Gottleib was an editor at Harvard Law Review http://www.muckety.com/Michael-J-Gottleib/163192.muckety His current relationships, he is Barack Obama’s administration - associate counsel and a Harvard Law School - graduate, Past Relationships,
John Paul Stevens law clerk (Side Note: John Paul Stevens in a U.S. Supreme Court Justice)

Danielle Gray was editor at Harvard Law Review http://www.muckety.com/Danielle-Gray/163081.muckety (Current Relationships, Barack Obama administration - associate counsel, Harvard Law School – graduate, Past Relationships, 2004 Barack Obama Senate campaign – worker, Stephen G. Breyer - law clerk (Side note: Stephen G. Breyer is U.S. Supreme Court - justice , Breyer became a leading member of the U.S. Sentencing Commission (1985–1989) that developed the sentencing guidelines now in effect in the federal courts. These governmental assignments occurred while Breyer was pursuing his academic career as a Harvard University law professor, where he specialized in antitrust law, administrative law, economic regulation, and risk management. http://www.answers.com/topic/stephen-breyer ) O'Melveny & Myers LLP – lawyer)

Crystal Nix Hines was the supervising editor for the Harvard Law Review http://www.muckety.com/Crystal-Nix-Hines/96780.muckety Her personal relationship listed is Barack Obama, law school friend, Current Relationships, are Commander in Chief - writer, producer, Harvard Law School – graduate, The Practice - staff writer, Past relationships were 2008 Barack Obama presidential campaign – fundraiser, Daily Princetonian – editor, Thurgood Marshall - law clerk (Thurgood Marshall was a U.S. Supreme Court, justice)
New York Times – reporter, Princeton University – trustee) ( Another trustee)

Ron Klain was editor at Harvard Law Review http://www.muckety.com/Ron-Klain/102113.muckety (Personal Relationships, Monica Medina – spouse, Current Relationships, Exclusive Resorts – director, Revolution Health Group – director, Revolution LLC - EVP & general counsel, Past Relationships, 2000 Al Gore presidential campaign - counsel in recount effort, 2004 John F. Kerry presidential campaign - debate preparer, 2004 Wesley Clark presidential campaign - adviser, Albert A. Gore Jr. - chief of staff, Edward J. Markey - legislative director, O'Melveny & Myers LLP – partner, Janet Reno - chief of staff, Senate Judiciary Committee - chief counsel, Byron R. White - clerk, Byron R. White - law clerk (Side Note: Byron R. White is a U. S Supreme Court Justice and a Yale Law School – graduate and yes we do have Yale Connections)

Harold H. Koh Harvard Law Review’s developments editor, http://www.muckety.com/Harold-H-Koh/569.muckety his current Relationships are, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences – fellow, American Law Institute - council member, American Philosophical Society - fellow, Barack Obama administration - State Department legal nominee l adviser, Brookings Institution - trustee, Human Rights First, - director, Magdalen College - honorary fellow, National Democratic Institute – director, Oxford University - graduate, U.S. Department of State - legal adviser,YALE LAW SCHOOL, DEAN Past Relationships, All Souls College - visiting fellow, Harry A. Blackmun - law clerk, Covington & Burling LLP – lawyer, Harvard University – overseer, United Nations Commission on Human Rights – delegate, U.S. Department of State - assistant secretary, Malcolm R. Wilkey - law clerk, William J. Clinton administration - lawyer, office of legal counsel. (I wonder what those fellows are up too, maybe part of this network)

Nancy L. McCullough was a editor at Harvard Law Review http://www.muckety.com/Nancy-L-McCullough/106757.muckety Her personal relationships are Barack Obama - law school friend. Current Relationships, Harvard Law School – graduate, Law Offices of Nancy L. McCullough - principal, Past Relationships were the 2008 Barack Obama presidential campaign – fundraiser, Capitol Records - senior director.

Jonathan T. Molot – was a Harvard Law Review editor http://www.muckety.com/Jonathan-T-Molot/97127.muckety His personal relationships, Barack Obama - law school friend, Current Relationships, Georgetown University Law Center – professor, Harvard Law School – graduate, Past Relationships, 2008 Barack Obama presidential campaign – fundraiser, (Maybe some networking in Georgetown University Law Center)

I just wanted to point this out notice below. Cassandra Q. Butts was a law school friend of Barack Obama, she is now deputy White House counsel for the Barack Obama administration. http://www.muckety.com/Cassandra-Q-Butts/8452.muckety

Barack Obama was president of the Harvard Law School Review http://www.muckety.com/Harvard-Law-Review/5003264.muckety ( Personal Relationships, include, Robert B. Barnett – attorney, George H.W. Bush - tenth cousin, George W. Bush - tenth cousin once removed, Cassandra Q. Butts - law school friend, Richard B. Cheney - ninth cousin, Winston Churchill - ninth cousin 3 times removed, Ann Dunham – mother, Madelyn Payne Dunham - maternal grandmother, Gerald R. Ford - tenth cousin, Michael B.G. Froman - law school friend, Julius Genachowski - law school friend, Robert L. Gibbs - communications director, Crystal Nix Hines - law school friend, Lyndon B. Johnson - fourth cousin 3 times removed, Emil Jones Jr. – mentor, Rachel Klayman – editor, Robert E. Lee - fifth cousin 8 times removed, Christopher Lu - legislative director, James Madison - third cousin 9 times removed
Brian P. Mathis - law school friend, Nancy L. McCullough - law school friend, Jonathan T. Molot - law school friend, Martin Nesbitt - friend, Barack Obama Sr. – father, Malia Obama - father Michelle Obama - spouse, Sarah Hussein Obama - paternal grandmother, Sasha Obama - father, Thomas J. Perrelli - law school friend, Brad Pitt - ninth cousin, James Reynolds Jr. - friend, neighbor, Antoin Rezko – contributor, V. Gene Robinson - tapped for inaugural event prayer, Pete Rouse - Senate chief of staff, Jean Rudd – friend, Maya Soetoro-Ng – sister, Harry S. Truman - seventh cousin 3 times removed, Laura D'Andrea Tyson - economic adviser, Eric E. Whitaker - friend & basketball partner, Current Relationships, A Mother's Promise - biographical film, Audacity of Hope - author, Barack Obama administration – president, Crown Publishing, - author, DC Muckety: 2009 power couples – named, Harvard Law School – graduate, Hope Fund – PAC, Muckety List of Most Networked in Chicago, 2008 - in top 100, Saddleback Civil Forum (8/16/2008) – participant, Yes We Can video – featured, Past Relationships, 2004 Barack Obama Senate campaign – candidate, 2005 Bankruptcy Law – opposed, 2006 Alexi Giannoulias state treasurer campaign – endorsed, 2008 Barack Obama presidential campaign - candidate
2008 Tobacco Regulation bill - co-sponsor, ACORN vs. Illinois State Board of Elections - attorney
Bill Gates "last day" video - featured in, Chicago Annenberg Challenge - chairman, Congressional Black Caucus - member, Davis Miner Barnhill & Galland – associate, Financial markets bailout bill (Senate-10/1/08) - voted for, Harvard Law Review – president, Matthew Santos - modeled on, Charles J. Ogletree Jr. - college mentorSamantha Power – aide, Punahou High School - boys' basketball team player, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations - member
Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions – member, Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs – member, Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs - member, Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations – member, Sidley Austin LLP – intern, Laurence Tribe - research assistant, Trinity United Church of Christ (Chicago) - parishioner
University of Chicago Law School - senior lecturer, U.S. Senate – senator, Woods Fund of Chicago – director, Joe Wurzelbacher - mentioned in 10/15/08 debateP

Thomas J. Perrelli - managing editor for the Harvard Law Review http://www.muckety.com/Thomas-J-Perrelli/106791.muckety
(Personal Relationship, Barack Obama - law school friend, his current relationships, Barack Obama administration - associate attorney general, Harvard Law School - graduateJenner and Block - managing partner, U.S. Department of Justice - associate attorney general nominee
His past relationships were the 2008 Barack Obama presidential campaign – fundraiser, U.S. Department of Justice - deputy assistant attorney)

Blake Roberts He was editor for the Harvard Law Review – editor http://www.muckety.com/Blake-Roberts/163050.muckety (His current relationship, Barack Obama administration - deputy associate counsel and Harvard Law School – graduate.

Scott Siff He was an editor for the Harvard Law Review http://www.muckety.com/Scott-Siff/86163.muckety and now his
current relationships are, Freedom House – trustee, Penn Schoen and Berland Associates - EVP
Past Relationships, Tony Blair - adviser.

Bruce Spiva His only relationship was Harvard Law Review - editor http://www.muckety.com/Bruce-Spiva/4440.muckety .

Now you may be saying to yourself right about now ”I wonder if there’s another University out there with more school friends that made it into the Barack Obama Administration” http://www.muckety.com/Barack-Obama-administration/5057524.muckety My answer would be, probably. But I’ve found a some of them in the Commercial Club of Chicago and here is the list of members http://www.muckety.com/Commercial-Club-of-Chicago/5003592.muckety Rahm I. Emanuel - White House chief of staff and Desiree G. Rogers - White House social secretary. 2008 Obama-Biden transition team http://www.muckety.com/2008-Obama-Biden-transition-team/5057002.muckety William M. Daley - advisory board member, Valerie B. Jarrett - co-chair. 2008 Barack Obama presidential campaign http://www.muckety.com/2008-2008 Barack Obama presidential campaign Barack-Obama-presidential-campaign/5004664.muckety David M. Bernick - gave maximum donation, Frank M. Clark Jr. – fundraiser, Thomas A. Cole – fundraiser,
James S. Crown - chief Illinois fundraiser, Kenneth C. Griffin – fundraiser, Mellody L. Hobson – fundraiser, Valerie B. Jarrett – fundraiser, Lawrence F. Levy – fundraiser, Penny S. Pritzker - national finance chair, George A. Ranney Jr. - gave maximum donation, Desiree G. Rogers - fundraiser, John W. Rogers Jr. – fundraiser, John R. Schmidt – fundraiser, Louis B. Susman – fundraiser, James C. Tyree – fundraiser,

Monday, March 30, 2009

Somethings coming - Something big! Obama's going down!

The Federal Grand Jury is the 4th Branch of Government
by Leo C. Donofrio, J.D.

Mr. Leo Donofrio is a semi-retired New Jersey attorney who brought a case in 2008 against the New Jersey secretary of state for allowing three legally unqualified presidential candidates to be placed on the general election ballot in that state. This case was reviewed and dismissed by the Supreme Court of New Jersey, and then was reviewed by all nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court in a private closed-door session. At least five of the nine U.S. Supreme Court justices felt that this case should not be heard in a public session of the Court.

In addition to being a prominent legal scholar and essayist, Mr. Donofrio is also a nationally known chess champion, poker champion and musician.
Check out Leo Donofrio's web log:


January 22, 2009
All of us may one day serve as grand jurors in federal court, and I hope this article will educate the reader to his/her true power as granted by the Constitution. For that power, despite having been hidden for many years behind the veil of a legislative fraud, still exists in all of its glory in the 5th Amendment to the Constitution. The US Supreme Court has confirmed and reinforced that power.

So please, copy this report and paste it far and wide. It is not spin. It is not false. It is not for sale, it is not copyrighted by me, so paste and quote it freely. This report is the truth and we need truth, now, more than ever.The Constitutional power of “we the people” sitting as grand jurors has been subverted by a deceptive play on words since 1946 when the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure were enacted. Regardless, the power I am going to explain to you still exists in the Constitution, and has been upheld by the United States Supreme Court despite the intention of the legislature and other legal scholars to make our power disappear with a cheap magic trick.

Repeat a lie with force and repetition and the lie becomes known as truth. In the case of the 5th Amendment to the Constitution, the power of the grand jury, to return “presentments” on its own proactive initiation, without reliance upon a US Attorney to concur in such criminal charges, has been usurped by an insidious play on words.

Most of this article is going to quote other scholars, judges and legislators as I piece together a brief but thorough history of the federal grand jury for your review. But the punch line is my personal contribution to the cause: “Investigating seditious acts of government officials can be deemed inappropriate or unavailing by the prosecutor, or the judge can dismiss the grand jurors pursuing such investigations. Consequently, corrupt government officials have few natural enemies and go about their seditious business unimpeded.”


My input into this vital fight is no more than the analysis of a few carefully used words. It only took a small sleight of pen back in 1946 to hide our power, and it won’t take more than a few words to take that power back. But a proper overview is necessary for most of you who are unfamiliar with the issue at hand. So let me provide you with some history and then we’ll see what went wrong and how to correct it.


I want to draw your attention to a law review article, CREIGHTON LAW REVIEW, Vol. 33, No. 4 1999-2000, 821, IF IT’S NOT A RUNAWAY, IT’S NOT A REAL GRAND JURY by Roger Roots, J.D.

“In addition to its traditional role of screening criminal cases for prosecution, common law grand juries had the power to exclude prosecutors from their presence at any time and to investigate public officials without governmental influence. These fundamental powers allowed grand juries to serve a vital function of oversight upon the government. The function of a grand jury to ferret out government corruption was the primary purpose of the grand jury system in ages past.”

The 5th Amendment:
“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.”

An article appearing in American Juror, the newsletter of the American Jury Institute and the Fully Informed Jury Association, citing the famed American jurist, Joseph Story, explained :
“An indictment is a written accusation of an offence preferred to, and presented, upon oath, as true, by a grand jury, at the suit of the government. An indictment is framed by the officers of the government, and laid before the grand jury. Presentments, on the other hand, are the result of a jury’s independent action:

‘A presentment, properly speaking, is an accusation, made by a grand jury of its own mere motion, of an offence upon its own observation and knowledge, or upon evidence before it, and without any bill of indictment laid before it at the suit of the government. Upon a presentment, the proper officer of the court must frame an indictment, before the party accused can be put to answer it.’

Back to the Creighton Law Review:
“A ‘runaway’ grand jury, loosely defined as a grand jury which resists the accusatory choices of a government prosecutor, has been virtually eliminated by modern criminal procedure. Today’s “runaway” grand jury is in fact the common law grand jury of the past. Prior to the emergence of governmental prosecution as the standard model of American criminal justice, all grand juries were in fact “runaways,” according to the definition of modern times; they operated as completely independent, self-directing bodies of inquisitors, with power to pursue unlawful conduct to its very source, including the government itself.”

So, it’s clear that the Constitution intended to give the grand jury power to instigate criminal charges, and this was especially true when it came to government oversight. But something strange happened on the way to the present. That power was eroded by a lie enacted by the legislative branch. The 5th Amendment to the Constitution still contains the same words quoted above, but if you sit on a grand jury and return a “presentment” today, the prosecutor must sign it or it probably won’t be allowed to stand by the judge and the criminal charges you have brought to the court’s attention will be swept away. And the reason for this can be found in a legislative lie of epic proportions.

Mr. Roots weighs in again:
“In 1946, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure were adopted, codifying what had previously been a vastly divergent set of common law procedural rules and regional customs.[86] In general, an effort was made to conform the rules to the contemporary state of federal criminal practice.[87] In the area of federal grand jury practice, however, a remarkable exception was allowed. The drafters of Rules 6 and 7, which loosely govern federal grand juries, denied future generations of what had been the well-recognized powers of common law grand juries: powers of unrestrained investigation and of independent declaration of findings. The committee that drafted the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provided no outlet for any document other than a prosecutor-signed indictment. In so doing, the drafters at least tacitly, if not affirmatively, opted to ignore explicit constitutional language.“[88]“Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (FRCP):

“An offense which may be punished by death shall be prosecuted by indictment. An offense which may be punished by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year or at hard labor shall be prosecuted by indictment…”

No mention of “presentments” can be found in Rule 7. But they are mentioned in Note 4 of the Advisory Committee Notes on the Rules:
“4. Presentment is not included as an additional type of formal accusation, since presentments as a method of instituting prosecutions are obsolete, at least as concerns the Federal courts.”

The American Juror published the following commentary with regards to Note 4:
“[W]hile the writers of the federal rules made provisions for indictments, they made none for presentments. This was no oversight. According to Professor Lester B. Orfield, a member of the Advisory Committee on Rules of Criminal Procedure, the drafters of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 6 decided the term presentment should not be used, even though it appears in the Constitution. Orfield states [22 F.R.D. 343, 346]:‘There was an annotation by the Reporter on the term presentment as used in the Fifth Amendment. It was his conclusion that the term should not be used in the new rules of criminal procedure. Retention might encourage the use of the run-away grand jury as the grand jury could act from their own knowledge or observation and not only from charges made by the United States attorney. It has become the practice for the United States Attorney to attend grand jury hearings, hence the use of presentments have been abandoned.’ “
That’s a fascinating statement: “Retention might encourage…the grand jury [to] act from their own knowledge or observation.” God forbid, right America? The nerve of these people. They have the nerve to put on the record that they intended to usurp our Constitutional power, power that was intended by the founding fathers, in their incredible wisdom, to provide us with oversight over tyrannical government.

And so they needed a spin term to cast aspersions on that power. The term they chose was, “runaway grand jury”, which is nothing more than a Constitutionally mandated grand jury, aware of their power, and legally exercising that power to hold the federal beast in check, as in “checks and balances”.

The lie couldn’t be inserted into the Constitution, so they put it in a statute and then repeated it. And scholars went on to repeat it, and today, as it stands, the grand jury has effectively been lied into the role of submissive puppet of the US Attorney.The American Juror publication included a very relevant commentary:

“Of course, no statute or rule can alter the provisions of the Constitution, since it is the supreme law of the land. But that didn’t prevent the federal courts from publishing a body of case law affirming the fallacy that presentments were abolished. A particularly egregious example:
‘A rule that would permit anyone to communicate with a grand jury without the supervision or screening of the prosecutor or the court would compromise, if not utterly subvert, both of the historic functions of the grand jury, for it would facilitate the pursuit of vendettas and the gratification of private malice. A rule that would open the grand jury to the public without judicial or prosecutorial intervention is an invitation to anyone interested in trying to persuade a majority of the grand jury, by hook or by crook, to conduct investigations that a prosecutor has determined to be inappropriate or unavailing.’

What is the result? Investigating seditious acts of government officials can be deemed inappropriate or unavailing by the prosecutor, or the judge can dismiss the grand jurors pursuing such investigations. Consequently, corrupt government officials have few natural enemies and go about their seditious business unimpeded.

By the way, they made a rule to take care of runaways too, in 1946: Rule 6(g):
‘At any time for cause shown the court may excuse a juror either temporarily or permanently, and in the latter event the court may impanel another person in place of the juror excused.’ Now judges can throw anyone off a grand jury, or even dis-impanel a grand jury entirely, merely for exercising its discretion.”

Now let me add my two cents to this argument:
Most of the discussion about Note 4 to Rule 7 of the FRCP takes for granted that the common law use of “presentments” (as codified in the 5th Amendment) was made “illegal” in 1946 by this act. Nothing could be more false. Note 4 does not contain language that makes the use of presentments “illegal”, although it had chosen its words carefully to make it appear as if that is what the legislative branch intended. But let’s look at Note 4 again:

“4. Presentment is not included as an additional type of formal accusation, since presentments as a method of instituting prosecutions are obsolete, at least as concerns the Federal courts.”

The key word is, “obsolete”. Obsolete means “outmoded”, or “not in use anymore”, but it does not mean “abolished” or “illegal”. And therein lies the big lie. The legislature knew it could not directly overrule the Constitution, especially with something so clearly worded as the 5th Amendment, which grants a power to the people which has a long and noble purpose in criminal jurisprudence. But the federal beast legislative branch sought more power to protect themselves from the oversight of “we the people”, and in its vampire like thirst for more governmental control, it inserted this insidious Note 4 in the hope that scholars and judges would play along with their ruse, or in the alternative, their ruse would appear to be legally viable.

Let’s look at some authoritative legal resources which discuss Note 4:

Susan Brenner, THE VOICE OF THE COMMUNITY: A CASE FOR GRAND JURY INDEPENDENCE:“Finally, federal grand juries’ subservience to prosecutors was exacerbated when the federal system eliminated the use of presentments, which allowed a grand jury to bring charges on its own initiative. (N35) Now, federal grand jurors cannot return charges in the form of an indictment without a prosecutor’s consent. (N36) Elimination of the presentment demonstrates the historical trend towards elimination of proactive features in the grand jury system.”

Did Brenner fall for the lie or did she cleverly further it when she said, “[T]he federal system eliminated the use of presentments”? The federal system did no such thing. Note 4 said the use of presentments was “obsolete”. First of all, Note 4 is not a law in itself. It is a Note to a law, and the law as written, does not have anything to say about presentments. You see the leap Brenner has made? The Constitution provides for “presentments”, then the FRCP are enacted and the Rules therein do not mention presentments, nor due they ban presentments, and if they did, such a ban would be unconstitutional, since an administrative enactment regarding procedure can not overrule the Constitution.

Regardless, it’s irrelevant, since the FRCP does not mention “presentments”. Note 4 simply states that “presentments” allowed for in the 5th Amendment of the Constitution have become “obsolete”, or outmoded, which is not to say that they were “eliminated”. Shame on you Susan Brenner. You know damn well that the Constitution can only be changed by an official Amendment to it. Nothing can be “eliminated” from the Constitution by an administrative note.

The use of presentments had become obsolete because the grand jurors were not aware of their power. So the use of “presentments” became more and more rare, and then in 1946 the legislative branch seized upon the moment to make this power disappear by waving its magic wand over the Constitution.

Mr. Root got it wrong in the Creighton Law Review as well:
“Before the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure — which made independently-acting grand juries illegal for all practical purposes — grand juries were understood to have broad powers to operate at direct odds with both judges and prosecutors…”

The FRCP did not make it “illegal for all practical purposes”. That’s patently false. I don’t know if Mr. Root, and/or Susan Brenner, were acting as the magician’s assistant, but I can’t imagine how these educated scholars could be so incredibly ignorant of basic Constitutional law. Give me a damn break.

But if enough people repeat the lie, the lie appears to be the truth.

But we have it on good authority, the Supreme Court, that the lie has no legal effect.
Justice Powell, in United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974), stated:“The institution of the grand jury is deeply rooted in Anglo-American history. [n3] In England, the grand jury [p343] served for centuries both as a body of accusers sworn to discover and present for trial persons suspected of criminal wrongdoing and as a protector of citizens against arbitrary and oppressive governmental action. In this country, the Founders thought the grand jury so essential to basic liberties that they provided in the Fifth Amendment that federal prosecution for serious crimes can only be instituted by “a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.” Cf. Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359, 361-362 (1956). The grand jury’s historic functions survive to this day. Its responsibilities continue to include both the determination whether there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed and the protection of citizens against unfounded criminal prosecutions. Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 686-687 (1972).”
The Note 4 lie is smashed on the altar of the U.S. Supreme Court, “The grand jury’s historic functions survive to this day.” Take that Note 4!

Antonin Scalia effectively codified the unique independent power of the Fourth Branch into the hands of all citizens sitting as federal grand jurors. In discussing that power and unique independence granted to the grand jury, the United States Supreme Court, in United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 at 48 (1992), Justice Scalia, delivering the opinion of the court, laid down the law of the land:
“‘[R]ooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history,” Hannah v. Larche, 363 U.S. 420, 490 (1960) (Frankfurter, J., concurring in result), the grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. It “`is a constitutional fixture in its own right.’” United States v. Chanen, 549 F.2d 1306, 1312 (CA9 1977) (quoting Nixon v. Sirica, 159 U.S. App. D.C. 58, 70, n. 54, 487 F.2d 700, 712, n. 54 (1973)), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 825 (1977). ‘ “

I submit to you that this passage sets the stage for a revolutionary knew context necessary and Constitutionally mandated to “we the people”, THE FOURTH BRANCH of the Government of the United States. Besides, the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches, I submit that there is a fourth branch, THE GRAND JURY, and “we the people” when sitting as grand jurors, are, as Scalia quoted in US v. Williams, ” a constitutional fixture in its own right”. Yes, damn it. That is exactly what the grand jury is, and what it was always intended to be.

Scalia also stated, that “the grand jury is an institution separate from the courts, over whose functioning the courts do not preside…” Id.

And finally, to seal the deal, Scalia hammered the point home:

“In fact, the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people. See Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212, 218 (1960); Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 61 (1906); G. Edwards, The Grand Jury 28-32 (1906). Although the grand jury normally operates, of course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, its institutional relationship with the Judicial Branch has traditionally been, so to speak, at arm’s length. Judges’ direct involvement in the functioning of the grand jury has generally been confined to the constitutive one of calling the grand jurors together and administering their oaths of office. See United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974); Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 6(a). [504 U.S. 36, 48] “

This miraculous quote says it all, “…the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people.” The Constitution of the United States, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, gives rise to a FOURTH BRANCH of Government, THE GRAND JURY. We the people have been charged with oversight of the government in our roles as grand jurors.

And at this critical time in American history, we must, for the protection of our constitutional republic, take back our power and start acting as powerful as the other branches of government.
The law is on our side. So please spread this knowledge as far and wide as you can. We the people have the right and power under the 5th Amendment of the Constitution to charge this government with crimes by returning presentments regardless of whether the US Attorneys or the federal judges agree with us. As the Supreme Court has so brilliantly stated, we are the “buffer between the Government and the people.”

Take the reins America. Pass it on. The Fourth Branch is alive and kickin’.

Barack Hussein Obama Indicted in GA.
UPDATE - **** Update---Update ***** March 30, 2009

Indictments have been served to the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of GA., GA. A.J., GA. Asst A. J., Ga. Senate President and GA. Speaker of the House.., So far. More to come.

At approx. 4:15 p.m. March 28th in the city of Stockbridge Ga. the people of Georgia returned an Indictment against Barack Hussein Obama!!!!!!25 Jurists, duly sworn in, heard testimony and in a unanimous vote, Indicted the usurper.


Two ideas to empower Patriots-by passing lawyers

All together now – say OMG!!

People are asking how can we do the same.

Here we go...

1. Find as many people as you can, willing to be Common Law Grand Jurists. These people, of your state, must be either registered voters or eligible to vote in your state. U.S. Citizenship required.

2. Set a date for your first meeting. This meeting can also coincide with convening the Grand Jury and you must select 25 of the qualified individuals to be Jurists. Any number additional jurists can be submitted as alternates.

3. It is advisable to request the use of your local courthouse and also advisable to try and find a former Judge to guide you through the process. That, by no means, is required. All that is required is to have a Notary Public validate the Jurists, apply the Grand Juries Oath, and notarize the results.
Remember, we are the Fourth branch of government, equal in power to the other three and wholly separate and apart from the other three.

4. Find your meeting place. Courthouse, Community center, Library, or someone’s home. It matters not.

5. Have everybody in attendance at the meeting/Grand Jury sign in and keep those records. A simple vote of those attending will determine who is a Jurist and who will be an alternate. If you have only the required 25 you can skip this part. The Notary Public cannot be used as a Jurist.

6. Convene the Jurists either with a Judge or a Notary Public doing the swearing in with this...
"Do you, and each of you, solemnly swear on the Holy Bible of Almighty God (or solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare and affirm) that as members of the grand jury of the State of , for ___________ County (Parish), you will diligently inquire and true presentment make of all matters and things as shall be given you in charge, or otherwise come to your knowledge, touching this present service, and do you further swear (or affirm) that the counsel of the State, your fellows and your own, you shall keep secret, and that you shall present no person for envy, hatred or malice, nor shall you leave any person unpresented because of fear, favor, affection, reward or the hope of reward, and do you further swear (or affirm) that you shall present all things truly as they come to your knowledge, according to the best of your understanding, so help you God (or do you so affirm)?"

Do not use the term Citizens of the State. You are People of the State!

7. Present your evidence. Since we have all been lied to about Bo’s COLB being duly posted on the Internet by our government they have set the precedent that we can also use evidence secured from the Internet for the purpose of evidence and much is on this site and http://www.defendourfreedoms.us
Reasonable doubt is sufficient for an Indictment. And remember, it does not have to end with this (these Indictments). The Grand Jury should adjourn from their first session and re-convene at a later date (say 40 days after the Indictments have been presented) to take up other issues. Remember, it’s not a Common Law Grand Jury unless it's a "runaway Grand Jury".

8. The Foreman of the Jury (Selected) will work with the Jurists to formulate the Indictment in clear and precise terms that anyone can understand.

9. After securing the Indictment, have all Jurists sign and have the signatures Notarized. Make multiple copies and have ALL copies duly Notarized.

10. Take the Indictment(s) to your local Sheriff (all county Sheriffs in your state if you want), State Federal Prosecutor of all State districts and the State Attorney General.

11. Make them sign off on having received the Indictment and advise them that it is their duty to pursue criminal prosecution.

12. Post the results (not the actual Indictment, as a Grand Jury is secretive in nature and we must honor the oath taken). I am still trying to get an answer as to whether or not we can post that and it is the last issue I have left. But you can have your Foreman issue a statement that an Indictment has been reached.

That's it folks, so grab the Bull by the horns and get this done in all fifty states ASAP before we sink into absolute Tyranny or Dictatorship.

We in Georgia may have been the first but this needs to be done in ALL the states. They cannot ignore the Fourth Branch of Government!

VIDEO - Onion News Funny - New Drug

Sunday, March 29, 2009

Enumerated Powers Act - Key solution to spending

HR 450, The Enumerated Powers Act.

Briefly, the Act requires every bill (or parts thereof) to have a clause specifying the source of Constitutional authority.

With this law in place, we strike at the root of statism. Representatives that truly honor their oath to support and defend the Constitution can attack tax and spend bills. Who knows, it could possibly lead to the repeal of existing spending laws and actually start reducing the size of government.

If we could publicize this at all Tea Parties across the nation, and get people to write to their Representative asking him to co-sponsor the bill, and if not, why not. Representative is to give answer in writing.

Asking every Representative to co-sponsor the bill would bring tremendous focus and pressure to bear at a single point that would threaten the socialist ambitions of our tyrants.

Are you able to get this idea out to the other Tea Parties?

Find background information below:
1) A copy of R 450 from Thomas.gov
2) Article on HR 450 by Henry Lamb on World Net Daily. (I e-mailed about a dozen editors and columnist before I captured some interest).
3) Copy of House floor speech by Rep. Shadegg .

Enumerated Powers Act (Introduced in House)
HR 450 IH 111th CONGRESS 1st Session
H. R. 450
January 9, 2009
Mr. SHADEGG introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Rules, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

To require Congress to specify the source of authority under the United States Constitution for the enactment of laws, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
This Act may be cited as the `Enumerated Powers Act'.
(a) Constitutional Authority for This Act- This Act is enacted pursuant to the power granted Congress under article I, section 8, clause 18, of the United States Constitution and the power granted to each House of Congress under article I, section 5, clause 2, of the United States Constitution.
(b) Constitutional Authority Statement Required- Chapter 2 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 102 the following new section:

`Sec. 102a. Constitutional authority clause
`Each Act of Congress shall contain a concise and definite statement of the constitutional authority relied upon for the enactment of each portion of that Act. The failure to comply with this section shall give rise to a point of order in either House of Congress. The availability of this point of order does not affect any other available relief.'

(c) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 2 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 102 the following new item:
`102a. Constitutional authority clause.'.


Let's have a constitutional showdown!


Posted: March 21, 2009 1:00 am Eastern
Henry Lamb on World Net Daily © 2009

Every Congressman swears an oath to "… preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." To a casual observer, these words could be interpreted to mean that laws enacted by Congress should be consistent with the requirements of the Constitution.

To the majority of Congress, these words mean something else, or have no meaning at all, because much of the legislation produced in Washington has no relationship at all with the Constitution.

If we are a nation founded upon the U.S. Constitution, then our laws should be constrained by the Constitution. If we no longer wish to be constrained by our Constitution, we should abandon it and fly by the seat of our congressional pants.

Let's have a constitutional showdown.

Arizona Representative John Shadegg has introduced the "Enumerated Powers Act" (H.R. 450), which requires that:

"Each Act of Congress shall contain a concise and definite statement of the constitutional authority relied upon for the enactment of each portion of that Act."

What a great idea! Every congressman who has sworn to "… preserve, protect and defend the Constitution" should eagerly endorse this concept – or be exposed as a blatant hypocrite.

The bill was introduced on Jan. 9; it has 18 co-sponsors. This means that 417 representatives are not co-sponsoring the bill – yet. This number could, and should, change. It will not change, however, unless voters force their individual representatives to co-sponsor the bill or publicly explain why not.

This is how to have a constitutional showdown: Every person should call his or her representative and ask directly if the representative will co-sponsor and vote for H.R. 450, the Enumerated Powers Act, or to explain why not – in writing.

Keep a diary. The staff person who takes your call (get his or her name) will tell you that someone will get back to you. When you haven't heard from the staffer in two days, call again. And again. And again, if necessary. If you haven't gotten a reply in two weeks, after four or more calls, write a letter to every newspaper in your district explaining your request, and the response from your representative.

If you get a positive response and a promise to co-sponsor the bill, check with the Library of Congress to make sure your representative has actually signed the bill. When he or she does, write a letter to every newspaper in the district thanking the representative for living up to his oath.

Every representative should be hounded by many callers until each representative either co-sponsors the bill or declares why not. But this may not be enough.

The bill was referred to the Rules Committee and to the Judiciary Committee. Even if the bill had 435 co-sponsors, the chairman of either committee could simply refuse to move the bill from the committee to the floor for a vote.

Sadly, this is what has happened to similar bills in the past. They simply die in committee, and the public never even knows such a bill was proposed.

Not this time.

H.R. 450 should become the theme song of all the "Tea Parties" that are taking place around the country. Glenn Beck's "We surround them" movement should surround Congress with H.R. 450 and the request they sign it, or explain why not. Freedom21 organizations and Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty should join the campaign to force a constitutional showdown. Callers to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity should urge their listeners to focus on H.R. 450, and soon, congressmen will have to sign the bill or explain why they won't.

Representative Louise Slaughter chairs the House Rules Committee, and Representative John Conyers chairs the House Judiciary Committee. Both of these committee chairs should be bombarded with phone calls and emails asking that H.R. 450 be brought to the House floor for a recorded vote. Every constituent and every reporter who has an opportunity to ask a representative a question in public should ask whether he supports the Enumerated Powers Act and if not, why not.

Nothing short of massive public pressure will force congressmen to take a position on this important bill. Nothing short of a return to the Constitution can save this great nation.

This is an easy assignment. Simply enter your zip code in the appropriate box on this web site. Contact information for all your elected officials will be immediately available. It wouldn't hurt to print this information and keep it handy. You may discover that you like taking an active part in influencing your government. Be polite when you call or write, but be firm, determined, persistent and loud. Make sure that your neighbors know what your representative has to say.

Forcing Congress to return to the U.S. Constitution may be the most important service we can perform for our country.

Henry Lamb is the author of "The Rise of Global Governance," chairman of Sovereignty International and founder of the Environmental Conservation Organization (ECO) and Freedom21 Inc..


HR 1539 is previous version of HR 450
THE ENUMERATED POWERS ACT -- (House of Representatives - March 06, 2007)
Begin HR 1359 speech by Rep. Shadegg, Arizona.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak of the importance of the 10th amendment and of a bill that I have introduced each Congress since the 104th Congress, the Enumerated Powers Act. I speak today as a member of the Constitution caucus, chaired by my colleague, Congressman Scott Garrett of New Jersey. It is a caucus that is dedicated and works tirelessly to illuminate the importance of the Constitution and of the 10th amendment.

The 10th amendment to the United States Constitution 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.''

Let me emphasize that again. ``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.''

What that means is that the Founding Fathers intended our national government to be a limited government, a government of limited powers that cannot expand its legislative authority into areas reserved to the states or to the people. As the final amendment in the 10 Bill of Rights, it is clear that the Constitution establishes a Federal Government of specifically enumerated and limited powers.

For that reason, as I indicated, I have introduced, each year since I have been in this Congress, the Enumerated Powers Act. This bill would require that all pieces of legislation introduced in the Congress, by a Member of Congress, would have to contain a statement setting forth the specific constitutional authority granted by the Constitution to the U.S. Congress by which that piece of legislation was to be enacted. This measure would enforce a constant and ongoing re-examination of the role of our national government.

The Enumerated Powers Act is simple. It is simply intended to require a scrutiny that we should look at what we enact and that, by doing so, we can slow the growth and reach of the Federal Government, and leave to the states or the people, those functions that were reserved to them by the Constitution.

It will perform three most important functions.

First, it would encourage Members of Congress to pause and reflect and to consider whether they propose a piece of legislation, whether it belongs at the Federal level in the allocation of powers under our U.S. Constitution, or properly belongs with the states or with the people.

Second, it would function to force us to include a statement in the legislation explaining by what authority we are acting.

And third, it would give the United States Supreme Court the ability to look at the constitutional justification for each piece of legislation, and if that constitutional justification did not stand up to scrutiny, the courts and the people would find it easier to hold the Congress accountable and to eliminate those acts which are beyond the scope of the Constitution.

In 1787, when the Founding Fathers wrote our Constitution, they created a national government with great powers but limited powers, believing that granting specific, rather than general legislative power to the national government would be a central mechanism for protecting freedom while allowing us still to achieve the objectives of a national government. As a result, the Constitution gives the Federal Government only 18 specific enumerated powers, just 18 powers.

For the largest part of our history, for the first 130 years, the Constitution served as a bulwark against excessive Federal regulation and against excessive all powerful Federal Government. Unfortunately, the restraint that Congresses demonstrated under that provision of the Constitution has largely been abandoned in the latter half of the 20th Century and now in the 21st Century.

Beginning with the New Deal, modern Congresses have displayed a willingness to ignore the 10th amendment in order to greatly expand the Federal Government.

Let me be clear. Virtually all the measures which go beyond the scope of the powers granted to the Federal Government by the 10th amendment are well-intentioned. But unfortunately, many of them are not authorized by the Constitution. The Federal Government has ignored the Constitution and expanded its authority into every aspect of human conduct, and quite sadly, it is not doing many of those things very well.

The size and scope of the Federal Government has exploded, and there is a belief that the Federal Government can do anything. And yet, that is not what the Founding Fathers intended.

For too long, the Federal Government has operated without constitutional restraint, blatantly ignoring the principles of federalism.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting a review and a criticism and an evaluation of the proper role of the Federal Government in order to empower the American people and to distribute power as the Constitution contemplated it.

Annoy a liberal!

Saturday, March 28, 2009

Barack Hussein Obama Indicted in GA.

UPDATE - **** Update---Update ***** March 30, 2009

Indictments have been served to the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of GA., GA. A.J., GA. Asst A. J., Ga. Senate President and GA. Speaker of the House.., So far. More to come.

At approx. 4:15 p.m. March 28th in the city of Stockbridge Ga. the people of Georgia returned an Indictment against Barack Hussein Obama!!!!!!25 Jurists, duly sworn in, heard testimony and in a unanimous vote, Indicted the usurper.


Two ideas to empower Patriots-by passing lawyers

All together now – say OMG!!


20 more states forming Grand Juries

Common Law Grand Jury

Frankfurt School - Its not a theory - It is happening -

We know for sure that a crisis was deliberately created with malice aforethought by enemies of our country and liberal politicians. They overtly said they would do it and they did. Many of these created events have damaged our nation since 1970. The culprits aren’t even trying to hide the fact that they did it. Decent Americans have trouble believing that people could deliberately do something so evil. That is how deliberately evil people pull the wool over the eyes of decent people.

This isn’t a conspiracy theory. It is a conspiracy that is actually happening. No black helicopters or deep throats. It isn’t hidden and it isn’t secret. It is easily visible for those who have eyes to see. Those radical socialists who used deliberately created crisis tactics were successful beyond their expectations. I am reminded of Osama Ben Laden’s pleasant surprise when he was informed about how successful the 9/11 attack had been. I imagine Obama shares Osama’s elation over his unlikely success.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The Frankfurt School: Conspiracy to corrupt
By Timothy Matthews
Issue: March 2009

Western civilization at the present day is passing through a crisis which is essentially different from anything that has been previously experienced. Other societies in the past have changed their social institutions or their religious beliefs under the influence of external forces or the slow development of internal growth. But none, like our own, has ever consciously faced the prospect of a fundamental alteration of the beliefs and institutions on which the whole fabric of social life rests ... Civilization is being uprooted from its foundations in nature and tradition and is being reconstituted in a new organisation which is as artificial and mechanical as a modern factory.

Christopher Dawson. Enquiries into Religion and Culture, p. 259.

Most of Satan’s work in the world he takes care to keep hidden. But two small shafts of light have been thrown onto his work for me just recently. The first, a short article in the Association of Catholic Women’s ACW Review; the second, a remark (which at first surprised me) from a priest in Russia who claimed that we now, in the West, live in a Communist society. These shafts of light help, especially, to explain the onslaught of officialdom which in many countries worldwide has so successfully been removing the rights of parents to be the primary educators and protectors of their children.

The ACW Review examined the corrosive work of the ‘Frankfurt School’ - a group of German-American scholars who developed highly provocative and original perspectives on contemporary society and culture, drawing on Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche, Freud, and Weber. Not that their idea of a ‘cultural revolution’ was particularly new. ‘Until now’, wrote Joseph, Comte de Maistre (1753-1821) who for fifteen years was a Freemason, ‘nations were killed by conquest, that is by invasion: But here an important question arises; can a nation not die on its own soil, without resettlement or invasion, by allowing the flies of decomposition to corrupt to the very core those original and constituent principles which make it what it is.'

What was the Frankfurt School? Well, in the days following the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, it was believed that workers’ revolution would sweep into Europe and, eventually, into the United States. But it did not do so. Towards the end of 1922 the Communist International (Comintern) began to consider what were the reasons. On Lenin’s initiative a meeting was organised at the Marx-Engels Institute in Moscow.

The aim of the meeting was to clarify the concept of, and give concrete effect to, a Marxist cultural revolution. Amongst those present were Georg Lukacs (a Hungarian aristocrat, son of a banker, who had become a Communist during World War I ; a good Marxist theoretician he developed the idea of ‘Revolution and Eros’ - sexual instinct used as an instrument of destruction) and Willi Munzenberg (whose proposed solution was to ‘organise the intellectuals and use them to make Western civilisation stink. Only then, after they have corrupted all its values and made life impossible, can we impose the dictatorship of the proletariat’) ‘It was’, said Ralph de Toledano (1916-2007) the conservative author and co-founder of the ‘National Review’, a meeting ‘perhaps more harmful to Western civilization than the Bolshevik Revolution itself.'

Lenin died in 1924. By this time, however, Stalin was beginning to look on Munzenberg, Lukacs and like-thinkers as ‘revisionists’. In June 1940, Münzenberg fled to the south of France where, on Stalin’s orders, a NKVD assassination squad caught up with him and hanged him from a tree.

In the summer of 1924, after being attacked for his writings by the 5th Comintern Congress, Lukacs moved to Germany, where he chaired the first meeting of a group of Communist-oriented sociologists, a gathering that was to lead to the foundation of the Frankfurt School.

This ‘School’ (designed to put flesh on their revolutionary programme) was started at the University of Frankfurt in the Institut für Sozialforschung. To begin with school and institute were indistinguishable. In 1923 the Institute was officially established, and funded by Felix Weil (1898-1975). Weil was born in Argentina and at the age of nine was sent to attend school in Germany. He attended the universities in Tübingen and Frankfurt, where he graduated with a doctoral degree in political science. While at these universities he became increasingly interested in socialism and Marxism. According to the intellectual historian Martin Jay, the topic of his dissertation was ‘the practical problems of implementing socialism.'

Carl Grünberg, the Institute’s director from 1923-1929, was an avowed Marxist, although the Institute did not have any official party affiliations. But in 1930 Max Horkheimer assumed control and he believed that Marx’s theory should be the basis of the Institute’s research. When Hitler came to power, the Institut was closed and its members, by various routes, fled to the United States and migrated to major US universities—Columbia, Princeton, Brandeis, and California at Berkeley.

The School included among its members the 1960s guru of the New Left Herbert Marcuse (denounced by Pope Paul VI for his theory of liberation which ‘opens the way for licence cloaked as liberty’), Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, the popular writer Erich Fromm, Leo Lowenthal, and Jurgen Habermas - possibly the School’s most influential representative.

Basically, the Frankfurt School believed that as long as an individual had the belief - or even the hope of belief - that his divine gift of reason could solve the problems facing society, then that society would never reach the state of hopelessness and alienation that they considered necessary to provoke socialist revolution. Their task, therefore, was as swiftly as possible to undermine the Judaeo-Christian legacy. To do this they called for the most negative destructive criticism possible of every sphere of life which would be designed to de-stabilize society and bring down what they saw as the ‘oppressive’ order. Their policies, they hoped, would spread like a virus—‘continuing the work of the Western Marxists by other means’ as one of their members noted.

To further the advance of their ‘quiet’ cultural revolution - but giving us no ideas about their plans for the future - the School recommended (among other things):

1. The creation of racism offences.
2. Continual change to create confusion
3. The teaching of sex and homosexuality to children
4. The undermining of schools’ and teachers’ authority
5. Huge immigration to destroy identity.
6. The promotion of excessive drinking
7. Emptying of churches
8. An unreliable legal system with bias against victims of crime
9. Dependency on the state or state benefits
10. Control and dumbing down of media
11. Encouraging the breakdown of the family

One of the main ideas of the Frankfurt School was to exploit Freud’s idea of ‘pansexualism’ - the search for pleasure, the exploitation of the differences between the sexes, the overthrowing of traditional relationships between men and women. To further their aims they would:

• attack the authority of the father, deny the specific roles of father and mother, and wrest away from families their rights as primary educators of their children.
• abolish differences in the education of boys and girls
• abolish all forms of male dominance - hence the presence of women in the armed forces
• declare women to be an ‘oppressed class’ and men as ‘oppressors’
Munzenberg summed up the Frankfurt School’s long-term operation thus: ‘We will make the West so corrupt that it stinks.'

The School believed there were two types of revolution: (a) political and (b) cultural. Cultural revolution demolishes from within. ‘Modern forms of subjection are marked by mildness’. They saw it as a long-term project and kept their sights clearly focused on the family, education, media, sex and popular culture.

The Family

The School’s ‘Critical Theory’ preached that the ‘authoritarian personality’ is a product of the patriarchal family - an idea directly linked to Engels’ Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State, which promoted matriarchy. Already Karl Marx had written, in the “Communist Manifesto”, about the radical notion of a ‘community of women’ and in The German Ideology of 1845, written disparagingly about the idea of the family as the basic unit of society. This was one of the basic tenets of the ‘Critical Theory’ : the necessity of breaking down the contemporary family. The Institute scholars preached that ‘Even a partial breakdown of parental authority in the family might tend to increase the readiness of a coming generation to accept social change.’

Following Karl Marx, the School stressed how the ‘authoritarian personality’ is a product of the patriarchal family—it was Marx who wrote so disparagingly about the idea of the family being the basic unit of society. All this prepared the way for the warfare against the masculine gender promoted by Marcuse under the guise of ‘women’s liberation’ and by the New Left movement in the 1960s.

They proposed transforming our culture into a female-dominated one. In 1933, Wilhelm Reich, one of their members, wrote in The Mass Psychology of Fascism that matriarchy was the only genuine family type of ‘natural society.’ Eric Fromm was also an active advocate of matriarchal theory. Masculinity and femininity, he claimed, were not reflections of ‘essential’ sexual differences, as the Romantics had thought but were derived instead from differences in life functions, which were in part socially determined.’ His dogma was the precedent for the radical feminist pronouncements that, today, appear in nearly every major newspaper and television programme.

The revolutionaries knew exactly what they wanted to do and how to do it. They have succeeded.


Lord Bertrand Russell joined with the Frankfurt School in their effort at mass social engineering and spilled the beans in his 1951 book, The Impact of Science on Society. He wrote: ‘Physiology and psychology afford fields for scientific technique which still await development.' The importance of mass psychology ‘has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda. Of these the most influential is what is called ‘education. The social psychologists of the future will have a number of classes of school children on whom they will try different methods of producing an unshakable conviction that snow is black. Various results will soon be arrived at. First, that the influence of home is obstructive. Second, that not much can be done unless indoctrination begins before the age of ten. Third, that verses set to music and repeatedly intoned are very effective. Fourth, that the opinion that snow is white must be held to show a morbid taste for eccentricity. But I anticipate. It is for future scientists to make these maxims precise and discover exactly how much it costs per head to make children believe that snow is black, and how much less it would cost to make them believe it is dark gray . When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for a generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen.”

Writing in 1992 in Fidelio Magazine, [The Frankfurt School and Political Correctness] Michael Minnicino observed how the heirs of Marcuse and Adorno now completely dominate the universities, ‘teaching their own students to replace reason with ‘Politically Correct’ ritual exercises. There are very few theoretical books on arts, letters, or language published today in the United States or Europe which do not openly acknowledge their debt to the Frankfurt School. The witchhunt on today’s campuses is merely the implementation of Marcuse’s concept of ‘repressive toleration’-‘tolerance for movements from the left, but intolerance for movements from the right’-enforced by the students of the Frankfurt School’.


Dr. Timothy Leary gave us another glimpse into the mind of the Frankfurt School in his account of the work of the Harvard University Psychedelic Drug Project, ‘Flashback.' He quoted a conversation that he had with Aldous Huxley: “These brain drugs, mass produced in the laboratories, will bring about vast changes in society. This will happen with or without you or me. All we can do is spread the word. The obstacle to this evolution, Timothy, is the Bible’. Leary then went on: “We had run up against the Judeo-Christian commitment to one God, one religion, one reality, that has cursed Europe for centuries and America since our founding days. Drugs that open the mind to multiple realities inevitably lead to a polytheistic view of the universe. We sensed that the time for a new humanist religion based on intelligence, good-natured pluralism and scientific paganism had arrived.”

One of the directors of the Authoritarian Personality project, R. Nevitt Sanford, played a pivotal role in the usage of psychedelic drugs. In 1965, he wrote in a book issued by the publishing arm of the UK’s Tavistock Institute:‘The nation, seems to be fascinated by our 40,000 or so drug addicts who are seen as alarmingly wayward people who must be curbed at all costs by expensive police activity. Only an uneasy Puritanism could support the practice of focusing on the drug addicts (rather than our 5 million alcoholics) and treating them as a police problem instead of a medical one, while suppressing harmless drugs such as marijuana and peyote along with the dangerous ones.” The leading propagandists of today’s drug lobby base their argument for legalization on the same scientific quackery spelled out all those years ago by Dr. Sanford.

Such propagandists include the multi-billionaire atheist George Soros who chose, as one of his first domestic programs, to fund efforts to challenge the efficacy of America’s $37-billion-a-year war on drugs. The Soros-backed Lindesmith Center serves as a leading voice for Americans who want to decriminalize drug use. ‘Soros is the ‘Daddy Warbucks of drug legalization,’ claimed Joseph Califano Jr. of Columbia University’s National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse’ (The Nation, Sep 2, 1999).

Music, Television and Popular Culture

Adorno was to become head of a ‘music studies’ unit, where in his Theory of Modern Music he promoted the prospect of unleashing atonal and other popular music as a weapon to destroy society, degenerate forms of music to promote mental illness. He said the US could be brought to its knees by the use of radio and television to promote a culture of pessimism and despair - by the late 1930s he (together with Horkheimer) had migrated to Hollywood.
The expansion of violent video-games also well supported the School’s aims.


In his book The Closing of the American Mind, Alan Bloom observed how Marcuse appealed to university students in the sixties with a combination of Marx and Freud. In Eros and Civilization and One Dimensional Man Marcuse promised that the overcoming of capitalism and its false consciousness will result in a society where the greatest satisfactions are sexual. Rock music touches the same chord in the young. Free sexual expression, anarchism, mining of the irrational unconscious and giving it free rein are what they have in common.'

The Media

The modern media - not least Arthur ‘Punch’ Sulzberger Jnr., who took charge of the New York Times in 1992 - drew greatly on the Frankfurt School’s study The Authoritarian Personality. (New York: Harper, 1950). In his book Arrogance, (Warner Books, 1993) former CBS News reporter Bernard Goldberg noted of Sulzberger that he ‘still believes in all those old sixties notions about ‘liberation’ and ‘changing the world man’ . . . In fact, the Punch years have been a steady march down PC Boulevard, with a newsroom fiercely dedicated to every brand of diversity except the intellectual kind.'

In 1953 the Institute moved back to the University of Frankfurt. Adorno died in 1955 and Horkheimer in 1973. The Institute of Social Research continued, but what was known as the Frankfurt School did not. The ‘cultural Marxism’ that has since taken hold of our schools and universities - that ‘political correctness’, which has been destroying our family bonds, our religious tradition and our entire culture -sprang from the Frankfurt School.

It was these intellectual Marxists who, later, during the anti-Vietnam demonstrations, coined the phrase, ‘make love, not war’; it was these intellectuals who promoted the dialectic of ‘negative’ criticism; it was these theoreticians who dreamed of a utopia where their rules governed. It was their concept that led to the current fad for the rewriting of history, and to the vogue for ‘deconstruction’. Their mantras: ‘sexual differences are a contract; if it feels good, do it; do your own thing.'

In an address at the US Naval Academy in August 1999, Dr Gerald L. Atkinson, CDR USN (Ret), gave a background briefing on the Frankfurt School, reminding his audience that it was the ‘foot soldiers’ of the Frankfurt School who introduced the ‘sensitivity training’ techniques used in public schools over the past 30 years (and now employed by the US military to educate the troops about ‘sexual harassment’). During ‘sensitivity’ training teachers were told not to teach but to ‘facilitate.’ Classrooms became centres of self-examination where children talked about their own subjective feelings. This technique was designed to convince children they were the sole authority in their own lives.

Atkinson continued: ‘The Authoritarian personality,’ studied by the Frankfurt School in the 1940s and 1950s in America, prepared the way for the subsequent warfare against the masculine gender promoted by Herbert Marcuse and his band of social revolutionaries under the guise of ‘women’s liberation’ and the New Left movement in the 1960s. The evidence that psychological techniques for changing personality is intended to mean emasculation of the American male is provided by Abraham Maslow, founder of Third Force Humanist Psychology and a promoter of the psychotherapeutic classroom, who wrote that, ‘... the next step in personal evolution is a transcendence of both masculinity and femininity to general humanness.’

On April 17th, 1962, Maslow gave a lecture to a group of nuns at Sacred Heart, a Catholic women’s college in Massachusetts. He noted in a diary entry how the talk had been very ‘successful,’ but he found that very fact troubling. ‘They shouldn’t applaud me,’ he wrote, ‘they should attack. If they were fully aware of what I was doing, they would [attack]’ (Journals, p. 157).

The Network

In her booklet Sex & Social Engineering (Family Education Trust 1994) Valerie Riches observed how in the late 1960s and early 1970s, there were intensive parliamentary campaigns taking place emanating from a number of organisations in the field of birth control (i.e., contraception, abortion, sterilisation). ‘From an analysis of their annual reports, it became apparent that a comparatively small number of people were involved to a surprising degree in an array of pressure groups. This network was not only linked by personnel, but by funds, ideology and sometimes addresses: it was also backed by vested interests and supported by grants in some cases by government departments. At the heart of the network was the Family Planning Association (FPA) with its own collection of offshoots. What we unearthed was a power structure with enormous influence.

‘Deeper investigation revealed that the network, in fact extended further afield, into eugenics, population control, birth control, sexual and family law reforms, sex and health education. Its tentacles reached out to publishing houses, medical, educational and research establishments, women’s organisations and marriage guidance—anywhere where influence could be exerted. It appeared to have great influence over the media, and over permanent officials in relevant government departments, out of all proportion to the numbers involved.

‘During our investigations, a speaker at a Sex Education Symposium in Liverpool outlined tactics of sex education saying: ‘if we do not get into sex education, children will simply follow the mores of their parents’. The fact that sex education was to be the vehicle for peddlers of secular humanism soon became apparent.

‘However, at that time the power of the network and the full implications of its activities were not fully understood. It was thought that the situation was confined to Britain. The international implications had not been grasped.

‘Soon after, a little book was published with the intriguing title The Men Behind Hitler—A German Warning to the World. Its thesis was that the eugenics movement, which had gained popularity early in the twentieth century, had gone underground following the holocaust in Nazi Germany, but was still active and functioning through organizations promoting abortion, euthanasia, sterilization, mental health, etc. The author urged the reader to look at his home country and neighbouring countries, for he would surely find that members and committees of these organizations would cross-check to a remarkable extent.

‘Other books and papers from independent sources later confirmed this situation. . . . A remarkable book was also published in America which documented the activities of the Sex Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS). It was entitled The SIECUS Circle A Humanist Revolution. SIECUS was set up in 1964 and lost no time in engaging in a programme of social engineering by means of sex education in the schools. Its first executive director was Mary Calderone, who was also closely linked to Planned Parenthood, the American equivalent of the British FPA. According to The SIECUS Circle, Calderone supported sentiments and theories put forward by Rudolph Dreikus, a humanist, such as:

· merging or reversing the sexes or sex roles;
· liberating children from their families;
· abolishing the family as we know it’

In their book Mind Siege, (Thomas Nelson, 2000) Tim LaHaye and David A. Noebel confirmed Riches’s findings of an international network. ‘The leading authorities of Secular Humanism may be pictured as the starting lineup of a baseball team: pitching is John Dewey; catching is Isaac Asimov; first base is Paul Kurtz; second base is Corliss Lamont; third base is Bertrand Russell; shortstop is Julian Huxley; left fielder is Richard Dawkins; center fielder is Margaret Sanger; right fielder is Carl Rogers; manager is ‘Christianity is for losers’ Ted Turner; designated hitter is Mary Calderone; utility players include the hundreds listed in the back of Humanist Manifesto I and II, including Eugenia C. Scott, Alfred Kinsey, Abraham Maslow, Erich Fromm, Rollo May, and Betty Friedan.

‘In the grandstands sit the sponsoring or sustaining organizations, such as the . . . the Frankfurt School; the left wing of the Democratic Party; the Democratic Socialists of America; Harvard University; Yale University; University of Minnesota; University of California (Berkeley); and two thousand other colleges and universities.’

A practical example of how the tidal wave of Maslow-think is engulfing English schools was revealed in an article in the British Nat assoc. of Catholic Families’ (NACF) Catholic Family newspaper (August 2000), where James Caffrey warned about the Citizenship (PSHE) programme which was shortly to be drafted into the National Curriculum. ‘We need to look carefully at the vocabulary used in this new subject’, he wrote, ‘and, more importantly, discover the philosophical basis on which it is founded. The clues to this can be found in the word ‘choice’ which occurs frequently in the Citizenship documentation and the great emphasis placed on pupils’ discussing and ‘clarifying’ their own views, values and choices about any given issue. This is nothing other than the concept known as ‘Values Clarification’ - a concept anathema to Catholicism, or indeed, to Judaism and Islam.

‘This concept was pioneered in California in the 1960’s by psychologists William Coulson, Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow. It was based on ‘humanistic’ psychology, in which patients were regarded as the sole judge of their actions and moral behaviour. Having pioneered the technique of Values Clarification the psychologists introduced it into schools and other institutions such as convents and seminaries - with disastrous results. Convents emptied, religious lost their vocations and there was wholesale loss of belief in God. Why? Because Catholic institutions are founded on absolute beliefs in, for example, the Creed and the Ten Commandments. Values Clarification supposes a moral relativism in which there is no absolute right or wrong and no dependence on God.

‘This same system is to be introduced to the vulnerable minds of infants, juniors and adolescents in the years 2000+. The underlying philosophy of Values Clarification holds that for teachers to promote virtues such as honesty, justice or chastity constitutes indoctrination of children and ‘violates’ their moral freedom. It is urged that children should be free to choose their own values; the teacher must merely ‘facilitate’ and must avoid all moralising or criticising. As a barrister commented recently on worrying trends in Australian education, ‘The core theme of values clarification is that there are no right or wrong values. Values education does not seek to identify and transmit ‘right’ values, teaching of the Church, especially the papal encyclical Evangelium Vitae.
‘In the absence of clear moral guidance, children naturally make choices based on feelings. Powerful peer pressure, freed from the values which stem from a divine source, ensure that ‘shared values’ sink to the lowest common denominator. References to environmental sustainability lead to a mindset where anti-life arguments for population control are present ed as being both responsible and desirable. Similarly, ‘informed choices’ about health and lifestyles are euphemisms for attitudes antithetical to Christian views on motherhood, fatherhood, the sacrament of marriage and family life. Values Clarification is covert and dangerous. It underpins the entire rationale of Citizenship (PSHE) and is to be introduced by statute into the UK soon. It will give young people secular values and imbue them with the attitude that they alone hold ultimate authority and judgement about their lives. No Catholic school can include this new subject as formulated in the Curriculum 2000 document within its current curriculum provision. Dr. William Coulson recognised the psychological damage Rogers’ technique inflicted on youngsters and rejected it, devoting his life to exposing its dangers.

Should those in authority in Catholic education not do likewise, as ‘Citizenship’ makes its deadly approach’?
If we allow their subversion of values and interests to continue, we will, in future generations, lose all that our ancestors suffered and died for. We are forewarned, says Atkinson. A reading of history (it is all in mainstream historical accounts) tells us that we are about to lose the most precious thing we have—our individual freedoms.

‘What we are at present experiencing,' writes Philip Trower in a letter to the author, ‘is a blend of two schools of thought; the Frankfurt School and the liberal tradition going back to the 18th century Enlightenment. The Frankfurt School has of course its remote origins in the 18th century Enlightenment. But like Lenin’s Marxism it is a breakaway movement. The immediate aims of both classical liberalism and the Frankfurt School have been in the main the same (vide your eleven points above) but the final end is different. For liberals they lead to ‘improving’ and ‘perfecting’ western culture, for the Frankfurt School they bring about its destruction.

‘Unlike hard-line Marxists, the Frankfurt School do not make any plans for the future. (But) the Frankfurt School seems to be more far-sighted that our classical liberals and secularists. At least they see the moral deviations they promote will in the end make social life impossible or intolerable. But this leaves a big question mark over what a future conducted by them would be like.'

Meanwhile, the Quiet Revolution rolls forward.

Timothy Matthews is the editor of the British, Catholic Family News. A news service of the National Association of Catholic Families, United Kingdom. The article appeared in the American Catholic weekly, The Wanderer, December 11, 2008. It is reprinted here with permission of the author.