[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Historical Title: THE DAY OUR CONSTITUTION WAS STOLEN In this column, several references have been made to the Emergency Banking and Relief Act of 1933. Those who read this column now know that Republicans in both California and Texas have taken steps to have this law repealed. Dr. Eugene Schroder of the American Agricultural Movement has alleged that this may be considered to be the genesis of the loss of our Constitutional rights. Could it be there is one law responsible for all subsequent laws that trample our Constitutional rights? What was it about this law that many believe declared the American people to be enemies of the government? President Herbert Hoover (in the final days of his term) had refused to implement this law, which was based on a recommendation from the Federal Reserve. Why, then, did succeeding President Franklin Delano Roosevelt so warmly embrace this unconstitutional law? Why did FDR find it necessary to declare a national emergency, the effect of which was to suspend our Constitution, a suspension that exists to this day? On October 6, 1917, the Congress had passed the Trading with the Enemy Act, dealing with how the government may control the activities of those considered to be enemies or allies of enemies of our government. Prior to 1933, Paragraph 5(b) of that Act read, "That the President may investigate, regulate or prohibit, under such rules as he may prescribe by means of foreign exchange, export or earmarkings of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency, transfers of credit in any form (other than credits relating to transactions to be executed wholly within the United States)..." Since 1917, then, the President had the power to seize or block financial transactions of those considered to be our enemy. It is also very clear that, in 1917, the Congress wanted to exclude the American people from the oppression of such powers. The bill was, after all, supposed to define our government's posture in dealing with our enemies or allies of our enemies. The Emergency Banking and Relief Act, passed by Congress in special session on March 9, 1933, modifies paragraph 5(b) of the Trading with the Enemy Act just discussed. The modified paragraph reads, "Section 2. Subdivision (b) of section 5 of the Act of October 6, 1917 (40 Stat. L. 411), as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows: (b) During time of war or during any other period of national emergency declared by the President, the President may, through any agency that he may designate, or otherwise, investigate, regulate, or prohibit, under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of licenses or otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange, transfers of credit between or payments by banking institutions as defined by the President, and export, hoarding, melting or earmarking of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency, by any person within the United States or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof; and the President may require any person engaged in any transaction referred to in this subdivision to furnish under oath, complete production of any books of account, contracts, letters or other papers, in connection therewith in the custody or control of such person, either before or after such transaction is completed. Whoever willfully violates any of the provisions of the subdivision of any license, order, rule or regulation issued there under, shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than $10,000..." This Act granted to the President broad sweeping investigative and prosecutorial powers against anyone, including the American people, found by the President to be an enemy. By removing the former "...transactions to be executed wholly within the United States..." the Congress was effectively putting the American people in the same category as our nation's enemies, and gave the President essentially dictatorial powers. This Act was, of course, unconstitutional. Historians tell us FDR stacked the U.S. Supreme Court with judges who would vow to continue his dictatorial powers. Those powers have been assumed by all Presidents since FDR, including the one presently in the White House. Small wonder, then, that none have adhered to a strict upholding of our Constitution, despite swearing an oath before God to do so. The dictatorship would end, the Federal Reserve's stranglehold on our government would end, and our Constitutional Republic would be restored. Later in 1933, Colorado's Governor Ed Johnson radically transformed Colorado state government, creating all the departments to handle such "licensing" privilege assumed by the President. That is the year a licensing authority was assumed by state governments to regulate marriages, driving, hunting, automobiles, and trade. Preliminary research indicates many other states were being transformed, as well. The governors, you see, had agreed to this unconstitutional assault a few days before March 9, 1933. There are many subsequent laws to further reinforce and verify Dr. Schroder's contention. For those who wish to know more, you may contact him directly at P.O. Box 89, Campo, CO 81029, (719) 787-9958. He has, in this author's opinion, accurately documented the beginning of the assault by your government on our Constitution. He has a number of books that will explain matters in any detail you would care to explore. The solution to this exploitation of the American people is solely within the hands of the President. By simply issuing an Executive Order to end the state of emergency, our Constitution could be returned as the Supreme Law of the Land. So far in 1995, no Presidential candidate, except for Republican Charles Collins of Georgia, has had the courage to tell the truth about our nation's real troubles. Only a public demand of the highest magnitude will force our Constitution to the front again.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 18.
#1. To: A K A Stone (#0)
I hope Dr. Schroder is a better veterinarian than he is a Constitutional scholar.
You haven't rebutted anything in this article.
How is it that Ferret Mike can post images yet bypass the software that indicates when an image is posted on a thread. For example, in post #4, post #7, Ferret Mike posted an image. The http (without the spaces) is < img src="http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQWTKFpdsQYN9ZB74roszDNMkJTxyHy0dZMJ72KuhhOb9ukbLPmdzzWkH8dzg" / > Two images in post #9, yet the software says only one image was posted. One was < img src="http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQWTKFpdsQYN9ZB74roszDNMkJTxyHy0dZMJ72KuhhOb9ukbLPmdzzWkH8dzg" / > , the same image as in #4 and #7. the other, the one that shows as being posted by the software is: < img src="http://epicblackcar.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/flying-spaghetti-monster- lives.jpg" How is mike able to post images without your software catching it? You do realize this can be used to get the ip's of your posters? How is mike able to posts images without your software seeing he's doing it?
I did? Good question. I did the usual; I clicked source and got properties; put it in hyper tag 'Img SRC' and added width=700 because otherwise that picture would of resized the thread.
#25. To: Ferret Mike (#18)
Seems the software here doesn't "tattle" on images posted in a tagline, just in a post. It's easy for a lot of folks here to get your ip. Once they have that, any number of bad things can happen.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|