Fritz: All Fritz/All Fritz.zip/All Fritz/FILES/MISCEOUS/TRAITOR2.LZH/INTELL.TXT

Text File | 1992-06-20 | 26KB | 409 lines

                                 INTELLIGENCE?

              "What was  the name  of that last agent who decided that
         he was going to  expose  our  operation?    Well,  his name's
         unimportant . . . get him!"
              "Get him, Chief?"
              "Yes, I  said get  him!   Whatever you  have to do so he
         can't testify before the Grand Jury.  We can't afford to have
         our methods of operation dragged out like some dirty wash and
         exposed to the public."
              The next morning, newspapers  carried a  story about the
         body of  a man found just outside the door of his motel.  The
         motel was in Virginia, just outside  of Washington,  DC.  The
         medical examiner  reported he  died of  a heart  attack.  The
         story carried a remark that he  was an  ex-CIA agent  who was
         reportedly going to testify before the federal grand jury.
              Could  this  be  true?    We will never know if this was
         murder but they did discover the  body of  a former  agent as
         described.  It has also been admitted by experts that poisons
         are now available that would give the appearance  of death by
         heart attack.  Coincidence?
              Another former  agent who  wrote a  book about the dirty
         tricks of the CIA is now forced to live in France.   He fears
         he will be murdered if he returns to the United States.
              One  of  the  hostages  in  the middle east was recently
         murdered by his captors.  It was later admitted in  the media
         that he  had been  the station  chief for  the Central Intel-
         ligence Agency.  The camel jockey  captors knew  who they had
         and eliminated him.
              And  people  can  say  the  SS  of the German Army was a
         ruthless secret police force?  We  had better  have the moral
         courage to examine what kind of idiots we have running loose.
         Not only here but around the world as well.
              Where can we find a rock large enough  to look  under to
         find  the  authority  for  an  organization  like the Central
         Intelligence Agency?
              James Madison points out  in The  Federalist Papers, No.
         45:  "The  powers  delegated  by the proposed Constitution to
         the federal government are few and defined."  (All references
         to 'paper no' are from this book.)
              To  find  out  where  the authority for this business of
         the federal government comes from, let's look to  the opening
         statement in the Constitution:
               "WE THE  PEOPLE of  the United  States, in order to
               form  a  more  perfect  Union,  establish  justice,
               insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common
               defence, promote the  general  Welfare,  and secure
               the  Blessings  of  Liberty  to  ourselves  and our
               Posterity, do  ordain and  establish this CONSTITU-
               TION for the United States of America."

              In large  and showy  letters, the Preamble shows that WE
         THE PEOPLE granted power to the government.   It was  a novel

         concept in  a new  type of government which was republican in
         nature.
              This new concept is fragile.  It needs constant watching
         by us  to see  that the  government obeys the basic document.
         We have been guilty of looking the other way.  Is this one of
         the reasons  we have  all been  convinced that  this is now a
         democracy?  (See Volume 1 of The Traitor Within the Gates.)
              WE granted permission for  the  business  of government.
         It means  you and  I are the sovereigns and the government is
         the servant.  Don't you think it's about time we all began to
         act as sovereigns?  Sovereign is "superior to all others" and
         "having supreme rank or power."
              From the Encyclopedia Americana,  we learn  that Title I
         of the  National Security Act of 1947 established the Central
         Intelligence Agency.   It's  duty was  to correlate, evaluate
         and  disseminate  intelligence  having  a bearing on national
         security.  Now that ought to give you a nice warm feeling!
              You can check through the document  from one  end to the
         other and you'll find NO permission from us to enact a law to
         control, monitor  or concern itself about  national security.
         This is  an illegal act of Congress (what else is new?) and a
         tremendous waste of our  tax dollars.   And  from the garbage
         which was revealed during the so called Iran/Contra hearings,
         it's plain what unbridled power can do in DC!  Why did no one
         question the  illegality of the National Security Act?  Is it
         because they are all in the same cesspool called government?
              Does that description  in  the  'National  Security Act'
         magically  grant  authority  to  the  US  to lay mines in the
         harbors of Nicaragua, or  to run  guns to  Iran or Nicaraguan
         rebels?   How about  publishing a  how-to manual on assassin-
         ations?  Or the running of  drugs into  the United  States as
         reported on  TV?    How about interfering in internal affairs
         of other countries?  Can we justify the existence of  such an
         outfit  when   the  preamble  states  that  we  ordained  the
         Constitution to 'establish justice'?
              To look at it from another angle, can  you read anything
         in those  duties which  allows their budget to be secret?  If
         we check the Constitution for authority  to spend  money, all
         money bills  must originate  in the House of Representatives.
         (Art 1, Sec 7, cl 1)  A little further on in the document, we
         find that no money shall issue from the treasury except by an
         appropriations bill.   A  statement of  receipts and expendi-
         tures SHALL  be published  from time to time.  (Art 1, Sec 9,
         cl 7)
              When the word 'shall' appears in  the Constitution, it's
         a command.   That  means it  will be  done.  It does not mean
         that they can decide  whether or  not to  accomplish the act.
         Did you  ever see  a public  statement of allocated money for
         the CIA?
              Perhaps they have a  different copy  of the Constitution
         than we  have.   Are they now operating by some secret set of
         rules we know nothing about?  We are now at the point in time
         that they  don't think we are the sovereign any longer.  They
         are!  In fact, they are so sure of it  that the  attitude has

         now become  the people  and the  Constitution be  damned.  We
         will  now  do  whatever  we  feel  is  necessary  to  run the
         government.    After  all,  who  are you?  What gives you the
         right to challenge us?  The arrogance we see each  day on the
         tube will substantiate that.
              Again, at the risk of being redundant, let's look at the
         Tenth Amendment once more:

                                  Article X
                  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.

              Doesn't  take  a  degree  in English to understand that.
         The Tenth Amendment prohibits  the  government  from assuming
         any  power  not  delegated  or  granted.  The Fifth Amendment
         command of due process  of law  binds the  government to obey
         the entire document.
              Back to  the first question -- where can we look to find
         the authority to establish an organization like the CIA?  Why
         do you  suppose the  people at the federal level are not able
         to understand the Tenth Amendment?
              Maybe they've changed the Constitution.  Just how can it
         be changed?  Can an order from the executive branch eliminate
         constitutional restrictions?  No.   Can  the Congress  pass a
         law saying  any restriction  on the  federal government is no
         longer binding?  No again.  Can an 'order' by a federal judge
         at any level amend the Constitution?  Absolutely not.  It can
         ONLY be changed through the Amendment  process.   ONLY if you
         and I  agree to  the change  through the ballot box.  Did you
         ever see an amendment proposal on  any of  our ballots asking
         for permission to establish the CIA?
              They do it because they are certain they are omnipotent.
         Now they can do what  they  want.    They  have  a  few catch
         phrases now that they feel will justify anything they attempt
         . . they say it 'affects our national security'.  It's in our
         national interests.   It's  required because of urgent neces-
         sity, they claim.
              Now you wouldn't want  to  interfere  with  our national
         security, would you?  Goodness, we wouldn't want to be called
         unpatriotic or worse!  Yet does  this somehow  remove all the
         constitutional restrictions we placed on the government?  The
         'newspeak' George Orwell spoke of in his book 1984 is today a
         matter of governmental policy.
              The supremacy  clause orders ALL laws enacted to conform
         with the power we granted in the Constitution.

              "This Constitution,  and the  Laws of  the United States
         which shall  be made  in Pursuance  thereof .  . shall be the
         supreme Law of the Land . . ." (Art 6, Sec 2)

              That is one of  the  keys  to  constitutional authority.
         EVERY law  passed has  to meet the criteria we established in

         the basic document.   They  have  NO  authority  to  pass ANY
         legislation which  does not have a basis in the Constitution.
         It makes no difference  whether  it's  a  matter  of national
         security or  not.   If national security is such an important
         issue for our royalty  in  Washington,  let  them  propose an
         amendment to the Constitution and see if WE will agree to the
         change.
              For these people to assume such  a power  (or any power)
         is a crime.  It is a violation of the oath we ordered for all
         who work for government at any level.   Has that  oath simply
         become a  ritual with empty words which they recite when they
         assume a position with government?  See what  happens when we
         don't keep  an eagle  eye on what is being done in Washington
         D.C.?
              A wise man once said, "The  more corrupt  the state, the
         more numerous  the laws."   He was Cornelius Tacitus, a Roman
         senator and historian. (A.D. c.56-c.115).  It's clear  we now
         qualify for the title of a corrupt state.
              These  people  we  have elected as our 'representatives'
         have gone bonkers passing laws for  which we  gave no permis-
         sion.   Hey, we  are being taken for fools!  We have to exert
         our power over these deceptive, greedy so and so's.   We must
         make government operate within the permission we granted.
              I'd bet  many citizens  will say,  "I don't  want to get
         involved!"  When will  they want  to get  involved?   When we
         have to line up to have our numbers tattooed on our arms?  Or
         when we have our photographs taken for national ID cards?  If
         we don't become involved, we'll get just what we deserve.
              The government  may argue  that they  have the authority
         under the "necessary and proper" clause  of the Constitution.
         This is what they consider kind of a 'catch-all' section that
         allows them to do anything. (Art 1, Sec 8, cl 17)   This is a
         weak bureaucratic  argument which is pure gobbledygook.  This
         grants permission to Congress  ONLY to  implement powers that
         were granted  in the  basic document.   This  clause does not
         give the Congress latitude to write a law  establishing a new
         autonomous organization.   Or anything else for that matter.
              Hamilton, in Paper No. 25, makes a comment  that fits in
         exactly with this discussion about the CIA . . . "All violent
         policy, contrary to the  natural  and  experienced  course of
         human affairs,  defeats itself."   There  can be little doubt
         that the  actions  of  the  CIA,  which  we  know  about, are
         contrary to  the natural  course of  human affairs.  Now, how
         about the actions we don't know about?
              Hamilton  goes  on  in  the  same   paper  to  criticize
         politicos who  violate our basic law:  "Wise politicians will
         be cautious about fettering the government  with restrictions
         that cannot  be observed,  because they  know every breach of
         fundamental laws, though dictated by necessity,  impairs that
         sacred reverence  which ought to be maintained in the breasts
         of rulers toward the constitution of  a country,  and forms a
         precedent for other breaches where the same plea of necessity
         does not exist at all, or is less urgent or palpable."
              Our wise politicians, of which he spoke, are  a thing of

         the  past.    The  first  hundred  or so years of our nation,
         politicians abided by the dictates of the law we established.
         Slowly, greedy  and power  hungry men  were elected to be our
         representatives.   The precedences  to  exceed constitutional
         authority  were   quietly  started.    A  favorite  trick  of
         politicians is to take two steps toward a desired but illegal
         goal.   If they  are seriously  challenged, they can take one
         step backwards.  This  appeases the  challenger and  they are
         one step closer to setting up the precedent.  It's simple and
         it works.  We don't have to look far to see that  is what has
         happened.
              Our Founding  Fathers feared standing  armies  and  were
         adamant there should never be any in our republic.  Yet today
         we have  an army  of agents,  not  only in  this country, but
         around the world.  And pulling tricks which  are against  the
         very principles we sought when the Constitution was ratified.
              At least,  in the  standing armies  our Founding Fathers
         worried about, you could tell  the  good  guys  from  the bad
         guys.  They wore a uniform!
              CIA expertise  is supposed  to be in the area of intell-
         igence.   Yet they  show their  ineptness by  not knowing the
         security level  of our foreign embassies.  I've heard it said
         that they couldn't find their  way  out  of  a  paper  bag if
         someone didn't show them the opening.
              We are  in such  a state of affairs because we have been
         hoodwinked by devious men  in their  ivory towers.   And they
         are experts  in what  they are  doing.  We must, for the very
         survival of our nation,  get  our  government  to  follow our
         basic grant of power.
              Quoting Hamilton in Paper No. 78:  "There is no position
         which depends on clearer principles than that every  act of a
         delegated authority,  contrary to the tenor of the commission
         under which it is exercised, is void."   What they  have done
         is invalid.  It's the seizing of authority and illegal.
              Continuing,  Hamilton  goes  on  further:  "To deny this
         would be to  affirm  that  the  deputy  is  greater  than his
         principle;  that  the  servant  is above his master; that the
         representative of  the  people  are  superior  to  the people
         themselves; that  men acting  by virtue  of powers may do not
         only what  their  powers  do  not  authorize,  but  what they
         forbid."
              Now we  must figure  out what  we are to do to eliminate
         this unconstitutional  organization and  the illegal expenses
         for its operation.
              My first suggestion is to call the local offices of your
         senators and representatives.   Ask them  where the authority
         is  for  operating  the  CIA.    Congress  are  the dudes who
         established this outfit.   Expect dead  silence at  the other
         end of the phone!  They will never have heard such a question
         before your call.
              Write to  their offices  at the  cesspool in Washington.
         You  should  write  to  the  chairmen of the Senate and House
         Intelligence Committees.  I recommend you  mail these letters
         by certified  mail.   It wouldn't be the first time they have

         ignored or lost an important piece of mail.
              Another problem  surfaces  with  the  congressional post
         office . . . they work by different rules and even though the
         mail is certified, there  is  no  assurance  you  will  get a
         signed receipt.
              Petitions for  redress of grievances can be an effective
         tool.  An ASCII  file of  a petition  is included  in a later
         chapter.   Simply print it out on your printer.  These people
         must be  buried with  petitions!   Only one  or two petitions
         would be annoying or laughable and very easily ignored.
              They  claim  concern  for  our 'national security'.  Why
         didn't they have a civil defense program for  Americans if we
         had  a  nuclear  attack?    There  are  only shelters for our
         'officials'  and  other  high  non-officials  roaming  around
         Washington.    Other  than  that,  there  is no civil defense
         program . . . the annoying 'attention getting  signal' on the
         radio notwithstanding.  Notice we don't hear that anymore?
              What will  be the  next step if they are not challenged?
         What will it be like in ten or twenty years  for our children
         if ignoring  our Constitution  continues?   Maybe barbed wire
         fences around anyone who protests their  authority?   Is that
         the future for our posterity?
              Readers who  were in  the service took an oath to defend
         the Constitution against all  enemies, foreign  and domestic.
         It doesn't  disappear when  you leave  the service.  It was a
         swearing to God to do what  you promised  when you  took your
         oath.  Why aren't you doing it?  We now have domestic enemies
         coming out the kazoo.
              We should all heed  the words  of Cicero  who warned the
         Romans just  before the  collapse of the empire . . . "Beware
         of the traitor within the gates!"
              Are you going to become involved now?
              There is much talk about this  outfit being  involved in
         the assassination  of John  Kennedy in spite of the whitewash
         job of the Warren Commission.
              Isn't it strange how our government can 'seal' important
         papers concerning  the assassination?  What authority do they
         use to hide something  of  this  magnitude  and  keep  it all
         secret from  the people  who gave  them the  authority in the
         first place?   The  new chief  of the  CIA appears  on TV and
         promises to  review the  secrecy of  the JFK  papers.  HE can
         review them?  Is the CIA the outfit responsible for declaring
         those papers  secret?   Drivel.  There is no power granted by
         us for such sleazy operations.
              I wonder if the new CIA  chief carries  his orange crate
         with him so he can reach the microphone?
              Not  too  long  ago,  we  had an Attorney General of the
         United States make the  statement that  the Constitution gave
         the  President  the  authority  to order the execution of the
         head of another country.  He probably had to be  careful when
         he shook his head . . . people nearby would have been able to
         hear the rattle.  Either he is and was extremely stupid or he
         was certain the American people are idiots!
              It  was  recently  reported  that  Congress has allotted

         several million dollars to  'eliminate' Saddam  Huessin.  Our
         tax dollars at work again.  Is this blood money?
              If  people  as  private  citizens want to become mercen-
         aries, that is their right.    For  a  government  to support
         execution operations  when there is no authority, is a crime.
         No wonder there are people  who  want  our  Constitution done
         away with so they can establish a government where we have no
         say in it's operation.
              How do they get away with these violations  of the power
         we ordained?   The  Constitution is not taught in our schools
         anymore and is a deliberate scheme to prevent us from knowing
         what is or is not allowed.  All the obvious violations of our
         authority substantiates that probability.
              In about 1982, I  believe,  there  was  a  disclosure on
         national TV that the CIA was running drugs in from the Golden
         Triangle (Laos, Cambodia & Vietnam) and then 'laundering' the
         money in  major banks in Australia.  Was there any investiga-
         tion by the Congress?  None that I  heard of,  how about you?
         Did  the  government  sue  the  TV  station  for  libel?  All
         negatives.  Agents that want to  bring out  the dirt suddenly
         disappear or die mysteriously . . . Coincidence?
              Now a  new drug  scheme is  unraveling . . . this one in
         Arkansas and supposedly with  the full  knowledge of Governor
         Bill Clinton,  yes the  current candidate  for president.  My
         feeling is that little George knows all about  this operation
         also.  It involves a secret airstrip near a town called Mena.
         This town of Mena is near Oklahoma with a population of 5000.
         There a  5000 foot  long concrete  runway . . . hardly a crop
         dusting strip!  It is reported  that secret  operations since
         1982 run guns and ammunition out of this strip and the planes
         return loaded with drugs.  Hey, doesn't this  sound familiar?
         Deja vu!
              TV reports  are beginning to show that our famous outfit
         of creeps (the CIA) operates this strip and  5 others  in the
         southwest.   You see  why they  want us  dumb, fat and happy?
         County prosecutors all agree  there  is  a  major  coverup of
         covert activities  from this  strip which will go straight to
         the door of Clinton.  Every effort to close the  airstrip has
         failed and  been stopped.   A  Mr and Mrs Hendricks had their
         son killed in one of the secret flights  from Mena  to Angola
         in Africa.   They  ran into the veritable stonewall when they
         tried to find out  what their  son was  doing and  who he was
         flying  the   plane  for.    And,  not  surprisingly,  covert
         activities from Mena continue.  Planes  continue to  land and
         takeoff from Mena, Arkansas.  More on this as it is unfolds.
              How about  the latest  revelations that the CIA used the
         international bank known as the bank of crooks  and criminals
         as a  conduit for  their illegal money?  That's BCCI bank and
         the details are just coming out in the media.  Stay tuned.
              Studying our Constitution would  be an  enormous help to
         all citizens.  There's no need to memorize it.  Nevertheless,
         you should  know  where  to  find  their  authority  for what
         they're doing  and what  the limits are.  They have been able
         to get away with all these illegal acts because they consider

         you and  me as country bumpkins.  This is probably the reason
         that our schools today don't even  study the  basic document.
         Why  should   you  have  the  knowledge  to  challenge  these
         jabonies?
              There have  been numerous  government workers questioned
         in US  district courts who will admit they have taken an oath
         to uphold the Constitution yet don't  know what  the document
         says or means.
              How high  up into  the upper echelons of government this
         ignorance of our Constitution  goes, we  can only  guess.  At
         one point, the lack of knowledge has to become intentional.
              There are  many good  people working  for the government
         who would like to see all the misuses  and abuses  of consti-
         tutional  power  halted.    Not  everyone  who  works for the
         government is power hungry  or crooked.   These  people could
         help stem this abuse but they are also afraid for their jobs.
         The real problem is  that if  it isn't  stopped, no  one will
         have a job to worry about.  Is this what's ahead for us?


                   PLEASE READ THE 'SALES PITCH' CHAPTER ...

                       REGISTER WITH THE AUTHOR ...