Food. An interesting subject, and one which, I assure you, you are going to be spending more time thinking about in the future. If this series does not cause you to think more about it, what is coming to America will.

Organic food. What does this mean to you? Have you ever thought about it? Do you now? Do you understand not only the concept, but the absolute necessity of "organic" as opposed to highly chemicalized food? Perhaps you need an example.

Coffee. A subject I enjoy. As most of you know, I sell organic Coffee, the name of which is Los Yrabien Cafe. But organic coffee? Come on, is this a serious subject?! Well, I’ll let you be the judge of that.

Most coffee sold in the world is now produced on large plantations managed by multi-national corporations. Corporations in business for profit, I may add. On these plantations, the single largest expense is labor. And enough labor to operate the plantations is always a problem because of the unwillingness of the corporations to pay a livable wage (sound familiar?). So the corporations continually look for ways to cut their labor costs. With coffee, that is difficult. The beans are small, and it takes a lot of them to make a pound of coffee! But the corporations are good at this; they will figure out a way.

What they do is just before harvest they spray the coffee trees with a compound similar to Agent Orange (remember the stories about Vietnam?) which, by harvest time, has defoliated the trees so that the pickers can work faster and produce more coffee per dollar spent. This is a little hard on the workers, but they don’t really understand anyway.

Of course, this is not all of the story either. The major coffee brands use fillers in their coffee. Fillers? Well, yes, they are allowed to add non-coffee fillers to the mix in a certain percentage and still call it coffee, so, since this is profitable, why wouldn’t they do that? Of course, they do exactly that. And the cheapest filler they have is right there; the husks of the coffee beans that they shell off and throw away. They take whatever weight of husks they need to use, grind them up, and add them to the coffee in the "proper" mixture to achieve maximum profit.

Of course, adding the husks to the coffee adds a couple of other things as well, like residue of the defoliating agent used on the trees, and acid. There is already a major problem with most major brands of coffee as regards acid anyway, because they do not roast the coffee enough (roasting enough to remove most of the acid removes too much of the moisture in the beans, and reduces profitability) to even start removing the acid, so this just aggravates the problem.

To the best of my knowledge, this is how every major brand of coffee sold as canned/ground coffee in the United States, and most of the world, is produced. Of course, even the whole bean coffee has a problem because the plantations are contaminated by the defoliating agent, and the trees are picking this up from the soil in a heavier concentration year by year. So maybe this will help you to begin grasping what is meant by organic, and why you will be hearing more and more about it. More on this a little later in this paper.

In this same vein, I should point out that one of the worst things you can be feeding your children, or yourself, is pasteurized/homogenized milk. The only purpose for pasteurization/homogenization is to increase the shelf life of milk and thus enable the large producers to squeeze out the small producers. And I already know that most of you have been told all of the "bad" things about raw milk. Would it surprise you to learn that it’s all a lie? I was raised on raw milk, and the problems with raw milk stem from the multiple handling that milk goes through from the cow to you in the so-called food chain. In other words, the "contamination" of so-called "raw" milk is not the problem; the problem is with the increased necessity of multiple hands on the milk, transfers of the milk, processing of the milk, etc.. Raw milk, direct from the producer to the consumer was never an issue or a problem.

On the other hand, the studies have been done, and the pasteurization/homogenization of raw milk is a definite hazard, to your health and in particular to the health of your children.

The heating of raw milk changes the nature of the milk, particularly when coupled with homogenization. What has been found is a definite correlation between the amount of processed milk sold in America and heart disease. Furthermore, they extended the study and found that the two nations in the world with the largest per capita consumption of processed milk, Finland and America, also had the highest per capita of heart disease. Just a coincidence that heart disease is striking much younger people all of the time, I’m sure. But you might keep this information about milk and the production monopolization thereof in mind as you read the following story. For now, it is time to begin...

From the January 2, 1999, Arizona Republic newspaper, Phoenix

NAFTA: Dream. Nightmare?

Fittest Surviving as farms, business adapt to trade pact McAllen Texas

For Victor Jaramillo and his family, NAFTA has been a gateway to the American dream. For Teodoro Guido, it's become a Mexican nightmare.

The North American Free Trade Agreement helped Jaramillo start his own U.S.-based business, Red & Hot Produce, to import and distribute dry hot pepper and other crops grown in his home state of Zacatecas in central Mexico.

"The mentality is different here, because only good merchandise sells," he said. "In Mexico, you can sell whether your product is good or bad."

Guido, a pork farmer from Guanajuato, another central Mexican state, has struggled to compete with cheaper U.S. imports. He blames the free trade accord for driving many of the farmers in his hometown out of business in recent years.

Five years after it started tearing down trade barriers between the United States, Canada and Mexico, NAFTA has become a test for businesses and farmers.

Big, innovative producers that have adapted to changing market conditions have prospered. Smaller producers sticking to old methods have sometimes been trampled. (This includes those trying to produce wholesome food, instead of contaminated, high production poison. - David)

For labor, it's been more of a tossup. New jobs have been created; old jobs have been lost.

Those who had opposed NAFTA and warned, like Ross Perot, of a "giant, sucking sound" of U.S. jobs moving to Mexico say time has proven them right. Advocates say the benefits have outweighed the drawbacks.

Both sides use statistics to back up their case. The AFL-CIO estimates that 300,000 to 400,000 American jobs have gone to Mexico since 1994.

The U.S.-Mexico chamber of Commerce maintains that 1.7 million export-related jobs have been created in the United States since 1993 because of NAFTA. The U.S. government says trade between Mexico and the United States has soared, rising to about $200 billion from $80 billion before NAFTA.

"The balance has been favorable for both countries," U.S. Ambassador to Mexico Jeffrey Davidow said, noting that Mexico is now the second-largest trading partner of the united States after Canada.

"Mexico's trade with the United States has been a primary factor in its continuing recuperation from the peso crisis," he said, referring to the economic meltdown of 1995. "And U.S. trade with Mexico has been a bright spot, especially during the last year, at a time when our trade with much of the rest of the world has stayed flat."

NAFTA took effect Jan. 1, 1994, linking more than 360 million consumers in a $6 trillion market. Over 15 years, it will gradually eliminate all trade barriers between the three nations (and most differences in wages as well - David)

NAFTA included side agreements intended to protect the environment and labor rights. It also gave Mexicans new opportunities to work in the united States. Jaramillo, the hot pepper importer, became eligible under NAFTA for a U.S. trader/investor visa to open his own business in the border city of McAllen.

For years he had made little money trying to sell his peppers in Mexico city. Then he found out about the McAllen Produce terminal Market, a project just 3 1/2 miles north of the border designed to help Mexican farmers become their own U.S. distributors.

Now he's enjoying a middle-class life in the United States and the chance to give his two children a better future.

:They will have more opportunities for all kinds of things; it's going to be a great advantage for them," he said. "Education is better here, and they will not have to worry about economic turmoil in Mexico."

In Iramuco, Guido's home town, residents are also heading north of the border, but under different circumstances.

"People are desperate because now there's no way to make a living," he said.

Small farmers say they have a tough time competing against U.S. farm imports because American producers tend to be much larger and more efficient, helping keep prices lower. Mexican farmers also have a hard time getting loans, now carrying high interest rates.

Although Guido has chosen to stay in Iramuco, he estimates that about a third of the 15,000 residents have opted to cross the border as undocumented aliens.

As a result, a bus from the tiny town makes daily, 16 hour trips directly to the border town of Nuevo Laredo, across from Laredo, Texas.

But on the U.S. side of the border, unions say jobs have been heading south. Companies that have moved operations to Mexico since NAFTA include Zenith electronics, Nintendo of America, Mattel, Sara Lee, Knit Products, Vanity Fair Mills and Pendleton Woolen Mills.

General Motors and other companies, which had operations in Mexico before 1994, have gradually moved more of their production to Mexican plants. They insist the moves were made independently of NAFTA.

Luring business to Mexico is the lower cost of labor. While the wages for production workers in the United States have grown steadily, those of Mexican workers have fallen, after adjustment for inflation, since the 1995 economic crisis Mexico's minimum wage is only $3.40 a day. The minimum wage in the united States is, in comparison, $5.15 an hour.

NAFTA advocates say the treaty didn't cause the jobs to leave the country. They say companies looking for lower wages can just as easily take their plants to such other low-wage countries as China, India, or the Dominican republic.

"What is affecting American workers is the process of globalization," Davidow, the U.S. Ambassador, said.

Unions reject that argument. Unions claim that the agreement has failed to protect worker safety and guarantee the rights of Mexican workers to organize unions. Eight of the nine complaints filed against Mexican employers under NAFTA have alleged violations of the right to organize unions.

The above is a very interesting story, to me. I see things in here that speak volumes about what is really going on. For instance, the importation of pork into Mexico at prices that the Mexican farmers can not match. Amazing! I went down town and had a tire fixed this morning. Total cost to dismount, repair and remount the tire; 20 pesos. At today’s exchange rate, about $1.85. At the tire repair location (its all outside here), there is a ten by twelve shack, and tools and used tires in racks spread around in front of it. I thought the man probably locked up his tools at night, until I saw the "OPEN 24 HOURS" sign on the side of the shack. Then, the man’s wife and two children walked out of the shack, and I understood. That is where he and his family live, so take that into account when you read the above, please, because many of the people where I am, are much better off than most people farther south in Mexico.

The Mexican railroad runs through here. On any given day you can hear the whistle from the train in most parts of town. It is interesting to watch it pull into town; not the train, but what it brings with it. An average freight train pulling into here is long, maybe eighty cars on average. The tops of most of the cars have people on them. Sometimes a lot of people, sometimes just a few, but always people. On average, I would say every train brings at least fifty people into town, most of them headed farther north, because they are starving to death in southern Mexico. On the news the other day, reporting on the last cold snap to hit Mexico City and the central parts of Mexico, they were reporting over fifty dead that day, so far.

And of the jobs lost in America, most are production jobs. Those gained are service jobs. No nation, not in the history of the world, has survived the destruction of it’s production base, and in particular, the destruction of it’s farmers. Not to mention what would happen to a nation that would be so foolish as to pollute and destroy its land. The following is from the January, 1999, edition of ACRES USA, page 7:

COMMODITIES HEADED DOWN

The Bridge/CRB Index, an index of commodity prices, recently released numbers disturbing enough to cause Cheyne-Stokes palpitations in any commercial farmer. The index fell below 200, indicating a 21-year low. The Bridge/CRB stood at 264 in 1996.

Economists everywhere have expressed delight over this turn of events. In theory, faltering commodities mean more money available to the stock market. At year’s end, it took only ten cents out of the gross family dollar to feed the wife and kids. The figure wranglers compute that it takes only 12 minutes of labor to buy a pound of bacon. As recently as 1919, it took 70 minutes. Data such as these are expected to survive. Thus while poll takers are yammering about the great economy, farmers are warned to expect even lower prices.

This general collapse was engineered by the Farm Act of 1996, a measure that in effect ordered up greater volumes of marginal production at lower prices, courtesy of the cross-border traffic.

In addition to the above, farmers are being suckered into producing so-called scientifically enhanced (read that genetically engineered) crops, so they can produce more and more to sell it for less and less, pending arrival in bankruptcy court.

For now, the arithmetic suggests an improved bottom line for farmers who enter the trap. The premiums can be expected to evaporate much as they did when chicken producers cast their lot with the integrators.

The premium and the bondage both are assured by contracts, the last big step in the ploy to move production into "a few strong hands."

All that remains, the integrators say, is the task of educating the farmers. How all the education will play out remains to be seen.

Consumers are also getting educated. The further junking of junk food is no longer a well-kept secret. For instance, PepsiCo’s Frito-Lay division bags 23 million bushels of corn each year, all of it genetically engineered. The industry is taking to Olestra the way an inebriate heads for the bottle. Crispy chips with shelf life is the norm, not natural nutrition. The hook for consumers is "lower prices." If it looks like food and tastes like food, many people actually believe it is food.

But there is something to be said for Olestra; it is cheaper to produce than trying to actually force something to grow out of the earth. Nutritious? What does that have to do with profit, anyway? The following starts on the same page in ACRES USA:

View from the Country

Commodity prices trend lower, but farmers will be saved by more bountiful production, courtesy of scientific enhancement. This new term, a ringer for genetic engineering, received a staccato drumming in a Barons article, one that assured the world that scientific engineering meant salvation, if not life without end.

Briefly, genetic engineering, now scientific enhancement, enables a sort of sexual transmission at the cellular level. Thus a fish can exchange genes with a tomato plant, and corn be engineered to receive the genetic anti-freeze potential of an Arctic flounder. Much of this scientifically engineered production in the market has never been tested for long-range effects of toxicity and allergenicity. Animal tests are rather worthless as far as the human population is concerned. Except for GRAS pathology, no one knows whether the hamster or rat has a splitting headache or is otherwise suffering the discomforts of the damned.

Nature has always cross-pollinated - within limits. The stallion can breed with a burro and produce a jackass, the mule. Or a mare can breed with a male burro and produce a hinny. The offspring may have pride of ancestry, but there can be no hope of progeny. Nature says STOP, hold it right there. Chromosomes are incompatible, thus no further offspring.

Genetic engineering hopes to make an end run around this problem, at least at the cellular level. There are reasons enough to question the transgenic procedure, at least until clinical studies can be accomplished. None are acceptable to the trades. They say "full speed ahead." IF there are accidents such as the L-tryptophan disaster, there is always that scientific rejoinder - "OOPS!" There are other problems.

The conversion of farmers to "hat-in-hand" buyers of genetically engineered seeds is a prelude to converting all of agriculture into the model that has captured the entire poultry industry. Increasingly, food provender’s are contracting for genetically engineered grain production in exactly the way some 50 firms have enslaved the poultry producer. As the gene pool becomes contaminated by gene drift, no one will be free of the thralldom now touted by everyone from Barons to Jimmy Carter.

Belatedly, many farmers are going back to farm storage. Their controls require delivery at regular intervals, This calls for truck traffic, not grain trains. Nevertheless, the squeeze continues.

Caught between faltering prices, added seed costs, and buoyed up with a promise of premiums, many in the countryside view this new direction as the way to go. Unfortunately, once the camel has entered the tent, it will own the tent in the fullness of time. This changes the culture of farming.

A few seasons back, we witnessed the spectacle of California farmers farming their water rights. They could make more money selling water than producing crops. And so the fields went fallow, the land being used as a pawn in progress.

In the Newsletter this month, we speak of cycles at several terminal points. Cycles depend on human psychology, and human psychology depends on unfathomable impulses. The impulse to muck around with genetic engineering (scientific enhancement, to use Barons’ mantra) wants to overpower us all.

Fortunately, a few people still know how to think. They will be needed to unwind the witchcraft now enchanting speculators and absconders.

In the countryside, the word at year’s end is drought, floods and bail out money, little of the latter helping farmers, all of it largess to the panhandlers of modern commerce, the grain companies. At the official level, they pit the farmer in the South against the farmer in the Midwest: divide and conquer.

Still, minds bend slowly. The Dry Bean Association in Nebraska is now ready to listen to raw materials economics. A year ago, speakers like Fred Huenefeld were too controversial.

At the turn of the century, farming languishes. The greater industries are riverboat and reservation gambling and incarcerating more and more people for lesser and lesser crimes.

The countryside knows about $1.22 trillion of the gamblers being bailed out by Greenspan. The panhandlers - meaning the banks - have ever larger pans that require free filling. Interest rates are dropped to accommodate the lenders, bestowing a 10 percent improvement in the bottom line - hardly a farthing for farmers. Hedge funds are allowed to lose billions, whereas farmers are told to get scientifically genetic and superbly efficient. Oddly, the failures are the ones to receive the Nobel Prize for setting up a fail-safe computer program, all the while computer ready for their Y2K crash. Happy New Year

I have mentioned ACRES USA before, and still do. This edition, January, 1999, is one of the best they have put out. Of course, I would never think of throwing any edition of ACRES away; I keep the back copies as a resource and journal of knowledge about many aspects of farming. But, there is a lot of economic information in this paper as well. For instance, in the paper are addresses and locations to acquire original, non-tampered seeds for local production of food. A very necessary part of the future, in my opinion.

On page 24 of the same January edition, in a story titled "Recipes for Failure":

"We’ve become adept at growing 150-bushel corn without asking the question why we should be growing corn. We’ve become proficient at matching exact drugs to precisely diagnosed bacterial infections in concentration-camp poultry houses, but we fail to ask why we are raising chickens in concentration camps...

5.) Too much time spent in non-farm offices: Many new farmers, because they are not confident, spend hours down at bureaucrat offices, or talking to a banker, fertilizer salesman, feed salesman or other agri-business professional.

Everybody dispenses advice that is self-serving and, before you know it, the poor farmer is enslaved to the system. Many people get angry with the agri-business establishment or the bankers for this, as if it’s some sort of conspiracy. But I say nobody held a gun to the head of the farmer and made him march down to take advice from these yo-yos. If these advisors and sales people deserve any blame, the farmer certainly should be held accountable for seeking their counsel. If the teacher dispenses foolishness, shame on him. If the student sits and listens to the foolishness, shame on both of them. [Ed. Note: Unless the parent is mistakenly complying with what they believe is a legal mandate to send their children to the "public schools"]

When thousands of farmers went out of business in the economic blood bath of the early 1980s, the conditions that precipitated the upheaval did not occur overnight. A crisis is merely the culmination of many little events...

Even if you are a novice, you will be much more sensible staying at hone, hoeing your own garden and contemplating quietly among the beans and corn what decisions to make. These other folks have a wonderful agenda to separate you from your money. The more you listen to their counsel and rub shoulders with them, the quicker you’ll succumb to their hypnosis."

There is a world of sage observations and advice in the above. Everyone should heed it, and it does not just apply to farmers! Want advice on investing, and you go to the man who sells stocks? What is he going to tell you? You know in advance, or at least, you should! Go to the man who makes loans for advice on how to borrow money? Interesting concept. On page 32 of the same paper, under NEWSLETTER:

"Yukon Calusa figures the coming months will see the equivalent of the Wehrmacht’s retreat from Stalingrad. It took two years before the facts of perdition registered with the German people. We may get, but cannot expect, that much time to understand the value deprived greed of globalism. In any case, mental acuity has been shoved away by spin masters, endless repetition and breathtaking fantasy paraded as education.

Globalism, of course, is simply born-again imperialism, and much of it anchored to London City and New York. Failure and set-back are not always followed by rope dancing. A more practical view is that a fated market can take 50 to 75 years to recover. Factor this into your life expectancy to better evaluate the picture.

POPULISM: The reaction to unregulated bankruptcy is populism - the idea that money needs a benchmark, that people count and that even the less-gifted belong. It nurtures the idea that a society be free of perpetual debt, that its sectors achieve a structural balance. As long as interest money and bills of exchange govern a society, there can’t be as much as a discussion of monetary reform, and, without the latter, creeping poverty will be the legacy of most Americans in the fullness of time."

Interesting, and absolutely true. It has been proven again and again throughout history. On page 38 of the same paper in a story titled "Why Do Smart People Do Stupid Things":

"THE COST; Let us focus on one simple hard statistic - the raw cost in human lives. Now is the time for the casualty report - to show us the result of our tax dollars at work, supporting an extremely negative nutrition policy.

To put it in perspective, the Vietnam War cost 55,000 American lives, or 6000 lives average per year during its nine year duration. Heart and circulatory disease claims one million lives each year, or approximately 30 million lives over the past 30 years. If only half of these could have been saved with supplemental nutrients and EDTA chelation therapy, we are talking 15 million lives or the equivalent of 2500 years of the Vietnam War. We would have had to have a Vietnam-sized war 500 B.C. and run it continuously for 2,500 years to the present, to equal the loss of life caused by delaying the truth about these nutrients, EDTA therapy and alternative medicine...

Anytime you choose, you may remove yourself from this war zone by taking the initiative for your own health. Americans are doing this. They are voting with their feet - marching to another drummer. Seventy percent of us now choose alternative medicine, nutrition, etc., rather than poison, cut and burn medicine...

Imagine the headlines if a drug company introduced a new drug with the potential to save half a million lives every year - and with zero side effects! But, don’t bet the farm on that idea. Smart people, in this case, do stupid things, in spite of all evidence to the contrary - to line their pockets at the expense of your health and life..."

And finally, on page 39, "Baby Food: Too High in Fluoride":

"Some baby foods contain such high levels of fluoride that babies who ingest it risk dental fluorosis (white flecked, brown or yellow, irreversibly stained permanent teeth), according to the ‘Journal of the American Dental Association.’ \ The authors conclude, "Any infants who regularly eat more than a couple of ounces of infant foods containing high-fluoride-content chicken would be at elevated risk... Chicken is processed using a mechanical deboning method that can leave skin and residual bone particles in the food."

Chicken skin has been found to contain about 1 ppm (part per million) fluoride. Fluoride also stores in animal bones and teeth. Additionally, infants who eat large quantities of dry infant cereals reconstituted with fluoridated water could ingest substantial quantities of fluoride from this source.

The study strongly suggests that children, "should be monitored to make sure they do not ingest too much fluoride from other sources, such as fluoride dentifrice, dietary fluoride supplements or fluoridated water..."

One of the constant questions I get is why I have chosen to be where I am. Well, it was by chance as much as anything, but came as a result of not wishing to live in a city, or even near one. And since I did not have the money to set up my own food source, I had few options. Look, all processed food in the states is processed with fluoridated water, all lawns in most towns and all cities are watered with fluoridated water; all soft drinks and most other "reconstituted" juices are done with fluoridated water. Fluoride is an accumulator; it does not go away. You really need to read a couple of books about fluoride, but then, you are probably aware of part of the problem with the knowledge now around about aluminum cook ware and how bad it is for you to use. Well, fluoride as it is used in the United States is a derivative of the aluminum industry; a waste product. And it is a deadly poison.

When you put this together with the other information about chemicals, hormones in the food, and on and on and on, you begin to see my path. Am I free of all such down here? Of course not, but I am eating healthier food than you are, I would wager (Actually, that is the wager I have made). And spending much less to do so. Most of the fruits and vegetables I buy here are grown by local farmers, and not very far from here, which, as my understanding grows, is probably important as well. But then, I just knew in advance that my life was going to change, and I was going to be the author of that change. Not someone else.

I strongly urge you, if you do not wish to subscribe to ACRES USA, to pay the $3.00 and order at least the January issue of the paper. It is very good, and necessary reading. ACRES USA, $24.00 per year, P.O. Box 8800, Metairie, LA [70011]

Dennis Beets wrote:

Dan, What is your opinion on the following? Would you say get out of the market or what? Do you think there is anything that could survive in the market? Do you think money market accounts (US gov't securities) could or would survive or are we looking at an apocalyptic catastrophe possibly something like Nagasaki or Hiroshima economically? Is there any probability that anything can survive? Dennis

Hi Dennis,

We're looking at quite a scramble. The United States is at the tail end of the empire period (400 years from founding to fall), and on a global scale, we're at the tail end of the urban cycle (2,000 years). These major cycles are converging with the end of the 60-year business cycle (average) that can be traced to before the American Revolution in our economy.

I found something interesting when reading notes in his personal papers following Franklin Roosevelt's March 6, 1933 declaration of the bank holiday: Even then, he and others in leadership capacity were looking for ways to decentralize the population. American cities, not the rural community, were broadsided by the 1930's great depression. While the communist-socialist New Deal went about it wrong, there was already recognizable urban stress even though the United States was still 37% rural at the time. By 1990, 90% of our population lived in cities and within the 40-mile commuter radius of cities. When the economy shoots craps this time, we're in a hell of a bunch of trouble as there is no way to tend essential needs in the cities. (Absolutely true. - David)

Early in the century, attorney and Populist presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan issued a warning that people should have listened to then: Destroy your cities, but preserve our farms and we will build cities better than new; but destroy our farms, and within a generation grass will grow in the streets of every city.

The obvious should be obvious, but it doesn't seem to penetrate at least some people. A lady I know well and am fond of really got her hackles up when I wrote a warning on this subject several years ago. She lived in a metropolitan area with over a million people. "I can grow what I need in my back yard," she insisted.

"I'm sure you can," I told her. "But you might practice gardening with a hoe in one hand and a gun in the other."

My being a smart-ass didn't set well, but this is another subject that wears pretty thin with me when I spend too much time on it. In 1980, I wrote a small book titled "The Food War" that anticipated the collapse that became known as the Farm Crisis, and we have generally followed the course I anticipated at the time. I'm not the only one, of course. Carl H. Wilken, Charles B. Ray, Dr. John Lee Coulter and other members of the old Raw Materials National Council recognized, and warned where we were headed as early as the 1950's; Charles Walters, Jr., issued a convincing warning in "Unforgiven" (1971); in the late 1970's and through the '80's, you had Ravi Batra, A. Gary Shilling, Robert Prechter, P.Q. Wall, the Grace Commission, etc., etc. ... there have been plenty of warnings. But the vast majority is swayed by bandwagon mentality and a linear view of history -- "It can't happen here!"

An earlier secular prophet? Try Oswald Spengler in "Decline of the West" (1920's and early '30's). The end of our epochal cycle is characterized by Spengler's rule of nations or law of empires: No nation or society has voluntarily changed unless or until it suffered economic collapse severe enough that social institutions failed, or it was defeated at war. Into the 1930's, 19 of 21 known empires had fallen to internal decay, only 2 had been defeated at war in their prime.

Many of these historical economists have credited cycle collapses to human nature, which is partially true, but there is more to it than human nature alone. (No, it is entirely human nature; more on this a little later. - David) Physical nature also plays a role. Here is where people like Raymond Wheeler, writing on business cycles in the 1970's, Iben Browning, Dr. Louis Thompson, and others come into the picture: Weather cycles correspond with business and empire cycles. In fact, Wheeler predicted that in the last several years of the Twentieth Century, three ancient weather cycles would converge for only the third time in recorded history. I think the advent of what Wheeler anticipated was the sun retrograde cycle in 1989 (a 182-year cycle) and exceedingly high tidal forces in the 1988-90 period (Browning). We haven't had anything resembling normal weather, and therefore crop production, since.

If the Spengler law of empires principle is correct, the coming collapse will wipe out our credit and monetary systems. Stocks, bonds, futures and derivatives could all take it in the shorts. In that event, physical possession of species metals (gold & silver), consumable commodities (food & water, seed, etc.), and essential production and maintenance tools would be the way to hedge, but holding what you have could be problematic if things get too out of hand.

That's one of the reasons I've been working as hard as I have on unraveling the Cooperative Federalism scheme to get law and historical fact clearly stated. Our best opportunity to get through a collapse of the magnitude I anticipate is to effect Jubilee -- to send the money changers packing. If the same tribe retains political power, we will suffer general anarchy and civil uprising. If we have law and historical fact soundly in place, we can peacefully restore constitutionally authentic credit and monetary systems and put the nation on a sound recovery platform.

Ironically, we're better postured to get through the crisis without complete political meltdown than any major empire of any age. In the last two or three decades, technological development has moved to "economics of scale" that will accommodate decentralization. We have the best information and transportation systems the world has ever seen, and our superior production technology can facilitate necessary decentralization. But we have to realize that national sovereignty and solvency are essential to restoring stability. Dan

The above illustrates to me how well Dan Meador understands not only the court system, but the time line of the credit money system. And make no mistake about this; there is a definite time line to a credit money system.

The principals that Dan is talking about above are simply a way to explain what occurs in credit and/or commerce as the people behind the "system" continue to rape and pillage using their benefits designed into the "system." For reference, see Parts VI and VII. Very few people ever begin to understand the principals behind Parts VI and VII, and to invest in the commercial/credit system without understanding these principals is a recipe to lose your entire life’s work. For some strange reason, this may explain why these principals are not taught in the so-called government schools, do you think?

I am seeing more and more talk and stories written to explain Clinton’s claim that we are finally going to begin paying down the national debt. This reveals two possible things to me; Either the speakers, including Clinton, are totally amoral, or totally ignorant. Since it is not possible that all of the ones responsible for the stories are completely ignorant (examine the careful structuring of the stories/speeches not to reveal any true facts), we are forced to accept that a goodly portion of them are totally amoral. After what we have discovered together in these papers, I don’t think anyone will find this hard to accept.

That being said, we need to do a short review, so we are all on the same page.

Within the credit system in use "within" the United States, we find the most complete example possible of credit in use as an operating medium of exchange. There are still those who insist on calling Federal Reserve notes "fiat" currency. Credit in circulation is not "fiat" for a very simple reason; fiat currency expands as it is issued. When you stop "issuing credit", the money supply collapses, and you have deflation. To illustrate my point, how do you pay off the national debt when you must borrow every payment made upon it? And it does not matter if the borrowing is being done by the so-called government, or by the people taxed by that government, hence the low interest rates now as the burden of debt "creation" is transferred from the government directly to the backs of the people.

When interest rates are once again caused to rise, as they will be, the dollar will be in high demand, for a short period of time, until the already creaky "system" implodes for a lack of an operating medium. As I have stated before, the reason that the dollar has universal acceptance world wide is because most of the debt of the world is denominated in dollars. The entire world must have dollars to service that debt. As the new Euro currency comes into play, backed by gold, perhaps as much as 30% backed by gold, and as new debts begin to be denominated in that currency, as they will, what will happen to the dollar debts as the supplies of dollars begin to dry up, becomes self evident.

There is in America, approximately four trillion in "dollars" in circulation, and about sixteen trillion (probably considerably more than this) in debt. It does not take much math to figure an eight percent across the board interest rate and know that if the four trillion in debt currency in circulation, about 1.28 trillion will have to go for debt service (and, as stated above about the total of debt, probably considerably more). When you raise the interest rate, and stop the creation of new debt, you not only increase the amount of available money being collected out of the system, but you limit how much more can come in. This is how depressions are created, scientifically, by the bankers.

The bankers understand credit money, and they know that the vast amount of dollars in circulation and carried in debt instruments are fast approaching the point of impossibility. This is when you chart the debt and the interest thereon, and the chart turns vertical because of the vast amounts of new debt needed each year just to service the old. This is inevitable in any credit money system, and the dollar is about there. In the states we reach that level about 2003, maybe 2004. Worldwide, we are just as close, I expect, and they can not tax enough to control the inflation world wide, nor here, after we reach that level of debt. Hence, the plans for a currency to replace the dollar. More on this a little later.

I will add one little point here, before we continue on; Anyone living in America today, of reasonably good health, will see the collapse of the dollar. Believe this. And you will see a more severe world wide depression than has ever been seen before. How this bears on Revelations, I do not know, but I do know that most of the world has correctly identified the United states as the enemy in this credit system.

FOOD SUPPLY UPDATE: DECEMBER '98

by Geri Guidetti (arkinst@concentric.net) The Ark Institute http://www.arkinstitute.com

Y2K Food Supply Prospects Paint Frightening Picture;

This and all Updates may be reprinted and distributed in any media if done so in their entirety, including byline, Web address and signature file information. They must be distributed free of charge unless included as part of a magazine or journal.

It's crunch time. Here comes 1999, and it promises to be a dilly. Not since the days when guns replaced sharpened hunting sticks, and grain mills replaced crude, hand-hewn mortars and pestles, has a year's rollover meant more to the question of whether or not there will be enough food for the future. Simply put, what we do—as nations, states, businesses, families and individuals—in the next twelve months, may well determine what, when, and if we will eat in the year 2000 and beyond.

Over the past three years, I have been sounding an alarm that our food supply is much less safe and secure than any of us can imagine, largely due to vulnerabilities wrought by the same technology that has brought us so much food (I beg to differ with this statement, as any reader of ACRES USA would. - David). We've created a monster, and the monster's about to get sick. If you come to the same conclusion, it will raise your anxiety level. Most of us don't need anymore anxiety in our lives, yet the flip side of that is that it is better to know, when you might be able to do something about it, than not to know and be helpless to change the outcome. It is with some apprehension that I offer some thoughts about the bigger food supply picture for 1999 and prospects for Y2K.

We will redefine food in the year 2000. It may take a little while, but that must-have-super-size-fried-double-whopper-with-bacon-and-cheese - with-cherries-garcia-and-big-gulp-chasers will be metamorphosed into a grateful-to-have-bowl-of-vegetable-soup-with-homemade-bread-with-water-chaser. And remember, if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.

Despite the calm reassurances and optimistic projections of elected leaders, appointed agency heads and corporate CEOs, the ugly truth about our collective, global impotence to purge our infrastructure of the so-called Millennium Bug is leaking, seeping, oozing out. The Millennium Bug is the Ebola of our technology based existence. There is no cure for Ebola (Sorry, this is not true, either. - David), and it will infect the computer-dependent food supply monster in the year 2000. Unless we hear and see proof, in the next few months, that the complex production, processing, distribution and sales limbs of the beast are fixed—or that effective contingency plans are in place—increasing public awareness and the resulting panic will make it sick well before the close of 1999.

Let's look at some prospects for disease prevention. The U.S. Dept. of Agriculture (USDA) now has a web site offering called, "Facts About the Y2K Problem and the Food Supply Sector." You can find it at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OM/y2kfact2.htm It is here that you will find Secretary of Agriculture, Dan Glickman's, public statement on the problem. He observes that it takes the work of "tens of thousands of people" to produce a meal for an American family. He then says:

"I must confess, however, that until recently I hadn't thought very much about the connection between food on our tables and computers. But, as a new millennium approaches, that link is becoming all too clear....We are facing the potential of serious disruption because of this problem...."

Interesting. In July of 1997 I published an Update citing data in one of the USDA's own reports on the extent of computers in all aspects of agriculture and posed the questions, at that time, concerning potential impacts on our food supply. Had Mr. Glickman even seen that USDA report? Had he thought about its implications for our nation's food in Y2K? In his current statement, he goes on to say;

"That's why USDA, along with the rest of the Administration, is hard at work to make sure our internal systems are Y2K compliant. We are also working with our partners in state and local governments who help deliver federal programs to make sure our computers continue to talk to each other and perform the work they are programmed to do. Now, through the President's Council on Year 2000 Conversion, the federal government has undertaken a massive outreach effort to heighten awareness of the Y2K problem.

"The Council has asked USDA, working with the Depts. of Defense, Health and Human Services, State, and the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, to lead the government's awareness campaign to the food supply sector."

Let's get this straight. First, Dan Glickman, the head of the federal agency that oversees food production for the U.S. and much of the rest of the world, just recently became aware of the connection between computers and food? Next, the newly formed President's Council on Year 2000 Conversion has asked the USDA to work with The Depts. of Defense, Health and Human Services, and State to lead the government's awareness campaign on Y2K to the food industry ?

The Department of Defense? On November 23rd, the Department of Defense was given a D-minus on the House of Representative's quarterly report card on its Y2K progress on mission critical systems. Mission CRITICAL systems only. On November 27th, the Defense Department's own Inspector General accused the Pentagon of falsifying Y2K compliance reports released by its Special Weapons Agency, the agency—are you sitting down?--that manages our nuclear weapons stockpile. (Falsifying reports. Isn't that the same thing as lying?) The Special Weapons Agency admits that it did, indeed, certify computer systems as Y2K compliant without completing testing on them, and the Pentagon admits to having no explanation for its agency's misrepresentation. In fact, only 25 percent of systems reported by the Defense Department as being compliant actually were, according to a report released by the Inspector General in July.

THIS is the department that has been asked to lead, with USDA, food supply industry awareness.

USDA's second, assigned leader in this "massive outreach effort to heighten awareness..." is the Department of Health and Human Services, November 23rd recipient of an F grade on their Y2K report card. It seems this department which is responsible for administering the nations Medicare program has only fixed 7 of their 100 mission critical systems. Given the potentially catastrophic consequences of a failed Medicare system in 2000, how much of their staff and budget do you think they will assign to a food supply awareness campaign?

The Dept. of State, the third assigned leader, is yet another rated F agency. ( If you still have some question about whether we are in good hands, overall, with our federal agencies, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) received an F as well. It seems their recently purchased computer system is not Y2K compliant. Rep. Stephen Horn said, "They receive the dunce of the year award.")

Back to Secretary Glickman's official Y2K statement: "The best way we can do that (lead the government's awareness campaign to the food supply sector) is by forming a partnership with industry groups whose members are involved in food production and distribution. Our goal: to make sure everyone involved in food supply production, processing, distribution, and sales is aware of their potential Y2K problems, understands the importance of acting now to check their systems, and knows where they can go for help."

I do pray that even a quarter of "everyone involved" in food supply has not waited until now for this leadership in awareness, understanding, and "checking their systems." If so, the party's over because there will be no food served.

A MESSAGE TO EVERYONE INVOLVED IN PRODUCTION, PROCESSING, DISTRIBUTION AND SALES OF FOOD IN THE U.S.:

According to several of the nation's top, most respected senior programmers—the men and women working in the belly of this sick Y2K beast—it is already too late for awareness, understanding and checking. It is too late to write a plan of action. It is too late to expect to find and keep programmers to repair all of your systems. It is too late. If you are to remain in business after 1999, if you are to become part of the solution, if you are to be there for the rebuilding of our infrastructure in the next century, it is time for contingency planning. It's not too late for that.

If Americans and, for that matter, the rest of the technology-dependent world, are not to panic about year 2000 food supplies in 1999, please answer honestly—and PUBLISH WIDELY—responses to the following:

How are you working now to ensure us that you can deliver the goods if your mission critical computers collapse? If your suppliers' and vendors' computers collapse? Farmers--if your tractors don't work? If the Global Positioning Satellite system some of you use to farm doesn't get fixed? If you can't get fuel for your farm equipment? If your combines can't harvest? What seed will you plant in Y2K if your spring seed shipments don't arrive in February and March 2000? How will you produce food and seed for 2001 if you miss the year 2000 planting? If the multinational hybrid seed producers can't produce seed for you? How will you plant if there's no gas or diesel at your local supplier for your equipment in 2000? If you can't get fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides? Are you stocking up now? CAN you stock up given your current financial condition?

Supermarket chains: How are you planning now to stock your stores so folks can have food on hand to see them through at least a few months of 2000, if necessary? Are you increasing your stocks now to ensure us that there will be enough? We read that whole cities only have 72 hours of food in their pipelines (This is absolutely true. - David). That the U.S. only has 3 months worth within its borders. (Again, this is absolutely true. - David) Have you communicated that to emergency services and civil defense organizations in your city? What are your alternatives to just-in-time inventory management? Can you find/build space for longer term food product storage? How are you planning to sell food when your check-out scanners fail--if the power goes out in Y2K? How will you total cash orders—hand-held solar calculators? Have you bought them?

Food Processors: How are you working to assure us that those canned beans will be processed long enough to kill botulism bacteria? Are there manual overrides for your conveyor belts and heat/pressure canning operations? Have you talked to your suppliers about alternative methods of getting the beans to put into those cans? How will you get the huge amounts of water you need to process food if the municipal water systems go down? (This is a big issue; look at what she said, because all processed foods use municipal water, which means chlorine and fluoride in everything you eat and feed to your families. - David) If the water is insufficiently processed and contaminated? Conversely, if it contains dangerously high levels of chlorine? Have you thought this through?

Food distribution centers: How will you know which store needs what if the scanners and computer calculations go haywire in Y2K? How will you get product to ship if railway shipments are delayed or non-existent. If some/many/most of your truckers are not able to deliver product for you? Is there a basic list of products that you will ship to each and every store if there is no computer communication between you? Can you do it by telephone? What if there are no telephones?

Food industry leaders: Have you done the "big picture thinking" about your industry if a worst case scenario is realized in Y2K? Are you aware of what a worst case scenario would be like? Have you done the "dominoes thinking?" What proportion of the industry is now devoted to production of highly-processed, energy and computer dependent foods? Have you talked among yourselves about rethinking food product needs in a national emergency? With rolling blackouts and intermittent refrigeration?

Can a portion of your factories be retooled to produce foods with high, concentrated nutrition and a long shelf-life—no refrigeration needed. Now?

Enough questions. I encourage readers to share them and your own food supply questions with anyone involved in food production or supply in your area; your supermarket manager; your mom and pop grocer; with emergency preparedness groups; with clergy; your city council president; your mayor; your state representatives; your boss; your mother-in-law; whomever. Remember: if we're not part of the solution, we're part of the problem. The first part of doing contingency planning will be to raise the volume on the questions we have and to persistently insist on answers. When we have answers we think we can trust, we can then make the personal and community decisions necessary for survival. REAL leadership is obviously not going to come from the top on this. It's going to come from the bottom—grass roots. From you—all of you.

If the senior programmers are right—if it's too late to fix even the mission critical systems—then food and water will prove to be our most critical national concern in mid- to late 1999. Electrical failures and fuel supply interruptions will make them obsessions in 2000.

Our entire human food supply is based on plants and plant seeds. Seed for farmers may be in short supply in 2000. New, hybrid and non-hybrid seeds produced in 1999 for the year 2000 crop may not reach all who need it due to transportation and distribution breakdowns. Those commercial farmers who didn't stock two years worth of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides in 1999 may be out of luck in 2000. Most of these inputs are petrochemical based, and the refineries and chemical companies may be plagued by their embedded chip problems. (A horrifying post by a refinery worker recently claimed that refineries will NOT be functional when the clock strikes twelve on January 1, 2000. He claims they can't even find all of the embedded chips to test unless they break down and rebuild all of the refineries. There's no time for that. Guess we won't know if refineries and fuels will make it until January 1st.)

If international and national oil, gas and electricity are not in good shape, several of the multinational seed and chemical giants will run into serious Y2K difficulties. This scenario WOULD affect the food supply for the year 2000 and 2001. Distribution of diesel fuel and gasoline supplies to run farm machinery may be undependable. Seasonal planting deadlines would be missed. Seeds or no seeds, many crops would not get planted, and that would prove deadly for 2001. That year would be worse than 2000. Those with a cache of non-hybrid seeds and some land to grow it on should at least be able to eat come summer and fall. Those who learn how to multiply and save that seed for 2001 and beyond would no longer be part of the problem, but part of the solution. They'd be less likely to go hungry.

Unless we get some fast, honest ,complete answers, AND encouraging ones as well, 1999 will be a year of food panic. Like your withdrawals from your bank account, what you take out of the store will be limited. Rice: $7.29 for a 10 pound bag, reads the ad. Limit, one. Coming to a store near you. Soon.

You have to be part of the solution. We have a year to reach more people, to push for serious contingency planning, to help one another. Think village. Think community. Grow a non-hybrid seed garden THIS summer. Multiply the seed. Give some away. Learn to can and dry food. Teach others to do the same. Teach your family members, too, in case anything happens to you. Be part of the solution.

Ebola kills its host by infecting host cells with its "bad code", corrupting and commandeering host DNA, forcing it to spew out bad, instead of normal data, replicating the virus, over and over again, until the whole host body is one seething bag of bad virus. Though there have been a couple of reports of successful treatment with antibodies against this monster, aggressive support of progressively failing host systems is the only treatment available to date. There is, at this time, no hope of going into every cell in every host and excising or fixing the bad code. There is no magic bullet.

By a combination of arrogance, ignorance, greed and denial, we have infected the global "host" with a technological Ebola. It is now systemic. If the senior programmers are right, in 1999, we will begin to bleed. In 2000, we will hemorrhage. Our focus must now shift from expecting to cure it to contingency planning for critical, life systems support. Electricity. Food. Water. Telecommunications. Fuel. Medicine. From these, with newly found humility, we will rebuild..... Geri Guidetti, The Ark Institute

The Ark Institute, PO Box 142, Oxford, OH 45056. Non-hybrid seeds, educational materials, and support for sustainable food self-sufficiency and self-reliance. You CAN do this! http://www.arkinstitute.com E-mail: arkinst@concentric.net The Institute's web site also includes archived back issues of the Grain and Food Supply Updates.

Copyright © 1998 1-800-255-1912 (Orders Only)

ORDER YOUR SURVIVAL SEED PACKAGE TODAY *COPYRIGHT NOTICE In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. [Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ]

REMEMBER HERBAL MEDICINES (These Herb’s are not your normal culinary Herb’s and are 100% pure. Call 1-800-998-2131 and ask for John Warner - and tell him what prescriptions you are taking now - and how you can replace them with HERBAL medicines. You can stock up on HERBS but you cannot stock up on PRESCRIPTIONS.

How true the above is, I do not know. However, after reading the following, It should become a little clearer. Before you do read the next part, a little interesting information needs to be added.

Most people are totally unaware of the deep commitment within the United States government to population control. And for those who are aware of it, they "think" that the United States government intends to control the population of some obscure third world group of countries. It’s about "them," not me, goes the conventional thinking of those "in the know."

But that’s because most do not understand that to those "within" Washington, DC, we are "them!" We are the enemy.

But how do you eliminate a well armed enemy? First, you must put that enemy in an untenable position. Cities and food do not mix. If there is not a steady supply of food from "without" that city, any city, all, pardon the expression, hell breaks loose. And the quickest way to cheaply eliminate an enemy is to starve him to death. Ask that "great" hero, Dwight D. Eisenhower. As is explained in the book "Other Losses," after World War II, and while under the direct supervision of Eisenhower, over 1,000,000 German POWs were starved to death in Europe’s POW camps, on OUR side of the border.

How many of you have seen the movie "The Killing Fields" about Cambodia and the Communist government’s slaughter of 1/3 of the population of the nation’s people? How many of you are aware that the population redistribution plans used by the Kymer Rouge in Cambodia, where they literally emptied the cities at gun point and forced the people into the country side was developed by a think tank in Washington, DC? How many of you are aware of Global 2000, where the United States government agreed to reduce the population of America to less than 150,000,000 by the year 2050? How do you kill off 130,000,000 people in fifty years? Is Y2K real?

You want to keep this kind of information in mind as you read the following.

From: Virginia Raines: Today's article by Charles Smith which was posted with a couple of comments by Darren reminded me of a prior post that I kept (below). The information is not widely discussed, to my knowledge.

Virginia From: <USCMike1@aol.com Date: Mon., 24 Aug. 1998 18:22:59 EDT

To: airpro@ix.netcom.com (Darren) Subject: [millennium3] Darren discovers that y2k crash may have been preplanned before 1984

Dear Citizens:

Darren of airpro@ix.netcom.co has come across some published information that shows that even prior to 1984 (the year of "Big Brother is Watching You" by George Orwell - in his book: "1984") that the feds and the computer industry already knew about the y2k fiasco and by design, deceit, or dumbness failed to act upon it. Thanks Darren for your timely inf. We all knew that something this big just could not "have happened" naturally.

USCMike1 Subj.: Smoking gun on Y2K? :-) Date: 98-08-23 19:25:47 EDT

From: airpro@ix.netcom.com (Darren) To: infoedge@juno.com (Darren)

I've had infotaining conversations with folks over what is a short period of time for public warning on Y2K over the last year. Many feel that this Y2K thing is purely by oversight and that the folks that could/would use it to gain their agendas (TLC, CFR, NWO) did not reckon this many years ago.

Angie Carlson and I have had some interesting conversation where we pondered the question "just how did all this Y2K come about?" I believe Angie and I share the belief that something of this magnitude cannot be by accident but perhaps design.

My cursory research (got too much going on in life to spend too much energy on Y2K) was trying to seek answers to what I believe are some very clumsy assertions by the Y2K and computer industry experts.

My question was since most of the software code that will produce date calculation errors was written in COBOL, my research was focused on who was teaching the protocols for COBOL programming. I believe in the TOP-DOWN method of learning so I was focused on the university professors and where did they get their information from. Most of my answers seemed to suggest that the 6 digit date codes leaving out the full 4 digits of the year was because of efficiency purposes. But I am always digging and was not satisfied with this theory.

I could not understand how so many VERY BRIGHT and LOGICAL minded design analysts and programmers could overlook the very LOGICAL REALITY that year 2000 would come whether they liked it or not. Overlooking a future date just does not make sense for these ultra-IQ qualified programmers. How could they succumb to such stupidity?

If the following information was already known by you, then obviously you have done more R&D on this Y2K issue than I.

I was in a used bookstore today taking old books back for something more interesting. The owner of the bookstore said "Darren, knowing you like I do, I bet you'll find something really interesting here."

The owner has a book on hold for someone else but here goes the amazing discovery I made today.

The old book my friend had in his store is titled COMPUTERS IN CRISIS-HOW TO AVERT THE COMING COMPUTER SYSTEMS COLLAPSE (ISBN# 089433-223-6).

Are you hanging on to your chair, desk, computer mouse or Y2K generator? This book was written in 1984! This book was published by Petrocelli Books of New York and Princeton.

The book was written by Jerome T. Murray and Marilyn J. Murray. Mr. Murray was Director of Computer Management for Rose Packaging at the time the book was written but prior to that, worked for IBM in their government and education divisions. Prior to that he worked for Honeywell. Mr. Murray was a alumnus of Chicago State University.

If these expert knew in 1984 about this coming problem, why is it the general populace is just NOW coming up to speed on the Y2K problem? Now I ask that you really hang on to your chair because the answer I've been seeking for a year popped right out at me as written on the cover of the jacket of this book:

"Warning, logical and maintenance flaws have been discovered in the design of worldwide programming code and databases. These flaws will result in the collapse of the world's computer systems on or before 2000 AD.

"How did it all begin? On November 1, 1968, the National Bureau of Standards issued a Federal Information Processing Standards Publication (FIPS PUB#4) where it specified the use of 6 digit dates for all information exchange between Federal agencies." [end of jacket quote]

My question is did this directive also recommend or require that any contractor doing business with any Federal agency also conform to a 6 digit date code?

This all reminds me of the ISO 9000 dictates that many businesses are being forced to subscribe to in order to do business with GLOBAL government agencies. To do business, you must meet very rigid standards that are said to be for QUALITY ASSURANCE.

This book is now out of print and probably not available although Amazon Books does state they can try to order. The book did not really provide too much useful data to non-programmers and I'd recommend TIME BOMB 2000 over this.

The answer I've been seeking has been found. I'll continue my open mind but certainly believe this information to be significant considering how Y2K fits into my rant that "a multitude of emerging events will culminate into one heck of a grim situation." My energy levels are a bit lower and I must go rest......this was amazing for me to find, how about you? Best Regards, Darren

Rather interesting, wouldn’t you say? Also puts the food situation into a totally different light, I think. The problem most people have is that no matter what they learn, they still tend to give people, like those in Washington, DC, the benefit of the doubt. They can not grasp the complete immorality of the vast majority of those in Washington, DC, and in London, New York, Moscow, etc.. Events which are coming to America are not random occurrences. They are carefully planned over a long period of time. Let me illustrate with a little story.

In the early 1950s, a friendly neighbor of Afghanistan, knowing of the problems of transportation in that nation, offered to build a system of roads within Afghanistan, just to help out. That friendly nation was Russia, and they did build an extensive system of roads, basically for free.

What it is all about.. Subject: MOTHER OF ALL "STINGS"

http://www.devvy.com/stings.html by Graham Strachan

BRISBANE, Australia - Readers familiar with the motion picture "The Sting" may recall that the cornerstone of the successful 'Sting' (fraud) was that the victim had to be unaware at the end of it all that they had been defrauded. Even if told, they would refuse to believe they had been dudded (conned).

In the case of "The Sting" - the movie, the philosophy of the leading characters was that fools and their money are easily parted. The people they were defrauding had money to lose in the first place. Such is not the case of the greatest fraud of all time presently taking place in the global economy, and the 'fools' being parted from their money are the simple, basically decent, trusting, ordinary people of the world, who are obliged to work for a living.

The Sting goes something like this. Over a trillion dollars zooms around the world each day in the global markets, buying and selling currencies, corporate shares and government bonds, 'futures' (options to buy things which might come into being in the future), and 'derivatives', instruments based on some underlying financial asset, however remotely. Some of the money (not much) actually gets to be invested in productive enterprise, but most of it is used by speculators playing a huge global gambling game. The media, now staffed by capitalist groupies paid to glorify these people, fawn over the speculators and call them 'players'. Life is but a game, tra-la. Greed is good.

The sting is made possible because most of the 'money' the 'players' gamble with doesn't actually exist. It's pretend money, credit money extended to them by various banks, and ultimately the international bankers. The banks are able to do this... invent imaginary money out of thin air and charge interest on it.... because of the 'fractional reserve banking system' whereby if a bank has around $6 of depositors funds in its vault it is allowed by law to create $100 of imaginary money and lend it out at interest. Banks do not, as Prime Minister Howard apparently thinks (or says he does), lend depositors funds. They don't lend money at all. They extend credit, which is new 'money' created as interest bearing debt, a practice called 'usury' and banned by the Church (Yes, the "church [Roman church] did give lip service to this, while arranging for the "Jewish" bankers to be set up in different countries when the people of one country or another got tired of their depredations. - David) during the Middle Ages, but allowed back in by Henry VIII. But back to the Sting.

At this point the media enter the picture, media owned and controlled by men who are themselves ultimately beholden to the international bankers. An area is targeted, like Asia. The world media then talk the area up. They run stories about 'Asian Tiger Economies', and how the 'future lies in Asia', fortunes are there for the asking. The global speculators are encouraged to invest their hot money there by the billions, in all sorts of ventures regardless of the risk, and in assets regardless of how dubious their value. At the same time the local banks in the target country are encouraged to borrow from the international bankers and make reckless loans, hardly bothering to assess the viability of ventures or requiring adequate collateral. The myth is promoted that it's almost impossible to fail in the 'emerging economies'.

Then a crisis is precipitated: the spill of an aging President, for example, something to spook the speculators and induce them to dump the local currency and pull out. If the worst comes to the worst a deliberate 'run' on the currency can be arranged using the massive global hedge funds (as in the Thai collapse). What happens then is a massive flight of capital from the target country, and a devaluation of its currency in the floating money market, because nobody wants to be caught short with it. As the currency value plummets, the local banks cannot service their overseas loans which are tied to the value of the US dollar. They call in their own loans but by this time the country's economy is so depressed by the flight of capital that the local borrowers can't meet their obligations. What is euphemistically called in banking circles the 'non-performing loan' becomes a local plague. The local banks then look like collapsing.

At this point the debt collector for the international money-lenders, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), is sent in to 'review' the situation, and to recommend a 'bailout package'. The pretext is 'to prop up the country's economy', but what that really means is bail out the country's private banks. And where does the money for the 'bailout' come from? This is where politicians in quasi-democratic governments like Australia's join the Sting team. In munificent mode they 'pledge' billions of dollars of their taxpayers' hard-earned money... real money, backed up by sweat....to the IMF to bail out the profligate bankers in the target country. Losses by private bankers, who deserve to be driven out of business by the 'free market' they claim to espouse, are made good by hard-working taxpayers in the developed (G-7) countries. So much for the 'free market'. It's all part of the scam.

The governments who pledge their taxpayers' money don't actually deliver it in cash. They borrow it from the international bankers at interest, thereby increasing the national debt, ultimately repayable by taxpayers or through the sale of national assets like Telstra and the Snowy Mountains Scheme. In the meantime there's the interest. The interest on Australia's debt now costs the country's taxpayers around $1.4 million an HOUR. The essence of the fraud is that imaginary money borrowed from the international bankers and 'lost' by irresponsible local bankers, is 'bailed out' with real money and assets stolen from the world's taxpayers by their own governments. It is fraud and slavery on a massive scale, a scale so massive nobody would ever believe it was deliberate.

It began when the value of money was severed from the gold standard by America in 1968. This enabled almost unlimited credit 'money' to be created. The precedent for using public funds to make up private bank losses was established when the Clinton administration bailed out the Mexican 'economy' (i.e. banks) with $40 billion US taxpayers' dollars in 1995. That removed the last source of discipline from the global markets....the possibility of making a loss. As Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr., president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama wrote recently, it sent a message that bad debts could be protected from exposure to market forces if the gamblers involved had good government connections. Then they stand the chance of having their bills paid with other people's money.

The Mexican Sting was followed by a $141 billion bailout in Asia, to which Australian taxpayers were made to contribute around $5 billion. Then Russia had to be bailed out to the tune of $20 billion in 1998 alone. Now there is a possible $30 billion required for Brazil, and thereafter who knows? Japan, China, and probably Mexico again. To make sure the victims don't wake up that they are being defrauded, the sole purpose now of the Western media is to keep the people ignorant, to prevent them understanding anything of any consequence, to keep them in the dark or distracted with sex, sport, and the private lives of people like Princess Diana. Economics is portrayed as being beyond human comprehension, even of the best brains in the world. It's 'just happening'. Like the weather.

No it's not. This is fraud on a global scale: the milking of captive taxpayers by scoundrels with the help of paid liars in government and the media. Watch now for calls for a World Central Bank, which will create what American writer Anne Williamson, writing for the Internet news site WorldNetDaily, has described as "one global money monopoly that will be a final claim on [taxpayers'] national sovereignty and their wallets". She describes the world's taxpayers as 'the world's unwitting bottomless purse'. The object is "to socialize the risks of reckless banking amongst the [world's] population, while allowing the profits to be retained by, and then shared out amongst the political and economic elite".

As Doctor Goebbels said, if you're going to tell a lie, tell a big one, then nobody will believe it's a lie. The same goes for fraud. Do it on a global scale, and who would ever believe it was a Sting?

Graham Strachan's e-mail is: <mailto:bizbrief@overflow.net.au>bizbrief@overflow.net.au; some of his articles can also be found at:

http://www.overflow.net.au/~bizbrief or at http://www.gwb.com.au/gwb/news/economic

Pretty well on the mark. Explains some of what is going on very well. The only part missed is where the nations being baled out have to pledge natural resources to back up the impossible "bail-out." When the bill for the bail-out comes due, the "taxpayers" will be holding the bag, and the multinational corporations will have possession of the natural resources. When you look at the information about the "nature reserves" being set up in America, I hope you understand that this is what is being done here as well. Until you fully understand the partnership between the multinational corporations and what is referred as "governments" in the west, you will never really understand what is going on.

http://www.y2kexpos.com/main.htm Y2k Expos. Interesting site with information about Expos being set-up nationwide concerning Y2K.

http://www.y2kexpos.com/Sponsor.htm Y2k Sponsors for Expos.

ARE THE MEN IN THIS COUNTRY IN SHOCK OR SOMETHING?

by Jon Christian Ryter (BAFFauthor@aol.com)

In a message dated 12/10/98 .... I received this question:

"It seems to me that the MEN in this country should be MORE upset with what is going on - but the way they are taking all of this - seems to be like they are in SHOCK. I don't know how long it is going to be before the SHOCK wears off.

My answer:

It would seem to me that EVERY American, MAN and WOMAN should be upset, since the surrender of the United States of America to the UN will affect all of us equally.

The adage that has become so important to the pork-peddling Congressmen and Senators in their election year attempts to become everything to everyone is so true. Give the public a spot at the feeding trough, and you control them forever.

Hitler learned that lesson well. It took him 90 days to overthrow the Weimar Republic, dissolve its Constitution (which more closely resembled ours than any Constitution in history) and declare a police state.

Clearly, the government of the United States is expecting a revolution next year when it abrogates the 2nd Amendment. We can expect to see a ground war erupt through mid-America with UN "troops" arriving from Mexico and South America through that corridor, and Canada from the north. Asian assistance will come through the Chinese "port-of-call" in Los Angeles, and Russian troops will suddenly appear in North and South Carolina, Tennessee, Georgia and Alabama.

There will be a nuclear holocaust that will destroy the United States as a superpower that will occur somewhere between 2002-2006, more likely earlier than later. (While I cannot prove it, I suspect that most of the nuclear weapons that theoretically were disarmed and disassembled to reduce our nuclear arsenal, have been surrendered---intact---to the United Nations.

If so, those very weapons will be turned against us in the opening years of the new century as Americans, more and more, will begin to resist the New World Order. Jon

WAKE UP, NOW!!!

An interesting piece of information. How much of it is true? I do not know, but I certainly do not dismiss any part of it. The evidence about foreign troops being on American soil is too overwhelming, and the past history of the United States using mercenaries against Americans is ample proof of what is coming.

Where is the silver and gold Coin? It will be appropriate to repeat here that "TYRANNY IS ALWAYS CLOAKED IN COMPLEXITY." After all, we are speaking here of a "systematic scheme" that was given birth in the early 1900's, with the institution of "elastic currency" and overseas banking and lending, also known as "edge banking". Shortly thereafter, more paper, monetary obligations were circulating abroad than could be redeemed. This in turn created a balance-of-payment problem and, in large part, gave rise to the "Great Depression" of the late 1920's. The created economic condition resulted in the passage of: (1) the "Emergency Banking Relief Act" of 1933, whereby the gold Coin was TAKEN from the People; (2) the "Agricultural Adjustment Act" of 1933, whereby the private Federal Reserve banks' irredeemable (floating) paper was declared to be "legal tender" for all debts, and where marketing boards and price controls were started; and, (3) the "Gold Reserve Act" of 1934, which created an exclusively controlled Fund where the gold was deposited and held for settlement of international balance-of-payments. The "public lands" were also "withdrawn" from use and settlement during this time and fees were imposed for the use and enjoyment of natural resources (duck stamps, grazing fees, park entrance fees, etc.).

On June 12, 1934, the Office of President was given statutory authority to enter into EXECUTIVE, INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL AGREEMENTS without the consent of the Senate. Franklin D. Roosevelt used this new power to negotiate the London Agreement on Gold. The intent of the London Agreement was to "NATIONALIZE" (meaning to "take") and then to "INTERNATIONALIZE" the gold and silver Coin. The agreement could not be implemented because it would destabilize the domestic economy of the United States of America. As a result, Roosevelt sought passage of the "Gold Reserve Act" of 1934 to GIVE EFFECT to the London Agreement and other INTERNATIONAL agreements to be made in the future. Section 10(b) of the Gold Reserve Act created the "Exchange Stabilization Fund" under the "EXCLUSIVE CONTROL" of the Secretary of Treasury. Moreover, any operations or transactions taking place under this clause are "not reviewable by any other officer of the United States". The gold taken (nationalized) from circulation during the mid 1930's, was deposited in this Fund. Section 10(b) also declares that whatever is deposited in the "Exchange Stabilization Fund" SHALL REMAIN in the Fund, including any interest or other profits made from its use. THIS ACT PERMANENTLY REMOVED THE GOLD FROM CIRCULATION AMONG THE PEOPLE and CONVERTED IT TO THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF THOSE ENGAGED IN INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS! (International corporations, perhaps? - David)

The "future" INTERNATIONAL agreements did not surface until 1945, when the International Bank For Reconstruction And Development (World Bank) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) were established as sister International Organizations of the United Nations by the Bretton Woods Agreement. The United States took the gold that it nationalized (expropriated) from the People in the 1930's, and purchased voting share stocks in the World Bank and IMF. The United States was, and is, the LARGEST voting share stockholder in both the World Bank and the IMF. It is absolutely imperative to remember that when a government becomes a stockholder in any corporation, IT WAIVES ITS SOVEREIGNTY, and operates under and according to the corporate charter of the organization. The United States thus became the "alter-ego" of "The Fund" and "The Bank" under the rule of instrumentality.

By 1965, the balance-of-payments DEFICIT had grown to such immense proportions that Congress had to debase the silver Coin of the United States to pay the international debt. On March 18, 1968, via Public Law 90-269, the United States declared that there were no more funds left for the redemption of their obligations, and a few months later, Congress amended the Gold Reserve Act of 1934, which became the foundation of the "Special Drawing Rights" (SDR) accounts in the IMF.

Special Drawing Rights (SDR's) are used for many things. It has recently been used to provide funding to implement the Uruguay Round Trade Agreement in the United States, and to pay Mexico's debts after it defaulted on its international balance-of-payments. An SDR is a "blank check" written against someone else's account. Technically, an SDR is an "international letter of credit" issued by the Secretary of Treasury (a.k.a. the "Governor" of the Fund and Bank) in whatever amount he determines. The SDR is then deposited in a central bank, such as the Federal Reserve Bank. The Bank then issues the EQUIVALENT in PAPER FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES. (Not really; it is done electronically. No need to print up all that currency! - David) The funds received from the Banks are deposited in the "Exchange Stabilization Fund" where they remain at the exclusive disposal of the "Governors" of the G-7, that is, the seven corporate "Governors" of the World Bank and IMF (United Nations). The International Organizations are NOT obligated to repay the SDR, however, the funds taken out and borrowed from the central banks through the "system" become, and are, OBLIGATIONS of the Nation. When an SDR is issued against the United States, the People and businesses feel the effects through INFLATION and the DEPRECIATED PURCHASING POWER of their irredeemable paper money. As "human resources" and "institutional units", the People are held liable for the entire indebtedness, PLUS interest. Simply said, both the initial funds for the loan and the loan payments are collected through forced contributions from the People of the United States through taxation, fees, and other exaction’s. (Not exactly true; It is Contributions from United States citizens, and they are voluntary, not forced. - David)

President Clinton used the International Organizations Act to grant IUCN "immunity from suit" on January 18, 1996, via Executive Order #12986. These special privileges and immunities provide the IUCN and its agents with the equivalent of a "Title of Nobility" which is prohibited by the Constitution for the United States of America. It is to be noted that the members of IUCN still use FAMILIAR DOMESTIC front names such as "U.S." Forest Service, "U.S." Fish and Wildlife Service, "U.S." Bureau of Land Management, "U.S." Environmental Protection Agency, "U.S." Park Service, and "U.S." NOAA and National Marine Fisheries Service, etc. Much of the public is deceived as to who the organizations and agents REALLY ARE and what their REAL AGENDA and program IS. The facts and law of the situation indicate that all of these so-called "U.S. Agencies" are each, DIRECTED, CONTROLLED, FINANCED AND SUBSIDIZED by AGENTS OF A FOREIGN PRINCIPAL, and have NOTHING to do with the "United States of America", as you and I know it.

As stated in the IUCN's book entitled, "The Easement As A Conservation Technique" ...."Broadly speaking, the need for an approach like that permitted by CONSERVATION EASEMENTS is occasioned by limited OBJECTIVES OF LAND-USE CONTROL, the achievement of which does not require assumption of full proprietary ownership of the land. THIS NEED ARISES FOR GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES WHEN THE OBJECTIVES ARE BEYOND THEIR POWER to impose sufficient restrictions on property WITHOUT COMPENSATION.... The United States federal and state constitutions require 'just compensation' to be paid to a landowner whose property has been EXPROPRIATED or condemned for public purposes."

The plans, programs, collaborative projects, etc., are many times referred to as "INTERGOVERNMENTAL" activities. The "Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, Section 8; Money and Finance Act of 1982, Chapter 65; and the International Forestry Act of 1990" -- ALL OF THESE are examples of "INTERGOVERNMENTAL" operations. The media buzzword "intergovernmental" has a definition and meaning that is quite different from what it conveys to the mind of most people. The term "Intergovernmental" is defined in the Vienna Convention On The Law Of Treaties, Part I, Article 2, Section 1(i) as: "'INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION' means an intergovernmental organization." The use of benign words that have hidden meanings are frequently intended to persuade the ignorant to give their tacit consent.

The "strategic plan" of the International Organizations is a SUBJUGATION PROCESS and is more on the order of the "unconventional warfare" operations of the Agency for International Development (USAID), which is misrepresented as being a "U.S." Agency. The A.I.D. is directly connected to The World Bank and International Monetary Fund and oversees and controls THE BANK'S INTERESTS in the host recipient country (THESE ARE U.N. OPERATIONS). It also operates as a paramilitary support unit for U.N. multinational military operations (see: 22 USC 287d) and is sometimes referred to as the "country team."

The international systematic scheme was devised and stealthily implemented over the course of the last 100 years or more. This scheme is nothing more or less than a ploy to nationalize, then internationalize and expropriate property and rights to property under the guise of "saving the earth" and "endangered species". Nationalization and expropriation is AGAINST THE LAW OF NATIONS and the declared Public Policy of the United States. Public Law 88-205, 77 Stat. 386, 387, Section 602(e). The INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS are also prohibited by Congress from seriously impairing the economic stability of the United States, Public Law 472, 62 Stat. 137, or adversely affecting production in the United States, Public Law 99-190, 99 Stat. 1306, Section 523. ANY ACTIVITY WHICH VIOLATES THE PUBLIC POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES IS CONSIDERED AS VOID AND UNENFORCEABLE. (See: 54 Am Jur 2d, "Money", Section 35).

The "Land Acquisition" program (Act of March 1, 1911, 36 Stat. 961, as amended, Public Law 94-588, 90 Stat. 2949, Section 17) coupled with other Acts such as the "Endangered Species Act" (Public Law 93-205, 87 Stat. 884) have been systematically used as an ILLEGAL "EMINENT DOMAIN" proceeding, and have been wrongfully and fraudulently used to nationalize, expropriate and internationalize large amounts of valuable property belonging to the Citizens and others. The International organizations under the U.N. have unlawfully and fraudulently used these sequestered private and public lands and natural resources as COLLATERAL in the "loan portfolios" of international lending institutions, which are under the direction and control of the alien, corporate "Governor" of The Fund and The Bank, Robert Rubin and his predecessors, Lloyd Bentsen and Nicholas Brady (also "known" as the "Secretary of Treasury"), including, but not limited to, The International Bank For Reconstruction and Development, the Inter-America Development Bank, The African Development Bank, The Asian Development Bank, The African Development Fund, The Export-Import Bank, and their many subsidiary financial institutions. The "Brady Plan" was devised and implemented to insure and guarantee international lending institutions from losses because of their own cupidity and unsafe and unsound banking practices. Public Law 98-181, 97 Stat. 1153, House Report 98-175, pg. 1906. THE DEBTS AND LOSSES OF THESE INTERNATIONAL AND PRIVATE LENDING INSTITUTIONS (22 USC 286d) WERE PASSED OFF ON THE "U.S. TAXPAYER." As recorded in the Congressional "Hearing Before The Subcommittee On International Economic Policy And Trade", April 19, 1989, concerning the "INTERNATIONAL DEBT CRISIS: A REVIEW OF THE BRADY PLAN", at page 3:

"In the second place, I don't think the AMERICA TAXPAYER SHOULD HAVE TO ASSUME THE RISK FOR THE COMMERCIAL BANKS. Under the Brady Plan, if the debtor nations default on their reduced loans, the IMF and the World Bank will offset the losses incurred by the commercial banks. BUT AS WE ALL KNOW, U.S. TAXPAYERS CONTRIBUTE 20 PERCENT OF THE FUNDS TO THE IMF AND THE WORLD BANK. So if the debtor nations default on their refinanced loans, THE U.S. TAXPAYERS WILL HAVE TO PICK UP A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THE TAB. The taxpayers did not share in the profits in the 1970's made by the commercial banks on their loans to Third World Countries. Why, then, should the taxpayers have to absorb some of the banks' losses?"

The "Plan" and underlying scheme is meant as a revenue raising measure for FOREIGN PRINCIPALS AND POWERS and to secure international lending institutions and organizations from losses. Such activity has been PROHIBITED since the time of Lord Mansfield, 54 Am Jur 2d, "Money", Section 35, and is a CRIMINAL ACT under 18 USC 219 & 951. NO OFFICER, EMPLOYEE OR AGENT OF THE UNITED STATES CAN ACT AS AN AGENT OF A FOREIGN PRINCIPAL. The underlying international scheme is not "for the general Welfare and common defense", nor is it meant to pay the debts of the United States and is therefore OUTSIDE of the DOMESTIC revenue raising Powers of Congress, Article I, Section 8, Clause 1. END OF EXCERPTS

This is only part of the sordid story. /s/ John R. Prukop

CCW Coalition: Citizens For A Constitutional Washington

John R. Prukop, Executive Director

11910-C Meridian Ave. E., #142, Puyallup, Washington 98373

TEL: (253) 840-8071 FAX: (253) 840-8074 e-mail: ccw@wolfenet.com

It is very difficult to talk to men like John Prukop. They know so much, that it is virtually impossible to get them to look at other information which does not fit into the pigeon holes they have created for information. About the Constitution, John...

As I said at the beginning, food, anyone?

Subject: Punishment for Hoarding Food / Storing Food

What Do Executive Orders Say About Storing? Updated 12 November 1998

DISCLAIMER: Any findings of law or conclusions reached are those made by the user, and information provided on Noah's Ark concerning state or federal law is for information and research purposes only and not to be construed as legal advice.

Can Our Government Really Tell Us How Much Food and Supplies We Can Keep?

The short answer is YES, in a roundabout way. Due to numerous discussions questioning the existence of federal anti-hoarding legislation, I wanted to see if such Executive Orders had been written. First and foremost, we do not want to suggest people store items beyond "legal limits" if such limits did exist. Second, we want to separate fact from rumor buzzing around the Internet which has only added to the confusion. This search has yielded no federal legislation aimed directly at prohibiting food storage. But this does not mean "hoarding" is legal, and here's why.

So What Exactly Is An Executive Order?

Executive Orders (EO) have been used by presidents since the days of George Washington. The first EO addressed Washington's normal household expenses which were being accepted and paid by the Treasury Department. Pretty innocuous. The FBI was formed under an executive order by Teddy Roosevelt on July 26, 1908. The first time it was used to make a law was in 1916 by President Woodrow Wilson (Not strictly true. Lincoln gave Wilson lessons. - David). It was said to be an 'emergency' measure and Congress was encouraged to validate it. They did, and now the door was now open to ignore the Constitution. This is the same method used by Franklin Roosevelt in 1933 to close all the banks in the country. Americans were ordered to turn in all their gold to local banks.

The general purpose of an executive order is to provide the President with a mechanism for executing laws passed by Congress, not control of lives. These EOs are issued by the President as directives to agencies responsible for implementing laws.

Since the U.S. Constitution places responsibility for executing laws in the hands of the President, issuing EOs is an appropriate means of carrying out the responsibilities IF they are within the bounds of the Constitution. President Kennedy, during his short time in office, signed into law 214 Executive Orders. Numerous Kennedy EOs have brought about positive changes for the American people such as:

* 11063 - Equal Opportunity in Housing

* 10914 - Food Distribution to Needy Families

* 11022 - Council on Aging

* 11925 - Equal Opportunity in Employment

These Kennedy EOs have a distinctly different flavor though, aimed at preserving individual rights, not usurping them. Many EOs overstep Constitutional authority and consequently, are an exercise of unconstitutional power.

One of the worst offenders is EO #13083 dubbed the "Federalism EO" which revokes Ronald Reagan's EO #12612. Reagan attempted to address government's slow creep into our lives, but with the signing of Clinton's EO #13083, Reagan's step back toward progress has been amputated. Read the Nation's Governors Blast Clinton on EO #13083. Score "1" for The People! (Not true. - David)

"Federalism" is defined as the relationship of the states to the federal government and the distribution of power between the two as established by the Constitution. It doesn't take blind Freddy to realize these rights have greatly been eroded since Clinton took office.

It's important to recognize the federal government came into existence with permission (ratification of the Constitution) granted by the states. The concept was that the federal government would oversee national defense, international trade agreements and other foreign affairs, but the states would retain the right to manage their own internal affairs. The limits imposed by this concept of "Federalism" is clearly stated in the Tenth Amendment.

This is where the problem lies. Power is, without question, being removed from the states and its people. So Where Do Anti-Hoarding Laws Come In?

These ideas of anti-hoarding legislation may have stemmed from two areas of confusion:

First is from Executive Orders in place dating back to 1939 which Clinton has grouped together under one order, EO #12919 released on June 6, 1994. The following EOs all fall under EO#12919:

10995--Federal seizure of all communications media in the United States;

10997--Federal seizure of all electric power, fuels, minerals, public and private;

10998--Federal seizure of all food supplies and resources, public and private and all farms and equipment;

10999--Federal seizure of all means of transportation, including cars, trucks, or vehicles of any kind and total control over all highways, seaports and water ways;

11000--Federal seizure of American people for work forces under federal supervision, including the splitting up of families if the government so desires;

11001--Federal seizure of all health, education and welfare facilities, both public and private;

11002--Empowers the Postmaster General to register all men, women and children in the United States of America;

11003--Federal seizure of all airports and aircraft;

11004--Federal seizure of all housing and finances and authority to establish forced relocation. Authority to designate areas to be abandoned as "unsafe," establish new locations for the populations, relocate communities, build new housing with public funds;

11005--Seizure of all railroads, inland waterways and storage facilities, both public and private;

11051--Provides FEMA complete authorization to put above orders into effect in times of increased international tension of economic or financial crisis (FEMA will be in control in case of "National Emergency").

These EOs are not aimed at anti-hoarding but rather at seizure or confiscation of items and facilities "to provide a state of readiness in these resource areas with respect to all conditions of national emergency, including attack upon the United States." You'll find most 'seizure' legislation ends with this phrase. These Executive Orders don't define what specifically constitutes a national emergency and maybe this is as it should be. The specifics on hoarding are left up to the individual states.

There are anti-hoarding references under Title 50 War And National Defense, Section 2072. Stripping off the legalese, it says no one shall accumulate goods in excess of "reasonable amounts" for business, personal or home consumption which could become scarce, "goods" to be designated by the President. Penalties for doing so may result in fines of not more than $10,000 and/or one year imprisonment.

Since Title 50 is about expire September 30, 1998, does this mean we are home-free? Not with the implementation of EO #13083, the "Federalism" EO, and this could be one explanation for its existence. There is also state anti-hoarding legislation. The bases are pretty well covered.

EO #11051 is interesting; it authorizes FEMA near-total power in times of crisis. There's been lots of discussion on the Internet regarding the excessive control that FEMA has been granted and it was pointedly commented upon in July's world premiere movie release of the "X-Files".

FEMA was created by President Carter under Executive Order #12148. Its legal authorization is Title 42, United States Code 5121 (42 USC Sec. 5121) called the "Stafford Act." During activation of Executive Orders, FEMA answers only to the National Security Council which answers only to the President. Once these powers are invoked, not even Congress can intervene or countermand them for six months.

What Clinton, or Reagan, or any other president did when writing an EO, was to direct his Cabinet member(s), in this case FEMA, to take specific action to carry out the directives of the EO. Where Jimmy Carter had created FEMA by Executive Order in 1979, Robert Safford took it a step further and pushed a bill through in 1988 that made it law. This legislation made FEMA a bonafide department, just like Justice. Where the EO is critical to the USC (United States Code) and Title 50, is in interpreting the law how that department or FEMA, should conduct itself when declaring they will tell the states, national guard, military forces, or whoever, to confiscate extra hoarded food or medical supplies or whatever...

We must also consider any PDD (Presidential Decision Directives). O.K., so who will determine how much food we have in our house - why FEMA of course. And the amount depends on the need of all... not your needs or my needs... but the "welfare" of the needy.

Bottom line? Clinton delegated authority to FEMA to run the show however it sees fit if he declares a national emergency. Who will determine how much food we can have in our house? FEMA. And the amount depends on the needs of all... not your needs or my needs... but the "welfare" of the needy.

Many people have balked about FEMA's extensive authority, but think about it, what other agency has the manpower to cover and implement aid? As it is, FEMA still does not have the manpower to control every city all over the US in times of crisis. Chances are they would only be dispatched to larger metropolitan areas where more crowd control might be needed. Lots of people suggest darker reasons for their existence, but this site is only addressing anti-hoarding legislation, nothing else.

EO #11051 covering "economic or financial crisis" certainly would have Y2K implications as well. An emergency does not have to be defined as another Hurricane Hugo or massive Midwestern flooding.

The other area where anti-hoarding confusion might have arisen is state legislation. Most states have chosen to enact their own anti-hoarding laws. That means some states may not have such laws, others do and not all are uniform. However, uniformity of state law is something governors are striving for under the Interstate Compact Agreement. The Compact Agreements, much like Executive Orders for the president, really don't require voters' input. They are law if the legislature doesn't object, much like Congress that has 30 days to object to an EO before it becomes law.

At times of "declared emergencies", each governor cedes (gives over) authority of his/her state to the federal government. When a governor declares it for his state, he becomes the delegated representative of the federal government according to an Interstate Compact Agreement. Bottom line, even though federal legislation does not directly address anti-hoarding, goods can be seized if national circumstances are felt to warrant it whether or not amounts stored are deemed excessive in your state's eyes.

Since these anti-hoarding laws are not federal in nature, one would need to look at Titles for his/her own state. These statutes should be located under Public Safety laws or titles. For specific URL's go to State Legislation Locator. To locate information for your state, look for laws about:

* Blood Typing

* Disaster Preparedness

* Emergencies

* Hoarding

* Injections

* Martial Law

* Militia

* National Guard

* Public Safety or Public Welfare

* State Militia

* State Police Force

For Hawaii, this information will be found in Title 10 under "Public Safety". It is located after legislation on militias, state guard troops, etc. Then you find the jewel... In Hawaii you are considered a "hoarder" if you have more than one week's provisions on hand BUT you have to dig to uncover this information. Here is a specific example:

"HAWAII REVISED STATUTES REVISED 1997, Title 10:

(1) Prevention of hoarding, waste, etc. To the extent necessary to prevent hoarding, waste, or destruction of materials, supplies, commodities, accommodations, facilities, and services, to effectuate equitable distribution thereof, or to establish priorities therein as the public welfare may require, to investigate, and any other law to the contrary notwithstanding, to regulate or prohibit, by means of licensing, rationing, or otherwise, the storage, transportation, use, possession, maintenance, furnishing, sale, or distribution thereof, and any business or any transaction related thereto."

In the actual Title document for Hawaii, you will not find the specifics for what length of time constitutes "hoarding" nor an amount. Instead, you must look at the committee notes which describes it as the opinion that one week's supplies per person is considered adequate food provisions. It is not spelled out what those provisions shall consist of or how much is considered "adequate" until you get to the committee notes.

You will probably have to "dig" for the committee notes as well. Lynn Shaffer, our legislative interpreter, explains committee notes this way. "When the legislature agrees that a law or statute is needed to effect certain governmental goals to prohibit or encourage civilians to respond in a particular way, that statute has attached to it (you will see it printed in the law books) what is called "committee notes." The courts, when making a determination of how the statute is to be interpreted and applied to the case before it, looks to "legislative intent" or what was recorded in the committee's notes when the bill was meandering its way through the legislative process."

Again using Hawaii's Titles as an example, any items in excess of what legislation has deemed appropriate to store (in Hawaii's case any amount over 1 week) is subject to forfeiture and may be confiscated, ordered destroyed or may be redistributed for public use. See exact text below:

"128-28 Forfeitures. The forfeiture of any property unlawfully possessed, pursuant to paragraph (2) of section 128-8, may be adjudged upon conviction of the offender found to be unlawfully in possession of the same, where no person other than the offender is entitled to notice and hearing with respect to the forfeiture, or the forfeiture may be enforced by an appropriate civil proceeding brought in the name of the State. The district courts and circuit courts shall have concurrent jurisdiction of the civil proceedings. Any property forfeited as provided in this section may be ordered destroyed, or may be ordered delivered for public use to such agency as shall be designated by the governor or the governor's representative, or may be ordered sold, wholly or partially, for the account of the State. [L 1951, c 268, pt of 2; RL 1955, 359-25; HRS 128- 28; am imp L 1984, c 90, 1]"

Before you say "I'm outta here! Book me on the next flight to Australia!", let me share a couple tidbits with you. Asking Stan where one might find anti-hoarding legislation for Australia he replied, " it probably isn't available to the public if it exists."

It is not just Americans who may be under the gun for seizure activities by the government. Right here, right now in Ballarat, three things have come to light recently:

1. If rain becomes scarce again, there is legislation waiting to be signed which will put usage taps on private water bores on private property. Again this is pending legislation since rain has not become critical in Ballarat - yet. Legislators are hesitant to pass this bill as it will be met with much resistance from the farming community, but it's in the wings.

2. Water bores on private property must be registered with the shire and aerial photos are taken of all bores and dam reservoirs.

3. This last piece of interesting news was shared by our neighbor who has lived in Ballarat for decades. It should be the least popular measure so far. If another drought came to this area, private water tanks will be metered and taxed for usage! It's a good thing it wasn't fly season as hearing this made my jaw hit the pavement. The alternate plan, equally unpalatable, is to assess current rainfall levels and tax the owner by the size his tank(s)!

What I think of this is not printable on the Net. Here we've purchased the property, the tanks themselves and paid for installation of same and filled them with FREE rainwater for which we may be taxed for our prudence. This is truly amazing since as I write this section, we're gazing at moss growing on our trees and brick sidewalks. So what really is being set up?

Before you think America has gone to hell with rights' forfeitures, remember your friends across the ocean. America is no more ridiculous than this, if you discount Zippergate.

By now, many of you in other countries may be wondering what your own legislation says about hoarding. If you have documentable information, we will be happy to upload it to this page, but I simply don't have access to it. It was "interesting" enough navigating the U.S. legislation, but imagine being a "dern furiner" ("darned foreigner") trying to find information in another country. Any material may be submitted anonymously but hearsay will not be accepted.

EOs have not been widely publicized but you can get copies of them. They are all printed in the U.S. Federal Register and have the force of law when activated by a president. You can contact your congressman for information on how to get copies of these EOs, or check your local library.

What Has YOUR State Legislated On Food Storage?

As regards Title 50, since this piece brought up the subject, you may find this of interest;

Subject: POISONING CIVILIANS IS LEGAL!

IAHF LIST: Someone just asked me if I had any proof that the Feds have declared war on the American people. Ian Goddard has just dug up proof --- right in the U.S.Code...... the military can LEGALLY spray us with biological weapons as long as local civilian officials are notified 30 days in advance. Check this out... Nice, eh?? Now, dammit, if you don't arm yourself, and take other precautions, don't say I didn't try to warn you.

I'm still waiting for USCMike1@aol.com to get us more inf. on how we can defend against Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical attacks. Hopefully he'll get back to us soon with more information. A gas mask isn't sufficient. There’s some sort of protective full body suit that you have to also wear, but USCMike still hasn't told me where to get these, and I'm hoping he will and that he'll provide more information about this.

From: I-am@symmetry.net

Date: Mon., 25 Jan 1999 19:16:11 -0500 To: jham@iahf.com

Subject: POISONING CIVILIANS IS LEGAL!

U.S. Code 50 (Chapter 32, Section 1520(b)1)) states that the Department of Defense MAY "conduct any test or experiment involving the use of any chemical or biological agent on civilian populations" only if the DoD notifies "local civilian officials" 30 days before testing chemical or biological agents on U.S. civilians.

So you have the right to have some "civilian officials" notified before you're used in bio-war experiments. So we all have the legal right to be a Guinea pig without knowing, so long as some officials know.

Read this law at the Cornell University library:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/1520.html

This law was added to the U.S. Code in 1996 (Not true. It has been on the books a long time, but was updated in 1996. - David). Why would federal law define a right for the DoD to "conduct any test or experiment involving the use of any chemical or biological agent on civilian populations" (granted a few officials know) if no such tests and experiments were planned? It stands to reason that they are planned! Is this connected to reports of sickening USAF-jet-spray?

USAF Jets Said To Be Spraying Something That Sickens:

http://ens.lycos.com/ens/jan99/1999L-01-12-01.html

http://ens.lycos.com/ens/jan99/1999L-01-08-05.html

Visit Ian Williams Goddard --------> http://Ian.Goddard.net

GODDARD'S JOURNAL: http://www.erols.com/igoddard/journal.htm

Well, I am sorry to say that the experiments have been going on for a long time. I have read two reports on tests done, one in Salt Lake City and the other in Albuquerque, New Mexico. In both cases, some deaths probably resulted from the release of a low grade flu bug as a test in the vectoring of germs through an unaware population. I am sure the tests were of interest, to someone, and probably made some money for local hospitals and doctors, as well as reinforced the perception in the minds of people of the "necessity" of inoculations. You see, there is usually more to a story than the first glance.

The important thing about this is to think about the mind set of people who can reduce something like this to law, and expect that it will be obeyed! And it tells you volumes about those who do obey it, as well. The quickest way to eliminate population is to starve it to death, but, if you help it along with some timely releases of disease vectors after the population is weak, you can dramatically speed up the process.

And take this into account; when you register to vote, when you join in the discussions about how to "fix" Washington, DC, when you pay your "taxes", you are accepting responsibility for what is happening in Washington, DC. They have no force and effect except that people like you and I participate in their fraud.

To understand America today, it is absolutely necessary to study this type of information. This is what reveals that what is happening, for instance, with education in America is no accident. It has been carefully planned to occur exactly as it is happening in the government schools. Lest we forget, everything that we think is wrong and going wrong with America matches up with the desires of some group of men somewhere who are altering things to their own benefit. Lest we forget... And the following is a perfect illustration. The LOVE of money is the root of ALL evil.

From: Patricia Neill <pnpj@db1.cc.rochester.edu>

Subject: L&J: [Fwd: NEW INF. ON "NUKIN' A HOT DOG" FOR LUNCH]

To: jad@lcuxlm.lucent.COM

I have been worried about harmful effects of microwave food, as well as irradiated foods. Certainly there can be splitting of molecules to produce abnormal chemical effects. If a protein is split into peptides, perhaps some of them could be bioactive. Even neurotransmitters could be possible? Especially if the food is not completely digested enzymatically.

From: BOBWORN@aol.com Subject: NEW INF. ON "NUKIN' A HOT DOG" FOR LUNCH To: BILLCLINTON@HATETHEMILITARY.COM

Message-id: <88dd83e5.36ae9bef@aol.com>

From Trufax.org (Leading Edge International)

-MICROWAVE COOKING?? IS IT DANGEROUS??

Hans Hertel is the first scientist to conceive of and carry out a quality study on the effects of microwaved nutrients on the blood and physiology of human beings. This small but well-controlled study pointed the firm finger at a degenerative force of microwave ovens and the food produced in them. The conclusion was clear: microwave cooking changed the nutrients so that changes took place in the participants' blood; these were not healthy changes but were changes that could cause deterioration in the human systems. Working with Bernard H. Blanc of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology and the University Institute for Biochemistry, Hertel not only conceived of the study and carried it out, he was one of eight participants. In 1991 Hans Ulrich Hertel and a Lausanne University professor published a research paper indicating that food cooked in microwave ovens could pose a greater risk to health than food cooked by conventional means.

Significant changes were discovered in the blood of the volunteers who consumed foods cooked in the microwave oven. These changes included a decrease in all hemoglobin values and cholesterol values, especially the HDL (good cholesterol) and LDL (bad cholesterol) values and ratio. Lymphocytes (white blood cells) showed a more distinct short-term decrease following the intake of microwaved food than after the intake of all the other variants. Each of these indicators point in a direction away from robust health and toward degeneration. Additionally, there was a highly significant association between the amount of microwave energy in the test foods and the luminous power of luminescent bacteria exposed to serum from test persons who ate that food. This led Hertel to the conclusion that such technically derived energies may, indeed, be passed along to man inductively via consumption of microwaved food.

An article appeared in issue number 19 of the Journal Franz Weber in which it was stated that the consumption of food cooked in microwave ovens had cancer-type effects on the blood. The article was followed by the research paper itself.

On 7 August 1992 the Swiss Association of Manufacturers and Suppliers of Household Appliances brought an action against the applicant in the Canton of Berne Commercial Court. It produced an expert report by a professor at Zürich Federal Institute of Technology from which it appeared that the applicant's research was worthless and his findings untenable.

As soon as Hertel and Blanc announced their results, the hammer of authority slammed down on them. A powerful trade organization, the Swiss Association of Dealers for Electroapparati for Households and Industry, known simply as FEA, struck swiftly. They forced the President of the Court of Seftigen, Kanton Bern, to issue a 'gag order' against Hertel and Blanc. The attack was so ferocious that Blanc quickly recanted his support-but it was too late. He had already put into writing his views on the validity of the studies where he concurred with the opinion that microwaved food caused the blood abnormalities. Hertel stood his ground, and today is steadfastly demanding his rights to a trial. Preliminary hearings on the matter have been appealed to higher courts, and it's quite obvious the powers that be do not want a 'show trial' to erupt on this issue.

In March 1993, the court handed down this decision based upon the complaint of the FEA: "Consideration. 1. Request from the plaintiff (FEA) to prohibit the defendant (Dr. Ing. Hans Hertel) from declaring that food prepared in the microwave oven shall be dangerous to health and lead to changes in the blood of consumers, giving reference to pathologic troubles as also indicative for the beginning of a cancerous process. The defendant shall be prohibited from repeating such a statement in publications and in public talks by punishment laid down in the law.

However, in 1998 that decision was reversed. In a judgment delivered at Strasbourg on 25 August 1998 in the case of Hertel v. Switzerland, the European Court of Human Rights held that there had been a violation of Hertel's rights in the 1993 decision. Under Article 50 of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant a specified sum for legal costs and expenses.

The European Court of Human Rights decided that the "gag order" issued by the Swiss courts against the Bernese scientist prohibiting him from declaring that microwave ovens are dangerous to health was contrary to the right to freedom of expression. In addition, Switzerland was sentenced to pay compensation of F-40,000. This decision is to put an end to judicial censorship of persons drawing attention to the health hazards of certain products.

What is really interesting in this piece is that this information has been known in Russia and other nations famous for their lack of regard for their own people, and microwaves are illegal there, as well as other areas of the world where the truth is very often much more available. I have not owned a micro-wave for many years, and would never consider eating food from one; not even a cup of water nuked in one!

Foundation for Incurable Diseases

28 Overland Avenue, Cranston, RI 02910 (401) 942-8399 voice/fax -

please limit faxes to 2 pgs. (no cover needed)

06 January 1998 Release No.: 980106

For Immediate Release: CURE FOR AIDS AT HAND!

The Foundation for Incurable Diseases is pleased to announce it has come to an agreement with Dr. Marvin Antelman of Antelman Technologies, which will provide to those suffering from AIDS a cure for little or no cost! (Don’t hold your breathe until this comes to pass in the face of the opposition from the drug companies. By the way, they have been curing AIDS in France for over a decade using Ozone. - David)

Dr. Antelman has developed Tetrasil ® (tetrasilver tetroxide) which is a patented bioinorganic antipathogenic molecular crystal device. Tetrasil kills pathogens by electrocuting them!

Dr. Antelman, whose work throughout the years has varied from innovative designs for nuclear submarine reactors and smart card batteries, discovered that silver (Ag) actually i