CONTRAS BROUGHT NEVER ENDING WAR DESTROYING ANY AND/OR ALL "ALLIES" ALLIANCES

The first paragraph is taken from the well researched (By David A. Newby & "Grandma") article found at the immediately below url. This entire article explains (in more in-depth research than we could ever accomplish) much of the background behind "it's never been anything other than" the (in)corporation of the government(s), state and national, which (in)corporation "trickled down" to local governments, as well. 

The brunt of the below is from another "Grandma", a lady that's done plenty of great research and a lot of that research involved living through it. What she presents, puts "legs" on/to the above research of history. In light of all of this information, can there be any doubt as to the corporate status of the state and national governments and that they consider themselves the owners of this nation, it's people and resources? pjr

[A must read]

Old Secrets and Lies: Why is Chicago the center of the NWO? http://oldsecretsandlies.blogspot.com/2008/10/why-is-chicago-center-of-nwo.html

Quoting the 11th Edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica from 1911:
"In the year 1670, Charles II granted a charter to Prince Rupert and seventeen other noblemen and gentlemen, incorporati[ng] them as the 'Governor and Company of Adventures of England trading into Hudson's Bay', securing to them the "sole trade and commerce of all those seas, straits, bays, rivers, lake, creeks and streams in whatever latitude they shall be, that lie within the entrance of the straits commonly called Hudson's Straits, together with all lands and territories upon the countries, coasts and islands of the seas, bays, & aforesaid, that are not already actually possessed by or granted to any of our subjects, or possessed by the subjects of any other Christian prince or state".

---

From: V.K.Durham@comcast.net
To: V.K.Durham@comcast.net
Sent: 3/17/2013 8:48:51 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time
Subj: CONTRAS BROUGHT NEVER ENDING WAR DESTROYING ANY AND/OR ALL "ALLIES" ALLIANCES THIS NATION PREVIOUSLY ENJOYED! I'd say that the "alliances" are completely gone!!

BEFORE WE FORGET: BABY SKULLS OF SAN SALVADORE: Chile confronts past with new museum

Posted By: watcher51445 [Send E-Mail]
Date: Sunday, 4-Apr-2010 07:44:51

In Response To: bestcyrano.org: Chile confronts past with new museum (watcher51445)

 

For many years there has been an ongoing expose and tracking of the Carter-Ronald Reagan-Kissinger-Bush-Clinton-Bush-
Obama "Contras".. have you watched this Rev James Manning - Obama was a CIA Agent http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?noframes;read=168361
CONTRAct on America? http://www.theantechamber.net/XArchives/Contra.htm
Now watch the following video it's no different than what happened in San Salvadore
The Video The USA Army Doesn't Want You To See
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/members/forum.cgi?read=168357
This 24-7 'tracking' the final leg of the Carter-Reagan "Contras" and the Global Banking, Financing and Economic "Hostage" Crisis a nearly accomplished 'fete' accompli' to finish off the Banking and Financial Structure of "Civilized Societies".. which the Black Swan, Black Ops Financial Terrorism generated with "Counterfeit "U.S." Collateralized U.S. Debt Obligations.
This Financial Aggression of the Contras did not end in Latin America.. It moved to North America as 'the president's men' took the Title 38 Oath to the President as they became our U.S. House and Senate Members, our Judge's on the Bench's of the Courts of Law belonging to WE the People who sat there on those bench's denying the American People the "Protection of THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE and "SAVINGS CLAUSE" of the Law of the Land as the Law of the Sea washed over every home, farm, business and Infra-Structure in this Nation of ours..
Our lands, mineral rights, water rights, highways, waterways, rail-roads etc.. as you can see for yourself in Executive Order 12803 of President G.H.W. Bush (#41) quoting source: Executive Order 12803 - Infrastructure Privatization
April 30, 1992 http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=23625
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to ensure that the United States achieves the most beneficial economic use of its resources, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Definitions. For purposes of this order: (a) "Privatization" means the disposition or transfer of an infrastructure asset, such as by sale or by long-term lease, from a State or local government to a private party.
(b) "Infrastructure asset" means any asset financed in whole or in part by the Federal Government and needed for the functioning of the economy. Examples of such assets include, but are not limited to: roads, tunnels, bridges, electricity supply facilities, mass transit, rail transportation, airports, ports. waterways, water supply facilities, recycling and wastewater treatment facilities, solid waste disposal facilities, housing, schools, prisons, and hospitals.
(c) "Originally authorized purposes" means the general objectives of the original grant program; however, the term is not intended to include every condition requires for a grantee to have obtained the original grant.
(d) "Transfer price" means: (i) the amount paid or to be paid by a private party for an infrastructure asset, if the asset is transferred as a result of a competitive bidding; of (ii) the appraised value of an infrastructure asset, as determined by the head of the executive department or agency and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, if the asset is not transferred as a result of competitive bidding.
(e) "State and local governments" means the government of any state of the United States, the District of Columbia, any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States, and any country, municipality, city, town, township, local public authority, school district, special district, intrastate district, regional or interstate governmental entity, council of governments, and any agency or instrumentality of a local government, and any federally recognized Indian Tribe.
Sec. 2. Fundamental Principles. Executive departments and agencies shall be guided by the following objectives and principles: (a) Adequate and well-maintained infrastructure is critical to economic growth. Consistent with the principles of federalism enumerated in Executive Order No. 12612, and in order to allow the private sector to provide for infrastructure modernization and expansion, State and local governments should have greater freedom to privatize infrastructure assets.
)(b) Private enterprise and competitively driven improvements are the foundation of our Nation's economy and economic growth. Federal financing of infrastructure assets should not act as a barrier to the achievement of economic efficiencies through additional private market financing or competitive practices, or both.
(c) State and local governments are in the best position to assess the respond to local needs. State and local governments should, subject to assuring continued compliance with Federal requirements that public use be on reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms, have maximum possible freedom to make decisions concerning the maintenance and disposition of their federally financed infrastructure assets.
(d) User fees are generally more efficient than general taxes as a means to support infrastructure assets. Privatization transactions should be structured so as not to result in unreasonable increases in charges to users.
Sec. 3. Privatization Initiative. To the extent permitted by law, the head of each executive department and agency shall undertake the following actions: (a) Review those procedures affecting the management and disposition of federally financed infrastructure assets owned by State and local governments and modify those procedures to encourage appropriate privatization of such assets consistent with this order;
(b) Assist State and local governments in their efforts to advance the objectives of this order; and
(c) Approve State and local governments' requests to privatize infrastructure assets, consistent with the criteria in section 4 of this order and, where necessary, grant exceptions to the disposition requirements of the "Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments" common rule, or other relevant rules or regulations, for infrastructure assets; provided that the transfer price shall be distributed, as paid, in the following manner: (i) State and local governments shall first recoup in full the unadjusted dollar amount of their portion of total project costs (including any transaction and fix-up costs they incur) associated with the infrastructure assets involved; (ii) if proceeds remain, then the Federal Government shall recoup in full the amount of Federal grant awards associated with the infrastructure assets, less the applicable share of accumulated depreciation on such asset (calculating using the Internal Revenue Service accelerated depreciation schedule for the categories of assets in question); and (iii) finally, the State and local governments shall keep any remaining proceeds,
Sec. 4. Criteria. To the extent permitted by law, the head of an executive department or agency shall approve a request in accordance with section 3(c) of this order only if the grantee: (a) Agrees to use the proceeds described in section 3(c)(iii) of this order only for investment in additional infrastructure assets (after public notice of the proposed investment), or for debt or tax reduction; and
(b) Demonstrates that a market mechanism, legally enforceable agreement, or regulatory mechanism will ensure that: (i) the infrastructure asset or assets will continue to be used for their originally authorized purposes, as long as needed for those purposes, even if the purchaser becomes insolvent or is otherwise hindered from fulfilling the originally authorized purposes; and (ii) user charges will be consistent with any current Federal conditions that protect users and the public by limiting the charges.
Sec. 5. Government-wide Coordination and Review. In implementing Executive Order Nos. 12291 and 12498 and OMB Circular No. A-19, the Office of Management and Budget, to the extent permitted by law and consistent with the provisions of those authorities, shall take action to ensure that the policies of the executive department and agencies are consistent with the principles, critiera, and requirements of this order. The Office of Management and Budget shall review the results of implementing this order and report thereon to the President 1 year after the date of this order.
Sec. 6. Preservation of Existing Authority. Nothing in this order is in any intended to limit any existing authority of the heads of executive departments and agencies to approve privatization proposals that are otherwise consistent with law.
Sec. 7. Judicial Review. This order is intended only to improve the internal management of the executive branch, and is not intended to create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable by a party against the United States, it agencies or instrumentalities, its officers or employees, or any other person.
George Bush
The White House,
April 30, 1992. [end quote]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's take a look at Executive Order 12803's "FEDERALIZATION" In implementing Executive Order Nos. 12291 and 12498 and OMB Circular No. A-19, the Office of Management and Budget, to the extent permitted by law and consistent with the provisions of those authorities,
Executive Order 12612--Federalism
Source: The provisions of Executive Order 12612 of Oct. 26, 1987, appear at 52 FR 41685, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 252, unless otherwise noted.
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, and in order to restore the division of governmental responsibilities between the national government and the States that was intended by the Framers of the Constitution and to ensure that the principles of federalism established by the Framers guide the Executive departments and agencies in the formulation and implementation of policies, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Definitions. For purposes of this Order:
(a) "Policies that have federalism implications" refers to regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
(b) "State" or "States" refer to the States of the United States of America, individually or collectively, and, where relevant, to State governments, including units of local government and other political subdivisions established by the States.
Sec. 2. Fundamental Federalism Principles. In formulating and implementing policies that have federalism implications, Executive departments and agencies shall be guided by the following fundamental federalism principles:
(a) Federalism is rooted in the knowledge that our political liberties are best assured by limiting the size and scope of the national government.
(b) The people of the States created the national government when they delegated to it those enumerated governmental powers relating to matters beyond the competence of the individual States. All other sovereign powers, save those expressly prohibited the States by the Constitution, are reserved to the States or to the people.
(c) The constitutional relationship among sovereign governments, State and national, is formalized in and protected by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution.
(d) The people of the States are free, subject only to restrictions in the Constitution itself or in constitutionally authorized Acts of Congress, to define the moral, political, and legal character of their lives.
(e) In most areas of governmental concern, the States uniquely possess the constitutional authority, the resources, and the competence to discern the sentiments of the people and to govern accordingly. In Thomas Jefferson's words, the States are "the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns and the surest bulwarks against antirepublican tendencies."
(f) The nature of our constitutional system encourages a healthy diversity in the public policies adopted by the people of the several States according to their own conditions, needs, and desires. In the search for enlightened public policy, individual States and communities are free to experiment with a variety of approaches to public issues.
(g) Acts of the national government--whether legislative, executive, or judicial in nature--that exceed the enumerated powers of that government under the Constitution violate the principle of federalism established by the Framers.
(h) Policies of the national government should recognize the responsibility of--and should encourage opportunities for--individuals, families, neighborhoods, local governments, and private associations to achieve their personal, social, and economic objectives through cooperative effort.
(i) In the absence of clear constitutional or statutory authority, the presumption of sovereignty should rest with the individual States. Uncertainties regarding the legitimate authority of the national government should be resolved against regulation at the national level.
Sec. 3. Federalism Policymaking Criteria. In addition to the fundamental federalism principles set forth in section 2, Executive departments and agencies shall adhere, to the extent permitted by law, to the following criteria when formulating and implementing policies that have federalism implications:
(a) There should be strict adherence to constitutional principles. Executive departments and agencies should closely examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any Federal action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States, and should carefully assess the necessity for such action. To the extent practicable, the States should be consulted before any such action is implemented. Executive Order No. 12372 ("Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs") remains in effect for the programs and activities to which it is applicable.
(b) Federal action limiting the policymaking discretion of the States should be taken only where constitutional authority for the action is clear and certain and the national activity is necessitated by the presence of a problem of national scope. For the purposes of this Order:
(1) It is important to recognize the distinction between problems of national scope (which may justify Federal action) and problems that are merely common to the States (which will not justify Federal action because individual States, acting individually or together, can effectively deal with them).
(2) Constitutional authority for Federal action is clear and certain only when authority for the action may be found in a specific provision of the Constitution, there is no provision in the Constitution prohibiting Federal action, and the action does not encroach upon authority reserved to the States.
(c) With respect to national policies administered by the States, the national government should grant the States the maximum administrative discretion possible. Intrusive, Federal oversight of State administration is neither necessary nor desirable.
(d) When undertaking to formulate and implement policies that have federalism implications, Executive departments and agencies shall:
(1) Encourage States to develop their own policies to achieve program objectives and to work with appropriate officials in other States.
(2) Refrain, to the maximum extent possible, from establishing uniform, national standards for programs and, when possible, defer to the States to establish standards.
(3) When national standards are required, consult with appropriate officials and organizations representing the States in developing those standards.
Sec. 4. Special Requirements for Preemption. (a) To the extent permitted by law, Executive departments and agencies shall construe, in regulations and otherwise, a Federal statute to preempt State law only when the statute contains an express preemption provision or there is some other firm and palpable evidence compelling the conclusion that the Congress intended preemption of State law, or when the exercise of State authority directly conflicts with the exercise of Federal authority under the Federal statute.
(b) Where a Federal statute does not preempt State law (as addressed in subsection (a) of this section), Executive departments and agencies shall construe any authorization in the statute for the issuance of regulations as authorizing preemption of State law by rule-making only when the statute expressly authorizes issuance of preemptive regulations or there is some other firm and palpable evidence compelling the conclusion that the Congress intended to delegate to the department or agency the authority to issue regulations preempting State law.
(c) Any regulatory preemption of State law shall be restricted to the minimum level necessary to achieve the objectives of the statute pursuant to which the regulations are promulgated.
(d) As soon as an Executive department or agency foresees the possibility of a conflict between State law and Federally protected interests within its area of regulatory responsibility, the department or agency shall consult, to the extent practicable, with appropriate officials and organizations representing the States in an effort to avoid such a conflict.
(e) When an Executive department or agency proposes to act through adjudication or rule-making to preempt State law, the department or agency shall provide all affected States notice and an opportunity for appropriate participation in the proceedings.
Sec. 5. Special Requirements for Legislative Proposals. Executive departments and agencies shall not submit to the Congress legislation that would:
(a) Directly regulate the States in ways that would interfere with functions essential to the States' separate and independent existence or operate to directly displace the States' freedom to structure integral operations in areas of traditional governmental functions;
(b) Attach to Federal grants conditions that are not directly related to the purpose of the grant; or
(c) Preempt State law, unless preemption is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles set forth in section 2, and unless a clearly legitimate national purpose, consistent with the federalism policymaking criteria set forth in section 3, cannot otherwise be met.
Sec. 6. Agency Implementation. (a) The head of each Executive department and agency shall designate an official to be responsible for ensuring the implementation of this Order.
(b) In addition to whatever other actions the designated official may take to ensure implementation of this Order, the designated official shall determine which proposed policies have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. With respect to each such policy for which an affirmative determination is made, a Federalism Assessment, as described in subsection (c) of this section, shall be prepared. The department or agency head shall consider any such Assessment in all decisions involved in promulgating and implementing the policy.
(c) Each Federalism Assessment shall accompany any submission concerning the policy that is made to the Office of Management and Budget pursuant to Executive Order No. 12291 or OMB Circular No. A-19, and shall:
(1) Contain the designated official's certification that the policy has been assessed in light of the principles, criteria, and requirements stated in sections 2 through 5 of this Order;
(2) Identify any provision or element of the policy that is inconsistent with the principles, criteria, and requirements stated in sections 2 through 5 of this Order;
(3) Identify the extent to which the policy imposes additional costs or burdens on the States, including the likely source of funding for the States and the ability of the States to fulfill the purposes of the policy; and
(4) Identify the extent to which the policy would affect the States' ability to discharge traditional State governmental functions, or other aspects of State sovereignty.
Sec. 7. Government-wide Federalism Coordination and Review. (a) In implementing Executive Order Nos. 12291 and 12498 and OMB Circular No. A-19, the Office of Management and Budget, to the extent permitted by law and consistent with the provisions of those authorities, shall take action to ensure that the policies of the Executive departments and agencies are consistent with the principles, criteria, and requirements stated in sections 2 through 5 of this Order.
(b) In submissions to the Office of Management and Budget pursuant to Executive Order No. 12291 and OMB Circular No. A-19, Executive departments and agencies shall identify proposed regulatory and statutory provisions that have significant federalism implications and shall address any substantial federalism concerns. Where the departments or agencies deem it appropriate, substantial federalism concerns should also be addressed in notices of proposed rule-making and messages transmitting legislative proposals to the Congress.
Sec. 8. Judicial Review. This Order is intended only to improve the internal management of the Executive branch, and is not intended to create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by a party against the United States, its agencies, its officers, or any person.
source: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/12612.html
You will always find these Executive Orders of the older presidents are picked up by the incoming presidents and simply perpetuating the Will of those presidents who wish to do harm to our Constitution and the We the People of the Xth Amendment Governments of the States of the Union of the Republics. An example of how this perpetuation is done see:
Executive Order 12612--Federalism
Source: The provisions of Executive Order 12612 of Oct. 26, 1987, appear at 52 FR 41685, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 252, unless otherwise noted.
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, and in order to restore the division of governmental responsibilities between the national government and the States that was intended by the Framers of the Constitution and to ensure that the principles of federalism established by the Framers guide the Executive departments and agencies in the formulation and implementation of policies, it is hereby ordered as follows: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/12612.html
EXECUTIVE ORDER 12498... Lets take a look at that one, it's also in Executive Order 12803 "Sale-Privatization of our tax payer Infra-Structure"..Executive Order 12498--Regulatory planning process
Source: The provisions of Executive Order 12498 of Jan. 4, 1985, appear at 50 FR 1036, 3 CFR, 1985 Comp., p. 323, unless otherwise noted.
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, and in order to create a coordinated process for developing on an annual basis the Administration's Regulatory Program, establish Administration regulatory priorities, increase the accountability of agency heads for the regulatory actions of their agencies, provide for Presidential oversight of the regulatory process, reduce the burdens of existing and future regulations, minimize duplication and conflict of regulations, and enhance public and Congressional understanding of the Administration's regulatory objectives, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. General Requirements. (a) There is hereby established a regulatory planning process by which the Administration will develop and publish a Regulatory Program for each year. To implement this process, each Executive agency subject to Executive Order No. 12291shall submit to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) each year, starting in 1985, a statement of its regulatory policies, goals, and objectives for the coming year and information concerning all significant regulatory actions underway or planned; however, the Director may exempt from this Order such agencies or activities as the Director may deem appropriate in order to achieve the effective implementation of this Order.
(b) The head of each Executive agency subject to this Order shall ensure that all regulatory actions are consistent with the goals of the agency and of the Administration, and will be appropriately implemented.
(c) This program is intended to complement the existing regulatory planning and review procedures of agencies and the Executive branch, including the procedures established by Executive Order No. 12291
(d) To assure consistency with the goals of the Administration, the head of each agency subject to this Order shall adhere to the regulatory principles stated in Section 2 of Executive Order No. 12291 including those elaborated by the regulatory policy guidelines set forth in the August 11, 1983, Report of the Presidential Task Force on Regulatory Relief, "Reagan Administration Regulatory Achievements."
Sec. 2. Agency Submission of Draft Regulatory Program. (a) The head of each agency shall submit to the Director an overview of the agency's regulatory policies, goals, and objectives for the program year and such information concerning all significant regulatory actions of the agency, planned or underway, including actions taken to consider whether to initiate rulemaking; requests for public comment; and the development of documents that may influence, anticipate, or could lead to the commencement of rulemaking proceedings at a later date, as the Director deems necessary to develop the Administration's Regulatory Program. This submission shall constitute the agency's draft regulatory program. The draft regulatory program shall be submitted to the Director each year, on a date to be specified by the Director, and shall cover the period from April 1 through March 31 of the following year.
(b) The overview portion of the agency's submission should discuss the agency's broad regulatory purposes, explain how they are consistent with the Administration's regulatory principles, and include a discussion of the significant regulatory actions, as defined by the Director, that it will take. The overview should specifically discuss the significant regulatory actions of the agency to revise or rescind existing rules.
(c) Each agency head shall categorize and describe the regulatory actions described in subsection (a) in such format as the Director shall specify and provide such additional information as the Director may request; however, the Director shall, by Bulletin or Circular, exempt from the requirements of this Order any class or category of regulatory action that the Director determines is not necessary to review in order to achieve the effective implementation of the program.
Sec. 3. Review, Compilation, and Publication of the Administration's Regulatory Program. (a) In reviewing each agency's draft regulatory program, the Director shall (i) consider the consistency of the draft regulatory program with the Administration's policies and priorities and the draft regulatory programs submitted by other agencies; and (ii) identify such further regulatory or deregulatory actions as may, in his view, be necessary in order to achieve such consistency. In the event of disagreement over the content of the agency's draft regulatory program, the agency head or the Director may raise issues for further review by the President or by such appropriate Cabinet Council or other forum as the President may designate.
(b) Following the conclusion of the review process established by subsection (a), each agency head shall submit to the Director, by a date to be specified by the Director, the agency's final regulatory plan for compilation and publication as the Administration's Regulatory Program for that year. The Director shall circulate a draft of the Administration's Regulatory Program for agency comment, review, and interagency consideration, if necessary, before publication.
(c) After development of the Administration's Regulatory Program for the year, if the agency head proposes to take a regulatory action subject to the provisions of Section 2 and not previously submitted for review under this process, or if the agency head proposes to take a regulatory action that is materially different from the action described in the agency's final Regulatory Program, the agency head shall immediately advise the Director and submit the action to the Director for review in such format as the Director may specify. Except in the case of emergency situations, as defined by the Director, or statutory or judicial deadlines, the agency head shall refrain from taking the proposed regulatory action until the review of this submission by the Director is completed. As to those regulatory actions not also subject to Executive Order No. 12291 the Director shall be deemed to have concluded that the proposal is consistent with the purposes of this Order, unless he notifies the agency head to the contrary within 10 days of its submission. As to those regulatory actions subject to Executive Order No. 12291 the Director's review shall be governed by the provisions of Section 3(e) of that Order.
(d) Absent unusual circumstances, such as new statutory or judicial requirements or unanticipated emergency situations, the Director may, to the extent permitted by law, return for reconsideration any rule submitted for review under Executive Order No. 12291 that would be subject to Section 2 but was not included in the agency's final Regulatory Program for that year; or any other significant regulatory action that is materially different from those described in the Administration's Regulatory Program for that year.
Sec. 4. Office of Management and Budget. The Director of the Office of Management and Budget is authorized, to the extent permitted by law, to take such actions as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this Order.
Sec. 5. Judicial Review. This Order is intended only to improve the internal management of the Federal government, and is not intended to create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by a party against the United States, its agencies, its officers or any person. source: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/12498.html
Did you pay attention to a very important 'something'? " Sec. 5. Judicial Review. This Order is intended only to improve the internal management of the Federal government, and is not intended to create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by a party against the United States, its agencies, its officers or any person.
Did you pay attention?! Pay attention to this Executive Order No. 12291:Executive Order 12291--Federal regulation
Source: The provisions of Executive Order 12291 of Feb. 17, 1981, appear at 46 FR 13193, 3 CFR, 1981 Comp., p. 127, unless otherwise noted.
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, and in order to reduce the burdens of existing and future regulations, increase agency accountability for regulatory actions, provide for presidential oversight of the regulatory process, minimize duplication and conflict of regulations, and insure well-reasoned regulations, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Definitions. For the purposes of this Order:
(a) "Regulation" or "rule" means an agency statement of general applicability and future effect designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy or describing the procedure or practice requirements of an agency, but does not include:
(1) Administrative actions governed by the provisions of Sections 556 and 557 of Title 5 of the United States Code;
(2) Regulations issued with respect to a military or foreign affairs function of the United States; or
(3) Regulations related to agency organization, management, or personnel.
(b) "Major rule" means any regulation that is likely to result in:
(1) An annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more;
(2) A major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; or
(3) Significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic or export markets.
(c) "Director" means the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
(d) "Agency" means any authority of the United States that is an "agency" under 44 U.S.C. 3502(1), excluding those agencies specified in 44 U.S.C. 3502(10).
(e) "Task Force" means the Presidential Task Force on Regulatory Relief.
Sec. 2. General Requirements. In promulgating new regulations, reviewing existing regulations, and developing legislative proposals concerning regulation, all agencies, to the extent permitted by law, shall adhere to the following requirements:
(a) Administrative decisions shall be based on adequate information concerning the need for and consequences of proposed government action;
(b) Regulatory action shall not be undertaken unless the potential benefits to society for the regulation outweigh the potential costs to society;
(c) Regulatory objectives shall be chosen to maximize the net benefits to society;
(d) Among alternative approaches to any given regulatory objective, the alternative involving the least net cost to society shall be chosen; and
(e) Agencies shall set regulatory priorities with the aim of maximizing the aggregate net benefits to society, taking into account the condition of the particular industries affected by regulations, the condition of the national economy, and other regulatory actions contemplated for the future.
Sec. 3. Regulatory Impact Analysis and Review.
(a) In order to implement Section 2 of this Order, each agency shall, in connection with every major rule, prepare, and to the extent permitted by law consider, a Regulatory Impact Analysis. Such Analyses may be combined with any Regulatory Flexibility Analyses performed under 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
(b) Each agency shall initially determine whether a rule it intends to propose or to issue is a major rule, provided that, the Director, subject to the direction of the Task Force, shall have authority, in accordance with Sections 1(b) and 2 of this Order, to prescribe criteria for making such determinations, to order a rule to be treated as a major rule, and to require any set of related rules to be considered together as a major rule.
(c) Except as provided in Section 8 of this Order, agencies shall prepare Regulatory Impact Analyses of major rules and transmit them, along with all notices of proposed rulemaking and all final rules, to the Director as follows:
(1) If no notice of proposed rulemaking is to be published for a proposed major rule that is not an emergency rule, the agency shall prepare only a final Regulatory Impact Analysis, which shall be transmitted, along with the proposed rule, to the Director at least 60 days prior to the publication of the major rule as a final rule;
(2) With respect to all other major rules, the agency shall prepare a preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis, which shall be transmitted, along with a notice of proposed rulemaking, to the Director at least 60 days prior to the publication of a notice of proposed rulemaking, and a final Regulatory Impact Analysis, which shall be transmitted along with the final rule at least 30 days prior to the publication of the major rule as a final rule;
(3) For all rules other than major rules, agencies shall submit to the Director, at least 10 days prior to publication, every notice of proposed rulemaking and final rule.
(d) To permit each proposed major rule to be analyzed in light of the requirements stated in Section 2 of this Order, each preliminary and final Regulatory Impact Analysis shall contain the following information:
(1) A description of the potential benefits of the rule, including any beneficial effects that cannot be quantified in monetary terms, and the identification of those likely to receive the benefits;
(2) A description of the potential costs of the rule, including any adverse effects that cannot be quantified in monetary terms, and the identification of those likely to bear the costs;
(3) A determination of the potential net benefits of the rule, including an evaluation of effects that cannot be quantified in monetary terms;
(4) A description of alternative approaches that could substantially achieve the same regulatory goal at lower cost, together with an analysis of this potential benefit and costs and a brief explanation of the legal reasons why such alternatives, if proposed, could not be adopted; and
(5) Unless covered by the description required under paragraph (4) of this subsection, an explanation of any legal reasons why the rule cannot be based on the requirements set forth in Section 2 of this Order.
(e)(1) The Director, subject to the direction of the Task Force, which shall resolve any issues raised under this Order or ensure that they are presented to the President, is authorized to review any preliminary or final Regulatory Impact Analysis, notice of proposed rulemaking, or final rule based on the requirements of this Order.
(2) The Director shall be deemed to have concluded review unless the Director advises an agency to the contrary under subsection (f) of this Section:
(A) Within 60 days of a submission under subsection (c)(1) or a submission of a preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis or notice of proposed rulemaking under subsection (c)(2);
(B) Within 30 days of the submission of a final Regulatory Impact Analysis and a final rule under subsection (c)(2); and
(C) Within 10 days of the submission of a notice of proposed rulemaking or final rule under subsection (c)(3).
(f)(1) Upon the request of the Director, an agency shall consult with the Director concerning the review of a preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis or notice of proposed rulemaking under this Order, and shall, subject to Section 8(a)(2) of this Order, refrain from publishing its preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis or notice of proposed rulemaking until such review is concluded.
(2) Upon receiving notice that the Director intends to submit views with respect to any final Regulatory Impact Analysis or final rule, the agency shall, subject to Section 8(a)(2) of this Order, refrain from publishing its final Regulatory Impact Analysis or final rule until the agency has responded to the Director's views, and incorporated those views and the agency's response in the rulemaking file.
(3) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as displacing the agencies' responsibilities delegated by law.
(g) For every rule for which an agency publishes a notice of proposed rulemaking, the agency shall include in its notice:
(1) A brief statement setting forth the agency's initial determination whether the proposed rule is a major rule, together with the reasons underlying that determination; and
(2) For each proposed major rule, a brief summary of the agency's preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis.
(h) Agencies shall make their preliminary and final Regulatory Impact Analyses available to the public.
(i) Agencies shall initiate reviews of currently effective rules in accordance with the purposes of this Order, and perform Regulatory Impact Analyses of currently effective major rules. The Director, subject to the direction of the Task Force, may designate currently effective rules for review in accordance with this Order, and establish schedules for reviews and Analyses under this Order.
Sec. 4. Regulatory Review. Before approving any final major rule, each agency shall:
(a) Make a determination that the regulation is clearly within the authority delegated by law and consistent with congressional intent, and include in the Federal Register at the time of promulgation a memorandum of law supporting that determination.
(b) Make a determination that the factual conclusions upon which the rule is based have substantial support in the agency record, viewed as a whole, with full attention to public comments in general and the comments of persons directly affected by the rule in particular.
Sec. 5. Regulatory Agendas.
(a) Each agency shall publish, in October and April of each year, an agenda of proposed regulations that the agency has issued or expects to issue, and currently effective rules that are under agency review pursuant to this Order. These agendas may be incorporated with the agendas published under 5 U.S.C. 602, and must contain at the minimum:
(1) A summary of the nature of each major rule being considered, the objectives and legal basis for the issuance of the rule, and an approximate schedule for completing action on any major rule for which the agency has issued a notice of proposed rulemaking;
(2) The name and telephone number of a knowledgeable agency official for each item on the agenda; and
(3) A list of existing regulations to be reviewed under the terms of this Order, and a brief discussion of each such regulation.
(b) The Director, subject to the direction of the Task Force, may, to the extent permitted by law:
(1) Require agencies to provide additional information in an agenda; and
(2) Require publication of the agenda in any form.
Sec. 6. The Task Force and Office of Management and Budget.
(a) To the extent permitted by law, the Director shall have authority, subject to the direction of the Task Force, to:
(1) Designate any proposed or existing rule as a major rule in accordance with Section 1(b) of this Order;
(2) Prepare and promulgate uniform standards for the identification of major rules and the development of Regulatory Impact Analyses;
(3) Require an agency to obtain and evaluate, in connection with a regulation, any additional relevant data from any appropriate source;
(4) Waive the requirements of Sections 3, 4, or 7 of this Order with respect to any proposed or existing major rule;
(5) Identify duplicative, overlapping and conflicting rules, existing or proposed, and existing or proposed rules that are inconsistent with the policies underlying statutes governing agencies other than the issuing agency or with the purposes of this Order, and, in each such case, require appropriate interagency consultation to minimize or eliminate such duplication, overlap, or conflict;
(6) Develop procedures for estimating the annual benefits and costs of agency regulations, on both an aggregate and economic or industrial sector basis, for purposes of compiling a regulatory budget;
(7) In consultation with interested agencies, prepare for consideration by the President recommendations for changes in the agencies' statutes; and
(8) Monitor agency compliance with the requirements of this Order and advise the President with respect to such compliance.
(b) The Director, subject to the direction of the Task Force, is authorized to establish procedures for the performance of all functions vested in the Director by this Order. The Director shall take appropriate steps to coordinate the implementation of the analysis, transmittal, review, and clearance provisions of this Order with the authorities and requirements provided for or imposed upon the Director and agencies under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., and the Paperwork Reduction Plan Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Sec. 7. Pending Regulations.
(a) To the extent necessary to permit reconsideration in accordance with this Order, agencies shall, except as provided in Section 8 of this Order, suspend or postpone the effective dates of all major rules that they have promulgated in final form as of the date of this Order, but that have not yet become effective, excluding:
(1) Major rules that cannot legally be postponed or suspended;
(2) Major rules that, for good cause, ought to become effective as final rules without reconsideration. Agencies shall prepare, in accordance with Section 3 of this Order, a final Regulatory Impact Analysis for each major rule that they suspend or postpone.
(b) Agencies shall report to the Director no later than 15 days prior to the effective date of any rule that the agency has promulgated in final form as of the date of this Order, and that has not yet become effective, and that will not be reconsidered under subsection (a) of this Section:
(1) That the rule is excepted from reconsideration under subsection (a), including a brief statement of the legal or other reasons for that determination; or
(2) That the rule is not a major rule.
(c) The Director, subject to the direction of the Task Force, is authorized, to the extent permitted by law, to:
(1) Require reconsideration, in accordance with this Order, of any major rule that an agency has issued in final form as of the date of this Order and that has not become effective; and
(2) Designate a rule that an agency has issued in final form as of the date of this Order and that has not yet become effective as a major rule in accordance with Section 1(b) of this Order.
(d) Agencies may, in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act and other applicable statutes, permit major rules that they have issued in final form as of the date of this Order, and that have not yet become effective, to take effect as interim rules while they are being reconsidered in accordance with this Order, provided that, agencies shall report to the Director, no later than 15 days before any such rule is proposed to take effect as an interim rule, that the rule should appropriately take effect as an interim rule while the rule is under reconsideration.
(e) Except as provided in Section 8 of this Order, agencies shall, to the extent permitted by law, refrain from promulgating as a final rule any proposed major rule that has been published or issued as of the date of this Order until a final Regulatory Impact Analysis, in accordance with Section 3 of this Order, has been prepared for the proposed major rule.
(f) Agencies shall report to the Director, no later than 30 days prior to promulgating as a final rule any proposed rule that the agency has published or issued as of the date of this Order and that has not been considered under the terms of this Order:
(1) That the rule cannot legally be considered in accordance with this Order, together with a brief explanation of the legal reasons barring such consideration; or
(2) That the rule is not a major rule, in which case the agency shall submit to the Director a copy of the proposed rule.
(g) The Director, subject to the direction of the Task Force, is authorized, to the extent permitted by law, to:
(1) Require consideration, in accordance with this Order, of any proposed major rule that the agency has published or issued as of the date of this Order; and
(2) Designate a proposed rule that an agency has published or issued as of the date of this Order, as a major rule in accordance with Section 1(b) of this Order.
(h) The Director shall be deemed to have determined that an agency's report to the Director under subsections (b), (d), or (f) of this Section is consistent with the purposes of this Order, unless the Director advises the agency to the contrary:
(1) Within 15 days of its report, in the case of any report under subsections (b) or (d); or
(2) Within 30 days of its report, in the case of any report under subsection (f).
(i) This Section does not supersede the President's Memorandum of January 29, 1981, entitled "Postponement of Pending Regulations", which shall remain in effect until March 30, 1981.
(j) In complying with this Section, agencies shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, and with any other procedural requirements made applicable to the agencies by other statutes.
Sec. 8. Exemptions.
(a) The procedures prescribed by this Order shall not apply to:
(1) Any regulation that responds to an emergency situation, provided that, any such regulation shall be reported to the Director as soon as is practicable, the agency shall publish in the Federal Register a statement of the reasons why it is impracticable for the agency to follow the procedures of this Order with respect to such a rule, and the agency shall prepare and transmit as soon as is practicable a Regulatory Impact Analysis of any such major rule; and
(2) Any regulation for which consideration or reconsideration under the terms of this Order would conflict with deadlines imposed by statute or by judicial order, provided that, any such regulation shall be reported to the Director together with a brief explanation of the conflict, the agency shall publish in the Federal Register a statement of the reasons why it is impracticable for the agency to follow the procedures of this Order with respect to such a rule, and the agency, in consultation with the Director, shall adhere to the requirements of this Order to the extent permitted by statutory or judicial deadlines.
(b) The Director, subject to the direction of the Task Force, may, in accordance with the purposes of this Order, exempt any class or category of regulations from any or all requirements of this Order.
Sec. 9. Judicial Review. This Order is intended only to improve the internal management of the Federal government, and is not intended to create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by a party against the United States, its agencies, its officers or any person. The determinations made by agencies under Section 4 of this Order, and any Regulatory Impact Analyses for any rule, shall be made part of the whole record of agency action in connection with the rule.
Sec. 10. Revocations. Executive Orders No. 12044, as amended, and No. 12174 are revoked.
source: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/12291.html
These Executive Orders were 'REVOKED' under Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush and now yet another president in 2009.
Executive Order 12044, Improving Government Regulations http://www.ombwatch.org/files/regs/library/eo12044.pdf
Executive Order 12174 - Federal Paperwork Reduction November 30, 1979. source: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=31759
What happened during those REAGAN, BUSH, CLINTON, BUSH years? Well! The CONTRA'S gained toe hold on our Banking, Financing and Economics bringing about a GLOBAL BANKING, FINANCING AND ECONOMIC CRISIS "Hostage" situation by allowing our First Amendment National Security to be breached by selling off and privatizing tax payers properties which the tax payers allowed TAX BONDS to be put on their homes, farms, business's etc.. to pay for the building, and maintenance of :
(b) "Infrastructure asset" means any asset financed in whole or in part by the Federal Government and needed for the functioning of the economy. Examples of such assets include, but are not limited to: roads, tunnels, bridges, electricity supply facilities, mass transit, rail transportation, airports, ports. waterways, water supply facilities, recycling and wastewater treatment facilities, solid waste disposal facilities, housing, schools, prisons, and hospitals. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=23625
But on the other hand, working like a thief in the darkness of night, while WE were working, keeping our noses to the grindstone.. being GOOD, DUTIFUL, PATRIOTIC AMERICANS.. these individuals set themselves up a "Government of their Own"... Yeppers! They sure did.. They set it up under Treaties international agreements other than treaties section 12807.. http://www.theantechamber.net/VkDocuments/Tias12087/Tias12087_3.html
This became the TROJAN HORSE inside the TRUST set up to pay the DEBTS of WE THE PEOPLE i.e., the U.S. Dept. of the Treasury. It was incorporated by the AL QAEDA underwriters.. GAIA-Ekker's..
A SUMMARY discovered http://searchpdf.adobe.com/proxies/0/58/64/45.html [your going to have to find it in the Way Back because it is no longer on the internet] however, E.J. Ekker makes note of his acquired banks in this
"Summary" i.e., "That nice Inter-American Development Bank just set up a little nice banks all around, you know, the little Asian Development Bank, European Development Bank, Hong Kong Development Bank, po-dunk Development Bank, and ever so many more. This sprang out of Inter American Investment Corporation MINE originally set up by the Bush's but never through Incorporation OOPS, BIG GOOF!! This was also pretty inclusive of the DEPOSIT TRUST [Depository Trust Co. 55 Water Street, New York, New York] outfit who runs all the stocks, etc. [end quote] there is some refrence made to CONTACT the Phoenix Educator January 26, 1999 http://www.contactnews10.com/1999/012699.pdf
This TIAS 12087 set up the MULTI-LATERAL "Inter-American Investment Corporation" by Agreement done at Washington November 19, 1984; Entered into Force March 23, 1986, which again "TAX PAYERS DOLLARS" were 'appropriated' by Congress for the buying of Leaders of Latin America etc to set up THE DRUG RUNNING, MONEY LAUNDERING "INTER-AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK" http://www.theantechamber.net/VkDocuments/Tias12087/Tias12087_3.html this involves a convoluted nightmare in Banking. The Ekker's went this direction with their TROJAN HORSE http://www.theantechamber.net/V_K_Durham/VkPublicNotice.html
Pay attention! Yesterday's posting: Of all Mission-related corporations only TWO remain in good standing with the Nevada Secretary of State: CONTACT, INC. and PHOENIX SOURCE DISTRIBUTORS, INC. Both of those entities have “bag holders” in place in Tehachapi, who will be left to face the music if Mr. Ekker suddenly becomes “unavailable”.
Notably, the most important, active, Mission-related corporation when it comes to the handling of the Mission’s assets–GLOBAL ALLIANCE INVESTMENT ASSOCIATION–is in Default status (no list of officers was filed in 2008) and will have its charter revoked if a new list is not filed by May 31.
It is noteworthy that Mr. Ekker never took any action to bring GAIA into compliance with Nevada law subsequent to the changes in Nevada corporation laws which took effect in October 2007, banning the use of bearer certificates.
INTER-AMERICAN INVESTMENT CORP is in the same position as GAIA–in Default status, about to have its charter revoked by June 1.
INTERNATIONAL ENERGY SYSTEMS CORPORATION, DBA IESC in California–through which most of the more recent loans have been funneled–is in Default status and will have its charter revoked if a new list is not filed by June 30.
Both PHOENIX INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH & EDUCATION, LTD. and COSMOS SEAFOOD ENERGY MARKETING, LTD. went into Revoked status when these entities failed to file their respective lists of officers for the second consecutive year at the end of March 2009.
WHY WERE THESE LISTS NOT FILED (for two consecutive years)?? It is NOT due to a lack of funds, which would amount to only a small portion of Mr. Ekker’s monthly entertainment budget. One very reasonable explanation is that with their charters revoked, there is no going after the entities–there is, quite simply, no entity upon which to serve legal process.
There is much more in this filing http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=158286 and it's "tags"
If you will recall, Russell had visitors trying to force him to "sign off".. I always assumed it was on BONUS 3392-181. It was'nt.. Russell was the CONTRA ACCOUNT HOLDER. They were trying to get him to sign off on THE CONTRA ACCOUNTS which originated at Republic National Bank in Texas [Bush, Greenspan, Baker II, North etals] was moved to Republic National Bank, Terrance or "Teddy" Lloyd's attn on TRU HAND- GOLD BULLION Account's.. Account Holder Russell Herman, whereas said accounts were subsequently moved to Anschbacher in the Gurnseys, on to Credit Lyonaise, later becoming involved at RIGGS, FIRST NATIONAL, UBS, BOE, DIAWA and even BCCI. And this, Boys 'n girls, Ladies and Gents is WHAT HAPPENED when George H.W. Bush put through EXECUTIVE ORDER 12803..
Which brings us to THE ESPIONAGE ACT and SMITH ACT violations:
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=158327
NEW: ABOUT THE U.S. HOUSE & SENATE AND "QUASI FED AGENCIES" CHANGING OUR LAWS: SMITH ACT (views: 28)
watcher51445 -- Monday, 19-Oct-2009 15:52:03
NEW: Jack Abramoff and 80000 additional Lobbyist who have bought and paid for the Powers of Offices of Public Trust of those http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=158328
watcher51445 -- Monday, 19-Oct-2009 16:01:55
Articles In This Thread
THE "TROJAN HORSE" INSIDE THE U.S. DEPT. OF TREASURY & THREE BRANCH'S OF FED & STATE GOVT. (views: 789)
watcher51445 -- Tuesday, 20-Oct-2009 08:40:34
AP: US scientist accused of trying to sell secrets [Awh Shucks! HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN FINANCIAL TERRORISM! (views: 114)
watcher51445 -- Tuesday, 20-Oct-2009 12:48:29
MoneyLaundering.com: Treasury's Cohen Warns of Terrorists' Ties to Organized Crime, While Citing Success in Cutting Fun (views: 204)
watcher51445 -- Tuesday, 20-Oct-2009 15:47:31
TROJAN HORSE INSIDE TREASURY CONTINUES http://www.google.com/custom?q=TROJAN+HORSE+INSIDE&sa=Google+Search&cof=GALT%3A%23d60000%3BS%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.rumormillnews.com%3BGL%3A0%3BVLC%3A%23c6ef7%3BAH%3Acenter%3BLH%3A150%3BLC%3A%23082984%3BGFNT%3A%23a1a1a1%3BL%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.rumormillnews.com%2Fimages%2Flogocafepress.gif%3BALC%3A%2329006b%3BLW%3A150%3BT%3A%23000000%3BGIMP%3A%23ff3118%3BAWFID%3A3448f1bfddb0da14%3B&domains=www.rumormillnews.com&sitesearch=www.rumormillnews.com
Source: http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=165998
This has been going on far too long.. the President's Men of the Contras and the "Mafia Type" Code of Silence of the Contra Men and Women of the Carter-Kissinger-Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama and "Quasi Federal Offices" bought through Executive Order 12803.. are now your U.S. HOUSE AND SENATE MEMBERS following the ORDERS OF THE PRESIDENT prevailing upon that old "OATH" of 38 U.S.C."
The White House and CIA indulged in a Black Ops Counterfeiting of U.S. Debt Obligations in the Philippines which is CONTRA the Law of the Land of the United States of America.
Bribery, Blackmail, Coercion and Intimidation reigned in D.C. until the protective Acts of Congress i.e., Sherman Anti-Trust Act, Clayton Act Sec. 8 Monopolies, Glass Steagall Act protecting the banking industry against 'frauds' were systematically taken out allowing the Counterfeiters Black Ops to operate CONTRA the Law of the Land and Law of Nations.
If we are not careful.. we could end up as a Nation "CONTRA" the Constitution of the United States just as Ronald Reagans CONTRA ended the Sovereignty of the Latin American Nations alleging to be a "drug war".. which was actually a CONTRA operation of assassination of Latin American Leaders opposing CONTRA activities. see: MinnPost - Investigative reporter Seymour Hersh describes 'executive assassination ring':
http://www.minnpost.com/ericblackblog/2009/03/11/7310/investigative_reporter_seymour_hersh_describes_executive_assassination_ring
RIGHTS-EL SALVADOR: Death Squads Still Operating http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39143
The Salvador Option http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/012907.html
REPUBLICANS ARE PROUD TO SAY "IN THE SPIRIT OF RONALD REAGAN".. But we must consider the DEMOCRATS also http://www.investigatemagazine.com/march00pres.htm and that is what has gone wrong with the United States of America at the TOP to full-fill THE CONTRACT ON AMERICA.
I now know what Russell meant. When Russell was brought home on November 17, 1993, he sat in his chair with that "1,000 yard stare"... Finally he made the following statement
:
"If the American People ever wake up, and find out what the Federal Government has really done; I would not want to be in the Executive Branch. I would not want to be a Member of Congress or Senate, state of federal. I would not want to be a judge on the bench. I would not want to be a lawyer. I would not want to be even the local dog catcher. Because; The American People will round all of them up; Give them a fair trial and hang them on the Capitol Steps [end quote]."
I have since heard Ex-President George Bush #41 made a similar statement after his resignation from THE CARLYLE GROUP.
I must tell you when I read stuff like this on THE CONTRA'S being exposed by THE Consortiumnews.com: Reagan & the Salvadoran Baby Skulls http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/012907.html
Reagan & the Salvadoran Baby Skulls
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a significant move, Iraq's most influential Sunni group has announced that it will abandon its call for a boycott of January's elections if the US provides a timetable for withdrawing the occupying forces. Given that the US is verbally committed to both leaving Iraq and claims to be concerned about persuading the Sunni's to participate in the forthcoming elections (to ensure their perceived legitimacy), surely the US would jump at this development. Needless to say, the US has rejected giving a timetable for a withdrawal. continued at source http://www.struggle.ws/anarchism/writers/anarcho/war/iraq/salvador.html
"If any government sponsors the outlaws and killers of innocents, they have become outlaws and murderers themselves. And they take that lonely path at their own peril."
SOURCE OF ARTICLE: http://www.struggle.ws/anarchism/writers/anarcho/war/iraq/salvador.html
source: http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi/noframes/read/149145
Source: http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=168405

bestcyrano.org: Chile confronts past with new museum (views: 260)
watcher51445 -- Sunday, 4-Apr-2010 07:39:29 http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi/noframes/read/170373

BEFORE WE FORGET: BABY SKULLS OF SAN SALVADORE: Chile confronts past with new museum (views: 259)
watcher51445 -- Sunday, 4-Apr-2010 07:44:51 http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?noframes;read=170374

==================================================================================

The Bush Family Story: "Fraud's R Us", hereditary treason,

terrorism, & crime against USA

author: repost

George Jr.'s specialty was insurance and security fraud. Jeb's specialty was oil and gas fraud. Neil's specialty was real estate fraud. Prescott's specialty was banking fraud.[And WWII treason to the USA] And George Sr.'s specialty? All of the above." -- Lt. Cmdr. Al Martin, US Navy,(Ret)

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2007/04/357851.shtml