Sun Sep 24, 2006 03:15

The Federal Observer


September 23, 2006

By Alan Stang

Gather ‘round, my friends. It’s time for another come to Jesus discussion. To
validate the inflammatory title above, I offer three recent developments. First,
you already know about the Extreme Court’s ruling in Kelo , which says in effect
that if local governments can find somebody, some corporation, that can pay more
under the table than the local gauleiters can extort from homeowners, then the
former can kick the latter out and use eminent domain to make the stink bomb
smell legal.

At the time, you probably retched, as I did. With a manful effort, I was able to
suppress the vomit. Did you soil your attire? But now comes a ruling by another
Communist court that will make your vomit taste like Mom’s tapioca pudding.
Enter the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, in U.S. v. $124,700, decided August
19th, 2006.

If this is the first time you have run into such a case, you may wonder how the
government could sue an amount of money. Shouldn’t it sue an individual? The
explanation is that an individual has rights; money has none, so it can’t defend
itself and is much easier to sue.

Believe it or not, the court actually uses the Alice in Wonderland/Gilbert &
Sullivan/Soviet (take your pick) term, "defendant currency." The marvel is that
allegedly adult men can use such a term in public without breaking down in
uncontrollable giggles. I know I would especially if I were the federal judge
recently sentenced to four years in prison for using a penis pump in court.

What happened? Emilio Gomez Gonzolez (oh, oh) flew to Chicago with a one-way
ticket (no, no). A Nebraska state trooper stopped him on I-80 driving a rented
car with someone else’s name on the paperwork (oh, oh). Hidden in a cooler, the
trooper found the "defendant currency." Extremely suspicious, yes? Not at all
the way you and I would do things.

Mr. Gonzolez says the "defendant currency" actually represented the combined
investment, including some life savings, of some associates and Mr. Gonzolez
himself. He flew to Chicago one-way to buy a refrigerated truck they planned to
use in business but it had been sold when he arrived. Someone warned him about
flying with so much cash, so he rented a car to go home, but, since he had no
credit card, a friend put his name on the paperwork. He hid the cash in a cooler
to protect it.

And guess what? All this turns out to be true. Illegal narcotics were not
involved. There was no crime. Mr. Gonzolez did have the cash and did go to
Chicago one-way for the reason he gave. The court pointed to the fact that years
before, Mr. Gonzolez had been "arrested" for drunk driving, but it doesn’t say
he was convicted.

Does that mean he wasn’t? If you are not convicted, doesn’t that mean you are
not convicted, innocent? If it doesn’t, it means that Clinton’s impeachment was
the same as conviction and that he should have been kicked out. Of course, "I am
not a lawyer," surely one of the stupidest things Americans have been
brainwashed to say. It assumes you can’t talk about your law unless you are a
lawyer. Guess what? Even the Extreme Court says that if a man of ordinary
intelligence can’t understand a law, it’s void.

Despite all this, the court found for the government and let the police steal
the man’s money, thereby offering the police a lucrative reason to become
thieves. If they can concoct a reason to connect cash to narcotics, they can
steal it. The rewards are so great; if necessary they could plant one.

The court puts it this way: "Possession of a large sum of cash is 'strong
evidence' of a connection to drug activity." The court doesn’t define "large."
The ruling goes a long way toward making cash illegal. The conspiracy for world
government hates cash because it means freedom and privacy. Try to buy an
airline ticket these days with cash.

Which recalls that even some years ago, my wife and I entered a bank. I told the
teller I wanted to buy traveler’s checks. She told me I needed to fill out a
federal form. I asked why I needed to fill out a federal form to buy a mere
$2,000 worth, yes, $2,000. She summoned the manager who said, "You could be a
drug pusher." That’s right, with $2,000 of cash in your attaché case, that’s
what you could be.

In other words, the law is no longer something you look up in a book. The law is
whatever the government says it is at the time, which means in effect that there
is no law. Along with Kelo, the ruling makes the government – the police
department – the most dangerous, most malevolent gang on the streets. The law is
worse than "a ass," it’s a deadly sham.

The second example concerns the two Border Patrol officers recently convicted
for chasing a career felon who was trying to smuggle 800 pounds of marijuana
into this country. In 2005, one of them was nominated as Border Patrol officer
of the year. In 2006, they face twenty years in prison. Later, the career
smuggler they tried to arrest was arrested again, trying to smuggle still more
illegal narcotics across the border. He was released and now is suing the Border
Patrol for $5 million dollars. Both officers have lost their homes.

As I write, I realize that, if you haven’t heard of this elsewhere, you may
begin to suspect the story is one of my tricks. It isn’t; no joke or surprise is
coming. I have embellished nothing. The jury convicted because the judge allowed
the suppression of evidence, including the smuggler’s criminal record, his
violation of immunity and the accused officers’ exemplary records.

I have explained the meaning of this horror many times, but infinity is not
enough. The most important thing you need to know about it is that this is
conspirator for world government Jorge’ Boosh’s policy. Yes, right wing
Communist talk radio – from Laura to Limbaugh – bemoans our immigration
policies, because they would lose credibility if they did not, but they
schizophrenically never explain whose policy it is.

It is the policy of world government traitor Jorge W. Boosh. How do we know
that? We know it because were Boosh to pick up the phone and say, "Stop this at
once!" – it would stop at once. And since he does not pick up the phone and say
that, we know that the present horror is exactly what he wants. It sends a
message to other Border Patrol agents to do nothing or face prison and the loss
of their homes.

The third proof is something we have already discussed: the attempt by Monopoly
Medicine and the courts to force medical treatment on 16-year-old Abraham
Cherrix in Virginia. Remember that Abraham took chemotherapy, which failed. He
elected to use an alternative regimen and Monopoly Medicine tried to force him
to take the same failed chemotherapy again.

Remember that forced medical treatment is a basic element of Nazism. In the
beginning it had nothing to do with Jews. Nazi doctors explained that because
Jews were untermenschen, "subhumans," they were "not good enough" for it because
it was so "humane." The Nazis applied it to Jews only at the end, not the
beginning. The same Nazi principle is being applied here. Yes, spontaneous,
national outrage forced the court to back up temporarily, but it is still in

Of course there are many more examples. These three are simply the most
outrageous. They tell me that the country is gone. What does that mean? It means
that the treason perpetrated by Boosh, by Clinton and their predecessors and the
treasonous twits who serve them has now corrupted us – destroyed our foundation
– to such an extent for so long that the system they hate with such passionate
intensity can never return.

Conflict will erupt that will dwarf mass murderer Abraham Lincoln’s War to
Destroy the Union. There will be considerable physical destruction and many
casualties. What will emerge from the wreckage will be something else. Of
course, the Marxists will call it a "synthesis," which in turn will become a new
"thesis." But this does not mean that everything will be lost.

Remember that these united States are not mere geographical entities and not
just the people they contain. Unlike most other nations, ours is to a
considerable extent an idea, an experiment, if you will. Yes, an idea is
something that lives inside a man’s head, but a successful idea takes on a life
of its own. And the idea of America has been around too long to disappear, a
"shining city on a hill."

It will endure whatever traitor Boosh does, and however few the people who
recite it, however tarnished it becomes. The record shows that the more it is
crushed, the more it will spring up. Again, because it is an idea, it is not
tied to a particular piece of land. When it springs up – like the persnickety
blade of grass that bursts forth in the cracks on a sidewalk – it could do so in
an entirely different place on the planet. When it does so, it will still be

Meanwhile, what can we do? What sort of conflict do I expect? I see that our
time for this session is gone. Be with me next week, when I’ll review a
remarkable book.

"Pubished originally at EtherZone.com": republication allowed with this notice
and hyperlink intact."

About the Author
Alan Stang has been a network radio talk show host and was one of Mike Wallace's
first writers. He was a senior writer for American Opinion magazine and has
lectured around the world for more than 30 years. He is also the author of ten
books. If you would like him to address your group, please email what you have
in mind. He is a regular columnist for Ether Zone. We invite you to visit his
website at www.stangbooks.com.

The Alan Stang Archive on The Federal Observer

Reader Comments:

On 2006-09-23 12:19:01, Albert T. Gentile, Jr. wrote:

Let me add a postscript here. I agree with the author that we are gradually
moving toward despotism and that in fact we are almost there. My only area of
disagreement – if it is disagreement at sll – is that that despotism has been a
long tome in preparation. George Bush is only the latest manifestation and he is
simply carrying the program forward to the extent of his assignment. His
successors will finish “the job.”

On 2006-09-23 11:57:17, Albert T. Gentile, Jr. wrote:

(5 of 5) Much of what I've said above is from memory of these two articles.

On 2006-09-23 11:54:09, Albert T. Gentile, Jr. wrote:

(4 of 5) For a detailed outline of the legal history behind these
travesties I would recommend “Policing for Profit: The Drug War’s Hidden
Economic Agenda” by Eric Blumenson & Eva Nelson – pages 35 – 114 – The
University of Chicago Law Review – Volume 65 Number 1 – Winter 1998. A much
abridged version of this article appeared in The Nation magazine (March 9th,
1998 – Vol. 255, Number 8 – pages 11 – 16)) by the same authors under the title
“Robbocops – The Drug War’s Hidden Economic Agenda.”

On 2006-09-23 11:52:04, Albert T. Gentile, Jr. wrote:

(3 of 5) As the introductory syllabus states “Appellee [Pearson Yacht
Leasing] was neither involved in nor aware of a lessee’s wrongful use of the
yacht.” The seizure was upheld. Cases since then are too numerous to mention and
subsequent legislation has expanded the scope of property that can be seized.
Quietly, and without being reported by the nightly news, innocent people have
lost homes, money and, in at least one case, even their lives in malicious sting

On 2006-09-23 11:49:26, Albert T. Gentile, Jr. wrote:

(2 of 5) As far as I know, the Comprehensive Crime Control Act and the Bank
Secrecy Act both of that year started the ball rolling. In case law
Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 U.S. 663 (1974) the US Supreme
Court upheld the seizure of a boat owned by Pearson Yacht Leasing because of one
joint of marijuana found in possession of the person or persons who leased the
yacht. The boat was impounded by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

To read all comments, click below.

To add your comment to this article, click below.

Main Page - Thursday, 09/28/06

Message Board by American Patriot Friends Network [APFN]


messageboard.gif (4314 bytes)