This is the Olympic Files and I'm l oh, THEO don't sound so happy. What we're going to do today, and THEO will lead off with this, is to kind of direct our study toward the Constitution and the kind of information about the Constitution that we weren't taught in school. There's two things that you keep hearing people say, especially
around the time of the presidential election. But the two things they get down to is, well, we have to vote in good government and we have to get back to the Constitution.
We must get back the Constitution.
But what we're trying to say is one we barely ever had good government, if at all, and we never really had the Constitution to lose it to try to get it back.
Theo's going to lead off with this.
And we have a number of sources to also share with you, and we'll see how it's time. We have to get this done within an hour. If not, we'll just pick it up where we left off in part four of What's Upon a Time, the fairy tale about Amror.
So go ahead, THEO.
Well, here's a quote from James Montgomery. I think this was in addition to his two books, he has a series of answers to emails that he put up in text form on the Internet. And I think this came from that. So here's Montgomery, and this sums it up.
Quote.
We are living an illusion of reality supplied to us in contradiction to reality. We are taught that we have a constitutional republic, enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights, guaranteed life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in the Declaration of Independence. If this was reality, our government would not be dysfunctional and in turmoil. This same illusion causes the turmoil in society. People are told they are free,
but suffer under a yoke of oppression. They know there is a prompt them, but can't put their finger on the problem. And all right, unquote, and then Montgomery identifies the problem, and all the rest the problem is it was a big con job.
All right. I don't know how.
I'm sorry for stepping on you there. I just what I wanted to say is I'm unaware of how much information you have.
I'll only say this to you.
I have about a page and a half that at some point later on, I just want to make you aware of that that I'd like to read. And that comes from the book Sources of the Constitution of the United States Considered in relation.
To Colonial and English History.
It was written by c Elis Stevens in eighteen ninety four. And I think you're familiar with that, are you not? The Oh yes, yeah, okay, and I think that's very important for that to be out there as well. I'll save it to the last if if you're loaded with info to share, also will give the links to that particular book which you can read online.
I did have it was.
Which I got out of inner library load, but it's all there to be read online.
So anyway, let me throw it back to you. You know where you're going.
And so would that proviso that I'd like to get that in there later on, please go ahead?
Well okay, So the seventeen eighty seven Constitution was not what it was cracked up to be, and our so called founding fathers were not who we thought they were. You know, they were a bunch of aristocrats, lawyers and freemasons and the like who rested control of the country in their hands. And they had more money and more
slaves than other folks. So they they protested enough against the taxation that was going on from Britain, and they what they finally did win for themselves is they ended the taxation for themselves, you know, old school mercantilism like that. What it was is the mother country would set up a colony and then they would forbid that colony from establishing any manufacturing base that that would compete with the
mother country in trade. And it's but they would just use that uh, that daughter country, the colony as as a market to sell the wares of the mother country. Of course today we've figured out another way around that, but that's for some other show. So yet there was enough that these aristocrats, these founding fathers, they they wanted to compete in manufacturing, so that Gustavus Myers also covers that the revolution was really about largely about the growing
manufacturing during base in the colony. They were growing restless at any rate the seventeen eighty seventeen eighty seven Constitution. One very vital thing that did not happen was King George. When he was dictating the terms of the seventeen eighty three peace Treaty. King George did not grant to the United States allodial title to the land. He only recognized the colonist's use of the land. And that's vital that that means to as Montgomery says, were still are a
British colony that never changed. Okay, So regardless of that, we did get I suppose a few rights and many privileges from that seventeen eighty seven Constitution. As we covered last time, the so called Reconstruction era in did all of that. It killed the seventeen eighty seven Constitution, that contract. It ripped it up forever. The Reconstruction did when it denied several or many of the states a right to a republican government. When you do that, you rip up
the contract and deny it to all the states. We've been under military rule since the Reconstruction. Now, what I think we're going to get into in this show is moving forward in time. In nineteen seventeen, an act was passed under Wilson's administration, the Emergency War Powers Act. And
then in nineteen thirty three, this is the biggie. That's when FDR was told by the international banksters to take that nineteen seventeen Emergency War Powers Act and add that the United States citizens were now enemies of the state, and James Montgomery covers. He covers this pretty exhaustively. I would say the historical the secret historical background. The banksters at first came to Herbert Hoover and said, you're going
to do this. You're going to pass this act, and we're going to do this and declare the people that the enemies of the state here, so they're going to be on the hook for all of the debt and to tighten the screws on them. And Hoover wouldn't do it. He was the lame duck. He was on his way out. He said, basically, I'm not doing this, and so it came to FDR. Actually FDR passed. Initially FDR just wanted to do it, and then he tried having them have
Hoover Hoover do it. Hoover said, no way, and so finally it came back to FDR, and he was entering the White House at that time, and he was forced to do that. The nineteen thirty three what.
Was that law called.
It was a tweakage of the nineteen seventeen War Powers Act, but I forget what the thirty three Act was called, but that was just devastating and we've been enemies of the state ever since.
All right, I'm gonna throw this out there only because I don't know if I can remember either. Are we talking about trading with the enemy?
Yeah, yeah, all.
Right, because you had the Banking Act that also, they all were in concert to create this kind of situation, which I would say is clearly adversarial between the government and its citizenry.
Yeah, okay, it was the nineteen seventeen Trading with the Enemies Act. Okay, in nineteen thirty three they changed it, tweaked it so that, hey, guess what, the US people, they're the enemy. That's us now.
Yeah, it's like I had said before. Yeah, you can't be too overtly that that way, because obviously you're going to raise more than suspicions of the people, you'll raise their ire as well. Right now, I think what has happened. We've always had the two party system. Okay, we understand that. But we're to a point now and I have to confess that I was also bitten by this. If I voted that I was an independent. I never classify myself as a Republican or a Democrat or anything else, or a libertarian.
None of that. But it was in the old days, if.
I voted Democratic and a Republican did something that I thought was horrible, I'd bang on the Republican whoever that should.
Be, whatever president that might have been at the time.
Now, if something that I didn't really understand that I thought was questionable that a Democrat put through, I would try to make some kind of justification or rationale for it. Oh, sure, and that's what goes on today. People understand that government is not responsive and something is quite wrong with it.
But also, at the same time, as we stated before, the acrimony between Republican and Democrat supporters is the worst it's ever been, so much so that it's pure hatred, and that one votes not for their own person but against the other parties person.
That keeps people.
From understanding that no matter what party reigns, everything is going along a singular path to a definite end, and they can't get that because they're so blinded by hatred for the other party. And of course, a lot of talk shows out there there are there solely to keep
stoking that. I mean, there are times when I'll pass through a Rush Limbaugh's show or something to hear something and I might be I don't know, in a supermarket or waiting online someplace, and I'll hear someone in discussion with someone else parroting that same stuff, and I'm like to shake my head because the people are so so propagandized and they don't even realize it. So going back to what you were saying, and I'll throw it back to you. There has been an adversarial needs but and
I think it's actually becoming more evident. But at the same time, people are more blinded. So it's it's just kind of like in the same proportions. And the truth of the matter is it's finally going to come out, but by the time the whole trap is sprug, people will not have had a chance. So let me throw it back to you. You know, there's other stuff I'm thinking about, but let's get back to the to the trail.
Please pick it up the.
Well, let's get this on record. If people want to go look this up. And that's one thing. If you don't want to just have a purely emotional reaction, what you want to do is you want to do your homework. If this sounds completely radical and crazy to you, don't do the knee jerk purely emotional thing. Go and check it out first. See if we're crazy. You're going to be surprised by what you find. More than surprise. Okay,
let's document this. The books you want to check out. Okay, the stuff that I just mentioned regarding the nineteen thirty three Act where FDR and the banksters made you and me the enemies of the people. That is the focus of the James Montgomery book, A Nation defeated in victory. That's where Montgomery goes into that. Now, the other stuff, the Revolutionary War era stuff, is mostly covered in his other book. The United States is still a British colony.
Now some of that subject matter does overlap, But just so you know, those are the two you want to look up, depending on what you want to focus on. And you know, traditionally and historically when you're telling something, when you're reporting something, you want to have two witnesses. Well, there, as you know, there is another witness to this, and
that's the informer. You can check out his stuff as well, and a lot of that is online, or you can buy his books, or at least you could until recently, I don't know what the.
Status that is. All right, they're still there.
Again, they could be purchased through the website think or beeton dot com, because what has to pay for the books, either by body order or I mean, you just can't do it on a live folks. But you can't go through that think orbe dot com and find out how to do it. It's going to be between you and the author, and it's going to be done by bail.
Maybe you can help me on this one. I actually am reading right now the essay you sent me by the Informer that deals with what happened in nineteen thirty three and what they did borrowing a perverting that nineteen seventeen Act, the War Powers problem. But I'm about two thirds of the way through it, maybe maybe one half. But al are you able to elaborate on what that changes for us? When we are when we the people the people are declared the enemy of the states, what
does that do to us? How does that change our status? What can we not do? What does that mean they can throw us in jail without habeas corpus if they want to. It's a privilege anyway, What does that change for us?
I don't know that it doesn't change everything. It just I think in trench is even more the idea that one has a persona as an employee or a slave of the incorporation of the United States of America. When you play into that, obviously you have no rights. And the reason I won't want to get too deep into this is because this is when we go back to road lit law, the idea of a person and such, and that is something that has to be really laid out over a period of time, and I had done
that with the informer. I don't know how many shows we did, but it just entrenches what I would say is the idea of not being so it en down with godly rights, if you will, and being really a subject of the government. As you had said, we have no rights. We only have privileges. And that's something that isn't very well known. And yet I found it interesting
when your foreman and I were talking about this. It might have been two or three days later, and this is while A. Shrub Bush was still in office, went on c SPAN. I just had to be passing through the channels, and at that time the Gonzales was the Attorney general and he was answering a question after he had given a speech. So you don't really hear the question that well, because the mikes aren't out in the audience. But what he said was in response, he says, no, you do
not have any rights, only privileges. And I hear about fell off the chair because here it is said out loud, but people don't hear that. They hear it, but they just make some kind of construct where it somehow would make sense or maybe he didn't really mean that, but
that's what's said, and it happens all the time. And I know this is convoluted and where I'm going with this, but clearly it did put us at a it's I don't know, I don't want to say forever more because it's been like that, you know, to a certain extent. But remember also that when they had the Banking Act, that was a great theft, the probably the largest theft of real money there ever was.
You know what I'm saying, Well, with the.
Banking Holiday, and they told people they didn't want them transacting with gold and silver, So what you'all turn it in and we'll give it this fiance currency for it. I mean, that was the largest theft in America, and it was perpetrated by the government. That's bigger than a left hands for robbery from where was LaGuardia by the mafia or Kennedy rather? But so I'm dancing around us
a little bit. But all I mean for me, what what that does is say, you know, forever, we will be separate from the government, and we will be seen in an adversarial status. And as I said before, it's it's it's like it's an abusive parent. I mean, the government will actually create a situation a lot of times it referred to as false flag and then and freak out the people, get them all, you know, worked up, maybe you can kill some and it'll turn around and
provide a solution for it. And everybody hugs the government for stepping into becoming their protector. So I'll just leave it at that. Continue where you want to with that, because it's been quite some times. As I read that particular article, I do believe that that's on thinkerbee dot com as well. I'll take a look at. What I'll do is I'll leave that also available for folks to read. But go ahead, and I'm sorry thel that I took so much time that what you just.
Described the government in essence beating the hell out of you and then offering to be your buddy, to be your protector. I mean, that's a protection racket.
Isn't it.
That's exactly and that's the you know, on.
Another level, that is the process you see in interrogation rooms and torture dungeons. Remember the last part of the book nineteen eighty four where that was how O'Brien dealt with Winston Smith. One day he'd be torturing him and the next day he would be his protector. Some very bad people have figured out that that's what really messes people up, destabilizes the human psyche enough to where you become so confused and you just.
Give in to them.
Well, that's what's happened with the events that have occurred, especially, I would say because of it since nine to eleven. I think we've also seen it with this with the frequency of shootings. People are freaked out, They want somebody to do something, and they'll pass the draconian law that in the end will probably work against them.
So you're right.
I mean, it's a situation where you know they'll provide the problem and they'll provide the solution. And this has been going on for some time, but especially since I would say post World War two when a boogey bet had to be created to keep that fear going. And one more example, okay, just to give you what we're talking about with regard to the government being an abusive parent, and I'm not we're not going to explain it here about nine to eleven and how that was allowed because
that was allowed. Pearl Harbor was allowed, Elucidatius sinking was allowed, and the USS made sinking was.
Allowed more than just allowed. Some of those were provoked, and some of those were even beyond that.
Oh you know, I'm just being nice by just just saying it that way.
No problem, Yeah, absolutely.
But what makes me laugh is when the justification for going into Afghanistan just a little less than a month after nine to eleven, the whole mantra was we're safer here because we're fighting over there. And yet how many times in the last ten to twelve years haven't we been told that we've just narrowly missed another terror event and that these factions are still alive and working with
in this country. And so what I'm saying to myself is, Okay, we're supposed to be safer here, but apparently we're not true. Nothing else has really happened. But what we're being told is it was going to. It was going to, it was going to, but we nipped it in the nick of time. So my thinking is, well, the problem is inside this country, not over in Afghanistan. It's got to do with immigration and some other things. So how are we safer here because we're fighting over there? And somehow
that gets all forgotten about. People don't connect the two. They just want to be protected every time another terror event is supposedly for a supposed terror event is thwarted and we're left with all the measures that are put in there even though the event never happened. And the greatest example of that is at the airport, all that's being done to you to stop potential terrorists. You know, you could say, well, we never did have another event, that is true, but they never said that what was
really even thwarted in a sense. But we still have to go through the whole YadA yadi to get on the plate. So again I've go too far with that, but that's what I'm saying. People don't connect the fact that we are not safe for here the fighting over there.
As you know, and as we've talked about, one of the reasons why they are making airport or airline travel so uncomfortable is the same reason why gas prices are so high. And that is when a state, when a nation descends into fascism or communism, or or any totalitarian state, as the United States now is, then they the rulers, the real rulers. They always seek to control your movement. They don't like people moving around.
Well, one of the earmarks of totalitary government is limited or don't you travel. So it's easy to see and this will happen over time. That I mean, I think it's funny that in the twenty first century air travel is worse than it was in the fifties. Secondly, forget about Amtrak. I mean, a lot of developed countries have light rail or in high speed rail and it works
just fine. Here we got amtrak, another example of what happens when the government gets involved in commercial enterprises and it sucks.
And what's worse than amtract greyhound.
So you've got three forms of travel that are really getting you become more odious except the last who've always been bad. But air travels got to a point where a lot of people are saying, you know, forget it, and the other thing is okay, then what do you resort to the use of your vehicle?
Well, what's going to happen there? Gas price is going to go through the sailing.
So the idea is stay put and I'll definitely raise my head and admit that I'm of a casualty, if you will, of that situation because they've made it that unpleasant. I don't care to travel anymore. I really don't want to fly where it used to be great right now it's like and I guess that's one of the problems too. I have something compared to at a time, but it was kind of nice.
The problem is a big problem is that the Americans who would classify themselves as patriots, they too see these modern problems that you and I see, but they think that if we can just take our country back and bring back our constitution, that things are going to be okay. And that's what this show is really about, is we're trying to tell them, no, it's really not going to
be okay. We never we the little people, never had any country, and really the only reason we were left alone more in the past was because there was more space, and there was less surveillance, and there was more to do with geography than anything else. The Constitution never protected anybody, and it certainly never gave you title to your land.
Well, that's the other illusion that you had opened up talking about, and that is you really don't own anything. You can pay off the mortgage, but you still have property taxes, you get behind in that, and you can lose your land, so you never really, you never really own anything. You have the color of ownership, but in the end it can be taken from you. And even
if you're doing everything you're supposed to do. Let's say you paid off the mortgage on your house and you just you paid off the property taxes no matter how high they get, you're okay there. But if you can turn around and have imminent domain come through and bang it's gone, you're finished.
Yea.
And we've seen enough cases of that before to not even have to establish that fact.
See, you really don't own anything. You just think you do.
And one other word that going back to your original question about what did the war powers do? And I may look up while we're talking, if not, what I found interesting is this, if you remember last year, probably earlier in twenty twelve of the later Bayner was banging on the president for I guess it's not instituting but applying the war powers.
You remember that at all?
You had told me that, I remember that.
I'll go try to fight.
But anybody can do his search and probably come up with that. And again here I thought this was rich. Now the critics of Obama would say, oh, he's created war powers or he's instituting them, as if that was his.
Own decision, if they only knew that's right.
I mean, if they've been there forever.
And Baynor, I think brought it up as a criticism of course, to agitate between Republicans and Democrats.
And yet they've been there forever.
And I said to the other man too, you know, is that one of the reasons why we've never declared war since what December eighth, nineteen forty one. We're always at war and the war emergency war powers is something that circummits the Constitution.
So there you go, like executive.
Voters, that allows a president to act in a manner such as a dictator. And it's happened before and will happen again. So yes, that happened.
Now. Also, I guess to sum up one thing, and that.
Is this as it was with the creation of the Constitution, also having Congress more or less make us the enemies. It slaved us so that we would be, without knowing it, more responsive to placating shall we say, global money in
the international bankers. If you remember, the Constitution was struck by the founders to cover their rear ends so they'd be at peace with the Crown, who obviously told them that if we don't get our return on our investment, we'll come over there throw a real war, and we'll also blockade you, and you'll understand what it's like to be in servitude again.
Well, that's what the War of eighteen twelve was about when the bank charter, the National Bank Charter ran out in eighteen eleven.
OK.
So that was one reason. The other reason is the original thirteenth Amendment, which is an episode of history again right out of a Twilight Zone episode. I'm looking at a quote from Montgomery about that. Right now, you know how many members in Congress today are lawyers, a majority almost all of them. There was an original thirteenth Amendment, which the archives of that have were destroyed in the War of eighteen twelve.
Well, we've got into that. Yeah, I think we were last night.
You could not be a lawyer and be a part of the government today if there was still that original thirteenth Amendment.
Also from a.
That forward peace, he stated, President Lincoln then made us the enemy of the government by twelve stat. Three on nine in eighteen sixty two. And I believe I have these documents as well that we could put up. Let's see, and Congress continued to keep the status quo by the creation of the Reconstruction Act in eighteen sixty seven. Then in eighteen sixty eight, the Fourteenth Amendment placed the people of both the North and South under the control of
the military rule. That's why we were saying the Reconstruction Acts. Whether the northern states didn't realize it, but they were hit with that as well. And we've been in that situation ever since. And the last sentence is the other banking system after getting a foothold in nineteen thirteen, referring to the creation of the Federal Reserve caused the demise of the Independent Treasury to complete the enemy status. Roosevelt finalized us as the enemies of the Bank in forty
eight stat one March ninth, nineteen thirty three. Statue is short the statute. So that brings us full circle back to what you were talking about.
Ahead, Well, do you recall in that informer essay you sent me there one pivot told historical figure that the informer keeps hearkening back to. His name was Whiting. Yes, and he was a secretary. Lincoln was so impressed with his legal Shenanigan. Lincoln made him the what was the title Secretary of War Power something like that, and Whiting was basically used as a He helped Lincoln to justify anything, any takeover of power on behalf of the federal government
over states rights and individual rights. That again, that Whiting guy is a shadowy figure in history. I had never heard of him before. Obviously, he played a central role in the Lincoln administration.
I mean, it's amazing because what about sixty years later you had another shadowy character that nobody really knows about. It was pivotal in forcing through without ratification, the Income Tax Amendment.
That's also where right around the time you got the Federal Reserve Act and that nineteen seventeen trading with the enemies act.
Well, the person you're talking about.
Is it not House, No, Hopkins or House No.
No, I'm thinking, well, where we got a couple of things going on here. No, I'm thinking about Folander Knox.
Oh yeah, okay, oh wow.
Yeah.
He was Secretary of State under at Taft, and he kind of bridged the administration under.
Teddy Roosevelt and Roosevelt.
But oh both of them.
Okay, yeah, Well, I don't think he served. I'll have to look at I don't think he served under Roosevelt. But at the time he was critical because he ran through the amendment for the creation of the income tax, which they had to have because because first he made the beast, which is the Federal Reserve, now he had to feed it. So he was in that critical time around nineteen thirteen. But all right, now, I remember too, Knox didn't serve under Roosevelt. But Knox was serving as
a legal counsel to the robber barons. So here you have Teddy Roosevelt shaking his fist, talking about walks offully carry a big stick, doing all this kind of supposed anti trust busting, right anti.
Now you're going back to like the nineteen hundred era.
That's right, that's what Knox in a way was working in concert. But he was working on the side of the robber barons.
But he was a powerful corporation lawyer.
Yes, and he actually had started off under McKinley, under McKinley's law firm, and then he grew in statute. This all took place in Ohio, which is also where John D. Rockefeller started that whole thing, so that while Roosevelt is acting like a trust buster, Knox is taking care the situation for the robber barons, who in a sense didn't mind this because they had already gained their fortunes through
the monopoly. So all this really did was this trust busting would stop anybody from coming in after and creating competition. So that's where Knox cut his teeth. And then later on he strikes the American people again because he passed through, and when you say ran through, he just proclaimed that it was done. They just went ahead and did it, so that the inc Attacks Amendment was never really ratified.
Well, you know, that's the same way they pulled off the Reconstruction Act and including the Fourteenth Amendment. That is the same way.
So that's where I was going with Folander Knox. But also you went back to trace this as well. And what we talked about shadowy characters besides Whiting. I mean there you have Filander Knox Nope, but great first name to Flander.
Who that's a clue? Oh yeah, how apt so. But you also had the war hero Sherman's brother John also being a snake in a grass, becoming instructed on how to create what was what was it that he had going with the banker's Oh, the creation of the Federal Reserve system.
Right, that's right. And this also is covered in the book by James Montgomery. A nation a country defeated in victory. I think I said nation earlier. It's a country defeated in victory by James Montgomery. Here he also covers that unknown history with I think it was John Sherman and
he was a representative from Ohio. He was William to comes to Sherman's brother, right, And Montgomery features a personal letter from one of the Rothschilds in answer to a letter that John Sherman had told him had sent to him.
The Rothschilds were I think the roth Childs were writing to another bank another banker in Europe, and they were telling them that this representative in the United States, John Sherman, had invited the Rothchilds in to get a piece of the pie on this coming really swindle, this financial swindle that was about to happen in the United States. It was eventually going to become the Federal Reserve. And you
had John Sherman inviting the bankers in on that. So obviously John Sherman was not on the side of his constituency. And you know another thing you have with that, and you have talked about this before, is William T. Sherman,
the famous general. His hands aren't entirely clean either. He obviously had some inside information just like his brother, because after that Civil War war between the States didn't to come to Sherman go out and just happen to buy a bunch of real estate where the railroad was going to be la laid down a little bit later, so that that land was going to be worth a lot more.
Yeah, when he was going out and making the world safe from Native Americans. While he was out there, he also bought up land that yes that the railroad would pass through, and he made a killy that way as.
Well as the other way, you.
Got these guys with inside connections. I talked about last week how in the formation of Washington d C. George Washington and just a few other cronies had inside information and they knew beforehand that DC was going to be declared the capital. So they did the same thing previously in history. They bought up that land knowing it was going to be worth a lot more later. How is that representing your constituency being a friend to we the little people.
And by the way, I have you throw this back at you, just to complete this Internox was an Attorney General of the United States with McKinley, so he did serve on the McKinley so he was he was actually protege by McKinley during his lawyering days. And of course now we see here that he was attorney general there he resigned, let's see in June of nineteen oh four, and then he did serve from nineteen oh four to
nineteen oh nine as Taft's secretary of State. Let me check that he was secretary of State under Taft from nineteen oh nine to nineteen thirty. Okay, the resigning was something else, and I just as as a bio. I'm just drawing from right away because I just want to clear my head, which is very hard to do. But I didn't think I didn't think he had any office under McKinley, but he certainly did, and he did Undertaft, and he did under Roosevelt as well. But under Teddy
I believe he was, let me see, attorney general. And that's where the residing comes from. He was an attorney general from one through four.
So there you have it.
You know what a bunch of dastardly deeds that guy perpetrated.
Well, I mean here again, I mean the government gets fat off making deals with those who are the financial elite. But I would think it's it's it's correct to say that. What's the robber barons gained their untold millions, they proceeded to buy influence until they actually bought the people themselves, the senators and congressmen. And from that point on they've been running the show, very content to stay in the
shadows and not be connected to anything. But after they gained power, you could see through the twentieth century things did not improve necessarily for Americans.
What you just described, how the rich people get rich and then they buy the American government. That is factually documented exhaustively in the book The History of the Supreme Court of the United States by Gustavus Myers. And another book of more recent vintage, but still just as out of print that does that is The Rich and the super Rich by Ferdinand Lund. Isn't it interesting that these books which document the truth about our history are all out of print. It's rather coincidental.
Well, it's also because they would not be picked up by major publishing houses.
That's why why would that be?
Of course, And as I had said, we had mentioned before, the character who owe the I gotta stop referring to. It's something other than his name. He's now passed on. But he took a risk by publishing those books. And another publisher that put out stuff that was not popular was Devin Adair, the nv O and Devin Adair, and they're the ones that published the book by Rear Admiral Theobold, The Final Secret of Pearl Harbor. So there were titles
out there that did that. Some of them escape me right now, but they would never the real big ones, you know that you would see in the front of where there used to be bookstores So you know what I.
Really appreciated about that book by Admiral Theobald. There are there are you know this, but there are three books that I that I know of that document that the fact, the undeniable fact that FDR and his cabinet and General Marshall knew that the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor, and they knew days, if not weeks beforehand. They could have warned the Hawaiian commanders, but they did not want to do that. We know that, and it goes beyond
that we provoked them, really so. But anyway, these three books, it's one of them is called Infamy by John Toland, a very respected World War II historian. The other is the most recent one is Day of Deceit by Robert Stinnett. But that one in the nineteen fifties that's totally out of print is The Rear. Admiral Theobald's book. Remind me of the title.
Of it, The Final Secret of Pearl Harbor, The.
Final Secret of Pearl Harbor. What I like about Theobalds is that guy. He starts the book smoking angry at FDR, and he ends the book just just as smoking angry at what they did to those men who died that day. Whereas both Toland and Stinnett, at the end of their book they throw in this little, this weird, incongruous couple of paragraphs where they try to kind of justify what FDR and his cronies did in a way. They say, well,
we had to get into the war anyway. And and they they FDR and his boys they didn't expect such a large loss of life at Pearl Harbor, but they knew that there was there had to be some loss of life. You never got that from Theobal. Theobal just he just said this was wrong, and it was wrong and should never have taken place.
But I just went to Amazona to take a look. Believe it or not.
They're offering the hardcover A Final Secret of Pearl Harbor for twenty one dollars.
Is that a used one?
That's uncollectible? The used one? They said a dollar? Ah really and three nine shipping. That's okay.
No, it's not being printed anymore, no, no, no, And I didn't need to say that that it was out there be published again. No, but it can't be accessed. And I think anybody who's that interested you will not be disappointed by that book. And what's even further interesting about what Theobold shares because it was laughable. I mean what he said is that the cabinet got together with Roosevelt, and that's that famous line I can't forget is that when they real that when they knew they were going.
To let Pearl Harbor sucker room.
I mean Pearl Harbor, the jap sucker. Oh that's politically incorrect or socially, isn't it's the Japanese. When the Japanese were going to sucker the United States, supposedly at Pearl Harbor, they all the cabinet agreed that they appreciated there would be a substantial loss of life.
Yeah, yeah, they appreciated it.
Now.
The other thing about that was is that Tom Dewey, who was going to run against Roosevelt in forty four because he had made his bones by being a big mark I was hit mob killer.
But that's a bad choice of words.
He was very effective in defanging the mob, the mafia and on that he was going to run.
In forty four.
He also was aware, I mean, this is the biggest secret that it was never kept. He was aware that Roosevelt in the cabinet had four an aloge, and he was going to use it with running against Roosevelt. And he was told by his own party, by the Democrats, and by the Joint Chiefs of Staff that he said anything about that, that he would be indicted for sedition. So he lost in forty four. And I assume his sins were that great that even though he won in
forty eight, he lost in forty eight against Truman. That's right, right, So Dewey made the mistake of sharing the secrets. Was going to share the secrets with the people, and that
was not going to happen. It's the next book I think is interesting because he has images of transmissions that were going back and forth between the Germans and the Japanese, and it was kind of like, in a sense, ironically funny that the Japanese said at dispatch to the Germans in May of forty one saying, I think America, the United States has broken our code. And of course they had, so the United States knew exactly what was going to happen,
and also the Japanese fleet. Contrary to public consumption, what they have been told is that the Japanese did not maintain radio silence coming across the Pacific, and there were Dutch and British listening stations on islands strewed across the Pacific that knew they were common.
It was laughable.
So Stannette he covers a few things that aren't covered in Theobald's book and Tolan's book. One that stuck out with me was, okay, all those books discuss how they that we've the United States has broken had broken the Japanese code. Stinett proved has some new corroborating evidence for that. But uh, and all those books also of course document the common knowledge that FDR put a trade embargo on Japan, provocative trade embargo, especially oil, and also that we had
frozen their assets, their monetary assets, another provocative move. But Stinet documents there something else that is was previously hidden was suppressed history here that FDR had implemented this this plan where for a period of time he they the US was sending uh, their their fastest ship, some kind
of cruiser. They would send a soul cruiser on this secret mission deep into Japanese waters, and they called them pop up missions or something like that, where the American cruiser would just show up in an obvious act of provocation deep into Japanese waters. And then once they were cited, the American cruiser would beat the hell out of there, would get out of there. But they did that several times. That again was to provoke the Japanese.
Well, it gets even better, and then we better get back to close out with the constitution. But in the book The Suppressed Truth about the Assassination of Abraham Lincoln by Burke McCarty, which was published somewhere in the late twenties, in that book, McCarty wrote that at the present, doing a bit of dealing with the present before she got into the past, that at the present time that the Jesuits were in Japan to instigate anti America sentiment for
a future war. She wrote that in the twenties, and of course Billy Mitchell ran his mouth. He knew that we were going to fight the Japanese sooner or later he ran his mouth and got court martialed for it. Well, you know, again, that was a kangaroo thing. But so, I mean, it was laughable that this was going to happen. And of course, how many servicemen and women were rambushed in that situation.
In fact, they had a.
Sortie that was out just on a regular mission. Actually, you know, the United States Actually we're landing while the Japanese were attacking, and they're coming down in the middle of this, like what is going on here? So you know, we don't need to make light of it. But I mean, that's how pathetically tragic this whole thing is. And again, this is what we're referring to as the government creating a terror event for a purpose, which is usually get everybody pissed off, to go off of want to kick
somebody in a butt. Was what we saw happened in October of two thousand and one, and we're not back yet.
Well, this I think will kind of bring it back around. That is, FDR and Churchill were working hand in hand. Churchill knew damn well that FDR was going to get this country into war on behalf of Britain. And there was a remember that one. I think he was an American guy, American soldier named Tyler kent Over in England. He found out about that and he tried warning his superiors and he was thrown in jail. They shut his mouth. But like you say that the metaphor of Master Blaster
from that movie Thunderdome. The United States was set up by Great Britain to be the hit man, the thumb man, the thug, and it really took fruition later on in the twentieth century, but really that was the design all along. We never were really cut loose, and as James Montgomery says, we were always were still a British colony. We just were given this delusion that we were independent.
Remember something too, that is, the American people were not too cool about going to war in World War One, and even though Lucidania happened years before our entry, it still was a very sore subject and worked.
It played an integral role in that dam.
Yes, and so to Wilson. But in World War Two America still was not kind of keen on going over. But what happened was with the declaration of war against the Japanese.
What that did was.
There was a tripartite agreement between Japan and Germany and Italy that an attack on one was an attack on the other. So when when we declared war against Japan, we automatically had war with Germany in Italy, and then Germany acted in the manner that it had to to keep the tripartite agreement, you know, vital. So in a sense, then the declaration of war the Japanese was a backdoor way of.
Now having war with Germany.
Well, sure, why not? Wall Street had financed Hitler's regime in Germany. So now the banksters that did that on both sides of the world, they could profit from this war because of course they're going to loan money to both sides and get the usury from both sides.
All right, we keep saying we're going to get back to the constitution, but then we're also thinking about who backed the Bolsheviks, which is funny. You know, the supposedly anti capitalist the Communists were set up by Western bank
money and implements as well. And of course, as soon as it was clear that the Bolsheviks would rest control for good from the Mensheviks and the ours, immediately there was a humanitarian legation sent over to Russia, some humanitarian group, I mean, I think one guy, like a couple of doctors. The rest were all heads of the industrial companies in
the West and include International Harvester and the folks. Also, if you want to check out a good source on what was going on with as THEO just mentioned wall Street's involvement in Wars and in our with our supposed enemies.
There you go. Antony C.
Sutton has a number of books out there dealing with the subject. They are most of them are online.
Well, the two that would be most relevant there Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler and Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution.
Yes, when last I looked, it was also one Wall Street. What did you just say the first title.
Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler.
Okay, Uh, there's also Wall Street and something with FDR.
Yeah, yeah, there's one another one on FDR.
That one was not online when I look. It hasn't been for some time. But you can't get that in a library, so wealth yeah, good luck is it's Sutton's book. But anyway, I did want to mention that also, I'll tell you why we're coming up to the end of this, so we're gonna bring it to a halt. The bit about Steven's book that's online that I would like to deal with. Then we can open with this the next
time around. But I also want to let people know that there are other critics throughout the years, throughout the last several decades that have not been happy with the Constitution, and that would include Lessanders Spooner, who has written The Constitution of No Authority.
Let me just take a look at that real quick.
Yeah, it was a real voice in the wilderness. He dates back to the eighteen hundred.
Yeah, I had one site bookmark that has now been suspended. But he pops up in another place at least once. I haven't taken a look. Give there are others, and again we'll put those links up. But he has written, yeah, the Constitution of No Authority, which I believe is a segment of a book called No Treason.
That's Les Sanderspoon. Or also we have.
Albert Knock, another non household name, who wrote Our Enemy the State that was back I guess so where in the early part of the twenty nineteen thirty five, that's what it came out. So those are other people with discussions and arguments that weigh against the validity of the
Constitution and its application. As well, as I have mentioned before, Toward an American Revolution can be written read online also by Jerry Friesia, who I have said is a Marxist and states such, and of course that's a problem too. But his criticism of the Constitution and his support for those criticisms are valid and they should be looked into as well. So how about we call it a day. We'll come back with part four and we'll go back
and take a look at the Constitution THEO. I'll give you a party shots before we close up.
Yeah, the one so called founding father that had some kind of merit, obviously was Patrick Henry. And he took one look at this monstrosity to call the constitution that they came up with, and he said, amongst other things, he said it squints towards monarchy. He did not like it, and yet he went ahead and signed it. Anyway. Why did he do that?
He was a lawyer, That's what I have said. Above all things, he was a lawyer. He was in the brotherhood. All right. That'll wrap it up for now. Back with part four with What's upon a Time