Nov. 13, 2014

PJ-15

CHAPTER 12

REC #1 HATONN

THURSDAY, MAY 31, 1990 10:11 A.M. YEAR 3 DAY 288

WHO WOULD DESTROY YOUR CONSTITUTION?

 

Who would want a Constitutional convention? Well, imagine a scenario: The U.S. Supreme Court declares the Gramm-Rudman "balanced budget" law un-­Constitutional. (Don't distract over the inoperability of that law thus far--this is an example.) A Constitutional crisis ensues.

 

Public officials, including members of Congress, the administration, "learned" lawyers and "scholars" from think tanks conclude that the only way left to balance the budget and save your nation from economic ruin is to have a Constitutional Convention (CC).

 

The Establishment media--which has reported precious little about the 16 year effort to call a "Con con"--starts beating the drums by pronouncing the views of all the "experts" who insist that a CC is needed to balance the budget and resolve this crisis. They will do this just as soon as the flag is dropped and the start gun fired. They have given you just enough to have infiltrated into your subconscious mind and it will seem very familiar when it hits the public media, let me assure you--and further, it will sound as if it is the only solution available unto you.

 

The public is genuinely frightened of America's mounting deficits and national debt and is readily persuaded a CC is a must. Farfetched? Not at all. Some people wanted to utilize the celebration of the bicentennial in 1987 to turn the ideas of your Founding Fathers upside down. The Supreme Court Judges in their black robes (Black robes, brothers, is the color of Satan's justice--where are your "white" robes which indicate justice?) have all but overruled all facets of your Constitution in one way or another. They are not on the team of "you the people".

 

The Supreme Court has already heard oral arguments on the Constitu­tionality of the Gramm-Rudman and wanted the splash of issuing it forth, like on the 4th of July, etc. Now, I will go through this one action so that you have an example to which to refer. I will endeavor to be brief.

 

Rep. Mike Synar (D-Okla.) and 11 other congressmen had filed a lawsuit charging the automatic budget cuts mandated by Gramm-Rudman violated the rule of separation of powers outlined in the Constitution. (The Constitu­tion gives spending and revenue collecting authority solely to Congress.)

 

By giving budget cutting authority to the General Accounting Office (GAO), the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget, Congress is seeking to avoid being held responsible for federal deficits.

 

In February, a three-judge panel decided Gramm-Rudman was un-Con­stitutional. However, it gave convoluted reasoning for its ruling. In effect, the rationale reversed your Founding Fathers' concept of the separation of powers.

 

Accounts from the oral arguments presented before the Supreme Court indicated the justices seemed to be leaning toward the opinion that Gramm-Rudman would be un-Constitutional.

 

The attorney representing the case of the comptroller general (head of the GAO) before the court was Lloyd Cutler, a high-powered Washington lawyer and former counsel to President Carter. Cutler is a key member of the elite group of internationalists who want to restructure your republic into a parliamentary form of government identical to England. You, friends, are naught but a functioning part of England no matter what you thought at the time of the revolution! For the world controllers have simply come in and in the name of brotherhood and friendship have put you further behind than you were at the point of the revolution and founding of a new country.

 

Rep. John LaFalce (D-N.Y.), noted that Gramm-Rudman itself installs parliamentary changes into your governmental system by giving the executive branch powers exclusively authorized to Congress under your Constitution. While it is therefore no surprise that Cutler would be defending Gramm-Rudman, he and his associates would win either way, you see. Of course "you the people" couldn't have understood all this--but now, it is urgent that you pay attention and learn to understand these things lest it become too late to act against the octopus of evil destroyers.

 

If the law would be declared un-Constitutional, the Committee on the Constitutional System (CCS) could then implement its structural changes to your Constitution at a CC.

 

Cutler and his colleagues in the Rockefeller-funded CCS wanted to make it easier to ratify treaties by reducing the two-thirds Senate requirement to simple majority; to force citizens to vote a straight-party line for president, vice president, senators and congressman; to allow the president to appoint members of Congress in addition to those elected; to eliminate the 22nd Amendment, which limits the president to two terms in office, among many other proposals that would erode the separation of powers.

 

President Ronald Reagan said he felt so strongly about the need to balance the budget that he was "willing to risk what might happen" (now, whose side do you suppose he was really on?) at a CC--this despite the fact that he had never submitted a balanced budget to Congress while he was President. In fact, he had presided over the biggest deficits in history of any nation any­where on earth--ever!

 

Perhaps Reagan viewed the CC as a perfect opportunity to repeal the 22^nd Amendment, which he repeatedly said he would like to do, so he could remain in office "for the good of the nation".

 

The balanced budget amendment in Congress and the Gramm-Rudman bill were used to set up a phony debate, to contrive a situation whereby the American people would be convinced that the structure of your government could not work and that a CC would be needed to remedy the situation.

 

AGENTS OF CHANGE--MID-1984,

 

IN FULL SWINGING  BATTLE

 

A powerful group of internationalists, financed in part by David Rockefeller and including on its board of directors Robert Strange McNamara, unveiled plans to change the "political structure" of the United States and make parliamentary-style amendments to the Constitution.

 

The group, the Committee on the Constitutional System (CCS), revealed some of its proposals at a May 30, 1984 press conference in Washington. This is most important for background in order to understand the unfolding of events. To locate some of these named individuals you will have to refer to the section on the Rockefeller Syndicate, i.e., McNamara, etc.

 

CCS set up proposals to:

 

*   Legally erode the separation of powers now existing in the Constitution between the executive and legislative branches of government;

 

*   Impose methods to remove the president from office short of impeachment;

 

*   Permit the president to dissolve Congress and call for new Congressional elections;

 

*   Facilitate treaty ratification by requiring a simple majority rather than two-thirds majority of the Senate;

 

*   Study possible Constitutional reforms in the area of federal and state powers and regional organization, keeping in mind "the need for regional forms of government in metropolitan areas that cross state lines";

 

*   Examine proposals to have U.S. taxpayers finance House and Senate elections; and

 

*   Delete the requirement in the Constitution that revenue-raising bills originate in the House, "since in actual practice they also originate in the Senate."

 

CCS PLANS TIMELY

 

CCS's plans for Constitutional reform were timely: 32 states had petitioned Congress for a Constitutional convention to ostensibly balance the budget (two later rescinded). Michigan was soon expected to become the 33rd state due to pressure from the National Taxpayers Union, and California's voters were expected to approve such a call on its November, 1984 ballot. (Can you see how very close you squeaked by?)

 

That meant that on Election Day the 34th state could have approved its petition for a convention, fulfilling the Constitutional requirement that once two-thirds of the states had so acted, Congress would be forced to call the convention.

 

Well financed, well organized, and boasting a long list of supporters well known in Establishment circles, CCS predicted its recommendations could "stimulate a very active and constructive national dialog" during the 1987 bicentennial of the Constitution.

 

Among those listed on CCS's board of directors were: Robert McNamara, former secretary of defense; Lloyd Cutler, former counsel to President Ford and member of the Council on Foreign Relations and Trilateral Commission; C. Douglas Dillon, former treasury secretary under Presidents Kennedy and Johnson; and former Congressmen Johnathan Bingham, Richard Bolling, Robert McClory and Henry Reuss.

 

Also: former Senators Nicholas Brady and J. William Fulbright; Senator Nancy Kassenbaum (R-Kan); James Sunquist and Bruce MacLaury, senior fellow and president, respectively, of the Brookings Institution; and James MacGregor Burns, author of THE POWER TO LEAD: THE CRISIS OF THE AMERICAN PRESIDENCY and enthusiast of parliamentary government and Admiralty law.

 

Others who would have attended CCS's third meeting on September 9-10, 1984, but could not do so were: David Rockefeller; Elliot Richardson, former secretary of defense; Senators Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-N.Y.), Lloyd Bentsen (D-Texas), Bob Dole (R-Kan.), Pete Domenici (R-N.M.), Carl Levin (D-Mich.), Charles Mathias (R-Md.) and Claiborne Pell (D-R.I.).

 

Also: Reps. Michael Barnes (D-Md.), Richard Cheney (oh, yes--same one! R- Wyo.), John Dingell (D-Mich.), Thomas Foley (D-Wash.), Lee Hamilton (D-Ind.), Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), Peter Rodino (D-N.J.), Patricia Schroeder (D-Colo.) and Jim Wright (same old boy; D-Texas).

 

Rodino's interest in CCS was noteworthy because of the crucial role he would play in Congress on the Constitutional Convention/balanced budget issue. If Congress did not pass a balanced budget amendment before its expected adjournment in July (1984) it appeared inevitable--barring a serious drive by populists interested in preserving your Constitution to get states to repeal their calls to Congress--that a convention would be convened.

 

"Conservatives" in Congress, particularly members of Congressional Leaders United for a Balanced Budget (CLUBB), predicted that the Republican-controlled Senate would pass a balanced budget amendment with little resistance, but that the House "liberals" would hold up actions, as they had done in 1982.

 

Convention advocates predicted that Rodino, who typically voted in the big spending, pro-social welfare, left-wing mode, would use his considerable powers as chairman of the House Judiciary Committee to foil efforts of "conservatives" to force Congress to act on the balanced budget amendment because he didn't want to balance the budget.

 

What seemed more likely at the time, however, was that Rodino was bottling up the amendment in committee to force the convening of a convention, a perfect opportunity for CCS and others to impose their Constitutional changes.

 

At a press conference, a representative of the Populist Party's national committee asked Cutler to respond to the opinion of Americans that the problems your nation faces were not a result of an antiquated Constitution, but rather were consequences of your government, particularly Congress, acting in flagrant disobedience to the Constitution.

 

Cutler answered that the Constitution was "vague" and subject to "wide interpretation" by the Supreme Court. He refused to blame the public servants (who were already serving the government and not the people). Al­though he was on record as supporting key aspects of parliamentary government in testimony before former Rep. Henry Reuss's Joint Economic Committee (now stay with me, chelas--go back and see that Ruess was on the board of CCS). Cutler then lied through his teeth, as is typical even if truth would serve better, and denied that he endorsed a parliamentary system of government and stated that "others have merely misinterpreted me". Of course published records already stated the truth of it.

 

CCS's contention that inadequacies and defects in your Constitution, rather than the un-Constitutional actions and questionable motives of your public servants, were responsible for the political crises facing your nation played on the lack of understanding Americans have regarding their own Constitution. Now here, chelas, is the best point made in the entire scenario--why don't Americans know about your own wondrous and blessed Constitution?

 

Mr. Dillon (B-Dir., CCS) said, "Our governmental problems do not lie with the quality of character of our elected representatives... Rather they lie with a system which promotes divisiveness and makes it difficult, if not impossible, to develop truly national policies." He contended that the division of power between the President and the Congress "makes stalemate inevitable" and "no one" can place the blame. Well, speaking of "quality of character", Wright is history and Mr. Cheney moved right on up into unlimited terrorist status.

 

When one studies James Madison's notes from the debates at the 1787 Constitutional convention, the ratifications of the states, and the "Federalist Papers", a complete understanding of the intent of your Founding Fathers can be discovered. It becomes clear that the Constitution mandates a separation of powers among the legislative, executive and judicial branches of gov­ernment, and that your government is today violating that command con­stantly and more flagrantly moment by moment.

 

For example, the Constitution gives lawmaking authority only to the Congress. In flagrant violation of this authorization, the executive branch routinely makes law--the President with his issuance of executive orders and agencies like the IRS through its codemaking as recorded in the "Federal Register"--and the judicial branch, through the Supreme Court's basing its decisions on public policy rather than expounding on the Founding Fathers' intent. All of these things are UNLAWFUL ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION!

 

Rather than trying to get your government to practice this separation of powers mandate, CCS wants to legalize current practices and even expand on such activity, with proposals that echo the practices in countries possessing a parliamentary form of government.

 

Dear one, does it begin to come clear why Sister T would discount your work? She is totally misinformed by Donald Keys of the U.N. and the United Nations has been most active of all in impacting the changing of your National Constitution toward One World Government. There have been others who brought false information regarding UFOs, etc., and she was given into the believing of it for the intent was to render both space brethren and Sananda invalid. God created your wondrous country, He would not work to tear it down; Satan works through all he can dupe to carry forth his work and none are spared in the duping--even blessed receivers in their shadow years of the nineties. As we continue to unravel this entangled web you will become more comfortable in the standing forth undaunted, albeit terribly painful during onslaught, against those who have denounced you and we of the Command. Truth shall uncover the facts of the matter and it is now to come forth in fulness. Be patient, chelas, for truth shall set ye free!

 

If "reason" in truth cannot prevail then it is sad indeed. All the insulting and "warning" threats against you from ones who refuse to sign papers, etc., is all the more "proof' for the contempt felt for your work of truthful unfoldment. Just to be on Kissinger's "hit list" must tell you the truth of that which you write in our behalf. If Mr. Mullins thought it bad to be on the FBI "wipe out" list--I tell you now, Kissinger surpasses Hoover in insanity by all means of measurement. PROTECT ONE ANOTHER! IT IS TERRIFYING IN­DEED! PERHAPS EUSTACE WOULD LIKE TO START ADVISING YOU OF MOVES REGARDING THIS PROPERTY AND YOU CAN ADVISE HIM AS TO HOW TO "LOSE" YOURSELF! BARTER IS A GOOD THING!

 

PACK TO THE CCS

 

Among suggestions:

 

*   Interlocking the executive and legislative branches by allowing the President to appoint members of Congress to some or all Cabinet positions. The thinking is that this system might promote teamwork between the President and Congress and facilitate public policy consensus;

 

*   Creation of a joint executive-legislative council to involve congressional leaders in policymaking;

 

*   Linking more closely the electoral fates of candidates for President and Congress by either increasing House terms to four years with elections in presidential election years or by linking with a single vote the presidential and vice presidential candidates with House and perhaps Senate candidates;

 

*   Giving Congress a greater role in the presidential nominating process as well as allowing members of Congress to serve as presidential electors (does this not tell you how manipulated the system already is?).

 

*   (Hold your breath on this one who keeps the Holocaust and bitterness going.): A discussion of the German system wherein a significant number of legislative seats are allocated on a proportional basis to the political parties that receive more than 5 percent of the vote. CCS reasons that allocating House seats on a similar at-large basis would increase the likelihood that the political party of the president would also control the House.

 

CCS DENIED THE CHARGES--HO HUM!

 

Along those lines, CCS denied that it was trying to promote a parliamentary system by explaining: "In a parliamentary system, the chief executive is selected from the parliament (legislature). The U.S. tradition of a chief executive elected from the nation as a whole has worked well in general and has strong public support. It should be preserved". But what about the suggestion above?

 

Contrary to this statement, CCS is nonetheless exploring such a reform just as quickly as they can determine how to force it upon the sleepy public. At a CCS meeting, J. William Fulbright, member of the board of directors, strongly supported the suggestion to change the Constitution to remove the prohibition against members of congress serving as electors to enable Congress to play a large role in electing the President.

 

In response, Cutler said that he and many in CCS preferred to enhance the power of a party's congressional candidates and the holdover senators in selecting the presidential candidate of that party.

 

On the question of whether CCS would try to implement its proposals at a possible Constitutional convention, the group said: "If a Constitutional convention is called for a balanced budget amendment and is opened up to broader matters. . . such carefully-researched structural amendments as the committee may produce could contribute to a constructive convention." If you aren't getting sick by now, you don't understand the situation!

 

CCS "has held numerous national and regional meetings and will conduct further meetings in preparation for a tentative September, 1985 unveiling of their final plans. The committee says it wants to give Congress, the states and the national political parties enough time to study CCS's recommendations in preparation for the 1987 bicentennial," was openly stated in many widespread documents.

 

PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM FEATURE

 

A fundamental feature of the parliamentary system is the dissolution of the legislature, which CCS is seriously considering. This could be done by amending the Constitution to allow the President to dissolve Congress and call for new congressional elections. A President frustrated by an uncooperative Congress would find this a powerful weapon because even if not used, the simple threat of congressional dissolution would keep many members in line. Congress could also be given "compensating enhancements" along with four-year terms.

 

CCS studies the possibility of removing the President from office for reasons of ineffectiveness. The only way a president can now be forced from office, aside from losing a re-election bid, is through impeachment for committing high crimes and misdemeanors. This is not apt to happen as was seen in the handling of Nixon.

 

Professor Donald Robinson of Smith College, who edits CCS's "workbook", acknowledges that "the Founding Fathers restricted the removal of the President to impeachment because they wanted to keep the President im­mune from politics so laws, once made, could be administered in a non­political way.' But Robinson says this philosophy "has changed with time. . .the modern presidency cannot be a non-political office." Ah so, and you can see how new attitudes simply pervade the subtle mind acceptance of a "thing".

 

CCS has also discussed the possibility of a six-year presidential term, now practiced in Mexico, which has a one-party system. Also under consideration is repeal of the Constitution's 22nd Amendment, which limits the presidency to two terms. Please read the section to follow, on the new Constitution, very carefully. Then study the comparison section for short, succinct insight.

 

One proposal that the CCS panel charged with discussing budget matters was in complete agreement on was that there was no need for a Constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget. I hope your mind is somewhat confused for if it isn't--you are NOT HUMAN! This was the precise reason given why there was pushing for a Constitutional convention. The panel con­cluded that this "does not have to be in the Constitution to be achieved".

 

Robert McClory, former congressman from Illinois, went on record as believing that the framers of the Constitution assumed that "of course" you would "balance the budget each year".

 

The CCS panel, and particularly McClory, either did not know or did not care that the Constitution already mandates a balanced budget. Your Founding Fathers wanted to extinguish the debt each fiscal year by requiring Congress, whenever enough revenues had not been collected through imposts, excises, and duties to pay its expenditures, to apportion among the states according to their congressional representation the remaining needed taxes as I have previ­ously pointed out to you.

 

This requirement--Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution--has never been repealed and Congress is still required to invoke it to balance the budget. While you slept and fiddled--America burned!

 

CCS is now financed on a tax-deductible basis via contributions to the left-wing Brookings Institute (Rockefeller), which is tax exempt. Cutler said that once CCS was incorporated, it would apply for a tax exemption under Section 501(c)(3) of the IRS code. (All you good little incorporators paying attention?) It could then receive contributions and membership fees that would be tax deductible. Besides you could depend on it to never show a profit for taxable purposes.

 

Detailed planning for CCS began in 1982 with contributions from the Dillon fund. Since then grants have been made by the American Express and Hewlett Foundations (Rockefeller) and by David Rockefeller.

 

A ". .massive thrust would be put into action to cause the CCS to make the public understand 'why' the Constitution should be amended. It would program general education including media coverage and activity by appro­priate and selected organizations. A major lobbying effort would also be pursued to convince Congress and the states to adopt such Constitutional changes."

 

Let us close this section and allow a little digestion to take place. In the next portion we shall take up the lie which claims a CC can be somehow "limited in proceedings".

 

GOD COMES JUST IN TIME

 

RECIT #1 SANANDA

 

TUESDAY, JUNE 5, 1990 5:50 A.M. YEAR 3 DAY 293

 

Blessings and peace. I Am Sananda, Jesus of old, Immanuel, it matters not the label. I come in the glorious light of the most high Father. Be at peace in these troubled times.

 

Peace does not mean inaction, rather it means calm within...always you will need constructive action without.

 

Your land is in great peril...so few of your people understand the dangers immediately before you that it seems all but impossible to turn of the tide. Not so, for you must remember two very important things: I am returned with the heavenly host and, All is possible WITH God. Do you think God would come too late to offer you this help, to save a glorious country founded on the principles of freedom from downfall? You will learn that God comes just in time. Hold that one very close to your hearts, but this does not mean to "kick­back" and let God or another handle of it...the course of this ship would be irreversible.

 

How many of you free peoples understand your Constitution? How many of you free peoples have read your Constitution and Bill of Rights? Why not? How many of you have a passport?...better be getting one while you can. The threat of a Constitutional Convention is so great that it simply must not take place. The Controllers have laid their Plan so carefully, so diabolically, that you the people walk right into the lion's den. How could you have known when it is not projected on your controlled news programs? Of course you couldn't have known. But you know now and you had better be taking this newly acquired knowledge and converting it into some very real action to bring an end to this real threat to your freedoms.

 

Why do you think they want to ban the Phoenix Journals in this country? Why do you think they want to kill Dhanna? Because what Hatonn and I, Sananda, tell you are the truth of God and they know it and they will stop at nothing to keep the lid of silence closed over you the people. Do not allow it! And the way you may not allow it is to read this material and become in­formed -- share with others -- call your elected representatives or go there, write letters, send telegrams -- they are your representatives, remember? And why is it, by not knowing your Constitutional rights, that you have overlooked the most obvious of all...that your current income tax by the Internal Revenue Service is Unconstitutional? Wake-up, wake-up, wake-up!

 

The tenacity and drive for freedom that was within the Founding Fathers seems to have been lost to Monday night football and lite-beer! Well that is fine, but when the TV is off because there's no power, and all energy is spent securing food, beer won't seem that important. Besides, you won't be all that free to drink it anyway in this New State. Think carefully the path you are on...for the freedoms you are so quick to toss away may be the very ones you need the most.

 

"The Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." Have you forgotten? Did you ever know? And, by the way, did you not ever wonder why your very country's flag contains within it a field of stars? Because, dear blessed ones, that is where God is, that is where I Am, and I Am come with a heavenly host from Pleiades to bring you through. Hear the Word and the Word shall set you free...but...it still requires action.

 

I know that many of you are simply overwhelmed by all of this information, there's just  so much! Yes, there is so much because you have slept while your country, your world, has been taken over by evil forces, as predicted for these End Times. It is true there is a great deal of information in these Journals, but you have slept for too long and it's time to play catch-up -- RAPIDLY NOW. How could you have been so stupid? How could you not have known that all of these things were taking place? Because the One World Planners are master manipulators and your news media is totally controlled...how could you have known? Well you know now and the primary point of focus now should be WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT??

 

It would be wise indeed for you to use to your full advantage those freedoms you have remaining...and, and this will sound strange perhaps coming from Jesus Sananda, the right to bear arms is one, having a passport is another. There will be an all out effort to disarm you as a people, for that is a necessary first step before full control may be gleaned. Oh, most of you will willingly hand them over...after all it's to get the guns away from the dealers and criminals, right? (Then why are they going to take yours?) "The Right to Bear Arms," remember? This, and so so many other things shall be destroyed by a Constitutional Convention, for you see, once held they will do what was done the last time, only not with the foresight with your interests in mind that the Founding Fathers had. Caution, caution...your nation is on the very brink of disaster, do not allow this to happen or your freedoms will be lost. Hear my brother, Hatonn, he speaks truth. Honor those brave men and women who have dared to do the research and writing to expose the heinous things on your place. But become informed! A knowledgeable public is dangerous to the Controllers, for only you may bring an end to this tyranny before you, before it is too late.

 

God pours blessings onto this land. I Am asking that you hear what is being said to you, for time is of the essence in this matter. If you want to do research and confirm this and other of the material, fine, excellent. However, the time for action is now to stop the Constitutional Convention. You are the hands and feet of God. If you do not do it, who will?

 

Blessings,

     I Am Sananda In Light

 of our Father

http://www.fourwinds10.net/journals/pdf/J015.pdf