the silent revolution of federal regionalism - a solution

8/9/2019 The Silent Revolution of Federal Regionalism - A Solution

1/85

Welcome to the Committee to Restore the Constitution. . .a Colorado Non Profit Corporation which addresses hidden facts behind national crisis, defines constitutional powers to halteconomic/political exploitation and offers procedures to aid citizens to defend freedoms of person and property guaranteed to themby the Constitution of the United States.

2218 West Prospect Road P.O. Box 986, Ft. Collins, CO 80522(970) 484-2575 (Col. Roberts)

[email protected]

The United Nations War in Yugoslavia - A Solution

The Silent Revolution of Federal Regionalism - A Solution

Federal Regionalism seeks to overthrow the Constitution, change the form of government, seize control of property and production,and reduce you to the status of an economic serf on the land which once was yours.

Unless exposed and neutralized, Federal Regionalism will dissolve county government, building block of the American politicalsystem, and destroy representative government in your state.

There are over three thousand county governments in the United States, each one a self-contained, lawful authority, charged withdoing whatever is necessary to enforce articles of the Constitution within the county. County law-enforcing, law-interpreting and law-making powers are derived directly from the residents of the county.

The sheriff, county judge and county commissioner are representatives of the people who reside in the county. They are personallyaccountable to you for the proper discharge of their duties. They are the greatest potential challenge to the misuse of authority by acentral corporate government in Washington - and to the ten federal regional capitols ... when they are informed. Many are nowmisdirected and confused.

You should place the highest priority in motivating these county officials; first, to reject Federal Regionalism and those who promote it,and next, to demand investigation of Federal Regionalism by your state legislature with the objective of outlawing regional operationsin your state.

Remedy to the seditious conspiracy of Federal Regionalism is offered in an eleven part series, beginning with, "Council of StateGovernments," including tactical operations you can initiate in your county.

Part 1 COUNCIL OF STATE GOVERNMENTS

with, "County Resolution Rejecting Regional Government"

Part 2 FEDERAL REGIONALISM - A SOCIALIST AMERICA IN YOUR LIFETIMEwith, "Bill to Provide for Enforcement of the United States Constitution with Regard to Federal Regionalism"

Part 3 CHARACTERISTICS OF GOVERNMENT

Part 4 THE FEUDAL STATE - AMERICAN SERFS LABOR FOR DIRECTORS OF THE FEDERAL CORPORATIONwith, "National Crisis and Executive Orders"

Part 5 AMERICA'S PLUNGE INTO SLAVERYwith, "The Mattoid Syndrome"

Part 6 THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION - CORE OF INTERLOCKING SUBVERSION IN GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS

with, "Fatal Steps to Dictatorship"

Part 7 SUPREME COURT DECISION DESTROYS 'HOME RULE' GOVERNANCEwith, "A Legal Opinion,"plus, "The Fatal Flaw of Federal Regionalism Concept is the Fact that it is Unconstitutional"with, "The Indictables,"

http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/ Go APR AUG NOV

282004 2005 2006

157 captures

2 Dec 98 - 25 O ct 07

Close

Help

Welcome to the Committee to Restore the Constitution 3/23/2015

http://web.archive.org/web/20050828152950/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/ 1 / 85

http://web.archive.org/web/20050828152950/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/Resolution.htmlmailto:[email protected]://web.archive.org/web/20050828152950*/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/http://web.archive.org/web/20050408182410/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminchttp://web.archive.org/web/20051126062405/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/http://web.archive.org/web/20050828152950/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/Indictables.htmlhttp://web.archive.org/web/20050828152950/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/Fatal_Flaw.htmlhttp://web.archive.org/web/20050828152950/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/Indictables.htmlhttp://web.archive.org/web/20050828152950/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/Fatal_Flaw.htmlhttp://web.archive.org/web/20050828152950/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/Opinion.htmlhttp://web.archive.org/web/20050828152950/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/Decision.htmlhttp://web.archive.org/web/20050828152950/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/Fatal_Steps.htmlhttp://web.archive.org/web/20050828152950/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/Rockefeller.htmlhttp://web.archive.org/web/20050828152950/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/Mattoid.htmlhttp://web.archive.org/web/20050828152950/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/Plunge.htmlhttp://web.archive.org/web/20050828152950/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/Crisis.htmlhttp://web.archive.org/web/20050828152950/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/Feudal.htmlhttp://web.archive.org/web/20050828152950/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/Character.htmlhttp://web.archive.org/web/20050828152950/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/Bill.htmlhttp://web.archive.org/web/20050828152950/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/SocAmer.htmlhttp://web.archive.org/web/20050828152950/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/Resolution.htmlhttp://web.archive.org/web/20050828152950/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/Council.htmlhttp://web.archive.org/web/20050828152950/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/Yugoslavia.htmlmailto:[email protected]://faq.web.archive.org/http://web.archive.org/web/20050828152950*/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/http://web.archive.org/web/20060905003409/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/http://web.archive.org/web/20040828065519/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/http://web.archive.org/web/20051126062405/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/http://web.archive.org/web/20050408182410/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminchttp://web.archive.org/web/20051126062405/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/http://web.archive.org/web/20050408182410/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminchttp://web.archive.org/web/


2/85

Part 8 SPECTATORSHIP VS PARTICIPATIONwith, "Tugwell: Government Will Control All Land"plus, "Proof: Destruction of Private Property Rights Via Regionalism"and, " House Joint Resolution No. 33 of the Ohio House of Representatives"and, "A Petition to the State Legislature"

Part 9 A CONSTITUTION FOR THE NEWSTATES OF AMERICAwith, "Regionalism: the Quiet Revolution"

Part 10 A PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL MODEL FOR THE NEWSTATES OF AMERICA,text, Preamble and Article I through Article VI of "A Constitution for the Newstates of America"

Part 11 A PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL MODEL FOR THE NEWSTATES OF AMERICA - CONCLUSIONtext, Article VII through Article XII of "A Constitution for the Newstates of America"

For best results, use Netscape 2.0 or later.

Welcome to the Committee to Restore the Constitution 3/23/2015

http://web.archive.org/web/20050828152950/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/ 2 / 85

http://web.archive.org/web/20050828152950/http://www.netscape.com/http://web.archive.org/web/20050828152950/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/Constitution_2.htmlhttp://web.archive.org/web/20050828152950/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/Constitution_2.htmlhttp://web.archive.org/web/20050828152950/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/Constitution_1.htmlhttp://web.archive.org/web/20050828152950/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/Constitution_1.htmlhttp://web.archive.org/web/20050828152950/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/Quiet_Revolution.htmlhttp://web.archive.org/web/20050828152950/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/Newstates.htmlhttp://web.archive.org/web/20050828152950/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/Petition.htmlhttp://web.archive.org/web/20050828152950/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/Ohio.htmlhttp://web.archive.org/web/20050828152950/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/Proof.htmlhttp://web.archive.org/web/20050828152950/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/Tugwell.htmlhttp://web.archive.org/web/20050828152950/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/Spectatorship.html


3/85

Committee to Restore the Constitution ®

The Silent Revolution of Federal Regionalism - A SolutionPart 1

The Council of State Governments

A Pivotal Date in the 39 Year History of the Regional Movement

Representative Walter Meyer of Missouri, Vice Chairman, Midwestern Conference Committee on Government Operations and Urban Affairs, Council of State Governments, Chicago, invited Colonel Roberts, Director, Committee to Restore the Constitution,Colorado, to address the Committee's Midwestern Conference, 19 April 1974, at the Sheraton-O'Hare North.

Seventeen influential State Senators and Representatives from twelve Midwestern States, three regionalism promoters, one retired Army Colonel, and one journalist met in a small room at the Sheraton Hotel in Chicago, April 19, 1974. If a history of the 39 year oldregionalism movement is ever written, this date will be identified as being of pivotal importance.

The occasion was a meeting of the Government Operations and Urban Affairs Committee of the Midwestern Conference of theCouncil of State Governments, an adjunct of the "1313" Public Administration Clearing House.

The subject of the afternoon: Regionalism.

The meeting was the first manifestation of a new policy adopted by the NARC (National Association of Regional Councils) at their Los Angeles Convention March 9-13. In our March 25 edition, the Sunbeam interviewed Mr. James Dowden, Deputy Director of NARC.Mr. Dowden stated that the general pattern of regionalism promotion would change in 1974 in recognition of the fact that the "game isshifting to the States". Attention will be given to "beefing-up" the State regional relationship, he said, so when federal legislation isfinally released the State regional unit will be prepared to receive and implement it.

It is no coincidence that 1313's Council of State Governments should first reflect NARC's change in strategy since NARC, under itsformer name of National Service to Regional Councils, was also a satellite of "1313".

The April 19th program contrasted markedly with previous regionalism indoctrination sessions simply because a speaker for theopposition was invited to state his viewpoint. Colonel Archibald E. Roberts, Director of the Committee to Restore the Constitution,shared the billing with one regional planner, and two regional bureaucrats.

Beginning at 1:30 p.m., the meeting ran until nearly 5 p.m. The temperature rose steadily in the small, poorly ventilated room as thedebate intensified and legislators from other Council of State Government Committees forsook their scheduled meetings andcrowded into the Governmental Operations room. Eventually legislators were seated two-deep around much of the table, in theanteroom adjoining the meeting place, in the doorway, and out into the hall.

The reason for their interest is simply explained: there has never been a discussion of regionalism such as that which occurred on theafternoon of April 19, 1974, and the majority of legislators present were obviously hungry for information concerning this newphenomenon which, they were belatedly realizing, was transforming the structure of State, as well as County, Municipal and Federalgovernment.

One of TenMr. Norman Erbe, former Governor of the State of Iowa, and appointed Chairman of the Federal Regional Council of Region V.(Minnesota, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana, and Ohio - federal capitol - Chicago) was the first speaker.

His presentation was surprising in that it was the most basic of primers regarding regionalism, even to the point of explaining to one of the legislators which region included his state. It was obvious from Mr. Erbe's speech that he did not consider the legislators to befamiliar with the issue.

Power to the People?The second speaker, Mr. Gerald Chistenson, a Minnesota State Planner, is recognized as having advanced the cause of regionalismsubstantially in that state. He discussed regionalism on the sub-state level.

The questioning following Mr. Christenson's presentation was prolonged and hostile. His thesis, that regionalism was an important

lever to be used to personalize big government and return the power to the people, was repeatedly challenged by legislators whostated that the facts of the regionalism movement belie his theory. Before the session was complete, and despite Mr. Christenson'suntenable apologia, regionalism was identified as the "disease of which it fancies itself the cure".

An InterludeThird on the agenda was Ms. Dianne Semingson, "Special Assistant to Regional Administrator for Regional Council Affairs, Region VHUD".

ht tp://www.webaccess.ne t/~comminc/Council. html Go APR SEP OCT

122004 2005 2006

29 captures

21 Feb 99 - 12 Sep 05

Close

Help

Council of State Governments 3/23/2015

http://web.archive.org/web/20050912175306/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/Council.html 3 / 85

http://web.archive.org/web/20050912175306/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/index.htmlhttp://web.archive.org/web/20050912175306/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/index.htmlhttp://faq.web.archive.org/http://web.archive.org/web/20050912175306*/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/Council.htmlhttp://web.archive.org/web/20040806131455/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/Council.htmlhttp://web.archive.org/web/20050408083721/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/Council.htmlhttp://web.archive.org/web/20050408083721/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/Council.htmlhttp://web.archive.org/web/


4/85

Somewhat out of step with the general tenor of the meeting, Ms. Semingson presented a speech concerning three separate versionsof the Better Communities Development Act soon to be considered, or reconsidered by Congress. Poorly organized, and tootechnical in nature to be comprehensible in an oral report, her speech was essentially an interlude between discussions, of fundamental issues.

The Fourth Speaker

Throughout the afternoon the State legislators had expressed deep concern, in some cases quite dramatically, with the progress of regionalism.

The fourth speaker, Colonel Arch E. Roberts (retired), summarized and amplified their protests in a direct, hard-hitting attack against

regionalism, and the "political con-men" who promote it under the guise of strengthening local elected officials.Col. Roberts introduced and substantiated three ideas: 1) regionalism is blatantly unconstitutional; 2) regionalism is the product of amaster plan designed by an elite conspiracy for the purpose of centralizing power and establishing the United States as a corporatestate; and 3) the Rockefeller family is deeply involved in said conspiracy.

As the sun slanted low through the windows the meeting adjourned, and it was obvious that regionalism had been subjected to a testsuch as it had never before been forced to endure: the test of exposure and open debate between those familiar with the product inactual fact, not theory.

Regionalism flunked the test.

State legislators from throughout the Midwest had been assembled in order to be informed, by the proper authorities, of what thefuture would hold. Instead, the legislators spoke, and through their statements made it quite clear that the battle, rather than being over,has simply not begun.

VerbatumFor those of our readers who wish to experience the action of April 19, 1974, in a more direct form, we have transcribed belowpertinent excerpts from the Chicago meeting. Verbatum quotations are printed as indented blocks.

Mr. Norman Erbe introducing his speech and, in effect, explaining the reason for the program.

ERBE: Frankly, as far as the FRC [Federal Regional Council] is concerned, we have felt that there has been a gap in our input and information, dissemination and assistance with respect to the legislative bodies. In fact we just received a letter yesterday from the - one of the legislators from Illinois - who gave us a real hard time because we had not been relatingwith the legislature. We wrote him back and said that we were extremely sorry that we hadn't been able to relate with thelegislature but we just haven't been able to do i t yet.

I hope that today is the beginning of a new day, with the FRC relating with, and being responsive to members of thelegislative bodies because I feel that you gentlemen and ladies have a big stake in federal programs.

Mr. Erbe then explained, in the most general terms, what federal-regionalism is and the federal actions upon which it is based.

A question and answer session followed the former Governor's comments:

MISSOURI LEGISLATOR: Governor, why have these regions been set up above the legislature? There is no input. Thereis no correlation between these regional governments and the legislature. It's done through the Governor's office. All weknow about it is the appropriations. Give you the money. That's the only contact we have with you.

ERBE: That's our problem. That's why we'd like to relate with you.

MISSOURI LEGISLATOR: This is my whole problem. This is why I'm here. These creatures are created without any input,without direct representation from the people.

ERBE: Well, this is not a representative body.

MISSOURI: Well you better believe it. That's what I'm concerned about.

ERBE: We represent - we are the field organization, or field arm of the Secretary's Office [Secretary of HUD, OEO, EPA,etc.] in each case, and it was set up to hopefully - you folks, or those who you serve won't have to go to Washington to getanswers to your questions. Go to Kansas City and get your answers there.

MISSOURI: Yes, but this is the problem. You say they can go to Kansas City but the legislature can't even go to KansasCity because they don't even know what is the real set-up.

Mr. Gerald Christenson, a Minnesota State Planner decrying the fragmentation of government today, and seeking a plan for "comprehensive government":

CHRISTENSON: And really sometimes, with all the variety of federal, state, and local programs you wonder if sometimesthings are just going to stop working. It's so terribly complex, and sometimes these programs are working at crosspurposes ...

We're in a losing battle. Government is becoming more fragmented all the time ...




5/85

We think that the regional thing gives us the opportunity to allow local officials to finally get a handle on this integratedapproach to government ... What we've got to do is strengthen the hold of the elected officials ...

The weakness, I think, is there has been the fragmentation of local government. Now with those twelve state regionsworking together [Minnesota sub-state regions] adequate staff - I think we have a chance to get at a more comprehensiveapproach ...

I've had a number of state legislators, a couple of them elected in opposition to regional government, come up to me andsay we're on the right track. I opposed it. I was wrong. This is the way to go.

I think the key to this is they've got to see it not as a way of taking away power from the local government, but enhancing [it].

A question and answer period followed the planner's statements:

OHIO: Where does resident participation enter into this picture at all, or does it enter into the picture? This is the thing I'mconcerned about ... For the first time the people are saying: Hey! We want to be a part of this action ... Where do they fitinto your scheme?

CHRISTENSON: I would place major thrust upon making the political system work and giving them, the elected officials,the kind of staff they need ... When it comes to operation we'll have a strong role for County Commissioners. There will bea role for citizen participation, but it will be under the umbrella of those elected officials who make up the regionaldevelopment commission.

OHIO: I agree with what you're saying, but you say under the umbrella. Where under the umbrella? This is what bothers me.

MISSOURI: It bothers everyone.CHRISTENSON: We're moving cautiously on this thing. I don't think that any of us know where it's going to end up.

IOWA: The thing which I disagree with is ... this idea of more and more staff, because, as far as I'm concerned, it takesmore away from the people themselves ... I think it's one of the big problems with the Congress. They've got so _____ much staff ...

Then when I see Regionalism coming ... Our kids right now in the schools, as far as I'm concerned, are being almostbrainwashed into a regional concept. They came out in their "Weekly Reader" with an idea of doing away with the Stategovernment, and going into regionalism. And we won't have a State of Iowa. Our daughter came home from school withsomething that we of Storm Lake - which is Northwest Iowa - part of a new - what they're going to call a Plains State. And Isee this coming throughout, this breakdown of government ...

And we've got this regional planning, and as far as I'm concerned, and I'm being very sincere, they're doing their level bestto do away with county government and put it on a regional basis ...

I really believe that we're going away from the people. Whereas you're telling a story that's making local government moreresponsive, I say I disagree - I totally disagree because we're putting too much emphasis on staff ... instead of having theelected people be what I consider the Board of Directors. Obviously I'm in total - basically total disagreement with what'sgoing on.

CHRISTENSON: I could agree with part of your sentiments, but I guess I disagree with the solution you've got ... DavidBroger is, I think, one of the best political writers in this country. He had a column back in December ... he concluded bysaying, the mood of the country, the disgust of the people with their government is so strong, that there is a climate for ademagogue to move in, and I really believe that people - poll after poll shows - that people just don't trust their government.It's not responsive. They don't think it's working. Now why in the world would we continue down that track?

IOWA: I agree! But the thing you're getting to is this. You're not making less government, you're making more government,and that's exactly what the people are afraid of and they have every right to be afraid of - more ____ government!

CHRISTENSON: Listen! I'm with you when it comes to faceless bureaucrats running things, and that's exactly what I'mafter. What I've been saying is ____

OHIO: Oh no. But see -

CHRISTENSON: But the fact is - let me just - really - I've worked at the federal level, I've worked at the state level, and I'veworked at the local level, and I'm absolutely convinced that today the functional experts are tending to run things. Congresspasses a bill, whether it's a housing bill, or a transportation bill, or whatever -

OHIO: O.K. but answer me one question at this point, Jerry. Who the ____ drew the bill? Staff! That's who drew it, andthat's the problem! ...

...and they give it all to the staff. The staff wrote, we vote it, and I guarantee they don't know what they're voting on. If theydid, they would never have voted OSHA [Occupational Safety and Health Act].

CHRISTENSON: Let me take that one step beyond. See I think a lot of power goes to the officials ... Congress passes abill, then they turn it over to a department, HEW [Health, Education, and Welfare] or Labor or whatever, to administer, andthose rules and regulations are written, and the law is administered. You've got to meet the federal law, but there are a lotof ways to meet that intent of Congress. What I'm contending is that too much power is in the hands of those faceless




6/85

bureaucrats.

OHIO: ... the exception to what you're saying is that the bills are not properly drawn in that we give all the authority to thebureaucrats who wrote the ____ rules.

The Congress is spending too much time on every little thing and they're letting staff do the work, and I'm scared to deathof staff.

MISSOURI: Jerry, bear with me, but you speak just like a planner. That's your job. But this is a government of the peopleand by the people. The people are left out in every one of these plans.

We got a COG [Council of Governments] that you proposed for our metropolitan area - your staff did - but there's no placein there for the people. That's what's wrong with these plans. The people are not involved in the thing.

A real problem might be that you might think this is the greatest thing for them, but if you want to go back and lose our democratic form of government, let's go to a dictator. Then he says this, and this, and this shall be done! That's the mosteffective form of government we have! But we are a democracy! And as long as you think those little cities don't mean a

____ hill of beans - but the people think they mean something though. They voted for them. They support them. They'repaying for them ...

Why not have ten states! What the ____! They're more effective. They should cost less. Why not have ten big super-governments running? Why fifty states? We don't need them. They can't plan properly. They can't coordinate properly. Whydo we need Iowa? Why do we need Missouri? Let's put them all together. Let's form an industrial state.

What you're saying is ... that bigness is efficiency. Our federal government should be the most efficient organization in this

world. Yet I just read in Virginia we built a 520 million dollar regional transportation system - we got to spend two million toblow it up! They don't know what to do with it ...

We just spent in the City of St. Louis - about two or three years ago, a program to get the minorities out to McDonald towork ... Do you know the money it cost they could have sent the people in taxicabs, and paid for it? Taxicabs to work everyday.

They paid a man $17,000 that HUD said to get out door-to-door to get the minorities to ride the bus. That was a ____ of a job for two years, to go door-to-door.

CHRISTENSON: I just must say I think you're completely misinterpreting what I'm saying. I am not for power to planners. I'mfor decreasing the power of bureaucrats, and I'm for strengthening the power of elected officials at every level, and that'swhat I'm saying.

MISSOURI: I don't understand. You lost all of us.OHIO: But then you didn't count the people in.

MISSOURI: Are the people going to vote for this?

IOWA: There's an organization called Midwest Research in Kansas City. Nobody knows a ____ thing about it. I don't. Itried to find things but I can't But here's the interesting thing. They established an Iowa Center for Regional Progress whichis a branch of Midwest Research. Now these people are planners - they just kind of move in and out. You just don't knowwhere the ____ they are except they're on every interim committee we've got - somebody from the Iowa Center for Regional Progress and these planners funneling all of the information, and all of a sudden it's a group of planners who areputting all the input in, all of the ideas, and i t scares me. It really does.

CHRISTENSON: It does me too, and I don't want it.

MISSOURI: But that's exactly what's happening!

I've been attending this, they call it SLACOG [St. Louis Area Council of Governments.]. I call it SLYCOG. They're trying toput it over - they didn't want a hearing, they didn't want it exposed to the people ... The legislature didn't have any input.

The only reason that I could be there - we have an open meeting law and I stick my nose in every ____ meeting. They justdetest it that I'm there, but I'm going to be [at] as many as I can find out.

He, [the top state planner], said: We had a bill for SLYCOG to implement it, and then there's a little catch-all phrase at thebottom. What we don't cover in the bill, the rules and regulations of the Community Affairs [State Planning agency] willsolve the problems.

OHIO: That's it exactly.

MISSOURI: And he says we've got to have it.

So, you mean you've got to get a bi ll ninety pages long to try to cover all of the sneaky things they're going to do ahead of time ... This is where the bureaucrats come in, Jer. They run the whole thing. The little citizen can't get past the secretary atthe door.

CHRISTENSON: And you want to keep it that way!




7/85

MISSOURI: No! You tell me how not [to].

CHRISTENSON: We're trying.

IOWA (2): We have problems in Iowa the same way. My district is primarily working people ... There is the Office of Programming and Planning. My people call it the Office of Political Patronage. That's what they think.

IOWA (1): Isn't it?

IOWA (2): Do you agree with me then?

IOWA (1): That thing went from six years ago ... we started with ten people. What have we got, ninety or a hundred now?Nobody knows who's over there! We don't even have them represented in the state complex, yet they're putting all the inputin.

MISSOURI: The only time we hear from them is when we cut the budget.

The following are excerpts from Col. Roberts prepared statement:

The first step is to create the problem. The second step is to generate opposition to the problem (fear, panic, hysteria).The third step is to offer THE solution to the problem - change which would have been impossible to impose on the peoplewithout the proper psychological conditioning achieved by stages one and two.

The objective of the resulting economic, social, and political convulsion is the establishing of regional governmentthroughout the land.

"The Federal Regionalism Concept" seeks to dissolve county and state governments, transfer political power to a centralauthority in Washington, administer the affairs of U.S. citizens through a network of federal regions and state planningdistricts, seize control of the land and production facilities, change the form of government from one of elected officials toone of appointed controllers, and reduce Americans to the status of economic serfs on the land which once was theirs.

"The Federal Regionalism Concept," however, has a feature which is never questioned by the press, by elected officials,or by the people. That flaw is this:

The Federal Regionalism Concept is unconstitutional!

Let us consider the events of March, 1969.

The White House, on 27 March, 1969, announced that the United States had been divided into ten federal regions by

presidential proclamation. In so doing, Nixon and his controllers set in motion a series of pre-planned events which would,by 12, February, 1972, place virtually every facet of the lives of U.S. citizens under the domination of socialist planners.

In addition to its inherent immorality, the merging of sovereign states by executive order is, of course, a violation of paragraph 1, Section 3, Article IV, United States Constitution.

Such transformation of our republican, elective form of government to an appointed, federal form of government, is a grossviolation of Section 4, Article IV, U.S. Constitution ...

The most cursory examination of "The Federal Regionalism Concept" reveals its unconstitutionality, and its flouting of themost basic freedoms guaranteed to the people by the Constitution.

It is quite clear that individuals, both public and private, who promote or otherwise participate in the conspiracy known as"The Federal Regionalism Concept" are in violation of Section 2384, Title 18, United States Code, and must be held toanswer for such crimes by the people and by the elected officials who represent the people.

Today, our Constitution is dismantled, our heritage denied, and our destiny turned to dust.

The stark truth is that America is passing from a constitutional republic to a totalitarian, corporate state.

The mission of all conscientious citizens should be to inspire corrective action by the respective state legislatures, tochallenge usurpation of constitutional authority, and begin the task of reversing the mindless march toward dictatorship.

Nothing less than the survival of the American civilization is at stake.

A question and answer session followed the Colonel's presentation:

MISSOURI: You cite all the problems, and I think we, as legislators, see some of these problems. What is your answer? ...My only answer is for the states to assume more of the responsibility, instead of letting somebody else do it. We're great

for that. And then it comes back and returns to haunt us because we didn't take the time to worry about the program.

ROBERTS: Precisely. Representative, I think this might be capsulated by pointing out that the three agencies of thefederal government were created by the states in the first three Articles of the Constitution. Therefore the states are theprinciple in the Constitutional contract, and the agencies of the federal government are therefore, in fact, agents of thestates. We have come to a reversal of roles, unfortunately, and the only way this can be corrected is by corrective action of the state government. In other words by challenging the illegal actions, the unconstitutional actions of the federal agents.




8/85

An example: Public Law 90577 by the Congress of the United States is an alleged law, it is not a true statute ... because itis in violation of the Constitution. It purports to transfer law-making powers from the Congress to the President who, in turn,transfers this power down to his grant-making agencies in the federal regions. This is, of course, in violation of theConstitution which separates the three agents of government and states that no power may overlap. And the mere fact thatit is permitted merely shows that the states are remiss in their authority and responsibility to challenge unconstitutionalactions of the federal government.

UNIDENTIFIED NEWCOMER: I think many of us here in the recent years, at least in the past five years, are becomingmore and more aware of the powers Congress has transferred over to the President ... Now my question is - youmentioned restore the Constitution. How far back are you going to restore it? ... At one time the Constitution said it was

legal to have slaves. Now, do you want to go back that far?

ROBERTS: No. The Constitution never said that, Sir. The Constitution never said that. Let's not create a Constitution thatdidn't exist.

I'd like to point out, Sir, that the origin of all our problems here must ultimately go back to the Charter of the United Nations.Why? Because we find that the authority for the so-called regional government programs emanate from articles 55 and 56of the U.N. Charter. And therefore, in this context, we must realize that by the so-called passage of the U.N. Charter in1945, that the Senate of the U.S. allegedly transferred the powers of the Constitution into an international body.

In fact, in 1963, in Senate Document 87, on page 293 i f I recall correctly, the Senate of the United States declared, and Iquote: The Charter of the United Nations has become the supreme law of the land, and the judges of every state shall bebound thereby, anything in the laws of the State or the Constitution to the contrary notwithstanding - end of quote.

Now this means, in the eyes of the Senate of the United States, their ratification of the so-called U.N. Treaty did, in fact,destroy the Constitution, and the aberrations which we now see emanating from the Congress ... are, in fact, based notupon the Constitution, but upon specific articles on the Charter of the United Nations.

Go onto the second section of Part 1:"Restore, Defend, Preserve"

Go backto the homepage for

The Committee to Restore the Constitution.

Send a messageto

Col. Roberts.

bin/counter.exe?link=www.webaccess.net/comminc&style=led&width=7" align=bottom>



mailto:[email protected]://web.archive.org/web/20050912175306/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/index.htmlhttp://web.archive.org/web/20050912175306/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/Restore.html


9/85


The Silent Revolution of Federal Regionalism - A SolutionPart 1 County Resolution Rejecting Regional Govenment

MODEL RESOLUTION, County Commission

RESOLUTION OF THE _____________ COUNTY COMMISSION REJECTING THE SEDITIOUS CONSPIRACY OF REGIONALGOVERNANCE AND REQUESTING INVESTIGATION BY A JOINT COMMITTEE _____________ STATE SENATE AND HOUSEOF REPRESENTATIVES, OF THE IMPROPER TRANSFER AND POWER OF AUTHORITY, DELEGATED BY THE PEOPLE TOELECTED OFFICIALS OF COUNTY GOVERNMENTS, TO APPOINTED AGENTS OF FEDERAL REGION _____________ ANDITS _____________ STATE SUB-DIVISIONS.

WHEREAS, the Governor and his administration have divided the State of _____________ into multi-county planning districts or sub-states in which appointed regional councils and agents thereof will assume authority previously and properly reserved to electedmunicipal and county officials, and will assume control and regulation over land, business, development utilities, production, services,property, and people, which control and regulation has never been delegated to any government or agency by the people of

_____________ County; and

WHEREAS, various comprehensive planning acts, environmental land and water management acts, and funding bills, introduced byregional governance agents before the _____________ State Legislature in compliance with the provisions of the unconstitutional"Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968" (Public Law 90-577, 90th Congress, S.698, October 16, 1968), will establish regionalgovernance in the State of _____________ and _____________ County; and

WHEREAS, the regional division of the State of _____________ and their respective regional councils correspond in function andregulation with the division of the United States into ten Standard Federal Regions, ordered by the President in his unconstitutional"Statement by the President on Restructuring of Government Service Systems," dated March 27, 1969, and by virtue of ultra vires

Executive Order #11647, "Federal Regional Councils," dated February 12, 1972; andWHEREAS, the resulting federal region Ð sub-state regional governance system consolidated the State of _____________ and

_____________ other states into Standard Federal Region _____________ is in violation of par. 1, sec. 4, Art. IV, United StatesConstitution; and

WHEREAS, i t is the declared objective of such regional governance system to seize the power and authority, which properly belongsto county governments, and even of the sovereign State of _____________ , and bypass these traditional and constitutionalgovernmental bodies, and usurp the rights and freedoms of individuals citizens guaranteed by the Constitution of the State of

_____________ and the Constitution of the United States of America.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE _____________ COUNTY COMMISSION THAT:

SECTION 1. The above recitals are adopted.

SECTION 2. Various _____________ State comprehensive planning acts, environmental land and water management acts, andfunding bi lls, and executive orders, introduced by agents of regional governance, be repealed.

SECTION 3. There be created a joint committee of the _____________ Senate and House of Representatives to conduct aninvestigation into regional governance, particularly as it usurps the power, jurisdiction, and authority of local governmental bodies, andprepare recommendation for the enactment of corrective legislation.

SECTION 4. A copy of this resolution, accompanied by appropriate documents and proof of the seditious conspiracy of regionalgovernance be forwarded to the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, majority leader of Senate and House, to the StateLegislative Delegation, _____________ County, and to the President, _____________ State Association of County Commissions,requesting enabling resolution and/or legislation.

SECTION 5. A copy of this resolution, accompanied by appropriate proofs of the seditious conspiracy of regional governance, beforwarded to the two _____________ U.S. Senators and to the U.S. district representative, and to the appropriate State Senatorsand State Representative, State of _____________ , requesting an account of their stewardship relating to federal and state regionalgovernance legislation.

The resolution, introduced by _____________ , seconded by _____________ and unanimously approved, is declared duly passedand adopted this _____________ day of _____________ , 19 _____.

BY: , Chairman

ht tp: //www.webaccess .ne t/~comminc/Resolut ion.html Go APR SEP OCT

112004 2005 2006

30 captures

2 Dec 98 - 11 Sep 05

Close

Help

County Resolution Rejecting Regional Government 3/23/2015

http://web.archive.org/web/20050911001221/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/Resolution.html 9 / 85

http://web.archive.org/web/20050911001221/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/index.htmlhttp://faq.web.archive.org/http://web.archive.org/web/20050911001221/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/index.htmlhttp://faq.web.archive.org/http://web.archive.org/web/20050911001221*/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/Resolution.htmlhttp://web.archive.org/web/20040819052809/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/Resolution.htmlhttp://web.archive.org/web/20050416201909/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/Resolution.htmlhttp://web.archive.org/web/20050416201909/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/Resolution.htmlhttp://web.archive.org/web/


10/85

APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY:

_________________________, Counsel

EXHIBIT D, page 91, "THE REPUBLIC: Decline and Future Promise" (1975), by Archibald Roberts, LtCol, AUS, ret, 101 pages (8-1/2x11) quality softcover: $3.95, BETSY ROSS PRESS, P.O. Box 986, Ft. Collins, CO 80522.

Prepared by T. David Horton, Atty, counsel, Committee to Restore the Constitution, Inc.

Go onto the last section of Part 1:

"Federal Regions"

Go backto the homepage for

The Committee to Restore the Constitution.

Send a message

toCol. Roberts.

bin/counter.exe?link=www.webaccess.net/comminc&style=led&width=7" align=bottom>

County Resolution Rejecting Regional Government 3/23/2015

http://web.archive.org/web/20050911001221/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/Resolution.html 10 / 85

mailto:[email protected]://web.archive.org/web/20050911001221/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/index.htmlhttp://web.archive.org/web/20050911001221/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/Regions.html


11/85


The Silent Revolution of Federal Regionalism - A SolutionPart 2 Federal Regionalism - A Socialist America In Your Lifetime

On July 2, 1976, at the Indiana State Capitol Building, Indianapolis, in the chambers of the House of Representatives, the followingpresentation was made by Colonel Arch E Roberts, Director, Committee to Restore the Constitution, Fort Collins, Colorado, beforethe Indiana Interim Study Committee.

The Interim Study Committee was set up by the 1976 Indiana legislature as a result of House Concurrent Resolution No. 26, enteredby Representative Robert H Bales, to investigate Federal Regionalism and to make recommendation based on their findings to the1977 General Assembly. Proponents of Regional Government, testifying before the Interim Study Committee ahead of ColonelRoberts, included speakers from the National Association of Regional Councils, Washington, DC; U.S. Department of Labor; Federal

Region V, Chicago; and Michiana Area Council of Governments, South Bend, Indiana.

Mr. Chairman, my testimony will show that Federal Regionalism is a seditious conspiracy which has as its objective thedismantling of local government, the abrogation of the freedom of person and property guaranteed to the people by theConstitution, and overthrow of the Constitution of the United States.

We are therefore talking about a revolution, a real revolution in the Government of the United States, to the detriment of the Americanpeople. And, despite the soft phrases and propaganda that regionalism is not only "good" for you but is "inevitable", we oppose thatphilosophy vehemently and will show that it is the responsibility of the State Legislatures to reject this seditious conspiracy. And we willat the end of my presentation, if we have time, go into some of the details on how the Indiana State Legislature may act with the vastauthority and power inherent in that office, to reverse this mindless march toward dictatorship and restore government to the people.

We are very concerned about the fact that we have become lost in triviality when in reality we are talking about survival, survival of theindividual citizen and of this nation as a Republic. If we accept the philosophy of the planners we will indeed go back to the middle

ages, to a serf society in which the individual citizen is merely an economic unit living on the land that is no longer his.

Since we have mentioned land, let us understand that those who control the land control the people who live on i t. Therefore, a centralobjective of regional planning is to condition the people to give up their private pr operty and to permit the Government to make alldecisions effecting private property.

Our own former Lt. Governor John Vanderhoof, in an address before the Cattlemen's Association in Colorado Springs not long ago,declared, and I quote, that "By 1985 the individual citizen, whether he be a rancher, a farmer or an urbanite, will have very little to sayabout the use of his own property" because he said, "That person, that property owner, will be required to place his application for theuse of his property into a local computer and the local computer would be tied into a master computer in Denver, Colorado. Themaster computer will make the decision as to whether or not the citizen could use the property in the manner he desires."

Now, we are not talking about computers. We are talking about planning input which makes the decision. Planners who are notelected by the people, but are appointees and therefore not responsive to the will of the people. The revolution is absolute.

Before we get into the details of this subversion, I would like to comment on the concealed objective of Federal Regionalism and landcontrol so that we can clearly understand the real objective of those planners who now approach us with soft words of conciliation. Weare now witness to a major change in government. Regional revolutionaries seek to erect a new government in the United States toverify and validate Federal Regionalism and the ten regions created in 1969, by erecting a new Constitution called a NewstatesConstitution. This Newstates Constitution, a copy of which I have here, was written by Rexford G. Tugwell, an old revolutionary goingback to 1933. This Newstates Constitution is taken out of his book "The Emerging Constitution". The Newstates Constitution waswritten by Tugwell, in concord with 100 other social changers, at the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions in Santa Barbara,California. A unique feature about this program is that the Newstates Constitution cost twenty five million dollars. The Center for theStudy of Democratic Institutions was financed by the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations over a period of ten years in the amount of 21/2 million dollars a year. We do not believe that this investment in the Newstates Constitution is intended to be merely an exercise inpolitical theory. We believe that the work is serious, that the planners, the programmers, are serious when they seek to impose a newconstitution upon the people as we enter our third century.

The Newstates Constitution

To give you some indication as to the impact of the Newstates Constitution (which deals with the 10 federal regions and not thesovereign states, therefore, giving the appearance of legality to criminal actions of the planners and the Congress which hasprecipitated the conspiracy), I would point out some of the unique features in this constitution. One of these is that there is no Bill of

ht tp://www.weba ccess.net/~comminc/SocAme r.html Go APR SEP OCT

102004 2005 2007

27 captures

2 Dec 00 - 25 O ct 07

Close

Help

A Socialist America In Your Lifetime 3/23/2015

http://web.archive.org/web/20050910013053/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/SocAmer.html 11 / 85

http://web.archive.org/web/20050910013053/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/index.htmlhttp://web.archive.org/web/20040819051802/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/SocAmer.htmlhttp://web.archive.org/web/20071025032957/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/SocAmer.htmlhttp://faq.web.archive.org/http://web.archive.org/web/20050910013053/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/index.htmlhttp://faq.web.archive.org/http://web.archive.org/web/20050910013053*/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/SocAmer.htmlhttp://web.archive.org/web/20071025032957/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/SocAmer.htmlhttp://web.archive.org/web/20040819051802/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/SocAmer.htmlhttp://web.archive.org/web/20071025032957/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/SocAmer.htmlhttp://web.archive.org/web/20050417020107/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/SocAmer.htmlhttp://web.archive.org/web/20071025032957/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/SocAmer.htmlhttp://web.archive.org/web/20050417020107/http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/SocAmer.htmlhttp://web.archive.org/web/


12/85

Rights in the Newstates Constitution. There is no protection of Assembly, of Press, of Religion, or of any of the other guarantees of person and property that are in the Constitution of the United States. This is also a constitution of appointed officials. Under thisprogram of the new constitution, the Senate is to be appointed and the units of government, (and we are going to explain thesignificance of the term - Units of Government) the units of Government which are, in fact, the Councils of Government comprising acomposition of counties, are to deal directly with the Federal Government, bypassing counties and state legislative bodies as hasalready been pointed out in the testimony preceding my appearance, (testimony by regional government proponents).

And, so this is the kind of Government we are headed for under Federal Regionalism, with the final act now imminent. I say imminentbecause there are now two bills before the Congress of the United States. This first is House Concurrent Resolution 28, the other isSenate Bi ll 22, calling for a Constitutional Convention to be held in Philadelphia to introduce this new Constitution. You may remember that in the first week of Apri l of this year, there was a blue-ribbon panel which met in Philadelphia, comprising representatives from theCenter for the Study of Democratic Institutions, most of the major universities in the United States, the League of Women Voters andother similarly oriented groups, for the purpose of reviewing the Constitution of the United States to see how it could be improved. Thisis part of the psychological conditioning of the American people to make us believe that we need a modern streamlined Constitutionas we enter our third century.

I think it's clear to most that the Bi-Centennial Celebration itself is being used as a means of conditioning people, to shatter the systemof Government that we now have, by suggesting that we must have a new Government in order to cope with the complicated society inwhich we now live.

Here's an example of that; A full-page ad from the New York Times which appeared on the 31st of March of last year, headed "A BI-CENTENNIAL DECLARATION." This Bi-Centennial Declaration ad appeared in major newspapers across the United States and itwas inserted by the Bi-Centennial Celebration Committee, an agency of the Rockefeller dynasty. We have found that the names listedin this ad as members of the Bi-Centennial Committee are members of the Rockefeller inner circle of planners.

So, now we're getting down to the real originators of this "Quiet Revolution", as Mr. Nixon called i t. It is a Revolution financed anddirected by the financial elite in the United States.

Mr. Chairman, I submit as my first exhibit a copy of this Newstates Constitution.

Provincial Capitols of Regionalism

So much for the introduction as to the objective of Federal Regionalism. Its objective is to change local government by merging countygovernments into planning districts which then evolve into Councils of Government, which have as their purpose the elimination of elected officials, county commissioners, etc., and to transfer real political power into the hands of the planners who control the flow of revenue sharing funds and thereby control political policy.

It is also envisaged under this program that the States, the States themselves, shall become satrapies of the central government. Ithink this is clear from the merger of the States into Federal Regions.

For example, the State of Indiana is but one of six states comprising Federal Region V with a new provincial capital in Chicago. It wasdemonstrated here today that planners, unelected bureaucrats, do not confer with the State Legislatures on the raising of funds or thesecuring of so-called Free Revenue Sharing Funds. They go to Chicago. They go to Chicago because that is the capital of FederalRegion V. The Indiana State capital here in Indianapolis has become merely a sounding board for opinion, and is gradually beingdestroyed as a policy decision making body as it was intended to be. Elected officials are being destroyed as representatives of thepeople by the interjection of a new layer of government called the Administrative Class.

The Administrative Class, in turn, are graduates or are trainees of the Administrative Clearing House in Chicago, which is aRockefeller front.

Now let us, for a few moments, get into the procedures of the origin of Federal Regionalism and land control, because the two of them

are interlocked, and then we will go into a specific example of how the procedure is being applied to destroy local government.

I would like first to remind all that Federal Regionalism was launched by a declaration by Mr. Nixon, then President of the UnitedStates, who stated that he had divided the United States into 10 Federal Regions. On the 27th of March, 1969, Mr. Nixon stated thathe had created a new kind of government, although he didn't call it that. He said that by his act of merging sovereign states into newunits of government called Federal Regions, he was bringing government closer to the people. He was, he said, economizing andmodernizing local government. In actual fact, as he knew very well of course, he was doing no such thing.

Here again we are not speaking about Mr. Nixon acting independently because Mr. Nixon was influenced and directed by his hiddensponsors, who we will identify a little later.

In any event, you may also remember, on the 12th of February 1972, Mr. Nixon staffed each of these 10 Federal RegionalHeadquarters with the grant making agencies of the Federal Government. These grant making agencies, which we will identify a littlelater, now have the authority of allocating so-called Revenue Sharing free government money to local units of the government. By so

doing, real decision making was removed from the elected official and placed in the hands of the planners. Those who control fundsobviously control policy in the application of those funds. An integral part of this control is the A-95 Review System which wasmentioned here earlier.

Fiscal Blackmail Through Revenue Sharing




13/85

The A-95 Review System is a control mechanism to make sure that every local unit of government, whether it be a community, acounty, or whatever, that makes application for funds from the Federal Government, any one of these nine agencies comprising thegrant-making agencies, complies with the bylaws and the guidelines presented by the Federal Government. If the local unit of government does not comply with these guidelines, i t doesn't get the money.

Now there has been some pretense made that the units of government do not have to be a member of a council of government inorder to qualify for revenue-sharing funds. But, you try to get the money it you do not join.

I think it is also clear that there was created in the United States a new system of government by the establishment of these FederalRegions. At the same time that the Federal Government was reorganizing the States into provinces under Federal Regionalism, the

governors of the respective States also were directed, and did divide their State into planning districts, which have since evolved intoCouncils of Government. That is, by the merger of counties, the governors have created Councils of Government within the States, toparallel the merging of the States into federal regions by the Federal Government. Now, this act is very significant because the countyis the political building block of America. Three thousand plus counties in the United States represent the greatest threat to tyranny bya central government, or any other kind of threat that may exist. The people live in the counties and the people, individuals withsovereign authority and working through their elected officials; county commissioners, judges and sheriffs, can oppose any kind of forceÑfinancial or otherwise, which may be brought against them. So one of the central objectives, the target area of the planners, is todestroy county governments, to neutralize county governments, to eliminate elected officials at county governments, so that thecounties become merely an homogenous mass in a Council of Governments ruled by planners.

This, then, is the reality of Councils of Government. It is not intended to offer better services, or more sophisticated techniques, or toassist in fund raising from the Federal government. This is window dressing. This is propaganda. Councils of Government is a meansof convincing elected officials to give up their authority and to willingly abandon their responsibi lity to their constituents. We are veryconcerned about this, because through the technique of revenue sharing funds we find again and again that many local officials

believe there is a free lunch. And we know there is no free lunch. Every time a local official receives a grant, any kind of revenuesharing funds, he must give up a part of his authority which you gave him by electing him to represent you. And, when he does this, hehas begun the system which will eventually remove him from office. More importantly, his surrender will deprive you of representativegovernment. The vote is central to constitutional government. When we lose the right to elect our representatives and find instead thatour decisions are made for us by planners, we have abandoned the central principal of constitutional government.

Now let me go back to point out some of the unconstitutionalities inherent in federal regionalism. Without that knowledge we cannotunderstand the real implication involved in the seditious conspiracy of Federal Regionalism.

First, the merger of states into larger political units called Federal Regions is in direct violation of the prohibitions of Section 3, ArticleIV of the Constitution which prohibits the merging of two or more states into larger or new political units, without the approval of theStates and the Congress of the United States. The President of the United States, who has taken an oath of office to defend andpreserve the Constitution, has unilaterally violated that oath by merging, or attempting to merge, the States into new political unitscalled Federal Regions.

We also should point out that Section 4, Article IV guarantees to the States and their people a Republican form of government,meaning an elective process of government. Regionalists say they are better qualified, because of their expertise, to make thosepolitical decisions for us, therefore, eventually eliminating the elective process, and nullifying the vote. If you can't elect a man, you can'tunelect him either. Planners are not subject to being removed from office by the people.

So, we are confronted with violation after violation of Constitutional prohibitions. We'll get into some of the application of correctingthis imbalance, these ultra-vires acts, a little later.

Since we're running short of time, I would like to use a specific example. Before I do, Mr. Chairman, I would like to present for therecord, copies of our July Bulletin of the Committee to Restore the Constitution in which we have reprinted the testimony given by our Counsel T. David Horton, before the Indiana Commission, this Commission, some three weeks ago. The bulletin is titled, "IndianaBegins Regionalism Investigation."

What Is the Law?

I would also point out, Mr. Chairman, that Indiana is not standing alone in legislative challenge of Constitutional usurpation. OnTuesday, last week, I testified before the Missouri State Legislature. A select senate committee doing exactly the job that yougentlemen are doing hereÐnamely, to clari fy the law. "What is the law?" That's the central question. We are not concerned with better federal delivery services, or the propaganda that regionalism brings government closer to the people, or you can get free governmentfunding i f you join Regional Government. What we are concerned about is one question only, and that is "What is the law?" Well, thelaw is the Constitution of the United States, and as we are beginning to prove, if Regional Government is in violation of theConstitution it is criminal. In order to correct criminal activity by the Federal Government it is encumbent upon the State to passcorrective statutes. Only a legislative body, Mr. Chairman, can correct the excesses of the Federal Government.

Mr. Horton explained in some detail this Principal versus Agent concept. Because the States created a Federal government by the

first three articles of the Constitution, it is clear that those agencies in government, including the President and the Congress and theSupreme Court, are all subject to correction by the Principal, the State. The State must do this by a positive act. Having found, as wehave found in our own research material, that Federal Regionalism is unconstitutional, these so-called legislative acts of the Congresswhich created Federal Regionalism by the Reorganization Act and Federal Region Executive Orders, Revenue Sharing Act, etc.; thatthese acts which created the monster of Federal Regionalism are all unconstitutional. It is within the authority of the State legislature,Mr. Chairman, to correct the ultra-vires acts by first defining the law and, second, to pass corrective legislation.




14/85

I present as my next exhibit, a copy of my newest book, THE REPUBLIC: DECLINE AND FUTURE PROMISE, in which we havereprinted the research on Federal Regionalism to show its unconstitutionality and its criminal origin, and how regionalism hasdestroyed local government, Mr. Chairman.

Now, if I may, I would like to get into a specific example because I believe that by showing a specific example of how FederalRegionalism destroys local and State government, that we may apply these principles to Indiana. When we speak of regionalism weare not talking about a situation unique to Indiana. We are talking about a national conspiracy which is, in fact, not only effecting thepeople of America, but is international in scopeÐbut we don't have time to get into that aspect.

I think that it is clear that in order to validate ultra-vires acts of the kind we have described, some means must be made for bringing thepeople into the plot, to give authority to the criminal activities of elected officials.

Now, this has been done in a program in the state of Montana. In a rather extensive examination of the Montana rip-off we found apattern of subversion which applies in the State of Indiana and every other State; because it is through the appearance of the peopleapproving federal regionalism that federal regionalism will become a permanent fixture in America. And, as we have seen, the NewConstitution for the Newstates of America is intended to give that kind of authority. But, behind the new federal constitution are other new constitutionsÐfor the States.

The Montana Rip-off

Here is one of them. This is called the Montana State Constitution and it was allegedly ratified by the people on the 6th of June, 1972.The people went through a referendum. They were given the opportunity to either vote for or against the new constitution. The peopleof Montana defeated this constitution by a majority vote of 1,380. But the Governor, Thomas L. Judge, of Montana declared, that

because of the necessity of the time, he, by executive order, validated the new constitution for the State of Montana.

Now, we are talking about a criminal conspiracy and this is as good an example as any. By this example I mean to show that electedofficials, at the highest level in the State, are being subverted by regional money, free money, and other pressures, into pushingFederal Regional government upon the very people who reject it. And, so it is not enough, and certainly insufficient from the standpointof authority, to suggest that the people have sufficient knowledge to make decisions about whether or not they want RegionalGovernment. Because even when they vote against regionalism, they get it. Resolution of the problem must be made forthrightly byelected officials at the state legislature.

Now another interesting facet of this so called New Constitution for the State of Montana is the fact that the State has no boundaries.Now the State of Montana has no boundaries under the new constitution because it is no longer a sovereign state, you see. The Stateof Montana has been reduced to a satrapy of Federal Region VIII with a new provincial capital in Denver, Colorado. All real politicaldecisions are now being made at the new provincial capital in Denver, ignoring, by and large, the will of the people acting through their elected officials at the State Legislature.

We don't have time to get into all of the aspects of this operation, but I would like to mention two articles of the new MontanaConstitution so that we understand what we are talking about.

Article 11, of the New Constitution, called LOCAL GOVERNMENT, explains the subversion of local government in great detail. I wouldpoint out, incidentally, that this new State Constitution was not the work of the State Legislature of the State of Montana. The Conceptwas lifted from what is called the ACIR Bluebook, the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, in Washington, D.C. The

ACIR has a branch in every State capitol. You have one just down the hall here, as a matter of fact. The ACIR is a mail order legislativemill. It prepares legislation to advance policy of the Rockefeller's and others who are financing the "quiet revolution" and it passes thislegislation, in the form of recommended statutes, down to local state legislatures through the local ACIR branch and other agencies.The local agencies of government, the state legislatures, then give the program or these statutes a rubber stamp. This is whathappened in the case of the New Constitution of Montana, and Louisiana, and other states which have adopted a New Constitution.None of them originate in the halls of the legislature. They are all taken out of the bluebook. In fact, last year, in 1975, the ACIR cameout with a series of 10 books of proposed legislation or recommended legislation at the State level of government - to tell the

legislators, your legislators, how they should act, what they should pass, and how to implement federal regionalism programs. And,this is a very alarming development. But there are two of these sections that I would like to comment on very briefly.

The first is section 7, which is called INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION. The essence of this provision of the new Constitutionis this - that the new units of government, that's the expression, new units of government, shall deal directly with the FederalGovernment. What this means is the Councils of Government, that is the compression of counties into Councils of Government, shalldeal directly with the grant making agencies of the Federal Regions. In this case, going to Chicago as former people testified, to getthe free money which is then brought back to you, and your property taxes go up to pay for it.

This then is the idea - to circumvent the authority of local government and the State government by directing these new units of government to deal directly with the grant making agencies.

Incidentally, although I didn't say so, there is one thing retained from the old Constitution of Montana - they still have their State Flower.

Voter Review of Local Government

In section 9 of the new constitution, called VOTER REVIEW OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT we find the real nitty gritty of how to changegovernment without arousing the people. This is how it works.




15/85

On examining Voter Review of Local Government we found a succession of acts and programs which were intended to advance or implement the provisions of section 9 of the New Constitution. The first of these was a booklet called Modernizing Local Government.Modernizing Local Government, this green booklet, was prepared by the Cooperative Extension Service at the Montana StateUniversity in Bozeman. What this green booklet did was to expand on section 9 of the New Constitution, to explain to elected officialswhat their responsibilities would be on implementing section 9, so as to establish these "review commissions."

Now, I'm not going to get into detai ls here, but to point out that this green booklet was distributed to every elected official in the Statedown to and including the counties, to prepare them for their part in the revolution. I would like to make a couple of quotations directlyfrom this green booklet. The first one is from Thomas Judge, Governor of the State of Montana, who declared that the University of Montana had executed a tremendous service for the people of Montana. Well of course it did because what this program is intendedto do is validate the criminal action of Mr. Judge in his division of the State of Montana into planning districts.

But the real issue, I think, is clearly stated on the next page. This is a letter from a Mr. Robert C. Rosenheim, Chairman, MountainPlains Federal Regional Council, Denver, Colorado. This is the provincial capital for a six-state region, including Colorado andMontana and other states. Here is a man, a commissar, advising the people of Montana that he approves of what they are doing. Thisis what he said, "What is happening in Montana is right in line with President Nixon's concept of the new federalism." Well, of course itis because this is the implementation of Federal Regionalism in the State of Montana.

Another important aspect that I would like to bring to your attention is the grant making agencies in Federal Region VIII. You have thesame grant making agencies in Federal Region V in Chicago. By identifying these agencies, you can see how, by the use of FederalRevenue Sharing Funds, elected officials become manipulated and real policy is made by these grant-making agencies rather thanelected officials.

Mr. Chairman, here are the grant making agencies: The Department of Health, Education and Welfare, the Department of Housingand Urban Development, the Department of Labor, the Department of Transportation, the Office of Economic Opportunity, theEnvironmental Protection Agency.

I think I had better talk about the Environmental Protection Agency because as we mentioned in the beginning, a central objective of federal regionalism to seize control of private property. Planners are doing it through the apparatus of the Environmental Protection

Agency. Here is the way it has worked out.

In 1968 Mr. Nixon declared that the greatest issue before the American people is the environment. Remember that? Environmentalconcern. Now, this was the problem. Mr. Nixon, at the request of his controllers, set up a problem - environmental concern. Now, fromthat problem, they went to the next step. The next step was to create panic and hysteria because of environmental concern. We'relosing control of our water, our air is polluted, our rivers are polluted, and the people who are developing the land are exploiting theland to the disadvantage of the American people. All of these were propaganda techniques to irritate the American people and toprepare them for the next step.

The next step, as we have now seen, is that the solution to environmental concern is that the Government must control all private

property. Now this is called the Hegelian Principal of change. It envisages a three-step process: Thesis, Antithesis, and Synthesis. Inother words, creating problems to arrive at a solution which would not have been accepted by the people without the first two steps of psychological conditioning.

Land Control Bills

Now, let's take this next step. You may remember that the Senate of the United States, a couple of years ago, passed a land-controlbill and that the following House Bill, called the Udall Bill, was defeated in the House. Remember that? But, what you may not recall,Mr. Chairman, is the fact that, although defeated in the House, the Udall Bill was taken by Mr. Russell Train, head of the EnvironmentalProtection Agency. And Mr. Train inserted the Udall Bill, or at least the pertinent parts of the Udall Bill, into the Federal Register. Now,Mr. Chairman, this is a very sophisticated way to pass what is called Administrative Law, which, in itself, is a contradiction in terms,because there can be no such thing as Administrative Law. Only legislators can make law, and certainly Mr. Train is incapable of

making laws. He is an appointee, a planner, just as the people who have appeared here before this Committee are planners.

Now, what we are witnessing is that Mr. Train, as an unelected official, Mr. Chairman, was able to circumvent the will of the Congressand the people by inserting into the Federal Register what is called an Administrative Law - and it became binding upon the people of

America. The Administrative Law technique has grown out of the revolutionary philosophy of those who now occupy positions of authority in Washington.

In the beginning, the executive, that is the President, was able to insert administrative procedures and guidelines into the FederalRegister and it became means by which the departments of government could better manage their programs. But, just as the plannersnow say they don't have any decision making, so too, this instrument of subversion of government has been taken over by theadministrators. They now use it to create Administrative Law which is binding upon the people. Now, this is why we find that all Stateshave either passed or are in the process of passing land control bills. When I testified before the Colorado Senate Land ControlCommission last year, I pointed out that the so-called Land Control Bill for the State of Colorado was not a bill which originated in theHouse or the Senate of the State of Colorado. It was, instead, lifted bodily from the ACIR bluebook, the mail order catalog for mailorder legislation. In this regard, the legislators were merely rubber stamping a central authority which had presented them with therecommended solution to "environmental" problems. And, this is going on all over the United States.

When I testified before the Texas State Legislature three years ago, we pointed out that 26 bills, passed by the State Legislature thatyear, were taken bodily out of the ACIR bluebook. This is the proof of the conspiracy. Unfortunately, the press never questioned thissymptom of degradation of local government. They never questioned the fact that simultaneously, all over the United States, an




16/85

identical action was taken by the State Legislatures. They never questioned this, despite the fact of differences in geography, climateand, of course, the composition of the people themselves. The solution to a created "problem" is always identical. The problem. Thereaction. The solution. The procedure is always successful because the people, and the press, do not challenge it, or even question it.But, nevertheless, this is the technique of subversion.

The Environmental Protection Agency is very deeply involved in this authority, or this pretended authority, to take your property. As amatter of fact, when Mr. Robert Weaver, Mr. Chairman, when Mr. Robert Weaver, former head of Housing and Urban Development,testified before the California State Legislature a few years ago, he made this astounding statement. "Federal Regionalism meansabsolute control of all the land in the United States wherever it may be." He also said, Mr. Chairman, that the government had givenaway the land to the people and now it must take back the land in order to control it. Land control is a central issue of FederalRegionalism, because, those who control the land, control the people who live on it.

LEAA: A National Police Force

There is also the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration. Now here's a perfect example of the subversion of local units of government by a grant making agency - the LEAA. Mr. Chairman, the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration is today, involvedin using so-called revenue sharing funds as a means of subverting local police forces, because, they offer better communicationssystems or other advantageous purchases with revenue sharing funds. The LEAA also offers special training programs to local policeunits. These special training programs, financed by and for LEAA, have as their objective the merging of the independent PoliceForces of America into a National Police Force, just as every dictatorship must have a central police force. In America we find theLEAA is being used as a means for bringing together all of the independent Police Forces of America under a central control, just asthe government is now being centralized. As a matter of fact, LEAA funds are also used by local Police Forces to train them as SWATunits. Now I am sure, Mr. Chairman, you are aware of the real objective of SWAT training. SWAT training is to put down counter-revolutionaries, that is, people who deplore tyranny and rise against it. In Kansas City two months ago where I spoke, just two daysbefore my public appearance before 500 concerned citizens, the Police Department of Kansas City had been given this SWATtraining. They don't go out into the streets with billy-clubs, they go out into the streets with armored cars and heavy weapons. This is acounter-revolutionary force. LEAA funds are also used to train the National Guard as SWAT units. We are now witnessing thetransformation of our local Police into an instrument of coercion against the people rather than in support of the people.

Now, this is a very alarming development because i t means we are already in the revolution and that the planners in back of thisRegional Government Program are a part of the revolution. I do not deny that several of them are very charming individuals, but, this isnot the point. Regardless of their charm and presentation, the real issue is, are we going to permit the Planners to destroy our government and create a dictatorship in the United States, under the guise of humanitarianism? Tyranny never marches into a countrywith a placard on his breast bearing his name. He always approaches the people under the guise of "humanitarianism."

So, we see the same techniques being used in America today.

Soon after the publication of this Green booklet, and I've taken more time than I should, the same organizationÐthat is the CooperativeExtension Service of the University of Montana in BozemanÐpublished this yellow throw-away. This went out to the people of Montanaby the hundreds of thousands. The pamphlet is titled REVIEW OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT, and it explains the implementation of Section 9 of the New Montana Constitution, namely that the citizens shall become involved in the review of local government to seehow it can be improved. Very briefly, what this little booklet says is that the citizens will be elected into a position of authority so thatgroups of these ci tizens can look at their local government to determine how it can be streamlined, modernized, improved, andotherwise give better delivery services to the people. This is what happened in Montana. That is, the people of Montana did elect thereview commission, five from each incorporated community, seven from each county, and they are now sitting down to review their local government. And, of course the same system of "Hegelian" change applies here as well. Because, now these inexperiencedcitizens on the planning commissions, and there are 187 in all, are suddenly confronted by an awesome responsibility. That is,responsibility to change local government, without any knowledge of government or of the conspiracy of Federal Regionalism.

Citizens Become Own Executioners

And so what happens? Well, what happens is that they are given expert advice by their legal counsel who suddenly appears in their midst. A man who assumes the appearance of an expert. He says, "Don't worry about your responsibilities, I'll help you".

This little booklet also suggests that the local review commissions need not be concerned too much with the detail of changinggovernment because they will receive assistance from the ACIR at Helena, Montana, the State Capital.

They also suggest that the review commissions can get information and assistance from the League of Women Voters and other good people. So the plan has been set in motion and finally, in almost the last paragraph, the brochure suggests that perhaps the bestway to improve local government is to merge counties into planning districts. Isn't that a surprise?

Mr. Chairman, this is the means by which Regional Government planners have brought the people of Montana into the conspiracy astheir own executioners. Today each one of these so-called Review Commissions is being given a typewritten "approved solution", and

that "approved solution" is being dutifully examined by these inexperienced citizens. They are urged by their counsel, by their planner,to sign the "approved solution". They dutifully sign the "approved solution". This "approved solution" is then transferred to the StateLegislature in Helena. It has become the basis for Legislative action by the State Legislature to, first, consolidate all of the countiesinto planning districts or Councils of Government, and, ultimately to destroy the State Legislature because this is one of the objectives.

And so, in this instance - this microcosm - is what is happening all over the United States. I would point out that as a result of our




17/85

experience in Montana, we have an in depth examination of the origins of these planners. We found that the University of Montana, Mr.Chairman, did not originate the ideas and these concepts at all. All of these "regionalism" concepts came from the ACIR inWashington, D.C., and were transmitted to the University of Montana by the local ACIR branch at the State capital. The LocalGovernment Review Commission was therefore a model, an instrument, which implemented the provisions of the New Constitution.

We were not satisfied merely to examine the ACIR, Mr. Chairman. We knew that there had to be something more behind the ACIR,because we knew that Nelson Rockefeller had, in 1966, proposed the organization of the ACIR, Advisory Commission onIntergovernmental Relations. Later, in 1968 or 1969, he persuaded Mr. Nixon to give ACIR the appearance of law by having theCongress give validity to the ACIR and it became a quasi legal organization. Nonetheless, we realize that this was, by and large,merely a collating agency. Although the ACIR had many important names on i ts letterhead; governors, mayors and even somemembers of the President's cabinet - most of whom are now in jail - that this was in fact, a letterhead organization. The real policy wasmade by others. The ACIR merely translated policy into legislative acts for proposed legislature. We knew we had to get behind the

ACIR in order to find out the origin of real policy. And so we did. We examined the ACIR and we found that there is another organization behind the ACIR called the Brookings Institution. The Brookings Institution, we found, was one of seven major policymaking organizations controlled and financed by the Rockefeller dynasty. We were getting pretty close to the center of the policymaking organization. Now we were getting into the organizations which had such power. We have talked about revolution, Mr.Chairman, and I think that is clear that this kind of revolution, the vast changes in America that we are talking about, couldn't befinanced, could not be inspired, could not be directed by the university revolutionary, or the black community, or the Chicano, or theIndiana Movement. None of these could originate the kind of vast changes in government that we are talking about.

So, Mr. Chairman, we realized that in order to get to the origin of the seditious conspiracy of Federal Regionalism, we had to go backto a source of such financial power, which is what we di

the silent revolution of federal regionalism - a solution

Documents