Tag Archives: Jerry O’Neil

Jerry O’Neil: Are you willing to give up your freedoms to big government? August 7

Posted: Sunday, August 7, 2016 9:00 am
By JERRY O’NEIL | 0 comments
Do you want a one-world government? Would it lead to world peace if the United States surrendered our sovereignty to a global government? Or does an all-powerful government always lead to genocide as happened in China under Mao, Russia under Stalin, Germany under Hitler, and Cambodia under Pol Pot?
While I understand the longing for peace in our time, I am against a tyrannous global government. Let us at least keep the freedoms we have protected under the First and Second Amendments of the United States Constitution. George Soros, Gov. Bullock, Sen. Tester, Common Cause and the Montana Public Interest Research Group are associated with Stand with Montanans, A Project of Common Cause Montana, and they are taking actions to repeal the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Their proposed repeal is at: https://movetoamend.org/wethepeopleamendment.
4560729 Asse Western Region Instory (copy)Snappy’s SparkNWMT Fair 250×300
If this group is successful in their attempt to amend the Constitution, I believe our freedoms of speech, press and association will become:
“Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech of the individual, or of the government approved press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble as long as they do not use their collective resources for political purposes, and to individually petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
They would also include in their amendment a provision to prohibit or limit candidates spending their own money on their campaigns, thus making it so the town drunk would receive as much campaign funding as the resourceful and sober candidate.
On June 23, I attended a meeting of over 200 people at the University of Montana Law School meeting room in Missoula. Jeff Clements, President of American Promise and co-founder of Free Speech for People chaired the presentation.
I asked Mr. Clements if the We The People Amendment would reinstate the McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Law that limited broadcast ads mentioning an opposing candidate within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election? I also asked if it would bar the NRA from sending out their postcards endorsing pro-gun candidates?
Some other questions I was prepared to ask him regarding the effects of their proposed amendment to the Constitution included:
— Will churches have to register with the government if they organize their congregation to lobby against abortions?
— Will the We The People Amendment make it illegal for corporations to own newspapers with which they can publish political editorials and endorsements prior to elections like the Copper Kings’ newspapers did before the advent of TV?
His answer to these questions was, “We will have to pass the amendment to the Constitution before we can find out the answers to these types of questions.”
One desire for many of the 200 people in the conference room is to overturn the decision in Citizens United v. FEC. That decision overturned the McCain-Feingold Act and permitted Citizens United, a non-profit group, to assemble together and publish a video expose of Hillary Clinton that would air within 30 days of an election.
Maybe that is why Hillary Clinton has publicly stated that if she is president, whether through Supreme Court appointments or constitutional amendments, she will overturn Citizens United.
I used to wonder how in so many countries around the world the people were persuaded to give up their freedoms without a fight. I now see how it is done. In 2012 the citizens of Montana agreed to remove the constitutional protections protecting our freedoms of speech, press, association and petition when they passed I-166 with a 75 percent majority.
I-166 was sold to the public on the catch phrase, “Corporations are not people,” but its ultimate effect will be to destroy the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution if the “moderate Republicans” and Democrats who met at the law school get their way.
Are we willing to limit the people’s rights and help the globalists institute a one-world government?
O’Neil is a resident of Columbia Falls and former Republican legislator.

http://www.dailyinterlake.com/members/opinion-are-you-willing-to-give-up-your-freedoms-to/article_a64921b6-5c26-11e6-b7b1-6f2e41d02161.html

Do Dead Lawyers Lie Still?—Attorney-Client Privilege and its Oxymoronic Effect on “Legal Ethics”

Every truth is routinely denied and falsified, every lie is affirmed and promoted.  So as I, with Mephistopheles, so often like to state: “Ich bin der Geist der stets verneint, und das mit Recht, denn Alles was entsteht, Ist werth daß es zu Grunde geht.”

Montana State Representative (former State Senator, all-time great guy) Jerry O’Neil and I have spent many hours discussing the question: what IS it that a LICENSED ATTORNEY can do that really makes a license worth having?  I am a thrice disbarred attorney, basically a victim of political games played by evil NeoCons in Texas.  Jerry O’Neil has obtained a license to practice as an “advocate and counselor” from several Indian Nations, notably the Blackfeet, but he has never sought the license of any state.  If ETHICS were the sole test of qualifications to be an attorney—Jerry O’Neil would be recognized as one of the greatest of all time, in fact, he would probably at the very least be on the Montana Supreme Court.   

What Jerry and I have concluded, along with many other people, is that, in terms of functional definition, relatable to any part of the U.S. Constitution, a lawyer is a person who takes the First Amendment VERY SERIOUSLY and does EVERYTHING in the second half (non-religious) clause of the First Amendment routinely:  An attorney SPEAKS, he produces and uses the press (i.e. printed matter) prodigiously, he peaceably assembles with others, and, above all, he PETITIONS the Government (and other private citizens) for REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES.

But whereas the United States Supreme Court has found that there can be no licensing whatsoever for ANY aspect of religious practice (the first two clauses of the First Amendment) and has similarly said that there can be no “prior restraint”, i.e. censorship, of freedom of speech or the right to print anything at all, all branches of government, including the Supreme Court, have at least tacitly approved the licensing of attorneys.  

Even though the licensing of priests and preachers of the Gospel would never be tolerated under the free exercise and establishment clauses, even though the licensing of newspapers has throughout U.S. history been regarded as an abomination.  It DOES matter that the NDAA and Patriot Act have had a major limiting effect on America’s traditional freedom of speech, but my concern tonight, on this First Day of July and the beginning of the Second Half of the Year, is more parochial:

Is it at all legitimate that TWO of the few things lawyers can CLEARLY get by with doing, with more impunity and immunity, than anyone else (except President Obama himself) are TO LIE and TO KEEP SECRETS.

One of the more famous sources and/or manifestations of the lawyer’s ability to lie and keep secrets is known as “the attorney-client privilege.”  The basic idea, I think, is to encourage attorney-client candor, and to prevent a client from fearing to tell his attorney “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” simply because the attorney (without the privilege) might have to tell the whole world.  This makes sense and is positive, but DOES IT REALLY MAKE SENSE and IS IT REALLY POSITIVE if construed as broadly as it seems to be in the modern world?  

Given broad construction, is the attorney-client privilege not an instrument of corruption in and damnation against society?

For example, imagine if you will an upper middle class Father, a doctor, a surgeon perhaps, who has voluntarily relinquished his paternal rights in court so as to avoid further liability for child support and his ex-wives’ attorneys fees.  This doctor has, in both form and effect, “sold” his daughter and permitted her adoption by her new husband, who is neither a professional nor anything like the biological father.   The doctor would now claim duress.  He would claim fraud and coercion.  In particular, though the doctor/surgeon claims that since he was not able to arrange a complete discharge of his (admittedly unfair, oppressive, possibly illegal, but nonetheless Court ordered and enforced) financial obligations, he should have his daughter back.

Suppose this doctor hires a socio-political advisor and consultant.  Suppose that the socio-political advisor and consultant concludes that the doctor/surgeon is unfit as a man or a father, or even to claim those names and titles.  Suppose that the advisor and consultant concludes that this man, the doctor/surgeon cannot possibly be a competent father.  Suppose that the private advisor and consultant concludes this only after spending a total of nearly four weeks with this doctor.  

Suppose that the consultant concludes that a man is unfit to be a father if that “man” turns out in reality to be a pusillanimous pup who (1) breaks down in uncontrollable tears at every discussion of his serious legal and social problems, (2) speaks more-or-less constantly of his fear of prison, his fear of suffering, and his desire for death, (3) elaborates graphically upon his suicidal ideation, (4) his plans for international flight, and/or digging a bomb-proof air-shelter or bunker in his front yard, (5) a man who is confused and distressed within the confines of his own financial, professional, and even his sexual competence and prowess.  

Suppose further that the advisor and consultant is also a socio-political advocate for the regeneration of Traditional American Values, including Christian sacrifice, individual responsibility and manliness.  SHOULD THIS SOCIO-POLITICAL CONSULTANT CONSIDER HIMSELF, because of the pendency of legal proceedings, to be bound in any sense by analogy with the attorney-client privilege?  In other words, should an advisor keep secrets or tell the truth?  Will society benefit more from a conspiracy of silence (which is one of the licensed attorney’s true “superpowers”) or from exposing reality?

Should the advisor REMAIN SILENT, OR SHOULD HE SPEAK OUT, and by way of an “intervention” of sorts, do EVERYTHING IN HIS POWER EITHER TO SHOCK THE DOCTOR/SURGEON BY PUBLIC SHAME INTO REFORMING HIMSELF OR TO PROTECT HIS (presumably) INNOCENT TEENAGE DAUGHTER FROM HER DEEPLY UNSTABLE, ONLY MARGINALLY MENTALLY COMPETENT FATHER?  

Is not “intervention” the approved means, an emotional shock therapy preferable by far to the electro-shocks or lobotomies so long administered by the sadistic practitioners of primitive psychology and psychiatry, of approaching an addicted or deranged person mired in psychological turmoil?  

Analogy: the confessional and penitential privilege, the web of hypocritical deceit and deception to which the attorney-client privilege is often compared, which was and still is one of the primary sources of and shields for the child-buggery, priest-pederastry scandals plaguing the Roman Catholic Church.  Given that Christ assured an eternal lake of fire for those who harm little children, and that priests are quite literally sworn as Christ’s fiduciary vicars, is the penitential privilege  not an intolerably inconsistent thing to be scorned, derided, and abolished rather than preserved?  

The root concept of justice, throughout history, has been to illuminate the dark places of secrecy and hidden lies with sunshine.  The Ancient Sumerians, when oppressed, are known to have rioted violently and en masse in ancient Iraq (4th-early 3rd Millennium Mesopotamia), when any person in that land cried out publicly “I UTU”—an invocation of the Sumerian name of the Sun God (UTU), the supreme god of Justice.  To demand sunshine was to allege a deep cabal of secrecy and hidden lies*** and the people of Ancient Sumer and Akkad apparently found such things intolerable.  They only wanted to live in the sunshine of truth (or so their cuneiform texts seem to suggest: Egypt, by contrast, seems to have been much more comfortable with cultural institutions built upon and treasuring values of hypocrisy, secrecy and lies).

Within the Roman Catholic Church (no other branch of Christianity enforces a celibate priesthood), the confessional-penitential privilege gave rise, over the past near millennium if not more, to countless generations of children who must have hated and feared their priests and the Church as true monstrosities.  The Catholic Priest child molestation scandals have now been going on so long they hardly make the news, but have we reflected sufficiently on the ethical lessons and analytical consequences? A CONSPIRACY OF PERMITTED SECRECY and PROTECTS LIES and LEADS TO HYPOCRISY.  

I suppose this goes also to the question of whether recent Moscow resident Edward Joseph (“Ed”) Snowden, U.S. Constitutional Attorney Glen Greenwald, and other “whistle blowing” internet disclosers (e.g. Julian Assange of Australia) are traitors or among the greatest American (and Australian) Patriots ever to live.  My own bias on and answer to that point may be evident in the way I phrase the question.  My only complaint about Snowden is that he disclosed too little too late….

Attorneys in America have become a cabal, an elite, who control society but do not, for the most part, administer justice at all.  In fact, for the most part, I would submit to you that attorneys BLOCK justice, and the attorney-client privilege is one of their tools for doing so.  

In discussing the entirely hypothetical above, suppose the political consultant asked a local attorney with parallel experience with the same doctor for her opinion.  Under the dogma of “attorney-client privilege”, one North Florida attorney (Beth Gordon) wrote dramatically regarding this scenario: 

“I certainly don’t wish to engage in any kind of discussion . . . , what kind of a parent  [SOMEONE MIGHT BE], or anything else like that. I take my ethical duties very seriously, and therefore don’t wish to engage in anything like this.  . . . As an attorney, you can be appalled by someone’s behavior. You may or may not know this however- you cannot then feel free to share and discuss what you know about the client.”  

OK, as I understand this statement, SO ONE OF THE FIRST RULES OF LAW, THE ATTORNEY’S CREED, IS ONE OF SECRECY, I.E. LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE CENSORSHIP AND REPRESSION OF TRUTHFUL SPEECH—NOT MERELY IN THE CONTEXT OF A TRIAL WHERE AN INDIVIDUAL’S INNOCENCE MUST BE PRESUMED UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY—AND THE WHOLE POINT OF HIRING A LAWYER FOR A TRIAL WOULD BE DEFEATED IF THE LAWYER COULD BLURT OUT: “HE TOLD ME HE KILLED THE VICTIM, YOUR HONOR, THAT’S WHY HE HIRED ME.”  

So, the ritual presumption of innocence in criminal proceedings requires some sort of discretion on the part of an advocate.

But when an innocent third-party is involved, a child, do the same rules apply?  I submit that advocacy is only legitimate when it seeks the truth, to maximize sunshine, and to hide nothing.

I cannot help but wonder where Glen Greenwald would stand on this question.  I know he would violently (or perhaps non-violently, but vehemently) oppose compelling attorneys to reveal-client secrets in order to obtain convictions for terrorism—he is already on the record for this.  But those who defend American victims of denial of due process are presumably, at least in large part, defending people who are “actually innocent” of terrorist acts even though they may be “guilty” of hating America, and all that America has come to stand for, which is, after all, a gigantic culture of hypocrisy and lies.

Anthropological linguistics teach us that language is symbolic communication and that symbols are inherently abstract and hence, by definition, removed from the “reality” they describe.  So all language and all expression requires and demands deception of a sort: but is the purpose of law and litigation to protect the guilty or the innocent, and to maximize truth or to protect lies.  Lawyers seem to exist, in large part, to maximize protection for the guilty and to secure lies their “rightful place in the domination of world history”.

And in closing, I categorically deny that this is “sour grapes” on my part. I am NOT actually thinking about how the Austin, Texas based Admissions Committee of Western District of Texas in 1997-8 protected the one or two carefully selected and manufactured witnesses who testified in private, behind closed doors, with no recordings or transcripts, only committee summaries, from any cross-examination by me or my attorneys throughout the “Disciplinary Procedures” ordered by Judge James R. Nowlin against me. Or actually, they were protected from cross-examination until their testimony had been sufficiently rehearsed to be credible.  This was indeed an example of secrecy guaranteeing the efficacy of lies, but it goes back much farther than that.

 Rather, it is in memory of a Great-Grandfather of mine, known as “Judge Benny” who was a Louisiana Judge of impeccable albeit local reputation in Shreveport and Natchitoches who (at least according to family legend) had a knitted or crocheted and framed textile on the wall of his chambers which said, in a grand Louisiana tradition of cynicism, “Dead lawyers Lie Still.”

***It is Utu’s Akkadian-Speaking Eastern Semitic Successor Shamash who greets the Babylonian King Hammurabi and hands him the sacred laws, or pronouncement of laws, atop the Stela removed from Susa to Paris and now resident in the Louvre in Paris (with exact replicas at the Oriental Institute at the University of Chicago and the magnificent Pergamon Museum in Berlin).  The Greek Apollo, tragically, acquired very few of the characteristics of  the Near Eastern Sun God of Justice—Apollo was more known for his sarcastic gifts mixed with curses (e.g. Cassandra’s true power of prophecy coupled with universally inaccurate disbelief) and any real justice or fairness.

THE DANGERS OF A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, by JERRY O’NEIL, STATE REPRESENTATIVE & FORMER STATE SENATOR, MONTANA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, DISTRICT 3, COLUMBIA FALLS & KALISPELL, MONTANA

AGAINST AN AMENDMENTS CONVENTION Montana State Representative Jerry O’Neil of Columbia Falls, Wednesday, 26 February 2014—4:05 PM (1 hour ago) Central Standard Time

I am against an “Amendments Convention” as called for by Mark Levin, Rob Natelson and Tim Baldwin. I do not take this position lightly.

Under the United States Constitution, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, our President and Congress have taken over our banking, unions, businesses, communications, and education. They have created a secret police/national police (TSA, ICE, Border Patrol, etc), and instituted ObamaCare by which government will control all our health care. They have failed to turn over about 25% of the land area of Montana as was agreed to when we became a state. 

I agree freedom could be advanced with the proper amendments to the U.S. Constitution. As a state legislator, I have attempted several times to amend the U.S. Constitution in order to place some control over, and limits on, the federal government. 

In 2003 I got a bill to repeal the Seventeenth Amendment out of the Senate Judiciary Committee – but it was defeated on the Senate Floor. In the 2005 legislative session I attempted to accomplish close to the same thing by having the Montana legislative caucuses nominate our U.S. Senate candidates to be on the general election ballot. 

In the 2013 legislative session, with Senator Verdell Jackson’s brilliantly executed motion for reconsideration in the Senate, I got House Joint Resolution 3 passed. This is a request for a constitutional amendment to put some sideboards on the “Commerce Clause” of the U.S. Constitution. I presently need some help to get other states to advance this concept. 

Then why am I against an Amendments Convention? Because I don’t believe the majority of the citizens of the United States currently understand or appreciate Freedom. It is not adequately taught in our schools or churches. Even the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church seems to be ignorant of the fact that capitalism has lifted far more out of poverty than socialism and communism ever have. 

Vaclav Klaus, the former Premier of the Czech Republic stated: 

“The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.” 

While many of us in Montana have known what is happening for many years, we have not hollered loud enough to wake up our neighbors. We have not always supported the candidates who understood the basics of freedom when they were running for our school boards, city councils, county commissioners, state legislatures, judges, congress and president. We have not sent enough letters to the editor speaking up for freedom. 

We have been complacent, attending churches where the preachers would not take a stand on Biblical principals of freedom because they were afraid they would loose their parishioners’ monetary support and their federal tax exemption. Many of these churches would not even mention it to their congregations when they knew a political candidate was in favor of government supported abortions. 

For years we have watched the Supreme Court put forth immoral, anti freedom and statist decisions , including the Dred Scott decision, the Slaughter House Cases, Wickard v. Filburn, Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, Gonzales v. Raich, Roe v. Wade, and Lawrence v. Texas. We have allowed the bigs, such as AIG, General Electric, Bank of America and Monsanto, to choose the likes of McCain and Romney to be our presidential candidates. (Will they choose Chris Christie for us this coming election?) 
We have known for years deficit financing as advocated by Keynesian economists constitutes theft from our seniors’ retirement accounts and supports the big banks. Yet the public supported the Federal Reserve Act in order to “furnish an elastic currency.” 
We have supported our universities where the professors of economics are beholden to the Federal Reserve System as consultants, board members, or for having published their masters or doctors thesis in one of the fed’s magazines. 

We have seen the evidence of how the “bigs”, including the pharmaceuticals, banking industry, insurance, unions and other protected industries and professions own the political establishment, but we have not supported the repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment to lessen the bigs’ power and return some semblance of states’ rights. 

We have seen socialism advance but have not challenged the expansion of Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, federal intervention in education, food stamps, ObamaCare, and a whole plethora of other government programs. 

We have seen the installation of the Real ID act, the Patriot Act, and the National Defense Authorization Act, but, because we were afraid, we kept silent. We accept airport screening and government eavesdropping. We take off our shoes at the airports like good comrades. 

The people of Montana believe government can pass laws to make them more affluent. 
In 2006 we 72.7% of the voters passed Initiative I-151 to increase the minimum wage. By so doing we devalued the dollar and deprived many Indian children on our reservations, where unemployment is over 50%, the opportunity to get their first job. The minimum wage effect on those whom age out of our foster care system is similarly devastating. At the age of 26, 46.8 percent of participants responding to one study were unemployed. We need to make it easier to hire the needy, not remove the bottom rung of their ladder to prosperity. 

In our last Montana election we passed initiative I-166 by a 3 to 1 majority. The fuzzy catch phrase with which it was sold to the public was “Corporations are not People.” That was what appeared on the ballot. The rest of I-166, which did not appear on the ballot, called for a repeal of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution! The intent was to abolish the freedoms of speech, press and association that Congress is presently not allowed to interfere with. If I-166 is successful, these freedoms likely will be replaced with statutory rules as Congress sees fit. 

While the public remains asleep to the concept of freedom it is too dangerous to make it easier to change the Constitution. 
Our Constitution contains negative rights, stating what government can’t do to us or take away from us. We are too likely to throw away these “negative rights” contained in the Constitution and Bill of Rights and replace them with “positive rights,” such as a right to: free health care, free child care, living wages, and government controlled food prices. 

Maybe the chance to amend positive rights into our Constitution is the reason George Soros, Common Cause, the Move to Amend coalition and hundreds of other progressive organizations are also pushing for an Article V amendments convention. 

What are we going to do to save freedom for our progeny? When are we going to stop bowing to the socialists, fascists and communists? When are we going to demand our schools and churches teach and advocate for freedom? When are we going to join freedom fighters holding up signs along the highways criticizing the big government statists and asking for freedom? When are we going to stand up in church and speak up for political candidates who will fight for the Biblical truths and freedoms that our founding fathers fought and died for? 

Until the majority of the public understands and believes in freedom an Amendments Convention is more likely to enslave us than to free us. Therefore I am against having one at this time.

Indian Reservations, John Collier, the New Deal, and the Advance of World Communism

“Any man who thinks he can be happy  and prosperous by letting the 
Government take care of him; better take a  closer look at the American Indian.”
Henry Ford
           Your quote for the Day is very timely!  In today’s paper is the announcement of the beginning of a $1.9 Billion land buyback program for reservation real estate.  The intent of this program is to purchase land from individual Indians and place it in the common tribal trust.  In other words, the federal government is using $1.9 Billion of the Cobell settlement to advance communism on Indian reservations for United States citizens.  This will further the ideals that were set forth by John Collier in the Indian Reorganization Act of June 18, 1934.
         It is my belief that John Collier wanted to make Indian reservations showcases for the communistic system, to show how wonderful it would be for those living under it.  By now we should all know how good that has actually worked.  Henry Ford was right!
*(See full text of Jerry’s Letter Below)
Jerry O’Neil
Dear Jerry:
                 Yes, live on the government reservation, or “life on the government plantation” is a fairly apt analogy and metaphor for the life we’re moving towards in this country…..  New Orleans, where I am staying right now, certainly has characteristics of both reservation and plantation life….. and yet the memories in the buildings and city plan hear of a far, far better America, the echoes in the walls and over the levees and bayous….even across the vast and mighty Mississippi, is somehow still hauntingly inspirational—the river flows on as his has for a hundred thousand years, and life will go on, so even if our children are slaves…..they will someday be free again.
           Strangely enough, I knew John Collier’s son (Donald Collier) at the Field Museum in Chicago during my Chicago Law School years.  Donald Died in 1995 and has about a dozen obituaries on-line, because he really was an outstanding scientist.
         He was a delightful old gentleman and NO kind of Communist himself.  Apparently his Dad’s idea of being a good communist was to own the northern tip of the Door Peninsula at the northern tip of Green Bay, Wisconsin, specifically the 500 acres just on both sides of the WI-42 Trunk (connecting to the Door County-to-Washington Island Ferry) facing the Pilot Island and Plum Island Lighthouses at the entrance to Lake Michigan.
                 Donald Collier was so proud of his little kingdom up there, and no, although he was a graduate of the University of Chicago he never invited disadvantaged boys and girls from the South Side to camp out on his property.  Donald Collier was a fine (if distinctly “old school”) archaeologist specializing in the Middle Horizon of Peru-Bolivia who pioneered the calibration-correction of radio-carbon dating with tree ring sequences from California and Norway/Sweden.
                 One classmate of Donald Collier was my mother, Alice Eugenie.  My mother attended and graduated from the University of Chicago when the basement of Stagg Field was still used for the first controlled nuclear reactions during and after the Manhattan Project (the Joseph Regenstein Library of the U of C sits on that site now).
                   That was back in the days of Chicago’s semi-legendary “Aristotelian Method” Chancellor Robert Maynard Hutchins, two of whose closest friends were the young Marshall Field III, and Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Second Vice-President Henry Agard Wallace.  My mother was a drawling Southern girl (nicknamed “Alice Magnolia”) used to northern/Yankee derision and ridicule of Southern racism, but she always thought it strange that each of these strong leftists, Hutchins, Field, and Wallace always went around town in chauffeur driven limousines with Negro Chauffeurs…..
               Former Vice-President H.A. Wallace in addition had three Negro Bodyguards, apparently, everywhere he went (he felt he was in danger since he was the duel nominee of the Progressive and Communist Parties of the United States—few today may remember or realize that Roosevelt and Wallace were the nominees of the Communist Party (as well as the Democratic Party) in 1940 and (Roosevelt Truman) in 1944.  But in 1948, Wallace was just running as a Progressive and Communist candidate.
                For my part, the first avowed Communist I ever knew personally was one Daniel Villa Milleda in Honduras, who grew up on a Plantation waited on by 24 house servants, each of whom was paid less than $1/day (2 Honduran “Lempiras”).  I met him, perhaps not coincidentally, while participating in a World Bank-Financed Archaeological and Regional Development Project in Honduras, Central America, for the Departamento de Copan.
                    It seems that, throughout history, but somewhat counterintuitively, many of the strongest supporters of Communism have extremely rich people (like Marshal Field III, Daniel Villa Milleda, and, I guess, Franklin D. Roosevelt).  In Marshall Field’s case it might be understandable—there’s really nothing more communistic than a Department Store, is there?  Well, possibly fast food and especially McDonald’s, but they have those in shopping malls right next to all the big department stores, everywhere, for all the people, equal access and all that….  Even Great Britain’s King Edward VII is rumored to have said, either while he was still Prince of Wales or as Emperor of India, that “We are All Socialists Now.”
             The former Soviet Union was famous for the rather ugly anachronism of Communist Party Leaders “owning” seaside “Dachas” by the warmer Black Seaside of the Ukraine…. many formerly belonging to the very highest elite of the Tsarist Inner Circle.
                So I have concluded, and I don’t think I am alone, that Obviously one of the (unspoken) attractions of Communism is that it only works with a truly entrenched and established Elite who control the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.
                  When I pointed out to Daniel Villa Milleda in Honduras that, at least from my “bourgeois” perspective, it seemed that if Communists ever really came to power in Honduras, his family might be among the first to be expropriated or dispossessed he responded emphatically and enthusiastically:
                  “Nonsense—the masses will always need to be guided by the Intelligensia—do you really expect a bunch of ignorant peasants to understand how to guide the world?  We Intellectuals are the very soul of Communism.  My father and I have been to Cuba and seen how Comrade Castro and his brothers rule—they all have palaces of their own. Did you know that Cuba is almost all black except for the Communist Inteligensia—do you really think they (in Spanish “estos pinches negros”) could govern themselves?”
               In short, Communism is and always has been among the greatest and most hypocritical frauds of the world: it is the tool by which the Elite hope to extend their power through popular support forever—they have no such modest and humble goals as a “thousand year Reich”, but really and truly, forever.
                 This, I think explains how the Elites of the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, Austria-Hungary, and France (even the relics of the Ancien Regime aristocracy) were so early on in the late 19th/early 20th century persuaded to become Fabian enthusiasts of Central-Planning and (even worse) Centralized Banking and Credit (all of which were the primary goals of the February 1848 Communist Manifesto Published by Marx & Engels).
                   Communism has, I suppose this obvious appeal to old-time Aristocrats—they get to justify their position “at the top” by saying that they support the rights and well-being of the humblest in society, while simultaneously guaranteeing that there will be no waives of competition for membership in the “Intelligensia” from upstart Upper Middle Class renegades—like the ones who started the American Revolution in 1775, for instance, or their grandchildren and great-grandchildren who resisted centralization of power in 1860-1865.   Communism offers the Elite the Chance to endure forever, and not just for any paltry “thousand year Reich” but really, and truly, absolutely, forever…….. and to freeze all the rest of society and the human race in subservient, dependent positions…..in awe of and ever respectful of the “Intelligensia” who make it all possible….

De : Jerry O’Neil <oneil@centurytel.net>
A:   Charles E. Lincoln <charles.lincoln@rocketmail.com>
Envoyé le : Mercredi 19 décembre 2012 20h27
Objet : Quote for the Day

“Any man who thinks he can be happy  and prosperous by letting the Government take care of him; better take a  closer look at the American Indian.”

Henry Ford

Fred,

Your quote for the Day is very timely!  In today’s paper is the announcement of the beginning of a $1.9 Billion land buyback program for reservation real estate.  The intent of this program is to purchase land from individual Indians and place it in the common tribal trust.  In other words, the federal government is using $1.9 Billion of the Cobell settlement to advance communism on Indian reservations for United States citizens.  This will further the ideals that were set forth by John Collier in the Indian Reorganization Act of June 18, 1934.

It is my belief that John Collier wanted to make Indian reservations showcases for the communistic system, to show how wonderful it would be for those living under it.  By now we should all know how good that has actually worked.  Henry Ford was right!

It perplexes me how Native Americans could become U.S. citizens by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924; and relegated to live under communist land ownership only 10 years later.  But given the present similarity between the politics of FDR and of our current federal government under Obama, I suppose it could happen to all of us in the near future.

I believe the land fractionation problem was caused by the conflict between the 1887 Dawes Act, which split tribal lands into individual allotments of 80- to 160-acre parcels, and the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 which placed those parcels in trust to be administered by the federal government or the individual tribes.  Those allotments were inherited by multiple heirs with each passing generation and held in trust for them by the government.  Because of the difficulty of selling land held in trusts administered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, there are now more than 92,000 land tracts with 2.9 million fractional interests.

I agree something has to be done about the fractionation, but believe it would be far better to loan this $1.9 Billion to individuals living on the reservations to purchase the other ownership interests on their land and thus allow them to own it in fee simple.

Jerry O’Neil
Representing HD-3
406-892-7602

“Any man who thinks he can be happy  and prosperous by letting the Government take care of him; better take a  closer look at the American Indian.”

Henry Ford

Jerry O’Neil Demands Payment in Constitutional Currency, but “All that Glisters is not Gold, Often have you heard that told”. As for me, I was born in Texas and I’d rather be paid in the most traditional of all Indo-European Currencies: Cattle! (OK, I’d take sheep, just to show I’m not prejudiced). Sub-liminal comparison: what is the difference between a Federal Reserve Note and a Viking Ice Skate?

The Best, most honorable and ethical political office-holder I know (State Representative Jerry O’Neil of Kalispell, Montana, who also happens to be one of the most constitutionally rigorous elected officials of the 21st century) has raised one of the oldest and most contentious constitutional issues in the modern history United States: what IS constitutional currency?  Jerry O’Neil Wants to be paid in gold and silver coin.

Although I am very partial to strict construction and enforcement of the constitution as written (especially in clear and unambiguous terms), I also understood that gold and both finite and useless on the one hand, and randomly and irrelevantly distributed in relation to other productive human activities, on the other.  (The huge concentration of the world’s gold in 16th Century Mexico, mid-19th century California, the late 19th century Yukon in Canada, or late-19th/Early 20th Century South Africa never meant that those were the ideal places to live in the world; in fact, the abundant gold in those places led to MANY economic, socio-cultural, and political problems).

The key question in whether to endorse the gold standard is this: if the potential production of human labor is unlimited and infinite, how can the compensation of human labor justly be limited and finite?   On the other hand, Gold is real in the sense of being substantive, tangible and universally recognizable in human cultures all over the world, its recognition as “precious” does not depend on any particular bank or government or even any particular cultural formulation.  

But still, as the Confused but Gold-Rich Aztec told the Gold-hungry Spanish invaders: Gold is not edible.  Gold has no universal practical applicability.   So it is not as useful as cotton, iron or steel.  But neither cotton, iron, nor steel are as easily rendered into currency as completely useless paper, which is totally dependent upon individual banks or governments.

I like to point out that the English word “pecuniary” (matters of or relating to money) is closely related to Spanish “Agro-pecuaria” (the general field of 4H-Agricultural Fairs—“Field & Cattle”).    Our Ancient Indo-European Ancestors up through Roman times knew only one common currency and that was Cattle.   (The Greek preferred “Sheep” and I’m quite fond of Lamb…).  With all due apologies to vegetarians, NOTHING serves better as currency than Cattle (and “Sheep” and “Goats” are also subsumed under Spanish “Agro-pecuaria“).  

If you’re down to your last one pound gold-bar during a war, you may FEEL rich, but if you can’t exchange the gold-bar for food, because of the war, you’re going to starve.  But as an alternative, imagine, if you will, that you’re a neutral non-combatant, in the middle of that great war, down to the your last 16-32 head of cattle (the approximate market value in cattle of one gold bar at present rates, depending on the breed and quality of the cattle), you can not only survive the war without speaking or trading with anyone (assuming you have a few rudimentary tools to butcher and cook your own animals), you may actually end up “richer” at the end of the war even if you’re not trading with any of the combatants, if you care not to slaughter your female cows, take care of the calves, and keep a minimum of one healthy and happy bull around at all times.  

In addition to their widely prized meat, cattle can be used while living as agricultural implements (non-gas-guzzling, in fact gas producing, tractors), their skins can be made into leather for clothing and furniture and their bones and horns can be made into all manner of tools and ornaments.   As a matter of fact, it was a famous and glorious moment in my graduate career at the Peabody Museum of Archaeology & Ethnology when Dr. Stephen Williams, then eponymous Peabody Professor, stumped me at my oral exams by showing me an bovine foreleg bone, heavily striated on one side, heavily compressed on the other, with two holes at distal and proximal ends.  I had identified every other piece of Peabody Museum arcana he could throw at me, but I finally gave up on this one: it was a VIKING ICE-SKATE, made of cattle bones.  Try making anything more useful than a paper aeroplane out of Federal Reserve Notes, I dare you…..

Montana State House of Representatives
REP. JERRY O’NEIL    SESSION COMMITTEES:
    TAXATION; ETHICS;
HELENA ADDRESS DURING SESSION:    TRANSPORTATION;
PO BOX 200500    RULES; and
HELENA, MONTANA  59620-0500    LOCAL GOVERNMENT
406-444-4800    
    
    
HOME ADDRESS:    
985 WALSH ROAD    
COLUMBIA FALLS, MONTANA  59912        
406-892-7602; 406-892-7603 FAX     The Big Sky Country    oneil@CenturyTel.net

November 12, 2012

State of Montana Legislative Services
Central Services Office
Post Office Box 201706
Helena, Montana  59620-1706

Re:    Legislator Compensation

Dear Legislative Services:

    Last week I was re-elected to serve the people of House District 3 as their Representative in the Montana Legislature. Once again it will be my privilege to take the oath of office, promising to obey and protect the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Montana.
    When campaigning, some of my constituents informed me I was not honoring my duty to uphold and defend the United States Constitution. The area of their concern is the prohibition, contained in Article I, Section 10, that states, “No state shall – – make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts – -.” They ask me how I, a policy maker for the State of Montana, can ignore this clear constitutional prohibition.
    Over the 10 years I have previously served in the legislature I have considered this a trivial matter that would show me to be out of step with our national rulers if I made an issue out of it. I did not want to be branded as a fanatic over an issue of no consequence.
    Today I am looking at this issue in a new light. When I was going to my constituents homes I agreed with them the most important issue for the coming legislative session will be to protect them from the economic debacle hanging over our heads.
    With just a cursory look at history we know a country that lives beyond its means faces dire consequences. Having a $16,000,000,000,000 national debt is a warning sign we can only ignore at our peril. Having such a debt and allowing it to increase unchecked is an invitation for national suicide.
    It is very likely the bottom will fall out from under the U.S. dollar. Only so many dollars can be printed before they have no value. The Keynesian era of financing government with debt appears to be close to its demise.
    If and when that happens, how can we in the Montana Legislature protect our constituents? – The only answer I can come up with is to honor my oath to the U.S. Constitution and request that your debt to me be paid in gold and silver coins that will still have value when the U.S. dollar is reduced to junk status. I therefore request my legislative pay to be in gold and silver coins that are unadulterated with base metals.
    I am not asking for you to give me gold and silver American Eagles at their face value of $50.00 and $1.00,  but rather at their current market prices that today are $1,801.00 and $35.28. Hopefully this will be an example for our Montana citizens and prompt them to also have some of their own wealth in money that has intrinsic value.
    Yours truly,
    Jerry O’Neil

Re: Really Bad Patriot Mythology—When Ideas can be applied practically, stick with them….when they only lead you down rabbit-trails…..”just say ‘no'”….

I have had friends and mentors present some of those ideas to me for close to 40 years. The conclusion I have came to is, if there is something to these theories I still don’t know how to use it to my benefit. In my battles to clean up our legal system I have had more positive affect by holding up a sign in front of the courthouse letting the public know the judge was unfair or dishonest than I believe I could have had by standing mute or saying the court does not have jurisdiction over me. I have also used my campaigns for political and judicial office as a soapbox to inform the public to some affect. Maybe someone can use those ideas to gain some advantage. Although it took a lot of patience and the help of Charles Lincoln, Roger Kehew and others, I am proud of our contribution to getting the Montana Supreme Court to come out with the attached opinion using methods that made sense to me.

I carried a couple of bills during the last legislative session that would have helped the system some more. It is too bad they were killed in the process. Would you like to help get similar bills passed in the coming session if I am lucky enough to get re-elected?

Jerry O’Neil
Montana HD 3
406-892-7602

Treason against the Constitution in the Senate, Treason by the Executive Branch, “Treason against the Constitution” as defined by the Courts: Our Government Hates Freedom and Subverts the Constitution Daily

Treason in the Senate, summarized in a newscast:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rv1O6goo7qE&feature=share

Senator Mark Kirk (Republican from Illinois) speaks in favor of the too weak and only belatedly offer “Feinstein Amendment”, which failed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBsaePlbLJk&feature=related

But Senators Feinstein and 92 others voted in FAVOR of the Unamended, Unlimited “indefinite detention” version of Senate 1867—Senator Kirk correctly says this bill is blatantly unconstitutional, that the bill unconstitutionally transfers the power to “indict” on charges of terrorism from the grand juries mandated by the Sixth Amendment to the President, and thereby gives dictatorial powers to the President.  Senator Kirk also correctly identifies this Bill as one of the greatest assaults on freedom ever to have taken place.  But the Senate, 93-7, bulled forward and apparently decided to “leave it to the Courts”, and the Courts have no will to overturn a statute approved by 93 Senators.  Scalia in particular seems to believe that every Constitutional provision is effectively subject to legislative limitation and abrogation.  Anthony Kennedy is the last even remotely “libertarian” justice on the Court.

If the prisons are overcrowded now, how many more prisons will be needed once all the Antiabortion Protesters, Tea Party Members, Occupy Wall Street and related movements, and Antiwar Protestors are gathered up and detained indefinitely?  THIS IS THE END OF AMERICA FOLKS: MAKE NO DECISION—DIANNE FEINSTEIN and BARBARA BOXER BOTH VOTED FOR IT!

Good time in the midst of this debate for us to remember what is the historical context of and evidence for terrorism in this country since 9/11:

http://www.corbettreport.com/911-a-conspiracy-theory/

and what has been done to people who question the facts of 9/11 just this year, PRIOR to the enactment of Senate Bill 1867 and the “National Defense Reauthorization Act.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIU9j_qwzOE&feature=player_embedded#!

and what former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neil said was the truth about the planning of the war against Iraq, how it was planned from George W. Bush’s inauguration in January 2001 forward, with Iraqi oil and the removal of Saddam Hussein as the main purposes—despite Bush’s campaign promises to the contrary in 2000:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMCxheXPjtc&feature=related&mid=546

The Concept of “Treason against the Constitution” traces back to this March 5, 1821 Opinion rendered in the case of Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264, 5 L.Ed. 257.  Treason against the Constitution can, as a matter of fact, ONLY be committed inside the United States of America, not elsewhere, and the only people with real power to commit treason against the constitution are those who subvert it by infringing and violating its protections for the people.  A very interesting historical read, and if anyone asks you where the idea of “Treason against the Constitution” ever came from, well, this is it:

Cohens_v_Virginia_19_US_264_Judicial_Treason

That Cohens case has been cited quite recently, both in Justice Ginsburg’s opinion and Justice Stevens’ concurrence in Vicki Lynn Marshall v. E. Pierce Marshall,  547 U.S. 293; 126 S. Ct. 1735; 164 L. Ed. 2d 480 (2006), in trying to dispose of the Constitutionally Treasonous “Rooker-Feldman” Doctrine of Federal abstention from hearing collateral constitutional challenges to certain state court decisions (which Doctrine Justice Stevens pronounced “dead” at the end of his concurrence, although an “undead” Vampiric Rooker-Feldman perniciously continues to haunt the Federal Courts ever since then in spite  of his dictum—if elected to the U.S. Senate, I will submit legislation to outlaw and overturn the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and restore the balance of powers by review to State-Federal relations).

But seriously, the attached (sent to me by Montana State Senator Jerry O’Neil) is JUST an example of the people who will now be called and considered TERRORISTS (almost for sure) under Senate Bill 1867 if (once) Obama signs it into law.  You see, it appears some people are getting fed up with the fed, and these people are ALL going to be indefinitely detained as terrorists, you mark my word.  Yes, Gentle Reader, your Friends and Neighbors will Start Disappearing and they will soon be arrested without warrant or indictment and carted off with their heads in black bags to indefinite detention on President Obama’s (or President Newt Gingrich’s) orders, HAVE NO DOUBT!  Remember that Newt Gingrich was the chief sponsor of the 1996 Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act which preceded the Patriot Act by Five Years, and the Patriot Act mainly served to enact into law those provisions which Congress was not yet ready to pass over the Constitution to promulgate prior to 9-11 (which just shows you why 9-11 was so completely necessary for the government, right?)

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/guns/armed-and-ready-new-mexico-residents-defy-government

As of 3:23 AM on Monday, December 5, 2011, Charles Edward Lincoln, III is the ONLY announced candidate for U.S. Senator from California (including Dianne Feinstein and Orly Taitz) to have announced his opposition to Senate Bill 1867.  Orly Taitz continues to live in her dreamworld that it is sufficiently “Patriotic” to question Obama’s eligibility for President and ignore all other grave issues facing this Country.  Dianne Feinstein continues to believe that she is sufficiently well-esconced in the Bankers-Financial Club and Military-Industrial Complex Establishment that she cannot possibly lose her seat in the senate—if she chooses to run again—EVEN IF she voted for a bill to which she proposed an amendment which failed, and thus she failed to protect the people of the United States or California.  It amazes me that not even Rand Paul offered to filibuster this bill.

If you would like to help the fight for “corny old values” like Truth, Justice, and the American Way, for Family, Home, and Freedom, and to add one Senator for the Bill of Rights and against Indefinite Detention, against the PATRIOT ACT, and against the use of United States Troops in this Country against its own citizens, please support Charles Edward Lincoln, III, for U.S. Senator from California.  We are fighting one of the most entrenched establishment seats in Congress—Dianne Feinstein who tried to make cosmetic changes in S.B. 1867 to hide and disguise its truly oppressive nature (and to claim she had “done the best she could”, perhaps?)—and we ask you to send your check or money order to Lincoln-for-Senate 2012 to Charles Edward Lincoln, III, 952 Gayley Avenue, #143, Los Angeles, California 90024.  Call 310-773-6023 for more information.