💾 Archived View for gemini.spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › conspiracy › CN › cn08-16.txt captured on 2022-06-12 at 06:56:58.
⬅️ Previous capture (2020-10-31)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Conspiracy Nation -- Vol. 8 Num. 16
======================================
("Quid coniuratio est?")
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CLASH OF THE TITANS
===================
(From Feb. 1996 Conspiracy Nation Newsletter)
Two "titans", Congress and the President, have clashed in
Washington, DC, during late 1995 and into 1996. To understand
the epic confrontation, let's go back several centuries and look
for antecedents.
Henry II was king of England from 1154 A.D. to 1189 A.D. He
was "lord of an empire stretching from the Scottish border to the
Pyrenees [northern border of Spain.]" [Morgan, 122] Henry helped
raise Thomas Becket to Archbishop of Canterbury in 1162. But to
the king's surprise, Becket began to oppose him and a
Church-State battle ensued -- a clash of titans.
In January of 1164, King Henry summoned a council to
Clarendon. He presented the bishops with a clear statement of
the king's customary rights over the Church -- The Constitution
of Clarendon. At first, Becket gave in and accepted this kingly
decree, but he later changed his mind. Conflicts between King
Henry II and Thomas Becket finally led to the assassination of
Becket by four of the king's knights.
Richard I (1189-1199) was Henry's son. His brother, John,
was lord of Ireland. In November of 1187, Saladin had a victory
at Hattin. Richard rushed to assist the kingdom of Jerusalem.
The outcome of King Richard's crusade was the Treaty of Jaffa in
1192. During Richard's absence from England there had been
disturbances in that "emerald isle", but on his return they got
straightened out.
Richard the First's death in 1199 left the succession in
dispute. The battle was between John, Richard's brother, and
Arthur, son of Geoffrey (brother of Henry II) and nephew of John.
But Arthur at that time was just 12 years old. John won control
of the kingdom and was probably responsible for the murder of
young Arthur in April of 1203. [130]
But John as king "constantly suspected that men were plotting
against him." [ibid.] High inflation put many into financial
trouble. The king was blamed. (After all, if there is a bad
harvest, who is to blame? The king. Ditto with financials.)
The economic inflation also eroded the value of royal revenues.
King John "levied frequent taxes and tightened up the laws
governing the forest (a profitable but highly unpopular source of
income)." [ibid.]
July 1214 saw the start of rebellion. Rebels would normally
have a leader who was a member of the royal family around whom to
rally, but no good candidate was available to them. "So the
rebels devised a new kind of focus for revolt: a programme of
reform. In June 1215, after they had captured London, the rebels
forced John to accept the terms laid out in a document later to
be known as Magna Carta. In essence it was a hostile commentary
on some of the more objectionable features of the last sixty
years of [English] rule." [131]
Richard II was king from 1377 to 1399. In 1397-8 he exiled
the earl of Warwick, executed the earl of Arundel, murdered the
duke of Gloucester, and then exiled the earl of Derby. [192]
King Richard II "demanded oaths of loyalty... placed subjects'
lands and property at his mercy... and terrorized [the]
population with [a] private army." [Haigh, 109] But when Richard
visited Ireland in 1399, this gave Henry Bolingbroke, the exiled
earl of Derby, the chance to slip back into England and recover
the duchy of Lancaster estates and his position. Bolingbroke
landed at Ravenspur, gained the support of the northern lords,
and eventually captured Richard II. [ibid.] Richard was deposed,
imprisoned in the Tower of London and soon thereafter was
secretly put to death. [Weir, 14]
Henry IV (i.e. Henry Bolingbroke) had dubious title to the
throne, but held onto it just the same. His son and successor,
Henry V, was ruling well, but he died unexpectedly in 1422. His
heir, Henry VI, was just a baby at the time. When Henry VI
finally reached adulthood, he proved to be a weak ruler; he may
even have been mentally defective. [ibid.]
The father of Richard, Duke of York, was executed in 1415 by
Henry V (father of Henry VI) when Richard was 4 years old.
Richard of York was restored to his inheritance in 1425.
"Faction feuds" -- a.k.a. "the clashes of titans" -- led, in
1450, to the eruption of the 30-year "War of the Roses". Two of
the factions were the Houses of Lancaster, including the inept
Henry VI, and York. In September 1460 Richard of York marched on
London and claimed the crown. Queen Margaret, wife of the
simple-minded Henry VI, incensed at Richard, sent her forces
against him and his allies and on December 30, 1460 "[Richard of]
York, his son Edmund, Earl of Rutland, and [the Earl of]
Salisbury were slain at the battle of Wakefield." [17]
Vengeful, Richard's 19-year-old son Edward captured London
and had himself proclaimed king on March 4, 1461. Henry VI was a
fugitive until he was finally captured and imprisoned in the
Tower of London in 1465. Edward was formally crowned King Edward
IV on June 28, 1465. [ibid.]
On May 21, 1471 Henry VI was secretly murdered. Officially,
it was given out that Henry VI "had taken 'to so great despite,
ire and indignation that, of pure displeasure and melancholy he
died.' This fooled no one." [27] Centuries later, when the
remains of Henry VI were examined, the medical report confirmed
his violent death. [ibid.]
Earlier, Edward IV had secretly married someone beneath his
station, Elizabeth Wydville. He had been "led into wedlock 'by
blind affection and not by the rule of reason.'" [21] The secret
marriage, when revealed, was not well-received and caused
divisions within the royal family -- i.e. factions.
George, Duke of Clarence, was Edward's brother. He had a
"weak, discontented and vicious character." [23] Clarence
"burned with resentment because [Richard, Duke of] Gloucester had
received so much of the Warwick inheritance." [43]
Elizabeth Wydville -- Queen Elizabeth -- headed the Wydville
faction. On November 2, 1470 she gave birth to the future Edward
V. Prince Edward was raised by the Wydville faction. On August
17, 1473 was born her second son, Richard, Duke of York.
Richard, Duke of Gloucester, brother of Edward IV, held power
in the north of England. [43] "At court, the Wydvilles held
sway, and in Wales, that other potential power base, their
influence was paramount." [ibid.] But Clarence, though wealthy,
was isolated from power. Not liking this, he struck out at the
Queen by, without any warrant, arresting one of the Queen's
servants, seizing her valuables, and jailing her. Three days
later, after having been found guilty by an intimidated court of
poisoning and witchcraft, the servant was hung. [43-44] The
Wydvilles retaliated with a charge of sorcery against Clarence.
Two persons linked to Clarence, Dr. John Stacey and Thomas
Burdett, were executed on May 20th, 1477.
The feud escalated. Clarence publicly denounced King Edward
IV as a bastard and a necromancer. [45] But Edward showed
tolerance. However a final act of lese-majeste was the last
straw. Clarence was arrested and imprisoned in the Tower of
London. Indicted for high treason, Clarence was found guilty and
executed on February 18, 1478. Richard of Gloucester secretly
blamed the Wydvilles for Clarence's death. [51]
From 1472 through 1483 Gloucester governed England north of
the River Trent for his brother Edward. [56] In the South, and
at court, the Wydvilles dominated. [57] Edward's heir was being
raised by the Wydvilles. "It was... Edward IV's failure to
envisage what the consequences would be to his kingdom and his
heir if he were to die young and leave a minor on the throne that
led directly to the tragedy of the Princes in the Tower." [58]
How's this for a war? Mary, Duchess of Burgundy and wife of
Maximilian of Austria, is thrown from a horse and dies. She
leaves behind two children: Philip, her heir, and Margaret.
Louis XI of France then concludes a new treaty whereby Elizabeth
of York is dumped as future match for the Dauphin in favor of
Margaret. Edward IV "hits the ceiling" when he learns that "his
daughter had been ignominiously jilted" and he has Parliament
declare war on France. [60] The King did not get to see, though,
how his war might turn out: he died shortly thereafter, on April
9, 1483. [62] So the stage is set. Richard of Gloucester rules
the North and is at odds with the Wydvilles, powerful in the
South.
Edward V was proclaimed king on April 11, 1483. Richard of
Gloucester had been named Protector of the Realm by Edward IV in
a deathbed ordinance. "It appears that Edward intended that
Gloucester should govern the kingdom while the king was a minor."
[63] But the Wydville faction was determined to resist Edward
IV's deathbed ordinance. They wanted to use Edward V as a
puppet, with them pulling the strings.
It was argued that if Edward V were to be crowned king
immediately, this would cause Gloucester's role of Protector to
expire. Yet Edward V was not then in London. At this point, the
young prince was the key to power. Whoever possessed Edward V
would control England.
Both sides feared and hated each other. If the Wydville
clique ruled, Richard of Gloucester's very life would be in
danger. Gloucester, argues Weir, "had no choice but to act to
bring about the overthrow of the Wydvilles and seize the reins of
government himself." [70] Gloucester and his forces caught up
with Edward V fifty miles north of London and took the young
prince in their charge. Edward V was then separated from his
ministers, his escort, his attendants and servants. [81]
By May of that year (1483), 12-year-old Edward V was lodged
in the Tower of London. Basically a prisoner therein, he
underwent increasing isolation. In June, his 9-year-old brother
and also possible heir to the throne was brought to the Tower and
"...day by day [they] began to be seen more rarely..." [112]
There now occurred other judicial-type murders of powerful
allies of the Wydvilles. Richard of Gloucester, by now in actual
power, began acting more and more as if he were king. He
postponed the scheduled coronation of Edward V indefinitely.
[115] By June 26th, 1483, Richard III had succeeded in being
proclaimed king. He was crowned on July 6th, 1483.
But the Princes in the Tower yet lived and stood as "a
potential focus for rebellion..." [142] So Richard III had them
murdered as they slept, on or about September 3rd, 1483. [157]
Two factions, two "titans", clashed -- the Wydvilles and the
allies of Richard III -- and "sparks" flew -- many were murdered.
Those who allied with Richard found themselves well-rewarded.....
or at least they stayed alive.
We have had to step down, as time has gone by, in our opinion
of ourselves. Finding out that it was not the sun which revolved
around the earth, but the other way around, was more than some
people could deal with. Then, when it was found that we weren't
much different from apes, that too was hard to face. So too with
our rulers: The pharoahs were not just rulers, they were gods.
Centuries passed, and the rulers, though not gods exactly, still
were God's chosen ones -- they ruled by the so-called "divine
right of kings." Then, here in America, it went a step further
and power was said to emanate from the people, from the consent
of the governed.
Samuel F.B. Morse, the recognized inventor of the telegraph
in America and pioneer in the use of Morse code, took a hard look
at the titanic power known as the Catholic church. In his book,
Foreign Conspiracy Against the Liberties of the United States, he
argued that there was a "Holy Alliance, a 'union of Christian
princes'", determined to extinguish the good example of liberty
here in the U.S. [Morse, 18] He claimed that Austria, through its
secret funding of the St. Leopold Foundation, was sending Jesuit
emissaries, "organizing themselves in all our borders, actively
passing and re-passing between Europe and America." [22-23]
While cautioning that he has no quarrel with the purely
religious aspects of Roman Catholicism, he yet warns that "every
religious sect has certain principles of government growing out
of its particular religious belief, and which will be found to
agree or disagree with the principles of any given form of civil
government." [33-34] Although Austria, the Catholic Church, and
America all agree, says Morse, that the authority to govern
derives from God, opposition occurs regarding to whom on earth
this authority is delegated. Austria, then subscribing to the
concept of the divine right of kings, would say authority on
earth is delegated to the Emperor. The Catholic Church, arguing
from its own version of divine right, claims the authority
belongs to the Pope. But the United States holds that the
Sovereign power resides in the people themselves. And so, says
Morse, the Catholic Church, in its civil aspect, is inimicable to
that of the United States.
Says Morse: "This is the slavish doctrine taught to the
Catholics... The people, instead of having power or rights, are
according to this catechism mere passive slaves, born for their
masters, taught by a perversion of the threatenings of religion
to obey without murmuring, or questioning, or examination, the
mandates of their human deity, bid to cringe and fawn and kiss
the very feet of majesty, and deem themselves happy to be
whipped, to be kicked, or to die in his service...
Protestantism, on the contrary, at its birth, while yet bound
with many of the shackles of Popery, attacked, in its earliest
lispings of freedom, this very doctrine of divine right. It was
Luther, and by a singular coincidence of day too, on the fourth
of July, who first in a public disputation at Leipsic with his
Popish antagonist, called in question the divine right of the
Pope." [39-40]
You see, it was a clash of titans from whence we can trace
American anti-Papism. The Pope and his agents, one faction,
versus Martin Luther, having on his own side nothing more than
the power of an idea. So too in the clash between Henry VIII and
the Catholic Church can be seen the roots of American distrust of
"Popery." These misgivings extended right up to the 1960s, when
it was questioned whether John F. Kennedy, a Catholic, ought to
be President of the United States.
Charles I was King of England from 1625 until 1649. Charles
faced strong opposition from his Parliaments. In 1628, the
Parliament "complained about forced loans, illegal levying of
customs duties (known as "tunnage and poundage"), and forced
billeting of soldiers in households. In particular they
protested that the King had no right to imprison his subjects
without showing cause why he did so. The [House of] Commons set
out their various grievances in a constitutional document known
as the Petition of Right, to which the King was obliged to give
his assent..." [Encyclopedia Americana, 301]
In 1628, King Charles tried to adjourn the upcoming
Parliament, but this was prevented by members who "held the
speaker of the House of Commons down in his chair while they
voted three resolutions condemning the actions of the monarchy as
illegal. Charles retaliated by dissolving Parliament, and for
the next 11 years he governed without calling another one."
[ibid.]
Putting the conflict between the King and the Parliament into
the context of our current clash between "King Clinton" and the
Congress, I can give no better analysis than the following,
offered by one of Conspiracy Nation's many readers in response to
speculation put forward by Mr. Sherman Skolnick of the Citizens'
Committee to Clean Up The Courts. [See CN 6.91, "Sinister
Consequences"]
"Much as I affectionately respect Sherman Skolnick, I must
confess that I found his speculations concerning Clinton's
presumed power to prorogue Congress because of a sovereign
'right' inherited from England's King Charles I somewhat
'exotic' to say the least. I also found it disturbing,
because Clinton may actually be persuaded that he has such a
right, based on precedent, or -- just as bad -- seek to
persuade others to believe at some future time that he has
such a right. So before this becomes a full-fledged rumour
or a 'fact' by default, I hope you'll permit me to apply a
corrective."
"The power to prorogue, as a residual power vested in the
Crown (or its representative Governor-Generals in the old
Dominions) now only permits the dissolution of Parliament
because the government is acting ultra vires or
unconstitutionally. (As, for example, in Australia in the
1970s, when the Governor-General dismissed Parliament because
the then-government flouted the Constitution by continuing
operation without a necessary money bill being passed by
Parliament to fund it.) The Crown may then only issue a writ
for a new election and appoint an interim administration. It
may not govern directly, suspend Parliament indefinitely, or
impose by fiat a permanent replacement Administration of its
choice."
"Quoting Charles I's conflicts with Parliament and his
proroguing of it (and extending this by historical descent as
a precedent for American Presidents) is fallacious in the
extreme. Charles wished to govern as an absolute autocrat;
he made free use of the Star Chamber to ruin and imprison
those who opposed him; he sought to replace Parliamentary
money bills with innovations like 'ship money'; he personally
interfered in political debate in Parliament; and he finally
sought to arrest forcibly six leaders of the Commons, in the
Commons, on charges of 'treason.'"
"Charles had previously dismissed Parliament several times
because they wouldn't give him what he wanted: he then had a
problem, because without Parliament's approval of a money
bill he had no funds with which to govern or pursue his
policies. The only two options were to recall Parliament,
which he did on each occasion, or to make war upon it.
Ultimately, he did make war upon it, and lost."
"The principle was well understood then, however: the King
has the power to dismiss, but not to govern dictatorially.
If he wished to execute his purposes, he had to gain the
consent of Parliament, which was elected by the people who
paid the bills -- the original 'no taxation without
representation.' No Parliament, no money!"
"Now, interestingly enough and directly to the point here,
Charles had already been compelled by Parliament to agree to
regular triennial Parliaments. In January 1641, a private
member's Bill was introduced 'to prevent the dangers and
inconveniences happening by the long intermission of
Parliaments.' The House, in committee, directed that
triennial Parliaments be held; to guard against the statute
becoming a dead-letter, they directed that the issuing of
writs at the fixed times be the responsibility of the Lord
Chancellor; that, if he failed, the House of Lords should
issue the writs; if the Lords failed, then the Sheriffs were
to do it; and, if the Sheriffs neglected or refused, then the
people were to proceed to elect their representatives without
any writs at all. Now, if you're looking for a precedent,
that's the one you should be taking note of, not the
Sovereign's power to dismiss!"
"And, as an additional pointed reminder to the King of where
the true power lay, he was compelled by this law to agree not
to dismiss or adjourn Parliament without its own consent
within fifty days of its commencing its session."
"So, if thereafter he dismissed it, writs were automatically
issued for election to a new Parliament -- whether he agreed
or not -- at the next stated time; if this process failed, or
was neglected, the people met and elected their own
representatives. And that Parliament could not then be
dismissed by the King for at least fifty days."
"So if Clinton wants to draw on residual powers to prorogue
passed down from Charles I, that's the package he'd be
getting!"
"However, the modern evolution of this doctrine has gone
beyond that. The Crown can only now prorogue Parliament for
good constitutional reason; it must then immediately take
steps to call a new election for a new Parliament. If it was
wrong, the Parliament so elected would reflect the wrath of
the voters, which might well result in the legislative demise
of the Crown or sharp abridgement of its powers. It's for
that reason that the royal right to prorogue is residual and
rarely used."
"Not much to comfort Clinton in that, I'm afraid."
"And the exercise of an arbitrary "right" to prorogue,
unfettered, ultimately cost King Charles his throne, then his
head."
"Another precedent King Clinton would do well to consider."
[Whitley]
Here in America, Andrew Jackson fought against the Bank of
the United States.
"Specie" was a gold and silver bimetallic system "established
by Congress in the Coinage Act of 1792. This act provided for
'full-bodied' money, that is full-weight gold and silver coins
whose commodity value equaled their exchange value." [Remini,
25] But favored by Alexander Hamilton and others was a "Bank of
the United States." Chartered in 1791 amidst fierce controversy,
the "B.U.S." had assets of $10 million, four-fifths of which came
from private investors who bought stock in it. Buyers of its
stock offerings "were concentrated mainly in Boston, New York,
Philadelphia, and Baltimore, but in a short time foreign
investors snapped up its stock." [24] Because the operation of
the bank was primarily under the control of its private
investors, this meant that the nation's fiscal policy was greatly
controlled by wealthy private citizens and even, apparently, by
foreigners. Although the charter of the B.U.S. was allowed to
expire in 1811, the subsequent Second Bank of the United States,
begun in 1816, was basically more of the same.
Although Jackson had, from the start, planned to restrict the
Second Bank, the so-called "Portsmouth incident" pushed him even
further. After reviewing serious charges that the B.U.S. had in
some localities actively opposed Jackson's election, Nicholas
Biddle, president of the Bank, informed Jackson that his board of
directors "[acknowledged] not the slightest responsibility of any
description whatsoever to the Secretary of the Treasury touching
the political opinions and conduct of their officers." [55] This
exacerbated the looming confrontation.
From Jackson's point of view, there was no constitutional
authority for the Bank of the United States. [24] Furthermore,
Jackson contended "that the Bank was dangerous to the liberty of
the American people because it concentrated enormous power in
private hands and used this power to control legislation,
influence elections, and even manipulate the operation of
government to get what it wanted." [44] To Jackson, the B.U.S.
was "a monopoly with special privileges granted by the
government." [ibid.] So Jackson, not part of the eastern
establishment, was determined to pull the plug on this cozy
operation.
But Biddle and his cohorts had some tricks up their sleeves.
They used their considerable forces to manuever a bill through
Congress granting recharter of the Bank. Jackson fired back with
his historic Bank veto of July 10, 1832, which concluded as
follows:
"It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often
bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes.
Distinctions in society will always exist under every just
government. Equality of talents, of education, or of wealth
can not be produced by human institutions. In the full
enjoyment of the gifts of Heaven and the fruits of superior
industry, economy, and virtue, every man is equally entitled
to protection by law; but when the laws undertake to add to
these natural and just advantages artificial distinctions, to
grant titles, gratuities, and exclusive privileges, to make
the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble
members of society -- the farmer, mechanics, and laborers --
who have neither the time nor the means of securing like
favors to themselves, have a right to complain of the
injustice of their Government. There are no necessary evils
in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses. If it
would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does
its rains, shower its favors alike on the high and the low,
the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing.
In the act before me there seems to be a wide and unnecessary
departure from these just principles." [83]
The Second Bank of the United States spent hugely in the
presidential campaign of 1832. They hoped to at all cost defeat
Jackson's bid for re-election. Democrats charged that the Bank
was bribing government officials and citizens to promote
Jackson's defeat. Warned one newspaper, "If the Bank, a mere
monied corporation, can influence and change the results of our
election at pleasure, nothing remains of our boasted freedom
except the skin of the immolated victim." [99]
Jackson won re-election and stock in the United States Bank
immediately dropped six points, from 120.5 to 114.5. [108]
During his second term, the President sought to remove government
deposits from the B.U.S. and place them in state banks. Nicholas
Biddle retaliated by curtailing loans. This sent the nation into
a financial panic. [126] "Biddle's squeeze caught the country at
the worst possible moment... [It] staggered the commercial and
manufacturing centers of the country... Every major city
sustained a string of business failures; wages and prices
declined; and workingmen were discharged in distressingly large
numbers." [127-128] Yet Jackson would not yield in his "struggle
to maintain a government of the people against the most heartless
of all aristocracies, that of money." [131]
Public opinion slowly turned against the Bank. By 1834, a
resolution urging that the B.U.S. not be rechartered was adopted
by Congress. This and other resolutions "spelled the doom of the
Bank." [166] The Second Bank of the United States "died a slow
demeaning death... With each election the people reaffirmed
their desire to have done with the monster." [173-174] The Bank
wound up its affairs and closed shop. With the expiration of its
charter in 1836, the B.U.S. ceased to exist.
While all this was going on, the "secret ideology of
international finance... aimed at eventual rule over all the
world by the British Government" [Knuth, 86] was seething at a
perceived affront to its plans as promulgated in the Monroe
Doctrine. The Monroe Doctrine, "America for the Americans," was
in conflict with British plans to maintain and advance the
worldwide British empire. But at the time of its inception
during the 1820s, the British were then preoccupied with problems
in the Mohammedan world. [88-89] By 1856, however, Great Britain
turned its attention to America. A close business connection
existed between cotton manufacturing England and the cotton
aristocracy of the American South. The southern states "were
swarming with British agents." [89] These agents acted upon the
business connection between the South and Great Britain to help
foment rebellion. The British also provided indirect aid to the
Confederacy which "brought the fortunes of the North to a very
low ebb; and every indication at this stage was that Britain was
preparing to enter the war." [ibid.] "In December, 1861, a large
British, French and Spanish expeditionary force was landed at
Vera Cruz [Mexico] in defiance of the Monroe Doctrine." [ibid.]
Things looked bad for the Union. However the North itself
received timely assistance from Russia [90] and that, combined
with other factors, resulted in eventual Union victory.
(The question arises as to whether John Wilkes Booth, a known
agent of the Confederacy, really was a "lone nut" when he
assassinated the victorious Abraham Lincoln. This editor does
not believe that it was Booth who perished on or about April 26,
1865 at the Garret barn in Virginia. Support for this opinion
can be found in, among several works, Escape and Suicide of John
Wilkes Booth by Finis L. Bates. Memphis: Pilcher Printing Co.,
1907)
We have seen a sampling of past faction fights and the
effects they have on the common people are either implicit or
described. Now, in Washington, D.C., it appears that another
"Clash of the Titans" is underway. What can be said about this
current battle?
The first thing that comes to mind is what puny "titans"
these are. The old-time titans were GREAT -- not in the sense of
being good, necessarily, but in the sense of being big, "larger
than life." The current episode of political collision could be
better called "Plots of the Lawyers," or "Tricks of the
Statisticians," or "Food Fight of the Frat Boys." What crummy
titans we get these days.
Following from this it can be argued that perhaps these guys,
Newt and King Clinton and the other suits and ties are not the
real titans. That would be why these "titans" are all so boring:
they are not the real thing. They are bought-off stooges,
puppets on a string, owned and operated by the likes of Arkansas
billionaire Jackson Stephens, Goldman Sachs, and God knows who
else. Aiding the magic lantern show are the so-called "news"
sources, owned and operated by the same folks who own the
politicians. The final player is the deceived public, still
trusting the major "news" outlets, that gets caught up in the
fake drama. Tricked and misled by masters of illusion, the
American people get sucked into passionate arguments over
chimeras.
But what is really going on? We are told that there is a
budget battle occuring between the Congress and the President,
that it has as its basis a "philosophical difference" between the
two giants. One thing is certain: powerful forces are acting,
behind the scenes, that we know nothing about.
Works Cited
===========
Bates, Finis L. Escape and Suicide of John Wilkes Booth Memphis:
Pilcher Printing Co., 1907
Encyclopedia Americana, International Edition. Danbury:
Grolier, Inc., 1993
Haigh, Christopher, ed. The Cambridge Historical Encyclopedia of
Great Britain and Ireland. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1985. ISBN 0-521-25559-7
Knuth, E.C. The Empire of "The City" 1946. Torrance, CA:
Noontide Press, 1983.
Morgan, Kenneth O., ed. The Oxford Illustrated History of
Britain Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984. ISBN
0-19-822684-5
Morse, Samuel F.B. Foreign Conspiracy Against the Liberties of
the United States 1835. New York: Arno Press, 1977
Remini, Robert V. Andrew Jackson and the Bank War New York: W.W.
Norton & Company, Inc., 1967.
Weir, Alison. The Princes in the Tower New York: Ballantine
Books, 1992. ISBN 0-345-38372-9
Whitley, John K. Electronic mail to Conspiracy Nation. Jan. 4,
1996
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I encourage distribution of "Conspiracy Nation."
-----------------------------------------------------------------
If you would like "Conspiracy Nation" sent to your e-mail
address, send a message in the form "subscribe cn-l My Name" to
listproc@cornell.edu (Note: that is "CN-L" *not* "CN-1")
-----------------------------------------------------------------
For information on how to receive the improved Conspiracy
Nation Newsletter, send an e-mail message to bigred@shout.net
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Want to know more about Whitewater, Oklahoma City bombing, etc?
(1) telnet prairienet.org (2) logon as "visitor" (3) go citcom
-----------------------------------------------------------------
See also: http://www.europa.com/~johnlf/cn.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
See also: ftp.shout.net pub/users/bigred
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Aperi os tuum muto, et causis omnium filiorum qui pertranseunt.
Aperi os tuum, decerne quod justum est, et judica inopem et
pauperem. -- Liber Proverbiorum XXXI: 8-9