There’s nothing particularly extraordinary about the content of the 27th Amendment to the Constitution. In full, it stipulates that, “No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.” In other words, members of the United States Congress are not allowed to raise or lower their salaries mid-term. That might seem a like a common sense regulation, but its path to becoming law was anything but conventional. From its original proposal to its ratification in 1992, the 27th languished for 202 years and seven months—longer than any Constitutional amendment in American history. Perhaps even more remarkable, its revival was largely credited to a Texas university student who only became aware of it while researching a school paper.
The story of the “compensation amendment” dates to the first session of Congress in 1789, when James Madison introduced a mid-term pay raise ban as one of several amendments to the Constitution. The Constitutional Convention had previously decided that Congress would set its own pay rate, but Madison and other critics maintained that the rule carried a potential for political misconduct. “There is a seeming impropriety in leaving any set of men without control to put their hand into the public coffers, to take out money to put in their pockets,” he noted during discussion of the issue. Supporters considered the compensation amendment a roundabout method of allowing voters to weigh in on congressional pay hikes, but opponents countered that legislators could be trusted to grant themselves a fair and reasonable salary. Some even argued that lawmakers might reduce their pay to a pittance in an attempt to curry favor with their constituents.
Congress approved Madison’s Constitutional amendments in September 1789, but while 10 of them later became famous as the Bill of Rights, the compensation amendment failed to win ratification by the necessary three-fourths majority of the states. For the next two centuries, it hovered in political limbo, resurfacing only periodically during public outcries about lawmakers’ salaries. In 1873, for example, the Ohio state legislature ratified the amendment to protest a congressional pay hike dubbed the “Salary Grab Act.” A century later in 1977, Wyoming followed suit after Congress gave itself another pay increase. By then, a total of nine states had ratified what would later become the 27th Amendment, but it was still well short of the required 38 state total.
The compensation amendment would likely have become a mere footnote of history if not for a young student named Gregory D. Watson. In 1982, the 20-year-old University of Texas at Austin sophomore happened upon the story of the lost amendment while conducting research for a government class. “This one pertaining to congressional pay raises immediately leaped off the page to me,” he later told the Austin American-Statesman. Sensing that he had unearthed an interesting topic, Watson wrote a term paper asserting that the compensation amendment had no expiration date and could still be added to the Constitution if the required number of states ratified it. Despite his enthusiasm, however, his professor didn’t buy his argument. When he got his paper back, he found he had received a “C” grade.
Disappointed, Watson decided to prove his case in the most extreme way possible: he started a one-man campaign to have the amendment added to the Constitution. Though burdened by a job as an aide to a Texas state legislator, he spent the next several months sending letters to members of the U.S. Congress in the hope of recruiting supporters. He achieved his first breakthrough in 1983, when one of Maine’s senators forwarded his proposal to the state legislature, which promptly ratified the amendment. The following year, the state of Colorado also threw its support behind the measure.
Buoyed by his early successes, Watson spent several thousand dollars of his own money on a new letter writing campaign to state legislators across the country. Thanks in part to fortunate timing—Congress had been chastised for giving itself multiple pay raises during the 1980s—his cause eventually won wide bipartisan support from politicians and activist groups. Five states ratified the 27th amendment in 1985, and nearly 20 others joined in by the end of the decade. Finally, on May 7, 1992, Michigan became the 38th state to ratify the 27th Amendment. After over 200 years, James Madison’s proposal had crossed the three-fourths finish fine.
Watson—who later described the ratification as the happiest day of his life—told the New York Times that he always knew in his “heart of hearts” that he would succeed. “The American people want a Congress that is honest, that has integrity,” he said at the time. “This Amendment is one vehicle by which some degree of decorum can be restored.”
Even after the 27th Amendment was ratified by three-fourths of the states, there were still many who doubted that it would actually become law. A number of legal scholars argued that the amendment had expired after being shelved for so long, while other critics claimed that existing statutes made it unnecessary. Nevertheless, when the Archivist of the United States reviewed the measure, he concluded that the 27th Amendment had met all the necessary requirements. Following a vote in Congress on May 20, 1992, it officially became the law of the land.
Several other would-be amendments have been proposed since 1992, but to date, the 27th remains still remains the most recent addition to the Constitution. Gregory Watson, meanwhile, has continued to work in the political field. Along with serving on the staff of several Texas lawmakers, he spearheaded a 1995 campaign to persuade the state of Mississippi to belatedly ratify the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery. Watson also received some personal vindication regarding the college assignment that kicked off his quest to resurrect the 27th Amendment. In early 2017, following a request from his former professor, the University of Texas at Austin officially changed his term paper grade from a “C” to an “A.”
More Recent Stories
Help Us Grow
By Former White Hat
The Saga of NESARA &ndash A Romanic Adventure of the White Knights
By Former White Hat
This was sent to the comments but I am moving to a post for many to read. It explains what is going on what Drake has been talking about, the military&rsquos effort to restore the Constitutional USA (not the United States, Inc.), to arrest bankers and politicians for illegal acts against the people, the use of clones to thwart matters, one of the many reasons behind 9/11, and how the Priory of Dracos has been behind this&hellip
History and true story of NESARA
This change began in the mid 1970&rsquos, when the Federal Land Bank illegally foreclosed on farmers mortgages all throughout the Midwest. In each of these cases the farmers were defrauded by the banks with the approval of the Federal Reserve System. These court cases would eventually become known as the farmer claims program.
In 1978 an elderly ranch farmer in Colorado purchased a farm with loan from the Federal Land Bank after he died the property was passed on to his son Roy Schwasinger Jr., who was a retired military general. Soon after a Federal Land Bank officer and Federal Marshall appeared on his property and informed him the bank was foreclosing on his farm and to vacate within 30 days. Without his knowledge, his deceased father signed a stipulation which reverted the property back to the Federal Land Bank in the event of the borrower&rsquos death.
Outraged, Roy Schwasinger filed a class action lawsuit in the Denver Federal Court system. But the case didn&rsquot go very far and the suit was dismissed from filing incorrectly. This began Roy Schwasinger&rsquos investigation into the inner workings of the banking system. In 1982 he was given a contract by the US senate and later Supreme Court to investigate banking fraud. But because he was under a strict non-disclosure order he was not allowed to tell the media what he discovered. In the late 80s he began sharing his knowledge with others including high ranking military personnel who helped him bring about a class action lawsuit against the federal government.
The first series of these lawsuits began in the mid 1980&rsquos when William and Shirley Baskerville of Fort Collins, Colorado were involved in a bankruptcy case with First Interstate Bank of Fort Collins who was trying to foreclose on their farm. At a restaurant their lawyer informed them that he would no longer be able to help them and walked-off. Overhearing the conversation Roy Schwasinger offered his advice on how to appeal the case in bankruptcy court. So in 1987 they filed an appeal (Case No. 87-C-716) with the United States District Court in Colorado.
On November 3, 1988, the Denver Federal Court system ruled that indeed the banks had defrauded the Baskervilles and proceeded to reverse its bankruptcy decision. But when the foreclosed property was not returned they filed a new lawsuit. Eventually, 23 other farmers, ranchers, and Indians swindled by the banks in the same manner would join in the case.
In these cases, the banks were foreclosing on the properties using fraudulent methods such as charging exorbitant interest, illegal foreclosure, or by not crediting mortgage payments to their account as they should have but instead would steal the mortgage payments for themselves triggering foreclosure on the property. After running out of money they continued their fight without the help of lawyers. With some assistance by the Farmers Union a new lawsuit was filed against the Federal Land Bank and the Farmers Credit System.
The District Court ruled in their favor and ordered the banks to return the stolen properties with help from either Federal Marshals or the National Guard. But when no payments were made, the farmers declared involuntary Chapter Seven Bankruptcy against the Federal Land Bank and the Farmers Credit System. The banks appealed their case insisting they were not a business but a federal agency therefore they were not liable to pay the damages.
So the farmer&rsquos legal team adopted a new strategy. According to the Federal Land Bank&rsquos 1933 charter they are not allowed to make loans directly to applicants, but instead could only back loans as a guarantor in case of default. Because the Federal Land Bank had violated this rule the farmer&rsquos legal team was able to successfully sue the bank for damages.
Word of the lawsuit began to spread the legal team would teach others how to fight foreclosure and to help them file lawsuits as well (Case No. 93-1308-M). Celebrities such as Willie Nelson joined in the cause and helped raise money during his &ldquoFarm Aid&rdquo concerts. Here is short clip of Willie Nelson describing in his own words the series of events leading up to the farmer claims legal case&hellip&hellip
The Baskerville case had now become the Farmer Claims Class Action Lawsuit. Worried about the legal ramifications the government retaliated against the farmers by hitting them with either outrageous IRS fees, or by imprisoning the legal team under frivolous nonrelated charges. When the farmers realized they were being unfairly targeted, they had military generals such as General Roy Schwasinger sit in the courtroom to make sure the bribed judges would vote according to constitutional law.
The farmers now with a large team of knowledgeable people of the law behind them filed a new case to claim additional damages from the fraudulent loaning activities of the Farmers Credit System.
The government tried to settle but they had already lost many cases and were now loosing the appeals as well. More and more evidence was collected. According to the National Banking Act all banks are required to register their charters with the Federal and State Bureau of Records, but none of the banks complied, allowing the legal team to sue the Farmers Credit System. Not only was Farmers Credit System not chartered to do business with the American Banking Association, but so were other quasi government organizations such as the Federal Housing Administration, The Department of Housing and Urban Development, and even the Federal Reserve Bank.
The Farmers Claims lawsuit was thrown out of court at each level with the records purposely destroyed. So in the early 1990&rsquos Roy Schwasinger brought the case before the United States Supreme Court. Some of the content of this case is sealed from public eyes but most of it can be viewed today.
Almost (u-nan-ah-mous-ly) unanimously the U.S. Supreme Court Justices ruled that the Farmers Union claims were indeed VALID, therefore, all property foreclosed by the Farmers Credit System was illegal and all those who were foreclosed on would have to receive damages. In addition, they ruled that the U.S. federal government and banks had defrauded the farmers, and all U.S. citizens, out of vast sums of money and property.
And furthermore, the court ruled the shocking truth that the IRS was a Puerto Rican Trust and that the Federal Reserve was unlawful, that the income tax amendment was only ratified by four states and therefore was not a legal amendment, that the IRS code was not enacted into &ldquoPositive Law&rdquo* within the Code of Federal Regulations, and how the U.S. government illegally foreclosed on farmer&rsquos homes with help from federal agencies.
Laws that have been enacted by a properly instituted and recognized branch of the government.
Irrefutable proof was presented by a retired CIA agent. He provided testimony and records of the banks illegal activities, to lead further evidence that the Farmers&rsquo Union claims were indeed legitimate. The implications of such a decision were profound. All gold, silver, and property titles, taken by the Federal Reserve and IRS must be returned to the people.
The legal team sought assistance from a small group of benevolent visionaries, consisting of politicians, military generals, and business people who have been secretly working to restore the constitution since the mid 1950&rsquos. Somehow within their ranks, a four star U.S. army general received &ldquotitle&rdquo and &ldquoreceiver&rdquo of the original 1933 United States Bankruptcy.
When the case was brought before the U.S. Supreme Court, they ruled in his favor, giving the Army General title over the United States, Inc. Legal action was then passed on to the Senate Finance Committee and Senator Sam Nunn, who was working with Roy Schwasinger. With the help of covert congressional and political pressure, President George H.W. Bush issued an Executive Order (a) on Oct. 23, 1991, which provided a provision allowing anyone who has a claim against the federal government to receive payment as long as it&rsquos within the rules of the original format of the case.
(a) Executive Order No. 12778 Principles of Ethical Conduct for Government Officers and Employees October 23, 1991
According to the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, all present and succeeding debts against the U.S. Treasury must be assumed by the Federal Reserve. Thus the famer&rsquos claims legal team was able to use that executive order to not only force the Federal Reserve to pay out damages in a gold backed currency but also allow them to receive legal ownership over the bankruptcy of United States, Inc.
To collect damages the farmers legal team used an obscure attachment to the 14th amendment which most people are not aware of. After the civil war the government allowed citizens to claim a payment on anyone who suffered damages as a result of the Federal Government failing to protect its citizens from harm or damages by a foreign government. President Grant had this attachment sealed from public eyes but somehow, someone the farmer&rsquos legal team got a hold of it.
If you listened to that carefully, it specifies damages by a foreign government. That foreign government is the corporate federal government which has been masquerading to the public as the constitutional government. Remember this goes back to the Organic Act of 1871 and the Trading with the Enemies Act of 1933, which defined all citizens as enemy combatants under the federal system known as the United States. The Justices and farmer&rsquos legal team recognized how evil and corrupt our federal government had become and to counteract this they added some provisions in the settlement to bring the government back under control.
a. First they would have to be paid using a lawful currency, backed by gold and silver as the constitution dictates. This would eliminate inflation and gyrating economic cycles created by the Federal Reserve System.
b. Second they would be required to go back to common law instead of admiralty law under the gold fringe flags. Under common law if there is no damage or harm done then there is no violation of the law. This would eliminate millions of laws which are used to control the masses and protect corrupt politicians.
c. Lastly the IRS would have to be dismantled and replaced with a national sales tax. This is the basis of the NESARA Law.
When the legal team finally settled on a figure, each individual would receive an average of $20 million dollars payout per claim. Multiplied by a total of 336,000 claims that were filed against the U.S. Federal Government, the total payout would come out to a staggering $6.6 trillion dollars.
The U.S. Supreme Court placed a gag order on the case, struck all information from the Federal Registry, and placed all records in the Supreme Court files. Up to that point Senator Sam Nunn had kept the Baskerville Case records within his office. A settlement was agreed to out of court and the decision was sealed by Janet Reno. Because the case was sealed, claimants are not allowed to share court documents to media outlets without violating the settlement, but they can still tell others about the lawsuit. This is why you probably have not heard about this.
In 1991 Roy Schwasinger went before a senate committee to present evidence of the banks and governments criminal activity. He informed them how the Corporation of the United States was tied to the establishment of a New World Order which would bring about a fascist one world government ruled by the international bankers. So in 1992 a task force was put together consisting of over 300 retired and 35 active US military officers who strongly supported constitutional law.* This task force was responsible for investigating governmental officials, congressional officers, judges, and the Federal Reserve.
*Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Jeremy Boorda
*Former Director of Central Intelligence, William Colby
They uncovered the common practice of bribery and extortion committed by both senators and judges. The criminal activity was so rampant that only 2 out of 535 members of congress were deemed honest. But more importantly they carried out the first ever audit of the Federal Reserve.
The Federal Reserve was used to giving orders to politicians and had no intentions of being audited. However after they were informed their offices would be raided under military gunpoint if necessary they complied with the investigation. After reviewing their files the military officers found $800 trillion dollars sitting in accounts which should have been applied to the national debt. And contrary to federal government propaganda they also discovered that most nations had in fact owed money to the United States instead of the other way around.
These hidden trillions were then confiscated and placed into European bank accounts in order to generate the enormous funds needed to pay the farmers claims class action lawsuit, later this money would become the basis of the prosperity programs.
Despite these death blows President George H.W. Bush and the illuminati continued on with their plans of global enslavement.
In August 1992 the military officers confronted President Bush and demanded he sign agreement that he would return the United States to constitutional law and ordered him to never use the term New World Order again. Bush pretended to cooperate but secretly planned to bring about the New World Order anyway by signing an Executive Order on December 25, 1992, that would have indefinitely closed all banks giving Bush an excuse to declare martial law.
Under the chaos of martial law, Bush intended to install a new constitution which would have kept everyone currently in office in their same position for 25 years and it would have removed all rights to elect new officials. The military intervened and stopped Bush from signing that Executive order.
In 1993 members of the Supreme Court, certain members of congress and representatives from the Clinton government meet with high ranking US military officers who were demanding a return to constitutional law, reforms of the banking system, and financial redress. They agreed to create the farm claims process which would allow the legal team to set up meetings all over the country on a grass roots level to help others file claims and to educate them about the lawsuit.
A claim of harm could be made on any loan issued by a financial institution for all interest paid foreclosures attorney and court fees IRS taxes or liens real estate and property taxes mental and emotional stress caused by the loss of property stress related illness such as suicide and divorce and even warrants, incarceration, and probation could also be claimed.
But the Clinton government undermined their efforts by requiring the farm claims to use a specific form designed by the government. This form imposed an administrative fee of $300 for each claim, which was later used in 1994 as a basis to arrest the leaders of the legal team including Roy Schwasinger.
The government was so afraid of what they would say during their trial in Michigan that extra steps were taken to conceal the true nature of the case. County courthouse employees were not allowed to work between Monday and Thursday during the course of the trial. And outside the courthouse, FBI agents swarmed the perimeter preventing the media and visitors from learning what was going on as well.
Harassment and retaliation by the government increased, many where sent prison or murdered while incarcerated. Despite being protected by his military personnel the army general who acquired the original 1933 Title of Bankruptcy of the United States was imprisoned, killed, and replaced with a clone. This clone was then used as a decoy to prevent any further claims from being filed.
During the first Clinton administration the military delayed many of Clinton&rsquos federal appointments until they were sure these individuals would help restore constitutional law. One such individual who promised to bring about the necessary changes was Attorney General Janet Reno.
In agreement with the Supreme Court ruling on June 3, 1993, Janet Reno ordered the Delta Force and Navy Seals to Switzerland, England, and Israel to recapture trillions of dollars of gold stolen by the Federal Reserve System from the strategic gold reserves. These nations cooperated with the raid because they were promised their debts owed to the United States would be canceled and because the people who stole the money from the United States also stole money from their nations as well.
This bullion is to be used for the new currency backed by precious metals. It&rsquos now safely stockpiled at the Norad Complex at Colorado Springs, Colorado and four other repositories. Janet Reno&rsquos action so enraged the powers-that-be, that it resulted in her death. She was then replaced with a clone and it was this creature that was responsible for covering-up the various Clinton scandals.
To keep the Secretary of the U.S. Treasury Robert Rubin in line, he too was also cloned. For the remainder of their term in office both Reno and Rubin received their salaries from the International Monetary Fund as foreign agents and not from the U.S. Treasury. Despite these actions the legal team continued on with their fight while managing to avoid bloodshed and a major revolution.
After 1993 the farmer claims process name was changed to Bank Claims. Between 1993 and 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court required U.S. citizens to file &ldquoBank Claims&rdquo to collect damages paid by the U.S. Treasury Department. This process CLOSED in 1996.
During this time the U.S. Supreme Court assigned one or more Justices to monitor the progress of the rulings. They enlisted help of experts in economics, monetary systems, banking, constitutional government and law, and many other related areas. These justices built coalitions of support and assistance with thousands of people worldwide known as &lsquoWhite Knights&rdquo. The term &lsquoWhite Knights&rsquo was borrowed from the world of big business. It refers to a vulnerable company that is rescued by a corporation or a wealthy person from a hostile takeover.
To implement the required changes, the five Justices spent years negotiating how the reformations would occur. Eventually they settled on certain agreements, also known as &lsquoAccords&rsquo, with the U.S. government, the Federal Reserve Bank owners, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and with numerous other countries including the United Kingdom and countries of the Euro Zone. Because these U.S. banking reformations will impact the entire world the IMF, World Bank, and other countries had to be involved. The reformations require that the Federal Reserve be absorbed by the U.S. Treasury Department and the banks&rsquo fraudulent activities must be stopped and payment must be made for past harm.
In 1998, the military generals who originally participated in the famer&rsquos claim process realized that the US Supreme Court justices had no intentions of implementing the &lsquoAccords.&rsquo So they decided the only way to implement the reformations was through a law passed by congress. In 1999 a 75 page document known as the National Economic Security and Reformation Act (NESARA) was submitted to congress where it sat with little action for almost a year.
Late one evening on March 9, 2000, a written quorum call was hand-delivered by Delta Force and Navy SEALs to 15 members of the US Senate and the US House who were sponsors and co-sponsors of NESARA. They were immediately escorted by the Delta Force and Navy SEALs to their respective voting chambers where they passed the National Economic Security and Reformation Act.
These 15 members of congress were the only people lawfully allowed to hold office in accordance with the original 13th amendment. Remember British soldiers destroyed copies of the Titles of Nobility Amendment (TONA) in the war of 1812 because it prevented anyone who had ties to the crown of England from holding public office.
NESARA is the most ground breaking reformation to sweep not only this country but our planet in its entire history. The act does away with the Federal Reserve Bank, the IRS, the shadow government, and much more.
NESARA implements the following changes:
1. Zeros out all credit card, mortgage, and other bank debt due to illegal banking and government activities. This is the Federal Reserve&rsquos worst nightmare, a &ldquojubilee&rdquo or a forgiveness of debt.
2. Abolishes the income tax
3. Abolishes the IRS. Employees of the IRS will be transferred into the US Treasury national sales tax area.
4. Creates a 14% flat rate non-essential &lsquonew items only&rsquo sales tax revenue for the government. In other words food and medicine will not be taxed nor will used items such as old homes.
5. Increases benefits to senior citizens
6. Returns Constitutional Law to all courts and legal matters.
7. Reinstates the original Title of Nobility amendment. Hundreds of thousands of Americans under the control of foreign powers will lose their citizenship, be deported to other countries, and barred from reentry for the remainder of their life. And millions of people will soon discover their college degrees are now worthless paper.
8. Establishes new Presidential and Congressional elections within 120 days after NESARA&rsquos announcement. The intern government will cancel all &ldquoNational Emergencies&rdquo and return us back to constitutional law.
9. Monitors elections and prevents illegal election activities of special interest groups.
10. Creates a new U.S. Treasury, &lsquorainbow currency,&rsquo backed by gold, silver, and platinum precious metals, ending the bankruptcy of the United States initiated by Franklin Roosevelt in 1933.
11. Forbids the sale of American birth certificate records as chattel property bonds by the US Department of Transportation.
12. Initiates new U.S. Treasury Bank System in alignment with Constitutional Law
13. Eliminates the Federal Reserve System. During the transition period the Federal Reserve will be allowed to operate side by side of the U.S. treasury for one year in order to remove all Federal Reserve notes from the money supply.
14. Restores financial privacy
15. Retrains all judges and attorneys in Constitutional Law
16. Ceases all aggressive, U.S. government military actions worldwide
17. Establishes peace throughout the world
18. Releases enormous sums of money for humanitarian purposes
19. Enables the release of over 6,000 patents of suppressed technologies that are being withheld from the public under the guise of national security, including free energy devices, antigravity, and sonic healing machines.
Because President Clinton&rsquos clone had no interest in signing NESARA into law on October 10, 2000 under orders from U.S. military generals the elite Naval Seals and Delta Force stormed the White House and under gunpoint forced Bill Clinton to sign NESARA. During this time Secret Service and White House security personnel were ordered to stand down, disarmed, and allowed to witness this event under a gag order.
From its very inception Bush Sr., the corporate government, major bank houses, and the Carlyle group have opposed NESARA. To maintain secrecy, the case details and the docket number were sealed and revised within the official congressional registry, to reflect a commemorative coin and then again it was revised even more recently. This is why there are no public Congressional Records and why a search for this law will not yield the correct details until after the reformations are made public.
You probably never heard of this law due to an extremely strict gag order placed upon politicians, media personnel, and bank officers. Even though Alex Jones or Ron Paul will not tell you about it, the law is still valid.
And members of congress will not tell us any of this because they have been ordered by the U.S. Supreme Court Justices to &lsquodeny&rsquo the existence of NESARA or face charges of treason punishable by death. Some members of Congress have actually been charged with &lsquoobstruction.&rsquo When Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone was about to break the gag order, but before he could, his small passenger plane crashed killing his wife, daughter, and himself.
If fear isn&rsquot enough to keep congress in line, money is. The CIA routinely bribes senators with stolen loot from the bank roll programs. Every senator has been bribed with a minimum of $200 million dollars deposited in a Bank of America account in Canada. You will never hear the media networks report about NESARA. To maintain silence, major news networks such as CNN are paid in the tune of $2 billion dollars annually. Some of this loot is funneled by the Mormon Church in Utah through Senator Orin Hatch&rsquos office and Bank of America.
Not only is congress bribed but the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff and upper tier of the government including the president receives these payments as well. Only the Provost Marshall has the lawful authority to arrest these individuals, but sadly he won&rsquot do his job either. It seems the United State military is full of pencil pushing politicians who care more about advancement then doing their job.
And not surprisingly, much disinformation about NESARA can be found on the internet. Prominent nay-sayers include quatloos.com, which is rumored to be a CIA front nesara.org which is maintained by the Bush family Sherry Shriner and various Internet channelers receiving their messages from telepathic spooks have all contributed to the confusion.
Even the information on Wikipedia is in error. Wikipedia gives you the history of CIA agent Harvey Barnard&rsquos NESARA law. If you look closely, this law stands for National Economic Stabilization and Recovery Act, which would have made reforms to the economy and replace the income tax with a national sales tax. This law was rejected by congress in the 1990&rsquos. But there is little mention of the National Economic Security and Reformation Act on Wikipedia or its ramifications.
September 11, 2001
The next step is to announce NESARA to the world, but it&rsquos not an easy task to do. Many powerful groups have tried to prevent the implementation of NESARA.
The NESARA law requires that at least once a year, an effort be made to announce the law to the public. Three current US Supreme Court judges control the committee in charge of NESARA&rsquos announcement. These Judges have used their overall authority to secretly sabotage NESARA&rsquos announcement.
In 2001 after much negotiation the Supreme Court justices ordered the current Congress to pass resolutions &lsquoapproving&rsquo NESARA. This took place on September 9, 2001, eighteen months after NESARA became law. On September 10, 2001, George Bush Sr. moved into the White house to steer his son on how to block the announcement. The next day, on September 11, 2001, at 10 am Eastern Daylight Time, Alan Greenspan was scheduled to announce the new US Treasury Bank system, debt forgiveness for all U.S. citizens, and abolishment of the IRS as the first part of the public announcements of NESARA.
Just before the announcement at 9 am, Bush Sr. ordered the demolition of World Trade Center to stop the international banking computers on floors one and two, in the North Tower from initiating the new U.S. Treasury Bank system. Explosives in the World Trade Center were planted by both CIA and Mossad operatives and detonated remotely in Building 7 which was demolished later that day in order to cover-up their crime.
Remote pilot technology was used in a flyover event to deliver a payload of explosives into the Pentagon at the exact location of the White Knights in their new Naval Command Center who were coordinating activities supporting NESARA&rsquos implementation nationwide. With the announcement of NESARA stopped dead in its tracks, George Bush Sr. decapitated any hopes of returning the government back to the people.
Subject: Re: Different NESARA
Date: Friday, April 27, 2012, 7:15 AM
FROM: Patrick H. Bellringer
I wanted to thank you for all the important information you find and send to us that would not be seen generally by the public at large. May you be greatly blessed for your efforts to present Truth to the world.
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2012 1:10 PM
Subject: Re: Different NESARA
Thank you Very Very Much, really makes me feel good that I've been able to help.
This Former White Hat blog has some very strange write-ups that are Very questionable, your word, discernment needed. You would know if this NESARA write-up which adds the clone situation is accurate. But I had thought the bullion was removed/stolen from NORAD (remember that was per Saint Germain, I sent you that write-up) and Casper was watching the other stolen money when Obama tried to hide it in NORAD.
Living in Colorado Springs where NORAD is I personally witnessed at night, flying very near over/towards my house, a military plane blocked by a round disc UFO, during that time. I'm not in the flight path area. This was during the time Casper was reporting watching NORAD where Obama had the stolen money taken to. I'm in the middle of the city but East side, near the top of a small mountain, higher point, and saw the military plane coming from the NORAD direction towards over my house. Then I saw a round disc shape UFO come down from no where, very fast, blocked the military plane and forced it to turn around. When the plane turned the UFO disc was gone in about 1 second. It had no sound and stopped mid air, in front of the plane, then would jet forward towards the military plane then reverse back, did this about 3 times, until the military plane turned around. When I saw this I thought they were trying to take off with the money Casper was watching.
27. The Peculiar Institution
Slaves being put up for auction were kept in pens like this one in Alexandria, Virginia &mdash just a few miles from Washington, D.C.
"The Peculiar Institution " is slavery. Its history in America begins with the earliest European settlements and ends with the Civil War. Yet its echo continues to reverberate loudly. Slavery existed both in the north and in the South, at times in equal measure. The industrialization of the north and the expansion of demand for cotton in the south shifted the balance so that it became a regional issue, as the southern economy grew increasingly reliant on cheap labor. As is always true in history, cultures grow and thrive in all conditions. Two interdependent cultures emerged in the American south before the Civil War &mdash the world the slaveholders created for themselves and the world of their slaves. Even though slaves were not permitted to express themselves freely, they were able to fight back even though enchained.
Slaves worked long hours in the hot sun picking cotton for their owners. Overseers watched the slaves progress and disciplined those that were deemed to be working too slow.
Although African-Americans had been brought to British America since the time of Jamestown colony, American slavery adopted many of its defining characteristics in the 19th century. The cotton gin had not been invented until the last decade of the 1700s. This new invention led the American south to emerge as the world's leading producer of cotton. As the south prospered, southerners became more and more nervous about their future. Plantation life became the goal of all the south, as poor yeoman farmers aspired to one day become planters themselves. Rebellions and abolitionists led southerners to establish an even tighter grip on the enslaved.
Southern gentlemen like Colonel John Mosby, CSA, were glorified for their adherence to a code of honor most closely paralleled by medieval chivalry.
Even amidst the bondage in the south, there was a significant population of free African-Americans who were creating and inventing and being productive.
The Peculiar Institution refused to die. Great Britain had outlawed the slave trade long before its former American colonies.
New nations in the Western Hemisphere, such as Mexico, often banned slavery upon achieving independence.
But in America, political, religious, economic and social arguments in favor of the continuation of slavery emerged. Slavery became a completely sectional issue, as few states above the Mason-Dixon Line still permitted human bondage. These arguments also revealed the growing separation in the needs and priorities of the northern industrial interests versus the southern planting society, all of which culminated in the Civil War.
10 Weirdest Failed Constitutional Amendments
Every time you turn on cable news, there's a good chance someone is yelling about the need for an amendment to the United States Constitution. You're probably familiar with some of the more recent attempts, including proposals to require a balanced federal budget, define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, guarantee equal rights for women, ban flag desecration and reform the Electoral College. What you might not know is there have actually been more than 11,000 proposed constitutional amendments introduced in or recommended to Congress since the country's founding document was enacted in 1789 [source: Bernstein and Agel]. Like those listed above, many of them were politically controversial. Others, however, were just plain weird.
If it's been a while since your last civics class, here's a quick refresher on the constitutional amendment process. A two-thirds majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, or a constitutional convention called by two-thirds of the state legislatures, is required to formally propose an amendment. Then the amendment must be ratified by three-fourths (38) of the 50 states [source: National Archives]. The founding fathers designed the process to be difficult but not impossible, which is why, of the thousands of proposed amendments, only 27 became enshrined in the Constitution. Considering our list of some of the weird things politicians and activists proposed over the years, that's probably a good thing.
10: Titles of Nobility Amendment, 1810
In 1810 Maryland Sen. Philip Reed introduced the Titles of Nobility Amendment, which would have revoked citizenship from any American who accepted a title of nobility from a foreign country. You might be wondering, "What's the big deal?" — and you wouldn't be alone.
For many years even historians couldn't figure out the motivations behind the amendment. We now know, however, that the proposal likely stemmed from the fact that Napoleon Bonaparte's brother married an American: Elizabeth Patterson of Baltimore, Maryland. Some members of Congress feared that Patterson and her son would claim aristocratic status from France, a country that had a rocky relationship with the United States at the time.
Things looked good for the amendment on May 1, 1810, when the Senate approved it by a vote of 19 to 5 and the House gave it the nod by an 87 to 3 margin. But it was never ratified by three-fourths of the states, so it remains in limbo, unlikely to ever be approved [source: Vile]. That's good news for Americans like Steven Spielberg, George H.W. Bush and Kevin Spacey, who are all honorary British knights.
9: Amendment to Outlaw Dueling, 1828
To our modern sensibilities, dueling seems ridiculous. Why would two otherwise sane adults sort out a disagreement by engaging in combat with swords or guns? There was a time, however, when dueling was such a problem that Congress considered amending the Constitution in order to ban it.
Dueling has a surprisingly extensive history in 18th and 19th century America. Even the most casual fans of history (or musicals) are probably aware of the 1804 duel in which Aaron Burr famously shot Alexander Hamilton over insults hurled during Burr's race for New York governor. But there were others.
President Andrew Jackson had participated in numerous duels before his election in 1828, which, coincidentally, was the same year an amendment was proposed to ban the practice. It failed, and politicians continued to duel with surprisingly few consequences. In 1838 Whig congressman William Graves killed Democratic foe Jonathan Cilley in a duel, and though Congress formally scolded Graves, they refused to expel him.
Eventually, state laws and common sense prevailed, so now shooting someone over a disagreement is generally frowned upon [source: Vile].
8: Eliminating the Presidency, 1860
In 1860, Virginia's Democratic Rep. Albert Jenkins introduced an amendment to eliminate the presidency and instead elect two people to share executive power. While that may seem weird to us now, the idea of a singular presidency was actually quite controversial even before the Constitution was put to paper. As you might imagine, American colonists who'd just thrown off one king weren't too excited about giving another a place in their new government. But thanks to defenders like Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, the idea of a lone executive ended up in the Constitution and has remained the law of the land ever since.
So why did Jenkins bring it up again some 80 years later? Slavery. See, with the election of Abraham Lincoln, southerners started to worry that a northern president might not have their best interests at heart, particularly when it came to slavery. A dual executive, however, would almost certainly give someone from the South a voice in the nation's highest office.
The idea popped up again in 1878, this time from a northerner. Ohio Rep. Milton Southard felt that the president was becoming too much like a king and, in response, he proposed a three-part executive council consisting of representatives from the eastern and middle, western, and southern regions. His plan, of course, went nowhere, but that hasn't stopped people from calling the president a king even to this day [source: Vile].
7: Making Slavery Legal . Forever, 1861
The 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution abolished slavery and involuntary servitude. But the amendment that ended forced labor very nearly became the amendment that made it legal forever. How can this be?
By the end of 1860, the United States was barely holding together. Issues of slavery and states' rights led southern legislatures to discuss secession, a threat South Carolina made good on in December of that year. That's when New York Sen. William Seward and his colleague in the House, Thomas Corwin of Ohio, introduced what became known as the Corwin Amendment. Not only did it propose to give states the right to regulate "domestic institutions" like slavery, but it promised to keep Congress from ever abolishing it. And if that wasn't enough, the Corwin Amendment also nixed the possibility that another constitutional amendment could ever undo it.
The idea of the amendment was to give southern states, and border states in the North, a reason to stay in the Union. It was a plan that even enjoyed support from the Great Emancipator himself, Abraham Lincoln. That's right — the president known for freeing the slaves almost ensured their bondage for generations. And frighteningly, it almost worked: The Corwin Amendment passed both the House and Senate and was ratified by three states before the process was interrupted by the Civil War [source: Albert].
6: Give "Spinsters and Widows" the Right to Vote, 1888
Our current political climate is flush with talk of women's rights and what some call a "war on women." But few legislative acts have ever been as condescending to women as the amendment submitted by Illinois Rep. William E. Mason to give property-owning "widows and spinsters" the right to vote [source: U.S. House of Representatives].
To be fair, Mason may have thought he was helping. After all, it had been four decades since Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucretia Mott, and other suffragists gathered at Seneca Falls, New York, to discuss women's rights — including their desire for the right to vote — and little progress had been made on the issue. It would be an additional three decades before the 19th Amendment gave all women the right to vote, so at least this proposal would allow some women to vote, right? [source: History.com staff]
Well, that's true, but the real problem with this amendment was the underlying logic. In the all-male minds of Congress, only "widows and spinsters" needed the right to vote because married women had their husbands to represent their interests (insert eye roll here). That reasoning didn't sit well with Stanton who half-jokingly testified before Congress that these single women were "industrious, common-sense women . who love their country (having no husband to love) better than themselves." The amendment never gained much traction, maybe because the congressmen were afraid of what their wives would say [source: U.S. National Archives].
5: Rename the United States of America to the United States of Earth, 1893
File this amendment under "jumping the gun," "putting the cart before the horse" or "counting your chickens before they hatch." In 1893, Wisconsin Rep. Lucas Miller figured eventually every nation in the world would be admitted as part of the United States, so we might as well go ahead and rename the country the "United States of Earth." But how, you may ask, would legislative representatives spread across such a vast territory conduct the business of government? Don't worry, he had the answer. They'd "vote by electricity," of course (whatever that means) [source: Special to The New York Times].
Amazingly, that was only the beginning of the amendment's weird proposals. Among its other questionable ideas was to abolish the Army and Navy and instead rely on state militias for defense. It also called for all laws to have the continuous support of a majority of the people they affect, which, while noble in theory, would be difficult in practice. In Miller's defense, the amendment was submitted "by request" (on behalf of someone else), so he may not actually be to blame for some of stranger proposals [source: Musmanno].
4: Abolish the United States Senate, 1911
Sometimes, in order to get what you want, you have to act a little crazy. That's exactly the strategy employed by Wisconsin Rep. Victor Berger in April 1911, when he introduced a resolution to abolish the Senate. Not only was it a radical proposal, but it seemed highly unlikely to succeed considering two-thirds of the very body it sought to eliminate would have to vote for the amendment in order to send it to the states for ratification.
When Berger submitted his zany idea, Congress was in the midst of debating another amendment that was pretty revolutionary in its own right. It was a proposal to change the way senators were elected. At that time, state legislatures made this choice, but the new amendment would allow the American people to decide through direct elections. This change, supporters hoped, would remove the forces of corruption, money and influence from the Senate.
The Senate, however, was in no rush to formally endorse the idea of direct elections, which they had managed to ignore since it was first proposed in 1826. Berger figured a competing amendment to abolish the chamber altogether might be just the encouragement his colleagues needed to take action. Perhaps in part because of Berger's efforts, the Senate finally approved the direct popular vote proposal in May 1912, and it eventually became the 17th Amendment [sources: United States Senate, Vile].
3: Limit Wealth to $1 Million, 1933
It's hard to imagine it today, but in the early 20th century, proposals to cap personal wealth and income were fairly common — particularly among congressmen who considered themselves socialists. With the passage of the 16th Amendment in 1913, however, these lawmakers had better tools for addressing income inequality. That amendment gave the federal government the right to impose an income tax, so legislators could simply raise taxes on the wealthy in an effort to even out incomes.
Interest in wealth and income caps returned during the Great Depression, when unemployment skyrocketed and the gap between the rich and the poor became alarmingly wide. That's when Washington Rep. Wesley Lloyd introduced an amendment to cap annual incomes at $1 million. His colleague, Rep. John Snyder of Pennsylvania, followed Lloyd's proposal with an amendment of his own that would limit investment income.
Those amendments never got enough support to move them out of Congress, but who knows — given the widening gap between the rich and poor today, we could very well see similar proposals again [source: Vile].
2: Outlaw Drunkenness, 1938
On Dec. 5, 1933, Americans raised a collective glass to the end of Prohibition, a period in which the production, transportation and sale of alcohol were banned. It all started in 1919 with the passage of the 18th Amendment, a law written by Texas Sen. Morris Sheppard on behalf of those who opposed alcohol for reasons of health and morality. While the amendment succeeded in reducing alcohol consumption, the black market it created led to a dramatic increase in organized crime and violence. After 14 dry years, thirsty state legislatures repealed Prohibition with the 21st Amendment in 1933. It was ratified in just 10 months, a record for the time.
Not everyone was feeling the warm glow, though. Between 1935 and 1938, Prohibition author Morris Sheppard, a Democratic senator from Texas, introduced at least five resolutions to repeal the 21st Amendment. Sheppard wasn't having any luck, so his colleague, Oklahoma Rep. Gomer Smith, tried a different tactic: outlawing drunkenness [source: Vile].
The ridiculousness of this proposal, particularly given the recent failure of Prohibition, led an unidentified author to add some additional sections to a draft located in the House Judiciary Committee's papers at the National Archives. With tongue firmly planted in cheek, the anonymous jokester suggested Congress could be empowered to change human nature or perhaps abolish Saturday night as well [source: House Judiciary Committee].
1: Make Senators and Representatives Wait a Term Until They Get a Raise, 1992
Our constitutional scholars out there are probably screaming at their computer screens, "That's not a failed constitutional amendment!" And they would be right. The proposal to make Congress wait a term after they vote on a pay raise before it takes effect was ratified by the requisite number of states in 1992 and enshrined in the Constitution as the 27th Amendment. But it was a failed amendment for a very, very long time, and the story about how it eventually was ratified makes it one of the weirder proposals to move through the constitutional gauntlet.
The first time this idea was proposed was actually way back in 1789, when James Madison included it in a package of 12 amendments intended to form the original Bill of Rights. It was only ratified by seven states, though, short of the necessary three-fourths majority. Periodically over the next two centuries, Congress would give themselves a pay raise, prompting a congressman to reintroduce the amendment and another state to ratify it: Ohio in 1873 and Wyoming in 1978. Still far short of the necessary states, the amendment got a boost from an unexpected advocate: An undergraduate student at the University of Texas.
The student, Gregory Wilson, wrote a paper about the amendment in 1982, arguing that it could still be ratified. His professor called it "unrealistic" and gave him a C on his paper, so Wilson set out to prove him wrong. He spent $5,000 of his own money to convince state legislatures to ratify the amendment, and, incredibly, he succeeded. The 203-year ratification timeline is by far the longest of any amendment [source: Vile].
Author's Note: 10 Weirdest Failed Constitutional Amendments
When people throw around an idea for a constitutional amendment for this or a constitutional amendment for that, they don't always realize what a high bar they have to clear. It's really hard to get one passed — which is probably why only 27 have ever been tacked on to our founding document. But, after researching some of the 11,000-plus amendments that have been proposed, believe me when I tell you that's probably a good thing.
The Strange Saga of Mark Aguirre
Some news out of Houston, involving an ex-cop named Mark Aguirre:
The retired policeman allegedly used his SUV to ram the back of the repairman’s truck on Oct. 19 to lure the Lopez-Zuniga from the car around 5:30 a.m. Aguirre claimed to police the collision had been an accident. Once Lopez-Zuniga exited his vehicle, Aguirre held him at gunpoint and knelt on his back while an unnamed accomplice took the truck to a nearby parking lot, where police found it, authorities said.
Aguirre told investigators he was a member of a civilian organization calling itself Liberty Center for God and Country that was engaged in a vigilante probe of the election. The group paid Aguirre $266,400, the district attorney said.
The article opens with police “wondering what happened” to Aguirre, and that he was a “retired” policeman, but there is a lot more to this story as he did not retire voluntarily and was in fact at the center of a huge police scandal almost twenty years ago:
The plan was to stop the street racing and arrest drag racers. But when the police arrived en masse about 1:15 a.m. at the Kmart and Sonic in the 8400 block of Westheimer to execute Operation ERACER (Eliminate and Remove Autos Causing Environmental Ravagement), there was no drag racing going on. So, they improvised. The area was cordoned off, the exits sealed. Bystanders — some 273 of them — were arrested, nearly all for the class C misdemeanor offense of criminal trespass.
There was no warning. Onlookers were not given the option to immediately leave the scene, as departmental policy states. Rather than issuing citations — the usual way trespassing charges are handled by HPD — officers loaded up the folks into vans and cars and took the 231 adults and 42 juveniles into custody, finishing up about 4:30 in the morning. The night before, on Saturday, 25 people had been similarly arrested at James Coney Island at 5745 Westheimer. Most spent at least one night in jail. Some pleaded guilty just to get out, they said.
With a blowout this big, there was no way to keep this out of the media. But instead of the usual congratulatory news reports when law enforcement cracks down on crime, coverage was critical. This was the way to keep the streets safe? It seemed Houston had become a police state where the phrase “zero tolerance” had garbled itself into zero common sense.
One teen told the Houston Chronicle she’d gone into Kmart to get a hair accessory and still ended up jailed. The pathos of the scrunchie defense summed up the meaninglessness of the entire enterprise.
The raid, and the fallout of the raid, rocked the entire city for months. Aguirre himself was tried and ultimately acquitted of criminal misconduct. He resigned before he could be fired. Aguirre pointed the finger at the police chief, Clarence Bradford. It resulted in ongoing acrimony between Bradford, the HPD, and the eight different police officer unions. Bradford himself ended up in legal trouble, suspended from the job and charged with perjury. A judge threw it out and Bradford was promptly reinstated by Mayor Lee Brown (a former HPD chief). Bradford was largely considered to have a bright political future, but it took him a while to get out from under that. He did eventually serve on city council, but nothing above that. The City of Houston settled a series of lawsuits.
Aguirre became a private investigator, ironically consulting police departments on internal affairs issues, among other things. He has apparently since become involved in right-wing politics.
Nazi Heritage: the Strange Saga of Chrystia Freeland’s Ukrainian Grandfather
The corporate media has left many questions unanswered about recent news that Canadian Foreign Minister, Chrystia Freeland’s grandfather was editor of the Krakivski Visti, referred to as a Nazi “collaborationist newspaper” by the Los Angeles Museum of the Holocaust.
The most important question is how Freeland’s Grandfather Mykhailo Khomiak, gained admission to the United States and Canada after the war? The second, is why he was never prosecuted like many other Nazi collaborators for his crimes?
According to David Matas, senior legal counsel for B’nai Brith, “Chomiak died in 1984. He has been dead for more than 30 years. The Deschenes and Government files on him, if there are any, should be made public”.
A second set of questions are raised by her association to this figure, with whose Ukrainian nationalist dreams she openly identifies, “That dream persisted into the next generation, and in some cases [namely hers] the generation after that”.
Of most concern to leftists, is her activist anti-communism. For example, on January 28 th , 2015 Freeland was the only MP from the Liberal Party to join with Conservative MP’s including Jason Kenney in a ceremony celebrating a gift from the Government of Latvia to the Memorial for the Victims of Communism project.
In her book entitled Plutocrats, moreover, she offers a shocking defense of “global capitalism”. Not only is it strange that she chose this term for her title given its history as code word for “Jew” in the speeches of Hitler and Goebbels, but statements like the following in the book are a warning signal to all leftists about her agenda:
“America really does need many of its plutocrats. We benefit from the goods they produce and the jobs they create. And even if a growing portion of those jobs are overseas, it is better to be the home of these innovators—native and immigrant alike—than not. In today’s hypercompetitive global environment, we need a creative, dynamic super-elite more than ever.”
Freeland’s stance as an “activist Ukrainian-Canadian”, to use her own words, goes a long way to explain her anti-communism and her collaboration with the global capitalist elite as an editor, like her Grandfather, for the Globe and Mail and the Financial Times.
Ukrainian nationalism is in no small part a reaction to the difficult early period in Soviet history marked by Civil War and the Holodomor (though the causes of the latter event are still debated by historians). However, her Grandfather’s education and white-collar career, suggest that her family’s nationalist aspirations were of a different order than that of the peasants in the field.
In her post as Minister of Trade, Freeland’s success in pushing through the EU-Canada free trade deal (CETA), which protects investor rights at the expense of those of labour and the environment, was a major victory for her capitalist agenda.
Now as Minister of Foreign Affairs she has turned her attention to a major military build-up in the Ukraine and Latvia designed to secure the economic benefits of CETA, and the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement (CUFTA) which she also pushed through Parliament. No wonder she is banned from travel in Russia.
The Fifth Amendment is the source of the common phrase, "I plead the Fifth."
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The Fifth Amendment gives people accused of crimes a variety of rights and protections, including: the right to a grand jury indictment for felony offenses in federal court, the restriction on double jeopardy (being put on trial for the same crime after being found not guilty), protection against forced self-incrimination, the guarantee of due process of law and the prevention of the government taking private property for public use without proper compensation.
The most significant Supreme Court decision relating to the Fifth Amendment outside of criminal trials, according to the National Constitution Center , was Miranda v Arizona (1966), where the Supreme Court decided that police must give criminal suspects a set of warnings before they can be questioned. This is called their Miranda rights. These rights are in direct relation to the self-incrimination clause of the Fifth Amendment.
The Embryo Project Encyclopedia
Thalidomide, a drug capable of causing fetal abnormalities (teratogen), has caused greater than ten thousand birth defects worldwide since its introduction to the market as a pharmaceutical agent. Prior to discovering thalidomide's teratogenic effects in the early 1960s, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) did not place regulations on drug approval or monitoring as it later did. By 1962, approximately 20,000 patients in the US had taken thalidomide as part of an unregulated clinical trial before any actions were taken to stop thalidomide's distribution. Due to thalidomide's effects on fetuses, both nationally and abroad, the US Congress passed the 1962 Kefauver-Harris Amendments to the 1938 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. These amendments imposed guidelines for the process of drug approval in the US and required that a drug be safe as well as effective before it could be approved and marketed. Thalidomide also influenced the FDA's creation of pregnancy categories a ranking of drugs based on their effects on reproduction and pregnancy. Thalidomide motivated the laws on regulating and monitoring drugs developed in the US and by the FDA in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.
Ciba, a pharmaceutical company based in Switzerland, first synthesized thalidomide, a sedative similar to barbiturates and derived from glutamic acid, in 1953. Ciba said that it intended to use thalidomide as an anticonvulsive agent, but when the sedative did not show the desired effect on tested lab animals, Ciba stopped its thalidomide research. In October 1957, Wilhelm Kunz of the West German pharmaceutical company Chemie Grünenthal reexamined the compound and found that thalidomide worked as a sleep aid with no apparent side effects or maximum dose. Thalidomide became a popular sleeping pill in West Germany and was sold under the trade name Contergan.
Combined with aspirin, thalidomide was used to treat everything from colds and coughs to asthma and nervousness. Some claimed that thalidomide could help treat loss of vision (macular degeneration), diabetes, autoimmune diseases, and even some forms of cancer. Some recommended a liquid form of thalidomide to calm children. By the late 1950s, thalidomide was marketed in forty-six countries with sales almost as high as those of aspirin. Around this time research indicated that thalidomide relieved morning sickness in pregnant women. Some doctors recommended the off-label use of thalidomide to pregnant women, and soon this recommendation was generalized to pregnant women in forty-eight countries.
In 1960, a number of reports of nerve inflammation (peripheral neuritis) associated with long-term use of thalidomide surfaced in German medical journals. In early 1961, the pediatrician Widukind Lenz in Germany noticed thalidomide's teratogenic effects and later hypothesized that prenatal exposure to thalidomide caused severe malformations in newborns. Based on initial questionnaires sent to the parents of deformed infants and their physicians, Lenz noticed that approximately twenty percent of the mothers surveyed had taken thalidomide during pregnancy. Lenz then asked all of the parents specifically about thalidomide, and half of them reported using the drug.
On 15 November 1961, Lenz reported his findings and suspicion of thalidomide's teratogenicity to Chemie Grünenthal, and at a pediatric meeting on 20 November, he announced his suspicion. Independent of Lenz's hypothesis, obstetrician William McBride, working in Australia, noticed severe birth defects in the babies whose mothers had taken thalidomide during gestation. The most common birth defects included shortened, absent, or extra arms or legs (dysmelia), incomplete development of extremities (bone hypoplasticity), and a variety of ear, heart, and internal organ defects. In 1961 McBride reported his findings to Distillers Company Limited laboratories, headquartered in Edinburgh, Scotland, the company that produced thalidomide for the UK. Within the few years after thalidomide was first marketed, greater than 10,000 babies worldwide were born with birth defects attributed to thalidomide. By March 1962 many countries had banned thalidomide.
In 1960, the limited liability corporation Richardson-Merrell applied to the US FDA, headquartered in Maryland, for approval to sell Kevadon, the company's trade name for thalidomide. The company hoped to approve thalidomide as an over-the-counter drug and recommended it to treat a variety of ailments including alcoholism, anorexia, asthma, cancer, poor schoolwork, premature ejaculation, and tuberculosis. The application went to Frances Kelsey, a physician and pharmacologist at the FDA. Kelsey noticed reports of thalidomide's adverse effects in Germany. Because one of thalidomide's recommended uses was treating morning sickness, Kelsey requested more data from Richardson-Merrell to show that thalidomide was safe for use during pregnancy.
At the same time that Kelsey requested more information, the Democratic Senator from Tenessee Estes Kefauver was independently conducting an investigation of the drug industry in the US. As part of his investigation, Kefauver introduced a bill to enhance safety regulations of drugs. Kefauver learned about thalidomide's effects abroad through the work of Helen B. Taussig, a John Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, professor and pediatric cardiologist. In a 1962 Scientific American article, "The Thalidomide Syndrome," Taussig narrates the discovery of thalidomide's embryotoxicity and the drug's journey from original synthesis to its widespread distribution. In the article, Taussig writes of the seemingly sudden outbreak of deformities and questions the efficacy of drug testing and distribution. She notes that she was convinced that US regulatory systems would have approved thalidomide for widespread distribution. At the end of the article, Taussig discusses the evolution of drug advertisements and the leniency of governmental regulation in regard to pharmaceutical companies.
In July 1962, Kefauver alerted the press of thalidomide's teratogenic effects to revive his bill, which he later claimed was losing momentum in Congress. Many public figures expressed shock and outrage when they learned that during thalidomide's period of pending approval, Richardson-Merrell had already distributed greater than 2.5 million thalidomide tablets to over 1,200 physicians, who in turn gave them to approximately 20,000 patients in clinical trials. At least 207 of these patients were pregnant at the time of taking thalidomide seventeen of whom later reported having deformed infants.
From these events, the public scrutinized the FDA's policies and methods for drugs. The thalidomide tragedy, as many call it, galvanized Congress into passing the 1962 Kefauver-Harris Amendments to the 1938 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, hereafter called the 1962 Amendments. The 1962 Amendments went into effect on 7 February 1963 and required that for any sponsor of a drug, usually a company, that planned to investigate that drug clinically, that sponsor had to provide the FDA with a detailed outline of the study. The amendments meant that information concerning preclinical studies, the number and qualifications of the clinical investigators, and the nature of the study, were a required feature of these outlines. The sponsor also had to monitor the progress of the studies and continually report its findings to the FDA. All clinical investigators had to sign contracts agreeing to keep adequate records of receipts of drugs and name of persons to whom the drugs were given.
Before the thalidomide saga and the 1962 Amendments, there were scant federal regulations in US for approval or monitoring of clinical trials. No laws required physicians to keep logs of the drugs they prescribed, nor were the physicians required to follow-up with their patients. The 1962 Amendments required that drug manufacturers prove not only the safety but also the efficacy of the drugs distributed on the US market. The original Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act only required that a new drug be safe. The Amendments also mandated that the FDA had to approve a new drug application before the developing company could publicize the product. Prior to the 1962 Amendments, if the FDA did not disapprove a drug application within six months, then the drug would be automatically approved within the subsequent sixty days. Before these amendments, the FDA approved an average of 46.2 new single drug entities annually. In the decade after, that number dropped to 15.7. The Amendments gave the FDA more power than it previously had to regulate drug manufacturers.
The 1962 Amendments received criticism, however. Opponents claimed that the Amendments prevented the development of chemical compounds and drug development in general. They also argued that the new efficacy requirement resulted in higher drug prices with more checkpoints to pass before reaching approval, a greater deal of research and development costs had to be invested into each drug. Many also advocated for patient autonomy, claiming that whether or not to use a drug was a personal choice—a choice that the government shouldn't deny as long as the drug was safe.
In the mid-1960s, thalidomide research continued. In 1965, physician Jacob Sheskin, working in Israel, used thalidomide as a sedative for patients suffering from erytherma nodosum leprosum lesions, an inflammatory complication associated with leprosy that affects about 100 to 200 people in the US annually. In addition to being an effective sedative, thalidomide also augments immune responses to pathogens in people who take it. Experts from a variety of disciplines recognized thalidomide's potential in treating immunological, rheumatologic, hematologic, and oncologic disorders. Some argued that the drug would help treat throat and oral ulcers in patients infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and that it would help counteract the massive weight loss associated with Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS). Studies found that more than half of patients with these throat and oral ulcers had completely healed after four weeks of using thalidomide, and almost ninety percent had partially healed.
In 1975, the FDA approved thalidomide to treat leprosy under limited conditions. With many medical subdisciplines requesting permission to test and use thalidomide, the FDA formed a Thalidomide Working Group in 1994 to develop consent forms and patient information brochures. In 1995, the FDA met with pharmaceutical companies that wanted to apply for approval to market thalidomide. Biomedical researchers wanted to test thalidomide's efficacy in clinical trials on conditions such as AIDS wasting syndrome. Furthermore, AIDS activists, who often didn't want to wait for trial results, lobbied the FDA to allow AIDS patients to use the drug.
The FDA allowed marketing of thalidomide by Celgene Inc., a New Jersey pharmaceutical company on 16 July 1998. Together, Celgene and the FDA developed the System for Thalidomide Education and Prescribing Safety (STEPS) program. This program required registration by physicians who prescribed thalidomide, as well as their patients. The program also insisted on a number of contraceptive measures such as proof of an initial negative pregnancy test prior to treatment, proof that the patient was using two forms of contraception, and submission of monthly pregnancy tests. The FDA placed Thalidomide under Category X of the FDA's pregnancy ratings, categories created in 1975 for pharmaceutical companies to label medications according to their affects on reproduction. The fifth and most severe rating, Category X, is for drugs that empirically contribute to fetal deformities, and for drugs whose risks or undesired effects outweigh possible benefits to the patient. This pregnancy rating and the STEPS program later served as a foundation for the FDA's response to isotretinoin (Accutane), a prescription drug used to treat severe acne. Like thalidomide, isotretinoin caused severe birth defects and prompted its manufacturer and the FDA to create a risk management program to prevent fetal exposure.
In July 1998, the FDA approved the marketing of thalidomide, and today the drug is used to treat inflammation associated with leprosy and also acts as a chemotherapeutic agent for patients with cancer of the plasma cells in bone marrow (multiple myeloma). Thalidomide is available through the US Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, headquartered in Washington, DC.
While thalidomide prompted the US government to extend the powers of the FDA with respect to drug approval and monitoring powers, amendments subsequent to those in 1962 have further extended the FDA's system of regulation. In 1976 amendments to the Medical Device Regulation Act required medical device manufacturers to register with the FDA and follow quality control guidelines. Similarly, the 1990 Nutrition Labeling and Education Act required all packaged foods to contain standardized nutritional information and standardized information on serving sizes.
Three words have come to define racial injustice in the South: the Scottsboro Boys. Eighty-two years ago, a Southern Railroad freight train left Chattanooga, Tenn., bound for Memphis. Several teenage boys—black and white—and two white girls jumped on board. A fight broke out, and most of the white boys were tossed from the train. A posse in Paint Rock, Ala., stopped the train, and nine black youths ages 12 to 19 were arrested and taken to Scottsboro, Ala. The National Guard was dispatched to prevent mob violence. Five days later, on March 30, an all-white grand jury was convened. By the next day, all nine boys had been indicted for gang rape, a crime punishable by a minimum of 10 years in prison and as much as death by electrocution. The next week gave the term “speedy trial” all new meaning. Two lawyers—a Tennessee real estate lawyer with a drinking problem but no criminal law experience and a 70-year-old Alabama attorney who hadn’t tried a case in a couple decades—were appointed to defend Clarence Norris and Charles Weems, the first pair to go to trial.
The first trial lasted a day and a half. The second, third and fourth trials didn’t take nearly as long. By April 9, just 12 days after being arrested, all but one of the youths were convicted and sentenced to death.
On Nov. 7, 1932, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the convictions, citing ineffective assistance of counsel and lack of due process—an opinion that is widely praised. Historically, the case will forever be known as one of the first times the Supreme Court substantively applied the due process clause of the 14th Amendment to declare that the right to effective assistance of counsel for indigent defendants is an essential component in the right to a fair trial.
The most dramatic moment in the entire case occurred on Feb. 15, 1935, when the Supreme Court reviewed the retried convictions of Norris and Haywood Patterson. Famed New York criminal defense attorney Samuel Leibowitz argued that black people had been excluded from being able to serve as grand jurors, and that Alabama officials later forged the names of blacks on grand jury rolls to cover their tracks. Justice Charles Evans Hughes demanded proof. Leibowitz produced the actual jury roll and a magnifying glass. One by one, the justices examined the rolls with expressions of outrage. Six weeks later, the court unanimously reversed the convictions.
The Strange Saga of Edward Teller and Area 51
( Nick Redfern ) Taking into consideration the fact that the saga of Bob Lazar is coming up to its 30th anniversary, I thought I would turn my thoughts into a 3-part feature (here’s part-1 and here’s part-2). The third and final part revolves around none other than an encounter that Lazar had in the early eighties with a world-famous scientist. It was in 1982 that the Los Alamos Monitornewspaper ran an article on Lazar, which revealed (a) Lazar’s love of jet-cars and (b) his then-employment at the Los Alamos Meson Physics Facility. Today, it’s the Los Alamos Neutron Science Center.
by Nick Redfern, April 12th, 2018
Just a couple of months after the Los Alamos Monitor ran its feature on Lazar, the man of the hour had a brief encounter with one of the most legendary figures in the world of physics, and someone who became known as “the father of the hydrogen bomb.” That man was Edward Teller. When Teller died in 2003 at the age of ninety-five, the U.K.’s Telegraphnewspaper noted the following: “A man of enormous intellect, and one of the most controversial scientific figures of the 20th century, Teller made important contributions to the field of quantum mechanics and physical chemistry as well as nuclear physics but it was as an ardent ‘Cold War Warrior’ that he entered the popular mind.”
On the day on which the two men met, Lazar sat in on a lecture that Teller gave at Los Alamos. It was not so much Teller’s lecture that amazed Lazar. Rather, it was the fact that when Lazar was hanging around at the entrance to the facility, there was Teller, sitting on a wall and reading the very article that the Los Alamos Monitor had written on Lazar – which just happened to be a front-page article. Lazar instantly recognized what it was that Teller was so fixated on. So, Lazar decided to make the plunge: he walked over to Teller and told him who he was – namely, the person profiled in the article because of his jet-car achievements. Teller found it all very interesting. The two talked for a while about their respective work, after which Teller headed off inside to deliver his presentation. Six years later, the paths of Lazar and Teller crossed again. It would lead Lazar into the world of Area 51, UFOs and aliens. Or, into a world of disinformation and mind-manipulation.
In 1988, Lazar had a very different job to all of those which came before him. He was living and working in Sin City itself, Las Vegas, where he ran a photo-processing store. It was a job and it paid the bills. It was not, however, the dream job that Lazar wanted. That dream, however, would soon come true. But, it may have also become a definitive nightmare. Lazar decided to send out a resume to just about anyone and everyone he had worked with, met, and knew. One of those – no surprise – was Edward Teller. It’s also not surprising that Teller remembered all too well the man with the liquid propane car that could zoom across the landscape at around two hundred miles per hour. Teller also remembered that Lazar had a background in physics. More importantly, Teller was someone who had power, influence, the ability to open doors, and an ability to have access to some of the U.S. Government’s most prized and guarded secrets. Almost certainly, Teller played a role in what happened next: namely, that Lazar soon found himself at Area 51.
When Lazar went public with his story of working on alien spaceships at Area 51, he mentioned the Teller connection. It caused more than a few ripples. It’s curious that Teller didn’t back – maybe even with a lawsuit. This scenario makes even more sense, because Lazar didn’t just keep the Teller story to himself. This would have given Teller even more reason – and ammunition – to attack Lazar, verbally and from a legal perspective too. But, Teller did not dispatch a team of high-powered and high-paid attorneys to hammer Lazar into the ground. No. Teller did something very different. Teller made a statement that was so couched in careful terms that it almost became laughable. In fact, it sounds like the carefully chosen words that a lawyer would advise his or her client to use. Teller said, and I quote exactly: “I probably met him. I might have said to somebody I met him and I liked him, after I met him, and if I liked him. But, I don’t remember him.”
All of this sounds very much like Teller wanting the story to go away, and to go away as quickly as conceivably possible, and in a way that didn’t implicate him in any fashion at all. That Teller claimed not to have remembered Lazar is at significant odds with his, Teller’s, recall of Lazar in 1988 – six years after the pair had a person-to-person chat about Lazar’s passion for super-fast jet-cars. Teller clearly remembered that short chat more than half a decade after it happened. But, no time after the Teller angle became public information in 1989, Teller’s memory is suddenly hazy. Very hazy. Or, as today’s politicians are so keen to say under awkward circumstances, “I don’t recall.” Teller hemmed and hawed in what was an embarrassingly awkward fashion.
Did Teller know of the program which saw Lazar manipulated and mind-controlled to ultimately and unknowingly promote a bogus tale of UFOs at Area 51? Whatever the answer, there seems to be little doubt that when the story went public, Teller did just about everything he could to distance himself from Bob Lazar.
About the Author
Nick Redfern works full time as a writer, lecturer, and journalist. He writes about a wide range of unsolved mysteries, including Bigfoot, UFOs, the Loch Ness Monster, alien encounters, and government conspiracies. Nick has written 41 books, writes for Mysterious Universe and has appeared on numerous television shows on the The History Channel, National Geographic Channel and SyFy Channel.