The Michigan Militia Corps'

Weekly Update
Internet Edition

Volume 4, Issue 46

Week of December 15, 1997



DAVID ROCKEFELLER, International billionaire, Humanist, CFR kingpin, founder of the Trilateralist Commission, World Order Godfather (and in all probability the High School graduate voted "Most Likely to Be Hanged for Treason"), voiced his praise of the controlled U.S. media for keeping their oath not to divulge the Globalist plans to the public. Speaking to his fellow conspirators at a meeting, June 1991 in Baden, Germany, of yet one more infamous World Order group, the Bilderbergers, Mr. Rockefeller said:

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years."

He went on to explain:

"It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries."

(It is not reported if the attendees kissed his ring - or anything else - after their leader bestowed his blessing on those in attendance). Actually, we could ask Governor Clinton or Dan Quayle, both of whom were there. Bush and Clinton are Bilderbergers, Internationalists, and their goals are exactly the same for America.

Regarding the press keep in mind that the HEARST Family's real name was Hirsch in case you are doing genealogies.

As in all investigations, it always comes down to, "How can we prove our case?" We personally feel it's hard to top the proof coming from the mouths of the very ones involved in this treacherous unAmerican program. Here's one terrific example. John Swinton, the former Chief of Staff for the New York Times, was one of America's best-loved newspapermen. Called by his peers "The Dean of his Profession", John was asked in 1953 to give a toast before the New York Press Club, and in so doing made a monumentally important and revealing statement. He is quoted as follows:

"There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, in America as an independent press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinions out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone. The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth; to lie outright; to pervert; to vilify; to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it and what folly is this toasting an independent press? We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes."

Hard to believe? If there is any doubt -- read on.

RICHARD M. COHAN, Senior Producer of CBS political news said: "We are going to impose OUR AGENDA on the coverage by dealing with the issues and subjects WE choose to deal with."

RICHARD SALANT, former President of CBS News stated: "Our job is to give people not what they want, but what WE decide they ought to have." And what is their "agenda"? What do they believe we, the American people THE COMMON HERD, "...ought to have"? Here is the answer:

NORMAN THOMAS, For many years the U.S. Socialist Presidential candidate proclaimed:

"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of "liberalism" they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."

(How sadly true his words. He (Thomas) and Gus Hall, the U.S. Communist Party Candidate, both quit American politics, agreeing that the Republican and Democratic parties by 1970 had adopted every plank on the Communist/Socialist and they no longer had an alternate party platform on which to run.)

Following are some statements made by a few of America's top news personalities, but altered just slightly. In honor of Socialist Presidential candidate Thomas, following each use of the word "liberal" let's place also the word "socialist". This may help us gain some insight into why America, after 70-plus years of continual "liberal" indoctrination (Brain-washing) on every media, educational, and political front, has drawn "Socialism/Communism" and the New World Order to her bosom.

HERMAN DISMORE, foreign editor of the N.Y. Times from 1950 to 1960: "The New York Times is deliberately pitched to the liberal (Socialist) point of view."

WALTER CRONKITE: "News reporters are certainly liberal (Socialists) and left of center."

BARBARA WALTERS: "The news media in general are liberals (socialists)."

We could go on, but I believe we get their point!

Just what is this "wonderful" global organization all about?

DR. KURK E. KOCH, Professor, Lectured at 100 Universities in 65 countries on 5 continents. Subjects of expertise: New World Order, Occultism, Extreme Movements, Parapsychology. His assessment of the coming NWO under the United Nations is that it will reduce everything to one common denominator:

"The system will be made up of a single currency, single centrally financed government, single tax system, single language, single political system, single world court of justice, single head (one individual leader), single state religion."

He further states: "Each person will have a registered number, without which he will not be allowed to buy or sell; and there will be one universal world church. Anyone who refuses to take part in this universal system will have no right to exist."

We should ask the following question of those fellow Officers who may doubt that they will be asked to enforce such a system on the American people, "Whom do they think will enforce all of this? Who will make the masses "fit-in"? Who will "remove" those who do not fit-in? Will it be the auto mechanics, bankers, school teachers, bakers, or candlestick makers??? Or, is it more likely to be Enforcement Officers?

Socking it to the Consumer

By Howard Owens

On March 26, Californians will vote on two initiatives that would sharply restrict access to justice for people who have been swindled by stock fraud con artists, like Charles Keating. A victim of insider trading or stock manipulation who has lost his or her life savings would face insurmountable financial hurdles barring them from getting their money back.

The first punch at consumers comes in the form of Proposition 201. Under this initiative, investment fraud victims would have to come up with millions of dollars for a bond before the case even goes to court. That bond would pay for the cheaters' lawyers, if the victim can't prove his or her case. But, the swindlers get their legal fees paid for even if the victim proves the legal violation but the jury who found the swindler guilty awards even $1 less than a offer made by the swindler to settle the matter secretly.

The left hook to consumers is Proposition 202. Under this initiative, anyone hurt by a defective product, industrial pollution or other corporate misconduct would face even more daunting upfront legal costs because Proposition 202 limits contingency fee attorneys who represent consumers. It does nothing to limit attorneys who represent corporate stock swindlers, insurance companies or celebrities. This initiative ensures that ordinary people won't be able to protect their savings and retirement funds if they can't pay a lawyer by the hour.

The small group of wealthy Silicon Valley corporate executives who paid to put Propositions 201 and 202 on the ballot say an explosion of frivolous lawsuits justifies limiting consumers' rights. In fact, the explosion is a myth. The number of civil lawsuits filed nationwide has declined by nearly 9 percent in the last ten years. And the number of cases in which juries awarded punitive damages has fallen by 60 percent!

In fact, businesses file 10 times as many lawsuits as consumers. The Silicon Valley executives should start admonishing their colleagues in the business world if they want to get rid of frivolous lawsuits. For example, was McDonald's multimillion-dollar lawsuit against Burger King for defaming the Big Mac really necessary? How about Walt Disney's lawsuit against the Academy of Arts and Sciences for an "unflattering" representation of Snow White at the Oscars? Propositions 201 and 202 do nothing to limit frivolous lawsuits like these.

Meanwhile, investment fraud, which often targets elderly people with life savings in pension funds, is skyrocketing! Fifteen securities frauds occur every business day and white-collar crime costs Americans more than $100 billion each year. Yet, Propositions 201 and 202 are a one-two punch at consumers, and provide protection for the criminals!

Already, Californians' savings, investment and pensions are particularly vulnerable. A six-month study by the Los Angeles Times concluded that California and New York have the weakest state securities regulator in the United States. California suffers from a shortage of financial examiners and investigators.

In this climate, lawsuits by defrauded investors are often the only punishment swindlers receive. Going to court is the only chance fraud victims have to recover their losses, because even if regulators catch the crooks, they are not empowered to return losses to swindled investors.

Similarly, environmental and consumer safety laws are largely enforced by lawsuits filed by victims of negligence or willful misconduct. For most people injured by a defective product or ripped off by a stock swindler, going to court is only possible under a contingency fee system. Contingency fee attorneys pay for all of the research and administrative costs for their client, accept 100% of the risk, and are not compensated if you lose. Contingency fee attorneys only get paid if their client wins. Proposition 202 would place an artificial limit on the amount of contingency fees an attorney could earn in cases he or she brings on behalf of harmed consumers or defrauded investors. The attorneys representing corporate defendants who can afford to pay "top dollar" hourly legal fees face no limits on their earnings.

Ordinary people who have lost their investments and savings would not be able to afford to pay an attorney by the hour, let alone the millions to pay for a bond to cover the legal expenses of a Silicon Valley corporation or a large corporate accounting firm.

Why are consumers and their attorneys singled out for punishment? Knocking investors who have been victimized by stock fraud out of court seems to be their motive.

The organization sponsoring Propositions 201 and 202, the Alliance to Revitalize California, is funded by executives who are scapegoating lawyers while they are slamming the doors of justice shut for consumers who have been wronged. It is interesting to note, however, that many of the Alliance's largest financial contributors are senior executives at corporations which have been caught in violation of securities law.

One of the Alliance's largest donors, Al Shugart, is the founder and chief executive officer of a California firm that has been sued by its shareholders for alleged violations of federal securities law, manipulating stock prices and deliberately misleading investors. Shugart is also infamous in the south Bay Area where he lives for buying full pages in local newspapers to advertise his dog, Ernest, as a congressional candidate.

Another large Alliance contributor, Thomas Weisel, chairs Montgomery Securities, a firm that is a defendant in several fraud cases. According to Business Week magazine, Montgomery "knew, or should have known" about the fraud that was victimizing his investors, and the firm "may be cutting too many corners in the name of fast growth and surging profits." (Business Week, October 23, 1994.)

Such executives earning astronomical profits should not be above the law. These megamillionaires don't think so either, apparently. But instead of changing their behavior, they intend to change the law, and tilt the legal system against ordinary, honest Californians. Don't let them.

Join the California Congress of Seniors, Consumers Union, the Lincoln Bondholders Association, the California Nurses Association, Ralph Nader, the Center for Public Interest Law, Harvey Rosenfield and every other credible consumers rights organization in opposing the corporate two-fisted attack on consumers in Propositions 201 & 202.

Two Party Cesspool

By Charley Clements,
From The Eagle and The Cross, October, 1997

When the 105th Congress convened in January of 1997, there were dozens of proposals for constitutional amendments. It seemed as if every Congressman and his dog had an idea for some way to improve the Constitution. Never mind that the Congress has for years ignored or defied the Constitution at their convenience; for some reason they all feel compelled to create a new Constitution that, presumably, everyone will obey.

Ironically, most--if not all--of the problems facing America today could be resolved simply by returning our government to the boundaries of the original Constitution. We have completely lost sight of the fact that the Constitution was designed to control the federal government not the citizenry. The major problems facing America today were not created by individual citizens, cities, or states. They were created by and continue to be exacerbated by a federal government out of control.

Did the founding fathers fail us? Was their attempt to create a Constitution that would allow America to become the most free, the most prosperous, the most envied nation on earth a failure? Indeed not. The facts are that America did indeed become all of these things. The facts are that America continued to enjoy all of these blessings until we strayed from the guidelines that they gave us.

If we are to criticize the framers of the Constitution, or to find fault with that magnificent document that they created, it should only be to comment that they might have gone to greater lengths to insure that the Constitution would be adhered to. But perhaps they left that up to us.

Twentieth century America has failed miserably in respecting the Constitution and adhering to the Constitution. This failure is due primarily to two key factors:

1. The apathy of modern voters

2. The emergence and dominance of the politically elite two-party system

These two factors feed on one another, and the continuance of the one almost guarantees the continuance of the other. The apathy of the voters allows the entrenched two-party system to continually choose the issues and options that the voter will be presented with, and the dominance of the two-party system guarantees that the voter will usually select one of two choices-- unfortunately, this "choice" is too often between bad or worse. Given the incestuous relationships that exist between the two major parties, the PACs, the media, and big money donors to both parties, the establishment never looses--and the people seldom win.

Although political parties have been around since the beginning, the framers of the Constitution never envisioned or anticipated the emergence of "professional politicians" and the politically elite two-party system. They also never anticipated the degree of voter apathy that is so prevalent today.

They founded a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" and their vision was that of a concerned and informed citizenry electing a government of "citizen legislators" serving for a brief period of time, and then returning to private life to live under the laws that they created.

Our current system of government bears little resemblance to the one that the founders so studiously and devoutly labored to invent. The two party system, as it exists today, has all but destroyed our Republic. A dominant two party system, in tandem with a self-serving and unprincipled media, effectively stifles dissident voices and the opportunity for those who are not in agreement with either party to present their views. Election laws across the country are stacked in favor of the two major parties. PACs and other big money donors split their contributions between the two major parties comfortable in the knowledge that no matter who wins, their interests will be protected. The mainstream media controlling and at times even creating the news, rather than just reporting it have their cake and eat it too; catering to, and protecting those individuals and agendas within both parties that serve their interests.

This unholy alliance of the media, big money, and the two major parties has the net effect of virtually excluding any third party or independent candidate participation in the political process. The few third parties that have gained any prominence or success in recent years have done so only through super-human effort, and against all odds. This speaks volumes about the dedication and perseverance of the third party activists, but it also speaks to the inequities of the two-party system, and the corruption of our "government by the people, for the people, and of the people."

If our Constitution stands for anything, it stands for equality, and fairness. We have always been a nation that tends to favor the underdog, and cheers the efforts of those fighting against insurmountable odds. The deliberate and belligerent machinations of the two major parties and their media lapdogs to disenfranchise the citizenry by silencing the voices of third parties and independents seeking to promote the will of the people, is not only unconstitutional, un-American and ugly; it is also patently unfair.

Our founding fathers, and the framers of our Constitution, did not fail us. We have failed them. We have allowed our nation to be taken over by an elite ruling class of establishment politicians, controlled by, and manipulated by, big money aided and abetted by the establishment press.

Our Constitutional rights have been subverted and perverted to the point where they are barely recognizable but we still have recourse. We still, at least for the moment, have the right to vote.

It should be obvious by now that continuing to blindly support one of the two major parties simply perpetuates the partisan bickering and party line legislating that effectively stalemates any chance of meaningful reforms or significant legislation. The very nature of the two party system dictates that each party avoids controversial or radical proposals; maintaining a "middle of the road" agenda, and trying desperately not to offend or alienate any potential voters. Neither party has any intention of tackling any of the myriad of simmering controversial issues that so desperately need attention before they boil over.

Therein lies the role and the significance of third parties. Historically, third parties have always served to identify, and call attention to, issues that the two major parties have attempted to ignore for reasons of self-preservation. The insertion of third party dynamics into the political process has, at various times in our history, forced the two major parties to acknowledge and address various issues that the citizenry deemed important. Unfortunately, the absolute total control that the corrupt political establishment has over our political process today has all but eliminated the viability and effectiveness of the third party.

On the other hand, the voters still outnumber the politicians, and as previously stated, we do still have the vote. The most effective means we have today of once again gaining control of our government, is to reintroduce the competitiveness, the new ideas, and the breath of fresh air from third party and independent candidates.

A vote for a third party or independent candidate is not a "wasted vote." Your vote for something or somebody you believe in is the ultimate expression of your right to vote. Settling for the lesser of two evils, or voting for someone that you know is not worthy, is a "wasted vote."

The most ridiculous and nonsensical reason usually cited as an excuse for not voting for a third party or independent candidate, is that "they have no chance of winning, therefore I wont vote for them." That is indeed a self-fulfilling prophecy if there ever was one.

To address another objection, the election of a third party or independent candidate does not dilute the effectiveness of a coalition vote it strengthens it. Those candidates will be more inclined to vote based on their ideals or principles and those of the people they were elected to represent rather than the party line as articulated by the party bosses. An independent or third party representative who is pro-life, for example, reinforces the efforts and agendas of the pro-life forces in the other parties without being constrained by partisan politics.

Our political system is morally, fiscally, and spiritually bankrupt. Neither of the two major parties have any intention of meaningful reforms, or serving the interests of the citizenry, since they are consumed with "one-upmanship" and preventing the other party from scoring any victories. Good and decent men in both parties are placed in the position of having to oppose good and decent legislative proposals in the interest of partisanship.

This stalemate can only be broken by the inclusion of third party and independent representatives with fresh ideas; new agendas; non-partisan commitments and a will to serve the people rather than the establishment.

Our founding fathers envisioned, and endeavored to create, a republic governed by the people. We, the people, can reclaim that inheritance by recruiting, supporting, and electing third party or independent candidates who will answer to us, rather than the establishment leadership of the Republican or Democrat Party.


By Matt Drudge,

In a sharply worded opinion, a federal judge said Thursday that White House and Justice Department lawyers lied to him while trying to fend off litigation against Hillary Clinton's health-care task force, reports SCRIPPS HOWARD on Friday. Reporter Michael Hedges: "U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth ordered the Clinton administration to pay $286,000 to a group that sued the government, the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons -- money that will come from taxpayers."

Lamberth wrote: "The Executive Branch of the government ...was dishonest with this court, and the government must now face the consequences of its misconduct. It is a sad day when this court must conclude ... that the Justice Department succumbed to pressure from White House attorneys and others to provide this court with strained interpretations that were ultimately unconvincing... It seems that some government officials never learn that the cover-up can be worse than the underlying conduct. Most shocking to this court, and deeply disappointing, is that the Department of Justice would participate in such conduct."

The doctors' group sued the White House in February 1993, seeking to open up HRC's health task-force meetings to the public. Chair Magaziner claimed in a sworn court memo, prepared by lawyers in the White House counsel's office, that the closed deliberations were legal because all members of the group were full-time government employees simply doing their jobs. It eventually became clear to the judge that many of the 650 fixers were not, in fact, federal employees...

If you would like to submit an editorial, commentary, or news story from your perspective on something you have been keeping an eye on, please e-mail it to xxx and it will be evaluated for entrance. Thanks.

To subscribe to the Weekly Update, put out weekly by Michigan Militia Corps 5th Division command, simply send a message to with the phrase "subscribe militia" in the BODY of the message. The Weekly Update is archived at the Michigan Militia Corps web page at: