while chasing is The End Good evening. You're listening to the Hour of the Time. I'm William Cooper. Ladies and gentlemen, we will continue tonight and should be able to finish up this series tonight. And maybe if there's enough time, take phone calls. Please don't call until we open the phones. I don't know exactly when that will be. I'm not good at judging partially finished tapes. I know that we'll be into the second hour before we can open the phones, but the exact time I cannot estimate and I'm not even going to try. Now, for those of you who are experiencing problems with your health, if you have already sent in your $6 and received your information pack from American Longevity, you need to order the products and start taking them. They have done wonders for me. I used to have such pain in my legs that just getting through the day was a major chore. And sometimes when they were just so terribly excruciating, I didn't even want to move. Didn't want to go on. It was that painful. Also, I had some problems with my eyesight. I still do, but not as bad as it was. My vision has become much better. The terrible pains in my legs have gone away. Some of the pains that I had in my joints from time to time aren't there anymore. And, folks, when I first started taking Dr. Wallace products, I had white hair along the sides of my temples. Well, all the way around my head, as a matter of fact, was white. And I don't mean gray. I mean white. It was white. And Tim told me that over a long period of time that the restoring of the mineral balance in my body would cause my hair to go back to its original color. Well, I didn't really believe that. And I told you guys about this. And Dr. Wallach talked about it when he was live in the studio. But I didn't believe it. But I've got to tell you right now, the hair around the sides of my head is no longer white. It is darkened up considerably to where it's really kind of a dark gray. And the roots are black, which is the original color of my hair. So within another month or two, my hair color is going to be back to its old, normal color. And I'm looking forward to that. In fact, I had a compliment from someone the other day, a woman, who told me that I look younger now than she has ever seen me look. And she was just astounded. Now, I didn't know that my looks were changing because I see myself in the mirror every day. And if they're changing, they're changing so slowly that I'm just so used to looking at myself. I don't realize it. But she was astonished. And she told me, she said, Bill, you look so young. She hasn't seen me in a little while. She said, you look much younger than I've ever known you look. And so that made me feel really good. Now, I can't imagine why those of you who sent in for your preferred customer status or your associate status, I can't understand why you would send in $6 and then not use the products. And if you're thinking that they're expensive, they're not. You may be laboring some misunderstanding. Maybe you don't know how to read the price list. You do not have to pay the retail price if you send in your $6. You do not have to buy a case of anything. You can buy just one bottle of one item and start taking it to see if it makes you feel better. And if it does, don't stop because your health is the most valuable thing that you have. Believe me, folks. Well, don't believe me. You know, you've got to try it and find out for yourself. I was doubtful. I tried it. I didn't even mention it on the air until I had experienced really good positive results. And I told you all about it. And I still am. And so I encourage you to purchase the products and use them. You don't have to buy a whole bunch of anything. If you don't do anything else, at least get one bottle of the Ultimate Formula and take it as recommended every day. And if you feel better, then keep on taking it. And, you know, if you don't have a lot of money and you can't afford to buy a whole bunch of stuff, at least do that for your own personal health. Otherwise, you've thrown $6 down the tubes. And you're going to end up spending a whole lot of money on a lot of other products. And you're never going to know whether they're going to work or not. So, and those of you just listening who don't know what this is all about or have health problems and would like to see how you can follow Dr. Wallach's recommendations to improve your own personal health, Then call these numbers right now. 1-888-403-2405 That's 1-888-403-2405 Or 1-888-701-0502 That's 1-888-701-0502 One more time, here are the two numbers. 1-888-403-2405 Or 1-888-701-0502 Now, if you're confused about the price list or about anything in your information packet, call these numbers. Talk to Tim. And Tim will help get you on the right track. If you don't want to talk to Tim, call the customer service number that was in your information pack. And the people at American Longevity will be happy to answer any questions that you might have and help you in any way that they possibly can. Now, remember, we made all this information available so that you could experience the same benefits of these products that I have personally experienced. And you know me, folks. I don't tell you something unless it's true. I source it. I document it. I back it up. And I would never recommend any health product to anybody in the world unless it had personally helped me. And not just a little bit like getting rid of a headache. But I mean really helped me. And these have really, really done that. So, you have my personal recommendation. By golly. And I think if you'll take these things on a regular, scheduled basis, just like they're recommended, I think that you're going to have the same kind of relief that I've experienced with some of your problems. Now, this isn't a cure-all. And, you know, I don't know if it'll cure cancer or anything else or not. You know, and I would never make any claim like that. But I can tell you that if you've got some of the same kinds of aches and pains and problems that I had, I'm pretty sure that you may experience the same relief and health benefits that I've experienced by taking Dr. Wallach's products. And it sure doesn't hurt to give it a try, folks. You know, I can guarantee you that most of you need a lot of the minerals and the vitamins and the other ingredients, nutrients that are in these formulas. And you're not getting them in your normal diet. And you won't get them in the proper amount as effective in any other product that you're going to find out there. So call one of these two numbers, 1-888-403-2405 or 1-888-701-0502. Get yourself on the way back to real good health. Nothing like feeling good, folks. I've got to tell you, there is nothing in the world like feeling really good. Okay? So get your pen and paper and get ready to take notes because here we go again. Your station in life is determined by your production, your contributions to society, your ethics and your morals. Not just because you exist. Not just because you occupy space and suck in air and blow out air. That means only that you are here and nothing else. Act 1. Article 1. Should be Act 1. Article 1. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this declaration without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, or other status. I agree with that. Article 2. Article 2. Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. I also agree with that. In fact, the ownership of property is an absolute requirement of a free people. You will find, though, that in the resolutions passed and pending and in the many charters that the United Nations has promulgated, the right to own property is questionable at best in this totalitarian socialist order. And you can see that they are attempting huge land grabs with the excuse of environmental action. Recently, the United States Congress passed a law, and Clinton signed that law, stating that environmental inspectors have access to all personal property. To inspect to see if you're endangering the green polka-dotted earthworm or some other such nonsense. So if they come to your door, you're forbidden by law to bar them entry. However, we all know it's unconstitutional, but as I just demonstrated to you, the Constitution is not in force. The Constitution has been superseded by the United Nations Charter, by the Senate's own admission in this document. Article 17. This declaration implements and emphasizes the purpose and aims of the United Nations and its Charter. Democracy provides a way of life that is helpful. However, its promises of human betterment are but vain expressions of hope, unless ideals of justice and equity are put into practice among governments, and as well between government and citizen, and are held to be paramount. Now, what's wrong with this statement, folks, is we do not and have never lived in a democracy. This is a republic, and if you do not know the difference, you'd better find out now. All this talk of democracy is but a code word for the creeping, all-encompassing socialism that will engulf us, swallow us whole, digest us, and secrete us as waste material in the progress of the coming to power of the all-powerful state. People don't matter in socialist governments. Only the state matters. If you're a people, you better get concerned about that. Real quick. The integrity and vitality of the Charter and the confidence which it inspires would wane and eventually be brought to naught by failure to act according to its announced purposes. Its survival is contingent upon the degree of reverence shown for it by the contracting nations, their governmental subdivisions, and their citizens as well. This nation can be true to its pledge to the other signatories to the Charter only by cooperating in the purposes that are so plainly expressed in it and by removing every obstacle to the fulfillment of such purposes. A perusal of the Charter renders it manifest that restrictions contained in the alien land law are in direct conflict with the plain terms of the Charter above quoted and with the purposes announced therein by its framers. It is incompatible with Article 17 of the Declaration of Human Rights, which proclaims the right of everyone to own property. We have shown that the expansion by the Congress of the classes of nationals eligible to citizenship has correspondingly shrunk the group ineligible under the provisions of the alien land law to own or lease land in California until the latter now consists in reality of a very small number of Japanese. The other Asiatics who still remain on the prescribed list are so few that they need not be considered. Clearly, such a discrimination against a people of one race is contrary both to the letter and to the spirit of the Charter, which as a treaty is paramount to every law of every state in conflict with it. Now, did you hear what that said, ladies and gentlemen? Any law in this country which is in conflict with the United Nations Charter is null and void. The alien land law must therefore yield to the treaty as the superior authority. The restrictions of the statute based on eligibility to citizenship, but which ultimately and actually are referable to race or color must be and are therefore declared untenable and unenforceable. Judgment reversed with directions to enter a decree in favor of plaintiff in accordance with the prayer of his complaint. Now, what they're saying there, folks, is if you're a nation trying to protect the interest of your citizens and you have a law that forbids the ownership of land by citizens of foreign countries, they say that it is not really about citizenship, but about race or color. You see how they twist things? Now, if we were a sovereign nation, there would be nothing wrong with that law. But if we were, in fact, a vassal state of the United Nations, part of a larger order to which all citizens of the world belonged, then such a law could not exist. And in fact, doesn't. Simply because the ruling is that the United Nations Charter takes precedence over the Constitution of the United Nations, of the United States, and all laws of the United States government, and all laws of the several states. You see, ladies and gentlemen, they declared war against us long, long ago. They have been letting us believe that we have a Constitution and a Bill of Rights and that we are still the sovereign United States of America. It is a lie. We are, in fact, a subjugated people. We are, in fact, a people with an army of occupation which belongs to the United Nations, and you don't have to look for foreign troops to find it. It is called the United States Navy, the United States Army, the United States Air Force, the United States Coast Guard, and the United States Marines. And in the several states where you think you have National Guard belonging to the states, and where you think that the National Guard constitutes the militia, they are, in fact, an organization that can be federalized. And if they have accepted federal money for equipment supplies, aircraft, arms, or ammunition, or uniforms, are already federalized, which makes them another military organization of the United Nations. Wake up, sheeple, and you'd better wake up really fast. Wake up, sheeple, and you'd better wake up really fast. Wake up, sheeple, and you'd better wake up really fast. It renders it manifest that restrictions contained in the alien land law are in direct conflict with the plain terms of the charter above quoted, and with the purposes announced therein by its framers. Skipping down. Clearly, such a discrimination against a people of one race is contrary both to the letter and to the spirit of the charter, which, as a treaty, is paramount to every law of every state in conflict with it. Lest you doubt, or lest you forgot where we left off, folks, it was with the admonition that the United Nations Charter is the supreme law of this land. The United Nations Charter, it is first contended, that the land law has been invalidated and superseded by the provisions of the United Nations Charter, pledging the member nations to promote the observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms without distinction as to race. Plaintiff relies on statements in the preamble and in the articles 155 and 56 of the charter, 59 statutes, 1035. It is not disputed that the charter is a treaty, and our federal constitution provides that treaties made under the authority of the United States are part of the supreme law of the land, and that the judges in every state are bound thereby. The United States Constitution, Article 6. A treaty, however, does not automatically supersede local laws which are inconsistent with it unless the treaty provisions are self-executing. In the words of Chief Justice Marshall, a treaty is to be regarded in courts of justice as equivalent to an act of the legislature whenever it operates of itself, without the aid of any legislative provision. But when the terms of the stipulation import a contract, when either of the parties engages to perform a particular act, the treaty addresses itself to the political, not the judicial department, and the legislature must execute the contract before it becomes a rule for the court. Foster v. Nielsen, 1829-2, Petition 253-314-7-L.E.D. 415. In determining whether a treaty of self-executing courts, look to the intent of the signatory parties as manifested by the language of the instrument, and if the instrument is uncertain, recourse may be had to the circumstances surrounding its execution. Now this was the argument for the plaintiff in this suit, and I skipped down a little further to pertinent paragraphs. Although the member nations have obligated themselves to cooperate with the international organization in promoting respect for and observance of human rights, it is plain that it was contemplated that future legislative action by the several nations would be required to accomplish the declared objectives, and there is nothing to indicate that these provisions were intended to become rules of law for the courts of this country upon the ratification of the charter. The language used in Article 55 and 56 is not the type customarily employed in treaties which have been held to be self-executing and to create rights and duties in individuals. For example, the treaty involved in Clark v. Allen, 331, United States, 503, 507-508, 67, Supreme Court, 1431-1434, 91-L.E.D. 1633, relating to the rights of a national of one country to inherit real property located in another country, specifically provided that such a national should be allowed a term of three years in which to sell the property and withdraw the proceeds, free from any discriminatory taxation. See also, Hollenstein v. Allen, 100, United States, 483, 488-490, 25-L.E.D. 628, and Nielsen v. Johnson, 279-US-47, 5049, Supreme Court, 223-73-L.E.D. 607. The provision, treated as being self-executing, was equally definite. There, each of the signatory parties agreed that no higher or other duties, charges, or taxes of any kind shall be levied by one country in removal of property therefrom by citizens of the other country than are or shall be payable in each state upon the same when removed by a citizen or subject of such state, respectively. In other instances, treaty provisions were enforced without implementing legislation where they prescribed in detail the rules governing rights and obligations of individuals or specifically provided that citizens of one nation shall have the same rights while in the other country as are enjoyed by that country's own citizens. Bacardi Corporation v. Dominic, 311, United States, 150, 158-159, 61, Supreme Court, 219, 224, 85-L.E.D. 98. Asakura v. City of Seattle, 265, United States, 332, 340, 44, Supreme Court, 515, 516, 68, L.E.D., 1041. C. Majorano v. Baltimore v. Baltimore v. Baltimore v. Ohio Railroad Company, 213, United States, 268, 273-274, 29, Supreme Court, 424, 425-426, 53, L.E.D., 792. Chu Hong v. United States, 112, U.S. 536, 541-542, 5, Supreme Court, 255-257, 28, L.E.D. 770. It is significant to note that when the framers of the charter intended to make certain provisions effective without the aid of implementing legislation, they employed language which is clear and definite and manifest that intention. For example, Article 104 provides, The organization shall enjoy in the territory of each of its members such legal capacity as may be necessary for the exercise of its functions and the fulfillment of its purposes. Article 105 provides, One, the organization shall enjoy in the territory of each of its members such privileges and immunities as are necessary for the fulfillment of its purposes. Two, representatives of the members of the United Nations and officials of the organization shall similarly enjoy such privileges and immunities as are necessary for the independent exercise of their functions in connection with the organization. And it goes on. And it prevents a wonderful argument. A wonderful argument. And the result is that the judgment is reversed. Ladies and gentlemen, however, however, the judgment has been and still is ignored by the executive and judicial branches of the United States government and by the states who receive monies from the federal government. Remember, the states are suborned simply because they accept benefits from the benefactor. Therefore, give up their sovereignty. Just as you give up your sovereignty when you accept benefits from the benefactor, the benefactor has the right under the law to call the tomb to which you must dance. Whoa. Whoa. Whoa. And so, that is the end of that. I have here an article from the Los Angeles Times. Dated March 31, 1962. United States to propose end of national armies. United Nations force would keep global peace. That's just the headline. On the later show, I'm going to read the whole article. I don't have time right now. And then we're going to get into the Open Skies Treaty also in the later show. Maybe I do have time to read this newspaper article. The United States to propose end of national armies. United Nations force would keep global peace. March 31, 1962. Los Angeles Times. One of the world's greatest newspapers. Geneva. U.P.I. The United States will submit to the Geneva Disarmament Conference a plan calling for elimination of national armies within nine years and a replacement by a United Nations force. Reliable sources said Friday. The American plan is to be submitted to the 17-nation group to counter a Soviet draft treaty for general and complete disarmament within four years. Introduced when the conference opened here two weeks ago. You see how they worked together, ladies and gentlemen? And you thought the Cold War was real? Not on your life. The American plan is to be submitted to the 17-nation group to counter a Soviet draft treaty for general and complete disarmament within four years. Introduced when the conference opened here two weeks ago. It was understood Secretary of State Rusk and William C. Foster, director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, were meeting in Washington with their advisors to put the finishing touches on the plans. Unique advantage. The West complained that the Russian four-year plan gives the Russians an undue military advantage in the early stages and does not include specific and detailed proposals for international controls to ensure each nation destroys its arms on schedule. The American plan was said to include these precautions as well as a United Nations peace force to maintain international law and order as national defenses are torn down. The Soviet plan omits any mention of a standing peace force. At Friday's session, the Soviet tried to commit the United States to total disarmament within four years. But American negotiator Arthur H. Dean told Soviet delegate Valerian Zorin, You cannot build a house without a blueprint. Zorin suggested the conference start taking up the Russian plan point by point, and when Dean put the brakes on the proposal, Zorin warned that the conference might be heading into another impasse. A specific study was urged. Dean proposed instead that the 17-nation group set up subcommittees to consider such specific problems and how to end nuclear weapons production, how to destroy or reduce nuclear delivery vehicles, including ships, submarines, planes, and rockets, and how to verify such measures. These are not problems of language, but of substance, Dean said. Zorin rejected the subcommittee's suggestion, first made by Rusk, and said, These problems cannot be solved separately. If we are going to have general and complete disarmament, they must all be dealt with at the same time and in stages. There's those stages again, folks. Zorin said, The Soviet Union is all ready to discuss any plan put before the conference. A statement interpreted by Western observers as a challenge to the United States to bring forth its own proposals. British Minister of State Joseph Godbrich, speaking after Dean, had rejected the Soviet proposals, said general agreement on certain basic issues must be reached before they can be put into treaty form. As expected, Poland, Bulgaria, and Romania lined up behind the Soviets in demanding point-by-point consideration. Neutral Brazil came out in favor of the American approach. India and the United Arab Republic, the only other speakers, were on the fence. The American and Soviet co-chairmen, Dean and Zorin, met privately in the afternoon to discuss how the conference should proceed. The next session of the conference was set for Monday, when the question of the deadlocked nuclear test ban subcommittee will be considered. Later tonight, folks, on the hour of the time, we are going to talk about the Open Skies Treaty. We will be reading from the United States Department of State Dispatch, dated March 30, 1992, beginning on page 257. And we will also be reading from the United States Department of State Dispatch, March 29, 1993, Volume 4, Number 13. And many of you will be absolutely amazed to know that Soviet bombers and Soviet aircraft, both military and civilian, of both combat, logistics, and passenger carrying capability, have been and are now overflying the United States on a regular basis. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. You see, folks, things are a lot farther down the road than you ever, in your wildest dreams, could imagine. it's all over but the crying and the fighting and the dying and then the rejoicing do not forsake me oh my darling on this our wedding day do not forsake me oh my darling wait wait long I do not know what fate awaits me I only know I must be brave and I must face the man who hates me for life a coward a craven coward or lie a coward in my grave oh to these horns which love and duty suppose I lose my fair hair beauty look at that big hand move along move along here in high room he made a vow while in Satan's prison vowed it could be my life for his own I'm not afraid of death but hope what will I do if you leave me do not forsake me oh my darling you made that promise as a bride do not forsake me oh my darling do not forsake me oh my darling Although you're grieving Don't think of leaving Now that I need you By my side Wait along Wait along Wait along Wait along Well I certainly hope you don't die a craven coward in your grave Statement by White House Press Secretary Marlon Fitzwater, Washington, D.C. March 24, 1992 Today the United States along with Canada and 22 European nations signed the treaty on open skies in Helsinki, Finland In May 1989 at a time when the immense changes seen in Europe over the past three years were just beginning President Bush proposed that the nations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO And the former Warsaw Pact Agree to open their territories to frequent overflights by observation aircraft from the other side The United States believes that the greater transparency in military activities brought about by such an agreement Will help reduce the chances of military confrontation And build confidence in the peaceful intentions of the participating states The open skies treaty is the most wide-ranging international confidence-building regime ever developed Covering the entire territory of North America and nearly all of Europe and the former Soviet Union Its arrangements for observation flights using photographic radar and infrared sensors And its provisions for sharing among participants the information gathered are innovative means to help promote openness and stability in Europe in these uncertain times Open skies could also serve as a basis for similar arrangements in other regions of the world where there is a need to build confidence The treaty establishes an open skies consultative commission in early April It will convene in Vienna, Austria to complete work on outstanding technical and cost issues regarding treaty implementation The treaty will be submitted to the United States Senate for its advice and consent to ratification once this work is finished to the satisfaction of all participants U.S. Department of State Dispatch March 30, 1992, page 257 Open Skies Treaty The treaty in open skies is the most wide-ranging international effort to date to promote the openness of military forces and activities It is designed to improve mutual understanding and confidence by giving all participating countries, regardless of size A direct role in gathering information about military forces and activities of concern to them In Europe, it meets the desire of many countries to build confidence and enhance stability now that the bipolar division of the continent has ended In other regions, this type of openness and the techniques developed in the treaty could be applied in reducing regional tensions and preventing conflict Open skies was first proposed By President Eisenhower At the Geneva Conference of 1955 The idea was rejected by the Soviet Union When President Bush reformulated the open skies concept in May 1989 The world was on the verge of rapid change Open skies was proposed as a means of confidence building which would promote and consolidate existing trends toward openness Now you notice, folks, that almost everything that you're hearing on here originated in the Truman and Eisenhower years If you've always thought of those two gentlemen as patriots, you had better think again For they sold this country right straight down the tubes And then, John F. Kennedy is the one who pushed through the disarmament agreement Formal negotiations on an open skies treaty began in Ottawa in February 1990 And continued in Budapest in April, May 1990 However, it was apparent that the Soviet Union was not prepared to open all its territory to aerial observation After the Ottawa-Budapest sailmates negotiations were on hold for more than a year Although the United States and other countries kept pressing the issue bilaterally Only after the abortive August 1991 Moscow coup attempt did the former Soviet Union agree to open all its territory to observation This cleared the way And productive negotiations began November 1991 in Vienna The treaty was signed in Helsinki on March 24, 1992 Twenty-four countries participated in the negotiation of the treaty Belgium Bulgaria Belarus Canada The Czech and Slovak Republic Denmark France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Iceland Italy Germany Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Russia Spain Turkey Ukraine The United Kingdom and the United States Other republics on the territory of the former Soviet Union may, if they choose, also sign the treaty as initial participants Georgia did so March 24, other countries participating in the conferences on security and cooperation in Europe were invited as observers to the negotiations And it is expected that many of them will apply for full participation in the treaty soon after it enters into force The treaty is open to accession by any interested country subject to the agreement of the other participants It is not restricted geographically Now let me ask you ladies and gentlemen, in lieu of the fact that we have been overflying the Soviet Union for many, many years, beginning with the U-2 overflights, continuing with the SR-71 Blackbird, and of course whatever has taken its place because they would never have taken it out of our aircraft Complement unless there was something to replace it. Also, we have a vast array of spy satellites in orbit looking down upon the Soviet Union all the time. What is this Open Skies Treaty all about? Was it to give us access to the atmosphere over the Soviet Union? No, ladies and gentlemen, because we already had it and have always had it. And the only interruption was when they shot down Francis Gary Powers and his U-2 Back during the Eisenhower administration. No SR-71 has ever been shot down. Nor has any SR-71 flight ever been interdicted. Nor have any of our spy satellites been interdicted, shot down, destroyed, or knocked out of orbit. So what is this all about? Very simply, ladies and gentlemen, it allows the Soviet Union, or what used to be the Soviet Union, what's left of the Soviet Union, which still has the entire military might intact, to overfly the airspace of the United States of America, which never was permitted before. And that's the truth of the matter. Several people called me the other day and described a very strange aircraft that they saw flying low across the desert. What they described to me, ladies and gentlemen, was a Russian Bear Bomber. A Russian Bear Bomber. Now, I didn't see it. I was going by their description. And I am telling you right now, what they described was a Russian Bear Bomber. You can go to your library and look up a picture of one, and you can see that there's nothing else that matches that description. There's nothing else that large that matches that description that has propeller-driven engines, ladies and gentlemen. I can tell you right now, I can tell you right now, I can tell you now that every day, every night, aircraft of the former Soviet Union are overflying the United States on a regular and continuing basis. Military bombers, military logistics aircraft, reconnaissance aircraft, and of course, passenger aircraft. Interesting? I would say yes. The treaty establishes an open-skies consultative commission, which will meet in Vienna to monitor the operation of the treaty and to discuss and resolve any problems which may arise. The treaty is of unlimited duration and provides for periodic review conferences. For the United States, the on-site inspection agency, OSIA, will be responsible for conducting and receiving open-skies flights in coordination with the Department of Defense and other relevant agencies. For those of you who doubt that they're overflying the United States, they not only overfly the United States, but have landed at many major airports across the country. And yes, Soviet bombers have been part of those aircraft which have landed at American airfields. Open-skies is not a system for gathering detailed technical intelligence, but it will enable countries to collect basic information on the military capabilities and activities of other countries, thereby enhancing mutual security and confidence. They used to call that spying, ladies and gentlemen, and they used to say that it was not in the best interest of the national security to have another country monitoring our military defense capabilities and activities. I'm going to break in here, ladies and gentlemen, I'm speaking to you live now, because it's important that you consider this. The Open-Skies Treaty, if you read it, specifically designates that no site within the borders of the United States of America can be withheld from overflights. And no defense activity of the United States of America or any other signatory nation can be withheld from direct observation by overflight aircraft. Now, let me ask you, and I want you to really think about this. If, if, ladies and gentlemen, the events and activities within the Dugway Proving Grounds, for instance, within the area known as Area 51, our Groom Dry Lake, are so top secret that the American people cannot see these activities, cannot get a list of these activities by submitting Freedom of Information Act requests, cannot observe these activities, if, in fact, the United States government even denies the existence of Area 51 at Groom Dry Lake, and they have always done that, except in, I think, two instances, to my knowledge. But the Russians and every other signatory nation to the Open-Skies Treaty can overfly Area 51 anytime they want to, and take photographs and monitor the electronic emissions and everything that's going on there, anytime that they want to, according to the treaty, then you have to understand, they're not hiding those activities from the rest of the world in the guise of national defense. They're hiding those activities from the American people. Now, that's a very serious charge, but it is the truth. And you had better begin to think about it. I was the first person in the world who revealed the location of Area 51 to the average American citizen and the average citizen of the world. On the Billy Goodman program, on KVEG, Las Vegas, way back, way back, ladies and gentlemen, in 1989. That's on record. A lot of you have been propagandized to believe that there was somebody named Bob Lazar, who worked at Area 51, who was the person who revealed that location to you. And that's a lie. Bob Lazar never worked at Area 51. Bob Lazar was not the first person who revealed the location of Area 51 to the world. It was me, William Cooper. Bob Lazar is a liar. I have said this over and over again on this broadcast. Bob Lazar has never bothered to sue me, nor will he ever sue me, because he is a liar. He is exactly the liar that I am calling him now. He never worked for EG&G. Bob Lazar was never a physicist at Los Alamos National Laboratory. Bob Lazar is just plain and simply a liar. And so, you need to know these things. You need to understand these things. And you need to understand that the secrets are being withheld from the American people, not from the world. The Russians have open access to every single one of them by treaty. What do you think? It is explicitly a general purpose observation system and is not tied to any arms control agreement. If it's not tied to an arms control agreement, what is the purpose other than to destroy the defense of the United States of America? Long ago, we grounded all of our B-52 alert force. We disbanded the strategic air command. We are vulnerable. Extremely vulnerable, I might add. Participating countries may, of course, seek information through open skies which would be relevant to arms control agreements to which they are parties. Raw data obtained from observation flights, for example, film, negatives, and magnetic tape will be shared by the observing and observed countries. Oh, isn't that nice? They fly over our nation, spy on us, take photographs, take photographs, magnetic tapes, and then they turn around and give us copies so that we'll know what we already have. That's nice. That's very big of them. Other countries participating in the Open Skies Treaty will be able to purchase copies of data in which they are interested from the observing country. Individual countries are responsible for their own analysis of the raw data. We're going to skip ahead now, folks. Two, United States Department of State Dispatch, March 29, 1993, Volume 4, Number 13, Page 185. Open Skies Treaty will enhance international security and there is the true answer. You see, it does away with our security. It does away with the defense of our airspace. but it enhances international security. It enhances the security of the emerging one world government, the United Nations. This is a statement before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Washington, D.C., March 11, 1993, by John H. Hawes, United States Representative to the Open Skies Conference. Mr. Chairman, I am honored to testify before this committee in support of the Open Skies Treaty. As Secretary Christopher indicated in his letter of March 4th to Chairman Pell, the treaty, quote, will contribute to mutual understanding and confidence building by giving all states, parties, regardless of size, a direct role in gathering information about military forces and activities of interest to them. I hope you know, folks, that this means that Bangladesh could also overfly us. If they can get anything off the ground. I don't know if they have anything. They probably do. This treaty has been made possible by the dramatic political changes of the last several years. When former President Eisenhower first proposed cooperative aerial observation in 1955, the idea was summarily rejected by the Soviet Union. Indeed, it was only after the aborted coup in Moscow in August 1991 that an agreement could be negotiated embodying the values of openness and cooperative international observation. In my remarks, I will briefly describe the contents and operation of the treaty. Before doing so, let me put that in context by noting the four essential ways in which the treaty on open skies will contribute to international security in the post-Cold War world. First, the treaty empowers all signatory states, regardless of size, wealth, or level of technology, to acquire meaningful security information on neighboring countries. This means Cuba could overfly the United States, folks. This will enhance the confidence of all participants and enable them to play more responsible roles in maintaining regional and international security. This means Haiti could overfly the United States, folks. In this regard, moreover, by generating information which can be easily shared and discussed among participants, the Open Skies Treaty will avoid the difficulties often encountered in working with restricted information. This means Japan could drop coupons for VCRs upon the United States, ladies and gentlemen, in the coming trade wars. Second, this treaty nails down the key principle of full territorial openness. All the territory of all the participants will be open to observation, including specifically all the territory of states which formally restricted large portions of their territory on grounds of national security. Now, according to our United States Constitution and the law, folks, if it weren't for the fact that our Constitution was not in effect, this treaty would only apply to that known as the federal government constituted within the boundary of that district known as Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, and the United States Marshall Islands. I'm going to write an article for Foreign Affairs, the Journal of the Council on Foreign Relations and submit it and see if they will print it. You know what? I just have a feeling they will. Well, if they do, it's going to be very interesting. And they didn't. The United States insisted on full openness during the negotiations as a sin qua non for an effective confidence-building regime. The United States determined at the outset, moreover, that such an unprecedented degree of openness would not pose an unmanageable security risk within the United States itself. Oh, no. Oh, no. When the Cold War was going, oh, it was the biggest tragedy in the world if a little plane veered off course from Iceland and touched the tip of New York. You're listening to WBCQ, Monticello, Maine, USA. This is the Hour of the Time. I'm William Cooper. We continue now with our broadcast. And now they're telling us this would not pose an unmanageable security risk within the United States itself if every nation in the world can overfly our airspace any time they want to. These people sure make a lot of sense, don't they? So when were they lying? Before or now? I think they've always been lying. Third, the treaty dramatically advances the tools available for confidence building. Yes, I think the Russians are going to be very confident now that they can overfly our country and take photographs they've never been able to take before, even with their wonderful satellites, because their satellites have never been so wonderful, folks. That was a big scam. You see, the Soviet Union was never even able to produce even the most rudimentary computer chip. therefore, their technology has always been in the dark ages. Did you know that? And to be absolutely fair, it was in the dark ages except where they were able to steal technology or purchase technology surreptitiously from nations that would do that for them. And they did that. Did you know that? Over the past two decades, the array of confidence building measures has expanded steadily. Now, the Open Skies Treaty adds to this toolkit detailed procedures for aerial observation with agreed sensors, predetermined quotas, and no right of refusal. No right of refusal. No right of refusal. Which means, even if we wanted to, we can't tell them to get out of our airspace and go home and stop overflying the United States according to the terms of the treaty. It also establishes a new framework for contacts, cooperation, and consultation among participating states. Fourth, the treaty establishes a major precedent which may prove particularly useful in other parts of the world beyond the original signatories in reducing tensions, contributing to greater mutual understanding and reinforcing regional peace and security. Other nations outside the Europe-Atlantic area where the treaty was negotiated have already expressed interest in the treaty. That's right, folks. Bimini will be sending overflights. Mr. Chairman, I would like to describe the principal provisions of the Open Skies Treaty relating to participation, coverage, sensors, quotas, aircraft data, and costs. Yes, folks, costs. Because whenever the United States does something, they always pay for it. So we're probably going to pay for the gas and the planes for the other nations to overfly us. I mean, that's what we've always done in the past, isn't it? What makes you think it's going to be any different this time? Well, I don't know if they're going to do that or not, but, I mean, what's to cost? We've always been overflying. What's to cost? Unless we're going to pay for somebody else to overfly us. It gets complicated. I mean, the more you look at this, the more absolutely absurd it becomes. I think, ladies and gentlemen, the world has turned into the largest insane asylum in the universe. And we're all competing to see who can be the medias. Come and sit by my side, you love me. Do not hasten to give me a dream. Just remember the lead river dying and the cowboy that's not to go through. When I was a boy, my dad used to sing that, especially when we were driving on long trips. they say you are leaving. I just want to take this time that I know that when my dad sang this song, he was singing it to his family and telling all of us that he loved us. Well, I want my family to listen to this and I want them to know. Annie, Pooh and Allison, I want you to know I love you. I remember as a small boy, riding in the car with my parents, old car, don't ask me what it was because I don't know. All I know is it was old. My dad used to sing all these songs. All of them. He knew them all by heart. Streets of Laredo, all of them. Good memories in competition with today. You know, we're all positioned, ladies and gentlemen, to either be responsible for the loss of the penultimate of human achievement throughout all the ages on this earth. Actually, that should be ultimate achievement, not penultimate achievement. I, at the time that I did this in 1994, I thought penultimate was the greatest. Later, when I looked it up, I found out that it wasn't. What I meant to say was the ultimate achievement. Or, or we can bring a future into the world that will be the best that the world has ever known based upon this nation, which has been the best, the most powerful, the most promising, has given us the most opportunity, the most freedom, in fact, the only freedom that's ever existed in this world, belonged to the American people for many years. It's gone now, but it doesn't have to stay gone, not at all. It's going to depend upon what is in your heart and how much, how much you're willing to sacrifice to give our children what we once had or something much better. I continue with the Open Skies Treaty from the U.S. Department of State Dispatch, March 29, 1993, Volume 4, Number 13, Page 185. The Open Skies Treaty was negotiated between the members of NATO and members of the former Warsaw Pact. The latter organization dissolved during the course of the talks. Original signatories include all 16 NATO states, the East European members of the former Warsaw Pact, and five of the successor states of the former Soviet Union. Belarus, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, I think I pronounced that right, K-Y-R-G-Y-Z-S-T-A-N, and I must be honest, I've never even seen that name before in my entire life. And I have studied the Soviet Union I don't know how that happened, but it's the truth. The truth on this show, folks. I've got egg on my face. Russia and Ukraine, since signature of the treaty on March 24, 1992, the former Czech and Slovak Republic has divided into two separate states. Both are in the process of reaffirming their participation in the treaty. The treaty is now open to signature by all seven other successor states of the former Soviet Union. following entry into force, the treaty will be open to requests for a session by all states participating in the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe. The treaty and the Open Skies concept are not, however, confined to Europe. Beginning six months after entry into force, any state, without regard to geographic limitations, can accede to the Open Skies treaty, provided that it will contribute to the objectives of the treaty and has the consensus approval of the Open Skies consulcated commission. So you learned in 1992 that anybody could overfly anybody and now you're learning that they have a little committee there that says whether somebody can overfly or they can't. So who's doing what to who and why and who's been told that they can't do anything to anybody? Amazing. Coverage. The Open Skies treaty provides that all of the territory of participating states must be open to observation. No exceptions are permitted for national security purposes. Observation flights will follow routes set up by the observing party. Only modifications for legitimate reasons of flight safety may be proposed. The question of full territorial access was debated within the U.S. government when the initial Open Skies proposal was developed. At that time, a decision was made that full access was essential to the political and confidence-building objectives of the proposal and that such access could be provided in the United States consistent with national security given the previous restrictions in force in the former Soviet Union. This requirement for full territorial access was perhaps the subject most intensely debated in the negotiation. Agreement was only reached in the fall of 1991 following the aborted Moscow coup of August 1991. The treaty text not only affirms the principle of full territorial access, but also spells out how this is to be implemented effectively in actual aerial operations. The treaty does this with detailed provisions on the formulation of the flight plan to ensure that the observation objectives of the observing party will be achieved. That means, ladies and gentlemen, if the Soviet Union, or what used to be the Soviet Union, if Russia wants to photograph a specific, top-secret military target within the United States, that we are to help them with the formulation of the flight plan to ensure that the observation objectives of the observing party will be achieved. But you just try walking anywhere near it and see how fast you get arrested. So who is it being kept secret from? Not the Russians. Not the Russians, folks. That never has been. Once the question of access was determined, the second factor shaping the quality and quantity of information which the participants could gather in open skies was the package of sensors to be employed. For the United States, the sensors which have been agreed to for use in open skies will not provide a significant new source of information. Should I continue with this? I mean, this is just the most absurd. I feel like I'm reading a comic book. May I just interject? Could we Americans please have the same rights as the Russians? Well, you know, we don't really need them. You see, we don't even need this whole creed. The reason it will not provide a significant new source of information for us is because we have all the information. We've been overflying the Soviet Union for what? 40 years? Oh, boy. For most other participants, however, the ability to utilize the open skies sensor suite to observe the full territory of the other participating countries will represent a new and very significant enhancement in their ability to gather security-related information. If the country in question does not have the technology to supply the sensor rack, the member nations will help them acquire the proper technology. How about that, ladies and gentlemen? The United States, however, will be a major indirect beneficiary of this increase in knowledge, confidence, and security of the other participants. This, in fact, was one of the primary considerations behind the U.S. initiative in presenting the open skies idea and bringing the negotiations to a successful conclusion. All parties in open skies will have access to sensors of equal capabilities, and if they don't have, we'll give it to them. In the spring of 1990, the East European States obtained agreement from the United States and its NATO allies that all participants would have access to sensor capabilities equal to those employed by any other participant, which means if Haiti wants to overfly the United States and the little committee gives them the go ahead, we've got to give them the state-of-the-art state-of-the-art and reconnaissance equipment in order to be able to fulfill their mission. Thank you, Pooh. My fan club is clapping in the background. All parties in open skies will have access to sensors of equal capabilities. This is insane. You see, folks, it would be insane if, in fact, we had an enemy anywhere. We really don't. The enemy is the people. And what's happening in the world is a great drama being played out to cause the people to ask for control on a global basis so that they can put together their one-world totalitarian socialist government without a civilian armed uprising. You see, this is quite all right, because the Soviet Union is not and never has been our ally. We built the Soviet Union. We gave them all of the technology we ever had. We gave them the atomic bomb. William Casey was the man instrumental in building for them the Kama River Truck Factory, which is the largest, largest rolling stock mechanized factory in the entire world, which could produce more tanks, trucks, jeeps, and lorries than all of our combined manufacturing capability together in the United States of America. William Casey was the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, amongst many other things, and was a member of the Sovereign and Military Order of the Knights of Malta. He was a member of the OSS and the Knights Template. He did not die of a stroke, as you were told. William Casey, ladies and gentlemen, was not murdered, as many have proclaimed. William Casey was a man who, if called to testimony to Congress, would have told the truth. William Casey, as any good intelligence operative will tell you, committed suicide, so that he would not have to do that. And at the time that happened, ladies and gentlemen, he was the director of the Central Intelligence Security, because he would have spilled the whole beans about all of this. Because irregardless of what he was working to bring about in the world, he believed that he was right in doing it, and he was a truthful man. He was passionate about doing away with war, and he really believed in his heart that one-world government was the only way to do it. However, we fail to understand that no matter what they implement or put into place, it will still be imperfect men ruling imperfect men. It will still be greedy men with power in their hands and lust in their hearts. And of course, when they're operating from the Luciferian principle, it is not ameliorated by the principles of mercy or understanding. Nope, it is cold and cruel and intrepid and comes strictly from a point of the intellect. There's no emotion involved, no compassion, no mercy, no heart, no love. That's what's wrong with all of these people. That brings to mind, ladies and gentlemen, during Hitler's reign of power, he claimed that he was visited in his bedchamber, that he could see into the future. He told his closest confidants in his general staff, and this is on record, that he had seen the new man, that the new man had visited him in the dead of night, and that he was cruel and intrepid. Ollie North was not the man that you think he is. All the time that he was operating behind the scenes, shredding the Constitution page by page, article by article, paragraph by paragraph, he was operating from a cold, calculating, cruel, intrepid point of intellect. It wasn't until he himself was caught and called upon the carpet of the Congress that he became initially emotionally motivated, and his voice began to crack, and he sounded like a little boy caught with his hand in cookie jar, screaming for understanding and sympathy, all the while wearing the uniform of men of the United States Marine Corps. Ollie North disgraced that uniform. He was in the process of shredding the Constitution, and his act in front of Congress was just that an act and nothing more. He is in fact a traitor, but many of you have paid a lot of money into his pockets to go and listen to him talk about how he is a patriot. When are you going to wake up? you going to wake up? How long is it going to take? How many of us have to risk our lives and take the brunt of the anger of these people to try to get you to stand up and accept the responsibility of your own role in all of this? How many Carolyn Nelsons have to start out in an old broken down car and weave our way across the country handing out copies of the Constitution and being called a crazy old lady in the car over there before you all come to your senses? Carolyn Nelson is the woman that you heard earlier in the broadcast. And at this point I have to ask another question. Not too long ago Glenn Jacobs published in the Round Valley paper a prophecy a prophecy that most Mormons are aware of. prophecy in the Mormon church by one of their greatest leaders, one of their prophets whom they acknowledge as a prophet. Remember, a prophet cannot be wrong because a prophet is speaking for God. This prophet said that at some future date, and this was a long time ago, at some future date, when the Constitution for the United States of America would be hanging by a thread, the Mormon Church would save it. The Mormon Church, the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-day Saints would save the Constitution for the United States of America. Well, Glenn just printed the prophecy. Glenn, in light of all that I have revealed, and in light of the fact that not one single one of you can prove me wrong, has ever proved me wrong, or ever will prove me wrong, and I issue that challenge right now. Where is the Mormon Church? I challenge all of the leaders of the Mormon Church. Where is the Mormon Church? The Constitution is not hanging by a thread. It's gone. It's gone. It's gone. Has the leadership of the Mormon Church ignored the prophet? Have they sold out to the New World Order? I don't know the answer to these questions, and I'm not trying to insult the Mormon Church or Mormons. I know a lot of wonderful, good, moral, upstanding men and women who belong to the Mormon Church who are in direct support and have pledged their oath to protect and defend the Constitution for the United States of America. My question is to the Church. Where is the Mormon Church? And somebody had better be answering this question very soon, or the lack of an answer is going to become very, very embarrassing. At what point in our history did patriotism become a dirty word and patriots become right-wing Aryan racist? How did all of that happen? And when is it going to stop? And what is going to be your role in it? And when am I going to stop hearing I'm afraid to stand up, I'm afraid to say something, I'm afraid to write a letter because I might get on somebody's list. You're already on the list. There's one list. And if you're not one of them, you're one of us, and you are on that one list. And if you don't stand up with us and help fight this battle, and we lose this battle, you are going to be a slave in the new world order. It's as simple as that. Nothing complicated about any of this, ladies and gentlemen. It is very simple. You either believe in what you've always professed to believe in, and you are willing to fight and die for those beliefs and ideals, or you have always been a hypocrite and a liar. are you one who will not stand up now and help us fight this battle, but you patted your son on the ass and sent him off to the Middle East to die in the desert? Is that who you are? Are you one of the old war veterans who sits around in dark VFW halls drinking beer and telling lies? Are you people or do you really love freedom? Do you really care about your children and your grandchildren? Are you one of those who says, I don't have to get involved in this. By the time all this comes about, I'll be dead. Or my government retirement check is our only income. so I can't help. Or as many do, Mr. Cooper, in light of all that you've said tonight, what can I do to best protect my assets? I tell you now, ladies and gentlemen, you better start worrying about your ass more and about your assets less. are you going to be left with none of all of the above? And that concludes this segment of all of the past broadcasts that we're going to be re-airing in order to reacquaint those who have been steady listeners and educate those who have never known that any of this has taken place. We always document and source everything that we have to say. We challenge all Americans to either be Americans or reveal your hypocrisy so we'll know who is on our side and who is not. When we name certain religions or organizations or groups of people, we are not trying to destroy you. We are not personally attacking you. We are challenging you to reveal your real position, stand up and be counted, or let us know that you are not real Americans, you are cowards, and that you've sold out to the New World Order so that we can bypass you, so that we don't have to waste time with you. Because I belong to a select group of men and women in this nation, of all races, religions, and points of ancestral origin, who are committed to the principles and ideals of freedom for all peoples, of all colors, of all races, of all religions, of all points of ancestral origin. nation, we understand that there is one uniting common bond amongst all of us. And if we all understand that uniting common bond, we can live together, we will live together, we will fight and die to preserve those principles. principles. We are committed. And you are either with us, or, as Jesus said, if you're not with us, actually, he said, if you are not for me, you are against me. And I'm telling you right now, if you are not with us, you are against us. you cannot sit on the fence in this battle. You must choose a side. You must choose the right side. You must fight on the side of God and of right and of freedom. And if you choose any other side, you will pay. I guarantee you will pay. God will judge you. And God will ensure that you pay. And you will pay. And if you try to sit on the fence, look at all those people in Kosovo who tried to sit on the fence. look at what happened to them. If it were really true that they were being ordered out of their homes and ordered to leave Kosovo, it would have just taken a very few of them to overcome their guards or the people who ordered them to do this, take their weapons away from them and turn them on the people who were ordering this. Just like the Jews in Europe when the Germans came and knocked on the doors, the Jews said, we will not own arms, we will not own guns, we are a peaceful people, and we will go and obey the German orders because after this is all done and Herr Hitler has restored order and he's taken the crime off the streets, we will be reinstated in our citizenship and we will get our possessions back. Bullshit! Why do Jews constantly fall for this bullshit? Why do you fall for it? What the hell is wrong with you? If you want to see what's going to happen in the future, you had better study history. Now we have all over again Jews in this country and other people say, oh, we can't own guns, oh, we don't want to learn how to use guns. Guns are dangerous. I got news for you, the New World Order, the New World Order has as its goal, first, socialism, a world totalitarian socialist government that will eventually creep into and become world communism because it is steered by the principles of Marx and Lenin, whose goal was world communism. study their writings, study their speeches, study, most importantly, what communism really accomplished and what it did not accomplish. What happened was the, oh, my goodness, the state pretends to pay us, so we will pretend to work. Everybody was unhappy. Nobody could ever realize any goal for any, any kind of personal projection of worth. And so, the greatest, most profitable business in the Soviet Union was the vodka factories. politics. Now, you think about that. Look back upon history and you will see the exact date that the socialists and communists began to take over the government of this country. It was the day that they vilified and destroyed Joseph McCarthy, who was absolutely right. Read the results of the investigation of the Un-American Activities Committee and you will see that he was absolutely right. Read the results of the NSA's Venona project, which you can obtain on the internet, and you will see that he has been proven, vindicated, he was right. Read the results of the investigations into the Soviet KGB after the so-called supposed fall of the Soviet Union and you will see that Joseph McCarthy was right. William Jefferson Clinton is a communist. He is bringing about a new world order, a world totalitarian socialist state that will decline into communism. And now the phones, ladies and gentlemen, are open at 520-333-4578. That's 520-333-4578. I want to know what you think about what you've been hearing. Has it helped you? have I wasted my time once again? another협の who to Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. So you're right. I agree with you 100%. When you say communism, people envision a bunch of guys in drab woolen Trotsky suits and Trotsky glasses and running around Main Street with banners and red flags. They're not going back to something that ham-handed. Well, you've fallen for that, too, I see. You didn't really understand the original version. If you really read Marx, he outlines it. It's a method of control of the common people by an elite. Marx was a racist. He abhorred the common man. He hated blacks. He hated Asians. He was a Jew. He was a Jew. He was a Jew who hated Jews. That's right. Did you ever see A World Without Jews? Yes, absolutely. I've studied Marx more than probably anybody in this whole world. I know what's going on. It was a method of these elitists who had no respect or ability to believe in the common man ever coming to grips with himself that they were the appointed people to rule, no matter who the hell they were. And Marx was one of those people. Oh, no question about it. But, you know, I think we both understand that aspect to it, but I'm just sort of playing against you for the benefit of the audience. You know, there are people who are, you know, expecting the, you know, the Trotskyite or Stalin crowd to come galloping over the hills, and that's not the way it's going to be. No, it's not the way it's going to be. It's always evolving. It's a chameleon that's constantly changing its colors, and they understand the use of the corporate system and how it can be valuable to them. They understand the use of manipulating, you know, clubs, churches, service organizations. You know, they're very subtle, very sophisticated. Oh, yes, they do. But, you know, the common conception of communism in relation to the old Soviet Union is all wrong because the old Soviet Union gave you the impression that it was the workers with the red banners marching in the streets that really controlled everything. That's not true. The elite controls thing. That's the way it works. And all these beehive and ant farm societies never has worked that way, never will. Yep, and that's one of the things that makes me worry about the Mormon Church. If you go to Utah, you'll see the sign on the side of the road all through Utah, the beehive. But I have to disagree with you on one thing, and again, I'm playing to the audience, Bill, that nobody was happy and nobody accomplished their gains. Under that system, the people at the top of the pyramid, if they can keep the sheep down and suppress their wants and their ambitions, they can be very happy. They can achieve a very nice life for themselves, as they did for a long time. Yes, you're absolutely, once again, correct. But when I'm talking about that particular thing, I'm talking about the vast numbers of people that are not at the top. They never are happy. They never accomplish their goal. In fact, they are held at a level that makes them absolutely miserable. And that's why the vodka factories were really the only and the major successful business throughout the Soviet Union in its history. Well, there's little doubt about it. But, of course, under this new Lee Kuan Yew corporate socialist paradigm, you know, there'll be more than vodka factories. There'll probably be states, unofficially state-sanctioned blush districts, you know, electronic, new electronic toys. What do you think the Super Bowl is all about? The Super Bowl, you name it, bread and circuses. You know, the Romans understood this very well. And so does the New World Order. They also understood the Roman system. Give them a circus and they will not threaten the empire. Well, I'm going to let you go, but that was just my little two cents worth for the night. Well, I think it was more than two cents. You contributed a tremendous amount to the understanding of the listening audience, if, in fact, they followed what you said. You were 100% right on every single point that you made. Well, I'll tell you one thing. One last thing, though, Bill. Well, you know, Caligula, he wanted people to be in the dark about the law, which is what tyrants want. So he had people go up on ladders and put the laws up about 75 feet, and they were in print about a quarter of an inch high, so you couldn't read them. But poor Caligula, you know, I think he's got a bad rap. He's an enlightened administrator compared to the people we have running around today. Yeah, that's true. But he was also a tyrant. Caligula, you know, if he saw you standing by the side of the road, and he wanted your gonads, by God, he had cut them off and take them with him. And there wouldn't be a damn thing that you could say about it. Well, well, it's... No more accentuation. If a drunk federal agent decides to blow your head off in a bar, there's not a damn thing you can do about it either. Well, you know what? There is if he does it drunk in a bar. But you see, they do it consistently without being drunk in a bar, against the law, without the proper paperwork, without the proper warrants, without proper anything. And many times they do it upon innocent people that were not engaged in any crime because they got the wrong address, and there's no recourse for those people, and there is never even an apology. They don't have to be drunk in a bar. They're out of control already. And nobody seems to give a damn. Well, I'm relating the anecdote, you know, which I guess I'm a red-ofer. Yeah, but you cannot get ridiculous. Of course, if they're drunk in a bar, they can be arrested, and they will be prosecuted, and they're not going to get away with that. He was housed at a bar, and he said to the owner or somebody there, you know, I could blast you right now, and nothing would happen to me, and there's nothing you could do about it. Well, he lied. Yeah, but... He lied. That's not true. It just shows you the way they tend to think of themselves. Yes, that's exactly the elitist attitude they have. But had he actually done it, no, he would not have gotten away with it. Yes, he would have been prosecuted, and yes, he would have gone to prison, or maybe even the electric chair or the whatever it is in the state where he committed it, because it would not have been a federal crime. It would have been a state crime. Well, this is true, but as you say, all too often, and again, when they're sober, they do things and they get away with it. Yes, they do. That's because when they're sober and it's planned by the system, the system supports them. But when he's drunk in a bar by himself, no, the system will not support him, not ever. Well, I'm going to turn you loose. Okay. Thank you for calling. It's been a wonderful call, and I really, really am glad that you called and illuminated some of the things that you did. Thank you very much. Bye-bye. 520-333-4578 is the number. Good evening. You're on the air. Hi. I would like to know if you're going to have videos available of those last eight days you've been giving us bill numbers and everything. I'm sorry, but you've got to talk a lot louder. I can barely hear you, and I know the listening audience probably can't hear you at all. Put the mouthpiece right in front of your mouth and talk really, really loud. Okay. Now, can you hear me? That's better. I'm sorry. I don't normally shout. Well, you've got to shout on this show because we only have a speakerphone here, and I've only said it 500 million times almost every single night that we've ever taken calls. Where have you been? I haven't been listening to you because I didn't know you were on the air until tonight. Well, now you know. So put that phone in front of your mouth and talk real loud. Don't give me any crap about it, okay? Okay. Thank you. Now can you tell me will you have videos available of all the stuff you've been talking about apparently the last two weeks? Why do I need to have videos available? Because you talked so darn fast we didn't copy down the bill number. Then order the tapes. What tapes? The tapes of the broadcasts. Okay. How much are they and where do I get them? Well, we'll talk about that tomorrow night. How's that? Okay. I'll tell you. You just have pen and paper ready. I'll tell you where to send and how much and all that kind of stuff, okay? Fine. Great. You know, folks, you can get mad at me all you want to. Because I gave up a long time ago on the sheeple. Gave up. Absolutely, totally gave up. I have no patience for ignorance, stupidity, or apathy. And if that makes you mad, if you're a sheeple, then get the hell out of my world. Good evening. Good evening. You're on the air. William. Yes, sir. I hope I'm speaking loud enough. Yes, you are. Good. By golly, and it's a great relief. You were talking about Marx. You were talking about Marx, and it made me think what that gentleman said about how nice those elites could have it. Yes. They kept the sheep down. Mm-hmm. It made me think of that opening to Rousseau's work. And, of course, some people want to try to say that Rousseau was one of the original communists. It's hard for me to tell. But what he says right at the outset is interesting. Rousseau, as a matter of fact, was one of the original Illuminists who are responsible for socialism and communists, whose goal was to destroy all existing religions, all existing nation states, and bring about a one world totalitarian government so that what they believed were crimes against humanity would never occur again. Right. Listen carefully to what he says right at the outset for the tongue-in-cheek, in-your-face brand of humor. He says, man was born free, and he is everywhere in chains. Those who think themselves the masters of others are indeed greater slaves than they. How did this transformation come about? I do not know. How can it be made legitimate? That question, I believe, I can answer. So, apparently, Mr. Rousseau believed that he could make legitimate slavery. Yes, he did believe that. And that's right at Chapter 1, Subject of Book 1. He was also responsible for some of the greatest bloodshed that has ever happened in the history of the world. Many people had Mr. Rousseau in mind when they watched the guillotine slide down. Absolutely. Oh, yes. Oh, yes. Oh, yes. And what happened eventually to Mr. Rousseau? Well, it's an interesting story. The way I have it, he died of syphilis, basically. I don't know how mad he was how many years before he died. Isn't that amazing? Yes, incredible. That not too long after the massacre of the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas, Janet Reno came down with Parkinson's disease and could not appear on camera without shaking like a leaf. Yes. God works. God works in mysterious ways. I tend to agree, Bill. You delivered a good lecture this evening. I enjoyed it. Well, thank you. Thank you, Bill. And thank you for your contribution. 520-333-4578 is the number. Good evening. You're on the air. Yes, hi. Good evening, Bill. Today on the Rush Limbaugh Show, they're talking about a book that's upholding Machiavelli as being misunderstood. I was wondering if you heard about it. I believe the name of the book is Machiavelli on Leadership. No, I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh unless I'm traveling. And I only listen to him when I'm traveling in order to keep me awake while I'm driving and provide me with some humor because Rush Limbaugh is not on our side, never has been. And whatever he discusses on his broadcast is guaranteed to divert your attention away from the real problems in this country, the real solutions, and the real enemies that are bringing it about. So, you know, I don't listen to him unless I'm traveling in an automobile of some kind, and I just do it to stay awake and provide me with some comedy because he is very comedic. Well, this wasn't too funny because basically he was paraphrasing a Paul Craig Roberts article that's on Newsmax right now. So, basically, what I see at Machiavelli was, you know, the print is basically about how to hurt the masses. If you're a socialist and you use that term masses, yes. Yes. Absolutely. Yeah. Did you get that take from that publication? Yes, absolutely. But that's not what Rush Limbaugh is telling you that it's all about. Well, in a roundabout way he did because he said that many political scientists regard, especially Hegel, and he mentioned Hegel by name, thought that Machiavelli got a raw deal. Well, Hegel did. And according to Hegel, Machiavelli was, you know, if you understand the Hegelian dialectic, and I don't know if Hegel really said that or not, but I would suspect that Hegel would have thought that Machiavelli would have gotten a raw deal today. But at the time that Machiavelli wrote The Prince, he did not get a raw deal, and until the social revolutions brought about by socialism and communism, Machiavelli, or The Prince, was exactly the way that the monarchies attempted to rule their people. So, I think Rush Limbaugh has, once again, given you a bullshit raw deal. Yeah, and... What do you mean, yeah? You were just saying the opposite. How could you agree with what I just said, with just a few minutes ago, you were saying exactly the opposite. Now, which, you know, what are you trying to say? Well, as I understand it, you know, Machiavelli was all about divide and conquer. Machiavelli was not about divide and conquer. Machiavelli was about the ability of the monarchies to rule without passion the people under their rulership. Hegel is the one who came up with the dialectic, and Machiavelli did not include that in The Prince. Now, before you listen to Rush Limbaugh and believe what he says, I suggest you read The Prince, which you've never done, have you? I've read a condensed version of it years ago. You've never read it, have you? I've read a condensed version of it years ago. You've never read it, have you? I haven't read the whole thing yet. You've never... That's what I thought. Good night. Folks, don't call me and try to bullshit me. It doesn't work. Especially if you're bullshitting yourself. Especially if you're listening to somebody else who's bullshitting you. And you're falling for it. Rush Limbaugh is not on our side. Rush Limbaugh is the Hegelian dialectic. Rush Limbaugh is a Freemason. Rush Limbaugh is a liar. Rush Limbaugh is giving you the impression that you have a voice in the media. Rush Limbaugh is the rose-colored glasses down the garden path. Good evening. You're on the air. Bill, a previous caller referred to the Russian elite as being happy. I want to try to point out and see what you think. I think the great mistake of the New World Order, communist people, and anybody who actively engages in the destruction of the first principle of a civilized society, namely enable rights to the individuals, cannot be truly happy. None of them ever know the joy that you feel in your bosom for when you stand up for what's right and bet your life on it. And if more of these would-be rulers realize they cannot make themselves happy being tyrants, we'd all be better off. You know, I would love to believe that, but I can't speak for them because I can't get inside them and I don't know what they feel. All I know is that they are for that kind of control, and I can't help but feel that they must think that that's going to give them some kind of a liberation and a good feeling, or else they wouldn't be doing it because people do not set out to do something that's against their own best interests. So I have to believe in my heart that they believe in what they're doing. I agree with you on both counts. I'm just saying it is not real happiness that they feel. It is real happiness that you feel for the job that you are doing. Well, I can tell you that that's true some of the time. Other portions of the time, I've got to tell you that the consequences of my actions have absolutely devastated me and my family. It's broken my heart. When I told you in recent broadcasts that my heart is broken, I'm not joking. I am not the same man that I was three months ago. I literally have a broken heart. I have been devastated. My family's been devastated. We have really suffered because of the path that I have taken. But I still believe within my heart, no matter how much we have suffered and no matter how much we are going to suffer in the future, I believe that it is the right path and I'm going to stay on it because I just cannot conceive of doing anything else. And I say, sir, you are one of the most magnificent expressions of a real American. I know of. And certainly that's on the air doing what you're doing. And there's got to be a satisfaction there that you wouldn't trade to avoid all the suffering and hell that you've been put through and are going to put through. And I congratulate you without reservation. Well, I certainly thank you for that. One thing. You started earlier to give the three goals of the New World Order and you got the first one out and something happened, interrupted your train of thought. Would you give us the other two? Well, the three goals, of course, are to, number one, eliminate all existing religions, eliminate all existing nation states, and create a one world socialist totalitarian order. Those are the truly three goals. And to do that, what comes with the third goal is, of course, what they call the shackling of the mob, the enslavement of the human race. Thank you so much. I'm out of your hair. You're welcome. Good night. And you were not at all in my hair. Believe me, you just were not. Good night, folks. God bless each and every single one of you. you are not. God bless you. God bless you. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.