The End Good evening, we are listening to the Hour of the Time. I'm Dave. And I'm Michelle. William Cooper sends his greetings to the listening audience and has asked us to sit in as hosts of the show this evening. He and his family are all fine. Everyone is in good health. They're just very busy right now with many pressing responsibilities. We expect Bill to be back in the broadcaster's seat bringing you his incomparable live shows very soon. In keeping with the traditions of the Hour of the Time, Tony, would you start us off tonight? Sure. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you, dear. Tonight, ladies and gentlemen, get your pencil and paper and fasten your seatbelts. We're going to take you on a rollercoaster ride through American history and show you what has been going on right under your very eyes and explain the potential consequences to you individually in here and now. So don't go away. We'll be right back. There's something happening here What it is ain't exactly clear There's a man with a gun over there Telling me I've got to beware But this time we stop, children What's that sign? Everybody look what's going down There's battle lines being drawn Nobody's right If everybody's wrong Young people speak in their minds I get through so much resistance From behind We find we stop Hey, what's that sound? Everybody look what's going down What a field day for the heat A thousand people in the street Singing songs Singing songs And carrying sighs Mostly say Ooh, they fall aside It's time we stop Hey, what's that sound? Everybody look what's going down Paranoia strikes me Into your lives it will creep It starts when you're always afraid Step out of line The man come And take you away Hey, what's that sound? Everybody look what's going down There's battle день What's that sound? Everybody look what's going down What's that sound? Everybody look what's going down Like a field day for the heat That was for What Is Worth, a classic from the 1960s by Buffalo Springfield. And it's just as applicable today as it was 30 years ago. We'd better stop and take a look around and wake up and see what is happening in the United States today. Recently, most of us stayed up until the wee hours of the morning, sometimes until the actual crack of dawn, watching the Waco whitewash on C-SPAN. Listening through clenched teeth and gripped fists, the baloney offered by the government expert negotiators, as it described the Branch Davidians as a religious cult, and whose excuse for the entire debacle, aside from predictable, typical, and always causeless interdepartmental failure to communicate, was that they didn't speak the same religious language as the Davidians. On the morning before the Waco whitewash began, I had an opportunity to hear the tapes made between David Koresh and the hostage negotiator, where he agreed to send out his writings on the seven seals of the Book of Revelation. The comments and behavior of the government negotiator were so foolishly transparent and superficial, it was all I could do to keep from yelling at the tape. Over and over again, the negotiator told David Koresh to send out some of his followers as a sign of good faith, to make them come out and surrender to federal authorities. The negotiator was saying, Come on, David, they'll do what you say, you're the leader. You've got to send out some of these people. David Koresh vainly tried to make the official understand, but it was useless. What did the federal negotiator fail to understand? He completely refused to believe and accept that the members of the Branch Davidian Church were not mindless, brainwashed robots under the control of a dictatorial leader. He fails to acknowledge the truth that every single member of the Branch Davidian Church had freedom of will and was staying in Mount Carmel because they wanted to. But you see, the federal government's belief in the absence of freedom of will was absolutely necessary to their plan because only if the Branch Davidians were being held against their will could the government sweep down upon them to rescue them. And when it became apparent that they weren't going to be allowed to rescue the people because the Branch Davidians felt safer inside Mount Carmel than in the clutches of the federal government, they had no alternative that would allow their philosophical misjudgment of the situation to stand other than to kill the Branch Davidians and cover up their fatal mistakes. It also became necessary to purify the federal agencies by launching personal attacks on David Koresh with the complete cooperation of the national media. In order to inflame public outrage at the Branch Davidians and to garner public sympathy for the BATF and the FBI, this was accomplished initially by loudly proclaiming groundless and unproven accusations made by persons who were in disagreement with David Koresh theologically and later in the Waco whitewash by entering into the public record the testimony of 14-year-old Carrie Jewell, who has for almost four years lived in the custody of her father, a strong supporter of the Colton Awareness Network and its deprogramming procedures and behavioral modification techniques. How did it come about that a small and private religious group suddenly became a cult whose members needed to be deprogrammed and whose behavior needed to be modified? And are you aware of how this whole thing is expanding exponentially to include virtually every group which holds an opinion unlike that of the sheeple of this country? Have you not heard the many references to the Weaver support cult, the patriot cult groups, and constitutional cultists? These terms are being bandied about with complete disregard for truth, and it is because of the sensationalist atmosphere, which is somehow married to the word cult, that that particular word is appearing more and more often in political and media circles today. Knowing the language and intent of the anti-terrorism bill, which is already passed in the U.S. House of Representatives, it is not hard to see that it will be only one short step from being called a cult to being accused of terrorism. Already, it is easy to observe that in the opinion of our federal law enforcement officials, cults and members of cults are not entitled to any of the constitutional protections available to non-cult and thus normal Americans. And it is pretty easy to imagine the sort of treatment one would receive at their hands if you inadvertently graduated by their definitions from a cult group into a terrorist group. Even without any present-day manipulative legislation, the government has in the past relied on the 136-year-old court ruling of Commonwealth v. Nesbitt to justify certain federal censoring actions against religious groups. But we're getting just a little bit ahead of ourselves here. Let's back up a minute and talk about our American history. Originally, a cult was said to be a devotion to a particular religious belief, a particular form of religious worship. Today, the word cult has taken on a negative connotation and is generally said to be devotion to a particular religious belief and practice centered around false doctrine. Cults are spoken of as organized heresy. If you think back to the 1970s, when the country was swept with cult fever following the mass murders which took place in Jonestown, Vienna, and if you go back and read the hundreds of newspaper articles written about the subject of cults, you discover that much of the controversy surrounding so-called cults at that time came originally from the organized churches, not from the government. Some of the denominational groups that point a finger and shout, cults! have forgotten their own origins. How can Lutherans ignore their origin as a cult in protest of the established standards of the Roman Catholic Church? Martin Luther defied the establishment, both church and state, when he insisted that salvation is by God's grace and not by man's works. The term Lutheran was a nickname used in a derogatory sense by Roman Catholics for the cult of Luther and his followers. Later, when their number increased sufficiently, the name Lutheran was given credence and subsequently adopted. It is even worn with pride and honor to this day. During the 16th century, all Protestant groups were considered heretics and in some circles still are today. Luther was excommunicated. His followers were forbidden to shelter him and they were not permitted to read his writings. Many Lutheran ministers were hanged because of their believing in the literal accuracy of the Bible. To formulate a precise definition of a cult these days is typical. A cult is usually any group that does not fit with what everybody else has been taught to believe. What is accepted practice by one group would be labeled heresy by another. The definition of cult, then, actually has become a matter of opinion. How valid is any opinion since each person is entitled to his own? Furthermore, the first article in Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America guarantees each American citizen the right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience. It is impossible to separate the usage of the word cult from the usage of the word belief. And as we study the development of this in American history, you can see that you also cannot separate the religious cults of our American heritage from the establishment of our Republican form of government. It is extremely ironic, then, today, to see that the cult label, which originally referred only to religious beliefs, should now be transformed to include also political beliefs. The framers of our Constitution and Bill of Rights were establishing a completely secular government whose laws would never allow the creation of a state religion and whose governing bodies could never make law dictating a right and wrong way to worship. It was precisely these restrictive religious laws under a government-organized state religion that drove the early American settlers to seek religious freedom on our shores. They were the rebellious cult members protesting against what they saw as an infringement on their right to worship the God of their choice in the manner dictated by their conscience and belief. In our colonial beginnings, it is perhaps doubtful whether the self-exiled Europeans who peoples the American colonies had chosen the braver course in attempting to solve their problems by escape to the new world. But it is impossible to doubt their independence of thought, their vigor of action, and their willingness to work hard to translate their dreams into the reality of new wealth, new institutions, and new freedoms. For them, the rights of the individual were axiomatic, and self-government was a natural assumption as well as a geographic necessity. Their philosophy was based upon the Calvinistic ideas of the Puritans and the teachings of the great English theorists of the parliamentarian revolt of the 17th century, who had emphasized the importance of the individual and his union with other individuals and organizations based upon mutual consent. The Calvinism of many of the early settlers tended toward republicanism. The separatist movement that resulted in the congregationalism of New England placed further emphasis upon the local church units and the individual members, and congregationalism found its political counterpart in the New England town meeting. The followers of Roger Williams, who established both the colony of Rhode Island and the American Baptist Church, added an element of great importance to American thinking in their insistence upon complete separation of church and state and the absolute freedom of the individual to choose for himself in matters of religion. The Quakers of Pennsylvania contributed the pacifism characteristic of their faith and a deep-seated hatred of slavery that was to bear fruit in a later day. In response to the belief of the individual's right to worship the God of his choice in accordance with the dictates of his own conscience, a whole galaxy of new sects or cults sprang up in the early years of our republic. There were hard and soft-shell Baptists, United Baptists, Particular and General Baptists, Primitive and Free Will Baptists, while the Disciples of Christ, the Christian Church, and the Campbellites, the followers of Thomas and Alexander Campbell, were offshoots of the Western Baptist Church. The Presbyterians, too, had many outgrowths from its parental doctrine. The Cumberland Presbyterian Church grew out of a desire to adopt more Methodist doctrines. The New Light Presbyterians broke away into their own little cult group and later merged with the Campbellite Disciples. A convention was held in Boston early in the 1800s of the Friends of Universal Reform, usually referred to as the Charter Street Convention. This meeting was attended by members of many groups of many names. For example, the Dunkers, the Muggletonians, the Come-Outters, the Groners, the Agrarians, the Seventh-day Baptists, the Quakers, the Abolitionists, the Calvinists, the Unitarians, and the Philosophers. All came successively to the top and seized their moment, if not their power, wherein to jide or pray or preach or protest. The close union between American political faith and the individual's religious faith is shown in the infinite tolerance accorded this apparently endless multiplication of sects or cults, all of whom were offshoots from other, older, larger, more established religious groups. Politically, in the early colonial period, this solid conviction that government had no place dictating who, what, or how to worship was to receive the philosophical support of great European thinkers, which ultimately gave rise to the creation of our civil documents. Three thousand miles of sea to be traversed in colonial days only with the danger and discomfort of a long and tedious voyage caused the European individual transplanted in America to feel himself separated from his old world. He found it easy to accept the idea of natural, absolute, unrelated man who existed and had acquired property before governments were developed to make demands upon his liberty and property. Since he must combine with other colonists to meet common problems and make use of common opportunities, he accepted without question the idea that government sprang from the people and is the agent of the people. It was natural, therefore, for American political leaders to accept John Locke, the great exponent of English constitutional development, as their spokesman, the interpreter of their ideas of natural laws, individual liberties, and the right of revolution when they were oppressed by an illegitimate use of authority. Excuse me. One more time. We continue. In the mid-18th century, the teachings of French philosophers were added to this colonial heritage. The colonists found nothing in Congress with Rousseau's arguments for liberty and equality. Montesquieu's theories of the separation of powers were quite in accord with colonial ideas, for sharp divisions already existed between executive, legislative, and judicial functions, and the colonials delighted in imposing checks upon the authority of their royal governors. Later, the theory of laissez-faire struck a sympathetic chord in the people whose livelihood was dependent upon the soil or the sea, and who were irritated by the mercantilistic restrictions of an absentee imperialistic government. In short, American conditions made possible and natural the creation of institutions were more nearly in accord with the doctrines of Locke and the philosophers of France than Europe or America realized at the time. the mounting crisis in the relations between England and their colonies called forth these political ideas that had been latent in the minds of Americans, and their formulation in the Declaration of Independence was of vital importance to the new nation. The theory of the Declaration can be stated briefly. The individual existed before government and was endowed with natural rights, a part of which he delegated to government in order to protect the rest. Therefore, when governments proved unsatisfactory, the people have a right to alter or amend them. The natural rights that are the basis of all political rights were explicitly stated. All men are created equal. All have been endowed by God with certain inalienable rights of which they cannot be deprived by themselves or by another power. Among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. the Declaration impales acceptance of the idea that governmental power is derived from the consent of the governed and has no authority save that delegated to it by the people. After the Revolutionary War period and the ratification of the Constitution for the United States of America, it wasn't long before the question of the formation of a state religion was laid at the feet of the President. In 1801, the Danbury Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut heard a rumor that the Congregationalist denomination, which had been a cult offshoot of the Separatist movement, was going to be made the national denomination by the government of the United States. The Danbury Baptists wrote a letter of protest to then-President Thomas Jefferson. On January 1, 1802, Jefferson wrote back to explain that there was no basis for their fear that the government would ever establish a state religion or national denomination. He wrote, quote, the First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state. End quote. Jefferson's letter explained clearly that the First Amendment prohibits the government from creating or designating a state religion. He further explained that man accounted for his faith and his worship to God, not to the government, and that none of man's natural rights, the rights owed to God, would ever put him in opposition to or in violation of his social duties, the duties owed to the government. Jefferson's words were to be a part of the evidence introduced into many later court cases. In 1859, in Commonwealth v. Nesbitt, the court listed actions into which, if perpetrated in the name of religion, government had legitimate reason to intrude, such as human sacrifice, concubinage, incest, injury to children, the advocation and promotion of immorality, and so forth. Concerning all other orthodox religious practices, such as public prayer, the use of scriptures from sacred texts, congregating in public groups as a religious act, etc., the government was not to interfere and was strictly prohibited from doing so. In later years, the Supreme Court in 1878 heard the case of Reynolds v. United States 98, U.S. 145. In these proceedings, the court presented Jefferson's full letter into evidence and summed up the intent of Jefferson's words by saying, quote, Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere religious opinion, but was left free to reach only those religious actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order. The rightful purpose of civil government is force officers to interfere with religion only when religious principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order. In this is found the true distinction between what properly belongs to the church and what to the state. End quote. Those words of Thomas Jefferson, a wall of separation between church and state, words which do not appear even once in any of our founding civil documents have, since the 1947 case of Everson v. Board of Education 330 U.S. 1, been taken out of their context and abused. In the 1947 case, the Supreme Court ruled, quote, the First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. End quote. This court, hearing Everson v. Board of Education, did not present into evidence all of Jefferson's letter as had all of the previous courts. The evidence removed the fateful eight words from their context and deliberately did not discuss that previous Supreme Courts had used Jefferson's letter to keep religious values as a part of society. The 1947 court, for the first time, used Jefferson's metaphor completely divorced from its context and intent. And then, in 1962, on June 25th, in Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, the court redefined the meaning of the word church as it was used in Jefferson's eight-word phrase. For 160 years prior to Engel v. Vitale, the word church in the phrase a wall of separation between church and state had been clearly understood to mean a federally established state denomination. But in 1962, that definition was formally altered to mean any religious activity performed in public. You can easily perceive where this definitional change has taken us. In 1980, in Stone v. Graham, the court ruled it was unconstitutional for students in public schools to see copies of the Ten Commandments. In the published court ruling, the court wrote, quote, if the posted copies of the Ten Commandments are to have any effect at all, it will be to induce the schoolchildren to read, meditate upon, perhaps to venerate and obey the commandments, which is not a permissible objective. End quote. Not a permissible objective? This is absurd, but this is typical. Those faithful words, a wall of separation between church and state, have become the fulcrum upon which the lever is balanced, which has been used to gradually force away our rights of free religious expression, and have become the rallying cry of those who would enslave us, of those who label as cults, persons who exercise their right to be free from a state religion, and who actively and freely worship the God of their choice in the manner they so desire. Over the last 30 years, over 6,000 court cases have been filed which challenge religious expression in public, and of course, dramatic societal changes have resulted. It is interesting to recall that both George Washington and Fisher Ames, who was the writer of the language of the First Amendment, said that morality cannot be maintained without religious values. And so the question arises, if the courts are opposed to the maintenance of religious values in society, and if morality cannot be maintained without them, and if overwhelming crime, violent and otherwise, is the result, how do they propose to bring about their version of morality to keep us all in line? In this situation, the only solution which can come from the mind of man is for man to become God and rule by force. What has been created by these absurd court rulings is the justification for the police state under which we now live. It is only a matter of time until the visibility of the police state and the restrictive legislation which will further empower the force of the police state becomes so obvious that even the sheeple will not be able to avoid seeing the truth. And as the term cult member becomes more and more synonymous in political circles, with the term terrorist, there is much more about which we should be concerned today, tonight, and if we are to avoid the political bondage which will surely result in the deterioration of our religious rights, the issue and choice before us is liberty or slavery. Would you like to be a slave? Think about it. We'll be right back. Stay with us. We'll be right back. Have someone to tell you how to behave? Would you like to be a slave? Would you like to know that you don't want to? Would you like to do a job you don't want to do? Never know the better you can stand up to. If you'd like to be a slave. Would you like to be a slave? I can promise you they don't like you down my road and they don't like you to follow high road if you'd like to be a slave. If you'd like to be a slave. They say they say they say they say you can't have a slave. Just leave it to us and you have nothing to fear. But as I remember, as I recall, that's what they said in Vietnam. If all this is to give the pain, there's someone who hopes for you fun. If all your seasons and your house in the sun, if you're drowning high, you're in the sun. If you're right to be a slave, well, the process has now fully begun. It's time to see your people give up and run. Just blow up the suicide, give up your gun. And then we can all be saved. 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. 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. Bye. We're back to you. We're back to you. Thank you. and the time that we actually closed the sale about two months later, interest rates had climbed from 8% to 11.25%. The selling price on that little starter home was only $25,000, but we calculated that over the 30-year life of the mortgage, we would pay over $90,000 for the real estate. That was one of the more sobering moments in our financial lives. Have you seriously considered what you would do, what would become of your family, of your life as you know it, if tomorrow morning you had to become totally financially liquid to retire every debt you had in order to save your life? Could you do it? Without your home and your car, what are you worth monetarily? What would you sell? And if the entire country was in the same situation, who would buy what you had to sell? Would anyone want those two VCRs, the vast collection of CDs, the Pennsylvania house furniture, the antiques or rare works of art, the designer clothes or the imported gourmet cheese? Well, I might keep the cheese, but would you suddenly find yourself in the unenviable position of being worth more dead than alive simply because of your life insurance policy? And what insurance company would or could pay out policy values to beneficiaries in a time of national economic collapse? Do you see now the kind of slavery that I'm talking about? If you haven't put at least a portion of your assets into some form of precious metals, you may someday find yourself burning that furniture for home heating. And if you still have a home or putting in a full day's hard labor just to earn the evening meal for your family. One of the basic beliefs held by my family is that God will provide for us and that God makes a way where there is no way. We also believe that God gave every human being intelligence and reasoning capacity and that he expects us to use that intelligence to the best of our ability to live our lives in service. It is a fool who can see trouble coming yet does not prepare for it. So, spend some time thinking about the preparations you should make for the inevitable and for the unexpected. If you're not sure yet, what to do or how you want to do it, just give Gene Miller a call. He'll be glad to talk to you and can teach you about precious metals and asset protection. He can make suggestions or he can help you implement any type of precious metals savings plan that you might think is best for your situation. We probably talked with Gene Miller three or four times before we actually decided what we wanted to do. So, don't hesitate to call just because you think you're not ready. Make that call anyway. They'll be glad to talk to you and help you in any way they can. call Swiss America Trading right now. Don't put it off any longer. You know you've been thinking about it and you know you've heard William Cooper talk about it over and over again. The time has come to get off your rear end and make that important phone call. And be sure to ask for the educational newsletters that are free to listeners of the Hour of the Time. Just mention William Cooper's name and you'll get VIP treatment every time. Guaranteed. Michelle, why don't you give us the phone number. I'll be glad to, Dave. Call Gene Miller at Swiss America Trading. 1-800-289-2646. That's 1-800-289-2646. Now for those of you who just now found a pen that were really right, I'll repeat that number once again. Call Gene Miller at Swiss America Trading. The number is 1-800-289-2646. Call tonight, folks. Take that important first step in protecting your assets before all that you have left are the faded photographs of the life you used to enjoy. Swiss America Trading. 2N300-3319-33. ... UConnor Whataph A time it was, and what a time it was, it was A time of innocence A time of confidence Long ago it must be I have a photograph Preserve your memories They're all that's left you Tonight's broadcast of the Hour of the Time has been prepared from the research of members of the Intelligence Service and the Citizens Agency for Joint Intelligence, and it references the following works which you may wish to access yourself in your own studies. Leading Constitutional Decisions, 13th edition by Robert E. and Robert F. Cushman. Taking Sides, Clashing Views on Controversial Educational Issues, 7th edition, edited by James William Knoll. What is a Cult? by Linnell Johnson, published in The Way magazine, May, June, 1977. Behold the Pale Horse by William Cooper. Education and the Founding Fathers by David Barton. And Freedom's Ferment by Alice Felt Tyler. Well, let's back up a little bit and review briefly some of the more important cases in this issue of the separation of church and state, and look more closely at how this has been one of the open doors for the totalitarian police state under which we are now living. In 1878, the case of Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, reached the unavoidable conclusion that the religious liberty protected by the First Amendment does not include the right to commit immoral or criminal acts, even though these are sanctioned by religious doctrine. Thus, Reynolds, a Mormon in the territory of Utah, was held convicted of the crime of polygamy in spite of the fact that the Mormon religion held polygamy to be proper and desirable. In the first 150 years of our republic, Supreme Court cases involving religious liberty were rare because the First Amendment, which protects freedom of religion, applied only to Congress and not to the states. Congress had little opportunity and less inclination to violate the First Amendment, and what the states did by way of dealing with religious matters was their own business so far as the federal constitution was concerned. By the 1930s, this situation began to change, and the Supreme Court has now long held that freedom of religion in the First Amendment, like freedom of speech and press, as part of the liberty, which the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids the states to abridge. A most spectacular case of religious liberty was raised by the Jehovah's Witnesses in Minersville School District v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586, 1940. The Witnesses refused to salute the flag or permit their children to do so because they believed this violates the first of the Ten Commandments, Thou shalt have no other gods before me. This refusal caused bitter resentment, and some 17 states passed statutes requiring all schoolchildren to salute the flag and provided for the expulsion of those who refused. The question of whether these statutes unconstitutionally restricted freedom of religion came to the court in this case, with one judge dissenting. The court held that they did not. In an opinion by Justice Frankfurter, it was stated that freedom of religion is not an absolute, and that some compromises may be necessary in order to secure the national unity, which is the basis of national security. The court decided that the Minersville School Board was more confident than they to settle the flag salute issue. This decision came as a shock and was widely and sharply criticized. In February 1943, when Mr. Justice Rutledge replaced Justice Burns on the bench, he joined with Justices Black, Douglas, Murphy, and Stone to overrule the Minersville case by the decision in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnett, 319 U.S. 624, 1943. The flag statute requirement was then established as a violation of free religious expression, and the Jehovah's Witnesses were released from any penalties for failing to do so on religious crowns. In 1952, the Supreme Court ruled on Doramas v. Board of Education, 342 U.S. 429. Doramas, a taxpayer, challenged the validity of a New Jersey statute which required the reading, without comment, of five verses from the Old Testament at the opening of each school day. He alleged that this involved the unconstitutional use of state funds and sought to enjoin its continuance. The state upheld the act. The Supreme Court refused jurisdiction on the ground that the taxpayer was not shown to be out-of-pocket any funds because of the reading of Old Testament Scripture. In a 1961 case, Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 1961, the Constitution of Maryland provided that no religious test for public office could be required, quote, other than a declaration or belief in the existence of God, end quote. Torcaso was appointed to the office of no republic in Maryland, but was refused his commission to the office because he would not declare his belief in God. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held that the Maryland religious test for public office unconstitutionally invades the freedom of religion and could not be enforced against him, end quote. Which brings us to the all-important case, Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S., 421, 8 LED, 2nd 601, 82 Supreme Court, 1261, 1962. Mr. Justice Black delivered the opinion of the court. The Board of Education of Union Free School District No. 9, New Hyde Park, New York, directed the school district's principal to cause the following prayer to be said aloud by each class at the beginning of each school day, quote, Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our country, end quote. The State Board of Regents of New York had composed the prayer. Shortly after the practice of reciting the regent's prayer was adopted by the school district, the parents of ten peoples brought action in a New York state court, insisting the use of this official prayer in public schools was contrary to the beliefs, religions, or religious practices of both themselves and their children. They challenged the constitutionality of the state law authorizing the school district to direct the use of prayer and the school district's regulation ordering the recitation of the prayer on the ground that these actions of official governmental agencies violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The New York Court of Appeals upheld the power of New York to use the regent's prayer, so long as the schools did not compel any pupils to join in the prayer. The court agreed with the dissenting parents that the constitutional wall of separation between church and state had been breached because the Constitution directs that it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government. One dissenting opinion rendered by Mr. Justice Stewart detailed a listing of instances in which God has been or is mentioned in official ceremonies or speeches, including the third stanza of the Star-Spangled Banner. At the close of his opinion, Mr. Justice Stewart wrote, I do not believe that this court or the Congress or the President has, by the actions and practices I have mentioned, established an official religion in violation of the Constitution, and I do not believe the state of New York has done so in this case. What each has done has been to recognize and to follow the deeply entrenched and highly cherished spiritual traditions of our nation, traditions which come down to us from those who almost 200 years ago about their firm reliance on the protection of divine providence when they proclaimed the freedom and independence of this brave new world. I dissent. End quote. What Mr. Justice Stewart failed to call to remembrance was that in Emerson v. Board of Education in 1947, oops, sorry, that's Eberson v. Board of Education in 1947, some 15 years previously, the definition of church had been formally altered. It no longer meant an established state church or national religion, but now legally meant any religious act performed in public. We must still address how these rulings on religious freedom act to promote the establishment and empowerment of the socialist totalitarian police state in the United States of America. I refer you to William Cooper's best-selling book, Behold a Pale Horse, and the chapter entitled Anatomy of an Alliance. In order to bring about the new world order, which will manifest itself as a global socialist totalitarian police state, two things have to happen. First, the general populace of the world must be threatened with extinction and experience such overwhelming fear as to beg for slavery in exchange for life, no matter what kind of life that is. And secondly, in order to bring the world population down to a manageable level, as there will be far fewer ruling elitists than there will be slaves, it is necessary that either the birth rate decrease or the death rate increase. The plan to reduce worldwide birth rates was not uniformly globally successful because of individual freedom, religion, social constraints, and succumbing to the heat of the moment. Zero population growth became a reality in some areas, while the population increased rapidly in others. The only alternative left to the world's ruling elite was to increase the death rate. The introduction of the AIDS virus into the United States population between 1978 and 1981 by way of the hepatitis B vaccine trials conducted by the Centers for Disease Control ensured that the death rate would increase as desired by the ruling elite. The perceived security provided by birth control pills, the resulting rise in sexual activity because of the pill, the absence of the teaching of moral constraints on sexual activity, coupled with the appearance of this fatal disease, which spread primarily by way of mucus secretions, guaranteed a level of terror and an increase in the death rate associated with sexual intercourse. And, of course, the public demanded that more and more money be poured into the search for a cure when, in fact, the cure for the AIDS virus already exists. In that regard, it is interesting to note that since the 1962 Supreme Court ruling in Engel v. Vittal, which prohibited any religious expression of any sort in the public schools, some shocking but not surprising things have occurred statistically. Between 1962 and 1990, the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases in students between the ages of 15 and 19 rose 250 percent. The incidence of premarital sexual activity among 15-year-olds rose 1,000 percent. The occurrences of gonorrhea in students between the ages of 10 and 14 rose 257 percent. Pregnancies in teenagers between the ages of 15 and 19 rose 555 percent. In the same 28-year period, the national divorce rate rose 117 percent. In addition, incidents of violent crime rose 794 percent. These increases were not gradual. All of the statistical rates, which had been fairly level in previous years, jumped remarkably upward from 1962 to the present date. The National Security Council's ad hoc group on population policy, established in 1975 by Henry Kissinger, under its planning staff in the State Department's Office of Population Affairs, released its Global 2000 Report to the President, which made the plan clear in no uncertain terms. I quote Thomas Ferguson, the Latin American case officer for the OPA. He said, quote, There is a single theme behind all our work. We must reduce population levels. Population is a political problem. Once population is out of control, it requires authoritarian government, even fascism, to reduce it. End quote. To reduce population quickly, Ferguson said, you have to put all the males into the fighting and kill significant numbers of fertile, childbearing age females. It has not been good enough to kill us off with disease, radioactive tailings in tobacco, malathion, dioxin, nuclear toxic waste, and chemical and biological warfare products deliberately introduced into high population areas. These elitists are on a fast track mission, and if they can't increase the death rate fast enough by external and artificial means, perhaps we can unsuspectingly be induced to do it to ourselves. With a 794% rise in violent crime because of the absence of moral guidelines which dictate and instruct self-control and tolerance, we have become a society bent on self-destruction, playing right into the hands of those who would enslave us. It is no accident, no coincidence, and no simple mistake that as a result of recent events, most notably the bombing in Oklahoma City of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, that suddenly certain adjectives have begun to appear in conjunction with specific groups. Suddenly, those who are politically conservative are called extremists. Mainstream Christians are seen as fundamentalists, fundamentalist Christians are seen as reactionary, reactionary Christians are seen as separatists, and identity Christians are viewed as cults. Patriots of the Jewish faith are termed radical, patriots of the Catholic faith are termed heretical separatists, patriots of the Muslim faith are termed dangerously fundamentalists, and patriots of the Christian faith are termed right-wing extremists. All of us, no matter what our personal belief, have already been lumped together in that cult category, and will soon be renamed terrorists. We have tried to demonstrate here tonight the connection between Supreme Court decisions of almost 50 years ago and the ultimate plan of world's domination by a handful of power-driven self-worshippers. The connection is there. It is important to note that on July 13, 1995, President Bill Clinton, while in one breath encouraging all children to spend time in religious training, simultaneously stated that he intended to send written guidance to all the public schools in the country telling them what forms of religious expression would be allowed. Do you really believe that any governmental ruling about allowable religious expression is going to restore morality to the United States? Under the Supreme Court's prevailing definition of church, it cannot do so. Additionally, to enact law which would allow anything to change, which might increase the numbers, degree of activism, or depth of belief in any religious doctrine which promotes any god other than man himself, cannot be tolerated by the powerful elite. If they do not become god, they cannot rule over us. If the anti-terrorism bill passes the Senate and becomes law, you can be certain the teaching of religious doctrines will be defined in the least case as child abuse and at the worst as terrorism. You must take a stand for what you believe. You must know what you believe and why you believe it. You must be steadfast and unmovable in your religious faith. Our government is very much out of control and we have become the enemy. Our government has become the charging, raging bull in the public arena and each one of us stands before it with our God. Never succumb to pressures or pleasures of any kind which might induce you to turn your back for an instant on that wild and rampant danger. Do not allow the debilitating splintering of racism, denominationalism, radicalism, or separatism to reduce our ranks and deplete our strength of numbers. We must stand unified together in the guaranteed liberty that we have to worship freely, to take any course of action other than unified believing places each of us alone with our back to the Charged Bull. Good night. And God bless each and every one of you. the Charged Bull. All Come on, Mama, for kids you'll fight and faith they won't get cold. And turn your eyes to the bloodshot sky, your flag is flying cold. At half-pass for the matadors who turned their backs to appease the crowd and all fell before the bull. Red was the color of his blood for him. How of white was the color of his bright-y skin. Blue was the love one of the stars and saw him down the peak of the ground where he died and was the last thing ever seen by him. He is all in w of the night. He would be in the Mama, mama, forget your cries, and they say won't let go. And turn your eyes from the bloodshot sky, you're a lag in the white hole. At half-assed for the matadors who turned their eyes to gaze the ground. And all fell before the whole. Black and white were the figures that recorded. Black and white was the new that he was mentioned. Black and white was the question that so bothered him. Never asked, he was taught not to ask what was on his lips as they buried him. Black, the wind with my hands on his feet. Black and white were the ones that were on the white hole. Black and white were the ones that were on the white hole. Ladies and gentlemen, there is a common bond between all Americans. Regardless of race, religion, or place of ancestral origin, it is freedom. And this is the Voice of Freedom. Black and white were the ones that were on the white hole. White was the one who worked. If any of this deficiency was Jay the one that was on the white hole. Simplely brought back to work and seeing her dansvames. Black in the white hole. REACCUS di beat Randy will for onewise. For more Mmmm.stores. Last exception is Harry May而已. 67 87 K Sympden ofendi had given us a share of the new art. We environments where policy andfaith William is ayor친 almarm. But he offers the opportunity to do. Family loves the public remember.ỗi莫BLE Nossa Institute as a Atty بiblia. She followed us in the police breastfeed. We learned about a жизнь to get through the SIPSे. sewing about a peace actually released over time. We spent the same time doing well. The Worldwide Freedom Radio Network with studios in Eager, Arizona transmitting on satellite GE1, transponder 7, 7.56 audio and over 700 FM stations across the nation and around the world. Stay tuned now for Michael Cottingham with Quest for Health. Welcome to the Worldwide Freedom Radio Network. Thank you.