About
Community
Bad Ideas
Drugs
Ego
Erotica
Fringe
Society
Politics
Anarchism
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
Corporatarchy - Rule by the Corporations
Economic Documents
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
Foreign Military & Intelligence Agencies
Green Planet
International Banking / Money Laundering
Libertarianism
National Security Agency (NSA)
Police State
Political Documents
Political Spew
Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Terrorists and Freedom Fighters
The Nixon Project
The World Beyond the U.S.A.
U.S. Military
Technology
register | bbs | search | rss | faq | about
meet up | add to del.icio.us | digg it

The Silent Revolution of Federal Regionalism - Part 1



Committee to Restore the Constitution r

------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Silent Revolution of Federal Regionalism - A Solution
Part 1
The Council of State Governments

------------------------------------------------------------------------

A Pivotal Date in the 39 Year History of the Regional Movement

Representative Walter Meyer of Missouri, Vice Chairman,
Midwestern Conference Committee on Government Operations and
Urban Affairs, Council of State Governments, Chicago, invited
Colonel Roberts, Director, Committee to Restore the Constitution,
Colorado, to address the Committee's Midwestern Conference, 19
April 1974, at the Sheraton-O'Hare North.

Seventeen influential State Senators and Representatives from
twelve Midwestern States, three regionalism promoters, one retired
Army Colonel, and one journalist met in a small room at the
Sheraton Hotel in Chicago, April 19, 1974. If a history of the 39
year old regionalism movement is ever written, this date will be
identified as being of pivotal importance.

The occasion was a meeting of the Government Operations and
Urban Affairs Committee of the Midwestern Conference of the
Council of State Governments, an adjunct of the "1313" Public
Administration Clearing House.

The subject of the afternoon: Regionalism.

The meeting was the first manifestation of a new policy adopted by
the NARC (National Association of Regional Councils) at their
Los Angeles Convention March 9-13. In our March 25 edition, the
Sunbeam interviewed Mr. James Dowden, Deputy Director of
NARC. Mr. Dowden stated that the general pattern of regionalism
promotion would change in 1974 in recognition of the fact that the
"game is shifting to the States". Attention will be given to "beefing-
up" the State regional relationship, he said, so when federal
legislation is finally released the State regional unit will be
prepared to receive and implement it.

It is no coincidence that 1313's Council of State Governments
should first reflect NARC's change in strategy since NARC, under
its former name of National Service to Regional Councils, was also
a satellite of "1313".

The April 19th program contrasted markedly with previous
regionalism indoctrination sessions simply because a speaker for
the opposition was invited to state his viewpoint. Colonel
Archibald E. Roberts, Director of the Committee to Restore the
Constitution, shared the billing with one regional planner, and two
regional bureaucrats.

Beginning at 1:30 p.m., the meeting ran until nearly 5 p.m. The
temperature rose steadily in the small, poorly ventilated room as the
debate intensified and legislators from other Council of State
Government Committees forsook their scheduled meetings and
crowded into the Governmental Operations room. Eventually
legislators were seated two-deep around much of the table, in the
anteroom adjoining the meeting place, in the doorway, and out into
the hall.

The reason for their interest is simply explained: there has never
been a discussion of regionalism such as that which occurred on
the afternoon of April 19, 1974, and the majority of legislators
present were obviously hungry for information concerning this new
phenomenon which, they were belatedly realizing, was
transforming the structure of State, as well as County, Municipal
and Federal government.


One of Ten
Mr. Norman Erbe, former Governor of the State of Iowa, and
appointed Chairman of the Federal Regional Council of Region V.
(Minnesota, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana, and Ohio -
federal capitol - Chicago) was the first speaker.

His presentation was surprising in that it was the most basic of
primers regarding regionalism, even to the point of explaining to
one of the legislators which region included his state. It was
obvious from Mr. Erbe's speech that he did not consider the
legislators to be familiar with the issue.


Power to the People?
The second speaker, Mr. Gerald Chistenson, a Minnesota State
Planner, is recognized as having advanced the cause of regionalism
substantially in that state. He discussed regionalism on the sub-
state level.

The questioning following Mr. Christenson's presentation was
prolonged and hostile. His thesis, that regionalism was an
important lever to be used to personalize big government and return
the power to the people, was repeatedly challenged by legislators
who stated that the facts of the regionalism movement belie his
theory. Before the session was complete, and despite Mr.
Christenson's untenable apologia, regionalism was identified as the
"disease of which it fancies itself the cure".


An Interlude
Third on the agenda was Ms. Dianne Semingson, "Special
Assistant to Regional Administrator for Regional Council Affairs,
Region V HUD".

Somewhat out of step with the general tenor of the meeting, Ms.
Semingson presented a speech concerning three separate versions
of the Better Communities Development Act soon to be considered,
or reconsidered by Congress. Poorly organized, and too technical
in nature to be comprehensible in an oral report, her speech was
essentially an interlude between discussions, of fundamental
issues.


The Fourth Speaker
Throughout the afternoon the State legislators had expressed deep
concern, in some cases quite dramatically, with the progress of
regionalism.

The fourth speaker, Colonel Arch E. Roberts (retired), summarized
and amplified their protests in a direct, hard-hitting attack against
regionalism, and the "political con-men" who promote it under the
guise of strengthening local elected officials.

Col. Roberts introduced and substantiated three ideas: 1)
regionalism is blatantly unconstitutional; 2) regionalism is the
product of a master plan designed by an elite conspiracy for the
purpose of centralizing power and establishing the United States as
a corporate state; and 3) the Rockefeller family is deeply involved
in said conspiracy.

As the sun slanted low through the windows the meeting
adjourned, and it was obvious that regionalism had been subjected
to a test such as it had never before been forced to endure: the test
of exposure and open debate between those familiar with the
product in actual fact, not theory.

Regionalism flunked the test.

State legislators from throughout the Midwest had been assembled
in order to be informed, by the proper authorities, of what the
future would hold. Instead, the legislators spoke, and through their
statements made it quite clear that the battle, rather than being over,
has simply not begun.


Verbatum
For those of our readers who wish to experience the action of April
19, 1974, in a more direct form, we have transcribed below
pertinent excerpts from the Chicago meeting. Verbatum quotations
are printed as indented blocks.

Mr. Norman Erbe introducing his speech and, in effect, explaining
the reason for the program.

ERBE: Frankly, as far as the FRC [Federal Regional Council] is
concerned, we have felt that there has been a gap in our input and
information, dissemination and assistance with respect to the
legislative bodies. In fact we just received a letter yesterday from
the - one of the legislators from Illinois - who gave us a real hard
time because we had not been relating with the legislature. We
wrote him back and said that we were extremely sorry that we
hadn't been able to relate with the legislature but we just haven't
been able to do it yet.

I hope that today is the beginning of a new day, with the FRC
relating with, and being responsive to members of the legislative
bodies because I feel that you gentlemen and ladies have a big stake
in federal programs.


Mr. Erbe then explained, in the most general terms, what federal-
regionalism is and the federal actions upon which it is based.

A question and answer session followed the former Governor's
comments:

MISSOURI LEGISLATOR: Governor, why have these regions been
set up above the legislature? There is no input. There is no
correlation between these regional governments and the legislature.
It's done through the Governor's office. All we know about it is the
appropriations. Give you the money. That's the only contact we
have with you.

ERBE: That's our problem. That's why we'd like to relate with you.

MISSOURI LEGISLATOR: This is my whole problem. This is why
I'm here. These creatures are created without any input, without
direct representation from the people.

ERBE: Well, this is not a representative body.

MISSOURI: Well you better believe it. That's what I'm concerned
about.

ERBE: We represent - we are the field organization, or field arm of
the Secretary's Office [Secretary of HUD, OEO, EPA, etc.] in each
case, and it was set up to hopefully - you folks, or those who you
serve won't have to go to Washington to get answers to your
questions. Go to Kansas City and get your answers there.

MISSOURI: Yes, but this is the problem. You say they can go to
Kansas City but the legislature can't even go to Kansas City
because they don't even know what is the real set-up.


Mr. Gerald Christenson, a Minnesota State Planner decrying the
fragmentation of government today, and seeking a plan for
"comprehensive government":

CHRISTENSON: And really sometimes, with all the variety of
federal, state, and local programs you wonder if sometimes things
are just going to stop working. It's so terribly complex, and
sometimes these programs are working at cross purposes ...

We're in a losing battle. Government is becoming more fragmented
all the time ...

We think that the regional thing gives us the opportunity to allow
local officials to finally get a handle on this integrated approach to
government ... What we've got to do is strengthen the hold of the
elected officials ...

The weakness, I think, is there has been the fragmentation of local
government. Now with those twelve state regions working together
[Minnesota sub-state regions] adequate staff - I think we have a
chance to get at a more comprehensive approach ...

I've had a number of state legislators, a couple of them elected in
opposition to regional government, come up to me and say we're on
the right track. I opposed it. I was wrong. This is the way to go.

I think the key to this is they've got to see it not as a way of taking
away power from the local government, but enhancing [it].


A question and answer period followed the planner's statements:

OHIO: Where does resident participation enter into this picture at
all, or does it enter into the picture? This is the thing I'm concerned
about ... For the first time the people are saying: Hey! We want to
be a part of this action ... Where do they fit into your scheme?

CHRISTENSON: I would place major thrust upon making the
political system work and giving them, the elected officials, the
kind of staff they need ... When it comes to operation we'll have a
strong role for County Commissioners. There will be a role for
citizen participation, but it will be under the umbrella of those
elected officials who make up the regional development
commission.

OHIO: I agree with what you're saying, but you say under the
umbrella. Where under the umbrella? This is what bothers me.

MISSOURI: It bothers everyone.

CHRISTENSON: We're moving cautiously on this thing. I don't
think that any of us know where it's going to end up.

IOWA: The thing which I disagree with is ... this idea of more and
more staff, because, as far as I'm concerned, it takes more away
from the people themselves ... I think it's one of the big problems
with the Congress. They've got so _____ much staff ...

Then when I see Regionalism coming ... Our kids right now in the
schools, as far as I'm concerned, are being almost brainwashed into
a regional concept. They came out in their "Weekly Reader" with an
idea of doing away with the State government, and going into
regionalism. And we won't have a State of Iowa. Our daughter came
home from school with something that we of Storm Lake - which is
Northwest Iowa - part of a new - what they're going to call a Plains
State. And I see this coming throughout, this breakdown of
government ...

And we've got this regional planning, and as far as I'm concerned,
and I'm being very sincere, they're doing their level best to do away
with county government and put it on a regional basis ...

I really believe that we're going away from the people. Whereas
you're telling a story that's making local government more
responsive, I say I disagree - I totally disagree because we're putting
too much emphasis on staff ... instead of having the elected people
be what I consider the Board of Directors. Obviously I'm in total -
basically total disagreement with what's going on.

CHRISTENSON: I could agree with part of your sentiments, but I
guess I disagree with the solution you've got ... David Broger is, I
think, one of the best political writers in this country. He had a
column back in December ... he concluded by saying, the mood of
the country, the disgust of the people with their government is so
strong, that there is a climate for a demagogue to move in, and I
really believe that people - poll after poll shows - that people just
don't trust their government. It's not responsive. They don't think it's
working. Now why in the world would we continue down that
track?

IOWA: I agree! But the thing you're getting to is this. You're not
making less government, you're making more government, and that's
exactly what the people are afraid of and they have every right to be
afraid of - more ____ government!

CHRISTENSON: Listen! I'm with you when it comes to faceless
bureaucrats running things, and that's exactly what I'm after. What
I've been saying is ____

OHIO: Oh no. But see -

CHRISTENSON: But the fact is - let me just - really - I've worked
at the federal level, I've worked at the state level, and I've worked at
the local level, and I'm absolutely convinced that today the
functional experts are tending to run things. Congress passes a bill,
whether it's a housing bill, or a transportation bill, or whatever -

OHIO: O.K. but answer me one question at this point, Jerry. Who
the ____ drew the bill? Staff! That's who drew it, and that's the
problem! ...

...and they give it all to the staff. The staff wrote, we vote it, and I
guarantee they don't know what they're voting on. If they did, they
would never have voted OSHA [Occupational Safety and Health
Act].

CHRISTENSON: Let me take that one step beyond. See I think a
lot of power goes to the officials ... Congress passes a bill, then
they turn it over to a department, HEW [Health, Education, and
Welfare] or Labor or whatever, to administer, and those rules and
regulations are written, and the law is administered. You've got to
meet the federal law, but there are a lot of ways to meet that intent
of Congress. What I'm contending is that too much power is in the
hands of those faceless bureaucrats.

OHIO: ... the exception to what you're saying is that the bills are
not properly drawn in that we give all the authority to the
bureaucrats who wrote the ____ rules.

The Congress is spending too much time on every little thing and
they're letting staff do the work, and I'm scared to death of staff.

MISSOURI: Jerry, bear with me, but you speak just like a planner.
That's your job. But this is a government of the people and by the
people. The people are left out in every one of these plans.

We got a COG [Council of Governments] that you proposed for our
metropolitan area - your staff did - but there's no place in there for
the people. That's what's wrong with these plans. The people are
not involved in the thing.

A real problem might be that you might think this is the greatest
thing for them, but if you want to go back and lose our democratic
form of government, let's go to a dictator. Then he says this, and
this, and this shall be done! That's the most effective form of
government we have! But we are a democracy! And as long as you
think those little cities don't mean a ____ hill of beans - but the
people think they mean something though. They voted for them.
They support them. They're paying for them ...

Why not have ten states! What the ____! They're more effective.
They should cost less. Why not have ten big super-governments
running? Why fifty states? We don't need them. They can't plan
properly. They can't coordinate properly. Why do we need Iowa?
Why do we need Missouri? Let's put them all together. Let's form
an industrial state.

What you're saying is ... that bigness is efficiency. Our federal
government should be the most efficient organization in this world.
Yet I just read in Virginia we built a 520 million dollar regional
transportation system - we got to spend two million to blow it up!
They don't know what to do with it ...

We just spent in the City of St. Louis - about two or three years
ago, a program to get the minorities out to McDonald to work ...
Do you know the money it cost they could have sent the people in
taxicabs, and paid for it? Taxicabs to work every day.

They paid a man $17,000 that HUD said to get out door-to-door to
get the minorities to ride the bus. That was a ____ of a job for two
years, to go door-to-door.

CHRISTENSON: I just must say I think you're completely
misinterpreting what I'm saying. I am not for power to planners. I'm
for decreasing the power of bureaucrats, and I'm for strengthening
the power of elected officials at every level, and that's what I'm
saying.

MISSOURI: I don't understand. You lost all of us.

OHIO: But then you didn't count the people in.

MISSOURI: Are the people going to vote for this?

IOWA: There's an organization called Midwest Research in Kansas
City. Nobody knows a ____ thing about it. I don't. I tried to find
things but I can't But here's the interesting thing. They established
an Iowa Center for Regional Progress which is a branch of Midwest
Research. Now these people are planners - they just kind of move
in and out. You just don't know where the ____ they are except
they're on every interim committee we've got - somebody from the
Iowa Center for Regional Progress and these planners funneling all
of the information, and all of a sudden it's a group of planners who
are putting all the input in, all of the ideas, and it scares me. It
really does.

CHRISTENSON: It does me too, and I don't want it.

MISSOURI: But that's exactly what's happening!

I've been attending this, they call it SLACOG [St. Louis Area
Council of Governments.]. I call it SLYCOG. They're trying to put
it over - they didn't want a hearing, they didn't want it exposed to
the people ... The legislature didn't have any input.

The only reason that I could be there - we have an open meeting law
and I stick my nose in every ____ meeting. They just detest it that
I'm there, but I'm going to be [at] as many as I can find out.

He, [the top state planner], said: We had a bill for SLYCOG to
implement it, and then there's a little catch-all phrase at the bottom.
What we don't cover in the bill, the rules and regulations of the
Community Affairs [State Planning agency] will solve the
problems.

OHIO: That's it exactly.

MISSOURI: And he says we've got to have it.

So, you mean you've got to get a bill ninety pages long to try to
cover all of the sneaky things they're going to do ahead of time ...
This is where the bureaucrats come in, Jer. They run the whole
thing. The little citizen can't get past the secretary at the door.

CHRISTENSON: And you want to keep it that way!

MISSOURI: No! You tell me how not [to].

CHRISTENSON: We're trying.

IOWA (2): We have problems in Iowa the same way. My district is
primarily working people ... There is the Office of Programming
and Planning. My people call it the Office of Political Patronage.
That's what they think.

IOWA (1): Isn't it?

IOWA (2): Do you agree with me then?

IOWA (1): That thing went from six years ago ... we started with
ten people. What have we got, ninety or a hundred now? Nobody
knows who's over there! We don't even have them represented in the
state complex, yet they're putting all the input in.

MISSOURI: The only time we hear from them is when we cut the
budget.


The following are excerpts from Col. Roberts prepared statement:

The first step is to create the problem. The second step is to
generate opposition to the problem (fear, panic, hysteria). The third
step is to offer THE solution to the problem - change which would
have been impossible to impose on the people without the proper
psychological conditioning achieved by stages one and two.

The objective of the resulting economic, social, and political
convulsion is the establishing of regional government throughout
the land.

"The Federal Regionalism Concept" seeks to dissolve county and
state governments, transfer political power to a central authority in
Washington, administer the affairs of U.S. citizens through a
network of federal regions and state planning districts, seize
control of the land and production facilities, change the form of
government from one of elected officials to one of appointed
controllers, and reduce Americans to the status of economic serfs
on the land which once was theirs.

"The Federal Regionalism Concept," however, has a feature which
is never questioned by the press, by elected officials, or by the
people. That flaw is this:

The Federal Regionalism Concept is unconstitutional!

Let us consider the events of March, 1969.

The White House, on 27 March, 1969, announced that the United
States had been divided into ten federal regions by presidential
proclamation. In so doing, Nixon and his controllers set in motion
a series of pre-planned events which would, by 12, February, 1972,
place virtually every facet of the lives of U.S. citizens under the
domination of socialist planners.

In addition to its inherent immorality, the merging of sovereign
states by executive order is, of course, a violation of paragraph 1,
Section 3, Article IV, United States Constitution.

Such transformation of our republican, elective form of government
to an appointed, federal form of government, is a gross violation of
Section 4, Article IV, U.S. Constitution ...

The most cursory examination of "The Federal Regionalism
Concept" reveals its unconstitutionality, and its flouting of the
most basic freedoms guaranteed to the people by the Constitution.

It is quite clear that individuals, both public and private, who
promote or otherwise participate in the conspiracy known as "The
Federal Regionalism Concept" are in violation of Section 2384,
Title 18, United States Code, and must be held to answer for such
crimes by the people and by the elected officials who represent the
people.

Today, our Constitution is dismantled, our heritage denied, and our
destiny turned to dust.

The stark truth is that America is passing from a constitutional
republic to a totalitarian, corporate state.

The mission of all conscientious citizens should be to inspire
corrective action by the respective state legislatures, to challenge
usurpation of constitutional authority, and begin the task of
reversing the mindless march toward dictatorship.

Nothing less than the survival of the American civilization is at
stake.


A question and answer session followed the Colonel's presentation:



MISSOURI: You cite all the problems, and I think we, as
legislators, see some of these problems. What is your answer? ...
My only answer is for the states to assume more of the
responsibility, instead of letting somebody else do it. We're great
for that. And then it comes back and returns to haunt us because we
didn't take the time to worry about the program.

ROBERTS: Precisely. Representative, I think this might be
capsulated by pointing out that the three agencies of the federal
government were created by the states in the first three Articles of
the Constitution. Therefore the states are the principle in the
Constitutional contract, and the agencies of the federal government
are therefore, in fact, agents of the states. We have come to a
reversal of roles, unfortunately, and the only way this can be
corrected is by corrective action of the state government. In other
words by challenging the illegal actions, the unconstitutional
actions of the federal agents.

An example: Public Law 90577 by the Congress of the United
States is an alleged law, it is not a true statute ... because it is in
violation of the Constitution. It purports to transfer law-making
powers from the Congress to the President who, in turn, transfers
this power down to his grant-making agencies in the federal
regions. This is, of course, in violation of the Constitution which
separates the three agents of government and states that no power
may overlap. And the mere fact that it is permitted merely shows
that the states are remiss in their authority and responsibility to
challenge unconstitutional actions of the federal government.

UNIDENTIFIED NEWCOMER: I think many of us here in the
recent years, at least in the past five years, are becoming more and
more aware of the powers Congress has transferred over to the
President ... Now my question is - you mentioned restore the
Constitution. How far back are you going to restore it? ... At one
time the Constitution said it was legal to have slaves. Now, do you
want to go back that far?

ROBERTS: No. The Constitution never said that, Sir. The
Constitution never said that. Let's not create a Constitution that
didn't exist.

I'd like to point out, Sir, that the origin of all our problems here
must ultimately go back to the Charter of the United Nations. Why?
Because we find that the authority for the so-called regional
government programs emanate from articles 55 and 56 of the U.N.
Charter. And therefore, in this context, we must realize that by the
so-called passage of the U.N. Charter in 1945, that the Senate of
the U.S. allegedly transferred the powers of the Constitution into
an international body.

In fact, in 1963, in Senate Document 87, on page 293 if I recall
correctly, the Senate of the United States declared, and I quote: The
Charter of the United Nations has become the supreme law of the
land, and the judges of every state shall be bound thereby, anything
in the laws of the State or the Constitution to the contrary
notwithstanding - end of quote.

Now this means, in the eyes of the Senate of the United States,
their ratification of the so-called U.N. Treaty did, in fact, destroy
the Constitution, and the aberrations which we now see emanating
from the Congress ... are, in fact, based not upon the Constitution,
but upon specific articles on the Charter of the United Nations.
 
To the best of our knowledge, the text on this page may be freely reproduced and distributed.
If you have any questions about this, please check out our Copyright Policy.

 

totse.com certificate signatures
 
 
About | Advertise | Bad Ideas | Community | Contact Us | Copyright Policy | Drugs | Ego | Erotica
FAQ | Fringe | Link to totse.com | Search | Society | Submissions | Technology
Hot Topics
Ed & Elaine Brown * Shots Fired *
george galloway what do you think of him?
Hinchey Amendment
why UK accepts US subjugation and infiltration?
George galloway suspended from HP
Why Marxism IS Economically Exploitive...
Situation in Turkey
Putin not playing nicely
 
Sponsored Links
 
Ads presented by the
AdBrite Ad Network

 

 

TSHIRT HELL T-SHIRTS