From: firstname.lastname@example.org (roundtable)
Subject: The NAFTA PSYOP - Council on Foreign Relations Obstruction of Justice
Cc: Senate, House
You are being copied this letter to President Clinton because it is concerned with a group called the Council on Foreign Relations. Not many people have heard of this group or know how they operate. This is no an accident, the group has purposely maintained a low profile. The Council on Foreign Relations is a branch of an international group of co-conspirators called the Round Table Group. This group has been controlling public opinion throughout the world for over 100 years.
The Joint Chiefs of Staff have defined psychological operations (PSYOPS) as those that: "include psychological warfare and, in addition, encompass those political, military, economic and ideological actions planned and conducted to create in neutral or friendly foreign groups the emotions, attitudes, or behavior to support achievement of national objectives." Another proposal "develops the concept of 'strategic psychological operations' as aimed at influencing and shaping decision-makers' power to govern or control their followers." The American people, are among the groups being targeted and controlled.
"Tactics of Deception" are formalized psychological warfare techniques. "Tactics of Deception" build a psychological environment that differs from the material environment. "Tactics of deception" are used to create false reality worlds. In terms of perceptual psychology, "Tactics of Deception" provoke illusory percepts. To influence behavior the deception must follow three basic rules. First, the deception must be "reasonable"; second there must be no simple way of checking the facts in the case; and third the use of deception should not discredit a source which may have valuable future potential.
One way to stop this group is to expose them and their techniques to the people they are manipulating. One "Tactic of Deception" used to achieve Council on Foreign Relations aims, is to place Council members on both sides of an issue. Another "Tactic of Deception" is to use Council control of the legal, legislative and court systems to create the perception that laws are being followed when in fact, Lawyers, Legislators, and Justices are committing blatant illegalities to further Council on Foreign Relations aims. A third "Tactic of Deception" is simply to lie.
In 1993, these "Tactics of Deception" were used to railroad the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) through Congress without an environmental impact study.
In August of 1993 Environmental Organizations sued to compel production of an environmental impact statement on NAFTA before it was submitted to Congress. NAFTA legislation will have tremendous environmental impact resulting from unrestrained industrialization in Mexico and Canada. To make an informed decision members of the Congress should know what the environmental impact of NAFTA will be. If they don't know, environmental harm caused by the industrialization may be more costly to repair, than any near term NAFTA benefits could possibly warrant.
Council on Foreign Relations member President Clinton, sided with the Environmental Organizations. A law called The National Environmental Policy Act required an environmental impact study in major Federal Actions. The Environmental Organization won. The judge ordered the study. President Clinton's legal counsel was C. Boyden Gray.
The group that lost was the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (OTR), an executive agency that advises the president. The OTR appealed. The Automobile Manufactures Association, had C. Boyden Gray file a friend of the court brief in behalf of the OTR. The Automobile Manufactures Association was interested in manufacturing Automobiles in Mexico, where labor is much cheaper than it is in the United States. Gray used political connections, legal chicanery, weasel words and double talk. The OTR won the appeal.
President Clinton, Gray's client, and the American Citizen lost. NAFTA was "fast-tracked" through congress, there was no impact study. While President Clinton did not use his Presidential veto to stop passage of NAFTA without performing an Environmental impact study, he has willingly used this power to promote pro-abortion legislation, including blocking legislation to ban a controversial procedure for late-term abortions known as "partial-birth abortion."
Did President Clinton really want the impact study, or did he lie to the American people, and work with Council on Foreign Relations insiders to assure the passage of NAFTA?
On September 14 1993, ten days before, the Federal Court would hand down its decision, CFR member William Clinton signed three supplemental agreements to the North American Free Trade Agreement. Negotiators from Canada, Mexico, and the US concluded the side agreements to firm up labor and environmental standards. CFR members Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and George Bush joined CFR member Clinton at the White House signing ceremony and endorsed NAFTA. Before being President Clinton's legal advisor, C. Boyden Gray was Council on Foreign Relations member George Bush's legal Counsel.
On September 21, 1993 CFR member Richard Gephardt (D. Mo.), the House Majority Leader, announced his opposition to NAFTA. Recently (May 1997) Gephardt was televised informing the American public that the day was coming when the world would have to be governed by an "international regime."
On September 24, 1993 a federal appeals court Overruled the district court decisions, and allowed NAFTA to be submitted to Congress without an environmental impact study. Did the Counsel on Foreign Relations members Clinton, Bush, Ford, Carter, and Gephardt know what the district Courts decision would be before it was handed down? Is that legal?
C. Boyden Gray's grandfather was Bowman Gray, chairman of the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company of Winston-Salem, North Carolina. His father was Council on Foreign Relations member Gordon Gray; designer and chairman of the Psychological Strategy Board, the Psychological Warfare Board and the Operations Coordinating Board; advisor to every President from Harry Truman through Gerald Ford; and chairmen of the "Gray Boards" that striped Robert J. Oppenheimer of his clearance to silence him and keep the American public uninformed to the dangers of Nuclear proliferation.
C. Boyden Gray was born in Winston-Salem North Carolina February 6th 1943. He earned a BA degree from Harvard in History and graduated magna cum laude in 1964. C. Boyden Gray received his law degree with high honors from the University of North Carolina in 1968. The same year Gray became a law clerk to Chief Justice Earl Warren. Gray was with the law firm of Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering from 1969-1981. In 1981 Gray became counsel and deputy Chief of Staff to Vice President George Bush. He remained counselor to Vice President Bush from 1985-1989. Gray was counsel to the White House from 1989-1993. Gray, like his father, was chairman of Summitt Communications Inc., of Winston-Salem. Gray spent sometime in the United States Marine Corps. Is C. Boyden Gray connected to a Military or Government Intelligence Agency?
Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering has offices in Washington D.C., London England, and Brussels Belgium. There are about 180 associates in the firm. The firm profile reads, "Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering has a diverse national and international regulatory, commercial, legislative and civil and criminal litigation practice. With offices in Washington, London, and Brussels, the firm is able to meet the needs of its clients in matters involving issues of state, federal, international, or European Community law...The firm's substantive areas of expertise include: Antitrust, Aviation, Banking, Bankruptcy, Communications, Computer, Consumer Protection, Energy Regulation, Environmental, Financial Institutions Regulation, Financing and Corporate Transactions, Food and Drug, Government Contracts, Insurance, Intellectual Property, Occupational Health and Safety, Products Liability, Securities and Committees Regulation, Tax, and White Collar Criminal Law."
The associates are counsel to different Departments and Government commissions. For example: Arthur F. Mathew was Deputy Associate Director of Enforcement for the Securities and Exchange Commission; Daniel Marcus was Deputy general Counsel, Department of Health Education and Welfare; F. David Lake was Counsel and Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy, Department of the Treasury; Sally Katzen was General Counsel for the Council on Wage and Price Stability; Rusell J. Bruemmer was FBI Chief Counsel Congressional Affairs, Special Counsel to the Director of Central Intelligence, and General Counsel to CIA; Lloyd N. Cutler was counsel of the President of the United States 1979-1980. Lloyd N. Cutler is a Council on Foreign Relations member.
On August 24, 1993 the NAFTA environmental impact case was argued before the District of Columbia United States Court of Appeals. The case was Public Citizen; Friends of the Earth; Sierra Club, Appellees, v. United States Trade Representative Appellants (5 Federal 3d 549). The case was decided September 24th, 1993. The citation tells the following story,
"Environmental organizations brought action to compel Office of the United States Trade Representative to produce environmental impact statement on North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) before the President submitted it to Congress for ratification. The United States District Court...ordered that the statement be prepared forthwith. Government appealed. The Court of Appeals, Mikva, Chief Judge, held that NAFTA was not "final agency action" that it would be subject to judicial review under Administrative Procedure Act (APA). [The original judgment was] Reversed. Randolph, Circuit Judge, filed concurring opinion.
...In 1990 the United States, Mexico, and Canada initiated negotiations on the North American Free Trade Agreement. NAFTA creates a "free trade zone" encompassing the three countries by eliminating or reducing tariffs and "non-tariff" barriers to trade on thousands of items of commerce. After two years of negotiations, the leaders of the three countries signed the agreement on December 17, 1992. NAFTA has not yet been transmitted to Congress. If approved by Congress, NAFTA is scheduled to take effect on January 1, 1994. Negotiations on behalf of the United States were conducted primarily by the Office of the United States Trade Representative ("OTR"), located "within the Executive Office of the President," ... [OTR] is the chief negotiator for trade matters. OTR "reports directly to the President and the Congress, and [is] responsible to the President and the Congress for administration of trade agreements...."
The citation explains that President Clinton sided with the Public Citizen,
"Under the Trade Acts and congressional rules, NAFTA is entitled to "fast-track" enactment procedures which provide that Congress must vote on the agreement, without amendment, within ninety legislative days after transmittal by the President. The current version of NAFTA, once submitted, will therefore be identical to the version on which Congress will vote. President Clinton has indicated, however, that he will not submit NAFTA to Congress until negotiations have been completed on several side agreements regarding, among other things, compliance with environmental laws."
How can NAFTA be said to comply with environmental law without an impact study? The Public Citizen had the President of the United States on their side. The Public Citizen had the law on their side. This law is called The National Environmental Policy Act. The National Environmental Policy Act requires federal agencies to include an Environmental Impact Study "in every recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and other major Federal Actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.".
The first judge that heard the case sided with the Public Citizen. The group that lost was the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. This group is an executive agency that advises the president. Even though the president indicated that he wished for NAFTA to comply with environmental laws, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, President Clinton's advisors, went ahead and appealed verdict.
A person with strong interest in or views on the subject matter of an action, but not a party to the action, may petition the court for permission to file a brief, ostensibly on behalf of a party but actually to suggest a rationale consistent with its own views. This type of brief is called an amicus curiae (pronounced a-me-cus cure-a-eye) brief. Amicus curiae literally means friend of the court. Amicus curiae are commonly filed in appeals concerning matters of broad public interest.
A number of organizations, not party to this action, showed great interest in the case. One organization was the Automobile Manufactures Association. C. Boyden Gray, John J. Kim, Amy F. Robertson, Louis R. Cohen, and Stuart P. Green filed a brief for amici curiae for the United States Trade Representative and against the Public Citizen.
Upon appeal the verdict was overturned. The Office of U.S. Trade Representatives won, the American Citizen lost, and NAFTA was "fast-tracked" through congress without an environmental impact study.
Gray's law firm has associates employed and serving as counsel to the executive branch of the government, the judicial branch of the government, and the congress. Some of the associates in these law firms are members of The Council on Foreign Relations. Are any associates of large international Law Firms also agents of Military or Government Intelligence agencies?
Did judges see names such as C. Boyden Gray's on the briefs and reverse their decision, not because the first decision was incorrect, but because they got a strong message that the Council on Foreign Relations wanted NAFTA pushed through, without delay. NAFTA had "fast-track" status - I wasn't aware such a thing existed. Usually it seems that a bill gets all kinds of amendments attached to it - some so onerous that a good bill gets defeated or becomes worthless. If enough Council on Foreign Relations members give the signal, does a bill become entitled to "fast-track" status?
The National Environmental Protection Acts wording is straight forward and clearly understood. In reading the discussion of the case the court takes straight forward logic requiring the Environmental Protection Agency study and turns it into legal gibberish:
"The National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA") requires federal agencies to include an EIS [Environmental Investigative Study] "in every recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and other major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.."42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C). In drafting NEPA, however, Congress did not create a private right of action. Accordingly, Public Citizen must rest its clam for judicial review on the Administrative Procedure Act." Section 702 of the APA confers an action for injunctive relief on person "adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute." 5 U.S.C. § 702; see Public Citizen I, 970 F.2d at 918." Section 704, however, allows review only of "final agency action."5 U.S.C. § 704 (emphasis added); see Lujan v. National Wildlife Fed'n 497 U.S. 871, 882, 110 S. Ct. 3177, 3185, 1111 L.Ed.2d 695 (1990). The central question in this appeal then is whether Public Citizen has identified some agency action that is final upon which to base APA review."
Does the reader now understand what this case is all about. Or, has a case that was clear cut become very confusing? The convoluted reasoning behind the case is an interpretation of the wording of the National Environmental Policy regarding the concept of what constitutes a Federal action - since NAFTA was not in effect, the United State Trade Representative argued that the Public couldn't take the agency to court under that law.
The court agreed and said that the Public Citizen had to argue under another law called the Administrative Procedure Act. This law said that the public citizen couldn't do anything until after a "final agency action" occurred.
An example of a final agency action in this case would be passage of NAFTA. The agency acting would be congress. The final agency action would be passage or defeat of NAFTA. However this reasoning means that there would be no way of obtaining relief through the courts to force the Environmental Impact Study to be preformed prior to Congress voting on NAFTA. This means that Congress would vote on NAFTA without having to consider an environmental impact study. This means that Congress would vote on NAFTA without the information required to make an informed decision.
The Public Citizen's went to court to try and force their representatives to follow their own legislation. Legal chicanery, weasel words, and double talk were used to derail them. Despite President Clinton's perceived desire for an Environmental impact study, his own advisors, saw to it that NAFTA was "fast-tracked" through Congress, without an Environmental impact study.
Is this how the legal system is supposed to work? Is this how a representative government of the people is supposed to work? Public Citizen, the emperor has no cloths, a group of scoundrels and cheaters have taken over control of the government of the United States of America.
If a group is organized on a dictatorial basis; with so close an identity between the group and its policies and the governmental polices of the country in which it exists; that the group and the government constitute an indistinguishable unit; and that group suppresses all opposition to such a group; then a totalitarian dictatorship exists. If the people can not use the Executive, Judicial or Congressional Branches of its government to carry out their wishes and enforce their laws then they have lost control of their government. Has this happened to the American people?
Title-50 War and National Defense § 783 states -
"It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to combine, conspire, or agree with any other person to perform any act which would substantially contribute to the establishment within the United States of a totalitarian dictatorship, the direction and control of which is to be vested in, or exercised by or under the domination of control of, any foreign government."
The Council on Foreign Relations is a branch of an international group of co-conspirators called the Round Table Group. Other branches include; Britain's Royal Institute of International Affairs, the Canadian Institute of International Affairs, the New Zealand Institute of International Affairs, the Australian Institute of International Affairs, the South African Institute of International Affairs, the Indian Institute of International Affairs, the Netherlands Institute of International Affairs, the Japanese Institute of Pacific Relations, the Chinese Institute of Pacific Relations, and the Russian Institute of Pacific Relations. Do the Foreign nationals that belong to this group have a more powerful say in determining the destiny of the American people then the American people do? In turn do the Americans that belong to this group have a more powerful say in determining the destiny of Foreign nationals than do the native inhabitants of those countries? If so, this is totalitarianism on a global scale.
The model oath for candidates for admission to the bar, 33 A.B.A. Rep. 585 (1908) is:
"I will not counsel or maintain any suit or proceeding which shall appear to me to be unjust, nor any defense except such as I believe to be honestly debatable under the law of the land."
Is obstructing the use of legislation drafted to insure that elected representatives consider environmental impact before passing legislation that will undoubtedly effect the environment just? Are unjust tactics being passed off as honestly debatable because these tactics are successful? Are these unjust tactics successful because they are honestly debatable or because the men that are using them are in collusion with justices that find in their favor because it is profitable for them to do so?
Is this type of conduct in line with the oath these so-called legal professionals have taken? Do you think the American Bar Association has failed to notice that justice isn't being carried out? Why isn't there any vocal group within the American Bar Association pointing it out? Could it be because many of the Lawyers that are running the ABA, such as C. Boyden Gray's associate Sally Katzen, who Chaired the Administrative Law Section of the ABA from 1988-89, know exactly what is going on and are actively promoting the unprofessional conduct of their colleagues?
One Council on Foreign Relations psychological operation aimed at influencing and shaping public opinion is legislating immoral actions. A psychological warfare technique used to demoralize a target population is to attack a groups religion and family structure. What better way to attack a people's faith then to confuse them about the ethics and morals that guide that faith. If murder is made legal is it no longer a sin to commit murder?
The CFR achieves this objective by using its governmental control to legislate immorality:
At least two supreme court justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg (Jewish), and Sandra Day O'Connor (Catholic) are CFR members. CFR Presidents include, Bill Clinton (D,Baptist), George Bush (R, Episcopalian), Jimmy Carter (D, Born Again Christian) and Gerald Ford (R, Episcopalian). At least twelve CFR members sit in the House of Representatives: Lee H. Hamilton (D-IN, Methodist), Donald M. Payne (D-NJ, Baptist), Charles B. Rangle (D-NY, Catholic), Howard L. Berman (D-CA, Jewish), Robert T. Matsui (D-CA, United Methodist), Sam Gejedenson (D-CT, Jewish), Louis Stokes (D-OH, A. M. E. Zion), John M. Spratt Jr. (D-SC, Presbyterian), Richard Gephardt (D-MO, Baptist), Jim Leach (R-IA, Episcopalian), Amory Houghton Jr. (R-NY, Episcopalian) and Newton Gingrich (R-GA, Baptist). At least 17 CFR members sit in the Senate: Nancy L. Kassebaum (R-KS, Episcopalian), William Cohen (R-ME, UnitArian), John H. Chafee (R-RI, Episcopalian), Alan K. Simpson (R-WY, Episcopalian), Olympia Snowe (R-ME, Greek Orthodox), John Forbes Kerry (D-MA, Catholic), Christopher Dodd (D-CT, Catholic), Bob Graham (D-FL, United Church of Christ), Claiborne Pell (D-RI, Episcopalian), Charles S. Robb (D-VA, Episcopalian), John (Jay) D. Rockefeller IV (D-WV, Presbyterian), William Bradley (D-NJ, Presbyterian), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA, Jewish), William V. Roth Jr. (R-DE, Episcopalian), Larry Pressler (R-SD, Catholic), Richard G. Lugar (R-IN, Methodist), Daniel Moynihan (D-NY, Catholic).
If the CFR controls the executive office and Congress, legislation opposed by a large majority of Americans can be forced upon them. This was done in September of 1996 when the House and Senate voted on whether to override Clinton's presidential veto of a bill that would have banned a controversial procedure for late-term abortions. A two-thirds vote of both houses is required to enact a bill over a presidential veto.
The bill would have banned "partial-birth abortion," a procedure in which a woman's birth canal is widened and the fetus is removed feet first until only the head remains in the uterus. A doctor then collapses the fetus's skull so the head can be drawn through the birth canal. While President Clinton did not use his Presidential veto to stop passage of NAFTA, he has willingly used this power to promote pro-abortion legislation, including legalization of this inhumane act of infanticide.
On 19 September the House voted to override the veto (285-137 -- four more votes than needed).
On 27 September the Senate failed to override Clinton's veto (57-41 -- nine votes fewer than needed). Seventeen Senators who voted were Clinton's fellow CFR members. Thirteen CFR senators voted to sustain the veto-- four CFR senators voted to overturn. The nine votes needed to overturn the veto were CFR member votes. Only six Republican Senators voted to sustain the veto. Five of the six were CFR members. Do CFR members in the House and Senate work together to fix Congressional votes to promote Round Table aims?
The Abortion controversy is a carefully planned psychological operation meant to create a conflict between morality and reality. There is no conflict between morality and reality. The existing conflict is between the moral and perceived reality worlds created by the Abortion PSYOP. The use of the Abortion PSYOP to increase discord is immoral. The American public has never been enamored with psychological operations. The public has rightly been wary of this technique. The use of propaganda changes a persons reality world and can cause them to act in a manner they never would have acted in under normal conditions. It is a form of organized coercion. It is a form of mental manipulation and mind control.
Polls show a large majority of Americans oppose late-term abortions. Senators talked of receiving thousands of petitions and postcards urging that President Clinton's veto be overridden, including 10,000 cards circulated by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops.
If a group is misinforming people (including Christians & Jews), toying with their reality worlds, and tricking them into sinning, what will become of the reality of God? Feel free to publish and distribute the following. It may aid and equip you to share the reality of God with others:
"Thomas Jefferson made the "Golden Rule" the foundation of American Democracy by changing John Locke's Natural rights law from Life, Liberty, and Property to the inalienable rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. The change insures that decisions are driven by civic virtue instead of selfishness. The change probably resulted from Jefferson's understanding of the "Golden Rule" and a struggle Jefferson had with slavery. The original draft of the Declaration of Independence contained a scathing denunciation of slavery.1 Jefferson's change declares it immoral and illegal to consider one person the property of another. If you would be unhappy being someone else's property it follows it is wrong to consider another person your property. If the original draft of the Declaration of Independence had been approved there would have been no slavery after the revolution of 1776. The original draft was not approved, slavery was not abolished, and a civil war was fought leaving a legacy of bitterness in America still felt today.
There are Laws of God and laws of man. The laws of man coerce compliance through fear of punishment. The laws of God encourage application through the promise of reward. The laws of man can be unfair and unfairly applied. A guilty person may escape punishment and an innocent person may be punished. The laws of man can profit one group at the expense of another. Unjust laws may encourage criminal behavior. Unjust laws may make an innocent person a criminal. Unjust laws may legislate breaking the Laws of God. The laws of man are costly to legislate and costly to apply. The laws of man attempt to remove criminals from society. Large groups of human beings must waste their lives in a bureaucratic, tension filled environment attempting to administer, apply, and carry out the punishment associated with a particular crime. Larger groups of human beings must provide the money for this costly bureaucratic framework. The laws of man are a poor substitute for the laws of God.
The Laws of God provide rules and guidelines for acting intelligently. Acting intelligently is acting in ones own best interest and at the same time acting in the best interest of all. The Laws of God include The Ten Commandments, The Teachings of Buddha, and the Laws of Mohammed. The Golden Rule is the simplest and most elegant rule for acting intelligently. The Golden Rule was discovered by at least three human beings. Confucius and Mohammed taught, don't do to others that which you wouldn't have others do to you. Christ taught do unto others that which you would have others do unto you. Using the Golden Rule to help drive your decisions helps you follow all the rules and guidelines handed down by God. No creature anywhere can simplify the Golden Rule, making human beings amongst the most intelligent creatures in the universe. Applying the Laws of God reward our actions with a better future. Our tomorrows will be less full of problems and guilt created by making poor choices in the past. Our neighbors tomorrows will be less full of problems we created for them. Living by the Laws of God rewards us with a more fulfilling and joyous life here on earth and an eternal life after death. The Laws of God are much more powerful than the laws of man. A society in which women are less than equal is cheated out of half of its thinking power."2
II Peter 2:1
 Jefferson's original draft states, "he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, & murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another." From: Thomas Jefferson, the "original Rough draught," Declaration of Independence, June-12-27 1776, manuscript collections of the Library of Congress, 101 Independence Ave. SE Washington, D.C. 20540 & on-line exhibit http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/declara/declara1.html.
 Sleight of Mind, Strategy of Deception, by the roundtable, http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2807