Additional Titles







The Two Kerry's:
War Hero or

"Men in Black" The Cult of The Judges







By Jon Christian Ryter

June 1, 2005

The American people have been led to believe that the USA Patriot Act, which was speedily enacted on October 26, 2001, originated in the passion of President George W. Bush's words in early October when he stood on a soapbox of hot ashes at the site of the smoldering ruins of the World Trade Center and demanded that Congress move swiftly to create the legislation needed to protect the American people from terrorists.

Within three weeks of his impassioned speech, the USA Patriot Act�that was theoretically crafted by equally patriotic Senators and Congressmen�was being debated in both Houses of Congress. Within days it was enacted and signed into law by the President of the United States with much patriotic fanfare. It was a law, the President said, that was good for America. Only, why was a law that was good for the American people so secretive that, according to Congressman Ron Paul [R-TX], no member of Congress was allowed to read it before they voted on it?

The Bush Administration utilized the same tactics Franklin D. Roosevelt used on March 9, 1933 when Congress enacted the Emergency Banking Relief Act after a combined total of 40 minutes of debate from both sides�most of which time was spent arguing that Congress had never seen the bill, had never read the bill�or, for that matter, even knew of its existence before they were asked by the House and Senate leadership to enact it. Not even the members of the House and Senate Banking Committees knew of the bill existence.

In less than twelve hours Congress enacted the Emergency Banking Relief Act of 1933 and saw it signed into law�completely oblivious that within it was a revision of the Trading With the Enemy Act of 1917 that would change, for all time, the relationship between the people and the government. With a stroke of the pen, Roosevelt reclassified the American citizen as an enemy of its own government. Before midnight on March 9, 1933, FDR signed Public Law 1 and an adversarial "relationship" between citizen and government was created that still exists today.

Also buried in that legislation was a clause that allowed the Roosevelt Administration to steal from the American people all of the gold they legally possessed in the form of gold coins or gold certificates that were redeemable in gold. When the Congress met at noon that day, the American people were the wealthiest in the world. By midnight, they were permanently stripped of their wealth.

On Jan. 4, 1934 Congress passed the Gold Reserve Act of 1934. Roosevelt immediately devalued the dollar. What was worth 100 cents on Jan. 3 was worth 41 cents on Jan. 4. With that stroke of the pen, Roosevelt stole 59% of the buying power of the American workers that had elected him a year earlier on the promise that he would restore the wealth of America�giving a whole new meaning to the phrase the pen is mightier than the sword. Not even a bandit with a gun could have stolen as much wealth from the American people as Roosevelt did that day.

Failing to learn from history 82 years later, Congress regularly enacts laws written by special interest groups that fill the campaign coffers of Congressmen and Senators who then "sponsor" the legislation as their own. Summaries (crib notes, if you will) of the enrolled bills are given to Congressmen and Senators whose votes are committed to the legislation before the crib notes ever end up in the hands of the Congressman's legislative director.

In other words, Congress has been voting blindfolded backroom deals since 1933. When people comment that "justice is blind," you have no idea just how much truth is in their words.

The legislation that became the USA Patriot Act of 2001 was actually the original 1995 version of HR 666 and S.735�with word and phrase changes to update the language from domestic terrorists to foreign terrorists and from Oklahoma City to New York and Washington, DC.

The Comprehensive Anti-Terrorist Act of 1995 that came on the heels of the Oklahoma City tragedy when domestic terrorist Timothy McVeigh and an al Qaeda operative believed to be Hussain al-Hussaini blew up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building on April 19, 1995.

Before most Americans even knew there was an anti-terrorist bill speeding through Congress, it had already been passed by the Senate on a 91 to 8 vote. As HR 666 was being quietly debated in the House Judiciary Committee details of its Bill of Rights abrogations were leaked to the media by Congressmen on both sides of the aisle.

The original Clinton version of the Comprehensive Anti-Terrorist Act of 1995 would have legislatively�albeit unconstitutionally�abolished the Bill of Rights. Had HR 666 been enacted, it would have taken a giant bite out of liberty. Today the globalists are counting on eliminating the sunset clause in Patriot I and enacting Patriot II to accomplish what they failed to achieve in 1995. If that happens, you will have no more rights than the average Muslim insurgent being held for up to two and a half years with no charges filed against them�and no right to see an attorney.

Under HR 666, the 1st Amendment would have been completely eviscerated. Americans would have lost the right to worship God in the manner of their choosing; freedom of speech and, under unspecified "national security" circumstances, freedom of the press would have vanished as well. The right to petition the government for redress of issues would likewise have no longer existed � even though the government has technically not allowed private citizens to address grievances to the federal government since 1798 when John Adams' Federalist Congress enacted The Sedition Act of 1798. The Sedition Act made it a crime to speak out against any elected official in the federal government.

Even after ten colonial citizens had their property seized and received 2 year prison sentences for criticizing Adams, the Supreme Court�which should have ruled that the Sedition Act was unconstitutional�did nothing. (Actually, that's not really true since those imprisoned for making seditious statements against John Adams were actually tried for their "crime" by the high court.)

Because the Supreme Court would not invalidate the Sedition Act, the States took it upon themselves to do so by enacting the Kentucky and Virginia Resolves. In the Resolves, the States reiterated that they had the right under the 10th Amendment to nullify any law enacted by the federal government which the States believed was contrary to the Constitution.

The people of the United States showed their contempt for the Federalist Party by denying John Adams re-election. The media of the day called the Election of 1800 the Revolution of 1800. European-style rule by the aristocracy was greatly diminished by the Sedition Act of 1798. The Federalist Party itself also died, and was officially buried in 1828. No Federalist candidates were elected for any office higher than Congressman after 1804.

The aristocracy, however, continued to rule America�but they were forced to govern through a power-sharing Republic. With few exceptions�Andrew Jackson being the first�the American aristocracy (descendants of the lords and dukes who, themselves, were kin to the crown heads of Europe) have occupied the White House for 227 years.

Under HR 666, the 2nd Amendment would have been legislatively abolished. Private citizens would no longer be allowed to possess firearms of any type.

Congress knew it lacked the authority to eradicate constitutional rights with the stroke of a pen. However, the legislators also knew from experience that if they got such a law on the books, liberal judges in the lower federal courts would uphold the law, and the Supreme Court�with just one more liberal justice to replace either Chief Justice William Rehnquist or Sandra Day O'Connor�would seal the fate of the 2nd Amendment for all time.

Once the 2nd Amendment toppled, the balance of the Bill of Rights would collapse like a house of cards, and they could then be replaced with the UN Declaration on Human Rights. The Anti-Terrorist Act of 1995 would have also wiped out the 3rd Amendment and Posse Comitatus by allowing the government to use military troops as police officers.

HR 666 would have also eliminated the 4th Amendment's protection from unreasonable searches and seizure, and it would have repealed habeas corpus. The right to due process, and the right not to incriminate oneself under the 5th Amendment would have been erased under HR 666.

Anyone accused of a crime under the new legislation could jave been held indefinitely without being charged, and that person's assets would be subject to immediate seizure. As such, the accused would no longer possess the ability to hire adequate counsel since he would no longer have the financial resources to do so because even if he won in court, his assets would never be returned with launching a successful lawsuit against the government to have them�or their value�returned.

Finally, HR 666 would have also abolished the 10th Amendment and the States would forever lose the right to nullify federal laws that violated the Constitution. The federal government would have total dictatorial power over every aspect of life in the United States.

It's important to remember that in 1995 the proposed anti-terrorist legislation was not aimed at foreign terrorists. Few Americans had ever heard the words "Taliban" or "al Qaeda"�or Osama bin Laden. The Comprehensive Anti-Terrorist Act of 1995 specifically targeted domestic terrorists�American citizens.

Had the abrogations of liberty contained in HR 666 not caused a public outcry, the Bill of Rights would have been legislatively abolished a decade ago. Would the US Supreme Court have stepped in and ruled it unconstitutional? What do you think? We currently have the USA Patriot Act, which violates the Bill of Rights. It's the same high court. Same justices. Have they ruled the Patriot Act unconstitutional?

The utopians at the gates of liberty are still nibbling away at the Bill of Rights, and even though civil libertarians are screaming about the intrusions of our rights under the USA Patriot Act, the federal courts�in particular the US Supreme Court�which should have declared the Patriot Act unconstitutional, have been surprisingly mute.

Since September 11, 2001 the United States courts have turned a blind eye on the Bill of Rights, accepting from George W. Bush FDR's trite excuse that the current national emergency trumps civil liberty.

Our government has resorted to legalizing the same types of practices that despotic rulers and totalitarian regimes use to control their societies. And despite the obligation government has to protect its citizens, the laws enacted by the United States over the past three decades have made it virtually impossible for the people to defend themselves against intruders, rapists and murderers. Most of those types of laws � particularly those which restrict the 2nd Amendment�were not enacted to catch criminals; they were enacted to make it more difficult, if not actually prevent, law-abiding citizens from purchasing weapons that constitutionally should be available to them.

The Comprehensive Anti-Terrorist Act of 1995 and the USA Patriot Act of 2001 both reflect the growing fear the American government has of its people for two reasons. First, the American people live in the last nation in the world where all of the people�as a free society�have an unrestricted right to purchase and possess firearms. Second, the American people are the only people in the world who were able, using their limited "civilian" firepower, to overthrow a tyrannical ruler and toss off the shackles of economic and political bondage, and form a free society in which the right to own firearms remained sacrosanct.

We are free today not because of the 1st Amendment guaranteed us a free press, or because the 4rd Amendment kept us free from unreasonable searches or the seizure of our property by the government without due process (which, of course is not true today since the government regularly seizes our property without ever charging us with a crime); or because the 5th Amendment prevents the government from holding us without charges; or because the 6th Amendment demands that we be given a speedy, public trial if we are charged with a crime.

We are free today because the 2nd Amendment does today what it did in 1775�it guarantees that the American people have the means to take their nation back if the government ever attempts to subjugate the people.

In fact, the third and last time that the US Supreme Court heard a 2nd Amendment case, the justices�who in 1939 understood why the 2nd Amendment existed � arrived at the same conclusion as the US District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, which declared FDR's National Firearms Act of 1934 unconstitutional. The US Supreme Court decided in United States v Miller 307 US 174 [1939] that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was not to restrict the rights of the people to own firearms, but to protect the people from their government.

Further, the Supreme Court ruled on May 19, 1939 that it was the inherent belief of the Founding Fathers that the people might someday have to fight an oppressive government, and therefore, it was in the best interests of the nation that the people be as well-armed as its government. The court further held that the National Firarm Act was an attempt by Congress to usurp the powers reserved for the States (i.e., gun control).

The US Supreme Court�which had just survived FDR's court-stacking scheme to control of the decisions coming from the high court�realized that Franklin Delano Roosevelt intended to consolidate political power in the United States under the Executive Branch with himself as the lifetime head of a democratic dictatorship. For a very brief moment, the justices of the Supreme Court saw, first hand, what the Founding Fathers feared�an overreaching Executive with the power to entice the legislative and judicial branches to join the executive branch to subvert the nation.

� 2005 Jon C. Ryter - All Rights Reserved

Order Jon Ryter's book "Whatever Happened to America?"

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale

Jon Christian Ryter is the pseudonym of a former newspaper reporter with the Parkersburg, WV Sentinel. He authored a syndicated newspaper column, Answers From The Bible, from the mid-1970s until 1985. Answers From The Bible was read weekly in many suburban markets in the United States.

Today, Jon is an advertising executive with the Washington Times. His website, has helped him establish a network of mid-to senior-level Washington insiders who now provide him with a steady stream of material for use both in his books and in the investigative reports that are found on his website.








Further, the Supreme Court ruled on May 19, 1939 that it was the inherent belief of the Founding Fathers that the people might someday have to fight an oppressive government, and therefore, it was in the best interests of the nation that the people be as well-armed as its government.