Name Change

Name Change: The name: 'The Centrist Democrat International' will be abandoned, and never again used by this organization.

Although the first published letters/editorials of this organization were in the early 1990s, it has been recently discovered that the same name has been used by a religious organization since 2001.

In that TCDI (this NEWSLETTER) has never been in any way affiliated with any other organization, nor with any political faction of any country, and that the Democrat Party of the USA has now totally reversed its political direction from that set by Presidents from Andrew Jackson to Grover Cleveland and John Kennedy (as well as Woodrow Wilson having retracted his previous support for the "money power" that was put in charge of the US economy during his administration [1913]), in order to avoid being mistaken for either a religious entity, or any modern day (pretend) "Democrats" who promote socialist autocracy (centralized political-economic power), the name, 'The Centrist Democrat International' will be abandoned, and never again used by this organization, as of this date: 18 Je 08. The original concept, 'World Congress of Nations'' ™, which began publicizing opinions, beliefs, convictions and principles through editorials in the early 1980s, will continue, and that name will be used as a newsletter title in addition to all previous functions of the organization.

A blog post and web site for
World Congress of Nations
(WCN) is to be announced.

A. Benton Edmons, editorialist, WCN

 

Urgent Necessities to Regain and Maintain American Sovereignty

As a Democratic voter reaching back to the John F. Kennedy election this writer cares about the same things as did JFK. The most urgent two issues being absolute independent American sovereignty, and returning control of our national economy to the people, as designed by the framers of our Constitution.

JFK did not flinch in exercising the right of our nation to independently decide our own policy. He would not allow some international cabal to make our decisions for us. He did not plead with the United Nations when the Soviets were on the verge of launching nuclear warheads into the USA from Cuba. Unilaterally he took the necessary responsibility of forcing Khrushchev to back down and to remove the dozens of ICBM's aimed at several major American cities and US military installations. In 1963 the Soviets were well on their way toward world conquest, already effectively in control of all of eastern Europe, most Asian countries, several South American nations, and had strong influence in many parts of Africa such as the former Belgian Congo colony, and some puppet administrations in the Caribbean, such as Cuba. The Vietnam struggle began under the Eisenhower Administration when US "foreign aid" sent to (Soviet controlled) Marshall Tito of Yugoslavia was transshipped to Ho Chi Minh's Soviet controlled forces attempting to dominate the entire ("French IndoChinese") peninsula.

Why did the Soviets back down on their intent to destroy the USA, the major obstacle in the Soviet agenda to rule the entire planet? Although we now know that the Soviets did have superiority in nuclear and air power, the Soviets were not certain of this. The Soviets suspected that America had secret weapons that even their multitudes of spies, that had infiltrated into every facet of our government, could not verify. Soviet agents were rampant right up to the level of presidential advisors, including Alger Hiss, Harry Hopkins and Harry Dexter White, among many others in highly prominent and powerful positions. JFK's courageous daring in the USSR/Cuban Missile Crisis prevented nuclear war and worldwide devastation. Most experts of the era declared that we were minutes away from planetary nuclear destruction. Thank you, John F. Kennedy.

On the economic front, 04 June 1963, JFK attempted to return control of the American economic system to our government by bypassing the charter of the Federal Reserve Corporation. He began by issuing $4.3 Billion in United States Notes, and he had the intention to replace all Federal Reserve Notes over time, thus eradicating the private central bankers profits acquired through use of the "fractional reserve" banking that has devalued our US Dollar by more than 90% since they were given control of our economy in 1913. In the 1920s a new Ford could be purchased for under $500. Today the most basic Ford would cost over $10,000 (do the arithmetic).

American taxes pay more than 50% of all United Nations expenses* although approximately 140 of the 192 member "states" of the UN are adamantly anti-American, and worse, fervently anti-democratic. That leaves less than 50 authentic democratic member "states" of the UN; meaning that the USA is among a tiny minority influence in the UN. *Much of US "foreign aid" is earmarked to pay the UN dues of recipient nations. This is why Presidents Kennedy, Reagan and Bush bypassed the UN in national security circumstances; these Presidents were well aware that the UN would never support any truly democratic efforts of the USA as witnessed by their ignoring freedom fighters of Hungary (1956), Czechoslovakia (1968), and UN military action in Katanga (1960-63) to destroy the newly formed democratic government of President Moise Tshombe; although Bush-2 did repeatedly attempt to obtain UN action in Iraq.

JFK would not have agreed to the treaty after treaty, by which politicians of the USA have been gradually surrendering American sovereignty, curtailing the independence our forebears so valiantly fought for, to the foreign politicians/bureaucrats of the United Nations. Some of the latest treaties under consideration being the intent to provide for (un-elected) UN officials to determine American environmental policy (Kyoto, etc.). Already Americans have lost millions of jobs to foreign industry. The ratification of environmental treaties would give the UN bureaucrats the power to unilaterally decide American environmental policy, thus the ability to shut down America by curtailing all our heavy industry, sending more millions of higher paid US jobs overseas, under the pretense of "saving the environment".

We would be well served if the United Nations were moved to another country, preferably across either the Atlantic or Pacific Oceans, and all nations were made equal in both the amount of dues assessed and voting power; thus limiting US "donations" to only to those UN dues. Unlike Truman's naiveté, his failing to understand what was going on around him, JFK's bypassing of the UN in various instances very certainly demonstrated his understanding that the UN would never promote authentic democratic purposes.

CONCLUSION: As an older Democrat with a better clarity of history than my younger colleagues, the only circumstances under which I will consider voting for the present Democrat Party nominee, Barack Obama, is if he were to loudly, continually and vociferously mimic the above noted intentions of John Fitzgerald Kennedy. As witness to the eras both Kennedy and Obama, I see them as the antithesis of one another, not in any way similar. Realistically I do not expect Barack Obama to become an imitator of John Kennedy, therefore I will be voting for the American Independent Party candidate for president, or for Congress Member Ron Paul, perhaps as a "write-in", in November 2008. I urge all Democrats who are concerned about the future of American independence, the sovereignty of this nation, the rights/freedoms/responsibilities of the American people to be decided by Constitutional limitations on elected officials of our own nation, to do the same.

On the most urgent of matters, our national sovereignty, both Obama and McCain have endorsed increasing surrender of American independence to the foreign bureaucrats of the UN. Seeing the continuous corrupt history of the UN, let's not be so naïve as to expect the UN cabal to treat us fairly.

A Benton Edmons, editorialist, WCN

 

 

 

Independence Day (4th of July)

To every registered voter:

 

As we approach American Independence Day (4^th of July) and then the November general elections, we must contemplate the future of our nation.

 

Questions YOU should ask of every candidate seeking election to the US House of Representatives (Member of Congress), the US Senate, and the Presidency:

 

1. What is your conception of our American independence/sovereignty? Should all decisions concerning our nation be decided by the American citizenry through the democratic blueprint within our Constitution; the vote of the common person?
   

 

1. What is your opinion of international organizations that require conceding portions of American independence/sovereignty to officials other than Americans?
   

 

1. What will you do to reinstate American INDEPENDENCE that has been gradually eroded by dozens of treaties awarding sovereignty over American freedoms, rights/responsibilities to international organizations during the past 63 years?
   

 

1. 
   Should Americans surrender any portion of our freedoms, our rights/ responsibilities, our independent sovereignty, to (un-elected) foreign politicians and bureaucrats, most of whom despise all forms of democratic civilization and who loathe every American achievement since the 1700s?
   

 

5. What will you do to STOP the RAID on the Social Security Trust Fund (from which more than $2.15 Trillion has been "embezzled" during the past 20+ years by Democrat and Republican legislators)?

 

1. What is your proposal to return control of the US monetary system to the Congress as required by our Constitution (we need a workable method to eliminate the private central bankers who have had control of the American economy since 1913, and which President John F. Kennedy attempted to abolish)? The central bankers have profited by every penny lost to inflation (cost to consumers and taxpayers) since 1913; trillions of dollars of ill-gotten gains ("fractional reserve banking").
   

   
    

2. How would you resolve the eminent domain excesses by local and state politicians and bureaucrats who enrich themselves by confiscating private property for the profit of their cronies? Do we need a Constitutional Amendment?
   

   
    

Would America be better off if candidates of the American Independent Party or Constitution Party replaced the Democrat/Republican joint cabal that has grown so opportunistic and socialistic over the past 20+ years, centralizing all power within a collective of "embezzlers"?

 

In short, should America regain and remain fully independent, or should we abandon that most important document of human freedom, the Declaration of Independence that established our inalienable rights of freedom from excessive government usurpation and controls?

 

 

A. Benton Edmons, editorialist, The Centrist Democrat International, Bellflower, CA, USA      TheCentDemInt@gmail.com

Earmarks: Open Letter to Senator Boxer

A. Benton Edmons

Editorialist

The Centrist Democrat International

13536 Lakewood Bl, PMB 326

Bellflower, CA, USA 90706-2031

TheCentDemInt@gmail.com

 

 

 

Honorable Barbara Boxer

Senate Office Buildings

Washington, DC, USA 20510

 

Dear Mrs. Boxer:

 

    What is your view, and can we count on your support?

 

    The public has become aware of the unscrupulous practice of "earmarking" and wants this deceitful "pork barrel" funding device ended, PERMANENTLY, and the perpetrators adequately punished. This has been a growing travesty by both Republican and Democrat legislators over the past half century, deliberately deceiving all American taxpayers/voters. The Social Security Trust Funds have been raided by these legislators of more than $2.049 Trillion (not Billion), and the pilfering continues as of this date.

 

    Now that the practice by legislators of "earmarking"
has become a synonym of "embezzlement" is it time to enact Senate and House rules that would severely punish any and all legislators who would attempt to surreptitiously conceal projects and issues funded without thorough debate through this corrupt practice? It is essential that each and every funding project be fully debated on its own merits, or lack thereof, individually. The only other description that parallels "earmarking" is "money laundering", another corrupt device of obscuring from public view activities of criminal intent.

 

    There is very little difference in "hiding" proposed funding of never debated projects within other Bills, and a bank manager siphoning money from depositors' funds. The only difference is that the funds are siphoned from the taxpayer's treasury. The duplicity in doing either is equal and should be uniformly dealt with under the laws.

 

    Just as mendacious politicians have deceitfully changed the verbiage of their plundering of taxpayers' funds from "pork barreling" to "earmarking", this writer will be on the alert to find future furtive efforts by legislators to "embezzle" taxpayer funds or to deliberately spread confusion on this issue among the public.

 

    Senator Boxer, do we, the public, have your support to totally end such dishonesty among legislators? Corruption in the US Senate and the US House of Representatives must end.

 

                        Sincerely yours,

 

A. Benton Edmons

Editorialist, The Centrist Democrat International

Laura is Mistaken

One Democrat's Opinion

Date: 14 My 08

 

On the O'Reilly Factor today, 14 My 08, FOX NEWS Channel Laura Ingram contended that what the "liberals" want is to talk about is "race".

 

On the contrary, what the "liberals" want is to divert attention away from authentic issues. They will use anything to keep the public mind busy debating lesser and trivial issues (or non-issues). Today probably less than 5% of Americans support such vile organizations as the black panthers, the Ku Klux Klan, the insipidity of the Aryan myth, or any other "superior race" absurdities and hate mongering.

 

My friend, Jerry Zeifman, "the Dissident- Democrat"
(and House Chief Counsel in the Nixon Impeachment proceedings), terms those now pretending to be liberals, as "illiberals". In that they constantly and forcefully put their efforts into increasing government powers, thus decreasing individual freedoms, I have to agree with him. Those who have commandeered our national media certainly appear to be totally illiberal as they support government infringement and judgment over every decision that should be made by individuals, thus limiting our freedoms and rights.

 

The most urgent issue of our time should be the support given by McCain, Clinton and Obama to ratify several treaties surrendering American sovereignty, thus ultimately surrendering all freedoms and rights of the American people, to the foreign bureaucrats of the United Nations. Of the 192 member "states" of the UN, less than 50 embrace some form of democratic civilization, meaning at least 140 of UN member "states" are adamantly opposed to any form of democratic civilization, and even more the UN majority despises everything American. Why should our US Senators or our President ratify treaties that would give these America haters control over our industries, our military, our rights to the riches of sea bottom minerals, and other treaties that also take away our freedoms and rights? This would render American freedoms and rights subordinate to the whims of the majority government administrations of the UN; people who want to strip America of money, power and our system of government in which the people decide by majority vote. Don't ever forget: You have no vote in any selection of UN officials and bureaucrats, and you would have no recourse to anything they might decide for you, or for America!

 

Secondly, Americans, when considering the hundreds of levies of taxation at all levels, local, city, county, state, regional and federal, combine to be probably the highest taxed population on the face of the Earth. We need tax reductions at all levels in order to put the people back in control of both their own lives and the prosperity of the nation.

 

Our nation is being invaded by millions of people from other countries around the world. We need immigrants (those entering the USA through legal processes). All authentic immigrants are welcome and deserve praise for their honesty. On the contrary, if someone forcefully enters your house without even asking your permission, and takes whatever he wants, turning your home into turmoil, then remaining and living in your house without your permission, would you agree to his residence there? Should he be continually bringing more and more of his relatives into your home to live with you? Our country is our "national house/home". Should anyone from anywhere in the world be allowed to come into our home, without our permission, and live on funds from our tax supported government benefits? The hordes of invaders (those entering the USA through corruption – arrogantly violating our laws), regardless of their country of origin, must be curtailed immediately. A large proportion of the current economic downturn in the USA has been caused by massive illicit employment in jobs of every kind being unlawfully occupied by invaders, by massive costs to taxpayers in every facet of government benefits; by overwhelming our health care facilities; by overcrowding our schools, among other violations of our sovereignty, our freedoms, our rights. In addition thousands of invaders are associated with the gangs, drug importation and disbursement, and other violent criminal acts that continue terrorizing so many neighborhoods across the nation. The overall cost of this massive invasion, both moneywise and in violent crime, is probably impossible to accurately assess. Far more people have died in gang violence, drug and weapons importation, human smuggling, during the same time period, than in the battles of Afghanistan and Iraq. The war at home, especially on our southern border, should be a major issue to the people of this nation.

 

Not necessarily third, but highly important, we must obey and respect the intention on both sides of the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, . ." This very obviously separates Church and State. Congress is not to regulate religions. It clearly illustrates the intention of the signers of the Constitution to prevent commingling of Government and Religion. However, though not through legislation, government has favored certain religions over others, and has operated in opposition to some religions (including Mormons); this in direct violation of the First Amendment.

 

What every voter should be concerned with is, "What is best for all Americans as a national population united in democratic governance", rather than focusing on "what can I and my group take from government" (from taxpayers), or on "race", ethnicity, religion, national background, or other divisive issues very carefully designed to instigate hatred by some Americans against others. DNA proof shows that all people are either close or remote cousins of each other, regardless of location on the planet or color of skin. As proven by DNA research, we all began as one people in Africa more than 70,000 years ago. Let's get back together as a world family based on equal responsibilities, freedoms and rights for all of mankind.

 

A. Benton Edmons, editorialist

The Centrist Democrat International

13536 Lakewood Boulevard, PMB 326

Bellflower, CA, USA 90706-2031

Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion

From whence came the asserted world government conspiracy, The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion?

One Democrat's Opinion

It appears that those who wrote this document were secretly commissioned by the Rothschild central bankers as a means of diverting guilt for their own conspiratorial corruption away from themselves, and to someone else. Why the Jews? Perhaps because Jews have been an easy target since time immemorial; perhaps because of jealousy and envy of their successes in business the Jews have been blamed for every negative condition in many countries since the Middle Ages. Therefore, with an already bad reputation, it would be easy to convince most people to blame the Jews for even more corruption.

The most likely fact is that central bankers, led by the Rothschild banking monopolies of Europe, commissioned talented propagandists for this project after having been blocked from taking control of the American economy by President Andrew Jackson (D) and by President Abraham Lincoln (R), with the help of Czar Alexander II of Russia*. Almost all other American presidents up to 1913, and most of them since, especially John F. Kennedy (D), have also opposed central banking. *Czar Alexander II used his navy to blockade the supply of munitions to the southern states and admonished the English and French, "If you join with the Confederacy against the Lincoln government, you will also be at war with Russia" (paraphrased). Russia was then a major military power.

Revenge: The bankers provided Vladimir Lenin with huge sums of money (gold) to establish the USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics), just one of those shipments amounted to some $20 million; equal to more than $241 million in 2007 dollars. Not only the assassination of Lincoln (there had also been attempts to assassinate Jackson), but the later assassination of the family of Czar Nicolas who had been instrumental in preventing central banks being established in both Russia, as well as Alexander II's support of Lincoln prior to and during the US Civil War. The bankers also financed Hitler. The central bankers have no allegiance to any nation, and none to morality; their only allegiance is profit at the expense of all populations around the Earth.

Since about 1694 the Rothschild collaboration among central bankers have, somewhat steadily, gradually taken control of and manipulated most national governments around the world. This is done through establishing central banks that "loan" fiat money to the leaders and politicians of nations. These debts, in the billions of dollars, are then used as the bankers means of coercing governments into continual expansion of power over the people, generating the need for ever increasing funding of programs that will be repaid to the bankers through taxation of the populations.

Yes, there have been some Jews involved in the world banking conspiracy. However there have also been members of just about every other religion also involved (secret "shareholders" of the central banks). Early on the identities of the ultimate owners of the secret shares of the Bank of England was public knowledge. This resulted in opposition to the banks control and abuse, thus the identities of all behind the scenes shareholders became secret. Are you aware that the Federal Reserve system is the only corporation in the USA that has never been compelled to abide by the laws of annual auditing and tax assessment (the officers of any other corporation would find themselves in prison for such blatant violation of federal laws). Also, the identities of the real owners of the Federal Reserve is kept secret. The "earnings" (better described as "loot") garnered by the secret shareholders of the Federal Reserve, since 1913, has to be in the $Trillions of Dollars (that is "T" for Trillions, not "B" for Billions, or "M" for Millions; such an immense amount of money that billionaires like Bill Gates would be unable to comprehend it).

Divert attention: The most effective method of not being blamed for what one does is to be anonymous; by diverting attention to some other entity or group of people, the real criminal(s) can often remain hidden in obscurity. This is the most likely origin of The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.

For more information go to: http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=_0N20DehA7QC&dq=Protocols+of+the+Learned+Elders+of+Zion&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=tzcY4vUn52&sig=mTnvatl95Y8L5kTFGM1nCb5TaBQ#PPA3,M1 Although the word "anti-Semitic" is improperly used in the cited Internet link, the overall information seems accurate, but does not mention the commissioning of the hate document. Note: To be anti-Semitic a person would have to be bigoted against all Semites, not only the Jews. More information on central banking: http://www.xat.org/cgi-bin/fcp.pl?words=Part+1&d=/moneyhistory.html

A. Benton Edmons, editorialist, The Centrist Democrat International

Bellflower, CA, USA

Note: This writer is neither a Jew, nor associated in any way with any organized religion.

 

 

Bill O’Reilly Resurrecting Hillary’s Presidential Campaign?

One Democrat's Opinion

 

Resurrecting Hillary

 
 

Bill O'Reilly (of the FOX NEWS Channel) is as ingenious as Hillary, but is he equally duplicitous?:  While orchestrating his pose as being both impartial and opposing Hillary's agenda (though self contradictory), O'Reilly has worked a miracle by rescuing Hillary's presidential campaign from imminent destruction, just as certain as if her campaign had been a NASA ship to outer space that malfunctioned and was on a trajectory that would end in a "deep six" collision with the Atlantic Ocean.  Apparently O'Reilly, like Hillary, is believable because of the indoctrinated tendency of most people to either ignore or dismiss the most important issues, or have extremely short memories?

 
 

Is the intent that of diversion of the public mind from the most important issues, such as the sovereignty of the people of the USA and of other democratic nations?  Obviously it is the growing demand for oil plus the US government strangulation of the exploration and development of American resources, that is driving fuel prices upward, added to the international OPEC monopoly.

 
 

A candidate, in truth, is his/her history; and certainly not what he/she says while campaigning or providing panaceas to the news media.  Like the pretense of the candidates, polls are mostly a method to focus public attention away from urgent needs of the nation, and to serve the interests of those they are paid to promote.

 
 

Hillary's history is that of an arch opportunist, since the 1970s.  Obama is at least trustworthy in that he actually believes the socialist agenda he preaches.  McCain may be just as untrustworthy as Hillary in that he poses as the great protector of America according to the Constitution.  However, all three promote the dissolution of the USA by granting through treaties, piece by piece, control of this nation to foreign bureaucrats of the United Nations, the vast majority of whom despise everything either democratic or American.

 
 

Also note that O'Reilly, like Chris Matthews and the rest of the news media, disparages or ridicules any opinion not within the agenda of the current controlling minorities at the national level of the Democrat and Republican parties.  He refers to all who have alternative ideas as "third parties" or "independents", promoting the impression that if we do not agree with either contemporary platform of the major two parties, we simply do not deserve attention of the news media.  Then, do we truly have a "free" press? 

 
 

Tens of thousands of we long term Democrats, having been forced out of the Party by the opportunistic and socialistic attitudes of those who have commandeered the Party, will be voting for candidates of either the American Independent Party, the Constitution Party, or writing in RON PAUL for president in November.  We will not win, but we refuse to throw away our votes by surrendering to the opportunistic/socialistic candidates who represent what most Presidents, especially Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, Garfield and Kennedy abhorred, "the money power" that has surreptitiously financed so many leftist candidates, not only in the USA, but around the world (such as Hugo Chávez of Venezuela).  A realist has to wonder why the New York and London bankers financed both Vladimir Lenin in establishing the USSR, and Hitler in building the "Third Reich"?  Also we must wonder how their contemporary protégés now manipulate both the Democrat and Republican parties candidates?  Why do all three current presidential candidates endorse "the money power" agenda of surrendering American sovereignty over our environment, our rights to the minerals under the seas, our space exploration, even our military authority to the United Nations?

 
 

How many Americans realize that we are probably the highest taxed population on the planet when considering the myriad of local, county, state, regional and federal taxation; and that we have some of the highest business and industrial taxes worldwide, thus curtailing American ability to export our goods at competitive prices?  It is partially these high taxes and costly regulations that drive American industry and business to emigrate to foreign shores!

 
 

A. Benton Edmons, editorialist, The Centrist Democrat International

Bellflower, CA, USA

 
 

Question:  Which were the worst presidents of the 19th and 20th Centuries:  The drastic treatment by the Andrew Johnson Administration (1865-69) (after the Lincoln assassination) left the South economically devastated for over 100 years; and Jimmy Carter (1977-81) who continues sabotaging democratic movements around the world even as this editorial is being written!