>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 11:26:28 EST >Subject: Fwd: MY ARTICLE >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Please read this article and then help me make it public. > Ralph Epperson >Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Full-name: EPPERSONRA >Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 11:19:10 EST >Subject: MY ARTICLE >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" >Content-Language: en >X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 106 > >THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF 2000: > >THE CREATED CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS > >by Ralph Epperson > > >I have found evidence that this entire Presidential election has been planned >years in advance by those who want to abolish the Constitution. If I am >right, then this article of 12 pages is one of the most important you will >ever read. > >Notice that I said I have found "evidence" because this evidence is not proof >that this "election crisis" will be manipulated in such a way as to abolish >the Constitutional Republic our Founding Fathers created for us. The >information that I discovered could be "disinformation." > >But there is reason to believe that this is exactly their plan, and the >evidence that I have found will follow in the article I have written. > >If I am right, the only way we can prevent them from bringing their plans >into fruition is EDUCATION! WE MUST MAKE THIS AS PUBLIC AS WE CAN. Therefore, >I am asking you to send this to everyone you can think of, including the >media. I am hoping that the planners will read this and then say: "Postpone >the plans, Epperson has figured it out!" In fact, that is the only hope we >have! > >The evidence is strong that I am right! > >If I am right, we will have saved a Constitutional Republic. If I am wrong, I >will have at least provided you with the information that there are people in >the United States that wish to abolish our Constitutional Republic. And that >will make us all a little more alert to just such a scenario being played out >on us in the future. > >Thank you for your interest. > >MAY GOD BLESS AMERICA! Ralph Epperson > > > >ABOUT THE AUTHOR: > >I am an historian who has researched THE CONSPIRATORIAL VIEW OF HISTORY for >37 years. I have written three books, nine booklets, and produced a variety >of video tapes, totaling 56 hours, on the subject. Jim Marrs in his >"best-selling" book entitled RULE BY SECRECY quotes from my research quite >liberally. > >But I am not here to sell books, I am here to discuss the possible motives >for this Presidential Election Crisis of 2000. > > >THE CRISIS: > >Let's pretend that you didn't like the Constitution of the united States of >America because you believed that it was "outmoded" because it was "written >for an agrarian society," and that it couldn't "respond to modern problems" >anymore. > >You would want to make your views as public as possible to gain popular >support to get America ready for the changes you envision as being needed to >replace the document. > >You would obviously need to create a popular following and to do so, you >would need to you create an organization of like-minded people to make your >views known to the world. You would gather these people together to let >America know that you are people of importance and power, not some "vast left >wing conspiracy:" (If Hillary Clinton can create a pretend "vast right wing >conspiracy," I can certainly create a pretend "vast left wing conspiracy!") > >Those fellow believers would have to be: > > "prominent citizens such as present and former senators and >repre-sentatives, cabinet members, officials of national and state >political parties, governors, l awyers, scholars, journalists, and business >leaders" (page xiv of the book > REFORMING AMERICAN GOVERNMENT) > >so that the people would believe that your concerns were valid when you made >them public. > >You would need to give that organization a prestigious title like THE >COMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM. > >And to fund your activities, you would need to secure donations, and the >easiest way to secure large amounts of money is to convince prestigious >foundations such as "the Brookings Institution, the Ford Foundation, the >Rockefeller Foundation, The Dillon Fund, and the Hewlett and American Express >foundations" to support you and your "prominent citizens." (page xvi) > >You would certainly wish to use some of that money to publish a 334 page book >entitled REFORMING AMERICAN GOVERNMENT that would tell the American people of >your concerns and solutions. > >Then you would need to create a "crisis" to convince the people of America to >change their Constitutional government because "such a significant shift in >our Constitution is unlikely to come about except as a result of a crisis >that is very grave indeed." > >Now, let me say that all of the above has been accomplished. > >I was not pretending. > >All of the above is real. > >There is a "vast left wing conspiracy" that was created to share its concerns >about the Constitution of the united States of America, and then to offer its >solutions. (Yes, Hillary, there is a "VAST, LEFT WING CONSPIRACY," a real >one!) > >(One of the reason I know it is real is because your husband, Bill Clinton, >told us it was real on national television in 1992! > >It was during his nationally broadcast "Acceptance Speech" after he accepted >the Democrat Party's nomination as their candidate for the Presidency. (If >you want to read it, Bill Clinton put his acceptance speech in his book >entitled PUTTING PEOPLE FIRST, ISBN 0-28129-2193-3, starting on page 217.) > >He praised two men who had gotten him into politics: former President John >Kennedy and Dr. Carroll Quigley, a professor he had at Georgetown University >between 1964 and 1968. > >The Professor had written a book entitled TRAGEDY AND HOPE (ISBN: >0-913022-14-4) while Bill was a student there (1966) in which he says this >(we know that Bill read the book. It was "required reading for Quigley's >students") : > > "The business interests [in another part of the book, Dr. Quigley called >them "an i nternational network"] expected to control both political parties >equally. > > Some of them intended to contribute to both and allow an alternation of >the two > parties in public office in order to conceal their own influence, inhibit >any exhibition of independence by politicians, and allow the electorate >to believe they were exercising their own free choice." (page 73) > >It is presumed that if this "international network" wanted a "crisis that is >very grave indeed," they could create it! > >Yes, Hillary, there is a "VAST LEFT WING CONSPIRACY!") > >They have gathered together such a list of "prominent citizens." > >They have raised the necessary funding from "the foundations." > >They have published such a book. > >Now all they need to do is to "create the crisis." > >And it is my contention that they just did: THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF THE >YEAR 2000! > >I am convinced that THE ELECTION CRISIS OF 2000 is a well conceived plan by >these "prominent citizens" to accomplish a very specific goal: > > THE ELIMINATION OF THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF > >The COMMITTEE was formed in 1982, and the 200 "prominent citizens" met "in >Washington and in regional settings around the country to examine the >political system and to search for ways to improve its performance." > >They published such a book as this entitled REFORMING AMERICAN GOVERN-MENT, >(ISBN 0-8133-7114-7), a review of 40 articles written by 29 of its members. > >This book was published in 1985 by a group calling itself THE COMMITTEE ON >THE CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM, just such a group of 200 "prominent citizens" >(page xiv.) > >These articles expressed their "concerns and solutions," and a review of what >they have written is very revealing, because their conclusion is that THE >CONSTITUTION IS OUTMODED and needs to be replaced!! > >BUT ONLY AFTER A CRISIS IS CREATED THAT WILL CONVINCE US OF A NEED TO DO SO! > >I will try and detail their concerns just as briefly as I can so that the >reader can see that this election of the year 2000 might be the very one that >they were claiming was necessary to accomplish their goal. > >The following is a statement, drafted by the COMMITTEE in 1983: > > "Except in times of great crisis, the government is now unable to act in >a timely manner -- or at all." (page 69) > >Let me start by quoting the article written by Lester Thurow, a professor of >economics at MIT: > > "Fundamentally, America must alter its structure of government. The men >of 1776 [called this nation's "founding fathers"] may have de-signed a >set of checks and balances that succeeded for the nation's first 200 years, >but they did not anticipate the dilemmas of the 1980's." (page 37) > >It certainly could be said that whatever "dilemmas of the 1980's," a series >of unspec-ified Constitutional crises that did not materialize in "the >‘80's", were nothing at all compared to the crisis of the 2000 year election. >But it is certainly clear that Prof. Thurow believed that something must >happen to "alter America's structure of govern-ment." > >Professor James Burns, a professor of political science at Williams College, >saw that only "a series of national and worldwide crises" could cause the >"American people" to "feel an urgent need for a change." (page 59) > >He furthered his concerns with this statement in another of his articles: > > "I doubt that Americans under normal conditions could agree on the >package of radical and ‘alien' constitutional changes that would be >required. They would do > so, I think, only during and following a stu-pendous national crisis and >political failure." (page 162) > >Another who wrote about a "crisis" was C. Douglas Dillon, the co-chair of the >Com-mittee on the Constitutional System. He was the Secretary of the Treasury >during the Kennedy Administration (his name is on your 1963 paper currency.) >(The book entitled REFORMING AMERICAN GOVERNMENT failed to mention that Mr. >Dillon used to be the Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations, called >"America's Invisible Government!") (Obviously an oversight!) > >This is how he saw it: > > "Such a significant shift in our Constitution is unlikely to come about >except as a result of a crisis that is very grave indeed." (page 29) > >James M. Burns, again: > > "The framers [of the Constitution] have simply been too shrewd for us. >They have outwitted us. They designed separated institutions that cannot be >unified by mechanical linkages. If we are to ‘turn the founders upside down' >-- to put together what they put asunder -- we must directly confront the >constitutional structure they erected." (page 160) > >So these "prominent citizens" believe the Constitution is outdated, and that >it must be eliminated if this nation is to handle some sort of unspecified >"crisis." > >Mr. Dillon then offered his solution to the Constitutional "crisis:" > > "That can only be remedied by a truly significant shift -- a change to >some form of parliamentary government that would eliminate or sharply >reduce the present division of authority between the executive and >legis-lative arms of government." (page 29) > >Lloyd Cutler, a counsel to President Jimmy Carter, and co-chair of THE >COMMIT-TEE, zeroed in on just what the "parliamentary government" would do >with the Con-stitution: IT WOULD REMOVE IT! > > "A parliamentary government may have no written constitution, as in the >United Kingdom." (page 13) > >And Mr. Cutler told us that they needed to create a way to change the form of >our government: > > "We need to find a way of coming closer to the parliamentary concept of >‘forming a government,' under which the elected majority is able to carry >out an overall program and is held accountable for its success or failure." >(page 16) > >Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., served as Special Assistant to President John >Kennedy, >defined the new governmental form: > > "The parliamentary system is to be defined by a fusion rather than by a >separation of powers. The executive is drawn from the legislative majority >and can count on automatic enactment of its programs." (page 51) > >That means to me that our next President will come from the Legislative >branch of our government, not from direct popular vote. > >So, if the PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF 2000 was created to give the American >people "a very grave crisis" to change our form of government to a >"parliamentary form," this is how they did it: > >America has gone to counting its votes in computerized counting machines. I >can remember the election of 1964 because I believe it was the last one that >was counted manually. > >I was a member of the California Young Republicans during that campaign who >were assisting Senator Barry Goldwater win the California Republican Primary. >His opponent in this election was former New York Governor Nelson >Rockefeller. We were concerned that the rumors of vote fraud all over >California could be true, so many of us volunteered to visit the precincts >where we felt a miscounting of the ballots could take place. We announced our >purposes to the vote counter in charge after we arrived, and then informed >them that we had legal authority to be in presence of the vote counters while >the votes were being counted. > >We were allowed to watch the actual counting of the paper ballots. > >I am not sure but I believe that this was the last time any ballots in >America were counted by hand. > >Now if the "vast left wing conspiracy" is real (I am providing you with the >details of its existence) wants to elect a candidate that was not the choice >of the electorate, all they would have to do is to rig the computer boxes >that count the vote to physically certify another candidate as the winner. > >These voting machines sit in warehouses for about 23 consecutive months while >they wait for the election every 2 years or so. They could easily be rigged >so that they would give the candidate of choice a rigged result. > >I have been told that the counting machines are tested before they are used >by some sort of official ballot count where the machines count a >predetermined ballot run before they are used to actually count real ballots. >It would be no problem to rig the counters to give an accurate count on the >trial run, then a rigged count on the actual count, to the election officials. > >The question that must be asked is how do we know that the machines are not >rigged? In 1964, we could physically watch the votes being counted. We cannot >watch these ballots being counted in the year 2000. > >Now, lets examine how they would rig a nationwide election. > >The voter in a Presidential election does not cast his vote for a >Presidential candidate. He votes for delegates to the Electoral College, a >Constitutionally required check on the democracy. It was the intent of the >Founding Fathers who created this nation to place the last "check and >balance" on "the will of the majority." > >It will be remembered that it was not "the people" who created the federal >govern-ment, it was the "united States of America." And to protect the >smaller states, they provided them with a slightly weighted advantage in the >electoral college: each state is assigned one elector for each U.S. senator >and representative. Since each state, no matter what it's population, has two >senators, they get one vote for each senator, and this provides them with a >small advantage over the bigger states. > >The electoral college is then required to meet in December of the election >year to cast their ballots for the President of the United States. > >BUT ABOUT ONE HALF OF THOSE DELEGATES ARE NOT REQUIRED TO VOTE FOR THE >CANDIDATE RECEIVING THE MAJORITY OF THE VOTES CAST IN THEIR STATE! > >This is the final check on "the democracy." > >These electors can cast their votes for another candidate if they should ever >question the results of the election, or if they question the honesty of the >candidate receiving the majority of their respective state. > >Now, let's pretend that one candidate is announced as "the winner of the >Electoral College" prior to the vote of the Electoral College, but the >candidate elected by that College in December IS NOT the candidate previously >announced. > >This election would certainly be challenged in court, and this entire process >could take months, if not years, to finally declare a new President. > >A prolonged election such as this one of the year 2000 certainly could seem >to fit the needed "crises that is very grave indeed." > >In fact, one of the two major political candidates in the 2000 election has >already told us about the "crises" that is coming. > >This candidate's name is Al Gore, the Democrat Party candidate for President, >who wrote a book in 1992 entitled EARTH IN THE BALANCE, (ISBN: 0-395-57821-3) >in which he also wrote about some needed changes in our civilization. This is >how he phrased it on page 48 of his book: > > "Our challenge is to accelerate the needed change in thinking about our >relationship to the environment in order to shift the pattern of our >civilization to a new equilibrium. > >This change in thinking will also follow the pattern described in Chaos >Theory, with little change evident until a threshold is passed, and then, as >key assumptions are modified, a flood of dramatic changes will occur all at >once." > >He continued with this quote on page 355: > > "The model of change we use in designing and implementing our strategy >should be based on the assumptions that there is a threshold we must cross >and that not much change will be apparent and obvious until we reach that >threshold, but when it is finally reached, the changes will be sudden and >dramatic." > >So, Al Gore is telling the American people that there is a "needed" >"threshold" com-ing, that will lead to a series of "dramatic changes" that >will "occur all at once." > >Notice in that quote on page 355 that "WE" are using a "strategy" that we >"designed and implemented." That confirms the fact that whatever "THRESHOLD" >we are to cross, it has been planned and this nation WILL cross it! > >So, this election crisis of the year 2000 is not an accident! It was >"DESIGNED AND IMPLEMENTED." Al Gore told us! > >So the only thing we need to locate is a date for this "threshold" to appear, >and I believe this date has been set for us. > >President George Bush Sr., while President of the United States, spoke to the >United Nations on October 1, 1990, ten years before the election of 2000. >(Source: New York Times, October 2, 1990, page A6.) This is what he said as >he gave us a probable date (actually a year in time) for the "crisis" to >occur. This is what he said: > > "The year 2000 marks a turning point" towards a "new world order."So, >George Bush supplied the American people with the year that this >"threshold," this "crisis that is very grave indeed" will occur: > >IT IS >THE YEAR 2000 > >They have told us: > > 1. Their concerns. > 2. Their solutions and > 3. The date of their "needed crisis that is very grave indeed" to give >us their solution. > >Now, what must we do about it? > >The only practical answer I have is that we need to make this information >just as widely known as possible!! > >The one thing that a "CONSPIRACY" cannot stand is the light of the truth. > >I will be trying to make this as public as possible. > >I am hoping that you will do all you know how to assist. > >If you want to discuss this, I can be reached at [EMAIL PROTECTED] or >through my mailing address: > > Ralph Epperson > P O Box 536 > Tucson, Arizona 85730 > >Oh yes, one more thing. If you read about my "jumping off of a 16 story >building" because I wanted to fly, I DID NOT DO THAT! I get a nosebleed when >I climb a ladder! > >May God bless America! > >--End of article-- >
