Radio Show
      Listen Host Guests Archive
On The Side

View the Latest Action Alerts and Stay informed!

Read our current Commentaries for indepth analysis into hot issues!




October 2003   alan stang
The Coming Cataclysm (II) What We Can Do By Alan Stang

Home Page Two News Portal Forum


By: Alan Stang

I promised I would give you the Conspiracyís address. It has many. Here is one. Go to the Southwest corner of 68th Street and Park Avenue in New York, just across the street from the Soviet consulate. There you will see an impressive building. A sign will tell you it is the home of the Council on Foreign Relations. Inside, men Ė conspirators Ė sit down around tables and conspire to submerge our country in a world government.

If you donít understand this, you will never understand what is happening. The CFR publishes a magazine called Foreign Affairs. In the April, 1974 issue, Richard Gardner wrote about "the house of world order." According to Gardner it "will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down. . . . An end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old fashioned frontal assault." Most interesting was Gardnerís explanation of how it will look while it is under construction. ". . . It will look like a great booming, buzzing confusion . . . ." It will look like that to people who donít know what is happening, who donít know that behind the booming and buzzing is an exquisitely orchestrated plan. For instance, by now everyone knows that our government is invading our country with an army of illegal aliens. At the same time, our government is deporting our jobs. Why?

Remember that the conspiratorial goal is to merge the United States and the rest of the world. But when the process began, the United States far outstripped the rest of the world in almost every respect, and the Great Merger cannot be completed with the United States way up here while the rest of the world is way down there. To complete the transformation into totalitarian world government, the United States and all other countries must be generally the same.

That is the purpose of the present booming and buzzing. First, our Communist government deported our industry. No problem, they said. We shall continue to lead the world with our computer services. But now those jobs too are being deported. Now, when I talk with my credit card company, I am talking to a man in Bombay. Yes, new jobs are being created here. Men who used to run companies are now flipping burgers.

Meanwhile, our Communist government is replacing our population Ė which, according to the Communist UN, is genocide Ė by importing illegal aliens. That is why Somalis who donít know how to use a doorknob are being settled in our cities. The predictable result of all this is that our standard of living is falling. As a conquered nation, we are being reduced, so we can more easily be swallowed.

Some observers understand all this, but make excuses for Bush, calling him a "dupe," as if any of this could continue without his approval. But, according to a hallowed principle of American jurisprudence, a man is presumed to intend the natural consequences of his acts. Suppose the police ask one man why he hit another in the head with a baseball bat, so hard that the victimís brains wound up in his wifeís lap. If the perpetrator says he had no idea that would happen if he hit the other man with the bat, the cops wonít buy it. They will say he should have known.

Again I ask, how long could the reduction of our country continue Ė how many minutes Ė after Bush picks up the phone and tells it to stop? Under the "dupe" theory, we are asked to believe that the Bush Administration operates without the Bush imprimatur; that, for instance, the federal agencies that supervise the illegal alien invasion do so on their own; that Bush doesnít know and canít do anything about it; that he isnít responsible for it. Donít all those guilty officials serve "at the pleasure of the President?"

Now, what can we do about all this? My bride said something the other day that shook me to the core. God instructed us to multiply. The more of us there are, the more of us there are to worship Him and praise is what He wants. Also, God is no respecter of persons. To Him there is no spiritual difference between a Mexican, a Somali who canít figure out a doorknob and me.

We donít know Godís ways, but we do know He doesnít think about the 2.1 children every couple must harvest to keep our population number stable. He told us to "multiply" not merely to add; certainly not merely to maintain stability. American women no longer multiply. Mexicans do. Muslims do. Is the Lord telling us something? Do we still deserve to be the custodians of our country?

For those of you who wonder, yes, we have done our part. We have five. I was on a roll and would have continued, but after the arrival of the Princess Royal my bride told me I could do that only if I took on another wife, and I couldnít afford another wife.

So, what can we do? By now, you have protected your assets from seizure, which we recommended last week. But nothing can be done that does not include either risk or inconvenience, or both. Yes, many decades ago the problem could have been solved with a few telephone calls and some hangings. No longer. Today our only choice is danger or slavery.

First, letís consider a weapon that is as inconvenient as it is enormously effective, but not at all dangerous. Go out of your way to serve on juries, which will consume considerable, precious time. Remember that juries, not the Congress, repealed Prohibition. When enough prosecutors could not get enough convictions, Congress simply signed off on what the juries had done and then typically took credit for it.

In the courtroom, the judge will tell you that he rules on the law. You are there, he says, only to rule on the facts. When he asks you whether you can live with that, smile. Then go to work. When the defendant is someone the facts prove beyond a shadow of a doubt committed rape, armed robbery, murder, etc., vote of course to convict, regardless of race, color, creed or childhood deprivation.

When the defendant is accused of some income tax violation, maybe failure to file, maybe evasion, vote to acquit. When the plaintiff is not some other citizen but the government, when the defendant is accused of protecting his property from eminent domain gone utterly crazy, vote to acquit. Whenever the issue is one or another of the governmentís unconstitutional and therefore illegal impositions, vote to acquit.

At first, you may well have to stand alone. Your fellow eleven jurors probably will pressure you to come aboard so they can go home and watch the latest episode of "Acne Frenzy." But you will stand fast. You will smile, but you donít need to say why you are voting as you do. No law requires you to give a reason, other than you donít think the defendant is guilty. You certainly donít need to say you read a certain article on

You could gradually bring the others over to your side. They wonít stand as fast as you do because you are not in a frenzy to watch "Acne Frenzy." If they refuse, at least you could get a hung jury, which means no conviction. The effect of even a little of this across the country could be enormous. Look at the effect of just one such case, in which Vernice Kuglin was recently acquitted of income tax evasion in Memphis.

Remember that what is known as "jury nullification" goes all the way back to William Penn and John Peter Zenger. John Jay, one of the authors of the Federalist Papers, and the nationís first Chief Justice, endorsed it. So have many court rulings down through the years. At least a couple of state constitutions enshrine it. But in todayís typical courtroom, the judge wonít mention it, or will lie about it.

You will find something about jury nullification in my book, Taxscam: How IRS Swindles You and What You Can Do About It. Go to for information. There are organizations that specialize in spreading the word about it. Do a google on the Fully Informed Jury Association. For those who like stronger wine, there is an outfit in California called Jail 4 Judges, which sponsors J.A.I.L., the Judicial Accountability Initiative Law.

Maybe it would inspire you to stand fast in the jury room by keeping an image of Ruth Bader Ginsburg in mind. Ruth gets paid these days for sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court. She comes to us from the anti-American Communist Liars Union. Recently, she said the United States needs to pay more attention to foreign court rulings. She always comes down on the side of world government and the subversion of our civilization.

It isnít Ruthís fault that she even looks like a rat, like one of those huge carnivores festooned with slime one sees crawling on unattended garbage. Ruth should wear contacts, because her glasses sadly add to the effect. The problem is that so does her black robe. She needs to wear frilly pink so supplicants wonít notice her face. It could help in the jury box if you keep her face in mind.

Next week weíll look at the single most important thing we can do to defeat the totalitarian Socialist world government that Bush & Company are trying to impose on the United States.

Alan Stang has been a network radio talk show host and was one of Mike Wallace's first writers. He was a senior writer for American Opinion magazine and has lectured around the world for more than 30 years. He is also the author of ten books, including, most recently, Perestroika Sunset, surrounding our Government's deception in the POW/MIA arena. If you would like him to address your group, please email what you have in mind. He is a regular columnist for Ether Zone.

Alan Stang can be reached at:

We invite you to visit his website at: