Real.  Educational.  News.

Fort Fairfield Journal                                  Contact Us                            Bible Reference                       Our Library


                          From the Editor



David Deschesne, Editor, Fort Fairfield Journal

May  11, 2005

Wild Boars

By:  David Deschesne

Editor, Fort Fairfield Journal

It is a well-established maxim of physics that energy always follows the path of least resistance. Electricity flows to ground through the conductor that has the least resistance, wind blows through the valley with the fewest obstacles and water seeks the easiest path to the ocean.

Living beings are no different. Take the wild boar, for instance. The wild boar lives on its own, it is required to hunt, dig and scrap for the food that is its very subsistence. Unless it expends a certain amount of Boar Energy Units (BEUs) every single day to acquire food, it will die. The boar, however, is always looking for a way to acquire the things it needs with a minimal amount of expended energy; call it instinct, call it economy, or call it survival - either way, its energy is constantly seeking the path of least resistance.

Now wild boars are a very mean bunch of animals. They’re tough, and independent. If you cross one, it’s best to get out of its way as expeditiously as possible. The boar doesn’t like to be bothered and will not hesitate to defend its territory, even at the pain of death.

The boar, being similar to our pig, is pretty good eating, though. Suppose a farmer wanted to get into the boar business, the first thing he would have to do is capture himself some boars.

There are two ways to go about capturing wild boars. The first way is to go out with a shotgun or rifle, hunt them down and start shooting. The problem is that with shooting, the farmer would have to expend a certain amount of his own energy hunting, tracking, shooting, and dragging the boar out of the woods. That expenditure of energy would only net the farmer one boar. If he wanted more by that method, he would have to go back and spend the same amount of energy next week and hunt another one. There must be a better way... there is.

The farmer could capture some boars and bring them back to the farm. The problem is that boars are pretty smart, they’re not easily trapped, and very hard to deal with when attempting to catch them. But a smart trapper can trap a whole team of boars and those dumb pigs won’t even know what happened to them.

First, a trapper would find a nice clear, level patch of ground and lay out a pile of feed. The boars, seeking food with the least amount of expended energy, would naturally gravitate towards this free handout. “If it’s free it’s for me,” as the old cliché goes.

The next day, the trapper would lay out another bag of free feed, and so on for about a week.

After the boars get pretty used to eating that free food, same time, same place every day, the trapper would commence to put up some posts around the area. More free feed. The boars come and see that the posts are non-threatening, ignore them and continue toward the food.

Time goes on and the trapper adds a row of planks all the way around the circumference of the feeding area. Still no threat to the boars; they can just hop over the planks whenever they want. Weeks go by and rows of planks are added slowly but surely until the fence is six feet high and there is only one opening.

The free feed is placed in the same spot as it has been for months. The boars, now getting quite fat, continue to come and gluttonously slop their chow. However, a few “old-timer” boars are getting a little nervous about the fence, but there is no gate door, so no worries.

The trapper then mounts the door to the gate, but keeps it open. More feed; more boars. Finally, when the feeding area is full of boars feeding on their chow, SLAM! The gate shuts and the trapper has acquired a renewable supply of boars.

Congratulations to the trapper, his cunning and quick wits acquired him a supply of food that, if properly maintained will feed him, his family, and provide a steady source of income for years to come. Good for the trapper, bad for the boars.

People, as creatures with a finite amount of energy units, are always seeking the path of least resistance, too. The mechanic looks for a quicker way to change a radiator, the chef looks for a more economical way to make a burger, the electrician is always trying to find a quicker method of stringing wire. Conservation of energy is the motive force behind the engine of efficiency that drives all creatures, animal and human to get more for less. Like the trapper in the previous allegory, humans may wish to trap other humans, too. History is replete with examples of humans enslaving others and forcing their slaves to do work so they won’t have to. Enslaving and harnessing other sources of energy is inherent in the nature of all beings. On the other hand, it is always the duty of the potentially enslaved to guard his own energy and not let another steal it.

The original American people are very similar to the wild boars previously spoken about. They were very fierce and independent. They worked hard for what they needed and were very ornery towards those who would stop them. But, like the boars, the American people have allowed a cage to be built around them over the past one hundred years; a cage that seemed innocuous at first, but to some of the “old-timers” and others who have stopped long enough to look at it, very ominous and threatening. Meanwhile, most Americans go on about their way, too busy to notice the gate that encircles them, or the gate door that is swinging on its hinges.

In this analogy, the government is the trapper, the American people, of course, are the boars. The government is filled with a lot of very good, honorable, decent, though very naïve people. It is also filled with very sinister, wicked, evil and corrupt people - whose only goal is to steal whatever energy units they can from others. The planks that have been nailed up in the gate around us all are such innocent looking items as: driver’s licenses, marriage licenses, building permits, birth certificates, marriage certificates, automobile certificates of title, and many of the other plethora of items the government uses to ensnare us with on a daily basis. The “free feed” is the welfare state/ debt-based credit money system in the form of bank loans, bonds, credit cards, etc. All of which we did not have when we started our country and became the most powerful nation on earth. Now we are the most indebted nation in history.

In August of 2001, the government buttressed the “gate door” by printing Field Manual FM 3-19.40; Miltary Police Internment/Resettlement Operations for the US Army. Chapter 9 of that manual is entitled “Populace and Resource Control” it begins, “Civilian and military authorities exercise PRC to provide security for the populace, deny personnel and material to an enemy, mobilize population and materiel resources, and detect and reduce the effectiveness of enemy agents. Populace control includes curfews, movement restrictions, travel permits, registration cards, and resettlement operations. Resource control includes licenses, regulations, guidelines, checkpoints, ration controls, amnesty programs, and facility inspections.”

With travel permits (driver’s licenses), registration cards (vehicle registration), resettlement operations (low income housing), police checkpoints and roadblocks, ration controls (food stamps, welfare checks, heating oil assistance), amnesty programs (Crimestoppers), and facility inspections (OSHA, DEP, CPS, DHS, EPA, etc.) it is clear for some to see that the gate is already nicely in place on its hinges. There are just a few “wild boar” Americans currently sneaking close to the gate, or under the fence before the door finally slams shut.


May 25, 2005

Resident of

By:  David Deschesne

Editor, Fort Fairfield Journal

     The colloquialism resident of has become a widely used expression in our language today. “She is a resident of Fort Fairfield,” “He is a resident of Maine” are some common usages for that phrase. But, do people really know what they are saying when using those words?



     Resident is a compound word comprised of the Latin res and identitas. In Latin, res means “thing” and identitas means “identity.” Therefore, the term “resident” is in effect a “thing identifier.”

     We are humans. We inhabit the land. As humans, we are inarguably not “things.” Prior to the 1890s, the word resident was not used in Maine law to refer to people in Maine. Instead, “inhabitants” was the preferred usage: “She is an inhabitant in Fort Fairfield,” “He is an inhabitant in Presque Isle” and “All inhabitants in Maine shall be able to…” were the common phrases of the day.



     The word of means “made from,” or “belonging to.” We would say correctly, “That gear is part of the motor,” or “We are all children of God.” Of connotes origination from or possession/belonging to an originator.

      When we say the phrase, “John Doe of Fort Fairfield” we are in effect saying that John Doe was made from or belongs to the corporation known as the Town of Fort Fairfield.

      Now the Town of Fort Fairfield can do a lot of things, but it can’t create a human being.

      No government, for that matter can create a human. Only a man and a woman, after conjugal relations, can create another live-born human.    

      There has never been a record of a governing authority writing a bill, voting on it, passing it, signing it into law and “POOF” a human being created.

      Therefore, it is incorrect to say John Doe of Fort Fairfield or Sally Soccermom of Presque Isle, because governmental corporations cannot create live-born people.


Resident of

      The semantical deception derived from “resident of” was craftily introduced into our vocabulary over 100 years ago by a government that has come to view its citizenry as “things” that it can identify and own.

      The way it did that was by creating a “thing” to “identify” us with. In legal terms, it’s called a “straw man.” The straw man is your name in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS. I will teach on the straw man concept in a later edition of the Journal, for now it is only necessary for you to know that the government created it, the municipalities and all governmental entities claim possession of it and it is what government uses on a daily basis to connect itself to the live-born people, who are its rightful masters, in order to confiscate valuable human energy from them in a very obfuscated manner.

      Look at the government forms you fill out, the terms people use to refer to each other with and see for yourself whether one identifies himself or herself as a “thing” which belongs to a governmental entity, city, town, etc. or if they refer to themselves as an “inhabitant living in a particular area.”

      I, for example, am not a resident of Presque Isle. Since Presque Isle is where I live, and I was not created by Presque Isle, nor am I owned by Presque Isle, I am merely an inhabitant in Presque Isle.

The Fort Fairfield Journal has printed the proper terminology in the majority of its original stories and articles when referring to live-born people and will continue to do so in the future.

     Perhaps if we can all refer to ourselves in the proper standing in relation to government, the governing officials will stop looking at us as their property (things) that they need to identify with serial numbers (driver’s licenses/national ID cards) and we will resume our dominance over them once again.


June 22, 2005

A Man, made of Straw


By:  David Deschesne

Editor, Fort Fairfield Journal


In the May 25, 2005 issue of the Fort Fairfield Journal, I briefly touched upon the concept of a "Straw Man" as the tool governments and corporations use to interact with live-born humans. I will attempt in this issue to bring about a little more clarity on the subject, but keep in mind, it is quite involved and you will need to turn your brain on; perhaps even read this two or three times. It took me over a year of intense study of civics and law to get my own brain around it.

     Everybody who walks about in the sunlight on a bright, sunny day will cast a shadow. Indeed, everybody who stands near a light source will cast a shadow. While the shadow cast is representative of the thing casting it, it is not the original thing. You, after all, are not your shadow and your shadow is not you - it is merely a silhouette, a representation, of you. That is it. If you run about, chasing your shadow, you will never be able to catch it because it does not exist in the material realm.

     When our nation was founded, it was founded by We the People. We the People ordained the Federal Constitution, as well as the Constitutions of our respective states. Because of this, The People - which includes all of us - are the rightful masters of government. Government servants work for us; we are their bosses.

     Because our power is superior to government's power, those "officials" had to find a way to steal our natural, God-given rights and our money. They did that very craftily by introducing the concept of the straw man in the 1930s.

The straw man functions as our "shadow" - it resembles/represents us to the government in a fictional realm, but it really isn't us.

Black's Law dictionary defines Straw Man as follows:


straw man. 1. A fictitious person, esp. one that is weak or flawed. 2. A tenuous and exaggerated counterargument that an advocate puts forward for the sole purpose of disproving it. - Also termed straw-man argument. 3. A third party used in some transactions as a temporary transferee to allow the principal parties to accomplish something that is otherwise impermissible. 4. A person hired to post a worthless bail bond for the release of an accused. - Black's 7th ed.


     Since those in government cannot trump God-ordained rights, they had to create an entity that they could regulate in order to craftily trick us into giving up our rights - they did that by creating a Straw Man (see definition #3 in Black's citation above). Just as governments create corporations, and regulate them, it too creates corporations whose names resemble peoples' names in order to regulate them.

     When we went to school, we were all taught that proper names of nouns are capitalized only on the first letter - never all capital. John Henry Doe is the way our English teachers taught us to correctly spell proper names. The Upper/Lower case spelling of a given name/surname therefore indicates a proper name for a human being. Today, you can identify your straw man by the form of your name. The form of the spelling of its name identifies the straw man created by the government. Where a natural person's name will be John H. Doe, the government identifies the shadowy "straw man" counterpart as JOHN H. DOE.

     We all have been assigned, by the government, a straw man that is not alive, can not work and produce, does not breathe and does not have a heartbeat. Look on your Driver's license, the military style of your straw man's name will appear there - DOE, JOHN H.. Because restricting the right to freely travel is unconstitutional and violates every tenant of our free society, government had to create a straw man to license, and con us into accepting its identity as our own. Thus, the straw man becomes the third party used in a transaction to allow the principal party (government) to accomplish something that is otherwise impermissible (violate our rights) - see definition #3 again from Black's citation above.

     Another one of the main purposes of the straw man is to use artificial money. Since 1933, United States currency has been artificial (that is, it is created from nothing as a result of debt). Because our money is artificial and possesses no tangible qualities, its value only exists in our imagination, as a fiction. Material people cannot spend imagined, fictional money, so the government allows us to use our fictional straw man to spend it on our behalf. Other places you will find your straw man used are on your phone bill, insurance bill, tax bill, Credit Card, bank statements, etc. In short, any place where a corporation is attempting to do business with you using artificial Federal Reserve debt money, a straw man must ultimately be used.

       When a traffic ticket is written, the government (which is an artificial, corporate entity) is attempting to acquire some of that artificial money from the human. Therefore, the ticket is made out using the straw man's name that appears on the driver's license. The courts, which operate only on presumption, then presume you to be the fiduciary (financially responsible) for that straw man when they find it guilty and assess the fine against it. You then end up paying its bill.

A fiduciary relationship is sort of like a father/son relationship. If you have a son who is under 18 years of age, and he throws a rock and breaks somebody's window, you are financially responsible for his actions. However, if your neighbor's kid throws a rock and breaks a window, you are not financially responsible for his actions. If the courts attempt to assess a fine against you for something your neighbor's kid did, because they think he was your kid, you must speak up and tell the court, "That's not my kid, I'm not financially responsible for him."

      Likewise, if the courts are presuming you to be the fiduciary of a straw man, which name merely resembles yours, you could tell them, "That is not me! That is not my name and I am not financially responsible for it."

     However, if you want to remain a slave to government and the debt created therefrom, just continue accepting your ALL CAPITAL LETTER name as your own and be as happy and prosperous as you can while the government, banks, and corporations use it to steal every last ounce of your human energy throughout the rest of your life.

     The straw man concept is so simple it is complicated. There is no way I can easily teach on it in a half page synopsis. I have merely given you the ability to identify it, and briefly touched on how it's used. If you don't understand it, but truly want to know more about it, please contact me at the Email address or phone number on this page.

     Now you are ready to read the Wizard of Oz allegory on page four of this issue of the Journal.


August 3, 2005

Hegelian Dialectic

By:  David Deschesne

Editor, Fort Fairfield Journal


Editorials are not necessarily news stories. They are opinions of the author based upon his understanding of the subject, the research and the analysis presented during his research.

I write a newspaper with news items in it, such as “the red car hit the green car.” I am also able to write my opinions based upon the available evidence that I have gathered. For example, “The red car hit the green car because its driver was driving too fast.” The adjective phrase “too fast” is my opinion. I may have various accounts, but if I don’t have a police radar to accurately document the speed, you will have to take my word for it and the words of several other witnesses to the event who concur that the speed was too fast, or imprudent. Then a reasonable presumption would be that the driver of the red car was going too fast. Absent a third party documentation of the event (police radar) we would have to ask the driver of the red car how fast he was going. If he was truly speeding, and facing a heavy fine, what do you think he’ll say?

Another example is when a marine biologist says, “There are thousands of species of fish in the ocean.” Now, we can either believe him at his word because he’s done the study and the research, or we can doubt him and require him to show photographic proof of every fish known to man. Since he has spent the time researching, society usually grants him permission to make such a statement, without the necessary documentation, with the understanding that while it’s his opinion, it is well-formed, based upon research.

My editorials are the same way. I tell you what I think, based upon my research. I footnote whenever possible, but sometimes, like a good detective going on a “hunch,” I try to connect the dots when the information is not forthcoming (the red car’s driver may not want to talk), based upon the information I already have. My editorials are my opinion and analysis based on my own research and understanding, nothing more. You can take them or leave them. If I think the red car was going too fast, that would be my subjective opinion. The driver of the car, of course would have a different story. You may rely on either to form your own opinion.



I like chocolate ice cream. On hot days, I’d rather have vanilla, though. Chocolate seems to make me thirsty and nothing “hits the spot” on a hot day like a nice vanilla milk shake.

Now, let’s say my son and I are walking along Main street on a hot day and decide it would be nice to have a milk shake, but there isn’t enough money between the two of us to buy two. We stop at Harvest Market for our shake and I order, “One small vanilla shake, please.” He says, “No, no, I hate vanilla. I want chocolate.”

Now we have a problem. I want vanilla, he wants chocolate. What to do?

We’ve been taught by our school teachers “When we compromise, everyone wins.” But is that true? Suppose my son and I “compromise” and choose a coffee milk shake, or a bottle of soda pop. Did either of us “win” - that is, get what we really wanted? No. When you compromise, both sides lose.

This is a very cursory example of the Hegelian Dialectic, theorized by German philosopher, George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel in the early 1800s. His dialectic consisted of three phases: Thesis, Antithesis and Synthesis.

In the above example, the “Thesis” would be the original thought - vanilla, the “Antithesis” would be the opposite - chocolate. The synthesis, Hegel postulated, would be arrived at by a combination of the two thoughts - a “compromise” in order to find the real truth of the matter - what my son and I really wanted to drink. It may be true, because if we bought the soda pop, we must have wanted it, or we wouldn’t have bought it. However, there is a flaw in the argument, the original items are what we really, truthfully wanted.

Governments and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) use the Hegelian dialectic on a daily basis to sway unwitting populations who would otherwise resist, into going along with government tyranny.

A beautiful example is the gun control issue. First, the thesis is offered: “Ban all the guns.” That will generate the antithesis by the majority of Americans, “No, we don’t want any of our guns banned.” Then comes the synthesis - the compromise - “O-k, then we’ll just ban the ’assault weapons’.” Society concurs that’s reasonable and moves on without assault weapons. The thesis then is presented again, “Ban all guns.” Society says “No” and a compromise is again reached, banning all .50 caliber weapons. Soon, through enough cycles of the Hegelian dialectic, all guns are eventually banned. The government finally gets what it wants and society has acquiesced its right to defend itself away through compromise without even knowing it.

Governments have adapted the Hegelian Dialectic to steering societies by a method originally dubbed by radio talk show host and researcher, Alex Jones, Problem - Reaction - Solution (PRS).

Here are a few examples of how governments and bureaucracies use the PRS dialectic to get societies to do what government wants, but society doesn’t.:

WWI: President Wilson campaigned on keeping America out of the war (World War I). He was elected by a vast majority of Americans who had no interest in entering that war. However, money mogul, JP Morgan, who was selling war bonds for England here in the U.S. and using that money to purchase war materials from his own companies (at a profit) to send back to England, got himself into a bit of a quandary. England looked like she was about to lose the war with Germany. That meant all those bonds he sold would never be paid back, plus sales of material and equipment he was selling would end. America had to enter the war to ensure an English victory and a continuation of profits, but the American people didn’t want war. Enter the Lusitania. The Lusitania was a war ship disguised as a passenger ship. The Germans would not sink a ship unless it was known to have war materials on it. The Lusitania was loaded with passengers and, unbeknownst to them, also with war cargo. The Lusitania was directed to travel through known enemy waters without a naval escort and subsequently blown up by the German navy. (see Creature from Jekyll Island, ©1994 G. Edward Griffin, pp. 235-262)

The PROBLEM was that the Lusitania was blown up with civilian passengers, the REACTION was a violent uprising of the American people against Germany, the SOLUTION was war. The Americans then endorsed a war they never would have otherwise. Profits soared.

WWII: The same thing seemed to happened in World War II when the federal government knew the Japanese were coming to attack Pearl Harbor and allowed them to do it as a pretext for the U.S. to enter the war. (see U.S. Congress’ H.R. 4205, Sec. 576, July 13, 2000, pp. 227-235)

9-11: History is replete with examples of state-sponsored terrorism in order to bring about a desired outcome. Hitler had his agents burn the Reichstag to blame it on his political enemies and Nero burned Rome to blame it on the Christians. There is an increasing body of evidence that the PRS paradigm was potentially exercised once again on September 11, 2001 where it is alleged that factions inside the US government, either orchestrated, or willingly allowed the World Trade Centers to be imploded by a couple of passenger jets slamming into them. (see 9-11: The Great Illusion, by George Humphrey and 911: The Road to Tyranny by Alex Jones)

After the recent London bombings, New York police commissioner, Raymond W. Kelly unwittingly admitted using the Hegelian dialectic in light of his decision to use Soviet-style, random, warrantless checks of passengers’ bags in the city’s mass transit system.

“The reality is, you need an event such as London for people to realize this is a procedure put in place for their safety,” Mr. Kelly said during an hour-long interview in his office at 1 Police Plaza. “Searches are intrusive. The issue is what the public will accept. You still need an event to get public support.” (see New York Times, July 24, 2005, p. 22)

Historically, governments have used “events” - either real or fabricated - as Problems to generate a Reaction of fear, in order to offer their Solution of dictatorial, unconstitutional, police-state tyranny.


August 17, 2005

Home/Land Security

By:  David Deschesne,

Editor, Fort Fairfield Journal


I’m sure by now that most of you have seen that television commercial where a burglar tries to break into a home, the alarm goes off, he runs away and the mother and her kids are shown helplessly huddled together like a bunch of deer stuck in headlights talking on the phone with the surveillance company.

Notice I used the word surveillance, not “security,” because such companies do not have the capacity to keep you secure - just under surveillance, or watched over.

The other commercial that gives me pause is the one on the radio where a pathetically helpless motorist is dumbfounded by the simplest of problems and pushes a little button, waiting for a friendly voice via satellite to come on and tell him what to do.

What a sad state our society is in when we have become so helplessly stupid and dependent that we can’t exercise the common sense to even come in out of the rain without someone telling us how to do it. I call this societal problem “Surveillance Dependence Syndrome” (SDS).

SDS is afflicting millions across this country. I have recently started a new column on page seven that coincides with the Police Logs, called Police Department Minutia. The Minutia column vividly illustrates the helpless mindset SDS has instilled in society. Fortunately, not all of us suffer from SDS. I have noticed the police responded in those cases, as with many others, using the same common sense approach my dad taught me. Hopefully the police won’t watch or listen to those two commercials too closely, or they may begin to suffer from SDS and begin whining and sucking their thumbs while waiting for someone else to come and exercise common sense for them - like a growing segment of the public currently is doing.



What if, in that television commercial just mentioned, the burglar didn’t run away when the alarm went off? The helpless, unarmed housewife might be waiting up to fifteen minutes for a police officer to arrive to “protect” her with his gun. Meanwhile she could potentially be raped, shot, or stabbed, and...while her kids are watching. Maybe the family could sue the police for not protecting her. WRONG! The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that police have no legal requirement to protect anybody’s life! (see DeShaney v. Winnebago Cty Soc. Svs Dept. 489 US 189 also Town of Castle Rock v. Jessica Gonzales)

Most cops are good people and would like to protect the citizenry from harm, but they are not legally required to do so.



Home/Land Security begins at home.

Because the police can’t be everywhere at all times and they are not legally required to protect us, it is prudent to see what they use to offer us a semblance of “protection” and adopt similar measures for our own situations. Let’s see, what does a cop have that bad guys don’t like? Is it the badge? How about the gun? Yep, it’s the gun.

I have concluded that bad guys don’t like pain, ergo they don’t like being shot at. That’s why cops are so effective at scaring the bad guys - the cops have guns. If it works for the cops, why can’t it work for each and every one of us (properly trained, of course)? 

I have my own Home/Land Security right at my home. One is a Malamute/Border Collie with a nasty attitude. He barks at any anomalies within his immediate surroundings, i.e. cars parked at the side of the road, people walking by too slowly, etc. His name is Dollar and functions as my “Early Warning system.”

My other dog is a German Shepherd named Brandi. She generally has a very loud bark and doesn’t like surprises. She functions as my “Proximity Detector.”

When both dogs begin barking profusely, I know something is amiss. I go to the window and look outside to see who/what is there. I can then make a determination on what course of action to take next.

Usually it is just a customer for the newspaper, or a friend stopping by to visit. No worries. The dog/alarm is reset and all is well.

However, what if, while my dogs are barking, a man smashes my window out with a crow bar? I can be fairly certain that he isn’t there to sell me a magazine subscription. Now that my dogs have warned me of the presence of a person, and I have been given reason to believe he may do my family and me harm, I can go to the next phase of my Home/Land Security: I dial 9-11, and if I feel my life is in danger, grab my 12-gauge Mossberg shotgun. 9-11 is a useful tool for getting it on the record that you are experiencing a problem. The cops will always show up, whether you speak into the phone, or not.

I like shotguns for Home/Land Security for several reasons; They are large and intimidating to an intruder who is attempting to do me harm, since the shot pellets fan out when fired, I don’t have to be tremendously accurate in order to get the “bad guy” (note: although I hit 38 out of 40 targets with an M16 when I trained for the US Army) and generally speaking, I won’t have to fire, once the intruder sees I have a 12 gauge, that usually shifts his priorities and he no longer becomes a threat.

Several words of caution, though.   Firing in an enclosed area (such as your home) will increase the likelihood of hearing impairment. Never fire a gun inside unless you have proper hearing protection. Your family members can stick their fingers in their ears, but you should have some of those foam earplugs readily available if you don’t want to potentially go deaf after firing your gun.

Deadly force should only be used to meet deadly force when it's presented. Maine statutes DO NOT cover (nor does Biblical scripture) use of deadly force to prevent theft of property.  One must have an articulable, reasonable fear for life or limb.  This must withstand scrutiny.  You should read Maine statutes thoroughly. Never shoot unless you have to save a life from an aggressor.  It is always a good thing to call the police to handle the situation, if at all possible. After all, the cleaning, repairing and the unfortunate litigation that can result can become quite monotonous.

Despite the legalities involved it is also worthy to consider the life-long psychological implications of having taken a human life as well. These are of course unpredictable and can be quite devastating in some cases. Their unpredictability alone makes them worthy of serious consideration. Not everyone has the mindset or mental equipment to be able to handle such situations, even if legally OK.

Also worthy of consideration as effective alternatives in situations not requiring deadly force would be the use of pepper spray or tazers. The point being that the means of self defense are available in many forms and need not be restricted to firearms owners alone.

I don’t hunt. I buy all my meat at the IGA. I do have a gun collection and a whole bunch of assorted ammo, though. I originally purchased my 12-gauge shotgun over five years ago for the specific purpose of Home/Land Security. I’ve also had dogs equally as long. My 12-gauge shotgun has never been fired. I have never pointed it at another person. I have also never had an intruder break in to threaten my family, or me either.

We've Been Robbed

August 31, 2005

By:  David Deschesne

Editor, Fort Fairfield Journal


   Suppose you come home from work one day and find your note pad, ink pen and favorite coffee cup missing.  You would probably write it off as absent-mindedness and that you had misplaced them.

   Now, what about the next day? You come home and your dishes are all missing and your television’s sitting in the back yard with the screen busted out of it.  You are probably going to start getting a little suspicious.

   You have two options: 1.) suck your thumb and do nothing, hoping the thief doesn’t come back or 2.) call the police and start an investigation.

   If you choose the thumb-sucking strategy, the burglar is probably going to continue robbing you since you are putting up little to no resistance. 

   The best strategy is to find out how he’s getting in, when he’s taking your stuff, who he actually is and putting a stop to it.  You can stop him either with bigger locks, tighter windows or actually catching him and arresting him.  Surveillance systems, closed circuit television and alarms would be very conducive to those ends.  But, you have to start immediately.  Surely, your neighbors would not think of you as “strange” or a “kook” for attempting to catch a burglar who is stealing from you, they would probably think it prudent, because your actions could potentially make their home safer from theft, as well.



   About five years ago, I started looking around our society and noticed some things missing that always used to be there.  One of them was our gold and silver money, another was our natural, God-given rights that are enshrined in our Constitution, another thing that seems to be stolen from us is our human labor in the form of excessive, confiscatory taxation ponzi schemes.  I understand that we’ve all been robbed by criminals in government; not  to say that all in government are criminals, but many are.  The rest are too stupid and naïve to know they’re aiding and abetting criminal activity, or worse yet, they don’t care.

   Since I started with the frame of reference that the government steals from us (I do understand there are legitimate services like police, fire and road work that do cost money and should be paid for) at a profit to themselves, I began to look around to see how they do it.   Over the past year, I have shown you some of the ways government has “broken in” to our homes and has stolen from us.  They use such tools as: Driver’s Licenses, Social Security Numbers, Marriage Licenses, Certificates of Title, Birth Certificates, Vehicle Registration, etc.  Most of these are contracts that the government dupes us into, in order to gain the “keys” to our private lives and steal our substance - that is, human labor.

     Are things really as bad as I have made them out to be?  Actually, they’re worse...a lot worse.  I’ve been holding back a lot of information for the time being, because most wouldn’t be able to handle it all at once.  But, I am planning on continuing to release it in small, easily digestible pieces.

   One of the most efficient ways government steals from us is through the inflationary effects of the debt-based paper money extortion racket implemented by legislative fiat on behalf of a private, international banking cabal in 1913 - the Federal Reserve (which isn’t “Federal” and has no “reserves”) and by force in 1933 (they stole our gold and made it a crime to possess it).

   I will attempt to explain in layman’s terms the manner in which the theft takes place through both inflation and the debt instruments themselves.  Keep in mind, this is university level, but I will make the allegories simple enough for most to understand.



   Most of society is working harder today than it ever had to just to provide the basic necessities.

   In 1961, the minimum wage was around $1.25 per hour.  That’s not a lot of money; but, it didn’t take a lot of money to purchase things, either.  At that time you could buy a meatball sub, movie ticket, soda pop, comic book and a newspaper for a total outlay of just 87 cents!  In 1961, you only had to work 45 minutes in order to earn enough money to purchase those five items.  In October, minimum wage will increase to $6.50 per hour, but prices have risen disproportionately, because those same five items will now cost you around $14.68.  Today, you have to work over two hours to purchase the same things 45 minutes of your time bought only four decades ago.  If minimum wage would have kept up with inflation, it would be about $21.00 per hour today.  You don’t think businesses would stay in business at that rate?  Well, they did at that ratio of wages to prices in the 1960s.  What happened?



   Everyone knows it is a foolish practice to pay one credit card off with another one.  While the new card is current, it still has all of the original debt contained on it.  If one kept rolling credit cards over in that way, he would always be current, but perpetually in debt.  Government has scammed us, to the financial benefit of the banks, into paying debt with debt via the Federal Reserve’s fraudulent, fiat debt-based money racket.  Since we fell for the scam, and continue to utilize it in our daily affairs, we will continue to experience hyper-inflation, as more money is borrowed and circulated and we will continue to spiral into debt.   Here’s a simple analogy on how society pays its debt with debt:

   Suppose Sally just started work at a hypothetical car dealership, we’ll call them ABC Auto.  She is the secretary at the front desk.  ABC Auto is a new business, has spent all of its money to open its doors and has no money left in its checking account. 

   Now, John comes in the front door to purchase a car.  The salesman finds the right car for John, loan paperwork is drafted, John gets a loan for $20,000 (which was created from nothing as a mere book entry) from the bank and buys the car.

   ABC Auto now has $20,000 in its checking account in order to purchase a new car for stock and pay the workers.

   At the end of the week, Sally gets a paycheck from ABC Auto.  That paycheck is drawn from the $20,000 of borrowed money that John used to buy the car.  Sally cashes her check and pays her own car loan.  She uses Federal Reserve Notes - which are loan certificates, or evidence of debt - which were created into existence as borrowed money from John’s car loan.  She is in effect paying (banks call it discharging) her car loan payment with money borrowed by John.  There it is: paying debt with debt.

   The remainder of the money, she takes to the grocery story to buy food for the week.  The money she gives to the cashier, which came from her paycheck, that traces itself back to the borrowed money John used to buy his car, is now being used for the grocery store owner to pay his loan payments.

   Over time, John will collect a paycheck, which is derived from still other people’s borrowed money, and pay off (discharge) his car loan with that borrowed paper.  We are all using bits and pieces of other people’s promissory notes (in the form of Federal Reserve Notes) to pay our own promissory notes.  College students pay $30,000 a year to learn to call this scam “prosperity.”

     At a higher level, the income tax takes society’s borrowed money and uses it to pay (discharge) the government’s bonds.

     Paying debt with debt is an insane way of conducting a prosperous business or household, let alone running a country. 

   Until we stop borrowing to make ourselves “rich,” we will continue to pledge our labor to the banks, as their indentured servants, until we have nothing left to give them.  



   Most politicians are guilty of this theft of our produce by the banks, because they continue to allow it to go on.  But, some are aware of it and have tried to stop it.  Some of the names that come to mind are Presidents Lincoln and Kennedy (and we know what happened to them) as well as Congressmen Louis T. McFadden (R-Pennsylvania, 1934), James Trafficant  (D-Ohio) and Ron Paul (R-Texas).  Congressman McFadden was killed after the third assassination attempt because he brought impeachment charges against the Federal Reserve.  Congressman Trafficant languishes in a Federal prison on trumped-up charges because he brought up the bankruptcy of the United States on the House floor and wouldn’t shut up about the illegality of the I.R.S.  Congressman Paul is still a member of Congress and needs our prayers and support.



  Why Such High Gas Prices?

 September 14, 2005

By:  David Deschesne

Editor, Fort Fairfield Journal


Bologna Sandwiches

and Hamster Wheels

   Prior to hurricane Katrina, I read a Letter to the Editor in the Bangor Daily News, where a person was lamenting on how he had to switch to “eating bologna sandwiches” in order to afford gasoline to get to work and pay his bills.

   What has happened to our society that getting to work just to pay bills is more important than a healthy diet?

   There’s one answer:  Debt.  People are so scared to death of losing their homes and/or cars that they will do whatever it takes to keep the banks from taking them.  It is that fear of loss that continues to motivate people to spin the hamster wheel harder and harder to receive less and less benefit to themselves which drives gas prices into the stratosphere.  Would they worry so much if they knew the money they “borrowed” never existed at the bank prior to the loan, but was merely created out of nothing?

   The economic principles that drive up gas prices are both predictable and at the same time virtually uncontrollable - at least at the legislative level.  The problem of high gas prices is neither a Democrat or Republican problem.  It is not necessarily due to “greedy gas companies” and since it is market driven, based upon supply and demand, there is little Congress or the President can do to change it - despite their best intentioned efforts.  So, don’t look to them for help.


Supply and Demand

   "The less there is, the more it's worth," as the old adage goes, has never been more true than with today's current gas prices.

     According to Michael D. Tusiani in an article in the March 3, 2004 Bangor Daily News (BDN), US refinery capacity is simply not able to keep up with the demand.

"America burned 8.93 million barrels of gasoline a day in 2003, 8.14 million barrels of it produced by domestic refineries. If U.S. refineries operated at peak gasoline output despite seasonal swings in motor fuel sales, they might sustain 8.7 to 8.8 million barrels a day of production, assuming their equipment could take the stress...the oil industry could not install new equipment fast enough to prevent a shortage two or three years from now. No company can order the major process hardware to make gasoline - pipe stills, catalytic crackers, alkylation units, cokers, and reformers - off the shelf. It takes three years to build and install those big, costly units."  So, gas itself is being limited by our ability to refine it, despite increased crude supplies from the strategic reserves.


Economic Spheres

     The game of Monopoly is a very illustrative game to use when describing monetary systems. Suppose you had four players. Each of the players is given the standard $1,500. That $6,000 represents the money in circulation. As that money supply is limited, so too will the prices of the various properties be.

   Now, let's reach down under the table in our shoe box full of Monopoly money and bring up fistfuls of it and give only two of the players each $500,000,000! When someone lands on property they are unable to buy, the property will go out to auction and the two "rich" players will begin bidding.  Since so much money is available in their hands, and each wants the property in order to be able to compete, human nature will bid the original $400 sticker price of Boardwalk, for example, to $100,000 or more, while the two regularly-funded players sit and watch the prices rise.

    That's exactly what has happened to our gas prices. The petroleum industry and its affiliated businesses all represent an Economic Sphere - that's the unbiased Monopoly board. The two players who have fistfuls of money represent those with the wealth in society; the other two regularly funded players represent average citizens in society.

     Because for years most of society has had enough money available to play the game with, they bid the prices up.  

    Money value fluctuates like baseball cards being auctioned on the bid board at our local stamp and coin shop. The more there are, the less they're worth.  Like baseball cards, the more money that is printed and entered into circulation, the less it will be worth. That is why we have inflation - prices rise to offset the devaluation of the dollar.

    Just like money in the hands of our two "rich" players lost value amongst themselves when each was given nearly five hundred thousand times the money they originally had, the money in the hands of the wealthy lost its value within gasoline’s economic sphere of activity. The same types of economic spheres exist in Sports, NASCAR, Hollywood, Lawyer services, Housing and Real Estate, Health Care, etc.

   We cast our vote for higher gas prices every time we agree to pay its price.     The fear of losing house/home and auto are because of our willingness to enter into adhesion contracts with the banks called bank loans (again, the bank loans you none of their own money, just newly created paper).  We therefore, have nobody to blame but ourselves for the gas prices and economic conundrum they present.

  The solution to high gas prices is difficult, but not impossible:

1.)  Stop buying so much of it with credit cards, since the expansion of credit tends to drive prices up;

2.) Get out of debt so you won’t feel pressured to work so hard for so long, despite the gas prices; and

3.)  Permanently use less gas.  Ride a bike, walk or carpool.

    Just an idea:  Horses are starting to look pretty good, too.  Horse shoes are cheaper than tires, all horses really need is hay, oats and water, you don’t have to register them with the DMV, they don’t need expensive auto insurance and they won’t wear our roads out as fast as cars do.  The same could be said of bicycles, but you may want to trade the hay and oats for a granola bar.


September 28, 2005

By:  David Deschesne

Editor, Fort Fairfield Journal

Question to the Editor:

“Why would Bush be aiding and abetting Reconquista? Is cheap labor worth more to him than preserving our country? Somebody help me, please. I am at a loss to understand why he would sell out the USA. Millions and millions of illegals are pouring into the country, and Bush won’t lift a finger to stop it.” - Jay F., Bangor



You have asked a very good question on the importation of Mexican labor and I am happy to help with the answer.

In order to understand the Mexican paradigm, one must first understand the financial purposes for which they are being used and abused. Here is a brief overview of the debt money system so you can understand why Mexicans must be imported:


ALL of the money in this country is created from nothing, based upon debt.

For the past seventy-five years, there were enough new Americans being born to pledge their human labor against new debt in order to discharge the debts of the older ones. What is happening today, with smaller family sizes, a reduction in work forces and an aging, retiring society, we are no longer able to maintain a circulating debt currency with new loans because we are either maxed out on our credit limit, or are unable to take on new debt for lack of a job. While there are still new "loans" (banks don't actually loan any of their own preexisting money, they exchange a promissory note for Federal Reserve Notes --- paper for paper) creating new money, there aren't enough to cover the escalating interest that is accruing.

If this scenario were to be allowed to extend to its logical conclusion, bank loans would be repaid with the currently existing money in circulation, but no new money being (created) borrowed in to replace it. Money would disappear the same way it did (and for the same reasons) in the 1930's. Banks call in the artificially created notes upon repayment, with not enough new notes being borrowed into circulation to replace them. There would be catastrophic financial collapse as well as massive deflation --- no money. We have to find someone willing to borrow...


Enter the Mexicans; fresh new chattels, who are pretty much debt free, willing to harness themselves to the yoke of debt to our banks. Fresh, new money is created and borrowed into existence flooding our country with more debt notes that matriculate through our economy, circulating for a few days or weeks until they are captured by a paycheck and used to repay somebody else's old loans (with interest). This will allow the fiat, debt-based money system to continue on, spiraling further into the red for a few more years until the Mexicans, like us, tap themselves out, too; then we will have to look for more fresh chattels to keep the ponzie scheme going. The banks are using human labor as a natural resource, like wood, oil or coal. We refer to labor today in the business world as "Human Resources."


I do not doubt the existence of sincere, nationalistic sentiments of the Mexicans as it relates to our southwestern states. They are being indoctrinated by the Ford Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation through education grants, textbooks, etc. that those states were stolen from them. I'm sure the purpose of that indoctrination is to "bait" them to this side of the border so we can generate more debt from them. That debt generation happens in two ways: 1.) The honest, hard-working Mexicans will take out loans for homes, cars, boats, land, etc. and 2.) The socialistic minded Mexicans will jump on the State dole requiring the state(s) to borrow more money in order to meet their welfare, healthcare and education obligations.

As far as migrant labor is concerned, the Federal government has for years subsidized many farmers who pay that labor with taxpayer funded subsidies. While this would work contrary to my thesis by reducing both classes (us/them) to a level of serfdom where nobody is able to repay their loans, it would help illustrate the long-term goals of the controllers of this nation to reduce us to third-world status and a subsequent reduction in population to more "sustainable" levels. Rather than crash us to that point in a year or two, they have found doing it over time to be much less noticeable.

The controllers of this country are counting on the Reconquista threat.  You can't subvert a nation of 100 million gun owners who still have a memory of freedom.  What better way to collapse a country than to use one's neighbors.  The Mexicans are doing for the banks/corporations/politicians for free what would at once cost politicians way too much money, manpower and political polling points.  Besides, the controllers certainly wouldn't be able to use our military against us, would they? (except in Louisiana where our military was assisted by foreign mercenaries disguised as police in gun confiscations from law-abiding people.)

At any rate, the real controllers get all they want - our nation destroyed - with none of the blame...we'd be too busy blaming/fighting with the Mexicans while the parasitic corporate controllers gather up what wealth they can and move to another land mass to subvert.


The banking system in this country is the most beautifully crafted counterfeiting operation the world has ever seen. The government allows banks to create money from nothing, charge interest on it and receive payment with the debt instruments they extend. The loans can never actually be "paid" they are merely rolled over onto the backs of a new generation of indentured servants, or (since this nation can no longer brook new debt) to the unwitting Mexicans.

The “Evil Doers”

November, 23, 2005, p. 9

By: David Deschesne

I keep hearing all this talk about the ‘evil Muslims’ are going to get us. Don’t people understand that the Feds and news media use artificially-created “boogie-men” to scare the population into submission? George Orwell wrote about that technique in his book, 1984. In that story, a government-created fiction named “Goldstein” was paraded around on television (called ‘telescreen’) and made the object of everyone’s hate in order to garner support for a long, protracted war in order to prop up an otherwise dismal economy.

When I attended basic training (U.S. Army) in 1986, we had our own “Goldstein.” Drill instructors were conditioning us against the Russians and Communists (i.e. every target was a "commie" and it was the "commies" who were the aggressors during drills, etc.) Today, it seems the "bad guy" has shifted to the Muslims. Osama Bin-Laden, whom I have dubbed “Osama Bin-Goldstein,” was a CIA-trained operative during the 1980s in the war between Afghanistan and Russia. Today, he has been paraded around on television, along with his brother CIA operative, Sadam Hussein, in order to distract the American people away from the true corruption that is taking place in our own nation’s capitol.

Now, I understand the ghazis and how Muslims of the pre-Ottoman Empire waged a ceaseless jihad on the “infidel” Christians under the direction of Ertughrul, with various sects continuing that war to this day. I also understand the Crusades and Inquisition where the Christians were equally malevolent, cleansing the area of “infidel” Muslims and Protestant heretics (using inexcusably horrible methods of torture).  Ergo, there have always been bad actors on all sides.

To restrict the evil in the final battle to "Islamics" is as to claim a singular group (i.e. Catholic, "Christian Right," Zionist Jew or Muslim) is planning on taking over the world; which, upon close, objective evaluation will be shown not to be the case.  Rather, it is a conglomeration of people from all the assorted groups conspiring to that end.

  The final battle against evil is with Satan - and those who follow him.  While Islamics, from our frame of reference, are "evil" (but not from theirs), so are many within all other religious and philosophical communities - according to the ultimate adjudicator of evil: the Lord God.

  Why are we all of a sudden so concerned about Muslims? The Muslims didn't create our phony Federal Reserve Note debt-based monetary system; bio-metric track-and-trace identification cards; confiscatory and unlawful Internal Revenue Service; 1968 Gun Control Act; three-party adhesion contract known as the Marriage License; surrender of our children to the state via Birth Certificates; consolidation of ownership of all vehicles in the hands of the state with Certificates of Title; dictatorial land grabs; confiscation of all property for merely a minor property tax debt; Social Security ponzie scheme; 501 (c) (3) government-run church system; et al.... we did it to ourselves, under the inspiration of Satan. 

It is true that we are battling evil, but don't allow Satan to distract you with labels by placing evil at the doorstep of exclusively one group or another - that takes the focus off of its true source - him (though The Lord God does allow it to exist for His purposes).  If we allow Satan to divide us into groups, then we start pointing the finger at each other, instead of him, for the entire world's evil.  I agree, from our frame of reference, there are bad people in the Muslim community; every bit as much as there are horrible actors in every other community; but that doesn't necessarily mean the "bad apple spoils the bunch."  The common denominator of evil is Satan - not exclusively Muslims, or "Commies," or Christians, or Jews.  "For our struggle is not against human foes, but against cosmic powers, against the spiritual rulers of this dark age, against the superhuman forces of evil in the heavenly realms." -Ephesians 6:10


March 15, 2006

  I received an anonymous letter the other day that was very critical of my editorials and my teaching on the banking system.  Unfortunately, I do not publish anonymous letters unless the writer first identifies himself/herself to me and presents a very good reason why it should be published without their name attached.

   I do print all signed, identified letters that are critical of me or my writings.  So far, in the year and a half of my publishing the Journal, I have received and printed all two of those type of letters.  Both were signed and identified.  The first, received only six months into my starting the Journal, was by Mr. Mike Edgecomb, complaining about my lack of coverage of the boys basketball games; to which I responded publicly in a following issue of the Journal.1  The second letter was from a Ms. Fran Barter.  She was very critical of my views on public school, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and psychiatrists/psychologists with their destructive psychotropic drugs.2  Even though I rebutted her points with footnoted documentation, I do respect her for taking the time to write and not being afraid to identify herself.

   The reason I don’t print anonymous letters as a rule (unless with the aforementioned exceptions) is some readers may consider it to be a false letter, composed by me, in order to present a “straw-man argument.”  A straw-man argument is “a tenuous and exaggerated counterargument that an advocate puts forward for the sole purpose of disproving it.”3  I don’t use straw-man arguments, I have other things I need to teach on.

   Rather than waste the reader’s time printing an unsigned letter from the so-called “Enlightened Reader,” I will paraphrase its major points and rebut them, because I believe they are important points that other readers may be considering.  This will be the only time I use space printing and answering these types of criticisms.  Any further criticism of me along this subject matter will simply elicit a response directing the letter writer to this edition and page of the Fort Fairfield Journal.  For clarity, I will place the paraphrased points in a bold italic font and respond in my regular font.


“You are anti-government”

   That is incorrect.  I am not anti-government, I am “anti-criminals in government;” or “anti-unconstitutional government.”  For example: Just because I don’t like pizza with spinach on it, doesn’t mean I don’t like pizza, it simply means I don’t like spinach; the same way I don’t like criminals - it just so happens there are a lot of criminals in government engaging in unconstitutional behavior and passing unconstitutional laws.

   For the past five years, while most of my contemporaries were stuck in front of the television watching the latest reality show or sit-com, I have been undertaking an in-depth study of our government from the writings of such notables as Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, Webster and Jay.  I have compiled, at my own expense, a rather large personal collection of original hardbound Congressional and Senatorial writings from past U.S. statesmen such as Benton, Sherman, Hoar, Conkling, Everett, Corwin, Higginson, Winthrop, Stewart, and Wallis.  I have “lived with these men” for five years reading their writings, studying their arguments and counterarguments in order to understand how our country was formed and what has caused it to change.  I have also acquired original copies of the Laws of Maine; 1821 (first year as a state) and Laws of Massachusetts dating back to 1812.  I have spent over 200 hours studying the U.S. and Maine Constitutions and have already written the rough drafts for two student textbooks on them:  The U.S. Constitution:  Annotation of the Decimation - an illustration of the fifty-plus points in our Consitution no longer followed by the U.S. Government4; and The Maine Interlinear Constitution - a side-by-side comparison of the original 1821 Maine Constitution and today’s along with all 160+ amendments.5

   As a person who has spent the time and money I have studying the foundations of our government, at a Ph. D. level - on my own initiative and personal motivation for over five years - I resent being labeled “anti-government” by anyone!


“The U.S. Supreme Court has determined breath tests to not be a violation of 5th amendment rights.”

   This may be correct, but the Enlightened Reader does not give Supreme Court case citations to back up those claims.  However, according to Fundamentals of American Law; “The Fifth Amendment right to silence is  a testimonial right.  It does not protect the defendant from being compelled (by court order) to produce physical evidence (hair, urine, semen, fingerprints, etc.) which could be used to establish the defendant’s guilt.”6  Note in parenthesis:  “by court order.”  Most forced breath tests are done by statute, not a court order.  Now, I am against drunk drivers and would like the police to keep them off the roads, but not at the expense of our constitutional rule book.


“Bank repossessions aren’t stealing because they are considered legal”

   If I could find a way to use a computer to tap into a person’s checking account, enter a bunch of digits into their checking account, create new money neither they nor I ever had before, allow them to use it to purchase a car and take the car if they didn’t “pay me back” those artificial money digits, that would be stealing because I would have been acquiring a car with money I never worked for or earned.  That, incidentally is exactly how banks ‘loan’ money, therefore when they reposes a car under those circumstances it is in fact stealing.

   Now, Congress did make such counterfeiting “legal” for banks to do, but not us.7 However, that doesn’t make it right.  At one time, Congress declared enslaving black men against their will and forcing them to labor to be “legal” and even passed laws allowing plantation owners to enforce their slavery through public officials.  Just because slavery was “legal” didn’t make it right.  Just because counterfeiting money by the banks and stealing the produce obtained from it is “legal,” doesn’t make it right, either.


“You don’t approve of our contemporary American government.”

   As I mentioned before, I have expended an enormous amount of time over the past five years studying the progress of our Constitutional Republic from its inception to today’s “Contemporary American Government.”  The overall trend is that the government has become more encroaching and more tyrannical as the years progressed.  Since the same government doing the encroaching is in charge of teaching the next generation in its public schools, the vast majority of the public will never have the frame of reference needed to see just how bad things have become.  So, yes you are correct; I don’t approve of our contemporary American government - it is so far off from its original inception that it would appear foreign to our founders if they were to come back today.


“You are as bad as the rest of the media, only with your “slant” on the news.”

   My “slant” is actually the truth.  Because Americans have been lied to for so long, the truth - when first heard - seems like a strange, radical idea.

   Yes, I do use the same tactics to present the truth that the media uses to distort it.  When you screw on the lid to a peanut butter jar, you must use a clockwise turning motion.  To unscrew the lid you must use a similar, but opposite motion.  I am merely unscrewing the minds of the American people that the banks, government and corporations, via the mainstream media, have screwed (pun intended!) for decades.  In order to do that, I have to use their tactics - only in reverse.  The opposite of a lie is the truth - whether you like hearing it or not.



1.  Fort Fairfield Journal, January 5, 2005, p. 6

2.  Fort Fairfield Journal, November 23, 2005, p. 6

3.  Black’s Law, 7th ed., p. 1434



6.  Fundamentals of American Law, ©1996 New York University School of Law Foundation, p. 309

7.  Federal Reserve Act, December, 1913



May 10, 2006


By:  David Deschesne

Editor, Fort Fairfield Journal


If you sit and stare at a small, single, stationary point of light in a darkened room, you will slowly begin to perceive it as moving; this is known as the Autokinetic Effect; the physiology of which is complex, but it is likely due to the lack of perceivable context clues to reference to and the subtle movements of both your head and eyes, as well as your brain trying to get a “fix” on the point’s location.

How much that stationary point of light is perceived to move is subjective - that is, it’s a matter of your own personal opinion, based upon your own perception. But, what if you sat with a group of people who shared their perceptions out loud, would your perception change?

The 1930s saw an explosion in research into the field of Group Dynamics. In 1936, Muzafer Sherif published a book1 containing ingenious experimental investigations of the origin of social norms among groups of people.”2

In his research, Sherif used the example of the stationary point of light in a darkened room, as previously described. He first had individual people sit alone in a darkened room and report their perceptions of the movement of light to him without anyone else knowing. He then placed those same people together in a room at the same time and had them report their perceptions of the movement of light out loud, so all members of the group could hear. What he found was the individual perceptions all seemed to converge to a common group agreement on the light’s movement. When compared with their previous, isolated perception, each subject ultimately varied his/her perception to fit the group’s. Sherif then isolated the individuals again and asked them to report their perception of the light movement. Their new perception now conformed with the group’s - not their original perception.3

In 1971, Social Psychologist, Irving Janis coined the term “groupthink” as the tendency of decision-making groups to suppress dissent in the interests of group harmony.4

From historical records and the memoirs of participants, Janis identified several groupthink symptoms:


- Group members become close-minded

- The Group suffers from pressures toward uniformity by rebuffing those who raise doubts about the group’s assumptions or plans

- People in groups practice “self-censorship” to avoid being chastised by other members of the group, creating an illusion of unanimity.

- “Mindguards” are employed by some members of the group to protect the group from information that would call into question the effectiveness or morality of its decisions.

Janis noted groupthink symptoms can produce a failure to seek and discuss contrary information and alternative possibilities.5

Janis cited the use of mindguards in the space shuttle Challenger disaster of January, 1986. As it turned out, the top NASA executive was shielded from information by engineers at Morton Thiokol - the company that manufactured the booster rockets - and was only allowed access to management officials. Due to “mindguarding,” he never learned of the engineers’ reservations and allowed the fateful launch to go forward.

Bureaucrats, the media and advertising executives have come to learn and excel at the use of groupthink processes. Change-agents in the Departments of Education, first teach a perception of reality they wish the public to believe. Those students then grow up; some become newscasters, show producers and teachers who then “parrot” what they have learned to the rest of the group (i.e. society); thereby bringing society’s perception of “truth” into convergence with what the government would like it to be. This is called the “Mockingbird effect.”

Advertising executives also engage in groupthink strategies in order to hype and sell their product. One classic example is a popular name-band home speaker system that, due to mass-marketing, is perceived by society as the greatest speaker system ever built.

Groupthink has been employed for years on our society. For example, we have all been taught that the income tax is a lawful, legitimate tax. However, new research within the past ten years has revealed that it is likely the 16th amendment, which supposedly authorized an income tax, was never actually ratified by enough states - thereby making income tax illegal from the start. The government and its school systems have diligently trained society (the group) to close their collective minds and rebuff those researchers as “tax protestors.”

Another example of groupthink is the 9/11 disaster. With any objective analysis, emotions and politics aside, an observer would conclude that there is no way the government’s version of events - as parroted by the mainstream news media - could have actually happened. As indicated in Janis’ study, our society - the group - has become close-minded and censors and rebuffs those who don’t go along with the group’s accepted version of events. Even though a vast majority of the population now believes the U.S. government had a degree of involvement at the sub-bureaucratic level, they practice self-censorship and don’t speak out. The mainstream media then continues to produce pro-government movies and news articles to reinforce the resultant illusion of unanimity.

The latest groupthink project being undertaken by the pharmaceuticals and World Health Organization is with the supposed bird flu epidemic (which is not an epidemic at all.) Story after story in the mainstream newspapers and news discuss the 200 deaths attributed to bird flu. They discuss the possibility that the virus might mutate and jump to humans and how horrible that might be. This is to get the group (society) in line to take their vaccinations - a very profitable endeavor.

By framing the debate, what they don’t discuss is those 200 deaths are out of a population of 6.5 billion people, or statistically zero. Also, many of the top vaccine manufacturers, as well as officials in the World Health Organization ascribe to the neo-Malthusian theory that the world is horribly overpopulated and the population must be culled, or thinned out. These people are either in a position to manufacture a virus, or a tainted vaccine to help them achieve those sinister ends, all while the group of society is lining up like lemmings to follow their every edict.

Groups and society thus evaluate their members, partially at least, on the basis of conformity to established group or societal norms - that is, what the majority of society has deemed “normal” - a perception that, in the U.S., is cultured in large part by government in our children between 5 to 18 years of age.

Groups can be beneficial, though. Tests show that in simple tasks like winding string on a reel, children perform much more efficiently when in a group, than when alone (however, in a demanding task like tug-of-war, it has been shown that people don’t pull as hard in a group compared to if they were alone).

During World War I, J.L. Moreno had administrative responsibility for a camp of Tyrolese displaced persons, and he observed that the adjustment of people seemed to be better when they were allowed to form their own groups within the camp.6 Curiously, one month before the 9/11 disaster, the U.S. Army republished an updated version of its Military Police Interment/Resettlement Operations Manual. It describes how to inter (imprison) civilian populations and use “elected” prisoner groups within the camp to quell dissent.7 Then the towers fell, FEMA is getting expanded powers and the feds are now bracing for a collapse of the entire monetary system - the Federal Reserve Note. Groupthink and group dynamics will surely play a major role in population control in the near future.



1. The Psychology of Social Norms, ©1936 New York: Harper & Row

2. Group Dynamics: Research and Theory, ©1963 New York: Harper & Row, p. 23

3. ibid, p. 24

4. Psychology Today, Groupthink, November, 1971, pp. 43-46.

5. Exploring Social Psychology, 2nd ed., David G. Myers, ©2004 McGraw Hill, pp. 166-170

6. Who Shall Survive, J.L. Moreno, 1934 Nervous and Mental Diseases Publishing Co.

7. FM 3-19.40,HQ, US ARMY, Sec. 5-46


Who Are the Terrorists?


By: David Deschesne, Editor

Fort Fairfield Journal, July 17, 2006


I went through U.S. Army Basic Infantry Training in 1986. It's interesting to note how times have changed. Today’s scare tactics about how the “Muslims are going to get us” sounds amazingly close to the hype we were exposed to in basic training against not Muslims, but Communists.

You can replace the word "Muslims" in most of the missives against them with "Communists" and have the exact same mantra Basic Training trainees, and society in general, were exposed to in the 1950s through late 1980s. It's just that now the controllers of the debate have replaced the "boogey men" with Muslims instead of Communists.

That’s some pretty tempting bait, but I ain't grabbing that hook. While it is purported that there are “millions of Muslims who want us dead,” there are also millions of Muslims who don't.

Personally, when I think of people who are my enemy, I look at who's taking away my rights and freedoms; who is implementing a track-and-trace "Mark of the Beast"-style identification control grid; who stole our union’s constitutional money (i.e. gold and silver) and replaced it with worthless debt paper (Federal Reserve Notes); who is confiscating our land for the benefit of the United Nations’ Agenda 21 program; who is attempting to merge all borders and currency in the Western hemisphere into one solitary unit; who’s dissolving the sovereignty of the United States; who’s setting up an environment where all of our jobs are exported overseas; who's demanding we have our "papers" in order just to drive into town for a gallon of milk or rent a movie; who’s telling us what we can and can’t build on our property, who’s confiscating our property to pay back alleged debts that are all based on counterfeit money to begin with; who’s suspending our vehicle registrations when we change insurance companies and fining us $35.00 for being “uninsured;” who’s forcing their way into our homes without a search warrant and kidnapping our children on a whim; who’s harassing us with chimerical “security” measures at our airports; who’s taking property under public domain just to give to a private developer to build a private resort; who’s telling us what we can and can’t do in the privacy of our own homes; who has passed over 40 million laws making everybody guilty of something - under penalty of fine or fee; who has implemented an unlawful, unconstitutional income taxation scheme for the past 90 years against an unwitting public; who has pledged the future income of all Americans against an unpayable $8 trillion plus national debt; who has kicked The Lord God out of our public schools and institutions; who has removed the 10 Commandments from our courthouses (even though the fundamental structure of our court system today is derived from the Mosaic law and accompanying maxims of the Old Testament); who habitually lies, cheats and steals just to continue occupying a position inside of that monolithic power structure?

The last I checked, the people doing all of the aforementioned malevolence aren't wearing turbans and don't necessarily ascribe their reasoning for those actions to the Muslim faith.

While some Muslims may eventually pose a problem, the aforementioned people are a threat to our rights and freedoms right now, on a daily basis. I’ll let you all think long and hard about who the real terrorists and the enemies of America’s freedom really are.

Plato's Cave

By:  David Deschesne

Fort Fairfield Journal, August 2, 2006

     I was recently told that when I started writing the Journal, many of my readers thought of me as “that crazy guy out by the ski-tow.” But now, two years later, those same people are “beginning to turn the corner” and realize that the research I’m revealing may not be as crazy as they thought.     To paraphrase a philosophical quote from Kramer, on the hit TV comedy, Seinfeld, “Am I really crazy; or am I so sane that I blow your mind?”

   The aforementioned people now seem to be reading the Journal for its education component, not just the news; as regular readers know, there’s plenty of both jammed into each edition.

      Like Morpheus in The Matrix, I only offer the truth, nothing more.  I provide footnotes in my research so those skeptics who don’t believe me may look it up for themselves.  

     What if, all your life, you were told a banana was called an apple.  If you were sheltered from the rest of society, who all knew the difference between those two pieces of fruit, you would grow up believing that elongated, tasty, yellow fruit to be called an “apple.”  If you were surrounded by a select few others who were also equally misled all their lives, a group of people would grow up believing a lie as if it were the truth.  Those people would then teach the next generation the same lie, and so on.

   Plato pontificated on that scenario in his infamous Parable of the Cave, where people were born in a cave and from birth to death were chained up in such a fashion that their heads could only face in one direction.  Behind them was a huge campfire with cave guards dancing wood and stone figures in front of the fire like a puppet show so they cast shadows of animals on the walls.

   Since the chained-up slaves could only see the shadows, and never saw the guards or the puppets, they grew up believing the shadows to be real animals - they had no other frame of reference otherwise.  Finally, one of the slaves is freed and is able to turn his head and see the fraud.  He is then brought above ground to see the sunlight and the realities of the world outside of the cave.  In his excitement he rushes back to his contemporaries to share the great news.  Unfortunately, most don’t believe him and consider him as “crazy,” even though he has more information than they do. 

   Our society behaves much like the slaves in that timeless parable.  A particular perception of reality is established by our cave controllers - the government - and is perpetuated through the decades by our teachers in public and private schools.  Since our teachers and mainstream media  occupy the same position and status as we do - chained up slaves facing a wall of shadows - they merely re-teach the false perception of reality they learned from their misled teachers. 

     This may seem to be an evil, malicious plan and some may refuse to believe that there are a few controllers at the top (cave guards) who would be so malevolent.  However, some of us have broken free and turned around to look at the light show and are trying to explain the fraud to the rest of society.  Some of the illusions foisted upon us in this country are:  The income tax is a lawful tax; Our current money system is wealth-based; Our Presidents are actually elected by votes, not rigged machines; banks loan pre-existing money; and you need a marriage license to be married.

   Since we, our school teachers (except math teachers - numbers are concrete and can’t lie; e.g. 1+1 is always 2) and politicians today are all wallowing in a world of illusion, I have taken it upon myself, as have a few others, to show it - an action that terrorizes those in charge of the illusion.

   In The Wizard of Oz it only took one tiny dog, Toto, to pull back the curtain on the Wizard and expose his light show as the complete and utter fraud it was.  I’m merely trying to do the same.


August 30, 2006

   Goose-stepping to the government propaganda, some mainstream newspapers  gleefully participated in precipitating even more fear mongering with the bold title on a recent front page: “A NEW THREAT” then highlighting our glorious saviors, Lord Chertoff and Lord Gonzales immediately underneath.

   Did anyone ever think a Russian - Chertoff - would ever be in charge of the “Homeland” Defense (a subtle variation of a name originally coined under Hitler’s regime in NAZI Germany1) of this country?  How many of you even knew Chertoff means “of the Devil” in Russian?2  I guess that doesn’t bother you as long as NASCAR and the ball game stays on television.  How about the former head of the KGB, Yevgenni Primakov and former head of the East German STASI, Marcus Wolfe being hired as consultants to the Department of Homeland Security?3  Does that make you feel warm and safe?  I guess it doesn’t matter as long as there’s still beer and steaks in the fridge, right?

   Now, let me try to decode the propaganda.  I will begin with a topic you old-time Journal readers are probably getting board of - economics - but please bear with me for the sake of the new readers, this is important information that is not being taught in government schools, on the nightly news or any of the mindless talking head programs on FOX, ABC, CNN, CBS, NBC, et al.

   On July 10, 2003, U.S. Representative Ron Paul from Texas gave a speech entitled “Neoconned” on the floor of the U.S. House of Congress.  In that speech, he said: “Total U.S. government obligations are $43 trillion, while the total net worth of U.S. households is about $40.6 trillion.  The country is broke, but no one in Washington seems to notice or care.”4

   We as a nation are, for all intents and purposes, broke. In banker terms, we’re “upside down” - we owe more than we’re worth.  We no longer have the ability to pay our debts as a society, because we have extended ourselves out to the last thread of our credit.  Now, when you don’t pay your car loan, the bank tows your car; when you don’t pay your house mortgage, they throw you out in the street.  But, what about a country?  What happens to a country when it doesn’t pay its bills?  I’ll tell you what happens:  It gets repossessed, people get thrown into concentration camps, killed with biological weapons, or other sundry killing devices and all their homes and property are claimed by the international banks that hold their debt notes.  “That couldn’t happen here!” you might exclaim, “Our cops would never allow it and our military would never go along.”  Well, just who prints the money that is used to pay our military?  And, after a few “terror attacks” the cops will fall in line and do exactly what FEMA, NPRA, or any other Federal bureaucracy tells them to do.

    Now, if you’re a bank who needs to repossess the U.S., you either have to sit around and wait for a bona fide terrorist attack so you can begin to tweak all of the USA PATRIOT ACT knobs and levers against the bankrupt American people,  or you’ll have to create and stage a few “terrorist” attacks of your own.  These creditors are going to want to collect eventually.  Since all money in existence was created from nothing, and banks only created the principle on the loan - not the interest to pay it - there will never be enough money in circulation to pay off all of our debts - neat scam, huh?  Did your government school teach you that one?  I doubt it.   Of course, Federal agencies can also profit from staged attacks with increased funding - such as the newly created Department of Homeland Security benefited from after “9/11.”

   Staged attacks, or complacency in their handling are nothing new.  The Lusitania was allowed to be blown up as a precursor to our entering World War I, Pearl Harbor was known to be targeted by the Japanese as early as three months prior by military leaders in D.C. who allowed the attack to go forward as an excuse to enter World War II.  More recently, 9/11 was created and allowed to take place in order to pass the USA PATRIOT ACT - dictatorial legislation that had been languishing in committee since 1996.    In 1962, the U.S. Government drafted a plan called Operation Northwoods which called for  “various false flag actions, including simulated or real state sponsored terrorism (such as hijacked planes) on U.S. and Cuban soil.”5  These faked “attacks” on Americans would be then blamed on foreigners as an excuse to invade them - similar to the staged attacks on 9/11 providing an excuse to invade Afghanistan and ultimately Iraq.

   Using intelligence agencies to foment “terror” as an excuse to expand power, control and increase funding is not unique to the U.S.. This past June, noted terrorist expert, Charles Shoebridge, a twelve-year veteran detective of the London Metropolitan Police told the BBC that Mohammed Siddique Khan, the alleged ringleader of the 7/7 London bombings was working for the British intelligence agency MI5 as an informant at the time of the attacks.  The American al-Qa’eda operative, Iyman Faris, who allegedly was planning to bring down the Brooklyn Bridge, was found discovered to be used as a paid informant by the F.B.I.

    The purpose of faked plots is to elevate the sense of fear in the American people, and then lull them into a false sense of  security as each terrorist plot is unveiled and thwarted.  Then, when the controllers of reality are ready, a “real” attack takes place where people actually die. 

   What about the use of BDU-clad soldiers sporting M-16s and grenade launchers at our airports?  Any old-school cop knows that the way to find terrorists would be with a plain-clothes “gumshoe” detective snooping around airports and identifying suspicious characters inconspicuously.  So what are the armed soldiers for; they can’t shoot grenade launchers in crowded airports, can they?  Armed troops are there to provide the images of a police state to acclimate the public to seeing them.  We start by equating our safety with soldiers carrying M-16s.  Soon, they’ll be in our shopping malls, grocery stores and all over our town and city highways as the debt noose squeezes tighter around our collective necks - in place to repossess the country for the banks that pay their meager salaries by relocating us to their concentration camps.

    In the past, FEMA has used impromptu concentration camps such as football stadiums, school gymnasiums and shopping centers.   FEMA field-tested their concentration camp program in Louisiana last year with drastic results: starvation, dehydration, inadequate medical care and many cases of rape and robbery.  This just goes to show that individuals should be prepared to take care of themselves in the event of a disaster and not rely on their government benefactors.

   In August, 2001, just one month prior to the infamous 9/11 attacks, the Department of the Army republished an updated version of FM 3-19.49:  Military Police Internment/Resettlement Operations Manual which describes in detail the Army’s official policy and plan in relation to rounding up and imprisoning civilian populations.  Of course, this could just be another in a whole litany of “coincidences.”  Don’t worry, the ball game will be on TV this weekend, I’m sure.  Suck your thumb and stay sleeping.

Indeed, “No guerilla movement can succeed without a majority of the population being favorably inclined toward it.”6

   The next time a building gets blown up, ask yourself who has the motive, and who stands to gain; then you’ll have to decide if you want the police to “keep you safe” or take your chances on your own.


1. “Home Defense Department,” see The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, ©1960 William Shirer, paperback, p. 400

2.  (.DH = chert: ‘devil’

3. Foreign Press Foundation, 16 Dec 2004



6.  FM 31-21 Guerrilla Warfare and Special Forces Operations.



All Politics are Local?

Setember 27, 2006

   There seems to be an unusual amount of gossip being perpetrated throughout town.  I define gossip as “repeating an unverified story without proper documentation or proof.”  As editor of this paper I hear a lot of information - most of which I find  not to be true once I track it down.  From backroom deals to businesses moving out of town, there’s a lot of information being repeated that either isn’t true, or isn’t verified.  Regular Fort Fairfield Journal readers know I don’t print something unless I’ve verified it and a footnote reference is attached.

   As the old adage goes; “All politics are  local.”   I guess what that means is nobody really cares enough to get active about things that don’t directly affect them at the present moment.

   For example, if I were to tell you about the Federal government's rule that allows them to use deadly chemical or biological agents on the American citizenry as long as it was for “medical, therapeutic, pharmaceutical, agricultural, industrial, research activity” or “any law enforcement purpose, including any purpose related to riot control”1 you wouldn’t care because it’s not local, right?

   Or, if I were to tell you that the CIA has strayed from its original function of information gathering and analysis and has been in the business of toppling governments for nearly fifty years2,3 and that President Truman said, “For some time I have been disturbed by the way CIA has been diverted from its original assignment.  It has become an operational and at times a policy-making arm of the government…”4 that wouldn’t bother you either, would it?

   You probably figure it’s just my opinion when I let you know that United States Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne has proposed using high-powered Humvee-mounted microwave canons on the American citizenry as a form of public relations campaign prior to using them to fry our enemies. Wynne recently told the Associated Press, “If we’re not willing to use it here against our fellow citizens, then we should not be willing to use it in a wartime situation.”5  It’s likely okay with you that these microwave canons are situated in many major U.S. metropolitan areas and can be used by our government to microwave entire crowds of people (can you say, “fried chicken?”).  Well, I suppose “we all have to live a little differently after 9/11” - or so that’s what the government-run mainstream television news media is trying to train us to believe.

   Let me stop picking on the government for a minute.  Perhaps you wouldn't be bothered with the computer search engine company, Google developing a system that uses your computer’s built-in microphone to eavesdrop on you and what’s going on in your room (i.e. television, birds, dogs, cats, etc.).6 

    Think those documented references in my footnotes are just my opinion?  I dare you to look them up.  I suppose you could just sit around gossiping about a backroom deals, or what your neighbor might or might not be doing; that’s probably easier - and a lot less scary. 

    I, however, live in the real world and hope to bring those of you who wish into it, too.


1. 50 USC Ch. 32, §1520a (b)

2.  See Expendable Elite: One Soldier’s Journey Into Covert Warfare, ©2003 LTC Daniel Marvin (USAR Ret.), Trine Day Publishing Co.

3.  See The Invisible Government, ©1964 David Wise and Thomas Ross, Random House Publishing Co.

4.  See article by Harry S. Truman, syndicated by North American Newspaper Alliance, in the Washington Post, December 22, 1963.





Muslims: A Magician's Trick

October 11, 2006

When a magician focuses your attention to the back of the room, it's usually when he's ready to clinch the “trick” - the illusion...when you're not looking. Admittedly, the essence of a room is there has to be a “back” to look at.

I watched a magician once, at the Houlton Fair. His ‘bit’ was to pull a rope through his body. He had the rope behind him, held in his hands on either side. After working the crowd into a frenzy by describing all the blood, guts, intestine, etc. the rope would have to go through, he said, “Oh, look in the back, that guy's about to vomit.” Everyone turned their heads to look. In that instant, he simply flipped the rope over his head and when everyone looked back at him, he was standing there grinning and accepted their round of applause.

The illusionists who run our country to our detriment are using the Muslims as the current distraction at the “back of the room” to shift our attention to while they do the dismantling of our Republic from within...something we all agree that radical Muslims want to do, too. I have always accepted the fact that radical Muslims have been our enemy for centuries (notwithstanding the fact that “all was quite on the Muslim propaganda front” during the Cold War, when “Commies” were the purported “bad guys”) I don’t even dispute the fact that they want to end our Constitutional Republic and see us all dead. I'm not even trying to connect them with the travesties in our country done by our own government, such as the illegal income tax, Pearl Harbor, Federal Reserve Act, adoption of the 1932 NAZI Gun Control Act in 1968, etc.. I'm merely trying to keep people focused on the fact that there is more than just one group of people out there trying to do us harm and that another group is currently threatening and affecting our way of life/existence much more directly and efficiently than the Muslims are. This group has the same motives and desires of the Muslims - to end our Constitutional Republic. What’s alarming is they work toward those ends within our own government under the disguise of “public officials.” This is a much more subtly concealed strategy than the Muslims’ of just coming at us with “guns blazing.” In the end, the result is the same, though - only fewer people saw it coming.

At the Houlton Fair I figured out the magician's trick by not looking to the back of the room (since I was working there, I had seen the trick and fell for the bait a couple of times before; I finally convinced myself to stay looking forward to see how the trick was done). I simply recognize how our government executes covert ops and uses real events and situations around them to confuse, distract and obfuscate the mass of American population. Congressman Foley is a good example of a magician’s distraction. While we are all looking at him, the House and Senate passed a bill (H.R. 6166) that essentially rescinds the Bill of Rights for most Americans, reclassifies them as “terrorists” and makes itself not subject to Supreme Court review...more on that in next issue. Historically, the CIA recruited, armed and equipped a little-known Muslim group called Al Qaeda in order to fight the Soviets during the cold war. The CIA also assisted Iraq throughout the 1980s in its attempt to battle neighboring Iran. The CIA also drafted a recently declassified plan, in the 1960s, entitled Operation Northwoods, which called for staged attacks on U.S. soil in order to blame them on our political enemies.

Today, we’re being taught to trust our leaders and that Muslims are the enemy. Well, I'm remaining aware of the Muslims at the “back of the room,” but keeping my eyes on the magician; may I suggest you stop watching network television “news” and do the same.

Deceptive Cognizance

January 31, 2007, p.2

By:  David Deschesne, Editor/Publisher

While standing in line at the grocery store waiting to check out, I find myself gazing at those pathetic tabloids and their incredulous cover stories.

One of the more recent issues of Weekly World News featured “Photos from Hell” and “Fish Telepathy,” as well as a plane made out of cotton or cotton-like material. Since most of those stories are so easily disproved, I wonder why even bother waste the time and ink. People really aren’t that stupid, are they?

I have heard that some of those tabloids are either owned, or in some way controlled by the CIA. I have no way to prove whether or not that is true, but when you consider the psychology behind some of the stories and their presentation, it is at least conceivable.

Take for example, a government testing a new super secret airplane. Obviously, it can’t be completely hidden from view because someone is apt to see it while it is being test flown. How do you hide an airplane in plain sight? Through Deceptive Cognizance, that’s how.

Deceptive Cognizance is the art of placing a little bit of truth within the context of a whole bunch of lies in order to discredit the validity of the truthful statement.

For example, take a tabloid that features obviously made-up stores such as pictures from Hell, little green men, the Titanic returning to port, etc. and mixing in a story about your new secret airplane. When somebody in the public happens to see your super secret airplane and attempts to tell others about it, they immediately associate the story with those trash tabloids at the supermarket. Wa-la! You now have a real airplane hidden in plain sight because the general public has been conditioned to believe it as “just another tabloid U.F.O. story.” Even if a small group of people witness the test flight, the story will likely not grow legs on a state or national scale, because of the “tabloidesque” baggage associated with it. Now, I’m not saying all U.F.O.s are super secret U.S. airplanes, I’m just describing how a government could use the media to hide one in plain site.

I can recall another example of Deceptive Cognizance in a popular state newspaper about three or four years ago. At the time, one of those South African countries was rebelling (as they always seem to do). The headline of the story was something to the effect of “Militias Rise Up in Capitol” and immediately beside the headline was a large color picture of a half naked, starving baby crying in his mother’s arms. The associative imagery there was the word “Militias” being linked to starving babies. Oh, those horrible militias...right?

Well, once I actually read the story I found out the reason the baby was starving was because of horribly repressive government policies causing the militia - which is really just an armed group of citizens - to storm the capitol in order to remove the tyrants and make life better for themselves. It’s been several years since then and I don’t recall how the story turned out. But, the point here is that the newspaper either wittingly or unwittingly planted the subliminal thought of militias causing starving babies. For one who just scanned that page without reading the article, that imagery has been forever implanted in his/her subconscious. Continually exercising that same process over a period of time, you can change the perception and thoughts of an entire population by just using words and images next to each other.

Television programming is notoriously guilty of Deceptive Cognizance and I could write a book on its uses in television advertising, news and sitcoms.

The lesson here is to educate yourself as much as possible and don’t be distracted by the imagery.



February 28, 2007


I recently received via email from a friend, a newspaper article out of the New York Post entitled “TREASON: Shameful D.C. Vote aids our Enemies” which was echoed in the subject line of the email as: “GOP traitors who voted against our troops.” That is exactly the type of knee-jerk reaction I would expect from a society weaned on a continual diet of today's mainstream pro-war media.

I just finished watching Danny Schechter's (former ABC News 20/20 producer) Weapons of Mass Deception documentary DVD (thanks for sending it to me, Dennis) which shows how the media got in bed with government to promote the recent Iraq war like a major product roll-out. Rather than focus on whether or not the war is right or wrong, Schechter used big-name newscasters and journalists from the major media to describe how their bosses sold out for FCC favors, income-gathering ratings and to not be labeled “unpatriotic.” Rather than take a neutral, news gathering approach, they simply sold out to promote whatever the government told them to say - overall. One interesting point was how NBC television network is owned by General Electric. Since General Electric benefits in many ways from sales of its equipment and contracts in the current war, how could they be expected to be unbiased? Wouldn’t they naturally issue a pro-war stance notwithstanding a few critical news pieces here and there?

It's this type of hyped-up groupthink headline, previously mentioned, that keeps Congress, the media and the public at large in line with the accepted political agenda enforced by corporate-controlled mainstream media. When a congressman exercises his/her Constitutionally-granted authority to deny funding or to not declare war, he/she gets labeled as a “traitor” in knee-jerk reaction style. The fact is, most Americans are against the war. Regardless of the war's reasons for being, Americans are the ones footing most of the bill with both blood and money. So, to be fair those Congressmen should not be demonized for doing their duty by representing that large sector of the American populace. After all, that is our constitutional system of government at work (we do not live in a dictatorship). These congressmen do need to get elected and their vote on the war must reflect their constituents’ views or they're out of a job. Instead of labeling them “traitors” which I believe would be a misnomer, disgruntled pro-war advocates should work toward educating those constituents to the benefits of their pro-war ideologies. Politics after all is supposed to work from the bottom up.

It seems the only way patriotic Americans know how to “support our troops” in this day and age is to do so by endorsing more money, manpower and expansion of war activities. I am wary of classifying “supporting our troops” as simply voting on perpetually increasing expenditures of money and blood - especially knowing the private corporations who are benefiting excessively and financially; war does, after all, equal profits. “Supporting our troops” could also mean bringing them home and away from the damaging effects of Depleted Uranium, giving them quality healthcare to help them cope with the illnesses and injuries they received in battle, helping the families of those who lost loved ones in the war, etc.

I maintain my own cache of food, ammo, weapons, medical supplies and alternate power/communications and would defend my country's own dirt to the last breath if called on to do so. But, I do not support the private contractors’ no-bid contract bonanza (e.g. Haliburton, KBR, TITAN, CACI, et al) wasting billions of our dollars performing jobs traditionally done by our military. That is in my humble opinion the Iraq war machinery and the reason for its continuance.

Does that make me a traitor, too?


Fort Fairfield Journal, March 28, 2007 P. 2

By:  David Deschesne, Editor/Publisher

A few mainstream radio and television talk show hosts have been suggesting that those who question the legitimacy of the Iraq war, or research scientific data that refutes the government’s official story on the 9/11 debacle during a “time of war” weakens our country (even though the two have nothing to do with each other). These hosts then go on to suggest that those people both inside and out of the media should be either tried as traitors, or placed in concentration camps in order to be silenced in order for “our boys to win the war.” Tyrants would wish for no less.

Unfortunately, their listeners have bought into that dangerous concept hook, line and sinker.

A person or organization who is attempting to expose government corruption and malevolence even during “a time of war” should not be punished either by the government itself, or the people at large; for to do so would intimidate the only peaceful mechanism of preventing tyrannical oppression from growing and flourishing. The former would be instituted by statute; the latter, flamed by the passions of demagogues for its side can never be tamed and truth will always fall victim to those who refuse to hear it.

Even Jesus was crucified for proclaiming the truth that He was (and still is) Lord - a message that nearly 2,000 years ago threatened the very focus and power structure of the religious leaders of His day. Today, some media critics proclaim that questioning authority during “a time of war” should be quashed in order to focus and strengthen the existing power structure to “win the war” without consideration to the fact that the power structure itself may be promulgating a war entirely for profit or other personal gains. To allow that to continue unchecked would be a dereliction of the fundamental duty of the press/media to be the watchdog of government and informer of the people. Governments, as men, can never be fully trusted with any amount power.

A responsible media, whether newspaper, radio or television must allow critical examination of government policy and position not only in a time of peace, but especially in a time of war, more so if the flawed policy or position is the root cause of a war. If a media is threatened by either legal or economic sanction from performing its duty to investigate and inform, then the door will be open for political tyrants to reign unchecked over the minds of men - and reign they shall.

Unfortunately, those news media who do attempt to ask the critical questions and lead a society to think independently of the established, accepted version of events will always suffer. Hopefully, as history marches on and emotions of the day fade, cooler heads will prevail and still dare to ask the forbidden questions; questions that ultimately hold malevolence in check and tyrants at bay.

A government unchecked by scrutiny will always degenerate into the worst form of abuse and malevolence; it is man’s fallen nature to do so. To fail to question and hold accountable allows that potential evil to flourish. Blatantly labeling that which is in contradiction to established government policy “conspiracy theory” when it is based on science and fact is as irresponsible to the continuance of a free civilization as leaving all of the power and trust in the hands of a secret few without accountability.

Demagogues will always attempt to sway the opinions of people toward their side, facts and truth contrary to their position notwithstanding. It is the brave few who will stand against the winds of such demagoguery, and continue the fight to expose crime and corruption, who will ultimately and concomitantly keep our nation’s leaders honest while loosing all they have.

Such is the price of freedom.


Energy Follows the Path of Least Resistance

Fort Fairfield Journal, August 15, 2007

By:  David Deschesne, Editor/Publisher

  It is a fundamental law of nature that energy follows the path of least resistance.  In an electrical circuit, electrons will seek the easiest path to ground.  When the wind blows through the mountains and the valleys it will always seek the path least obstructed.  Water will divert to the wider, deeper outlet when meeting a narrow, rocky stream branch.  This has nothing to do with the inherent energy in any of those enclosed systems being “lazy;” energy in the form of electricity, wind or water has no conscience and cannot think on its own. Ergo, the path of least resistance is automatic and expected.

   Einstein postulated that all mass is really energy.  Whether it’s the tree absorbing and storing the sun’s energy through photosynthesis, or uranium with its inherent radiation, all matter, all “atoms” (whatever atoms really are) are merely little packets of energy.  Life, comprised of atoms, is also energy as well.

   Living beings expend energy under the same rules as wind, water and electricity.  The only difference is, living beings from the simplest amoeba through the complex human have the option of directing their energy, how much is expended and when it is expended.

   While humans are different in many ways from the simple flow of wind or water, they too seek the path of least resistance when it comes to utilizing their own energy (i.e. labor).

   The carpenter is always looking for a simple trick to build the room a little quicker with a little less waste.  The mechanic seeks ways to repair the car that takes less time.  Expanding the social organism upward, collections of humans in the form of manufacturing corporations collectively look to ways of creating the shoe, car, modular home, or computer quicker and more efficiently than before because while energy always follows the path of least resistance, when an intelligent being is focused and directing, it can experiment and consciously choose which method will allow the most amount of return for the least amount of investment (as an aside, this is why in a hard-money monetary system such as gold or silver coin where the supply of money is relatively constant, prices will always tend to go down, rather than suffer from inflation such as an artificially-inflated paper money system will cause).

  It’s not that people are necessarily lazy, its simply nature dictating their energy will too follow the path of least resistance.   However, some energy has to be expended for a conscious being to learn where that path is.

  Designers and engineers expend great amounts of mental and physical energy in the form of their own muscular and intellectual labor to figure out faster, cheaper more efficient ways of doing things.  Once their energy has been successfully employed, we may all benefit from the end result.  However, it does not follow that simply because energy follows the path of least resistance, sitting there doing nothing will automatically find that path for a living being.

   Like the engineer who designs a better pulley or lever, or a better way to implement hydraulics to lift heavy loads, we all, too, must expend a certain amount of energy in the course of a day in order to find our own easy path.  Those who expend no mental or physical energy are doomed to serve those who already have.

   In the past, very intelligent people have formulated such things as cars, computers, jet engines, microwave ovens and a litany of other inventions all for the benefit of society.  There have, however, been some not-so-good people expending their energy trying to figure out a way to derive the benefit of their fellow man’s energy with little to no expenditure of their own.  Again, the man who exercises no mental thought for his own benefit will end up enslaved to those who have.

  While some think of better engines, levers and pulleys, others spend their energy learning law, economics, banking and political science.  They learn how some have used those fields to their advantage at the cost of their fellow man’s energy.  But, such is life I suppose.

   For example, around fifty years ago a group of lawyers composed what is now known as the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) and has been adopted and employed in one form or another in every state in our Union, as well as many countries around the world.

   The UCC governs such things as simple as signing a receipt to a bill of lading, packing slip and invoice.  Without such a list of rules, there would be no harmony or order in everyday business.  The UCC helps keep everyone “on the same page.”

   The UCC is employed by nearly every person in the United States multiple times a day without them ever knowing it.  Simple acts such as writing a check, buying a bottle of soda with a Federal Reserve Note or signing a bank loan all function under the rules of the UCC.  The government assigns birth certificates, marriage certificates, automobile certificates of title,  seizes property, collects taxes, confiscates paychecks and even issues traffic citations using rules all encoded in the UCC.

   With something as ubiquitous, important, far-reaching and potentially destructive as the UCC, it might be a very good idea for every person in this country to know and understand how it works.  Since those in government and banking make a boatload of money with it, they have chosen to remain mute on the subject and refuse to teach its concepts in the public school systems. Generation after generation of High School graduate is being thrust into the world, thinking they’ve been prepared to function in society and have no idea the most important, fundamental laws of life have been deliberately withheld from them.

   It is then up to each and every person to focus their attention, expend a little of their own energy and learn how others use the UCC, law, “statutes” and a host of other gimmicks to steal their money - yes, their energy - and take the necessary steps to stop it.

On the Environment

Fort Fairfield Journal, August 29, 2007, p. 2

By:  David Deschesne, Editor/Publisher

Dihydrogen Monoxide

With all the clamor over Carbon Dioxide pollution these days, what would you think if I told you our environment was also saturated with the chemical compound dihydrogen monoxide? Would it be a reaction of fear and uncertainty? Should we start an environmentalist movement to ban dihydrogen monoxide? How about a global tax to help reduce its levels? Sound like a good idea?

The popular cable television show hosted by Penn & Teller addressed that issue recently by sending a lady to an environmentalist rally to circulate a petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide, or at least petition the government to control its levels.

She told people who considered signing the petition that dihydrogen monoxide is “a chemical that is found in reservoirs and lakes, pesticides. Different kinds of companies are using this - Styrofoam companies, nuclear companies and now when they’re using it in pesticides, when we’re washing our food, it’s not coming out. Which of course means it ends up in our grocery stores and in our baby’s food and stuff like that. It causes excessive sweating and urination.”

The passionate people at the environmentalist rally signed the petition one right after another without even asking what dihydrogen monoxide is.

About now, I probably have a few chemists and science teachers chuckling so I’ll let all you other readers in on the joke. Dihydrogen monoxide’s chemical equation is H2O, and is commonly known as water.

That’s right, couched in serious, alarmist “environmentalist” tones, the petitioner was able to get otherwise well-meaning people to sign a petition banning water. Since most people are not chemists or science teachers, they wouldn’t readily recognize the scientific term for water and would naturally, if sufficiently scared, cast their vote to abolish it. Penn & Teller concluded that it seems most people aren’t thinkers as much as they are followers. Adolph Hitler also came to the same conclusion around seventy years ago, when he dictated Mein Kampf.

While this would be an excellent study on groupthink and the dangers of democracy (democracy is rule by the will of the majority), I’m going to stick to the environmental side of the topic for now.

Carbon Dioxide

With the recent example of how environmentalist demagogues can use hype and rhetoric to sway public opinion, we should examine the current big problem - carbon dioxide.

Carbon dioxide (CO2), which is also known as carbonic acid gas, is a colorless, odorless gas which exists naturally in our Earth’s atmosphere. It is comprised of one carbon atom and two oxygen.

Whenever carbon burns in oxygen, the oxides carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide are produced simultaneously with the relative proportions dependent upon the temperature, amount of oxygen and other conditions.

All mammals, fish and birds, some insects and bacteria burn carbon and oxygen in the course of their normal metabolism. The carbon comes primarily from the sugar/carbohydrates they eat and the oxygen is either breathed in, or absorbed. A natural byproduct of such organic metabolism is carbon dioxide. For all the hype it’s received, carbon dioxide makes up a relatively small 0.038% of the Earth’s atmosphere; way behind Oxygen (21%) and Nitrogen (78%) - both of which are also colorless gasses.


While carbon dioxide is dangerous to the aforementioned life forms on Earth, there is one type of life form that thrives quite well in a carbon dioxide environment. In fact, it actually uses that gas as part of its food supply.

Virtually all forms of plants, flowers, grass and trees use a process called photosynthesis to form carbon dioxide into more useful compounds. Plants harness the energy of sunlight absorbed by chlorophyll to build carbohydrates from carbon dioxide and the hydrogen in water. This reaction is often referred to as assimilation or fixation of carbon.

In the course of photosynthesis the hydrogen in water is used to transform carbon dioxide into carbohydrate; simultaneously the oxygen of the water is liberated as free oxygen gas and returned back into the Earth’s atmosphere. Green plants may transform the carbohydrates into fats, proteins and many other substances.

According to the Encyclopedia Britannica (1958 ed), plants remove an estimated 1011 tons of carbon dioxide from the earth’s atmosphere per year and land plants grow faster when provided with more carbon dioxide than is found in nature (op cit. Vol. 17, p. 848).

So, the more carbon dioxide that is put into the air, the faster plants grow and remove it.

With carbon dioxide as the fundamental building block of all life forms (humans and animals eat plants), perhaps instead of passing restrictions on its production or some global taxing system to reduce its quantities, we should simply be planting more trees and flowers.

At only 0.038 percent of the Earth’s atmosphere, carbon dioxide isn’t really as much of a problem as most environmentalists would lead us to believe...neither is “dihydrogen monoxide.”

Greenhouse Effect

Environmentalist extremists will point to the planet Venus and its extremely high heat as evidence of excessive carbon dioxide producing some sort of “Greenhouse Effect.”

However, as late as 1959, Venus’ ground temperature was calculated to be only 17 degrees Celsius, three degrees above the mean annual temperature of the Earth before being updated to 800 degrees. Also, in a report from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in 1962 on the Mariner II spacecraft that orbited Venus, JPL scientists noted that “light does not even penetrate the cloud cover,” and “very little greenhouse effect could realize itself under such conditions.” (see Worlds in Collision, ©1967 Immanuel Velikovsky, p. 7). So, we really don’t know why Venus is as hot as it appears to be. Velikovsky theorizes it may be petroleum fires burning on the planet, but there is currently no way to prove that theory (ibid, p. 370)

The earth, however, has some pretty ingenious ways of cooling itself. I’ve heard it said that an average size tree absorbing sunlight cools the air with the same amount of BTU’s as twenty average size home air conditioners.

Ozone Layer

We’ve also been scared to death about the deteriorating effects man’s products have had on the ozone layer of the earth’s atmosphere. Ozone (O3) is both produced and destroyed by absorption of ultraviolet (UV) radiation. Most of it is found at high altitudes.

Ozone is both produced and destroyed by UV light. UV light with a wavelength less than about 2,000 Angstroms (A) produces Ozone, while UV light in wavelengths in the range of 3,000-2,000 A. destroys it. This cycle is continued by the sun’s rays on a daily basis. (see Encyclopedia Britannica, 1958 ed., Vol. 16, p. 1001).

In addition to UV radiation, ozone is also produced by an electrical discharge on oxygen in the air. On a small scale, commercial “Ozone generators” pass air over electrically charged plates - on a planetary scale, ozone is created by lightening storms in our earth’s atmosphere. There is a lighting storm occurring somewhere on Earth every second of the day.

Ozone helps shield our planet from harmful UV rays, while it’s the Earth’s electromagnetic field that protects us from damaging microwave, gamma rays and X-rays by deflecting them before they enter our atmosphere.

UV rays are not responsible for warming the earth, rather it’s the sun’s infrared rays that do that. Common forms of UV light used by man come in the form of “black lights” used by D.J.’s and UV lights in kitchens and supermarket delis to kill airborne bacteria.

Now that I have shown you how the rhetoric of environmentalists can convince any well-meaning, but uninformed person to sign a petition to ban water, and how our ecosystem pretty much takes care of itself in regards to Carbon Dioxide and Ozone, we can all now direct our energy toward combating the real threats to our continued liberty, freedom and existence on this big, beautiful, blue ball.

Amazon Ants

By:  David Deschesne, Editor/Publisher

Fort Fairfield Journal, October 10, 2007, p.2  Amazon Ants moved to here

Preface: Before I start this issue’s editorial, I want to recognize the fact that my friends Ed and Elaine Brown have finally been captured by rogue agents of the Federal Reserve Banking system.

Now, I have to endure endless articles and stories written in the Associated Press, New York Times, Washington Post and Bangor Daily News by mindless, college-educated morons posing as “journalists” as they write about a home they’ve never been to, people they’ve never met and an Income Tax law they’ve never studied.

My wife and I have been to the Browns’ home. I’ve been inside it. We ate lunch with Ed and Elaine on their front lawn. I’ve interviewed Ed personally. I’ve studied the U.S. Constitution - even written a doctoral thesis on it and am composing a doctoral thesis on the Maine Constitution, as well. I’ve also studied the Income Tax laws in depth. I believe this gives me more authority to write on the Browns than those establishment idiots. How many of those writers have read the Constitution or Income Tax laws? How many of you have?

I’ve done the research. We’re being scammed by politicians and bankers. Ed and Elaine Brown will likely serve out the rest of their lives in prison for laws that are inapplicable at best, fraudulent and unlawful at worst. Don’t expect your government-run school system, or establishment media, to ever teach the truth on the scam. For the truth you have to rely on little guys like me who have nothing to lose. That’s a sad state of affairs in this country, which is supposed to be the “land of the free,” but really isn’t.

On Global Climate Change

By:  David Deschesne, Editor/Publisher

Fort Fairfield Journal, January 2, 2008, p. 2


On Global Climate Change

The Mammoth

A Wooly Mammoth is an elephant from the Pleistocene period, a time period that ended around 10,000 years ago. Its size was about the same as our existing Indian elephant.1 A typical Mammoth would weigh anywhere from 10,000 to 12,000 pounds.

The mammoth belonged to the family of elephants. Its tusks were sometimes as much as ten feet long. Its teeth were highly developed and their “density” was greater than in any other stage in the evolution of the elephants; apparently they did not succumb in the struggle for survival as an unfit product of evolution. The extinction of the mammoth is thought to have coincided with the end of the last glacial period.2

In 1799 the frozen bodies of 10,000 year-old mammoths were found in the tundras of Siberia. The corpses were so well preserved that sledge dogs ate the flesh unharmed. In B Digby’s book The Mammoth (1926) he noted an observation by D.F. Hertz; “The flesh is fibrous and marbled with fat” and “looks as well as frozen beef.”

Darwin admitted that he was unable to find an explanation for the extermination of the mammoth, an animal better developed than the elephant, which did survive.3

“In conformity with the theory of evolution, Darwin’s supporters supposed that a gradual sinking of the land forced the mammoths to the hills, where they found themselves isolated by marshes. However, if geological processes are slow, the mammoths would not have been trapped on the isolated hills. Besides, this theory cannot be true because the animals did not die of starvation. In their stomachs and between their teeth undigested grass and leaves were found. This, too, proves that they died from a sudden the bodies of the animals were found not decomposed but well preserved in blocks of ice, the change in temperature must have followed their death very closely or even caused it.”4

So, how do you get a 10,000 pound animal to freeze so quickly that there is no decomposition of his body, or the food in his teeth and stomach? Some have considered the earth underwent a sort of “flash freeze” in the past - a freeze that happened extremely quickly, perhaps within minutes or hours.

Several postulations for the flash freeze have been offered, from a comet colliding with the earth, the earth’s axis tipping, or the moon’s ceasing to revolve on its axis causing a change in the gravitational pull on the earth’s core and affecting the weather in very drastic ways.

It is beyond the scope of this editorial to determine what caused the flash freeze, it is simply enough to admit that one must have happened.



The continent of Antarctica, at the Earth’s South Pole, is currently under a sheet of ice, but it wasn’t always in that condition. Today, Antarctica does not have a single tree on it, but it must have been covered at one time by forests since coal deposits have been discovered there.5

“The Piri Reis map, a section of a larger world map of ancient times, found in 1929 amid the clutter of the former harem of the ousted Sultan of Turkey, clearly shows the true coast of Antarctica as it would be without the covering of ice, as well as the topography of the interior.”6

Antarctica appears on mapas mundi (World Maps) from the fifteenth and even fourteenth centuries A.D. - hundreds of years before the discovery of Antarctica - and the continent is shown ice free.7

It is an intriguing fact that Antarctica was once dry land, but now is covered by ice, all without man even playing a role - I’m sure this would stump some environmentalists who attribute all of the earth’s climate changes to man’s pollution.


Global “Cooling?”

Dr. David Deming, geophysicist and adjunct scholar with the National Center for Policy Analysis, and associate professor of Arts and Sciences at the University of Oklahoma noted in a December 19, 2007 Washington Times editorial; “Unexpected bitter cold swept the entire Southern Hemisphere in 2007. Johannesburg, South Africa, had the first significant snowfall in 26 years. Australia experienced the coldest June ever. In northeastern Australia, the city of Townsville underwent the longest period of continually cold weather since 1941. In New Zealand, the weather turned so cold that vineyards were endangered.”

Dr. Deming goes on to illustrate many areas of lower than normal temperatures citing a “global cooling” of sorts, much to the chagrin of Carbon Dioxide fear mongerers in the Environmental Extremist movement.

Carbon Dioxide

With environmentalist demagogues using hype and rhetoric to sway public opinion on carbon dioxide, we should examine it a little more closely.

Carbon dioxide (CO2), which is also known as carbonic acid gas, is a colorless, odorless gas which exists naturally in our Earth’s atmosphere. It is comprised of one carbon atom and two oxygen atoms.

All mammals, fish and birds, some insects and bacteria burn carbon and oxygen in the course of their normal metabolism. The carbon comes primarily from the sugar/carbohydrates they eat and the oxygen is either breathed in, or absorbed. A natural byproduct of such organic metabolism is carbon dioxide. For all the hype it’s received, carbon dioxide makes up a relatively small 0.038% of the Earth’s atmosphere; way behind Oxygen (21%) and Nitrogen (78%) - both of which are also colorless, odorless gasses.

Virtually all forms of plants, flowers, grass and trees use a process called photosynthesis to form carbon dioxide into more useful compounds. Plants harness the energy of sunlight absorbed by chlorophyll to build carbohydrates from carbon dioxide and the hydrogen in water.

Curiously, plants remove an estimated 1011 tons of carbon dioxide from the earth’s atmosphere per year and land plants grow faster when provided with more carbon dioxide than is found in nature.8 So, the more carbon dioxide that is put into the air, the faster plants grow and remove it.


My point here is that in the past, the Earth has undergone massive climate change without man or man’s pollution as contributing factors. Today, we have been lulled into believing that a global tax, or Carbon Dioxide reduction will save us from Global Warming, when in reality the Earth is going to go through its natural cycles no matter how much pollution we cut, or how much tax money we raise.

While clean air to breathe should be a primary concern, using rhetoric and scare tactics to force through a global tax should never be resorted to, since money will not help us when God once again decides to change earth’s climate.


1. Encyclopedia Britannica, 1958 ed., vol. 14, p. 756

2. World in Collision, ©1950 Immanuel Velikovsky, p. 41

3. Ivory and the Elephant in Art, in Archaeology, and in Science, ©1916 G.F. Kunz, p. 236.

4 Worlds in Collision, pp. 42-43

5. ibid, p. 37

6. The Bermuda Triangle , ©1974 Charles Berlitz, p. 155

7. Divine Encounters, ©1955 Zecharia Sitchin, pp.99-100.

8. Encyclopedia Britannica, 1958 ed., Vol. 17, p. 848