Home | Issues | Articles | Bulletins | Perspective | Audio | Guests | Images | Boards | Links | About | Contact

Regional Governance

Eve Lyn Moerlien
Testimony on Regionalism

Transcripts from testimony taken by Illinois Legislative Committee investigating Regional Government in 1978. Following is the transcript from the September hearing, testimony of Miss Eve Lyn Moerlien, beginning on page 14 and ending on page 31. For sake of brevity, Miss Moerlien will be shown as MM.

Transcript of public hearing, Joint Committee on Regional Government, September 26, 1978, Edwardsville, Illinois - Pages 14 - 31

Illinois State Representative George Hudson, Committee Chair. Committee members: Senators Berning, Carroll, Clewis, Grotberg, Guidice, Rupp. Representatives Hudson (Chair), Campbell, Kelly, Klosak, Lucco, Murphy. Pg 14: [some dialogue transpired in getting MM's mike adjusted, then...]

MM: Is this all right? All right. My name is Eve Lyn Moerlien, and I reside in Granite City, Illinois. I am here today as a caring citizen. I wish to voice my vigorous opposition to regional government. But before I raise objection, I shall first explain how regionalism came about, because the public remains largely unconscious that the concept was deliberately designed by the Federal Government to destroy the framework of our political system.

In the entire history of the United States there has been nothing comparable, in the immediate and ultimate nature of its bitter and catastrophic results, than the legislation enacted by Congress in 1969 to divide the country into ten regions. The reason given for this particular action was a masterpiece of treachery and deception. For the explanation centered, not on Washington's tyrannous intentions, but upon the very laudable and splendid aim of streamlining the Bureaucracy to make it more efficient and to reduce its administrative costs.

Behind a fairly simple and apparently innocuous beginning, however, is the sinister move by the Federal Government to wipe out the Union of 50 States, and seize absolute power and authority, in order that its single-minded purpose of a one-world socialist government can be realized during the period somewhere between 1984-85.

As a parallel development with the law to establish regional government, the governors were ordered to carve their states into sub-regions, presumably to open offices to render decisions on grant applications and the use of government funds.

The second peculiarity of the situation was Washington's instruction to the states to organize regional commissions. Leaving nothing to chance, the Federal Government went so far as to stipulate that these bodies were to consist of mayors, superintendents of education, superintendents of highways, township supervisors, gubernatorial and non-elected citizen appointees; and from them was to come their board of directors.

Even at this late hour – and the hour is very, very late – the debate on this crucial subject should by no means be closed. The prime reason being that, on its main lines, so many elected officials have been forced into a position of conflict of interest. Moreover, it gives the shape of things to come when the Federal Government, through its vast array of planners and regulators, will tell us not only to what end we were born and how we must die, but the style in which our lives are to be lived.

This is indeed a great and terrifying thing that has been done to us. The likes of it had never been thought possible before. Yet, who can deny that the Federal Government has already maneuvered itself into a position of dictatorial control, by making a twin-headed monster of money and regional planning the unwelcome specter in every legislative chamber across the land.

Thus with the advent of federal grants and regulatory agencies, an unanticipated and ultimately fatal weakness has crept into the method by which we govern ourselves. Particularly striking is the gloomy fact that a pattern has been set where independent governmental units, including the General Assembly, have become more and more a gathering of agents of the Federal Government, and less and less representatives of the citizens of a sovereign state.

Because federal money, or rather the money of taxpayers, goes everywhere, it is a point of law that any organization, agency or commission which operates under state statues is in reality a quasi-state organization if any, or all, of its operation is funded in part by the Federal Government.

This includes any private, semi-private, state, county, incorporated or unincorporated city, township or village, quasi-government and quasi-private organization, which employs or appoints any person, including ex officio members, or elects such members as directors, commissioners, supervisors and managers, who employ skilled and unskilled staff and staff employees, who dispose, pass on, judge, approve or disapprove of, act as advisor and regulator for any disbursement, in whole or in part, for any federal agency or federal commission, whether or not such federal or state organization, agency, or commission has been established by either presidential or gubernatorial executive order, or by acts of legislation by Congress or the State Legislature.

All such organizations are, in fact, agents of the federal government, operating upon and within sovereign state property, which violates the separation of power of state and federal government. Should any organization receive operational funds solely from the state, in whole or part, with such state funds coming, in whole or part, from the federal government, and such federal funds as have been disbursed to the state stipulate any form of federal control over state disbursement, that automatically extends federal control over the organization receiving the funds, and makes the organization, in fact, an agent of the federal government.

Should such federal funds be received by any authorized body of the educational system of the State of Illinois, all such units and the state becomes, in fact, agents of the federal government. Should such authorized bodies contract with another state, or state agency, through intergovernmental cooperation, as provided by Section 10, Article VII of the Illinois State Constitution they violate Section 10, Article 1 of the Constitution of the United States, which reads:

"No State shall, without the consent of Congress, enter into any agreement or compact with another State".

Had it not been for the mental docility and willingness of the General Assembly to assist the federal government in its program to transform our society to socialism, none of this could have happened. Now, neither the federal government nor any of its departments or agencies can, without usurpation, exercise any power whatsoever that we, the sovereign people, have not delegated through the Constitution, its amendments, plus the Bill of Rights, which is, of course, reserved to all citizens.

The sovereignty of the federal government rests fully and completely with the people, with all of the incidents and attributes attaching thereto. It seems to have been forgotten that behind the establishment, operation and maintenance of government is a sovereign, the possessor of all legislative, executive and judicial powers and authorities, and all matters incident thereto. That sovereign may be an individual, a group, or as with the United States, with us, the people, that vague power, still blind and ignorant, the power of the common folk.

The retention of sovereignty in our hands is outside the reach of any governmental agency unless we, the people, give it up voluntarily, or allow it to be modified. But the one provision of the Constitution which is being used to level our society and to rob us of our freedom and liberties, is the section that makes treaties the law of the land. It was under that accidental misfortune that, in October, 1977, ExCom sent President Carter to New York City to sign, secretly and sneakily, the Covenant on Human Relations, which is the formal surrender of the United States to the United Nations. If ratified by the Congress, and the ominous signs are that it will be, there will be nothing left of the United States of America; not even the name will remain to attest to its former greatness, as it will then, and forever more, be known as the Socialist Republic of America.

     [CDR Note: Reluctantly interrupting the flow of this transcript, we feel it absolutely essential to refute the comments of Miss Moerlien regarding her assertion that treaties supersede our Constitution for the united States of America. It has been a plan of the globalists for decades to instill in the minds of We, the People, and of our elected officials by way of an all-out propaganda program, that our founders "goofed" in their languaging of Article VI. Treaties do NOT supersede the Constitution.

     Because some lower courts have ruled that the U.N. Charter is the Supreme Law of our Land does NOT make it so. Read the writings of the founders and it is clear the intention was not to allow a central government body (U.S. Senate) the option to destroy the document which gave it its authority to make treaties.

     Those involved in the plan to destroy American sovereignty and the liberties of the individual which the Constitution secures, KNOW that this assertion is true. As evidence we refer to a letter from U.S. Senator Arlen Specter to a constituent in response to the constituent's concerns regarding the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child. Quote Sen. Specter, Nov. 3, 1994,

     "... Secondly, the Convention would not override the U.S. Constitution; rather, as in the case of any treaty, any provision that conflicts with our Constitution would be void in our country."

     We can present further evidence at a more appropriate time. Suffice for now to leave the reader with this thought: IF our Constitution HAS been superseded by treaty, WHY has the effort to open and rewrite (or replace) the Constitution, by way of a Constitutional Convention, been ongoing since the 1970's? The force (money, power, influence) behind the push for a Con-Con comes from the very sources which dreamed up the UN, its predecessor the League of Nations, and this entire globalist scheme.

     THE SYSTEM... THE SEAMLESS WEB... in which we are allowing ourselves to be trapped by virtue of ineffective activities. Please let us stop preaching to the choir and take critical documents to our State and local authorities while there is some shred of hope remaining. They do still have the authority by our Constitution to overturn State laws which have been passed implementing regional governance, regional commissions, etc. This whole scheme could come crashing down if we will use the mind God has given us and by His Loving Grace - IF we ASK.

     At this point in time our success for a peaceful return to Constitutional principles may not be probable and it IS possible... for, with God, all things are possible. Forgive the interruption and thank you for your indulgence once again. Returning to transcript]

MM: Like the General Assembly, the Congress has figured mightily in the tragic story of the betrayal of the American people, the whole of Western civilization, as far as that goes. Under the guise that carries the innocent description of formulating regulations for the purpose of enforcing the laws, Congress has, and continues to turn over to administrative commissions, the revolutionary and unheard of right to make their own laws. And under the cloak of issuing regulations, in truth, these regulatory agencies legislate both procedural and substantive matters.

To further enhance their importance, Congress has given them executive powers, and allowed them to act as judge and jury in the disputes that come before them. This means that they are, *pro tanto*, the judiciary, judging their own Laws; and because legislative, executive and judicial power is embodied in a single agency, this is distinctively lex regia.

The destruction of the United States, and the idea that it has been brought about, not by a single brain or a single issue, but over a long period of time, a slap here and a blow there, makes it one of the most senseless, cruel and savage events that the world has ever known. How strangely sad and ironic that scarcely a century ago, Illinois' most famous son, Abraham Lincoln, gave his life to that most noble of all causes – a united and free nation.

On April 11th, a man who has occupied a position at the pinnacle of American intelligence, my associate, Mr. Bruce Armstrong, appeared before this Committee to testify on much the same subject. It should have been with absorbed interest that the Committee received testimony relative to an investigation that has been awesomely placed in his hands – an extraordinary investigation into the causes of the disintegration and decline of a great nation and a considerable civilization. Mind you, this inquiry is the first and only searching scrutiny of the federal government.

Instead of receiving him with the respect that he deserves, the Committee censored his oral testimony, and suppressed both his and my written statements. In so doing, the Committee has discredited the integrity of its hearings, and has done a disservice, not only to us, but, more important, to the citizens of Illinois, who have a need and a right to know what is said in a public hearing. And worst of all, the Committee has dishonored the memory of those Americans who have died that we might enjoy the blessings of a free people in a free society.

Rep Lucco : I would like to take exception to Miss Moerlien's statement that this Committee, from the Chairman on down, has, in any way, tried to censor her or Mr. Armstrong's, or anyone else's testimony. I don't believe that's a fact. I believe that this particular Committee has tried to be very, very fair about it in the three meetings. I have personally been in attendance, and I do take exception to that particular statement. I do have some statements, or some questions that I would like to ask.

First of all, I understand that you are definitely in opposition to the consolidation of states, more than you are in consolidation of local governments within the state; or do you think that one leads to the other?

MM: Well, first of all, I am going to answer... I'm not going to sit here debating and taking exception to exceptions, but I am going to reaffirm my statement that on April 11, I submitted a written statement. I have reviewed the testimony – the transcript, rather, of the testimony. It does not appear in that transcript. Secondly, neither did Mr. Armstrong's written statement appear in the transcript; and finally, his oral testimony was edited – considerably edited.

Now, answering the second part of the question, frankly, I believe simply that the system of government, which has served this nation well, ought to be preserved; but if it is not going to be preserved, then the American people have a right to know what the facts are – at least the facts as we know them, based on a considerable investigation and considerable competence behind it. We have not been able to bring these facts out.

Now, talking about regional planning as opposed to regional government, it is all part of a basic plan – a larger picture. I hear constantly references to advisories. Well, I sat on the board of an organization, and I can assure you that where federal government funds, or rather government funds, are concerned, advisories are Laws. I have seen a city that frustrated the federal government, in one fell swoop, get $90 million just cut off. But I am opposed to planning – I mean, I am not opposed to planning as such, but planning in this form is insidious because lies have become blurred. I am opposed to the breakup of the traditional form of government.

Rep Lucco : Thank you. In regards to your exception to my exception – one more comment. A staff member just advised me that the oral testimony has been recorded. The written testimony has been, really, so voluminous, but it will be put into book form whenever the final report is made.

Now, another question. Do you believe that our present catastrophic thing that is taking place, as you describe it -- would you say that that's the creation of a sole political party, or would you say that both, or all, the political parties have been guilty of this?

MM: Yes. Representative Lucco, I am not a political person. I do not care about people's affiliations...

Rep Lucco : How would you answer my question?

MM: Right now, I will answer it very frankly, that over a very long time, because the Democratic Party is the majority party in this country, that it was very logical to infiltrate and to take the machinery of that party. But the sad fact is that now the machinery of both parties has been taken over. There is really no distinction, and if anybody deludes himself that this is a purely political system -- it is not. Decisions are made elsewhere.

Rep Lucco : Am I interpreting your answer correctly by saying to myself, I believe she believes that we are ready for a new party, or else a renaissance of the two old parties?

MM: I am ready simply to put the facts before the American people as I know them, and I have... again, I have been involved with this for some four or five years, and to let each individual citizen decide for himself; but he cannot make a reasoned decision unless he has adequate facts. I am not preaching anything, but I am saying that if you do give up the system that you have, there is something far more frightening in store; so before you give up what you have, let us talk about what you are going to get. Then you make up your own decision. I am not running for political office. I am not seeking funds. I have nothing... no axe to grind.

Rep Lucco: Another question. I don't think there is any question, as you have ably stated, that any time monies come down from the federal or state government, there are guidelines, and there are strings attached. How would you go about, let's say, funding our public school system without state funding?

MM: Without state funding? I am not opposed to state funding, but I am opposed to this continuation... I think, really, Representative Lucco, we are almost at the point – and I'll be very blunt about it – of trying to close the door when the horses are set [sic]. You see, I'm speaking from a different perspective – from a different point of view – so I know that things do not happen. They are planned.

I would say very frankly, and I would hope that if my state, the State of Illinois, of which I am a resident, would, somehow, give at least leadership to a divided nation; and I would begin just curtailing the acceptance of federal funds. Now, we did live, and I am – as you can see – of the age where I do remember other societies that have lived without this constant hand-out from the federal government. And we must... and, of course, I suppose there are some programs that would have to go, but they would have to go; but I think that if the people understood... in other words, I am saying, say to the federal government, "No. No more. We are a sovereign state."

And if it is necessary to cut off the funds, I would cut off the funds, because I... speaking of the City of Chicago, and I'm not going to go into that... and there I was involved very, very closely in a position, again, to know. After the federal government couldn't get the City under its thumb – and it was only because of Mr. Armstrong that they did not – they cut off $90 million (snaps fingers) like that. The City had good credit.

So, what I'm saying is that the federal government can, at any time, because of its vengeance, not only discipline the state because of some infraction in a particular guideline, but cut off funds that are totally unrelated. You have to look forward to that day. It's going to come.

Rep Lucco : Would you agree with the statement, for example, that it's probably true that if we send a dollar to Washington, or a dollar to Springfield, and we get 65 cents back, we're lucky. Now, would you say that you'd expound or agree with the idea that a local entity – be it a city, municipality, township or county – ought to have within its reservations and its power to tax themselves and keep the money and spend it there, as they see fit?

MM: Well, I don't think it's quite that simple. I still believe in the basic system of the federal government and the sovereignty of the states, so it isn't, you know, this is a rather large question, not simply answered. But I have traveled a great deal. I am aware of many, many incidents, and the federal government has used money to really, in effect, seize control. Now, I know what plight the state is in, and I know the plight of other communities, and most of them say, "we can't function"; but they are going to have to, or else surrender everything, because by 1985 – no later than that – and I can tell you that the new Constitution has already been drafted. I can tell you that a new... a whole new society is waiting for us.

     [CDR note: Miss Moerlien’s time line of 1985 makes sense, when we put several puzzle pieces together. In 1983, Missouri was the 32nd state – of 34 required – to pass a resolution calling for a Constitutional Convention. Acquiring the two final states would have been a snap if master strategist and patriot, Doug Kelly, had not entered the battle.

     The "new Constitution" she mentions is the Proposed Constitution for the NewStates of America. It’s amazing to discover – and my intuition tells me that Miss Moerlien is correct – that 1985 was the target date for the globalists to have had enough states apply for and the Congress to convene a Constitutional Convention . Then, when we consider insider George Orwell’s classic 1984, the title makes sense.]

MM:  Now, it isn't going to be just the State of Illinois to raise the hammer, but I would hope that from the State of Illinois, that there would be other states as well. But if we have no communication – no way of communicating to the American people – if I cannot tell everybody what I know, in order to introduce it to the public record for debate and scrutiny, the facts are not very favorable.

Rep Lucco : Can I have one more question or comment, please?

Rep Hudson : Yes.

Rep Lucco : During your discourse, and I tend to agree with you that most of the blame seems to be in... lies with Congress, because they have just literally sat back and let someone else take over.

     [CDR Note: Either Rep. Lucco was casting blame to absolve himself and colleagues of subversion of State government, or he was ignorant of the power, authority and responsibility, under authority of the Constitution for the United States of America, that he, as a representative of the law making branch of State Government, held. Even if the Supreme Court of the United States had NOT ruled time after time after time, that un-Constitutional law is NOT LAW (16th American Jurisprudence 2nd, Sec. 256) our Constitution is clear in Article VI that only laws made "in pursuance of this Constitution" are the supreme law of the land.

     Supreme Court Justice Marshall said it even better: In *Gibbons vs Ogden, 1824,

"The nullity of an act, inconsistent with the Constitution, is produced by the declaration, that the Constitution is the supreme law."

     Who will declare the supremacy of the Constitution? When We, the People, declare it so, either independently or in groups, our words dissipate like smoke in the wind. State Legislators MUST declare the supremacy of the Constitution as elected representatives of the people (our voice in government) and in defense and protection of the Constitution as sworn under oath when taking office.

     The simple fact is: State legislators could have and should have rejected the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972 (10-13-72), better known as the "Revenue Sharing Act", which was a gross usurpation of federal power... taking from those according to their ability, giving to those according to their need.

     During the behind-closed-doors scheming of Hillary Clinton's Health Care Task Force, the Department of Justice was asked how -- in order to force the National Health Care Plan down our throats -- the 10th Amendment to the Constitution could be circumvented. The DOJ submitted a 15-page memorandum in response, and a lawyer on the task force wrote a summary from the 15-page DOJ memorandum. On page 4 of the summary, we read:

"State governments are independent... sovereignties, not subdivisions of the federal government... it [fed. gov.] may not require them to exercise their own governmental powers in a manner dictated by federal law. The states may be encouraged, bribed or threatened into entering into joint federal state programs of various sorts... but they may not be commanded directly to use their own governmental apparatus in the service of federal policy. There is a modest jurisprudence of the Tenth Amendment that seems to have settled on this proposition. See the DOJ memorandum for a fuller elaboration." [emphasis added]

A prime example of "encouraging, bribing and threatening" by the feds appeared in USA Today, 4-10-97, Headline:

"Plan links seat belt use, road funding:   "The Clinton administration is expected to announce a controversial plan to get states to increase seat-belt use or lose millions in highway funding... The plan is also expected to encourage states to hit motorists who don't buckle up with penalty points, which raise motorists' insurance rates... The administration initially would reward [bribe] states with extra money if they beef up enforcement of seat-belt laws and get more people to wear belts. But the administration also has drafted legislation that would withhold highway funds [threaten] from states that don't enact tougher belt laws...".

From the San Diego Union Tribune (3-9-97) in an article titled,

"Bill would park U.S. taxes in California's treasury",

referring to the California State Sovereignty and Federal Tax Funds Act (SB1178) introduced by California State Senator, Richard Mountjoy.  This bill would create a trust fund into which all federal taxes -- including employee withholding -- would be placed.  The funds would be transferred to the feds on a quarterly basis -- the State keeping earned interest -- only if the feds ceased the blackmail practice of threatened withhold of funds, forcing unconstitutional laws to be passed, or else.

"Californian's pay about $150 billion a year in federal corporate and individual income and gasoline taxes, according to 1995 figures from the IRS. They also pay other federal taxes, such as liquor and tobacco. The federal government then returns varying amounts of money to California – an estimated $32 billion this year for programs".

     For every dollar paid by Californians in taxes – not including tax on alcohol and tobacco – twenty cents is returned WITH STRINGS attached. CDR has compiled a State Sovereignty document packet which includes the draft bill of SB1178, DOJ report, Supreme Court rulings on supremacy clause, 16 AmJur, much more. All States should be passing a model of SB1178. Stop federal usurpation by regaining control of OUR money. Returning to transcript]

Rep Lucco : Now, let's keep in mind that Congress represent the people. They are individually elected, just as we legislators are individually elected by the people of the various districts of states. Now, then, would you not tend to agree with me that when we turn out 22% to 45% of eligible registered voters to vote in a campaign, that sometimes we get, literally, what we ask for and what we deserve? What can we do to get much more people participation in our government?

MM: Well, I hope that we leave friends, because this is sort of turning into kind of a debate, but actually, no, I disagree that all the blame should be put on the Congress. There is enough blame, now, to go around. In the end, it's the people. It is their country. If they do remain apathetic, that is going to be their downfall. I don't blame, really, the people altogether. I don't blame anyone in particular. This is something that has been happening for a very long time. We started at one point, and then no one knew where the investigation was going to go.

Now, I can emphasize and re-emphasize that Mr. Armstrong occupied a position in Intelligence such as very few people have, and he did not know where the investigation was going to go. Blaming the Congress, and so on, I would refer to what has been happening recently. For example, 75% to 80% of the people are against bussing. The members of Congress know that they are against bussing, but the members of Congress refuse to do anything about it.

The General Assemblies, and I am only speaking of Illinois, because we are in Illinois... this could not have happened. This whole thing could not have happened, and I am saying the destruction of a very, very great nation. It could not have happened without a combination of many forces, and it was greatly assisted... the federal government was greatly assisted by the General Assemblies. But it serves no purpose to talk about blame, because we've got a huge problem, and what difference will it make to us in less than seven years who was to blame?

But, again, I'm sorry that I took a rather long time, in a round-about way. Your questions cannot be answered. I can't put the blame on them. I do think that there is not apathy on the part of the American people if someone can get out and reach them.

Now, public officials are not so inclined, even though they agree with me privately, because there is always that matter of a vote. Now, I don't have to worry about votes because I'm not seeking any votes, and I can tell it the way I see it. And with us, there simply has been no communication – no avenue. We have been foreclosed of all access to all media, and there is no way to get the message out; but I don't blame anyone.

However, it could not have happened without the General Assembly's acquiescence; and they continue to acquiesce, because when are you going to raise the question about the constitutional separation? Every day, your freedom – you surrender it, ___?___; and without challenge.

Rep Lucco : Thank you for your excellent testimony. I'm sure that it will be properly recorded.

Rep Hudson : Miss Moerlien, as Chairman of this Committee, I think that I would be derelict to the other members of the Committee, and I would be derelict to those sitting here in this audience if I did not address myself to the charges that you have levied in your report here. As a matter of fact, I think one of the saddest experiences I have had to date has been to read what you have had to say in the last part of your report.

I have tried, and I think the Committee members have tried, and the fact that you are here today, being given the time you are – and we're glad you're here – to have your say, and everything that you have said will go into the record. We are interested in that. Any material you want to submit will certainly be put in the record. We want the public to know. This has been our desire from the outset, and to end up with the feeling that you feel in the case of Mr. Armstrong, that this Committee had any interest in suppressing anything he had to say – either his oral testimony or written – I regret highly. I am sorry you feel that way.

I can only assure you that this has not been our intention. I might for the benefit of the members of the audience... I might tell you this, that what we have had to do after these hearings have taken place. We have had... my secretary has had to sit down with the tapes and do the best she can to transcribe from those tapes. Now, we haven't spent a million dollars of the taxpayers' money on this. We have tried to keep our budget costs down. My secretary, sitting to my left, has listened to those tapes, and to the best of her ability has put everything down in the transcript that she can make out from those tapes.

And I invite Mr. Armstrong, if he wants, to come in and sit down with his testimony and the tape... as she took the testimony from the tape... sit down with my secretary and go over it together and see if what we have isn't correct. And had I had any indication that Mr. Armstrong felt that he was in any way being censored... had he said anything to me or come to me, I certainly would have done everything that I could.

Now, if there is written material that he submitted that did not get into our first report, I would urge Mr. Armstrong to see to it that that material, which has already been mentioned here, is presented to the Committee, and it will be made a part of the record, and will be made a part of our report. And I want everybody here to understand that that's the intention of this Committee, and it has been ever since we started.

MM : Well, then, I would like to request that the statement that I submitted on April 11 – written statement – be included in the report, and Mr. Armstrong can speak for himself as regards the written testimony that he submitted.

Rep Hudson : Yes. I am informed... Miss Moerlien, would you wait just a moment, please. Representative Campbell has a question.

Rep Campbell : I, too, want to explain the sentiments of this Committee that there was no intention on the part of anyone to suppress any evidence whatsoever, and I think every member sitting up here, along with the Chairman, with the final report, when we come up with it, that all the evidence and testimony that has been submitted will be in documented form. Can I have assurance from all of the members of the Committee that we see that that is true?

Rep Hudson : Absolutely.

Rep Campbell : And I think that there are no differences here that cannot be resolved. But I have a couple of questions.

Number One, on page four of your testimony, you mention "ExCom", and I don't have the slightest idea what it means.

MM: All right. ExCom is also Internal Security. Now, I have to explain what Internal Security is, because it is not known. Up until very recently, it was just not known at all. Internal Security is that body that, in this particular case, has the responsibility of protecting, preserving and assuring the continuity of this Republic. Up until very recently, these people were not interested in politics. That was it... very highly skilled, very highly trained individuals.

ExCom, actually, is a new word for a body that has been taken over, and ExCom is composed of ten men. Now, ExCom and these individuals come from the general population, so there are all views, now, represented. ExCom is now concerned more with political matters than the security or intelligence matters. The body of ten that originally had one purpose – and that purpose has been completely subverted – and now it has another purpose. If you would like, I will offer a name or two of individuals who have served.

Rep Campbell : I would appreciate it.

MM: I am not at liberty to go very much beyond that.

Rep Campbell : Do you have such names?

MM: Yes, I do. I ought to be able to speak from memory, but... some names, perhaps, will not be recognized, but some will.

*Theodore Sorensen *Charles Bohlen *Llewellyn Thompson *Roger Hillman * Adliai Stevenson, Jr.that is the Senator's father. *Dean Acheson *Arthur Schlesinger *Kenneth O'Donnell *Robert Kennedy *Edwin Martin *Dean Rusk *Robert McNamara * John McCone *Roswell Kilpatrick *George Ball *Douglas Dillon *McGeorge Bundy *Roger Hillsman *Paul Nitze.

These are people who had, at one time or another, served on the committee. This is the committee that really directs; and one further thought, Representative Campbell, is that the committee now serves strictly as liaison. Mind you, not worried about the future of the country, but as liaison between other forces that are right behind the movement to change the U.S.A. to the Socialist Republic.

Rep Campbell : Thank you very much.

Rep Hudson: Thank you, Miss Moerlien, for your testimony... [calls another witness - Miss Sandra L. Edelman]



As Jesus bade us and promised: "ASK AND YOU SHALL RECEIVE"

Back to Main Regionalism Page

Home | Issues | Articles | Bulletins | Perspective | Audio | Guests | Images | Boards | Links | About | Contact