Rape of Justice - Eustace Mullins

Durance Vile
Prisons and Penal Reform

Our present custom of confining criminals in expensive prisons is a costly relic of humanist thought. It can be traced back to the Renaissance period in Italy. In the classical world of Greece and Rome, society protected itself by killing or exiling criminals, or persons who presented a clear and present danger to society. The purpose was to remove a threat to the common weal. With the rebirth of humanist influence on society, a Phoenix-like revival of a cult which had been feared and hated by society since the blood thirsty rites of Baal and Ashtoreth, some five thousand years earlier, came the "compassionate" pretext of preserving and coddling the criminal element. The thought of maintaining such a threat in perpetuity would have seemed the height of insanity to classical thinkers, who evolved the cultural basis of our civilization.

During the Middle Ages, wielders of power built huge castles, fortresses where they could defend themselves against their enemies. Deep within the bowels of these castles, dungeons were built for the incarceration of enemies whose sudden death might have unleashed dangerous forces; claimants to power or religious martyrs who, for various reasons, might be allowed to live for many years, but whose imprisonment itself constituted a living death.

With the growing infiltration of the Black Nobility into the European monarchy, the aristocracy was persuaded that the imprisonment of criminals could serve as a deterrent and a warning to others who posed a threat to society. The most famous prisons resulting from this concept were the Tower of London, and the Bastille in Paris. The Tower of London became the home of many prominent political offenders, including Sir Edward Coke. In France, the Bastille held a curious mix of hardened criminals and political offenders. The liberation of a total of seven prisoners in the Bastille on July 14, 1789, which is now the French national holiday corresponding to our Fourth of July, resulted in the freeing of four professional forgers, one libertine who had been imprisoned at the insistence of his exasperated family, and two lunatics. One of the lunatics was then carried through the streets by a cheering crowd. He believed that he was Julius Caesar, and that Rome had once again become the center of the world. The only casualty of the liberation was the warden, who was dragged out into the street and tom to pieces by the mob. Four days earlier, the warden had insisted upon the release of the Bastille's most famous prisoner, the Marquis de Sade, who had continuously floated notes from the window to the street below demanding that he be freed.

"Bastille Day" not only celebrates the triumph of lunacy and sadism, but also the triumph of the Masonic conspiracy over the French monarchy. Some sixty years earlier, the rise of the House of Hanover in London had installed Freemasonry in England under the royal patronage.

Early nineteenth century reformers such as Jeremy Bentham, the protege of the East India Company, and William Godwin, whose daughter wrote "Frankenstein," invented the intellectual foundation of a fantasy structure which was called a "correctional" system. The term "prison" was deemed too calumniating; henceforth, "prisoners" would be known as "victims of society" who must be "corrected" and imbued with "correct" social attitudes. Instead of society being protected from criminals, it was now the criminals who were to be cosseted and cared for while they prepared for the day of their revenge upon society.

The heirs to the Cult of Baal, the humanists, claimed that "bad environment" created the criminal class. The removal of the criminal from this unfortunate situation, to a prison where he could be cared for, would "correct" his criminal tendencies. The humanists then developed a new social science, penology, which like all the misconceptions spawned by this new wave, psychology, civics, and social welfare, gradually merged to form a huge modem combine or trust, nurtured by the tax-exempt humanist foundations. Penology began with the praise-worthy efforts of a few conscientious persons to alleviate the harsh conditions of prisoners in the early 1800s. Remember that life was harsh for most Americans at that time, and it was unlikely that prisons would be maintained with better living conditions than those enjoyed by the average pioneer. Conditions were slowly improved, but by the turn of the century, prisons had become part of the overall bureaucracy, which meant that they were part of the spoils system, graft, and political influence. Like insane asylums and other government institutions, prisons were turned into gold mines of graft for those fortunate enough to wield political power, most of the funds appropriated for the feeding and care of prisoners being pocketed by those who had mastered the democratic process.

Faced with the difficulties of influencing the bureaucracy, the humanists began to develop new methodologies in their campaign for prison reform. Their first discovery was that no human being should ever be incarcerated. This was hardly a revolutionary thought — it had been the precept of the founders of classical civilization. The humanists began to implement their goal of emptying the prisons by formulas for work release, early parole, and family furloughs for prisoners. The problem was that these techniques resulted in a dramatic increase in crime, and caused the prisons to become more overcrowded than ever. The humanists also developed programs of intensive psychotherapy for those prisoners who were not yet eligible for the release program. The released prisoners, most of whom were recidivists, or habitual criminal psychopaths, committed horrendous crimes, which caused public outrage, and the demand that more millions be spent for police protection, and for the building of more prisons.

Faced with the prospect of vast increases in their funding, the bureaucrats of the crime industry realized that the humanist procedures were indeed evidence of the gratifying results of the new science of penology. Burdened with the task of spending more millions than they had ever envisioned, the prison bureaucracy became enthusiastic converts to the obvious advantages of social activist penology.

The "science" of penology came into its own after World War II, when a horde of rapacious humanists, who had been indoctrinated by the professional social scientists of the Tavistock Institute and its numerous American satellites, obtained lucrative employment throughout the prison system. The Tavistock Institute had been set up after the First World War, as a branch of the British Army Department of Psychological Warfare, to study the methods of controlling shell-shocked soldiers. Their purpose was to use these unfortunate victims of the war as guinea pigs, testing them to see how much strain was necessary before the average human would break under stress.

The technique of Communist brainwashing was one of the more successful offshoots of these studies. It spawned a host of refinements, such as "motivational technology" and "stress management," which educational and government leaders, and business executives, are now required to undergo at one of the Tavistock Institute spinoffs throughout the United States. The purpose of these brainwashing techniques is to trick the subject into admitting some sexual misconduct, a hidden fear, or other weakness exposing an Achilles heel by which he can then be "manipulated" for the rest of his career. The goal is people control. It originated in the Jesuitical techniques of the Inquisition during the Middle Ages, and is now the basis for the entire operation of the United States government, especially those departments engaged in "intelligence" work, such as the CIA, the IRS, and other conspiratorial areas.

The purpose of the Jesuitical confession is always control. For this reason, the American judicial system insists not only upon confession, but, upon conviction, an expression of remorse. Many Americans who have been convicted of some political offense in our courts self-righteously refuse to express remorse, which justifies the gleeful judge in giving them a much harsher sentence than he could have pronounced if they had groveled and spouted emotional recriminations. This was graphically demonstrated at the end of the political show trials called the Watergate trials. Republican political offenders were sentenced to long terms by a Democratic-controlled court, the longest sentence being handed down to Nixon's former aide, G. Gordon Liddy, because he refused to recant. This religious error resulted in his spending many years in prison, which he might have avoided by the required cringing and apostasy. Even so, the process was more humane than that of the Middle Ages, where the prisoner was tortured until he recanted, and was then burned.

The purpose of our criminal justice system is not to remove the criminal from society, but to find the lever by which he can be manipulated by the conspirators. His "handler" does not care whether it is sex, drugs, an irrational fear, or whatever weakness; the goal of the Tavistock method is to find that lever. Another key point in manipulating the subject is to convince him that everything that is being done to him is being done "for his own good." He cannot make any progress until he relieves his mind through the technique of "confession." The appalling cynicism of these manipulators is beyond most moral individuals' capacity of understanding. They cannot comprehend the Satanic origin of these techniques, unless they are familiar with the five-thousand-year-old Cult of Baal and the worldwide Canaanite conspiracy.

Even after conviction and sentencing, the prisoner is still expected to offer continuous acts of contrition, which will result in an early release through parole or furlough. The result is that many prisoners "find Christ" the moment the prison doors clang shut behind them, the most notorious being one of the Watergate victims, Charles Colson, who was so successful in charming his way out of prison that he opted for prison religious work, rather than returning to his lucrative law practice.

Although the prison parole system remains firmly grounded in bribery and political influence, the members of the parole boards still place great stock in Jesuitical expressions of contrition from those who seek release. Such expressions also offer a convenient screen for the hidden reasons behind the sudden parole of a notorious criminal.

Because penology is based upon humanism, the modem version of the Cult of Baal, prisoners who have been accused of anti-humanist activities, such as religious belief, patriotism, or belief in the Constitution, are never granted parole. They always serve out their entire sentences. Such offenders include those Americans suspected of anti-Communism, tax resisters (who are often referred to by the servile media as tax "protesters" — it has never been a crime in the United States to protest against any tax imposition), and members of the white ethnic minority who have been indicted for "racism." In our legal terminology, a racist is anyone who publicly refers to white racial ethnicity. It is obligatory for blacks, Jews and Hispanics to constantly parade their racial loyalties, and to beat or kill anyone who criticizes them, actions which find instant approval in the media and in our courts. Should one of these activists accuse a white citizen of "racism," the white citizen is promptly arrested and convicted.

The Department of Justice has publicized for years its policy that only whites can be charged and convicted of the crime of "racism." The present writer has letters from high ranking officials of the Department of Justice that the white citizens of the United States have no civil rights and cannot claim any redress for violations of civil rights. The Department of Justice apparently bases its stance upon the 14th Amendment that special rights and privileges were conferred upon blacks and other minorities, while apparently stripping white citizens of these same rights and privileges. The Oxford English Dictionary defines "privilege" as "the grant of a right," and also as "a grant of immunity" which the Department of Justice interprets as being conferred upon racial minorities by the 14th Amendment (passed under martial law, therefore invalid), but which is denied members of white ethnic groups in this nation.

During the 1950s, the already outmoded and discredited nineteenth century humanistic claims of penology were expanded into increasingly vaporous and unrealistic programs. Prison guards were forced to endure extensive "human rights" and "sensitivity" sessions by the Tavistock manipulators as part of a nationwide brainwashing diktat. Guards were told that they must address prisoners as "Sir"; they must never raise their voices to them, no matter what the provocation, and they must deliver printed menus to the cells before the prisoners were marched to the mess halls. A new California prison has developed an even more costly program, in which the meals are delivered by hotcarts to each cell!

States dominated by the more humanistic conspiracies, notably in Massachusetts and Maryland, eagerly adopted the most extreme "advances" of the new penology. The Massachusetts program was so exhaustive that it caused a taxpayer revolt. It also cost its Governor, Michael Dukakis, the 1988 presidential election. A notorious murderer, Willie Horton, had been released on one of the numerous furlough programs of the new penology; he promptly killed again. The liberal colleges of Massachusetts had previously indoctrinated a horde of practitioners of humanistic penology, the most notorious being Dr. Norma Gluckstem. A leading radical at the University of Massachusetts during the 1960s, Gluckstem initiated a program at the university which gave students academic credit for spending time in jail cells with extremely dangerous prisoners. The University of Massachusetts also promoted one of the most pernicious doctrines of Maoist Communism, that professors and business leaders should spend six months of each year in working at some form of manual labor.

It was hardly surprising that Dr. Gluckstem would be appointed head of the nation's most troublesome prison, the notorious Patuxent Institute in Maryland. Patuxent originated after some Maryland politicians went on a paid junket to Denmark. After the obligatory visits to brothels and pornography shops, the politicians realized that they had to justify their pleasant vacation at the taxpayers expense. They decided to "study" some innovative prison techniques at a new institution outside of Copenhagen, which treated dangerous offenders by psychiatric techniques. The politicians were immediately convinced that this program offered them considerable political benefits in a caring and compassionate nation. They returned to Maryland as converts to the "new wave" of prison treatment. The result was that in 1955, the state of Maryland established what has now become the nation's most criticized and talked about prison. Salem A. Sarh, a scholar at the National Institute of Mental Health, who has studied the relationship of law and psychiatry for thirty years, notes that:

"It was the heyday of the mental health movement. The feeling was that to just lock people up was not effective. You had to treat them."

The "treatment" consisted of interviews of the prisoners by well-paid mental health experts, who asked them, "Do you think you are dangerous? Do you think you would ever rape again?" These interviews allowed those prisoners who were professional criminals to play the favorite indoor sport of our prisons, "Schmoozing" or conning the liberals. The prisoners immediately embraced the Tavistock and Jesuitical techniques of confessing what the interviewer wanted to hear. "I'm in jail because I couldn't control my greed," because of "my insensitivity," or "my self-destructive tendencies." "The only person I have ever really harmed is myself." Such "Stroking" convinced the penologists that the criminal had experienced a genuine reform; he was now a model prisoner who was ready to be returned to society.

One of the prisoners who was thus returned to society was Robert Angell, who had murdered two policemen in cold blood during the commission of other crimes. It was disclosed in November of 1988 that this triple murderer had left Patuxent eleven times on unsupervised furloughs. He had killed a teenager in 1975, choosing him at random, and then murdering him, and he killed two policemen in Potomac a year later during a bank robbery. Dr. Gluckstem justified her decision to release Angell by her conviction that Angell was "a completely different person," who "deeply regrets" murdering three people. The Gluckstem program of sending the most dangerous criminals from Patuxent inaugurated a reign of terror and fear among residents of the area. Some people sold their homes and moved away, certain that they would never be safe while Patuxent remained a fertile breeding ground for crime. One prisoner, while on an unsupervised furlough, raped and killed an 11 year-old boy. Another prisoner, Charles Wantland, was paroled after serving five years of a thirty year sentence; he raped and killed a twelve-year-old boy in Clinton, Maryland.

A few weeks later, convicted rapist James Stavarakis, whose earlier parole had been revoked, fled while on work release from Patuxent and allegedly raped another woman. Patuxent records proved that its inmates served substantially shorter sentences for violent crimes than inmates at other Maryland institutions. Fernando F. Stewart was paroled by Patuxent in 1981, seven years after he had been convicted of the murder of a county police officer, and sentenced to life in prison. When questioned about Stewart's release, Dr. Gluckstem replied, "People can change." The Gluckstem program of daily work release, unsupervised furloughs, and early parole was compounded by intensive psychotherapy and peer counselling sessions. These programs were made to order for hardened criminals, many of whom had spent years in their cells boning up on psychological studies and psychiatric treatises on the criminal mind. They eagerly embraced the Jesuitical techniques of confession and recrimination as the golden keys which would unlock the doors of the prison. Because the Gluckstem method was tailor-made for the most ruthless classes of criminals, the murderers and the rapists, its benefits were never offered to the political prisoners, the protesters and constitutionalists, who were forced to serve out their entire sentences.

The Patuxent board was composed of Dr. Gluckstem, other Patuxent administrators, and law professors. Coming under fire for her policies, Dr. Gluckstem protested, "This place had a mission, whether you believe in that mission or not. I sort of was the caretaker of a historic institution. And when you see it being wiped out, there's a certain sadness." She was referring to the rising tide of public outrage at her methods of managing Patuxent Institute. Russell E. Hamill, vice chairman of the Montgomery Criminal Justice Commission, said, "Public safety is too important to be left to psychiatry." He derided Patuxent as "nothing but a psychiatric sandbox." State Senate President Mike Miller Jr. said, "Dr. Gluckstem was a disaster." Refusing to express any concern for the victims of her pampered inmates, Dr. Gluckstem vanished from the scene. The Washington Post later found her in the liberal encampment of Telluride, Colorado, operating a bed and breakfast inn!

After the unsupervised furlough and work release programs at Patuxent were ended in Dec., 1988, Jerald A. Vaughn, former director of the International Assn, of Police Chiefs, wrote an op ed piece for the Washington Post, Dec. 13,1988, in which he pointed out, "The Willie Horton and Robert Angell cases are not all that unique. . . Last year alone, more than 200,000 weekend or multiday furloughs were granted to prisoners in our federal and state institutions. About .5% commit a violent act while on furlough, nearly 1,000 violent crimes each year. Prisoners only serve 45% of their total sentence, on average. Prison furloughs in their current form undermine the integrity of our criminal justice system and make a mockery of meaningful sanctions against criminal behaviour. Government does have a moral obligation to protect the public from criminals adjudicated guilty of heinous crimes."

Increasing public apprehension about criminals walking the streets after being sent to prison was reflected in the presidential campaign of 1988, in which George Bush, a pleasant but uninspiring candidate, faced a long uphill struggle to overcome the vast lead amassed by the Democratic candidate, Michael Dukakis. Dukakis had the media, the entire academic community, the bureaucracy, the unions, and the minorities, allied in the rebirth of the old Roosevelt coalition which had been put together by Communist leader Bella Moskovitz in 1932. This phalanx of political power seemed destined to crush the Bush appeal. A Bush adviser, Lee Atwater, finally became aware of the most widespread emotion in America, fear. He advised the public of the Massachusetts penological machine which had unleashed a horde of vicious criminals on the nation, the most notorious being one Willie Horton. The people responded by marching to the polls, and voting against the criminal psychology program of Dukakis and his Massachusetts leftwing demagogues.

Nevertheless, penology continues to be a growth industry in the United States, with a number of private firms entering the field. The Corrections Corp. of America is the industry leader; its directors interlock with gambling interests and the Bronfman liquor empire. RCA operates the Weaversville prison unit in Pennsylvania; The Eckerd Foundation operates the Okeechobee prison in Florida. The prison bureaucracy has also developed its own version of the Soviet slave labor camps, called UNICOR. It produces 192 different products in our federal prisons, paying the inmates an average of sixty cents an hour. UNICOR states that it is a government corporation, wholly owned, despite the fact that on Dec. 6, 1945, Congress passed 31 USCA 866, "No corporation shall be created, organized, or acquired by the federal government. No wholly owned government corporation shall continue after June 30, 1948. The private corporate authority of every such corporation shall take the necessary steps to institute dissolution or liquidation proceedings before that date." UNICOR bureaucrats are now demanding that the government double its prison capacity to fulfill its burgeoning slave labor contracts. The federal government is now kidnapping many persons and holding them for years in prisons.

UNICOR also has many contracts with government departments. At the Lexington Federal Prison, HUD, the Department of Housing and Development, contracted with Federal Prison Industries, UNICOR, to process some 60,000 credit applications for mortgages. Prisoners operating 35 computer terminals processed forms containing credit card numbers and other vital bank and credit information from the 60,000 applicants. One prisoner, Beverly Hirsch, was horrified to find that such personal information was being made available to prisoners, who could pass the numbers along to accomplices outside the prison. She talked to a reporter from the Lexington Herald Leader; the result was that she was immediately placed in solitary confinement. Her security status was changed to a derogatory one, and she was soon transferred to California, far from her children and her recently-widowed mother. Prisoners who run afoul of the penology bureaucracy receive the full treatment; loss of rights, "diesel therapy," that is, repeated transfer further and further away from their loved ones, often with months passing in which relatives do not know where they are; and "loss of rights while in transit." The U.S. Marshals Service uses more than 800 county jails as "stopovers" for the victims of "diesel therapy." As a "snitch" on prison corruption, Beverly Hirsch will remain "in transit" for many months.

Another well known prisoner, Rudy Stanko, has also been the victim of "diesel therapy," for blowing the whistle on UNICOR's slave labor practices in our federal prisons. Stanko has been the victim of "diesel therapy" eighteen times, sometimes being moved from one prison to another three or four times in a period of two or three weeks. In less than two years of imprisonment he has been in solitary confinement 472 days. The story of this "criminal" illustrates the depths to which our criminal justice system has sunk. Stanko was one of the fastest-growing meatpackers in the United States. A rival meatpacking group tried to force him out of business; when that failed, they offered to buy him out. He refused. He was then subjected to public pillorying by several national television programs, where ex-employees, who had been bribed by his competitors, claimed he had sold spoiled meat to school luncheon programs. He was then indicted and convicted on the perjured testimony; his rivals took over his plant for ten cents on the dollar.

Stanko wrote a book about his experience, "THE SCORE," for which the present writer wrote a foreword. He identified his persecutors as a Zionist cartel, which enraged the manipulators of the secret government. Stanko was sentenced to a long prison term. There would be no psychotherapeutic coddling for him. His captors were told to give him the full treatment; continuous "diesel therapy," solitary confinement, and brutal mistreatment which, after some months, has caused the deaths of many political prisoners. Never having committed any crime, Stanko is at a great disadvantage in our prison system, which is run by and for criminals. To this day, not one ounce of "tainted meat" has ever been identified with his meatpacking operation. It was a classic example of bribed witnesses, professional perjurers, and dedicated opposition obtaining their goals.

Federal Prison Industries is listed at 320 1st st. HOLC Bg, Washington D.C. 20534. In the Reader's Guide, prison labor is listed under "convict labor." UNICOR, as well as the privatization of "corrections" industries, is but one of numerous spinoffs from our crime problem. We have had enormous growth in police forces, as well as other parts of the bureaucracy. However, the greatest single beneficiary of the growing crime problem is the insurance industry. It has long been a truism that the insurance industry is almost totally dependent upon a consistently high rate of crime; otherwise, burglary, liability, and other profitable insurance lines would shrivel up. The media cooperates by dramatizing the daily perils of life in the United States, particularly in our larger cities. On Feb. 16, 1989, the Atlanta Journal headlined, "METRO CRIME UP 14% in 88. DOUBLING 87 INCREASE. Law enforcement officials blamed most of it on escalating drug use and prisoners released too soon."

On Jan. 27, 1989, the Washington Post headlined, "A LETTER FROM A FRIGHTENED METROPOLIS. Violent Crime Wave Rattles Even Hardened New Yorkers. Fear Stalks Subways." The story noted that there were 1840 homicides in New York City in 1988, a figure greater than that in most major countries of the world. Fear stalks the city so routinely that reporters are hard put to find more cliches to describe the situation. The Daily News headlined, "A City Under Siege,"

"Three Long Island women, all of whom had obtained protective court orders, were shot and killed in a nine day period by their estranged husbands, who then committed suicide."

The women were actually killed by government psychiatrists, who, under their new designation of "socially cured" had routinely diagnosed homicidal lunatics as presenting no further threat to society, even though these men had declared their intention of murdering their wives as soon as they were released. The story continues,

"A pregnant doctor was raped and killed at Bellevue Hospital, and police arrested and charged a vagrant secretly living on the 22nd floor. . . massive publicity focused on the trial of Joel Steinberg, the Greenwich Village lawyer accused in the beating death of his illegally adopted daughter. Two other small children died in the custody of parents whose cases were botched by the city's welfare agencies."

More than fifty women have been murdered in recent years after their criminally insane husbands were treated and diagnosed as "cured" by government staff psychiatrists. Hundreds of children have been killed after welfare agencies and supposedly well trained social workers demanded that judges order them returned to brutal family situations, where they were beaten and tortured until they died. The women who notified authorities that their husbands intended to kill them were also routinely judged by social workers and psychiatrists to be suffering from delusions, and, most serious of all, they were guilty of "paranoia." Paranoia is one of the most serious charges a psychiatrist can make against you. It means that you suspect someone may try to harm you, an obvious delusion in this perfect world.

In the New York Times magazine, Mar. 19, 1989, W. H. Wash, editor of Psychology Today, offers an authoritative definition of paranoia, as "an elaborate and rigid system of delusional beliefs," complicated by "an elaborate and rigid belief-system." He states that a paranoid streak characterized such populist politicians as Huey Long, with their grand conspiracy theories. He informs us that a paranoid person has a rigid and judgmental thought process. (Rigid) is a favorite word of liberal psychoanalysts; it means that they must find a client who will hold still while they pick his pockets. He also tells us that the paranoid person characteristically exhibits grandiosity and hostility, and that paranoid delusions originate in one's self-dislike.

Since Max Eitington, the colleague of Sigmund Freud, introduced psychiatry as a key element in the world Communist conspiracy, those who oppose Communism have always been diagnosed as suffering from delusions and paranoia. The greatest paranoid personality of all time, of course, was Adolf Hitler, who nearly toppled the Communist empire, proving that Eitington and his fellow KGB agents were correct in fearing the paranoid enemy. In the United States, any citizen who reports the Communist activities of government employees finds himself facing a quick ride to the insane asylum. When a senior State Department official, Felix Bloch, was recently photographed handing over a briefcase to a KGB agent, only a paranoid suffering from anti-Communist delusions would claim that he was doing anything more dangerous than exchanging family pictures of a vacation on the beach.

We mention paranoia in such detail because of the psychiatric insistence that it is always delusional, and that it originates in "self-hatred," a mental problem which exists only in the world of psychiatry. The fifty women who were slain by their lunatic husbands after repeated boasts that they intended to do just that, were one and all dismissed by psychiatric experts as suffering from paranoia. Apparently it is a fatal illness, because they died of it.

The crime problem forces American citizens to live in a constant state of warfare. The Washington Post headlined Jan. 29, 1989 that "Fear Leads D.C. Cab Drivers to Defy Law." Mayor Barry's scandal-ridden District of Columbia government had passed a law fining any cab driver $100 if he passed by or refused a "dangerous" fare. For "dangerous," read "black." The fact that D.C. Cab drivers now number 97% black, and that they know what they are doing when they refuse a fare, did not prevent the Barry regime from labelling them as criminals. On Jan. 18, 1989, the murder of a 73 year old cab driver in one of the city's most crime-ridden areas, at 3rd and Underwood NW, in the shadow of the nation's capitol building, forced the drivers to become more choosy in accepting their fares.

In recent months, worldwide TV news coverage, particularly in Europe, which sends many tourists to Washington, has caused the city to win the title, "crime capital of the world." No other city comes close to Washington's capture of the label, "the murder capital of the U.S." With 372 murders in 1988, and 120 more in the first few months of 1989, Mayor Barry moved quickly to staunch the flow of blood. He announced that 25 police would be detailed to arrest jaywalkers! An estimated 10,000 jaywalking tickets will be issued by the alert Barry police force this year. Meanwhile, Sen. Mark Hatfield witnessed a shootout in the street near his office, but didn't bother to report it. He says it is so commonplace that there is no point in filling out a police report, which will promptly be buried. Barry will do nothing about the city's murder rampage, but jaywalkers have been placed on notice.

Because of academic inability to see cause and result, no one has analyzed the capture of the title "crime capital of the world" as the inevitable result of a previous crime, the illegal decision of the Supreme Court in Shelley v. Kraemer in 1948. Because the decision was arrived at through the efforts of Justice Frankfurter's law clerk as amicus curiae, and his close connections with the organizations which had brought the suit, the American Jewish Congress and the American Jewish Committee, the decision must be stricken from the record as invalid. The Court ruling which brought about the white flight from Washington, and the resulting crime wave, must be corrected.

Although the Federal Prison Bureau has a good thing going with its convict slave labor program, there is no congruent resultant reduction in the crime wave. Time noted May 12, 1986 that the going rate for prison work in New York State prisons was from 320 to 650 an hour. The paperwork for the Dept, of Motor Vehicles was being handled by the women's prison, the Bayview Correctional Facility. Time noted Aug. 29, 1988 that an inmate at California's Lompoc prison had authored an article for the San Francisco Chronicle, "The Gulag Mentality" which exposed the slave labor operation. Indignant prison officials immediately ordered a dose of "diesel therapy" for him. Martin was shipped to San Diego, and then to Phoenix. He sued for restraint of freedom of speech, but the judge refused to lift the orders of transfer, noting that it was "for the good of the correctional system."

A recent study by the Rand Corp. shows that each criminal costs society $430,000 a year in loot. It costs $25,000 a year to keep him in prison, indicating that society saves $405,000 a year for each criminal kept in prison. It now costs $16 billion a year for the states to house inmates; about $1 billion per year goes for their health care. AIDS has presented a new and even more expensive medical dilemma for prison authorities, as has the rapidly aging prison population. In 1987, there were 40,000 federal prisoners, a total of 533,000 prisoners held in all U.S. prison facilities. There are constant calls for the building of thousands of additional cells.

Construction costs for federal prisons run from fifty to one hundred thousand dollars per cell, depending on how many Congressional relatives are contracted for the job. Offenders average 187 crimes each, or one every couple of days, although some energetic offenders exceed this number. To fulfill the demands of corrections officials would cost $130 billion in new prison construction, with annual budgets for prison operation rocketing to from $36 billion to $60 billion per year. Although this is still a reasonable figure as compared to the $249 billion a year we spend for defense, without defending anything, it would probably result in the United States becoming even more of a police state than it is at present, with the real crackdown wielded, not against criminals, but against "political dissidents."

The direction in which government officials are likely to move was graphically demonstrated in the strange case of Congressman George Hansen. Hansen had violated the secret code of Washington, that no one interferes in Middle East politics without the permission of Henry Kissinger. Hansen tried to have some American hostages freed, and promptly became the only Congressman ever tried under the new "ethics" laws, which required Congressmen to report their financial dealings. He incurred one million dollars in legal fees, lost his home and all his possessions, and was locked up for six months in Petersburg, Va. which is considered the most brutal of the federal prisons.

In contrast, Speaker of the House Jim Wright, accused of 116 ethics violations, which were later shaved to 69, was allowed to depart Sodom on the Potomac with not even a wrist slap. After serving his sentence, Hansen was then arrested for speaking at a religious gathering in Omaha, and flown back to Washington with his hands cruelly handcuffed behind his back. He was then held under a false name so that persons interested in his fate could not locate him. The Washington Post wryly commented, June 6, 1987, "If you believe the Justice Department, American streets are safer these days because George Hansen is back in prison." The Post pointed out that Hansen "was punished well in excess of his offense." In fact, he had never committed any offense, excepting his unauthorized hegira to Teheran. His brutal treatment was protested by 239 Congressmen in a petition to President Reagan, and by 300,000 telephone and telegram pleas on his behalf. All were tossed into wastebaskets by the arrogant Kissinger-controlled Reagan officials.

The dedication of the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons to strictly political law enforcement makes it inevitable that these agencies must and will be disbanded, the sooner, the better. We cannot suffer the Department of Justice to continue as the private operation of the fanatical Zionist agents, Nesher; we cannot allow the FBI to continue to serve the Perverts in Power as a private political police, and we cannot allow the crime wave to continue unabated while the Federal Bureau of Prisons serves as a convenient place to stash critics of our criminals in government.