Time: Wed Jun 25 10:29:25 1997 by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA05484; Wed, 25 Jun 1997 10:29:27 -0700 (MST) by usr04.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA08650; Wed, 25 Jun 1997 10:29:12 -0700 (MST) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 10:27:34 -0700 To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: "It's time," by Linda Thompson (fwd) <snip> > >IT'S TIME > >by > >Linda Thompson (lindat@p-c-net.net), self-styled or self- >proclaimed (or not), acting (or not) Adjutant (or Adjunct) >General of the Unorganized Militia of the United States, >depending on what tabloid you read it in; (and in fact: >elected Adjutant General, a military position, not a rank, >similar to a personnel officer in a corporation. Any >officer rank can hold the AG position and it is not >usually held by a general.) > > >To All Americans: > >Our most painfully obvious failing, as a people, is >IGNORANCE. Our second most painfully obvious failing, as >patriots, dedicated to restoring our liberty, is a >fragmentation of efforts, focusing on special interests or >one issue. Many groups and leaders with good intentions and >tons of information (including yours truly) have proceeded >on the (wrong) assumption that the general public, when >confronted with enough facts, will find one or another >egregious violation of the Constitution so obviously bad, >they will "wake up." > >The error in this approach is that it assumes that the >general public has the slightest idea of what is in the >Constitution, sufficient to determine that they should, >indeed, be outraged, by any one of thousands of such >horrendous offenses. We are shocked when the public is not >outraged, when the public doesn't rise up as one body and >simply smother these criminals in the sheer mass of the >public outcry. Actually, we shouldn't be shocked when this >does not happen, if we realize the public does not have the >tools to make the assessment, no matter how many facts they >get. 2+2 equals 4 only when you know how to count and then >learn how to add. > >Can we simply agree that it is IMPERATIVE that we educate >the public about some basics of the Constitution? With just >some very basic principles, most people have a "light bulb" >experience and the Constitution comes alive for them. They >WANT to help run our government as a result. They begin to >apply what they have learned to everyday events. It doesn't >matter in the slightest what particular area catches their >interest as they begin applying what they've learned about >the Constitution to situations in government they become >concerned about. Without a doubt, they will find PLENTY of >corruption and wrongdoing, no matter where they begin >looking, or upon which issue they focus. We all know that >with a certainty. > >But to run this government that is supposed to be "of, by >and for" the People, we must get a commitment from the >People that is born from understanding the Constitution, and >from there, being able to size up the enormity of the >problems at hand. Most people have no idea, and their >ignorance of the Constitution is the primary barrier to >waking them up. > >A good way to wake up people is to engage them in a >discussion of their "right of free speech," i.e., "Did you >know that your right of 'free speech' means that the >GOVERNMENT can't infringe on your speech?" > >It does not mean you have the right to make anyone else in >the general public listen to you no matter when or where you >speak nor what you say, nor does it mean you can demand to >speak in a privately owned building, claiming you have a >"right of free speech," nor any right to demand that the >government "do something" about people saying things that >you or your interest group finds "offensive" or that the >government "do something" so you can speak somewhere. > >In all those settings, other persons have the SAME rights >you do, to be heard, to refuse to listen, or to oust you >from their private property, even to demand that you shut up >(you don't have to listen to them, either, however). You >can't call in the government to make someone else "talk >nice," or "not talk," or to make others let you speak, >because the GOVERNMENT is forbidden from interfering with >anyone's right to speak freely. > >It is the GOVERNMENT that cannot regulate what you say, or >what anyone else says. The GOVERNMENT can't even play >referee between what someone says and what you say. That's >what the First Amendment is about. It protects YOUR right >to speak freely without GOVERNMENT interference, oppression, >or regulation. > >So, why does this matter? Because if people do not >understand anything but a slogan memorized in sixth grade, >that we have "free speech," but they don't know that this >means freedom from GOVERNMENT oppression of our speech, then >they don't have any understanding of the most important >document regulating our government, nor what their rights >are, nor who the Constitution protects and from what. How >can we expect anyone to know our government is or is not >working properly, if they don't know how it is supposed to >work? Starting a discussion about what "freedom of speech" >means is a good, quick and easy litmus test of just how >informed your potential audience is concerning the >Constitution. You can bet if they don't know "freedom of >speech," they most assuredly are clueless about the >Constitution, generally. > >"DEMOCRACY," another slogan. > >A question guaranteed to make people immediately react as if >you are some sort of naked lunatic is to ask, "Did you know >our form of government is not now and never has been a >democracy?" (Gasp.) > >A democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on what is >for dinner. This is great if you are wolf, not so great if >you are a sheep. > >Our form of government is a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, where >we elect representatives who must represent both the wolves >AND the sheep, equally, not proportionally, no matter >whether the sheep, wolves or chipmunks voted them into >office and no matter whether the wolves are the "majority" >in their district or not. > >True "democracy" is one of the basic tenets of COMMUNISM. >Did you know that? So when you hear our President and >leaders claiming we must spread "democracy" to the world, >they are MOCKING YOUR IGNORANCE. > >Our government is supposed to be "of, by and for the >people," but that also means that we, the people, must KNOW >how our government is supposed to work. > >We are supposed to have a "representative" government, but >our electors are now chosen by the political committees in a >state, not by the people themselves, and it is the electors >whose vote decides who becomes president, not the vote of >the people themselves. You should be wondering about now >how political committees came to choose these electors, >instead of you. You should also be wondering why candidates >for office can only run on a ticket after "contributing" >many thousands of dollars to those political committees in a >state (I kid you not, this is a REQUIREMENT to run for >office in many states). > >You should also be able to spit in contempt on people who >tell you that if you don't like the way the government is >running to "vote them out of office," or "run for office >yourself," pointedly explaining to them how you have no >choice in the matter, actually, and neither do they. (You >could also read the book "Vote Scam" for a real eye-opening >understanding of how the actual "popular" vote, by the >people, is, in a word, rigged and is as phony as the >elections in any third-world puppet dictatorship). > >We cannot hold public officials responsible and accountable, >if we are too ignorant to know how our government runs, how >it is supposed to run and when public officials violate the >law or exceed their authority, or what to do about it when >they do. > >There is no shame in ignorance. The shame is in refusing to >cure that ignorance by educating yourself and becoming >active in running your country. > >It is time to acknowledge that we, the people, are woefully >ignorant of our Constitution and have allowed dictators to >dictate its meaning to us, dictators who assert in the same >breath that they are "immune" from the consequences of their >misdeeds by virtue of their public servant status, dictators >who are power-hungry, deceitful and skillful liars. > >It is an obvious contradiction and oxymoronic for them to >claim that because they are public servants, they cannot be >held accountable to the public (which they further explain >by claiming that otherwise, they would be subject to >"nuisance lawsuits" that would undermine their ability to >"do their jobs." This is the height of absurdity when it is >their failure to do their jobs or acting criminally using >their office to do it, that prompts a complaint from a >member of the public!) > >But, yes, Virginia, that is what has been claimed, time and >again, in our public records, in lawsuits against public >officials, lawsuits that were dismissed by other government >officials (judges), declaring that "public officials are >'immune' from lawsuits for misconduct in office, no matter >how criminal or deviant their conduct, because they would be >tied up all the time with 'nuisance' lawsuits if they could >be sued at all." Problem solved, eh? You can't sue them. >Now you are expected to go away like a good little subject >and quit whining, which you will do, if you do not know your >rights, nor how to hold them accountable. > >Likewise, it has been public officials who protect other >public officials from criminal prosecutions for their >criminal conduct, finding "no wrong doing," when in reality, >they know they have so much dirty linen of their own, they >don't dare expose any wrongdoing by anyone else, lest they >get some of the same in return. Time and again, we have >seen a plethora of evidence of criminal, even murderous, >conduct by government employees ignored. It is rarely an >issue of whether there is enough "evidence" to prosecute -- >there is often far and away more evidence than needed to >send many to the electric chair -- it is ALWAYS a question >of HOW can we get these criminal government employees >prosecuted when other government employees protect them (and >worse, harass or prosecute individuals who expose the >wrongdoing?) > >How are they getting away with this? > >Demanding that our servants swear an oath to uphold the >Constitution is meaningless, with no meaningful mechanism of >enforcement. > >Decrying the corruption of government officials and cover- >ups is meaningless, if there is no way to put the wrongdoers >on trial before a public jury, or because we have allowed >ourselves to accept the wrongdoers' claims that only they >can control the entire process, when we see that they can >and do thwart or undermine all investigative and >prosecutorial efforts. > >Were our forefathers, who could write such a brilliant >document as the U.S. Constitution, so short-sighted, so >ignorant, so unaware of the tendency of government employees >to become heady with power, that they forgot to put in a >clause which declared the right of the people to demand >accountability from public servants? Did they fail to >anticipate the weak-kneed toadies in government service, who >would cover up criminal wrongdoing by others, say nothing, >remaining silent, just to keep their government jobs and >pensions? > >Many would claim that there is no enforcement mechanism in >the Constitution by which the People may enforce the limits >of authority imposed upon government officials. If that is >true, however, then the Constitution has a fatal flaw. > >The flaw would appear to be illustrated by Ruby Ridge, Waco, >and Oklahoma City, and the subsequent cover-ups, as well as >the umpteen government-sponsored murders, such as the >murders of Vince Foster, Tommy Burkett and Joe Love, among >others. > >It would also appear to be well and amply demonstrated for >us by the clearly, blatantly illegal, unrestrained violation >of the oaths of office by Congressmen who allowed the Brady >Bill to pass, on a holiday, when few members were present, >when fewer still had even read the bill; by Congressmen who >allowed the 1995 Omnibus Crime Control Act, GATT and NAFTA >to pass in the same manner, without objection. None could >possibly have read the 1995 Crime Bill when it passed -- >only five copies were printed and it was changed, >repeatedly, AFTER it passed. This was blatantly illegal, >yet not one member of Congress so much as whimpered about >it. NAFTA was several thousand, boring pages long. Only >"synopses" were available. Who wrote these "synopses?" >There are lawyers who write these synopses, who work for >Congress. Who hires them? (Clue: Not the congressmen). > >Whoever hires them, is controlling government, by >legislation being written by these hired writers, and passed >by ignorant or criminal Congressmen. > >Ignorant Congressmen who rely upon these synopses without >reading bills, without questioning these sources, without >demanding accountability, are violating their sworn oaths of >office and a sacred public trust. The remainder, who know >what is in the bills and intend the effects achieved, are >simply criminally minded, greedy, immoral crooks. > >The Constitution intended that government officials be >educated in the limits of their powers and that they would >exercise their powers with integrity and the interests of >the public at heart. > >So is it the Constitution that is flawed? No. While the >Constitution intends that government officials be honest and >above-board, it also anticipates that some will not be. > >Reading the federalist and anti-federalist papers (which are >the debates concerning various provisions that ended up in >the Constitution) will quickly demonstrate that our >forefathers had an ingrained distrust of giving power to any >one person or even any one branch of government, period, >knowing with a certainty that it is human nature to become >heady with power, and to abuse it. > >The mechanism to limit abuses of authority and power are >already in place in the Constitution and underlie the basic >principles of our government. > >We, as a people, have failed (or refused or hoped not) to >see those mechanisms, which require a great deal of effort >on our part. In a word, we are pathetically LAZY and this >laziness has contributed to our own ignorance and resulted >in our enslavement. > >First, our form of government intended and requires that we >are educated in the basic principles of that government, in >order to know the limits of authority granted to officials. >If you didn't get it in school (and you didn't), then it is >up to you to educate yourself. The resources exist in ample >supply, both in public libraries and now, easily on >computer, via Internet repositories. You have no excuse for >your ignorance. It was a congenital defect that you could, >can and should, readily cure. Instead of watching NBC to >have someone give you your opinion of what the government >"should do" to "protect" you, find out what the government >is allowed to do, on your behalf, and know, with a >certainty, for yourself what those powers are. > >Our government, of, by and for the people, requires that the >people then be strong enough to pull the reigns when >officials exceed that authority. > >Our form of government is not a passive monarchy or >dictatorship, where the king or queen tells the peons what >will be the law, or where parliament may vote away your >"rights" (anything that can be cast aside by any legislative >body is a "privilege," granted from the king or dictator, it >is not a "right.") > >No, in this country, it is the other way around. It is the >people who tell the government officials what their powers >and authorities will be. However, that requires ACTIVE >PARTICIPATION by the people, which we have been too lazy or >ignorant, or both, to implement. > >The following were declarations of the people when the >Constitution was ratified and are part of the Constitution >today: > >"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall >not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the >people." > >That's the Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. What >does it mean? > >When the Constitution was being written, there were numerous >debates about whether or not to tack on a "Bill of Rights," >a list of the rights of the people. The first part of the >Constitution, the main body, the long part that most people >have never read all the way through, is actually nothing >more than a list of powers that the people gave the >government. It is a limit on those powers, too, because any >power that is not listed, no government official has. > >The debate at the time the Constitution was written, though, >about whether or not to add a "Bill of Rights," was whether >or not it was prudent to list rights kept by the people for >themselves. > >The argument against adding a "Bill of Rights," listing the >rights of the people in the Constitution itself, was that if >every single right wasn't listed, then the government would >eventually claim that any right that wasn't listed, didn't >exist. > >Ultimately, the Bill of Rights was included (these are the >first ten "amendments" to the Constitution. They aren't >actually "amendments" because the States wouldn't pass the >Constitution until this list of rights was added to the >original Constitution, along with the Preamble to the list, >which says why the list was added -- because the people >didn't trust the government not to overstep its authority! >Get a copy of the Constitution that has the PREAMBLE TO THE >BILL OF RIGHTS and see for yourself. Note this is a >separate PREAMBLE TO THE BILL OF RIGHTS, not the PREAMBLE TO >THE CONSTITUTION, and it is often hard to find a copy, >another indictment of the overall ignorant state of affairs >in this country. How many people noticed whether the >Preamble to the Bill of Rights appears in their copy or >not?) > >The Bill of Rights is a declaration of the rights which we, >the People, have as a condition of our birth, that the >government cannot step on, infringe, interfere with, or >deprive us of. Just like our arms and legs, our rights are >part of us. Just as you might declare the obvious, "I have >arms! I have legs!", the Bill of Rights is a declaration >that "I have rights!" Just because you declare that you >have arms and legs, doesn't mean you don't also have a >torso, toes or fingers. Those things exist, too, even if >you don't declare them. The same is true of our rights. We >can declare them, but whether we declare them all or not, >they exist. > >The "Bill of Rights" is nothing more than a declaration of >some of our rights, rights so important that our forefather >felt it necessary to say "you, government, have no >authority, anywhere, period, absolutely, to take these >rights from me." Just like arms or legs, rights can be cut >off, but they were rightfully ours from birth, and no one in >the government has the right to cut them off. > >The Ninth Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights due >to the fear that if a "Bill of Rights" was added to the >Constitution, the government would later make the claim that >if a right wasn't listed, it didn't exist. (This would be >no different than an argument claiming that because you >declared you had arms and legs, but didn't mention anything >else, why you must not have anything you didn't declare. >Dumb, eh? But that is, in fact, the very argument >frequently offered by those who hope you don't know your >rights or the Constitution! Beware of these liars.) > >The Ninth Amendment essentially says that just because a >right is not listed in the Constitution, does NOT mean the >right does not exist nor does it prevent the people from >exercising that right. > >One such right, not listed in the Bill of Rights, but which >goes without saying, is an absolute right to demand >accountability from public servants and to hold them >accountable, criminally, for failing to uphold their oaths >of office. How could a government be a government of, by >and for the people, yet the people have no absolute right to >demand accountability from their servants? > >Next we find another important declaration in the >Constitution: > >"The powers not delegated to the United States by the >Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are >reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." >(Tenth Amendment) > >This puts the shoe on the other foot. After declaring, in >the Ninth Amendment, that the People have rights, whether >those rights are listed or declared in the Bill of Rights or >not, next comes the Tenth Amendment that makes it plain that >the opposite is true for the government. > >The Tenth Amendment says that if the power isn't listed in >the Constitution, the Government DOESN'T HAVE IT, but either >the States or the People do. If it is a power that the >States are prohibited from exercising in the (main body of >the) Constitution, and the power also isn't given to the >federal government, then it is an absolute power that can >only be exercised by the people. Notice that the Tenth >Amendment speaks of POWERS, the Ninth amendments speaks of >RIGHTS. > >Only PEOPLE have RIGHTS. The government has only POWERS, >granted to it by the PEOPLE. > >The Constitution is comprised of two main parts. The first >part, the main body, was (and is) a charter of government. >It is a grant of certain specific powers, FROM the people, >TO the employees of the people, who the people have chosen >to serve and represent them. > >(Note this important point and realize that a servant cannot >exercise more power than he was granted by his master. For >a master to give authority to a servant, it must be >authority that the master has to begin with, so a servant >can never have more power than its master and can never have >anything to "grant" to the master that the master doesn't >already have. In other words, any power in the Constitution >is a power held by ALL people, that the people then >DELEGATED or gave, by this "charter" of government -- the >Constitution -- to government employees. Thus, government >employees must act according to the will of their employers >and masters, the people, who at ALL times have more >authority than ANY government employee. How can any >government employee, our servant, claim to grant us, his >master, anything at all?) > >The second main part of the original Constitution is the >first ten "amendments." As mentioned earlier, these weren't >really "amendments" at all, because they were required by >the states to be added to the Constitution before the States >would pass the original Constitution. They are that "list" >mentioned earlier, the "Bill of Rights," the list of the >rights of the people. > >Thus, the main body of the Constitution tells the government >what it can do and if the authority isn't there, the >government doesn't have it. The next part, the "Bill of >Rights," (the first ten amendments) are declarations of >absolute rights of the people that the government has no >authority to ignore, infringe, or cut off. > >We should all notice, and it has become painfully obvious, >that most government employees think our government works >the other way around, that the government has more power >than the people and that the people are subjects, expected >to jump like trained dogs at the whim of the government, >whipped into submission by federal "law enforcement" for >"violating" federal edicts, and that the government is >supposed to take care of its trained dogs, as long as they >behave. > >In fact, most of the general public seems to think so too. >How many times have you heard people saying that the >government should provide this or that, should regulate this >or that, "pass a law" about this or that, to serve some >particular interest? Is that the voice of a free person, >responsible for himself, accountable for his actions, or the >voice of a slave, looking for the massah to ride herd on the >rest of the slaves? > >In the Montgomery Advertiser the other day, I saw TWO >articles, written by "educated" journalists, yet both >articles made reference to legislatures somewhere discussing >whether to "grant" people a "right" to do something. > >This is as backwards and ignorant as it gets. NO >legislature can "grant" ANYTHING to the people. ANY >authority that a legislature has came from the people in the >first place. It is the same as if a servant said, "I'm >going to grant the master the 'right' to walk down the >street." In making such a statement, the servant has >presumed the master doesn't already have the right to walk >down the street, and that the servant is in a position to >bestow that right on him. He has also assumed that the >master is too stupid to know the difference. > >Absurd? Of course it is, or it would be, except that this >is exactly the effect of a legislator, proposing some bill >to "grant" a "right" to his master, the people. > >RIGHTS can't be "granted" from ANY legislature, period. >RIGHTS are recognized as being UNALIENABLE and GOD-GIVEN, >existing from birth, like an arm or leg. > >Yet, these high-and-mighty idiots in our legislatures and >our "free press" have demonstrated their total, abysmal >ignorance or outright defiance of the Constitution, by >proclaiming that some government employee somewhere is >debating whether or not to "grant" us some "right." > >You can demolish most of the propaganda offered by the media >arguing various political issues (using completely and >totally false arguments) if you understand nothing more >about the Constitution than this: > > (1) The first part of the Constitution, the main body >of the Constitution, is a list of the POWERS granted to the >government by the people. If the Power isn't listed, the >government doesn't have it. > > (2) The first ten Amendments that follow the main body >of the Constitution, are declarations of RIGHTS kept by the >people, absolutely, without question, which the government >cannot infringe, and further absolute limits on the POWERS >of government, such as those found in the Ninth and Tenth >Amendments. > > (3) Rights cannot be infringed by whom? The >government. Thus, when we speak of our "rights" and the >Constitution "protecting" these rights, who are we protected >from? Each other? No. The Constitution protects our >rights from being infringed by THE GOVERNMENT, precisely >because that is what the Constitution is: a list of the >limits of the powers of government and rights kept by the >people in order to make sure that government employees stay >within those limits. > >A good example of an argument you should now be able to >shred into pieces is the phony argument that the 2nd >Amendment, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms," >is really a "State right." > >Only PEOPLE have rights. States have no RIGHTS, only >POWERS. (This distinction can be made by looking at the >difference in wording in the Ninth Amendment versus the >Tenth Amendment, for example). > >The Second Amendment refers to "the right", not "the power," >of "the people" not "some state government," and that right >of the people is "to keep and bear arms." > >The U.S. Constitution contains no grant of power to any >State anywhere in it. It "reserves" some rights to States, >specifically (for example, see Article I, Section 8, Clause >16), using specific language when it intends to LIMIT a >power of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT by reserving that POWER (not >"right") to the States. > >The Constitution also limits the States from doing various >things when a particular power is given to the federal >government in the main body of the Constitution. This is >mentioned again in the Tenth Amendment, which refers to >powers, and says that any power not given to the (federal) >government, NOR "prohibited to the States" is a power >reserved to the people. > >The Constitution does not pretend, anywhere in it, to >"grant" any power to any State. It also does not, anywhere, >limit any "right" of the people, in fact, it declares the >opposite in the Ninth Amendment, that rights are absolute, >whether declared or not, and cannot be infringed by the >government. > >States were considered to be on equal footing with the >federal government, like separate countries, called >"sovereigns." The people were considered "sovereigns," too, >superior to both the federal and state government, the >"masters," not the servants. > >Thus, the Second Amendment cannot be "granting" any power to >the States, because it refers to a "right," which only the >people, not the State or federal government, have, so it >could not (rationally) be said to be granting a "right" to >the State. No where else in the Constitution is there any >"grant" of any power to the States, either, so it could not >(rationally) be said to be "granting" any "power" to any >State, either. > >There are other portions of the Constitution (as well as in >the history of the militia clauses added to the >Constitution) which further demonstrate that "the people" >are "the militia" and because a "well-regulated militia" >was "necessary to a free state," the declaration in the >"Bill of Rights" that the RIGHT of the PEOPLE to keep and >bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED (by the government) could >not rationally be "interpreted" as anything other than what >it is: A Declaration of an absolute right of the People. > >It is painfully obvious it was not intended to LIMIT the >right of the people to keep and bear arms to nothing more >than a "privilege" regulated by the State as many >subversives have urged, as they try to disarm the American >public, while convincing us all that the "militia" is >somehow a novel "political movement," rather than part of >the foundation and history of this country, embodied in the >Constitution itself. > >It is up to us to exercise our God-given, unalienable >rights, and get these terminally stupid public employees -- >and worse, those who are criminal and corrupt -- out of >office, and their lackeys in the media, too, paying no >attention whatsoever to their protests or claims to be >"immune" from inquiry and prosecution. > >There is NO authority in the Constitution that allows them >to escape a demand from the people to explain themselves, in >front of a jury, or to be accountable for their official >and/or criminal wrongdoing. If the authority isn't in the >Constitution, THEY DON'T HAVE IT. > >There is also NO authority in the Constitution that allows >them to be free of criminal prosecution, nor which allows >other government officials to refuse to prosecute criminal >conduct by other government officials. > >If an authority was not granted to the government from the >people in the Constitution, that authority DOES NOT EXIST. > >Rights of the people exist whether they are declared in the >Constitution or not. See the Ninth Amendment. > >The First Amendment declares that we have a right to >"petition" the government for a "redress of grievances." > >It should be painfully obvious and need no stating, that if >the government is not responsive to such a petition, that we >do not simply then shrug and throw up our hands and go away >quietly, or beg these servants to obey the Constitution. > >Possibly the most important right we have is the right of >the people, in a government that is supposed to be of, by >and for the people, to demand and enforce accountability in >government. > >Enough is enough. We have been lazy, we have been >spineless, we have been cowed by a loud, insolent and >subversive media, kowtowing to criminals and their money and >power as they blatantly ran over men, women and children >with tanks, shot innocents, and then lied about it. We >have watched those in power tell us that it is "good for us" >that they are arming police, nationwide, as if for war -- a >war on us, the people. > >We know it, we have seen it, and we have done nothing. > >Either we admit that we surrender this country and its >Constitution to the whims of organized crime -- which is >what we have now -- or we get up off our butts and do our >jobs. > >No more advice to "write to our Congressmen," when we know, >with a 100% certainty based on personal, long-standing, and >exasperating experience, that at best, they are incompetent >and ignorant of the Constitution they swore to uphold, and >more often, they are criminals whose only interests are >money and power, whose own dirty laundry insures they will >not expose the corruption of their peers. How on earth does >anyone these days (rationally) expect these complacent cows >or complicit thugs, to respond to any plea from the public? > >John Birch Society, take your limp, impotent bleatings to >"lobby Congress for action" somewhere else. We know better. > >The Constitution requires our vigilance and our efforts. We >have done nothing but whine and beg the servants to please >play nice. They have not and will not. > >WHAT CAN YOU DO? > >What does this mean to you, the concerned American? > >If you are serious about restoring the Constitutional >Republic of the United States, there is a role for you. > >The future of this country depends on our action or >inaction. > >You MUST educate yourself by READING THE CONSTITUTION. It >is not as boring as it first appears, particularly not when >you realize that each and every paragraph is a grant of >authority, FROM YOU, to people who are supposed to be >serving you. Think of it as your "employees' duty list." >How can you possibly expect your employees to be accountable >to you, when you do not know their jobs or the rules they >are supposed to follow? > >Think of the First Ten Amendments as your personal list of >"Rights of the Boss." It is and you are. > >The crisis in this country presents an extraordinary >opportunity and a mandate to educate the general public. >How can we call upon people to throw off tyranny, when they >do not even recognize it for what it is? > >It is IMPERATIVE that we immediately, efficiently, and as if >we are of one mind, educate the public about the >Constitution if we are to save this country. > >When each of us gains an understanding of the Constitution, >we can make it a living, breathing reality for others, >through our eyes and in our own words. > >In educating the public, we will be openly and publicly >branded "terrorists," or other such jargon, which will >associate this as a "movement" of "white supremacists and >nazis," (presenting another educational opportunity to point >out that nazis and white supremacists have opposing >political ideologies so isn't it amusing that someone thinks >they have united to support the Constitution and that this >is a bad thing?) > >In the usual staple propaganda from the media whores, they >will use the word "patriot" as if it is an epithet, not an >honor, and they will point to the "militia" as a bunch of >bearded, hillbilly kooks, insulting the intelligence of the >American public who, through our efforts, will have learned >the history of the militia and that the militia is the WHOLE >PEOPLE of this country, both in our history and in our >current laws, and most importantly, in our Constitution. >The media whores will wither on the vine when their lies are >exposed to the light of easily found truth. > >As more people are educated, it will be all the more obvious >who has been making false claims, why they are making them, >and what slime they are, which is all the better for the >health of this once great republic. > >We should wear the epithets as badges of honor. Eventually, >if we are successful in our efforts, posterity will remember >us, even if we are not fortunate enough to be remembered in >our lifetimes. > >We must cease this fragmentation of efforts and show people >what it is we are fighting for and why, by teaching them the >Constitution. > >It is that easy, because all of us have instilled in us that >this is the GREATEST country, the land of the "free" and >home of the "brave," yet we don't feel free, we're certainly >not brave, and we all know something is terribly wrong, even >if we do not know exactly what. Most people DO want to >understand what is wrong and DO want to fix it. They need >to be armed with truth, law and facts, to have the courage >to fix it. > >At the same time, the job is difficult because people are >conditioned to believe the Constitution is a mind-numbing >and boring anachronistic historical document, with no >relevance. It looks complicated, it is a hard read at first >glance, and why should they care? > >Are you content with this state of affairs? > >Every problem sited by every patriot group boils down to >this: Public officials are NOT obeying their oaths of >office and the public is NOT holding them accountable, and >ALL because many of the public officials and virtually ALL >of the public do not have the SLIGHTEST idea what is in the >Constitution. > >We have an absolute, unalienable right to hold these public >officials directly accountable, to convene grand juries to >investigate their conduct, to indict those implicated in >criminal conduct and official misconduct, and to INSIST upon >prosecution of those indictments by public officials or the >resignation and/or prosecution of public officials who >refuse to do their jobs, who impede public inquiries, or >refuse to prosecute indictments. > >We absolutely MUST convey these basic truths to the general >public. With truth and knowledge, come freedom. > >_____________________________________________________________ > >"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of > civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. > The functionaries of every government have propensities to > command at will the liberty and property of their > constituents. There is no safe deposit for these but with > the people themselves; nor can they be safe with them > without information." > > -- Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) > Letter to Colonel Charles Yancey, 1816. > > ======================================================================== Paul Andrew Mitchell : Counselor at Law, federal witness B.A., Political Science, UCLA; M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.2 on 586 CPU website: http://www.supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. ======================================================================== [This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail