Time: Fri Dec 12 06:46:21 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id GAA19121
for <pmitch@smtp-local.primenet.com>; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 06:44:50 -0700 (MST)
by smtp02.primenet.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA08029;
Fri, 12 Dec 1997 06:46:49 -0700 (MST)
via SMTP by smtp02.primenet.com, id smtpd007988; Fri Dec 12 06:46:32 1997
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 06:40:52 -0800
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: "Land-Mine Legislation," by Claire Wolfe (fwd)
<snip>
>
> LAND-MINE LEGISLATION
> by Claire Wolfe
>
>Let me run by you a brief list of items that are "the law" in America
today. As you read, consider
>what all these have in common.
>
>1. A national database of employed people.
>
>2. 100 pages of new "health care crimes," for which the penalty is (among
other things) seizure of
>assets from both doctors and patients.
>
>3. Confiscation of assets from any American who establishes foreign
citizenship.
>
>4. The largest gun confiscation act in U.S. history - which is also an
unconstitutional ex postfacto
>law and the first law ever to remove people's constitutional rights for
committing a misdemeanor.
>
>5. A law banning guns in ill-defined school zones; random roadblocks may
be used for enforcement;
>gun-bearing residents could become federal criminals just by stepping
outside their doors or getting
>into vehicles.
>
>6. Increased funding for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, an
agency infamous for its
>brutality, dishonesty and ineptitude.
>
>7. A law enabling the executive branch to declare various groups
"Terrorists" - without stating any
>reason and without the possibility of appeal. Once a group has been so
declared, its mailing and
>membership lists must be turned over to the government.
>
>8. A law authorizing secret trials with secret evidence for certain
classes of people.
>
>9. A law requiring that all states begin issuing drivers licenses carrying
Social Security numbers and
>"security features" (such as magnetically coded fingerprints and personal
records) by October 1,
>2000. By October 1, 2006, "Neither the Social Security Administration or
the Passport Office or
>any other Federal agency or any State or local government agency may
accept for any evidentiary
>purpose a State driver's license or identification document in a form
other than [one issued with a
>verified Social Security number and 'security features']."
>
>10. And my personal favorite - a national database, now being constructed,
that will contain every
>exchange and observation that takes place in your doctor's office. This
includes records of your
>prescriptions, your hemorrhoids and your mental illness. It also includes
- by law - any statements
>you make ("Doc, I'm worried my kid may be on drugs...... Doc, I've been so
stressed out lately I
>feel about ready to go postal.") and any observations your doctor makes
about your mental or
>physical condition, whether accurate or not, whether made with your
knowledge or not. For the
>time being, there will be zero (count 'em, zero) privacy safeguards on
this data. But don't worry,
>your government will protect you with some undefined "privacy standards"
in a few years.
>
>All of the above items are the law of the land. Federal law. What else
do they have in common?
>
>Well, when I ask this question to audiences, I usually get the answer,
"They're all unconstitutional."
>True.
>
>My favorite answer came from an eloquent college student who blurted,
"They all SUUUCK!" Also
>true.
>
>But the saddest and most telling answer is: They were all the product of
the 104th Congress. Every
>one of the horrors above was imposed upon you by the Congress of the
Republican-Revolution --
>the Congress that pledged to "get government off your back."
>
> BURYING TIME BOMBS
>
>All of the above became law by being buried in larger bills. In many
cases, they are hidden sneak
>attacks upon individual liberties that were neither debated on the floor
of Congress nor reported in
>the media. For instance, three of the most horrific items (the health
care database, asset
>confiscation for foreign residency and the 100 pages of health care
crimes) were hidden in the
>Kennedy-Kassebaum Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of
1996 (HR 3103).
>You didn't hear about them at the time because the media was too busy
celebrating this moderate,
>compromise bill that "simply" ensured that no American would ever lose
insurance coverage due to
>a job change or a Pre-existing condition.
>
>Your legislator may not have heard about them, either. Because he or she
didn't care enough to do
>so. The fact is, most legislators don't even read the laws they inflict
upon the public. They read the
>title of the bill (which may be something like "The Save the Sweet Widdle
Babies from Gun
>Violence by Drooling Drug Fiends Act of 1984"). They read summaries,
which are often prepared
>by the very agencies or groups pushing the bill. And they vote according
to various deals or
>pressures.
>
>It also sometimes happens that the most horrible provisions are sneaked
into bills during conference
>committee negotiations, after both House and Senate have voted on their
separate versions of the
>bills. The conference committee process is supposed simply to reconcile
differences between two
>versions of a bill. But power brokers use it for purposes of their own,
adding what they wish. Then
>members of the House and Senate vote on the final, unified version of the
bill, often in a great rush,
>and often without even having the amended text available for review.
>
>I have even heard (though I cannot verify) that stealth provisions were
written into some bills after all
>the voting has taken place. Someone with a hidden agenda simply edits
them in to suit his or her
>own purposes. So these time bombs become "law" without ever having been
voted on by anybody.
> And who's to know? If congress people don't even read legislation before
they vote on it, why
>would they bother reading it afterward? Are power brokers capable of such
chicanery? Do we
>even need to ask? Is the computer system in which bills are stored
vulnerable to tampering by
>people within or outside of Congress? We certainly should ask. Whether
your legislators were
>ignorant of the infamy they were perpetrating, or whether they knew, one
thing is absolutely certain:
>
>The Constitution, your legislator's oath to it, and your inalienable
rights (which precede the
>Constitution) never entered into anyone's consideration. Ironically, you
may recall that one of the
>early pledges of Newt Gingrich and Company was to stop these stealth
attacks. Very early in the
>104th Congress, the Republican leadership declared that, henceforth, all
bills would deal only with
>the subject matter named in the title of the bill. When, at the beginning
of the first session of the
>104th, pro-gun Republicans attempted to attach a repeal of the "assault
weapons" ban to another
>bill, House leaders dismissed their amendment as not being "germane."
After that self-righteous and
>successful attempt to prevent pro-freedom stealth legislation, Congress
people turned right around
>and got back to the dirty old business of practicing all the anti-freedom
stealth they were capable of.
>
> STEALTH ATTACKS IN BROAD DAYLIGHT
>
>Three other items on my list (ATF funding, gun confiscation and school
zone roadblocks) were also
>buried in a big bill - HR 3610, the budget appropriation passed near the
end of the second session
>of the 104th Congress. No legislator can claim to have been unaware of
these three because they
>were brought to public attention by gun-rights groups and hotly debated in
both Congress and the
>media. Yet some 90 percent of all congress people voted for them
including many who claim to be
>ardent protectors of the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment. Why?
>
>Well, in the case of my wrapped-in-the-flag, allegedly pro-gun, Republican
congressperson: "Bill
>Clinton made me do it!"
>
>Okay, I paraphrase. What she actually said was more like, "It was part of
a budget appropriations
>package. The public got mad at us for shutting the government down in
1994. If we hadn't voted
>for this budget bill, they might have elected a Democratic legislature in
1996 - and you wouldn't
>want THAT, would you?" Oh heavens, no I'd much rather be enslaved by
people who spell their
>name with an R than people who spell their name with a D. Makes all the
difference in the world!
>
> HOW SNEAK ATTACKS ARE JUSTIFIED
>
>The Republicans are fond of claiming that Bill Clinton "forced" them to
pass certain legislation by
>threatening to veto anything they sent to the White House that didn't meet
his specs. In other cases
>(as with the Kennedy-Kassebaum bill), they proudly proclaim their misdeeds
in the name of
>bipartisanship - while carefully forgetting -to mention the true nature of
what they're doing. In still
>others, they trumpet their triumph over the evil Democrats and claim the
mantle of limited
>government while sticking it to us and to the Constitution. The national
database of workers was in
>the welfare reform bill they "forced" Clinton to accept. The requirement
for SS numbers and
>ominous "security" devices on drivers licenses originated in their very
own Immigration Control and
>Financial Responsibility Act of 1996, HR 2202. Another common trick,
called to my attention by
>Redmon Barbry, publisher of the electronic magazine Fratricide, is to hide
duplicate or
>near-duplicate provisions in several bills. Then, when the Supreme Court
declares Section A of
>Law Z to be -unconstitutional, its kissing cousin, Section B of Law Y,
remains to rule us.
>
>Sometimes this particular form of trickery is done even more brazenly;
when the Supreme Court, in
>its Lopez decision, declared federal-level school zone gun bans
unconstitutional because Congress
>demonstrated no jurisdiction, Congress brassily changed a few words. They
claimed that school
>zones fell under the heading of "interstate commerce." Then they sneaked
the provision into HR
>3610, where it became "law" once again. When angry voters upbraid
congress people about some
>Big Brotherish horror they've inflicted upon the country by stealth, they
claim lack of knowledge,
>lack of time, party pressure, public pressure, or they justify themselves
by claiming that the rest of
>the bill was "good".
>
>The simple fact is that, regardless of what reasons legislators may claim,
the U.S. Congress has
>passed more Big Brother legislation in the last two years - more laws to
enable tracking, spying and
>controlling - than any Democratic congress ever passed. And they have
done it, in large part, in
>secret.
>
>Redmon Barbry put it best: "We the people have the right to expect our
elected representatives to
>read, comprehend and master the bills they vote on. If this means
Congress passes only 50 bills per
>session instead of 5,000, so be it. As far as I am concerned, whoever
subverts this process is
>committing treason." By whatever means the deed is done, there is no
acceptable excuse for voting
>against the Constitution, voting for tyranny. And I would add to Redmon's
comments: Those who
>do read the bills, then knowingly vote to ravage our liberties, are doubly
guilty. But when do the
>treason trials begin?
>
> BILLS AS WINDOW DRESSING FOR AN UGLY AGENDA
>
>The truth is that these tiny, buried provisions are often the real intent
of the law, and that the
>hundreds, perhaps thousands, of pages that surround them are sometimes
nothing more than
>elaborate window dressing. These tiny time bombs are placed there at the
behest of federal police
>agencies or other power groups whose agenda is not clearly visible to us.
And their impact is felt
>long after the outward intent of the bill has been forgotten.
>
>Civil forfeiture - now one of the plagues of the nation was first
introduced in the 1970s as one of
>those buried, almost unnoticed provisions of a larger law. One wonders
why on earth a "health care
>bill" carried a provision to confiscate the assets of people who become
frightened or discouraged
>enough to leave the country. (In fact, the entire bill was an amendment
to the Internal Revenue
>Code. Go figure.)
>
>I think we all realize by now that that database of employed people will
still be around enabling
>government to track our locations (and heaven knows what else. about us,
as the database is
>enhanced and expanded) long after the touted benefits of "welfare reform"
have failed to materialize.
>
>And most grimly of all, our drivers licenses will be our de facto national
ID card long after
>immigrants have ceased to want to come to this Land of the Once Free.
>
> CONTROL REIGNS
>
>It matters not one whit whether the people controlling you call themselves
R's or D's, liberals or
>conservatives, socialists or even (I hate to admit it) libertarians. It
doesn't matter whether they vote
>for these horrors because they're not paying attention or because they
actually like such things.
>
>What matters is that the pace of totalitarianism is increasing. And it is
coming closer to our daily
>lives all the time. Once your state passes the enabling legislation
(under threat of losing "federal
>welfare dollars"), it is YOUR name and Social Security number that will be
entered in that employee
>database the moment you go to work for a new employer. It is YOU who will
be unable to cash a
>check, board an airplane, get a passport or be allowed any dealings with
any government agency if
>you refuse to give your SS number to the drivers license bureau. It is
YOU who will be endangered
>by driving "illegally" if you refuse to submit to Big Brother's
procedures. It is YOU whose psoriasis,
>manic depression or prostate troubles will soon be the reading matter of
any bureaucrat with a
>computer. It is YOU who could be declared a member of a "foreign
terrorist" organization just
>because you bought a book or concert tickets from some group the
government doesn't like. It is
>YOU who could lose your home, bank account and reputation because you made
a mistake on a
>health insurance form. Finally, when you become truly desperate for
freedom, it is YOU whose
>assets will be seized if you try to flee this increasingly insane country.
>
>As Ayn Rand said in Atlas Shrugged, "There's no way to rule innocent men.
The only power
>government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there
aren't enough criminals,
>one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes
impossible for men to
>live without breaking laws."
>
>It's time to drop any pretense: We are no longer law-abiding citizens. We
have lost our law-abiding
>status. There are simply too many laws to abide. And because of
increasingly draconian penalties
>and electronic tracking mechanisms, our "lawbreaking" places us and our
families in greater
>jeopardy every day.
>
> STOPPING RUNAWAY GOVERNMENT
>
>The question is: What are we going to do about it? Write a. nice, polite
letter to your
>congressperson? Hey, if you think that'll help, I've got a bridge you
might be interested in buying.
>(And it isn't your "bridge to the future," either.)
>
>Vote "better people, into office? Oh yeah, that's what we thought we were
doing in 1994. Work
>to fight one bad bill or another? Okay. What will you do about the 10 or
20 or 100 equally
>horrible bills that will be passed behind your back while you were
fighting that little battle? And let's
>say you defeat a nightmare bill this year. What, are you going to do when
they sneak it back in, at
>the very last minute, in some "omnibus legislation" next year? And what
about the horrors you don't
>even learn about until two or three years after they become law? Should
you try fighting these laws
>in the courts? Where do you find the resources? Where do you find a
judge who doesn't have a
>vested interest in bigger, more powerful government? And again, for every
one case decided in
>favor of freedom, what do you do about the 10, 20 or 100 in which the
courts decide against the
>Bill of Rights?
>
>Perhaps you'd consider trying to stop the onrush of these horrors with a
constitutional amendment -
>maybe one that bans "omnibus" bills, requires that every law meet a
constitutional test or requires all
>congress people to sign statements that they've read and understood every
aspect of every bill on
>which they vote. Good luck! Good luck, first, on getting such an
amendment passed. Then good
>luck getting our Constitution-scorning "leaders" to obey it.
>
>It is true that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance, and part of
that vigilance has been, traditionally,
>keeping a watchful eye on laws and on lawbreaking lawmakers.
>
>But given the current pace of law spewing and unconstitutional
regulation-writing, you could watch,
>plead and struggle "within the system" 24 hours a day for your entire life
and end up infinitely less
>free than when you begin. Why throw your life away on a futile effort?
>
>Face it. If "working within the system" could halt tyranny, the tyrants
would outlaw it. Why do you
>think they encourage you to vote, to write letters, to talk to them in
public forums? It's to divert
>your energies. To keep you tame. 'The system" as it presently exists is
nothing but a rat maze. You
>run around thinking you're getting somewhere. Your masters occasionally
reward you with a little
>pellet that encourages you to believe you're accomplishing something. And
in the meantime, you are
>as much their property and their pawn as if you were a slave. In the
effort of fighting them on their
>terms and with their authorized and approved tools, you have given your
life's energy to them as
>surely as if you were toiling in their cotton fields, under the lash of
their overseer. The only way
>we're going to get off this road to Hell is if we jump off. If we,
personally, as individuals, refuse to
>cooperate with evil. How we do that is up to each of us. I can't decide
for you, nor you for me.
>(Unlike congress people, who think they can decide for everybody.) But
this totalitarian runaway
>truck is never going to stop unless we stop it, in any way we can.
Stopping it might include any
>number of things: tax resistance; public civil disobedience; wide-scale,
silent non-cooperation; highly
>noisy non-cooperation; boycotts; secession efforts; monkey wrenching;
computer hacking; dirty
>tricks against government agents; public shunning of employees of abusive
government agencies;
>alternative, self-sufficient communities that provide their own medical
care and utilities.
>
>There are thousands of avenues to take, and this is something most of us
still need to give more
>thought to before we can build an effective resistance. We will each
choose the courses that are
>right for our own circumstances, personalities and beliefs.
>
>Whatever we do, though, we must remember that we are all, already,
outlaws. Not one of us can
>be certain going through a single day without violating some law or
regulation we've never even
>heard of. We are all guilty in the eyes of today's law. If someone in
power chooses to target us, we
>can all, already, be prosecuted for something. And I'm sure you know that
your claims of "good
>intentions" won't protect you, as the similar claims of politicians
protect them. Politicians are above
>the law. YOU are under it. Crushed under it. When you look at it that
way, we have little left to
>lose by breaking laws creatively and purposefully. Yes, some of us will
suffer horrible
>consequences for our lawbreaking. It is very risky to actively resist
unbridled power. It is
>especially risky to go public with resistance (unless hundreds of
thousands publicly join us), and it
>becomes riskier the closer we get to tyranny. For that reason, among many
others, I would never
>recommend any particular course of action to anyone - and I hope you'll
think twice before taking
>"advice" from anybody about things that could jeopardize your life or
well-being. But if we don't
>resist in the best ways we know how and if a good number of us don't
resist loudly and publicly - all
>of us will suffer the much worse consequences of living under total
oppression. And whatever
>courses of action we choose, we must remember that this legislative
"revolution" against We the
>People will not be stopped by politeness. It will not be stopped by
requests. It will not be stopped
>by "working within a system" governed by those who regard us as nothing
but cattle. It will not be
>stopped by pleading for justice from those who will resort to any degree
of trickery or violence to
>rule us.
>
>It will not be stopped unless we are willing to risk our lives, our
fortunes and our sacred honors to
>stop it. I think of the words of Winston Churchill: "If you will not
fight for the right when you can
>easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will
be sure and not so costly,
>you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds
against you and only a
>precarious chance for survival. There may be a worse case. You may have
to fight when there is
>no chance of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."
>
>NOTES on the laws listed above:
>
>1. (employee database) Welfare Reform Bill, HR 3734; became public law
104-193 on 8/22196;
>see section 453A.
>
>2. (health care crimes) Health Insurance Portability and Accountability
Act of 1996, HR 3103;
>became public law 104-191 on 8/21/96.
>
>3. (asset confiscation for citizenship change) Same law as #2; see;
sections 511-513.
>
>4., 5., and 6. (anti-gun laws) Omnibus Appropriations Act, HR 3610; became
public law 104-208
>on 9/30/96.
>
>7. and 8. (terrorism & secret trials) Antiterrorism and Effective Death
Penalty Act of 1996; S 735;
>became public law 104-132 on 4/24/96; see all of Title III, specifically
sections 302 and 219; also
>see all of Tide IV, specifically sections 401, 501, 502 and 503.
>
>9. (de facto national ID card) Began life in the Immigration Control and
Financial Responsibility Act
>of 1996, sections III, II 8, 119, 127 and 133; was eventually folded into
the Omnibus
>Appropriations Act, HR 3610 (which was itself formerly called the Defense
Appropriations Act -
>but we wouldn't want to confuse anyone, here, would we?); became public
law 104-208 on
>9/30/96; see sections 656 and 657 among others.
>
>10. (health care database) Health Insurance Portability and Accountability
Act of 1996, HR 3103;
>became public law 104-191 on 8/21/96; see sections 262, 263 and 264, among
others. The
>various provisions that make up the full horror of this database are
scattered throughout the bill and
>may take hours to track down; this one is stealth legislation at its
utmost sneakiest.
>
>And one final, final note: Although I spent aggravating hours verifying
the specifics of these bills (a
>task I swear I will never waste my life on again!), the original list of
bills at the top of this article was
>NOT the result of extensive research. It was simply what came off the top
of my head when I
>thought of Big Brotherish bills from the 104th Congress. For all I know,
Congress has passed 10
>times more of that sort of thing. In fact, the worst "law" in the list --
>
>#9, the de facto national ID card -- just came to my attention as I was
writing this essay, thanks to
>the enormous efforts of Jackie - Juntti and Ed Lyon and others, who
researched the law. Think of
>it: Thanks to congressional stealth tactics, we had the long-dreaded
national ID card legislation for
>five months, without a whisper of discussion, before freedom activists
began to find out about it.
>Makes you wonder what else might be lurking out there, doesn't it?
>
>And on that cheery note - THE END
>
>Copyrighted by Claire Wolfe. Permission to reprint freely granted,
provided the article is reprinted
>in full and that any reprint is accompanied by this copyright statement
>
===========================================================================
Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris : Counselor at Law, federal witness 01
B.A.: Political Science, UCLA; M.S.: Public Administration, U.C.Irvine 02
tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night 03
email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU 04
website: http://supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now 05
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best 06
Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone 07
Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this 08
_____________________________________: Law is authority in written words 09
As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall 10
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. 11
======================================================================== 12
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] 13
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail