Time: Mon Dec 15 10:30:30 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA13103
for <pmitch@smtp-local.primenet.com>; Mon, 15 Dec 1997 08:53:22 -0700 (MST)
by smtp02.primenet.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA25295
for [address in tool bar]; Mon, 15 Dec 1997 08:53:23 -0700 (MST)
via SMTP by smtp02.primenet.com, id smtpd023748; Mon Dec 15 08:45:31 1997
by lists3.u.washington.edu (8.8.4+UW97.07/8.8.4+UW97.05) with SMTP
id HAA21002; Mon, 15 Dec 1997 07:39:59 -0800
by lists.u.washington.edu (8.8.4+UW97.07/8.8.4+UW97.05) with ESMTP
id HAA13854 for <repub-d@lists.u.washington.edu>; Mon, 15 Dec 1997 07:39:51 -0800
by mx3.u.washington.edu (8.8.4+UW97.07/8.8.4+UW97.09) with ESMTP
id HAA08781 for <repub-d@u.washington.edu>; Mon, 15 Dec 1997 07:33:29 -0800
by smtp04.primenet.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA29871;
Mon, 15 Dec 1997 08:09:30 -0700 (MST)
via SMTP by smtp04.primenet.com, id smtpd029755; Mon Dec 15 08:08:57 1997
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 08:04:31 -0800
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
To: "New Republican Discussion List" <repub-d@u.washington.edu>
Subject: SLS: Repealing Taxes on Federal Wages
Divide and conquer, I always say!
One of my first Bills in the Congress will
be an Act to Repeal Taxes on Federal Wages.
That should embroil the huge federal payroll
in a long-overdue debate.
Let's raise a little dust, shall we?
/s/ Paul Mitchell,
Candidate for Congress
http://supremelaw.com
At 04:59 AM 12/15/97 -0700, you wrote:
>Sirs;
>
>How did all this happen,when in 1994, we registered Republicans, voted to
stop the federal steamroller.
>If only the Representatives and Senators would read the bills that they
are voting on, our nation not be in the situation that it is in now.
>The loss of personal freedom is now so great,the only solution that I can
forsee is, another American Revolution.
>
>Sincerely,
>David Parsons
>
>
>
>
> 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 Title 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