Time: Mon Nov 11 22:30:23 1996
To: <drctalk@drcnet.org>
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: Paul Andrew's Petition
Cc: 
Bcc: 

At 10:21 AM 11/11/96 -0500, you wrote:
>I can only speak for myself, but I'll never muck up the attempt to end
>the drug war atrocity by linking it to some broad conspiracy theory
>attacking several unrelated federal agencies.

If you think that was my motivation
for posting what I did, I must say
that you are mistaken.  But, you are
right, you did say you were speaking
only for yourself.


  Imagine trying to end
>Viet Nam through an attack on the IRS. 

Did you mean the Viet Nam war?

Let me ask you something, if I may:

How much money does it take
to field 500,000 soldiers?

And where do governments usually
get the money they need to do so?

And for whom does the IRS actually
collect money?

Answers:  lots/banks/banks

See the Grace Commission Report
for proof.

Those very same banks have simply
switched from chattel slavery,
to a new kind of statutory slavery.
U.S. debt went from $1 billion before
WWI, to $25 billion the year of the
armistice.  And that was right after
the Federal Reserve Act was enacted
into law.  I do not believe that
was some kind of grand historical
coincidence. 

/s/ Paul Mitchell


 You might THINK that would
>broaden the coalition against the war, but I think that's politically
>naive.

See John Coleman's book
entitled "The Committee of 300".
The war on drugs is doubly
motivated:  monopolize the
market, to raise the price.
This is called the Iron Clad
Law of Prohibition.  Secondly,
use the Prohibition as an 
excuse to maintain an 
unnecessarily large domestic
police force, to assist the
extortion racket (read "tax
collectors").  So, you have
BATF backing IRS, and you
have the military backing BATF.
It's the "onion strategy":
layer upon layer of force 
and fraud.  When things begin
to unravel for the racket, they
up the ante:  first, Weaver's
son and wife;  then Koresh and
his followers;  then the OKC
federal building, and all the
children therein;  now, TWA 800.
When you have lost the moral
high ground, and you have abandoned
the rule of law, you are left with
only gun power, lots of it. The
kind is wearing no clothes. 


  It would simply make the government more stubborn about the
>war.

You treat the drug war
and the IRS as different
and separate.  That "theory"
assumes facts not in evidence.
They are one and the same,
for all intents and purposes.
Why do you think the IRS is
being used to invade health
food stores?  Can they have
some secret hoarde of cash
and other assets hiding 
somewhere inside those vitamin
bottles?  Get real.  IRS agents
have been heard to say, as they
stripped a doctor's office of
alternative remedies, "This is
not about taxes."  Okay, does
IRS care to tell us, then?
Answer:  "No."

/s/ Paul Mitchell


  When Roosevelt swept into power and ended prohibition, he could do
>that fairly easily because the voter opposition was very weak.

... and the oil cartel had
perfected their monopoly
for automotive fuels, so
Prohibition was no longer
politically expedient for
that cartel.

 
>Prohibition was running on inertia.

Objection.  Prohibition was motivated 
by the same oil cartel which wants
marijuana outlawed, because it, and
hemp-derivatives, would put a noticeable
"dent" in their monopolies for oil,
lubricants, and synthetic fabrics,
not to mention the 10,000 other 
products which are derived from hemp
and which render oil unnecessary 
and too capital-intensive.

/s/ Paul Mitchell



 But he NEEDED the income tax in
>order to address the critical issue of his election, the economy.

Saying this was "the critical issue"
of his election is to make a value
judgment which I cannot and do not
share with you.  I fail to see how
a government can long survive when
its people are being systematically
robbed of something like 30% of their
earnings yearly, and those enormous
amounts are being laundered through
a phony trust in Puerto Rico, for
the benefit of foreign banks, now
situated in Europe, for the most part.
We are dealing here with a massive
extortion racket, sponsored by foreign
banks and their owners, who are the
same interests which monopolize oil
and narcotics imports into America.

/s/ Paul Mitchell

  Now
>with a $100 billion deficit, there's hardly anyone in power who is ready
>to shut off the revenue spigot.

Tax. Tax. Tax.
Spend. Spend. Spend.
Elect. Elect. Elect.
It's a whirlpool.
The banks are "earning" liens
on American collateral by
purchasing bonds which they
buy with credit they create
out of thin air, and/or with
Federal Reserve Notes which
they print for about 2.3 cents
per note, regardless of 
denomination.  FRB then 
obtains a lien on collateral
equal to the FACE VALUE of the
FRN's which they print.  Now,
that's what I call leverage!
Who gave them that "privilege"?
The Congress did, that's who.

/s/ Paul Mitchell


>
>Isolate the issue of the drug war. That's the only way to fight it.

Do you mean to imply that the
American People will recoil from
the truth about the drug war?

How shall we avoid the Gulf War
Syndrome, when it comes time to
deal with a pandemic sponsored
by the same interests who are
warring on America?  Isn't there
a pattern here?  I will not be
satisfied with the bird seed
they throw out to keep us coming
back to the "feasible" and the
"probable" and the "politically
correct" initiatives and referenda.

I say it's time to compel the IMF
to prove its claims against America;
then America can put on the table
its claims against the IMF and its
owners.  Then, turn on the soap and
water, full blast, because we are
going to wash, wash, wash.  The
Belgian Firemen of Liege are just
one step ahead of us!

/s/ Paul Mitchell

 In
>fact, medical marijuana activists have gone even further to isolate
>marijuana from crack and heroin, knowing that those are harder
>fortresses to take on.

We will be a whole lot better off
as a nation, and in a much better
position to control our own destiny,
if and when we stop the annual 
hemmorage of capital, 30% or more, 
into the hands of foreign banks
and their cronies.  Just how many
schools does it take to build a
Kama River factory?  I say 1,000.

/s/ Paul Mitchell 
      


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail