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)

>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, 
>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 
>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 
>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 
>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 
>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 
>"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall 
>not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the 
>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 
>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 
>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 
>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 
>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 
>"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 
>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 
>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 
>     (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 
>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 
>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 
>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 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 
>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 
>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 
>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