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