Time: Sun Sep 21 10:28:22 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA05432;
	Sun, 21 Sep 1997 10:04:27 -0700 (MST)
	by usr05.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA27630;
	Sun, 21 Sep 1997 10:00:53 -0700 (MST)
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 10:00:34 -0700
To: believer@telepath.com
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: Because Ridicule is a Weapon

Quoting now:   

   Words "learned in law" were omitted as unnecessary.
Such requirement is not made of United States judges and
no reason appears to make a distinction respecting United
States Attorneys.  [sic]

Historical and Statutory Notes under
28 U.S.C. 541.  United States attorneys, in
"Federal Civil Judicial Procedure and Rules,"
West Publishing Company (1996 edition)

At 11:41 AM 9/21/97 -0500, you wrote:
>Because ridicule is a weapon.                                  :
>Congress and the Clinton administration have recently contemplated (if it can
>be said that either has ever contemplated anything) a proposal to set
>national educational standards, then test all fourth graders for reading
>ability and all eighth graders for math skills. 
>One question that has so far gone unasked is this: what qualifies politicians
>even to *discuss* standards, let alone impose them upon others? Given the
>standards of most politicians for ethics, personal hygiene, and relevance to
>the real world, we're not sure we want them setting standards for anyone
>Nevertheless, and much to our surprise, the Beltway Bullies have accidentally
>hit upon a good idea this time -- just not in quite the way they intended.
> If they believe it is important to test school children, think how much more
>vital it is that we test our would-be rulers -- those selfsame congresspeople
>and administrators -- for some minimum level of knowledge and skill.
>Herewith we present:
>SECTION I: Competency in English
>1. The phrase, "Congress shall make no law..." means
>a. Congress shall make no law...
>b. Congress shall make some laws...
>c. Americans can do anything they want, except things my colleagues and I, or
>our largest contributors, personally dislike.  
>d. Congress can do anything it damn well pleases, starting with stacking the
>courts with our toadies.
>2. What is the correct interpretation of the phrase "...the right of the
>people...shall not be infringed"?
>a. The right of the people...shall not be infringed.
>b. The right of the people...shall be infringed, but only gradually,
>moderately and for the good of children and battered women (except the ones
>we batter).
>c. The right of the people is actually a state's right and the states are a
>bunch of wusses who'll put up with anything as long as we offer them enough
>tax-funded loot in return for selling out their citizens.
>d.  The people are all sitting on their butts watching TV, so we can infringe
>any damn thing we feel like infringing, and we'll get the media to screw you
>if you think otherwise.
>3.  What is the meaning of the phrase, "The powers ... are reserved to the
>states, or to the people..."
>a. The powers...are reserved to the states, or to the people...
>b. The interstate commerce clause gives us the authority to do anything.
>Therefore there are no other powers left to reserve for those other twits.
>Too bad for them.
>c. Where'd you get a stupid idea like that?  We're more powerful and have
>bigger guns than they do, and that's all that really matters, isn't it?
>d. Hahahahahahahahahaha!
>4. Essay Question: Write a bill (a proposed law, you twit) in plain English,
>for once.  We just want to see if you can do it.  Extra credit if it's
>constitutional or can be read and understood in less than ten minutes by a
>high school student of average intelligence.
>SECTION II: Competency in Mathematics
>1. A fugitive oil baron named Roger gives $300,000 to the Democratic National
>Committee for the specific purpose of gaining "access" to the president.  For
>that, he is given six invitations to the White House, but does not get the
>pipeline he wanted.  How much money should Roger give to the DNC next time?
>a. Nothing.  People shouldn't be able to bribe their way into the presence of
>public officials.
>b. This is a trick question.  Next time, a Republican president might be in
>office, and Roger should give his money to the RNC, instead.
>c. I know the president.  If Roger gives me the money, I'll give Roger
>access.  Heck, I'll even throw in some hot babes, since Roger said the babes
>at the White House were too busy stroking Clinton to pay any attention to
>d. $600,000.  (Roger's answer, in testimony before Congress 9/18/97.)
>2. According to the administration's own projections, Americans will soon
>face an 82 percent income tax rate if present entitlement programs and levels
>of federal growth persist.  How many years before American citizens to rise
>up in rebellion?
>a. Americans should never be driven to that kind of desperation.  We should
>immediately begin rolling the federal government back to constitutional
>b. Don't worry, we're going to reform the tax system and, as Rep. Mitch
>McConnell says, "virtually abolish the IRS as we know it"; we'll just have an
>82 percent national sales tax, instead.
>c. As soon as my term in office is over and I can get an oceanside place in
>Costa Rica, complete with Uzi-toting bodyguards.
>d. What do we care?  We'll just let Janet burn the little jerks and claim
>they committed suicide.
>3. The federal budget is...oh...some great big figure in the gazillions The
>national debt is probably about five trillion dollars, give or take. The
>annual deficit is, you know, billions and billions and billions (not counting
>off-budget stuff like Amtrak and the Post Office).  Budgets for Social
>Security and Medicare are increasing at some really wowie-zow of a percent
>every year.  (Not like you care what the actual figures are, anyway.)
>Congress and the president have just cooked up a tax cut package filled with
>goodies for favored special interests.  Please explain how you can claim the
>budget will be balanced by 2002.
>a. We can't do it without extreme cutbacks in government.  Anybody who says
>we can is lying like a congressman.
>b. Revenues will...uh...yeah...revenues will increase because of all those
>tax breaks and...uh...the economy will be just perfect forever and ever
>and...uh...maybe some plague or something will come along and kill off all
>those money-sucking old folks...or something like that, maybe.
>c. The media said it's true, didn't they?  What more proof do you want?
>d. Hey, that's for the suckers who are here in 2002 to figure out.  I'll be
>in Costa Rica by then. 
>e. Well, actually, now that I think about it, I'll be in some other country
>with an army so they can fight off the U.S. troops who will be sent to take
>my loot like they did Noriega's. Like, hey, I stole mine fair and square!
>Correct answers:  B, C, D and E  (From the politicians' point of view, that
>is.  Hey, you know, whatever we can get away with while the folks are
>watching TV...)
>Correct answer, in reality:  L-E-A-D  T-H-E-R-A-P-Y
>(c) 1997 Charles Curley and Claire Wolfe.  Permission to reprint freely
>To subscribe or unsubscribe, email:
>     majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com
>with the message:
>     subscribe ignition-point email@address
>     unsubscribe ignition-point email@address

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 3.0.3 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