Time: Fri Dec 12 06:40:50 1997 To: From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: "Land-Mine Legislation," by Claire Wolfe (fwd) Cc: Bcc: sls References: <snip> > > LAND-MINE LEGISLATION > by Claire Wolfe > >Let me run by you a brief list of items that are "the law" in America today. As you read, consider >what all these have in common. > >1. A national database of employed people. > >2. 100 pages of new "health care crimes," for which the penalty is (among other things) seizure of >assets from both doctors and patients. > >3. Confiscation of assets from any American who establishes foreign citizenship. > >4. The largest gun confiscation act in U.S. history - which is also an unconstitutional ex postfacto >law and the first law ever to remove people's constitutional rights for committing a misdemeanor. > >5. A law banning guns in ill-defined school zones; random roadblocks may be used for enforcement; >gun-bearing residents could become federal criminals just by stepping outside their doors or getting >into vehicles. > >6. Increased funding for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, an agency infamous for its >brutality, dishonesty and ineptitude. > >7. A law enabling the executive branch to declare various groups "Terrorists" - without stating any >reason and without the possibility of appeal. Once a group has been so declared, its mailing and >membership lists must be turned over to the government. > >8. A law authorizing secret trials with secret evidence for certain classes of people. > >9. A law requiring that all states begin issuing drivers licenses carrying Social Security numbers and >"security features" (such as magnetically coded fingerprints and personal records) by October 1, >2000. By October 1, 2006, "Neither the Social Security Administration or the Passport Office or >any other Federal agency or any State or local government agency may accept for any evidentiary >purpose a State driver's license or identification document in a form other than [one issued with a >verified Social Security number and 'security features']." > >10. And my personal favorite - a national database, now being constructed, that will contain every >exchange and observation that takes place in your doctor's office. This includes records of your >prescriptions, your hemorrhoids and your mental illness. It also includes - by law - any statements >you make ("Doc, I'm worried my kid may be on drugs...... Doc, I've been so stressed out lately I >feel about ready to go postal.") and any observations your doctor makes about your mental or >physical condition, whether accurate or not, whether made with your knowledge or not. For the >time being, there will be zero (count 'em, zero) privacy safeguards on this data. But don't worry, >your government will protect you with some undefined "privacy standards" in a few years. > >All of the above items are the law of the land. Federal law. What else do they have in common? > >Well, when I ask this question to audiences, I usually get the answer, "They're all unconstitutional." >True. > >My favorite answer came from an eloquent college student who blurted, "They all SUUUCK!" Also >true. > >But the saddest and most telling answer is: They were all the product of the 104th Congress. Every >one of the horrors above was imposed upon you by the Congress of the Republican-Revolution -- >the Congress that pledged to "get government off your back." > > BURYING TIME BOMBS > >All of the above became law by being buried in larger bills. In many cases, they are hidden sneak >attacks upon individual liberties that were neither debated on the floor of Congress nor reported in >the media. For instance, three of the most horrific items (the health care database, asset >confiscation for foreign residency and the 100 pages of health care crimes) were hidden in the >Kennedy-Kassebaum Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HR 3103). >You didn't hear about them at the time because the media was too busy celebrating this moderate, >compromise bill that "simply" ensured that no American would ever lose insurance coverage due to >a job change or a Pre-existing condition. > >Your legislator may not have heard about them, either. Because he or she didn't care enough to do >so. The fact is, most legislators don't even read the laws they inflict upon the public. They read the >title of the bill (which may be something like "The Save the Sweet Widdle Babies from Gun >Violence by Drooling Drug Fiends Act of 1984"). They read summaries, which are often prepared >by the very agencies or groups pushing the bill. And they vote according to various deals or >pressures. > >It also sometimes happens that the most horrible provisions are sneaked into bills during conference >committee negotiations, after both House and Senate have voted on their separate versions of the >bills. The conference committee process is supposed simply to reconcile differences between two >versions of a bill. But power brokers use it for purposes of their own, adding what they wish. Then >members of the House and Senate vote on the final, unified version of the bill, often in a great rush, >and often without even having the amended text available for review. > >I have even heard (though I cannot verify) that stealth provisions were written into some bills after all >the voting has taken place. Someone with a hidden agenda simply edits them in to suit his or her >own purposes. So these time bombs become "law" without ever having been voted on by anybody. > And who's to know? If congress people don't even read legislation before they vote on it, why >would they bother reading it afterward? Are power brokers capable of such chicanery? Do we >even need to ask? Is the computer system in which bills are stored vulnerable to tampering by >people within or outside of Congress? We certainly should ask. Whether your legislators were >ignorant of the infamy they were perpetrating, or whether they knew, one thing is absolutely certain: > >The Constitution, your legislator's oath to it, and your inalienable rights (which precede the >Constitution) never entered into anyone's consideration. Ironically, you may recall that one of the >early pledges of Newt Gingrich and Company was to stop these stealth attacks. Very early in the >104th Congress, the Republican leadership declared that, henceforth, all bills would deal only with >the subject matter named in the title of the bill. When, at the beginning of the first session of the >104th, pro-gun Republicans attempted to attach a repeal of the "assault weapons" ban to another >bill, House leaders dismissed their amendment as not being "germane." After that self-righteous and >successful attempt to prevent pro-freedom stealth legislation, Congress people turned right around >and got back to the dirty old business of practicing all the anti-freedom stealth they were capable of. > > STEALTH ATTACKS IN BROAD DAYLIGHT > >Three other items on my list (ATF funding, gun confiscation and school zone roadblocks) were also >buried in a big bill - HR 3610, the budget appropriation passed near the end of the second session >of the 104th Congress. No legislator can claim to have been unaware of these three because they >were brought to public attention by gun-rights groups and hotly debated in both Congress and the >media. Yet some 90 percent of all congress people voted for them including many who claim to be >ardent protectors of the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment. Why? > >Well, in the case of my wrapped-in-the-flag, allegedly pro-gun, Republican congressperson: "Bill >Clinton made me do it!" > >Okay, I paraphrase. What she actually said was more like, "It was part of a budget appropriations >package. The public got mad at us for shutting the government down in 1994. If we hadn't voted >for this budget bill, they might have elected a Democratic legislature in 1996 - and you wouldn't >want THAT, would you?" Oh heavens, no I'd much rather be enslaved by people who spell their >name with an R than people who spell their name with a D. Makes all the difference in the world! > > HOW SNEAK ATTACKS ARE JUSTIFIED > >The Republicans are fond of claiming that Bill Clinton "forced" them to pass certain legislation by >threatening to veto anything they sent to the White House that didn't meet his specs. In other cases >(as with the Kennedy-Kassebaum bill), they proudly proclaim their misdeeds in the name of >bipartisanship - while carefully forgetting -to mention the true nature of what they're doing. In still >others, they trumpet their triumph over the evil Democrats and claim the mantle of limited >government while sticking it to us and to the Constitution. The national database of workers was in >the welfare reform bill they "forced" Clinton to accept. The requirement for SS numbers and >ominous "security" devices on drivers licenses originated in their very own Immigration Control and >Financial Responsibility Act of 1996, HR 2202. Another common trick, called to my attention by >Redmon Barbry, publisher of the electronic magazine Fratricide, is to hide duplicate or >near-duplicate provisions in several bills. Then, when the Supreme Court declares Section A of >Law Z to be -unconstitutional, its kissing cousin, Section B of Law Y, remains to rule us. > >Sometimes this particular form of trickery is done even more brazenly; when the Supreme Court, in >its Lopez decision, declared federal-level school zone gun bans unconstitutional because Congress >demonstrated no jurisdiction, Congress brassily changed a few words. They claimed that school >zones fell under the heading of "interstate commerce." Then they sneaked the provision into HR >3610, where it became "law" once again. When angry voters upbraid congress people about some >Big Brotherish horror they've inflicted upon the country by stealth, they claim lack of knowledge, >lack of time, party pressure, public pressure, or they justify themselves by claiming that the rest of >the bill was "good". > >The simple fact is that, regardless of what reasons legislators may claim, the U.S. Congress has >passed more Big Brother legislation in the last two years - more laws to enable tracking, spying and >controlling - than any Democratic congress ever passed. And they have done it, in large part, in >secret. > >Redmon Barbry put it best: "We the people have the right to expect our elected representatives to >read, comprehend and master the bills they vote on. If this means Congress passes only 50 bills per >session instead of 5,000, so be it. As far as I am concerned, whoever subverts this process is >committing treason." By whatever means the deed is done, there is no acceptable excuse for voting >against the Constitution, voting for tyranny. And I would add to Redmon's comments: Those who >do read the bills, then knowingly vote to ravage our liberties, are doubly guilty. But when do the >treason trials begin? > > BILLS AS WINDOW DRESSING FOR AN UGLY AGENDA > >The truth is that these tiny, buried provisions are often the real intent of the law, and that the >hundreds, perhaps thousands, of pages that surround them are sometimes nothing more than >elaborate window dressing. These tiny time bombs are placed there at the behest of federal police >agencies or other power groups whose agenda is not clearly visible to us. And their impact is felt >long after the outward intent of the bill has been forgotten. > >Civil forfeiture - now one of the plagues of the nation was first introduced in the 1970s as one of >those buried, almost unnoticed provisions of a larger law. One wonders why on earth a "health care >bill" carried a provision to confiscate the assets of people who become frightened or discouraged >enough to leave the country. (In fact, the entire bill was an amendment to the Internal Revenue >Code. Go figure.) > >I think we all realize by now that that database of employed people will still be around enabling >government to track our locations (and heaven knows what else. about us, as the database is >enhanced and expanded) long after the touted benefits of "welfare reform" have failed to materialize. > >And most grimly of all, our drivers licenses will be our de facto national ID card long after >immigrants have ceased to want to come to this Land of the Once Free. > > CONTROL REIGNS > >It matters not one whit whether the people controlling you call themselves R's or D's, liberals or >conservatives, socialists or even (I hate to admit it) libertarians. It doesn't matter whether they vote >for these horrors because they're not paying attention or because they actually like such things. > >What matters is that the pace of totalitarianism is increasing. And it is coming closer to our daily >lives all the time. Once your state passes the enabling legislation (under threat of losing "federal >welfare dollars"), it is YOUR name and Social Security number that will be entered in that employee >database the moment you go to work for a new employer. It is YOU who will be unable to cash a >check, board an airplane, get a passport or be allowed any dealings with any government agency if >you refuse to give your SS number to the drivers license bureau. It is YOU who will be endangered >by driving "illegally" if you refuse to submit to Big Brother's procedures. It is YOU whose psoriasis, >manic depression or prostate troubles will soon be the reading matter of any bureaucrat with a >computer. It is YOU who could be declared a member of a "foreign terrorist" organization just >because you bought a book or concert tickets from some group the government doesn't like. It is >YOU who could lose your home, bank account and reputation because you made a mistake on a >health insurance form. Finally, when you become truly desperate for freedom, it is YOU whose >assets will be seized if you try to flee this increasingly insane country. > >As Ayn Rand said in Atlas Shrugged, "There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power >government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, >one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to >live without breaking laws." > >It's time to drop any pretense: We are no longer law-abiding citizens. We have lost our law-abiding >status. There are simply too many laws to abide. And because of increasingly draconian penalties >and electronic tracking mechanisms, our "lawbreaking" places us and our families in greater >jeopardy every day. > > STOPPING RUNAWAY GOVERNMENT > >The question is: What are we going to do about it? Write a. nice, polite letter to your >congressperson? Hey, if you think that'll help, I've got a bridge you might be interested in buying. >(And it isn't your "bridge to the future," either.) > >Vote "better people, into office? Oh yeah, that's what we thought we were doing in 1994. Work >to fight one bad bill or another? Okay. What will you do about the 10 or 20 or 100 equally >horrible bills that will be passed behind your back while you were fighting that little battle? And let's >say you defeat a nightmare bill this year. What, are you going to do when they sneak it back in, at >the very last minute, in some "omnibus legislation" next year? And what about the horrors you don't >even learn about until two or three years after they become law? Should you try fighting these laws >in the courts? Where do you find the resources? Where do you find a judge who doesn't have a >vested interest in bigger, more powerful government? And again, for every one case decided in >favor of freedom, what do you do about the 10, 20 or 100 in which the courts decide against the >Bill of Rights? > >Perhaps you'd consider trying to stop the onrush of these horrors with a constitutional amendment - >maybe one that bans "omnibus" bills, requires that every law meet a constitutional test or requires all >congress people to sign statements that they've read and understood every aspect of every bill on >which they vote. Good luck! Good luck, first, on getting such an amendment passed. Then good >luck getting our Constitution-scorning "leaders" to obey it. > >It is true that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance, and part of that vigilance has been, traditionally, >keeping a watchful eye on laws and on lawbreaking lawmakers. > >But given the current pace of law spewing and unconstitutional regulation-writing, you could watch, >plead and struggle "within the system" 24 hours a day for your entire life and end up infinitely less >free than when you begin. Why throw your life away on a futile effort? > >Face it. If "working within the system" could halt tyranny, the tyrants would outlaw it. Why do you >think they encourage you to vote, to write letters, to talk to them in public forums? It's to divert >your energies. To keep you tame. 'The system" as it presently exists is nothing but a rat maze. You >run around thinking you're getting somewhere. Your masters occasionally reward you with a little >pellet that encourages you to believe you're accomplishing something. And in the meantime, you are >as much their property and their pawn as if you were a slave. In the effort of fighting them on their >terms and with their authorized and approved tools, you have given your life's energy to them as >surely as if you were toiling in their cotton fields, under the lash of their overseer. The only way >we're going to get off this road to Hell is if we jump off. If we, personally, as individuals, refuse to >cooperate with evil. How we do that is up to each of us. I can't decide for you, nor you for me. >(Unlike congress people, who think they can decide for everybody.) But this totalitarian runaway >truck is never going to stop unless we stop it, in any way we can. Stopping it might include any >number of things: tax resistance; public civil disobedience; wide-scale, silent non-cooperation; highly >noisy non-cooperation; boycotts; secession efforts; monkey wrenching; computer hacking; dirty >tricks against government agents; public shunning of employees of abusive government agencies; >alternative, self-sufficient communities that provide their own medical care and utilities. > >There are thousands of avenues to take, and this is something most of us still need to give more >thought to before we can build an effective resistance. We will each choose the courses that are >right for our own circumstances, personalities and beliefs. > >Whatever we do, though, we must remember that we are all, already, outlaws. Not one of us can >be certain going through a single day without violating some law or regulation we've never even >heard of. We are all guilty in the eyes of today's law. If someone in power chooses to target us, we >can all, already, be prosecuted for something. And I'm sure you know that your claims of "good >intentions" won't protect you, as the similar claims of politicians protect them. Politicians are above >the law. YOU are under it. Crushed under it. When you look at it that way, we have little left to >lose by breaking laws creatively and purposefully. Yes, some of us will suffer horrible >consequences for our lawbreaking. It is very risky to actively resist unbridled power. It is >especially risky to go public with resistance (unless hundreds of thousands publicly join us), and it >becomes riskier the closer we get to tyranny. For that reason, among many others, I would never >recommend any particular course of action to anyone - and I hope you'll think twice before taking >"advice" from anybody about things that could jeopardize your life or well-being. But if we don't >resist in the best ways we know how and if a good number of us don't resist loudly and publicly - all >of us will suffer the much worse consequences of living under total oppression. And whatever >courses of action we choose, we must remember that this legislative "revolution" against We the >People will not be stopped by politeness. It will not be stopped by requests. It will not be stopped >by "working within a system" governed by those who regard us as nothing but cattle. It will not be >stopped by pleading for justice from those who will resort to any degree of trickery or violence to >rule us. > >It will not be stopped unless we are willing to risk our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honors to >stop it. I think of the words of Winston Churchill: "If you will not fight for the right when you can >easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, >you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a >precarious chance for survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is >no chance of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." > >NOTES on the laws listed above: > >1. (employee database) Welfare Reform Bill, HR 3734; became public law 104-193 on 8/22196; >see section 453A. > >2. (health care crimes) Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, HR 3103; >became public law 104-191 on 8/21/96. > >3. (asset confiscation for citizenship change) Same law as #2; see; sections 511-513. > >4., 5., and 6. (anti-gun laws) Omnibus Appropriations Act, HR 3610; became public law 104-208 >on 9/30/96. > >7. and 8. (terrorism & secret trials) Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996; S 735; >became public law 104-132 on 4/24/96; see all of Title III, specifically sections 302 and 219; also >see all of Tide IV, specifically sections 401, 501, 502 and 503. > >9. (de facto national ID card) Began life in the Immigration Control and Financial Responsibility Act >of 1996, sections III, II 8, 119, 127 and 133; was eventually folded into the Omnibus >Appropriations Act, HR 3610 (which was itself formerly called the Defense Appropriations Act - >but we wouldn't want to confuse anyone, here, would we?); became public law 104-208 on >9/30/96; see sections 656 and 657 among others. > >10. (health care database) Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, HR 3103; >became public law 104-191 on 8/21/96; see sections 262, 263 and 264, among others. The >various provisions that make up the full horror of this database are scattered throughout the bill and >may take hours to track down; this one is stealth legislation at its utmost sneakiest. > >And one final, final note: Although I spent aggravating hours verifying the specifics of these bills (a >task I swear I will never waste my life on again!), the original list of bills at the top of this article was >NOT the result of extensive research. It was simply what came off the top of my head when I >thought of Big Brotherish bills from the 104th Congress. For all I know, Congress has passed 10 >times more of that sort of thing. In fact, the worst "law" in the list -- > >#9, the de facto national ID card -- just came to my attention as I was writing this essay, thanks to >the enormous efforts of Jackie - Juntti and Ed Lyon and others, who researched the law. Think of >it: Thanks to congressional stealth tactics, we had the long-dreaded national ID card legislation for >five months, without a whisper of discussion, before freedom activists began to find out about it. >Makes you wonder what else might be lurking out there, doesn't it? > >And on that cheery note - THE END > >Copyrighted by Claire Wolfe. Permission to reprint freely granted, provided the article is reprinted >in full and that any reprint is accompanied by this copyright statement >
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail