Date: Sun, 22 June 1997 11:31:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Linda Thompson)
Subject: AEN-NEWS: It's time.
Please cross-post to ALL Internet newsgroups, Fidonet, Eggnet, etc.
by LindaThompson, 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=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 principals, 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 wrondgoing?)
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 coverups 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 procuratorial 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 coverups, 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 principals 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:
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.
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.
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, cowtowing 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 vigilence 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.
list address: email@example.com
Visit our page at - http://www.p-c-net.net/~aen/
Have you seen the Waco Museum?