[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
And Justice For All
Someone sent me this article, saying it sounded a bit like me. I agree.
Interesting to hear this guy calling for justice to be given to some
At 2:24 PM -0800 1/13/98, xxxxx wrote:
>This guy sounds a little like you when you're in your best form.
>>From September 1997 issue of Media Bypass - Found at
>A Return to Accountability
> By "The Guardian"
> In 1994, there was the so-called "Republican Revolution." Supposedly,
>we finally got a
> bunch of "good" politicians into office to fix things. Fat lot of good
>that did us. The
> American people were stabbed in the back by these so called "good"
> gave us more gun-free school zones, after the Supreme Court said that
>Congress does not
> have that authority; they gave us a National ID card law; they gave us
>the biggest seizure
> of guns in our history through the domestic violence restrictions on
>owning guns; they gave
> us lots of "health care crimes" that are punishable by asset
>forfeiture- by both the doctor
> and the patient; they gave us several new national databases that will
>track very personal
> information on virtually every American; and they gave us the specter
>of secret trials with
> secret evidence for "certain" classes of people.
> Voting is a time honored practice that allegedly allows the people to
>direct the course of
> the government by choosing the leaders and focusing on the issues of
> problem is that as a check on the government's runaway growth and
>abuses, it doesn't
> work. James Collier wrote the book "VoteScam" to point out the massive
> that is endemic to the American electoral process. Look at the current
> surrounding the campaign finance issues. Where does the will of the
>people enter into this
> process? The answer is that it doesn't.
> So, shall we kick the issue of reforming government over to the
>Courts? What a joke.
> The courts decide issues as they wish, based not upon law, but upon an
> concept called "Public Policy." If they get a tough issue, they say
>it's a "political question"
> and refuse to hear it. The right arguments can be made, but are then
>rejected as being
> "frivolous" or "irrelevant." Critical issues are rarely decided on the
>merits; rather, they ride
> on the crutches of manipulated "precedent."
> Let the judges who have sworn an oath of office and posted their bond
>as required by
> law come forward. The oath of office provided a contract with the
>people which in the
> event of breach, provided the grounds to bring suit. The bond was
>forfeit if the judge
> misbehaved. Yet these judges refuse to hold themselves to the law and
>obey. The Citizen
> who demands that the judge present a copy of his oath of office and a
>copy of his bond is
> ignored. Today, the citizen who tries to bring suit against a judge or
> misconduct is sidelined by another judge- who is often as or more
>guilty than the one being
> sued. The question is asked "Where is the justice?" There is none in
> So what are the options that are left? Should people attempt to drop
>out of the system
> and ask to simply be left alone? They might end up like the people at
>Waco who were
> killed over an alleged tax deficiency- the non-payment of the transfer
>tax on several
> weapons. And all of that was simply alleged. There was no court of Law
>to hear their
> case, and make a finding of guilt or innocence. They were murdered by
> government that will not bring the murderers to justice. Some say that
>the Davidians were
> murdered as part of an experiment to find out what the American public
>was willing to
> tolerate. The Constitution came under serious attack, and the American
>people cheered as
> the government tanks smashed the building, pumped in poison gas, and
>then burned and
> machine gunned the inhabitants of a separatist religious sect. Don't
>believe it? Go see the
> movie "Waco: Rules of Engagement." Watch your government caught in the
>lie. See the
> worms wiggle and squirm.
> What about Randy Weaver? His was just another family that was trying
>to withdraw from
> what they saw as a corrupt society. Randy buried his wife and son. His
>son, shot in the
> back by federal marshals, was trying to return to the house. His last
>words were, "I'm
> coming daddy." Vicky, his wife, was murdered by an FBI agent named Lon
> she stood in the doorway holding an infant child in her arms. Lon, who
>brags that he can
> put his shots "on a quarter" at two hundred yards, shot her in the
>head at a distance of
> about two hundred yards. Vicky Weaver is long buried, and Lon is still
>working for the
> FBI as a "shooter," not seeing anything wrong with what he did.
> [Editors note: Lon Horiuchi has just been indicted by the State of
>Idaho, for the
> crime of "involuntary manslaughter." Kevin Harris, who was found not
>guilty by a
> jury in his federal trial, is being charged with Murder in the First
>Degree. What does
> that tell you?]
> So, if the People can't vote honest and moral leaders into office, and
>there isn't any way
> to get rid of the rotten apples- or to even get damages when they have
>done wrong, and
> the government has demonstrated that they will take you out if you try
>to separate from the
> society, then what options are left?
> It's a hard question with an even harder answer.
> Go ahead and educate the public all you want -- the public is so
>enamored with the 30
> second sound byte that they will never pay attention long enough to
>ever present a threat
> to the established order. The government, adhering to its global
>agenda, is rushing ahead
> full tilt to steamroller our remaining rights. Our own Congress and
>President declared war
> on the American People in 1932 (the infamous "Trading With The Enemy
>Act"), and they
> have now progressed to the rape, pillage and burn phase of the war.
>Who is so foolish as
> to claim that this is not so?
> This letter is not a call to anarchy. It is a demand for
>accountability from the treasonous
> bastards that are destroying our country. The problem is that the
> prosecutors, and other public officials have chosen to sidestep the
> mandated checks on their power by not swearing oaths of office or
>posting fidelity bonds.
> They have passed laws giving themselves immunity from suits for their
> They have created organizations of jack-booted thugs to intimidate,
> sometimes kill anyone who is willing to speak out or show any form of
> scum have set themselves outside the law, and are thus by definition,
>outlaws. Since they
> eschew any of the legitimate means of accountability, then it looks
>like there is only one
> way to re-instill a respect for the Constitution. We must give the
>members of government
> more incentive to support the Constitution limitations on government
>than they have to
> violate the Constitution.
> That means that a few of them need to be killed. Maybe a lot of them.
>Perhaps when they
> see that there is a final solution available to the people, and that
>they are not untouchable,
> they might start acting in an accountable manner. Since our public
>servants have separated
> themselves from all of the established forms of accountability, it is
>time to return to
> Chairman Mao's observation: All political power emanates from the
>barrel of a gun.
> You say: "That's immoral!" I respond that morality is concerned with
>right and wrong.
> When an organized group attacks you, your family, or your community,
>then they have
> performed what can only be described as an act of war. The response of
> individual is that you defend yourself and prosecute the war to the
>fullest extent possible,
> for the purpose of winning. Preemptive strikes are just part of the
>rules of the road for this
> task. Wars are either won or lost, and the Federal Government, along
>with the various
> state apparatuses, is at war with the American People. ClicheČ as it
>sounds, they drew first
> So if they are to be killed, it must be done for cause. Those laboring
>to bring our nation
> back to its Republican rule of Law must not kill innocent people in
>the process. Blowing
> up innocent children and non-participants is just as much a crime as
>any that the tyrants
> have committed. The way to change the government is through the
> excision of the traitorous lumps. The wiser ones will see the writing
>on the wall, and there
> will be a spontaneous remission of the treasonous disease.
> The only problem that remains is in identifying the enemy. Moral
>action requires that the
> right targets be chosen. Focusing on the low level players would not
>significantly affect the
> treasonous policies. It is the ruling elite that promulgates the
>policies, and it is they who
> must be held accountable. the charge is willful treason, and the
>sentence is preordained.
> When the ruling elite realize that they are not immune to
>accountability for their actions,
> then changes will come quickly.
> The major stumbling block to this plan is that most people don't have
>the guts to carry out
> the deed. Or if they do, it's a spur of the moment action with no
>planning or preparation.
> This is not the way to do it. Wars are not won by spur of the moment,
> actions. They are won by calm, cool planning and sound strategy. It is
>up to the people as
> individuals, who can't rely on any group or organization. Too many
>have been infiltrated by
> the enemy. Make sure you know what you are doing before you go off
> There are lots of how-to books on this delicate subject.
> Leave no evidence, have no connecting links, and don't flap your lips.
>The result is no
> arrests. The ruling elite may call it terrorism, but did they ever
>have a no-knock raid pulled
> on their house? Were they ever forced to stand in their own homes,
>naked or in their
> underwear while masked federal or state agents tore the house apart-
>while making crude
> jokes about their wife and terrorizing their children? Have they ever
>had to try to rebuild a
> sense of "home" after the government came in and destroyed any
>semblance of security
> that the family had? Did they have their pregnant wife slammed up
>against the wall, causing
> her to lose the baby? Did they have to find an answer for their little
>boy, when he asked if
> the welfare police were going to come back and beat up daddy?
> What is accountability all about? The second amendment ensures that We the
> People have the means to take down the real terrorists. This is a view
> people won't openly discuss, though they may hold it deep in their
> seriously consider the idea is to potentially confront the inescapable
> that action, not talk, is required, and that's too much for most.
> Finally, let's talk about what happens if you get caught. There are no
>prisoners in this war:
> Expect to be crucified. Tried in the press, condemned in the public
>arena, and then put on
> "trial" in a court that will not allow anything but a guilty verdict.
>Dumped in the worst hell of
> the prison system, fighting for your life and manhood, unable to
>contact your family or find
> out anything about them. After years of incarceration, there might be
>an execution, or you
> might be found dead in your cell, another unfortunate "suicide." But
>if you think the
> downside is too rough, then read about what happened to the signers of
>the Declaration of
> Independence. They were uniformly abused, harassed, ruined, and in
>some cases killed.
> They saw horrible treatment for themselves and their families. Is the
>price they paid worth
> If you are unable to accept the responsibility of fighting for your
>freedom while there is still
> a bit of freedom to move and communicate, then you had better accept
>the slavery and
> live with it. There will never be a better time to oppose the tyra.nts
>than now. As in any
> war, there will be casualties. It may happen to you, whether you are
>in the fight or not.
> Why wait to fall? Why stick your head in the sand and wait for things
>to get worse? Why
> not take the fight to the oppressors and at least show them that their
>plans will be
> Winston Churchill said it best:
> "If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win
> 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
> and only a precarious chance for survival. There may be a worse
> may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it
>is better to
> perish than to live as slaves."
> About the author: 'The Guardian' is the nom de plume of an individual
> sends Media Bypass letters and articles for submission. His work has
>been published in
> several magazines under various names. He chooses to remain anonymous
>(in view of the
> above letter) for obvious reasons.