And Justice For All

[Tim May <tcmay@got.net>]

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
government criminals.

--Tim May



At 2:24 PM -0800 1/13/98, xxxxx wrote:
>This guy sounds a little like you when you're in your best form.
>
>xxxxx
>
>>From September 1997 issue of Media Bypass - Found at
>http://www.4bypass.com/stories/line2.html
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>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"
>politicians. They
>    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
>importance. The
>    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
>voting fraud
>    that is endemic to the American electoral process. Look at the current
>scandals
>    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
>ever changing
>    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
>prosecutor for
>    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
>this system.
>
>    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
>a federal
>    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
>Horiuchi as
>    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
>legislators, judges,
>    prosecutors, and other public officials have chosen to sidestep the
>constitutionally
>    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
>unlawful actions.
>    They have created organizations of jack-booted thugs to intimidate,
>harass, and
>    sometimes kill anyone who is willing to speak out or show any form of
>resistance. These
>    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
>any moral
>    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. Cliche� as it
>sounds, they drew first
>    blood.
>
>    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
>surgically precise
>    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,
>emotionally ignited
>    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
>half-cocked.
>    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
>most
>    people won't openly discuss, though they may hold it deep in their
>hearts. To
>    seriously consider the idea is to potentially confront the inescapable
>conclusion
>    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
>    anything?
>
>    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
>    opposed?
>
>    Winston Churchill said it best:
>
>         "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."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>    About the author: 'The Guardian' is the nom de plume of an individual
>who occasionally
>    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.