Black Crawling Systems Archive Release 1.0/Black Crawling Systems Archive Release 1.0 (L0pht Heavy Industries, Inc.)(1997).ISO/tezcat/Constitution/Citizenship.txt

Text File | 1996-07-08 | 121KB | 2,335 lines

From the Radio Free Michigan archives

ftp://141.209.3.26/pub/patriot

If you have any other files you'd like to contribute, e-mail them to
[e-mail].
------------------------------------------------



                       CITIZENSHIP and SOVEREIGNTY
                         a collection of essays
                      some of which were writen by
                         and all were edited by
                             Tim Richardson


In Thomas Paine's pamphlet, "Common Sense", he advocated complete
independence for America from the tyranny of British rule.  In these
articles we will start rediscovering the America Thomas Paine was
advocating, rediscover the nation our forefathers fought to bring
forth.  But first we must comprehend what has been lost and how.  What
is our true and lawful relationship to the State?  What happened to the
united states of America?  What class of citizen are we?  What is
"money"?  What is the true source of wealth?  Who exactly are "We the
People"?  And how can we take our country back?

We - each and every one of us - cannot ever be politically or
economically or even ecologically effective without embracing and
comprehending these issues and revealing the "invisible tyranny" that
dominates our lives.  The journey we are about to embark upon is
essential for reclaiming our sovereign citizenship and restoring the
dignity of the Constitution for the United States of America.  However,
it will likely unravel every major belief you have about your
government, your "money", your freedom and even your property.

These articles are not about conspiracy theories or hidden personal
agendas, but about real political and economic FACTS.  These articles
are about "Power."

Power has been defined as the ability to act effectively.  Can anyone
of us claim to act effectively when facing their government today?  Who
do you think has the "power?"  The more we vote and campaign to elect
sincere representatives, the more it seems the mindless bureaucracy in
Washington DC rolls along, heedless of our desires and needs.  Is this
the "power of acting effectively" properly exercised by a government
"of the People, by the People, and for the People"?  Or is this instead
the "power" of tyranny, a burgeoning police state?

No, these articles are not about conspiracies theories, they are about
everyday facts of existence.  As we learn more about the real world
around us and who actually has the power to act effectively, we will
begin to discern the outline for a plan of action for ourselves.

We, the American People, have been deceived about our true and lawful
sovereign citizenship through an onslaught of public media, public
policy, public "education", bureaucratic coercion, government lies,
deception, propaganda and through the intentional manipulation of the
language of law.  We the People have been stripped naked of our basic,
unalienable rights of self-determination guaranteed by the Declaration
of Independence, the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  Unless
We the People wake up from a long and deepening sleep, these powerful
instruments of law, these protectors of freedom and liberty, will be
banished forever from our homeland.

We the People are caught in the crossfire of a global assault on the
sovereignty of both citizens and nations.  The casualties of this
assault are our freedoms, property rights, due process of the law,
basic constitutional rights and our beloved country -- the united
states of America.  An "invisible" war of tyranny is being waged
against the united states of America for the benefit of a small, elite
aristocracy of international bankers bent on attaining global empire at
the expense of the American people and all the citizens of the world.

These articles may rock the foundations of your beliefs about history,
law, economics and politics.  You will discover that the (federal)
United States government has been bankrupt since 1930, and has
systematically concealed this from the American people.

You will discover that Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) are not lawful
"money", but promissory notes obligating you to pay the Federal Reserve
Bank.

You will discover that the Federal Reserve Bank is a private, for
profit, joint-stock trust, not part of the (federal) United States
government.  You will learn how the national debt cannot ever be paid
off and how the dreaded IRS is a corporation (incorporated in Delaware)
which is nothing more than a collection agency for the Federal Reserve
system.

You will discover that your income tax does not go to the (federal)
United States government, but is sent directly to the Federal Reserve
to service your obligation towards the national debt.  Your income tax
does not pay for basic government services or infrastructure.  These
are paid for through excise, sales and other legal taxes along with
unlawful borrowed "money" from the Federal Reserve.

       "When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to
       the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly
       preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic." -- Dresden
       James

You will discover that you do not own your land -- the government holds
the title, you get only the deed.

You will discover that you do not own your vehicle -- the government
holds the title, you get only a certificate attesting to the fact that
the state holds the title.

You will discover you are not a "citizen", but only a resident and a
franchisee of the United States corporation, and that the Constitution
for the United States of American has no effect for "U.S. citizens."

You will discover that your children are not truly yours and that the
failed and failing public "education" system has been given the
authority to act in your stead with regards to the children of America.




                           WHERE DO YOU LIVE?


You no longer know what "country" you live in.  The (federal) "United
States" government is a foreign corporation with regards to the "united
50 states of America," not the country you live in or owe allegiance
to.  We the People are sovereign, "(state) citizens" under the U.S.
Constitution and Bill of Rights, except that we unknowingly elected
away those rights and our property by becoming 14th Amendment,
(federal) "U.S. citizens" under the jurisdiction of the (federal)
"United States."  Income tax is a voluntary contract which is mandatory
for U.S. citizens.  We the People can lawfully reclaim our true,
sovereign, (state) citizenship and take back our government from those
who would destroy our country for their own self-interest.

       We the People must reclaim our power of attorney to represent
       ourselves in court.  We the People must reclaim the American
       Common law and restore our sovereign rights guaranteed by the
       Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.  We the
       People have the power of general affidavit, the power to perfect
       a commercial affidavit and lien and to bring charges against
       public officials who are violating our constitutional rights under
       "color of law."  We the People can and MUST make our government
       accountable to the people and the law.



                                    Denial or Acceptance?

       Have you:
              ever witnessed a nation die,
                    a people become enslaved,
                    and a great country fall to its knees?

              ever witnessed a war in which the
                    people are unaware that a war is occurring
                    and they are the ones under attack?

              realized how many thousands of innocent
                    American citizens are under attack by
                    their own government and their court system?

              imagined how many trillions of dollars have been
                    unlawfully extorted from hard working Americans without
                    their informed consent or even their knowledge?

              heard the march of tyranny descending upon
                    this land, just as certainly as the holocaust
                    descended once upon Germany?

              felt the dead hand of bureaucracy laying
                    heavily upon your life, liberty and your
                    pursuit of happiness?

The fact is all this is occurring TODAY in the united states of
America.  It is painful to witness, daily, such events because the
present "U.S. citizens" who reside in this country haven't a clue as to
their historical or present political, economic of legal condition.  We
the People are in such denial and ignorance that we're willing to be
lied to, to accept those lies as truth without question, we are willing
to accept any blather which emanates from the mouths of bureaucrats as
"authority" and we do so without questioning it.  The fact is most of
us have simply been brainwashed into a state where even the most simple
of questions is forgotten.

What happened to our ability as adults, to just ask, "WHY?"

We've forgotten how to question authority and if we should briefly
recall, we have been conditioned to fear the consequences of asking.
We refuse to face facts, especially if the lie is repeated a few times
by the talking heads on network television.
The fact is that the united states of America as our nation, is
defunct.  The federal, state and local governments are bankrupt,
financially and morally.  The fact is the entire legal system is
administering the bankruptcy by "legally" attacking the assets of the
American people and denying due process and basic constitutional rights
through endless reams of unjust and unfair statutory law.

You don't have to take my word for this bankruptcy:

       The Congressional Record

       Volume 134 Number 33,
       Wednesday, March 17, 1993

       (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend
       his remarks.)

              Mr. TRAFICANT:  "Mr. Speaker, we are here now in Chapter 11.
              Members of Congress are official trustees presiding over the
              greatest reorganization of any bankrupt entity in world
              history, the U.S. Government..."

              "We are setting forth hopefully a blueprint for our future.
              There are some who say it is a coroner's report that will
              lead to our demise..."

              "I want to say this to the Members.  We may talk about taxing
              the rich, but, the rich people have already taken their
              companies and their jobs out of America.  Be careful that the
              rich people do not take their money out of America, because
              the government already raises our kids, defends our families,
              educates our kids, feeds our kids, houses our kids, and the
              government is doing a very poor job of it.  I think mom and
              dad would be better utilized there once again..."

The subjugation of all the ideals that once made this country great, is
almost completed.  Americans are completely demoralized and stripped of
their citizenship and power.  Social unrest, civil violence,
homelessness and drug abuse are symptoms of the overall collapse of the
American empire.  We the People have, without ever even knowing that we
were doing it, have unconditionally surrendered to a foreign power.
Unless we rediscover our citizenship and rediscover the America our
forefathers fought to bring to us, the united states of American is
soon to be just another chapter in somebody's else's history book.

I am writing this to you, because my perspective is somewhat unique, as
I have recently expatriated myself as a "U.S. citizen" and reclaimed my
sovereign (state) citizenship under the Declaration of Independence
(1776), the Bill of Rights (1791), and two hundred years of American
law.  I am a sovereign, domiciled (state) Citizen of the Oregon
REPUBLIC, deeply concerned about the dire plight of his neighbors.  I
cannot stand by and watch a once great nation die, and drag down people
I love and care for deeply; people who are being "trashed" by the
system every day.  I have taken action that is not only lawful but
necessary to restore the checks and balances, the liberties and the
sovereignty which is all but lost in our present DEMOCRACY.

Why have I decided that re-proclaiming sovereignty as an individual is
a good and needful thing to be doing?  Because there is no group effort
which can build individual dignity?  No committee can give me personal
responsibility.  No organizational chart has a box for my sovereignty.
We cannot promote freedom from government intrusion into our daily
lives by circulating petitions to change the government through a
reform of the laws.  We cannot even vote so-called "responsible"
politicians into office in whom we place our trust to change things for
the better.

I have finally come to understand the real reason NONE of that works.
It's not because of some monstrous conspiracy to deprive us of our
rights, however much some groups work to negate our rights, but for a
much more simple reason.  Working within the system to reform the
system doesn't work, because each of us, each individual one of us,
acting in our individual capacities, has forgotten how to take personal
responsibility for our actions.  By begging the government, as a group,
to change, we are perpetuating the very evil we would like to see
overthrown.  Representative government simply will not work without an
informed, knowledgeable, personally responsible electorate.



                         DEMOCRACY versus FREEDOM


Without personal responsibility as the cornerstone of political action,
without each of us acting in his and her individual capacity, we will
continue to place our hopes and faith in the very system which is
thundering down the road towards group enslavement.  Group
participation and majority rule are the two primary determinants of a
DEMOCRACY.  So what am I really saying here?  Am I saying that I would
like to see anarchy or worse, a dictatorship?

No, let me assure you that anarchy is not what I want, nor any form of
government which refuses to promote individual responsibility.  So let
us begin by examining the word "Democracy".

If you don't have already one, you should get a good quality copy of
the Constitution for the United States of America.  (I don't mean an
expensive one, I mean one in which the words are correct and the
spelling and grammar is identical to the original.  There are way too
many bogus copies floating around out there and this is much too much
important a document to be dealing with anything less than an accurate
copy!)

A careful search of "The Constitution for the United States of
America", reveals that NOWHERE in this document can the word
"Democracy" be found!  My, my, my!  Does this mean that our forefathers
might not have intended us to live and prosper under a democracy?

If you've come to that conclusion, then you are absolutely right!  They
most certainly did not intend us to live in a "democracy".  What the
Constitution does say, in Article IV, Section 4, is that every state
shall be guaranteed a "Republican form of government."

America is not now and never has been a "democracy".  America is a
republic, with sovereignty vested in the state and its respective
sovereign Citizens.  After much debate, because our founding fathers
had suffered mightily at the hands of an oppressive British Monarchy,
a pure "democracy" was ruled out.

Why am I bothering to make this distinction?  Perhaps we live in a
democratic republic?  Does it matter? It darn well matters, and it
matters a lot.

It is necessary to comprehend the distinction between a REPUBLIC and a
DEMOCRACY.   Never once in the constitution is a "democracy" discussed.
Never once in the  constitution is a "democratic republic" discussed.
Why, especially when we hear almost daily about our country, phrases
like, "democratic institutions", or "exporting democracy", or "helping
insure democracy has a fair chance [in country X, Y or Z]".

The founders of our country understood with absolute clarity what they
were doing and why they were doing it.  In a democracy, the government
meaning the ruling body(ies) are controlled by a majority of the
people.  51% control 49% of the people.  But their demands are effected
only through the government.  This is the critical point to understand:
The GOVERNMENT is the ruling body -- the government is the sovereign.
As such, the "sovereign" is swayed by majority rule, but it is still
the sovereign.  Whenever an individual or group of individuals wishes
to do something or other, they must petition the sovereign for
permission -- if a majority votes in favor, then the sovereign is
pretty much required to grant the request, regardless of the impact on
personal liberty the action may have.

But in a REPUBLIC -- ah, an entirely different story is heard.  In a
republic, every individual is sovereign -- not the government, not the
courts, not a group of individuals acting together -- but EACH AND
EVERY SOLITARY INDIVIDUAL is sovereign!

Did you catch the import of that?  You are more powerful than the
government in a functioning republic -- all by yourself you have
authority over the government.

Does the phrase, "A government of the people, by the people, and for
the people..." begin to take on REAL meaning now?  Can you begin to
believe that the words in the Constitution for the United States of
America were chosen with care and deliberation, and not by accident!

In a republic, the government does not EVER grant you permission, or
restrict your freedoms in any way, large or small; unless your actions
or proposed actions will impinge on another citizens "...pursuit of
life, liberty and happiness".  The only other time the government may
control you is in those specifically and necessarily limited areas in
which the people have previously given the government the authority to
act in their stead (e.g., they have "delegated" some limited number of
their sovereign powers to the government).

In fact the "American Military Training Manual (1928)" spelled out the
distinctions between a REPUBLIC and a DEMOCRACY quite clearly.

       "DEMOCRACY:  Government of the masses.  Authority derived
       through mass meeting or any other form of direct expression.
       Results in mobocracy.  Attitude toward property is
       communistic, negating property rights.  Attitude toward law
       is that the will of the majority shall regulate whether it be
       based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice and
       impulse without restraint or regard to consequences.  Results
       in demogogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy."

       "REPUBLIC:  Authority is derived through the election of
       public officials best fitted to represent them.  Attitude
       toward property is respect for laws and individual rights,
       and a sensible economic procedure.  Attitude toward law is
       the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles
       and established evidence, with a strict regard to
       consequences.  A greater number of citizens and extent of
       territory may be brought within its compass.  Avoids the
       dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy.  Results in
       statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and
       progress." - (Taken from "United States War Department,
       Soldiers Training Manual, Nov. 30, 1928, TM 2000-225")


So, do we live in a democracy or democratic republic?

NO!

Well, we aren't supposed to be anyway.  I realize that most
politicians, and certainly the mass media have tried to brainwash us
into thinking that we do live in a democracy today; certainly our
public schools teach that.  But they are wrong, the constitution has
not yet been repealed or altered in this regard.  We live in a
republic.

But to have an effective republic, and to have a government which is
forced to respect our rights and to have a government which is forced
to acknowledge the sovereignty of its citizens REQUIRES PERSONAL
RESPONSIBILITY and personal involvement.  And the sooner the people
start taking control of their government and their lives and their
property, the sooner we can flush the scum in Washington down the drain
and begin the exciting process of building our county anew.


                     WHERE DID OUR REPUBLIC GO?

To answer that question will require a brief tour, once again, into the
history of the founding of our country.

We all know that America was under the rule of the British Monarchy and
that our forefathers rebelled against that rule.  We've all heard about
the famous "Boston Tea Party" and the rallying cry of "No taxation
without representation!"

But what did these things signify really?  Did we fight the
revolutionary war just so that one sovereign, King George of England,
could be replaced by another sovereign, the U.S. Government here in
America?  Where does the power to tax citizens come from anyway?  It
can't be something granted a government by God, so where does it come
from?  Was the revolutionary war really fought over taxation without
representation?

The power to tax stems from ownership.  I, as an example, cannot levy
a tax on your property as I have no ownership interest in it.  The only
entity which can levy a property tax is the ultimate owner of the
property.  Take the following illustration:  Say you went to the store
and bought a fine, expensive jacket and brought it home.  The next day
a representative of the store came to your house and presented you with
a list of demands, like:

       "If you wear your jacket on Tuesday's, you owe us a tax of $1.00
       for each occurrence.  If you wear your jacket to work, you owe us
       a tax of $0.25 per occurrence.  If you wear your jacket after 6pm
       on the weekends you owe us a tax of $2.00 per occurrence.  If you
       want to wear your jacket at other times and places, you must
       submit a written request, in triplicate, accompanied by a $3.50
       filing fee, and we will make a ruling."

Doesn't this sound kind of inane and stupid?

If you think so, then you are of course, right!  But isn't this exactly
what the government does when you "purchase" a piece of property?  The
government tells you how much your fee is for using the property, when
you can use it, how you can use it and what to do if you want to use it
some other way.  So I ask you again, "isn't this pretty silly?"

Well, in the case of the jacket it certainly is, and no one would
question that.  So why don't you question the silliness of the system
which purports to tax "your" property? -- unless of course you have
this sneaking suspicion that it really isn't your property after all!

When you are owned (i.e., a slave), you have no rights save what the
"massa" decides to give you as "privileges."  Now if you're not exactly
a slave, but a freeman, without the ownership of property, though
marginally better off than a true slave, you still will find yourself
beholding to whomever it is you work for.  If you don't own anything,
or very little, you must work for someone else just to make your daily
living.  You have little or no power to control your destiny as you
have little or no independence from economic servitude.

Ah, but own your own land and suddenly you have a degree of
independence you've never had before!  You can grow your own food, or
raise crops for sale to others, or mine the minerals or other natural
resources, or, if you chose, sell the land for cash and remain
independent for as long as the money lasts.

Ownership of the land -- who owned the land the colonists settled on
when America was still under the control of the English King?  You've
undoubtedly seen movies where some explorer of old, upon landing on the
shores of a new land proudly proclaimed the new land in the name
of...(insert the name of the king or queen to whom the explorer owed
allegiance).

Ok, the colonists, just prior to the revolutionary war, were living on
land "owned" by King George.  What happened to that "ownership" when
the revolutionaries won the war?  Didn't King George's army leave
defeated?  So therefore the King George could not have continued to own
the land, right?  And at the time of the war and for the better part of
twenty years more, there was no government of the United States.  What
we had was 13 independent countries, the original 13 colonies, which
had banded together under an agreement called the "Articles of
Confederation."  Under this agreement the states did not own the land
either, though they controlled it, in trust for the Sovereign Citizens
of the individual states!  We the People owned the land as sovereigns.
There was no one, no entity which owned the land with a greater or more
superior title to it than the sovereign citizens of this country.

See, this is what made America so unique in the history of the world.
Never before (nor since for that matter) has a country been formed
wherein each and every citizen was a sovereign, and not some form of
government.  STOP!  Go back and re-read that sentence.

What founded the 13 colonies was a burning desire for freedom and a
determination to keep future generations free.  Our government was set
up with this foremost in mind.  This is why the power of this
government comes from the people and not from a king.  Each individual
is sovereign by nature, as acknowledged by decree and by treaty.
(Treaty of Peace 1783.)

But what made a person living in the land just freed from British
tyranny a "Citizen?"  OWNERSHIP OF LAND!  Our forefathers clearly
understood that ownership of the land was a prerequisite for citizen
government, and as the need for a more definitive agreement than the
Articles of Confederation was seen, and the Constitution began to take
form, the originators of that document made provisions for We the
People to own the land forever.  The framers of the Constitution
understood that if continuity of sovereign citizen government was to be
a realizable dream, it was mandatory to keep the land in the hands of
the people and to never let government nor bankers get their hands on
it.

The Constitution was approved by the original 13 "states" in 1797.
Just 23 years later, congress of the United States passed into law, the
first of several acts, specifically designed to insure that the land
would be held by individuals, and that banks and other lenders would
never be able to use their power of money to remove the land from the
ownership of We the People.  Unfortunately, the banks subsequently
derived other means of stealing our property and have become the true
owners and thus have allowed the government (which as we will see later
became nothing more than a puppet of the banks) to tax the tenants of
the land (the tenants being us) while pretending to allow us ownership
-- ownership which is not really OWNING, but only possession, under
duress of payment of taxes.

If you think you "own" your house, let me ask you this:  "If the
government can take your property for failure to pay property taxes, do
you REALLY own it?"  Hummm?  Remember the example of the jacket from
above.  Would you tolerate a store clerk coming into your home and
extorting money for wearing and using what was truly yours?  I don't
know about you, but I sure as hell wouldn't.

This the same concept as the constitutional issue over "rights" versus
"privileges", in that rights are granted by God and cannot be taken
away by man, but a privilege is granted by government, and originates
with government, and can be taken away by government.  No amount of
"blowing of smoke" or attempts to obfuscate the real issue will
effectively disguise the fact that most Americans no longer actually
own their property.  And as a result, they have become enslaved on the
very land their forefathers fought and died to free for them.

Black's law dictionary 5th edition defines ownership as follows:

       "The complete dominion, title, or proprietary right in a thing or
       claim.  The entirety of the powers of use and disposal by law.
       The exclusive right of possession, enjoyment, and disposal.
       Ownership of property is absolute or qualified.  The ownership of
       property is absolute when a single person has absolute dominion
       over it.  The ownership is qualified when...its use is
       restricted".

The ownership is qualified when its use is restricted!  Do you still
think you "own" your property?



                       OUR REPUBLIC ... OUR LAND?


It would then appear that most people who have bought their land, with
or without a home on it, do not have absolute control, dominion, use
of, or even full enjoyment of it... because, of things like building
permits, use permits, property taxes, eminent domain, etc.

What is a mortgage?  Obviously it is paper and ink and generally issued
by a bank.  But what REALLY is a mortgage?  It isn't title to "your"
property as we all know, but it isn't a contract either.  What it is,
is credit extended by a bank and in no way conveys ownership.

       "There is a distinction between a debt discharged and one paid.
       When discharged the debt still exists though divested of its
       character as a legal obligation during the operation of the
       discharge. -- STANEK V. WHITE, 215 NWR 781 (1927).

Look at your mortgage...I'll bet you'll be dismayed to find that when
it you "pay it off", that you have only "discharged" your debt, not
extinguished it.

When Congress, in 1933 suspended the gold standard, they denied you the
right to PAY YOUR DEBTS AT LAW (which extinguishes the debt).  Instead,
we have a system wherein you can only discharge your debt, but the debt
still exists.

This is why, dear readers, that real versus fake "MONEY" is an
important issue for each and every one of us!!!  This is what happens
when we allow congress to violate the constitution and create a private
debt system called the Federal Reserve.

When you participate in the Federal Reserve system, you are
participating in a private money system, which is a PRIVILEGE, and
therefore a duty and fee is extracted (property tax is one of these
"fees"), but since Federal Reserve Notes are not Lawful Money (see
Article 1, Section 10 of the uS Constitution), you cannot pay or
extinguish your debts at law, the FRN's are only pieces of paper to
which a debt attaches.

Note the definition of TITLE as found in Bouvier's Dictionary of Law:

       "The means whereby the owner...hath just possession of his
       property.  3.  Title to personal property may accrue in three
       different ways; by original acquisition, by transfer by act of
       law, by transfer by act of the parties. 5.  THE LAWFUL COIN OF THE
       UNITED STATES WILL PASS THE PROPERTY ALONG WITH THE POSSESSION."
       [emphasis added]

Only the title to the property can convey ownership and as you will see
(again) below, ownership can be absolute or qualified.

It also follows that if there are such restrictions (such as property
taxes, or use restrictions, or "permits") on your land, that you may
not have "absolute title".  Maybe then you're not really an owner, not
in the true sense of the word anyway.  Maybe you're sort of a
"quasi-owner".  Maybe there is a "superior" above you, controlling the
land and its use and compelling a duty or FEE for the "interest" or
"use" of the land.  In the olden days, this was called "FEUDALISM".

When our revolution was fought, it was fought not about taxation
without representation (that issue flows from, but does not originate
the issue of ownership), we fought the revolution over ownership of the
land.  Our forefathers did not want King George owning the land and
thereby being able to tell us what to do, and when and how and to be
able to tax us for the "privilege" of living on "his" land.

Again from Black's 5th edition, defining feudalism:

       "The system was based upon a servile relationship between a
       "vassal" and a "lord".  The vassal paid homage and service to the
       lord and the lord provided land and protection."

And we find that "FEUDUM" is defined as:

       "A feud, fief or FEE [tax].  A right of using and enjoying forever
       the lands of another, which the lord [the superior] grants on
       condition that the tenant shall render fealty [duty or tax]...it
       is not properly the land, but a RIGHT to the land. [bracketed text
       mine]

Feudalism was the issue on which the revolution was fought!  Either we
were going to be FREEmen and hold our land FREEHOLD or we were going to
be vassals of the King.

No other organic issues were involved.

Many facets of this issue surfaced and were debated, but the one
organic issue was service to the king versus living free.

After the revolution, all of the land belonged to the people, and the
state, as a creation of the people, was given the authority to parcel
out this land in a fair and equitable manner.  Land was held by way of
"ALLODIAL TITLE", meaning no superior to the land owner.

Today, as many of you know, the Federal Reserve system, is largely
controlled by the Bank of England and through it, your mortgage is
controlled by them, and:

Today, duties and taxes accrue to the occupant/operator of land, such
as property taxes, land use laws and permits.  If the servant fails to
pay or violates any of the conditions, the servant will be forcibly put
off the land and another servant will be allowed the use of the land,
based on the same conditions.  The right to use the land does not grant
absolute title.  The servant is involved in what is called simply a
"feudal system"

Black's 5th edition defines "FEUDAL":

       "Pertaining to feuds or fees; relating to or growing out of the
       feudal system or feudal law; having the quality of a feud, AS
       DISTINGUISHED FROM ALLODIAL".[emphasis added]

My, my, "distinguished from"... as in opposite to!!!

Black's defines ALLODIAL:

       "Free; not holden of any lord or superior; owned without
       obligation of vassalage of fealty; the opposite of feudal."

And speaking strictly in regards to land, Black's 5th edition defines
land held in "ALLODIUM":

       "Land held absolutely in one's own right, and not of any lord or
       superior; land not subject to feudal duties or burdens.  An estate
       held by absolute ownership, without recognizing any superior to
       whom any duty is due on account thereof."

So, what have we learned?

We've learned that we no longer truly own our land, that the banksters
own most of it (illegally as we shall see later).  We've learned that
We the People were given the right to own land held in allodial title,
by virtue of having won the Revolutionary War and yet somehow we've
come to let the banks, and through them the Federal Reserve System hold
title to our property.

However, patriots all across this land are discovering that they still
have the power and the ability to claim allodial title and to become
truly free men and women again.



                  WHAT RIGHTS DO WE (the People) HAVE?


What can we do about this state of affairs?  We have begun by learning
about the true nature of our Constitution, about our Declaration of
Independence, about the men who formed and fought and died to birth
this nation and why they did what they did.  And now that that learning
is well underway, we begin to discern the shape or outline of a course
of action which will set us free, first as individuals and then as a
communities and later as an entire nation.

Independence, or sovereignty for the individual, the dignity of people
as human beings, not owned or controlled by others is not an idle
concept, nor something out of a dry and dusty history book.
Sovereignty is freedom from unnecessary government interference and
unlawful regulation.  Freedom is what our founding fathers intended for
themselves and all of "We the People" -- in perpetuity.

The original U.S. Constitution limits the ability of the (federal)
United States government to meddle in the affairs and encroach upon the
sovereignty of its (state) citizens.  We the People are sovereign
(state) Citizens in relation to the national and federal government.

Look carefully at the preamble below:

       "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more
       perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic
       Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the
       general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to
       ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this
       Constitution for the united states of America."

Did you see that?

Look again where it says, "...establish this Constitution FOR the
united states of America."  (Remember in the Constitution as in other
laws, words are used precisely and with great care, linguistic
precision is everything.)

Not Constitution "of", like most people believe, but Constitution
"for".  Is this important, after all its just one little preposition,
could it really matter?

You bet!

After months of debate about the form and substance of this document,
the framers were not about to make a mistake of letting the government
of the collective states, the new United States government have any
sovereignty at all.  This was not a document from the new government
proclaiming its powers and the duties and privileges of "its" subjects
(and therefore its ownership or authorship of all rights and
authority).  No dear reader, it was a Constitution "FOR" the united
states of America; a document clearly outlining the very restricted
delegated powers given to it by the sovereign states and sovereign
people.

As Thomas Jefferson said:

       "My idea is that we should be made one nation in every case
       concerning foreign affairs, and separate ones in whatever is
       merely domestic; that the Federal government should be organized
       into Legislative, Executive and Judiciary, as are the State
       governments, and some peaceable means of enforcement devised for
       the Federal head over the States." -- Thomas Jefferson ["Writing
       of Thomas Jefferson" pub by Taylor & Maury, Washington DC, 1854,
       quote II 248-49, from a letter to J. Blair, August 13, 1787.

       "With respect to our State and federal governments, I do not think
       their relations are correctly understood by foreigners.  They
       generally suppose the former subordinate to the latter.  But this
       is not the case.  They are co-ordinate departments of one simple
       and integral whole.  To the State governments are reserved all
       legislative and administration, in affairs which concern their own
       citizens only, and to the federal government is given whatever
       concerns foreigners, or the citizens of the other States; these
       functions alone being made federal.  The one is domestic, the
       other the foreign branch of the same government; neither having
       control over the other, but within its own department." -- Thomas
       Jefferson ["Writing of Thomas Jefferson" pub by Taylor & Maury,
       Washington DC, 1854, quote number VII 355-61, from correspondence
       to Major John Cartwright, June 5, 1824.

       (And just like government granted privileges which can be taken
       away, the Sovereign People "delegated" certain powers to the new
       government, and when we want to, we can take back that delegation
       or power of attorney.)



                  THE "AWAKENING" versus FEAR OF ACTING


But despite a growing awareness of the need to re-dedicate ourselves
and our lives to the freedoms and responsibilities our forefathers
intended, the greatest challenge in reclaiming our sovereign
(independent) (state) Citizenship, is breaking the chains of denial.
It takes courage to open our eyes and witness an "economic holocaust"
of mass proportions and forge the appropriate, human response.  It
takes an independent, free thinking and compassionate person to
discriminate between "reality" and the false images projected through
lies, propaganda, advertising, distractions, and deception.

We must extract and separate our individual conscience and intelligence
from an overwhelming, addictive, underinformed, commercial, public
information, non-news media which has contaminated our ability to
discriminate between what is real, and what is fiction.  This inability
to discriminate, and our often apparent apathy, is described as
"reality erosion," and it is accelerating on a daily basis.
Discrimination and integration are two inherent facilities of the human
mind, essential for survival.  We MUST once again learn to "think" for
ourselves.

After generations of being educated and programmed for
irresponsibility, to look after "number one", to get ours, to do our
own thing, the American people have surrendered virtue for vice, rights
for privileges, long-term sustainability for short-term profits and
pleasures.  Without "response-ability" (the ability to respond), the
American people will continue to spiral down the abyss of enslavement.
Without a return to virtue, to ethics, and morality evident in the
natural law, the American people will self-destruct in a democratic sea
of mob violence.  Even if we reach beyond denial, take "response-
ability" and apply intelligent virtue, the immensity of the issues,
concerns and problems presenting themselves simultaneously, are
paralyzing us into inaction, despite our having access to intelligent
information, solutions and strategies.  Ignorance is NOT bliss!


                  A SIMPLE "RIGHT", the Right To Travel

Such a "simple" and seemingly straightforward right which we mostly
take for granted.

But is it really so simple?

It is really a right, or is it a government granted (meaning controled
and revokable) privlege?



The following is taken entirely from "Aid & Abet" newsletter.  "Aid &
Abet" is edited and published by Jack McLamb, a highly decorated,
retired Phoenix, Arizona police officer.  His target audience is men
and women in uniform, police, military, national guard, or whatever.
It is reprinted here with permission and with profound gratitude.
Thank you Jack.


                                      *****************


U.S. COURTS CONFIRM "DRIVING A MOTOR VEHICLE" IS A RIGHT NOT -- A
GOVERNMENT PRIVILEGE.

For many years professionals within the criminal justice system have
acted upon the belief that traveling by motor vehicle upon the roadway
was a privilege that was gained by a citizen only after approval by
their respective state government in the form of the issuance of a
permit or license to that particular individual.

Legislators, police officers and court officials are becoming aware
that there are now court decisions that prove the fallacy of the legal
opinion that "driving is a privilege and therefore requires government
approval", i.e. a license.  Some of these cases are:

Case # 1 -- "Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the
right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the
ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be
regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience."
Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago 169 NE 22
("Regulated" here means traffic safety enforcement, stop lights, signs,
etc.  NOT a privilege that requires permission i.e., licensing,
mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, etc.)

Case # 2 -- "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public
highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or
by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or
permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." - Thompson v Smith 154 SE
579

It could not be stated more conclusively that Citizens of the states
have a right to travel, without approval or restriction, (license) and
that this right is protected under the U.S. Constitution.  Here are
other court decisions that expound the same facts:

Case # 3 -- "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the
citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th
Amendment." - Kent v Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125

Case # 4 -- "Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove
from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of
personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or
through the territory of any State is a right secured by the 14th
Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution." - Schactman v
Dulles, 96 App D.C. 287, 293




FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT

As hard as it is for those of us in Law Enforcement to believe, there
is no room for speculation in these court decisions.  The American
citizen does indeed have the inalienable right to use the roadways
unrestricted in any manner as long as they are not damaging or
violating property or rights of another.

Government, in requiring the people to file for "drivers" licenses,
vehicle registrations, mandatory insurance, and demanding they stop for
vehicle inspections, DUI/DWI roadblocks etc., without question, are
"restricting", and therefore violating, the People's common law right
to travel.

Is this a new legal interpretation on this subject of the right to
travel?  Apparently not.  The "American Citizens and Lawmen
Association" in conjunction with the "U.S. Federal Law Research Center"
are presently involved in studies in several areas involving questions
on constitutional law.  One of the many areas under review is the area
of "Citizens right to travel."  In an interview, a spokesman stated;
"Upon researching this subject over many months, substantial case law
has presented itself that completely substantiates the position that
the 'right to travel unrestricted upon the nations highways' is and has
always been a fundamental right of every Citizen."

This means that the "beliefs and opinions" our state legislators, the
courts, and those of us involved in the law enforcement profession have
acted upon for years have been in error.  Researchers armed with actual
facts state that U.S. case law is overwhelming in determining that - to
restrict, in any fashion, the movement of the individual American in
the free exercise of their right to travel upon the roadways,
(excluding "commerce" which the state legislatures are correct in
regulating), is a serious breach of those freedoms secured by the U.S.
Constitution, and most state constitutions, i.e. -- it is unlawful.

THE REVELATION THAT THE AMERICAN CITIZEN HAS ALWAYS HAD THE INALIENABLE
RIGHT TO TRAVEL RAISES PROFOUND QUESTIONS TO THOSE WHO ARE INVOLVED IN
MAKING AND ENFORCING STATE LAWS.

The first of such questions may very well be - if the States have been
enforcing laws that are unconstitutional on their face, it would seem
that there must be some way that a state can legally put restrictions,
such as - licensing requirement, mandatory insurance, vehicle
registration, vehicle inspections, DWI roadblocks, to name just a few,
on a citizen's constitutionally protected right.  Is that not so?

For the answer to this question let us look, once again, to the U.S.
courts for a determination on this very issue.

The case of Hertado v California, 110 U.S. 516, states very plainly
"The State cannot diminish rights of the people."

"...the assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made,
is not to be defeated under the name of local practice." - Davis v
Wechsler, 263 U.S. 22, 24

Would we not say that these judicial decisions are straight to the
point - that there is no lawful method for government to put
restrictions or limitations on rights belonging to the people?

Other cases are even more straight forward:

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no
rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." - Miranda v
Arizona 384 U.S. 436, 491

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted
into a crime." - Miller v U.S. 230 F2d 486, 489

"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this
exercise of constitutional rights." - Sherar v Cullen 481 F 945  (There
is no question that a citation/ticket issued by a police officer, for
no drivers license, no current vehicle registration, no vehicle
insurance etc., which carries a fine or jail time, is a penalty or
sanction, and is indeed "converting a RIGHT into a crime.")

We could go on, quoting court decision after court decision, however,
in addition, the Constitution itself answers our question - "Can a
government legally put restrictions on the rights of the American
people at anytime, for any reason?"  (Such as in this particular case -
- when the government believes it to be for the safety and welfare of
the people?)

The answer is found in ARTICLE SIX of the U.S. Constitution:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United State which shall be
made in Pursuance thereof;...shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and
the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the
Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary  notwithstanding."
(This tells us that the U.S. Constitution is to be upheld over any
state, county, or city laws that are in opposition to it.)

In the same Article 6, it goes on to say just who it is within our
government who is bound by this Supreme Law:

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of
the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial
Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be
bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution..." -
Article 6, U.S. Constitution

We know that police officers are a part of the Executive branch.  We
are "Executive Officers."

Article 6 (above) is called the SUPREMACY CLAUSE, and it clearly states
that, under every circumstance, the above listed officials in these
United States must hold this document's tenets supreme over any other
laws, regulations, or orders.  Every U.S. Police officer knows they
have sworn an oath to the people of our nation that we will not only
protect their lives and property, but, that we will uphold, and protect
their freedoms and rights under the Supreme law of this nation - the
U.S. Constitution.

In this regard then we must agree that those within government that
restrict a Citizen's rights, (such as restricting the people's right to
travel) are acting in violation of his or her oath of office and are
actually committing a crime, against such Citizens.  Here's an
interesting question:  Is ignorance of these laws an excuse for such
acts by officials?

If we are to follow the "letter of the law", as we are sworn to do,
this places officials that involve themselves in such unlawful acts in
an unfavorable legal situation.  For it is a felony and federal crime
to violate, or deprive citizens of their constitutionally protected
rights.

Our system of law dictates the fact that there are only two ways to
legally remove a right belonging to the people.  These are - #1 - by
lawfully amending the Constitution, or #2 - by a person knowingly
waiving a particular right.  [And here I would respectfully disagree
with Jack McLamb, as a "right" cannot ever be taken away legally, since
the Constitution gave us no rights to begin with, it only restricted
the Government's ability to muck around with those rights.  God gives
us rights, government grants us privileges...tlr]

Some of the confusion in our present system has arisen because many
millions of people have waived their right to travel "unrestricted"
upon the roadways of the states and have opted into the jurisdiction of
the state for various reasons.  Those who have knowingly given up these
rights are now legally regulated by state law, the proper courts, and
"sworn, Constitutionally empowered officers of the law," and must
acquire proper permits, registration, insurance, etc.

Three are basically two groups of people in this category:

#1 -- Any citizen that involves themselves in "commerce," (business for
private gain), upon the highways of the state.

Here is what the courts have said about this:

"...For while a citizen has the right to travel upon the public
highways and to transport his property thereon, that right does not
extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a
place for private gain.  For this latter purpose no person has a vested
right to use the highways of the state, but [the use] is a privilege or
license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its
discretion..." - State v Johnson, 243 Pg 1073, 1078

Other U.S. court cases that confirm and point out the difference
between the "right" of the citizen to travel and a government
"privilege" are - Barney v Board of Railroad Commissioners;  State v
City of Spokane, 186 P. 864;  Ex Parte Dickey (Dickey v Davis), 85 S.E.
781;  Teche Lines v Danforth, 12 So. 2d 784

There are numerous other court decisions that spell out the
JURISDICTION issue in these two distinctly different activities.
However, because of space restrictions we will leave it up to the
officers to research it further for themselves.

#2 -- The second group of citizens that are legally under the
jurisdiction of the state is the individual citizen who has voluntarily
and knowingly waived their right to travel "unregulated and
unrestricted" by requesting placement under such jurisdiction through
the acquisition of a state drivers license, vehicle registration,
mandatory insurance, etc. (In other words "by contract only.")

We should remember what makes this "legal," and not a violation of the
individual's common law right to travel "unrestricted" is that they
knowingly volunteer freely, by contract, to waive their right(s).  If
they were forced, coerced or unknowingly placed under the State's
powers, the courts have said it is a clear violation of their rights.

This in itself raises a very interesting question.  "What percentage of
the people in each state have filed, and received, licenses,
registrations, insurance, etc., after erroneously being advised by
their government that it was mandatory?"

Many of our courts, attorneys and police officials are just becoming
informed about this important issue and the difference between
"Privileges vs. Rights."  We can assume that the majority of those
Americans carrying state licenses, vehicle registrations, etc., have no
knowledge of the rights they waived in obeying laws such as these that
the U.S. Constitution clearly states are unlawful, i.e., "laws of no
effect."  In other words - "LAWS THAT ARE NOT LAWS AT ALL."


OUR SWORN DUTY

An area of serious consideration for every police officer, is to
understand that the most important law in our land he has taken an oath
to protect, defend, AND ENFORCE, is not state law, nor city or county
ordinance, but that law which supersedes all other laws in our nation,
- the U.S. Constitution.  If laws, in a particular police officer's
state, or local community are in conflict with the SUPREME LAW of our
nation, there is no question that the officer's duty is to "uphold the
U.S. Constitution."

What does this mean to the "patrol officer" who will be the only sworn
"Executive Officer" on the scene, when knowledgeable Citizens raise
serious objections over possession of insurance, drivers licenses and
other restrictions?  It definitely means these officers will be faced
with a hard decision.  (Most certainly if that decision effects state,
city or county revenues, such as the issuing of citations do.)

Example:  If a state legislator, judge or superior tells a police
officer to proceed and enforce a contradictory, (illegal), state law
rather than the Supreme Law of this country, what is that "sworn
officer" to do?  Although we may not want to hear it, there is but one
right answer, - "the officer is duty bound to uphold his oath of
office" and obey the highest laws of this nation.  THIS IS OUR SWORN
DUTY AND IT'S THE LAW!

Such a strong honest stand taken by a police officer, upholding his or
her oath of office, takes moral strength of character.  It will,
without question, "SEPARATE THE MEN FROM THE BOYS."  Such honest and
straightforward decisions on behalf of a government official have often
caused pressure to be applied to force such officers to set aside, or
compromise their morals or convictions.

As a solace for those brave souls in uniform that will stand up for law
and justice, even when it's unpopular, or uncomfortable to do so...let
me say this:  In any legal stand-off over a sworn official "violating"
or "upholding" their oath of office, those that would side with the
"violation" should inevitably lose.

Our Founding Fathers assured us, on many occasions, the following:
Defending our freedoms in the face of people that would for "expedients
sake," or behind the guise of, "for the safety and welfare of the
masses," ignore people's rights, would forever demand sacrifice and
vigilance from those that desired to remain free.  That sounds a little
like - "Freedom is not free!"

Every police officer should keep the following U.S. court ruling which
was covered earlier, in mind before issuing citations in regard to
"mandatory - licensing, registrations an insurance" - versus "the right
of the people to travel unencumbered""

"THE CLAIM AND EXERCISE OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT CANNOT BE CONVERTED
INTO A CRIME." -Miller v U.S., 230 F2d 486, 489

And as we have seen, "traveling freely," going abut ones daily
activities, is the exercise of a most basic right.


THE FREEMAN MOVEMENT

There is a growing national movement of Americans that go by titles
such as - "Constitutionalists", "Freeman" and "Patriot."

We have been told by federal officials and agencies that these
individuals are any, or all of the following; radicals, racists,
violence prone, anti-American, anarchists, communists, bigots, tax
protestors, neo-nazis, right-wing fanatics, to name just a few.  The
latest is "White Supremist."  This seems strange to many Police
officers since professional encounters have proven that there are
Indian, Oriental, Hispanics, Caucasians, and Blacks in many of these
groups.

Many police officers are voluntarily attending local meetings of such
groups, which are open to the public, in an effort to find out what
these "crazy" Americans are all about.  In almost every letter our
agency has received over the last 5 years from police officers who have
personally attended such meetings, we have heard a far different story
about these people.  These officers will commonly use several or many
of the following in describing these individuals.  They describe these
people as - well educated in the law, in history and national affairs,
morally upstanding and honest, non-violent, rational, hard working, and
fanatically dedicated to God and Country.  Indeed, just the kind of
Americans our government needs to beware of!

Whatever these people are, there is one thing we all can say for sure.
These individual Americans are unlike most of the people in our nation
today in one very obvious way.  This group of people believe in study
and acquiring knowledge.  They have an unusually well founded
understanding of the rights of every American.  Which is more than we
can say for most government officials.

Another thing we know as "fact" is that many of these individuals are
also very defensive and protective over any government infringement on
what they believe to be "God given rights."

A hundred years ago these fanatical Patriotic Americans would have been
held in high esteem by their fellow countrymen.  But today, in our
highly controlled society where the vast amount of Americans have been
taught that Government is seldom to be challenged and is to always be
obeyed without question; this last remnant of free thinking individuals
now find themselves scoffed at by their less "courageous and informed"
countrymen.

It is no secret to police officers why these people are so reviled and
pursued by government officials whose job it is to prepare this
nation's people or greater restrictions and control over their daily
lives - "for the good of Society as a whole" of course.


MAKING ADJUSTMENTS -- DIFFICULT

To make adjustments in the system at this time for "rights" that only
a relatively few such "informed" Americans realize they have, would be
difficult at best.  It is also quite understandable that this is
upsetting to those in government who for years have not had anyone
around to call attention to such infringements on the public's rights.
In addition, it seems the general consensus among these government
officials is that such insignificant issues as this "right to travel
vs. privilege to drive" is something that seems to be such a "small and
necessary infringement when one considers the overall good which comes
through strong government control over all our lives".

In keeping with this philosophy, our leaders annually promote the
adoption of approximately 17,000 NEW laws and hundreds of thousands of
new regulations in the U.S.  For every new law or regulation passed,
someone's freedoms are restricted.  The mistake made by many is
believing that only the "Bad Guys" rights are restricted by new laws.
The wise police officer, who has to  enforce all these new laws, knows
that if the mentality of, "there ought to be a law", continues, a
police state is inevitable.  Of course not all police officers are
against being given more power and control over our fellow countrymen
each year.

As to the drivers license issue, there are many of the People's
"Servants" that believe it's in the best interest of government that
the People, knowingly or unknowingly, trade their "common law rights"
for "government granted privileges."  Of course a government granted
privilege or permit can be rescinded at any time, and INALIENABLE RIGHT
of the people cannot.


SAVE US FROM "EDUCATED" AMERICANS

As difficult as it is for some officials to adjust to, (officers
included), we now have some Americans among us that "know their
rights."  And, as if that wasn't bad enough, these individuals profess
that - "every right is as important as the next."

Of course they're correct, but, the truth is, we Police officers get a
bit indignant over being told we have erred in the past by ignoring
some of our countrymen's basic rights.  Even so, every police officer
has an important choice to make when it comes to handling the "Freeman"
today.  Several are as follows:

1.  Officers can make it as rough as possible on these individuals who
wish to retain their freedoms.  Officers can come down hard on these
sometimes arrogant, (and perhaps a bit foolish), Americans that are
firmly convinced that they still live in a nation with a government
"of, for, and by the people..."

OR

2.  We can try our best to understand them and their obsessive desire
for "freedom", which isn't illegal as of this writing.  In so doing, we
can try to understand their "reasoning", which is surprisingly very
similar to some of our nation's past Statesmen, like Daniel Webster,
when he reminded our forefathers:

"IF THIS CONSTITUTION BE PICKED AWAY BY PIECEMEAL, (piece by piece), IT
IS GONE AS EFFECTIVELY AS IF A MILITARY DESPOT HAD GRASPED IT, TRAMPLED
IT UNDERFOOT AND SCATTERED IT TO THE WINDS."

Another American recently made this rather radical statement:

"IT IS NOT THE FUNCTION OF OUR GOVERNMENT TO KEEP THE CITIZEN FROM
FALLING INTO ERROR; IT IS THE FUNCTION OF THE CITIZEN TO KEEP THE
GOVERNMENT FROM FALLING INTO ERROR." -- Justice Robert H. jackson,
1954.  (This sounds like SEDITION to a bureaucrat.)

As to "officers choices"...it is more than obvious that if we choose to
support our oaths, and therefore our fellow countrymen's rights, we
will need  great courage.  It will require that "both sides" become
more understanding of each others obligations and duties.  As officers,
you will at times, be sorely taxed and tempted to "correct a particular
attitude forthwith", when a Freeman, Patriot, Constitutionalist, (what
ever the name) rather crudely or rudely expresses their views to you.

It will take great patience to understand that these people are
attempting to regain and save certain rights that belong not only to
them, but, to every police officer and their families.

We must remember that EVERY AMERICAN, (police officers, and freemen
included,) have not just the right but the DUTY to point out perceived
injustices in our system of government.  The truth is, most police
officers would have little respect for any American that shirked this
most important patriotic duty.


HOW TO TELL A BOGUS FREEMAN

I inquired of a very respected and well known Freeman as to how an
Officer could tell a true, died-in-the-flag FREEMAN from a fake.  Here
is a small portion of his response:

"A freeman does not believe he is above the law.  To the contrary.
Those who truly understand, take full responsibility for their own
actions.  They do not drive while under the influence, DUI/DWI.  They
are very cautious in their driving habits.  They obey the rules of the
road.  They take personal responsibility for damage they may cause to
the person or property of another.  They expect the `police powers' to
correct them if they become inattentive or careless.  When observed
committing some act or omission that is a clear endangerment to others,
they will expect to be confronted and if necessary, arrested.

The Freeman's real "bone of contention", according to my friend, "is
the manner in which the government, surreptitiously, converts rights,
belonging to the people, into a government granted, regulated and taxed
privilege.  He further stated, "Freemen object to the use of the
`police powers' as a `revenue enhancement' tools via the cash register
courts."

I explained to him that many police officers feel the same way about
being trained to, daily, hunt, track and capture the unsuspecting
citizen as PREY "bounding-up"; prey for the Courts to methodically
SKIN.  Lastly, the officer objects to being made to take the "HEAD"
(count) of his prey for the precinct wall where hangs the monthly
officer recap or quota sheets.

I further explained that the intelligent, dedicated, Police Officer
resents being the peoples ADVERSARY.  They want to work with the people
as a friend and serve them as their protectors, as was the "Peace
Officers" role of the past.

It seems to be a poor judgement call or a case of misplace priorities,
in the minds of most city police officers, when they are made to spend
a majority of their, "non radio call" time, lurking on street corners,
attempting to track and capture good citizens going about their daily
activities for traffic violations when the real criminal element is in
these same citizens homes and neighborhoods raping, robbing and
burglarizing at will.

After my unexpected little speech, my Freeman friend drew silent for a
moment.  he then looked me in the eyes, as if in disbelief, and said,
"...and where might these fine officers be found?"


A ROSE BY ANY OTHER NAME...

By any name, freeman, Patriot, Constitutionalist, I doubt that there
are many Police officers who don't hope and pray that Americans will
always cry out loudly and take the firmest stand, when they honestly
believe they have grievances with their government.  I hope, for our
nation, and for the sake of our children's future, that I echo the
feelings of most U.S. Lawmen when I say that rather than LESS of these
"loudmouth" concerned Americans, who are not afraid to stand up and be
counted (even if they go to jail or worse), that we need MORE Americans
who care enough to fight for what they believe is right.

As for me, I'm much more afraid of the growing numbers of "SPINELESS,
PUSSY-FOOTIN', LIMP-WRIST, MEALY-MOUTHED, FORKED-TONGUED, COMPROMISING,
PUSH-OVERS" that pass  themselves off for REAL AMERICANS, than I am of
those who, RIGHT OR WRONG, "tell it the way they believe it is", and
stand squarely behind their convictions.  Can I have an AMEN on that!?

It is for this reasons, this editor believes, - we should not fear
these Freeman/Patriots.  Instead perhaps, we should have great concern
for those among us who turn a deaf ear to "voices" that expound the
values that have established this land that we are privileged and proud
to live and raise our families in.

It might very well be said that the strongest evidence that we still
live in the Land of Liberty, would be if these freemen were able to
exercise their rights to speech and to redress the government of their
grievances, without police officers and the courts seeking them out and
persecuting them for being so bold.  (Of course if we could just
convince them to promote something important and wholesome like -- say
-- Satanism, Drugs, Sodomy, Pornography, Marxism, etc., we Police
Officers wouldn't be allowed to touch them.  But, dare to preach the
CONSTITUTION and LIMITED GOVERNMENT and you and I know...they are
asking for big trouble.


ONE FINAL THOUGHT (straight from the editor):

For you BRAVE STREET SOLDIERS who want a truly invigorating experience,
try this:

The next time you encounter, "professionally", one of these unusually
concerned American Freemen who has just told you that he or she is not
required to have a license, (and is now standing by to absorb your
wrath) try ... extending your hand in friendship, put on a smile, and
utter words something like this:

       "My family and I thank you for your vigilance and commitment to
       our liberties, and we hope you will continue to fight and stand up
       for all of our Rights.  May God go with you my Countryman."


RISK POTENTIAL

Yes, there is a risk to such actions taken by a police officer.  Not a
risk to the officer, however but to the "Freeman", who may have a
coronary attack at the scene.

Several officers have written to express their own personal reactions,
after having taken similar "irregular actions" when confronting a
Freeman in an "enforcement" scenario.

One officer said, "...it just felt good", like he had "just pushed some
tea into the harbor somewhere."  Another officer explained it this way:
"...for a fleeting moment...I really felt what it was like to be a
friend of the motorist, instead of playing the role of the plunderous
Sheriff of Nottingham."

I think it's important to note that no officer, after having warmly
greeted and congratulated a Freeman, without issuing a citation, has
reported the earth opening up and swallowing them!


                            ABOUT THE EDITOR

Officer Jack McLamb RET. is one of the a new breed whose dedication to
his job, his country, and it's constitution goes beyond the usual.
Jack's writings to his fellow police officers in the U.S. on
constitutional and moral issues have helped to educate many in the need
to study and put into practice those values that are responsible for
making our nation the foremost bastion of freedom in the world. --
Arizona State Senator, Wayne Stump


               A FREE(?) PRESS as the GUARDIAN OF FREEDOM


Is there any doubt that even the so-called "independent" free press is
no longer a source of valid "truth" and honest opinion?  Could you have
heard the preceding discussed on ANY of the dozens of so-called "news"
shows?

The public media is spoon fed on the government propaganda and public
information through the public relations departments of the national,
federal, State and local governments and transnational corporations.
The sovereign Power structure controls all five big television
networks, including PBS, and CNN.  Most Americans get 90% of their
"news", information and world view from the television.

Most reporters are too busy investigating the private lives of public
officials and celebrities to actually do any legitimate research into
real issues and concerns, real problems that deserve more attention
than who Bob Packwood made unwarranted advances to as a U.S. senator or
what color Bill Clinton's underwear was when he was making lewd sexual
advances to a stranger, or what O.J Simpson was dreaming about the
night before the murders.  Most of the media focuses the public
attention on non-issues. Investigative reporting and truth-saying are
hard and dangerous work for a reporter or editor (if you want to keep
your job).  However, maintaining an independent, free press is
essential to the existence of a healthy republic (a state of affairs
which we have neither of today!)

Public policy is shaped by the image of the issue, not by its reality.
Policy will be what the policy ought to look like, not what actually
solves the problem or addresses the root of the issue.  "Spin doctors"
and "image makers" are at key policy making posts of any government or
corporate public relations department.  These spin doctors make public
policy based on public opinion, then the legislators follow with the
statues.  The "independent" press as the guardians of reality have
abandoned ship.  Journalism has deteriorated into slick entertainment
and sensationalism, even by the vanguards of the media industry.

Citizenship is not a spectator sport -- and the "news" ought not to be
confused with entertainment.

       "There is no such thing at this date of the world's history in
       America as an independent press.  You know it, and I know it.
       There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinion,
       and if you did, you know beforehand it would never appear in
       print.  I am paid weekly to keep my honest opinion out of the
       paper.  Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar
       things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest
       opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job...

       "The business of the journalist is to destroy the truth, to lie
       outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of Mammon,
       and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread.  You
       know it, and I know it, and what folly is this, toasting and
       independent press?  We are the tools and the vassals of rich men
       behind the scenes.  we are the Jumping Jacks.  They pull the
       strings, and we dance.

       "Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property
       of other men.  We are intellectual prostitutes." -- John Swinden,
       former head of the New York Times; toasting the independent press
       at the National Press Club (1953).



                  The 14th AMENDMENT and U.S. "citizen"


As opposed to popular belief, the American Civil War was not fought to
emancipate the slaves.  The Civil War was fought because of a basic
principal; that is: that the individual states within the union of
states, each individually has more power and authority than the entire
federal government, when it comes to governing within the boundaries of
that state.  There is a good and valid reason for this fact -- the
(federal) U.S. Government was never created as an agent of the people.
It was created as an agent of the states.  In fact nowhere in the
original Constitution or Bill of Rights does the government for the
United States of America ever have any jurisdiction over an individual
unless s/he is involved in a dispute with a state of which s/he is NOT
a Citizen, i.e., a dispute in or over a "foreign jurisdiction" (foreign
to the Citizen, but when the Citizen is a citizen of a state of the
United States.)

In attempts to gain control over Citizens, their lives, their property
and their labor, the (federal) U.S. Government kept looking for ways to
assert itself.  When economic conditions in the 1850's began to
deteriorate the southern states with their lack of a diversified
industrial economy were harder hit than many of the northern states.
The banking families of England and France saw this as a prime
opportunity to sow discord -- in the hoped for future opportunity to
possibly split the new nation into at least two major parts.  The red-
herring issue of slavery was rapidly promoted as justification for
imposing further economic sanctions on the south.  Many southern
statesmen correctly identified the efforts of the north as interference
by the national government in their own internal state's affairs, and
they correctly pointed out that the (federal) U.S. government had
absolutely no authority to involve itself in the internal affairs of
the states.

       "The capital and leading object of the constitution was to leave
       with the States all authorities which respected their own citizens
       only, and to transfer to the United States those which respected
       citizens of foreign or other States; to make us several as to
       ourselves, but one as to all others." -- Thomas Jefferson
       ["Writing of Thomas Jefferson" pub by Taylor & Maury, Washington
       DC, 1854, quote number VII 290-98, from correspondence with Judge
       William Johnson, June 12, 1823]

This "argument" rapidly became exploited by several sovereign power
structures in an attempt to split the United States into two separate
countries.  In a strange but interesting twist of fate, Tsar Alexander
II of Russia intervened and threatened both France and England with war
if they invaded, as had been planned, and history clearly credits his
actions with keeping those countries from becoming militarily involved
in our Civil War.

Having successfully raised the issue of slavery to that of an argument
resulting in our Civil War, the 13th Amendment was passed, freeing the
slaves from their physical bondage.

       "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude...shall exist within
       the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."--
       13th Amendment

Now one might ask why the framers of the above needed to include what
first appears as a significant redundancy:  "Neither slavery nor
involuntary servitude..."  Isn't slavery involuntary servitude?  Why
include the second phrase of "involuntary servitude?"

Simple.  The amendment outlaws slavery.  The amendment also outlaws
INVOLUNTARY servitude...not voluntary servitude.  And at that very
moment the 13th Amendment was written, our nation took its first
noteworthy step down the road towards the "Alice in Wonderland", back-
to-front, inside-out, legal perversions of common sense, in short, the
world we live in today.

A world where "must" has more legal definitions than fleas on a hound
(and almost none of them mean that you absolutely have to), a world
where "United States" has three legal definitions, and only one of them
means the government of the country where you and I appear to live, a
world where the difference between Citizen and citizen becomes all
important to understanding who you are and what relationship you have
with your government -- and why.

The reconstruction period after the Civil War involved a military coup
by the (federal) United States government.  Martial and military law
was declared and some say it has not been lifted since the Civil War.
The admiralty flag was placed in many state courts across the country,
although it had been one jurisdiction of federal courts since the U.S.
Constitution was adopted.  Southern senators were taken out of office
by force and replaced with military officers who voted for the 14th
Amendment.  The 14th Amendment was adopted under martial law, and
supposedly when martial law ends, so do all the laws instituted under
military authority.  And further more, since the amendment was "voted"
on by representatives who WERE NOT ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES of the
people, the amendment cannot under any conceivable circumstances be
considered valid or binding today.

The 14th Amendment gave the newly freed slaves very limited "civil
rights" by creating the "U.S. citizen."  (Note the small case "c" in
"citizen"; the first ever use of a lower case "c" in citizen in the
Constitution.)  The first consequence of the 14th Amendment "U.S.
citizen" was to expand the jurisdiction of the (federal) United States
beyond the constitutionally specified 10 miles square (100 square
miles) into the sovereign states and erode state's rights even further
than what had been accomplished via the Civil War (Washington DC is
only 63 square miles).  The 14th Amendment is the backbone of the
constructive fraud perpetrated on the American people to "waive" their
rights and lawful citizenship.

       "While the union survived the Civil War, the Constitution did
       not...in its place arose a more promising basis for justice
       and equality, the 14th Amendment."--Associate Justice
       Thurgood Marshall

Birth certificates, originally required for children of slaves, were
soon after the enactment of the 14th Amendment, required for all "U.S.
citizens" who were, and are, subjects under the exclusive legislative
democracy of the District of Columbia.

       "All 'persons' born or naturalized in the United States, and
       subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the
       United States and of the state wherein they reside."--14th
       Amendment, section 1, clause 1

       "A person is born subject to the jurisdiction of the United
       States...if his birth occurs in territory over which the
       United States is sovereign, even though another country
       provides all governmental services within the territory and
       the territory is subsequently ceded to the other country."--
       3Am Jur 2d, section 1419

       "The word 'citizen' as used in the 14th Amendment is used in
       a political sense to designate one who has the rights and
       privileges of a citizen of a state, or of the United States
       and does not mean the same things as a resident, inhabitant
       or person."--3Am Jur 2d, section 1412, pg 659

Another, but lesser known consequence of the 14th Amendment, but more,
much more, profound, made "economic slaves" of every "U.S. citizen" by
obligating U.S. citizens to pay the debts of the (federal) United
States in exchange for privileges, benefits and "civil rights."  Thus
the (federal) United States could justify borrowing money from the
international bankers and making the U.S. citizens (not the sovereign
state Citizens) accountable for the repayment of the debt.  This paved
the way for the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and the (federal) United
States bankruptcy that followed.  Instead of actually emancipating the
slaves, the 14th Amendment made slaves of every American citizen who
hasn't discovered the monumental fraud.

       "The validity of the public debt of the United States...shall not
       be questioned."--14th Amendment, section 4, clause 1

Have you ever read before now the clause of the 14th Amendment shown
above?  Did you ever wonder at the reason to put into a Constitutional
amendment the prohibition of questioning the public debt?  Where did
the framers of this amendment ever, for even a single minute, get the
unmistakably unconstitutional idea that the legislature could generate
a "public debt" that the sovereign Citizens of this nation could not
rightfully and constitutionally question?(!!)

The 14th amendment was unconstitutional from its inception.

       "Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles
       follow that it impose no duties, confers no rights, creates no
       office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no
       protection, and justifies no acts performed under it...

       "A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.
       An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any
       existing valid law.  Indeed, insofar as a statute runs
       counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded
       thereby.

       "No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law, and no
       courts are bound to enforce it."--16 Am Jur 2d, Section 177

The 14th Amendment served the growing "federalist" movement (and the
sovereign power structure behind that movement) that was slowly, but
purposefully, encroaching upon the citizens of the united states of
America.  The (federal) United States government had every intention of
expanding and exploiting this fraud until such time as there were no
sovereign (state) citizens remaining in any of the sovereign states.

Another purpose of the 14th Amendment, not openly discussed, but a
major purpose non-the-less, was the ability to create legal fictions
called "persons" (e.g. corporations, trusts, etc.) and give these legal
fictions the right to own and hold title to property -- a right which
previous to the amendment could only be conveyed to a living human
being.  A "person" is not, by definition, the same as a sovereign
individual human being.  Your "birth certificate" is an unrevealed
trust instrument which created a legal fiction in the same name as the
one you use, placing you "in commerce with the federal United States
government", effective from your birth date.

So -- you were born and immediately issued a certificate of birth which
allows the federal United States government to regulate your activities
via the interstate commerce clause in the Constitution.  You live and
work in a federal enclave allowing the "exclusive jurisdiction" clause
of the Constitution, (originally intended for only the area known as
Washington DC) to govern your living environment and usurping nearly
100% of your sovereignty and replacing it with federally mandated
conditions and "privileges" instead of the inalienable rights you were
given by your creator.

And why?

To serve the international bankers in their insatiable greed for
control of all the wealth of all the nations of the earth.



                           THE FEDERAL RESERVE

How many commercial uses of the word "Federal" can you think of?  I
live in a relatively small town and in my phone book there is in
addition to "Federal Express", we have "Federal Laundry" and "Federal
Fastener".  There is no copyright nor trademark on the word "Federal",
and the Federal Reserve is no more part of the Federal Government than
Federal Express.

The Federal Reserve is a joint stock trust, a corporation whose stock
is jointly held by its member banks.  The largest of these banks, like
the "Federal Reserve Bank of New York", or the "Federal Reserve Bank of
San Francisco" are majority owned by foreign banking interests.  In
1992, the Bank of England held 52% of the stock of the Federal Reserve.

Since the Federal Reserve makes and sets monetary policy for the United
States, the government and it's people, I wonder if we REALLY won the
Revolutionary War?  Or did we perhaps just slow down the march of
economic servitude with an all too brief an interlude of productivity,
human freedom and dignity on this continent?

Congress unconstitutionally delegated its responsibility for setting
and regulating the value of money to the Federal Reserve.  Did you know
that in 1913, just TWO DAYS BEFORE CHRISTMAS, was when the Federal
Reserve Act was passed by the Senate -- a time when all but 5 or 6
carefully selected Senators had left for home for their Christmas
vacation?  That's right dear reader -- a small handful of corrupted
representatives passed one of the most damaging pieces of legislation
ever passed in this nation's history.

In the seventeenth century, Baron Rothschild said "Give me the power to
regulate the money of a country, and I care not who makes the laws."
And to show you just how powerful the ability to create and regulate
the money is:  From 1787 until 1913, some 126 years, our government,
with brief exceptions had done pretty well managing it's financial
affairs, and had at times amassed huge surpluses of money.  But in the
short span of less than 20 years from the end of 1913 until 1933, our
government went bankrupt.  Absolutely, totally and irredeemably
bankrupt!

And in a carefully crafted corporate take-over, the bankers behind the
Federal Reserve once again co-opted some of our "representatives" into
passing HJR 192, a joint House & Senate Resolution which confirmed the
bankruptcy and set the stage for more legislation turning over more and
more assets of We the People, to the Federal Government who in turn
pledges these assets to the Federal Reserve (owned by foreign banking
interests) as collateral for continued credit.

And remember, according to the never properly ratified 14th amendment,
we are not even supposed to be questioning the federal debt!  Below is
a chart of how money is brought into circulation and where it goes from
there.


                 +------------+
                 | "Money" or |   So-called money is "created" on order
                 |  credit is |   of the Treasury dept, but it is in fact
                 |  created.  |   only a computer entry in a private corp's
                 |            |   data bank, indicating that credit can
                 |  Federal   |   be issued.  This corp. is the Federal
                 |  Reserve   |   Reserve.
                 |            |
      +--<--<--<-|            |-->-->-->-->-->-->-->-->-->-->-+
      |          +-----+------+                               |
     \ /               |                                     \ /
 +----+---------+     / \                                     |
 | This credit  |      |                                      |
 | is "loaned"  |      |                               +------+---------+
 | to the gov   |      +---<---<---+                   |  This credit   |
 | who pays the |                  |                   |  is placed in  |
 | FED interest |                  |                   |  circulation   |
 +------+-------+                  |                   |  by "loaning"  |
        |                         / \                  |  it to banks.  |
       \ /                         |                   |                |
        |                          |                   |  These banks   |
        |                          |                   |  pay the FED   |
        |                          |                   |  interest to   |
        |                          |                   |  have this     |
        |                          |                   |  "money" to    |
       \ /                        / \                  |  loan out to   |
        |                          |                   |  us suckers.   |
        |                          |                   +--------+-------+
        |                          |                            |
        |                          |                           \ /
 +------+--------------+          / \               +-----------+---------+
 |  The government     |           |                |  The bankers        |
 |  puts this money    |           |                |  put this money     |
 |  into circulation   |           |                |  into circulation   |
 |  by spending it     |          / \               |  by loaning it      |
 |  on projects and    |           |                |  to people for cars |
 |  welfare, etc.      |           |                |  houses, etc., etc. |
 |  The actual FRN's   |           |                |  The actual FRN's   |
 |  end up in the      |          / \               |  end up in the      |
 |  hands of common    |           |                |  hands of common    |
 |  folks and corpor-  |           |                |  folks and corpor-  |
 |  ations.            |           |                |  ations.            |
 +-----------+---------+          / \               +-----------+---------+
             |                     |                            |
            \ /                    |                           \ /
             |                     |                            |
             |                    / \                           |
             |             +-------+----------------+           |
            \ /            |                        |          \ /
             |             |  Enter the IRS         |           |
             |             |  which soaks up        |           |
             |             |  all the loose FRN's   |           |
             |             |  and returns them      |           |
             |             |  to their issuer,      |           |
             |             |  the FED!              |           |
             |             |                        |           |
            \ /            +-------+----------------+          \ /
             |                     |                            |
             |                     |                            |
             |                     ^                            |
             |                     |                            |
             +--->------->------>--+--<-----<---------<---------+


Notice 2 important things down at the foot of this money tree.
First, the IRS is the ONLY way FRN's get returned to the FED and
without the IRS, there would be nearly immediate hyperinflation as
the supply of FRN's gathered in the hands of the consumers (because
the government continues to borrow more money than it collects
through lawful taxes).  Secondly, Corporations exist to speed the
movement of money between as many transactions as can possibly be
accommodated, with the effect being, of course, that at every
transaction, some of the FRN's get sucked up as taxes.  Without the
withholding agents, e.g., corporations, the speed at which the
FRN's would be returned would slow rather dramatically.

       "If the American people ever allow the banks to control
       issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then
       by deflation, the banks and corporations that grow up
       around them will deprive the people of all property until
       their children will wake up homeless on the continent
       their fathers occupied." --Thomas Jefferson

       Pretty insightful fellow wasn't he!  Of course, note that the
       mathematics of this scam are such that the "interest" on the
       debt can NEVER, NEVER be repaid.  Why?  Because only principal
       can be borrowed, so no matter how much you (the government)
       borrows, the interest continues to grow.

       There is absolutely no way in the world that this completely
       corrupt system can be allowed to continue to exist.  The Fed
       must go!

History has not dealt kindly with nations whose rulers have
corrupted the currency and indebted the citizens.  Our nation, now
the worlds LARGEST debtor nation, is teetering on the brink of
financial disaster.  Some wonder if the impending disasters are the
result of 80 years of greed and monied corruption, or if they are
simply more of the planning to move the US towards a one world
government, also run and managed by the international bankers.  In
any case, it is up to us, the "common" citizen, the beneficiary of
more than a thousand years of evolving "common" law, to take charge
of our own individual destiny's, take back our nation, our
government and our freedoms.

More than at any time in prior history, the future of mankind
hinges on what you do, or fail to do.  Will your children live in
a tightly controlled, overly regulated police state designed for
the efficient milking of your economic efforts, or will freedom,
dignity and willing cooperation be the milling stones by which
progress is made?

The choice is yours.  The bankers, having invested billions in
propaganda and "training" via the TV and public education, are
watching for your decision; though they feel confident their
machinations are more than enough to overcome the last vestiges of
the desire for individual freedom to pursue life, liberty and
happiness.


                     THE ESSENCE OF GOVERNMENT
                          by Alfred Adask

A recent TV documentary discussed how much arctic tundra had been
destroyed in the former Soviet Union by irresponsible oil drilling
techniques.  Apparently, hundreds, perhaps thousands, of square
miles of fragile arctic environment have been contaminated by crude
oil spills.  Who's responsible?  The former Communist government of
the Soviet Union.  Which is to say no one is responsible.

If you consider the Russian experience, you will see that the
essence of government, all government, is the avoidance of personal
responsibility.

For example, look at the murders of Sam (age 14) and his mother
Vickie Weaver up in Ruby Creek, Idaho, in 1992.  Our Federal
government tried Randy Weaver (Sam's father, Vickie's husband) and
Kevin Harris for the killing of a government agent (they were found
innocent).  However, no government agent was tried for shooting the
boy Sam (in the back) and his mother Vickie (in the head while she
was holding a baby in her arms).

It's no mystery.  The names of the government's killers are known.
But there will be no trials, because government refuses to accept
responsibility for its actions.  Government doesn't try government
agents for killing civilians anymore than "Bloods" (a Los Angeles
street gang) tries fellow "Bloods" for killing Crips (another L.A.
street gang).  The issue is not one of morality, or justice, it's
one of membership.  Us against them.  Will government try fellow
government agents for murdering two civilians?  No.

How 'bout Waco?  About ninety people died, including four
government storm troopers and over 80 Branch Davidians (many of
them women and children).  Our government tried eleven surviving
Branch Davidians (civilians) for the murders of the four government
agents, but who'll be tried for the fiery deaths of scores of
civilians?  Anyone?  Nope.  Why?  Because the issue is not "justice
for all", the issue is "privilege for a select few" -- membership
in government.  Just as the Bloods do not try fellow Bloods for
killing Crips, our Federal government does not try "its own" for
murdering civilians.  Us.....   Against.....   Them.

Big government's avoidance of personal responsibility goes far
beyond the relatively few, but dramatic, instances of civilian
murders.  Who's responsible for buying $200 toilet seats for the
military?  $500 hammers?  Who's responsible for the national
deficit?  Or Watergate?  Who, for that matter, is responsible for
killing President Kennedy?  And who's responsible for the $500
BILLION Savings & Loan loss that will have to be repaid by the
American taxpayers (the same folks who were robbed in the first
place)?

And the answer is (ta-dah!) "No One"!  Ya know why?  Because the
responsible parties in virtually every case are government
employees and officials, and the fundamental purpose of government
is to avoid all personal responsibility.  They call it "sovereign
immunity", judicial immunity", "executive privilege" and a dozen
other names.  But almost always, the government refuses to be held
accountable to the People.  In large measure, government means the
escape from personal responsibility.

The escape from personal responsibility is not only available for
government employees, officials, and politicians -- it's also
available to private (meaning government-approved) citizens.  Look
at corporations:  these "legal fictions" are created by government
for the express purpose of allowing corporate owners and employees
to act without assuming the risk of full, common law, personal
responsibility.

How 'bout government welfare programs?  To some extent, every
welfare recipient is living without the full personal
responsibility of supporting himself.

"Special interests" of big business and the wealthy are likewise
freed by government from the onerous task of earning their living
on a "level playing field" in the free market.  They are "licensed"
(and from Black's law dictionary we find that license means given
"Permission by some competent authority to do some act which,
without such permission, would be illegal.") or given special
privileges that protect them from the difficulties of lawful
personal responsibility.

Even Congressmen specifically exempt themselves from their personal
responsibility of obeying their own social legislation (like Civil
Rights anti-discrimination laws).  And consider our beloved
"licensed" lawyers who, on average, loose 50% of their cases, but
can't be held accountable for being incompetent.  Again, these
quasi-governmental officials are characterized by licenses and
special privileges which always mean reduced personal
responsibility.


                          A CONSEQUENCE OF CENTRALIZED POWER

"Power" is the ability to act effectively.  As government grows,
power is siphoned off from individuals and concentrated in the
hands of fewer and more distant bureaucrats, officials and
politicians.  As government grows more powerful, the People are
increasingly inhibited, restricted and tied down like Gulliver by
the red tape of an army of Lilliputian bureaucrats.

This inverse relationship between government power and individual
power is intuitively obvious:  as government grows more powerful,
the people become less powerful.  As individuals loose power, they
not only lose the ability to act in ways that are harmful, they
also lose the ability to act in ways that are beneficial -- even
when they see things that should be done.

As government grows more powerful, only government can act, and
you, therefore cannot.  If you can't act, then obviously, you can't
be held responsible either.  In fact, I suspect that the terms
"personal power" and "personal responsibility" are virtually
synonymous; you can't diminish (or increase) one without doing the
same to the other.  So government's growth not only reduces your
personal power, it also reduces your personal responsibility.
Therefore, government power is inversely proportional to personal
responsibility.

This inverse relationship between government power and personal
responsibility offers an important insight into the essence of
government and perhaps even life itself.  I'm no Biblical scholar,
but don't Judeo-Christian faiths ultimately advocate personal
responsibility?  Aren't we to be judged by God some day?  Won't
that judgement hinge on some measure of personal responsibility?
Therefore, aren't license and avoidance of personal responsibility
contrary to the fundamental Biblical precept of personal
responsibility?

Moreover, if personal responsibility is God's fundamental command,
then what can we infer about the fundamental nature of a government
that avoids personal responsibility?  Is it illogical to conclude
that in its usual (irresponsible) guise, government is inherently
anti-religious and perhaps even predisposed to Evil?  Is it
possible that as government grows, so does it's propensity to do
Evil?  If so, is it possible that big government might be
inescapably Evil?  Likewise, what can we infer about the motives of
a government that encourages its people to seek license and avoid
personal responsibility?  Isn't that government encouraging them to
turn their backs on God?

On the other hand, if government power and personal license tend to
Evil, wouldn't Freedom and personal responsibility be the essential
goals of God and the prerequisites for a strong society and nation?


                                        FREEDOM

Here in the "Land of the Free", the concept of "Freedom" is
confusing and seldom understood.  Too often, the word "freedom" is
confused with "license" (i.e., the privilege of doing that which
would otherwise be illegal or immoral).  If I am "free", can I
drive 100 mph in a school zone?  Can I drag any woman I choose off
into the bushes and have my way with her?  Does "freedom" mean
living "for free" and never having to pay for my food or shelter
(as in living on welfare)?  Of course not.

We know intuitively that "freedom" does not include the right to do
wrong.  And though that intuition sounds simple, that's a powerful
insight.  Why?  Because if freedom does not include the right to do
wrong, then what could it include?  What's left after you remove
all "wrong"?  Nothing but "right"!

Freedom, then, is the power to do that which is right!


Lemme explain.

If we consider our options as "free" men, we realize that to be
"free" one must first be "responsible".  A responsible person
doesn't drive 100 mph in a school zone.  A responsible person
doesn't rape.  A responsible person pays his bills.  And more, a
responsible person raises his children properly, meets his social
duties and obligations, and works to support himself and his
family.  And remembers to floss.  And helps his kids with their
homework.  And calls mom regularly.  And helps other less fortunate
than himself.  And, and, and....

Damn.  As a consequence of Freedom, personal responsibility is
almost endless.  In fact, if you stop to think about it, there's so
much that each of us should do (but don't), that "freedom" begins
to take on the grimly unattractive appearance of endless servitude
to personal responsibility and obligation.

What's the good of being "free" if I can't get drunk whenever I
want, seduce my neighbor's wife, and call in sick when I wanna go
fishing?  With all these damn responsibilities, what's the point to
being "free"?

If there's no pay-off in Freedom, why not accept government
slavery?  (You don't like the word "slavery"?  OK, we'll call it
"welfare", "entitlements", benefits" or "security" instead -- how's
that, you like it better now?)  But why not?  In the welfare state,
I might not be free, but who cares if I don't have to worry about
paying my rent, having a job, educating my kids, or remaining
faithful to my wife?  Why not kick back, relax, and be a slave
(oops, "welfare recipient"), instead of some up-tight, obsessive-
compulsive "do-gooder" fighting to be "free"?

Answer?  Consider the former Soviet Union.  Perfect example.  Under
the Communist cradle-to-grave welfare state, the Russians seduced
each other's wives, aborted even more babies than we do here in
America, and drank so much vodka they had the highest alcoholism
rate in the world.  They weren't free, but they weren't personally
responsible either.  So why not?  Free food, free broads, free
booze, and you can't be fired?  Sounds like one helluva a system,
doesn't it?

And yet, that "helluva" system collapsed, leaving several hundred
million people impoverished, frightened, starving in some cases,
and vulnerable to civil war.  What went wrong?  Free food, booze,
broads, you can't be fired -- and they blew it!  What could
possible be missing?


                                      SELF-ESTEEM

The dictionary defines "self-esteem" as "an objective respect for
oneself".  Pretty dry but technically on target.  Self-esteem is a
measure of one's self-respect.  Some people have high self-esteem,
some have a little, some have none.  While we seldom notice the
benefits of self-esteem, it's easy to see the adverse consequences
when self-esteem is missing.  Have you ever known anyone who drank
too much, used drugs, slept around, committed suicide, etc., who
had any self-esteem?  In my experience, the absence of self-esteem
is the foundation for all self-destructive behavior.  That being
so, I believe the presence of self-esteem is a kind of "spiritual
vitamin" that is essential for the maintenance of life.

How do we get self-esteem?  Self-assessment.  No one can claim it
for you, no one else can give it to you, no one else can really
take it away.  Only you can grant yourself the award of self-
esteem.  You must respect yourself.  Neither winning nor loosing
(in the eyes of the world) can finally determine one's self-esteem.
Win, loose, or draw, you must know in your heart that you've done
your best.  It's a little like Sylvester Stallone in the original
Rocky movie -- he just wanted to "go the distance".  He didn't have
to win the fight to earn his own self-esteem, he just had to stand
and not quit, to certify in his own mind that he wasn't "just
another one of the neighborhood bums".

Self-esteem is the reward for a successful struggle (usually
against your own fears and the inhibitions against doing right,
that society has placed on you).  You don't have to win, but you do
have to fight to the limit of your ability.  YOU have to fight.
YOU have to struggle.  YOU have to stand up and do what you believe
to be right despite your fears.  If you do, you succeed in
validating yourself, in proving to yourself that you are worthy of
life.

But there is no self-esteem without personal responsibility (YOU
must do your own fighting).  There is no personal responsibility
without individual freedom (you must be free to choose to fight the
battles your heart selects as Right).  There is no freedom under
the centralized power and control of big government (you are denied
the opportunity to engage in a personal fight since all personal
power and personal responsibility have been surrendered to the
government).  By taking our personal power and personal
responsibility, big government deprives us of self-esteem, and
leaves us as rotting flesh, corrupt, stillborn in our souls, and
unless healed, sure to die without ever having lived.  Put enough
people like that in a society, and an entire nation will collapse.
(Witness the former Soviet Union.)


                                BEYOND FLESH AND BLOOD

In the end, all that governments can promise, is to distribute
material wealth.  They will rob the productive, Robin-Hood style,
and give it to the poor (or more likely keep it for themselves).
But in either case, materialism (the supply, demand, and
distribution of food, goods and services) is the philosophy that
lures folks into welfare, entitlements and slavery.  I don't
denigrate materialism as it clearly plays a powerful, productive
role in all societies (which I'll discuss another time) -- but
materialism is not everything. It's only part of life.

Even animals understand this.  Ever heard stories of a wild lion
captured, caged, cared for and well fed that nevertheless simply
lays down, refuses to eat and dies?  Ever heard stories of dogs
that dig and chew at their cages until their claws break and their
jaws shatter?  It happens.  Not always.  Not even often, but it
happens!

It also happens with people.  And with societies, too.  We each
have to earn our self-esteem and the only way that can be done, is
by pulling our own plow.  We must each pay the full price of our
own survival.  "Living free" may not avoid poverty, but "living for
free" guarantees self-destruction.

We are spiritually dependent on our own self-esteem.  Diminish that
self-esteem, and no matter how much free food, sex, booze and
welfare you get, you will wither and die.

Look at the black community.  They sense the problem.  That's why
Jesse Jackson et al are chanting, "Ah'm black and ah'm proud!"
They understand that the black community's "collective" self-esteem
is about zero, so they try to build it up by making the blacks say
they have self-esteem.  Won't work -- not so long as blacks are
among the principal recipients of big government "benefits".  Like
any other slave, blacks may be able to look the part, "talk the
talk" and "dress for success", but in the end, self-esteem can only
be earned, never faked.

In our hearts, we each know if we've made meaningful contributions
to the support of ourselves and those around us.  To the extent we
succeed, we feel self-esteem.  To the extent we fail, we feel
painful self-incrimination and seek to escape into alcohol, drugs,
promiscuity, and similar forms of suicide.

We are more than material beings, we are also spiritual -- and our
spirits sicken and die without self-esteem.  The inability to
provide the governed with self-esteem is the principle weakness,
the "heart of darkness" of every government; they can never feed
our spirits.  Never satisfy our souls.  Never.




                                   ONE-TWO, ONE TWO!

Everyone knows it's important to exercise our physical bodies.  No
matter how well we eat, if we don't exercise, we are not only
weakening our bodies, we are actually shortening our lives.
Scientific fact.

But how many understand that we are more than merely physical
beings?  How many understand that we are as bound by the laws of
God and nature to exercise our souls as we are by biological law to
exercise our bodies?  Just like muscles, our souls also atrophy by
sitting back, cowed by fear, doing nothing.  So how do we exercise
our souls?  By doing Right.

Remember the arctic tundra ruined by the irresponsible Soviets?  No
one was accountable, no one was responsible.  Why?  Do you think no
one wanted to be responsible?  Do you think the Russians simply
laughed with glee as they polluted their own land?  Some probably
did, but what of the Russians who wanted to do the right thing, and
stop the pollution?  Why didn't they act?

Red tape.  Government production demands.  Supply bottlenecks
brought on by government regulations.  They knew what was Right,
but they couldn't do it because big government prevented them.  Big
government prevented them because it was so cluttered with rules,
regulations, forms, and permissions, that it had become too
ponderous and too controlling to even allow immediate "personal"
solutions to relatively small problems.

By taking power from individuals and concentrating it in the hands
of distant bureaucrats, big government stripped personal power and
personal responsibility from the man on scene where the oil
spilled.  Unable to act, a man in the arctic sat there, helpless,
watching the oil spill, unable to do what he knew was Right.  His
self-esteem withered and he reached for a vodka.

Are you free to do what's Right in the USA?  Ohh, you're "free" to
watch TV and get the latest conditioning and propaganda.  And
you're "free" to vote for the liar of your choice.  You're free to
get drunk and smoke tobacco and (if you're careful) use a
"controlled substance".  And don't forget the "freedom" to murder
you own children, provided they haven't been born yet (for as in
Waco, only government can currently murder 'em after they've been
born).  But that's not "freedom", that license!

Can you see your children?  Grandchildren?  Father?  Mother?  Can
you keep enough of the money you earn to give your kids the
clothes, home, parental support and education the deserve?  Hmmm?
Can you even take care of yourself to the degree you know is
necessary and right?  Hmmm?  New glasses?  Hmmm?  Dental care?
Proper food, vitamins and medical care?  Hmmm?  Can you travel
freely, open a bank account without a social security number, talk
on the phone without fear of being recorded?  Hmmm?  Can you raise
a son without wondering if he'll be murdered in some idiotic
foreign "police action"?  Can your children pray in school?  Can
they?  Can you speak out in public without fear of lawsuit and
financial ruin?  When you see a social injustice is there a
responsive public agency to help make it stop, or is your urge to
do right imprisoned within the walls of bureaucracy?

How much can you do that you know to be RIGHT?  That is the measure
of your personal Freedom.

On the other hand, to the extent that you live each day walking by
one injustice after another -- closing your eyes, pretending not to
see, knowing the "system" is too cumbersome and indifferent for you
to act or help -- to that extent, you are a slave.  Ohh, you may be
a well-fed, well-housed slave, but in your gut, you know damn well
your life is empty, worthless, unlived.  Your company dental plan
may be superb, but your spirit is toothless.  Without Freedom,
there is no personal responsibility, no self-esteem, nothing but an
itch to self-destruction.

                                      YOUR REWARD

Freedom is the capacity to do that which is Right.  The reward for
Freedom is self-esteem and Life.

Whoever, whatever, prevents you from doing Right, saps your self-
esteem, kills your soul, and condemns you to a life unlived and an
early grave.  Whatever stops you from doing what you know to be
Right is not only your greatest mortal enemy -- it's also your
greatest spiritual enemy.  And who does more to deny your Freedom
and self-esteem than big government?

Will you live Free with the self-esteem of a man who does Right, or
exist as an irresponsible "licensed" slave with nothing but
intoxicants and regret?  You have the right to choose, you have the
responsibility to choose, you must choose.  Why?  Because this is
the single, most fundamental choice in all of life:  Freedom or
slavery?

But what choice can there be once you understand the difference
between Freedom and slavery?  Remember all the self-destructive
behavior associated with low self-esteem?  Despite the sales pitch
about all those government "benefits" (national health care sure
sounds like a nice idea, doesn't it?), big government and the
consequent loss of personal responsibility and self-esteem can lead
you only toward self-destruction and death.  In the end, the
benefits and bondage of big government are at least hazardous to
your personal health, and probably fatal for the nation.

We don't choose to be Free because it's easy.  Freedom's hard,
sometimes even painful.  We don't choose to be Free because it's
fun.  Freedom can be exciting, exhilarating, and invigorating but
it's not "fun" (at least not in the superficial sense).  We choose
to be Free because Freedom is the prerequisite for personal
responsibility, personal responsibility is the prerequisite for
self-esteem and self-esteem is the prerequisite of spiritual LIFE.
We choose Freedom and personal responsibility as a first vital step
to resurrecting our souls.  We choose Freedom because we choose to
live.  In the end, the choice is not between Freedom and slavery,
but between Life and death.

How will you choose?  How will you choose for yourself?  By your
example, how will you choose for your children?  How will you
choose for your nation?

The world is watching for your decision.  Waiting.  And so, I
suspect is God.

Your life and your nation's life will depend on your choice.


                                     Choose well.
--

 ********************************************************************
  "The strength and power of despotism consists wholly in the fear
  of resistance."
            --Thomas Paine
 ********************************************************************
 [e-mail]
 [phone] (FAX)
 [phone] (VOICE)


------------------------------------------------
(This file was found elsewhere on the Internet and uploaded to the
Radio Free Michigan archives by the archive maintainer.


All files are ZIP archives for fast download.

 E-mail [e-mail])