Exposé of The Big Lie
by John Webster
The
truth is that even our government must be held to basic moral principals.
It cannot be allowed to violate the natural rights of an individual simply
because it used "Due Process". Only when an individual has violated
the natural rights of another does he give up his own rights to life, liberty,
and property, thereby giving government the right to have its way with
him. In all other cases where our government and its law enforcement
agencies have incarcerated or killed people or confiscated their property
it is our government that is the evil villain, and those of us that have
stood silently on the sidelines are accessories to that evil action.
The
forefathers of our government set up a system of checks and balances with
three competitive branches: a legislative, executive (law enforcement),
and judicial; to slow down the process by which that government would
infringe on the rights of the individual. Unfortunately, these branches
of government, while quarreling between themselves about who gets the biggest
piece of the power pie, have reached an agreement on all wanting a bigger
pie.
In
addition, both the legislative and judicial branches of government have
come to realize that it is only through the real power of law enforcement
agencies that their own edicts get any real teeth. So over time the
legislature and courts have established a supposedly "benevolent" police
state. They have given the police more and more power, to give them
the ability to enforce the latest laws that are more and more an invasion
of individual rights.
This
process has proceeded to the point where our Bill of Rights is now little
more than a historical artifact. The police now are free to use active
entrapment to enforce victimless crime laws where their would be no victim
to make a complaint. Gun laws have gotten tighter and tighter and
the police get looser and looser restrictions on being able to search for
and confiscate those weapons by which the people could fight back.
Laws requiring the carrying of an identity card have gotten stronger where
lack of identification is now enough to detain a person. The cards
themselves are carrying magnet strips that allow police to easily locate
an individual's records within a government data base. Law enforcement
agencies are now even rewarded for enforcing the laws with their cut of
the loot from asset forfeiture.
The
assault at Waco Texas was simply a test enforcement to see whether or not
the propaganda had succeeded in convincing the general public that "Laws
are sacred". The government was testing as to whether or not the
people will stand by and allow the continued escalation of government power
even when it involves the killing of children. To add insult to injury,
the survivors at Waco were charged with murdering their attackers for having
shot back.
The
biggest proof that laws are not sacred is that the law enforcement agencies
themselves blatantly disregard the law. In my own experience, I have
seen the courts look the other way when police altered evidence.
The courts even sealed documents to hide police illegal activity.
There just is no incentive for the system to bring charges against a police
officer that is seen (by the system) as doing his job — that of enforcing
government control. The police see the laws not as something that
applies to them but only as tools of their trade to be used and misused
against socially undesirable people and against people that threaten or
ignore the power base of the established legislative, judicial, and law
enforcement branches of government.
Our
government now has only a thin facade of legitimacy. We must strip
away that facade and expose the corrupt center — the lust for power.
Then we must systematically strip away all of its unconstitutional, immoral,
and unjust power so that it once again is the servant of the people not
their master; so that it again protects the rights of the individual
instead of violating those rights.
PIGS
by Sam Aurelius Milam III
Here's
how I understand the present system: when someone is killed and someone
else is suspected of having done it, then the suspect is indicted and given
a trial. There are some things wrong with that system, but that's
the way it's presently supposed to work. In that system, extenuating
circumstances don't prevent the trial. They're presented at the trial,
where they're considered. Based on these and other circumstances,
a judge or a jury rules on the case.
I
watched the news coverage of the recent Congressional Waco Hearings.
I heard with my own ears and saw with my own eyes when Attorney General
Janet Reno accepted responsibility for the conclusion of the Branch Davidian
siege. People were killed during that confrontation. Janet
Reno accepted responsibility.
Sheik
Omar Abdel Rahman is currently being tried in connection with the World
Trade Center bombing. He didn't take part in the action, but merely
(allegedly) directed it. This is much like Janet Reno's position
with regard to the Branch Davidian siege. If Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman
must be tried for the World Trade Center bombing, then Janet Reno should
be tried for the Branch Davidian siege. Her position as Attorney
General, just like any other extenuating circumstance, can be considered
by a jury. The sad fact is that, unlike the rest of us, People In
Government Service can do whatever they want, regardless of the law.
The worst punishment they're likely to receive is suspension from duty
and a letter of censure in a personnel file.
I
believe it's now appropriate for a militia unit to arrest Janet Reno and
hold her in custody until she can be tried before a court of appropriate
jurisdiction. If the militia units are not yet capable of this, then
we need to strengthen them. Decimus Junius Juvenalis (50 - 130 A.D.)
wondered who will guard the guards. The answer is: we will.
 |
 |
