|
|
|||||||
| The People's Voice Lodge your complaints, make your suggestions, or just talk story on this forum. You can post video, audio or written text on anything that concerns you that you want to bring up. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
|
#1
04-06-2009, 04:09 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Militia Manual (the Militia Papers) of the Texas Militia
1. Was Timothy McVeigh connected to the militia movement? 2. No, he was not. He was not really connected to any particular movement. On the "hate" side, he obviously loved "The Turner Diaries" by William Pierce and read The Spotlight, the publication of the extremist and anti-Semitic Liberty Lobby. On the "anti-government" side, he attended a couple of militia meetings and half-heartedly attempted to start a militia group in Arizona, which came to nothing. He never really joined anything, either as a card-carrying member or even an explicit endorsement. This is also one reason why there was little support for McVeigh, simply because no one viewed him as one of "their own. The media uses him to falsly convey an image of lawless militias bent on destruction and murder. The Oklahoma City bombing was carried out as a planned assault on the Constitutional Militia Movement. INDEX: http://www.constitution.org/mil/tmp.htm by the Constitution Society: Constitution Society, 6900 San Pedro #147-230, San Antonio, TX 78216, 210/224-2868
When asked what the Militia was, George Mason, one of the Framers of the U.S. Constitution, said, "Who are the Militia? They consist now of the whole people, except for a few public officers." Yet we also see statutes like 10 USC 311, which defines it as "all able- bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 13 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States." Some state statutes define it as "able-bodied males" of different age ranges, such as 16 through 59. These statutes also divide the Militia into various classes, such as "organized" or "unorganized", in the case of 10 USC 311, or "active" and "reserve", as many states do, with "active" being considered the National or State Guards, but not the national armed forces. To understand how these definitions have arisen, one must first understand what the Framers of the U.S. Constitution had in mind for the new Republic they had created. They allowed for a standing national army, but insisted that it be kept small, and although it might be the first force to be called out, and the only force to be sent abroad, the primary defense of the country was to be the duty of ordinary citizens, who would be kept in a state of military readiness while leading their normal lives, and who would be called up to "repel invasions, suppress insurrections, or execute the laws", for limited periods of time. At the time the Constitution was adopted in 1789, the well-established tradition was for local militia units to be kept in a state of readiness in each and every community. Such units were organized and trained locally, perhaps led by the local town or county officials, but otherwise independent of official control when not actually called up for service. When lawmakers tried to define the "militia" by statute to consist of less than the entire body of citizens, they were defining those citizens who would be required to be kept in a state of readiness, as was done in the Militia Act of 1792, which required able- bodied males age 17 through 44 to keep a "musket or firelock". However, persons younger than 18 and older than 45 regularly responded to call-ups of the Militia and were accepted as part of it. There were even some women who participated. The Framers also insisted on a distinction between the "genuine" Militia and a "select" militia, which they viewed as a danger, just as much a danger as a standing army. They did not want a militia whose members might consist of anything less than the entire people, or at least able-bodied ones in a certain age range, because if selected on any other basis, they might be used to oppress other parts of the population. Actually, George Mason provided the best definition. It only needs to be broken out into various classes, representing the order in which persons would be called out for military service. Qualifications like "able-bodied" or "male" or "age 18-44" only establish who would be first called to service, with the expectation that they would be adequate for almost any situation, but it allows for calling up other persons if needed. This suggests a hierarchy of classes:
It should be noted that the obligatory militia is usually defined to exempt certain public officials, and perhaps persons with certain occupations, whose usual duties are considered essential. Choice of words can be indicative. 10 USC 311 lumps the ready and reserve militias into what it calls the "unorganized" militia, with the implication that it is to remain unorganized, since no provisions for organizing and training the ready militia are given, contrary to the intent of the Framers. Militias are local and independent Often heard are arguments about whether militias are state or national, but the militia, like citizenship, is fundamentally local. We are first and foremost citizens of our local community. The word "citizen" has the same root as the word "city". Although people may also be concurrently citizens of larger political entities, such as states or the nation, and although those entities may be considered to be composed of their citizens, they are essentially composed of localities, and it is the local community that is the basis for the social contract, although it may be considered to include a certain amount of surrounding territory. Today we would usually identify the locality with the county. Just as militias are essentially local, so also are they essentially independent of established authorities, since the militia may have to challenge or bypass those authorities if they abuse their authority or fail to perform their lawful duties. The legal basis for assemblies of militias are two natural rights: the right to assemble and the right to keep and bear arms. Combined, they are the right to assemble bearing arms. The Framers considered it obvious that rights which could be exercised separately could be exercised in combination, and would have thought present attempts to outlaw independent assemblies of militia units as absurd. The term "well-regulated" used in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution did not mean "regulated by some official". It meant "well-trained and disciplined". A militia can and should be self-regulated. The U.S. Constitution, in Article I Section 8, does provide for States to organize and train their militias according to standards established by the U.S. Congress, and to appoint the officers, but it was not the intention of that clause to authorize states to forbid local organization and training of militia units, but to require that they be organized and trained. If the state fails to do so, people have not only the right but the duty to organize and train themselves locally, using their own arms. Just as they have the right and duty, failing action on the state level, to conduct elections, enforce the laws, establish courts, and so forth. Of course, a militia unit that is not called up by any official, but by its own members, does not have the authority to compel participation through some kind of sanction, such as the imposition of a fine. Therefore it will be composed of volunteers, who may not represent a cross-section of the general population. In this situation, the militia members must make a special effort to avoid having the militia unit take on the attributes of a private association, such as by always calling up the militia using public notices, and allowing any responsible citizen to participate. It must also avoid any suggestion of partisan or sectarian bias, and limit itself to constitutional actions. To do this, a militia unit should always refer to itself as the "[state/county] militia" and not adopt a name that would suggest some kind of private association, something that would expose its members to legal action against it as a legal "person" or as a "conspiracy". There can't be a conspiracy of the entire population of an area, and a court can't serve the entire population with process, even if not all of them are present at meetings. Organizing strategy Militia units of 50-200 members should be organized at the local level, by going house by house, covering entire neighborhoods, towns, and counties. This will initially be easier to do in rural areas, where people are already more receptive to the patriotic message. In urban areas, it may work better to start by organizing "neighbor hood associations", then educating the members gradually until it can be converted into a self-conscious militia unit. Co-ordination among local units should be done using correspondence committees, which is the traditional method. These committees do not attempt to act as regional,, state, or national organizations, but only to facilitate communications among local units, the sharing of literature, and the building of a consensus for action. Some units might try to publish newsletters or other documents, but in most cases, it will be better to publish through established magazines and various alternative media, and distribute extra copies. Members may agree to subscribe to media that co-operate in publishing supporting materials. Dealing with official resistance For some time now the Establishment has discouraged the formation of armed groups, including independent constitutional militias. They don't want the "unorganized" militia to become organized. Besides legal and illegal harassment, militia leaders must prepare participants to deal with attempts to infiltrate militia units. This can take three main forms:
It is also important to try to establish good relations with local and state officials, to the extent possible. Work with them to help them solve the problems of the community, and encourage them to ask the militia to assist them. Resistance from such officials should be countered by getting better ones elected or appointed. Subjects for action One of the most important subjects for action by local militia units is investigation of election fraud and other kinds of official corruption. It will do little good to try to elect better officials if elections are rigged, and if they are, the militia may become the only way for citizens to secure their rights. If such fraud is found, it will also help to build public support for further militia action and for greater participation. Another key subject is to inform citizens of their right and duty, when serving as jurors in cases in which the government is a party, to judge the law and not just the facts in the case. No matter how despicable the defendant in a criminal case or how heinous the offense, the jury must find the defendant not guilty if the law under which he is charged is unconstitu tional or misapplied. It is unconstitutional if it violates a constitutional right, is not based on a power delegated to government, or is so vague that honest people may disagree on how to obey or enforce it. It is misapplied if it is applied to acts outside its proper jurisdiction, such as a federal criminal law applied to acts committed on state territory, or to acts not intended to be included by the lawmakers. One of the most important subjects for action will be to establish an alert system for warning of abuses of citizens by organs of the government, and mobilizing to defend them. It must be emphasized that it is not enough for citizens to defend their rights in isolation. Only if they band together can their rights be protected. Education in constitutional law must also be a priority. Every citizen must be trained to interpret the constitutionality of laws and official acts, and taught that doing so is the responsibility of each individual, that it cannot be delegated to others, such as judges or superiors. That is the Lesson of Nuremburg. Special attention needs to be given to educating lawyers, judges, officials, and college and high school students. Militia members need to make sure that every public library contains suitable books and magazines that provide education on these subjects. References: [] Morgan Norval, ed., The Militia in 20th Century America: A Symposium, 1985, available from Gun Owners Foundation, 5881 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041. [] Stephen P. Halbrook, That Every Man Be Armed, 1984, available from the Independent Institute, 134 98th Ave, Oakland, CA 94603. [] James M. & Kenneth F. Collier, Votescam: The Stealing of America, 1992, available from Victoria House Press, 67 Wall St #2411, New York, NY 10005. [] Try to find like-minded persons in your area. Ask around. Try patriotic organizations, such as the VFW and the American Legion. Sound out people at gun shows and gun stores. Ask if there is already a militia activated in your area or if anyone is considering it. Put out notices for interested persons to contact you. [] Form a Safety Committee. Having found a few like-minded persons, meet together, share materials, and agree to issue a militia call-up. [] Pick a suitable date, time, and place for the first muster. It should commemorate some historical event. Ideally, it should be in a highly visible location, within the municipal limits of a major community, and on public property. [] Try to have a notable speaker or stage an event that will appeal to the media. Be creative. Although the first muster will primarily be an organizing meeting, it is also a media event and should be staged that way. [] Publicize the muster. Post public notices in the local newspaper of record, on the courthouse public notices bulletin board, and in the newsletters of sympathetic civic groups. Mail and fax press releases to the media, especially talk radio stations. Try to get on as a guest of major talk radio programs, and call in announcements of the muster during listener call-in periods. The notices should answer the questions: Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How. Send along supporting documentation. [] Compile patriot mailing lists. Enter them into a computer database if possible, or prepare mailing label masters for producing self-adhesive mailing labels for repeated use. [] Prepare draft by-laws, regulations, and guidelines. Adapt them to your local situation. Make enough copies for the number of persons you expect to attend, and try to get the documents out to them in advance to save time trying to read them at the first meeting. [] Mail announcements to as many people in your area as you can. The advertisements and radio broadcasts are important, but many people will also need something in their hands that they can read that will motivate them to attend. They need to come with some common understanding of what a militia is, how it can be organized, and what it might accomplish. You might include the draft by-laws and regulations in the mailing if you can afford the postage and copying costs. [] Invite local officials and representatives of military and law enforcement organizations to attend. Try to involve them from the outset, to reassure them and win their support. [] Prepare documents to be handed out at the muster. They should provide information and instruction on all the points that may be of interest and concern to the attendees. Make enough copies so that everyone can get one set, and make some extras for persons who could not attend. [] Conduct the muster. The first order of business will be an introductory speech, followed by adoption of by-laws, regulations, and guidelines, then the election of the commander and other officers. [] Give attendees an opportunity to speak. Let them voice their experiences, their feelings, their understanding of the situation, and their hopes. Build a resolve to recruit more participants, train them, and conduct more musters. [] Elect a Safety Committee and a Correspondence Committee. Get the names, addresses, and phone numbers of participants. Pass out materials. Collect contributions toward the expenses of the muster and to pay for notices of future meetings. Agree on the date and place for the next meetings of the committees and perhaps of the next muster. Adjourn the muster. [] Followup publicity. Issue press releases to the media. Visit reporters and explain what you are doing, providing them with literature. Get on talk radio and television. [] Assist in activating the militia in neighboring counties. Encourage attendees from neighboring counties to go back and activate the militia in their own counties. Send organizing teams on a tour of the state and nation to find and motivate local leaders to do the same. Establish correspondence committees linking local militia units at all levels. [] Set up regular training sessions and camps. Initially, each of these may need to serve a multi- county region. Shooting ranges, especially those that can simulate combat. Tactical military training. Police training. Emergency and medical training. Survival training. Seminars on constitutional law, on jury powers and duties, on investigation of official and corporate corruption and abuse, and on reform measures. [] Set up an alert system. Establish and exercise a telephone tree. If feasible, set up neighborhood sirens or other sonic alert signals. Establish alternative communications networks, such as amateur radio, line-of-sight comm links, visual signals, and couriers. Establish links to the broadcast media, and contingency systems in the event that the media are shut down. [] Either publish a newsletter or use an existing one. Sometimes several counties can combine their efforts in a regional newsletter. Maintain a steady flow of information and guidance to supporters. [] Get on the Internet. Share information and plans with others across the country and around the world. Pass on the information to people not on the Internet through newsletters and handouts. [] Recruit officials and civic leaders. Make sure all of them are informed of what you are trying to do, and make sure you know where each of them stands. Insist on strict construction of U.S. and State constitutions according to the original intent of the Framers, and make sure they know what that means. Line up both the high officials and rank and file of law enforcement and military organizations. Identify supportive judges and lawyers. Work to defeat opponents and replace them with supporters. [] Set up regular booths at public events. Gun shows, fairs, conventions, political rallies. [] Operate a speakers' bureau. Get your best speakers to speak before civic and other groups at every opportunity. [] Do some fun things. Parties, picnics, and other events for the entire family. [] Enforce the law. Investigate official and corporate corruption. Infiltrate corrupted agencies. Recruit whistleblowers. Protect witnesses, investigators, and their evidence. Get grand juries to bring indictments. Expose wrongdoing. Concentrate on vote fraud, corrupt judges and law enforcement officers, and other offenses that would not ordinarily receive official attention or that are being covered up. [] Secure entire areas against attack. Make it infeasible for criminals of any kind to attack people in certain defensible areas, which can serve as safe havens for larger areas. Establish defensive perimeters around persons or organizations that might be particularly subject to attack. And establish mobility and secure communications in the event area security cannot be maintained. [] Roll back unconstitutional legislation. Work on legislators. Pursue cases in court. Get rid of abusive officials. Go after the special interests that are the ultimate source of corruption and reduce their power. A: It was best defined by George Mason, one of the Framers of the U.S. Constitution, who said, "Who are the Militia? They consist now of the whole people, except for a few public officers." Q: If they're the whole people, why do we need a special word like "militia" to refer to them? A: The Militia is the people in a certain capacity, as defenders of the community and enforcers of the law. In that capacity, they are expected to have and use the tools needed to perform that role: personal weapons, and particularly firearms. Q: Isn't that what we have the military and police for? A: Yes, we do hire some of us to perform these duties on a full-time, paid basis. But that does not relieve us of the power or the duty to perform those duties when the situation calls for it. Q: Power? Don't the military and police have powers ordinary civilians don't have? A: Yes, the police have special powers to enforce certain regulations, like traffic regulations, that civilians don't have. And the military can engage in combat operations on foreign soil representing the United States. But all citizens have general powers to repel invasions, suppress insurrections, and enforce the laws, the three duties of the Militia, just like the military and police. They just don't do it on a full-time, paid basis. Q: Come on. If I tried to go out and enforce some law, wouldn't I be subject to arrest for something? Like impersonating an officer, or maybe obstructing justice? A: Not if you only tried to enforce the laws that civilians have the power to enforce, which are laws against felonies and more serious misdemeanors, and didn't misrepresent yourself as an officer, who outranks most civilians, and who therefore is authorized to issue orders to civilians in situations where he is present and is himself acting in accordance with law. As for obstructing justice, anyone, including a law enforcement officer, can do that. Everyone involved is expected to cooperate with one another in enforcing the law and not jeopardize one another's legitimate efforts. That applies to everybody, officers and civilians alike. When there is disagreement about how best to do that, the dispute is ordinarily resolved by deferring to the officer with the highest rank, but he may be out of line. Ultimately, it is up to the courts to decide who is obstructing whom. Q: So don't federal law enforcement officials outrank state officials, who outrank local? A: No, each can investigate and apprehend under all the same laws, just as any citizen can. The problem arises with the attempts by the federal government to extend its authority to act against "crimes" that it does not have the constitutional power to prosecute, and to try such cases in federal courts. The Constitution delegates only very limited criminal prosecution powers to the federal government for acts committed on State territory: treason, counterfeiting, and crimes on the high seas and against the laws of nations (that is, war crimes). It has broad legislative authority on federal territory, which includes State land ceded to the federal government by a State Legislature, but there is very little of that left since Hawaii and Alaska joined the Union. It does not include land that is merely owned by the federal government, nor does it include land on which some activity is conducted that is regulated by the federal government. The federal criminal laws which have been enacted which are not on the above list are ostensibly based on the constitutional power of the federal government to "regulate" interstate commerce, but it was never the intent of the Framers that the power to regulate was the power to prosecute criminally, nor was "interstate commerce" intended to include everything that ever crossed a state border, or might cross a state border, or is done by a party that operates across a state border, or that might "affect" interstate commerce. This "interpretation" of the interstate commerce clause is clearly unconstitutional, and amounts to amending the Constitution by statute instead of by the amendment procedure the Constitution prescribes. Q: That may be the way things once were, back when this country was founded and during the frontier era, but does the concept of the Militia have any relevance for today? A: As much as it ever did. This country still faces threats from foreign enemies. Maybe not invasions on the ground from a foreign army, but terrorists, guerrillas, and criminal gangs, either foreign or domestic, are a growing threat. Urban riots are always possible, and looters are a potential threat following natural or manmade disasters. The police can't be everywhere, and rising crime means that everyone must be prepared to act on his own or in cooperation with other citizens to enforce the laws until the professionals can assume control of the situation. Everyone must also be prepared to perform emergency services until emergency professionals can take over, sometimes under circumstances in which they must also be prepared to use armed force. Q: Come on! I'm not trained or equipped to act as a policeman, a fireman, or a paramedic. How can I be expected to do that? A: Because you are an American citizen, and it goes with being a citizen, whether you like it or not. What you need to do is get trained and get equipped. Q: Come on! It takes those guys years to learn those skills. Wouldn't I just be doing more harm than good if I tried to get involved? A: No one is expecting you to jump into a raging river to save someone from drowning if you don't know how to swim, but what you should do is learn swimming and lifesaving. Likewise, you can learn other skills that may be needed, and keep some of the tools you might need. For a reasonable investment of time and money, most citizens can prepare themselves to function effectively in most such situations, sometimes even better than the professionals. For example, statistics show that in shootouts against criminals, law enforcement professionals are five times more likely to hit innocent bystanders than armed civilians are. Part of this may be due to the civilians being on the scene first, and therefore knowing who the bad guys are and are not, but it also indicates that civilians are more careful, and often more skilled. Many civilians are also skilled in the unarmed martial arts, skills that many law enforcement departments actually forbid their members from learning and using, fearing lawsuits. Q: Are you really saying we should all carry guns all the time? A: Most of the time, yes. It's not that difficult. After a while, you barely notice it. Q: Wouldn't there be a lot more deaths and injuries from firearms if everyone carried them all the time? A: Well, we don't say everyone should always carry one. Obviously, some people shouldn't. But they are exceptional. Most people will carry them safely and responsibly, with a little training. Of course there will be some additional incidents if most people carry most of the time. Professional police and military have accidents and incidents, but we don't disarm them, because on balance we are better off if they carry most of the time. Same with most other civilians. On balance most of us will be better off if most people carry most of the time, after receiving training, and with regular practice. In a large population of people, there will always be a certain number of injuries resulting from the possession and use of any common implement. But firearms, with proper use, are remarkably safe. Statistics show that injuries are more likely to be caused by common appliances like toasters and vacuum cleaners than by firearms. Q: You are talking about handguns, but what about military-style semiautomatic rifles, such as those banned under the recent Crime Act? Are they really good for anything but killing people? A: In a sense, all functional firearms are for causing potentially deadly injury to their targets, but their primary purpose is to provide a credible deterrent against criminal attack. In a tactical situation in which both parties are armed with semi-automatic or full-automatic weapons, such weapons shift the balance in favor of the defender, and partially offset the advantage of surprise enjoyed by the attacker. It is not practical to carry them everywhere, but in many situations, like defense of a fixed position, such as one's home or workplace, they can provide the margin of survival. It should also be pointed out that military- style rifles, whether semi- or full-automatic, are the primary weapons for use in performing militia duties, and therefore bans against such weapons are in violation of the provisions of the U.S. Constitution, such as Art. I, Section 8, and the Second Amendment, which provide for the Militia and recognize the right to keep and bear arms. Q: What does the U.S. Constitution say about Militias? A: Art. I, Section 8, provides that the U.S. Congress can adopt regulations for organizing and training of the Militia, but that the organizing and training of the Militia, and the appointment of its officers, shall be done by the States. The Second Amendment mentions the Militia as an important reason why the people have a right to keep and bear arms. Q: So, what do federal laws say about how the states should organize and train their Militias? A: Not much. They define who may be required to respond to a call-up of the Militia by the President. In 10 USC 311, what we might call the obligatory militia is defined as "all able- bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 13 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States." But they don't say anything about how the States should organize and train their Militias. The States are left to do so on their own. Q: So, what do State constitutions and laws say about organizing and training their Militias? A: Again, not much. They define what most of them call the reserve militia, usually as "able- bodied males" of age ranges that vary from one state to the next, typically as 16 through 59. Some of them also provide for a State Guard, which is a full- or part-time organization which is what the Framers of the Constitution called a select militia. Not the full Militia. Q: What about the National Guard? Aren't they the Militia? A: A part of it, yes, as we all are. But although they are available to the State for certain purposes, they are organized and funded under the constitutional authority to raise armies, not the authority to call up the Militia. As such, they are part of the national military, not what the Framers meant by the term Militia. Q: Wait a minute. You first defined the Militia as the entire population, except for a few officials. Now we have these laws that define it as "able-bodied males" within a certain age range. Which is right? A: Although everyone is in principle subject to being called to Militia duty, it has long been felt that few situations are likely to arise in which absolutely everyone would need to be called up. Therefore, the law tries to identify a subset of the entire Militia that may be required to keep arms and to be kept in a state of readiness. In the event of an actual call-up, these would also be joined by volunteers who, while not falling within the definition of who may be required to be thus prepared and to respond to a call-up, would respond anyway and who would be an asset. We call the first group of those who may be required to stay ready and to assemble the obligatory militia. We call the volunteers the voluntary militia. The combination of the obligatory militia and the voluntary militia is the ready militia. That is what the Framers of the Constitution had in mind when they used the term Militia. They envisioned a militia system like that of Switzerland. Q: Well, if neither federal or state laws call for the organizing and training of the ready militia, does that mean they are prohibited? A: No. A few state laws prohibit armed groups, but the legislative history of such laws shows that they were directed at criminal gangs , not at the organizing and training of the Militia by local leaders or officials. Any such laws would be unconstitutional if interpreted in that way. Q: So, who has the authority to call up the Militia? A: Anyone can call up the Militia. Anyone at all. Historically, the call-ups have usually been issued by local officials, such as sheriffs or mayors, but in the absence of action by such officials, the people can assemble on their own initiative, called up by anyone who offers a credible reason to assemble. Q: Wow! You mean I could call up the Militia in my area? A: That's right. Indeed, if you are aware of some situation that requires the Militia to be called up, then you are obliged to issue a call-up if you can't get some official to do so. Q: Wouldn't it cause some alarm to a lot of people if we did that? A: It might. That is why it is a good idea not to wait until an emergency occurs before you do it. The Militia should be kept in a state of readiness between emergencies. That way people will not see the call-up as something unusual and alarming. Q: Aren't there laws against alarming people that could be used against any unofficial assemblies like that? A: Longstanding constitutional precedent is that one has to actually direct arms against an innocent person and specifically threaten him for it to qualify as "alarming the public". And the person has to be innocent. If one has reasonable grounds to believe that he has or is about to commit a crime, then an armed threat may be appropriate. Q: Wouldn't such armed assemblies of the Militia, or at least such part of it as responds to the call-up, be vigilantes if they tried to do that? A: No, vigilantism is the improper assumption of the role of judge, jury, and executioner, not the role of investigator or apprehender. Q: What about the rights of the accused? Where do they come in here? A: The Militia is obliged to treat the accused the same way the police are expected to treat them. That means informing them they have a right to remain silent and to be represented by an attorney. They must use no more force than is necessary to prevent them from either escaping or committing a crime. Q: All this is fine in theory, but when was the last time the Militia was actually called up officially? A: The President last called up the Militia on the West Coast in 1942. Q: What about unofficially? A: Depends on what you would consider a call- up, but a notable example occurred in Athens, Tennessee, in 1946, when a group of returning veterans discovered that the sheriff was stealing the local election. They issued a call-up, and laid siege to the court house. Despite a great deal of gunfire on both sides, no one was killed. The sheriff surrendered, and the Militia provided for an honest count of the votes. Dealing with vote fraud is a proper Militia role. Q: Was that really necessary? Couldn't they or others in a similar situation use peaceful, legal methods to enforce voting laws? A: Not necessarily. There may be no one to enforce the law except the Militia. The crime may be a conspiracy of local, state, and federal officials who can effectively block any official enforcement action. There is evidence that most computerized elections are subject to being rigged at any time, and that they are rigged with some regularity, at the direction of parties on the national level that control official law enforcement agencies at all levels. Of course, the rigging is very subtle. It can be done right under the noses of pollwatchers. Investigating such rigging is a somewhat involved operation, but it can be done, and should be before resorting to Militia action. The same situation may occur with other kinds of official corruption or abuse. The Militia may be the only honest law enforcement activity remaining. Q: Are you saying that the main purpose for reviving the Militia tradition is to fight official abuse and corruption? Have things really come to that? A: Sadly, yes. Most people are blissfully unaware of how bad things have become, or prefer not to see it or think about it. But it is approaching the point where more and more of them will be unable to sustain their state of ignorance or denial. It would be better to act now before things get much worse. The longer we wait, the more likely that there will be violent conflict, and we really don't need another civil war. Q: Can you provide evidence of any of this? A: There is plenty of evidence. It is readily available for those who want to make a little effort to find it. The sponsors of this document can direct you to much of it. After you read some of it, and talk to government insiders who are providing information to patriotic citizens about what is going on, you will readily understand why it is now time to activate the Militia across the country. Q: My god! This sounds like you are proposing to overthrow the government. What do you hope to accomplish by doing this? A: There is reason to believe that the U.S. Constitution has already been effectively overthrown by a conspiracy centered in the intelligence and military establishments, with ties to the financial, industrial, media, and criminal establishments. We seek to restore constitutional governance, hopefully by balancing the power of this cabal with armed militia units in every state and linked together across the country. That, and exposing their operations to public view, will hopefully bring reform without the need to resort to violence, just as it happened in the former Soviet Union. Q: The Constitution already overthrown? C'mon. Who's going to believe that? Maybe there is more and more corruption and abuse, but everything seems normal, for the most part. A: Yes, the conspiracy is secret and subtle. It tries to avoid abusing too many people or people who are too prominent, but just try to expose it or raise these issues, and you will soon discover that you live in a police state and not in a constitutional republic. Q: Maybe it is better to just not try to expose it or raise these issues, but keep a low profile and hope this conspiracy will overlook me? A: Well, leaving aside the fact that to do so is to betray what generations of Americans have fought and died for, and that such a position is dishonorable and cowardly, evidence indicates that whoever you are, a low profile won't help you. Sooner or later, you will have to face it. Better now than later. Now we can prevail. Later it may be too late. Q: Look, it's not just me. I have a family to think about. Maybe I should just join this conspiracy you talk about? A: Join a conspiracy that depends on secrecy to survive? You don't join them. They recruit you. If they don't, there's no way in. And no protection for you even if you do join them. They are not noted for protecting their own people. Deals with them are Faustian bargains, long on promises and short on delivery. That is one reason we are getting more and more defectors, despite the personal dangers. You have to ask what kind of country and world you want your children and grandchildren to live in. Q: It all seems so incredible. What could these people want that would cause them to overthrow the Constitution? What more could they get that they don't already have? A: They may be driven by fears of losing what they have, or they may foresee some crisis they feel will require them to have more power than they already have. What did the Nazis want? Or the Italian fascists? Or the Japanese in WWII? Or Stalin? To us these fascists, for that is what they are, collectively, seem irrational. But they were not strong on reason or wisdom. The allies may have won WWII and the Cold War, but fascism is alive and well and running Western countries, including our own. References: [] Morgan Norval, ed., The Militia in 20th Century America: A Symposium, 1985, available from Gun Owners Foundation, 5881 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041. [] Stephen P. Halbrook, That Every Man Be Armed, 1984, available from the Independent Institute, 134 98th Ave, Oakland, CA 94603. [] Rodney Stich, Defrauding America, 1994, available from Diablo Western Press, Inc., PO Box 5, Alamo, CA 94507, 800-247-7389, $27.25 Ppd. [] James M. & Kenneth F. Collier, Votescam: The Stealing of America, 1992, available from Victoria House Press, 67 Wall St #2411, New York, NY 10005, $10.00 Ppd. Most American citizens are aware that the U.S. Constitution guarantees certain rights and limits the powers of government. However, it also imposes certain duties, not only on organs of government, but on each citizen. One of these duties is to function as members of the Militia, and the state has the duty to organize and train citizens to so serve. The U.S. Constitution provides for this in Article I, Section 8: Congress shall have power ... To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;The Framers contemplated that the citizens who compose the Militia would provide their own weapons, which is reflected in the Second Amendment: A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.It is important to understand that the prevailing practice at the time the Constitution was adopted was for people in each locality to organize as independent local militias and to train themselves. The only change the Framers sought to make was to make this organization and training more systematic, along the model of Switzerland. They never imagined that future governments might try to restrict the local organization and training of independent militias by contending that people had the right to assemble and the right to keep and bear arms, but not to combine the two rights. To them that would have seemed absurd. U.S. legislation on the Militia In 1792 President Washington tried to get Congress to fully implement the constitutional requirement for organizing and training the Militia, but Congress, wanting to avoid the expense imposed on the states, only agreed to pass a law that required every able-bodied [free] male to keep a "musket or firelock". This was the Militia Act of 1792. By failing to require organization and training, it laid the basis for the decline of the Militia tradition. In 1903, the Militia Act of 1792 was superseded by the Dick Act, which established the National Guard system, and made a distinction between the "organized" and "unorganized" Militia, reflecting the attitude that the Powers that Be didn't want most of the people to get organized as independent militias, despite the support for universal military training from most U.S. Presidents up to the administration of Harry Truman. The Dick Act is encoded in 10 USC: United Stated Code (USC) TITLE 10--ARMED FORCES
Texas law on the Militia The Texas Constitution once had a strong provision regarding militias: Article 16. Section 46. The Legislature shall provide by law for organizing and disciplining the militia of the State, in such manner as they shall deem expedient, not incompatible with the Constitution and Laws of the United States.This section was deleted. The effect of this is that such authority reverts back to local communities. Present statutes are encoded in Texas Government Code Chapter 431: Subchapter A. General Provisions 431.001. Definitions 431.010. Organization ProhibitedSubchapter D. Texas State Guard 431.051. Supplemental MilitiaSubchapter F. Service and Duties 431.081. Persons Subject to Military Duty; Persons Not Eligible to EnlistNow, what about that Section 431.010 prohibiting military companies or organizations or parades within municipalities? It clearly expresses hostility to independent local militias within municipalities, but it has no penalties, and does not apply to rural areas. It's main intent seems to be to discourage local officials from calling up the militia. The only statutes which local officials might invoke against a militia muster within a municipality would be those against exhibiting a firearm in a way that "alarms" the public. However, centuries of common law makes it clear that merely carrying firearms is not to be considered "alarming". The arms must actually be brandished toward someone in a threatening manner. This would not prevent arrests on this ground, of course, but successful prosecution is unlikely if the courts follow the law and the Constitution. Some of these points are more fully discussed in 29 Tex. Jur., Sections 4 and 5, and in 12 Tex. Jur. 3d., Sections 12-28. The only significant case law involving this statute is a federal case, Vietnamese Fishermen's Ass'n v. Knights of the Ku Klux Klan (D.C. 1982) 543 F.Supp. 198, in which the plaintiff invoked the state statute in a federal suit for injunction against the defendant. The injunction was granted, and the judge took advantage of the case to write an opinion on the interpretation of the state statute. However, that opinion has no stare decisis effect, because this was not an appeal, nor was the judgement appealed. The injunction was properly granted under common law against intimidation, but a federal judge had no real business interpreting state law. However, it is indicative of how that judge might decide the constitutional issues in other cases. The case does, however, underscore the importance of distinguishing between private associations and public militias, and of making sure that any constitutional militias that may be organized take care not to take on the attributes of a private group. Too many people, including authorities, have examples in mind like the KKK, and we must always make sure to distance ourselves from such partisan organizations, and, indeed, indicate that the suppression of such groups is one of the things that a real militia might be called up to do. There is another statute that arguably involves the Militia, the Texas Disaster Act of 1975, which has among its purposes, "providing an emergency management system embodying all aspects of predisaster preparedness and postdisaster response. See 12 Tex. Jur. 3d. Sections 51-53. If fully implemented, the organization of local militia units seems to be required under this Act. Conclusions Present U.S. and Texas law clearly fail to implement the requirements for organizing and training the Militia established by the Framers. However, we must also recognize that this failure goes all the way back to 1792, and that such organizing and training are, therefore, left to the people themselves, in the form of independent local militias, which they have a constitutional duty to maintain in a high state of preparedness, even if they get little support from the authorities, and indeed, especially if they get opposition from the authorities. So who are the enemies that now threaten what we have so long defended? Drug lords? Terrorists? Hungry hordes of foreigners? Economic or ecological collapse? Nuclear proliferation? Space aliens? No, some of these things may pose serious challenges, but none of them are as deadly as a cancer of fascism that is grasping for power within the very institutions that we founded to keep us free. We fought World War II against countries that had allowed themselves to be taken over by fascism, and we thought that we had defeated fascism when we won that war. But we didn't. We have comforted ourselves with the delusion that our democratic traditions are too strong to allow such a thing to happen here, that even in the deepest economic crisis we would remain true to the principles on which this country was founded. Could the government of the United States be overthrown by a coup? Nonsense, most people would say. There is no one in sight who might try such a thing, nor any reason why anyone would want to. If they tried, they would fail. No one would follow them. The military, the people, would never stand for it. Maybe. But suppose that almost no one knew it was happening, or recognized it for what it was? Could the Constitution be overthrown a little at a time, over a period of decades, or overthrown in secret, allowing the external trappings of constitutional governance to continue while the real power was exercised behind the scenes by persons no longer accountable to the people? Skeptics will laugh and say that Americans have long entertained themselves with fantastic conspiracy theories, and that when they find evidence that such conspiracies might actually be taking place, they are only reading their vivid imaginings into ordinary events. Maybe not. We have the evidence that for more than 60 years much of the legislation that has been passed, and much of what officials have done, is in substantial violation of the Constitution. Federal and State governments, especially the Federal, have assumed powers that have no foundation whatsoever in any of the provisions of the Constitution. These powers are justified as needed to deal with various kinds of "bad guys", whatever is the flavor of the month, but they are increasingly being used to deprive good guys of their rights. We see even the most beneficial of programs being turned into avenues of corruption and abuse. Officials continually test the tolerance of the public, trying to see how much they can get away with. It is not just a few rogue governmental of corporate officials, overcome by greed or zeal, who pose an occasional threat. The culture of entire institutions is becoming criminal in both execution and intent. Is this a conspiracy to overthrow the Constitution, or mere "emergent behavior" that, while it may pose a threat, is not conscious or deliberate? Emergent though it may be, it can no longer be said to be unconscious of its true role, and it is too tightly coordinated not to bear the name of Conspiracy. A few decades ago, if you asked many of those involved about compliance with the Constitution, most would make excuses, saying that it was only bending the Constitution a little, and that the needs of the moment justified a little flexibility until the crisis was over. But no one would openly say that the Constitution was not the sacred ground on which our system of law and justice was founded. Now you can hear, more and more, an attitude of contempt toward the Constitution by those sworn to defend it. We have more and more reports of officials saying, "F___ the Constitution!", and getting away with it. And we, the people, do let them get away with it. Asked why he didn't argue against a piece of proposed legislation that it would be a violation of the Constitution, a member of Congress once said, "If I insisted on complying with the Constitution, I wouldn't stay in Congress very long." So the provisions of the Constitution become just so many special-interest pleadings, to be ignored or discarded if no pressure is brought to bear to sustain them, to be compromised with the winds of politics change. Thomas Jefferson once suggested that we ought to have a revolution every 20 years, and that the Tree of Liberty needed to be occasionally watered with the blood of patriots. One has to wonder whether the blood of patriots will again have to be shed to get people to take the Constitution seriously again.
... the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations, and no other crimes whatsoever; and it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," therefore the act of Congress, passed on the 14th day of July, 1798, and intituled "An Act in addition to the act intituled An Act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States," as also the act passed by them on the -- day of June, 1798, intituled "An Act to punish frauds committed on the bank of the United States," (and all their other acts which assume to create, define, or punish crimes, other than those so enumerated in the Constitution,) are altogether void, and of no force; and that the power to create, define, and punish such other crimes is reserved, and, of right, appertains solely and exclusively to the respective States, each within its own territory.This is the classic Jefferson quote in which he succinctly states the constitutional limits on the powers of the central government to prosecute persons under criminal law for acts committed on state territory. He does not get into the "general legislative powers" of Congress over federal territories, which have been reasonably interpreted to allow broad criminal jurisdiction, but the Constitution clearly states that such jurisdiction extends only to territory not the territory of any state. One might also argue that the constitutional provision that empowers the federal government to guarantee to the States a republican form of government confers powers of criminal prosecution in the event that the federal government had to step in temporarily to govern a state in which government had failed to maintain a republican form, in which case it would be governing the state as a kind of federal territory for the duration of the emergency. The only other exception is a power to discipline military personnel for acts they might commit, including those on state territory. However, this power would not extend to nonmilitary government officials, who would be subject only to federal civil remedies or removal from office, or criminal prosecution under state law. Federal "territory" does not include property owned in fee simple by the federal government that lies within state territory, nor property on which activities are otherwise subject to regulation as interstate commerce or for excise or import taxation, neither of which create "federal territory" unless the land has been ceded to the federal government by the state legislature, nor do the powers to regulate or tax provide authority for criminal penalties (disablement of life or liberty), only for civil penalties (disablement of property). Apply this standard to most of the statutes passed during the last 60 years or to the federal agencies and regulations established during that period, and it is clear why constitutionalists see a conspiracy to incrementally overthrow the Constitution. The constitutional guarantees of civil rights won't protect us if the restrictions on governmental powers are not strictly enforced. Those who imagine they can support only the provisions they like and ignore violations of others are deluding themselves. Citizens have failed to do their duty to independently determine the constitutionality and legality of official acts. They have been all too willing to delegate that duty to courts, superiors, or legal advisors. The Principle of Nuremberg is that the duty to make such a determination cannot be delegated. The U.S. Constitution was meant to be understood and enforced by every citizen, according to the intent of the Framers, and not according to the passions of the moment. We have seen what happens in other countries, like the old Soviet Union, when an otherwise good constitution is not enforced by every citizen. This is especially important when courts become corrupt, and interpret the Constitution in ways that serves not the people but their would-be masters. It is becoming increasingly apparent to American citizens that government is no longer being conducted in accordance with the U.S. Constitution, or, within states, according to state constitutions. While people have recognized for more than 150 years that the rich and powerful often corrupt individual officials, or exert undue influence to get legislation passed that favors their interests, most Americans still cling to the naive belief that such corruption is exceptional, and that most of the institutions of society, the courts, the press, and law enforcement agencies, still largely comply with the Constitution and the law in important matters. They expect that these corrupting forces are disunited and in competition with one another, so that they tend to balance one another. Mounting evidence makes it clear that the situation is far worse than most people think, that during the last several decades the U.S. Constitution has been effectively overthrown, and that it is now observed only as a façade to deceive and placate the masses. What has replaced it is what many call the Shadow Government. It still, for the most part, operates in secret, because its control is not secure. The exposure of this regime and its operations must now become a primary duty of citizens who still believe in the Rule of Law and in the freedoms which this country is supposed to represent.<1> Transition to Oligarchy It is difficult to identify a single date or event that marks the overthrow, but we can identify some critical steps. The first was the Dick Act of 1903, which repealed the Militia Act of 1792 and tried to relegate the Constitutional Militia to the National Guard, under control of what is now the U.S. Defense Department. The second was the Federal Reserve Act, which established a central bank only nominally under the control of the government. Further erosion of constitutional governance was motivated by several challenges which the powerful felt required them to put aside their differences and unite. The first was the Great Depression of 1933-1941. The second was World War II and the threat from fascism, followed by the Cold War and the threat from Soviet imperialism and from communism. The third defies credibility, but cannot be avoided. UFOs and aliens. Despite the lack of hard evidence accessible to ordinary citizens, there is enough testimonial evidence to compel a reasonable person to conclude three things: UFOs exist, they are intelligently directed, and they are not ours.<2> Even if that were all that the government knew about them, minds already paranoid from the Cold War could hardly help but perceive such things as a significant potential threat, one that required secrecy, preparation, and disregard for provisions of a Constitution that were inconvenient. There are, however, enough leaks from government officials to indicate that the government knows a great deal about them that it is concealing from the public. The fourth is the eco-crisis, which combines both the ecological and economic crises. Many leaders have recognized for a long time that we are headed for disaster, not a kind of cyclical downturn like the Great Depression, but an irreversible decline brought about by a combination of resource depletion, environmental degradation, and overpopulation, playing out in an anarchic international system of disparate nation- states, national currencies, national banks, and multinational corporations, exacerbated by traditional tribal rivalries, class conflict, and different languages and religions.<3> Confronted with the political fact that to deal with the problems faced in the last half of the 20th century, it was difficult enough to pass legislation thought to be needed, without having to also adopt the amendments to the U.S. Constitution necessary to make such legislation constitutional, it became too easy to just adopt more and more legislation without worrying about its constitutionality, and depend on compliant officials and judges to go along with it, which for the most part, they have done. This was facilitated by the lack of sufficiently strong protests from the people, many of whom, ignorant of constitutional rights and limitations on governmental powers, and focused on the problems to be solved, supported much of the legislation.<4> We can also identify several insidious developments which seemed necessary and harmless at the time, but which led to the present situation. One was the rise of military and civilian intelligence organs during World War II. The need to prevent leaks of military secrets brought a censorship apparatus that gained substantial control over the flow of information through the press, the broadcast media, telephonic and telegraphic communications, and the mail. However, instead of dismantling that apparatus when the war was over, we immediately transitioned to the Cold War, and the information control apparatus only went underground and became somewhat less obtrusive. This led to the present situation in which the intelligence apparatus maintains effective control over the major media, can tap anyone's phone without a court order, reads people's mail, monitors their finances, and gathers information on citizens and their activities that threatens their privacy and liberties. 1947 was a critical year. It was the year in which UFOs became a matter of public concern, and in which it appears we recovered at least one crashed vehicle and perhaps at least one of its occupants. It is also the year that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was established, ostensibly to bring together the disparate intelligence agencies that had often been operating at cross-purposes. It was also the beginning of the use of "black budgets" for government programs, the existence of which was kept secret from both the public and most if not all members of Congress. This led later to the establishment of more agencies, such as the National Security Agency, whose entire budget was black, thus preventing effective oversight. The situation had evolved to the extent that, at the end of President Eisenhower's second term, he warned in a speech of the potential danger to our freedoms from a "military-industrial complex". In fact, by that time, it had become a "intelligence- military-industrial-financial-political-media- criminal" complex, which reached into almost every institution in this country, and into many around the world. What had developed was beginning to look more and more like the system of political control that prevailed in the Soviet Union, in which real decisions of government were made not by the official organs of government, but by the parallel structure of the Communist Party, backed by the KGB. In competing with the Soviets, we had taken on their methods and attributes of political control. But this apparatus did not seem to function as an effective Shadow Government, able to make and enforce decisions apart from the official government, until it came together to assassinate President John F. Kennedy. That was the watershed event. After that, too many people had too much to hide to allow the situation to return to governance as usual. Since then, the Shadow Government has grown and tried to strengthen its grip on every sector of the society, motivated in part by honest concern about the very real threats we have faced, and in part by venality and greed, which brought increasing corruption and the effective incorporation of organized crime into the mainstream of government. It appears that 1963 is also the year in which the Establishment Media sector of the Shadow Government was given effective control over computerized voting in the United States, through its National Election Service, as part of a deal in which they went along with the coverup of the Kennedy Assassination through the Warren Commission. While campaign money continued to buy influence over elected officials, if it was not sufficient, the Shadow Government had other options. It put officials in compromising situations, then used its evidence to blackmail them into compliance. Failing that, it could easily select the winner of any election, and suppress the support which third-party candidates might attain. Structure and Decisionmaking A key question about the Shadow Government is how does it make decisions and carry them out. Where is the center? Some think it lies in a few major financial institutions. Others that it lies in the intelligence apparatus. Still others that it has no permanent center, but operates by consensus, with shifting factions that confer through various mechanisms. Some think that those mechanisms are reflected in public associations such as the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the Tri- lateral Commission, the Bilderbergers, the Federal Reserve, the World Bank, or the International Monetary Fund.<5> That the key personalities in every major institution should associate and confer through various associations is not in itself a matter of concern, if all that was involved was the development of a consensus. But there is evidence that a centralized decisionmaking process exists, because too much is done that could not otherwise occur, and that the process is contemptuous of the Constitution and increasingly willing to violate it. That suggests a permanent apparatus, a bureaucracy, and that points to the intelligence and financial bureaucracies. Therefore, the real decisions may be made not by public figures, but by faceless persons operating in secret. Most available evidence indicates that the center is in the intelligence apparatus, and that it largely controls all the other components of the system, including the financial. However, it also appears that the control is imperfect, subject to resistance if it tries to go too far. It also appears that there are some distinct factions involved, the two major contenders being those more highly motivated persons concerned about meeting the challenges we face, the other being the more corrupt ones trying to expand their power and wealth. The alliance between these factions appears to be increasingly strained as growing corruption begins to impair the effectiveness of the institutions of society to meet the perceived challenges. An analogy might be to a sinking ship, in which some want to build and equip lifeboats and others who want to make sure they are the ones who get to go in them. Each needs the other, for the time being, but the latter are beginning to threaten the production and seaworthiness of the lifeboats. What we have is in many ways a classic oligarchy, with multiple components in an uneasy alliance with one another. No one individual is paramount, and anyone can be replaced if he gets too far out of line, by some combination of the others, each of whom derives his power from the institutions and assets under his influence. Of course, the ones who get trampled under this regime are the ordinary people, who receive just enough under the deal to keep them quiet. The Powers That Be fear above all that the people might rise up and overthrow them, something that the people could still do if they could ever act in concert. Social control therefore becomes a matter of keeping them placated, divided, and misinformed. Unfortunately for their scheme, they face the same problem the Roman Empire did. To keep the people placated, they are forced to pay them off, and meet increasing demands for such payoffs, while growth of the productive sector falters, or even shrinks relative to the population. Economic growth and the solutions to our social problems are being impaired by the depredations of the corrupt elements of the Shadow Government, who are concentrating assets in a way and at a rate that threaten the viability of the economy. The Romans solved the problem of keeping their citizens supplied with bread and circuses by predation of outlying provinces. Modern capitalist nations tried the same thing, but that imperial order is breaking down, and the only thing left is economic growth. If that growth falters, the welfare state fails, and with it the social stability on which the Established Order depends. Shadow Finance Some of the best indications that the Shadow Government is not centered in the financial sector are the things it has to do to finance itself. Shadow Government is expensive. We can identify the main sources of its revenue: (1) Black budgets. This is the core of its operations, but is not enough to secure its control over the country and the world.Shadow Control The problem with secret government is that to remain secret, it cannot involve too many people who are aware of the situation. The more that become involved, the greater the chance that some of them who retain some sense of honor might defect. An occasional defector can be disabled, killed or discredited, but a flood of them could be disastrous. That is what brought down the Bolshevik regime in the Soviet Union. Shadow control therefore consists largely of the placement of shadow agents in key positions in all of the institutions that are to be controlled. Since they cannot reveal their true role, they are also somewhat constrained in the actions they can take. What they do has to fit their jobs and not conflict in an obvious way with the mission of the organization, even if they head it. Some of the main targeted institutions are the following: (1) Top and key lower positions in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. Key judges, especially presiding judges who assign cases.Concentration of Power A major aim of Shadow Government control has been to bring most of the assets and revenues of the economy under the control of fewer and fewer people. Part of this is causing the failure of smaller organizations and the absorption of them by a few large chains. This is being done with banks and other financial institutions, newspapers and magazines, television and radio stations, agriculture and mining producers, distributors and retailers, computer manufacturers, energy and chemical companies, medical providers, and pharmaceutical companies. Anti-trust enforcement has been weak, used only in a few sectors, and then only after major concentrations of economic power has already been achieved. The process goes beyond normal tendencies toward monopoly or restraint of trade, or the economies of scale that support the old adage that "the rich get richer". It is an attempt to consolidate political control. The result has been for a smaller and smaller proportion of the population to control a larger and larger proportion of the assets and revenues of the economy, while the middle class shrinks. We are moving away from the original model of the universal middle class, and toward a third-world model of a small upper class and a large poor class, with a small middle class that mainly serve as minions of the rich. The Shadow Plan The Shadow Government appears to be operating according to some plan. Many commentators have dubbed this plan the "New World Order", suggested by the use of that phrase in a speech by George Bush, referring to the state of affairs following the end of the Cold War. Actually, that phrase goes back to the beginning of the Republic, and appears on the Great Seal of the United States as the motto, Novus Ordo Seclorum. What the Shadow Government itself calls the plan is uncertain, however, some of its elements are now emerging. One element is the disarming of the people.<10> There are serious plans and preparations for a general warrantless sweep of every location in the country to confiscate weapons. Information about these plans comes from military and intelligence personnel who are involved in preparing to carry them out. Such an action would mean seizing more than 300 million firearms from more than 70 million citizens. Obviously, after such a sweep there would be so much public outrage that there could not be another election. Therefore, it would also be the formal overthrow of the Constitution. There are indications that after things settled down, the Shadow Government would allow the establishment of a parliamentary system that would provide a façade of democracy, just as it does in other countries that have such a system, without effective limits on the powers of government, where "rights" endure only as long as there is a sufficiently strong constituency that defends them. Such a system is not a republican form of government, based on the Rule of Law, or a representative democracy, but merely a tool for control by an oligarchy. There is also suspicious circumstantial evidence that part of the plan is the release of diseases, of which HIV/AIDS is one, to reduce the world population, selectively. A key part of the plan seems to involve the development and use of mind control techno logies, both electronic and chemical, which allow the elite to disable or discredit dissidents and keep the people compliant and productive. The experimentation that has been done on this is one of the great coverups and abuses of human rights of our time, far exceeding that of the radiation experiments that are now coming to light.<11> Restoring Constitutional Governance The restoration of constitutional governance need not require a violent revolution, and we should avoid violence if possible. It can be brought about in much the way it happened in the Soviet Union. This involves several elements: (1) Exposure ("glasnost"). The Shadow Government, even more than the old Soviet regime, depends on secrecy. Uncover it and it loses most of its power. We need to end black budgets, require the declassification of most classified documents, especially those pertaining to UFOs and aliens, and adopt and enforce sunshine laws to require full disclosure of not just meetings and agreements among officials, but also among major organizations of all kinds which may exercise an undue influence on political decisions. We must also require independent audits of all such organizations.Conclusion The myth is that World War II ended with the defeat of fascism, but what really happened is that fascism got a grip on those fighting it, and is becoming increasingly pervasive and powerful. As it grows, it will induce a reaction, the outcome of which will be a final confrontation. We can all hope that the confrontation will not be a bloody one, and that it will be resolved while we still have time to solve our other pressing problems. <1> See Reed & Cummings, Compromised: Clinton, Bush and the CIA, 1994, Shapolsky Publishers Inc, 136 W 22nd St, New York, NY 10011, 212/633-2022. Also see Bartlett & Steele, America: What Went Wrong?, 1992, Andrews & McMeel, 4900 Main St, Kansas City, MO 64112; and Walter Karp, Liberty Under Siege, New York: Franklin Square, 1993. <2> See Timothy Good, Above Top Secret: The Worldwide UFO Cover-up, New York: W. Morrow, 1988; Alien Contact: Top-Secret UFO Files Revealed, New York: W. Morrow, 1993. <3> For a fairly comprehensive treatment of such views, see Albert Gore, Jr., Earth in the Balance, New York: Houghton-Mifflin, 1992. Also see Paul Ehrlich, Population/ Resources/ Environment, San Francisco: Freeman, 1972. <4> For one treatment of American history that goes into this, see Clarence B. Carson, Basic American Government, 1993, American Textbook Committee, Route 1, Box 13, Wadley, AL 36276. <5> There is abundant literature on this theme, most of it lacking hard evidence. An example is Gary H. Kah, Enroute to Global Occupation, 1992, Huntington House Publishers, POB 53788, Lafayette, LA 70505. <6> One author has identified such public authorities as the Shadow Government, but it seems more likely that they are just a part of it. See Donald Axelrod, Shadow Government: the hidden world of public authorities and how they control $1 trillion dollars of your money, New York: Wiley, 1992. <7> For a couple of sanitized depictions of this agency, see Loch K. Johnson, America's Secret Power: the CIA in a democratic society, New York: Oxford, 1989; Rhodri Jeffreys-Jones, The CIA and American Democracy, New Haven: Yale, 1989. <8> This is discussed in a paper by Martin Cannon, The Controllers: A New Hypothesis of Alien Abductions, 1990, 8211 Owensmouth Av #206, Canoga Park, CA 91304. $6.00. <9> This is documented in Collier & Collier, Votescam: the Stealing of America, 1992, Victoria House Press, 67 Wall St #2411, New York, NY 10005. $10.00. <10> One discussion of this is William R. Tonso, The Gun Culture and its Enemies, 1990, Second Amendment Foundation, James Madison Building, 12500 N.E. Tenth Place, Bellevue, WA 98005. <11> This is documented in a paper by Julianne McKinney, Microwave Harassment & Mind- Control Experimentation, Electronic Surveillance Project, Association of National Security Alumni, PO Box 13625, Silver Spring, MD 20911-3625, 301/608-0143. $5.00. <12> For a general discussion of this, see Morgan Norval, The Militia in 20th Century America: A Symposium, 1985, Gun Owners Foundation, 5881 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041. Also see Stephen P. Halbrook, That Every Man Be Armed, 1984, Independent Institute, 134 98th Av, Oakland, CA 94603. <13> For a comprehensive treatment of constitutional history and law, see Bernard Schwartz, The Roots of the Bill of Rights, New York: Chelsea House, 1980. <14> The ways this might occur are discussed in Joseph A. Taintes, The Collapse of Complex Societies, New York: Cambridge, 1988. <15> For some views on needed reforms, see Martin Gross, A Call for Revolution, New York: Ballantine, 1993. During the past several decades, American citizens have become increasingly aware of corruption and abuse in this society, both official and corporate. Many by being the victims of it, or by personally knowing its victims. Others through the many exposes that have been written. However, most of these provide only anecdotal evidence. What is missing are estimates of the extent of this corruption, and the costs of it to our country. Such estimates must of necessity be very rough, as reliable statistics are generally not accessible if they exist at all, but we can come up with working numbers until better ones become available, based on both public and insider information. Market Corruption. This covers all those commercial transactions made not on the basis of price or merit but as the result of bribes, kickbacks, or extortion. It includes rigged bids on construction contracts, excessive prices on items sold, labor padding, and bribes paid to secure peace with labor. It also includes the excess costs of red tape intended to prevent such abuses, which would not be necessary if the threat were not as great, although such measures seldom prevent waste or abuse and often serve more to cover up the abuse than reduce it. In many jurisdictions, such corruption is endemic, and few if any areas avoid it. It has been variously estimated that such corruption adds between 5 and 15 percent to the cost of all goods and services. The latter figure is probably closer, and it may even be higher. A general excess cost of 15 percent is the equivalent of a tax to the average worker, with a median annual income of $23000, of $3450 per year. If made available for productive purposes, that could be expected to increase the number of jobs by about 10 percent, or about 12 million jobs, which would be more than enough to absorb the entire unemployed population of the U.S., estimated to be about 10 million, and could also be expected to raise average income by about 10 percent, and add about .5 percent to the average annual growth of the GDP. Narcotics. Illegal drugs are estimated to drain about $200-300 billion from the economy each year, which amounts to about 4-5 percent of the GDP. Contrary to disinformation about a "war on drugs", that volume of trafficking is made possible only by official protection or participation, probably at least 80 percent of it. It is estimated that about 40 percent of all cocaine and heroin is smuggled in directly by such federal agencies as the CIA, DEA, and FBI, especially the CIA. The "war on drugs" is only to keep prices high, limit competition, and deceive the public. Some of the money is used to finance covert or illegal government operations, but much of it is used to enrich officials, international bankers, and to acquire assets. The results of that acquisition is to bring an increasing proportion of the economy under the control of criminals, and with it increasing political power. To the direct costs of the drugs must be added the costs in increased crime, law enforcement to deal with that crime, and the cost in lost lives, health, and property. Taken together, we can estimate that the aggregate cost amounts to about 12 percent of the GDP, 80 percent of which is attributable to official corruption, equivalent to a tax of about $2300 per year for the average worker. It can be estimated that more than half of that money is not returned to the economy as consumption or new investment, but is used to acquire existing assets without creating any new value, resulting in a loss to the economy of about 8 million jobs, or almost as many as the number of unemployed. It also makes a major contribution to the balance of payments deficit, perhaps as much as $40 billion a year, since most of the money is removed from the U.S. and only returns from abroad to acquire assets or purchase U.S. government bonds, the interest on which is then repatriated abroad. This balance of payments deficit increases the cost of imports to U.S. consumers, especially oil, which is the major product imported, which in turn contributes to increased costs for everything. At the same time it increases the capital available for creating jobs abroad that compete with U.S. workers, further contributing to unemployment, far more than the effects of reduced tariffs. Raiding. This covers a variety of attacks on productive assets, including financial institutions, businesses, and individuals, by corrupt parties, including several agencies of the U.S. government. The largest category of this raiding was the contrived collapse of the savings and loan industry, mainly under the direction of the CIA and Justice Department. Thrift institutions were induced to make bad loans to members of the conspiracy, then taken over, looted, and seized, their owners wiped out, and their assets sold to the conspirators at firesale prices, paid for with the same money obtained by the bad loans. This process placated the public during the 1980s by stimulating a real estate boom, which created a brief period of prosperity, but led to the recession of the 1990s when the real estate boom failed. It is estimated that the collapse of the thrifts diverted about $1 trillion from productive use, about half of which went into the offshore coffers of the CIA and other corrupt interests. It resulted in an increase in the national debt which may cost the average worker about $2000 a year for the next 50 years, and will cost the economy about 8 million jobs a year over that period. Lesser but still important forms of raiding include bankruptcy fraud, not just the kind in which the bankrupt commits fraud, but the kind in which parties who file for Chapter 11 protection have corrupt judges and trustees contrive to cause them to lose all their assets, which are then bought up by cronies of the judges and trustees for pennies on the dollar. Again, the CIA has played a prominent role in orchestrating this kind of raiding. Another approach to raiding is done by having subsidized government-owned businesses called proprietaries compete with ordinary businesses, forcing them into financial distress, then manipulating their financing sources to force them to liquidate or sell. Once the agencies gain control of the businesses, they either loot them of their assets and cover their tracks by putting the business into bankruptcy, or else continue to operate it and to bring strategic sectors of the economy under agency control. Again, the CIA has been one of the major agencies doing this. It is estimated that this approach is costing the economy more than $100 billion a year, or about 1 percent of GDP. It also results in increased unemployment as looted or sold businesses lay off workers, and although many of them get other jobs elsewhere, there is a net loss during the period they are unemployed, and a loss in reduced wages after they do get other work. Legal abuse. This is essentially a conspiracy of most of the legal profession against the public, resulting in an excess of legal costs over what they should be of about 80 percent, which in turn increases the costs of goods and services by about 2 percent, on the average. In some cases, by much more. For example, about 70 percent of the cost of a new aircraft is due to the cost of liability insurance, which is the indirect result of this legal conspiracy. It also takes other forms. Attorneys often sell out their clients to the opposition, resulting in their clients losing their cases. They also often conspire to defraud the heirs in probate, manipulating appraisals and diverting the assets to themselves or their cronies. More than half of all judges are compromised, and pervert the judicial process to serve the interests of the Power Elite. Vote fraud. Most computerized elections can be rigged whenever the Shadow Government chooses to do so. It goes through the motions of influencing elections with large contributions and manipulation of the mainstream media, but if those methods fail, the voting machines give the result that was predetermined. This results in a terrible cost of a loss of public confidence in the political process and the legitimacy of the established institutions of society, a loss of morale and confidence, and reduced cooperation and compliance with voluntary taxation. [] Rodney Stich, Defrauding America, 1994, available from Diablo Western Press, Inc., PO Box 5, Alamo, CA 94507, 800-247-7389, $27.25 Ppd. [] James M. & Kenneth F. Collier, Votescam: The Stealing of America, 1992, available from Victoria House Press, 67 Wall St #2411, New York, NY 10005, $10.00 Ppd. The Social Contract and Government The fundamental basis for government and law in this system is the concept of the social contract, according to which human beings begin as individuals in a state of nature, and create a society by establishing a contract whereby they agree to live together in harmony for their mutual benefit, after which they are said to live in a state of society. This contract involves the retaining of certain natural rights, an acceptance of restrictions of certain liberties, the assumption of certain duties, and the pooling of certain powers to be exercised collectively. Such pooled powers are generally exercised by delegating them to some members of the society to act as agents for the members of the society as a whole, and to do so within a framework of structure and procedures that is a government. No such government may exercise any powers not thus delegated to it, or do so in a way that is not consistent with established structures or procedures defined by a basic law which is called the constitution. While it is possible in principle for such a constitution to consist entirely of a body of unwritten practices, traditions, court decisions, and long-established statutes, in practice no such basic order can be considered secure against confusion or corruption if it is not primarily based on a written document, which prescribes the structure, procedures, and delegated powers of government, and the retained rights of the people, and which is strictly interpreted according to the original intent of the framers. Although in principle the procedures may allow for the direct adoption of legislation by vote of the people, this is both impractical and potentially dangerous, especially to the rights of minorities, so that it is generally best that most legislation require approval at some point in the legislative process by a body of elected representatives rather than by direct popular vote, and that any such legislation be subject to judicial review, whereby legislation not consistent with the constitution can be voided. Such a form of government is called a republic, as distinct from a democracy, in which all legislation is adopted solely by direct popular vote. And if it operates under a well-designed constitution, it is a constitutional republic. Origins of the Social Contract Critics of social contract theory argue that almost all persons grow up within an existing society, and therefore never have the choice of whether to enter into a social contract. Not having a choice, they say, makes any such contract void. The original proponents of the social contract theory, John Locke, David Hume, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, answered these critics, but not in a way that is entirely satisfactory. To understand how the social contract comes about, we need to look at the kinds of contract that prevail during each stage in the development of a human being in society. Each of us begins life under the terms of a special kind of social contract called a filial contract, between a child and his parents, and by extension to his siblings. That contract is established at the moment of bonding between parents and child following birth, and the terms of the contract are that the child will provide the parents certain pleasures that come with parenthood, particularly the satisfaction of helping to form a happy and admirable adult, and support for the parents in their later years, and in turn receives their love, support, guidance, and protection during childhood. Although a filial contract can exist in a family that is isolated from any larger society, when the parents join a society, they pool their rights and duties as parents with other members of that society, and thereby become agents of the larger society in the raising of their own children, and accountable to that larger society for doing so properly. As a child grows, it encounters other members of the larger society, usually beginning with other children. Whenever any two or more individuals meet with the understanding and expectation that they will live together in harmony and not fight with one another using any available means, they are establishing a social contract among themselves. In most cases they will be contracting with persons who have already established such a contract with still other persons, so that the terms of the contract are not only to live in harmony with those in direct contact, but also with all those with whom each of the parties is already engaged in a social contract, and by extension, to all others that those are in a social contract with, and so on. In other words, the social contract is transitive: if a is in a social contract with b, and b with c, then a is in a social contract with c. In this way each of us is bound under a social contract with all the other members of the society, most of whom we have never met. As a person makes the transition from childhood to adulthood, his obligations change to match his abilities, and the filial contract gives way to the larger social contract and obligations to larger communities at the local, provincial, national, and global levels. Of course, the social contracts of several societies may not extend to one another, giving rise to tribes or nations, whose members are bound by social contract within their membership, but are in a state of nature with respect to one another. If that state of nature involves active conflict, whether at the individual, tribal, or national level, it is said to be a state of war. Breaches of the Social Contract Although the situation of there never having been a social contract is a fairly simple one, the situation of either deceiving another into thinking there is a social contract between them, or of entering into a social contract and then violating its terms, can be much more complicated, and much of law and government is concerned with dealing with such situations. In his treatment of the subject, Locke tended to emphasize those violations of the social contract that are so serious that the social contract is entirely broken and the parties enter a state of war in which anything is permitted, including killing the violator. Today we would tend to place violations on a scale of seriousness, only the most extreme of which would permit killing. Some would even go so far as to exclude killing for any transgression, no matter how serious, but that extreme view is both unacceptable to most normal persons and subversive of the social contract itself, which ultimately depends not on mutual understanding and good will, but on a balanced distribution of physical power and the willingness to use it. Sustaining the social contract therefore depends in large part on so ordering the constitution and laws as to avoid unbalanced or excessive concentrations of power, whether in the public or the private sector. Checks and Balances The framers of the U.S. Constitution addressed the problem of avoiding unbalanced or excessive concentrations of power in government by adopting a constitution in which legislative, executive, and judicial powers are largely divided among separate branches, with each having some power to check the abuses of the others. Legislative powers were further divided between two legislative bodies. Some powers were delegated to the central national government, which others were reserved to the component states or the people. Around the end of the 19th century, however, it became increasingly apparent that excessive and unbalanced concentrations of power in the private sector could subvert the system of checks and balances in government, and the first anti-trust laws were passed to try to provide a check on those undue influences. Unfortunately, such legislation has not been entirely effective, and we now face a situation in which to an intolerable degree the real powers of government are being exercised not by constitutional bodies but by secret cabals based in the private sector but extending throughout government, cabals which are increasingly coherent and increasingly abusive of the rights of the people, including the right to have government be accountable to them and not to a power elite. The continued constitutional development of this society will therefore require the development of a new, more sophisticated system of checks and balances that extends throughout the private sector as well as the public and does not entirely rely on market forces. Much of the abuse that has developed arises from the assumption by the national or central government of powers not delegated to it under the Constitution, and the erosion of the powers of the States with respect to that central government. Some of those powers are arguably best exercised by the central government, but without constitutional authority even the exercise of reasonable powers becomes an abuse and leads to an escalating cycle of abuses as more and more people resist such intrusions, creating a crisis of legitimacy not only for those unconstitutional activities but for the constitutional ones as well. If government is to be brought into compliance with the Constitution, then there will have to be a carefully planned program of repealing or overturning unconstitutional legislation and official acts, combined with a number of amendments that will provide the needed authority for legislation and acts which are best exercised by the central government, and the re- enactment of legislation based on such amendments. That will leave a difficult problem of dealing with all those actions conducted without constitutional authority before the amendments are adopted. Making the amendments retroactive is not permissible under constitutional principles, which exclude not only ex post facto laws but ex post facto amendments as well. Of Rights Natural and Constitutional Under the theory of the social contract, those rights which the individual brings with him upon entering the social contract are natural, and those which arise out of the social contract are contractual. Those contractual rights arising out of the constitution are constitutional rights. However, natural rights are also constitutional rights. The fundamental natural rights are life, liberty, and property. However, it is necessary to be somewhat more specific as to what these rights include. Therefore, constitution framers usually expand them into such rights as the right of speech and publication, the right to assemble peaceably, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to travel over public roadways, and so forth. The exercise of such natural rights may be restricted to the extent that they come into conflict with the exercise of the natural rights of other members of society, but only to the minimum degree needed to resolve such conflict. Such natural rights are inalienable, meaning that a person cannot delegate them or give them away, even if he wants to do so. That means that no constitutional provision which delegated to government at any level the power to take away such rights would be valid, even if adopted as an amendment through a proper amendment process. Such rights apply to all levels of government, federal, state, or local. Their enumeration in the constitution does not establish them, it only recognizes them. Although they are restrictions on the power of government, the repeal of the provisions recognizing them would not remove the restrictions or allow the delegation of any power to deny them. The people do not have that power, and therefore cannot delegate it to government. Yet constitutions recognize the power to deprive persons of their rights under due process of law. Strictly speaking, a person may not be deprived of such rights in the sense of taking them away. Natural rights are never lost. Their exercise can, however, be restricted or, to use the proper legal term, disabled. While some might question the practical distinction between losing a right and having it disabled, that distinction is important. A right which is disabled under due process may also be re- enabled by the removal of that disability, and the disability is removed if the social contract is broken and persons return to the state of nature. Due process is not defined in the written U.S. Constitution, which points out the fact that the constitution consists not only of the written document itself, but the body of court precedents, legal definitions and traditions, and prevailing civic processes as of the date the written document was ratified, which is called pre-ratification Common Law. It also includes the commentaries and records of the debates of the framers and ratifiers insofar as they provide guidance on how to interpret the provisions of the written document. The constitution is further expanded to include the body of court precedents since ratification which interpret its provisions, called post-ratification common law, but only insofar as those court precedents are consistent with the written document, pre-ratification Common Law, and the original intent of its framers and ratifiers. Certain rights, therefore, such as the rights of due process and the right to vote, are contractual. They have no meaning in a state of nature, only within the context of a civil society. And they are defined within Common Law rather than in the written Constitution. Due process requires, among other things, that any disablement of a right be done only by a court of competent jurisdiction in response to a petition to do so, and after arguments and evidence are heard from all sides to support or refute the granting of such petition. The only rights which may be disabled by statute and without a specific court proceeding are the rights of majority, or adulthood. Common Law recognizes that persons are born with disabilities of minority, and constitutions and laws typically define some age at which those disabilities are removed, such as age 18 in the United States for purposes of voting, although it may allow for such disabilities to be removed earlier, or retained past the usual age of majority, upon petition to do so. Due process therefore requires that each and every right which is to be disabled be argued separately on its merits, and the ruling or sentence of the court explicitly disable each such right. This requirement therefore comes into conflict with legislation which prescribes the disablement of certain rights for persons convicted of certain types of crimes, such as the right to vote or to keep and bear arms, without that disablement being made an explicit part of the sentence or the sentencing hearing. Such legislation must be considered unconstitutional, for even though there may be due process in the case which results in the explicit disablement of the rights to certain liberties or properties, those disablements are openly stated and argued, and the statutory inclusion of other disablements that are not made explicit or separately argued is a denial of due process. Duties under the Social Contract While a constitution prescribes the legal rights of individuals and the powers of government, the social contract also includes certain duties which members assume upon entry. Those duties include the duty to avoid infringing on the rights of other members, to obey just laws, to comply with and help enforce just contracts, to serve on juries, and to defend the community. It is important to recognize that although individuals have a right of self-defense in the state of nature, when they enter into society under the social contract, the pooling of that right transforms it into a duty to defend the community, and therefore to risk or sacrifice one's life, liberty, or property if such defense should require it. The right of self-defense is no longer supreme, although it survives the transition to society as a duty to defend oneself as part of the community. Pacifism in the face of mortal danger to oneself or others is therefore not consistent with the social contract, and persons who insist on that position must be considered not to be members of society or entitled to its benefits, and if they live in the same country, have the status of resident aliens. This duty implies not only individual action to defend the community, but the duty to do so in concert with others as an organized and trained militia. Since public officials may themselves pose a threat to the community, such militias may be subject to call-up by officials, but may not be subject to their control except insofar as they are acting in accordance with the constitution and laws pursuant thereto, and in defense of the community. Since any official designated to call up the militia may be an enemy of the constitution and laws, and may fail to issue a call-up when appropriate, militias must remain able to be called up by any credible person and independent of official control. Another important duty is jury duty. Since officials may be corrupt or abusive or their power, grand jurors have the duty not only to bring an indictment upon evidence presented to it by a prosecutor, but to conduct their own investigations and if necessary, to appoint their own prosecutors to conduct a trial on the evidence. Petit jurors have the duty to not only follow the instructions of the judge to bring a verdict on the "facts" in a case, but to rule on all issues before the court, overriding the judge if necessary. No matter how despicable an accused defendant might be or how heinous his acts, they have the duty to find that accused not guilty if the court lacks jurisdiction, if the rights of the accused were seriously violated in the course of the investigation or trial, or if the law under which the accused is charged is misapplied to the case or is unconstitutional; and to find the law unconstitutional if it is in violation of the constitutional rights of the accused, if it is not based on any power delegated to the government, if it is unequally enforced, or if it is so vague that honest persons could disagree on how to obey or enforce it. Since most jury instructions now discourage petit juries from exercising that duty, almost all convictions brought by such juries in which there was an issue in law must be considered invalid, due to jury tampering by the court. Governmental Powers and Duties Some critics of social contract theory argue that there are some powers of government that are not derived from powers of the people or delegated to the government by them. However, a careful analysis will show that all powers exercised by government derive either from the people as a whole, or from some subset of the people, or from one person, and that only the first are legitimate. The power to tax? Persons in the state of nature have the power to tax themselves, although they would not ordinarily think of it that way. Most written constitutions prescribe the powers delegated to government, but are not always explicit about the duties. It is implied that the government has the duty to exercise its powers wisely and pursuant to the purposes of the social contract. But some persons argue that the power to act is also the power not to act. Could the government choose not to exercise its power to conduct elections, or to defend the country, or to maintain a sound currency, or to organize and train the militias of each state? No. Except in case of emergency, and only for the duration of the emergency, government must exercise the powers delegated to it according to their purposes to the best of its ability. That is its duty. Just as it is the duty of every member of society to exercise his or her powers in service of the community. References: [] Ernest Barker, ed., Social Contract, Oxford U. Press, London, 1960. Contains the essays: John Locke, An Essay Concerning the True Original, Extent, and End of Civil Government; David Hume, Of the Original Contract; Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract. [] James Madison, Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention. The definitive record of the proceedings of the Constitutional Convention of 1787. [] James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, The Federalist. [] Bernard Schwartz, The Roots of the Bill of Rights, Chelsea House, New York, 1980. [] Leonard W. Levy, Original Intent and the Framers' Constitution, 1988, Macmillan, New York. Scholar examines "original intent" doctrine and its alternatives. [] Stephen P. Halbrook, That Every Man Be Armed, 1984, Independent Institute, 134 98th Av, Oakland, CA 94603. [] Clarence Streit, Atlantic Union Now, 1962, Freedom & Union Press, Washington, DC. Related works:
Supplement as of 2007 Upon further reflection since the above was written in 1994, several points might be clarified or further developed: There are four constitutions It is useful to discuss the concept of social contract in terms of there being four constitutions:
Consent Some confusion arises from the use of the term "social contract", because it is not a commercial contract, requiring express, informed consent. That confusion was already recognized in the Founding Era, when some, such as James Madison, preferred to use the term "compact". The term is used, however, in sociobiology, as synonymous to symbiosis, and a 17th century political philosopher, Johannes Althusius, used that term. The use of the term "contract" by such political philosophers as John Locke may have been to recognize that among human beings symbiotic arrangements have a contractual nature. To understand why it is correct to hold that a person consents to the rules of a society whose territory he enters or in which he remains beyond the age of majority, it is important to understand that while a society may be just a collection of people bound by a social compact, when it asserts dominion over a territory it becomes a state, and it is as a state that it adopts a constitution of government and makes laws binding on those present on its territory. Whenever anyone enters into the territory of a society with the consent of that society one is consenting to be bound by the rules of that society, even if it consists of a private household, provided that those rules are constitutional, in the sense of being consistent with all three levels of constitution. No one can consent to being bound by unconstitutional rules, but he does consent to being bound by constitutional rules. The only requirement is due notice that he has entered into the territory of a society, or that the territory on which he stands is asserted to be part of the dominion of the society. If he refuse to abide by constitutional rules of a society, then he is at war with that society. Militia The original meaning of the term militia, from the Latin, was not a body of armed men, but an activity, which is often translated as "military service". However, since those engaged in militia also did things like respond to disasters and perform other public services, such as law enforcement, it is more accurate to translate it as "defense activity". It was the common idiom of English in the 18th century to use the same word for an activity and for those engaged in it, and this was done with the word militia, to the point where this secondary meaning became more prominent than its original primary meaning as an activity. However, most of the leading Founders were Latin-literate and can be expected not to have used a Latin word in a way that was inconsistent with its meaning in Latin, and if we substitute the phrase "defense activity" for "militia" in most of the instances of its use, their meaning becomes clear. However, it is also important to realize that in that era people often did not distinguish between different meanings of a word as dictionary writers were to do, but to use words with several blended meanings that the reader or listener was expected to understand in context. Thus, a term like "militia" could mean for the Founders both defense activity, and those engaged in it, at the same time. In modern times, under the influence of dictionaries, beginning with Samuel Johnson's A Dictionary of the English Language, 1755, we tend to choose one of the several meanings a word might have, but it was not until Noah Webster's 1806 A Compendious Dictionary of the English Language that this influence began to become pervasive. Properly understood in this way, the duties under the social contract are essentially synonymous with the militia duty, and jury duty can be understood as a specialized form of militia duty, the duty not just to defend one's own rights, but also the rights of others, under the principle that any infringement of the rights of any person is an infringement of the rights of all. This is reflected in the common law prerogative writs, such as quo warranto, habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibito, procedendo, and certiorari, any of which could, originally, be sought by any person on behalf of any other, regardless of whether the petitioner was directly or personally injured. Origins of rights Different rights originate from different levels of constitution, as discussed above. Some of the main ones are:
Distinction between rights, privileges, and immunities The U.S. Constitution uses the term "right", but as Madison explained in some of his later writings, the natural, social, and state rights, as broken out above, are rights against the actions of government, for which the term "immunity" is more accurate. Under this understanding, every immunity is a restriction on the delegated powers of government, and every delegated power a restriction on immunities. Together, they partition the space of public action, with immunities and powers being complements of each other. The rights created under the Constitution are then more accurately referred to as "privileges". All of these are public rights, to distinguished from the private rights that arise from things like contracts. The use of the phrase "privileges and immunities", used in the 14th Amendment, is therefore to be understood as a more precise way to express the legal concepts involved. Statement of Grievances and Demands for Redress We the People of the United States, exercising our natural and constitutional rights to assemble peaceably and to keep and bear arms, and met as the Militia assembled, and exercising our constitutional right to petition for grievances, do hereby present this statement of grievances and demands for redress thereof: A. Federal officials have made war on the People, violated their natural and constitutional rights, exceeded the limited powers delegated to them under the Constitution, and betrayed their oaths to faithfully fulfill the provisions of the Constitution and to execute just treaties, laws and contracts pursuant thereto: 1 - They have adopted and enforced statutes and regulations to deprive the People of their arms and impair the bearing thereof in defense of themselves and the State, they have failed to fulfill the Constitutional requirements that the entire Militia be kept organized and trained and in a high state of readiness, and they have persecuted constitutional militias and other groups exercising their rights to peaceably assemble and to keep and bear arms, and sought to prevent them from exercising their constitutional duty to organize and train themselves.B. State and local officials have failed to protect the People from abuses by federal officials, violated their natural and constitutional rights, exceeded the limited powers delegated to them under the Federal and State Constitutions, and betrayed their oaths to faithfully fulfill the provisions of the Federal and State Constitutions and to execute just compacts, laws and contracts pursuant thereto: 1 - They have placed unconstitutional restrictions on the rights of the People to keep and bear arms and to assemble as independent militias.C. The news media have failed to provide the People with complete, accurate, and timely information that they need to make important public decisions: 1 - They have failed to adequately investigate and expose illegal or improper activities of officials and those doing business with the government.D. Too many of the People have failed to do their duty to preserve, protect and defend the Federal and State Constitutions and to participate in the process of republican government: 1 - They have too often delegated to judges, superiors, or legal advisors their duty to independently interpret and apply the Federal and State Constitutions and the laws pursuant thereto to all official acts which they may be involved.Now, therefore, we demand: 1 - That all statutes, regulations, and orders which are in violation of their applicable constitutions be immediately repealed or amended to remove the offending provisions, and specifically: a · All statutes which regulate, restrict or otherwise infringe on the right of the People to purchase, own, possess, advertise, sell, lease, loan, manufacture, transport, or use arms and ammunition for the purposes of defense of person, family, home, property, and liberty, for the defense and safety of the State, for sport and recreation, or for other peaceful purposes, especially those arms suited for militia use.2 - That where a consensus exists that a power not delegated to the government should be exercised thereby, appropriate constitutional amendments be proposed, debated, and perhaps adopted, and new legislation adopted based on such amendments. 3 - That officials who have violated their oaths to uphold their respective constitutions be impeached and removed from office, and specifically: a · The President, for signing legislation containing unconstitutional provisions, specifically the recent "Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994", and for sending U.S. troops to conduct war in foreign lands without the consent of Congress.4 - That an immediate audit be conducted of the Federal Reserve, that it be prohibited from issuing notes to be used as legal tender, and that the Treasury replace all Federal Reserve notes now outstanding with instruments backed by gold or silver; or, if there is insufficient gold or silver to make this possible, that the Constitution be amended to allow additional materials having a stable value to be used to back the currency. 5 - That all secret legislation or budgets and all military or law enforcement training exercises be fully disclosed and explained to the public, and all government documents classified at any level of secrecy be immediately declassified and disclosed to the public, except only those few whose disclosure would jeopardize human intelligence assets in the field, reveal military technology not yet in the possession of any foreign power, jeopardize criminal investigations, or disclose private personnel information. 6 - That until such time as a foolproof method can be found for electronic voting, all elections be conducted using paper ballots, counted by human beings. 7 - That a system of independent magistrates or prosecutors be established to investigate and prosecute crimes committed by officials under color of law, and that grand juries be instructed and encouraged to investigate and bring indictments for official malfeasance. 8 - That State constitutions be amended as required to enumerate the powers delegated to the State government by the People, and that the State be forbidden from exercising any power not thus specifically delegated. 9 - That appropriate federal, state and local legislation be adopted to implement the provisions of the Federal Constitution to organize and train the entire Militia and to keep them in a high state of readiness. 10 - That federal and state laws be passed to require judges to inform jurors that they have the power and duty to judge not only the facts in the case, but the law, and that in criminal cases, no matter how despicable the accused or heinous his act, they are to find the accused not guilty if the court lacks jurisdiction or the law is unconstitutional or improperly applied, and that a law is unconstitutional if it violates a constitutional right, exceeds powers delegated to the government, or is excessively vague or not equally applied. 11 - That all government agencies and public authorities be required to divest themselves of any ownership or control over any private enterprise not specifically authorized by law, and to return to the general fund all financial assets not specifically authorized by law. 12 - That all public authorities and entities receiving government funds be independently audited and the results reported to the public. 13 - That any U.S. troops assigned to serve under a foreign commander do so only under authority delegated to that foreign commander in accordance with law by a U.S. commander having supervisory authority over such troops, and that such authority be subject to revocation at any time. 14 - That the traditional system of Common Law be established in all jurisdictions. 15 - That all victims of corporate raiding, bank or savings and loan manipulation, or bankruptcy fraud perpetrated by government officials or agencies, be fully compensated for their losses. 16 - That all victims of government-sponsored experimentation be identified and treated or they or their heirs be compensated. 17 - That all treaties made with Native Americans be honored, and the ancestral lands guaranteed under such treaties and subsequently taken from them be restored. 18 - That all legislation proposed be reviewed by an independent panel of constitutional scholars who shall advise on the constitutionality of the provisions thereof, before it is submitted to a final vote. 19 - That the rules of court procedure be amended to provide that on any appeal of a case in which the government is a party to a multi-judge tribunal on constitutional grounds, the vote of only one judge is required to establish a right of a person or to deny a power to an agency of government. 20 - That attorneys be licensed, and their practices reviewed, by state boards composed of non- lawyers, and that no person shall be allowed to run for elected office who has practiced law during the preceding five years, nor shall such person, having held elected office, be permitted to practice law during his term of office or during the five years after leaving office. 21 - That large news media conglomerates be broken up into competing outlets having editorial independence, and charged with informing the public of what it needs to know to make the right public decisions, including providing complete and accurate information on candidates and issues, and alerting them to potential problems well in advance of needing to make decisions about them. 22 - That the media open their forums to participation by more citizens and experts, and not just professional journalists, and provide more exposure for neglected issues and ideas. 23 - That citizens be educated from childhood to independently interpret and apply their constitutions to all official acts with which they may be involved, and not to delegate that responsibility to judges, superiors, or legal advisors. 24 - That citizens be educated to demand complete and accurate information from public officials and the media on all issues, to participate in the political process, and not to allow their votes to be bought by bribes from government. Constitutional Rights, Powers and Duties Personhood:[1] "Persons" are one of the two main classes which are the subject of rights, powers, and duties, the other being "citizens". Persons may be "natural" or "corporate". "Citizens" are a subclass of "natural persons". Only persons have standing as parties under due process. Each government has the power to define what is and is not a "person" within its jurisdiction, subject to certain restrictions of Common Law and the Constitution, the 15th Amendment to which requires that it not exclude anyone based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Under Common Law existing at the time of the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, "natural personhood" was considered to begin at natural birth and end with the cessation of the heartbeat. But technology has created a new situation, opening the way for statute or court decision to extend this definition and set the conditions under which personhood begins and ends. Each government may also establish, within its jurisdiction, "corporate persons" such as governmental entities, associations, corporations, or partnerships, in addition to the Common Law "natural" persons, but the "personhood" of such corporate entities is not created by the government. Its corporate personhood derives from the personhood of its members. Corporate persons must be aggregates of natural persons. Under Common Law, natural persons include only human beings, but provides a basis for inclusion of entities that are sufficiently like human beings in their behavior to be indistinguishable for legal purposes, such as aliens, androids, or genetically enhanced animals, which have interests, an ability to reason, and an ability to communicate. This would exclude, however, establishment of other things as persons, such as inanimate objects, which have no ability to represent themselves under due process. Inclusion of such inanimate objects as parties to civil due process, in effect making them "persons", has found its way into the U.S. legal system, unconstitutionally, through recent seizure/forfeiture statutes. Although not a well-developed area, there is also a basis for excluding entities which, although they are born to human beings, lack attributes which would enable them to be functionally human, such as some minimal level of cognitive capacity, but such beings must be considered natural persons as the default unless proven otherwise through due process. Citizenship: Citizenship is the attribute of persons who, as members of the polity, have certain privileges and duties in addition to those they have as persons. Citizens include those born on U.S. or State territory or naturalized according to law. Natural Rights: The classic definition of "natural rights" are "life, liberty, and property", but these need to be expanded somewhat. They are rights of "personhood", not "citizenship". These rights are not all equally basic, but form a hierarchy of derivation, with those listed later being generally derived from those listed earlier. Personal Security (Life):Non-natural rights of personhood, created by social contract:(1) Not to be killed.Personal Liberty: (1) To enter into contracts, and thereby acquire contractual rights, to secure the means to exercise the above natural rights.[1,15]Non-natural rights or citizenship, created by social contract: (1) To enjoy equally the rights and privileges of citizenship as established by law.Disabilities of minority: [1] Certain of the above rights are restricted, or "disabled", for minors, but the definition of who is a minor and the extent to which each of these rights are disabled for minors, is limited to the jurisdiction over which each government has general legislative authority, which for the U.S. government, is "federal ground" (see below). Minors are the only class of persons whose rights may be disabled without a need to justify the disablement as arising from the need to resolve a conflict with the rights of others, either through statute or due process. The disablement consists of the assignment of a power to supervise the exercise of the rights under the headings of "liberty" and "property" listed above to a guardian, by default the parents, who acts as agent of the State for the purpose of nurturing the minor. The disability is normally removed by statute providing for removal when a certain age, such as 18, or condition, such as marriage, is attained. The disabilities of minority can also be removed earlier by court order or, if statute allows, extended beyond the usual statutory expiration by court order in cases of incompetence. The right to vote is not included among the disabilities of minority, but is defined separately by law, so that removal of the disabilities of minority does not in itself affect having the right to vote. Constitutional duties of persons under U.S. or State jurisdiction:[7]Powers delegated to U.S. (National) Government:(1) To obey laws that are constitutional and applied within their proper jurisdiction and according to their intent.Constitutional duties of citizens under U.S. or State jurisdiction:[7] (1) Exclusive powersRestrictions of the powers of the national Government:(1) To lay and collect import duties.[8](2) Pre-emptive but non-exclusive powers (1) No exercise of powers not delegated to it by the Constitution.Powers delegated to State Governments: (1) Exclusive powersRestrictions of the powers of the State Governments:(1) To appoint persons to fill vacancies in the U.S. Congress from that state and to hold special elections to replace them. State executive may make temporary appointments if state legislature in recess and until they reconvene, when they shall appoint a temporary replacement.(2) Non-exclusive powers[4] (1) State constitutions and laws may not conflict with any provision of the U.S. Constitution or U.S. laws pursuant to it.[7]Duties of the State Governments: (1) Must provide a republican form[12] of government to their citizens.[7]Restrictions of the powers of all Governments: (1) Shall not disable any natural or constitutional right without due process of law, and then only to the extent necessary to avoid infringing the rights of others.Some arguably needed national powers: (1) To regulate the manufacture, distribution, operation, and disposition of aircraft and spacecraft, the regulation of their crews, and the definition and punishment of crimes committed on U.S. registered aircraft or spacecraft or on aircraft or spacecraft operating in U.S. airspace.NOTES: [1] This is established in Common Law at the time the U.S. Constitution was adopted, but is not explicit in the U.S. Constitution. [2] Originally, "commerce" meant only transfers of goods or services for a valuable consideration, so that "interstate" commerce would not include interstate migration, carrying across a state border of one's own possessions that one intends to keep, the sending across a state border of a gift or inheritance, nor include articles which had not yet crossed a state border, or articles which had "come to rest" with the completion of the transfer. It would not include manufacturing, local sales, or things that are "part of an aggregate" of interstate commerce, or things that might "affect" interstate commerce. Note also that the power to regulate does not include the power to criminally prosecute violations of regulations, but only to seize property through civil process. [3] These are the only provisions that allow federal criminal laws jurisdiction outside federal ground. [4] These powers, if not exercised by the State, revert to the people. [5] This provision would seem to forbid taxes on interstate commerce if export to another state of the U.S. is included, leaving only intrastate commerce or commerce on federal ground subject to excise taxes or duties, although interstate commerce can otherwise be regulated. [6] This means obeying constitutional laws and practices, and resisting unconstitutional ones. [7] This is not clearly stated, but implied. [8] The power to tax is not the power to regulate or license, and vice versa. That is why the powers to tax and to regulate are separately specified. With one exception, which is never used (in Art. 1 Sec. 10), no allowance is made for the charging of fees to cover the costs of regulation, even though this has become a common practice, in violation of the Constitution. [9] This use of the word "Legislation" is a term of art which grants general powers within its jurisdiction, including powers of criminal and civil law that a State might exercise within its jurisdiction, but unlike a State in that a State would be restricted by a state constitution granting it only certain powers. This is a major gap in the Constitution. Although it applies only to federal ground, it also does not make clear what are the limitations on such legislative power, other than the natural and constitutional rights of persons, and so has been interpreted to allow anything that does not violate those rights. There is a need for a federal sub-constitution, similar to a typical state constitution, that applies to federal ground. [10] The wording suggests that the States have the power, but allows the Congress to pre-empt it. [11] But this implies that if the State fails to appoint such officers, local militias are left to elect their own, which was the established Common Law practice at the time the U.S. Constitution was adopted. But "according to the discipline prescribed by Congress". This means Congress can direct, but not forbid it, and implies that, in the absence of any training conducted by the State, local militias are left to organize and train themselves, which was the established Common Law practice established at the time the U.S. Constitution was adopted. [12] The term used is "form" of government, but the Framers seem to have meant substance as well, and that is reasonably implied. [13] The original term was "well-regulated", but this is what was meant. Militias were originally local and independent of official authority, and it was intended that although they be subject to official authority when called into service by such authority, that they also be able to convene and operate independently when not. [14] "Vehicle" was not explicitly included, but implied as an "effect". [15] This is needed to allow persons not only to have rights but the means to exercise them, and also to acquire those means if they do not already have them, without which the right would be unduly burdened. However, beyond this right, the community has the general power to restrict contracts for reasons of public policy and not just to avoid conflicts with the rights of others, so that there is not a general "right" of contract, but a "default privilege" of doing so, subject to law, for contracts that do not involve securing the means to exercise their natural rights. [16] This is worded as "to execute the Laws of the Union", thus allowing States to also call forth their Militias to execute their own laws. [17] The exercise of general police powers is both a right of citizens, and a duty of able-bodied ones. All citizens are policemen, although ordinary citizens may be outranked by professional police officers when such officers are present in a law enforcement situation. [18] Likewise, the keeping and bearing of arms, while a right of persons, is also a duty of able-bodied citizens. FURTHER COMMENT: Note that there is no right to marry or bear children included among any of the rights listed above. It is not a "natural" right, because natural rights are only rights of individuals, and exercise of a "right" to marry, without the consent of the other, would be an assault. Since consent is required, it is a matter of contract, and contractual rights are created by the community, even if it is a "community" of only two persons. Since the community is normally a larger polity, and since all legal contracts are agreements not only between the contracting parties, but also with the entire community, therefore the community has the power to regulate marriage and childbirth, and has exercised that power since time immemorial, for the benefit of the community. Note also that the fundamental unit of the social contract is the local community or village. These may aggregate into a larger "state" or "federal union", but the basis is agreement among those who are in direct contact with one another. It is sometimes thought that "the Constitution" consists only of the written document. This is not so. The title "The Constitution of the United States" was added after the document was adopted, but "constitution" meant the "basic legal order", and the Constitution consists of both the written document and the common law at the time the document was adopted, which is here referred to as the Common Law in caps. Now, the written document does supersede the Common Law where they might be in conflict, but it does not replace it, and courts must refer to the Common Law for guidance where the written document is silent or ambiguous. In addition to the written document and the Common Law, the Constitution also includes Treaties, which, although they are valid only insofar as they are not in conflict with the written Constitution, are superior to both the Common Law and to State constitutions and laws, to the extent that those might be in conflict with the Treaties. Thus, some of the Treaties that have been adopted extend and clarify some of the rights, powers, and duties provided in the written Constitution. For example, that is how "federal ground" is extended to include coastal waters out to a certain distance from shore, and the grounds of U.S. embassies abroad, and how the rights of the people are amplified by the Charter of the United Nations and by various bilateral and multilateral Treaties that extend civil and commercial rights to U.S. citizens abroad. The following diagram can help clarify the relationship among the various elements of law in the U.S. legal system. Each element is superior to the one below it, although state constitutions are derived from their people, not from the U.S. Constitution. Although not shown, each box also includes the body of writings and recorded speeches of the legislators, diplomats, and judges who wrote the constitutions, treaties, laws, and court decisions, which clarify their intent, and which must be accepted as the basis of interpreting the words when there is confusion or dispute over their meaning. Whereas, during the course of history usurpers have attempted to misconstrue certain principles of constitutional republican government for their own ends, and that the original language of the Constitution for the United States did not anticipate all the ways it might be misinterpreted, we hereby set forth some of those principles with greater clarity, using more modern language: General Principles:
(1) The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not establish the right to keep and bear arms. None of the provisions of the Constitution establish any "natural" rights. They recognize such rights, but the repeal of such provisions would not end such rights. Such rights were considered by many of the Framers as obvious or "self-evident", but they were immersed in the prevailing republican thought of the day, as expressed in the writings of Locke, Montesquieu, Rousseau, Madison, Hamilton, and others, which discussed "natural rights" in some detail. Others argued that at least some of the rights needed to be made explicit in the Bill of Rights to avoid having future generations with less understanding of republican theory weaken in their defense of those rights. That has turned out to have been a good idea. (2) The right to keep and bear arms is a natural right of individuals under the theory of democratic government. This was clearly the understanding and intent of the Framers of the U.S. Constitution and was a long-established principle of English common law at the time the Constitution was adopted, which is considered to be a part of constitutional law for purposes of interpreting the written Constitution. (3) What the Second Amendment also does is recognize the right, power, and duty of able-bodied persons (originally males, but now females also) to organize into militias and defend the state. It effectively recognizes that all citizens have military and police powers, and the "able-bodied" ones -- the militia -- also have military and police duties, whether exercised in an organized manner or individually in a crisis. "Able-bodied" is a term of art established by English common law at the time the Constitution was adopted, and is the only qualification besides citizenship on what constitutes the "militia". While not well defined in modern terms, it is somewhat broader than just able-"bodied": implicit is also "able-minded" and "virtuous". In other words, persons might be excluded who were physically able to bear arms but who were mentally or morally defective. Defense of the "state" includes self-defense and defense of one's family and friends who are, after all, part of the state, but by establishing the defense of the state as primary a basis is laid for requiring a citizen to risk or sacrifice his life in defense of the state and is thus a qualification on the implicit right of self-defense, which is considered to prevail in situations in which self-sacrifice is not called for. (4) The U.S. Constitution does not adequately define "arms". When it was adopted, "arms" included muzzle-loaded muskets and pistols, swords, knives, bows with arrows, and spears. However, a common- law definition would be "light infantry weapons which can be carried and used, together with ammunition, by a single militiaman, functionally equivalent to those commonly used by infantrymen in land warfare." That certainly includes modern rifles and handguns, full-auto machine guns and shotguns, grenade and grenade launchers, flares, smoke, tear gas, incendiary rounds, and anti-tank weapons, but not heavy artillery, rockets, or bombs, or lethal chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. Somewhere in between we need to draw the line. The standard has to be that "arms" includes weapons which would enable citizens to effectively resist government tyranny, but the precise line will be drawn politically rather than constitutionally. The rule should be that "arms" includes all light infantry weapons that do not cause mass destruction. If we follow the rule that personal rights should be interpreted broadly and governmental powers narrowly, which was the intention of the Framers, instead of the reverse, then "arms" must be interpreted broadly. (5) The right to keep and bear arms does indeed extend to the states. As do the other rights recognized by other Amendments, and as reinforced by the Fourteenth Amendment. It is not just a restriction on the powers of the central government. On the other hand, the citizens of a state can adopt a constitution that might restrict the exercise of such rights by delegating the power to do so to the state government. However, if the restriction of natural rights is unduly burdensome on those rights, then such a provision would be incompatible with the U.S. Constitution, its guarantee of the rights, and its guarantee that all states have a "republican" form of government - which such restrictions would compromise. (6) The legal basis for a government not infringing on the right to keep and bear arms is not constitutional provisions like the Second Amendment, but that the power to do so is not one of the enumerated powers delegated to the government, whether Union or State. That delegation must be explicit as pertains to arms. They can't be regulated on the basis of general powers to tax or to regulate commerce. Arms have a special status under constitutional law. Some State constitutions may delegate such powers to the State government. The U.S. Constitution does not delegate such powers to the Union government. No powers are delegated to government by the preamble to a constitution, which is only a statement of purpose, only by provisions in the body of the document and its amendments. (7) The legal basis on which the states can regulate arms is in those situations in which they conflict with property rights. It is a fundamental principal in law that the owners or managers of real property have the power to regulate who may enter their premises, and to set conditions upon their entry. That includes public property. Citizens have a right to keep and bear arms -- on their own property or property they control -- but not on someone else's property without his permission. (8) In other words, citizens have a right to keep and bear arms in those places and situations where they have a right to be, unless such rights are disabled by due process of law. Fundamental natural rights can never be lost, as contractual rights can be, only the exercise of those rights restricted or "disabled", to use the legal term. The distinction is very important. Natural rights are those which the individual brings with him when he enters into the social contract, and reclaims if the social contract is broken. The right to keep and bear arms is such a natural right, as is the right of free speech, religious belief, and privacy. The alternative is a contractual right created by a contract, such as the social contract. The right to vote or to be judged by a jury of one's peers are examples of rights created by the social contract, albeit important ones that are also constitutionally protected. Because they are constitutionally protected, it is only proper to speak of them as disabled, rather than lost, so long as the subject remains a citizen or natural person, depending on whether it is a right of citizenship or personhood. (9) It is unconstitutional to "disable" any rights by statute except one set: the rights of majority. The disabilities of minority do not need to be established by a court trial or hearing. However, they can be removed sooner than they would be removed by constitution or statute, by reaching a certain age. This means it is unconstitutional to disable the right to keep and bear arms to a class of persons by statute, including those, such as felons, who have been the subject of due process on another issue, except through a proceeding in which the court is explicitly petitioned to disable them, the subject has an opportunity to argue to the contrary, the petitioner has the burden of proof that the subject if armed would be a threat to himself or others, and the court grants that petition. Merely being convicted of a crime, or declared mentally incompetent, is not sufficient if the language of the judgement does not also explicitly disable the right to keep and bear arms, or set restrictions on such right. (10) "General police powers" is not a constitutional basis for states or localities to regulate arms. "General police powers" are the powers to use the means necessary and sufficient to stop someone who threatens to commit a major crime, or to arrest someone who has done so. All citizens have such power. They differ from regular, professional police only in that the regular police also have "special police powers" in matters such as minor offenses, and in that they outrank civilians. Since citizens have general police powers, they also have the right to such means as they require to exercise such powers in situations in which they may be called upon to do so. That includes arms. (11) To be constitutional, state laws restricting the bearing of arms must distinguish between public property, private commercial property which serves the public and which therefore confers certain rights to the public, and other private property with no public access rights. It is reasonable and constitutional to prohibit persons from bearing arms onto purely private property without notifying the owner or manager and obtaining his or her permission, except over public easements, such as sidewalks or the walkway from the street to the front door. On the other hand, it would be an undue burden on the right to bear arms to forbid persons from traveling between places where they have a right to be, and to bear arms while they do so, along public pathways or private easements, and using their own or a public means of transportation. It may not, however, be an undue burden to prohibit the bearing of arms onto certain public property where persons do not have unrestricted access, such as office buildings and auditoriums, provided that authorities guarantee the safety of persons who enter unarmed. Owners of commercial property serving the public which confers some rights of access to the public may prohibit the bearing of arms by posting or giving a notice to that effect, but lacking such notice, bearing arms onto the premises would be permitted. The rule must be that laws must not burden the right to bear arms except to the extent that they would impose a greater burden on the right of property owners to exclude persons bearing arms. (12) The law must presume that places of business that cater to arms, such as gun shops and shooting ranges, and events such as gun shows, offer presumptive permission to bear arms and that therefore it is not illegal to bear them there or to travel to and from them. (13) A carry permit system essentially is a removal of restrictions against bearing arms on public and private property unless there is an express prohibition against doing so, either in the form of a posted sign or a directive from the owner or his agent. The rationale for issuing such permits is to equip persons of good character to more effectively function as militiamen or police in situations in which regular police are not available or insufficient. That also includes self-protection, but the key factor is the duty to perform police duties as necessary. There also needs to be explicit statutory protection of the state or other permit issuing authority against criminal or civil liability for any acts done by the permit holder. One kind of carry permit is that which is one of the "special police powers" of regular law-enforcement officers, which allows them to carry anywhere, even against the express wishes of a property owner. (14) With the high levels of crime we now endure, the only effective way to extend police protection to a level that might deter crime is to recruit a substantial proportion of the public to go armed, by issuing them carry permits, offering them police training, and organizing them into a network of militia units closely coordinated with regular law enforcement agencies. It is likely that as many as 25% of the adult public could serve in this way on a regular basis, and another 25% on an occasional basis, and that if they did, we might expect it to have a significant positive impact on crime. Some such citizens might even be granted higher police rank, and perform regular police duties on a part-time basis. Such involvement of the public in law enforcement would also have other benefits: breaking down the social and psychological barriers that now separate the regular police from civilians, and deterring some of the abuses of authority that police have sometimes fallen into. (15) That the militia should be "well-regulated" is not a basis for restricting the keeping or bearing of arms. The term originally meant "self-regulated" and militias could be independent of state or national authority if not called up by such authority. Militia members may be required to carry certain standard arms during formations, but they cannot be forbidden from carrying additional arms of their own unless doing so would impair normal militia operations. State-appointed officers may direct when, where and in what manner members of the militia are to train and perform their duties, but may not forbid them to meet on their own. (16) The Union government has the power, under the U.S. Constitution, to regulate imports and interstate commerce in arms, but the Framers would not agree with how the "interstate commerce" clause (Art. 1, Sec. 8) of the Constitution has been broadly interpreted to include regulation of manufacture, possession, and local sales and use of items. A strict constitutional interpretation requires that the Union government has authority only over transactions that cross state lines, and not over actions or transactions that occur within state borders, even if they involve items that may someday cross state borders or may have once done so. If we want the Union government to have such authority, and a good case can be made for that, then the U.S. Constitution needs to be amended to delegate that authority to it. (17) The Union government also has excise taxing power, but since arms have special status under the Constitution, no tax may be levied that imposes an undue burden on the right to keep and bear arms. Rights are more fundamental than taxing powers, particularly since the right to keep and bear arms is recognized in an amendment which supersedes any prior provisions that conflict with it, which includes all taxing powers except the income tax (which does not provide a basis for taxing arms). Arms may be taxed as general merchandise is, such as with a sales tax, but any tax law which specifies arms for special taxes, other than reasonable use fees for public services related to them, must be considered unconstitutional. That would include taxes on ammunition and the ingredients to make it. The analogy is to taxes on newsprint, which may be taxed like other merchandise, but not in a way that would impose an undue burden on the right of a free press. (18) This means that no government has the power, unless that power is specifically granted to it under its constitution, to prohibit any person from manufacturing or possessing any gun or ammunition for it on his own premises or where he has a right to be, or against using it in a safe and responsible manner, or against selling or giving it to another person within the borders of a state. (19) Since the common law prevailing at the time the Constitution was adopted defined "militia" to consist of "able-bodied" citizens, including persons younger than the usual age of majority, any law restricting the possession, sale or gift of guns or ammunition to persons under the age of majority or any other particular age, or to minors (since persons under the age of majority may have their disabilities of minority removed by a court), is also unconstitutional, unless the constitution explicitly includes a disability of the right to keep and bear arms among the disabilities of minority. The proper test for being "able-bodied" must involve meeting certain standards that are independent of age, such as skill, judgement, and level of maturity. It is possible for persons to be "able-bodied" at quite a young age, and the law must recognize that competence where it exists. All citizens above the age of majority would have to be presumed able- bodied unless they or the state petitioned a court to rule otherwise and it granted the petition. However, it would be constitutional to require a reasonable test of competence to citizens below the age of majority, and to issue credentials to those qualifying which they would be required to show when answering calls of the militia or, if the right to keep and bear arms were included among the rights disabled by minority, when bearing arms. Early removal of the disabilities of minority would then also remove the disabilities of the right to keep and bear arms. (20) The "full faith and credit" clause of the U.S. Constitution requires that persons issued a carry permit by one state must have that permit recognized in other states. This suggests a uniform standard for qualifying persons for issuance. REFERENCE: Stephen P. Halbrook, That Every Man be Armed, available from The Independent Institute, 134 98th Av, Oakland, CA 94603, 510/568-6047. Legal and Financial
The fascist impulse While we saw fascism emerge as a formal ideology in Europe during the middle decades of the 20th century, its roots are as old as mankind. Although we associate it with worship of charismatic leaders or the state as a kind of god, with unquestioning obedience to authority, and with a propensity to brutality, genocide, and repression of dissent, we must also examine the need that it fills for those who fall prey to it, and the ways that even "nice" people can become the facilitators of Orwellian nightmares. A common phrase used to describe those with fascistic tendencies is "control freak". This phrase shows a great deal of psychological insight on the part of those who use it appropriately. It indicates someone who feels driven to exercise more control over a situation than most normal persons think healthy or appropriate. Outcomes matter to people. And we can have some influence over many of those outcomes. Much of human life consists of acquiring and exercising the influence to bring about desirable outcomes. Problems can arise, however, when people misjudge how much influence can be acquired, how much influence they actually have, and how to exercise such influence as they have in a way that is actually productive of desired outcomes. People often tend to either underestimate their influence, and thereby relieve themselves of responsibility for adverse outcomes, or to overestimate their influence, and engage in actions that cannot achieve the desired outcomes, sometimes continuing to do so long after their lack of influence becomes painfully obvious. The former tendency is common among many ordinary people whom political activists and civic leaders decry as "apathetic". If this tendency is sufficiently widespread, it can provide a fertile ground for persons of the opposite tendency, who either take advantage of that apathy to carry out their programs unchecked, or who take advantage of the fear, rage and disorder to which the first type is susceptible when their apathy is finally overcome by the pressure of events, and they seek the refuge of obedience to some authority. The misjudgement of how much influence one has or can acquire over events is, of course, driven by fear of losing influence or of not acquiring enough, and by ambition to either maintain some current situation or to achieve some vision for the future. This is especially likely to arise if either the current situation is misperceived or unsustainable, or the future vision is either unattainable, or not really as desirable as thought by the visionaries. Either can induce their visionaries to adopt increasingly evil methods when lesser methods fail. This misjudgement of future possibilities is the other side of the misjudgement of one's influence over events. Both are facilitated by fearful or wishful thinking. In fairness it must be said that much of the progress that has occurred in human affairs has been the product of visionaries who rejected the common wisdom that their visions were unattainable. A constitutional republic that could actually work was once in this category. The instance of the United States provides an existence proof that while imperfect, such a political order is better than the attainable alternatives. It is not always easy to discern whether a vision is attainable. One that may seem dangerously impractical may turn out to have been inspired with the advantage of hindsight. Therefore, although some visions of power may be inherently fascistic, it is his willingness to use any method to achieve his vision that characterizes the fascist mindset. "The end justifies the means" is the justification the fascist uses to answer his critics, while dismissing the reply that, while only the end can justify the means, it does not necessarily justify any means. There does seem to be a principle of human affairs that evil methods tend to ruin the best-intended outcomes. Or, as it has been often said, "The war is not between Us and Them, but between Good and Evil, and when those who claim to represent Good adopt the ways of Evil, Evil wins." The judgement concerning how far one must go to survive, so that the cause can survive and have a chance to win, is not an easy one. It is easy to misjudge one's own importance in the struggle. Clearly, if survival is really at stake, one may have to resort to dreadful measures. But there may be a price to pay that is not well understood at the time. Historically, most successes have come from those unwilling to compromise their moral principles. In the words of George Washington, "Let us raise a Standard to which the Wise and Honest can repair. The event is in the hands of God." Washington succeeded in large part precisely because he was not willing to adopt the evil ways of his adversaries, in war or in the debates in the press, the Continental Congress, and the Constitutional Convention. Fascism in government and business Almost every government is fertile ground for the emergence of fascism. But fascistic excesses need not be intentional or even conscious on the part of those in the highest echelons of government. There is no evidence that even Adolph Hitler, often thought to be the architect of the genocide of Jews and other "undesirables", ever issued an explicit order to round people up, put them in concentration camps, and then murder them. The best evidence is that he just casually suggested to subordinates that there was a "problem", and left it to them to figure out how to "solve" it, while distancing himself from the grim details. While it seems incredible to think that he was not aware of what was going on, or that many other Germans were not as well, it was made easy for them not to think about it, and the atrocities mounted. We can see the same pattern in criminal excesses in government and the private sector, where the rich and powerful will often indicate to their subordinates or agents that they want some result, or don't want some other result, but never explicitly say how their subordinates are to satisfy them, sometimes even saying, "I don't want to know how you did it." This ability to distance themselves and maintain deniability, not only against criminal investigation but even self-examination, is important in understanding the ways the rich and powerful can be perceived as "nice people" who would never engage in any kind of criminal conspiracy against the people, while at the same time the "middle management" of the empires they head can become engaged in interlocking networks of criminal conspiracies that are remarkable in their brutality and that give rise to a "shadow government" that takes on a will and life of its own, perhaps even becoming a threat to the interests and intentions of their patrons. The mission of the militias with respect to fascism in government and business, then, must include compelling the elites to confront their personal responsibility for the excesses they have facilitated. Fascism in the general population Among the general population, the common forms of fascism are linked to racism, sectarianism, nationalism, and other forms of intolerance, which are not themselves fascism, but tend to arise in the same individuals to meet the same psychological needs. Any tendency toward bigotry is a warning sign, which is why it is important to discourage or exclude such tendencies among people active in constitutional militias. Other warning signs are rhetorical incivility, a susceptibility to allow emotion to prevail over reason, posturing, and a lack of professionalism. Psychologically, fascism is a manifestation of emotional immaturity, to which persons of any age may be susceptible. A particular problem arises when fascists among the population get organized, and perhaps become involved in paramilitary training. Although selected on ideological grounds, they may be mistaken for militias, or even misassociated with them by the propaganda apparatus of an Establishment which fears the dissidents who form true militias. It is common for fascistic elements in government or the Establishment to make use of these fascistic groups for their own purposes, such as infiltrating them, perpetrating terroristic incidents, and then using such incidents to expand its powers and to quell critics, while blaming the militias and using the incidents as an excuse to crack down on them. What this means for militia organizers is not only that they must carefully avoid infiltration by fascists of all kinds, but must take an active role in suppressing them. If fascists break laws, that could mean the use of armed force, but force may just validate them. The best way is to ridicule them, reform them, integrate them back into normal society, and turn them against their former unreformed associates. References: [] Morgan Norval, The Militia in 20th Century America: A Symposium, 1985, Gun Owners Foundation, 5881 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041. Discusses the major factor missing from the political order needed to enforce compliance with the Constitution. [] Stephen P. Halbrook, That Every Man Be Armed, 1984, Independent Institute, 134 98th Av, Oakland, CA 94603. History and theory of the militia and the right to keep and bear arms. [] Bernard Bailyn, ed., The Debate on the Constitution, two volumes, 1993, The Library of America, 14 E 60th St, New York, NY 10022. Federalist and Antifederalist speeches, articles, and letters during the struggle over ratification. [] Leonard W. Levy, Original Intent and the Framers' Constitution, 1988, Macmillan, New York. Scholar examines "original intent" doctrine and its alternatives. [] Roger Griffin, ed., Fascism, 1995, Oxford U. Press, New York. Documents on the history, theory, and psychology of fascism. The establishment of the U.S. Constitution in 1789 and its Bill of Rights in 1791 was a fundamental innovation in jurisprudence. It introduced the first constitutional republic, with a written constitution that superseded the Common Law that preceded it, while incorporating that part of the Common Law not in conflict with it, and provided that all subsequent statutory law and official acts must be based on its provisions and not in conflict with it. Any statute or official act not so based, or in such conflict with it, was to be considered unconstitutional, and null and void from inception. Unfortunately, despite the nominal commitment to compliance with the Constitution, legislators and officials have failed to comply with it in many instances. Most of these instances were justified as necessary to deal with perceived crises, especially war and depression. Some of these instances include the Dick Act of 1903 and the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. But perhaps the most important was the Emergency Banking Act of March 9, 1933, and particularly its amendment to the Trading with the Enemy Act of October 6, 1917, and its ratification of such executive orders as the Proclamation 2040 by President Roosevelt issued on March 6, 1933, sometimes called the Emergency and War Powers order. This act, codified as 12 USC 95(b), effectively declared the Constitution suspended and conferred dictatorial powers on the President, a situation which continues to this day. Following this there was a long train of unconstitutional legislation and executive orders, made possible by intimidation of the federal courts. Although some reference to provisions of the Constitution was made to justify them, especially an expanded interpretation of "interstate commerce", it is argued [by some] that what was really done was suspension of the Constitution as the "Supreme Law of the Land" and the extension of the "Law of the Sea" over the land, making all federal courts admiralty courts, under the executive authority of the President. The "Law of the Sea" is a branch of Common Law under which the President and admiralty courts exercise essentially dictatorial powers, akin to martial law. Under this assumed authority, the U.S. Congress, the President, and the federal courts have extended their powers and jurisdiction far beyond the limits imposed on them under the Constitution, in violation of the 10th Amendment. Senate Report 93-549, written in 1973, said "Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency." It goes on to say: "A majority of the people of the United States have lived all their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years, freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of National emergency. In the United States, actions taken by government in times of great crisis have ... in important ways shaped the present phenomenon of a permanent state of National emergency."... "These proclamations give force to 470 provisions of federal law. These hundreds of statutes delegate to the President extraordinary powers, ordinarily exercised by Congress, which affect the lives of American citizens in a host of all-encompassing manners. This vast range of powers, taken together, confer enough authority to rule this country without reference to normal constitutional process.The problem, of course, is that the Constitution does not provide for its own suspension, under some Rule of Necessity, only for temporary suspension of the right of habeas corpus, nor does Congress have such emergency and war powers or the power to delegate them to the President. Such a doctrine of "emergency rule" is a legalistic façade, perhaps providing a defense against summary judgement by a lawful court, but not providing true legal authority. The Constitution is not just the Supreme Law of the Land, but of all operations of the institutions it establishes, as agents of the People, including those at sea and those involving the laws of nations, forbidding them to exercise any powers not specifically delegated to them, in any field of action. A difficulty for this regime is that the vast majority of people in and out of government are unaware of such emergency rule. As far as they are concerned, the Constitution is still in full force and effect. Many of them continue to take an oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Some of them are aware of their role as militiamen, as defenders of the State and its Constitution, with a duty to not only obey the Constitution and constitutional laws, but to do what they can to enforce them as well, singly or in concert with one another. Two Bodies of Jurisprudence What we have, then, is two bodies of jurisprudence: one based on the Constitution, the other not based on it, and, indeed, in fundamental conflict with it. Unfortunately, the full force of de facto government acts to enforce this second body of jurisprudence, and this puts it in fundamental conflict with the Militia and its duty to defend the Constitution and enforce it and its laws. Since the statutes and official acts not based on the Constitution are null and void from inception, and in conflict with the real law, which is based on the Constitution, we may call this body of jurisprudence antilaw. It is sometimes referred to by the euphemism "public policy". Almost any effort to enforce such antilaw infringes on the civil rights of persons, and is therefore itself a crime, specifically, violation of 18 USC 241, Conspiracy Against Rights, or 242, Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law. These statutes are arguably constitutional, under the authority of the 14th amendment, therefore citizens have the duty, as militiamen, to enforce it against officials who attempt to enforce antilaw, to arrest them and bring them before a grand jury. What we have, therefore, is the potential for conflict between two groups of Americans, each enforcing what they consider to be the law against the other, each trying to arrest the other, with armed force if necessary. The forces of de facto government may, for the most part, believe they are in the right. Most of them are just doing their jobs, following the orders of the people who pay their salaries, and many people, not knowing any better, think they are indeed the lawful government. They are better organized, funded, and equipped. On the other side are a growing number of citizens who are becoming aware of the situation and their duties as militiamen, and while they are not yet as well organized, they are becoming more numerous and better organized, and they are even gaining support from within this de facto government. Corruption and the Crisis of Legitimacy This dysfunctional situation is exacerbated by pervasive corruption that infects almost every level and agency of government and institution of society. This has brought compromise of the integrity of those institutions, and the loss of their ability to meet the needs of the people. Computerized elections are often rigged. Many judges are compromised or intimidated. It is not uncommon for people to take a case before a federal judge, asking him to enforce the Constitution, and have him refuse to rule, saying "If I ruled on this, I would be dead before morning." Take a case of high- level official misconduct to law enforcement authorities and they refuse to consider it. Investigating and exposing such corruption and the abuses it brings all too often results in the harassment, persecution, or even the death of the investigator and his witnesses, and the confiscation or destruction of their evidence. This crisis of legitimacy and corruption is causing severe conflicts within government as well, between factions that extend across institutions and align themselves with citizen activists. This conflict has become a kind of low-level civil war, in which there is real violence and the loss of lives. Antilaw as Dyslaw Antilaw might prevail if it met the needs of the people, eventually acquiring a kind of legitimacy, but it does not. It is fundamentally dysfunctional, as well as illegitimate, and therefore dyslaw. As such, it is doomed, and must eventually give way to a return to the Rule of Law under the Constitution. This will be a difficult transition to manage gracefully. Once the dominoes start falling, it may be difficult to avoid a sudden collapse that will bring chaos and economic upheaval. The first shot across the bow of antilaw from the Supreme Court may have just been fired, in the case of U.S. v. Lopez, which, for the first time since 1936, struck down a federal criminal statute based on the interstate commerce clause. Sooner or later most Americans take the oath: To preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic. Actually, all Americans have the duty expressed in the oath by being citizens. Taking the oath just formalizes it. Under our constitutional republican form of government, the Constitution is the Supreme Law. That means that it is superior to any statutes or other official acts that may be adopted later, if there should be a conflict between the Constitution and such statutes or acts. Indeed, any such statutes or acts derive their authority from the Constitution, and statutes or acts not based on it are null and void from their inception. Under the Social Contract which precedes the Constitution, citizens have the duty to both obey all laws that apply to their situation, and to help enforce such laws. But if the situation should arise in which there is a conflict between laws or acts, the citizen has the duty to resolve the conflict by obeying or enforcing the superior law or act, especially if one of the laws is the Constitution itself. Indeed, if the statute or act violates some right or exceeds delegated powers, it is most likely to be a violation of law itself, and so the duty of the citizen is not just to not obey or help enforce it, but to actively resist it, by enforcing the law which it violates. Under the prior Law of Agency, the citizen is responsible for the acts of his agents, including their abuses if he fails to take action to correct them, and under the Social Contract, he is personally responsible for resolving legal conflicts and for the legal decisions he makes. Therefore, he cannot delegate the responsibility for making such legal determinations to others, such as judges, superiors, or legal advisors. He has the duty to make an independent determination of the constitutionality of any law or act with which he my become involved. Varieties of Unconstitutionality There are several ways in which statutes or other official acts may be unconstitutional:
Now, when the conscientious patriot surveys the present state of statutes, regulations, judicial decisions, executive orders, and other official acts, he finds that the body of such acts which is incompatible with the Constitution is vast. Major bodies of legislation and entire federal agencies and their operations are unconstitutional. Yet they are being enforced, and that enforcement backed by the entire power of government. What is worse, most of the people are unaware of this conflict, or unconcerned about it. Too many people do not place enough emphasis on compliance with the Constitution. The Dilemma Is it the Patriot's Dilemma, then, that he is obligated by his oath to not only not obey or help enforce major areas of governmental activity, but to actively resist it by all available means? No, his dilemma is that there are so many matters on which he is obligated to resist that he does not have the resources to fight all the battles. It is all too easy to expend all his precious resources on less important matters, and thereby neglect the more important ones. Just as a warrior must sometimes make a tactical retreat, yielding territory in order to preserve his ability to fight and win more important battles, so must the patriot also make some strategic and tactical decisions about which battles are important, and which must be temporarily conceded. This dilemma also causes disagreement among patriots about which battles to fight and which to retreat from, leading to divisions and accusations of betrayal if some of the battles are considered important by some patriots. For patriots to be effective in restoring constitutional government, they must unite and agree on priorities. Assigning Priorities The following are some guidelines for deciding priorities.
"... to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States [and of your state] against all enemies, foreign or domestic."But what does that oath really mean in your personal and professional life? More than you may realize. And that oath may, in the months and years ahead, be put to a test that you neither expect or want. This paper is to help you prepare for that test. Who are the enemies? Foreign enemies are easy to understand, and require little discussion. What about domestic? Spies? Terrorists? Criminals? How about corrupt officials? Or overzealous officials who ride roughshod over the Constitution and the rights of citizens in pursuit of a mission they think outweighs all other concerns? What about corrupt or overzealous officials in your chain of command, who may try to use you for their criminal purposes? What about top civilian leaders, who may decide to overthrow the Constitution and establish a new regime in which there are no limits on governmental powers or guaranteed rights, and use you to carry out their plans? At this point you may be thinking "Nonsense. Nothing like that will ever happen in the United States of America. The people running our government are nice guys who can be trusted to try to do the right thing. They would never try to do anything like that. This is just some kind of paranoid anti-government propaganda." Don't be too sure. A lot of people thought the same thing a few years ago who became aware of evidence that is extremely alarming, evidence that would be incredible if it didn't come from people inside government who are extremely troubled by what they are seeing or being asked to do. One of those things is making preparations for a general warrantless search of every site in the United States, using military and law enforcement personnel, to confiscate all firearms and shoot anyone who resists. A clear violation of almost all of the rights guaranteed in the Constitution. Don't rely on this flyer. Check it out for yourself through channels. Then think about what it means. No more elections. Not for some time. The people would be outraged. They'd vote all the incumbents out if elections were held. The government might offer some justification for their action, something that might seem convincing to many, but not to everyone. In the meantime citizens throughout the country are organizing independent local militias, to resist assaults on the Constitution. At some point, you may be called upon to choose sides. Assaults on the Constitution The Framers of the Constitution made it very clear: Government was not to exercise any power not delegated to it by the Constitution. But for many decades now, it has been assuming more and more powers for which there is no constitutional basis, often in response to demands from the public to "do something" about some problem or another, without bothering to adopt amendments that would make such powers legitimate. Courts have, for the most part, gone along with this, often resorting to imaginative sophistry to try to make it seem legitimate. If this weren't bad enough, these new powers are increasingly being abused to serve purposes and interests that were never intended by the original legislation. The result is an increasing crisis of legitimacy, and increasing alienation from government on the part of an ever growing part of the population. Illegal Orders Any order which you may receive that is contrary to the Constitution of the U.S. or of your State, or to a constitutional law, is illegal. Compliance with such an order is not only not required of you, but may be and probably is illegal, and the issuance of such an order may be a crime, which obligates you to make an arrest of the person issuing it. Under federal law, 18 USC 242, it is illegal for anyone under the color of law to deprive any person of the rights, privileges or immunities secured by the U.S. Constitution, and under 18 USC 241 it is illegal to conspire to violate such rights. It is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison. This could be applied to local, state, or federal law enforcement or military personnel who abuse the rights of citizens. Every state has a similar law. The key point is this: You not only have the right to disobey an illegal order, but you may also have the duty to apprehend the parties issuing such an order if such issuance is part of the commission of a crime. The Principle of Nuremberg After World War II, Nazi war crimes were prosecuted at Nuremberg, and those trials established an important principle: that is the responsibility of every individual to make an independent determination of the legality of any law or official act. No one may delegate that duty to others, not to superiors, not to legal advisers, and not even to judges. It is no defense that you were "just following orders". Some Constitutional Limitations Be aware of what are the constitutional limits on federal powers. The Constitution allows criminal prosecution under federal laws on state territory only for (1) treason, (2) counterfeiting, (3) piracy or felonies on the high seas, (4) crimes against the laws of nations, or (5) violations of civil rights by officials. It does not allow criminal prosecution for violations of any regulations, such as those passed under the interstate commerce clause, or for failure to pay taxes. Therefore, most such federal criminal laws apply only to acts committed on federal territory, including the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, several other islands in the Pacific, land ceded to the federal government by a state legislature for military bases and public works, coastal waters, U.S. flag vessels on the high seas, and the grounds of U.S. embassies abroad. Furthermore, the Framers intended that "interstate commerce" include only transactions that cross a state border, not all the things that it has been extended to cover, such as anything that has ever crossed a state border, or anything that ever might cross a state border, or anything done by someone who does business some of which crosses a state border, or anything that is "part of an aggregate" of activities that cross a state border, or anything that may "affect" interstate commerce. During the last several decades Congress has been "federalizing" many crimes committed on State territory, and State and local authorities have been going along with this. But except for the four categories of offenses listed above, all of these extensions of federal authority are unconstitutional. Now, any citizen may investigate and enforce the law, and that includes federal agents. Under our system of government, all citizens are policemen. You as a regular law enforcement officer may outrank ordinary civilians, but they have the same authority to enforce the law against felonies and more serious misdemeanors that you do, and that authority should be respected. When the offense is one of those four that the federal government has jurisdiction over on state territory, federal agents have the prior authority. However, in all other cases, your authority is superior to theirs. They may assist you, conduct investigations, and make arrests, with your consent, but then they are obligated to turn over the evidence and the suspect to you for prosecution under state or local law. Lately several situations have arisen in which federal agents were seen by local or state law enforcement to be abusing the rights of citizens, and the federal officials attempted to prevent those local or state law enforcement officials from doing their duty to protect those citizens by "deputizing" them as "federal marshals", thus supposedly putting them under federal authority. This is illegal. First, you cannot be appointed to any office without your consent. Second, in most states it would be illegal to serve as both a federal and state or local officer at the same time. Check the law. If an attempt is made to "deputize" you, refuse. Some law enforcement officers say that if they are put in the position of having to obey an illegal order or law, they will resign. That is wrong. Once you take an oath to uphold the law, you are obligated to resist all efforts to turn law enforcement organizations into criminal enterprises. Don't resign. Arrest the offender, just as you would arrest any other offender. Make him resign. What you can do Investigate what is going on within your organization and in other law enforcement and military organizations operating in your area, regarding violations of the Constitution and laws pursuant to it. Then contact local patriot groups. You can find them through gun shops, American Legion or VFW posts, radio talk show hosts, alternative newspapers and bookstores, or your local militia unit. If you find yourself in conflict with federal authorities on a matter of constitutional principle, you may have no alternative but to call up the militia in your area to assist you in upholding the Constitution. You have the authority to do that. Any citizen may call up the militia, including you. But they are not going to respond effectively unless they have been previously organized, armed, and trained. You need to work with them to get them into a high state of readiness. "... to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic."But what does that oath really mean in your personal and professional life? More than you may realize. And that oath may, in the months and years ahead, be put to a test that you neither expect or want. This paper is to help you prepare for that test. Who are the enemies? Foreign enemies are easy to understand, and require little discussion. What about domestic? Spies? Terrorists? Criminals? How about corrupt officials? Or overzealous officials who ride roughshod over the Constitution and the rights of citizens in pursuit of a mission they think outweighs all other concerns? What about corrupt or overzealous officials in your chain of command, who may try to use you for their criminal purposes? What about top civilian leaders, who may decide to overthrow the Constitution and establish a new regime in which there are no limits on governmental powers or guaranteed rights, and use the military to carry out their plans? At this point you may be thinking "Nonsense. Nothing like that will ever happen in the United States of America. The people running our government are nice guys who can be trusted to try to do the right thing. They would never try to do anything like that. This is just some kind of paranoid anti-government propaganda." Don't be too sure. A lot of people thought the same thing a few years ago who became aware of evidence that is extremely troubling, evidence that would be incredible if it didn't come from people inside government who are extremely troubled by what they are being asked to do. One of those things is making preparations for a general warrantless search of every site in the United States, using military personnel, to confiscate all firearms and shoot anyone who resists. A clear violation of almost all of the rights guaranteed in the Constitution. Don't rely on this document. Check it out for yourself through military channels. Then think about what it means. No more elections. Not for some time. The people would be outraged. They'd vote all the incumbents out if elections were held. The government might offer some justification for their action, something that might seem convincing to many, but not to everyone. In the meantime citizens throughout the country are organizing independent local militias, to resist assaults on the Constitution. At some point, you may be called upon to choose sides. Assaults on the Constitution The Framers of the Constitution made it very clear: Government was not to exercise any power not delegated to it by the Constitution. But for many decades now, it has been assuming more and more powers for which there is no constitutional basis, often in response to demands from the public to "do something" about some problem or another, without bothering to adopt amendments that would make such powers legitimate. Courts have, for the most part, gone along with this, often resorting to imaginative sophistry to try to make it seem legitimate. If this weren't bad enough, these new powers are increasingly being abused to serve purposes and interests that were never intended by the original legislation. The result is an increasing crisis of legitimacy, and increasing alienation from government on the part of an every growing part of the population. The UCMJ on illegal orders The Uniform Code of Military Justice is more concerned about failure of military personnel to obey legitimate orders than it is about refusal to obey illegitimate orders, but it does address the subject. In Section 16c(1)(c) it provides: Lawfulness. A general order or regulation is lawful unless it is contrary to the Constitution, the laws of the United States, or lawful superior orders or for some other reason is beyond the authority of the official issuing it.And in Section 14c(2)(a)(i): Inference of lawfulness. A order requiring the performance of a military duty or act may be inferred to be lawful and it is disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate. This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime.These provisions allow for the disobedience of illegal orders, but such orders may themselves constitute a crime, or be part of a criminal conspiracy, either under military or civilian law. Under federal law, 18 USC 242, it is illegal for anyone under the color of law to deprive any person of the rights, privileges or immunities secured by the U.S. Constitution, and under 18 USC 241 it is illegal to conspire to violate such rights. It is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison. This could be applied to military personnel who abuse the rights of citizens, either military or civilian. The UCMJ also defines an Article 134 offense: Impersonating a commissioned, warrant, noncommissioned, or petty officer, or an agent or official. This could apply to a military officer who impersonates a civilian official in an action against civilians. This includes actions taken under martial law. In RCM 202(a): The exercise of jurisdiction under Article 2(a)(11) in peacetime has been held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States. Article 2(a)(10) has also been limited.In RCM 302(b) Who may apprehend. The following officials may apprehend any person subject to trial by court-martial: (1) Military law enforcement officials. (2) Commissioned, warrant, petty, and noncommissioned officers.However, anyone, including the lower enlisted grades, may apprehend for violation of civilian laws, provided it is done as an independent act of a citizen and not under orders. Also be aware of the Posse Comitatus Act, which forbids members of the Army and Air Force to be used for domestic law enforcement. The key point is this: You not only have the right to disobey an illegal order, but you may also have the duty to apprehend the parties issuing such an order if such issuance is part of the commission of a crime. The Principle of Nuremberg After World War II, Nazi war crimes were prosecuted at Nuremberg, and those trials established an important principle: that is the responsibility of every individual to make an independent determination of the legality of any law or official act. No one may delegate that duty to others, not to superiors, and not to judges. It is no defense that you were "just following orders". Some Constitutional violations Be aware of what are the constitutional limits on federal powers. The Constitution allows criminal prosecution under federal laws on state territory only for (1) treason, (2) counterfeiting, (3) crimes on the high seas, (4) crimes against the law of nations, or (5) violations of civil rights by officials. It does not allow criminal prosecution for violations of any regulations, such as those passed under the interstate commerce clause, or for failure to pay taxes. Therefore, most such federal criminal laws apply only to acts committed on federal territory, including land ceded to the federal government by a state legislature, coastal waters, U.S. flag vessels on the high seas, and the grounds of U.S. embassies abroad. Furthermore, the Framers intended that "interstate commerce" include only transactions that cross a state border, not all the things that it has been extended to cover, such as anything that has ever crossed a state border, or anything that ever might cross a state border, or anything done by someone who does business some of which crosses a state border, or anything that is "part of an aggregate" of activities that cross a state border, or anything that may "affect" interstate commerce. What you can do Investigate what is going on within the military regarding violations of the Constitution and laws pursuant to it. Then contact local patriot groups. You can find them through gun shops, American Legion or VFW posts, radio talk show hosts, alternative newspapers and bookstores, or your local militia unit. One of the most important missions of activated militia units is to organize units in other counties throughout the state, and even in other states. While it is important to involve as many people as possible in each county, down to the neighborhood level, it is also important to achieve geographic spread, so that no county of any state is without at least one unit. A certain number of active members of each unit should be designated to this mission, which involves the following suggested elements. Elements of Advance Organization [] Form 2-3 person teams. It is possible to work with more or less, but for various reasons, this seems to be an optimal number. One of them provides the vehicle. [] Prepare target list of counties. Start with a list of all counties that do not yet have a known activated militia unit. Arrange the list in descending order of priority, based on factors such as population size, proximity to major highways, location in districts of important legislators, or proximity to important sites of other kinds. More populous counties will have more potential recruits living closer together, which will make it easier for them to meet and work together. Proximity to major highways is to try to get unbroken chains of units connecting major population centers, which may be important for communications and logistics. In Texas an important county would be McLennan, because it contains Waco and the site of the Davidian Massacre, where the populace needs to be activated to get a grand jury to bring indictments of the persons responsible for that atrocity. [] Divide the target list among the advance teams. Some consideration should be given to familiarity of the team members with the counties and their inhabitants. [] Get lists of patriots and persons inquiring about militia involvement. Such lists can be acquired from various sources, such as some of the more publicized militias of other states, subscription lists for various patriotic publications, and participants in various patriotic activities. [] Mail literature to any prospects in the target counties. Such literature should contain two things: a message which arouses the reader to take action, and information on what actions he or she can take. The first might consist of tales of official corruption and abuse. The second of how to activate a local militia and contact those already activated. Ask them to respond in some certain number of days, such as seven. [] Send more literature to those who respond. This may be enough to get them to activate a militia unit in their county. [] Follow up on mailing targets, both those who don't respond and those who do, with phone calls. Qualify them for their level of interest, their concerns, their resources, and their intentions. [] Schedule visits to each targeted county by its designated team. Let any prospects know you are coming, and try to arrange to meet with them. If there are no prospects, then go in cold and scout for some. [] The team should visit likely places and persons who might refer them to prospective recruits. Gun shops, American Legion and VFW halls, civic organizations, sheriff and fire departments. Ask for the names and phone numbers of persons who have expressed concern about the threats to our rights under the Constitution. [] Follow up on the leads. If the person seems interested in getting involved, leave him some literature and a phone number for the team. Compile a list of prospects, discuss the members of the list with each other to identify prospective leaders and potential conflicts. Suggest that those interested get together, and try to get them to commit to a place and time, then inform all the others. [] Publicize the organizing meeting. Put a notice in the local newspaper, if there is time, and call in to any talk radio station that serves the area to announce the date, time, and place of the organizing meeting, and a contact phone number for details. This should be an easily remembered name in an easily remembered city, so that the person can call information if they don't take down the phone number. [] Send literature packages to prospective attendees. To the extent possible, try to have them all come with a common foundation of understanding of the basic ideas, and with such things as proposed by- laws, so that they will not have to waste time at the meeting reading new materials. [] Have the team present at the organizing meeting. Provide a speech which motivates and explains the key ideas. Have the attendees introduce themselves to each other, and perhaps explain their experiences and concerns. Hand out literature to any who did not previously receive such. [] If the attendees are ready to do so, have them adopt the by-laws, elect a commander, and agree on the date, time, and place for the next meeting. Appoint persons to seek more permanent meeting places, handle publicity, reach out for more participants, and establish training and study groups on various topics. Make sure everyone who needs to contact one another gets each others' names and phone numbers. [] Have the team present at the second meeting. If by-laws were not adopted and a commander and other officers elected at the first meeting, get them to do so at the second meeting. Also get them to form task groups on various subjects: military training, disaster control, legal issues, logistics, communications, public information, recruitment, site arrangements, and security. [] Leave them alone for a couple of months. Let them work out their own problems for a while, without guidance from outsiders, other than newsletters, reports, and other communications from correspondence committees. [] Do a follow up visit. See how they are doing. Try to help them overcome any problems that may have developed, but don't help too much. The best approach is to ask them questions and let them find their own answers. [] Try to get them to organize their own advance teams. Have them coordinate with other active units to divide the target counties among them and do the same thing that was done with them. [] Try to get all the counties to work toward synchronized events. Militia Day April 19. Independence Day July 4. Election day. Visits by elected officials. Special fiestas and holidays, parades, and political events. [] Assemble multiple teams to organize the last remaining counties. Get teams from several neighboring counties to converge on those that remain to be activated, until every one has at least one active militia unit. [] Engage law-enforcement supporters to recruit their colleagues in targeted counties. If you have the support of a sheriff or constable in one county, get him to visit, or at least call, his counterpart in the targeted county, and ask him to attend militia meetings and learn about the movement. [] Likewise, engage media people, public officials, and civic leaders. Often such people are more influenced by their counterparts from other counties than by their own neighbors. Take advantage of these chains of influence. [] Keep the free media flowing. Issue a steady stream of press releases, notices of meetings, statements on constitutional issues, and important events, including legislation and official acts that may impact on the militia movement. Get people interviewed on talk radio stations, and call in to them regularly with succinct messages on some point that needs to be more widely understood and discussed. [] Organize letter-writing parties. Get everyone together and have them write letters to legislators, the governor, congressmen, the president, editors, or whoever needs attention. Use models of well-written letters that got responses or that got published. Make sure they don't all read alike. Offer recognition to the best ones. Make sure they are signed, stamped, and sealed before everyone leaves, and make sure they get mailed. [] Organize state-wide alert system. Make sure there are at least three persons in each county who can serve as points of contact for alerts, to verify rumors, and to check on the condition of activists. [] Extend this effort into other states. But be careful not to offend existing militia leaders in those states. Send literature, but avoid going in without conferring with any established state leaders, and without an invitation from the people in the target county. [] Extend the alert system to other states. Make sure every active militiaman in any county of any state can find and contact someone in any given county of any other state. [] Establish wireless communications links. Make sure there is an unbroken series of reliable repeaters for ham packet links between any two militia units in the country. Test it frequently. Most of the kinds of tactical training that militia units across the country have been doing have been focused on the tactical situations found in conventional or counterinsurgency warfare. And most of the alert systems that have been set up depend on telephone communications. While such exercises have some merit, they neglect the kinds of scenarios that we are more likely to face. This document describes in a general way a different kind of exercise designed to prepare militiamen for more likely scenarios, emphasizing reconnaissance, intelligence, and insurgency methods. We call this kind of exercise WitWeb because it sets up a webwork of witnesses. Think of ourselves as a spider, spinning of web to catch some flies. In this case, the flies are corrupt or abusive officials or other criminals. Our objective is to gather and distribute evidence, protect witnesses, investigators, and other innocent persons, and bring the perpetrators to justice. Elements of Operation WitWeb (1) The operation should take place over a definite period of time, such as from Friday to Sunday evening. (2) Participants would operate singly or in teams of not more than three persons. (3) Each participant would initially receive an assignment to go to a specified location at a specified time. (4) At each location he would either perform some action and go to another location, pick up further instructions from a dead drop, or rendezvous with another participant, exchange recognition signs, and exchange items or further instructions. (5) Each participant would hit multiple locations during the course of the exercise, and would log the travel times, distances, and any other pertinent information about each leg of the journey. (6) At the end, each participant would report to a task leader, who would receive his report and any items he was to deliver. (6) One of the activities would be to reconnoiter a target site, find an observation point from which it could be surreptitiously observed, if any, and if found, describe the observation point to another participant, who would attempt to observe from that site for some period of time, while a third participant would observe his observation to determine how well he was concealing his observation. (7) Another activity would be to videotape a target, with the date/time record feature on, then rapidly exchange the good tape for a blank and hand off the good tape to one or more couriers who would escape the scene rapidly and in different directions, deliver the tape to a location where it would be duplicated, then execute a simulated delivery of the duplicates to key persons, to hiding sites, or to media contacts. (8) Among the observation targets would be the homes of activists, the homes of straight government agents who might be the targets of actions intended to discredit the militia, mobilization points of enemy forces, or other locations at which some event of interest seems likely to occur. (9) Each participant would have a way to alert the others in the event of trouble at a site requiring either convergence or dispersal, indicating whether convergence should be equipped to observe or to take protective actions. (10) One activity would be to simply spread an alert message to all the militiamen in the area as rapidly as possible without using electronic media. The methods could include voice relay, coded written messages, or hand or light signals. (11) Another activity would be to code and/or decode messages as rapidly as possible, using both technical implements, such as computers, and non- technical, such as one-time written keys. (12) The exercise might be supplemented by recruiting persons who regularly live and work in the target areas to be alert and prepared to observe, preferably with video cameras, in which case they would be provided with a way to alert the militia to come pick up the video tape as soon as possible after it was taken, and provide a blank tape as a replacement. (13) The list of observation targets would be continually revised and expanded, and observations made on a random basis, so that no one, not even most of the militiamen, could be sure when any given observation might be made, but also so that no one could be sure that any given target would not be observed during any given period of time. (14) Video cameras would be supplemented with still cameras using high-resolution film, to get detail that video can't. (15) Observers would make lists of relevant things in the area, such as vehicles and their license plates, so that statistics could be compiled and parties of interest identified. Of particular interest would be unassigned license numbers. (16) One activity would be to collect trash from important sites for analysis. (17) One type of target would be storage sites and vehicles transporting illegal drugs or other dangerous contraband, with special emphasis on identifying official involvement, so that when reported to authorities the militia would not be reporting it to the same authorities involved in making the shipments. (18) One type of activity might be the actual interception of drug shipments, combined with the destruction of most of the drugs so that they could not be diverted by officials back onto the street, but leaving enough for use as evidence in court. (19) Another type of activity might be the observation, in relays, of the movement of election ballots, from initial production to final counting, to identify election fraud. This might involve the use of hidden cameras, including the transmission of video to a receiver who could preserve the evidence in case the on-site observer got caught with the camera. (20) Lacking more dramatic targets, participants might practice observing lesser instances of malfeasance, such as noncompliance with legal or contractual standards for construction, environmental protection, medical procedures, or other activities which are liable to occur in the absence of witnesses. Working with other resources These exercises are likely to turn into serious operations involving real corruption and abuse. Therefore, it is important to line up other resources that may be important: (1) Straight law enforcement agents. But contact should probably be with individuals rather than with departments, which may contain dirty agents. (2) Straight reporters. Again, contact should be with individuals who have proven their willingness to take personal risks to expose the truth. (3) Straight elected officials. In most cases, the official himself may be too busy, but one should be in contact with a key staff person. (4) Media messaging systems. One should prepare in advance to disseminate important information to the media generally, especially key persons with talk radio and TV stations, newspapers, and mudraking magazines. This should include a computer set up to email or fax to multiple targets. Messages should always be directed to specific individuals, with a backup if the first one is out. Things to keep in mind (1) Participants in this exercise should remain as inconspicuous as possible. (2) Participants should remain mobile so that they do not themselves become easy targets for attack or apprehension. (3) There should be preparations for any participant who learns "too much" to go underground while preserving the evidence, with everything needed, such as money, ID, a cellular phone or ham radio, a vehicle with plates not linked to him, or disguises, to remain underground for an extended period of time, while preserving the ability to maintain necessary contact. Pursuant to the Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 8, and the First, Second and Ninth Amendments thereto, and to the intent of the Framers thereof, and to the Constitution of the State of Texas, this unit of the Texas Militia is established, to be governed in accordance with constitutional laws and these By-Laws. 2. Geographic Area The geographic area designated for this Unit shall consist of that contiguous area defined by agreement of the members with one another and with those of other Militia Units in the same county. If this is the only Unit in the county, the geographic area shall consist of the entire county. If more than one Unit is formed in the county, the boundaries of the area for each Unit shall ordinarily coincide with established political or geographic subdivisions, such as city limits, precincts, or neighborhoods. Except by the authority of the President or request of the Militia of another State, the Unit shall not conduct operations other than organizing and training outside the boundaries of the State of Texas, and except by the authority of the Governor or request of the Militia of another County, the Unit shall not conduct operations other than organizing and training outside of the boundaries of the County or immediately neighboring counties. 3. Membership The members of this Militia unit shall consist of the following two classes, which together shall be referred to as the ready militia: (1) Persons who are subject to militia duty under Texas Government Code Section 431.081, as it may be amended, and not exempt under Texas or U.S. law, and who are residents of the County and geographic area designated for this Unit number, which members shall be referred to as the obligatory militia. (2) Persons not subject to militia duty under (1) above who are residents of the State of Texas who volunteer to serve in this unit except as provided in Section 8 below, which members shall be referred to as the voluntary militia. 4. Officers The Unit Commander shall initially be chosen by 3/4 vote of the members present at any call-up of the Unit, and shall serve until the next meeting or call-up of the Unit, when he or she shall be subject to re-election as the first order of business. Other officers to be elected include a Deputy Commander, a Treasurer, and a Secretary, each of whom shall assume in that order the duties of the Unit Commander if he or she shall be unable to perform them. Additional officers shall be appointed by the Unit Commander. The members present may also elect representatives to any regional correspondence committees, who shall coordinate activities of the various Militia units in the region. 5. Authority for Call-up The following persons may issue a call-up of the Unit, in descending order of authority: (1) The President of the United States. (2) The Governor of the State of Texas. (3) An officer designated by the Governor of the State of Texas for this Unit. (4) The Chief Executive, Chief Law Enforcement Officer, or Chief Judge of the area designated for this Unit. (5) The Unit Commander. (6) An established Safety Committee for the area of the Unit. (7) Any person offering a credible justification for the call-up. Any such authority shall have command authority over the Unit only if it calls up the Unit. Thus, if called up by a local sheriff, the sheriff would have the default command authority and not the Governor or the President, if they did not issue the call-up. 6. Notices and Regular Meetings Notices of special meetings should normally be by public notice in a newspaper of record or by posting notices on public notice bulletin boards, at least ten days prior to the meeting, except in case of emergency, in which case notice shall be by the established rapid-alert system. Persons who contribute to the costs shall also be notified by mail or phone if time permits. In addition to call-ups, the Unit shall meet at such dates, time, and places as its members present at any meeting or call-up shall determine by majority vote. This shall ordinarily be at some regular place on some regular day of the week or month. All meetings shall be conducted in accordance with Robert's Rules of Order, Revised. 7. Purpose of Assemblies The Unit shall assemble only for one or more of the following purposes: (1) To organize and train. (2) To repel a foreign invasion. (3) To suppress an insurrection. (4) To execute constitutional laws. (5) To perform righteous services to the community, state, and nation, including disaster relief and defense of persons from crime or official abuse. Such purposes do not include service outside the jurisdiction of the United States, which is the exclusive province of the armed forces. 8. Exclusion from Participation Persons who otherwise qualify for membership may be excluded from participation in activities of the Unit by the Commander or by a 3/4 vote of the members present on one or more of the following grounds, and none other: (1) A history of criminal, violent, disruptive, or impulsive behavior. (2) A history of mental disorder or incapacity. (3) Inability to play a constructive role in the activity, such that participation would result in reduced effectiveness of the Unit in that activity. This may include not having suitable equipment for the activity, such as arms. (4) Refusal to take or comply with the oath below. (5) Refusal to obey a lawful order of a superior. No person shall be excluded on the basis of ethnicity, religion, national origin, political opinions, gender, or age. However, minors shall require the written consent or presence of a parent or guardian. 9. Oath Required of Participants Participants in any activity shall be required to take the following oath: "I swear/affirm that I will preserve, protect, and defend the Earth, the Nation and its Constitution, the State and its Constitution, and the Community, against all enemies, foreign or domestic; and that I will make an independent determination of the constitutionality and applicability of all laws and official acts with which I may become involved, without being unduly influenced by any officer or superior, and that I will obey or assist in the enforcement of those which are constitutional and applicable, and resist those that are not, regardless of personal consequences."10. Finances Dues shall not be required as a condition for membership or attendance at meetings or call-ups, but may be required, upon a 2/3 vote of members present, for individual notices or for participation in activities that involve costs. Contributions of funds and other things of value may be accepted provided that no such acceptance shall create any obligation on the part of the Unit or its members or participants. No member shall accept any compensation for participation in any activity of the Unit, but may accept reimbursement for expenses incurred or recompense for losses sustained. The Unit shall not accept funding from any organ of government or public authority except in connection with a general call-up by an authority having power to compel attendance. No property shall be used by the Unit without written consent of the lawful owner or his agent. At no time will the Unit go into debt or impose any debt on its members. 11. Regulations The Unit shall, by a vote of the majority of members present and with the consent of the Unit Commander, adopt such regulations as it deems appropriate to govern its operations. 12. Militia Discipline Upon assembly, all participants shall be under Militia Discipline, which shall be applied in accordance with applicable provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. 13. Enforcement The Unit Commander shall be responsible for enforcing these By-Laws and the Regulations adopted by the Unit. 14. Adoption and Amendment These By-Laws shall be adopted or amended by a 3/4 vote of the members present at any call-up or meeting in which such adoption or amendment shall be announced in the notice thereof at least 10 days prior to the meeting. The Unit shall establish and regularly test a rapid-alert system for getting the members to respond to emergency situations. This system shall consist of the following elements: (1) An emergency deployment plan. This consists of places and persons to report to and things to do in the event of some emergency situation, such as a natural disaster, which members could be expected to be made aware of by its effects and by the regular media. (2) A telephone tree. Each member would have a list of others to call, such that a few calls could activate almost everyone reachable by phone. (3) A radio network. This would make use of various amateur and CB radios, perhaps using encrypted packet methods, to notify members in the event that the phone system is unavailable or insecure. (4) Broadcast media. Co-operation from radio and TV stations to broadcast notices should be achieved and maintained. (5) Neighborhood alerts. Members should be designated to ride through neighborhoods alerting people in the area, perhaps using a mobile PA system. 2. Arms and Ammunition Each participant in an armed activity shall furnish one modern rifle or shotgun of a caliber suitable for combat applications, and at least 50 rounds of ammunition for it. During all assemblies such arms shall be kept unloaded at all times except by command of the Unit Commander or if members of the Unit fall under imminent peril. 3. Ammunition standards Members are encouraged to standardize on 5.56 and 7.62 ammunition for rifles, 12 gauge for shotguns, and .357 magnum, 9mm, or .45ACP for handguns. 4. Appearance and Grooming Each member who participates in any activity of the Unit in a public place shall present a neat, well-groomed appearance. 5. Uniforms and Insignia No uniforms shall be required of members or participants. However, on public occasions participants may be required to wear jackets or armbands with the words "Texas Militia" or "Bexar County Militia". The Commander may designate such insignia as he may see fit, to be worn by those he shall designate. 6. Roll-call At any muster of the Unit, participants shall declare their names, addresses, phone numbers, and arms of choice, but any roll of participants shall be kept confidential and is to be used only for issuing notices of meetings and other activities. 7. Co-operation with authorities Members will make every effort to co-operate with lawful authorities, unless doing so would impair the ability of the Militia to exercise its constitutional rights and perform its constitutional duties, including the investigation of official corruption and abuse. 8. Community defense against abuse All members are obliged to take immediate action to defend any person against violation of his or her constitutional rights from official abuse, especially the rights to keep and bear arms and to assemble as independent constitutional militias, without waiting for a call-up of the unit. However, any member taking such action shall notify the other members of the Unit as soon as possible. The Unit size should ordinarily be between 50 and 200 members. Larger units should normally be divided into smaller ones, and smaller ones may be augmented by participants from neighboring areas. 2. Avoidance of Association Status Every effort must be made to avoid giving the Unit the aspect of being a voluntary association, which would be subject to legal action as an association, something that can be avoided if the members are considered to be all citizens of the area. 3. Questioning of Authority Issuing Call-up While any of several authorities may issue a call-up, this does not automatically give such authority command over the unit, which must be debated and voted on before commencing with any command therefrom. Ordinarily, such orders must be obeyed unless they are unconstitutional. 4. Avoidance of Policy Issues Every effort must be made to avoid allowing the Unit to act upon, or even debate extensively, issues of social or economic policy. The Unit may resist a tax on grounds that it is unconstitutional, but not because the rate is too high. It must not act on issues on which honest persons may disagree, such as the constitutionality of abortion. 5. Avoidance of Alarming the Public To the extent possible, if appearing in public with arms, the Unit should alert the public in the area to the peaceful character of the activity, with publicity, warning signs, and conversations with persons present. 6. Proclamations of Faith Many if not most members will have some kind of religious faith that they will want to bear witness to during assemblies of the Militia, and religious speech, like political speech, is a valid part of the discussion that will take place in such assemblies. However, in deference to those who are non-believers, such expression should not be conducted in a way that would make non-believers feel pressured to appear to join in with a religious observance, such as praying together in assembly, as distinct from just listening to someone pray in the same way the members might listen to someone speaking on any other subject. The only "religion" that may be properly proclaimed jointly is the "civic religion" of constitutionalism, which is the one thing all citizens should share. 7. Safety Committees A local Safety Committee will normally consist of the elected officers of the previous muster and will be the entity that calls successive musters of the unit. It is the only membership group that has continuing existence from one muster to the next. Those who participate in musters must never be referred to as "the militia", since that term must always refer to the entire citizenry of the county or other jurisdiction. A state or regional Safety Committee should be elected by a public election, in response to a duly posted public notice, in each of the counties in which a qualified public militia has been established, as having mustered in reponse to a public notice and elected officers. 8. Correspondence Committees Correspondence committees should ordinarily consist of a chairman appointed by the Safety Committee and correspondents designated by the chairman for each unit, or of representatives of lower-level correspondence committees. For security reasons, member rolls should ordinarily be kept only at the local level, and not shared with neighboring units or with higher-level correspondence committees. However, backup copies of member lists may be kept in escrow by neighboring units with the consent of the unit commander, for security purposes. Pursuant to the Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 8, and the First, Second and Ninth Amendments thereto, and to the intent of the Framers thereof, and to the Constitution of the State of Texas, this unit of the Texas Militia is established, to be governed in accordance with constitutional laws and these By-Laws. 2. Geographic Area The geographic area designated for this Unit shall consist of that contiguous area defined by agreement of the members with one another and with those of other Militia Units in the same county. If this is the only Unit in the county, the geographic area shall consist of the entire county. If more than one Unit is formed in the county, the boundaries of the area for each Unit shall ordinarily coincide with established political or geographic subdivisions, such as city limits, precincts, or neighborhoods. Except by the authority of the President or request of the Militia of another State, the Unit shall not conduct operations other than organizing and training outside the boundaries of the State of Texas, and except by the authority of the Governor or request of the Militia of another County, the Unit shall not conduct operations other than organizing and training outside of the boundaries of the County or immediately neighboring counties. 3. Membership The members of this Militia unit shall consist of the following two classes, which together shall be referred to as the ready militia: (1) Persons who are subject to militia duty under Texas Government Code Section 431.081, as it may be amended, and not exempt under Texas or U.S. law, and who are residents of the County and geographic area designated for this Unit number, which members shall be referred to as the obligatory militia. (2) Persons not subject to militia duty under (1) above who are residents of the State of Texas who volunteer to serve in this unit except as provided in Section 8 below, which members shall be referred to as the voluntary militia. 4. Officers The Unit Commander shall initially be chosen by 3/4 vote of the members present at any call-up of the Unit, and shall serve until the next meeting or call-up of the Unit, when he or she shall be subject to re-election as the first order of business. Other officers to be elected include a Deputy Commander, a Treasurer, and a Secretary, each of whom shall assume in that order the duties of the Unit Commander if he or she shall be unable to perform them. Additional officers shall be appointed by the Unit Commander. The members present may also elect representatives to any regional correspondence committees, who shall coordinate activities of the various Militia units in the region. 5. Authority for Call-up The following persons may issue a call-up of the Unit, in descending order of authority: (1) The President of the United States. (2) The Governor of the State of Texas. (3) An officer designated by the Governor of the State of Texas for this Unit. (4) The Chief Executive, Chief Law Enforcement Officer, or Chief Judge of the area designated for this Unit. (5) The Unit Commander. (6) An established Safety Committee for the area of the Unit. (7) Any person offering a credible justification for the call-up. Any such authority shall have command authority over the Unit only if it calls up the Unit. Thus, if called up by a local sheriff, the sheriff would have the default command authority and not the Governor or the President, if they did not issue the call-up. 6. Notices and Regular Meetings Notices of special meetings should normally be by public notice in a newspaper of record or by posting notices on public notice bulletin boards, at least ten days prior to the meeting, except in case of emergency, in which case notice shall be by the established rapid-alert system. Persons who contribute to the costs shall also be notified by mail or phone if time permits. In addition to call-ups, the Unit shall meet at such dates, time, and places as its members present at any meeting or call-up shall determine by majority vote. This shall ordinarily be at some regular place on some regular day of the week or month. All meetings shall be conducted in accordance with Robert's Rules of Order, Revised. 7. Purpose of Assemblies The Unit shall assemble only for one or more of the following purposes: (1) To organize and train. (2) To repel a foreign invasion. (3) To suppress an insurrection. (4) To execute constitutional laws. (5) To perform righteous services to the community, state, and nation, including disaster relief and defense of persons from crime or official abuse. Such purposes do not include service outside the jurisdiction of the United States, which is the exclusive province of the armed forces. 8. Exclusion from Participation Persons who otherwise qualify for membership may be excluded from participation in activities of the Unit by the Commander or by a 3/4 vote of the members present on one or more of the following grounds, and none other: (1) A history of criminal, violent, disruptive, or impulsive behavior. (2) A history of mental disorder or incapacity. (3) Inability to play a constructive role in the activity, such that participation would result in reduced effectiveness of the Unit in that activity. This may include not having suitable equipment for the activity, such as arms. (4) Refusal to take or comply with the oath below. (5) Refusal to obey a lawful order of a superior. No person shall be excluded on the basis of ethnicity, religion, national origin, political opinions, gender, or age. However, minors shall require the written consent or presence of a parent or guardian. 9. Oath Required of Participants Participants in any activity shall be required to take the following oath: "I swear/affirm that I will preserve, protect, and defend the Earth, the Nation and its Constitution, the State and its Constitution, and the Community, against all enemies, foreign or domestic; and that I will make an independent determination of the constitutionality and applicability of all laws and official acts with which I may become involved, without being unduly influenced by any officer or superior, and that I will obey or assist in the enforcement of those which are constitutional and applicable, and resist those that are not, regardless of personal consequences."10. Finances Dues shall not be required as a condition for membership or attendance at meetings or call-ups, but may be required, upon a 2/3 vote of members present, for individual notices or for participation in activities that involve costs. Contributions of funds and other things of value may be accepted provided that no such acceptance shall create any obligation on the part of the Unit or its members or participants. No member shall accept any compensation for participation in any activity of the Unit, but may accept reimbursement for expenses incurred or recompense for losses sustained. The Unit shall not accept funding from any organ of government or public authority except in connection with a general call-up by an authority having power to compel attendance. No property shall be used by the Unit without written consent of the lawful owner or his agent. At no time will the Unit go into debt or impose any debt on its members. 11. Regulations The Unit shall, by a vote of the majority of members present and with the consent of the Unit Commander, adopt such regulations as it deems appropriate to govern its operations. 12. Militia Discipline Upon assembly, all participants shall be under Militia Discipline, which shall be applied in accordance with applicable provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. 13. Enforcement The Unit Commander shall be responsible for enforcing these By-Laws and the Regulations adopted by the Unit. 14. Adoption and Amendment These By-Laws shall be adopted or amended by a 3/4 vote of the members present at any call-up or meeting in which such adoption or amendment shall be announced in the notice thereof at least 10 days prior to the meeting. The Unit shall establish and regularly test a rapid-alert system for getting the members to respond to emergency situations. This system shall consist of the following elements: (1) An emergency deployment plan. This consists of places and persons to report to and things to do in the event of some emergency situation, such as a natural disaster, which members could be expected to be made aware of by its effects and by the regular media. (2) A telephone tree. Each member would have a list of others to call, such that a few calls could activate almost everyone reachable by phone. (3) A radio network. This would make use of various amateur and CB radios, perhaps using encrypted packet methods, to notify members in the event that the phone system is unavailable or insecure. (4) Broadcast media. Co-operation from radio and TV stations to broadcast notices should be achieved and maintained. (5) Neighborhood alerts. Members should be designated to ride through neighborhoods alerting people in the area, perhaps using a mobile PA system. 2. Arms and Ammunition Each participant in an armed activity shall furnish one modern rifle or shotgun of a caliber suitable for combat applications, and at least 50 rounds of ammunition for it. During all assemblies such arms shall be kept unloaded at all times except by command of the Unit Commander or if members of the Unit fall under imminent peril. 3. Ammunition standards Members are encouraged to standardize on 5.56 and 7.62 ammunition for rifles, 12 gauge for shotguns, and .357 magnum, 9mm, or .45ACP for handguns. 4. Appearance and Grooming Each member who participates in any activity of the Unit in a public place shall present a neat, well-groomed appearance. 5. Uniforms and Insignia No uniforms shall be required of members or participants. However, on public occasions participants may be required to wear jackets or armbands with the words "Texas Militia" or "Bexar County Militia". The Commander may designate such insignia as he may see fit, to be worn by those he shall designate. 6. Roll-call At any muster of the Unit, participants shall declare their names, addresses, phone numbers, and arms of choice, but any roll of participants shall be kept confidential and is to be used only for issuing notices of meetings and other activities. 7. Co-operation with authorities Members will make every effort to co-operate with lawful authorities, unless doing so would impair the ability of the Militia to exercise its constitutional rights and perform its constitutional duties, including the investigation of official corruption and abuse. 8. Community defense against abuse All members are obliged to take immediate action to defend any person against violation of his or her constitutional rights from official abuse, especially the rights to keep and bear arms and to assemble as independent constitutional militias, without waiting for a call-up of the unit. However, any member taking such action shall notify the other members of the Unit as soon as possible. The Unit size should ordinarily be between 50 and 200 members. Larger units should normally be divided into smaller ones, and smaller ones may be augmented by participants from neighboring areas. 2. Avoidance of Association Status Every effort must be made to avoid giving the Unit the aspect of being a voluntary association, which would be subject to legal action as an association, something that can be avoided if the members are considered to be all citizens of the area. 3. Questioning of Authority Issuing Call-up While any of several authorities may issue a call-up, this does not automatically give such authority command over the unit, which must be debated and voted on before commencing with any command therefrom. Ordinarily, such orders must be obeyed unless they are unconstitutional. 4. Avoidance of Policy Issues Every effort must be made to avoid allowing the Unit to act upon, or even debate extensively, issues of social or economic policy. The Unit may resist a tax on grounds that it is unconstitutional, but not because the rate is too high. It must not act on issues on which honest persons may disagree, such as the constitutionality of abortion. 5. Avoidance of Alarming the Public To the extent possible, if appearing in public with arms, the Unit should alert the public in the area to the peaceful character of the activity, with publicity, warning signs, and conversations with persons present. 6. Proclamations of Faith Many if not most members will have some kind of religious faith that they will want to bear witness to during assemblies of the Militia, and religious speech, like political speech, is a valid part of the discussion that will take place in such assemblies. However, in deference to those who are non-believers, such expression should not be conducted in a way that would make non-believers feel pressured to appear to join in with a religious observance, such as praying together in assembly, as distinct from just listening to someone pray in the same way the members might listen to someone speaking on any other subject. The only "religion" that may be properly proclaimed jointly is the "civic religion" of constitutionalism, which is the one thing all citizens should share. 7. Safety Committees A local Safety Committee will normally consist of the elected officers of the previous muster and will be the entity that calls successive musters of the unit. It is the only membership group that has continuing existence from one muster to the next. Those who participate in musters must never be referred to as "the militia", since that term must always refer to the entire citizenry of the county or other jurisdiction. A state or regional Safety Committee should be elected by a public election, in response to a duly posted public notice, in each of the counties in which a qualified public militia has been established, as having mustered in reponse to a public notice and elected officers. 8. Correspondence Committees Correspondence committees should ordinarily consist of a chairman appointed by the Safety Committee and correspondents designated by the chairman for each unit, or of representatives of lower-level correspondence committees. For security reasons, member rolls should ordinarily be kept only at the local level, and not shared with neighboring units or with higher-level correspondence committees. However, backup copies of member lists may be kept in escrow by neighboring units with the consent of the unit commander, for security purposes. April 19 of this and each year hereafter is declared to be Militia Day. All able-bodied citizens are to assemble with their arms to celebrate their right to keep and bear arms and to assemble as militias in defense of the Republic, as recognized in the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Leaders designated in each county or municipality are to announce a place for members of the militia to form, beginning at 6:00 AM of April 19. It is suggested that this place be a large field on the outskirts of every major city, and especially those cities having federal courts and offices. The order of the day shall be to sign up the members, organize them into squads of approximately 20 persons each, and spend the morning in training in the military arts and the safe and effective handling of arms, and instruction in their rights and duties under the U.S. and state Constitutions. This should include learning to recite at least the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Tenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution from memory. Each such squad shall elect a Sergeant-At-Arms who shall conduct the training and report to Militia commanders. He should be a person of good character who has the skills to lead in military march and drill. Throughout the day, all weapons are to be kept unloaded, and the Sergeant At-Arms shall make it his or her duty to inspect all weapons for compliance. Ammunition may accompany the formation, to be carried by someone designated for that duty, but ammunition is not to be issued to militia members unless or until it is needed to defend against a threat to their lives or those of other militia members or innocent persons. The order of march shall be to begin after lunch to march two abreast across the city to a site on the opposite side, where speeches shall be given and the militia dismissed. The path of march shall be along sidewalks, respecting private property, traffic signals and other rules of pedestrian movement. In no case shall the march be conducted in a way that would require a parade permit, nor shall such permit be sought or accepted. The path of march should be past any federal courthouse or offices, and past local government offices, homes of elected officials, and through any neighborhoods which have been subjected to high rates of crime and violence. Each squad shall carry the flags of the United States and of the State. When opposite government buildings, each squad shall be ordered to halt, face the building, present arms, and recite the First, Second, and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, followed by the oath: "I swear/affirm that I will preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic". If the government whose buildings they face is deemed to have violated the Constitution of the United States, then, depending on whether it is a federal or a state building, the U.S. or state flag shall be inverted as a protest, and not inverted back to its proper attitude until the squad shall have resumed the march. During the march, martial music may be played, but it is suggested that, in honor of the militiamen at the Battle of Lexington and Concord, the instruments be drums and fifes, or something similar. Each squad should be equipped with one video camera, to record the events and any resistance to them which may be encountered. Each squad should have a plan to secure the video tapes and have copies of them made and distributed before they can be seized by any hostile parties. The press should be kept informed and encouraged to provide coverage of the event prior and during its occurrence. Militiamen shall be permitted to carry protest signs, but shall be asked not to carry any which are not relevant to the occasion or which are too inflammatory. It is suggested that they include the following: (1) Exhortations to remember events: "Remember Lexington and Concord", "Remember the Warsaw Ghetto", "Remember the Alamo", "Remember Ruby Ridge", "Remember Mount Carmel", and others such. (2) Declarations of constitutional violations: "Title 26 USC Sec. 5861 is a violation of the Tenth Amendment", "Title 18 USC Sec. 922 is a violation of the Second and Tenth Amendments", "Title 18 USC has jurisdiction only in federal territories or the high seas", "The Firearms Acts of 1934,1968, 1986 are unconstitutional", or others such. (3) The oath: "I swear/affirm that I will preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic". (4) Militia identification: "Militia of the County/City of ..." Women and children are urged to participate, as are citizens of all races, creeds, and religions. It is suggested that children hold the protest signs. If arrested by law enforcement agents, militia members are not to resist, but when questioned, are to give only their name, county or town, their militia rank (private by default), and to recite the First, Second, and Tenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. At this stage in the Militia Movement, it is best not to be seen as provoking violence, and martyrs will serve the Movement better than victors. Persons not having or wishing to carry actual firearms are encouraged to carry other kinds of arms, such as swords, bows, knives, or, if nothing else, a wooden or plastic facsimile of a weapon. It should be remembered that "arms" are not just firearms. Members of youth "gangs" shall not be excluded if they agree to participate under militia discipline, in mixed units, and swear to uphold constitutional laws and the Constitution. They should be encouraged to renounce their allegiance to gang leaders and affirm their allegiance to the community as a whole. Committees of Correspondence are to be established by state, county, and congressional district. Secure means of communication shall be established to call out the militia on short notice to deal with any emergency. In no case are such Committees of Correspondence or any militia to receive tax funds or to be subject to govermental authority at any level. They shall be private, voluntary associations that fund themselves and make their own rules. These may unite under a National Militia Association, National Militia Coordinating Committee, or some such. Militias must avoid allowing any persons to become indispensible leaders, so that the Militia Movement could be suppressed by attacking its leaders. The Militia must be, to the extent possible, "leaderless" and spontaneous. Local militias are to conduct regular meetings for training and discussion on at least a monthly basis, and to plan events for future Militia Day celebrations. We must also work together to get April 19 declared a national holiday, Militia Day. Not a "right to keep and bear arms" day, because every day is a right to keep and bear arms day. Militia Day shall be a day on which all able-bodied citizens will be called up for formations of their local militias, for training and discussion. Copies of this proclamation are to be made and distributed everywhere, together with the name and phone number of a local coordinator, and a map of the formation sites and the routes of march. FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE INFO: JON ROLAND 210/224-2868
6. To resist and oppose any laws, administrative practices, executive actions, court decisions, or political or social customs, which violate constitutional principles in the United States or any other country, and in particular the Constitution of the United States as it was intended by its Framers. 7. To offer support for any persons who may be the victims of tyranny or political oppression, and to seek justice for them and for their causes.However, such purposes shall not include advocacy of any particular social or economic policy, other than adherence to constitutional principles. The founders of these organizations felt that although there are other organizations dedicated to the restoration of constitutional governance, most of them had other economic or social agendas which distracted them from the primary mission. In the words of one of the founders, Jon Roland, "We want a set of organizations where people of all political persuasions can feel comfortable, not just libertarians and conservatives, but also liberals and environmentalists. The only thing they need agree on is that if there is some power that government needs to solve some problem, then the Constitution needs to be amended first to give it that power, and amended in a way that does not infringe on our natural rights. For the past 60 years it has been a great temptation, when faced with difficult problems, and when advocates of solutions to those problems could muster only enough support to pass laws but not enough to adopt constitutional amendments, to simply go ahead and pass the laws, then count on compliant judges to ignore the Constitution and allow those laws to stand. The result is a legal mess. It is time to go back and clean up the mess." One of the projects of the Constitution Foundation and Constitution Society, Roland said, will be to systematically review the entire United States Code, identifying all those sections and clauses that violate the Constitution as it was intended by the Framers, regardless of whether we may agree with them or not. Also formed at the same time is the Texas Militia Correspondence Committee. It's purposes are:
These organizations will be sponsoring Militia Day, to be celebrated on April 19 of each year in commemoration of the Battle of Lexington and Concord, in which local militias resisted an attempt by British troops to disarm them, and thereby started the American Revolution. 6900 San Pedro #147-230 San Antonio, TX 78216 210/224-2868 94/04/12 The past year has been an eventful one, but it is only the prelude to events to come. We are at the turning point in a historic course, and must make a choice. We call upon you to join with us and assemble on April 19 as a militia. Not just a rally of enthusiasts or protesters, or of some select group of leaders, but of such of the Militia as we can get to come, conscious of ourselves being the Militia, and met with the purpose to fulfill the intent of the Framers of the Constitution that the Militia should be kept organized and trained. Let us pause for a moment to consider the significance of that. Local militias meet now, in private places, away from public attention. We will be meeting in the heart of a major metropolitan area, in full view of the world. We don't have to do anything. Merely meeting as the Militia, peacefully and openly, will send a message: The American Revolution began with an attempt by the government to disarm the people. It could happen again. During the past year we have explored the available bulwarks against tyranny. Some have bemoaned how the people, seduced by promises of security, seem unwilling to elect officials who will enforce the Constitution as it was intended to be enforced by its Framers. We have worked to elect better candidates. But now we find that even if they voted otherwise, the election is likely to be rigged to elect candidates chosen not by the people but by an oligarchy of powerful interests. We have vested hope in juries to refuse to render verdicts that enforce unconstitutional or misapplied laws, but have seen how juries can be controlled to suit the purposes of those in power. We look around us to try to find institutions we can trust, but everywhere we turn, we find that those institutions are controlled by people in key positions that are accountable not to the people or to their shareholders or to the law, but to a chain of command that leads to persons unknown. All of our constitutional rights are threatened by a relentless subversion of that rule of law without which there can be no security, no justice, and finally, no peace. But in special peril the very week we propose to celebrate Militia Day is our right to keep and bear arms and our right to assemble peacefully as a Militia. Bills before Congress are scheduled then for a vote that would finally confront thousands, perhaps millions, of American citizens with being made outlaws by the stroke of a pen, confronted with the decision to either surrender our arms or resist against overwhelming force. On April 19 of last year, more than 80 persons died in the kind of confrontation that may be faced by hundreds of thousands of patriot groups, mostly single families. Standing alone, with no one to come to their aid, to avenge them, or even in many cases to bear witness to their fate, they stand little chance. Unless the Militia organizes. That is what the Powers That Be fear most. It's not crime, or public health. It's all about power. As long as we have the possibility of uniting and resisting them, they remain threatened, and they foresee events that will reveal them and shake the foundations of public order on which their control depends. They are preparing for those events, and so must we. It is time for the Militia to awaken. To organize. To train. And in so doing, to make it unnecessary to have a confrontation. By our numbers and our discipline, by our invulnerability to control by any key people among us, and by the sympathy we will gain from people throughout the fabric of government, the military, law enforcement, and the media, we will position ourselves for a stalemate on the field of force. They will know that we cannot be divided or attacked a few at a time, and that in a general confrontation they could not prevail. By thus establishing a balance of power, we win. For their power depends on growth. When they cannot gather more power to themselves, their power will falter and break up into factions that will no longer be able to act in concert against the people. Therefore, it is important that every one of you attend. This letter is being sent to more than 500 persons. If each of you can bring 5 others, we can get the attention of the world. If you love your country and its Constitution, it is time for you to act. We propose to you an oath or affirmation: "I swear/affirm that I will preserve, protect, and defend the Earth, the Nation and its Constitution, the State and its Constitution, and the Community, against all enemies, foreign or domestic; and that I will make an independent determination of the constitutionality and applicability of all laws and official acts with which I may become involved, without being unduly influenced by any official or superior, and that I will obey or assist in the enforcement of those which are constitutional and applicable, and resist those that are not, regardless of personal consequences."By dawn's early light have patriots ever met to defend their liberties. Now is the time. Do not fail, or in times to come you will regret that you were not there, when history was made. Jon Roland Member, Texas Militia Correspondence Committee When you come bring information about yourself on a sheet of paper, or send it before you come to the above address. We need your name, address, phone, weapon of choice, skills, resources, and what you feel you can contribute. There could be a last minute change of meeting site. Call the above phone number before you come. It will have an announcement of any changes. If we do there will be a sign or person at the site to redirect you. Militia Day Leadership Conference April 19, 1994 Where: The present plan is to meet in San Antonio on the median of the unfinished portion of Hwy 151 south of Westover Hills Road, near the entrance to Sea World, on the southwest side of San Antonio. From there we may go to the Bullet Hole, a shooting range. To get there take US 90 past Loop 1604. Take the first right turn, which is Grosenbacher Road, and go about 2 miles. It has a $5.00 charge. We will not be meeting in a city park as previously planned. These sites are subject to change, however, so be alert to late announcements or call the phone number shown below. When: Beginning at 6:00 AM and continuing through late afternoon. Try not to be later than 8:00 AM. If you have to work and can't stay all day, at least be there from 6:00 to 8:00 AM. Why April 19: On April 19, 1775, the American Revolution began with the battle of Lexington and Concord, when local militias resisted the attempt by British soldiers to seize their stocks of weapons. It is also the anniversary of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising during World War II, and of the final assault on Mount Carmel. It is also close to the anniversary of the battle of San Jacinto, where on April 21, 1836, the Texas Militia defeated the Army of Mexico. We commemorate these events, and seek to establish April 19 of each year as a national holiday for persons reporting for militia duty. Where to park: Along the roadway, clear of the pavement. If the ground is wet, check it first to avoid getting stuck. What to bring: One rifle or shotgun, with ammunition, but unloaded. No handguns or other weapons than short knives, except for those used in training demonstrations. Comfortable footwear and headgear. Knapsack to carry lunch and gear, and to carry out trash. Canteen. U.S. and Texas flags. Relevant books and training manuals. There will be no latrines, so plan accordingly. Training topics: The morning will be devoted to organizing participants into groups who will take turns studying and discussing various topics: home and community defense, disaster prevention and recovery, safe use and storage of weapons, weapons laws, constitutional law, jury rights and duties, organizing local militia units, assistance to law enforcement, crime prevention, citizen arrest powers and procedures, resistance to illegal authority, field medicine, neighborhood patrols, neighborhood alert systems and communications, working with troubled youth, investigating crime, uncovering official corruption and election fraud, military drill and manual of arms, march music. Especially needed: We have invited the Texas National Guard, Texas Rangers, Bexar County Sheriff, and San Antonio Police to provide instructors in some of the above areas, but they are busy during this period, so we need persons with special expertise to lead the seminars and discussion groups and provide training. We could use experts in constitutional law and history, militia history, electronics and communications, surveillance technology, public information, CPR and first aid, field medicine, improvised munitions, and ballistics. Extras needed: Portable public address system with batteries, musical instruments suitable for marching (such as fife and drum), video cameras with extra batteries and tapes, signs and signmaking materials, banners, voting precinct maps, portable CB radios, ham radio equipment, portable computers, sample election materials. Things to read: U.S. and Texas Constitutions, Halbrook: That Every Man Be Armed, Norval: The Militia in the 20th Century, Collier & Collier: Votescam, Ayoob: The Truth About Self-Protection, In the Gravest Extreme, StressFire, Gottlieb: The Rights of Gun Owners, U.S. Army Manual of Drill and Manual of Arms. We will expect everyone to be able to memorize the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 10th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, as well as the relevant provisions of Article I Section 8. Also, bring any other relevant books, manuals, or articles that you think would contribute to this event. Discipline: All participants will be subject to Militia Discipline. There is to be no alcohol and no littering. Participants are discouraged from displaying paramilitary trappings where they may be seen by news media. Persons who take any action that may endanger anyone or that may tend to discredit this gathering will be ejected and in extreme cases may be subject to arrest. Spread the word: Make copies of this announcement and try to get as many people to come as you can. Try to get people of all kinds, from every neighborhood and walk of life. Notify your local media. If you can, begin in advance to organize a local militia and get them to come as a unit. We would especially like to see women, older children, and members of minority groups. Political Action: For those who wish to do so, the afternoon will be devoted to political protests of violations of the U.S. and State Constitutions, including visits to public officials and a march to demonstrate our commitment. For information: This event is being called by the Texas Militia Correspondence Committee and the Constitution Society, both at 6900 San Pedro #147-230, San Antonio, TX 78216, 210/224-2868. About the Constitution Society: It is a non- profit action organization dedicated to making government conform to constitutional principles, as embodied in the Constitution of the United States according to the original intent of its Framers, and their writings and speeches. It is not limited to the United States, but seeks to establish or restore constitutional principles everywhere. It has no social or economic agenda, and is not for or against any law or government program or activity except insofar as it conforms to the Constitution of the nation and state. Dues are $50.00 per year. About the Texas Militia Correspondence Committee: It is to coordinate local independent militias throughout the State of Texas and assist them in meeting and training, in the absence of legislation and direction at the state or national level. If the Governor or President were to call up the Militia, it would assist in complying with the callup. It also serves as a point of contact with correspondence committees in other states. At present, members are self-appointed, but it is planned that it will eventually be elected by county militia commanders, who will in turn be elected by precinct militia commanders. Remember: The Militia consists of all able- bodied citizens, together with such others as wish to participate. It is not a private association or some select subset of the people. The Militia has the constitutional right to assemble bearing arms. FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE INFO: JON ROLAND 210/224-2868 "The Framers of the U.S. Constitution envisioned that the militia, which consists of all able-bodied citizens, plus any other citizens who wish to volunteer, would be the mainstay of defense of the nation, much as it is in Switzerland, which has a very small army but where everyone receives military training and is organized to respond to emergencies of all kinds", said Roland. "The Framers also wanted the militia kept ready to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution against abuses by government officials, as one of the checks on excessive governmental power, and as a bulwark against tyranny." "Unfortunately," said Roland, "the militia has been allowed to fall in disuse, and power has become concentrated in the national government and in a huge defense establishment, which now threatens the liberties of the people in ways they were once threatened by foreign countries." "It is time to revive the constitutional militia," said Roland. "To do that, since there is no initiative coming from state government, we have decided to have the militia start calling up itself. It can do that in the absence of a callup by the Governor or the President. Obviously, without official backing, we won't get everyone to come to the muster, but even if we only get a few, this thing can grow from year to year as public awareness grows." "It is important to realize," Roland said, "that the National Guard is not the militia. It is organized as part of the Army, and as such, while being part of the militia, as all able-bodied citizens are, it is not the whole of it. It is the rest of it that needs to be organized, for such purposes as civil defense, disaster control, crime control, and other civic purposes." "Unfortunately," added Roland, "Federal authorities have decided to oppose this effort, and are doing everything they can to prevent us from meeting." Roland explained that he and other organizers made every effort to reach out to local, state and National Guard officials to join in helping make this effort succeed, by providing speakers and instructors. "At first they seemed supportive of the idea, but then suddenly the support was cut off and turned to opposition", Roland said. The meeting was first planned to meet in Olmos Park, but then organizers were told that the area selected "was not an area that could be reserved, and therefore meeting there would not be permitted." When the plan was changed to meet in San Pedro Park, which was founded under a charter that does not allow restrictions on access, the City of San Antonio invoked its Ordinance 79328, which was motivated by youth gang violence and forbids the carrying of firearms in public parks, and told the organizers that they would be arrested if they met with their firearms. Roland commented, "Well, if they are going to arrest anyone carrying a firearm in a public park, they aren't doing their jobs, because scores of people carry firearms in Olmos Park every day at the San Antonio Gun Club, which is on park grounds. What we are doing has a lot more civic value than guys shooting skeet. This is selective enforcement." "We then decided to move the meeting site to Hwy 151, at the entrance to Sea World," said Roland, "because we need a large open area on public land. This unfinished expressway makes a good place to train. It has a gravel surface that won't get soggy if it rains." When asked to cite examples of how this effort is being opposed by federal authorities, Roland said, "On Monday, April 11, a male voice called the office where I was working in the Tower Life Building, and asked the receptionist in which office I work. She told him. Two days later, someone entered the office in the middle of the night and stole my computer. They knew exactly which one it was. It was not an ordinary burglary. There were plenty of other things in that and other offices that could have been taken that were more valuable. It shows the classic M.O. of a federal 'black bag' operation. It also shows their incompetence. They failed to take the power supply. They don't seem to know that computers need electricity to run." Roland went on, "On Friday, members of the San Antonio Police Department visited the office to 'look for explosives'. It was not a real search. Clearly just harassment. They mentioned that they had received an 'intelligence briefing' on Roland which portrayed him as some kind of 'mad bomber'." "Clearly," Roland said, "they have begun the classic pattern of trying to demonize and discredit a leader of a dissident group by spreading disinformation about him". Roland added, "I am really upset that they couldn't come up with something more original. No one who knows anything about me is going to believe nonsense like that. The last time I had anything to do with explosives was when I was ten years old and set off some firecrackers under a can." "Now, if they had claimed that I am some kind of space alien, they might have gotten somewhere. A few of my friends could believe that," he chuckled. "If they're going to tell lies about me," Roland said, "at least let's have some that are entertaining and imaginative." Roland went on to mention that this is not the first such effort. "Militia units have assembled before here in Texas. They march in holiday parades, stage historical reinactments, and do other useful things. This is just one more effort of the same kind." When asked what might have prompted federal authorities to try to orchestrate this kind of opposition, Roland said, "Well, we have done several things lately that might have gotten their attention. First, we're not just doing this locally. I put out a call over the Internet to the entire United States to do this kind of thing everywhere, to make Militia Day a national holiday. Apparently, there are groups all over the country doing similar things, independently, but in concert." The second thing he did that might have aroused their attention, Roland said, was to post and email excerpts of a book called Votescam: The Stealing of America, by James and Kenneth Collier, to people and news organizations all around the world, over the Internet. The excerpts indicate that most computerized elections in the United States can be rigged whenever the Powers That Be wish to do so, and that Attorney General Janet Reno participated in the coverup of one such rigged election in Florida. The third thing he did, Roland said, was to spread the word over the Internet about a federal agent who disclosed in an overheard conversation that the massacre of the Branch Davidians at Mount Carmel on April 19, 1993, was intentional. "The reasons were budgetary, according to this agent," said Roland. "The siege was becoming too costly for them, so they decided to cut their costs by cutting off the lives of the Davidians." Roland added, "this source indicated, though not clearly, that federal agents lied to Attorney General Janet Reno about the plan they intended to carry out. The plan they presented to her was not the real plan." "So the question is," Roland said, "why is she now participating in the coverup?" "I have been a very bad boy", chuckled Roland. "They probably wanted my computer to try to find out where I'm getting my information. When they discover it's not on the computer, I expect them to bring it back."[1] Roland said that he has long been functioning as a freelance investigative journalist, and this kind of thing is not unusual. "It is sad," he said, "that we now live in a police state and not in a constitutional republic. If we are going to solve our common problems, it is going to take all of us working together. Members of the Shadow Government can't survive unless they return to constitutional governance and engage the people in common action." "We're not trying to start a revolution," Roland concluded. "We're trying to prevent one. The only way to do that is to make it unnecessary. This nation can't afford a revolution. There is too much at stake." FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE INFO: JON ROLAND 319/264-2511 Roland said that most such militia units are keeping a low profile for the time being, until they become established, mainly recruiting through word of mouth and announcements on talk radio. He said that the Texas Militia Correspondence Committee is not in contact with most of them yet, but has found the materials produced by the Texas group being widely copied and circulated. "The main motivating factor for this recent unsurge in activity," said Roland, "has been the ill-conceived gun control provisions of the current Crime Bill. People everywhere see it not only as a major assault on their constitutional rights to keep and bear arms, but as a more sinister preparation for depriving them of their other constitutional rights after they have been disarmed. They perceive a greater threat from criminal officials than from criminal street gangs." Which is not to say that some officials have not become involved, as well. "Several counties in Western Florida have declared all their citizens to be members of the Militia," Roland said, "and Catron County, New Mexico, has just joined the list of communities that actually require all their heads of households to keep a gun suitable for militia duty. We haven't seen this much organizing activity since the Civil War, or so much legislative activity since the Militia Act of 1792, which required every able-bodied male citizen of the United States to keep a firearm." "It is not just gun rights that are involved in this movement," Roland said. This Crime Bill is only the latest move in what people perceive as a progressive overthrow of the Constitution by a conspiracy of special interests that are not accountable to the people and which operate above the law. Patriotic Americans don't just want to hang on to such rights as they have left, but to roll back this growth of tyranny. They have lost confidence in the integrity of our legal institutions, including courts and elections." "Much of the legislation that has been adopted and that has become established during the past 60 years is unconstitutional," Roland added. "For too many legislators, the Constitution has become just window-dressing. Lawmakers support the provisions they like and discard the rest, and even the provisions they support are subject to compromise just like those of an ordinary statute." "That is not to say," said Roland, "that there are not powers that the federal government has assumed that are not appropriate for it to exercise, but not until after the Constitution has been amended to delegate such powers to it." Examples of such powers might include regulation of aviation and electronic communications, he added. "The main cause of this incremental overthrow of the Constitution has been demands from special interests, and sometimes from the people, for solutions to problems without a demand to keep the solutions constitutional. Legislators yield to these pressures, leaving it to the courts to strike down the provisions that are unconstitutional. But the courts avoid doing that. Instead, they engage in the most amazing twists of logic to try to go along with what the lawmakers and bureaucrats have done. The result is that we are becoming a government of men instead of law, with no truly guaranteed rights or limitations on powers. And there is no shortage of corrupt or overzealous officials to step in to abuse their new powers. The result is a creeping tyranny, which, as it affects more and more citizens, is causing growing frustration, disillusionment, and anger." "The Framers envisioned a Militia System for this country," said Roland, "similar to that of Switzerland. We have allowed that system to fall into disuse, and we are now suffering the consequences of that. It is time to revive the constitutional militia, as a substitute for bureaucratic action and as a check on abusive government". "The assault on Mount Carmel has been the wakeup call for our generation," said Roland. "The whole world saw agents of the U.S. Government, supposed to be the standard for liberty, get away with murder. We no longer regard the feds as the good guys, without question." "The present Crime Bill just reinforces this suspicion," said Roland. "It does almost nothing to protect the public. What it does do is extend federal control in ways that only make sense if it is a preparation for an overthrow of the Constitution. All that money for policemen is only going to fund federal agents in local law enforcement organizations that can perpetrate abuses under the cover of those organizations and prevent those organizations from doing anything to stop those abuses, as the Texas Rangers almost did at Waco." "We no longer have confidence in local law enforcement to protect us," said Roland. "If there is another Waco," said Roland, "we will look to the Militia to defend the innocent, and the outcome may be quite different. The first American Revolution began with an attempt by the authorities to disarm the people," Roland said. "It could happen again." SOUTHERN REGION 5525 Blanco Road, Suite 112 San Antonio, Texas 78216 (210)525-0693 FAX: (210)342-4867 September 28, 1994 Info: Bill Utterback (210)525-0693 STATEWIDE MILITIA MUSTER AND PATRIOT RALLY AT THE ALAMO ON NOVEMBER 12, 1994 San Antonio, Texas, September 28, 1994 -- Bill Utterback, Coordinator for units of the Southern Region of the Texas Constitutional Militia and project coordinator for the Alamo Rally today announced the first statewide militia muster to be held in Texas since 1836. At noon on November 12, 1994, volunteers from Texas Constitutional Militia units across the state will muster at a patriot rally open to all American patriots. Under the slogan, 'In 1836 a messenger rode from the Alamo for help -- in 1994 a messenger rode to the Alamo for help', a five day Freedom Ride from Cuero, Texas to San Antonio, Texas by a militia unit will terminate at the Alamo with a messenger bringing a Statement of Grievances for presentation to the government. John Hamilton, Commander of the De Witt County Volunteers unit of the Texas Constitutional Militia and federal congressional candidate, will be that messenger. The route of the Freedom Ride passes through Gonzales, Texas, where the first shot of the Texas Revolution was fired on October 2, 1835. At that time the Mexican Army demanded the return of a cannon in the possession of the Texas militia. The militia, defiantly flying a banner inscribed 'Come and Take it', sent the Mexican Army detachment running back to the Alamo without the cannon. Held on Veterans' Day plus one, the purposes of the rally are to honor the Alamo heroes plus all the other American patriots who responded to the call of duty in the two hundred and twenty years since 1774 and to petition the government for redress of grievances. "It is interesting to note", said Utterback, "that the Alamo defenders never knew that the Republic of Texas had declared independence from Mexico. They were fighting in an attempt to force the Mexican government to operate under the limitations in the Mexican Constitution of 1824, which is why their flag was the Mexican tri-color with the national emblem replaced by the numbers '1824'. Similarly, the goal of the Texas Constitutional Militia is to return both the Texas and United States governments to Constitutional republics". "The militia will carry no weapons at this muster", continued Utterback, "to empathize that we believe our goal can be met without a shot being fired. The option of the militia engaging in defensive combat would be a last resort action in response to criminal and/or unconstitutional aggression by enemies of the Constitution". Speakers will include Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America and Larry Dodge of the Fully Informed Jury Association. Also speaking will be Gary Graham and J. C. Van Kirk of Take Texas Back, Tinker Spain of the Committee to Repeal War and Emergency Rule, and Alex De Pena, San Antonio political activist. Except for a few public officials, the militia of Texas is composed of the adult Texans who are not serving in the United States military forces. Units of the Texas Constitutional Militia (T.C.M.) are Texans who have chosen to become active in the militia. Volunteers of the T.C.M. absolutely support and defend both the Texas and United States Constitutions and will take an oath to that effect at the Alamo. Divided presently into a Northern and Southern Region, the T.C.M. is organized by counties with each county unit operating under the authority of the people of that county. The right of the people of Texas to form a militia is a natural and common law right, protected by the First and Second Amendments of the United States Constitution and by Article 1, Sections 23 and 27 of the Texas Constitution. In the current Texas Constitution, adopted in 1876, the people of Texas delegated to the Texas Legislature the authority to organize and discipline the Militia, In 1969 the people of Texas took back this delegated authority by repealing Article 16, Section 46 of the Texas Constitution. In Texas, the authority to form a militia is once again held by the people without the Texas Legislature being involved. SOUTHERN REGION 5525 Blanco Road, Suite 112 San Antonio, Texas 78216 (210)525-0693 FAX: (210)342-4867 September 28, 1994 Info: Bill Utterback (210)525-0693 STATEWIDE MILITIA MUSTER AND PATRIOT RALLY AT THE ALAMO ON NOVEMBER 12, 1994 San Antonio, Texas, September 28, 1994 -- Bill Utterback, Coordinator for units of the Southern Region of the Texas Constitutional Militia and project coordinator for the Alamo Rally today announced the first statewide militia muster to be held in Texas since 1836. At noon on November 12, 1994, volunteers from Texas Constitutional Militia units across the state will muster at a patriot rally open to all American patriots. Under the slogan, 'In 1836 a messenger rode from the Alamo for help -- in 1994 a messenger rode to the Alamo for help', a five day Freedom Ride from Cuero, Texas to San Antonio, Texas by a militia unit will terminate at the Alamo with a messenger bringing a Statement of Grievances for presentation to the government. John Hamilton, Commander of the De Witt County Volunteers unit of the Texas Constitutional Militia and federal congressional candidate, will be that messenger. The route of the Freedom Ride passes through Gonzales, Texas, where the first shot of the Texas Revolution was fired on October 2, 1835. At that time the Mexican Army demanded the return of a cannon in the possession of the Texas militia. The militia, defiantly flying a banner inscribed 'Come and Take it', sent the Mexican Army detachment running back to the Alamo without the cannon. Held on Veterans' Day plus one, the purposes of the rally are to honor the Alamo heroes plus all the other American patriots who responded to the call of duty in the two hundred and twenty years since 1774 and to petition the government for redress of grievances. "It is interesting to note", said Utterback, "that the Alamo defenders never knew that the Republic of Texas had declared independence from Mexico. They were fighting in an attempt to force the Mexican government to operate under the limitations in the Mexican Constitution of 1824, which is why their flag was the Mexican tri-color with the national emblem replaced by the numbers '1824'. Similarly, the goal of the Texas Constitutional Militia is to return both the Texas and United States governments to Constitutional republics". "The militia will carry no weapons at this muster", continued Utterback, "to empathize that we believe our goal can be met without a shot being fired. The option of the militia engaging in defensive combat would be a last resort action in response to criminal and/or unconstitutional aggression by enemies of the Constitution". Speakers will include Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America and Larry Dodge of the Fully Informed Jury Association. Also speaking will be Gary Graham and J. C. Van Kirk of Take Texas Back, Tinker Spain of the Committee to Repeal War and Emergency Rule, and Alex De Pena, San Antonio political activist. Except for a few public officials, the militia of Texas is composed of the adult Texans who are not serving in the United States military forces. Units of the Texas Constitutional Militia (T.C.M.) are Texans who have chosen to become active in the militia. Volunteers of the T.C.M. absolutely support and defend both the Texas and United States Constitutions and will take an oath to that effect at the Alamo. Divided presently into a Northern and Southern Region, the T.C.M. is organized by counties with each county unit operating under the authority of the people of that county. The right of the people of Texas to form a militia is a natural and common law right, protected by the First and Second Amendments of the United States Constitution and by Article 1, Sections 23 and 27 of the Texas Constitution. In the current Texas Constitution, adopted in 1876, the people of Texas delegated to the Texas Legislature the authority to organize and discipline the Militia, In 1969 the people of Texas took back this delegated authority by repealing Article 16, Section 46 of the Texas Constitution. In Texas, the authority to form a militia is once again held by the people without the Texas Legislature being involved. FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE INFO: JON ROLAND 210/224-2868 Roland said that most such militia units are keeping a low profile for the time being, until they become established, mainly recruiting through word of mouth and announcements on talk radio. He said that the Texas Militia Correspondence Committee is not in contact with all of them yet, but has found the materials produced by the Texas group being widely copied and circulated. "The main motivating factor for this recent unsurge in activity," said Roland, "has been the ill-conceived gun control provisions of the current Crime Bill. People everywhere see it not only as a major assault on their constitutional rights to keep and bear arms, but as a more sinister preparation for depriving them of their other constitutional rights after they have been disarmed. They perceive a greater threat from criminal officials than from criminal street gangs." Which is not to say that some officials have not become involved, as well. "Several counties in Western Florida have declared all their citizens to be members of the Militia," Roland said, "and Catron County, New Mexico, has just joined the list of communities that actually require all their heads of households to keep a gun suitable for militia duty. We haven't seen this much organizing activity since the Civil War, or so much legislative activity since the Militia Act of 1792, which required every able-bodied male citizen of the United States to keep a firearm." "It is not just gun rights that are involved in this movement," Roland said. This Crime Bill is only the latest move in what people perceive as a progressive overthrow of the Constitution by a conspiracy of special interests that are not accountable to the people and which operate above the law. Patriotic Americans don't just want to hang on to such rights as they have left, but to roll back this growth of tyranny. They have lost confidence in the integrity of our legal institutions, including courts and elections." "Much of the legislation that has been adopted and that has become established during the past 60 years is unconstitutional," Roland added. "For too many legislators, the Constitution has become just window-dressing. Lawmakers support the provisions they like and discard the rest, and even the provisions they support are subject to compromise just like those of an ordinary statute." "That is not to say," said Roland, "that there are not powers that the federal government has assumed that are not appropriate for it to exercise, but not until after the Constitution has been amended to delegate such powers to it." Examples of such powers might include regulation of aviation and electronic communications, he added. "The main cause of this incremental overthrow of the Constitution has been demands from special interests, and sometimes from the people, for solutions to problems without a demand to keep the solutions constitutional. Legislators yield to these pressures, leaving it to the courts to strike down the provisions that are unconstitutional. But the courts avoid doing that. Instead, they engage in the most amazing twists of logic to try to go along with what the lawmakers and bureaucrats have done. The result is that we are becoming a government of men instead of law, with no truly guaranteed rights or limitations on powers. And there is no shortage of corrupt or overzealous officials to step in to abuse their new powers. The result is a creeping tyranny, which, as it affects more and more citizens, is causing growing frustration, disillusionment, and anger." "The Framers envisioned a Militia System for this country," said Roland, "similar to that of Switzerland. We have allowed that system to fall into disuse, and we are now suffering the consequences of that. It is time to revive the constitutional militia, as a substitute for bureaucratic action and as a check on abusive government". "The assault on Mount Carmel has been the wakeup call for our generation," said Roland. "The whole world saw agents of the U.S. Government, supposed to be the standard for liberty, get away with murder. We no longer regard the feds as the good guys, without question." "The present Crime Bill just reinforces this suspicion," said Roland. "It does almost nothing to protect the public. What it does do is extend federal control in ways that only make sense if it is a preparation for an overthrow of the Constitution. All that money for policemen is only going to fund federal agents in local law enforcement organizations that can perpetrate abuses under the cover of those organizations and prevent those organizations from doing anything to stop those abuses, as the Texas Rangers almost did at Waco." "We no longer have confidence in local law enforcement to protect us," said Roland. "If there is another Waco," said Roland, "we will look to the Militia to defend the innocent, and the outcome may be quite different. The first American Revolution began with an attempt by the authorities to disarm the people," Roland said. "It could happen again." FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE INFO: JON ROLAND 214/641-7107 210/224-2868 Roland said that while some of these militia units are keeping a low profile for the time being, until they become established, mainly recruiting through word of mouth and announcements on talk radio, most are now meeting in response to public notices. He said that the Texas Militia Correspondence Committee is not in contact with all of them yet, but has found the materials produced by the Texas group being widely copied and circulated. "The main motivating factor for this recent upsurge in activity," said Roland, "has been the ill-conceived gun control provisions of the current Crime Bill. People everywhere see it not only as a major assault on their constitutional rights to keep and bear arms, but as a more sinister preparation for depriving them of their other constitutional rights after they have been disarmed. They perceive a greater threat from criminal officials than from criminal street gangs." Which is not to say that some officials have not become involved, as well. "Several counties in Western Florida have declared all their citizens to be members of the Militia," Roland said, "and several counties and communities in Oregon, New Mexico, and Georgia actually require all their heads of households to keep a gun suitable for militia duty. We haven't seen this much organizing activity since the Civil War, or so much legislative activity since the Militia Act of 1792, which required every able-bodied male citizen of the United States to keep a firearm." "It is not just gun rights that are involved in this movement," Roland said. This Crime Bill is only the latest move in what people perceive as a progressive overthrow of the Constitution by a conspiracy of special interests that are not accountable to the people and which operate above the law. Patriotic Americans don't just want to hang on to such rights as they have left, but to roll back this growth of tyranny. They have lost confidence in the integrity of our legal institutions, including courts and elections." "Much of the legislation that has been adopted and that has become established during the past 60 years is unconstitutional," Roland added. "For too many legislators, the Constitution has become a dead letter, something in which to find excuses for what they are already determined to do, rather than a firm guarantee of rights and limitations on government powers. Lawmakers support the provisions they like and discard the rest, and even the provisions they support are subject to compromise as though it were an ordinary statute." "That is not to say," said Roland, "that there are not powers that the federal government has assumed that are not appropriate for it to exercise, but not until after the Constitution has been amended to delegate such powers to it." Examples of such powers might include regulation of aviation and electronic communications, he added. "The main cause of this incremental overthrow of the Constitution has been demands from special interests, and sometimes from the people, for solutions to problems without a demand to keep the solutions constitutional. Legislators yield to these pressures, leaving it to the courts to strike down the provisions that are unconstitutional. But the courts avoid doing that. Instead, they engage in the most amazing twists of logic to try to go along with what the lawmakers and bureaucrats have done. The result is that we are becoming a government of men instead of law, with no truly guaranteed rights or limitations on powers. And there is no shortage of corrupt or overzealous officials to step in to abuse their new powers. The result is a creeping tyranny, which, as it affects more and more citizens, is causing growing frustration, disillusionment, and anger." "The Framers envisioned a Militia System for this country," said Roland, "similar to that of Switzerland. We have allowed that system to fall into disuse, and we are now suffering the consequences of that. It is time to revive the constitutional militia, as a substitute for bureaucratic action and as a check on abusive government". "The assault on Mount Carmel has been the wakeup call for our generation," said Roland. "The whole world saw agents of the U.S. Government, supposed to be the standard for liberty, get away with murder. We no longer regard the feds as the good guys, without question." "The present Crime Bill just reinforces this suspicion," said Roland. "It does almost nothing to protect the public. What it does do is extend federal control in ways that only make sense if it is a preparation for an overthrow of the Constitution. All that money for policemen is only going to fund federal agents in local law enforcement organizations that can perpetrate abuses under the cover of those organizations and prevent those organizations from doing anything to stop those abuses, as the Texas Rangers almost did at Waco." "We no longer have confidence in local law enforcement to protect us," said Roland. "If there is another Waco," said Roland, "we will look to the Militia to defend the innocent, and the outcome may be quite different. The first American Revolution began with an attempt by the authorities to disarm the people," Roland said. "It could happen again." FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE INFO: JON ROLAND 210/224-2868 Roland said that while some of these militia units are keeping a low profile for the time being, until they become established, mainly recruiting through word of mouth and announcements on talk radio, most are now meeting in response to public notices. He said that the Texas Militia Correspondence Committee is not in contact with all of them yet, but has found the materials produced by the Texas group being widely copied and circulated. "The main motivating factor for this recent upsurge in activity," said Roland, "has been the ill-conceived gun control provisions of the current Crime Bill. People everywhere see it not only as a major assault on their constitutional rights to keep and bear arms, but as a more sinister preparation for depriving them of their other constitutional rights after they have been disarmed. They perceive a greater threat from criminal officials than from criminal street gangs." Which is not to say that some officials have not become involved, as well. "Several counties in Western Florida have declared all their citizens to be members of the Militia," Roland said, "and several counties and communities in Oregon, New Mexico, and Georgia actually require all their heads of households to keep a gun suitable for militia duty. We haven't seen this much organizing activity since the Civil War, or so much legislative activity since the Militia Act of 1792, which required every able-bodied male citizen of the United States to keep a firearm." "It is not just gun rights that are involved in this movement," Roland said. This Crime Bill is only the latest move in what people perceive as a progressive overthrow of the Constitution by a conspiracy of special interests that are not accountable to the people and which operate above the law. Patriotic Americans don't just want to hang on to such rights as they have left, but to roll back this growth of tyranny. They have lost confidence in the integrity of our legal institutions, including courts and elections." "Much of the legislation that has been adopted and that has become established during the past 60 years is unconstitutional," Roland added. "For too many legislators, the Constitution has become a dead letter, something in which to find excuses for what they are already determined to do, rather than a firm guarantee of rights and limitations on government powers. Lawmakers support the provisions they like and discard the rest, and even the provisions they support are subject to compromise as though it were an ordinary statute." "That is not to say," said Roland, "that there are not powers that the federal government has assumed that are not appropriate for it to exercise, but not until after the Constitution has been amended to delegate such powers to it." Examples of such powers might include regulation of aviation and electronic communications, he added. "The main cause of this incremental overthrow of the Constitution has been demands from special interests, and sometimes from the people, for solutions to problems without a demand to keep the solutions constitutional. Legislators yield to these pressures, leaving it to the courts to strike down the provisions that are unconstitutional. But the courts avoid doing that. Instead, they engage in the most amazing twists of logic to try to go along with what the lawmakers and bureaucrats have done. The result is that we are becoming a government of men instead of law, with no truly guaranteed rights or limitations on powers. And there is no shortage of corrupt or overzealous officials to step in to abuse their new powers. The result is a creeping tyranny, which, as it affects more and more citizens, is causing growing frustration, disillusionment, and anger." "The Framers envisioned a Militia System for this country," said Roland, "similar to that of Switzerland. We have allowed that system to fall into disuse, and we are now suffering the consequences of that. It is time to revive the constitutional militia, as a substitute for bureaucratic action and as a check on abusive government". "The assault on Mount Carmel has been the wakeup call for our generation," said Roland. "The whole world saw agents of the U.S. Government, supposed to be the standard for liberty, get away with murder. We no longer regard the feds as the good guys, without question." "The present Crime Bill just reinforces this suspicion," said Roland. "It does almost nothing to protect the public. What it does do is extend federal control in ways that only make sense if it is a preparation for an overthrow of the Constitution. All that money for policemen is only going to fund federal agents in local law enforcement organizations that can perpetrate abuses under the cover of those organizations and prevent those organizations from doing anything to stop those abuses, as the Texas Rangers almost did at Waco." "We no longer have confidence in local law enforcement to protect us," said Roland. "If there is another Waco," said Roland, "we will look to the Militia to defend the innocent, and the outcome may be quite different. The first American Revolution began with an attempt by the authorities to disarm the people," Roland said. "It could happen again." San Antonio, TX 78216 210/224-2868 1201 W Arbrook #109933 Arlington, TX 76015 214/641-7107, 647-4147F Email: jdr@usa.net 95/02/20 To: All militia units and other patriots By this time we have all heard the many rumors of planned federal actions against militia leaders and other patriots. A number of dates have been mentioned, and many units are on yellow alert. We have also heard that conspiracy charges are planned under RICO, presumably for conspiracy to commit offenses that the feds will provoke local militias into doing. The response to these rumors has been encouraging. Far from being intimidated, patriots are responding and preparing. The media is being alerted. Elected officials are being aroused. Law enforcement and military personnel are lending us support and information. At this point, there are several possibilities. Let us review them: (1) There may be no substance to the rumors. Just patriot paranoia. (2) The rumors may be disinformation, intended to discourage our growth and lower our morale, and to discredit us and our concerns.We need to prepare for all these possibilities. We also need to consider our strengths and weaknesses. Up to now, we have been depending on making use of telephone communications for voice, fax, and email. However, many of us have been experiencing apparent interference with our transmissions lately, in ways that indicate that our adversaries are prepared to interrupt service for any or all of us on a call by call basis. That means we must develop an alterative means to communicate with one another nationwide that is not subject to interdiction. Shortwave can be jammed. Sirens and flares are too short range and depend on people being within range. We must think in terms of mobilization points, couriers, short-range two-way radio, pirate broadcasting to radio and TV channels, and lists of alternate contact points in each area that can be tried to re-establish broken communications links. Unless or until telecomm is broken, however, it is essential that everyone remain accessible. Keep those faxes, computers, and ham radios turned on, and monitor them. Be prepared with cameras, camcorders, audio recorders, and spare batteries. The model we must use for our comm network is the Internet: a dense store-and-forward system that can withstand major disruptions without losing its ability to get messages to their destinations. Such a system already exists as a wireless adjunct to the Internet. It should be expanded, and soon. It is time for the militias to come out of the shadows and go public. There is no security in obscurity. Our adversaries know who you are. You are only hiding from other militias who may need to contact you. I have been hammering on this for more than a year now, and much of what I have been saying seems to fall on deaf ears, but it will save us a lot of unnecessary hassle if we observe certain formalities. They are going to try to hang us on having "private armies". The answer to that is to have all militia musters in response to a public notice. That is important, folks. The law may differ from state to state, but in most states to be a public notice it needs to be posted on the courthouse door or bulletin board at least three weeks in advance, and/or published in the local newspaper of record for some similar period of time. The notice should say something like PUBLIC NOTICE. All members of the Militia of , for the purpose of organizing and training, in accordance with Article I, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution [and any relevant provisions of the state constitution]. For information contactIn all your public pronouncements, never, ever, use the term "militia" to refer to anything less than the entire population of residents of the county, state, precinct, or other distinct geographic jurisdiction. Do not use it to refer to the persons who respond to the call-up. Each muster is a distinct event, the first order of business of which is to adopt By-Laws and elect officers, who serve until the muster ends. The only organs which can exist from one muster to another are things like safety and correspondence committees. They are not the militia, either, nor do they represent it in any way. They only act to facilitate subsequent call-ups. Before each call-up, you should give your local sheriff or constable the opportunity to issue the call-up, and do so without him only after he declines to do so, or fails to respond within a reasonable time. I know all these things seem like a hassle, but it is the observation of such formalities that will put you on firm legal ground should you be attacked legally. If you don't appreciate their importance now, you may learn it the hard way. Get control of the hotheads among you. Don't let anyone be provoked into violence. They will try to get you to react. Don't let them. Even if it means taking some hits. Bear witness, preserve the evidence, and get it to the media. Right now a few martyrs will do the movement more good than some victories will. I know that sounds harsh, but until we win over the people to our side, we want to be seen as the victims, not the aggressors. Finally, it is extremely important now to reach out to the general community for their support. Get our story out before our adversaries can get theirs out. Look like respectable businessmen. Emphasize our primary purpose: to enforce the law, especially the Constitution, and that means to expose criminal wrongdoing in government and abuses of power. Forget all the rhetoric about foreign troops, New World Order, and all the rest of the stuff that sounds bizarre to ordinary Americans. Stick to the basics, and hammer it over and over: Corruption and Abuse. Corruption and Abuse. Corruption and Abuse. So that if any action is taken against us, it will be seen as proof of the righteousness of our cause, and the people, the police, and the military will come over to our side. Jon Roland, Founder Arlington, TX 76015 214/641-7107, 647-4147fax 03/19/95 This is in response to the article by Tracey Eaton in the Sunday, March 19, 1995, issue of the Dallas Morning News, entitled "Malignant growth". The portrait of Mexico presented in that article could also be applied, with some changes of names, to the United States as well. Too many Americans persist in the belief that the kind of corruption we see as endemic in our neighbors to the South cannot happen here, but in fact such corruption is, in many ways, far worse in this country. It has not yet infected the daily affairs of most middle-class Americans to the same degree, but it is well-entrenched at higher levels, and it is beginning to affect the lives of everyone in ways that can no longer be denied. It is estimated that the market for illegal, addictive, mind-altering drugs in the United States is about $50-100 billion a year, and has been growing over the course of four decades now. Almost every piece of paper currency that has been in circulation for more than a few weeks is tainted with measurable traces of cocaine. Worldwide, people are spending more for illegal drugs than they are for food, while more and more people go hungry. It doesn't take a degree in mathematics to calculate that that amount of money is not being used by drug lords to buy consumer goods and services. Much of it is being used to buy assets in key sectors of the economy, but much of it is also being used to buy influence over the political and legal process. It should also be clear that most of that money is not winding up in the accounts of a few drug lords in Columbia and the Far East, but that the real drug lords are the international financial institutions that return the cash to the economy. Ever so often we get a news report of drugs being smuggled into the United States by government officials, often using Air Force planes. Can anyone doubt that if such things sometimes make the news, there must be a lot more that does not? What doesn't make the news are the stories of the many people who are coming forward, at the risk of their lives, telling of the magnitude of this activity, estimated by most such insiders to be about 60-80% of all the cocaine and heroin being imported. The only "War Against Drugs" is suppression of the remaining 20-40% that is competition for the government-sponsored channels. Those drugs are what are causing the rise in violent crime that threatens us and our children, and provides the excuse for further unconstitutional intrusion of federal involvement in "law enforcement" and for the drive to disarm the population. As a leader of the modern militia movement, I am sometimes asked what the militia movement is about, bottom-line. At some risk of simplifying, what the militia movement is about is decent citizens against the drug lords who have seized control of government, at all levels. Jon Roland Director, Constitution Society Arlington, TX 76015 214/641-7107, 647-4147fax 03/20/95 The outrageous sarin gas attack on innocent Tokyo commuters emphasizes the inadequacy of conventional intelligence and law enforcement agencies to cope with threats of this kind. Such agencies are doing a magnificent job, and they deserve our support, but they can't do it all by themselves. This is the kind of challenge that requires an active, well-trained, and well-organized militia. Switzerland and Israel provide the best examples today of what is needed: to provide every person, starting from childhood, training in military, law enforcement, and disaster management skills, and to organize people for community protection, from the level of the local neighborhood up to the level of the nation and beyond. With everyone organized and trained, the community becomes a very difficult environment for terrorists. With everyone vigilant, it becomes much easier to prevent incidents, and to manage them if they should occur. But more than preparation for threats to the community, the exercise of training and organizing the entire population would break down the barriers of anonymity that now prevent us from acting as a community, and would go a long way to restoring the sense of individual responsibility and community involvement in every area. The Framers of the U.S. Constitution contemplated that this country would maintain the strong militia tradition it had when it was founded. Unfortunately, we have allowed that tradition to fade, and we are now paying the price for it. We need to revive the constitutional militia, as provided in Article I, Section 8, and the Second Amendment, of the U.S. Constitution. There is now a growing movement to do this. But there is opposition to this movement, because with such empowerment of the people comes a threat to the nerve gas of crime that now pervades every institution of society, both public and private. An active militia is liable to bring about an end to drug trafficking, which finances much of that crime, or to rigged elections or construction contracts, or to insider financial dealing that is robbing Americans of their savings. The criminals can buy off key judges, legislators, bureaucrats, or law enforcement agents, but it can't buy off the entire population which comprises the militia. Jon Roland Director, Constitution Society Winston-Salem, NC 27104 910/774-6625V, 774-6628F 6900 San Pedro #147-230 San Antonio, TX 78216 214/839-5586P email: jon.roland@the-spa.com, jdr@crl.com http://www.the-spa.com/constitution/ 95/12/30 Attn: Robert K. Brown, James L. Pate This is to commend the excellent article by James L. Pate, "Witch Hunt for The Resister", in the February, 1996, issue of Soldier of Fortune. As usual, Pate is bringing us important information we could not get any other way. I take exception to one point, however: his use of the adjective "right-wing" to refer to militias. Use of that pejorative is buying into the Establishment disinformation campaign against the Militia, which consists of the entire population of an area, not just those who are active at some level. Nor are the terms "right-wing" or "left-wing" applicable to constitutional issues, which is what the militias are activating to deal with, but only to policy issues. As the person who arguably launched the national militia movement over the Internet, and who is personally acquainted with militia activists across the country, I can testify that on policy issues militia activists are solidly centrist. They are the same kind of people who became active in the Perot movement, and who split their votes about evenly between Republican and Democrat when they are not voting Libertarian. Historically, "right-wing" referred to those who identified with the government and the aristocracy, and "left-wing" to those who identified with farmers and industrial workers. In defending the oppressed against official oppression, the militia movement has more in common with the "left" than with the "right", although it does not buy into "economic reform" or "redistribution", only "legal reform", specifically, constitutional compliance. Concerning the discussion of "democracy" vs. "constitutional republicanism", the following breakdown is useful in making sense of the issue:
That means that all citizens are soldiers, policemen, and firemen, subject to call-up unless they have official duties that take precedence over their militia duties. Jury duty is, for example, a specialized form of militia duty, in which a limited call-up is issued for a law enforcement function. Incidentally, we have links to SOF and to The Resister on our Web site. Jon Roland, President San Antonio, TX 78216 Arlington, TX 76015 210/224-2868 214/641-7107, 647-4147F Email: jdr@crl.com 95/03/22 Re: Potential threats and security therefor This is a followup on the previous letter of 95/02/20 concerning the possible mass arrest of militia leaders and patriots. We continue to get confirming reports, but so far no hard evidence, of a mass arrest, with the date march 25 being most often mentioned. We have the NRA, other civil rights organizations, and at least six US Senators inquiring into the matter. To the basic reports have come several unconfirmed reports as to what the targets might be and what offenses might be staged to be blamed on militia activists. First, we have several unconfirmed reports that the targets include major patriot writers and media figures and certain investigative reporters. Not just those who have participated in organizing groups. Second, we have several reports of possible plans for atrocities to be committed by agents against innocent persons and blamed on militia activists. The atrocity targets include the following, with many variants possible: (1) The homes and families of "straight" government agents, judges, and elected officials. This would provide a pretext for labeling militiamen "terrorists" and also bring on board "straights" who are now resisting efforts to suppress the militia movement. (2) "Straight" local law enforcement personnel asked to either serve warrants on militia leaders or to accompany federal agents while they do so. The local officials and militiamen would be killed and the killings made to look like they were done by the militiamen.For a variety of reasons, it may be best for militia leaders to keep weapons nearby, but not on their persons, to avoid providing a pretext for gunning them down. On the other hand, it may also be a good idea if other militiamen remain nearby, armed, with the main events in view, and in a security deployment that allows them to watch each other and the area. If innocents, whether militia leaders or local law officials, are to be killed anyway, we need to be able to protect them and if not, to get video footage and make sure that evidence is preserved and disseminated. Protecting the homes and families of agents, judges, and other officials is more difficult. We need to at least warn them of our concerns, and make sure that no one pretending to be active in the militia even talks about doing anything like that. If enough volunteers are available, it might be a good idea to patrol by potential targets on a random schedule to increase the risks that any such attack would be intercepted. But since such patroling could be misunderstood, it should not be done without coordinating with the potential targets and their organizations, and with local law enforcement. There isn't much we can do about protecting public places other than to stay vigilant and make it difficult for false evidence to be planted on anyone. Might take pictures of the interiors of activists' homes and places of business to be compared with any later "crime scene" photos made after evidence is planted. Such comparisons can often serve to show that planting has occurred. Media persons should be wary of floods of disinformation coming from government sources, especially when it seems to be trying to build public alarm about the militia movement. Jon Roland, Founder RADIO COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENTInterim GuidelinesPrepared by Robert G. Wheaton for the Committee of Safety of theSouthern Region of the Texas Constitutional MilitiaAll units are interested in communications and it is quitenatural that they will be considering options and contemplatingequipment acquisitions toward that end. These guidelines areissued for the dual purposes of letting you know a little ofwhat's available, and to help you avoid some pitfalls which mightbe costly disappointments or bring public disfavor on the T.C.M.in particular and militia units in general.Cellular Telephone -- We're all pretty much familiar withcellular telephone (cel-tel). Around town in metropolitan areasit generally covers most areas with few drop-outs; however, youmay or may not be aware that in rural areas, once you get a fewmiles off major roadways, you may find yourself out of range ofany "cell". Should that happen your communications just failed.Bear that in mind, especially if your unit's operations mightregularly be in rural areas. Cel-tel, while a valuable resource,may be unsuitable as your primary communications afield. There isno practical way to communicate to another cel-tel phone in theabsence of a telco cell site, or if the site equipment goes downfor whatever reason.Pagers -- Once again, we're all pretty much familiar with pagersystems. These use VHF and UHF micro-receivers, all listening toa high-powered transmitter which will be located with its antennahigh above the surrounding area. This is essentially "line ofsight" communications. Pagers may be useful in establishing youralerting or in locating missing members. Range into rural areasmay be greater than with cel-tel, but you should carefullyevaluate a pager system's coverage for critical noncoverage.System denial can be easily accomplished, another negative."2-Way" radio --All commercial, 2-way radio, regardless offrequency of operation or mode (AM, FM, single-sideband, etc.) issubject to stringent licensing requirements of the FederalCommunications Commission. Frequencies for new assignments may ormay not be available. Unlicensed operation of these transmittersis an invitation to severe penalties by FCC administrative lawjudges. More on that later. Probably impractical due to licensingrequirements.Marine band VHF FM radio -- These VHF FM transceivers are lowpower mobile and handheld transceivers operating from 156.275 to157.425 MHZ on specific channels. In addition to requiring an FCClicense it is imperative that these units be boat-mounted andused only in marine communications. Improper use can be severelysanctioned and for that reason equipment for this band should notbe on your shopping list. Definitely not recommended!Professional/Business band VHF FM handheld -- FCC has authorized3 frequencies in the VHF 154 MHZ range for shared use by lowpower (1 watt) transceivers with an easy-to-obtain FCC licensestructure. Radio Shack and other popular merchandisers sell thisequipment o-t-c with a license application in the box. However,can militias expect to get a license in a special service bandset aside for business and professional users? Perhaps but notlikely. And given the current militia vilification campaign andthe likelihood it will not abate since there are organized groupswho see it as their "duty" to seize every opportunity to vilifythe militia, even if FCC were to authorize militia use it wouldlikely reverse itself as soon as "interference from militia"complaints started arriving. It would be foolhardy to recommendthese.Personal radio in the General Mobile Radio Service (GMRS) -- Inthe UHF spectrum formerly known as Class A Citizens Band and nowknown as GMRS, FCC has authorized several frequencies for lowpower handhelds. Radio Shack and several other merchandisers arecurrently offering $200-bracket transceivers with at least 2channels; Motorola has a 10 channel, 2 watt, UHF-FM handheldspecifically aimed at hunters with a leaf-pattern camo case, andretailing for $260 from Gander Mountain. These radios require asimple-to-apply-for FCC license and the application formaccompanies the radio. It is mailed by the user with the $35 fee(may be $80 now) to FCC for processing. It is difficult to seewhy FCC might deny licenses to individuals intending to use thesein their militia-related duties; however, the possibility exists,even if remote. Depending on terrain these are capable ofreliable communications up to 2 miles (or line of sight). If usedas intended, there is no apparent reason not to recommend radiosin the 462 MHZ GMRS.Personal Radio Service (Citizens Band Class D) -- This is the oldClass D "CB" 27 MHZ band. Formerly 23 channels it is now 40channels. While no license is required to operate these radios,they are design-approved by FCC and any modification of thefrequencies to avoid interference by moving them between channelsor shifting them just outside the band assignment is a seriousviolation of FCC rules and regulations, and one we cannot affordto risk. These radios are cheap "throwaways" and subject to acacophony of interference, and being amplitude modulated (AMrather than FM) they are much more susceptible to staticinterference, man-made and natural. Their downsidenotwithstanding, if you must "do it on the cheap", these "toys"might get you going. One possible plus is that so many "citizens"out there also have them, and there might be occasions when thatwould be helpful.Personal Radio Service 49 MHZ (also a "citizens band") -- Duringthe 1980s FCC authorized a new 49 MHZ citizens band for low-powerFM transceivers. Five channels are authorized and power is wellbelow 1 watt. Maxon is perhaps the best-known supplier of theseradios but Radio Shack has them as well. Do not count on them forreliable communications beyond 1/3 to « mile. Don't expect toomuch and you won't be disappointed. Five channel units are cheapenough to be "throwaways". Most operate with "AA"-size batteries,either alkaline, or rechargeable NiCaD. Some neat accessories,e.g., headsets and ear-microphones are available. For FTX useover very short distances these might be useful - and some of thegovernment agency types might be using them as well, for exactlythe same reasons: cheap and extremely short range (providing adegree of security). Recommendable, but only for that purpose.Frequencies must not be tampered with! No license required.Amateur Radio Service (Ham Radio) -- FCC-licensed, the AmateurRadio Service (ARS) dates back to the earliest days of radio."Hams", as they are called, have spectrum assignments virtuallyeverywhere. Some assignments are good only during the day, othersonly at night. Some are short-range and some can blanket theentire country, day or night. Others are primarily "long haul" or"DX", capable of international communication with other hams.Hams do not normally communicate with operators in other radioservices. Band segments are assigned by specific frequencies arenot. Authorization of different bands or "privileges" isdependent on the operator's class of license - "no-code"tech(nician) being the lowest and limited to radiotelephoneoperation above 50 MHZ, all the way to "extra" class with allprivileges on all bands. The pool of technical knowledge amongamateurs is great and amateurs are loosely organized in clubs.The "public service" aspect of ham radio is well-known and long-established. Many hams also specialize in performing publicservice, establishing communications links, monitoring weathernets, providing communications for public events, etc. If we canovercome the vilification of the militia through positive acts,many hams will see militias as a natural ally. A good many arealready involved. For all classes other than "no-code" tech it isnecessary to master the Morse code. All classes must passcomprehensive technical and regulatory exams. Tests are multiplechoice and done by local radio club groups in most instances,participating in a volunteer examiner system. A modest testingfee is required. Equipment prices run the gamut, but a VHF or UHFhandheld radio generally costs $200-300 without majoraccessories. Interference levels on some bands can be severe, buton the VHF/UHF frequencies most likely to be of use to militiapersonnel, interference is not a major problem. In addition tothe testing and licensing requirements, there are seriousdownsides. Frequencies generally "belong" to whoever gets therefirst and has the strongest signal; privacy of communications isnonexistent; and codes and ciphers are prohibited. That wouldprobably not prohibit the use of "authenticators" for messages inplain text, but it certainly prohibits the use of encryption ofmessages by any means. Whether or not this actually presents aproblem is open to question. Given the current P-R problems weare having, encrypted radio traffic by militias on any radioservice is likely to invite even more problems and hostility andwould seem unwise for that reason alone. In all metropolitanareas hams have now installed VHF and/or UHF FM repeater systemsto extend the operating range of their handheld and mobileradios. While typical range between 2 handhelds might be a mileor two, going through a repeater (a remote receiver and re-transmitter with an antenna high above the surrounding area)ranges of 40-50 miles are commonplace, and in the case ofmountain-sited repeaters the range may be 100 miles or more.Amateurs who choose to align themselves with the militias willbring with them two invaluable resources: equipment and training.Many, but not all, will already possess a great deal of technicalexpertise in both radio communications and related fields.The foregoing is prepared to acquaint you with some of the legalramifications of radio communications by militia personnel (inthe event you were unaware of or simply ignoring them), and togive you a "menu" from which to evaluate your needs andpossibilities.If your unit has access to, say, 10 military surplus PRC-6"walkie-talkies", do not automatically assume you can "batterythem up" and that will solve your unit's communications problems.Such a wrong assumption might be the beginning of your unit'sworst migraine.The Federal Communications Commission regulates most radiocommunications under the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.Due to understaffing and underbudgeting constraints, FCC acquireda reputation a few years ago of being a "toothless tiger".However, in recent years Congress has authorized FCC to "rape,plunder and pillage" the few scofflaws they catch, and use theirhighly publicized cases as examples of what will befall the restof us if we do not toe the line. They now routinely use theiradministrative law judges to levy "financial forfeitures" of$10,000 for each day an offense occurs. Toilet-tongued talkshowhost Howard Stern is a current example - notwithstanding that themillions levied against the network for broadcasting offensivematerial has probably been cheap advertising for Stern. FCC maystill be underbudgeted and understaffed, but they are by no meanstoothless. They call on the U.S. Marshal Service when dealingwith "hardcase" types.The Texas Constitutional Militia does not need either the expenseor the public relations problems that might result from violatingFCC regulations. Staying "legal" is essential; there's too muchat stake to invite problems from the feds. Hook up all thebatteries and wire you want to on your EE-8 or TA-312 fieldphones, but do not assume that because PRC-6s were made for themilitary that you can just reactivate them "on the air" becauseyou are militia. An ARS technician or higher class licensee canlawfully use PRC-6s in the 50-54 MHZ band. Newer radios are notnearly so heavy, batteries are o-t-c at Radio Shack, and they arefar more reliable. *********Prepared for the Committee of Safety by Robert G. Wheaton,Committee of Safety member, and Petty Officer 3rd Class(Electronic Technician), U.S. Navy Retired, and a licensed radioamateur, currently "extra" class, for 40 years.Submitted: 24 July 1995For study material and licensing info on the Amateur RadioService, contact you local Radio Shack store or any of thefollowing:American Radio Relay League, 225 Main St, Newington, CN 06111Gordon West Radio School, 2414 College Dr, Costa Mesa, CA 92626The W5YI Group, Inc., PO Box 565101, Dallas, TX 75356 On CNN news they said there has been an increase in the formation of Constitutionlal militias throughout America. They said that this is a problem. They said that it hasn't happened since Timothy McVeighj and called it a threat. Timothy Mcveigh is not what the militias stand for. It was Our government that is responsible for the Oklahoma City Federal building bombing and the massacre at Waco. This is another example of how the state controlled media is using misinformation to scare us about the resurgence of the Constitutional militias. What we have to defend ourselves against is the 500,000 fdreigh UN troops in the US. We have to be ready to defend America against the threat of a government out of control that threatens our freedoms and is no longer Our government but part of the New World Order that is taking over. 
|
| Bookmarks |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| BOOK: CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES and the JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM (aka The CPS Lawsuit Manual) | Hawaiian-TV | CWS / CPS Hawaii Forum | 0 | 01-29-2010 10:59 AM |
| Dr. Timothy Leary, Ph.D. interviewed on KILT Houston Texas, 1967 | Hawaiian-TV | Psychedelic Forum | 0 | 11-26-2009 06:35 AM |
| 416 child abductions in one Texas kidnapping | Hawaiian-TV | CWS / CPS Hawaii Forum | 0 | 05-23-2008 01:40 PM |
Threaded Mode