 | ||||
| Dr. David Marlett, Editor | October 8, 2002 | Vol. III - No. 13 | ||
|
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| Dr. David Marlett, Editor | October 8, 2002 | Vol. III - No. 13 | ||
|
| ||||
| ||||
In theory, if governmental officials in the United States do the wrong thing, they can be voted out of office, and their position filled by a candidate who promises to "fix" the mistakes already made, but there remains one major problem. That only works in theory. Bureaucrats aren't elected, so we cannot directly vote them out of office. Most of the regulations being used to "protect the environment" are not passed by an elected legislative body, they are enacted and enforced by appointed tyrants who are not directly accountable to the people. For the most part, they aren't even accountable for their actions through the judicial procedure – they are covered by "qualified immunity" for all but the most heinous violations. They don't even all come from the same source, so the replacement of them would be far reaching and difficult. They come from the Environmental Protection Agency, The Department of Natural Resources, The Division of Forestry, the Department of the Interior, the Fish and Game Commission, and dozens of other departments, agencies, divisions, etc. The restrictions and regulations come from all levels of government, disguised in all sorts of laudable causes, but they are actually land use restrictions and government interference in the private lives and properties of citizens. They are violations of the US constitution and they are the result of teaching social sciences instead of history, revised history instead of fact, and social agendas instead of scholastic studies in our public schools. They are a result of teaching flawed scientific theories as facts instead of teaching the difference between theories, principles, and laws as a major part of science courses. They are the result of teaching ecological agendas instead of fact-based science. The biggest problem is that now that these regulations are in place, it is virtually impossible to get rid of them. Any law or regulation passed by a governmental body has the assumption of being proper, and cannot be ruled Unconstitutional unless it is clearly shown not only to violate protected rights, but to do so without a good reason. Some "protected rights" are far more protected than others, and property rights are at the absolute bottom of the chain.
Here's how it works. If a government body claimed that citizens' talking was detrimental to the breeding patterns of the shorthaired moth in Colorado, they could pass a regulation that says no one in Colorado can talk. The legislature would never have to vote on it, or answer for it. Anyone caught talking in Colorado could be fined, etc. Shortly though, someone would file a lawsuit in the Federal court, claiming violations of their First Amendment right to freedom of speech. The fact that the regulation violates free speech is obvious enough, but the party filing the suit would have to show that being able to speak is more important than the breeding patterns of a bug. Obviously, this is a "judgement call", and while it seems simple enough to a reasonable person, it isn't so simple in the law. Remember, the governmental body gets the presumption of being proper, so if it is a judgement call, the governmental body is presumed to be right, and the law stands. The court cannot replace the discernment of the governmental body with its own. The only time it can do so is if the regulation far outreaches the necessary bounds to accomplish its goal. In other words, the scenario I gave would probably be overturned, but if the regulation had said that no one can talk between the hours of 10 pm and 3 am in any area above 800 feet over sea level… the regulation would probably be upheld by the court. The legal requirement that "reasonable minds cannot differ" combined with the presumption of propriety makes it virtually impossible to overturn a regulation. While first amendment rights are among the most protected, property rights are not. The Federal courts have determined on several occasions that private property can be snatched away from its owners "for the common good" of a community, as long as those persons receive some minimal compensation for their loss – and both the "good of the community" and the value of the property are to be decided by other governmental bodies, not the courts. (If some governmental body has attempted to snatch your land, they obviously decided that such an action was in the best interest of the community – your land is no longer yours, because the government has claimed "imminent domain".)
How did this happen? We as Americans allowed a generation of children to be taught that the rights of the individual must be trimmed and altered for the good of a group. This was never the intent of our founding fathers, who established only the rights of the individual, never the rights of any group. There exists no mention of any social class, ethnic group, or other classification within the context of rights, freedoms, and liberties in the Constitution of the United States or any of the other documents upon which this nation was founded, save two – the only two terms used referred to freeborn men, and citizens. While some rights reserved to citizens have been passed on now to aliens, the classification of freeborn men now applies to all citizens of our nation. But the generation of children that have been taught about the "rule of law" instead of "liberty in law" has now grown, and are passing rules and laws. They've been taught that the rights of the individual can be removed, as long as the right remains for the people as a whole. The individual affected by any particular rule is just the exception, since the rule is presumably going to accomplish some noble goal for the people as a whole. The result is that millions of tax dollars are spent to pay people who don't answer to the general public to determine what is best for the people, Those people are given the authority to pass regulations that elected officials wouldn't dare to pass, and the rights of the private citizen are removed so that the short haired moth can breed in peace and feed the hair-brained birds that poop on the private citizens car. By the way, when the rights of the individual must bow before the good of the group… that isn't liberty or freedom – the proper term is socialism. Call it what it is. It isn't ecology or environmentalism; it is socialism.
The indirect result that it has is almost as horrific as the direct impact on the rights of citizens. The regulations passed make it more expensive for manufacturers to make goods, and for retailers to sell them, so the cost of making items goes up, the cost of transporting items goes up, and the cost of selling items goes up… The cost of the item then reflects the change of cost, and it becomes a lot cheaper to make those items in a communist country and import them to sell at a cheaper rate. End result – Americans are unemployed because they spent too much money paying a non-elected government official to determine that the breeding patterns of a bug were more important than their personal liberties.
Why has it happened? Because those of us who knew what was going on allowed it to continue… and fighting back now could cost your life. Our government has become so controlling that churches – once free to preach what ever they pleased without paying taxes or fearing government interference- are being confiscated for failure to pay taxes (Indianapolis Baptist Temple) are being stormed by government paramilitary forces (Branch Dividian compound, Waco, Texas) and forced in massive land use restrictions and fines (First Assembly Ministries, Naples, Florida). Any attempt to protect, defend, or even simply enjoy protected freedoms may be met with an armed response from the government. Should you think I'm overstating the situation, I challenge you to enjoy your right to bear arms – on private property in front of your home. Just stand near the street holding a firearm – threaten no one, don't make a scene – just stand there. You'll soon be speaking to a sheriff's deputy while looking at the open end of his gun, and I'd be shocked if you had any right to own a firearm when you left jail as a convicted felon. Whatever you do, don't attempt to defend your rights – you'll be killed. Firearm rights are the exception, you say? Then do this, print 500 copies of this paper, and sell them for $.25 apiece in any public place. (That charge would slightly more than cover the cost of printing, assuming not all copies will sell.) You'll be fined, and possibly arrested. The charges – selling without a vendors license, operating a business without a permit, tax violations, and other charges dependent upon your location. You think that is another exception? Try building a shed on your private property with electricity and plumbing, don't get a building permit, and don't allow government inspectors to go through it with a fine tooth comb. You'll be fined, they'll go in anyway, your electricity will be shut off, and you may go to jail if you protest.
What can be done now? There are only a few options, and none of them are guaranteed to succeed. 1) Hundreds, even thousands of people filing separate lawsuits against governmental bodies at all levels challenging the Constitutionality of specific regulations – force the government to spend millions of dollars fighting in courts what they want to spend millions enforcing. Basic theory – even if you don't win, you've made it less enjoyable to be a tyrant. One suit here or there won't even slow them down, but hundreds or thousands will. 2) Support political candidates that are more interested in preserving liberties than in other (however noble) agendas. 3) TEACH CHILDREN THE TRUTH for if we fail at this for one more generation, I fear that all hope is lost for what was once a free nation. She is still the greatest nation on earth, but rapidly losing her identity as her sovereignty falls to globalism. It may already be too late, may God help us all.
Robert Marlett
rmarlett@wilderness-cry.net
In my humble opinion, "multiculturalism" is just another word for terrorism. You say that terrorism is too strong a word? I think it is exactly the right word. Here is why:
The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, sought to destroy through fear, our culture, our way of life, our freedom of speech and thought and religion - everything that red-blooded Americans hold dear. Likewise, "multiculturalism" insists that we accept every other culture as equal to ours, including those so violent that their own people have fled in terror to escape it, and they threaten everything from million-dollar lawsuits to jail time for non-compliance. In so doing, we have gone, in just one generation, from being Americans to being more brands of hyphenated-Americans than we can count.
"Multiculturalism" has insisted that we not only tolerate, but give equal place to, religions foreign to our foundations, including those (like Islam) that advocate the violent destruction of that religion on which this nation was founded – Biblical Christianity.
"Multiculturalism" demands an end to the principle of freedom of speech and thought; no longer can the American citizen stand on the street corner and proclaim his opinion on anything and everything. It must first be analyzed by an army of lawyers and "thought police" to be sure it will not offend anyone from another culture.
"Multiculturalism" is also partly responsible for the societal breakdown evident in high crime rates, unsafe neighborhoods, rampant drug use, and uneducated high school graduates. No longer is there an "American Dream" to which immigrants can aspire. Government schools no longer educate children in the things necessary to mold them into upstanding, self-sufficient members of the community. No more is there an American ideal that parents can hold up as an example to their children. "Diversity Seminars", "Sensitivity Training", and political correctness have replaced these, and our children are graduating from high school grossly ignorant.
I'm sick and tired of people coming to this country to take advantage of our freedom, our standard of living, our educational opportunities, and then screaming that we must change our society to match the one they ran away from that couldn't provide the wherewithal to achieve their dreams. If their culture was so wonderful, why didn't they stay where they were? It's time for Americans to stand together and say proudly, "We are not African-Americans, Asian-Americans, or Arab-Americans. We are PROUD TO BE AMERICANS, and we love our country, our culture and our way of life. Just as we stood together in defiance against the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, so will we stand together against the attack on our American culture. You cannot frighten us into silence!" As for the rest of you, perhaps you should return to your roots, where you will be more comfortable in your own culture, and stop trying to destroy ours.
Nancy Marlett Capps
nmc@wilderness-cry.net
Looking back, it's hard to believe that we have lived as long as we have:
As children we would ride in cars with no seat belts or air bags.
Riding in the back of a pickup truck on a warm day was always a special treat.
Our baby cribs were painted with bright colored lead based paint.
We often chewed on the crib, ingesting the paint.
We had no childproof lids on medicine bottles, doors, or cabinets, and when we rode our bikes we had no helmets.
We drank water from the garden hose and not from a bottle.
We would spend hours building our go-carts out of scraps and then ride down the hill, only to find out we forgot the brakes. After running into the bushes a few times we learned to solve the problem.
We would leave home in the morning and play all day, as long as we were back when the streetlights came on.
No one was able to reach us all day. We played dodgeball and sometimes the ball would really hurt.
We ate cupcakes, bread and butter, and drank sugar soda, but we were never over weight; we were always outside playing.
Little League had tryouts and not everyone made the team.
Those who didn't had to learn to deal with disappointment.
Some students weren't as smart as others so they failed a grade and were held back to repeat the same grade.
That generation produced some of the greatest risk-takers and problem solvers.
We had the freedom, failure, success and responsibility, and we learned how to deal with it all.
THINK ABOUT IT!!!
CNSNews.com
Over the weekend, police linked another shooting to the gunman who killed six people last week in the Washington, D.C., area.
Police say a woman shot and seriously wounded on Friday in Fredericksburg, Va., was struck by a bullet from the same gun used to kill an elderly man Thursday night in Washington, D.C.; and five people on Wednesday and Thursday in the Washington suburb of Montgomery County, Md. (Fredericksburg is about 70 miles away from the general area of the other shootings.)
As police continue their search for one or two suspects in the shootings of those seven people -- six of whom died -- local, state, and federal authorities have been releasing information to the media to encourage public assistance with finding the shooters.
But firearms experts said Friday that at least some of that information has been conveyed in a less than accurate manner.
During an early morning press conference on Friday, Montgomery County, Md., Police Chief Charles Moose described the type of weapon investigators believe was used to commit the murders.
"We're willing, at this point, and able to say that from a 90-percent accuracy, we're dealing with a high-speed-velocity round from an assault or a hunting-type weapon," he said. "We're dealing with someone shooting from a distance, someone using a high-velocity round, 90 percent sure that it is a .223 round from a rifle, a hunting rifle, an assault rifle."
Authorities have confirmed that only one shot was fired, striking and killing six of the victims. That fact, and the use of the term "assault rifle," caught the attention of James Chambers, executive director of the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute (SAAMI).
"An assault weapon is a machine gun -- that [means] fully-automatic, and that is a military firearm," he said, explaining that assault rifles, by definition, fire multiple bullets with each pull of the trigger.
Following Moose's comments, CNN Anchor Carol Costello on Friday summarized what officials had reported.
"Five people, all apparently unrelated, random victims, were shot dead by the same gun, according to the chief," she said. "It was a high-powered assault hunting-type weapon with a .223 round."
Chambers said the weapon Costello described doesn't exist.
"That is not an accurate statement. The .223 is a small game cartridge used for small game and varmint hunting. It is about half as powerful as the .30-06 or .308 caliber, which are the big game rifles for deer, elk, antelope, etcetera," he explained. "The .223 is not classified as a high-powered cartridge."
Later Friday morning, Moose called another press conference, intended to eliminate some of the confusion caused by the reporting of his statements.
"When we passed out some information, when we talked about rounds, when we talked about weapons, maybe we created some confusion and so, at the advice of ATF (the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms) we want to take a few moments to, maybe, clarify some of that information," he explained.
The chief introduced Joseph Riehl, assistant special agent in charge of the Baltimore ATF office, who, along with a team of ATF firearms examiners, he described as "experts in this area."
Riehl displayed four rifles and four cartridges similar to the type believe to have been used by the murderer. He was careful to categorize the weapons and ammunition as "samples."
"We have laid out four samples of ammunition that are possibly used in these shootings. In addition, there are four firearms that are consistent, that are able, again, just samples, that are able to accept these particular rounds of ammunition," he explained. "This is not all of the firearms; there's a list of forearms that would accept these rounds of ammunition. It is too great a list to lay everything out."
At the urging of a reporter, Riehl picked up a Colt AR-15, which he properly identified as a semi-automatic rifle, and held it as he answered questions. He then lifted a bolt-action .223 caliber rifle and compared it to the AR-15.
"This is actually just a bolt-action rifle. This particular weapon could be used for target shooting, possibly hunting and it would not be considered the same as you would some of the other assault weapons," he said, gesturing to the semi-automatic AR-15.
Again, Chambers said the terminology used is simply wrong.
"They're classifying the civilian version of the military M-16, which is the AR-15, as an assault weapon, which is bogus," he said. "The AR-15 is not an assault weapon; it's a semi-automatic or auto-loading firearm ... one bullet per trigger pull."
The press conference apparently did not clear up the misconceptions. Friday afternoon, MSNBC reporter Jennifer Johnson described the weapon with similarly inaccurate terminology.
"The shooter used a high-powered assault weapon or some kind of high powered hunting rifle in all of the cases," she said.
Chambers noted the insistence of the establishment media personalities that the firearm used in the murders was an "assault weapon."
'Media definition'
"The 'assault' term is a media definition for any firearm with certain appendages on it. Our definition, and the military definition of an 'assault weapon' is a fully automatic weapon," he explained.
The .223 cartridge, he continued, is accurately referred to as a "high-velocity" round, because the bullet travels at between 3000 and 3200 feet per second, depending on the weapon from which it is fired and the amount and type of powder loaded into the shell casing.
The bullet is deadly, he added, not because it is fired from a so-called "assault weapon," but because of its accuracy and the characteristics of the wound it creates.
"It is a very accurate round when used by someone with a great deal of experience. You can make very accurate shots from fairly long ranges, out to 500 yards," he said. "That particular bullet when it hits has a tendency as it enters to do some tumbling or rolling, which creates a great deal of [damage]."
Gun industry representatives, who spoke with CNSNews.com on condition of anonymity, said they believe the law enforcement officials who used the incorrect terminology probably did so under the stress of the investigation and the media scrutiny, not in an attempt to intentionally mislead the public.
They were not, however, so forgiving of the establishment media. One such representative said the misuse of the terms "assault weapon" and "high-powered" was "part of an intentional effort to scare people, to make the public afraid of guns."
Inaccurate reporting on firearms issues by the so-called "mainstream" media is something Chambers said he simply expects.
"How the media is reporting this does not surprise me in the least," he said. "I have seen this over, and over and over again, and I don't expect any changes in the near future."
The homepage and archives for The Conservative Newsletter are located on the WWW at http://www.wilderness-cry.net/tcn/
This newsletter is sent by subscription only. If you do not wish to be on the mailing list, please let us know and you will be removed immediately. To be removed from this mailing list, simply reply to this newsletter with the word REMOVE in the body of your reply. You may also send your request to tcn@wilderness-cry.net .
Thank you.