About 230,000,000 copies of Dr. Edwin Vieira's speech should be mailed to every household in the once great United States of America. Yours truly, Cliff Hume - Canada >Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 06:34:47 +0000 >X-Distribution: Moderate >Subject: Gangster Government >Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Priority: normal > > Gangster Government > >http://www.constitution.org/col/vieiraspeech.htm > >Transcript of a speech by Dr. Edwin Vieira at the National >Press Club, 29 June 2000 > >Dr. Edwin Vieira is a graduate of Harvard College, the >Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences and Harvard Law >School. He is an attorney specializing in constitutional >law; he is the author of Pieces of Eight, the Monetary >Powers and Disabilities of the United States Constitution, >published in 1983. > >The conclusion to which I come, from history, at least, is >that all of them [our political leaders], to the last man >and woman, minus one or two exceptions, haven't done their >duty, they're not doing their duty, they have no intention >of doing their duty, and no reality, no piling up of >petitions, or pleas or kowtowing or begging, will ever cause >them to do their duty, or to accomplish anything other than >aiding their critics to establish a record of their willful >and persistent derelictions of duty. ... > >Or, if this were a matter of criminal law, which in the >fulness of time it may yet become, the conclusion would be >that as government officials, these people knowingly, >intentionally and wilfully have enforced an arguably invalid >Amendment with reckless disregard of its invalidity and >therefore should be held criminally liable as violators of >American civil rights [audience applause]. > >Title 18, United States Code, section 241, seems to have >been written with them in mind. Perhaps more interestingly, >though, to me at least, is to view this spectacle through >the lens of political science, or political philosophy. I >don't think this is much a matter of legal craft as it is of >soul craft, if you know my meaning. The failure to act on >the part of all of these individuals in high office for so >many decades, and especially during the last fifteen years, >during which they have been on repeated notice of the >documentation compiled in The Law That Never Was, must have >had some reason other than mere sloth. > >For, according to their own press releases, and their >political propaganda, these people are the very best and the >brightest of all Americans. They are uniquely qualified by >their intellects, their experiences, their motivations, >their qualities of leadership, ad nauseam, to fill the >highest offices of the land. > >That's why they run for office, for heaven's sakes! And >surely, political psychology tells us that the most >plausible reason for the inactivity of such men and women >must be their own self-interest, which, no doubt, they know >better than anything else. > >Now, the American people must ask themselves, "What is the >self-interest of political officials sworn to support this >Constitution, to preserve and protect the Constitution, to >take care that the laws be faithfully executed, what is the >self-interest of those individuals who would maintain this >country in subservience to an 'income tax amendment' they >know, should know, and have every good reason to know, was >never ratified, and is therefore not part of the >Constitution, and not a law, to be faithfully executed or >even to be executed in any way, shape or form?" > >Clearly, it is not the self-interest of true and honest >agents of average American men and women. For in no rational >sense could such deceitful and disloyal officials, behaving >in such a lawless manner, be considered the people's >representatives. Then who or what have they been >representing all of these years? And more to the present >purpose, who or what are they representing now? > >Realistic political science teaches that there are two, and >only two, kinds of government. One, is what the ancient >Romans called, a res publica, a "public thing", a government >for the people. Not necessarily a democracy, because ancient >Rome was not a democracy. And not necessarily a republic, >because the ancient Romans from time to time appointed >dictators, with good reason. And one can even imagine an >aristocracy or a monarchy that would put the public >interest, the general welfare, the common good of every >citizen, ahead of all narrow special interests. Well that's >one form of government. > >The other is a government of, by, and for a self-selected, >self-perpetuating, crew of elitists. This is not a res >publica, a public thing. It is La Cosa Nostra, "our thing." >[audience laughter and applause]. > >That is, gangster government. And such is precisely the >nature of what passes for the government today in >Washington. And in the states, and the counties, and the >cities. It's just a different "family", depending on where >you are. > >This explains what is going on with the "16th Amendment" far >better than any legal mumbo jumbo such as the doctrine of >"political questions." America's gangster government does >not give a rotten fig what the law actually is. > >Because law is just a camouflage, or a cover story, for the >gang's looting and oppression of the rest of society >[audience applause]. > >America's gangster government operates under what it's legal >mouthpieces called a "living Constitution." That is, a >Constitution, the meaning of which depends on the interests >of the big shots who happen to be living [audience >laughter], and who pull the legislative and judicial >strings. > >So, America's gangster government can function perfectly >well under Constitutional Amendments that were never >ratified, because whether an amendment was ratified is far >less important than whether it can be enforced. > >And I remind you of the wisdom ... the man was not a >Sicilian, he was a Neopolitan, but he had tremendous wisdom >in this area ... Alphonse Capone, one of the great political >philosophers in American history [audience laughter]. He >said "You can go a long way in life with a smile, but you >can go a lot farther with a smile and a gun." [audience >laughter]. It's what you can enforce. > >Now, what is the point, I might even ask what is the >rationality of asking a gangster government, or particular >gangsters in the government, to investigate and pass >judgment on their own wrongdoing? > >Do you not already know what they will say? And whatever >they say, will you believe them? > >Do you believe what they have told you about the Oklahoma >City bombing? Do you believe what they've told you about >Waco? About TWA flight 800? About Mena, Miny, and Mo? >[audience laughter]. > >Well, that raises another question, though. What can common >Americans do about this gangster government? After all, it >is the government! And it's much more dangerous precisely >because it's composed of gangsters. ... > >So, in what I call "the program of the four I's," >Investigate, Inculpate, Indict, Incarcerate, [audience >laughter] the first and most important step must be >investigation. The machinery of investigation should center >around a Citizen's Constitutional Investigatory Commission, >composed of legal scholars, historians, other qualified >individuals who are capable of assessing and arriving at >correct conclusions from pertinent evidence. > >This Commission, however, must not seek any governmental >direction, assistance, or other involvement. Public >officials may appear before it as witnesses, and indeed many >should be summoned to testify and to submit documentary >evidence. But otherwise, no public official should be >allowed to participate in such a Commission's work, as any >such connection would raise insoluble conflicts of interest. >... >Rather, I anticipate that they will do everything within >their power to obstruct, obfuscate, and delay, if not derail >entirely, the Commission's investigation, and then to >criticize, belittle, and ridicule the Commission's findings. > >Because, let's face the facts, the income tax is one of the >major props of the power structure. Enough said! At that >point, though, finally armed with the whole truth on one >side, and face to face with the political classes' >intransigence on the other, the American people will be >forced to decide whether they are sheep or men, whether they >can mount a grass-roots political movement to throw these >elitists out of office once and for all and reassert self- >government in this country, or accept the other alternative. > >--------------------------------------------- >Enjoy a 90 day free trial subscription to the E-mail edition >of the Vigo Examiner. You will receive up to three of our >top stories, editorials or letters each day. Send your trial >subscription request to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >
