Editing Operation Vampire Killer 2000 (section)

===L.A. RIOTS - AN ORCHESTRATION.===
A prime example was the recent L.A. riots. The beating of King was not part of the plan,
but it offered a grand opportunity to accomplish three important things for the Globalists.
1) Get rid of Chief Gates, who for years had stood in the way of Socialist -NWO gang
member, Tom Bradley and others involved in trying to get the L.A. Police Dept. into the
coming national police force. (See soon to be released book, THE CENTRALIZATION
OF U.S. POLICE POWERS, available from U.S. Federal Law Research Center, P.O. Box
8712, Phx. AZ. 85066.)
2) Further convince the People that their only salvation from crime and evil in society
will be found in the "protection" provided by a global government.
3) A grand opportunity for Globalists George, Pete and Tom to practice FEMA style
Martial Law. It matters little that some among the masses have to die. Remember, the
new government philosophy is the same as that of the Communist, "THE END DOES
INDEED JUSTIFY THE MEANS."
Once again, the masses were to think that everything was out of control. It was not (the
riots were planned). But it was a good enough reason that in a matter of hours, 2,000 U.S.
Marines were on the streets of an American city. This was a very important test. A most
severe breach of Constitutional law was brought to bear; and more importantly, the
people said nothing. The masses complained only that the government should have acted
sooner and in greater strength. For, when there is anarchy in the streets the "sheep" do not
care who saves them. This planned Martial Law scenario actually worked out better than
the NWO social planners ever expected.

====DETECTIVE BROWN SPEAKS OUT====
Los Angeles County Sheriff's Detective Larry Brown speaking in Phoenix, Arizona
August 1992 stated that there was more behind the riots than the public knows. He
revealed that known agitators from the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP), Socialist
Worker's Party (SWP), Progressive Labor Party (PLP) Socialist Organizing Network
(SON), were there to press for a riot before it started and some members of these
organizations participated in the rioting, looting, and arson.

He said that Mayor Bradley gave a very inflammatory statement that was broadcast on
L.A. T.V. before the riots. He states, what many Police Officers already know, that
Mayor Bradley has strongly supported the Communist Party USA since he first ran for
mayor. Also, he received support from the ACLU, and National Lawyers Guild (Both
pro-Communist groups.) In his 1969 bid to become mayor his political manager was
Communist Party functionary Don Rothenberg. Gus Hall, the Director of the Communist
Party U.S.A. came to L.A. to tell the Communists to help elect Bradley.

Some of our fellow Officers in Southern California believe, after evaluation of the
evidence and results, that the outcome of the trial was planned by certain government
officials and carried out with precision by the judge and prosecutor. We believe they are
right. How did they manipulate the jury? (Read Aid & Abet Police Newsletter Vol.1
Num. 10, that addresses the science of how this is accomplished.) There is no doubt that
it was understood what a NOT GUILTY verdict would accomplish. But, that's another
story. (See Aid & Abet Vol.2, Num. 1 and Num. 2., which covers other parts of this
incredible well-laid plan for creating anarchy in the streets and TERROR in the hearts of
U.S. citizens. The goal: To get the citizens to give up their Bill of Rights so that their
government can make the streets "safe again" through global government.)

BACK TO "GETTING THEM GUNS!"
Officers should keep in mind that some of the guns are not going to be easily removed.
For instance, those owned by true patriots - those freedom-loving Americans who know,
without a doubt, what's coming next if they give up their guns. It should not be a surprise
to Police Officers that many good Americans will not walk meekly into NEW WORLD
ORDER slavery. And there are few Officers who would want it any other way.

So the question each Officer individually must face is a very difficult but realistic one:
"Which way will your own gun face when the orders are issued?" Will you protect the
people you have sworn to protect? Or, will you do what other patriotic officers from other
countries have done to their countrymen, "obediently just follow orders"?

Every Police Officer/Military soldier in every enslaved nation on earth has had to face
this same question. Certainly, it's an individual decision whether or not to take lethal
action against fellow countrymen when ordered to take their weapons (and with them
their liberty). But, each Officer will make that decision.

OFFICER, WILL YOU KILL FELLOW COUNTRYMEN WHEN ORDERED TO
TAKE THEIR WEAPONS? Perhaps it will help that you will be told by superiors, "It's
for the national good", and/or, "It's for the good of society." (History proves that the
nations' Enforcers can expect some such motivational indoctrination such as this.)
Could there be such a police action, taken against the public, if the police were told the
truth, i.e. "that officers should take the guns and liberties from the masses so that the
Controlling Elite of the nation can enslave them"? We think not.

Why not? Because national Police Enforcers are not mercenaries; they are always highly
patriotic and would not do such a thing as enslaving their countrymen, unless in some
manner they were totally convinced that it was the only thing to do to save the country,
"the patriotic" thing to do... "FOR THE GOOD OF THE COUNTRY" don't you know!

"CRIMINALS" EVERY ONE
Actually, it may not be a difficult decision for some Police Officers and National
Guardsmen, because before it comes time to take the guns, all these terrible, "radical
RESISTERS with those nasty guns" will have been branded as "CRIMINALS OF THE
STATE". And as you and I know, we have been trained that there is little wrong with
killing an armed and resisting "criminal". RIDICULOUS? Have you ever wondered
exactly how governments throughout recent history have gotten local and state Police
Officers in other enslaved nations to participate in executing their own citizens. This is
accomplished by labeling them "criminals". (Piece of Cake!)

It is not a figment of someone's imagination that thousands of unarmed fathers, mothers
and children have been shot to death by their local police, while attempting to run or
climb to freedom. It is through a process of indoctrination that the very best Officers -
highly patriotic Officers - are brought to the point mentally where they can be counted on
to do such things. Remember, it is always accomplished by convincing the best officers:
"It is a necessary and patriotic thing to do."

PATRIOTIC AMERICANS WILL FIGHT TO THE DEATH
Police officers would do well not to see the above title as only part of the script out of a
John Wayne movie.

We should consider, with utmost seriousness, that if good Americans (including internal
protectors) allow this plan of the Globalists to get this far, it can be expected that
casualties among Police Officers, National Guardsmen, and armed "criminal" patriotic
citizens will be very high before the gun removal process can be successfully completed.
(If indeed it can be completed.) But, with Police Officers and Guardsmen serving as the
"cannon fodder" to enforce the Globalist plan, these deaths will be merely "acceptable
loses" to those giving the orders and looking down from their safe and secure Ivory
Towers.

It is therefore entirely relevant that our brothers and sisters decide very soon which side
they will serve in the setting up of this "Utopian" Global Society. They must not be
fooled by government officials that tell that that all men and women with American blood
running through their veins will walk gently into lifelong servitude.
It cannot be contradicted that a great many out there on the other end of those half-billion
"liberty teeth" (guns) still underscore the statement of J.J. Rousseau:
"I prefer liberty with danger to peace with slavery."

INTELLIGENT Americans read and study history. On the other hand, the vast majority
of government "leaders", "educators" and media persons apparently don't! Concerning the
2nd Amendment, for example, they try to tell us that the Founding Fathers meant for only
the Organized Militia (National Guard) to have weapons. Please read the quotes given
below and decide: Could these countrymen have spoken any more plainly?

<blockquote>
"NO FREE MAN SHALL EVER BE DE-BARRED THE USE OF ARMS. THE STRONGEST REASON FOR THE PEOPLE TO RETAIN THEIR RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS IS AS A LAST RESORT TO PROTECT THEMSELVES AGAINST TYRANNY IN GOVERNMENT." - THOMAS JEFFERSON
</blockquote>

<blockquote>"THE SAID CONSTITUTION SHALL NEVER BE CONSTRUED TO AUTHORIZE CONGRESS TO PREVENT THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS FORM KEEPING THEIR OWN ARMS." - SAM ADAMS</blockquote>
<blockquote>
"THE GREAT OBJECT IS THAT EVERY MAN BE ARMED. EVERYONE WHO IS ABLE MAY HAVE A GUN." PATRICK HENRY</blockquote>
<blockquote>
"AMERICANS NEED NEVER FEAR THEIR GOVERNMENT BECAUSE OF THE ADVANTAGE OF BEING ARMED, WHICH THE AMERICANS POSSESS OVER THE PEOPLE OF ALMOST EVERY OTHER NATION." - JAMES MADISON
</blockquote>

Well now, those statements are really ambiguous aren't they?! Don't you wish our
Founders would have stated clearly what was on their minds?
Why are our school children lied to by Establishment educators about this? You know the
answer, don't you? Good NWO slaves will not need guns. And that is exactly what our
children will have to look forward to if American Police Officers and National
Guardsmen don't say "NO" TO THE NEW WORLD ORDER.

Here are several othe statements about the importance of guns in the hands of the masses:
VLADIMIR I. LENIN: "...one of the basic conditions for the victory of socialism is the
arming of the workers (Communist) and the disarming of the bourgeoisie (the middle
class)."

GEORGE KEENAN, 1964: "Popular revolt against a ruthless, experienced modern
dictatorship, which enjoys a MONOPOLY OVER WEAPONS and
COMMUNICATIONS, ... is simply not a possibility in the modern age." (U.S.
conspirators already control the major communications sources, now they have to - GET
THE GUNS!)

LEO TOLSTOY, 1893: "Governments need armies to protect them against their enslaved and oppressed subjects."
And one of our own:

PROFESSOR DEAN MORRIS, Government employee, Director of Law Enforcement
Assistance Administration (LEAA), in testimony to Congress stated: "I am one who
believes that as a first step the U.S. should move expeditiously to disarm the civilian
population, other than police and security officers, of all handguns, pistols and revolvers
... no one should have a right to anonymous ownership or use of a gun."

His government LEAA administration would later publish, "There can be no right of
privacy in regard to armament ... We seek a disarmed populace."
Our government now tells us that they "disbanded" LEAA.

FACT: They removed the name and address, but every tenant of the LEAA program is
still in place and the goal and time table is precisely on course. (See book, U.S.
Centralization of Police Powers.)
Who was it that said these words?

"If the opposition (citizen) disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm
it ourselves." All those Officers who answered, "Pete Wilson", "George Bush", "Willie
Clinton", or "Ross Perot", you are wrong. It was actually JOSEF STALIN. A simple
mistake!

Perhaps as a last HURRAH in closing this section on U.S. citizens retaining their guns,
we should heed the cry of a recent victim of anti-gun legislation. In 1990, a female
student from Beijing, Red China, described her parents last words to her:
"Tell the American people never to lose their guns. As long as they keep their guns in
their hands, what happened here will never happen there." (Amen!)

BEFORE YOU CAN SEE WHAT IS WRONG, YOU MUST KNOW WHAT IS RIGHT
Freedom can exist only in the society of knowledge. Without learning, men are incapable
of knowing their rights, ... Dr. Benjamin Rush - 1786:

We should recall, from the section entitled "New Age Professors", what DR. CHESTER
PIERCE, Harvard University Professor, Humanist, New World Order Guru instructs
teachers and those students who aspire to become teachers of our children, namely:
"Every child in America who enters school at the age of five is mentally ill, because he
comes to school with an allegiance to our institutions, toward the preservation of this
form of government that we have. Patriotism, nationalism, and sovereignty, all that
proves that children are sick because a truly well individual is one who has rejected all of
those things, and is truly the international child of the future."

Once we gain an understanding of the "money issue", it is not difficult to understand how
NWO promoters gained control of our institutions of higher learning where public school
teachers, who taught us and are now teaching our children, got their training.

I can assure you that we, and our children, did not reject "allegiance to our institutions ...
Patriotism, nationalism, and sovereignty." But we were never taught the doctrines of the
freedom principles upon which this nation was founded. Instead, we were indoctrinated
with Socialist doctrines, reinforced by a controlled media. Most of our teachers did not do
this consciously. The teachers themselves did not determine what was to be taught to our
children, they just went along to get along. [Like many of us are still doing.] And, those
few who had enough insight to protest were quietly removed from the school system.
Fortunately, we can quickly remedy that situation. There is now available an IBM
compatible computer program published by THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMON LAW LIBRARY which contains all the documents necessary: "THAT THE GREAT, GENERAL, AND ESSENTIAL PRINCIPLES OF LIBERTY AND FREE GOVERNMENT MAY BE RECOGNIZED ..."

Our founders left us the tools we need, not only to learn to recognize the "ESSENTIAL
PRINCIPLES OF LIBERTY AND FREE GOVERNMENT", but they also left us the
legal tools to reclaim those liberties and freedoms. We only need to learn what those tools
are and how to use them.

Volume 1 of the CONSTITUTIONAL COMMON LAW LIBRARY contains the full text
of the Bill of Rights of ALL 50 STATES, the full text of the U.S. Constitution, The
Declaration of Causes and the Necessity of Taking up Arms, The Declaration of
Independence, The Declaration of Rights, The Northwest Ordinance, The Articles of
Confederation and more ...

UNDERSTANDING THE VALUE OF THESE DOCUMENTS
In a very real sense, most of the documents contained within the CCLL program can be
considered suppressed simply because they were not, until now, readily available to
citizens. Consequently, not one citizen in ten thousand has ever read his own States
constitution or it's Bill of Rights. The irony is that the documents themselves state that
their primary purpose is "THAT THE GREAT, GENERAL, AND ESSENTIAL
PRINCIPLES OF LIBERTY AND FREE GOVERNMENT MAY BE RECOGNIZED
AND ESTABLISHED ..."

Many of these documents explicitly state that their specific intention is that ESSENTIAL
PRINCIPLES BE RECOGNIZED. The Founding Fathers recognized that, without
learning these essential principles, citizens would be unable to maintain their liberty and
free government could not be maintained. We repeat:
Freedom can exist only in the society of knowledge. Without learning, men are incapable
of knowing their rights, ... Dr. Benjamin Rush - 1786:

To truly understand and appreciate the value of these documents, we need to study them
not merely with respect to the information they contain but more specifically to the
purpose they intended to serve for it is the intent of the lawmaker that constitutes the law.
As one writer put it, "These documents are the Scriptures of our American Heritage of
liberty and freedom." Starting with the Declaration of Independence, we learn their
source and purpose. They are the laws derived from the "Laws of Nature and Nature's
God" that circumscribe the limitations of power and authority entrusted to the men in
government. As such, they are the legal basis by which America citizens, as individuals,
are to judge whether or not those bounds have been exceeded or if Government has
become destructive of the ends for which it was instituted.

First, there is natural law which stands as an eternal rule to all men, and which is to
govern even the government itself. The laws of nature are called the laws of God because
they are derived from the same source. It is called the Common Law because it is
Common to all men, at all times, and in all places. It sets the bounds of all men including
the men in government who possess no powers not delegated by the people themselves.
And the people can not delegate powers they themselves do not possess. Therefore, if an
individual cannot perform an act without commiting a crime, trespass or tort; then he
cannot delegate that authority to his representatives in government. It is this which sets
the bounds of government.

Second, government power is only a fiduciary power which has been established by the
people only to act for certain ends. Yet, there remains in the people a supreme power to
remove the men in government and alter the government itself when they find that they
are acting contrary to the trust reposed in them.

These are the basic principles which are concisely stated in the Declaration of
Independence, and which inform us of the ends for which our governments and
constitutions were established.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life,
Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, ...
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the
Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, ... DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
The Declaration of Independence tells us that the sole and exclusive purpose for which
government was established was to secure the God given birth rights of every American
citizen. This purpose is restated and elaborated on in the Constitution of the State of
Alabama:

That the sole object and only legitimate end of government is to protect the citizen in the
enjoyment of life, liberty, and property, and when the government assumes other
functions it is usurpation and oppression. -- ALABAMA, DECLARATION OF RIGHTS,
ARTICLE I. Section 35.

The founding of America was truly a political miracle. It was the only Government the
world has ever seen that was founded upon the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" and
instituted for the sole and exclusive purpose of securing and protecting God Given
inalienable rights. The Constitution was purposely designed to place strict limitations
upon Government to insure that it did not stray from this purpose and become like all the
other Governments the world has known. It was not instituted to grant rights and
privileges, to regulate the lives and rule over its citizens. It was not empowered to pass
and enforce any law it deemed good. No power was given to make any law that would
abolish, abrogate, diminish, or restrict any right. Nor was any power granted that would
allow the men in Government to amend the Constitution by any process not authorized by
the Constitution itself. These powers were expressly prohibited. Many of these rights are
spelled out in these documents which are Supreme Law and are applicable in all 50
states.

This Constitution, ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, ... U.S. Constitution, Article VI.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Sec. 2.

Under these provisions of the U.S. Constitution, the rights enumerated in one State's Bill of Rights are as valid in the courts of the other 49 States as they are in the State where they are listed.

In addition, the rights spelled out in the Northwest Ordinance are equally protected and
applicable in the courts of all 50 States by the following provision:

All ... Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as
valid against the United States under this Constitution as under the Confederation. U.S.
Constitution, Article VI.

Those Americans who place a high value on the freedom we inherited from our ancestors
will find these documents to be a real gold mine with extremely valuable nuggets
scattered throughout them. While a great deal of this material may seem repetitious, a
slight change in wording in one document can give a whole new understanding and
appreciation of the intent of a given provision.

These documents are not simply electronically recorded words, they are, as the writer
mentioned above put it, "the Scriptures of our American Heritage the study of which is
sacredly obligatory on all." In any case, they are Supreme Law and mighty weapons in
the armory of educated warriors who value their freedom and are determined to preserve
and restore the God given freedoms guaranteed and secured by these Supreme Laws.

Those of us who are concerned with preserving and restoring the freedoms we inherited
from our ancestors are often asked, Where in the Constitution does it say that you have
this or that right; Or, we are accused of being "Constitutionalists" or "Constitutional
purists"; Or, have been told that the Constitution is a "living or elastic document"
(meaning it is subject to changing interpretations, expansions and contractions, by the
men in government, to keep step with changing times and conditions).

Such questions, accusations and statements are signs of abysmal ignorance of very basic
and fundamental freedom principles. Such apathetic ignorance and complacency stems
from strong, yet comfortable, delusions of freedom and security that is a reflection of
America's past greatness but that has little or nothing to do with present day reality. And,
coming from public officials who have taken an oath to uphold and defend the
Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic; they are ominous signs that
America is in great danger of passing into history as an experiment in freedom and self-
government that has failed.
To demonstrate the value of these documents, we can use them to answer all of the
above.

The rights enumerated in this Bill of Rights shall not be construed to limit other rights of
the people not therein expressed. -- Virginia Declaration of Rights

You will find similar provisions in more than 20 States Bills of Rights. It would have
been impossible for our Founding Fathers to enumerate all of our God-given rights, they
are limited only by the rights of others. Under the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God",
"all men are created equal" and no individual and no group of individuals calling
themselves a "democracy" or "government" have a moral or legal right to invade
another's rights to life, liberty and property - either themselves or through their
representatives.

Absolute, arbitrary power over the lives, liberty and property of freemen exists nowhere
in a republic, not even in the largest majority. -- Wyoming Declaration of Rights, Art. I,
Sec. 7

This identically worded provision can also be found in the Kentucky Declaration of
Rights - Art. I, Sec. 2. This provision goes much deeper than it appears on the surface and
is worthy of careful reflection.

As to both the accusation of being a "Constitutional Purist" and the Statement that the
Constitution is a "Living or elastic document," we can let the following answer for us:
In the words of the Father of his Country, we declare that ... "the constitution which at
any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is
sacredly obligatory upon all." -- Rhode Island Declaration of Rights, Article I, Section I
If we study these documents in the light of this provision of the Rhode Island Declaration
of Rights, we will begin to see just how far America has strayed from the basic and
fundamental freedom principles upon which it was founded. We will find that a great
deal in our constitutions that has never been changed by "an explicit and authentic act of
the whole people" is totally ignored today. The question we should ask is, by what
authority were they changed?

I would strongly suggest that as we study these documents, we keep the following key
words uppermost in mind: "Supreme Law" and "Sacredly Obligatory". We should also
make a special effort to fully understand the following provision that will be found in
many other State Constitutions.

That frequent recurrence to fundamental principles, ... are absolutely necessary to
preserve the bless- ings of liberty, and (to) keep government free; the people ... have a
right, in a legal way, to exact a due and constant regard to them, from their Legisla- tors
and magistrates, in making and executing ... ... laws ... -- Vermont Declaration of Rights,
Article 18th.

Carefully note the words "absolutely necessary". The question becomes, how can we
possibly "preserve the blessings of liberty, and keep government free" and "exact a due
and constant regard to them (fundamental principles) from ... legislators and magistrates
..." if we are apathetically ignorant of what those principles are? The answer, of course, is
that we can't. From this, we can see the priceless value of these documents and the urgent
need to study and distribute them to others.

This brings up another critically important topic relative to these documents. Modern
propaganda and legal practice has it that you must be a Licensed Lawyer before you are
qualified to understand the "legal meaning" or "interpretation" of our laws and, therefore,
the provisions in these documents which are the foundation of all of our laws; and,
thereby to, demand a due observation and constant regard of them by our legislators,
magistrates and other public officials.

Some of us have even been accused of the "crime" of practicing law without a licence
when we have attempted to help others defend their rights. This is a throw back to the
Dark Ages where the layman could have no intercourse with God's laws save through the
intermediary of priests who were qualified members of the clergy in good standing with
the hierarchy. Today, the only difference is that those "intermediaries" between citizen
"laymen" and the "Laws" are called lawyers and their "superiors in Black Robes" are
called judges, and their courts of Chancery are pretending to be courts of law.
I can assure you that the great majority of the founding stock of this nation who
demanded and insisted that Bills of Rights be attached to their Constitutions were not
lawyers and that they fully understood the limits of the powers they were entrusting to the
men in government. In fact, in many Colonies, lawyers were considered vermin and
parasites, and were even banished in some of them.

This is such a critically important topic that we should inquire further into the thought of
the Revolutionary generation. In effect, John Locke who was considered the ideological
progenitor of the American Revolution and who, by far, was the most often non-biblical
writer quoted by our Founding Fathers said - any single man must judge for himself
whether circumstances warrant obedience or resistance to the commands of the civil
magistrate; we are all qualified, entitled, and morally obliged to evaluate the conduct of
our rulers. This political judgement, moreover, is not simply or primarily a right, but like
self-preservation, a duty to God. As such it is a judgement that men cannot part with
according to the God of Nature. It is the first and foremost of our inalienable rights
without which we can preserve no other.

To this idea, that has been propagated by the legal profession for so many years now that
only lawyers and judges are qualified to understand and interpret the "legal meaning" of
our laws, let's examine the statement of one of this nation's ideological Founding Fathers:
To say that subjects in general are not proper judges (of the law) when their governors
oppress them and play the tyrant, and when they defend their rights ... is as great a
treason as ever a man uttered. Tis treason not against one single man, but against the state
- against the whole body politic; tis treason against mankind; tis treason against Common
sense; tis treason against God; And this impious principle lays the foundation for
justifying all the tyranny and oppression that ever any prince was guilty of. The people
know for what end they set up and maintain their governors, and they are the proper
judges when governors execute their trust as they ought to do it. -Johnathan Mayhew

It is clear that this "impious principle" perpetrated by a self serving legal profession is not
recognized by Americans because they have never learned the essential principles of
liberty and free government. The implementation of this principle has created an
Aristocratic form of government contrary to the Constitution. Under the pretence of a
merger of law and equity, "law" has been replaced by "equity" administered by self-
appointed "Aristocrats" who are the only ones qualified to judge the law. Jurors are not
lawyers. So, they are told they can only determine the facts in a case but are required to
accept the law as the judge (aristocrat) gives it to them even if it violates their own
conscience.

... the jury in all criminal cases, shall be the judges of the law and the facts. -- Georgia,
Declaration of Rights, Art.I, Sec.II, Para. I

This provision appears in many of these documents. Yet, jurors, ignorant of freedom
principles, allow judges to deny them and the defendant the right to have the jury
determine the law. Defendants are not even allowed to argue Constitutional principles to
the jury because they are not "qualified" to know and understand the "legal meaning" and
"interpretation" of the law. In other words they are not "proper judges" of the law.
I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedoms of the people by
gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden
usurpations. -- James Madison

"Without learning, men are incapable of knowing their rights ..." Therefore, they are
incapable of recognizing these "gradual and silent encroachments" on their freedoms and
liberties.

It was well known during America's Revolutionary period that Government was not the
source of rights. It wasn't just Thomas Jefferson who claimed that men "are endowed by
their Creator with certain unalienable Rights," he merely restated what everyone was
thinking.

Kings or parliaments could not GIVE THE RIGHTS ESSENTIAL TO HAPPINESS ...
We claim them from a higher source - from the King of Kings, and Lord of all the earth.
They are not annexed to us by parchments and seals. They are created in us by the
decrees of Providence. -- John Dickerson - 1766

As we continue to examine these documents, we will begin to understand that our
Founding Fathers placed the responsibility for the future fate of our Republic directly into
the hands of the people as there was no other safe repository. It was left to the people
themselves, as individuals, to preserve the integrity of the principles of liberty and free
government.

The duty and obligation to scrutinize the "laws of nature" and the laws contained herein
which flowed from them for the knowledge requisite for preserving our legacy of
freedom and liberty is not merely optional on our part, it is "absolutely necessary to
preserve the blessings of liberty, and keep government free" as we saw in the Vermont
Bill of Rights.

America was established as a nation of laws and not of men. And the laws contained
herein are those laws. America's traditions do not have a life of their own. They must be
sustained by living commitments. People must give them life continuously or they will
expire - especially when they are under attack as they are today.

In summary, the problem is not that we have forgotten freedom principles, but that the
great majority of us have never learned them. It is my fervent hope that this program will
make a contribution toward rectifying that sitution.

Volume 1 of the CONSTITUTIONAL COMMON LAW LIBRARY puts a vast data base
of "essential" freedom movement information at your fingertips, and more important, you
can obtain a 100% complete and fully functional evaluation copy for only $2.00. Use the
registration order form from the exit screen to obtain your copy today! Or write today to:
TED PEDEMONTI, 18-K HARTFORD AVE., ENFIELD, CT. 06082

''NOTE: This file is not in the printed version of Operation Vampire Killer 2000, but has been added by THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMON LAW LIBRARY as a preview of Volume I of that library.''