Edwin Vieira – The Poverty of Political Discourse

THE POVERTY OF POLITICAL DISCOURSE

PARTS 1 - 3

By Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.

April 28, 2010
http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin223.htm

PART 1

The more I scan the Internet these days, the more disappointed I become, because of the
ever-increasing superficiality, triviality, and truly aggressive contempt for the intelligence of
the audience that characterizes so much of what passes for political discourse in this country.
The average cookie sheet has more depth, and certainly produces a more palatable product,
than the typical politically oriented Internet column or blog.

A glaring example is the recent creation by the Southern Poverty Law Center (“SPLC”) of a
section on its web site entitled “Meet the ‘Patriots’”. Now, I must admit that I probably should
not trouble myself (or the readers of my commentaries) with this matter had the SPLC not
chosen to “profile” me among its list of “Patriots”. But, the SPLC having done so, I believe I
am entitled to “return the compliment” as it were. Besides, the SPLC has provided me with “a
teaching moment” which should not be wasted.

1. The most obvious demerit of the SPLC’s performance is its lack of basic logic. Throughout,
“Meet the ‘Patriots’” is a patent example of the fallacy petitio principii (“begging the
question”). The SPLC’s web site purports to present “profiles of 36 individuals at the heart of
the resurgent” “antigovernment ‘Patriot’ movement”. Unfortunately—or, perhaps more likely,
intentionally—the SPLC provides no definition of the key term “antigovernment ‘Patriot’
movement”. In what sense these “profiled” individuals are “antigovernment”, or in what sense
they are merely faux “Patriots” rather than real patriots, or in what sense a real “patriot” can
be “antigovernment” as a consequence of being a “patriot” the SPLC never explains. This
renders the entire exercise nonscientific—because, without these definitions, the SPLC’s
categorizations of the “36 individuals” as “antigovernment” and therefore somehow false or
bad “Patriots” are neither verifiable nor falsifiable. They are simply crude propaganda below
even the kindergarten level of reasoning.

As I understand matters, an “antigovernment patriot” is a contradiction in terms. A “patriot”

loves what is good about his country and defends its just interests. Thus, a patriot respects his
country’s government. Indeed, in America “patriots” are the very source of and authority for
government. As the Declaration of Independence explains, “Governments are instituted
among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”; and “whenever any
Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter
or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundations on such principles
and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety
and Happiness”. And the Constitution itself attests that “WE THE PEOPLE * * * do ordain
and establish th[e] Constitution”. So no “patriot” can be “antigovernment”.

Page 1 of 11
Edwin Vieira – The Poverty of Political Discourse

Of course, not every action taken under color of law by every individual in public office is
lawful, and therefore “governmental” in character. For example, Title 18, United States Code,
Section 242 provides that

[w]hoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom,

willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession,
or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or
protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different
punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by
reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and
if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if
such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous
weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more
than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation
of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap,
aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an
attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years
or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Self-evidently, the persons within the contemplation of this statute who act “under color of
any law...” are rogue public officials of various kinds. Such miscreants pretend to act in the
capacity of “government”, but actually are acting in an “antigovernment” capacity, because
their acts are in violation of this particular law and no doubt of many others.

So, are “patriots” who oppose rogue public officials “antigovernment”? Quite the contrary. It
is every citizens’ duty—and the duty of every loyal public official—to oppose, resist, and
utterly defeat the machinations of each and every rogue public official. A “patriot” is one who
opposes rogues in public office—and the political parties, private special-interest groups,
factions, and organizations that work hand in glove with them.

Such is my definition of a “patriot”, supported by the Declaration of Independence, the

Constitution, and the laws of this country. The SPLC has chosen to “profile” me as an
“antigovernment ‘Patriot’”—of whom, one must presume from the tenor of “Meet the
‘Patriots’”, the SPLC disapproves. Yet, if the SPLC disapproves of me as a “patriot”, then what
is its definition of “patriotism”? Plainly, its definition and mine cannot be the same.

2. By carefully avoiding key definitions, the SPLC is able to lump a number of disparate
individuals together in its “profiles”—leaving the careless reader to draw the unsubstantiated
inferences that: (i) all of these individuals share some common, and presumably nefarious,
beliefs; (ii) based upon these beliefs, in some vague manner they are all engaged in a
common, and also presumably nefarious, undertaking; and (iii) if some of them have
allegedly engaged in supposedly illegal activities, then the rest of them probably approve of
such behavior by the alleged perpetrators and encourage it in others. This sort of reasoning
does not rise to the level of “guilt by association”, because (as far as I can tell) many if not
most of these “36 individuals at the heart of the resurgent movement” are not actually
associated with one another in some particular organization or activity, except insofar as the
SPLC has chosen arbitrarily to link them in its own list of “profiles” on its own web site for its
own purposes. Rather, this is “virtual guilt by virtual association”.

Page 2 of 11
Edwin Vieira – The Poverty of Political Discourse

Obviously, the SPLC’s approach suffers from the logical fallacy of “the undistributed middle”:
namely, the false conclusion that, just because “A”, “B”, “C”, and so on share one
characteristic of persons in group “X”, therefore they are all members of that group, even
though that characteristic is not necessarily peculiar to that group. The vicious twist in this
case is that the SPLC, without defining its terms, has created both the group “X” (“the
antigovernment ‘Patriot’ movement”) and the supposed characteristics of that group through
which it purports to interconnect “A”, “B”, “C”, and so.

Now, self-evidently, just because “A” calls himself a “patriot”, and “B” calls himself a “patriot”,
and the SPLC calls both “A” and “B” “patriots” does not mean that the three definitions of
“patriot” are the same. Neither does it mean, if the definitions happen to be the same, that
therefore all of the beliefs or actions of “A” can necessarily be attributed to “B”, or that all of
the beliefs or actions of “B” can necessarily be attributed to “A”, or that “A” necessarily
approves of all the beliefs or actions of “B”, or that “B” necessarily approves of all the beliefs
or actions of “A”—or, especially, that the SPLC has accurately included and described those
beliefs and actions in its “profiles” of “A” and “B”. And, of course, if the definitions of “patriot”
are different from one another, that the SPLC labels “A” and “B” as “patriots” according to its
own definition does not necessarily mean that either “A” or “B” accepts that label, so defined
unilaterally by the SPLC, as applicable to himself.

In short, the SPLC’s whole exercise of “profiling” various individuals, categorizing them as “at
the heart of the resurgent movement”, and lumping them together in a single list proves
nothing more than that, for whatever reason, the SPLC (and whatever individuals and entities
lurk behind it in the shadows) do not approve of the people being “profiled”. Leaving any
objective observer to ask, “So what?” The approval of the SPLC is not the standard of political
reasonableness, let alone rectitude, in this country, particularly when the SPLC refuses to
define (and thereby be required to defend) the standards of “good” and “bad” which implicitly
inform its actions.

One need not be a cynic to conjecture that the SPLC would not have bothered to publish
“Meet the ‘Patriots’” unless it intended by that means to attempt to “chill” and otherwise
suppress the free speech of the “36 individuals at the heart of the resurgent movement”—and,
if it can get away with that, the speech of everyone else in this country with whom it decides to
take issue. But, under our Constitution, “the fact that protected speech may be offensive to
some does not justify its suppression”. Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S.
678, 701 (1977). Accord, e.g., FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726, 745 (1978). The
SPLC rather grandiloquently uses “Law” as part of its name. In this particular, it would do
better to substitute humility for hubris and hypocrisy and actually show some respect for and
follow “the supreme Law of the Land” in its operations.

3. Not satisfied with arbitrarily lumping together the “36 individuals at the heart of the
resurgent movement” as if they were somehow conscious collaborators in a centrally
concerted combination, the SPLC then includes in “Meet the ‘Patriots’” a “timeline” of events
from which the careless reader may illogically—or, perhaps more likely, is expected and
implicitly encouraged to—infer that some continuity of cause and effect, some relationship of
moral or other responsibility, or at least some relevant connection exists between all of the
events in the “timeline” and all of the “36 individuals”. Self-evidently, though, this
juxtaposition of events and individuals relies upon the commonplace fallacy post hoc ergo
propter hoc (“after this therefore on account of this”).

Page 3 of 11
Edwin Vieira – The Poverty of Political Discourse

Besides being illogical, the “time line” is also extraordinarily irresponsible, because it suggests
that perhaps all of the “36 individuals” somehow approve of all sorts of illegal behavior
previously perpetrated by others, or encourage others yet to behave in like manner in the
future.

In addition, the “timeline” is highly selective. And perhaps revealingly so. At no point does it
acknowledge the possible involvement in any of listed events, or in other events of that kind,
of rogue governmental agencies or agents, agents provocateurs, dubious informants, private
special-interest groups, or other individuals or groups who or which could be identified as
what the SPLC calls “enablers”. Nowhere, for example, appears even an allusion to the goings-
on connected to so-called “Elohim City” in relation to the Oklahoma City bombing. As to that
particular instance especially, some observers might consider such a lacuna to be the
equivalent of telling the story of Frankenstein’s monster without mentioning the laboratory in
which Victor Frankenstein assembled the creature.

PART 2 of 3

4. In relationship to myself, the SPLC’s “profile” is particularly childish.

(a) The SPLC labels me the “Architect of Militias”. Well, architecture is a learned and
honorable profession; and if by “Militias” the SPLC has in mind “the Militia of the several
States” which the Constitution explicitly incorporates into its federal system, then being an
“Architect of Militias” would be a commendable avocation for any American. Inasmuch as I
have written and spoken extensively in support of the revitalization of “the Militia of the
several States”, I am an advocate of that (and only that) course of action in relation to
“Militias”. But the distinction of being an “Architect of Militias” in that sense rightly belongs,
not to me, but to the Founding Fathers—actually, to all Americans of the pre-constitutional
period who established (or “settled”, as the terminology of that day had it) Militias in each of
the Colonies and then independent States, according to certain structural and operational
principles that carried over into the Articles of Confederation and then into the Constitution,
where those principles continue to apply, unchanged, even today.

(b) The SPLC’s “profile” calls me a “radical-right thinker”. Well, momentarily putting modesty
aside for purposes of argument, I shall agree that I am a “thinker”—which is better, I submit,
than being a “non-thinker”. I shall agree that I am “radical” (in the sense of the Latin noun
from which “radical” derives: that is, radix, meaning “root”), because I always try to dig down
to the root of any problem into which I inquire—which is better, I submit, than treating
important questions superficially. And I shall agree that I always try to be “right”, in the sense
of correct, and radically so—which is better, I submit, than being wrong. So, perhaps the
SPLC is actually complimenting me. If not, though, it has left the basis of any criticism
unknown, because it has not defined “radical-right thinker”. This may be, however, because to
the SPLC a “radical-right thinker” is simply someone with whom the SPLC disagrees.

(c) The SPLC then asserts that I supposedly consider the name “Department of Homeland
Security” as “a misnomer” for that agency of the General Government. In fact, I am rather
indifferent to the mere name of the agency, but am concerned—as every American should be
concerned—with its purpose and the behavior of its personnel. Now, if (as the SPLC
apparently wants readers of “Meet the ‘Patriots’” to believe) the Department of Homeland
Security were “meant to keep Americans safe” in the full constitutional sense, the agency’s

Page 4 of 11
Edwin Vieira – The Poverty of Political Discourse

leaders and exponents would be advocating and working for exactly the same goal as am I:
namely, revitalization of “the Militia of the several States” throughout the country,
immediately if not sooner. For, as the Second Amendment declares—as a conclusion of
constitutional fact and law which we ignore at our peril—“[a] well regulated Militia” is
“necessary to the security of a free State”. Not optional, but necessary.

Neither in the Second Amendment nor anywhere else in the Constitution or its other
Amendments is any other establishment declared to be “necessary to the security of a free
State” (or “necessary” for any purpose, for that matter). Not even the “Army and Navy of the
United States”, which at least the Constitution explicitly mentions, let alone a Department of
Homeland Security about which the Constitution is entirely silent. And only to “the Militia of
the several States” does the Constitution explicitly extend the authority and responsibility “to
execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”—which litany of
powers summarizes the essential purposes of “homeland security”. So, precisely how the
Department of Homeland Security could “keep Americans safe” in the absence of the very
establishments that the Constitution itself tells us are “necessary to the security of a free
State” is a mystery.

Not a mystery, however, is that (to my knowledge) no one in any prominent position of
authority within the Department of Homeland Security is promoting the revitalization of “the
Militia of the several States”. Rather, many of the agency’s personnel, and at high levels, are
apparently giving credence to hysterical propaganda emanating from such unreliable sources
as the SPLC that treats all advocacy of revitalizing the Militia as somehow improper. Why this
is happening is open to different interpretations. Perhaps these people are simply not
sufficiently conversant with the Constitution to think the matter through to the correct
conclusion—although, inasmuch as they all have taken an “Oath or Affirmation, to support
th[e] Constitution”, they ought to know better.

Perhaps it is merely a matter of the typical bias of bureaucrats in any central government who
tend to favor organizing “from the top down”, with power concentrated in their own hands—
and therefore reflexively oppose establishments such as “the Militia of the several States”
which are organized “from the bottom up” with power concentrated in the hands of the
people, where the Constitution requires that power to lodge. Whatever the subjective
explanation for these individuals’ behavior, though, objectively the agency is not only (as the
SPLC writes) “bent on encroaching on the sovereignty of American citizens and individual
states”, but in fact and law is actually “encroaching”. The Constitution tells us so. To be sure,
this problem could easily be corrected, if such as the SPLC would simply get out of the way
and let clear heads, thinking along constitutional lines, prevail.

(d) The SPLC’s “profile” of me next asserts that I “believe[ ] an economic crisis is looming”.
Looming?! The crisis is here, right now, and in the view of most objective and knowledgeable
observers is becoming progressively worse day by day. Moreover, one does not need to be a
fortune-teller to predict that a major breakdown of the monetary and banking systems will
engender “massive social and political unrest bordering on chaos” (as the SPLC quotes me, I
assume correctly), and that, if the American people do not put appropriate preventive and
curative measures into effect in the near future, such chaos will drive this country in the
direction of a para-military police state. Such a sequence of events has happened in other
countries in recent times, and surely can happen here. See my commentary on
NewsWithViews, “Going to the Root of the Problem”. (See:

Page 5 of 11
Edwin Vieira – The Poverty of Political Discourse

http://www.scribd.com/doc/27200012/Edwin-Vieira-Going-to-the-Roots-of-the-Problem)

In fact, in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina, under conditions far less widespread
and critical than would arise as a result of a total nationwide banking and monetary collapse,
brutal police-state measures were imposed. See, e.g., William Norman Grigg, “The
Greyhound Station Gulag” (See: http://www.lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w141html). So
it has happened here, not so long ago. And if it could happen once, somewhere in America, it
can happen again anywhere and even everywhere in America—if Americans do not forefend
it. And soon.

Because time is running out. As a search of the Internet under “police brutality” and similar
entries will demonstrate with shocking videos, crude police-state tactics are becoming
increasingly common in communities across this country where rogue “law-enforcement
officers” abuse and even savagely attack average Americans, and in most cases walk away
insufficiently punished for their misdeeds. Needless to emphasize, this problem would not
exist were the Militia properly revitalized—because, in that event, all State and Local police
forces, sheriffs’ departments, and other law-enforcement agencies would be sub-units of the
Militia, and their members would therefore be subject directly to discipline therein. But the
Militia have not been revitalized. The SPLC opposes revitalization of the Militia. More than
that, the SPLC stands in the forefront of those generating increasingly shrill hysteria to the
effect that anyone who uncompromisingly supports the Second Amendment (as every
American has a constitutional duty to do) may be merely one heartbeat away from shooting
some policeman—the inevitable effect of which black propaganda must be to poison the
minds of the police and rationalize their application of heavy-handed tactics against the
citizenry. From which an observer might conclude that, objectively, the SPLC is (to use its
own term) an “enabler” of a burgeoning police state.

One must wonder on what basis the SPLC implicitly denies that a national economic crisis is
“looming”. One must also wonder why, without marshaling any evidence in its behalf, the
SPLC imagines itself competent to criticize me (or anyone else) on that score, when—although
the SPLC is located in Montgomery, Alabama—it apparently is too busy “profiling” “patriots”
to pay any attention to the massive crisis of financial robbery and political fraud that has
taken place in its own backyard in the city of Birmingham and the county of Jefferson,
Alabama. See Matt Taibbi, “Looting Main Street”, Rolling Stone Magazine (31 March
2010), posted at (15 April 2010). (See:
http://www.rolllingstone.com/politics/story/32906678/looting_main_street). Can the
SPLC possibly believe that, when the full consequences from this rape of the citizenry finally
become manifest in those communities, extensive social and political unrest will not result?
Or could it possibly deny that such unrest would be fully justified?

(e) The SPLC’s “profile” then describes me as “[a] longtime associate of tax protester Robert
‘Bob’ Schulz”. In fact, although I have been acquainted with Mr. Schulz for many years, I am
not an “associate” of his. My copy of Webster’s Dictionary defines “associate” as “one who
shares with another an enterprise, business, or action: a fellow worker: PARTNER”. As
everyone who follows my work knows, I have little to no interest in “tax” questions, because I
believe that this country is in far more danger of an economic catastrophe from its inherently
unstable monetary and banking systems than from any form or level of taxation. Actually,
insofar as the word “associate” can be loosely used in this regard at all, I feel that I am far
more of an “associate” of the SPLC than of Mr. Schulz, because the SPLC has chosen to

Page 6 of 11
Edwin Vieira – The Poverty of Political Discourse

feature what I imagine will be a permanent “profile” of me on its web site, which is far more
advertising than Mr. Schulz has ever offered to donate to me.

The SPLC claims that “[a] year ago, [I] and Schulz co-organized a meeting of 30 ‘freedom
keepers’ at Jekyll Island in Georgia”. In fact, I had no part in sponsoring or organizing that
meeting, although I did send Mr. Schulz a letter containing some sound advice. The text of
this letter appears in APPENDIX A to this commentary, and speaks for itself. I believe that
Mr. Schulz published this letter on one of his web sites. Later, Mr. Schulz described me as
being “in absentia” at his Jekyll Island conference. I brought the inaccuracy of that
description to his attention in an e-mail, the text of which appears in APPENDIX B to this
commentary. I do not recall whether Mr. Schulz ever published the clarification expressed in
my e-mail. In any event, as documented in this correspondence, the actual situation
concerning the Jekyll Island conference is rather different from the fantasy woven by the
SPLC.

(f) As its sole support for the title “Architect of Militias” which it bestows on me, the SPLC’s
“profile” states that I have “plans to establish militias in all 50 States”. Now, as the SPLC
knows—or should know, if its researchers had read my book Constitutional “Homeland
Security”, Volume One, The Nation in Arms (2007) and my many commentaries posted at
<http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwinA.htm> and republished on other sites—I
advocate the revitalization of “the Militia of the several States” in each State pursuant to State
legislation, as the Constitution requires. As I am not a resident of “all 50 States”, and am not
a member of any State’s legislature, however, I have no ability whatsoever personally “to
establish militias in all 50 States”. If that goal is achieved—and I certainly hope it will be—it
will come about as the result of actions taken by the citizens and the legislatures in those
States to fulfill the requirement of the Constitution that such Militias exist. In addition,
nowhere have I ever even advocated, let alone tried to establish, some “private militia”. In
fact, I generally discourage anyone who asks me about the subject from becoming involved
with any “private militia”.

PART 3 of 3

To be sure, if Mr. Obama, in his assumed capacity as “Commander in Chief * * * of the Militia
of the several States”, were to appoint me as his special Militia aide de camp with authority to
travel from State to State, encouraging, advising, and assisting the legislatures and governors
to enact suitable legislation to revitalize the Militia, I should certainly be willing to take on
that assignment. Then, I suppose, I could accurately be described as the “Architect of
Militias”. Then, too, I should be furthering the plan that has been attributed to Mr. Obama to
create a new civilian national-security force at least as large as the regular Armed Forces.
Actually, I should be making his plan constitutional, which would certainly be an elegant as
well as practical way to establish “common ground” between Mr. Obama’s supporters and the
many average Americans who are unsure of his commitment to such parts of the Constitution
as the Second Amendment. I wonder if, now having offered my services in this regard, I can
count on the support of the SPLC.

(g) Finally, the SPLC’s “profile” reports that “[i]n his book, How to Dethrone the
Imperial Judiciary, (See: http://tinyurl.com/3ykngw9), Vieira advocates the
impeachment of ‘advocacy judges’ who have authorized abortion and gay marriage”. Although
I cannot ever recall using the clumsy term “advocacy judges” (which seems to have been

Page 7 of 11
Edwin Vieira – The Poverty of Political Discourse

coined by someone for whom English is a second or third language), I do advocate the
impeachment of rogue judges (and all other rogue public officials) who violate their “Oath[s]
or Affirmation[s], to support th[e] Constitution”, because any such violations surely
constitute “high Crimes and Misdemeanors”. However, Imperial Judiciary does not focus on
“abortion and gay marriage”. (Indeed, it would have been impossible for the book to have
dealt directly with “gay marriage”, because the Supreme Court of the United States had never
decided a case on that subject before the book was written.) Rather, as the book’s table of
contents points out, Imperial Judiciary concerns itself with the improper reliance by some
Justices of the Supreme Court on foreign law in their (mis)construction of the Constitution:
namely,

Part I. The Illegitimate Insinuation of Foreign Law and Amorality into America’s
Constitutional Jurisprudence. * * * * *
Part II. Remedies for Certain Justices’ Promiscuous Use of Foreign Law in
Constitutional Interpretation.

I realize that expecting the SPLC’s researchers actually to read the entirety of a 328-page book
before they comment critically on its author may be hopelessly optimistic on my part. Yet,
would it be too much to ask them to read one page from the table of contents?

In sum, if the SPLC’s general approach and its specific “profile” of me evidence the merits of
its “Meet the ‘Patriots’” report, it has served up a dish of crude and inaccurate propaganda
that would make even Goebbels gag.

So, what is “the bottom line” here? One need not be too cynical to suspect that the old adage
in politics applies: “Follow the money!” The SPLC is improperly appropriating my name and
reputation (and the names and reputations of other individuals), and intentionally slurring
both in the process, in order to cadge donations.

For example, if the Ex-Lax company obtained a photo of me purchasing its product at my
local drug store and then published that photo as part of an advertising campaign—“noted
constitutional scholar and patriot relies on Ex-Lax”—as a way of increasing its sales and
revenues, without my approval and without compensating me, I might sue the Ex-Lax
company for unauthorized appropriation of my name for a commercial purpose. Of course,
the Ex-Lax company would never do such a thing. But is that not exactly what the SPLC is
doing, albeit in a negative manner? That is, hoping to rake in big bucks from credulous
visitors to its web site through the unauthorized “profiling” of people whom the SPLC
demonizes for the purpose of scaring the you-know-what out of potential contributors? Now,
“Law” is part of the SPLC’s own name—so perhaps its researchers should know better. But,
then, in its name “Poverty” comes before “Law”. And apparently its own “poverty” the SPLC
seems most determined to overcome.

Having cleared up in this commentary the worst of the SPLC’s misrepresentations as to

myself, I am not greatly perturbed by its silly “profile” of me. Perhaps the bad advertising
SPLC is giving me, free of charge, will entice people of sound mind and good will to inquire
into what I actually advocate. So the SPLC can be used, after all, for the good purpose of
overcoming the evil that the SPLC supports—proving once again the wisdom in the folk
saying, “It takes a crooked stick to beat a mad dog.”

Page 8 of 11
Edwin Vieira – The Poverty of Political Discourse

APPENDIX A
Letter to Robert Schulz concerning his Jekyll Island conference (20 May 2009)

THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE READ OR REPRODUCED, PHYSICALLY OR

ELECTRONICALLY, ONLY IN ITS ENTIRETY.

20 May 2009

Dear Bob:

Contrary to rumors circulating in some quarters, I do not oppose in principle the idea of a
new “Continental Congress” (or like effort), at which patriotic Americans could review the
fundamental principles of our Constitution, catalogue violations of the Constitution by rogue
public officials, and propose sound strategies for enforcing the Constitution in the future. To
be credible and effective, however, any “Continental Congress” must operate according to
carefully and clearly defined standards. To wit,

(1) The delegates who are selected must, first and foremost, be thoroughly knowledgeable
about, and personally committed to the enforcement of, the Constitution and laws of the
United States, as well as of their own States.

(2) The delegates must be selected by a thoroughly democratic process, involving the broadest
practical segment of the population in each of their States and Localities.

(3) The delegates must be men and women well known and respected within their
communities, with unblemished reputations for honesty, integrity, prudence, foresight, and
the courage of their convictions.

(4) The delegates must be open to a full, fair, and frank discussion of all credible points of
view, with the goal of creating a documentary and testimonial record of indisputable facts
from which to draw legal conclusions and upon the basis of which to propose responsible
courses of political action. The delegates should be bound by no rigid prior agenda that they
must follow, no preconceived conclusions to which they must agree, and no unalterable plans
for future actions that they must adopt. All decisions of the “Continental Congress” as a whole
must be made by open and recorded roll-call votes.

(5) The delegates should assemble a staff of recognized experts in American history,
constitutional law, political science, economics, and other relevant disciplines to assist them
in their deliberations, as well as secretarial personnel to make and provide for the retention of
complete and accurate records of the proceedings.

(6) The delegates should set as their goal the identification of solely those parts of the
Constitution (including its Amendments) the immediate enforcement of which is critical to
the preservation of America as a sovereign, independent, free, and prosperous republic, and
then focus on precisely how such enforcement is to be accomplished in the most expeditious
manner, and according to the prudential principle “first, do no harm”. When possible, a
proposal that can be put into operation in one State at a time, and gradually refined and
perfected on the basis of that experience, should be preferred to a proposal that requires a
single, massive, and likely unsustainable nationwide effort.

Page 9 of 11
Edwin Vieira – The Poverty of Political Discourse

(7) The delegates should entertain no proposal whatsoever for enforcement of the
Constitution and laws that even arguably violates the Declaration of Independence, the
Constitution, or the laws of the United States or of the several States made in pursuance of the
Constitution. Indeed, any proposal that advocates the violation of law—and
particularly any proposal that advocates or otherwise involves the incitement or
employment of actual violence—should constitute sufficient grounds for
expulsion from the “Continental Congress” sine die of any delegate, expert, or
other party in attendance who sets it forth. To implement this requirement, at the
commencement of proceedings the delegates should select from amongst themselves one or
more “law officers”, with recognized expertise in that field, to provide guidance on the legality
of any proposal placed before the “Continental Congress”.

No doubt other useful standards could be added to this list—and because this is your project,
you must make the final determination as to what may be necessary and proper. But at least it
is a reasonable beginning.

Finally, as I do for all men and women of good will who labor on America’s behalf, I wish you
well in your work.

Edwin Vieira, Jr.

APPENDIX B
E-mail to Robert Schulz concerning his Jekyll Island conference (26 May 2009)

Bob:

Just for the record--I was not “in absentia” at the recent Jekyll Island conference, as reported
by you in your e-mail on the subject. That term implies that one is an attendee who simply
could not show up, for one reason or another. I was not an attendee, but merely sent you a
statement of my approval of “the Continental Congress idea”, provided that it was conducted
according to certain standards, which I set out in some detail.

That, and only that, is the extent of my approval. Obviously, I do not necessarily support
whatever was discussed or decided at the Jekyll Island conference, as I had no part in the
discussions, deliberations, or decision-making. If people want to know my position on any of
the issues ventilated at the conference, they must consult me directly, and not assume that
any conclusions stated by the conference attendees reflect my position.

Thanks for keeping this clarification in mind in the future.

Edwin Vieira, Jr., holds four degrees from Harvard: A.B. (Harvard College), A.M. and
Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences), and J.D. (Harvard Law School).

For more than thirty years he has practiced law, with emphasis on constitutional issues. In
the Supreme Court of the United States he successfully argued or briefed the cases leading to
the landmark decisions Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, Chicago Teachers Union v.
Hudson, and Communications Workers of America v. Beck, which established constitutional

Page 10 of 11
Edwin Vieira – The Poverty of Political Discourse

and statutory limitations on the uses to which labor unions, in both the private and the
public sectors, may apply fees extracted from nonunion workers as a condition of their
employment.

He has written numerous monographs and articles in scholarly journals, and lectured
throughout the county. His most recent work on money and banking is the two-volume
Pieces of Eight: The Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the United States Constitution
(2002), the most comprehensive study in existence of American monetary law and history
viewed from a constitutional perspective. www.piecesofeight.us

He is also the co-author (under a nom de plume) of the political novel CRA$HMAKER: A
Federal Affaire (2000), a not-so-fictional story of an engineered crash of the Federal
Reserve System, and the political upheaval it causes. www.crashmaker.com

His latest book is: "How To Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary" ... and Constitutional
"Homeland Security," Volume One, The Nation in Arms...

He can be reached at his new address:

52 Stonegate Court
Front Royal, VA 22630.

E-Mail: Not available

###

Page 11 of 11