One of the greatest distortions of words seems to be associated with the U.S. Constitution. The first Ten Amendments are improperly called the "Bill Of Rights." Although Thomas Jefferson often referred to such additions as a bill of rights, it was not officially called that until Franklin D. Roosevelt, declared December 15th, the anniversary of the adoption of those Amendments, Bill Of Rights Day.
Although these Ten Amendments do further clarify some Rights of the people, they are the same as all the sections of the Constitution -- Limitations on Government Authority. The First Ten Amendments are actually a Bill of Limits on the government.
All rights which are not specifically granted to Government, by the people, are retained by the people -- our Unalienable Rights!

The best defense you can develop against the usurping of your rights by bureaucrats is to stay informed of current news and activity. Most men always manage to find a few minutes to read the sports pages and women seldom miss the advise to the lovelorn. Don't stop! All reading is informative, but do not limit what you read to a few favorite subjects. The scores in the paper, who will not play in Sunday's game, and your favorite humorist will not save your home from a greedy developer.
Bill Cosby, once one of TV's top entertainers and an expert in education, suggested that people could absorb much more news and information about current events if they would skim the newspapers and magazine articles. The secret is to make a list of key words and when you are skimming, let those words be like flashing red lights to stop your eyes from scanning. Those key words will let you know which articles to read slowly and carefully.
Bureaucrats play on words. It has been helping them to garner more and more power and control over you and your family. They manipulate words and have even slipped legislation past lawmakers by merely mis-naming the proposed bill.
To make it easy for bureaucrats and controllers to circumvent the U.S. Constitution and your Rights, without actually violating the Constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court has come up with some changes in the definition of certain words. The Justices did not do this to intentionally weaken the nation, even though that is the result. Their motivations were to uphold the acts of Congress. In some instances, Congress passes bills which directly conflict with the intentions of the Constitution. To avoid this, such words as "required", "must", "shall" and "may", have been given interchangeable definitions. In doing this the Supreme Court has caused almost all laws or rules to be unconstitutionally vague. Here are the definitions from Black's Law Dictionary:

MAY--An auxiliary verb qualifying the meaning of another verb by expressing ability, competency, liberty, permission, possibility, probability or contingency.

SHALL--As used in statutes, contracts, or the like, this word is generally imperative or mandatory. It has the invariable significance of excluding the idea of discretion, and has the significance of operating to impose a duty which may be enforced, particularly if public policy is in favor of this meaning, or when addressed to public officials, or where a public interest is involved, or where the public or persons have rights which ought to be exercised or enforced, unless a contrary intention appears. But it may be construed as merely permissive or directory (as equivalent to "may"), to carry out the legislative intention and in cases where no right or benefit to anyone depends on it being taken in the imperative sense, and where no public or private right is impaired by its interpretation in the other sense.

MUST--This word, like the word "shall" is primarily of mandatory effect and in that sense is used in antithesis to "may." But this meaning of the word is not the only one, and it is often used in a merely directory sense, and consequently is a synonym for the word "may" not only in the permissive sense of that word but also in the mandatory sense which it sometimes has.

REQUIRE--To direct, order, demand, instruct, command, claim, compel, request, need, exact. To be in need of. To ask for authoritively or imperatively.

Abuse of Words
If you cannot adjust each and every one of these legal definitions to suit your desire, you should take a course in English language. Every rule and law in existence uses one or more of these words and the variable definitions leave it up to the reader to decide which meaning to apply.
In effect, the Court is ruling that such words be given mandatory construction unless such an application violates someone's rights. Then it is given a "voluntary construction." That means if your rights would be violated by the mandatory definition, you must be tricked into volunteering so the rule can have the force of a mandatory law without violating your rights.

Whenever you hear a government agency try to convince you that you would be better off with a certain program, watch out! The plans always sound ideal, but if someone says it is Best for you and your family, you would be well advised to scrutinize them as you would a suspected burglar.
Most of self-serving politicians and bureaucrats are worried about being caught with their pants down so they keep themselves covered with an abundance of press releases. Of course, you might have to read five different news clips to get the entire story, but they do advise you of what they are doing.
This play on words keeps numerous people employed. It also chips away at your Unalienable Rights. Prior to the passage of the Privacy Act of 1974, it was virtually impossible for anyone to get information about your income tax return. The IRS jealously guarded that information. But the Privacy Act (so-called) opened the door so that almost any government agency could have access to your financial information. Even foreign governments can get the data on your IRS tax return. Was that really a Privacy Act? Or was it a Non-Privacy Act? Do our Congressmen know what they did? Have they taken any action to correct this blight on the privacy of citizens?
The IRS Directors are often quoted as they call our Income Tax System "Voluntary." The payment of acknowledged taxes may be mandatory, but the reporting system is definitely voluntary. They have a big problem trying to phrase every word and form to make you think you are required to file without saying that you are "required" to file a return. Keep in mind when any agency says they "require this information" that the word require also means "need."
Those who utilize this knowledge and refuse to file a 1040 form or any other kind of return are referred to by the Internal Revenue Service agents as "Illegal Tax Protesters." It is a neat play on words, but leaves a question: "Are they protesters of an illegal tax, or are they illegal protesters of taxes?"
It creates an image in the minds of the public. Nobody wants to be called "illegal," so the IRS uses the word to confuse the issues. Actually the tax is not illegal, nor is any protest of the tax. We have a right to protest anything and everything. But the IRS bureaucrats, like all others, are trying to make their jobs as easy as possible and non-conforming patriots do not help them.
If you want to be informed about rules and regulations which will affect you, your family, your bank account, your home, your car, your freedom to move about, your right to keep and bear arms, your freedom of speech, and all the other Rights most Americans say they value so highly, then you must read! You must listen carefully. You cannot accept things because they sound nice or easy.
When you know that some official is going to make a speech, ask for a copy. Rarely do public officials speak "off the cuff." Invariably they have a prepared text and they seldom deviate too far. It is the protection they have when someone tries to say "We were not warned." Whether you get the text in advance or after the speech, skim if for buzz words. Check any statement which seems to be "qualified."
In early 1968 I was in Washington, D.C., trying to hire an editor. The woman I was hoping to retain had a White House Press Pass and had to interrupt our interview to attend a Press Conference President Lyndon Johnson had called. After dropping her off, I took a copy of the prepared text and studied it while waiting for her. Then, listening to the end of the speech on the car radio as I drove to pick her up at the White House, I heard President Johnson announce that he would not run for a second full term. That information had not been in the prepared text of his speech.
By the time I reached the front gate of the White House, demonstrators seemed to appear from out of nowhere carrying banners and signs. "Thank God, The War Will Be Over" one hastily painted sign shouted.
The demonstrators and the press corps had picked up on a statement in Johnson's speech in which he stated that he had ordered a halt to the bombing of all non-strategic, non-military targets in North Vietnam, north of a certain parallel. To those who did not study the text (that included the entire Press Corps and the Congress) it sounded like he said he had stopped the bombing of North Vietnam.
The TV news media on all three major networks, at that time, reported it that way. The people in the streets celebrated as if that is what he said. It was 10 days later when an announcement was made about bombing missions in North Vietnam. The press was irate. The anti-war demonstrators were angry. Johnson had "lied" to them! He was still bombing targets in North Vietnam!
Of course, he was. He said he was "stopping the bombing of non-strategic, non-military targets north of" ... a certain line (way north) in North Vietnam. I do not know if he intended to mislead anyone with that statement, but I doubt it. The media did not listen. They did not check the prepared text. It happens all the time. If trained news people can get the story wrong when they have the facts typed out in front of them, how easy must it be for the average citizen to misunderstand.
Any percentage figure can and usually does mislead the intended audience. Treat all PERCENTAGES as buzzwords to be scrutinized. For example: "Eighty percent of the majority consider the new law to be in keeping with the goals of freedom."
Doesn't that sound like 80% of the people are in favor of the new law? But that is not what it says. A majority is 51%. If 80% of the 51% favor the law, that is only 40% of the whole. Apparently 60% were either opposed to the new law or rendered no opinion. But that means the new law does not have popular consent. Twisting words and percentages is a common game played by Tricky Dick lawyers, power hungry politicians, bureaucrats and unscrupulous media people who want to distort the truth without actually telling a lie.
You should make your own list of "red light words" to catch your attention. Some key words you should have on your list include:
RATE OF...
REDUCED RATE OF GROWTH
VOLUNTARY
COMPLIANCE
NET
INCREASE AVERAGE
GROSS
EXCEPT FOR
ADJUSTED FOR
DESPITE THE
NOTICE OF
COST-BENEFIT RATIO
MANDATORY
REQUIRED
PROPOSED BAN ON
ALLOWED
REQUIREMENT THAT
PERMITTED
LAWFUL (un-)
ADMINISTRATIVE
LICENSED

Anytime there is more than one descriptive adjective used in a speech or press release, read it carefully. Everyone is inclined to embellish a speech or press release by using a choice word to exemplify their position more colorfully. President Johnson's speech about halting the bombing of targets in North Vietnam should have been more carefully scrutinized by the national press corps. The people depend on this elite group of reporters for information and truth. When Johnson qualified his statement with the term "non-strategic" the press should have noticed. When he gave it a further qualification of "non-military," our elected officials should have noticed. When he put in geographic qualifications, everyone should have noticed and there should have been absolutely no confusion about what he had ordered regarding the bombing of North Vietnam.
Using the name of an innocent party in a story in conjunction with some known criminal is an easy ploy. Try this half-truth for an example: You have just read most of an article about how one man was convicted of land fraud. He is, according to the story, one of the biggest land swindlers of the time. We will call him John Smith. The story continues ---
"When Smith was checked into the State Prison, he had accidentally brought a list of associates' addresses with him. It was confiscated and turned over to the prosecuting attorney as potential evidence in further investigations and prosecutions.
The media has learned from a reliable source that the list included the name and address of a prominent real estate developer, Bill Jones. The prosecutor refused to comment when asked if Jones was under suspicion of land fraud.
`He hasn't been indicted yet,' an assistant told the reporters."
This type of journalism is disgusting but it goes on every day. It is well-known by the media and politicians that the public is inclined to convict people by association. This tactic made Mr. Jones suspect simply because of the way the story was presented. Someone in the media or the prosecutor's office obviously wanted to damage Mr. Jones or the statement "He hasn't been indicted yet," would not have been made or printed.
Of course, you have not been indicted either. The question should not arise. If you know someone who gets into trouble, you can easily be put into such a position and be considered tainted with "guilt by association."
Sometimes you will see the media used by publicity hungry detectives or politicians. Like us, they watch TV shows such as the many cop shows or late night re-runs of "Miami Vice" or "Starsky & Hutch." Some of our police officers are easily influenced by such shows. They will occasionally go to great lengths just to get their name in the newspapers or their pictures on TV.
One sheriff, up for reelection, wanted to get some gangbuster publicity so he instructed under-cover police officers, borrowed from out of town, to take automatic weapons, cocaine and marijuana, along with thousands of dollars in stolen goods from the police property room and haul it over to a building the undercover cops had established to be a house of prostitution. To make sure the pimps (under-cover cops) would look really bad and arouse the dander of the community, the Sheriff arranged for a juvenile prostitute to apply for a job and be in the house when uniformed deputies conducted a raid.
With TV crews on hand they kicked in the doors and ARRESTED the two men, three newly hired prostitutes and the juvenile hooker. They "found" a small arsenal of guns and automatic weapons, almost a half-million dollars worth of drugs and over $50,000 in stolen merchandise.
It was all true! The media ate it up and gave it top coverage. Child prostitution? Drug dealing? Automatic weapons? Stolen property?
The public was aroused. They demanded the Sheriff continue with his outstanding work. "Such people as these should not be allowed in our community!" was the cry of the media and the people. They might tolerate a few prostitutes and their pimps, but not child prostitution! Not an arsenal of automatic weapons! Not drugs or stolen goods!
It was some time before the general public learned that the two PIMPS who had been arrested were really undercover cops and the weapons, drugs and stolen property, displayed for the media, had actually been evidence in other cases and was planted in the house after being removed from the police property room.
Such activities as this are not always discredited. They are called "media events" and are very misleading. The biggest problem is that the public can never be sure if what they are reading or hearing is true or just a publicity seeking event.
The spokesman for the Sheriff's office never did say that the men were running a house of prostitution. He never said that they were selling drugs. He never said that the juvenile was working for the two men. He merely pointed to the goods and said "This is what was found in the house."
Eventually, the local media realized they had been suckered on more than one occasion and the reporters started asking the right questions.
Another Sheriff wanted some publicity shortly after taking office and his men arranged to have a pilot fly in a load of marijuana to a deserted airstrip. It was like making a TV movie. The officers were dressed in camouflage fatigues and carrying assault rifles. The TV NEWS crews were well hidden when the plane landed. The story went down and the next day a suspicious newspaper reporter dug out the truth. The deputies had actually blackmailed the pilot into making the flight. They had threatened to jail him for some minor violation if he did not help them.
You, too, must ask the right questions. Read, listen and don't hesitate to pin someone down who appears to be skirting your direct question. If they can be devious, then you must be tenacious. Hang in there and you'll hang them.

Bureaucrats can completely change the meaning of a word and you will wonder what hit you if you do not pay attention. My friend and his wife were taking an evening walk when they stopped to read an official notice posted at the corner. It said something about changing their quiet, neighborhood street from a secondary collector to a "primary collector." Did that mean they would be getting more frequent trash collections?
Being aware of government treachery, they called to find out what the term "primary collector" meant. After a brief, buck-passing, run-around, they learned that "collector" means "traffic street" in the bureaucratese language.
What the local bureaucrats hoped to pull off was to turn a quiet neighborhood street into a main thoroughfare with thousands of cars daily. When the people in the neighborhood learned about it (via interpretation from my friends) they all showed up at the next council meeting to stop the change. They had not known what a collector was and the change would have been made if they had not protested. George Orwell's classic novel, "1984," forecasting the future, complete with big brotherism and doublespeak, may have been off a few years but his foresight was accurate.
When you question a bureaucrat, especially if your inquiry puts them against the wall, they will often resort to subtle attempts at putting you down.
"I'm sorry you don't understand. If you would like to go over this is detail, I'll arrange some time for you. But now we must move ahead with new information," the bureaucrat says, patronizingly. Such a put down must never be accepted. This person, usually with some title, has attempted to discredit your mental prowess because he (or she) is hiding something. Do not start a war, but do not accept this tactic. Insist the speaker explain it to everyone, NOW!
"I'm very adept at understanding, Mr. so and so. You obviously did not make yourself clear and I'm sure there are other people here who would like you to make yourself clear by answering my question, now," is a good stock comeback for you to memorize and use.
You not only upset his attempt at questioning your mental ability, you can garner some support from others who would be too intimidated to ask questions similar to yours. They do not want that man up at the podium to make them appear ignorant. You must insist that he has not made himself clear, otherwise the audience will not support you. When you start asking questions or making statements contrary to the official line, you are a trouble-maker.
When I first heard about a Flood Control plan for a desert community where I edited a local, weekly newspaper, I felt as most people did --- the streets would be flooded when it rained and the Army Corps of Engineers obviously were experts about such matters. As I listened to a Colonel with the Corps explain about their planned project, I noticed he skirted some direct questions from a city councilman.
Curious, I started looking into the project. Eventually I discovered that the plan would not prevent the type of flooding to which the community was exposed. It called for a Multi-Million Dollar Bond Issue to be approved by the voters with several times that amount to be paid by the Federal Government (also tax payer's money). The voters turned the project down by voting against the bond issue.
At a meeting several months later, a General with the Army Corps of Engineers tried to explain their newly revised project to a group of interested citizens. When I asked how many times the people would have to say "no" before they stopped pushing this project, the General asked one of his Colonels to take me aside and explain the project to me (he did not want me to interrupt his meeting). The Colonel attempted to answer some of my objections to the project and when I pointed out the huge amount of money involved, he said Congress requires them to show a 2 for 1 cost-benefit ratio on all projects.
That sounded reasonable, so I asked, does that include factors for inflation. "Oh, yes," he replied.
"Over what period of time?"
He mumbled an unintelligible answer and I repeated my question. "Over what period of time is the cost-benefit ratio figured?"
The Colonel mumbled again, but this time I could hear him say, "A hundred years."
"One hundred years?" I asked in disbelief.
With that bit of information, the next bond issue was also killed. Very few projects are good for 100 years. Usually they are outdated and a nuisance at the end of 50 years. If you don't think so, take a look around. The government, developers and planners are tearing out numerous projects which are less than 30 years old.
When the Army Corps of Engineers came back again, with still another project revision, they pointed out that it would only add 5 cents per $100 of assessed valuation to the property owner's tax bill. Since the flooding was only a problem for certain neighborhoods, I asked why everyone had to pay since it was designed to protect homes which had been built in flood prone areas. The financial aspects were the only legitimate concern since there was no record of anyone drowning as a result of the city floods. Usually the water only rose a few feet and ruined carpet and drywall.
Without a satisfactory answer, I pointed out that if they would pass a law which required everyone to pay me 5 cents per $100 of property value, I would gladly form an insurance company and provide total coverage for all financial losses from the flooding. That was in l966. In 1968 the Federal government made flood insurance available to property owners and in many cases it is mandatory that you have it if you want a mortgage. Another reason not to make flip suggestions to a bureaucrat!
The point is, do not accept those words and plans at face value. You must question them and what they mean. You must show the bureaucrats and the public that there are other alternatives to their control plans. If you don't, you lose!


POINT TO PONDER

Do your knees shake when you get up to speak? Sit on the side and watch the knees of the so-called experts when they stand up to talk. That podium is there to give them something to lean on and hide their shaking knees. If you find you are reluctant to speak out or challenge the so-called experts at public meetings, consider taking a Dale Carnegie Course in public speaking or join your local Toastmasters club.
Everyone is nervous when they first start to talk to a large number of people. Even small groups can make someone nervous. You can learn how to overcome such fears by taking a speaking course. Your local community college offers such courses and you can learn a lot and get practical experience by joining your local Toastmasters -- you will benefit greatly from meeting the people as well as the experience you will get speaking in public.