In order to find a means by which to correct the problems within our Nation, I had to spend many, many hours studying what had gone wrong for those who had already tried to accomplish the same goals.  What I found was perhaps more disconcerting than what I expected to find. I expected to find that the political failures were due entirely to the media bias against us – what I found was that media coverage of poorly managed campaigns would probably have done more harm than good. I expected to find that corruption in the judicial system was the cause for all of the legal losses we've suffered – but what I found was piles of legal filings based upon erroneous theories, poorly framed arguments, and philosophy instead of law. I expected to find that the socialist agenda taught to our kids in public schools was responsible for the total lack of understanding they have about proper government, but what I found was that parents simply aren't teaching their children about it at home.  So I ask you – who is responsible for the impotence of the Patriot Movement? We are.
 
           How can we lay blame to the Court if we failed to raise the proper arguments, or follow the Court's procedures? How can we blame the Court if we raised no argument based solidly in law, but tried instead to get a Court of law to make a ruling based upon philosophy? How can we claim the Court is in error when we failed to properly research the law and frame an argument based upon it?  Far more importantly, How dare we allow a legal precedent to be established which will help defeat all other Patriots who follow after us, simply because we failed to properly proceed with our case.
 
           How can we blame the liberal media for not giving our candidate fair media coverage when our campaigns are disorganized, the candidate in many cases gives incomplete or poorly worded answers, fails to clearly address issues of concern for local voters, or intentionally establishes themselves as an inflammatory radical nut? In such cases, media coverage would do more harm than good. How can we blame the media for not covering a candidate who focuses his campaign on an issue which is only of interest to a small percentage of the public, and is inflammatory to the rest?  How can we blame the media for not covering a candidate who proposes (legitimate) theories which would initially destroy the entire economic structure of the nation, but cannot propose a means of implementing it which wouldn't result in widespread poverty and the candidate cannot answer complex economic questions? So I ask again… who is to blame for not getting our candidates into the public eye? We are.
 
           How can we blame the schools for filling the minds of our children with socialist agendas when we fail to teach them the truth at home? How can we blame the state for not doing our job the way we want it done? How dare we claim on the one hand that the failure of the family is the fault of the state, and on the other hand not take the time to teach our children how things should be? How dare we as parents blame our failure on the influence of the state and local officials we helped get elected by either not getting involved at all or by sponsoring and supporting candidates who simply had no chance of getting elected either due to their own faults, or the poor management of their campaigns?  And I ask again, who is at fault for the lack of understanding in our children? We are.
 
           With all that said, let me explain what needs done now. There is no benefit in pointing out the mistakes of well intended Patriots unless it is accompanied by instructions for avoiding those same mistakes. The failures are our own, now let's fix them.
 
 
           The losses we've suffered in the courts can largely be attributed to a few basic causes, although they manifest themselves in very different ways in different cases. It is important to note a few basic facts though, which seriously affect every single case.
 
1)     The judicial system is composed of courts of law, not theory and not morality. If the court begins to recognize theories, philosophies, or codes of morality, then the court has lost all integrity as to issues of law. If the court recognizes any philosophy or code of morality, then it must also recognize opposing philosophies or codes of morality. It would soon become impossible to distinguish what the law is, and is not – and the court would have to adopt as its own a philosophy or code of morality.  This would effectively cause the Court to be a legislative body, and would be totally detrimental to the cause of Constitutional government. Many theories, philosophies, and moral codes are indicated within laws, but only the laws – not the supported theories, are useable in a court of law.
 
2)     The courts have established rules by which they operate. Failing to abide by those rules can defeat any case at any time… simply put, play by the rules, or you lose no matter how good your argument is. (learning the rules and forcing opposing counsel to follow them can be rather effective as well.)
 
3)     The judicial process is slow… if you're not willing to stay the course, don't start the race. There is nothing accomplished if you aren't willing to devote years to the fight.
 
4)     If you aren't willing to take the time and spend the effort to do the job correctly, don't cause problems for those who are. Improperly filed or poorly framed cases do far more harm than good, and simply shouldn't be filed in the first place. They do far more harm than good.
 
 If all you seek to do is make a statement, I'd suggest using the local newspaper. If you want to accomplish anything in the court system you'll have to follow the Rules of Procedure perfectly, and base your arguments upon the only two sources of authority recognized by the court: law and case law (prior rulings of the courts).  Arguments based upon a ruling which has been overturned since it was originally made will almost always fail, so do your homework before using it. Be sure to cite the laws on which you base every argument, any case law which supports your position, and what law gives the court in which you are filing your complaint jurisdiction in the case. You must also cite what harm you have suffered and from whom when you file a complaint. Trying to "pile it on" by creating charges not based in applicable law will do far more harm than good – don't bother. Be specific with the charges, and cite the proper laws, or you'll be shooting yourself in the foot.
 
 
           "Protest candidates" are a joke – a bad joke. Candidates who make inflammatory statements or radical comments in order to get publicity for their cause harm both themselves and any other candidate running for office under the same party. Candidates for office who want to propose economic changes need to be qualified to discuss the economy intelligently and in depth. Candidates must be prepared to answer clearly the tough questions – they will be asked, and any slip when answering will be fatal to the candidacy. Candidates must know how to apply Constitutional principles to the issues that other candidates are discussing, or (if enough publicity is available to the candidate) to force other candidates to talk about the issues that are important to the citizens in the area. No one will ever get elected talking about having a strong national defense in a town where thousands of people have recently become unemployed and their opponent is talking about tax rebates, economic growth, and more welfare benefits. If that same candidate focused on eliminating government waste, foreign aid programs, and protecting the US economy from foreign competition… he'd have a good chance. The campaign has to match the local issues, and the candidate has to be able to speak intelligently on the issues, and keep the discussion focused on the issues important to the local voters.
 
           Years of experience have taught career politicians what the "weak areas" of each political party are. These are the areas where the political platform of a political party makes it a target for public scrutiny. Any candidate can expect to face tough questions on these areas intended to redirect the focus of his campaign. Any candidate for the Constitution Party can expect to be labeled as being the "religious right" and seeking to install his religious convictions as law. Any conviction he actually states will be labeled as doctrines of hate… and the credibility of the candidate and the fate of the candidacy will depend on his response. If the response is based in law and stated in a non-inflammatory way, the candidate will fare well, if the answer is based upon his own personal beliefs, he should save his time and money, because his candidacy is effectively over. Candidates for the Libertarian party are similarly situated with their position on the legalization of drugs. Any candidate, whose response is anything other than a quote of law risks being accused of being a user himself, and his credibility and his candidacy are matters of history. Every minor party has its own "radical" issues, and if attention is focused upon them, they'll never get elected.
 
 
           Let's face it; there isn't much point in debating issues which don't have any bearing on the office being sought. Don't get caught in the trap; don't speak about issues not related to the campaign.
 
           If the issues that are important to you are covered under federal law, why run for a local office? If the issues that are important to you are only covered in local law, why run for state or federal office? If the office for which you are running is essentially an arm of higher government (i.e., local school board where state offices mandate compliance, etc.) why bother… seek the higher office, so that you have a chance of accomplishing something. (Local school boards in some states still have reasonable amounts of authority, and in those areas, the office should be sought.)
 
 
           If you want to raise socialists dedicated to the creation of a one world government and a police state, then just send your children off to school and assume they are being taught well. If you want to raise Patriots, then you'd better figure on raising them yourself instead of letting the state do it for you. Explain to your children what is wrong with our current government, and how it is supposed to be. You'll be amazed how interested they are, and how much they'll understand. If we fail at this, anything else we accomplish will be a total waste of time.
 
 
                                                            Robert Marlett, CEO  
                                                            Freedom's Cry Foundation