An open reply to Senator Mike Crapo

It's interesting how obliging our representatives can be.  If you have ever tried to contact your representative or senator you will most likely be given only one electronic means of communication - email via a web form.  Each time you wish to communicate with them, no matter how many times you have in the past, you will be required to give them your full address, phone number and name and sometimes more than that - every time.  There is no sign-up to be a regular correspondent with the person that is in office to represent YOU.
On top of that, if you ask them for a response, you will get one, canned, and without including the original email you sent - and you will have no record of your original correspondence (unless you take special pains to keep a copy that is) because it will never be included in your reply.  The reply is always general and will be from an email address you cannot reply to.
So, with my options very limited as to my ability to respond to my representatives response I give you my open response to Senator Crapo's (Idaho) response to my request to NOT extend the Patriot act which was recently before the Senate.
Here is the Senator's response in blue to my initial request which I have no record of because I had to send this on a web-form and did not save a copy.  My responses are in purple interspersed.  I will be referring to this post in my next correspondence with the Senator.

February 25, 2011

Mr.Sanford Staab

...

Dear Sanford:

Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns regarding the PATRIOT Act. I appreciate knowing your thoughts and welcome the opportunity to respond.

As you may know, the PATRIOT Act was signed into law by former President Bush on October 26, 2001. Yes it was, under severe threats and panic over 911 which was used as the opportunity to slam through this pre-conceived legislation just for such a time.  Note that the text can be found here and is 271 pages long.  At the time representatives passed this legislation without having been able to even read the legislation.  Your statement above makes it sound like the Bush Administration made this law with prudent and informed deliberation - which was NOT the case (unless it had been planned and thought through long before the 911 incident) Since then, there has been a great deal of controversy about the provisions included in the Act and whether they infringe on individual civil liberties. My standard from the outset is the Constitution. If anything unconstitutional is in the Patriot Act, it should be immediately corrected. Sounds good Senator.  Here is the 4th amendment to the constitution:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Lets keep this text in mind as we read on...

On February 15, 2011, Congress reauthorized three controversial provisions of the PATRIOT Act that extend certain powers to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Specifically, the first provision grants the authority for FBI investigators to obtain a “roving wiretap” court order, which authorizes them to follow a target who switches phone numbers.

It appears that the evidence needed to violate the privacy of an individual is simply the fact that someone is changing phone numbers.  This is evidence of what crime?  What oath or affirmation is needed to ensure this is probable cause of a crime?  What is specifically being sought after with the wire-tap?

The second provision allows the court-ordered seizure of “any tangible thing” relevant to a terrorism investigation.

Seizure of property is covered in the constitution under the 5th Amendment:

No person shall ... be deprived of ... property, without due process of law;

The classification of terrorism is used to rob people of due process.  Court-ordered or not, seizure of ANY property before or without due process is clearly unconstitutional!  If law enforcement can just ask a judge for the right to seize property without the accused even being able to defend himself first then this cannot be considered due-process by any stretch of the reasonable imagination.

This includes a business’s customer records, diary or a computer. The final and most controversial provision allows the FBI to obtain a court order to wiretap a terrorism suspect who is not connected to any foreign terrorist group or foreign government. Known as the “lone wolf” provision, this authority has never been used by the FBI. Authorization for these provisions was extended through May 2011.

This is an explicit waving of due process and of evidence required specifically by the 5th amendment.  How whacked do things have to get to be considered unconstitutional by you sir!!!?

As you may know, these, and many provisions of the Patriot Act were not made permanent when they were created.

Oh so we can violate rights as long as we do them on a temporary basis?  What difference does the violation of rights make whether temporary or permanent?  Both are in clear violation of your oath of office and the purposes of government outlined in the Declaration of Independence.

Congress wisely included sunsets for these provisions.

So wise sir!  Because we don't know what we are doing, lets just be safe and make it temporary.  That does make sense since the original patriot act was passed with no time to even read the act much less deliberate it. But such knee-jerk panic acts by congress hardly makes them worthy of my support and trust. This provided Congress with the opportunity to conduct frequent and thorough oversight on these policies and to only reauthorize them and revise them as necessary, based on the actual evidence of how they had been implemented.

I understand the views expressed by you and other Idahoans about the possibility of the powers granted under the Patriot Act infringing on civil liberties. Its not just possible - its clear as blood. However, steps must be taken to restructure our government resources so that they are in the best possible position to detect, address, and prevent any future attacks on our country. The government's "resources" are my/our "resources".  The cost of 911 and all other terrorist attacks made on this country since then pale in comparison to the cost we have incurred due to government responses to these acts. 

• Suspension of all air flight for 90 days
• Entrance into a protracted war without any official declaration of either war or who the enemy is
• Imposition of unlawful search and seizure at every airport terminal
• Violation of the privacy of US citizens via email and phone tapping without any evidence of probable cause of any specific crime
• Imposition of a national police force in the form of homeland security
• Billions of dollars of cost in implementing these actions
• etc.

This can be done without sacrificing personal freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution.  We have already lost due process completely with the suspension of habeas corpus in "terrorism" cases.  This is so core to our freedoms that it becomes difficult to find anything left that we can call true freedom.  What is the definition of the legal term terrorist? (see U.S. Code Title 22, Ch.38, Para. 2656f(d)) Upon taking office, I, and every other Senator, must take an oath that states in part, “I solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” I am committed to fulfilling this oath.  Your rhetoric and actions contradict this IMHO.

The goal of protecting Americans’ physical safety where in the constitution does it grant the federal government the duty to protect individual citizen's physical safety at all - except to provide for the common defense?  Keep in mind the strict construction rules of the 10th amendmant.  And where in the hell does it grant the government the right to deprive citizens of their rights to "protect" them?  and protecting the rights and privileges we all enjoy need not be mutually exclusive. I am confident that the Patriot Act was created in a way

that serves its stated purpose, and that will leave law-abiding Americans with no reason to take personal concern for its actions.  Denial of due process to anyone should be of deep concern to every American sir.  If it can be denied to one, it can be denied to any and all.  This is the crux of the Declaration of Independence - that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL in the eyes of the law.  We can't just classify some men as "terrorists" and thus make them unequal in rights without due process first. 

Again, thank you for contacting me. Please feel free to contact me in the future on this or other matters of interest to you. Will do senator. For more information about the issues before the U.S. Senate as well as news releases, photos, and other items of interest, please visit my Senate website, http://crapo.senate.gov.

Sincerely,

Mike Crapo

United States Senator

MDC:jb

It has been a pleasure to address this response in detail via this blog.  I will now send another web-form email to Senator Crapo referencing this post.  If I get any kind of cogent response, I will be sure to append it to this post for all to see.

Let me clarify that I don't consider Senator Crapo to be any worse than other senators or representatives we have these days in congress.  Almost without exception, every person in congress is either grossly ignorant of the law or they are so focused on keeping power that their consciences have been seared.

To save this nation will require representatives that are willing to die for liberty - because I believe that is what it will take to turn things around these days.

I truly appreciate the pressures both positive and negative that weigh upon our representatives, especially at the federal level.  But these people need to know that the cost of their compromise of truth and justice will have a penalty to be paid sometime in the future - and that penalty will be painful and my not be that far off in coming.

Something you could easily do, Senator Crapo, to make correspondence more open and useful to those you serve, would be to create a kind of specialized web forum where your constituents (and only your constituents) could openly express their views on a multitude of subjects with openness and organization.  I would suspect that opencongress.org would be most happy to help you in this regard and it would set a wonderful precedence as a great example of transparency in government so often touted these days by various officers of government.

Sincerely

Sanford Staab

Principles In Liberty 56

V76 - Galambos
Download
Recorded on 11/30/2010
Andrew J. Galambos

V76 Lectures
1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7

The V50 Lectures in written form are here.

00:37 I wont pay for the v50 lectures because I don't understand the Galambos trust - why even after he is dead his trust will not release the content of these lectures openly. I see no reason for Galambos to demand income from these lectures. (Note: Upon doing some research while publishing this post, I noticed that he does have his volitional science in paperback form - however it is indeed a rare and expensive book. (paperback only $400!  Note the book reviews on this - it may well be worth every penny!)  Upon reading the Wikipedia Biography of Galambos, it appears to me that he has only managed to attract attention from a very small minority of people.  There appears to be very little around on the net on Galambos)
01:00 Bonnie Lang published the V76 lectures free recently (well, make that in 2001). See links above.
01:26 Glambos is a political thinker who believes it is possible to create a society that doesn't use force.
01:45 Remember Spooner - a similar "anarchist" type, was also a Deist.
02:07 The secrets of this is locked up in the v50 lectures. (Either pay $125 for the mp3s or $400 for the paperback)
02:26 I was impressed with the V76 lectures.
2:35 Galambos is hard to listen to due to his pauses in his speaking.
02:50 My Summary of V76:
03:50 Paine's "Common Sense" was read by 1 in every 6 Americans.
04:24 Paine's "Crisis" was 13 letters used to inspire the volunteer army troops during the revolutionary war.
05:00 That war was totally voluntary - no taxes used.
05:41 Paine started as a corset maker, failed, became a tex collector, failed, got reinstated, failed again, left for America on advice from Ben Franklin and wrote for a Pensylvania magazine which he brought back from near collapse by writing all the articles under pseudo names. Paine wrote articles against slavery and for women's rights in that magazine.
06:30 Paine became a radical principled man. Paine was a Deist as it sounds like Glambos is as well.
06:50 Likely the confusion of the reformation turned people off and gave rise to Deism which dismisses many issues of religion - very close to unitarian thinking.
07:40 The goal of Paine to do good for the world in some ways shames many christians I know. Deists seem to care more about this world than Christian's do.
08:20 Glambos seems to feel the world (in the 50s) had less than a century left due to our WMD technology.
09:00 The would-be rulers of the world seem to care not about the world itself.
09:15 Glambos asserts that Paine wrote the initial version of the Declaration of Independence and that what ended up being used was a watered down version that came out of committee. Glambos gives pretty persuasive evidenct to support Paine's authorship of the Declaration of Independence.
10:20 Paine invented steel bridges and got involved in the French Revolution and narowly escaped a beheading in France.
10:50 Paine died a "pennyless wretch" as some have told me. But the reason he died this way was because he gave everything he had away and never took all the credit due him from his writings and inventions.
11:00 After his death, bad biographies appeared which tainted the name of Paine in history.
11:30 Glambos feels that Paine didn't go far enough and that we should have abolished government altogether. Glambos feels there is a sientific way to get to a force-free society and protect all property including intellecutal property without compulsion.
12:38 We live in an age of corruption. I don't yet accept the premise that there is a way to conduct society without the use of force.
13:05 Glambos' arguements remind me of the utopian communist view of the state withering away after the revolution. (He makes assertions without giving good example of exactly how a force-free society gets implemented.)
13:45 Why is Glambos's stuff not out there in written form? (It is, I was just a dope.)
14:00 Volitional Science SHOULD be able to be boiled down to a few pages of key points and spread efficiently around the world. (This I have not seen but I suspect Galambos' requirements for his students to sign NDA type agreements is why.)
14:44 Glambos points out that Paine had the ability to put ideas into a form that made things happen.
15:00 Glambos emphasizes that to get to freedom you don't fight tyrany. You fight FOR freedom.
15:45 I look forward to checking out the V50 lectures and relating that to you in a leter podcast. (I said I wouldn't buy them, but maybe I lied.  Maybe my curiosity will pry the money from my fingers.)
16:40 Government schools have taught us to be slaves.
17:25 Glambos loves Isaac Newton.
17:58 Lyndon LaRouche does NOT like Newton. An interesting conflict.
18:45 The logic of Newton allows reason to dump God. This sets the Deist up to take over. Add Darwin and we are done with God.
19:25 We are now in the post-modern Man-is-God position. But we are trying to move back.
20:20 closing remarks.

Principles In Liberty 55

Hot Cops

Download
Recorded on 10/9/2010

1:09 Glen Stoll's Texas Adventure
1:39 An incident in Lewiston with the cops on 10/1/2010.
2:30 Cops pull over a guy that parks in the Albertsons parking lot and block a lady parked next to the guy.
3:30 backup cops come and block more traffic.
3:58 People are scared to death as they maneuver around the cops.
4:22 Takes abour 45 minutes for the arrest to be completed.
4:35 I wanted to offer myself to the perp as a witness but was too indimidated to do so!
4:53 If I parked the way the cops did, I'd be getting a ticket myself.
5:42 The perp isn't bothering anybody and cooperates as much as he can.
6:00 Homeland Security == KGB, a totally unconstitutional national police force.
6:19 I was really insensed and wanted to call the Lewiston Police Dept, and find out more about this.
6:46 Later I went to a volunteer fire department meeting.
7:00 They just got a grant from Homeland Security
8:25 These grants are a backhanded method of forcing spending on what people don't support.
8:50 Taxes need to be made voluntary again.
9:00 This dovetails into Glen Stolls adventure in texas.
9:30 Gist: Glen Stoll doesn't cary plates for any state.
9:47 Why doesn't he have plates?
10:07 History of the Motor Vehicle Code - couldn't find any good links on this.
10:32 Horses didn't need plates way back when.
11:00 First automobiles didn't have plates or licenses either.
11:42 DOL is the center of insantiy.
12:13 I think the MVC was part of the UCC.
12:27 Motor Vehicle is a special commercial term. As is "driving", "operator", etc.
13:00 I haven't been able to confirm these ideas.
13:14 proof of ownership is the bill of sale. But I have to "register" this car with the state.
13:42 A title's legal construction is a trust. You and the government share title to the car.
14:21 Driver Licenses used to always be called "commercial" licenses.
14:46 Now all you see in WA is CDL - but now that is gone too. Idaho still shows its commercial.
15:26 I have tried to find clear evidence of this commercial scam but so far without success.
17:15 It is my contention that the lawyers have been hiding this commercial aspect of the MVC.
18:00 I've ordered some dictionaries that I hope to get online for comparitive use.

Here follows a transcript of Glen Stoll's Abatement written from his Jail Cell in Texas.

Memorandum of Fact, Agreement and Law
On or about Friday, April 16th, 2010, 10:30pm while on a missionary journey heading for interstate 10 from an assignment in Austin Texas, I was riding in the Church Ministry automobile with Michael Shurtteff, my fellow missionary behind the wheel.  Michael brought to my attention that there was an emergency behind us with lights flashing.  He pulled over for the vehicle to pass.  As the vehicle was taking a long time to pass, Michael said something like "maybe he's after me".  I said "how could that be?  You are always extra careful not to exceed the posted limit and the cruise control was set."  When Michael pulled completely over and stopped off the road with the vehicles still behind us, I said "maybe you were swerving a little and he thought you were drunk or something." 
The emergency vehicle driver who came to the window appeared to be a Texas state trooper.   He asked the usual questions about ID and expressed his displeasure about our faith as church resident citizens by saying things like "the kingdom of heaven is not here and now.  You can't be from the kingdom of heaven." and "The post offices don't allow general delivery anymore."  The last taunt was in connection with accusing ambassador Shurtteff of giving false information.  After being out of the automobile for a short time, ambassador Shurtteff returned long enough to tell me "looks like I'm under arrest".  Upon my asking what the charges are, one or both of them responded with "driving without a driver's license".  I asked something like "when did that ever become a crime?" Being a Church official myself and actively involved with the identification, registration, and licensing process, it is my understanding that he does have a current valid drivers license, whether or not he was able to present his DL to the trooper, I cannot say. 
Next the trooper asked me to get out of the automobile after first having told me to stay inside.  He then asked if I had any weapons on me. I told him that I had a pocket knife in my right front pocket that I would be glad to leave in the car.  He then began to display great agitation, barking out orders that were extremely confusing like "spread you legs" when they were already spread and "stop resisting" when I had no concious knowledge or intention of resisting.  I was attempting to be as cooporative with him as possible.  I am not accustomed to dealing with people who behave in such a rude, beligerent, and arrogant fashion and tone.  He was screaming at me at the top of his lungs and with a distorted voice.  I just froze.  The next thing I knew, I was down on the ground and he was riffling through my pockets.  He took everything out and returned my billfold but kept my church passport, my pocket knife, and my special herbal oil that I use for sinus injection and other healing purposes and annointing services.  At no time to I recall him ever asking me to identify myself or to show him my identification.  If he had, I'm sure I would remember becasue I am proud of my lord and savior Jesus Christ, and enjoy identifying myself as belonging to Him and Him alone.
On several occasions during this ordeal I asked the trooper something like "what are you doing?" and "What is it you want from me?"  The only answer I recal from him was to my question "Am I being arrested?" as he was helping me up from the ground.  His answer was "you are now".  I then asked "on what charge?" He said "for resiting arrest."  I said something like "how can I be arrested for resting arrest when I wasn't being arrested for anything in the first place?"  His response was, which he repeated once again as I was being taken away by Johnson City Police Officer David, "You were resisting arrest, search and transport".
Upon ariving at the Blanko County Jail, I said to the officer, "it appears we are both being arrested for preaching the gospel without a license" to which he said "this isn't the first time that has happened."  The officer did his processing and then locked us each in separate cells.  During processing, the officer asked for identification information.  I told him that the trooper had taken my church passport but that I had a church issued driver license if he would like to see that.  Since I have taken a spiritual vow of poverty, chastity, and obedience into a special sacred order of gospel ministry, as the scripture says, "all things have become new and old things have passed away to be remembered no more".  I explained the similarity to that of a monk of the Roman Catholic of which I am not, but with similar concepts.  The vow of poverty is that everything I had, have, and ever hope to have belongs to and is under exclusive control of Jesus Christ and his Church.  I am only a steward of anything in my posession and am answerable to the rest of the body of Christ for my faithful management of it on their behalf.  The vow of chastity means that I am never again to have intimate relations with the great whore or any of her harlots which are any of the systems of government of men that are "drunk with the wine of the wrath of her fornication" and the vow of obedience is to Jesus Christ and Him alone as a loyal minister of the Gospel and ruler in His kingdom.
Therefore as an agent in legal terms for managing certain temporal affairs as an ambassador in political terms being the Kingdom of Heaven to a lost and dying world, and as a minister in spritual terms, minister as unto the most high, even to men of low estate and submiting to every ordinance of man for the punishment of evil doers and the praise of them that do well.  Under the above mentioned vows, I have become civily dead, have expatriated from citizenship in a secular governement and have become exclusively church resident as a fellow citizen of the household of God.
Having said all that, this is how it is possible for me to not have a date of birth.  I have known several people whos date of birth is not the same as the actual day upon which they were born.  Some who have been adopted from other countries and another date was simply assigned to them, and some who were assigned a date of birth for legal purposes to be used to identify them as human resources and property of the secular state.
Since it is possible to have a date of birth that is not the same as the actual day upon which you were born, it is also possible to not have a "date of birth" at all if you are not a human resource and subject property of the state, which I am not, as explained above.  I have been bought and paid for with a price that of the shed blood of Jesus Christ, I cannot serve two masters.  I have expatriated according to the several laws of the United States and that of International Law.
I have not expratriated because I hate the United States of America, on the contrary, I love my country and I love the principles upon which the US of A was founded.  I have expatriated from the corupt, godless ,secular humanist, defacto United States that has overthrown and userped the authority of the original dejure US of A that was established in the fear of God and under the authority of Jesus Christ.
Again, I love my country, and my country is the kingdom of heaven that is within, on the face of all the earth, and my beloved home and native land, America. "Where the spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty".  It is people like me, and those who respect or at least tolerate us that make America great.  It is people who have no respect for the things of God, or of the people of God like me, that have destroyed this great land.  Which of these are you?  As Alexis De Tocville said, "America will be great only as long as America is good".  He went on to say that by good he means "bible believing, God fearing, and Christian but also tolerating and respecting others who are not; but not letting them take over as they have because they do not tolerate or respect us, and will soon the entire nation, even those who claim to be Christian brothers against us.  What is happening to ambassador Shurtteff and me here in Johnson City, Texas is an example of the latter.
The above has been explained to some extent or another to many of the people here at the jail, including the Johnson City chief of police, several Blanko City deputies and others.  On Saturday afternoon, April 17th, 2010, we spoke with a magistrate - Bob Riley who was attempting to secure our release and that he would see us again that evening, but he never did.  I had explained to him that a deputy had attempted to take my fingerprints earlier but we agreed to wait and see what the magistrate had to say about taking fingerprints against my will, having already been subject to unlawful search and seizure, arrest, and incarceration.
The magistrate ruled that we would be released after he returned that evening, but only if they had my fingerprints first.  I confirmed that I would not give my fingerprints, believing it to be unlawful, but that I would not resist their unlawful taking of them.  Complete sets of my fingerprints have been taken about 5 times as of this writing, sunday late evening, with still no sign of seeing a magistrate, even though we have been told we would be seeing one on Saturday evening and several times on sunday.  Now we are being told that we will see a magistrate tomorrow, Monday April 19th, 2010, but who knows.
The Johnson City police chief told me that if I do not give them a date of birth, which I do not have, or tell him the actual day upon which I was born, that they will never release me.  I have repeatedly asked for "assistance of counsel" but have been refused.  The police chief that I would stay in here for  life without "assistance of counsel" unless I provided them with a date of brith and place of birth.  I told him that wont be very long then because I am on a spiritual fast without food or water until such time as I am released.
During one of the fingerprinting sessions, I mentioned to a young deputy sheriff that it is sure boring being locked up in total isolation all day and all night.  He said "its not supposed to be pleasant. That's why people wont to come back here."  I said, "I didn't want to come here in the first place."  He said, "then you should have obeyed the law."  When I sugested that I sounded like he wanted to see me punished without charges, trial, conviction, sentencing, or any other due process of law, he said, "that is exactly what you are in here for, punishment."  There has been casual meniton of several charges like "spending and altering government departments" in addition to what I have mentioned before, but neither of us have seen anything yet.
For the most part, except for the "aresting" state trooper, everyone here has been very curtious and respectful, except for keeping us caged up like animals for no good reason, and having us on survelience camera 24/7 being viewed by both men and women even while using the "open room policy" toilet with "gray bar" doors and narrow slits for windows.  So much for pastor Paul's theory about privacy in public toilets. However, this evening they have allowed us to take showers in our cell, and towels, and an orange uniform to put on.  Boy!  Did they get mad when I put my own clothing on.  I put their uniform on only as a curtisey to them in order to keep them from resorting to the physical violence they threatened against me if I did not comply against my will.
I asked the older of the two deputies if I could have some paper and a pen and he said, "you do something for us and we'll do something for you" so here it is, and I am wearing orange.  A very pleasant lady guard just came in and told me that it is 4AM.   They never let you know what time it is unless you ask and sometimes not even then.  I had no idea it was so late.  This should be enough for attaching to my foreign plea in abatement.  I would also like to get this to my lawyers and Pro Advocate Group that can be found on my website at more resources.
The forgoing is true, correct, and certain.  Materially complete and not misleading.
Signed at John City Jail, Texas, on this 19th day of April in the year of our Lord 2010.
Signed Glen Stoll, Ambassador of Jesus Christ.
Following this was Glen's last will and testament in case he should not leave the jail alive.

Principles in Liberty 54

Bob Bowman

download
Recorded on 8/4/2010

01:22 Bowman Starts his inaugural address should he be elected president.
01:50 C: Democrats appeal to controlling corporate greed.
02:27 Bowman wants to follow the constitution - this is good.
03:00 C: What is a signing statement?
03:33 Repeal dictatorial powers of the president.
04:04 C: He's on a great roll!
05:15 C: Back to a paper ballot - right on - but the beginning of demagoguery is happening here.
06:36 C: Public funding of elections - how does this improve the electoral process?
07:43 Proportional representation and other changes to promote third parties.
08:00 C: Are two parties really the problem? Bastiat's the Law is ideal to explain Dr. Bowman's errors.
10:54 C: Are elections fixed at the federal level?
11:24 C: A political party is a private association. Government should not be involved in this at all.
13:30 Constitutional amendment proposed: Corporations are not "Persons".
14:00 C: This is a new one to me. Government already controls corporations. The Constitution isn't the appropriate place for this.
16:14 Media Reform: Reinstate the ban on ownership of multiple media outlets.
16:25 C: This is meddling in private property - this is unconstitutional. The FCC itself is unconstitutional. This guy is a socialist.
18:12 The key to ending fascism is separating big money from big power.
18:25 C: This is not possible. We must decentralize the power.
19:30 Indite the Bush administration for war crimes.
20:00 C: Right on Bob - this is what government should be doing.
21:00 I expect the military to refuse obeying illegal orders.
21:15 C: Danger Will Robinson! Not wise to order your troops to not obey you.
22:43 Duty to the constitution far outstrips other priorities.
23:00 Dual Citizenship should be done away with in government positions.
23:22 C: Right on Bob.
23:53 Never follow orders to participate in a war of aggression.
24:10 C: The soldier is not the one to decide the validity of a war. The people decide that via their reps in congress which is supposed to declare war before the executive commits troops.
26:29 Never follow orders to incarcerate citizens without charges.
26:40 C: Waco was the breaking of the Passe Comatatis Act. It needs to be reinstated.
27:24 911 is being used to take our rights. The 911 cover-up discussed.
30:00 C: So refreshing to hear the truth of 911 being talked about by a political candidate!
31:18 911 must be exposed or our wars will never stop.
32:19 Other cover-ups to deal with - Murders of female soldiers in the field.
32:48 Pat Tillman - sport start, war hero, conscientious objector, victim of murder in the field.
33:17 Levina Johnson case - tragic.
34:25 "A government the honors the truth must uncover the truth and then tell the truth"
34:35 C: Bobs best quote!
35:15 Government should reflect the values of its good people.
35:42 Real wages are 1/3 of what they were in the 1950s. Ordinary workers today would be making $1.2M/year.
36:22 C: He proposes minimum wage controls to fix the ecconomy. This is socialist and will not work.
37:50 Tariffs to keep jobs in the country.
38:00 C: I'm not sure about tariffs - seem necessary but is interference in international economy.
38:41 Limiting corporate executive income tax deduction.
39:13 C: Another socialist solution - tax incentives. The whole income tax is unconstitutional by its nature. Bob needs to understand this.
40:38: Executive order to require government contractors pay their workers a "living wage".
40:50 C: This is whacky. In the same breath he supports the constitution and supports a socialist solution via an unconstitutional vehicle - executive orders. "Congress shall make all laws" This makes Bob a dangerous guy.
43:15 Environment issues - skipped but in sum we should double the gas mileage of cars and trucks.
43:39 C: The government doesn't own the environment. The people (should) own the land. The proper fix is allodial titles of land to physical people and inheritable without taxes to the next generation.
45:20 Release all those detained without charge.
45:30 C: Totally correct Bob.
46:20 Do away with anti marijuana laws.
46:30 C: See Lysander Spooner’s work on the law and vice. But the executive branch is not the party to decide which laws to enforce. Congress needs to fix this. He should only not enforce laws that are unconstitutional - not what he doesn't like.
48:00 Using mercenaries is unconstitutional.
48:12 C: That's new to me. I don't know of any limits on hiring mercenaries in emergencies in the constitution. But let’s declare war first.
49:25 All contracts with mercenaries are canceled. Abolish Homeland Security Agency.
49:37 C: Right on Bob! Let's abolish all the agencies FDR created - they are all unconstitutional.
50:00 Wars of aggression. The US has no evidence against Osama Bin Ladin and we knew that Hussein did not have WMD because we put 150000 troops on the border in one location before attacking Iraq.
52:25 "The whole 'War on Terror' is phony from beginning to end"
52:28 C: Preach it brother!!!
52:35 The collateral damage of the wars discussed.
54:00 Bring the troops home while they are still alive. Stop using depleted uranium weapons. We must bear the cost of caring for our injured and poisoned soldiers.
54:54 C: The men all volunteered. I don't see a proper obligation to do legal plunder again to support veterans. Two wrongs don't make it right.
56:00 Globalization bottom line: Suspend NAFTA till Mexico reforms itself economically.
56:24 C: Not only is Bob socialist - he is dictating his socialist solutions to other countries. Whey not can NAFTA? Why just suspend it? Does he support the American Union? Bob can be used by the bad guys just as well as the neo-cons were used because he is a socialist.
58:00 Can the FED. States should form non-profit banks. Licence not-for-profit banks.
(Post Production Note: He want's to dump the FED but he respects the IRS which is the other side of the same coin.  Clearly Bob is confused.)
58:40 C: Right on Bob.
58:50 Close the School of the Americas
59:00 Abolish the CIA. Transfer the good analysts to other agencies.
60:00 C: This is not as simple as it seems.
1:01:00 These wars are part of a long bloody history of collonial policies. We are taking irreversable steps to return to a constitutional foreign policy.
1:02:07 C: Multinational corporations are tools used by good and bad guys. The bad guys have other tools. You won't fix this by destroying corporations or taxing them to death. We are against an international gang of thugs. All the governments need to wake up to how they are bing used by these gangsters otherwise we will be the target of all nations if we reform.
1:04:30 Recall forces from around the world. After 65 years the occupations of Germany and Japan will come to an end. Use Jimmy Carter to straighten out the Israelis.
1:05:00 C: We cannot solve Israel's problem. The governments should not be interfering with each other. This is right from Washington and Madison.
1:06:30 Suspend all financial assistance to Israel till they reform their government.
1:06:54 C: Why not cut financial assistance to all nations? It's all leagal plunder anyway.
1:07:20 We need to honor our treaties for disarmament.
1:07:17 C: This is a can of worms. These treaties were made with the UN who aren't really a legit government anyway. Hard to say these should be enforced. It’s also just not possible to remove nukes from the earth without a global police state to enforce it.
1:09:05 I am not likely to last long in this job. If I have a suicide be suspicious. They can kill me - but they can't kill what we started - its too late for that now.
1:10:10 C: That’s all for now.
1:10:30 My question to Bob live about using executive orders to enforce things. His answer.
1:12:15 Conclusions by me. Bob is a hero and a dangerous man.
1:14:18 The Law excerpt on false philanthropy.

Principles In Liberty 52 - Save A Patriot Fellowship

download
Recorded on 7/9/2010

This episode is dedicated to CPAs and Tax Consultants that may not realize they could be misinforming their clients about the law regarding income tax.
See Save A Patriot Fellowship
See this recent Seattle Weekly article on David Struckman

Principles In Liberty 51 - Happy 4th fo July

download
Recorded on 7/3/2010

Why do we celebrate the 4th of July? Some thoughts on the eve of this historical day.

The Declaration of Independence (A good thing to read today)

Jonathan Mayhew

While reading Whatever Happened to Justice?, My attention was directed to a sermon in 1750 by Jonathan Mayhew.  The format of the source from which I found this sermon was not easy for me to read so I resubmit it here for easy reading.  John Adams delcared Mayhew to be a "transcendant genius" and says that this very sermon was instrumental in sparking the American Revolution.  I urge everyone, but especially pastors to read this sermon and think about it.  I cannot see a flaw in his logic here.
Emphasis and formatting of the sermon are mine.

Sandy

Let us now trace the apostle’s reasoning in favor of submission to the higher powers, a little more particularly and exactly. For by this it will appear, on one hand, how good and conclusive it is, for submission to those rulers who exercise their power in a proper manner: And, on the other, how weak and trifling and inconnected [sic] it is, if it be supposed to be meant by the apostle to show the obligation and duty of obedience to tyrannical, oppressive rulers in common with others of a different character.
The apostle enters upon his subject thus—Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers; for there is no power but of God: the powers that be, are ordained of God. Here he urges the duty of obedience from this topic of argument, that civil rulers, as they are supposed to fulfil the pleasure of God, are the ordinance of God. But how is this an argument for obedience to such rulers as do not perform the pleasure of God, by doing good; but the pleasure of the devil, by doing evil; and such as are not, therefore, God’s ministers, but the devil’s! Whosoever, therefore, resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God; and they that resist, shall receive to themselves damnation. Here the apostle argues, that those who resist a reasonable and just authority, which is agreeable to the will of God, do really resist the will of God himself; and will, therefore, be punished by him. But how does this prove, that those who resist a lawless, unreasonable power, which is contrary to the will of God, do therein resist the will and ordinance of God? Is resisting those who resist God’s will, the same thing with resisting God? Or shall those who do so, receive to themselves damnation! For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good; and thou shalt have praise of the same. For he is the minister of God to thee for good. Here the apostle argues more explicitly than he had before done, for revering, and submitting to, magistracy, from this consideration, that such as really performed the duty of magistrates, would be enemies only to the vil actions of men, and would befriend and encourage the good; and so be a common blessing to society. But how is this an argument, that we must honor, and submit to, such magistrates as are not enemies to the evil actions of men, but to the good; and such as are not a common blessing, but a common curse, to society! But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid: For he is the minister of God, a revenger, to execute wrath upon him that doth evil. Here the apostle argues from the nature and end of magistracy, that such as did evil, (and such only) had reason to be afraid of the higher powers; it being part of their office to punish evil doers, no less than to defend and encourage such as do well. But if magistrates are unrighteous; if they are respecters of persons; if they are partial in their administration of justice; then those who do well have as much reason to be afraid, as those that do evil: there can be no safety for the good, nor any peculiar ground of terror to the unruly and injurious. So that, in this case, the main end of civil government will be frustrated. And what reason is there for submitting to that government, which does by no means answer the design of government? Wherefore ye must needs be subject not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. Here the apostle argues the duty of a chearful and conscientious submission to civil government, from the nature and end of magistracy as he had before laid it down, i. e. as the design of it was to punish evil doers, and to support and encourage such as do well; and as it must, if so exercised, be agreeable to the will of God. But how does what he here says, prove the duty of a chearful and conscientious subjection to those who forfeit the character of rulers? to those who encourage the bad, and discourage the good? The argument here used no more proves it to be a sin to resist such rulers, than it does, to resist the devil, that he may flee from us. For one is as truly the minister of God as may the other. For, for this cause pay you tribute also; for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Here the apostle argues the duty of paying taxes from this consideration, that those who perform the duty of rulers, are continually attending upon the public welfare. But how does this argument conclude for paying taxes to such princes as are continually endeavouring to ruin the public? And especially when such payment would facilitate and promote this wicked design! Render therefore to all their dues; tribute, to whom tribute is due; custom, to whom custom; fear, to whom fear; honor, to whom honor. Here the apostle sums up what he had been saying concerning the duty of subjects to rulers. And his argument stands thus—"Since magistrates who execute their office well, are common benefactors to society; and may, in that respect, be properly stiled the ministers and ordinance of God; and since they are constantly employed in the service of the public; it becomes you to pay them tribute and custom; and to reverence, honor, and submit to, them in the execution of their respective offices." This is apparently good reasoning. But does this argument conclude for the duty of paying tribute, custom, reverence, honor and obedience, to such persons as (although they bear the title of rulers) use all their powers to hurt and injure the public: such as are not God’s ministers, but satan’s? such as do not take care of, and attend upon, the public interest, but their own, to the ruin of the public? that is, in short, to such as have no natural and just claim at all to tribute, custom, reverence, honor, and obedience? It is to be hoped that those who have any regard to the apostle’s character as an inspired writer, or even as a man of common understanding, will not represent him as reasoning in such a loose incoherent manner; and drawing conclusions which have not the least relation to his premises. For what can be more absurd than an argument thus framed? "Rulers are, by their office, bound to consult the public welfare and the good of society: therefore you are bound to pay them tribute, to honor, and to submit to them, even when they destroy the public welfare, and are a common pest to society, by acting in direct contradiction to the nature and end of their office."
Thus, upon a careful review of the apostle’s reasoning in this passage, it appears that his arguments to enforce submission, are of such a nature, as to conclude only in favour of submission to such rulers as he himself describes; i.e. such as rule for the good of society, which is the only end of their institution. Common tyrants, and public oppressors, are not intitled [sic] to obedience from their subjects, by virtue of any thing here laid down by the inspired apostle.
I now add, farther, that the apostle’s argument is so far from proving it to be the duty of people to obey, and submit to, such rulers as act in contradiction to the public good, and so to the design of their office, that it proves the direct contrary. For, please to observe, that if the end of all civil government, be the good of society; if this be the thing that is aimed at in constituting civil rulers; and if the motive and argument for submission to government, be taken from the apparent usefulness of civil authority; it follows, that when no such good end can be answered by submission, there remains no argument or motive to enforce it; if instead of this good end’s being brought about by submission, a contrary end is brought about, and the ruin and misery of society effected by it, here is a plain and positive reason against submission in all such cases, should they ever happen. And therefore, in such cases, a regard to the public welfare, ought to make us with-hold from our rulers, that obedience and subjection which it would, otherwise, be our duty to render to them. If it be our duty, for example, to obey our king, merely for this reason, that he rules for the public welfare, (which is the only argument the apostle makes use of) it follows, by a parity of reason, that when he turns tyrant, and makes his subjects his prey to devour and to destroy, instead of his charge to defend and cherish, we are bound to throw off our allegiance to him, and to resist; and that according to the tenor of the apostle’s argument in this passage. Not to discontinue our allegiance, in this case, would be to join with the sovereign in promoting the slavery and misery of that society, the welfare of which, we ourselves, as well as our sovereign, are indispensably obliged to secure and promote, as far as in us lies. It is true the apostle puts no case of such a tyrannical prince; but by his grounding his argument for submission wholly upon the good of civil society; it is plain he implicitly authorises, and even requires us to make resistance, whenever this shall be necessary to the public safety and happiness. Let me make use of this easy and familiar similitude to illustrate the point in hand—Suppose God requires a family of children, to obey their father and not to resist him and inforces [sic] his command with this argument; that the superintendence and care and authority of a just and kind parent, will contribute to the happiness of the whole family; so that they ought to obey him for their own sakes more than for his: Suppose this parent at length runs distracted, and attempts, in his mad fit, to cut all his children’s throats: Now in this case, is not the reason before assigned, why these children should obey their parent while he continued of a sound mind, namely, their common good, a reason equally conclusive for disobeying and resisting him, since he is become delirious, and attempts their ruin? It makes no alteration in the argument, whether this parent, properly speaking, loses his reason; or does, while he retains his understanding, that which is as fatal in its consequences, as any thing he could do, were he really deprived of it.

Note that there is another point of logic to consider in this argument.  If government is to punish evil and government becomes the evil it should punish, should not government then commit suicide to perform its proper function?  If suicide is wrong, and certainly unexpected of a government that is not doing its job, should it then be assisted in its death by its people withdrawing their support of it in the form of obedience and paying of taxes?
I can see no other logical conclusion if government refuses to repent of its evil.  To continue to support an entity that is in clear disobedience to God is to oppose God.  To do otherwise clearly disobeys the first commandment - "Thou Shalt have no other gods before me."
Some might argue that Mayhew was a "liberal" unitarian type of preacher and thus this sermon should be ignored but I don't see how that disqualifies his logic here.  I choose not to attack the messenger.
Maybe I better shut up - this could get me in trouble!