[American_Liberty] Digest Number 29
American...@egroups.com
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/5/_/_/_/972303723/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
http://www.egroups.com/messages/American_Liberty
http://www.egroups.com/files/American_Liberty/al.htm
http://www.egroups.com/files/American_Liberty/readme.htm
Fast Archive Search: Reply to email, find URL below, add
search terms after = with + between terms. Then click URL.
http://www.egroups.com/messagesearch/American_Liberty?query=
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are 17 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Buy a book; become an informant!
From: "Michael J. Schneider" <mi...@winternet.com>
2. Re: That darn eGroup: Advice sought.
From: "Michael J. Schneider" <mi...@winternet.com>
3. Ron Brown "Had To Die"........
From: Jim Hardin <freed...@mindspring.com>
4. RE: Define "anarchy"
From: "Bruce McQuain" <m...@gw.total-web.net>
5. The Giant Wurlitzer
From: Jim Hardin <freed...@mindspring.com>
6. Define "government" & "association"
From: "David T. Terry" <dav...@internetcds.com>
7. Interesting Web site
From: Mike Johnson <ship...@uswest.net>
8. Re: Anatomy of the State
From: oh...@freedom.net
9. Technology
From: "Lorenzo Q. Squarf" <squ...@mindspring.com>
10. Beck: CAS: New York Press: "Greaseball Shit"
From: "Michael J. Schneider" <mi...@winternet.com>
11. CAS: Foster and The Final Days
From: "Michael J. Schneider" <mi...@winternet.com>
12. Re: Define "government" & "association"
From: "Michael J. Schneider" <mi...@winternet.com>
13. Re: Define "government" & "association"
From: "Mod WW" <som...@home.com>
14. Word of warning to 'patriot' legal buffs
From: "Michael J. Schneider" <mi...@winternet.com>
15. RE: Define "government" & "association"
From: "Billy Beck" <wj...@mindspring.com>
16. Josh Strikes Back
From: "Mod WW" <som...@home.com>
17. The funniest thing yet this silly season
From: "Michael J. Schneider" <mi...@winternet.com>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 07:29:31 -0500
From: "Michael J. Schneider" <mi...@winternet.com>
Subject: Buy a book; become an informant!
Forum: http://www.denverpost.com/voice/voice.htm
Author: Susan Greene
JUDGE - COPS CAN SEIZE BOOKSTORE RECORDS
Oct. 21, 2000 - Police will be allowed to search customer purchase records
at the Tattered Cover Book Store to investigate a narcotics case, a Denver
judge ordered Friday.
Civil libertarians decried the order - believed to be the first of its kind
nationwide - for protecting law enforcement's ability to obtain evidence
over individual rights to read without interference from authorities.
Tattered Cover owner Joyce Meskis said the order could have a "chilling
effect" on the First Amendment and on store patrons, who might hesitate to
buy books knowing that police have access to their purchase records. She is
considering an appeal.
"A bookstore is a house of ideas," she said. "We certainly have the
responsibility to protect customers' rights to those ideas, and the right to
privacy that goes along with that."
Law enforcers hailed the order as a victory.
"If it only takes one or two records from a bookstore to help us eliminate
drugs on the street, then so be it," said Lt. Lori Moriarty, commander of
the North Metro Drug Task Force, which is seeking the Tattered Cover
records. "We need all the tools possible to help law enforcement do its
job."
The controversy stems from a March 14 raid on an Adams County mobile home in
which task force members found a methamphetamine lab and two books: "The
Construction and Operation of Clandestine Drug Laboratories" by "Jack B.
Nimble," and "Advanced Techniques of Clandestine Psychedelic and Amphetamine
Manufacture" by "Uncle Fester."
Investigators also found a bookshipping envelope containing an invoice
number from the Tattered Cover in Lower Downtown Denver. They are hoping
bookstore records will help pinpoint which of the six people who frequented
the mobile home bought the books and, presumably, operated the lab.
The task force first sought a search warrant from the Adams County district
attorney's office, which rejected the request partially on grounds that
executing it would give police a public relations "black eye."
Task force members then turned to the Denver DA's office, which granted the
warrant.
Meskis blocked police from going through her store's records, saying they
should instead use other investigative measures such as fingerprinting to
find their suspect.
Denver District Court temporarily blocked the task force from seizing the
records, pending the outcome of a hearing before Judge Stephen Phillips.
Most states have laws protecting public libraries from police searches
except under exceptional circumstances, but there is no special law that
protects bookstores.
The issue made headlines in 1998, when independent counsel Kenneth Starr
subpoenaed two Washington, D.C., bookstores for information on gifts
exchanged between President Clinton and White House intern Monica Lewinsky.
Barnes & Noble and Kramerbooks hired lawyers and challenged the subpoena in
federal court.
A federal judge quashed Starr's request for the records. Lewinsky,
meantime, agreed to testify in exchange for immunity, rendering the whole
issue moot.
Still, the case was a watershed for bookstore owners and privacy advocates,
who have been watching the Tattered Cover's legal battle with intense
interest.
Phillips, in his order, recognized the First Amendment right to "receive
information and ideas, regardless of social worth," but he cited a legal
balancing test weighing such rights against the importance of law
enforcement to investigate crimes.
Phillips ruled that the identity of the drug lab operators is "of
significant public interest" and that "the purchase of how-to books is a
highly important piece of evidence."
The judge wrote that there's no other reasonable way, aside from seizing
store records, for investigators to obtain the information they're seeking.
He lauded the task force for asking only for specific invoices, not
"stumbl(ing) through other private records."
Phillips deemed the Tattered Cover case "dramatically different" than the
Lewinsky case, about which he wrote: "The subpoenas were exploratory in
nature, and the government was unable to show any need nor any nexus to a
criminal event."
And so Phillips denied investigators' broad request for a month's worth of
records that might show all titles purchased by the unnamed suspects.
Still, he granted police access to the specific invoice whose number
appeared on the book mailer.
Meskis has 15 days to appeal before the task force seizes her records.
Moriarty insists it was never her unit's intent to comb through reading
records of the general public. Rather, she said, Phillips' order will give
investigators "an important piece of a puzzle" needed to nab their suspect.
Critics say one arrest is a high price to pay for allowing a war against
drugs to chip away at civil rights.
"Key principles of the right to privacy and freedom of speech have
ultimately been compromised in the decision," said Sue Armstrong, executive
director of the American Civil Liberties Union in Colorado.
Judith Krug, director of the Office for Intellectual Freedom at the American
Library Association, said she worries that drug investigators unfairly are
"making the connection between what people read and what they do."
"Just because you read a book on homosexuality, for example, doesn't mean
you're gay. And reading a book on the symptoms of cancer doesn't mean you
have the disease," Krug said.
"Our concern is that what people read, what goes into their heads will no
longer remain private."
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 07:26:23 -0500
From: "Michael J. Schneider" <mi...@winternet.com>
Subject: Re: That darn eGroup: Advice sought.
From: "Meaghan Walker-Williams" <som...@home.com>
To: "Michael J. Schneider" <mi...@winternet.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 04:47:13 -0700
Subject: Re: That darn eGroup: Advice sought.
Michael - Feel Free to Forward on to your list of recipients:
[Done.]
There is an option of another forum which some cypherpunk
friends of mine have suggested.
I simply havent had time to follow through with it - but I can
put you in touch with the c'punk endorsed web-groups service.
[Cool. Sooner the better.]
A thing which those on the list might want to be aware of is that
egroups is NOT free
Yahoo bought it - because the service it provides Yahoo
is in tracking people's web habits - and interests and
surfing histories.
[I forgot about the cookie requirement.]
For those of us interested in privacy and cypherpunkish
market issues - egroups is clearly NOT a good place to
use for all purpose discussions.
I have used egroups
with Somena News - to simply assist my email problem.
There are about 50 people - who are connected or involved in
the efforts of the Somena Governance Society - the Free
Trade Model AND the Accountability for First Nations people
that I really don't feel like monkeying around with bccing to hell
and back... Dont have the time or energy to make sure word
is getting out to everybody when it needs to get out.
I only use it as a mass mailer to those who have indicated they
want regular updates.. and for people who want discussion
or more information - I use hushmail and PGP
[That's all and good if you're afraid of getting arrested,
but IMO the best way to expose a scandal is to EXPOSE it widely. That
removes a lot of options for the bad guys: An unknown critic might
get "Wilchered" so what he knows doesn't become widely known. But if
he's already widely known and heard, then the enemy is forced into a
defensive mode. Secrecy has its drawbacks.]
The more I am learning about privacy issues - the more
stalwart I am becoming about *big bruthas* snooping
and my desire to thwart that in any way possible
. (Perhaps my needs are different than
most people due to the line of work I am in)
In any case..
As the group stands now..
I don't see a big problem.
I am guessing that Mike, you are wanting more discussions
as well as high quality news-reposting stuff.
[The reposted news stuff I actually consider "filler" (and I
think today is about the last day for a week you're going to see any
more "This Just In: The Latest Hysteria!!" type pieces). IMO, one of
the best things I've ever seen on the net was P.J. Stahl's "JFK FAQ",
which was periodically updated on alt.conspiracy.jfk. Basically, it
contained the entire timeline of events, and various people
investigated and verified and updated bits and parts of it. (Or at
least that's what it looked like was going on to me.) Treatment of
the Vince Foster killing on ac-ecw, by comparison, is a pot-luck
dinner of randomly discussed topics -- there's no "master FAQ" that
everyone's working toward, so eventually stuff drifts off people's
radar screens. Despite some very penetrating analysis, on the whole
it's pretty slap-dash in comparison.]
Give it time.
ACECW did not blossom into the most signifigant
usenet group in the alts overnight.
As for me - I am thrilled to be able to read Billy and McQ
and JZ and various others - without having to wade through
the dribbling syncophantic schizophrenic moronic leftwing shilling
which drowned out the good dialogue on regular usenet.
Watching Billy beat the stuffing out of Erb and Erb beasts was great the first
200 times - (don't get me wrong.. I sometimes even re-visit some
of the more memorable Ebr Bashing Bits when I need some
uplift or a good laugh) - but..
It does get to ya to have to download 1000 headers when you really
only find 2 articles that are worth a damn - and of interest after
clicking through a hundred.
Way Better than Usenet -
But not good enough..
Thats my vote
Just my two bits..
FWIW
Meaghan
"Her mind lives tidily, apart
>From cold and noise and pain,
And bolts the door against her heart,
Out wailing in the rain."
--Dorothy Parker--
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 09:07:01 -0500
From: Jim Hardin <freed...@mindspring.com>
Subject: Ron Brown "Had To Die"........
Friends,
As long time Freedom Page members may recall, I covered this
extensively at the time it happened. Much of my information came
directly from Chris Ruddy before he joined Newsmax. And, although
somewhat gross, I still have the actual photos referred to in the article
posted on The Freedom Page. You can use the search engine
to locate the articles on Ron Brown including the photos.
Jim Hardin
The Freedom Page
http://www.freedompage.ws
From: spiker <spi...@coollink.net>
Subject: Ron Brown "Had To Die"........
From: bob...@aol.com
Report from Washington
A summary of a telephone conference with Chief Petty Officer Kathleen Janoski
USN conducted by a group of concerned citizens.
On Wednesday, October 28, 1998, a group of citizens from various parts of the
country talked with Kathleen Janoski. CPO Janoski was the Chief of the
Forensic Photography Division at the Office of the Armed Forces Medical
Examiner in the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology ("AFIP") and is a 22-year
veteran of the Navy. The subject of the discussion was the hole in Secretary
of Commerce Ron Brown's skull that looked like a bullet hole.
Background
On April 3, 1996, while transporting Mr. Brown and 34 others, an Air Force
CT-43 executive transport crashed near Dubrovnik, Croatia. Thirty three of
the bodies, including Ron Brown's, were flown to Dover Air Force Base,
Delaware, where they were examined by AFIP personnel. At the time of the
crash, Mr. Brown was under investigation by the Office of Independent Counsel
(Mr. Daniel Pearson was the Special Prosecutor) and was under subpoena to
produce documents concerning the sale of seats on trade missions in a civil
law suit by Judicial Watch. The official determination of the cause of Mr.
Brown's death was blunt force trauma.
On November 24, 1997, shortly after the Air Force released a voluminous
report of its investigation of the crash, an article concerning the report
was published in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. On December 3, another
article included statements by one of the pathologists on the AFIP team, Lt.
Colonel Steven Cogswell (USAF) that there was a perfectly round hole,
inward-beveled, in Mr. Brown's skull that looked like a bullet hole.
However, no autopsy was performed.
On December 5, Cogswell was put under a gag order. At about that time, he
was escorted to his home by military police who seized all case materials on
the Brown case.
On December 9, Lt. Colonel David Hause (U.S. Army) another AFIP pathologist
and a leading expert on gun shot wounds, confirmed Cogswell's statements.
The gag order was broadened to include all AFIP personnel.
On January 8, 1998, the Department of Justice reported that it had looked
into the matter and saw no reason to launch an investigation. No one from
DOJ talked to Cogswell or Hause.
On January 9, the Washington Post reported that the AFIP had convened a
review panel of all its pathologists that had unanimously concluded that
Brown died of blunt force trauma and that the hole was not a gunshot wound.
But Cogswell says he refused to participate in the review and that the only
pathologists with expertise in bullet wounds dissented (i.e. himself, Hause &
Major Thomas Parsons of the USAF).
Shortly after the Post article, Major Parsons came forth to indicate his
dissent to the so-called "unanimous" board conclusion.
On January 13, a fourth member of the AFIP team, Chief Petty Officer Janoski,
came forth to confirm the account of the skull hole. She further indicated
that she had been told by Jeanmarie Sentelle, a Special Agent with the Naval
Criminal Investigative Service, that x-rays of Brown's skull had been
destroyed after the "lead snowstorm" was discovered. According to Sentelle,
a "lead snowstorm" on x-rays is caused by bullet fragments when a bullet
disintegrates upon impact.
Also on January 13, Cogswell, Parsons, Janoski and Larry Klayman of Judicial
Watch met with Congressman John Conyers, a member of the Congressional Black
Caucus. The Caucus is composed of 30 Congressmen, all Democrats. The Caucus
called for a Congressional investigation and was supported by the NAACP, the
Nation of Islam and Dick Gregory.
On February 12, a Petition to Order Continuation of the Independent Counsel's
Investigation into Matters Related to Former Secretary of Commerce Ronald H.
Brown was filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
The NAACP and Dick Gregory filed documents in support of the petition.
Apparently the court declined to decide the matter and referred it to Mr.
Pearson for action. Apparently no action has been taken.
Although the mainstream media was eerily silent about most of the
developments outlined here, Black Entertainment Television and Christian
Broadcasting Network and a few others provided some coverage. Talk radio has
provided coverage of the matter. Unfortunately most people know nothing
about the hole in the skull.
A collection of articles appear at:
http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1999/3/15/132937
The Account of CPO Kathleen Janoski
Janoski's duties included photographing the bodies from head to toe.
Beginning at the head of Ron Brown, she saw a perfectly round hole in his
skull. She said something to the effect "Wow. That looks like a bullet
hole." She immediately was "shushed" by Colonel William Gormley, the AFIP
pathologist examining Brown's body. She repeated her statement and was again
"shushed." Hearing her comment, others in the room came to Brown's body and
looked at the hole. The hole was viewed by Hause, Gormley, Commander Edward
Kilbane (USN) - all pathologists - and Lt. Colonel Craig Mallak who was doing
his residency in pathology. There may have been other personnel in the room
who saw the hole as well. Janoski's photo of the apparent bullet hole can be
viewed on the internet at: http://www.newsmax.com/rbrown/photos.shtml
On the light box at the morgue were x-rays of Brown's skull which were
photographed by Janoski. Ironically, her purpose in photographing the x-rays
was to test the light meter in her camera rather than record evidence. The
photos of the x-rays became critically important when the x-rays apparently
disappeared. The Brown files contain 15 x-rays of other parts of the body
and the file cover indicates that there are 15 x-rays, indicating that the
file is intended to support the conclusion that no skull x-rays were taken.
While photographing Brown's body, Janoski was urged to hurry by Bob Veasey,
AFIP investigator working with Colonel William Gormley, referring to "White
House pressure."
On the Friday following the crash but before the bodies had arrived at Dover
Air Force Base, Kilbane, the team leader, attended a meeting at the West wing
of the White House (where the Oval Office is located). On Saturday, a
memorial service was held for Brown. President Clinton spoke. On Sunday
(Easter) the bodies were examined by the AFIP team.
Cogswell did not view the hole in the skull as he was dispatched to the crash
site in Croatia soon after the bodies arrived at Dover. While in Croatia, he
was called by Gormley who asked that he check the wreckage to see what might
have caused the hole that he described to Cogswell. Cogswell responded to
Gormley that, as described, it sounded like a bullet hole. Cogswell checked
the wreckage and photos were taken of objects that might have caused such an
injury but nothing was found that could have been the cause of the hole.
Gormley's call to Cogswell came after Brown's body had been embalmed and
released for burial.
Gormley initially stated that the wound was not a bullet hole because it did
not penetrate the skull and because the brain was not visible. Later he
reversed himself saying that the skull was penetrated and that Brown's brain
was visible. He also confessed that no autopsy was ever requested "[b] ased
on discussions at the highest level from in Commerce, at the Joint [Chief of
Staff] and the [Department of Defense], the White House ."
Summary
Although it seems clear that there is a perfectly round, inward beveled hole
measuring .45 inches in Ron Brown's skull and that no autopsy was performed,
the media has failed to inform the American people about this matter. From
pictures of skull x-rays, it appears that there may be metal fragments
in the skull. Apparently the x-rays have been destroyed and official records
now indicate that there never were any. Colonel Gormley indicated that the
decision not to have an autopsy was made with participation by the White
House. It is important that as many people as possible see this report.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 11:36:53 -0400
From: "Bruce McQuain" <m...@gw.total-web.net>
Subject: RE: Define "anarchy"
Today, "anarchy" appears to have become a
convenient catch-all for whatever the journalistic
world can't categorize conveniently. They've come
to label protestors, such as those seen at the WTO
meeting and the two political conventions as
"anarchists" (maybe it's just me, but if I were
going to categorize them, based on their protests,
"Green's" would be where they'd fall on the
spectrum, but the Green's are a "politically
correct" party so the left leaning press is not
likely at all to tag them properly). While some
are self-described "anarchists" they're usually
young punks (who's idea of "freedom" is to destroy
things wantonly) who've co-opted the name (it
sounds cool and they get to wear black) without
any real idea of what it is in reality.
I've always had a fairly simple but broad
definition of anarchy ... "the lack of an
*imposed* hierarchy". That makes it more than
just "society without government" as there are
other types/forms of heirarchies that can be
imposed such as rigid class systems and the like.
The inclusion of the qualifier "imposed" in the
definition also leaves the avenue of voluntarily
joining in a system of heirarchy (it is then not
imposed and you feel it to be an advantage, at
least for the time being) if you so choose if the
ability to withdraw from it without penalty if you
so desire is a viable option always open to you.
McQ
> Date: 21 Oct 2000 05:55:19 -0700
> From: {LPNE}Chair <ch...@lpne.org>
>Subject: Define "anarchy"
>
>I am suprised how many trash anarchy as the same as chaos. Just proof of
how tyrannical our form of thinking has become.
>Anarchy is simply freedom of association and often translates into being a
a society without government. The Hebrews during >the time of the Judges
lived in a state of Anarchy. The Amish are anarachists.
>
>For Liberty,
>Andrew Sullivan
>Chair
>Libertarian Party of Nebraska, Inc.
>http://www.lpne.org/
>ICQ # 10913149
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 08:37:46 -0500
From: Jim Hardin <freed...@mindspring.com>
Subject: The Giant Wurlitzer
From: "David R. Terry, Sr ." <ladod...@hotmail.com>
Subject: THE INFORMED AMERICAN - Tue, Oct 20, 2000 - "LIVE Free To BE Free"
============================================================================
===================================================================»»»
T H E · I N F O R M E D · A M E R I C A N «««
============================================================================
==================================================================Common
Law Copyright · All Rights Reserved · Fri, Oct 20, 2000
Published by Gordon Phillips, Founder & CIO: INFORM AMERICA!
Brought to you by the First Amendment; defended by the Second
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Friends of INFORM AMERICA!,
I mentioned in my last newsletter that I spoke in Vermont on September
16th at the Second Annual Northeast Constitutional Forum. The title of
the talk I gave (and which I will soon record onto audio cassette) was
"LIVE Free To BE Free!" In the meantime, since I've already received
several requests for it, the following is the transcript of that
presentation. As always, your comments and feedback will be much
appreciated. And if you agree with me, please pass this on.
* * *
[BEGIN TRANSCRIPT]
Hello, I'm Gordon Phillips. I'd like to thank you all for the
opportunity to address you here tonight. The title of this talk is "Live
Free To Be Free!". They say that all talks such as this should begin
with something light and humorous to warm up the crowd, but frankly what
I have to share with you isn't particularly funny. In fact, it may cause
some of you to feel somewhat uncomfortable, so please forgive me in
advance if I should prove a bit blunt. Before I actually begin, I should
explain what you are about to hear.
I've discovered that there are generally three types of Americans living
today. I think of them as Types "A", "B" and "C". Type A stands for
"Asleep At The Switch"; Type B stands for "Between Two Worlds", and Type
C stands for "Committed to Liberty". The type A, "Asleep At The Switch"
American, represents the vast majority of our fellow citizens. As author
and economist Merrill Jenkins once wrote, "Those who are unaware are
unaware of being unaware".
Type A Americans have no real understanding of the major social or
political influences going on around them, nor do they understand the
global financial forces operating quietly from behind the scenes to rob
them of their freedoms by steadily eroding our national sovereignty and
moving us ever closer towards a one-world system of totalitarian
government. This is because Type A Americans derive their information
exclusively from a variety of mainstream media sources which, although
giving the appearance of balanced opinion and diversity of viewpoint,
are in reality carefully filtered and massaged by powerful hidden forces
of social engineering, in large part controlled by elements of the
intelligence community.
For example, the Type A American has been mentally conditioned over a
lifetime of government schooling and televiewing to believe that an
objective, balanced perspective on the news can be obtained by reading
The Wall Street Journal vs. The New York Times, or Newsweek vs. Time
Magazine, or by watching multi-millionaire newsreader Peter Jennings vs.
Dan Rather.
One of the most closely guarded secrets of the 20th Century is the fact
that many of America's leading newspaper and electronic media outlets,
including The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Public
Broadcasting System, Readers' Digest, Newsweek, Look and Life magazines,
were/are funded in whole or in part by the Central Intelligence Agency
in order to mold, manipulate and ultimately control the public mind set.
Most Type A Americans consider themselves to be well-informed, yet
little do they suspect that they reside in a cartoon-like representation
of the reality beyond their immediate experience due to the carefully
limited and manipulated information to which they're exposed daily by
the newsfaking mainstream media, all the while believing that what
they're being told is the truth. They don't for a minute imagine that
they could be receiving their daily dose of so-called "news" from a
giant Wurlitzer media organ played superbly by virtuosos at the CIA, and
would deride anyone who even suggested it - which is, of course, the
very idea.
Let's take a look at some of these virtuosos and concertmasters. Ronald
Reagan nominated William Casey to be his Director of the CIA. Who was
this man? Among Mr. Casey's many accomplishments were that he founded
the Manhattan Institute, ran the Reagan campaign, and manipulated the
stock market as chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission. While
serving as CIA director, Casey was also the lead counsel and top
stockholder in Capital Cities, the communications company that owned ABC
until it was bought by Disney in 1996.
Mr. Casey also served as the chair of Operation Rescue, a CIA front
which helped thousands of former Nazi war criminals escape prosecution
at Nuremberg after World War II and instead emigrate quietly to the U.S.
under new identities. Mr. Casey's partner in this operation was Allen
Dulles, a well-known Nazi ally and board member of I.G. Farben, the
corporation that manufactured the Zyklon-B gas used in Nazi fumigation
and delousing chambers.
Under Allen Dulles' direct instructions, American and allied bomber
pilots were ordered never to bomb I.G. Farben's factories, and they
never did. The man who ran Allan Dulles' clandestine CIA operation to
bring thousands of top Nazi war criminals to America was Frank Wisner,
of whom Village Voice reporter Deborah Davis writes in her 1991
blockbuster, "Katherine The Great", quote: "By the early 1950's, Frank
Wisner 'owned' respected members of the New York Times, Newsweek, CBS
and other communications vehicles, plus at least four to six hundred
reporters, according to a former CIA analyst", unquote.
Deborah Davis also wrote that Washington Post publisher, Katherine
Graham, the subject of "Katherine The Great", is said to have stated in
a 1988 speech given at CIA headquarters, quote: "We live in a dirty and
dangerous world. There are some things the general public does not need
to know and shouldn't. I believe democracy flourishes when the
government can take legitimate steps to keep its secrets, and when the
press can decide whether to print what it knows", unquote.
According to an article by investigative reporter Carl Bernstein titled
The CIA and the Media, which appeared in the October 20, 1977 issue of
Rolling Stone magazine, prominent U.S. media owners and journalists who
have knowingly worked for the CIA under "Operation Mockingbird" and
directly overseen by Mr. Casey's old time friend, Allen Dulles, included
William Paley of CBS, Arthur Sulzberger of the New York Times), Henry
Luce of Time/Life, William Buckley of The National Review, Ben Bradlee
of The Washington Post, and hundreds of others.
CBS and NBC are today owned by Westinghouse and General Electric, the
nation's two top suppliers of military hardware, satellites, nuclear
reactors and spy equipment. One might be excused for imagining an
intelligence community connection there as well. Millionaire media
magnate, Ted Turner of CNN, is known to be good friends with Mikhail
Gorbachev while Tom Brokaw has been photographed chumming around with
David Rockefeller, acknowledged kingpin of the New World Order.
Is this picture becoming clear to you now? Unfortunately, it still
remains rather muddy to the tens of millions of Type A Americans who
continue to believe that the so-called "watchdog media", although
rumored to be biased towards the liberal left, would never outright lie
to them. Never would they dream that certain facts are consistently and
programmatically withheld from them or outright distorted by mixing a
degree of misinformation in with the truth, a mechanism the CIA refers
to as "spinning".
Type A's also tend to believe that America is still free since the
illusion of "freedom of choice" has largely been preserved in our
popular culture. For example, Type A's believe they have the "freedom of
choice" to file a tax return, regardless of whether or not the filing is
actually required by law. If they file and pay, they'll be left alone.
If they fail to file, they may go to jail. But since they still have the
illusion of a choice about filing, freedom still rings in their minds.
Type A's also believe they have the "freedom of choice" whether to
register their home-schooled children with the Superintendent of Schools
or submit to having them forcibly educated in a government school. If
they don't register their children, Social Services may come into their
home, kidnap their children and place them in foster care under state
supervision. But since they still have the illusion of a choice about
home-school registration, freedom still rings in their minds.
Type A's in certain cities and states still believe they have the
"freedom of choice" to register their handguns with the state or to
carry them unregistered and, if caught, to serve a mandatory one-year
jail sentence in a county or state prison, placed into a population of
violent criminals. But since they still maintain the illusion of choice
about gun registration, freedom still rings in their minds. I could give
numerous other examples, but I'm sure you get the point.
These "freedoms of choice" seem to cause no mental conflict or cognitive
dissonance for Type A Americans. After, all America is, in their minds,
still a free country and still the greatest place to live on Earth. God
forbid we should be forced to live in a communist country like Russia or
China where tax filing is mandatory, where children are forced to be
state-educated and where mandatory gun registration is a way of life. No
contradictions there!
Type A Americans also tend to think that the two main branches of the
same socialist political tree - the Republican vs. the Democratic party
- offer voters any real choice. Essentially, the type A American passes
through this world never having understood what really happened.
Then we have Type B, who remains stuck "Between Two Worlds" - between
two mental constructs of reality. This type of American has begun to
awaken to truths that are never reported in the managed media. As a
result of having changed and varied his sources of information, Type B
knows full well what really did happen at Jekyll Island, Bretton Woods,
Pearl Harbor, Inchon, Dealey Plaza, Ruby Ridge, Waco and Oklahoma City.
Type B also has a basic understanding of paper money and the income tax
- and of the incestuous relationship between these evil twins. He sees
America's steady transformation into a police state and may have already
started to prepare his family for what's coming to our shores in the
next 25 years. Yet in spite of these new awakenings and understandings,
the Type B American still has a tendency to equivocate with freedom and
to compromise with liberty by rationalizing away his ongoing practice of
certain habitually socialist behaviors.
The truth is that, in spite of "talking tough" about "taking America
back" and making visible displays of loyalty to so-called
"conservative", "libertarian" and "populist" organizations, the Type B
American remains in his heart largely fearful of government, a condition
the Founders and Framers of our republic would have found shameful if
not outright cowardly. A clear example of this well-conditioned fear is
Type B's desire to avoid detection by or, worse yet, actual
confrontation with the IRS and other despotic agencies, in spite of the
fact that the personnel of such agencies are their public servants, not
their would-be masters.
Type B remains confused by this relationship, or else prefers just to
ignore it. The Type B American continues to finance the destruction of
the republic he claims to cherish by making annual donations of income
and employment taxes with his own hard-earned money, even though he
knows that such donations are not required by law of citizens who have
no foreign sources of taxable income. Seen in this light, these payments
are really no different than "protection money" paid to organized crime.
Yet he continues to fund his own enslavement in order to maintain the
illusion of keeping his little world safe and secure, never stopping to
realize that there is no security in this world-that there can only be
Justice under the Rule of Law, a prerequisite for true Liberty.
If the truth be told, by continuing to live with one foot in the world
of plastic credit, bank accounts and other conveniences of fiat,
cyber-money; by continuing to use a non-required social security or
employer identification number; by continuing to file Forms W-4, 1040
and other non-required returns; by continuing to worship at
IRS-approved, preacher-controlled 501(c)(3) churches, and; through a
variety of other non freedom-promoting behaviors, the Type B American
wears his newfound status as a "born again constitutionalist" largely on
his sleeve. In fact, if real Liberty can be compared to quaffing a tall
yard of stout, bock beer, the Type B American prefers to sip from a can
of Liberty Lite - one-third less thrilling!
Then there is the Type C, "Committed To Liberty". This type of real
American - and thank God there are more of you every day - prefers to
actually live under a condition of personal liberty and will go to
practically any lawful means to achieve it in his daily life. This type
does not apply for a "license" or "permit" from government at any level
in order to exercise a natural right, because he does not confuse rights
with privileges - understanding that rights come from God and cannot be
taxed or regulated; that privileges can only be obtained by applying for
the benefits associated with the exercise of the privilege; that
legislatures of men can meet to alter or even vote away privileges, and;
that rights are unalienable.
In short, the Type C American, the real American, knows that, in order
to actually BE free, one has no choice but to LIVE free - in other
words, to put freedom into actual practice in his everyday life and to
teach his children to do likewise. Now, having said all this, I should
warn any Type A American listening to this will likely not relate to or
understand what you are about to hear. In fact, assuming that you are
willing to listen at all, it will almost certainly either confuse or
deeply offend you, or both. If this is true of you, please know that it
is not my intention to offend you, but merely to challenge your present
reality and to move you on the path to personal liberty.
As for you Type C Americans, you really don't need to hear this tape,
unless if to reinforce what you already understand. To you I say, thank
you for helping to defend my rights and freedoms as I am willing to
defend yours. For, if the truth be known, it is the Type B American for
whom I actually wrote this presentation - the American who is already on
the road to real personal liberty, even if still playing mental games
with its actual requirements and living with one foot in Liberty and the
other in a world of cradle-to-grave, state-sponsored benefits.
It is you, Dear Type B, who we most ardently need to come all the way
over to the truth, to the great philosophical and political principles
upon which America was founded. I sincerely hope this presentation helps
you to shed your remaining mental chains and take the final steps
forward into the clear light of personal Liberty. When America separated
from the 18th Century British flavor of government-sponsored tyranny, it
is estimated that less than 5% of the colonists then living were in
favor of separation. The remainder were either vigorously opposed or
simply indifferent as to the outcome. To them, a little tyranny was
tolerable so long as their lives were not disturbed in the messy process
of asserting their independence. Today, if just 5% of all American
adults now living had the courage and conviction to convert to Type C,
America would be headed on a rapid course back under the Constitution
and the Rule of Law literally overnight.
The truth shall indeed make you free, but first you have to face it. So
I'd like to begin by asking you a simple question. We've all heard the
expression "a can of worms", but have you ever actually looked into one?
You can't tell one end of the same worm from the other, let alone one
entire worm from another. That's the way our government looks today.
Walk down the halls of government and you're looking into an inbred,
tangled mass of corruption, cronyism and special interests. Not to
mention enough liberal weirdos to make the bar scene in Star Wars look
normal.
Here's just some of the mixture: You've got international lobbyists
including the Chinese bidding for our latest technology, then using it
to aim nuclear missiles back at us. You can bet your bottom Federal
Reserve Note that the next major world war will involve the Chinese
invading, or attempting to invade, America - and we have Bill Clinton,
Israel, and others to thank for that.
You've got a plague of career politicians who enter public office, and
some only as the result of manipulated vote fraud, to aggrandize
themselves and line their pockets at the expense of the host they've
attached themselves to. In case you had any doubt, that's you. With the
exception of Congressman Ron Paul and a handful of others, we no longer
have statesmen who enter public office to serve, we have unproductive
parasites who enter public office to gorge themselves at the public
trough and lord it over others in their spare time.
You've got a sordid assortment of intelligence agency operatives and
their corporate fronts and foundations funded, not through duly
legislated appropriations, but through international trafficking in arms
and drugs. Our own CIA is very good at that. Just ask George Bush,
either father or son.
You've got shills of organized crime, hired to "Arkancide" or otherwise
dispatch to eternity anyone who dares to "blow the whistle" or gets in
the way of progress. Just ask Rodney Stich, author of Defrauding
America. This, then, is just a partial cast of characters-our would-be
ruling elite, all laboring together in their personal, for-profit
playground at Disney-On-The-Potomac to subvert our glorious Republic
into the feudal colony of a fascist, global super-state. Jefferson said
that a revolution was needed every twenty years to keep government
chained down as our servant and not our would-be master. I think we're
about twenty revolutions overdue.
How many of you could answer this simple question? Under the
Constitution, what are the two sole areas of federal jurisdiction within
the States of the Union? The answer is: interstate commerce and postal
roads. Period. No public education. No entitlement programs. No standing
armies. No laws pertaining to morality or victimless crimes. None of
that. Just postal roads and interstate commerce.
Yet today, at the beginning of the 21st Century, we have allowed a
power-mad mega-government bent on social engineering, one-world
indoctrination and Marxist plunder, and funded by unlimited credit
expansion backed by nothing, to spill over its constitutional bounds and
flood the countryside with a despotic, bureaucratic presence. Indeed,
America is rapidly being transformed into a Police State, one the German
people of the 1930's would instantly recognize. Does anyone seriously
think, at this late stage in our nation's slide down the slippery slope,
that voting for the lesser of two evils, Tweedle Dumb vs. Tweedle
Dumber, candidates hand-picked by the ruling elite to create the
illusion of a choice, will rescue us from this fate?
So what do we do, Fellow Americans, stand aside and wring our hands?
Write more letters and present more signed petitions to our public
servants, pleading for recognition of our rights, while America
continues to deteriorate into the federal gulag dreamed of by elitist
promoters of a One World Order? Or perhaps we should grab our muskets
off the mantelpiece, fumble to remove the federally mandated trigger
locks, slap in our federally mandated limited-capacity magazines and
head down to the village green to face the same armored tanks and
battleship helicopters that Janet Reno sent in to save the babies at
Waco?
The Constitution does forbid a standing army, but, by the way, did you
know that the entire Air Force is totally unconstitutional, since there
never was an amendment to provide for it? Yet we have allowed a
Paternalistic Imperial Government (you can figure out the acronym for
that) the natural evolution of the very centralized federalism that
Jefferson warned against, to occupy our soil and acquire such military
superiority over We The People in arms and firepower that another civil
war - which is what the American Revolution really was - would decimate
our nation in a bloodbath that would make the War Of Northern Aggression
(the "Civil War" to you government school graduates) look like a Sunday
picnic.
Truly, if we're to stop this tyranny train before it's too late, the
time for another revolution has indeed come, although this time it won't
be won by hunting rifles, shotguns and small arms fire, not against an
army equipped with low-frequency sonic cannons that can disintegrate
your insides from a quarter-mile away, laser vision blinders,
directed-energy microwave brain scramblers and other hi-tech toys
against which there is no known defense.
So then, what do we do? How do we shrink this juggernaut and shove it
back into its constitutional cage? In a complex world that would seem to
call for sophisticated solutions, the real answer is so simple that it
seems to escape almost everyone except home-schooled teenagers, because
they still possess common sense and their minds aren't yet clouded by
adult equivocation.
The answer is: if you want to treat government like the metastasizing
tumor it has become, and cause it to shrink and go into constitutional
remission, just stop feeding it. It's that simple. Stop funding it. Stop
enabling its very existence with your annual contributions. After all,
the government can simply print all the money it needs to pay its bills,
so why does the IRS bother to tax you or anyone else? Did you ever stop
to think about that? Must have something to do with inflation.
In short, if you want to make government go away, borrow a page from
Barbara Bush (or was it Nancy Reagan?) and "Just Say No". Just stop
paying it lip service. Simply ignore any department of government that
is unconstitutional, treat it as the fiction that it actually is, and
stop funding your own destruction with the fruits of your own labor! In
short, just start living free as the Framers of the Constitution
intended!
There, now, was that all that difficult to understand? It really is that
simple, although some of you will resist believing that. Now, no doubt
most of you are here tonight because you do believe in Liberty. Some of
you are fighting the Marxist property tax. Others are fighting the
Marxist income tax. Still others are fighting Marxist-inspired global
gun confiscation. It seems as though old Karl has been pretty busy
lately.
Each of us knows that the Constitution is being steadily undermined
day-by-day. Jefferson warned that the judiciary would be the first to
corrupt the republic, like "sappers and miners" he called them,
stealthily undermining the supreme Law. If you stop to think about it,
if the courts were upholding the Law as actually written, we wouldn't
even be here tonight. I have no doubt that all of us want to do
something constructive and timely about this mess, to join together in
an organized, effective manner and accomplish something tangible,
something that will make a real difference for the future our children
will be forced to live in.
By the way, for a truly frightening view of that future, rent the video
"THX 1138", the first feature film by George Lucas of "Star Wars" fame.
It depicts a bleak and sterile future world in which the only value of a
drugged-down, apathetic citizenry in a conformist "ant colony" society
is their current debit/credit relationship to the Central Computer.
Sound familiar? The question is not whether we're heading in that
direction, but just how quickly.
So what will our bold, courageous plan be? Maybe we should march on
Washington. Sure, that sounds good! We'll petition government on the
evening news to please restore our liberties! We'll rally on the State
House lawn and beg "Please, won't you let us keep our guns?"; "Please,
won't you stop giving our money away as foreign aid to our enemies?";
"Please, won't you obey the Law?". Or maybe we should run full page ads
in national newspapers admonishing Congress to repeal the 16th
Amendment, to abolish the IRS, and to replace the income tax with a
National Sales Tax - the allegation being that we'll all finally be
free. Just think, no more 16th Amendment! No more IRS! No more income
tax! Free at last, Good God Almighty, free at last!!!
Let's look at these proposals, shall we? As both the high court and the
Congressional Research Service agree, the 16th Amendment never did
authorize a tax on the domestic source income of citizens living and
working within the 50 States of the Union, so repealing it wouldn't free
anybody. The Internal Revenue Code does not now, nor has it ever, taxed
the domestic source income of citizens living and working within the
union states, it taxes the income of foreigners doing business here in
this country, and no Amendment to the Constitution was necessary to
accomplish that. Whoops.
But let's still abolish the universally despised IRS! Without an IRS,
we'd all be free, right? Sure sounds good, doesn't it? You can get a
whole lot of people riled up over fantasies like this. But here, again,
are the facts. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 authorizes Congress to lay
and collect excise taxes from the proper subjects of such taxes, all of
which is called internal revenue. There's nothing inherently wrong or
evil about the existence of the IRS as an agency in order to fulfill
this lawful function, unless we expect our legislators to personally go
to ports of entry with tin cups and collect the imposts and duties
themselves.
Although "I was only following orders" didn't work at Nuremberg, it's
ignorant fellow citizens working within the IRS who are pushing buttons,
following orders from higher-ups, ignoring the law and plundering their
neighbors without so much as a trace of due process. Were we to abolish
the IRS, its employees would simply cross the street and resume working
at the National Sales Tax Collection Agency, with their benefits and
retirement packages intact.
Besides which, a tax laid indiscriminately and across the board upon the
sale of all items within the country would be totally unconstitutional.
Read the Federalist Papers which called for excises to be laid on
certain commodities only, such as luxuries, with the intent being that,
were the tax to be raised too high, the public would stop consuming the
item so taxed, which would shrink revenues and force government to
remain small and limited. An across-the-board sales tax would destroy
us, since it would amount to a de facto direct tax on property.
Not to mention the fact that a National Sales Tax would move us a giant
leap towards the cashless, all-electronic society the bankers and their
handlers in the ancient monarchies of Europe lay awake nights dreaming
about. If these propositions were just sophomoric, we could forgive
their promoters for being nothing more than naïve. The fact is that
they're downright dangerous. And to add incredulity to disbelief,
they're currently being promoted by an organization that has been
granted, of all things, 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status from the IRS,
presumably so that its voluntarily complying supporters can write their
deductions off their tax returns! Perhaps it might dim the credibility
of these promoters somewhat were more folks to discover that, under the
written law, the application of both code section 501(c)(3) and the use
of the 1040 form apply solely and exclusively to foreign sources of
taxable income and have no bearing whatsoever on citizens living and
working within the 50 States. Whoops!
But let's not allow mere technicalities to stand in the way of tax
freedom! The bankers must be rolling in the aisles with laughter. And
they must surely appreciate the fact that they didn't even have to print
more money to pay for advertising this Trojan Horse! They've been
pushing hard for any excuse to introduce a National Sales Tax, a tax the
American Sheeple will accept and go back to sleep over. And now the
Patriots are doing the dirty work for them! Could it get any better than
this?
You see, the framers of the Constitution were wise men, indeed. To keep
government small, they provided that it's day-to-day operations would be
funded by excise taxes in the form of excises-imposts and import duties
- to be collected from foreigners who would pay their "fair share" for
the privilege of selling into our vast marketplace. This would not only
protect American jobs and industry, it would leave every citizen free of
all internal taxation. And when you read the Internal Revenue Code, you
discover that you actually are free! Which is why we need to repeal the
16th, abolish the IRS and impose a new sales tax that will begin taxing
us all internally for the first time, right?
OK, I guess I've made my point. So, back to corrupt government. Is
letter-writing to patricians like Ted Kennedy productive,
liberty-promoting behavior? Is rallying for the restoration of gun
rights, pleading to gun grabbers like Charles Schumer productive,
liberty-promoting behavior? How about presenting signed petitions to
practicing socialists like Bill Archer and Dick Armey, begging them to
scrap the income tax and give us a sales tax instead? Would this be
productive, liberty-promoting behavior, the type of behavior becoming of
a Patriot? I contend that it's not only unbecoming, it's disgusting. All
such rallies, entreaties and petitions are a fool's errand and, worse,
play right into the hands of the demagogues infesting the seat of
government. They can't wait to hear what we have to say so they can
twist our words and portray us as radicals and dangerous kooks on the
Cartoon News Network to keep the sleeping Sheeple in line.
And, assuming that we could agree on a unified strategy to reverse the
steady evaporation of our republic and set American on a course back
under the Law, who will lead us in carrying out this brave course of
action? Some new charismatic guru or personable pied piper? The latest
purveyor of shiny silver bullets? Or perhaps a great and visionary
leader will emerge from within the ranks of the leading so-called
"populist" and "libertarian" organizations, all of which purport to
proclaim the ideals of freedom, although few ever actually mention the
word "Liberty".
There is a world of difference between freedom and liberty, did you know
that? Original definitions of freedom meant anarchy. Total freedom.
Freedom to do anything! No law, no rules, just freedom. My spear against
your spear. My gun against your gun. A dog tethered to a wire strung
between two trees is free to run back and forth, but it's not at
liberty. A condition of true liberty requires real responsibility,
something most Americans have been carefully conditioned to completely
lack. After all, God gives each and every one of us everything we need
in order to be responsible for ourselves and our families, yet most
people today are living your lives in the expectation of their nanny
government taking care of them in their later years.
It's pretty hard to be a crusader for liberty when both feet are planted
in the system that you look forward to feeding you. Of course, that was
the idea Franklin Roosevelt had to begin with. That's how government
gets you to "buy into" it - by bribing you with the lure of future
benefits, all in the name of promising security and protection. After
all, didn't FDR promise a "chicken in every pot"? Stop and ask yourself
this. Can there ever be any such thing as security in this world? Of
course not. Security and liberty can never mix, like oil and water. But
there is supposed to be justice, isn't there?
The directors and other luminaries of some of the most prominent,
self-styled "conservative" organizations meet on a regular basis to
"talk tough" about the erosion of freedom and the decline of what they
call "civil rights". What about unalienable rights? Are the two the
same? They toast each other at sumptuous banquets and academic
symposiums. All of this verbiage is indeed useful to awaken the truly
naive and still sleepwalking among us. After all, even Republican party
shill, Rush Limbaugh, has his role to play. But do these allegedly
"constitutionalist" leaders actually observe the practices of free men
and women themselves? Do they hold to the same philosophies and mental
constructs that men like James Madison and Thomas Jefferson understood
and practiced in their personal lives?
Almost to a man, the answer is a resounding "No". In fact, if the truth
be told, virtually all of these leading conservatives" - and one must
ask what it is they claim to be conserving - whether wittingly or
unwittingly, actually further the aims and ideals of socialism while
claiming to support and defend a Constitution which stands as its very
antithesis. Now, am I being a little too harsh here? I don't think so.
Here's the blunt truth. If you search for any statute or regulation that
requires a citizen to obtain and use a Social Security Number, you will
not find it. It simply does not exist. The Social Security
Administration itself readily admits that no American is required to
have a Social Security Number in order to live and work in the United
States. Just write and ask them. Because Americans everywhere are
repeatedly asked for their number when they attempt to open a bank
account, buy or sell property, invest or even rent a video today, they
assume there must be a legal requirement to have one.
But look up section 405 of Title 42 and you'll discover that Social
Security Numbers are never assigned automatically to citizens, only to
foreigners - to non-resident aliens to be precise - upon their lawful
admission into the United States. Citizens who want a number must apply
for one. However, there can be no legal requirement to apply, since
submitting any application for anything is always by definition a
voluntary act.
Most people believe that babies automatically receive a Social Security
Number while still in the hospital. But look closer and you'll discover
that parents unwittingly sign release paperwork authorizing hospital
administrators to apply for a number for their newborn. If the parents
legally refuse to sign - and they easily can; I did for my son - no
application process is initiated and no number is assigned. Now,
considering these facts in light of what the Bible has to say on the
subject of being serially numbered, why does anyone use a government
number or get one for their children? And, by the way, did you know that
legions of Americans have already quit Social Security - quietly and
100% legally - and started saving for their own retirement, not yours
and everyone else's? What will happen to your retirement check if this
groundswell continues?
When you correspond with the leaders of some the most staunchly
"conservative" organizations - all of whom use Social Security Numbers
themselves to build credits towards wealth redistribution and live their
lives in the expectation of one day going on the Social Security welfare
dole - and attempt to explain any of this to them as I have, they either
don't write back or they accuse you of potentially getting their members
"into trouble". These respected leading "conservatives" also personally
consent to the voluntary withholding of Social Security employment taxes
from their own paychecks as well as from those of their employees. In
fact, they flatly refuse to hire any American who doesn't provide a
Social Security Number or refuses to sign a W-4, which the law calls a
"voluntary withholding agreement". "Your papers, please!". In short,
they're full-blown, card-carrying, registered Socialists. Unfortunately,
Patrick Henry did not say "Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Benefits!"
A couple of years ago I picked up the phone and called the John Birch
Society in Appleton, Wisconsin, and asked them if I could work there
without taxes being taken out. They hung up on me. Whoops. I also wrote
to Jacob Hornberger, President of the Future of Freedom Foundation, and
asked him why he kept making so many misstatements about the tax laws in
his literature, calling the income tax "unconstitutional" and so forth
(it's not, by the way), and he wouldn't write back. Whoops! Donald
McIlvaney, publisher of the McIlvaney Intelligence Advisor, goes out of
his way in a standard footnote to each newsletter to assert that he
wants nothing to do with the tax movement. Hey, come on, Don, what's the
matter? Don't you want the IRS at your door?
And what about the rest of you leading "conservatives"? Are you ALL that
scared of your own government? Here's what I wish our leading
conservatives would come out from under the bed and wake up to: 1) There
can be no condition of true Liberty without rights to private property
being protected; 2) The Constitution protects private property from
being taken for public use without just compensation and prohibits the
direct taxation of citizens, and; 3) No amendment has ever changed this.
Look in Title 26 of the United States Code - which is the Internal
Revenue Code - in subtitle A, chapters 1 through 6, under "income tax".
You won't find a single statute authorizing the withholding of income
tax from citizens living and working within the 50 States of the Union.
It simply does not exist. The only liability statute you'll find for
"income" tax is section 1461 which applies solely to the withholding of
tax from foreigners, not from citizens.
Now, again, is this all that tough to grasp? Is a degree in rocket
science necessary, or should you just ask any bright home-schooled
teenager to explain it to you? Yet approximately one-hundred million
working adult Americans - including our leading "conservatives" - pay
tens of billions of dollars annually in income taxes, or have them
withheld from their paychecks, with absolutely no legal requirement
anyone can locate. Seen in this light, these tax payments - or, more
accurately, tribute - are really just voluntary donations to the
government, and very generous ones at that. To be fair, the IRS has
always referred to this phenomenon as "voluntary compliance" and they're
absolutely correct.
By consenting to function as uncompensated bookkeepers for government,
many of our nation's most esteemed constitutionalists conveniently
ignore the fact that the 13th Amendment forbids involuntary servitude,
yet they apparently see no contradiction. They even volunteer to chip in
50% matching co-FICA, right out of their own pockets. This voluntary
participation in socialist wealth redistribution must make Karl Marx
smile from wherever he currently is. I hear it's pretty warm there. And
I think it's getting a little warm in the conservative, 501 (c)(3)
corporate boardrooms, too, because a lot of their stockholders are
waking up and turning up the heat!
And it gets worse! These pillars of the conservative community routinely
testify against themselves year after year by signing tax returns in
knowing waiver of their constitutionally secured rights to be secure in
their papers under the 4th Amendment and to not be forced to testify
against themselves under the 5th. By doing so, they demonstrate
egregious disrespect to the Framers and show their deep devotion to the
Constitution.
As for the requirement to file a tax return, if you do the research,
you'll discover that it applies only to citizens with qualified foreign
sources of income. Once a citizen does file, however, regardless of
whether or not he actually owed the tax by law in the first place, he
will be presumed by the IRS to have a requirement to continue filing.
Without realizing it, by his own voluntary act he has transformed
himself into a "taxpayer", and that's exactly how the IRS then treats
him.
It may surprise our shining "conservatives" to learn that many Americans
who never volunteered to apply for a Social Security Number or to file a
tax return, never hear from the IRS their entire lives. I know several
such citizens personally. Did you know that a former Commissioner of
Internal Revenue admitted in a public speech in 1993 that 1 in 5
Americans had stopped filing tax returns? That's an epidemic of at least
20 million nonfilers by the IRS' own admission. That was seven years ago
and a whole lot more Americans have stopped filing since.
You'd think that these facts would be of such immediate and compelling
interest to our nation's staunchest conservative organizations that they
would stop the presses and put out special editions of their
newsletters, to share the good news with their millions of members,
wouldn't you? The fact is that, for all their rhetoric, the vast
majority of self-styled "conservative", "populist" and
"constitutionalist" organizations are really just glorified debating
societies, full of hand-wringers and theorists. One would not expect
these appeasing behaviors of free men, but, then again, if you're
enslaved in your mind, you're not free.
The truth is that most of our self-appointed "conservative" standard
bearers, including the majority of the clerical employees - which some
still call pastors - of our steepled 501(c)(3) corporations - which some
still call churches - are so scared stiff to even go near the subject of
lawfully limited taxation that they won't even watch a video or crack
open a book to find out. Indeed, they're sitting in mental jail cells
with the doors wide open. Yet when you peel back the IRS curtain for a
glimpse of the fearsome Wizard, you find a little man in his shorts
pulling the strings to your wallet.
The truth is that there are no shortcuts to liberty. And there can be no
true condition of liberty without the American people being educated as
to their rights, actually asserting them and living under them. Because
the bottom line is: if you want to BE free, you have to LIVE free. Even
some of the most sincere Patriots in the Constitutional Revival Movement
behave as if there were some sort of "demilitarized zone of rights" in
which they can wander to "meet, eat" and then "retreat" from.
To make the point, allow me to draw a few comparisons with our
forefathers.
Would Samuel Adams have applied for an "occupational license" to run his
brewery? I don't think so. What do you think?
Would James Madison have consented to being issued a State Serial Number
by King George? Did you consent to the assignment of your number?
Would Benjamin Rush have used a taxpayer identifying number to
accumulate benefits from the British Crown? Are you?
Would Pastor Jonas Clark have applied for the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts' permission to perform marriages? Did you and your spouse
apply for permission from your state?
Would John Adams have registered his children under state-issued "birth
certificates"? Are your children registered with your state government?
Would Caesar Rodney have requested a "license" to travel freely upon the
roads? Do you?
Would Paul Revere have registered his silversmith business under a
government-issued employer identification number before daring to hire
others? Is your business registered and regulated?
Would George Washington have begged for permission to own and carry the
same types of firearms necessary to thwart tyranny as King George used
to further it? As I'm sure we all know, Vermont is the only state left
in the Union where you can carry concealed without a so-called "permit".
That's pretty ironic, considering that Vermont's overall political
climate is just a little to the left of Lenin.
Would Benjamin Franklin have applied for a permit to build, remodel or
improve his private property? Was your home built with a building
permit? Would you dare to add an addition without one? Do you allow
zoning board bureaucrats and local tax collectors to come onto your
private property to inspect and measure it whenever they feel like it?
Or do you have your property posted "No Trespassing"?
Would Thomas Paine have paid "protection money" to the IRS to "save" his
property from plunder absent due process of Law? Did you demonstrate
your "voluntary compliance" and file your sworn confession this past
April 15th? Did you remember to pay your protection money?
Would Fisher Ames have testified against himself on a Form 1040 in
waiver of his protected rights under the Fifth Amendment, then
surrendered his "books and records" in contempt for the Fourth?
Would Noah Webster have "ratted out" his employees and subcontractors to
British tax collectors "sent forth to harass our people and eat out
their substance" by sending Forms 1099 and W-2 in to King George in
their names? Do you inform on your employees and contractors in this
manner?
Would Elbridge Gerry have allowed government to educate his children? Do
you?
Would Roger Sherman have attempted to build lasting wealth he could pass
on to his children in the form of fiat, paper promises to pay? How much
of your "net worth" is in the form of CD's, bank savings accounts,
bonds, and other coupons the government can repudiate at any time?
Remember, every fiat currency in world history has always collapsed
eventually.
Now, in case you were wondering, here are the correct answers to the
above, if I may be so bold as to make the assertion.
A truly free American is never serially numbered by his own government.
"Big Brother's" surveillance and control programs like the new national
employees' registry and the "deadbeat dads" databases would be
impossible without persuading the citizenry to accept their very own
electronic tattoo in the form of an SSN or EIN. Bear in mind that things
can be numbered, but never a free person. Branding is for cattle, not
human beings!
A truly free people do not apply to government for the "privilege" of
obtaining a State Serial Number for themselves or their newborns. Free
Americans need no such numeric identifiers. The New World Order gravy
train would grind to a stop were the peoples of the world to give up
their state-issued identifiers.
A free and responsibly self-reliant American prepares and saves for his
own future "retirement" and does not live his life exchanging Liberty
for the political promise of government-sponsored welfare "benefits".
A free man and woman marry each other before witnesses and in the eyes
of God. They do not need a state-sanctioned third party to toss magic
marriage dust over them and declare them wed "by the power vested in me
by the Governor or some other bureaucrat".
A free American does not apply for the "privilege" of obtaining a
"marriage license" so the State can monitor his offspring like so many
production units on the federal plantation, meanwhile awaiting the day
it can stick its hands in his pocket to probate his estate, and deprive
his children of a substantial portion of their inheritance.
A free American need not apply for the "privilege" of being recorded in
a central database of births. An entry in the Family Bible or Affidavit
of Witness of Live Birth will readily suffice to verify citizenship or
to obtain a passport.
A free American does not apply for the "privilege" of being issued a
Motor Vehicle Operator's License. The right to travel freely within and
amongst the Union States without restriction is unalienable.
A free American does not apply for the "privilege" of being issued a
chiropractic, real estate, insurance or other such "occupational"
license. The right to contract freely, including the right to hire
others or to exchange your labor or property for real money or some
other commodity is protected under the Constitution under Article I,
Section 10 and, as such, can not be regulated or taxed.
A free American needs no government permission to build, remodel or
otherwise improve his own private property. Nowhere in the Constitution
can the authority be found for one man to dictate to another man how be
may use or enjoy his own property. All "zoning" ordinances restricting
the use of private property are absolutely unconstitutional.
A free American does not apply for the "privilege" of taxing his
domestic source income by testifying against himself on income tax
returns and paying "protection money" to the IRS. Under Title 26 of the
United States Code, which is the Internal Revenue Code, returns of
income are required solely of nonresident aliens or their U.S.
representatives; also of citizens with exclusively foreign sources of
income, and; of citizens working in foreign countries under tax
treaties. Read the law!
A free American does not inform on his fellow Americans on 1099's and
W-2's. Both of these transmittal documents pertain to employment taxes
only, and not to income tax. Read the law! Social Security employment
taxes are imposed by law in the island territories and possessions and
are 100% participatory for citizens within the Union States. Read the
law!
A free American does not surrender his "books and records" at IRS
audits. The Fourth Amendment protects the rights of the citizen to
privacy in his papers and effects. Under the Internal Revenue Code,
audits are authorized pertaining solely to excise taxable activities
such as the manufacture and sale of alcohol, tobacco and firearms only.
Read the law!
A free American does not allow Government to be the educator of his
children. There is no provision in the Constitution for Congress to fund
government-sponsored schools. Read the law! Knowing that government will
never allow its next crop of "taxpayers" to be inculcated with truths
which might weaken its power base or diminish its future revenues, no
parent would ever willingly allow Big Educator to invade and subvert the
minds of his children. By living under the tax laws as actually written
- laws which do not tax domestic sources of income - Americans can raise
their standard of living as much as 50% overnight, thereby freeing up
one working parent to devote their energies to staying at home and
home-educating, where
they belong!
A free American does not surrender his children's inheritance to
government. A free American passes 100% of his property to his children,
not to the "state". Under the tax code, gift and estate taxes apply
solely within the federal territories and possessions and abroad under
tax treaties. These taxes cannot apply within the States of the Union as
they would otherwise violate Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 which
prohibits direct taxation without apportionment to the States. Read the
law!
A free American does not build wealth in fiat, paper promises to pay.
Real wealth is gold and silver and real property. All else is paper or
electronic promises to pay and can - and eventually will - be repudiated
by the issuer. Savvy citizens remain debt free and store their earnings
in real, material substance and goods which can be used in times of
shortage or emergency. Read your history!
And finally, no free American would dream of registering his "liberty
teeth" with the Monarch! I suggest you read "Unintended Consequences" by
John Ross.
You see, real Liberty starts with you - in your home, in your community,
in your state, in your church. It does not start at the State House, it
starts at Your House! So I ask you, can a free American ever live
partially free? Can a woman ever be partially pregnant? How, then, does
a real American comport himself? What can we expect of him?
A real American severs all connections to government-issued,
non-required taxpayer identification numbers such as the "Slave
Surveillance Number" and the "Employer Intimidation Number" and forgoes
government welfare "entitlement" handouts.
A real American ceases patronizing fractional-reserve credit-creation
factories such as banks and financial institutions, and their usurious
plastic shackles.
A real American refuses to be indentured to faceless, multinational NWO
corporations. He runs his own business and hires his neighbors, not
government-subsidized, equal-opportunists.
A real American boycotts New World Order sweat shops such as Levi's and
Disney.
A real American buys "Made In America" products, thereby stanching the
hemorrhage of outflowing jobs and keeping them right here in America
where they belong.
A real American stops appeasing the taxman and, by respecting and
following the written law, retains 100% of the fruits of his labor right
where it belongs - in "Hip Pocket National Bank"!
A real American liberates his children from daily incarceration in
government indoctrination centers and educates them himself with his own
values and beliefs, at home where children belong.
A real American worships at a de jure, unregistered church and declines
to pass the plate at an IRS-approved, 501(c)(3) "church".
A real American thwarts the brainwashing of his children's
impressionable minds by turning off the light emitting beam called
"Tee-Vee" and reading to his children instead.
A real American thwarts the infantilization of his own mind by the
news-faking media by shunning the major newspapers - our own national
version of Pravda - and changing his sources of information!
In short, A real American "Just Says No!" to unconstitutional government
and would-be world elitists at all levels - by becoming self-reliant,
private and free. Always remember that it is the very nature of
government to be corrupt. The corruption in our own government started
right in the first administration with Hamilton and the bankers.
Politicians are chameleons and parade leaders. When the parade changes
direction, they get back out in front and continue to "lead" it in the
new direction, according to which way the political wind is blowing.
Change will never come from the top. You cannot appeal to tyranny to
right itself! Change will never come from begging self-appointed
responsibility consultants for our rights. If you want to BE free, you
must LIVE free, under the Law that God gave Moses. The same Law that
came down through the Magna Carta to the Constitution and the state
constitutions. God tells us "Thou Shalt Not Steal". What part of that
don't politicians understand? And if they don't, how can you expect them
to save you?
"Steal" is defined in Black's Law Dictionary, Revised 4th Edition as
"...the felonious taking and carrying away of the personal property of
another...without right and without leave or consent of owner...either
by larceny, embezzlement, or false pretenses." The Constitution states
under the Fifth Amendment "...nor shall private property be taken for
public use without just compensation." That's your prohibition against
being compelled to participate in the kind of intergenerational wealth
transfer as dreamed of by Karl Marx. Today, we call it Social Security.
Of course, let's not forget Medicare, Medicaid and unemployment
benefits; food stamps; agricultural and housing subsidies; small
business and college loans; free milk and free cheese. All such benefits
are transfers of wealth extracted under fraudulent pretenses from the
labor of other Americans, a direct transfer of purloined personal
property via the government middleman from one private pocket to
another, perhaps to yours. The current ratio of social security donors
to benefits recipients is about 3.2 to 1. And two of those 3.2 are
flipping hamburgers at a multinational fast food corporation.
This entire colossal social wealth redistribution scheme stands in stark
repugnance to the intent of the Founders and Framers, yet its
participants are in large part ignorant as to its very nature. The grim,
bald truth is that millions of Americans, including self-professed
Christian Americans who enjoy the receipt of Social Security and other
entitlement benefits, are unwittingly stealing from their brothers and
sisters in clear, undeniable violation of God's direct commandment not
to steal.
In closing, let me observe that real American Liberty will never be
reclaimed through negotiation or compromise with an out-of-control
collectivist government bent on blending America into an emerging global
super-state under the command and control of the United Nations. Nor
will our freedoms be regained by participating in so-called
"conservative" and "libertarian" programs, all of which appear to
amount, as I said earlier, to little more than well-funded debating
societies. Just as Liberty knows no compromise, neither does the truth.
And the truth is that there is no fuzzy demilitarized zone. There's a
sharply demarcated line in the sand drawn at Yorktown, and the new King
George is breathing in our faces once again. If you're interested in
teaming up with your neighbors nationwide and taking a real stand for
the American flavor of true Liberty, if you're interested in actually
living FREE, I invite you to take a good look at the Save-A-Patriot
Fellowship.
[END TRANSCRIPT]
# # #
Yours For Liberty In Our Lifetime,
Gordon Phillips,
Founder & CIO: INFORM AMERICA!
Nat'l Representative: The Save-A-Patriot Fellowship
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 13:19:09 -0700
From: "David T. Terry" <dav...@internetcds.com>
Subject: Define "government" & "association"
In Digest #28, Message #1, Andrew Sullivan states that "anarchy" is freedom
of "association" or a society without "government".
I find this idea no less naive and fallacious as when Karl Marx said that
when the means of production is owned in common, the
state will "wither" away.
In any society, even a libertarian one; in the absence of a generally
recognized agency to enforce the laws (which, of course,
would not exist without a agency to enact them) mediate conflict, keep the
peace and defend the society against outside forces;
each and every "association" would, in effect, become a competing "government".
Metaphorically speaking, anarchy is to civilized society as a vacuum
is to the physical universe. It is a temporary state in the
process of establishing equilibrium. Just as a vacuum is waiting to be
filled with matter, an anarchy is waiting to be filled with order.
In a libertarian state that order would be minimal, of course, but to
deny that some degree of governmental order is unneeded is
hopelessly utopian. I will concede that, given another hundred years of
social evolution and development, a totally "privatized"
system of social regulation might be feasible, but that is a long way off.
David T. Terry
Secretary,
Libertarian Party of Oregon
dav...@internetcds.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 14:05:34 -0700
From: Mike Johnson <ship...@uswest.net>
Subject: Interesting Web site
A friend recommended this web site to me and I just started to skim
through it. It seems to have a wealth of material that quite a few people
might find most interesting.
- Mike Johnson
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 8
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 20:10:27 -0000
From: oh...@freedom.net
Subject: Re: Anatomy of the State
--- In American...@egroups.com, "Michael J. Schneider"
<mike1@w...> wrote:
> http://www.mises.org/easaran/chap3.asp
>
> THE ANATOMY OF THE STATE *
> Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature and Other Essays
>
------
> Murray N. Rothbard
[snip]
Thank you.
This is probably the best piece I've ever seen on
the subject.
It sure changed my views of The State many years ago.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 9
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 20:14:28 -0400
From: "Lorenzo Q. Squarf" <squ...@mindspring.com>
Subject: Technology
remain calm
i have to inform the entire world
Anonymous, but sincere
EMERGENCY AUTO SIGNATURE!
The OLD URL:
http://www.mindspring.com/~squarf/flying.html
which should enable you to go to the NEW URL
(if I can get the damn thing to work) which is:
http://165.121.138.41/flying.html (this works!)
and which will SOON BECOME (please God!)
http://www.squarf.com/flying,html
on a sort of forever basis.
Subtitle: How to get a hernia running a web site.
IN THE MEANTIME PLEASE USE:
http://165.121.138.41/flying.html
Thankyouverymuch. Please don't ask.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 10
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 20:55:59 -0500
From: "Michael J. Schneider" <mi...@winternet.com>
Subject: Beck: CAS: New York Press: "Greaseball Shit"
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 23:14:34 -0400
From: "Billy Beck" <wj...@mindspring.com>
Subject: CAS: New York Press: "Greaseball Shit"
http://www.nypress.com/content.cfm?content_id=2889&now=10/21/2000&cont
ent_section=1
New York Press
Christopher Caldwell
Greaseball Shit
I'm getting increasingly frustrated with journalists who just
can't call a win a win. Let's stipulate up front that there are
two criteria for judging debates: 1. by who made the better
arguments; 2. by who struck the American people as the more
affable lugnut. Journalists always claim to be judging by the
first criterion, but they secretly favor the second. So they
always declare debates draws: Well, jeez, I don't know, Judy,
both candidates made some strong points tonight... In other
words, let's wait until those cretins in Ohio answer the polls
about which candidate smiled better.
But the last two presidential debates weren't draws. Al Gore
used George Bush as a punching bag in Debate #1. It was only
the discovery that Gore had lied that made the press score the
debate as a loss for Gore. Those lies certainly reflect a deep
character problem, but not a debating problem. And in Debate
#2, Bush massacred his opponent, making Gore look not just like
a humorless dolt (besting him on the affable-lugnut front), but
also an outright menace on a variety of policy areas, from
humanitarian interventions to battery-powered cars (besting him
on the argument front).
The opinion that Bush is a moron is easily formed and hard to
shake off, but he did emerge as the only good-humored
commonsensical chap in the debate. Bush's foreign-policy
instincts struck me (and three-quarters of Americans) as sound.
You don't go into foreign countries, Bush is saying, to police
what are basically gang wars. (Or "greaseball shit," as Ray
Liotta and Robert De Niro describe the issues over which Joe
Pesci gets whacked in Goodfellas.) Granted, this philosophy
renders Bush's support of the Kosovo operation incoherent, but
we can probably trust him to renege on his declared sympathies
come election time.
The Old Vik
Bush's other great triumph was the easygoing way he raised
Gore's connection to former Russian Prime Minister Viktor
Chernomyrdin. Bush showed himself an IMF skeptic, and professed
himself worried that much of the money sent to Russia wound up
going into Viktor Chernomyrdin's pocket. This became something
of an international legal scandal, when Chernomyrdin held a
press conference to announce he would sue Bush for defamation.
To be literal minded about this, there is no absolutely hard
evidence that Cherno stole IMF money. Three or four years ago,
there was an accusation in Le Monde that Cherno had engaged in
the theft of $5 billion of government funds. When it was
reprinted in Izvestia, the paper was taken over by two
government-friendly "consortia," as mafia operations tend to be
called in Moscow. IMF money has definitely been stolen by
Russian magnates. Just before the ruble collapse in August of
1998, free-market "reformer" Anatoly Chubais came to Washington
for a breakfast with Deputy Treasury Secretary (now Treasury
Secretary) Larry Summers, and convinced him to bully IMF head
Michel Camdessus into releasing billions in aid. Camdessus was
suspicious and it took as much bullying as Chubais had
anticipated to bring him around. Once that tranche was
released, it disappeared, and Swiss courts have spent the past
year trying to figure out what happened to it.
"If you ask any Russian on the street whether Cherno is
corrupt," says a friend of mine who's been working in Moscow as
an investigative journalist for a decade, "you'll have to wait
until they stop laughing to hear their answer." Again, in a
country where financial corruption is carried out through
fronts and straws and cutouts, Chernomyrdin leaves no paper
trail. But the only reason he can be cleared of committing
financial "illegalities" is that, in Russia, corruption itself
is legal. Cherno's family is now among the richest 500 families
in the world. Here's how it happened: Cherno headed the
natural-gas ministry under the Communists. When Harvard
consultants arrived to insist that Russia's economy had to be
privatized, the Russian government just turned its ministers
into CEOs. Oh, we need a board of directors? Fine! I have two
sons and a daughter. The Soviet gas ministry is now Gazprom, a
global giant with a market capitalization of $100 billion. Its
longtime CEO: Viktor Chernomyrdin. It would probably be worth a
half a trillion if it were traded publicly, but Cherno doesn't
want Western investors looking into annual reports and
questioning bank transfers. So can we resort to a common-sense
criterion here? A company that thinks it's worth $400 billion
to keep its inner workings out of the light of day is corrupt.
And this is the guy Al Gore wanted to form "capitalist"
"partnerships" with.
Any American who's followed Mexican politics will recognize the
pattern. This is Lopezportillismo, to neologize Jimmy Carter's
favorite corrupt dictator. (And that's a field in which Mexican
President Lopez-Portillo had hefty competition.) At the height
of the energy crisis in the 1970s, Lopez-Portillo was peeling a
dollar off of every barrel of oil Mexico sold. He was probably,
at one point, the richest man in the world. And this pattern
went on. When Carlos Salinas was selling his pseudo-capitalist
reforms in Washington, he had the whole of the country's
Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) behind him. PRI
oligarchs, like Carlos Slim and Carlos Hank, said: "Yes, I
understand the need for reform. Difficult though it may be,
I'll take over the national phone monopoly. And the national
lottery."
Cherno is the avatar of these guys. So when I asked my
Moscow-investigative-journalist friend whether Cherno would
actually haul Bush into an American court, with American rules
of discovery, he said, "Oh, sure - when monkeys fly out of my
arsehole."
Wreck of the Old 49
The best exchange of the evening - in debating terms - came
when Gore started hammering Bush on Texas' performance in
insuring children. "Texas ranks 49th out of the 50 states,"
Gore said, "in children with healthcare, 49th for women with
healthcare and 50th for families with healthcare." Whatever
Gore meant by that, Bush should have battled back a little more
forcefully than he did. He had two responses at his disposal:
1. I didn't invent the state of Texas. It was there when I got
there six years ago, and it has a history. The question is
whether I've improved things. Or 2. Doesn't this line sound
familiar? People were saying this kind of stuff about Gov.
Clinton's Arkansas in 1992; do you, Mr. Gore, think that
Arkansas' nation-leading poverty rates wound up providing an
accurate prediction of how Bill Clinton did as president?
Nonetheless, Bush's rejoinders were sufficiently effective that
Gore panicked, and let slip what may be his neutron-bomb
strategy in the third debate. (It's telling that none of the
national punditry noticed this.) Gore replied: "I think - I
think he's a good person. I make no allegations about that. I
believe him when he says that - that he has a good heart. I
know enough about your story to - to admire a lot of the things
that you have done as a person." Your story? As a person? There
could be no doubt about where Gore was going with this: He
wanted to remind the public of Bush's history as a drinker.
You' d make a good president, pal, but if you're ever sitting
in the cellar with a plastic half-pint of victory vodka, you
can call me. Really. Any time of day or night. Gore didn't
quite dare to pull the trigger here, but you could see where he
might go in the third debate on Tuesday night: "Fine. I'm
losing this debate. I'm pompous, stentorian and prone to lie.
But do you want a guy carrying the nuclear football after a
fifth of Johnnie Walker?"
Even then, a lot of those Ohio cretins might respond:
"Mmmm...yeah, guess I do. Sure smiles nice."
Christopher Caldwell
vol 13 no 42
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
VRWC Fronteer http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/promise.html
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 11
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 20:55:45 -0500
From: "Michael J. Schneider" <mi...@winternet.com>
Subject: CAS: Foster and The Final Days
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2000 10:11:35 -0700
From: Ray Heizer <hei...@home.com>
Subject: CAS: Foster and The Final Days
As we come down to the final days of the campaign, everyone seems to be
expecting some final October Surprise from one direction or another. Here is
some interesting first hand intelligence, indicative of the kinds of things
folks may be planning ...
Hugh Sprunt has been approached by two organizations (one definitely
conservative, the other unclear as to political stripe) recently offering
him pretty good money if he will get involved in the campaign in the final
weeks by speaking out loudly about the death of Vincent Foster in speeches
around the country. In both cases Hugh has declined the offer. He tells me
that, among other things, he felt the effort could backfire on the
Republicans (in fact he wonders if the second outfit above had just such a
'backfire scenario' in mind).
Since the Foster case is only one of the many Clinton Administration
scandals out there, these two offers are interesting for at least a couple
of reasons ...
1. They give us a glimpse into some of the deeper currents at work in the
campaign ... presumably on both sides ...
2. They tell us that we can reasonably expect other, non-Foster, incendiary
bombshells to be lobbed into the fray in the final weeks by one or both
sides ...
= = =
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 00:26:19 EDT
From: HSp...@aol.com
Subject: Re: CAS: Foster and The Final Days
Re Ray's post below: To be totally accurate/precise about the two times I
was approached re Foster (once late this summer and once a coupla weeks
ago):
1) I did not decline, but told both groups that any presentation I made on
Foster would NOT be a politically partisan one and
2) I told both groups that IMHO if they were out to influence any election
this fall (presidential, Hillary, etc.) that I doubted any talks by me re
Foster would have a detectable effect, but that if they DID have an effect,
that the effect might be to sway some fence straddlers to vote Democrat
(e.g., the group's apparent strategy would backfire on it).
For whatever reason, neither group followed up on the two/three initial
contacts each made. . . .
Warm regards,
Hugh S.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 12
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 20:02:44 -0500
From: "Michael J. Schneider" <mi...@winternet.com>
Subject: Re: Define "government" & "association"
David T. Terry <dav...@internetcds.com>:
> In Digest #28, Message #1, Andrew Sullivan states that
> "anarchy" is freedom of "association" or a society
> without "government". I find this idea no less naive and
> fallacious as when Karl Marx said that when the means of
> production is owned in common, the state will "wither"
> away.
Andrew was defining terms for the purpose of debate. Marx,
OTOH, was promising to remove inflicted pain after it has served its
(his) purpose.
> In any society, even a libertarian one; in the absence of
> a generally recognized agency to enforce the laws (which,
> of course, would not exist without a agency to enact
> them) mediate conflict, keep the peace and defend the
> society against outside forces; each and every
> "association" would, in effect, become a competing
> "government".
A social entity is not "government" unless it asserts the
power to (or simply does) initiate force. A mutual defense
association is nota government (because they do not "govern").
> Metaphorically speaking, anarchy is to civilized society
> as a vacuum is to the physical universe.
Anarch[o-capitalism] *is* "civilized" society. When a
government steps up to the plate and begins trampling peoples'
rights, society is no longer civil.
> It is a temporary state in the process of establishing
> equilibrium. Just as a vacuum is waiting to be filled
> with matter, an anarchy is waiting to be filled with
> order. In a libertarian state that order would be
> minimal, of course, but to deny that some degree of
> governmental order is unneeded is hopelessly utopian.
I think the confusion here is the general false assumption
that the term "government" (or "proper state" in Objectivist usage)
may be properly applied to *any* organized effort to defend rights.
The people who actually run governments of course prefer that the
masses assume nobel motives in what are actually nothing more than
big mafias. Governments and states do not defend rights -- they
initiate force. They cannot accurately claim to be the solution to
the problems they create.
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 13
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 03:13:03 -0000
From: "Mod WW" <som...@home.com>
Subject: Re: Define "government" & "association"
In American...@egroups.com, "David T. Terry" <davidt@i...>
wrote:
> In any society, even a libertarian one; in the absence of a
>generally recognized agency to enforce the laws (which, of course,
> would not exist without a agency to enact them) mediate conflict,
>keep the peace and defend the society against outside forces;
> each and every "association" would, in effect, become a
>competing "government".
Generally recognized by *who*?
> Metaphorically speaking, anarchy is to civilized society as a
>vacuum is to the physical universe. It is a temporary state in the
> process of establishing equilibrium. Just as a vacuum is waiting to
>be filled with matter, an anarchy is waiting to be filled with order.
> In a libertarian state that order would be minimal, of course,
>but to deny that some degree of governmental order is unneeded is
> hopelessly utopian.
Thats a nice assertion - but where is the *arguement* that
backs it up?
Why - when the legalized monopoloy on the use of force - in order
to establish even a Proper limited government - IS by it's nature
coercive and as such not concerned with and so doesn't address the
issue of requiring the CONSENT of all it *governs* - would you make
this suggestion?
Is a little bit of rights violations ok?
Is that your position? Or - is it more of a case of
you not being unhappy with the idea of not having the right
to chose who will be an agent of law enforcment and judicial
process in your life- and as such you don't see why others would
want that choice left to them individually?
Meaghan Walker-Williams
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 14
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 22:47:04 -0500
From: "Michael J. Schneider" <mi...@winternet.com>
Subject: Word of warning to 'patriot' legal buffs
[I relayed "The Giant Wurlizter" (#226) because the poster had a lot
of interesting material, but you'd better be forewarned before you
buy into the notion that "knowing the law" is going to do you a damn
bit of good in court. Here's a cautionary tale below. (The "law" is
just a floating abstraction used by thieves to lend themselves an
aura of legitimacy, and the last thing this ruling class is about to
tolerate is peons telling them what it really is.). If you can spirit
your capital into a private account somewhere out of the reach of the
IRS, more power to you, but God help you if you own non-liquid assets
and think you're going to avoid paying property taxes or vehicle
license fees. Like the person below, you're only begging to become
the next "seizure" statistic. -- Mike]
sent to liberty...@egroups.com
From: "Phyllis Avery" <pav...@juno.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2000 5:17 PM
Subject: MASSACRED IN COURT
MASSACRED IN COURT
I actually walked in court Friday believing that based on the UCC -1 and
Security Agreement documents I had, that the case would be dismissed. We
had a Superior Claim and a Security Interest on our home they wanted us
to sell to pay the attorneys. We were Holders in Due Course. The UCC
laws fall under Public Policy, which supersedes all statues, codes and
laws since 3/9/33. The Security Agreement had an indemnity bond between
us and the all-caps-fictitious entity the government created after the
Bankruptcy of '33. I even made it clear that we were FICTITIOUS
PLAINTIFFS. I was told they can't hold court against F.P. or they will be
in contempt of court.
Boy, was I suffering from delusions! The judge (he ain't no judge. He's
the auditor for the bankruptcy), wouldn't let me speak. I couldn't
finish my argument. He kept cutting me short. He totally ignored all my
documents, and awarded my former attorney another $8,800 in legal fees
she decided she needed after the June 9th judgment already determined
what her fee would be. I was never given a new invoice. She totally
bypassed me and went straight to the court for it, knowing this
exclusive, private club she's a member of would grant her the extra fees.
The massacre was all over in less than 8 minutes. The only thing I was
able to get in after I heard his decision, was to make an oral notice of
intention to appeal. The "judge" said, "Go right ahead."
When I walked out of the court room, the attorney's were waiting with
documents they wanted me to sign. They knew the outcome, so they were
ready with them. I just gave them a dirty look. One of them said, it
would be much easier on me to sign them now.
So where to now? This case had all the makings from the very beginning
of a RICO suit. The two Redemption groups I'm working with are in the
early stages of studying this method. The one disadvantage to a RICO is
that the attorney's malpractice insurance doesn't cover RICO charges,
which means I would have to go after their private property, which I'm
sure they've got hidden away safe and sound. I've heard that most RICO
cases are settled out of court.
So to all those people on my mailing list who are SELLING THE CONCEPT OF
REDEMPTION (false hope), IT DOESN'T WORK! THEY DON'T LISTEN TO ANYTHING.
NOT AT THE STATE LEVEL ANYWAY. NO WAY WOULD THEY ALLOW ME TO SET CASE LAW
FOR THE UCC AND SECURITY AGREEMENT DEFENSE.
(To the Libertarians on this list, l am looking for a contact number for
Nancy Lord).
Phyllis
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 15
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 00:06:50 -0400
From: "Billy Beck" <wj...@mindspring.com>
Subject: RE: Define "government" & "association"
> From: David T. Terry [mailto:dav...@internetcds.com]
> Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2000 4:19 PM
> Subject: [American_Liberty] Define "government" & "association"
>
>
> In Digest #28, Message #1, Andrew Sullivan states that "anarchy" is
> freedom of "association" or a society without "government".
> I find this idea no less naive and fallacious as when Karl Marx
> said that when the means of production is owned in common, the
> state will "wither" away.
> In any society, even a libertarian one; in the absence of a
> generally recognized agency to enforce the laws (which, of course,
> would not exist without a agency to enact them) mediate conflict,
> keep the peace and defend the society against outside forces;
> each and every "association" would, in effect, become a competing
> "government".
> Metaphorically speaking, anarchy is to civilized society as a
> vacuum is to the physical universe. It is a temporary state in the
> process of establishing equilibrium. Just as a vacuum is waiting to
> be filled with matter, an anarchy is waiting to be filled with order.
> In a libertarian state that order would be minimal, of course,
> but to deny that some degree of governmental order is unneeded is
> hopelessly utopian.
Hey, David: how 'bout if I govern *myself*? How's that for a "degree"?
> I will concede that, given another hundred
> years of social evolution and development, a totally "privatized"
> system of social regulation might be feasible, but that is a long way off.
Well, you know what?
"Argue for your limitations, and you can have 'em." Meanwhile, I don't need
*your* sanction to live without ["public"] social regulation any more than I
need anyone at Washington's. In short, I don't need *you*. I'm *doing* it,
and you don't matter. Know why that is? It's because I don't live in some
Keynesian "long run", mate: I have X years to walk the planet, and they're all
*mine*. Right here. Right now.
I'll be goddamned if a single one of them will be spent under the thumb of
the state.
Billy
VRWC Fronteer
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/promise.html
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 16
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 01:32:32 -0500
From: "Mod WW" <som...@home.com>
Subject: Josh Strikes Back
Ok.. this is rather interesting: There is this red-neck asshole
in our building: Literally a skin-head. 18 years old and seems
to be suffering from testosterone poisoning.
About 8 week ago, as I was pulling out of the driveway of our
building he zoomed into the parking complex... nearly clipping
me... screeched into his parking spot.
I backed my car up, got out
and asked him to not drive so fast in the parking lot -
because of all the kids who use it for riding bikes and
skateboarding and general play.
He told me to *fuck off - ya dumb bitch* At which point my
land-lord, having seen the events shouted down "There's no need
for language like that" And he shouted at the landlord... "What
are you going to do about it?" (Which I took umbrage to,
because my landlord is sick... and at that point had been
reduced to walking with a cane) He's got a brain tumor. I said
"You are going to kill a kid in this building driving like that."
He Started walking away. I shouted after him - "Would that make
you happy you dumb sack of shit red-neck Nazi?" He just laughed
and walked into the building.
The next day somebody had carved "Anti-Indian Klan" on the
door of the elevator on the inside.
His name is Curtis. This interesting young man in our building.
Anyways... I can't afford to gets sucked into yet another drama
- so I just avoided the asshole and explained to Josh to be
much more careful in the parking lot.
Landlords told me when I came in yesterday that Curtis had
received an eviction notice for noise and disturbances.
Last night: Josh was playing with his little friend Dylan - and
the Curtis creature and his friends decided it would be *fun*
to let loose with super-soakers.. high powered air-compressed
water guns - on Josh and various other kids in the parking lot.
Josh came in last night- pretty angry - but said he didn't want
me to do anything about it.
This morning - he is sitting at the window - giggling. I ask
him.. what's so funny.
"Curtis had to get his friends to help him change his tires on
his car"
I do think that's funny... cause sometimes shit as it happens -
couldn't happen to more deserving people.
Josh says "That is funny - isn't it mum?" And I said "yes it
is"
And he says "I did that"
I shook my head. I said "What?" He said - "There are these
things on the tires that if you take the cap off and stick a
tool in - you can make the tires go flat"
My eyes open very wide. I say "You didn't?" Somewhat horrified
and somewhat fascinated.
I said "Who told you how to do that?" He said "Dylan and I
figured it out" "He got the tool from his mom's car."
I am shocked into silence.. Josh says "He's a mean bully - and
I got him - didn't I?"
At this point - I am not sure what to do.. Smile at the
*justice* - or chide josh for messing with property... Or pat
him on the back for messing good with the prick.
I guiltily peeked out the window - between the curtains and
sure enough... Curtis is out there with a bunch of red-neck -
skin head Nazi bigot brothers changing all the tires on his
car.
And I quickly pull the curtain back... and Josh and I laugh.
And then I got serious for a minute and I said "NOBODY saw you
did they?" He said "no.. we were careful"
I said "Next time you feel the need to do something like that
you tell me ok?"
Now.. what I like is... Josh is cool enough with me that he
told me about doing this. I like that... Cause it means I'm in
the know... He trusts me, to trust his judgement.
And I do find it funny as hell... although I am not one for
advocating messing with peoples property. But the guy was
refusing to slow down - and putting kids at risk in the parking
lot - swearing at the Land Lord trying to enforce the rules...
and trying to inflict pain on little kids.. And what I am
impressed with is that Josh figured out a very effective remedy
and one that sort of rings with a certain justice to it. He did
it - and he didn't get caught.. AND he told me about it - ONLY
AFTER I couldn't do anything about it.
Should I be worried about my Jolly-Roger wannabe - son?
MWW
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 17
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 05:59:25 -0500
From: "Michael J. Schneider" <mi...@winternet.com>
Subject: The funniest thing yet this silly season
[I have to disagree with Bill. I think this is an absolutely
*wonderful* idea. I love the smell of naked capitalism in the
morning. And all along, I had thought my vote was perfectly
worthless. But, in this eBay auction age, apparently nothing *is*
worth something. Sign me up in a heartbeat, suckers; you're all going
to hell anyway, so you might as well toss me your cash before you
board the express elevator down. -- Mike)
= = =
Subject: CAS: Political Animal: Defiling a priceless right
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 06:10:47 -0400
Reply-To: "Bill Kling" <kl...@usa.net>
Bill Kling
POLITICAL ANIMAL
The Daily Journal
Prince William County (Manassas), Virginia
Monday, October 23, 2000
Page A1
___________________________________
Defiling a priceless right
By BILL KLING
Political Animal
``Did ya sell yer vote t' them scoundrels, Billy?'' the late
Waffles Ilgenfritz asked, his incorporeal luminescence floating
eerily near my darkened bedroom's ceiling.
``What kind of impertinent question is that, you rascally
spook?'' I grumped, rankled at being awakened so soon after midnight.
``Th' kind o' quesh'un ev'ry voter rilly oughta be asked ev'ry
'lecshun what comes along, Billy,'' Waffles replied, a clever
reference to the manner in which the public is gulled by spurious
claims and cheap campaign promises during every election season.
``But,'' Waffles continued, ``I'm not talkin' 'bout th' Light
Prez'dint 'n Guv'ner Dubya. I'm talkin' 'bout sellin' yer vote on th'
'Net.''
Now that despicable situation had my interest. I'd read news
reports about it, and I'd been appalled.
So I propped up with pillows for another nocturnal conversation
with Waffles, my Ghost of Politics Past, Present and Future, and
personal counselor on political and governmental matters.
Waffles, nicknamed for his favorite prandial entree when he'd
trod the earth, had been a key deputy when my Uncle Earl Wolf was
sheriff of my native York County, Pa., in the 1940s and I was a
stringbean kid.
In Waffles' quaint way of name-tagging prominent persons, a
remnant of his days in courthouse politics long ago, ``th' Light
Prez'dint'' is Al Gore, this year's Democratic Party candidate for
president. And ``Guv'ner Dubya' is Texas Gov. George W. Bush, the
Republicans' nominee.
And we discussed the latest vote-fraud gimmick.
That's being carried out on an Internet Web site where registered
voters - cynical, turned off by politics, and otherwise planning to
sit out the Nov. 7 election - can sign up to sell their ballots to
the highest bidder.
The witless idea, the idiotic brainstorm of a harebrained
graduate student at Renssellaer Polytechnical Institute, was for
people enrolling on his Web site to agree to go to the polls on the
Tuesday after the first Monday in November and cast ballots for the
highest bidder in each state.
In August, when a New York City elections commissioner threatened
to cracked down on the graduate student's Web site, the deplorable
miscreant sold his Web site to a group of Austrian, Swiss and German
investors.
So far, more than 15,000 people have used the Web site to auction
their votes, with bids going for blocs of ballots categorized by
state. Bids to date total nearly $175,000, with California votes
going for a high of $19.61 each, and Louisiana's for a measly $3.57,
the lowest offer and barely enough to qualify as ``walkin' around
money'' in some Virginia precincts.
Imagine the mischief that can be done with such a scheme.
Imagine the danger when such a diabolical device is in the hands
of foreigners.
My mind boggled at the dire possibilities a threat like this
could hold for our election process.
Last week, a Chicago judge ordered the nefarious Web site closed down.
In Chicago, of all places.
Chicago, where folks ``vote early and often.''
Where precinct ballot returns sometimes total more than registered
voters.
Where it's violative of constitutional rights to deprive people
of their franchise just because they're no longer living.
Where, as a political reporter for the Chicago Tribune in the
1960s, I found a non-existent ``ghost voter'' on registration rolls
for the address of a certain apartment building. That was news
because the chairman of the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners,
who lived in the building, was the precinct captain in Mayor Richard
J. Daley's Democratic machine.
``They're violating the law,'' said Tom Leach, an old buddy who
years ago was a Chicago newspaper reporter and now speaks for the
Chicago election board.
``The fact is that they're promoting vote fraud,'' Leach said
last week. ``It's a federal and state felony to buy or sell votes, or
to offer to buy or sell votes.''
Yesterday, in a broken-English press release purportedly e-mailed
from Berlin, the new owners indicated they're still in business,
scurrying to revive the scurrilous Web site with a new Internet
domain and a slightly modified name.
``Do you suppose,'' I asked Waffles, ``that any of our Prince
William County neighbors signed up with these vermin?''
``Don't know, Billy," Waffles replied, ``'n I don't wanna try t'
find out.''
``You know, old friend,'' I remarked bitterly, ``with all the
government corruption and dictatorial rule in the world, it breaks my
heart that some people, their freedom bought with the blood of
patriots, should have such little regard for their precious right to
vote.''
``Yeah, Billy,'' Waffles said softly, ``I know 'xactly whatcha mean.''
Neither of us spoke for a long while after that.
Bill Kling, former national political correspondent for the Chicago
Tribune and the Washington Times, lives in Coles Magisterial District
and was chairman of the Prince William County Republican Party from
January 1992 through March 1996. His ``Political Animal'' columns
appear Mondays and Thursdays.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________