Consider the moral courage of a man standing alone having taken an oath which he meant!

[Selene]

The Eagle and the Arrow – An Aesop's Fable

An Eagle was soaring through the air.

Suddenly it heard the whizz of an Arrow, and felt the dart pierce its breast.

Slowly it fluttered down to earth. Its lifeblood pouring out.

Looking at the Arrow with which it had been shot, the Eagle realized that the deadly shaft had been feathered with one of its own plumes.

Moral: We often give our enemies the means for our own destruction

[Judith]

The C4L website also actively supports an isolationist foreign policy. I must say that that point is the only one of the movement's with which I find myself disagreeing.

How do you come to that conclusion? Do you advocate we keep military bases in 130 foreign countries?

Are you in favor of the kind of foreign intervention such as led to the instillation of the Shah of Iran in 1953?

Are you in favor of the kind of trade embargoes which led to deaths of tens of thousands of children in Iraq but didn't hurt Saddam?

What is your definition of isolationism? Was George Washington an isolationist?

I came to that conclusion from the following statement at C4L's website:

we are convinced that the American people cannot remain free and prosperous with 700 military bases around the world, troops in 130 countries, and a steady diet of war propaganda. Our military overstretch is undermining our national defense and bankrupting our country.

I advocate that we keep military bases wherever we need to do so to protect ourselves, but I also advocate that we stop protecting much of the world free of charge, leading many of the European countries to regress to an adolescent mindstate in which we are the "parents" and they are the "kids", and they expect us to do everything for them for free whilst they abuse us at will. Protecting staunch allies is one thing; dumping ungrateful ones who say they don't want us is quite another.

I advocate whatever kinds of embargoes work. I don't know that many of them do. I prefer more hawkish approaches.

I suppose I would define isolationism as not coming to the defense of one's true allies and ignoring the rest of the world situation even to the extent that it harms one's own country's self-interest. If the rest of the world goes totalitarian, one will be left without allies and no one will be left to trade with or help one when one needs help in defense. America would not have won the Revolution without the help of France.

I thought the libertarian position was free trade with all individuals in whichever countries. I don't consider that to be isolationist.

I don't approve of, and am appalled at, our country's current willingness to trade with any number of countries that violate human rights on a horrible scale. China; most of the Arab countries; I could go on and on. Perhaps I'm not purely libertarian in this regard. I do know, however, that in the business world there is no real regard for these things whatsoever, and there needs to be some kind of moral sea change so that we can begin to boycott businesses that trade with and have operations in these countries just as we do those that violate animal rights, etc.

I wondered what took Bush three weeks before he attacked which gave the leaders a chance to flee from the office buildings in Afganistan. I certainly thought he should have acted as soon as he knew. I also thought the weapons of mass destruction were trucked out of Iraq into hiding in Syria where they still are.

On these two points we are in agreement. Bush greatly disappointed me after his hawkish talk at the beginning of the war. As Margaret Thatcher said of his father, he went wobbly on us. And those weapons very likely are in Syria.

It is easy for you all to gang up on me but I have yet to hear what you expect is going to resolve the situation, certainly not the growing hordes of innumerable Objectivists.

I am not one of those ganging up on you. I take your posts with utmost seriousness, and I resent it when others make fun of you just because of your ardent support of C4L. I hope nothing I have written has given you reason to believe otherwise; my questions are for the purpose of gaining additional information, but I can see where you might believe otherwise in the somewhat hostile environment you often encounter here.

Judith

[Selene]

Ron Paul on War

By John Stossel

Townhall.com

December 28, 2007

Ron Paul is the only Republican presidential candidate saying we should get our troops out of Iraq now.

Here's more of my edited interview with the congressman.

Some people say that if we don't attack the enemy there, they'll attack us here.

Ron Paul: I think the opposite is true. The radicals were able to use our bases in Saudi Arabia and the bombing of

Iraq (from 1991 to 2001) as a reason to come over here.

If China were to do the same thing to us, and they had troops in our land, We would resent it. We'd probably do

some shooting.

Is this case not different? Religious fanatics hate us and want to kill us because of our culture.

I don't think that's true. It is not Muslim fanaticism that is the culprit. The litmus test is whether we are actually

occupying a territory. In the case of Saudi Arabia, that was holy land.

Many say the surge in Iraq is succeeding, that we're at a turning point now, and we are creating a model of democracy

in a part of the world that hasn't seen that.

That's the propaganda. I don't happen to believe that.

And if in most of Iraq, some religious fanatic comes to power and has money to buy nuclear weapons, we should just

leave him alone?

The Soviets had the technology. They were 90 miles off our shore, and they had nuclear weapons there. But we were able

to talk to them. We took our missiles out of Turkey. They took the missiles out of Cuba. We should be talking to

people like this. It's the lack of diplomacy that is the greatest threat, not the weapons themselves.

You say we shouldn't be the world's policemen. Isn't it our responsibility to help others?

It's OK for us to personally help other people. But to go around the world and spread democracy -- goodness, no --

too many unintended consequences. It usually requires force. I think we should only do those things under the

prescribed conditions of the Constitution.

Is war ever justifiable?

Sure. If you're attacked, you have a right and an obligation to defend (your) country. I do not believe

there is ever a moral justification to start the war.

So in World War II, we were justified?

Sure.

How about going into Afghanistan after Sept. 11?

I voted for that authority to go after those responsible for 9/11.

The Korean War?

Totally unjustified.

Kosovo?

Absolutely unjustified.

Vietnam?

A horror.

The first Iraq war? Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. He might have invaded the next country, and the next.

I bet Israel would have done something about it, and I bet Saudi Arabia maybe would have talked to Israel. I think

if it would have been left to the region, they might have taken care of Saddam Hussein in 1990 and we wouldn't have

the problems we have today.

What if there's genocide and terrible suffering in a country?

It's a tragedy, and we can have a moral statement, but you can't use force of arms to invade other countries to make

them better people. Our job is to make us a better people.

You'd pull American troops out of Korea, Germany, the Middle East, everywhere?

I would. Under the Constitution, we don't have the authority to just put troops in foreign countries willy-nilly when we're

not at war.

If North Korea invades South Korea, we should just leave it alone?

Sure, but it's not going to happen. South Korea's about 10 times more powerful than North Korea.

If China invaded Taiwan?

That's a border war, and they should deal with it.

If Canada invades Montana?

I think that might be a little bit different. Montana probably could take care of it, but we'd probably

help them out from Washington if that happened.

That's a role for the federal government?

Oh, sure.

Adam

Interesting man though.

[galtgulch]

Judith,

I appreciate your response and assure you that I do find you to be infinitely more respectful and not at all hostile than a couple of our beloved colleagues here.

I agree with you that it is distasteful to be trading with countries where the governments do not respect human rights such as China.

If we also did not let China buy our Treasury Bills, Bonds and Notes we would not find ourselves deeply indebted to them. Perhaps that would have been a good thing as well because if we weren't able to borrow so much money our government would not have been able to squander the money it did raise from China. The profound irresponsibility of our representatives is appalling in getting us into such debt.

That is one of the appealing aspects of the C4L which makes their members aware of such unwise and potentially crippling misbehavior of our government. In addition C4L addresses the issue of the gold standard and the fact that now there is nothing to stop the Federal Reserve from doing whatever it does to increase the supply of paper currency as it just did for the purpose of the bailouts which are so unpopular with the man in the street.

We actually have no idea how much the total money supply has been increased because M3 is no longer being used. We don't know what has become of the new currency and suspect that some of it has been given to foreign banks! Not to mention that certain bankers were intimidated into accepting bailout money despite the fact that they had not gotten into trouble with the subprime mortgage crisis. The Treasury did not want the people to know just which banks were in trouble and had decided to give money to a dozen banks including those not in trouble.

By any definition our current government is now fascistic and there is no telling just how far they will go in depriving us of our freedoms. We know they do not follow the Constitution and even the Supreme Court has abandoned their proper role in making sure the legislative and executive branches also adhere to the Constitution.

Bob Schulz, founder of the We The People Foundation, does not think the C4L will be effective or successful by trying to use the political process because of the political parties. He thinks that the way to restore our republic and the Constitution is through a process where we petition for redress and then a mass movement of people on the order of ten or twenty million when the petitions are ignored as they have already been. www.GiveMeLiberty.org

Schulz is disheartened because Ron Paul's office would not respond to the delivered petitions from We The People Foundation. Although there is a right to petition in the last ten words of the First Amendment there is no official mechanism to deal with such petitions. It is instructive to read the seven petitions which were submitted to each and every Congressmen and Senators who just ignored them and did not respond to them. Schulz is disturbed that Ron Paul did not respond either but just forwarded the petitions to the Clerk of the Congress which was a dead end.

So just as petitions were ignored by King George III our own government also has ignored our petitions too. Once again I encourage you to take the trouble to read one or more of the seven petitions at www.GiveMeLiberty.org

here are their names:

The Petition for Redress Regarding the WAR POWERS CLAUSES

The Petition for Redress Regarding the GUN CONTROL LAWS

The Petition for Redress Regarding the FEDERAL INCOME TAX

The Petition for Redress Regarding the FEDERAL RESERVE

The Petition for Redress Regarding the "USA PATRIOT ACT"

The Petition for Redress Regarding ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

The Petition For Redress Regarding the NORTH AMERICAN UNION

There are other petitions one to do with the executive Faithfully Execute Clause in the Constitution and another to do with the state militias etc.

Schulz is planning, not a Constitutional Convention, rather a We The People Continental Congress in 2009 I suppose to draw attention to the facts having to do with the failure of the govt to respond to the petitions as well as to show how in so many ways the govt has violated the Constitution. He does speak of our country as being a "police state" in the process of developing. Here is a link to a good many videos of Bob Schulz talking about these matters:

http://tinyurl.com/c6pn2j

Ultimately do we have the right to withhold our taxes until the govt responds to our petitions. Schulz asks the Court whether the govt has to respond to the petitions and if not whether we can withhold our taxes. This has gone to the courts and up to the Supreme Court which failed, chose not to hear it. The lower Federal courts said that the govt does not have to respond to petitions.

"Stare decisis" is the rationale. Bound by two decisions at an earlier case where facts and arguments are the same.

Supreme Court decisions: 1979 Smith vs Arkansas state of Ark passed legislation re public employees if you have on the job grievances must be submitted directly to their employer not through a union. State Highway employees had filed through a union

1984 Minnesota vs Knight state passed legislation contrarily Supreme Court ruled that professors at colleges wanted to file individuals not through their union.

Are the facts the same? We are not public employees! Our legal argument was different because it involves the original ten words in the First Amendment not used in the Ark or MN cases.

Supreme Court refused to hear it anyway. Denied with no reason given for the denial.

How can one withhold one's taxes if our taxes are already withheld and given to the IRS. Despite pleas for the Court to advise, the court refused. Schulz made up a blue folder for people to give to their employers to get legal advice from their paymaster's lawyers. The govt forbid Shultz from handing out the blue folders. Accused of a scam to get people to have a tax shelter. Thus the judiciary is politicized and corrupt.

Shultz has also found there is no constitutional authority for public money to be given to a private citizen for a private use. So Schulz filed for an injunction TRO to stop the bailouts from happening. Geithner and Bernanke didn't even go to the Congress to get approval at first but once Shultz filed for injunction they ran to the Congress. $700B with no oversight came out of Congress. It is a violation of the Constitution so it must be challenged and Schulz is doing that.

Berg assembled facts asserting that Obama not eligible to be president and his case was thrown out because of lack of standing. Reviewed by Schulz. Berg would be impacted so of course it was justified to petition the judiciary on interpretation of the natural born clause of the Constitution. Federal Court ruled that if they sought the birth certificate from Hawaii that would be a violation of his privacy. Absurd!

Schulz put a letter in the Chicago newspaper addressed to Obama asking if he were a natural born citizen and pointed out the consequences if he were elected and later found to be ineligible. He put ad in Chicago Tribune and Obama did not respond. Failure to fulfill natural born citizen clause is another violation of Constitution. Petitions were signed by 80,000 and submitted.

Schulz thought we should do what the Founders did..hold a Continental Congress. Up to three delegates from each state at the Constitution Center in Philadelphia and legislatures will be invited to send observers with media and public. Discussion of the violations of the Constitution and debating courses of action. Hopefully this will enlighten large numbers of people about the realities of the Constitution and the violations and how to revitalize state militias which is the Constitutional "homeland security."

Sorry for this long post but thought I would post this because I haven't seen any reference to it at all here.

So far I pay my taxes out of pure intimidation and plan to buy a wheelbarrow to carry the money to the Price Chopper market to pay for the loaf of bread.

www.campaignforliberty.com 3May 2AM 150,708, 9AM 150,726 !PM 150,747

"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."

—Thomas Jefferson

gulch

Edited May 3, 2009 by galtgulch

[Brant Gaede]

"How do you come to that conclusion?" Easily.

Do you advocate we keep military bases in 130 foreign countries?

Yes, until we eliminate the specific folks that killed 2, 974 of my neighbors including personal friends, but I guess Boston did not get hit so your skirt is dry, mines not.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IMAGES/cartoo...ltoon042309.gif

Are you in favor of the kind of foreign intervention such as led to the instillation of the Shah of Iran in 1953? Red Herring - False Man fallacy

Totally irrelevant to Ron Paul today.

Are you in favor of the kind of trade embargoes which led to deaths of tens of thousands of children in Iraq but didn't hurt Saddam? Yes. And a lot worse. And I hate the fact that you think that answering this question begging question wins you the argument.

What is your definition of isolationism? You used the term, you define it and then we will talk.

Was George Washington an isolationist? Yes.

Adam

As I understand it, GW went horseback to round up support against France for GB and came down sick for that and died in 1799.

All those founding fathers--maybe not Madison--were willing to ignore the Constitution or their stated precepts if they felt they had good reason too. Jefferson purchased Lousiana. I tend to more agree with this than disagree. An individual can live and die for his principles, for instance, but a political leader should not if it means vitiating the choices of other individuals. Politicians need to be whores, to some extent, because they can't know enough to make the whole country die for their conceptions. Unfortunately Obama is not a whore. Destruction is easy, and this is what he is actually doing. Flying airplanes into buildings is easy too, building them was hard. Envy wants to level the United States into a common swill and that's Obama's game.

--Brant

[Selene]

Gulch:

Do you have any better citations for these two cases that you mentioned?

Supreme Court decisions: 1979 Smith vs Arkansas state of Ark passed legislation re public employees if you have on the job grievances must be submitted directly to their employer not through a union. State Highway employees had filed through a union

1984 Minnesota vs Knight state passed legislation contrarily Supreme Court ruled that professors at colleges wanted to file individuals not through their union.

Adam

[Judith]

Gulch:

Do you have any better citations for these two cases that you mentioned?

Supreme Court decisions: 1979 Smith vs Arkansas state of Ark passed legislation re public employees if you have on the job grievances must be submitted directly to their employer not through a union. State Highway employees had filed through a union

1984 Minnesota vs Knight state passed legislation contrarily Supreme Court ruled that professors at colleges wanted to file individuals not through their union.

Adam

And also, of course, a citation for the U.S. Circuit Court decision for the point at issue, which cited these two cases. If we have that case, it will contain the other two citations.

Judith

Edited May 3, 2009 by Judith

[galtgulch]

Brant,

You said:

>>>"As I understand it, GW went horseback to round up support against France for GB and came down sick for that and died in 1799.

All those founding fathers--maybe not Madison--were willing to ignore the Constitution or their stated precepts if they felt they had good reason too. Jefferson purchased Lousiana. I tend to more agree with this than disagree. An individual can live and die for his principles, for instance, but a political leader should not if it means vitiating the choices of other individuals. Politicians need to be whores, to some extent, because they can't know enough to make the whole country die for their conceptions. Unfortunately Obama is not a whore. Destruction is easy, and this is what he is actually doing. Flying airplanes into buildings is easy too, building them was hard. Envy wants to level the United States into a common swill and that's Obama's game. "<<<

First of all my understanding is that when Washington became ill his doctor(s) decided to drain out some of his blood. When that didn't lead to any sign of improvement they adopted the Obama approach, meaning they realized they hadn't drained enough blood and proceeded to "let" a few more drops, day after day until he finally got on his horse and rode off into history.

On the other crucial issue of Constitutional ignorance by which I don't mean the Constitution wasn't known and understood. Instead I mean it was decided to ignore it altogether.

Do we really know that Jefferson gave some thought to a close examination of the Constitution to see if there were a mention of an obscure power for the president to purchase what was then Louisianna? It did set something of a precedent for the subsequent purchase of Alaska. Perhaps when either opportunity arose private interests should have been made aware of it. I imagine I cannot imagine what would have ensued if those lands were in private hands of American citizens from the very start.

So it is becoming evident that Jefferson was the first in ignoring the Constitution and its enumerated powers. Maybe things would be different these days if Jefferson had made an explicit issue in his day of the necessity of adherence to the limits of the Constitution.

So now we should not be horrified to observe that those who take the oath understand that it is indeed a meaningless ritual and merely a token and rite of passage and not a real oath. It is also understood that they are not expected to limit their voting on bills to the limits in the Constitution. As long as they have good reason to do so!

No wonder. Now I understand. The Soviet Union had a Constitution too, with spelled out human rights which they also ignored. And all along I thought in my naive way that our country was different!

I used to be against burning at the stake but it does come to mind. After all we would probably only have to do it once and from then on the oath will be taken seriously. I forgot the Eighth Amendment. Forget I mentioned it.

To clear up any misunderstanding when I just said "forget I mentioned it" I was referring to the Eighth A. Lets just figure out who to lash to the stake first. Perhaps in effigy! As punishment for violating the oath of office.

www.campaignforliberty.com 3May noon 150,742

[galtgulch]

Gulch:

Do you have any better citations for these two cases that you mentioned?

Supreme Court decisions: 1979 Smith vs Arkansas state of Ark passed legislation re public employees if you have on the job grievances must be submitted directly to their employer not through a union. State Highway employees had filed through a union

1984 Minnesota vs Knight state passed legislation contrarily Supreme Court ruled that professors at colleges wanted to file individuals not through their union.

Adam

Adam,

It turns out to be irrelevant. One did it one way and the Supreme Court said they had to do it the other way.

The other did it the other way and the Supreme Court inconsistently said they had to do it the other way.

In both cases the SC used there rulings as an excuse to forbid them, the govt employees from suing the state.

Then the SCOTUS used those cases as "stare decisis" to interfere with the We The People Foundation from seeking responses to their petitions. The SCOTUS continues to fail to accept for review the case to interpret the last ten words of the First Amendment the right to petition for redress of grievances.

It is disheartening because now it has become clear for all to see that our own government is acting the way King George III treated the Colonists, ignoring their petitions repeatedly.

Bob Shultz realized that just as the Colonists formed a Continental Congress (not a Constitutional Convention) with representatives from each of the thirteen colonies with the purpose to decide what to do, which led to the Declaration of Independence, so now we, the fifty states, should hold a Continential Congress of our own with representatives from every state, with invitations to the media, the politicians (as observers)and the public.

The purpose would be to debate what recourse we, the citizens of the USA, have in the face of a government which is ignoring the limits imposed by the Founders in the Constitution. Shultz is sure that elective politics is not the way to go and disagrees with Ron Paul in that regard.

I believe the Continental Congress is scheduled for this summer in Philadelphia and plans are in the works. One benefit is that the issues of concern will be raised and debated and witnessed widely by everyone in this country and the world.

I am not sure how the three reps from each state will be chosen. Needless to say the place will be filled with idealists, optimists, tilters at willmills and those who are motivated to participate in quixotic quests. So I will see if I can be one of those. If so I expect that the growth of Campaign For Liberty will grow into the tens of millions as a result and that likeminded people will be elected at all levels as a consequence.

www.campaignforliberty.com 3May noon 150712

[galtgulch]

Gulch:

Do you have any better citations for these two cases that you mentioned?

Supreme Court decisions: 1979 Smith vs Arkansas state of Ark passed legislation re public employees if you have on the job grievances must be submitted directly to their employer not through a union. State Highway employees had filed through a union

1984 Minnesota vs Knight state passed legislation contrarily Supreme Court ruled that professors at colleges wanted to file individuals not through their union.

Adam

And also, of course, a citation for the U.S. Circuit Court decision for the point at issue, which cited these two cases. If we have that case, it will contain the other two citations.

Judith

Judith,

I wrote that lengthy post while half asleep after midnight while simultaneously watching the Bob Schulz videos to which I gave a link. That is where I learned of those cases as he talked about them.

I have not explored the We The People Foundation website www.GiveMeLiberty.org where Schulz posts his petitions, the govt lawyers responses (which I find intimidating) and then Schulz' responses to those in detail.

I have no doubt that those cases would be found there. You understand the govt used those two cases in their argument "stare decisis" as to why they did not have to deal with Schulz and Schulz shows how absurd their argument is and how it does not apply and why.

Edit: Here is a link to Schulz' We The People Foundation April 12, 2008: The Constitutional Conspiracy: Courts Colluding with White House to Avoid Accountability

http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/Updat...e2008-04-12.htm

I encourage you to read it all from the top to get the flavor as Schulz has been Petitioning for Redress since his very first petition was not responded to. I do not yet find a number but he mentions We The People v. United States under a paragraph entitled The People's noxious injuries multiplied in bold if you scroll down. That is where you will find the context for the Smith v Arkansas and Minnesota v Knight cases. Neither were on point!

I am glad I have your interest on this. Don't get hung up at this point. Schulz endeavors to get the Supreme Court to hear his petitions or to rule on the issue of "accountability" regarding the "Government's growing attacks upon the Constitution."

I urge you to read the Petition for En Banc Rehearing

You see, Schulz found that in 1774 in the Journals of the Continental Congress an offical Act passed unanimously by the Founders said:

“If money is wanted

by Rulers

who have in any manner

oppressed the People,

they may retain it

until their grievances

are redressed,

and thus peaceably

procure relief,

without trusting to

despised petitions

or disturbing

the public tranquility.”

Journals of the Continental Congress,

1:105-113

From an 8-page official Act passed unanimously by the Founders in 1774 "

But when Schulz encouraged his supporters to sign his petitions, submit the petitions, and if the petitions were not responded to, to see if they could get the attorneys for their employer allow them to stop withholding their taxes, that is "retain it until their grievances are redressed" he ran afoul of the govt's lawyers who lumped him in with other tax protesters or tax schemes or scams who profit from giving such advise.

Consequently the judges are presented with Schulz as a schemer and never read enough of his briefs to grasp the rationale. At rallys his supporters hold up signs which say boldly: "No answers No Taxes"

http://tinyurl.com/chwjkj

And you folks think I am quixotic!

His conclusion is that our own judicial branch is politicized and stonewalls at every turn. I have heard Schulz speak in person. There are many videos of him available at youtube now. He is dedicated and an activist with a growing following too.

It is an exciting time to be alive and it is up to each of us to decide what role to play. I am getting to be one of those older guys who probably doesn't have much longer to live anyway. But I do have some personal responsibilities so I watch and post and pay my unjust taxes.

gulch

Edited May 3, 2009 by galtgulch

[Selene]

I think it is critical to understand the phrase that you are using:

"Stare decisis is the legal principle under which judges are obligated to follow the precedents established in prior decisions.

In the United States, which uses a common law system in its federal courts and most of its state courts, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has stated:

Stare decisis is the policy of the court to stand by precedent; the term is but an abbreviation of stare decisis et quieta non movere — 'to stand by and adhere to decisions and not disturb what is settled.' Consider the word 'decisis.' The word means, literally and legally, the decision. Nor is the doctrine stare dictis; it is not 'to stand by or keep to what was said.' Nor is the doctrine stare rationibus decidendi — 'to keep to the rationes decidendi of past cases.' Rather, under the doctrine of stare decisis a case is important only for what it decides —

for the 'what,' not for the 'why,' and not for the 'how.'

Insofar as precedent is concerned, stare decisis is important only for the decision, for the detailed legal consequence following a detailed set of facts.[1]

In other words, stare decisis applies to the holding of a case, rather than to obiter dicta. As the United States Supreme Court has put it: "dicta may be followed if sufficiently persuasive but are not binding."[2]

The doctrine that holdings have binding precedential value is not valid within most civil law jurisdictions as it is argued that this principle interferes with the right of judges to interpret law and the right of the legislature to make law. Most such systems, however, recognize the concept of jurisprudence constante, which argues that even though judges are independent, they should rule in a predictable and non-chaotic manner. Therefore, judges' right to interpret law does not preclude the adoption of a small number of selected binding case laws."

Words have meaning and are critical in law.

Adam

[galtgulch]

I think it is critical to understand the phrase that you are using

Adam

Adam,

I appreciate your learned post. The words were not mine but those of Robert Schulz or rather were used by the attorneys who were responding with those alleged precedents which Schulz shows were off the point altogether.

I am getting the distinct impression that you perhaps have no interest in discovering what Robert Schulz and his We The People Foundation have been doing all these years. www.GiveMeLiberty.org

It is worth reading through his several petitions. He is not a lawyer but appears to know his law and certainly is devoted to the cause of liberty and restoring our republic and the Constitution which is clearly being ignored.

I hope his Continental Congress comes about later this year. I hope the debates there are listened to across the country and that the cause becomes contagious, so much so, that it causes the Campaign For Liberty to grow into

the tens of millions so they can elect men and women to offices at every level in sufficient number to save the day without a fight.

Maybe those in office will wake up and decide to abide by the Constitution in order to get re elected.

gulch

[Selene]

Gulch:

I know Bob Schultz quite well. I have worked on various projects with him in NY State - I have mentioned this to you before in prior posts where you have brought him up.

Your refusal to remember does not make me forget. I do not have the knowledge or time to quickly search the forum, but trust me - we have had this exact discussion before.

I would risk my life for Bob - does that answer your litmus test question?

Adam

[galtgulch]

Gulch:

I know Bob Schultz quite well. I have worked on various projects with him in NY State - I have mentioned this to you before in prior posts where you have brought him up.

Your refusal to remember does not make me forget. I do not have the knowledge or time to quickly search the forum, but trust me - we have had this exact discussion before.

I would risk my life for Bob - does that answer your litmus test question?

Adam

Adam,

I believe you that you know Robert Schulz. I have no recollection that we spoke about him in the past. It is not an intentional refusal to remember but if that is what you want to think so be it.

You do not give me the impression that you have ever gone to his website and read any of his petitions though.

It is quite an experience. He is really up against the Establishment and is quite courageous.

I just read the transcript of one of his encounters with a judge and it sounded more like an inquisition! One gets the impression that the judge was mislead about the case altogether and didn't allow Bob to explain rather bombarded him with irrelevant questions following another line of attack based on other premises altogether.

Bob has known Ron Paul for many years and I believe they respect each other. However Bob thinks that electoral politics is not the way to go. Based on the experience with both the Libertarian Party over the quarter Century and the Ron Paul campaign in which the media, at who knows whose instructions, almost completely shut him out of the spotlight. They treated him like a pariah. Will we ever know who was pulling those strings? Was it the Federal Reserve bankers? Who has that kind of power and those kind of connections and influence?

I wish Stossel could find out for us. Someone is benefitting from the status quo and doesn't want the changes that a Ron Paul presidency would have made real. Who would stand to lose if we began to abide by the Constitution? Bureaucrats? Military Industrial Complex types?

I am not sure what Bob Schulz hopes will come out of a Continental Congress stacked with selected supporters of the Constitution and pro freedom types like myself. If the media treated Ron Paul the way they did what makes us so sure that the media would cover a Continental Congress? If it were advertised all over and were covered by CSpan it still wouldn't get the coverage the media is capable of attracting.

IF there were a football game on at the same time, or if the sun were out, or plenty of powder on the ski slopes, you see what I mean.

Even if everyone did watch... I just checked out the application to be a participant and it asks if i could spend up to one month doing this!? We are talking about three people from each state, ordinary people like a town hall meeting, one hundred and fifty people in a large conference center across from Independence Hall in Philadelphia. One speech after another around the clock or what? Discussing the fact that the government is not following the Constitution, passed legal tender laws and demands we accept their paper currency which they inflate, goes to war without a Congressional formal declaration of war, might give up our sovereignty to the North American Union, does not respond to our humbly submitted petitions for redress, contradicted the prohibition against direct apportioned taxes by amending the Constitution.

If you had an opportunity to speak at such an event and you knew the world and your fellow citizens were listening what would you say? John Galt's speech? Encourage everyone watching or listening to read Atlas Shrugged and Human Action and so many other books. Take up the rifle?

I wish the founders realized that they had to set up a process for petitions to be dealt with not just to declare that we had a right to petition. There is even a question whether the govt is obliged to respond to petitions!

I think the only hope is the Campaign For Liberty and the Young Americans for Liberty on the campuses. It is there and it is happening. It will go on happening and growing and sooner or later we will get better representation for our ideas at the state and the federal levels.

The internet will save the cause.

www.campaignforliberty.com 3May 150,773 See it keeps going up and up and up. If each of them reaches one thousand others there will be 150,773,000 of us who know the score. Thats just three others a day!

gulch

[Selene]

Gulch:

I apologize, I have a "phonographic" memory for conversations and writings which is why I am good at law, politics persuasion, etc.

I assume everyone does which is not a good assumption.

Bob's approach to constitutional law and the law itself has always been creative, like mine is. The problem with our approach is that the politicization of the judicial system has become completely oppressive.

It is a huge find to get a judge who rises above political suppression at any level. It is the complete exception rather than the rule. There is a theory of judicial appointments that ascribes to the paradigm that a practicing attorney should not necessarily be appointed to a judgeship.

Your remarks about how the "trier of fact" acted and "...it sounded more like an inquisition! One gets the impression that the judge was mislead about the case altogether and didn't allow Bob to explain rather bombarded him with irrelevant questions following another line of attack based on other premises altogether."

No, the judge was part of the script that we play into. Why do your state legislators keep cameras out of the courtrooms? Shine a bright light and the roaches will scatter.

Should judge's be elected or appointed? Should judges be trained to be judges? I remember in Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land, the concept and character of a fair witness.

When all three centers of constitutionally distributed power is corrupted and the "fourth estate" becomes, along with the military industrial complex, a supporter of the three "formal" constitutional power wielding branches, you have:

a soft tyranny which De Tocqueville warned us about 174 years ago. See:

"Soft tyranny is an idea first coined by Alexis de Tocqueville in his 1835 work entitled Democracy in America.[1]

In effect, soft tyranny occurs whenever the social conditions of a particular community hinder any prospect of hope among its members.[2]

For Tocqueville, hope is the driving force behind all democratic institutions.[3] As such, whenever this all-encompassing hope is taken away

from the people, liberal democracy fails. Examples of this failure can be seen in the Wiemar Republic of Germany during the 1930s or in the

French Third Republic around 1940.

Hope for a better future effectively died in both of the aforementioned situations. As a result, fascist regimes were established to fill the void left by the departure of hope.

Inciting Rebellions

Soft tyranny is often cited by historians as being the driving force behind many insurrections.

The most obvious area in which soft tyranny affects people occurs with their fiscal situations.

Price control is typically considered to be a common feature associated with communist societies;

however, it relates directly to not only rebellion, but also soft tyranny.

For example, when seigneurial {*} rights, such as land taxes and byway tolls, began to seriously irritate

the French peasantry in the mid-eighteenth century, violence in the form of rioting emerged as a consequence.[4]

In effect, the price of bread, which was a staple in the peasant diet, increased to the point where common peasants

could not afford to purchase it on a daily basis.[5] And whenever people cannot feed themselves, havoc tends to ensue.

This instance in mid-eighteenth century France exemplifies a form of soft tyranny which can quietly disrupt and eventually unravel an entire socio-economic order."

* seigneurial http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seigneurial_s...m_of_New_France <<<< new to me! damn just learned something real important lol

Adam

[galtgulch]

Gulch:

Bob's approach to constitutional law and the law itself has always been creative, like mine is. The problem with our approach is that the politicization of the judicial system has become completely oppressive.

Adam

Adam,

I appreciate that you are willing to acknowledge that our judicial system, at least as it relates to Bob submitting petitions and seeking interpretation of Constitutional clauses and the like, has become politicized and oppressive.

And so the government is free to violate the Constitution somewhat officially and they have gotten away with it for so long and in so many respects that they evidently feel that they can continue to do so with impunity. Obama's willingness to ignore attempts for him to provide his birth certificate or his college transcripts or applications come to mind even in the face of a full page ad in the Chicago newspaper put in there by Bob's We The People Foundation seeking such documents and for him to respond, provide documents, show up, answer regarding the "natural born" requirement. Such audacity can only be explained by his assurance from the Establishment that he was safe because the judiciary is in their pocket.

So what do we, who want to live in a republic in which the Constitution is obeyed and adhered to, do at this point. Surely we realize that given the direction things are going that something approaching a totalitarian dictatorship is in our future. At some point the bad guys stop the charade and adopt gestapo tactics. I expect that is not going to happen for a long time if at all. It is hard to imagine that they would resort to such tactics and expect to get away with it.

As it is i wonder how they, the Establishment, will react to such endeavors as the Continental Congress later this year which might just create quite a stir and alert the populace to the transgressions of each branch of the government including the judiciary. They might just ignore it and let it go by as if nothing happened. That might work unless the CC causes a massive upsurge in popular support for candidates in elections to replace the hacks in Congress in both parties. I don't expect they will be willing to give up their power without some sort of fight.

I know the census is getting the GPS of every front door in the country and will be able to target whomever they want perhaps with a laser beam from a satellite. Now you know I have become paranoid altogether.

I have entered the dark side.

Actually my wife just returned from a week long trip out of town so I am pretty upbeat. I just worry about the forces at work in our society. The fact that our ideas exist and are spreading does give me reason to be positive.

www.campaignforliberty.com 3May 9PM 150,797

gulch

[Selene]

Gulch:

"Such audacity can only be explained by his assurance from the Establishment that he was safe because the judiciary is in their pocket." Yep.

"I expect that is not going to happen for a long time if at all. It is hard to imagine that they would resort to such tactics and expect to get away with it." Of this I think you are tragically mistaken.

That is why I think we are set up for a soft tyranny.

Welcome her home for us.

Adam

[galtgulch]

Gulch:

"I expect that is not going to happen for a long time if at all. It is hard to imagine that they would resort to such tactics and expect to get away with it." Of this I think you are tragically mistaken.

Why should they bother if they don't have to? Everyone is paying their taxes more or less. They probably figure they will win the next election and will be in power for years to come. Why would they have to become violent when most are beaten into submission as it is?

That is why I think we are set up for a soft tyranny.

Adam

I thought that is what we have now. How can you be so blase about a coming fascist state?

gulch

[Selene]

Gulch:

Geez you suck as a salesman.

I will let blase slide.

I will continue to work as I have to slow or stop this system.

I will provide it with as little as I can and continue to organize, prepare and recruit.

I will be at the local candidates night tomorrow with the current elected councilmen and those running against them.

I am fully prepared.

Adam

Edited May 4, 2009 by Selene

[galtgulch]

Gulch:

Geez you suck as a salesman.

I will let blase slide.

I will continue to work as I have to slow or stop this system.

I will provide it with as little as I can and continue to organize, prepare and recruit.

I will be at the local candidates night tomorrow with the current elected councilmen and those running against them.

I am fully prepared.

Adam

Adam,

I should know better. Sorry.

I just came back from the www.GiveMeLiberty.org site of Bob Schulz. he is touring the country right now to publicize the Continental Congress planned for later this year. It appears it is going to happen and will go on once it starts for weeks with debates among the delegates, three reps from each state, carefully selected. Who can devote a month or more unless they aren't working.

I filled out an application and will wait and see.

www.campaignforliberty.com 4May 4AM 150,830 If each of us reaches just three more people a day to make them aware of this campaign 150,830,000 will know about it in less than a year! Some will join sooner and some will join later but all will join sooner or later! And then we will have our country back.

gulch

Edited May 4, 2009 by galtgulch

[Selene]

Good.

I will take a look right now.

Thanks

Adam

[galtgulch]

Good.

I will take a look right now.

Thanks

Adam

Adam,

So d'ja luk?

gulch

[Selene]

Gulch:

As I mentioned to you I look forward to his arguments, we have always seen eye to eye on constitutional approaches.

Of course - now I am waiting for my password they seem to have a glitch.

I expect to have it sent to me tonight, according to the e-mail I sent them and they responded to.

Adam

[galtgulch]

Gulch:

As I mentioned to you I look forward to his arguments, we have always seen eye to eye on constitutional approaches.

Of course - now I am waiting for my password they seem to have a glitch.

I expect to have it sent to me tonight, according to the e-mail I sent them and they responded to.

Adam

Adam,

Schulz evidently has high hopes that his Continental Congress will inspire a massive public outcry or the like which might lead to public beheadings as in the French Revolution. Now that I have written that I wonder paranoically whether that would trigger the attention of Big Brother.

I am a delegate to the Mass Medical Society which is having an annual meeting in Boston later this week. Usually enlightening in some respect.

Do you watch the ever popular "24" show? It is about to start so I will check back later.

www.campaignforliberty.com 4May 8PM 150918 growing.

gulch

[Alfonso Jones]

(snip)

Adam,

Schulz evidently has high hopes that his Continental Congress will inspire a massive public outcry or the like which might lead to public beheadings as in the French Revolution. Now that I have written that I wonder paranoically whether that would trigger the attention of Big Brother.

I am a delegate to the Mass Medical Society which is having an annual meeting in Boston later this week. Usually enlightening in some respect.

Do you watch the ever popular "24" show? It is about to start so I will check back later.

www.campaignforliberty.com 4May 8PM 150918 growing.

gulch

gulch -

You enjoy 24? See, there's something else we agree on!

Bill P