Wednesday, May 24, 2006

Our Paranoid Government--and Its Dominant-Media Guardians

Whether this sort of thing becomes frequent in the months ahead will be a very interesting question. I do not recall any police presence the night America: From Freedom To Fascism was previewed in Greenville, but that does not mean they were not there, or that there was no surveillance. Courtesy of John "Wes" Drawdy.

From the April 2006 Idaho Observer:

--------------------------

Spokane police prove Russo’s point with theater "sting" op
[Original here.]


SPOKANE, WA — Spokane Police Detective C.N. Brenden and Spokane County Sheriff’s Detective Fred Reutsch talked Learn To Burn guitar shop owner Roy Jackson into letting them set up a surveillance camera behind the store’s one-way glass window to film people as they came and went from the Garland Theater March 13, 2006—-the night We the People (WTP) sponsored the showing of Aaron Russo’s America From Freedom to Fascism.

The "sting" was brought to the attention of IO editor Don Harkins in a phone call from Spokesman-Review newspaper columnist Doug Clark. Harkins gave Clark a couple of quotes that would have brought real meaning to the story, but Clark did not use them. Instead he showed his bias for tax honesty advocates by referring to the extremely polite crowd as the "rabid rabble" that is "buggier than a flophouse mattress."

The police refused to comment saying they had a tip that a wanted man was going to attend the showing that night. Clark referred to the police as "double-O bozos" to make them appear like bumbling idiots rather than what they really are: Agents of an increasingly paranoid government given to spying on people going to the movies.

Harkins attempted to engage Clark in email (see below) but Clark did not answer.

WTP Chairman Bob Schulz offered to fly back to Spokane and show Clark the film because he missed it the first time around. Schulz noted that Clark stated in his article, "The prisons are home to fools who believe that claptrap," regarding the government’s refusal to show people the law requiring them to pay a direct tax on their labor. Schulz thinks that Clark either knows something that has escaped tax honesty advocates who have spent years studying and litigating the issue or he is a poor journalist. Clark has not even bothered to honor the offer with a reply.

It has been reported that in most places where Freedom to Fascism has been shown, police presence has been seen or felt — even though not one incident of improper conduct has given them cause to be there in an official capacity.

OPEN EMAIL TO DOUG CLARK, SPOKESMAN-REVIEW FROM IDAHO
OBSERVER'S DON HARKINS

April 9, 2006

Doug:

Rabbid rabble? Buggier than a flophouse mattress?

I understand the psychology of framing those who take exception to the direction our country has taken in terms such as those you have used in this and other articles. We are used to it and, in all honesty, aren’t very "twitchy" about it anymore. "Amused" is a more accurate term. It is so ironic that columnists like you continue to inflict ad hominem derogations against us even now when our "paranoid delusions" of the last decade are coming true. The irony continues in our minds because so many people accept your illiterate characterizations and seem to enjoy the names you call us while our research and independent thinking reveals that the land of the free imprisons more people than any nation in world history; while public debt continues to climb to levels that aren’t even real in human terms (Do that math, Doug: How long does it take to count to a trillion one second at a time?); while our people become sicker and sicker from consumption of known poisons that are approved by government; while we murder thousands of innocents in a war on terror that was illegally declared in non-sequitorious response to the government’s version of 9/11 — a true conspiracy theory that defies the laws of natural science, logic and common sense and; while...I could go on for a very long time.

Though it does sadden me that you and thousands of dominant-media columnists all over the nation are fiddling while Rome burns, I do respect your writing ability and do believe that you are an intelligent man whose passion for life is the motivation behind your stories. Plus, I met you in Peaceful Valley in the mid-80s when I was in my early 20s and carry with me that favorable impression of you. Time and experience since beginning my "opposition media" career in 1995 has taught me to stay away from guys like you because no amount of evidence will change your minds on important areas of investigation that compel independent thinkers such as myself to form dissident opinions. We have also found that no matter how well-behaved, open, generous and hospitable we behave, our characters are still assassinated with words intended to stereotype us as stupid, radical, racially-intolerant, anti-government extremists. Having spent a decade in the company of these people (being one of them myself) I can assure you that, like any group, dissident or otherwise, there are those who may fit your definitions. However, the vast majority are salt-of-the-earth types whose only desire is to make the world a better place and have made a commitment to stand for truth and justice (both of which are concepts, when truly applied, are color blind).

Regardless that my good intentions, and the good intentions of my friends, have consistently been edited out of dominant media copy, I would like to extend to you an invitation to sit down and discuss any issue you would like to discuss with regard to what is most accurately described as "anti-bad (corrupt, criminal) government activism." Government today could accurately be described as "anti-government extremism" because our form of government, as ratified by the people in 1787, is not the same form of government currently in power. Yet the government today claims to get its authority from the Constitution. If you compare the constitutional form of government and its contemporary incarnation, you would have to agree that they are very different. If adhering to the tenets of the original Constitution is "government," then those who intentionally violate those tenets would be anti-government. And, if they are so extreme about their anti-government activities that they are capable of going to war without declaration from Congress; spending trillions on war without the consent of Congress and surveil/charge/prosecute/convict/sentence/imprison those who question the lawfulness of their actions, then, by logical extension, they are anti-government extremists.

I think it is really weird how the dominant media insists that those who are pro- constitutional government and desire that all people be treated equally under the law are "anti-government extremists" and those in government who abuse the law and have the power to treat some people unequally under the law are referred to as the "authorities."

With regard to the tax honesty movement, we have a federal government misapplying the 16th Amendment. When citizens bring the inequities to the attention of the "authorities," the IRS itself gets to rule in its own star chamber called "tax court" that it is not violating the laws. A savvy citizen can get the case out of IRS tax court and into federal district court where the federal judge rules in favor of the federal agency and its agents. If the IRS charges a citizen criminally, the USDOJ (and its limitless resources) prosecutes the federal case in federal court in front of federal judges and predictably rules in favor of the federal government.

Thousands of people are currently rotting in prison for being principled (or stupid) enough to stand for what the law actually says and for what the 16th Amendment was originally intended to accomplish (tax relief for wage earners). Is this an indication of their beliefs being "claptrap" or an indictment of a system that ignores our informed and impassioned pleas for justice to protect its own interests?

We at The Idaho Observer produced a 16-page booklet that consulted every known authority from the moment the debates began in the 1870s to the 1913 passage of the 16th Amendment to answer the question: "Were wages and salaries intended to be taxed as ‘income.’" The answer, from Congressional Record, the position piece wrote by 16th Amendment author Sen. Norris Brown (R-Neb.), newspaper articles, upper and lower Court rulings, is "NO." I will send it to you or you can see it online at www.truthintaxation.us.

So, thanking you in part and chastising you in part, I hope this missive finds you well and that you are able to receive it in the spirit of honor and decency it was sent. Also, if you consume any products that contain aspartame, stop immediately. The stuff is a neurotoxic drug that is 10 percent free methanol. We have also produced a booklet on this subject and you won’t believe who made sure this systemic poison was
inflicted on the world.

No matter what, Don Harkins

The Idaho Observer

(208) 255-2307

Comments:
Great blog, just dropping by to tell you of this new site about Window Washer check it out if you have time. Thanks
 
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?