I knew there would be a fair share of Republicans hitching [...]]]> I attended the Wake Up America Tea Party in Fort Worth on Saturday as part of a nationwide tea party event. While volunteering at the Campaign for Liberty booth, I got a lot of positive reaction talking with attendees about conventional constitutional ideals.

I knew there would be a fair share of Republicans hitching onto the liberty message, so I thought it was important to present a more comprehensive small-government message, even if I do not subscribe to those views myself. Mostly, I emphasized the importance of decentralizing political power and scaling back American foreign policy.

I was there with Debbie McKee, the CFL state coordinator in Texas, and her daughter Adrienne. Our most popular item was CFL’s newly released pocket constitution that included the Declaration of Independence and the Kentucky and Virginia nullification resolutions written by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, respectively.

A few people scoffed when the saw Ron Paul’s Revolution or End the Fed on our table. We also had Bruce Fein’s new book American Empire. (I have not read Fein’s book, but here is an interview with Scott Horton on Anti-War Radio.) However, many more I spoke with expressed that they thought the government’s belligerent foreign policy was doing more harm than good.

The most talked-about speakers were Bridgette Gabriel, who preached the dangers of “Islamic supremacism,” and conservative commentator Ann Coulter. They received the loudest applause lines I heard from the booth outside the auditorium. From a post on “The Whited Sepulchre,” Gabriel asked all the military veterans to stand and take an applause, which garnered a thunderous applause. The veterans obediently remained standing well into her speech.

Debra Medina, the founder of We Texans, spoke of the declining freedom in Texas. She said that Texas has went from a top-10 state in terms of economic freedoms and has fallen 23 spots to 31st in the nation since Rick Perry has been in governor’s office. Despite an impressive showing against establishment candidates in the Texas Republican gubernatorial primary, Medina had a distinctly less friendly reception because she highlighted that conservative rhetoric does not match the empirical evidence of a decade of Republican rule in Texas.

A few minutes before I was planning to leave, a man who described himself to me as a “constitutional conservative” wandered to the CFL booth and said he did not want to listen to Coulter. I gave a sympathetic nod. He said that he wanted nothing do with the Coulter and went on the explain that she attends meetings with pro gay-rights groups. That, he said, was unacceptable.

He talked about the source of this information, and how a website had been tracking Coulter for the past 18 months. As I recall, he went on to say “There is no place in the Republican Party for homosexuals or anybody with them.” From my reading of the state party platform, he is probably right. I guess he felt comfortable confiding this nugget of bigotry with those of us at the booth.

I kindly asked if he supported making it illegal to practice homosexuality. Without hesitating, he said he would and that it already is according to the Bible. I asked, then “would you think that all sins should be made illegal under political government?” So I asked about divorce. I went on the say that the Bible calls divorce a sin, and I asked if he thought it should be illegal too.

He danced around the question, so I asked again. He said that couples who have underwent counseling before marriage and before splitting up should be allowed to divorce on the condition that they would forfeit custody of their children to already-married couples.

After some prompting, he reiterated that the Republican Party was a party for Christians only, and that I would have to do some “soul searching” before becoming a genuine Republican, which I have no desire of becoming anyway. He said I should become a Democrat instead. I didn’t bother telling him, but neither sound that appealing. I should have told him, “Fuck You (Very Much).”

Completely devoid of historical evidence, he then went on to explain for a second time that libertarianism and socialism were spawned by Karl Marx in “his communist books” and the political environment of revolutionary France.

Tea Party Reflections

The tea party has no founding principles on which the movement is based, and most of its grassroots members are political newcomers who have a deep-seeded resentment for the direction that the country is going. It does not take long to realize that the government has been royally screwing up, and not just for the last 20 months.

Originally, the tea party movement was focused on excessive government spending as a reaction to the bailouts of the same large financial bodies that enabled the current economic collapse. The loudest voices were crying “Socialism” when Barack Obama was just adding to the same policies of his predecessor. Even still, so long as the movement was a reaction to fiscal mismanagement, there was some possibility that it would affect positive policy changes. But more and more, the tea party has less to do with battling run-away spending than it does with embracing cultural conservatism. The undertones of the currently embodied movement are based in the fears of white Christians of losing political power, fear that the same government many white Christians have exploited to their own advantage will be turned against them. “To take back our country.” That is the root cause for the present wave of backlash against Muslims and immigrants.

A poll [PDF] published in March from the University of Washington said that those who strongly support the tea party had more hostile views of gays, racial minorities and immigrants. On average, tea party supporters consistently thought less of the intelligence, trustworthiness and work ethic of blacks and Latinos than did the average Republicans. In a separate poll [PDF], and for all their talk about liberty, supporters of the tea party were far more likely to favor indefinite detention without trial of anyone accused of a crime, less privacy, and racial profiling. They were also less supportive of equal rights.

Even for the self-described constitutional conservative I talked with, he was more than willing to set aside any pretence of a modern society for an opportunity to enforce his morality on peaceful people. The momentum I witnessed Saturday will springboard into big electoral gains for Republicans, including many of the same responsible for this mess, in the mid-term elections. It will not amount to many policy changes for more liberty. No major tea party candidate is calling for cuts to any of the largest expenditures, not the military empire nor entitlement programs like Social Security.

It is a sad reality, but the ditching of any libertarian sentiments is inevitable so long as tea partiers are concerned with gaining the reins of power instead of abolishing that power altogether.

Katy and I passed out a different brochure [PDF] this time, “A Primer for Prospective Jurors.” We think it [...]]]> For July’s Fully Informed Jury Association activism, I helped distribute about 270 brochures to potential jurors and some county employees. It seemed to be a light jury day. Otherwise, we could have reached more people.

Katy and I passed out a different brochure [PDF] this time, “A Primer for Prospective Jurors.” We think it is more professional looking in addition to providing some useful tips on answering private questions during voir dire.

Some of the common questions about jury nullification are also addressed in the brochure. For example, “Once on a jury, must I use the law as given by the judge, even if I think it’s a bad law, or wrongly applied?” There are also historic examples of jury nullification being used to right a wrong, like the trial of William Penn.

Following our previous outreach event, FIJA donated about 1000 copies of literature and other merchandise, so we should be stocked up for a good while. We will set another event for next month. I know I said this last time, but I will make time for a training session sometime for any newcomers who like to attend FIJA events in the future.

So here is the background. Tom and Rafael joined Katy and me downtown at the Tarrant [...]]]> Monday’s Fully Informed Jury Association event for the Campaign for Liberty — Tarrant County went beyond expectation. We passed out close to 400 trifolds, had some good conversations and met a total apologist for government aggression and discrimination.

So here is the background. Tom and Rafael joined Katy and me downtown at the Tarrant County Justice Center on Monday morning. I had never seen such a large jury pool. The line stretched into the street. We were not approached by any law enforcement, and everything was going as expected. Although, one uniformed officer asked what we were doing while waiting for the signal to say walk. I asked if he would like to know about the rights of jurors. He said he already knew about them.

Well, about the time we were passing out our last few trifolds, around 7:50 a.m., another group of people walking toward the Justice Center found their way to our intersection. They appeared to be led by this woman with an official-looking placard around her neck. In the video, she identified herself to be a licenced attorney. She was instructing the group of people with her about the location of restaurants in the neighborhood.

At first, the lady said she did not want any literature. However, once people around her started reading our paperwork, she asked for a copy. Tom said something about judges not informing jurors of their rights to examine the law, and the lady butted in and said that that was illegal for jurors to do.

By that time, I got my camera and asked if she would talk about it. That is when the video started rolling.

Tom then asked her a hypothetical about the obsolete three-fifths clause in the constitution which counted blacks as just a fraction of their actual population for congressional representation. In the clip, she admits she would be willing to enforce racial discrimination laws, among other laws. Tom then turned in disgust to her answer. What you don’t see in the video is that she quickly yanked on his elbow to get his attention. It was not a rough yank, but it was something that would have gotten some fierce retaliation had we done that to a government employee.

She suggest that we try to change the law through the legislative process rather than practicing jury nullification. She did acknowledge she does not like many of the laws either.

I asked her to respond to Martin Luther King’s line that “An unjust law is no law at all.” She said, “Generally, yes, an unjust law is not law.” (So I don’t understand her reasoning about enforcing obviously discriminatory laws.)

Tom further asked, “What if I don’t agree with the law that Jews are no longer persons?” She said, “Then you don’t sit on a jury that is judging that question.” I cringed. I could not believe her response. She again insisted that we respect the rule of law and work within it to affect change. Rafael started to question her if the US PATRIOT Act was just, but she must have misunderstood him and said something about a trade law.

Tom then gave us some historical examples that we was talking about, but I had to cut him short because YouTube videos can only be so long.

As I have been informed, the Texas constitution does have some language somewhat favorable toward jury nullification. [Update: See Chris's comment below for a more detailed explanation.] In the Texas Bill of Rights, it states that “in all indictments for libels, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts, under the direction of the court, as in other cases” (emphasis added).This would seem to lend itself to support for the right of jurors to determine which laws they wish to have enforced in their communities.

What we plan to do is to prepare and practice delivering talking points about some common objections and questions we get during our outreach events. I think that may help overcome some common concerns and also encourage more people to attend the events.

The Campaign for Liberty, Tea Party, and 9/12 movements have organized around the idea gaining back our freedom and nation by getting the right people elected to national, state, a local positions.

My question is: As long as [...]]]> Now what? In effect, that question was posed by a member of a Dallas liberty group.

The Campaign for Liberty, Tea Party, and 9/12 movements have organized around the idea gaining back our freedom and nation by getting the right people elected to national, state, a local positions.

My question is: As long as the unelected global elites control the power, wealth, and the system, how is electing or unelecting anyone going to make a difference? We’ve been playing this game for decades with nothing but loss after loss of liberty. … Suppose we actually did get Ron Paul as President, and had numerous victories in local elections, how much power will they really have within the global elite’s system? How many of our new representatives will be easily turned with bribes, black mail, and threats? How effective could they be against the onslaught of media propaganda against them?

Instead of blaming the messenger, I think the concern is genuine, though I don’t know anything about a “global elite.” The people who support violence against me live in my neighborhood. In any case, I responded.

I feel that voting for people to represent your interests is one of the least effective means of achieving political success. It is always a lagging indicator of political opinion. The voting myth states that to have political influence, you must delegate it away. The alternative, I think, is to represent yourself and your interests.

Some refer to it as “direct action.” Taking direct action, rather than relying on a middleman to solve problems, has many advantages. You become familiar with the resources around you, building de facto institutions and learning your own capabilities or strengths.

Some specific examples of direct action are passing out flyers about issues that concern you rather than waiting on the media to give it attention. When someone raises money for a charity instead of asking a politician for tax dollars, that is direct action. When someone starts a book club rather than attending a government classroom for an education, that is taking action. One method of direct action, agorism, seeks to build alternative institutions that deligitimize the state’s interference in that area of the marketplace.

Direct action does not spend time fighting over platforms or building a consensus, wasting time and money. Different groups can operate independently without the need for confrontation, unless their goals really are diametrically opposed. Direct action can be taken whenever you see fit.

These two methods of activism can be applied together. Think of all the hours wasted debating on who to vote for, what platform proposal to adopt, which bylaw to strike. Yet, voting itself takes just a few minutes.

We can spend an hour a year voting and the rest of our time taking action. If you’re interested, you might want to check out DFW ALL for other ideas.

I was outside the Tarrant County Justice Center this morning for the second round of Fully Informed Jury Association activism when I was confronted by a county officer who [...]]]> Honest to goodness, I intentionally avoid handing literature to government bureaucrats just so that I can avoid the hassle, but they just won’t leave me be.

I was outside the Tarrant County Justice Center this morning for the second round of Fully Informed Jury Association activism when I was confronted by a county officer who asked me to leave. Luckily, I got most of our interaction on video. My friends at the other end of the block later told me that the same officer told them they had to leave county property. They wrote down his name, but I forgot to ask them how to spell it. The same officer confronted me about five minutes after filming the video and asked me for my name and contact information. He said he wanted it in case the footage was made public. I told him I was a private person, so I refused. I almost began filming again when he just walked away as I said “On the job means on the record.”

I also ran into county prosecutor Kevin Rousseau, who starred in the first FIJA event on Aug. 24. He was almost across the intersection when I called out, “Hey, Mr. Rousseau.” He kind of hung his head in disappointment and then asked for a copy of our literature. The bureaucrats seemed more interested in us than before. Another lady who had a government ID asked if I had a permit. I replied, “Yes, it’s called the First Amendment.” Although I don’t believe my rights come from the constitution, at least that right is theoretically protected from violation by the government. I met two men who identified themselves as county judges who asked for a copy. I asked if they would mind being interviewed, but both declined being on camera.

Except for the officer in the video, I think I was friendly to the government people. I feel I was too confrontational with the officer and not informative enough, and that is something I’ll need to get better at. After all, I forgive all of them for what they do to my neighbors and myself, and I always will. I just wished they would stop hurting peaceful people. If I had to do it over again, I would have offered him a hug.

They (MUSLIMS) don’t even believe in Christ, & they’re getting their own Christmas stamp! BUT, don’t dare to dream of posting the ten commandments on federal property! This is truly UNBELIEVABLE !!!

USPS New  42-Cent [...]]]> The following unedited message from Charles G. Poole was forwarded to the Tarrant County Campaign for Liberty mailing list.

They (MUSLIMS) don’t even believe in Christ, & they’re getting their own Christmas stamp! BUT, don’t dare to dream of posting the ten commandments on federal property! This is truly UNBELIEVABLE !!!

USPS New  42-Cent Stamp!!!   Celebrates  Muslim holiday.

REMEMBER  the MUSLIM bombing of Pan Am Flight 103!

REMEMBER  the MUSLIM bombing of the World Trade Center in  1993!

REMEMBER  the MUSLIM bombing of the Marine Barracks in  Lebanon !

REMEMBER  the MUSLIM bombing of the military Barracks in  Saudi Arabia !

REMEMBER  the MUSLIM bombing of the American Embassies in  Africa !

REMEMBER  the MUSLIM bombing of the USS COLE!

REMEMBER  the MUSLIM attack on 9/11/2001 !

REMEMBER  all the AMERICAN lives that were lost in those  vicious MUSLIM attacks!

Time to celebrate, right?  But what, uh, maybe that good ol’ American value, Separation…?

Blessings,

For less government, more individual responsibility, and with God’s help, a better world.

Chuck

Charles G. Poole
President, Masterkey Financial Services

I responded, in part.

I intend to send him my objections to his bigoted comments. I implore others do the same and refuse to do business with him until he issues an apology.

Ironically, Mr. Poole is guilty of the same belief in collectivism as the attackers, the mindset an individual has value or disvalue unto himself only so far as he does or does not serve his collective identity. The attackers held 3,000 people guilty for the crimes of others. Mr. Poole holds two billion people guilty for the crimes of others. The attackers were willing to give their lives for their beliefs. I’d be willing to bet Mr. Poole is willing to give the lives of other for his.

Being a believer in a voluntary society, ostracism can be one of the most effective tools to shame people from committing irresponsible or immoral behavior. I think public ostracism should be reserved for the grossest acts of misconduct. I also believe this is one of those times.

Glenn “Kane” Jacobs happened to confront Rep. Barney Frank (D) at a New York airport about the Federal [...]]]> Barney Frank confirmed what Ron Paul said last week about H.R. 1207, the Audit the Fed bill, that the bill will be attached to other House Financial Services Committee legislation rather than be debated exclusively.

Glenn “Kane” Jacobs happened to confront Rep. Barney Frank (D) at a New York airport about the Federal Reserve oversight bill.

I was in the Boston airport late this morning flying to LaGuardia. As I was talking on my phone, I recognized Congressman Barney Frank walking past me. Not wanting to miss the opportunity, I hung up my cell phone and approached Congressman Frank. Here is our conversation:

Me: “Congressman Frank (handshake), why are you holding H.R. 1207 in committee?”

Frank: “What is 1207?”

Me: “Ron Paul’s bill to audit the Fed.”

Frank: “Oh, yeah. Ron and I have talked about that. We are going to attach it to a comprehensive monetary Fed bill.”

Me: “But you’re not going to water it down, right?”

Frank: “No, we don’t want people to trade off of what the Fed is doing so we don’t want it released the same day.”

Me: “Cause the American people deserve to know what the Fed is doing?”

Frank: “That’s what I just said. You come up to me and you’ve got a chip on your shoulder. And I don’t understand it!” Turns and walks away.

We first discussed news that national Campaign for Liberty board members are considering establishing official state charters with the CFL branding, a significant structural shift in the organization. [...]]]> The Texas Liberty Campaign Bylaws & Structure Committee’s tenth conference call had a good bit of outside testimony regarding the committee’s initial report posted earlier this week.

We first discussed news that national Campaign for Liberty board members are considering establishing official state charters with the CFL branding, a significant structural shift in the organization. The CFL originally balked at that idea just before the first senate district conventions in February, in part, because of the expense involved. It was unclear as to why this shift in thinking has occurred. Nothing has been made final, and the next board meeting is not currently scheduled until after the TxLC state convention later this month.

We also fielded questions about the caucus election system.

The first business of the night was a motion to strike director term limits, which failed. We then clarified that officers shall hold their officer until a successor is elected. This was seen as a precaution in case a convention is delayed for some reason.

We also provided an opportunity for a caucus to rescind its election of a director. The position would then be filled by the executive board.

A motion passed to hold a testimony-only meeting on Thursday and at least two more regular meetings before the state convention. We adjourned about 9:15 until Thursday at 7:00 p.m.

The first discussion concerned a report from the legal subcommittee that suggested members “forswear the use of illegal means” in furthering the purpose of the TxLC. The consensus of the committee [...]]]> We undertook our eighth Texas Liberty Campaign bylaws conference call Tuesday night. [See the updated in-progress committee report or past summaries for reference.]

The first discussion concerned a report from the legal subcommittee that suggested members “forswear the use of illegal means” in furthering the purpose of the TxLC. The consensus of the committee rejected that language, leaving open the possibility for a later code of conduct to acknowledge that individuals are responsible for their own actions.

The discussion then moved to a report from the drafting subcommittee affecting affiliate membership and removal of members.

The original language was amended after lengthy discussion. In effect, it allows members to be disciplined or removed by the executive board, state convention, or a member’s regional organization in accordance to the procedures in Robert’s Rules. In addition, the right of appeal was also expanded.

The second half of the drafting report, which addressed affiliate membership, was adopted as written. To highlight, an affiliate member must be an organization of natural persons, operate in Texas, and be congruent with the values of the TxLC. An affiliate may appoint up to three designees, who may make motions and debate at the state convention but not vote. The report also included creating an advisory board for affiliate members.

We then returned to a topic postponed Monday. The legal subcommittee had suggested creating a voting officer position to work with affiliate organizations. By the slimmest margin of any committee vote yet, the motion carried with 50.4 percent based on senate district voting strength.

Before moving to the officer election section adopted at the last meeting, we reconsidered the staggering of officer elections. Some felt that staggering was incompatible with caucus-style elections and conflicted with the original intention to allow for greater minority representation.

The settlement was to elect non-director officers, who are elected by a roll call vote, to staggered four-year terms to help preserve any operational knowledge and elect at-large directors by caucus vote to two-year terms. The initial term of the vice-chair, secretary and treasurer would be reduced to two years to create the staggering effect.

An effort to remove term limits was postponed until Wednesday.

The method of electing non-director officers was approved as originally reported by the drafting subcommittee. For electing at-large directors as now proposed, delegates caucus into groups of at least 10 percent of the state convention, and each caucus may elect one director for each 10 percent it represents. There are still some kinks to work out, like what to do with the remainders of each caucus, until the next meeting.

We adjourned at 10:30 until 6:00 tomorrow evening.