Yet we don’t for a minute think it odd that our government is chosen for us based on a majority vote of the minority of those eligible to vote and who actually make the choice and effort to do so. Think about this: in the last 25 years of presidential elections, the percentage of the eligible voters who actually cast votes was below 50%. So, in nearly every case, who the president has been these last 25 years was determined by a majority, often a slim one, of the minority of eligible voters who voted. This comes out to about 25% of eligible voters choosing who the other 75% will call Mr President. Is this any way to run a nation?

And why is this number of voters so low? I would say it reflects how the typical voter values the right to vote. It says to me that generally more than half those eligible to vote don’t think much of what “everyone” says is the great honor of voting. Some would say that these people are dishonoring the greatest gift of democracy. But it seems to me that they are really saying that what is said about the right to vote does not really correspond with what that right provides them in the real world. They are voting, if you will, on the value of voting, and they are rejecting it by a landslide.

Panarchy says that the right to vote is the wrong right. The right to vote is merely the right to choose who has power in a territorial monopoly of coercion. The monopoly always remains a monopoly, and as a monopoly, it is always to the advantage of those who hold power in the monopoly, and a disadvantage to those who depend on that monopoly for the services it is meant to provide. The monopoly crushes real diversity, real innovation, the possibility of any genuine change. It exists to serve itself and its temporary caretakers. At best these caretakers provide minimum services using other peoples money (though they are always happy to take all the credit), but with the least efficiency, and the greatest likelihood of corruption. At worst they kill the society and the people they profess to serve.

So which right does provide real power to the governed? It is the right of each person to choose a government for oneself from among a number of non-territorial choices. It is the right to vote with one’s taxes, to determine on a regular basis, whether, within the township (territory) of Cherry Hill (for example), one will give one’s taxes to Government A or Government B (or C, D, etc.).

The status quo puts all the power in the hands of whoever wins elections. Panarchy puts the power in the hands of each person, which, as with the right of freedom of religion, is where it rightly belongs.

Yes, here in the US we have freedom of religion. We are free to choose whether we go to this house of worship or that one, or none at all. And having that right, everything is as it should be. But if one is able to make this choice, is that really freedom of religion? What if the government recognizes this right and does not interfere with this choice? And what if, in addition, it makes choices about how your taxes are spent on your behalf that are at odds with your religious beliefs? Do you still have true religious freedom? If you are a truly free person, a person of integrity, how can you abide the fact that the government, in your name and with the resources you provide it, does things that you find reprehensible and repugnant? If a government can do this to you, do you really have freedom of religion?

Or what if the government merely takes charge of certain activities that go beyond what a government must do within society? What if the government decides to take upon itself functions that diminish your rights as a parent to educate your children? What if it takes upon itself to perform what can only be called works of charity, the personal acts to which people of all religions are called? What if it oversteps its bounds, determining moral issues to be observed by everyone, judgments that properly belong to each person to make for themselves? Most people would agree that governments could provide useful services to a community of people if they were provided without the disadvantages that come with monopoly. Those governments might even provide services that would facilitate the activities properly engaged in by religious groups. But governments that exist as monopolies can too easily usurp the rights of the individual, unjustly interfering with activities that religious people practice as part of their religion, beyond their right to choose their religion.

Panarchy, by providing a real choice of government, a true end of monopoly government, provides the best environment for the most free and full practice of religion as well, whatever that religion may be. By having freedom of choice in both government and religion, people will be able to discern correctly where each fits in their lives (if it fits at all), and assure for themselves that the proper boundaries of each are known and respected. The proper balance of government and religion within human society cannot be found when one is free to choose one’s religion but not one’s government.

(Source: Panarchy South Jersey)

After much thought and reluctant consideration, I am withdrawing myself from the 2010 Arizona gubernatorial race. I have come to the sudden realization and conclusion that government can never truly serve the people — even with the most noblest men at its helm. Even though the republican form of representative government is one of the most purest forms of government incarnate on the planet, it still has been tainted by corruption and malice, which is fueled by the darkened hearts of powerful men.

I was naïve to believe one person could make a difference in a system that is dependent on legal theft. In fact, it would take an entire army of courageous men and women to overthrow the entire system — which I do not foresee happening anytime soon. Only a new, bloodier revolution will free Americans from the shackles of financial slavery.

This is a revolution I do not want to take part in. Rather, I shall withdraw myself from functioning in the government driven system of fiscal slavery, upholding the essence of the voluntaryism and panarchy philosophies in my daily life. This does not mean I will disappear off the face of the earth and become a recluse, hiding among the forest people in the deep woods.

It just means I shall not actively participate in a corrupt system any more. I will no longer vote for the lesser of two evils. I will stop paying taxes to the extent which is avoidable. I will not adhere to man-made laws that deviate from natural law. Nor will I do anything unethical and inhumane, bringing unjust harm to another human soul.

In my book, No More Taxes, I made a comment about government. I wrote, “Government is the dark spawn of human civilization because it demands compliance without resistance.”

Think about that statement for a moment.

We have placed men and women into government positions who are corrupt, or became corrupt after serving their people for many years. American government, from city to federal, lack the ability to properly manage their finances, as they continue to revolve enormous debt and carry long-lasting deficit. Instead of proposing new theory or creating sustainable revenue generating systems, the corrupt lawmakers turn to the only thing they know — plunder the people’s booty!

Most American lawmakers are no better than pirates stealing from unsuspecting and defenseless victims on the high sea. No matter how much you vote and voice your concerns, you will always be just a number to a pumped-up, out-of-control, vicious government entity.

It is not a matter of whether I would have won the election, but to me it’s a personal matter if I would have compromised my true values, guiding principles, and integrity. Because if I were elected, I would be bound to serve and comply to the system. I would have never been free. Liberty, the expression of freedom from governmental control, does not lie within the system, but outside its boundaries and away from its enormous reach.

I will continue to serve, but in a greater capacity now. Whoever seeks my help for counseling and wisdom, I will oblige. I will not limit myself to helping only Arizonans, but all Americans, and our global brethren from other countries, too.

On a personal note, this year I will make time to complete my doctoral dissertation and earn my doctorate degree in pastoral counseling psychology. This is where my life is going and you’re welcome to come along.

To all my supporters, thank you for your unending support from the beginning till now. Hopefully, you will still remain a friend I can call on in a time of need.

To all my volunteers, thank you for giving your time and hard effort. I truly believe we accomplished a lot in the short time we campaigned together. Of all the gubernatorial candidates, we had the most exposure online through the major social networking sites.

To all my critics and detractors, thank you for being you. You afforded me a new perspective on myself and gave me experiences I will remember.

In closing, remember you are eternally free and no man can really take your freedom away from you. They can create laws that bind you and punish you for not following those laws. But they never can take away that spark of life within you. And that is where freedom is.

Within.

Respectively yours,

John Paul Mitchell

In a standard trial, either before a jury or a “bench” trial before a single judge, the dispute usually centers on the facts of the case. For example, the arresting officer claims the defendant was traveling at 70 miles per hour and the defendant argues that he was going 50 miles per hour. The fact in dispute is how fast was the defendant traveling. However, if the defendant does not dispute the officer’s estimate of his speed, but rather argues that the posted speed limit of 60 miles per hour was not legally established he is not arguing the facts of the case, but rather the law.

Once a judge or jury have ruled on a case it is considered that any debate on the facts of case is over and the results stand. If the defendant is found guilty and he wishes to challenge that decision he can appeal to a higher court. However, that appeal must be based on matters of law, not the facts that were in dispute at the original trial. The theory here is that the judge or jury who participated in the trial are in a better position to weigh the facts of the case than would be a second hand opinion made by an appellate court.

In the earlier example, where the defendant did not dispute the facts and agreed that the officer correctly estimated his speed, the judge may not have agreed with the defendant’s claim that the speed limit was illegally posted. (Note: juries are usually instructed to only consider the facts of the case and not the underlying law. A vexing issue for the courts is when a jury or juror take issue with a law and refuse to find a defendant guilty, even though the facts indicate guilt. This is called jury nullification.) The defendant could then base his appeal on challenging the original judge’s interpretation of the speed limit law.

An exception to the situation just described is when the original trial is an informal hearing and not a “trial of record,” meaning there would be no record of the trial and thereby nothing for a higher court to review and rule upon. In this case an appeal would be made to a court of record where the whole case would be re-tried from scratch and the first trial would have no bearing on the final decision.

Another deviation from this normal pattern of trial and appeal is when new and compelling information is discovered that significantly changes one or more of the previously accepted facts (for example DNA tests prove the convicted defendant could not have done what he was arrested and convicted of). In this situation there would not be an appeal, but either a dismissal of charges or, at minimum, an order for a new trial where again the facts could be debated.

Let’s look. Here are some of the members from 1912:

William Morgan – Sheep Rancher
Robert Buradel Sims – Physician
James Scott- Sheep Rancher
Bracy Curtis – Banker
John Joseph Keegan – Saloon Keeper
Edward Arthur Tovrea – Butcher
Edmund William Wells – Attorney
Charles C Hutchinson – Rancher
Mulford Winsor – Journalist/Farmer
E L Short – Merchant / Real Estate
Fred Ingraham – Attorney
Alexander M Tuthill – Physician
Donnell LaFayette – Attorney
James C White – Civil Engineer
George Pusch – Butcher / Cattleman
Lysander Cassidy – Attorney
Alfred Kinney – Capitalist
William Fenimore Cooper – Newspaperman
Henyr Lovin – Merchant / Mine Owner / Cattleman
Albert Cornelius Baker – Attorney
Samuel Blain Brand – Railroad Yard Master
Samuel Latta Kingan – Attorney
Patrick F Connelly – Railroad Engineer
Fred Colter – Sheep Rancher
Elmer Walton Coker – Cattleman and Sheep Rancher
Thomas Nelson Wills – Cattleman
Milton Spears Simmons – Rancher
Wilfred Taft Webb – Rancher
Francis Aspurg Jones – Railroadman / Traffic Expert
James E Crutchfield – Minister
Carlos Corella Jacome – Merchant
Alfred Morrison Franklin – Attorney
John Pinkeny Orme – Civil Engineer / Farmer
Abraham Moore – Rancher / Mine Inspector

Let us examine what influences our vote when it comes to a candidate’s qualifications. This is a great representation of the people, with a mix of professionals and everyday people to represent the people in their area. This coming year in 2010, may we return to selecting candidates who are an appropriate sample of the Arizonans today, for true representation by the people!

Nobel Peace Prize Acceptance Speech

President Obama: “Ummm…peace is good, yeah. War is peace…peace is war.”

Just as smoothly as a Zen master who fell off his rocking chair…erg, lotus!

We are a nation of debt. And a nation of slaves.

There — I said it. And it’s undoubtedly true.

Our national debt is a staggering $11 trillion plus, which may increase perpetually. In fact, Thomas Jefferson warned us about perpetual debt, a habit of borrowing in which our nation would never be able to pay off. In his famous saying about perpetual debt he foreshadowed the current state of our national economy.

And what is this now? Our nation’s President, Mr. Barack Hussein Obama, is talking about spending ourselves out of debt. If there is only a single important lesson I learned in my 5 years of working at a major credit card, then it would be this:

You cannot spend your way out of debt — no matter what!

You might be able to invest your way out of debt, but that isn’t spending. That’s loaning someone or a group money to use while you make a pre-determined percentage off their profits and returns. Spending involves paying for more things that our country may or may not need. It’s obviously not the right solution for Americans or our federal and state governments.

The reason being is that we have everything fundamentally backwards in the last two generations, if not longer. Credit cards have allowed for Americans to bury themselves, as of April 2009, in $931 billion of revolving credit card debt or nearly $1 trillion.

Credit is debt!

In other types of borrowed money, including mortgages, student loans, etc. we are fast approaching a $20 trillion debt threshold. Not only is our national government digging a deeper hole, so are consumers in every possible way.

To put the icing on the cake, many state governments are consistently revolving debt or borrowing to ease their woes of mismanaged money. For example, State Treasurer Dean Martin of Arizona says he will have to begin issuing IOUs in February to state employees if the Governor and State Legislature don’t fix the budget deficit and the government’s money problems.

Governor Jan Brewer, Arizona’s head executive, wants to hike up taxes, passing the buck onto Arizona consumers and taxpayers who have already buried themselves under a heaping pile of toxic debt. Taxing, though a short-term solution, is not the answer or best solution for long-term results.

There are many states in this situation and it’s not getting any better. Bankruptcy for both governments and consumers is looking sweeter and sweeter every passing day.

The beginning of the American economic collapse will happen in one of two ways:

1) States will begin to issue IOUs to their employees, unable to make good on their promissory note. While that problem is ongoing, the credit cards and nation’s banks will begin to call in their outstanding lines of credits and loans. They will try to collect on what little money is left to milk from the tit.

Or…

2) The United States Dollar will no longer be considered the reserve currency of the world, taking place by a world currency, or a newer currency like the Euro. This loss of reserve currency status by the United States will result in the tumbling of our nation’s money marketplaces, banks, etc., forcing hyperinflation over night and leading to $50 per gallon milk.

There is only one answer to all of this and its to get our governments as far away from creating public policy around how different markets and businesses are regulated. Free market economies will always be the strongest economies, because it allows everything to take its natural course of action, survival, and demise. Consumers will always try to purchase the least expensive items as humanly possible or make a case-by-case compromise for service and quality. Regardless, the whole sum of the economy will dictate the winners and losers, providing goods of value for a strong, reliable currency.

Companies will fail, but many will thrive. New products and services will be born, while some fail. Workers will still make a living, earning a suitable and competitive wage for their labor, time, and energy. Without the workers there will be no production of goods and services. The free market cycle comes full circle.

Furthermore, when I say to get our governments out of the economic equation, I also mean they should stop taxing people all together. Governments, like businesses, should create revenue streams that are beneficial to people while making an honest return on investment and production.

As far as I see it, spending will not get us out of debt nor will taxing people even more. As a consumer, until that happens, we can take the initiative to be frugal and wise, paying off our debts and saving for our future.

OATH KEEPERS is an association of Military, Veterans, and peace officers who will honor their oaths to defend the Constitution, will NOT just follow orders, will stand for liberty, and will save the Republic, so help us God. Our motto is: ”Not on Our Watch!”

SUMMARY LIST OF ORDERS WE WILL NOT OBEY:

1. We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.

2. We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people

3. We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as unlawful enemy combatants or to subject them to military tribunal.

4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a state of emergency on a state.

5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.

6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.

7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.

8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to keep the peace or to maintain control.

9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.

10.We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

Read the full declaration at http://oathkeepers.org

For Immediate Release

PHOENIX, AZ (Dec. 7, 09) — Today, John Paul Mitchell, an Independent candidate for Arizona governor, officially became a dues-paying member of the most rapidly growing non-partisan association, the Oath Keepers. The Oath Keepers were established on April 19, 2009 and has support from military and reserve personnel, National Guards, veterans, Peace Officers, and Firefighters who give their life to honor and uphold their oath to the United States Constitution.

John Paul Mitchell had the following statement about his membership:

“I was first introduced to the Oath Keepers prior to their establishment and knew it was a honorable group that wants to uphold our Constitution. As a student and defender of the Constitution, it is only appropriate that I make my commitment personal and public.

“Though the Oath Keepers is mainly focused on reaching out to military and law enforcement, citizen members have an unique place within this association. As citizens, who can ask our military and law enforcement to remember their oath.

“Furthermore, as a candidate for public office, I have the ability to influence and remind other candidates, as well as public officials, to honor and defend the Constitution at all costs!”

The Oath Keepers motto is “Not on our watch!”

For more information about the Oath Keepers, visit www.oathkeepers.org.

Contact: John Mitchell
Phone Number: 602-492-VOTE
Website: www.aznextgov.org

###

Archived at: http://www.prlog.org/10442196-ariz-gov-candidate-joins-the-oath-keepers.html

The open warfare among Maricopa County elected officials continues to escalate. But it was taxpayers and ordinary citizens who took the shrapnel from the latest barrage.

In a shocking incident rebroadcast on YouTube, a sheriff’s detention officer, Adam Stoddard, recently was caught looking through papers in a defense attorney’s file while her back was turned as she spoke to the judge. Stoddard pulled out some papers and handed them to another officer, who left the courtroom.

Stoddard, who has no business looking through an attorney’s confidential file, claimed he read some words indicating a crime might be committed. It was not apparent who wrote the words, when they were written, or that any crime was imminent.

Judge Gary Donahoe found Stoddard in contempt of court but slapped him on the wrist, saying a public apology would suffice. When Stoddard refused, Donahoe sent him to jail.

By remarkable coincidence, the day after Stoddard reported to serve his sentence, nearly 20 of his colleagues called in sick, paralyzing court activities. A subsequent bomb threat led to the evacuation of the court for three hours. Court business, including criminal hearings, came to a halt.

Instead of urging detention officers to fulfill their important duties, Sheriff Joe Arpaio remarked that he encourages sick employees to stay home, and he referred to Stoddard as a “political prisoner.”

In addition to disrupting the justice system, the protest cost taxpayers $73 per inmate for every extra day of jail time and $25 for every juror whose time was wasted.

Sworn law-enforcement officers take an oath to uphold the law. By effectively shutting down the very justice system they are employed to protect, the sheriff’s officers displayed contempt toward the rule of law. Taxpayers should hold them accountable for abrogating their essential duties.

Clint Bolick is director of the Goldwater Institute Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation.

Twenty years ago a biologist showed me a graph from a peer-reviewed scientific journal that showed an alarming increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. Then I noticed the graph’s scale was logarithmic and made even small increases look exaggerated. I’ve been skeptical of the science behind global warming ever since.

Now there’s ClimateGate. Somebody hacked the University of East Anglia’s e-mail server in England and downloaded e-mails to and from scientists in the Climate Research Unit, perhaps the world’s premier climate research center. The messages show scientists engaged in politics over science. One damaging e-mail includes this remark:

“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”
“Mike” is Michael Mann, made famous by the “hockey stick” temperature diagram Al Gore helped popularize. It first appeared in a UN report on global warming and purports to show that earth’s recent temperature is the highest in a thousand years, using tree ring data to reconstruct past temperatures. Mann apparently grafted in data from unrelated modern sources to get the desired result when ring data didn’t cooperate.

Add to this the recent confession that raw temperature data have long been destroyed. These data are the basis of the two main datasets used by the UN for its policy reports. Now nobody can actually check the methodology of the data that’s being used to dictate international policy.

Given the lack of reliable, replicable, scientific evidence of global warming, it calls into question the wisdom behind the Arizona Corporation Commission renewable energy standards that will cost Arizona utility customers billions in the coming years. The Commission should rely on more than questionable science before they strike a multi-billion dollar blow to Arizona’s already fragile economy. I’ve got plenty of raw data to back that up, by the way.

Byron Schlomach, Ph.D., is the director of the Goldwater Institute’s Center for Economic Prosperity.