All Episodes
Previous Next
July 10, 1997 - Bill Cooper
01:01:55
Rich Martin – Civil Liberties Union
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
this is the voice of freedom music playing...
music playing...
you're listening to the worldwide freedom radio network I'll see you next time.
This is my daddy's station.
I'm Poop.
Plastic radio like you always wished it to be.
101.1 FM.
Eager.
The 21FM is owned and operated by the Independent Foundation Trust as a non-profit community service.
The 21FM is a non-profit organization that provides services to the disabled community.
you Be the hour of the fire.
I, myself, would have loved you if you were so fine.
I, myself, would have loved you if you were so fine.
You're looking once again to the hour of the time and I'm still William Cooper conference
ninety seven day one.
Just however long he wants to cover what he's going to cover, I'm going to introduce you to one of our good people, Mr. Richard Martin.
Richard Martin. He's an attorney. In his hometown, they've been doing quite a few things to wake
people up, to cause them not to fall into the deceptions being hoisted upon them. And
it's extremely interesting what he's going to be talking to you about. And it's another...
it's something else that you need to hear to make you understand that you don't have
to accept all this stuff the way it's presented to you. And you don't have to fall into these
deceptions. And you're not just a lonely... you know...
there are things that you can do. And you can fight back. And you can win. Now, just
before 8 o'clock, you're going to see me over here dialing up with the network to rerun this
tape. Don't pay any attention to me. You're not going to hear anything whatsoever. It's
just going to go up on the satellite star, Billius, and play the tape for the people who were
working this afternoon and didn't get to hear it.
Okay?
So, without any further ado, Mr. Richard Martin.
Thank you, Bill.
Good evening, everyone.
I feel very honored to be on this stage.
I'm able to talk to you.
I've been a listener of the Hour of the Times since 1993.
My wife bought me a shortwave radio and it's been all downhill ever since.
I've got to tell you, my life has changed dramatically since then.
It kind of goes back a little farther than that and I want to share a little bit with you.
Because there is a spiritual component to this, and I want to make that clear, that as a result of that... Excuse me just a second.
There was a radio playing in the bunkhouse.
of the radio playing in the bunkhouse.
But as I moved into my teenage years, I kind of rebelled, as we all seem to do.
So I rebelled against the, I guess, the power structure.
I was raised Catholic.
I kind of threw all that off and decided I was going to make my way in the world.
I'd kind of fallen into an interesting adventure in sales in high school and enjoyed that.
So, with Vietnam staring me in the face, I decided to enlist.
And while I was in the military, I had a similar experience to what Bill had in that I began to see things that made me question.
I went into the artillery section of the armed services.
I took tests, a test out of Vietnam.
I really did.
I didn't believe in the war effort.
I didn't speak that loudly about that back in those days, but I felt that if I could test out, I wouldn't have to kill anybody.
And so that's what I did.
as a result I was in for four years and went through a period of I guess a shake out in
that being based stateside and watching what was happening during the 60s and living very
very close to Kent State University and having friends at Kent State.
We went through a lot of gymnastics and a lot of mental gyrations during that period.
I became interested in law during that period.
There were some things that were going on with my friends that enlisted.
They did not get what they thought they should have gotten.
They filed a lawsuit against the military.
A very interesting situation.
The case ultimately was dismissed on the grounds that the civilian court had no authority to
command the military to give these individuals what they had enlisted for.
I read a technical dismissal but suffice it to say I began to get more and more involved
in reading philosophy and psychology and law.
So when I came out of the military, I went in to go to the University of Akron in Ohio, and I went on through seven straight years of educational process and ended up with a law degree.
So, I got this law degree, and at that point, it was just a matter of making a living, if you know what I mean.
I wasn't really into any causes, so to speak.
We were going to make our way in the world, and we did.
We syndicated properties.
We traveled a set of corporations in a number of states.
We had all this going on, and by the late 80s, it became very clear to me that what we had set up, we'd set up on a very tenuous basis, because we were relying on government policy in raising money, only to find that these policies were being reversed, changed, disassembled.
I was watching assets being crushed together.
The destruction of the savings and loans, which was the middle class banking system.
I saw all this taking place and quite frankly came very close to bankruptcy in 1990, over all this.
I guess, looking at it from a philosophical standpoint, you can always say three strikes and you're out.
I mean, the first attempt at destruction was the war effort.
I felt that I was being positioned to be destroyed physically, killed, a lot of my friends were
killed, maimed permanently in the war effort, and then the economic destruction that took
place in the 80s.
That was strike two.
So, before strike three, I decided that it was time to change course with the help of my wife, my lovely wife out there.
She had a very profound spiritual effect on me, and I returned to my faith.
In doing that and giving up control, it was the beginning of a new, completely new way of living.
And that's something that I wanted to talk about before I even talk about what I'm going to talk about tonight, because the reason why I'm even here, now, talking to you about the things I'm going to talk to you about is because of that faith experience.
And in giving up control, I came to realize that I could actually follow a direction, not of my choosing, but of the choosing of my Savior.
So, with that in mind, and again, not to be, wherever your Savior is, not to be blowing any particular religious horn, but to basically say that without that component of faith, I don't think I could have gotten beyond what was happening to me and to my family and to my business.
So, with that little background, let me tell you what's happened in our town.
We have a very interesting situation going on right now.
We have something called a city seal.
Now, some of you are probably familiar with what I'm talking about.
some of your cities probably have seals. I don't know if you can, you certainly can't
see this, but I'll describe it to you. This is the City of Stowe official seal. Now, this
seal was created by the founding fathers of the City of Stowe.
The City of Stowe is located about 30 miles south of Cleveland, Ohio. And the City of Stowe
was a rather rural area, and it was founded by a number of individuals who felt that
they wanted to incorporate a little town about 30 years ago and make this thing a nice
place to live. So, they created this seal, and the seal has embossed on it a tracing of the
state of Ohio, the shape of the state of Ohio.
In the upper left-hand corner is a cross and a book that could be discussed as a Bible, but it's not, it doesn't say Bible, it's a book.
On the upper right-hand quadrant, there's a house.
On the lower right-hand quadrant, there's a school and a quill, an inkwell.
On the lower left-hand corner, there's some drawings that look like factories, or buildings, or smokestacks and smoke coming out.
What this seal was to represent to the founding fathers of Stowe was the spiritual component
of life, the home and family, education, and industry, or commerce.
So this seal was adopted and it had been the official seal for the city of Stowe for all
these years.
A complaint was brought by a citizen, allegedly, to the city, brought to the city law director,
who, by the way, is an elected official, which I'll talk to you about in just a minute in
the conference, if we've cropped up around that situation.
the cross and the book was a Christian symbol and as a result of that, then it must be removed
from the seal. So what happened was this matter was raised in what's called executive session.
Now, many of you know what executive session is in small city government. It is done behind
closed doors. It was to be discussed confidentially and there were supposed to be some decisions
made which ultimately could have led to some legislation, maybe, maybe not.
But the point was, it was supposed to be private.
Well, what happened was, one of the members of city council leaked this information to her husband, who was the editor of a local newspaper.
In reading that information, that individual then transmitted that information to the national news worker, and on the national news, up popped the Stowe City seal, and the fact that there was this Christian symbol on the seal, the seal had to be removed.
Well, within days after that, a letter came in from the local ACLU.
And the ACLU was siding with the citizen and saying that it was their intention to sue the city of Stowe unless they removed the city seal.
And they quoted some other areas of the country in which this litigation had been successful.
So this started this little convention.
Now, you have to understand from my perspective, listening to Bill since 1993, and having a background in philosophy.
My major at the University of Atlanta was philosophy.
So I knew who Hagel was before I heard Bill's program, but I think Stephen Jacobson talks
a lot about Hagel.
We should have this pretty well memorized by now, because of all the Stephen Jacobson
that's going to play.
Thank you, Bill, for that.
Hearing it over and over again makes it very real, what he's saying.
Did you know that the alien dialectic is used by the Illuminati, the powers that be out
there to do some interesting things?
Here's the way we, when I say we, this is myself and others who have taken up the charge
against the ACLU.
.
The symbol on the city of Stowe's Hill is a symbol in a what's called a secular collage.
We believe that it is constitutionally correct to have it there.
It is not establishing religion, establishing religion does not violate the establishment
clause.
It does not infringe in any way on anyone's religious freedom of any kind and does not
interfere with the prohibitions in the constitution that discuss the parameters for religious
freedom.
So, we now have a collage which represents freedom of expression, freedom of speech and
the right to self-governance.
This ties into what we talked about today about freedom, and I'll get into that a little bit more as I explain how this is unfolding.
Here is what the dialectic purported to do, and it worked very, very well in the city of Stowe, only this time they got caught.
By me.
Now, let me tell you what happened.
Here's what they had done.
They created a thesis.
As you recall, Angeli dialectic is a three-pronged process.
Thesis, antithesis, and synthesis.
Right.
Okay.
Thesis creates the problem.
Raised the issues of, quote, freedom of religion and separation of church and state.
Instead of freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and the right to self-government, which is really what this is all about.
Antithesis.
Destabilize the community with religious debate.
Now you know, and I know, when you get into religious debate, what is going to happen.
Okay?
If you set the definitions In law, as you know, a lot of you study a lot of law out there.
You know, once you set the definitions, you lose.
If you accept the definitional reference.
Now, if the definitional reference is a religious problem, there's a big problem.
So, the citizens came out en masse on both sides of this issue.
And people came into the community on both sides of this issue.
became a very heated discussion in City Hall and they had public hearings on this and it
was unbelievable what was going on.
Synthesis changed the debate from save the seal to save the city.
You see, this is what's going on in this arena where the council folks are sitting and looking
at each other.
All these people are getting up and basically putting forth religious perspectives in City Hall, and they're looking at each other going, So if the ACLU is successful in changing the debate from save the seal to save the city, thereby leading to only one possible outcome, and that's the removal or repeal of the seal, which is exactly what the ACLU wanted in the first place.
So if this was a perfect example of the use of the dialectic, they couldn't come into the city of Stouffville and say, take that seal off the wall.
They couldn't do it, because no one would let them do it.
It would have run them out of town on a rail, wouldn't it?
But by creating this religious debate, which turned into religious warfare, as perceived by the folks in City Hall, they felt the only solution was to remove the seal.
So, what happened?
Well, the first thing that happened was, the city had its meeting, and they had their vote, and they voted to To remove the seal.
In fact, there's the little hemline right there.
It says, and this is in our show, Century, our local newspaper.
Which, by the way, is a rather nice newspaper.
It's not connected to any of the large newspaper chains.
So we're very fortunate to have a small publication in our town that we can get press in.
So City Retires, City Seal.
Express his hope for community healing, he says.
Residents can participate in future designs.
Though City Seal was retired Thursday in a forgery decision by City Council, various Council members saying it was the hardest decision they've ever had to make, more than 200 people listened as the Council President proposed an amendment to an ordinance to repeal the City Seal.
So, they repealed the seal.
Well, what happened then?
We decided that this wasn't such a good idea.
Part of that was because we I'm going to read a little letter to you.
It was a letter to the editor about the ACLU.
I'm going to explain a couple things about this organization, and I'm going to let the rest of it sink in before I go any farther.
Let's check the origin of the ACLU.
That's the American Civil Liberties Union.
Regarding all the recent controversy with the ACLU, let's check the origin of this The letter continues, The American League to Limit Armaments was founded in 1914.
Now isn't that interesting?
The American League to Limit Armaments.
What are we fighting about right now?
The right to bear arms, aren't we?
This is how this organization started, 1914.
Organizers of the League were Jay Adams, a long-time Socialist, later exposed as a secret member of the Communist Party.
John Hayes Holmes, another Socialist leader, later active in the Communist Party.
Stephen Wise, Socialist, later active in Communist activities.
Morris Hillquist, a founder of the Socialist Party and a later paid agent of the Soviet government.
In 1915, the League changed its name to the American Union Against Militarism and began an intense anti-draft campaign.
In 1917, an anarchist socialist named Roger Baldwin reorganized the group into the National Civil Liberties Bureau.
In 1920, he changed it to the ACLU and became its director.
Harry F. Ward was chairman and Louis Bundez was publicity director.
Ward was exposed as a secret member of the Communist Party.
Bundez was a top official of the same party.
Roger Baldwin was director of the ACLU for 30 years, from 1920 to 1950.
In 1935, Baldwin stated his objective as follows, quote, I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the state itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion.
I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the property class, and sole control of those who produce wealth.
Communism is the goal, unquote.
He didn't.
This is the individual who wrote this letter.
Do you think this old turkey has changed his goblet?
Now, armed with that information, and much else, the city of Seoul, some citizens of the city of Seoul, I should say, decided to form a little organization.
And the organization is called Concerned Citizens for Constitutional Freedom.
Now, what's the purpose of forming a committee known as Concerned Citizens for Constitutional Freedom?
Remember, I told you about definitions, didn't I?
If we accept the definition that the seal is an establishment of religion issue, we lose, right?
If we talk about issues of freedom, we have a voice, we have a chance to make a statement, don't we?
Now what happened was, we put together a little brochure, a little handout, and that's what
this seal, little seal stamped on here, and it says, quote, For God and country, save
our seal.
Freedom of expression, freedom of speech, right to self-govern, equal protection of
law.
These four freedoms are indispensable to a free citizenry and a constitutional republic.
Now remember what Bill was talking about.
We didn't say, and it's a mocracy.
There's a reason for that, because if we said that, we wouldn't have been able to do what
else we've been trying to accomplish here.
you The preservation of the seal for the city of stone is not about freedom of religion or separation of church and state.
It is about freedom, reason, justice, and fair play.
It is about rejecting the notion that the people's freedoms are, quote, fair game for any person or group who would deem such freedoms to be, quote, out of date or, quote, offensive, unquote, and therefore unnecessary to the preservation of free peoples everywhere.
The selective, quote, attacking, unquote, of the symbol that exemplify these freedoms must be stopped.
Preserve our God-given freedoms for God and country.
Speak out.
If not now, when?
What, quote, freedom, unquote, will be attacked next?
Speak out with your signature.
Speak out with your vote.
Before it's too late, save our seal.
Now, on the reverse side of that little handout was a little explanation of referendum.
Now, some of you probably have been familiar with this concept of referendum.
A referendum is the placement of a law to direct vote of the people.
There's a very strict timetable for processing referendum, as you know.
So you have to do it correctly or you can't get your issue on the ballot to take it to the people.
So, what happened was, we gave them this little document that said the purpose is to approve or reject Stowe City Council legislation.
Remember, they voted to repeal the seal, didn't they?
On February 27, 1997, the Associated Council voted 4-3 to pass Resolution 1997-28 which
retires the Associated Seal within two years.
The reason for this new law to retire the seal is the existence of the cross and the
open book in the upper left-hand side or quadrant of the seal.
Pressure from the ACLU and other sources led to this vote after much public debate, most appearing to support the retention of our seal as a historical reminder of the origins of our society and as an expression of our freedom.
Nevertheless, our council voted to retire the seal.
Some believe that the citizens of Soe should decide this issue and then encourage council to act apart from pressure or legal press to do what is right for our city.
Therefore, petitions are being circulated among the citizens of Soe so that a sufficient number of signatures of registered voters will be obtained and placed this issue on the ballot at the next general election.
Generally, after enough signatures are obtained, the ballot language will deal with whether you agree with Resolution 197-28.
You will have the opportunity to reverse, counsel, or agree with the legislation to retire this deal.
That's all the petitions are going to be.
So what we did was this.
We, uh... It's kind of funny how this all came about, because our little committee decided, well, they asked me, they said, well, where should we go?
I said, let's go to the post office.
Let's take a car and we'll park it in the post office parking lot.
Now, in the city of Stowe, the post office is a very busy place on Saturday.
So, we had a car with a little, we were going to put a car with a little card in the window and, you know, a little flag and a thing and we're going to have some people out there to get signatures.
Well, one of the committee members called the postmaster and asked if we could do it.
Now, what do you think that the Postmaster told them?
No.
No.
Now, was that a correct answer?
No.
No.
All right.
The correct answer was yes, we could do it.
How could we do it?
Well, we could do it if we got the law.
Here we go again.
If we got the law and read it, we could do it as long as we were in the parking lot, as long as we didn't interfere with any of their business, as long as we did not go inside their building.
We could be outside in their parking lot, and we could do anything we wanted.
So we did.
So we got 3,000 signatures in 10 days.
And for so, that's unbelievable, because only 30,000 people in the whole city.
We only needed about 1,200 signatures to get it off the barrel.
We got 3,000 of these signatures.
Now, here's the other thing that happened.
And I can't stress this enough.
The press begins to get involved.
Now they start waking up, see?
So now we have the Cleveland press coming down to us.
We have the pre-flavor media.
We have NBC up there.
We have CBS.
We have Fox and ABC.
Well, the local news organizations want to talk to us, whoever we are.
Well, we decided to set this up like a militia, okay?
We decided that we would not have everyone talking to the media.
We had a spokesperson.
I can't stress this enough to you.
If you get involved in one of your little projects, have a spokesperson.
Make sure the spokesperson knows what to say and says only that.
And so, all were referred to this person after a facsimile transmission was sent to each of the media.
With what exactly, with the information that we exactly wanted them to see.
That was, this handout, the petition itself, the information involving the petition efforts, all of the legal documentation.
That's all they got.
And they were going nuts.
Because they wanted to talk to somebody about this.
They wanted more information.
Well, we wouldn't give it to them.
So, the first thing that happened was we sealed the communication lines.
We made it extremely narrow, because our goal was to get our signatures.
Okay?
It wasn't to the grandstand, and we got them.
So, we became silent once again.
And we got them, and we're still silent.
And we will be silent, until about two weeks before the election.
Now, in the meantime, the people picked this up.
Letters started coming in to the editor, throwing comments.
The ACLU in Cleveland that was responsible for this fiasco is up with a front page story on the Nightrunner newspaper.
That's my whole point of view, the whole thing.
About the seal situation.
And so, on this little program, it was paid for by them, and they actually came on set and paid for it by them.
They had a law professor from one of the Cleveland law schools, and they had the director of the ACLU, and they had some other folks on there in the little question and answer thing, and they tried to pin down this law professor to get him to say that the Interpretation, the Supreme Court's interpretation of this separation of church and state issue is strict separation of church and state.
That's what they tried to do in this TV thing.
It failed.
Because that's not the law.
So even in their own program, they couldn't get the law professor to say what they wanted him to say.
Because the strict interpretation of separation of church and state, even if it were the issue, when you're saying it's not, is not the Supreme Court's position.
And some of you may have seen the static about the, I think it was Mohammed is on the mural at the Supreme Court.
I don't know if some of you heard or saw that on the national news.
And there was an outcry that Mohammed didn't look right or something, and then they wanted to take him down, and the ACLU got involved, and on and on it goes.
So, selectively attacking these things using this, what I call, paper tiger argument.
Now, did the city of Stobag down?
Yeah, they did.
Sure.
Does it happen all the time?
Yeah.
It happens all the time when people don't stand up in place.
You have to make a stand.
We're using this as an opportunity to make a stand.
Whether you agree or not that the seal across the book on a city seal is a secular collage should be there or should not be there.
To me, to me, does not be an issue.
The issue is to educate people about what's going on.
Who the ACLU really is, and who they're connected to, and what is happening.
We had some very interesting things happen in City Hall that night.
Some interesting handshakes were extended.
After the vote, we watched who gave them, we watched who they were connected to, we watched the organizations that were behind the press to remove the seal.
The law director for the city of Stowe is a member of the Masonic Lodge.
Okay?
Now, very interestingly, when the handshakes were flying around and the rest of this business began, being aware of this and transmitting this information into the committee so that we could do something about it was very, very important.
So what we started doing was taking out the searchlight.
You know?
You turn this light on, and you shine a light on these people, and they scatter?
And that's what started to happen.
the more we began to assemble our information, the more we began to frame our response, which
is in the form of an attack.
As I feel says, we don't defend, we attack.
So we're on the offensive now.
We're going after the ACLU and what they stand for.
And quite frankly, what they stand for is for the elimination or destruction of anything
to do with the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
That's a fact, and they are connected to the entire, what I call the Illuminist movement,
call it whatever you want.
To me, this is a communist organization, and there isn't any way to deal with that organization
other than to just go after directs.
So we did.
So what we have done is prepared some information to educate our citizens.
The first thing that happened was one of the councilmen—this is all a joke—one of the councilmen from the city of Stowe came to us.
And said, Help!
I want to save the seal.
I don't know what they're doing.
I don't know how to do it.
Will you help?
We said, OK.
So we wrote his speech.
OK?
We wrote his speech for him.
Now, I'm going to read you a little extra excerpt from the speech.
Because I want to give you a little idea of why our law director now is in a position, according to one of the 32nd degree Freemasons who talked to me about this, they say there's going to be an atonement.
Well, that sounds like a religious term to me.
But what's happening here?
Because this law director has gone outside of the... What do I want to say?
Protocol.
Protocol.
Good.
The protocol for the watch.
Now why is the law director outside the protocol of the watch?
Press.
Guys, gals.
Press.
Here's what's happening.
Here are some closing points on the seal.
Some things to ponder.
This was read into the public record, by the way.
Go City Hall.
You're ready.
Freedom of expression and equal protection of law are valid constitutional principles that are deserving of enforcement in our free society, our free constitutional republic.
Our government is based on the rule of law.
It should not be based on the whims of any particular group or the popular vote of any particular sect, religious or otherwise.
The ACLU has aimed it to launch an attack against the right of the people of the City of Stone to freely express their views.
Their freedom is guaranteed by the Constitution for the United States of America and the Constitution for the State of Ohio.
The right to exercise freedom in a constitutional republic must be protected, even if the protection of those freedoms has the power to offend.
Now, how many of us have heard this little New Age tactic?
If it offends somebody, don't do it.
Isn't this the New Age horn that's being blown today?
If you offend anybody, I mean, don't do it.
We've all got to get along.
The ACLU has seen fit to launch this attack.
The right to exercise freedom in a constitutional republic must be protected, even if those freedoms do have the power to offend.
The ACLU has not seen fit to launch its attacks against other, quote, symbols.
the symbols they deemed to be offensive.
Symbols are all around us.
At the Stone Cemetery, many obelisks stand in testimony as the symbol of the, quote,
regenerative force, unquote.
Such symbolism rooted in the ancient mystery of religion, while predating any religion
based on a cross and a birth.
The landmark, glorious capital of Washington, D.C., was carefully constructed with the use
of spiritual symbols that dominate the landscape.
The Washington Monument, obelisk, the reflecting pond in the front of it, the Capitol building off in the distance, a pyramid and an eye set in a blaze of glory adorning the one-dollar bill for the United States.
No one can say that these symbols were not spiritually intended.
You see who we're addressing here, sir?
I think we can all agree that the seal as it appears in 1997 is dated.
and a secular collage representing the various aspects of the community, spiritual in the
upper left corner, home and family in the upper right corner, industry or commerce in
the lower left corner, and education in the lower right corner.
I think we can all agree that the seal, as it appears, in 1997 is dated.
The house symbolizing family is out of style.
The quill and scroll, although historically significant, are not used today in education.
The smokestacks representing industry and commerce do not reflect the characters of those business communities because we live in a retail-based small business community, so we don't have smokestack industry there.
The book and the cross speak to a time when the spirituality-dominated forces identified its meaning for those who created it.
This is classical freedom of expression.
The seal is freedom of expression.
Maybe the seal should be changed, and maybe it shouldn't.
But this right rests with the citizens of the city itself.
It does not rest with the whims and ambitions of any one particular force, power, or charitable
group such as the ACLU, who, by the way, is a 501c3 tax exempt charity, which it is, and
must operate within certain internal revenue service restrictions.
It would seem to me that even a small encroachment on the right of the people to freely express
their views in public forums and in private is a severe blow to the freedom guaranteed
by the Constitution of the United States of America and the state of Ohio.
It would seem to me that these rights must be protected.
It does not appear to me that the law director of the city of Stowe has any of these freedoms
in mind and has not put forth a zealous defense of the city's position in regard to this matter,
but on the contrary, has played into the religious debate that has grown up around this issue
framed by the ACLU, leading to the inevitable conclusion that in order to protect the constitutional
rights and privileges involving freedom of religion and or separation of church and state
and or any other religiously oriented view, the seal must be removed.
Now talking about the law director here, an advocate is to be zealous for his clients.
The law director's client is the city of Stowe, the citizens for the city of Stowe.
The debate is not one of religion.
The debate is about freedom of expression and speech in the light of self-government.
In the event any group, ACLU or otherwise, would attack the city of Stowe, the legal
department has an obligation to defend the city of Stowe with all its might and to file
whatever counterclaims and cross-claims involving clear violations of due process, equal protection
of the law, and any other action that would be in the best interest of the community.
If a lawsuit is filed, I do not feel that the law director will use his best efforts to defend the position of the city who built the city, because the law director has played into the framing of religious issues hoisted upon him and the community by the ACLU.
An advocate does not take the research of his opponent, present it to his client, and argue in favor of the opponent's position.
This is clearly not an acceptable approach to advocacy in relation to these issues.
The approach so far by the law department has been to do nothing more than to destroy any viable argument that the citizens of the city of Stowe possess in relation to constitutional rights and privileges, and those rights and privileges are certainly worthy of a zealous advocacy.
The citizens of the city of Stowe do not have to, quote, defend religious freedom.
An attack can be launched against the ACLU to do whatever is necessary to protect freedom
of expression, speech, self-government, and that requisite requirement.
If the ACLU desires to enforce some unwritten mandate for the destruction of symbols, they
must be obligated to do it equally, without discriminating against any particular type
of spiritual symbol over another, or not at all.
Now, this starts the framing of the debate, because we're changing the debate, our rules.
OK?
Now, what's going to happen before the election?
Well, here's the first volume, and I'll read you the first volumes.
Now, what's going to happen, we're going to be purchasing some media space, and a little full-page ads ought to do it.
And here's the first blast.
And think about what we talked about this afternoon, because this is exactly what you have to do if you want to at least take a string of these folks.
This is a letter to the local newspaper, and it's captioned, We live in a constitutional republic, not a democracy.
Dear Editor, Being a fellow supporter of retaining the Stowe City seal, it is tempting to accept the dialogue and logic expressed in a letter to the editor from a certain Stowe City council person arguing democracy and majority rule as being valid reasons for supporting and retaining the city seal.
Now understand, this council person wrote this letter to the editor that we are responding to defending the seal.
Okay?
He was one of the people who voted to retain it.
The problem was, he has definitionally set the stage for its own destruction by using definitions and terms that are totally inaccurate.
Because he said that democracy and majority rule are valid reasons for supporting retaining the seal.
I continue.
Lest we fall deeper into error, it must be remembered that in the united, small view States of America, okay?
And they have to print this exactly right, because we're buying the space.
They can't edit this and put capital U. It's going to be a small U. The United States of America was founded as a, quote, constitutional republic, unquote, unquote.
The, quote, government, unquote, of the United States of America is the Constitution for the United States of America and the Bill of Rights.
The, quote, government for the state of Ohio is the Constitution for the state of Ohio.
The, quote, government for Summit County, where Stowe is located, is the Summit County Charter.
And the, quote, government for the city of Stowe is the Stowe City Charter.
It should never be forgotten that the most important, quote, officer, unquote, in the land is who?
Who said that?
Wrong.
Another one.
Who?
Ah!
Who said that?
Hmm.
It should never be forgotten that the most important, quote, officer in the land is the, quote, private citizen, unquote.
This assertion is taken from a quotation from the late, great Chief Justice Brandeis, the former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.
Remember what Bill said about, usually when it gets up to the Supreme Court, that you should do the right thing?
Chief Justice Brandeis understands and understood the Constitution for the United States of America when he said that, didn't he?
The private citizen hath relegated certain powers to the city, to the county, to the state, and to the nation, retaining all other powers not otherwise relegated to him or herself.
Right?
The governing authority is that of law.
If the majority of citizens who live in the city of Stowe believe it appropriate to kill this particular council person who sent in this letter, Those that simply prohibited from doing so, even though the majority of them has so decided, all because of the rule of law.
Said rule of law being grounded in certain unalienable rights.
Notice the word unalienable, not inalienable.
Such rights having been endowed upon the private citizen by their Creator.
To quote Lenin, one of the most notorious communists of all time, quote, democracy is indispensable to socialism, unquote.
Democracy soon degenerates into, quote, mild rule, unquote, which in turn degenerates into anarchy, which in turn forms the foundational basis for the formation of the communist state.
Total control is on the, quote, left.
Total lack of control is on the, quote, right.
The Nazis, communists, and international socialists believe in, quote, total control of the private citizen, unquote, and are on the far left, while those who favor pure democracy believe in, quote, total lack of control of the private citizen, unquote, and are on the far right.
The pure democratic position equals, quote, no control, and, quote, no control, unquote, equals, quote, anarchy.
In the, quote, middle, unquote, between the far-left position and the far-right position is our, quote, constitutional republic, where individuals and government entities must be and are controlled by the rule of law.
Those of us who understand these concepts, ideals, and principles that are promulgated by our founding fathers adhere to the proposition that freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and the right to self-govern are retained by the, quote, individual armed sovereign.
And we're injecting something more into this, aren't we?
Remember, the ACLU started out, and still is, about disarmament.
The individual armed sovereign, known as the, quote, private citizen, said freedoms having
been endowed by the Creator upon the private citizen as part of the unalienable rights
of life, liberty, and property not otherwise relegated to any governmental entity.
Governments are empowered only to protect and defend these freedoms.
This is the constitutional basis for retaining the Stowe City Steel.
The use of any other logic serves only to create even more confusion.
The dialectic espoused by the likes of the ACLU can't be defeated, but only with fair-thinking logic and historically accurate legal reasoning.
That's the first volley.
Now that's going to go into the local newspaper about two weeks before the election.
Absolutely.
Here's what we're going to do.
We're going to take our whole pages that we're buying.
See, we don't expect anything for nothing here.
A lot of mistakes groups make is that they try to get the press to give them You know, you try to get them to say, well, you've got to understand, you send a letter into the editor, and you've given it to the editor, and they can edit that letter.
If you buy the space, and you put together the ad, and you pay for it, they've got to print it the way you print, the way you put it together, don't they?
Otherwise, they're breaching contract.
So if they agree to print this stuff, they're going to have to print it.
I couldn't go to Knight River and do this, but I certainly could go to my local paper and do it.
So, we're going to choose our medium very carefully here, and we're going to use that educational process.
Now, that's one volley.
There'll be other volleys about the ACLU.
There's going to be other volleys about constitutional freedom and all different kinds of things that we can get in there to try to educate folks.
Now, yeah, comes the election.
We'll see what happens.
Now look, if we lose, we lose, right?
Hey, we participated.
In the democratic process, and we lost.
Okay.
But we educated.
Right.
Now, every time you have an opportunity to educate, you've got to do it.
You have to use every single thing that comes across your desk as an opportunity to educate people.
People have forgotten who the most important officer in the land is.
You know, it's funny.
I saw this little clip.
You know, I carry one of those little page net beeper things, and they have the little Sienna news rolling on there?
Well, I turned that on one day, and I'm flipping through that thing, and I'm not a big fan of that quote from Chief Justice Bradeis on there, so I jotted it down, and we checked it to make sure that he really said it.
And we use them.
And I ask that question to people.
I start a dialogue at my office now.
I say, hey, who holds the highest office in the land?
Oh, you wouldn't believe what they tell me.
Bill Clinton usually comes to mind.
And then Alan Greenspan.
We get him.
Yeah, yeah.
We get the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
We get him.
Let's see, who else have we got?
Speaker of the House.
I've gotten that one.
I say, well, what country do you live in?
Well, I live in the United States.
I say, oh, OK.
You don't live in Russia, right?
You know, in Cuba, right?
Who holds the highest office in the land in Cuba?
Oh, that's easy, Castro.
Who holds the highest office in the land in Russia?
Oh, that's easy, Yeltsin.
I say, so you're saying that the person who holds the highest office in the land in the United States is Bill Clinton, right?
I say, yeah, yeah, I'm pretty confident about that.
Pretty confident.
And I say, well, and then I get into an explanation of the fact that the private citizen holds
the highest office in the land, and that because of the unalienable rights granted by the Creator,
we have given the government certain powers in certain areas only, retaining everything
else to that citizen.
And then I explain about the militia, because, of course, the militia, as you know, is a
bad, bad news.
You know, everybody loves talking about militia.
And I say, you know, how old are you?
And they tell me.
And I say, well, you know, you're in the militia.
Bang!
I'm not in the militia!
I said, oh, yes you are.
And then we quote a little more chapter and verse, and explain to them about the armed sovereign, and why the sovereign is armed, and the reason why that little, and I have a constitution hanging in my conference room, it's on a frame, and I point to it, and I say, see that over there?
I said, that's the government, right there.
I said, are you uncomfortable with what's going on in Washington?
Yeah, I'm really uncomfortable.
I said, well, think about it for a minute.
If the armed sovereign is giving in, giving up, rolling over, compromising every single day, going into courts, saying, yeah, I did it.
Who's that out there that mentioned to me that little statement that the judge asked at the very end before he passed his sentence?
Yeah.
Elocution.
Explain that.
Now's your chance.
Come up here.
Come up here.
I want you to explain elocution to these folks.
Because this is what happens.
Now, if you're in court, just before a sentence is pronounced, you see the judge say, is there is be.
Do you have anything to say?
Now, what do you think he's doing?
The defendant thinks, he's saying, well, gee, I guess I'm supposed to say I'm sorry.
Or maybe I'm supposed not to say anything, because if I say anything, it's going to get worse for me.
Come on up here.
Come on up here.
Introduce yourself.
Explain elocution to these folks.
Elocution is, my name is Jack LaGuardia from Chicago.
Some of you have talked to me.
This little tidbit just surfaced recently in our research through the courts.
And what we found is that whenever you Go through the court process, and when you wind up in jail for whatever the reason, in every case, bar none, they need your permission to put you there.
They need your permission to get you into court, they need your permission to prosecute you, and they need your permission to finally put you in jail.
Now, this, as Mr. Cooper has said many times, is granting jurisdiction.
Well, even after you've granted jurisdiction in Europe to hear, you still have one last resort.
And it's in the law books.
You'll find it in Black's Law 6 and 4, and so forth and so on.
It's a little term called elocution.
And the judge will ask you, after sentence has pronounced, you know, 40 years, whatever, do you have anything to say before you're processed and you're out.
And this time you have to speak up.
Insight the reason why you do not agree with the sentence.
And you speak it, and the procedure will continue, okay?
And in a recent decision, three people were sentenced off for a common crime.
And they all got the same sentence, so much time and serve.
But the guy that spoke up using the right of elocution, which is, it's like a little bit of blurb in there.
Stayed the prison term and got out with just the fines.
You see, they still got to get your permission to put you in jail.
Look it up, it's in Black's Law, and then do a research back on it.
It's the last resort.
You don't want to get this far.
Basically, you don't want to get into court.
But it's a term that they use.
They need your permission all the time to continue on.
Because we've been cheating, and we haven't been checking our, you know, our duty roster, what we're supposed to be doing.
We find out we volunteer all the way through the complete process, from beginning to end.
If you're visiting one court, why do they have to have your permission?
Why do they need your permission?
Why?
Well, because you're the one that's providing the case, not them.
What's the background?
Okay, well, if you go back to the original paperwork, they have not prosecuted you.
They prosecuted you in all the uppercase under the Nome de Guerre.
The Nome de Guerre is your war name.
Your real name is spelled in upper and lowercase.
When your name is spelled in uppercase, that's not you, that's the persona, the person, the artificial entity, the corporation, if you want, of the person.
Oh, it's against the law.
It's against their law to prosecute you.
If they were to... Oh, wow.
I almost skipped.
If they fill out the document correctly and put your real name on the summons, or on the point, you know, on the complaint, they grant jurisdiction to you, and now you're in charge of the court.
And how do you get jurisdiction?
Because you're in the sovereign!
Exactly!
They will not put your name, ever, on a driver's license, or on any of these legal documents, because when they do, they're recognizing you as the power.
Otherwise, they got you in a fiction which comes out of the Roman law.
Oh, for those of you that don't know your name.
Your name is your first name and your middle name.
My name is Jack Francis.
My last name, which we call the last Guadalajara, does not belong to me.
That is my family name.
My real name is Jack Francis.
Guadalajara is the family name.
I'm the only Jack Francis in the family, but everyone else is a Guadalajara.
This is your Christian Appalachian of Panama.
Very good.
Okay, thank you.
But I think, Gregor, that the point we're trying to make is respecting the perspective from which we come.
We are the sovereign.
Do we have responsibility?
Certainly we have responsibility.
That's what this discussion was about that Bill talked about all afternoon, about the definition of freedom, and why I think we went around the room and talked about that.
That's it, folks.
Good night, and God bless each and every single one of you.
This is the Voice of Freedom.
♪♪♪ ♪♪♪
♪♪♪ you
you What you just heard, ladies and gentlemen, was one hour of
a two-hour lecture.
Be sure and listen, stay tuned, for the release date of the audio tapes and the video tapes
of the 97th conference.
you get yourself educated
you're listening to the worldwide freedom of radio network This is my daddy's station.
I'm who?
Plastic radio like you always wished it could be.
101.1 FM.
101.1 FM, Eager.
101.1 FM is owned and operated by the Independent Foundation Trust as a non-profit community
service.
Thank you.
Stay tuned now for all oldies most of the time.
Only the best of the very best of the music of generations gone by.
Only right here on the Worldwide Freedom Radio Network.
▲
Export Selection