60 minutes hit piece on Sovereign Citizen (an oxymoron) from the morons at CBS

[Bigjon]

Why I never watch TV anymore, more disinfo from 60 minutes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2F_pY47hE5U&feature=player_embedded

[Bigjon]

Am I About To Be Labeled a “Domestic Terrorist”? (http://americanindependencehour.com/)
15
May

13 Votes




Image via Wikipedia

There is some reason to believe that I may soon be portrayed as a “domestic terrorist”. This article is intended to blunt that portrayal.

• Last Friday, I received notice from the TV program 60 Minutes that today, Sunday, May 15th, A.D. 2011, (about 35 minutes from now) they’d air a segment that includes me. I haven’t seen the segment, so I don’t know how I’ll be portrayed—but I have reason to believe that I may be cast in a false light and/or defamed by tomorrow’s program.

The cause for my concern is the 60 Minutes description of the segment on their “Up Next” webpage:

“Sovereign Citizens - Anti-government American extremists who don’t pay taxes and ignore requirements like social security cards and drivers licenses are on the rise. Called sovereign citizens, some have become violent and the FBI considers them a domestic terror threat. Byron Pitts reports. Clem Taylor is the producer.” Watch a preview


In March, I’d spent my 2-hour interview with 60 Minutes trying to rationally explain that the concept of individual sovereignty was the fundamental principle that animated the American Revolution, was the cornerstone for American liberty, and could be traced to our God-given, unalienable Rights. In the end, sovereignty is a spiritual (rather than political) concept. Judging from the 60 Minutes description (above), the segment may be more akin to a sensationalized witch-hunt than an objective investigation into the subject of individual “sovereignty”.

Apparently, I am being being linked to Jerry Kane who (with his son, Joe) died in a recent shoot-out with police. So far as I can recall, I’d never heard of Jerry Kane until after he died.

These kinds of express or implied associations (between me and anyone who’s died in a gunfight with the police) are dangerous to me in that they place me at risk any time I interact with police. Insofar as police are led to believe that I’m cut from the same cloth as Jerry Kane, they may believe that I’m “armed and dangerous” (I’m not) and therefore increase the probability that I might be shot without cause.

I don’t know what the net effect of the 60 Minutes segment will be. I probably won’t know the full effect of the program for weeks or months after the program airs.

But judging from the description and video preview (above), 60 Minutes may be promoting (or at least implying) the idea that I’m a “domestic terror threat”. If so, that’s untrue and I have a well-publicized track record for at least 20 years to show that the only “violence” I’ve advocated is reading the law, educating yourself, and using your knowledge of the law and paperwork to defend against governmental oppression and to hold governmental officials and employees accountable for their misdeeds.

As big government becomes increasingly tyrannical, I can understand that its agencies might want to define any dissident who accuses the almighty gov-co of criminal or treasonous acts to be a “domestic terrorist” (especially if the accusations against gov-co are true). But, hopefully, reasonable men and women will insist that a “domestic terrorist” is one who commits actual acts of unjustified violence for political purposes. If so, that label does not apply to me.

Yes, I have long-recognized that violence against an established government may ultimately be necessary to stop tyranny and despotism (witness the American Revolution, WWII and the recent “Arab Spring”). The very concept of using violence to “throw off” despotic governments is enshrined in the “Declaration of Independence” that we celebrate every 4th of July. Our Second Amendment was intended to guarantee that the people would always have the means (firearms) to “throw off” a despotic government. Both the Declaration and the 2nd Amendment anticipate the probability that even the American government would one day again grow despotic and that the people would need both the principles and means to “throw off” that despotism.

I have advocated that people be prepared for the possibility that violence may one day become necessary. But I have not advocated that people commit violence—except as a last resort. And I have never advocated that people start shooting now.

My reason for advocating firearm ownership is not to incite violence but to prevent it. An unarmed people are easily oppressed and subjected to genocide by their own government. Witness Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, and Pol Pot’s Cambodia. When a government confiscates the people’s firearms, genocide is usually imminent.

Lots of people advocate the ownership of firearms. I go a step further and advocate that the people be “armed” with both firearms and the reason for owing firearms. That reason is not to go duck hunting in the Fall. The reason for owning firearms—as found in the Declaration of Independence, the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, and the 2nd Amendment—is to overthrow a despotic or treasonous government.

It was my advocacy of the reason for owning firearms that brought me to 60 Minutes’ attention. I suspect that my advocacy of understanding the reason may be twisted by 60 Minutes to falsely suggest that I advocate violence. We shall see.

However, yesterday, I sent an email to Clem Taylor and Jessica Haddad at 60 Minutes advising them that I do not consent to be cast in a false light and/or defamed by 60 Minutes. That notice may have legal consequence, but I doubt that it will have any effect on tonight’s broadcast.

Here’s a copy of the text of the email:

Re: This Sunday on 60 Minutes NOTICE OF NO CONSENT

Hi Jessica & Clem,

I received Jessica’s email (below) about 3:45 PM CST. It announced that you intend to broadcast a 60 Minutes segment this coming Sunday, that will include me.

I was initially excited.

Then I visited the 60 Minutes website and read the following description on the “Up Next” webpage:

“Sovereign Citizens - Anti-government American extremists who don’t pay taxes and ignore requirements like social security cards and drivers licenses are on the rise. Called sovereign citizens, some have become violent and the FBI considers them a domestic terror threat. Byron Pitts reports. Clem Taylor is the producer”

Judging from that description, it appears that the people at 60 Minutes may intend to use my interview to produce a segment that expressly says or implies that I am a violent extremist and/or domestic terror threat–and/or that I knowingly associate with violent extremists and/or domestic terrorists. Both descriptions would be false.

If 60 Minutes does “cherry pick” a couple of my offhand remarks out an interview that lasted nearly two hours to describe me as violent or any kind of terrorist, that description would be false and defamatory. Given your journalistic obligation to fully research your segments and given my extensive public background (including my A.D. 1992 candidacy for the Texas Supreme Court), such defamation would be knowing. I have a documented public history that extends at least back to A.D. 1990. This history has been expressed my radio shows, my magazine, my blog and a number of mainstream media reports. That history demonstrates that my position has always been to seek a civil solution to our problems with government. While I have always recognized that violence against government might be justified by government’s own institutionalized tyranny (as it was for our Founders in A.D. 1776), I have never advocated violence as an objective, but only as a last resort in defense of liberty.

Nevertheless, during the interview Mr. Pitts asked me repeatedly about a particular radio broadcast I’d done at some time in the past. In that one radio program, I explained that the primary purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to protect the people of The United States of America against governmental tyranny by shooting, if necessary, politicians and governmental employees who engage in tyranny. I attempted to explain to Mr. Pitts that my position on the 2nd Amendment was justified by the “Preamble” to the Bill of Rights. If 60 Minutes chooses to take my words out of context and without reference to the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, I might be defamed and falsely portrayed as an advocate of violence.

Here’s an article I wrote on the “Preamble” to the Bill of Rights and first published on or about April 14th, A.D. 2011:

http://adask.wordpress.com/2011/04/17/preamble-to-the-bill-of-rights/

As you may know, my landlord (a middle class businessman) at Utopia (where the interview was conducted) warned that 60 Minutes might edit my interview so as to not only defame me, but attract so much adverse government attention as to cause in a “Ruby Ridge-” or “Waco-” style raid on my landlord’s property. In fact, even though my rent was paid until the end of April, my landlord was so fearful of a possible government “raid” that he ordered me to vacate his property on Sunday, March 13th, and I did in fact leave on March 16th, right after the 60 Minutes interview.

After the actual interview, I mentioned my “eviction” to Mr. Pitts and Mr. Taylor. They both seemed shocked that anyone would distrust 60 Minutes journalistic integrity. Both men assured me that 60 Minutes had a reputation for fair and objective journalism and that I need not fear being falsely depicted on the final segment. Until now, I have trusted in Mr. Pitts’ and Mr. Taylor’s assurance and in the 60 Minutes reputation for fairness and objectivity.

However, because the “Up Next” description of the segment on “sovereign citizens” seems so sensationalized and biased against “sovereign citizens,” I am concerned that my trust in Mr. Pitts, Mr. Taylor and 60 Minutes may have been betrayed.

I am therefore sending this email to you as a Notice that:

1) I do not consent to be defamed by 60 Minutes; and,

2) I do not consent or otherwise agree to have any of my statements or images broadcast on 60 Minutes if those statements and images are used to cast me in a false light and/or are defamatory.

As I explained to Mr. Taylor and Mr. Pitts, I don’t expect the 60 Minute segment to be flattering. I recognize that the issue of “sovereignty” is controversial. But the issue of sovereignty is no more controversial than the Declaration of Independence from which our sovereignty flows. I therefore expect the 60 Minutes segment to portray me objectively and in a way that’s consistent with the overall impression of the 2-hour interview and with my 20 year history of political activism. If 60 Minutes can’t do that, and has instead chosen to defame me, I do not consent to be portrayed in the 60 Minutes segment on “sovereign citizens”.

[Nomoss]

Go to www.republicfortheunitedstates.org
Then to updates then downlode the Midlands Radio Show May 11
You may like it or you may not. I don't G a F.

[Hatha Sunahara]

Was it Voltaire who said "It's dangerous to be right when you're government is wrong." Well, here we are, Monsieur Voltaire. The government have made themselves our master. They want to impress that on the non-believers. There's only room for sheep here.

Another piece of social engineering in progress. They are targeting those who resist. Gonna cull out those with courage.


Hatha

[Bigjon]

Go to www.republicfortheunitedstates.org
Then to updates then downlode the Midlands Radio Show May 11
You may like it or you may not. I don't G a F.


http://dev.republicoftheunitedstates.org/may-11-republic-call/

[ShortJohnSilver]

A sane person would have demanded that 60 Minutes give him a full, unedited copy of the interview for his own personal use. Apparently this guy has never watched the show, and is not aware of CBS' long history of disinfo. They are affiliated in some way with Sarnoff , the lab that stole TV broadcast from Philo T. Farnsworth.

This way should they defame him he has the ability to defend himself.

[Bullion_Bob]

Apparently the 60 mins guy has never heard about tyrannical regimes throughout history.

That "piece" was so far one sided it tipped over and fell into a huge bucket of horse shit.

Just more "terrorist's are everywhere" propaganda. Your sweet 90 yr old grandmother could be a terrorist, the innocent girl guide next door could be a terrorist... your pastor could be a terrorist....bla bla bla...everyone's a terrorist...bla bla bla...

[midnight rambler]

This is a very dangerous trend, egging on 'roid raging adrenaline junkies against peaceful, non-troublemaking folks who just want to be left alone.

[Bullion_Bob]

and so...to conclude....the founding fathers were in fact terrorists, and the constitution was their terrorist manifesto.

/end 60 min hit piece...roll credits...that's a wrap.

:oo-->

[slvrbugjim]

This is a very dangerous trend, egging on 'sheep against peaceful, non-troublemaking idiot zombie dumbass sheep who just want to be left alone.


fixed it for ya buckaroo

[Neuro]

I got suspicious of the Sovereign citizen movement when Juristic Person started promoting it... Sure try to stay as much out of governments reach, but don't stick out like a sore thumb, stay under the radar, and do it where it makes an actual difference, barter without Geithner for instance...

[Bigjon]

I got suspicious of the Sovereign citizen movement when Juristic Person started promoting it... Sure try to stay as much out of governments reach, but don't stick out like a sore thumb, stay under the radar, and do it where it makes an actual difference, barter without Geithner for instance...


Well my feeling is that there are some concerned people who can plainly see all the lies our gov has used to create a state clearly headed in a direction most people don't want to go. They have good ideas and the truth at there back, but the best defense against the truth are agents provocateur who push ignorant people overboard by spreading all kinds of misinfo that get picked up by nitwits like the Kanes.

Steve Q is an example of an agent provocateur.

[Son-of-Liberty]

They pretty much took the loony fringe of the movement and displayed them as the norm, found the most rediculous examples. Most of us that are in the movement got there by looking for solutions that don't involve violence and work within the law.

Overall just pure BS on 60 minutes.

Bigjon is right about the agent provocateur element as well. It worked quite well on groups like the black panthers where they had agents put out children's coloring books that showed black men killing cops.

[mick silver]

everyone in this country is a terrorist unless your in high places ... how long before people start to see who the real terrorist are

[MAGNES]

It is a smear job on everyone.

Anyone that supports Ron Paul, you are a racist and domestic terror threat, that includes
all you " tea party " types, conservatives, constitutionalists, free speech advocates, gun
control resistors, we have seen the media regularly smear all the above as one.
I am sure I forgot a few like home schooler weirdos and those that question
government and authority. Take your happy pill and shut up about 9/11, the
basis for all of this, make sure your babies diapers are searched you terrorists.
" Jr, is that your pee pee or a thermite bomb. " Janet Napolitano
" We are going to cavity search the little princess. " Janet Napolitano.

http://i51.tinypic.com/ndrg9t.jpg

[Bigjon]

I've listened to Alfred Adask for the last couple of weeks and everything he says is pretty much on target. He is not a looney tunes type of guy, just a straight shooter who tells the truth as best as he can.

He is the dangerous guy to the crooks who run this country, so this is as much a hit on people who tell the truth, like AA as it is a hit on AA. The gov wants to reign in this kind of logic and tell people to not listen to people like AA.

They lumped him in with the Kanes who may also not be as bad as they made them look.

Take a look at AA's site and listen and read some of his stuff. I think he's hitting them right where it hurts.

http://americanindependencehour.com/

[Uncle Salty]

I had a boss one time...he was a very liberal guy...and he said if 60 Minutes ever calls...hang up. Tell them nothing. They have an agenda and you lose.

[TheNocturnalEgyptian]

This is 60 minutes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvwnwBbX70k

Check out how the clock in the background moves - ala editing.


"Dramatazation - may not have happened."

[po boy]

everyone in this country is a terrorist unless your in high places ... how long before people start to see who the real terrorist are


Your a terrorist if you don't believe that .gov is God even though there still is the first amendment and public law 97-280.
The .gov work around seems to me to be the commerce clause @ article 1 section 8, they have drug most into commerce through contracts thus side stepping your rights.

[Bigjon]

Alfred Adask explains his reasons and the benefits for appearing on 60 minutes.

http://dgscoins.americanvoiceradio.com/indie-tues-avr.mp3