There is a movement within the Libertarian Party that believes that the only way to get our candidates elected is for them to appear to the public to be more mainstream and less threatening of the status quo. I am NOT part of that movement. I steadfastly stick to the basic ethical principles of the Libertarian Party even when those views are counter to the Majority's views.
I am quite aware that we are critically close to loosing all of our precious freedoms. Our country's freedom is already little more than a facade covering a Dictatorship elected by the politically correct majority. I know what needs to be done to restore our Government to being the Servant of the people not their Master.
The United States Government has effectively gutted the Bill of Rights, and removed the Checks and Balences set up in the US Constitution. By doing this it has given the ethical justification for its violent overthrough. We as Californians must force the US Government back into its Constitutional cage to prevent its predictable demise. We can do this by threatening to secede from the Federal Union unless important changes are enacted.
For this to work though, we must have a plan in place on how to secede in order to show that we are serious. If elected I will put creating such a plan on a high priority.
E-Mail address of John Webster: <email@example.com>
California Secretary of State committee #1346744
In general, the 13th California senatorial district includes San Mateo County and parts of Santa Clara County (the cities of Palo Alto, Los Altos, Mountain View, and Sunnyvale).
Since I am representing a philosophical viewpoint (personal freedom) more than a specific region (San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties), I welcome questions, concerns, and of course, donations of time and money from all that share the values expressed on these Web pages.
Needless to say, this has been going on for some time now and because of it, our survival as a Free Country is very much in question. The Occupy Movement is just the latest where the Masses are demanding that the Government must take, by force, lots of money from the 1% Producers of Wealth so that lots of Free goodies can be sprinkled on the 99% Consumers of Wealth (i.e. Those Masses). After all supposedly it’s only “Fair” that someone with more money be forced to pay more in Taxes.
This idea makes no more sense then saying that if you have more money then I do that I have the right to force you to share your extra money with me. This of course would be stealing; and doing this through Taxes is simply Thief by Government Proxy.
I call it the “Dark Side of Democracy” when the Majority rules and thereby dictates the conditions of the extortion and enforced servitude of the people. And that enslavement is not just from enforced Taxes, but also from mandated regulations and restrictions that enforce “Fairness” – as defined by those in Power.
A lot of the Liberal’s ideas of “Fairness” like “Living/minimum wage”, “Equal pay for Equal work”, “Wheelchair accessible”, “Non-racist/sexist”, “Non-discriminating” are fine and even commendable IF they are done consensually or at most are enforced through the threat of Public disclosure and embarrassment. But these ideas are wrong and even EVIL when they are enforced at the point of a gun, as all laws ultimately are.
It is exactly because Government is Force, where it can make laws that are enforced at the point of a gun, that it should only be involved in social contexts where Force is necessary to maintain a Free Society.
We need Government to stop violence, theft, fraud, trespass, and to enforce rules of liability. It should not be enforcing “Fairness” or redistributing wealth nor should it be competing with private charities or other Free Market entities that provide needed social services without using force.
We cannot sit ideally by waiting for a majority in the US Congress to realize that the US Government is becoming Evil. Instead we can and must act unilaterally and force them to fix what is going bad with our Federal Government.
Most people just don’t understand what the “Bill of Rights” in the US Constitution really is. Those first Ten Amendments to the US Constitution do NOT give us our Rights. The Individual’s Rights come from the fact that we each have a mind capable of independent thought (and if you are religious, the design of our minds and brains of course came from our Creator, God). Our Rights are Pre-constitutional.
The Bill of Rights was put into that Constitution in order to protect our Government from Itself; to prevent the Government from becoming so tyrannical that it would ethically justify its violent overthrow.
What this means is that in recent years when our leaders were figuring out cute and clever ways to get around the restrictions in the Bill of Right, they were in effect creating cute and clever ways to ethically justify our Government’s and our Country’s demise.
Originally of course, our Government was the Protector of our Freedom. But as it spends more and more money, money that it has to borrow, on Liberal Free Goodies to sprinkle on the Masses, eventually in the not too distant future the Government won’t be able to borrow anymore. The Total Tax Revenue will all go toward just paying the Interest of the National Debt with NO money left over for ANY benefits to the People. Yet we will still be forced, by threats of forfeiture and incarceration to pay those ever increasing taxes.
The reach of the “Promote the General Welfare” and “Interstate Commerce” clauses of the US Constitution have been extended to the absurd. Now many Federal departments and agencies are mandating compliance to regulations even when those regulations are in conflict with State law. One obvious example is in the Federal effort to shut down California's Medical Marijuana programs.
-- A reinstatement of the Bill of Rights and of the Right to Habeas Corpus, and not for just US Citizens but for ALL people within the jurisdiction of the US Government.
-- A solid backing of the US Dollar, with no additional borrowing by the US Government, and no creating of new money out of thin air through printing or through accounting tricks.
-- That Taxes be legally associated with the benefits we get from Government, so that failure of Government to protect our Rights (the most important benefit we are supposed to get from Government), or extreme disparity between the amount paid in Taxes and the benefits we receive, could then be used as legal justification for non-payment of taxes. Hopefully this would result in Government treating us more as customers rather than as assets to be liquidated at its convenience.
-- That the US Government stop interfering in the Medical Marijuana programs of California.
Born in March of 1945 in Los Angeles area, attended high school in Redondo Beach California. Served in the US Navy from 1964 to 1968, including time in Vietnam arena. Married upon getting out of the service. In 1972 Received a BSEE from University of Washington. Worked for a number of high tech companies in the San Francisco bay area. In 1980 received a MSCS from University of Santa Clara. Now divorced with two grown children.
Discovered the Libertarian Party in 1978, have been active ever since. Ran for 13th State Senate in 1992 and received 8% of the vote in a three-way race.
There are two main "must fix" problems that will require major changes to our state (and also Federal) government to fix.
The first problem is the tendency for the legislature to pass laws over things and rights that the group (i.e.. the "People") does not even own. This is a form of "Political Might makes Right"; where the "Tyranny of the Majority" is inflicted on the Individual with different values. These are truly immoral and sometimes even evil acts done for the supposed good of the Public. It's like if everyone in my household voted to use the neighbor's swimming pool. Its not ours to vote on. Even giving the neighbor his one vote doesn't make it right.
The solution is that every law (both old laws and newly enacted ones) must be categorized by the type of moral justification for our Government even having the Right and Jurisdiction to make such a law. A particular law would then automatically acquire the limitations of that category. Any law that could not be placed in one of the following categories would have to be repealed.
The category types:
Please note that this category does NOT include laws over private property that only has Public Access. Also note that "Seatbelt and Helmet laws" do not legitimately fall in this category since they were not written to prevent the abuse to the public from the individual’s actions but only to prevent the individual from endangering him/herself.
Please note that there is NOT a category for enforcing "Fairness Laws" other than in category #4 above. Also Drug laws and laws against prostitution could only be enforced over Public Property and public roads (i.e. category #3 above). Private property could only be included in those laws at the request and expense of the owner of that property (i.e. an apartment complex could be deemed a "No Drug Zone" by its owner; the tenants having signed an agreement accepting this restriction).
The second problem is that people that have had their Rights violated by the System of Government Agencies have no recourse; they have no way to have their grievances redressed by Government. Currently only when enough people in a particular group (i.e. Blacks, Hispanic, gays, women) get their Rights violated by a law, does that law get modified or repealed. This has led to "Group Rights" (i.e. Group Privileges) being enforced instead of and many times even at the expense of the Rights of the Individual.
The average citizen of California and the USA pays taxes and expects those governments to protect his/her property and personal Rights. Often though it is those governments themselves that violate the property and personal Rights of the citizen.
In the Free Market, if a customer has a complaint about a product that was purchased at some store, say Macy’s, that store will normally go out of its way to make the customer happy. It does this because it knows that it doesn’t automatically get the customer’s money but instead has to earn it. This is not the case for both our State and Federal Governments that see the taxpayer as an asset to fleece instead of a customer to serve.
A solution would be to allow a citizen to not pay taxes for those years that he can convince a jury in court that one of following occurred:
With this change of tax law it wouldn’t take very many cases of citizens having their tax liability suspended before the responsible Government Agency would be "called on the carpet" to explain its actions. This also would provide the negative feedback that would reduce the occurrences of tax abuse by the Government.
The basic problems are a manifestation of the mindset of our Government legislature and even of much of the public, that sees a Government elected by the people (i.e. our Government) as the highest form of moral authority. Therefore supposedly, its authority, its laws and mandates are not to be questioned. NOT!
We must require our Government to conform to a higher moral authority. In other words stealing rights and property away from the individual is still evil even when it is done by a majority vote of the public.
Our Bill of Rights was supposed to keep our Government from violating those rights or stealing property from the individual. However over the last ten years, our "Justice" system has perfected its techniques for getting around literally every provision of our Bill or Rights. This has allowed our government legislatures to enact more and more laws that define the relationship between the Government and the People as that between a master and its slaves. What has resulted is a supposedly "Benevolent" Police State enforcing laws of Politically Correctness.
The truth is that even our government must be held to basic moral principals. That it can not be allowed to violate the natural Rights of an individual simply because it used "Due Process". Only when an individual has violated the natural rights of another does he give up his own rights to life, liberty, and property thereby giving government the right to have their way with him. In all other cases where our government and its law enforcement agencies have incarcerated or killed people or confiscated their property it is our government that is the evil villain, and those of us that have stood silently on the sidelines are accessories to that evil action.
The forefathers of our government set up a system of checks and balances with three competitive branches: a legislative, executive(law enforcement), and judicial; to slow down the process by which that government would infringe on the rights of the individual. Unfortunately, these branches of government while quarreling between themselves about who gets the biggest piece of the power pie, have reached an agreement on all wanting a bigger pie.
In addition both the legislative and judicial branches of government have come to realize that it is only through the real power of law enforcement agencies that their own edicts get any real teeth. So over time the legislature and courts have established a supposedly "benevolent" police state. They have given the police more and more power to give them the ability to enforce the latest laws that are more and more an invasion of individual Rights.
This process has proceeded to the point where our Bill of Rights is now little more than a historical artifact. The police now are free to use active entrapment to enforce victimless crimes law where their would be no victim to make a complaint. Gun laws have gotten tighter and tighter, and the police get looser and looser restrictions on being able to search and confiscate those weapons by which the people could fight back. Laws requiring the carrying of an identity card have gotten stronger where lack of identification is now enough to detain a person. The cards themselves are carrying magnet strips that allow police to easily locate an individual's records within a government data base. And of course Law enforcement agencies are now even rewarded for enforcing the law with their cut of the loot from asset forfeiture.
The assault at Waco Texas was simply a test enforcement to see whether or not the propaganda had succeeded in convincing the general public that "Law is sacred". Testing as to whether or not the people will stand by and allow the continued escalation of government power even when it involves the killing of children. To add insult to injury, the survivors at Waco of course were charged with murdering their attackers for having shot back.
The biggest proof that law is not sacred is that the law enforcement agencies themselves blatantly disregard the law. In my own experience I have seen the courts look the other way when police altered evidence and where the courts would even seal documents to hide police illegal activity. There just is no incentive for the people in the system to bring charges against a police officer that is seen by them as doing his job -- that of enforcing government control. The police see the laws not as something that applies to them but only as tools of their trade to be used and misused against socially undesirable people and against people that threaten or ignore the power base of the established legislative, judicial, and law enforcement branches of government.
Our Government now has only a thin facade of legitimacy remaining, we must strip away that facade and expose the corrupt center -- the lust for power. We then must systematically strip away all of its unconstitutional, immoral, and unjust power so that it once again is the servant of the people not their master; so that it again protects the rights of the individual instead of violating those rights.
Don't bother asking your congressman, your mayor, the police, or your city newspaper. They know it but they are the ones that are actively hiding it from you. They have too much invested in the status quo to tell you the truth.
Instead ask the survivors of the Waco Siege; ask Randy Weaver or the widow of Donald Scott. Ask anyone whose life has been destroyed or whose family has been forever torn apart by an anonymous tip and overzealous police. Or you could ask me about my personal experience.
What we will tell you is that today in the United States, individuals no longer have any rights at all. Our Bill of Rights is now little more than a historical artifact; the remnants of an experiment long ended.
What we have left is a supposedly "benevolent" police state enforcing laws of political correctness. Today judges look the other way when police falsify evidence to get the "bad" guys. Today undercover police use active entrapment to efficiently catch the potential criminal for violating thought crimes supposedly before he would break the law on his own and do real damage. Today, the public defender's real job is to get you to accept a plea bargain and to make you feel good about it even though you are innocent.
Technically, the Bill of Rights and our other Federal and State constitutional "protections" are still there but the federal, state and local law enforcement agencies can simply use procedure that circumvents them. For example, by working with a Federal crime task force the local police can use the Feds to get around certain State laws designed to protect the innocent - The Federal agency being immune to State law. The Feds might hold on to evidence that the police don't want to reveal in response to the defendants motion of discovery in a State court. Furthering "Justice" through the hiding of evidence, interesting concept.
Another trick of police is the use of a "Confidential Informant". This concept was supposedly created to allow the sealing of court documents that contain the name of an informant whose life would be placed in danger if his identity came out in court. It later was expanded to allow the details of any "on going investigation" to remain hidden. Today, it is used to hide all kinds of illegal police activity that they don't want the public to know about.
For example, when the police want authorization for a search warrant, wire tap, or arrest warrant they simply make up a fictitious reason, include the name of the "confidential informant" (who really is just another police officer) who supplied the information, then get a sympathetic judge to seal it. The warrant is authorized yet the lies in the document will never see the light of day, much less ever be questioned. [see Sealed Documents]
One of the most powerful tools of our police in their "War against Crime" is the ability to alter evidence and get away with it. If the police "know" that a person is guilty but don't have the evidence, instead of letting him go free they would much rather manufacture the needed evidence. The "Justice" system looks at the police officer who does this as simply "Creatively doing his job".
And finally, the keystone that allows all of these blatant violations of our rights to go on unchecked, the infamous plea bargain. Imagine yourself, the victim of an illegal police entrapment scam, arrested for committing thought crimes. As a defendant you have been denied a reasonable bail and kept in jail because the charges are so heinous (you are considered a threat to society) and you would most likely flee. You have been kept in jail now for almost a year waiting for your trial, what with various motions and extensions of time on advice from your public defender.
Now comes the moment of truth, if you went to trial you would be facing over ten years in prison; or you could accept a plea bargain and be home tonight (somehow you would no longer be a threat to society, I guess). You know you're innocent but you also know the police have fabricated evidence and lied under oath and you don't know whether or not you can prove it.
Our "Justice" system depends on the defendant accepting the plea bargain, not just to prevent a flood of defendants going to trial, but to allow the violations of the rights of the defendants to be covered up. With the acceptance of the plea bargain the defendant looses his rights of "Discovery", the sealed documents can remain hidden, the police can hold onto and eventually destroy altered evidence, and the unconstitutional laws and procedure used to catch the "criminal" of thought crimes can remain untested in higher court.
And most important, the police and our "Justice" system can show off their high conviction rate to the public making it easier for the police to get those additional laws in place that would give them still more power to better enact their form of "Justice".
In California (and in Washington DC) we have two "houses" of representatives that are both based on district "Winner take all" elections. The result is a legislature that does a fair job of representing the majority of each district only on questions of regional importance.
The failure of this system is that many of the most important questions that our legislature faces have nothing to do with regions, but instead have to do with philosophy and values. Examples abound: Death Penalty, Abortion, Drug laws, Government control of the market place, etc,.
say that 30% of the population is against the Death Penalty. Since this issue has very little to do with regions, approximately 30% of the voters in each district would be against the Death Penalty. During times that this issue was a "Hot topic" each candidate would be forced to come down on one side or the other on it, and all candidates that represented the minority view in each district would be defeated. The result would be that no candidates would be elected that represented the minority view.
The State Legislature would then proceed to make laws concerning this critical issue with not one representative voicing the view of 30% of the people.
is for one of the houses in the Legislature to be by proportional representation. For example, each major group that had a different political view would form a political party that would run state wide. Then when some group/party got 10% of the vote state wide, they would end up filling 10% of the representatives of that house of the Legislature thereby at least getting a voice in the legislative process. The elections would no longer be "Winner take all" and more people would vote their conscience rather than for the lessor of two evils.
I would further propose that before any bill would become law that it would have to get a super-majority (two thirds) in one house of the legislature, and only have to get a simple majority in the other. In practice this would mean that a bill of regional significance would have to do well in the house elected "by district"; a bill of philosophical significance would have to do well in the "proportional" house.
Whenever Government has a mandate from the "people" to solve a problem, it will always seek the "solution" that gives itself the most control over peoples lives (ie. that takes away the most freedom from the people). The "Child Abuse Problem" is a case in point. By looking at the situation as one problem -- Child Abuse --, it has been able to enforce the standards and values of the most conservative family culture (ie. the religious right) on all of us.
In the real world, there are actually two overlapping problems. The first is real actual child abuse that should be a severely punished crime regardless of who commits it. The second is the crime of "Gross Custodial Interference", where a person would be punished for (and/or be liable for damages resulting from) his exposing someone else's children to something that the parent sees as totally inappropriate (paddling, nudity, pornography, light sexual experiences, different religion, etc.).
With this change in the law, different families would have the right to have different standards and different values. Parents would regain the right to raise their children as they believe to be best, and Government agencies could be held accountable when they inappropriately interfere into a family.
The original justification for punishing a person who purchased (or possessed) kiddy porn, was that he was supporting an industry that abused children to produce the pictures. Once those laws were in place, they were used to severely punish people that took or enjoyed pictures of teenagers in sexy poses, etc.. In other words, those laws were used to enforce our culture's standard of what is an appropriate depiction of children, even where there was no real "Child Abuse" involved.
The Law Enforcement agencies should be going after the people that committed the original abuse, if indeed there was actual abuse, and not wasting time and tax payer's money on enforcing what amounts to "thought" crimes.
These laws must be changed to reflect a strict interpretation of what constitutes real Child Abuse, and the punishment should be consistent with the real crime (ie. aiding an industry that commits child abuse), perhaps a minor fine with the money going to fight child abuse, and confiscation of the pictures (as evidence).
It is said that if we don't learn from history, we are bound to repeat it. Somebody should send excerpts of history books, relating to the Prohibition Era, to our politicians and government leaders. Prohibition doesn't work. You have a tremendous lose of life, a huge amount of money dumped down a bottomless hole, and corruption rampant at all levels of government and law enforcement.
Our Government has used the "War on Drugs" as an excuse for the waging of war against both the citizens of the US and of neighboring countries. It has become justification for invalidating much of our "Bill of Rights", and for spending huge amounts of tax payer's money on law enforcement, courts, and the prison system. Come to think of it, maybe they have read their history books.
While government might have some legitimate concerns on how sellers, buyers, and users of drugs conduct their business on public property (being the recognized manager of public property), it has absolutely no justification for controlling this consensual activity on private property. I therefore will work to change the State Drug laws to only apply to public property. I further believe that concerning the immoral Federal drug laws, that State Law Enforcement agencies should actively intercede to protect the personal and property rights of California citizens, that are obeying state law, from attacks by Federal agencies (DEA, etc.)
After reading the complicated laws concerning the possession of Fire Arms, I have come to the conclusion that the possession of a gun, concealed or not, loaded or not, should never be a crime (except as a condition of probation for a previous crime).
The current gun laws are an attempt to disarm us, to make us dependent on the police for our personal protection. Yet we can not even sue the police when they fail to protect us since the courts have ruled that the primary job of the police is not our protection, but the enforcement of the laws.
What this means, is that the real purpose behind the political agenda to disarm us is to make us easier to control. These laws are not in place to "take guns away from the criminal" or to "reduce accidents at home" or to "reduce suicides", as our governments P.R. would have you believe. These laws are for only one reason. They are so that when the government sends out its "law enforcers" to haul you into jail for committing "thought" crimes or for being Politically Incorrect, or when they try to take your property away, that you won't be able to shoot back.
I love my country, but I fear the Government.
We have a reason to fear the Government that fears our guns.
The following items come from personal experience [See The Scam] :
The Public Defender and the defendant must be "co-counsel" by default, with the public defender also being the defendant's legal assistant. This would mean that the defendant must have the right to be present at all meeting where the public defender is "representing" him; he must be copied on all memos and court documents involving his case and have the facilities to submit his own court motions, etc.. He must also be informed of all pertinent evidence and given reasonable opportunity to analyze that evidence.
Where charges, that are later found to be without merit, were added against the defendant to simply raise the amount of the bail, the prosecuting agency shall be libel to the defendant for an amount equal to the market value of the interest (typically 10%) on the increase of the bail amount resulting from the frivolous charges. This liability shall be imposed regardless of whether or not the defendant posted the bond or remained in jail.
Where evidence has been held by police, the defense may, at their expense, request a polygraph examination by a licensed polygraph examiner, of the police officers involved, concerning the authenticity of collected evidence. The results of that examination, or the refusal of a police officer to take such an examination to be admissible as evidence.
A marriage ceremony is when two people stand before their god and the leaders of their church, and in the presence of their friends and community, to declare their commitment to each other and most importantly (from the community's perspective), to declare their commitment to raising their expected offspring according to the values of that church, and of that community. After the ceremony, a formal contract is signed by the bride and groom attesting to these commitments. That contract is then filed with the local county recorder.
Aside from the legitimate concern of the community/government that someone legally accept the responsibility for the caring of any children that come out of this union (so that the community as a whole doesn't have to), the Government should have nothing to say about what actually is in that marriage contract. It's only part in this consensual agreement is to help in its enforcement.
In many ways, the Government should treat this contract just like it treats an agreement between any two business partners starting up a business. That marriage contract could establish rules that cover ownership, duties and responsibilities, divorce issues (property division, child custody and support), and inheritance. And then anything agreed to in that contract should then supersede any standard default provision established by the Government.
Our Government also should have nothing to say about who enters into such a consensual agreement (other than that both parties must be able to comprehend the meaning of the contract), in the same way that it should have nothing to say about who enters into a business agreement. Our Government instead has grossly interfered in the marriage agreement by establishing coercive mandates, thereby enforcing its own Politically Correct standards on couples and communities with different values.
I will work to remove these coercive Government mandates in this and all contracts.
to the "John Webster for State Senate" campaign. Contributions are not tax deductible; campaign laws require that I ask for your occupation and employer's name. For other options see "Financial aid", otherwise send your generous political contributions to:
John Webster for State Senate
1556 Halford Ave. #132
Santa Clara CA 95051
to the fore-person of the Santa Clara County Grand Jury. State that you have seen John Webster's Web Site with his accusations of police misconduct [See "The Scam"]. Demand that the Grand Jury look into these accusations. I already have written them and they have rejected my request to investigate [See "Failure of Grand Jury"]. We need enough of a public outcry to force them to investigate. As an alternate, demand that John Webster be charged with making False Accusations of Police misconduct. Such a charge would give me the right to call witnesses to prove my case.
Foreperson, Civil Grand Jury 191 North First Street San Jose, CA 95113
this information with others. Information on this Web Site may be reproduced only in complete logical units (ie. speeches, evidence, letters, etc., must be reproduced in whole). All links to this Web Site are appreciated.
This HTML document was revised on 4/27/2012 at 1:54 AM.