Declare Your Independence with Ernest Hancock
12-05-13 -- Ian Freeman - Ivan Eland (MP3 & VIDEO LOADED)
Ian Freeman (Onwer LRN.FM and New Hampshire Resident) provides an update on the Robin Hood Lawsuit in Keene, NH - Ivan Eland (Senior Fellow and Director of the Center on Peace and Liberty at the Independent Institute) provides his perspective on Iran
Thursday, December 5, 2013
Time: 151:0 Mins and Secs
Declare Your Independence with Ernest Hancock - Radio
Declare Your Independence with Ernest Hancock strives to create an understanding of the Philosophy of Liberty. Understanding is far more important than agreement -- that will come in its own time.
DONATE Bitcoins Here
Click to Subscribe
To RSS Feed:
(Use your browser)
Click to Subscribe
to this program on
Subscribe to Declare Your Independence with Ernest Hancock Archives
||Download the official LRN.FM
Live Stream App for Android and iOS!
Time: 151:0 Mins and Secs
Freeedom's Phoenix Headline News
Hour 1 -- Freedom's Phoenix Headline News
Hour 2 -- Ian Freeman (Onwer LRN.FM and New Hampshire Resident) provides an update on the Robin Hood Lawsuit in Keene, NH
Hour 3 -- Ivan Eland (Senior Fellow and Director of the Center on Peace and Liberty at the Independent Institute) provides his perspective on Iran
CALL IN TO SHOW: 602-264-2800
December 5th, 2013
Declare Your Independence with Ernest Hancock
9 a.m. - Noon (EST)
Studio Line: 602-264-2800
Hour 12013-12-05 Hour 1 Freedom's Phoenix Headline News (Video Archive):
Salvage 1 is an Americanscience
fiction series that aired for 16 episodes (of the 20 produced) on ABC during
1979. The pilot film, Salvage,
aired on January 20, 1979 to high ratings.
Noted science fiction author Isaac
Asimov served as the show's scientific adviser. Pilot and episodes Pilot (Parts 1 & 2) (January 20, 1979)
Harry Broderick (Andy Griffith) owns the Jettison Scrap
and Salvage Company, and is a specialist in reclaiming trash and junk in
order to sell that as scrap.
His dream is to recover equipment left on the moon during Apollo
Program missions. He invites former astronaut
Addison "Skip" Carmichael (Joel Higgins)
and NASA fuel
expert Melanie "Mel" Slozar (Trish
Stewart) to assist him in this effort. He builds a spaceship dubbed Vulture
completely made of reclaimed salvage and powered by a chemical called monohydrazine.
The main body of Vulture is composed of a Texaco gasoline Semi-trailer
with cement mixer as the capsule. This is augmented with
three shorter rocket boosters placed 120 degrees around the main tank. Estes
Rockets made a prototype of a model
rocket version of the Vulture. It was never brought to market.
Broderick and his ragtag crew complete their mission and go on to further
adventures in the subsequent series.
Free Talk Live
, Robin Hood Lawsuit Dismissed
2013-12-05 Hour 2 Ian Freeman (Video Archive):
2013-12-05 Hour 2 Ian Freeman from Ernest Hancock on Vimeo.
Host of Free Talk Live and LRN.FM Station Owner
BREAKING NEWS: Robin Hood Cases DISMISSED!!
Attorney Meyer’s motion has now been granted in a 17-page notice of decision from Cheshire “superior” court judge John C Kissinger Jr., which also dismisses the second civil case against us that was filed by “the City” in September, seeking monetary
“damages”. The second suit proved what we all knew and the city people
had originally denied with their first lawsuit – that ultimately this was about their lost parking revenue.
Ultimately, the Robin Hooders have been completely vindicated. The
city people were lying (as is typical of governments) when they claimed
Robin Hooders were harassing, intimidating, and threatening their
parking enforcement agents. Again, the proof that they were lying is
that no Robin Hooder has ever been arrested for “harassment”. Even if
Robin Hooders were saying nasty things (no evidence of that was
presented in court, and I’ve never seen it happen), the job description
of the parking enforcers makes it clear they must put up with “mental
and verbal abuse” from members of the public. The city people tried to
illegally oppress our right to free speech and to hold government agents
accountable for their actions, and the court made the right decision
and dismissed their frivolous, aggressive, unconstitutional cases
In the notice of decision, judge Kissinger notes that the free speech rights of the Robin Hooders outweigh all of the claims of “the City”:
The Court agrees with the Respondents that their free
speech rights under the First Amendment of the Federal Constitution will
be violated by permitting the City to move forward on any of the claims
in this action or the more recent action or by granting the requested
preliminary and permanent injunctive relief.
In the rest of the notice, Kissinger defeats the ridiculous claims of
“the City”, rejecting the claim of “tortious interference”, denying
their request for an injunction, and dismissing the second suit for
damages from “intentional interference with employment contractual
relations and negligence”.
Will “the City” appeal the case to the supreme court? Given their past history of blowing taxpayer dollars on frivolous appeals,
there is a good chance they will. They don’t know how to handle taking
“no” for an answer. Speaking of wasting your tax dollars, we’ll be
digging into the financials of this case to see just how much was spent
hiring their fancy private attorneys to handle the Robin Hood case.
Meanwhile, Robin Hooders
are still on the streets of Keene, saving countless motorists from the
aggression of the parking enforcement bureaucracy! We won’t go away
until they do. So far, one enforcer quit over the Summer. Will the
remaining two follow suit? Will “the city” be able to find anyone
willing to fill the empty position? Will they come up with some
ridiculous ordinance against Robin Hooding? Stay tuned here to FreeKeene.com
for continued updates on the Robin Hood saga.
And in Phoenix...
Is Katniss a Modern-Day Spartacus?
Literature and legend often reflect their culture. Some themes, like
that of rulers imposing coercive power, or of individuals rising up
against tyrants, are as relevant today as they were in antiquity.
Suzanne Collins drew on Greek mythology's story of the Minotaur and on
the legend of Spartacus in ancient Rome as she created the Hunger Games
series. Her hero, like the heroes in these stories, does not seek her
own power or profit but is standing up against a violent and tyrannical
government. "People everywhere yearn for the freedom to pursue their own
goals and dreams," says Prof. Amy Sturgis. Even though the themes are
ancient, stories like the Hunger Games resonate with readers because the
anxieties and fears they portray are real and relevant. "These stories
aren't just entertainment," Sturgis says. "They are reflections of who
and what we are." Do the themes in these stories resonate with you? Why?
, Ivan Eland
2013-12-05 Hour 3 Ivan Eland (Video Archive):
2013-12-05 Hour 3 Ivan Eland from Ernest Hancock on Vimeo.
Senior Fellow and Director for the
@ The Independent Institute
Why are Israel, Saudi Arabia, and their congressional allies in both
American political parties trying to kill an interim nuclear deal with
Iran that effectively freezes (and in some instances rolls back) the
Iranian nuclear program until a comprehensive deal can be reached to
permanently limit the program so that Iran cannot build a nuclear bomb?
In the lead up to the interim deal, if one wanted to be charitable, one
could have assumed that these hawks were acting as the “bad cop,” using
the threat of even more economic sanctions to strengthen the Obama
administration’s “good cop” hand to exert maximum pressure on Iran to
limit its nuclear program. However, after an interim deal has been
reached, these same hardliners are likely to push Congress to ratchet up
sanctions anyway in a blatant attempt to kill that deal and further
negotiations. Of course, President Obama can likely successfully veto
their efforts, but unfortunately their motivation for taking this
barefaced course can only be attributed to rejecting peace for war with
In both America and Israel, politicians customarily need to pretend
to avoid war, even though intentions are otherwise. For example, before
the U.S. invasion of Iraq, President George W. Bush blamed Saddam
Hussein for kicking out international weapons inspectors trying to find
what turned out to be nonexistent “weapons of mass destruction”—a
hostile act—when the inspectors really exited that country because of
the imminent U.S. attack. So the hawks have claimed falsely that the
interim agreement rolls back no part of Iran’s nuclear program and have
vehemently opposed the deal because it is not tough enough.
First of all, generating enough fissionable material is the toughest
step to building a nuclear bomb, and three paths exist to get there: 1)
by further enriching uranium already enriched to 20 percent; 2) by using
fast centrifuges to enrich 3.5 percent uranium; and 3) to make
plutonium using a heavy water nuclear reactor. The interim accord rolls
back the first by requiring Iran to eliminate its stockpile of 20
percent uranium one way or another, and it essentially freezes numbers
two and three. The second is frozen by prohibiting the installation and
operation of new centrifuges and by capping Iran’s stockpile of 3.5
percent uranium. The third is frozen by prohibiting Iran from testing or
producing nuclear fuel for the Arak heavy water reactor or making it
operational. The agreement also provides for strict international
inspections to make sure Iran is complying with this freeze/rollback.
Meanwhile, the United States and the international community have kept
the core of their economic sanctions—shutting Iran out of the world’s
banking system and a ban on the importation of Iranian oil, the
country’s life’s blood—until a comprehensive deal can be reached, with
only a minor unfreezing of certain Iranian overseas assets until then.
One might ask the hawks blatantly trying to scuttle the interim
agreement what alternative they propose. They claim that they instead
want a complete dismantling of Iran’s nuclear program—which is permitted
by the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty as long as it is not used to
make a bomb—an outcome that has no chance of happening. Meanwhile,
during any complex and lengthy negotiation toward such an end state of
nirvana, Iran could string the West along while continuing to make more
progress toward getting the bomb. At least the interim agreement freezes
the Iranian program until negotiations on a more comprehensive
agreement can be attempted. Even if those future negotiations eventually
fail, it would seem that the interim agreement provides a “pareto
improvement.” This is a fancy economic term for making at least one
party better off without making the other worse off. In this case, both
parties seem better off because Iran gets some slight sanctions relief,
and the West gets a verifiable freeze on Iran’s nuclear program while an
attempt is made to negotiate severe permanent constraints on Iran’s
ability to make a nuclear bomb.
The hawks—the Israelis, the Saudis, and their congressional
allies—however, oppose this pareto improvement for the two negotiating
parties, because it’s not a pareto improvement for them. If the goal
were to limit Iran’s nuclear program, the interim agreement would seem
to offer at least no down side. However, if the real objective is to
weaken Iran as power in the Middle East through a military attack by
either the United States or Israel, using Iran’s nuclear program as an
excuse, the interim agreement—and of course any future comprehensive
agreement laying the Iranian nuclear issue to rest for good—is a
disaster because it removes the imperative for any military strike.
Behind the façade of the Iran nuclear issue, what the hawks really
fear is that a general rapprochement between the U.S. superpower and
Iran, made possible by a nuclear deal, could lead to realignment in the
Mideast region to the perceived detriment of Israel and Saudi Arabia,
each of whose archenemy is Iran. Their reasoning goes that if the United
States settles some its differences with Iran and has a better
relationship with that country, Iran’s power will grow at their expense.
That explains the hawks’ white-hot opposition to a rather benign
interim agreement, which could eventually lead to peace, instead of war,
with Iran. Ivan Eland
is Senior Fellow and Director of the Center on Peace & Liberty
at The Independent Institute
Dr. Eland is a graduate of Iowa State University and received an M.B.A.
in applied economics and Ph.D. in national security policy from George
Washington University. He has been Director of Defense Policy Studies at
the Cato Institute, and he spent 15 years working for Congress on
national security issues, including stints as an investigator for the
House Foreign Affairs Committee and Principal Defense Analyst at the
Congressional Budget Office. He is author of the books Partitioning for Peace: An Exit Strategy for Iraq
, and Recarving Rushmore
Join us on our
Share this page with your friends
on your favorite social network:
Additional related items you might find interesting:
|Tags: ernest, hancock, freeman