39 votes

Updated 3/20: The American Hero Fund! Compensating Whistleblowers Who've Experienced Great Losses From Speaking Out!

UPDATE: 3/20
Site launched! $300 fundraiser to get us started HERE.
End Update

We blow a ton of money on political candidates. How much liberty are we getting back for our dollar? How much liberty would we get back for dollars that were pledged to reward public officials for turning in oath-breakers?

No reward would be paid without a sworn statement signed in front of witnesses and under penalty of perjury along with an agreement to testify against the accused. If public officials didn't care about losing their job (because they just got a windfall of cash) they might be a lot more prone to turn in these criminals that are STEALING our liberty by violating our rights under color of law.

Thanks to a great suggestion from Magwan77 I decided to go ahead and secure americanherofund.com. I will not be hanging onto any funds. This will work with pledges. As the jackpot goes up on each violation of rights the "thin blue line" gets thinner and thinner until someone in public office decides to do something other than impersonate that public officer.

http://www.americanherofund.com/ Ready for Action!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

We already have

a few coming forward WITHOUT the reward. A reward incentive can only increase those who come forward.

Money alone won't work.

People want recognition and social honors - like big trophies, shiny medals, certificates, etc.;

"A soldier will fight long and hard for a bit of colored ribbon." Napolean


I'm sure the reward money can fund some stupid piece of metal they can hang around their shoulder protrusion.

So the idea is...

...to make State-controlled thuggery a bit more market-oriented, but not too much because -- hey, who's kidding whom -- the State needs control.

Needs it.

Because, Hobbes & junk.

An honorable person would be doing it

because it was the right thing to do. If they needed the money, that, imo, means they are devoid of honor.
Honor should not need financial persuasion
Honor should not come from a risk reward ratio
Honor is a driving force that compells man to do the right thing because he answers to a higher authority than man himself.

There can be no honor and no "good" in a cop(or any person) if that person is compelled to only be honorable or good by the value of the silver.

Good luck trying to sell the "I needed the job, I was only a few years from my pension, everyone else did the same thing" story to your maker when you meet him. I am sure he will be less than persuaded.

You are 100% right

You are 100% right

Nice pic

Let me ask you since you're here...

What is your position on the 2nd amendment?

(Btw I haven't denied the truth in the comment above.)

I believe the second

I believe the second ammendment guarantees all other rights afforded to the citizens of this Republic. Unlike those who say it shall not be infringed, I say it has already been infringed, as have many other rights by an irresponsible, uneducated and ignorant society, to include those who work for the government and those who do not.

Excellent answer.

A+ on that... and now for the $64,000 question:

Do you support the war on drugs?

I prefer to call it the war

I prefer to call it the war on the irresponsible. I do not believe incarcerating irresponsible people who have yet to infringe on the persons or property of others. I'm not a fan of Dr Paul because of his charm alone. His philosophy, in my humble opinion is overwhelmingly unparalleled with anyone in politics and his delivery has struck enough of a tone with so many that I think the tide will change for the better if we just keep the conversations going and gently at times, bring those who are confused on board. I think the "drug war" is a failure in its concept as are most attempts to solve social "problems"

Aww man...

C+ here.

Correct answer:

"It's unconstitutional."

If you do not believe it is unconstitutional I would appreciate you pointing out the specific text in the constitution which grants government the power to regulate what the people put into their bodies.

If the constitution, (state or federal) does not grant you that power then usurping it is unlawful regardless of statutes - which do not apply to people - only public servants.

As a side note: Thank you for being here and I appreciate the lively back and fourth. You have more courage than 99.9% of public servants I have ever spoken with.

Naturally, the Constitution

Naturally, the Constitution doesn't mention a prohibition of drugs or anything to construe it but society has gotten to the point of needing more explanation of why reversal of so many "laws" is needed beyond "it's unconstitutional" An unfocused, fear driven society gave the government much more power than should ever have been afforded, which has resulted in so much dependency, irresponsibility and failure. Of course, those who seek power over others have used these flaws in people to slowly and surely convince them that the Constitution is nothing and that we can only survive crisis by more law and more enforcement of it. It is sad to see it occur.
It's been a pleasure speaking with you also, I look forward to collecting that 64 grand some day, haha.

You didn't get the question right

so no 64 grand...

It's your duty to stay within the bounds of the constitution my friend if you've taken an oath to uphold it. The correct way to address inconsistencies in the constitution is to amend it.

The fact that they are NOT attempting to amend the constitution for example with the 2nd amendment is that they KNOW it wouldn't get ratified.

There is a specific reason the founders wanted a Bill of Rights and an amendment process that involved the states - not just the FEDS.

When you read the constitution you see the words people, persons, person, citizen and Citizen. Ever wonder why there are so many different forms of what SHOULD be the same thing? Well it's because they are different. A citizen is actually a public servant... a corporate employee (of US Inc) which is bound by commercial statutory code. I am not a citizen - I am one of the people... (and most definitely NOT a person).

I am not a SUBJECT of the "govt" corporation - I am one of the owners. I'm not one of the slaves... I am one of the masters.

Your move.

I meant to imply that I look

I meant to imply that I look forward to one day satisfying one of your questions with the right answer in order to collect, I humbly accept your grade, thank you master.

You're welcome

public servant! Wow that sounded kinda AWESOME. Just like the founders intended huh? We're all kings and queens here in this country my friend. When you go off-duty you can put your crown back on. When you're on-duty you are consenting to be my servant - and you get paid pretty well for that purpose.

I would still like a definitive answer however on the following question: Does the constitution grant government the power to regulate what people put into their bodies?

After re-reading your response however I've upped your grade to a B. Mainly what I'm looking for is an up or down on can you do it or not? "I do not believe it is right" is not the same thing as "it's unconstitutional so I can't do it."

Side note: I would very much like to do an interview on my talkshoe (can check the link below for previous episodes).

No, the Constitution does not

No, the Constitution does not grant the government the power to regulate what people put into their bodies. I'm sorry for the slow responses, Im wearing my crown today and getting things done in between. Calling me a public servant is a compliment and I'm glad for you to feel awesome about it. I pride myself in recognizing that fact in my day to day interaction with people and often times will ask that people who feel compelled to "bow down" to me, to not do that and realize I really do work for them. Ive always felt embarrassed when someone calls me Sir or wants to offer me free coffee (which I politely refuse) or when they say "they dont pay us enough" or when they say "I couldnt do your job" etc etc.

Thank you very much.

You are the first (off duty) public servant who has EVER answered that question in the affirmative. Therefore the entire war on drugs is unconstitutional. I'm really encouraged by hearing you setting people straight on who the boss is and not just reveling in the perceived power because they think you are... that is highly commendable.

The simple way to handle the drug issue is to just look the other way... nothing to see here... move along :)

Harm is one thing. The black market in drugs is killing a lot of people every year. I'm a full grown adult and would really like to just go down to the local corner store for my pot. I'm not a drinker... I don't like alcohol at all.

Instead I'm forced to go to shady places in some cases... sometimes risking my life... just to procure a plant that I should be able to grow out of the ground without being harassed by public SERVANTS.

It's straight up persecution and discrimination. I don't harm anyone. I don't give pot to kids... and I just want to be left alone. Why does that make me so "dangerous?"

Being dangerous is determined

Being dangerous is determined by ones actions, not by what they choose to consume. If however, their choice does cause them to be a clear and present danger to persons or property, what do you suggest to remedy that action as it is occurring and what should be done about it after the danger is over? Also, what penalties if any would you prescribe for what I am assuming to be serious violations of another person or his property?

Thank you for your excellent questions.

As well as your interest in my responses :)

If however, their choice does cause them to be a clear and present danger to persons or property, what do you suggest to remedy that action as it is occurring and what should be done about it after the danger is over?

I guess I would need you to elaborate on the question because the definition of "clear and present danger" could be different depending on who you talk to. For me clear and present danger would be a crackhead trying to break in my window to get money for his drugs that are 1,000,000% of their actual value. In this particular case I would simply shoot them (not to kill however). So I'd need an actual example in order to answer more specifically.

You obviously have the right to defend yourself or someone else who is in imminent danger.

Also, what penalties if any would you prescribe for what I am assuming to be serious violations of another person or his property?

That's actually not for me to determine by common law principles. Whoever was harmed must make a claim. There's no statutes or code or anything involved here he/she just says "so and so did such and such to me and that's wrong and this is what I think should happen."

At that point the decision is left to the jury to enforce the "sovereign of the court's" law or to strike it down as not lawful. By lawful obviously we are talking about harm (any violation of rights is harm). I think you would probably really like my intro #1 on the "Revelations in Law" talkshoe from the link in my signature.

Feel free to clarify your questions if those were not adequate answers.

I think you asnswered the

I think you asnswered the first question as I would, although I do believe it is a myth that you can shoot to maim. I think if a gun is fired at another human being, it is with intent to kill and if one fears for his life, he has an absolute right to do that, as unfortunate and difficult as that would be on any caring person. I agree that the valuation thing, because of the prohibition, does cause more people to commit crimes such as that.

To be more specific, in a restored Constitutional Republic, where our freedoms and liberties were determined by free men and women, and there were no drug laws, only laws that protect persons and property rights, understanding that there will always be people with evil intent and people unable to defend themselves, how would we deal with a person who clearly committed an offense against another. I suppose as an example, a man who is generally a good man by all measures, decides to go out and drink alcohol and then smoke some marijuana. No one recognizes that he is very intoxicated and he leaves. As he is driving, he fails to recognize a red signal and crashes into the side of another car and kills the driver of that other car. At this point, what should become of him? Who should begin a claim against him and when? What kind of penalty should he suffer and who should carry out this penalty?

I wont bug you anymore and look forward to checking out this talkshoe thing, thats new to me, embarrassingly so, but thanks for the good conversation.


Hopefully you do not get drone bombed because you were talking to me :) For the record - I'm not a terrorist. I'm just tired of being afraid to type whatever damn keys I feel like on this keyboard.

To your question: (As one of the jurors) He chose to drink, smoke and drive. There is plenty of education out there that you shouldn't do this because you might kill someone. That's not something he can get around and declare some kind of insanity afterward or that he has an addiction. It's murder, but not pre-meditated so obviously he goes away for at least 5-7 years. I know recovering addicts don't quite have a snowball's chance if they can't make it past 5 years...

Now I have to convince the rest of the jury my verdict is just.

I would say obviously a family member or a well known friend (could produce a few witnesses to that effect) would file the claim.

Last time I checked however - I'm pretty sure that's what happens now. The PROBLEM is... the 1000 or so people that DO NOT HARM ANYONE and get the same treatment!!!

ALSO: Let me share with you my DUI philosophy irrespective of the constitution for a moment (neither of us is on-duty). Say there are no DUI statutes, codes, acts etc... so not even the illusion of DUI being a CRIME exists...

That SAME guy you described could have been doing 10 mph in the breakdown lane... however he was probably trying to stay with the pace of traffic due to not wanting to get arrested.

...AND... as a loyal, honest and trustworthy public servant if you were on-duty and you SAW this joker doing 10mph you could pull him over and drive him home. It's not real hard to talk a drunk into doing anything.

Now think about THIS for a moment: How much would it cost the "taxpayers" to instead of cops enforcing drug statutes (unconstitutionally)... public servants could be monitoring local bars on friday/saturday nights for anyone who comes stumbling out of the bar with their car keys in hand?

I wonder if that would be a net cost or gain?


Folks talking about this honor thing or what the cops SHOULD do are missing the point. THEY AREN'T DOING IT! Why? Because the are coerced and face the threat of losing their job or even their lives.

There is a serious disconnect between the situation "on the ground" and what people WISH the situation was. We've got what we've got. We need to start there, face facts... realize that the only way we're going to get liberty is to actually PAY THESE PEOPLE TO TELL THE TRUTH.

Not arguing they are not doing it

Just pointing out they have no honor if they suddenly get all moral when a bag of silver is thrown in front of them. And under that premice I argue that the one coming to get paid, is by my definition already devoid of morality, and as such is suspect in any witness they may bare against another.

I have to be leary of anything that has pay and truth in the same sentence - the two rarely have anything to do with the other.

Unless they could provide evidence

which will get a conviction they won't get a reward.

I argue that the one coming to get paid, is by my definition already devoid of morality, and as such is suspect in any witness they may bare against another.

There is no disagreement here. Shaeffer Cox was convicted based on testimony and a recording from an FBI informant that was facing FELONY CHARGES for FRAUD.

Yet they still convicted Shaeffer... for a first amendment protected activity. You're going to tell me anyone with a badge is a less credible witness than that guy?

I agree 100%

People used to tell me not to "bribe" good behavior from my kids, too. Nuts to that - use what works.

This is the article that got my posting privileges revoked:

Thanks fishy.

I was especially curious about your position on this. Just imagine if all the money we blew on political candidates was put into this kind of a reward fund?

I'm thinking we'd already be done restoring the republic... or at least a long way down the path. What do we have today for our hard earned cash in political coffers? Well for starters we're all overjoyed Rand filibustered a guy for 13 hours who got the position anyway...

If that's what we're calling a success man have we placed the bar pretty low.

??Hold on here???

Is not the political process the shining example of what happens when you pay people to do the "right" thing? It never works.

What makes a cop getting paid any less corruptable than a politician?

my kids will tell you flat out I will never reward them to be good. It is an expectation of life and the reward comes from within. If the reward for good behavior come from an outside source -then that source holds too much power over the individual. And that outside source can take many forms, from money and tangible things - to social and emotional things.
It also leaves the impression that it is ok to weigh the reward, the cost and the outcome of any situation against these sources.
It makes morality a balance sheet.
Very dangerous in my opinion.

It is a step to turn the tide

not a permanent policy to put in place. We have to rout the rats out somehow.

This is the article that got my posting privileges revoked:

Again... missing the point.

I don't CARE if the cop taking the reward is dishonorable.


If they were good, doing so would be it's own reward.

"What if?"

The bad cops would rat out the good ones.