Report  

Mr. Badnarik Goes to Colorado

by Ari Armstrong

On a three-day swing through the Centennial State, Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik takes his case to the people — and gets asked some rough questions about his refusal to pay taxes and his association with a convict.

---

Michael Badnarik, the Libertarian Party's presidential candidate, traveled through Colorado Sept. 7–9, and I saw him at his campaign stops at the Auraria campus in Denver and the University of Colorado at Boulder.

Badnarik earned an impressive amount of media coverage in Colorado — thanks largely to the efforts of a handful of Colorado activists — even though he spoke in person to no more than 200 people during all of his campaign stops combined. Badnarik seems to be running the most inspired third-party campaign and is on more ballots than even Ralph Nader, which undoubtedly helps him get press attention. While at the CU event, I learned that USA Today had run a story on Badnarik that morning, and a number of publications have discussed the possible effect of Badnarik in swing states. Badnarik has wisely concentrated his efforts in these states, although Republican-leaning Colorado is an exception.

In Colorado Springs, Badnarik met with the editorial board of the major daily paper, appeared on local television news broadcasts, spoke on an AM radio show, recorded remarks for a television station on the western slope, and was interviewed on the local public station. He joined two Denver radio programs, including a popular rock-station morning talk show. The Denver Post, Rocky Mountain News, Boulder's Daily Camera, and Longmont's Times-Call all covered him. On the whole, the media were quite receptive.

Badnarik demonstrated good political instincts on several occasions. He didn't stray far from his message, and the few outrageous comments he made were well calculated. When Badnarik was asked whether he thought the U.S. government was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, he ignored the question and said only that more "investigation" of the attacks is warranted. Similarly, when a radio host awkwardly portrayed the victim mentality by saying, "I'm black, whitey is keeping me down," Badnarik responded by explaining the concept of individual rights and the meaning of a republic.

His natural bravado made him a hit with the state LP, helping him overcome his outsider status: one well-organized fundraising dinner brought in close to $12,000 for the campaign. When Jack Woehr, a drug-policy reformer running for Congress on the LP ticket, suggested that the party is "probably not going to gain power within the next two years," Badnarik adjusted his tie in a manner reminiscent of Rodney Dangerfield and said, "Hey, you haven't met me yet."

Badnarik's most interesting media appearance in Colorado was on "Colorado Inside Out," a political TV broadcast based in Denver. The show is usually hosted by Peter Boyles, a tough interviewer who leans to the left, but he was unavailable. Badnarik was disappointed that the liberal host was absent, as he was looking forward to "chewing him up and spitting him out." Fortunately, a substitute was found who likely knew much more about the campaign: Dave Kopel, research director of the Independent Institute and a contributing editor of Liberty. Kopel grilled the candidate on several thorny issues, especially on foreign policy and his history with the tax protest movement.

As R.W. Bradford reported in the August Liberty, "Badnarik believes that the federal income tax has no legal authority and that people are justified in refusing to file a tax return until such time as the IRS provides them with an explanation of its authority to collect the tax." Badnarik has taught others this theory in his one-day class on the U.S. Constitution.

Dave Kopel took the chance to ask Badnarik to clarify his views on tax liability and fraud:

Kopel:Let's talk a little bit about the IRS. You've run seminars that people pay to come to attend, which tell people about the Internal Revenue Service and express the view that they're not legally required to pay income taxes?
Badnarik: That's not the outline of the class at all. The class is a class on constitutional fundamentals. Basically, the idea is that "we the people" ordain and establish the Constitution. "We the people" invented our form of government in 1789, therefore our government works for us, not the other way around. "We the people" give government privileges, and those are listed in Article I, Section 8.
Kopel:Right, but let's get to the IRS part.
Badnarik: The IRS can collect taxes that you're liable for. Neither you nor I are required to pay more taxes than we're liable for. You don't have to pay $1,000 more than you owe.
Kopel:Right.
Badnarik: The question is, how much do I owe? How am I liable? Show me the law that says I am liable for these taxes. All I've done is ask the IRS to answer certain questions.
Kopel:"Show me the law that says you're liable." So, when somebody gets the federal 1040 form that says, fill in how much money you made, fill out your deductions, the IRS is just sending that out frivolously, it doesn't have a law that creates the authority to say people have to pay taxes.
Badnarik: That is the question, isn't it? The question is, if there is a law that supports them sending out that 1040 form, they should be able to show it to us. There have been several groups, one of which is wethepeople.org, I believe, which have filed 570 questions to the IRS. And the IRS and the Justice Department refuse to answer. If they work for us, they don't have the authority to not answer our questions.
Kopel:So you think Congress just created this tax code of gargantuan proportions, but forgot to put a line at the very beginning: "Everybody should pay taxes according to the following?"

Badnarik: Wouldn't it be interesting if that were true.
Kopel:Is that true?
Badnarik: I would like to know if it's true.
Kopel: Well, you can read the statutes as well as everyone else. Is it true?
Badnarik: I think that it is true. I think that since 1913, our Congress has created the presumption that Americans are required to fill out this 1040 form and mail in half of everything they owe. I would like to see the law. I am under the impression that there has been a lot of fraud involved.
Kopel: So you've studied the Internal Revenue Code, and you believe there's nothing in the Internal Revenue Code that says that people are actually required to pay taxes.
Badnarik: I believe that much of what the IRS does is done under fraud. That's correct.
Kopel:So you believe there's nothing in the United States statutes, in the Internal Revenue Code, that says you have to pay income taxes.
Badnarik: I believe that is true.
Kopel: When's the last time you paid income taxes?
Badnarik: I pay all the income taxes I'm liable for. I have sent letters to the IRS requesting information, and I am waiting for the IRS to respond.
Kopel:Requesting information about the questions we discussed, which is show me where it says "Mother May I" in the Internal Revenue Code.
Badnarik: That's correct.
Kopel:When's the last time you've filed an income tax return?
Badnarik: It's been several years.
Kopel:When?
Badnarik: I don't remember. It was back in 1997, I believe.
Kopel: 1997.
Badnarik: Right.
Kopel:According to the theory of people who believe that federal taxes are mandatory, if you make more than a certain amount per year, you're required to file an income tax return.
Badnarik: No, you're required to file an income tax form, or a statement. And I have filed a statement and have complied with my understanding of the IRS code. I have asked the IRS for information, and they have neglected to respond to my requests. I've never been indicted for anything. I'm trying to resolve this question with the IRS, and they have never answered my questions.
Kopel:So since 1997 you've paid no federal income taxes.
Badnarik: Well, most of that time, much of that time, I've been unemployed.
Kopel:In some years, have you earned more than the federal taxable threshold?
Badnarik: Yes.
Kopel:Okay.

Not all of Badnarik's fellow resisters have been as successful. Rick Stanley, a former Libertarian Senate nominee who has spoken at Badnarik's 2nd Amendment rallies in Texas, was sentenced on Sept. 10 to six years in prison for threatening two judges who had convicted him on firearm violations.

On Dec. 15, 2001, Bill of Rights Day, Stanley wore a handgun on his hip at a Denver rally, a legal no-no at the time. The police took him away in handcuffs, and he was convicted of a misdemeanor. On Sept. 7, 2002, Stanley was arrested for the same offense in the city of Thornton, and convicted again. The judges who convicted him were Thornton Municipal Judge Charles J. Rose and 17th Judicial District Judge Donald W. Marshall, Jr.

To this point, Stanley had only received misdemeanor convictions and was acting within the tradition of civil disobedience. Then he sent letters to the two judges who had convicted him. Here's one of those letters, released on Stanley's webpage: "Rick Stanley demands that Judge Donald W. Marshall, Jr., overturn this conviction of Stanley on constitutional grounds. Failure to do so will result in a treason charge against Donald W. Marshall, Jr. for failure to uphold the oath of office to defend the Constitution, which this court has on record, and Donald W. Marshall, Jr., swore to, as a 'condition' of his office. This treason charge, will result in a Mutual Defense Pact Militia warrant for Donald W. Marshall, Jr.'s arrest if the following conditions are not met: 1. Overturn the unconstitutional conviction of Rick Stanley for violation of TRMC 38-237 because TRMC 38-237 violates the constitutional rights of Rick Stanley, under the guise of 'color of law.' 2. Return the $1,500.00 bond to Rick Stanley. 3. Return Rick Stanley's property which consists of 1 each Smith and Wesson 6 shot .357 pistol and 6 each .357 bullets." Unsurprisingly, Stanley was charged with threatening a judge and sentenced to six years in prison.

Badnarik has defended Stanley in the past. In 2002, the Colorado LP censured Stanley and considered withdrawing his nomination. In an email on Aug. 21, 2002, Badnarik wrote: "Rick Stanley is one of the few people who is . . . willing to risk everything he has to defend [his] rights. He is literally a modern American hero. I am not intimately familiar with all of the personal interactions taking place within the Libertarian Party of Colorado, however I find their plans to remove Rick Stanley from the November ballot completely incomprehensible. Mr. Stanley, by his own actions and financial backing, has put that state party squarely in the middle of media attention. Instead of taking advantage of his courage and initiative, they have chosen to ostracize him because he doesn't play the game like other political parties. . . . The only conceivable reason for the Executive Board of the Colorado LP to distance themselves from Rick Stanley is because they are afraid he may actually WIN the election! . . . I urge everyone with a conscience to vote for Rick Stanley, and to send their written comments to those who are trying to slander his name."

Rick Stanley has become more and more unbalanced since then, but Badnarik has continued his support. In an interview, Badnarik confirmed that he had signed on to Stanley's Mutual Defense Pact Militia (mentioned in the letter above), and the Million Gun March, in which Stanley planned for a million armed citizens to converge on the District of Columbia and, if need be, trigger a "Second American Revolution."

Badnarik seemed unaware of Stanley's recent statement that Colorado Sen. Wayne Allard should be "indicted [for treason], tried, and hung when found guilty." He also had not seen some of the emails Stanley had been forwarding, one of which referred to Mexican immigrants as "trash" whose hobby was breeding, and another which called for "Summary Street Trials" and executions of all public officials, from judges to meter maids, found guilty of treason. Badnarik was visibly shocked to see on Stanley's webpage an article (written by someone else) that contemplates murdering Jews in an American Holocaust.

Badnarik said of Stanley, "He does things in a way I wouldn't do them." Thank God for small mercies. Still, Badnarik's long-standing friendship with Stanley, his participation in some of Stanley's schemes, and his supportive (though qualified) comments about him, cause me to question Badnarik's judgment.

Dave Kopel questioned Badnarik extensively on his connections to the convicted felon:

Kopel:Rick Stanley — what's your view on that?
Badnarik: Rick Stanley is a friend of mine. And I believe that he is morally correct. We do not get our rights from the Bill of Rights. Nobody in the United States fills out a government form that allows you to go to church on Sunday.
Kopel:Right. Rights are natural, and inherent.
Badnarik: That's right. And Rick Stanley does have a right to keep and bear arms to protect himself and his family and his property.
Kopel:Does he have a right to threaten a judge who he thinks is violating that right?
Badnarik: Philosophically, we all have that right. We have the right — the Declaration of Independence says that when any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it.
Kopel:Does Rick Stanley have the right to alter or abolish a judge?
Badnarik: No, he doesn't have the right to abolish the judge. But the question is, can we change and alter the government? And if the government has become unreasonable, if the government has come to take your property, are you just going to unroll your sleeping bag on the curb and say, "You know, I'm really going to miss cable?"
Kopel:So you think it's all right that Rick Stanley has, at least as the prosecutors allege and have proved in their case, threatened violence against judges.
Badnarik: Rick Stanley is very, very direct, and he is fighting for a reasonable cause. If the government had come to his house, and tried to physically deprive him of his weapons, he would have had a moral and justifiable right to defend himself and to shoot back. The United States of America started when King George came to Lexington and Concord —
Kopel:Did he have a right to threaten the judge? That's what's he's being sentenced for.
Badnarik: I don't know exactly what the interaction was between them. If the judge is actually threatening Rick Stanley's life, then, yes, Rick Stanley does have a right to retaliate.
Kopel:Of course, the judge was not threatening Rick Stanley's life. The judge was enforcing a Denver ordinance [actually a Thornton ordinance], which said you cannot carry an unconcealed gun. That law was later wiped out by the legislature.
Badnarik: That's right.
Kopel:However, the law was on the books at the time, and the judge was enforcing it. Does Rick Stanley have a right to threaten the judge with violence for enforcing that law?
Badnarik: If a law is unconstitutional, you have a right to not follow it.
Kopel:Do you have a right to —
Badnarik: I really wish that Rick Stanley had been a little bit more diplomatic in his fight. I read the article. I read the letter that he sent to the judge. And it was an aggressive letter. Is it a threat? No, I don't necessarily think that it was a threat. So this is an interpretation thing. And the judge clearly chose to decide that this was a threat. And I think that the government's reaction to Rick Stanley was also over the top, and totally unnecessary. So I would say that Rick Stanley does hold some culpability for letting his mouth say things that may have exceeded decorum. But I don't think — and I know Rick Stanley personally — I know that Rick Stanley was not actively threatening anybody's life. Rick Stanley was being dramatic. He's trying to outline, and emphasize, the fact that our government is out of control. Most of what our government does in Washington is unconstitutional.

Though he was, for the most part, solid when answering questions on domestic affairs, Badnarik wasn't persuasive on foreign policy matters. Bush's post-convention success shows that most Americans aren't buying pacifism or anti-Americanism, and for good reason. Badnarik is trying to tap into widespread skepticism about the Iraq war (a skepticism I share), but most people are even more skeptical of reactionary non-interventionism. Mouthing slogans and rhetoric rather than expressing a well-formulated foreign policy is not the way to win them over.

Badnarik tried to draw a sharp line between "national defense," which is okay, and "international offense," which is not. But the difficulty of drawing that line became apparent in another context. When asked whether the 2nd Amendment allows people to own nuclear bombs, Badnarik argued no, because a nuclear weapon is a "clear and present danger" to others, like pointing a gun at an innocent party or firing randomly into the air while walking down a busy street. When Badnarik was asked about less clear cases, he finally punted, saying it would require a careful weighing of the evidence. It's obvious that Iraq posed a threat to innocent Americans, but how great was that threat, and how direct? How should that threat be dealt with? These questions were not addressed.

I asked Badnarik if he would support going to war to defend Israel or Taiwan against outright invasion. He said "the American people might consider it appropriate" to go to war in such an event. However, he would at least require a congressional declaration of war.

Badnarik would not have sent troops to Afghanistan or Iraq. But, he said, the United States is perfectly justified in sending troops into other nations for the purpose of capturing suspected terrorists and bringing them to justice. But what if the host nation isn't keen on letting in our troops? Do we just drop the attempt? How closely must the terrorists be tied to the host nation before we seek regime change? These are complex questions to which few libertarians — Badnarik included — offer good answers.

Early in his interview with Badnarik, Kopel asked him about foreign policy:

Kopel:Your press secretary also encouraged people to come to a Badnarik meetup scheduled on Sept. 11, and here's how they were asked to dress: wearing some clothing article colored black to mourn the deaths of the thousands of people who have died as the result of U.S. government policies. Why Sept. 11 for that kind of thing?
Badnarik: It is a tragic situation that we had so many people who were killed in the Sept. 11 bombing. However, as libertarians, we suspect and believe that it has been our foreign policy, over at least the last 50 years, which has generated a dislike for Americans. We've been involved in the Middle East, we have military in 135 countries around the world, we are using our military to influence other governments, influence other economies, and, politically, we are poking other countries in the eye with a sharp stick. And it's little wonder that at some point in time, somebody decided they were going to retaliate. Kopel:So, you view Sept. 11 as retaliation for American aggression.
Badnarik: And that's the way that it was advertised by the people who did that —
Kopel:Al Qaeda, according to its statement made after Sept. 11 . . . is upset that Spain is no longer a Muslim country . . . . If Spain is attacked by al Qaeda . . . should the United States defend Spain, according to its NATO treaty obligations?
Badnarik: I don't know about NATO. I genuinely do not. However, the United Nations is trying to influence our government here in the United States, and I'm completely opposed to having the United Nations, or any other outside force, telling us what we can't —
Kopel:Me too, but that's got nothing to do with our treaty obligations under NATO. Libertarians are generally thought of as being very isolationist and pacifist in foreign policy. If you're president, will you support our NATO treaty obligations and defend fellow NATO members who are attacked?
Badnarik: Libertarians are not isolationists, we are non-interventionists. We are also not pacifists. We're the ones who support the 2nd Amendment and think that you should be able to carry a gun wherever you want to go. So we are not going to be pacifists internationally. If another country attacks us, we will use our military, and we will retaliate. And in the case of Sept. 11, we would be happy to bring Osama bin Laden, and any of his people that we can show evidence for, to justice.
Kopel:So therefore we should not follow the NATO treaty. And if Germany or England or Italy or Spain is attacked, we should not help defend those countries.
Badnarik: If the NATO treaty is in fact constitutional, and I don't know that, then we must agree to that thing. Given a question of whether I would have voted for NATO at the time that it was being adopted, the answer is no.
Kopel:The invasion of Afghanistan. Were you for or against that?
Badnarik: I'm in favor of retaliating against the people who attacked us. Afghanistan the country was not responsible. It was a small subset of the people from Afghanistan.
Kopel:Who were there with the blessing of the government, and helping to run the government.
Badnarik: It's my understanding that the country of Afghanistan was willing to turn over Osama bin Laden to us, if we were willing to show them the evidence that said that they were the ones that did it. I would like to see that evidence myself. In the United States, you are innocent until proven guilty. That means you have to have some evidence to show the crimes —
Kopel:And so, therefore, what the United States should have done with Osama bin Laden is try to capture him alive and put him on trial. You wouldn't have favored sending in commandos to kill him, for instance.
Badnarik: No. The Sept. 11 tragedy is an international crime. It's a mass murder, and has to be dealt with as an international crime. It is not automatically a war, and I wouldn't have gone to war with Afghanistan. And, to the best of my knowledge, Iraq has never attacked us — well, maybe not never — but didn't attack us there, and is not directly related to the Sept. 11 tragedy, and I think it's totally inappropriate for us to have 150,000 troops there. Over 50% of the people in the United States think that going to Iraq was a mistake. It is clearly a mistake to stay, it's a political tar-baby, and we cannot get out of it with any type of satisfactory victory. We need to acknowledge that it was a mistake, and we need to bring our troops home as safely and quickly as possible.

There were other peculiarities in Badnarik's views. He repeatedly characterized taxation — at least the taxation of income — as theft. Yet he said government should run on excise taxes. He said we can't abandon the elderly who now depend on Social Security, but if taxation is theft, how can continued support be warranted? Furthermore, like Harry Browne, he suggested paying off Social Security dues by selling federal lands, but also said he wants to replace Social Security with a Cato-style "privatized" system of accounts.

When a CU student asked about stem cell research, Badnarik vacillated. He described the problem of defining the start of human life and said, "I'm not smart enough to know when that is," but that "for the time being," it's an "individual rights issue," not a government issue. Then he said, "I really can't give you a legitimate answer on the stem-cell issue," because it might be that taking undifferentiated cells from a tiny glob of tissue is stealing from an individual.

Though he describes himself as an expert on the Constitution, Badnarik invoked the 1st Amendment to support his view that he should participate in the presidential debates — as if the Commission on Presidential Debates were constitutionally obligated to invite his participation.

Badnarik continues to employ the bizarre metaphor he used at the LP convention to argue against the "wasted vote" line of thinking. Voting, he said, is like being in prison and having to decide between three options: a 50% chance of dying by lethal injection, a 45% chance of dying by the electric chair, or a 5% chance of escaping. Well, of course, we have to go with escaping. But that doesn't have anything to do with voting Libertarian. Badnarik tried to make the point that voting Republican or Democrat is the equivalent of committing political suicide, but I doubt many who heard him say it believe it to be true.

Badnarik's visit to Colorado illustrates his strengths and weaknesses as the Libertarian presidential candidate. He is brash, self-consciously arrogant, and often charming, taking full advantage of the media opportunities that come with the nomination. He is articulate on domestic issues, but his views on taxation and his incoherence on foreign policy may limit the appeal and effectiveness of his campaign.

© Copyright 2010, Liberty Foundation

Send editorial comments to letters@libertyunbound.com.
All letters to the editor are assumed to be for publication unless otherwise indicated.

Send web site comments to webmaster@libertyunbound.com.