Tag Archives: Federal government

Mapping Out More Government

11 Wednesday May 2016

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ Comments Off on Mapping Out More Government

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

The New York Times had an interesting piece about the growth of metropolitan super-regions, which are reshaping the country and the economy. The Times sees problems:

America is reorganizing itself around regional infrastructure lines and metropolitan clusters that ignore state and even national borders. The problem is, the political system hasn’t caught up.

America faces a two-part problem. It’s no secret that the country has fallen behind on infrastructure spending. But it’s not just a matter of how much is spent on catching up, but how and where it is spent. Advanced economies in Western Europe and Asia are reorienting themselves around robust urban clusters of advanced industry. Unfortunately, American policy making remains wedded to an antiquated political structure of 50 distinct states.

The New America. NYT.

Not to worry, those “antiquated” 50 states are not going anywhere. And, of course, there’s no chance of losing the Imperial Union. What the Times envisions is another layer of government – the megalopolis or regional level. Think of it as a bureaucracy of states, cities, counties, and the feds working together on transportation issues. At least that is where it will start. In reality it will just amount to a new tax jurisdiction adding more and more rules and regulations … to make our lives just a little better.

The existing cities and states are doing a terrific job as-is. 203 out of 229 of the largest cities and metro areas in the nation have experienced a rapid decline in middle class living since the turn of the century. Here is that map:

Financial Times.

The Gray Lady is giddy about the possibilities, particularly in curing the economic ills of rural areas. “Such [high speed rail] networks would just as easily help poor and rural areas, like Appalachia. Upgraded transportation corridors between New York, Washington and Atlanta could finally lift Appalachia’s isolated and stagnant towns stretching from New York to Alabama by facilitating investment in farms and vineyards, food processing and eco-tourism.”

People in West Virginia had better watch out tonight. American talking heads are always preaching trains. We’re only $450 Quadrillion away from Hyperlooping from Gotham to Smallville. In reality the small town locals will only experience higher taxes and a passing flock of carpetbaggers and maybe some “refugees”. Any “eco-tourism” will likely mean eco-traffic more than anything else. Ask anyone in Gatlinburg about that and the “tourons” as they call the tourist morons who clog the roads in their never-ending search for t-shirts and cheeseburgers.

Private enterprise will inevitably make good use of demographic and geographic shifts. Wonders can and will be accomplished at the local level or trans-local levels if the cities and states get out of the way. There’s no need to add any outside fees and rules. And the feds? Well, you ran off King George, put a man on the moon, turned the economy over to European banking criminals, and killed a helluva lot of folks. What more could we possible ask of you. Thank you and goodbye.

In better, brighter news, the CERN researchers have artificially accelerated nano-particles to speeds faster than the speed of light (hyperloop that!). In the near future we may have the ability to launch politician and bankster laden spacecraft away from Earth and into the nearest star. That would be worth whatever fee is involved. Let’s map that one out.

Trump on Taxes

01 Thursday Oct 2015

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ Comments Off on Trump on Taxes

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Donald Trump just started talking like an old school Republican.  He’s added a third plank to his Presidential platform – along with immigration reform and the Second Amendment – tax cuts.  The Wall Street Journal says Trump’s plan would cut taxes for millions of Americans.  I put the emphasis in the last sentence on “would” because The Donald’s plan, as great as it may sound, won’t happen even if he’s elected.

There are too many who will not stand for substantive changes to our draconian tax code, members of the huge tax benefit lobby at the bottom of which is the Federal Reserve, gaping and grasping like that sandpit monster from Return of the Jedi.  One must also consider the malicious might of those 535 clowns under the big top … er ….dome in D.C.

This plan, which looks far better than the insane mess we have now, is fated to fail like the Fairtax and various flat tax proposals before it.

Here’s a link to the Trump plan.

Trump has four “simple” tax goals:

Tax relief for middle class Americans: In order to achieve the American dream, let people keep more money in their pockets and increase after-tax wages.

Simplify the tax code to reduce the headaches Americans face in preparing their taxes and let everyone keep more of their money.

Grow the American economy by discouraging corporate inversions, adding a huge number of new jobs, and making America globally competitive again.

Doesn’t add to our debt and deficit, which are already too large.

Trump Plan.

All tax brackets would drop with the maximum being capped at 25%.  Those earning less than $25,000 per year would pay no tax.  Trump would eliminate the marriage penalty, the Alternative Minimum Tax and the Federal Death Tax. These are great points.  However, consider that the original maximum tax bracket was supposed to be 10% and that was supposedly reserved for the super rich. Government is like a hungry wolf; just because it doesn’t eat you today doesn’t mean it won’t try tomorrow.

1306883252730

Always at the door.  Google Images.

I assume the other candidates have or will soon publish similar plans. Republicans will promise cuts, Libertarians deeper cuts, and Democrats increases here and there to make things fair.  What we will have in the end is the status quo.  It’s no coincidence the Sixteenth Amendment and the modern tax system came along on 1913 along with the Federal Reserve.  One is dependent on the other, both are weapons of the government against the free people.

The scheme we currently suffer is bad.  Trump’s plan is better.  It would also be better to return to the tax system originally built into the Republic – tariffs, etc. or into the Confederation – Congress begging the States for dough as needed. Best of all would be a 0% tax for everyone with no government to support.  For satirical consideration only is the solution I noted several years ago from a Doctor Who episode – tossing the tax collector off a high roof.  That would tend to work under any tax system.

Gunning For Votes: A Look At Candidate Positions On The Second Amendment

20 Sunday Sep 2015

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Last week Donald Trump added a white paper to his presidential election campaign materials: PROTECTING OUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS WILL MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN.  Until then The Donald had been a one note Donny – his note was all immigration reform.  I decided to make a professional examination of his paper.  Then I decided to review the positions of major candidates from all parties on the subject of the Second Amendment.  Not all of them, of course; there is something like 170 Republicans seeking the party’s nomination.  I don’t have that kind of time.  Trump gets the spotlight.  Not because he’s Trump but because he published a white paper.

Now, this examination draws together two concepts which, for me, are diametrically opposed: I love and cherish firearms rights and all individual freedom; I detest electoral politics and government in general.  Herein, though, I attempt to keep a neutral attitude towards the subject.  You will soon realize my failure.

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”  Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (1791)(entirety).  I have expounded, in great detail, on the Second Amendment.  While a part of the Federal Constitution, establishing another government to plague mankind, the Second Amendment is the part that embodies the spirit of natural self-preservation, a branch of Natural Law.  It embodies protecting oneself from small-scale, “ordinary” predation as well as from the tyranny brought about by politics.

Politics involves the people setting themselves up for disaster one election at a time.  It’s usually a contest to see who is the biggest and worst rat – the rats usually win.  “The most improper job of any man, even saints (who at any rate were at least unwilling to take it on), is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity.”  J.R.R. Tolkien, 1943 The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien.

Let’s get started with…

The Republican Field

Donald Trump

Trump begins his dissertation: “The Second Amendment to our Constitution is clear. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed upon. Period.”  He soon forgets the infringement and the period and explains why some abridgment is okay.

trump

donaldjtrump.com.

Well, he doesn’t throw The 2A under the bus immediately:

The Constitution doesn’t create that right – it ensures that the government can’t take it away. Our Founding Fathers knew, and our Supreme Court has upheld, that the Second Amendment’s purpose is to guarantee our right to defend ourselves and our families. This is about self-defense, plain and simple.

That’s his way of kinda sorta acknowledging Natural Law.  I might add, here, that it’s not just about self-defense.  It’s also about tyranny prevention and resolution – through armed and extreme measures if necessary.  The Founding Father knew about that too; The Supreme Court wouldn’t exist without it either.

Trump then moves on to enforcing “the laws on the books.”  That’s great so long as those laws are valid – most are not.  “We need to get serious about prosecuting violent criminals,” Trump says.  He gives examples of local violent crimes.  The man is not running for any local office but for President of the United States.  There are only two (potentially) violent federal crimes mentioned in that Constitution nobody reads: piracy and treason.  And, those are almost exclusively committed (alone with counterfeiting), these days, by the federal government itself.

States and localities should enforce laws that prevent violence against the innocent or which punish such violence.  My view is if a man commits a violent crime, then he should be prevented from further interaction with society, either via a prison sentence or a well placed shot.  This approach would necessarily remove him from the pool of persons capable of bearing arms.  Otherwise, the issue of crime is as completely removed from the Second Amendment discussion as violent crimes are removed from federal jurisdiction.

Speaking of well placed shots … Trump advocates self-defense.  That’s good!  He boasts, “that’s why I have a concealed carry permit, and that’s why tens of millions of Americans have concealed carry permits as well.”  That’s bad!  Who needs a “permit” from anyone (least of all from political and bureaucratic rodentia) to exercise a right??  Free people must be free to arm themselves if they like, without any government involvement – infringement if you will.

Trump wants to fix our broken mental health system.  Again, that’s great.  It’s also not part of his desired employment as set forth in Article Two of the Constitution (I keep coming back to that thing…).  I assume he means using his personal financial and celebrity status to help the mentally ill.  For that I commend him.  Otherwise, like crime mental health is irrelevant to the Second Amendment.

He gets back to guns: “Law-abiding people should be allowed to own the firearm of their choice. The government has no business dictating what types of firearms good, honest people are allowed to own.”  By itself this is his piece de resistance! However, he immediately murkifies the white right out of his paper by praising federal background checks (infringement) and by advocating a national carry permit (we have that now, it’s called the Second Amendment).  He also says driving a car is a privilege, not a right but that is another can of white papers.

The Donald ends by praising the military (yes, he’s running as a Republican) and proclaiming the rights of servicemen to carry arms.  I wonder if he caught the word “militia” in the text of The 2A?  The militia is the people. The people have the right to arms.  Trump’s military is the national standing army, known bane of freedom and limited to a two-year duration by that Constitution (am I dreaming all this????).

If pressed I don’t think trump would stand he forceful claim about people owning the firearm of their choice.  Suppose my choice is belt-fed and electrically operated.  Who Donald permit that or would he fire me? I don’t care to find out.

Carly Fiorina

Carly doesn’t have a white paper though she has much better looks that Trump (sure he would agree).  Her Second Amendment views may be found on her website, including a video from Fox News!

She notes that her husband has a government permission slip to carry a gun and she thinks that is fine and Constitutional.  I don’t think she’s read the document nor does she grasp the concept of a right.

Rand Paul

Dr. Paul is the son of Dr. Ron Paul, the man who should be President now. Outside of the Libertarians (see below), Rand has the best stance of The 2A.

As President, I vow to uphold our entire Bill of Rights, but specifically our right to bear arms.

Those who support the second amendment must also vehemently protect the Fourth Amendment. If we are not free from unreasonable and warrantless searches, no one’s guns are safe.

I will not support any proposed gun control law which would limit the right to gun ownership by those who are responsible, law-abiding citizens.

In the White House, I will remain vigilant in the fight against infringements on our Second Amendment rights.

Excellent!  However, to be true to his word, Rand would have to seek to repeal numerous federal laws in place now (NFA, ATF, 1986 “tax” act, etc.).  He’s also right about protecting rights in tandem.  That’s really the only valid reason to have a government.  He must also know that, sadly, every government in human history has immediately departed from this objective.  This trend will not abate anytime soon, Rand or no.

Jeb Bush

Yeah.  Another Bush.  Bush number three.  Not to worry, there’s a Clinton down below (not like that, Bill…).

I could not find an issue statement from George…er…Jeb’s website.  I did find an interesting exchange between the former governor and Stephen Colbert on The Late Show:

Stephen Colbert: Well, the right to have an individual firearm to protect yourself is a national document, in the Constitution, so shouldn’t that also be applied national…

Jeb Bush: No. Not necessarily…There’s a 10th amendment to our country, the Bill of Rights has a 10th amendment that says powers are given to the states to create policy, and the federal government is not the end all and be all. That’s an important value for this country, and it’s an important federalist system that works quite well.

Once again the comedian gets it right, the politician wrong.  Bush is aware of the tenth but not the second? Firearms and defense are universal rights not just national rights.  The right to self-preservation exists even in the absence of any government (imagine that for a minute..aaahh).  Bush didn’t even get number 10 quite right; “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”  Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (1791)(entirety).

This means the federal government is strictly limited to those very few powers specifically written in the Constitution.  The States have some power outside the scope of the federal leviathan – concerning violent crime for example.  And, The People themselves retain political power.  By the way, government is a mix of powers and rights. The body politic is empowered only insofar as it may preserve the rights of the individual.  None of this power, federal, state or personal may (legitimately) infringe the freedoms of the people.  Illegitimately, it happens all the time.  Use your personal power – save us from another Bush presidency.

The Democrats

The days of Zell Miller and Sam Nunn being behind us, many write off the donkey party as wholly anti-gun.  Anti-freedom is more accurate.  They are generally a mirrored image of their anti-freedom elephant counterparts. Losing my objectivity, yes.

Hillary Clinton

Clinton.  Yes, one married to that other Clinton.  Like so many leftists, Hillary couches firearms issues in backwards thinking and words.  To her guns in private hands are bad and result in bad things.  Instead of “firearms rights” she talks about “gun violence prevention.”

“I don’t know how we keep seeing shooting after shooting, read about the people murdered because they went to Bible study or they went to the movies or they were just doing their job, and not finally say we’ve got to do something about this.”  Hillary, August 27, 2015.  Part of her something would be reinstating the assault weapons ban.  That would be infringement as prohibited by the Second Amendment.

Like Hillary I too deplore violence.  That’s why I support a ban on government.

Bernie Sanders

Bernie’s list of issues is devoid of anything for or against the Second Amendment.  I glanced over it and it rather reminded me of Karl Marx, maybe with a friendly Vermont bent.  Moving on…

Joe Biden

Crazy Joe is apparently just about to get into the race.  He has no papers or issue statements yet.  However, some of his positions on guns may be found here and here.  Mind you, should he enter the race, his positions are subject to magically change depending on who he’s talking to.  Buyer beware.

Despite having voted against gun rights in the past, at a press conference in 2013 Biden enthusiastically demonstrated his prize, imaginary shotgun for reporters.  Trump has a point about mental illness.

Libertarians

Americans love their “two-party” system despite its none-existence.  We all tend to forget about the lovable, pot-loving Libertarians.  In addition to legalizing (decriminalizing, geesh) whacky tobacky, the LP is pretty decent on gun rights as far as it goes…

Darryl Perry

Darryl Perry is running for President.  He has a list of issues in his platform among which is “Self Defense.”  “As a Life Member of the Second Amendment Foundation, I support the right to privately own and possess firearms or any other weapon deemed appropriate for self-defense.”  Perry.

Deemed appropriate by whom, Mr. Perry?  “Deemed appropriate” sounds like the talk of the permit set.  What about offensive weapons designed to rid the people of a tyrant.  Ah.  That would go against the LP’s pledge, “I hereby certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals.”

That’s fine and dandy during civilized times.  But, suppose there’s a government on the loose?  What then?  Defense?  Defense against government is best accomplished by government prevention, which may require a little initiation of force – see the American Revolution, Thomas Jefferson, New Hampshire Constitution, etc.

Gary Johnson

Mr. Johnson was the LP candidate during the 2012 election.  No word on whether he’s in for this bout.  Nonetheless I have included his position.

“I don’t believe there should be any restrictions when it comes to firearms. None.” Johnson, April 20, 2011, Slate Magazine.  If he means firearms for the people, then that’s the best Second Amendment support statement of the 21st Century.

The only way to improve on a position like that is to declare there should be no government.  None.  But that would deprive us of white paper analysis and fun articles like this one.  Cheers!

***Note*** Nothing in the preceding article should be construed in any way as supporting any candidate for any office.  Perrin Lovett does not support government (outside of theoretical discussion and fun poking).

Despicable Denny Proves a Point (Several in Fact)

31 Sunday May 2015

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Warning: the subject matter de jure is downright sickening.  The other day I stated that I really hate politicians.  If you’ve ever met or smelled one, then you understand.

News came last week of the indictment of yet another filthy, criminal pol.  It was spun in rather drab fashion I think.  People are so used to this sort of thing it’s not really news anymore. Yet, and still, the people clamor for their “representatives” whenever an election comes to town.  That’s proven point number one – the public is composed of voting idiots.

Dennis “Denny” Hastert was a Republican Congress-criter from Illinois. He served as the 59th Speaker of the House from 1999 until 2007. This coincided, largely, with the reign of Jorge Bush, the Dimmer.

You may recall how Hastert helped Bush double the national debt while creating new cabinet agencies and several undeclared wars – conservative stuff.  Proven point number two – politicians of any party and their governments are a band of criminals and the scourge of civilization.  Denny’s House Whip (the following story lends new and lurid speculation as to this term) was Tom DeLay. DeLay narrowly avoided a felony conviction and prison for election violations in Texas.  Hastert now faces felony charges of his own from the federal government.

Remember my piece on “Structuring?”  No?  Read it again for good measure.

Cash transactions in excess of $10,000 are automatically flagged by banks and referred to the FBI for investigation. No crime needs be committed.  Just withdrawing your own money for any reason is suspicious enough for the ever-nosey feds to examine.  One would think they’d be busy fighting terrorists or child rapists or something.

Anyway, it is also illegal to split cash deposits or withdrawals into smaller increments so as to evade the reporting process. It seems criminal intent is in the Eye of Sauron of the government beholder.  Consult the U.S. Code – 31 U.S.C. 5324 – for specifics on this idiotic law.

Dear Denny has been charged with structuring his cash withdrawals.  Some time ago he began to withdraw $50,000 at a time from his bank accounts.  Five times the “legal” limit, these transactions were automatically flagged.  The bank or the cops must have informed Denny because he began to make withdrawals (lots of them) at just under the $10,000 limit.  Denny withdrew several million dollars in such fashion.

These lesser withdrawals were noted by the bank.  Concerned Denny was being blackmailed or something, the bank reported the new, lower withdrawals to the Empire. While any cash transaction over $10,000 must be automatically reported any amount the bank deems suspicious can be reported on a “STR” or suspicious transactions report.

Let’s be clear for a second.  Your money is your money.  You have the right to do whatever you want with it and in any amount or combinations of amounts.  It is your damned property.  Or you should have the right.  The government and “your” bank are infringing your rights.  Thus, poor Denny is a victim of this Draconian, illegitimate law. Point number three – federal banking laws exist to control and hurt people.

Denny is also charged with lying to federal officials.  This proves another point of mine – do not talk to any officers or agents of any police force – ever.  If you’re not talking, you’re not lying.  Point four – do not talk to the cops.

It turns out Denny had a rather pressing reason to move his funds around as he did. Before Denny descended into the cesspool of Washington he was a fat teacher and wrestling coach at a high school in a small Illinois town.  Either from a deranged mind or a strategic training regimen for his future political career Denny began to sexually molest one (or more) of his underage male charges.

I have not researched the specifics of these allegations and I do not plan to.  I will assume they were lecherous, debased acts of the Jerry Sandusky variety.  It is technically possible Denny is innocent in this matter (the sex matter).  It is also technically possible a black hole will materialize overnight and swallow the sun, thus bringing a tomorrow without dawn.  The odds of both are roughly equal though weighted in favor of the astronomical anomaly.  Denny obtained the cash in order to pay off his would be accuser(s).  Child molestation or rape charges don’t help a grafting political career and may cause inconvenient jail time.

I imagine these boys (or boy) were younger and smaller than most.  Predators seek out the weaker members of the herd for attack.  In any event they were young men, children, in need of molding and guidance.  Instead, they suffered physical trauma and psychological damage no-one, especially a child, should ever experience.

Men (and women) who molest children should be disposed of in the most brutal manner conceivable.  Hastert, Sandusky, Michael Jackson, that lowlife down the block – not one of them contributes to society and each is a unacceptible danger.  Hang them from the highest trees.  This is point five:  “But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in Me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.” Matthew 18:6 (KJV)(mind you, Jesus says this tortuous execution would be better than what awaits the degenerate in Hell).

deeny the queer

(Cash, rape and politics.  Ready the millstone.  Chicago Tribune.)

One would think the government would be more interested in prosecuting child rape than imagined financial irregularities.  One would be wrong in America.  Jesse Ventura once noted the excellent point that people under the age of 21 are treated as children in America, forbidden to drink alcohol by the government.  The same government sends people under 21 off to war to die in jungles and deserts.  Thus, the U.S. government sends children to war.  This is a war crime under the Geneva Convention.

Sad, but true, in America the government cares more amount money and systemic process than about protecting innocent children.  Given enough time to metastasize all governments eventually behave with such disregard for morality.  This brings up point number six – government is utterly useless and extraordinarily dangerous. Tell that to the Diebold voting machine next time you are asked to sanction the system.

The United States Constitution

08 Friday Mar 2013

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 8 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The United State Constitution is a historical anomaly.  The Constitutions of the several States are as well.  Our English predecessors had a Constitution of sorts as did the Romans long before.  These are however, rarities.  Many nations today have “constitutions” or charters which allege the rule of law, but which in reality are no different from the dictatorships and dominions of old.

Traditionally, most people have lived under one regime or another which ruled by the whims of men and the force they could exert.  Ayn Rand discussed this phenomenon, labelling it “Attila and the Witch Doctor.”  For the New Intellectual (1961).  Attila is representative of the ruling big man, a brute whose law” extends from the barrel of a gun or the tip of a spear.  The Witch Doctor is the “holy” man who finds some “divine” reason to justify Attila’s power and also placated the people to avert their suspicion or anger.

In 1775 the American colonists were under the rule of a gentler Attila, King George, III, who was constrained by Parliament and the English Constitution.  He even had a state-chartered church to serve as the Witch Doctor.  The next year the colonists declared their independence from England and instituted on earth thirteen new nations.  During the Revolutionary War these nations were united in Congress due to their dire predicament.  In 1781 the 13 states adopted the Articles of Confederation (the ratification process began in 1777) which tied them loosely together for mutual benefit.

Not being satisfied with loose ties, in 1789 the early Americans drafted a stronger document to commence a stronger central government – the Constitution.  The first ten amendments to the document, the Bill of Rights, came along in 1791. 

Constitution_Pg1of4_AC

(The Constitution.  Federal Archives.)

People like me are always rallying to the Constitution, its limits on government power, and it’s protection of individual rights.  When comparing the reality of modern American government to the government set forth in the original text of the Constitution, the two things seem polar opposites.  Thus, the constant call for a return to Constitutional government.  There is no doubt, from a libertarian perspective, the latter would be far easier to accept than the former. 

However, the problem I have finally come to terms with is that the two opposites are really the same thing – separated only by time.  Again, I quote Lysander Spooner: “But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it.  In either case, it is unfit to exist.”  “Unfit” is a harsh assessment, but it is probably the most intellectually honest view. 

I have personally sworn (affirmed) several oaths to support and defend the Constitution as an attorney.  Then, immediately, I have been told to look the other way as nearly every provision of the document is rendered moot.  The government these days does what it wants, end of discussion.  Its power is always on display.  If one or two of your rights happen to be respected, be happy.  The government will tell you it gave you those rights!  There is no respect for the letter of the Supreme Law.

In 2009, then Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, was asked by a reporter, “Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?”  Mrs. Pelosi responded with indignation, “Are you serious?  Are you serious?”  She then put on the record that the question was not serious.  http://www.aim.org/guest-column/yes-nancy-pelosi-we-are-serious/.  The question was dead serious and the true answer is “nowhere.”  Truth gets in the way.

Rep.  James Clyburn clarified the issue: “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says that the federal government has anything to do with most of the stuff we do.”  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203917304574412793406386548.html.  Jimmy was brutally honest.  Over the long-span of our Republic, a few pet phrases and ideas in the old parchment have been used to systematically justify the awesome growth of the federal government – the commerce clause, the necessary and proper clause, the general welfare clause, national defense, and taxation.  Today, when most of what the government does is illegal, they don’t even try to justify their actions.

This was hard for me to accept as an attorney.  Actually, I never did accept it.  In many (most) cases there absolutely nothing I could do for the interests of true justice and Constitutional fidelity.  However, I remain one of the few who will stand on principle to the point of Quixotic excess.  I do not fear being labeled wrong when I am right.

Here’s how the Constitution was supposed to work.  It was quite simply compared to today’s leviathan.

First, please read the Constitution.  Here’s a link: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html.  This is the official site of the Constitution, complete with pictures of the original text.  Make it a “Favorites” link on your browser. 

The Constitution created the federal government, divided into three branches.  The branches were listed in order of importance.  Article One defines and empowers the legislative branch, Congress.  The powers of Congress or the legislative authority it has are mainly derived from Section Eight though a few powers reside elsewhere (some have been added by subsequent Amendments).  The powers enumerated in the text are the only powers which Congress may legally exercise.  The Tenth Amendment says so.  The number of these powers is the subject of some speculation among libertarians.  Some count the individual sub-sections only.  Some delineate each power from the subsections – I follow this approach.  Some extrapolate reasonable relations between the individual powers.  However you calculate them, the powers are few in number.  Let’s say there are about 30.  That’s it!  Those are the only things the government is supposed to do. 

Today we are trapped under tens of thousands of laws and countless regulations which cover literally everything imaginable.  The regulations are issued by various agencies, supposedly to implement the laws Congress passes.  You can find this mind-boggling collection of verbosity at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collectionCfr.action?collectionCode=CFR.  Don’t make too close of a study; the regulations change constantly.  In my view none of these rules are valid as they are not the expressly permitted work of Congress.  However, the agencies that make them have armies of men with guns to ensure compliance.

Article Two concerns the executive, The President. The President’s authority is even more minimal than Congress’s.  He is supposed to only attempt to enforce the valid laws Congress passes, run the day-to-day operations of the government, and prosecute wars as declared by Congress.  That’s about it. 

Of course, today the President is a virtual government unto himself.  The executive’s ability to take “emergency” action and the constant acquiescence to these actions by the other branches, have made the President the most dangerous part of the central government.  He issues Executive Orders, which were originally only supposed to concern policy implementation within his administration, but today are taken as Acts of Congress (without Acts of Congress).  My view is that almost all of these Orders are invalid.  There again, the President is in charge of all those armies of armed men and the regular military too.  He usually gets his way.

Article Three concerns the federal Judiciary.  This article only established the Supreme Court.  It left another power to Congress to create and empower inferior courts of different kinds.  Originally, legal matters were supposed to be handled by State Courts for the most part, with the Supreme Court deciding differing outcomes from different States when a controversy arose.  Many libertarians think the judiciary has become too powerful.  Perhaps it has.  Most attorneys take the opinions of the courts to be divine.  I do not, for the most part, agree.  Congress has the ultimate authority over law in this nation and has the power to override a contrary court decision.  Congress also has the express authority to limit the jurisdiction of the courts, meaning Congress can prohibit a court from reviewing certain matters.  Congress rarely uses this power.

The rest of the original articles explain various concepts, procedures, and guarantees.  Perhaps the most important feature of the remaining articles is in Article Five – the procedure for adding Amendments to the Constitution.  This has been done 27 times since the original charter was enacted.

The Bill of Rights, those first 10 amendments, was added as a cautious afterthought.  The rights therein were acknowledged as Natural Law in origin and eternal.  In 1789 all ten were taken as a given.  The Founders assured everyone, including each other, that due to its explicitly limited nature, the new government would never be a threat to individual liberties.  There was no point in adding statements of protection.  But, in 1791, suspicion gave way to action, and several core rights were definitely stated and protected.  They have been poorly defended of late.

The remaining seventeen amendments were added over the course of years.  Most granted the government more power.  Only one of those has ever been repealed – the 21st Amendment, the only one ratified following State Convention origination, repealed the 18th Amendment, which outlawed alcohol.  In my estimation, of all the Acts of the federal government in its entire history, none were more cruel than the 18th Amendment.  During a period of dramatically increasing federal power and erosion of individual liberty, the government decided to take away the People’s ability to legally drink their serfdom away.  Thank God it was erased after only 14 years.  True to form though, the government could not simply end prohibition, rather, the ability to regulate alcohol was passed on the States.  The ATF and your State’s revenue department bear witness to the enduring character of legislative folly.

In conclusion, while the Constitution may be revered as creating a government of limited powers, it still created a government.  That government has vastly exceeded its authorized power to the detriment of our Liberty.  I would like to see a return to The Articles of Confederation or some other less powerful central state.  This is not likely to happen.  The best alternative would be to simply adhere to the Constitution as written, no more.  This is equally unlikely to occur.  As is, we will have to wait until time takes its toll on the remains of the Republic.  This process may not be pleasant for us.  Plato described the cycle of the theoretical state about 2500 years ago – we would appear to be somewhere near the end.  Aristocracy gives way to timocracy (rule of land owners).  Timocracy becomes oligarchy (the rule of an elite).  Oligarchy degenerates into democracy.  Democracy can also be called “ochlocracy” or mob rule.  Ultimately this paves the way for a despot to seize power.  The cycle then repeats. 

We can really only hope that someday, a future generation will learn from our mistakes and correct them.  History says that correction won’t last long.

Structuring, Are You Guilty?

06 Wednesday Mar 2013

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Boston attorney Harvey Sliverglate wrote an insightful book called Three Felonies A Day, http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229, about how the average “law-abiding” American commits three “serious” offenses every day without realizing it.  His point is one I have seen firsthand – the feds have thousands of laws, which criminalize everything imaginable, from which to choose to selectively prosecute anyone they want.  They can always decline, but when they do target a citizen, that person is instantly in a world of pain. 

Here’s an example of such a federal criminal law you didn’t know about and probably have committed.  After law school, passing the bar exam, and practicing criminal law for years, I had never heard of it until one particular case (maybe I’m dumb…).  The mere existence of the law and it’s application potential I find staggering.  

I had a client charged with another crime who received a wrist-slap as punishment (more excellent lawyering, folks! [my deal to have his case completely dismissed fell through due to administrative technicalities]).  The FBI had previously seized numerous items of his property including about $25,000 in cash from his house.  The do that frequently and usually the items (especially money) are “forfeited” to the government.  However, while this particular case proceeded through the system, they slowly returned almost all items to my client’s wife.  Immediately after the final hearing an agent approached me about returning the cash!  I was a little dumbfounded.  They gave the money back that very day.  I have still never seen or heard of this happening again.

Anyway, the client’s wife and I went to the local FBI office to retrieve the money.  It was still in large bill form, exactly as removed from the house.  Whatever I may say about them, the FBI is extremely efficient and organized.  While the money was being counted out in our presence I told the wife she should immediately deposit it into her bank account for safety.  Then I recalled that cash transactions in excess of $10,000 are automatically flagged by banks and refered to the FBI for investigation.  As you know, all cash amounts over $10K are the result solely of criminal activity…

So, to help her avoid the hassle, I suggested she break the deposit into 3 installments.  The agent in charge stopped counting, looked up, and said, “That’s Structuring.”  I looked at him like a deer observing an approaching 18-wheeler and asked, “Huh?”  He then explained how it was illegal to split cash deposits so as to evade the reporting process.  He then kindly noted that if she deposited all the money (he thought it a good idea too) the report would come to him and he would have the system pre-flagged to ignore and dismiss the report.  I know and trust this particular agent as an outstanding man of integrity so I had no problem trusting him.  Things worked out fine.

As I was leaving he said he would have our friend at the U.S. Attorney’s office provide me information on the crime.  By the time my friend called, I had already researched the law – 31 U.S.C. 5324.  He directed me to a website which provided a pamphlet warning against the practice and giving examples of innocent enough transactions which are, in fact, illegal.  He asked me to spread this information to all attorneys I know and all of my friends.  Thus, I relay his story to you.  By the way, the banking industry refers to this practice as “smurfing,” in honor of those little blue critters from the 80s…

cash-money

(The Smurfs weapon of choice.  Google Images.)

You can view the pamphlet here, http://www.fincen.gov/whatsnew/pdf/CTRPamphlet.pdf.  They have one geared toward gambling winnings too, http://www.fincen.gov/whatsnew/pdf/CTR-CPamphlet.pdf.

Here are two examples of smurfing violations, taken from the first pamphlet:

“2. Jane needs $18,000 in cash to pay for supplies for her wood-carving business. Jane cashes a $9,000 personal check at a financial institution on a Monday, then cashes another $9,000 personal check at the financial institution the following day. Jane cashed the checks separately and structured the transactions in an attempt to evade the CTR reporting requirement.”  CTR Pamphlet, www.fincen.gov.

“3. A married couple, John and Jane, sell a vehicle for $15,000 in cash. To evade the CTR reporting requirement, John and Jane structure their transactions using different accounts. John deposits $8,000 of that money into his and Jane’s joint account in the morning. Later that day, Jane deposits $1,500 into the joint account, and then $5,500 into her sister’s account, which is later transferred to John and Jane’s joint account.” CTR Pamphlet, www.fincen.gov.

Jane and John are hardened criminals who could be sentenced from one to five years in federal prison.  Don’t be like Jane and John! 

I can envision situations in which an attorney or am accountant, for example, might “structure” a client’s funds like this.  While the attorney and his client might have innocent intentions, their acts would be criminal.  I’m still trying to get this all straight in my head.

We know that keeping cash on hand is illegal as the cash can be stolen (“forfeited”) due to alleged involvement in criminal activity.  All cash comes from crime!  We also know depositing the money whole with a bank will be reported as a possible indication of crime.  Depositing the money in batches is a crime.

I now take my friend’s friendly advice; I advise everyone that everything is illegal.  Good luck out there!

Slavery in America, Part II of III

05 Tuesday Mar 2013

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Continuing  from Part One…  In 2003, the beautiful, talented, and aptly named Star Parker wrote a book called Uncle Sam’s Plantation, http://www.amazon.com/Uncle-Sams-Plantation-Government-Enslaves/dp/1595552235 (revised 2010).  In this work she relates her previous experiences in and working her way out of “welfare.”  I call it “welfare” because her subject matter is what most people think of when they think of welfare – giving money, food, ect. to poor people (deserving or otherwise). 

Her book is excellent and serves as a good starting point.  However, most welfare in America is not directed towards the poor, rather it consists of monies given to all segments of society through mandatory “entitlement” spending programs like Social Security and Medicare as well as massive subsidies and favors to various corporate interests.  These illegal programs eat up the vast majority of the federal budget and, likely, the budgets of the States as well.  None are found in or allowed by the Constitution.  Remember the Constitution?

I will comment on these corporate welfare programs a little later.  All you really need to know was said by the late, great George Carlin: “It’s a big club.  You ain’t in it.  You and I are not in the big club.  By the way, it’s the same big club they use to beat you over the head…”  See the video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5dBZDSSky0, (comic genius)(warning: some strong language and even stronger truths).

Ms. Parker has addressed some of this “big club” in her book.  She wrote a column explaining how the banks are now on the plantation, http://townhall.com/columnists/starparker/2009/02/09/back_on_uncle_sams_plantation/page/full/.  However, she misses the point that Carlin nailed.  It’s the club members – the big banks (The Federal Reserve “Creature”), the big corporations, the super rich, and the ticks – that run the plantation.  Really, the biggies own it and Uncle Sam is more of an overseer. 

rockerfeller

(This says it all.  Google Images.)

This may sound offensive to some of you – I sincerely hope so.  It is one of the most offensive things facing modern Americans today.  Sadly, many or most of our citizens either take the system for granted or take advantage of it.  Heck, we are all involved like it or not.  I detest the concept of fiat money, for example, yet I usually keep one or two of those Federal Reserve Notes in my wallet at any given time.  The Big Club has rigged the system so you have to acquiesce, or else you can’t be a member of modern society.

Back to “the poor” slaves Ms. Parker wrote about.  Millions of Americans are hopelessly dependent on government welfare payments to live and eat these days.  At the end of 2012, more than 47 million of our citizens were on food stamps, up from 36 million in 2009.  http://reason.com/blog/2012/11/21/why-are-a-record-number-of-americans-on.  Before the last recession, which never really ended, the number was around 17 million (in 2000).  http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/show-this-to-anyone-that-believes-that-things-are-getting-better-in-america.

Many of these programs have racist origins, just like our gun control laws.  However, in keeping with never-ending government expansion, today they can entrap and enslave anyone and everyone.  In the old days, the theory worked like this: black people will someday inevitably be granted full civil rights in society.  Therefore, let’s us Big Club members subjugate as many of them as we possibly can now so that when they do arise, most won’t be able to take advantage of their opportunities.  Black schools were frequently sub-standard by white standards.  Welfare programs infringed on the benefits of gainful employment and lead to the destruction of the black family unit.

Young black men, poorly educated and without any hope of finding meaningful work, turned to alternative careers – like selling drugs.  The Club, in its Baphometian wisdom, instituted the “war” on drugs to put as many of these poor men as possible in chains and behind bars.  The result has been an explosion in the drug trade and drug addiction, increases in related crimes, a further evisceration of the black community, and a ridiculous number of people in jail for non-crimes.  The U.S. now has the highest prison population in the world, by percentage of the population and by raw numbers.  http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/world/americas/23iht-23prison.12253738.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0.

Why do we have more criminals than China, which has three times our population?  Are we all a bunch of scofflaw degenerates?  I work in the criminal Just-Us system and I have seen poor person after poor person locked up for nothing.  When I worked as a prosecutor I stayed in a state of permanent depression.  It was my job to railroad people into guilty pleas (too easy to obtain) or convict them (too easy too) for no wrong-doing.  I finally had to quit one day.  Quitting was better than being a party to injustice.  In my area of the country I estimate 90% or more of all criminal charges stem from non-crimes which have no victims.  Each case, federal or state, comes with a statement of “victim impact.”  Usually, the statement reads, “no victim.”  Without victims how the hell can you say a crime has occurred?  I bet the situation is similar wherever you live.  The real victims are the falsely prosecuted persons; they are turned into slaves.

This all means that 90+% of our criminal “justice” resources are wasted.  That leaves the other 10%, or less devoted to stopping or punishing actual crime.  Why are the survivors of real crimes and their families always so frustrated with the laxity of the system?  It’s because the system is designed to put away as many people as possible, guilty of not.  There is little incentive to actively investigate and pursue murders, rapes, and other dangerous felonies.  An elected prosecutor looks better to the idiot electorate by keeping a high conviction rate – which the current system guarantees. 

As I said, this BS was originally aimed at black people.  However, three key changes have occurred over the past decades which have altered the scheme for the universal worse.  First, after the passage of the civil rights act in the 1960’s and the end of legal segregation, many black ticks were elected to office and power all across America.  Atlanta has a black mayor.  Detroit has a black mayor.  Blacks are elected to the House and Senate.  In 2008 a black man was elected President.  Oddly, the system has not changed and hope seems ever fleeting.  This is because black ticks, like all others, are more than willing to oppress anyone in order to keep their beloved power.

The second big change was the change in American demographics after the 1965 immigration reform law was passed.  Whereas America was about 90% white and 10% black in 1960, today the country is a true melting pot of all races and cultures.  All of the added people of various origins have provided additional opportunities for the ticks to run wild on our freedom.

The third change has been due to the nature of government programs themselves.  Once instituted, a program or scheme never goes away.  It grows by leaps and bounds, sucking in as many victims as it can find.  The Club members know this and have tailored their machinations accordingly.  At some point they figured out they would have more control over us if they included all of us in their slavery operations.  Conversely, they do everything in the considerable power to keep people divided into classes – the whites, the blacks, the poor, the old, the gays, the Southerns, etc.  It’s easier to control multiple groups if you pit them against each other over trivial nonsense.  Each group spends its time preoccupied with suspicion of the other groups and forgets about who is ultimately whipping them mercilessly.  The group members are slaves.

Their plot goes far beyond “welfare” programs, poor education, and institutionalized criminality.  It touches on just about every facet of the lives on people who are not ultra-wealthy and well-connected.  If you bother to vote, you’re pre-sorted into groups, usually Republican versus Democrat.  Off the bat, your choices are limited to those of the party’s choice – the partys have a hierarchy to make sure rouges like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich are minimized.  They can’t risk anyone telling the truth or actually representing the People.  You are a slave to those choices.

If you are lucky enough to have a job these days, you are taxed on what you earn.  You pay those income taxes in addition to sales taxes, property taxes, “sin” taxes and multiple other taxes.  You also indirectly pay the taxes of corporations who pass their financial burdens on to you.  You pay for government debt spending.  You are pay the hidden tax of inflation, caused by the incestuous relationship between the government and the illegal, monopolistic Federal Reserve.  You’re real tax rate isn’t 10% or 25%, it’s more like 50 – 60%, as a percentage of your income.  By comparison, under King George in the 1700’s, the average colonist paid an effective rate of about 1% of their income (again, factoring in all forms of taxation and set against income).  Maybe old George wasn’t the bad guy we made him out to be?  He never openly advocated the slavery of his royal subjects.

Today, if you want a house, a car, or an education, the banks will happily strap you with 5 to 30+ years of debt servitude. “The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower is the servant of the lender.” Proverbs 22:7. That means you are a slave.

DjangoUnchainedWallpaper-1c733

(I haven’t seen Django, but I understand it involves slaves revolting as they should.  Google Images.)

In Part Three I will further discuss the constituent members of the Big Club and their control over you and me.  I will also discuss ways to possibly emancipate ourselves from these monsters.  Stay tuned and stay angry!