The Remedy for BIG Corrupt Government - Part 1

[BOBT12]

Isn’t it odd that the government cannot do much to help the victims of New Orleans? Remember the 11000 trailer homes that never made it to New Orleans, yet were rotting in a storage lot in Texas? Or when government (and Mexican) military forces went to disarm the civilian population at a time, we were told, of widespread looting? It should be clear that “Government doesn't work." -- Harry Browne

A tyrant’s whole reliance must be upon his soldiers he must increase them in proportion to his distrust of his people; which is a confession of mutual enmity: Neither is it enough that his soldiers oppress and famish his people, for his sake and their own (for both he and they are supported by the spoils of the people), but he must keep them as constantly employed as he can; because if they be not employed in plundering, invading, and shedding of blood, they will grow unfit for such beneficent and necessary work, and may probably degenerate into humanity and mercy; than which a more terrible change could not befall their royal master; so that in mere duty they must be constantly practicing mischief and rapine at home or abroad. [L] Cato’s Letters, #73, p. 539.

Can we say Iraq, or perhaps, Iran might come to mind?

Media notice: Tune-in to hear me on the Jerry Hughes show today. Details below my signature.

Quote of the Day:

"Government doesn't work."
-- Harry Browne

Subject: Government vs. You

In 1871 the city of Chicago burned to the ground. There was no FEMA or large federal funding to rebuild it. Instead, the people of Chicago rebuilt their own city and in short order it soared to new heights.

In 1906, after a major earthquake, the city of San Francisco also burned down. There was no FEMA or large federal funding to rebuild it. Instead, the people of San Francisco did it themselves and the city was soon restored.

In 2005 a large part of the city of New Orleans was destroyed when a levy, designed, built, and maintained by government, proved inadequate to protect against a hurricane that was far from the worst that could have struck the city. Private citizens and businesses such as Wal-Mart rushed to the city's aid, but were largely blocked by federal officials. FEMA and large federal funding were there to rebuild the city, but today much of New Orleans still lies in ruins.

We see the evidence all around us, where government seeks to help, harm often follows. Education, food, energy, and medical care are all areas where the government alleges it helps you, but all are areas where prices are rising faster than in other sectors.

Government doesn't work, because government has no incentive to succeed. Instead, government prospers by failing -- constantly gaining new power and resources because of the crises it creates.

Meanwhile, we see companies like Wal-Mart working effectively to lower the cost of ************ drugs, and Walgreens is opening discount medical clinics in thousands of their stores to lower the cost of routine health care. We see home schoolers providing vastly better academic results. And we see private innovation that will lower the cost of energy and protect the environment . . .
· A company called Sunrgi has just announced a design for photovoltaic cells that promises to make solar power competitive with other sources of electricity.
· A research team at Stanford has created a battery technology that is ten times more efficient than existing batteries.
· And an oil company, Exxon, has also produced an improved battery technology that will LOWER THE DEMAND FOR THEIR OIL by making hybrid cars more cost effective.
The evidence is abundant, if only we will look and heed what we see. The solutions we seek will not come from the top down, designed by politicians and provided by the government. More problems than solutions come from that source. Instead, the solutions to our problems will come from "the bottom up," provided by innovative firms responding to human needs.

The same is true of the problem of government itself. The solution to "the government problem" will not come from politicians. It will come from innovative private entities such as Downsize DC.

Stated another way, you will not solve the problem of government by somehow electing the right politicians to do the job for you, from the top down. Instead . . .

You will only solve the problem of government by compelling politicians, from "the bottom up," to lessen the harm caused by Big Government. And just as innovative firms solve problems by lowering costs -- constantly doing more with less -- Downsize DC is also trying to lower the cost you pay to solve "the government problem."

For just a few cents per day, from a few hundred more DC Downsizers making monthly pledges, we could reach the take-off point, beyond which every additional dollar we raise could be devoted to outreach that would . . .
· Recruit more DC Downsizers faster
· Spread the word about things like the "Read the Bills Act" and the "One Subject at a Time Act"
· And exert more bottom-up pressure to COMPEL politicians to solve "the government problem."
This could be done for a tiny fraction of what has been spent trying to elect even one candidate to office.

So . . .

As you relax from your labors this weekend, ask yourself, has the age-old attempt to elect the right people to office worked? Has it enabled you to accomplish more with less, or has it constantly required you to pay more and more and more with little measurable return?

We recognize that we are selling a new paradigm that clashes with habitual modes of thought. We know that only constant repetition can carve a new groove in the public mind to make a place for this new paradigm. But we believe in this new paradigm and in the power of repetition, and so we push . . . and push . . . and push.

We will be back to work on Monday, meanwhile . . .
· Start a monthly credit card pledge. It could be as low as a few cents per day -- $3, $5, $10, $15, $20, or $25 per month. Or, . . .
· Help us earn a $1,000 matching contribution from DC Downsizer James Marquart. You can do so by making a one-time donation of $100 or more -- your contribution will be worth $200 to us. Or, . . .
· Help us with whatever size contribution you can afford.

Your contribution is our budget. Your investment is our expansion. You can contribute here.

Thank you for being a part of the growing Downsize DC Army. Remember to look below my signature for listening details on the my Jerry Hughes show appearance today. We welcome comments to this Dispatch at our blog.

Jim Babka
President
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

P.S. Friday afternoon appearance on Straight Talk with Jerry Hughes . . .

My hour-long appearance begins at 3:05 PM Eastern time (2:05 PM Central, 1:05 PM Mountain, 12:05 PM Pacific). To listen online go to "http://www.accentradionetwork.com/chooseplayer.htm"

We'll be talking about the Real ID Act and who knows what else. But it'll be even better if you call and participate.

The toll-free call-in number: 1-866-222-2368
Or use email: Jerry at AccentRadio dot com

* As always, regarding media appearances, schedule changes or cancellations can happen without warning.
D o w n s i z e r - D i s p a t c h
is the official email list of DownsizeDC.org, Inc. & Downsize DC Foundation
CONTRIBUTE to the Electronic Lobbyist project
http://www.DownsizeDC.org is sponsored by DownsizeDC.org, Inc. -- a non-profit educational organization promoting the ideas of individual liberty, personal responsibility, free markets, and small government.
You are encouraged to forward this message to friends and business associates, and permission is hereby granted to reproduce any items herein as long as attribution is provided for articles and the subscription instructions above are included.
IF you have difficulties or inquiries, simply hit reply to this message. We're eager to help, including with requests to unsubscribe.

At its root, oppression is really quite simple. It's about looting. The rest is made up of the rules and institutions, rituals and agreements, mythologies, rationales and overt bullying by means of which small groups of people keep a firm grasp on way more than their share of the world’s resources. –Aurora Levins Morales, historian, Medicine Stories, 1998

[BOBT12]

D o w n s i z e r - D i s p a t c h ...


Quote of the Day:

"The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer."
-- Henry Kissinger, former US Secretary of State (Source: New York Times, Oct. 28, 1973)

Subject: Dangerous Democracy

President Bush probably meant to do good by bringing democracy to Iraq, but it's hard to succeed when you're aiming at the wrong thing.

The President has always assumed that democracy is what made America good and great. He thinks it could do the same for Iraq, and many others agree. But is it true?

Iraq now has a representative democracy, but strangely, it seems to be a source of violence, not peace.


-The Sunni minority fears majority democratic rule by the Shia
Iraqi women fear that they'll be subjected to fundamentalist Islamic law, imposed by democratic means

-And the Shia are afraid to share power with the Sunni lest it result in the return of full Sunni control

-All these fears are justified, because representative democracy can be just as tyrannical as any other form of government.

What made American democracy different was that our Founders limited the power of government, and of majority rule. These limits, and not representative democracy itself, are what made America good and great.

This point is difficult for politicians like President Bush to understand. Politicians get their power and significance from representative democracy, and therefore consider it of supreme importance. Likewise, the people gain an illusion of power and influence from their right to vote, without fully realizing the dangers of majority rule, or of the mandate for mischief that voting confers on power-hungry politicians.

But imagine where we would be without . . .


-The separation of powers between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government

-The existence of specific constitutional provisions that allow these three branches to thwart each other

-Explicit limits on government power, as expressed in the Bills of Rights

Without these things our government would have long ago become a democratic, representative tyranny.

America's great gift to the world was LIMITED GOVERNMENT, NOT representative democracy. Sadly, most Americans do not understand this crucial point.

No country in the history of the world has ever had such a large ethnic and religious diversity as the United States. But we all live in peace. Compare this with Iraq, which can't even manage to reconcile two major religious sects. Majority-rule democracy, unconstrained by strong limits on government power, is one of the reasons Iraq flounders.

America is peaceful, and good, and great, because it has LIMITED government, and NOT because it has majority-rule and representative democracy.

We must fight, with all our might, to preserve the principles of limited government against those people -- politicians and citizens alike -- who want to replace this precious heritage with majority preferences, majority fears, and majority hysteria.

Even if a majority of Americans should want to grant the politicians the power to spy on us without a warrant, IT SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED!

The power of the executive branch must continue to be watched and checked by the power of the judicial branch. Our government must remain limited, so that America remains good and great.

Congress is set to adjourn on May 22nd. The danger remains that they may act to permit warrantless spying before they adjourn. We must maintain the pressure to prevent this from happening. Please send Congress a message....

If you can, please also help us reach the point where we can start to recruit more DC Downsizers at a rapid rate . . .

Emphasis added.

"Every government that does not act on the principle of a Republic, in other words, that does not make the “res-publica” its whole and sole object, is not a good government." –Paine, RoM, 174

”Almost every despot, by whatever title, has the ethics of a pirate and assassin – and the ordinary man simply adores him.” –Paine

”He who bids to be ruled by the arbitrary will of another, instead of consent of law, will be ruled by wild beasts.” [L] –Aristotle, Politics, III, 16, 1287a, 30

[BOBT12]

I feel that the follow information sums up many of the woes regarding the Freddie/Fannie situation:

Quote of the Day: "The bigger they are the harder they fall."
-- conventional wisdom

Subject: How things get too big to fail, and what to do about it

When the politicians created Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac they claimed that these institutions would provide stability to the housing market. But neither the housing market nor Fannie and Freddie are stable. Instead, Fannie and Freddie have brought us fear, risk, and uncertainty to the tune of $5.3 trillion. [Which is the case with nearly every government program.]

Only the monopoly we call the federal government has the power to create a $5.3 TRILLION risk.

In a true free market the business of secondary mortgages would've been handled by hundreds or thousands of competing entities. It would've been very unlikely that all these firms would have made the same mistakes at the same time. But our government created a situation where the secondary mortgage business is dominated by just two institutions, Fannie and Freddie, so that any mistakes these two firms make have the potential to harm everyone.

Combine this with a centralized money supply and centralized interest rates set by the Fed, as well as centralized rule making concentrated in Congress and the bureaucracy, and conditions are ripe for disaster.

Even in what's left of the free market economy government contracts and preferential policies help create businesses that are too big to fail. And so we constantly find ourselves at the mercy of the decisions of a small group of people running huge institutions that concentrate, rather than diversify, risk. Just a few mistakes by a few of these individuals can cause a cascade of disasters.

Things become too big to fail because the federal government makes them that way. Failures follow naturally from the concentration of decision making. Government bailouts immunize these "too big" institutions from the consequences of their decisions, thereby encouraging risky behavior. There's even a name for this phenomenon -- "moral hazard." Big mistakes with big consequences become very likely.

Who pays for all these mistakes? You do. Your savings will be damaged or destroyed, through losses and inflation. As a taxpayer, you'll foot the bill for bailouts that primarily benefit the people who made the mistakes.

What can we do about this? We must decentralize our economy by Downsizing DC. This will take time, but it must be done. What do we do in the short term? We must start by telling Congress what we want.

We may, at some point, have a campaign directed at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In the meantime, the proposed bailout of these monstrosities is going to increase the national debt and make it harder to deal with the future unfunded liabilities for Social Security and Medicare. For now, we can use our campaign on that subject to tell Congress what we think.

Use your personal comments to object to the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Remind Congress that it will increase the national debt. Tell Congress to downsize government involvement in banking, thereby reducing future risk from ventures that are "too big to fail." You can send your message here.

Please also make a contribution to help us grow. We are intentionally designed to thrive during hard times by keeping our operating expenses low. Small contributions and monthly pledges go a long way with us. Choose a contribution amount that fits your budget, so we can keep growing larger and stronger. You can contribute here....

Thank you for being a part of the growing Downsize DC Army.

Perry Willis
Communications Director
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

D o w n s i z e r - D i s p a t c h
is the official email list of DownsizeDC.org, Inc. & Downsize DC Foundation
July 16, 2008

Emphasis added.

[BOBT12]

Here is an exchange between a gentleman named Submarine Veteran and our ole friendly neighborhood JRB. SV’s experience reminds me of how I came upon the views that I currently hold toward our, not so just, government keepers. After years of reading foundation documents, such as the Declaration of Independence, the actual Constitution (not so much of the textbooks about the constitution), Jefferson, John Locke, Franklin, Paine (Rights of Man, Common Sense), etc., it became clear that the government we see today is Unlimited, and OUT OF CONTROL!

Reply to JRB

by Submarine Veteran on Sun Sep 14, 2008 7:31 am

Judge Roy Bean wrote:Hey, bubblehead - if indeed you were one, thank you for doing what not all that many people can qualify for and then put up with. A lot of pilots owe their lives to guys like you.

Having said that, how the hell did a guy like you fall for the conspiracy and TP crap?

I appreciate the civility JRB. Yes, I really spent a few years under the deep blue sea defending our Republic during the cold war. Unfortunately, it seems that many on this forum are really just plain mean people - I guess it comes with the territory, you know, spending all day exacting money from hard-working Americans to support an ever-expanding So******t rule.

WRT your question, I guess it was just reading history, the congressional record, Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations", the statutes, etc. My history on this topic somewhat follows that of Tommy Cryer. A friend was telling me about what he discovered and I went out to prove him wrong. What I found was distressing to say the least. Well, foolish me. I figured I'd simply go right to the source and ask the IRS a few questions to help clear my friend (and now myself) up on the matter. My response to my questions from the "Service" were little more than threats. Well, I don't take kindly to threats and so I continued to inquire. I went all the way to the IRS commissioner and I contacted my congressman and senators. All I got was the same anonymous document "The truth about frivolous..." Nothing responsive to some probing questions. Well, that is no way for an honest government to deal with an American. So, like a few earlier Americans (Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, etc.), I too became a "Tax Protestor" - only instead of standing up to King George, I face a nameless, faceless entity that has consistently failed to provide a responsive reply to a single question I have asked of them. So the IRS continues to apply the "Law of Force" and refuses to simply show me the law.

As Nikki indicates, there is no tax on "earnings", there is a tax on "income" in the form of "gains" and "profits". My "earnings" for my time at labor is an exchange - some of my heartbeats applied in specialized labor in exchange for a "medium of exchange" (FRNs), a zero-gain transaction. If I wasn't working for another, I'd maintain my own landscaping, resurface my own pool (okay, maybe leave that to the professionals), tend my food crops and livestock, etc., but industrialization resulted in specialization and specialization mandates a system of currency as a medium of exchange for specialized labor.

So wserra says Sections 1, 61, and 63 name the activity I engage in that makes my pay for labor liable to the tax. Section 1 imposes a tax on my "taxable income", Sections 61 and 63 define "gross income" and "taxable income". But it seems that Nikki differentiates between "earnings" and "income" and "earnings" isn't included in Section 61. "Compensation for Services" is included in Section 61 and that seems to have its roots in the Public Salary Tax Act of 1939 where Section 22(a) of the Internal Revenue Code (relating to the definition of “gross income”) is amended by inserting after the words “compensation for personal service” the following: (“including personal service as an officer or employee of a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing)”.

So it seems that "earnings" is not "Compensation for Services" is it? So where do "earnings" become "income"? The definition of "income" during the period when the 16th was being ratified is different than today's use, likely thanks to a government-controlled public education system. The "income tax" in Black's 2nd refers only to "a tax on the yearly profits arising from property, professions, trades, and offices", not gross receipts for labor (see page 612 of Black's 2nd Edition).

Similarly, "Income" is defined as "The return in money from one's business, labor, or capital invested; gains, profit or private revenue...'Income' means that which comes in or is received from any business or investment of capital, without reference to the outgoing expenditures; while 'profits' generally means the gain which is made upon any business or investment when both receipts and payments are taken into account. 'Income,' when applied to the affairs of individuals, expresses the same idea that 'revenue' does when applied to the affairs of a state or nation."

Adam Smith had this to say, “Capitation taxes, so far as they are levied upon the lower ranks of people, are direct taxes upon the wages of labor….” The 16th did not change A1S9C4 of the USC and a tax on my pay for labor (my earnings) is a capitation, which must still be apportioned by representation albeit that apportionment among the states is no longer required subsequent to the 16th. A1S9C4 still demands apportionment by representation, a subtle but very important distinction as a tax on my earnings would be a capitation, a direct tax, and still subject to apportionment in some form.

Additional supporting evidence of the deliberate misapplication of the law is clear from the level of "deductions" in the early tax system. To be "made liable" for the tax in 1913, one would have to have brought in six times the average household income in America at that time. The political cartoons surrounding the ratification of the 16th are also testamentary as they clearly show the "idle rich" getting on the treadmill, whereas the average American was footing the bill of government through the then-existing lawful taxes. Were our grandparents so stupid so as to authorize the federal government to directly tax our very sweat and blood? I think not.

Needless to say, there is a significant amount of study that drove me to this stand JRB, and I did not venture here lightly. I fully realize what may be at stake. I ventured where few have gone before and there was a solid reason for it, I believed I was defending the American Republic and our Constitution, and the risk was worth the potential harm. I am in this fight today for a similar reason. It is not about the money, it is about ensuring that my children and theirs retain their freedoms as sovereign Americans and have an open and honest SERVANT government. The arrogance and abuse I have received in response to honest inquiry was sufficient for me to recognize that there was something wrong with the current tax system. What I have discovered is a web of lies and deceit.

I'm sure that there are many of you here that will enjoy seeing another life torn up by this systematic misapplication of the law and a collaborative effort with the judges who are no longer unencumbered by the Executive, through the IRS, pursuant to Article III, Section 1.

When I report this NFTL on Monday, bogus as it really is, it is sure to have an adverse impact on my professional life. But as one early American said, "I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The question before the house is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at the truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the numbers of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth, to know the worst, and to provide for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past,
[...]

It is in vain, sir, to extentuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace--but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

I too will survive.

Emphasis/color added.

http://quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=3059

[BOBT12]

Why should they, Submarine Veteran, they trusted you for all of their work abroad, why not at home?

WHY DOES THE GOVERNMENT FEAR
ARMED VETERANS?
PART 1 of 2

by Alan Stang
January 4, 2008
NewsWithViews.com

Recent passage by the District of Criminals of the legislation known colloquially as the Veteran Disarmament bill raises the question of why the conspiracy for world government would want to disarm returning veterans. The conspiracy trusted these men to use the most devastating ordinance abroad; it does not trust them to keep and bear much smaller weapons here at home. The obvious answer is that these are the millions of well trained military men I was talking about in my recent piece about a possible assassination threat to Dr. Ron Paul.

These are the men the psychos at the top are afraid of, the men who can stick the red dot in their eye from a mile away. The psychos know these men are out there, watching, stewing, temperatures rising every day; they are beginning to understand that they are dying now because the psychos have poisoned them with Depleted Uranium in the field.

They are beginning to realize that the buddies and the limbs they left behind in Iraq were lost not in defense of this beloved country but in behalf of the megalomaniacal nightmare of conquest the psychos think is “normal.” Now the veterans understand that the monsters who sent them half way around the world to get sick are dismantling the system of freedom the Founding Fathers gave us here at home.

So far, they haven’t said much, but the psychos know they are simmering and that something could set them off. So, the Nazis at the top want their guns, because it is very nerve wracking to have to keep watching your chest and tum-tum, hoping that if you see the red dot there soon enough you will have time to hunker down before the round that follows it smashes through your perfumed skull and distributes gobs of your polluted brain all over the haute couture ensembles of the distinguished ladies enjoying ****tails on the balcony of your penthouse.

Proof that they are crazy is their assumption that passage of this “law,” signed by Communist world government traitor Jorge W. Boosh, will intimidate these men – who have come home from Hell – into surrendering the ordinance they are buying to the bare walls at gun shows and stores; which logically brings us to the proper application of the Second Amendment.

Some Americans understand that the main purpose of the Second Amendment is not hunting, not sport shooting and not even self-defense, although it would certainly underwrite those worthy activities. No, the Fathers wanted each and all of us to be armed in the event that somewhere down the road this shaky experiment they had created but did not trust themselves – the federal government – were to get out of control and try to destroy our rights.

They wanted us to “keep and bear” – to carry – the guns we would need to do the job if it became necessary to “abolish” the government. Remember, the government is not the country. They are two entirely different things. The District of Criminals is the government. You are the country.

Of course, these are not my ideas. I can’t take credit for them. Remember that the nation’s birth certificate – the Declaration of Independence – says that whenever government becomes oppressive, whenever it tries to deny their rights, the people under it have the unalienable right to rise up and cast it off, even “abolish” it.

More at this link:

http://www.newswithviews.com/Stang/alan24.htm

[BOBT12]

The Bailout WOES continues,

Quotes of the Day:
"As you may have heard, the U.S. is putting together a constitution for Iraq. Why don't we just give them ours? Think about it -- it was written by very smart people, it's served us well for over two hundred years, and besides, we're not using it anymore." - Jay Leno

"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." - Ronald Reagan

"Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them." - Ronald Reagan

Subject: The More Things Change, the More They Remain the Same.

The bailout fight is not over, and the time for action is right now! Since the bankers lost by just a 12 vote swing in the House on Monday, the Congressional leadership has regrouped. In their desperation they've decided to violate both the Constitution and ALL the principles of the current Downsize DC Agenda.

The Senate is set to begin debate and VOTE TONIGHT, after the Jewish holiday Rosh Hashanah is over. Rosh Hashanah is the Hebrew New Year, but, as the quotes above indicate, there's nothing "new" about the games being played on Capitol Hill.

Author G. Edward Griffin wrote about our central banking system, "The name of the game is bailout." He went on to explain . . .

"Although national monetary events may appear mysterious and chaotic, they are governed by well-established rules which bankers and politicians rigidly follow. The central fact to understanding these events is that all the money in the banking system has been created out of nothing through the process of making loans. A defaulted loan, therefore, costs the bank little of tangible value, but it shows up on the ledger as a reduction in assets without a corresponding reduction in liabilities. If the bad loans exceed the assets, the bank becomes technically insolvent and must close its doors.

"The first rule of survival is therefore to avoid writing off large, bad loans and if possible to at least continue receiving interest payments on them. To accomplish that, the endangered loans are rolled over and increased in size. This provides the borrower with money to continue paying interest plus fresh funds for new spending. The basic problem is not solved, it is postponed for a while and made worse.

"The final solution on behalf of the banking cartel is to have the federal government guarantee payment of the loan should the borrower default in the future. This is accomplished by convincing Congress that not to do so would result in great damage to the economy and hardship for the people. From that point forward, the burden of the loan is removed from the banks ledger and transferred to the taxpayer."


Does that sound familiar? Griffin wrote it back in 1994.

A lawless Congress isn't new either. Since the bill didn't pass the House on Monday, the Senate is going to violate the Constitution, and pass their own version of the bailout first. What's the big deal?

According to Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution, the Founding Fathers wanted the people's House to originate all spending bills. This was the branch that was closest to the citizenry. Members of House were to be, in the fullest sense of the word, "representatives."

The Senate was to be a check on the excesses of the House. The President was given a veto to check them still further. And finally the Courts could put a stop to un-Constitutional spending not specifically enumerated or authorized by the Constitution.

But now, with the bailout, the Senate is getting things backwards. They have no bill from the House.

But it gets worse.

New Hampshire Senator Judd Gregg, appearing on TV last night, suggested that they had a way around the Constitution. He said it's done all the time. The Senate will simply attach its bailout bill to a current "CR" -- a Continuing Resolution. In other words, they'll attach it to another, unrelated bill -- and send it back over to the House.

Not only is this un-Constitutional -- a violation of Article I, Section 7 -- but this Judd Gregg approach also breaks the principle of the One Subject at a Time Act.

And the rush to get this done printed and voted on in a hurry violates the transpartisan principles of the Read the Bills Act.

Now as if that's not all bad enough, Judd Gregg wasn't done being reckless. When asked about potentially suspending the "mark-to-market" rules, he said that the Congress didn't have the specialization necessary to address that issue. Instead, what to do about mark-to-market needed to be left in the hands of the (un-elected) “experts” at the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Trace the dangerous logic here: Congress is expert enough to authorize, in one bill, the single largest increase in federal government spending ever, but not qualified to address a little accounting rule!

By the way, that too is a violation of Article I. Only Congress has the legislative power. That authority cannot be delegated to un-elected bureaucrats, or anyone else for that matter. But such illegal delegation happens routinely, and it's why we wrote the Write the Laws Act.

Of course, Congress has no authority to save the markets or give such vast, discretionary authority to one man or one agency of the government. So it violates the principles underlying the Enumerated Powers Act as well – said act would compel Congress to cite, chapter and verse, from where, in the Constitution, the bill they’re voting on is authorized.

And for the ballooning of deficit and debt, this bill is unmatched, but don't expect Congress to tighten its belt, as we propose with the Fiscal Responsibility Act. This bill, also known as H.R. 500, if passed into law, would trigger a cut in Congressional pay for each year in which the federal government runs a deficit.

Maybe they'd be more interested in changing arbitrary rules like mark-to-market, than expending $700 billion, if they had to take a pay cut. But since you and your offspring are going to get the bill, why should they be concerned about the expense?

So this bailout violates the Constitution and the entire Downsize DC Agenda. ON THESE MORAL PRINCIPLES ALONE, YOU, THE DOWNSIZE DC ARMY, HAVE SUFFICIENT REASON TO OPPOSE THE BAILOUT.

And since the vote is going to happen in the Senate tonight, and probably in the House on Thursday, we cannot let up on the pressure -- even though it appears it will pass the Senate. We encourage you to use our proprietary Educate the Powerful System to get your voice heard, because we must still defeat this in the House.

But the information we're getting about the bailout gets even worse. On the very same program on which Judd Gregg appeared, one of the Congressmen opposing it, Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) also appeared. Hang on to your hats, because this may be the very reason even $700 billion won't be enough to do the job it's proposed to do. It provides bailouts to foreign investors too. Sherman said,

"...you have to read the bill. It's very clear. The Bank of Shanghai can transfer all of its toxic assets to the Bank of Shanghai of Los Angeles which can then sell them the next day to the Treasury. I had a provision to say if it wasn't owned by an American entity even a subsidiary, but at least an entity in the US, the Treasury can't buy it. It was rejected.

"The bill is very clear. Assets now held in China and London can be sold to US entities on Monday and then sold to the Treasury on Tuesday. Paulson has made it clear he will recommend a veto of any bill that contained a clear provision that said if Americans did not own the asset on September 20th that it can't be sold to the Treasury.

"Hundreds of billions of dollars are going to bail out foreign investors. They know it, they demanded it and the bill has been carefully written to make sure that can happen."


We must act now. Honestly, I'm scared this bill will pass. Shouldn't Congress be scared of voting for it? Shouldn't they see the wrath of their constituents flashing before their eyes when tempted to cast a vote in support of this un-Constitutional,” Upsize DC” proposal?

[...]

Jim Babka
President
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

"It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress." --Mark Twain

[BOBT12]

Banker Bailout Bill Contains IRS Police State Provision

Kurt Nimmo

Infowars
October 4, 2008
*
In the months and years ahead, you will be required to fork over significantly higher taxes to pay not only for the putative bailout but also a passel of other globalist schemes, all designed to strip you of your wealth and turn you into another peon working on the globalist slave plantation now under construction.

Not only is the recently passed Banker Takeover bill larded up with pork, it also contains dictatorial provisions. In addition to making former Goldman Sachs chairman and current Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson an economic czar — a provision completely at odds with the Constitution — the bill grants police state powers to the IRS. Declan McCullagh

writes for CNet:
The bailout bill also gives the Internal Revenue Service new authority to conduct undercover operations. It would immunize the IRS from a passel of federal laws, including permitting IRS agents to run businesses for an extended sting operation, to open their own personal bank accounts with U.S. tax dollars, and so on.

McCullagh notes this is nothing new. Beginning in 1988, under the so-called Anti-Drug Abuse Act, the IRS began functioning as a secret police force, but this authority was temporary and intermittent. In April of this year, senators Max Baucus (D) and Chuck Grassley (R) began an effort to make this authority permanent.

“Undercover operations are an integral part of IRS efforts to detect and prove noncompliance. The temporary status of this provision creates uncertainty [tyranny], as the IRS plans its undercover efforts from year to year,” the senators claimed. Earlier this week, the provision was buried in the Banker Takeover bill and is now [color of]law.

“There’s another section of the bailout bill worth noting,” McCullagh continues. “It lets the IRS give information from individual tax returns to any federal law enforcement agency investigating suspected ‘terrorist’ activity, which can, in turn, share it with local and state police. Intelligence agencies such as the CIA and the National Security Agency can also receive that information.” [If this doesn't raise a red flag, what will?]

The NSA, FBI, CIA, and military intelligence are less interested in “terrorists” than they are in domestic opposition to the government. In fact, the CIA is in the business of creating terrorists [think World Trade Center 1993 and 2001]and the FBI habitually has its agents and operatives pretend to be terrorists (associated with the terrorist groups created by the CIA) to ensnare non-terrorists. The IRS worked with the FBI in the 1960s to go after antiwar and civil rights activists. In 2005, it “warned one of Southern California’s largest and most liberal churches that it is at risk of losing its tax-exempt status because of an antiwar sermon two days before the 2004 presidential election,” according to the Los Angeles Times.

In the weeks and months ahead, there will be no shortage of Americans who will organize and protest against the banker takeover, especially as negative economic aspects begin to eat them alive. As planned, the banker bailout will kick the devaluation of the dollar into hyperdrive as another few trillion dollars pile up on the already stupendous and destructive national debt. China, Saudi Arabia, and other countries currently holding huge quantities of U.S. dollars and U.S. dollar-denominated debt are now beginning the shift away from the dollar into other currencies. Russia is calling for an end to the dollar as the foundation of the global economy.

The result, as Dave Lindorff so aptly put it, will be that America will become “a smoking ruin, with Americans, like Weimar Germans before them, going shopping with wheelbarrows full of worthless green paper to exchange for a few days’ groceries.” In the meantime, however, millions of Americans will discover what the banksters are up to and will attempt to organize for change.

The banksters and their minions understand this full well and that is why they are installing their control grid at a record pace, systematically passing draconian legislation such as the Patriot Act, PDD51, the Military Commissions Act, and soon enough the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act. It is no mistake a combat brigade, fresh from the killing field of Iraq, are now working with Northcom, once upon a time forbidden under the now moribund Posse Comitatus Act.

The IRS insertion in the bankster bill Bush signed into law is but yet another example. Additionally, in the months and years ahead, you will be required to fork over significantly higher taxes to pay not only for the putative bailout but also a passel of other globalist schemes, all designed to strip you of your wealth and turn you into another peon working on the globalist slave plantation now under construction.

http://www.infowars.com/?p=5076#comment-571914

Emphasis [and comments] added.

As anyone can see, this action by Congress, the President, and the courts, have clearly displayed how out of touch the federal government is regarding the people's wishes. Hence, this action is brash display of taxation without representation, blatant disregard for the Constitution, and every wrong-headed thing.

"The spirit of the times may alter, will alter. Our rules will become corrupt, our people careless...From the conclusion of this war we shall be going downhill. It will not then be necessary to resort every moment to the people for support. They will be forgotten, therefore, and their rights disregarded. They will forget themselves, but in the sole faculty of making money, and will never think of uniting to effect a due respect for their rights. The shackles, therefore...will be made heavier and heavier, till our rights shall revive or expire in a convulsion." --Thomas Jefferson, "Notes on Virginia" (1781).

[BOBT12]

I felt that you might be interested in this infomation.

One former NSA employee reports that her colleagues stayed on the lines and listened into calls that were about "personal, private things Americans who are not in any way, shape or form associated with anything to do with terrorism." Is this why they needed FISA, to listen to phone sex? And the NSA (No Such Agency --Ike) said they would be nice boys and girls. No matter what the anti-privacy groups say, this swap of civil liberty for security is un-Constitutional. Let's return to the limits placed on government by the Constitution!

“Should we wander [from the essential principles of our government] in moments of error or alarm, let us hasten to retrace our steps and regain the road which alone leads to peace, liberty, and safety.” —Thomas Jefferson, upon repealing the “Alien and Sedition Acts.

I felt that you might be interested in this infomation.

D o w n s i z e r - D i s p a t c h

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quotes of the Day:
I tried phone sex once, but the holes were too small.
- Unknown

I sleep with my phone. We have that good of a relationship.
- Veronica Galvalisi



Subject: NSA listens to soldier's pillow-talk



You may remember we opposed warrantless surveillance of phones and emails by the federal government. We said it was unnecessary and un-Constitutional. We predicted it would lead to abuses -- like virtually every other government program designed to "protect us."

Of course, the people pushing for this program said we didn't understand the danger. They said they were too busy tracking various plots to screw around. Actually, the Intelligence Czar put it this way: "It's not for the heck of it. We are narrowly focused and drilled on protecting the nation against al Qaeda and those organizations who are affiliated with it."



They're all business. But even a conservative Republican Senator still wondered if they just weren't looking to pry into people's personal lives. The Intelligence Czar replied, "No sir."

Now, ABC reports that two whistleblowers have undressed the true behavior of the National Security Agency. Both of these people are Arab linguists. They said that the agency was listening to the truly personal conversations of people with absolutely zero connection to terrorism, like aid workers, journalists, and soldiers.



Don't our soldiers, who are fighting for democracy or something, deserve a little privacy when they're separated from their spouses for a year at a time?

Alas, no. It's an issue of national sexuality... er, security.



One former NSA employee reports that her colleagues stayed on the lines and listened into calls that were about "personal, private things Americans who are not in any way, shape or form associated with anything to do with terrorism."



The other whistleblower says they'd open up the speakers so that others in the rooms could listen to "good phone sex or... some pillow talk... It would be some colonel making pillow talk," with a girlfriend or a spouse.



No matter what the anti-privacy politicians and bureaucrats say, this swap of civil liberty for security is un-Constitutional.



So just where does the NSA get-off with this spying?



Now we know.



The good news is this is an election year. The two main candidates for President have real differences between them on warrantless surveillance. Barack Obama voted in support of it back in July. But John McCain didn't think a Congressional vote was required for the NSA to listen to these calls.



Thank God for two parties and representative democracy (sarcasm intended).



We can't rely on the results of the upcoming election. The truth is, we never can. That's why we must act, through direct pressure, and we must act relentlessly and decisively.

We need to reclaim ALL of the civil liberties ground we've lost in the last seven years. And one bill would do exactly that. The lead sponsor is Congressman Ron Paul, and it's titled, "The American Freedom Agenda Act."



In addition to restoring the ”Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act” (FISA) and thereby outlawing warrantless spying on American citizens by the Executive Branch, it would also . . .

* Repeal the “Military Commissions Act of 2006” and thereby restore the ancient right of habeas corpus and end legally sanctioned torture by U.S. government agents

* Give Congress standing in court to challenge the President's use of "signing statements" as a means to avoid executing the nation's laws

* Make it illegal for government agents to kidnap people and send them abroad to be tortured by foreign governments

* Provide legal protection to journalists who expose wrong-doing by the Federal government

* Prohibit the use of secret evidence to label groups or individuals as terrorists for the purpose of criminal or civil sanctions

Please, right now, use our Educate the Powerful System to send a message urging your Representative to co-sponsor, and your Senators to sponsor, The American Freedom Agenda Act.




[...]



Jim Babka
President
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

[BOBT12]

We the People, show a long train of abuses and usurpations by the all branches of the government, protected by the courts.

October 14, 2008

ON THE TRAIN FROM DC

As I begin to write this article, I am on the train from D.C. to the BWI airport, heading home, having filed yet another set of papers in the Supreme Court of the United States in defense of the Constitution. Once again, the Government is in the process of attempting to seize power from the People.

This time, regarding the A.I.G. and $700 Billion Wall Street bailout plans, I filed an emergency motion asking the U.S. Supreme Court to restrain the Government from giving or lending taxpayer funds or credit in exchange for private assets in aid of private corporations, unless and until the government defendants could show the Court where in the Constitution it provides that the People have agreed to share with the Government their power to purchase private assets such as “toxic” mortgage-related assets and non-toxic shares of bank stocks.

My argument is the People never gave that power to the Government and the Government has taken another step outside the boundaries We the People have drawn around its limited, enumerated powers.

My case against the A.I.G. bailout and my case against the $700 billion bailout were filed in federal District Court on September 18 and September 24 respectively. In each case I had filed a similar emergency motion asking the Court to restrain the Defendants from transferring the taxpayer funds until they produced evidence before the Court that they had the legal authority to do so.

In both cases, without waiting to hear from the government defendants, the District Court (Judge Sharpe) denied my emergency motion on the ground that I had “failed to cite the Court’s jurisdiction” to hear the constitutional challenge. This was obviously nonsensical and untrue. Not only is the Court fully aware of its unquestionable and inherent jurisdiction to determine the constitutional questions, but I had fully recited the legal basis for the Court’s jurisdiction in the first paragraph of each complaint under the heading, “Jurisdiction and Venue.”

On September 30 I appealed Judge Sharpe’s evasive and erroneous decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. As part of that appeal, I filed a similar emergency motion asking the Appellate Court to restrain the Defendants from transferring taxpayer funds for the bailouts until they showed the Court they had the authority to do so. On October 10 the Court of Appeals notified me that it had denied the motion on October 6. Still, the government defendants had not filed any papers with the courts in response to the two lawsuits, other than a mere “Notice of Appearance” simply identifying the DOJ attorney assigned to the case by the defendants.

Because the application I filed today with SCOTUS is for a stay, and because it was filed before 2:00 pm today, it should be decided this afternoon by the individual justice assigned to my geographic area. That would be Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

So, here I am, waiting for the Supreme Court of the United States to timely respond to a judicial Petition for Redress of Grievances challenging grave violations of the Constitution by the other two branches of the federal Government.

Click to read: SCOTUS Emergency Motion for TRO Schulz's Declaration SCOTUS TRO


I’m Not Hopeful…

I’m not very hopeful that SCOTUS will grant the relief requested, not because my papers were not artfully drawn or that I am not legally entitled to the relief I have requested, but because I have learned two important lessons during 30 years and more than 150 reported decisions in cases I have brought against local, state and federal government officials for violating various provisions of the NY and US constitutions.

First, the judiciary is highly politicized and quite corrupt. Second, the Wall Street merchants of debt are omnipotent, controlling our government officials, including judges and the political parties who designate most of those candidates who appear on the ballot on election day. Although I have won many cases and set some constitutional precedents, each time a case and controversy got too close to the heart of the lines of money and power I would lose, no matter how right I was on the law and no matter how artfully drawn my papers.

Because of the significance of these lessons, their relevance to current events, and the importance for people to think about them as they attempt to make sense of what is happening to them and our Republic, I will briefly discuss a few of the judicial proceeding I have been involved in that went to the heart of the lines of money and power.

There was the 1994 case, “Schulz v. State of New York,” where I challenged the power of the state of New York to borrow $6 Billion without first obtaining the approval of the People in a general election because Art. VII, Section 11 of the state Constitution requires all State debt to receive prior approval by a majority of the voters in a general election. (This amendment was added after two financial collapses of the 19th century which were widely recognized to have been caused by government’s reckless spending and borrowing policies and programs).

In the 1994 case the state hired outside attorney Arthur Lyman (of U.S. Senate Iran-Contra Hearing fame) to represent them and to oppose me. Incredibly, Lyman argued that because the $6 Billion in bonds were to be issued, not directly by the State, but on behalf of the State by two of the State’s public authorities, the debt was not the debt of the state, and if it was not the debt of the state, the provisions of the NY Constitution restricting the incurrence of debt were irrelevant.

Although Lyman readily recognized that according to the NY Constitution no money could come out of the State treasury to pay back the bonds without an appropriation by the State Legislature, he argued the NY Constitution does not mandate that the Legislature must make the appropriations and, therefore, the bondholders would have no legal recourse against the State if the Legislature failed to make the appropriations. He argued that if payment to the bond holders was not legally enforceable, the bonds could not be classified as debt and, therefore, the NY Constitution was irrelevant.

By quoting Article VII, Section 16 of the NY Constitution, I argued that the People of the State long ago declared the State would never default on its obligation to repay money borrowed on behalf of the State. I argued that if the Legislature failed to make the appropriation, the State Comptroller was required by the Constitution to set aside the next money received by the state and to use it to pay the bondholders, even before that money could be used to pay the salaries of state workers. I argued any bondholder threatened with not receiving principal of or interest on his bonds would have legal recourse by going to court and getting a writ of mandamus to force the Comptroller to comply with Article VII, Section 16 of the NY Constitution which reads:

“The legislature shall annually provide by appropriation for the payment of the interest upon and installments of principal of all debts created on behalf of the State…as the same shall fall due…If at any time the legislature shall fail to make any such appropriation, the comptroller shall set apart from the first revenues thereafter received, applicable to the general fund of the state, a sum sufficient to pay such interest, installments of principal, or contributions to such sinking fund, as the case may be, and shall so apply the moneys thus set apart. The comptroller may be required to set aside and apply such revenues as aforesaid, at the suit of any holder of such bonds.”
NY Const., Art VII, Section 16.

Sidestepping (without mentioning) this constitutional provision and my argument, New York's highest court ruled the state could borrow the $6 Billion without voter approval, because it would not be the debt of the State, because repayment would not be legally enforceable. The Court held that any right that is not enforceable is not a right. The decision opened the proverbial Northwest Passage to massive amounts of what is commonly referred to in NY as “back door” borrowing, the incurrence of state debt without voter approval.

I took the case to SCOTUS on the ground of Due Process of law. Without comment, SCOTUS decided not to hear the case.

Another case that went to the heart of the lines of money and power and reflects the politicization of the judiciary and the power of the debt merchants was We The People v United States, another case that SCOTUS refused to hear even though it was a first impression case calling for a declaration of the meaning of the last ten words of the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

Emphasis added.

http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org...2008-10-14.htm

http://www.suijuris.net/forum/court/...tml#post149764

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

... restrain the Government from giving or lending taxpayer funds or credit in exchange for private assets in aid of private corporations,

It has nothng to do with taxpayers. People pay taxes because these have supposedly been incurred, like any other bill. No bill no taxes.

I guess "taxpayers" is a buzzword and means 'public'.

unless and until the government defendants could show the Court where in the Constitution it provides that the People have agreed to share with the Government their power to purchase private assets such as “toxic” mortgage-related assets and n