The Remedy for BIG Corrupt Government - Part 1

[BOBT12]

Those who are corrupt and who are currently in power will not correct themselves! Be they occupying the office of President, Congress, or in judicial positions, etc.

Downsize DC co-founder Harry Browne used to say, "Ladies and gentlemen
. . . You know it. And I know it. Government doesn't work."

In some ways, I was prone to think he overstated his point. But then, I look at the news from a single week. Evidence also abounds for the DC Downsizer Principle, "Big Government harms you, hurts your family, injures your neighbor, damages your industry, and destroys your community -- it even kills innocent people."

Yes, Big Government fails, just like Harry Browne said. But it's actually much worse than that. Big Government is, all-too-often, the very cause of the pain we're experiencing -- the very pains from which politicians are promising to rescue us. Big Government permeates nearly every area of our lives, so, like a bad crime scene, point to a societal problem and you'll frequently find one or more Big Government program's fingerprints all over it.

And here's the worst part: Big Government grows bigger as a result of its own failures.

[...]

Unintended Consequences

When bad things happen, when the programs don't work (FEMA rescue comes to mind as I write this sentence), we're told about "unintended consequences" -- like no one saw this coming.

Well, Big Government has so many unintended consequences that those consequences are, well, predictable.

Big Government hurts. Not content to inflict mild amounts of pain on its victims, Big Government expands. That's why we must Downsize DC. We must break the cycle.

Emphasis added.

http://www.freemarketnews.com/Analys...id=64&nid=6641

[BOBT12]

We the People must accomplish this terrible, and terribly important, mission.

Rep. McKinney's floor statement on the impeachment of George W. Bush

Download a PDF of the Articles of Impeachment (H.R. 1106) here.

December 8, 2006

Mr. Speaker:

I come before this body today as a proud American and as a servant of the American people, sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

Throughout my tenure, I’ve always tried to speak the truth. It’s that commitment that brings me here today.

We have a President who has misgoverned and a Congress that has refused to hold him accountable. It is a grave situation and I believe the stakes for our country are high.

No American is above the law, and if we allow a President to violate, at the most basic and fundamental level, the trust of the people and then continue to govern, without a process for holding him accountable—what does that say about our commitment to the truth? To the Constitution?

Let’s examine the preamble of the federal constitution:

PREAMBLE

We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

http://http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/usconst.htm

We must do our part to rid ourselves of tyranny, whether that means voting, or taking other actions, to get the wrongdoer out of office, and achieve the goals stated above. This action may take many forms such as, yet not limited to, stopping contributions to legal plunder, such as holding your taxes like Robert Shults of We the People, Inc. (We the People v. U.S. Government) http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLaws...nPetitions.htm, thus, making you more able to carry out your wishes, and the wrongdoer less able to do what he/she does best. That is to use unjust force and oppression against We the People.

[BOBT12]

Let's look to Mahatma Gandhi for a non-violent guidance:

Gandhi may truly be said to be the prophetic voice of the twentieth century. Violence inflicts upon its practitioners physical and spiritual wounds; the way of non-violence, said Gandhi, "blesses him who uses it and him against whom it is used."2 Again, "non-violence is the law of our species as violence is the law of the brute. The spirit lies dormant in the brute and he knows no law but that of physical might. The dignity of man requires obedience to a higher law -- to the strength of the spirit."3 Let us be sure we do not misunderstand the philosophy of non-violence embodied in Gandhi's life and teachings. A practitioner of the non-violent way of life, far from being passive, is the most active person in the world. He is ready to join the fray -non-violently -- wherever and whenever there is injustice or wrong. He neither tolerates nor compromises with injustice, wrong, tyranny, authoritarianism, totalitarianism, dictatorship. His task in life is not to destroy the evildoer but to redeem and to convert the evildoer by love. " 'With malice toward none,...
Mahatma Gandhi: Peaceful Revolutionary, by Haridas T. Muzumdar

The truth may set us free:

GANDHI ON TRUTH :

Truth alone will endure; all the rest will be swept away before the tide of time....What may appear as truth to one person will often appear as untruth to another person. But that need not worry the seeker....Truth and untruth often co-exist; good and evil often are found together....Use truth as your anvil, nonviolence as your hammer and anything that does not stand the test when it is brought to the anvil of truth and hammered with nonviolence, reject it....An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it.

http://whatwouldgandhido.net/
Click here for more information!


However the French and American revolutions, and other conflicts, show that violent action is sometimes necessary to achieve freedom. Let us pray this is not the current case!

The King himself seemed to be encouraging a fight. A final Congressional entreaty to peace last year was answered in cold language by George III. "The lines have been drawn," he wrote. "Blows must decide."

By the spring of this year [1774], the idea of independence had caught fire throughout the colonies. Royal governments were ousted one after another up and down the eastern seaboard, and colonial assemblies began drafting their own constitutions. The idea of freedom seem to intoxicate everyone.

Americans are now faced with the consequences of their action. British troops have withdrawn from Boston and are said to be on their way to New York. General George Washington and the Continental Army are marching there to greet them. Only time will tell whether the force of Jefferson's language will be matched by American force in the field.

http://www.pbs.org/ktca/liberty/chronicle_...elphia1776.html

The war [circa 1760 war with France and Britain] had begun with a skirmish in the wilderness between French troops and American colonials led by young George Washington, whose description of the affair revealed that his interest in war lay in the opportunities it offered for honorable and gallant action. Honor and gallantry did not die in the next few years, though large numbers of English, American, and French soldiers and Indians did.

http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=84633734

Of course the wrongdoers (DOJ, IRS, etc.) are strong and many of those who resist suffer persecution, such as Mr. Irwin Schiff, Mr. Joseph Banister http://www.freedomabovefortune.com/, Mr. Al Thompson http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Mi...ThompsonOut.htm, **** Simkanin http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/si...ate02-29-04.htm and many more.

[BOBT12]

Yet, We the People must resist anyway!

WTP website:

In 1517, Martin Luther nailed his “95 Theses of Contention” to the front door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany.

This single, bold gesture openly challenged the doctrine of the Catholic Church and set off an unforeseen chain of events which came to be known as the “Reformation.” The effects of Luther's action that day would forever alter Western Civilization's perception of the authority of the Church – and in practical terms, call into question the very authority of the state.

Luther was consequently summoned to appear before a tribunal of the church-state hierarchy, and was ordered to recant his damaging assertions.

In response he uttered, “Unless I am convinced by proofs from Scriptures or by plain and clear reasons and arguments, I can and will not retract, for it is neither safe nor wise to do anything against conscience. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen.”


Several years later, Luther went on to translate and publish the first non-Greek-Latin version of the New Testament, enabling average Europeans, for the first time, to study and comprehend the “hidden mysteries” of the Church.
It's time to take a page from Luther's book.
It's time to challenge IRS doctrine by posting a message on its front doors

Emphasis added. Of course Martin Luther was tortured to death by the pope. Still we remember his name, and his just cause, hundreds of years after his death.

http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLaws...2005-02-02.htm

GANDHI ON TRUTH

The quest of truth involves self-suffering, sometimes even unto death.

Yes, Gandhi was assassinated before he saw much change take place in his country. However, his work still moves many today, as they inspired Martin Luther King, Jr. a few years later.

We the People still have power of large numbers who don't consciously agree with the current state of affairs. Because they are ignorant thus, they did not sign on to the current program, and may be made aware of what is going on, and decide to join the rebellion.

Let us rebel against tyrants, war-mongers, thieves and all other wrongdoers, who would usurp the power of We the People.

Those who have some understanding of the truth may choose to enlighten others:

Just enlighten one per year, and they do the same, you may have 67 million supporters in 20 plus years;

Just enlighten one per decade, and they do the same, you may have 67 million supporters in 200 plus years. This seems to be the choice the other side has made. Therefore, if we are to succeed we must strive to carry our agenda through the generations.

If you were on a jury, what would you do?

Penn and another Quaker, William Mead, were arrested on a charge of disturbing the King's peace and summoned to stand trial. As the two men entered the courtroom, a bailiff ordered them to place their hats, which they had removed, back on their heads. When they complied, they were called forward and held in contempt of court for being in the courtroom with their hats on.

[...]Three more times the jury went out and returned with the same verdict. Finally, they refused to go out any more. The judge fined each of them forty marks and ordered them imprisoned until the fine was paid.

Emphasis added.

http://www.chrononhotonthologos.com/.../penntrial.htm

The point is that these great individuals stood by their convictions, and conscience, regardless the odds, or the presumed outcome. The jury refused to bow to the tyranny of the court (yes, these, mostly unnamed souls, are heroes too.)! When an individual does this, he or she is a leader, not a follower. At the very least, they lead themselves, don't you think?

Who are you? In the end the question everyone must ask themselves, do I (We the People) want to live free to practice good works, or do we want to be slaves to an evil master?

Jury Nullification

The following words of the Supreme Court need to be read several times by the judges of today's courts.

"The guarantees of jury trial in the Federal and State Constitutions reflect a profound judgment about the way in which law should be enforced and justice administered. A right to jury trial is granted to criminal defendants in order to prevent oppression by the Government. (Footnote 23)
Footnote 23: "The [jury trial] clause was clearly intended to protect the accused from oppression by the Government. * * *." Singer v. United States, 85 S.Ct. 783, 788 (1965), "The first object of any tyrant in Whitehall would be to make Parliament utterly subservient to his will; and the next to overthrow or diminish trial by jury, for no tyrant could afford to leave a subject's freedom in the hands of twelve of his countrymen. So that trial by jury is more than an instrument of justice and more than one wheel of the constitution: it is the lamp that shows that freedom lives." P. Devlin, Trial by Jury 164 (1956). (End of Footnote)

Those who wrote our constitutions knew from history and experience that it was necessary to protect against unfounded criminal charges brought to eliminate enemies and against judges too responsive to the voice of higher authority. The framers of the constitutions strove to create an independent judiciary but insisted upon further protection against arbitrary action. Providing an accused with the right to be tried by a jury of his peers gave him an inestimable safeguard against the corrupt or overzealous prosecutor and against the compliant, biased, or eccentric judge. If the defendant preferred the common-sense judgment of a jury to the more tutored but perhaps less sympathetic reaction of the single judge, he was to have it. Beyond this, the jury trial provisions in the Federal and State Constitutions reflect a fundamental decision about the exercise of official power--a reluctance to entrust plenary powers over the life and liberty of the citizen to one judge or to a group of judges. Fear of unchecked power, so typical of our State and Federal Governments in other respects, found expression in the criminal law in this insistence upon community participation in the determination of guilt or innocence. The deep commitment of the Nation to the right of jury trial in serious criminal cases as a defense against arbitrary law enforcement qualifies for protection under the Dues Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and must therefore be respected by the States."

Duncan v. State of Louisiana, 88 S.Ct. 1444, 1451 (1968).

Originally Posted by www.freemarketnews.com

War on Illegal Immigration Destroys Privacy

Big Government issues a plan to fight illegal immigration. The keystone? The Real ID Act. Here's a plan to make us receive Big Government's "mark" if we want to engage in commerce: get a job, cash a check, open an account, buy cigarettes, alcohol, or a gun. We must also have the Federal Leviathan's mark if we want to board a train, a plane, or drive an automobile. Without "your papers" you will essentially be a stranded, non-person, unable to travel from point A to point B.

Oh, and talk about an invasion of privacy and identity theft . . . These Real ID cards will be used to track your every moment with Radio Frequency Identification technology (RFID). These RFID chips are being inserted in everything. And now we learn that a British man was able to clone an RFID signal from an e-Passport in just five minutes (he thought it would take him an hour). http://tinyurl.com/yduvyo

Of course, the failure of this program only means more money will be needed. Additional privacy measures must be implemented on top of this terrible program. But no thought is given to the obvious: admitting defeat and closing down the Real ID Act.

Emphasis added.

All actions begin with the ability to speak freely, and honestly! First, speak to yourself [FREE YOUR MIND], then to others.

BOBT12

[charlesa6]

Good job, and finding.

[BornStupid]

History shows Liberty is payed in blood. Not that I am a proponent of this theory but History whether real or fictional shows this to be true.

Too often does the solution become again the problem. When man finally decides to accept all man as equal, and that is a big if, will we ever realize true freedom.

As much as I would like to say we need the people to assemble and assume mob ( democracy ) rule in public places i.e. courts of our lands and erect gallows for the "power" brokers and assistants etc. I know better.

Liberty is a constant struggle, men are never happy with their god given rights, and as history would show, would attempt to assume the rights of god. This is the core issue of power.

It sucks but its the truth. Opportunity becomes Authority which becomes Entitlement which eventually becomes Power, and in turn becomes Absolute Power.

Even children know this law, not how to implement it but how to use it. Human nature dictates it.

I am sure everyone knows the quote:

"Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
-Lord (John Emerich Edward Dalberg) Acton

[BornStupid]

Government is the conduit for absolute power. To remove the conduit could remove the problem.

We have never seen a "Governing Body" without government. In all mans history we have never seen states operate with one voice. Are people just too ignorant to govern themselves, and unite for a common cause? I think so. I Fear the kids next door become the ruling body.

There is Irony in that last statement. It implies You whomever you are, that you can not attend to your own affairs let alone attend the affairs of others. That is the consent of your government, US etc. ( The kids on drugs next house over just wouldn't be a good representation of the common body )

Religion plays a huge part in opinion, but most religions agree on the same issues of the deities purpose and intent ( I'm trying to be religious neutral here ). There are items the governments of the world will not discuss on this issue, which would or could release power or make things worse. But I can assure the power grab will make gods of men.

BornStupid....

P.S.

BOBT12 great post, provokes ideas of what the problem is.

[BOBT12]

Thanks you for your support, gentleman.

[BOBT12]

Here is a little good news,

Maine rejects Real ID Act

State's legislature overwhelmingly opposes act requiring national digital ID cards, putting Bush administration in a pickle.

By Declan McCullagh
Staff Writer, CNET News.com

Published: January 25, 2007, 2:33 PM PST
Last modified: January 25, 2007, 6:10 PM PST

TalkBack E-mail Print del.icio.us Digg this
update Maine overwhelmingly rejected federal requirements for national identification cards on Thursday, marking the first formal state opposition to controversial legislation scheduled to go in effect for Americans next year.

Both chambers of the Maine legislature approved a resolution saying the state flatly "refuses" to force its citizens to use driver's licenses that comply with digital ID standards, which were established under the 2005 Real ID Act. It asks the U.S. Congress to repeal the law.

The vote represents a political setback for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Republicans in Washington, D.C., which have argued that nationalized ID cards for all Americans would help in the fight against terrorists.

"I have faith that the Democrats in Congress will hear this from many states and will find a way to repeal or amend this in the coming months," House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat, said in a telephone interview after the vote. "It's not only a huge federal mandate, but it's a huge mandate from the federal government asking us to do something we don't have any interest in doing."

The Real ID Act says that, starting around May 2008, Americans will need a federally approved ID card--a U.S. passport will also qualify--to travel on an airplane, open a bank account, collect Social Security payments or take advantage of nearly any government service. States will have to conduct checks of their citizens' identification papers, and driver's licenses likely will be reissued to comply with Homeland Security requirements.

In addition, the national ID cards must be "machine-readable," with details left up to Homeland Security, which hasn't yet released final regulations. That could end up being a magnetic strip, an enhanced bar code or radio frequency identification (RFID) chips.

The votes in Maine on the resolution were nonpartisan. It was approved by a 34-to-0 vote in the state Senate and by a 137-to-4 vote in the House of Representatives.

Other states are debating similar measures. Bills pending in Georgia, Massachusetts, Montana and Washington state express varying degrees of opposition to the Real ID Act.

Montana's is one of the strongest. The legislature held a hearing on Wednesday on a bill that says "The state of Montana will not participate in the implementation of the Real ID Act of 2005" and directs the state motor vehicle department "not to implement the provisions."

Barry Steinhardt, director of the ACLU's Technology and Liberty Project, said he thinks Maine's vote will "break the logjam, and other states are going to follow." (The American Civil Liberties Union has set up an anti-Real ID Web site called Real Nightmare).

Pingree, Maine's House majority leader, said the Real ID Act would have cost the state $185 million over five years and required every state resident to visit the motor vehicle agency so that several forms of identification--including an original copy of the birth certificate and a Social Security card--would be uploaded into a federal database.

Now on News.com:
Is Windows getting more expensive?
Photos: Tinkerers treasure tiny motherboards
Newsmaker: Intel eyes future of Itanium
Extra: iPod goes to school
Video: Partying with ILM Oscar winners
Growing opposition to the law in the states could create a political pickle for the Bush administration. The White House has enthusiastically embraced the Real ID Act, saying it (click for PDF) "facilitates the strengthening by the states of the standards for the security and integrity of drivers' licenses."

But if a sufficient number of states follow Maine's lead, pressure would increase on a Democratic Congress to relax the Real ID rules--or even rescind them entirely.

A key Republican supporter of the Real ID Act said Thursday that the law was just as necessary now as when it was enacted as part of an $82 billion military spending and tsunami relief bill. (Its backers say it follows the recommendations that the 9/11 Commission made in 2004.)

"Real ID is needed to protect the American people from terrorists who use drivers licenses to board planes, get jobs and move around the country as the 9/11 terrorists did," Texas Rep. Lamar Smith, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, said in an e-mailed statement. "It makes sense to have drivers licenses that ensure a person is who they say they are. It makes the country safer and protects the American people from terrorists who would use the most common form of ID as cover."

Let us do what we can to get other states to follow this fine example.

[charlesa6]

Yep!! No doubt.