An Educational Truth Reminder from AWARE

[Logan]

*********************************
1) YOUR FREEDOMS & PRIVACY
*********************************


ALL'S WELL, OR ORWELL?
Feds defend demands on companies for users' data, but civil libertarians fear a slippery slope
BY RICHARD J. DALTON JR
January 27, 2006

The Bush administration's demand for information on Internet search queries and a business' sale of cell-phone records highlight the vast amount of data stored by companies, how it can be accessed by the government and private groups, and what little protections Americans may have against the release of personal information.

Concerns about privacy have come to the forefront amid the uproar over the National Security Agency's domestic spying program. But privacy issues extend beyond security.

U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has tried to compel Google to release data on search queries as part of the administration's attempt to defend the constitutionality of the Children Online Protection Act, which courts have blocked from taking effect. The act seeks to prevent children from obtaining *****graphy online.

In November, the Federal Communications Commission forced companies that provide high-speed access or Internet-based telephone services to ensure their systems can accommodate wiretapping. Last month, the government acknowledged the National Security Agency had conducted domestic surveillance without warrants.

"It's clear that the government is making increasing demands for personal information, whether it's through the NSA's domestic spy program or the subpoena to Google," said Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a public interest research center in Washington, D.C. "The big question now is whether the Congress is prepared to establish the necessary legislative safeguards to protect privacy."

Technology companies previously have cooperated with the government on security issues.

In a June 16, 2005, memo from Microsoft chief executive Steve Ballmer to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, Ballmer thanked Chertoff for meeting with executives from the Business Software Alliance, a trade group of hardware and software companies.

"My industry colleagues and I remain eager to work with the Department to support the homeland security mission," Ballmer wrote in the memo, obtained by Newsday under the Freedom of Information Act.

A Microsoft spokesman said the letter related to an annual trip the trade group makes to Washington, D.C., but wouldn't comment on the meeting.

The release of personal information goes beyond the government's requests. Earlier this month, the writer of Americablog.com announced he had bought online for $90 the cell-phone records of 2004 presidential candidate Gen. Wesley Clark, raising a firestorm over the lack of confidentiality of the records.

In Google's case, Gonzales has said he wasn't seeking information from Google that would identify individuals.

Nevertheless, Google, the country's most popular search engine, said it would vigorously fight the government's demand. Nicole Wong, associate general counsel for Google, said the company is not a party to the lawsuit to defend the Children Online Protection Act and the government's demand goes too far. "We had lengthy discussions with them to try to resolve this but were not able to, and we intend to resist their motion vigorously," she said.

Gonzales also sought data from the three other top search engines - Yahoo, MSN and America Online. By getting information from the top four search engines, the government would have a slice of data for about 9 out of every 10 online searches.

Yahoo complied on a limited basis, refusing to disclose personal information, said spokeswoman Mary Osako.

MSN provided aggregated data on search queries that did not include any personally identifiable information, said Adam Sohn, director of global sales and marketing for MSN. The search engine complied "in regards to helping protect children in a way that ensured we also protected the privacy of our customers," he said.

AOL provided an aggregated, anonymous list of search terms, said spokesman Andrew Weinstein said. "We would not comply with a subpoena that requested blanket information about what our users are searching," he said.

Although this case doesn't involve personal data, freely releasing the information opens the door to further requests, Chris Winfield, an expert on search engines, said. "Once you get your foot in the door, then we have 1984," said Winfield, president of 10e20 Llc, a Brooklyn Internet marketing and Web development company.

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) sent a letter to Gonzales on Wednesday requesting details about what information the Department of Justice was seeking and how it would use it, saying the collection of the data posed "the specter of excessive government surveillance."

Dana Perino, a spokeswoman for the White House, said: "The Bush administration fully understands the government's obligation to protect Americans' civil liberties ... And yet the biggest threat to our civil liberties ... is from the terrorists. And so the president has worked ... to protect us from future terrorist attacks while also ensuring that the civil liberties we stand for aren't violated."

The disclosure of the requests from search engines came two months after the FCC demanded that providers of high-speed Internet access and Internet-based telephone services configure their systems to make it easy for the government to wiretap the services.

The FCC push especially concerns librarians, who worry that the changes may allow the government to wiretap the surfing habits of patrons.

"Libraries have information about what kind of information people go after - what books do they check out, what Web sites do they visit, what are they looking at - and that is considered pretty sensitive information," said Rick Weingarten, director of the American Library Association's Office for Information Technology Policy.

This week, the American Library Association sold buttons proclaiming "Radical Militant Librarian" at its midwinter meeting in Chicago.

"We've been called 'radical' and 'militant' by the Justice Department," Weingarten said. "If you look at the librarian in your local library, 'radical' and 'militant' are not exactly words that come to mind. They're very committed to certain values. Those values are at the heart of our democracy."
********continued

[Logan]

********************************
2) GOVERNMENT AND THE ECONOMY
********************************

Beyond Keynes to Inflation
By Richard Benson
Richard Benson is president of Specialty Finance Group, LLC, offering diversified investment banking services.

Orthodox economic training in the United States in the post-World War II world, centered on the observations of John M. Keynes who claimed that to keep an economy rolling, spending (aggregate demand) needed to be kept alive at all costs. The biggest post-depression fear was that saving too much could cause spending to fall short and recession, or worse, could befall the economy (from 1929 to World War II, "the worse" did happen). The Keynesian trick used for our central bank was to cut interest rates to a level low enough to encourage businesses to spend excess savings. Low interest rates encourage low financing costs and urge businesses to recycle savings into productive investment, which keeps the economy humming especially if consumer spending is weak.

In the hallowed Ivy League halls of academia (where this author spent too many happy years before having to work for a living), they preach that it is the government’s duty, and the central bank’s mandate, to spend and print money to keep the economy afloat. The Keynesian trick is certainly easier to pull off when there is some inflation and the Fed can drop interest rates. Interest rates that are below the rate of inflation clearly subsidize old and new borrowers alike, and give an extra boost to the economy. Subsidized borrowers borrow and always find ways to spend money. Even though this economic stimulus trick consisted of a little extra government spending, recycled savings, and credit creation, recycled savings gave the economy the biggest boost, with credit creation adding some inflation to the spending mix. Then, everything began to change.

In the late 1990’s, this economic model was scrapped. After Alan Greenspan gave his famous "irrational exuberance" speech about the stock market, he stopped being rational and prudent, and became rational and profligate. He discovered that the stock market bubble – fostered by too much easy credit – made consumers feel really wealthy. By letting money and credit run wild the economy roared, and rising stock market prices created such a false sense of wealth that consumers stopped saving. By 2000, Americans had hardly saved anything and domestic savings to recycle didn’t exist. Around this time, Mr. Greenspan declared that "bubbles should not be popped" but the Federal Reserve’s job would be to clean up the mess if the bubbles collapsed on their own. So, how does a popped bubble get cleaned up? With easy money, of course!

Cleaning up the first bubble required dropping interest rates to virtually nothing and creating an even bigger bubble in housing. The real estate bubble was far more powerful for spending because of the asset-backed and mortgaged-backed debt markets, which allowed for the virtual unlimited creation of new mortgage credit and money. Moreover, it was seductive telling a potential homeowner to feel comfortable about spending a lot of money to buy a home because property values were always going up. By 2004, it was time to help another sitting President to get re-elected. The housing market was booming and home equity extraction added about $800 billion (a year) to spending, even though this spending left a massive trail of debt.

In looking back now, you can’t help but notice how the economic model has changed. For decades, America had an economic model built around recycling savings into investment. In a few short years, those savings have simply vanished and our society has become comfortably cavalier about borrowing far more than they earn.

The first bubble in stocks taught Americans how not to save. The second bubble in housing taught them how to live off their house and spend even more than they make. From a macro-economic perspective, our country no longer has savings to recycle as part of a stimulus package. Instead, we are left with a massive debt to foreigners and it’s growing at the rate of $700 billion a year. America’s net debt to the rest of the world is approaching $3 trillion, with no end in sight.

It is important to note that the incoming Fed Chairman, Ben Bernanke, is the top academic student of the previous depression and a true believer in the power of the press; the Federal Reserve’s printing press, that is. Mr. Bernanke believes we will always need some inflation, and the inflation and growth of money and credit must be kept alive. Despite the fact that total debt to GDP is now 310 percent (well in excess of the 290 percent it was before the 1929 crash), he is determined to keep debt and inflation growing. (For a balanced economy, total debt to GDP is about 150 percent). Today, it takes $4 of new debt to create just one new $1 of real GDP. Under Bernanke’s watch, the Federal Reserve will have a lot of printing to do.

From an historical economic perspective, we are clearly in the middle of a very interesting time. Our post-World War II economic model is totally broken. If our economic model is built on spending, where will the new spending come from? The Achilles’ heel for our economy is the fact that wages have not kept up with inflation and the average American worker has little or no savings, nor can they afford to service their debt and pay for the rising cost of living.

Without constant monetary stimulus, the credit-based U.S. economy would die. Our current economic model is similar to the one used by banana republic countries that are running hyperinflation* and end up in hock to the IMF:

*Hyperinflations are caused by extremely rapid growth in the supply of "paper" money. They occur when the monetary and fiscal authorities of a nation regularly issue large quantities of money to pay for a large stream of government expenditures. In effect, inflation is a form of taxation where the government gains at the expense of those who hold money whose value is declining. Hyperinflations are, therefore, very large taxation schemes.

America is now extraordinarily vulnerable to the whims of foreign governments. What if our creditors demanded a higher rate of interest? Perhaps they already have, and the Federal Reserve will have to raise interest rates higher than the capital markets currently expect.

What about the housing bubble? Mr. Bernanke may be left with only one course of action: Given housing price inflation of 50 to 100 percent in some areas over the past few years, the Fed’s goal for the next several years will be how to get inflation up without crushing housing prices because of rising interest rates. A housing price crash could severely affect the financial markets in our country and take the economic system down with it. Mr. Bernanke has spent his entire adult life studying to prevent this from happening and I suspect he will do everything in his power to keep inflation going.

When everything else is inflated, housing prices (at their current levels) won’t appear to be so over-valued. Getting money into the hands of consumers who can’t tap their savings (because most Americans don’t have any), or use their credit cards (because they’re over-extended - welcome to the new bankruptcy law), or draw cash from the home equity loan ATM installed on the side of their house (housing prices are stagnant or falling), will be a real challenge. To get money into the consumer’s hands, the Fed will have to print more money and encourage the creation of more debt. Mr. Bernanke’s illusion about dropping "money from helicopters" may actually come to pass as a direct way to distribute money to the consumer to service old debts and keep spending alive. The new economic model should be "inflate, or face deflationary collapse".

In reviewing my own personal financial returns last year, I realized the following: Even though cash performed much better than stocks – without the risk or excitement – it did not keep up with inflation. Also, the stock market was flat but actually down after inflation. (The CPI underestimates actual inflation by 1.5 to 2 percent by excluding housing prices and using "hedonic price adjustment".) My family’s portfolio of I-Bonds (inflation adjusted savings bonds) did better than cash and kept close to inflation, while our investments in gold and silver gave a strong real return after inflation.

For 2006 and beyond, I expect the inflationary war on savers will continue, and I just don’t see how financial assets – stocks and bonds – will keep up. The preservation of real wealth at a time when the Federal Reserve will be dedicated to building debt, money and inflation, is not going to be an easy task; Good luck investing in the New Year!

************continued

[Logan]

ARTICLE #2

BEST OF RICHARD RUSSELL
January 16, 2006

I just read my friend John Mauldin's latest column, and three paragraphs in his learned treatise struck me as outstandingly important. For that reason, I include those three paragraphs below.

"In 2005 the United States is projected to run a trade deficit of $806 billion, up from $668 billion in 2004. The International Monetary Fund forecasts that the trade deficit will rise to $890 billion in 2006 and then to what can only be called a staggering $980 billion in 2007. How in the wide, wide world of global trading can one country run an almost $1 trillion dollar trade deficit? What is the rest of the world going to do with all those dollars?

"Will central banks really want to buy almost $2 trillion more in US debt in just the next two years? They own approximately (and at least) $1.5 trillion today, accumulated over many years. Do they want to own all of our government debt? At the level of projected trade deficits, that could happen in just a few years. Is this really sustainable?"

Russell Comment -- The simple answer is no, but the correct answer is that this situation can go on a lot longer than one would think. And all because of an odd arrangement that some people call Bretton Woods II.

This is the arrangement whereby China and Asia sells us their goods, and we pay them with money that our Fed creates out of "thin air." Our Chinese and Asian "friends" know they are accumulating "junk money," but they accept it because this is the arrangement that keeps their enormous populations employed. But what do the Chinese and Asians do with all the dollars they are accumulating? They either buy our bills and bonds, or they buy assets such as US corporations or perhaps world oil assets.

And all the while, seasoned, intelligent investors wonder how long this arrangement can go on. And the non-answer is that nobody on the face of this green earth knows. And that's the question and problem that haunts thinking, intelligent investors. Bretton Woods II is a crazy arrangement, it's a counter-intuitive arrangement -- but it's happening, and at least so far it's been "working."

What could go wrong? Well, at some point China could decide that it has accumulated too much in the way of US T-bills and T-bonds and US securities. In fact, China has just announced that it is going to move to diversify, to some extent, out of US securities. But the odds are that it will be limited diversification, since it wouldn't make sense for China to drive the price of US bonds down (which would raise US interest rates) or to drive the international value of the dollar down (every exporting nation wants their currency to be cheap and the dollar to be expensive).

So the game goes on, and on and on. And never forget this -- the health of the markets depend on the game going on. We know that at some point ahead -- a few weeks, a few months, a few years -- the game is going to come to a halt and the trouble will begin -- big time...That's the risk we take in investing today. Because if, for some reason, there's a panic to get out of US dollars -- the dollar will tank, US interest rates will rise, business will be hit hard, housing will cave in, and the global economy will run into a brick wall. Again, it's a question of WHEN, when will the plug be pulled and when will this weird game which we call Bretton Woods II be ended?

And because no one knows that answer to the question of WHEN, we protect ourselves by buying gold.

Now please get this straight -- we don't buy gold to build wealth, we buy gold to HAVE wealth.

Gold will be wealth no matter what happens. The dollar can collapse, the Fed can inflate to the heavens, the US can invade Iran or Syria, World War III can start, the world can lapse into a deflationary depression, stocks can crash, stocks can climb to the sky -- any of these situations can materialize -- and gold will still represent wealth. And that is why intelligent people buy and hoard gold.************continued

[Logan]

3) REGARDING THE WAR AGAINST TERRORISM ********************************

Study: Army Stretched to Breaking Point
Wednesday, Jan. 25, 2006

WASHINGTON -- Stretched by frequent troop rotations to Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army has become a "thin green line" that could snap unless relief comes soon, according to a study for the Pentagon.

Andrew Krepinevich, a retired Army officer who wrote the report under a Pentagon contract, concluded that the Army cannot sustain the pace of troop deployments to Iraq long enough to break the back of the insurgency. He also suggested that the Pentagon's decision, announced in December, to begin reducing the force in Iraq this year was driven in part by a realization that the Army was overextended.

As evidence, Krepinevich points to the Army's 2005 recruiting slump — missing its recruiting goal for the first time since 1999 — and its decision to offer much bigger enlistment bonuses and other incentives.

"You really begin to wonder just how much stress and strain there is on the Army, how much longer it can continue," he said in an interview. He added that the Army is still a highly effective fighting force and is implementing a plan that will expand the number of combat brigades available for rotations to Iraq and Afghanistan.

The 136-page report represents a more sobering picture of the Army's condition than military officials offer in public. While not released publicly, a copy of the report was provided in response to an Associated Press inquiry.

Illustrating his level of concern about strain on the Army, Krepinevich titled one of his report's chapters, "The Thin Green Line."

He wrote that the Army is "in a race against time" to adjust to the demands of war "or risk `breaking' the force in the form of a catastrophic decline" in recruitment and re-enlistment.

Col. Lewis Boone, spokesman for Army Forces Command, which is responsible for providing troops to war commanders, said it would be "a very extreme characterization" to call the Army broken. He said his organization has been able to fulfill every request for troops that it has received from field commanders.

The Krepinevich assessment is the latest in the debate over whether the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have worn out the Army, how the strains can be eased and whether the U.S. military is too burdened to defeat other threats.

Rep. John Murtha, the Pennsylvania Democrat and Vietnam veteran, created a political storm last fall when he called for an early exit from Iraq, arguing that the Army was "broken, worn out" and fueling the insurgency by its mere presence. Administration officials have hotly contested that view.

George Joulwan, a retired four-star Army general and former NATO commander, agrees the Army is stretched thin.

"Whether they're broken or not, I think I would say if we don't change the way we're doing business, they're in danger of being fractured and broken, and I would agree with that," Joulwan told CNN last month.

Krepinevich did not conclude that U.S. forces should quit Iraq now, but said it may be possible to reduce troop levels below 100,000 by the end of the year. There now are about 136,000, Pentagon officials said Tuesday.

For an Army of about 500,000 soldiers — not counting the thousands of National Guard and Reserve soldiers now on active duty — the commitment of 100,000 or so to Iraq might not seem an excessive burden. But because the war has lasted longer than expected, the Army has had to regularly rotate fresh units in while maintaining its normal training efforts and reorganizing the force from top to bottom.

Krepinevich's analysis, while consistent with the conclusions of some outside the Bush administration, is in stark contrast with the public statements of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and senior Army officials.

Army Secretary Francis Harvey, for example, opened a Pentagon news conference last week by denying the Army was in trouble. "Today's Army is the most capable, best-trained, best-equipped and most experienced force our nation has fielded in well over a decade," he said, adding that recruiting has picked up.

Rumsfeld has argued that the experience of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan has made the Army stronger, not weaker.

"The Army is probably as strong and capable as it ever has been in the history of this country," he said in an appearance at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies in Washington on Dec. 5. "They are more experienced, more capable, better equipped than ever before."

Krepinevich said in the interview that he understands why Pentagon officials do not state publicly that they are being forced to reduce troop levels in Iraq because of stress on the Army. "That gives too much encouragement to the enemy," he said, even if a number of signs, such as a recruiting slump, point in that direction.

Krepinevich is executive director of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a nonprofit policy research institute.

He said he concluded that even Army leaders are not sure how much longer they can keep up the unusually high pace of combat tours in Iraq before they trigger an institutional crisis. Some major Army divisions are serving their second yearlong tours in Iraq, and some smaller units have served three times.

Michael O'Hanlon, a military expert at the private Brookings Institution, said in a recent interview that "it's a judgment call" whether the risk of breaking the Army is great enough to warrant expanding its size.

"I say yes. But it's a judgment call, because so far the Army isn't broken," O'Hanlon said.
***********continued

[Logan]

4) EDITORIAL
*********************************


EDITORIAL

BY: Patrick in California



Over the past few months I've see many people pin their hopes on a Joseph Bannister, or an Irwin Schiff, or a Larken Rose or ANYONE to win a case against the government and to PROVE something.

Unfortunately, that won't really help the SITUATION, because the REAL PROBLEM is not the government.

It is the people that are at FAULT.

Government exists to perpetuate government.

"One of the three greatest lies ever told is, 'Hi, We're from the government, and we want to help you.'" --Ronald Reagan

It is a necessary evil and some people would not survive without it.

Sadly, those who benefit the most from government are probably the MULTI-NATIONAL CARTELS that donate millions of dollars to political campaign funds and lobbyists and in return are handed fat government contracts.

"A government with the policy to rob Peter to pay Paul can be assured of the support of Paul"—Unknown

It is a PARASITE by nature since it produces NOTHING.

That's why we wrote the Constitution to LIMIT it.

The FACT is that those in government will do as much to us as we wlll allow them to get away with and if those ACTIONS were not PROFITABLE to them, they wouldn't do them.

I'm always amazed that people think the SOLUTION to BAD GOVERNMENT is MORE GOVERNMENT.

"The solution that most people put forward to rectify the failure of government is more government. In government, nothing succeeds like failure."--Gary Popkin

The simple fact is that we CREATED a LIMITED GOVERNMENT with LIMITED POWERS to only do certain SPECIFIC THINGS.

The problem is, we the people forgot who is in charge and let the SERVANTS take control.

In less than 100 years we have gone from a virtually debt-free (1916 - $3.6 Billion) nation of productive, self sufficient BUSINESS OWNERS (97% of the population was self employed) to a BANKRUPT (to the tune of $7.7 Trillion) nation of half illiterate EMPLOYEES.

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opd.htm

Since then we've become one of the most SOCIALIZED nations in the world according to our implementation of the 10 PLANKS of the COMMUNIST MANIFESTO.
http://www.libertyzone.com/Communist-Manifesto-Planks.html

As a result we have had a ONE-HUNDRED THOUSAND (100,000%) PERCENT INCREASE IN OUR NATIONAL DEBT and the COST OF LIVING has INCREASED by APPROXIMATELY ONE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED FORTY-SEVEN (1547%) PERCENT!!!
http://www.aier.org/cgi-aier/colcalculator.cgi

People have been told so many times that this is a DEMOCRACY, you have to get them to say the PLEDGE OF ALLEGIENCE in order for them to understand that this is supposed to be a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC.

Now Athens was a good example of a pure DEMOCRACY. If on a given day the majority thought someone was "too stupid to live" they could be legally killed. Of course popular sentiment might be different the day after. Too bad for the person who was already killed.

Is that really what people really want? Tyranny of the masses?

Most people today are too lazy to ever find out about their RIGHTS until they are already in trouble and as someone once told me, "If you don't KNOW your rights, then you don't have any RIGHTS."

Sadly enough, many FALSELY BELIEVE that the CONSTITUTION grants us RIGHTS.

They don't even understand that WE instituted government to secure our UNALIENABLE RIGHTS, not to REGULATE & CONTROL us.

"The Constitution is not an instrument for government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government, lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." Patrick Henry

Now I realize that a lot of things have been done to us thru FRAUD, DECEIPT and TRICKERY.

For example the alleged RATIFICATIONS of the 14th & 16th Amendments.

The problem is that most of it was done in PLAIN SIGHT.

Driver's licenses are a good example. In California (and probably every other state) the statutes then clearly said who needed a driver's license and why they needed them from 1925-1957. Unlike today, no legal dictionaries were needed to understand the law as it was written in plain English.

"An act to impose a license fee for the transportation of persons or property for hire or compensation upon public streets, roads and highways in the State of California by motor vehicle; to provide for the enforcement of the provisions hereof and for the disposition of the amounts collected on account of such licenses; to make an appropriation for the purpose of this act; and to repeal all acts of parts of acts in conflict herewith." Statutes of California 1925, pg. 832.

9603. “Operator” includes:
(a) Any person engaging in the transportation of persons or property for hire or compensation by or upon a motor vehicle upon any public highway in this State, either directly or indirectly.
(b) Any person who furnishes any motor vehicle for the transportation of persons or property under a lease or rental agreement when pursuant to the terms thereof the person operates the motor vehicle furnished or exercises any control of, or assumes any responsibility for, or engages either in whole or in part in, the transportation of persons or property in the motor vehicle furnished.

“Operator” does not include any of the following:
(a) Any person transporting his own property in a motor vehicle owned or operated by him unless he makes a specific charge for the transportation. This subdivision does not in any way limit any other exemption granted by this section.
(b) Any farmer . . .
(c) Any nonprofit . . .
(d) Any person . . transports . . school . .
(e) Any person . . . hearse . . .
(f) Any registered owner of a pleasure vehicle who, while operating the vehicle, transports persons to his work, or to a place through which he passes on the way to his work, whether for or without compensation, if he is not in the business of furnishing such transportation. STATUTES OF CALIFORNIA 1941, California Revenue & Taxation Code, Chapter 39, pg 590

Does it get much clearer than that?

Other LICENSES are a prime example of people's UNQUESTIONING obedience to authority.

********continued

[Logan]

LICENSE, contracts. A right given by some competent authority to do an act, which without such authority would be illegal. The instrument or writing which secures this right, is also called a license. Vide Ayl. Parerg, 353; 15 Vin. Ab. 92; Ang. Wat. Co. 61, 85. (Bouvier's Law Dictionary 1856)

Given the above DEFINITION, why would anyone today need a MARRIAGE LICENSE unless they planned on marrying a BLOOD RELATIVE such as a brother, sister or first cousin?

Of course if someone wants the STATE to be a PARTY to the contract between a HUSBAND & WIFE and for the STATE to have a say in the FRUITS (children, assets, etc.) of the MARRIAGE, then getting a marriage license would be a good thing.

That is if you like having a PARTNER who CONTRIBUTES nothing and can tell you what to do.

Today most people have no idea that FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES are not LAWFUL MONEY despite the FACT that they used to say:

"THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS PUBLIC AND PRIVATE, AND IS REDEEMABLE IN LAWFUL MONEY AT THE UNITED STATES TREASURY, OR AT ANY FEDERAL RESERVE BANK."

Nor is the FEDERAL RESERVE a part of the government.

"Examining the organization and function of the Federal Reserve Banks, and applying the relevant factors, we conclude that the Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of the FTCA, but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations." JOHN L. LEWIS vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 680 F.2d 1239; 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 20002

The sad fact is that today most the population do not even understand the difference between ASSETS & LIABILITIES, are living in houses they do not OWN, driving cars that they do not OWN, buying things on CREDIT because they do not have the CASH for them and if they were to stop working they would be DESTITUTE in a few months.

People believe that the STOCK MARKET is a good investment.

There are approximately 9900 DOMESTIC mutual funds today and the average RETURN is around 5% per year.

According to Standard & Poor's Guide to Offshore Investments there are over three times as many international mutual funds.

In 2001, the TOP 350 OFFSHORE Funds generated ANNUAL RETURNS of 30% to 400% over a 3 year period.

Yet the MEDIA, the STOCK brokers and the financial planners never mention these FACTS, do they?

Nor is SOCIAL SECURITY mandatory, as most people believe.

THE PAPERWORK/PRIVACY ACT AND YOUR APPLICATION

The Privacy Act of 1974 requires us to give each person the following notice when applying for a Social Security number.

Sections 205(c) and 702 of the Social Security Act allow us to collect the facts we ask for on this form.

We use the facts you provide on this form to assign you a Social Security number and to issue you a Social Security card. You do not have to give us these facts, however, without them we cannot issue you a Social Security number or a card.
http://www.ssa.gov/online/ss-5.pdf

Most people also believe that because of the 16th Amendment that everyone owes FEDERAL INCOME TAX, despite the FACT that 95% of American's did not pay it until 1942 (26 years later).
http://www.irs.gov/app/understandingTaxes/jsp/whys/lp/IWT2L5lp.jsp

The truth is they DIDN'T OWE IT and then they were CONNED into paying it by the VICTORY TAX (which was SUPPOSED to be a TEMPORARY, WARTIME measure) and once they got used to PAYING it, the government introduced WITHHOLDING and kept taking it.

If the FEDERAL INCOME TAX applied to everyone, then why would W-4 FORMS have a place to mark EXEMPT?*************continued

[Logan]

If everyone is a TAXPAYER in the INTERNAL REVENUE CODE then why would they even need to DEFINE the TERM?

26 USC 7701(a)(14) Taxpayer
The term “taxpayer” means any person subject to any internal revenue tax.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00007701----000-.html
Doesn't that indicate that there are persons NOT SUBJECT to the internal revenue tax?

Thanks to the availability of information on the internet, people have NO EXCUSE not to realize that something is wrong with the PERSONAL INCOME TAX.

If people ask themselves some questions and start READING the DEFINITIONS in the INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, they might find some answers.

Am I an EMPLOYEE as DEFINED?

26 USC 3401(c) Employee
For purposes of this chapter, the term "employee" includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term "employee" also includes an officer of a corporation.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00003401----000-.html

Am I involved in a TRADE OR BUSINESS as DEFINED?

26 USC 7701(a)(26) Trade or business
The term “trade or business” includes the performance of the functions of a public office.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00007701----000-.html

Am I SELF-EMPLOYED as DEFINED?

26 USC 1402
(a) Net earnings from self-employment
The term “net earnings from self-employment” means the gross income derived by an individual from any trade or business carried on by such individual, less the deductions allowed by this subtitle which are attributable to such TRADE OR BUSINESS, plus his distributive share (whether or not distributed) of income or loss described in section 702(a)(8) from any TRADE OR BUSINESS carried on by a partnership of which he is a member; except that in computing such gross income and deductions and such distributive share of partnership ordinary income or loss— ...[EMPHASIS ADDED]
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00001402----000-.html

Don't ALL of the above named INDIVIDUALS have a DUTY to file, unlike the average Man & Woman?

26 USC(a)(1) Person
The term “person” shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00007701----000-.html
Could that be why 1040 forms are signed under PENALTIES of PERJURY?

One penalty is for the TRUTH of the information and the other is for your DUTY?

In California we have the FRANCHISE TAX BOARD.

Shouldn't people be asking how they became FRANCHISEES of the STATE OF CALIFORNIA?

What's even worse is that most people don't even want to know the truth and will fight you and call you UNAMERICAN or UNPATRIOTIC if you try to EXPOSE the many LIES.

"The Matrix is a system, Neo, and that system is our enemy. When you are inside, you look around, and what do you see? You see businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters; the very minds of the people we are trying to save. Until we do, these people are part of that system and that makes them our enemies. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged, and many are so hopelessly dependent on the system, they'll fight to protect it. The Matrix is everywhere. It is all around us. Even now, in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window, or when you turn on your television set. You can feel it when you go to work, when you go to church, when you pay your taxes. It is the 'world' that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth." --- Morpheus - (from the motion picture: "The Matrix")
8 out of 10 people are stuck in the "Matrix."

Even when confronted with the TRUTH many will rush to defend the SYSTEM and claim that it's being done for OUR BENEFIT.

That's like telling your dog that you SPAYED & NEUTERED it for IT'S OWN GOOD.

If LICENSES, REGISTRATION & PROOF OF RESPONSIBILITY laws were truly about PROTECTING the people., wouldn't the STATE compensate you for your INJURIES & DAMAGES if you were hit by an UNLICENSED DRIVER?

But they don't do that, do they?

Or take our so-called CRIMINAL JUSTICE system.

It's the STATE and it's virtually unlimited resources AGAINST you your limited resources.

COURTS are not about TRUTH & JUSTICE, but MONEY & CONTROL.

The question is usually not "What are the FACTS in the matter?", but "What can you PROVE and can you AFFORD to do it?"

Unless you have the resources of an OJ Simpson or a Michael Jackson, that could put you at a real DISADVANTAGE, couldn't it?

The ATTORNEYS get PAID whether you WIN or LOSE, don't they?

The STATE makes money if you get CONVICTED, don't they?

And don't the most of the JURORS want to get out of there and get on with their lives?

Doesn't that make YOU the only one with a VESTED INTEREST in you being found NOT GUILTY?

Why do you think so many people accept a PLEA BARGAIN?

Why do you think that PROSECUTORS have such high CONVICTION RATES?

********continued

[Logan]

If only the TRULY GUILTY are IMPRISIONED, why are there so many reports of people who were WRONGLY CONVICTED who are later PROVEN INNOCENT through DNA and other evidence, including people WHO are or WERE on DEATH ROW?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2003/01/11/ryan.DTL

Even worse, many of the "laws" today are not CONSTITUTIONAL LAW which is PUBLIC LAW, but are PRIVATE LAW which is COMMERCIAL LAW and that includes most STATUTES.

PUBLIC LAW - "A law or statute that applies to the PEOPLE generally of the nation or state adopting or enacting it, is denominated a public law, as contra distinguished from PRIVATE law, affecting only an INDIVIDUAL or small number of PERSONS." Black's Law Dictionary, 6th edition

PRIVATE LAW - was that portion of the law which defines regulates, enforces, and administers relationships among INDIVIDUALS, associations, and corporations. As used in contradistinction to public law,...." Black's

Of course they try to hide that FACT with their DEFINITIONS.

California Code Of Civil Procedures 1898: Statutes are public or private. A private statute is one, which concerns only certain designated individuals, and affects only their private rights. All other statutes are public, in which are included statutes creating or affecting corporations.http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=79901526994+0+0+0&WAISaction=re trieve

But there are CLUES.

California Evidence Code 452. Judicial notice may be taken of the following matters to the extent that they are not embraced within Section 451:

(a) The decisional, constitutional, and statutory law of any state of the United States and the resolutions and private acts of the Congress of the United States and of the Legislature of this state.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=evid&group=00001-01000&file=450-460

Obviously the STATE OF CALIFORNIA makes a number of DISTINCTION about TYPES of law.

Or how about the actions of AGENCIES like the FDA?

Let's take a long at some of the "great" things the FDA has allowed:

FLOURIDE (a substance that is a by-product of aluminum production and was formerly disposed of as TOXIC WASTE), MSG (a neurotoxin), CANOLA OIL (an industrial lubricant), ASPARTAME (which breaks down into Methyl alcohol in the human body), AZT (a drug that was so incredibly TOXIC that everyone who took pure AZT in the first 3 clinical trials DIED), MEVACOR and other STATIN drugs (which TRIPLE the odds of having a HEART ATTACK when you stop taking them), and VACINATIONS (some of which contain 100 times the "safe" level of MERCURY and have been linked to AUTISM & SUDDEN INFANT DEATH SYNDROME).

Let's not forget that they have also RUTHLESSLY attacked and have attempted to REGULATE and/or SUPRESS all forms of inexpensive, proven NATURAL REMEDIES.

When was the last time you heard of someone dying of a VITAMIN OVERDOSE or INTERACTION?

So why do people keep taking these overpriced DRUGS which were originally NATURAL SUBSTANCES and were CHEMICALLY ALTERED so they can be PATENTED?

Probably because they saw it on a COMMERCIAL and/or the DOCTOR prescribed it.

After all, the MEDICAL/PHARMACEUTICAL industry is BIG BUSINESS.

Of course most people probably don't realize that those CHEMICAL ALTERATIONS are generally what CAUSES the SIDE-EFFECTS and DANGEROUS INTERACTIONS and are RESPONSIBLE for almost a HUNDRED THOUSAND DEATHS a year.

Most people don't even question the idea that a PROGRESSIVE INCOME TAX is good for the common man.

If one EARNS more, then why should they PAY more and how would that be PAYING their FAIR SHARE?

Wouldn't the FACT that one has more PERSONAL RESOURCES make them less likely to use PUBLIC RESOURCES?

The simple fact is that we DID NOT create the government to DECIDE what is good for us or to tell us how to run our lives.

"WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed..." DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, 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."
So when and how did people stop relying on THEMSELVES and start depending on government?

I hear people blindly repeat COLLECTIVIST PROPAGANDA such as "the good if the MANY…"

How does SACRIFICING our INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS make us stronger?

A CHAIN made of WEAK LINKS is still WEAK.

Why is it that seemingly intelligent people are confronted with EVIDENCE that contradicts their BELIEFS they became all the more determined to defend and stick to their position and continue to look for ways to reinforce their BIASED beliefs and disregard the EVIDENCE?

Are most of us suffering from COGNITIVE DISSONANCE and are in state of COMPLETE DENIAL?

When did the people learn to stop QUESTIONING things and stop THINKING for themselves?

When did we stop advocating self-accountability and self-responsibility?
Was it in SCHOOL? Is it from watching TV? Is it from reading the NEWSPAPER?

Are we as a nation really that MISEDUCATED, MISINFORMED & INDOCTRINATED?

"Mass mind control was an art in Old Testament times and it is not a lost art, but a perfected one."

Have we lost the ability to QUESTION things and THINK on our own.
*********continued

[Logan]

This is the eighth-grade final exam from 1895 from Salina, Kansas and was taken from the original document on file at the Smoky Valley Genealogical Society and Library in Salina, Kansas and reprinted by the Salina Journal.

Grammar (Time, one hour)
1. Give nine rules for the use of Capital Letters.
2. Name the Parts of Speech and define those that have no modifications.
3. Define Verse, Stanza and Paragraph.
4. What are the Principal Parts of a verb? Give Principal Parts of do, lie, lay and run.
5. Define Case, Illustrate each Case.
6. What is Punctuation? Give rules for principal marks of Punctuation.
7. Write a composition of about 150 words and show therein that you understand the practical use of the rules of grammar.

Arithmetic (Time, 1.25 hours)
1. Name and define the Fundamental Rules of Arithmetic.
2. A wagon box is 2 ft. deep, 10 feet long, and 3 ft. wide. How many bushels of wheat will it hold?
3. If a load of wheat weighs 3942 lbs., what is it worth at 50 cts. per bu, deducting 1050 lbs. for tare?
4. District No. 33 has a valuation of $35,000. What is the necessary levy to carry on a school seven months at $50 per month,
and have $104 for incidentals?
5. Find cost of 6720 lbs. coal at $6.00 per ton.
6. Find the interest of $512.60 for 8 months and 18 days at 7 percent.
7. What is the cost of 40 boards 12 inches wide and 16 ft. long at $.20 per inch?
8. Find bank discount on $300 for 90 days (no grace) at 10 percent.
9. What is the cost of a square farm at $15 per acre, the distance around which is 640 rods?
10. Write a Bank Check, a Promissory Note, and a Receipt.

U.S. History (Time, 45 minutes)
1. Give the epochs into which U.S. History is divided.
2. Give an account of the discovery of America by Columbus.
3. Relate the causes and results of the Revolutionary War.
4. Show the territorial growth of the United States.
5. Tell what you can of the history of Kansas.
6. Describe three of the most prominent battles of the Rebellion.
7. Who were the following: Morse, Whitney, Fulton, Bell, Lincoln, Penn, and Howe?
8. Name events connected with the following dates: 1607, 1620, 1800,1849, and 1865?

Orthography (Time, one hour)
1. What is meant by the following: Alphabet, phonetic orthography, etymology, and syllabication?
2. What are elementary sounds? How classified?
3. What are the following, and give examples of each: Trigraph, subvocals, diphthong, cognate letters, and lingual?
4. Give four substitutes for caret 'u'.
5. Give two rules for spelling words with final 'e'. Name two exceptions under each rule.
6. Give two uses of silent letters in spelling. Illustrate each.
7. Define the following prefixes and use in connection with a word: Bi, dis, mis, pre, semi, post, non, inter, mono, super.
8. Mark diacritically and divide into syllables the following, and name the sign that indicates the sound: Card, ball,
mercy, sir, odd, cell, rise, blood, fare, last.
9. Use the following correctly in sentences, Cite, site, sight, fane, fain, feign, vane, vain, vein, raze, raise, rays.
10. Write 10 words frequently mispronounced and indicate pronunciation by use of diacritical marks and by syllabication.

Geography (Time, one hour)
1. What is climate? Upon what does climate depend?
2. How do you account for the extremes of climate in Kansas?
3. Of what use are rivers? Of what use is the ocean?
4. Describe the mountains of N.A.
5. Name and describe the following: Monrovia, Odessa, Denver, Manitoba, Hecla, Yukon, St. Helena, Juan Fermandez, Aspinwall and Orinoco.
6. Name and locate the principal trade centers of the U.S.
7. Name all the republics of Europe and give capital of each.
8. Why is the Atlantic Coast colder than the Pacific in the same latitude?
9. Describe the process by which the water of the ocean returns to the sources of rivers.
10. Describe the movements of the earth. Give inclination of the earth.
Imagine a college student trying to pass this test, even if the few outdated questions were modernized. Could their professors even pass it?

Where did people get the INSANE idea that OUTLAWING guns would PREVENT criminals from obtaining them and would reduce gun-related deaths?

Now on the other hand, if a majority of the people were ARMED, wouldn't there be less VIOLENT CRIMES?

Would most thieves come busting into someone's house if they knew there was a very HIGH CHANCE they would be met with a load of buckshot?

How many would dare rob a bank if they knew that 80% of the people in the bank were carrying a gun?

In fact, if people look at the numbers, they will find out that the places with the STRICTEST gun control laws such as DC & NYC have some of the HIGHEST crime and murder rates.

Of course, with the people ARMED, we then wouldn't need as many POLICE, JAILS & PRISONS then and many of the people employed in those fields whould have to do something PRODUCTIVE.

And of course the COLLECTIVISTS in our government would HATE this because an UNARMED population is so much easier to INTIMIDATE & CONTROL and given their role in the SUBJUGATION of American, they should be very afraid of the people's WRATH.

Which is also why they try to OUTLAW that which threatens them or they cannot CONTROL & REGULATE.

HEMP is a good example.

It's hard to tax something anyone can grow anywhere, it has natural MEDICINAL VALUE (the MEDICAL/PHARMACEUTICAL CARTEL hates competition) and of course the long-standing penalty for TREASON is death by HANGING. (So there are probably a lot of politicians that have good reasons to not want a lot rope HANGING around.)

America used to be a WORLD LEADER in INNOVATION, HEALTH CARE and many good things.

Today we lead the world in DEBT, percentage of population in PRISON and MEDDLING.

Then of course there is our involvement with the UNITED NATIONS.

Hasn't the UNITED NATION'S PEACE KEEPING FORCES been involved in almost every MAJOR CONFLICT around the world since WW2?

Why is it that so many countries have been struck by illness after vacination programs by the WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION?

Why do countries involved with the INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND always end up worse off?

Have most people become little more than SHEEP to be cared for?

Are we nothing more than RESOURCES for the government and other corporations to be used up & discarded when we are no longer useful?

The sad fact is that in our APATHY & IGNORANCE, we have become a nation where most believe that Man equals PERSON; being one of the People of the several states equals US CITIZEN; being a SOVEREIGN equals being a SUBJECT; a REPUBLIC is a DEMOCRACY; RIGHTS equal PRIVILEGES; FEDERAL equals NATIONAL; COURT vested with the JUDICIAL POWER of the STATE equals an legislatively created ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL; common English equals LEGALESE; Common Law equals STARE DECSIS; STATESMEN equals POLITICIAN; United States of America equals UNITED STATES; and FREEDOM & LIBERTY means EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW.

Now I know the people can take back control our nation, but it will only happen when enough people decide to take back control of their own lives and stop playing the servant' game.

"The price of liberty is far more than simple vigilance. The price includes the integrity to accept complete personal responsibility for our lives, safety, property and welfare. The price that so many find hardest to pay, however, is the integrity to leave everyone else alone to do the same."—Unknown
**********continued