Oct 062015
 

The probability of a major dollar crisis is very high. Things are mirroring the conditions that existed in 2008 except much worse. Russia and China have stopped buying treasuries and are now bypassing the Petrodollar and buying oil directly from the Middle East. China has started their own International Bank to compete with the IMF and World Bank. So far they have signed on 150 + countries as founding members of this new Bank. They plan on backing their currency with gold. They have even convinced most of the US allies to join this new bank, including UK, Germany, France, and many others. The dollar is losing its status as the Worlds reserve currency which is a death blow. Many of the top financial people in the US that predicted the 2008 crisis are getting their money out of the dollar and recommending that others do the same. Even Jamie Diamond the head of JPMorgan Chase (the largest bank in the US) has said he expects a major event to take place with the dollar very soon.
The dollar is not immune from the laws of economics that have existed throughout history. All fiat currencies eventually fail and the sign of the end is when the central bank (the Fed) of the country starts printing so much money that the debt becomes unsustainable. Even the US Treasury just came out with a report that said the US debt is unsustainable and will cause the dollar to crash unless congress balances the budget immediately. Congress is not capable of fixing this problem.

It is a little scary, but I don’t think he is a fear monger. He has a lot of credibility and really believes this is a likely senerio and he is just one of many that are saying this. This is not a conspiracy theory. Its his opinion based on years of experience.

 

Jun 032014
 

Income Tax is Not Necessary to Fund Government

Devvy Kidd
Originally published and copyrighted in June 2001
Updated 01/25/2012

Also available on audio for free; click here.
Download to a CD or IPod and help get the truth to family and friends

Can this statement possibly be true? In order to answer this question, Americans must first understand what is the source of the money that funds the government and where it goes. Contrary to the sound bites issued by the two mainstream political parties, the reality of how the system actually works will not only open your eyes, but hopefully stimulate the American people to demand that the thievery underway come to an end.

Where do your “income” tax dollars go?

The best place to look for an answer to this question would be a government report, so let’s take just one at random:

President’s Private Sector Survey On Cost Control
A Report to The President (Reagan)

January 15, 1984. Available from the Congressional Research Service.
The excerpt below can be found on page 12.

  • “Importantly, any meaningful increases in taxes from personal income would have to come from lower and middle income families, as 90% of all personal taxable income is generated below the taxable income level of $35,000.
  • Further, there isn’t much more that can be extracted from high income brackets. If the
    Government took 100% of all taxable income beyond the $75,000 tax bracket not already taxed, it would get only $17 billion, and this confiscation, which would destroy productive enterprise, would only be sufficient to run the Government for several days.
  • Resistance to additional income taxes would be even more widespread if people were aware that:
  • With two-thirds of everyone’s personal income taxes wasted or not collected, 100% of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal Government contributions to transfer payments.
  • In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their government.”

So what we have is a central bank issuing worthless paper “money” that controls our economy, our lives and our future. This private banking cartel was unconstitutionally granted this power by a devious, scheming group of senators back in 1913. In essence what they did was place the American people into indentured servitude by forcing The People to pay usury on worthless fiat currency (paper money created out of nothing), not to fund the government, but to enrich the bankers and fund wars in which America should never be involved. This system exists not to fund the government, but to allow the U.S. Congress carte blanche power to continue funding unconstitutional agencies and programs by providing them with a bottomless source of worthless ink.

The National Debt and the Deficit

These two little bookkeeping items are not the same thing. Few Americans actually know the difference, but the difference is quite important. We continually hear members of Congress, president after president, and political pundits call for “reduction in the debt.” But what does that really mean? Here’s how it works in the most simplified way to fit into this document:

Let’s say that for 2002, Congress and the President decide they want $1.7 trillion dollars to fund this bloated pig called our government. We know that 100% of all personal “income” taxes extorted by the IRS goes to the “Federal” Reserve Banking System and does not fund a single function of the government. So, let’s take the people’s blood and sweat off the table.

What other revenues does the government collect? Corporate taxes, social security taxes, constitutional revenues such as excise taxes on cigarettes, alcohol, tobacco, firearms, tires, etc., tariffs on trade, military hardware sales, and some minor categories. Let’s say that those revenues will total $900 billion dollars. The politicians want $1.7 trillion to spend on their favorite welfare programs, wars and foreign welfare, but have a short fall of $800 billion dollars. This is called the deficit and the deficit, created by the spending of Congress, creates the “national debt.”

How? Because the politicians are $800 billion dollars short, they simply call up Al Greenspan and borrow your children’s and grand babies’ futures. The “Federal” Reserve Banks don’t loan anything of value to Congress. They aren’t banks; they’re really an overpaid, powerful, private accounting service. When that $800 billion dollars worth of ink is transferred to the Treasury, it gets piled on top of the existing “national debt.”

This is how the magical money machine works. Congress overspends. It borrows from this accounting firm called the “Fed” and then turns around and tells you to pay for these crimes against the people. In other words, Congress basically pays the bills with social security and borrowed ink from the “Fed.” Pretty slick scam, wouldn’t you say?

The people of America are also responsible to a large degree for this out-of-control spending. Americans have been bred to a welfare dependent mentality. Special interest groups who have no interest in the U.S. Constitution, demand that billions of dollars be spent on their pet interests. Billions upon billions of dollars have been unconstitutionally thrown to foreign governments, some days our friend, a week later our enemies. They are only our friend as long as the U.S. throws money at their corrupt governments.

Billions of dollars have unconstitutionally been spent on grants to colleges and universities, which in turn sell their research to the highest bidder, paid for by the sweat off the back of the little guy out in America. No, they don’t return any back to the little guy who funded these studies and research programs.

As long as the American people themselves condone continued unconstitutional spending by Congress, the longer they will violate their oath of office, and continue to fund unconstitutional expenditures, placing your children and grand babies in a state of unpayable, massive debt.

Unless The People demand an end to this insanity, our economy eventually will collapse under the weight of this massive, unpayable debt, no matter how much ink the “Fed” transfers into the coffers of the U.S. Treasury. The pain of withdrawal from unlawful government hand-outs will be far less now than it will be down the road.

America became the greatest, debt free nation on earth by a resourceful, independent, self reliant people. Sadly, today we have a large percentage of our population who can’t get through the day without a government memo telling them how, step-by-step, with a redistribution of average, ordinary Americans assets into the hands of the unproductive. A very sad commentary to what made our nation great and prosperous.

But I heard the debt is being paid down?

What you heard and reality are two separate issues altogether. The politicians must continue to fool the American people lest they catch on to this chicanery. Let’s have a look at the numbers so you can see that any utterance that the national debt has been paid down X billions of dollars, is nothing more than bombastic gas, passed from one administration to the next and the latest recycled Congress.

In the chart below, an R next to the amount indicates a Republican President; a D is for a Democrat in the Oval Office. The Democrats had control of Congress from 1954, until the illusion billed as the “Republican Revolution” in 1994. Both houses of Congress were Republican controlled until after the 2000 “election”, but this ended when in May 2001 James Jeffords ‘fessed up to his real political agenda.

Current Congressionally created debt:

01/23/2012
12/31/2011
06/30/2011
12/31/2010
06/30/2010
12/31/2009
08/30/2009
04/16/2009
10/30/2008
11/01/2007
09/29/2006
09/30/2005
09/30/2004
09/30/2003
09/30/2002
09/28/2001
08/08/2001
04/30/2001
02/28/2001
01/31/2001
12/29/2000
09/29/2000
09/30/1999
09/30/1998
09/30/1997
09/30/1996
09/29/1995
09/30/1994
09/30/1993
09/30/1992
09/30/1991
09/28/1990
09/29/1989
09/30/1988
09/30/1987
$15,236,245,309,869.69 (D)
$15,222,940,045,451.09 (D)
$14,343,087,640,008.40 (D)
$14,025,215,218,708.52 (D)
$13,203,473,753,968.10 (D)
$12,311,349,677,512.03 (D)
$11,909,829,003,511.75 (D)
$11,183,899,252,728.00 (D)
$10,530,893,033,778.21 (R)
$9,080,228,573,291.65 (R)
$8,506,973,899,215.23 (R)
$7,932,709,661,723.50 (R)
$7,379,052,696,330.32 (R)
$6,783,231,062,743.62 (R)
$6,228,235,965,597.16 (R)
$5,807,463,412,200.06 (R)
$5,720,324,946,092.23 (R)
$5,661,347,798,002.65 (R)
$5,735,859,380,573.98 (R)
$5,716,070,587,057.36 (R)
$5,662,216,013,697.37 (D)
$5,674,178,209,886.86 (D)
$5,656,270,901,615.43 (D)
$5,526,193,008,897.62 (D)
$5,413,146,011,397.34 (D)
$5,224,810,939,135.73 (D)
$4,973,982,900,709.39 (D)
$4,692,749,910,013.32 (D)
$4,411,488,883,139.38 (D)
$4,064,620,655,521.66 (R)
$3,665,303,351,697.03 (R)
$3,233,313,451,777.25 (R)
$2,857,430,960,187.32 (R)
$2,602,337,712,041.16 (R)
$2,350,276,890,953.00 (R)

The statistics above were obtained from the Bureau of The Public Debt’s web site:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway
As you can see, it doesn’t matter which party is in office, there is no surplus and the debt cannot be paid down, it can only grow exponentially as long as Congress and the President have the central bank at their fingertips.

A “balanced budget” is nothing more than good political rhetoric, but in reality, it’s a pipe dream strictly for public consumption. How can you balance your budget if you have no money to spend and are trillions of dollars in the hole? You can’t. It’s just another well crafted illusion to keep the masses pacified.

You can fool some of the people some of the time, but the American people have awakened to this monumental theft and are demanding the only real solution that can be implemented: Abolishing the central bank, and a return to a constitutional monetary system with no income tax.

No “Fed,” no need for a direct tax

Without the central bank siphoning off the wealth of our nation, there would be no need for a personal income tax.

President Andrew Jackson booted out the central bank; his speech can be read here:

http://alpha.furman.edu/~benson/docs/ajveto.htm

This battle fought by Jackson was a huge deal back then and he refused to back down. Jackson was the last honest president with the guts to stand up to the international bankers who are literally stealing US blind.

“The greatest party battle of Jackson’s presidency centered around the Second Bank of the United States, a private corporation but virtually a Government-sponsored monopoly. When Jackson appeared hostile toward it, the Bank threw its power against him.

“Clay and Webster, who had acted as attorneys for the Bank, led the fight for its recharter in Congress. “The bank,” Jackson told Martin Van Buren, “is trying to kill me, but I will kill it!” Jackson, in vetoing the recharter bill, charged the Bank with undue economic privilege.

“His views won approval from the American electorate; in 1832 he polled more than 56 percent of the popular vote and almost five times as many electoral votes as Clay.”

Please note that the words “a private corporation but virtually a Government sponsored monoploy” comes directly from the White House’s web site. What a huge admission!

On line, you can also read Congressman Louis McFadden’s indictment on the Federal Reserve Corporation. It is a very concise explanation of how the international banking cartel has been sacking this country’s wealth since 1913.

Don’t be fooled by this chant around the country for a flat tax, a consumption tax, sales tax or any other kind of personal income tax. There is absolutely no authority in the U.S. Constitution to implement any of these forms of taxation without apportionment. It is for this reason and this reason alone, that when it became apparent that the 16th Amendment was not going to be ratified by the states, fraud was committed and it was simply “proclaimed” ratified by then Secretary of State Philander Knox.

We don’t need any direct taxation and these popular mantras are just new lies to replace old lies. Any one of these forms of taxation will still feed the cancer: the central bank. Any one of these forms of taxation is just another way to fleece the American people to enrich the pockets of the international banking cartel. Please consider the words of Congressman Ron Paul:

    “Strictly speaking, it probably is not necessary for the federal government to tax anyone directly; it could simply print the money it needs. However, that would be too bold a stroke, for it would then be obvious to all what kind of counterfeiting operation the government is running. The present system combining taxation and inflation is akin to watering the milk: too much water and the people catch on.”

Please don’t fall for these alternative taxing SCHEMES. The banking cartel doesn’t care what form it is they fleece your hard earned dollars (flat tax, fair tax, sales tax, etc.) – just as long as they continue to steal from us:

Beware alternative taxing schemes
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43242

Make IRS check payable to stockholders of private Fed
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43820

Today is April 15 … again
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44036

What we need to do is take away the magical money machine called the “Fed,” which will force Congress to live within its means and fund only those activities specifically enumerated by the supreme law of the land in Art. 1, § 8 of the U.S. Constitution:

Lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States, but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States, borrow Money on the credit of the United States, regulate commerce (trade), naturalization, bankruptcy laws, coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign Coin, fix the Standard of Weights and Measures, punishment regarding counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States, establish Post Offices and post Roads, Promote [Editorial note: “promote” does not mean fund] the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries, constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court, define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations; declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water, Raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years, provide and maintain a Navy, make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions, provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress, Exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings, make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. **

There is absolutely no authority for the federal government to legislate in areas of the environment, education, the NEA, the FDA and many others. It may surprise you to find out that agencies such as FDA, DEA and the EPA all derive their jurisdiction from international treaties. When the powers that be wish to circumvent the U.S. Constitution, they do it either through an executive order or international treaties. We strongly encourage you to investigate this issue thoroughly.

Prior to the Federal Department of Education, America had the finest schools in the world. Since this disastrous and unconstitutional grab for power, we can all see that a quadrillion dollars a year will not fix our schools, and they continue to decline faster than the feds or states can shovel money into them. Even if a direct tax were necessary, only by keeping it at its lowest possible percentage would it ever benefit this nation:


“The point now emphasized is that the evil effects of high surtaxes fall not upon the individual whose income is seized and taken, but ultimately almost entirely upon the mass of the people who are thereby deprived of the benefits which would result from the free flow of commercial transactions and the use of the additional capital which would be available for productive enterprise.
“Freedom of business transactions essential.

“The revenues to be obtained by the Government from this class of taxes depends upon transactions in trade and commerce which bring about income available for payment of taxes. It is highly desirable, in the interest of the production of revenue, that the volume of business transactions giving rise to gain shall be as great as possible, and to this end it is essential that the natural laws of trade and commerce and the free flow of business shall not be interfered with or prevented.


The excerpt below is from pgs 19-20, Annual Report of the Secretary of the Treasury on the State of Finances for 1921:


“But the direct effect of these very high taxes is to hinder and prevent business transactions which would otherwise take place. A man may have property which he has held for years and which has greatly increased in value, and he would like to sell it, but if he does a large part of the gain would have to be paid out in taxes. He would rather keep the property than sell it, pay the tax, and invest what is left in something else. At the same time the party desiring to buy this property, if he obtained it, would improve it with buildings.

What is the result? The transaction does not take place, and the community loses the advantage which would come in the stimulation that would arise from the transactions resulting from the buyer’s improvement of the property, and it also loses the advantage of the seller’s putting his money into some other form of investment, which in turn would give rise to business transactions. The same thing on a much greater scale is true in manufacturing and mercantile lines. Men have built up enterprises to the point where they are highly successful. They would like to take their profit and turn the business over to younger men to carry on.

These transactions are highly desirable not only for the parties but for the community, yet they are absolutely stopped, because if made the seller would have to pay in one year a tax on a gain which has been the result of perhaps the better part of a lifetime of effort. And in all such cases the Government gets no tax, whereas if the rates were reasonable the transactions would take place and the Government’s revenues would benefit accordingly.

The free interchange of property in business transactions is essential to the normal prosperity of the country, and each such transaction has a direct tendency to bring about others of like character with the result of increasing the amount of gain or income available for taxation; but when the tax is so high as to act as a deterrent against usual and desirable business transactions, and the volume of such transactions is thereby lessened, the inevitable result is for the tax to become less and less productive.

It is for these reasons that, particularly in the higher brackets, a lower tax rate will produce more revenue in the long run than excessive rates. So long as the high rate stands in the way of accomplishing bargains and sales, the Government receives no tax; but at a lower rate the transactions proceed and the Government shares in the profits.” (End of excerpt.)


Today Americans are being fleeced to the tune of approximately 52% of every dollar going for local, state and federal taxes. The day is rapidly approaching when making even $1,000 per hour will not be enough to survive. How much longer are the people of this nation going to put up with this state of affairs? We say enough is enough!

A Pioneer on the withholding issue

Vivien Kellems was a woman before her time who knew the grand theft taking place against the working man’s paycheck. [For more information on Ms. Kellems, see: http://www.vivienkellems.org/]. The following excerpt from pages 41-46 of her book, Toil, Taxes and Trouble, published in 1952 is legally right on point:

    “Since a capitation means a tax of the same amount for every person, this provision makes doubly sure that all federal taxes must be at the same uniform rate for everybody. This limitation that direct taxes be levied by the Federal Government must be in proportion to a census and apportioned among the States in accordance with numbers, is the only provision in the Constitution that is stated twice.

    “The only reason that our Constitution required a census to be taken every ten years was to count the people to determine how many Representatives should go to Congress, and how direct taxes should be levied. I wonder how many Americans thought of this in 1950 when those little busybodies came knocking on their doors, asking ten thousand impudent, silly questions which were none of their, or Washington’s, business.

    “There is absolutely no power granted in the Constitution which enables a top-heavy bureaucracy of empty-headed simpletons, and worse, to invade the privacy of the American people in such a monstrous manner.
This census is just a preview of what is really in store for us if they actually take over, which they most certainly will do unless we uproot and vote them out.

    “The census was to count the people – that was all. The number of people determined the number of Representatives in Congress and the apportionment of direct taxes among the states.

    “For a long time I asked myself, ‘Why were Representatives and direct taxes linked together and apportioned among the States in accordance with population?’ It was understandable that Representatives should be chosen in accordance with numbers but why should taxes be apportioned the same way? And then one day, out of the blue, it came to me crystal clear. All at once I understood the plan to safeguard the future freedom of the nation, conceived and executed by those scholarly men.

    “I read again: ‘Representatives and direct taxes shall be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers…’ ‘No capitation, or other direct tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the Census of Enumeration hereinbefore directed to be taken.’ And in those two sentences our forefathers bound fast the hands of Congress and secured the liberty and freedom of the American people. How? By making it utterly impossible to levy an income tax.

    “An income tax is certainly a direct tax, probably the most direct tax of all since it cannot be shifted but must be paid by the person receiving the income. By specifying that direct taxes must be levied in accordance with the number of people, not upon what they produced, as in the days of ancient Egypt, an income tax was simply out of the question. It cannot be levied upon a man but must be levied upon what he receives.

    “Our forefathers designed and incorporated in the Constitution a new system of government. It was built upon a revolutionary idea; the conviction that the government belonged to the people and existed only by their consent. Its genius lay in the careful system of checks and balances among the three departments, the Legislative, the Executive, and the Judicial. And it went further and maintained a balance between the powers of the individual States and the Federal Government. In addition it carefully reserved to the States and to the people all rights and powers not specifically delegated, or prohibited to the Federal Government and further stated that because certain rights were enumerated in the Constitution it did not mean that others not mentioned were still not the property of the people.

    “However everything in the Constitution was arrived at by compromise. The interests and concerns of the thirteen states varied widely and each delegate was sent to Philadelphia to protect the commerce, industry and agriculture of his particular state. It required months of patient discussion, argument and forbearance to finally produce the finished document, which when completed, comprised a system of government to protect the people in the rights and liberties set down in flaming words in the Declaration of Independence. It is a wonderful document, the best system of government ever devised for human beings, but it could have varied in some respects and still have worked satisfactorily……

    “The supreme achievement of the combined brains of all those men were written into those two sentences and the freedom and liberty of the American people were secured in them. For in those two sentences the right of the free man to own something was made inviolate. This was his distinguishing mark, the only criterion of freedom in all the world, the right of the common man to retain for himself the fruit of his labor.

Now this is how it worked. Every man was given a vote with which he could vote for his Representative. Originally only Representatives were elected, Senators were appointed by the State Legislatures and it’s too bad we changed that provision.”

(Editorial Note: We didn’t. Like the 16th Amendment, the 17th Amendment is a fraud–it was never ratified by the states. Therefore, we have not had a lawfully seated senate since 1913.)

    “That Representative having to stand for election every two years was close to the people and responsive to their wishes. That is why he was given the power to tax; all bills of revenue arise in the House. And that is why he must come home every two years and give an accounting to the people.

    “But his power to levy direct taxes was limited by an ironbound restriction: that tax must be apportioned among the States in accordance with the population. Since all taxes were to be at a uniform rate, Congress simply could not penalize one section of the country, or one group of citizens for the unfair advantage of another.

    “When Congress levied a tax, everybody had to pay and at the same rate. The amount would vary with the wealth of an area, as it does today with the different values of real estate, but the rate was the same for all and the tax was distributed among the States according to population.

    “The men who wrote our Constitution did not found a democracy. They feared the so-called ‘Democrats’ of their day as much as we fear the Communists today. They did not believe in mob rule, or government by the unintelligent, irresponsible mass. They founded a republic and they made certain that the right to vote should be curbed and controlled by the necessity of paying taxes. Scheming politicians could not take taxes from a helpless minority and buy themselves back into office with the votes of the tax exempt majority. When a Representative voted a tax, he voted to tax everybody because the tax was based upon numbers, not upon dollars.

    “This was the most brilliant plan ever conceived for guaranteeing the freedom of a nation. It protected every person in his right to private property, rich and poor alike, and under this protection we built the richest, most powerful nation on earth. We achieved and maintained for the majority of our people a standard of living undreamed of before, the hope and the envy of the whole world.

    “And we accomplished something even more important: we developed a vigorous, self-reliant, self- respecting race of people. An American citizen would have been ashamed to ask for a handout from his Government. The Government belonged to him, he did not belong to the government.

    “And then what happened? We chucked our carefully safeguarded right to own something out the window, and we passed the income tax amendment. Gone was our apportionment among the States in accordance with population, and also gone was our principle of uniformity. Income ‘from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration’ could be taxed and without limit. And when we passed this income tax amendment the slow, distilled poison of tax slavery dripped into our veins. We sowed the seeds of our national decay which is rapidly coming to maturity before our eyes today. The heritage of freedom so carefully insured for us by our forefathers is gone; it has been taxed away.” (End of excerpt.)

The “General Welfare” Clause of the Constitution

The majority of unconstitutional spending is justified by the “general welfare” clause of the constitution. Shawn O’Connor of the Free Enterprise Society summed up this misconception in one of his speeches, paraphrased below:

“Discussion of the general welfare clause of the Constitution by the courts relies upon the Federalist Papers. This term simply means: Taxation was to protect the individuals’ life, liberty and ownership of private property. One can go to Art. 1, Sec. 8, Clause 1 of the constitution and read the general welfare clause. Then one can do some history research and see what the Anti-Federalists had to say about this clause:

“That this clause conveys absolute power to the central government. Patrick Henry was very vocal in his opposition to putting this kind of language into the constitution. Madison, however, assured Henry and others that all the general welfare clause represented was a preliminary introduction prior to the enumerating the specific powers the delegates were about to grant to this new federal government and that the general welfare clause granted no new power to the government whatsoever. It was simply an introductory statement.

The Anti-Federalists still weren’t satisfied. Hamilton and Madison came back to re-state that if the general welfare clause conveyed absolute power to the government, why would they go on to list the specific powers they were going to grant the government? That wouldn’t make any sense at all if they were going to give absolute power to this government. It was finally conceded by all at the convention that the general welfare clause conveyed absolutely no power to the government.” [End of comment.]

The general welfare clause of the constitution has been misused for personal gain by special interest groups to enrich the pockets of the banking cartel, by politicians hoping to “get that vote,” and an all out push to turn America into a socialist country, beginning with the “New Deal” implemented by FDR and supported by a weak Congress. Lyndon Johnson took the quest to turn America into a socialist nation to new and grotesque heights.

How would you fund the government without any direct taxation?

The powers that be know it’s just a matter of time before the truth reaches enough Americans about the voluntary income tax system. Already trial balloons are being floated to once again fool the people into some form of alternative tax in order to feed the central bank.

America functioned very well without an income tax throughout the history of this Republic. The answer to the question of funding without a direct tax is found is Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution since 1787. It provides for Congress to pass a legislative bill for tax money to be paid by each state in proportion to its population.

Proper, constitutional funding will allow large amounts of money to fund a limited form of Republican government. To continue on the path of this massive and unconstitutional spending will bring a final and total collapse of the economy. Make no mistake about it.

Has your government been truthful?

Do you know why the “withholding tax” system was put into place? Let me provide you with just one shocking example of how things work behind the scenes:


Declassified (Confidential Committee Print)
Withholding Tax Hearing Before A Subcommittee of The Committee on Finance,
United States Senate, 77th Congress, Second Session on:
Data Relative to Withholding Provisions of the 1942 Revenue Act, August 21 and 22, 1942
(Printed for the use of the Committee on Finance)
United States Government Printing Office, Washington 1942
SUMMARY/Contents Statement of:
Friedman, Milton, Division of Tax Research, Treasury Department
Hardy, Charles O., of Brookings Institution
Jacobstein, Meyer, of Brookings Institution
Paul, Randolph E., Treasury Department

Overview

Because the war effort resulted in increased production and employment, which caused a sudden large influx of money into circulation, the Federal Government and Federal Reserve System had to find a method of “mopping up excess purchasing power” thereby control inflation and obtain immediate funds for the Treasury. Several plans were put forth before the House, Ways & Means Committee and the Senate Committee on Finance to accomplish this purpose.

The following points were made by the Senators and those testifying before the committee:

1. The overall purpose was to obtain immediate money for the war effort, to control inflation and to get the income tax on a current basis instead of being one year behind.

2. To accomplish this goal, it was recognized that a scheme was needed to reach the largest number of people.

3. That the scheme, regardless of whether it was a “coupon,” “stamp” or “withholding of income tax at source,” would constitute a “forced loan” to the Federal Government and it would apply to taxpayers and nontaxpayers alike, with exceptions.

4. Where an individual had money withheld and ultimately no tax liability, the individual would file an income tax return and that income tax return would constitute an automatic claim for refund.

5. The proposed plan was an emergency war time measure.

Hearing Experts, Beginning Page 99

Statement of Meyer Jacobstein of Brookings Institution

“It is obvious that it is necessary to mop up the excess purchasing power of the community, not only because of it’s effect on the price situation but because the Treasury needs the money and needs it quickly.*

Obviously the Treasury can collect from the consumers as the purchases are made and the Treasury has the use of those funds long before it would obtain them by the income-tax method.

Now, there are many ways, of course, of mopping up this surplus purchasing power…Now, there is the withholding tax at the source based on payrolls.”

Senator Clark: “Doctor, what this plan is, it is essentially a compulsory savings plan based on sales tax methods, is it not?”

Mr. Jacobstein: “I should say that is a fair description of it, yes. It is the use of a sales tax method without being a tax.”

Senator Clark: “So far as the impact on the public is concerned, it is precisely the same as a sales tax, except you give the money back sometimes.”

Mr. Jacobstein: “That is right. That is a very fair statement, I think. Senator Danaher used the word “self-assessment.” If I buy a dollar necktie I pay $1.10 under his plan. A withholding tax is usually withheld at the source. Here you withhold it not at the manufacturer’s end but at the retailer’s end. You are using the retailer instead of the manufacturer to siphon off several billion dollars, depending on the rate of the assessment of a tax.

It may be that several systems can be used. Any one of them might be very useful to the Treasury in accomplishing this purpose. But…for siphoning off purchasing power into the Treasury from day to day, or week to week, or month to month; and it has that advantage.

Now, there is an aspect to this question which was not brought out in the original memorandum which would make the scheme perhaps a little more palatable if certain deductions were made by any method, either by the withholding tax method or direct sales tax method or by Senator Danaher’s proposal….”

Statement of Charles O. Hardy of the Brookings Institution

Mr. Hardy: “First…mainly for the purpose of providing an exemption from the tax or forced loan, either one. Now, as has been stated a moment ago, this is a forced loan. It should be pointed out, I think, that you can do the same thing with the mechanics of any other tax, that is, under the income tax you can give out bonds or coupons redeemable in bonds instead of giving receipts for the income tax. You can do that, as far as I can see, with any tax, for the whole schedule of taxes.

I would like to say…that we have to bring about a readjustment of consumption in the country to the amount of consumers goods and services that we can spare the resources to produce under war conditions. First, we have got to devote our productive energies to the war.

Or, you can use the mechanism of the sales tax, as far as I can see, by mopping up the increased purchasing power that is created by the rising amount they receive in their paychecks. On the other hand, if the money is stored up, whether it is in the form of these stamps or in the form where people haven’t spent it because they have had no way to spend it, in either case if it is too large a proportion you are going to have the problem, whenever you do turn it loose, that you have now in the other case, namely of having a lot more purchasing power than you have goods and services to make it good with.

That is the answer, I think, to the question that might be raised as to why not carry this principle through and apply it to income tax, corporation tax, and everything else. Obviously, this has the advantage that this definitely sews up the purchasing power in such a way that it cannot be released until we discover the proper way to release it.

I think it has a great advantage over the deficient spending program. This program just postpones the problem of administration, in deciding how much purchasing power is available to release and to what extent it will create the old wartime inflation over again.”

Senator Danaher: “Let me ask you this question: Considering the withholding tax, simply the treasury withholds it currently and applies the proceeds against the tax due in a given year…”

Mr. Hardy: “The deduction from salaries and interest, and so on, at the source?”

Senator Danaher: “Yes.”

Mr. Hardy: “Yes.”

Senator Danaher: “That is a currently applied method of withholding so much of the consumer purchasing power as is represented by the tax collected or withheld.”

Mr. Hardy: “That is right.”

Senator Danaher: “And the applied as against the tax due.”

Mr. Hardy: “Yes. The withholding tax provision has the effect of withholding purchasing power at the time the income is realized rather than a year hence through the income tax structure.”

Senator Danaher: “And if it were in effect for 1 year it would apply only 1 year?”

Mr. Hardy: “I assume so.”

Senator Danaher: “Yes. Whereas this proposal is a continuing thing.”

Mr. Hardy: “It seems to me the essential difference is that the withholding tax plan applies at the point of receipt of income, and this applies at the point of expenditure of income.”

Senator Danaher: “Of course, you withhold not only from taxpayers but nontaxpayers.”

Mr. Hardy: “Yes. Some people that I talked to about this plan, Federal Reserve people, have been rather favorable to the idea.”

Mr. Jacobstein: “Don’t you want to add that Mr. Selko pointed out that such difficulties as are encountered in the States are, partially at least, overcome when you have a uniform Federal tax? Where you have a uniform tax all over the country by one administration, the Federal Government, it is easier to administer than a sum total of 48 states. Now that was Mr. Selko’s conclusion.”

Statement of Milton Friedman, Division of Tax Research, Treasury Department

Senator Danaher: “I have only one other thought on that point. In the event of withholding from the owner of stock and no taxes due ultimately, where does he get his refund?”

Mr. Friedman: “You thinking of a corporation or an individual?”

Senator Danaher: “I am talking about an individual.”

Mr. Friedman: “An individual will file an income tax return, and that income tax return will constitute an automatic claim for refund.” End of document excerpts.

What bald faced lies. “Mop up purchasing power”? Fleecing Americans dry is a more accurate way to describe this terrible injustice against US. How about letting Americans decide to save the fruits of their labor? No, the government wants it all.

* Art. 1, Sec. 8 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to issue money, not the private fed: “To coin money, regulate the value thereof,” Cut out the middle man (“Fed”) and the Treasury wouldn’t “need the money.” What a con game.

T. Coleman Andrews. Mr. Andrews (a Democrat) was Commissioner for the first 33 months of the Eisenhower Administration, stated the following in an article for U.S. News & Report, May 25, 1956:

“….We’re confiscating property now….That’s socialism. It’s written into the Communist Manifesto. Maybe we ought to see that every person who gets a tax return receives a copy of the Communist Manifesto with it so he can see what’s happening to him.”

Beardsley Ruml, Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York stated in one of his speeches in 1946:
“The second principal purpose of federal taxes is to attain more equality of wealth and of income than would result from economic forces working alone. The taxes which are effective for this purpose are the progressive individual income tax, the progressive estate tax, and the gift tax. What these taxes should be depends on public policy with respect to the distribution of wealth and of income.

It is important, here, to note that the estate and gift taxes have little or no significance, as tax measures, for stabilizing the value of the dollar. Their purpose is the social purpose of preventing what otherwise would be high concentration of wealth and income at a few points, as a result of investment and reinvestment of income not expended in meeting day-to-day consumption requirements. These taxes should be defended and attacked it terms of their effects on the character of American life, not as revenue measures.
Taxes on corporation profits have three principal consequences — all of them bad.”

Does the average man or woman in America know this?

What do we mean when we say that the IRS is not a government agency? Read this quote
from an U.S. attorney submitted in court documents in a tax case up in Idaho:

Betty Richardson, United States Attorney, Box 32, Boise, Idaho 83707. Civil No. 93-405-E-EJL, United States’ Answer and Claim re: Diversified Metal Products, Inc., Plaintiff v. T-Bow Company Trust, Internal Revenue Service and Steve Morgan, Defendants, page 4, paragraph #4:
“Denies (the U.S. government) that the Internal Revenue Service is an agency of the United States government …”

If the IRS is not an agency of the federal government, just what is it? In a nutshell, the income tax is international in scope and not incumbent upon domestic Americans. That is a provable fact. The IRS for more than 80 years has been misapplying the IRCode against unsuspecting Americans and back up their unlawful activities with brute force. This must stop.

What can you do?

The federal government must generate revenues to operate what our Founding Fathers created: A limited form of Republican government. State constitutions are all guaranteed a limited form of Republican government. America is not a democracy. We believe America is a nation of laws, not lies. We can’t have it both ways for political expediency or to please any and every special interest group that bribes politicians at all levels with the politically correct “PAC money.”

Sometimes it’s difficult to be the messenger of news that people would rather not hear.

However, Americans can no longer remain in their comfort zones because the message isn’t what they want to hear. If your house is on fire, you don’t sit and continue to watch the television set, you call the fire department. America: Our house is on fire and it is the obligation of every American to safeguard the liberties and freedoms given to us by those who paid the ultimate price. Please join the growing numbers of millions who are ready to take back our country and stop the assault on our rights.

Apr 302014
 

Steve Jobs on coming reset to Bitcoin

Sovereign Man modified by Morpheus original article
Wisdom from Steve Jobs on the coming system reset

April 30, 2014
Santiago, Chile / Mesa, Arizona

Hi all fans of Simon Black and Sovereign Man.  I got this in my email. After I read it and have to suggest that Simon doesn’t carry his thought to the logical conclusion.  BitCoin IS the future, not metals or Banks in other jurisdictions are still part of the BORG and for that reason they are not to be trusted in any way shape or form.  Bitcoins properly dealt with are safer than the gold in Fort Knox, if there is any there, that is.

“Money” is a concept of the mind, it doesn’t exist in the real world.  It is only exists as construct of the mind.  Here is the Progression:

Agrarian Age: In this era there was no: electricity, Internet, cars, trucks, planes, trains, running water, Walmart, Circle K, running water in your house, newspapers, or mail services, some people thought the world was flat.  This age is marked by Barter, and with the rise of Roman Empire the “invention” of gold and silver as “money”. Keep in mind during    However in their lust for expansion and debasement of the coin through clipping and non precious alloys being added caused hyperinflation.  This gave rise to the dark ages with control going to the Roman Catholic Church, and all the Flat Earth sillyness.

Industrial Age: Moving out of the dark ages was marked with the “invention” of Paper Money with the “invention” of the printing press, they say they were printing Bibles, “Riiight”,I say “they were printing money Guttenberg wasn’t printing Bibles’. That coverup story is for the slaves and no different than the cock and bull 9/11 coverup.” This age is marked with the enslavement of humanity to debt, debt that is created by the banks to pit human against human to create governments to “referee” all disputes.  Of course they never indict themselves for criminal behavior.

Digital Age: This age is marked with the “invention” of the “computer” and the “Internet.” These “inventions” created a totally new kind of money one that could not exist with the previous systems to build on.   That new technology created a crypto-currency known as Bitcoin. There are other alt coins like:  Litecoin, Namecoin, Mastercoin to name a few.  To attempt to go back to the past and use the technology from an age that is so long gone is a mistake. I like to ask people “How come you don’t have a phone with a really long cord instead of a cell phone?”. The simple reason is because the new technology, the cell phone, replaced the corded phone so no one uses corded phones much any more.  To have be against bitcoins is like being against cell phones when they came out.  Those who were the Luddites back in the beginning of the industrial revolution quickly disappeared or got ran over.  We can’t take Gold and Silver into space its way too heavy.

Sure its a good idea to have gold and silver in case the aliens or the machines turn off the power, however a prudent person would also want to stock up on 9mm 40 and 45 cal double ought buckshot, food , water and other supplies. When you look at the progression of the price and the market cap a person would have to be out of your mind to not get involved with bitcoin.

So read both articles and see which one comes to a better conclusion.  Simon hit me up if you like m-o-r-p-h-e-u-s<at>t-i-t-a-n-i-a-n-s<dot>org

Steve Jobs used to tell a very inspiring story about an article he read in Scientific American when he was a boy.

He said that the article measured the ‘efficiency of locomotion’ of various species– essentially how many calories different animals spend getting from Point A to Point B.
The most efficient of all? Not human beings. Not by a long shot. It was the condor. The condor expended the least amount of energy per meter or kilometer traveled. Human beings were pretty far down the list.

But as Jobs recounts, the authors had the foresight to also test the efficiency of a human being on a bicycle. And this absolutely blew all the other species away.

Jobs later said that this was incredibly influential on his thinking because he realized that human beings were fundamentally tool creators. We take our situation, however grim or rudimentary, and we make it better.

There’s undoubtedly a lot of bad news in the world these days. Some people realize it. Others refuse to believe it and stick their heads in the sand. Our century-old industrial age monetary system is unraveling before our very eyes.

This absurd arcane structure in which we award a tiny central banking elite with the dictatorial power to control the money supply in their sole discretion is now drowning the world in paper currency.

ALL financial markets are manipulated by central banks, predominantly the Federal Reserve. One human or possibly a reptile in a human woman outfit — Janet Yellen– has the power to affect the prices of nearly everything on the planet, from the wholesale price of coffee in Colombia to the cost of a luxury flat in Hong Kong.

Moreover, politicians in some of the most ‘advanced’ economies in the world (Japan, the US, France, the UK, etc.) have accumulated so much debt that they have to borrow money just to pay interest on the money they have already borrowed.  Most would call this insanity.

They are and continuing to saddling future unborn generations with a debt that is SATANIC.

They wage endless, costly wars, murdering millions. They spy on their citizens. They spray poisons in the air. They inject fluoride, a carcinogen into the water. They arrest people for the burning a plant.  They tell people what they can and cannot put in their bodies. They confiscate private property and wages at the point of a gun.

They abuse the population with legions of heavily armed government agents (thugs). They conjure so many codes, rules, regulations, laws, and executive orders that it becomes totally impossible for any individual to exist without being guilty of some innocuous, victimless crime.

And they arrogantly masquerade the entire ruse as a FREE SOCIETY.

>None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

This system is on the way out. It will reset.

Like feudalism before, our system will go the way of the historical dust bin. And future historians will look back (just as we view feudalism) and say “why did they put up with that nonsense…?

This reset is nothing to fear. Human beings are incredible creatures who have a long-term track record of growth. We rise. We progress.

Or more appropriately, we ride bicycles. We create tools to overcome our challenges. We create new forms of currency.  The new currency will be in the form of a crypto-currency. The most prevalent in the world is called Bitcoin. You need to wake up and learn why Bitcoin is so much better than the current model.

Your industrial age country’s currency (paper debt money) is being rapidly debased, you could hold some savings in a different currency. Or you may hold agrarian currency (precious metals).  Or move into the future with Digital money…Bitcoin!

Freedoms are being rapidly degraded in almost every country in the world!  Make a decision to stop funding the destruction they cause. Get your bitcoins now.!

I liken all of these to wearing a seatbelt– another one of humanity’s marvelous tools.

You will be better off for holding your funds in a bitcoin wallet, where your money is safer there than all the gold in fort Knox, that is if there is any gold there at all. Or for wearing a seatbelt. But if the worst happens, it can make all the difference in the world.

Buckle up with Bitcoin.

You never know an accident is about to happen until it’s too late. But the warning signs of danger are all there: it’s raining and the road is slippery, fog has descended and visibility is severely limited. It’s an ominous evening.

Make sure you have your Bitcoin seatbelt on.

Until some other time in the Future
Morpheus, peace out. Thank you Simon Black!

Jan 012014
 

2014 The Year of Bitcoin

Patrick L Young is expert in global financial markets working in multiple disciplines, ranging from trading independently to running exchanges.Published time: December 31, 2013 05:35
Photo from www.casascius.comPhoto from www.casascius.com

Like it or love it, bitcoin has been a constant theme of headlines for the past year, as 2013 marked its coming of age.

Last year’s nerd money fad has become this year’s most talked about product.

Ultimately, nature abhors a vacuum and with western political leadership an increasingly distant memory, citizens are becoming increasingly restive about the parlous state of financial governance. Throughout the West, the ravages of quantitative easing [QE] have helped the wealthiest prosper, while ordinary citizens have struggled through a grinding economic plight, which has left voters feeling increasingly abandoned by government.

Into this void has stepped something which had been mooted for many years: a popular electronic currency. Bitcoin is filling a gap self-interested central bankers are keen to suggest doesn’t need filling. Establishment media has been wrong-footed as the Copernican Revolution in finance creates not just bitcoin but a series of parallel financial universes where independent money is at the center of commerce, as opposed to government manipulated fiat currency.

Meanwhile, bitcoin may not be the cryptocurrency the world uses in a decade and the biannual obituaries may yet prove right! As 2013 concluded, BTC’s value had multiplied albeit off its highs after the Bank of China endeavored to close the door to the threat of a backdoor floatation of the renminbi.

In reality, BTC is still remarkably small – growing exponentially from about 142 million dollars to circa 8 billion by Christmas. In other words, the total value of bitcoin amounts to the annual GDP of the Bahamas. Clearly bitcoin isn’t economically significant, yet. However, it now has its first ATM and many have bought beers, lattes and even homes with BTC this past year.

Naturally bankers of all shades are scared of losing their monopolist grip on money, yet given the vast inefficiency of their decrepit systems, it is probably already too late. Decentralized money is an idea whose time has come. Bitcoin is the breakthrough currency creating a widespread consciousness that there is an alternative to holding greenbacks, or lugging a trunk full of gold around.

 

Photo from www.casascius.comPhoto from www.casascius.com

Perhaps the most surprising thing about bitcoin is, in essence, the banality of the arguments. When all else fails, skeptics just cry tulipmania. Indeed, bitcoin bubbled and almost halved in value before the year’s end, but then again, thanks to the idiocy of the banker-government nexus in the last decade, just about every asset bubbled then and a great deal are bubbling now, like art and classic cars, thanks to QE [quantitative easing].

Yes, people steal bitcoins and these thefts are techno-mythologized by scaremongering media. Yet stealing bitcoin is just a virtual variant of traditional pickpocketing. Indeed BTC has been used to finance crime, just like the dear old anonymous bearer bond dollar is beloved of drug cartels. Some American security agencies have expressed concern about their lack of control over bitcoin, but they had an annus horribilis, during which, despite their vast overarching eavesdropping capacity, they still failed to see their own currency woes coming.

While price inflation is the first thing everybody recalls about bitcoin in 2013, what really defines its incredible year was how it slipped out of nerds’ virtual wallets into the mainstream. An 8 billion dollar asset leveraged its value to dominate the headlines and gain widespread recognition. Germany legalized it and many nations acknowledged it – even the US courts. That Norway called it an asset was seen as a dreadful slight; rather it was a splendid incremental step to wider appreciation. In the end, China and Thailand pushed back against the bitcoin juggernaut. The latter is hardly of global economic significance, while the former maintains a closed currency regime.

The year of bitcoin began with the currency on the fringes of digital society, but by the end of the year it was clearly “merging with the mainstream”. Decentralized crytocurrency is still in its infancy but the argument against central bankers’ follies is being won across the globe. After all, you can’t ‘clip’ bitcoin to degrade its value, nor can you inflate its value with QE or other flawed government policies.

2013 ended with citizens increasingly alienated from government as a monetary ally and edging closer to “In Bitcoin we Trust”. Bitcoin itself may only be the first stage of a revolution, similar perhaps to the Netscape browser at the birth of the web, or the Ford Model T which popularized automobile transport. Ultimately, however you look at it, this was the year when bitcoin made its irrevocable mark on history.

Nov 042013
 

NSP – Oct 5, 2013 – Guest: Bernard von NotHaus and Co-hosts: JT & Calvin

Posted on October 5th, 2013 by Calvin

GuestBernard von NotHaus, the “domestic terrorist” you can call a hero, who founded and operated the Liberty Dollar. In part 2 of the podcast, co-hosts JT & Calvin join to discuss a myriad of topics.

Show Notes:

  • Background of the judge and jury [coercive parties] that led to a honest businessman, who was earning a living on 100% voluntary trade [non-coercive party], to exit the Orwellian sphincter as a “unique form of domestic terrorist.”
  • 15-year anniversary of the Liberty Dollar.
  • Properly describing the “charges” of the STATE in objective terms.
  • The Liberty Dollar was meant to be a parallel currency, not a competing currency.
  • Anne Tompkin’s ceremonial, PR role on the FBI’s prepared predetermined-verdict press-release.
  • The lack of actual violence in Bernard’s case despite their smear campaign of “a unique form of domestic terrorist.”
  • The inherent lying nature of prosecuting attorneys.
  • Applicability of the constitution and codes, or otherwise known as jurisdiction, was not addressed before or during the trial.
  • The severe abundance of ineffective council from two “dumb and dumber” cult-members spawned from the STATE-cult bar.
  • The sensational theatrical performance of the prosecuting attorney’s opening and closing statements and remarks.
  • Being judged by a jury that is dependent on the judge’s and prosecutor’s income revenue.
  • Sissy prosecutors that don’t believe in objecting during a closing argument.
  • Objecting to everything that exposes the facade of fairness and impartiality of the judge, who is paid by the same party as the prosecutor. [conflict-of-interest much?]
  • How do you go about proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr.___ actually violated the code if you haven’t first determined whether the code actually applies to Mr.___?
  • Despite the lack of a deceitful nature required to convict someone as a fraud, how can you call a $10 product that appreciated to a $30 value a fraud?
  • Selective witness testimony allowed in favor of the prosecution.
  • Qualifying the witnesses by their personal firsthand knowledge on certain elements of the charges.
  • Examining and evaluating the judge’s fairness and impartiality.
  • Circumstantial evidence that suggests the jury did not read the jury instructions from the judge.
  • No objections from the DOJ on the motion for acquittal filed after the sham trial.
  • A surprise letter flood and to the judge and numerous favorable op-ed articles in support of Bernard.
  • Filing a Brady request to disqualify witnesses that have a known history of dishonesty while on the stand under penalty of perjury.
  • Looking forward to getting back to business after a fair acquittal.
  • Reviewing Bernard von NotHaus’ Liberty Dollar persecution for his rampage of voluntarily trading with his customers.
  • The business network that worked with and supported the Liberty Dollar.
  • Statism: Ideas so good they have to be mandatory.
  • Threats made during Bill’s hearing: “I’ll be the last friendly face you see.”
  • Using abstract terms (reification) to obfuscate the gun in the room.
  • Ditching abstracts to objectively define each character’s roles in a typical legal attack.
  • “I know a guy, who knows a guy, who knows a guy,” and other predictive logical fallacies judges and prosecutors revert to for establishing jurisdiction.
  • Vox et praeterea nihil: voice and nothing more. So in practical terms; beyond your say so, where’s the evidence that your laws apply to me?
  • Conditioned behavioral responses to authoritah who justify their demands by claiming “its the law.”
  • The Chaser’s War on Everything experiment of people who blindly accept illusions of authority and end up accepting citations for “douche-bag tattoos.”
  • Larken’s contribution to destroying illusions of authority with his video “I’m Allowed to Rob You.”
  • Examining the biased opinions, and lack of objective criticism, from those who’s entire lives are dependent on the STATE’s blood-money.
  • Building your opinions on facts and evidence.
  • Statist double-standards when identifying failure in a case when the judge rules against them.
  • Their words, according to the government’s own mandate (the founding and guiding documents), and how it conflicts with what they actually say and do in reality, like proceeding with an unjusticable case.
  • The STATE prosecution accuses Marc of arguing abstractions while he’s attempting to decipher their abstractions.
  • The bar association cult.
  • The jealousy of attorneys that don’t get as reproducible results as those of us who persistently question the evidence without spending tens-of-thousands on a law degree.
  • Pro per-litigant felony cases that have been kicked out of court by questioning the evidence without having to get to the point of trial.
  • Why do they say that jurisdiction can be challenged at any point of litigation, but they don’t allow the challenge of jurisdiction in reality? Why is it part of their cannons?
  • Keeping CITIZENS dependent on the STATE by use of intimidation and fear control techniques.
  • Replacing monopolized STATE services with voluntary alternatives.
  • Defining psychopaths in accordance with the medical definition.
  • Bureaucrats that don’t feel the need to answer any questions despite them destroying innocent lives.
  • Do we need a group of psychopaths ruling over us?
  • The Angola Three: a story the lucid epiphanies of surviving 40+ years of solitary confinement: the world is a prison, the security-level is the real difference.
  • Government Explained inspired by Larken Rose’s talk at the Free Your Mind Conference 2011.
  • ‘Rowdy’ Roddy Piper Drops Bombshell: “They Live” Was A Documentary.
  • The logical parallels between the Idocracy court scene and Quatloos rhetoric.
  • Replacing mass extortion [taxes] with a voluntary system.
  • Fined via taxes for opting-out of Obamacare.
  • Dirty tricks from the tax bureaucrats.
  • Your stolen income at work: agorist-based Silk Road shut down by the Feds.
  • Government offenders of child-exploitation.
  • Government, that commits massive murder-for-hire everyday, condemns an individual for alleged murder-for-hire. Double-standard much?
  • European Parliament Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs hearing on NSA revelations: Jacob Appelbaum, Thomas Drake, Jesselyn Radack, and J. Kirk Wiebe.
  • Steven Colbert’s Jon Stewart’s interview with Richard Dawkins about the likelihood of mutually-assured destruction by the sociopathic ruling-class before making contact with extraterrestrial beings.
  • Death by bureaucrat as documented on many websites like CopBlock.org.
  • It doesn’t matter if the deadly intruder is costumed or not when they choose to invade your home, protect yourself with the necessary force required to neutralize any imminent deadly threats.
  • How the government “shut-down” is affecting Marc’s work.
  • Increase in traffic efficiency and safety when BORG government traffic lights are removed.
  • Lack of chemtrails due to the government “shut-down?”
  • FAA strikes law for powering down electronic devices before takeoff and landing.
  • The collective conformist perception that its extremist to be anti-authority or anti-government, but somehow its acceptable to be anti-authoritarian or anti-NAZI.
  • New study shows that it doesn’t matter on intelligence, people would alter their answers based on the confirmation bias based upon their political beliefs.

Nov 022013
 

The Secret Government: The Constitution in Crisis

By Bill Moyers
This is the full length 90 min. version of Bill Moyer’s 1987 scathing critique of the criminal subterfuge carried out by the Executive Branch of the United States Government.
Host Bill Moyers exposes the inner workings of the secret government. Though originally broadcast in 1987, it is even more relevant today. Interviews with respected, top military, intelligence, and government insiders reveal both the history and secret objectives. Where is Bill Moyers Now?

Jun 122013
 

40 Statistics About The Fall Of The U.S. Economy

By Michael, on May 26th, 2013

40 Statistics About The Fall Of The U.S. Economy That Are Almost Too Crazy To BelieveIf you know someone that actually believes that the U.S. economy is in good shape, just show them the statistics in this article.  When you step back and look at the long-term trends, it is undeniable what is happening to us.  We are in the midst of a horrifying economic decline that is the result of decades of very bad decisions.  30 years ago, the U.S. national debt was about one trillion dollars.  Today, it is almost 17 trillion dollars.  40 years ago, the total amount of debt in the United States was about 2 trillion dollars.  Today, it is more than 56 trillion dollars.  At the same time that we have been running up all of this debt, our economic infrastructure and our ability to produce wealth has been absolutely gutted.  Since 2001, the United States has lost more than 56,000 manufacturing facilities and millions of good jobs have been shipped overseas.  Our share of global GDP declined from 31.8 percent in 2001 to 21.6 percent in 2011.  The percentage of Americans that are self-employed is at a record low, and the percentage of Americans that are dependent on the government is at a record high.  The U.S. economy is a complete and total mess, and it is time that we faced the truth.

The following are 40 statistics about the fall of the U.S. economy that are almost too crazy to believe…

#1 Back in 1980, the U.S. national debt was less than one trillion dollars.  Today, it is rapidly approaching 17 trillion dollars…

National Debt

#2 During Obama’s first term, the federal government accumulated more debt than it did under the first 42 U.S presidents combined.

#3 The U.S. national debt is now more than 23 times larger than it was when Jimmy Carter became president.

#4 If you started paying off just the new debt that the U.S. has accumulated during the Obama administration at the rate of one dollar per second, it would take more than 184,000 years to pay it off.

#5 The federal government is stealing more than 100 million dollars from our children and our grandchildren every single hour of every single day.

#6 Back in 1970, the total amount of debt in the United States (government debt + business debt + consumer debt, etc.) was less than 2 trillion dollars.  Today it is over 56 trillion dollars…

Total Debt

#7 According to the World Bank, U.S. GDP accounted for 31.8 percent of all global economic activity in 2001.  That number dropped to 21.6 percent in 2011.

#8 The United States has fallen in the global economic competitiveness rankings compiled by the World Economic Forum for four years in a row.

#9 According to The Economist, the United States was the best place in the world to be born into back in 1988.  Today, the United States is only tied for 16th place.

#10 Incredibly, more than 56,000 manufacturing facilities in the United States have been permanently shut down since 2001.

#11 There are less Americans working in manufacturing today than there was in 1950 even though the population of the country has more than doubled since then.

#12 According to the New York Times, there are now approximately 70,000 abandoned buildings in Detroit.

#13 When NAFTA was pushed through Congress in 1993, the United States had a trade surplus with Mexico of 1.6 billion dollars.  By 2010, we had a trade deficit with Mexico of 61.6 billion dollars.

#14 Back in 1985, our trade deficit with China was approximately 6 million dollars (million with a little “m”) for the entire year.  In 2012, our trade deficit with China was 315 billion dollars.  That was the largest trade deficit that one nation has had with another nation in the history of the world.

#15 Overall, the United States has run a trade deficit of more than 8 trillion dollars with the rest of the world since 1975.

#16 According to the Economic Policy Institute, the United States is losing half a million jobs to China every single year.

#17 Back in 1950, more than 80 percent of all men in the United States had jobs.  Today, less than 65 percent of all men in the United States have jobs.

#18 At this point, an astounding 53 percent of all American workers make less than $30,000 a year.

#19 Small business is rapidly dying in America.  At this point, only about 7 percent of all non-farm workers in the United States are self-employed.  That is an all-time record low.

#20 Back in 1983, the bottom 95 percent of all income earners in the United States had 62 cents of debt for every dollar that they earned.  By 2007, that figure had soared to $1.48.

#21 In the United States today, the wealthiest one percent of all Americans have a greater net worth than the bottom 90 percent combined.

#22 According to Forbes, the 400 wealthiest Americans have more wealth than the bottom 150 million Americans combined.

#23 The six heirs of Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton have as much wealth as the bottom one-third of all Americans combined.

#24 According to the U.S. Census Bureau, more than 146 million Americans are either “poor” or “low income”.

#25 According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 49 percent of all Americans live in a home that receives direct monetary benefits from the federal government.  Back in 1983, less than a third of all Americans lived in a home that received direct monetary benefits from the federal government.

#26 Overall, the federal government runs nearly 80 different “means-tested welfare programs”, and at this point more than 100 million Americans are enrolled in at least one of them.

#27 Back in 1965, only one out of every 50 Americans was on Medicaid.  Today, one out of every 6 Americans is on Medicaid, and things are about to get a whole lot worse.  It is being projected that Obamacare will add 16 million more Americans to the Medicaid rolls.

#28 As I wrote recently, it is being projected that the number of Americans on Medicare will grow from 50.7 million in 2012 to 73.2 million in 2025.

#29 At this point, Medicare is facing unfunded liabilities of more than 38 trillion dollars over the next 75 years.  That comes to approximately $328,404 for every single household in the United States.

#30 Right now, there are approximately 56 million Americans collecting Social Security benefits.  By 2035, that number is projected to soar to an astounding 91 million.

#31 Overall, the Social Security system is facing a 134 trillion dollar shortfall over the next 75 years.

#32 Today, the number of Americans on Social Security Disability now exceeds the entire population of Greece, and the number of Americans on food stamps now exceeds the entire population of Spain.

#33 According to a report recently issued by the Pew Research Center, on average Americans over the age of 65 have 47 times as much wealth as Americans under the age of 35.

#34 U.S. families that have a head of household that is under the age of 30 have a poverty rate of 37 percent.

#35 As I mentioned recently, the homeownership rate in America is now at its lowest level in nearly 18 years.

#36 There are now 20.2 million Americans that spend more than half of their incomes on housing.  That represents a 46 percent increase from 2001.

#37 45 percent of all children are living in poverty in Miami, more than 50 percent of all children are living in poverty in Cleveland, and about 60 percent of all children are living in poverty in Detroit.

#38 Today, more than a million public school students in the United States are homeless.  This is the first time that has ever happened in our history.

#39 When Barack Obama first entered the White House, about 32 million Americans were on food stamps.  Now, more than 47 million Americans are on food stamps.

#40 According to one calculation, the number of Americans on food stamps now exceeds the combined populations of “Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming.”

May 222013
 

The Floating Dollar as a Threat to Property Rights

February 2011

Seth Lipsky
Founding Editor
New York Sun

Seth Lipsky is the founding editor of the New York Sun. A graduate of Harvard College, he served in the U.S. Army in Vietnam as a combat correspondent for Pacific Stars and Stripes. A former senior editor and member of the editorial board of The Wall Street Journal, he has also served as editorial page editor of The Wall Street Journal/Europe, managing editor of The Asian Wall Street Journal, and assistant editor of Far Eastern Economic Review. In 2009, he published The Citizen’s Constitution: An Annotated Guide.

The following is adapted from a speech delivered on February 16, 2011, at a Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar in Phoenix, Arizona.

TO BEGIN, consider one of the most important measures of property, the kilogram. It’s a measure of mass or, for non-scientific purposes, weight. According to the papers last week, a global scramble is under way to define this most basic unit after it was discovered that the standard kilogram—a cylinder of platinum and iridium that is maintained by the International Bureau of Weights and Measures—has been losing mass.

You may think that this is impossible. Of all the elements, iridium is the most resistant to corrosion, and the cylinder is kept in a facility at Sevres, France, where it is under three glass domes accessible by three separate keys. The cylinder itself is more than 130 years old and is what the New York Times calls the “only remaining international standard in the metric system that is still a man-made object.” The new urgency to redefine the kilogram comes from the fact that its changing mass “defeats,” as the Times put it, “its only purpose: constancy.”

The question I invite you to consider for a moment is what would happen if we just let the kilogram float? This is a question that was posed in an editorial last week in the New York Sun. After all, the editorial said, we let the dollar float. The creation of dollars, and the status of the dollar as legal tender, is a matter of fiat. Its value is adjusted by the mandarins at the Federal Reserve, depending on variables they only sometimes share with the rest of the world. This would have floored the Framers of our Constitution, who granted Congress the power to coin money and regulate its value in the same sentence in which they gave it the power to fix the standard of weights and measures—like, say, the aforementioned kilogram.

Now, the record is clear in respect of how America’s founders viewed money. Many of them went into the Second United States Congress, where they established the value of the dollar at 371 ¼ grains of pure silver. The law through which they did that, the Coinage Act of 1792, noted that the amount of silver they were regulating for the dollar was the same as in a coin then in widespread use, known as the Spanish milled dollar. The law said a dollar could also be the free-market equivalent in gold. The Founders did not expect the value of the dollar to be changed any more than the persons who locked away that kilogram of platinum and iridium expected the cylinder to start losing mass. In fact, in this same 1792 law, they established the death penalty for debasing the dollar.

Today, members of the Federal Reserve Board don’t worry about how many grains of silver or gold are behind the dollar. They couldn’t care less. And this is what I believe is the most worrisome threat to property rights today. When the value of a dollar plunges at a dizzying rate—at one point in recent months it collapsed to less than 1/1,400 of an ounce of gold—Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke goes up to Capitol Hill and declares merely that he is “puzzled.” No “new urgency” to redefine the dollar for him. The fact is that we’ve long since ceased to define the dollar, and it can float not only against other currencies but even against 371 ¼ grains of pure silver.

So, the New York Sun asked, why not float the kilogram? After all, when you go into the grocery to buy a pound of hamburger, why should you worry about how much hamburger you get—so long as it’s a pound’s worth? A pound is supposed to be .45359237 of a kilogram. But if Congress can permit Mr. Bernanke to use his judgment in deciding what a dollar is worth, why shouldn’t he—or some other Ph.D. from M.I.T.—be able to decide from day to day what a kilogram is worth?

No doubt some will cavil that the fact that the dollar floats makes it all the more reason for the kilogram to be constant. But what’s so special about the kilogram? If the fiat dollar floats, one has no idea what it will be worth when it comes time to spend it. If the kilogram also floats, it will simply be twice as hard to figure out what something we’re buying will be worth. So what if, when we unwrap our hamburger, the missus has to throw a little more sawdust in the meatloaf?

Or let us consider a compromise. Let’s go to a fiat kilogram—that is, permit the kilogram to float—but apply the new urgency to fixing the dollar at a specified number of grains of gold. To those who say it would be ridiculous to fix the dollar but let the butcher hand you whatever amount of hamburger he wants when you ask for a kilogram, I say, what’s the difference as to whether it’s the measure of money or of weight that floats?

For that matter, one could go all the way and fix the value of both the kilogram and the dollar but float the value of time. You say you want to be paid $100 an hour. That’s fine by your boss. But he—or Chairman Bernanke—gets to decide how many minutes in the hour. Or how long the minute is. You know you’ll get a kilogram of meat for the price a kilogram of meat costs. But you won’t know how long you have to work to earn the money.

There was obviously a satirical element to that Sun editorial. But it’s not satirical to say that we are in a dangerous situation in our country in respect of the dollar, and that property rights are very much bound up in the question of money. After all, consider that kilogram. It is a cylinder. And it’s a cylinder the size of, say, a golf ball. The amount of mass that it is believed to have lost is measured in a few atoms, and yet the institution where they maintain standards is in a complete tizzy about it. The implications are said to be enormous.

The dollar, by contrast, has collapsed from 1/35 of an ounce of gold to less than 1/1,300 of an ounce of gold. If the kilogram had collapsed on that order of magnitude, there would be left only a small shard of that handsome grayish cylinder under the three glass domes at Sevres, France.

I understand that this is not where the property rights discussion is usually focused. It usually centers around the takings clause of the Constitution—the clause at the center of the landmark case that erupted when condemnation proceedings were launched against the homes in New London, Connecticut, of a woman named Susette Kelo and her neighbors. Under the Fifth Amendment, the government is prohibited from taking private property for public use without just compensation. That is a bedrock principle of American constitutionalism. What was special about Susette Kelo is that her property was taken for private use. It was coveted by a private, non-profit development corporation for private, for-profit use near a big pharmaceutical development that the town reckoned would benefit the public.

Mrs. Kelo and her neighbors went all the way to the Supreme Court to try to keep their homes. She lost the case, Kelo v. New London, albeit by a five to four vote. On the one hand, it was a terrible defeat for the principle of property rights. On the other hand, the decision was so alarming that states have begun changing their own laws to strengthen protections against the kind of raid on private property that Mrs. Kelo suffered. At least 43 states have already passed such laws. Rarely has the loser in a Supreme Court case established so great a legacy as Mrs. Kelo, whose case is one of the most important warnings we have had in my generation of the vigilance that is going to be required in respect of the right to property enshrined in the Fifth Amendment.

Which brings me to the question of how the law can be used to illuminate the problem of the floating dollar. What I consider the most astonishing legal question in the country came into the news in 2008, when Judith Kaye, the chief judge of the highest court in the state of New York, the Court of Appeals, filed a lawsuit in an inferior court, asking it to order the state legislature and the governor to give her a raise.

My first reaction, and that of my colleagues at the Sun, was to consider this something of a joke. Yet the more we began to look at the case, the more it threw into sharp relief the issue of the right to the property that comes to us in the form of a salary or is held by us in the form of savings. The judges on New York’s Court of Appeals, after all, hadn’t had a raise in more than a decade, and they were having an ever harder time making their salaries cover rising costs. In that they are just like the rest of us.

But it turns out that under the Constitution, judges are not quite like the rest of us—and in a way that lies at the heart of the American Revolution. Indeed, in the Declaration of Independence, one of the reasons our Founders listed for breaking with England was that King George III had “made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.” So they wrote into the Constitution not only that judges would have life tenure (with good behavior), but also that the pay of a judge would not be diminished during his term in office. This principle that one can never lower the pay of a judge is also in many state constitutions.

So if in, say, the year 2000 a judge was paid in dollars that were worth 1/265 of an ounce of gold, and if today that same judge is being paid with dollars worth less than 1/1,300 of an ounce of gold, has the judge’s pay been diminished?

The more I’ve thought about it, the more I have been nagged by the thought that judges’ pay could be the device with which to attack the legal tender law I have come to regard as the greatest threat to property in America. This is the law establishing that paper money in America must be accepted in payment of debts, public and private. The Founders themselves hated paper money. Washington, whose picture is on the one dollar bill, warned that paper money would inevitably “ruin commerce, oppress the honest, and open the door to every species of fraud and injustice”; Jefferson, whose picture is on the two dollar bill, called its abuses inevitable; as did Madison, whose picture is on the $5,000 bill. Paper money, he said, was “unconstitutional, for it affects the rights of property as much as taking away equal value in land.”

I’m not so sure that the existence of paper money is the problem. The problem is the requirement that a one dollar paper note be accepted in lieu of 371 ¼ grains of silver. Certainly when the greenback was introduced—as it was by President Lincoln—it was for a cause, the Union, that was worth enormous risks. The Treasury Secretary who helped him put through the greenback as a war measure, Salmon Chase, became, in 1864, the sixth Chief Justice of the United States; and when the concept of legal tender finally came up for consideration, Chase ruled against the greenback. President Grant, however, eventually got two new justices on the court, and legal tender was established in a series of rulings—one involving the purchase of some sheep, the other of some bales of cotton, and another some land—known as the Legal Tender Cases.

A few months ago, I called Bernard Nussbaum, who was representing Judge Kaye, and asked him why she didn’t challenge legal tender head on. He told me he feared the Legal Tender Cases couldn’t be overturned. It was too heavy a lift. So instead he fought the case on separation of powers grounds. It seems that the New York legislature had said it would not give the judges of New York a raise until the legislators got a raise. The judges sprang on this as a transgression of separation of powers—and, no surprise, when they heard their own case, they ruled against the legislature. A few weeks ago, the legislature decided to delegate to an independent commission the job of deciding judges’ pay.

By my lights, this delegation to an unelected body, even if the legislature could overrule it, was an unsatisfactory outcome. But it turns out that the judges of New York are not the only jurists who are furious about the diminishment of their pay. A group of federal judges is also in court, fighting over their salaries. In the case of the federal judges, Congress had some time ago enacted a law that gave them an automatic pay increase designed to keep up with the Consumer Price Index. But then, as deficits got out of control and Congress’s own salary lagged, Congress suspended the automatic pay increase.

At that point, a coalition of federal judges went into court. Their aim is limited: to force Congress to reinstate the automatic pay adjustment. To understand the scale of what one is talking about, consider the pay of but one of the plaintiffs, Judge Silberman. I don’t know his exact salary. But at the time he was assigned to the District of Columbia Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals, the salary of a federal appeals judge—$83,200—was worth 258 ounces of gold. Since then, the value of the pay of a judge of one of the Appeals circuits—$184,500—has been diminished to 139 ounces of gold.

At this very hour, the judges’ petition in their pay case is before the United States Supreme Court. And while I believe the justices have been wronged by Congress, I hope they lose on the question of whether a suspension in the automatic pay adjustment is unconstitutional. That should get them angry enough to come back and look legal tender in the face. They could force Congress to pay them in the gold or silver equivalent of a federal judge’s salary at the time they were appointed to the bench. It would move judges closer to the kinds of salaries the lawyers before them are receiving.

And people would start to ask: If judges deserve honest money, why shouldn’t the rest of us?

To those who suggest that such a scenario is far-fetched, one can say, no more far-fetched than the notion that the post-Civil War monetary system could be erected on Supreme Court decisions in a pair of disputes over payment for a flock of sheep and some bales of cotton. Or that centuries of law on abortion could be overturned in a fell swoop by a Supreme Court ruling in the case of a woman who later changed her mind. Could the court cast aside precedent to decide such a sweeping issue as legal tender? It certainly didn’t hesitate—nor should it have—in demolishing the notion that racially separate schools could be equal. With everyone from the United Nations to Communist China today calling for the abandonment of the dollar as a reserve currency, is it so hard to imagine that the Supreme Court might revisit the Legal Tender Cases?

It may be that the judges will lose their pay case, just as Susette Kelo lost her house, or that they will win a partial victory and the Supreme Court will shy away from confronting legal tender. But we know from Mrs. Kelo’s case that this needn’t be the end of things. People began to see the logic and think about property rights, and now at least 43 states have passed laws to make it harder for state and local jurisdictions to use the power of eminent domain to seize private land for someone else’s private use.

Could such a thing happen with money? Well, there is a part of the Constitution called Article I, Section 10. It is the section that lists the things that states can never do. And one of these prohibited activities is making legal tender out of something other than gold or silver coin. So what is happening now is that a growing number of states, watching the sickening plunge in the value of federal money, are starting to explore how they can set up monetary systems based on gold or silver coins. The most recent effort was launched in Virginia, where there is a bill before the General Assembly to set up a joint committee to study the question. There have been early stirrings—just stirrings—in the legislatures of several other states.

Could the entry of the states into the monetary role be a reaction to a failure at the federal level, the way the states reacted to the failure of the Supreme Court to enforce Susette Kelo’s Fifth Amendment rights? It would be inaccurate to make too much of these efforts. But it would be shortsighted to make too little of them. Strange things can happen. It is even possible that one can take a cylinder of platinum and iridium, lock it away in a room under three glass domes, secure it with three separate keys, and come back in a few years to discover that part of it has disappeared. And the New York Times will write an editorial about the value of constancy.


Copyright © 2011 Hillsdale College. The opinions expressed in Imprimis are not necessarily the views of Hillsdale College. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided the following credit line is used: “Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College.” SUBSCRIPTION FREE UPON REQUEST. ISSN 0277-8432. Imprimis trademark registered in U.S. Patent and Trade Office #1563325.

May 132013
 

Kissenger freedomHenry Kissenger to receive award Defending Freedom & Democracy

It sounds like satire, and it would be funny if it weren’t true.

The Intrepid Sea, Air, and Space Museum in New York City is planning to give Henry Kissinger an award on May 23rd for “defending freedom and democracy.”

No living American has done more to subvert both freedom and democracy than Mr. Kissinger.1

Kissinger worked with President Nixon to betray the U.S. Constitution by illegally bombing Cambodia without even informing Congress, and committed countless crimes against humanity through his role in dropping 3.7 million tons of bombs — twice that dropped in all of World War II — on civilian targets in Indochina.2

As someone who lived in Laos during much of the time, I interviewed more than 1,000 refugees from Kissinger’s and Nixon’s bombing in Laos. Every one reported seeing  countless loved ones and neighbors being burned and buried alive, and that their village was totally destroyed.

A Laotian farmer on the Plain of Jars wrote: “Every day and every night the planes came to drop bombs on us. We lived in holes to protect our lives. I saw my cousin die in the field of death. My heart was most disturbed and my voice called out loudly as I ran to the houses. Thus, I saw life and death for the people on account of the war of many airplanes in the region of the Plain of Jars. Until there were no houses at all. And the cows and buffalo were dead. Until everything was leveled and you could see only the red, red ground.”3

Click here if you find this less than honorable.

All told, Kissinger helped murder, maim, or make homeless an officially estimated six million human beings between 1969 and 1972 — a crime against humanity for which he would have been executed had he been subject to the  Nuremberg Judgement.

Mr. Kissinger’s entire “realpolitik” foreign policy was based on supporting brutal and undemocratic regimes that killed and tortured their own citizens.  This included overthrowing the democratically elected government of Chile and supporting genocide by Indonesia in East Timor.4

Let’s honor the memory of all the countless lives Kissinger destroyed, and support  genuine freedom and democracy.

Please join us in protesting this outrageous award.  

Please forward this email widely to like-minded friends.

— Fred Branfman for RootsAction.org

P.S. RootsAction is an independent online force endorsed by Jim Hightower, Barbara Ehrenreich, Cornel West, Daniel Ellsberg, Glenn Greenwald, Naomi Klein, Bill Fletcher Jr., Laura Flanders, former U.S. Senator James Abourezk, Coleen Rowley, Frances Fox Piven, and many others.

Background:

Fred Branfman, Alternet: “America Keeps Honoring One of Its Worst Mass Murderers: Henry Kissinger”
Youtube: “The Trials of Henry Kissinger”

May 092013
 

BORG demands Takedown of printable gun files.

State Department Claims Export Control Violations.

The battle of dangerous digital shapes has just begun!

Andy Greenberg Forbes Staff
On Thursday, Defense Distributed founder Cody Wilson received a letter from the State Department Office of Defense Trade Controls Compliance demanding that he take down the online blueprints for the 3D-printable “Liberator” handgun that his group released Monday, along with nine other 3D-printable firearms components hosted on the group’s website Defcad.org. The government says it wants to review the files for compliance with arms export control laws known as the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, or ITAR. By uploading the weapons files to the Internet and allowing them to be downloaded abroad, the letter implies Wilson’s high-tech gun group may have violated those export controls.

“Until the Department provides Defense Distributed with final [commodity jurisdiction] determinations, Defense Distributed should treat the above technical data as ITAR-controlled,” reads the letter, referring to a list of ten CAD files hosted on Defcad that include the 3D-printable gun, silencers, sights and other pieces. “This means that all data should be removed from public acces immediately. Defense Distributed should review the remainder of the data made public on its website to determine whether any other data may be similarly controlled and proceed according to ITAR requirements.”

Wilson, a law student at the University of Texas in Austin, says that Defense Distributed will in fact take down its files until the State Department has completed its review. “We have to comply,” he says. “All such data should be removed from public access, the letter says. That might be an impossible standard. But we’ll do our part to remove it from our servers.”

As Wilson hints, that doesn’t mean the government has successfully censored the 3D-printable gun. While Defense Distributed says it will take down the gun’s printable file from Defcad.org, its downloads–100,000 in just the first two days the file was online–were actually being served by Mega, the New Zealand-based storage service created by ex-hacker entrepreneur Kim Dotcom, an outspoken U.S. government critic. It’s not clear whether the file will be taken off Mega’s servers, where it may remain available for download. The blueprint for the gun and other Defense Distributed firearm components have also been uploaded several times to the Pirate Bay, the censorship-resistant filesharing site.

Wilson argues that he’s also legally protected. He says Defense Distributed is excluded from the ITAR regulations under an exemption for non-profit public domain releases of technical files designed to create a safe harbor for research and other public interest activities. That exemption, he says, would require Defense Distributed’s files to be stored in a library or sold in a bookstore. Wilson argues that Internet access at a library should qualify under ITAR’s statutes, and says that Defcad’s files have also been made available for sale in an Austin, Texas bookstore that he declined to name in order to protect the bookstore’s owner from scrutiny.

Despite taking down his files, Wilson doesn’t see the government’s attempts to censor the Liberator’s blueprints as a defeat. On the contrary, Defense Distributed’s radical libertarian and anarchist founder says he’s been seeking to highlight exactly this issue, that a 3D-printable gun can’t be stopped from spreading around the global Internet no matter what legal measures governments take. “This is the conversation I want,” Wilson says. “Is this a workable regulatory regime? Can there be defense trade control in the era of the Internet and 3D printing?”

Wilson compares his new legal troubles to the widely-followed case in the mid-1990s of Philip Zimmermann, the inventor of the cryptographic software PGP, who was threatened with indictment under ITAR for putting his military-grade encryption software online. “It’s PGP all over again,” says Wilson.

In Zimmermann’s case, much of the technology community was outraged that PGP’s inventor was being treated as if he were selling bombs or missiles to a foreign regime when he had simply put a powerful piece of privacy software on the Internet. That public support is widely thought to have influenced the State Department decision in 1996 to drop its case against him.

In this case, by contrast, Cody Wilson is literally an arms manufacturer. But whether the government will have any more luck in controlling the spread of his invention remains to be seen.

I’ll provide updates as this story develops.

Correction: In an earlier version of this story I described Wilson as an “arms distributor.” In fact, he’s an arms manufacturer, while Defense Distributed is a software distributing non-profit. Since Defense Distributed–not Wilson himself–is the target of the State Department’s query, that may be an important distinction.

Update: Here’s the full text of the letter.

United States Department of State

Bureau of Political-Military Affairs

Offense of Defense Trade Controls Compliance

May 08, 2013

In reply letter to DTCC Case: 13-0001444

[Cody Wilson’s address redacted]

Dear Mr. Wilson,

The Department of State, Bureau of Political Military Affairs, Office of Defense Trade Controls Compliance, Enforcement Division (DTCC/END) is responsible for compliance with and civil enforcement of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778) (AECA) and the AECA’s implementing regulations, the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (22 C.F.R. Parts 120-130) (ITAR). The AECA and the ITAR impose certain requirements and restrictions on the transfer of, and access to, controlled defense articles and related technical data designated by the United States Munitions List (USML) (22 C.F.R. Part 121).

The DTCC/END is conducting a review of technical data made publicly available by Defense Distributed through its 3D printing website, DEFCAD.org, the majority of which appear to be related to items in Category I of the USML. Defense Distributed may have released ITAR-controlled technical data without the required prior authorization from the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC), a violation of the ITAR.

Technical data regulated under the ITAR refers to information required for the design, development, production, manufacture, assembly, operation, repair, testing, maintenance or modification of defense articles, including information in the form of blueprints, drawings, photographs, plans, instructions or documentation. For a complete definition of technical data, see 120.10 of the ITAR. Pursuant to 127.1 of the ITAR, it is unlawful to export any defense article or technical data for which a license or written approval is required without first obtaining the required authorization from the DDTC. Please note that disclosing (including oral or visual disclosure) or tranferring technical data to a foreign person, whether in the United States or abroad, is considered an export under 120.17 of the ITAR.

The Department believes Defense Distributed may not have established the proper jurisdiction of the subject technical data. To resolve this matter officially, we request that Defense Distributed submit Commodity Jurisdiction (CJ) determination requests for the following selection of data files available on DEFCAD.org, and any other technical data for which Defense Distributed is unable to determine proper jurisdiction:

  1. Defense Distributed Liberator pistol
  2. .22 electric
  3. 125mm BK-14M high-explosive anti-tank warhead
  4. 5.56/.223 muzzle brake
  5. Springfield XD-40 tactical slide assembly
  6. Sound Moderator – slip on
  7. “The Dirty Diane” 1/2-28 to 3/4-16 STP S3600 oil filter silencer adapter
  8. 12 gauge to .22 CB sub-caliber insert
  9. Voltlock electronic black powder system
  10. VZ-58 sight

DTCC/END requests that Defense Distributed submits its CJ requests within three weeks of the receipt of this letter and notify this office of the final CJ determinations. All CJ requests must be submitted electronically through an online application using the DS-4076 Commodity Jurisdiction Request Form. The form, guidance for submitting CJ requests, and other relevant information such as a copy of the ITAR can be found on DDTC’s website at http://www.pmddtc.state.gov.

Until the Department provides Defense Distributed with the final CJ determinations, Defense Distributed should treat the above technical data as ITAR-controlled. This means that all such data should be removed from public access immediately. Defense Distributed should also review the remainder of the data made public on its website to determine whether any additional data may be similarly controlled and proceed according to ITAR requirements.

Additionally, DTCC/END requests information about the procedures Defense Distributed follows to determine the classification of its technical data, to include aforementioned technical data files. We ask that you provide your procedures for determining proper jurisdiction of technical data within 30 days of the date of this letter to Ms. Bridget Van Buren, Compliance Specialist, Enforcement Division, at the address below.


Office of Defense Trade Controls Compliance

PM/DTCC, SA-1, Room L132

2401 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20522

Phone 202-663-3323

We appreciate your full cooperation in this matter. Please note our reference number in any future correspondence.

Sincerely,

Glenn E. Smith

Chief, Enforcement Division