Jan 232016
 

FBI CHILD PORN SCANDAL

by Bob Podolsky

Introduction

A breaking scandal reported by USA TODAY reveals that the FBI ran a “dark web” child pornography website for 2 weeks last year, after taking over the server that hosted it from its original felonious owner. The ostensible purpose of this was to entrap the site’s users in order to charge them with possession of illegal downloaded content.

Child pornography is a highly charged emotional subject; so one can reasonably expect that the public reaction to this revelation will be the object of a great deal of irrational hyperbole promoted by the mainstream media and exploited by everyone with a political axe to grind.

Accordingly, it is important to acquire a dispassionate fact-based understanding of the issue, in the interest of minimizing unethical responses to the revelations of the USA TODAY (USAT) article. Hence this article.

Common Assumptions

Opinions concerning the USAT article and its implications will vary widely because its readers have widely varying assumptions about how the world works. The assumptions listed below illustrate this point, because some of them are true, some are not, and some are sometimes true and sometimes not.

  1. The making of child pornography invariably involves the sexual interaction of a child with an adult.

  2. Sexual interaction of an adult with a child may be physically damaging to the child.

  3. Sexual interaction of an adult with a child is emotionally damaging to the child.

  4. The child may or may not know, at the time, that what the adult is doing with them is emotionally damaging.

  5. The producers and directors of child pornography are “evil-doers”.

  6. The camera operators involved are “evil-doers”.

  7. Those who process the pornographic imagery are “evil-doers”.

  8. The adult porn actors are “evil-doers”.

  9. The parents of the children involved are “evil-doers”.

  10. Those who watch or observe such imagery are “evil-doers”.

  11. Those who distribute the imagery by various means are “evil- doers”.

  12. The children who are victims of child pornographers are further damaged whenever their images are observed.

  13. It is a proper role of government to identify, find, capture, and punish everyone involved in the child pornography industry.

  14. Laws against the production and distribution of child pornography protect the child victims by discouraging the public from buying the pornographic products.

  15. Punishing the customers of child porn reduces the number of customers.

  16. Reducing the number of customers, in turn, reduces the number of children being abused and exploited.

  17. Running a child porn website to ensnare child porn buyers and viewers is a legitimate strategy for protecting child porn victims from those who exploit them.

Child pornography is certainly a symptom of a serious societal problem, because the victims are seriously damaged…AND if one blindly accepts the above assumptions, the damage can be greatly amplified. In order to get to the bottom of the matter, we need to understand the ethical criteria for what constitutes an “evil-doer” and for the allocation of responsibility to those acting.

The Ethics of Responsibility

After thousands of years of philosophical discussion and debate, the most rationally and scientifically defensible definition of an ethical act is:

An act is ethical if it increases creativity, awareness, love, and/or objective truth for at least one person, including the person acting, without limiting or diminishing any of these resources for anyone.

Rationally we know that the responsibility for an act, be it unethical or not, is divided among all the people who took part in the causal chain of events leading up to the act. However, the one most responsible is the one who had the chronologically last opportunity to prevent the act from occurring. For this reason, despite “legal” opinions to the contrary, the hired assassin is more culpable than the individual who hired him (or her).

In the chain of events leading up to the production of a child porno photograph or video, it is the adult who engages the child sexually that is ultimately most responsible for the harm done to the child victim. The parents who fail to protect their child from such exploitation are arguably the next most responsible. Others involved in the child porn production are also acting unethically, though their participation in support of the crime is less unethical than the actual perpetrators – the adult actor who has sex with the child and the parent who fails to prevent the abuse. These two participants are those from whom the child actually needs protection.

The Objective View: Identifying the Hype

The above definition of an ethical act has a number of logical consequences that yield a dozen important principles that are very useful in applying the ethics to everyday decision-making. Chief among these is the principle that unethical means can never achieve ethical ends. Recognizing that this is so leads to the conclusion that Assumption #17 Running a child porn website to ensnare child porn buyers and viewers is a legitimate strategy for protecting child porn victims from those who exploit them, is FALSE. Therefore, assuming that selling child pornography is unethical, an ethical agency would never resort to doing so…for any reason.

Assumptions 14 through 16 are also false. We know this because they justify the prohibition of child porn, and we know from long experience that prohibition doesn’t diminish the demand for an illegal product, nor its availability. Alcohol, gambling, prostitution and drugs come to mind as obvious examples of prohibition failure.

Assumption 13, It is a proper role of government to identify, find, capture, and punish everyone involved in the child pornography industry. is also FALSE, because punishment of wrongdoers has proven totally ineffectual in curbing crime – especially when the crime is a form of prohibition violation. As an extreme example, consider the fact that drugs are widely available in prisons…where those convicted of selling drugs outside of prisons are routinely sent.

Consider the fact that every crime, as defined in law dictionaries, has a victim – someone who has been physically harmed or whose property rights have been violated. For this reason, Assumptions 10, 11, and 12 are also FALSE. The only victims of child pornography are the children, who are unaffected by strangers seeing their pictures. As much revulsion as most of us feel imagining an adult masturbating in front of a video screen depicting children being molested, the fact remains that the child sex actor shown on the screen is not aware of the event and is not harmed by it. Nor is it a proper function of government to protect us from such revulsion.

Assumptions 1 through 9 are also true, however the first four are qualitatively different than the next 5. The first four serve to simply define the crime that takes place in the production of child pornography…which is ultimately where the crime occurs. Assumptions 5 through 7 indicate the responsibility of the producers of the pornography; but 8 and 9 correctly identify the real culprits – the adult actors and the permissive or absent parents.

Conclusions

Back in the 60’s, in the Vietnam war era, Buffy Sainte-Marie wrote and performed a beautiful song called the the “Universal Soldier”, in which she aptly pointed out that the crime of war could not exist without the willingness of men (most of them practically children themselves) to travel half-way around the world to shoot strangers who had never wronged them.

Today the trigger-pulling soldiers, the bomb-dropping bombardiers, and the rocket-launching drone pilots bear the ultimate responsibility for the international murders we call war.

In similar fashion, it is the child-molesting porno-film actors and the victims’ parents, who abdicate their parental duties, who bear the lion’s share of responsibility for the harm done to children who are thus sexually exploited. While the porn producers and distributors bear some of the responsibility for the harm done to the child victims, the producers don’t usually molest the children personally, and the product distributor issues are just another form of prohibition. And we all know how well ‘The Drug War’ – “works”.

For the creation of an ethical society, free of such evils, it is necessary for a dramatic change to occur in human culture…a change that paves the way for our institutions to make consistently ethical decisions. Fortunately, the knowledge of how this will be accomplished already exists, and more and more people are catching on. For details read Ethics Law and Government and Ethical Organizational Development.

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.

 

Feb 182015
 

Rights and privilegesHave you noticed how governments want to own your language, so they can more easily manipulate you into giving up your rights and resources?

All Caps Names

For example, Bob Podolsky is a real person, and has all sorts of natural rights. Yet every single piece of correspondence coming from the BORG such as Bank statements, Drivers Licenses, IRS correspondence, Traffic Tickets has my name in all capital letters. I know these people went to school and learned the same grammar I did. Why is my name is all CAPS? Somehow, BOB PODOLSKY, became a vassal of the state. The argument, the all caps name is not the real person, has been thrown out as frivolous in court, yet there must be a reason why is it done this way.

Right to Travel

Similarly, I have a right to travel on public roads by riding a conveyance under my control. This is something that human beings have done since the domestication of animals, somehow adding a motor to power it and voilà, the state re-names the conveyance a Motor Vehicle and I am now a Driver. Thus the state converts my “right” into a “privilege” and grants itself the “right” to force me to pay for these privileges by buying a title, a license plate, a driver’s license, and specified insurance. If you don’t fill out forms and pay, this magically grants a ‘right” to an armed group of thugs in costumes to beat you up, put you in a cage, steal your “property” and fine you.

Right to Migrate

Since time began, humans have had the right to move to wherever they pleased, based on resources, climate, scenery or religious beliefs. That’s how the the American Indians got to the western Hemisphere, Australians and New Zealanders got to Oceania, Caucasians moved to Europe and the Pilgrims got to Plymouth Rock. They didn’t like where they were, and they moved. However the government calls the right to move, a privileged known as “immigration”. If you don’t fill out forms and pay, this magically grants a ‘right” to an armed group of thugs in costumes to beat you up, put you in a cage, steal your “property” and fine you.

Right to Property

It used to be that a human being had the right to own the land they live on. The Government changed this into a privilege by converting all own-able land into “Real Estate” You acquire the privilege of being a “tenant” on your Government controlled Bank owned land. It is impossible to own it. Want to test that? Stop paying the property tax. If you don’t fill out forms and pay, this magically grants a ‘right” to an armed group of thugs in costumes to beat you up, put you in a cage, steal your “property” and fine you.

Natural person

As a natural person I owe no allegiance to any government “authority” – but as a “citizen”, I’m perpetually at the mercy of every bureaucrat that warms a chair in a government office paid for by money stolen from the “citizenry.” Of course stealing money through threats, coercion, or extortion is crime. When the act is called “taxation, it somehow becomes legitimate. If you don’t fill out forms and pay, this magically grants a ‘right” to an armed group of thugs in costumes to beat you up, put you in a cage, steal your “property” and fine you.

Right to Eat

As a human being, I have every right, should my circumstances require it, to “forage” in the wild for food. Yet there exist many government bureaucracies that would punish me severely for doing my foraging without first purchasing their permission in the form of a hunting or fishing license, in the absence of which they’d say I was “poaching”. If you don’t fill out forms and pay, this magically grants a ‘right” to an armed group of thugs in costumes to beat you up, put you in a cage, steal your “property” and fine you.

Wasn’t Robin Hood accused of “stealing the king’s deer”? While I’m not very partial to the “heroism” of the Robin Hood character, I dare to raise the question, “Who or what gave the kings and the Government ownership of all the wild critters and everything else for that matter?” Since the “divine right of kings” is clearly a manipulative fiction, by what “right” do those who run the world today, claim to have any “authority” over anyone else? And who is today’s king, anyway?

About “Authority

According to Larken Rose, whose philosophy I much admire, the whole concept of “authority” exists but for one purpose, to fool the public into complying willingly with the demands of a particular class of people who consider themselves our “betters”, our “superiors”, our modern “nobility”, and ultimately our “masters”. In their eyes, the rest of us are of no value to them except as a source of endless plunder – and they are forever inventing new excuses to abuse the rest of us financially, socially, taking away our natural liberties, stealing our property, and enacting violence against us at their will.

While they claim this behavior is necessary in order to “protect the public”, the reality is that this notion is a total fiction, that in fact the real purpose of most of todays laws is merely to excuse the actions of our gargantuanplunderers league” – who do to the rest of us whatever they want, up to and including killing us, with complete impunity. Surely the governments of the world collectively comprise the biggest, most powerful organized crime syndicate the world has ever known – egged on I suspect by previously existing crime syndicates that joined ranks with them – the Mafia, I believe, being a case in point.

Walk into a courthouse anywhere, and at any rank, and consider that the salaries of everyone working in the building are paid for with plunder – money stolen from ordinary folks in punishment for doing the things we all have a right to do. And their only “authority” for doing this is the fact that someone who supposedly “represents” you, wrote on a piece of paper that they had the “right” to plunder you.

Of course people who like to plunder others are always polite and subservient to their higher ranking plunderers.

Of course too, in order to really understand what’s going on you have to get it that no matter how many people sign a document creating upper and lower classes, the document is still fatally flawed, because all divisions by class are fundamentally unethical, and therefore null, void, and invalid. Remember, valid law exists only to serve the ethics – not the other way around.

As far as human class structures go, we have an ownership class (nobility) that controls the central banks and large corporations, the political class that makes the rules dictated by the ownership class, the police and military class that enforces the rules, the slave class that are forced to work in hierarchies, and finally the free class that comprise a very small minority.

Note that this circumstance was not always the case in American culture. In the early days of our country, a sizable portion of the population came to this continent to be free – and was unwilling to be anyone’s slave. Alas that day came and went, as fast as the ink dried on the Constitution.

To rescue ourselves from this state of affairs will not be easy, but it will be simple. The current social system operates as a cartel-controlled hierarchy. As we begin tailoring all our institutions, including businesses, charities, schools, foundations, etc., as consensus-based organizations – we will demonstrate that the most successful form of organizational development dispenses entirely with the pretense of “authority”. Members of the existing system won’t approve of this transformation – but they won’t be able to prevent it happening – and the world will be transformed.

Feb 012015
 

John McCain and Henry Kissinger are Low Life Scums

By Medea Benjamin January 31, 2015 “ICH”

Insane Senator John McCain denounced CodePink activists as “low-life scum” for holding up signs reading “Arrest Kissinger for War Crimes” and dangling handcuffs next to Henry Kissinger’s head during a Senate hearing on January 29. McCain called the demonstration “disgraceful, outrageous and despicable,” accused the protesters of “physically intimidating” Kissinger and apologized profusely to his friend for this “deeply troubling incident.”

But if Senator McCain was really concerned about physical intimidation, perhaps he should have conjured up the memory of the gentle Chilean singer/songwriter Victor Jara. After Kissinger facilitated the September 11, 1973 coup against Salvador Allende that brought the ruthless Augusto Pinochet to power, Victor Jara and 5,000 others were rounded up in Chile’s National Stadium. Jara’s hands were smashed and his nails torn off; the sadistic guards then ordered him to play his guitar. Jara was later found dumped on the street, his dead body riddled with gunshot wounds and signs of torture. Despite warnings by senior US officials that thousands of Chileans were being tortured and slaughtered, then Secretary of State Kissinger told Pinochet, “You did a great service to the West in overthrowing Allende.”

Rather than calling peaceful protesters “despicable,” perhaps Senator McCain should have used that term to describe Kissinger’s role in the brutal 1975 Indonesian invasion of East Timor, which took place just hours after Kissinger and President Ford visited Indonesia. They had given the Indonesian strongman the US green light—and the weapons—for an invasion that led to a 25-year occupation in which over 100,000 soldiers and civilians were killed or starved to death. The UN’s Commission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation in East Timor (CAVR) stated that U.S. “political and military support were fundamental to the Indonesian invasion and occupation” of East Timor. If McCain could stomach it, he could have read the report by the UN Commission on Human Rights describing the horrific consequences of that invasion. It includes gang rape of female detainees following periods of prolonged sexual torture; placing women in tanks of water for prolonged periods, including submerging their heads, before being raped; the use of snakes to instill terror during sexual torture; and the mutilation of women’s sexual organs, including insertion of batteries into vaginas and burning nipples and genitals with cigarettes. Talk about physical intimidation, Senator McCain! You might think that McCain, who suffered tremendously in Vietnam, might be more sensitive to Kissinger’s role in prolonging that war.

From 1969 through 1973, it was Kissinger, along with President Nixon, who oversaw the slaughter in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos—killing perhaps one million during this period. He gave the order for the secret bombing of Cambodia. Kissinger is heard on tape saying, “[Nixon] wants a massive bombing campaign in Cambodia. He doesn’t want to hear anything about it. It’s an order, to be done. Anything that flies or anything that moves.” Senator McCain could have taken the easy route by simply reading the meticulously researched book by the late Christopher Hitchens, The Trial of Henry Kissinger. Writing as a prosecutor before an international court of law, Hitchens skewers Kissinger for ordering or sanctioning the destruction of civilian populations, the assassination of “unfriendly” politicians and the kidnapping and disappearance of soldiers, journalists and clerics who got in his way. He holds Kissinger responsible for war crimes that range from the deliberate mass killings of civilian populations in Indochina, to collusion in mass murder and assassination in Bangladesh, the overthrow of the democratically elected government in Chile, and the incitement and enabling of genocide in East Timor. McCain could have also perused the warrant issued by French Judge Roger Le Loire to have Kissinger appear before his court. When the French served Kissinger with summons in 2001 at the Ritz Hotel in Paris, Kissinger fled the country. More indictments followed from Spain, Argentina, Uruguay—even a civil suit in Washington DC.

Hitchens was disgusted by the way Henry Kissinger was treated as a respected statesman. He would have been appalled by Senator McCain’s obsequious attitude. “Kissinger should have the door shut in his face by every decent person and should be shamed, ostracized, and excluded,” Hitchens said. “No more dinners in his honor; no more respectful audiences for his absurdly overpriced public appearances; no more smirking photographs with hostesses and celebrities; no more soliciting of his worthless opinions by sycophantic editors and producers.” Rather than fawning on him, Hitchens suggested, “why don’t you arrest him?” Hitchens’ words were lost on Senator McCain, who preferred fawning to accountability. That’s where CodePink comes in. If we can’t get Kissinger before a court of law, at least we can show—with words and banners—that there are Americans who remember, Americans who empathize with the man’s many victims, Americans who have a conscience. While McCain called us disgraceful, what is really disgraceful is the Senate calling in a tired old war criminal to testify about “Global Challenges and the U.S. National Security Strategy.” After horribly tragic failed wars, not just in Vietnam but over the last decade in Iraq and Afghanistan, it’s time for the US leaders like John McCain to bring in fresh faces and fresh ideas. We owe it to the next generation that will be cleaning up the bloody legacy left behind by Kissinger for years to come.

Dec 082014
 

“IT STOPS HERE.”

“It stops here.”

So declared Eric Garner, vendor of “loosies” — individual cigarettes sold to evade New York state and New York City’s deliberately punitive tobacco taxes. He continued, “I’m minding my business, officer. I’m minding my business. Please just leave me alone. I told you the last time. Please, please, please don’t touch me. Do not touch me.”

Those weren’t quite his last words. As we all know by now, his last were, “I can’t breathe!” — repeated over and over again until he passed out from a chokehold and chest compression, then died as both police and EMTs stood around, indifferent to his suffering, his condition, and his eventual fate.

The EMTs were disciplined for their unprofessionalism and callousness. The man who jumped Garner and initiated his death — we also all know by now — was exonerated by a grand jury. Not even charged with manslaughter — a fact that even the most pro-police conservatives found shocking and liberals and hard-core freedomistas were outraged by.

Never mind that the man in question violently attacked Garner over nothing more than a fed-up, weary verbal protest at being constantly hassled for such a petty (and very libertarian) “crime.” Never mind that he used a chokehold forbidden to NYC police officers for the last 20 years. Never mind that he and his fellow officers held the overweight, unhealthy Garner on the ground in a way that their own police bulletins told them could be deadly. Never mind that he and his accomplices put out an initial story that Garner had died of a simple heart attack, nothing to do with their treatment of him at all, a tale quite at odds with the medical examiner’s report.

Officer Daniel Pantaleo now says he’s sorry and that he prays for Mr. Garner and his family every day.

I guess that makes it okay.

—–

Garner was killed last July. Twelve-year-old Tamir Rice was removed from life more recently. So we don’t know yet whether his killer, Officer Timothy Loehmann, is prayerfully sorry or will pretend to be. We don’t know what his “official” cover story is. We don’t know whether Officer Loehmann will get off Scot-free or receive a token wrist-slap. (If I were a betting woman, I wouldn’t put money on the there ever being a murder, or even manslaughter, indictment.)

Some things we do know: Tamir Rice was shot within two seconds of Loehmann’s police car pulling up on the scene. And Loehmann was an emotionally unstable young man, who had already been declared unfit for being a police officer.

Tamir Rice was carrying an Airsoft pistol or some other type of non-firearm. Even the citizen who’d called in the original report of “a guy” carrying a gun had said the gun was “probably fake.” Evidently he assumed that officers would check the situation out rather than instantly opening fire.

We don’t know whether that crucial detail was conveyed to Loehmann and his partner. But we do know that when Loehmann was declared unfit for police work two years earlier, it was after he had an emotional meltdown during live-fire training on a pistol range. (Yes, he was reportedly broken hearted over a relationship gone wrong, but we’ve all been through that, and most of us manage to stay sane, stable, and functional on the job no matter how dark our private moments get. His bosses clearly recognized that guns, cops, and emotional instability were an ugly combo.)

Tamir Rice learned just how ugly. Too bad he had only two seconds to absorb the lesson.

A year earlier, Sonoma County (California) cops gave 13-year-old Andy Lopez a hair more time than that before slaughtering him.

It was about the same with John Crawford III, an innocent Walmart customer murdered last August by police the second they spotted him. They were acting at the behest of a lying phony 911 caller (using a tactic recommended by the Bloomberg moms). Their instantaneous, panicked slaughter was completely unjustified. But of course, being police, they got away with it.

Seems that hoplophobia overrules common sense and judgment — and that that’s just fine when the killers are in that special, exempt class of what David Codrea dubbed “only ones.”

The only ones who consistently get away with behavior that would put you or me in prison for years, if not decades.

—–

These killings have been pinned on racism (though young Andy Lopez was, in the phrase originally coined for George Zimmerman “white-Hispanic”). No doubt fear of black men has something, maybe plenty, to do with it.

The killing of Garner is being pinned on “broken-window policing” (which assumes that those who commit even petty crimes are potential murderers). No doubt that, too, has something to do with why cops feel so entitled to use monstrous force in response to tiny deeds.

Such killings have been blamed on the militarization of police forces, with its attendant mindset that all non-cops are “the enemy.” No doubt that’s true, also. (And getting some very long overdue attention.)

Blame also falls on the concept of “officer safety” — which sounds so sensible in theory but in practice gives cops permission to see themselves as helpless victims, justified in using any amount and kind of force to “protect” themselves even when nobody is threatening them.

Clearly outright hoplophobia — a sheer terror at the very existence of firearms — has to be the major explanation for slaughtering children on sight merely for holding things that look like firearms. (For generations, American kids carried and used guns, both real and fake, without being gunned down for doing so.)

But whatever the individual causes (and I think we can safely say “all of the above”), the major underlying cause for all this is still going largely unexamined (oddly enough, the extreme-left publication The Nation comes closer than anybody else to the real issue — though it ultimately dodges it).

—–

The real problem is that governments created a special class of armed enforcers to serve the requirements of politicians and that they then turned those enforcers loose to brutalize anybody they wish without personal consequences to either the officers themselves or their direct political bosses.

That they then armed their enforcers with surplus military weapons, entitled attitudes, and a belief that the rest of us are their enemies is secondary. That these enforcers are increasingly encouraged to see all firearms and all people carrying them as a special kind of enemy, to be slaughtered on sight without any evaluation or judgment of the situation — or any mercy — is a terrible, terrible, ominous and dangerous thing. But even that is secondary to the real problem: that police serve government, not citizens, and that citizens have no way to hold brutes personally responsible for their brutality.

Bottom line: By definition, more government equals more force. And less individual accountability.

Unfortunately, the current sudden outcry against police tyranny won’t change anything. Cosmetic reforms will be passed. They will accomplish little. A few individual officers might actually face a few consequences, perhaps in highly publicized federal civil rights cases. (That happened in the Rodney King case and have you seen any improvement in policing or police officers since then?)

Nothing substantial will change because the culture of immunity and impunity that rules both politics and policing will remain intact.

In fact, for gun owners, things will get worse. Police hatred and fear of guns (that is, your guns, my guns; of course not their own guns) will increase because politicians are encouraging it and the politicians are the masters. Always have been and always will be.

Non-minorities who live in fairly civilized places will continue to luck out. For a while. As official hoplophobia builds, even that bit of luck will run out.

“It stops here” is a brave declaration. In Garner’s case, it was a foolish declaration because he had no means of upholding it against the force of both trained thugs and the government that sent them.

But if those responsible for both being brutes and sending brutes among us aren’t held firmly and consistently to account for their deeds, someday citizens as weary and fed up as Eric Garner (but more organized, more powerful, and more ready) will say, “It stops here”and make that stick.

Jul 112014
 

In the video below Dr. Ed Rivera, professor of law and government, is interviewed by Patrick Timpone. Mr. Timpone compares Dr. Rivera’s work decoding the Organic Laws, the founding documents of the United States of America to deciphering the DiVinci Code. This video is a good introduction to the Organic Laws. These laws, the beginning of written law in America,were penned in ink for everyone to see. However, no one as been able to show you, how to understand the law in AmericaUntil now.

Published on Mar 23, 2014 What Does the Constitution Say?

Published on Mar 23, 2014

What Does the Constitution Say? Lawyers and scholars have been dumbfounded until now. Go to http://organiclaws.org to learn more.

How many Americans echoing Save the Constitution ever ask, “What does the Constitution say? Do you know that the United States Constitution was derived from the Constitution of 1787, which is one of the four Organic Laws of the United States of America. Did you know there are three offices of President in the Constitution of 1787. Were you taught about the Organic Laws of the United States of America in school?

When you ask and sincerely try to learn, “What does the Constitution say”, you will see it is a red herring. If this were not true, why have scholars and patriots fallen short in their attempts to limit the government by studying the United States Constitution.

Many people are demanding that the government uphold the Constitution, if you asked them, “What does the Constitution say”, they cannot tell you. The truth is that this document falls short of the ideals most people believe the document will provide. Finally, someone has solved the puzzle that has besieged free men and women, since September 17, 1787. Once you understand the Organic Laws of the United States of America, you will see why we have failed in attempts to limit government. Plus, you will understand what is necessary to limit government to it’s proper place.

The early European settlers bold Declaration of Independence was foiled relatively fast. But most people including lawyers and historians are clueless of the crafty work of King George III and the Founding Fathers.

Stop being bewildered asking, “What does the Constitution say”, and holding on to false hope. You just need to learn the foundation of government law in America provided by the Organic Laws of the United States of America. The law is complete and as it should, limits government based on territorial jurisdiction. The Articles of Confederation was so complete in limiting government a rumor had to be devised to deceive people into believing it was repealed and replaced by the United States Constitution.

Real solutions will not be created until the American people understand the Organic Laws of the United States of America. So if you believe we must Save the Constitution, it’s time to learn not only what the Constitution of 1787 created but how what all four Organic Laws create a foundation for government and free people. Go visit http://organiclaws.org – the only place you will get a truthful education on government law provided by a lawyer and government professor. Watch the full video here http://youtu.be/gbV-d6XW_ag for an introduction.

It’s time to learn what the Constitution really says and who it is for.

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.

Jun 032014
 

First Study in 40 Years Legitimizes Medical LSD

The reality is that all psychoactive drugs can be abused with negative effects.  Not to however is the road of science and good medicine while discovering what benefits can be delivered.  At the moment we rediscovering what we already knew and taking a refresher.

What it does mean is that the toolkit is quickly expanding and most of all this will be available for therapeutic reasons.

It appears that a host of mental disturbances can be described as imprinting problems.  Some of these drugs allow that effect to be countered in conjunction with well thought out therapy.  This will be a huge blessing that may well remove the weakest third of such problems and may surprise us with the rest.  Just getting rid of borderline cases frees up effort to be applied.

This appears to be a low threshold but I think that prevents later development of sever cases.

First Study in 40 Years Legitimizes LSD for Psychotherapeutic Use

March 4, 2014 |

Buck Rogers, Staff Writer

http://www.wakingtimes.com/2014/03/04/first-study-40-years-legitimizes-lsd-psychotherapeutic-use/

The public image problem for psychedelic substances is finally correcting itself, due in large part to the willingness of some scientific communities to ignore taboos and press ahead with modern research into the efficacy of their use as therapeutic medicines. Cannabis is the front-runner in the campaign to end the war on consciousness and open the door for psychoactive substances as publicly available medicine. Psilocybin is now touted as a natural and potent remedy for chronic depression, and the healing benefits of the South American medicine Ayahuasca are widely discussed in the Western world, and is even showing promise as an anti-cancer agent.

Now, 40 years of prohibition against medical research into the psychological benefits of synthetic compound lysergic acid dyethlyamide (LSD) has finally come to an end with positive results. Peter Gasser, M.D., a private practice psychiatrist in Solothurn, Switzerland has recently published the significant findings of a recent study of the effects that LSD has on patients with certain anxiety disorders.

“A double-blind, randomized, active placebo-controlled pilot study was conducted to examine safety and efficacy of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD)-assisted psychotherapy in 12 patients with anxiety associated with life- threatening diseases. Treatment included drug-free psychotherapy sessions supplemented by two LSD-assisted psychotherapy sessions 2 to 3 weeks apart.” [Source]

The study is considered to be a success because while showing no lasting adverse reactions to treatment with LSD, study participants showed significant and sustained long-term reductions in state anxiety over a 12-month period:

“These results indicate that when administered safely in a methodologically rigorous medically supervised psychotherapeutic setting, LSD can reduce anxiety, suggesting that larger controlled studies are warranted.”

Peter, an Austrian subject in this study remarked, “My LSD experience brought back some lost emotions and ability to trust, lots of psychological insights, and a timeless moment when the universe didn’t seem like a trap, but like a revelation of utter beauty.” This statement is characteristic of many people’s experience with LSD, both clinical and recreational, and brings further testimony to the case for legitimizing these medicines for public use.

The Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS) has for years been the forerunner in the advocacy of legalization of research into the medical benefits of psychoactive substances. In a recently released MAPS press-alert the organization notes that, “there is considerable previous human experience using LSD in the context of psychotherapy. From the 1950s through the early 1970s, psychiatrists, therapists, and researchers administered LSD to thousands of people as a treatment for alcoholism, as well as for anxiety and depression in people with advanced stage cancer.”

Originally formulated by the renowned Swiss chemist Albert Hoffman, LSD produces an effect that can amplify consciousness and bring about positive lasting changes in perception and one’s feeling of ‘connectedness’ to the universe and the web of life that supports human beings:

“LSD in oral doses of more than 100 Kg produces vivid psychosensory changes, including increased sensory perception, illusionary changes of perceived objects, synesthesia, and enhanced mental imagery. Affectivity is intensified. Thoughts are accelerated, with their scope usually broadened including new associations and modified interpretation and meanings of relationships and objects. Hypermnesia and enhanced memory processes typically occur. Ego identification is usually weakened. The general state of consciousness can be compared to a daydream, but with pronounced affectivity and enhanced production of inner stimuli (Grof, 1975; Hintzen and Passie, 2010).” [Source]

Research into the psychotherapeutic benefits of LSD began in the 1950′s but was brought to an abrupt halt in 1966 when LSD was made illegal by the Unites States government, ostensibly due to overuse of LSD as a recreational substance by America’s youth. The Executive Director of MAPS, Rick Doblin, Ph.D. states that, “this study is historic and marks a rebirth of investigation into LSD-assisted psychotherapy. The positive results and evidence of safety clearly show why additional, larger studies are needed.”

In a world dominated by scientific materialism and marked by a war on consciousness the criminalizes the free exploration of one’s own mind and body, legitimate and positive scientific research is the key that can unlock long-held cultural taboos and misunderstandings about the nature of psychoactive substances.

About the Author

Buck Rogers is the earth bound incarnation of that familiar part of our timeless cosmic selves, the rebel within. He is a surfer of ideals and meditates often on the promise of happiness in a world battered by the angry seas of human thoughtlessness. He is a staff writer for WakingTimes.com.

Sources:
– http://www.maps.org/research/lsd/Gasser-2014-JMND-4March14.pdf
– http://www.maps.org/media/view/press_release_lsd_study_breaks_40_years_of_research_taboo/

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of WakingTimes or its staff.
This article is offered under Creative Commons license. It’s okay to republish it anywhere as long as attribution bio is included and all links remain intact.

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!

Feb 192014
 

Megan Rice Peace Activist

KNOXVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — Megan Rice, An 84-year-old nun was sentenced by the BORG agent to nearly three years in prison for breaking into a nuclear weapons complex and defacing a bunker holding bomb-grade uranium, a demonstration that exposed serious security flaws at the Tennessee plant.

Two other peace activists who broke into the facility with Megan Rice were sentenced to more than five years in prison, in part because they had much longer criminal histories of mostly non-violent civil disobedience.

Although officials said there was never any danger of the protesters reaching materials that could be detonated or made into a dirty bomb, the break-in raised questions about safekeeping at the Y-12 National Security Complex in Oak Ridge. The facility holds the nation’s primary supply of bomb-grade uranium and was known as the ‘‘Fort Knox of uranium.’’

After the break-in, the complex had to be shut down, security forces were re-trained and contractors were replaced.

In her closing statement, Rice asked the judge to sentence her to life in prison, even though sentencing guidelines called for about six years.

‘‘Please have no leniency with me,’’ Megan Rice said. ‘‘To remain in prison for the rest of my life would be the greatest gift you could give me.’’

She said the U.S. government was spending too much money on weapons and the military, and she told the judge about the many letters of support she had received, including one from youth in Afghanistan.

‘‘This is the next generation and it is for these people that we’re willing to give our lives,’’ she said.

Rice, Greg Boertje-Obed (bohr-CHEE’ OH’-bed) and Michael Walli all said God was using them to raise awareness about nuclear weapons and they viewed the success of their break-in as a miracle.

Their attorneys asked the judge to sentence them to time they had already served, about nine months, because of their record of good works throughout their lives.

Rice is a sister in the Society of the Holy Child Jesus. She became a nun when she was 18 and served for 40 years as a missionary in western Africa teaching science.

Walli’s attorney said the activist served two tours in Vietnam before returning to the U.S. and dedicating his life to peace and helping the poor. Walli said he had no remorse about the break-in and would do it again.

‘‘I was acting upon my God-given obligations as a follower of Jesus Christ,’’ he told U.S. District Judge Amul Thapar.

The judge said he was concerned the demonstrators showed no remorse and he wanted their punishment to be a deterrent for other activists. He was also openly skeptical about whether the protesters caused any real harm and challenged prosecutors to prove it. Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeff Theodore said they had destroyed the ‘‘mystique’’ of the ‘‘Fort Knox of uranium.’’

On July 28, 2012, the three activists cut through three fences before reaching a $548 million storage bunker. They hung banners, strung crime-scene tape and hammered off a small chunk of the fortress-like Highly Enriched Uranium Materials Facility, or HEUMF, inside the most secure part of complex.

They painted messages such as, ‘‘The fruit of justice is peace,’’ and splashed baby bottles of human blood on the bunker wall.

‘‘The reason for the baby bottles was to represent that the blood of children is spilled by these weapons,’’ Boertje-Obed, 58, a house painter from Duluth, Minn., said at trial.

Although the protesters set off alarms, they were able to spend more than two hours inside the restricted area before they were caught.

When security finally arrived, guards found the three activists singing and offering to break bread with them. The protesters reportedly also offered to share a Bible, candles and white roses with the guards.

The Department of Energy’s inspector general wrote a scathing report on the security failures that allowed the activists to reach the bunker, and the security contractor was later fired.

Some government officials praised the activists for exposing the facility’s weaknesses. But prosecutors declined to show leniency, instead pursing serious felony charges.

Prosecutors argued the intrusion was a serious security breach that continued to disrupt operations at the Y-12 complex even months later.

Attorneys for Rice and Walli, 65, both of Washington, D.C., said the protesters were engaged in a symbolic act meant to bring attention to America’s stockpile of nuclear weapons, which they view as both immoral and illegal under international law.

Boertje-Obed’s wife, Michele Naar-Obed, said before the hearing that she would figure out a way to deal with the sentence, whatever it was. Her real concern was that her husband’s actions and imprisonment were not in vain.Continued…