If you know someone that actually believes that the U.S. economy is in good shape, just show them the statistics in this article. When you step back and look at the long-term trends, it is undeniable what is happening to us. We are in the midst of a horrifying economic decline that is the result of decades of very bad decisions. 30 years ago, the U.S. national debt was about one trillion dollars. Today, it is almost 17 trillion dollars. 40 years ago, the total amount of debt in the United States was about 2 trillion dollars. Today, it is more than 56 trillion dollars. At the same time that we have been running up all of this debt, our economic infrastructure and our ability to produce wealth has been absolutely gutted. Since 2001, the United States has lost more than 56,000 manufacturing facilities and millions of good jobs have been shipped overseas. Our share of global GDP declined from 31.8 percent in 2001 to 21.6 percent in 2011. The percentage of Americans that are self-employed is at a record low, and the percentage of Americans that are dependent on the government is at a record high. The U.S. economy is a complete and total mess, and it is time that we faced the truth.
The following are 40 statistics about the fall of the U.S. economy that are almost too crazy to believe…
#13 When NAFTA was pushed through Congress in 1993, the United States had a trade surplus with Mexico of 1.6 billion dollars. By 2010, we had a trade deficit with Mexico of 61.6 billion dollars.
#14 Back in 1985, our trade deficit with China was approximately 6 million dollars (million with a little “m”) for the entire year. In 2012, our trade deficit with China was 315 billion dollars. That was the largest trade deficit that one nation has had with another nation in the history of the world.
#25 According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 49 percent of all Americans live in a home that receives direct monetary benefits from the federal government. Back in 1983, less than a third of all Americans lived in a home that received direct monetary benefits from the federal government.
#27 Back in 1965, only one out of every 50 Americans was on Medicaid. Today, one out of every 6 Americans is on Medicaid, and things are about to get a whole lot worse. It is being projected that Obamacare will add 16 million more Americans to the Medicaid rolls.
#28 As I wrote recently, it is being projected that the number of Americans on Medicare will grow from 50.7 million in 2012 to 73.2 million in 2025.
#29 At this point, Medicare is facing unfunded liabilities of more than 38 trillion dollars over the next 75 years. That comes to approximately $328,404 for every single household in the United States.
#30 Right now, there are approximately 56 million Americans collecting Social Security benefits. By 2035, that number is projected to soar to an astounding 91 million.
#36 There are now 20.2 million Americans that spend more than half of their incomes on housing. That represents a 46 percent increase from 2001.
#3745 percent of all children are living in poverty in Miami, more than 50 percent of all children are living in poverty in Cleveland, and about 60 percent of all children are living in poverty in Detroit.
#38 Today, more than a million public school students in the United States are homeless. This is the first time that has ever happened in our history.
#39 When Barack Obama first entered the White House, about 32 million Americans were on food stamps. Now, more than 47 million Americans are on food stamps.
#40 According to one calculation, the number of Americans on food stamps now exceeds the combined populations of “Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming.”
Daily Bell: Remind our readers about one of your central intellectual passions, which is confronting academic “Lincoln revisionism.” Who was Lincoln really and why have you spent so much of your career trying to return Lincoln’s academic profile to reality?
Thomas DiLorenzo: Lincoln mythology is the ideological cornerstone of American statism. He was in reality the most hated of all American presidents during his lifetime according to an excellent book by historian Larry Tagg entitled The Unpopular Mr. Lincoln: America’s Most Reviled President. He was so hated in the North that the New York Times editorialized a wish that he would be assassinated. This is perfectly understandable: He illegally suspended Habeas Corpus and imprisoned tens of thousands of Northern political critics without due process; shut down over 300 opposition newspapers; committed treason by invading the Southern states (Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution defines treason as “only levying war upon the states” or “giving aid and comfort to their enemies,” which of course is exactly what Lincoln did). He enforced military conscription with the murder of hundreds of New York City draft protesters in 1863 and with the mass execution of deserters from his army. He deported a congressional critic (Democratic Congressman Clement Vallandigham of Ohio); confiscated firearms; and issued an arrest warrant for the Chief Justice when the jurist issued an opinion that only Congress could legally suspend Habeas Corpus. He waged an unnecessary war (all other countries ended slavery peacefully in that century) that resulted in the death of as many as 850,000 Americans according to new research published in the last two years. Standardizing for today’s population, that would be similar to 8.5 million American deaths in a four-year war.
Lincoln was deified by the Republican Party, which monopolized the government for half a century after the war. The Pulitzer prize-winning novelist Robert Penn Warren wrote in his book, The Legacy of the Civil War, that all of this mythology created an ideology of “false virtue” that was (and is) interpreted by the American state to “justify” anything it ever did, no matter how heinous and imperialistic. The truth about Lincoln and his war “must be forgotten,” said Warren, if one is to believe in this “false virtue,” which also goes by the slogan of “American exceptionalism.”
Lincoln was a nationalist and an imperialist. He was the political son of Alexander Hamilton who, as such, advocated a government that would serve the moneyed elite at the expense of the masses. Hence his lifelong advocacy of protectionist tariffs, corporate welfare, and a central bank to fund it all. This was called “mercantilism” in the previous centuries, and was the very system the American colonists fought a revolution over.
Daily Bell: What did you think of the recent Steven Spielberg movie about Lincoln? Are defenders of Lincoln getting increasingly desperate?
Thomas DiLorenzo: Yes, the Lincoln cult is getting desperate. Spielberg hired Doris Kearns-Goodwin, a confessed plagiarist, as his advisor on the movie (See my LewRockwell.com article entitled “A Plagiarist’s Contribution to Lincoln Idolatry“). The main theme of the movie is exactly the opposite of historical truth. The main theme is that Lincoln used his legendary political skills to help get the Thirteenth Amendment that ended slavery through the Congress. But if one reads the most authoritative biography of Lincoln, by Harvard’s David Donald, one learns that not only did Lincoln not lift a finger to help the genuine abolitionists; he literally refused to help them when they went up to him and asked him for his help. Lincoln did use his political skills to get an earlier, proposed Thirteenth Amendment through the House and Senate. It was called the Corwin Amendment, and would have prohibited the federal government from ever interfering with Southern slavery. Even Doris Kearns-Goodwin writes about it in her book, Team of Rivals, discussing how the amendment, named after an Ohio congressman, was in reality the work of Abraham Lincoln.
Daily Bell: Why should that be so? Is the myth of Lincoln a central one to the larger and continued myth of modern US exceptionalism? Who propagates these myths and who benefits?
Thomas DiLorenzo: Yes, the Lincoln myth is the ideological cornerstone of “American exceptionalism” and has long been invoked by both major political parties to “justify” anything and everything. President Obama quoted and paraphrased Lincoln in a speech before the United Nations last September, and in his second inaugural address, to support his agenda of waging more aggressive wars in Syria, Iran, and elsewhere. Specifically, he repeated the “All Men are Created Equal” line from the Gettysburg Address to make the case that it is somehow the duty of Americans to force “freedom” on all men and women everywhere, all around the globe, at gunpoint if need be. This is the murderous, bankrupting, imperialistic game that Lincoln mythology is used to “justify.”
Daily Bell: Put Lincoln in context. Why is continued mythology so important to the current power structure of the Anglosphere?
Thomas DiLorenzo: The state cannot tell the people that it is bankrupting them and sending their sons and daughters to die by the thousands in aggressive and unconstitutional wars so that crony capitalism can be imposed at gunpoint in foreign countries, and so that the military-industrial complex can continue to rake in billions. That might risk a revolution. So instead, they have to use the happy talk of American virtue and American exceptionalism, the “god” of democracy,” etc. And the average American, whom the great H.L. Mencken referred to as part of the “booboisie,” believes it.
Daily Bell: Let’s try to clear up a few more myths. Did Lincoln issue greenbacks in defiance of British “money power“? In other words, was his war waged as an act of rebellion against European colonialism? From our point of view, Lincoln was likely in thrall to the New York banking establishment. How do you see it?
Thomas DiLorenzo: Lincoln spent his entire life in politics, from 1832 until his dying day, as a lobbyist for the American banking industry and the Northern manufacturing corporations that wanted cheaper credit funded by a government-run bank. He spent decades making speeches on behalf of resurrecting the corrupt and destabilizing Bank of the United States, founded originally by his political ancestor, Hamilton. No member of the Whig Party was more in bed with the American banking establishment than Lincoln was, according to University of Virginia historian Michael Holt in his book on the history of the American Whig party. The Whig agenda, which was always Lincoln’s agenda, was described brilliantly by Edgar Lee Masters (Clarence Darrow’s law partner) in his book, Lincoln the Man. The agenda was to champion “that political system which doles favors to the strong in order to win and keep their adherence to the government.” It advocated “a people taxed to make profits for enterprises that cannot stand alone.” The Whig Party “had no platform to announce,” Masters wrote, “because its principles were plunder and nothing else.” Lincoln himself once said that he got ALL of his political ideas from Henry Clay, the icon and longtime leader of the Whig Party.
Daily Bell: Let’s ask you some tough questions that will be of interest to our readers and our critics alike. Charges have been leveled from some (disreputable) quarters that you are somehow conspiring historically with a Jesuit faction to promote historical inaccuracies regarding Lincoln since you are a professor at Loyola. Could you please explain these charges more comprehensively and then use this form to rebut them?
Thomas DiLorenzo: I don’t usually answer “when did you stop beating your wife”-type questions since they always come from people with I.Q.s in the single digits. These are people who do not have the mental capacity to learn real economics, so they blabber on about crazy conspiracy theories. The Jesuits at Loyola actually hate me with a passion since they are, with one or two exceptions, Marxist ideologues and I am a libertarian, i.e., the devil. Read my LewRockwell.com article entitled “Tales from an Academic Looney Bin” if you want to learn of my contempt for the Jesuits who run Loyola University Maryland.
Daily Bell: Thanks for the insights. Now, on to another more serious matter, which has to do with the role of Jefferson Davis as President of the Southern Secession. Let’s preface this by proposing it has been proposed that both the Russian Revolution and Germany’s rise to power were apparently funded at least in part by Wall Street and British “City” money – especially via Swiss banks. Can you comment on this perspective as it may well have a bearing on Civil War funding? Is it true, for instance, that many wars including the Civil War are not exactly what they seem and that what we call Money Power benefits by backing both sides and profiting from the conflict itself?
Thomas DiLorenzo: War is always destructive to a nation’s economy regardless of whether it wins or loses the war. War is the opposite of capitalism. Capitalism is a system of peaceful, mutually-advantageous exchanges at market prices based on the international division of labor. War destroys the international division of labor and diverts resources from peaceful, capitalistic exchange to death and destruction. However, there are always war profiteers – the people who profit from selling and financing the military. One doesn’t need to invent a conspiracy theory about this: War profiteering is war profiteering and has always existed as an essential feature of all wars.
Daily Bell: There are even questions raised about Napoleon Bonaparte and whether Money Power utilized the French general’s bellicosity for their own purposes. Can you comment? Is it possible the US Civil War was also arranged and funded by those in Europe that had an agenda to diminish the United States’s exceptionalism and vitiate its republicanism?
Thomas DiLorenzo: I prefer not to answer anonymous questions like this. Who says this, and what is his or her credibility? Any credentials? Have they written anything I can read to judge their thinking ability? Any crank can say any crazy thing and suggest any weird conspiracy theory on the Internet. Besides, “American exceptionalism” did not become a tool of American imperialism until AFTER the Civil War.
Daily Bell: Money Power is a banking phenomenon and much of the banking power was located in Britain during Lincoln’s time, as today. New York banks had extensive relationships with British banking power. And from what we can tell, Lincoln derived an extensive funding and power base from these same banks. So here is another question that goes to the heart of this funding issue: Why did Britain supposedly back the South? Is it possible that this is a historical ruse? Was the British banking establishment pro-North even though the aristocracy was pro-South? Did it suit British banking interests to perpetuate this confusion?
Thomas DiLorenzo: There is no such thing as “Britain” that backed or did not back the South. There were prominent British individuals like Charles Dickens who sided with the South in their writings, but there were also those with similar stature who backed the North. I recommend the book by Charles Adams entitled Slavery, Secession, and Civil War: Views from the United Kingdom and Europe, 1856-1865. Since the South continued to trade with England during the war, there were British banks that financed a lot of this trade and would therefore have supported the South for that reason. At the end of the war the British government was scared to death that Sherman would take his army across the Atlantic as an act of revenge for this collaboration.
Daily Bell: Is it possible that the British banking establishment didn’t care which side won the war, as the US would be irreparably weakened no matter who triumphed? Were British bankers expecting this weakening would encompass a loss of freedom and a rise of governmental authoritarianism? It certainly did, didn’t it?
Thomas DiLorenzo: Since bankers are bankers and not journalists and writers, there is no way of knowing their views on this question without a written record. Anyone who claims to know this without any such record is simply blowing smoke and wasting your time. British intellectuals like Lord Acton understood and wrote about how the result of the war would be a US government that would become more tyrannical and imperialistic. To the extent that some British bankers read such literature and tended to agree with Lord Acton, then that would have been their opinion. Nineteenth-century British bankers were not omniscient, Wizard-of-Oz orchestrators of world events any more than you and I are.
Daily Bell: Here is an even tougher question to answer and a thoroughly speculative one. Is it possible that Jefferson Davis also had a relationship to British Money Power? One salient fact stands out: Davis served as President Franklin Pierce’s war secretary and while Pierce was an ardent states’ rights advocate, it was also widely reported that he had relations with a powerful US secret society – the Knights of the Golden Circle. Can you comment on the Knights of the Golden Circle and what their agenda might have been? We’ve written about this issue here: “Thomas James DiLorenzo on Abraham Lincoln, U.S. Authoritarianism and Manipulated History.”
Here’s a brief description from a book on the Knights entitled, The Mysterious and Secret Order of the Knights of the Golden Circle … “Few people know of the Knights of the Golden Circle and even fewer know about the purpose for which it existed. It is probably the greatest untold story today in the history of the United States. … It has been said of them that they were one of the deadliest, wealthiest, most secretive and subversive spy and underground organizations in the history of the world … The group was heavy on ritual, most of which was borrowed from the Masonic Lodge and later from the Knights of Pythias. Some were also members of the Rosicrucians.” To what end was Jefferson Davis involved with the Knights? Was he in a sense set up to fail? Did he willingly participate? Was he a patsy?
Thomas DiLorenzo: I have no idea. How would anyone know anything about this if it was a “secret” society, as you say? Jefferson Davis was a brilliant and highly educated man who spent a long career in national politics and wrote a great book, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government. It is unimaginable that any American politician since could have performed such an amazingly insightful piece of genuine scholarship. This is not the type of man who would have been easily duped by the local Masonic Lodge.
Daily Bell: Are these fair questions? Jefferson was President of the Southern Secession but he proved an ineffective leader and his policies in many ways sabotaged the South and its quest to secede. Was his incompetence entirely genuine, in your view?
Thomas DiLorenzo: Davis was not a dictator. He had a lot of help losing the war, especially from his generals who insisted on the Napoleonic battlefield tactics they were taught at West Point and which had become defunct because of the advent of more deadly military technology by the middle of the nineteenth century. One of his biggest failures was waiting until the last year of the war to finally do what General Robert E. Lee had been arguing from the beginning – offering the slaves freedom in return for fighting with the Confederate Army in defense of their country.
Daily Bell: A final question. It was Davis who set the war in motion, inexplicably, by declaring formal hostilities, so why didn’t he and his generals fight a guerrilla war that they would have been almost certain to win? General Lee insisted on formal engagements with the North but had neither the resources nor the men to win a war of attrition of this sort. Why didn’t he pursue well-known guerilla tactics that would have produced a victory or at least a stalemate?
Thomas DiLorenzo: No, it was Lincoln who launched an invasion of the Southern states. Davis’s declarations were just words. Giving guerilla fighters like John Singleton Mosby and Nathan Bedford Forrest more resources may well have won the war for the South, but Mosby was kicked out of VMI and Forrest was almost totally uneducated formally. The Confederate military establishment was controlled by West Point graduates who knew little or nothing about guerilla warfare. When asked after the war who his most effective subordinate was, Lee said it was a man named Forrest.
Daily Bell: Certainly the arc of Davis’s career after the war does little to contradict the hypothesis that there was more to Davis’s role than history records. He never served a long jail sentence, visited England later in life and was supported by a wealthy widow, Sarah Anne Ellis Dorsey, who was a primary member and literary representative of Southern aristocracy with its many European connections. This would also seem to show that Davis had deep connections to the British power structure. Is all this merely frivolous supposition?
Thomas DiLorenzo: Yes.
Daily Bell: Okay, let’s turn to your recent book, False Virtue: The Myths that Transformed America From A Republic to an Empire. Can you explain what this is about to our readers and why you wrote it?
Thomas DiLorenzo: That’s something that I’m still working on. I plan on putting into book form the story of how the Lincoln myth has been used for the past 150 years or so to prop up American foreign policy imperialism.
Daily Bell: What are you working on now, if anything?
Thomas DiLorenzo: Besides this, I’m working on a book on the politics and economics of war.
Daily Bell: Do you still believe that secession is in the offing for several or more of “these united States”? Will it come without bloodshed?
Thomas DiLorenzo: Thank God for the former serfs of the Soviet empire that they only had a totalitariancommunist like Gorbachev to deal with and not a Lincoln. Peaceful secession is the only way out of the new slavery for the average American, and it will only happen if we have a president who is more like Gorbachev than Lincoln. That is one more reason why the Lincoln myth needs to be destroyed.
Daily Bell: Are hostilities deepening between Fedgov and US states?
Thomas DiLorenzo: The booboisie in America for the time being seems happy to endure whatever additional enslavements the federal government proposes for them. That may change, however, when there is hyperinflation and their healthcare system is destroyed by Obama’s socialized medicine, or if one of the tiny and relatively defenseless countries that the US government is perpetually picking on figures out a way to retaliate in a big way. That just might cause the booboisie to finally ask such questions as: “Do my children really have to be sacrificed and sent to their deaths so that people in Syria can be ruled by a different dictator chosen by the CIA?”
Daily Bell: Isn’t secession a lawful, constitutional right?
Thomas DiLorenzo: Article 7 of the Constitution explains that the document was to be ratified by the “free and independent states,” as they are called in the Declaration of Independence. The union of the founders was voluntary, and several states reserved the right to withdraw from the union in the future if it became destructive of their rights. Since each state has equal rights in the union, this became true for all states. That is why, at the outset of the Civil War, the overwhelming majority of Northern newspapers editorialized in favor of peaceful secession. Most of them quoted Jefferson from the Declaration saying that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and when that consent is withdrawn it is the peoples’ duty to abolish that government and form a new one.
Lincoln thus destroyed the voluntary union of the founding fathers and replaced it with a Soviet-style coerced union held together with the threat of total war waged on the civilian population of any state in the future that attempted to make Jefferson’s argument and act on it. It is telling that on the eve of the Civil War several federal laws were proposed to outlaw secession. This occurred because everyone at the time understood that secession was perfectly legal and constitutional.
Might does NOT make right, so yes, secession is a right that the people of any free society should have.
Daily Bell: Is the Internet helping to create an upsurge of freedom-consciousness among the US electorate?
Thomas DiLorenzo: Yes, without a doubt. That’s why some of the most obnoxious and tyrannical of our politicians, like Obama, Lieberman, McCain and Schumer, seem to be constantly conniving to somehow censor or shut down the internet “for national security reasons.”
Daily Bell: How many real “nations” does the US encompass?
Thomas DiLorenzo: Time will tell. Jefferson believed there were at least seven or eight regions that could be created as independent American nations during his time, and he wrote that he would wish them all well as they would all be, as Americans, “our children.”
Daily Bell: What about Europe? Will it also see a fracturing of the euro and perhaps of the EU itself?
Thomas DiLorenzo: I think we are seeing the collapse of the EU and the Euro along with the European welfare state. We should all pray that it happens a thousand times faster.
Daily Bell: How about China?
Thomas DiLorenzo: China is now more capitalist than the US and its government is less tyrannical than the government in Washington, DC.
Daily Bell: Is the Internet helping to cause these “devolutions”?
Thomas DiLorenzo: When the AFL-CIO conspired with the Catholic Church in Poland to subvert communism they smuggled fax machines into the country so that the anti-communists could plot and communicate. The internet makes all of this infinitely easier to accomplish.
Daily Bell: Is the 21st century more hopeful than the 20th and 19th when it comes to large-scale wars and manipulation of various electorates in the West and elsewhere?
Thomas DiLorenzo: One virtue of the 19th century was that the public school brainwashing bureaucracy was not yet very well developed. It certainly is today, which is why America has become such a nation of statist sheep.
Daily Bell: Is the current system of Fiat Money Power on the way out? If so, what will take its place?
Thomas DiLorenzo: Yes. That’s what all the economic turmoil in Europe is about. I’d like to see a return to a gold standard. This will have to happen if we are to avoid worldwide economic collapse similar to the Great Depression.
Daily Bell: How does the Lincoln mythology play out today in light of all these circumstances?
Thomas DiLorenzo: It is still the ideological cornerstone of American statism, but we are making progress.
Daily Bell: Will the US revert to a freer, more self-sufficient model?
Thomas DiLorenzo: Only if peaceful secession is allowed to occur.
Daily Bell: Is the pre-Civil War US model a template for a more viable society in the future?
Thomas DiLorenzo: Minus slavery, of course. The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union were far superior to the Constitution that replaced them (and which omitted the world “perpetual”).
Daily Bell: Can we ever go back? Is history linear or cyclical?
Thomas DiLorenzo: I don’t believe in such determinism. We can correct mistakes. We DID deregulate oil and transportation in the 1980s; socialism DID collapse worldwide in the late ’80s/early ’90s and was replaced by more market-oriented regimes.
Daily Bell: Any other comments or predictions?
Thomas DiLorenzo: The Republican Party will continue to become more and more irrelevant and powerless; the Democratic Party establishment will finally strip off their masks and reveal themselves as the totalitarian socialists that they have always been; and the political future will belong to the young Ron Paulians.
Daily Bell: Thanks for your time once again.
Thomas DiLorenzo got a little irritated with us because we harped on the Jesuit issue (see interview). But we did so because a malicious minority of what we can only call Neo-Nazi “social” and “mutual creditors” have attacked him for being influenced by the Jesuit educational establishment for which he works.
Money is power and those who challenge the status quo are dangerous to the internationalist impulse. Thus, globalists claim DiLorenzo has attacked Lincoln because he wanted to undermine Lincoln’s use of government Greenbacks as effective money.
Money is a complex system. It is not mathematically reducible. Only the free-market itself, the Invisible Hand, can organize money within the context of the complex relationships that exist in a modern society (though admittedly such relationships could and should be simplified).
But according to some, only the state, properly guided by responsible politicians, can provide the money society needs. DiLorenzo has also been attacked by this socialist faction because he named Lincoln for what he was: the father of US Empire.
Before Lincoln, it was common belief that any state could secede from the Union. After Lincoln, it was clear no state could secede without facing military action. That situation continues today.
DiLorenzo is a consequential writer. He has advanced our understanding of who Lincoln really was and where American exceptionalism took a wrong turn. The attacks of his critics notwithstanding, he is an original and courageous historian, and we look forward to reading more of his work.
DENVER, Col. (May 6, 2013) – The Colorado state house today voted to approve SB13-241, a bill that would legalize the farming and production of “industrial hemp” within the state. If signed into law, the bill would effectively nullify the unconstitutional federal ban on hemp production in Colorado. The House voted unanimously on a slightly amended version of a bill already approved by the State Senate, 34-1. The legislation will now go back to the Senate, which is widely expected to send the legislation to Governor Hickenlooper for a signature.
The federal government has no constitutional authority to ban the production of this industrial plant, but has persisted in preventing its domestic production. The result? Products with hemp that are readily available at your local grocery store must be imported from another country – resulting in higher costs for you and fewer farming jobs in America. The United States is currently the world’s #1 importer of hemp, which is used in food products, clothing, oil and much more. The top exporters are China and Canada.
The United States is the only developed nation that fails to cultivate industrial hemp as an economic crop, according to the Congressional Resource Service. Recent congressional research indicates that the hemp market consists of over 25,000 various products. The same research found that America imports over $400 million worth of hemp from other countries. At this time of economic difficulty, 13-241 would not only expand freedom and support the Constitution, it would also be a great jobs bill.
With the passage of Amendment 64, which legalized small amounts of marijuana for adults, hemp was removed from the state’s controlled substances list, though a provision of the initiative states that that hemp cultivation is contingent on legislative action – this bill would be that required action necessary to legalize hemp and authorize the state to begin distributing hemp licenses.Under the proposal farmers would have the option of applying for a 10-acre plot in order to study the viability of various hemp varieties, or they could apply for a larger, full-scale hemp farm – one that wouldn’t be limited by the number of plants, but rather by the THC content in said plants.
HEMP OVERVIEW AND USE
Industrial hemp is not marijuana, but an industrial agricultural product used for a wide variety of purposes, including the manufacture of cordage of varying tensile strength, durable clothing and nutritional products. During World War II, the United States military relied heavily on hemp products, which resulted in the famous campaign and government-produced film, “Hemp for Victory!“
Even though soil, climate and agricultural capabilities could make the United States a massive producer of industrial hemp, today no hemp is grown for public sale, use and consumption within the United States. China is the world’s greatest producer and the United States is the #1 importer of hemp and hemp products in the world.
Since the enactment of the unconstitutional federal controlled-substances act in 1970, the Drug Enforcement Agency has prevented the production of hemp within the United States. Many hemp supporters feel that the DEA has been used as an “attack dog” of sorts to prevent competition with major industries where American-grown hemp products would create serious market competition: Cotton, Paper/Lumber, Oil, and others.
The Floating Dollar as a Threat to Property Rights
Founding Editor New York Sun
Seth Lipsky is the founding editor of the New York Sun. A graduate of Harvard College, he served in the U.S. Army in Vietnam as a combat correspondent for Pacific Stars and Stripes. A former senior editor and member of the editorial board of The Wall Street Journal, he has also served as editorial page editor of The Wall Street Journal/Europe, managing editor of The Asian Wall Street Journal, and assistant editor of Far Eastern Economic Review. In 2009, he published The Citizen’s Constitution: An Annotated Guide.
The following is adapted from a speech delivered on February 16, 2011, at a Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar in Phoenix, Arizona.
TO BEGIN, consider one of the most important measures of property, the kilogram. It’s a measure of mass or, for non-scientific purposes, weight. According to the papers last week, a global scramble is under way to define this most basic unit after it was discovered that the standard kilogram—a cylinder of platinum and iridium that is maintained by the International Bureau of Weights and Measures—has been losing mass.
You may think that this is impossible. Of all the elements, iridium is the most resistant to corrosion, and the cylinder is kept in a facility at Sevres, France, where it is under three glass domes accessible by three separate keys. The cylinder itself is more than 130 years old and is what the New York Times calls the “only remaining international standard in the metric system that is still a man-made object.” The new urgency to redefine the kilogram comes from the fact that its changing mass “defeats,” as the Times put it, “its only purpose: constancy.”
The question I invite you to consider for a moment is what would happen if we just let the kilogram float? This is a question that was posed in an editorial last week in the New York Sun. After all, the editorial said, we let the dollar float. The creation of dollars, and the status of the dollar as legal tender, is a matter of fiat. Its value is adjusted by the mandarins at the Federal Reserve, depending on variables they only sometimes share with the rest of the world. This would have floored the Framers of our Constitution, who granted Congress the power to coin money and regulate its value in the same sentence in which they gave it the power to fix the standard of weights and measures—like, say, the aforementioned kilogram.
Now, the record is clear in respect of how America’s founders viewed money. Many of them went into the Second United States Congress, where they established the value of the dollar at 371 ¼ grains of pure silver. The law through which they did that, the Coinage Act of 1792, noted that the amount of silver they were regulating for the dollar was the same as in a coin then in widespread use, known as the Spanish milled dollar. The law said a dollar could also be the free-market equivalent in gold. The Founders did not expect the value of the dollar to be changed any more than the persons who locked away that kilogram of platinum and iridium expected the cylinder to start losing mass. In fact, in this same 1792 law, they established the death penalty for debasing the dollar.
So, the New York Sun asked, why not float the kilogram? After all, when you go into the grocery to buy a pound of hamburger, why should you worry about how much hamburger you get—so long as it’s a pound’s worth? A pound is supposed to be .45359237 of a kilogram. But if Congress can permit Mr. Bernanke to use his judgment in deciding what a dollar is worth, why shouldn’t he—or some other Ph.D. from M.I.T.—be able to decide from day to day what a kilogram is worth?
No doubt some will cavil that the fact that the dollar floats makes it all the more reason for the kilogram to be constant. But what’s so special about the kilogram? If the fiat dollar floats, one has no idea what it will be worth when it comes time to spend it. If the kilogram also floats, it will simply be twice as hard to figure out what something we’re buying will be worth. So what if, when we unwrap our hamburger, the missus has to throw a little more sawdust in the meatloaf?
Or let us consider a compromise. Let’s go to a fiat kilogram—that is, permit the kilogram to float—but apply the new urgency to fixing the dollar at a specified number of grains of gold. To those who say it would be ridiculous to fix the dollar but let the butcher hand you whatever amount of hamburger he wants when you ask for a kilogram, I say, what’s the difference as to whether it’s the measure of money or of weight that floats?
For that matter, one could go all the way and fix the value of both the kilogram and the dollar but float the value of time. You say you want to be paid $100 an hour. That’s fine by your boss. But he—or Chairman Bernanke—gets to decide how many minutes in the hour. Or how long the minute is. You know you’ll get a kilogram of meat for the price a kilogram of meat costs. But you won’t know how long you have to work to earn the money.
There was obviously a satirical element to that Sun editorial. But it’s not satirical to say that we are in a dangerous situation in our country in respect of the dollar, and that property rights are very much bound up in the question of money. After all, consider that kilogram. It is a cylinder. And it’s a cylinder the size of, say, a golf ball. The amount of mass that it is believed to have lost is measured in a few atoms, and yet the institution where they maintain standards is in a complete tizzy about it. The implications are said to be enormous.
The dollar, by contrast, has collapsed from 1/35 of an ounce of gold to less than 1/1,300 of an ounce of gold. If the kilogram had collapsed on that order of magnitude, there would be left only a small shard of that handsome grayish cylinder under the three glass domes at Sevres, France.
I understand that this is not where the property rights discussion is usually focused. It usually centers around the takings clause of the Constitution—the clause at the center of the landmark case that erupted when condemnation proceedings were launched against the homes in New London, Connecticut, of a woman named Susette Kelo and her neighbors. Under the Fifth Amendment, the government is prohibited from taking private property for public use without just compensation. That is a bedrock principle of American constitutionalism. What was special about Susette Kelo is that her property was taken for private use. It was coveted by a private, non-profit development corporation for private, for-profit use near a big pharmaceutical development that the town reckoned would benefit the public.
Mrs. Kelo and her neighbors went all the way to the Supreme Court to try to keep their homes. She lost the case, Kelo v. New London, albeit by a five to four vote. On the one hand, it was a terrible defeat for the principle of property rights. On the other hand, the decision was so alarming that states have begun changing their own laws to strengthen protections against the kind of raid on private property that Mrs. Kelo suffered. At least 43 states have already passed such laws. Rarely has the loser in a Supreme Court case established so great a legacy as Mrs. Kelo, whose case is one of the most important warnings we have had in my generation of the vigilance that is going to be required in respect of the right to property enshrined in the Fifth Amendment.
Which brings me to the question of how the law can be used to illuminate the problem of the floating dollar. What I consider the most astonishing legal question in the country came into the news in 2008, when Judith Kaye, the chief judge of the highest court in the state of New York, the Court of Appeals, filed a lawsuit in an inferior court, asking it to order the state legislature and the governor to give her a raise.
My first reaction, and that of my colleagues at the Sun, was to consider this something of a joke. Yet the more we began to look at the case, the more it threw into sharp relief the issue of the right to the property that comes to us in the form of a salary or is held by us in the form of savings. The judges on New York’s Court of Appeals, after all, hadn’t had a raise in more than a decade, and they were having an ever harder time making their salaries cover rising costs. In that they are just like the rest of us.
But it turns out that under the Constitution, judges are not quite like the rest of us—and in a way that lies at the heart of the American Revolution. Indeed, in the Declaration of Independence, one of the reasons our Founders listed for breaking with England was that King George III had “made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.” So they wrote into the Constitution not only that judges would have life tenure (with good behavior), but also that the pay of a judge would not be diminished during his term in office. This principle that one can never lower the pay of a judge is also in many state constitutions.
So if in, say, the year 2000 a judge was paid in dollars that were worth 1/265 of an ounce of gold, and if today that same judge is being paid with dollars worth less than 1/1,300 of an ounce of gold, has the judge’s pay been diminished?
The more I’ve thought about it, the more I have been nagged by the thought that judges’ pay could be the device with which to attack the legal tender law I have come to regard as the greatest threat to property in America. This is the law establishing that paper money in America must be accepted in payment of debts, public and private. The Founders themselves hated paper money. Washington, whose picture is on the one dollar bill, warned that paper money would inevitably “ruin commerce, oppress the honest, and open the door to every species of fraud and injustice”; Jefferson, whose picture is on the two dollar bill, called its abuses inevitable; as did Madison, whose picture is on the $5,000 bill. Paper money, he said, was “unconstitutional, for it affects the rights of property as much as taking away equal value in land.”
I’m not so sure that the existence of paper money is the problem. The problem is the requirement that a one dollar paper note be accepted in lieu of 371 ¼ grains of silver. Certainly when the greenback was introduced—as it was by President Lincoln—it was for a cause, the Union, that was worth enormous risks. The Treasury Secretary who helped him put through the greenback as a war measure, Salmon Chase, became, in 1864, the sixth Chief Justice of the United States; and when the concept of legal tender finally came up for consideration, Chase ruled against the greenback. President Grant, however, eventually got two new justices on the court, and legal tender was established in a series of rulings—one involving the purchase of some sheep, the other of some bales of cotton, and another some land—known as the Legal Tender Cases.
A few months ago, I called Bernard Nussbaum, who was representing Judge Kaye, and asked him why she didn’t challenge legal tender head on. He told me he feared the Legal Tender Cases couldn’t be overturned. It was too heavy a lift. So instead he fought the case on separation of powers grounds. It seems that the New York legislature had said it would not give the judges of New York a raise until the legislators got a raise. The judges sprang on this as a transgression of separation of powers—and, no surprise, when they heard their own case, they ruled against the legislature. A few weeks ago, the legislature decided to delegate to an independent commission the job of deciding judges’ pay.
By my lights, this delegation to an unelected body, even if the legislature could overrule it, was an unsatisfactory outcome. But it turns out that the judges of New York are not the only jurists who are furious about the diminishment of their pay. A group of federal judges is also in court, fighting over their salaries. In the case of the federal judges, Congress had some time ago enacted a law that gave them an automatic pay increase designed to keep up with the Consumer Price Index. But then, as deficits got out of control and Congress’s own salary lagged, Congress suspended the automatic pay increase.
At that point, a coalition of federal judges went into court. Their aim is limited: to force Congress to reinstate the automatic pay adjustment. To understand the scale of what one is talking about, consider the pay of but one of the plaintiffs, Judge Silberman. I don’t know his exact salary. But at the time he was assigned to the District of Columbia Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals, the salary of a federal appeals judge—$83,200—was worth 258 ounces of gold. Since then, the value of the pay of a judge of one of the Appeals circuits—$184,500—has been diminished to 139 ounces of gold.
At this very hour, the judges’ petition in their pay case is before the United States Supreme Court. And while I believe the justices have been wronged by Congress, I hope they lose on the question of whether a suspension in the automatic pay adjustment is unconstitutional. That should get them angry enough to come back and look legal tender in the face. They could force Congress to pay them in the gold or silver equivalent of a federal judge’s salary at the time they were appointed to the bench. It would move judges closer to the kinds of salaries the lawyers before them are receiving.
And people would start to ask: If judges deserve honest money, why shouldn’t the rest of us?
To those who suggest that such a scenario is far-fetched, one can say, no more far-fetched than the notion that the post-Civil War monetary system could be erected on Supreme Court decisions in a pair of disputes over payment for a flock of sheep and some bales of cotton. Or that centuries of law on abortion could be overturned in a fell swoop by a Supreme Court ruling in the case of a woman who later changed her mind. Could the court cast aside precedent to decide such a sweeping issue as legal tender? It certainly didn’t hesitate—nor should it have—in demolishing the notion that racially separate schools could be equal. With everyone from the United Nations to Communist China today calling for the abandonment of the dollar as a reserve currency, is it so hard to imagine that the Supreme Court might revisit the Legal Tender Cases?
It may be that the judges will lose their pay case, just as Susette Kelo lost her house, or that they will win a partial victory and the Supreme Court will shy away from confronting legal tender. But we know from Mrs. Kelo’s case that this needn’t be the end of things. People began to see the logic and think about property rights, and now at least 43 states have passed laws to make it harder for state and local jurisdictions to use the power of eminent domain to seize private land for someone else’s private use.
Could such a thing happen with money? Well, there is a part of the Constitution called Article I, Section 10. It is the section that lists the things that states can never do. And one of these prohibited activities is making legal tender out of something other than gold or silver coin. So what is happening now is that a growing number of states, watching the sickening plunge in the value of federal money, are starting to explore how they can set up monetary systems based on gold or silver coins. The most recent effort was launched in Virginia, where there is a bill before the General Assembly to set up a joint committee to study the question. There have been early stirrings—just stirrings—in the legislatures of several other states.
Could the entry of the states into the monetary role be a reaction to a failure at the federal level, the way the states reacted to the failure of the Supreme Court to enforce Susette Kelo’s Fifth Amendment rights? It would be inaccurate to make too much of these efforts. But it would be shortsighted to make too little of them. Strange things can happen. It is even possible that one can take a cylinder of platinum and iridium, lock it away in a room under three glass domes, secure it with three separate keys, and come back in a few years to discover that part of it has disappeared. And the New York Times will write an editorial about the value of constancy.
This information is provided by Eddie Craig (a former deputy sheriff, and due process expert)
TO BE PRACTICED AND MEMORIZED!
If necessary, print this out and keep it in your car for easy reference, but it will more effective if you practice it and memorize it like you would for a part in a play. The more you practice the material the more easily it will come to mind when needed and the more effectively you can assert your rights and protect them.
ALWAYS carry one or more audio/video recording devices with you into the public world. Anytime you go out make sure you have them.Always make sure that they are always charged or have good batteries as necessary. The moment you suspect that you are going to have an encounter with some public servant/official, then, TURN THEM ON AND START RECORDING!
Having a pen and notepad of some kind readily available for taking notes is also recommended. Write down any names and badge numbers you receive and use them accordingly. It is also recommended that if you have a cell phone in addition to other recording devices, then, you ALSO call someone that can act as an audible witness to what is said during the encounter and possibly also record the conversation from their end as well. No matter what the officer says, DO NOT hang up the phone. If necessary, LIE about who you have on the phone!! Tell the officer that it is your legal counsel on the line and you will not comply with any of his/her demands without proper legal advice from your counsel.
There is no law against being on the phone during such an encounter, nor is there any legal basis for an officer to threaten you or demand that you disconnect your call during the encounter. The idiotic claim that such a demand is related to “officer safety” is not a plausible basis for such demand.
YOU must control the information exchange and your own emotional state. Stay calm, cool and collected. Talking slower works great for this type of situation.
Maintain your composure and speak in a calm and collected voice and manner at all times. Treat the officer with respect. You want the video evidence to show that if anyone lost self-control during the encounter it was the officer(s) and not you. It is also important that you ask anyone else that may be with you to remain silent and to say and do nothing except as described herein. If they are unfamiliar with these concepts and procedures then it would be a good idea for you to either educate them on these concepts and procedures or simply don’t have them with you. Someone else can get you into just as many problems as you can yourself if they say or do things other than as described herein.
While I am aware that there is the ability to say less just as effectively, I believe that we should be working toward ending these abuses and behavior by our public servants by making a record that would allow us to take action against those of them that refuse to honor and obey our rights, their oath of office, and the limits of their power and authority. This script is intended to assist you in making a viable record that can be used in a lawsuit against these public servants in state and federal court. If you can get THEM talking about the violations they are perpetrating and their knowing and willful intent to commit those violations, then, a jury is much more likely to find in your favor when the officer(s) stand condemned from their own mouths and recordings.
Dos and Don’ts:
Do remember that an officer is REQUIRED to read you your rights before questioning or searching you if they have placed you in a custodial arrest. In Texas you ARE ALWAYS in a custodial arrest when stopped for an alleged “traffic offense” (see Secs. 543.001-.009, Texas Transp. Code). The reading of your rights is a mandatory requirement that works in your favor unless/until you behave stupidly by talking voluntarily (sees Art. 38.22, Texas Code of Crim. Proc.). Be aware, however, they almost NEVER do this, meaning that anything incriminating that you may say or that they may find can be suppressed as an involuntary or coerced statement or illegal warrantless search and seizure. You should also be aware that the officer(s) is/are trained to lie about you being in a custodial arrest and will most likely say instead that you are in an “investigative detention.” If you are in Texas (and most other “states”), then understand that this is a TOTAL LIE! You almost always ARE in a full-blown custodial arrest (see Legal Equation illustration below).
Don’t EVER answer an officer’s questions. You have the right to remain “silent,” so USE IT!
However, being “silent” DOES NOT mean to suddenly become a DEAF MUTE! It simply means that you are NOT to provide ANY information or documents in response to the officer’s demands or questions.
Invoke your fundamentally protected right to remain “silent” and to assistance of counsel, and then simply refuse to waive them, which you will do if you comply with the officer’s demands.
The foremost thing to remember in these situations is to NOT engage the officer(s) in idle conversation, dialog, or chitchat. It is important that the ONLY things you say to the officer(s) are specifically directed at the reservation and protection of your fundamentally protected rights, and nothing else. This is known as my self-imposed rule of “invoke, demand, protect.” Once you have invoked these rights NEVER waive or abandon them by ignoring these recommended procedures.
Questions like “Where are you coming from?”, “Where are you going?”, “Who are you meeting?” have NOTHING to do with a “transportation stop.” They are used simply to get additional information that may allow the officer to continue his witch hunt and escalate the severity of the charge(s) he might make against you. Also, NEVER answer questions like “Do you know why I pulled you over?” or “Are you aware that you?”
STOP HELPING HIM SCREW YOU OVER! DON’T ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS! Remember the cardinal rule about talking freely, DON”T TALK, BE QUIET and when you have done that, SHUT UP SOME MORE!
Whatever you say CAN and WILL be used against you in a court of law, so SHUT UP unless you are doing or saying something specified in this script!
Do remember to roll up ALL of your windows and to lock your doors whenever you get pulled over, and don’t ever open them or get out. That being said, MY personal habit, on warm and sunny days, has always been to carefully but quickly exit the car (keeping my hands in plain view) BEFORE the officer can prevent me from doing so, while simultaneously locking my doors, throwing the keys into the front seat, and closing the door. Doing this removes the possibility of you having access to any form of weapon that may be inside the car and could be used to injure the officer(s). In this way the officer no longer has the legal ability or excuse to conduct a warrantless search of your car, even if they tow it. Remember to keep a spare door key in your wallet, pocket, or purse if you do this. However, if it is freezing cold and/or pouring down rain, remain in your car and let the officer stand outside for as long as he likes in order to conduct his unlawful and illegal witch hunt while you take your time in following this script.
Don’t EVER roll down more than one (1) window at a time if you remain in your car during the stop, no matter what the officer(s) tell you to do. This eliminates the possibility of an officer fabricating an opportunity to escalate the stop by saying that the resulting cross-breeze allowed him/her to smell something. If you must open a different window then is certain that you have closed all other windows before doing so.
Don’t EVER roll down your one open window more than half an inch, no matter what the officer(s) tell you to do, and for the same reasons as stated above. This also eliminates the possibility of the officer reaching in a grabbing you or opening up the door. On my car door above the window, it has a sign that says “No Trespassing”. Just say “I can hear you fine officer and I am most comfortable with the window at its current level, thank you.” “I like to tell them that is as far down as the window will go down.”
Don’t EVER provide an officer with any documents or other information that they demand. The legal ramifications to your fundamentally protected rights are devastating.
Don’t EVER give your consent to an officer to search your car for any reason. You are just asking to have incriminating evidence planted or discovered that could be used to criminally charge you, and it won’t matter if you knew it was there or not, YOU CONSENTED TO THE WARRANLTESS SEARCH!!
DON’T BE AN IDIOT! Don’t let them threaten or coerce you into waiving this right because it also attaches to the waiver of other important fundamental rights that are essential to your legal wellbeing.
Even if they threaten to have a canine unit report to the scene you must not waive this right. Tell the officer “I do not consent to being detained by you for any additional time or other purposes. Am I free to go or are you going to continue to illegally falsely imprison me beyond the time needed to conclude this stop?”
JUST SAY NO TO WARRANTLESS SEARCHES!
Officers will almost always insist that you are NOT under custodial arrest, but rather are simply being “detained” or are part of an “investigative detention.” This is a blatant lie most of the time. No officer has the authority to simply walk up and demand that you answer questions, produce ID, or provide them with your private information, verbally or otherwise. Be aware, however, that when you won’t submit and give them your information, their favorite tactic is to threaten to charge you with “Failure to Identify.” However, in Texas law (Sec. 38.02, Penal Code) you can be charged with “Failure to Identify”
ONLY if you have ALREADY been lawfully arrested for some other offense, or, you are being lawfully detained for questioning in a criminal investigation, and then ONLY under the following conditions and circumstances; in either case you are required to give ONLY your name, address, and DOB, nothing more; in the case of already being lawfully arrested for some other offense, you cannot refuse to provide these three things; in the case of being lawfully detained, you cannot provide false responses for these three things, but you CAN refuse to provide them at all. You can provide this information verbally (Texas). There is no law in Texas that requires that it be presented on some form of physical ID or document, nor could there be (anywhere USA) because there is not and cannot be a valid law that requires and compels a private individual to obtain and carry a state or federally issued form of ID.
WARNING! It is of the utmost importance that you understand the true nature and purpose of a “transportation” stop.The goal of every enforcement officer nationwide is to create a situation that culminates in one of two scenarios:
This is ALWAYS the goal. It is NEVER about “public safety.”
It is always about maximizing the potential charges against an individual and the revenue that a conviction on those charges generates. STOP HELPING “THEM” SET YOU UP FOR A FALL!
Also, DO NOT attempt to “educate” the officer(s) about what they can and cannot do or the law associated with “transportation” or the Code of Criminal Procedure. Register your verbal objection to their actions for the record by following the procedures below. Napoleon had it right when he said “Never interrupt your enemy while he is busy making mistakes.” Learn from this wisdom or you WILL make your own “fatal mistakes.”
Once you know the officer(s) name(s) and badge number(s) use them both together as often as practicable as shown in these procedures. Make him/them aware that they are being directly associated with any unlawful and illegal acts or violations of your fundamentally protected rights in which they might otherwise engage during this encounter. While it is not fatal to the situation if you fail to do so, it is relatively important that you try to do things in the order and verbiage presented below.
REMINDER: It is important that the only things you say to the officer(s) are specifically directed at the reservation and protection of your fundamentally protected rights and nothing else. Once you have invoked your rights NEVER waive or abandon them by ignoring the recommended procedures listed above and below.
Simply repeat the verbiage in items 1 & 2 as necessary for each new officer you speak with.
NOTE: Sub-items 2(a)-(c) are optional, but are also potentially useful during the discovery process if the claim is made later that the officer’s equipment was “malfunctioning” during the encounter. Bear in mind that these questions and statements by you are VERY important to the record you are trying to build, try to remember this and use them accordingly.
1) For the record, may I get your name and badge number please?
2) Officer _____________ Badge/ID # ________, is there a recording being made of this encounter?
a. Is that recording comprised of both audio and video?
b. Are you relatively certain that your recording equipment is functioning properly for the purposes of making this recording?
c. Is your body microphone and camera, if any, turned on and functioning properly to the best of your knowledge?
3) Officer _____________ Badge/ID # ________, I can see that you have your emergency lights on: What is the Emergency?
Officer _____________ Badge/ID # ________, Answer__________ is that an emergency? If he doesn’t want to answer: “do I have the right to knowing what is going on here”?
Officer _____________ Badge/ID # ________, do you see the “No Trespassing” afixed to my conveyance /property? Do you UNDERSTAND What does “No Trespassing” means? Y/N would you explain that for the court on the record?
Officer _____________ Badge/ID # ________,do you see the “No Riders” afixed to my conveyance /property? Do you UNDERSTAND What does “No Riders” means? Y/N __________. Would you explain that for the court on the record?
Officer _____________ Badge/ID # ________, do you see the “Not for Hire” afixed to my conveyance /property? Do you UNDERSTAND What does “Not for Hire” means? Y/N _______would you explain that for the court on the record?
Officer _____________ Badge/ID # ________, “Am I FREE TO GO?”
4) Officer _____________ Badge/ID # ________, what facts or information are you alleging gave you probable cause to stop See and accost me?
5) Officer _____________ Badge/ID # ________, do you have a properly signed and issued warrant authorizing you to search me or my property?
a. (IF YES) Officer _____________ Badge/ID # ________, do you currently have that alleged warrant in your possession, if so I would like to see it please? t
6) Officer _____________ Badge/ID # ________, do you have a properly signed and issued warrant of arrest that accurately describes or names me as the person to be arrested?
a. (IF YES) Officer _____________ Badge/ID # ________, do you currently have that alleged warrant in your possession, if so I would like to see it please?
7) For the record, I am not “operating” in a “for hire” capacity by engaging in any form of “transportation” or other commercial use of the highways. Officer _____________ Badge/ID # ________, please acknowledge that you have been so informed.
8) Officer _____________ Badge/ID # ________, am I under custodial arrest?
9) If I am not under custodial arrest then am I free to go?
10) Officer _____________ Badge/ID # ________, what is the articulable probable cause that leads you to believe that I have committed or am about to commit a crime that authorizes you to stop and detain or arrest me? Y/N______________ “Am I Free to GO”?
11) For the record Officer _____________ Badge/ID # ________, in order to protect my rights and not waive any by error or accident, I wish to clarify my legal understanding of the situation:
a. You said that I am not free to go, so I must conclude that I am in a custodial arrest and not simply an investigative detention.
b. Therefore, I am invoking all of my fundamentally protected rights, including my right to remain silent and my right to assistance of counsel.
c. From this point forward I do not consent to providing you with any information or documents that could or will be used against me in a court of law or to possibly incriminate me, so please do not ask me to produce anything and give it to you.
d. From this point forward please do not ask me to answer any questions or to perform any form of test relating to any matter whatsoever without my attorney present.
e. Officer _____________ Badge/ID # ________, do you intend to harm, injure, or punish me by any method of assault, arrest and/or incarceration because I have invoked these fundamentally protected rights? Y/N______________ “Am I Free to GO”?
Understand this, when you refuse to produce the demanded documents or to answer any questions, the
officer is going to begin to get upset and continuously state that “… the law REQUIRES that you produce a
driver’s license and other information on demand of a law enforcement officer.” They are also prone to
falsely accusing you of obstructing or interfering with a public duty/officer or just outright threatening to
commit acts of violence against you and/or your property. DON’T FALL FOR THIS, IT IS A SCARE
TACTIC! Invoking and refusing to waive your fundamental rights is not and cannot be converted into a crime.
And if they DO arrest and charge you falsely for interfering/obstructing then you get to sue the crap out of
them. Just remember, when the officer(s) continue to demand that you produce a license, registration, proof
of financial responsibility, or any other information or document(s), despite their threats, repeat the following
12) For the record Officer _____________ Badge/ID # ________, no law is valid if it requires me in any way to waive any fundamentally protected right in order to exercise any other right or alleged privilege. And no law can convert the free exercise of any right into a crime. I have repeatedly informed you that I choose not to waive any of my fundamentally protected rights.
13) So, I ask you again Officer _____________ Badge/ID # ________, do you intend to harm, injure, steal my property, or otherwise punish me for invoking my fundamentally protected rights? Y/N______________ “Am I Free to GO”?
Officer _____________ Badge/ID # ________, do you understand when you violate my civil rights, you are operating outside your oath of office and you lose your personal immunity? Y/N______________ “Am I Free to GO”?
Officer _____________ Badge/ID # ________, do you understand when you violate 18 USC 241-242, the penalty is 10 years in prison? Y/N______________ “Am I Free to GO”?
WARNING: Be prepared for the officer to do or threaten precisely that, and they usually start by threatening you with all manner of unpleasantries, including falsified criminal charges. You only need to use sub-item “a” once on the first officer that threatens you. When s/he/they begin(s) to do so, state the following:
a. Officer _____________ Badge/ID # ________, due to your attitude, demeanor, and your continuous threats to falsify charges and commit acts of violence against me and my property while displaying a deadly weapon, I feel physically threatened and in fear for my life. I demand that you cease and desist and request the immediate presence of a supervisor. I do not consent to any of your actions, the use of force against me or my property, or to being forced to exit my car for any purpose, especially so that you may attempt to steal my property and/or assault, injure or kill me.
14) Officer _____________ Badge/ID # ________, you are fully aware that I have already invoked my fundamentally protected right to remain silent and my right to assistance of counsel. Do you intend to continue in your unlawful efforts to violate my rights?
a. It is my belief that the information you are demanding may possibly be used against me in a court of law or in an attempt to incriminate me.
b. And if that is so, then, upon the advice of legal counsel I must respectfully decline to provide you with any information or evidence that possibly can or would be used against me for those purposes.
15) Officer _____________ Badge/ID # ________, I am asking you again, do you intend to continue to deny me in my rights and to falsely imprison me or am I free to go?
WARNING: Be certain to keep your face as far away from the window opening as possible while sitting normally. Never exhale or speak directly into the opening or toward the officer(s) face(s). Doing so will almost certainly result in the following scenario. Read the Do’s and Don’ts to better understand why.
If the officer makes any statement making a direct accusation against you or directed toward escalating the stop to the status of a DUI or drug bust situation, and they almost certainly will, you MUST be prepared to rebut it INSTANTLY. If any officer makes ANY statement resembling either of the following, BEWARE and immediately respond accordingly!!
OFFICER: “Sir/Ma’am, I smell alcohol/marijuana and I am going to have to ask you to step out of the vehicle.”; or
“Sir/Ma’am, are you aware that you ( allegedly did something ) and I am going to have to ask you to step out of the vehicle.” (Be sure that s/he IS lying in this case.)
16) YOU: Officer _____________ Badge/ID # ________, your statement is patently false and an outright lie. Are you now trying to fabricate probable cause by making false statements into the record and false allegations against me?
a. Even if they threaten to have a canine unit report to the scene or to break out your windows you must not waive your fundamentally protected rights out of fear. Tell the officer “I do not consent to being detained for any additional time or other purposes. Am I free to go or are you going to continue to illegally terrorize, threaten and falsely imprison me beyond the time needed to conclude this alleged “transportation stop?”
b. Repeat steps 12 – 16a as required for each new or continued demand or threat imposed by the officer(s).
This information is brought to you by: Eddie Craig Co-host on Rule of Law Radio (www.ruleoflawradio.com& www.logosradionetwork.com) Eddie Craig will soon be launching a brand new site geared toward publicizing and organizing the efforts of the patriot community groups and organizations. The site will be called www.taooflaw.com. Go on Facebook to learn more. Search for “Tao Law” and make a friend request. You can also go directly to the site launch info page by searching for “Tao of Law” and reading up on what the site will provide as tools, resources, and features to its members and users. Be aware that this information is always evolving out of necessity. Watch the version number in the upper right-hand corner to see which one you are using. Always try to use the latest version. Go to http://www.logosradionetwork.com/tao/ for a preview of what the site will have to offer the American patriot community.
Disclaimer: The materials available on this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the authors. Use of this website or providing information to the email address provided does not constitute legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please be advised that this is exclusively a Pro Se support system in which you are expected to represent yourself. All sales are final.
State Department Claims Export Control Violations.
The battle of dangerous digital shapes has just begun!
Andy Greenberg Forbes Staff
On Thursday, Defense Distributed founder Cody Wilson received a letter from the State Department Office of Defense Trade Controls Compliance demanding that he take down the online blueprints for the 3D-printable “Liberator” handgun that his group released Monday, along with nine other 3D-printable firearms components hosted on the group’s website Defcad.org. The government says it wants to review the files for compliance with arms export control laws known as the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, or ITAR. By uploading the weapons files to the Internet and allowing them to be downloaded abroad, the letter implies Wilson’s high-tech gun group may have violated those export controls.
“Until the Department provides Defense Distributed with final [commodity jurisdiction] determinations, Defense Distributed should treat the above technical data as ITAR-controlled,” reads the letter, referring to a list of ten CAD files hosted on Defcad that include the 3D-printable gun, silencers, sights and other pieces. “This means that all data should be removed from public acces immediately. Defense Distributed should review the remainder of the data made public on its website to determine whether any other data may be similarly controlled and proceed according to ITAR requirements.”
Wilson, a law student at the University of Texas in Austin, says that Defense Distributed will in fact take down its files until the State Department has completed its review. “We have to comply,” he says. “All such data should be removed from public access, the letter says. That might be an impossible standard. But we’ll do our part to remove it from our servers.”
As Wilson hints, that doesn’t mean the government has successfully censored the 3D-printable gun. While Defense Distributed says it will take down the gun’s printable file from Defcad.org, its downloads–100,000 in just the first two days the file was online–were actually being served by Mega, the New Zealand-based storage service created by ex-hacker entrepreneur Kim Dotcom, an outspoken U.S. government critic. It’s not clear whether the file will be taken off Mega’s servers, where it may remain available for download. The blueprint for the gun and other Defense Distributed firearm components have also been uploaded several times to the Pirate Bay, the censorship-resistant filesharing site.
Wilson argues that he’s also legally protected. He says Defense Distributed is excluded from the ITAR regulations under an exemption for non-profit public domain releases of technical files designed to create a safe harbor for research and other public interest activities. That exemption, he says, would require Defense Distributed’s files to be stored in a library or sold in a bookstore. Wilson argues that Internet access at a library should qualify under ITAR’s statutes, and says that Defcad’s files have also been made available for sale in an Austin, Texas bookstore that he declined to name in order to protect the bookstore’s owner from scrutiny.
Despite taking down his files, Wilson doesn’t see the government’s attempts to censor the Liberator’s blueprints as a defeat. On the contrary, Defense Distributed’s radical libertarian and anarchist founder says he’s been seeking to highlight exactly this issue, that a 3D-printable gun can’t be stopped from spreading around the global Internet no matter what legal measures governments take. “This is the conversation I want,” Wilson says. “Is this a workable regulatory regime? Can there be defense trade control in the era of the Internet and 3D printing?”
Wilson compares his new legal troubles to the widely-followed case in the mid-1990s of Philip Zimmermann, the inventor of the cryptographic software PGP, who was threatened with indictment under ITAR for putting his military-grade encryption software online. “It’s PGP all over again,” says Wilson.
In Zimmermann’s case, much of the technology community was outraged that PGP’s inventor was being treated as if he were selling bombs or missiles to a foreign regime when he had simply put a powerful piece of privacy software on the Internet. That public support is widely thought to have influenced the State Department decision in 1996 to drop its case against him.
In this case, by contrast, Cody Wilson is literally an arms manufacturer. But whether the government will have any more luck in controlling the spread of his invention remains to be seen.
I’ll provide updates as this story develops.
Correction: In an earlier version of this story I described Wilson as an “arms distributor.” In fact, he’s an arms manufacturer, while Defense Distributed is a software distributing non-profit. Since Defense Distributed–not Wilson himself–is the target of the State Department’s query, that may be an important distinction.
Update: Here’s the full text of the letter.
United States Department of State
Bureau of Political-Military Affairs
Offense of Defense Trade Controls Compliance
May 08, 2013
In reply letter to DTCC Case: 13-0001444
[Cody Wilson’s address redacted]
Dear Mr. Wilson,
The Department of State, Bureau of Political Military Affairs, Office of Defense Trade Controls Compliance, Enforcement Division (DTCC/END) is responsible for compliance with and civil enforcement of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778) (AECA) and the AECA’s implementing regulations, the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (22 C.F.R. Parts 120-130) (ITAR). The AECA and the ITAR impose certain requirements and restrictions on the transfer of, and access to, controlled defense articles and related technical data designated by the United States Munitions List (USML) (22 C.F.R. Part 121).
The DTCC/END is conducting a review of technical data made publicly available by Defense Distributed through its 3D printing website, DEFCAD.org, the majority of which appear to be related to items in Category I of the USML. Defense Distributed may have released ITAR-controlled technical data without the required prior authorization from the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC), a violation of the ITAR.
Technical data regulated under the ITAR refers to information required for the design, development, production, manufacture, assembly, operation, repair, testing, maintenance or modification of defense articles, including information in the form of blueprints, drawings, photographs, plans, instructions or documentation. For a complete definition of technical data, see 120.10 of the ITAR. Pursuant to 127.1 of the ITAR, it is unlawful to export any defense article or technical data for which a license or written approval is required without first obtaining the required authorization from the DDTC. Please note that disclosing (including oral or visual disclosure) or tranferring technical data to a foreign person, whether in the United States or abroad, is considered an export under 120.17 of the ITAR.
The Department believes Defense Distributed may not have established the proper jurisdiction of the subject technical data. To resolve this matter officially, we request that Defense Distributed submit Commodity Jurisdiction (CJ) determination requests for the following selection of data files available on DEFCAD.org, and any other technical data for which Defense Distributed is unable to determine proper jurisdiction:
Defense Distributed Liberator pistol
125mm BK-14M high-explosive anti-tank warhead
5.56/.223 muzzle brake
Springfield XD-40 tactical slide assembly
Sound Moderator – slip on
“The Dirty Diane” 1/2-28 to 3/4-16 STP S3600 oil filter silencer adapter
12 gauge to .22 CB sub-caliber insert
Voltlock electronic black powder system
DTCC/END requests that Defense Distributed submits its CJ requests within three weeks of the receipt of this letter and notify this office of the final CJ determinations. All CJ requests must be submitted electronically through an online application using the DS-4076 Commodity Jurisdiction Request Form. The form, guidance for submitting CJ requests, and other relevant information such as a copy of the ITAR can be found on DDTC’s website at http://www.pmddtc.state.gov.
Until the Department provides Defense Distributed with the final CJ determinations, Defense Distributed should treat the above technical data as ITAR-controlled. This means that all such data should be removed from public access immediately. Defense Distributed should also review the remainder of the data made public on its website to determine whether any additional data may be similarly controlled and proceed according to ITAR requirements.
Additionally, DTCC/END requests information about the procedures Defense Distributed follows to determine the classification of its technical data, to include aforementioned technical data files. We ask that you provide your procedures for determining proper jurisdiction of technical data within 30 days of the date of this letter to Ms. Bridget Van Buren, Compliance Specialist, Enforcement Division, at the address below.
Office of Defense Trade Controls Compliance
PM/DTCC, SA-1, Room L132
2401 E Street, NW
Washington, DC 20522
We appreciate your full cooperation in this matter. Please note our reference number in any future correspondence.
This is a great entertaining and educational video on the last 100 year history of oil by comedian Rob Newman. So far my research has corroborated with his information 100%. Every single fact. Your going to enjoy it!
This video is a fantastic video of a stand-up comedy performance/history lesson. I promise you you’ll be amazed and highly entertained. It’s 45 minutes long and you won’t want to miss a second of it.]
A century of history defining exactly why we (US & UK) are currently at war in Iraq. Make no mistake people… It has nothing to do with anything ever spoken aloud on MSM or by any US Politicians. In fact it flies in the face of everything that was spoken aloud in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq.
Tucson Arizona Jose Guerena, marine with 2 tours of duty in Iraq gunned down in cold blood by BORG agents in his castle. The victim had a wife, Vanessa Guerena and 2 sons one 4 the other 6. Only one of his family members, his 6 year old son, did not suffer the trauma from being at the scene where his father was executed.
As the MURDERING gang known in some circles as SWAT forced its way into his home, Guerena, a former Marine who served two tours of duty in Iraq, armed himself with his AR-15 rifle and told his wife and son to hide in a closet. As the gang members entered, the perpetrators said that “Guerena confronted them from a hallway”. In the gangland shooting the thugs, shot 26 year old Guerena with more than 70 rounds in about 7 seconds, at least 60 of which struck Guerena. He was pronounced dead a little over an hour later.
The BORG Gang known as “the Pima County Sheriff’s Department” lied (PDF) in their statement saying, “Guerena fired his weapon at the SWAT team”. They have changed their story acknowledge that not only did he not fire, the safety on his gun was still activated when he was murdered. Guerena had no prior criminal record, and the gang of thugs found nothing illegal in his home. The MAFIA gangsters’ police state records show they refused to allow paramedics give medical attention to Guerena for more than hour, leaving the young father to bleed to death, alone, in his own home.
BORG Agent (District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department Chief) Cathy Lanier says she will arrest Adam Kokesh and any other individual (Dirt Bag, Enemy, Terrorist, Protester, Uppity Slave,and never seen a Nigger on a horse before!) who violate the district’s gun laws. Actually she probably won’t be the one doing the arresting. She will likely delegate that supposed authority to subordinates, who are likely larger, meaner BORG Agents /Thugs. In the interview Cathy states it’s ok to do civil disobedience, as long as you don’t break the laws that threaten her or her masters. My question is how can you be disobedient unless you break a law. Duh!
What is the LAW
“Passing into the District of Columbia with loaded firearms is a violation of the law and we’ll have to treat it as such,” she told NewsChannel 8. That’s Interesting that the Bill of Rights states clearly:
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
What does the word “SHALL” mean?
As used in statutes and similar instruments, this word is generally imperative or mandatory; but it may be construed as merely permissive or directory, (as equivalent to “may,”) to carry out the legislative intention and In cases where no right or benefit to any one depends on its being taken in the imperative sense, and where no public or private right is impaired by its interpretation in the other sense. Also, as against the government, “shall” is to be construed as “may,” unless a contrary intention is manifest. See Wheeler v. Chicago, 24 111. 105, 76 Am. Dec. 736; People v. Chicago Sanitary Dist., 184 111. 597, 56 N. E. 9.”.:;: Madison v. Daley (C. C.) 58 Fed. 753; Cairo & F. R. Co. v. Ilecht, 95 U. S. 170, 24 L. Ed. 423. SHAM PLEA. See PLEA. SHARE 1082 SHERIFF
A breaking into; a trespass or encroachment upon; a violation of a law, regulation, contract, or right. Used especially of invasions of the rights secured by patents, copyrights, and trademarks. Goodyear Shoe Machinery Co. v. Jackson, 112 Fed. 140, 50 C. C. A. 159, 55 L. R. A. 092; Thomson-Houston Electric Co. v. Ohio Brass Co., 80 Fed. 721, 20 C. C. A. 107.
Hmmm, let’s make sure I got this straight, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be trespassed or encroached upon. Wait a second, do BORG Agents (cops), in that area have guns (arms), I bet they do! So, somewhere the is this thing called the “SUPREME LAW” stating very clearly, “the PEOPLE’s right to keep and bear arms SHALL not be infringed. We the PEOPLE are being THREATENED with ARREST by BORG Agents (cops), who don’t have the any rights, especially the right to keep and bear arms. These BORG agents are going to violate their oath of office by arresting PEOPLE who are being non violent? Well there is a critical step here, the BORG Agents, get PAID in Federal Reserve Notes, by the government and do whatever a whacked out psychopath tells them to do. The Bill of Rights, doesn’t have any Federal Reserve Notes. Too Bad…so Sad.
After their arrest, the PEOPLE, will go to a BORG administration hearing (Court). Is the BORG administration officer is going to rule in favor of the the PEOPLE? Wrong! they will rule in favor of the BORG. Guess what? The BORG administration officer, also gets paid in Federal Reserve Notes, as well. Now, I get it!
Adam could be wants to take this issue up with the supreme court. I sure hope you got a plan. These BORG doesn’t like feedback, and the feedback of you and 10,000 others carrying a gun, they really dont like that.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Adam Kokesh plans to have 10,000 open carry activists march on the Capitol. Over 2,000 have so far pledged on Kokesh’s Facebook page to attend the July 4th event. Adam appeared on the Alex Jones Show on Monday to explain the march.
IRS to Spy on Our Shopping Records, Travel, Social Interactions, Health Records and Files from Other Government Spies.
U.S. News and World Report notes today:the IRS tools will be able to track all credit card transactions, for starters. The agency has also instructed agents on using online sources such as social media and e-commerce sites including eBay, as well as the rich data generated by mobile devices. In one controversial disclosure in April, the ACLU showed documents in which the IRS general counsel said the agency could look at emails without warrants, but the IRS has said it will not use this power.
While the agency has declined to give details about what third-party personal data it will use in robo-audits and data mining, it has told government and industry groups that its computers are capable of scanning multiple networks at the same time to collect “matching” comprehensive profiles for every taxpayer in America. Such profiles will likely include shopping records, travel, social interactions and information not available to the public, such as health records and files from other government investigators, according to IRS documents.