The International Commission on Nobility and Royalty
Disclaimer: These articles are a public service. The author's opinions are their own. They do not necessarily reflect the opinions of The International Commission on Nobility and Royalty. But we highly recommend them in general as they promote what we feel is highly valuable and worthwhile.
© Copyright 2005/2009
The International Commission on Nobility and Royalty
Sources of Corruption in Government: The Need for Checks and Balances, Part One
Books and DVDs:
Murray N. Rothbard, of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, declared:
Throughout history, states have existed as instruments for organized predation and exploitation. It doesn't much matter which group of people happen to gain control of the State at any given time, whether it be . . . despots, kings, landlords, privileged merchants, army officers, or Communist parties. The result is everywhere and always the coercive mulcting [stifling] of the mass of the producers — in most centuries, of course, largely the peasantry — by a ruling class of dominant rulers and their hired professional bureaucracy. Generally, the State has its inception in naked banditry and conquest. . . .
In the words of Chuck Baldwin:
As a general rule, government is the most violent force on the planet. If one wants to get a true perspective on the historical record regarding who or what routinely produces the most violence and death, one should pick up a copy of R. J. Rummel's book, "Death By Government." Since the end of World War II, Communist China and Red Russia lead the pack when it comes to death and brutality; however, the US government has inflicted its share of carnage as well. For example, in Iraq and Afghanistan alone, the government in Washington, D.C., has killed over 800,000 civilians (and this figure is a conservative estimate noting the most credible resources possible).
Government is serious business and it is dangerous. It must be controlled and limited.
If we fail to learn from the past, we are condemned to repeat it, that is, to make the same mistakes over and over again. To grow and improve, or make headway as human beings, we need to learn some of the most important lessons of life and state craft.
Democracies and/or Republics unfortunately promote a great deal of graft, corruption and secret crimes that could be eliminated and derailed merely by identifying the ways in which this kind of treachery normally takes place and instituting laws to correct them and/or prevent their development.
The constant hidden threat of the misuse of power and corruption in government must be recognized as a very real and persistent enemy. Thomas Jeffereson observed, "Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.
) Those who would force things must be curtailed. Government, after all, provides some of the greatest temptations known to mankind, which is the very reason why checks and balances
are essential and fundamental to good government. And this includes instituting a constitutional monarchy
with ultimate residual power in case of emergencies and a veto power over laws up to four years after they have been instituted in order to easily eliminate foolish or detrimental ideas that have proven to be harmful to the nation. (See the articles "Ideals
" and "Advantages
" as well as the article "Briefly, the Benefits of Constitutional Monarchy.
The following are areas of great concern, which have been identified because they have caused much harm, anguish and oppression through the years. They should be thwarted by law or constitutional amendments to protect future generations and safeguard the precious principles of freedom and prosperity.
Many of the hard lessons come from failures experience within the United States Government and the corrupting forces therein that want to misuse government power to loot and pillage and satisfy their insatiable greed at the expense of others. The lessons are applicable to all nations wanting the ideal and to have the very best for their citizens.
Please do not consider the following to be in order of importance or severity. It is merely a list of important issues that promote, maintain and perpetuate the misuse of coercive government powers to their own selfish ends. Principles must never be compromised. As Thomas Jefferson declared, "In matters of taste, swim with the current, in matters of principles, stand like a rock.
) One of the biggest problems we have is that elected representatives put politics and their own reelection bids ahead of principles. That means big corporations, lobbysts and big money interests can control the enormous powers of government to the detriment of society. Dwight David Eisenhower remarked that “A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both.
_privileges_above_its/10640.html) Nothing great is built upon filth or weakness or greed unless it is at the expense of others and the ruin or robbery of society.
Many of the principles and answers to overcome the corruption that so easily befalls most governments are listed below. Click on any one of the following that may be of interest to you, but consider deeply the important concepts behind them, which serve as a foundation and must undergird all effective laws. Freedom must always be the guiding star, not power and control to effect the greatest good and benefit to mankind.
21. The Poor
23. Guns and Ammunition
24. Abuse of the Food Supply
25. Vaccines and Pandemics
26. Alcohol and Drugs
30. World Government
31. Inviolability of the Constitution
Conclusion and Summary
The Ways of Corruption versus Freedom and Prosperity
usurp legislative law. This is called "judicial imperialism
" or "judicial fiat.
" It is where the sovereignty of the people are undermined and taken over by a rouge court, which seeks to change policy or override the legislatures. A recent example, is where the Supreme Court of California declared that it was unconstitutional to deny gay marriages in May of 2008. The high court declared that the denial of gay marriages
"violates the Constitution.
" The problem here is that "The Court ... has improperly set itself up as ... a superlegislature ... reading into the Constitution words and implications which are not there, and which were never intended to be there.
" This statement was made by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on the Supreme Court in his day, but which applies to the current situation and is from an enlightening article by Stuart Taylor Jr. (www.nationaljournal.com
) It is inconceivable, but this abuse of legal authority used very ". . . vague constitutional phrases such as ‘equal protection’ a right to judicial invalidation of the marriage laws of every state and nation in the history of civilization.
(Ibid.) To say that the denial of gay marriages "violates the Constitution
" was "a deeply disingenuous dodge, if not a bald-faced lie, to conceal from gullible voters the fact that the decision was a raw exercise in judicial policy-making with no connection to the words or intent of the state constitution
"(Ibid.) The author concluded that rules made by judicial fiat is an affront to democracy especially when they use "made-up constitutional law.
" He wrote:
Judicial power to override the deeply felt values of popular majorities should be used sparingly, to enforce clear constitutional commands or redress great injustices, not deployed whenever the judges think they can improve on the work of the elected branches. . . . I am concerned about the gradual, relentless strangulation of Abraham Lincoln's vision of ours as a ‘government of the people, by the people, for the people,’ by judges who see constitutions not as binding law but as invitations for judicial rule.
Unfortunately, in the hands of the Supreme Court of the country or any other federal or state court, the Constitution simply does not exist anymore and can be ignored anytime the justices wish to force their personal moral values on all American citizens. This abuse of power is called "judicial activism." It is usurpation and a criminal act.
An inside look at the Supreme Court Closed Chambers by one of its former law clerks Ed Lazarus came out in 1998. He writes: justices "resort to transparently deceitful and hypocritical arguments and factual distortions as they discard judicial philosophy . . . in favor of bottom-line results."
This is not the proper role of Courts, and laws need to be made to stop judicial usurpation and knavery. Chief Justice Marshall in Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat, 264, 404 made it clear that to go beyond the Constitution is a punishable crime. It is an act of "treason to the Constitution.
" Why, because:
Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid, but we cannot avoid them . . . We have no more right to decline the exercise of [all constitutional] jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given [in the constitution]. The one or the other would be treason to the Constitution [the greatest crime].
Example, if a president or candidate for the presidency of the United States refused to prove he is a "natural born citizen,
" shamefully hides his background and all things that could prove the truth, and a complaint is made to the Supreme Court and they refused to hear the argument, then they have violated their role and sacred oaths to defend the Constitution and the rule of law. If such should ever happen, the Supreme Court justices should be tried for treason against the United States. If the guardians of the Constitution do not do their sworn duty, it has got to be the highest, the most serious offense possible. It is to betray the very reason for their existence. See the subchapter: "Inviolability of the Constitution
To prevent the Supreme Court, or any other court, from creating new laws, they should be required to citing case law, common law, the Federalist Papers, the Constitution, etc., as authority for their decisions to prevent them from making new sinister laws as was done with Roe v. Wade,
which has resulted in the abortions amounting to the wholesale slaughter of over 50 million developing human beings. According to the United States 10th Amendment, this should have been left up to the States or the people on lower levels of government. The Supreme Court should have ruled according to the Constitution, not commit acts of obvious usurpation by going beyond the bounds of its authority.
The following is a summary from an article written by Timothy Baldwin, JD (September 1, 2009) entitled “The Marbury v. Madison Mantra.
” It is about why the States and the People and not the U.S. Supreme Court is the “final arbitrator
” of the U.S. Constitution. It consists of paraphrasing, direct quotes, slightly changed quotes, explanations and interpretations from his writings. (Please see: www.chuckbaldwinlive.com
So, as the age-old question has gone: who determines whether or not the federal government has usurped power from the people of the states and from the State governments? The Marbury v. Madison (1803) believers are likely jumping up and down right now, raising their hands, saying, "Oh! Pick me! Pick me! I know! I know!" I can just see smirks on the faces of most ABA-law school graduates as they condemn anyone who would advocate another position to be true which is contrary to what Marshall presupposed to be true. Of course, their rationale goes as deep as a kiddy-pool and their thought process as far as an inner-city driveway. There is no depth to their conclusions.
There is no depth or any deep understanding to their conclusions. The problem is not only did Chief Justice Marshal based his decision on a false premise (that the U.S. Constitution was created by the people, instead of the decision of thirteen sovereign States), but the case itself had nothing to do with whether the States can, or cannot assert, their own natural sovereign right of self-defense against an oppressive and out of control Federal government. In other words, the statement was nothing more than a dicta, which has little or no weight or authority.
In other words, the arguments against the power of the States in stopping federal tyranny are philosophical (just an ideal) --- they are not legal or authoritative. That is, Marshall's opinion does not equate to the "supreme law of the land
" which the states and individuals are bound to obey.
The legal basis is the “Ten Amendment,” which makes everything clear, in black and white, so that no one can misunderstand, that the States have more than enough power, which was created by design, to be another check on the Federal government. No matter whether Federal misuse of power comes from the judicial, legislative or executive branch, abuse and oppression is tyranny, and it is not to be tolerated or accepted anymore than forced servitude or slavery is to be. (Ibid.)
The point is, neither Marshall nor any other U.S. Supreme Court has ever stated that they are the “final arbiter of the U.S. Constitution.
” In fact, Marshall admits in Marbury v. Madison that "questions [that are] in their nature political . . . CAN NEVER BE MADE IN THIS COURT.
" (Emphasis added) Issues of State sovereignty are in their nature political, just as a treaty between the USA and foreign countries is a matter of political sovereignty, not judicial sovereignty. “Therefore, when our states begin to assert their natural and sovereign right of self-defense against federal tyranny, each State will answer to their sovereign --- the people --- and NOT to the United States Supreme Court.
” (Ibid.) (See: "Nulification of Federal, Laws, Statutes or Regulations"
and "Inviolability of the Constitution"
. Presidential or "Executive Orders
" override checks and balances and therefore
subverts the separation of powers so needed to stop corruption. The president or prime minister simply declares, anything he is particularly interested in, an "emergency
" and then issues orders bypassing the legislature. Using the words of Baron de Montesquieu (1689-1755), James Madison warned that "There can be no liberty [in the long-run] where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or body of magistrates.
) In such a system there is nothing to stop breaches of justice, good faith and good common sense. And most importantly, "if you compromise with evil, evil always wins,"
and everything right and good must take a backseat to it in value and importance. The answer: By law, allow nothing to be called an "emergency
" unless it sustained by congress or parliament within 90 days. If it is not sustained, then the so-called emergency
fails and the "executive order
" would then become null and void. This could be established in law as binding on all parties unless the legislature cannot be consulted, because we are in the middle of a war or are under attack.
Executive power must have the necessary checks and balances to keep it from undermining freedom. Thomas Jefferson said it well when he wrote, "The way to have good and safe government, is not to trust it all to one, but to divide it[s] [powers] among the many . . . . What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government which has ever existed under the sun? The generalizing and concentrating all cares and powers into one body.
" (Works 6:543; P.P.N.S., p. 125) The executive branch must be curtailed and held in check like any other division of government. This is the safe and intelligent way to operate and can protect us from dictatorship. Winston Churchill said is well in 1943:
The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgment of his peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist.
Such a person with such great power could order that all people who are unproductive, according to his definition of who is or is not useless, should be euthanized, killed or eliminated. Then he could round up all those who disagree with him politically and use police power to destroy them.
It is one of the most serious acts of corruption and stupidity to place in the hands of one man a lot of unneccessary power --- it is not right for a monarch, a dictator or a mob. The violation of Executive Order is most repugnant to a free, transparent and honest society
that values freedom and basic human rights.
3. Bureaucratic rules and regulations
or mandates present another very real threat. In fact, any scheme which allows or permits anyone other than the legislature to make laws is an act of usurpation. No rule or mandate promulgated by a bureaucracy should be allowed to become law or have consequences similar to law unless they are sustained and supported by a majority vote of the duly elected lawmakers in both houses. Otherwise, the safeguards to freedom are stifled, weakened and compromised. This is serious business, because the precious principle of freedom is at stake.
Three hundred years ago, John Locke explained that, "The end of law is not to abolish or restrain [freedom], but to preserve and enlarge [and if possible expand] freedom.
) Every rule or law must be judged on that basis. In other words, will this mandate promote crime and corruption or will it enhance fairness, equity and safety? Special interest groups love rules and laws that favor them and their cause rather than what is good for others or what is in the best interests of society as a whole. They crave the privilege of having monopolies set up by giving lavish contributions to legislators and gifts, sometimes through hidden means, to candidates or other power brokers
who then owe them favors. In other words, they buy up legislators and others people in power to get their way through election contributions, which is why the following is one of the biggest sources of corruption in government --- the big money temptation. It is the father of all kinds of legalized robbery and wrongs and a terrible threat to everything we hold near and dear. Entrepreneurism or enterprise is the bread and butter of any nation. Stifle it and strangle it with stupid oppressive rules and regulations and you kill the backbone of what creates wealth and prosperity in any nation.
One of the hallmark characteristics of contemporary big government is the expansion of regulators and regulatory agencies, which get in the way of honorable businesses by creating more and more red tape and multiply wasteful and unnecessary mandates. But one of the worst things in that these congressional creations literally make laws (regulations), they prosecute people who allegedly have transgressed by holding administrative hearings, then they impose horrific forfeitures and fines. There is inherent corruption and abuse in this kind of system. It promotes it. John Adams warned about this kind of dangerous arrangement where there is an unholy alliance and irresponsible union between legislative, executive, and judicial powers in the
hands of a single organization. He said, “[A] single assembly, possessed of all the powers of government, would make arbitrary laws for their own interest, execute all laws arbitrarily for their own interest, and adjudge all controversies in their own favor.
” "That, in a nut shell, is the problem with the modern administrative state and why it so often tyrannical rather than just,
" declared Jonathan Emord in a recent article. (www.newswithviews
In other words, combining these powers in one group is asking for malicious abuse and wrongs to be perpetrated. Dr. Emord explained:
Under the system envisioned by our founding fathers, courts adjudicate disputes with a significant degree of independence from those who bring and defend charges. An independent judiciary does not create the law when operating in accordance with the separation of powers doctrine, constitutional precedent, and the canons of construction. It does not enforce the law beyond issuance of an order. An administrative agency, by contrast, is far more efficient and draconian [meaning overly harsh]. It is a one stop shop—law maker, law prosecutor, and law adjudicator. There is no true separation of powers.
Whenever checks and balances are absent, power is abused and justice, one of the greatest things in life is circumvented. Monopolies of any kind are an invitation for oppression.
4. Nullification of Federal Laws, Statues or Regulations
is a way for States to stop the intrusion of federal government mandates that go beyond the limited powers enumerated by the Constitution for the federal government. That is, the Supreme Law of the Land only permits 17 confined or restricted powers to the federal government. The Tenth Amendment declares that, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
That is, when the federal government goes beyond its rightful powers, the States or the people have authority to override it. The "Ten Amendment Center
" explains that:
When a state "nullifies" a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or "non-effective," within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as the state is concerned.
For example, Justice John McLean, in the famous Dred Scott v. Sandford case in 1857 declared: "No powers can be exercised by the Congress which are prohibited by the Constitution or which are contrary to its spirit.
) The 10th amendment to the Constitution ensures states have the full right to conduct their own affairs free from federal interference --- the only exceptions, there are no others, are those things specifically ascribed to the federal government in the Constitution. In other words, when the federal government gets out of control, you can look to your state governments, rather than the Supreme Court or the Senators or Representatives, to protect you. These public officials, after all, may be part of the problem and have forsaken and violated their sacred oaths to be true to what is right and honest. The oath is:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
(5 U.S.C. § 3331, Oath of Office
Nullification has been applied effectively in history as an important "check and balance
" on federal power. The first time was in 1798 when the federal government passed the "Alien and Sedition Acts.
" The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions written by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison respectively made it clear that they were not going to obey the absurd and unlawful acts. Thomas Jefferson made it clear that unlimited submission to the general government was unconstitutional and an act of treachery and usurpation. This principle effectively negated the "Real ID Act of 2005
." It may need to be used again as there is no lawful provision in the Constitution that gives the federal government the right to take over and nationalize Health Care and a lot of other treasonous provision contrary to the Constitution. (See the subchapters: "Big Government
" and "Limiting Government: Law and Regulations
The whole point here is, most people in America do not understand that the United States Supreme Court is not the final arbiter in all matters concerning government actions related to the US Constitution. Chuck Baldwin wisely explained:
Let me state this clearly: the US Constitution does not grant to the US S CT [the U. S. Supreme Court] the power to interpret the Constitution in contradiction to the terms of the Constitution, and it does not strip the powers of the States to actively arrest and resist tyrannical federal actions. The US S CT can no more violate the Constitution than the Legislative and Executive branches can. What sense does it make that the US S CT is bound by an oath to support and defend the Constitution and then has the power to interpret it however the heck they want to? Do you think our founders were so near-sighted and unlearned that they would have given to the US S CT this unchecked and unlimited [dictatorial and tyranical] power in the very document that states its purpose is "to secure the blessings of liberty"?
Alexander Hamilton explained that:
. . . The State Governments will, in all possible contingencies, afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority [the Federal government]. . . . they [the States] can at once adopt a regular plan of opposition. . . . and unite their common forces for the protection of their common liberty [and freedom]. (Ibid., Federalist Paper 28)
Earlier he declared, "The State Legislatures, who will always be not only vigilant but suspicious and jealous guardians of the rights of the citizens against encrouchments from the Federal governent.
" (Ibid., Federalist Paper 26)
. "Raising Money for Elections
" diverts huge amounts of time, energy and motivation from elected officials. Instead of becoming experts in the long-term impact, the fairness or inherent problems with proposed bills, they spend their time courting huge amounts of money, which are given with strings attached --- subtle bribes for which they owe huge favors. This is done so they can be re-elected and/or become personally rich and well off. This corrupts the whole system and makes lobbyists the most powerful people in the nation, because they hold the purse strings and can disperse the wealth of special interest groups, corporations, foundations and individuals who want to protect their craft or way of life at the expense of others. Corruption, monopolies, and crime will never be curtailed or held back as long as legislators profit from them. The point here is:
The result are that these international corporations, foundations and the very rich dominate the political process and leave most private citizens out in the cold without a voice and without any real influence. It is no longer the government of the people, by the people and for the people.
Corruption and big money temptations wins out almost every time. Politicians serve their special interest money machines or election gravy train to stay in power and enrich themselves. This is the rot and corruption that is has been oozing out of Washington for decades destroying the fabric of society and the greatest nation the world has ever known. Money and power has control of everything. It is a very sad and despicable situation. Where are the statesmen who care about what is right? The disease is the system and it sickens everyone and everything. Strong medicine is needed for the cure. Hence, it is critical that campaign reform begin in earnest or the future will be lost.
Only a small budget should be set for every candidate and every election to stop this contaminating influence from draining an amazing amount of money and resources that could otherwise go to charities instead of power-hungry candidates. No elected official should be allowed to accept any money, gifts, positions, vacations or emoluments for any reason either before, during or after their tour of duty as public servants. Their chief motivation should be to serve their nation, not get rich by compromising values and voting for laws that hurt their fellow man and only benefit a few who would set up government sponsored trade monopolies, businesses syndicates, consortiums or cartels or whatever other evil they have in mind. (See: "6. Truth and Lies")
" are a powerful destructive force and destroy competition, which, 90% of the time, means that prices will go up and quality will go down. Monopolies are a conspiracy against the public good. Reality is that making huge profits and effectively keeping others off of the
gravy train is the ultimate goal of all monopolies. While competition creates better products, less cost to the consumer and shares the wealth more evenly and equitably. Everyone is benefited when monopoly is curtailed.
Monopolies can get so bad, so out of hand that they end of being dictatorial and rob everyone --- the vast, unchecked power of corporate executives is dangerous --- global conglomerate monopolies strip the workforce into a weakened, dependent populous vulnerable to the whims of the corporate giants who can alter the very way we live. And these powerful giants care little for America and are accountable to no one. The only thing they care about is making money. This is not capitalism. This is monopoly --- the very antithesis of a free and unfettered market, because it eats up the genius of mankind which could and would otherwise be empowered and motivated to use their ingenuity to improve and make things better and less expensive for the benefit of everyone. The following will give some examples.
Benjamin Rush, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, declared:
Unless we put Medical Freedom into the Constitution, the time will come when medicine will organize into an undercover dictatorship. . . . To restrict the art of healing to one class of men, and deny equal privilege to others, will be to constitute the Bastille of Medical Science. All such laws are un-American and despotic and have no place in a Republic . . . . The Constitution of this Republic should make special privilege for Medical Freedom as well as Religious Freedom.
In fulfillment of his warning, we now live in a largely monopolistic medical system that manages to kill at least 784,000 people per year and impoverishes millions, who must go bankrupt, because of the exorbitant costs for these services while the medical field, instead of being
service oriented, is enriched and enlarged above 80% of the entire population of the nation in terms of being well off. (www.newswithviews.com/Dean
. . . Health care costs continue to increase rapidly. . . . Part of it is due to the increased monopoly power of physicians, insurance companies, and hospitals, as the health care sector undergoes reorganization and consolidation.
Socialized medicine means waiting in lines, apathy of health-care workers, who are overworked, being herded here and there for testing and more waiting, lack of choice, poorer quality, less services and even misdiagnosis or even worse the denial of treatment and death. It isn't healthy or in the best interests of any society.
Another example of a deceitful or detrimental monopoly is the press. It is controlled. It is not free even though it is touted to be. One very important man who was certainly in the know about what is going on made the following remarkable disclosure. He was the former Chief of Staff for the New York Times and was one of New York's best loved newspaperman. This eminent
journalist, John Swinton (1829-1901), called by his peers "The Dean of his Profession
" was asked in 1953 to give a toast before the New York Press Club, and in so doing, made a monumentally important and revealing statement. He is quoted as follows:
There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar weekly salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone. The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth; to lie outright; to pervert; to vilify; to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press? We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities, and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes.
(Richard O. Bayer & Herbert M. Moriais, Labor's Untold Story
, published by United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, NY, 1955/1979: www.constitution.org/pub/swinton_press.htm
Robert McChesney a research professor in the Institute of Communications Research and the Graduate School of Library and Information Science at the University of Illinois wrote:
Democracy is premised on a free press, and freedom of the press is premised on the absence of public or private gatekeepers with monopolistic power. It is why the Supreme Court ruled in 1945 that antitrust was probably more appropriate in the realm of media than in any other area. . . . A.J. Liebling's adage that "freedom of the press is limited to those who own one" is frightfully accurate. . . .
[There are four conglomerates or] giant companies [which] are the recipients of enormous direct and indirect subsidies and/or government-granted monopoly franchises. They include: monopoly licenses to radio and TV frequencies, cable and satellite TV monopoly franchises, magazine postal subsidies and copyright, to mention a few. . . . These policies, worth tens of billions annually, are generally made in our name but without our informed consent. That is the heart of the problem, and it points us to the solution: informed public participation on media policy-making.
The following is how the unholy alliance behind the censoring began. The Congressional Record for 1917 reported that:
. . . The J.P. Morgan [banking] interests . . . and their subsidiary organizations got together 12 men high up in the newspaper world and employed them to select the most influential newspapers in the United States and sufficient number of them to control generally the policy of the daily press of the US. . . . They found it was only necessary to purchase the control of 25 of the greatest papers. . . . An editor was furnished for each paper to properly supervise and edit information. . . ." (Congressman Oscar Callaway statements were included in the Congressional Record, Vol. 54, February 9, 1917, p. 2947)
The well-known American-Swiss author and correspondent Robert Jungk summarized this horrible situation as follows. He wrote, "The great sin of the West is that it constantly betrays its principles in its daily practice." Instead freedom of the press, there is censorship. He explained:
It is supressed by a monopoly, which has destroyed freedom of information. Yet freedom of the press is one of the main and most important engines of a free nation. Ruin it and you can lead a whole generation astray because the "uniformed are easily misinformed
and lead them down the primrose path into believing in falsehoods by skillful manipulation of what is said and what is hidden. It is, in effect, a propaganda campaign of lies. A good question is, how is it that ". . . every really dissenting voice from the prevailing consensus is effectively denied access to the mass media and is silenced or marginalised?
A bias is obvious to say the least. This is not freedom, this is suppression. Walter Lippmann, a well-known 20th-century American columnist, wrote, "A free press is not a privilege, but an organic necessity in a great society.
James Madison (President of the United States from 1809-1817) wrote:
A . . . government, without . . . [factual / truthful] information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue [an introduction] to a Farce or a Tragedy. . . . A people who mean to be their own Governors must arm themselves with the power which [only] knowledge [of the real truth can] give [them].
(Beatty & Samuelson, Legal environment
, 3rd ed., p. 95)
It has been written that "the truth shall make you free." (John 8:32) Free from what? --- free from horrible mistakes, foolishness, deception and misfortune. But if you are denied that truth, you are denied that very freedom, which is the power to do things --- to find adequate solutions, for "knowledge [of the truth] is power" --- the power to do things effectively and right. The opposite --- a lack of know-how and truth equals blindness, trouble, anguish and pain.
Benjamin Franklin declared, "A nation of well informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the region of ignorance that tyranny begins.
Ignorance leads to nowhere except some form of disillutionment, disappointment and pain. Truth is, therefore, one of the most precious things there is on this earth---it is a pearl of great price---it equals potential, power and infinite possibilities. It must be protected and vouchsafed as one of the most important things there is on earth. And the truth must be taught and not curtailed. Thomas Jefferson astutely declared:
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, it expects what never was and never will be. [We must] educate and inform the whole mass of the people, they are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.
The very opposite occurs when the watchdogs of freedom (the media) are manipulated and controlled and there are no whistleblowers or they are discredited by the rich and powerful. Hence, control of the press by the media giants---the huge corporations that suppress whatever they want is an enormous crime against humanity and against liberty and everything precious, dear and sacred.
To withhold the truth or twist and distort the truth is wrong---a wrong so serious as to be considered treasonous in its nature and impact on humanity. It is a disease or poison. It is so deadly that as Voltaire declared, "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities
" --- like make the greatest mistakes of your whole lives. (www.quotationspage.com/quote/26816.html
Therefore, one of the most important checks and balances must be instituted to protect this vital life-line---freedom of the press, internet, tv, radio, etc. From the above quotes, we must realize that this vital life-line has been compromised in a secretive and hidden way. Hence, greater safeguards must be initiated to preserve the truth and promote honesty and integrity in this basic field. A country built on falsehoods is blind, weak and blundering.
There are many other types of sinister and despicable monopolies that also betray freedom or suppress progress. Public education is one of them. It that has become another monopoly which promotes mediocrity instead of great quality and the lower costs that come through healthy competition. That is:
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.
(Devvy Kidd: lecturer and popular author: www.devvy.com/notax.html
As the saying goes, "Something is rotten in Denmark" or "There's [real] trouble in River City," because:
Public schools have become breeding grounds for violence [drugs] and sexual promiscuity; they often are outlets for socialist propaganda; they now constitute a formidable enemy of Christianity (by teaching evolution [denying any other view], by prohibiting prayer and Bible reading) and of the family (by teaching sex education [instead of sexual purity and family values] and deriding traditional [family] authority structures).
(David H. Chilton: "What's Really Wrong with Public Schools?:" http://reformed-theology.org/html/issue08/whats_wrong
And on top of all this:
The Tenth Amendment contains a very important concept: anything not required of the government, is forbidden to the government. Nowhere in the Constitution or any amendment does it require the government to educate the people. Therefore, it may not do it. In other words, the Department of Education is an illegal agency of the government. Doesn't that inspire your confidence [and make you feel good]?
Gneech” Robey: http://freedomkeys
Ludwig von Mises (1818-1973), one of the notable economists and social philosophers of the Twentieth Century, wrote, "There is no hope left for a civilization when the masses favor harmful policies." (reference unknown) Socialized medicine, socialized education, socialized anything is monopoly and one of the worst kind because it has the force of government behind it. But monopolies of any kind are a recipe for inferior, low-standard, second rate, performances. They do not bring good, rather monopolies all tend to do great harm and/or they prevent enterprising people from creating improvements for the good of all people. In other words, they get in the way of progress. This is why checks and balances must be instituted to protect and safeguard the people and society in general. David Ellner declared:
Everything is backwards; everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, governments destroy freedom, the major media destroy information and religions destroy spirituality. . . .
Monopolies are one of the most destructive forces on earth. It is corruption for the sake of money. While competitive systems, whether in banking, in the news, in education, in the legal system, or in medicine, would bring down costs, while encouraging greater quality in both products and services. There needs to be strong and powerful laws implemented to curtail and break up monopolies of any kind (including socialized medicine --- a government monopoly) to promote a healthy environment for competition and fair play to flourish, grow and advance. This is immensely important in the fight against corruption and to bless and protect or safeguard the future. No field or profession (or worst of all, no government controlled entity) should be given a corner on the market---it promotes crime, deception and mediocrity.
Licensing laws and government regulatory organizations that supposedly prevent monopoly actually establish and promote them. They are used or taken over in order to protect and safeguard a commercial, business or professional activity or trade rather than protect the public and ensure that competition is maintained. As Thomas E. Woods, Jr. declared:
The reason that business firms have so often been eager to employ government power on their behalf is that coercion solidifies their positions far more effectively than does the free market, the system through which consumers keep them on their toes every single day. On the free market, these firms must serve the consumer effectively or close their doors, period. Even the mightiest corporations have learned this lesson.
It is government, with its [unequal and unequitable] subsidies, [its] special privileges [to favored contributors], and restrictions on competition, not to mention the looting of the public and rewarding of privileged interests . . . that promote monopoly . . . and grant truly unfair advantages to some at the expense of everyone else.
No licensing law or regulation should give any profession the exclusive right to use any particular word or phrase, such as, psychologist, medical doctor, cosmetologists, attorney, etc. This is an example of how legislators are used or manipulated into unwittingly creating monopolies. But there are also many other tricks and legal maneuvers used by lawmakers looking for campaign contributions to subvert what is right into something that is unwholesome and unproductive of what is much better for everyone. Monopolies are an enemy to the people.
Adam Smith, one of the founding father in 1776 once observed that, "People of the same trade seldom meet together . . . , but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.
That is the real outcome of monopolies and cartels and government bureaucracies, which businesses infiltrate in order to corrupt and protect their craft or their corner on the market.
In the best interests of society as a whole, rather than use licensing, each profession should establish their own private certification of practitioners and a completely separate organization mostly composed of non-practitioners to discipline those who do not live up to the ethical and professional standards expected of those so certified.
The sad and unfortunate tale is that monopolies abound and they deny and chain down the great and enormous good that would otherwise prevail and prosper. Monopolies are not capitalism or free-enterprise. Monopoly, whether in government or otherwise, is a disease. Woodrow Wilson declared:
. . . It used to be, [that is the great American dream] that a man may choose his own calling and pursue it just as far as his abilities enable him to pursue it; [however] . . . to-day, if he enters certain fields, there are organizations which will use means against him that will prevent his building up a business which they do not want to have built up; organizations that will see to it that the ground is cut from under him and the markets shut against him.
(The New Freedom, p. 24)
Such is the impact and robbery that takes place under the oppression and servitude of monopolies that so effectively close the door of progress and opportunity to both individuals and nations.
7. Truth and Lies:
we are often denied the truth because those in power want to control us. This is the name of the game in politics, that is, to lie, cheat and steal. It is a dirty business. One of the most corrupt on earth. No politician should have the right to accept any campaign funds or gifts or bribes from lobbyist or special interest groups. (See: "4. Raising Money for Elections
") Public servants should free to be public servants, not serve lobbyists, corporate greed or protect monopolies, organized crime or money cartels --- the international bankers. All of this destroys good character and good government. It is a major source of wrongdoing and ruins what would otherwise be something great and glorious.
Unfortunately, most people would rather believe their lies than be confronted with the ugly inconvenient truth and practices going on in their government. Which makes lies pay and pay big time, so it perpetuates itself. Hitler who was a master of lies described how he did it. He wrote:
. . . In the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility. . . . In the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.
, vol. I, ch. X)
In other words, it is easier to believe a big lie told over and over again, than the truth. Dresden James explained:
A truth's initial commotion [the adverse reaction to it] is directly proportional to how deeply the lie was believed. It wasn't the world being round that agitated people, but that the world wasn't flat. When a well packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.
Thus, lies that become traditions are supported and reinforce even if they are preposterous. Hitler's method was to ". . . use emotion for the many and reserve reason for the few [his co-conspirators].
" He declared, "How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think.
/adolf_hitler.html) In a special report for the United States government during World War II, Hitler's style of influence was profiled as follows:
His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.
("Hitler as His Associates Know Him," United States Office of Strategic Services report, p, 51)
Elites, power brokers and politicians generally have great disdain for the little man. They consider them to be stupid and foolish. They want them to be dependent and docile. They lie to them and use them for their own selfish ends. Propaganda, ccensorship, disinformation, con games, sly schemes and tricks are condoned, admired and practiced on a regular basis. Secrecy abounds. Underhanded deals, sneaky projects and devious plans are contrived behind closed doors. Truth is not the guiding light. Transparency is shunned. For their works are works of darkness, rather than light --- so they hide and deceive to manipulate. And the great danger in all of this was well put by Voltaire (1694 - 1778) who said, "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
Take away the advantage and the opportunity for big money in politics and you have gone a long way toward restoring truth and justice as the motivating force of the land. Hence, we have to end where we began in this little section. Unrestrained campaign funding must stop. The gifts, the wining and dining, the bribes, the perks, the luxuries, the costly trips, the promises of position, in other words, the power to buy public servants must stop. No
elected official should owe any favors to anyone. Take the temptations out of the game, and a different class of people will be attracted to these positions and a whole new kind of public servant will emerge --- a statesman, a man of integrity, honesty and good character. Then government will function to the good and benefit of everyone instead of monopolies or for those who would take away our freedom and institute extreme forms of government. (See: "4. Raising Money for Elections
In other words, a sick and corrupt system creates, maintains and perpetuates sickness, corruption and crime. Whereas, a healthy system that eliminates temptations and provides checks on corruption tends to promote continued integrity, good character and honesty.
" is an extremely powerful temptation or allurement. "For the love of money is the root of all [not some, but all] evil. . . .
" (1 Timothy 6:10) In fact, nothing could be more true. Money is extremely powerful. President James A. Garfield wrote, "Whoever controls the volume of money in any country [on earth] is [the] absolute master of all industry and commerce.
The following is how a terrible hidden government---a monopoly of immense power was
established in the United States of America and remains hidden and disguised to this day. It became more fully entrenched in the land when Woodrow Wilson took a bribe, a huge campaign contribution, so he could be elected President of the United States and in doing so he promised to sign the legislation to set up the Federal Reserve Bank, which was pushed through Congress two days before Christmas when most legislators were at home to celebrate the holidays. Thus in 1913 members of Congress, who knew about this scheme, committed treason and violated their oath of office to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic by voting in the Federal Reserve Bank.
Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr. declared, "When the President [Wilson} signs this bill, the invisible government of the monetary power will be legalized. . . . [It is] the worst legislative crime of the ages. . . .
Just before he died, President Wilson solemnly declared to his friends that he had been "deceived
" and that "I have betrayed my Country.
" He was referring to the Federal Reserve Act passed during his Presidency. (www.libertyforlife.com/banking/federal_reserve_bank.html
) Congressman Louis T. McFadden (Rep. Pa), who was the Chairman of the Committee on Banking and Currency of the United States for twelve years, declared that:
Some [Most] people think the Federal Reserve Banks are the United States government's institutions. They are not government institutions. They are private credit monopolies which prey upon the people of the United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign swindlers. (Congressional Record 12595-12603, June 10, 1932) (Ibid.)
The Federal Reserve makes money out of nothing---out of the clear blue. There is nothing to back up the money they print. It is only paper. Paper that we put our trust in---paper that runs or controls all industry, government and commerce---paper that literally runs our lives and determines our future for better or worse. They print this paper money, loan it to the United States Government and then on top of that charge the government interest on what they made out of nothing. It is a huge scam or con game involving the hidden theft of billions and billions of hard earn money. It is the biggest scam ever created on earth. On this huge amount of profits that they legally extort from the United States and its people, they have never paid any taxes, nor have they ever allowed anyone to audit them lest the public should find out about the monumental rip off that is taking place right under their noses. Thomas Jefferson wrote the following remarks on this serious threat that
the private banks implemented in his day and which has grown to become an enormously entrenched monopoly that reigns triumphantly in our midst. He said:
I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power (of money) should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs. (Ibid.)
The solution is easy, just make it law that no debt (the national debt) will be paid to this private sinister organization, which has already robbed us of far too much. In other words, as a nation create a law similar to a chapter 7 bankruptcy for private individuals and start over by disenfranchising them and their ill begotten money machine. The nation could then print its own money as the founding fathers intended and not pay any interest on it whatsoever. This would free up billions of dollars annually so that taxes could be reduced motivating massive private enterprise and production, and this nation could begin to thrive again and be the economic giant it once was leading all the earth in wealth, esteem and status. Louis T. McFadden declared before congress in 1932:
Every effort has been made by the Federal Reserve Board to conceal its power but the truth is the Federal Reserve Board has usurped the government of the United States. It controls everything here and it controls all our foreign relations. It makes and breaks governments at will. No man and no body of men is more entrenched in power than the arrogant credit monopoly which operates the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks. These evil-doers have robbed this country of more than enough money to pay the national debt. What the Government has permitted the Federal Reserve Board to steal from the people should now be restored to the people.
, Congressman Louis McFadden, June 10, 1932, House of Representatives, pages 12495-12605)
International bankers have developed these monopolies all over the earth and the same basic scheme of creating wealth out of nothing and loaning it has controlled kingdoms and empires for centuries. Napoleon observed:
When a government is dependent for money upon the bankers, they and not the government leaders control the nation. This is because the hand that gives is above the hand that takes. Financiers are without patriotism and without decency.
Phillip A. Benson, President of the American Bankers' Association, on June 8, 1939 wrote, "There is no more direct way to capture control of a nation than through its credit (money) system.
) Reginald McKenna, when Chairman of the Midland Bank in London, declared, ". . . They who control the credit [money system] of the nation . . . hold in the hollow of their hands the destiny of the people.
The international bankers are now more powerful than any king that ever lived. The scheme they created, which seems to operate most everywhere:
. . . has been engineered to benefit rich and powerful interests that get more rich and powerful every day as a result. These rich and powerful interests currently do everything in their power to make sure this topic rarely gets debated, much less resolved.
It is a huge source of corruption that must be destroyed for governments to prosper and be free to thrive and make major headway in alleviating the ills of mankind and allowing countries to run their own nations. Yet, "By this means [the private stock holders of the Federal Reserve Board] may secretly and unobserved, confiscate the wealth of the people, and not one man in a million will detect the theft.
" (Lord John Maynard Keynes, Economic Consequences of Peace
, 1920 and Harry Kawilarang, Quotations on Terrorism,
p. 399) It is, in the words of Major L. L. B. Angus, ". . . the most astounding piece of sleight of hand that was ever invented.
Today Americans are being fleeced to the tune of approximately 52% of every dollar going for local, state and federal taxes. And over $430 billion a year---all that the IRS receives from all the citizens of this country is given to the greedy Federal Reserve Board for doing nothing, that is, something the government could do for itself for pennies on the dollar, that
is, print money and run a specialized accounting firm. In all the annals of history, no greater fraud was ever perpetuated on any people. It is much worse than highway robbery. It has bilked and pilfered trillions from this country. In summary, Sir Josiah Stamp (1880-1941), President of the Bank of England and the 2nd richest man in the nation wrote:
Banking was conceived in iniquity and born in sin. Bankers own the Earth. Take it [all the vast wealth of the banker] away from them but leave them the power to create money, and, with the flick of a pen, they will create enough money to buy it back again. Take this great power away from them and all great fortunes like mine will disappear, and they ought to disappear, for then this would be a better and happier world to live in. But, if you want to continue to be the slave of the bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let the bankers continue to create money and control credit.
James Madison declared, "History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling the money and its issuance.
No country deserves such a revolting gang of robber barons in their midst. Robbery is wrong no matter who does it and for what reason. For example, to show how terribly wrong this really is note that, "without the central bank siphoning off the wealth of our nation, there would be no need for a personal income tax.
" (Devvy Kidd: www.devvy.com/notax.html
) What a great boon that would be for the American people or the people of any land! (See: "World Government
9. Corrupt Currency
--- Fiat money is money that has nothing to back it up, but the confidence of the people. Real money is backed up by gold or some other thing that is valued, such as, silver. So what’s the problem with this kind of money and what is the solution?
With fiat money, the result is:
When government prints a new dollar, the value of each one in circulation goes down. The government shouldn’t be allowed to print money for the same reason you or I aren’t allowed to counterfeit.
(HBD Books, www.voteronpaul.com/news
In other words, printing money with no backing is commiting the fellony crime of counterfeiting on a national scale. It is immoral, because it is an act of theft --- a hidden and disguised tax or act of robbery. Yet it is a common practice though the world.
Ronald Reagan once told Congressman Ron Paul, “. . . No great nation that abandoned the gold standard has remained a great nation.” (Ibid.) It destroys and ruins, because those in power can secretly use this hidden reality to pilfer the treasury. Alan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve Chariman wrote:
In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold. . . .
This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists’ tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists’ antagonism toward the gold standard. (Ibid., Ayn Rand’s newsletter, “Gold and Economic Freedom,” 1966)
Without backing, all wealth is artificial based only on imagination and make believe. Inflation and deficit spending are legalized plunder schemes in such an economic system to pirate away the wealth of the people, which is why government loves central banking to control boom and bust to enable them to quietly cheat. It promotes the most vile of all activities --- war. Note the following:
The US Federal Reserve was founded in 1913 and allowed America to enter World War I four years later. It has been estimated that only 21 percent of the war effort was funded through taxation. 56 percent of the spending came from Fed-backed borrowing and 23 percent of the money was created out of thin air. Without centralized banking there would’ve been no World War I, Treaty of Versailles, Russian Revolution, Nazism or World War II. (Ibid.)
Conclusion: Without sound money, the bais for all commerce, there is no safety for property, and freedom is put into grave and serious danger. With the ability to print money out of the clear blue sky, which is legalized theft on a federal level, the state could finance ambitious projects
and use the enormous power of government to force things and scapegoat or blame others when it wrecked the economy. The answer: more checks and balances --- like a gold standard and a balanced budget, because if bureaucrats and politicians can get away with something, they obviously will. (Ibid.)
10. Deficit Spending
is spending more money than you actually have. There is an old saying that goes, "If your outgo exceeds your income, your upkeep will be your downfall.
" That is, if you keep on spending too much, it will result in financial ruin. Thomas Jefferson declared, ". . . That the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity under the name of funding is but swindling [robbing] . . . on a large scale.
" (1816, ME 15:23) He also declared that, "Loading up the nation with debt and leaving it for the following generations to pay is morally irresponsible.
Government deficit spending means devaluing the dollar, which steals from everyone. It is like diluting the milk supply—the milk—the value of our money is then watered down. It ends up being a hidden or disguised tax which secretly does damage to the economy and more importantly, it hurts people—our greatest resource. This is so serious that as reported in "The Hill
" in December of 2007:
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) said Congress’s deficit spending has become a moral issue surpassing abortion because it saddles future generations with massive debt before they’re born.
"The greatest moral issue of our time isn’t abortion, it’s robbing our next generation of opportunity," Coburn told reporters at a breakfast meeting Thursday at the National Press Club. "You’re going to save a child from being aborted so they can be born into a debtor’s prison?"
This kind of spending is reckless and irresponsible to say the least, but it is all a part of the corruption that is so typical of out-of-control government and why more checks and balances are needed, not less, to curb the greed and avarice of politicians, rich special interest groups and other monopolies and their lobbies who instead of pushing for equality, push for special privileges at the expense and ruin of others. The unfairness, the injustice, the fraud, the waste, and the misconduct of big government is staggering. Thomas Jefferson was emphatic, "We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt.
In other words, increasing taxes equals increased spending, not responsible behavior. There are not the checks and balances set up to stop reckless money big grabs. Note what public officials consistently do. See the next section:
. Pork and Barrel projects
and or attachments
to bills waste billions of dollars are intended primarily to benefit particular constituents or campaign contributors. This is another example of a corrupt practice. Examples of pork-barrel spending in the past include:
$107,000 to study the sex life of the Japanese quail.
$1.2 million to study the breeding habits of the woodchuck.
$150,000 to study the Hatfield-McCoy feud.
$84,000 to find out why people fall in love.
$1 million to study why people don't ride bikes to work.
$19 million to examine gas emissions from cow flatulence.
$144,000 to see if pigeons follow human economic laws.
Funds to study the cause of rudeness on tennis courts and examine smiling patterns in bowling alleys.
$219,000 to teach college students how to watch television.
$2 million to construct an ancient Hawaiian canoe.
$20 million for a demonstration project to build wooden bridges.
$160,000 to study if you can hex an opponent by drawing an X on his chest.
$800,000 for a restroom on Mt. McKinley.
$100,000 to study how to avoid falling spacecraft.
$16,000 to study the operation of the komungo, a Korean stringed instrument.
$1 million to preserve a sewer in Trenton, NJ, as a historic monument.
$6,000 for a document on Worcestershire sauce.
$10,000 to study the effect of naval communications on a bull's potency.
$100,000 to research soybean-based ink.
$1 million for a Seafood Consumer Center.
Many dismiss pork as a drop in the bucket in relation to the size of the federal budget. The pro-porkers claim that the real problem is entitlement spending, so pork is insignificant. This dismissal of pork as "small potatoes" ignores the fact that pork is the root cause of some of our nation's most debilitating fiscal and political pathologies, and $100 billion shouldn't be considered insignificant in anyone's book.
The whole purpose of this article can be summarized by a statement made in December of 1998 by Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Republican from Florida), when he said, "The greatest challenge of free peoples is to restrain abuses of governmental power.
) This is certainly one of them. Earmark and attachments are an act of recklessly plundering and irresponsbile looting or fleecing of society for hare brained ideas that would never pass without this kind of corrupt practices.
. Government waste
is a crying shame especially when serious problems abound. "A real war on government waste could easily save over $100 billion annually without harming the legitimate operations and benefits of government programs.
" The following are three examples of serious neglect. (All the following is from the website of the Heritage Foundation on government waste:
(1) The government knows that $25 billion was spent by someone, somewhere, on something, but auditors do not know who spent it, where it was spent, or on what it was spent. It was lost. . . . The unreconciled $25 billion could have funded the entire Department of Justice for an entire year.
(2) A recent audit revealed that between 1997 and 2003, the Defense Department purchased and then left unused approximately 270,000 commercial airline tickets at a total cost of $100 million. Even worse, the Pentagon never bothered to get a refund for these fully refundable tickets. . . . This $108 million could have purchased seven Blackhawk helicopters, 17 M1 Abrams tanks, or a large supply of additional body armor for U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.
(3) Government’s layering of new programs on top of old ones inherently creates duplication. Having several agencies perform similar duties is wasteful and confuses program beneficiaries who must navigate each program’s distinct rules and requirements.
Instead of efficiently handling of problems, the Federal government has created and perpetuates a huge amount of duplication and redundancy:
342 economic development programs;
130 programs serving the disabled;
130 programs serving at-risk youth;
90 early childhood development programs;
75 programs funding international education, cultural, and training exchange activities;
72 federal programs dedicated to assuring safe water;
50 homeless assistance programs;
45 federal agencies conducting federal criminal investigations;
40 separate employment and training programs;
28 rural development programs;
27 teen pregnancy programs;
26 small, extraneous K–12 school grant programs;
23 agencies providing aid to the former Soviet republics;
19 programs fighting substance abuse;
17 rural water and waste-water programs in eight agencies;
17 trade agencies monitoring 400 international trade agreements;
12 food safety agencies;
11 principal statistics agencies; and
Four overlapping land management agencies
Efficiency in government would save an amazing amount of money that could be used for good instead of throwing it away needlessly and foolishly. The government is notorious for being wasteful. This ought to be considered a crime against the people who work so hard to pay taxes only to have the government bungle everything and mismanage it.
. "Sovereign immunity
" for legislators, judges, lawyers, international bankers, bureaucrats, and a number of others creates an atmosphere in which subtle, hidden white-collar crime can thrive and prosper in the sacred institutions of government. And if crime pays, crime expands and is enlarged, especially in government, where the temptations are far too compelling and insidious. Immunity for some also produces a privileged class instead of fairness and equality for all. In other words, the ideal of "justice for all
" is flushed down the toilet and some people are above the law.
The Rule of Law is so overwhelmingly critical to the best interests of society and the great good of the people that it must be upheld no matter who is hurt by it. A U.S. Federal Court wisely declared:
In a government of laws [the rule of law], the existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously [that is, its destiny, its prosperity, it civil obedience and decency is in peril if it fails to follow the law conscientiously with precision and exactness]. Our government is the potent, [the powerful, the influential,] the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy .
(Olmstead v. U.S., 277 U.S. 438
Lawlessness is extremely destructive of everything of we value and hold dear in life. In the book Law of the Constitution, it describes what the rule of law looks like:
. . . every official, from the Prime Minister down to a constable or a collector of taxes, is under the same responsibility for every act done without legal justification as any other citizen. The Reports abound with cases in which officials have been brought before the courts, and made, in their personal capacity, liable to punishment, or to the payment of damages, for acts done in their official character but in excess of their lawful authority. [Appointed government officials and politicians, alike] . . . and all subordinates, though carrying out the commands of their official superiors, are as responsible for any act which the law does not authorise as is any private and unofficial person.
(London: MacMillan, 9th ed., 1950, p. 194
Thomas Paine, one of the founding father of the United States stated in his pamphlet Common Sense
in 1776 that, ". . . in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other.
The point is, no one should be above the law. Every person, especially public servants, must be held to a standard of honor, decency, good will and good faith; and if they fail, they must face the consequences like anyone else. If law makers, lawyers, judges, bureaucrats, etc. were no longer given immunity, the abuses and injustices of the legal system would be corrected very quickly. This is because when a person is immune, that person would naturally have little personal vested interest in the wrongs of the justice system, but if a person is subject to their failures, then such a person would naturally worry about it and would work to fix it, find solutions that work and make it safe to be a normal citizen, a business man, policeman. The solution of making certain power holders immune to justice does not protect the people from judicial or civil travesties---it promotes it. The whole idea can be summarized by the following:
That the sole object and only legitimate end of government is to protect the citizen in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property, and when the government assumes other functions it is usurpation and oppression. (Alabama Constitution Section I, Number 35)
is one of the most precious things on earth, but it is unfairly denied to a majority of Americans, who end up being robbed and cheated by a system that is stacked up against them. Anacharsis, a well-known philosopher who lived in Athens about the 5th century BC, declared that, "Laws are like spider webs: they hold the weak and vulnerable in their meshes and are torn . . . asunder by the rich and powerful.
) Judicial reform is desperately needed. Estimates suggest that as much as "60% of Americans are denied equal justice under law,
" which reflects the fact that there is major corruption and sickness in the setup which has thus far defied all efforts to reform it. (Ibid.) It is like a cancer that needs radical surgery. But before the strong cure can be applied, one must first understand the breath and depth of the problem. There will always be offenders and victims, but the benefit of justice and a system that ensures that crime does not
pay would be one of the greatest benefits a nation could ever have.
First of all, there is an obvious built in conflict of interests. Lawyers are, in fact, part of the problem, not the answer. Robert J. Samuelson, a well-known journalist and contributing editor for Newsweek and the Washington Post, wrote:
[Lawyers] have an economic interest in cultivating and prolonging conflict. This means they are fundamentally at odds with the purposes of the legal system. Courts and lawyers exist only to explain and enforce the rules society sets for itself--and settle disputes arising from these rules. . . . The trouble is that lawyers' well-being runs in the opposite direction. The more conflict, the better. The more cumbersome and ambiguous society's rules, the better. (Ibid.)
The following are additional conflict of interest problems that get in the way of justice.
1. "Lawyers tend to be dishonest and lie because they know the system --- they know that lying and cheating and perjury work. Lawyers know that perjury isn't prosecuted and they pass that on to their clients." (Ibid.) Thus they promote deception and deceitfulness rather than honesty and truth.
"Lawyer/Judges do their utmost to damage pro se or self-represented litigants. With 60 percent of the population unable to afford lawyers, that means the majority of citizens cannot get [the] justice [they deserve] because there is a lawyer on the bench. Judges shill for lawyers because those are their buddies, [their] culture, and system which they [are] a part of [and] accept. . . .
3. "Lawyers are not legal experts, they are not trained in many areas of law: tax judges/lawyers know a fraction of tax law that CPA's and tax-preparers that come before them do; family law lawyers/judges are not social workers; juvenile law judges are not psychologists; technical subjects like patents, copyrights, trade secrets, medical malpractice and psychiatry are well beyond the competence of [many] lawyer/judges." "Bad decisions, which are endemic to the system [even thought they cost a fortune]. . . ." (Ibid.)
4. "[Lawyers] have an agenda [it is not justice, but] the furtherance [and promotion] of the interests of lawyers. . . . [All monopolies work this way.] That is simply their modus operandi or nature. . . . [Such lawyer/judges, for example] are [not] going to let a pro se person win no matter how right he is, because to allow justice in such a case would be the end of the cartel --- it would demonstrate that lawyers are superfluous." The craft, the monopoly, the status must be protected and defended at all costs to the point that they become more important than justice itself.
. "Lawyer/judges favor high status law firms and lawyers because those are their reference group --- the people whose good opinion they seek; it advances the profession [and their personal careers and prestige]. So cases get decided [far too often] on how expensive your lawyer is, [not] on the merits of your case. . . . You can imagine the abuse they would get from the fraternity, if they ruled against a lawyer in favor of a non-lawyer (because in the end, economic interests are involved). . . . Law is a [huge] money-making machine --- [a monopoly].
" Unearned and massively overcharged contingency fees [as much as 90% of the award] in cases of early settlements where lawyers did little or nothing is just an act of fleecing or cheating. He should not charge more than his hourly rate.
6. ". . . The appeals Court is a greater farce than the trial --- the courts have a stated bias to uphold the lower court and a real bias to scratch their friends and colleagues' backs. Most appeals court rulings are written by law clerks who are 2nd year law students. Oral arguments are almost never heard, because the appeals court does not want to even know what the case is about --- they make form letter rulings without even reading the case."
. Self-regulation doesn't work. It is like asking the fox to watch the chicken coop. Or, "Having a lawyer judge ethics is like having a blind man judge The Miss America Pageant when his daughter is a contestant.
The lawyer protection racket is such that if a complaint is made to a proper lawyer-driven organization, no one, not even the complainant
will know if the lawyer lied or produced false evidence, because this important information is not allowed to be made public. A . . . national commission found that 95 percent of all complaints against federal judges were dismissed summarily by other federal judges put in place to review them. At the state level, NY is supposed to have the nation's top oversight organization. Over 85 percent of complaints are dismissed without investigation. Since they have a cartel and regulate themselves, you might expect that they would recognize the high responsibility [but instead they protect each other rather than promote justice]. . . . The CA Bar receives 140,000 hotline complaints a year and [only] 'investigates' 15,000 allegations of attorney misconduct. This shows how well licensing works [or how committed they are to policing their own profession].
In conclusion, "[Self-serving] Lawyers . . . [have often earned the] reputation of being low-life's and [of being] as scummy [or as dishonest] as used-car salesmen.
" The author declared, "We have a diseased system, which is rotten at the core and the core is lawyers.
" Rather, the core is more likely the corrupt monopoly created by the lawyers, which
because of exorbitant prices and inherent corruption makes lawyer-craft similar to how a leech or parasite acts on its host. This malicious culture instead of being a blessing to mankind has become an unfortunate barrier to justice, fairness and equity. They sell their souls and sell out their clients for the almighty dollar.
So how does this corrupt gravy train continue to be maintained? Why isn't it routed out? Well, look where the money goes. It goes into corrupting government to buy up legislators. The problem: "Lawyers give more money to political campaigns than does any other industry. Approximately 75% of the lawyer's money goes to Democrats. Lawyers, and specifically trial lawyers, are the Democrats number one special interest group, and have been for years.
" Well, what do the Democrats do for the lawyers in return for huge amounts of campaign or bribery money?:
Dems block tort reform, block medical malpractice reform, block 'loser pays' lawsuit reform, and block damages award caps. Democrats are a trial lawyer's dream come true. Dems allow lawyers to continue to feed at the trough, uninhibited. Dems are money in the bank for trial lawyers.
So the system continues unabated ruining justice for all except the rich and famous.
Part of the Answer:
(1) Non-attorney judges: ". . . Good lawyers make too much money to accept the lower pay of judgeships. Therefore, only mediocre lawyers are in the pool to select from. By broadening the pool of candidates [to nonlawyers], we can have better judges." The author of this article recommended that lawyers be disallowed to serve as judges to break the back of their cartel and allow for greater objectivity and case expertise to be applied to individual cases by judges who are experts themselves in certain fields. (See #3 above)
It appears that a new corp of non-attorney judges might best be appointed by elections as they would be more impartial and be less influenced by politicians or special interest groups as long as no contributions were allowed and only a equitable election allowance was permitted to be used for each individual campaign. This would help stop the bribes or favors that circumvent justice.
(3) More attorneys: ". . . Consider the world flooded with lawyers - bad lawyers couldn't make a living, average lawyers would have to get by on modest salaries because of the competition. Only the good lawyers would be well paid and that is as it should be. The quality of legal services would go up, the prices would go down and even the poor would be able to get "justice" or at least legal advice. Break the cartel by deregulation, decertification and allowing paralegals to practice law."
(4) Incompetents hide behind licensure and certification, and regulation only creates, maintains and perpetuates the insidious monopoly that is destructive rather than protective of justice one of the greatest things there is on earth.
(a) Jury Reform:
"Some ideas: eliminate exemptions from jury duty, eliminate pre-emptory challenges --- just take the first 12 jurors; let the jurors ask questions of witnesses; let the jurors see the statute that they are judging on: the only notice the accused could have had is the statute and the jury has to factor that into consideration. This business of jury instructions is the primary way judges and lawyers subvert the jury process. The first instruction should be the statute and the second should be 'if any following instruction conflicts with the statute - ignore the instruction and base your decision on the statute.' Juries need to be informed of the ideas of jury nullification. Allow less than unanimous verdicts, but no less than 11-1. That will prevent one crazy person from holding up the system, but care must be taken not to lower standards too much because it would result in lots of false convictions. Probably a good way to handle it is to make unanimous verdicts inviolate but less than unanimous verdicts overturnable by judges."
In 1969, in U.S. v. Moylan, 417 F. 2d 1002
, Justice Sobeloff said this: “We recognize . . . the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge and contrary to the evidence. . . . [T]he courts can not search the minds of the jurors to find the basis upon which they judge. If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused is unjust . . . the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision.
In 1794, in Georgia v. Brailsford (3 Dallas 4), Chief Justice John Jay, a Founding Father, told the jury they had the power “to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy,” and that “both objects are lawfully, within your power of decision.”
"The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy."
John Jay, 1st Chief Justice
United States supreme Court, 1789
"The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts."
Samuel Chase, U.S. supreme Court Justice,
1796, Signer of the unanimous Declaration
"The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both law and fact."
Oliver Wendell Holmes,
U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1902
"The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided."
Harlan F. Stone, 12th Chief Justice
U.S. Supreme Court, 1941
"The pages of history shine on instance of the jury's exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge. . . ."
U.S. vs Dougherty, 473 F 2nd 113, 1139, (1972)
If the implementation of a law is "manifestly absurd and unfair
" and would promote an injustice, a jury must be able to disregard it under the circumstance to enable justice to prevail. This is call jury nullification. They can nullify the law and acquit a person regardless of what the law says. This power may become ever more important when an administration or oppressive regime imposes Communist law on us, rather than good, honest and upright law to protects the basic rights of man. As an example, four jurors in Colonial days refused to convict William Penn under English rule and their integrity gave America freedom of religion. A jury in 1734 declared John Peter Zenger, a printer, "Not Guilty
" and gave America freedom of the press. The importance of this right cannot be over-emphasized in protecting freedom. It is explain well by Dr. Patrick Johnston as follows:
One of the peaceful means whereby the ordinary citizen can put the brakes on tyranny is through their jury vote. . . . The juror has the power to stop tyranny dead in its tracks by refusing to enforce legislation contrary to the laws of God and the principles engraved in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Congress, the President, the Supreme Court --- none of these can enforce bad law! Congress can draft it, the President can sign it, the Federal judges can interpret it, but our nation’s founders decided that a jury of one’s peers would decide guilt or innocence. A jury is a critical part of our systems of checks and balances, and a morally upright, knowledgeable, independent jury is critical to the preservation of our God-given liberties.
The real power of juries is very great. In Norton vs. Shelby County, 118 US 425, p. 422, it states, "An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed." (Ibid.) John Adams in 1771 explained, "It is not only the juror’s right, but his duty to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court." (Ibid.)
(b) Grand Juries:
The 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says in part as follows: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury . . . .
” It is a safety net or shield to prevent injustice and stop wrongs.
High Court Justice Lewis Powell, in United States v. Calandra
, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974), said this: “The institution of the grand jury is deeply rooted in Anglo-American history.
(note3) In England, the grand jury (p. 343) served for centuries both as a body of accusers sworn to discover and present for trial persons suspected of criminal wrongdoing and as a protector of citizens against arbitrary and oppressive governmental action. In this country, the Founders thought the grand jury so essential to basic liberties that they provided in the Fifth Amendment that federal prosecution for serious crimes can only be instituted by “a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.
” (Cf. Costello v. United States
, 350 U.S. 359, 361-362 (1956)
The purpose of Grand Juries is well expressed in the Creighton Law Review, Vol. 33, No. 4 1999-2000, p. 821, in an article entitled, "If It’s Not a Runaway, It’s Not a Real Grand Jury." In this article, attorney Roger Roots declares:
In addition to its traditional role of screening criminal cases for prosecution, common law grand juries had the power to exclude prosecutors from their presence at any time and to investigate public officials without governmental influence. These fundamental powers allowed grand juries to serve a vital function of oversight upon the government. The function of a grand jury to ferret out government corruption was the primary purpose of the grand jury system in ages past.
Judge Scalia made the statement that the Grand Jury “is an institution separate from the courts, over whose functioning the courts do not preside.
” – it is characterized as the
“fourth branch of government. . . . In fact, the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people.
(See Stirone v. United States
, 361 U.S. 212, 218 (1960); Hale v. Henkel
, 201 U.S. 43, 61 (1906) That is, it is another check and balance needed to protect the people from their government and to ensure that corruption in high places are discovered and prosecuted. In this second part, the U. S. Government has tried to curtail it's power, but the power is still there in full force, and needs to be used. Grand Juries can and should use their "presentment"
power or the authority to accuse in order to ensure government corruption does not get entrenched and protects the people from unfair prosecution and injustice. (Alan Strang, 2009: www.newswithviews.com/Stang/alan195.htm
) The Grand Juries also have the right and duty to nulify unconstitutional laws or laws that are absurd or misapplied in a particular situation to ensure what is right and fair is preserved for the best good of all.
No matter the number of enumerated and un-enumerated individual Rights guaranteed by the Constitution, they are meaningless unless, when violated, the individual is able to hold their government officials accountable. It's well settled in American Jurisprudence that "any Right that is not enforceable is not a Right."
Grand Juries are a great tool in the hands of those who love freedom to limit an out-of-control government.
15. Big government
like any monopoly equals more and more infringements on State, Community and personal rights. Freedom is little by little taken away or lost by such. In fact, big government is against the constitution, therefore it is in violation of it. In rebellion against unauthorized and illegal regulations and mandates from the Federal Government, the State of Oklahoma
passed the following resolution on 3/13/08:
WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."; and
WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more; and
WHEREAS, the scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and Req. No. 9466 Page 2
WHEREAS, today, in 2008, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government; and
WHEREAS, many federal mandates are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and
WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states; and
WHEREAS, a number of proposals from previous administrations and some now pending from the present administration and from Congress may further violate the Constitution of the United States.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE SENATE OF THE 2ND SESSION OF THE 51ST OKLAHOMA LEGISLATURE: THAT the State of Oklahoma hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States.
THAT this serve as Notice and Demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.
THAT a copy of this resolution be distributed to the President of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the Speaker Req. No. 9466 Page 3 of the House and the President of the Senate of each state's legislature of the United States of America, and each member of the Oklahoma Congressional Delegation.
It is important that no part of the government be allowed to infringe on checks and balances designed to protect the people and preserve their inalienable rights to freedom. Big government is a threat and an encroachment that we must protect ourselves from. State and community shares of sovereignty are important safeguards to limit and preserve it.
Power is dangerous especially in the hands of big government which can force and rob us. Hence the following salient warning by Harry Browne who wrote, "It's important to realize that whenever you give power to politicians or bureaucrats, it will be used for what they want, not for what you want.
" In fact, "it will be used in ways you never intended.
A good example of this was given by Neal Boortz in 2003. He said, "Tell me please why this Patriot Act is being used for so many criminal investigations in this country, like petty drug cases, that have no connection with terrorism? Lesson: If you give the government power . . . it will use that power. It will use 100% of that power, and more." (Ibid.) We are in jeopardy of becoming a police state if this trend continues.
Paul M. Weyrich, President of the Free Congress Research and Education Foundation, writing in the December, 2001 issue of Reason
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution is the most at risk. The government will challenge our right to be shielded from unreasonable search and seizure. . . . [They want] without a warrant from a judge [to be] able to read our e-mail and other documents.
Ah, you say, I have nothing to hide, so why do I care? In this era of political correctness where the ordinary practices of today become the crimes of tomorrow, it is dangerous to have that view. Perhaps you may want the government to have access to your innermost views. But what do you suppose will happen when you determine that the government has become too repressive and it must be replaced? What do you suppose will happen to you when government officials find out your views before you have had a chance to act upon them? (Ibid.)
We must realize that:
As long as human beings are imperfect, there will always be arguments for extending the power of government to deal with these imperfections. The only logical stopping place is totalitarianism---unless we realize that tolerating imperfections is the price of freedom.
(Dr. Thomas Sowell: Ibid.)
In other words, "Freedom requires tolerance of foolishness. . . . Without this tolerance for the freedom of others, no one's freedoms are secure." (Dr. Donald J. Boudreaux: Ibid.) Henry Grady Weaver (1889-1949), who wrote the book The Mainspring of Human Progress, declared empathically that,
Most of the major ills of the world have been caused by well-meaning people who ignored the principle of individual freedom, except as applied to themselves, and who were obsessed with fanatical zeal to improve the lot of mankind- in-the-mass through some pet formula of their own. The harm done by ordinary criminals, murderers, gangsters, and thieves is negligible in comparison with the agony inflicted upon human beings by the professional do-gooders, who attempt to set themselves up as gods on earth and who would ruthlessly force their views on all others---with the abiding assurance that the end justifies the means. (Ibid.)
"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of power,
" declared Daniel Webster. (Ibid.) The problem is, most people do not see any danger at all in this. Burt Rand wrote, "People who think of government as the institution to entrust with enough powerto right all the world's wrongs seem to never consider that they must thereby give it enough power to do wrong to all the world's rights."
Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr., a political commentator declared on this subject, "We're dealing with the oldest political error: the belief that because everyone wants something, government should or must provide it." (Ibid.) This false philosophy deceives people into giving more and more power to the Federal government. But the so-called free handouts are not free, but come with a heavy price considering big government waste, mismanagement and boondoggling. John S. Coleman wrote: "The point to remember is that what the government gives, it must first take away." (Ibid.) And it will use legalized plunder or theft to do it.
The safest road and the wisest thing to do is to reduce and limit the government and thus preserve our most priceless heritage of freedom for generations to come. To do otherwise is foolhardy or to stick one's head in the sand. It is to invite trouble, poverty and decline. "Government should be our servant, not our master." (Doug Guetzloe: Ibid.)
Since the Oklahoma House of representatives passed the above resolution declaring that mandates that go beyond the scope of the rights granted to the Federal government in the Constitution, eight more states have been added to the list that are considering it. They are as
Analysts expect that in addition, another 20 states may see similar measures introduced this year, including Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Nevada, Maine and Pennsylvania.
A supreme court attorney has warned that, "Thirty-three democracies descended into tyranny during the 20th century by failing to uphold constitutional protections.
order=0&thold=0) It is critical that the Constitution be followed to protect and safeguard one of the most precious things we have and that is freedom.
16. Income Tax
in the original U. S. Constitution was forbidden as an important check against the Federal government getting too big. Because money is power, and an almighty government would end up being too big, too powerful and too dangerous to the freedom and liberty of its people, the United States government was, by design, created to receive its operating money mostly from the States in order to balance things out and limit what the Federal government could do. Their plan was to give the States a huge amount of power instead of crippling or diminishing them by making them beg money from the Federal government which then controls them through these purse strings. That is, if the States are obedient to the requirements---the strings they attach, then they get money, if not, they are denied. And if they do accept the money, they become dependent on the Feds who force mandantes down their throats.
Congressman Davy Crockett (1786-1836) was so impressed by the following statement of Horatio Bunce that he recorded it for posternity:
The power of collecting and disbursing money [redistribution] at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be intrusted to man. . . . You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. (The full text from 1884 biography by Edward S. Ellis, "The Life of Colonel David Crockett")
As a check to limit "big brother" welfarism and control, that is, to stop the irresponsible, inefficient, reckless, wasteful and power-hungry politicians and corrupt bureaucrats, the founding fathers constitutionally denied the Federal government the power of instituting a personal income tax. The States could levy an income tax, but not the Federal government. This was considered to be a great principle to stop government meddling and its infringement on rights as well as keep taxes down for everyone, because the states would naturally compete against one another to keep the rate low or risk losing individuals and business to other states with lower taxes.
Taxes can be good. Franklin D. Roosevelt said, "Taxes, after all, are dues that we pay for the privileges of membership in an organized society.
) With taxes we support or pay for civilization, a beautiful thing, but those taxes must not be oppressive or punitive. Remember, taxes are not voluntary, it is usurped by the enormous force of government from unwilling participants at the threat of fines or imprisonment.
Chief Justice John Marshall in 1819 gave out the powerful warning when he declared that, "The power to tax involves the power to destroy.
) The point is, "Whoever has control of your money has control of your life, liberty, and pursuit of prosperity.
(reference unknown) The Federal government was never supposed to be given so much power. Amschel Mayer Rothchild (1773-1855), an international banker, who understood money and control better than most people ever will, declared, "Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes its laws.
) Money talks. It is what makes all the final decisions. The power to tax is the power to control and ruin or force people. Lenin said it well when he declared, "The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation.
Taxation when it brings in more than is needed is wrong. President Grover Cleveland declared:
When more of the people's substance is exacted through the form of [forced] taxation than is necessary to meet the just [not unwarrented and unjust] obligations of the Government and the expense of its economical administration, such exaction becomes ruthelss extortion and a violation of the fundamental principles of a free [and prosperous] government. (Second Annual Message, December 6, 1886; Messages and Papers, 8:509)
It is reckless and irresponsible to give a lot of money to an out of control and corrupt government. This only perpetuates crime and corruption in the whole of society. Great care must be taken to create powerful checks and balances to protect our resources, our property and our very lives from the atrocities and looting that typically occurs if government power is not thwarted
and checked. This was a big concern of the founding fathers, who did not want our precious freedoms lost to future generations.
In U. S. history, we had a double-digit inflation and unemployment problem under Jimmy Carter in the early 1980's. It was licked by Ronald Reagan through across-the-board tax cuts for everyone (even the despised rich), which touched off a twenty-plus year run of prosperity. It is not government handouts, it is not a dole that " . . . provides for us all, but because the productive members of society generate not just money, but value, not just wealth, but opportunity, providing goods and services that continually improve the quality of life for all. . . ."
) This is what creates economic greatness,
". . . creates jobs and provides the foundation for a sound and healthy economy.
" (Ibid.) Taxes do not create wealth or prosperity, people do. People, who are encouraged by the fact that they can create a good living for themselves and others, take reasonable risks and thereby create wealth and raise the standard of living for everyone. But they must be unhampered by suffocating regulations, oppressive penalties and taxes that defy all rational reason and good common sense. Encourage the people, the entrepreneurs and you encourage the whole economy and
everyone is benefited.
. Limiting Government:
another way the founding fathers thought of, besides forbidding a personal income tax to keep the Federal government from getting too big and too power, was to constitutionally limited what it could do or be involved in by the supreme law of the land. Article I(8) of the Constitution states:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
To establish post offices and post roads;
To promote 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;
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To 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;
To 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, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And
To 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. (
From the US Constitution)
For example, there is absolutely no authority or legal permission for the federal government to legislate in areas of the environment, education, FEMA, the NEA, the FDA, welfare, health care and many others. This limit was to keep the Federal government from getting into all kinds of mischief that is better solved and dealt with on a local level where nationwide controled monopolies will not be created or perpetuated. To further prevent corruption and the confiscation of rights, a new supreme law was created by the founding fathers to protect freedom. The tenth amendment states that:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. (From the US Constitution)
This is one of the most important and beautiful amendments ever enunciated. If followed it would protect us from the danger of centralizing all power in an abusive or potentially
abusive government. President James Madison in vetoing a bill that would have provided funds for something that was not one of the "enumerated powers
The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified and enumerated in the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers [of] . . . the Constitution in the Government of the United States . . .
To refer the power in question to the clause “to provide for common defense and general welfare” would be contrary to the established and consistent rules of interpretation . . . [to do or think otherwise would be to render] the special and careful enumeration of powers . . . nugatory [of no force or validity] and improper. Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general [all-encompassing] power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them . . .
In the Federalist Papers, he wrote that the 10th Amendment, makes it so that, "The powers delegated by the . . . Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.
In other words, he explained, “The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; [otherwise] those of the State governments, [will be the most powerful and significant and far-reaching] in times of peace and security.” (Ibid.) That is, the States were to be more powerful than the Federal government in order to protect the people from Federal interference and meddling in areas for which they had no authority or business.
An Arizona Representative John Shadegg has in early 2009 introduced an impressive and perfect answer to all the many wrongs the Federal government is perpetrating against the Constitution of the United States. It is called the "Enumerated Powers Act" (H.R. 450), which would require that:
Each Act of Congress shall contain a concise and definite statement of the constitutional authority relied upon for the enactment of each portion of that Act.
Since every Representative and Senator has sworn to ". . . preserve, protect and defend the Constitution,
" this would force legislators to identify violations, identify all offensive bills or sections of bills, so they could immediately be remedied or be thrown out all together as being illegal and unlawful. This great principle has been added to "The Model Constitution.
As an additional protection, Article I(3) of the Constitution specified that Senators were to be chosen by the State legislators, not by State popular elections. This was to preserve State's rights and not have the Federal government assume the vast unconstitutional powers and authorities as it currently has. Big government diminishes the right of the people: For example:
The point is, big government is invariably inefficient and bungling, costly, wasteful, creates huge new meddlesome and intrusive bureaucracies, spends money it doesn't have, and adds more and more regulations that drown people in red tape and ruins businesses, which are the backbone of all real progress.
As a test of corruption for a nation, Tacitus (56 to 115 AD), a Roman senator and historian, wrote, "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws." http://freedomkeys.com/vigil.htm
) Hence, it may be an indictment against the U.S. that, "The American government creates 50,000 new laws each year, and over 2 million new regulations."
(Lorne Strider: Ibid.) This is crazy and monstrous. Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850) declared, "Thus . . . law, instead of checking injustice, becomes the invincible weapon of injustice. . . . Law is used by the legislator to destroy in varying degrees . . . personal independence by . . . oppression and . . . plunder.
" (2009: www.quebecoislibre.org/06/061126-4.htm
) Lorne Strider, quoted above, sarcastically declared, "Then we are told by the courts that 'ignorance of the law is no excuse!'
" But how can one keep up with "50,000 new laws
" and "over 2 million new regulations
" a year? (Michael David Warren, Into the Rabbit Hole,
p. 271) Andrew P. Napolitano in his article October 2008 article in The Wall Street Journal
The air you breathe, the water you drink, the size of your toilet tank, the water pressure in your shower, the words you can speak under oath and in private, how your physician treats your illness, what your children study in grade school, how fast you can drive your car, and what you can drink before you drive it are all regulated by federal law. Congress has enacted over 4,000 federal crimes and written or authorized over one million pages of laws and regulations. Worse, we are expected by law to understand all of it.
This is reckless and irresponsible and most of these laws and regulations end up enslaving us little by little. Mr. Naolitano declares, "All of this legislation -- merely tips of an unconstitutional Big Government iceberg --- is so obviously in conflict with the plain words of the Constitution that one wonders how Congress gets away with it." (Ibid.)
So much of this is corrupting and monopolistic. It is ruining the most precious thing we have in the whole world---our liberty. James Madison wrote:
It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they... undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be tomorrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed [meaning it changes all the time]? (W. Cleon Skousen, The Five Thousand Year Leap, James Michael Pratt and Carlos Packard, eds., 2009, p. 246)
Thomas Jefferson in his First Inaugural Address declared that the law should "restrain men from injuring one another" but "leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits." (Ibid.) He explained that the U.S. Constitution gave Congress the power to criminally punish:
. . . treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations, and no other crimes whatsoever.
In other words, the Federal Government has gone beyond its bounds or limitations and has broken faith with the supreme law of the land. Thomas Jefferson continued with an example of two acts passed by the Legislature in 1798, one on certain crimes against the United States and another on fraud against the central bank. He then declared these laws:
. . . (and all their other acts which assume to create, define, or punish crimes, other than those so enumerated in the Constitution,) are altogether void, and of no force; and that the power to create, define, and punish such other crimes is reserved, and, of right, appertains solely and exclusively to the respective States, each within its own territory.
The pocket edition of the Federal Criminal Code is about 1,400 pages long --- the majority of which is unconstitutional.
The Federal Registry which records all of the regulations the federal government imposes on businesses (all of which carry the force of law), now exceeds 75,000 pages. The Office of Management and Budget estimates that merely complying with these regulations — that is, paying lawyers to keep educated on them, interpret them and implement them — costs U.S. business another $500 to $600 billion per year. (2009: www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,113861,00.html)
What a horrible waste? Government has a way of bungling everything it gets its hands on. There is not a man, woman or child that has not broken the law somehow. All laws outside of the enumerated powers of the Federal Government are void and illegal according to the Constitution and never should have been passed or accepted as valid.
Brian Micklethwait wrote of law as it stands in the British Isles:
. . . A world in which there is so much law [mountains of it piled higher and deeper every year] that nobody – not even lawyers, let alone policemen, politicians, and certainly not the general public – can possibly be aware, of what it all consists of, is not a good world to live in. It actually has quite a lot in common with a world with no law at all.
The danger is that corrupt governments in the past have used such overabundance of laws to get rid of political dissidents and put them into exile in Siberia for little or no reason at all --- because with so many laws, you can always find a law or regulation that was violated. And regulations tend to put businesses in a quagmire of over-regulation which can strangle the life out of them into extinction.
To stop such destructive abuse, it must be the responsibility of each lawmaker to carefully read and understand each bill and if they have not read it or do not understand it, they must vote against it. In other words, no one should be at liberty to vote for a bill he or she does not understand and agree with. If any clause is unclear, or would be too controlling or unconstitutional, it must be rejected.
All laws must be carefully framed in such a way that they do not rob the good honest people of the earth, but will hold the wicked accountable. President Lyndon B. Johnson said it well when he observed:
Aristotle declared, "It is not every man but only a statesman who can discern in its early stages the harm that is being done.
) We need more statesmen --- not men who have sold their souls, their integrity, their vote to special interests groups and big money.
Courts must judge laws as unconstitutional and therefore null and void that go beyond what the authority the constitution gives to the Federal government, as in the 10th Amendment of the U. S. Constitution. Andrew P. Napolitano in The Wall Street Journal article quoted above reminds us:
The truth is that the Constitution [only] grants Congress 17 specific (or "delegated") powers. And it commands in the Ninth and 10th Amendments that the powers not articulated and thus not delegated by the Constitution to Congress be reserved to the states and the people.
This is being violated left and right by the Federal government. It is unlawful. And all laws that are "manifestly absurd and unfair
" that promote monopolies, interfere with healthy competition, promote special interest groups so that we are not "equal under the law
" or that promote injustices or that which is fair, and are misapplied to legally rob people of freedom, property or
life --- the basic inalienable human rights that rightfully belong to all mankind, must be thrown out as unlawful. (Sir William Blackstone, "Of The Nature of Laws in General
" 2009: http://libertariannation.org/a/f21l3.html)
Such laws are an enemy to the best interests of the nation and its people. Such laws must be nullified and be made unenforceable. (See: "Jury Reform
The founding fathers did their very best to give us a framework of freedom that would allow us as individuals to pursue anything we so desired, as long as one citizen’s pursuit did not hurt another’s ability to do the same. They were very suspicious of big government and rightly so. Big organizations with their big money use the power of government to enlarge themselves and become more and more powerful. They end up destroying all competition and transform themselves into monopolies that block any possible opportunities for others. Hence, they hedge up the way to a better life, better goods and services, and stifle the progress of mankind. Big government, like any other suffocating, crippling monopoly, is not user friendly for the little guy---the average man and his family. It is an enemy to mankind because it is an enemy to freedom and prosperity. Ronald Reagan declared in his First Inaugural Address:
In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem. . . It is no coincidence [if you understand correct principles] that our present troubles parallel and are proportionate to the intervention and intrusion in our lives that result from unnecessary and excessive growth of government. (Richard D. Heffner, A Documentary History of the United States, 7th ed., 2002, pp. 480-481)
Other articles in this section:
Main articles written by the Commission:
" information or to join the Commission as a contributor or apply for certification for titles, knighthood, status or ancestry, please first read the
"Disclaimer and Obligatory Contract
." If you fully agree with them, you are welcome to contact us, make contributions, answer our survey and/or become a part of this important cause. Our goals and mission are to protect the public from counterfeit titles, phony knighthoods and fake genealogies. We also want to certify the true and the genuine as well as promote chivalry, royalty and nobility. We need your support. There is so much that needs to be done. We invite you to contribute and join with us.
© Copyright 2005/2009 -- International Commission on Nobility and Royalty. All Rights Reserved.