Ninety Five Theses on the Reform of Government

Ninety-Five Theses on the Reform of Government. 

by Andy Horning, Freedom, Indiana, USA

On October 31, 1517, Martin Luther nailed his Disputation of Doctor Martin Luther on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences onto the doors of the Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany.  Luther’s disputation, now commonly called the Ninety-Five Theses on the Power of Indulgences came at a time when the Catholic Church was horribly corrupt and abusive, and the theses catalyzed the Protestant Reformation.

Four-hundred and ninety years later, there is no doubt that the USA needs reformation.  Most of us don’t see the “forest for the trees,” but our political system has become horribly violent, corrupt and abusive.  Some of my arguments to this are listed in the following theses.

Please feel free to distribute these as you see fit; and to print out and nail them to whatever you think appropriate:

1.   Despite our hopes to the contrary, civil government has always been our most dangerous abstraction.  It is the medium of oppression, slavery, genocide and war.  Civil government exists only because people are too flawed to live without it.

2.   The word “govern” means to restrain.  But what we call “government” is actually a very dangerous, usually unrestrained abstraction of political power.

3.   People wielding governing power are at least as flawed as the people who need to be governed.

4.   Those who seek governing power tend to resist restraints upon power, and most people tend to be seduced by ungoverned leaders.

5.   A civilization thrives when governing power is restrained.  A civilization falls when its politicians become unregulated.

6.   An excellent means of governing political power is written law, and people empowered and educated to demand and enforce that law.

7.   Our nation’s founders devised a limited, federal form of government with divided powers opposed by checks and balances.

8.   They wrote down the laws in plain speech to be read by all, understood by all, and obeyed without any exception or ambiguity.

9.   The resulting Constitution for the United States of America worked better than any civil contract before or since.  The degree to which this nation erred is the degree from which our nation deviated from the core tenet that the law applies equally to all, without any exception or ambiguity.

10.  From the beginning there were both challenges to this governing contract, and also precedents for peacefully reasserting the Rule of Law.

11.  In response to the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, the legislatures of Kentucky and Virginia passed resolutions in 1799 demanding that government keep the terms of the U.S. Constitution.

12.  The signers of the Kentucky Resolution, echoing similar sentiments as in the Virginia Resolution, declared that “…if those who administer the general government be permitted to transgress the limits fixed by that compact,” that it would be their duty to nullify the union.

13.   Many limits have been transgressed in the time since those resolutions, and since 1803’s Marbury v. Madison.

14.  In that ruling, The Supreme Court under Chief Justice Marshall decreed that “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”

15.  Our politicians have twisted those words to mean that the Supreme Court is empowered to change the meaning of the Constitution.

16.  That is not what the founders authorized by the constitution.  That is also not what Marshall meant.

17.  For Marshall also said in that same ruling that “…the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”

18.  The constitution was exhaustively argued and explained in the Federalist and Antifederalist Papers, Madison’s Diaries, letters and books written by the men that wrote the Constitution itself.

19.  No interpretation of the Constitution for the United States of America is necessary or legal.

20.  Politicians can amend the constitution for clarity or alteration of government.

21.  But the Rule of Law, as opposed to the Rule of Men or the Rule of Tyrants, requires that government leaders restrain their power to written law, as written.

22.  Nothing else is legal under the Rule of Law.

23.  And history demonstrates that nothing else will last.

24.  The Constitution for the USA is short enough to be known by all.

25.  The Constitution for the USA is simple enough to be understood by all.

26.  The Constitution for the USA is important enough to obeyed without exceptions, special classes, caveats or provisos.

27.  All USA federal power is both created and limited by the Constitution for the USA.

28.  No federal actions or rulings can contravene or supersede the Constitution for the United States of America.

29.  A federal government is a specific form of limited government.  Just as it creates and empowers a central government stronger than a confederacy, our constitution forbids a unitary or all-powerful central government.

30.  All federal powers granted are clearly written into the constitution (Article I, Section 8; Article II, Sections 2-4; Article III).

31.  All other powers are prohibited from the federal government, and are the property of the states and the people (Amendment X).

32.  The legislative branch has all legislative power, and no executive or judicial power (Article I).

33.  The legislative branch of our central government has repeatedly passed laws that breach virtually every limit on federal authority, denying both state and citizen rights and taking property and money without legal authority.

34.  Yet the legislative branch has failed to use its authority to check and balance the executive and judicial branches.

35.  The executive branch has all executive power, and no legislative or judicial power (Article II).

36.  Through “executive orders” and other means, the executive branch has repeatedly exercised illegal legislative power both in lawmaking, creation of agencies, taxation/ funding, waging war and in making rules concerning captures.

37.  Yet the executive branch has failed to use its authority to check and balance the judicial and legislative branches.

38.  The judicial branch has all judicial power, and no legislative or executive power (Article III).

39.  The judicial branch has repeatedly usurped both executive and legislative authority to abrogate states’ rights (e.g, Roe v. Wade and Gonzales v. Raich) and citizen rights (e.g., Orff v. United States), as well as to diminish citizen rights by granting them to corporations (Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company).

40.  Yet the judiciary has failed to use its authority to check and balance the executive and legislative branches.

41.  Just as states have no federal power (Article I, section 10, and Article IV), the federal government has no state powers (Article I, Section 8, and amendments 9 and 10).

42.  No agency of government other than the legislative branch, has any legislative authority.

43.  No agency of government other than the executive branch, has any executive authority.

44.  No agency of government other than the judicial branch, has any judicial authority.

45.  Therefore, the EPA and IRS, for example, have no authority to make law, execute law, or judge law.

46.  Yet many “federal” agencies have assumed powers to make law, raise tax, enforce and judge law.

47.  Only the U.S. Congress has legal authority to coin official USA money and regulate the value thereof.

48.  Yet this authority has been unconstitutionally delegated to private banks.

49.  Our founders understood that free markets and maximum possible personal liberty serve citizen and national interests better than centralized authoritarianism.

50.  Yet our founders also understood that, while markets should be unfettered, the power to coin and regulate the value of money is best entrusted to civil government.

51.  The private banks now controlling the USA paper money supply are not audited or overseen by any agency of civil government.

52.  There is no other area of business in which politicians play so little a role.  Yet this is the one area of commerce where law clearly mandates political control.

53.  The U.S. Constitution was written to “secure the blessings of liberty.”  The “welfare” clauses of the Preamble and Article I, Section 8:1 did not refer to “welfare” programs that would not exist for another 150 years; and instead mean that general welfare is a blessing of liberty.

54.  The “commerce clause” of Article I, Section 8:3 was understood to mean the regulation and arbitration of commerce disputes between the states; not government manipulation of all trade within each state.

55.  Intentional misinterpretation of laws have gradually twisted “commerce” and “welfare” clauses to the effect that the USA government has forced industries overseas where less regulation (or almost no labor regulation, as in China) overseas means more opportunity, productivity and innovation overseas.

56.  Yet this government that seems to thrive on regulation does not regulate or impose any duties upon products made without USA regulations.

57.  This has in effect robbed U.S.A citizens of liberty, opportunity, employment, and of course, welfare and commerce.

58.  The federal government was never legally granted powers over health, education or income redistribution; therefore these powers are prohibited by law.

59.  Yet the greatest percentage of government taxation, spending and regulation is in these unauthorized domains.

60.  The federal government only briefly had legal power to regulate the manufacture, sale or transportation of a commercial product (Amendment XVIII).

61.  That power was repealed in 1933 (Amendment XXI).

62.  Yet the central government has over time exercised unconstitutional powers to regulate production, sale, transportation and even consumption of every description (e.g., food, clothing, shelter, medicine, services); even by private citizens within each state.

63.  The implementation and enforcement of federal payroll and income taxes abrogate Article III, section 2, and Amendments I, IV, V, IX and X.

64.  These taxes and enforcement actions are therefore illegal.

65.  These taxes harm every level of commerce, production, property ownership and even healthcare delivery (e.g., creation and maintenance of third-party payer system opposing free market care).

66.  These taxes are a medium of widespread political corruption on all levels of government (e.g., local, state and federal political favors and punishments).

67.  The U.S. Congress may not make federal law respecting any of the five freedoms enumerated in the first amendment, and only the U.S. Congress is empowered to make federal law.

68.  There can be no execution or judgment of laws that cannot legally exist.

69.  Hence there is a total constitutional ban on any federal authority in the first amendment freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition for redress of grievances.

70.  Yet innumerable federal laws have been written (and judgments passed) respecting, for example, establishments of religion and the free exercise thereof.

71.  The first amendment has been misconstrued to the effect that religious expressions have been banned from public places in clear violation of the letter, intent and exhaustive explanation (by its writers, at the time it was written) of the law.

72.  The IRS has no constitutional authority to make, judge or enforce laws.

73.  Yet tax “laws” restrict free speech within churches, political and other organizations, and in relation to political campaigns, in clear violation of the constitution.

74.  This has led to the destruction of free markets and cooperative social organizations, and a culture of corruption, political reward and punishment among all levels of civil government.

75.  Property ownership is guaranteed by the constitution; and this guarantee is a keystone to both liberty and healthy economics.

76.  In Kelo v. New London, the Supreme Court ruled that property takings in violation of Articles III and IV and the 5th and 14th amendments are permissible.

77.  The ruling itself abrogated Article III, section 2, and the separation of powers.

78.  Even prior to the Kelo ruling, governments at every level (federal, state and local) have taken property for non-payment of taxes, without any constitutional authority.

79.  Particularly since these taxes are routinely used for constitutionally forbidden purposes such as sports arenas, and since many taxes (e.g., income taxes) are themselves illegal, this property confiscation is illegal use of eminent domain.

80.  A proper use of the 5th and 14th amendments would be to prohibit such takings.

81.  The government of the USA has broken the Supreme Law of the Land (Article VI of the US Constitution).

82.  Abuse and violation of our clearly enumerated rights makes it uncertain what limits, if any, govern our government.

83.  This abuse of law and power has materially and significantly damaged USA citizens collectively.

84.  The USA, “The Land of the Free,” has the world’s highest percentage of citizens in prison.

85.  Up to 97 percent of felonies are settled by coerced plea.

86.  Most prisoners have been convicted of statutory offenses with no human victim.

87.  After generations of income redistribution, counterproductive programs and unsustainable government spending, Americans now work longer hours (over 20% since 1979), take fewer vacations (2 weeks since 1979) and spend less time with their children.

88.  One-third of American citizen-owned investable assets are in overseas financial centers, and innumerable enterprises have gone out of business, relocated overseas or sold-out to foreign ownership to avoid illegal and destructive taxation, regulation and litigation.

89.  Income/payroll taxes consume a half-trillion dollars in compliance costs, and drive business and personal decision-making to the detriment of the general welfare.

90.  The embedded costs of the taxes on production put the USA on a competitive disadvantage on the global market.

91.  It is established as just governance to prosecute as criminals those politicians who violate the laws restraining the dangerous power of government.

92.  Yet abuses of such scale and scope as herein described have occurred by degrees over many generations.

93.  This nation chooses its leaders by democratic elections, and citizen juries are empowered by law to judge both facts and the law.

94.  Citizens therefore have the power to change laws and leaders.  Abuses of governing power occurred by at least implied consent of citizens.

95.  That consent must be withdrawn.  The unconstitutional powers, agencies, rules and actions are null and void, and must be treated as such.

Whereas the government of the USA exists by the will of the People and only by Rule of Law under the Constitution of the USA; and whereas that government has broken the terms of that compact, and therefore operates as an ungoverned power; I demand that our leaders desist illegal operations and conform to the law of federal government.

In short I demand that our politicians obey the law.

Not a minute too soon…

This notion of “global economy” as a new phenomenon is hogwash.  Humanity has always traded over as far a distance as possible; and for some time now, that distance has encompassed the globe.  In boats made of bulrushes, via caravans over ice floes and by who-knows-what we haven’t heard of yet, people have traded globally for thousands of years. 

The East India Companies, who started wars, founded colonies and worked slaves from all over the world, were at least the equivalent of any military-industrial titan or “Big Oil” company we fear today.

Global economy is nothing new at all.  It has been going on for a really long time like this:

Products are mobile.  Capital is mobile.  People are, mostly, less mobile.  And while markets stay put, they do change a lot.  So, business searches for cheap labor, cheap resources, and cheap ways to put the two together, and it doesn’t matter where the market for the product ends up…the world is the production floor, and the world is the potential market.

So when our politicians impose labor regulations, or allow labor abuses that don’t exist anywhere else on earth, yet don’t impose any restrictions upon goods made without such nonsense, our politicians are essentially saying to our businesses, “find illegal labor, close down or move overseas.”

When our lawyers and courts wage lawsuits against businesses that’d never happen anywhere else, yet don’t impose any restrictions upon goods made without such lawsuits, these politicians are essentially saying to our factories, “find illegal labor, close down or move overseas.”

When our politicians regulate USA factory emissions, but place no sanctions on foreign goods produced without any such regulation, our politicians are essentially saying to our factories, “close down or move overseas.”

I could go on about taxes, unemployment compensation insurance, OSHA, FTC, subsidized health insurance, etc., etc., et cetera…but the bottom line is easy to see.  Our businesses listened to our politicians and did what they were told to do.  China makes our stuff now.  No other nation on earth has such a problem of trade imbalance with China.  It’s just us.  And what little is done here relies on “illegal” labor (the Constitution is Law, and unconstitutional laws are illegal), back-door exceptions and, of course, that raison d’être of politics, special deals for special people.

This is a huge problem that, combined with a deflating fiat dollar would, as I’d publicly declared back in 1999, smack us upside the head by 2010. 

I now think we’ll not make it to 2010.  Collapse has begun and it may become irreversible soon.

Remember, failure is an option when it comes to nations.  It’s not just that politicians can screw up; it is a certainty that, as is historically proven, they will screw up and we will all suffer.

I believe that the demographic problem of 78 million baby boomers going off tax rolls and onto our Ponzi Scheme doles (Social Security, Medicare, etc.), combined with a dollar that’s worth 4 cents, central banks that want to print more monopoly money, combined with a nation that doesn’t build stuff anymore (and we’re losing innovation and engineering very fast as well) is building a perfect storm with political and corporate corruption such as the world has never seen.

The once Greatest Nation on Earth is on the precipice and the edge is crumbling away.

We could still turn back.  But how?

A politician would tell you that more taxation, litigation and regulation will fix the problems caused by their taxation, litigation and regulation.

But I insist that the only solution is to put our politicians on a leash.

It just so happens that all of the taxation, litigation and regulation that have brought us to this brink…are illegal.  The authority to screw us up so badly was never constitutionally granted to any level of state power (local, state or federal).  There is no constitution that allows any of this.

So, if we’d return to constitutional Rule of Law, return to constitutional money, rights and governed government, all of our impediments to success in a global market would disappear, and we’d be able to recover from a nasty spill, instead of collapsing to our death.

Happily, this is what the candidacy of Dr. Ron Paul is all about. 

He is the only candidate who has any intention of instituting Rule of Law here.  He is the first in a hundred years. 

Better late than never, eh?

…Hello?

Every day, in every airport in this country, everybody gets searched without a warrant.  Property is often seized without any warrant.  You can argue whether that’s a good thing or not; but it’s pretty easy to see that the Constitution was never amended to make it legal. 

It is very specifically and clearly illegal, in fact, for government to do this to us.

Every day, people are denied their freedom of speech in pulpits, in areas not designated as “free speech zones,” in political campaigns, in private activities related to political campaigns, in business, and, of course, in airports. 

Of course there are “reasons” it happened; but the Constitution was never amended to make this legal, either.  This is also very specifically and clearly illegal by the well-understood words of the Constitution for the United States.

Every day, flak-jacketed cops arrest, and even kill people for “crimes” that don’t exist in any constitution anywhere in this nation.  Most of the authority our “authorities” wield to kill, imprison, fine and seize was never authorized by any constitution; and it’s therefore, by definition, unauthorized, unconstitutional and illegal.

So, in clear violation of law, but by obvious practice by armed agents of our politicians, you have have been denied freedom of speech, religion, assembly, petition, due process, property, and self defense.  You have no freedoms at all, really.  You have only illusions that last for only as long as our politicians feel charitable, and for as long as whatever liberties they allow just don’t matter to them.
So maybe the argument is that freedom is a bad thing and that authoritarian rule is safer and better?

But now “The Land of The Free” has the world’s highest percentage of citizens in prison, and most “felons” got there by coerced plea.  No nation has ever been so monitored, wiretapped and regulated in every area from the things you consume (or, mostly can’t consume), what you can learn and from whom, health options, what you can do, say, and with whom you can associate…or refuse to associate.

…You still think it’s possible or smart to give up liberty for security? 

Ha.

We still call Wahhabi Saudis our allies; and we don’t worry about all the nations who’ve threatened us with nuclear missiles proven capable of reaching us.  Our borders are still wide open to crooks, and our crime rates are a hundred times higher now than in 1900, when citizens could own machine guns without a license.  

We had far more liberty, and security, when Russia had spies and agents everywhere in our country, and had a thousand warheads pointed right at our heads.

And, of course, the remaining freedoms we’re still giving away were earned by uppity, self-reliant colonists in an unconquered land; with the world’s superpower breathing down their neck and about to burn down Washington, D.C.

Those people knew the price and value of liberty.

Freedom is security.  It always has been.  Giving it away is self-destruction.

So …when are we going to wake up? 

If you’re reading this, I’m betting that you’re not the problem. 

But when are your neighbors going to change the way they vote?

What will it take?  What can we still afford to lose?

There is hope in the unassuming form of Ron Paul.  Of all major party presidential candidates currently running, he’s the only one who’d honor the Oath of Office.  He’s the only one, in fact, running for the constitutional office of President of the United States of America.  He’s the only one who’d be the “cop of the constitution” that is not only badly needed now, but is, after all, what the job is supposed to be all about.

He’s the only one.

But you’d better get off your duff and support him right now. 

Because all those who oppose your rights oppose his candidacy.

You have easy choices now. 

What comes next may be a whole lot harder.

Oh, the shame…

I’ve been told countless times by otherwise intelligent citizens that our government is too powerful to fight.  “You can’t fight City Hall” is the common refrain.  That sounds right, but it’s never been true. 

What’s even less true than that, however, is the fear that “terrorists,” dependent upon small numbers and desperate means compared to nations with navies and air forces, are a bigger threat to us than is our own government. 

History shows that great nations always fall by their own hands.  And American history should show us a better truth to shape our future.

What did our founders say when faced with the prospect of lost liberties and invasion by what was then, the global superpower?  What did our founders, living as relatively insignificant colonists in an unconquered land, say about fighting apparently insuperable odds?

Well, here’s a part of what Patrick Henry said on March 23, 1775:  

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house?

Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?

Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us.

Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave.

Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston!

The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace– but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God!

I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!   

How Patrick Henry, and George Mason, and Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington, and all the others of their generation would now hang their heads in shame over what we have become.  A land of such bravery as theirs has morphed into a nation dependent upon “gun free zones” and a call to 911. 

If we were a serious nation…a really serious nation, we’d arm ourselves – our citizens – to the teeth and become just as tough as the anklebiters that are beating us now. 

Drug lords are tougher than we are – and that’s our fault.  Zealots, even when armed only with boxcutters, are tougher than we are – and that’s our fault.  I’m pretty sure a truck load full of armed drunks from Terre Haute could either take over the country, or save it; we are so fragile and dependent upon the politicians who have a 100% record of failure. 

If we’d call our troops back home from the >100 nations they’re in now, and if we’d allow citizens constitutional rights, we’d have nothing to fear from anybody.  We’d be the strongest, most prosperous nation on earth.

Again. 

Just like the last time we tried it.

…Who’s a Pacifist?

Nobody likes a pacifist, apparently.  

We’ve not had a year’s peace since “The War to End All Wars” precisely because we imprison, beat, humiliate and shun pacifists, and we vote for those most likely to get us killed in a glorious fanfare of trumpets, flags and blazing guns.  

Of course, The United States of America was at its peak in rising rates of innovation, wealth, leisure time, time spent with children, home ownership, life expectancy and even height during that generation of peace between The War Between the States and the Spanish American War; but who needs all that ever-upward stuff? 

We love war, and hate those who oppose it.  War is romantic and makes good movies.  Peace is dull.  OK.  Fine.  I don’t want to be a sissy and suggest that war is a bad thing.

But may I be so bold as to redefine our enemy?

Sure, that handful of guys armed with boxcutters and exploding shoes were our enemies; just as any thug, carjacker or burglar is an enemy.

But who can not only kill people, but can kill millions…and even wipe out any record that Mr/Ms so-and-so ever existed?  Who not only takes your money, but your home, too?  Who does fatal, gruesome medical tests on people without their consent?  Who wields unchallenged power over every aspect of your health, education and welfare?  Who slurps up this power with smiles, lies, yard signs, transparent corruption and abuse?  Who, with impunity, breaks every law (who else can break the constitution’s terms?), every moral code, every little item of decency as a matter of course?  And who has lied and schemed (here too) to get us into wars?

Who, in other words, does more harm to you, your life and your children’s future?  

…Hmmm?

Am I asking so much?

I’m going to work in a Canadian hospital for the rest of the week.  So I may be a bit incommunicado for a while.  But I’d like to restate what I think is a reasonable request: I want politicians to obey written laws, as written.  No “interpretation” from the bench; no “legal precedents;” no ifs, ands or buts.  If a law is unclear, politicians can clarify it in print.  If a law is bad, then they can change it, or delete it, in print.    But I want no more fudging or cheating.  I want politicians to obey what’s written, as written.

In other words, I want the Rule of Law under constitutions, right here in the USA, that we say we’re fighting for in Iraq. 

That’s it.  That’s what I want. 

Yes, I know.  Constitutions are called “outdated,” as if their words can’t be changed.  Constitutions are called “living documents,” as if that somehow means that the words shouldn’t mean anything.  

Of course it’s no surprise that politicians say such things.  Constitutions protect us from politicians, after all, and politicians want no such protections…

But I see a much bigger problem.  It’s the real reason why I’m appealing to you…as a citizen. 

You see, we never even ask politicians to obey written laws as written because we have our own reasons to twist and stretch and cheat the law.  For example, how many of us support free speech from the first amendment, yet go apoplectic against the freedom to bear arms from the second?  And how many of us want to carry guns in public, but would never allow anybody the freedom to smoke pot, in private?  And I know some who’d like the freedom to smoke pot, but would ban other people’s rights to trans-fats, or religious expression, or huge profits and unusual wealth.  Most who support abortion oppose the death penalty, while an awful lot of those who want to nuke the Middle East without even a declaration of war say that they’re pro-life…

All of the preceding is unconstitutional, or worse…it’s dysconstitutional. 

Every day now, Democrats wield only parts of the constitution against Republicans, and Republicans invoke other parts against Democrats.  Republicans will call certain parts obsolete while Democrats argue that it’s the other parts that need to go.  Nobody, it seems, allows that the whole constitution is both the best compromise ever, and the law.

Politicians will never be any more sensible than we are; and we’ve been acting like fascists.

Could we please just live in peace, prosperity and justice instead?…Please?

I propose we demand compliance with the world’s best written laws, as written, from both our politicians, and ourselves, by, say, 2012.  That’s plenty of time, and we don’t want to waste too much more of that.

So I’m asking you to call, write, picket or otherwise inform our politicians that we’ve learned our lesson and are ready to behave like adults.  That means that we enjoy the blessings of liberty – by allowing others theirs, too.

Would this be so terrible?  Am I asking too much?

Ron Paul ballot/delegate push!

Dear friends of liberty,

I need some patriots in Indiana who’ll commit to helping Ron Paul get on the ballot in Indiana, and to getting delegates to the GOP nominating convention.

All of us have other commitments, of course, so I’m hoping to spread the load out as broadly as possible.  So I need at least a couple of people (preferably a thousand) in each congressional district who’ll commit to doing whatever is necessary to get’r done.

I’m not sure about all the technicalities here, but I think we need only 500 signatures per district for ballot access (which means we collect more than 500 to make sure).

Please contact me directly as soon as possible.

I’ll be out of the country on business from Tuesday through Friday next week, but my cell should work, and email’s always good.

 Andrew Horning, RDCS

Cell: (812) 585 0504

Skype: andyhorning andrewhorning@hotmail.com   

An Interesting Exercise. Or two.

I’ll not give you any links, because I think this is a quick and easy search, and I don’t want you to think I’m unfairly prearranging an outcome:

  1. Look up the meaning and practice of fascism; only, don’t use the words of enemies, look up what fascists said about themselves.  Mussolini coined the term “fascism,” and he wrote an awful lot on the subject.
  2. Look up socialism/communism by the same rules.  Look up what Marx and Engels said.  Look up Friendly American Socialists like Eugene Debs. 
  3. Now, consider what you know of your own government and make a list of differences.

…Is this last part hard?  Does number 3 make you say thing like, “well…” “ummm…” and “you just can’t compare what’s happening today with…”??

 

Optional, extra credit exercise:

  1. Think about all the areas in which you believe government really does need to play a part.  Examples may be road-building, schools, national defense.
  2. Now, replace the word “government” with “corrupt lifelong politicians who also happen to be ignorant,” and think about number 1 again.

Have a nice day!

Utterly LOST

Just to refresh your memory, you didn’t vote for anybody in the UN.  You never will vote for a UN member because you can’t.  You have no control over those people at all.  No citizens anywhere in the world do. 

While inside the UN building they may argue that they are a democratic global government, the UN is a totally undemocratic force overwhelmingly comprised of totalitarian nations.

It’s as corrupt, destructive and foolish as you’d expect from any such body of unregulated power.

Out of the 53 nations on the Human Rights Commission, 16 are known for systematic slavery.  The UN has been worse than worthless in any major crisis in the years since its creation…years marked, by the way, by more wars, more genocides, more trouble of almost any sort, than before it was heaved into life.

Forget the silly little caprices like the Food for Oil scandal.  The UN promotes oppression and death to a degree that makes its looting and food fights in the UN building (No, really…read this) seem like wholesome, intelligent fun.

Well, what are these violent evil fools up to now?

It’s called, very appropriately and perhaps even as a sick joke, “LOST,” for Law Of the Sea Treaty.  And what it is should alarm you out of your citizen snooze and make you get all 1776.

Basically, LOST is the UN taking control of the oceans.  All ocean-touching commerce, security, communication, the works, will be under the control of third-rate Napoleons that answer to nobody and get their money from you…without asking.

Of course global socialists like Lugar and Bayh support this, so you need to vigorously express your displeasure to them.

You have two weeks.

Just two weeks.

Get on the phone.  Phone is better than email or fax.  Click on the links above to get all the contact info on each of those life-long politicians, and let them know that you’ll retire them if they don’t pull back from LOST.

A thought for October 2, 2007

The wrong but prevailing view of the 14th amendment is that this amendment makes “federal” law trump any state law. 

So, while the 14th amendment clearly had nothing to do with marijuana, abortion or in fact anything other than slavery…we have been told so often that we believe it that whatever happens in D.C. is law everywhere. 

The effect of this is that states can’t allow what the feds won’t allow, and that states can’t ban what the feds do permit.

But if you accept that view, then, as the Constitution for the U.S.A. is now written, citizens have more power, not fewer rights, than under a truly federal government, under which states could legally take some rights and powers away that the federal power could not.

Why? 

Well, between the 9th and 10th amendments of our constitution you’ll see that citizens have ALL rights and powers not specifically taken away from them by state and federal constitutions.

And if you read those constitutions carefully, you will find only three federal crimes: counterfeiting, piracy and treason. 

So, technically, our federal prisons are filled with political prisoners, not criminals.

The federal government has never been granted the power to so much as write you a speeding ticket.  So, how can states take liberties granted to you (9th and 10th amendments) by a supposedly higher power?

Hmmmm…