Radically Reasonable

Besides the complaints about jobs, money and immigration that now seem ubiquitous on this planet, the Brexit supporters complained about the “unelected bureaucrats” in Brussels who write laws for all of Europe. This ruling cabal of commissioners was called things like, “…overpaid and arrogant, but opaque and unaccountable…”

USA wonks nodded their smug comprehension, apparently thinking that at least we elect our lawmakers on this side of the pond. At least our lawmakers can be fired.

But we don’t fire them. Nor can we; because most of our laws aren’t written by people authorized to write laws. And we didn’t elect them.

And, no, I’m not even talking about the lobbyists who write most of what Congress makes law.

You see, while the “lawmakers” in the US Congress are of course overpaid, arrogant, and almost completely corrupt, they’re practically irrelevant now.

Unelected bureaucrats in innumerable federal agencies (DOE, FDA, FCC, USDA, IRS…) and even private organizations with governing powers like “The Federal Reserve System,” make thirty times as many regulations as does the US Congress, though Article I Section I of the Constitution for the USA restricts all legislative powers to only congress. Even if counting only those regulations that affect USA citizens directly, bureaucrats wrote sixteen times as many laws as did the US Congress.

Some say the rapidly growing regulatory burden amounts to around $15K per year for every USA household. Whatever the actual cost, unregulated regulation is literally criminal, and very destructive to our prosperity, independence, opportunity and of course, freedom.

What’s worse is that these agencies are also, quite unlike our US Congress, heavily armed against us.

They have been granted legislative, judicial, and executive powers (armed with SWAT teams and military gear…the USDA has machine guns! Even the federal DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION is armed now!!!) without checks and balances, without an electoral accountability, and without any constitutional authority.

And this doesn’t even count the UN

liberty

The Two Party System has to go

So,

I propose we limit lawmaking to only lawmakers, as the constitution demands.

I propose a sunset rule or constitutional amendment – a 10-year expiration date for all non-constitutionally specified agencies, laws, powers and programs to gracefully remove, or at least review for reinstatement, everything that’s not specifically written into the constitution.

I propose a Rule of Law reboot, to affirm that politicians must obey laws too…at last.

I propose we stand down our global military “whack-a-mole” machine, and concentrate on defending our homeland instead of browbeating and manipulating the world.

I propose that our government issue only sound money as constitutionally required, and allow free market trade and monetary alternatives as our constitution also demands (Amendments 9 and 10 in particular).

All this is what we’re supposed to be doing anyway. It’s what many of us think is what’s happening now.

It’s unfortunate that this sane, legal, proven sensibility would be nothing less than a revolution.

What’s fortunate is that it already belongs to us. We need only to choose it on Election Day.

HorningCongress640

This ain’t about religion, folks

I’ve got no idea what was going through Omar Mateen‘s mind when he decided he was a terrorist.  But I do know how people tend to justify anger and violence.  I know that the justifications sometimes become motivation.  And I’m certain that our modern culture of global, politically-inflamed and monetary-policy-fueled violence should be discussed.  

It’s easy to see why people react against “The Religion of Peace,” and why people of that faith want to defend their faith.

But with so much obvious ignorance and disastrously bad policy (have ANY of our government’s promises or justifications for warfare turned out to be true?), we’re past-due for a look at both OUR history, and our allies…including the one that seems off-the-table, taboo, and the Name Never Spoken: Saudi Arabia.

Ibn Taymiyyah, Abd al-Wahhab (1703 – 1792) was a Sunni Muslim cleric who rejected modern culture and technology, and sought to purify and distill Islam to the faith and practices of the Salaf.  In other words, he wanted people to live in the year 700.

This was not a very popular idea among the very many Muslims who liked the advances made in the intervening thousand years.

Putting it more plainly, many wanted him dead. So the cleric sought out the protection of a well-known desert warrior/ emir, Muhammad ibn Saud.

It turned out that Wahhab’s ideas of religious discipline and zeal fit very well with Saud’s ideas of military conquest and political domination. They legitimized each other, in effect; and so they created a dynasty that endures to today.

But this militarized religion in the form of Wahhabism and the House of Saud had pretty powerful enemies within the prevailing Ottoman Empire. So the Ottomans eventually (albeit violently) contained Saudi Arabia’s inherent military expansionist zeal.

Through all this, however, Ottomans and Europeans were also fighting each other. It was mostly the British who started a practice of deceit and division to ally with opposing factions to disrupt the empire.

After the Young Turk Revolution and during WWI is when the young archaeologist T.E. Lawrence was pushed into Britain’s assymetric engagement to bring down the Ottoman Empire.

765px-Lawrence_of_Arabia_Brough_Superior_gifThomas Edward Lawrence, CB DSO FAS, better known as “Lawrence of Arabia,” was an amazing guy; and not just because the multilingual soldier/ archaeologist/ writer liked motorcycles. Mostly, it’s because he was both a key historical figure, and a Cassandric chronicler of our current problems in the Middle East.

During the revolution/fall of the Ottoman Empire, Lawrence tried to help the Egyptian-led Hashemite forces make a stable, peaceful transition to the modern world. But England was, at first unbeknownst to Lawrence, also subsidizing the opposing faction of Muslims in Riyad…the House of Saud.

The people of England have been led in Mesopotamia into a trap from which it will be hard to escape with dignity and honor. They have been tricked into it by a steady withholding of information. The Baghdad communiques are belated, insincere, incomplete. Things have been far worse than we have been told, our administration more bloody and inefficient than the public knows. It is a disgrace to our imperial record, and may soon be too inflamed for any ordinary cure. We are today not far from a disaster.” – “Report on Mesopotamia” The Sunday Times (22 August 1920)  (does this seem familar somehow?)

Lawrence’s axis of Egyptian/Syrian Arabs did most of the real dismantling of the old Empire while the House of Saud/Wahhabis pretty much rebuilt in the background (and certainly avoided the forces helped/led by T.E. Lawrence).

With the increasing importance of oil, and the ready sources of it in his grasp, Abdul-Aziz ibn Abdul-Rahman al Faisal al Saud became more than just a military force.

So the British then did in that conflict what the USA has done ever since…they funded, equipped and aided two sides of a revolution against a third entity, and ended up picking the worst side.

So it was the Wahhabist Saudi faction that gained the real power from the post-revolution/ post-WWI power struggles…because western powers took their side.

To make the long story short, Saudi Arabia became nobody’s friend, but everybody’s ally; especially since FDR signed a deal with the Saudis, and Nixon based the dollar on their oil trade.

Richer by far than the dissipating Rothchilds, as heavily armed as they want to be, and to seal their imperviousness to our domestic production, we just gave the Wahhabis our biggest oil refinery in Port Arthur Texas.

Global imperialism and concomitantly devalued currency wrecked the British Empire, so the USA has now taken on Britain’s role of self-destructing meddler-bully.

We’ve become both puppet and puppeteer, both thug and serf. The middle east is a divided, angry wreck because we made it that way over the past one-hundred years.

What’s next? What would you do if you were a non-Saudi in the Middle East? What should you do as a USA citizen?

Consider what Lawrence wrote as applicable to all of us:

With_Lawrence_in_ArabiaWhether they are fit for independence or not remains to be tried. Merit is no qualification for freedom. Bulgars, Afghans, and Tahitans have it. Freedom is enjoyed when you are so well armed, or so turbulent, or inhabit a country so thorny that the expense of your neighbour’s occupying you is greater than the profit.” – “Letter to the Editor” The Times (22 July 1920)

Updated Annotations to the US Constitution

Sorry it’s been so long since I’ve edited this…

https://wedeclare.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/the-united-states-constitution.pdf

Calling all Antiestablishmentarianists!

If you’ve been looking for a wholesome, constructive way to thumb your nose at the entrenched, corrupt, violent and stupid “Two Party System,” I’ve a suggestion…

Join my campaign team for US Senate!

This will be a practically zero-dollar campaign that I mean to run with mostly newbies.   I’m looking for people who love life …and mistrust politics enough to track it down, beat it down with a club and keep it hungry on a short leash.

I plan to fill all key positions in the next month or so.  I’ll need people to update lists, blast emails, coordinate volunteers, make movies, chalk sidewalks, perform street art, and so on.

andrewhorning@hotmail.com

“Stoopid Politics” in Fort Wayne

Here’s the YouTube video of the positively brilliant (well, at least fun) “Stoopid Politics” taped in Fort Wayne, Indiana on September 18, 2008.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwR02XqM_G0  pt1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pjVgAfIivA  pt2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3IS5-bLv04  pt3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Bu50DcWhNw pt4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiu152VZAkQ  pt5

 

 

 

 

About our “Fed…”

On the morning of November 14, 2007, “federal” “officials” (look up the meaning of both words, read the constitution, and you’ll see sad irony in these words) raided a company that produced “private voluntary barter currency” known as the Liberty Dollar.

Now many people have already said something like “well, good; only our government should make money.” 

Unfortunately, not only is that bad thinking, but also, our “government” (in any legitimate sense) doesn’t have anything to do with our money today.

Yes, I know.  Everything our government does is for a Darned Good Reason.  To think otherwise is unpatriotic and probably even terrorism.

So, I’ll just lay out what I know to be fact, and we’ll see if we can find the DGR.

Since 1913, USA money and our federal monetary policy has been created and directed by a quasi private, most-definitely-for-profit central bank; not by the US Congress. 

If you’ve read The Constitution of the United States, you know that the U.S. Congress is authorized “To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures.”  

Congress, via the Treasury, of course, still makes coins (though no longer of metal of intrinsic value).  But all paper currency, and the value of both coins and paper, as well as the policies by which all money works in this country, has been unconstitutionally delegated to a “private business.”  

It is in fact, the only private business I am aware of anywhere in the world, that operates completely free of regulation.  Or audits.  Or reporting requirements.  And with secret shareholders.  Oh, and they don’t have to answer questions if they don’t want to.

Now, anybody who knows anything about me knows that I’m 100% Free Market right down to the subatomic level.  I know that whatever our government touches turns to blood, and I know very well that politicians:

a. Lie  

b. Have guns and bombs

 

So the less politicians do, the better I like it.  And my few quibbles with the Constitution for the United States are where the founders stuck their nose too far into free market domains.  

But it is exceptionally dangerous to mix free market impulses with political force.  Such hybrids end up amplifying the worst of both trade released from accountability to the market, and politicians freed of accountability for their lust of power.

And through all of recorded history there’s been a deeply spooky problem with the control of money, and how that can so quickly become a crony capitalist, politician/banker bastard; neither free market, nor under law, but a monster that lives outside all borders of law, nation, morality, or long-term economics.  And THAT is what “The Fed” actually represents.

Let me explain.

Paper currency, at its best, has no intrinsic value.  Even what we call “real money,” like gold and silver, no matter how historically stable have values that are agreed upon, not truly intrinsic.  It is an instrument of value exchange.  If everybody agrees to use it for the exchange of goods and services, then it doesn’t matter whether your money is a scrap of paper (backed by nothing), a seashell, a gold coin or even a carved stick.  All the preceding things have been used effectively in trade.  

Here’s where things get ugly, because it involves greed, ignorance, sloth and all those other failings we typically group into that curse, “human.”

If the money supply, whatever its form, is manipulated for the wrong reasons, severe oppression (like serfdom/slavery) can result.  When people are granted a monopoly in determining what money is and who can make it…oy vey…there will be trouble.  And our government granted such a monopoly, in violation of our state and federal constitutions, in 1913.

One result is that all our banks operate on the principle of “fractional reserve banking,” which means that they can act like they have far more money than they actually have.  This allows them to loan out the same dollar many times, charging interest along the way, in order to make far more money in profit than could otherwise be the case.  Our system is supposed to be that new money is abstractly “created” by loaning out more money than actually exists, but is then “destroyed” when debts are paid. 

Obviously, a “run” on the bank would be bad, since the whole scheme is based upon an abstract fib…and immense trust in the people who’re both granted the power to create money, and the responsibility to destroy it.  But theoretically, without serious runs on the banks, it could all work out; sort of.  If the money supply is kept in reasonable correlation to our transactions, then the magic works to a degree.

Ahhhh, but the central bankers, who’re never audited by anybody and are in fact mostly unknown, make most of their money from government debts, not free-market trade! 

Many people get things twisted up here, with the enemies and friends all wrong.  The central bank devised in secret by Senator Nelson Aldrich, Frank Vanderlip, Henry Davison, and Paul Warburg at Jekyll Island was actually supposed to be an entirely, truly private consortium to handle only private, free-market banking screwups – just as J.P. Morgan, pretty much all by himself did, during the Panic of 1907.

Yes.  I’m saying that J.P. Morgan was a good guy.  So was the Creature from Jekyll Island we often think is the problem.  It was politicians like Woodrow Wilson and FDR that wanted us to think they saved us from bankers by making central bankers clean up political messes!  Politicians are the ones who created The Fed as a bastardized, political version of what Aldrich proposed.

Let me repeat this because it’s the pivot point.  The Federal Reserve is NOT really a private banking system any more than it is “federal.”  It does NOT serve the interests of legitimate banking so much as it serves the whims, unfulfillable promises and…endless wars…of politicians.  The more our government spends, the more money the cronies (both political and transpolitical) make, the more promises politicians can make, the more accountability and reality and debt our politicians can punt to the next generation.

It’s a system of nearly endless political IOUs, and of course, profits from debt.  It is, after all, a system that monetizes and markets debt!  (I say nearly, because I suspect it’s about to crash in maybe a decade)

Wars are of course the biggest single money makers, since, as James Madison pointed out: War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies and debts and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. No nation can preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.  …In war, the public treasuries are to be unlocked; and it is the executive hand which is to dispense them.” 

As of now, the undeclared wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have racked up about $5500 in debt for every man, woman and child in the USA.  Some generation is going to have to pay this in addition to all the other stuff (like the Ponzi schemes of Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security) ratcheting up the “national debt,” or find some way to nullify it all.

And I think it’s grimly ironic that now, with all the litigating, ballyhooing and campaigning against “big business,” “special interest” groups and “monopolistic business practices,” the most dangerous industry of all, the biggest of them all – banking (which Thomas Jefferson said was more dangerous than standing armies), is completely unregulated, monitored or even recognized as the root threat.

It’s like we’re crying about ants in our cupboard as wolves are crashing through the window.

War profiteering is a terrible thing, of course.  But war profits are, for those who can get them, a Darned Good Reason to do something. 

And war profiteers are the guys who run our money supply, and therefore our economy. 

These are the guys who fund our government.   

The good news is that for the first time in at least a half century, there’s an easy way to fix this: vote for Ron Paul.  The bad news is that if he doesn’t win, then debts, and violence, and division and corruption, will get a lot worse…

Well, now you can’t say I didn’t warn you.

Why They Fought

I’ve written a lot on Rule of Law, but perhaps I’ve not properly laid out the picture of what life would be like if we had it.  So, while I’ve already written down all the facts and laws in this posting elsewhere, I’ll now try to sum it up.

I confess that most of my sturm und drang is directed to federal policy.  But that’s only because we don’t have federal policy.  There is no law or custom, no property, no rights, no anything claimed in Indiana that isn’t routinely stolen by the goons of The Beltway, or New York, or the Hague.

How far from the constitutions have we strayed?  Well, after reading this, you tell me:

Article 1, Section 12 of the Indiana Constitution says that “Justice shall be administered freely, and without purchase; completely, and without denial; speedily, and without delay.” 

In other words, your legal needs are supposed to be paid for by your taxes.  We shouldn’t have legal arms races in the courtroom where the most money wins.  Imagine that.  “…Without purchase.”  Truly equal standing before the law.  No special deals for special people.  Poor people could actually seek justice.  Imagine that.

Article 1, Section 19. In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts.” 

No politician, no lawyer, no judge can tell you what to do as a juror.  This written law means that citizen jurors determine what the law means, and how it applies to the case at hand.  This is the opposite of what you’ve been told, right?

Article 1, Section 22. The privilege of the debtor to enjoy the necessary comforts of life, shall be recognized by wholesome laws, exempting a reasonable amount of property from seizure or sale, for the payment of any debt or liability hereafter contracted: and there shall be no imprisonment for debt, except in case of fraud.”

A home is obviously one of the necessary comforts of life.  So, your home cannot be legally seized and sold to pay for any state tax.  This means that an awful lot of Hoosiers have had their homes stolen by politicians breaking the laws that gave them their jobs.  That should never, ever happen again.  We should be very, very sorry that it ever happened at all.

Article 8, Section 1 mandates “…a general and uniform system of Common Schools, wherein tuition shall without charge, and equally open to all.”

Some argue that if government did nothing, rich people would send their kids to expensive schools, and only charities would provide schooling (of probably inferior quality) to only some of the poor.  Homeschoolers have proven a better way exists.  Nevertheless, it’s true that in the 1850s, the wealthy sent their kids to the best schools they could afford, and the poor or otherwise disadvantaged often went without any “proper” schooling at all  (like Thomas Edison, who had only three weeks of formal schooling).  

So starting in the 1840’s, Horace Mann argued that “Common Schools” (Prussian-style government school system) should be the “Great Equalizer,” and that politics must intervene to provide this identical “ladder of opportunity” to rich and poor alike.  What Indiana law mandates, in other words, are lots of identical schools all across the state; nobody gets a palace, nobody gets a dump.    Even before the law was written, small community-based schools were already being built at an astonishing pace, and locally funded Community Centers, typically built with private funds and never built by the state, were popping up everywhere to fill a need for sporting facilities that served all residents, whether in school or not.  Kids were to bring their own lunch to school, and it was starting to work in those years before the War Between the States. 

While I have strong feelings against government schools, the constitutional way would be much, much better than sending your kid on long bus rides to be a tiny fish in a huge ocean without the opportunities (in both education and sport) that kids had in years past.

And it should be paid for by state money alone, not some freakish hybrid of local, state and even federal money that ensures that nothing is fair or equal.

“Article 8, Section 3. The principal of the Common School fund shall remain a perpetual fund, which may be increased, but shall never be diminished; and the income thereof shall be inviolably appropriated to the support of Common Schools, and to no other purpose whatever.”

We’re supposed to pay for Common Schools with an endowed fund.  Our politicians spent it all years ago, of course.  There is no Common School fund now; but legally there is supposed to be an inviolable one.  And in all the specific maintenance funding mentioned in Article 8, Section 2 you’ll see that personal property tax is not mentioned.  Only “…Taxes on the property of corporations, that may be assessed by the General Assembly for common school purposes.

So only corporate property tax is to be used for the Common School system.  Since most of your property tax is to pay for “public schools” (which aren’t public at all; they’re government schools), this law should wipe out a huge part of your bill. 

And Article 10, Sections 5 and 6 would lop off a lot more income, sales and property tax:

“No law shall authorize any debt to be contracted, on behalf of the State, except in the following cases: to meet casual deficits in the revenue; to pay the interest on the State Debt; to repel invasion, suppress insurrection, or, if hostilities be threatened, provide for the public defense.” “Section 6. No county shall subscribe for stock in any incorporated company, unless the same be paid for at the time of such subscription; nor shall any county loan its credit to any incorporated company, nor borrow money for the purpose of taking stock in any such company; nor shall the General Assembly ever, on behalf of the State, assume the debts of any county, city, town, or township; nor of any corporation whatever.”

No more money to the Colts, Pacers, mall builders, foreign auto companies or any other campaign contributors.  In other words, much of what government now spends your money on is illegal spending.

If that isn’t clear enough, how about Article 11, Section 12?

“The State shall not be a stockholder in any bank; nor shall the credit of the State ever be given, or loaned, in aid of any person, association or corporation; nor shall the State become a stockholder in any corporation or association.”

Indiana’s original constitution was really quite good.  It was replaced in 1851 only because the state went broke investing in the public transportation craze of the early-mid 1800s (canal building).  Hoosier politicians carved into law some very clear prohibitions against what today’s politicians are doing to your wealth.

“ARTICLE 15., Section 4. Every person elected or appointed to any office under this Constitution, shall, before entering on the duties thereof, take an oath or affirmation, to support the Constitution of this State, and of the United States, and also an oath of office.”

Every politician, policeman and soldier in this country has sworn to submit to the authority of constitutions, both state and federal.  This is unequivocal.  They cannot break the laws that authorize their powers, or those powers are null and void.

But this brings me to some “federal” issues.  I’ll go back to Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search or seizure, shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or thing to be seized.”

So both the federal and state constitutions would have to be amended to allow the searches and seizures that happen by the minute at the Indianapolis International Airport, or the searches of email or phone calls now acknowledged to happen all the time.  Ditto the right to arm and protect yourself, ditto the right to religious expression, ditto many, many other rights we once cherished and protected. 

I say we follow the law instead.

Article 1, Section 25, which is something like the federal constitution’s Tenth Amendment, inarguably limits the power of politicians to written law:

“No law shall be passed, the taking effect of which shall be made to depend upon any authority, except as provided in this Constitution.”

This means that no law can contravene the constitution.  No authority exceeds it.  No state authority exists, in other words, outside what’s written into the constitution.  So it doesn’t matter what a judge or Governor or Mayor says about the law.  The constitution can be amended, but the constitution is to be obeyed, as written.

I’ve already made lots of arguments over many years on “federal” law.  I think I’ve presented the key parts of the Indiana Constitution above.

So here’s the summary of what our life is supposed to be like, but isn’t now:

Do what you want as long as it doesn’t interfere with anybody else.  Be what you want to be.  Say what you’d like to say.  Buy what you want to buy, sell what you want to sell, eat what you want to eat; even if it’s bad for you.  You may leap off of things in unsafe contraptions as long as only you bear the consequences.  You can take your case to court.  You can build whatever you want to build, and live in it, if you’d like, and protect it by any means that doesn’t harm the innocent. 

If you harm another, you will be responsible.  If another harms you, then you aren’t the one in trouble. 

We have rights that can’t be taken away by anybody for any reason.  We can own things that politicians may not touch. 

We keep the fruit of our labor, and we can pass what we save to whomever we choose.  Our money is ours, our property is ours, our bodies are ours and our precious, limited time, is ours.

Oh yes, and our politicians do what we say, not the other way around.

This is called Freedom, and I want it back.   

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.

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.