Your government is corrupt. Very, very corrupt.

coming-money-trustWe all know it to at least some degree.

I suppose we don’t react to it in any useful way because it has happened gradually, over several generations, in a sort of frog-in-the-cookpot scenario.  And maybe we just can’t picture anything better than what we’ve suffered all our lives.

But I don’t know why we even talk about ideology or “issues” until we deal with this:  The private clubs called the Democratic and Republican Parties are:

  1. Corrupt organizations operating illegally, as I’ll substantiate below.  They are crime rings enabling and fronting more crime rings.
  2. Owned by pretty much the same people. The small variation in owner pools (a few seemingly opposing corporations, unions, and “special interest groups”) don’t make any difference in political reality, because the major shareholder of both parties are the same bankers, military industrialists and energy, transportation and debt services companies.

Let’s end the charade. The thieving, deadly game of false dichotomies we call “The Two Party System” should be revealed for what it is…a sock-puppet show that distracts us from the real behind-the-scenes truth that our government is a crony crime network.   Their modus operandi and stock in trade is division and conflict; categorizing people and then setting us against each other; both here and everywhere on earth.  And this isn’t petty crime.  No other gangs on earth steal so much or kill so many.  This isn’t tin-foil-hat hyperbole.  It’s fact.  Let’s stop acting like it’s not.

Realistically, there are no other issues worth discussing until we deal with this one.  All other serious problems are just symptoms of a government gone very bad.  …And very well-armed against us.

A dozen Presidents warned us about the people who have made the world their ATM and battle ground.  But over generations, the factions controlling our government have become ever bolder in their violations of written, practical and moral laws.

Just to banish any possibility of doubt about the preceding:

Special privileges and powers granted to a class of citizens called a “major political party,” as defined and implemented in Indiana, are of course illegal by the Indiana Constitution’s Article I, Section 23:

The General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens.”

Here is a small sampling of special privileges and immunities just here in Indiana:

By creating arbitrary thresholds (Ind. Code § 3-10-1-2) that suppress all other candidates and political organizations, they have granted themselves taxpayer funded primary elections, which implicitly provide more money, public attention, free advertising and media promotion to only Democrats and Republicans at the actual expense of all alternatives.

Ind. Code § 6-4.1-4 specifies that members of the Indiana Election Commission “must be a member of a major political party.”  And Ind. Code § 6-4.1-4 grants that only “the state chairman of the major political party” has powers of nomination and appointments for succeeding terms.  Only designees “of the state chairman of each of the major political parties” shall “serve as members of the state recount commission.” (Ind. Code § 3-12-10-2.1)

Ind. Code § 3-10-1-4 grants only major political parties privileges of organization (precinct committeeman are a special class of citizen who have special powers [example, Ind. Code § 3-13-1-4, 5, 6], yet aren’t subject to the limitations placed on other political officeholders [Ind. Code § 3-6-1-15]) and process for nomination to public office and filling vacancies (e.g., Ind. Code § 3-13-5, 6).

Ind. Code § 3-8-2-2.5 imposes requirements and limitations upon write-in candidates – (b) 4: “The candidate may not claim affiliation with any political party described by IC 3-8-4-1.” “(e) A person may not be a write-in candidate in a contest for nomination or for election to a political party office.”

Ind. Code § 3-10-1-4.6 applies to only precinct committeemen elected by the Indiana Republican Party.

Ind. Code § 3-10-1-15 sets apart a separate ticket for “each political party holding a primary election” making all alternative candidates inconspicuous to voters.

In case you think that writing words into Indiana Code can make anything legit, Indiana Constitution’s Article I, Section 25 makes it clear that legislation cannot transgress the constitution:

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

As far as the corruption goes, the evidence is everywhere.  The correlation between campaign donations (business investments that pay multi-thousand-percent dividends) and legislation, the revolving door between regulators and the regulated, the hand-in-glove relationship between lobbyists and lawmaking, the insider trading that’s illegal everywhere but in the halls of power, the obvious payola, pork and conflicts of interest are so well documented by both “left” and “right” media as to be the most universally known and completely inexcusable part of this problem.

It’s not just academics, advocacy groups, bloggers, wonks and journalists who’ve told us about corruption.  Our own US Presidents, from the very first one, tried to clue us in.  President George Washington warned us against not just the existence of political parties, but also the entrenched corruption that invariably sprouts from such tribalism.  In 1834 Andrew Jackson called Central Banks, “… a den of vipers and thieves. I have determined to rout you out, and by the Eternal, I will rout you out!”  In 1912, after decades of rising cronyism, President Woodrow Wilson wrote that, “… we have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world.”  In 1961, President Eisenhower warned us against “…the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”

We should have heeded the warnings.  We should have noticed when the warnings stopped after John and Bobby Kennedy’s “Secret Society” campaign against the CIA.

Personally, I don’t care what politicians do on their free time and with their own money.  They can have affairs with every sort of willing creature, and snort all the coke that Marion Barry missed, and I won’t care a whit.

But all the stealing and defrauding and needless, groundless war has got to stop.

Come on…we know this one.  Our government, from the Precinct Committeeman who gets special business contracts and a summer job for his son on the DOT, to the bankers who own and operate most of the world, is corrupt from stem to stern, from keel to crow’s nest.

So let’s fix it.

There are two parts to this:

  1. Recognizing how we got here.
  1. Going somewhere else.

I worded that in just that way for a reason.  We got to where we are because it’s where people usually go.  And in the case of the USA and its democratic elections, we didn’t just fall into humanity’s default state of corrupt government, we voluntarily chose it, kept choosing it (with a >90% reelection rate).
And, if I can believe my ears and eyes, will likely choose it again in 2016.

Of course I hope I’m wrong about that last part.

So…

  1. We have to change ourselves. Our choices must change.  Our actions must change.  We must do our homework before we vote, after we vote, and whenever we feel like caring about our lives, liberties and property.  We can stop voting for the same people and parties that we know are corrupt.  We can vote for alternatives that, up to now, have been getting only single-digit support.
  1. And to do that, I think we need to imagine a better way to live. We need to stop putting so crazy-much trust in politicians, and show a little skepticism with their promises.  We need to see more ways to do things through the free market (look up what this really is if you think the Free Market is the bad guy…we have crony capitalism, not free markets).  If we can picture a better life, we can choose it.  If we choose it, we’ll get it.

This last part is critical.  Simply voting for alternative candidates won’t fix a thing because it’s fixing the wrong thing.  First, comes us.  We must change our hearts and minds.  We must develop a picture of how we should live, and then, dammit, choose that life!

I shouldn’t have to prove that constitutional rule of law under our existing state and federal constitutions as written would be a great start.  I’ve been trying to prove it for decades now (to little effect).  But ultimately, nobody can make you read the constitutions or choose wisely.  That has to come from you.

I’m hoping that what I’m offering here is a first step in recognizing that we have a terrible, terrible problem.

And I’m hoping you know that it’s in your power to fix it.  If we could get more people to see only that, we could be on the path to a better future…as opposed to the more usual cataclysm…which, I hope you can see, is just around the corner.

Liberty or Bust!

Indiana’s embarrassing tribalism

Like everything Democrat v Republican, the Orwellian-styled legal effluvium known as “Religious Freedom Restoration” has become its own religion, with priests and heretics, idolaters and zealous enemies pro and con.  So, once again, the self-appointed Two Party System has you arbitrarily separated into two opposing partisan tribes, feuding against each other needlessly, in our apparently endless game of Enemy Du Jour Whack-A-Mole.

This is stupid, destructive, and, of course, unconstitutional.

Unless you actually read the text of the law, you are deceived by the profusion of political rhetoric.  If you do read the law and still think it’s what the combatants, pro and con, say it is, you are self-deceived.

Let’s take this step by step, shall we?

First, did anybody amend the Indiana Constitution’s Article I Sections 1-5, where people are acknowledged to have religious rights surpassing any government power?

No.

So why do these enumerated rights need restoration?  Who took away these rights?  From whom do they need to be restored if politicians were to keep their mitts off these freedoms?

Why do we think this law is necessary?

Because no politician in Indiana is keeping her/his oath of office, that’s why.

Nobody is affirming constitutional rights over the plethora of contradictory, divisive, cliquish and corrupt laws that, according to the Indiana Constitution’s Article I Section 25, (and as clarified by the federal constitution’s 9th and 10th amendments) are null and void anyway.

Nobody is doing the constitutions.  Not politicians, and certainly not voters who can’ be bothered with such things when there’s always something more entertaining going on.

I shouldn’t have to go any further than that.

But let’s look at the law itself now:

Sec. 6. As used in this chapter, “governmental entity” includes the whole or any part of a branch, department, agency, instrumentality, official, or other individual or entity acting under color of law of any of the following: (1) State government. (2) A political subdivision (as defined in IC 36-1-2-13). (3) An instrumentality of a governmental entity described in subdivision(1) or (2), including a state educational institution, a body politic, a body corporate and politic, or any other similar entity established by law.”

Pay attention to the preceding definition of applicable governmental entity.  It basically grants that all agents of our current government, including bureaucrats, teachers, or anybody under political whim, has authority under this law.  For the purposes of this law (you’ve got to read it), that is unconstitutionally granting that non-executives have executive power, and non-judicial folk have judicial powers, since this law grants (as you will see) broad powers of judgment and action to governmental entities to “burden” your rights.

Sec. 7. As used in this chapter, “person” includes the following: (1) An individual. (2) An organization, a religious society, a church, a body of communicants, or a group organized and operated primarily for religious purposes. (3) A partnership, a limited liability company, a corporation, a company, a firm, a society, a joint-stock company, an unincorporated association, or another entity that: (A) may sue and be sued; and (B) exercises practices that are compelled or limited by a system of religious belief held by: (i) an individual; or (ii) the individuals; who have control and substantial ownership of the entity, regardless of whether the entity is organized and operated for profit or nonprofit purposes.”

Note the corporate person fiction.  Corporations, including churches under 501c3, are already under political authority as they, unlike actual living people, are government-created abstractions.  Grouping actual humans into this should warn you that this law evokes all the usual corruption.  But most people don’t get this, and that is another topic for another day, so I’ll move on to the more actionable words:

Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability. (b) A governmental entity may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates that application of the burden to the person: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

Sec. 9. A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding. If the relevant governmental entity is not a party to the proceeding, the governmental entity has an unconditional right to intervene in order to respond to the person’s invocation of this chapter.

Sec. 10. (a) If a court or other tribunal in which a violation of this chapter is asserted in conformity with section 9 of this chapter determines that: (1) the person’s exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened; and (2) the governmental entity imposing the burden has not demonstrated that application of the burden to the person: (A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest; the court or other tribunal shall allow a defense against any party and shall grant appropriate relief against the governmental entity. (b) Relief against the governmental entity may include any of the following: (1) Declaratory relief or an injunction or mandate that prevents, restrains, corrects, or abates the violation of this chapter. (2) Compensatory damages. (c) In the appropriate case, the court or other tribunal also may award all or part of the costs of litigation, including reasonable attorney’s fees, to a person that prevails against the governmental entity under this chapter.”

Here’s where the rubber meets the road.  Read the whole section above and see how, “A governmental entity may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if…” …it wants to.

Do you not see what happens here?  Read the Indiana Constitution’s Article I Section 25.  Try to find anywhere in that constitution where politicians should have any authority to write a law that in any way “burden a person’s” rights, either enumerated or not.  That’s not how the constitutions, state and federal, are supposed to work…at all!

We The People are supposed to be the boss of government, not the other way around!

Boiling down what the law actually says:

The state itself can’t oppose your rights…unless it wants to.  The state may back you up in court…or not.  The state is who the state says it is, and it decides whether its motives and actions are right, or not.

Does this comfort you?

It never affirms anybody’s rights in any way at all.  It never grants that you can do business as you see fit.  It never says that nobody will make you sell when you don’t want to sell.  It never says the state can’t force you to compromise your religious beliefs in action. 

To the contrary…it says very clearly that the state may well oppose you in all the above.

So, my dear fellow mortal human sinners…we’ve screwed up again.  We’ve again given everything unto Caesar.

Unfortunately, we get exactly what we want…

Update:  Here’s a much more civilized version of what’s written below: http://www.news-sentinel.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100407/EDITORIAL/4070332 

Well, I got all agitated over a very bad idea from some very good folks, and sent a response to several people.  So I might as well air it out here.  In case you don’t know, Indiana HB 1065 acknowledges anti-constitutional “federal” and state firearms restrictions as law as it attempts to legalize what’s already legal by the clear wording of both state and federal constitutions.  It also, not incidentally, pushes aside property owners’ rights. 

It’s of course intended to be a positive step toward individual gun rights, but it’s yet another “incremental,” and “pragmatic” step backwards.  It is, in other words, why the good guys are losing, and why we’re quickly reverting to our ancient, crude and ruthless authoritarian default state.  Anyway, here’s pretty-much what I wrote a few days ago:

Indiana’s HB 1065 is a good example of everything bad…with us.

If we would only insist upon the constitutions, as written, then why in the world would we allow such a thing as HB 1065 to weaken the constitutional mandate? Have a look at Article I, Section 32 of our state constitution (https://wedeclare.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/indiana-constitution-book.pdf).

It is crystal clear:

The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State.”

Why water that down? Why not insist upon it?
We vote for friendly demisocialists like Mitch Daniels because we’re idiots (today’s note: I have nothing against Mitch; it’s the people who voted for him that bother me). We rally around anti-constitutional bills as though they’re our friends because we’re idiots. We cast aside those who’ve been right for those who’ve always been wrong, and we throw away the best laws ever written for blithering nonsense that’s never worked.
Do we really think that new laws are better because they’re new? Why do we think future politicians will pay any more attention to them than to the foundational law that is the very basis of the lawmaking process…and to which they already swore an oath of support?
There are no shortcuts. Either we return to the constitutions as written (even if we have to write new ones), or we’re done…as a nation and as a free people.
Words must mean what they say. We must mean what we say.

We must know what we want, and say what that is…
People who promise to obey a flag and then step on the constitutions are not just stupid idolaters; they’re marauding oppressors.
I’ve personally seen an angry mob fire a mayor and city council.  I’ve seen angry letter/email/phone call-wielding people pass bills, defeat bills, and even overturn laws.  Having twice had 2.5 million people tell me to buzz off and take my constitutions with me, I know where the real power lies.

I’ve met the enemy, and it’s us.   …Not our ideological foes…us.

We who claim to love liberty need no other enemies as long as we oppose what’s already been done on our behalf.
We can fix our problems anytime we want to. But we apparently don’t want to.
We rally around half-@$$ self-destructive nonsense and refuse to unite over what we really want.
Sigh… I tried.

But it’s not up to me.
I can only watch as otherwise intelligent people do the same dumb things over and over and say that it’s the only way to go. As we plunge headlong into failure and oppression, the rallying cry is “that’s just the way it is!
Sigh…

The law is already written that would make you free.  If you compromise, you can only lose.

Just cleaning out my closet…

As always, I’d thought I’d had the best of intentions.  But, as always, my best ideas weren’t worth spit to anybody with money and power…

Here’s the first of a set of demo “Liberty Minute” segments I’d hoped somebody would air/sponsor/touch with a ten-foot-pole:

Liberty Minute #1

Another one

And another one

I had a whole bunch of them

But, to no avail. 

Sigh…

I really wish somebody would’ve taken me up on the liberty-themed bluegrass band (my banjo pickin’s rusty, but I could get my chops back), or the liberty-comedy videos, or the “Citizen Soapbox” night-out events, or the…

…well, none of those liberty-themed ideas worked.  Too much effort, I suppose. 

Perhaps we’re plunging toward our brutal default state because I just couldn’t get people excited about libertarian mime.  Maybe that whole constitutional ballet thing was badly conceived, but I’ll try anything if it promotes liberty and justice for all.

But I’ve been thinking a lot lately about liberty-based sports.  Americans know and care more about sports than anything else, apparently; and I’ve got this idea that’s a little like the winter games’ Biathlon, except without the skiing.  It’s even a little bit like football, in that things happen fast and you’ve got to know who’s on your side and who’s not. 

But it’s really like gladiator games or Ultimate Fighting, except these games are not in a stadium!

It’d be terribly exciting. 

OK, so just like other sports, there’s a possibility of serious injury or death.  Isn’t that part of the attraction?

But the prize for winning is liberty and justice for all! 

What could be more wholesome and fun?!?

…Anybody interested?

Eh…I suppose not.

…You think TAXES are a problem?

Before all the “Tea Party” events swirl through the news, there’s something I have to get off my chest.

Despite what you’ve been told about the cause of our Revolutionary War, you’ll be half-way through our Declaration of Independence before you see taxation mentioned, and then only in regard to imposing taxes on us without our consent.

After that, guess what?  Taxation doesn’t appear again.

Even “taxation without representation” (not in the Declaration, and the phrase was popularized later in the conflict) isn’t so much about taxation as it is about colonists’ right to proxies in the seat of power.

You see, the real reason our founders declared independence from England was King George’s “refusal to assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.” The Declaration cites the King for 27 violations of rights that Englishmen were due by written law. It was Rule of Law instead of rule of tyrants that our founders wanted — not anything unreasonable or even new.

Of course, from the moment the US Constitution was made law, politicians resisted its limitations on their power, such that by 1799, just ten years after ratification, both Madison and Jefferson wrote the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions to reassert federalism …or face annulment and dissolution of the union!  They demanded Rule of Law under existing constitutions as written…and they meant it.

Right now, we do not operate under Rule of Law by the constitutions as written.  We are under Common Law, or law by judicial decree.  The difference is huge; and as predicted by our founders, ultimately fatal.

No political power is any longer bound by any written laws.  In fact, as the courts are servants of the greater political/finance machine, there are no real limits on political power at all. 

So you have no rights.

You have no second amendment because you have no constitution.  You have no first amendment because you have no Rule of Law.  You’ve got nothing that can’t be taken away from you.  Not your property, your rights, or your life.

I’m scratching my head wondering why we think we have any other issues?

But no.  We divide and conquer…ourselves.  Second Amendment advocates campaign against our constitutional right to sin without civil punishment (as long as we don’t hurt others).  Those who call themselves “First Amendment Champion” typically oppose the very first right mentioned in the Frst Amendment’s five enumerated rights.  We each have our favorite rights, but we doggedly, stupidly, deny others’ their rights.

And so we have none at all.

And we think, on Tax Day, that how much of the Fed’s monopoly notes we feed the meter is, in itself, a problem?

Taxation out of control is only a minor symptom of a fatal disease, and we’re running out of time.

Right now we can communicate with amazing ease.  We can travel unimpeded.  We can form groups and meet.  But because we won’t even ask for constitutional Rule of Law, these are not rights; they’re conditional privileges with increasing conditions and decreasing privilege.  Soon, we will lose these privileges to the degree that opposition to our oppressors will be very, very difficult.

You think I’m kidding?  You think I’m in mouth-breathing hysteria mode beyond any reason?  You think that happy days are, as the experts tell us, just around the corner?

Actually, our government is blowing the great bubble even bigger for one huge, stinking, bloody pop.

Read any history book.  Then look at current events and see that those who’ve been wrong every time before are today called “pundits,” “experts” and “leaders,” while those who’ve always been right are called “fringe” and “losers.” 

Look at all the fallen nations before us and imagine what they must have been thinking in their final days.  I’m betting they all thought, “surely not!  That could never happen to us!”

Well, on a happier note, God is in control. 

He knows that we’re not!

In that, I find some comfort.

The Choice is Clear

FREEDOM, IN –

I’ve actually been asked questions like, “Why don’t you raise 10 million dollars so that…” or “Why don’t you get in all the newscasts and newspapers so that…” 

Stop it.

For too long we’ve pretended that elections are about candidates and their financiers, when that has never been true.  Elections are now and have always been about voters.  That’s the whole point of a democratic process, isn’t it?  In this democratic republic the politicians we choose reflect us.  All of our problems are of our choosing.  …Repeatedly.  We really should stop denying our role in government – and of course quit all the whining about term limits and “the influence of money in politics” when only we are responsible for a 98% incumbent reelection rate and multimilliondollar campaigns… 

So furthering this spirit of blunt truth, I’ll confess that while I am the only constitutional, liberty and justice candidate on the 2008 gubernatorial ballot, I know I may not reflect who Americans are these days.  We’re certainly not the self-disciplined and self-reliant Americans we used to be.

In fact many of us say we want a Real Leader, that is, someone who’ll authoritatively rule our lives, liberties and property.  If you are such a person, I suggest you vote for Mitch Daniels.  He really is the best leader Indiana has had in quite a while.  Without any perceptible ideology or partisan loyalty, and certainly without any constitutional restraints, he very effectively does what he thinks is best with your rights, money and property. 

If I were elected, I would govern government, not citizens; as that is what our constitutions and traditions demand. 

So if you need to be governed, I recommend you vote for Governor Daniels, not me.  I would stick rigidly to the constitutions of Indiana and the USA, which limit politicians, not you.  That’s just who I am and what I’d do.  If that’s not what you want, vote for somebody else.

If you identify yourself as a Democrat, and want to be told what to do by a Democrat, then Jill Long Thompson is an intelligent, personable, qualified choice.  She’s far more fixed to an ideology than is Daniels, and far more likely to employ partisan Democrat politics and policy.  But we voters have chosen partisan politics for the last hundred years.  So if you’re a team-jacket-wearing Democat, you really should vote for her, not me. 

Of course, in 2008 there will likely be two “independent candidates;” one who voted with Governor Daniels on most things, and another one with whom I actually agree on many things.  If you dislike the entrenched political parties as much as I do, but still need a politician to direct your money, morality, environmental concerns and so on, then one of these fine men (and I mean that) should get your vote.

If you are an adult who wants to run your own life, however, and want politicians on a leash at last, I am demonstrably the only choice.  If you want liberties under law, I’m it in 2008.  If you want businesses (not politicians) to do business; if you want doctors (not politicians) to do medicine; if you want the feds to stay on their side of the fence; if you want, in short, what made this nation the greatest for generations, then I am the only reasonable choice.

 

Let’s not fool ourselves any longer about our collective role in government.  We really do get exactly what we vote for.  So make sure you’re saying what you want to say with your vote.  Don’t assume this freedom will last forever…

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.