The Werdz of a Contempt

On the Subconscious

2010-02-06T20:12:00.000-06:00

by FranG

Introduction:

Many people think many things when they encounter the word ‘subconscious.’ Some conjure thoughts and images of mysterious supernatural forces while others dismiss it as psychological and medical quackery. But while each at an extreme, both observations connote the idea that the subconscious is separate and apart from what can be deemed the conscious, which is unequivocally acknowledged by both as the world of reality. Merriam-Websters dictionary defines both conscious and subconscious as such:

Conscious (adj.) –

Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin conscius, from com- + scire to know
Date: 1592

1 : perceiving, apprehending, or noticing with a degree of controlled thought or observation (was conscious that someone was watching)
2 archaic : sharing another's knowledge or awareness of an inward state or outward fact
3 : personally felt (conscious guilt)
4 : capable of or marked by thought, will, design, or perception
5 : self-conscious
6 : having mental faculties undulled by sleep, faintness, or stupor : awake (was conscious during the surgery)
7 : done or acting with critical awareness (a conscious effort to do better)
8 a : likely to notice, consider, or appraise (a bargain-conscious shopper) b : being concerned or interested (weight-conscious models) c : marked by strong feelings or notions (a race-conscious society)

Subconscious (adj.) –

Function: adjective
Date: circa 1834

: existing in the mind but not immediately available to consciousness (a subconscious motive)

As the conscious is deemed to be the world of reality, much more effort is given in the way of defining exactly what it is whereas the definition for ‘subconscious’ is short and concise, while even referencing ‘conscious’ for its contrasting against it. Also implicit in the definitions is the fact that the notion of the subconscious is a fairly new concept in comparison to the conscious. Though conventionally deemed as ancillary in everyday society, in this treatise I will attempt to show that it is actually by far the more important of the two, and that it is instead the conscious which is ancillary to the subconscious.

Innate Abilities of the subconscious

The human body is a remarkable piece of work, and can be argued as the most complex of organic structures in all of existence. A living body is contingent upon many vital processes for its operation, and though some of these may be consciously observed, many are not. For example, the Nervous System of the human body is responsible for submitting and receiving electrochemical information between the brain and the various nerves cells throughout the body. Another vital system of the body is the Circulatory System, which through a continuously beating heart, channels blood through the lungs and the various blood vessels that extend throughout every inch of the body. The Digestive System is responsible for the digestion of the food we eat via its production of saliva in the mouth upon anticipation and receipt of food, its subsequent acidifying of the stomach, and ultimately catalyzes the various machinations of the intestines before the food is finally disposed of as waste.

From a conscious aspect, the functions of the body are made known to the individual via sensory perception. The nerves throughout the body, for instance, can detect changes in temperature that the conscious mind perceives as a sensation of either increasing or decreasing heat. Or as is the case with saliva in the mouth, increased salivation will occur upon the mouth’s receiving of victuals, but this will likely not occur upon the entry of a foreign object, such as a piece of paper or metal, inserted in the mouth not meat which is not fit for digestion.

Consciously, it appears that we know these things because we are able to sense them. But this begs the question of how exactly does one know how to sense. For instance, how exactly does a newly born infant know how to suck a pap and swallow milk? No one has shown the infant anything, and what experiences has it drawn from to develop the ability to know? A more concessionary example may be the case of an adult, who from a distance may see a tree with his eyes: how exactly does the individual know how to see the tree? Can his eyes consciously perceive that the tree is in reality a skyscraper? He may wish that it were so, but his eyes will sense and detect a tree as long as the individual does not consciously close his eyelids. It should be apparent that though the individual can consciously see the tree, the actual ability to see the tree is in fact a function of the subconscious. For if this ability was a conscious function, he would be able to regulate its power, or functioning capability, by turning it on or off at will. Though the individual can avoid the tree as undesirable to look at, this will never substitute for his eyes detection of such as long as they are directly exposed to the stimuli projected from the tree.

And so we see that this innate knowledge of knowing anything extends from the subconscious, for if not that, then what? The heart of a man beats all the days of his existence, but who or what is responsible for the continual occurrence of this phenomenon? It isn’t the conscious which is responsible for this, for one doesn’t actively think or feel for his heart to beat every waking second of the day; but yet and still the heart keeps going. And if it is the subconscious that rests at the heart of all things conscious, then it must be that the subconscious is the more dominant of the two. The subconscious may render the heart no longer fit to beat and cause to cease its doing so, in turn eliminating the conscious of an individual. But the conscious cannot perform the inverse to the subconscious in a power struggle. For example, if the individual decides that he will hold his breath to restrict oxygen to the heart, this oxygen will be restricted only for a short time, after upon which the more dominant subconscious will step in to override this conscious act by rendering the conscious as unconscious, upon which breathing will again resume in the new state of unconsciousness induced by the conscious will of the individual. If, in a fit of madness an individual decides to shoot himself in the heart, this may very well stop it, but often it does not, but if so, usually the stoppage occurs at some point in the future while the individual is unconscious; which again means that it is the subconscious which has the last and overriding say.

Conscious thoughts

The thoughts of the individual represent the conscious mind, as these are a function of the active process of thinking that is done by him. In the sense that thoughts may exist outside of reality, as perceived by the conscious mind, an individual is free to think about whatever his mind fancies. He can envision himself as being or doing whatever he desires. This is also the case for objects in reality perceived by him; i.e., in his mind he may cause objects to exhibit properties in accordance to whatever it is his mind fancies. An individual can switch between differing sets of thoughts at his conscious will, and thus it appears that the thought process is very much in the control of the conscious mind. But thoughts necessarily follow from the individual’s perception of reality, and because, as stated above, perception is fueled and influenced by the subconscious, then the thoughts of an individual cannot exist outside of the subconscious. When a man thinks, he is doing either one of two things: 1) recollecting on events that he has perceived in the past, or 2) projecting for events that he will eventually perceive. In other words, the thoughts of an individual are concerned with either the past or the future, but never the present, for the present is where the individual actually resides, and where he actually resides he can only perceive because he is constantly receiving input from his environment which needs to be consciously processed in real time.

The individual’s concept of time may be referred to as ‘temporal perception.’ One does not experience time in the same manner that one experiences night and day, the changes in the seasons, or the growth and decay of organic life, including people on this planet. The concept of time serves as an overlay type of perception, one in which a person cannot sense directly, but yet in still he knows that it serves as the driver for all things existing in reality, as determined by perception. In this sense, the concept of time serves as a mental construct of the conscious mind in an attempt to explain what it cannot perceive; to wit, the phenomenon of both animate and inanimate objects constantly changing form in one way or another. Because an individual can only be consciously aware of what an object was, or will be, because as we have said he perceives in the present, it follows thus that the present in a temporal sense, exists only as an instant immeasurable to the conscious mind.

Because the thoughts of an individual exist in the present; i.e., the here and now or the current moment in time, said thoughts exist outside the realm of time as perceived by the conscious mind. And because the individual perceives in the present, his thoughts and perceptions can never exist simultaneously. Furthermore, because his thoughts exist in the present, then like his perception, the very substance of a thought is too a creature of the subconscious. A thought itself is of the subconscious, as well as the very perceptions consciously analyzed which exist within the thought.

The subconscious as a store of knowledge

Though knowledge is obtain by the conscious mind by way of its perception, this knowledge or information is ultimately stored into the subconscious, with the conscious mind having no awareness that this is being done by the subconscious. The conscious mind serves as a conduit for the subconscious to obtain information from the environment. One may posit that it is however the conscious mind which actively chooses the information, thus dictating ultimately what is to be stored. But this would be incorrect, for all future perceiving to be done by the conscious mind directly stems from its processing of past and current perceptions; the past perceptions existing in the form of ‘thought’ as we have stated earlier. And so in this regard, it is the subconscious which is ultimately responsible for the information it receives, by directing the conscious mind to where in reality it wants it to perceive via the form of conscious thought, which we have said is of the subconscious. It is the subconscious that has a vision of what it requires for sustenance, and uses the conscious as a tool in providing it. The knowledge obtained via perception extends to adventures experienced firsthand in nature, as well as adventures experienced secondhand via the erudition from books, plays, or neighborly gossip.

When the subconscious obtains information from the conscious mind, it is forever retained within the realms of itself. Knowledge is never lost, but rather amended as new information comes in; and this body of knowledge, in its totality is unavailable to the conscious. The subconscious, again by way of thought and perception, makes available to the conscious mind what it deems relevant at a particular moment of time, and in response to a particular form of stimuli. Certain situations trigger thoughts and insights in the individual, which are often unavailable to the conscious mind in other differing contexts. The frequency of knowledge obtained from within, or rather accessed by the conscious mind, is a function of what is deemed more useful by the subconscious. Knowledge essential for everyday survival will be readily accessed by the conscious with much more ease than that which is unessential and merely trivial in nature.

In addition to knowledge gained by the perception of the conscious mind, an innate store of knowledge is available to each individual upon the moment of his conception as a living soul. This is because he is endowed with the same vital substance which will blossom into the vital systems spoken above, which are regulated in full by the subconscious. And we have asked how it is possible for the newborn infant to know how to breath, suck and swallow upon the first instant of his cracking the womb. It is the subconscious which is responsible for providing the knowledge necessary for these things; with breathing being a less or non-existent conscious function than that of sucking and swallowing. And what adult can recall the knowledge to give a firsthand account of his nine-month experience in his mother’s womb, or even that very first day she held him and provided him with succor? The subconscious does not make this information available to the conscious mind, presumably because it deems this knowledge irrelevant or outside the scope of its mandate given to the conscious mind to obtain more relevant knowledge for it. But whatever the reason, the information resides in the subconscious, to be accessed at some moment in time, perhaps only when the conscious ceases to be.

The subconscious and dreams

The state of dreaming is a state of reduced consciousness. When an individual is induced by sleep, his conscious mind makes the transition from a state of active to passive perception. As such, the subconscious plays a more direct and dominant role in the function of an individual’s perception than is the case when the individual is awake, which may be the reason why vital processes operated by the subconscious come to a reduced state with sleep. While in a state of passive consciousness, the sleeping individual experiences reality in a totally different way than is the case when he is awake. As opposed to responding to primarily external stimuli, in the sleeping state he responds primarily to internal stimuli provided by the subconscious. This inverted perceptive experience is what we know as dreaming, where the individual journeys through the vast knowledge of the subconscious. In this passive state of consciousness, in which the individual is consciously unaware that he is dreaming, the line between reality and fantasy often becomes blurred. This is because previous consciously conceived thoughts and conceptions are more readily available from the subconscious while dreaming. Thus, if an individual was to actively envision a hybrid of an apple and orange while awake, he may very well encounter such a hybrid while in the dream state, and accordingly perceive it as reality. Or an individual may relive the past with a long since dead relative, fraternizing with him as if he were still alive in reality.

While sleeping, the individual still being responsive to external stimuli, but at a much reduced rate, can awaken from the dream state from such sensations as loud noises, such as the buzzing of an insect by the ear, or a loud alarm clock, or from sensations tactile in nature. Many times, however, these sensations are infused into the dream state and merge easily into that reality; i.e., the dream being currently experienced. The body awakens naturally when the subconscious has sufficiently rested its vital organs and processes. Just prior to awakening, the conscious mind is less passive than soon after the individual is induced by sleep, thus he becomes easily awakened by even the lightest of external stimuli, such as sunlight shining on his face. And when awake, the conscious mind is sometimes able to reflect on the experiences of the previous night while asleep, but only if this knowledge is made available to it, and brought to the surface of the conscious mind by the subconscious. Many times an individual cannot recall his dreams of the previous night, which can only mean that the subconscious deems them irrelevant at the present time. When dreams are in fact recollected, it must be because the subconscious is trying to direct the conscious, as is the case with the thought process, to some sort of stimuli which will serve to increase the knowledge bank of the subconscious.

Conclusion

As what is hopefully seen to be evident from this exposition, it has been determined that the conscious mind exists as a subset of the subconscious; and in all of its aspects, it works indirectly to support the total and complete will of the subconscious. Existing as a subset of the subconscious, the conscious can never ascertain nor comprehend the complete majesty of the subconscious. It is allowed to know certain things at distinct times, and when engaged in distinct circumstances, to pursue the end of adding to the glory of the subconscious via the acquisition of more knowledge which is used to amend that which is already existent within its realms. The conscious mind serves as a vitally important conduit of the subconscious, and is ultimately an extension of it.

Being a subset of the subconscious, the conscious is behooved to it for its own edification or destruction. The conscious mind is responsible for updating the subconscious, and information resulting from perceptions fed to it which are destructive in nature will only serve to weaken it, but vice versa for those that are constructive in nature. From the standpoint of the body’s vital systems and processes, proper nutritional inputs; i.e., clean air, water, and mineral rich foods will serve to make these run more efficiently. This in turn has a reinforcing effect, with the subconscious indirectly sending the conscious out to obtain more of these inputs for it. The same holds true for morality concerns, as certain behavior deemed undesirable should be kept from the subconscious so as to not pollute and corrupt it.

When the subconscious is thriving in a healthy state, so too will the body, and likewise the conscious mind, which will be the beneficiary of greater knowledge and understanding made available from the subconscious than otherwise would be the case. The conscious mind, being a servant of the subconscious, will act in a manner consistent with, and reflective of the pristine state of the subconscious. When the converse is true, and the active conscious mind is working contrary to the health of the subconscious (or paradoxically the subconscious working against the health of itself), it becomes increasingly duller as the subconscious it reflects is being made dull by it. This power of suggestion and the nature of the subconscious should be taken seriously by all, and especially of parents who are the stewards of their children’s impressionable young minds.

When the subconscious mind fails to obtain that which is vital for its functioning from the conscious, then it must draw from its reserves, which have been present since the conception of the individual as a living soul. From a strictly physical standpoint, when these reserves are completely exhausted, the body dies; that is, the vital processes controlled by the subconscious which serve to induce consciousness are no longer maintained by the subconscious. The mental reserves are never exhausted prior to physical death, and the conscious mind cannot know what happens when, if ever, the non-physical reserves of the subconscious are exhausted. At the moment of death, the conscious becomes totally consumed by the subconscious, becoming one with it. The individual no longer consciously and actively perceives anything, and life as he knows it becomes an uninhibited experience; resembling the dream state but with greater intensity it must be assumed. And again, the conscious mind cannot know what secret knowledge will be revealed to it upon the fulfillment of its subsumption into the subconscious.

Disclaimer and copyright: FranG may be deemed as paranoid and schizophrenic, thus reader discretion is advised.

Common law copyright, for non-commercial usage only

Born Into Slavery 4 of 4

2009-12-19T11:07:00.008-06:00

Continued from Part 3

ILLINOIS’ GENERAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM REQUIRES APPLICANTS TO ACTIVELY SEEK EMPLOYMENT

The State of Illinois’ major public aid programs are financed with federal funds. However, though grossly inferior, the State oversees a self-funded general assistance program, which is administered and funded at the local level. Though this program is under the complete jurisdiction of the State, as it does with its other programs, this too is chosen to run in conjunction and as a supplement to its federally-funded programs. The federally-funded counterparts to the State’s general assistance program are much better funded, in lieu of the dollars received from federal direct income taxation on states’ citizens, and the State of Illinois makes it a prerequisite to offer general assistance only to its citizens that do not qualify for federal assistance.

“A person otherwise eligible for aid under the federally funded programs to aid refugees or Articles III, IV or V who fails or refuses to comply with provisions of this Code or other laws, or rules and regulations of the Illinois Department, which would qualify him for aid under those programs or Articles, shall not receive General Assistance under this Article nor shall any of his dependents whose eligibility is contingent upon such compliance receive General Assistance.” (305 ILCS 5/6‑1.3)

Of course if one does not have a SSN, then he cannot receive federally-funded aid. But the SSA is in the practice of issuing SSN’s to whomever wants them, and thus the State of Illinois would consider this eligibility; and lack of a SSN will be no excuse for not qualifying to receive its federal-funded assistance. Another hurdle is that the individual must actively seek employment, which he is prohibited from having without a SSN. For mere survival purposes, especially if one has children, the compulsion, or if not this, the extreme pressure to acquire the federal SSN while living in State society will be impossible to bear.

“A person who is able to engage in employment, … who is unemployed or employed for less than the full working time for the occupation in which he is engaged, must register for and accept bona fide offers of employment, as provided in Section 11‑20. The local governmental unit shall determine, pursuant to rules and regulations, sanctions for persons failing to comply with requirements under this Section. In addition to any sanctions provided for in Section 11‑20, sanctions may include the loss of eligibility to receive aid under this Article for up to 90 days.” (305 ILCS 5/6‑1.4)

THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE NATION’S CHILDREN

The care and supervision over one’s own child, and the molding of him into a responsible adult first, and citizen second, is the most fundamental of all rights a parent can have. Absent bona fide abuse to the child, the parents rule over the child should be nearly unabated. But from the very birth of the child, the Secretary of Health and Human Services is more than aggressive in his determining who the parents of the newly born infant are. Thanks to the benevolence of the SSA in allowing state’s the free use of the SSN in their governmental administrative processes, the federal Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) watchful and hawkish eye over the “well-being” of the nation’s children, and the willful and wanton submission to federal jurisdiction by the Department of Public Health for the State of Illinois in exchange for federal monies (42 U.S.C. 651), the SSN’s of parents are required by law to appear on all birth certificates.

“…the social security numbers of the mother and father shall be collected at the time of the birth of the child. These numbers shall not be recorded on the certificate of live birth. The numbers may be used only for those purposes allowed by Federal law.” (410 ILCS 535/11)

The SSN collected at birth is not for the purpose of the birth certificate, but rather to place the parents into a database known as the ‘Federal Parent Locator Service,’ with the parents SSN’s serving as their unique individual identifiers, for the purposes of expedited child support enforcement services; i.e., the right to instruct parents in how to manage their children according to arbitrary standards; all under the guise of protecting the children. But as mentioned before, it is the jurisdictional sovereignty of the states that is coveted by the federal government.

“(1) The Secretary shall establish and conduct a Federal Parent Locator Service … which shall be used for the purposes specified in paragraphs (2) and (3). (2) For the purpose of establishing parentage or establishing, setting the amount of, modifying, or enforcing child support obligations, the Federal Parent Locator Service shall obtain and transmit to any authorized person specified in subsection (c) of this section— (A) information on, or facilitating the discovery of, the location of any individual— (i) who is under an obligation to pay child support; (ii) against whom such an obligation is sought; (iii) to whom such an obligation is owed; or (iv) who has or may have parental rights with respect to a child, including the individual’s social security number (or numbers), most recent address, and the name, address, and employer identification number of the individual’s employer; (B) information on the individual’s wages (or other income) from, and benefits of, employment (including rights to or enrollment in group health care coverage); and (C) information on the type, status, location, and amount of any assets of, or debts owed by or to, any such individual.” (42 U.S.C. 653 (a))

“The Illinois Department through its Child and Spouse Support Unit shall enter into agreements with the Secretary of Health and Human Services or his designee under which the services of the federal Parent Locator Service established by the Social Security Act are made available to this State and the Illinois Department for the purpose of locating an absent parent ...” (305 ILCS 5/10‑3.2)

This Federal Parent Locator Service is made possible via the help and cooperation of the Health Departments of various states. The Directory of “New Hires,” mentioned in the unemployment section above, is the brainchild of the HHS and its child support “suggested” legislation. The Federal Parent Locator Service serves as the liaison between the “New Hires” and the Child support cases database (or alimony via the SSN driven State marriage licenses database (750 ILCS 5/202)). By serving as the intermediary, the federal government is right at the center of all matters between state and citizen, and citizen and citizen, all under the semblance of helping the nation’s children.

“ … each State shall establish an automated directory (to be known as the “State Directory of New Hires”) which shall contain information supplied in accordance with subsection (b) of this section by employers on each newly hired employee. (1) In general … an agency designated by the State shall, directly or by contract, conduct automated comparisons of the social security numbers reported by employers pursuant to subsection (b) of this section and the social security numbers appearing in the records of the State case registry for cases being enforced under the State plan. (2) Notice of match When an information comparison conducted under paragraph (1) reveals a match with respect to the social security number of an individual required to provide support under a support order, the State Directory of New Hires shall provide the agency administering the State plan approved under this part of the appropriate State with the name, address, and social security number of the employee to whom the social security number is assigned, and the name and address of, and identifying number assigned under section 6109 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to, the employer.” (42 U.S. C. 653a)

“A State plan for child and spousal support must provide for the establishment and operation by the State agency … of a statewide automated data processing and information retrieval system meeting the requirements of section 654a of this title designed effectively and efficiently to assist management in the administration of the State plan, so as to control, account for, and monitor all the factors in the support enforcement collection and paternity determination process under such plan;” (42 U.S.C. 654 (16))

A couple may be tempted to not sign the birth certificate under the condition of divulging their SSN’s and forfeiting their child’s right to privacy. Of course the mother has little choice but to disclose this information, or be faced with the prospect of having her child taken from her by the hospital medical staff, or other “person” who finds a child of “unknown parentage.”

“Whoever assumes the custody of a living infant of unknown parentage shall report on a form and in the manner prescribed by the State Registrar of Vital Records, within 3 days, to the local registrar of the district in which the child was found, the following information: (a) The date and place of finding; (b) Sex, color or race, and approximate age of child; (c) Name and address of the persons or institution with whom the child has been placed for care; (d) Name given to the child by the custodian; and (e) Other data required by the State Registrar of Vital Records. (2) The place where the child was found shall be entered as the place of birth, and the date of birth shall be determined by approximation. (3) A report filed under this Section shall constitute the certificate of birth for the infant. (4) If the child is identified and a certificate of birth is found or obtained, any report filed under this Section shall be sealed and filed and may be opened only by order of a court of competent jurisdiction or as provided by regulation.” (410 ILCS 535/13)

The mother has little choice but to submit, but the father has options if he and his wife were smart enough not to seek a State marriage license to validate their union. The SSNs of the matrimonial couple are required on the marriage application, and if the couple has rejected such marriage license, then the father’s name will not appear on the birth certificate unless he signs an acknowledgment of paternity or parentage form, which also requires the disclosure of his SSN.

“The Director of Public Health shall prescribe the form for an application for a marriage license, which shall include the following information: (1) name, sex, occupation, address, social security number, date and place of birth of each party to the proposed marriage;” (750 ILCS 5/202)

“Unless otherwise provided in this Act, if the mother was not married to the father of the child at either the time of conception or the time of birth, the name of the father shall be entered on the child's birth certificate only if the mother and the person to be named as the father have signed an acknowledgment of parentage form … “ (410 ILCS 535/12)

Such a household with only one recognized parent for a child is against stated national and state policy. But in reality, this means that it is against public policy for individuals to not use their SSN’s, and the child(ren) of a couple is the strongest tool of coercion available to the State to force a couple into submission.

“The purpose of this part is to increase the flexibility of States in operating a program designed to— (1) provide assistance to needy families so that children may be cared for in their own homes or in the homes of relatives; (2) end the dependence of needy parents on government benefits by promoting job preparation, work, and marriage; (3) prevent and reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock pregnancies and establish annual numerical goals for preventing and reducing the incidence of these pregnancies; and (4) encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families.” (42 U.S.C. 601 (a))

A recalcitrant father, who otherwise refuses to sign a birth certificate or an acknowledgement of paternity form for his child, will have no legal rights with regard to the child. Thus, if anything should happen to the child’s mother, legally his status will not be recognized. He must then either submit to acquiring, or using his SSN as a prerequisite to employment via an employer, or for licensure requirements of a regulatory agency if self-employed. He can then support his family by being the “unofficially” head. This seems to be the best plan, but if he remains dogged in his refusal to get the federal SSN, the mother of the child will be forced to receive federally-funded state public assistance. If the father is suspected of being the father, by virtue of his association with the child and mother, he can be labeled as a putative father, and forced into paternity establishment proceedings. Any person with any association with the child can initiate a suit, including social workers, doctors, caregivers, educators, etc.

“Each family receiving aid shall be interviewed in person or communicated with in investigations of applications for aid and at least once in each subsequent 12 month period to ascertain continuing need for such aid and to provide the child and his parents or relatives with such service and guidance as will strengthen family life and aid them in utilizing to the maximum their capacities for self‑care, self‑support, and responsible citizenship.” (305 ILCS 5/4‑7)

“An action to determine the existence of the father and child relationship … may be brought by the child; the mother; a pregnant woman; any person or public agency who has custody of, or is providing or has provided financial support to, the child; the Department of Healthcare and Family Services if it is providing or has provided financial support to the child or if it is assisting with child support collection services…” (750 ILCS 45/7)

“Upon request by a public office, employers, labor unions, and telephone companies shall provide location information concerning putative fathers and noncustodial parents for the purpose of establishing a child's paternity or establishing, enforcing, or modifying a child support obligation.” (750 ILCS 45/14.5)

“The Illinois Department shall notify the Department of Public Health of a final determination of parentage and a voluntary acknowledgment of paternity made under the rules authorized by Section 10‑17.7, and the Department of Public Health shall issue a new certificate of birth pursuant to Section 17 of the Vital Records Act.” (305 ILCS 5/10‑17.8)

Without the SSN, a family will otherwise find itself in an epic struggle with the State directly, with the federal government pulling the strings from behind the scenes. With use of the SSN on a child’s birth certificate, the HHS Secretary is the de facto grandfather of the child, because he is the de facto father of the parents whom have SSN’s. Because without it, it is next to impossible to survive without government aid, and one must “voluntarily” obtain a federal SSN for State aid. Irrespective of the father, the mother receiving benefits would be forced from being a full-time mother, and to undergo vocational programs approved by the State, or risk losing financial assistance. The father will be forced to work under the pain of jail time for contumacy.

“… the Illinois Department as a condition of eligibility for public aid, may, as provided by rule, require all recipients to participate in an education, training, and employment program, which shall include accepting suitable employment and refraining from terminating employment or reducing earnings without good cause.” (305 ILCS 5/9A‑4)

“Whenever it is determined in a proceeding to establish or enforce a child support or maintenance obligation that the person owing a duty of support is unemployed, the court may order the person to seek employment and report periodically to the court with a diary, listing or other memorandum of his or her efforts in accordance with such order.” (750 ILCS 5/505.1)

THE CHILD WILL HAVE TO BE ENROLLED IN PUBLIC SCHOOL WHEN HE COMES OF AGE

Low-income parents with a child, who are somehow surviving without SSN’s, will have to enroll the child into a public school when he comes of age. This because it is compulsory, but more importantly, private schooling costs money, and this option will likely be unavailable to them.

“Whoever has custody or control of any child between the ages of 7 and 17 years (unless the child has already graduated from high school) shall cause such child to attend some public school in the district wherein the child resides the entire time it is in session during the regular school term, except as provided in Section 10‑19.1, and during a required summer school program established under Section 10‑22.33B; provided, that the following children shall not be required to attend the public schools: 1. Any child attending a private or a parochial school where children are taught the branches of education taught to children of corresponding age and grade in the public schools, and where the instruction of the child in the branches of education is in the English language;” (105 ILCS 5/26‑1)

In Illinois, private schools must register with the State Board of Education for certification, and every teacher at the school must submit their SSN’s for purposes of background checks. With homeschooling, though the Illinois School Code is silent on the point, courts have upheld that homeschooling is considered a “form of private education.” But the burden of proof will be on the parents to prove that their children are homogeneous along with their peers in public schools. Consequently, the State has laws befitting the busybody, and they will have no quarrels with reporting the neighbor’s children as truant, given that their children are enrolled in public school, without seeking to understand fully their neighbor’s situation. Any “person” can file a complaint, upon which the local school board must investigate.

“The truant officer of the school district, whenever notified by the Superintendent, teacher, or other person of violations of this Article, or the county truant officer, when notified by the County Superintendent, shall investigate all cases of truancy or non‑attendance at school in their respective jurisdictions, and if the children complained of are not exempt under the provisions of this Article, the truant officer shall proceed as is provided in this Article.” (105 ILCS 5/26‑5)

Every employee of a public and non-public school has a SSN, because as a condition of employment, they must submit to criminal background checks which request such information. What will the Board of Education think of parents so unorthodox as to not have a SSN, like everyone else, while judging their plight? And likewise, what will a truant officer think of a family so weird as to not have SSNs, and with the audacity to not send their child(ren) to public or a recognized private school like everyone else? All of this seems to work against the family trying to disassociate itself from the federal SSN. A petition filed against the parents would certainly lead to them obtaining a SSN, lest they face dire consequences, such as a jail time, but more importantly the threat of losing their child(ren) to the allegation of bad parenting and “child neglect.”

“The petition for court action shall include the name of the truant minor, the names and addresses of persons having custody or control of the student, the dates of the truant behavior, the dates and nature of contacts or conferences with the student and the persons having custody or control of the student, and the nature of the supportive services, alternative programs and other school resources the school district provided to that child in an effort to correct that child's truant behavior.” (105 ILCS 5/26‑8a)

SCHOOL LUNCH IN EXCHANGE FOR PARENTS' SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER

What does a parent’s SSN have to do with giving one of the nation’s children a free or reduced school lunch; other than to tap into unutilized resources in the way of increased memberships and contributions to the Social Security program? FICA taxes are an equal percentage-based tax on wages up to a certain capped amount of income. As such, it is a regressive tax (contribution) which disproportionately affects the poor rather than the rich. Taxing the poor for benefits is to not give them any benefits at all, but rather to charge them for it; and often this charge proves to be well above the value of the product and services they receive, do to government mismanagement. But nevertheless, parents with a child enrolled in a public school ran at the State level provides assistance for its citizens by means of selling them out to the federal government for grant monies from the National School Lunch Program. Such a program seems trivial enough for a State to operate independent of federal assistance, especially given the fact that they have decreed State education as mandatory.

“The Secretary shall require as a condition of eligibility for receipt of free or reduced price lunches that the member of the household who executes the application furnish the social security account number of the parent or guardian who is the primary wage earner responsible for the care of the child for whom the application is made, or that of another appropriate adult member of the child’s household, as determined by the Secretary. The Secretary shall require that social security account numbers of all adult members of the household be provided if verification of the data contained in the application is sought under subsection (b)(3)(G) of this section.” (42 U.S.C. 1758 (d)(1))

“A school board shall, whenever requested by the Department of Healthcare and Family Services (formerly Department of Public Aid), agree in writing with the Department of Healthcare and Family Services (as the State agency that administers the State Medical Assistance Program as provided in Title XIX of the federal Social Security Act and the State Children's Health Insurance Program as provided in Title XXI of the federal Social Security Act) to share with the Department of Healthcare and Family Services information on applicants for free or reduced‑price lunches ... This sharing of information shall be for the sole purpose of helping the Department of Healthcare and Family Services identify and enroll children in the State Medical Assistance Program or the State Children's Health Insurance Program or both as allowed under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1758(b)(2)(C)(iii)(IV) and under the restrictions set forth in 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1758(b)(2)(C)(vi) and (vii).” (105 ILCS 5/10‑28)

NEGLECTED CHILD

And with such aggression concerning the welfare of the children by the benevolent State, how can a parent do anything but cooperate, lest they be accused of child neglect. As is with reporting child truants, busybodies have an outlet to report their neighbors for “child abuse” or “child neglect” based on baseless hunches and fancies. A child whose parents have no SSN cannot receive State medical benefit, and immunization shots not received by a child is grounds for expulsion from school, and the parents guilty of child truancy.

“If a child does not comply … with the requirements of this subsection, then the local school authority shall exclude that child from school until such time as the child presents proof of having had the health examination as required and presents proof of having received those required immunizations which are medically possible to receive immediately. During a child's exclusion from school for noncompliance with this subsection, the child's parents or legal guardian shall be considered in violation of Section 26‑1 and subject to any penalty imposed by Section 26‑10.” (105 ILCS 5/27‑8.1)

Also, refusal to get a SSN and allow one’s child to be enrolled by some prude into the free school lunch program can be viewed by the busybodies at the school as neglect. A father without a SSN, and as a result is not working, is contrary to the “best interest of the child;” as would be noted by a public assistance case worker making periodic home inspections. A mother receiving inadequate state assistance because she chooses not to enroll in federally-funded programs that require a SSN would be considered so also. The family that homeschools may too be in great danger of statutory determined neglect of their child’s mental needs because the child is not socializing with his peers in the public school. And the parent who refuses his child the immunizations may seem a public health hazard to the administering physician. And so on and so forth.

“The Illinois Department of Children and Family Services shall, upon receiving reports made under this Act, protect the health, safety, and best interests of the child in all situations in which the child is vulnerable to child abuse or neglect, offer protective services in order to prevent any further harm to the child and to other children in the same environment or family, stabilize the home environment, and preserve family life whenever possible.” (325 ILCS 5/2)

“"Neglected child" means any child who is not receiving the proper or necessary nourishment or medically indicated treatment including food or care not provided solely on the basis of the present or anticipated mental or physical impairment , oas determined by a physician acting alone or in consultation with other physicians or otherwise is not receiving the proper or necessary support or medical or other remedial care recognized under State law as necessary for a child's well‑being, or other care necessary for his or her well‑being, including adequate food, clothing and shelter;” (325 ILCS 5/3)

CONCLUSION: SSN’s ARE CAPITAL ASSET TAGS ASSIGNED TO CITIZENS

The Social Security program of the United States federal government, with the conspicuous assistance of the fifty states, has become the de facto national ID card. The states have surrendered valuable sovereignty to the federal government, by having its own state identification card or driver’s license serve as a rider to the application for the federal SSN. The federal government can never service the needs of a state’s citizens better than the state can, and for it to try is an unconstitutional usurpation of the states’ sovereignty. But the federal government, via economies of scale from its central management role, can increase the commerce within and between the states; and this has been accomplished via the SSN, which serves as a mere capital asset tag for what the American citizen has allowed himself to be reduced to; for the SSN is not only used for identification purposes, but to overtly influence state’s legislation while funding it via mandated grants with tax dollars obtained from its citizens via an unconstitutional direct income tax which requires a SSN for its implementation.

The SSA, the genesis of the SSN program, by simply administering the contribution collections and benefits distributions to SSN account holders, is responsible for a whopping 18% of the federal government’s budget. HHS, with its meddling within the family affairs of private American citizens residing in the states, is effectively the moral arm of Social Security, and serves as judge and jury over how their lives are ran. The HHS accounts for 20% of the federal government’s budget. Finally, the IRS, as proxy for the U.S. Treasury, through unconstitutional “direct” taxes on incomes, serves as the business arm of Social Security, and dictates what kind of living American’s can make via its meddling in the unemployment insurance programs of the states, and affectively defrauding employers into enrolling themselves, and their employees into the federal income tax program, which accounts for an overwhelming 89% of the entire revenues of the federal government. And seven times more of these direct income taxes come from individuals over the amounts received from artificially-bodied corporations. The three of these entities, the SSA, HHS, and the IRS, along with their state counterparts and accomplices, work in tandem as a cohesive unit of enslavement, and the SSN is the viscus to each of their individual and collective operations.

The Commissioners of the SSA and IRS, as well as the Secretaries for HHS and the U.S. Treasury, are not friends of the American people. Rather than the faithful execution of their office, they serve to perpetuate a fraud that has been in existence for far too long, and has had a profound effect on the citizens of this nation. The SSN program has in effect, reduced the fifty states from the status of a U.S. constitutionally protected component of the federal United States, to a territorial colony of the national United States subject to its exclusive jurisdiction. The SSN’s are administered to children as a part of the birth process, a feat not even a state’s identification card has purported to accomplish. All aspects of civil society require the SSN to be used as the lubricant required for its functioning, and the glue for its remaining intact. Those without a federal SSN are effectively banished from state society, and parents without a SSN for themselves or their children are at extreme risk of having their children stolen from them under the guise of protecting the children from abuse or neglect. As wards of the state, the children will eventually be given SSN’s, as they will be needed for their functioning within the State, and the SSA will be more than happy to supply new SSN’s for these untapped sources of investment, assuring itself of continual future unconstitutional direct income tax revenue streams from the citizens of the nation.

Thanks for listening.

Disclaimer: FranG is a bona fide paranoid schizophrenic, and strict reliance upon his words may cause mental, and even physical injury. Reader discretion is strongly advised.

Common law copyright; for non-commercial use only.

Born Into Slavery 3 of 4

2009-12-19T10:14:00.010-06:00

Continued from Part 2

ILLINOIS CONSTITUTION VS ILLINOIS’ ‘STATUTE ON STATUTES’

“We, the People of the State of Illinois…” (Ill. Const. Preamble)

“"Person" or "persons" as well as all words referring to or importing persons, may extend and be applied to bodies politic and corporate as well as individuals.” (5 ILCS 70/1.05)

“"State," when applied to different parts of the United States, may be construed to include the District of Columbia and the several territories, and the words "United States" may be construed to include the said district and territories.” (5 ILCS 70/1.14)

The above definitions are the default definitions for “person” and “state” for all statutory language appearing in the Illinois Compiled Statutes (ILCS). This means that unless otherwise defined in the statute, a “person” “may” be a corporation, and a “state” “may be” the District of Columbia. And so it seems that by default, Illinois prefers to regard itself as having territorial status only, where subjugating itself to federal jurisdiction would now be the norm, as opposed to the exception.

“The Congress shall have power: To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;” (U.S. Const. Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 17)

“All that part of the territory of the United States included within the present limits of the District of Columbia shall be the permanent seat of government of the United States.” (4 U.S.C. 71)

ILLINOIS DRIVER’S LICENSE REQUIRES THE SSN OF ITS APPLICANTS

“No person, except those expressly exempted by Section 6‑102, shall drive any motor vehicle upon a highway in this State unless such person has a valid license or permit,” (625 ILCS 5/6‑101)

Definition of “State” as pertaining to the Illinois Vehicle Code:

“A state, territory or possession of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico or a province of the Dominion of Canada.” (625 ILCS 5/1‑195)

Do U.S. citizens have a right to travel? Well, Illinois, like other states, regulates this “right” as a privilege, and one must obtain a license to drive via the Secretary of State if he wishes to drive hassle-free on the roadways within the State’s borders. This regulation of the individual is plenty, but by requiring applicants for a driver’s license to divulge their SSN’s, the State coercively opens the door for federal jurisdiction over the applicant by way of linking the SSN to the State’s driver’s license. The individual’s state driver’s license, an instrument which should be privity to the state and the individual, now becomes evidence in any potential SSA hearings, for whatever cause, related to the said SSN tied to the individual and the driver’s license; and the SSA has the right to the private information it contains.

“Every application shall state the legal name, social security number, zip code, date of birth, sex, and residence address of the applicant; briefly describe the applicant; state whether the applicant has theretofore been licensed as a driver, and, if so, when and by what state or country, and whether any such license has ever been cancelled, suspended, revoked or refused, and, if so, the date and reason for such cancellation, suspension, revocation or refusal; shall include an affirmation by the applicant that all information set forth is true and correct; and shall bear the applicant's signature. The application form may also require the statement of such additional relevant information as the Secretary of State shall deem necessary to determine the applicant's competency and eligibility.” (625 ILCS 5/6‑106)

“For the purpose of any hearing, investigation, or other proceeding authorized or directed under this subchapter, or relative to any other matter within the Commissioner’s jurisdiction hereunder, the Commissioner of Social Security shall have power to issue subpoenas requiring the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of any evidence that relates to any matter under investigation or in question before the Commissioner of Social Security.” (42 U.S.C. 405 (d))

Notice how the SSN is second only to the legal name of the applicant in information priority. Also, as can be seen, the driver’s license application is the source of a wealth of information, all made available to the SSA for the mere act of the State unwarrantably requiring disclosure of the SSN. It should be noted here, that the process for obtaining a State identification card is the same as for a driver’s license. But all is not bad, supposedly, as the State allows for an exemption from the driver’s license application the SSN, if an individual does not have an SSN for “bona fide” religious reasons. Of course these religious reasons, which by the nature are private matters, are to be judged upon by the Secretary as legitimate or not, and the Illinois legislature still feels inclined to use a federal number on their form, rather it be a SSN or otherwise.

“The Secretary of State may in his discretion substitute a federal tax number in lieu of a social security number, or he may instead assign an additional distinctive number in lieu thereof, where an applicant is prohibited by bona fide religious convictions from applying or is exempt from applying for a social security number. The Secretary of State shall, however, determine which religious orders or sects have such bona fide religious convictions.” (625 ILCS 5/6‑106)

Though religion is a belief system practiced by an individual, it is his private business, and no concern of the State’s unless state laws are being broken via the practice of it. And of course the burden of proof of any ill will must be for the State to prove. But this is not the case, and the Sate only recognizes openly professed religious sects in the form of state incorporation. Unincorporated religious sects will not receive the blessing of the Secretary of State as “bona fide,” and thus the SSN requirement for receipt of a driver’s license will not be waived.

“Any church, congregation or society formed for the purposes of religious worship, may become incorporated … and may adopt a corporate name; and upon the filing of the affidavit, as hereinafter provided, it shall be and remain a body politic and corporate, by the name so adopted.” (805 ILCS 110/35)

ONE CANNOT MAKE A LIVING IN ILLINOIS WITHOUT A SSN

Within the State of Illinois, all conceivable professions are regulated and require a license for their hassle free undertaking. Illinois has one hundred and five legislative acts, in the ‘Professions and Occupations’ Chapter of the ILCS, which either explicit require applicants to have a SSN, or implicitly require it by requiring applicants for licensure to complete application forms which request a SSN along with other personal information of the applicant. Accountants, Real Estate Agents, Doctors, Dentists, Pharmacists, Nurses, Hair Stylists, Cosmetologists, Dieticians, Veterinarians, Geologists, Engineers, Electricians, and et cetera ad nauseam, all qualify as regulated professions by The State of Illinois; who will not allow its citizens to live, unless they pledge allegiance to the federal government in the form of acquiring a SSN, an act which is not mandatory by the federal government, but of course encouraged and shamefully obliged by the State of Illinois, and many of its sister states.

A vital profession, of which the Illinois General Assembly does not have jurisdiction over, is the legal profession. Attorneys, though they execute the laws of the state in a courtroom setting, and should properly fall under the jurisdiction of the executive branch of government, in Illinois they are regulated by the judiciary (with the sole exception of the Attorney General, who falls under the executive branch of government). If one wanted to strive and become an attorney, and change some of the State’s legislation to exclude odious references to SSN requirements for professional license requirements, he would need to acquire for himself a license to practice law in the State from the Illinois Supreme Court. But this is probably the most difficult license of all to obtain. To be an attorney, one has to substantial complete higher education, as a precedent to enrollment in a program of official legal studies, which costs the individual a considerable amount more of his already precious time.

“Every applicant seeking admission to the bar on examination shall meet the following educational requirements: Each applicant shall have graduated from a four-year high school or other preparatory school whose graduates are admitted on diploma to the freshman class of any college or university having admission requirements equivalent to those of the University of Illinois, or shall have become otherwise eligible for admission to such freshman class; and shall have satisfactorily completed at least 90 semester hours of acceptable college work, while in actual attendance at one or more colleges or universities approved by the Board of Admissions to the Bar….. After the completion of both the preliminary and college work above set forth in paragraph (a) of this rule, each applicant shall have pursued a course of law studies and fulfilled the requirements for and received a first degree in law from a law school approved by the American Bar Association.” (Ill. S. Ct. Rule 703)

Of course these law schools and higher education courses are not free, and without access to employment opportunities, one without a SSN cannot afford to attend the universities. The State of Illinois has higher education assistance programs in the form of grants and loans, but these are pale in comparison to the size and scope of the federal equivalent; mostly because a large amount of the tax base leaves the State and enters the coffers of the federal government via an income tax, as previously mentioned. Illinois’ most significant higher education assistance program is its Monetary Award Program (MAP), a need-based grant award for scholastically advanced students seeking higher education opportunities. But to obtain this state-based award, one still needs a SSN; for to be eligible, the Illinois Student Assistance Commission (ISAC) needs to verify that family income is consistent with eligibility requirements. The vehicle chosen for this verification is none other than a federal form, which of course requires the SSN for its operability.

“In order to receive any grant, loan, or work assistance under this subchapter and part C of subchapter I of chapter 34 of title 42, a student must … file with the Secretary, as part of the original financial aid application process, a certification, which need not be notarized, but which shall include … such student’s social security number,” (20 U.S.C. 1091 (a)(4)(B))

“…an applicant is eligible for a Monetary Award Program Plus grant under this Section if the Commission finds that the applicant meets all of the following qualifications: … He or she is from a family that had an adjusted gross income, listed on the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, … “ (110 ILCS 947/39)

In fact, all of Illinois financial loans and awards work to supplement those offered by the federal government, and thus there is no independence, and no immunization from the SSN.

“To further the purposes of this Act, the Commission is authorized to originate loans for educational purposes, to students enrolled at higher education institutions. The Commission may establish borrower eligibility requirements for Commission originated loans.” (110 ILCS 947/100)

Here’s how it is so bluntly explained to student applicants for financial assistance:

“The first step in applying for both federal and state need-based assistance is the completion of the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA).” (‘Financial Aid Process,’ ISAC)

Even if one somehow manages to circumvent the above obstacles, and manage to meet the educational requirements listed above, as pertaining to the license to practice law, the Illinois Supreme Court Rules go on to state that in addition to the requirements outlined above, applicants for law degrees must then pass the Illinois Bar exam. One potentially being the smartest jurist in the State is of no consequence: if the educational requirements are not met, he will not be able to sit for this exam, and can only practice law under the pain of arrest. It is lawyers across the country, and in this State of Illinois that are writing state sovereignty stripping, and federal government acquisition laws. It certainly appears that the education received by practicing attorneys in this State of Illinois is one which serves interests contrary to the well-being of the State.

Former Illinois Supreme Court Justice James Heiple, in his dissenting opinion of the adopted rule listed above, assessed the situation as follows:

“The American Bar Association is a voluntary association of dues paying lawyers (currently $225 per annum) that exists for the benefit of its members. No lawyer is required to belong. Most do not. It clothes its parochial existence with an overlay of public activities and pronouncements designed to convince the general public that it is interested in the general welfare. That its primary focus is the benefit of its members, however, is beyond question. That the American Bar Association is a trade association warrants neither commendation nor condemnation. As a trade association engaging in improving the status of lawyers and lobbying Congress and the State legislatures, it is on a par with any other trade association. It is decidedly not, however, an arm of the State of Illinois nor of this court.” (Ill. S. Ct. Rule 703, Justice Heiple, dissenting)

With both the courts and legislative acting contrary to the best interest of the State, what recourse or outlet is available to a dissenting citizen? On an aside, Justice Heiple was later impeached for judicial misconduct.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE PROGRAM

The State of Illinois, in its benevolence, and “Parens Patriae” type affection for its people, has decreed that any of its able-bodied citizens who are willing to work will be able to do just that. So much so, that it has declared unemployment as a public health hazard, and as such, has implemented a perpetual statewide compulsory unemployment insurance program designed to smooth out the unemployment spikes which normally occur in the business cycle. Below is how the State of Illinois so egregiously stated its public policy regarding the matter:

“As a guide to the interpretation and application of this Act the public policy of the State is declared as follows: Economic insecurity due to involuntary unemployment has become a serious menace to the health, safety, morals and welfare of the people of the State of Illinois. Involuntary unemployment is, therefore, a subject of general interest and concern which requires appropriate action by the legislature to prevent its spread and to lighten its burden which now so often falls with crushing force upon the unemployed worker and his family. Poverty, distress and suffering have prevailed throughout the State because funds have not been accumulated in times of plentiful opportunities for employment for the support of unemployed workers and their families during periods of unemployment, and the taxpayers have been unfairly burdened with the cost of supporting able‑bodied workers who are unable to secure employment. Farmers and rural communities particularly are unjustly burdened with increased taxation for the support of industrial workers at the very time when agricultural incomes are reduced by lack of purchasing power in the urban markets. It is the considered judgment of the General Assembly that in order to lessen the menace to the health, safety and morals of the people of Illinois, and to encourage stabilization of employment, compulsory unemployment insurance upon a statewide scale providing for the setting aside of reserves during periods of employment to be used to pay benefits during periods of unemployment, is necessary.” (820 ILCS 405/100)

In general, the program requires employers doing business within the State to pay 2.7% of the total “wages” paid to its “employees,” upon which funds are available to unemployed individuals who file “claims” against said funds. Of course compulsory anything is a bad idea, but this is exacerbated when the State sells its sovereignty, by placing its citizens in the dragnet of the federal government because it is unable to fund a program it deems is necessary for the very health and survival of the State. As seemingly the case always is, the federal government is more than willing to provide funds, of which the lion’s share are acquired from state’s citizens in the way of federal income taxes, but with strings in the form of mandates attached. These mandates have the direct function of influencing legislation at the state level, while also obtaining private information on the citizens by way of the SSN’s usage.

The federal unemployment insurance program is ancillary to Social Security, and it makes use of the SSN for its administration.

“The Secretary of Labor shall from time to time certify to the Secretary of the Treasury for payment to each State which has an unemployment compensation law approved by the Secretary of Labor under the Federal Unemployment Tax Act, such amounts as the Secretary of Labor determines to be necessary for the proper and efficient administration of such law…” (42 U.S.C. 502 (a))

“The State agency charged with the administration of the State law … shall disclose, upon request and on a reimbursable basis, to officers and employees of the Department of Agriculture and to officers or employees of any State food stamp agency any of the following information contained in the records of such State agency— (i) wage information, (ii) whether an individual is receiving, has received, or has made application for, unemployment compensation, and the amount of any such compensation being received (or to be received) by such individual,” (42 U.S.C. 503 (d))

And of course, by wage information it is meant:

“the term “wage information” means information regarding wages paid to an individual, the social security account number of such individual, and the name, address, State, and the Federal employer identification number of the employer paying such wages to such individual; and the term “claim information” means information regarding whether an individual is receiving, has received, or has made application for, unemployment compensation, the amount of any such compensation being received (or to be received by such individual), and the individual’s current (or most recent) home address.” (42 U.S.C. 503 (h)(3))

Upon the bidding of the federal government, the State of Illinois promptly enacted the appropriate legislation in support of these mandates in exchange for the federal unemployment insurance grant monies.

“In the administration of this Act, the Director shall cooperate, to the fullest extent consistent with the provisions of this Act, with the United States Secretary of Labor, or other appropriate Federal agency, with respect to the provisions of the Federal Social Security Act that relate to unemployment compensation, the Wagner‑Peyser Act, the Federal Unemployment Tax Act, and the Federal‑State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970;” (820 ILCS 405/1706)

“Each employing unit shall keep such true and accurate records with respect to services performed for it as may be required by the rules and regulations of the Director promulgated pursuant to the provisions of this Act. Such records together with such other books and documents as may be necessary to verify the entries in such records shall be open to inspection by the Director or his authorized representative at any reasonable time and as often as may be necessary.” (820 ILCS 405/1800)

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE IS ONLY AVAILABLE TO “EMPLOYEES”

But the employers (“employing units”) of the State of Illinois are not really “employers” as defined by the legislation, and this is because they do not have any “employees” as defined by the legislation. In fact, only the rarest of individuals fit the aforementioned definitions. So though the State of Illinois has implemented a compulsory unemployment insurance program, for all intents and purposes it is a voluntary program. But through the ignorance of common law employers and their employees, as well as federal and state government trickery, the lion’s share of the workforce for the State of Illinois is enrolled into this federally run program.

Very ingeniously, the laws have a provision for which employers otherwise not covered can voluntarily enroll in the unemployment insurance program. “You should never trouble trouble, until trouble troubles you” is an old saying, and ignorantly volunteering to engage in acts detrimental to one’s own best self-interest is one sure way to trouble trouble.

“An employing unit not otherwise subject to this Act, which files with the Director its written election to become an employer for not less than two calendar years, shall, with the written approval of the election by the Director, become an employer to the same extent as all other employers, as of the date stated in the approval, and shall cease to be subject to this Act as of January 1 of any calendar year subsequent to such two calendar years, only if prior to February 1 of that year it has filed with the Director a written notice to that effect. The Director shall approve any election so filed if he finds that the employment record of the applicant has not been or is not likely to be such as will unduly threaten the full payment of benefits when due under this Act.” (820 ILCS 405/302)

The above is how employers enroll themselves in this draconian program, and they enroll newly hired employees into it as well by making them sign the infamous IRS Form W-4 entitled ‘Employee’s Withholding Allowance Certificate.’ Of course this form requires the SSN of the “employee,” and is used to enroll the employee into the State’s unemployment insurance program, and for the accounting in the State and federal government’s “wage information” sharing racket centered on said program (Note that IRS Form W-2 is used to actually track the “wages” paid, and the SSA, IRS, and State and local taxing authorities is privy to this form detailing private information of the employer and employee.) The completed form is surrendered to the Director for the Illinois Department of Employment Security, who in turn submits the well received “employee” information to the Secretary for the U.S. Department of Labor (who of course shares the information with other federal and usurped underlying state agencies, including the IRS as proxy for the U.S. Treasury Department).

“…each employer in Illinois … shall file with the Department a report in accordance with rules adopted by the Department … providing the following information concerning each newly hired employee: the employee's name, address, and social security number, and the employer's name, address, Federal Employer Identification Number assigned under Section 6109 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and such other information as may be required by federal law or regulation…” (820 ILCS 405/1801.1)

“Each report required under this subsection shall be made on an Internal Revenue Service Form W‑4 or, at the option of the employer, an equivalent form, and may be transmitted by first class mail, by telefax, magnetically, or electronically.” (supra)

But as is commonplace, statutory language is often different than that of the common vernacular of the land.

“As used in this Section, "newly hired employee" means an individual who is an employee within the meaning of Chapter 24 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986,” (supra)

“…for the purposes of this Section only, the term "employer" has the meaning given by Section 3401(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986…” (supra)

Here, a shrewd examining will notice that the State of Illinois defers defining the terms in its own legislation to the federal government for its interpretation of them. And the federal government has interpreted the deferred as follows:

“For purposes of this chapter, the term “employee” includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term “employee” also includes an officer of a corporation.” (26 U.S.C. 3401 (c))

“For purposes of this chapter, the term “employer” means the person for whom an individual performs or performed any service, of whatever nature, as the employee of such person…” (26 U.S.C. 3401 (d))

The above definitions unravel even further, but enough is shown sufficiently here to conclude that most salaried common law employees are not public officials, or officers of corporations. And if they are not employees, then they can have no employers, as defined in the IRC, and consequentially the Illinois Unemployment Insurance Act. As was determined earlier, most employers operating hassle free in the State of Illinois are enjoying such privilege because they own, and have shared their SSN with state authorities. These employers, however, falsely believe that their employees must share their SSN information as well via IRS Form W-4. If an individual without a SSN were to seek employment with such employers, he’d likely be turned away unnecessarily.

Continue to Part 4

Born Into Slavery 2 of 4

2009-12-19T09:38:00.010-06:00

Continued from Part 1

THE FIFTY STATES PARTICIPATION IN SOCIAL SECURITY IS ARGUABLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL

For the states to willingly subject themselves to legislation that would otherwise be unconstitutional, is indeed just that without the U.S. Constitution being amended to allow for such jurisdictional changes. The United States is a collective of fifty states, and for one state to relinquish power to the federal government without the express consent of the other forty-nine states, is to create a situation in which the federal government becomes more powerful, both economically and political. The economic power comes from any associated receipts transferred to it, and the political power arises from the federal government increasing its ranks through what is effectively the poaching of state citizens. If unchecked, a situation can arise in which a minority of states, who remain unyielding in their delegating of unexpressed sovereignty to the federal government via voluntary submission to unconstitutional laws, find themselves behooved to a bandwagon effect which manifests itself in economical and political upheaval within their borders. States that accept free federal benefits in exchange for sovereignty are more economically and politically competitive states, and thus the bandwagon effect makes them more appealing to citizens in other states who deny such federal benefits.

As far as the financing of Social Security is concerned, the money comes from none other than taxing directly every citizen in the country. As was stated above with regard to payroll taxes:

“In addition to other taxes, there is hereby imposed on the income of every individual a tax equal to the following percentages of the wages (as defined in section 3121 (a)) received by him with respect to employment (as defined in section 3121 (b))…” (26 U.S.C. 3101)

So says the laws of the United States, but the U.S. Constitution says the following with regard to direct taxes:

“No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.” (U.S. Const. Art. I, Sec. 9, Cl. 4)

In other words, the Constitution prohibits the taxation of individuals directly, unless said taxes are born equally by the states, or citizen population as a whole; with each person paying his representative share of the levied tax. An equal tax is a tax which makes no discriminations whatsoever, and is based solely on an individual’s usage of the taxed activity. But a direct tax, such as a real or personal property tax, is an inescapable tax for doing nothing, and thus the Constitution says of this tax that it should be levied by population count. With this approach, one citizen’s share will be exactly equal to his neighbors; all other discriminations notwithstanding.

As for usage based taxes, the U.S. Constitution states:

“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;” (U.S. Const. Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 1)

This clause in the Constitution simply states the obvious: that Congress may impose any necessary taxes in order to finance the responsibilities required of the federal government. This clause deals with usage; i.e., activities that are regulated by the United States, and contradistinctive from the direct taxes mentioned above. The most clear cut example of this is a tax on imports, where only the importing states are subject to the tax because they are solely responsible for utilizing the service of the federal government with regards to receiving their imports. States not importing have nothing to do with the cost of regulating imports; i.e., not using the service, and thus, appropriately, have no tax liability.

So the Constitution makes a clear distinction between direct and indirect taxes: the former an individual cannot escape, the latter he can avoid by selectively changing his behavioral habits in response to the taxed activity. As a quick aside, many people mistakenly believe that the Sixteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the right to impose a direct tax, in the form of taxation on personal income, on the American citizen without the apportionment requirement outlined in Article I. The Sixteenth Amendment states:

“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.” (U.S. Const. Am. XVI)

Similar to the numerous examples we find in the U.S. Code, here we see the use of equivocal language in the actual Constitution itself. Clearly, it would make more sense for the text of this amendment to use the word “direct” in front of taxes, since the taxation debate is, and has always been “direct” versus “indirect” taxes. The Congress would have you believe that this amendment gives the federal government jurisdiction to tax the direct incomes of Americans, but not the direct real property of Americans, because the amendment only specifies that incomes would no longer be subject to the apportionment requirement. But incomes are received by federal agencies and employees, and because the federal government regulates its agencies and employees, it has the legal and constitutional right to tax the incomes, of which its agencies generate, or that which it pays its employees, in whatever manner the federal government deems appropriate. To further belabor the point, consider the words of the U.S. Supreme Court shortly thereafter the amendment’s ratification:

“…the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed [240 U.S. 103, 113] in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the income was derived…” (Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, 112, (1916))

The Supreme Court here views the income tax as an excise tax, and thus it falls under the jurisdiction of an indirect tax, and not a direct tax. Thus, the wording of the Sixteenth Amendment, in all its perplexity, is no more than a clarification amendment of that which already existed in the Constitution before it.

STATE WELFARE PROGRAMS ARE FEDERALLY FUNDED

Most financial assistance programs of the states for its destitute citizens are federally funded via federal grants.

"The sums made available under this section shall be used for making payments to States which have submitted, and had approved by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (hereinafter referred to as the “Secretary”), State plans for old-age assistance." (42 U.S.C. 301)

“Each eligible State shall be entitled to receive from the Secretary … a grant in an amount equal to the State family assistance grant.” (42 U.S.C. 603 (a)(1)(A))

This fawned gesture of goodwill of the federal government is financed with income tax dollars poached from the coffers of the American citizenry, under the assumed authority of the Sixteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Just as with the payroll taxes which are used for Social Security, the income taxes can only be imposed on individuals if they have a SSN.

“The social security account number issued to an individual for purposes of section 205(c)(2)(A) of the Social Security Act shall, except as shall otherwise be specified under regulations of the Secretary, be used as the identifying number for such individual for purposes of this title.” (26 U.S.C. 6109 (d))

The dollars from the income taxes are used to fund ambitious federal endeavors, both domestically and abroad. The moneys extracted from the citizens of a state via income taxes are returned to the states via grants with attached mandates. If a participating state fails to comply with a mandate, its grant funding from the federal government may be in jeopardy. What the citizens see as the legislation of their respective states, is really none other than federal mandates being expressed via state legislation. Through this insidious and surreptitious scheme, the states have been reduced to mere territorial status, with the federal government governing the internal affairs that take place within a state’s territorial borders. Citizens, with their SSN’s, have become a worthwhile investment, and very valuable commodities to the federal government, with the aiding and abetting of their respective states who have exchanged sovereignty for mandates.

“In order to furnish suitable notes for circulation as Federal reserve notes, the Secretary of the Treasury shall cause plates and dies to be engraved in the best manner to guard against counterfeits and fraudulent alterations…” (12 U.S.C. 418)

“The Commissioner of Social Security shall issue a social security card to each individual at the time of the issuance of a social security account number to such individual. The social security card shall be made of banknote paper, and (to the maximum extent practicable) shall be a card which cannot be counterfeited.” (42 U.S.C. 405 (c)(2)(G))

“A person who is assigned a social security number will receive a social security number card from SSA within a reasonable time after the number has been assigned….Social security number cards are the property of SSA and must be returned upon request.” (20 C.F.R. 422.103 (d))

As should be clearly evident, not just the SSN, but the social security card has value, and neither is the property of the assignee.

CHILDREN ARE NOT REQUIRED TO GET A SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER

Children are minors, and as such cannot be compelled to receive an SSN. However, the federal government is more than willing to liberally grant SSN’s to whoever’s requesting. In the case of minor children, their parent or guardian would have to make such a request on their behalf; and the SSA is more than willing to work with parents in fulfilling such requests.

“…the Commissioner of Social Security is authorized to take affirmative measures to assure the issuance of social security numbers: to or on behalf of children who are below school age at the request of their parents or guardians;” (42 U.S.C. 405 (c)(2)(B)(i)(4))

“SSA may enter into an agreement with officials of a State, including, for this purpose, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and New York City, to establish, as part of the official birth registration process, a procedure to assist SSA in assigning social security numbers to newborn children. Where an agreement is in effect, a parent, as part of the official birth registration process, need not complete a form SS-5 and may request that SSA assign a social security number to the newborn child.” (20 C.F.R. 422.103 (b)(2))

Although their children do not need it, parents undergo the process of applying for a SSN for their newborn infants; a process made extremely easy and efficient by the SSA and their respective state’s public health department. Given the jurisdiction implications mentioned above, the last thing a parent should want to do is subject their child to yet another juristic body which extends beyond that of their respective state; unless of course it is deemed by them to be beneficial or absolutely necessary. But as it stands now, parents freely exchange vital information about themselves and/or their children in exchange for an SSN which neither they, nor their children can claim ownership.

“Where a parent has requested a social security number for a newborn child as part of an official birth registration process described in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, the State vital statistics office will electronically transmit the request to SSA's central office in Baltimore, MD, along with the child's name, date and place of birth, sex, mother's maiden name, father's name (if shown on the birth registration), address of the mother, and birth certificate number. This birth registration information received by SSA from the State vital statistics office will be used to establish the age, identity, and U.S. citizenship of the newborn child. Using this information, SSA will assign a number to the child and send the social security number card to the child at the mother's address.” (20 C.F.R. 422.103 (c)(2))

RELINQUISH OF THE SSN WILL REQUIRE AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING

By virtue of enrollment in the federal Social Security plan, i.e., possession of a SSN card, one will have to submit to administrative jurisdiction in regards to any judicial matters. For internal matters pertaining to Social Security, the U.S. district courts serve in an appellate capacity only. It examines appeals to it for procedural errors only, and leaves untouched the juristic matters adjudicated on by the SSA in regards to any claims that a citizen may have against it.
“…The court shall have power to enter, upon the pleadings and transcript of the record, a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing. The findings of the Commissioner of Social Security as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive,… “ (42 U.S.C. 405 (g))

So if one was to decide that he no longer needs his SSN, he must make an appeal to the SSA to release him from the program. He must ask their permission to relinquish possession of the SSN and card that he does not own, and return it to the rightful ownership of the SSA. The procedure of the SSA to withdraw an application submitted to it is to complete and submit their form SSA-521, entitled ‘Request for Withdrawal of Application.’ The formal request statement that must be consented to on form SSA-521 is as follows:

“I understand that… if a determination of my entitlement has been made, there must be repayment of all benefits paid on the application I want withdrawn, and all other persons whose benefits would be affected must consent to this withdrawal.” (SSA form ‘SSA-521’)

As can be seen, despite the fact that payroll taxes may have been deducted from one’s wages, he must return the full value of every benefit received which has been paid out in lieu of his SSN. The statement mentions nothing of returning the associated payroll taxes to the individual, or crediting them against the totality of prior benefits received required to be recompensed in full; and in addition, only with the consent of third parties who somehow benefit from your SSN. These would primarily be one’s debtors who use his SSN for business identity purposes, but may also include parties to court injunctions who receive annuities; i.e., alimony or child support payments, or other entanglements with state and local government agencies, and even business alliances, such as partnerships and corporations to which one may belong.

The language on the SSA-521 states that all of these interested parties must consent to the retirement of one’s SSN. Imagine a bank’s desire to take on more risk in regards to an outstanding mortgage to an individual who will be that much harder to track in the event of default, or an estranged spouse being okay with the risk to his alimony or child support payments, or the owners of a partnership being forced to dissolve because one of the owners does not have a SSN, and thus the State will not allow him to engage in proprietary endeavors without the threat of jail? These so-called interested parties will likely look after their own interests, as well as sister agencies of the SSA which use the SSN to administer their programs; such as the federal departments, and their state counterparts, of the U.S. Treasury, Labor, Health and Human Services, Agriculture, etc. whose reasons for objection may have purely political connotations. But in the unlikely event one somehow manages to win consent from all relevant parties, and pay off all of the so-called benefits ever received as a result of his being enrolled in Social Security, the SSA is still in the sole position as final arbiter, and will either grant or deny the request upon whatever political realities are currently afloat within the agency.

In relinquishing the SSN, the required form to retract is the SS-5, which is the application for obtaining a SSN. But herein lies a huge problem for most Americans: the SS-5 form likely does not exist. This is because most Americans have obtained their SSN’s via the official birth process of their state, a stratagem devised by the SSA and the respective states, and pounced upon by unsuspecting parents of the full scope of what the SSN entails. As stated previously:

“Where an agreement is in effect, a parent, as part of the official birth registration process, need not complete a form SS-5 and may request that SSA assign a social security number to the newborn child.” (20 C.F.R. 422.103 (b)(2))

So as can be seen, herein lies the conundrum: how can an SS-521 application for withdrawal, of an SS-5 application requesting an SSN, be complete if there is no relevant SS-5 form in existence? And so predictably, a request such as this will be denied by the SSA for lack of evidence, and upheld by the U.S. district courts on appeal for procedural integrity. The only recourse available to one in such a situation is to sue: 1) the health department of his birth state, 2) the state of his birth, and/or 3) the SSA. But most importantly, and also most unfortunately, he would have to sue his own parents for recourse; i.e., breach of trust in placing the interest of the SSA above his, their child, in obtaining the appropriate evidence for the circumstances and events surrounding his birth and obtaining of his SSN.

Continue to Part 3

Born Into Slavery 1 of 4

2009-12-18T22:06:00.010-06:00

by FranG

Disclaimer: FranG is a bona fide paranoid schizophrenic, and strict reliance upon his words may cause mental, and even physical injury. Reader discretion is strongly advised.

INTRODUCTION

Americans may have many things in common, but there may be no greater common denominator among them then the Social Security Number (SSN). The overwhelming majority of citizens in each of the fifty states partake in this government ran insurance program. Back in 1935, when the Social Security Act was passed as a part of President Roosevelt’s New Deal legislation, Americans were told to lend their trust to the federal government, that it may lead the country out of the depression. One such measure, the aforementioned federal Social Security Act, was to provide economic stability to the disabled, unemployed, and retired citizens of the nation. This would be achieved by taxing directly the wages of working Americans, and placing these into a Social Security pot (42 U.S.C. 401 (a), 42 U.S.C. 401 (b)), from which citizen enrollees could draw upon their share of the entitlement benefits upon meeting certain eligibility requirements.

This doesn’t seem so bad, right? After all, we would hope that Americans have the right to trust their government for their general welfare. And so it was that Social Security was embraced with open arms, and now over 70 years later, it is an integral part of every American’s life. In fact, it is the quintessential glue that holds together the fabric that is American society. The number is recognized by every state, and is even used by them as an interfacing mechanism with their citizens. It serves as a de facto identity number, and is used in most government and commercial transactions as proof positive that a person is who he purports himself to be. As far as private information for public use is concerned, the SSN is the most sensitive of information, and is at the center of identity theft concerns.

So without question, the SSN is of extreme importance. But though it certainly has its benefits, is Social Security worth the cost? I don’t believe many Americans have really considered this question for a variety of reasons. In fact, I would go so far as to say that many Americans would be of the opinion that their SSN is invaluable, and that they cannot live without it; and such a conviction would actually be not too far from the truth. Most Americans were with a number, and enrolled in Social Security before they reached the age of majority; and many were with numbers before they reached the first anniversary of their birth dates. As such, it has been with them through every stage of their growth and development into they reached the juncture of becoming full-fledged citizens. Likely people, who do not have memorized their driver’s license and state id numbers, can recall with relative ease their SSN. It is very hard emotionally to shrug off that which has been a part of you for your entire life, but nevertheless could one physically rid himself of this number if he so desired?

FEDERAL JURISDICTION OVER WHOMEVER HAS A SSN

The federal government can control what it creates, and Social Security is one of its creations. As such, all the associated rules and regulations associated with it are created by the federal government. With these rules, the government then grants the states permission to use the SSN’s of its citizens in their administrative functions.

“It is the policy of the United States that any State (or political subdivision thereof) may, in the administration of any tax, general public assistance, driver’s license, or motor vehicle registration law within its jurisdiction, utilize the social security account numbers issued by the Commissioner of Social Security for the purpose of establishing the identification of individuals affected by such law.” (42 U.S.C. 405 (c)(2)(C)(i))

As you can see, the federal government has no quarrels with states using the SSN for just about any purpose, even those seemingly unrelated to Social Security. The fact that the SSN can be a functional tool for identity purposes is seen as merely one of its ancillary benefits to be exploited. This I guess is an okay practice for matters concerning the federal government, but the states are not Constitutionally required to engage in such practices. Though the states are free to devise their own system for identifying and keeping track of their citizens, such as a state identification card or driver’s license (more on this later), it yet seems that they have all jumped onboard the federal SSN bandwagon.

ENROLLMENT IN SOCIAL SECURITY IS VOLUNTARY

The federal Social Security program is not mandatory for American citizens to partake in. Social Security is funded via a payroll tax on the earned “wages” of every citizen. The Internal Revenue Code (IRC) states:

“In addition to other taxes, there is hereby imposed on the income of every individual a tax equal to the following percentages of the wages (as defined in section 3121 (a)) received by him with respect to employment (as defined in section 3121 (b))…” (26 U.S.C. 3101)

Though the language doesn’t suggest it, “every individual” citizen of the United States is not responsible for this payroll tax if not a participant in Social Security. Lack of participation in the plan would mean that an individual does not have a SSN, and without a SSN, the Social Security Administration (SSA) would be unable to keep accurate wage records for said individual, and thus would not be able to authorize the disbursements of benefits to such person. This is only logical, for if one does not pay into, then he should not be able to withdraw from the Social Security pot.

“On the basis of information obtained by or submitted to the Commissioner of Social Security, and after such verification thereof as the Commissioner deems necessary, the Commissioner of Social Security shall establish and maintain records of the amounts of wages paid to, and the amounts of self-employment income derived by, each individual and of the periods in which such wages were paid and such income was derived…” (42 U.S.C. 405 (c)(2)(A))

“In carrying out the Commissioner’s duties under subparagraph (A) and subparagraph (F), the Commissioner of Social Security shall take affirmative measures to assure that social security account numbers will, to the maximum extent practicable, be assigned to all members of appropriate groups or categories of individuals by assigning such numbers (or ascertaining that such numbers have already been assigned) … to any individual who is an applicant for or recipient of benefits under any program financed in whole or in part from Federal funds including any child on whose behalf such benefits are claimed by another person…” (42 U.S.C. 405 (c)(2)(B)(i))

Here is the SSA’s PR spin on FICA; i.e., payroll taxes:

“The payroll taxes collected for Social Security are of course taxes, but they can also be described as contributions to the social insurance system that is Social Security. Hence the name "Federal Insurance Contributions Act.” (SSA website)

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) needs the SSN in order to tax you:

“The social security account number issued to an individual for purposes of section 205(c)(2)(A) of the Social Security Act shall, except as shall otherwise be specified under regulations of the Secretary, be used as the identifying number for such individual for purposes of this title.” (26 U.S.C. 6109 (d))

Upon further digging into the Social Security legislation, one begins to encounter ambiguous language which, upon first glance, seems to contradict the spirit of the United States Constitution. In particular, overlaying language is used when defining key terms in the legislation, which culminates with equivocal language being used to define the terms “State,” and the “United States.”

As pertaining to the benefits side; i.e., outflows from the Social Security trust, we have:

“The term “State” includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.” (42 U.S.C. 410 (h))

“The term “United States” when used in a geographical sense means the States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.” (42 U.S.C. 410 (i))

“The terms “includes” and “including” when used in a definition contained in this chapter shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.” (42 U.S.C. 1301 (b))

As pertaining to the payments side; i.e., inflows into the Social Security trust, we have:

“The term “State” includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.” (26 U.S.C. 3121 (e)(1))

“The term “United States” when used in a geographical sense includes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa. An individual who is a citizen of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (but not otherwise a citizen of the United States) shall be considered, for purposes of this section, as a citizen of the United States.” (26 U.S.C. 3121 (e)(2))

“The terms “includes” and “including” when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.” (26 U.S.C. 7701 (c))

A glaring admission should be noted with the definition of “United States” in the IRC: it refers to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico as having citizens which may, or may not be United States citizens. If this is true, then this begs the question of who is the target audience for this Social Security legislation. Puerto Rico is a territory of the United States, and as such falls under a different jurisdiction umbrella than a state of the United States that is a party to the United States Constitution. Legislation for the former is governed with no inhibiting restrictions, whereas for the latter the United States Constitution serves as a constraint on the free legislative will of the Congress of the United States. Because the two are governed by a different set of circumstances, legislation written which affects them both may not be applicable for the one subject to a more limited jurisdiction. Such legislation would be an encroachment on the juristic constraints for which it is subject. In other words, Congress cannot legislate for the fifty states according to political expedience because of the constraints of the U.S. Constitution.

However one should not stop here. Though the language is vague and evasive, further digging is warranted to try to interpret the legislative attempt of Congress. A journey to the section of the U.S. Code dealing with the States, we find the following in Section 101:

“Every member of a State legislature, and every executive and judicial officer of a State, shall, before he proceeds to execute the duties of his office, take an oath in the following form, to wit: “I, A B, do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States.” (4 U.S.C. 101)

Here there is no definition for state, so one is left to assume that the term “state” by default means the fifty states, unless otherwise defined. This is a fair assumption, given that the U.S. Constitution fits perfectly within the context of this section. Progressing further into the title, one comes across two instances where the term “state” is defined. The first is concerned with state taxation within federal enclaves on its territory, and the other is concerned with crime prevention efforts. As pertaining to the former:

“The term “State” includes any Territory or possession of the United States.” (4 U.S.C. 110 (d))

“The term “Federal area” means any lands or premises held or acquired by or for the use of the United States or any department, establishment, or agency, of the United States; and any Federal area, or any part thereof, which is located within the exterior boundaries of any State, shall be deemed to be a Federal area located within such State.” (4 U.S.C. 110 (e))

Here it can be seen that the definition of “state” is apparently expanded, as was the case seen earlier in the legislation dealing with the taxation for, and claims against Social Security. So Congress once again is commingling the heterogeneous jurisdictions of the states and the United States territories. But despite this fact, the above definition is problematic when placed in the context of the definition for “federal area.” If a state “includes a territory or possession of the United States,” then is a “federal area” also a “territory or possession of the United States?” The concept of taxation within a federal area would seem more logical given that the states of the union have jurisdiction to tax and regulate within its borders, but the concept seems oxymoronic as concerning a territory, and even more so within the context of a mere possession of the United States. This is the equivalent of taking money from the right pocket and placing it in the left.

Moseying further along in the Title of the U.S. Code dealing with the “States,” one comes across the following concerning matters of crime prevention:

“The consent of Congress is hereby given to any two or more States to enter into agreements or compacts for cooperative effort and mutual assistance in the prevention of crime and in the enforcement of their respective criminal laws and policies, and to establish such agencies, joint or otherwise, as they may deem desirable for making effective such agreements and compacts. For the purpose of this section, the term “States” means the several States and Alaska, Hawaii, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the District of Columbia.” (4 U.S.C. 112)

In this definition, there is a noticeable contrast with the previous definition. First, Congress is granting authorization to the states to cooperate with each other in crime prevention tactics. But Congress does not have jurisdiction in this area, unless the argument would be somehow that crime prevention efforts between states falls under the ‘Commerce Clause’ of the U.S. Constitutional (U.S. Const. Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 3). So this granted authority is clearly meaningless, or rather redundant in the sense that it is a non-authoritative decree.

Second, and more important, the definition for state: 1) does not use the word “includes,” and 2) uses the term “several States” to describe the states of the United States subject to the U.S. Constitution; unlike the previous definition which includes the territories in the definition of state. With this current definition, we have neither any vague and equivocal language, nor do we have any commingling of potentially non-viable juristic matters as pertaining to both the states and the territories jointly. The “several States” is also how the U.S. Constitution refers to the fifty states that are its signatories.

To further reinforce the notion of jurisdiction, let us focus our attention on what shall be the final authority on this matter; to wit, the very first title of the U.S. Code, which pertains the general provisions for the entire Code. Section 203 speaks of a District of Columbia Code which is to be “similar in style, respectively, to the Code of Laws of the United States,” except that the legislation is exclusively for the District of Columbia (1 U.S.C. 203). Given that the District of Columbia has its very own code of laws, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever that it should appear in the U.S. Code as befitting the definition of a state. If it is to appear at all, it seems appropriate that it should be in the capacity of a foreign state only; given that it is subject to different juristic rules than the fifty states. But not only this, all laws affecting the District of Columbia should be placed in its D.C. Code, and to intermix the District of Columbia with the common perception of the essence of what is a state in the U.S. Code, creates only redundancy and confusion.

Section 204 speaks in general about the U.S. Code. Specifically, it states:
“The matter set forth in the edition of the Code of Laws of the United States current at any time shall, together with the then current supplement, if any, establish prima facie the laws of the United States, general and permanent in their nature, in force on the day preceding the commencement of the session following the last session the legislation of which is included: Provided, however, That whenever titles of such Code shall have been enacted into positive law the text thereof shall be legal evidence of the laws therein contained, in all the courts of the United States, the several States, and the Territories and insular possessions of the United States.” (1 U.S.C. 204 (a))

In the context of courts throughout the land, we see use of the term “several States” to distinguish their courts from those of the territories. Again, here there is unequivocal language of what exactly a state is, and also no ambiguous jurisdiction issues are seen here, as the intent of the passage is clear and concise. The text also mentions positive law as being legal evidence of law, and titles of the U.S. Code that have not yet been enacted into positive law are only prima facie evidence of the laws of the United States. It is very important to note that neither Title 26 nor Title 42 of the U.S. Code have yet been enacted into positive law. The list containing the titles of the Code which have been enacted into positive law is as follows:

“NOTE: Of the 50 titles, only 23 have been enacted into positive (statutory) law. These titles are 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 23, 28, 31, 32, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 44, 46, and 49. When a title of the Code was enacted into positive law, the text of the title became legal evidence of the law. Titles that have not been enacted into positive law are only prima facie evidence of the law. In that case, the Statutes at Large still govern.” (GPOAccess)

Putting this all in an overall context befitting for the entire U.S. Code, I can only conclude that the definition for a state by default in the U.S. Code is the fifty states, or the “several States,” as this is the most logical given that: 1) the Constitution explicitly refers to the States as the “several States,” and every other region as either a Territory or possession, 2) The District of Columbia, being the seat of government (4 U.S.C. 71), has its own code of laws; to wit, the District of Columbia Code, 3) and the Territories and Insular Possessions of the United States have their own section of the United States Code, that being Title 48. As for when a section of the code feels compelled to define the term “state,” then unless vociferous identifying language, such as the “several States” or the “fifty States” (42 U.S.C. 402 (i)) is used, then the fifty states are not subject to the legislation, but only the entities explicitly named in the definition, and their subjugation to such legislation is totally voluntary. Such is the case with Social Security.

Continue to Part 2

Arrogance

2009-11-09T17:53:00.003-06:00

by FranG

My! How far you have progressed in your arrogance. You would have
the entire universe feign you homage, instead of you giving it thanks.
You are bad, sir; and mad out of your mind.
The illustrious glow from Polaris shines so brightly, but where were you when she was being wired?
And of the belt so tightly wrapped around Orion’s waste, where were you when the notch was being fastened?
Had you been there, the entire job may have been botched.
You’re the meanest, to think you can lay claim to the beauty of Venus;
because your hands are not responsible for her fair complexion and ripe roundness.
But seems as it may appear, your sphere is confined to the bounds of the Earth.
How can you claim the fourth corner of a sphere? but yet still you try to do it.
But I must warn ya, you can’t even see the seven seas, but lo! They can sea you just fine.
Your vain wisdom you trust in, but for the moment trust in mine.
Your hollow swallow is puny, while their rough gulps are colossal.
On land, your dams will be damned, and at sea your ships reduced to chips; know not that they’re the boss of ya?
You say you have the divine right to be king, well I say shut up you damn fool! You know not what tomorrow will bring.
For off your stool you will fall, when the Earth decides to hiccup, like a cripple trying to climb a ladder; you’ve fallen and can you get up?
But you’ll be picked up and tossed like a gymnast, when she asks if you’re okay; for her breath rotates in swift spirals that circle the globe.
By the way, when she becomes sick of you, her vomit will turn your skin as black as coal; resembling an Egyptian mummy.
Yea, you’re just a mummy, but she is the Mommy, and at whenever her whim , you’ll be smacked quite bold.
You can herd animals into your homestead all you like, but they’re free to leave whenever they desire; the bird animals can fly away.
But instead you construct fences and cages, because they won’t hearken to your commands.
But what can assuage your arrogance? Did you ever ask from where the raw materials came that comprise your fence?
You couldn’t be that dense, but still you forever brag, whenever venison decorates your dinner table.
But you used a javelin for the kill.
And who is the one of you that will look the game in its eye while with your hands you wrestle it down?
Don’t get mad again, when I ask of where the raw materials came for your tools? Or the roof that houses you in?
And whose wife is she really? Do you think that you really own your children?
You cry to them that they will obey because you provide for them.
Were you for-real when you boasted such?
Whatever you “own,” you stole from the Earth, but your theft is only operable for a season.
Maybe your soul should have you rethinking terminologies, and how you just float words out into the air.
“Private Property,” laugh out loud, man are you serious?
Your logical sermonologies are too much for the oblique to handle.
You don’t even own yourself, let alone anything else, for your “person” is merely a mask for a character in a play.
And the play is even known yourself to be called “life,” of which the rules you did not decree.
You neither “own” the play, nor its props and characters; not even the very face of thee.
When you get a chance, gaze into the sea to see what it has to show you.
You will see how age advanced so effortlessly across your nose and cheeks.
You’re a temporal being, and completely “owned” by Father Time; he’s the imperial being, and you the lowly subject.
You’re no magician, and you cannot create for your “person” a wrinkle-free face and younger legs.
The true magician creates something from nothing, and thus “owns” his creation; everyone else is a charlatan, and a manipulator of their own heads.
So my fellow man, take a permanent vacation from the grandiose, and seek to play the part of humility in this play called “life;”
for it is the part that defines you best, and tailor-made for you, the role is just right.

Common Law Copyright for Non Commercial Use Only

Problems With Big Government - Part 2 of 2

2009-10-25T15:39:00.004-05:00

continued from Part 1

Money

Perhaps the most important function of the State is that of economics and commerce. It can be argued that this need of the people is even greater than the need for security. For people can protect themselves from immediate threats more easily than they can engage in trade with their neighbors. Money facilitates commerce, by doing away with barter, and it is the lifeblood of any society. And although made from trees, money doesn't grow on them, and it is only valid as evidence of some existing good or service within the State.

Probably the most difficult task of any State is the regulation of its money supply. This is a very subtle art indeed, with distortion in commerce from the over or under production of it. Furthermore, the question arises as to who should receive money, and how much should each person in society receive. With the various factions of the State each producing their unique goods and services, the State is left with the charge of allotting money to each based on their products' relative value to the State as a whole. But because value is a subjective concept, and will vary from person to person, naturally everyone will hold that their products are the most valuable in society, or at the very least, on par with all the other products in society. As with the passage of its laws, the State will have an incentive to give everyone an equal share of the money supply. But this approach has several flaws.

The reality is that some goods are more valuable than others, in that they cost less to produce than other goods, and/or people are willing to give up more of their own goods for the acquirement of the desired goods more so than for competing goods. Naturally, a wedge develops between the producers of desirable versus undesirable goods in a society. Likewise, a wedge is drawn between the consumers of desirable and undesirable goods. If the State allots every member equal money, then some producers will receive less money for their goods, and some consumers will have to give more for their goods. The State's different factions will inevitably be displeased with such a free market allocation system. However the same problem presents itself if the State were to decree that the price of every good in society be made equal. Producers of valuable goods will not desire to trade at par with others for less desirable goods, especially others who lie outside of their particular societal faction, whom upon which emotional bonds have been made.

In short, it will be very hard for one to give up his substance to one whom he has little or no emotional connection to. Neither a free or regulated market will serve to appease all factions within a State. The free market approach favors the producers, and the regulated market approach favors the consumers. The problem with the free market approach is that the "losers;" i.e., the producers of less valuable products, will be receiving a smaller benefit from the State than the "winners," and will be a source of civil unrest for the State. As for the regulated market, the problem here is that the producers will simply lose the incentive to produce, thus threatening society as a whole in that regard. As we stated earlier, the State will have an incentive to pass laws which appease all factions in society, and as pertaining to the issue of money, ever-increasing laws will be enacted which blur the line between a free and a regulated market. This line will of course be visible to insiders, who will benefit from a situation of arbitrage, due to the exploiting of existing market distortions caused by the legislation, in the short-term.

From this it can be concluded, that as a state becomes more complex, its monetary system will contain inconsistent elements of either a free, or a regulated market system.

Crime and Laws

As can be reasoned fairly easily, a state with discriminatory laws, which serve to create social economic class systems, will inevitably lead to crime from members who feel that they are not getting their fare shake from the State. More often than not, crime is the result of wantonness or emotional unhappiness, and a state ridden with crime is a failing state. The State can address the problem of crime in one of two ways:

1) It can eliminate the source of crimes by addressing the needs of those committing crimes, or
2) It can punish the perpetrators of crime by removing them from society and taking away their opportunity to commit crimes

No one likes criminals, and the path of least resistance for the State is to punish the perpetrators of crime by throwing them in prison. Everyone in society is happy as the crime problem appears to be solved. But when the State fails to address the underlying conditions responsible for crimes, the same elements which drove some to commit crime still persist in society awaiting the chance to infect others with the same spirit of lawlessness. Soon others will commit crimes, and the State's prison population will continue to increase. Furthermore, a state which is passing an ever-increasing amount of legislation provides even more opportunities for its members to be in non-compliance, and eligible for prison.

When dealing with crimes, the State should attempt to address their root causes, and eradicate them at the source. However, this approach is often controversial, as people who commit crimes are looked upon unfavorably by society. Resources allocated freely to people who've committed crimes, whether in the form of money, services, or opportunities in an attempt to make criminals cease from being criminals, will be looked upon by society as a waste of resources, and discrimination in favor of those committing crimes. If one can obtain something by committing a crime, then the incentive lies for everyone to commit crimes; an incentive which threatens the stability of the State. As usual, the unpopular decision is usually the right decision, and the State in its desire to appease all of its member factions, will opt for short-term gain at the expense of long-term stability by committing its criminals to prison, and making little or no attempt to reform them.

And so it can be said, that as a State becomes more complex and passes more laws, more and more of its members will be sent to prison.

Right Before Collapse

At the height of civil unrest of a state, a situation exists where there are many factions in the State; upon which internally a common bond, which we have termed emotional, is shared. The same bond is nonexistent for those members of the State existing outside of a faction; and problems with the State is synonymous with problems with other factions. Common factions include race, community, political ideology, and social and economic status. The tolerance is high for fellow members of a faction, but it is very low for those outside of a faction, in proportion with the faction's disapproval of the state. Factions see other factions as the problem with the State, and thus the state becomes rife with infighting; fueled by each side's feeling that it is not being recompensed adequately by the State for their sacrifices made to it.

In addition, the system of money allocation can never be equitable and just, as we have explained above. This is not really a problem within a faction, where the emotional bonds are strong. But outside factions, where practicality is the primary driver, no incentive exists to participate in a system where losses are inevitable, whether it is production by the producers, or allegiance by the consumers. A situation eventually arises where production becomes greatly reduced, or lawlessness increases.

And we have said that criminals will be thrown in prison much more rapidly than they will try to be reformed. When civil unrest is at its pinnacle, the State is left with no choice but to send its military into the streets to quell the unrest. And when there exists a large and complex society, the State's military will police within the multiple factions of society the same as if they were in a foreign state. Because little or no emotional bonds exists without factions, it is a small matter for military personnel to treat one of an opposing faction as a mere foreigner. They will fire upon such groups if ordered to do so with little remorse, which will in turn dissolve all confidence in the State by various opposing factions, who will then begin to see that it is the State that is really the problem. They will unite in their disdain for the State, and society can only be held together via enacting a police state. But a police state cannot be sustained, and ultimately the State crumbles upon itself, as the many different factions disassociate themselves from the State, and go their separate ways to form new states.

Lastly, we can conclude that a large and complex state will become a police state, which serves to produce the opposite of liberty maximization, right before it collapses upon itself from decadence.

Problems with Big Government - Part 1 of 2

2009-10-24T15:17:00.011-05:00

by FranG

Intro

Before we get into any discussions about the State and its just and unjust doings, let us first begin by defining the existential mandate of the State. At its root level, the State is formed by two or more persons with the goal of providing synergy in the fruits of the relationship between said persons. First and foremost, the State is and represents a voluntary contract, verbal or otherwise, between individuals. By adhering to the tenancies of the contract, the individuals obtain for themselves what they otherwise could not have obtained individually; for if not, then what would be gained by contracting?

By adhering to contractual terms, an individual sacrifices his free will to act in a given circumstance, to the the extent said action would violate the terms of the contract. In all areas concerning it, the contract serves as the rational outcome of the decision making process of an otherwise free brain.

This is what the State is: a sacrifice of personal liberty for the common good of all the members it represents.

This revelation is nothing new, and has been stated ad nauseam by various political philosophers in proposing the different forms in which a state should manifest itself. But no matter the form, the one thing they all have in common is that liberty is sacrificed for the good of the community; i.e., the other parties to the contract that is the State. It is a great thing to ask a man to sacrifice his liberty, and this he will not do lightly.

At least one of two conditions must be present for him to do so:

1) There must be something to be tangibly gained so great as to justify the restricting of liberty, and/or
2) there must be something to be intangibly gained so great as to justify the restricting of liberty.

An example of the former is the increased efficiency in the matching of producers and their products and services, to the customers and consumers of said products and services. Examples of these include food, clothing, shelter, and protection to name a few. Intangible benefits gained would be those benefits received directly by others, but yet serve to bring an individual not privy to the benefits, a vicarious joy. The classic example of this would be the joy received by the donating of money or services to charity, or parents doing things for their children for no other reason but the betterment of the children. An element of love for others exists for intangible benefits received, while for tangible benefits received the love can be categorized only as self-love.

The State can only justify its existence if it is currently benefiting all of its members. It is not enough that the State was once profitable in times past, but it must be currently profitable, or have good prospects for future gain as seen by all its members. Our two types of benefits can be summed up as practical in nature for the tangible type, and emotional in nature for the intangible type. It follows then that the State most beneficial to its members, is the State that scores high on both these scorecards. A State which is either practical or emotional, or neither practical nor emotional, is inferior to the State which is both practical and emotional. Practical bonds are shared by many, but emotional bonds will be shared by a much smaller number.

Factions

As with any congregation of people, people tend to fraternize and associate more so with those who bring an element of joy, peace, and satisfaction in their lives. In other words, people will associate more with those of whom they have a natural affinity. This sort of attachment, and bond developed between people is emotional in nature; and emotional bonds are much harder to break than those that are merely practical in nature. At a very high level, bonds are formed between people via geography, and at a low level by blood relation between people. As we descend from high to low, the bonds tend to become less practical, and more emotional in nature.

In the case of the State, all of its members exists within a geographical area, and they each share in common, at the least, that they are a part of the State. But other members may have more in common than this. For instance, two individuals may be of the same State, and also share the same racial heritage. Even greater would be two individuals who share these two, and also share similar ideas and experiences with each other. Individuals with more in common will naturally associate more with each other, and such direct personal contact strengthens an emotional connection between them.

Thus, from this we can deduce that congregations of people, as is the case for the State, tend to divide into subgroups in an effort to better suit their emotional needs. It is here where individuals begin to enter the realm of brotherly love, as opposed to merely sharing in a common cause.

Too Many Factions

As more and more subdivisions of people within a State emerge, the varying interests that serve these diverse groups become more widespread. And the State, charged with the task of maximizing the liberty of all of its members, has to work harder at satisfying each of its many different factions. The State then is forced to become more complex, and develop more and more laws to address the needs of its body as a whole. These laws will inevitably benefit some factions of people greater than others due to their particular lifestyle situations and circumstances. For example, laws restricting the imports of one industry serve to hurt the profit of that industry, while creating domestic opportunities for other industries. Another example is placing educational requirements, or the requisite of professional accolades, as a prerequisite for running for public office, or engaging in public commerce. These okays from the state usually come in the form of a license, upon which only some members of society will have. Behavioral laws, such as antidrug laws, will obviously adversely affect those whose drug of pleasure is that which the State forbids.

The criteria for legislation of a State is received from its members. And with a multitude of different factions within a State, whose varying interests often conflict, the State can do one of two things. It can either:

1) write laws favoring one faction over another, or
2) it can write laws which contradict themselves or other existing laws, in an attempt to appease the wishes of all its factions.

Choosing the first option will cause immediate dissension between factions, as the one will feel that the State is neglecting its needs. Resentment toward the State will definitely begin to foster, and resentment toward other factions is likely to foster. If the State chooses the second option, and attempts to appease all, in the short run everyone will be happy, but in the long run each group will come to see that the state solution to their concerns has been ineffective. The second option is more damaging to the State, because at least with the first it proves itself to be a practical conduit for some. And with the first, losing factions may still view the State as overall beneficial to the achievement of their happiness, via its fulfilling of ends more practical in nature.

Though the second option is more damaging to the State, too often is the choice of action taken because of its lack of transparency. The State can sweep problems under the rug, and as the lumps begin to become visible, it can play a shell game by addressing those lumps with even more contradictory laws. It is this shell game which allows a very small group of insiders to exploit these contradictory laws for their own personal advantage. When tensions within a State become great, and when the people wise up to the shell game, States reluctantly pass the discriminatory laws favoring one faction over another. Thus, the State creates a class system with discriminatory legislation, and adds yet another layer of subdivision to the already existing factions formed by the people. What ensues is ever increasing tension, as the State becomes bigger, more complex, and writes more laws; with the members of the State questioning the State's usefulness as an effective tool in the maximization of their liberties.

From this then, we can conclude that the State has an incentive to pass contradictory laws to appease all of its factions, if it can do so in stealth; and that these laws will serve to benefit only a few.

Form of government

The actual form of which the State is unveiled is, for all intents and purposes irrelevant. Whether socialist, capitalist, or monarchic, if the people as a whole support the form, then the supported form of government is good for the people in achieving their aims of liberty maximization. But as the State becomes more complex, in response to its ever increasing factions, then its initial character begins to take on new forms in response to the growing demands of its members. Some segments of society may favor a more socialistic form of government, others a more capitalistic, while others will favor the many variants in between. The more factions, the more room for disagreement among the totality of the people, and as the State writes more and more contradictory laws, the form of government ultimately becomes a mystery to the people. On paper one form may be stated, but practice will prove the piece of paper to be just that; paper with ink on it.

And thus we can see that a State that becomes complex will take on a governing style unbeknown to its members.

Continue to Part 2

Global Warming

2009-08-25T23:50:00.001-05:00

by FranG

Global World haven’t you heard? It seems we must immediately reduce our carbon footprint
To slow CO2 emissions, spread the word, that it’s schemes we must expediently produce and invent
Lest we have Hell on Earth, and make this place an inhabitate of devils
So come! Let’s sell our worth, and take a taste of cap and tax from the political fellows

The following that is currently possessed as free, you will now be accessed a fee, Such as:

That hike in the woods, that makes you feel right and feel good
That lovely beach walk, where suddenly you can’t be reached for talk
That swim in the lake, when life seems grim and you might break
That ride on the horse’s back, where the horse glides at the speed that you lack
That baton in the composer’s hand, where the wand’s the imposer of sounds gentle and bland
That aerobics class at the gym, where you know it’s fast that you get trim
That fan in the summer, where relying on your hand is a total bummer
That road trip to Grandma’s, and you’ve told this to the kids of whom are in grand awe
That game of catch with your son, where you both fetch and have so much fun
That dance recital of your daughter, where your plan’s vital that on film you record her
That log thrown in the fireplace, where your mind’s clog is blown to a higher place
That cuddling bout with your spouse, when there’s no troubling pout coming from her mouth
That hot breath from your mouth to her neck, which your soft lips caress as you’re about to have sex
That cruise in the middle of the ocean, that you use as occasion for a little bit of toasting
That gaze at the stars high in the night sky, that so amazes the eye that it might cry

Need I continue? Is the picture not yet clear?
The seed of carbon is in you; it’s a fixture in all that’s been set here
It manifests itself in everything you do; you can call it the Gas of life
Because it sets itself as CO2, so don’t fall like an ass for the hype

Common Law Copyright. For non-commercial use only

Americans: Serfs Ruled by Oligarchs

2009-08-20T10:12:00.002-05:00

http://www.infowars.com/americans-serfs-ruled-by-oligarchs/

Americans: Serfs Ruled by Oligarchs

Paul Craig Roberts
Infowars
August 20, 2009

“In a little time [there will be] no middling sort. We shall have a few, and but a very few Lords, and all the rest beggars.” R.L. Bushman

“Rapidly you are dividing into two classes–extreme rich and extreme poor.” “Brutus”

Americans think that they have “freedom and democracy” and that politicians are held accountable by elections. The fact of the matter is that the US is ruled by powerful interest groups who control politicians with campaign contributions. Our real rulers are an oligarchy of financial and military/security interests and AIPAC, which influences US foreign policy for the benefit of Israel.




	In the middle of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, Goldman Sachs announced record second quarter profits and large six-figure bonuses for every employee.

Have a look at economic policy. It is being run for the benefit of large financial concerns, such as Goldman Sachs.

It was the banks, not the millions of Americans who have lost homes, jobs, health insurance, and pensions, that received $700 billion in TARP funds. The banks used this gift of capital to make more profits. In the middle of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, Goldman Sachs announced record second quarter profits and large six-figure bonuses for every employee.

The Federal Reserve’s low interest rate policy is another gift to the banks. It lowers their cost of funds and increases their profits. With the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999, banks became high-risk investment houses that trade financial instruments such as interest rate derivatives and mortgage backed securities. With abundant funds supplied virtually free by the Federal Reserve, banks are paying depositors virtually nothing on their savings.

Despite the Federal Reserve’s low interest rate policy, beginning October 1 banks are raising the annual percentage rate (APR) on credit card purchases and cash advances and on balances that have a penalty rate because of late payment. Banks are also raising the late fee. In the midst of the worst economy since the 1930s, heavily indebted Americans, who are losing their jobs and their homes, are to be bled into bankruptcy by the very banks that are being subsidized with TARP funds and low interest rates.

Moreover, it is the American public that is on the hook for the TARP money and the low interest rates. As the US government’s budget is 50% or more in the red, the TARP money has to be borrowed from abroad or monetized by the Fed. This means more pressure on the US dollar’s exchange value and a rise in import prices and also domestic inflation.

Americans will thus pay for the TARP and low interest rate subsidies to their financial rulers with erosion in the purchasing power of the dollar. What we are experiencing is a massive redistribution of income from the American public to the financial sector.

And this is occurring during a Democratic administration headed by America’s first black president, with a Democratic majority in the House and Senate.

Is there a government anywhere that less represents its citizens than the US government?

John Pilger: Obama is a corporate marketing creation.

Consider America’s wars. As of the moment of writing, the out-of-pocket cost of America’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is $900,000,000,000. When you add in the already incurred future costs of veterans benefits, interest on the debt, the forgone use of the resources for productive purposes, and such other costs as computed by Nobel economist Joseph Stiglitz and Harvard University budget expert Linda Bilmes, “our” government has wasted $3,000,000,000,000–three thousand billion dollars–on two wars that have no benefit whatsoever for any American whose income does not derive from the military/security complex, about which five-star general President Eisenhower warned us.

It is now a proven fact that the US invasion of Iraq was based on lies and deception of the American public. The only beneficiaries were the armaments industries, Blackwater, Halliburton, military officers who enjoy higher rates of promotion during war, and Muslim extremists whose case the US government proved by its unprovoked aggression against Muslims. No one else benefitted. Iraq was a threat to no one, and finding Saddam Hussein and executing him after a kangaroo trial had no effect whatsoever on ending the war or preventing the start of others.

The cost of America’s wars is a huge burden on a bankrupt country, but the cost incurred by veterans might be even higher. Homelessness is a prevalent condition of veterans, as is post-traumatic stress. American soldiers, who naively fought for the munitions industry’s wars, for high compensation for the munitions CEOs, and for dividends and capital gains for the munitions shareholders, paid not only with lives and lost limbs, but also with broken marriages, ruined careers, psychiatric disorders, and prison sentences for failing to make child support payments.

What did Americans gain from an unaffordable war in Iraq that lasted far longer than World War II and that put into power Shi’ites allied with Iran?

The answer is obvious: nothing whatsoever.

What did the armaments industry gain? Billions of dollars in profits.

What about President Obama? “A corporate marketing creation,” sums up the distinguished British journalist John Pilger.

Obama is the presidential candidate who promised to end the war in Iraq. He hasn’t. But he has escalated the war in Afghanistan, started a new war in Pakistan, intends to repeat the Yugoslav scenario in the Caucasus, and appears determined to start a war in South America. In response to the acceptance by US puppet president of Columbia, Alvaro Uribe, of seven US military bases in Columbia, Venezuela warned South American countries that the “winds or war are beginning to blow.”

Here we have the US government, totally dependent on the generosity of foreigners to finance its red ink, which extends in large quantities as far as the eye can see, completely under the thumb of the military/security complex, which will destroy us all in order to meet Wall Street share price expectations.

Why does any American care who rules Afghanistan? The country has nothing to do with us.

Did the armed services committees of the House and Senate calculate the risk of destabilizing nuclear armed Pakistan when they acquiesced to Obama’s new war there, a war that has already displaced two million Pakistanis?

No, of course not. The whores took their orders from the same military/security oligarchy that instructed Obama.

The great American superpower and its 300 million people are being driven straight into the ground by the narrow interest of the big banks and the munitions industry. People, and not only Americans, are losing their sons, husbands, brothers, and fathers for no other reason than the profits of US armaments corporations, and the gullible American people seem proud of it. Those ribbon decals on their cars, SUVs and monster trucks proclaim their naive loyalty to the armaments industries and to the whores in Washington who promote wars.

Will Americans, smashed and destroyed by “their” government’s policy, which always puts Americans last, ever understand who their real enemies are?

Will Americans realize that they are not ruled by elected representatives but by an oligarchy that owns the Washington whorehouse?

Will Americans ever understand that they are impotent serfs?

Non-violent?

2009-07-28T14:46:00.025-05:00

by FranG

INTRODUCTION

I am utterly amazed at the negative connotations today associated with the words violent and violence. In the world of the 21st Century, it is unpolitically correct to have these words associated with you, or any of your doings. It seems to me that more often than not, the terms are used in a loaded sense in an attempt to dehumanize, and marginalize any sort of resistance to aggression from one acting in the name of the status quo. But this too is violence, for violence is not limited to physical action; and using the terms violent and violence as an ad hominem makes the attacker no different than the thing attacked. Rather than dismissing it as barbaric, it seems that we should strive for better understanding of it, and its relation to each of us personally. It is only through this understanding that we save ourselves from being conquered by it.

So what exactly are we talking about here? From Merriam Webster online:

violent (adj.)-
1: marked by extreme force or sudden intense activity violent attack>
2 a: notably furious or vehement violent denunciation> b: extreme, intense <violent pain> <violent colors>
3: caused by force : not natural violent death>
4 a: emotionally agitated to the point of loss of self-control violent after an insult> b: prone to commit acts of violence <violent prison inmates>

violence (noun) -
1 a: exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse (as in warfare effecting illegal entry into a house) b: an instance of violent treatment or procedure
2: injury by or as if by distortion, infringement, or profanation : outrage
3 a: intense, turbulent, or furious and often destructive action or force violence of the storm> b: vehement feeling or expression : fervor ; also : an instance of such action or feeling c: a clashing or jarring quality : discordance
4: undue alteration (as of wording or sense in editing a text)

From reading the definitions above, we can see that the word violent is a measure or description of force, and the word violence represents force itself; but only when that force is unjustly applied, or results in injury to another. So the issue of violence then ultimately comes down to a moral case of right and wrong, and only is it wrong when used unjustly.

IN NATURE

Without a doubt, the actions of nature are certainly violent, but who is to determine if they constitute violence? Who can I curse and accuse of violence if I'm swept away in a hurricane, or if I fall through the earth immediately following a violent earthquake? It would be silly of me to say that a violent storm is unjust, and should not have occurred; for who knows the secret intricacies of the works of nature? And if the natural cannot be explained, then no determination of right and wrong can be assigned to any of its violent workings.

THE ANIMALS

Likewise, predatory animals exist in abundance throughout nature, and prey on weaker or unsuspecting animals for their very survival. Bacteria, fungi, and other parasites owe their entire existence to the leeching of minerals from the bodies of their respective hosts. So are these creatures violent, and of violence? Can we fault the alligator as immoral for devouring his fellow sea inhabitants, or even a wandering human in his swamps?

As with natural phenomenon, the intricacies of the animals are beyond the scope of human understanding, in as far as they being morally acceptable or not. It follows then, that morality is a human construct, and the happenings of the natural world and wildlife may be violent, but they are not of violence, and are necessary events that contribute to our ultimate understanding of the world.

THE ROOT OF ALL LAWS

So given our definitions of violence, we have deduced that it is essentially force. And since force is energy, it must follow that violence is at the root of all things. It is oxymoronic for people to use the term, and to refer to themselves as nonviolent; for to be nonviolent is to not be alive. I desire not to engage in semantics here, and I understand what people are trying to say when they refer to themselves as nonviolent, and some others as violent, or of violence. But the issue at hand in such arguments is a sidebar case for morality, which will be discussed in detail below. But at this juncture I'd like to dissect exactly what violence is before preceding with discussions of other seemingly unrelated matters, but which somehow or another invoke the usage of the term violence.

We live in a world full of violence - It has been that way since the beginning of time, and will remain that way until the end of time. Whenever the wind blows, it is engaging in violence. A crop growing without the soil is violent, and the man or animal snatching that crop from its roots is engaging in violence. We all have violent hearts, for it beats with wrath and fury all the days of our lives; even as we sleep at night in a subconscious state of mind. Violence is essential for our survival, and thus must be exercised if we are to remain as functional human beings. Barring any restrictions, we are to do whatever is necessary to obtain whatever is necessary to be obtained. In short, "might makes right."

FORMS OF VIOLENCE

Violence takes on many forms, and can be either direct, i.e., having an obvious direct linear cause and effect connection, or indirect with a not so obvious link. An example of a direct act of violence is the killing of another person, animal, or some mechanical or natural process. Probably a lighter form of violence would be the assaulting of the aforementioned, and a different form, the appropriating of the same. The universality in each case is the transfer of matter or energy from one entity to another, the difference being only the degree and style of the exchange.

Slightly more complicated is the indirect case of which the cause and effect of violence, or a violent act, is not directly observable. In our human experience, this is probably the most prominent style of violence. Examples include lying, defrauding, and instigating. How often do people lie to obtain the things that yielding the truth will not provide for them? How many creditors have been swindled by promises to pay back from sincere-eyed opportunists? A monetary transaction takes place, where we have direct violence in the form of the appropriation of assets, and this transaction owes its existence to the "promise to repay" of the debtor. Continuing with this analogy, indirect violence in the form of instigating may occur if a third party informs the creditor that the debtor has skipped town with the loaned cash, but has failed to fasten the lock upon the entrance door to his home. If the creditor acts on this information, and enters the borrowers house in order to make restitution, we can say that the information provided him by the third party individual was violent, for it was the cause of action which would not have occurred in its absence.

Hopefully, I've explained clearly what it is we're dealing with, i.e., violence, and shall now touch upon our civil management of the same.

CONTROL OF VIOLENCE

From what is explained above, you may have the impression that violence is a chaotic state where things simply happen with no rhyme or reason, or without any regard to rhyme and reason. This is a true assessment perceived from the outside looking in, when and if violence is left unchecked. But many checks on it exists, the foremost of importance being provided by nature itself. Nature has rules, which I posit that nobody understands in their full vainglory. These rules restrict certain forms of violence from occurring at any given moment. For example, a man in a desert longing for water cannot will the clouds to produce rain. He can not ascend into the heavens and shake the clouds for water, nor can he turn them upside down to oblige himself. Likewise, a ship which is at sea cannot will the wind to blow from behind it, neither can it regulate the force of it. In other words, nature as a control on violence can be looked at as a physical (or other) limitation that will not allow for the occurrence of some violent act. In a human sense, a man may desire to kill another man, but may be unsuccessful due to his inability to locate him if he's in hiding, or if the man is uncooperative; i.e., defending himself from a would be taken of his life.

But aside from the natural limitations, humans have a need and desire to control violence for their mutual benefits. As humans, we construct societies with rules to our likening, which can only function if it adheres to those rules. The rules are based on right and wrong, i.e., morality, and what is right and wrong is whatever the members of the society agree upon. Morality itself is an individual construct, for what's right for one man is wrong for the next. The rules of the society then, reflect the morality of the members as a whole. A society at its most basic form is the traditional family unit, and its most complex being the establishment of nations and superstates.

The more complex the society, the less morality we can assume is in the rules; for if rules, i.e., those determined to regulate that which is right and wrong, extend from the morality of the individuals, then only where unanimous moral consent exist can a rule be formed. This is why the traditional family unit, and smaller societies tend to have a better check on violence. They have more in common in the way of morality, and thus can have more laws to regulate their society. But in such well functioning and voluntary societies, an abundance of laws should mean nothing to the individual for it reflects his own morality, or moral code. As per the Bible:

"Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;" (1 Tim. 1:9-10, KJV)

It follows then that the civil law is a subset of the moral law, for the civil law is only that portion of the moral law where harmonic consensus exists among the individual members. It is from this where the wrongful taking of one's life crosses the threshold from "killing" to "murdering," the wrongful appropriation of assets becomes "stealing," and lying within the context of a material, or lawful nature, becomes "fraud." This harmony, known as the law, is necessary for any society's well-being, and is harder to blossom to fruition the more complex the society; complex meaning a great number of individual members, or a more variant moral code amongst the midst of them. Thus, complex societies would logically have a smaller body of civil law. But too often complex societies seek to implement more laws than those that are just, and the forcing of a law upon an individual which conflicts with his moral code is tyranny plain and simple; for such a law should have never made it onto the books of common law. It is no more than violence masquerading under the cover of law.

WHY CONTROL VIOLENCE?

It should be obvious why there would be a desire to control violence. All men desire peace, and this peace is obtained via the control of violence. Even a serial killer, or a slayer of nations desires peace; i.e., the peace to continue unabated their murdering and pillaging. But in the case of the common man, the placement of a fence around his yard to protect his crops expresses his desire to avoid a potential conflict with a would be "thief." Likewise, a man who desires crops behind that fence may decide to "appropriate" them for himself at a time when the man of the yard is far away from it. In both instances, the men are seeking to obtain what they desire while avoiding violence; the one seeking to deter the competition away from his crops via deterrence, the other obtainment via cunning. And if and when actual engagement occurs, the motives of both the aggressor and the defender would be the control of violence, the aggressor seeking to eliminate a future threat, and the defender a present one.

Violence is also sought to be controlled because synergy is created via the cooperation of men, and destruction is realized via the lack thereof. When people work together, the competition element is reduced, which in turn reduces the damage to person and property, which competition inevitably brings. More is obtained for doing, or risking less in the way of cooperation, thus we are left with the maxim that people will seek to maximize their level of peace, while simultaneously seeking to minimize the use of violence in obtaining it. Societies attempt to better themselves by the exploitation of this maxim.

OF EXTERNAL SOCIETIES

Societies have traditionally been formed via geographical location, and consisted of tribes of individuals who have banded together for their common goals. The emphasis on geography is due to the physical limitations of people that are of like-mind, but who reside in diverse locations, working together. Thus, for the reasons outlined above, we attempt to cooperate with our neighbors to the best of our ability, and form societies based upon our collective agreed upon moralities. This is not to say that geography is a requirement for societies, but rather a strong determining factor of cooperation.

As to external societies, the bonds of cooperation may exist, but they are less formal than internal societies, thus the threat of violence among the two is greater than from within the two by their respective individual members. Country X, having no moral ties to Country Y, may seek to attack it with violence to further some end, and vice versa for Country Y with respect to Country X. In this case, the superior country will overtake the weaker, but if the countries are equal in power, they will each have a stronger incentive to cooperate with each other via the risk of violence upon itself. An appeal to morality of a weaker nation will only work in the event that there is harmony with a stronger nation seeking to bring violence upon it; for shared morality, as we have said, is a check against violence. But absent the morality, violence itself must defend against, or offset violence.

Geographical realities or limitations, which result in different societies and cultures, will often lead to greater moral differences between them. Nevertheless, some shared morality exists among them, and the nations will act brotherly amongst themselves to the extent of this morality. These nations may form peace treaties and agreements among themselves, which is essentially the civil law between societies, as opposed to within them, and is lesser in scope externally than internally. But strong and competitive nations with little or no shared morality will have peace treaties and agreements amongst themselves as well, for the two may respect each other as formidable competitors; thus the risk of engaging may outweigh what they each can gain by cooperation. So here, we have a strategic interest of not engaging in violence, backed by the threat of using violence, whereas in the former case the interest is of a moral nature. It should be noted that an assumed morality of honesty exists by all who would make any agreements.

WHEN SOCIETIES FAIL

Societies are often turbulent during their lifetime, reflecting man's quest to better himself, while at the same time seeking to retain his independence over his actions. Man, first with violence as his tool, is sure to maintain this independence; and coupled with morality he betters himself (and his fellow man) through cooperation. While the former can be blamed for the turbulence, the latter we can attribute to peace. However, this peace is often compromised, and when so, morality as a control on violence begins to loosen its grip. Where morality is the weakest is where you see the most turbulence, thus strife between two independent societies is fairly common. And though physical confrontation may not always occur as a result, the threat of violence creates tension among the parties which otherwise do not exist where morality is present.

But the more complicated case is where there is civil unrest internally for a society. This is because people are greedy and seek to maximize their interests, and often their own moral code fails to serve as a check against this desire. How many times have state legislators attempted to legislate beyond the agreed upon morality? How many kickbacks have found their way into the pockets of those who purport to judge the law? How many church pastors have told lies concerning the church's finances, and how many households does the spirit of adultery inhabit? When one party breaks an agreement or understanding he has with another, the other side is justified in using violence to compensate for the morality breach. In other words, a brother via some kind of civil or other bond proves not to be such when he acts contrary to his brethren while purporting to be just as they in moral character. Such person is a stranger, and thus must be treated as such by the people's whose trust he's breached. And violence, or the threat of the use of violence, is necessary when dealing with strangers in order to keep the peace. As Niccolo Machiavelli writes in 'The Prince': "it is much safer to be feared than to be loved when one of the two must be lacking;" though I would argue that one who exercises violence upon you, whether direct or indirect, neither fears nor loves you.

Often, people will say that we should agree to disagree. This may be okay for dealing with those external to yourself, but this sort of mantra is unacceptable within societies. We've established earlier that a society cannot be harmonious unless people's morality merge on all levels; and by morality, what is meant is what is right and wrong. In societies, politicians and government officials are the most notorious for touting this contradiction; don't buy it when they try to sell it to you, and accept with pride denouncements of you or your disagreeable actions as being violent. It would be wise to create an atmosphere where such rhetoric or doings that are contrary to the law are feared (including physically) by all. We'd then have perfectly functioning societies, but never can there be a non-violent society or a non-violent person.

CONCLUSION

So in conclusion, it has been determined that violence is a natural as the sunrise, and violent may be how fast or slow, or how hard or soft it rises. Violence, being of nature, exists within nature and everything stemming from nature. This includes wildlife and us humans. How nature regulates it, nobody knows; but as for humans, we are endowed with morality and reason which helps us to manage this savage beast that exist within all of us. Morality is that which is determined by the individual to be that which best sustains or uplifts his being, and he will thus attempt to associate with others who share in these sentiments with him. On the other hand, reason is the root level instinct or learned behavior necessary for man's basic survival. It is objective analysis, whereas morality, or the individual's morality code is subjective. Violence is something that all would do well to seek, understand and embrace, and absolutely must not allow themselves to be controlled by violence via their fear or ignorance of it.

Common law copyright. For non-commercial use only.

Sympathy for the Minarchist...

2009-05-11T21:48:00.000-05:00

Sympathy for the Minarchist
Dec 2007

Please allow me to introduce myself
I'm your average minarchist
The state is force but I'll say you can
Put a glove around the fist

I was around when Socrates
First used logic to debate
Made damn sure 'democracy'
Drowned his words and sealed his fate

Pleased to meet you
I'm sure you know my name
But what's puzzling me
Is why you play my game

In Roman times new liberty
Bought the wealth that set men free
They overthrew their overlords
And almost lived without a fee

I whispered soft
"You need the state"
Bought 'democracy'
With false currency

Pleased to meet you
Sure you know my name
But what's puzzling me
Is why you play my game

I watched in fear
When America
Overthrew a peer
For a taxless state

I shouted out
"Who'll make the roads you need?"
You stood and stared
And the state was saved

Let me please introduce myself
I'm your average minarchist
And I lay traps for anarchists
Who get stalled before they reach the truth

Pleased to meet you
I'm sure you know my name
But what's puzzling me
Is just why you play my game

Just as every state is false anarchy
And statelessness is peace
The state protects
What it pillages
And it just can't be restrained

So if you meet me
I will lie to you
'bout the roads, defense and schools
Use all your well-learned UPB
Or I'll lay your soul to waste, um yeah

Sleight of Hand

2009-04-29T23:39:00.001-05:00

by FranG

Who created this circle of time, and the coordinates thereof? Where was his hands?
Who made the day, and placed us in the light that we’re aware of? Where was his hands?
Who made the night, that we may long for the day? Where was his hands?
Who made the sun and moon, and the stars we marvel along the Milky Way? Where was his hands?
Who made the sky, and the air needed for breath? where was his hands?
Who made the earth, and the places that provide shelter from certain death? Where was his hands?
Who made the sea, and the water for drink? Where was his hands?
Who made the vegetation, and the victuals for think? Where was his hands?
Who made my hands, and the faculties they serve? Where was his hands?
Who made this woman and child, whom uphold me and whom I preserve? Where was his hands?
Who made those people over there, who move about strangely and with unfamiliarity? Where was his hands?
Who made the creatures of song and dance, and the beasts that are scary to me? Where was his hands?
Who made the whirlwinds that throw, and the tides that smack? Where was his hands?
Who made the mountains to bleed, and who caused the earth to crack? Where was his hands?
Who made the story of God, and all of his wonders and horrors? Where was his hands? Oh, God! where are your hands?
Who made the government, with all of its blunders and supporters? Where was his hands? Oh, Government! where are your hands?
Who made these words that travel throughout the air, and have undressed before your eyes? Where is his hands? Oh, Author! where are your hands?

Common law copyright. Non-commercial use only.

The Face of a Woman

2009-04-19T01:50:00.004-05:00

by FranG

Oh! What joy it is to behold the Face of a Woman
Who drops gems of clarity in the space reserved for one man
Physical attributes do nothing to describe her stature
There is no tool capable of arresting the cheekbone and claiming capture
Her eyes know that you’re here, her nose knows that you’re near
But yet you do not see her, and just who she is is still not yet clear

Inside your mind she has implanted herself; “come find me” she has told you
Helplessly you seek her face, for she has the ultimate stronghold on you
In your lust you seek her, but follow not the steps she’s laid out
But still she is going nowhere; the danger exists only when your strength begins to fade out

Desperate for fulfillment, you follow she who signals with the index finger, and shows the hair only
And says “behold my waistline;” your head bows down and can stare only
She says “give me this” and “give me that’” “give me your soul, it’s for the taking”
Your confoundedness causes you to comply, and of your inner foundation a continual shaking
Upon her every command the shaking magnifies, as the Face of a Woman pours tears
These slow the shaking and bring clarity back, as you realize that you must move on from here

So you command your soul return home, as you look up and say goodbye to her with the hair and waistline
And with renewed zeal you seek the Face of a Woman, while reflecting on the events of the last place and time
She says you have sown the seeds of iniquity, but for those seeds “we are jointly responsible”
She says “your lust for me has damaged us. Please cease, lest we be lost in full”

Her reproach coils itself into the depths of your soul, and you suddenly realize the direction of her words
You head North, leaving south she with the hair and waistline, and her many friends engrossed in the herd
The Face of a Woman sits on high, but the path toward her has been weeded with the plants that are your iniquity
You see ‘the State’, sisters, brothers, fathers and mothers of she with hair and waistline, and their many male minions that are your enemy

As you tread afoot, you receive blow after blow from them all; the tears from the Face of a Woman shielding your soul
Alas! You reach the northernmost point of the path, the resting place of the Face of a Woman outside the midst of the storm
It is nothing short of majestic; and visible to you because you chose not to conform
Your eyes behold the splendor in every detail: from the alluring eyes to the crippling lips
From the encircling breasts, to the sheltering hips: her stare returned to you causing a great eclipse

The Face of a Woman is all too familiar; her wounds revealing what the mirror showed
Where your weeds of iniquity took upon you vengeance, while climbing north that dark and lonely road
As you approach the Face of a Woman, she prostrates toward you that you may see her magnificent crown
While you finally do what you longed all along: into her outstretched hands your soul you hand down
To which she graciously replies, “Thank you my King,” and leads you to the chair that is your throne
The Face of a Woman cries out with joy, “Thank you for our travails, for now we shall never be alone”

Upon these words, the scars of the Face of a Woman evaporate, and you suddenly feel painless
As you happily sit on the chair that bears your name, rejoicing in the fact that none other can claim it
To which you both look south to the place known as “the world,” and all of its attributes
On which you place your feet on its four corners, while endlessly looking into each others’ eyes, blissfully staring at the truth.

Common law copyright, for non commercial use only

The Wizard of Oswald, Chapter IV: The Devolution of Art

2009-04-04T15:12:00.004-05:00

from: http://www.wizardofoswald.com/WOOIV.html

The Wizard of Oswald, Chapter IV: The Devolution of Art

Popular Art Undergoes Serious Deconstruction for the Past Century

Brandon Dean
WizardofOswald.com
Thursday, March 26th, 2009

Johann Sebastian Bach, father of modern music

From Johann Sebastian Bach to "Sebastian Bach" of the ridiculously fake 80's band Skid Row, and from Rembrandt Harmenszoon van Rijn to the pretentious crap that passes for "abstract art" nowadays, one can start to see a pattern from complicated art, requiring not only talent but the drive to accomplish, to artificial, commercial art, which requires nothing more than a look or an attitude--in other words, a profit motive.

Edgar Allen Poe, 19th century American writer

From the writings of Edgar Allen Poe, a writer whom one needed at least half a brain and a decent education to follow, to the sophomoric "novels" of Dean Koontz, we see a degeneration of the English language. And one may successfully argue that the more words we understand, the higher our capacity for discerning external manipulations.

Self Portrait by Rembrandt Harmenszoon van Rijn, 17th century Dutch painter

Taken all together--thanks to the emergence of legions of artificial pre-fab artists in the music, fine arts and literature fields--we can observe the devolution of art in living color and real time, right in front of us.

I've watched it my whole life: the degeneration of morals, the destruction of family values through use of commercials aimed at young kids to convince them their parents aren't cool, indoctrination into brain-sizzling video games, the praise of violence and sex on television, and endless other signs of a society's deconstruction. It only seems to get worse, and I'm not paying much more attention than I did fifteen years ago. I do believe it's time to pronounce the stranglehold of popular art as at least equal in malevolence to any other attack by the international banking elite.

Why do I see a conspiracy in this? Don't I see a conspiracy in everything? Sure, any crime involving two or more people.... Let's just make it easy and not mention things like Payola, or Bryan Adams, or how Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy missed the entire point of the books, simply to make it more profitable to the producers, or the fact that Hollywood can't seem to come up with half of a good idea any more, so they remake films that were actually great, but which now will be inexcusably bastardized and sensationalized. And ALL the major studios do it. Conspiracy?

If you're truly interested in discovering just a portion of how corrupt and collusive the Hollywood elite can be, read this (warning: that link leads to what essentially is an online book, so you may want to dig up your spectacles and make some Jiffypop).

B movies have gone from laughable, campy affairs, to big budget studio nightmares of repetitive, idiotic diatribes and shock imagery meant to startle more than stimulate.

Popular music has devolved from the maestros, who studied music for decades before achieving their well-deserved success, or were virtuosos who couldn't be held back by studying, to the modern day, where any schmo can walk into a music shop, spend a week's pay on a guitar, and annoy his neighbors till the stars fall and hell hosts the winter Olympics.

I can't even fathom how some of these authors manage to publish their toilet paper, but all you have to do is sit down, read Frankenstein by Mary Shelley, and then really try to compare that to any book written in the last thirty years, with a few exceptions. We're speaking a different language today, although we still call it English.

The driving force behind the human being, from where I stand, is creation. Man creates ideas, which shape realities. Without creation, the individual lacks luster. All of us create on different levels, whether it is a great work of art, a cabinet for a kitchen, or an amazing equation. Maybe you know how to create a mood. It could be anything. Art, in all forms, is the one creation of the human race which has no literal, pragmatic reason for existing. It is created and experienced for purely aesthetic purposes, from infinite individual perspectives. Art is the one abstract relaxation of the human race. The carpenter finds comfort and satisfaction in his creation, just as the painter finds comfort and satisfaction in his creation. Without this comfort and satisfaction, very bad things happen. Shall we talk about the Soviet Union, Red China, or Cambodia? In all three countries, anyone with a creative force was rounded up and slaughtered, in a so-called attempt to cull the "bourgeoisie" from society. When the creative force was gone, you had "sewers of seeds and hewers of wood," (read the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion to understand fully what that meant) who could create nothing but food and fuel. And regardless of these diabolical attempts to stifle the human spirit, artists are still doing what they do, in all three of those countries ...

Creation shapes the future of humanity, on both the broadest and narrowest scales. Without it, we have no hope of fighting off the intellectual assault we are under, whether it be through lack of writers to inform us, musicians to scream it at us, or visual artists to put it right in front of our faces.

The point of creating art is not to create beauty, but to draw the person experiencing it into the mind and soul of the artist. The gardener creates a piece of art (if he wishes) simply by trimming plants, just as the housewife creates a work of art for supper, and together with her spouse, creates the most amazing of all human creations: the human being...

copyright Brandon Dean, 2009

Man vs. the Lord

2009-04-03T15:00:00.001-05:00

Man vs. the Lord
A Psalm of Francis

1. Who is man to try to compete with the Lord? What is the height of his wisdom?
2. Man dare not look at the Sun, for he will go blind - But the Sun bows to the Lord.
3. The Lord makes the tide rise with the Moon like a magnet, but man cannot make them go down while at sea.
4. The breath of the Lord will knock anyone off balance, while the breath of man will not even fan you.
5. The stars hold their place in the sky, but the pebbles of man fall back to the earth.
6. Man reaches up, and his hands do not touch the sky. But the Lord marvels the sky with a bear hug.
7. Man’s skyscrapers reach into heaven, but they cannot bend down and touch their toes.
8. His social, economic, and financial systems remain out of balance, however the ecosystems of the Lord lack blemish.
9. His philosophy is complex and contradictory, while the Lord's is uncomprehensible yet harmonic
10. His mind conjures many concoctions, but they forever fall short at the feet of the Lord
11. His greatest homes hold only thousands, but the home of the Lord houses more than a billion
12. His food and drink is from the scraps of the Lord's table; his nourishment comes when the Lord says so - Any fasting of the Lord will decimate man.
13. His missiles come fast from a cannon, but the cannon in heaven doesn't have to be reloaded
14. His tanks give chase, but cannot swim; his boats engage in hot pursuit, but cannot walk; his aeroplanes ascend and descend, but this is not perpendicular; neither can it zigzag nor hop about the earth.
15. His Frankensteins speak words, but know not what they say; they cannot return dialogue without first consulting their instruction manuals.
16. Their skeletons are hard and brittle, but the bones of the Lord are hard and durable.
17. Their stature is fixed in its dimension, but that of the Lord forever regenerates itself.
18. The mother board of the best CPU is heavy, static and dumb; but the brain is light, malleable, and intelligent.
19. The spinal cord of man ascended not to heaven, for he has bent it in the direction of the east and the west.
20. His chakras from the base to the crown spin not; albeit those of the Lord are resistant to brakes.
21. Man attempts to massage embryonic stem cells, but the Lord ordained flesh.
22. The seminal fluid and placenta of the Lord provides speedier development for the child than the nutritional choices of man.
23. The Lord provide succor to come from the breast of a woman; that child is the Lord's!
24. The pipes of man corrode and burst under pressure, yet the veins of the Lord contain even blood.
25. Man employs fiber optics for his ends, but the endings of the nerves carry more light.
26. The eye of his camera doesn't see the dust coming, but the eye of God adjusts accordingly.
27. His ears hear not the sound of treason; his nose cannot smell the scent of danger.
28. Man marvels at infinity, and wonders what numeric precedes it; but the Lord knows that which follows it.
29. He cannot divide a thing by zero, but the Lord created the Earth from nothing.
30. He still hasn't conquered Leviathan; and the Loch Ness Monster and Bigfoot continually evade him.
31. He is a slave to gold and rubies, but it is the Lord only who manufactures these.
32. The beasts in the fields howl and give thanks to the Lord, but man's scream is that of arrogance and pride.
33. The aquatic of the sea breach the water's surface, and arise to give a dance of praise, but the dances of man are lewd unto himself.
34. The fowl of the air sing a song of joy to the Lord during their swoops, but man chants in a monotone manner with sword on the battlefield.
35. The trees of the forest whistle at the presence of the wind, but man whistles to his brethren in wait as the unsuspecting approach the snare.
36. The creatures of God's hand praise the Lord, and enjoy good health; but man be riddled with cancer, pneumonia, meningitis, osteoporosis, tooth decay, and others reserved for the disobedient.

State Sovereignty?? Part 4 - Causes for New Secession

2009-02-27T00:04:00.003-06:00

Continued from Part 3

The passage of the 17th Amendment was unconstitutional

"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote." (U.S. Const., Am. 17)

The 17th Amendment was proposed to the States in May of 1912, and ratified less than one year later. This amendment caused a dramatic shift in the balance of power in the federal government. The States, previously controlled the Senate via direct appointment of their respective Senators, but this amendment effectively eliminated the voice of the states from the government almost entirely (see Part 2). But though the required three-fourths of the state legislatures voted for the measure, this particular amendment required unanimous approval, i.e., ratification from each of the states then in the Union. Not only did they not receive ratification from all of the then 48 United States, but the State of Utah specifically rejected the Amendment. This is significant because the Constitution guarantees each state in the union a republican form of government.

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government..." (U.S. Const., Art. IV, Sec. 4)

So what exactly is meant by "republican form of government?"

republic - 1 a (1): a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2): a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1): a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2): a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government

Basically a republic is a government with some sort of constitution which is unchangeable by legislators, who derive their authority from the governed, while legislating for the public or nation as a whole. In other words, some things are just off limits to legislators. When it is said that supreme power resides in a body of citizens, that power is represented and reflected in the constitution for the land. Vattel describes the constitution of a state as:

"The fundamental regulation that determines the manner in which the public authority is to be executed, is what forms the constitution of the state. In this is seen the form in which the nation acts in quality of a body politic, how and by whom the people are to be governed, — and what are the rights and duties of the governors. This constitution is in fact nothing more than the establishment of the order in which a nation proposes to labour in common for obtaining those advantages with a view to which the political society was established." (Law of Nations, Bk. I, Ch. 3, Sec. 27)

The Constitution also, regards to amendments, states more affirmatively:

"...no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate." (U.S. Const., Art. V)

And what exactly is meant by suffrage?

suffrage - 2: a vote given in deciding a controverted question or electing a person for an office or trust3: the right of voting : franchise ; also : the exercise of such right

I don't know if the Constitution can be any more clearer than that. Though the Constitution can lawfully be amended by a vote of three-fourths of the states, it cannot be amended to eliminate the representation of any of the States by virtue of the guarantee made them in the original body of Constitution. The passage of amendments, such as the 17th Amendment, serve to silence any state who does not vote positively in favor of it. And it may be construed that silence, i.e., a not voting on the proposal is acquiescence; however the State of Utah positively rejected the amendment. The entire amendment should thus be void for, if for no other state, Utah at the very least. But I'd argue that the 17th Amendment is voidable by any state on the grounds that it is against the letter and spirit of the Constitution. Proposing the question itself is illegal, and such a material change to the document must result in an entirely new document. This because the 17th Amendment contradicts the original text of the Constitution.

In Federalist Paper 10, James Madison argued that that the main difference between a democracy and a republic is the scheme of representation. Below is an excerpt of Madison speaking on the ills of democracy, and the cures of a republic.

"From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions. A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking." (Federalist Papers #10)

The 17th Amendment in effect has shifted this country from a republic to a democracy, with the federal government now appealing solely to the citizens of this country, and is totally unconcerned with the states as political entities. Democracies promote demagogue politicians, who promise their constituents everything under the sun in return for their votes. The same constituency controls the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the Office of President; this is a pure democracy. The layers of representation between the United States and the people have been reduced a great deal, the next step can only be the fascism. The federal government is de facto a national government; the 50 States existing in form only.

In addition to Utah's affirmative rejection of the 17th Amendment, in which she should be commended for asserting her rights, the following states, in order of their admission into the Union, were silent on the question: Delaware, Georgia, Maryland, South Carolina, Virginia, Rhode Island, Kentucky, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida. Of these 10, it is interesting to note that: a) 6 states were part of the original 13, b) 9 states were admitted into the Union before the year 1820, and c) 6 of the states were officially part of the Confederate States of America, and an additional 2 states serving as dual or border states in the American Civil War. It appears the minority from the Civil War is losing yet another battle against the majority.

The 16th Amendment serves as the guise for a constructive fraud

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." (U.S. Const., Am. 16)

If you're of the belief that you owe income taxes on your income because of the above amendment, you're in for quite a shock. There may in fact be circumstances other than this amendment where you are in fact liable for an income tax, but the details of those are beyond the scope of this writing. Here we shall deconstruct the myth that the 16th Amendment gave the Congress new income taxation powers. But first, a quick summary of Congressional powers is warranted.

In the enumerated powers section of the Constitution, it states that:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States" (U.S. Const., Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 1)

and in the section that limits Congressional power, it states that:

"No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken." (U.S. Const., Art. I, Sec. 9, Cl. 4)

There are basically two types of taxes: 1) taxes on transactions, and 2) taxes on property. Taxes on transactions are excises, duties, etc. and are covered in Art. I, Sec. 8 of the Constitution. An example of this type of tax is the State of California and the State of Texas paying a duty for the import of say rice from a foreign nation. The Constitution requires that California and Texas pay the same amount of tax, i.e., $5 per barrel of rice imported or 5% of the value of all imports. These are considered indirect taxes, and must be equal throughout the United States.

The second type, taxes on property, do not tax transactions, but rather property directly. These are direct taxes which occur whether or not any transaction has taken place. Examples of these are property taxes, vehicle taxes, etc. and are usually recurring in nature, for the transaction of acquiring the property is a one time event. These taxes the Constitution requires to be paid in proportion to the census. For example, if California is twice as populous as Alabama, any direct taxes levied by Congress must be double for California what they are for Alabama. And because the tax is direct, a percentage of wealth is not applicable, for that would be a form of apportionment not in proportion to the Census. For example, continuing with the scenario of the two states above, let's say that Alabama and California have equal property values. Here a direct tax of say 5% of property value would produce an equal tax burden upon the states. However the Constitution is clear that the apportionment must be in proportion to the Census, that's the lawful criteria.

So with this brief explanation, let's move to the 16th Amendment. The amendment was proposed in an attempt to nullify the Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. Supreme Court decision which ruled that unapportioned income taxes were unconstitutional. In response to this decision, the 16th Amendment was proposed and ratified. Shortly after, Congress passed another income tax law but this law too was shot down as unconstitutional in the Brushaber vs. Union Pacific R.R. Co. decision in 1916. Below is an excerpt from the case regarding the language and effect of the 16th Amendment.

"The various propositions are so intermingled as to cause it to be difficult to classify them. We are of opinion, however, that the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation; that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes. And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it, as follows: ..... ....But it clearly results that the proposition and the contentions under it, if acceded to, would cause one provision of the Constitution to destroy another; that is, they would result in bringing the provisions of the Amendment exempting a direct tax from apportionment into irreconcilable conflict with the general requirement that all direct taxes be apportioned. Moreover, the tax authorized by the Amendment, being direct, would not come under the rule of uniformity applicable under the Constitution to other than direct taxes, and thus it would come to pass that the result of the Amendment would be to authorize a particular direct tax not subject either to apportionment or to the rule of geographical uniformity, thus giving power to impose a different tax in one state or states than was levied in another state or states. This result, instead of simplifying the situation and making clear the limitations on the taxing power, which obviously the Amendment must have been intended to accomplish, would create radical and destructive changes in our constitutional system and multiply confusion." (supra)

Basically what the court is saying is that a direct tax on income violates the apportionment requirement; and if the argument is to be made that income taxes are excise taxes, then the amendment would cause for unequal taxes, which would violate uniformity requirement of excise taxes. In short, the 16th Amendment is a nice piece of sophistry.

I will now go into the history of why Americans are paying this tax. Income taxes were slowly introduced into the public sphere under President Roosevelt via the Wealth Tax Act of 1935. This was a depression era tax on the rich, and affected a very small subset of the population. Naturally the public outcry was minimal or non-existent over such a measure. Congress next codified all tax statutes into the Internal Revenue Code of 1939. This was completed on February 10, 1939. Just two months later, the Public Salary Tax Act of 1939 was enacted. This was supposed to be a tax on the income (direct tax) of all public officials in the then 48 States of the Union. But this was deceptive for the term "State" as used in the Act meant the District of Columbia and federal territories. Nevertheless not many people were effected by the tax.

Congress next passed the Buck Act of 1940 (see 4 U.S.C. 105-110) to allow the then 48 States to tax federal public officials, thus extended the public officials to both state and federal employees (remember here too the term "State" means the District of Columbia and federal Territories). But despite these additions, the mass of Americans would not pay income taxes until President Roosevelt's Victory Tax Act of 1942 was enacted as a wartime measure. President Roosevelt would call this bill "the greatest tax bill in American history." Below is a quote from a teaching document from the IRS's website explaining the Victory Tax:

"In 1939 only about five percent of American workers paid income tax. The United States’ entrance into World War II changed that figure. The demands of war production put almost every American back to work, but the expense of the war still exceeded tax-generated revenue. President Roosevelt’s proposed Revenue Act of 1942 introduced the broadest and most progressive tax in American history, the Victory Tax. Now, about 75 percent of American workers would pay income taxes. Because so many citizens paid the tax, it was considered a mass tax. To ease workers’ burden of paying a large sum once a year, and to create a regular flow of revenue into the U.S. Treasury, the government required employers to withhold money from employees’ paychecks. Additional taxes were put in place in 1943. By war’s end in 1945, about 90 percent of American workers submitted income tax forms, and 60 percent paid taxes on their income. The federal government covered more than half its expenses with new income tax revenue."

Now remember direct taxes are illegal, however this was passed as a wartime measure pursuant to the Constitution; to wit:

"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years" (U.S. Const., Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 12)

The Victory Tax was enacted in October of 1942, and repealed within two years in May of 1944. Unfortunately, nobody ever told the American public, and they continued to volunteer paying federal income taxes. Ask an IRS agent to show you the specific statute that makes Americans residing in the 50 States liable for federal income taxes, and you will be sure to either befuddle or anger him; the lack of an answer to your question notwithstanding.

The increase in individual taxes received by the U.S. government from 1934 to 1944 is a whopping 4,591.7%; and, when including taxes on social security payments, went from comprising about 15% to more than half of total government receipts (Budget for Fiscal Year 2005; Historic Tables, Sec. 2, Table 2.1; p. 29). The trend would not reverse, but instead continue to increase in the Left direction.

Why aren't the States calling the federal government out over this obvious constructive fraud being perpetrated by the Feds? Americans obviously would not be volunteering to donate funds to anyone when they themselves are strapped with debt. Then the income tax paid for half the federal government's expenditures, but today income taxes on individuals account for more than three-fourths of its total revenue. As mentioned in Part 3, the Feds award hundreds of billions of dollars in grant money to the states, but what does the United States government produce? This money comes from the States, and attached to it are federal mandates, and then a fraction of the money goes back to the states. The rest is to be used at the discretion of the United States government to fulfill its dreams of conquest, etc. If ever there were a time to divorce themselves from an enlarged and overreaching government, it is now.

The Emergency Banking Relief Act of 1933

First the Preliminaries (President Woodrow Wilson)

The Stock Market Crash of 1929 is often attributed as the cause of the Great Depression of the 1930s. But this country has always had market crashes and recessions/depressions. However, the Crash of 1929 was the first under the Federal Reserve System, a private "money trust" granted an exclusive monopoly over the national banking system, and the issuance of the nation's currency. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 created the Fed. It was signed into law by President Woodrow Wilson, a progressive and populist who was largely influenced by Louis D. Brandeis, a Zionist whom Wilson would appoint to the Supreme Court in 1916 after becoming President of the United States.

Wilson often spoke out against a rich elite class of business men whom he referred to as "trusts," and credited control of the nation to them and their interests. Wilson based his political career on dismantling these so called trusts and returning control of the country back to the people of the United States. Below is an excerpt from Wilson's "The New Freedom":

"That is the difference between a big business and a trust. A trust is an arrangement to get rid of competition, and a big business is a business that has survived competition by conquering in the field of intelligence and economy. A trust does not bring efficiency to the aid of business; it buys efficiency out of business. I am for big business, and I am against the trusts. Any man who can survive by his brains, any man who can put the others out of the business by making the thing cheaper to the consumer at the same time that he is increasing its intrinsic value and quality, I take off my hat to, and I say: "You are the man who can build up the United States, and I wish there were more of you." Therefore, when a small group of men approach Congress in order to induce the committee concerned to concur in certain legislation, nobody knows the ramifications of the interests which those men represent; there seems no frank and open action of public opinion in public counsel, but every man is suspected of representing some other man and it is not known where his connections begin or end. This money trust, or, as it should be more properly called, this credit trust, of which Congress has begun an investigation, is no myth; it is no imaginary thing. It is not an ordinary trust like another. It doesn't do business every day. It does business only when there is occasion to do business. You can sometimes do something large when it isn't watching, but when it is watching, you can't do much. And I have seen men squeezed by it; I have seen men who, as they themselves expressed it, were put "out of business by Wall Street, because Wall Street Found them inconvenient and didn't want their competition. " (supra)

Ironically for Wilson, his policies had the effect of directly contradicting what he preached. Brandeis, who shared Wilson's view regarding the trusts, and specifically the money trust, wrote the following in "Other People's Money":

"But wealth expressed in figures gives a wholly inadequate picture of the allies' power. Their wealth is dynamic. It is wielded by geniuses in combination. It finds its proper expression in means of control. To comprehend the power of the allies we must try to visualize the ramifications through which the forces operate " (Other People's Money, Ch. 2, "How the Combiner's Combine").

So was Wilson duped into actually strengthening the money trust, or was he a willing participant? I find it hard to believe that a man of his caliber could be so easily fooled. It's too bad Wilson didn't follow the acts of Christ while positioning himself as a Christ-like figure.

"...and Jesus went up to Jerusalem,
14: And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting: 15: And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables; 16: And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise." (John 2:13-16, KJV)

Vattel states it as follows:

"Since the state is surely for the goodness of the money and its currency, the public authority alone has the right of coining it. Those who counterfeit it, violate the rights of the sovereign, whether they make it of the same standard and value or not. These are called false-coiners, and their crime is justly considered as one of the most heinous nature. For if they coin base money, they rob both the public and the prince; and if they coin good, they usurp the prerogative of the sovereign. They will never be inclined to coin good money unless there be a profit on the coinage: and in this case they rob the state of a profit which exclusively belongs to it. In both cases they do an injury to the sovereign; for the public faith being surety for the money, the sovereign alone has a right to have it coined. " (Law of Nations, Bk. I, Ch. 10, Sec. 107)

The Federal Reserve System created on Wilson's watch is nothing more than a legalized counterfeiting racket, whose operations would set the stage for the Stock Market Crash of 1929 and set the stage for the treason that would soon result from it.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt

During the three year interim between Roosevelt assuming office, the economic situation had gotten drastically worse. The Federal Reserve contracted the money supply some 40% since the time of the Crash. As mentioned above, prior stock market crashes were not under the watch of a central bank, and the markets usually turned themselves around in a year or so's time. But the Fed's drastic reduction in the supply of credit to member banks caused a credit freeze, which caused numerous banks to default on their loans; mostly to other banks. The Federal Reserve Act created the nexus of banks (all national and some state banks) that would all fall like dominoes from the instability of a few. The bank failures were responsible for causing runs on the banks.

The people have every right to demand payment of their property. But Roosevelt would enter office and receive a present in the form of a piece of legislation known as "the Emergency Banking Act of 1933." The Act also had parts in it known by other names, i.e, the "Gold Hoarding Act" and the "Bank Conservation Act." In short, the Emergency Banking Act declared Americans as enemies to the United States government, and thus would give the President the authority to regulate essentially all their financial transactions. The Gold Hoarding Act gave the Secretary of the Treasury the power to seize the gold of all Americans on a whim in the name of saving the "currency system" of the United States. The Bank Conservation Act would give the United States Comptroller of the Currency the power to appoint a conservator over any national bank at his sole discretion. And if this wasn't bad enough, the conservator would be paid a salary from the assets of his assigned bank.

Within days of obtaining his office, Roosevelt would use his new powers and declare a national banking holiday. National banks were closed and conservators were appointed, about half of which would not reopen. A month later, in April of 1933, Roosevelt issued his infamous Executive Order #6102, requiring all Americans to turn over their gold to the Federal Reserve banks in exchange for "any other form of coin or currency coined or issued under the laws of the United States." Anyone not in compliance with the law and this executive order faced jailtime. In a carefully calculated coup d'etat, the "money trust" that President Wilson spoke of would take physical possession of the wealth of the American people, and would use the hands of government officials to do so.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated....." (U.S. Const., Am. 4)

As bad as this sounds, the real treason would occur two months later. The Gold Repeal Joint Resolution (aka HJR 192) was passed on June 5, 1933, stating that gold clauses in financial instruments "obstruct the power of the Congress to regulate the value of money of the United States." Section (a) of the Act states:

"That (a) every provision contained in or made with respect to any obligation which purports to give the obligee a right to require payment in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency, or in an amount of money of the United States measured thereby, is declared to be against public policy; and no such provision contained in or made with respect to any obligation hereafter incurred. Every obligation, heretofore or hereafter incurred, whether or not any such provisions is contained therein or made with respect thereto, shall be discharged upon payment, dollar for dollar, in any such coin or currency which at the time is legal tender for public and private debts. Any such provision contained in any law authorizing obligations to be issued by or under authority of the United States, is hereby repealed, but the repeal of any such provision shall not invalidate any other provision or authority contained in such law. " (HJR 192)

So with the passage of this Act, Congress essentially stated that gold as money is contradictory to the public policy of the United States; this of course after they took the gold first. But HJR 192 is diametrically opposed to the U.S. Constitution, which clearly states:

"No State shall....make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts..." (U.S. Const., Art. I, Sec. 10, Cl. 1)

Vattel states:

"...gold and silver became the common standard of the value of all things: and to prevent the people from being cheated, the mode was introduced of stamping pieces of gold and silver in the name of the state, with the figure of the prince, or some other impression, as the seal and pledge of their value. This institution is of great use and infinite convenience: it is easy to see how much it facilitates commerce..." (Law of Nations, Bk. I, Ch. 10, Sec. 105)

So Congress is either in direct violation of the Constitution, or we are not operating under the Constitution. As mentioned in an earlier part of this writing, silence is acquiescence. If the people are to object, it must make its objection crystal clear.

Congress would then sweeten the pot with the Banking Act of 1933 (aka the Glass Steagel Act) passed a few weeks later. It created the FDIC to insure the deposits for federal reserve banks, and invited non member state banks to join in the system. This would be an offer too hard to resist given the seizure of gold that had been appropriated from the public into the hands of the Federal Reserve Banks (not the member banks, the regional banks), along with the added sweetener of federal insurance for its deposits.

Finally on January 30, 1934, Congress passed the Gold Reserve Act, which barred gold clauses from being issued with any federal reserve notes (see 12 U.S.C. 411). While HJR 192 dealt with notes in circulation, this Act would deal with newly printed notes. Shortly after this, gold was revalued from $20.67/oz to $35/oz; thus debasing the dollar some 42%. After all, the American public would pay involuntarily for all of Roosevelt's socialist New Deal programs with nearly half of their wealth, of which they could not obtain because of the Roosevelt's horrendous Executive Order. To complete the heist, a few technicalities would be cleared up: 1) the Banking Act of 1935 would established the FDIC permanently, and 2) the Gold Clause Act would pass on August 27, 1935 eliminating the words "against public policy" from the text of HJR 192, in an attempt to obfuscate its underhandings.

In all, about 26% of all banks failed, and about 20% were consolidated, resulting in an ultimate reduction of the banks to about half the 1929 number. The stock market crash only served to make the Fed, i.e., the private "money trust" even more powerful.

American money abroad

After the termination of World War II, Europe was in ruins. In fact, the United States was the only major nation that remained unscathed by the war; with the exception of Pearl Harbor of course. The goal now was to rebuild the world and to strengthen capitalism and promote international trade. In 1944, it emerged at the Bretton Woods conference that the United States would take a leadership role in this new global alliance between 44 of the world's nations. The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank were created with this agreement, and it was decided that the currencies of the member nations would be pegged to the U.S. dollar, the U.S. dollar itself would be pegged to gold. Thus it was the U.S. dollar that was to be the world's liquid currency, with a gold backing it confiscated from the American people.

Because of the U.S. dollar's privileged status, and the status of the WW2 tattered and third world nations, the U.S. was in a prime position to pillage. With communism, exemplified by the Soviet Union, serving as the external threat which needed to be combated, the United States would pillage third world countries for their resources, and send the excess profits to favored western European countries to help them rebuild their economies. Europe would then use the free dollars to pillage third world countries further still. This plan of rebuilding favored Western nations was known as the Mashall Plan, and in a span of 4 years, from 1947 to 1951, the United States would give away $13.3 billion under the plan before ended it.

The policy of the United States was to flood the world with dollars, and it did this by running balance of payments deficits with nations. The U.S. initially would invest in foreign countries (military expansion for aid, etc.), such as under the Marshall Plan, during the 1950s when the U.S. economy was booming, or by running trade deficits with member nations. It soon became clear that the U.S. was pursuing reckless financial policies, and thus in the late 1960s, a run on the dollar occurred internationally, just as it did domestically in the 1930s. The United States would not issue the agreed upon gold to the countries, and instead President Nixon issued Executive Order #11615 in August of 1971 and killed any convertibility of the U.S. dollar to gold. In a televised speech, he would blame the "international money speculators" for the dollar crisis, and not the reckless policies of this country. The U.S. would now kill the gold clauses for its dollars internationally, just as it had done domestically. This was an act of war, though the U.S. would suffer no consequences for its illicit acts.

"As the engagements of a treaty impose on the one hand a perfect obligation, they produce on the other a perfect right. The breach of a treaty is therefore a violation of the perfect right of the party with whom we have contracted; and this is an act of injustice against him." (Law of Nations, Bk. II, Ch. XII, Sec. 164)

On October 19, 1976, Congress officially amended the Bretton Woods Act to prohibit the Treasury Secretary from setting a dollar par value per ounce of gold. Although attempts had been made to revalue the dollar to gold after Nixon's initial breach, from $35/oz to $38/oz to $42, this official act is when the dollar "officially" floated. The price of gold went through the roof, which meant that the U.S. dollar was worthless. The price of gold would go from $20/oz before the depression, to $35/oz during the New Deal and Bretton Woods Era, to $965 as of the time of this writing in February 2009. The dollar has been devalued by 98% as a result of the United States international escapade of pillage and conquest at the expense of the American people.

With the U.S. dollar now being totally fiat, Congress would now decide that the American people were not enemies of war, and reverse that provision in Roosevelt's Emergency Banking Act in 1977 (see 50a U.S.C. 5). Congress would also quietly repeal Roosevelt's Gold Hoarding Act in 1982 (see 12 U..S.C. 248(n)) After the currency has been completely wrecked, Congress will allow the American people to repurchase their gold on the open market at a price 50 times higher than when it was confiscated from them. The United States government has reduced its citizens into economic serfs, and has done the exact opposite of what a responsible nation ought to do.

"The end or object of civil society is to procure for the citizens whatever they stand in need of for the necessities, the conveniences, the accommodation of life, and, in general, whatever constitutes happiness, — with the peaceful possession of property, a method of obtaining justice with security, and, finally, a mutual defence against all external violence." (Law of Nations, Bk. I, Ch. II, Sec. 15)

America today (2009)

As of the last few decades, American imperialism has amplified, mostly due to the fall of the Soviet Union in the late 1980s. After the official dollar detachment in 1976, America could no longer dupe the world with by printing more dollars, especially since so many were on the foreign markets. But countries were still in possession of these dollars nevertheless. The United State's new strategy for running empire would now be to borrow those same dollars back from the nations of the world. From about 1975 onward, the national debt increased exponentially some ten times over. The United States now finances its world empire on the promise to redeem it's dollars at a future date for some unspecified consideration. It would meddle in the internal affairs of any nation who's policies contradict whatever its agenda is; such agenda usually being self-serving and a direct detriment to its fiduciary; to wit, the American people.. The United States have not yet given the American people its gold back, and so do foreign nations really believe they will be reimbursed for their investment in American Treasury bills?

And if this is not bad enough, the current president of this disarray government has a shadow of substantial doubt over his head that he is not a a "natural born Citizen." Over a dozen lawsuits have been filed against Obama challenging his citizenship, and he has elected to spend millions of dollars challenging them, rather than simply proving that he meets the criteria to be President. The natural-born clause is in the Constitution for a reason, for the founders of the United States wanted to assure the allegiance of the President to the country he would be serving. Such a person would diligently represent the United States, and be the face of the U.S. to other nations of the world. Thomas Jefferson stated the following danger regarding foreigners:

"[Is] rapid population [growth] by as great importations of foreigners as possible... founded in good policy?... They will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their number, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its direction, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass... If they come of themselves, they are entitled to all the rights of citizenship: but I doubt the expediency of inviting them by extraordinary encouragements." (Thomas Jefferson on Immigration)

On they following the rules, Jefferson noted:

"Born in other countries, yet believing you could be happy in this, our laws acknowledge, as they should do, your right to join us in society, conforming, as I doubt not you will do, to our established rules. That these rules shall be as equal as prudential considerations will admit, will certainly be the aim of our legislatures, general and particular." (supra)

The Office of President is the highest political office of the land, and it is not too much to ask that one furnish proof that the rules are in fact being followed, instead of relying merely on one's word that they are. Vattel notes:

"If education had not the power of familiarizing the human mind to the greatest absurdities, is there any man of sense who would not be struck with astonishment to see so many nations suffer the legitimacy and right of their princes to depend on a foreign power? The court of Rome has invented an infinite number of obstructions and cases of invalidity in marriages, and at the same time arrogates to itself the right of judging of their validity, and of removing the obstructions; so that a prince of its communion cannot in certain cases by so much his own master as to contract a marriage necessary to the safety of the state..." (Law of Nations, Bk. I, Ch. V, Sec. 67)

Today, the obstructions are called "lack of standing," and the judge and jury of deciding who or who has not standing is the federal courts? But this is fraudulent as the people have the right to decide all controversies and uncertainties when the law proves it cannot or will not.

"All the disputes that arise in society are to be judged and decided by the public authority. As soon as the right of succession is found uncertain, the sovereign authority returns for a time to the body of the state, which is to exercise it, cither by itself or by its representatives, till the true sovereign be known." (Law of Nations, Bk. I, Ch. V, Sec. 66)

Conclusion

The 50 States of America today, under the leadership of the United States government, has turned into a cesspool of licentiousness, where fraud and corruption have become the way of life. The United States through deceit has reversed the order of everything it has touched. In Part 1 of this writing, we established that 13 independent states created a national government to exercise sovereign authority delegated to them by their citizens. In the second Part, we established therefore the duty owed the states and the people by the United States government. In Part 3, we spoke of reclaiming sovereignty when it is being exercised improperly, and above we have outlined the gross abuses of the United States sovereign authority. In short, it has established a mechanism for pillaging the people, and have implemented such to near perfection. In addition, it has soured relationships with foreign nations, and thus suffered us to potential harm for they exercising their due justice against the United States. A rogue nation can be stopped by none other than its citizens, and until they voice their outcry; verbal at first, and if the "redress of Government" falls on deaf ears, physical at end. With more and more states asserting their 10th Amendment right, and protecting their political sovereignty, let's hope they understand the principles laid out in this writing, and exercise justice accordingly.

State Sovereignty?? Part 3 - Reclaiming Sovereignty

2009-02-25T23:29:00.002-06:00

continued from Part 2

Reclaiming sovereignty

Though the 50 States are not sovereign states, they may become so if the reigning sovereign upon them is tyrannical, or otherwise incapable of meeting their needs. Vattel's Law of Nations states:

"If any nation is dissatisfied with the public administration, it may apply the necessary remedies, and reform the government. But observe that I say "the nation;" for I am very fat from meaning to authorize a few malcontents or incendiaries to give disturbance to their governors by exciting murmurs and seditions. None but the body of a nation have a right to check those at the helm when they abuse their power. When the nation is silent and obeys, the people are considered as approving the conduct of their superiors, or at least finding it supportable; and it is not the business of a small number of citizens to put the state in danger, under the pretense of reforming it." (Law of Nations, Bk. I, Ch. 3, Sec. 32)

The people have a fundamental right to opt out of any contract where recompense is not present; for it's only right that each party uphold its end of the bargain. In the case of the United States, the negotiating was initially between they and the 50 States. However, after the passage of the 17th Amendment in 1913, as well as the current method of popular vote employed in every state in selecting its Presidential electors, as opposed to the States themselves appointing them (U.S. Const., Art. II, Sec. 1, Cl. 2), the States have essentially established a total relationship between the United States and the people directly. It should be noted that, though the People initially controlled one house in Congress, and served as Electors for the President, the State's influence over the United States government was stronger than the People's. Now the converse is true. As we have said, the States have become mere administrative bodies for the federal government (which is a de facto national government).

So it is up to the people of the United States to make any changes to the Constitution if they deem it necessary to do so. The State legislatures still control the process of ratifying amendments to the U.S. Constitution however. But if the people are to be satisfied with, and tolerate legislation which violates the U.S. Constitution, this last remaining power of the States is meaningless.

Breaking from the majority

Note that in the quote above, Vattel states that it is the state as a whole; i.e., the majority of people, who have a right to change government. The silence of the majority is deemed as tacit consent. Though the minority's rights are trumped in normal cases, if the breach of government is to such an extent that the government has taken on a completely different form altogether, then the minority has the right to opt out of such a momentous infringement on their rights. Vattel follow his point in Section 33 with the following:

"But it is asked, what is to be done if the people are divided? In the ordinary management of the state, the opinion of the majority must pass without dispute for that of the whole nation: otherwise it would be almost impossible for the society ever to take any resolution.....But if the question be, to quit a form of government to which alone it appeared that the people were willing to submit on their entering into the bonds of society, — if the greater part of a free people, after the example of the Jews in the time of Samuel, are weary of liberty, and resolved to submit to the authority of a monarch, — those citizens who are more jealous of that privilege, so invaluable to those who have tasted it, though obliged to suffer the majority to do as they please, are under no obligation at all to submit to the new government: they may quit a society which seems to have dissolved itself in order to unite again under another form: they have a right to retire elsewhere, to sell their lands, and take with them all their effects."(Law of Nations, Bk. I, Ch. 3, Sec. 33)

James Madison summed up the type of government the Constitution established as follows:

"The proposed Constitution, therefore, is, in strictness, neither a national nor a federal Constitution, but a composition of both. In its foundation it is federal, not national; in the sources from which the ordinary powers of the government are drawn, it is partly federal and partly national; in the operation of these powers, it is national, not federal; in the extent of them, again, it is federal, not national; and, finally, in the authoritative mode of introducing amendments, it is neither wholly federal nor wholly national." (Federalist Papers #39)

As we stated in Part 1 of this writing, one cannot serve two masters, and the government in practice will be either national or federal. And as mentioned in Part 2, the Constitution created a government more nationalistic in character. But as it stands today, it is nearly completely national. In staying with Madison's terminology, the source from which the U.S. government derives its powers is national, it's operation of those powers is national, and the extent of the operation of said powers is de facto national if the majority of people are okay with an overreaching federal government not respecting the restrictions imposed on it by the Constitution. Such is the case today, as the majority are using the government, via unconstitutional legislation, to vote itself "largess from the public treasury." Thomas Jefferson said it best:

"Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801. ME 3:318

and also:

"The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society." --Thomas Jefferson to Pierre Samuel Dupont de Nemours, 1816. ME 14:490

Essentially what Jefferson is saying here is that, though the majority is to decide how the nation conducts itself, the process must be legal and cannot usurp the rights of others. Usurpation occurs to the minority (to everyone actually), not via legislation, but when that legislation violates the Constitution, i.e., the principles upon which society is structured. When legislatures attempt to pass laws in violation of the Constitution, without first going through the process of amending the Constitution, then they engage in intellectual dishonesty and tyranny.

The sole purpose of the Bill of Rights were to protect individuals from their state and federal government, and to a lesser extent the States from encroachment by the federal government. What I like to refer to as the exit amendment, is the 10th Amendment which states:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." (U.S. Const., Am. 10)

The political culture in the U.S. has been that of a legislative society, and no longer concerning the rule of law, i.e., adhering to the Constitution. This is because the foundations of society have been altered to such an extent as to make way for demagogues who suffer no penalties for violating the Constitution.

Clearly express any grievances

As noted above, silence to the orchestration and administration of governmental affairs is acquiescence. Grievances must be stated affirmatively so as to not misconstrue one's position. An excellent example left by the original 13 States, then colonies of the British government, was the Articles of Association, written in 1774 and expressing publicly their dissent with their government's continued infringement on their rights. The Articles stated that the colonies would boycott trade with its government until the problems were rectified. Expression of a grievance can be no clearer than such direct action.

But, as the colonies had not declared independence, this was essentially a domestic matter for Great Britain, and thus not the business of any of the world's nation states. Vattel writes:

"In short, all these affairs being solely a national concern, no foreign power has a right to interfere in them, nor ought to intermeddle with them otherwise than by its good offices unless requested to do it, or induced by particular reasons. If any intrude into the domestic concerns of another nation, and attempt to put a constraint on its deliberations, they do it an injury." (Law of Nations, Bk. I, Ch. 3, Sec. 37)

In the case of constitutional violations in the current United States of today, if vocal concerns are not heeded, direct action such as boycotts of taxes, and military and government service are a few of the main things that can be done by grieving minorities. And he has the right to strengthen his force by joining with others who share in his oppression, but from foreign citizens and nations he should expect no assistance in his cause. The original 13 British colonies were successful in their efforts because they had such a strong collective. Their defiance of their government's tyranny ultimately led to a war for their independence, for tyrants rarely relinquish their tyranny, but instead increase it when they sense their power over the populous is losing its grasp.

Declaring independence

Finally, when you've tried and tried to remedy your justifiable grievances to no avail, you have the right to totally disassociate yourself with your former state. In the case of citizens of the United States, if they're respective state would not disassociate with the United States, then they have a right to disassociate with their respective state. A formal declaration to the world is required, if respect is to be gained among the Nations of the world, explaining the cause of separation . The colonies, of course did just that with their well-known Declaration of Independence. If your cause is just, the Nations of the world must recognize you now as a sovereign divorced from your former government, and thus may intervene on your behalf from the unjust aggression of a foreign nation.

"Every nation ought, on occasion, to labour for the preservation of others, and for securing them from ruin and destruction, as far as it can do this without exposing itself too much. Thus, when a neighbouring nation is unjustly attacked by a powerful enemy who threatens to oppress it, if you can defend it, without exposing yourself to great danger, unquestionably it is your duty to do so." (Law of Nations, Bk. II, Ch. 1, Sec. 4)

the United States quickly changes its character

The United States government, as it currently exists, is a creature totally different than from what existed upon its birth into the Law of Nations. The Nations of the world know other nations by their constitutions, which are the documents validating a group of people as an association of one. It follows then that a nation which acts contrary to its constitution is an unknown nation to the world, but more importantly, it is unknown to its own citizens. Such a nation can be properly labeled a rogue state, and such a nation is not a nation per the Law of Nations.

A nation must know itself

"We shall conclude this chapter, with observing that a nation ought to know itself. (21) Without this knowledge it cannot make any successful endeavours after its own perfection. It ought to have a just idea of its state, to enable it to take the most proper measures; it ought to know the progress it has already made, and what further advances it has still to make, — what advantages it possesses, and what defects it labours under, in order to preserve the former, and correct the latter. Without this knowledge a nation will act at random, and often take the most improper measures. It will think it acts with great wisdom in imitating the conduct of nations that are reputed wise and skilful, — not perceiving that such or such regulation, such or such practice, though salutary to one state, is often pernicious to another. Every thing ought to be conducted according to its nature. Nations cannot be well governed without such regulations as are suitable to their respective characters; and in order to this, their characters ought to be known." (Law of Nations, Bk. I, Ch. 2, Sec. 25)

So what type of nation is the United States of America? Well, as mentioned in Part 2 of this writing, this name does not appear officially in the Constitution as the name of the Union, as it did in the Articles of Confederation. This may be semantics, but I think it is important that the union of North American states do not have an official name. But that aside, unlike other nations, who in their constitutions often state their nation's character, such as the Chinese constitution referring to itself as a socialist state in the first article its constitution, the United States makes no such declaration. It is important then to examine the Constitution to deduce the character of the United States as a nation.

Private and individualistic state

When examining the Constitution, it is clear that individual privacy is highly regarded. This is clearly noted in the Bill of Rights section of the Constitution, particularly the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 9th and 10th Amendments. This essentially means that the central government should be limited in scope, but the United States of America is one of the most heavily regulated nations on the planet. The size of the federal government has gotten so big that hundreds of billions of dollars in grant monies are received by the States, thus allowing the Feds to dictate power through the power of the purse.

"The Federal Government supports the public good through a wide variety of subsidy and grant programs in such areas as agriculture, medical and scientific research, education, and transportation....The Federal Government awards hundreds of billions of dollars in grants annually....Formula grants go to State governments for such things as education and transportation programs. These grants are paid in accordance with distribution formulas that have been provided by law or administrative regulations." (U.S. FY2007 Notes to Financial Statement, p. 79)

To put that into perspective, the State of Illinois receives 27% of its budget from operating grants, which account for its biggest revenue source. It can be clearly seen here that the federal government is dictating policy within the states, which was not the intention of the Constitution. In effect what is happening is individuals are being forced to support socialist programs, a direct violation to individualism. This makes more sense when reviewing the taxing restrictions placed on the federal government in the Constitution; which state:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;" (U.S. Const., Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 1)

and

"No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken." (U.S. Const., Art. I, Sec. 9, Cl. 4)

These clauses in the Constitution make it perfectly clear that the tax burden is to be bore equally by every citizen. Socialism is impossible with equal taxation. Also, note that equal taxation does not mean an equal tax rate, but rather the equal dollar amount of taxes. Monies received from the government by some individuals and not others results in a reduced tax burden for said individual. This directly violates the spirit of the Constitution; and as noted above, this is happening on a major scale.

Southern Succession and the Civil War

The reasons for the American Civil War are plentiful, but the main reason given is that it was over the issue of slavery. While this is generally true, a larger political context is necessary.

Since the inception of the United States, a system of slavery was an integral part of life in the states, and particularly in southern states. The Constitution recognized the institution of slavery, or rather compulsory service in its section dealing with the States. The Constitution states:

"No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due." (U.S. Const., Art. IV, Sec. 2, Cl. 3)

The decades following the ratification of the Constitution seen rapid European immigration in the northern states, and they were becoming more mercantilistic like the established European nations. As such, a division in the way of life between the northern and southern states was growing rapidly. The northern states had ambitions of rapid industrial expansion, while the southern states economic structure was based on traditional agriculture. In the Congress, southern interest were providing opposition to these mercantilist desires of the northern states.

The Northwest Ordinance, an Act of Congress passed under the Articles of Confederation, provided rules for government regarding the territory north of the Ohio Rivere, and east of the Mississippi River. In this Ordinance, Congress stipulated that no slavery was to exist in the territory. The Northwest Ordinance in reality is void for reasons stated in Part 2 of this writing, i.e., the legislation stemming from a government rendered void. However, the implications of the ordinance was its effect of admitting several free states into the Union, thus shifting the balance of power in favor of the northern states in Congress. This ultimately led to the Missouri Compromise in 1820, which was the start of a series of legislation similar to the Northwest Ordinance designating slavery and non-slavery zones in the U.S. territories.

As a result of southern resistant to the mercantilist plans of the northern states, northern opinion grew ever more hostile toward the southern states. The slavery issue provided a political strawman for the northern states, who began demonizing southern states for engaging in slavery. Eventually, the State of South Carolina would secede from the Union, leading a secession parade of other southern states which ultimately led to the Civil War. In its secession declaration, South Carolina stated the following:

"The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due." This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River. The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States. The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution....Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation." (South Carolina Secession Declaration)

South Carolina, and other slave-holding states were well within their rights to secede from a government which had become materially different from that purpose for which it was created. And just as was the case with the American Declaration of Independence, the Confederate States of America's declaration would bring the wrath of a tyrannical government upon their heads. However in this case, the Confederate States would lose the fight for their independence.

The War started at Fort Sumter in South Carolina. The federal government refused to evacuate the base, and also refused talks with the Confederate States; not recognizing their secession and treating them as rebellious states. This essentially made the South occupied territory, and thus the attack on the base was justified.

"The immediate consequence of the premises is, that if a nation takes up arms when she has received no injury, nor is threatened with any, she undertakes an unjust war. Those alone, to whom an injury is done or intended, have a right to make war." (Law of Nations, Bk. III, Ch. 3, Sec. 27)

The Civil War is a perfect example of constitutional violations by the federal government. In additions to that noted above, President Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeus corpus, a power reserved for the Congress only (U.S. Const., Art. I, Sec. 9, Cl. 2), and illegally arrested and detained over ten thousand Southern State sympathizers who spoke out against his war of aggression. Lincoln was even so bold as to defy a judge's decision of its illegality, and it is said that Lincoln flirted with the idea of having Justice Tanny arrested.

The passage of the 13th Amendment ending slavery was the goal all along, but the northern "free states" were not numerous enough to get such an amendment ratified. And so their unchecked zealousness illustrates a classic example of minority oppression via usurpation of the fundamental law of the land.

Continue to Part 4

State Sovereignty?? Part 2-The Power of the Sovereign

2009-02-25T22:19:00.001-06:00

continued from Part 1

Rights and Jurisdiction of the United States government

The purpose of any nation is the betterment of its citizens. The sole reason nations exist is because individuals receive more utility because of them, as opposed to the converse. A viable and well-functioning nation, not in contradiction to its purpose, provides many benefits for the individual that he would be hard pressed to obtain without the synergies provided by his nation; the most notable of these are: 1) protection of his person and property from harm, 2) opportunities for expansion of his person and property, and finally, and arguably the most important, 3) advancement of his spiritual nature. These aims are noted in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution, of which the 50 States are signatories via there state's delegation.

These are the demands placed on its government by its people. In this respect, the government has a responsibility to its constituency in order to justify its existence. The relationship between the government and its people is reciprocal, with the people supplying the government with what it needs to fulfill its obligation to its people. Vattel writes:

"Since then a nation is obliged to preserve itself, it has a right to every thing necessary for its preservation. For the Law of Nature gives us a right to every thing without which we cannot fulfil our obligation; otherwise it would oblige us to do impossibilities, or rather would contradict itself in prescribing us a duty, and at the same time debarring us of the only means of fulfilling it. It will doubtless be here understood, that those means ought not to be unjust in themselves, or such as are absolutely forbidden by the Law of Nature." (Law of Nations, Bk. I, Ch. II, Sec. 18)

Of course this most basic maxim is mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the party upon which demands are being made. The United States government secures for itself the tools needed to carry out its obligations by stating in the Constitution its power to:

"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." (U.S. Const., Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 18)

By making laws, the Congress grants itself the due rights associated with carrying out the task upon which the government was established. The most important of these would be tax laws, for the government is not a proprietor, and any service it provides will have an associated cost. And its importance is evidenced by it being the first listed of several enumerated powers, which we can correctly label its rights. Commonly known as the Welfare Clause, the Constitution states:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States" (U.S. Const., Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 1)

It follows from this, that all revenue laws enacted from this clause are necessary and proper in order that the United States government can perform the task it was created for. In regards to taxation at the state level, it is the federal government who gets first dibs on the fruits of the people. This because it is the sovereign, and the 50 States a subsidiary sovereign. The Bible tells us to:

"Honour the LORD with thy substance, and with the firstfruits of all thine increase: So shall thy barns be filled with plenty, and thy presses shall burst out with new wine." (Prov. 3:9-10, KJV)

This only makes sense, for, as mentioned earlier, if the government is to make are lives more enjoyable via the obligations placed upon it, it must first receive from us that which is necessary to make our hopes and desires a reality. Of course, the Constitution affirms for itself this right by stating:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." (U.S. Const., Art. VI, Cl. 2)

Naturally, of course, an enforcement mechanism must be in place if the words above are to have any validity. It's one thing for rights to be asserted, and another for them to be realized. Realization means the taking by force if necessary, though we have to be careful that the taking is not by unjust means, and of a manner which would be in violation to natural law, or as Vattel would say, the fundamental Law of Nations. Well, as mentioned in the first part of this writing, the courts of the United States have jurisdiction to hear all controversies in which the United States is a party (U.S. Const., Art. III, Sec. 2, Cl.1). This effectively means that the U.S. Constitution has afforded the right of the United States government the power to assert its rights in the event of dispute with one of its states, or one of its citizens.

It can be no other way, for the United States government is the sovereign body of the three. And to remove all doubt, in the event of an dispute turned extreme, the Constitution states that:

"The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." (U.S. Const., Art. I, Sec. 9, Cl. 2)

In other words, the U.S. government has the power to reduce any unfounded opposition to reason. If this power did not exist, the United States as an entity would be no more than a paper tiger, which is obviously contrary to the purpose of its creation. Furthermore, states and citizens in compliance with all just laws suffer an undue burden of fueling the government, when their fellow countrymen shirk from the duties they are responsible for, and have agreed to be bound by.

The Adoption of the U.S. Constitution

As if the Constitution itself is not sufficient evidence of the United States being the true sovereign in regard to the 50 States, the circumstances surrounding the creation of the federal government, or the alliance of the 50 States ought to be entertained.

Firstly, it seems highly peculiar that the Constitution, itself a social contract, i.e., an offer of a unified government to 12 independent states (It was only 12 states because Rhode Island state refused to send any delegates to the Constitutional Convention in 1787). Article VII of the Constitution states that:

"The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same." (U.S. Const., Art. VII)

This may on its face seem harmless, but the required approval of 9 of the 12 states with delegates present is equivalent to the three-fourths required approval for amending the Constitution. Article V states:

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof..." (U.S. Const., Art. V)

As the Constitution currently stands, states in a minority of 25 percent or less, are bound by the will of their sister states on changes to the fundamental law of the land. I ask: Will a sovereign state allow for the fundamental law, for which it is to be subject, to be changed by an entity foreign of itself? The state which answers yes to that question is not a sovereign state in reality, though maybe on paper, but only thinks of itself falsely as a sovereign.

The three-fourths requirement seems to imply that a government was already in existence at the time the Constitution was proposed to the States. If not, then why could not the Constitution have been valid with the consent of any two or more states? Surely those two states would have been better off uniting themselves in a common cause irrespective of the actions of the other sovereign states if they so deemed. Likewise, why did the document not require a unanimous ratification from all states present at the Convention?

The United States appears to have been operating in a sovereign capacity when proposing the Constitution to the states, which begs the question of what would have become of the any states that chose not to ratify the document. North Carolina took especially long to ratify the Constitution, and Rhode Island even longer, despite it not officially being a party to the document's construction. Could they have been compelled to join? The record shows that North Carolina initially rejected the Constitution for lack of a Bill of Rights, and Rhode Island was likely forced via economic subrogation.

And as for the Bill of Rights, multiple states, beginning with Massachusetts, which was the 6th state to ratify, amended the Constitution despite concerns of its lack of a Bill of Rights. At least some of these states suggested that the Constitution be amended to include a Bill of Rights section, as opposed to demanding it be amended. This behavior is hardly becoming of a sovereign, but instead one who is seeking political rights. Furthermore, James Madison, considered the Father of the Constitution, ran a political campaign for a seat in Congress pledging to attach civil liberties to the Constitution as soon as it was ratified and the newly formed government operational. Because Madison fulfilled his promise in the first session of Congress, the States were able to get back some of their sovereignty, but why did they have to wait? The Bill of Rights ultimately allowed for the States to maintain sovereignty within their borders, or rather to keep the federal outside of their local politics. The most important amendment to this end was the 10 Amendment which states positively:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." (U.S. Const., Am. 10)

Despite this however, in all matters without itself, and some matters within, the 50 States remain at the mercy of the United States government, and for all intents and purposes are not sovereign bodies in the sense spoken about in the Law of Nations.

Prior Form of Alliance of the Original 13 States

Before the U.S. Constitution became effective in 1788, there existed the Articles of Confederation between the original 13 States of what are now the United States of America. The Articles became effective in 1781, and it is under this alliance that the Revolutionary War was fought and one by the states. There were significant differences between the Articles of Confederation and the United States Constitution, most importantly that of a plurality of sovereigns interacting with each other, as opposed to a single sovereign managing its various institutions. We shall now compare the documents.

of the Preamble

With the Articles of Confederation, the names of each of the States are enumerated, whereas the Constitution's preamble simply refers to "the People of the United States." It should be noted here that legally speaking a preamble is not law, but simply an explanatory or contextual note preceding a specific text. In the Articles, the states wanted to be absolutely clear that they were sovereign bodies, while the Constitution's preamble refers to the people, and not the states, and speaks about forming "a more perfect union." This means that the states believed their existing bond was not strong enough, and they wanted to strengthen their ties even further. In fact, they strengthen their ties so tight as to merge into one body, eliminating their sovereignty and forming a new and singular consolidated sovereign.

of the Name of the Union

The Articles of Confederacy were legally established as "The United States of America" in its Article I, where the Constitution makes no such claim. This may appear on its face as evidence of a continuation from the Articles. But in the Constitution, the very first legal decree of the document states:

"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States..." (U.S. Const., Art. I, Sec. 1)

The decree above speaks volumes, and is a turn in an entirely different direction from that of the Articles, which has the Congress more or less approving of legislative and executive action by the states. Under the Constitution however, we actually have the Congress writing the laws in which the states would be subject. Thus the transition of Congress was made more or less from an reactive body to a proactive one. Under the Articles, a committee of any 9 states was even authorized to sit in and fulfill the duties of Congress during certain exigencies. Article X of the Articles of Confederation state:

"The Committee of the States, or any nine of them, shall be authorized to execute, in the recess of Congress, such of the powers of Congress as the United States in Congress assembled, by the consent of the nine States, shall from time to time think expedient to vest them with; provided that no power be delegated to the said Committee, for the exercise of which, by the Articles of Confederation, the voice of nine States in the Congress of the United States assembled be requisite." (Confed., Art. X)

So here we see the radical shift from the prior alliance of the states termed "the United States of America." The U.S. Constitution created a new alliance, i.e., a new government upon which a name is not legally given (more on this in Part 3). Though the intent was to revise the Articles, what in effect happened was the emergence of an entirely different document of such significance as to render the Articles void. This fact is evidenced by the Constitution referencing the Articles as a separate document in Article VI:

"All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation." (U.S. Const., Art. VI, Cl. 1)

of the Congress

With the U.S. Constitution, we have a bicameral Congress, as opposed to unicameral for the Articles of Confederation. Under the Articles, each state was entitled to one equal vote in Congress. The Constitution changed this, with half of the Congress being represented by the people directly; the States serving a mere administrative role insomuch as their election laws are concerned. Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution states:

"The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature." (U.S. Const., Art. I, Sec. 2, Cl. 1)

Whereas before we had the States exercising total and equal control over Congress (Confed., Art. V), the Constitution would now have the States share in this control with the people. And, as established in Part 1 of this writing, the citizens being effectively "citizens of the United States" essentially means that the States have shared control of the Congress with the United States as a political entity. Though good for a system of checks and balances, it speaks negatively in regard to the sovereignty of the 50 States. Furthermore, many years after the establishment of the Constitution came the 17th Amendment which essentially converted the Congress back into a unicameral house; but this time being represented totally by the people, i.e., the United States as a political entity, leaving the 50 States without a voice in Congress.

"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof..." (U.S. Const., Am. 17)

of Representation

The U.S. Constitution apportions the amount of representatives in the House of Representatives based on the states' population. This in effect, assuming that the people actually vote in a similar manner as their state's legislatures in the Senate, dilutes or inflates a state's representation in Congress by its population size. This is an inequitable situation in which, of course a sovereign would not agree to concerning its own affairs.

of the President

The Articles of Confederation has no executive branch, but only a President of the Congress. This is because the States were the executors of all affairs. But the Constitution established matters upon which the United States itself would execute. And these matters take precedence of any state matter.

An interesting note is that the phrase "United States of America" referred to above is mentioned in the Constitution in the second article. Specifically, the phrase "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America" is used (U.S. Const., Art. II, Sec. 1, Cl. 1). The only other place this phrase is used, other than the Preamble, is in the Ratification section of the document. So while the stile is not legally the "the United States of America," here we see the President with the power to execute laws over said entity.

of the Courts

The Constitution, via its Article III, establishes for itself courts in which to try violations of its laws which are supreme. The Articles of Confederation has no separate courts from the states, and matters of dispute concerning the Articles were deliberated in Congress, upon which each state had an equal say in the controversy.

of Money and the Economy

The United States under the Articles of Confederation did not have the power to establish its own currency unless agreed to via legislative session in Congress; and all issues regarding money and finance were deliberated and voted on in Congress, with each state having an equal vote. On the contrary, the Constitution gives the United States this power, while simultaneously restricting the states from having its own currency.

of Ratification and Amendment

As mentioned, the Constitution became effective upon the ratification of any 9 states, and may be amended by three-fourths of the States. The Articles require unanimous consent regarding these matters.

"...the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State." (Confed., Art. XIII)
Conclusion

We have established in the first Part of this writing the detailed provisions of the Constitution, however I think the following clause from the Articles effectively sums up the difference between the two:

"The United States in Congress assembled shall never engage in a war, nor grant letters of marque or reprisal in time of peace, nor enter into any treaties or alliances, nor coin money, nor regulate the value thereof, nor ascertain the sums and expenses necessary for the defense and welfare of the United States, or any of them, nor emit bills, nor borrow money on the credit of the United States, nor appropriate money, nor agree upon the number of vessels of war, to be built or purchased, or the number of land or sea forces to be raised, nor appoint a commander in chief of the army or navy, unless nine States assent to the same: nor shall a question on any other point, except for adjourning from day to day be determined, unless by the votes of the majority of the United States in Congress assembled." (Confed., Art. IX, Cl. 6)

and also:

"Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled." (Confed., Art. II)

We shall now consult the dictionary.

confederation - 1 : an act of confederating : a state of being confederated : alliance 2 : league

confederate - : to band together

alliance - 1 a: the state of being allied : the action of allying b: a bond or connection between families, states, parties, or individuals 2: an association to further the common interests of the members ; specifically : a confederation of nations by treaty3: union by relationship in qualities : affinity4: a treaty of alliance
league - 1 a: an association of nations or other political entities for a common purpose b (1): an association of persons or groups united by common interests or goals (2): a group of sports teams that regularly play one another c: an informal alliance

constitution - 4: the mode in which a state or society is organized ; especially : the manner in which sovereign power is distributed5 a: the basic principles and laws of a nation, state, or social group that determine the powers and duties of the government and guarantee certain rights to the people in it b: a written instrument embodying the rules of a political or social organization

Simply put, the Articles of Confederation was a league among sovereign states, albeit a very strong one with considerable restrictions on the States. However the alliance was not quite strong enough to dominate the sovereignty of any of the States. The States were a part of Congress, whereas under the Constitution the Congress, as well as the Executive officers and the courts, are separate entities. The Constitution effectively crossed the line between treaty and actual government body. The Constitution is a very restrictive and limited authority, based in large part to the Bill of Rights attached to it, but still an authority. The 50 States each have their own constitutions, which supports the argument of constitutions forming governments. A constitution is not a treaty as some state sovereignty advocates claim, as we don't say the people of the United States have a treaty with their respective states.

James Madison explained in Federalist Paper 39 that the proposed government was a mixture of national and federal elements. In that writing, he was responding to naysayers of the new Constitution who had the following concern:

""But it was not sufficient,'' say the adversaries of the proposed Constitution, "for the convention to adhere to the republican form. They ought, with equal care, to have preserved the FEDERAL form, which regards the Union as a CONFEDERACY of sovereign states; instead of which, they have framed a NATIONAL government, which regards the Union as a CONSOLIDATION of the States.'' And it is asked by what authority this bold and radical innovation was undertaken?" (Federalist Papers #39)

And finally, the British Empire recognized each of the 13 states as sovereign states, in Article I of the Treaty of Paris of 1783, the treaty which ended the American Revolutionary War, which was waged under the Articles of Confederation. The states are mentioned, not in the preamble which is not legal, but in an actual article of the treaty, thus their legal status as independent nations was recognized by a world power. Article I of that treaty reads:

"His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof." (Treaty of Paris 1783, Art. I)

continue to Part 3

State Sovereignty?? Part 1-Establishing the Sovereign

2009-02-25T21:39:00.002-06:00

by FranG

What are we to make of the 50 states of the United States of America? Are they sovereign political units allied with each other via treaty or compact, or are they more like mere administrative units for a greater sovereign? This is becoming an ever increasing blur in evaluating the character of America as a nation during a time of economic and political instability in the era of the 21st Century, where America is the "lone superpower" and the engine that drives the affairs of the world. With superpower status comes enormous responsibility, and the United States governments approach to its role in the world has left many freedom advocates feeling that the States are being micro-managed by the federal government, and implementing their name, via their respective states, on the world stage in an unfavorable light. But do the voices of California, New York, Texas, and other states in solitude have any political clout on the world stage? This writing attempts to address that question.

Are the States of the United States in the sense of other states, or nations of the world?

In evaluating the 50 states united in the continent of North America, we must first evaluate what is meant by the term state. From Merriam-Webster online:

State - 5 a: a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory ; especially : one that is sovereign 7 a: one of the constituent units of a nation having a federal government states> b plural capitalized : The United States of America 8: the territory of a state

From the above definition, it appears the term state can mean one that is sovereign, or one that is a specific component of a sovereign. Let's explore further.

Constituent - 1 : serving to form, compose, or make up a unit or whole : component <constituent parts> 2 : having the power to create a government or frame or amend a constitution (a constituent assembly>

The vernacular seems to be referring to the 50 States as constituent units of the United States of America. If that is the case, then the States are not sovereign, but are mere arms of a sovereign; to wit, political units. But we should ask ourselves here of the context in which the U.S. Constitution was written, which referred to the then 13 federating states specifically as "States" in the document. One document of many which had an influence on the framers of the Constitution was Emerich de Vattel's the "Law of Nations" written in 1758. This document was so important to the framers that they literally incorporated it by name into the Constitution (U.S. Const. Art I, Sec. 8, Cl. 10). It would seem appropriate to consult the Law of Nations for clarity on exactly what constitutes a state, or one of the world's nations.

In Section 4 of Vattel's treatise on the world's nations, he says this regarding a sovereign state.

"Every nation that governs itself, under what form soever, without dependence on any foreign power, is a Sovereign State, Its rights are naturally the same as those of any other state. Such are the moral persons who live together in a natural society, subject to the law of nations. To give a nation a right to make an immediate figure in this grand society, it is sufficient that it be really sovereign and independent, that is, that it govern itself by its own authority and laws." (Law of Nations, Bk. 1, Ch. I, Sec. 4)

Vattel then goes on to describe the various types and forms for the states of the world; and says the following regarding federated states:

"Finally, several sovereign and independent states may unite themselves together by a perpetual confederacy, without ceasing to be, each individually, a perfect state. They will together constitute a federal republic: their joint deliberations will not impair the sovereignty of each member, though they may, in certain respects, put some restraint on the exercise of it, in virtue of voluntary engagements. A person does not cease to be free and independent, when he is obliged to fulfil engagements which he has voluntarily contracted." (Law of Nations, Bk. 1, Ch. I, Sec. 10)

The original 13 States of the United States formed a federal government, in which some sovereignty was granted by each in favor of the newly formed central government for their collective benefit. According to Vattel, we should ask whether the States formed a voluntary compact; that is whether any state was compelled to join the federation. Furthermore, the form of the government must be considered in determining the status of each as an independent and sovereign state. Vattel goes on to say the following:

"But a people that has passed under the dominion of another is no longer a state, and can no longer avail itself directly of the law of nations. Such were the nations and kingdoms which the Romans rendered subject to their empire; the generality even of those whom they honoured with the name of friends and allies no longer formed real states. Within themselves they were governed by their own laws and magistrates; but without, they were in every thing obliged to follow the orders of Rome; they dared not of themselves either to make war or contract alliances; and could not treat with nations. The law of nations is the law of sovereigns; free and independent states are moral persons, whose rights and obligations we are to establish in this treatise." (Law of Nations, Bk. 1, Ch. I, Sec. 11)

Vattel is concerned with nation states in fact, and not so much in form; which is also the concern of this writing. Interestingly, Vattel gives the example of dominions subject to the authority of Rome. Units of the Roman Empire, which covered the entire Mediterranean Sea at the height of its glory, were known as "provinces." The dictionary says the following of province:

province - 1 a: a country or region brought under the control of the ancient Roman government b: an administrative district or division of a country c plural : all of a country except the metropolises

With the above in mind, let's look closely at the form of the United States government.

Examining the U.S. Constitution

Of communication

If the 50 States are states in the sense regarded by the Law of Nations, surely this fact would be reflected in its Constitution. And on the world stage, a state has the freedom to communicate and interact with other states. However, the Constitution forbids its constituent 50 states from communicating with the nations of the world, for that task is reserved exclusively for the United States government. The Constitution states the following in this regard:

"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation..." (U.S.Const., Art. I, Sec. 10, Cl. 1)

The 50 States here cannot exert its influence on the world stage, as expressed in its fundamental law, i.e., the U.S. Constitution (Law of Nations, Bk. I, Ch. III, Sec. 29). Furthermore, the nations of the world will not even consult any of the 50 States on world events, and issues of trade and commerce, because they are not recognized as an equal according to the Law of Nations. The United States government is not even an intermediary for its states, but rather a substitute for any feelings of good will or disdain between them and other nations of the world.

Now some will say that the 50 States are simply in isolation on the North American continent, and can communicate with its sister states, while the United States government handles foreign affairs. But of that the Constitution states:

"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress...enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War..." (U.S.Const., Art. I, Sec. 10, Cl. 3)

So here we see that a state of the United States cannot even communicate with a neighboring state without the national government intervening. As far as the Law of Nations is concerned, the 50 U.S. States individually appear to fit the description mentioned above, i.e., "Within themselves they were governed by their own laws and magistrates; but without, they were in every thing obliged to follow the orders of Rome..." (Law of Nations, Bk. 1, Ch. I, Sec. 11)

Of self-defense

Neither can the 50 States have a standing army or navy, as is the case with the other nations of the world, nor can they declare war, as noted above, and personally settle their disputes with any nation foreign to themselves; and this includes even their sister states under the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution states the following in regard to controversies:

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority...to Controversies between two or more States...." (U.S. Const., Art. III, Sec. 2, Cl. 1)

Without an army or navy of its own, the 50 States are literally on the other side of the umbilical chord that is the United States; and they cannot even arbitrate their own disputes with their direct neighbors; to wit the other 50 States.

Of citizens

A nation is not a nation without citizens. So what of these for the 50 States of the United States. Many hold the position that citizens are only of the 50 States, and are of a separate character than any "citizens of the United States." Despite this exact phrase appearing numerous times in the Constitution, the Constitution leaves no doubt on the status of the people of the land by stating the following:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." (U.S. Const., Art. VI)

Again, if a citizen's loyalty for some other nation trumps his loyalty for his home nation, then can said individual really be classified as a citizen of the home nation? So called dual citizenship contradicts the laws of nature, for it says in the Bible that: "No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other" (Matt 6:24 KJV) Showing allegiance to a foreign state is viewed as expatriation and regarded as treason. From Merriam-Webster online:

expatriate - : to leave one's native country to live elsewhere ; also : to renounce allegiance to one's native country

treason - 1 : the betrayal of a trust : treachery 2 : the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family

While some like to pretend that dual citizenship is a legal reality, in fact it is nothing more than a perversion of justice. Vattel's The Law of Nations says the following regarding dual citizenship in the case of one nation voluntarily submitting to the other:

"This submission may be varied to infinity, according to the will of the contracting parties: it may either leave the inferior nation a part of the sovereignty, restraining it only in certain respects, or it may totally abolish it, so that the superior nation shall become the sovereign of the other, — or, finally, the lesser nation may be incorporated with the greater, in order thenceforward to form with it but one and the same state: and then the citizens of the former will have the same privileges as those with whom they are united." (Law of Nations, Bk. I, Ch. XVI, Sec. 194)

Ironically, the U.S. Constitution has almost identical language when it states that:

"The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." (U.S. Const., Art. IV, Sec. 2, Cl. 1)

Here the Constitution uses the phrase "Citizens of each State," but for the reasons noted above, this is merely form only, and effectively there are only "citizens of the United States." This is evidenced by the fact that the 50 States cannot even grow its numbers via immigration, and are totally subject to the will of the national government in this regard. The Constitution gives the Congress of the United States the power to:

"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization...throughout the United States" (U.S. Const., Art I, Sec. 8, Cl. 4)

And finally, to quell all ambiguity as to whether citizens of the land are state or national citizens, the Constitution would set the record straight via the 14th Amendment regarding the issue of citizenship:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States..." (U.S. Const., Am. 14, Cl. 1)

Again we see reference to a State citizen, but as we explained above this cannot be the case. The citizen must be of either the United States, or of a State. I think the evidence here of the entity which commands the most from the people of the land, in the way of allegiance, speaks for itself.

Of economies

The economy is the very health of a nation, and its currency is its life blood. Surely then, a sovereign should have control of its currency, in order to assure the health and well-being of itself as a nation. But in the case of the 50 States, the Constitution forbids even this. Not only does the Constitution allow for a national currency (U.S. Const., Art I, Sec. 8, Cl. 5), but it forbids the 50 States from even having an alternative currency. Specifically, the Constitution states:

"No State shall ... coin Money; emit Bills of Credit..." (U.S. Const., Art. I, Sec. 10, Cl. 1)

And as if this were not bad enough, the 50 States cannot even barter with neighboring sister states, for such is also forbidden by the Constitution.

"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, ....enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State..." (U.S. Const., Art. I, Sec. 10, Cl. 3)

How can a State which controls not a single aspect of its own economy be looked at as anything more than a limb for some greater body?

Of the people

And finally the United States government has been called a government of the people. If the States are in fact sovereign nations, then they should definitely be obliged to combine with a sister state of like virtues and values, or divide itself into two for the same. This would seem to be a rather harmless act, and certainly nothing to cause concern with any of the nations of the world, as this act does not directly affect them. But yet the Constitution forbids an act of this nature on the states. If truly a foreign power, the United States government could not place such a restriction on a nation equal to itself on the world stage. However, it can certainly dictate and control the actions of any one of its administrative units which depend directly on it for support. And such is the case with the 50 States of the United States, and thus we have the following stated in the U.S. Constitution:

"New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress." (U.S. Const., Art. IV, Sec. 3, Cl. 1)

Meaning of the term sovereign

sovereign - "1 a: one possessing or held to possess sovereignty b: one that exercises supreme authority within a limited sphere c: an acknowledged leader : arbiter"

sovereignty - "2 a: supreme power especially over a body politic b: freedom from external control : autonomy c: controlling influence3: one that is sovereign ; especially : an autonomous state"

Can there still be any doubt as to whether the 50 States are the sovereign authority as defined by the U.S. Constitution?

continue to Part 2

A note of appreciation from the rich

2009-02-15T22:54:00.000-06:00

from http://www.scroogle.org/
Please use Scroogle, instead of Google for your web searches.

Let's be honest: you'll never win the lottery.

On the other hand, the chances are pretty good that you'll slave away at some miserable job the rest of your life. That's because you were in all likelihood born into the wrong social class. Let's face it — you're a member of the working caste. Sorry!

As a result, you don't have the education, upbringing, connections, manners, appearance, and good taste to ever become one of us. In fact, you'd probably need a book the size of the yellow pages to list all the unfair advantages we have over you. That's why we're so relieved to know that you still continue to believe all those silly fairy tales about "justice" and "equal opportunity" in America.

Of course, in a hierarchical social system like ours, there's never been much room at the top to begin with. Besides, it's already occupied by us — and we like it up here so much that we intend to keep it that way. But at least there's usually someone lower in the social hierarchy you can feel superior to and kick in the teeth once in a while. Even a lowly dishwasher can easily find some poor slob further down in the pecking order to sneer and spit at. So be thankful for migrant workers, prostitutes, and homeless street people.

Always remember that if everyone like you were economically secure and socially privileged like us, there would be no one left to fill all those boring, dangerous, low-paid jobs in our economy. And no one to fight our wars for us, or blindly follow orders in our totalitarian corporate institutions. And certainly no one to meekly go to their grave without having lived a full and creative life. So please, keep up the good work!

You also probably don't have the same greedy, compulsive drive to possess wealth, power, and prestige that we have. And even though you may sincerely want to change the way you live, you're also afraid of the very change you desire, thus keeping you and others like you in a nervous state of limbo. So you go through life mechanically playing your assigned social role, terrified what others would think should you ever dare to "break out of the mold."

Naturally, we try to play you off against each other whenever it suits our purposes: high-waged workers against low-waged, unionized against non-unionized, Black against White, male against female, American workers against Japanese against Mexican against.... We continually push your wages down by invoking "foreign competition," "the law of supply and demand," "national security," or "the bloated federal deficit." We throw you on the unemployed scrap heap if you step out of line or jeopardize our profits. And to give you an occasional break from the monotony of our daily economic blackmail, we allow you to participate in our stage-managed electoral shell games, better known to you ordinary folks as "elections." Happily, you haven't a clue as to what's really happening — instead, you blame "Aliens," "Tree-hugging Environmentalists," "Niggers," "Jews," Welfare Queens," and countless others for your troubled situation.

We're also very pleased that many of you still embrace the "work ethic," even though most jobs in our economy degrade the environment, undermine your physical and emotional health, and basically suck your one and only life right out of you. We obviously don't know much about work, but we're sure glad you do!

Of course, life could be different. Society could be intelligently organized to meet the real needs of the general population. You and others like you could collectively fight to free yourselves from our domination. But you don't know that. In fact, you can't even imagine that another way of life is possible. And that's probably the greatest, most significant achievement of our system — robbing you of your imagination, your creativity, your ability to think and act for yourself.

So we'd truly like to thank you from the bottom of our heartless hearts. Your loyal sacrifice makes possible our corrupt luxury; your work makes our system work. Thanks so much for "knowing your place" — without even knowing it!

An Act to Provide Fairness in the Reproductive Process

2009-02-02T23:33:00.006-06:00

by FranG

Short Title

This Act may be entitled an “Act to Provide for Fairness in the Reproductive Process” of any Individual born into the species Homo sapiens, and for other purposes.

Sec. 1 Declaration of Public Policy

It is hereby declared as the will of this State that every person has the right to become a member of the species Homo sapiens, and that this State has the duty to protect the interests of every person attempting to become a member, and born into the species Homo sapiens. This State recognizes that fairness can be promoted if all persons born into, or admitted into, the species Homo sapiens do so under a common set of rules which eliminates all inequities. This State seeks to eliminate all unhappiness in the birth process in that the admission of new members into the species Homo sapiens will make for better citizens of this State.

Sec. 2 Discriminatory Practices Defined

a. Discrimination in the Reproductive Process occurs when any person has more than one follicle inside his person growing at a faster rate than any other follicles. Every follicle has the equal right of the same quantity of follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) as any other follicle, and for any follicle to grow at a faster rate than any other follicles can only mean that said follicle is consuming more than his fair share of FSH.

If, as a result of superior and unequal growth, a follicle produces a mature ovum to be injected into the ovary of any person, that follicle has engaged in a discriminatory practice.

b. Discrimination in the Reproductive Process occurs when any spermatozoon (sperm cell) comes out of the urethra before any of his fair and equal counterpart spermatozoa, and gives himself a head start into the vagina, cervix, uterus, or fallopian tube of any person.

Furthermore, any spermatozoon that swims faster inside the vagina, cervix, uterus, or fallopian tube of any person, than any of his spermatozoa counterparts, due to the fact that said spermatozoon consumed more than his fair share of testosterone inside the testicles of any person, and if said spermatozoon makes contact with a mature, or otherwise acceptable ovum inside the fallopian tube, uterus, or any other place inside any person, and does not allow the other spermatozoa, whom he has out swam to reach the ovum, their fair share and equal rights in said ovum, then said spermatozoon has committed Discrimination in the Reproductive Process.

Sec. 3 Penalties

Any person guilty of violating any provision outlined in Section 2 of this Act, whether knowingly or through his willful ignorance, is guilty of a Class C misdemeanor for the first offense, a Class A misdemeanor for the second offense, and a Class 4 felony for each subsequent offense. If the offender is not a spermatozoon, or a follicle, then the penalty is to be accessed immediately upon violation of any provision of Section 2 of this Act. For all other offenders, including but not limited to a spermatozoon or a follicle, the penalty is to be accessed upon immediate expulsion from the vagina of any person.

In the case of an offending spermatozoon, or an offending follicle, admittance into the species Homo sapiens will not occur until completion of the sentence imposed for violation of this Act. In the case of existing persons who are members of the species Homo sapiens, suspension from the species will be imposed upon the person until his successful completion of the sentenced imposed by this Act.

In the case of an existing member of the species Homo sapiens, the following actions, amongst others not listed below, will be deemed to have contributed to Discrimination in the Reproductive Process:

- Breathing habits recognized as carbon unfriendly by the United Nations
- Diet that lacks certified FDA approval
- Improper sexual thoughts
- Vaccination non-compliance
- Sexual intercourse without a license from, and in a manner unapproved by this State
- Any negative dissent toward the President of the United States, and especially while in the presence of any other person, whether or not a member of the species Homo sapiens, and including persons serving suspension for violation of this Act, or any other Act of this State, and unborn persons seeking to become members of the species Homo sapiens, and citizens of this State, whereby improper and inequitable birth may occur as a result of said negative dissent.
- The use of any unapproved contraceptive technique by this State, which fails to curb the discriminatory practices defined in this Act

Sec. 4 Normal Sexual Relations Preserved

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to be considered an encroachment on the traditional rights of any person to have sexual relations in the manner of his choosing. A permit can be obtained from this State which defines and authorizes acceptable sexual practices which avoid committing Discrimination in the Reproductive Process. Complete adherence to all the terms expressed on the permit exempts the holder from any criminal violation of this Act. However, the same cannot be said for any sexual partner, or for spermatozoa or follicles inside any person, unless the same has a permit. Individuals can obtain the permit by paying the applicable fees and processing costs.

Sec. 5 Ancillary Benefits

This State recognizes that punitive legislation, such as this Act, has the effect of producing alternative behavior in its citizens. In the case of this “Act to Provide for Fairness in the Reproductive Process”, providing for more restrictive conditions for admittance into the species Homo sapiens will have the effect of reducing carbon emissions in the atmosphere, and make the planet more habitable for existing members, in addition to the primary benefit of having fully equal Homo sapiens in all walks of life to enjoy freely, and share in equally, this Utopian society that this State seeks to achieve.

Sec. 6 Alternative Reproductive Methods

Any citizen of this State, who wishes to bring members into the species Homo sapiens in the manner consistent with the stated policy of this State, as outlined in Sec. 1 of this Act, may attend any artificial insemination center of this State, to provide or to receive spermatozoa, or any In vitro fertilization clinic to provide or receive ova. The artificial insemination centers and the In vitro fertilization clinics of this State undergo the process of purging any differences in spermatozoa and ova that may lead to Discrimination in the Reproductive Process. The centers and clinics are staffed with the finest physicians and administrators of this State, and are available for use for any member of the species Homo sapiens, and citizens of this State.

Sec. 7 Definitions

Homo sapiens

The term Homo sapiens may be construed to include any individual, or entity which exhales carbon dioxide, and walks or rolls about on two or more legs.

State

The term State, when construed to include a State other than this State, shall include the District of Columbia, where such construction is deemed necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act.

Fairness

The term fairness means any behavior which does not produce unwanted feelings and emotions in any person.

Person

The term person shall include Homo sapiens who reside in this State by default, and all other persons upon admission into the species Homo sapiens, and for residency in this State.

His/He, etc

The term he and his shall be construed to include both males, females, and all other persons of a different persuasion.

Follicle

The term follicle shall be construed to mean that which provides the ovum which will serve as the temporary residence of all persons seeking admission into the species Homo sapiens, until birth, approval, and acceptance of membership and citizenship by this State upon birth.

Spermatozoon

The term spermatozoon means any person seeking admission into the species Homo sapiens for the first time, and whose membership has never before been decided upon.

Follicle Stimulating Hormone

The term follicle stimulating hormone shall be construed to include the essential nutrients that a follicle needs in order to mature and release a mature ovum.

Testosterone

The term testosterone shall be construed to include the essential nutrients that a spermatozoon needs in order to develop in strength and agility.

Artificial insemination center

The term artificial insemination center means any center in which spermatozoa is cleansed and purged of any undesirable societal defects.

In vitro center

The term artificial in vitro center means any center in which any ova is treated with chemicals designed to cleanse and purge any undesirable societal defects of any spermatozoon that fertilizes it.

Disclaimer: This is not real legislation. This is for entertainment purposes only

Common Law Copyright. Non commercial use only

Dear Rod Blagojevich

2009-01-29T22:50:00.004-06:00

by FranG

Dear Rod Blagojevich,

Brace yourself for this involuntary employer switch
All because you decided that you wanted to be more than rich
What in the world convinced you that you could score with this?
You should have known better who you were toying with

No longer am I in the Senate, and so no longer will I be timid
When I make demands of you I expect you to say “splendid”
Now your state will have to settle for your lieutenant
My boys and girls in the state senate put in my hand the gavel to rent it
Now you know that what I said would become of you, I meant it

An entire state will now be made ILL, It’s because of the NOISe you made
“Pay to Play” was your mantra, and indeed it was you who played
I must laugh because your old style politics fall short of the new grade
Even with TONY and all the REZ couldn't KO me; I have no reason to be too afraid

I got RAHM on my team, and he wrote the EMMANUEL on kickbacks; beware of it
I sent him to you with a unilateral message that said “it is to be VALERIE JARRETT”
And you had the audacity to say “first I need a salary; swear it”
So because you tried to be slick, I decided your flattery I’d air it
And have PATRICK throw a FITzgerald loud enough for the public to be aware of it

But not just you, JESSE too for almost having a deal struck with you
JACKSON won’t be relaxing since he decided to try his luck with you
Like you he’s only a Junior in this political game of fuck and screw
And of people of my caliber and skills, there are just a few

If you want to play Hardball, it had better be with Chris Matthew’s
Or maybe you’d prefer we get DURBIN’s DICK for you
It’s a HARRY REID because the GEORGE BUSH we could not remove
Feel good? Now turn your head back and look up; Surprise!! It’s me fool
That’s right buddy, I gotta remind you that we “Pay and Play” by my rules

The next time you decide to mess with “O”, it had better be a KEITH OLBERMANN
Or some unsober, or some other lame type hoe of a man
Like a BILL O’REILLY, but don’t ever think that you can try me
And think that you can share a slice of the pie with me
Cause you lose but me and OPRAH WIN, and what I want I get for FREE

Your lord and savior,

Fuhrer of the United States, 2009 until

Disclaimer: For entertainment purposes only.
Common Law copyright for non-commercial use only.

What is left-libertarianism?

2008-12-24T21:54:00.002-06:00

http://polycentricorder.blogspot.com/2008/11/what-is-left-libertarianism.html

by Brainpolice

In a sense, left-libertarianism is a historical revision that identifies a tradition of association between libertarianism and what can be deemed to be the "left" end of the political spectrum. The term left-libertarian does not use the term "left" in the context of mainstream politics, but in the historical context of classical liberalism and anarchism, I.E. it is a referance to the tendency of opposition to authority. It could be said that left-libertarianism is therefore a redundancy. But the usefulness of the term is as a reclaimation of political alignment in light of the distortion that has occured over the years in terms of how the political spectrum is viewed.

Particularly in America, libertarianism was largely associated with the "the left" until around the time of FDR, at which point a libertarian-conservative fusionism took place as an opposition movement to the New Deal. Ever since then, libertarians have generally assumed themselves to be in alliance with the political right or a part of it themselves. The political right has proceeded to partially co-opt libertarian rhetoric as a means for obtaining and expanding their power, and purging or ignoring the libertarians when it is most relevant. In turn, some libertarians have become more conservative in their views. Left-libertarianism represents a movement away from this tendency, a clear distinction being made between libertarianism and conservatism, with the diagnosis that conservatism is more concerned with maintaining plutocratic interests and traditionalist communitarianism than preserving or expanding individual liberty.

This is not to say that what's considered to be the contemporary political left is something to support either, however. A left-libertarian analysis of the contemporary political left reveals their methods to be largely right-of-center in orientation, which is to say that they support authoritarian means in the pursuit of goals that may very well be laudable. Part of the point of left-libertarian reconciliation is to get the contemporary left to move away from such authoritarian tendencies and support voluntary and cooperative means towards pursueing such goals. Before the rise of state-socialism, the left was much more in line with libertarianism. Unfortunately, the old libertarian left was nearly obliterated by the conservative turn that the socialist movement took towards the end of the 19th century. Ever since then, the goals of socialism, which were originally much more inconjunction with libertarian means, have become largely associated with authoritarianism.

The split between authoritarian socialism and social anarchism is well illustrated by the disagreements that took place between Marx and both Bakunin and Proudhon, with Marx being representative of authoritarianism, and Bakunin and Proudhon being representative of anarchism and libertarian socialism. While many contemporary libertarians may be tempted to act as if socialism is synanymous with authoritarianism, the fact of the matter is that socialism was a fairly libertarian movement in its origins, or by the very least it always had both an authoritarian and libertarian wing. Furthermore, the ideas of the early socialist anarchists such as Proudhon were not in principle opposed to the idea of free markets. Hence, there is a reconcilation that can be made between certain demands or goals that may be deemed "socialistic" and the context of individual liberty.

The tradition of American individualist anarchism is also instructive in this regaurd, for here we have a group of people who extended upon the framework that Proudhon provided in an even more individualistic direction. We have figures such as Benjamin Tucker to look to as a sort of crossroads between contemporary free market libertarianism and the traditional left. One can see a clear philosophical progression take place upon reflection of the matter. Left-libertarianism is an awareness of this rich history, that libertarianism did not begin in the 1930's and isn't some kind of conservative-lite movement in which we put all libertarian goals aside until the communists are liquidated. Left-libertarianism is not a deviation, it is the correction of a deviation and would not be as necessary if such a deviation did not occur to begin with.

Left-libertarianism is not just a historical perspective, however. It is a synthesis between certain goals that may be associated with "the left" and libertarian ideas, it involves ways of using libertarian ideas to derive conclusions that may be considered to be "leftish". In particular, left-libertarianism involves a tendency to use free market economics to demonstrate how state intervention negatively affects interests that may be concerns of "the left", by demonstrating how the state harms workers, reduces living standards, causes prices to rise, enables environmental damage, concentrates private power and backs up monopolies. Left-libertarianism can be used to demonstrate how the likely outcome of a genuinely free economy is comparatively egalitarian in light of currently existing economic structures, and how it is possible for things such as voluntary unions and cooperatives to exist in a genuinely free market.

Left-libertarianism observes that far too often what is celebrated as "capitalism" (even by some libertarians) is more like a plutocracy or a neo-mercantile society, and that many private elites crucially rely on state power to sustain their own power. Left-libertarianism reflects a tendency to be critical of both state and corporate power, and a keen awareness of the degree to which the two are synergetic. The function of liberty is not to privatize power but to uphold a consistant rejection of arbitrary authority, and while the state is certainly the most fundamental institution of arbitary authority, it is not necessarily the only one. Hence, additional concerns about power relations between various groups within society aren't necessarily irrelevant, it's just that one must understand the role the state plays in such power relations and the way in which such power relations truly work in general. In either case, left-libertarianism is "thick" in this sense, as there is more to it than anti-statism.

Favor for more participatory decision-making or direct action as a method for bringing about one's goals is also an aspect of left-libertarianism, best reflected by the theory of agorism. A central point is that organization must be from the bottom up and that activism is a matter of directly making a change on a personal level or on a small scale rather then participating in the illusory and bankrupt system of representative democracy or remaining in a state of dependancy on currently dominant structures. This can be seen as involving a principle of personal responsibility and an awareness of the need for competitive mechanisms in order to counter current power structures. Hence, the general tendency is towards a rejection of reformism and party politics.

Left-libertarianism also functions as an alliance or umbrella in which a multitude of various libertarian-oriented schools of thought co-exist, and therefore can be seen as a manifestation of anarchism without adjectives. In particular, mutualists and left-rothbardians (those who draw influence from Rothbard's more "leftish" years) represent a nice middle ground that can unite people associated with both free market libertarianism and social anarchism. There is no rational reason for there to be an absolute wall between the two worlds, and as semantic differences are weeded out a degree of compatability becomes evident.

While much more could be said, I think this summarizes left-libertarianism well enough.