Saturday, December 29, 2007

Gun Control and the Statist Mind

Rather than infringe on law-abiding peoples' rights, the Government should severely punish those who initiate force. But then, that makes too much sense.

The Statist mind believes that it is much better to try and eliminate all possible danger, no matter what the cost to law-abiding folks. The Nanny Syndrome involves a belief that the safety and nourishment of "society" trumps any individual right that gets in the way of that lofty goal. Unalienable individual rights?...forget them if they get in the way. The Constitution?...forget it if it gets in the way. Common law precedence [which was: an individual basically is free to do anything as long as that action does not infringe on the rights or property of others]?...forget it. The "good of society" is the greatest good. Some of us think not; we believe that freedom of the individual is the greatest good---as long as that individual does not initiate force or fraud. [If the person does initiate force or fraud, then legally punish that individual severely; don't take away the rights of law-abiding people.]

Statist thinking is that government must "take care of" people, because the world is dangerous and (most of all) unfair. The cost of trying to make the world "fair" is staggering---loss of individuality, loss of freedom, and loss of income on an unprecedented scale. Government not only taxes us to an unnecessary degree, but often charges an additional fee for its "services".

Society is not an has no rights; it is made up of individuals who have unalienable rights that have nothing whatsoever to do with any government anywhere. Unalienable rights are not the same as "civil rights"; the latter are granted by statute.

Even requirements for gun permits are infringements on the unalienable right to self-defense possessed by law-abiding people. Furthermore, the permit requirement often is economically discriminatory; a permit in some places can cost as much as $150.

A great myth surrounding gun control has spread in this country: that a lack of gun control increases crime. Not true at all.

The Supreme Court decision on this issue should prove interesting; it is due sometime between April and July.

Monday, December 24, 2007

The Shadow Government: A Bit of History

This is from Professor Carroll Quigley, the late and renowned macro-historian, who was Bill Clinton's mentor at Georgetown University---and was written about 45 years ago. Excerpts from his book, Tragedy and Hope (1966):
[All emphasis added.]

"There does exist, and has existed for a generation, an international Anglophile network which operates, to some extent, in the way the radical Right believes the Communists act. In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Group has no aversion to cooperating with the Communists, or any other groups, and frequently does so...

"I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960's, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments...

"[A] front organization, called the Royal Institute of International Affairs, had as its nucleus in each area the existing submerged Round Table Group. In New York it was known as the Council on Foreign Relations and was a front for J.P. Morgan and Company in association with the very small American Round Table Group...

"On this basis, which was originally financial and goes back to George Peabody, there grew up in the twentieth century a power structure between London and New York which penetrated deeply into university life, the press, and the practice of foreign policy...

"In England the center was the Round Table Group, while in the United States it was J.P. Morgan and Company or its local branches in Boston, Philadelphia, and Cleveland...

"The American branch of this 'English Establishment' exerted much of its influence through five American newspapers (The New York Times, New York Herald Tribune, Christian Science Monitor, the Washington Post, and the lamented Boston Evening Transcript )...

" They were gracious and cultured gentlemen of somewhat limited social experience who were much concerned with the freedom of expression of minorities and the rule of law for all, who constantly thought in terms of Anglo-American solidarity, of political partition and federation, and who were convinced that they could gracefully civilize the Boers of South Africa, the Irish, the Arabs, and the Hindus, and who are largely responsible for the partitions of Ireland, Palestine, and India, as well as the federations of South Africa, Central Africa, and the West Indies...

"It was this group of people, whose wealth and influence so exceeded their experience and understanding, who provided much of the frame-work of influence which the Communist sympathizers and fellow travelers took over in the United States in the 1930's...

"It must be recognized that the power that these energetic Left-wingers exercised was never their own power or Communist power but was ultimately the power of the international financial coterie, and, once the anger and suspicions of the American people were aroused, as they were by 1950, it was a fairly simple matter to get rid of the Red sympathizers...

"Before this could be done, however, a congressional committee, following backward to their source the threads which led from admitted Communists like Whittaker Chamber, through Alger Hiss, and the Carnegie Endowment to Thomas Lamont and the Morgan Bank, fell into the whole complicated network of the interlocking tax-exempt foundations...

The Eighty-third Congress in July 1953 set up a Special Committee to investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations with Representative B. Carroll Reece of Tennessee, as chairman. It soon became clear that people of immense wealth would be unhappy if the investigation went too far and that the 'most respected' newspapers in the country, closely allied with these men of wealth, would not get excited enough about any revelations to make the publicity worth while, in terms of votes or campaign contributions..."

[My point here is to illustrate that those who founded the "Shadow Government" were beyond political party affiliations, right v. left, and all that propaganda. I believe that is still true today...and today, the Shadow Government is greatly expanded and includes many multi-national corps, not just those in banking, oil, and newspapers.]

Saturday, December 22, 2007

Money and Shifting Economic Theory

"The 'Great Inflation' of the 1970's challenged and permanently altered economic theory. It vindicated the once-controversial analysis of Milton Friedman, then at the University of Chicago...

"In a 1970 lecture, 'The Counterrevolution in Monetary Theory', Mr. Friedman outlined 11 propositions about how monetary policy affects the economy. All were wildly controversial, almost disreputable, at the time. Most are accepted today...

"Today, most macroeconomists also accept Mr. Friedman's most famous proposition -- that inflation is always a monetary phenomenon. Contrary to what I learned in macroeconomics class, 'cost push' inflation was a myth. Pay and price increases did not drive inflation; they reflected it. Americans wanted higher nominal wages and prices to keep up as the real value of each dollar declined.

To combat cost-push inflation, the Nixon administration imposed wage and price controls in 1971. Various controls, notably on energy prices, lingered throughout the 1970's. But inflation did not go away, because all these policies treated the symptom, not the cause." [Emphasis added]
(A New York Times article)

"The powers of financial capitalism had a far-reaching plan, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole...Their secret is that they have annexed from governments, monarchies, and republics the power to create the world's money..." [Emphasis added]- Prof. Carroll Quigley, renowned, late Georgetown macro-historian (mentioned by former President Clinton in his first nomination acceptance speech), author of Tragedy & Hope: A History of the World in Our Time (1966).

"Although much of his trail-blazing work was done on price theory—the theory that explains how prices are determined in individual markets—Friedman is popularly recognized for monetarism. Defying Keynes and most of the academic establishment of the time, Friedman presented evidence to resurrect the quantity theory of money—the idea that the price level is dependent upon the money supply. In 'Studies in the Quantity Theory of Money', published in 1956, Friedman stated that in the long run, increased monetary growth increases prices but has little or no effect on output." [Emphasis added]

Friday, December 7, 2007

"War Becomes Perpetual...

when it is used as a rationale for peace." ~ Norman Solomon, from the film at the link below.

This is excellent on propaganda in America. From LBJ to GWB, it details how "officials in Washington" and the media have sold wars to the public via distortions, omissions, and/or outright lies.

To my Conservative friends, yes, it leans Left (and is narrated by Sean Penn); but I'm not part of the Left, and I found great value in it. If nothing else, the Nixon tape on the nuclear option is worth the watch...and why Phil Donahue's show was cancelled...and several other interesting bits.

To those who really don't have time for these hour-plus documentaries, please try and watch at least the first 19 minutes. I don't think that you'll regret it. Can't do 19 minutes? 15 minutes, or 10.

Friday, November 30, 2007

Uncle TOM is Downright Comical at Times

Our Uncle, the Tired Old Media, is becoming more and more of a farce. The other night on NBC Nightly News netcast, TOM (represented by Brian Williams) had this story...(somewhat paraphrased)...

"The gloves came off in the Republican campaign today. Giuliani and Romney hit each other HARD." Giuliani said that Romney was "just like Hillary", and that during Romney's term as Governor, "crime in the State went up". Romney said that Giuliani "didn't add the figures properly; crime in Massachusetts actually went down during my term".

WOW! I'm not sure if either candidate will ever recover from those wicked blows. Thank you, TOM, for staying on top of this crucial and HARD-hitting political story.

[Surely people can see through this farce. Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee are campaigning for a nomination.]

Oh for the days of Edward R. Murrow.

Wednesday, November 21, 2007

CFR and the NAU

In May of 2005, the Council on Foreign Relations published their 175-page Report, Building a North American Community. Below is an excerpt from the description of the Report, and a link to the CFR webpage of same.

"When the leaders of Canada, Mexico, and the United States met in Texas recently they underscored the deep ties and shared principles of the three countries. The Council-sponsored Task Force applauds the announced 'Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America', but proposes a more ambitious vision of a new community by 2010 and specific recommendations on how to achieve it." [Emphasis added]

Those who continue to doubt that plans for the North American Union (NAU) actually exist need to wake up. The United States as we know it soon will be gone.

Republicans and Democrats Just Don't Get It

The movers & shakers of BOTH major political parties subscribe to the vision of David Rockefeller, a one-world corporate-type government run by unelected elites. [It's NOT a "secret conspiracy"; it just isn't publicized.] Rockefeller stated in the early '90s that a "world government run by supra-national elites surely is preferable to what we have now", and he revealed how the elites in this country have been working for over 40 years to institute such a govt.

The Iraq war is one tiny part of the effort to convince the masses that such a govt is necessary. Plus, a lot of multi-national companies are making a lot of money off the war. Ike was right about the dangers of the military-industrial complex. Once the Middle East and Central Asia are "secure", plans to merge the various commerce-based "Unions" can proceed. By then the Asian Union, the North American Union, and the South American Union will have become practical realities. That's why the elite Dems and Repubs want to keep the Iraq war going as long as possible.

To those who STILL don't believe any of this, I would suggest that you research the writings of David Rockefeller and the publications of the Rockefeller Foundation. The journal "Foreign Affairs" is a good source as well. The concept has been discussed (by the elites) in obscure think-tank journals and publications for decades.This bizarre and somewhat insane idea is promoted as being entirely altruistic: supposedly, such a govt would eliminate hunger and war world-wide. Sounds great, but (even if true) keep in mind that in the process wealth will be redistributed ON A GLOBAL BASIS. That's already underway. One method is to funnel funds from USAID and the World Bank to U.S. multi-national corporations, as long as they relocate their factories to foreign countries.

Thursday, November 15, 2007

The Old Versus The New

The old political paradigm: Dems v. Repubs, Right v. Left, etc.

The new paradigm: Corporatocracy (or Plutocracy, if you prefer) v. us.

The movers & shakers of both major political parties are part of the Corporatocracy. The two-party monopoly in this country is corrupt beyond redemption. Boycott it, or get ready for David Rockefeller's vision of a one-world, corporate-type government run by unelected elites. According to Mr. Rockefeller, that "is surely preferable to what we have now".

Sunday, November 4, 2007

"The Inevitable Collapse of the Dollar"

Is Government really this stupid? Or, is the collapse of the dollar part of the Rockefeller, plan for a one-world, corporate-type government run by unelected elites?

The collapse of the dollar perhaps would suggest a "need" for the above.

Again, I emphasize that the Rockefeller vision is not a "secret conspiracy". It has been discussed in obscure think-tank journals for decades.

Monday, October 29, 2007

The TASER Police State

Query: after the first death as a result of tasering by law enforcement, why were tasers not banned from use by law enforcement? There have been dozens of deaths, and yet tasering continues. The TASER (Thomas A. Swift's Electric Rifle) is a barbaric tool...and being completely misused by some Peace Officers.

It's important to remember that those people who died were innocent; in this country, one is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. At least, it used to be that way.

I've seen video clips of people being tasered while in handcuffs, or while two or three officers were holding a person on the ground. People have been tasered for not getting out of their vehicles, or not moving fast enough when an officer says "jump". This whole thing is out of hand. Police now routinely use the TASER in cases where they would not use a firearm or a baton. The ethical questions involved are significant. No one should ever be tasered unless that person actually is attacking an officer or another person.

The militarized police need to take stock of their methods. Many of them appear to be treating every civilian as an "enemy combatant", not as an individual with unalienable rights. Who is providing oversight?

Next will be the tasering of folks involved in peaceful civil disobedience and not threatening officers in any way. That's when you'll know for certain that we now live in a Police State.

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

Corporate Globalism: The Big Scam

Globalism is part of a 40-year-old plan to establish a corporate-type world government and redistribute wealth on a global basis. The electorate has been snookered by the elites in the two-party monopoly, both Democrats and Republicans.

David Rockefeller must be pleased as punch. He has stated publicly, ever since the early '90s, that once we have a one-world corporate-type government in place, the world will be so much better off. He's proposing a weird sort of corporate-socialism (my term, not his) in which jobs, wealth, and other resources will be redistributed in order to eliminate poverty world-wide...yeah, right. America, of course, will be the head honcho of this whole ridiculous scheme...and the Corporate Elites will run the whole show from on high. That's why America must be certain to have access to world-wide natural resources.

The first task in the plan was to make multi-national businesses rich and all-powerful---that's pretty much done. Next was to form commerce-based global "Unions"---that's about half done. Next is to totally eliminate national sovereignty. Next is to merge the various economic "Unions". [At the moment, I forget what's after that.]

Very few have paid attention because someone somewhere sometime started saying that the whole thing was an "Illuminati" secret conspiracy... so people who actually read the obscure think-tank journals where all this was OPENLY described, and tried to warn others, were relegated to the tin-foil hat brigade. It's NOT a's NOT secret (just not publicized)...and it has nothing to do with some Illuminati group. But it does exist...the plans have been pursued ever since the early '60s. The whole scheme has been discussed (by the elites) in journals such as Foreign Affairs for decades. David Rockefeller admitted to all this years ago, and stated that the one-world government to be run as a corporation (by non-elected elites) is "surely preferable to what we have now". (!) That's a direct quote.

We've been sold a bill of goods...and a big part of that is the MYTH that Republican and Democrat elites are somehow very different from each other. They aren't. They support the plan.

To those who still don't believe any of this, I would suggest that you research the writings of David Rockefeller and the Rockefeller Foundation. Globalism IS the Corporatocracy, and the elite movers-and-shakers in both parts of the two-party monopoly are a significant part of the whole thing. The "have-mores" will prevail as long as the electorate allows the elites to divide and conquer...pitting one group against another.

Thursday, October 18, 2007

Democratic Socialism?

A seemingly growing minority in this great land believe that we should convert our form of government to that of Democratic Socialism, or a Social Democracy. They further believe that many unfulfilled "needs" (e.g., a need for national health care coverage) exist amongst the populace, and that a Constitutional Republic is inadequate to meet them. These people are found amongst both Democrats and Republicans. They have been changing our form of government bit by bit by means of Legislative Absolutism for decades, passing laws in areas where the Fed Govt has no Constitutional authority to act. All for the "good of our society".

The only question is: where do we draw the line? Even if we commoners all agree on where that is, it is highly doubtful that the Powers-That-Be will want to stop there. Why anyone thinks that "democratic socialism" will stop at the point of democratic socialism is beyond me.

"Power corrupts, and..." ~ Lord Acton

"There are two enemies of the People: criminals and the government. Let us bind the second with the chains of the Constitution, so that it does not become the legalized version of the first." ~ Thomas Jefferson

That's exactly what the Founders did: they bound government with the chains of the Constitution. Just because that happened in the late 1780s (and this is 2007) does not mean that the rules no longer apply.

Many feel that last quote is an anachronism at best, a quaint dictum that is no longer applicable in modern-day America. Many others, however, feel that it is a timeless Truth---more applicable now than ever before; and the same folks also believe that the existence of a "need" does not justify any means of fulfilling that need, particularly force.

I really get amused with people who believe that the Founders' concepts are "out-of-date", "old-fashioned", and "from a bygone era". Funny thing...those people never include the concepts of due process, free speech, the right to privacy, civilian control of the military, etc.; they only include items such as the limitations of the Constitution on the central government, or the right to bear arms, or anything else they personally think gets in the way of some Statist agenda.

In our system of government, we have a distinct, legal way to change the rules governing government---Constitutional Amendment or Constitutional Convention. Those who sincerely believe in democratic socialism---and that amounts to (at most) about 20-25% of the populace, notwithstanding all the hoopla to the contrary---need to lobby for a Constitutional Convention, or a series of Amendments... that is, if they want to do things according to the Supreme Law of the Land. [I think all would agree that our form of government is a Constitutional Republic, not a Socialist Democracy. Change it if you can, but do that legally.]

This is all just common sense, and so it not?

Tuesday, October 9, 2007

The Militarization of Police

Is anyone concerned about this (see the video below)?

If not, why not?

Tuesday, October 2, 2007

Collectivism In America

Admittedly, the image is an exaggeration; nevertheless and more importantly, totalitarianism is totalitarianism---regardless of the flavor.

Both Republicans and Democrats (in general) are promoters of Statism in America today. The Fed Govt has expanded for decades whether Repubs or Dems have been in charge in DC, with ever more intrusions into our personal and professional lives. The claim is that it's all for our own good. Meanwhile, our freedoms continue to erode as the elite one percent get richer and the rest of us get poorer.

One of the reasons the above is happening is because the Corporate Media (shills for the Corporatocracy) continue to promote the myth of Right vs. Left, Republicans vs. Democrats, etc. Divide and conquer. Use fear of the "other group" to manipulate people. Keep the masses from learning who the real adversaries are---the Corporatocracy vs. us.

The goal of the Corporatocracy, as stated by David Rockefeller (paraphrased), is to create a one-world government of supra-national elites (primarily super-rich corporate types) who will run the world as if it were a giant corporation. The elites will make the rules; we will have to live by them. I should emphasize---this is NOT a conspiracy. It's right out in the open for all to see; but it's not publicized, and the Corporate Media rarely ever cover the story. [NBC News actually did cover the Trans-Texas Corridor, which is to be extended through the Great Plains all the way to Canada and thus linking Mexico, the U.S., and Canada in one huge NAFTA Superhighway---eighteen lanes wide. That's all a small part of the plan to implement the North American Union.]

When the North American Union and the Asian Union are in place, eventually they will merge with the European Union, the African Union, and the South (and Central) American Union. Countries will most likely retain their historical names---no need to unduly alarm the public---but all people will be subject to rules created by the international, elitist Corporatocracy. Rockefeller claims that such an arrangement "is surely preferable to what we have now".

One of the ways that common people will be controlled or manipulated in this "New World Order" will be via our medium of exchange---money. If the elites get their way, eventually all money will be digitized and will reside in some version of a personal computer chip. If someone causes the Corporatocracy any trouble, then that person's chip will be electronically disabled...all according to the rules, of course. Tax collection will be done electronically...and will be a snap. Every time you buy something, there will be an electronic record of it available to the world government. Privacy largely will be a thing of the past.

Boycott the Corporatocracy whenever possible. Reclaim your individual sovereignty. [See previous posts on the subject, elsewhere on this blog.] The nightmare described above can be stopped, but voting for a Democrat or a Republican is not going to do it. The elites in the two-party monopoly are part of the Corporatocracy.

Sunday, September 23, 2007

Alan Greenspan Did It

Finally, someone in DC admitted what most people have known for some time: the Iraq War is "largely about oil". He also commented that it's "politically inconvenient" to say so...and, he opined, that is sad. Thank you, Alan, for speaking the truth.

The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives (by Brzezinski, 1997) spells it all out. The NeoCons bought the thesis lock, stock, and oil barrel.

Hail Caesar...and the grand vision of an American Empire. What a sad (and unconstitutional) vision.

Sunday, September 16, 2007

The Tragic Comedy

The two-party monopoly in American politics is elitist, nonrepresentative, and mostly a tragic comedy.

I think it's all a big show...meant to distract us from the discovery that:
1) our borders slowly are being eliminated;
2) our national sovereignty slowly is being eliminated;
3) our money is virtually worthless (which will enhance the transition to the NAU "Amero");
4) multi-national corporate Globalism rules, not American interests...especially in economic and energy matters;
5) the purpose of a national ID is to keep track of us, not terrorists;
6) some unalienable individual freedoms must be sacrificed for the good of the State is nothing but propaganda promoted by central planners;
7) foreign policy is designed to secure foreign natural resources and Corporatocracy business interests;
8) both political parties believe that the Corporatocracy is essential to our survival;
9) Government is no longer the servant; and,
10) the two-party monopoly has, for all intents and purposes, trashed our Constitutional Republic.

The Democrats are as big a tragic comedy as is King George. Except for a few minor corrections in the country's flawed path, the Dems spend most of their time making excuses, squabbling amongst themselves, and doing virtually nothing (or worse, providing support) in regard to the Globalist Corporatocracy takeover of our economy. Their impotence is unbelievable...and damning...and suspicious.

As for the Republicans, well, obviously they have been hijacked by those who believe in the philosophy of Irving Kristol (who formerly was a Trotskyite), the American Empire NeoCons. But even prior to that, Republicans have contributed to all of the points listed above.

The Republi-crats are the elitist Government Club. They all talk a good talk...and every so often produce a flurry of seemingly beneficial activity. Meanwhile, the march toward 1984 continues unabated...and supported by the two-party monopoly.

So, We the People are pretty much shafted...unless...
we boycott the Establishment two-party monopoly on a massive scale, thus crumbling the repressive ballot-access laws, political elitism, and Corporate Media political propaganda. Only then will folks with integrity and honor have a chance of being elected and making a difference. Our only chance is to return to citizen (not professional) politicians. [Our Founders never imagined that anyone would want to make a career out of the snakepit in DC. They figured people would serve a term or three and then go back to their real jobs.]

I don't see it happening anytime soon. Too many people still believe that the rotten political system can be changed by remaining within the bounds of that system (the two-party monopoly). I look back over the last half century and ask myself, "How can they still believe that?".

Sunday, September 9, 2007

The MYTH of the Big Differences Between Democrats and Republicans

99.9% of the professional political hacks either in office or running for office as a Repub or Dem subscribe to (or support)...or at least, do not oppose:

Corporatocracy-promoted Globalism;

no-term-limits, which virtually guarantees corruption;

the bogus "War on Terror";

the bogus "War on Drugs";

the concept of American dominance;

the devastating practice of deficit-spending;

an ever-growing Fed Govt;

a two-party monopoly in politics;

the very idea of political parties (which are completely unnecessary);

soft money in political campaigns;

our destructive fiat money system;

the misapplied Individual Income Tax (all of which goes to pay the interest on the nat'l debt);

the concept that Govt knows best what is good for the individual;

the military-industrial complex;

the concept of Legislative Absolutism (a term coined by Justice Harlan in 1901), which allows the abrogation of the Constitution;

the idea that it's just too complicated to end the war in Iraq now;

the idea that individuals must be forced to pay for items that the majority thinks are necessary, even when there is no Constitutional authority to permit the central govt to delve into those areas;

the welfare state;

the unconstitutional Federal Reserve System; and,

the Patriot Act (which virtually has trashed much of the Bill of Rights).

So, where are the big differences?

Tuesday, September 4, 2007

Another Tool: Another "Notice"

For the Record: NOTICE to CEASE and DESIST

Demand for truth is made, of all parties or interests, for full disclosure.

From: scott c. haley


Regarding: ______________________________________ _________________________________________ _____________________________________________________

__________________________, _________

Dear: ___________________________

This is actual notification that by and through this correspondence:

Your items are refused for cause without dishonor, and without recourse to me, and returned herewith because they are irregular, unauthorized, incomplete, and void process.

Your paperwork is incomplete and defective upon its face due to insufficient law.

All paperwork was received but not accepted.

That I, in my sovereign status possessing unalienable rights, have no contractual or other relationship with you that is in dishonor; therefore your vexatious harassment is a foreign private trespass.

Demand is made that you cease and desist. You are in dishonor.

So done by virtue of common law individual superior court, Skagit county, WA:

This ____ day of ___________, two-thousand seven. ____________________________,
_____________________________ ______________

scott c. haley
Expressly Reserving All Rights.


Page one of one page

Monday, August 27, 2007

More Practical Sovereignty

Once in awhile an individual or business will receive a "Notice" or a "Notice to Comply" from a governmental agency. Such "Notices" are sometimes not proper or lawful. For example, I once received a Notice to Comply from the Environmental Health Dept. of a rural northern California county, regarding how I handled septic waste on my place (at the time) of thirty-eight acres. Said Notice was entirely improper because the department that issued it had never done an onsite inspection. The "inspector" apparently was too busy, or lazy, and was operating on hearsay knowledge. [When I pointed this out, the "Notice" was deleted from their records, I received an apology, and the department took no further action.]

Even if the Notice received is proper and lawful, it is often helpful to oppose it, thereby delaying a re-inspection or administrative action by the agency. Many times (more often than not) agencies are so backlogged with compliance work that they pick only the low-hanging fruit, so to speak. In any case, it is always good to stand up for your rights when you believe that you've done nothing wrong, or you believe that the ordinance in question is excessive or intrusive.

Below is a Notice that you may copy and use when necessary. Simply change my name to yours and change the county (location of Affiant). One way to demonstrate to an agency (especially local or State) that you do not intend their Notice to go unchallenged is to turn right around and issue THEM a Notice. Sometimes it works; sometimes it doesn't. It always buys you time.

Notice and Affirmation

Whereas the Declaration of Independence states with clarity that all individuals are endowed with certain unalienable rights; and,
Whereas the Declaration illustrates that said rights are independent of any government; and,
Whereas I affirm that I possess said unalienable rights, and thus possess individual sovereignty; and,
Whereas in Common Law an individual is free to do whatever one wishes, as long as that individual does not trespass upon the rights or property of another individual and honors all lawful contracts;

Now Therefore:

I refuse your paperwork that alleges violations of law or contract foreign to my venue, which no oath, promise, or common law attaches me thereto.

Your documents were received but not accepted.

All items are refused for cause without dishonor and without recourse to me.

Your paperwork is returned herewith because it is irregular, incomplete, and void process.

Further foreign intrusion upon my sovereignty by you or any agent of yours shall result in my charge of $200.00 per hour (or portion thereof) for any time that I must spend responding.

Recovery of charges shall be pursued in de jure common law superior court.

No response from you or your agency/department/entity will be taken as agreement with the statements contained in this Notice and Affirmation, according to de jure common law.

I affirm and attest that, to the best of my knowledge, the above is true and correct. So stated by Affiant: Scott C. Haley, in Skagit County, Washington

Date _____________

Notice and Affirmation received by:
(print name) _________________________________

Date ______________

Tuesday, August 21, 2007

More on Boycotting

This is only my opinion and perhaps many will disagree, but national elections in this country have become truly meaningless. They present us with this choice: a horrible, especially corrupted evil, OR, just a corrupted evil.

I see only two reasonable options left to honorable people:
1. Boycott the Establishment---that can be done minimally, maximally, or anything in-between. (Use your imagination.) One's stage of life plays a big part in how much you're willing to risk.
2. Secession: not as crazy as it sounds. Vermont has a very active secessionist movement currently, with about 64,000 people involved. I've found this site, , to be the most responsible and logical of the various secessionist websites.

Armed revolt obviously is out of the question. Any such action would be thoroughly crushed. Pockets of resistance might survive for years, but not enough to matter. Some people are talking about this very action on the web...I think they are very unrealistic.

Only nonviolent civil disobedience will ever change the entrenched DC way of doing things. People have forgotten that being under a government is voluntary, and that we really do have unalienable rights that have nothing at all to do with any government...whatsoever.

There were/are three types of "citizen" (legally) in this country:
1. a citizen of a State of the Union (this is the most important category, Constitutionally);
2. a citizen of "the United States", prior to the 14th Amendment (which really is a different name for number 1 above); and,
3. a citizen of "the United States" per the 14th Amendment (which is clearly different from either of the above, and is one who enjoys "civil" rights---which are granted by Congress).


"In drafting the [14th] Amendment, Congress was looking to make its federal laws (the Enforcement Act, the Freedman's Bureau Act, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866) a part of the US Constitution. In doing so they intended to ensure that the freed blacks would have certain privileges and protections remain in place after the United States pulled its army out of the South and restored the Southern states to their previous status as states of the Union. The Amendment would also insure that Congress had the national authority to enforce the provisions of the Amendment upon any state that attempted to violate them."

Civil rights entail allegiance to the Govt; unalienable rights do not. Our present Govt places civil rights ABOVE unalienable rights. Furthermore, it is no longer a representative government; special interests of the Corporatocracy have seen to that.

In general, the Govt of this country is too corrupted to change in any meaningful way... unless it is forced to by nonviolent civil disobedience. (That can be done locally, or individually---it doesn't necessarily mean a massive "March on DC".) Failing that, I see only more of the same in the future. I realize full well that many support the Democrats, and see them as an agent for positive change. I don't; and even after the NeoCons have faded into history, I don't see the Republicans that way either. The movers and shakers of both parties are committed to the Globalist New World Order.

Frankly, having been a serious observer of American politics since 1956, I've concluded that the current dominating corruption of principles by both Democrats and Republicans at the national level will continue until they are both forced out of the American political system. I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Government is always best at the local or regional level. Even then it can be a stinker. I'm beginning to believe that we should have stuck with the European model---that is to say, each State being an independent Republic. Of course, the Articles of Confederation would have to be expanded to allow for the military defense of all...meaning, "national" taxes for defense only would have to be implemented.

Naturally, the above will never happen. So we're back to square one. I would like to live long enough to see the time when "citizens" of this great land finally realize that significant, positive change (for peace and Freedom) here will never be the result of voting in national elections. Forty or fifty years ago that was possible, but no longer. The Corporatocracy is firmly entrenched, almost completely out in the open relative to their actions, and has almost absolute control of the voting process---from A to Z.

Boycott the Corporatocracy whenever possible! [EXAMPLES: stop watching the drivel on commercial TV (the major networks already are concerned about losing viewers); stop buying crap made in China; don't patronize Exxon-Mobil stations---the corp has the most obscene profits in the oil industry; stop voting in politicians who spend beyond our means, trample on the 10th Amendment, or believe that it's just too complicated to end the war now; every time you sign ANY Govt form, write "All Rights Reserved", or, "Expressly Reserving All Rights" beneath your name; participate at ; whenever possible, buy locally at independent stores---avoid the big chains; etc. Those are ways to boycott at only a minimal level.]

Sunday, August 12, 2007

"A Dave Champion Client Visits the IRS"

Please find the article title above at the link below.

BE SURE to listen to the interview. It is a...

Superb illustration of a Govt run amok...

a Govt that no longer considers itself a servant of the People...

a Govt abrogating the Constitution...

a Govt with the hubris to believe that it is not required to answer a citizen's petition.

Notice one very important stance taken by the "taxpayer": he wasn't making an argument relative to the misapplication of 26 USC; rather, he was simply asking for the authoritative citation that imposes the tax...

an extremely reasonable request.

Notice the response.

The IRS & DOJ usually say that Tax Honesty Movement arguments relative to the misapplication of the Fed Income Tax are "frivolous". They never say that about the question posed in the Hearing above...they simply ignore it. Why? It should be a very simple matter to produce the authoritative citation that actually imposes a tax on the average American's wages.

Monday, August 6, 2007


Here's one reason that voting is not the way to restore the Republic: once well-meaning newcomers get into the DC Club they are effectively neutralized by the Good 'Ol Boys (& Gals). Another reason: there simply are not enough well-meaning candidates who want to get into that snakepit. Another reason: running is one thing---getting elected is another. Another reason: it takes a significant amount of money to run for national office. Another reason: the Corporate Media virtually will destroy (or completely ignore) someone like Ron Paul (as an example) who is running for President...with very little effort. In the Establishment system, he'll be lucky to get 15% of the vote...that is, if he even gets the nomination (which is unlikely). Even if by some miracle he gets elected, he won't have a prayer of "cleaning up the mess". He will be shut out, ostracized, and neutralized by the "no-term-limits" hacks who have been there for years and control the whole show.

I could go on, but you get the drift.

Proposing well-meaning candidates has been going on for decades. I don't see any significant change. The Corporatocracy likes us to believe that voting at the national level still matters. In my opinion, it doesn't...and hasn't for a LONG time. [Just look at the last two Presidential elections: in 2000 King George was appointed by the Supreme Court; in 2004 he scraped in due to confirmed voting fraud in at least Ohio, and if I recall correctly, Florida as well.]

We are way past having any chance of success at trying to change the system by actions within the system. Unfortunately, 50% or so of the people still think that voting matters (they still vote because they mistakenly believe that it makes a difference); the other 50% realize that voting accomplishes almost nothing...and so they don't vote. It's not because they're lazy, or apathetic, or's because they've seen that the same old crap keeps rolling downhill---no matter who gets elected. Want to make a real difference?---boycott...or write in "None of the Above". That's what people who are NOT voting are doing wrong---instead of just ignoring national elections, they should go to the polls, or obtain an absentee ballot (which makes the whole process easier), and write in "NONE OF THE ABOVE". If over 50%-75% of the voters would do it, that would do more to shake up DC than anything else. People should lobby for a "None of the Above" box on every national ballot.

It's time to seriously boycott national elections, the Corporate Media, big corporate sponsors, etc., AND inform all Establishment, professional politicians that they no longer have our support...because they have failed, and failed miserably.

Here's another idea (some rich person needs to organize, fund, & promote this):
Boycott the Establishment national elections by having our own grassroots elections online. Where is it written that only the Repub & Dem Political Machines get to organize elections. We the People gave them that power---we can take it away. Instead of their hacks, we'll run CITIZEN politicians...but NOT in the Establishment system. Properly promoted, that might result in their hacks getting 40,000 votes (an arbitrary number), and our citizen politicians getting 40 MILLION votes. What are they going to say?---"You didn't follow proper procedures". Yeah, but our folks received 99% of the votes. [Unrealistic, perhaps...BUT the point is: a lot can be tried without resorting to the system that is entirely sewn up by the Corporatocracy.]

I think that currently there is an effort similar to what I'm suggesting...and it's already on the web. I believe it's called the "Unity" ticket, or party, or whatever. But they don't go far enough---they are attempting to get unlike ESTABLISHMENT, professional politicians to run on their ticket. I'm not sure if anyone has agreed to run.

Boycott, Boycott, Boycott. Once the Establishment Political Machine crumbles from sheer lack of support, decent candidates will make themselves known...and more importantly, have a chance to make a genuine difference.

Political hacks exist in the system ONLY because we support them...having been duly propagandized to do so by the Corporate Media. The corrupt system exists ONLY because we don't boycott it.

Monday, July 30, 2007

26 USC and You

Title 26 USC is impeccably Constitutional BECAUSE, as written, it DOES NOT tax the income of the average American wage-earner. It only taxes "taxable income", which does not include "eliminated income", "exempt income", or "excluded income" (all terms from the Tax Code).

See: Be sure to view the two short videos---the link for them is on the right side of the page, at the picture of a ball & chain. Those videos are a demonstration (with results) of data-mining the Tax Code to determine the meaning of key sections.

The uninformed believers in the Individual Income Tax respond by saying something like, "Taxable income is gross income minus deductions" (and so the tax applies to all); but they leave out this CRUCIAL introduction--- "Except as otherwise provided...", found in the description of gross income.

The Tax Code is riddled with phrases like that. "Section XX.XX to the contrary notwithstanding...", or, "Except as provided for in Section XX.XX...", "In general...", "Notwithstanding Section 61...", "Other than those specified...", "Except for excluded income...", etc.---when deciphering the Tax Code, ALL such phrases must be researched further.

The average duped American never bothers to fully research anything beyond, "There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual a tax...". No wonder they think the tax applies to everyone! You folks who oppose the Tax Honesty Movement really do need to read the ENTIRE THING---26 USC, Subtitle A, Chapter 1 (the Income Tax)...and when it says things like, "Notwithstanding Section 61...", you have to go to 61 and see what they're talking about if you expect to truly understand the Tax Code.

Some dupe/dope in one comment on another website said something like, "They [members of the Tax Honesty Movement] keep saying 'Show me the law!'---well, it's on the very first page!". Such people don't have a clue; they don't do proper due diligence.

For those new to this blog, here a few pertinent points:
1. the purpose of the 16th Amendment was to correct a glitch in the 1909 Corporate Excise Tax Statute;
2. several Supreme Court rulings (never reversed) between 1918 and 1923 concluded that the word "incomes" in the 16th Amendment meant "gain or profit from corporate activity", and that the Amendment conferred "no new taxing powers" upon the Fed Govt;
3. Fed Govt services are not paid for by individual income taxes (those revenues pay the interest on the national debt, according to the Grace Commission)---Govt services are paid for by corporate taxes, many excise taxes, SS taxes, Medicare taxes, duties, imposts, a few miscellaneous taxes, and more borrowed money.

Monday, July 23, 2007

Practical Individual Sovereignty II

Again, as with "Practical Individual Sovereignty" [a separate article], nothing below should be construed as legal advice. These are my opinions, and I assume no liability whatsoever for any errors or omissions.

Here is a brief guide to dealing with Peace Officers. This is a very tricky area; proceed with caution, and at your own risk. It all depends on how far you want to take things.

Peace Officers are, above all else, human beings. Some are “good”, some “bad”, and some are a mixture…like most of us. The tricky part is that they do have authority over us in certain circumstances…and they do have weapons on them everyday. Despite that, their authority has limits.

Following are some legitimate questions that can be asked of Peace Officers. Ask these questions either before or immediately after presenting your ID. [Some people refuse to present their ID until they have verified the Officer’s ID. I think that’s a good idea, but it’s risky…especially with an Officer who is out-of-sorts at the moment, or one who is on a power trip.] There are a few folks in the individual sovereignty movement who claim that a sovereign individual (who has done nothing illegal) does NOT have to present an ID when asked to by a Peace Officer. I agree that it should be that way, but I know for a fact that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled otherwise.

Questions for Peace Officers [Except for the first one, these are not in any order. The remainder should be asked whenever you feel that it is appropriate for each one. That will require careful listening and not being intimidated by statements such as, "I'll arrest you for obstruction of justice!".]

1. Could I please see your badge number, ID, and business card? [Be certain that the badge number on the business card matches the one on the badge.]

2. Are you giving me an order? If the answer is “Yes”, and even though to your knowledge you’ve done nothing wrong but wish to comply to avoid conflict, state clearly that you are complying “under protest and duress, with all rights reserved”.

3. Who is your immediate supervisor?

4. Are you aware that gross negligence by a public servant is equal to fraud?

5. Are you violating my Fourth Amendment right to be secure in my person, house, papers, and effects from search and seizure without a warrant? [If the answer is “No”, then ask, “Exactly what is it that you want?”.]

6. Are you violating my First Amendment right to free speech? [If the answer is “No”, then ask, “So I am free to speak, correct?”.]

7. Am I under arrest? [If you are, IMMEDIATELY ask for an attorney...and stop talking.]

Always remember that lying during interrogation is standard police procedure, and allowed by law. If you are not under arrest, you still have the choice to not answer questions. If the Officer states that though you are not under arrest, you should come to the police station to answer questions, ask, "Are you ordering me to go with you?". If the answer is "Yes" (which it shouldn't be), state clearly at that moment AND when you arrive at the station that you are doing so "under protest and duress, with all rights reserved".

Finally, exercise common sense: never physically resist, and always be polite and respectful.

Tuesday, July 17, 2007

Practical Individual Sovereignty

What is below should not be construed as legal advice. I am not an attorney or a para-legal. With some research and my past experience as a HazMat regulatory compliance inspector for a large California County, I have learned a few things relative to interacting with Government Representatives. What follows merely is the exercise of free speech and the opinion of a sovereign individual.

Unless you are a known lawbreaker, or there is a warrant for your arrest, or Martial Law has been declared, or you are blatantly and obviously breaking the law at the moment, a Government Representative (Rep) cannot force you to do anything. For example, when I went to inspect a business that fell under HazMat regulations, by law I had to ask permission to inspect the premises of that business. If the business owner/manager refused me permission, I then had a few options. 1) Return to the agency office, jump through some hoops, obtain an Inspection Warrant, snag a Peace Officer, and return to the business that refused my entry. 2) Come back another day; perhaps the owner/manager was merely in a bad mood. 3) Come back during the next inspection cycle for that area, which in the case of my employment was over a year away. Can you guess which option I chose in the rare case of being refused entry to a business? In seven years at that particular job, I NEVER obtained even one inspection warrant.

Contrary to popular opinion, regulatory Government Reps who work in the field have a tremendous workload. Their situation is made even worse by all the data that they have to enter into a computer each day. Although it does happen, in my opinion it would be a very rare instance in which a Government inspector would take the time to obtain an Inspection Warrant.

When it comes to Government Forms, here are some legitimate questions that can be asked by the individual being "required" to submit the Form---

1. Is the filling out of this Form required by Law or Regulation, or is it merely a procedure developed by your office? If it is required by Law or Regulation, can you please send me a copy of same with the appropriate section highlighted?

2. What Common Law rights am I waiving by signing this Form? [Whenever you sign ANY Government Form, directly beneath your signature write, "All Rights Reserved".]

3. What happens if I don't sign this Form?

4. . Is this a transaction involving a security interest? [It is, and your consent is required…unless a Court orders you to fill out the Form. You are providing information that it would be best to keep secure---address, date of birth, Social Security number, various types of business information, etc.]

5. Is your agency ordering me to fill out this Form?

Should you receive a copy of a specific Law or Regulation that supposedly applies to you or your business, and if you wish the discussion to continue, it can do so almost endlessly. That's because most all Statutory Laws (or Regulations, which are Administrative Laws) are extremely complex, convoluted, and technical. You have every right to ask, "What does this word mean?", or, "What does this sentence mean?".

There is nothing dishonorable about asking these questions. Government Representatives and Agencies often assume that citizens will view requests to fill out Forms as "orders", not what they really are---offers to avoid conflict. They make that assumption because most citizens DO see "requests" to fill out Forms as "orders". Unless you have broken the law already, or are obviously breaking it at the present moment, no Government Rep can order you to do anything...a Court can, but not a Rep. If a Rep does, and you wish to comply simply to avoid conflict, have the Representative put it in the Record that you are complying "under protest and duress, with all rights reserved".

Some may see all of the above as frivolous, but to anyone concerned with Liberty (and Government abuse of same) it is important to keep Government Reps---and the endless paper Forms of agencies---within proper bounds.

Dealing with Peace Officers really is a separate issue, and will be dealt with in a separate article.

Sunday, July 8, 2007

How to Promote Statism in the U.S.

1. Elect Democrats AND Republicans to Federal offices.
2. Expand the Federal Government, as the Republicans and Democrats both have done.
3. Increase the national debt exponentially.
4. Have the Government borrow money totally beyond its means.
5. For the most part, ignore the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution.
6. Spread fear amongst the populace---fear of terrorists, disease, contaminated food, mechanical failures, and anything else that might harm people.
7. Downplay the idea of individualism.
8. Constantly tell people that onerous taxes are for "the greater good".
9. Convince the populace that inflation is "normal".
10. Denigrate the concept of commodity-backed money, and promote the concept of fiat money.
11. Pass laws in areas in which Congress has no Constitutional authority, then claim that's legal because "times have changed" and the Constitution is "outdated" and "quaint".
12. Have the Federal Government infringe on States' Rights...for "the greater good".
13. Claim that State laws, such as medical marijuana (that infringe on no one's rights or property), are illegal.
14. Institute warrantless wiretapping...for "the greater good".
15. Claim that habeas corpus does not apply if one is accused of being a certain type of criminal---a "terrorist", or "enemy combatant".
16. Have the Federal Government completely ignore lawfully executed Petitions for Redress of Grievances.
17. Claim that the narrowly restricted Federal Firearms Act applies to everyone.
18. Launch a "War on Drugs".
19. Launch a "War on Poverty".
20. Become a health fascist.

Finally, condition the populace to believe that the Federal Government can best solve most all problems, be they in the area of health, or safety, or economics, or education, or crime, or... really, anything.

Saturday, June 30, 2007

The War and the Democrats

When the Democrats more or less swept into office in the 2006 election, most everyone agreed that the primary reason for their success was: the majority of the electorate wanted to see a major change in the direction of the Iraq war. There was a change---the war has been escalated. People can say that's not the fault of the Democrats, but let's examinine that proposition a bit further.

The Corporate Media, while covering the most recent war supplemental spending bill a short while ago, never explored the fact that the Democratic majority did not have to propose or pass ANY war spending bill---none whatsoever. There already was enough funding in the pipeline to bring the troops home in a safe manner as soon as possible. The fact is the Democrats could have stopped the war right in its tracks.

One has to ask, why didn't they? Several possibilities emerge.
1. They were afraid of the appearance of not supporting the troops. In other words, their main concern was getting re-elected in 2008.
2. Most of their constituents really didn't want to END the war right now. Instead, they wanted the execution of this misbegotten war to be more decisive...they wanted "victory", or an "honorable" resolution---whatever that means.
3. Large campaign contributors (and their lobbyists) convinced the Democrats that we need an "honorable" resolution, and so, funding of the war should continue. Such campaign contributors most likely are the folks making money from the war effort.
4. Democrats remember what happened to Wayne Morse back in the '60s. He voted against funding for the Vietnam War (as well as having been a vocal critic of that war)...and was not re-elected. [This is similar to # 1 above.]
5. A significant (but rarely heard) portion of the Democrats actually believe the NeoCon crap about the relationship of Iraq to the "War on Terror".
6. There is some other reason...not immediately apparent (at least, to me).

Take your pick. Whatever the reason, the failure of the Democrats to end this insane war is a travesty. The King George war has been a disaster from the beginning.

Tuesday, June 26, 2007

97 Days in Hell

A fellow by the name of Vance was held in a U.S. secret military prison, in solitary, for 97 days. He was allowed no attorney, no contact with the outside world whatsoever...and was hooded & shackled at various times. [Try to put yourself in this guy's place---he had no idea if he would be held for 97 minutes, 97 days, 97 months, or 97 years!]

Vance is an American citizen, a Navy vet, who was working as a civilian in a private Iraqi security company. He noticed huge stockpiles of small arms at the company, and began to think they were being provided to promoters of Iraqi sectarian violence. He contacted the FBI, and became an informant for a few months...supplying the Agency with info.

Then one day he was arrested, told he was under suspicion of terrorist activities, and was spirited off to the secret prison. After 97 days of becoming emaciated and sleep deprived, they cleaned him up and dumped him at the Baghdad Airport. No explanation.

He is suing the Govt. [Some folks think that one cannot sue the Govt successfully. Randy Weaver sued and won...well, the Govt settled out-of-court.]

I guess my point in relaying this story (from NBC Nightly News netcast) is that suspecting someone of criminal activity is understandable, but denying the suspect access to an attorney and habeas corpus is not permitted in a free society. Claims that a "terrorist" is different from a criminal are nothing more than sleazy attempts to avoid due process. The whole thing is an outrage.

That whole generic procedure was probably engineered by the brilliant logician [:)], Dick Cheney, who claims that his office is not in the Executive Branch. [He not only acts as if he's psychotic...he is psychotic.]

Tuesday, June 19, 2007

Randy Weaver Joins the Browns

Please see: ...scroll down a bit.

Remember Randy Weaver of Ruby Ridge fame? Government agents killed his son, and murdered (there's no other word for it) his unarmed wife while she was holding a baby. Agents also shot Weaver in the back...actually, in the shoulder from the back. He is now in New Hampshire at the home of Ed & Elaine Brown. [See my post, "A Nonresponsive Government", for a little background on the Browns.]

Weaver hopes to diffuse the situation at the Browns' home, and bring it to national attention before we have another Ruby Ridge. We wish them all the very best.

That situation could be ended peacefully if the Govt representatives would do ONE SIMPLE THING. Just show Ed & Elaine (and all of us) specifically where in USC Title 26---NOT in CFR Title 26, which was written by the IRS, and is a regulation, not a statute---the average American INDIVIDUAL is liable for a tax on his/her income. Ed has said repeatedly that if they will show him the law, he will pay the tax.

That's ALL the Govt has to do...why won't they? [Could it be because the cited law IS Constitutional precisely because nowhere does it levy such a tax?]

Come on, Govt...pony up. Just show me the LAW (not the regulation).

Tuesday, June 12, 2007

Our Unaccountable President

Once again King George has been knocked down (rightfully so) by a court---the 4th Circuit in this case. The Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to hold a resident alien (here legally) in solitary confinement in a Navy brig for years...even though the Govt tagged him with the term "enemy combatant". Our King and his jackbooted minions were certain that it could be done through military procedures. The suspect will not go free, but now must be charged in criminal court, thus afforded habeas corpus. That is as it should be.

This is not the first time that a court has told the King, "No, you can't do that.", but he continues on anyway. [Remember the Jose Padilla mess?] Our King believes that in his expanded Unitary Presidency he is accountable to virtually no one.

It should be clear to the American public by now that the "War on Terror" is nothing but an attempt to grab unconstitutional power. Terrorists are not in an army; they are criminals, pure and simple. When suspects are caught, they should be charged and tried as criminals. Claiming that such trials would give away national secrets is nothing more than an attempt to avoid due process. Remember Julius and Ethel Rosenberg? National secrets were involved, but they were tried in a criminal court...and we all survived.

The hubris of the Bush Administration is offensive. King George, in particular, acts as though he is some sort of absolute ruler. Even his facial expressions betray him---half the time he looks out at his audience with disdain, superiority, and/or smugness. I think he tops Nixon in that regard. Luckily for us, he is more or less a Lame Duck...very lame.

Saturday, June 9, 2007

A Nonresponsive Government

Please view the Petitions for Redress of Grievances at (left side of page); they were signed by over 1,700 concerned citizens and formally presented to various branches of the Fed Govt over a period of a few years. No one from the Government has responded to any of them. Other Petitions have been submitted by various people (including this writer) with no responses. [I did receive ONE response from a member of Congress, but it was not relevant--- the response completely avoided all legitimate questions.]

Right now in Plainfield, NH, Ed and Elaine Brown virtually are under siege by U.S. Marshalls. In a tax trial during which they were not allowed to submit relevant Supreme Court case rulings or revealing portions of USC Title 26, Subtitle A, Chapter 1 (the Income Tax), they were convicted of tax evasion. They are in their home and have vowed resistance to being arrested.

What most people don't know, because the Corporate Media edit it out (if they cover the case at all), is that the Browns began writing the IRS in 1994---asking legitimate questions about the Tax Code---and continued for two years...BEFORE they began not paying taxes in 1996. They also cited relevant Supreme Court cases in their letters to the IRS, asking more questions about the Tax Code vis-a-vis the Court rulings. Their questions were never answered. The government was nonresponsive. For twelve years the government virtually ignored the Browns---ten of those years they did not pay taxes.

In 1774, our Founders established a precedent for withholding monies from a government that does not answer legitimate Petitions. Nonresponsive governments display arrogance, and should not receive any monies due---this according to our Founders. Furthermore, Jefferson himself stated that if a government ignores pleadings from the People regarding injustices, it is the duty of the People "to alter or abolish that government".

The Petitions at deal with Constitutional torts committed by our government in the areas of: the tax clauses, the war clauses, the Fourth Amendment, the money clauses, and other areas such as immigration. These Petitions are meticulous in their formats and legitimacy. By ignoring them, the Fed Govt displays not only hubris, but disdain for We the People as well. Meanwhile, the Constitution is being abrogated...again.

Many people are fed up with this situation. It is time to boycott the Fed Govt and its lap dogs, the Corporate Media and the large multi-national corporations, whenever possible. EXAMPLE: ABC, NBC, & CBS already are concerned that---according to their own studies---they have lost 2.5 million TV viewers over a period of a year or so. Let's make that five million...or more. Commercial network TV is 90% drivel anyway. EXAMPLE: Boycott Exxon-Mobil, the largest oil company in the world---and the one with the most obscene profits. EXAMPLE: Bombard Congress with emails, phone calls, or letters demanding the repeal of the REAL ID Act, which goes into effect in May, 2008. [See: ...scroll down, almost to the bottom.] Electronic tagging should be for animals, not humans. Besides, the Fed Govt has no Constitutional authority to have anything at all to do with citizen ID.

Thursday, May 31, 2007

What Happened to Our Country?

In 1960 the U.S. national debt was $286 billion; today it is about eight trillion dollars. Most Americans think little to nothing of this situation: an obscene national debt, virtually constant annual budget deficits, and continual devaluation of the dollar via inflation of the money supply. The results are inflation of prices every year [in 1961 a pair of Levi's jeans sold for $3.95], creating a hidden "tax"---separate from all the other taxes---that is paid by all of us and will be paid by all who follow us in life. What happened to our country?

There are many reasons for the mess in which we find ourselves, and none are more important than this: in 1913 Congress passed the unconstitutional Fed Reserve Act. It changed the Constitution without an Amendment. In effect, Congress turned over its Constitutional duty to regulate the value of our money to a group of private corporations. [Lewis v. the U.S., #80-5905, 9th Circuit Court, June 24, 1982, "...we conclude that the Federal Reserve (Banks) are not Federal instrumentalities, but are independent and privately owned corporations..."]

Why? One can speculate (based upon all that has happened since 1913) that the answer is no more complicated than this: it was done because of greed and corruption. A group of bankers wanted control of our money system in order to make more money, and so they convinced Congressmen---those who weren't on Christmas vacation at the time---to abrogate the Constitution, shirk their duty to "coin money and regulate the value thereof", and trust the banking industry. The result has been the almost complete destruction of our money.

The present-day dollar is worth four cents compared to the 1913 dollar. Inflation is accepted as "normal". Sooner or later, our continually devalued dollar is bound to collapse. That's probably when the Corporatocracy will introduce the "Amero", the all too soon-to-be currency of the North American Union.

There was a time in this country when people knew that government, as Jefferson stated, is the enemy of the People. That's the reason our Founders placed strict limitations on the central government. Again, according to Jefferson, we must bind the government with the chains of the Constitution so that the government does not become a legitimized version of a criminal. Various Founding Fathers warned that people in power are not to be trusted, and that government is but a necessary evil. What happened to our country?

One can speculate that as we became more prosperous (in general), we also became less vigilant and more apathetic in regard to government. During and after the Great Depression---brought on by the manipulations of the Fed Reserve System (to which they admitted recently)---most people began to see our government as the Great Nanny. Soon people expected the government to be the provide-all entity in our country. During and after WW II the government grew exponentially in size and power. The "Secret Government", as noted by Bill Moyers, became bolder and bolder. It wasn't long before our government was overthrowing democratically elected government leaders---e.g., in Iran, Chile, Guatemala, etc.---and lying to the American public, as well as the rest of the world. Our government became a behemoth...out of control.

We the People were not only less vigilant and more apathetic, but were feeling helpless as well. Even as government abuses became public, we felt there was little to nothing that could be done to correct the situation. Many recognized that it really didn't matter who was elected to high office, and so we lost interest in politics and didn't bother to vote. In 2004, King George was elected with only 26% of the eligible voters in the country---74% voted for Kerry or third party candidates, or didn't vote at all. With the Corporatocracy virtually running the country, it is completely understandable why about 50% of eligible voters do not vote.

It is probable that when the Corporatocracy brings about the defeat of Ron Paul's candidacy for President, lovers of our Constitutional Republic (which is long gone, but MUST be restored) will finally wake up to the fact that the answer to our many problems is NOT to be found in the ballot box. Only massive, wide-scale civil disobedience will be the beginning of the restoration of the Republic. In the meantime, we should BOYCOTT the Corporatocracy on a small scale whenever possible.

[EXAMPLE--- As this piece is being written there is an ongoing, national effort to boycott ONE oil company...the largest, Exxon-Mobil. Do not buy your gasoline at an Exxon station. If enough people follow through, see how fast they lower their prices; after all, something is better than nothing when it comes to company revenues. Then see how fast the other companies lower their prices in order to compete. It can be done, if only enough people follow through.]

We must reclaim our status as individual sovereigns, and we must re-recognize that such status carries responsibility. Admittedly, there are some things for which government is necessary--- national defense, an unbiased court system, regulation of interstate commerce, etc. But government is NOT our Nanny; we must take care of ourselves, our families, and our neighbors whenever possible. We must hold the central government to the strict limitations of the Constitution. If we don't, we deserve what we get.

Thursday, May 24, 2007

A Paradigm Shift in Politics

The word "paradigm" and the phrase "paradigm shift" should be reserved to the natural sciences (and excluded from the social sciences), according to the reknowned Thomas Kuhn--- author of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Despite that, the words have found their way into many disciplines; therefore, with apologies to Kuhn, we shall apply them to politics.

The old paradigm in politics---Conservative versus Liberal (not classical liberal) or Right versus Left [or even Republican versus Democrat]---is rapidly dying, or already dead. This notwithstanding popular opinion to the contrary. A new paradigm has been emerging for decades, and so, we are in a paradigm shift of monumental proportions and significance. The new paradigm is not easy to describe or comprehend, but we'll give it a try below.

This description is not meant to be all-encompassing or strictly definitive, but merely an overview of the situation. Nor is it meant to coin terms. For lack of established terms, let's refer to one group in the new paradigm as the Globalist Corporatocracy, or for simplicity, the Corporatocracy. It is comprised of elites in the banking field, the corporate landscape, and the Government (particularly the Fed Govt) who are loosely joined by mutual interests and goals. We shall refer to the other group---much more difficult to define---as the National Sovereignty-Individual Sovereignty-Populist folks, or for simplicity, the Sovereigns.

The Sovereigns, though comprised of dissimilar groups, have evolved into a broad political category largely because of a shared disappointment with Government. Even folks of the Progressive Left have begun to realize that they have common interests and goals with Conservatives (not Neoconservatives) and Libertarians when it comes to issues such as individual rights, and accountability in Government. Many Sovereigns undoubtedly still do not see completely that Government and Corporatism now have a perfect marriage in the U.S., but the opportunist Bush is making that lack of sight more and more a thing of the past.

Our current President (King George), who ran in 2000 on a platform with planks of a humble foreign policy and no nation-building, completely reversed himself once elected. Commentators may crow forever about how 9-11 changed everything, but elements of the Bush Administration had plans for more use of the military and for nation-building LONG before 9-11. We may thank the current Administration, however, for bringing together unlike groups of people who finally are beginning to see the outline of a Shadow Govt (the Corporatocracy).

The Corporatocracy continues to promote the old political paradigm (Right versus Left) because it makes the electorate easier to manipulate. Nowhere is this more evident than in the mainstream, Corporate Media---which appear to be dominated completely by the Corporatocracy. Edward R. Murrow's warning about the devolvement of (in particular) TV News shows into vehicles controlled by biased Corporatism certainly was right on the mark. The old "divide and conquer" strategy is blatantly obvious in Corporate Media's promotion of an outdated, dying political paradigm. Pitting one group against the other is a good way to keep the shadow government out of the light of exposure. [The premise is: our ills are not due to the Corporatocracy, but rather to the activities of the Right...or, those of the Left.]

In our opinion, the paradigm shift became readily apparent (though it existed previously) shortly after the 1964 Presidential election. Barry Goldwater (the Right) and Lyndon Johnson (the Left) had been through a volatile and heated campaign for the Presidency, and Johnson won in a landslide victory. There were many issues involved, but it eventually boiled down to this: Goldwater was portrayed as a "warmonger", and Johnson was portrayed as the "peace" candidate. Keep in mind that up until the election our involvement in Vietnam was relatively minor. We all know what happened: after being elected to office and sworn in as President, it didn't take Johnson long to begin an exponential escalation of the Vietnam "War" (it was officially known as the Vietnam Conflict, primarily because Congress had not declared war). The "peace" candidate of the Left became the "warmonger" of the Right, so to speak.

Johnson did not run for a second full term, so in 1968 it was Richard Nixon running against Hubert Humphrey. Humphrey definitely could be considered a Liberal, but Nixon---though he ran as one---was no Conservative. At best, Nixon was a Moderate. He ran vowing to end the increasingly unpopular Vietnam "War". We all know what happened: Nixon took office in January, 1969, and our involvement in Vietnam did not end until 1975. [Nixon was out of office by then, due to the Watergate scandal.]

The point of this bit of history is to illustrate that the influence of the Corporatocracy was becoming more and more apparent in the middle to late '60s, and into the '70s. The military-industrial complex made a ton of money because of the involvement of the U.S. in Vietnam. Johnson, the "peace" candidate in '64, most likely was influenced heavily by the military-industrial complex (a major part of the Corporatocracy) to expand the war. Same with Nixon, who had run on a platform of ending the war. The Corporatocracy won---it didn't matter whether a Republican or a Democrat was President.

Other moves by the Globalist Corporatocracy can be seen in my previous post, The Fed Government & the Corporatocracy. The ultimate goal is seamless global business, with the political governments of the world run by a Corporatist shadow government, all for the benefit of billionaires. In all fairness though, we should concede that a few members of the Corporatocracy (e.g., David Rockefeller) do have some altruistic goals---they actually believe that they can save the world (eliminate poverty, etc.) if only we eliminate the restraints of national sovereignty and have a one-world government run by business people (corporatists).

In order for the Sovereigns to be politically effective, they have to throw off completely the old Right-Left paradigm. Should that happen (and it probably will...eventually), a political force will emerge that is fully capable of defeating the Corporatocracy. Until then, we should expect less individual freedom, the virtual elimination of borders, almost zero accountability in government, and more war.

Tuesday, May 22, 2007

The Fed Government & the Corporatocracy

There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that our Govt virtually has been hijacked by the Corporatocracy. But unlike many people, I believe that it started decades ago...not just recently with the NeoCons. To me, it started in 1913 when bankers like Paul Warburg,, ramrodded the Fed Reserve Act through Congress at a time when most politicians were on vacation---Xmas-time, I think. At the same time, they knew that money would be necessary to pay interest on what would be a huge debt, so they also managed to push through the 16th Amendment. Bankers would receive some of those interest payments because they would "buy" some of the debt---in other words, they would loan money to the Govt. [The Supreme Court almost fouled up that plan with rulings (never reversed) stating that the word "incomes" in the 16th Amendment meant "gain from corp activity"; but that didn't stop the IRS from levying an income tax on was a "voluntary " tax---that part was buried in the Code & in very small print.]

Then there was WW I...a war in which we had no business whatsoever, but a war in which some folks made lots of money.

The next big move was in 1933 when Roosevelt declared a national "emergency" (due to the Depression) and outlawed the private possession of gold (except for jewelry). Roosevelt and others, according to many reports, also probably allowed Pearl Harbor to happen...much like certain NeoCons PROBABLY allowed 9-11 to order to get us into war. There are always big bucks to be made when we are at war. [People forget their history---the majority of Americans did not want to participate in either World War...they had to be sold on the idea in each case...and it wasn't an easy sell.]

Next, in 1940-something, the Govt pushed through the income tax withholding law, wrapping it in patriotism vis-a-vis WW II. [It was voluntary by the way.] In 1951 (or thereabouts), the Govt abrogated the Constitution by going to war with N. Korea without a Declaration of War and at the behest of the U.N., setting a dangerous precedent. Again, the military-industrial complex made big bucks.

In 1954, the Congress and the IRS finally removed the word "voluntary" from the Individual Income Tax Statute and Regulation, because by then everyone thought that taxes on wages were mandatory.

And on & on...right up to the present. Now don't anyone misinterpret what I'm saying here. I'm NOT saying that all just described was planned from the beginning in some giant master plan or conspiracy. Quite the each point in time, bankers and/or other corporatists and/or rogue elements of the Govt most likely simply recognized situations that could be subverted to their mutual benefit. They more or less just stumbled from one rip-off to the next. What they had (and have) is some sort of loose amalgamation...not a tight-knit organization. [I fully realize that some people think there's a giant conspiracy of "Illuminati" out there, and a Master Plan that goes way back in time. I've researched their claims, and I don't believe it. But, to each his own, as the saying goes.]

But there can be little doubt---each subverted situation benefitted part or all of this group: bankers, corporatists, and Elitists in other words, the rich and/or powerful...and they manipulated either events or the Fed Govt, or both, to get what they wanted. That's how the Corporatocracy operates---it is essentially a shadow govt "run" by nutcakes like David Rockefeller. [They view the rest of us as not much better than ants.]

Just my opinion.

Wednesday, May 16, 2007

Ron Paul Wins Again

The second Republican debate is over. Early poll results show that Dr. Paul again is the most popular candidate.

He was the only one to discuss CIA-generated "blowback" in relation to 9-11, and was right on target. The G-man (Giuliani) wanted him to take back his statement about the results of an interventionist foreign policy, but Paul stood firm. Paul asked how we would feel if China had military bases here. He pointed out that the '79 Iran hostage crisis was a direct result of us installing the Shah in the '50s [BY OVERTHROWING a democratically elected government].

Now watch the Corporate Media characterize Paul as some kind of nut. They can't ignore his popularity anymore, so they'll try a different tactic---smear him...and the ignorant Republican base will buy it.

The Corporatocracy simply will NOT allow him to get the Republican nomination.

Write-in Ron Paul in 2008.

Wednesday, May 9, 2007

Ron Paul vs. the Corporatocracy

Congressman Ron Paul, a Libertarian Republican from Texas, was the most popular candidate in the first Republican any measure. The post-debate MSNBC poll showed him to be head and shoulders above all other nine candidates, especially the so-called "front-runners". Dr. Paul, a long-time physician, made his position clear relative to limiting government and strictly adhering to the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land.

In the days since the debate, the Corporate Media (homogenized beyond belief) have continued the myth that McCain, Romney, and the G-man are the front-runners. Paul is being marginalized at best, ignored at worst. McCain and the G-man, according to the MSNBC poll (which had almost 80,000 participants, though not a "scientific" poll), both lost about half of their pre-debate popularity. Romney did a little better, but did not fare nearly as well as Paul.

The Corporatocracy has started its campaign to keep Ron Paul out of the minds of the voters. I believe that they will be successful. The Elites' influence is extending even to the internet. I saw three reports today that was blocking all postings having to do with Dr. Paul.

In the event that the corporate-government-banking cabal is successful in squashing Paul's nomination (and I believe that they will be), We the People who believe in a Constitutional Republic must respond by obtaining a paper ballot and writing-in Ron Paul for President in 2008. In most areas of the country now, a person can request a paper absentee ballot even if you are not going to be out-of-town on election day. Please do it.

In the meantime, whenever possible, boycott the Corporatocracy. The major TV networks (ABC, CBS, & NBC) already are concerned that according to their own studies, they recently have lost about 2.5 million viewers. Let's make that five million...or more. Commercial, network TV is 90% drivel anyway. Another possible boycott: there already is an email campaign to bring down gas prices by boycotting ONE company---Exxon-Mobil. Just buy your gasoline at another station. There are plenty of things that we can do...if we only would.

Write-in Ron Paul in 2008!

Boycott the Corporatocracy whenever possible!

Wednesday, May 2, 2007

Our Republic vs. the Corporatocracy

In a Constitutional Republic, the basic rules governing the Government are found in a written document...the Constitution. In our Republic, to change the basic rules requires two-thirds of both Houses of Congress plus approval of three-fourths of the States. The only other legal way to change the basic rules is to call a Constitutional Convention. That's one of the reasons that our form of government is not a Democracy---it takes more than a simple majority to change the basic rules that govern the supposedly servant Government.

Unfortunately, as I've illustrated in previous posts, Establishment politicians (influenced by billionaire corporatists) have abrogated our Constitution and passed laws in areas for which there is no delegation of power to the central Government by the Constitution. In other words, the Constitution is bypassed...and the laws are unconstitutional, that is, those laws which deal in areas for which there is no delegated Constitutional authority. This combination of politics and corporatism is the classic definition of Fascism. In plain language, billionaires buy the votes of politicians...often for the benefit of certain industries, but sometimes for altruistic reasons. Some members of the Corporatocracy (e.g., David Rockefeller) actually believe that they can save the world via Globalism. Our Constitution gets in the way---because it limits what the Fed Govt can do---so everyone simply ignores it.

The Courts are part of the Corporatocracy, so very few unconstitutional laws are ever struck down. The cost to a private citizen of challenging any particular law is generally prohibitive, so again, very few unconstitutional laws are challenged.

Some people ask how one can know if a law is unconstitutional or not. They assume that the issue is so complex that only attorneys, judges, and justices can make such a determination. They cite the fact that the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of constitutionality, so it must be extremely complicated. It is not complicated; 99.999999999999% of the Constitution is plainly written. The problem is that almost no American adults have bothered to study it, at least not since ninth grade American Government class.

The limits on the central Government are clear. Any power not stated, not delegated to the central Government, is reserved (by default) to the States by the Tenth Amendment. Thus, by simply reading the Constitution one can determine that the Fed Govt has absolutely no business whatsoever in (for example) the field of Education. The power to deal in that area is reserved to the States by the last item in the Bill of Rights. There is nothing complicated about it. The same applies to dozens and dozens of other areas---areas in which our central Government has no Constitutional authority, but has passed laws dealing with those areas anyway.

I personally know people who think there is nothing wrong with any of that. In fact, they plainly state that we no longer have a Republic---that the conversion to a Democracy has happened, and they are very pleased about the whole thing. Luckily, there are still folks like me who believe that the Republic should be restored...a lot of folks.

But how---how do we restore our Constitutional Republic...short of violent revolution? It will take time, effort, as much money as each can afford, and dedication. Two excellent starting points are found at: and .
Another excellent source is: (see left side of page).

If each of us does not do something, we have no one to blame but ourselves. In the past we were complacent, not vigilant. We allowed the Corporate Globalists to buy our politicians, and we kept electing the same Establishment politicos who most likely will never truly reform campaign financing and most likely will never vote in term limits. We believed that there were significant differences between Republicans and Democrats---there aren't. Except for a very few (e.g., Ron Paul), they are Elitists who are interested in nothing but getting re-elected. Kick the bums out!

Now is the time to stop being complacent. If we work long and hard, then we can restore our Republic; but it won't be easy. It will take education, and action in the form of civil disobedience. It will take dedication and patience.

If you want to start now, go to and sign the Petitions for Redress. Then sign up for email alerts, there and at . Get educated relative to the Income Tax, Jury Nullification, the Constitution, Federal Jurisdiction, etc. at . In short, take action---do something.

Saturday, April 28, 2007

Are You an Employee According to the Tax Code?

The definitions for "employee" are found in Title 26> Subtitle C> chapter 24> Section 3401. Confirm with the link provided below.

1. Employment Taxes (Subtitle C)

2. Collection of Taxes at the source on wages (Chapter 24)
TITLE 26 > Subtitle C > CHAPTER 24—COLLECTION OF INCOME TAX AT SOURCE ON WAGES§ 3401. Definitions§ 3402. Income tax collected at source§ 3403. Liability for tax§ 3404. Return and payment by governmental employer§ 3405. Special rules for pensions, annuities, and certain other deferred income§ 3406. Backup withholding[§§ 3451 to 3456. Repealed.]
3. 3401 (definitions)...

3401 (c) Employee
(c) Employee 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.

Are YOU an employee?


Wednesday, April 25, 2007

McCain...Just Another Statist

Today John McCain made his bid for the Presidency official by formally announcing that he will seek the office in the next national election. Why would anyone who believes in a Constitutional Republic support him?

It would be nice if Republican voters would realize at last that Republicans (in general) are simply a different side of the same Statist coin. The Republican Party recently has given us more Big Government and Big Spending by (among other things) creating the largest Executive Branch Department in our country's history (Homeland Security), and by generating monstrous budget deficits.

Once McCain lost the bitterly fought Presidential primary (in 2000) to King George, he became just another Party sycophant. His opposition to Bush melted away and he tagged along with the King like a whipped dog. It truly was sickening.

McCain is among the majority who believe that the Executive can put the country at war without a Congressional Declaration of War, merely a Congressional "resolution". That's not what the Constitution says. Those who believe that we should be able to go to war without a Declaration of War need to lobby for a Constitutional Amendment. But the Statists in both major parties won't do that---because they know that the Amendment would never pass. So instead, they simply bypass the Constitution. This has been going on ever since the Korean War, which by the way, was officially known as the Korean "Conflict"...just a sleazy way to make it appear to be Constitutional. The same was true of the Vietnam "Conflict".

I still remember McCain responding to a question about the Declaration of War issue from Jesse Jackson, Jr.---in a town hall type campaign meeting---by saying (paraphrased) something like, "That's not true [that we need a formal Declaration of War], it has been done several times in the past without a Declaration.". Unfortunately, Congressman Jackson did not follow up with something such as, "That doesn't make it Constitutional.".

The Republi-Crats (Republicans and Democrats) have abrogated the Constitution via Legislative Absolutism. In general, they are nothing more than professional, Establishment Statists who think that Big Government is a necessity; the only thing they really are interested in is getting re-elected.

What if they gave an election...and no one showed up?