Tag Archives: Social Security

Secession Once, Secession Now, Secession FOREVER! My 16 Petitions for Secession as of 1:25 AM on Tuesday, November 13, 2012—un tal dia martes trece….

Texas and Louisiana, as of the moment, are the first states to reach the 25,000 threshold number of signatures…. but other states will follow.   I support this movement, and all of these petitions, even though I know that as a practical matter the States are organically (and unconstitutionally) integrated into a single organic whole with the Federal Government.  And this is how it has been, at least since Social Security was adopted in 1937, as ratified and explained by the United States Supreme Court (as one big common trough or “slush fund”).  See Helvering v. Davis, 1937 (05-27-1937 Helvering v Davis 301 US 619 57 SCt 904 Jusice Cardozo endorses the SS Trust Fund Fraud & Charles C Steward Mach Co v Davis).

As I have written more than once, possibly more than one hundred times on this blog alone in fact, I feel strongly that Barack Hussein Obama and I do not belong in the same country.  11-13-2012 My 16 Secession Petitions | We the People: Your Voice in Our Government.  But I urge everyone to sign these petitions in every state in which they have any interest at all—it’s not like voting, you really can “Petition early and Petition Often” without violating any rules—-there are other states with Secession Petitions but I decided to sign only in those states into which I had at least set foot and spent at least one night during the past five years…. which excluded only Oregon, Indiana, and North Dakota from the list of states which have currently active secession petitions.  I should note that there are also counter-petitions to strip me (and everyone else who signed these petitions) of our citizenship and/or have us deported and/or exiled—like I said, there’s not room enough in this country for Barack Hussein Obama and me….he is not my President and he never has been.  

I discovered these petitions for secession reading:

http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/11/white-house-website-deluged-with-secession-petitions-from-19-states/ 

How would Old Glory look with 30 stars instead of 50? As far-fetched as it may sound, the White House might soon be forced by its own rules to examine the question.

On Nov.7, the day after President Barack Obama was re-elected, the White House’s website received a petition asking the administration to allow Louisiana to secede.

If 25,000 people sign the petition by Dec. 7, it will “require a response” from the Obama administration, according to published rules of the White House’s online “We the People” program.

The Louisiana petition has collected more than 12,300 signatures in four days. A separate effort from Texas has 15,400 supporters.

Similar petitions from 18 other states began arriving Nov. 9, bringing the total — for the moment — to 20.

The White House website publicly displays petitions that have attracted at least 150 signers. (RELATED: Obama petition initiative bashed as unethical campaigning with taxpayer resources)

“Michael E” from the New Orleans suburb of Slidell penned the initial proposal — the website doesn’t provide last names — in which he asked the Obama administration to “[p]eacefully grant the State of Louisiana to withdraw from the United States of America and create its own NEW government.”

His entire petition consisted of excerpts from the Declaration of Independence.

“Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,” one portion read, “that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and institute new Government.”

“Micah H” from Arlington, Texas submitted the petition on behalf of the Lone Star State.

“The US continues to suffer economic difficulties stemming from the federal government’s neglect to reform domestic and foreign spending,” he wrote.

Texas, he added, “maintains a balanced budget and is the 15th largest economy in the world,” making it “practically feasible for Texas to withdraw from the union.”

What began as a pair of parallel stunts appears to have gathered steam. Other than Louisiana and Texas, states with secession-related petitions pending on the White House website now include AlabamaArkansasColoradoFloridaGeorgiaIndianaKentuckyMichiganMississippiMissouriMontanaNew JerseyNew YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOregonSouth Carolina and Tennessee.

Three states — GeorgiaMissouri and South Carolina are each represented by two competing petitions.

While most of the petitions mimic the Louisiana effort’s tribute to the Declaration of Independence, Montana’s and Florida’s focus on the same quoted line from Benjamin Franklin: “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

And a few abandon the Founding Fathers entirely, going off instead on their own less poetic tangents.

“The Federal Government has imposed policies on Oregon that are not in Oregon’s best intrests [sic],” reads one submitted by “Kristopher W” of Tillamook, Oregon. ”[A]nd we as citizens would respectively and peacably [sic] seperate [sic] ourselves from a tyranical [sic] Government who cares nothing about creating a sustainable future for our children.”

“just like in 1860,” reads one of the two petitions submitted on behalf of the citizens of Georgia, “the south secede [sic] from the union.”

“kyle. r” from Cornelia, Georgia added only that in “2012 the state of georgia [sic] would like to withdraw from the USA.”

“Jason  B” from Harrowgate, Tennessee volunteered only a few words to describe his request for a license to secede. “Helping the people of Tennessee,” he wrote. And nothing more.

The petitions that followed those from Louisiana and Texas have attracted between 300 and 4,000. Their chances to land on a White House staffer’s desk, probably for a polite guffaw, will expire between Dec. 9 and Dec. 11.

The White House did not respond to emails seeking comment.

This article was updated shortly after publication to include a petition from Arkansas.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/11/white-house-website-deluged-with-secession-petitions-from-19-states/#ixzz2C5tFZD00
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/11/white-house-website-deluged-with-secession-petitions-from-19-states/#ixzz2C5sysKdU
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/11/white-house-website-deluged-with-secession-petitions-from-19-states/#ixzz2C5sn7tto

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/11/white-house-website-deluged-with-secession-petitions-from-19-states/#ixzz2C5sULCcB

This is clearly one of the most exciting (if probably totally meaningless and pointless) political protests in which I have had the opportunity to engage in many years.  And after writing all of the above I noticed that Ohio’s Petition is uniquely worded and distinctive (and I spent several nights in Ohio in December 2010, so I signed that Petition also, as well as Arizona, Michigan, Wyoming, and Oklahoma within which States I have traveled during the past five years, leaving out Kansas, Utah, and a couple of other late arrivals):

WE PETITION THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO:

Allow for the peaceful withdrawal of Ohio from the United States of America such that it becomes its own free nation.

Ohio became the 17th state admitted to the Union in 1803 and it presently has a population and economy larger than that of Switzerland.

John F Kennedy once stated “those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable” and in that spirit it is just and proper that the opportunity for peaceful political change be given to the citizens of the states.

It would be a crime against the people of any state to hold them, against their will, in a Union that they desire to leave.

Ohio can stand on its own as a free and independent nation, separate from the United States of America, while remaining on friendly terms with the United States of America.

Ohio’s right to leave the Union should be recognized and it should be allowed to peacefully withdraw from the USA.

Created: Nov 10, 2012
*****************************************************************
So, as of 2:05 AM, I have now signed 26 Petitions…. Let’s go, folks: it’s possibly one of the last chances we’ll ever have (now that Obama’s been elected) to exercise our First Amendment Right to Petition for Redress of Grievances: 11-13-2012 My 26 Petitions in Support of State Secession| We the People: Your Voice in Our Government
********************************************************************

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/nov/12/petitions-to-secede-are-filed-for-23-states-since-/

DENVER — It’s traditional for Americans to threaten to move to France or Canada when their candidate loses, but this year some disappointed voters are implementing a different plan.

In the wake of the Nov. 6 election, petitions seeking to secede from the union have been filed on behalf of 23 states on the White House website, https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petitions. Most of the petitions contain the same wording and ask to withdraw “peacefully” from the United States in order to form independent governments.

Critics describe the effort as a bit of an overreaction. “Anyone who wants their state to secede from the union is someone whose brain has already seceded from their body,” said John Andrews, director of the conservative Centennial Institute at Colorado Christian University.

Still, the White House may have to take the requests seriously. According to the website, any petition receiving 25,000 online “signatures” on the “We the People” page within 30 days of posting will receive a review by the appropriate executive department and a response from a White House staffer.

As of Monday, the Texas petition had already exceeded the 25,000-signature threshold, and the Louisiana petition was fast approaching the cutoff with more than 18,000 signatures. Most of the petitions were posted online Nov. 10, which means they have until Dec. 10 to qualify for a response.

It’s impossible to tell from the website who is behind the drive, given that those signing the petition only use their first names, last-name initials, and city and state of residence. The website does show that most petitions include the John Hancocks of signers from other states.

Steve Eichler, CEO of TeaParty.org, said his organization isn’t involved with the petition drive, but added that he wouldn’t be surprised if tea party advocates were at the root of it.

“We have not put out anything seceding from the United States, but the feedback we’re getting shows that people believe that their elected state leaders are more in tune with their needs than those of the federal government,” said Mr. Eichler.

He added that support for secession has cropped up in comments on the organization’s blogs. “People are feeling disenfranchised, they’re feeling a loss of voice, and they just don’t know what else to do,” he said.

Many of the petitions make their argument by quoting extensively from the Declaration of Independence, although some also add that the federal government has grown too large.

“The U.S. continues to suffer economic difficulties stemming from the federal government’s neglect to reform domestic and foreign spending,” says the Texas petition, which had more than 34,000 signatures as of Monday evening.

The Oregon petition argues that the federal government is guilty of an “abuse of power” by forcing “unconstitutional laws over [its] own citizens.”

Seth Masket, political science professor at the University of Denver, said the petitions may be a good way to blow off steam, but that they carry no legal weight.

“It’s hard to see this as anything other than sour grapes,” said Mr. Masket in an email. “These petitions have no legal power and no president would ever agree to them. It’s a way to register dissent with the way the majority of the country voted last week, but it’s little beyond that.”

Then again, said Mr. Eichler, the petitions could be the start of something big, such as the first call for a constitutional convention.

“I’m glad people can vent their frustrations, but what if it’s more than that?” he said. “What can we do to stop this encroachment into states’ rights? What are the tools? Well, there aren’t too many of them, but one of them is a constitutional convention.”

Petitions have been filed on behalf of the following states: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas.

Read more: Petitions to secede are filed for 23 states since election – Washington Times http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/nov/12/petitions-to-secede-are-filed-for-23-states-since-/?page=2#ixzz2C67H6S00
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Read more: Petitions to secede are filed for 23 states since election – Washington Times http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/nov/12/petitions-to-secede-are-filed-for-23-states-since-/#ixzz2C661n9KK
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

A New Red Dawn Over America—Obamacare & the Police Power in Arizona are Upheld—the Constitution again ruled DOA at the Supreme Court (full text of the Supreme Court’s Worst Two Decisions of the Week attached)

Chief Justice John Roberts is rapidly becoming my least favorite U.S. Supreme Court Justice in history.  First, in 2007, the debut innovation of “the Roberts Court” was Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, then a followup kick in the face of freedom under the name of Ashcroft v. Iqbal and now this week (on Monday, June 25, 2012) Arizona v. United States (Arizona v US) and, today Thursday, June 28, 2012, yet another day that will live in infamy: NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS et al. v. KAREN SEBELIUS, SECRETARY OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES (NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS et al v SEBELIUS SECRETARY OF HEALTH).

It’s been a really bad week for the Constitution and for the American people, and a very good day for  Obama’s flourishing Dictatorship of the Proletariat.  Oh yes, and what a nice present for Hillary Clinton as she celebrates lasting longer as U.S. Secretary of State than any other of the 96 individuals to hold that office—and we were all sure she was just a joke back in the early 1990s when she was pushing a National Health Care System which looked an awful lot like what we’ve got now with Obamacare.

First with regard to Arizona v. US: The expansion of the American Police State seems never-ending, as the late great Strom Thurmond’s States-Rights Democratic Party Platform very accurately predicted in 1948.   The great triumph of the Civil Rights Movement in the United States over the past 64 years is quite simply this: all oppressive acts of government, so long as they are applied equally to White people as well as Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and all others without Racial, and only with Economic and Political, Prejudice, will be upheld.  But try asserting any constitutional right other than your right to be on an equal footing with all other slaves, and man YOU ARE DEAD MEAT!!!!  States Rights got a minor boost last year when an individual right to sue under the Tenth Amendment was recognized, but this year the 162 year trend towards the complete suppression of State Sovereignty marches forward unabated….

The main issue regarding Arizona’s immigration statutes was whether the individual states of the Union have any right to make more restrictive laws regarding residence and citizenship than the United States as a whole.  Under the expressly anti-States’ Rights 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court said NO.  But, if the Arizona police want to go around harassing people on the highways, they are free to do so, so long as they are willing to say they suspect that every blonde-haired & blue-eyed caucasian must have recently entered illegally from Sweden or Norway perhaps….  The Supreme Court, these days, never seems to miss an opportunity to enhance the power of the police to oppress the population at large.

With regard to the “Obamacare” case, I can only say I’m NOT even as surprised by this result as I was not by the result in the Arizona immigration opinion.  Ever since Franklin D. Roosevelt gave up his plan to “pack” the Supreme Court, there is no infringement on the economic liberty and personal choices of the American people which the Supreme Court finds too trivial to be worthy of Federal Enforcement.  The only comment-worthy deviation from predictions was that Chief Justice John Roberts in this case came up with the novel notion that the U.S. government can tax anything and anyone it wants to for any reason, including non-compliance with a mandatory insurance purchase requirement, and that this punitive tax or purchase choice makes it all “OK.”

Of all the commentary and punditry that came out on Thursday after the decision, two of the most “spot on” that I saw were first) the article describing John Roberts’ “Liberal Apotheosis”:

After Thursday’s Obamacare ruling, Supreme Court Justice John Roberts became a minor deity to some liberals for voting to save Obamacare. But just days before Roberts’ apotheosis, liberals lamented that the “conservative” Supreme Court was taking America down a dangerous path.  (http://news.yahoo.com/obamacare-ruling-liberal-apotheosis-john-roberts-035207618.html)

The “Liberal Apotheosis” of John Roberts?  ”Apotheosis” of course, means transformation into a god—and what did the pagan gods of Olympia or Pharaonic Egypt do?  Exactly what any god can do:  A “god” can work Miracles,  first Make and then Bend the all Rules, Change the Natural Order of Things….   I suppose my own religious notions, such as they are, posit an unchanging God defined by the phrase from the old BCP: “as it was in the beginning, it is now and ever shall be, world without end amen” which seems curiously absent from most Episcopal services these days.   I equate God with Nature, and while I believe rather fervently in Evolution, I believe Evolution operates according to certain utterly unchanging rules, such as the laws of thermodynamics, which even the discovery of man’s ability intentionally to split or fuse atoms could never quite change.

And yet the Godlike role of the Supreme Court in making and bending rules seems more than a bit undemocratic.   So that is the second part of the analysis we need to perform today: Was Roberts’ decision to side with Obamacare entirely a matter of political strategy?

 The American Concept of Constitutional Judicial Review predates Chief Justice John Marshall. The Supreme Court’s decision Chisholm v. Georgia 2 U.S. 412 (February 1, 1793)(Chisholm v Georgia, 2 U.S. 419, February 1 1793triggered the (I would now say very unfortunate) move to enact the 11th Amendment during the First Term of the Presidency of George Washington.  But Chief Justice Marshall’s notions of judicial review shaped the Court, much to his cousin Thomas Jefferson’s dismay and disgust.   I recall hearing the story of Marbury v. Madison and judicial review in my Freshman year at Tulane, from Professor Jean Danielson in Political Science H103, where I met my long-time college years best friend John K. Naland, now a long-time veteran of the U.S. State Department.  Professor Danielson explained the political genius of Marbury v. Madison was that it empowered the Court while respecting the political boundaries of the time.  Chief Justice Marshall knew that, as President Adams’ last major appointee, any decision made in favor of the appointment of Adams’ minor “midnight judges” including William Marbury would simply be ignored by the new Democratic-Republican administration of Jefferson (with James Madison as secretary of state and the defendant in the case) as an act of political partisanship on the part of a Federalist appointee favoring Federalist appointees.  On the other hand, to uphold Secretary of State Madison’s power to refuse to honor the appointments made by President Adams would seem like craven capitulation without legal or moral integrity.  So, in a result which no one ever anticipated, Chief Justice John Marshall carefully reasoned and soundly declared the statute authorizing the appointment of Magistrates in the District of Columbia to be an unconstitutional act in excess of Congress’ power under the Constitution—and the role of the U.S. Supreme Court as Constitutional arbiter of the United States was established forever—or, at least, for a long time.

That particular “long time” ended in 1936, which, as a another commentator/pundit on the Obamacare decision pointed out, was the last time in history that the United States Supreme Court overturned a major piece of Congressional legislation as Unconstitutional.    Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s first term as President was unlike anything the United States had ever since, including George Washington’s First Term.   In Washington’s First Term, the constant debate in Congress was whether the Federal Government had power under the Constitution to do much of anything at all.  The spirit was decidedly “conservative” in the sense of cautious, even as a new nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal was being launched as a more formally organized “corporate” type of enterprise (the Articles of Confederation were much more analogous to a “partnership” among the States—with each partner having a nearly full veto power).

During FDR’s First Term, there were also many in Congress who asked whether the Federal Government had the power to do a great many of the things the New Deal proposed to do, from the NRA to the TVA (National Recovery Administration to the Tennessee Valley Authority).  But from 1933-1937, such questions were not asked in a cautious or even skeptical voice regarding what Congress and the Federal government could legitimately do, but in the desperate and panicked voice of people who saw and feared “you are taking our lives, our fortunes, our sacred honor” from us.  Those people sought recourse against the reckless usurpation of Federal Power in the Supreme Court, and in the years 1933-1937, the Supreme Court struck down 29 Congressionally passed statutes signed by the President as part of the New Deal.

Roosevelt’s first hundred days and all that followed provoked an unprecedented clash between the Supreme Court Justices and the “New Deal” alliance of the legislative and executive branches. At Roosevelt’s instigation, Congress in the 1930s enacted a series of laws ostensibly, supposed, aimed at ending the Great Depression and restoring the nation’s economic well-being, but in fact aimed at shoring up the American Elite, especially the Banking system, from the threat of a Communist and/or Fascist revolution analogous to those taking place in Europe at the same time.  Of eight major “program” statutes to come before the Court, only two were upheld. Laws that were struck down included the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933, the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933, and the Bituminous Coal Conservation Act of 1935.  The Court came under heavy fire for its decisions, and Roosevelt proposed a controversial plan to increase the size of the Court, presumably to ensure a majority sympathetic to the New Deal.

Shortly after the plan was proposed, the Court defused the issue by upholding a series of revised New Deal laws.  Dominated by economic conservatives, to which group even late 19th/early 20th Century “Progressives” such as Oliver Wendell Holmes were (by comparison, anyhow) the Court threw out numerous laws Congress enacted to protect workers and consumers. The conflicts peaked in 1936. The Court threw out twenty-nine laws during that period, but the last of these was in 1936, when when the court invalidated a federal law that limited work hours and prescribed minimum wages for coal workers.

Everything changed in 1937 when, FDR Proposed the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937 on March 9 of that year in one of his legendary “Fireside chats” whereby he jumped over the Congress and all Constitutional Separation of Powers and asked the American people directly to endorse and support his programs.  The public reaction was overwhelmingly negative, almost the first time the 33rd President had seen any of his initiatives draw such opposition.  But the Justices of the Supreme Court saw the writing on the wall—mene, mene, tekel upharsin—and when faced with the two major cases challenging Social Security (the ultimate authority and most direct antecedent for Obamacare), the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the most massive fraud ever perpetrated on the American people—the law creating a “Social Security Trust Fund” with the bribed cooperation of the States—into which Social Security Trust Fund not one dime of real money (certainly not one dime of the 14 Trillion dollars paid since 1937 in Social Security Taxes) has ever been paid.

Helvering v. Davis (05-27-1937 Helvering v Davis 301 US 619 57 SCt 904 Jusice Cardozo endorses the SS Trust Fund Fraud) and Steward Machine Company v. Davis (Charles C Steward Mach Co v Davis) thus effectively marked the end of the Supreme Court as an independent branch of government.  The new mantra was not “that government is best which governs least” but instead, “The concept of the general welfare is not a static one”…. “Needs that were narrow or parochial a century ago may be interwoven in our day with the well-being of the nation. What is critical or urgent changes with the times.”   (Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619, 641, 57 S.Ct. 904, 909, 81 L.Ed. 1307, 1315 [1937])

From that time forward Courts held that there appeared to be only four (all extra-constitutional) prerequisites to a finding that a spending clause measure and condition attached to it are valid: (1) The federal power is used for a legitimate national purpose, i.e., promotion of the general welfare (Charles C. Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548 at pp. 585–590, 57 S.Ct. at pp. 890–92 [1937], 81 L.Ed. at pp. 1290–1293); (2) the condition is related to a legitimate national goal (Charles C. Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, supra, at pp. 590–591, 57 S.Ct. at pp. 892–93, 81 L.Ed. at pp. 1292–1293; See also Note, Federal Grants and the Tenth Amendment: ‘Things As They Are’ and Fiscal Federalism (1981) 50 Fordham L.Rev. 130, 140–141); (3) the condition is related to the purpose of the federal funds whose receipt is conditioned (FCC v. League of Women Voters (1984) 468 U.S. 364, 104 S.Ct. 3106, 3132, 82 L.Ed.2d 278, 309 (Rehnquist, J. dissenting); State of Okl. v. Schweiker, 655 F.2d at pp. 407, 411); and (4) the condition is unambiguous (Pennhurst State School v. Halderman,  451 U.S. at p. 17, 101 S.Ct. at pp. 1539–40 [January 23, 1984])(Pennhurst State School And Hosp v Halderman).
It was in the spirit of such a “living constitution” that Chief Justice John Roberts allied himself with the enemies of limited government on June 28, 2012.  And it is in that sense, much like the Supreme Court in 1937, ruling in Roosevelt’s favor in both of the Social Security Cases, Helvering and Charles Steward above, that Chief Justice John Roberts “saved the Supreme Court” (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/power-players-abc-news/did-chief-justice-roberts-save-supreme-court-103301790.html).  More likely, Chief Justice John Roberts just danced on Chief Justice John Marshall’s grave and said, “You think that failure to follow the Constitution is Judicial Treason?  Well, let’s see what you’re going to do about it now.”  According to that same article, Chief Justice Roberts had told the Senate at his confirmation hearings:
“Judges are like umpires. Umpires don’t make the rules; they apply them,” said Roberts at the time. “The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules, but it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ballgame to see the umpire.”

Now, strangely enough, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote a very different kind of opinion in 1820:

The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid; but we cannot avoid them. All we can do is, to exercise our best judgment, and conscientiously to perform our duty.  Cohens v State of Virginia, 19 U.S. 264, 5 L.Ed. 257, 6 Wheaton 264 (March 3, 1820)

There is a great deal of confusion among the commentators and pundits, I think, about what “Judicial activism” really means.  I would NOT call Chief Justice John Marshall a Judicial Activist—although, indeed, he advocated throughout his 35 years on the bench a considerably more positive role for the Court in preserving the Constitution than Chief Justice John Roberts has shown to date.  ”Judicial Activism” does not mean “striking down unconstitutional laws”—”Judicial Activism” as a term should be reserved for reshaping or restructuring the laws in the absence of Congressional Authority to do so.  The “Warren Court” from 1953-1971 was the epitome of “judicial activism”—the Supreme Court during those two decades effectively rewrote the laws of the United States and told CONGRESS and the STATES what to do, rather than vice-versa.

In the case of Obamacare, Chief Justice John Roberts acts his role as an umpire very poorly.  He has seen the foul, called it (under the commerce clause) and “covered it up” under the guise of the taxing power, which (in reality) is even less constitutionally justified than the commerce clause rationale (which at least has the past 75 years of tradition—however illegitimate, behind it).

And so was the U.S. Constitution rewritten in 1937 to allow for first the “relatively” modest program of Social Security and now, 75 years later—on the occasion of the 75th Annual Hunger Games (cf. Suzanne Collins, Catching Fire [2009] and Mockingjay [2010], both New York: Scholastic Press)—Obamacare comes forward to cap the fraud by, in Chief Justice John Roberts’ view—a non-coercive, mere “Tax” on those who do not buy governmentally mandated insurance… and of course, jail for those who do not pay their taxes.

SO WHAT IS THE SHORT-TERM SOLUTION?  NULLIFY OBAMACARE!  I should say that, without any hesitation whatsoever, I absolutely endorse and support the Tenth Amendment Center’s position on Obamacare (this Los Angeles based think tank is just one of the brightest stars on the Political Horizon—of our New Red Dawn):

Now that the Supremes have crushed Constitutional limits once again, the next step is to focus all our energy on a state and local level to NULLIFY this – and every other – unconstitutional act.
We have model legislation for yor state.  Ready to go right now.  Press your state reps to introduce this bill today, or for the next legislative session.
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/legislation/federal-health-care-nullification-act/
Please SHARE this information widely!
*******
We need your help to continue this work, and help people take the next step at the state level.  Please join us, and help nullification happen!  Whether it’s $500 or $5, every bit of help right now is crucial!
Please visit this link to help now:
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/donate/
*******
Thomas Jefferson told us that when the government “assumes undelegated powers” a nullification is THE “rightful remedy”
James Madison said that states were “duty bound to interpose….to arrest the progress of evil”
Today’s ruling is an assumption of undelegated powers, and evil is advancing.  The time to act in support of nullification in your area is NOW!  Please share the model legislation for Obamacare with as many people as possible, and please chip in as generously as possible to help us push this campaign aggressively.
While the task is difficult, our cause is just.
Concordia res parvae crescunt,
(small thing grow great by concord)
Michael Bolding
Tenth Amendment Center
==================================================
Our mailing address is:
Tenth Amendment Center
123 S. Figueroa St
Suite 1614
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Our telephone:
213.935.0553

AND WHAT DO I DO AS I WATCH ALL THIS TRANSPIRE?

I sigh.  I cry.  And sometimes I just want to lie down and die.  This is not the land of my birth, even though on the map it generally looks like it should be the same country as it was in 1960.

The transformation over the past fifty two years is simply horrific.  52 years was a key cycle of time among the Aztec, Maya, Mixtec, Tarascans & Zapotec in ancient Mesoamerica, and I can only say that I feel a certain sympathy for how an Aztec born in 1518 might have felt looking at the wreckage of his once proud nation in 1570 after 52 years of Spanish conquest, rape and pillage.  Like an Aztec born in the last year before the arrival of the Spanish, I have grown up and come to age watching my own people (the American Middle Class, especially Protestants of European descent) reduced to second class status, my people’s most attractive and beautiful women taken as prizes by the conquerors, my nation’s heritage and values denigrated, suppressed and taught in the schools as nothing but “heresy” from the New World Order.

I do speak Spanish fairly well and have spent many of the happier moments in my life in Mexico and elsewhere in the Hispanic World, from Bogotá to Barcelona, and I keep in touch with many friends and acquaintances of a Constitutional mindset from those parts of the world.  When they ask me what I consider to be the greatest single constitutional development under the Presidency of Barack Hussein Obama, I tell them without hesitation: N.A.D.A.  (aka Senate Bill 1867, you know, the statute that effectively repealed the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments that passed the Senate 93-7 last December).

Why the “Birther” Movement is Irrelevant: Gingrich, Romney, & Santorum will all do the same as Obama! Only Ron Paul stands out, and either they have or are trying to bury him.

In late July of 2009, Steve Colbert interviewed Dr. Orly Taitz, D.D.S., Esq., in New York City on the Colbert report, and poked fun at her theory regarding Obama’s use of a deceased individual’s social security number, suggesting the use of this social security number (reassigned from the original owner’s name without leave of the Commissioner of Social Security) could mean that Obama was really a disguised “Connecticut Vampire” almost 110 years old.  At dinner after taping the interview, Orly and I agreed that Obama was almost surely a vampire, but whether an undead revenant or not, he was certainly not from Connecticut…  But of course, the truth is, it simply does not matter where Obama was from.  What matter’s is where he is and what he’s doing: Obama is carrying on with George W. Bush’s policies (which were also Clinton’s and Daddy Bush 41st’s policies, and sadly, sorrowfully, Ronald Reagan’s policies as well) of sinking the United States deeper and deeper into Soviet Socialist Communism.  I confess that’s a pretty sore indictment of the past 32 years of American Politics, but I also confess that I am pretty sore about it. The reason for this soreness is that my indictment actually extends back over what successive generations of my family have been fighting and dealing with directly or indirectly for the past 150 years of American Politics.  

The Centralized Statist (originally monarchist, later Socialist) descendants of Alexander Hamilton and Abraham Lincoln have added on increasingly serious counts of treason at intervals in 1913, 1916-19, and 1933-37, 1953-57, 1963-8, and 1971-4….(never mind 1992-3, 1995-1996, 2001-2003, 2007, 2011).  Quite simply, the United States Ship of State is sinking, and no salvage in Admiralty is likely, despite the wilder fantasies of some of my brethren in the so-called Patriot movement.

The “Birther” Movement, of which I was for six strange months in 2009 an extremely active member, misses the mark: the President of the United States is merely a figurehead. The President is no more the Constitutional Administrator of a small and limited Federal Government (on the model of the Country as it was for most of the 72 years from George Washington-James Buchanan) than the Queen of England is the de facto chief executive of England. But neither is the President actually the Dictator, Chairman, or Imam of the United States: the President of the United States acts and serves as  the mouthpiece for the Federal Reserve Banking System, which with the IRS and the Social Security System constitutes the “legislative branch” of the three part government.  The Federal Reserve (although it has both judicial and executive powers), effectively “makes the rules” for the rest of the government.  The IRS is the Executive Branch (policing compliance and conformity with unwritten laws) and the Social Security System exercises a quasi-judicial function of “dolling out welfare and benefits” to the population at large. 

All of this is  ”just fine” by Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, and Rick Santorum, the first three winners of the Republican Presidential Primary System.  They are do nothing, know nothing stooges.  Only Ron Paul has an iota of integrity against this nightmare.

During the seven year period November 18, 1956 through August 24, 1963, Nikita Kruschchev repeatedly paraphrased Karl Marx in sayng, “We will Bury You” (to the West)(The actual quote from the Communist Manifesto of 1848 is: “What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable“.

Now no one has actually quoted the line Nikita Kruschchev repeated so often to Paul.  In effect, the other three Republicans, acting as well as three expensive three-piece business-suit wearingCommunist Undertakers for Capitalism can possibly do, have agreed among themselves and told the Congressman from Texas, “We will bury you.”  And the mainstream media has joined shovels with the extremely well-funded Central Bank sponsored Proletariats in this regard.  

Now that South Carolina, once the most reliably conservative, anti-centralist state in the Union, has been manipulated to cast its lot for Gingrich…. Ron Paul’s supporters are very sounding very unhappy:

GINGRICH SUCCESS MEANS TEA PARTY SURRENDER

The Tea Party originally stood for one simple but important message: Stop Spending. For Tea Partiers, TARP was the litmus test and any Republican who supported it faced the wrath of the movement.

Tea Party support for Newt Gingrich is as mind-boggling as it is depressing. Gingrich stands for everything the Tea Party was against: TARP, bank bailouts, healthcare mandates, cap-and-trade, you name it.

If the Tea Party abandons its “Stop Spending” message it becomes just another part of the Republican Party, the movement loses its original independence and simply morphs back into the GOP machine–something both right and left critics always said would happen. Sen. Lindsey Graham bragged in 2010 that the Tea Party would “die out” because it had “no governing vision.” I argued that as long as the Tea Party stood firmly against spending it would remain an indomitable force in American politics.

Is Graham now being proven right?

Ron Paul wants to cut $1 trillion his first year in office. Newt Gingrich calls Paul’s plan too extreme and a “non-starter.” The choice for any serious Tea Party member is clear.

But that it is not clear for many represents the first signs that the Tea Party might be waning. One need not necessarily support Ron Paul to be a Tea Partier. But supporting Newt Gingrich negates the entire point of even having a Tea Party.

American politics before the Tea Party was mostly a popularity contest. The Tea Party  was supposed to represent something more substantive. Gingrich is a good speaker which makes him popular. But the same is true of Barack Obama. The devilish aspects of charming candidates always lies in the details. This is especially true of Newt Gingrich.

The moment Tea Partiers decide they are no longer concerned with such details, they surrender their movement.

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2012/01/21/gingrich-success-means-tea-party-surrender/

The mythology of the Imperial President, “King of the World” is deadly and all-pervasive.  It is also a very destructive charade. I started to write this piece a couple of nights ago when I first published Montgomery Blair Sibley’s plan to run as a write-in candidate for President in the District of Columbia so that he would have “candidate” standing to sue in Quo Warranto regarding the qualifications of Barack Hussein Obama to run for reelection.  Because it is always more interesting to discuss what one might agree with a candidate about than what everyone would disagree about, I chose to wait, and so when first writing about Sibley, I addressed his (very sound and correct, if extravagant SOUNDING) proposal to increase the membership of the House of Representation from 435-10,000.  But today’s results in South Carolina (January 21, 2012), with “Hard Labor Prison Planet Advocate” Newt Gingrich coming in first ahead of “I am the People’s Republic of Massachusetts” Mitt Romney and “I’m a nearly braindead Neocon who supports the War on Terror and Arbitrary Arrest, but in addition I support Federal Censorship, Thought Police and Direct Federal Control over the Content of Your Children’s Biology Education but I support Israel Unquestioningly” Santorum was profoundly depressing.  Those primary results from the heart of Dixie, the very soul of nullificationist and secessionist  States Rights from Andrew Jackson’s Vice-President and later Senator John Caldwell Calhoun (1782-1850) right up through the death of the late Senator Strom Thurmond (1902-2003), made it imperative that I write and say this emphatically: THE PRESIDENCY OF THE UNITED STATES IS IRRELEVANT WINDOW DRESSING—IT IS A COVER, IT IS MERELY A MASQUE, ALTHOUGH NOT QUITE SO OBVIOUSLY SO AS THE GUY FAWKES’ MASK THAT SERVES AS THE INITIAL ICON OF THIS BLOG.  We need to spend MUCH less time thinking about who will be President and much MORE time thinking about who will be in the Congress and the Senate.  These offices and races are the HEART of the Constitutional, Democratic-Republican plan, and yet they are all but written off by radical activists such as Montgomery Blair Sibley who might actually have a shot at being elected in a local or State-wide race.  The media, of course, conspires in this—as if the President were really a God and the White House were really a Pharaoh (etymologically the word Pharaoh or “pr-aa” was a royal title meaning “God House” to the ancient Egyptians of the New Kingdom).

I would urge all who really want change to FORGET ABOUT THE PRESIDENCY and start thinking about how to restore GENUINE Constitutional Democratic-Republican government in the United States.

For Family, Home, and Freedom: Restoration of Civil Liberties, Restoration of Honor in Government, Abolition of AEDPA and the PATRIOT ACT, and Social Security Reform by Restoration of the Common Law of Trusts all go Hand-in-Hand

‎”The former House speaker, who has risen in the polls, would allow younger workers to take their share of the payroll tax that funds Social Security and put it in a private account.” That’s okay. If their investments tank, he also supports euthanizing elderly people who are homeless–or at least denying them any medical care for which someone else would have to pay.

Note how DESPERATELY ironic it is that ANYONE would consider Newt Gingrich a “Conservative”.   Euthanasia of the elderly (and “antisocially” uncooperative) was supported from the earliest days of Fabian Socialism by no less renowned celebrities of the turn of the last (19th-20th) Century than George Bernard Shaw, who predicted that if “people refused to live a good life, they would be painlessly put to death” in a Fabian Socialist world—later enshrined in what Aldous Huxley called the “Brave New World”—at some future date “in the Year of Our Ford.”   Real conservatives would never support euthanasia as a matter of social policy, or deny the right of any individual to make choices for him or herself.  Real Conservatives believe in Freedom as the Highest Value, but Newt Gingrich is no Conservative, no Patriot, and No American:

In fact, Newt Gingrich deserves the hatred and disdain of all Americans who value the Constitution and especially due process of law for his role in bringing about the 1996 legislation known as the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, which effectively abolished the writ of Habeas Corpus in the United States. The Constitution says Habeas Corpus will never be suspended, but it’s now almost neutered, nugatory, non-existent. Of course, what’s interesting is that his proposals were part of Newt’s famous campaign “Contract with America” (sometimes called the “Contract on America”) 1994 BEFORE the April 1995 bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal Building. If you’re of a suspicious mind, you could even imagine that they (the Feds) planned the bombing so that they would have an excuse to enact the 1996 restrictions on Freedom. But the public reaction was insufficient. They (I mean, of course, Bin Laden) had to pull off 9-11 before the Patriot Act could go into law five years later—but it was ALL part of Newt Gingrich’s original proposal. “Eye of Newt and Toe of Frog, Ear of Bat and Wool of Dog”—I’d Say Gingrich has them all, and yes, I think he’s an evil Wizard who would conjure up more evil as President than we can begin to imagine……

So far as Social Security is concerned, I have an alternative proposal where “right meets left” I think: Maintain government management of Social Security but subject government management to the Common Law. That would mean that the government would actually KEEP its promise to create Social Security Trust fund for each individual, and would manage it as a matter of fiduciary responsibility under the traditional law of Trusts & Estates. This would be real, this would be honest, and it would be guaranteed. And if it fails, there would be direct consequences to the managers (namely the six members of the Social Security Administrators, who act as Trustees over a fictitious and unfunded trust right now, subjecting them to liability for fraud even before accounting).  http://charleslincoln3.wordpress.com/2011/08/18/further-thoughts-on-the-public-debt-clause-and-social-security-a-major-lawsuit-based-on-14th-amendment-waiver-of-immunity/

Real Conservatives, Real Patriots, Real Americans believe in keeping promises and honoring the commitments made by the government as TRUSTEE FOR THE PEOPLE.  It is a sacred duty and a sacred commitment which cannot be broken.

If elected to the United States Senate, I would push forward such a lawsuit on behalf of the people of California against the United States Government.  Every Senator and Congressman who did not join me in this lawsuit would have to explain why.   I think that, given the standing of a Senator from the Largest state, the Social Security Trust Fund would have to be reformed  and subjected to the common law of trust, and Social Security would be fully funded for the first time in history, as a result of the (finally) politically feasible disgorgement of 75 years of misuse and government abuse in alliance with the major corporations.  And at the same time, the government-corporate alliance would be crippled.  And for that, the people of the United States would have something seriously to be thankful for.

If you would like to help the fight for “corny old values” like Truth, Justice, and the American Way, for Family, Home, and Freedom, and to add one Senator for the Bill of Rights and against Indefinite Detention, against the PATRIOT ACT, and against the use of United States Troops in this Country against its own citizens, please support Charles Edward Lincoln, III, for U.S. Senator from California.  We are fighting one of the most entrenched establishment seats in Congress—Dianne Feinstein who tried to make cosmetic changes to Senate Bill 1867 to try to hide or disguise the grim, vicious reality—and we ask you to send your check or money order to Lincoln-for-Senate 2012 to Charles Edward Lincoln, III, 952 Gayley Avenue, #143, Los Angeles, California 90024.  Call 310-773-6023 for more information.

Who knows corruption and oppression in America best? The victims all know….. And yes, I am one….

Why should you vote for a convicted felon?  Because you could be the next victim of injustice—and if you’re not, some relative or neighbor of yours probably is the next.  The government has set out to reduce us all to shame and compliance through a horrendous code which has already imprisoned/restricted the liberty of 3% of the population—that means that just under 1 in every 30 people, nationwide.

Some people may wonder why I am considering a run for U.S. Senate when I am a disbarred lawyer and “convicted felon.”  I find it hilarious that my detractors like to call me a “convicted felon.” It’s just so inglorious to call me a “convicted one-time misstater of his social security for no readily ascertainable reason. I am a convicted “Enemy of the State,” and damned proud of it, because “Everybody know that the system’s rotten.”

My opponents will probably get a kick out of circulating my Federal Prison system ID and mug shots I’m sure, once the campaign really starts (my Federal Prison ID number was already published somewhere on line—and not be me, either…and those who enjoy discussing my “crime” of a misstated social security number have repeatedly published my social security number INcorrectly—which you’ve got to admit is kind of funny).

But as I’ve said and written many times, I wear them all as “Red Badges of Courage.” These pictures are wounds which show nothing more than that I have deeply disturbed the powers that be so much that they feel they MUST make me into a criminal, because to allow me to stand, free and respectable, would make them all look so much less so.  To the population at large I’ll tell you: you NEED to contribute to and vote for this convicted Felon and Disbarred Lawyer because he is one of the few with the knowledge and perspective to really dismantle the corrupt system and start to make YOU free or at least free-ER and less shackled and manacled. You are all shackled and manacled in this land of false-freedom, lame-liberty, and conscience-free semi-consciousness in front of the TV.

We need to restore freedom.

We need to simplify society and restore the right of individuals to structure their own relationships with each other, and the reduce the power of government by, among other things, dismantling the unnatural infrastructures which only government can maintain, and which all depend on communistic theft and wealth redistribution, which ultimately makes us all so much poorer.   So yes, what this country needs is more convicted felons (convicted, in essence, of breathing air—or dust at the worst), all frankly, ALL lawyers, the very practice of law itself, MUST BE DISBARRED and all the practitioners set truly free, as I have been for the last nine-eleven years, to form my own opinions and come to my own conclusions, free from the oppression of Bar Committees and Judges.

So, if you’ve never been arrested, never seen any Federal or State jail, penitentiary, or “correctional facility” from the inside, you may consider yourself lucky, or worse, you may consider yourself a “really good, law-abiding citizen.”

But I would beg to differ with you.

In fact, I think you are deprived and lack information necessary to see the world as it really is: you know only what a cave looks like in electric lights, and not what one looks like in torchlight, starlight coming through an open cliffside entrance, or, indeed, no light at all.  And not to know a cave in total darkness is simply not to know the reality of a cave.

For my part, I think it is the not merely the birthright but the duty of every American to see and understand how the least fortunate in society are treated.   Only there in prison, not just watching the men and women chained together in rows but being one of them, can one really see into the heart of darkness of this bright land of the free.  I submit that no one should criticize Nazi Germany, the Soviet Gulag, or the massive slaughters of Maoist and Pol-Pot’s versions of Oriental Despotism until s/he is aware of what it feels like to live even for a short while incarcerated, surrounded by those men and women of sorrows who are hated, rejected, despised and intimately acquainted with grief.  To live all one’s life in a comfortable middle-class cocoon is hardly to live at all.  It is good and worthwhile to see up close and understand the depraved sadism of White American young and middle-aged male and female prison guards, how much pleasure they take in herding and taunting formerly free men and women like cattle, feeding them like pigs, sheering them like sheep of all outward trappings of dignity.

Ask yourself what normal person would want the job of a “Correctional Services Officer,” but also ask yourself what person could remain normal and decent while serving as a “Correctional Services Officer.”  As is so frequently advertised on late night Television—the “Correctional Services Industry” is one of the fastest growing fields and opportunities for employment in America—”Help Keep the Prison Planet Safe”—I am inclined to wonder whether the Russian Press is right that Dominique Strauss-Kahn was arrested, framed for rape, because of the revelations he planned to make about the American Financial System.  

Once you have reflected on these points, you will understand how Auschwitz and Treblinka were built, staffed, and maintained by the German people, born in one of the two or three most civilized nations in the world, who had grown up listening to Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart, reading Goethe & Schiller, and Nietzche and Schopenhauer.

How much easier will it be for today’s generation raised on grunge or punk (at the best) or rap (the currently universal lowest common denominator) to imprison their fellow man?   The cultural degradation of America means to me that we will soon care nothing at all for our fellow human beings, and will treat them worse than the Nazis, more in tune with the Soviet gulags and Chinese/Cambodian mass slaughters.

In state penal systems, the worst treated are the sex-offenders, alleged and real, who are the real bearers of the ultimate stigmata our courts have the power to inflict, worse than murderers, worse than bombers, sex-offenders, in or out of prison, are a category or prisoners unto themselves. They are feared and shunned even by other inmates.

In the federal “correctional” system, the worst treated are the illegal immigrants. These are honest, hardworking people from foreign lands, lured by greedy employers on this side of the border who CONSTANTLY open their doors and wallets to the illegals, and the illegal immigrants are all shuttled around on busses and on “Con-Air” and, like the sex offenders, bullied by otherwise unemployable, middle-aged guards while shackled and manacled, stigmatized for life by their offenses.

How much I loathe the state and federal penal systems in America, and the lawyers, judges, and “justice” systems, filling them with populations larger than the original population of the 13 colonies, I can never say.  And yet I am so grateful to God Almighty and indeed to U.S. District Judges Lynn N. Hughes and Janis Graham Jack as well. I am so happy that I have spent two months behind bars, so that I can speak for America’s victims of injustice from personal experience, and understand the dehumanization and filth of even the most “sanitary” federal facilities.  Otherwise I never would have known about the clinical cold of the stale air conditioned air meant to depress minds and souls and simulate death, the mind washing drill of telling people that they have no rights, only privileges, while supposedly creating a more “healthful” environment (socially and biologically).

V-for-Vendetta as a movie is emblematic of my life: like the prisoner from Cell V, and also like Madame Terese Defarge in Tale of Two Cities, I count the days and treasure the memories of those who have oppressed me until the revolution will tear down all our hundreds and thousands of crowded, modern-day “Bastilles” and “relocation camps.”

The Obama Administration was elected in part to fulfill the American Dream of true racial equality, but the reality is that the jails remain disproportionately filled with people of color, and Obama has done nothing to restore the freedom of “his” people.  I am not Black or Hispanic, but I would fight for genuine penal reform, repeal of most of the Federal Criminal Code in fact, and define “the general welfare” as something better than a choice between government handouts to the unemployed, membership in the Army to destroy freedom abroad in the name of safety here at home, and incarceration for so many good business entrepreneurs who had the drive or incentive to make their own way in the world.

I am inspired to write today by reviewing the sanctimonious texts written about me on one particularly “Foggy” newsgroup dedicated to supporting and exonerating the Obama regime.   The contributors to this group are silly, all too comfortable, middle-class professionals and a few Foggy-bottom-feeding scum-suckers they collect around them.  Among the latter there is a former ungrateful homeless tenant and single mother for whom I did way too much and from whom I got absolutely nothing in return except grief.

The bowmen in the fog are indeed the detested Pharisees and Sadducees of modern times.  They who aim and show their poison-tipped darts are rare hypocrites and self-satisfied soulless creatures, who enjoy the comfort of their government or corporate jobs and pensions and care nothing for the past or future of America or the world.

I am so happy that I know first hand, coast-to-coast, what their reality is.  They are the lawyers and government employees who love the Federal Reserve System more than life itself, and who revel in the “Brave New World” ethics of “truth” generated by internet diffusion and apparent but unreal numbers.  They do not appear in their own names because they do not dare, but behind childish “avatars” and untraceable e-mail handles (unless one knows them, as I know that former tenant and single mother from Florida).

The Victims of Foreclosure and Eviction know that America is in the midst of a Purge—destroying the Middle Class, and selling our homes and lands to foreigners by the thousands.  The Victims of Foreclosure and Eviction probably do not all realize that they were selected for this purge by their own government—by the Democrats and Republicans in Congress who favored easy credit and soft money—and that none are worse offenders than Senator Dianne Feinstein.  The Senate hearings on the mortgage crisis focused on whether the banks could escape the consequences of “robo-signing” forgery and proceed with foreclosures efficiently and expeditiously—the two major parties include few if any friends of the people, and all too many friends of Chinese investors in American realty.

But what of the millions of homeless people, in America, the inhabitants of the tent cities and “Extended Stay” hotels, uprooted by foreclosures and eviction?  They are in the extreme opposite of a jail. They are truly free, no longer shackled down by mortgages or rents or anything else.  Among their numbers are those men and women destroyed by divorce and child custody battles, destroyed by the declining income of the American population, impoverished by a dollar cheapened and weakened, oh yes, by the moneychangers, the international bankers, the finance experts and gurus, including their lawyers and the layers on layers of insanely oppressive laws and regulations which have made it cheaper and safer just to say “no” to doing business in America.

The bows in the foggy roads to socialism and dictatorship in America are many and varied, but they come down to a few key routes: (1) the destruction of the world financial system by socially engineering economists and business-strategists and lawyers, (2) the destruction of the Anglo-American legal system by those elite lawyers and judges at all levels of the State, Federal, and local judiciary, (3) the social-welfare/wealth redistribution system based on the triangulation of the Federal Reserve Banks, the Internal Revenue Service, and Social Security, and all the derivative Welfare Programs authorized under Title 42 and elsewhere in the U.S. Code.

The first key routes to destruction are pretty obvious.  I started my post-JD life working for Cadwalader, Wickersham, & Taft, and I am almost as proud of how poorly I fit into that New York hellhole of a lawfirm, with its exquisitely shiny, constantly polished marble floors, hardwood desks, embossed stationary, and managing partners whose incomes exceed the GNP of many third-world countries. With the prison-like imposition of uniform styles of dress on employees, even though the cost of dressing up to CWT standards on a weekly basis cost several times the annual Federal subsidy paid for state prisoners on a yearly basis.

“Legal education and the reproduction of the hierarchy” was the subject and theme of Duncan Kennedy’s “Little Red Book” of 25 years ago at Harvard, and it’s a marvelous read on the reality of the legal profession for anyone who doesn’t know it.  Kennedy hints at the futility of waging any virtuous wars through the legal system.  And that was BEFORE the Federal Judicial improvement acts imposed all those negative “case statistic” incentives on judges to dismiss cases and lower case loads as a major policy priority.

But the third branch of the road to socialism is the real highway, and the Federal and State government programs of taxation and welfare benefits are only part of the picture.  To really understand the evils of “welfare” we need to look at the imposition of government “benefits” such as compulsory marriage licensing, divorce, and child protection services, as well as compulsory education, compulsory driver’s licenses, and mandatory bar integration.   The government really and truly seeks to extend its tentacles into every aspect of our lives.  The government must be stopped.

Sometimes it does require the expertise of those who have been victimized by the law to become the most effective advocates and instruments of changing the law.  I am such a person.  And besides. How can I help but do well in California?   This Golden State of beautiful people which exalts everything fake, that (incredibly) just managed to survive 7.5 years under the governorship of Frederic Austerlitz’ Austrian-born compatriot Arnold Schwarzenegger, and maybe they’re ready for someone who’s actually experienced the pain of a genuinely uncharmed life.   I consider myself really and sincerely beautiful, all 272 balding, out-of-shape pounds of me.  As Oliver Cromwell said, “paint me as I am, warts and all.”  When I was first hospitalized for tachycardia in October 2006, I told my assistant, “I’m too beautiful to die” and damned if I wasn’t right—I absolutely, positively was just too beautiful to die.  I could have died 6 years before that in Egypt, or, for that matter, two months before that in a terrible car wreck by the Suwanee River near Live Oak, Florida, or one of several other occasions I can think of, but every single time I survived.   To what purpose?  Maybe, just maybe, it was to show all the people with foggy intelligence who shoot their bows with poison darts at me that my authenticity can win, and that virtue is not just about pretending to be honest and beautiful, but of having an inward and spiritual grace which belies one’s outward and visible state.

If elected to the United States Senate I would conduct filibusters, be involved in 99-1 votes, and the news that someone like me was elected might just depress the Dow Jones Industrial Average.  That would be a good thing, because there is nothing more false than the notion that stock prices have anything to do with real productivity or prosperity. But whenever the powers that be line up against someone, threaten to shut down everything if a certain candidate is elected, you have to imagine that candidate has touched a raw nerve somewhere.

To elect someone like me would be good for the Hispanics of California and the United States because I am not only fluent in Spanish and steeped in their heritage and culture, but I have suffered by and chained to their brothers, sisters, cousins, and uncles who have been persecuted for their status as illegal immigrants, seeking neither more nor less than Frederic Austerlitz’ parents came here from the Austro-Hungarian empire to find in Nebraska or than Arnold Schwarzenegger came from post WWII Austria to find.  Those are two American movie-star icons, but their parents are indistinguishable socially and economically from the Hispanic masses who continue to be chained and oppressed in these United States, even in Texas where Ernesto de Zavala co-wrote and signed the Texas Declaration of Independence from Mexico in 1836, and served as the new “Anglo-Saxon” Republic’s First Vice-President.

Moreover, I understand the Native American as well as the Hispanic roots of “Mexican,” Central American, and South American “Hispanic” culture(s), and I would fight for the recognition of “Mexican Indians” as Native Americans entitled to all of the benefits afforded by the Constitution to Native Americans inside the United States.  I would fight for their right to the recognition of their separate and distinct cultural heritage and identity.  In fact, I would fight for the right of all peoples to their separate and distinct heritages and identities, because “one size does not fit all” either in the educational, judicial, or political systems.  True equality means and must always mean the freedom to be who you really are and not shrived of your identity.

To elect someone like me would be good for the African-American citizens of California for all the same reasons.  I have seen and shared the degradation of so many of their relatives in state and federal prison, and know that while Hispanics are famously imprisoned in massive numbers for their status as “repeat” illegal aliens, blacks have, in the past fifty years, been more the victims of the insane “War on Drugs” than any other group (Hispanics are a close second).

I know that Blacks and Hispanics both need courts where they can really and truly be assured of full and fair justice by judges and juries of their peers, and that the present system does not provide them with such courts.   As a United States Senator I would fight for the rights of all ethnic groups to maintain their identity while enjoying full equality by equal protection of the law, including equality of rights to preserve and develop their distinct and separate cultural identities by allowing legal communities to develop distinctive and culturally adjusted laws within our multi-cultural “umbrella” of American political society.   To the same degree that globalists would erase all boundaries of cultural differentiation and identity, I would fight to allow each people to maintain and preserve their identities for themselves.

To elect someone like me would for all these same reasons be good for the Jews and Armenians, Chinese, Cambodians, and Vietnamese, who have been the victims of long genocidal wars in the 20th century, and major wars of repression.  No candidate, certainly not Senator Diane Feinstein, realizes the incredible degree to which America Under the Patriot Act (and related portions of AEDPA and FISA) resembles the totalitarian dictatorships of Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, Maoist China, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, and Vietnam under several regimes, or how much of the equipment of mass roundups and deportation of populations assembled in modern America today resembles the technology of genocide inflicted upon the Armenians of Turkey in the first genocide of the 20th century or against the Jews of Central Europe during the most famous genocide in all history.

Truly it can be said that Earl Warren, as planner of the Nisei Camps, was the Adolph Eichman of the United States, and that his cynical, racially biased implementation and application of civil rights laws was to divide, conquer, and disperse the population of America during the 1950s and 60s. The resulting America is one in which civil rights have been reduced to almost nothing, where Federal Courts repeatedly affirm that so long as all people in this Country have the same rights as white people, it doesn’t matter how severely freedom is suppressed.

This ridiculous conclusion to 150 years of civil rights legislation remains on the books today and is large part of the reason why foreclosed homeowners cannot seek adequate relief or redeem their properties by litigation under 28 U.S.C. 1443 or 42 USC 1981-1982.  Civil Rights law should be entirely color blind, but groups should have the right to defend and protect their own customs, heritage, and rights.

And this is the final reason why the (former majority, of which I am a member) White Anglo-Saxon, Northern, Eastern, Southern and Continental European Californians would benefit from my election.  I would fight to abolish all inverse discrimination against White people in this Country.  I would fight to establish true equality under the laws, recognizing the protected equality and forced assimilation are by no means the same things.   In short, I would be good for all Californians except the Foggy Bottom Poison Dart Bow Shooting fat cats, who love the status quo because it is so easy to manipulate and maintain, and so comfortable with all their precious governmental and corporate BENEFITS…. including the right to look down on others who do not agree with them and seek to deprive the true majority of their rights, all by the use and implementation of a completely biased and unfair legal system which has forgotten all the rules of fundamental fairness, due process, and constitutional rights.

May 1, 2011—May Day—Any Revolution in 2012 Needs to Start NOW!

Lots of “New Age” books predict the beginning of a new era, or a radical transformation of global consciousness and awareness, beginning in 2012—roughly correlating one interpretation of the Ancient Maya Calendar to predictions about the future.  It happens that I studied the Ancient Maya, as my primary area of specialty, among several other ancient civilizations, during my years in Anthropology, Archaeology, and History, 1975-1992.  By some weird coincidence, the Ancient Maya Temple most commonly illustrated on the dustjackets and covers of paperbacks about the transformations owing to the Maya Calendar is the Castillo at Chichen Itza, one of the most widely visited archaeological sites in the world today, which also happens to be the subject of my 1990 Doctoral Dissertation “Ethnicity and Social Organization at Chichen Itza, Yucatan” submitted to the Department of Anthropology at Harvard University, under the Chairmanship of the late Gordon Randolph Willey—a true philospher king among professors if ever there was one.   In that dissertation I explored a great many things, from observations about linguistic terms, phrases in hieroglyphics, or stratified trash heaps and ancient house floors and pottery fragments which could never be interesting to anyone other than the most enthusiastically focused Maya specialist, to concepts like cycles of conquest and rulership articulated through metaphors of ethnic domination, on the one hand, and, on another three-part social and governmental organization as a universal principle of cultural, economic, and political evolution, ultimately leading me to a “natural law” theory of the United States Constitution.  I ultimately left archaeology and history because I felt oppressed by and in the real world, and a need to try to make things better—to challenge the corporate-governmental obliteration of the individual which, sadly enough, is something one can definitely feel operating on university campuses and in academics in general.  In short, I started my adult life on the half-island (Halbinsel, Peninsula) of Yucatan, and in the socio-cultural island of academics at Harvard, but I weighed life on that island and I found it wanting.  (Still, it makes an interesting introduction and theme to talk about running in 2012.  I will turn 52 next year, and 52 was a very significant age or era in ancient Mexico/Mesoamerica—the nearest thing to a “Century” in their calendar in fact, in terms of delineating historical time periods or eras.)

So I found out for myself that no man is an island (nor is any woman).  But in the modern world, insular thinking is promoted as socially useful.   We are all urged to act like atoms and to assume that we can live our lives unconnected to each other and to society.  We should accept our place in the world and just have as much fun or fulfillment as we can, and not try to change things.  I was born in 1960 and sometimes regret I was not born a decade or so earlier, because the decade of the 1960s, when I was just a baby, toddler, and prepubescent boy, was the last time people completely rejected individual helplessness.  Those who were either the children of WWII or post-war “baby boomers” born from 1940 right up until the mid-1950s seem to have had a chance, an opening, to see the world as “their oyster” and to try to remake it.  They believed in love and revolution.  In 1968 there was a world-wide student uprising comparable to few global events except for 1848 and 1918.  For the most part the radicals of the 1960s failed, but some of them were my teachers and professors in college, and their influence on me was huge, even if I only adopt their optimism and belief in the possibility of change, and not in their specific ideologies.

I think that the time has come for a new revolution, a new birth of freedom.  The world has grown progressively more stale and repressive throughout my life.  Selfish ideologies have been exploited by the state and corporate powers-that-be to destroy genuine activism, genuine popular political involvement, discourage real corporate consciousness, and above-all to weaken the family and small-community groups of every kind.

That the California elections of 2012 will be a largely non-partisan is a mixed blessing.  I see my own politics as more a derivation of the time of Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe where the chief political party in the United States was called the Democratic-Republican Party.  I would rather see myself as a Constitutional Democratic-Republic affiliated with those third-fifth Presidents than any other political group in history.  I would admire Andrew Jackson without qualification for his abolition of the Bank of the United States, but he presided over and commanded the trail-of-tears and the removal of the Five Civilized Tribes from my native South—and it is almost impossible to forgive him that particular offense, series of genocidal offenses.

So if I run for United States Senator in 2012, it will be as a Democratic-Republican Constitutionalist, and since there are no parties planned for the February 2012 election, I will just state my basic positions and as time goes by articulate the ways in ways and on which issues I would most strongly disagree with the incumbent, an extremely wealthy woman and entrenched establishmentarian named Dianne Feinstein.   Suffice it to say that she is active in the following committees and subcommittees, and my policies in all of these fields, shaped by my own life-experience based ideologies, are close to the polar opposites of Senator Feinstein’s:

Committees

  • Committee on Appropriations  (Feinstein Supports Every kind of Government Welfare and Bailout—supported by the twin pillars of confiscatory taxation and massive government borrowing—I oppose both)
    • Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies (in particular—I would liberate the Food and Drug Administration from control by “Big Pharma”—so that “experimental” drugs available in Europe and Asia could be more readily introduced, at much less cost, than in the United States today—deregulation is competitive freedom but deregulation is also deflation of prices—deregulation is also REAL freedom because I would fight to end the war on drugs, repeal all Federal restrictions on the sale of “recreational” drugs, and release EVERY Federal prisoner convicted ONLY of drug-related offenses).
    • Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies  (The Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution should no longer be the basis of 99% of Federal Legislation and Jurisprudence—the power of the Federal Government to invade people’s lives must be cut down to the “original” (extremely limited) concept of Congressional power to regulate interstate commerce;
    • Subcommittee on Defense  (there is no greater set of welfare programs today for both corporate and private America than defense spending—this must end, or at least be radically curtailed until we can audit the foreign consequences of our recent adventures overseas, at least to the point of estimating the number of innocent civilians killed in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya as a direct result of American intervention and policies in those countries). 
    • Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development  (Known by the Anthropological and Historical name of “ORIENTAL DESPOTISM”–the original and most ancient form of governmental economic subsidies and social control through social welfare was through irrigation and other water-redistribution programs—these are, by and large, horrible perversions of nature and ecological disasters—no federal money should ever go to build or maintain dams—many existing dams should be torn down and decommissioned, their social and ecological consequences are so disastrous—and yes this means I would support a federal policy of de-urbanizing parts of Southern California)(The Opposite of “Oriental Despotism” is the kind of individual freedom that could come from non-centralized systems of electrical production which can even be produced at the neighborhood or family home level—including solar and wind power—diffusion of technology in these fields will clearly result in “a new birth of freedom” and the expenditure of governmental funds to educate and enable people to learn and control such technologies will ultimately lead to a diffusion of centralized power in each of the political and energetic and corporate senses).
    • Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies (Chairwoman) (The abuses of private property rights by well-meaning ecological programs can go on ad infinitum, and are close related to dependence on centralized power sources addressed and described above).
    • Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies  **(ALSO related to the decentralization of power sources described above).
  • Committee on the Judiciary (the Federal Judiciary has become callous and impervious to all but corporate interests—the Federal Judiciary must be restored as the bullwark for constitutional rights and individual liberties—of the common man and his family against the oppression of local oligarchies, what the authors of the Federalist Papers called “the tyranny of local majorities”—but at the same time the Federal Courts must be purged of political judges who serve the amplification of Federal Power and insulate the Federal and State Governments from accountability—Judicial Immunity must be radically reduced and restrained, and Federal Judicial review of governmental activities at both the State and Federal level must be afforded the power already implicit in so many under-used statutes relating to civil rights and governmental oversight).
    • Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts (“ditto”—repeat the above paragraph here—-Congress should prohibit the Federal Courts from requiring State Bar admission of any attorney applying to practice in Federal Court—a “bar admission” test at the Federal level is long overdue—and no requirement of graduation from an ABA Law school should be required either—any person who can pass a Bar Examination, oral and/or written, should be allowed to practice before any Federal Court, but the exams should NOT be graded by the judges before whom lawyers are meant to appear, argue, and whom they are hired to persuade).
    • Subcommittee on the Constitution (“ditto”—repeat all of the above paragraphs here—Congress should expressly repeal the judicial abstention doctrines including Rooker-Feldman and Younger v. Harris—the private bill enacted to this precise effect for the sole benefit of Terry Schiavo should be made a public law of general application—the Courts refused to hear her case regardless, but if they get used to the idea that they are REQUIRED to take all cases within their constitutional jurisdiction—there might be many changes in the American Civil Rights Landscape).
    • Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs  (“ditto”—but especially repeat the paragraph above about ending the so-called “War on Drugs” and releasing all Federal prisoners who have been convicted of no factual crimes other than those based on drug-trafficking and/or ownership).  
    • Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Refugees  (Another huge population of innocents inhabit our prisons—immigrants who came to this country with no more criminal intent than my own ancestors did—namely to make a better life for themselves—America cannot be a lifeboat for the world, but we cannot criminalize conduct which is inherently good—that by which people seek honest work to provide for themselves and their families—rather, we need to abolish the beacons of welfare and work-free social benefits which bring the least desirable immigrants in, and liberate business from labor controls and regulations which render American productivity all but impossible, and require that Americans depend like parasites upon the productivity of the rest of the world, many of whom respect our money only because of our military might and brutality, euphemistically called the “Full Faith and Credit” of the United States)
    • Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security  (Dianne Feinstein is one of the staunchest supporters of the 2001 Patriot Act, its extensions and amendments, the 2007 Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act (FISA), and their predecessors including the 1996 Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act [AEDPA] which all but abolished the ancient writ of Habeas Corpus in the United States—I will fight tirelessly for the repeal or judicial demolition of all of these oppressive laws on the grounds of constitutional violation and infringements—FISA must be the first to go followed by the Patriot Act and AEDPA—No Longer Can America be Prison-Planetary Center of the World).
  • Committee on Rules and Administration
  • Select Committee on Intelligence (Chairwoman)(all aspects of the Central Intelligence Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Drug Enforcement Agency, and the Arms, Tobacco, and Firearms agency must rolled back or abolished; the Department of Homeland Security must be abolished; there is no constitutional authority for Federal Police Forces within the United States—only the foreign activities of the Central Intelligence Agency can be tolerated, and those must be made to conform strictly with the Law of [Civilized] Nations).

In short, compared to Senator Dianne Feinstein I am indeed a Red Revolutionary—and so I announce my candidacy on May Day, and ask for your contributions and support.   I will probably need to raise five-to-fifteen million dollars even to have a shadow of a chance.  Just by way of comparison, this is what Barbara Boxer’s Finances looked like—and she was a “shoe in” for reelection in 2010— last year (according to http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00006692):

Cycle Fundraising, 2005 – 2010, Campaign Cmte

Raised:  $29,331,343 Sparklines Explanation coming soon
Spent:  $29,537,796
Cash on Hand:  $603,248
Debts:  $25,000
Last Report: Friday, December 31, 2010

Top 5 Contributors, 2005-2010, Campaign Cmte

Contributor Total Indivs PACs
EMILY’s List $366,637 $360,608 $6,029
University of California $97,890 $97,890 $0
Girardi & Keese $92,000 $92,000 $0
News Corp $75,400 $70,900 $4,500
Time Warner $71,850 $61,850 $10,000

Top 5 Industries, 2005-2010, Campaign Cmte

Industry Total Indivs PACs
Lawyers/Law Firms $2,006,477 $1,862,106 $144,371
Retired $1,461,076 $1,461,076 $0
Women’s Issues $1,153,692 $1,122,797 $30,895
TV/Movies/Music $966,958 $876,158 $90,800
Democratic/Liberal $699,196 $676,740 $22,456

Now, even though I have a place right next door to UCLA, I doubt that the University of California will support me, and especially because I am a former lawyer, who opposes the State Bar and legal monopoly generally, I am unlikely to receive any significant support from members of the legal profession.  On the other hand, the Entertainment and Movie Industry?  Well, in the past five years I’ve dated one B-/C+ Movie Actress, one or two or three “models” and…. yeah there was that former swimsuit model from Israel too, but I suppose I shouldn’t really count on her support….ehem…..  Oh and for Easter I went to church with Tom Hanks….. so who knows?  Maybe he’d see a certain “Forrest Gump” potential in me…..and then again, maybe not……

But you see, unlike last year (2010), when I thought about running, as of this date I already have already spent the first couple of hundred dollars, having campaign business cards printed up and I have even given out a few dozen—starting last week on Easter Sunday, another day for which the color red is traditional—celebrating the Resurrection—which as I told people, is another metaphor for saying, “THE PEOPLE WILL RISE AGAIN.   Albeit that modern Easter Red is normally paired with white, though more with green than blue—in celebration more of the “Rites of Spring” and the reemergence of the green world than of “true blue” valor….  But it will take plenty of fool-hearty courage to go against Diane Feinstein and actually try to win/unseat her, in a non-partisan free-for-all.

I am a victim of several modern trends in law and politics, social engineering and credit finance, and it is for those reasons and because of those experiences that I am running:

(1)   Nine-Eleven years ago I lost my licenses to practice law in Texas, Florida, and California, in that order, due to the practices of Judicial Despotism and “Integrated” State-Bar Monopolistic practices—as a consequence I am against all schemes of state-professional licensing, all systems of state-regulated monopolies, and all restrictions on freedom-of-speech, freedom-of-advocacy, and freedom of expression and association.  Indirectly, but only indirectly, my professional setback also resulted from the increasingly totalitarian identity laws in the United States which make us all dependent more on our social security numbers than anything else—the disbarment pretext (since the Federal Judges who agreed and conspired against me couldn’t very well state that they hated me for bringing multiple civil rights suits on behalf of non-ethnic, non-minorities) was an indictment for misstating two digits of my social security number on an application for a non-interest bearing checking account at Wells Fargo Bank on Congress Avenue in Austin in November 1996—a mistake which was never noticed by the bank until United States District Judge James R. Nowlin (now retired, Western District of Texas) appointed an FBI investigator Nancy Houston to tail me for two years and find something against me, or else.

So I also oppose the social security system as a system of national identification, quite apart from my belief that as a system of social-welfare it has been catastrophically mismanaged and makes a mockery of honest government.  I have come to realize that the society security system is one leg of a triangular system involving the Federal Reserve Bank, the Internal Revenue Service, and the Federal Social-Welfare system, which together delineate the “Brave New World” in which we live, in which individual freedom (including individual identity), private property, the family, and capitalism are all simultaneously being wiped out in favor of atomized citizenship in a totalitarian-corporate-governmental oligarchy based on the polar opposites of common ownership and common dependency.

My proposed solutions are: (1) abolish the requirement that attorneys belong to “integrated State Bars” controlled by the Judiciary—in fact, abolish the licensing of attorneys all together eventually, so that judges have little or no control over the advocates who appear before them, (2) abolish the social security system all together—start over, if there is political will to do so, from scratch, or just let private investment and insurance take over the fields of retirement and income security—where these fail, I would advocate Christian Socialism—by which I mean that we should all follow the teachings of that certain famous Jewish Rabbi born in the time of Augustus Caesar who advocated that everyone should sit at the same table and eat the same bread and wine—and he urged people to do this against all social norms and governmental orders, rather than following them.  One need not believe in either his virgin birth or divinity to recognize that his philosophy is morally superior to state mandated redistribution of wealth, or that it is as morally consistent with Buddhism and Pagan Redistributive Feasting as with any other customs.

(2)    Not coincidentally, I think, the economic hardships brought about by my professional loss of standing and income triggered my exposure to a second round of disasters—namely in family and domestic relations law.  To make a long-story short, by September 18, 2002, I found myself in front of, and at the mercy of, another brutally despotic Texas judge, this time of the State Family Court variety, named Judge Michael Jergins of the 395th District Court in Georgetown, Williamson County.

Judge Jergins epitomized everything that a judge should not be, and briefly summarized the abuses of our times by explaining to me that whatever he said to do or not to do was in “the best interests of the child” and that he considered any deviation from his orders to be “felony-level child abuse”, even when his orders concerned my speech to and communication with my then ten year old son Charlie about what HE considered best for him.
I have since realized that the most insidious welfare abuses are those committed by child-protective services and “state social engineer” judges like Jergins and their cohorts of guardians ad litem, attorneys ad litem, social workers, counselors, psychologists etc.

Over the past decade, I have developed a simple solution here also: the family courts must all be abolished, and the Federal Sponsorship of their “child protective services” through Title 42 Welfare programs simultaneous erased from the map of the world.   My work in Texas and Florida has convinced me of a simple truth: Family Courts and the regulation of the Family by the state is the antithesis of the spirit, if not the letter, of the First, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, and Ninth Amendments to the Constitution, as well as to the “impairment of contracts” clause of Article I and the Fourteenth Amendment.  So all family courts need to be abolished—marriage and family organization should be returned totally to the people and such private institutions as they wish to foster, be these Churches or Mutual Assistance clubs or anything else.  My late aunt Mildred on her death bequeathed away a large collection of fine fur coats to the benefit of a battered women’s shelter which accepted no state or federal funds at all, but existed only through private contributions.   In such settings, the government does not become an institutional terror which replaces private abuse with public abuse.

(3)   As a consequence of both my financial decline as a result of disbarment by a judge-run lawyer’s monopoly and my oppression by the family courts—I ran into the third problem set—loss of property through foreclosures resulting from predatory lending.  Mortgage finance abuse and redemption is in fact the field that occupies most of my time these days.

The solutions, again, are relatively straightforward but draconian in their impact on the banking and financial interest at the heart of the world Status Quo:  abolish all federal regulations permitting and promoting the securitization of debt—creating black ink out of red ink generates economic incentives almost as perversely counterproductive to social and economic well-being as the anti-production, hiding and evading ideology of the Federal Income Tax.

In short, we need a nation free from murderous foreign policies coupled with massive fraud, deceit, and deception at home.

In the spirit of the 1960s—”Let the Sun Shine, Let the Sun Shine In…” and in the spirit of earlier populists—let our Campaign Song be—”This Land is Your Land, this land is my land, from California, to the New York Island—from the Redwood Forests, to the Gulf-Stream Waters—this land was made for you and me.”  But above-all—

VIVA LA REVOLUCION!

Some Austrian thoughts for Americans Analyzing the first day after the passage of National Health Care Plan

Words cannot describe my COMPLETE lack of Surprise that Obamacare, National Health Care, passed.  It was Hillary Clinton’s priority in 1992-95, 18-15 years ago, and look where she is now?  The Oligarchy has imposed Collectivism on an unwilling Majority, certain, like Barbara Boxer, that the members of the Elite know so much better than the ignorant masses how to govern themselves than the people could possibly do themselves.  Individual Freedom, Individual Autonomy, the importance of the individual itself—all of these are obstacles.  Individualism must give way to acquiescence in the greater good, as if the “greater good” were not the sum total of individual well-being.  I say, as I so often have said in this blog, “Cry, the Beloved Country.”  We are on a path of self-destruction and ruination. 162 years after the Communist Manifesto, Barack Obama is President, Hillary Clinton is Secretary of State.  Cass Sunstein is a Czar….

National Health Care is the logical outcome and conclusion of the process that began with Social Security, and it is no more mandatory, coercive, or invasive of private liberty than the Social Security “tax”—universally forced purchase of a rather modest retirement pension which the government periodically loots and which has never been managed by true fiduciary standards at all.  Rather than talk about the wretched details, I would prefer to contemplate the radical roots of the problem: the replacement of Classical Liberalism with Socialism, which is no kind of “liberalism” at all.   The full article is quite long and I only intend to give a taste here.  The balance can be read at: http://mises.org/daily/4113, but (even though my current attempt to run as a candidate against Barbara Boxer has stumbled and doesn’t seem to be getting off the ground very well) I will continue my candidacy for U.S. Senator from California (realistic target date 2012 against Feinstein?) and I will work in support of a plan of Classical Economic Liberalism, in fact for “Capitalism and Freedom” to borrow the title of Milton Friedman’s book, and I hope that we will eventually escape from the wreckage that IS the Obamanation of today.

Austrian Economics and Classical Liberalism

Mises Daily: Thursday, March 04, 2010 by 

I. Introduction

Classical liberalism — which we shall call here simply liberalism — is based on the conception of civil society as, by and large, self-regulating when its members are free to act within very wide bounds of their individual rights. Among these the right to private property, including freedom of contract and free disposition of one’s own labor, is given a very high priority. Historically, liberalism has manifested a hostility to state action, which, it insists, should be reduced to a minimum (Raico 1992, 1994).

Austrian economics is the name given to the school, or strand, of economic theory that began with Carl Menger (Kirzner 1987; Hayek 1968), and it has often been linked — both by adherents and opponents — to the liberal doctrine. The purpose of this paper is to examine some of the connections that exist, or have been held to exist, between Austrian economics and liberalism.

II. Austrian Economics and Wertfreiheit

Writers have sometimes freely referred to “the Austrian ethical position” (Shand 1984, p. 221) and the “moral and ethical stance” of the Austrian economists (Reekie 1984, p. 176), denoting a position with strong (liberal) implications for politics. At first glance, this is surprising, since Austrian economists have been at pains to affirm the Wertfreiheit (value neutrality) of their theory, and thus its conformity to Weberian strictures on the character of scientific theories (Kirzner 1992b). Ludwig von Mises, for instance (1949, p. 881), stated that, “economics is apolitical or nonpolitical … it is perfectly neutral with regard to judgments of value, as it refers always to means and never to the choice of ultimate ends.”

That said, however, the fact is that all of the major figures in the development of Austrian economics habitually took positions on policy issues that they held to be somehow grounded in their economic doctrines. Mises, for instance, is widely recognized as probably the premier liberal thinker of the 20th century. In his magnum opus, Human Action (1949), he shed light on the connection between value-free economics and liberal politics:

While praxeology, and therefore economics too, uses the terms happiness and removal of uneasiness in a purely formal sense, liberalism attaches to them a concrete meaning. It presupposes that people prefer life to death, health to sickness, nourishment to starvation, abundance to poverty. It teaches man how to act in accordance with these valuations.… The liberals do not assert that men ought to strive after the goals mentioned above. What they maintain is that the immense majority prefer [them]. (p. 154)

According to Mises, economics teaches the means necessary for the promotion of the values most people endorse. Those means comprise, basically, preservation of a free-market economy. Thus, the economist per se passes no value judgments, including political value judgments. He only proposes hypothetical imperatives (if you wish to achieve A, and B is the necessary means for the achievement of A, then do B) (Rothbard 1962, volume 2, pp. 880–881, 1976b). A question that will concern us is whether the division between Austrian theory and liberal principles is as surgically clean-cut as this seems to suggest.

III. Methodological Individualism

Methodological individualism has been a keystone of Austrian economics since the publication of the first Austrian work, Menger’s Principles, in 1871. As Menger wrote in his Investigations,

The nation as such is not a large subject that has needs, that works, practices economy, and consumes.… Thus the phenomena of “national economy” … are, rather, the results of all the innumerable individual economic efforts in the nation … [and] must also be theoretically interpreted in this light.… Whoever wants to understand theoretically the phenomena of “national economy” … must for this reason attempt to go back to their trueelements, to the singular economies in the nation, and to investigate the laws by which the former are built up from the latter. (Menger 1985, p. 93, emphasis in original)

Methodological individualism was endorsed by the other leaders of Austrianism, to the point where Fritz Machlup (1981) could list it as the first of “the most typical requirements for a true adherent of the Austrian school.”

Perhaps because of the connotations of the noun, Austrians have stressed that what is at issue ismethodological individualism. Israel Kirzner (1987, p. 148) cites Machlup’s criteria of Austrianism, including methodological individualism as the first. He warns parenthetically, however, that this is “not to be confused with political or ideological individualism;” it refers merely “to the claim that economic phenomena are to be explained by going back to the actions of individuals.”

Lawrence H. White (1990, p. 356), too, seems to wish to distance methodological individualism from any hint of politics. White criticizes Max Alter for alluding to a “political” battle in this connection, commenting, “in fact the phrase methodological individualism was coined precisely to distinguish it from other varieties of individualism, including the political variety.”

But the interesting question is not whether the characteristic method of the Austrian School isidentical with individualism in the political sense (usually more or less a synonym for liberalism). Obviously, it is not. The question is whether the method itself has any political implications.

It is certainly possible for someone to adopt methodological individualism and not endorse liberalism (Boehm 1985, pp. 252–253). Jon Elster, for instance, is able to insist on the necessity of methodological individualism in the social sciences, while continuing to view himself as a Marxist (Elster 1985, pp. 4–8). Yet it is significant that Elster dismisses certain claims of Marx on the grounds of their inconsistency with methodological individualism.

In general, it seems clear that the Austrian approach in methodology tends to preclude holistic ideologies that happen also to be incompatible with liberalism, such as classical Marxism and certain varieties of racism and hypernationalism. To this extent, then, it is not simplymethodological individualism.

Political factors played a role in the debate over Austrian methodology from the start. The very fact that “nation” and “state,” understood as holistic entities, were not primaries in his system set Menger apart from important currents of economic thought in the German-speaking world of his time. Indeed, it was on the basis of Menger’s methodology that Gustav Schmoller, leader of the German Historical School, instantly politicized the whole debate. In his review of Menger’sInvestigations, Schmoller accused Menger of adhering to Manchestertum (laissez-faire), since his abstract and “atomistic” method might better be called “the Manchesterist-individualist” method (Schmoller 1883, p. 241).

Friedrich von Wieser (1923), himself one of the founders of the Austrian School, introduced a curious political note in discussing the origins of Austrianism. Wieser recalled how, as young economists, both he and Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk had been struck by the contradiction in classical economics:

While the chief accusation that was raised at the time against the classical economists in Germany concerned their [political] individualism, we found that they had become unfaithful to their individualistic creed from the start. As true individualists they would have had to explain the economy from the meaning of the individuals engaged in economic activity who were joined together in the economy. (p. 87)

Many decades later, Hayek, in a sense, concurred with Schmoller and Wieser. The central idea of his most extensive work on methodology, The Counter-Revolution of Science, is precisely the historical and theoretical connections between the denial of methodological individualism and the growth of socialism. Hayek (1955) assails “methodological collectivism,” with

its tendency to treat wholes like “society” or the “economy,” “capitalism” … or a particular “industry” or “class” or “country” as definitely given objects about which we can discover laws by observing their behavior as wholes.… The naive view which regards the complexes which history studies as given wholes naturally leads to the belief that their observation can reveal “laws” of the development of these wholes. (pp. 53, 73)

The supposed discovery of such laws has resulted in the construction of philosophies of history on which major socialist projects have been erected — Marxism, of course, but particularly Saint-Simonianism, the system Hayek dissects in his book. The Saint-Simonians were practitioners par excellence of scientism, the illegitimate application to the study of society of the methods of the natural sciences.

And it is scientism — the negation of methodological individualism — that, according to Hayek, “through its popularizers has done more to create the present trend towards socialism than all the conflicts between economic interests”(Hayek 1955, pp. 100–101). By the same token, political opponents of liberalism, in criticizing Hayek in this area, have assumed that his methodological individualism was closely connected with his political philosophy.

Marxist critics have made a further point regarding Austrian methodology. In their view, it stunts our understanding of social reality. According to Ronald Meek (1972), marginalism — including Austrian economics — took refuge in a schema centering on the psychology of isolated, atomistic individuals, thus (unconsciously) diverting attention from the crucial questions of political economythat had been the focus of classical economics (including Marxism). As a result, “real-life” issues, such as the division of the social product among competing classes — “those great problems of capitalist reality which worried the man in the street” (1972, p. 505) — have been systematically ignored.

This Marxist criticism would seem to be misguided, however. The abstracting approach of Austrianism pertains — necessarily — to its theory. Many Austrians, it may be conceded, have neglected to apply their theory to the understanding of concrete, “real-life” issues. That this failing is not intrinsic to Austrian economics, however, is shown by the fact that at least one well-known Austrian economist, Murray N. Rothbard, has devoted himself not only to “pure economics,” but also to highly important questions of political economy, both on a theoretical level and in specific historical contexts (e.g., Rothbard 1963, 1970; on methodological individualism, see Rothbard 1979).

IV. Subjectivism

Austrian economics begins with and constantly emphasizes the action of the individual human being (Mises 1949, pp. 11–29; Rothbard 1962, pp. 1–8). According to Lachmann (1978), for the Austrian School,

the thought design, the economic calculation or economic plan of the individual, always stands in the foreground of theoretical interest.… The significance of the Austrian school in the history of ideas perhaps finds its most pregnant expression in the statement that here, man as an actor stands at the center of economic events (p. 47, 51).[9]

Protected: I will run for the United States Senate from California in 2012.

This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Deo Vindice Now Accepts Paypal; Please Support our Campaigns!

Message to all American who Grieve for their Lost Constitution and their Fundamental Rights (but who would like to find the Constitution again and restore it to vigor as the key document in our nation’s life and identity—precisely as vigilant guarantor of our Fundamental Rights):

Contribute here—
http://charleslincoln.spiritualpatriot.com/services.html

Deo Vindice Now Accepts Paypal Contributions for the Following Nine Causes Listed—in soliciting your financial assistance, we do not ask or expect that you can or should support all our goals.  Please look through our broad-ranging list, however, and consider whether you would wish to support one or more of our projects.  Deo Vindice seeks to support itself and its directors by offering litigation support and relief in connection with mortgage finance, foreclosure, and eviction issues.  We do not believe that the Obama “modifications” are going to give anyone any LASTING or MEANINGFUL relief.  However, we are also interested in a wide-variety of civil rights and constitutional litigation issues which simply cannot exist without your contributions and support.  If you would like to contribute, please write us a letter/e-mail with your designation of one or more areas in which you would like your money to be spent—your directions will help us prioritize our non-mortgage-related reform campaigns and projects.

Whether you do so as JUDEO-CHRISTIAN CHARITY or ISLAMIC ALMS: HELP THY NEIGHBOR—Don’t send him or her to the Government; As Ronald Reagan famously said, “The most frighting sentence in the English language is, “We’re from the government and we’re here to help you.”):

CAMPAIGNS TO:
(2) LIMIT OR CURTAIL JUDICIAL IMMUNITY (Alabama, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Texas, Washington)

(3) NULLIFY ALL ACTIONS BY STATE OFFICIALS DONE IN ABSENCE OF FEDERAL OATH REQUIRED BY 4 U.S.C. Sections 101-102 (Texas and Florida).

(4) CAMPAIGN FOR RESTORATION OF HARD CURRENCY BASED ON MOVABLE COLLATERAL (Neither on Human Labor Nor Real Estate—i.e., end the Federal Reserve Banking & Banknote system dependent on voluntary Income Tax and Social Security)(nationwide).

(5) CAMPAIGN TO NULLIFY STATE MARRIAGE LICENSES, FAMILY, DIVORCE, & CHILD CUSTODY CODES, AND ALL OTHER STATE-FEDERAL WELFARE PROGRAMS WHICH INTRUDE ON FAMILY AUTONOMY AND FREEDOM OF RELIGION AND EXPRESSION (Alabama, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Texas, Washington).

(6) ABOLISH THE STATE BAR MONOPOLY—FOR THE PEOPLE TO KNOW, UNDERSTAND, APPLY, and ARGUE ABOUT THE LAW IS THE ESSENCE OF DEMOCRACY—Do not allow the state to license your fundamental rights to a small group of highly paid noble-advocates (nationwide).

(7) SEPARATE REGULATION OF THE PRACTICE OF LAW FROM THE JUDICIARY.  If there ARE to be law licenses, they should be issued by the Executive Branch, pursuant to laws enacted by the legislature, NOT by the Supreme Court of Each state (nationwide).

(8) Repeal or Abolish the Patriot Act of 2001-2004, restore Habeas Corpus and also repeal the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) and dismantle the Department of Homeland Security.

(9) End Federal Control of Health, Education, and Welfare programs and abolish the Federal Executive Cabinet Level departments and the bureaucracies in charge of these programs.
Contact: Kathy Garcia-Lawson in Florida (and regarding all Family and Judicial Issues)(561) 694-2772 Daniel L. Simon in Texas (and regarding all Family, Judicial, and Oath Issues) (512) 228-9416 Senator Jerry O’Neil in Montana (and regarding all issues relating to civil rights, lawyers, and the practice of law) (406) 892-7602. Peyton Yates Freiman Regarding all Civil Rights Issues (512) 923-1889 Robert Joseph Ponte regarding all Mortgage & Real Estate Issues (860) 599-5557.

Deo Vindice

“May the Lord God be with you,

and with thy spirit!”

Charles E. Lincoln, III

Spiritual Patriot

Tierra Limpia

Tel: 512.968.2500

eFax: 419.844.9142