Monthly Archives: February 2010

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

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

Tenth Amendment Summit in Atlanta

http://pledge.tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/10th-amendment-pledge-state.pdf

I heartily endorse and take this pledge as an essential part of my campaign and indeed, my political philosophy.

Thursday and Friday of this week I am attending the Tenth Amendment Summit in Atlanta, at which, for the first time in public (this blog/website not counting!) I announced that I am running for Barbara Boxer’s Seat in the Senate in California.  Senator Barbara Boxer is a hard core establishmentarian Democrat of the modern “socialist” tradition, and if there is any hope of ever restoring the United States of America to its status as “the land of the free and the home of the brave”, the word “Democrat” has to mean something other than “socialist.”  There was some discussion on Thursday night about the meaning of the words “Democratic” and “Republican” and “Federalist.”  “Federalism” of course lies at the heart of the Tenth Amendment debate.  “Federal Revenue Sharing” is close to 100% of what State governments spend these days.  “Demokratia”, meaning in Greek “rule by the people,” is contrasted with “Res publicae” which is simply Latin for “Common Wealth.”   In terms of ancient history, which is kind of a hobby of mine I guess, being a former archaeologist, the two words are not competing terms.  A Commonwealth (Republic) could be a Democracy or a Monarchy or an Oligarchy.   The United States at the present time is best described, in my opinion, as a Plutocratic Oligarchy (an elite ruled nation whose elite is defined solely by monetary wealth rather than productivity or education or anything else).  Plato in his book “The Laws” opined that an Oligarchy was the worst of all possible forms of government, because it was less susceptible to change and reform once it had “gone bad.”

Does it take a thief, or just a convicted Felon, to tell you who are the real criminals running this country?

Jim Traficant, Out of Jail, Running for Congress Again

POSTED:

12/30/09
Jim Traficant, the weave-wearing, bold talking, convicted felon and former congressman who once called Congress “a big whore house,” told a Youngstown, Ohio, business group Tuesday that he wants his old job back and will run for it in 2010.

According to the Youngstown Business Journal, Traficant declared to 35 members of the local Biz Society, “I’m going to run for Congress somewhere.” He said he has not decided which Ohio district he’ll run in, nor which political party he would affiliate with, but the former Democrat did say he has nominating petitions in three congressional districts.

Traficant had hinted several months ago that he was considering a run for Congress during an interview with Chris Matthews on MSNBC’s Hardball. On his agenda if he were re-elected, he told Matthews: Addressing the trade deficit (“Our trade deficit is $700-plus billion dollars. Beam me up!”), creating jobs, repealing the 16th Amendment, which allows Congress to levy an income tax, and reforming the Internal Revenue Service (“I want to get the IRS and kick them in the crotch real good.”)

At the time, Traficant slammed the House leadership, including Nancy Pelosi, saying, “I’ve never seen such weak leadership in my life.” He added that Congress is “a big whore house” that “needs to start taking care of America.”

In addition to his run for Congress, Traficant said a libertarian group has called on him to run for president. “I told them I think you’re all getting high smoking dope, and you know what they told me?” he said. “To the contrary, you have a following.” He said he would speak at an event held by the group in February, “unless the government says I can’t travel.”

Traficant was expelled from Congress in 2002 after being convicted on charges of bribery, racketeering, and tax evasion. He was released from federal prison in April and has since insisted he was “not guilty in any way.” On Tuesday, he promised to get revenge on the witnesses against him and the government agents whom he said had coerced their testimony. “I want to get these suckers!” Traficant said. “You are being addressed by a very bitter guy.”

Jim Traficant: ‘I’m going to run’

Former Rep. Jim Traficant (D-Ohio) says he is “going to run” for Congress once again in 2010.

The colorful former congressman from Youngstown was released from federal prison in September after serving a 7-year stint on corruption charges.

Traficant made the announcement in front of roughly 30 members of the Youngstown Biz Society during a speech to the group in a local restaurant, according to the Business Journal Daily.

The former congressman did not say whether he would run for his old seat — currently occupied by Democratic Rep. Tim Ryan, a former aide to Traficant — saying only, “I’m going to run for Congress somewhere.”

Traficant also said he has committed to speaking at a February event in Washington sponsored by the American Free Press, though he is not sure if the terms of his parole will allow him to travel.

The invitation, Traficant said, is part of an effort to encourage him to run for president.

“There’s a group out of Washington, and in several cities around the country, that want to bring back the old Reform Party, combine it with the tea party and bring the Libertarians in and everybody, and they want me to run as an independent for president,” Traficant said.

“I told them I think you’re all getting high smoking dope. And you know what they told me? They said, ‘to the contrary, you have a base following in all 48 contiguous states,’” he said. “So I’m going to address a group down there Feb. 13, unless the government says I can’t travel. And if they do that, we’ll hold it in Cleveland.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/31066.html#ixzz0fxGwT3hn

Is Diversity Dangerous? Is Globalism Hazardous to the future of Darwinian Fitness? Is the West’s Embrace of Diversity the final death sentence for diversity both in the west and elsewhere? Is Diversity Just one big Globalist Plot to end World History and Natural Evolution? Probably so, probably so….

Is Maintenance of Cultural and Genetic Diversity Critical to the Future of the Human Race?  What is the best road to achieving such maintenance?  By globalism and homogenization or by a policy of “good fences make good neighbors” and “vive la difference?”

Accuracy in Media published the article reproduced below almost 9 years ago.  These are not QUITE my views, honestly, because what I believe about diversity runs more like this: Diversity is the fountainhead of evolutionary strength, but it requires the maintenance of voluntary isolation and the freedom to be different, even to cultivate differences, to let those differences flourish, and for each individual to choose the boundaries he wants to impose on his or her own life.  In other words, I believe that homogenization thwarts the evolutionary purpose of allowing small pools of cultural or genetic diversity to crystalize and formulate (cultural) or accumulate (physically) distinctive characteristics and patterns of adaptation which can then compete.  Most evolutionary experiments (both of the genetic/phenotypic/physical and cultural/learned/psychological & linguistic varieties) are failures but some are successes—and if everybody in the world is just subjected to this one big “shake and bake” formula of one-world global mixing and diversification for the purpose of atomizing and isolating individual differences so that they can achieve neither genetic nor social dominance, even locally, then this destroys the very raw material of evolution and change, and diversity is a terribly dangerous thing.  The French, as always, have a phrase that encapsulates my belief about diversity: “vive la difference!”—but “La Difference” and only flourish where there are cultural and physical boundaries which create cultural and genetic isolation.  Globalism is the death of both history and evolution, and I do not favor the acceleration of these deaths.  Globalism by merger of all the diversities of the planet’s great cultural and genetic diversity will only result in a monotonous hamburger-helper world where everyone looks basically alike, listens to the same music, watches the same dumb and dumber TV, buys the same fast foods from the same chains and drinks the same sodas (we’re almost there right now, right?).  “Good fences make good neighbors” and they also permit the survival of cultural and genetic diversity.

Diversity Can Be Dangerous

MEDIA MONITOR  |  BY REED IRVINE AND CLIFF KINCAID  |  JULY 30, 2001

. . . it estimates whites will fall below 50% and become America’s largest minority.

America is rapidly becoming a more racially diverse nation. Whites fell from 80% of our population in 1980 to 69% last year. The percentage of Hispanics, who may be of any race, nearly doubled. They overtook the blacks, who made only a modest gain to 12.3% of the total. Asians, Pacific islanders and native Americans made a big gain, rising to over nine percent of the total population. Whites made the largest gain numerically, but in percentage terms they were the only group whose percentage of the total fell, and it was a large fall— 11 percentage points.

The Census Bureau sees these trends continuing through the year 2060, when it estimates whites will fall below 50% and become America’s largest minority. It predicts that nearly all of the erosion of the white majority will be the result of a big increase in the number of Hispanics, Asians, Pacific islanders and native Americans. If the predictions it made five years ago are any indicator, the bureau is underestimating the increase in the Hispanic and Asians populations. The predictions of what last year’s census would show were far short of the actual increases for those two groups.

Many people, including President Bush, believe that more diversity will actually strengthen and improve our nation. The administration is proposing legalizing some three million illegal immigrants from Mexico. If that is done, the flow of illegal immigrants will no doubt increase, speeding the day the white majority will vanish.

It is true that we have had great success in absorbing immigrants and converting most of them into good Americans. But the success of the melting pot in the past is no guarantee that it will succeed in the future. Diversity is great up to a point, but when the minorities expand in number and power and there is no majority capable of maintaining law and order, government of the people, by the people and for the people may well perish from this part of the earth.

Diversity of language, customs and culture tends to divide, not unite. We have had two serious race riots in Seattle and Cincinnati this year. England has experienced an outbreak of race riots in the Midlands in recent months, clashes between whites and immigrants from Pakistan and Bangladesh that lasted for days and left behind great property damage and seething anger. In California Mexican immigrants who have risen to positions of power openly talk about the reconquest of the territory Mexico lost in the Mexican-American war.

If America ceases to be a majority white nation, it may not remain one nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all. In Africa, millions of blacks have been butchered by other blacks. In the Balkans white Christians and Muslims are at each other’s throats. In Sri Lanka the Sinhalese and Tamils have been fighting a bitter war for decades.

We worry about global warming, a threat based on an unproven theory. America’s white majority is shrinking rapidly, and we blithely encourage more and more immigrants, hastening its elimination, and giving no thought to the possible consequences.

Reed Irvine is the former Chairman of Accuracy In Media and Cliff Kincaid is the Editor of the AIM Report.

Mardi Gras 2010: Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson Continues her Challenge to the Florida Family Code and Court System!

Happy Mardi Gras!  It is a day of reversal, a day to turn the world upside down.  And that is Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson’s purpose: to turn the modern world of marriage and divorce upside down, to get the state out of the home, not only the bedroom but also the kitchen, the dining room, the TV room, and the backyard, thus restoring both individual liberty and individual responsibility.  There will be full and genuine liberty and equality in the world with the legal reforms Kathy envisions: the state will neither compel the licensing nor the dissolution of any marriage or child custody arrangement, except to the extent of enforcing written contracts..  In fact, the state will be banned from doing so, and therefore limited in its power to license any kind of conduct which constitutes a fundamental right (e.g. marriage) and privacy (the arrangement of the family’s affairs) was intended by the framers of the First and Ninth Amendments to the Constitution.   Judge Richard L. Oftedal had set a final trial (without jury) in Kathy’s case for Friday, February 26, 2010, with all dutiful and compliant Domestic Relations’ litigants falsified but nonetheless self-incriminating evidence due to be created and filed in the court by today, Mardi Gras, February 16, 2010. Order setting trial Feb. 26, 2009.  But Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson is kind of like Xena, Warrior Princess, when it comes to fighting against the Florida Family Courts.  KAGL Objections to Order Setting Trial February 26 2010.  This follows Judge Oftedal’s dismissal Judge Richard L. Oftedal’s February 8, 2010, Order Denying Motion on Leave to Intervene of the latest effort by the Intervenors’ Motion for Leave to Intervene. 1-230 Florida (KAGL) MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE .DOC IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT.  Why is a constitutional answer and objection not just as much the subject of a lawsuit as the originally framed relief? Why is the Petitioner alone, in a dissolution case, given full rights to due process of law? Or is he?  Does not the chain that binds a slave to his master equally tether the master to the slave? These issues were addressed in the Notices of Intervention filed by 42 of Kathy’s supporters (including the author of this blog).  Notice of Intervention after Marra’s Dismissal re Younger-Final and Filed

Postscript on February 25, 2010: Judge Oftedal gave a snort of in the form of an Order: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE (Judge Richard L. Oftedal, Friday February 19 2010) which simply ignored everything Kathy had filed as if it were a bag of sand emptied out on the Sahara or Mojave….the Order does not mention Kathy’s Objections at all, although they are duly recorded on the Palm Beach County Clerk’s Docket Report.  Kathy filed a combined Notice of Appeal of the Order Denying Intervention and the Order to Show Cause pursuant to Rule 9.130 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.  Notice of Appeal of Denial of Intervention.  Judge Oftedal is unwilling to hear Kathy’s constitutional challenges and all related issues raised by her or the intervenors, apparently. I think his refusal even to HEAR or allow full briefing of the issues MIGHT just get the attention of the Fourth District Court of Appeals.  Kathy also filed a separate response to his Order to Show Cause, also on February 25, 2010. Response to Order to Show Cause Filed February 25, 2010 in Palm Beach, FL .  Extremism in Defense of Liberty is no vice.  Moderation in Resistance to Tyranny is no virtue.  Reserving the right to refuse to obey orders against one’s conscience is the essence of freedom, the essence of American Democracy, and the one last hope for the world.  The ability to say “NO” or to refuse blind obedience is the most sacred freedom we have.  Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson is reserving this right to say “no”, to refuse to acquiesce in the system.  I applaud her dedication to principle.  Everyone should.  “None can be free until all are free.”

What do these labels or statements really tell you about a person? S/he’s a “Convict” and a “Felon?” S/he’s “Disbarred?” S/he’s been “Sanctioned” or S/he’s a “Conservative?” or “Democrat?” or “Republican?” or “Libertarian” or “Liberal?” or “Constitutionalist?” or [OH NO!] “Birther?” In my case, I suggest they all add up to “Conflict-Tried and Litigation-Proven American Patriot!” or “Realist who knows just how rotten the system really is and knows it from the inside.”

I am, as many readers of this blog will know, a convicted felon and a disbarred attorney who has been severely sanctioned for spearheading a crusade to have the Texas Family Code declared unconstitutional.  But just start with “Felon” and “disbarred”: Isn’t that a frightening pair of labels?  I must really be a seriously bad guy, don’t you think?  Or is it worse to think that between 1-3% of the United States population either is or has been incarcerated, or on probation or on parole or otherwise severely constrained in the exercise of their personal liberty?  And many of them stigmatized FOR LIFE as “convicted felons?” I only care because I know these labels will be used against me.  A “Felon” in the usual sense of the word, is someone found guilty of a crime which COULD have carried more than a year sentence.  Of course, as the reader of this blog knows, my favorite “Felon” is and remains a lady named Nancy Jo Grant from Arcadia, Florida, sentenced to 15 years probation (and actually held for six months in County Jail in 2008), who is a “convict” because she was “convicted” of the unauthorized practice of law—for maintaining a prison ministry passing out information to inmates telling them about the Florida and Federal guarantees of “Speedy Trial” and how they were entitled to immediate release if they had not been tried within a certain statutory time frame.  Oh, she was really terrifying, Nancy Jo Grant at the height of her activity—she threatened positively dozens of prison guard jobs if she had succeeded in getting all of the prisoners released to whom she passed out truthful and undeniably accurate information.

Similarly—“Disbarred” means that you were once a licensed attorney but your fellow attorneys and judges found you rocked the boat just once or twice (or in my case about forty thousand times) too often and so they had to get rid of you “for the integrity of the system”—because anyone who advocates change and seeks to break down barriers and build up individual freedom cannot possibly be a “man of integrity” with “due respect for the legal system.”  I thought being “disbarred” was significantly worse than being a “convicted felon” until I met former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore this past week in Atlanta—here was a man who, because of his own spiritual devotion and dedication to freedom of religion protected by the First Amendment was forcibly removed by judicial action from his very high office as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Alabama—not for any JUDICIAL action he took, mind you, but for daring to advocate a central place for the Ten Commandments—recognized jointly, severally, and equally by each of the leading monotheistic religions in the world (Judaism, Christianity and Islam)—as the foundation of all law.  If I suffered some mild indignities by being disbarred, Chief Justice Moore suffered worse by being dis-benched (the word “debenched” looks and sounds too much like “debauched” and the only “debauchery” in Justice Moore’s story is the intellectual and moral debauchery of those who removed him from office, and while “dethroned” is probably a historically more accurate term for the removal of judges from their large chairs perched atop daises above the heads of their “subjects”—I think much too highly of Chief Justice Moore to put him in the same category with most of the judges I know—those I have personally worked for and/or studied under all excepted from this general characterization, criticism….or damnation.  I do feel that the general damnation, criticism, or characterization of judges as monarchical petty-tyrants is warranted for most of the modern judiciary….especially but not limited to Texas Judges Federal and States James R. Nowlin, Sam Sparks, Michael Jergins, James R. Clawson, Jeanne Meurer, Lynn N. Hughes, Janis Graham Jack.

And no, I don’t have any respect for judges who hide behind the shield of “absolute judicial immunity” and lawyers who hide their gross incompetence and/or corrupt character and policy purposes behind the shield of the most illegitimate state-sponsored monopoly in the world: the state sponsored monopoly on free speech and advocacy in the courts, the one context where speech might actually have a PROFOUND AND DIRECT IMPACT on individual people’s lives and the future course of history at the same time, simultaneously.  Let people speak freely EVERYWHERE, but not in Court: oh “heaven forfend” that we should enjoy the blessings of liberty to speak freely in court.  You see, no matter how unjust a prosecution is, no matter how unconstitutional or unwarranted a criminal statute might be, no matter how utterly devoid of due process of law a judicial process in a civil or criminal case might be, the judges and prosecutors all have absolute judicial (or prosecutorial) immunity—or at least they claim they do.  Of course, I have repeatedly argued and continue to argue that the 1996 Amendments to 42 U.S.C. Sections 1983 and 1988 actually codified the holding of the United States Supreme Court in Pulliam v. Allen which they purported to overrule, and reduced the threshold for piercing judicial immunity from “actions taken in the complete absence of jurisdiction” (a nearly impossible standard to overcome—in that any lawfully seated judge obviously has SOME jurisdiction to do SOMETHING, even if it’s just issue reprimands….) to “actions taken clearly in excess of jurisdiction” which might be a relative or objective standard, which at least theoretically, in front of SOME judges and juries COULD be breached….or crossed, or whatever it is you need to do to get past a threshold of judicial (or prosecutorial) immunity….

Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522, 104 S.Ct. 1970, 80 L.Ed.2d 565 (1984) and the 1996 amendments to 42 U.S.C. §§1983/1988.  The common body of language consists in (1) the use of the phrase “conduct clearly in excess of jurisdiction” with regard to attorneys’ fees and damages and (2) the principle that judicial immunity is not a bar to prospective declaratory or injunctive relief against a judicial officer acting in his or her judicial capacity:

Our own experience is fully consistent with the common law’s rejection of a rule of judicial immunity from prospective relief.  We have never had a rule of absolute judicial immunity from prospective relief, and there is no evidence that the absence of that immunity has had a chilling effect on judicial independence.

Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. at 537, 104 S.Ct. at 1978.

Congress enacted §1983 and its predecessor….to provide an independent avenue for protection of federal constitutional rights.  The remedy was considered necessary because “state courts were being used to harass and injure individuals, either because the state courts were powerless to stop deprivations or were in league with those who were bent upon abrogation of federally protected rights…..(every member of Congress who spoke to the issue assumed that judges would be liable under §1983).

Id.,  466 U.S. at 541, 104 S.Ct. 1980.

As it happens, I didn’t do a single second in jail or even handcuffs for my felony.  It was just a Federal Judge’s way of ruining my life—or trying to—because on August 31, 2000, the day I gave up my law license in Texas, I can tell you that I HAD NOT EVEN BEGUN TO FIGHT.  It was only meeting a State Court Judge, Michael Jergins of Williamson County, and all his corrupt cronies, that really turned me into a man who would dedicate the rest of his life to fighting for (I don’t care HOW corny it sounds): TRUTH, JUSTICE, AND THE AMERICAN WAY.  As a matter of fact, I consider these labels (“Felon” and “Disbarred” and “Sanctioned”) as “Red badges of courage” which I earned by hard work in the fight against a corrupt judiciary and an even more corrupt and unconstitutionally monopolized legal profession.  I have learned a lot of hard lessons, in particular, and if I have gained knowledge of anything that I think is important or special, it’s what I learned about the United States’ Heart of Darkness during those 54 days December 8, 2007-February 2, 2008: we do NOT live in a good country, or a free country, or a just country.

I consider these labels proof that I mattered enough to pose a danger to someone, although not necessarily for the “crimes” I was alleged to have convicted.   My “felony” was the misstatement of two digits in my social security number in an application for a non-interest-bearing checking account at Wells Fargo Bank in an otherwise complete and correct application to open a non-interest bearing checking account in November 1996.  “BRANDED”!  “LABELLED FOR LIFE AS A DANGEROUS UNDESIRABLE IN SOCIETY.”  Oh, by the way, Wells Fargo Bank never noticed the problem, nor did anyone else since the accounts were non-interest bearing, and although the account application was filled out in my own hand, the original was lost, so tampering with the numbers on the original by erasure or white out or whatever was never excluded as a possibility.  Try as my Texas persecutors and their emulators elsewhere might (while trying to impose “reciprocal discipline”, they cannot make this more than it is.  Recently some on-line critics of mine has dug all this up and tried to make something of it, but they couldn’t even settle for the reality that only two numbers of my social security number were misstated, they had to exaggerate it to three, and thereby illegally and improperly published my social security number—except that they published it INCORRECTLY so as to try to make the charges against me worse than they were, BY ONE DIGIT!  Idiots and pathetic fools at that.  I forgive them for they have absolutely no idea what they’re doing or saying or (probably) even why.

A United States District Judge for the Western District of Texas (James R. Nowlin) got me in his gunsights over the civil rights cases and in essence hired my former housekeeper in open court to testify against me (my housekeeper Marcelina was seemingly a very sweet, kind, and good North-Mexican-born lady with very poor linguistic skills in English who did not even sign the original complaint proffered against me under her name).  Either she or someone in her family made up some gibberish or the Lago Vista police officers who wanted to get rid of my seven suits against them in 1997-1998 made up some gibberish and Judge James R. Nowlin officially ordered an investigation of me by the U.S. Attorney, the FBI, and the “Admissions Committee” of the Western District of Texas—which was entirely Judicially appointed).  To say that Judge Nowlin ordered them to crucify me would of course be an exaggeration—he merely ordered them to try to find some, in fact ANY colorable grounds to disbar me—and so they did.

So, since I was indicted on December 7, 1999, I have developed a very new and comprehensive perspective on what this label “FELON” means.  Because in my case I say it means almost NOTHING, except that my wife Elena did not want me to risk going to trial in Federal Court after, during my judicial clerkships and externships, I had told her that roughly one person per year walks out of any Judge’s Federal Court free after receiving a Federal indictment—and that’s only if the government has such a weak case that congress has to amend the law to make it possible to indict more people.

I never “did any time” on my felony indictment, but as readers of this blog also know, I did do first one week and then 54 days in 2006-2008 for various bogus judicial orders approximating charges of “contempt for failure to appear”—both in cases wherein I had and continue to severely (and I think very accurately) question and challenge the personal and subject matter jurisdiction of the court.  But still, some ignorant folks think that just the fact that you’ve done time in jail means you’re a dangerous person.

What I found out in jail, frankly, was that most people incarcerated don’t belong there.  I have said of the Metropolitan Detention Center in Los Angeles that the “convicted felons” with whom I shared most of December 2007 and early January 2008 were a more distinguished group of people than I’ve met anywhere outside of the Harvard Faculty Club, Boston’s Tavern Club, or the Washington D.C. Cosmos Club (and in fact there’re some overlapping members in all FOUR groups….and I was NOT the only one….but we won’t go into that too much).  I still deeply regret the horrible fate of my fellow detainees Moshe Leichner and Vance Fecteau, who will remain in my mind among the finest people I have ever met in my life, intellectually, emotionally, ethically, and spiritually.  Those who can hold their heads high while serving not only time but their fellow inmates in prison are noble men indeed.  Moshe Leicher was one of those people who remind us that Jesus Christ and all his Apostles were Jews, and Jesus himself and several apostles also socially condemned and “convicted felons,” whose real offenses were to challenge the powers that be and perhaps succeed a little too much in doing so.   I only wish that I could achieve the moral stature of some of those wrongfully and purposelessly incarcerated people I have known in jail, deprived of life, liberty, and property by this sadly perverted but still dream-filled country in which we live.  Tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, of hardworking Mexican and other Latin American born nationals rot in American prisons.  If similar numbers of unemployed American tourists were arrested for their drunken pecadillos in Cancun, Acapulco, Cabo San Lucas, or Mazatlan, I daresay that the United States would demand an invasion of Mexico to free them.  And yet Mexico sits by silently and does nothing for its unjustly imprisoned masses in U.S. Custody.

So I am a convicted felon and a disbarred attorney, and at age 50 I am trying to decide what to do with the rest of my life, and I look at two other labels: Democrat and Republican.  Now mind you, there are plenty of prominent Democrats and Republicans who have also become convicted felons and worn the same orange pajamas or jumpsuits that I wore for 54 days at MDC Los Angeles, the Oklahoma City Transfer Center (one of the bleakest spots on earth) and other places.   But what is a Democrat and what is a Republican?

So much could be written about that question—so much always is.  “Democrat” usually implies “Liberal” and “Republican” usually implies “conservative,” but I recently found this wonderful website: http://www.democraticreformparty.com on which I find Barack Obama criticized as a socialist with slightly dictatorial leanings who likes to be called a “leader.”  I remember Democratic Senator Samuel James Ervin of North Carolina and Republican Senator Howard Baker of Tennessee, both veterans of the Senate Watergate Committee of 1973-1974, and how they and Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona ended up on the same side of many issues, among them that Richard Nixon should resign.  (I always had a soft-spot for Howard Baker because, like my Dad, he was a navy man in World War II, and like me, he was a graduate of the undergraduate College of Arts & Sciences at Tulane University in New Orleans; much more imposing and inspiring, Senator Sam Ervin, who as I did later, spent his graduate years at Harvard, was constantly quoting Shakespeare and the Bible, and in his manner of doing so seemed to me, when I was ages 13-14, to be the most eloquent and well-educated man alive).

There are not many senators of the calibre of those three (Ervin, Baker, & Goldwater) around today.  As a matter of fact, aside from another Democrat, Senator Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, I cannot think of any.  Goldwater’s great claim to political success, of course, was that in losing the 1964 Presidential Election, he nevertheless cracked open the “Solid South” and opened the door to Republicans taking over large parts of the “Southern White” element of the Southern White-Northern Labor Coalition which together elected every Democratic President from Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt through John Fitzgerald Kennedy and Lyndon Baines Johnson (despite Johnson’s loss of the “Deepest South” to Goldwater in Fact).  (At the Tenth Amendment Summit in Atlanta February 25-26, 2010, I did have the pleasure of meeting yet another large group of conservative democrats who have organized under the label “Liberty-Democrats” at http://www.newlibertydemocrats.com, who recognize that the most repressive terms in American politics, aside from “liberal” and “welfare” is “progressive”—my son Charlie says that he and I are both “Victorian Liberals”, really fairly extreme….).

The issue that has troubled America the most from approximately 1619 onwards is the issue of race.  The Democratic Party was once “Solid” in the South because it supported first the maintenance of slavery and then of segregation, and to atone for its sins became the party that elected the First Half-Black Man (formal racial label “Mulatto”) President, Barack Obama, who also happens to be the First President Elected who, by all traditional standards of evidence, is probably NOT an American citizen, and is therefore a fraud and a usurper and generally a disgrace to this country, quite apart from the fact that he’s a raving socialist who wants this country to turn into something that can only be described as “distinctly unAmerican.”  (OH, because I believe this little scandalous scenario, I must also bear to suffer another insulting label: I am also called a “Birther”, and all the “Pro-Obama, anti-Birthers” and some of the “Birthers” rejoice in criticizing me because of those other “labels” I bear, which may or may not really mean anything, but sure can hurt a guy’s employment prospects sometimes….I mean really).  But you see, by contrast with the Democrats, the Republican Party was created to free the slaves, it’s first President won power while advocating that slaves should all be returned to Africa but achieved at least their nominal freedom but only to the effect of enslaving or at least impoverishing the Southern Whites, and now the Republican Party is the best haven for scared White Suburbanites and blacks who wish they were White Suburbanites or at least wouldn’t mind if their son or daughter married one….except that most of the scared White Suburbanites are really quite comfortable with the idea of millions of blacks in chains—so long as they’re called CONVICTED FELONS AND KEPT SAFELY AWAY FROM SOCIETY).

If I had any political power or influence I would instigate a reform of the United States Criminal Code.  There are just too many crimes on the books.  Everyone is a criminal RIGHT NOW whether they know it or not.  How many of you can be sure that you never wrote down your social security number incorrectly? How many of you can be sure that you never made any of hundreds if not thousands of indictable errors in filling out your tax returns or other government forms?  As Ayn Rand wrote many years ago that the proliferation of crimes in the criminal codes of the Western nations meant that all of us would eventually be subject to arrest at any time at the whim of the government.  That is basically how I became a convicted felon, you see: United States District Judge James R. Nowlin did not like or appreciate the fact that I was bringing civil rights lawsuits on behalf of white suburbanites who did not wish to be subject to unlawful arrest in the white suburbs, and this is just not what the civil rights laws or movement was supposed to be about.  Civil Rights Reforms in the 1950s and 1960s were just meant and supposed to be a meaningless and temporary concession or series of temporary concessions to keep African-Americans from turning Communist during the Cold War, and once the Cold War was over, all pretenses concerning the Federal Government’s interest in Civil Rights or Equality or any of that garbage could be pretty much summarily dropped, and the Government never wanted those laws to apply to White People anyhow, or so the U.S. Judges so often tell us.

Another thing I would do if I were ever elected to public office is I would reinvigorate the Civil Rights Laws and make them truly Colorblind, even as I would also allow all ethic groups in this country their own rights to separate development and self-determination to the degree that this were feasible after all the “shake and bake” years of enforced “diversity” in the schools and neighborhoods and workplaces.  We have a “shake and bake” globalist President and he’s not the least little bit interested in helping black men and women stay in their homes or get houses or avoid foreclosure or be economically independent so that they can avoid spending their lives in prison.  NO, Barack Obama shows no sign of caring that African Americans are many times more likely to end up in jail than they are to end up owning their own homes.   Nor does he show any sign of wanting to curtail the abuses, infringements, and abridgements of civil rights effected by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, the Patriot Act, the Real ID Act, and every other vile product of his miserable predecessors the totally Globalist, Freed0m Suppressing, Bush-Clinton-and-Bush Administrations (Democrats and Republicans merged into one during those years, if they hadn’t already under Reagan, the great conservative hope who not only saved Roosevelt’s New Deal but also Johnson’s Great Society—and expanded them both while utilizing all the worst elements of the Military-Industrial Complex about which Dwight Eisenhower had warned us).

If I had elective office or any political power, I would try to emphasize that the greatest difference is not between what the parties stand for today, but what they stand for today and stood for at various and sundry times in the past.  As a Democrat, I would try to resuscitate the honor of Samuel James Ervin and Howard Baker in the tradition of James W. Davis and Alfred Emanuel Smith.   As a Republican, I would say that Senator Barry Goldwater and Governor Ronald W. Reagan represent the best of the modern party tradition of individual freedom, individual responsibility, and limited government, but that President Ronald W. Reagan was nothing less than a catastrophe for the country.

Bank of America Seizes Paid up House! (this is how careful they are in Florida: courtesy of Mountain Sage Blog)

In studying this little story, I cannot decide whether the greater fault lies with Bank of America or the Hernando County Sheriff.  Do law enforcement officers have NO responsibility at all to verify the claims underlying any proposed seizure of property?  If they do not, then once again, is it really good and constitutional policy that we allow liars to be (even partially, temporarily) insulated by law merely by reporting to the police?   Official immunity is absurd!  The police have at least as many resources to verify claims as the Banks—and the use of the police should be conditioned on the police (Sheriff’s office/Constables/Marshal’s office, whatever!) commitment to double and tripled check all elements of a claim before acting using the state’s asserted monopoly on legitimate violence.

http://mountainsageblog.com/2010/02/14/bank-of-america-forecloses-on-house-that-couple-had-paid-cash-for/

Filed in Politics on Feb.14, 2010

A real estate agent employed by Bank of America told the bank that it had the wrong house.  The Cardosos lost the tenant and the personal possessions they had stored at the house.  I certainly hope that the Cardosos get a HUGE settlement from Bank of America.  There is NO excuse for this type of carelessness and incompetence.

As the recession continues, more and more corporations are taking advantage of Americans, from foreclosures to companies reducing pay, laying off workers and requiring employees to do the job of 5 people, to misclassifying employees as independent contractors to avoid paying minimum wage.  Where does it stop?

SPRING HILL — Charlie and Maria Cardoso are among the millions of Americans who have experienced the misery and embarrassment that come with home foreclosure.

Just one problem: The Massachusetts couple paid for their future retirement home in Spring Hill with cash in 2005, five years before agents for Bank of America seized the house, removed belongings and changed the locks on the doors, according to a lawsuit the couple have filed in federal court.

Early last month, Charlie Cardoso had to drive to Florida to get his home back, the complaint filed in Massachusetts on Jan. 20 states.

The bank had an incorrect address on foreclosure documents — the house it meant to seize is across the street and about 10 doors down — but the Cardosos and a Realtor employed by Bank of America were unable to convince the company that it had the wrong house, the suit states.

“Their own real estate agent told them, and nevertheless Bank of America steamrolled right ahead,” said Joseph deMello, an attorney in Taunton, Mass., who is representing the couple. “This is a nightmare for anyone, and it affected my hard-working clients a lot.”

The Cardosos are seeking unspecified damages from Bank of America. The company showed negligence, trespassed and caused the couple emotional distress and financial hardship, especially because a tenant renting the home at the time got worried and left, according to the complaint. It’s still unclear if the couple’s credit rating has been affected, deMello said.

REST  OF ARTICLE

County Record (click to enlarge) – The Hernando  County Property Appraiser records show the house was indeed purchased for $139,000. I redacted exact addresses to protect the privacy of the Cordosos.

Photobucket