Tag Archives: James Madison

Historical Ignorance and Patriot Mythology concerning the “Fraud” of the American Independence from Great Britain

I had the opportunity to speak with Lowell A. (“Larry”) Becraft again tonight about the mythology of law circulating around the Patriot Movement.  



So much nonsense, so little time, but I did think of a little outline concerning one of the biggest issues:  Are the United States really free of Great Britain?  (I can’t quite believe we’re discussing this during the Presidency of Barack Hussein Obama, whose father was an anti-British Mau Mau).

I hope that we can focus just one the English-influence and Crown Control question for this first topic, because I think that’s the “oldest” and in some ways most basic confusion, because some elements of the conflict clearly bothered and divided even the Founding Fathers, who led a revolution against the “Mother Country” of England:
(1)   During the Revolution: Loyalist Tories vs. Revolutionary Patriots.
(2)   After the Revolution: Anglophile Federalists vs. Francophile Anti-Federalists in and after the Constitutional Convention of 1787; essence of the conflict focusing on the question of government financing and the establishment of a National Bank; and the question of repayment of English creditors and protection of English property interests in the newly freed colonies.
(3)    The party lines were split between Hamilton & Washington v.  Henry, Jefferson, & Madison (with John Adams kind of in the middle).
(4)   Anglophile Federalist Hamiltonians favored centralization and the Bank of the United States IN LARGE PART FOR THE BENEFIT OF ENGLISH CREDITORS OF THE COLONIES—the origin of the “no impairment of the obligations of debt” clause in Article I.
(5)      Francophile Democratic Republicans favored State Sovereignty and a decentralized economy.
(6)   “Second American Revolution” Ended with U.S. Victory at the Battle of New Orleans 200 years ago—no reintegration with the British Empire—why would this war (more popularly known as the War of 1812 have happened AT ALL if the First Revolution had resulted in some sort of secret compromise with Parliament or the Crown?
(7)   Bankers’ attempt on Andrew Jackson’s life: 1835 correlated with the Jackson’s confiscation of the Bank of the United States, effected by Attorney General turned Secretary of the Treasury Roger Brooke Taney (who was rewarded by appointment as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court upon the death of John Marshall after his unparalleled thirty five years).
(8)   1844: James K. Polk sails into office on the motto “54’40 or Fight” regarding the proposed annexation of “all” of Oregon from Great Britain—compromise ended up with extension of 59th parallel—giving North America the beautiful gift of what is now called “British Columbia” and was, until the invasion from Hong Kong, the most English spot on earth outside of England.
(9)   1848: Communist Manifesto casts a pall over the whole world—crystalizing another whole aspect of the “English” Myth: the domination of English, in particular English Jewish Bankers. Communism was, in all the world, especially threatening to the European Crowned Heads and the Southern American Planters (*seen by Marx as relics of Christian Feudalism).
(10)   Rapidly, the English crown works out a compromise with the Bankers (Karl Marx was a member of the Rothschild Family on his mother’s side) and England rapidly grants full civil rights to Jews and begins to expand the Voting Franchise to workers, although this did not happen until 1867, after the American Civil War was over. England had its first Jewish MP within ten years (Lionel Rothschild 1859, partly parodied by Alec Guiness in the movie “Kind Hearts and Coronets”) and London has its first Jewish Mayor in 1855 (David Salamons, also the first Jewish Sheriff of any English shire–namely Kent SE of London).
(10)   So in 1861, America plunged into a civil war that radically changed the landscape.  England supported the South, by more than just words, but Uncle Abe threatened war on England, and for whatever reasons (such as the sympathy of the as yet unenfranchised workers, England was scared.  Queen Victoria was totally in private sympathy with the South but her beloved husband Albert of Saxe-Coburg Gotha was on the side of the North (and the workers).  Does this Sound like a situation where England controlled the U.S. in 1860?  At all?
(11)  After the War England actually PAID A LARGE INDEMNITY TO THE US for its support of the South and for outfitting Southern Ships as blockade runners and for the CSA Navy.  Was the US dependent on England in 1865?  Doesn’t look like it to me…
(12)  For the Fifty Years after 1865-1915, American Aristocrats defined themselves largely by their trips to England, education in English Colleges and Universities, or U.S. (e.g. Harvard & Yale) imitation of English College and University styles—this was a matter of U.S. Money going to England for Validation, to be sure, and also of U.K. investment coming to the United States, but the relationship was one of Equals, not of Colonial Office and Master.
(13) 1915  the Lusitania sank–some people say it was a fix, a false flag attack.  BUT, even after the Lusitania, and a lot of other moves, it took a LOT OF PROPAGANDA, and the Zimmerman telegram, to get the United States to join England and France in the War on Germany and Austria-Hungary.  Some say it took the Balfour Declaration and the support of U.S. Jews….who were mostly of German and Eastern European Origin….
(14)   But the simple truth is that IF the mythology were correct, if England or the British Crown still exercised ANY sort of lasting control over the former 13 colonies—by 1912 multiplied into 48 states with several associated colonies of their own—IF that mythology of continued British Domination were correct, the South would have won the War of 1861-65, and if there had been a World War I at all, the United States would have joined with the U.K., as did all the real dominions including Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand, and the only recently formed Union of South Africa, in 1914.
(15)   It is interesting to reflect that, in 1912, American Colonies abroad included the Philippine Islands in East Asia and Hawaii in the Middle Pacific, both of which the U.S. held in competition with Great Britain for colonial power in the Pacific.
(16)   Hawaii, all its history considered, should have belonged to England if to anyone.  Hawaii had included, as part of its own flag, the British Flag or Union Jack, evidence of the close alliance between the Hawaiian monarchy and the British Navy….which ever since Captain Cook had been the instrument for the world integration and continued independence of what they called “the Sandwich Islands”…. put the Hawaiian flag side-by-side with the Flag of British Columbia…. or read how the Hawaiian kings and queens copied English royal and legal culture slavishly, in every way possible, and you will see just how different America’s path really was.
(17)   It is true that the American colonies due owe their legal heritage, language, and many aspects of their philosophy, to England, and it is also true that the Queen of England, as a wealthy private individual, has a substantial “empire” of investments all over the U.S., but so do the Imperial family of Japan, and the Royal House of Saud (from Saudi Arabia).
(18)    The Queen of England is one of the wealthiest individuals with some of the largest landholdings in the world, but the House of Windor’s private holdings and investments ALL date from the 19th century, NOT from pre-Revolutionary or colonial times.
(19)    So as interesting as it may be to speculate that the United States never really obtained its independence from England, it did.
(20)    One final point would be to remember the debate in Congress in 1939-1941 (before Pearl Harbor) about whether the United States should assist the United Kingdom AT ALL, in its defense.
(21)    My Galveston-Texas born grandfather Alphonse B. Meyer got a lucrative contract to clean, paint, and seal the U.S. ships that were being “lent and leased” to England pursuant to a special agreement which a Texas school-teacher turned Congressman, one Lyndon B. Johnson, representing the Texas Hill Country, pushed through Congress on behalf of President Franklin D. Roosevelt.
(22)    “Lend-Lease” was basically U.S. charity to England, and so, by World War II, it would be fair to say that the Mother Country was now dependent on the Former Colonies for her very survival.
(23)     There is really very little doubt that, once she committed to War against Germany, whether that was a smart decision or not, Great Britain could not have survived as an independent nation without the full backing of the United States—which King George VI and Prime Minister Winston S. Churchill simply would not have had to beg for, had the English Crown retained “ownership and control” after the American War of Independence and Constitution of 1787, after the War of 1812, or the Civil War…..
(24)    History is VERY interesting, and more people could surely benefit from spending time studying it……
(25)       Anybody who EVER wants to discuss this further, leave your comment, e-mail, and telephone number here….I might even start giving seminars….

“Der Anarch”—Asserting our Sovereign Individuality and Sovereign Citizenship as not only “Anarchen” but also “Ubermenschen” is the only path to resist Totalitarianism in the United States and around the World

You see a lot of insults being heaped these days at the core Constitutional concept of “the sovereign citizen” as a political or philosophical movement these days, as if it were conjured up by a bunch of illiterate hillbillies  who just want to hide their moonshine & pot-liquor from “the feds” and the “revenuers.”  Credible reports from all over the United States suggest that local police are everywhere being taught to watch out for the dangerous “sovereign citizens” who assert their constitutional rights “too often or too loudly” as subversive terrorists.  My perspective on such matters is: MAY THE LORD OUR GOD BLESS, KEEP, AND PROTECT ALL SUBVERSIVE TERRORISTS WHO FIGHT FOR THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, JUST AS HE KEPT AND PROTECTED PATRICK HENRY, GEORGE WASHINGTON, THOMAS JEFFERSON, JAMES MADISON, BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, and ANDREW JACKSON BEFORE….

And ever since Liza Mundy published my identity as an “Anarchist” (she left out the “Traditional, Jeffersonian, Southern Constitutionalist” modifiers to that label) in the Washington Post on October 6, 2009, I have repeatedly been asked to explain myself—how can I be an “anarchist?”  Doesn’t that mean I just want “chaos?”  Well, up to a point, I will admit that “chaos” to me seems preferable to computer driven and enforced high-tech “order.”  I would rather live in Early Anglo-Saxon or Norse Viking Society or at the edge of the Western Frontier in 18th Century Virginia than in any of Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, George Orwell’s 1984, or Jerry Brown’s Barbara Boxer’s & Dianne Feinstein’s California 2013.

But it happens that living in a “leaderless” society and accepting no man as an arbiter of YOUR OWN DEFINITION of “good and evil” (or going beyond such things) has a very respectable historical pedigree….  Today I just want to celebrate Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche and Ernst Jünger— http://www.ernst-juenger.org.  

Ernst Jünger was an anti-Nazi German Conservative and Intellectual of the highest calibre and standing.  He lived until the age of 102, from 1895-1998, beating even my grandmother Helen for longevity (she only made it to 101).  

My political philosophy is fundamentally anti-modern and therefore truly “conservative” whereas Naziism, like George H.W. Bush’s & George W. Bush’s Socialist-Corporatism (which includes Obama and the Clintons, by the way), is fundamentally modernist—embracing technology as a means of oppression and control by monitoring.  

No  “Traditional, Jeffersonian, Southern Constitutionalist” could possibly tolerate the Department of Homeland Security, the National Defense Authorization Act, or any of the now thousands of related executive orders.  GHW Bush, GW Bush, WJ Clinton, HR Clinton, and BH Obama are all fundamentally students and followers of Stalin, Mao, and perhaps even Hitler. (1) 

I am much more a student and follower of Ernst Jünger.

Jünger was among the forerunners of magical realism—a very broad topic into which I think you could integrate everything from Joss Whedon’s Buffy-the-Vampire Slayer TV Series to Terrance Malick’s films (include “To the Wonder” and “Tree of Life”).  A friend of mine from the Ukraine recently commented that Jünger’s view of life and the current historical trajectory involves the “re-mythologization of the world,” the protection, preservation, and restoration of individual imagination, instinct, intuition as major factors in world politics and society.  

My supplement to this is that all historical interpretations and political philosophies are essentially mythologies informed by more-or-less gross reorderings of the events of individual, local, regional, national, continental, and global existence.  The mythology of American Constitutional Law depends entirely (these days) on the so-called “Civil War” of 1861-1865, except to the degree that it is supplemented by the post-1945 One World Religion of the Taboo Holocaust and the Credal virtues of the United Nations.

Jünger’s vision in The Glass Bees (1957, German title: Gläserne Bienen), of a future in which an overmechanized world threatens individualism, could be seen as a direct critique of Artificial (robotic) Intelligence and even this “Aryan Traditionalism” you’re looking at (which reminds me so much of “The Santa Fe Plateau and New Age Alchemy” of Yosi Taitz, Daylight Chemical, and similar companies….)

Jünger was an entomologist as well as a soldier and writer, a “manly man” but sensitive poet with training in botany and zoology, as well as a soldier, his works in general are infused with tremendous details of the natural world.

One of Jünger’s most important literary contributions was the metahistoric figure of Der Anarch (“the sovereign person”), which evolved from his earlier conception of the Waldgänger, or “Forest Goer”.  Der anarch is Jünger’s answer to the question of survival of individual freedom in a totalitarian world, and it is ten thousand times more relevant today than it was 57 years ago as he was writing.  It is developed primarily through the character of Martin Venator in his novel Eumeswil.   Der Anarch IS not only the original “Sovereign Citizen”, at least the original “post Hitlerian” sovereign citizen, he is also a Nietzschean Ubermensch, with the capacity to retake his sovereignty from tyrants and maintain it, like the Superman, even in the forest, even in the Mountains, even in the Desert.

I totally believe in the sovereignty of each person and I hate the notion that the sovereign citizen has become the object of such ridicule in our society—a terrorist profile in the target of DHS.  What is clear is that we need to reassert our freedom in more articulate and fluent ways.  Fluency is required and intellectual heritage must be asserted because of the intellectual snobbery bred into us and our by the 20th century.  This snobbery led to such atrocious and fraudulent (incomprehensible) disasters as George W. Bush having degrees from both Harvard and Yale (it’s amazing what money can buy) and Obama attending Columbia, Harvard, and (worst of all) actually teaching at the University of Chicago—teaching constitutional law, no less, at MY alma mater as a successor to Michael W. McConnell—a concept which simply shocks and derails me.

Academic snobbery, which L. Frank Baum once ridiculed as a “Wogglebug Education” even after the Wizard’s dispensation of Brains to the Scarecrow was not a factor in the foundation of America, by men whose minds and mental capacities are simply beyond equal anywhere. No, lack of degrees and academic affiliation quite simply didn’t bother the extremely well-educated under-institutionalized Founding Fathers of the USA such as Patrick Henry and Benjamin Franklin one little bit….and didn’t actually have much of an impact on intellectual or philosophical careers in the 19th century either—consider that Richard Wagner never went to a music conservatory, Charles Darwin dropped out of Medical School and only grudgingly completed a degree in divinity at Cambridge, which he, oddly enough, never really used….and the lack of formal education completed by such legendary U.S. Presidents as Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln is a part of every schoolboy’s and schoolgirl’s learning—or at least it used to be before modern education norms set in.

In this same spirit, Ernst Jünger rejected all the titles and honors offered him by Hitler’s Third-Reich, and when assigned as a cultural attachee during the occupation of Paris, chose to hang out with subversive and degenerate artists…  This is the true legacy of a genuine Anarchist, and the world would do well to remember how important the “leaderless” spirit can be when “Obama’s going to change things….Obama’s going to make it happen” as some of the children’s school songs now go….

(a)  Unlike so many modern critics of 20th-21st century totalitarianism, I cannot automatically group Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco in the same list as Stalin and his Soviet successors, or Roosevelt and his Keynsian modern American Successors. I think Hitler was in fact much more of an ordinary person than any of these others, but at the same time he had higher and more “humane” [i.e. romantic, not necessarily rational or sensible] ideals than either of the Bushes, the Clintons or Obamas, however grotesquely inept he may have been in achieving, implementing, or realizing those ideals.

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.
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:
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:


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).

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:


  • 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—