By The People

There are fundamental flaws in how American government operates today,
contrary to the Constitution and the vision of a representative republican form of governance.
I intend doing something about it: by educating and informing others who
are not even aware of the dangers.

Friday, April 30, 2010

The REAL REASON For The Bailout (Hint: FOREIGNERS)

If Americans don't start paying attention to what is really going on behind those closed doors of President Obama's Democratic Party government, we may need to learn a new national anthem as we are being sold down the river by those we trusted to protect us.

Wednesday, April 21, 2010

Wall St. Welfare: Courtesy of Senator Dodd

The following is reprinted from Downsize DC and you can send free e-faxes from its site to your representatives in DC. I use it all the time, as they articulate the message well, and it saves time.

Senate Banking Chairman Chris Dodd has quite a track record protecting Wall Street's Big Boys at your expense.
* Dodd authored the Bailout bill of 2008
* Then he secretly inserted the AIG bonus loophole into the Stimulus bill of 2009

And Dodd's not done yet! His financial "reform" bill creates a $50 billion fund. If any of Wall Street's large financial firms is on the verge of collapse, the government will take it over and use the fund to pay off creditors.
Smaller companies will be shut out of the program. If they fail, they will go bankrupt and creditors will lose their money. But if a Big Boy firm fails, its creditors will be bailed out.
Potential lenders will see that the Big Boys are protected by the government. That's a HUGE and UNFAIR advantage.
We must fight this injustice! Tell Congress to oppose this bailout scheme through's No Bailouts campaign.
You may borrow from or copy this letter . . .
Lehman Brothers went to bankruptcy court and was liquidated. That should be the fate of every poorly-run company. But Chris Dodd's financial reform bill allows struggling large firms to avoid the bankruptcy process, and creates a $50 billion fund to bail out their creditors.
Smaller firms that fail, however, will wind up in bankruptcy court and creditors will suffer huge losses.
This means potential creditors will see that there is less risk in lending to the big firms. These firms will only get bigger.
Not only is this an unfair advantage, it is unnecessary and dangerous. If big firms are failing, they should go to bankruptcy court like everyone else. As Peter Wallison and David Skeel point out, the threat of bankruptcy imposes discipline in the market. Creditors will know there are consequences in lending to weak companies.
This bill, in contrast, will protect and even encourage many of the risky and irresponsible practices that led to the meltdown of 2008. And it will likely drive out smaller firms and make our markets less competitive.
I demand that you oppose Dodd's bill and ALL bailout programs.

Tuesday, April 20, 2010

Case Made Agianst Cap & Trade

According to Jeffrey A. Glassman, Phd. :
"Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the product of oceanic respiration due to the well-known but under-appreciated solubility pump. Carbon dioxide rises out of warm ocean waters where it is added to the atmosphere. There it is mixed with residual and accidental CO2, and circulated, to be absorbed into the sink of the cold ocean waters. Next the thermohaline circulation carries the CO2-rich sea water deep into the ocean. A millennium later it appears at the surface in warm waters, saturated by lower pressure and higher temperature, to be exhausted back into the atmosphere. Throughout the past 420 millennia, comprising four interglacial periods, the Vostok record of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is imprinted with, and fully characterized by, the physics of the solubility of CO2 in water, along with the lag in the deep ocean circulation.
Notwithstanding that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, atmospheric carbon dioxide has neither caused nor amplified global temperature increases. Increased carbon dioxide has been an effect of global warming, not a cause. Technically, carbon dioxide is a lagging proxy for ocean temperatures. When global temperature, and along with it, ocean temperature rises, the physics of solubility causes atmospheric CO2 to increase.
If increases in carbon dioxide, or any other greenhouse gas, could have in turn raised global temperatures, the positive feedback would have been catastrophic. While the conditions for such a catastrophe were present in the Vostok record from natural causes, the runaway event did not occur. Carbon dioxide does not accumulate in the atmosphere."

Now I am NOT a rocket scientist, but I can read between the lies (err I mean lines) and see that there is nothing that a cap and trade bill will do to benefit the environment.

Cap and trade will create a new commodity to be traded on the market, which will make lots of profits for those that can afford to by carbon credits, and create business and personal bankruptcies for those of us that cannot afford to play the markets. The average cost to a homeowner will be about $6,038 annually, with nothing in return. In fact, when you want to sell your property, you will have to obtain an inspection and certification from the EPA which will indicate to prospective buyers that your home meets the stringent EPA standards. This will cost another few hundred dollars provided that the EPA does not find any "violations" which will of course haveto be corrected before yo can sell your house.

More and more of our personal freedom and rights to privacy are being eroded by a President and Congress that has not only lost touch with the people, but have abandoned the U. S. Constitution in its entirety for the express purpose of enslaving the citizens. There can be no other justification for this blatant abuse of power in public office.

Friday, April 16, 2010

Tea Partying Across America

Just read an AP news story about the Tea Parties today, and I was left with a bad taste in my mouth. I really should not be at all surprised by the fact that the story started with playing down the "Tea Partiers " role by calling them "a loose movement" which I really have nothing more to add to. I know what they mean of course only I may have made a different choice in words.

The real relevance of the article for me was the fact that Republicans like Rep. Bachman of MN who spoke at the rally at Freedom Plaza in Washington.  Accusing congressional Democrats along with President Obama of "trying to take over health care, energy, financial services and other broad swaths of the economy."

Using terms such as, "gangster government" and "time for these little piggies to go home" to incite the crowd, she then began thumping for support for her own reelection bid. Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich told a crowd of about 300 that the GOP need tea partier support and that creation of a third party would only divide the opposition to the Democrats.

In essence Gingrich is correct. If that is all that we are to accomplish is to create a third party that will take years to gain recognition, then we are defeated before we begin the race. I am registered to vote as a Libertarian and have been for many years. I am not a dues paying member of the Libertarian party and yet I do support the ideology of small government and more freedom. Allow the legislation passed by two-thirds majority of all the sovereign States who send their respective delegates to the House and Senate to vote on such legislation to do so, on behalf of  the States and the citizens, and leave Congress to restore itself to taking responsibility for coining currency and setting the value of it. End the Federal Reserve and the Internal Revenue Service and end fractional reserve banking.

Let's stop dancing around the reality and the gravity of the situation and act responsibly for real change. Change America back into a federal representative government and end the socialist democracy lunacy before we are completely bankrupt both economically and spiritually.

Thursday, April 15, 2010

It's Tea Party Time!

All over America, as procrastinators rush to mail their tax returns, many will be carrying signs of protest at various public places, raising their voices in unity as our founders once did against the tyranny of an oppressive government. It is times like this that really make me proud to be an American. This is what freedom is meant to be!

But please do not mistake civil protests with insurgency or terrorism, because nothing can be further from the truth. Sure there are those that will seek to take advantage of opportunity and media hype thus far has told that FBI warnings to local law enforcement has been in the form of messages to be prepared for violence. I would strongly suggest that those that I know are not amongst those that would consider violence as a means of protest nor would they condone it.

It is a Constitutional civil liberty to protest and file grievances for actions taken by the federal government that is contrary to the limited powers granted by the Constitution and for actions that are deemed so by the legislatures of the many sovereign States.

America declared its independence from a tyrannical government and as far as I know, we have never relinquished that right to any government. If there has been any legislation that came out of the nation's capital that violates any part of the Constitution, particularly but not limited to those Articles, Sections and Paragraphs, pertaining to the rights reserved for the sovereign States and the people, it must be repealed immediately. Of course that will not happen but it is a possibility to take under advisement.

The Boston Tea Party was about oppressive taxation albeit not with the guise of such benefit for the "under privileged" public that the current legislated health care act professes to be about. Millions of dollars will be used to fund the pork-barrel riders attached to the bill that was bribery for votes. Even the media could not spin that for anything else than what it was.

One of the main differences in our federal republic government that differentiates us from a democracy, is that in our form of government it takes two-thirds of the majority to pass a bill. Simply put, that is to prevent a simple majority say of 51%, forcing the other 49% of the population into compliance with something that clearly is not supported by a majority.

What will the media report about the Tea Party protests tomorrow on the evening news? I am thinking of attending a couple of them to see for myself. If I do, I will be sure to share my experiences.

Friday, April 9, 2010

The Supremacy Clause: It's the Law of the Land!

Sometimes I wonder how a person gets to be in a high ranking position when it is obvious that they do not have the knowledge or skills to perform the duties of that position. As is noted in the article cited from the Texas Tenth Amendment Center it seems that Tennessee's Attorney General uses a partial interpretation of the Supremacy Clause to illustrate the power of the Federal Government over the laws of the States and of the Constitution. He stated, “Congressional power to preempt state law arises from the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. The Supremacy Clause provides that the laws of the United States “shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding,” U.S. Const. art. 6, cl. 2.” 

But the clause he is quoting says, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

Please correct me if I am wrong here, but I interpret this to mean that the Constitution AND the LAWS of any State is the fundamental structure from which all Federal government laws derive their legality and jurisdiction.

Or as  the article cited indicated, "Federal laws trumps state laws, ONLY IF FEDERAL LAWS ARE CONSTITUTIONAL." So if State law is based on a state constitution, which is based on the United States Constitution's reservation of rights to the States and the citizens, How can any law produced by Congress and signed into law by the President, then trump all else? And when did Executive Orders get the authority to trump both Congress and the Constitution?

The answer is in the creation of the 16th and 17th Amendments, along with another Congressional sleight-of-hand entitled Uniform Commercial Code. On the surface at least it would appear that the UCC deals exactly with what Congress is responsible for, the commerce and trade with other nations, the uniform assessments of duties and tariffs to promote fair trade without negatively impacting the industrial backbone of America. It was then decided that each of us would become "corporations" but not in the same "legal" sense as a "real corporation."

First a lesson in who I am and who the Federal Government and all businesses think I am. I was issued a Social Security Number which I applied for because I was told it was necessary to have before I could be employed. And every job I had, every school I attended, every vehicle registration and drivers license application had a spot on it to enter my SSN. 

In school I learned how to print my name and to write it in script. I learned that a signature on an application, or a check, indicated that I was telling the truth and authorized to withdraw money from a checking account, which my name and SSN was also attached to. Today when you apply for employment they ask for SSN, DLN and State you are licensed to drive in, and whether you have had any convictions or felonies. Some require a drug screen before hire.  When I worked on the race tracks I had to be fingerprinted and photographed for FBI background checks. 

When we get a bill or a check, have you ever noticed that the name is in all CAPITAL LETTERS? I have a few birth certificates and I cannot recall that any spell my name in all capital letters. But I keep getting "official" correspondences that always are addressed to me in all capital letters.

So I started asking around as to why this is done. Because I have a background in Information Systems Technology I had thought that maybe it started when things were printed on impact printers that had all capital letters and it stuck. What I learned is too much for a blog post. More like a documentary or a novel.

In a nutshell, the government create a "straw man" entity of all of us, so they could get around the Constitutional provision that all taxes be apportioned, that is provide us with the itemized list that the Internal Revenue Service demand of taxpayers.

Why can't individuals claim the same expenses as deductions as a corporation? We cannot deduct mortgage or rent, gas, electric or telephone. You cannot deduct your auto expenses even when it is a necessity to get to and from work. But a "real" corporation can deduct that trip to Tahiti as a "corporate retreat" that was done around meetings and brainstorming sessions. More like 9 holes in the morning and getting trashed at the lounge in the evening.

I am not a corporation and therefore I would like someone to show me what laws gave Congress to tax wages. I want to know what laws specific require individuals to file income tax returns with the Internal Revenue Service, when the refund checks are paid through the US Treasury Department?

It is important that Americans start getting the education about reality in government today. It has been operating under the UCC which in many ways is itself unconstitutional, but try and get a judge to hear the case.

To read where a State AG misinterprets the Constitution to show how Federal law is the law of  the land, is a good example of how poorly educated people are, and the reason is the curriculum not their abilities to learn. And with more and more Federal government programs and intervention into the public school system, it only gets worse.

And now they have control over health care? Doesn't that make me feel all warm and fuzzy!

Thursday, April 8, 2010

The Corporate States of America

It seems pretty evident to me at least, that the Constitution of the United States of America means nothing to those that took oaths to uphold it. When foreign corporations can sell products to the American consumers that are unsafe and downright dangerous, it is apparent that the rights of the people are secondary to the profits of the corporation.

Now some will argue that making health care mandatory for all Americans is the right thing to do, because it will pay for those that cannot afford health care now. But they will not get benefits for at least another four years. Which means that all the higher premiums that Medicare recipients will pay and all the addition cuts in benefits  they will endure, will not benefit a single person until 2012.

Now I did notice that Congress will not have to change their benefits at all. And thanks to bailout money given to AIG they will have secured their pensions for at least a little while longer. How long is up to those who back AIG and the banks and the hedge funds, etc.

Seems like the management at Ford Motor Company was able to make the necessary changes to avoid bailout financing (government takeover) and remain viable. And I have yet to see the much touted Chevy Volt at a GM dealer near me. But I do see quite e bevy of unique EV autos and small trucks. And of course the ubiquitous Toyota Prius. Now with all of the turmoil with American automakers, how does Congress not act to prevent autos and other products that are imported from being so unsafe without penalty?

Maybe Toyota is too big to fail? They don't need a bailout? Just a get out of jail/fines for free card? What's that? They got one from our generous representatives in Washington, D.C.? Don't that make you want to play the national anthem and wave the flag for the patriotism that is displayed by these men and women charged with the responsibility of protecting our rights?

The Constitution was not written as a law for the people to fear the government, but for the government to fear the people. As Lincoln said, ... "of the people, by the people and for the people."