New American
Supreme Court Ruling Affirms Second Amendment
In what is sure to become regarded as a landmark case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 26, in District of Columbia v. Heller, that the Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home."
Follow this link to the original source: "Supreme Court Rules That Individuals Have Gun Rights"
COMMENTARY:For most of U.S. history, the majority of our jurisdictions have respected the right to keep and bear arms, as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to our Constitution. However, there have been notable exceptions.
Among these was the District of Columbia's Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975, which restricts residents from owning handguns — except for those "grandfathered" in by registration prior to 1975 or held by active or retired law enforcement officers. Additionally, the law required that even rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock," a requirement that would seriously delay a citizen's response in the event of a break-in.
In February 2003, six residents of Washington, D.C. (Shelly Parker, Tom Palmer, Gillian St. Lawrence, Tracey Ambeau, George Lyon and Dick Heller) filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, challenging the constitutionality of the restrictive law. The case had originally been planned in 2002 by Robert A. Levy, a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute.
There had been a split on the issue in lower courts. Initially, the suit was dismissed by the District Court, but the plaintiffs appealed and, in a 2-1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reversed the dismissal, striking down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act as unconstitutional.
In 2007, the District and its mayor, Adrian Fenty, petitioned for rehearing but the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit denied the request to rehear the case, by a 6-4 vote. Afterwards, both the defendants and the plaintiffs petitioned the United States Supreme Court to hear the case, but the appellate court ruling held that of the original six plaintiffs, only Heller — a 66-year-old a D. C. special police officer authorized to carry a handgun (that he wished to keep at home) while on duty at the Federal Judicial Center — had the necessary standing to challenge the law. Thus the case was designated, District of Columbia, et al. v. Dick Anthony Heller.
Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia correctly observed that the individual right to bear arms is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted. Scalia was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas.
In an almost incredulous dissent that he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority ''would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons." Stevens claimed that such evidence "is nowhere to be found." (Hint: the Second Amendment says, without qualification, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.")
Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent that displayed similar disregard for the history (think Lexington and Concord) that impelled the authors of the Constitution to define this right, stating: "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas." Also dissenting were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter.
The Supreme Court's decision marked the first time the court had ever definitively addressed the issue of whether the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and carry a gun, apart from service as a member of a militia. And while it certainly pushed back an assault on our citizens' right to keep and bear arms, there were indications that even the majority members of the Court do not fully appreciate the nature of the Second Amendment.
Justice Scalia, in a concluding paragraph to the 64-page opinion, said the justices in the majority "are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country" and believe the Constitution "leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns."
Among the "tools" left to the District was the authority to mandate gun registration. Anyone who thinks that being forced to register firearms does not eventually lead to firearms confiscation (certainly an infringement) needs to read the history of Germany's firearms registration during the Weimar Republic, and the subsequent confiscation of firearms by the Hitler regime.
Consider, for a moment, just what the "historical narrative" — particularly before the Second Amendment was adopted — means in understanding the mindset of those who wrote and passed the amendment.
A point that has often been debated is whether or not the use of the term "militia" in the Second Amendment limits the right to keep and bear arms only to those serving in a state militia (some say this applies only to state national guard members). That this claim is both absurd and exactly opposite of the Founders' intent is demonstrated by the words of George Mason, the author of Virginia's Bill of Rights, who explained that the militia consists "of the whole people, except a few public officers."
In the Heller opinion, the majority stated:
The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, "Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keepand bear Arms shall not be infringed."
The ruling also correctly observes, concerning the right defined in the Second Amenedment: "Nowhere else in the Constitution does a 'right' attributed to 'the people' refer to anything other than an individual right."
Other language in the ruling offers a refreshing recognition about the origin of rights, such as:
…we find that [the words of the Second Amendment] guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it "shall not be infringed." The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it "shall not be infringed." As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), "[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed.... (Emphasis in original.)However, a little while later, the opinion contradicts itself by stating that the amendment conferred a right: "There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms."
Yet another statement in the opinion offers perhaps the best justification of all as to why the right to keep and bear arms exists: "There are many reasons why the militia was thought to be 'necessary to the security of a free state.' ... when the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny."
If only our courts would keep that last point consistently in mind!
Other excellent points made in the opinion include:
During the 1788 ratification debates, the fear that the federal government would disarm the people in order to impose rule through a standing army or select militia was pervasive in Antifederalist rhetoric.
… the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens' militia by taking away their arms was the reason that right — unlike some other English rights — was codified in a written Constitution.
Another encouraging statement in the opinion is: "A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges' assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad."
And, the conclusion, taken at its word, is also cause for optimism: "In sum, we hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense."
In the end, the Court ruled: "We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals."
While the ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, cleared up some common legal misconceptions about the Second Amendment, it misses the mark on other points.
One disturbing statement in the majority opinion is: "We therefore read [United States v.] Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns."
One would think that, as clearly as the majority appeared to understand the history of the Second Amendment, they would see that the amendment makes no distinction whatsoever regarding types of arms.
The opinion does correctly observe that "For most of our history, the Bill of Rights was not thought applicable to the States, and the Federal Government did not significantly regulate the possession of firearms by law-abiding citizens." With the federal government's continual application of the Bill of Rights to the States, however, why exclude the Second Amendment?
Strict constitutional constructionists would probably concede the right of the states to regulate arms, if the federal government would only mind its own business in all other matters, but that is a moot point. With state and local government often now reduced to pawns of Washington, the Second Amendment must be maintained at all levels.
Finally, when Justice Scalia said that the Constitution does not permit ''the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home," he did not go nearly far enough. Because the Second Amendment was written not so much to protect the home against robbers (though that is certainly a welcome added bonus), but to protect the citizenry against tyrannical governments (such as that headed by George IlI), that would rob them of something even more valuable than their material possessions: their liberty!
The Court's majority opinion alluded to this fact in several places, as when it stated: "...when the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny." But by leaving undisturbed laws that continue to regulate when, where, how, what type, and to whom the right to keep and bear arms is applicable, the Court failed to defend in practice what it lauded in principle.
Its decision included much sound, constitutional thinking regarding the Second Amendment that could serve as excellent precedent for future courts. However, it also allowed too many loopholes, such as leaving the authority to require gun registration untouched.
Will the Supreme Court, in striking down this most egregious gun control law, coast on its newly established strict constructionist reputation and allow others almost as bad remain in place?
Only time will tell, but defenders of the right to keep and bear arms must not go to sleep. Those with both the legal expertise and the will to mount further challenges to unconstitutional gun-control laws must not rest.
A good place to start would be for constituents to pressure their congressmen to exercise legislative authority under Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, and limit the appellate jurisdiction of the federal courts, including the Supreme Court, over any matters related to the right to keep and bear arms.
Only then will an activist judicial system be stopped from legislating from the bench that the God-given right to self defense is not some government-granted privilege that may be revoked whenever the government deems it necessary.
As Thomas Jefferson once wrote, "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
Warren MassWarren is the Editor for the John Birch Society Bulletin.
--> Trackback URL for this post:
http://www.jbs.org/trackback/8536
McCain and the Nonexistent NAFTA Jobs Cornucopia
Presidential hopeful John McCain has criticized his rival, Barack Obama, for what McCain perceives to be an Obama slap at the North American Free trade Agreement. However, Obama, recently met with Prime Minister Harper of Canada to issue assurances that the "Obama Administration" will have "an enormous interest in maintaining a robust relationship with Canada and Mexico."
Follow this link to the original source: "McCain criticizes Obama's opposition to NAFTA"
COMMENTARY:John McCain has said that Barack Obama's opposition to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is "nothing more than retreating behind protectionist walls." Obama, however, actually met with Prime Minister Harper of Canada to reassure him that if elected his administration would have "an enormous interest in maintaining a robust relationship with Canada and Mexico," so his supposed "opposition" is feigned. He used it, though, to gain support from blue-collar out-of-work Americans on the campaign trail.
McCain made some wonderful-sounding claims in an Associated Press story that was featured on the GOPUSA website. He was reported as saying, "Since NAFTA was concluded, it has contributed to strong job growth and flourishing trade. Since the agreement was signed, the United States has added 25 million jobs and Canada more than 4 million."
If you can’t disprove the figures that NAFTA has been a disaster for the middle class in America — job losses and closed factories and loss of industry are endemic — then you start making up the numbers and hope that mainstream media doesn’t decide to go into a fit of honest reporting and challenge your figures!
How many factories have closed in Ohio, Illinois, Indiana and Michigan? How many jobs did NAFTA put on the negative side of the chart? Detroit, "looks like a city bombed out after World War II," says Connecticut conservative Paul Streitz. He continues, "In Bridgeport, CT, a three-floor G.E. factory that once employed 12,000 people sits empty. It is a depressing monument to Free Trade. Syracuse, New York is so devastated by the deindustrialization of the United States that perfectly good housing is abandoned as people leave the city." So is it just a matter of who are you going to believe, or is NAFTA just a convenient target this election season? Does evidence exist to support John McCain’s figures or has NAFTA really caused such economic devastation that cities like Detroit are reminiscent of Dresden or Berlin after WWII?
Let’s set the jobs debate aside and consider that even if NAFTA had produced the jobs that McCain says it produced, would that be sufficient reason to continue participating in this so-called "free" trade agreement? Absolutely not! With nearly a thousand pages of regulatory legalese, the trade agreement demonstrates that NAFTA is not about "free" trade, it’s about controlled trade. Worse, the nose of the camel now has its head and neck inside our nation’s sovereignty tent. NAFTA tribunals are overruling U.S. district courts on trade law. The world trade psychosis has affected the thinking of U.S. judges who don’t want to step on any toes, unless those toes belong to the average American small businessman or worker!
There are other ways to challenge the NAFTA cheerleaders by showing the figures of our trade deficit with NAFTA trading partner, Mexico. Pro-NAFTA Business Week says after NAFTA, "U.S.-owned auto parts companies set up shop [in Mexico]. General Motors, Ford, Chrysler, Volkswagen, and Toyota expanded their Mexican lines. Mexican car production leapt three-fold, to 2 million units per year. With two-thirds exported. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the U.S. now had a $34 billion deficit in cars, trucks, and parts last year with Mexico. Since 1999, some 200,000 auto-related jobs have left Michigan and Ohio." Well, maybe the metaphor of a "bombed out" Detroit isn’t so far removed from reality.
The bottom line: McCain and Obama are playing political football with NAFTA and neither one is at all concerned about U.S. sovereignty.
Lee GonzalesLee, a Chapter Leader for the John Birch Society, resides in New Mexico.
--> Trackback URL for this post:
http://www.jbs.org/trackback/8535
The Plan That Never Was Has Now Been Canceled
They never intended to build a Trans-Texas Corridor/NAFTA Superhighway. Or so they continued to insist. But now, the Texas Department of Transportation has announced that the plan they never had will no longer be considered.
Follow this link to the original source: " 'A Major Victory for Texas,' Ron Paul's Texas Straight Talk, June 23, 2008"
COMMENTARY:On July 31, 2007, the New York Times published a small article claiming that fears about construction of a massive new highway system connecting Mexico to Canada were "urban legend." The article even included a photo of the planned route that would, in effect, bisect Texas. The photo was a conceptual drawing of where the road would be created, an artist's rendition put forth by the North American Super Corridor Coalition (NASCO). But even that wasn't enough for the Times as its article pointed out that candidates for the GOP nomination were being peppered with questions about it while campaigning in faraway New Hampshire and Iowa. The GOP stalwarts claimed no knowledge of such a plan.Having set the tone a response should employ for any such question, the Times had provided an easy way for anyone to scoff at such "rumors." Denials that any such plan ever existed actually continue to this day. But the Texas Department of Transportation has just announced that a project paralleling I-69 (legitimately considered by opponents to be part of the NAFTA Superhighway System) will be built along existing highway facilities, not through any area that would necessitate massive land-grabbing.
So the plan that never existed has been canceled. How one does that is something only a government is likely to accomplish. In effect, TexDOT said, "It never was, but now it isn't." Amazing!
Texas Congressman Ron Paul noted that the project had been stopped cold by "nearly 28,000 public comments" sent to Texas officials, and attendance at 47 public hearings dealing with the proposed plan by "12,000 persons." He congratulated all for "how eloquently and respectfully they spoke and conducted themselves" while protesting a plan that would have cost many their livelihoods, homes, farms, and ranches. Many also feared a continuing erosion of national sovereignty, believing that the NAFTA Superhighway was intended to facilitate the creation of a North American Union entangling Canada, Mexico, and the United States.
Paul noted, "Constant pressure is needed to keep government in check, and we succeeded this time." But he added that "this will not be the last time citizen effort and involvement will be required." And he warned, "If I had to guess, they will probably try to implement the NAFTA Superhighway again sometime in the future."
James Russell Lowell issued a similar warning many years ago when he wrote: "Not yet, O Freedom! Close thy lids in slumber, for thine enemy never sleeps." John F. McManus
John F. McManus is President of The John Birch Society.
--> Trackback URL for this post:
http://www.jbs.org/trackback/8529
Spy Bill Heading for Senate Vote
The U.S. spy bill that would allow the government to engage in massive collection of American citizens’ communications without a search warrant, clearly in violation of the Fourth Amendment, will move forward in the Senate.
Follow this link to the original source: "Spy, phone protection bill clears Senate hurdle"
COMMENTARY:The U.S. spy bill that would allow the government to engage in massive collection of American citizens’ communications without a search warrant, in violation of the Fourth Amendment, is moving forward in the Senate; it was already passed by the House in overwhelming fashion.
Opponents of the bill say it will legalize the illegal surveillance carried out under the Bush administration’s orders between 2001 and 2007. Some say that President Bush violated the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that requires secret-court approval to electronically track any foreign target in the United States. But Bush maintains that he had "war-time power" to authorize such a program. The bill would also dismiss the approximately 40 lawsuits against telecommunications companies that provided customer information to U.S. government agencies during the 2001 to 2007 period.
A feeble 15 votes were all that could be mustered in support of a filibuster initiated by Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wis.). Eighty senators, 20 more then the 60 needed to break the threat of filibuster, voted to move the bill forward; five didn’t vote — Obama, McCain and Clinton were three who didn’t vote.
CNN reported Feingold as saying: "This legislation is going to be remembered as the legislation in which Congress granted the executive branch the power to sweep up all of our international communications, with very few controls or oversight." It is, he said, a "get out of jail free" card for those companies that illegally furnished the federal government with telecommunication information after 9/11. "This bill is not a compromise. It’s a capitulation," said Feingold.
In addition to saying this spy bill is "anti-American, deeply disturbing, and completely unacceptable," Congressman Ron Paul had this to say:
The Senate will now undertake the motion to proceed with the bill before getting to the actual bill itself. Feingold has introduced an amendment to strip the immunity from the telecommunications companies, but predictions are it will probably fail.
Here comes the politically opaque part. The 80 senators who voted against the Fourth Amendment and in favor of not allowing the filibuster to go forward, restricting the debate, have a chance to redeem themselves in the eye of the unsuspecting and uninformed public. When the FISA compromise bill does come up, many senators will flip-flop and vote agaiit — and the Congressional record will show this — making themselves look good to their constituents. It is nothing but dramatic theater for the masses, with the next election always in mind.
Below are the guilty and the innocent. Remember "yeas" are those who did not uphold the Bill of Rights, and "nays" are those who did:
One highly curious incident jumps out: The Green Bay Press Gazette reported that, "Feingold said he and Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., met with Senate leader Harry Reid last week to discuss their objections" to the bill, and at that point, Monday, June 23, were not planning a filibuster but wouldn't "allow it to pass quickly," by calling attention to the bill's flaws. But Harry Reid, in the end, voted for cloture.
In reality, the vote on June 25 was the real vote; not the upcoming charade on the Senate floor that may actually occur before the Fourth of July break.Get your pens, and your phones and your computers ready to flood these scoundrels’ offices with protests and remind them of their sworn oath to uphold the Constitution.Ann Shibler
Ann is an Editorial Assistant for the John Birch Society.
--> Trackback URL for this post:
http://www.jbs.org/trackback/8534
Sarkozy, Merkel, Pressuring Ireland to Accept EU Integration
French president and president-elect of the EU, Nicolas Sarkozy, along with Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel are determined to change the will of the people in Ireland concerning the Lisbon Treaty.
Follow this link to the original source: "Ireland under Franco-German pressure to hold new EU vote"
COMMENTARY:In a major setback for the EU the Lisbon Treaty was rejected by the voters of Ireland on June 14 by a margin of 53.4 percent to 46.6 percent, with a very high 53 percent voter turnout.
But there are other forces working that will not take "no" for an answer. Ireland’s Taoiseach (prime minister) Brian Cowen says, "As Taoiseach, I will be devoting my full political energies to finding a way forward for our country which needs to take into account the concerns reflected by the referendum result," but would not rule out another referendum. Mr. Cowen has been invited to present his views on the referendum at the summer EU summit in Brussels, as he and EU officials pledge to work together in deciding "how best to move forward."
Seeing their dreams of domination going down the drain, officials from the government of Ireland and the EU are desperately trying to rescue the Lisbon Treaty. The Treaty would have instituted a stronger foreign policy chief, a mutual defense pact, and long-term president of the EU.
It is these items that the people of Ireland would not accept. Surely they know that once the Treaty is ratified, the commissars in charge can change anything without ever asking again, so any guarantees are straws in the wind.
Enter Sarkozy and Merkel.
In a publicized joint statement they said they regretted Ireland’s "democratic decision." But sources close to France’s Sarkozy, who is also the president-elect of the EU, and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, said that there are only two solutions: for the Irish to vote again, or "for an as yet undefined legal mechanism to bind Ireland to EU institutions if Ireland does not ratify the treaty."
In other words, if Ireland doesn’t knuckle under and ratify the treaty, the EU, under the direction of Sarkozy and Merkel, will find an end run around the will of the people who rejected it, or worse yet, Ireland will simply be coerced or forced into acceptance.
Some 160 years ago, the wise French statesman Frederic Bastiat observed the following in his timeless classic The Law:
The advocates of this [socialist] doctrine also profess to be social. So far as they are democratic, they place unlimited faith in mankind. But so far as they are social, they regard mankind as little better than mud. Let us examine this contrast in greater detail.
What is the attitude of the democrat when political rights are under discussion? How does he regard the people when a legislator is to be chosen? Ah, then it is claimed that the people have an instinctive wisdom; they are gifted with the finest perception; their will is always right; the general will cannot err; voting cannot be too universal.
When it is time to vote, apparently the voter is not to be asked for any guarantee of his wisdom. His will and capacity to choose wisely are taken for granted. Can the people be mistaken? Are we not living in an age of enlightenment? What! are the people always to be kept on leashes? Have they not won their rights by great effort and sacrifice? Have they not given ample proof of their intelligence and wisdom? Are they not adults? Are they not capable of judging for themselves? Do they not know what is best for themselves? Is there a class or a man who would be so bold as to set himself above the people, and judge and act for them? No, no, the people are and should be free. They desire to manage their own affairs, and they shall do so.
But when the legislator is finally elected — ah! then indeed does the tone of his speech undergo a radical change. The people are returned to passiveness, inertness, and unconsciousness; the legislator enters into omnipotence. Now it is for him to initiate, to direct, to propel, and to organize. Mankind has only to submit; the hour of despotism has struck. We now observe this fatal idea: The people who, during the election, were so wise, so moral, and so perfect, now have no tendencies whatever; or if they have any, they are tendencies that lead downward into degradation.
My how times have changed. Modern-day eurocrat socialists now view the voting majority as less "than mud."
Italian President Giorgio Napolitano, the Coration president, Stipe Mesic, and Merkel's coalition partners from the Social Democrat party (SPD) were all critical of Ireland's decision. Axel Schafer, SPD leader bluntly said, "We cannot allow the huge majority of Europe to be duped by a minority of a minority of a minority. We are incredibly disappointed. We think it is a real cheek that the country that has benefited most from the EU should do this. There is no other Europe than this treaty."
Sarkozy, determined to "save" the EU said last week, "It is not written down in the summit conclusions but everyone agreed that we need to get out of this before next year’s European elections," which would keep the EU from "grind[ing] to a halt."
Sarkozy favors an early spring second referendum for Ireland because the majority were duped, got it wrong, and need to vote correctly. In order to achieve this he plans to visit Ireland for a little PR and arm-twisting on July 11. "We will try to make this 'no' an opportunity." (How nice.) He will meet with Irish officials who are already in the EU/Sarkozy/Merkel camp to draw up and set plans in motion to effect their agenda.
One unidentified Irish official said, "A yes vote can be achieved if the Irish people are offered guarantees on issues like defence and taxation. The ‘no’ campaign will be picked off one by one. Everyone has a price." Wow! It's the typical "bread and games" method all over again used by the Roman Empire with the populace to keep them quiet and acquiescing.
The arrogant and hypocritical EU hierarchy that insists that the election in Mugabe’s dictatorship in Zimbabwe is a "travesty of democracy," sees nothing wrong, of course, in forcing another vote until it gets what it wants out of Irish voters, or using other means to achieve it. There’s no difference in the basic principles of Mugabe and the EU, Sarkozy, and Merkel, just the level of violence.
While Germany’s Merkel’s cultural heritage may have inculcated a different understanding of democracy in her, there’s no excuse for Sarkozy and France, now in its fifth Republic.
The good people of Ireland had best be aware of the motivations and methods about to be used on them in order to get them to capitulate, without bloodshed at least at first, to the bold demands of a socialist/fascist EU. Ireland’s sovereignty and freedom is at stake here, but will her own officials sell her down the river, or will the people be forced into acceptance, will they be bought off with empty promises, or can they hold the proverbial fort?
Ann is an Editorial Assistant for the John Birch Society.
--> Trackback URL for this post:
http://www.jbs.org/trackback/8528
Mr. President, Unshackle Our Offshore Oil & Gas
In his June 18 speech on America’s energy crisis, President Bush blamed Congressional Democrats for obstructing offshore drilling, but he refuses to use his own executive power to remove shackles that have been put on Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) drilling.
Follow this link to the original source: "Bush urges Congress to end offshore oil drill ban"
COMMENTARY:The President’s energy speech first made note of the obvious: "For many Americans, there is no more pressing concern than the price of gasoline. Truckers and farmers and small business owners have been hit especially hard. Every American who drives to work, purchases food, or ships a product has felt the effect."President Bush then stated:
In the short run, the American economy will continue to rely largely on oil. And that means we need to increase supply, especially here at home. So my administration has repeatedly called on Congress to expand domestic oil production. Unfortunately, Democrats on Capitol Hill have rejected virtually every proposal — and now Americans are paying the price at the pump for this obstruction.
It certainly is true that the Democrats and their militant enviro-Marxist allies have done everything possible to stifle, strangle, and stop every practical, economically feasible form of domestic energy production. Oil, gas, coal, nuclear, and hydro power — which are the realistic sources of energy for most of our present and immediate future needs — have all been under sustained attack for decades. The self-anointed "Greenies" insist we must switch to so-called renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar, hydrogen, geothermal, and biofuels, all of which combined can only provide a small fraction of our energy needs.
President Bush called on Congress to implement a four-step program to increase domestic oil production, to wit:
- Lift the legislative ban on oil exploration in the OCS.
- Repeal legislation blocking oil shale leasing on federal lands.
- Permit drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, or ANWR.
- Expedite the refinery permitting process to allow construction of more oil refineries.
All of these are sound proposals, and long overdue. Opening up the OCS, oil shale, and ANWR for development would give American consumers access to hundreds of billions of barrels of domestic oil, enable us drastically to cut our dangerous dependence on foreign oil, and greatly boost our domestic economy.
However, while pointing at Congress, President Bush refuses to use the powers he already possesses to get the ball rolling.
As we pointed out a year and a half ago, when Congress was wrangling over OCS drilling, President Bush could "unilaterally open up some OCS exploration and development by simply canceling the executive moratorium put in place by his father and President Clinton. He has had the power to do that for the past six years, but has not done so."
He still refuses to do so. As the June 18 Reuters story we linked to at the beginning of this news feed reported: "The White House said Congress should lift the moratorium first and then Bush would end the executive order because presidential action alone would not lead to new offshore drilling."
President Bush, like many Republicans in Congress, is trying to appear to be in favor of developing our domestic hydrocarbon energy sources, while at the same time burnishing his "green" image for the environmental lobby. The Bush Whitehouse website boasts:
These federal biofuel mandates are adding enormously to the cost of gasoline and diesel, as well as to the skyrocketing costs of food, as feed corn is turned into fuel, and farmers plant corn to cash in on the federal ethanol subsidies instead of planting food crops.
Ethanol subsidies may end up costing taxpayers a quarter of a trillion dollars over the next 15 years. And as reported by The New American and now admitted by even many former advocates in the "green fuels" movement, ethanol and other biofuels are not as green as promised. Producing them is costly and inefficient, and huge tracts of farmland, forestland, and animal habitat are being plowed under as unintended consequences of the government subsidies.
With gas prices already putting real hurt on the economy, American consumers are calling on Congress and the White House for relief. The only real relief the government can provide is to undo the harm it has already done! Which means removing the shackles that it has put on domestic energy production.
Voters must demand that President Bush start the process by removing the executive orders that he, President Clinton, and President Bush, Sr. have placed on OCS drilling. Then they must further pressure the president and Congress to repeal the wasteful, costly biofuel mandates, and the restrictions that are keeping us from extracting oil and gas from the OCS, ANWR, and the giant oil shale deposits on our federal lands.
William F. JasperWilliam F. Jasper is Senior Editor for The New American magazine.
--> Trackback URL for this post:
http://www.jbs.org/trackback/8532
Get Your New Lights Bulbs – From China!
According to a new law passed by Congress, the incandescent light bulb will be outlawed for use by 2014. All Americans will be forced to purchase the new compact fluorescent bulbs that are not only potentially toxic, they are made only in China.
Follow this link to the original source: "Turn Out the Lights — the Party's Over"
COMMENTARY:Compact fluorescent bulbs (CFLs) contain mercury. The EPA has deemed that they cannot be disposed of in any ordinary way. They must be taken to a local recycling center or carefully sealed in several layers of plastic bags.If you break one, you must evacuate the room for a period of time, says the EPA, then collect the fragments and place them in a sealable glass container. And on and on do these regulations proceed through three full pages of mandates to deal with a broken light bulb.
In his short speech before his colleagues on June 11, Congressman Poe held up one of the new bulbs and noted that if he dropped it and it broke, EPA regulations would require emptying the House of Representative of all personnel. He wondered, "Have we gone a bit too far with this nonsense?"
Not only are these bulbs expensive, the very packages holding them alert users to the fact that "these light bulbs may cause interference to radios, televisions, wireless telephones and remote controls." Evidently, it would be wise to turn out the light while watching the latest reality show.
But Mr. Poe saved the best (really the worst) for last. The package holding the light bulb he displayed carried the notation "Made in China." He pointed out that these CFLs are made only in China, which means that more of America’s wealth will end up in that country. Let us not forget, he implored, that "over the past year we’ve seen Chinese pet food kill our dogs and cats; Chinese lead paint is poisoning our children; and now Chinese lights bulbs containing mercury can be harmful to our health."
Displaying a copy of the U.S. Constitution, the Texas lawmaker claimed to have searched its pages thoroughly and found no power given to Congress to decide what kind of light bulb Americans must use or not use. And he chided his colleagues for having no real energy bill "except to turn on these light bulbs."
"I yearn for the day," said Mr. Poe, "when America took care of Americans by developing our own abundant natural resources like coal and natural gas and crude oil." He lamented that those days "have gone the way of Edison’s light bulb."
He remarks could evoke laughter, anger or even tears. We can only hope that his colleagues were listening intently.
John F. McManusJohn F. McManus is President of The John Birch Society.
--> Trackback URL for this post:
http://www.jbs.org/trackback/8526
Coming Soon to a Neighborhood Near You: Prison
In a scenario straight out of a bad movie, police in Washington, D.C., have decided to set up checkpoints in certain neighborhoods, effectively sealing them off, and kick out strangers via ID checks.
Follow this link to the original source: "“D.C. police will seal off entire neighborhoods, set up checkpoints and kick out strangers”"
COMMENTARY:So maybe I misinterpreted the words from the "Star-Spangled Banner" but I rather doubt it. What part of the phrase "land of the free" led to this latest insanity in D.C.? According to documents obtained by The Examiner:
Under an executive order expected to be announced today, Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier will have the authority to designate "Neighborhood Safety Zones." At least six officers will man cordons around those zones and demand identification from people coming in and out of them. Anyone who doesn’t live there, work there or have "legitimate reason" to be there will be sent away or face arrest.
I guess anyone who was missing out on the opportunity to be pawed, prodded, yelled at, and then sent to a bench to get redressed at the airport can now get their "fix" of authoritarianism on the way home from work! Further, according to the linked article:
Lanier has been struggling to reverse D.C.’s spiraling crime rate but has been forced by public outcry to scale back several initiatives including her "All Hands on Deck" weekends and plans for warrantless, door-to-door searches for drugs and guns.I realize that, as a staunch believer in the possibility of a "stateless" society based upon unimpeded liberty and the unrestrained free market I’m in the minority, but is it really that hard to understand that one cannot obtain more peace by instituting more violence? If tightening the grip on the inhabitants is destined to provide more security and more safety, prisons would be peaceful centers of higher learning versus scary hell-holes from which no one emerges unscarred for life.
One might argue, were he uninformed, that it is only because the people in prison are violent that prison itself is violent. Let us squelch that ignorance with a few facts, from a piece of mine from some time ago. To wit:
• The overwhelming majority of people in prison for drugs are also non-violent offenders. According to official statistics from the NYS Dept. of Correctional Services (DOCS), nearly 80% of drug offenders in prison have never been convicted of a violent felony; about half have never even been arrested for one. (Reference: Myths and Facts About the Rockefeller Drug Laws)• Drug offenses account for a higher percentage of people in federal prison than weapons, extortion, homicide, robbery and burglary combined. For 2006 53.7% were drug offenders, 14.2% were weapons offenders, 5.4% were robbery offenders, 3.8% were burglary offenders, 4.2% were extortion offenders, and 3.1% were homicide offenders. (Reference: Federal Bureau of Prisons: Quick Facts 2006)I’ve written regarding violence and the State before, but this recent action by D.C.’s police chief is cause for a legitimate Twilight-Zone-Music-playing moment. Against the backdrop of the facts I note above, we have the highest-ranking police officer in one of the most violent places in the U.S. deciding that the next most logical step to make people safer is to institute ID checkpoints and neighborhood-wide lockdowns. Again, increasing violence cannot reduce violence, no matter the supposed purpose of that violence.
No less an eminent thinker than Robert Higgs of the Independent Institute, noted in his seminal essay, "If Men Were Angels" that:
…everything that makes life without a state undesirable makes life with a state even more undesirable. The idea that the anti-social tendencies that afflict people in every society can be cured or even ameliorated by giving a few persons great discretionary power over all the others is, upon serious reflection, seen to be a wildly mistaken notion. Perhaps it is needless to add that the structural checks and balances on which Madison relied to restrain the government’s abuses have proven to be increasingly unavailing and, bearing in mind the expansive claims and actions under the present U.S. regime, are now almost wholly superseded by a form of executive caesarism in which the departments of government that were designed to check and balance each other have instead coalesced in a mutually supportive design to plunder the people and reduce them to absolute domination by the state. [Emphasis mine.]The violence in D.C. is not a result of the wrong people being able to enter neighborhoods. It is because the means by which a peaceful, secure society is obtained has been taken away. Flatly, the only people armed in D.C. are cops and robbers! It was not my intention to get off on a rant about gun control, but nevertheless this excellent essay on the subject provides the context:
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.… When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
Indeed. If the powers-that-be in D.C. want to rid the neighborhoods of violent predators, they should allow the people the ability to defend themselves. Short of that, no one will ever be safe, no matter how many checkpoints the police erect.
Wilton D. AlstonWilton Alston is a principal research scientist working in the field of transportation safety, specifically with regard to trains and transit. A libertarian activist and writer, and a speaker for the JBS Speaker's Bureau, Mr. Alston’s columns have appeared in such places as LewRockwell.com, Strike-the-Root.com and around the Internet blogosphere.
--> Trackback URL for this post:
http://www.jbs.org/trackback/8523
Democrats Won’t Stop Spy Bill, Though “Opposed”
Democrats have no intention of opposing a compromise spy bill that would legalize government electronic surveillance.
Follow this link to the original source: "Senator won’t try to stop spy bill vote"
COMMENTARY:Even though Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), and other democratic senators say they are opposed to the compromise version of an electronic surveillance program because they think it will infringe on citizen’s civil liberties, they still will not initiate a filibuster. Feingold says they won’t try and stop it, but they "won’t allow it to pass quickly."
Feingold will instead highlight the bill’s flaws in a floor speech. This was planned as the result of a meeting held with Senate leader Harry Reid last week.
Feingold notes that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Amendments Act will allow American citizens' private telecommunications, whether emails or phone calls, to be monitored by agents of the government as they look for terrorists. This clearly falls afoul of the Fourth Amendment which says unambiguously: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated ... but upon probable cause." But, apparently neither Feingold, Reid, nor any other Senator has it in them to defend the Constitution and the rights of the people, to which, it is important to note, they have sworn an oath.
Opponents of the bill say it will legalize the illegal surveillance carried out under the Bush administration’s orders between 2001 and 2007. The bill would also dismiss the approximately 40 lawsuits against telecommunications companies that provided customer information to U.S. government agencies during the 2001 to 2007 period.
Feingold would, instead of actively opposing a constitutionally illegal bill, create a new commission to determine U.S. needs for tracking events around the world that could affect national security. He is co-author of S. 3041 to establish such a commission.
The present surveillance program represents a misstep in Congress’s efforts to "develop a coherent plan of action" after 9/11, says Feingold. But this is a game being played by the Democrats, who once again prove by their lack of action that they are not opposed to the continuing erosion of American citizens’ liberties. It's more of the same from the two major political parties who are indeed working for the very same end — and as the false opposition to the compromise surveillance bill demonstrates, that end is not the support and defense of either liberty or the Constitution.
Ann is an Editorial Assistant for the John Birch Society.
--> Trackback URL for this post:
http://www.jbs.org/trackback/8524
Get Your New Light Bulbs — From China!
According to a new law passed by Congress, the incandescent light bulb will be outlawed for use by 2014. All Americans will be forced to purchase the new compact fluorescent bulbs that are not only potentially toxic, they are made only in China.
Follow this link to the original source: "Speech before Congress by Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas), June 11, 2008"
COMMENTARY:Compact fluorescent bulbs (CFLs) contain mercury. The EPA has deemed that they cannot be disposed of in any ordinary way. They must be taken to a local recycling center or carefully sealed in several layers of plastic bags. If you break one, you must evacuate the room for a period of time, says the EPA, then collect the fragments and place them in a sealable glass container. And on and on do these regulations proceed through three full pages of mandates — all to deal with a broken light bulb! In his short speech before his colleagues on June 11th, Republican Texas Congressman Ted Poe held up one of the new bulbs and noted that if he dropped it and it broke, EPA regulations would require emptying the House of Representative of all personnel. He wondered, "Have we gone a bit too far with this nonsense?" Congressman Poe Brings Common Sense to the HouseNot only are these bulbs expensive, the very packages holding them alert users to the fact that “these light bulbs may cause interference to radios, televisions, wireless telephones and remote controls.” Evidently, it would be wise to turn out the light while watching the latest reality show. But Mr. Poe saved the best (really the worst) for last. The package holding the light bulb he displayed carried the notation “Made in China.” He pointed out that these CFLs are made only in China, which means that more of America’s wealth will end up in that country. Let us not forget, he implored, that “over the past year we’ve seen Chinese pet food kill our dogs and cats; Chinese lead paint is poisoning our children; and now Chinese lights bulbs containing mercury can be harmful to our health.” Displaying a copy of the U.S. Constitution, the Texas lawmaker claimed to have searched its pages thoroughly and found no power given to Congress to decide what kind of light bulb Americans must use or not use. And he chided his colleagues for having no real energy bill “except to turn on these light bulbs.” “I yearn for the day,” said Mr. Poe, “when America took care of Americans by developing our own abundant natural resources like coal and natural gas and crude oil.” He lamented that those days “have gone the way of Edison’s light bulb.” He remarks could evoke laughter, anger or even tears. We can only hope that his colleagues were listening intently. John F. McManus
John F. McManus is President of The John Birch Society.
--> Trackback URL for this post:
http://www.jbs.org/trackback/8527
Right-wingers Are the Nice-wingers, While the Left is Bereft
Recent studies have shown that, contrary to leftist stereotypes, conservatives are happier and nicer than liberals.
Follow this link to the original source: "Don't listen to the liberals - Right-wingers really are nicer people, latest research shows"
COMMENTARY:I remember experiencing one of my first insights into the true nature of modern liberalism. I was 19 years old, sitting in an Indian restaurant with an erstwhile high school "buddy" who was talking about his aspirations. He concluded by waxing idealistic and saying "I want to do good things."
"How incongruous," I thought. This fellow was cutthroat, calculating, conniving, and ruled by a lust for success. (I know, you ask why I was dining with him –- hey, Jesus ate with sinners, too.) Yet now he sat before me, alluding to a desire to advance liberal causes and to help others. It was then that I had an epiphany, one that was a seminal point in what became a long philosophical journey toward Truth. "This is posturing," I realized. It’s not so much that liberals want to do good; it’s that they want to be thought of as doing good.
Thus, it didn’t surprise me when I recently read about various studies indicating a correlation between ideology and morality, as they reveal something I’ve long known: while there are exceptions, liberals generally aren’t very nice or well-adjusted people.
Reporting on this, Peter Schweizer writes:
Those surveyed were asked: "Is it your obligation to care for a seriously injured/ill spouse or parent, or should you give care only if you really want to?" Of those describing themselves as "conservative," 71 per cent said it was. Only 46 per cent of those on the Left agreed. To the question: "Do you get happiness by putting someone else's happiness ahead of your own?" 55 per cent of those who said they were "very conservative" said "Yes," compared with 20 per cent of those who were "very liberal."Most surprising of all is reputable research showing those on the Left are more interested in money than Right-wingers. Both the World Values Survey and the General Social Survey reveal Left-wingers are more likely to rate "high income" as an important factor in choosing a job, more likely to say "after good health, money is the most important thing," and agree with the statement "there are no right or wrong ways to make money."This helps explain why people in red states give considerably more to charity relative to income than those in blue ones.
The studies also found that liberals are far less likely to want children (surprise, surprise), to hug them, or to believe that one should sacrifice one’s own well-being for that of one’s kids.
It’s ironic, too, since these are the people who have made "_____for the children (fill in the blank; almost any leftist cause will do)" a political rallying cry. Yet, while they want the government to do anything and everything for the children (I haven’t figured out how abortion helps kids, though), a very different picture emerges when you examine their personal lives.
Anecdotally, I think of that liberal icon, playwright Arthur Miller. It was revealed not too long ago that this man, a leftist hailed as a great humanitarian, hid the existence of a Down Syndrome son, tore the child away from a mother who wanted him, and then committed the boy to an institution when he was one week old.
Contrast this with former North Carolina Senator Jesse Helms. The very picture of a good ol’ southern boy, he was a tobacco-defending Darth Vader to the left. Yet there is something most don’t know about Helms: he actually adopted a handicapped child.
But I suppose this is balance: we have rightists in the world to show love to the children leftists discard.
Schweizer does make one mistake in his piece, however. He says research shows that people’s politics influence the way they live their lives. In reality, this is more correlation than causation, as it is something else that determines both people’s politics and their way of life: their spiritual state.
As to this, the Helms case is instructive. There is little question that the former senator’s faith motivated his actions, as he is aware of Christ’s command to help, "the least of my children."
Now let’s examine this more deeply. While very few people recognize it, the most fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives is that, generally speaking, the latter believe in God, in Absolute Truth, while the former do not. Studies have borne this out, demonstrating that conservatives are far more likely to attend church, but, really, it’s fairly obvious. Now, a corollary of a belief in Truth is that morality is real, existing independent of man. But the perspective of those who deny Truth – they are known as moral relativists – is very different. Believing there is nothing above man that authors morality, they conclude it doesn’t exist; only those human inventions called "values" do. This reduces right and wrong to consensus opinion.
Now, when you have to make a moral decision, what yardstick will you use? If you believe in Truth, you will refer to it, and it won’t sanction vice. But what about relativists? They could use the opinions of others as that yardstick, but there is a temptation to say, "They are people just like me, why should I defer to their judgment?" Thus, they only have one thing left to refer to: their emotions.
The problem here is that we’re all born saddled with some very dark instincts. Doing the right thing sometimes isn’t as emotionally satisfying as being lustful, covetous, greedy, uncharitable and self-centered. Therefore, letting feelings govern Truth’s domain is allowing the fox to guard to henhouse.
Placing others ahead of yourself – devotion to an aging and ailing parent or to children, or sacrificing money to do right by your fellow man – requires virtue. And call me crazy, but I wouldn’t expect this from a group whose unofficial motto is "If it feels good, do it."
Selwyn DukeSelwyn Duke is a columnist and public speaker whose work has been published widely online and in print, on both the local and national levels. He has been featured on the Rush Limbaugh Show, at WorldNetDaily.com, in American Conservative magazine, is a contributor to AmericanThinker.com and appears regularly as a guest on the award-winning, nationally-syndicated Michael Savage Show.
--> Trackback URL for this post:
http://www.jbs.org/trackback/8522
Big Brother’s Big Ears
The Federal government may now legally, if unconstitutionally, eavesdrop on virtually any “telecommunication” in the United States.
Follow this link to the original source: "Surveillance Bill Offers Protection To Telecom Firms"
COMMENTARY:Congress today passed legislation that puts Big Brother on steroids. It allows the Feds to wiretap “telecommunications,” intercepting our emails and conversations via telephone -- without the bother of obtaining a search warrant. The government may now eavesdrop on anyone anywhere in the United States simply by claiming that its victim is a terrorist or foreign agent. No court need evaluate the allegation’s accuracy. In essence, this is blanket permission for the Feds to monitor virtually all of our communication. The bill is expected to sail effortlessly from Congress to the President’s desk. If you think George Bush’s oath to uphold the Constitution will give him even a moment’s pause before he signs this abomination, contact me about the bridge to Brooklyn I’m selling.The Feds have actually been tapping our phones for the last six years, illegally, for what that’s worth. Today’s bill legalizes this blatant violation of the Fourth Amendment. In a country that considers “legal” a synonym for “moral,” our rulers want to maintain the fiction that they, too, abide by the law. That whitewashes even their worst wickedness in most people’s eyes. Other regimes have also been sticklers for legality. The Soviets imprisoned and tortured hundreds of thousands after passing laws to authorize their atrocities.
Annulling the Fourth Amendment isn’t the bill’s only crime. It also offers “retroactive immunity” to companies who cooperated with the Feds in breaking the laws against wiretapping. This will save such corporations as AT&T and Verizon a bundle since outraged customers are suing them. These lawsuits were already on shaky ground, thanks to the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Its paragons of wisdom ruled last summer that because the Feds won’t reveal their victims’ names, the plaintiffs don’t know for a fact that they were wiretapped. They therefore lack standing to sue. Score another one for legality.
Whatever opening the Sixth Circuit’s circular reasoning left Ma Bell’s apoplectic patrons slams shut under the current bill. So long as the U.S. Attorney General “certifies” that the telecoms “provid[ed] assistance to an element of the intelligence community” when the Feds leaned on them to break the law, they are immune to customers’ lawsuits. Retroactively, no less. On the one hand, what’s a corporation to do when the government that licenses it demands its help? On the other, try pleading that you robbed the bank because your kidnappers threatened to kill you otherwise. It didn’t work for Patty Hearst -– but then she hadn’t contributed all the money that telecom companies have to Congressional members.
Article 1, Section 9, of the United States Constitution prohibits “ex post facto” laws. Legal scholars such as those of the Sixth Circuit will immediately tell you that the ban pertains only to criminality: Congress can’t outlaw gambling, extend that to the last six months, and prosecute anyone who placed a bet during that time. But legal scholars, not the Constitution, draw that distinction: the highest law of the land merely says, “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.” Declaring that burglary has not been a crime for the last six months, and dismissing charges against all burglars arrested during that period, outrages justice and undermines society just as much as retroactive criminalization does. Had the Founding Fathers any inkling that scoundrels masquerading as scholars would one day curse America, they would no doubt have spelled this out.
Heading overseas lets you lean on the broken reed of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC): the bill also requires the Feds to obtain a warrant from the FISC before wiretapping Americans abroad. Since 1978, when the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) created FISC, the court has been nothing more than a sop to Americans who fret over such quaint notions as privacy, due process, and the Fourth Amendment. FISC supposedly supervised the Feds as they spied on alleged foreign agents who had infiltrated the country. But after 9/11, Congress expanded FISA’s scope. Its powers of surveillance now encompass Americans. A bureaucrat at one of the intelligence agencies has only to suspect, or suppose, or suggest, that you might know something about terrorism, and voila, FISC gives him an “Open Sesame” to your life in the form of a search warrant. Luckily for the agent though not for you, FISC’s standards of evidence are as lax as the Bush administration’s regard for truth. Generally, any sentence in which “FISC” appears will also contain the word “rubberstamp” since, as Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) notes, “the court approves almost every application [for a warrant] put before it. For example, the court granted all but four of 2,371 government requests in 2007.”
That’s not because the Feds present overwhelming evidence against their victims, either. In fact, it’s unlikely the judges even glance at the evidence since they’re in such an all-fired hurry to fulfill an agency’s every whim. According to EFF, “FISA Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth… has said he has approved FISA orders in minutes with only an oral briefing.” FISC protects us from “unreasonable search and seizure” about as much as the IRS protects us from high taxes.
Congressional Democrats had objected to earlier versions of this terrible bill. But they’re now trumpeting their “bipartisan agreement” with Republicans, probably because they’re scared voters will consider them soft on terror.
Too bad neither party fears being seen as soft on tyranny.
Surveillance Bill Offers Protection To Telecom FirmsBecky Akers
Becky Akers, an expert on the American Revolution, writes frequently about issues related to security and privacy. Her articles and columns have been published by Lewrockwell.com, The Freeman, Military History Magazine, American History Magazine, the Christian Science Monitor, the New York Post, and other publications.
--> Trackback URL for this post:
http://www.jbs.org/trackback/8459
Is Another Shearing on the Way?
“The Royal Bank of Scotland has advised clients to brace for a full-fledged crash in global stock and credit markets over the next three months as inflation paralyses the major central banks,” reported the Telegraph.
Follow this link to the original source: "RBS issues global stock and credit crash alert"
COMMENTARY:To appreciate how we could end up in such a mess, it's important to remember who put us there. A brief summary of what is now seemingly ancient history is a good starting point.
The Federal Reserve was passed into law in the wake of the Panic of 1907. It's primary purported reason for being created was to protect the economy. Between 1923 and 1929, the newly-created Federal Reserve System expanded the money supply by a massive 62 percent. (There’s more than one reason that decade was called the Roaring Twenties.)
Because the big commercial banks and the biggest newspapers were largely owned by the same super wealthy, both encouraged borrowers to get rich on Wall Street. The stock market went up to dizzying heights.
More and more Americans climbed on board the get-rich-quick speculative train. But, like all expansions based on false economic practices, the party was about to end and the hangovers begin. For those with ears to hear, Paul Warburg — who had resigned from a $500,000 per year salary in order to become the first chairman of the Federal Reserve — gave an early warning breeze in March 1929 that the time was near for speculators to get out of the market.
Later in the year, the banks who had been issuing 24-hour broker call loans like they were water, even as latecomers piled in to get in on the game, suddenly reversed their direction and began calling all of the loans in. Highly-leveraged market players liquidated as fast as they could, triggering the market's tumble. The Republicans, who were in control, were blamed for the economic crisis. A Democrat president was swept into office, and he pushed the U.S. down the socialist path of the New Deal.
The corporate magnates who were in the know went back after the dust had settled and bought up broken stocks in companies for a fraction of what they'd been worth prior to the collapse. Curtis Dall, who was a syndicate manager for Lehman Brothers, and the son-in-law of FDR, was present on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange the day the market crashed. In hindsight, he wrote:
Actually, it was the calculated "shearing" of the public by the World Money powers triggered by the planned sudden shortage of call money in the New York money market.
Yes, indeed. The sheeple got sheared by the same corporate overlords who sold them the idea of a central bank to begin with as a means of protecting the economy and smoothing out the booms and busts in the business cycle.
So, here we sit again, this time on top of the largest expanded credit and money supply bubble in the history of the world. And whether the Fed inflates or deflates, serious economic consequences will result.
Meanwhile, the European Central Bank and the U.S. Federal Reserve continue to fight over monetary strategy, with Morgan Stanley warning the Fed’s decision to loosen the currency supply more “could trigger another ‘catastrophic event’.”
Curiously, the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) sent one of its executives to attend the media-ignored Bilderberg conference in Chantilly, Virginia. At that confab, some 140 of the world’s elite met behind closed doors so that, according to its press release, they could “encourage frank and open discussion.”
About what? Many of us lesser mortals would like to know. After all, some of those who were in attendance were our elected representatives (remember, they report to us, not the other way around).
Did the executive(s) from the Royal Bank of Scotland go home and sound the alarm about an impending crash, a la Paul Warburg’s March 1929 signal? That remains to be seen.
Or, is something else afoot?
Now we learn Treasure Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. “plans to call ... for the Federal Reserve to be given new, explicit powers to intervene in the workings of Wall Street firms to protect the financial system, adapting his vision of how the financial world should be regulated to reflect the lessons of the collapse of Bear Stearns.”
In a planned speech, he was expected to say: “We should quickly consider how to appropriately give the Fed the authority to access necessary information from highly complex financial institutions and the responsibility to intervene in order to protect the system,” adding, "so they can carry out the role our nation has come to expect.”
Did the RBS sound an alarm in order to falsely scare the masses into accepting a vastly-expanded role for the Fed, giving our money masters more power and control over the economy to save it?
Regardless of why RBS sounded the alarm, the role we’ve come to expect the Fed to fulfill will only give us more of the same: massive shearing of the middle class and into the hands of the elites.
It’s long time overdue to put an end to the banksters’ games they play with our lives, dismantle the Fed, and get back to a sound currency that can’t be manipulated for their gain — and our loss.
Christopher S. BentleyChris is the Operations Manager for the John Birch Society.
--> Trackback URL for this post:
http://www.jbs.org/trackback/8445
Impeachment of President Bush Remains a Possibility
On June 11th, The Kucinich Privilege Resolution calling for the impeachment of President Bush passed on a roll call vote of 251-166. The resolution now sits in the House Judiciary Committee for consideration.
Follow this link to the original source: "The Kucinich Privilege Resolution"
COMMENTARY:With only several months left in President Bush's term in office, it is rather late to be taking on the issue of impeachment. But, if on-line polls mean anything, 89% of the over 710,000 people who have weighed in at MSNBC agree with Congressman Dennis Kucinich and 250 of his colleagues that President Bush should be tried for "high crimes and misdemeanors." While hardly scientific, this could be another early indication of how far Republicans are going to be swept out of office this November.
In the effort's defense, perhaps there is a hidden logic to impeaching and convicting President Bush at the very end of his term in office.
- One, it would be that much more difficult for our Decider-in-Chief to launch a pre-emptive war against Iran while being tried for impeachment.
- Two, the number of days under President Cheney would be reduced to the absolute minimum.
Don't count on the Democratic leadership in the Congress doing anything serious though to roll back the expansion of executive branch power that has occurred during the current Bush administration. The Democrats fully intend to keep these usurped powers intact as they expect to soon hold the reigns of the imperial presidency.
It's up to vigilant Americans to see that these unconstitutional powers are removed regardless of who is in office.
Jim CapoJim Capo is the John Birch Society's National Spokesman on Trade Policy, and a coordinator for North and South Carolina.
--> Trackback URL for this post:
http://www.jbs.org/trackback/8432
Known Offshore and Alaska Oil Rediscovered
Prompted by rising gasoline prices, President Bush and some congressional leaders have rediscovered the untapped deposits of oil and natural gas under the oceans and in Alaska.
Follow this link to the original source: "Dearth of Ships Delays Drilling of Offshore Oil"
COMMENTARY:As public anger over rising fuel prices continues to grow, Mr. Bush finally called on Congress to lift the federal bans on offshore drilling and exploiting the known resources in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Good move, but that doesn't mean the bans will be lifted tomorrow.
On May 21, Shell Oil President John Hofmeister and other top executives of U.S. energy companies testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The hearing was designed to point the finger at the oil companies for the high prices everyone is experiencing. But one after the other of the energy chiefs threw the blame right where it belongs: on the government's bans on energy production.
Citing figures supplied by Department of the Interior, Hofmeister told the senators that "62 percent of all onshore federal lands are off limits to oil and gas developments, with restrictions applying to 92 percent of all federal lands."
As for known offshore oil and gas deposits, he pointed out that there are "outer continental shelf moratoriums" for drilling in the Atlantic Ocean, the Pacific Ocean, and the Eastern Gulf of Mexico. He noted also that there are "bans on on-shore oil and gas activities in specific areas of the Rockies and Alaska." Finally, he added that there is even a congressional ban "on doing an analysis of the resource potential for oil and gas" in the offshore areas.
Exxon Mobil's Stephen Simon lamented that his company, America's largest in the oil and gas industry, is forced to compete with government-controlled companies worldwide who do not impede production the way our government does and who subsidize the cost of energy for their consumers. As for U.S. companies supposedly profiting from rising prices at the pump, the executives repeatedly pointed out that 15 percent of the cost to fill a gas tank goes for taxes and only 4 percent goes for profit.
While there are costs for refining and transportation, the largest single item in the cost for gasoline and home heating oil is the amount paid to importers. And our nation now imports 60 percent of daily consumption.
Intrigued by mention of resources available in Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) asked if known deposits of oil in these three states "could be recovered at somewhere between $30 and $40 a barrel." Hofmeister answered that the figure cited might be outdated, but he said that production could be accomplished at a much lower figure than the $130 per barrel being paid for imported oil.
If Congress does cancel the bans on obtaining offshore oil, companies like Shell and Exxon Mobil will face the daunting prospect of obtaining ships capable of erecting deep-water rigs. Most of these specialty vessels are being produced in Asia, especially in South Korea. And demand for them has risen as sharply as the rise in global energy consumption has escalated.
Brazil, with huge newly discovered offshore reserves, has plans to buy or produce scores of such vessels. A South Korean company is currently building a ship made specifically for drilling in the Artic. Wouldn't that be helpful in the waters off ANWR!
Congressionally instituted bans on obtaining known resources within U.S. territory (both offshore and in Alaska) have put our nation in a deep hole. Getting out of it is absolutely imperative. At least now there's been some talk.
Americans, all of whom are hurting when it comes to driving their vehicles and heating/cooling their homes, are advised to let their congressman know that there is a way out of the hole. It’s called: Develop our own resources. The sooner the better!
John F. McManusJohn F. McManus is President of The John Birch Society.
--> Trackback URL for this post:
http://www.jbs.org/trackback/8444
Iran's Ahmadinejad Denies Oil Shortage, Blames Declining Dollar for High Oil Prices
Speaking at a June 17 OPEC meeting held in the Iranian city of Isfahan, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the leader of the world's fourth-largest oil exporter, stated that the supply of oil is plentiful and the rising price trend is "fake and imposed." Ahmadinejad blamed a weak U.S. dollar as a major factor for rising oil prices.
Follow this link to the original source: "Market full of oil, price trend "fake": Ahmadinejad"
COMMENTARY:The setting for Iranian President Ahmadinejad's statement was a meeting of the OPEC Fund for International Development in Isfahan, Iran's third largest city — with a population of almost 2 million people — and the center for Iran's production of nuclear fuel. As to whether this fuel is intended for energy production or more sinister uses, this writer does not know. However, the city is also the site of a major oil refinery, so it appears that Iran is diversifying when it comes to energy generation, which is not a bad plan.
What got the world's attention, however, were some statements Ahmadinejad made about rising oil prices, a matter of concern to nearly everyone.
"At a time when the growth of consumption is lower than the growth of production and the market is full of oil, prices are rising and this trend is completely fake and imposed," said Ahmadinejad in a televised speech. The Iranian leader, who has never been accused of being dispassionate, further asserted: "It is very clear that visible and invisible hands are controlling prices in a fake way with political and economic aims."
Then Ahmadinejad got into more economic specifics: "As you know the decrease in the dollar's value and the increase in energy prices are two sides of the same coin which are being introduced as factors behind the recent instability." As part of his proposed solution, which might make oil more affordable for purchasers who are not buying oil with dollars, Ahmadinejad stated:
"I repeat my suggestion made six months ago at the OPEC summit in Riyadh to create a basket of credible currencies which would be the basis for oil transactions. Or alternatively, that OPEC countries create a new currency for their transactions."
In deciding what to make of these statements, let this writer state for the record that he is no fan of Ahmadinejad. Aside from heading one of the more radical, anti-American Islamic nations, Ahmadinejad has formed far too cozy a relationship with the even more radical protégé of Fidel Castro, Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez. The two oil potentates traded visits to each others' nations in 2006, and Iran awarded Chavez the Islamic Republic Medal, Iran's highest award. On that occasion Ahmadinejad poured lavish praise on Chavez, saying that the Venezuelan "has resisted imperialism for years and has defended the interests of his and other Latin American countries."
In addition to its close relations with the Marxist Chavez, Iran has also demonstrated ties to Hezbollah, a dangerous organization that has carried out terrorist attacks around the world.
Why then, should we take anything Ahmadinejad says seriously? Aren't his speeches likely to be mostly propaganda venues designed to galvanize domestic support against the West?
Perhaps. But as the leader of one of the world's largest oil-producing nations, whether he embellishes it or not, Ahmadinejad is certainly in a position to know the truth about the oil markets. All it takes on our part is to scrutinize his statements with a discerning eye, and we can easily enough separate fact from fiction. The relationship between the value of the dollar and the market price of oil (which is purchased with dollars) is a matter of simple economics, and not subject to alteration by even the most skilled propagandist. The point that a weakening dollar leads to higher oil prices has been made by others we are more inclined to believe. For example, in upcoming issue of The New American magazine for July 7, Dr. Steven Yates observes:
Oil is not the only commodity that is becoming more and more expensive to buy…. So is the cost of just about everything else. One major reason for this overall rise in prices is because the dollar does not buy as much as it used to. And the reason the dollar does not buy as much as it used to is because the Federal Reserve System (along with the U.S. Treasury Department) is flooding our economy with newly created dollars.And in a recent "Texas Straight Talk" column of June 9, titled "Rising Energy Prices and the Falling Dollar," Rep. Ron Paul noted:
When the Federal Reserve inflates the dollar as drastically as it has in the past few decades, the first users of the newly created money go in search of investments for their dollars. They must invest this money quickly and aggressively before it loses value. This causes certain sectors to expand beyond what would naturally occur in the free market. Eventually the sector overheats and the bubble bursts. Overinvestment in dotcoms eventually led to a collapse of the NASDAQ. Next we had the housing bubble, and now we are seeing the price of oil being bid up in the creation of another new bubble. Investors are now looking to commodities like oil, for stability and growth as they pull capital out of real estate. This increased demand for investment vehicles related to oil contributes to driving up the price of the actual product.While Ahmadinejad may be correct about the foregoing points, he misses the mark on some others. Whether this is due to ignorance of economics or political propaganda is difficult to determine. But it is more important that our own citizens understand the process themselves, and communicate that knowledge, along with instructions to institute sound economic and energy polices, to their elected representatives.
Among the places where Ahmadinejad's statements are difficult to take seriously is his assertion that "The rise in consumption is lower than the rise in production." According to the American Petroleum Institute (API), the demand for oil rose from 77 million barrels per day in 2001 to 85 million barrels per day in 2007, and is projected to be 1.2 million barrels per day higher in 2008.
In "Is World Oil Production Peaking?" an article published by the Earth Policy Institute last November, writer Lester R. Brown noted:
The combination of world production slowing down or starting to decline while demand continues to rise rapidly is putting strong upward pressure on prices. (Emphasis added.)
A May 2008 chart produced by World Oil.com depicting World Oil & NGL Production indicated that production was virtually flat in recent years, rising from 85.17 mb/d in August 2006 to only 86.11 mb/d in April 2008, hardly keeping up with the increase in demand.
Ahmadinejad’s plan to "to create a basket of 'credible' currencies which would be the basis for oil transactions," is undoubtedly motivated by Iran's need to invest their oil profits in something not as prone to losing value as the dollar, as is made evident by his statement: "The hard currency reserves of OPEC countries have been heavily affected" by the fall in the dollar.
But Iran's problem is not unique. All investors must take market conditions (including inflation) into consideration when deciding where their investments will earn the most.
As to what one should make of Ahmadinejad's speech — why not just regard him as a sort of devil's advocate, neither accepting nor rejecting any of his points without proof? If they stimulate our research into the factors that impact upon world oil prices, we can only come away from the exercise more knowledgeable.
However, for answers about how to solve our own economic problems, we can learn more from (for example) Rep. Ron Paul's cover article "Economic Bubbles" in The New American magazine for June 23 than we can from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's recent speech.
Maybe Ahmadinejad should read it as well.
Warren MassWarren is the Editor for the John Birch Society Bulletin.
--> Trackback URL for this post:
http://www.jbs.org/trackback/8440
Torture A “Matter of Perception”
CIA counterterrorism lawyer believes that torture "is basically subject to perception."
Follow this link to the original source: "Ex-Pentagon Lawyers Challenged on Torture"
COMMENTARY:New evidence available from the Senate Armed Services Committee’s June 17 hearing, accompanied with the release of the minutes of an October 2, 2002, meeting on detainees in Cuba has unveiled the CIA’s development of the very controversial interrogation program advocated by the Bush administration.
From the start, as the newly released documents show, Pentagon officials were much in favor of the aggressive torture techniques used at detention centers, particularly Guantanamo Bay and the infamous Abu Ghraib. It was military lawyers who argued that the proposed tactics were illegal and could possibly harm U.S. troops.
Jonathan Fredman, a counterterrorism lawyer for the CIA told a group of military and intelligence officials at Gauntanamo Bay that, torture "is basically subject to perception. If the detainee dies, you’re doing it wrong."
One wonders if the death of the person is also a "perception," or would that be quite real enough for Mr. Fredman?
Senator Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) had the quote of the day to be sure with, "How on Earth did we get to the point where a United States government lawyer would say that … torture is subject to perception?"
Fredman, in discussing how to extract intelligence from detainees even considered the pros and cons of videotaping and points on how to avoid interference by the Red Cross organization, all the while keeping up a strong defense of waterboarding.
In a related story, on June 18 the results of an extensive medical study of former U.S. detainees by the group Physicians for Human Rights became available. Both medical doctors and mental health professionals examined 11 former prisoners. They had no trouble finding evidence of U.S. torture and what they consider war crimes.
The detainees alleged that they were tortured and sexually abused and sodomized, and report that they were electrically shocked, beaten, shackled, stripped, deprived of food and sleep, and urinated on. Specifically they were placed in stress positions for hours, or prolonged isolation, a form of sensory deprivation, along with being subjected to extreme heat and cold. Dr. Allen Keller, one of those who conducted the exams, said: "The level of the time, thoroughness and rigor of the exams left me personally without question about the credibility of the individuals. The findings on the physical and psychological exams were consistent with what they reported. We found clear physical and psychological evidence of torture and abuse, often causing lasting suffering."
Just who is responsible for this horrible and quite dishonorable series of events? Sadly, it is the Bush administration that has presided over this abomination. In 2004 President Bush said that the abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay was the work of "a few American troops who dishonored our country and disregarded our values." Fine words, but the CIA and Defense Department were discussing aspects of torture already in 2002. It was deliberate and it was evil.
Pentagon officials approved of the formal program for the harsh interrogation methods at Guantanamo Bay, even after asking for and receiving technical information on what types of torture had the greatest psychological effects. Former Defense Department general counsel William J. Haynes II acknowledged pushing for more aggressive techniques and said the decisions were driven by the administration. Still, the White House denies the role it played in all of this. "Abuse of detainees has never been, is not, and will never be the policy of this government," said spokesman Tony Fratto.
No wonder disgruntled former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan had problems with his conscience while serving in the Bush administration.
Ann ShiblerAnn is an Editorial Assistant for the John Birch Society.
--> Trackback URL for this post:
http://www.jbs.org/trackback/8433
America and the Battle of the Banns
Despite the decision to allow a ballot measure set for November which would amend the California State Constitution and make same sex marriage illegal, the California Supreme Court has decided to allow same-sex marriages starting June 17.
Follow this link to the original source: "California Supreme Court Ignores Will of Californians, Chooses Nationwide Legal Chaos Instead."
COMMENTARY:"If God doesn’t punish San Francisco, He owes Sodom and Gomorrah an apology," goes an old joke. But whether or not California passes the California Marriage Protection Act, California truly does owe America an apology.
Thanks to a petition with over 1.1 million signatures, the California Marriage Protection Act, a measure defining marriage as the union between one man and one woman will be on the California ballot this November. This measure would amend the state’s constitution, making same-sex marriage illegal, effectively re-instating the gay marriage ban that had been struck down May 15 by the California Supreme Court. Despite the forthcoming ballot measure, the court has ruled that until the measure can be voted on in November, gay and lesbian marriages will take place starting June 17.
"In doing so…this court will make the 2000 Florida presidential recount seem like a high school debate," says the California Family Council. With 56 percent of Californians polled by ccAdvertising saying they oppose same-sex marriage, and a similar poll by the Los Angeles Times describing 54 percent opposed to and only 35 percent of Californians in favor of same-sex marriage, the California Marriage Protection Act has a good chance of passing — a real victory for the pro-family cause. Allowing gay marriage in the mean time, however, may cause a Pandora’s box of legal chaos that could rock the nation.
TIME Magazine noted June 11 that, "Because California's rules do not make residency a requirement for a marriage license, out-of-staters (sic) want to take their new marital status back home and try to sue for recognition, widening the legal and constitutional battle over same-sex marriage." Thousands are expected to pour into the state from across the nation over the next five months to obtain a marriage license.
“67,000 or so (gay and lesbian couples) are expected to arrive from other states” says Brad Sears, a UCLA law professor who co-authored a report on the number at the Williams Institute. Should the California Marriage Protection Act pass, it may annul the unions made during these five months, causing awkward and potentially costly legal situations in other states. Even Sears admitted in the Los Angeles Times, "It would be a novel question for the courts."
California isn’t the only state making victory bitter sweet in this battle of the banns. On May 14, Gov. David A. Patterson of New York, "directed all state agencies to begin to revise their policies and regulations to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions, like Massachusetts, California and Canada," making his state the first to recognize gay marriages but not perform them. This would turn New York into a haven for married partners wed in California who want to keep their legal status as a married couple.
The question then arises, if California doesn’t want homosexual marriage, as the polls and petition indicate, and New Yorkers haven’t even been asked whether or not they want it, how is it that gay marriage is gaining such political advantage? If this government is one "deriving …just powers from the consent of the governed," as it says in the Constitution, why are two of the largest and most influential states making rules that do not reflect the will of the people?
Suddenly it is easy to see how gay marriage could wedge its way into states without permanently overhauling state constitutions. It seems the gay "community" may have discovered a run-end around many states' constitutions by achieving, at least for now, a temporary re-instatement of same-sex marriage, then suing to make recognition of their new status legal in their home states.
By allowing even a window of time for gay couples to get married, California has set a precedent. It will be up to the residents in other states to make sure that gay couples who get married in California don’t come home and win the battles against the family in their own states. Meanwhile, let’s hope the residents of California and New York make their voices heard.
Catherine MullinsCatherine Mullins is a freelance writer and essayist.
--> Trackback URL for this post:
http://www.jbs.org/trackback/8430
America's Berlin Wall
The flight option in the "fight or flight" decision has become more expensive. An "exit tax" has been passed to deter those seeking to give up their U.S. citizenship and residency.
Follow this link to the original source: "Exit Tax for U.S. Expatriates to Become Law"
COMMENTARY:Some Americans of means have defered from taking part in the ongoing fight for freedom. Their rationalization for inaction often goes like this: "Well, if it really get's bad in our country, I'll just leave."We are all fortunate that their logic still works. However, the U.S. Congress has finally carried through on its threat to make the option of giving up on the United States a much more expensive proposition.
The Heroes Earnings Assistance and Relief Tax Act of 2008 provides tax relief to members of the miltary and their families. To offset the lost revenues from these tax breaks, the act includes an exit tax on citizens and long term residents of the United States, who seek to terminate their citizenship and residency status.
The Exit Tax happened quickly. It was introduced on May 16, 2008. It passed with only 3 dissenting votes in the House on May 20th. It passed in the Senate unanimously on May 22nd. All this in only 6 days. (The three dissenting votes in the house were David Wu, Barney Frank and Ron Paul.) The bill becomes law when President Bush signs it, or after 30 days from its passage, whichever comes first.
If your current or near future net worth is less than $2 million U.S. dollars (married couples $4 million), for the moment you need not concern yourself with this new potential tax liability. Like all taxes however, expect the net to get wider. For example, consider what your net worth will be valued at in US dollars if the dollar drops to half its current value.
Europe's Economist magazine refers to this new tax as, "America's Berlin Wall." They also point out that, along with North Korea, the United States is already one of the few countries in the world that taxes its citizens on their income regardless of the country they earn it in. As most already suspected, the IRS is a hard master.
A government that is bankrupt by any honest accounting standards will eventually be forced by its creditors to turn over any real assets it still has at its disposal. Unfortunately, in most courts of law, those assets can include the full net worth of all U.S. citizens and residents. The ability to tax this net worth, to extinction if necessary, is the ultimate backing behind the guarantee U.S. debt holders know as"the full faith and credit of the United States."
The message to take away from this is, if you are not going to fight for your rights and freedoms, your time to flee is rapidly running out. Maybe it's time to think again about joining The John Birch Society.
Other monetary laws of note:
Even if you're not worth $2 million dollars, if you had more than the equivalent of $10,000 in a foreign bank account don't forget that you only have until June 30th to report this to the IRS. The penalty for unwillful failure to report is a fine of up to $10,000. The penalty for willful failure to report is a fine of up to $100,000.
Though yet to be enforced, or challenged in the Supreme Court, there is already a federal law prohibiting the right to visit family or friends in the U.S., for persons the government decides have renounced citizenship for tax purposes (8 USC 1182(a)(10)(E)).
Don't try to get out of the country with more than $5 worth of pennies or nickels - that's a crime now too.
With the exit tax and rules like these already in place, can currency controls be far behind?
Jim CapoJim Capo is the John Birch Society's National Spokesman on Trade Policy, and a coordinator for North and South Carolina.
--> Trackback URL for this post:
http://www.jbs.org/trackback/8431
Regulating Us to Death
A psychology and brain sciences professor says that over-regulation of America’s traffic, such as excessive stop signs and unrealistic speed limits, actually leads to more road deaths.
Follow this link to the original source: "Distracting Miss Daisy"
COMMENTARY:Perhaps I should be chagrinned to admit it, but I failed my first road test. I was about 18 years old, and I still remember the sinking feeling of sitting in the vehicle and coldly being informed that I missed a stop sign. Curious, I subsequently drove the route with my mother and found the octagonal red menace, barely visible amidst a sea of leaves, with just a few splotches of color showing through. My first thought was, "Are they kidding? Am I supposed to be watching the road or scouring the sidewalk, performing something akin to a 'What’s wrong with this picture' exercise?"
This is just one of the factors cited by Duke University professor John Staddon, who contends that the traffic accident rate is higher in the United States than Great Britain — despite the former having wider roads, better cars and lower population density — because of our penchant for micromanaging traffic. As for the stop sign, Staddon writes:
Think about how the signs