Monday, February 27, 2006

Against tyranny in government

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Just in case you don't already know, this quote is from the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, in full. Why did the Framers create the Second Amendment? I mean, you know that guns are "evil". Society would be safer if the government banned all guns. Why did they put that in there?

I have to break the news to you, but it is the opposite of what you may believe. Guns are an inanimate object, like any property. Guns don't kill, people do. If you let your finger stay out of the trigger guard, the gun won't fire. Period. That is why there are many, many cops, but minuscule number of accidents. And, if good, honest people, who have the skill and knowledge to operate a firearm, acquire a gun for protection of themselves and their family, gun deaths would go down, not up. That is what John Lott Jr. says. In his book, named, appropriately enough, More Guns, Less Crime, he said that states which allow more gun freedom will have fewer violent crimes.

For example, Vermont has the most lax gun laws in the country (permits are not required for carry concealed or unconcealed for resident or non-resident alike, and Vermont has been doing this for a long, long time). Vermont has the 2nd fewest violent crime rate in the country (only North Dakota, a "gun friendly state" as well, has fewer). On the opposite side, Washington D.C. has the strictest gun laws in the country (you have to disassemble your weapon if you want to keep the gun in DC in your own home). Washington has the highest violent crime rate in the country (they nick-named Washington the "murder capitol"). The three most stringent gun law cities in America are Washington, Chicago, and San Francisco (all three cities, they outlaw carrying a weapon in their city limits). Do you want to take a guess on what cities have the highest violent crime rate?

If you read the Second Amendment, it means literally you can carry a weapon, and government officials are barred from requiring you to do anything with your gun, including having a license. The phrase, "shall not be infringed" is for the government. For the record, the Bill of Rights doesn't grant you any rights; not a one. The Bill of Rights was actually a Bill of Restrictions. The Preamble to the Bill of Rights said it best. That's why the government left it off. It states that "further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added". That's "restrictive clauses" for the government, not "open clauses" for the people. It is a big difference. Our rights are "inalienable". That means if we trash the Constitution right now, our rights are still with us, including the right to keep and bear arms. If you see the difference, maybe you can approach the government in a different, better way.

But, the most important reason why we have the Second Amendment is not to reduce crime. Thomas Jefferson said it best, "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." The most important reason why we have the Second Amendment is to offer a check on government power. Let's take a look at some history and see the reality.

  • In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
  • In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
  • Germany established gun control in 1938, and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews and others, who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
  • China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
  • Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
  • Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
  • Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

That means the number of defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th century because of gun control: 56 million. That makes a trivial thing like our wars (from the Revolution to today) seem meaningless.

Five months ago, New Orleans police wanted to confiscate the people's guns. New Orleans Police Superintendent P. Edwin Compass made the following statement: "No one will be able to be armed. Guns will be taken. Only law enforcement will be allowed to have guns." I pray gun confiscation was only temporary, for my sake...and theirs. If you outlaw guns, only outlaws and government officials (i.e., one and the same) will have guns.

Finally, what is the meaning of "arms" in the Second Amendment? The dictionary's definition of "arms" is synonymous with "weapons", and both are defined as "instruments of offense or defense". If my acumen serves me correctly, that includes rocks, knives, spears, bows-and-arrows, numb-chucks, revolvers, semi-automatic weapons, mortars, Uzis, howitzers, machine guns, nukes, and anything you can think of for offense or defense. Vin Suprynowicz agrees with me. Here is his article. Read the article, and ask yourself: what did the Framers mean in the Constitution when they use the word "arms"?

Blindly trusting our president

Speaking of Jacob Hornberger, do you trust the president without a shred of evidence to back up his claim? Yes? No? A friend of mine answers my question in the positive. Her exact words, in the beginning of this war, were, "I trust President Bush", and I know she doesn't have a clue about the facts surrounding this war. I have an opposite opinion, whether it's the president, congressmen, justices, or whatever. I live by the principle of question everything, especially authority. Hornberger (who thinks like me) has an article to reveal the truth.

Sunday, February 26, 2006

The fully informed jury

Which agency has the inalienable right to ignore the judge, ignore attorneys, keep honest people out of prison, render the verdict how they see fit, to be the most powerful force in the courtroom, and thus, keeping our government honest and humble. What is this agency? It is no other than the fully informed and educated jury. I say "informed and educated jury" because when you on the jury, and you are not informed and not educated, you will obey the judge, no questions asked. And if the judge tells you that you judge only the facts and the judge judges the rest, he (or she) is lying to you through his teeth. He is lying about the true nature of your power. This statement is the God's-honest truth: when your on the jury, you have the right, as well as the duty, to judge the facts, to judge the law, to judge the moral intent of the accused, as well as to judge the justice of the law, and to render all defendants not guilty when the laws are unconscionable, immoral, or unjust. And the prosecutors and the judge, cannot change the verdict; the verdict is final.

The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads (in part), "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed". The jury is there in the Constitution, but I don't see the judge. I wonder why? Maybe it is that the judge doesn't have the ability to render a verdict of guilt for the defendant in any case; i.e., not the facts, nor the law.

Now, wait a minute! You say, "Thomas, you are not a lawyer, so what do you know?" You are right: I am not a lawyer (i.e., I haven't received a bar license). But, I am knowledgeable about the basic concepts of the law. I am interested in the law, I represented my company in court, I served on a jury, as well as I watched many law drama shows and movies in my life. I know the basic order from the beginning to end of a jury case: first, it's voir dire to select the 12 jurors, then it's opening statements, then it's the prosecutor's witness(es), then it's the defense attorney's witness(es), then it's closing arguments, jury instructions by the judge, jury deliberation, and the verdict. Only the jury can go to the deliberation room; not the prosecutor, not the defense's attorney(s), and not the judge. If they want to ask a question, the jury will write it down and give it to the bailiff, and he (or she) will give it to the judge. And, like I said before, the verdict is final. What if the jury disregards the instructions? What if the jury takes the evidence that the jury banned? There is nothing the judge can do. He would have no choice but to release the jury, and if the jury's verdict was not guilty, he would have no choice but to release the defenant. The jury is ultimately in charge.

Trial by jury goes way back to the Magna Carta. The Great Charter says (in clause 39), "No freeman shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or his possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we [the king] proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land." Even today, no one--lawyers and judges--disputes that American juries have the power to nullify bad laws through an acquittal of the defendant. And through the 19th century, judges told the juries the truth. But, when it started with the infamous Sparf and Hansen v. U.S. [1894], the judge was given permission to not tell the juries of the power to nullify or veto bad laws. And the juries bought it. Since then, because on the people's ignorance and passivity, judges have shifted to actively lying, bluffing, and fragrantly tampering with the jury. The truth is the jury has a lot more power than the judge is admitting.

The best example is the criminal case of O.J. Simpson. Now, a part of me thinks he is guilty. Of American's opinion polls, a vast majority of you agrees with a part of me. Others say he's innocent. While others say, "I really don't care", which another part of me agrees with. But it doesn't matter if I offer a judgment on Simpson. It doesn't matter if you judge Simpson. Neither are the attorneys, nor even the judge. All that matters is the 12 people legally to be on his jury. Only they have the ultimite judgment on Simpson's verdict. Maybe the jurors truly believe Simpson is innocent, or the prosecutors didn't find him guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt". Or maybe the jurors think he is guilty, but hey, it's O.J., "The Juice", Heisman trophy winner out of USC (or, in the late '60s, "UOJ"); they wouldn't find the football star guilty. While others think they did this to him because he is black (however, three jurors weren't black). Whatever the case might be, all that mattered was Simpson was found not guilty, and thus, Simpson walked a free man, and there is nothing Martha Clark or Christopher Darden, or even Lance Ito can do.

Jacob Hornberger has two articles (here and here) can best explain what trial by jury truly is. Unlike me, Hornberger is an accomplished attorney who practiced law in southern Texas until he left the practice to become the director of programs at The Foundation for Economic Education. In 1989 until today, he is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation, my favorite website (and Hornberger is my favorite author). Like he said (and I believe), trial by jury is one of our most cherished safeguards of liberty. I want the jury to be fully informed.

Friday, February 24, 2006

Even a police chief says the war on drugs is a complete failure.

The Los Angeles Times ran an article on a former Seattle police chief who says it is time to end the war on drugs, all drugs. I want you to read this article, but an outline of what it says is that the war on drugs causes America to be the #1 prisoner per capita in the entire world, ahead of North Koera, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and every country who's known to be, in President Bush' eyes, a haven of "terrorism". When Nixon gave a speech that started the "war on drugs" in the spring/summer of 1971; as we approch 35 years later, the war on drugs causes, like I said, America to be the #1 prisoner population rate in the world, the police to curtail our rights, especially the rights listed in the Fourth Amendment. And the police are corrupt; they choose to bust teenagers at a party with a bag of marijuana or cocaine, rather than bust a murder or a rapist when the officer put his/her life in danger. And it uses a whole lot of taxpayers' money to catch a "criminal" who means no harm to others. All of this, while it fails miserably to do what the whole concept was created to do: curb drug use. Like the chief said, it's time for the war to end.

As a cop for 34 years, Norm Stamper got to see the corruption of the drug users, and the corruption of the police force. As time goes by, more and more officers will wake up to see all the destruction the war on drugs can have. Stamper is an advisory board member of an organization who is formed by current and former members of law enforcement who stands for drug legalization and regulation, rather than prohibition. The organization is called LEAP: Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. The original members were five, but two years later, LEAP's membership is over 2,000, living in 34 states and seven other countries. These fine officers can see the futile life in chasing and arresting nonviolent victimless "criminals" has cause.

But, the most notorious reason why I believe drug prohibition is wrong is moral. As I said in the original post, to live in a free society is to believe in the concept of self-ownership; I own myself, and you own yourself. If you own yourself, then you own your body. And if you own your body, you have the right to ingest whatever in your body, including drugs, and thus, you have the responsibility for the actions it caused. If you ingest gasoline or antifreeze, your life is over, or you have to pump your stomach dry. But, you have the right to this if you want.

However, one drug in particular (marijuana) is the most benign drug of all. Tobacco kills almost a half a million people annually in the United States. Alcohol kills about 100,000 people annually. NSAIDs (Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs), such as aspirin, ibuprofen, naproxen, and all legal pain medicine, kill over 7,500 people. Cannabis (marijuana) didn't cause a signal death, ever. But, in Oklahoma, you could get over 90 years for growing marijuana plants to relieve pain. It is time to end prohibition, once and for all.

Thursday, February 23, 2006

Privatizing the ports

What's the big deal about the U.S. ports? Words have been spreading, arguments have been raising, about the pros and cons of selling our ports to foreign governments. Most nobility is the purchase of a British port-terminal management company by a Dubai-government firm. Dubai is a part of the United Arab Emirates. The TV talk shows are discussing the Dubai-port transaction. They say two of the 9/11 hijackers were from UAE. The UAE reportedly still recognizes the Taliban as the official government of Afghanistan. Congress has been arguing with the President. The President has been arguing with Congress. The main focus is American ports are owned by foreign, and possibility enemy, governments. Even the mainstream media are picking up the story. Like I said: what's the big deal?

I have a solution to all of the officials' problems: privatize the ports. Taking the ports out of the American government, the British government, the UAE government, the China government, the Singapore government, etc., and transferring them to the people who work and use the ports, for profit. In that way, the ports will be run smoothly and efficiently. With the private owner's own capital to risk, the ports will run better than ports run by bureaucratic managers with political agenda.

By the way, there is one more addition to privatizing the ports. This solution is a generic solution to every foreign policy debacle: bring the troops home from 100+ stations across the world, discharging them into the private sector, and dismantling the empire. That way, it minimizes the chances (i.e., to zero) that an individual(s) will want to do harm to our country. But, this makes too much sense. The liberals and the conservatives would never go for this. Privatizing the ports (as well as dismantling the empire) takes too much power away from government (i.e., them). So, the fighting will continue.

Saturday, February 18, 2006

1913: a year that will live in infamy (part 2)

Don't get me wrong, taxing our incomes is bad, there is no mistake about that. Taxation is legalized theft. It destroys the gift that God endowed to us (free will). It violates the Eighth and Tenth Commandments (thou shalt not steal and thou shalt not covet). It is the 2nd Plank of the Communist Manifesto. It destroys what Americans created. It perverts the way we view our government, and the way our government views the people. It took our once nation of free men and women, and turn it into a nation of slaves. And, the most sinister concept of all, nowhere in the law that it requires the vast majority of Americans to pay. Nowhere. But, that was not the worse thing that could happened. That was not the worse thing that could happened in the same year. The most treacherous act by our government in 1913; the most treacherous thing in the history of America, is when Woodrow Wilson passed the Federal Reserve Act and confiscated our money.

When then American General George Washington defeated British Major General Charles Cornwallis at the Battle of Yorktown, virtually ending the American Revolutionary War, the States were at last free and independent. They had a government called The Articles of Confederation, a loose form of government with 13 independent members. This government made the states virtually sovereign nations, independent from each other, including making each its own money. The government didn't offer a solution on how to form their money, so most of them made money out of paper. But, Spanish and French troops wanted the new country to reimburse them for the cost of defending it, so they billed the government for their expenses. But, the Articles of Confederation could not raise money from the states by collecting taxes; it had no control over foreign commerce; it could pass laws but could not force states to comply with them, so the government was dependent on the willingness of the states to carry out its measures. The states, in order to make good with their foreign allies, printed the paper to cover the cost. But, since there was more money per capita than before, the money inflated, and thus, it was worth less. Some states printed money ad infinitum, and thus, their money was worthless. The Founders realized they made a mistake. Leaders gathered around at the Federal Constitutional Convention, and the Constitution was born. The Constitution replaces the Articles of Confederation in 1789.

Knowing what they know by the mistakes occurring from the Articles of Confederation, the Framers were well aware of the evils of fiat paper money. Alexander Hamilton still believe in a central bank. But Thomas Jefferson was wise. He won't let the relying on fiat money to destroy his country again. Jefferson once said, "The evils of this deluge of paper money are not to be removed until our citizens are generally and radically instructed in their cause and consequences, and silence by their authority the interested clamors and sophistry of speculating, shaving, and banking institutions. Till then...[it will] deliver up our citizens, their property, and their labor, passive victims to the swindling tricks of bankers" or "If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them, will deprive the people of their property, until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power of money should be taken from the banks and restored to Congress and the people, to whom it properly belongs. I sincerely believe the banking institutions having the issuing power of money, are more dangerous to liberty than standing armies."

But, the most anti-central bank advocate was Andrew Jackson. As a former major general in the War of 1812, he had a fiery temper, especially against bankers. He said, "The bank is trying to kill me, but I will kill it!" or "You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by the Eternal God, I will rout you out!" The first central bank was named the First Bank of the United States. When the contract was up, they created the second central bank, also named the First Bank of the United States. When that contract expired, they created the third central bank, named the Second Bank of the United States. When Jackson appeared hostile toward it, the bank threw its power against him. But, Jackson triumphed. When Jackson vetoed the bank's recharter bill, Congress sided with Jackson. He threw out the bankers for 75 years...until 1913.

The Constitution gave birth to our national government. Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 gave Congress the power "to coin Money", but Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 says, "No state shall...make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts". Also, in the same clause, it fobids the states to "emit Bills of Credit". In other words, the only things that will be considered legal tender is gold and silver coins. I see it in a slightly different way. I believe we should abolish "legal tender" laws altogether, and let the market determine what currency the people should take, but the Constitution's way makes an "A". They knew the perils of paper money from the time of the Articles of Confederation.

But, there is one problem with physical gold and silver coins; coins are loud and heavy. Paper is much quieter and lighter. In other words, paper is much better to carry than actual coins. So the government issued promissory notes. Promissory notes was not money, but it promised to pay the bearer of the note on demand a certain amount of gold or silver. While the notes themselves would often be negotiated, they did not trade like money. Gold or silver itself was the money.

The result was the soundest and prosperous economy in the history of mankind. Real wages doubled between 1800 and 1850, and doubled again between 1850 and 1900, while the value of the dollar remained the same (well, duh; the money was backed by gold and silver; you can't print gold and silver!). There was abundance everywhere, and our government was small and fully constitutional.

All of that changed in 1913. In December 23 of that year, the Federal Reserve was born. Government officials promised the American people that the central bank was the answer to our financial problems. But, of course, the opposite happened. The Federal Reserve is unconstitutional, it don't matter what the definition of "is" is. Look at the chart. The left side (white) was before the Federal Reserve. There are peaks and valleys (most notability is the valley from Abraham Lincoln printing fiat currency, and passed "legal tender" for it). The right side (picture) was after the Federal Reserve. First, there was World War I, and the money vastly inflated, and, thus, the value dropped. Next, the "Roaring 20s" came, when the Fed inflated the paper supply. Then, the Fed overtightening the money supply in 1929, giving America the stock-market crash and the Great Depression. Next, Franklin D. Roosevelt made it illegal to own gold, and nullified all gold clauses. The dollar dropped because of this.

There is one bright spot; John F. Kennedy planned to put an end to the Federal Reserve's control of our money (Executive Order 11110), but he was assassinated four months later (coincidence?), and Lyndon B. Johnson ignored the order. Finally, Richard Nixon closed the gold window, separating gold from the dollar completely. What America has today is a truly fiat paper dollar, backed up by nothing but a printing press. Today, the dollar is worth two cents as compared to a dollar in 1913.

I predict that the fall of our country (and I believe the fall is coming in my lifetime, especially when the people find out the truth and stop paying taxes, and the Federal Reserve's printers have to keep printing even more money to cover the cost) is when America spends itself into bankruptcy, if we don't change course dramatically. That is exactly what happened to the USSR in the late 80s/early 90s. I know, the USSR is a communist country, but America also has all ten planks of the Communist Manifesto (a central bank is no. 5). Who thinks like me is Rep. Ron Paul (District 14 from Texas). Paul is on the Financial Services Committee, and is known as an expert on the gold standard versus fiat money. With a massive debt, run-away spending, #1 prisoners per capita (mainly for drug possession), spiraling decline of the dollar, rising cost of regulating/socializing the healthcare system (wait until it's free!), and the never-ending war, I am confident the fall will be soon.

But, you can save yourself by trading your Federal Reserve Notes for Liberty Dollars (see currency display) Liberty Dollars (LD) are the second largest currency in the United States. LD are private currency 100% backed up by gold and silver. LD is not "legal tender", but it is lawful money; i.e., it is perfectly legal to spend it, like FRN. "Legal tender" is a legal term and it simply means creditors cannot refuse a payment from their debtors using the forementioned money. If we abolish legal tender laws altogether like I want, creditors can refuse or take any money they want. What money do you want to take? Money backed up by gold and silver, or money backed up by nothing (just a printing press, that runs ad infinitum). You be the judge.

Wednesday, February 15, 2006

1913: a year that will live in infamy (part 1)

Thomas Jefferson once concluded about destiny: "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." When we trace the course of our country from beginning until now, and along the way, as the people lose our freedoms and liberties as time goes by, Jefferson had it exactly on the money! As we travel through time and lose our liberties along the way, like Abraham Lincoln suspending habeas corpus, printing fiat paper money, taxing incomes, and many other unconstitutional powers in order to "preserve the union" (contrary to what you may believe, Lincoln was really America's first tyrant), FDR putting the power of government on otherwise private enterprise during his "New Deal" socialist programs, and all the way to George W. Bush infringing on our rights to combat his never-ending "War on Terror", the infamous year of all was 1913. 1913 was the year that dramatically changed the way the people saw our government, and our government saw the people. Two terrible things happened in 1913: the (supposedly) ratification of the 16th Amendment and the passage of the Federal Reserve Act. Now, the Federal Reserve Act is for a later topic, so let's study the federal income tax.

Since the birth of our country in 1776 to 1913, American didn't have a federal income tax. That means, Americans were free to accumulate unlimited amounts of wealth without being forced to give any of it to the government. Americans believe they had a natural, God-given, inalienable right to choose what they want to with their wealth: spend it, save it, invest it, hoard it, give it away, or even destroy it. That is what it means to be an American. That is what it means to be free. That is what it means when Americans celebrate on Independence Day.

They could live their lives in whatever manner they choose, engage with others voluntary in economic transactions, and accumulate the fruits of their earnings, without government approval or assistance. Americans knew from history the perils of direct taxation and what it does to individual liberty. Before 1913, Americans forbade the practice. In other words, the American individual was sovereign. The American individual was supreme. The American individual works for himself and his family, not for the government. The American individual was boss, and the government was the servant.

But, in 1913, all of that changed. When the 16th Amendment was (supposedly) ratified, the roles switched between the American people and the American government. Now, the government was the master and the people was the serf. The 16th Amendment (supposedly) permitted the national government to impose income taxation on the American people. If the government is kind, it will take less. If it is mean, it will take more. But, there is no mistake about it: the government is now in control. And the servants obey, because that's what servants do.

Another reason of the 16th Amendment is the perverted way we view our government. Before 1913, the people depend on each individual selves. If person A was envious of person B, all A can do is work a little harder, and the government should get out of the way for person A to accomplish it, the way God intended it. If A truly needed help, there are many people out there who will lend a hand when someone is in trouble. But, because of the federal income tax, the government is our god; the government is our daddy; the government wants to take care of us from womb to tomb. If person A was envious of person B, now A goes to the government, and the government taxes B and gives the money to A. How immoral is that? Taxation is legalized theft, and legalized theft is theft, pure and simple. It violates God's Eighth Commandment: Thou Shalt Not Steal. And person A violates God's Tenth Commandment: Thou Shalt Not Covet. And (it gets worse), the progressive income tax (supposedly) the 16th Amendment imposed on us is the 2nd plank of the ten planks of Karl Marx' Communist Manifesto.

The irony in this is we pride ourselves in being a "nation of God-fearing Christians", as we tithe (10%) to God, while we tax 50% to Caesar (government). The amusing thing is how these Christians never tire of telling us how the Lord is the most important thing in their lives!

As the astute readers may wonder why I phrase "supposedly" in parenthesis. There are two reasons why. First, some people (including me) think the 16th Amendment was never ratified. Bill Benson, a former Illinois Department of Revenue investigator, began a research project of the ratification of the 16th Amendment in 1984. He found out that many states didn't ratify that amendment, as erroneously reported by then Secretary of State Philander Knox. Benson subsequently publish a two-volume book called The Law That Never Was.

Second, even if this amendment was ratified properly, many people get confused on what the 16th Amendment actually means. The 16th Amendment in full reads, "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." The "official meaning" (offered by the government) is the 16th Amendment gives Congress the ability to directly tax incomes without apportionment. The word "directly" magically appears out of nowhere! Some alert readers (like me) said the 16th Amendment means nothing. The only reason the 16th Amendment is in there is to clarify that the income tax was always an indirect tax which didn't need to be apportioned. In Gould v. Gould, the Supreme Court said, "In case of doubt [on taxes], they are construed most strongly against the government, and in favor of the citizen." In other words, my definition trumps the government's definition.

My definition is not my definition alone. In two cases, the Supreme Court agrees with my definition (Brushaber v. Union Pacific and Stanton v. Baltic Mining). Even the Secretary of the Treasury agrees with my definition (Treasury Decision 2303; scroll down to the first block quotation). As more and more people start to find out about the evil attempt of the IRS to defraud the people out of there hard-earned money, I predict the IRS as we know it will soon be abolished by these same people. When that happens, death will be the only certainty in our lives.

Monday, February 13, 2006

Why They Hate Us

Check out Jacob Hornberger's article titled, "Why They Hate Us". The wonderful thing about Hornberger's articles are he offers a solution at the end (that makes sense!). But, the majority of Americans, blinded by government, are saying, "We did nothing wrong. Our federal officials said the reason why they hate us so much is they hate our freedoms and values. I can't think of a reason why they hate us other than this, so our federal officials had it right! So, we have to go after them before they go after us, like our federal daddy/God said."

On a related subject, read the article by U.S. Representative Ron Paul (of Texas) titled, "A Real Washington Scandal". While Hornberger's article talks about foreign problems, Paul's article talks about even luminous domestic problems.

Sunday, February 12, 2006

America...From Freedom To Fascism

Michael Badnarik, the 2004 Libertarian Presidential candidate and 2006 Libertarian candidate for U.S. Representative from the 10th District from Texas, and his staff watched a pre-screening of Aaron Russo's documentary, "America...From Freedom To Fascism". Russo produced major movies like "Trading Places", "Missing Pieces", "The Rose", and "Teachers". I'll let you read this to tell you what he thought. I wish I could see this movie in OKC, or else it will go nationwide later this year.

Thursday, February 09, 2006

The careless dad, not the dogs, is to blame

In this year's leglislative session, Oklahoma Representative Paul Wesselhoft (R-Moore) will be proposing a bill effectually banning the pit bull from the entire state. The reason why Wesselhoft wants to ban pit bulls is what happen to 3-year-old Cody Yelton. Cody lost an arm as a result of pit bulls trying to protect their back yard against a perceived enemy (Cody). The proposed ban is modeled after a municipal ordinance in Denver. The tyrannical Oklahoma bill would require a pit bull owner to:

  1. Be 21 or older and have a $100,000 liability insurance policy for every pit bull.
  2. House the animal in a structure that is solid and impenetrable by a child.
  3. Keep the dogs behind an eight-foot-high fence that also extends at least one foot into the ground, in order to prevent the dogs from digging out.
  4. Post a sign that reads "pit-bull dogs" on their property.
  5. Spray or neuter the dogs, and have regular rabies shots.
  6. Tattoo the pit bulls.
  7. Not sell or transfer the dogs to other individual(s) in Oklahoma.
  8. And not bring a new pit bull from out of the state.

In other words, you would have to be a millionaire to afford the costs, or give up your dog(s).

As a pit bull owner (see photo above [my dog]), I believe it is not right. It is the owner who shapes the dog's personally; not the dog itself. It is the owner who makes the dog passive, aggressive, happy, board, playful, mean, scared, agitated, or whatever. Now, the dog has traits that it has internally which makes it what kind of dog it is. But, it is the owner who shapes the dog's temperament. For example, my sister and I (a while back) both got male rottweilers from the same litter. I wanted my dog to be a guard dog. My sister wanted her dog to be a family dog. And both trained our dogs accordingly. Guess what? Both are rottweilers, and both have the traits as such, but my dog was aggressive (but not mean), and my sister's dog was laid back.

Also, in owning pit bulls (or rottweilers, or any dogs, or any pets), you have to be responsible for it. Like I said in the original post, individual liberty and responsibility are opposite sides of the same coin. If you want to have liberty, you have to be responsible, and if you are responsible for the situation at hand, you have to be free to make mistakes. And there are different levels of responsibility in owning something. In owning a rock or a brick, there is virtually no responsibility to take care of it. In owning fish, the responsibility is higher than a brick, but the degree of responsibility is low. Owning small dogs, like Chihuahuas or Dashounds, requires more responsibility than a fish. Owning large, aggressive dogs, like rottweilers or pit bulls, requires more responsibility than a small dog. Parenting small children requires the most responsibility of all.

In speaking about parenting, I feel sad when hearing about Cody losing an arm in an attack. However, I have to call a spade a spade. It was Cody's father who didn't take responsibility for the boy. It was Chris Yelton who was careless and let Cody stand with the dogs, in their back yard. I don't know whether Cody was standing outside of the fence and put his arm inside, or was inside of the fence (I suspect the former), but both cases, the dogs felt protective of their back yard, and thus, they do what dogs do when they feel threatened. Chris Yelton should have been more careful and watch Cody when Cody was playing around pit bulls. I am a dad, as well as harboring "dangerous monsters". If it was me, when my daughter was three (she's 16 now), I would tell her it is NOT okay for you to play around those dogs. I already told her no if the situation was unsafe, regardless. In owning rottweilers and pit bulls, like being a parent, I take responsibility for my actions. I keep the dogs in a fence when I'm away. When taking the dogs out into the public (like to PetSmart or to the vet), I carry a muzzle for the dogs to wear, and I carry a leash. I will know when either my daughter or my dogs are unsafe. I am not like Chris Yelton.

But, Rep. Wesselhoft sees things differently. But whose to blame? He is a politician! The only thing he has on his mind is to get more votes. "If I blame it on the parents, some people will get offended, especially those who are lazy with the responsibility of their own children (and it's growing as the years go by), like the Yeltons. Besides, Cody lost an arm, and his parents must be devastated. Blaming it on them now throws fuel on a raging fire, and I will lose votes on account of this. But, if I blame it on the pit bulls, I will be a hero!! Every knows pit bulls are 'mean' and 'dangerous'. I don't care about the fact that the dogs are in and protecting their own yard. I don't care if Cody's dad was not watching his son, like a responsible parent should. If I blame it on the dogs, I will get a lot of votes next election. My mind is made up: I will blame it on the 'evil' pit bulls, and wait until election day."

That's just hogwash. The facts are these:

  1. Available data indicates that a dog of ANY breed can bite. The American Temperament Test Society has available results of dogs tested by them. The Shetland Sheepdog and Collie had a higher rate of bites than the pit bulls.
  2. In fact, the term "pit bull" is not a breed nor is it recognized by reputable breed organizations or kennel clubs. Pit bulls describe a variety of mixes, and it is very difficult or impossible to tell these breeds apart and, as a result, it is impossible to fairly enforce the proposed ordinances.
  3. Cities that have tried their dangerous dog problem by restricting or banning breeds have discovered that such laws do not work.
  4. There is no reliable method by which to scientifically determine the breed of a dog.
  5. The vast majority of the owners of targeted breeds (like me) are responsible, law-abiding citizens. It is the isolated, lazy owners who are at fault, not the dogs.
  6. It takes a large amount of funding for these ordinance provisions requiring the training, testing, and property examination. Passing laws that cannot be enforced increases citizen cynicism regarding effective government (again, like me).

You already know what a politician's mindset (like Wesselhoft) is. Now, take the mindset of common sense. Don't blame it on a dumb animal. An animal will do what the owner will train it to do, and the owner took the appropriate steps to prevent the eventual tragedy. Blame it on the rightful source. Blame it on the dad, not the dogs.

Tuesday, February 07, 2006

Even IRS Agents can see the truth about the fraudulence of the income tax

More and more people, after they finished the research on the income tax, found out the truth: there is no law that requires an individual living and working within the 50 states for a private company to file a tax return and pay taxes. No law. None. I can prove it if you don't believe me. And now, the truth has been spreading to the people working for the IRS. When these people see the truth, they have three reactions:

  1. They block it out of their minds. They refuse to believe that the average American doesn't have to pay taxes. When you approach them with the truth, with those people, it's in one ear and out the other.
  2. They accept the truth. However, in their minds, they have no honor. They have no conscience. They don't care. Your taxes are their cash cow. Your taxes are their udder. If you don't pay your taxes, they can't nurse. They continue to tax the people as before. If you don't pay, they will force you to pay, with guns and the threat of prison, or even death, if they are required to.

90-95% of the IRS agents are in one of those two categories. But, a few of them, who are noble and honorable, fit in number three. On approaching them with the truth; first, they don't believe you. Then they look in the law to prove they are right, and find out you are right! The agents who fit in number three have a tiny little thing called a conscience. These people can't see them forcing Americans to get out their wallet and pay taxes, when the law knows most people are not required to pay. When those people find out the truth, their conscience takes control of them, and they have taken great risks to pass the truth on to you.

Saturday, February 04, 2006

Living in a free society

People always ask me, "What is a free society?" A free society is summed up in one simple word: self-ownership. I own myself. You own yourself. Every person owns his or herself. To imply that others have more control over yourself than you is to imply that you are a slave. You own yourself implies you own your life, you own your mind, you own your body, and you own your property. No other person has a higher claim on yourself than you, and you do not have a higher claim on another's self than that person.

Since you have the absolute right with yourself, you have to take responsibility for yourself. Individual liberty and personal responsibility are opposite sides of the same coin. If you want liberty, you have to take responsibility for your actions, and vice versa. Some people want to lay blame on other people, other animate objects, inanimate objects, or worse, the government. Since the only role of the government in a free society is to protect your rights, you have to be responsible if your decisions and/or actions are unwise. And, if you want to live a free society, you have to let others live in a free society too. You may not approve of what others say, or do, but if that person doesn't forcibly interfere with any other person, just face the facts: you are not God, or your majesty. In other words, they have equal rights, also.

While most people are just and honorable, some people are evil. You have to protect yourself from the latter. Those people want to take away your life, your mind, your body, and your property. The Framers could see it oh so well, so they drafted the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment is the most unique concept of any founding documents, of any country, past, present, or future. The underlining principle of the Constitution, with its checks and balances, three equal branches of government, and adding the Bill of Rights before ratification, was to protect the country from the government. The underlining concept of the Second Amendment, as a last resort, is a check on the government by the people..."To protect themselves against tyranny in government", as Thomas Jefferson once said. I believe the Second Amendment should be first in line, because if you take away the right to bear arms, those rights found in the First Amendment, like religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition, are mere privileges, given and taken away on a ruler's whim.

Since you have the absolute right for your life, you have the absolute right to choose, if God doesn't choose before you, where, when, and how you will die. Now, the vast majority of the people don't want to die any time soon. But if you have excruciating pain, and you think the right course for your well being is to die, you are an adult, and that is your choice. In fact, it is your choice regardless of the circumstances.

Since you have the absolute right to do anything with your body, you have the absolute right to ingest anything you want, including drugs, both legal and illegal. Now I don't recommend ingesting gasoline, Drano, lighter fluid, etc., including dangerous drugs. But, there is one fact that trumps all others: I'm not you. Only you can decide for yourself.

Since you have the absolute right to do anything with your mind, you have the absolute right to read pornographic magazines or other offensive material. Now, I don't want you to act out on what you read in public, and thus, violating an innocent bystander with your sick, perverted ways. You just crossed the line by forcibly interfering with someone else's right to be left alone, and I have no problem with that someone retaliating with force. But if you want to read, and act out on the fantasies you create, by yourself, you have the right to do that.

Since you have the absolute right to do whatever you want with your own property, every else has the absolute right to do whatever one wants with one's own property. The only concept by which people can interact with one another voluntary is through a free market. And everyone has a choice of which product(s) one should buy, or sell. Whether it is retirement accounts, health insurance, education, financial products, or whatever, we should have a choice, like a choice of different bread, peanut butter, milk, cereal, and the rest of the products we find in a grocery store. But in government today, there is only one choice, you are forced to take that choice, and that choice is terrible. In retirement accounts, government forces you to take Social Security. In health insurance, government forces you to take Medicare and Medicaid. In education, government forces you to enroll and send your children to government schools. And in financial products, the "legal tender" is fiat paper, inflationary, Federal Reserve Notes (US dollars), backed up by nothing. In a free society, people will have a choice in everything.

And if you put Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. from the public sector into the private, you won't need to pay any taxes. Taxation is legalized theft, and legalized theft is theft, pure and simple. Theft in general violates God's Eighth Commandment; thou shalt not steal. If you don't pay taxes, it means every dollar that you earn, you keep. You can do what you want to do with your money: spend it, save it, invest it, give it to charity, hoard it away, or even destroy it. It's your money, and thus, it's your call, not the government. Remember, the government does foolish things with your money. You know better how to spend your money than the government, because IT'S YOURS.

We just scratched the surface on what would it be like if we live in a free society. If you want to know more, check out this 10-minute animated video titled "The Philosophy of Liberty". You can play it without sound, but it has a powerful music background. This video is an introduction to libertarian principles, created by Ken Schoolland and Lux Lucre. I wish I could live in a free society. Do you?