The Read the Bills Act

The REAL ID Act is a cruel, cruel law. This act, by itself, failed to pass the Senate. That is why Rep. James Sensenbrenner tacks it on to a war spending and tsunami bill, which passed both Houses easily. This REAL ID will require every American to get a national ID with national characters which will be scanned through a national database, with additional requirements made solely by the Secretary of Homeland Security...can you say, "Your papers, please!"

Now, there is the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006. This act is not so cruel as the REAL ID Act, but it is meaningless. Gambling, like drugs and prostitution, is a victimless crime. Besides, there are legal Indian casinos, horse tracks, and even government-run lotteries. So by itself, this act would be hard to pass. That is what Sen. Bill Frist foresaw. So he shoved this bill to a port security bill, which again passed both Houses easily when Congress was trying to finish so they can start campaigning for re-election.

This first law hurts every American. This last law hurts American businesses and American poker players. Both are dishonest laws pass in a dishonest way. And I know the next dishonest law is on the way.

Putting these two bills into a "must-pass" bills is deceiving. They knew the bills will pass with very little deliberation and examination. There must be a cure to this system, and DownsizeDC has it. It is called "Read the Bills Act". It says that every congressperson must, by penalty of perjury, read (or have read) the entire law, plus amendments, before it can be passed. And it has a seven-day grace period before it can be voted. In that way, the laws Congress will write will be shorter and simpler, and Congress will be honest. No more REAL ID Act, and no more Internet Gambling Act.

DownsizeDC also has a "Write the Laws Act" , where only Congress alone can write laws, not be lazy and delegate to someone else who will write laws for them (e.g., the Federal Reserve). In the near future, DownsizeDC will introduce the "One Subject at a Time Act" (the title speaks for itself; "One Subject at a Time" also will definitely cure those two deseases mention above). Now, I have little confidence in asking Congress to do anything (I rather would do it myself), but if that is the case, I want DownsizeDC to back me up.

A few words from a principled libertarian

According to the Sun, David Boaz and David Kirby propose when talking to the exit polls to include: "Do you consider yourself to be fiscally conservative and social liberal, also known as libertarian?" Although it may be true, I reject that premise. It is looking it through a "conservative v. liberal" paradigm. It is talking about conservative v. liberal, left v. right, red state v. blue state.

Tell me, what is a "conservative"? What is a "liberal"? Is there any difference between the two?

From looking at the 2008 presidential candidates, it is hard to tell. There is little difference between Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani. There is little difference between John McCain and John Kerry. In fact, the greatest difference between Clinton and Giuliani is the sexes, and between McCain and Kerry is about 4-5 inches.

On May 27, 2004, I wrote an article titled, "Is a Bush-Clinton the key?" In my column, I jokingly said the best way George W. Bush could guarantee re-election is to dump Dick Cheney and select Bill Clinton for his vice-president. Both Bush and Clinton shared the exact same philosophical vision for the role of government in society. While Bush is a bigger spender than Clinton, that's because he had the same party Congress.

We need a new paradigm. We should draw a map with a new directions. We will go "up v. down", "self-government v. government control", "white v. black" (or "yellow v. brown", or whatever). On the government control side, there are Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Fidel Castro, Saddam Hussein, et al). Parties that would fit are the Socialists, Communists, and Fascists. Both liberals and conservatives are at the middle, with personal traits going more towards government control with conservatives, and economic traits going more towards government control with liberals.

But, they both are going towards government control with all traits as time goes by.

As for self-government, that would be our Founders: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, James Madison, et al. In the 21st century, although some would feel different philosophy than others, the people that most wants to live in self-government is libertarians.

Libertarianism is a philosophy that says all people should be free to do anything that they want, in life, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal freedoms of others to do the same. Thus, as long as they do not murder, rape, assault, burglarize, defraud, trespass, steal, or inflict any other acts of violence on another person's life, liberty, or property, libertarians hold that the government should leave them alone. Libertarians believe in individual liberty, personal responsibility, and limited government. In fact, libertarians believe that the only role of government is to protect individuals unalienable rights.

I hope you know a little more about what it means to be a libertarian, especially a principled libertarian. That is the key to living in a free society.

Wesley Snipes indicted

You tell me this is good news or bad news. On Tuesday, Wesley Snipes was indicted on 8 counts of tax "fraud" and not filing tax forms. If he is found guilty on all counts, Snipes could face 16 years behind prison.

Now, I am no attorney, but I am interested in the law, especially tax law. I ask that question in the beginning because there are positive things and negative about Snipes being indicted. U.S. Attorney Paul Perez charged Snipes with one count of 18 USC 371, one count of 18 USC 287, and six counts of 26 USC 7203.

Now, I am not familiar with charges from Title 18, but it has to do with Snipes amending a tax return to tax less (or no) money on the same income.

"Snipes", according to the Los Angeles Times, "began dubious (sic) tax refunds, including a $7.4-million claim for the 1997 tax year. Snipes originally claim an income of $19.2 million that year, authorities alleged, but in an amended return said his income was zero."

I have two questions (actually one question and one comment). The question is what kind of income does the paper refer--gross income or taxable income? I can guess (from looking at the law) that $19.2 million is his "gross income", and zero is his "taxable income". And looking at 26 USC 1 and 26 USC 3, you pay a tax on your taxable income only.

The comment is if you already file a tax return and pay taxes, let it be. You can get into trouble correcting it in the future. If you know now the truth, start with today.

But I'm familiar with 26 USC (or IRC) 7203, titled "Willful failure to file...". In fact, I have a specific defense on the charge of IRC 7203. If Snipes doesn't file (and he doesn't amend his past tax returns), all the government can charge him is IRC 7203. Also, Snipes got involved with Eddie Ray Kahn, owner of American Rights Litigators and its successor, Guilding Light of God Ministries. Kahn uses the "861 argument" which says only foreign sources of income are taxed. Remember, I gave you a version of the 861 argument in my post last March, and I believe in it wholeheartedly (i.e., the law itself tells the REAL truth). The defense of willfulness is found in the Supreme Court decision, Cheek v. United States.

Now, I am poor, but Snipes is rich. He can have any attorney he wants, including multiple attorneys. If it was me, I will choose Jeffrey Dickstein, Larry BeCraft, and/or Robert Bernhoft. Dickstein and Bernhoft represented Joseph Banister in the Banister tax trial in 2005, and BeCraft represented Vernice Kuglin in the Kuglin tax trial in 2003. By the way, both won their cases.

And in case, Snipes should watch the movie, America: Freedom To Fascism. This is the ENTIRE movie (1:45 to 2 hours long). But it's broken down into 4 segments: if the movie should run in it's entirely, I will replace it here. UPDATE: It's here! Wait for "Buffering..." to end, and wait until 10 seconds for the movie to start. Like I said, the movie lasts less than 2 hours, but taxes last the first hour.

But, as I am writing this, Snipes is no where to be found. Maybe he realizes the chances of winning at trial. The charges under Title 18, I can't help you. The charges under Title 26, I can help you. Title 18 is "CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE"; Title 26 is "INTERNAL REVENUE CODE". If both Titles are distinct, that means Title 26 is not a crime, is it not? If he is found guilty of only charges under Title 18, he will face a maximum sentence of 10 years. And the jury is bias against rich people "getting away" by "not paying taxes". And running away is not good. But which way the trial goes, the major media is watching closely.

I wish Wesley Snipes all the luck, especially when he battles the government on taxes.

Freedom to fly

A week from last Friday, it was the continuous school shootings, and the only thing the people can do is to have more government control on guns and gun violence, if that. A week later, a small plane crashed into an apartment building, killing New York Yankee pitcher Cory Lidle and his instructor. In order to make the sky above New York safer, the government must have more government control on planes and over the skies.

Haven't we covered this before?

In both cases--and in every case--there is only one answer: freedom. In the first case, it's the freedom to keep and bear arms that will keep the children safe from harm, as I told you before.

But you say, in the plane-crash scenario, "If we use more government control on private airplanes, we would surely be safer for the pilots and passengers." Maybe, but at what cost? Before Lidle's plane, I don't remember any small plane crashing into any building. The last plane crash in New York I know of is TWA Flight 800. That flight, in 1996, killed all 230 passengers and crew barely after it flew from JFK International Airport. After that crash, they didn't say to ban all flights. Blaming all of the problems on one plane is absurd.

Why don't we let the pilots have the freedom to fly without any restrictions. As you already may know, flying is the safest way to travel. But, if we have flying in freedom, let the pilots have the ultimate responsibility for knowing what to do behind the joystick. The airparks have flying classes with instructors to instruct the student-pilots. But I drove a car without classes when I was 13, and I was doing fine. Now, I wouldn't fly a plane, but it is because there is no person I know that would teach me how to fly. In other words, I don't want to crash! If I was ready and I was confident enough (e.g., finishing the school), then I would fly. But having a pilot's license before I can fly is hogwash. Having a driver's license before I can drive is the same hogwash. Learning how to drive is good enough, and learning how to fly is good enough, too. Remember, it is you flying the plane, and you have to be responsible to know what to do. If you don't, remember this; it is only you who falls.

The death of liberty

This morning, with the crowd cheering him on, President Bush signed the Military Commissions Act of 2006. When this bill becomes law, this will mean:

1. No more speedy and public trials (all this president, and future presidents, can do is to secretly lock you away without charges for the remainder of the war [i.e., forever]).
2. No more trials by jury.
3. No more habeas corpus.
4. The President alone can decide whether or not he wants to name you an "enemy combatant".
5. No more lawyers
6. No more free speech.
7. No more the right to assemble.
8. No more the right to keep and bear arms.
9. No more privacy.
10. No more security.
11. Cruel and unusual punishments (i.e., torture) are okay.
12. The 9th and 10th Amendments are just "paper tigers".
13. And so on, and so on, ad nauseam.

And make no mistake; the President can label both an alien and a citizen alike an "enemy combatant" (e.g., Jose Padilla), even though the bureaucrats will lie to you and say otherwise. If you don't believe me, watch the sobering message from Keith Olbermann. Like Senator Padme Amidala said in Star Wars III, when the republic transformed itself into an empire, "So this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause." God help us, because our elected officials won't. Both/either God, and/or the people themselves.

The right to petition

Last week, Bob Schulz and We the People Foundation argued their landmark case in front of the Court of Appeals in Washington, DC. This landmark case is the case for the right to petition.

The right to petition, found in the 1st Amendment, reads in full: "Congress shall make no law...to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." It is the only right that confronts the people with their government directly. WTP have 4 specific petitions: the federal income tax petition, the money and banking petition, the war powers petition, and the privacy petition. But in 217 years when we first operated under the Constitution, there is no court case which gives the word "petition" its definition. It will definitely go to the Supreme Court after this trial.

The people argued two things. Within the meaning of the Constitution and the 1st Amendment, the government must respond when given petitions for a "redress of grievances", and if the government doesn't respond, the people have the right to enforce by withholding their money until the government finally responds to the people's petitions.

However, the district court ruled otherwise. As you may remember, Judge Emmet Sullivan ruled the government doesn't have to answer, respond, or listen to the people's petitions, a right listed in the 1st Amendment. Judge Sullivan was featured in a 15-minute promo for America: Freedom To Fascism [push play].

As WTP said, it is impossible to know what the appeals court will decide. But, the organization will issue an educational guess. The WTP states:

First, we believe the Court will issue an explicit finding that the defense of "sovereign immunity" is no jurisdictional bar to suits asserting constitutional claims. We believe we have established this fundamental constitutional principle beyond question in this case, and that only such an explicit finding will adequately deter the Justice Department from renewing that defense in the future.

Given that the well-entrenched doctrine of sovereign immunity has, to date barred many lawsuits against the Government, this judicial clarification in itself, could be of extraordinary significance for the Law and those that seek redress where constitutional injuries have been inflicted.

Second, we believe the Court will define the word "Petition" as found in the First Amendment. Only the Court can define the meaning of the word. We believe we have provided the Court with a sufficient context of historical and constitutional background so it can properly declare the contours of the Right as it was intended by our Founders.

Third, we believe the Court will rule that the constitutional guarantee of the Right to Petition the Government for a Redress of Grievances includes the Right to a Response from the Government, i.e., that the government is obligated to respond to our Petitions for Redress of Grievances, which the Court will hold are Petitions for Redress.

Fourth, we believe the Court may hesitate on ruling that the constitutional guarantee of the Right to Petition the Government for a Redress of Grievances includes the Right of Enforcement should the Government fail to respond. During questioning, Chief Judge [Douglas] Ginsburg expressed a concern over the "fisc" (public treasury). Therefore, despite the compelling evidence, the Court may leave for the United States Supreme Court, on appeal, to decide the question of whether we have the Right to retain our money if the Government refuses to respond to our Petitions for Redress.

I hope the people will be victorious. However, whether the judges sides with the government or the people, this case is headed to the Supreme Court.

The death of habeas corpus

The principle of habeas corpus is a demand that free people make toward state power. If free people are going to respect a state's power to lock people up, then that state must respect a free people's demand to see the causes and the evidence for any arrest. In other words, a writ of habeas corpus is a judicial mandate to a prison official ordering that an inmate be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not that person is imprisoned lawfully and whether or not he should be released from custody.

So it is chilling to read the section on habeas corpus Matters included in the recently passed Military Commissions Act of 2006 (passed both by House and Senate by a 2-1 margin):

"No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination."

What this section says that in the eyes of the United States, aliens are not to be granted the privileges of a free people. And this makes the United States a threat to free people everywhere. Besides, if justices would feel independent from the President, it is obvious that the Military Commissions Act of 2006 is unconstitutional.

There are so-called "conservatives" who say that the United States does not owe the right (sic) of habeas corpus to aliens. They argue that habeas corpus is a "Constitutional Right" and therefore a "right" that belongs exclusively to the people of the people of the United States.

But the "right"of habeas corpus is not a right; it is a privilege (i.e., Art I, Sec 9, Clause 2 of the Constitution) and was not invented by the United States Constitution. It cannot be trademarked as territorial property, made by, or exclusively for citizens for the USA. Habeas corpus was written into the U.S. Constitution because it was already in the 18th century a time-honored principle for free people everywhere.

A state that revokes its own obligations to habeas corpus is a state that declares itself infallible. And an infallible state is either exceptionally wise or exceptionally dangerous. But if the American people believe that their leadership is exceptionally wise, shouldn't they revoke habeas corpus for themselves, first?

It's scandalous enough that Congress would revoke habeas corpus, but when Congress does it just a month before it goes up for re-election, the timing suggests that we have become a nation of vicious people who would cheer the unfreedom of others in the name of freedom for themselves.

In the Military Commissions Act of 2006 we find a mirror to show us what we have become in the name of the twin towers massacre of 9/11. Just a little ways down the page from the sentence that revokes habeas corpus for alien combatants is another sentence that makes the new rules retroactive to Sep. 11, 2001.

But I hear some readers asking, "What's wrong with locking up a terrorist and throwing away the key?" To which I answer, "Maybe nothing." But when a state gets to declare in advance who the terrorist is and never is obligated to respect that person's right to due process, then we have made a state which can declare its own infallibility. And what free people can applaud the idea of an infallible state that can lock people up and throw away the key.

In our coming elections to the Congress of the United States, we will choose between those who voted for an infallible state and those who voted against it. And in our choices at the ballot box, we will tell the rest of the world whether the people of the United States will stand with them or against them when it comes to support the traditions of free people wherever they happen to be born.


P.S.: Keith Olbermann published a funny but factual video about habeas corpus. Watch!

A pattern and a solution to the school shootings

You can look at it, and re-look at it, and re-look at it again, and it makes no sense what happened at the pattern of the recent school shootings in America. It takes a twisted mind which I cannot understand to sexually molest girls at one school, and tie-up and murder girls at another. It makes no sense to me at all.

But I am sure it will happen in the future. So what will we going to do about it then?

Some groups claim we should crack down hard on guns. We should restrict the enterways and exitways to one lane, we could give police with assault guns patrolling in every corner, and do a lock-down drill just in case a parent forgot to check by a security check-point and the school have to do the drill for real.

That, in the previous case, is the wrong thing to do. Do you want your children to live that way in America--America, the so-called "free" country?

The correct way to do it, if they will do it at all, is to arm the teachers, principles, administrators, janitors, and every adult who works in the school. Don't arm them if they don't want do, but give them the option. In fact, arm everybody who wants to be armed regardless on who works in the school or not. Now, there are two simple and basic facts in society: 1) most Americans are good, honest, and law-abiding, but: 2) there is evil in this world, and a closer look will expose an interesting truth: all schools in question are "gun free". When any business is gun free, honest and law-abiding Americans disarm. Criminals, on the other hand, don't. There criminals! "Gun-control" laws really mean "victim-disarmament" laws. The unfortunate and unintended consequence of the federal law banning all guns from schools is that they, in essence, create "defense-free" zones for criminals.

The Founders were right. They know the people have an unalienable right to protect themselves, their family and friends, their property, and their liberty, so the Founders wrote the 2nd Amendment. That way, they have a right to defend and the same time be free. In fact, one Wisconsin State Representative is doing exactly the same as I proposed.

It is time for Americans to learn how to defend themselves again. Attacks like these will only increase until the average American is willing to fight back, and arm oneself with the proper equipment to handle the situation.

Foley hits the trifecta

According to Sheldon Richman's Blog:

It's official now: U.S. Rep. Mark Foley, who quit Congress after getting caught sending sexually explicit messages to teenaged male congressional pages, is an alcoholic, mentally ill, and a victim of sexual abuse by a clergyman. In other words, he's hit the psychiatric trifecta. He's now in rehab. But he's not offering any of this as an excuse for his inappropriate conduct. He just thought we'd like to know.

Thanks for the useless information, Sheldon!

State of Denial

Although I didn't read Bob Woodward new book, State of Denial, I've read many reviews. The book deals about the incompetency of George W. Bush and his "team" in dealing with the Iraq war. It is implying that if someone else was in charge of the war, of if Bush would handle it differently, things would be just fine.

The war with Iraq is/was a failure, both morally and efficiency, it doesn't matter who is in charge.

Let's face the facts: whether or not Saddam Hussein was a tyrant (I don't know, and I simply don't care), Iraq didn't attack the United States, or even threatened to do so. But Bush told the American troops to go ahead and attack Iraq. That makes America the aggressor and Iraq the defender--the facts don't lie. Bush (or Cheney?) told the American people the Iraqis will view the troops as "liberators", not "occupiers", they will lay the ground that the troops will walk with rose petals, and the oil will pay for all of this.

All three were lies.

The Bush team said Saddam had WMDs (the "smoking gun will turn into a mushroom cloud" malarkey). They said Saddam had ties to al-Qaeda and Saddam and Osama bin Laden were friends. They said the war with Iraq will last only a short time with a few casualties.

Again, all three were lies.

The best course is to leave Iraq and go home. The Bush team says, "If you won't fight in Baghdad and Tikrit, you will fight in New York and Washington." Need I say more about the amount of truth in any of Bush' statements? Between 9/11 and today, the likeable ratings of the USA to the world are shot. The best course to save lives and dignity is to quit. Anything else is a "State of Denial".

The public school nightmare

Here is an article by John Taylor Gatto titled, "The Public School Nightmare: Why fix a system designed to destroy individual thought?", and this article is trying to say the same thing as I. This article is distributed by Diablo Valley School (DVS). DVS is a private school located in Concord, CA, and it uses an interesting but different curriculum: real life. Students at DVS learn life's most valuable skills: self-confidence, concentration, problem-solving, decision-making, academics, personal responsibility, and respect for others. By making choices and learning to live with the consequences, students experience the challenges, responsibilities, and freedoms of real life while in a caring and supportive environment. DVS is a school where play is serious work and serious projects are fun. It sure beats the same-old, boring, public school mantra.

The exact same truth when you compare public v. private education (or home schooling) is found in Separating School & State: How to Liberate America's Families by Sheldon Richman. Both teach that private schools use the free market and competition, while public schools use socialism and communism. So private schools raises children to be creative and independent thinkers, while public schools raises children to suppress thought and be a "good little citizens", obedient to the state.

Back in the early half of the 19th century, American education was the product of the free market. In fact, although America public schooling originated in Massachusetts in the 1850s, it did not become firmly entrenched as a system in the U.S. until the early 1900s. The structure of American education began in 1806 in Germany, when Napoleon's soldiers beat the Prussian's soldiers at the battle of Jena. Because of that, in 1819, modern forced schooling began in Prussia, with the purpose of producing obedient soldiers. Prussian schools had the ability to remove the mind to think for itself.

During the latter half of the 19th century, many young American men came to Prussia and brought home the degrees to the USA. First, the public education was started in Massachusetts. Over the next 50 years, school after school dropped the free market to a socialist monopoly, led by Horace Mann.

It is important to understand that the underlying principle of the Prussian public schools is that the government is the true parent of the children--the government is their daddy. The state is sovereign over the family.

100 years later, the government is still the protector, and the people are still sheep. It is this ardent devotion to "order", to the preservation of the status quo, to the love of control under the name of freedom, to the life of the lie--has its core in public education. But this can change. We need a new paradigm of education. As Gatto says, "Trust the people [and be responsible for their actions], give them choices, and the school nightmare will vanish in a generation."