April 30, 2010

The System

The Gang War in Afghanistan

by Lew Rockwell

As originally posted on: The LRC Blog
April 29, 2010

Writes a friend:

A long-time friend is a special forces soldier, stationed in Afghanistan. This is from a conversation I had with him recently:

“It is like the Wild West — no one cares what you do; we are just driving and walking around the desert shooting at dudes on motorcycles and getting shot and blown up by IEDs and RPGs. We are like 50 miles from the next patrol base and no one gives a f*** about what we do here.”

No accountability, that is; they are just driving around, shooting people. They aren’t fighting al Qaeda — they are part of a gang war.

The Welfare State

April 29, 2010

The System




Press Release

For Immediate Release
Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Libertarians: Obama should end Afghanistan War

WASHINGTON - After President Barack Obama made a surprise visit to Afghanistan over the weekend, Libertarian Party Executive Director Wes Benedict issued the following statement today:

"President Obama just called the Afghanistan War 'absolutely essential.' Nothing could be further from the truth. The U.S. armed forces are being used for nation-building. The president, as commander-in-chief, has the power to end this war, and he should begin doing so immediately.

"The cost of this war, in both lives and money, is staggering, and it will become more so if the president maintains his current course. Forcing current and future American taxpayers to turn over hundreds of billions of dollars for this counterproductive effort is deeply unjust.

"Even worse, the American effort in Afghanistan is propping up a hopelessly corrupt government, which is alienating the Afghan people and causing them to blame the United States even more for their problems.

"There is zero chance that American military power will create a stable and honest government in Afghanistan. But even if that were possible, it would still lie completely outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. government.

"The Libertarian Party recognizes that United States faces some threat of terrorism, but we think that fighting foreign wars is one of the worst possible ways to deal with that threat.

"Disturbingly, President Obama is demonstrating a complete faith in government power in almost every aspect of American policy. From foreign wars, to the economy, to health care, the president thinks that government power is always the solution. Libertarians disagree: we believe that government power, which is always coercively enforced, is usually the problem.

"War supporters often say that if we leave Afghanistan without 'winning,' it would be a slap in the face of the soldiers who have fought and died there. But there's nothing in Afghanistan to win. The only winning move is for our military to come back to America. American soldiers have been brave enough to fight and die in Afghanistan, but cowardly politicians want to send more to their deaths just so they can save face at home. I hope American citizens and politicians have the guts to admit it's time for a new strategy: bring our soldiers home from Afghanistan without delay.

"Sooner or later, politicians will be forced to admit that Afghanistan is a mistake. They're already admitting that Iraq was a mistake. At a recent event sponsored by the Cato Institute, Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher said, 'In retrospect, almost all of us think [Iraq] was a horrible mistake...Now that we know that it cost a trillion dollars, and all of these years, and all of these lives, and all of this blood...all I can say is everyone I know thinks it was a mistake to go in now.' Republican Congressman Tom McClintock agreed, saying, 'I think everyone [in Congress] would agree that Iraq was a mistake.'

"It's too bad they didn't listen to the Libertarian Party before they started that disastrous war. Maybe they'll listen to us now."

In September 2008, the Libertarian National Committee adopted the following resolution opposing the war in Afghanistan:

"WHEREAS the government of the United States should return to its historical libertarian tradition of avoiding entangling alliances, foreign quarrels, and military adventures; and

"WHEREAS the stability and security of Afghanistan lie outside the jurisdiction of the government of the United States; and

"WHEREAS the Libertarian Party recognizes that the only legitimate role of the military is to defend America against direct attack or the imminent threat of attack;

"THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Libertarian National Committee calls on the government of the United States to withdraw the armed forces of the United States from Afghanistan, without undue delay."

For more information, or to arrange an interview, call LP Executive Director Wes Benedict at 202-333-0008 ext. 222.

The LP is America's third-largest political party, founded in 1971. The Libertarian Party stands for free markets and civil liberties. You can find more information on the Libertarian Party at our website.


April 27, 2010

"Failed Bankers" and "the Government that Oppresses and Robs Us"

Against fiscal conservatism: on inpropriating the expropriators

by Charles Johnson [a/k/a "Rad Geek']

As originally posted on: Rad Geek People's Daily
March 9, 2010

(Via Lew @ The LRC Blog.)

In which Chairman Ron does his bit to fill the coffers of the U.S. Department of the Treasury:

Like him or hate him, Dr. Ron Paul doesn’t just talk a big game about fiscal conservatism, he lives it. In 2008, his congressional office returned $58,000 to the Treasury. In 2009, his office returned $90,000. Now, according to an official press release, Dr. Ron Paul’s congressional office has just paid back $100,000.

Ryan Jaroncyk, California Independent Voter Network (2010-03-01): Congressman Ron Paul returns a whopping $100,000 of his office budget to the US Treasury

… And that’s why I’m against “fiscal conservatism.” Why the fuck would I think it’s a good thing for the U.S. government to get back $100,000 more to spend on bailing out failed bankers or on hurting and killing innocent people? What I’d like most is for that money to get back into the hands of innocent working people (whether under the cover of Congressional featherbedding, or by any other means). But failing that, we’d still all be better off if Ron Paul took the $100,000, piled it up on the National Mall, and set it all on fire, rather than giving it back to the United States Treasury.

At a time when Wall St is running wild, the national debt is $14 trillion, and the federal government is running $1.4 trillion deficits, Dr. Ron Paul’s congressional office is running a surplus and paying back the American people.

No, he isn’t.

He’s paying the American government. The American people, if that means American people like you and me and our neighbors, will get back not one cent of it. Instead, the money will go directly into the operational budget of the government that oppresses and robs us.

Of course, none of this is to say that I like big government spending. But the problem with government spending is not the fact that money goes out of the Treasury; it’s that government spending is financed by expropriation from working people (whether through direct taxation or through the effects of the financial-political complex’s coercive money monopoly). And that government spending goes to fund more expropriation and more violence — in the form of government wars, government borders, government surveillance, forced “development” schemes and eminent domain seizures, police brutality, prisons, tax-men, hang-men, or the arming, training, and employment of government law-enforcers to inflict their myriad unjust laws on the rest of us without our consent. The problem, in short, is not government spending at all; it’s government violence. But just giving surplus money back to the government, without doing anything to constrain the violence that the state commits — going out of your way to help government balance its budgets and get leaner and meaner in the use of the resources that it has on hand — is as nice an example as you could want of exactly the kind of stupid conservative trap that limited-statism passes off as if it had something to do with freedom.

April 26, 2010

The System

Anarchism 101

As originally posted on: Bowers of Paradise (Life After Authority)
April 16, 2010

I love how people who would barely pass an 11th-grade civics test like to taunt anarchists with the ever-so-damning, irrefutable line “But how would you prevent a warlord from rising to power, in Anarchy?” and then act as if that is such a complete and well-thought-out argument that it pre-empts any need for actual, you know, discussion. Because really, anarchism is just a booger that can be flicked away and ignored, not a social/political philosophy that’s been developed, advocated, and put into practice by hundreds of thousands of people over the last 150 years.

The anarchist answer to that question is actually pretty simple, though. How would we prevent people from “rising to power”? Well, by refusing to obey them, mainly. And by defending ourselves if they attacked us. And generally by nurturing a culture of resistance to authority, grassroots mutual aid, and willingness to use direct action to bring to an end any manifestation of control/domination, wherever it is seen. Not exactly rocket science.

It’s hard to give this answer without the obvious corollary question of its own popping up, begging to be asked, a bit more rhetorical: how else could you possibly prevent someone from “coming to power”?

By writing someone else’s name on a piece of paper, and then putting it in a box this person-in-power has given you? Or maybe just flushing it down the toilet? Maybe by performing a ritual with some incense? Perhaps through prayer? Or maybe just by obeying this person who’s rising to power and hoping that someday they’ll get tired of it?

How’s that been working out for ya lately?

If you ever get that to work someday, however many millions of corpses later, I’ll take it all back. Clearly, then, we anarchists simply failed to see that the best way to prevent abuse of power…is to obey whoever is in power.

Until then, you might want to think again before using this “argument”.

April 25, 2010

"A National Socialist Form of Government"

Are The DC Criminals Really Nazis?

by Russell D. Longcore

As originally posted on: DumpDC
April 21, 2010

If you follow the photo and video images of the various “Tea Party” or anti-government public events over the past year, you’ll inevitably see some person holding a sign calling someone in Washington a Nazi or depicting a president as Hitler. Then, you’ll hear the talking heads on the Mainstream Media making fun of the protester, or trying to whip up negative sentiment against those very protesters.

But what if the signs were correct?

The term “Nazi” derives from the first two syllables of Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers’ Party). In German, the word “national” is pronounced “Naht-see-oh-nall.” Shortened to a sort of nickname, it became commonly known as the Nazi Party.

But stop right there. Is it fair to refer to the DC criminals as National Socialists? Would we be wrong if we called them Nazis? Let’s deconstruct the two words and see.

“National:” of, pertaining to, or maintained by a nation as an organized whole or independent political unit.

The people that occupy the elected and appointed positions of power in Washington DC are certainly an independent political unit. All of their actions pertain to their employer and their nation, which is the United States of America. And even though we can easily prove…simply by reading the old Constitution…that the several states NEVER intended that “The United States of America” be considered a sovereign nation…the DC criminals have an entirely different outlook on things national. They are vehemently opposed to dissolving the Union. They consider those American citizens who support secession as domestic terrorists and threats to national security.

So, the employees of The United States of America can certainly be known as “nationalists.”

Now…how about that Socialist part of the phrase?

“Socialism” is defined as:

1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

Washington doesn’t even recognize the community in its deliberations. Washington is the one that wants the ownership and control, and their procedures and practices prove their desires.

Over the past 75 years, the US Federal Government has blazed a course that tends more closely toward socialism than toward capitalism. Just look at some of the evidence:

The income tax
Social Security
The Federal Reserve
Protective tariffs
All of the three-letter Federal agencies that regulate American commerce
Federal ownership of General Motors
Bank bailouts
The New Healthcare Law

So, it’s easy to see that both Democrats and Republicans over time have enacted draconian laws that control the means of production and distribution of capital, land, etc. in America.

And, let’s not forget the next initiative of the Obama Administration…Cap & Trade legislation. There is wording inside this bill that will prevent a property owner from selling his real property unless it meets Federal standards for energy compliance. (See America, How Much More Will You Accept From the DC Criminals?)

Focus on that last part of the definition above. Socialism is the transitional period between capitalism and communism, in which collectivist principles are utilized. Collectivism is the principle of centralized social and economic control, especially of all means of production.

No honest person could look at the efforts of The United States of America over the past 100 years and make the case that the Federal Government has protected individual rights and property rights. No analysis, no matter how skewed or biased, could ever conclude that Americans are as free…or more free…than they were in 1800.

So, it is entirely proper and intellectually honest to state that the US Federal Government has continued down a path toward socialism, inevitably arriving at collectivism/communism.

The Federal Government is nationalistic, and it is socialistic. Therefore, it is proper to refer to the US Federal Government as a national socialist form of government.


The next time you see the word “Nazi” used to define the actions of the US Federal Government, or as a word meant to smear their character, you’ll know that the word has been used in its most proper use in the English language.

Final words about the matter. Surely you do realize that, if you support state secession, all of these examples of evil disappear when your state becomes its own sovereign nation. The US Federal Government’s intrusion in your life goes away forever.

Secession is the hope for humanity. Who will be first?

DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.

The System

No-Interest Contracts

by "FSK"

As originally posted on: FSK's Guide to Reality
March 29, 2008

In order for a contract to be legally binding, both parties most contribute something of tangible economic value.

Suppose I write a contract to sell you my car for $0, and you offer me nothing in return. That isn't a legally enforceable contract. You can't sue me and demand I give you my car. This is a "no-interest contract".

With fiat debt-based money, *ALL* loan contracts with a bank are no-interest contracts.

What happens when you take out a mortgage or loan? The bank literally prints new money and loans it to you. The bank isn't performing any real work. The bank pretends to "screen your creditworthiness". Once you "qualify", the bank does no real work when it writes you a check.

What about the individual who takes out the loan? He doesn't have the banks' magic money-printing power. In order to repay his loan, he must work. In order to repay a loan, an individual must produce tangible goods and services. Even worse, due to the Compound Interest Paradox, an individual can repay his loan only because other individuals are making bigger loans.

Contrast this with a gold standard. In that case, the bank *IS* providing you with tangible goods. It is lending you gold, or paper promises that are convertible to gold. Banking regulations encouraged fraud by banks. In a *TRULY* free market, banks that make gold-based loans are providing tangible goods and services.

According to common law, all bank loan contracts are invalid no-interest contracts. The bank doesn't provide tangible goods or services when it makes the loan. Unfortunately, a corrupt legal system recognizes these no-interest contracts as valid. If you default on a bank loan, monopolistic State police will violently seize your property.

During the Great Depression, some bankers famously wrote about the importance of enforcing illegitimate debt contracts. Seizing foreclosed property is a fundamental aspect of a corrupt monetary system. The people who lost their homes due to the Subprime Mortgage Problem did not lose their homes legitimately. Such periodic crises are built into the rules of the US monetary system. It is a statistical necessity that a certain number of defaults occur in each economic bust. Unfortunately, it isn't feasible to make such an argument when State police are violently kicking you out of your home.

That doesn't mean you should borrow money from a bank and then default. The correct way to boycott a corrupt monetary system is agorism. Use sound money, refuse to pay taxes, and ignore stupid regulations.

Having a mortgage is actually beneficial, because real interest rates are negative. You can invest the proceeds elsewhere for a profit. However, you don't know when the next economic bust will occur. Large banks assume no risk due to economic cycles, but as an individual you can lose everything due to margin calls during an economic bust.

Sensible use of leverage, via the Kelly Criterion, allows individuals to profit from a corrupt monetary system somewhat. An individual can't profit to the same extent as a bank, but you can still use leverage to earn a positive inflation-adjusted return.

April 24, 2010

The System

Fla. GOP Under Criminal Probe

As originally posted on: Corruption Chronicles: A Judicial Watch Blog
April 21, 2010

Florida’s Republican Party is being criminally investigated by the feds for allowing elected officials and their staff to illegally go on wild personal spending sprees with tax-exempt political funds.

Several federal agencies—including the Justice Department and Internal Revenue Service—are conducting the widespread probe which is focusing on some of the state’s most high-profile politicians, including the party’s frontrunner for an open U.S. Senate seat, former Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio.

A Florida newspaper investigation recently revealed that Rubio, the Sunshine State’s new Republican darling, billed the party for more than $100,000 worth of highly questionable items during the two years that he served as House Speaker. The charges included repairs to the family minivan, grocery bills, airline tickets for his wife and purchases from various retailers near his home. Rubio also charged the party for dozens of meals during the annual lawmaking session in Tallahassee, even though he received taxpayer subsidies for food.

Last month a complaint was filed with the Florida Commission on Ethics accusing Rubio, a Cuban-American from Miami, of misspending donations to the Republican Party of Florida and his political committees to subsidize his lifestyle. The complaint also accuses Rubio of using his public office to get an unadvertised job at a public university when it was cutting its workforce.

Rubio is not the only one in trouble. The former state party chairman (Jim Greer) and executive director (Delmar Johnson) are also suspected of misusing their party credit cards for personal expenses. Political parties are tax exempt and are only allowed to spend money on political activities such as fundraising, running campaigns and registering voters.

In Florida Republicans dominate state government and the party’s coffers are routinely filled with millions of dollars from lobbyists and special interests. Elected officials and their staff have long been suspected of spending the money illegally with no oversight.

The System

SEC Absorbed With Porn During Economic Crisis

As originally posted on: Corruption Chronicles: A Judicial Watch Blog
April 23, 2010

As the Obama Administration pushes for more government regulation, a new report reveals that the agency charged with policing the nation’s financial industry was preoccupied with pornography while the economy crumbled.

The country’s financial system collapsed while employees and high-ranking managers at the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regularly spent work hours gawking at pornography web sites on their government computers, according to an agency inspector general probe obtained this week by a major news organization.

Dozens of SEC employees, including senior officers with lucrative six-figure salaries, view explicit images on their agency computers during work hours. One senior attorney at the SEC headquarters in Washington D.C. spent up to eight hours a day accessing internet porn. When his government computer ran out of file space, he downloaded pornographic images on compact discs and stored them in boxes in his office.

One agency accountant tried to access porn websites 16,000 times in one month and got busted with hundreds of pornographic images on her computer hard drive. Another SEC accountant used his government computer to upload his own sexually explicit videos onto various porn websites that he frequented during business hours.

At least seventeen of the SEC offenders are senior-level employees earning taxpayer-financed salaries of up to $222,418. As deplorable as this behavior is for public servants, it’s not limited to this agency. Last year employees at the National Science Foundation, the multi billion-dollar federal agency that promotes science and national health, were exposed for spending significant portions of their workdays watching, downloading and e-mailing pornography on their government computers.

Additionally, a senior National Park Service official who oversaw one of the agency’s most popular facilities, the Gettysburg National Military Park, for years used his office computer to view thousands of sexually explicit images. He was simply reassigned with no further consequences.

April 23, 2010

"A Former Conservative MP and Unregistered Lobbyist" and "the Conservative Government under Stephen Harper"

Conservative culture of deceit and contempt

As originally posted: Liberal Party of Canada
April 21, 2010

The Conservative government under Stephen Harper is showing its true character. Secrecy and intimidation have taken the place of transparency and respect. The examples are too numerous not to see a pattern:

1. Accusing police of corruption for protecting officer safety. In a brazen show of contempt for our police forces, the Conservative MP who chairs the House of Commons Public Safety Committee has said that police chiefs “derive financial support from pro-registry sources” and called them “a cult” for seeking to maintain the gun registry that they access 11,000 times a day to protect officer safety.

2. You’ll get the documents “when they are good and ready.” A Justice Department lawyer refused to even give a date for when specific documents would be provided to the Military Police Complaints Commission’s hearings on the government’s role in the torture of Afghan detainees.

3. Silence regarding Rahim Jaffer’s alleged lobbying activities. The Prime Minister will not say whether Rahim Jaffer, a former Conservative MP and unregistered lobbyist, lobbied any government minister or secretary of state to obtain government grants.

4. Showing contempt for victims of crime. While the Prime Minister doesn’t hesitate to trot out high profile murders to score cheap political points, his government has paid victims lip-service by cutting 41 percent of the budget to Grants for the Victims of Crime Initiative and another 34 percent - $2.7 million – in Contributions for the Victims of Crime Initiative.

5. Refusing to reveal why Helena Guergis was kicked out of cabinet and caucus. A sitting cabinet minister was forced to resign because her conduct while in cabinet had been referred to the RCMP for investigation, yet Stephen Harper still won’t say what alleged criminal activity was happening in his government.

6. Failing grades from the Information Commissioner. While the Conservative government was elected on a platform of transparency and accountability, the Information Commissioner has found this government to be the most secretive in history when it comes to answering Access to Information requests. Canadians await her findings on charges of political interference.

7. Shutting down Parliament when the questions get too tough. In the ultimate act of contempt for Parliament, Stephen Harper prorogued Parliament so he wouldn’t have to face continued questioning on the Afghan detainee torture scandal.

8. Challenging the supremacy of Parliament to cover-up Afghan torture documents. The Conservatives refused to comply with a motion passed by Parliament that would establish a review process for Afghan torture documents that respects national security.

9. Withholding information on government spending. The Conservatives won’t tell the Parliamentary Budget Officer what their baseline departmental spending levels are, denying Parliament the ability exercise oversight on the government’s spending freeze and the cutbacks needed to pay for it.

10. Raising taxes by $13 billion – and then falsely accusing Liberals of raising taxes. While the Conservatives don’t have the guts to admit they’re bringing in a $13 billion payroll tax that will kill 220,000 small business jobs, they have the nerve to portray the Liberal’s plan to freeze corporate taxes as a tax increase.

April 22, 2010

The System


LC 29 4070S (SCS)

Senate Bill 235

By: Senators Pearson of the 51st, Rogers of the 21st, Smith of the 52nd and Tolleson of the 20th




To provide for a short title; to amend Article 2 of Chapter 5 of Title 16 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to assault and battery, so as to prohibit requiring a person to be implanted with a microchip; to provide for definitions; to provide for penalties; to provide for regulation by the Georgia Composite Medical Board; to provide for related matters; to provide for an effective date; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes.



This Act shall be known as the "Microchip Consent Act of 2010."


Article 2 of Chapter 5 of Title 16 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to assault and battery, is amended by adding a new Code section to read as follows:


(a) As used in this Code section, the term:

(1) 'Implant' includes any means intended to introduce a microchip internally, beneath the skin, or applied to the skin of a person.

(2) 'Microchip' means any microdevice, sensor, transmitter, mechanism, electronically readable marking, or nanotechnology that is passively or actively capable of transmitting or receiving information. Such term shall not include pacemakers.

(3) 'Person' means any individual, irrespective of age, legal status, or legal capacity.

(4) 'Require' includes physical violence; threat; intimidation; retaliation; the conditioning of any private or public benefit or care on consent to implantation, including employment, promotion, or other benefit; or any means that causes a person to acquiesce to implantation when he or she otherwise would not.

(b) No person shall be required to be implanted with a microchip.

(c) Any person who implants a microchip in violation of this Code section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

(d) Any person required to have a microchip implanted in violation of this Code section may file a civil action for damages.

(e) The voluntary implantation of any microchip may only be performed by a physician and shall be regulated under the authority of the Georgia Composite Medical Board."


This Act shall become effective on July 1, 2010.


All laws and parts of laws in conflict with this Act are repealed.

The United States of America (USA)

The following draft resolution has been edited in terms of its original formatting.


Whereas Article I of the Constitution of the United States begins “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States”; and

Whereas the Congress of the United States has exceeded the legislative powers granted in the Constitution thereby usurping the powers that are “reserved to the states respectively, or to the people” as the Tenth Amendment affirms and the rights “retained by the people” to which the Ninth Amendment refers; and

Whereas the Supreme Court of the United States has ignored or misinterpreted the meaning of the Constitution by upholding this usurpation;

To restore a proper balance between the powers of Congress and those of the several States, and to prevent the denial or disparagement of the rights retained by the people, the legislature of the State of ________ hereby resolves

First, that Congress shall call a convention, consisting of delegates from the several States selected by procedures established by their respective legislatures, for the purpose of proposing the following articles be added as separate amendments to the Constitution of the United States, each of which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when separately ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States; and

Second, that any previous memorial for a convention under Article V of the Constitution of the United States by this legislature is hereby repealed and without effect; and

Third, that copies of this memorial shall be sent to the secretary of state and presiding officers of both houses of the legislatures of each of the several states in the union, the clerk of the United States house of representatives, the secretary of the United States senate, and to each member of the ________ congressional delegation; and

Fourth, that this memorial for a convention is conditioned on the memorials of two-thirds of the legislatures of the several states proposing the exact same language contained in some or all of the following articles, and is to remain in effect unless repealed by resolution of this legislature prior to the memorials of two-thirds of the states being reported to Congress:

[The Bill of Federalism]

Article [of Amendment 1] — [Restrictions on Tax Powers of Congress][1]

Section 1. Congress shall make no law laying or collecting taxes upon incomes, gifts, or estates, or upon aggregate consumption or expenditures; but Congress shall have power to levy a uniform tax on the sale of goods or services.

Section 2. Any imposition of or increase in a tax, duty, impost or excise shall require the approval of three-fifths of the House of Representatives and three-fifths of the Senate, and shall separately be presented to the President of the United States.

Section 3. This article shall be effective five years from the date of its ratification, at which time the sixteenth Article of amendment is repealed.

Article [of Amendment 2] — [Limits of Commerce Power][2]

The power of Congress to make all laws which are necessary and proper to regulate commerce among the several states, or with foreign nations, shall not be construed to include the power to regulate or prohibit any activity that is confined within a single state regardless of its effects outside the state, whether it employs instrumentalities therefrom, or whether its regulation or prohibition is part of a comprehensive regulatory scheme; but Congress shall have power to regulate harmful emissions between one state and another, and to define and provide for punishment of offenses constituting acts of war or violent insurrection against the United States.

Article [of Amendment 3] — [Unfunded Mandates and Conditions on Spending][3]

Congress shall not impose upon a State, or political subdivision thereof, any obligation or duty to make expenditures unless such expenditures shall be fully reimbursed by the United States; nor shall Congress place any condition on the expenditure or receipt of appropriated funds requiring a State, or political subdivision thereof, to enact a law or regulation restricting the liberties of its citizens.

Article [of Amendment 4] — [No Abuse of the Treaty Power][4]

No treaty or other international agreement may enlarge the legislative power of Congress granted by this Constitution, nor govern except by legislation any activity that is confined within the United States.

Article [of Amendment 5] — [Freedom of Political Speech and Press][5]

The freedom of speech and press includes any contribution to political campaigns or to candidates for public office; and shall be construed to extend equally to any medium of communication however scarce.

Article [of Amendment 6] — [Power of States to Check Federal Power][6]

Upon the identically worded resolutions of the legislatures of three quarters of the states, any law or regulation of the United States, identified with specificity, is thereby rescinded.

Article [of Amendment 7] — [Term Limits for Congress][7]

No person who has served as a Senator for more than nine years, or as a Representative for more than eleven years, shall be eligible for election or appointment to the Senate or the House of Representatives respectively, excluding any time served prior to the enactment of this Article.

Article [of Amendment 8] — [Balanced Budget Line Item Veto][8]

Section 1. The budget of the United States shall be deemed unbalanced whenever the total amount of the public debt of the United States at the close of any fiscal year is greater than the total amount of such debt at the close of the preceding fiscal year.

Section 2. Whenever the budget of the United States is unbalanced, the President may, during the next annual session of Congress, separately approve, reduce or disapprove any monetary amounts in any legislation that appropriates or authorizes the appropriation of any money drawn from the Treasury, other than money for the operation of the Congress and judiciary of the United States.

Section 3. Any legislation that the President approves with changes pursuant to the second section of this Article shall become law as modified. The President shall return with objections those portions of the legislation containing reduced or disapproved monetary amounts to the House where such legislation originated, which may then, in the manner prescribed in the seventh section of the first Article of this Constitution, separately reconsider each reduced or disapproved monetary amount.

Section 4. The Congress shall have power to implement this Article by appropriate legislation; and this Article shall take effect on the first day of the next annual session of Congress following its ratification.

Article [of Amendment 9] — [The Rights Retained by the People][9]

Section 1. All persons are equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and unalienable rights which they retain when forming any government, amongst which are the enjoying, defending and preserving of their life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting real and personal property, making binding contracts of their choosing, and pursuing their happiness and safety.

Section 2. The due process of law shall be construed to provide the opportunity to introduce evidence or otherwise show that a law, regulation or order is an infringement of such rights of any citizen or legal resident of the United States, and the party defending the challenged law, regulation, or order shall have the burden of establishing the basis in law and fact of its conformity with this Constitution.

Article [of Amendment 10] — [Neither Foreign Law nor American Judges May Alter the Meaning of Constitution][10]

The words and phrases of this Constitution shall be interpreted according to their meaning at the time of their enactment, which meaning shall remain the same until changed pursuant to Article V; nor shall such meaning be altered by reference to the law of nations or the laws of other nations.


[1] The income tax has vastly increased the power and the intrusiveness of the federal government, far beyond what the framers of the Sixteenth Amendment ever imagined. The first proposed amendment restores the original taxing power of Congress by denying it the power to enact income estate or gift taxes, or to circumvent this restriction by levying an annual tax on net consumption or expenditures. Lest the prohibition on an aggregate consumption tax raises any doubt, the provision makes clear that Congress retains the power to impose a sales tax that is uniform. Sometimes called a “fair tax,” a national sales tax would be paid by all persons residing in the United States, whether legally or illegally, without the need for intrusive reporting of their activities. As people buy and consume more, they would pay more in taxes, but all their savings and investments would appreciate free of tax. To give Congress ample time to fashion an alternative revenue system — and do away with the IRS — the implementation of this amendment is delayed for five years. Of course, Congress may end the income or estate tax sooner if it so chooses.

[2] As Congress has exercised powers beyond those delegated to it by the Constitution, the powers of states that were reserved by the enumeration of delegated powers have been usurped. The second proposed amendment restores the Commerce Clause to its original meaning, thereby leaving wholly intrastate activities to be prohibited or regulated by the several states, or be left completely free of any regulations as states may choose. And it negates three constructions adopted by the Supreme Court to expand the reach of Congress under the Necessary and Proper Clause—sometimes called the “Sweeping Clause”—of Article I: that Congress has power to regulate wholly interstate activity that either a) “affects” interstate activity, (b) uses instrumentalities obtained from outside the state, or (c) is part of a comprehensive national regulatory scheme. This amendment makes clear that Congress retains the power to regulate interstate pollution and the power to define and punish acts of war and insurrection against the United States, for example, the possession of weapons of mass destruction. This provision leaves untouched the delegated powers of Congress to regulate wholly intrastate activities to enforce civil rights as expressly authorized by, for example, the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, Fifteenth and Nineteenth Amendments; it only restricts the improper construction of the Commerce and Necessary and Proper Clauses to reach wholly intrastate activity.

[3] The third proposed amendment addresses two sources of persistent federal intrusion into the powers of states. The first is federal laws mandating state action necessitating the expenditure of state funds without reimbursing the states for their expenditures. In this manner, the federal government can take credit for adopting measures without incurring the political cost of increasing taxes or borrowing. The second problem is the use of federal spending to restrict liberty for purposes not delegated to the United States. For example, the 55 mph speed limit was imposed by the states by conditioning the receipt of federal highway funds upon compliance with this mandate. This amendment makes this type of condition on funding unconstitutional.

[4] The framers of the Constitution were profoundly wary of entangling the United States in international legal commitments, so they required two-thirds of the Senate to ratify all treaties, and they assumed that treaties would only reach matters of truly international concern. These principles have been subverted by several misinterpretations of the Constitution. First, the treaty power has been interpreted to reach every imaginable subject, including many subjects of purely local concern. Second, the treaty power has been interpreted as a mechanism to increase the legislative power of Congress, thus creating a doubly perverse incentive: an incentive to enter into new international legal obligations simply to attain increased domestic legislative power. This amendment would correct these errors and restore the original meaning of the Treaty Clause and the Supremacy Clause.

[5] The fifth proposed amendment makes it clear that the freedom of speech and press now protected by the First Amendment extends equally to all media, including for example radio and television, as well as to financial contributions to political candidates and campaigns.

[6] At present, the only way for states to contest a federal law or regulation is to seek an amendment to the Constitution by applying for a constitutional convention to propose amendments that must then be ratified by three-quarters of the states. This proposed amendment provides an additional check on federal power by empowering the same number of states to rescind any law or regulation when they concur it is necessary. Such a power provides a targeted method to reverse particular Congressional acts and administrative regulations without the risk of permanently amending the text of the Constitution.

[7] The seventh proposed amendment establishes congressional term limits by allowing two full terms for Senators and six full terms for Representatives. It phases in these limits by exempting the time already served by incumbents from the calculation of the limits on their terms.

[8] The practice by Congress of aggregating thousands of lines of expenditures into “omnibus” appropriation bills has greatly diminished the veto power that the Constitution reposes in the President. Because of their reluctance to threaten a government shut down, Presidents are loath to veto such bills. Knowing this, Senators and Representatives can load spending bills with pork, knowing that Congress will never have to give an up or down floor vote to a particular line item and that the threat of a presidential veto is empty. While there is great demand for constitutional requirement of a balanced budget, mechanisms for this that have been devised to date are highly complex, typically contain numerous exceptions and loop-holes, and lack effective means of enforcement. By linking the goal of a balanced budget with a temporary presidential line-item veto, the eighth proposed amendment provides a real incentive for Congress to devise a balance budget; if Congress fails to do so, the President would then have a temporary line item veto power over any appropriation in the budget. For example, should Congress enact a budget with a deficit, the President could veto Congressional earmarks and be held accountable for failing to do so. The amendment also ensures that Congress will retain the same power to override any presidential line item veto as it currently has for a traditional veto. The operation and advantages of this measure over other balance budget amendments is explained in detail here: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-487es.html

[9] The existing Ninth Amendment says that “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Section 1 of this proposal elaborates on the original meaning of “rights . . . retained by the people” with language that is adopted from the wording of amendments proposal to the first Congress by state ratification conventions and by James Madison, and from the very similar wording found in several state Constitutions at the time of the Founding. For example, the constitution of Pennsylvania read: “That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and unalienable rights, amongst which are, the enjoying and defending of life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.” Likewise, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 protected the right of any citizen “to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property. . . .” Section 2 corrects the current approach of the Supreme Court that precludes citizens and legal residents from contesting the necessity and propriety of restrictions on their retained rights unless the Court deems the right in question to be “fundamental” and provides all liberties with the same type of protection now accorded the rights of freedom of speech, press, and assembly, and the right to keep and bear arms.

[10] The tenth proposed amendment ensures that the text of the Constitution remains the supreme law of the land by preventing judges from ignoring or changing the linguistic meaning of the text of the Constitution by “interpretation.” It requires that judges obey the text of the Constitution until it is properly changed by a constitutional amendment. And it confirms that foreign law is relevant to constitutional interpretation only to the extent that it casts light on the original public meaning of the constitutional text. A constitution that is ignored or systematically misinterpreted is a dead constitution. Only if the Constitution is actually followed can it accurately be considered as a “living constitution.”

"The Decayed System Currently Propagated"

National ID: Who Will Resist?

by Timothy Baldwin

As originally posted: Liberty Defense League
March 19, 2010

U.S. Senators Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) and Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) introduced a bill which would require all persons in the United States (“U.S.”) seeking to be employed to obtain a government-issued biometric National Identification card.(FN1) Not so surprisingly, this measure has come in the name of “protecting America” against illegal immigrants working in the U.S. unlawfully. Thus, “[t]o ensure that only people legally in the U.S. can work here, the bill will propose a biometric I.D. for EVERY AMERICAN before anybody can get a job.” (FN2) This is yet another method by which the federal government continually institutes practices and principles contrary to what a Free Confederated Republic should be and contrary to principles of limited government, self-government, natural rights, and true constitutional intent and meaning. Judge Andrew Napolitano rightfully calls this legislation a “monstrosity” and predicts that this bill will not pass.(FN3) Perhaps Judge Napolitano is correct, but we should consider what the people of the U.S. once rejected but now embrace.

The New Deal

After Abraham Lincoln set the stage for federal government forceful takeover of the people and states’ rights, power and jurisdiction, Franklin D. Roosevelt capitalized on the people’s economic straits in the 1930s by introducing “The New Deal,” which in part socialized the economic, commercial and industrial fabric of the United States. Federal government control, regulation and power: that was the name of the game and still is.

From this era of federal government expansion and encroachment, we see U.S. Supreme Court decisions such as Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), ruling that Congress has the power to regulate the most local of activities, such as an individual, non-commercial farmer’s production of crops for private use, and has the power to penalize and punish any violation of the same.

Prior to 1930, it would have been inconceivable that the people of the states and the state governments themselves would have consented to such a violation of the constitution and such an open encroachment into the lives of individuals, families, businesses and states. Yet, as soon as the circumstance presented itself, the New Deal was substantially adopted and accepted into society and government (or at least by the politicians). We are living with its effect today, almost 100 years later.

The Great Society

Continuing its managerial presence over individuals, families, businesses and states, the federal government expanded its power and usurpations into their lives and into their retained powers by creating, among other things, governmental welfare programs in the 1960s for those who “needed” help. This was a “War on Poverty!”

This era federal government expansion not only instituted socialistic and communistic principles and philosophy, taking from the “haves” and giving to the “have-nots,” but also created an unlawful entanglement of the federal government into the state and local public education system. Both of these matters were traditionally and largely held to be purely local matters, and would have never been deemed a legitimate federal power.

Have these federal government programs been terminated? Not hardly. Instead, they have been expanded and increased with fervor, intensity and passion. In contrast, there was a time in the U.S. when this political philosophy and these federal programs would have been rejected immediately and without discussion. Yet, we are living with their effect today.


One of the fundamental principles that shaped American and English jurisprudence for hundreds of years was the necessary protection of life, including the unborn life. Most (and I dare say, all) of the states in the union criminally or civilly punished the willful abortion of an unborn baby by the mother, or anyone else for that matter. If a congressman were to introduce a bill making it illegal for the states to make such restrictions against abortion, that congressman would have been told to take a long hike off a short bridge.

Yet, since 1973, over 1 million babies have consistently been aborted every year in the U.S., and when someone attempts to question the constitutionality or even the morality of the act of abortion, most federal politicians shirk their shoulders and say, “Well, it’s the supreme law of the land,” because the U.S. Supreme Court has determined it to be so. (How ignorant, disgusting and cowardly are these people!) And the ones who say they are opposed to it do very little (if not nothing) to encourage the states to resist this draconian federal usurpation. Supposedly, our only hope is in Washington, D.C., forty years afterwards. The contrast is blaring.

National Health Care

Today, the federal government is continuing to travel down the road of socialism and communism, contrary to every principle of truth held sacred by our founding generations, by their forefathers before them and by generations following them. This time, the federal government takes the matter of healthcare and determines that, first, they actually have the constitutional authority to regulate this matter; and that, second, they are going to do the U.S. a favor by creating yet another federal bureaucracy to regulate the healthcare profession and industry.

While there may be opposition to the healthcare proposals, most of them are not based upon the constitutionality of the bill, but on the pragmatism of it. The opposition is really not based upon principles of constitutional correctness or principles of freedom, but based upon the circumstances and mentality of the people in their district or other political expediencies–a purely democratic standpoint, not a republic standpoint. However, there undoubtedly will come a time in these states where the (vast?) majority of people will find it pragmatic for the federal government to regulate healthcare, just as the people did during the administration of F.D.R. and following.

Would the people in 1776 have agreed to such a federal power? What about 1787? What about 1830? What about 1860? What about 1913? In truth, the people of the U.S. have become so dis-informed, mis-informed and frankly put, ignorant on the proper limitations and constitutional ambits of the federal government. The results are obvious and apparent.

National ID

While Judge Napolitano believes that this National ID bill will not pass, our own history proves that the people of the U.S. will eventually accept this type of federal government expansion and intrusion, especially if the people continue in their ignorance as they have since the early 1900s. This begs the question: what are freedom-loving people going to do when the federal government does in fact (or at the least, attempts to) takeover our rights, powers and jurisdictions over ourselves, our families and our states?

Allow me to answer by making a dogmatic statement, without going into the supporting details and arguments at this time:

The STATES in the union must choose to live in freedom by resisting the federal government’s unnatural and unlawful actions or choose to live in submission to slavery by giving up their rightful powers and jurisdictions and by allowing the federal government to run rough-shod over the supposed constitutionally-secured liberties and freedom of the people within their borders.

Please do not misunderstand me. By resisting, I do not mean helping to get a Republic elected into a federal position. I do not mean simply sending out some email to their constituents to inform them of their position on the matter. I do not mean, encouraging people to “go out and vote.” I do not mean sending a letter of correspondence form a state house representative to the U.S. President.

By resisting, I mean the state representatives passing laws, the governor entering orders and the courts rendering judgments, preventing the federal government from attempting to tax their people for that federal power and from implementing their procedures upon the people of that state. I mean actually and physically resisting the federal government from occupying the state’s territory to execute those unlawful actions. I mean publically calling to its defense the other states in the union who stand firm upon the same fundamental principles of self-government, federalism, constitutional government and freedom to resist these ghastly attempts to reduce the people to despotism. I mean county sheriff’s arresting federal agents who are attempting to execute and enforce unlawful and unconstitutional procedures and laws upon the citizens of their counties. I mean actively and meaningfully using the sovereign powers retained under the tenth amendment of the U.S. Constitution and under the Laws of Nations.

If you think that the federal government is going to be stopped by voting into office the next batch of corruptors and encroachers, you are dead wrong. This belief has been proven fruitless at least since the early 1900s. The fact that people in the U.S. still believe that this method is the only effectual and available method of preserving freedom confounds me.

For societal and political freedom to exist in the states of America, the people within their individual bodies-politics (i.e. states) must re-study, re-learn, re-calculate and re-apply the formulas and maxims of truth from the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God, just as our forefathers did, to secure these God-given rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

We can no longer look to the decayed system currently propagated to secure freedom or even to reclaim freedom. We can no longer wait for the U.S. Supreme Court to come to our rescue. We can no longer wait for a “conservative” President to be elected to restore freedom and to change over 100 years of federal usurpations. Can we even expect that three-fourths of the states in the union will insist on freedom’s principles? We certainly cannot hold onto the enslaving notion that “union equals freedom.” We can no longer hope for freedom by simply voting.

The question is not a matter of how far will the federal government go. They have already crossed the line of good faith, virtue and decency. They have already rejected those principles of truth and worldview expressed by our European and American forefathers, which framed the constitutions in America to begin with. They have shamed the honorable sacrifices made by generations before us–made by the enlightenment of their minds, the purity of their hearts and the blood from their veins. We know where they are going. We see where they are. We know their philosophy and intent–their design to reduce us to despotism! So, the question is, who will resist them?


[1] Laura Meckler, ID Card for Workers Is at Center of Immigration Plan, The Wall Street Journal, (March 8, 2010), found at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703954904575110124037066854.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsThird

[2] Roger Hedgecock, Graham Pushes National I.D. Card, Human Events, (March 12, 2010), found at http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=35987.

[3] National Biometric Card Is An Invasion To Our Privacy Says Judge Andrew Napolitano, The Economy Collapse (March 12, 2010), found at http://economycollapse.blogspot.com/2010/03/judge-andrew-napolitano-on-national-id.html.

April 21, 2010

"The State, Counties, and Other Political Subdivisions"

Constitutional Amendment to Article X, Relating to Real Estate Taxation, version 3


The Proposed Amendment

Be it resolved by the people of the state of Missouri that the Constitution be amended:

One new section is adopted to be known as Article X, Section 25 and to read as follows:

After the effective date of this section, the state, counties, and other political subdivisions are hereby prevented from imposing any tax, including a sales tax, on the sale or transfer of homes or any other real estate.

EXPLANATION: New matter enacted and intended to be included in the law is shown underlined thus.

The System


As originally posted: THE NEW BOSTON TEA PARTY
April 19, 2010

Big government is the problem, not the solution. The days are fast approaching where the Tea Party Patriots will be joined by all law abiding citizens from every corner of our Country. They will demand that BIG GOVERNMENT be shut down. Those who want Big Government are the parasitic leaches who suck the life blood out of the free market system. We at TNBTP have to tell you, their sucking off the system is coming to an end. If you can't stand on your own two feet, it is not up to the productive to see that you do. For 45 years, this welfare system has emboldened the parasitic taxeater, fed by the lying criminal politician. NO MAS, we are FED up with BIG GOVERNMENT. Its days in the limelight are coming to an end. Thank you President Obama for waking up a sleeping giant.

April 20, 2010

The System

Bizarre, petty and childlish in Courtroom 330!

by Clare L. Pieuk

As originally posted on: CyberSmokeBlog.blogspot.com
April 20, 2010

Good Day Readers:

Yesterday we attended a Court of Appeal session in the Manitoba Metis Federation’s taxpayer financed defamation lawsuit against CyberSmokeSignals (Court of Queen’s Bench File No. CI 05-01-41955). While we were not allowed to introduce the recently created (December 2009) Supreme Court of Canada defence of public interest responsible journalism, a decision with which we respectfully but strongly disagree, nevertheless 50% of our objective was realized.

The Appeal Court’s ruling simply maintains the status quo and does not alter the most important dynamic. At trial Plaintiffs will be subjected to cross-examination under oath. No longer will they be able to hide behind the coattails of Team TRACHTENBERG-chartrand.

However, an incident occurred that was nothing short of bizarre. As Murray Trachtenberg was preparing to exit the courtroom our Counsel Anders Bruun jocularly said, “It’s far from over Murray” to which the prolific, production line, serial kvetcher Mr. Trachtenberg replied, “It does not behoove you as counsel to make threats to me as I am leaving the courtroom.”

Huh? Threats? Everyone of sound mind would realize this was a reference to additional Affidavits, Notices of Motions, Motion Briefs, a Counter Statement of Claim other documents to be filed by the defence. To Mr. Trachtenberg we offer Webster’s New World Dictionary’s definition of a threat:

“An expression of intention to hurt, destroy, punish, etc., as in retaliation or intimidation. An indication of imminent danger, harm, evil etc. [the threat of war.]”

At times like this we’re reminded of the character “Pogo” from the famous daily comic strip (1948-1975) who coined the phrase, “We have met the enemy and it us .” The biggest "threat" to Murray Trachtenberg is Murray Trachtenberg.

A tad thin skinned are we Counselor? Oy vey!


Clare L. Pieuk

P.S. By the way, I was seated in the front row of the public gallery near the courtroom door so was in an excellent position to witnesse what transpired.

"Tyrants and Bullies"


by Ed Slavin

As originally posted on: Clean Up City of St. Augustine, Florida
April 19, 2010

Americans hate tyrants.

Americans hate bullies,

Americans defeat tyrants and bullies all the time.

Americans stood up to King George III and the British throne. Americans had a revolution heard ‘round the world.

Americans defeated slavery.

Americans defeated segregation.

Americans defeated fascism.

Americans defeated Communism.

Americans ended the Cold War.

Americans defeated Saddam Hussein.

Americans are defeating terrorism and extremism.

And Americans defeated St. Augustine City Manager WILLIAM B. HARRISS.

It took five years.

It took a village.

It took every person in our City who cares to work together to defeat the tyrant HARRISS.

We defeated him in federal court on the Bridge of Lions Rainbow flags case.

We defeated HARRISS in federal court in multiple First Amendment cases.

We caught HARRISS dumping 40,000 cubic yards of contamined solid waste in our Old City Reservoir.

We taught HARRISS some manners.

We stopped HARRISS from bringing 40,000 cubic yards of contaminated solid waste back to Lincolnville.

We forced the City and State to put the 40,000 cubic yards of contaminated solid waste in a Class I landfill.

We defeated HARRISS and got the City of St. Augustine fined for environmental pollution. (HARRISS should pay such fines personally).

We exposed HARRISS’ dumping semi-treated sewage effluent in our saltwater marsh. The state fined the City.

We exposed HARRISS’ irresponsible refusal to act on sewage pollution, resulting in a massive 611,000 gallon sewage pollution of our Old City Reservoir.

We filed Environmental Justice complaints with EPA.

We defeated WILLIAM B. HARRISS, just as Americans defeated King George III, slavery, segregation, fascism and Communism.

Every good and decent person in St. Augustine, Florida is happy to see HARRISS go.

Tonight, let's sing "We shall overcome."

Let us work to reunite our City behind democratic principles, resolving never again to let a tyrant take over as City Manager.

"No Friend of Internet Freedom"

Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez is no friend of internet freedom

by Andrew Ford Lyons

As originally posted: Committee to Protect Bloggers
April 19, 2010

“The Internet cannot be something open where anything is said and done. Every country has to apply its own rules and norms.”

So says Venezuela’s president, Hugo Chavez
. Here’s how he should have said it: “Every country has to apply its own rules and norms on you, no matter where you live.” Because that’s the net result. The Committee urges people in Venezuela to make themselves aware of proxy services and anti-blocking techniques now and start taking measures to protect themselves online when posting criticism of the government, as we can see where this is heading.

April 19, 2010

"The Biggest Carbon Footprint"


by "Ann Arky"

As originally posted on: annarky's blog.
April 18, 2010

War is the biggest carbon footprint, war is state engineered, the state is the biggest carbon footprint, Save the planet, get ride of the state and in doing so get rid of war.

"A Bad Crowd"

In a bad crowd

If Texas were a nation, it would be the world’s seventh most prolific executioner

As originally posted on: chron.com
April 4, 2010

Last week’s headlines on stories reporting an Amnesty International study of global use of the death penalty in 2009 focused on the world’s top executioner.

The People’s Republic of China put at least 1,718 people to death, more than the rest of the world combined. The Chinese government treats information about the number of people it kills as a state secret whose divulgence is itself a criminal offense. There are 68 different crimes punishable by the death penalty in China, some of them nonviolent offenses.

For example, a businesswoman named Du Yimin was executed last August for the crime of fraudulently raising funds. Chinese authorities routinely use confessions extracted by torture to justify death sentences, and the system operates on the presumption that a person is guilty of charges unless proven innocent.

Iran was the second most prolific executioner with at least 388, followed by Iraq with more than 120 and Saudi Arabia at 69 or more. Amnesty International could not pinpoint an exact number for any of the top four capital punishment states, all of which often carry out sentences in secrecy. Modes of execution included hanging, beheading, shooting, stoning, electrocution and lethal injection.

And then there is the fifth most prolific user of state-sanctioned killing: the United States, with 52 executions in 2009. No other country in the Americas put a prisoner to death in that period.

Of the total executed in the U.S., 24 occurred in Texas, four times that of the closest competitor, Alabama. Only 10 of the 50 states carried out the death penalty last year.

If Texas were an independent nation, we would be the seventh-largest practitioner of capital punishment, just a smidgen behind Yemen, a failed state with a medieval judicial system.

Last year nine inmates on American death rows were exonerated and freed after spending a total of 121 years there, proof that even vaunted U.S. justice makes potentially fatal mistakes.

If nations — and their judicial systems — are known by the company they keep, the U.S. and Texas remain in a very sleazy clique that continues to impose the death penalty on its citizens.

Manitoba Lawyer Murray Trachtenberg



CanWest Global Place

2200-201 Portage Avenue

Winnipeg, Manitoba


R3B 3L3

Telephone (204) 957-1930

Fax (204) 934-0570

Web site: www.tdslaw.com

Writer's Direct Telephone (204) 934-2573
Internet E-mail Address mlg@tdslaw.com
Writer's Direct Fax (204) 934-0573

January 7, 2005


Posner & Trachtenberg
Barristers and Solicitors
710 - 491 Portage Avenue
Winnipeg, MB R3B 2E4

Attention: Mr. Murray N. Trachtenberg

Dear Sir:


Dumont v. Manitoba Metis Federation Inc. et al.
Court of Appeal File No. AI 04-30-05778
Court of Appeal File No. AL 04-30-05805

Our Matter No. 0067058 RALN

I am quite disappointed in your letter and enclosures dated January 6, 2005, sent by fax at 11:39 a.m. same date. By letter dated January 6, 2005, sent to you by fax at 10:29 a.m., we advised you amongst other things that we do not have instructions to accept a Notice of Appointment for Assessment of Costs. Notwithstanding, at 11.39 a.m., you sent to us a fax purporting to serve upon us a Notice of Appointment for Assessment of Costs in the Court of Queen's Bench. You also took an Affidavit which was sworn on January 6, 2005, which at paragraph 5 says, "as at the time of swearing this Affidavit I have had no response to this letter". From our point it would appear that paragraph 5 of your Affidavit is not correct, and/or at minimum prior to your faxing same over, it was incumbent upon you to correct same given the fax that you received.

As a side note, given that you have taken an Affidavit, we question the appropriateness of your appearance at the assessment.

Again, we do not have instructions to accept a Notice of Appointment for Assessment of Costs, and as we stated in our letter dated January 6, 2005, a copy of which is enclosed, together with the fax confirmation sheet, we ask that in the circumstances that you deal directly with Mr. Yvon Dumont.

Yours truly,



Maria L. Grande

cc. Michael Green
cc. Yvon Dumont (plus encl.)
cc. Assessment Officer - 373 Broadway Avenue

April 18, 2010

Manitoba Lawyer Murray Trachtenberg and Manitoba Métis Federation Inc. (MMF)

Murray Trachtenberg is having an open house everybody!

by Clare L. Pieuk

As originally posted on: CyberSmokeBlog.blogspot.com
April 16, 2010

Good Day Readers:

Manitoba Metis Federation taxpayer financed, prolific, production line, serial kvethching defamation lawyer ("The Human Gestetner Machine!") is having an open house.

He'll be on display in Courtroom 330 beginning at 9:30 Monday morning April 19, 2010 to argue against and appeal we filed in the MMF's beyond asinine Court of Queen's Bench lawsuit (CI 05-01-41955) that "officially" goes back to March of 2005 - it's open to the public. Hopefully, he'll make himself available after the session for group pictures and to sign autographs.

Sadly, since we served Counselor Trachtenberg with his Notice of Appointment of Lawyer the other day he hasn't sent us any harassing, threatening, intimidating, bullying, nasty e-mail or correspondence. Therefore, we don't know if he'll be serving tea and cookies to those who attend.


Clare L. Pieuk


"The Usual State Imperialism"


by "Ann Arky"

As originally posted on: Annarky1's Blog
April 14, 2010

In the 2006 Israeli invasion of the Lebanon, Israel declared all of Lebanon south of the Litani River a kill zone. Within this entire twenty mile area of Lebanon, anyone who was in a vehicle would be targeted and destroyed by the Israeli state terrorist forces. People in villages across the south of the country, who were already without food or water, were unable to flee the bombing or get medical aid.

Between 1968 and 1974, the Lebanese government registered 3,000 attacks on Lebanon by the Israel state apparatus, which resulted in the brutal murder of 880 Lebanese and Palestinian civilians.

Of course the attacks on Lebanon by the Israeli state did not start in 1968 with the attack on Beirut airport and the destruction of the Lebanese civilian air fleet. The Israeli aggression started much earlier. Between 1949 and 1964 there were 140 Israeli attacks on Lebanese villages and towns. Some of these attacks include, on July 24th. 1950 a Lebanese civilian plane shot down by Israeli planes, October 1950, Israeli state forces fired on Lebanese civilians killing four at the village of Yarun. In 1959 Israeli state forces hijacked three planes, two civilian planes and one Lebanese military jet, and forced them to land in Israel On August 27th. 1959 Israeli state forces killed one woman and destroyed two houses and three bridges during an Israeli terrorist infiltration into South Lebanon. June 14th 1968 saw the Israeli state terrorists bomb Mays Al-Jabal in South Lebanon and injured 56 people. After the Israeli state terrorist attack on Beirut airport in 1968 their occupation forces killed 11 Palestinians in the ‘Arqub region.

After 1968 the Israeli state terrorist attacks became so numerous that they would fill the pages of a Glasgow telephone directory. The Israel state apparatus has been attacking and killing Lebanese and Palestinians long before the formation of Hezbollah and the PLO.

The 2006 Israeli aggression, saw more than 1,000 bombs dropped on 9th August 2006 on Khiyam alone, destroyed the entire infra-structure of Lebanon, killed over 1,000 Lebanese, mainly women and children, children making up almost 50% of those murders. Lets not forget the countless children killed in Gaza over the years of Israeli aggression. During this period the Israeli deaths are in the low hundreds mostly soldiers.

This is the record of a state that is held up by the Western states as the only democratic state in the Middle East. If this is democracy, who wants it. This is the usual state imperialism doing what it always does, expand and control, brute force while proclaiming democracy, killing while waving the flag of peace. Territory and resources are the aim, people are expendable.

"A Flawed System"


Representing the 17th Senatorial District

Leach Introduces Bill to Repeal Death Penalty

HARRISBURG, March 16, 2010 – State Sen. Daylin Leach (D-Delaware/Montgomery) announced at a Capitol press conference today that he has introduced legislation that would repeal the use of capital punishment in Pennsylvania.

The bill, which is currently circulating for cosponsorship, would eliminate the option of capital punishment during criminal sentencing. Instead, the legislation would only allow for a maximum sentence of life in prison.

“It’s important to remember that the death penalty is a state program which, like all other programs, we must continually re-evaluate,” Leach said. “Is it cost effective? Is it reliable? Does it accomplish its intended goals? The answer to each of these questions is no, and it is time for Pennsylvania to eliminate this costly and ineffective practice.”

Speakers at the press conference included Leach; Ashlee Shelton, Executive Director of Pennsylvanians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty; Rev. Walt Everett; and Ray Krone, a former death row inmate who was later proven innocent and exonerated from the crimes for which he was charged. Krone is now an advocate for the abolition of the death penalty.

The press conference coincided with a lobby day put together by the nonprofit organization Pennsylvanians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty. Over forty advocates visited Harrisburg to meet with state legislators regarding the death penalty and to urge the suspension of executions until a thorough study of the capital punishment system can be conducted.

Shelton noted that the American Bar Association of Pennsylvania reported in 2007 that Pennsylvania’s capital punishment system is racially and economically biased and runs the risk of executing innocent people. She added that the mission of Pennsylvanians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty is to abolish the death penalty completely.

"Philosophical beliefs about the death penalty aside, we must recognize the deadly risks involved with allowing a flawed system to exist and tackle this issue on a public policy level. We are here today to ask that both chambers commit to studying the system thoroughly so that we can move forward in a unified way once the findings are revealed," Shelton said.

An editorial by The Patriot News noted that Pennsylvania, which has the 4th-highest number of death row inmates in the U.S., could save money by doing away with the death penalty. “Some studies say the price tag is as much as $2 million more for a prosecutor to put someone on death row than it would be to send someone to prison for life,” the article stated.

In addition, the Philadelphia-based American Law Institute recently argued against the death penalty, and said that it is impossible to administer the death penalty fairly and is a practice that should no longer be used.


601 S. Henderson Road | Suite 208
King of Prussia, PA 19406
Phone: (610) 768-4200
Fax: (610) 768-4204

184 Main Capitol | Box 203017
Harrisburg, PA 17120-3017
Phone: (717) 787-5544
Fax: (717) 705-7741

April 17, 2010

"The Democrat Majority"





Pence Praises Unilateral Ban on Earmarks By House Republicans

Washington, DC - U.S. Congressman Mike Pence, Chairman of the House Republican Conference, delivered the following remarks today after the House Republican Conference approved a moratorium on all earmarks:

"Federal spending is out of control and the American people know it. Earmarks have become emblematic of everything that is wrong with spending here in Washington D.C. Today, after a marathon debate within the House Republican Conference, House Republicans have determined to renounce earmark requests of all kinds in this Congress, and the American people won that debate.

"By standing in favor of a moratorium on earmarks in this Congress, House Republicans are making a clean break from the past. We are offering the American people a fresh start on spending in Washington, D.C. We are offering the American people a new way forward. With the health care reform bill being debated and haggled about in these very hallways, no doubt earmarks are being talked about in a different way by the Democrat Majority. After the ‘Cornhusker Kickback,' the ‘Gatorade Deal,' the ‘Second Louisiana Purchase,' the American people want us to change business as usual in Washington D.C.

"The contrast will be startling in the days ahead. No doubt as Democrats are making backroom deals, and offering earmarks to

pass their government takeover of health care, today with one voice House Republicans have stepped forward and said, ‘The time has come to set aside earmarking as usual and begin the process of turning federal spending back over to the American people with a new course, new discipline, and new transparency.'"


For Additional Information
Contact Matt Lloyd or Mary Vought at
(202) 226-9000 or matt.lloyd@mail.house.gov