Complex Societies Need Simple Laws - Stop The Madness!

 "If you have 10,000 regulations," Winston Churchill said, "you destroy all respect for law."

He was right. But Churchill never imagined a government that would add 10,000 year after year. That's what we have in America. We have 160,000 pages of rules from the feds alone. States and localities have probably doubled that. We have so many rules that legal specialists can't keep up. Criminal lawyers call the rules "incomprehensible." They are. They are also "uncountable." Congress has created so many criminal offenses that the American Bar Association says it would be futile to even attempt to estimate the total.

So what do the politicians and bureaucrats of the permanent government do? They pass more rules.

That's not good. It paralyzes life.

Politicians sometimes say they understand the problem. They promise to "simplify." But they rarely do. Mostly, they come up with new rules. It's just natural. It's how the public measures politicians. Schoolchildren on Washington tours ask, "What laws did you pass?" If they don't pass new laws, the media whine about the "do-nothing Congress."

This is also not good.

When so much is illegal, common sense dies. Out of fear of breaking rules, people stop innovating, trying, helping.

Think I exaggerate? Consider what happened in Britain, a country even more rule-bound than America. A man had an epileptic seizure and fell into a shallow pond. Rescue workers might have saved him, but they wouldn't enter the 3-foot-deep pond. Why? Because "safety" rules passed after rescuers drowned in a river now prohibited "emergency workers" from entering water above their ankles. Only 30 minutes later, when rescue workers with "stage 2 training" arrived, did they enter the water, discover that the man was dead and carry him to the approved inflatable medical tent. Twenty other cops, firemen and "rescuers" stood next to the pond and watched.

The ancient Chinese philosopher Lao Tzu, sometimes called the first libertarian thinker, said, "The more artificial taboos and restrictions there are in the world, the more the people are impoverished.

... The more that laws and regulations are given prominence, the more thieves and robbers there will be." He complained that there were "laws and regulations more numerous than the hairs of an ox." What would he have thought of our world?

Big-government advocates will say that as society grows more complex, laws must multiply to keep up. The opposite is true. It is precisely because society is unfathomably complex that laws must be kept simple. No legislature can possibly prescribe rules for the complex network of uncountable transactions and acts of cooperation that take place every day. Not only is the knowledge that would be required to make such a regulatory regime work unavailable to the planners, it doesn't actually exist, because people don't know what they will want or do until they confront alternatives in the real world. Any attempt to manage a modern society is more like a bull in a darkened china shop than a finely tuned machine. No wonder the schemes of politicians go awry.

F.A. Hayek wisely said, "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design." Another Nobel laureate, James M. Buchanan, put it this way: "Economics is the art of putting parameters on our utopias."

Barack Obama and his ilk in both parties don't want parameters on their utopias. They think the world is subject to their manipulation. That idea was debunked years ago.

"With good men and strong governments everything was considered feasible," the great Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises wrote. But with the advent of economics, "it was learned that ... there is something operative which power and force are unable to alter and to which they must adjust themselves if they hope to achieve success, in precisely the same way as they must taken into account the laws of nature."

I wish our politicians knew that. I wish they'd stop their presumptuous schemes.

We need to end the orgy of rule-making at once and embrace the simple rules that true liberals like America's founders envisioned.

Original article by John Stossel

Former US Comptroller General David Walker: US Will Look Like Greece in 2 Years

In two years, the U.S. economy will resemble that of Greece when the debt crisis began there, says David M. Walker, former U.S. Comptroller General and current CEO of the Comeback America Initiative.

The United States has never carried so much debt as it does today ever save during World War II, when such hefty borrowing and spending was needed to halt a devastatingly widespread war.

The United States, Walker tells the Worcester Economic Club, ranks 28th out of 34 countries in terms of fiscal responsibility, with the debt-heavy Greece coming in at last place.

"We’re about two years away from where Greece was when it had its debt crisis," Walker says, according to the Worcester Telegram & Gazette.

"The fact of the matter is government is not the engine of growth, innovation and job creation," Walker says, adding "spending is a bipartisan problem" that has gotten out of control in the last decade.

While federal spending was 2 percent of the gross domestic product in 1800, it hit 23.8 percent in 2011 and is on track to hit 36.8 by 2040, according to Walker.

Furthermore the U.S. spends double per person what other industrialized nations do on healthcare and education, while military spending should not be immune to budget cuts either.

"We can, we must and we will reduce defense spending," Walkers says.

President Barack Obama sent a $3.8 trillion budget proposal to Congress recently, and Republicans have pointed out that while the president is quick to hike taxes on the wealthy, he's not so quick to cut spending, which the country really needs.

"Instead of leading the effort to bring down our debt and make tough choices, the president is proposing that we spend more and more," says Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a Republican from Washington state, according to CNN.

"All his wasteful spending puts us deeper in debt to China. All his tax hikes would destroy jobs and make it tougher to compete with China."

Money News

The Federal Reserve's Explicit Goal: Devalue The Dollar 33%

 

The Federal Reserve Open Market Committee (FOMC) has made it official:  After its latest two day meeting, it announced its goal to devalue the dollar by 33% over the next 20 years.  The debauch of the dollar will be even greater if the Fed exceeds its goal of a 2 percent per year increase in the price level.

An increase in the price level of 2% in any one year is barely noticeable.  Under a gold standard, such an increase was uncommon, but not unknown.  The difference is that when the dollar was as good as gold, the years of modest inflation would be followed, in time, by declining prices. As a consequence, over longer periods of time, the price level was unchanged.  A dollar 20 years hence was still worth a dollar.

But, an increase of 2% a year over a period of 20 years will lead to a 50% increase in the price level.  It will take 150 (2032) dollars to purchase the same basket of goods 100 (2012) dollars can buy today.  What will be called the “dollar” in 2032 will be worth one-third less (100/150) than what we call a dollar today.

The Fed’s zero interest rate policy accentuates the negative consequences of this steady erosion in the dollar’s buying power by imposing a negative return on short-term bonds and bank deposits.  In effect, the Fed has announced a course of action that will steal — there is no better word for it — nearly 10 percent of the value of American’s hard earned savings over the next 4 years.

Why target an annual 2 percent decline in the dollar’s value instead of price stability?  Here is the Fed’s answer:

“The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) judges that inflation at the rate of 2 percent (as measured by the annual change in the price index for personal consumption expenditures, or PCE) is most consistent over the longer run with the Federal Reserve’s mandate for price stability and maximum employment. Over time, a higher inflation rate would reduce the public’s ability to make accurate longer-term economic and financial decisions. On the other hand, a lower inflation rate would be associated with an elevated probability of falling into deflation, which means prices and perhaps wages, on average, are falling–a phenomenon associated with very weak economic conditions. Having at least a small level of inflation makes it less likely that the economy will experience harmful deflation if economic conditions weaken. The FOMC implements monetary policy to help maintain an inflation rate of 2 percent over the medium term.”

In other words, a gradual destruction of the dollar’s value is the best the FOMC can do.

Here’s why:

First, the Fed believes that manipulation of interest rates and the value of the dollar can reduce unemployment rates.

The results of the past 40 years say the opposite.

The Fed’s finger prints in the form of monetary manipulation are all over the dozen financial crises and spikes in unemployment we have experienced since abandoning the gold standard in 1971.  The financial crisis of 2008, caused in no small part by the Fed’s efforts to stimulate the economy by keeping interest rates too low for, as it turned out, way too long is but the latest example of the Fed failing to fulfill its mandate to achieve either price stability or full employment.

The Fed’s most recent experience with Quantitative Easing also belies the entire notion that monetary manipulation can spur the economy.  Between November 2010 and June 2011, the Fed tried to spur economic growth by purchasing $600 billion in Treasury securities, flooding the banking system with reserves and keeping interest rates low.  In response the economy, which had been growing at a 3.4% annual rate, slowed to a 1% annual rate in the first half of 2011.  Once, the Fed stopped supplying all of that liquidity, economic growth in the second half of the year accelerated to a 2.3% annual rate.

Second, the Fed does not use real time indicators of the price level.  Instead, it views inflation through the rear view mirror of the trailing increases in the PCE.  And, even when it had evidence of rising inflation — as it did in the first quarter of last year — it chose to temporize, betting that the spike in inflation would prove temporary.

This spike in inflation did prove temporary, as Fed Chairman Bernanke predicted at the time, but not for the reasons — a slack economy — that he cited.  Instead, the growing debt crisis in Europe led to a massive shift in deposits out of the euro and into the dollar — an event totally out of the Fed’s control.  Yet, this increase in the demand for dollars was far more important than any action taken by the Fed because it increased the value of the dollar and produced a slowdown in the inflation rate.

What we are left with is a trial and error monetary system that depends on the best judgment of 19 men and women who meet every six weeks around a big table at the Federal Reserve in Washington.  At the end of a day and a half of discussions, 11 of them vote on what to do next.  The error the members of the FOMC fear most when they vote is deflation.  So, they have built in a 2% margin of error.

Given the crudeness of the tools the FOMC uses to set monetary policy, allowing for such a margin of error is no doubt prudent.  For example,  when the economy slowed in the first half of last year, inflation picked up, accelerating to a 6.1% annual rate during the second quarter.  And, when the economic growth accelerated in the second half, inflation slowed.  These results are the precise opposite of what the Fed’s playbook says are supposed to happen.

The best the Fed can do — an average debauch in the dollar’s value of 2% a year while producing recurring financial crises and a more cyclical economy — is demonstrably inferior to the results produced by the classical gold standard.  Here’s just one example.   The largest gold discovery of modern times set off the 1849 California gold rush and increased the supply of gold in the world faster than the increase in the output of goods and services.  The price level in the U.S. did increase by12.4 percent over the next 8 years.  That translates into an average of just 1.5% a year.  The gold standard at its worst was better than the best the Fed now promises to do with the paper dollar.

The Fed’s best is hardly good enough.  The time has arrived for the American people to demand something far better — a dollar as good as gold.

Article by Charles Kadler, Forbes.com

Puerto Ricans Likely To Oust Dozens Of Lawmakers. A Model For The US? YES!!

Any of this chicanery sound familiar, Patriots? Puerto Rican citizens are showing that the people are the judges of their leaders. This can and should be a reality here in the US. We CAN take back our country.

Wake Up America!

Jan. 11, 2012, members of the house attend a session at the capitol in San Juan, Puerto Rico. A voter referendum will ask the people of the U.S. island territory if they want to amend their Constitution and fire dozens of members of their Senate and House of Representatives as a cost-savings measure, reducing the size of the legislature by almost 30 percent. The answer is almost certain to be a resounding yes.

Lawmakers in Puerto Rico have been accused of corruption, cocaine use and domestic violence, feeding scorn among a public already seething over a dismal economy and rampant crime.

Now, it may be payback time.

Voters on the U.S. island territory are being asked if they want to amend their Constitution and fire dozens of members of their Senate and House of Representatives, cutting costs and reducing the size of the legislature by almost 30 percent.

The answer is almost certain to be a resounding yes in the technically binding referendum.

"They should all be kicked out," said Miguel Garcia, a 58-year-old engineer, after the governor recently signed the bill authorizing the Aug. 19 referendum. "They don't do anything ... They think the people are blind."

It's a popular sentiment on the island, where local politics, especially the endless debate over Puerto Rico's relationship to the U.S., is an obsession.

In good times and bad, disdain for politicians is widespread. But Puerto Ricans have perhaps more reasons to complain given the number of scandals involving lawmakers and salaries that make them more highly paid than most of their U.S. counterparts. Their incomes put them in the upper echelon in an island where nearly half the people are poor and unemployment hovers around 16 percent in a recession-battered economy.

Add to the mix last year's record number of homicides, high costs for water and power and crumbling schools, and you get an electorate in a sour mood. Tens of thousands of Puerto Ricans have left in recent years in the largest exodus in decades.

"The government does not respect the people's wishes," said Pedro Villanueva, a 65-year-old retiree who voted in favor of a previous failed effort to eliminate one house of the legislature and make it unicameral. "The government does whatever it wants."

The legislation authorizing the referendum was passed by both houses, which are dominated by Fortuno's pro-statehood party. The idea of the referendum appealed to voters in an election year.

The measure would reduce the Senate from 27 seats to 17 and shrink the House from 51 seats to 39 starting in 2017. Fortuno says it would make the legislature more efficient.

In a November poll by Gaither International, one of the Caribbean's leading market research companies, 81 percent of respondents said they would go to the polls and vote in favor of the cuts. The survey of 1,150 people had a margin of error of 3 percentage points.

The majority of lawmakers from the opposition Popular Democratic Party oppose the proposed changes.

Sen. Cirilo Tirado said the cuts will make lawmakers less responsive to the people.

"It does not resolve anything," he said, arguing that the money saved would just be spent elsewhere.

"People have to understand that it's not just about eliminating legislators because 'I'm mad with the legislative assembly,'" he said. "They are going to lose representation before the executive system ... It is a danger to democracy."

Tirado said it would be easier for big business interests to sway a smaller legislature. But he agrees with those who say the salary and stipends that legislators receive are excessive.

Puerto Rican legislators receive $74,000 in base salary, behind only what legislators in California and New York make. The speaker of the Puerto Rico Senate makes nearly $111,000. Legislators also receive between $152 to $160 as a daily food stipend.

That pay irks Jaime Mendez, a 48-year-old truck driver who moved with his wife back to Puerto Rico from New York four years ago.

"They don't vote and they don't do anything," he said.

The Senate's budget is $38.2 million, while the House of Representatives spends $47 million. The government has not said how much would be saved if the referendum passes.

A series of scandals also has damaged lawmakers' reputation.

In January 2009, former Sen. Jorge de Castro Font pleaded guilty to corruption for trading political favors for cash and services.

In early 2011, former Rep. Luis Farinacci stepped down after he was accused of domestic violence against his wife. A jury found him not guilty in June, and despite pledges to run again, Farinacci disappeared from the political scene.

Last February, House Majority Whip Rolando Crespo resigned after he said he tested positive for cocaine in a surprise and mandatory drug test.

Just this month, Rep. Jose Luis Rivera Guerra was referred to the ethics committee after acknowledging to reporters that he stole water and power from the government for his private residences.

"Voters are very mad with the government. And with good reason," said Noel Colon Martinez, an attorney and political analyst who once ran for governor as member of the Puerto Rican Independence Party.

But he argued that the referendum "does not address the real demands that the people are making of the legislative assembly." He favors a vote on having a part-time legislature with lower salaries and benefits.

The vote for a unicameral legislature in 2004 passed with 84 percent, but legislators challenged the vote in court and ultimately won their battle in the island's Supreme Court. Some voters fear this vote too will be bypassed, while others says nothing will improve even with a smaller legislature.

"I don't believe in politicians very much," said Laura Guzman, a 58-year-old administrative assistant. "Obviously not many of them are qualified. Bigger, smaller, if the people don't change, things will stay the same."

Article by Danica Coto, AP

What If....? The Good Judge Napolitano Asks The Questions (Video)

What If... All These Are True? Then What?

Wake Up America!

The 30 US Corporations That Spent More On Lobbyists Than They Paid In Federal Taxes

These 30 companies have paid a combined negative $10.6 Billion in taxes over the last 3 years while reaping massive profits...in other words they have received tax return checks despite earning a combined $163.7 Billion! Their highly paid lobbyists have bribed Congress to give them tax breaks the average US citizen would steal for.

The amount of money these company’s lobbyists slipped under the table averaged out to almost $1 million for each member of Congress. Who said favors come cheap? Citizens take heed…your elected "representatives" are selling their favors for much more than a song…

Wake Up America! 

 General Electric spent the most on lobbying - $84 million - and got the biggest tax breaks - $4.7 million

A report by a corporate watchdog group has revealed 30 major US corporations that spent more money to lobby Congress than they paid in federal taxes in 2008, 2009 and 2010.

Many of the companies are household names -- massive conglomerate General Electric, aircraft maker Boeing and telecommunications giant Verizon Communications, as well as a dozen local utility companies.

Verizon Communications, parent company of the wireless provider, was near the top of the list of lobbying influence and corporate tax breaks

Instead of adding to the federal government's coffers, tax payers actually gave these 30 companies $11 billion in rebates and refunds over three years despite $164 billion in profits, according to Public Campaign, a nonprofit interest group that seeks to reduce the power of corporate money in politics. 

During the same period, these companies spent more than $475 million on lobbyists - both their own staffers and outside firms - and another $22 million on direct contributions to campaigns and parties.

Out of the 30 companies selected by Public Campaign, only one - the package carrier Federal Express - paid any taxes. FedEX shelled out just 1 percent of its profits for the period, well below the minimum corporate tax rate of 35 percent.

The biggest recipient of federal tax breaks was General Electric, which claimed a profit of about $10.5 billion and, instead of paying any taxes, received $4.7 billion in net rebates from the federal government.

Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), which supplies natural gas and electricity to two-thirds of California, raked in the second-biggest taxpayer payoff with slightly more than $1 billion. Verizon Communication raked in just shy of $1 billion in tax breaks.

These three companies also paid the most for lobbyists. GE spent $84 million, PG&E $79 million and Verizon Communications $52 million.

Public Campaign draws a straight line between the money spent on lobbying and the taxes that these companies avoided.

"At a time when millions of Americans are still unemployed and millions more make tough choices to get by, these companies are enriching their top executives and spending millions of dollars on Washington lobbyists to stave off higher taxes or regulations," the group's report says.

Several major utility companies, which are government-regulated monopolies in their markets, top the list. In addition to PG&E, they include: American Electric Power - an electric company with customers in nine states across the country, Potomac Electric Power Company - the utility provider for Washington, DC and CenterPoint Energy - which operates in six states in the Midwest and southwest.

In all, 12 of the 30 companies on the list are utilities that provide electricity and natural gas to homes and businesses around the nation.

Companies That Spent More On Lobbyists Than They Paid In Taxes

Company	US Profits	Taxes Paid	Lobbying Expense
General Electric	$10.46 billion	- $4.737 billion	$84.35 million
PG&E	$4.855 billion	- $1.027 billion	$78.99 million
Verizon Comm.	$32.518 billion	- $951 million	$52.34 million
Wells Fargo	$49.37 billion	- $681 million	$11.04 million
American Electric	$5.899 billion	- $545 million	$28.85 million
Pepco Holdings	$882 million	- $508 million	$3.76 million
Computer Sciences	$1.666 billion	- $305 million	$4.39 million
CenterPoint Energy	$1.931 billion	- $284 million	$2.65 million
NiSource	$1.385 billion	- $227 million	$1.83 million
Duke Energy	$5.475 billion	- $216 million	$17.47 million
Boeing	$9.735 billion	- $178 million	$52.29 million
NextEra Energy	$6.403 billion	- $139 million	$9.99 million
Con. Edison	$4.263 billion	- $127 million	$1.79 million
Paccar	$365 million	- $112 million	$760,000
Integrys Energy	$818 million	- $92 million	$710,000
Wisconsin Energy	$1.725 billion	- $85 million	$2.45 million
DuPont	$2.124 billion	- $72 million	$13.75 million
Baxter International	$926 million	- $66 million	$10.45 million
Tenet Healthcare	$415 million	- $48 million	$3.43 million
Ryder System	$627 million	- $46 million	$960,000
El Paso Corp.	$4.105 billion	- $41 million	$2.94 million
Honeywell	$4.903 billion	- $34 million	$18.3 million
CMS Energy	$1.292 billion	- $29 million	$3.48 million
Con-Way	$286 million	- $26 million	$2.29 million
Navistar	$896 million	- $18 million	$6.31 million
DTE Energy	$2.551 billion	- $17 million	$4.37 million
Interpublic Group	$571 million	- $15 million	$1.30 million
Mattel	$1.02 billion	- $9 million	$840,000
Corning	$1.977 billion	- $4 million	$2.81 million
FedEx	$4.247 billion	$37 million	$50.81 million
Total	$163.79 Billion	- $10.6 Billion	$475.67 Million

Original Source

The Moral Example of UC Davis Students. If America Needs A Turning Point, This Is It. (Video)

This video should shock every American who has a conscience, every American who loves this country and what it stands for! What you are witnessing might just as easily be the actions of some totalitarian regime; Syria, Iran, Venezuela, Yemen, Myanmar….

A line of students sitting on the ground, heads bowed. A police officer dressed in riot gear walking up to them, holding a pepper spray gun. He theatrically raises his arm, as if about to carry out an execution, and presses the trigger. A foul-looking orange spray shoots out.

Methodically, deliberately, he walks to the end of the line, saturating each student. He might as well be casually spraying bug spray. When he reaches the end he begins walking back in the other direction, spraying each of them again. The students huddle in obvious pain. People in the crowd nearby gasp in shock and began chanting, "Shame on you! Shame on you! Shame on you!"

This event is powerfully symbolic. It is about contempt from those in power and the wanton use of force against the powerless.

We have seen similar things over and over again in the past few years. We have seen it in banks lobbying for public handouts and then denying relief to millions of exploited homeowners. We have seen it in tax breaks and bonuses for the rich while millions of Americans are out of work. We have seen it in church and university officers abusing children and then covering it up. We have seen it in the censorship of climate science performed in the public interest. We have seen it in the absurd declaration that corporations are "people" and entitled to spend billions of dollars to elect representatives that they will then own. We have seen it everywhere we turn.

The police officer is Congress. Our banks. Our clerics.

The students are us.

If I had to sum up the attitude of America's governing classes in one word, I would say: contempt.

We are seeing the beginning of a worldwide movement to fight for dignity and intelligent, collective governance.

It is time for UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi to resign. I simply cannot fathom a university administrator bringing riot police onto campus to assault peacefully demonstrating students. At the most, campus police could have simply carried them away. In her blog, Duke prof (and former teacher of mine) Cathy Davidson deftly dissects the craven claim that tent camps present "health and safety concerns." And Bob Ostertag, a UC Davis prof, shows how the administration lost its moral compass.

People say that the Occupy movement has not been clear in its demands. I would say that their demands could not be more obvious.

They are already being articulated everywhere: the New York Times, the Huffington Post, Salon.com, the New Yorker. They are full of luminous writers: Nicholas Kristof. Paul Krugman. Gail Collins. Hendrik Herztberg. George Packer. Steve Coll, Bill McKibben. Dozens of intelligent books have appeared on the shelves in the past few years, examining the country's problems and offering thoughtful proposals for reform.

They want a fairer tax system. They want a sane energy policy that addresses climate change and searches for cleaner ways to power our civilization. They want a government that is not wholly owned by the rich. They want access to justice and education. They want a reasonable hope of getting and keeping a job that gives them a living wage and the ability to invest for the future.

They want a rational health care system that they can afford. They want government policy that is driven by thoughtful attention to rational research, not ideology. They want a transparent government that holds the powerful accountable. They want a government that understands the importance of investing now in human capital and infrastructure.

The obstacles to reform seem overwhelming. The country's far right has systematically obstructed every attempt to change things for the better. The electorate seems hopelessly divided. For decades, it has voted to create legislative deadlock. Despite the overwhelming failure of the Bush administration, half of the country has not grasped how utterly the Republican philosophy of governance has been discredited. The Democrats are uncoordinated and have no coherent philosophy at all. In our Internet age, the media are so fragmented that no single idea can seem to hold the country's attention for long. America has never seemed more divided and paralyzed in living memory.

Nonetheless, America's two most famous recent political movements - the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street - have taught us several things. It is possible to get the country's attention. And getting its attention is equivalent to setting its agenda. 

Occupy Wall Street needs to start setting a moral example. Moral examples move people to action. I am very proud of the students at UC Davis, both the ones who remained seated, heads down, and the ones in the crowd surrounding them. They vastly outnumbered the police officers. They could have torn them apart. I have no doubt that many of them wanted to. I wanted to.

But, as Gandhi and Martin Luther King so well understood, nonviolent resistance is extraordinarily powerful. It shows who holds the moral high ground. It reveals the thugs and bullies in high places for who they are. It creates sympathy and evokes principled action. It clears the way for thoughtful men and women of conscience and character to speak out for rational courses of action.

I think we have just reached a turning point.

Article by Michael Corost, Ph.D Original Source

UNFATHOMABLE RUBBISH! This Voting Rights Decision Must Not Be Allowed To Stand!!

 

A federal government judge ruled he has no power under the Constitution of the United States of America to hear a constitutional challenge to the government's system of counting votes in secret.

This, in spite of the plain language of Article III of the Constitution:

"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish... The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties.."

The case was brought against the two major political parties, also known as the New York State Board of Elections.
 
The case is being pursued by two citizen voters - Bob Schulz and John Liggett, who charged voting systems being used to count their votes in secret violate the letter and the spirit of our Constitution.
 
What reason did the Judge give to justify his "I have no power to hear this case" ruling?
 
He held Schulz and Liggett had no Right to stand before his court any longer.  Coming in October of 2011, this is a most peculiar decision. The case was filed in 2007, survived an early motion to dismiss for "lack of standing," was scheduled for jury trial and had been nearing the end of a long discovery phase that produced damning evidence against the government.
 
Why did the Judge issue such a ruling?
 
The two major political parties (read State Board of Elections) asked him to do so.
 
What reason was given to justify his "lack of standing" conclusion?
 
He held the constitutional injury to Schulz and Liggett, by not having their votes counted in public and, therefore, not knowing if their votes were being accurately counted, was no different from the injury being suffered by all other voters so the matter is a political question that should be settled by Congress.
 
Congress? Our Rights are individual Rights, guaranteed by the letter and spirit of our Constitution, not the will of a majority of a group of men and women.
 
Congress? Those whose loyalties flow not to the Constitution, but to political parties, at the risk of not being designated for the ballot for the next electoral cycle?

Congress? Whose political parties are bought and paid for by lobbyists?

Congress? Whose lobbyists include the purveyors of the very secret vote counting machines that are at the heart of the case before the Court?

Balderdash!

In telling Schulz and Liggett to turn to Congress for a remedy to their grievance, the Judge turned a blind eye and a deaf ear not only to common sense, reason and justice, but to the intelligent, rational and professionally crafted arguments presented by Schulz and Liggett that were directed at the need to correct a clear error of law and the need to prevent manifest injustice.

See, for instance the Court's Decision and Order of July7, 2011, Schulz and Liggett's Motion for Reconsideration , the State's Response, Schulz and Liggett's Reply and the Court's Decision and Order of October 13, 2011.
 
Fanning the Flames of Discontent

Our government (read political parties and their servile followers) has been an overachiever in terms of promoting itself despite its problem of growing civil and human rights violations and the economic imbalance.

The Judge's decision is but another example in a growing list of failures of the government (read two major political parties) to comply with their constitutional mandates and their constitutional obligation to listen and respond to the People's legitimate grievances.

The international community, the media and observers might go on being fooled by the rhetoric of America's success story, but the People are waking up to the problems of constitutional violations and the resultant economic and other devastating effects.

Government's refusal to respond to the merits of petitions to remedy the violations and infringements is to squelch public dissent.

To squelch public dissent is to breed public discontent.

This Judge did more than squelch public dissent, he crushed and trampled it.

Tyranny and oppression with all its trappings are on the rise in America.

Resentment at government is seething.

People are protesting in the streets of America, openly complaining of their suffering, corruption, impunity of those in power and lack of accountability.

Unless the major political parties and their abjectly submissive minions on or off the bench begin to respect and honor the People and their Constitution, regardless of the level of practical difficulty and their political futures, tensions between the People and the government will continue to rise to the breaking point.  And then what?

On December 17, 2010, with no official willing to hear his legitimate grievances against government tyranny and oppression, twenty-six year old Mohamed Bouazizi brought paint fuel, returned to the street outside a government building in Tunisia, and set himself on fire, sparking the Arab Spring and rise of freedom loving people in Tunisia and elsewhere. Video

Human life is precious.  This was a tragic event, though it sparked a revolt by the People against their Form of Government, exercising their Right, "to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

A recent story on BBC Worldwide News showed the people of Tunisia voting in a Clean Election for the first time, using hand counted paper ballots in a process that is open, transparent and verifiable by all, with the results of the count announced and posted on the wall at the end of the voting period at each polling station -the very voting system now used in almost all the industrialized countries in the western hemisphere (except the United States). This is worth watching. Video

The Tunisians were voting to establish a 217 seat Assembly that will write a Constitution, then disband. There were 11100 candidates from 110 political parties vying for those 217 seats (so much for "complicated ballots")

We watch from America grateful to see the People of Tunisia Rise to such heights, but tortured that we have allowed electronic voting machines to move in across our country, casting a dark cloud over our entire electoral process.  Awake Thou that Sleepest, before it is too late!

Self-immolation has long flowed from government violation of civil rights and its refusal to respond to the People's Petitions for Redress. As was the case in Tunisia, it, and its political consequences are difficult for government to deal with: the person hasn't hurt anyone else or destroyed government property.

Self-immolation need not come to America. Here the People already have a Constitution and its Bill of Rights guarantees the Right of each one of us to Petition the government to remedy its violations and government's obligation to respond, including our judges.

In the name of Mohamed Bouazizi, we intend to appeal District Court's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, where we will immediately file a Motion to expedite the appeal in order to achieve a favorable decision before the 2012 primaries and general elections, banning the use of electronic vote counting systems.

Granted, the government has already taxed the People and paid for the secret vote counting machines it has installed across New York State and America in recent years (machines that have their genesis in the touch screen gaming industry in Las Vegas), but it must be stopped from continuing to tax Freedom by its continued use of those machines.

In the interest of democracy and election integrity the further use of those machines should have been prohibited by the District Court.

Germany's high Court did just that in 2009, at the request of two of its citizens, banning all the electronic vote counting machines in Germany, returning Germany to paper ballots, hand marked in private, but hand counted in public, with the results announced and posted at each polling place. It's profound that Germany's "supreme court" is officially named, "CONSTITUTION COURT."

For more information about the NCEL lawsuit and to access all recent NCEL related legal pleadings, court orders and WTP updates, please click here.

Mounting the People's Campaign

Everything possible must be done to put America back on course and prevent further unrest.

Virtually every objective sought by the election integrity community, and the whole of the Free People of America, to ensure the true outcomes of all future elections rides on this single lawsuit. A reversal in the appellate court will, by Federal Court Order, not only prohibit ALL voting machines in the State of New York from that day forward, it will establish a legal and judicial beachhead for every subsequent state and federal case challenging voting systems that are repugnant to the individual's voting rights.

Our plan therefore, is to not give up and accept this decision.  We will file a Notice of Appeal before November 13th.  

If we should win on appeal and have the NCEL case reinstated, we will need to quickly re-engage in full-out preparation for an historic jury trial, including completion of evidence discovery.

From our view, we don't need any more election challenges or recounts, we don't need more studies or videos documenting machine failures, we don't need blogs reporting more election fraud, we don't need more lawsuits nibbling at the edges of the problem.  

THOSE WHO COUNT THE VOTES, CONTROL THE ELECTIONS. PERIOD!

 

Article by GiveMeLiberty.org

The Video Congress Does Not Want You To See (Video)

While most of the country is experiencing an economic meltdown, 1 in 7 members of Congress have seen dramatic increases in their net worth. How is this possible? Because those leeches don't have to play by the same rules you and I do.

Wake Up America!!

Warren Buffett: Stop Coddling the Super-Rich!

Warren Buffett has urged U.S. lawmakers to raise taxes on the country's super-rich to help cut the budget deficit, saying such a move will not hurt investments. 

Billionaire Warren Buffett urged U.S. lawmakers Monday to raise taxes on the country's super-rich to help cut the budget deficit, saying such a move will not hurt investments.

"My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It's time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice," The 80-year-old "Oracle of Omaha" wrote in an opinion article in The New York Times.

Buffett, one of the world's richest men and chairman of conglomerate Berkshire Hathaway Inc , said his federal tax bill last year was $6,938,744.

"That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income - and that's actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent," he said.
 

Lawmakers engaged in a partisan battle over spending and taxes for more than three months before agreeing on August 2 to raise the $14.3 trillion U.S. debt ceiling, avoiding a U.S. default.

"Americans are rapidly losing faith in the ability of Congress to deal with our country's fiscal problems. Only action that is immediate, real and very substantial will prevent that doubt from morphing into hopelessness," Buffett said.
Story: 3 ways to get more return on your savings

Buffett said higher taxes for the rich will not discourage investment.

"I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone - not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 - shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain," he said

"People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off."

Article courtesy of MSNBC.com