Friday, November 23, 2007

The Truth In News, What a Novel Concept

Truth In The News, What A Novel Concept.
Neal Ross
23, Nov, 2007

In response to many of my articles I have been rewarded with responses from people who are as aware of the danger this nation faces due to our governments inaction on certain issues, and its passing of legislation that I consider bordering on treasonous.

However, every once in awhile I get a response from someone who has fallen prey to the lies and disinformation fed to them by our elected representatives and the medial. Just the other day, in response to some criticism of the Bush Administration, I got an e-mail that said, "Ah yes... the gloom and doom of the EVIL Bush Administration".

When I get e-mails like that I feel as though I am talking to a parrot, who can only repeat what it has been taught to say and is incapable of thinking on its own. I partially blame these people for being so weak of character that they are unwilling to accept the truth when it is standing right in front of them.

On the other hand, I place a large part of the blame on the news media in this country. With the proliferation on 24 hour a day news coverage on stations like CNN, FOX, and MSNBC, as well as the regular watered down network news broadcasts, it is next to impossible to monitor everything that is broadcast that is commonly accepted as news.

There are the occasional bursts of light that illuminate a particularly subject sufficiently for the public to take notice. Lou Dobbs on CNN does a decent job of scrutinizing the inefficiencies of our government, its lack of action on illegal immigration, and the clandestine merger of the United States, Canada, and Mexico into a North American Union. Sixty Minutes also has its moments of glory, as when the Comptroller General recently cut through the rhetoric and plainly stated that our governments spending and future commitments to entitlement programs is placing our country on a path towards insolvency. Keith Olbermann on MSNBC also has done a good job on exposing the attacks upon our personal liberties undertaken by the Bush Administration in the name of the War On Terror. However these are just a few isolated glimmers of the potential of what broadcast journalism is truly capable of.

Edward R. Murrow, was, in my opinion, one of the best broadcast journalists in the history of this nation. While most of what he did on the air happened before I was born, I have read about his courage in standing up to the communist witch hunt led by Senator McCarthy.

In a speech given to Radio and Television News Directors Association in Chicago, Murrow is quoted as saying, “Our history will be what we make it. And if there are any historians about fifty or a hundred years from now, and there should be preserved the kinescopes for one week of all three networks, they will there find recorded in black and white, or color, evidence of decadence, escapism and insulation from the realities of the world in which we live. I invite your attention to the television schedules of all networks between the hours of 8 and 11 p.m., Eastern Time. Here you will find only fleeting and spasmodic reference to the fact that this nation is in mortal danger. There are, it is true, occasional informative programs presented in that intellectual ghetto on Sunday afternoons. But during the daily peak viewing periods, television in the main insulates us from the realities of the world in which we live.”

I would suggest that everyone read the entire speech which can be found at, as it is quite enlightening.

When Murrow went after Senator McCarthy, he used the senators own words against him, via a series of speeches given by the senator. Our broadcast news media today could take a lesson from Murrow by piecing together a series of clips of President Bush concerning the war in Iraq. The President has lied, changed his story, and his reasons for fighting this war so many times that I do not have enough fingers to count these changes. Yet our news media, in the guise of being subjective, pussyfoots around the issue by reporting on the current troop losses, or the lack of action by the Iraqi government to take action in regards to the stabilization of their own country. Where is the courage of the news media to tell the people they have been lied to and manipulated in the aftermath of 9/11 into supporting a war that we have no reason to be involved in?

Part of the problem, as I stated earlier is that the people of this country are lack to courage to face the truth. We feel more comfortable accepting the rhetoric and propaganda put forth by our respective political party, that we are unwilling to accept anything that might shatter the house of illusion that we live within. Therefore anyone who does have the courage to speak out against the illusion that is fed to us as truth is labeled as either conspiracy nut or an extremist.

There is a growing disillusionment with the overall state of our government, from both sides of the political spectrum. Record numbers of people are switching their party affiliation to Independent. That is a good sign, in that it shows people are not willing to accept the status quo in government any more. However, when a candidate for president like Ron Paul has the courage to stand before us and tell us exactly what is wrong with this country and what needs to be done to fix it, we are still unwilling to accept the facts as he presents them. The supporters of Ron Paul are labeled terrorists by supposedly respectable journalists like Glenn Beck. We are told that the U.S. military should be used against us. So much for freedom of speech when people who believe in government according to the Constitution are labeled as terrorists.

Our freedoms and liberties as defined in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights have been trampled upon by our government, and the news media, for the most part, have remained silent on these violations. The final nail in the coffin of this republic may come as early as next week when the Supreme Court rules on whether the people of this country have the right to own firearms or if that right is solely in regards to the formation and maintenance of the militia. What is the old saying, ‘The second amendment is never needed until they try to take it away’? That time may soon be upon us.

The news media, every time there is some tragedy involving firearms reports non stop on the statistics regarding numbers of people killed due to firearm accidents. They give coverage to groups that call for more gun control legislation, yet shun the groups who say that firearms are as George Washington said, “Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence.”

While many feel that our streets would be safer if nobody had any firearms whatsoever, I would like to present some statistics which prove to the contrary.

-In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

-In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

-Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 6 million Jews and 7 million others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

-China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated

-Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

-Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

-Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

It is now, more than ever, that we need our news media to dig down within itself and find its backbone and stand up for the rights of the people. It is time for them to stop worrying about offending corporate sponsors and tell the people the truth about what is going on in this country. We have had enough of what they call the news. Our bellies cannot abide another story about the custody battle of Britney Spears, or the most recent arrest of Lindsey Lohan. It is time we were given the news as Edward R. Murrow would have reported it. It may come as a shock to many, but that shock might be just what the doctor ordered to awaken us from the stupor we have been living in when it comes to path our republic is on towards tyranny.

Sunday, November 11, 2007

Why do you pay taxes?

I was discussing the National Debt with some people the other day and it came up that I support Ron Paul for President. I was asked how I could support him when he wants to do away with the IRS. They said our country would collapse without income taxes to fund our government. It is amazing how misinformed people are these days if they truly believe that?

As originally ratified, the Constitution of the United States, mentions taxation three times, and all references to it are found in Article 1.

Section 1, "Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states..."

Section 8, "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"

Section 9 "No capitation, or other direct tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

Even I had to study some to figure out exactly what some of the terms used in those clauses meant. Therefore I cannot fault people for not completely understanding them either. However, once I learned what they meant I became convinced that a tax upon a persons income is unconstitutional.

In section 1 it states that direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states. Apportioned means to be divided equally. According to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, there are only three taxes that are classified as direct taxes. They are, a capitation, (a direct tax levied upon each person, also known as a head tax), a tax upon real property, and a tax upon personal property. Real property is in regards to buildings and structures that cannot be moved, while personal property covers items that you own that can be moved from location to location.

Section 8 states that the Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises. Taxes come in many forms such as the duties, imposts, and excises listed in the Constitution. A duty is a form of tax that is applied to a specific object which is often seen in regards to customs duties when you bring things from one country to another. According to West's Encyclopedia of American Law, an impost is another form of tax that is most often associated with customs duties. An excise tax is a tax upon consumption. We pay excise taxes upon such items as gasoline, cigarettes and alcohol.

An income tax is a tax levied on the financial income of either persons, corporations or other entities. Yet the term income tax is nowhere to be found in the constitution.

When talking about income taxes, there are progressive, proportional, an regressive methods of taxing income. In the United States we use a progressive, or graudated tax system, in which the more you make, the higher the tax you are required to pay. If you earn under $7825 per year you pay 10%, if you earn under $3150 per year you pay 15%, all the way up to 35% for those who earn $174,850 and up. Corporate tax rates are also progressive, but they vary a bit differently. All the tax rates can be found at,

The history of an income tax goes way back in our nations history. After the War of 1812 an income tax was imposed to help pay off the debt incurred by the war. However, after the debt was paid the tax was repealed.

In 1895 the issue of an income tax was put before the Supreme Court in the case of Pollock v. Farmers Loan & Trust. The Court ruled that income taxes were direct taxes and therefore unconstitutional.

In his dissent to the Pollack decision, Justice Harlan stated:

"When, therefore, this court adjudges, as it does now adjudge, that Congress cannot impose a duty or tax upon personal property, or upon income arising either from rents of real estate or from personal property, including invested personal property, bonds, stocks, and investments of all kinds, except by apportioning the sum to be so raised among the States according to population, it practically decides that, without an amendment of the Constitution -- two-thirds of both Houses of Congress and three-fourths of the States concurring -- such property and incomes can never be made to contribute to the support of the national government."

It became apparent that the Courts would strike down any new taxes upon a persons income as unconstitutional. Therefore the 16th amendment was proposed and ratified, altering the means and ability to tax the people of this country.

The sixteenth amendment states, "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

Although some claim the ratification process of the 16th amendment was flawed and therefore the amendment was never legally ratified, there still disagreements on what exactly defined income.

The Supreme Court ruled on a few of them, such as in Eisner v. McCumber the Court ruled that income is derived from gains or profits made from activity, but not income derived from labor. In Doyle v. Mitchell the Court ruled, "...the idea of gain or increase arising from corporate activity."

U.S. District Court Judge James C. Cox, in 2003 said, “If you examine the [16th amendment] carefully you would find that a sufficient number of states never ratified that amendment.

State Rep Phil Hart (R-Idaho) states, “ You can look through the statues and look for the law that requires you to pay, and you do that you can’t identify a law that says the average person in America who earns a wage and works in private business has to pay and income tax.

According to Supreme Court in Stanton vs. Baltic Mining, “the provisions of the 16th amendment conferred no new powers of taxation.” Also from the NY Times, January of 1916 “In substance, the court holds that the sixteenth amendment did not empower the federal government to levy a new tax.

There have been numerous petitions by the people of this country, asking the federal government to show them the statute that requires them to pay a tax upon their earnings. The federal government has refused to do so. David Cay Johnston of the NY Times once asked, “Why won’t the IRS answer the question set forth in the petitions of the American people." His answer was, “The government is answering the questions through enforcement in the courts.” In other words, the government is using intimidation and force to keep us in line.

There have been agents of the Internal Revenue Service who have resigned because they could not find the law that states the people of this country are required to pay an income tax. Among them are John Turner, Joe Bannister, and Sherry Jackson, who was recently sent to prison for not paying an income tax.

Strikingly, even our Congress could not find the law that says we have to pay income taxes. In a letter from Daniel K. Inouye, we find the following, “Based on research by the Congressional Research Service, there is no provisions individual to pay an income tax.

I personally feel that the 16th amendment was a crime perpetrated upon the people of this country by our government, done in a method to hide the illegality of it. However since too many are unwilling to accept that proposal, and therefore they continue to pay into the scheme to rob them of their labor, that will not be my purpose in writing this paper. I wish to show you how our tax system is being used to plunder the working people of America while it is being exploited and taken advantage of by corporations. I also want to show how our government, no matter how much they take in from taxes, is still spending more than it receives from tax revenues. So, from this point forward, no matter how distasteful I find it, I am going to proceed under the presumption that we are required to pay taxes upon our earnings.

If we all can agree that taxes are meant to fund our government, then I would like to show provide you with facts that show that this is just not the case.

When Ronald Reagan became president, he set up the Grace Commission to work to route out inefficiency in government. In their report, the Commission stated that,
“100% of what is collected is absorbed solely by the federal debt.”

Each year since 1969, Congress has spent more money than its income. As of this writing our national debt stands at $9.1 trillion dollars. To pay the debt off it would mean that each citizen, every man, woman and child in this country would have to pay $30,034.26. I can tell you right now, that is more than I earn in a year.

According to David Walker, Comptroller General, "Deficit spending and promised benefits for federal entitlement programs have put every man, woman, and child in the United States on the hook for $175,000"

So, if our taxes are only going towards paying interest upon the money our government has borrowed to function, who exactly have they borrowed that money from?

That is a complicated question, even for me, but I will try to simplify it as best I can. According to some, good portion of it is held by the purchasers of T-bonds and savings bonds, while about half the remaining debt is held by the American in the form of insurance companies and retirement funds, and then the rest is held by foreign investors.

According to another source,, 40% is held by the Federal Reserve Bank, 22% by foreign investors and the rest is divided among other sources.

According to, ttp://, 58% of the debt is held by private investors who buy those T-bonds, while 1/3 is held by foreign investors, and only $3.3 trillion is held by the Federal Reserve. It is interesting also that much of the debt is held by IOU's to the Social Security Trust fund, from which our government has been plundering for years to feed its incessant growth and spending.

Regardless of who holds the debt, our country, our government in particular, has dug us into a hole we are not likely to get out of easily. They have allowed the Federal Reserve Bank to just print more money to fund their operation. This has led to inflation and the overall decline in the value of the U.S. dollar as compared to all other world currencies.

After President Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act he is quoted as saying, “I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is now controlled by its system of debt." Compare that to what Thomas Jefferson said in regards to the banking industry, "If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."

As our government continues to spend, and our national debt continues to rise towards $10 trillion, our government continues to borrow from the FED and the dollar continues to decline in value.

Already there are hints that the loss of value of the dollar is causing some foreign investors to sell off their holdings in dollars and switch to something more stable.

While this is happening, we, the taxpayers are being saddled with this debt that we cannot conceivably pay off. Our children, their children, and their grandchildren will be stuck with this monstrous debt.

We are stuck with this debt, we have no choice other than to pay taxes, or go to jail. However, remember in the Supreme Court case of Doyle v. Mitchell the Court ruled, income referred to "...the idea of gain or increase arising from corporate activity".

So, how much of this burden are the corporations in this country carrying? The Tax Policy Center, Urban Institute and Brookings Institute, have put together a list going back to 1934 which compares the amount of money collected in taxes by individuals and corporations.

The numbers are in millions and what this chart shows is very interesting. For example, in 1934, individual income taxes were $420 million and corporate taxes taken in where $364 million. The public paid approximately 14% more in taxes than corporations. Fast forward to 1960 and individual income taxes drew in $40.715 million in revenue while corporations paid $$21.494 million, a 48% difference. Zoom up to 2000 and we, the taxpayers paid $1,004,462 million in taxes while corporations paid $202,289 million, a difference of 80%.

As these statistics show, the American people are getting stuck paying for our government while our corporations have managed to weasel out of paying their share. Cheryl Woodward of found that between 1990-2000 corporate profits rose by 93% and CEO pay went up 517%. Yet median wages went down 3.6%. If corporations are making more then you would think that they in turn would be paying more in taxes, not less as the statistics by the Tax Policy Center state.

Leona Helmsley, the Queen of Mean, once said, "We don't pay taxes...only the little people pay taxes." That is obvious from the figures presented, but how can that be if our tax system is fair?

The answer is simple, our government has structured the tax system in such a way that corporations can find loopholes which allow for them to avoid paying taxes, or at least the required amount of taxes upon their earnings.

According to the Citizens for Tax Justice, 275 of Americans corporations paid only a 17.2% tax rate, less than half of the required 35%.

Fox News claims to be fair and balanced, yet their owner Rupert Murdoch is far from fair when it comes to paying his taxes. According to the BBC and the Economics Newspaper, Murdoch paid a meager 6% taxes upon $5.4 billion in profits.

So, how do our corporations get away with not paying their fair share of taxes? According to Senator Byron Dorgan, in his book Take This Job And Ship It, "The tax code is written in a way that allows companies not to pay the full 35% U.S. corporate tax rate on foreign income when that money remains invested overseas."

You might think that the money does no good if it remains invested overseas. However, that is not the end of the story. In 2005, the Republican controlled Congress passed a special law that lowered the tax rate for corporations who wish to bring their money back to the U.S. to 5.25%.

So, our companies can move overseas and make their products using low paid foreign workers, then sell them to American citizens for a huge profit and pay only 5.25% in taxes. That hardly sounds fair.

David Evens, a reporter for Bloomberg News discovered that there is a 5 story building in the Cayman Islands that is the corporate address for over 12 thousand businesses. These businesses are getting a lower tax rate because they are headquarted overseas.

How does all this happen? It is because our government, for the most part does not care about you or I. They receive corporate funds in the form of campaign contributions. If they change the tax code to make these corporations pay their fair share, the will be biting the hand that feeds them.

Until we as a nation decide that we have had enough of elected representatives who have sold their soul to special interests and globalists, things will never change. We need to get involved, let our government know that their days of frivolous spending are over, the days of hidden earmarks gone, and that they are going to have to live within their means.

I would like you to ponder these two quotes.

"A politician cannot spend one dime on any spending project without first taking that dime from the person who earned it. So, when a politician votes for a spending bill he is saying that he believes the government should spend that particular dollar rather than the individual who worked for it." Neal Boortz.

"There is no such thing as government money - only taxpayer money." William Weld, quoted in Readers Digest.

It is your money that our government has squandered. They have taken it from you in the form of taxes that are questionable at best. They have disregarded the financial and economic future of the working class of America. We are now shouldered with a debt that will be with us for decades. The value of our currency has shrunk, and it will continue to do so as our government continues to just float another loan from the FED to fund its spending. When will it stop? That my friends is entirely up to you.

Thursday, November 01, 2007

Our Dysfunctional Republic Part 6

Article 2
The Executive Branch

Article 2 of the United States Constitution outlines how we elect our president, and his authority, yet it is only1022 words long. Compare that to Article 1 at 2249 words. It seems the founding fathers gave more thought to the powers given to Congress than they did the president. The Executive office of our government was solely designed to be the person who executes the laws which were passed by the Congress. This is clearly stated in Article 2, Section 1, "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." Webster's Dictionary defines executive as, "1: designed for or related to carrying out plans or purposes 2: of or relating to the enforcement of laws and conduct of affairs." That is the job of the president in a nutshell, to make sure our laws are enforced. Think of the president as a manager, one who coordinates and organizes various people and agencies to make sure our nations laws are enforced.

I find it extremely interesting that so much money and effort is spent these days by candidates who wish to become president of the United States. Huge sums of money are collected and then spent to convince you to vote for a particular candidate. It is that particular aspect, the actual voting for our president, that I would like to talk about now.

I would have thought that most people are aware that the president is not elected by a popular vote of the people, yet I would have been wrong in making that assumption. In talking to people, I have found that there actually are people who are not aware of the electoral college. I don't know if this is because they have forgotten what they learned in civics class, or if that subject was never taught. Whatever the case may be, I would like to present what the Constitution says about the electoral college.

Article 2, Section 1 states the following, "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."

Each state could select these electors in whatever manner they so desired, as long as the total number did not deviate from the guidelines laid out by the Constitution. What exactly is the purpose of these electors? The Constitution clearly defines what the duties of these electors were to be.

"The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not lie an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately choose by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner choose the President. But in choosing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; a quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two-thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall choose from them by Ballot the Vice-President."

Article 2, Section 1 was amended by the 12th Amendment. It was changed so that instead of the winner of the election becoming president and the runner up vice president, the electors cast two distinct votes, one for president, and one for vice president. Other than that, the process remained the same.

There has been many discussions over time to do away with the electoral college, but they have always failed to garner enough support needed to get an amendment passed by Congress for ratification by the states. So until it is changed, we are stuck with it.

So it is actually the votes of these electors who actually choose the president, and vice president for that matter. However, that does not mean that your vote does not count, or at least it didn't used to mean that.

According to the designs of the Constitution, these electors were to '... make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each...'. It would seem that the list would therefore be representative of the popular vote. Remember, the number of electors were chosen '...equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress...'. It would be thought that the elector chosen for each Congressional district would vote according to the popular vote within their own district. This, however, is not always the case.

"There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their States. Some States, however, require electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two categories -- electors bound by State law and those bound by pledges to political parties."

So, it is possible for a candidate to receive a majority of the popular vote in a particular district and have the elector for that district cast their vote for another candidate. This is rare, but it is not unknown.

Another thing that I find particularly disturbing is that fact that 48 out of the 50 states award electoral votes on a winner-takes-all basis. Since I live in California, I will use my state as an example. If 50.1% of the people vote for the democratic candidate, and 49.9% vote for the republican, all 55 of the electoral votes go to the democratic candidate.

I find this disturbing for two reasons. First, it is not a true representation of the popular vote. Remember, the Constitution says, '...And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each..." When we have a winner takes all policy in place it violates the spirit of the electoral college in which all the persons voted for receive a percentage of the votes for president.

Again, since I am from California, I will refer to the California Election Code, Section 6908, “The electors shall make separate lists of all persons voted for as President and of all persons voted for as Vice President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign, certify, seal, and transmit by mail to the seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate.”

If you compare that to what the U.S. Constitution says, you will find that, while it may be worded a bit differently, it is the same as the Constitution. I have written to the Governor and the Secretary of State asking what law authorizes a winner takes all approach in regards to electoral votes, but as of this writing my questions have not been answered.

Secondly, with the prevalence of computers to count ballots, and more recently, electronic voting machines, the idea of a winner takes all, leaves far too much room for fraud and election rigging.

On December 13, 2004, a Mr. Clint Curtis testified before the Judiciary Committee in Ohio regarding vote fraud. The following is a transcript of his testimony.

Curtis: I am a computer programmer, I worked for NASA, I worked for Exxon Mobile, I worked for the Dept. of Transportation.

Q: Mr. Curtis, are there programs that can be used to secretly fix elections?
A: Yes
Q: How do you know that to be the case?
A: Because in October of 2000 I wrote a prototype for present Congressman Tom Feeney in Oviedo Florida that did just that.
Q: And when you say it did just that do you mean it would rig an election?
A: It would flip the vote 51/49 to whoever you wanted it to go to and whichever race you wanted to win.
Q: And would that program be something that you designed be something that elections officials who might be on County Boards of Elections be something they could detect?
A: They would never see it.
Q: So how would such a program, a secret program that fixes elections how could it be detected?
A: You would have to view it in the source code or you would have to have a receipt and then count the hard paper against the vote total, other than that you won't see it.

A sworn affidavit outlining what Mr. Curtis said can be found at,

With the advent of touch screen voting machines, there is even more room for error and fraud. Recent news stories have shown how many such voting machines are easily hacked into. More worrisome is a ruling made in California, “This week, a federal appeals court in California threw out a lawsuit that challenged computerized voting without paper trails, finding that no voting system can eliminate all electoral fraud.”

While all of these problems with voter machine tampering and fraud exist in elections at all levels, I am discussing it now as it pertains to the electoral college and our selection of president of the United States. Josef Stalin once said, “Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything.” It appears that our system of electing officials, particularly the president, has drifted drastically from what the founders envisioned in the Constitution.

Now that we have discussed how our president is supposed to be elected, I would like to cover the office of the president in a bit more detail. Before a duly elected president can begin his duties, he must first be sworn in. The President-elect places his hand on a Bible and repeats the following oath, “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

If you recall in Part 1 of this series I stated that you should think of the process of selecting an elected official like a contract. The terms of that contract are to be found in the Constitution. When the President-elect takes that oath, he is agreeing to the terms of that contract. It is absolutely imperative that, as citizens, we thoroughly understand the terms of that contract. If we don’t, how can we be aware of when those who we elect violate it?

Once that oath is taken, the president is bound to uphold the Constitution. It is only logical that we examine what the Constitution says about the duties of president. These duties can be found in Section 2 of Article 2. Briefly they state,

-The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states,

-He may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices

-He shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

-He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur

-He shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States

-The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.

- He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient;

-He may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper;

-He shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers;

-He shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.

Those are the powers of the president. Nowhere in those powers does it say he can legislate, or create law. That power belongs to the Congress alone. However, presidents going back to 1789 have issued Executive Orders which come perilously close to creating law.

According to the federal register, “Executive orders are official documents, numbered consecutively, through which the President of the United States manages the operations of the Federal Government.”

Some of these Executive Orders do have the force of law, when they are issued in pursuance of an Act of Congress, when those acts give the President discretionary powers. However, all laws, including those passed by Congress, have to be in accordance with the dictates of the Constitution. If the President issues an Executive Order that violates the authority granted him in the Constitution, it is unconstitutional. One more reason why it is so important for us to be aware of the very limited powers granted to our government in the Constitution. John Adams, our third President once said, “Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud, is the only maxim which can ever preserve the liberties of any people.”

Article 2 states that the president can recommend measures to Congress for their consideration, “He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient...”

As I have stated numerous times now, all laws passed by Congress must be in accordance with the dictates of the Constitution. Therefore if the president recommends a measure for their consideration, they should deliberate as to whether said recommendation violates the Constitution or not before even drafting a bill for consideration.

Our Congress, at the behest of President Bush to fight his War on Terror has passed numerous pieces of legislation that violate the Constitution in one way or another. Beginning with the Patriot Act, then followed by the John Warner Defense Authorization Act, and the Military Commissions Act, the president has put into place the laws that could shut down every individual right and freedom we the people were outlined in the Declaration of Independence and guaranteed under the Bill of Rights.

The Patriot Act authorizes illegal wire taps, allows for warrant less searches of your home, the inspection of your financial records, and even what books you check out at the library. Section 213 of the Patriot Act, otherwise known as the Sneak and Peek Provision allows any federal law enforcement agency to enter your home or business without you being present to collect evidence and they do not ever have to tell you they have been there. This violates the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.

Sections 202 & 216 allows any federal law enforcement agency to monitor your internet traffic, read your e mails and intercept all your cell phone calls, if they suspect that you are committing a crime. No warrant is required. This violates the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution.

The FBI or any other federal law enforcement agency can come to your business and seize your records if they claim it is part of a terrorist investigation. They can also arrest you if you tell anyone that they were there. This violates the First and Fourth Amendments to the Constitution.

So you think you are safe, you are not a terrorist. Section 802 of the Patriot Act defines domestic terrorism as, "activities that--involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States...and appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; or to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion..." So do you still think anything you do might not classify you as a domestic terrorist?

After reviewing the Patriot Act, Congressman Ron Paul said that our forefathers would think it is time for a revolution.

The Supreme Court ruled in U.S.v Robel,
"[T]his concept of 'national defense' cannot be deemed an end in itself, justifying any exercise of...power designed to promote such a goal. Implicit in the term 'national defense' is the notion that defending those values and ideas which se this Nation apart...It would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the subversion of one of those liberties...which makes the defense of the Nation worthwhile."

The John Warner Defense Authorization Act allows the president to station troops anywhere within the U.S. in the case of a stated emergency. This violates the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C.1385).

The Military Commissions Act allows for the president to round up suspected terrorists and hold them indefinitely without legal representation or recourse, basically suspending habeas corpus.

After the civil war, Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and the Supreme Court made the following ruling, "The Constitution of the Untied States is a laws for rulers and people equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of mean, at all times, and under all circumstance. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government."

I believe I have given you just a few examples of how our president, and President Bush is not the only one, have exceeded their authority as defined in the Constitution. I would like to leave you with two quotes by James Madison as I conclude this segment of my continuing piece on Our Dysfunctional Republic,
“If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.”

“It is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad.” be continued