Slashdot Mirror

as long as people reelect congresspersons like good ol boy Billy Tauzin (who works harder for Bellsouth than their entire PR and legal department), they deserve to be laid off, have lousy monopoly service, be satisfied with 28.8 or pay $175/mo (and wait 6 months for an install), etc.

in missouri, we've got a paid incumbant LEC hack scaring local citizens about the evils of wireless towers. the overused call to "save the children" from spooky radiowaves is being made, demanding towers be stopped (and wireline incumbants protected from competition).

but what chance does an educated segment of the population have against a majority that believes magic crystals and magnets will improve their car's gas mileage and personal karma? bring on the layoffs... perhaps another depression is the only way to build character in these fools.

Your wish is granted! FTC is investigating the Musicnet/Pressplay Douoploly as you read this.

The labels are starting to ask Why are we paying this Rosen woman a 1.1 million dollar salary? First the EU Investigation in June, this Boucher/Cannon bill, and now a FTC investigation. Not to mention that the FTC Finding of Price Fixing, or the 28 states lawsuit over the price fixing

It is said that if you like law or sausage don't watch either one being made.

The following will work best for those of us that are citizens of the US and are registered to vote.

A technique that works to find out if your lawmakers are listening to you is to write them a letter (snail mail) or to e-mail them.

The US House of Representatives has a page where you can send your memeber an e-mail and even help you find out who your representative is. The URL is:
http://www.house.gov/writerep/

For the Senate go to:
http://www.senate.gov/contacting/index.cfm

The Senate does not have as much information about writting your senator as the House pages do but at least it is a way to contact them.

To assist them in replying to you always include your e-mail address, home address, and if you feel like it a phone number. If you know what precinct, parish, or whatever the number of your voting district is in your state/county/parish or whatever include that as well. Be brief but thorough enough to get your thought across. No more than a page and shorter if possible.

They do like to hear from you and I have yet to have my representative or senators abuse me giving them my information. Using the system when possible at least gives it a chance to fail and who knows, it might actually help.

Big tobacco says: "All your politicians are belong to us."

With abusive leaders also comes the cronyism and worse ... the bureaucrats that can take a fast moving project and/or movement and grind it down to a painful crawl.

I mean are there that many hills we have to charge up, is someone throwing the ball, is the system that broke that we need to attempt fix it with a leader ?

I got off my butt and wrote all three of my elected representative on Wednesday asking then to "repeal or amend" the DMCA. I highly recommend killing a tree and writing them a letter, as email is not treated as well in most circles. Send a letter to Washington instead of preaching to the choir...convince the people that can make the DMCA go away!

To find out who your Representative is, see: http://www.house.gov/writerep/

To find out who your two Senators are, see: http://www.senate.gov/senators/senator_by_state.cf m

Remember to be polite and clear but firm. Tell them why the DMCA is bad and how it upsets the balance between fair use and copyright holders. Make sure to spell and grammar check it (it won't be effective if it is full of grammatical errors) and make sure it is not inflammatory or threatening.

Lastly, donate a buck to the EFF. They are the ones that will help you speak louder then you can by yourself.

Do your civic duty. Stop complaining to all the people that can't help you (the /. crowd) and start complaining to the people that can (politicians).

Here is his latest speech on fair use. I'm glad he's actually my rep.

I think that Title II of the DMCA for which Orrin Hatch is responsible is good. It protects ISPs from unreasonable prosecution for violations of their users.

Title I of the DMCA is the offending section. It was implemented to comply with the WIPO treaty, especially Article 11. You can blame Mark Foley (R-FL) who "led the fight" to pass the WIPO in the House. Note that he is Chairman of the Congressional Entertainment Industry Task Force.

This is another case of Americans giving up their rights to world organizations.

I think that Title II of the DMCA for which Orrin Hatch is responsible is good. It protects ISPs from unreasonable prosecution for violations of their users.

Title I of the DMCA is the offending section. It was implemented to comply with the WIPO treaty, especially Article 11. You can blame Mark Foley (R-FL) who "led the fight" to pass the WIPO in the House. Note that he is Chairman of the Congressional Entertainment Industry Task Force.

This is another case of Americans giving up their rights to world organizations.

Here's a link with their phone numbers (all 202 area code):

http://clerkweb.house.gov/107/mcapdir.php3

How come nobody's mentioned writing their politicians about this? Try telling THEM how much you don't like sections 1201 and 1202 of Chapter 12 of Title 17 of the U. S. Code. It might be helpful to quote passages from it that you find particularly damning.

Tell them about Sklyarov and Felten v. RIAA and Universal v. Reimerdes and any other of the big cases I missed. Talk about how the law is being abused and violates the First Amendment. Mention that it could harm business. Keep in mind that neither they nor anybody they know actually read Slashdot (as hard as that may be to grasp).

Here's the President's address:

President George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20500-0001

Here's the address for the Supreme Court:

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist
Supreme Court of the United States
1 1st St. NE
Washington, DC 20543-0002

Your representative? The House maintains a site here where it will tell you who your rep is after you tell them what your state and ZIP code are. Don't know your ZIP+4 code is? Go to the USPS site and put your address in here to find out. After you find out who it is, their address is on their website.

Senators? The Senate's web site maintains a list of the addresses (and phone numbers) of all current Senators organized by state here

Too cheap to pay the $1.70 in postage to write all these people? E-mail them. I was amazed last week when Tauzin acknowledged an e-mail I sent him with a snail-mail response. Sure, it was a blanket form letter on the topic, but it's a sign that it got read. (I still reccomend paper mail, though, since it's harder to ignore).

At the absolute least, you should realize that bitching and moaning to Slashdot about all this is about as effective as bitching and moaning to a brick wall.

Oh, and one last note: If you DO write them, don't flame them (unless you want another note added to your FBI file and possible surveilance/wiretaps/etc.).

Tell that to the Irish Immigrant wife of my Lawyer Boy Best Friend. Not only do they have her return airfare paid up front, the INS recently not only denied her re-entry after a trip to Tijuana, detained her against her will, not even allowing her to return to Mexico.

Your statement No mention of citizens or citizenship at all. is not true, either. You may want to read what some still consider to be an important legal document, The Constitution of The United States of America, which preamble states We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. Since the Bill of Rights is a series of amendments to The Constitution, and citizenship is implied by the preamble, it is quite clear that the Bill of Rights applies only to Citizens.

Maybe if you want to prove him wrong, you should go read up on the Congressional testimony taken around that time to see if those statements were really made before Congress by that KGB agent? You can probably find links to this kind of thing at www.house.gov or www.senate.gov.

To the topic at hand though-- I think getting a nuke into the US (be it van sized or suit-case sized) is FAR too easy, be it from Mexico, our own Pacific or Atlantic ports, or Canada. Never minding the thought of ICBM's raining down on us.. I do support Bush's push for a 'defense shield' however, because honestly it's the best solution for the current problem:

Rogue states, be it North Korea, Iraq, or any other, can purchase on the black market (or elsewhere) or manufacture ICBM nukes capable of reaching our shores, but only in SMALL quantities.

Now we're supposedly disarming anyways, right? That's what all of the treaties thus far are for, disarming and not proliferating new nuclear weapons, right? So why not allow the design and deployment of a 'shield' to defend against small-scale attacks (5-10 missiles, maybe a few more, but less than 100)?

It seems our greatest threat isn't from Russia or China (who either have treaties with us, or simply don't want to face a full reprisal if an attack is launched), but from smaller nations that use one of the tactics above to acquire nuclear weapons technology and a launcher that can hit our country. We need to defend against this, and I fully hope Bush plows ahead with it.

Now one thing that hasn't really been suggested by either the media or the President has been possibly quelling some of Russia's issues with the shield by sharing technology with them and perhaps even installing (or helping install) a similar shield in Russia. I think this would prove to be a good faith builder, and hell, maybe they'll like the idea enough to add their own expertise to the equation, making a more reliable and safer shield overall.

The only problem with this is the thought of Russia selling or sharing the technology with China and/or Iraq or any other nation we view as a 'rogue' state, or have set to an unfriendly status currently. Plus it doesn't help that Russia has this habit of having technology sold by it's scientists to the highest bidders behind their leaders backs..

This is one scary book that everybody should read. The Russian author, Ken Alibek, moved to Alabama (where I live) where he was a consultant after his defection to the US Army Chemical/Biological Warfare Group at Fort McClellan in Anniston, so I have actually followed this story fairly closely. Dr. Alibek is basically the guy behind the drive to vaccinate the US Army against anthrax, which has caused quite a furor over the past few years. A slide show he gave/gives fairly frequently is here and his Congressional testimony is here... it's VERY interesting reading. If Dr. Alibek's writings don't induce a rising sense of worry in the back of your mind, just keep reading here.

Instead of writing a reply here, write one (on paper) here:
Senate Address Lookup and House of Representative Address Lookup
We heard about it, read about, whined and cried about it. What about doing something about it? Like singing to the choir we complain about how the government is letting big business get away with.... Everyone is taking our rights....yada yada yada... If we do not care enough to actually put pen to paper, we are not really serious. If we are not serious why should we be taken seriously?

Wake up, smell the JAVA and act!

Pretty stupid.

There are exceptions, though, to the notice requirements in Gramm-Leach-Bliley, for fraud prevention and law enforcement and a few other choice purposes. If you're interested, check out Article V of the GLB.

On a related note, look out for the upcoming Financial Services Antifraud Network Act (H.R. 1408) which is currently in the House Committee on Financial Institutions. If passed, any complaints, investigations and other suspicious activity information (even if unsubstantiated), plus background checks and criminal records could be shared by 200 or so "regulators" (including some private entities) in the insurance, banking, and securities industries in the name of fraud prevention.

That should say "contributions are protected as free speech," and it would if I used the preview button like I'm supposed to.

Are you saying that Democrats are almost as greedy and corrupted as Republicans? My god, what a revelation.

"Oh, and if you read your links, they gave a vast majority of it to the parties in general, not to individuals ($5k limit, it makes it hard to buy people)."

I would say that $5k is plenty, but that's irrelevant since the limit means nothing. And if the limit could work despite non-federal accounts and pseudo-independent PACs, the contributions would still be limitless because, thanks to those loveable lobbyists, contributions are .

"So, if they They bought whatever / whomever they needed, why did this not happen years earlier, ie: before the first verdict?"

Check the original links, which I'm sure you poured over, given your snide response; Microsoft has only been a corrupting force on Capitol Hill for a little less than 2 years.

I didn't appreciate the judge botching this up either, but obviously you have it all figured out. And you're not the only one who shares that opinion of slashdot. Hell, I would say at least 10% of slashdot readers think that 100% of slashdot readers are mindless anti-MS zealots. Which leads me to believe that around 10% of slashdot readers are morons who have yet to figure out that they're reading slashdot.

According to this, his email address is gephardt@mail.house.gov


- - - - -

You mean gephardt@mail.house.gov.

Wyden: is a dick and doesn't even want to hear from anyone outside of Oregon. Too bad for him. Doesn't post his email address online, but hit his contact page and leave a note.

Gephardt: is actually a house member, not a senator. Also resists communication from citizens outside the 3rd district of MO. The only way I found to email him is to start at his contact page, click the "email" link, and pretend you're from that district.

Jesus! Anyone know an easier way to get through to these folks via email?!

---

Spam search engines, please take these two email addresses and imortalize them in your hallowed database of infamy --> gephardt@mail.house.gov gephardt@mail.house.gov

senator_wyden@exchange.senate.gov
gephardt@mail.house.gov

Gephardt's got a page here. Same deal. No public e-mail address given.

One of Thomas Jefferson's letters addresses this. "It has been pretended by some, (and in England especially,) that inventors have a natural and exclusive right to their inventions... If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea... He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me."

To reject IP as a legal fiction only leads us back to a terrifying fact that all property is, in essence, a lie. But it is a useful lie...

The U.S. Constitution does not grant patents and copyrights on the grounds of property rights. It grants them "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts...". The phrase "intellectual property" is an oxymoron.

I agree that patents and copyrights, properly applied, have great social utility. But I would also argue that the DMCA and other current laws do not. Quite the opposite.

Or where you refering to the $30+ billion in direct, cash, development subsidies provide by Germany, France, and Italy to produce the "better" planes? Including:

• Assumption of virtually all development costs of new/upgraded aircraft.
• Provision of loans at below-market rates that don't have to be paid back until aircraft are sold.
• Provision of subsidies to develop otherwise-uneconomic products specifically to displace US-produced content

Here's a few more examples:

http://www.house.gov/lipinski/aviation.htm

No one is forced to eat there, do business there, or work there, but they're somehow super oppressive and evil.

Whoever modded this up to 5 must have been reading too much Ayn Rand. In fact, if these companies force competitors out of business, I am essentially forced to eat there. (Yes, I know, I can go home and make myself a sandwich, but you get the point.)

When it comes to real estate, marketing, etc., these corporation have an incredible amount of power compared to the competition. Now those who are wont to jump for joy at this display of capitalism in action should take note of a few things.

The ability to drive out competition can have nothing to do with quality or service. Merely the ability to pay higher rents, etc., until the competition leaves.

The short-term "benefits" of these megacorps often hide long-term effects that we will pay for long after this crop of shareholders cashes in on their stock dividends. An example is the loss of rainforest land and subsequent reduction in biodiversity due to slash and burn cattle ranching.

This is one of the main problems with capitalism as practised today. Cheap, short-term solutions can almost always win out by hiding expenses in long-term issues that aren't considered. If companies had to pay taxes based on those cost (e.g., throw-away packaging, strip mining), then we wouldn't see some of quality of life issues that plague us today.

And we want the government to be super-powerful to protect us from the corporate evil, but it'll never occur to us that the government's power might be used against us.

The best way to combat this possibility is not by donning fatigues and joining the local survivalists, but by staying involved in a government by the people.

This is my problem with the Libertarian party, and you've summed it up nicely. They understand what's right and what's wrong, but they're so misguided by anti-government rhetoric that they blind themselves to any possibility that a greedy, money-making machine, might be as big a problem as an oppressive government. Corporations are made up of people with rights like you and I, but the 'fascist government' you despise gave the corporation itself, the rights of an individual. A soulless machine with profit as it's only priority, has the same constitutional rights as a person with morals and ethics. These 'benefits' are bought and paid for, but despite the fact that they're sold by a corrupt government (that I imagine you agree is a problem), liberals can't see beyond a starry-eyed dream of 'capitalism in a free market'. At least, not long enough to admit that Corporate America is just as problematic. The founding fathers wrote corporate law for a reason, and it became unenforceable when corporations won the rights of a person. We can't restrict people from owning more than one home or business, we can't restrict their free speech, or their right to support an elected official with their hard-earned money. So now we can't Viacom/Infinity from owning half the radio stations in the country; now laws that regulate how many they can own are being misconstrued and shot down as 'unconstitutional'. We can't keep corporations from burying our government in bribes, because the money they spend is protected by the freaking 1st amendment! And when they use their mass-media ownership to give the entire country breaking news on crib safety instead of corporate welfare, there's nothing we can do but pile up on the couch and kiss democracy good-bye -- because corporate america is the American dream! A pristine ideal of profit in the free world! Besides, who cares about a little plutocaracy? If we don't watch dateline tonight our babies might die!!

/vent

I don't think the fact the page is in French is the problem... I think the majority of the problem is this:

Any member of congress (and I mean ANY) that chooses to use this picture on his or her main page is scary, to say the least.

Anyone else think he looks like Goofy after a fishing trip? Just imagine him saying, "Gowrsh! Look at awwl da fish I cawt, uh guh!"
--

I guess Grucci used to be a judge, because on his barly existant web page, he puts his mailing address as
The Honorable Felix J. Grucci, Jr.
1505 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225-3826
Fax: (202) 225-3143

Or maby he just has an ego problem? or does Honerable also qualify for Congressman, because if it does. HEHEHHE

I find the pictures amuzing. On the Cajun site, he's a smiling fool with a couple of big catfish in his boat. On the english site, he wears a suit in an office somewhere. interesting, eh?

--

CSPAN did not cover this government hearing. Nor does the House (to the best of my knowledge) publish an audio archive of the witnesses' and Representatives' testimony and statements. The official Congressional record is weeks - if not months - away, and even then it will be edited and amended ("without objection so ordered") from the actual words spoken.

Fortunately for us a Patriot recorded the live Windows Media stream (which would have otherwise been lost to the 'ether'), converted it to MP3 format, and shared it with me via Napster. And now most importantly I am empowered to share it with you.

As a result, I/we are better informed -within hours- of our Legislators' actual spoken opinions, nuances and proclivities regarding their views on the issues relating to copy-right, music and the Internet.

P2P, or Peer2Peer, is really Patriot2Patriot in the sprit of Thomas Paine, Paul Revere and Thomas Jefferson (to name but a few).

So, while in Washington, D.C., I shared with Rep. Rohrabacher, Truax's vision of a rapid-turn-around reusable system and how additional legislation we were proposing, such as giving tax incentives for capitalization of commercial space transport systems, would help guys like Truax get people to plop down their own cash to help him get started.

I was pretty exhausted both physically and financially from all the political activism, so I took a position as VP of Public Affairs with E'Prime Aerospace Corporation, initially to acquire the first Ka-band orbital slot from the FCC. It was for Norris Communications' geostationary "Norstar" satellite -- one of E'Prime's potential customers. This was all keeping an eye to attract capital for both E'Prime and Norris Communications. As part of that work, I ended up in Los Angeles. There, cable companies were interested in the high-frequency of Ka-band (and consequently smaller dishes for direct-broadcast media services). We had some potential investors interested. In the middle of the day of meetings with our potential investors, they disappeared. When we investigated, it turned out that McDonnell-Douglas had just (and I mean that day) held a press conference announcing they were going into a "public private partnership" to develop what would come to be known as the DC-X for "Delta Clipper-Experimental". In addition to satellite launching, one of the early applications touted for this vehicle was to be commercial transportation services shuttling cargo between ports on earth.

McDonnell-Douglas's headquarters were located in Long Beach, CA just a few miles from our meeting place. Long Beach, CA was Rep. Rohrabacher's district.

I'd start forwarding my spam to the honorable congressmen who support it, but Barr's Web site doesn't have an email address I can find (perhaps because of spam? ), and the link on Goodlatte's page to "e-mail Bob" goes to a lookup page for representatives' mailing addresses. Morons. (And what's with the cookies on the House Web site?)

I suppose the Securities Industry Association ("We are engaged and active in trying to slow this train down") will have to do.

I'd start forwarding my spam to the honorable congressmen who support it, but Barr's Web site doesn't have an email address I can find (perhaps because of spam? ), and the link on Goodlatte's page to "e-mail Bob" goes to a lookup page for representatives' mailing addresses. Morons. (And what's with the cookies on the House Web site?)

I suppose the Securities Industry Association ("We are engaged and active in trying to slow this train down") will have to do.

While it is an excellent point you make, I must wonder why you imply a correlation between Libertarians and the rhetoric of the war party politicians and their cheerleaders. Libertarians are the one group that consistently point this out. Bevin Chu, Alan Bock and even conservative Libertarian Representative Ron Paul all point out this and other errors in the rhetoric adopted by both wings of the war party - the neocons on the right and the clintonistas on the left.

they should give Senators and Representatives e-training classes to make them more aware of current issues and get them to check their friggin' e-mails

Actualy, I'd be willing to let them allocate a totaly unreasonable amount of money just to get their email addresses posted in a reasonably logical fassion. My representive is Robert Goodlatte of Virginia. Now if you follow the provided link you'll find a cutsy little page that his staff has set up. But if you try to e-mail him you get thrown into a little web-craplet which will allow you to email him. Why oh why don't they just give me his flippin address so I can email him myself????

I'm sorry, for someone with his list of credientials I'm really shocked he's not more attuned to those of us who actualy have our own email accounts and harbor a deep and personal hatred of webmail.

I belive it was Plato that said "If the people are given the right to choose their rulers they will elect fools and naives."

This has been another useless post from....

they should give Senators and Representatives e-training classes to make them more aware of current issues and get them to check their friggin' e-mails

Actualy, I'd be willing to let them allocate a totaly unreasonable amount of money just to get their email addresses posted in a reasonably logical fassion. My representive is Robert Goodlatte of Virginia. Now if you follow the provided link you'll find a cutsy little page that his staff has set up. But if you try to e-mail him you get thrown into a little web-craplet which will allow you to email him. Why oh why don't they just give me his flippin address so I can email him myself????

I'm sorry, for someone with his list of credientials I'm really shocked he's not more attuned to those of us who actualy have our own email accounts and harbor a deep and personal hatred of webmail.

I belive it was Plato that said "If the people are given the right to choose their rulers they will elect fools and naives."

This has been another useless post from....

they should give Senators and Representatives e-training classes to make them more aware of current issues and get them to check their friggin' e-mails

Actualy, I'd be willing to let them allocate a totaly unreasonable amount of money just to get their email addresses posted in a reasonably logical fassion. My representive is Robert Goodlatte of Virginia. Now if you follow the provided link you'll find a cutsy little page that his staff has set up. But if you try to e-mail him you get thrown into a little web-craplet which will allow you to email him. Why oh why don't they just give me his flippin address so I can email him myself????

I'm sorry, for someone with his list of credientials I'm really shocked he's not more attuned to those of us who actualy have our own email accounts and harbor a deep and personal hatred of webmail.

I belive it was Plato that said "If the people are given the right to choose their rulers they will elect fools and naives."

This has been another useless post from....

Slashdotters across the country should be informed of , with its inclusion of a bill by y Representative Billy Tauzin (R-LA) allowing BabyBells to prevent local ISPs from accessing their DSL lines.

ISPs typically don't, as far as I know, "access DSL lines", if by that you mean "provide 'DSLtone' on DSL lines"; that's done by the ILEC or a CLEC. (Covad and Rhythms are CLECs, and Northpoint was a CLEC).

A DSL customer can access an ISP over their DSL ; if that's what you mean, then, for what it's worth, H. R. 1542 says, according to the contents as shown on the US Library of Congress THOMAS service, says:

SEC. 5. INTERNET CONSUMERS FREEDOM OF CHOICE.

Part I of title II of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended by section 4, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

`SEC. 233. INTERNET CONSUMERS FREEDOM OF CHOICE.

`(a) PURPOSE- It is the purpose of this section to ensure that Internet users have freedom of choice of Internet service provider.

`(b) OBLIGATIONS OF INCUMBENT LOCAL EXCHANGE CARRIERS- Each incumbent local exchange carrier has the duty to provide--

`(1) Internet users with the ability to subscribe to and have access to any Internet service provider that interconnects with such carrier's high speed data service;

`(2) any Internet service provider with the right to acquire the facilities and services necessary to interconnect with such carrier's high speed data service for the provision of Internet access service; and

`(3) any Internet service provider with the ability to collocate[sic] equipment in accordance with the provisions of section 251, to the extent necessary to achieve the objectives of paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection.

`(c) DEFINITIONS- As used in this section--

`(1) INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDER- The term `Internet service provider' means any provider of Internet access service.

`(2) INCUMBENT LOCAL EXCHANGE CARRIER- The term `incumbent local exchange carrier' has the same meaning as provided in section 251(h).'.

H. R. 1542 also says:

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- Section 251 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 251) is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:

`(j) EXEMPTION-

`(1) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (c) and (d), the Commission shall not require an incumbent local exchange carrier to--

`(A) provide unbundled access to any network elements used in the provision of any high speed data service, other than those network elements described in section 51.319 of the Commission's regulations (47 C.F.R. 51.319), as in effect on January 1, 1999; or

`(B) offer for resale at wholesale rates any high speed data service.

It defines a "high-speed data service" thus:

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS

(a) AMENDMENTS- Section 3 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 153) is amended--

(1) by redesignating paragraph (20) as paragraph (21);

(2) by redesignating paragraphs (21) through (52) as paragraphs (24) through (54), respectively;

(3) by inserting after paragraph (19) the following new paragraph:

`(20) HIGH SPEED DATA SERVICE- The term `high speed data service' means any service that consists of or includes the offering of a capability to transmit, using a packet-switched or successor technology, information at a rate that is generally not less than 384 kilobits per second in at least one direction.';

This all sounds as if it states that ILECs have the duty to let ISPs connect to their ATM cloud in such a way as to let them send cells to and receive cells from users connected to the central office via DSL.

I don't know whether merely stating that they have the duty to do so means that the government is empowered to force them to do so, however, nor do I know whether, even if they are empowered to do so, they'll bother doing so.

In any case, note that I Am Not A Lawyer, and don't even play one on TV, and it may require a lawyer with a Big Fat Book Of U.S. Code (or to, for example, the Web site for the Office of the Law Revision Counsel, which, it appears, will let you look up stuff in the U.S. Code), so that they can plow through the Communications Act of 1934 and all the various amendments to it, and figure out what the law would say after all the changes made to it by H. R. 1542, and with the law experience to say what the hell that would all mean.

If you're really fed up, do something about it.

Write your Congressmen.

For all of the highly-moderated comments here, your Congressional representatives do not read Slashdot. They do read your letters. (But not necessarily your email.)

Look up your House Representative at www.house.gov/writerep/ and your Senators at www.senate.gov. Write a letter, and address a copy to each of representatives.

Be clear, concise, and non-technical. Explain how the DMCA affects average citizens and consumers. Use examples from mainstream news sources to back up your argument. Keep it down to a page.

The ACLU has more tips for writing effective letters to your Congressmen.

Unless you write your representatives, you are one of the ones who stood by and did nothing.

Sometimes the court system works like it's supposed to. Sometimes it doesn't. This Supreme Court has made LOTS of 5-4 decisions, and it's hard to say which way it will go on any given case.

That's why we have to make this a legislative issue RIGHT NOW, before the law gets any older, before people become even more complacent with its effects.

Take an hour or two to draft a one-page letter (not an email) to your House Representative and your Senators. Present the fair use and free speech issues clearly and as concisely as you possibly can. Be as non-technical as possible. Use examples from the news where this law has affected real people (other than music pirates). Include copies of relevent articles from mainstream publications like The New York Times. And proofread your letter, then let a friend proofread your letter.

As has been noted on Slashdot before, you can look up contact information for Senators by state at http://www.senate.gov/ and for House members by state at http://www.house.gov/writerep/.

This was well played on their part. Everyone seems to have heard about how the evil RIAA is using the DMCA to block academic research. Heck, even my Mom has heard of it, and she doesn't know how to turn on a computer!

Now, we need to take the next step! Take 10 minutes and tell your Senators and Representatives how you feel about this!

You can find out who they are, and how to contact them, over at:

• Search For Senators by State
• Search For Representatives by State

Yeah, yeah, same thing every story, but I find it useful, so here are the links:

Write your Senator.
Write your Representative.
Remember, snail mail only-- e-mail really doesn't do shit. And include that return address everywhere, so they know you're in their district. And finally, if your state is considering other similarly draconian measures such as UCITA, write your state government as well (site at www.[two letter state code].gov).

This is the section of US Code that deals with fair use of copyrighted works:
(Sorry it's in MS Word DOC format, write to your congressman if you don't like it.)

US Code Title 17 Chapter 1 Section 107

Section 107 is on page 126 of the Word document.
If this was already posted, feel free to flame me to death (I'm sure someone will anyway).

This is false. Money buys protection against punishment for nonpayment of taxes and taxes are not "collectively" collected -- they are collected by sadistic police-power:

Federal Reserve + IRS = The Protection Racket Coup of 1913

by Jim Bowery
Jim Bowery, January 13, 2001 -- The author grants the right to copy, without modification.

INTRODUCTION

Federal Reserve money buys protection from punishment. You are punished if you don't pay taxes. This has become the Federal Reserve's primary monetary authority. The moral hazard of basing monetary authority on punishment has now been realized in the systemic and out-of-control gang rapes of prisoners in the US. All other unlawful acts by US governments are now overshadowed by the murderous, sexually sadistic character of governmental authority that has developed in US penal systems. Federal Reserve money is now protection racket money, or, if you prefer "punishment protection money". Calling it "fiat money", "debt money" or even "legal tender" obscures its true character. The transition to this form of money began in 1913, when the 16th Amendment dramatically expanded the potential need for legal tender in the form of taxes while, in that same year, the Federal Reserve Act started the process of removing from legal tender any backing value other than the protection it affords against punishment. That the redefinition of "legal tender" was unconstitutional(1) has become only a minor dimension of the massive decay in legitimacy and moral leadership during the 20th century triggered by these acts of 1913. These acts were largely in the interest of continental European banking concerns doing business under the name of J. P. Morgan. As vital interests of the United States were sacrificed on their behalf, those foreign interests are reasonably called "enemies of the United States", the acts of U.S. citizens on their behalf "treasons", and all such citizens "traitors".

THE MORAL HAZARD OF GOVERNMENT AND MONEY

Legitimate governments provide assurance that we are secure in our lives and properties by protecting our legal rights in exchange for taxes and other duties. The most legitimate governments will even back up their commitment by providing some sort of compensation if our legal rights are breached, much the same as insurance companies do when they pay out on an insurance policy. But there is a fine line between protection rackets and insurance companies. Indeed, gangsters frequently call their protection rackets "insurance" and the payments they extort from their victims "insurance premiums". That fine line between protector and protection racket is crossed when "moral hazard" tempts the "protector" beyond the limits of his character.

In conventional insurance terminology, "moral hazard" is the temptation to artificially increase hazards. A classic case of moral hazard is an otherwise unprofitable business buying lots of fire insurance and then hiring an arsonist to burn down the place of business.

Insurers, too, can profit by increasing hazards if it is the uninsured who suffer the exposure to risk. A classic example of an insurer's moral hazard is the temptation to parasitize a productive business by threatening it with destruction unless the owners pay regular "insurance premiums".

And that brings us to the morality of governance.

The most profound moral hazard for governance is the penal system combined with taxation.

The framers of the US Constitution included prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment under the 8th Amendment. They also made it difficult to parasitize productive States. This they did by requiring that taxation on a State's citizenry be proportional to the State's population under Article. 1. Section. 2. Clause 3. and Article. 1. Section. 9. Clause 4. Making taxes proportional to State population helps control the moral hazard of governance at the Federal level by making it difficult for the Federal government to transfer wealth to States that are politically active from States that are economically productive. Also, States are more capable of defending themselves from the Federal government than are individuals. Unfortunately, the requirement for taxation proportional to State population ("with apportionment" and "with regard to the census") was removed by the 16th Amendment, thereby promoting political porkbarrel at the Federal level and punishing productivity. In the same year the Federal Reserve Act gave license to gradually reduce legal tender's reliance on gold and silver as backing value, leaving the protection legal tender afforded against government punishment it's primary backing value. (Shortly thereafter, the 17th Amendment also removed from the States the power to elect Senators, further eroding the States' ability to protect their citizens from the federal government.)

These acts of treason have produced profound moral hazard at the Federal level, and set the stage for the relentless and radical decay of moral leadership during the 20th century.

WARRIOR INSURANCE

The proper role of government is protection against force and fraud. Therefore, to keep it honest, government's source of revenue should be insurance premiums against loss due to force and fraud. Said premiums could be payable in notes issued by the insurer/protector, but the insurer/protector should merely cancel the insurance policy and cease protecting those who do not pay. An insurer/protector should not generate the market for their own notes by threatening to punish those who do not pay -- as that is a protection racket, even if the insurer/protector honorably indemnifies those who do pay in the event of a covered loss. Such insurance premiums and corresponding insurance coverage would, necessarily, stipulate other conditions under which the insurance/protection continued to be provided at the agreed upon rates. This amounts to taxation on asset value, adjusted for various conditions that may affect risk -- with the added guarantee of indemnification in the event that asset value is lost due to force or fraud.

Such a system actually eliminates governance, as we know it. I call it "warrior insurance".

Under warrior insurance, reinsurance networks take the place of existing international treaties and alliances. Intelligent warrior reinsurance networks will check loss of asset value resulting from gang, or "protection racket" formation well in advance of any need for warfare. Warrior insurance premiums eliminate taxation. Competition between warrior insurance companies creates checks and balances supporting liberty. Formation of mass armies on ideological/political grounds is suppressed by exposing the underlying quid-pro-quo of reciprocal altruism that actually exists between people and their sovereignties -- over-extended kin identification, the basis of political and religious warfare as well as one-world ideology, is rendered less viable. Warrior insurance companies are much like the original sovereignties that defended newly formed civilizations -- they are, in fact, quite traditional. Empires subsumed the original sovereignties because trade, communication and literacy were so centralized. In the information age, this is decreasingly the case. What is increasingly necessary is a strong, distributed militia living lives bonded to their communities and lands from generation to generation, who value honor above their own lives. Unlike systems of taxation, warrior insurers will compensate those who are bonded for conscription in time of war, or deputized in times of civil emergency. Those so bonded would naturally demand a vote, or representation, in declarations of war or civil emergency.

Under warrior insurance, the citizens' militias traditionally enjoy tax relief, since they are in effect, protecting themselves. In Scotland, rather than forming a Yeoman class from the "kindly tenants", "feu fees" were imposed to pay for foreign war debts during the Protestant Reformation, thereby dispossessing ancient families of their lands to make way for revenue generating land use such as wool-producing sheep. Kindly tenants were kindred or clan members who had traditionally been given relief from economic rent/taxation in exchange for sworn allegiance to their clans' militias under the command of their chiefs. But the clan chiefs were corrupted by the royalty which had become more interested foreign adventures than they were in allowing the clans to support and protect themselves and their families on their own lands. The royal war debts began consuming the livelihoods of the folk. Many were forced to flee for their lives. This was the primary origin of the Scotch-Irish pioneers who attempted to create a society in "the New World", free from such betrayals of clan loyalty. The earliest pioneers suffered a 25% mortality rate in the first year of migration in their desperation to create that "New World". This was not merely the moral equivalent of war -- it was death on a massive scale in a struggle with nature herself (war with natives was not the primary cause of these deaths), on the one hand, and tyranny on the other. As usual mostly men went to the frontier to risk everything for their new lands, but many women and children also suffered similar fates. As a consequence, the founders of the United States, folk memory still fresh, thought the avoidance of foreign wars to be common sense. This gave rise to the Monroe Doctrine and the avoidance of foreign wars.

Compare and contrast such a system to the internationally adventurous protection racket posing as a government we have today.


THE MURDEROUS, SEXUALLY SADISTIC BASIS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE

Forget the Clothes --The Emperor is a Murdering Rapist Run Amok

Many critics of President Clinton accused him of being a murdering rapist. But President Clinton was simply the by-product of an epic perversion that has overtaken the lawful government of the United States. It would be understatement to call this perversion a criminal gang. Criminal gangs only occasionally commit rape and murder against their own community. They don't pretend to be a lawful authorities in public. They don't issue their own currency as protection racket money and then demand it as "legal tender". They may rationalize their criminal conduct, but they don't convince themselves that what they are doing is lawful. They admit to themselves that they are gangsters. At least they are that honest. But, perhaps this is simply because gangsters are afraid to compete with the most massive criminal organization in history, whose roots extend back at least to 1913 when the Income Tax and Federal Reserve were created.

The Federal Reserve was created in the same year as the Income Tax for one simple reason:

The US Federal Government was shifting from Reward to Punishment Protection as the basis for its monetary authority.

Federal Reserve Notes are promises to reduce the bearer's risk of punishment for tax code violation, upon presentation to its collection agency, the IRS, in the form of Income Tax.

Note here that it is impossible to reduce the risk of punishment for violation of the income tax code to a level commensurate to the threat of prisoner gang-rape(5). This has become the foundation of the IRS/Fed's all-pervasive aura of fear(6) upon which their punishment protection money is based. The Income tax code is so complex that not even the IRS with all its private contractors from law and accounting firms, can reliably and reproducibly interpret it. This makes it possible only to _reduce_ the risk of punishment -- no matter how much wealth you turn over to the IRS.

In this manner the federal government creates demand for the Federal Reserve's otherwise worthless paper(7). Under the evil monetary basis of punishment protection, the government's monetary authority is limited only by the degree to which it can create pervasive terror of its prison system in the hearts of nonviolent potential tax code "offenders" -- and that means you.

With punishment protection as the basis of its monetary authority, and therefore its ability to buy votes, it was only a matter of time before the US Federal Government, as though an animal trained by operant conditioning, would find ways of increasing the severity and cruelty of its punishments.

But like rat in a maze, the US Federal Government had a problem to solve:

How to impose cruel and unusual punishment without arousing the wrath of a people whose ancestors had risked a 1 in 4 chance of dying in the first year of migration to the New World in order to escape just such evils?

The solution, reached without conscious intent (conspiracy) of individuals was a form of punishment so cruel and unusual -- SO TABOO -- that no decent human being would even want to think about it, let alone use freedom of speech and the press to talk about it:

Gradually cultivate prisoner rape as the basis of government authority.

By replacing pillory, open corporeal punishments and work restitution, so common before the 20th century, with an environment in which Mafiosi and other gangster types are protected from prisoner rape while the American pioneer cultures, less prone to prison gang formation, are systemically gang-raped, an ethnic bias was created against the very peoples who founded the country to escape government predation. The actual bias is apparent as at least 3 out of 4 prisoner rapes involve blacks victimizing men of Protestant heritage while Mediterranean Mafiosi are somehow immune.

The ruthlessly pragmatic and sadistically sociopathic genius of this is that its very intensity, both as physical trauma and moral outrage, rendered it invisible.

Such is the mentality of the child molester who relies on the traumatic nature of his crime to cover his tracks -- seemingly unable to control his subconscious urges. Such was the mentality of those men who, in 1913, gave us the Federal Reserve and the Income Tax.

CONCLUSION

As with a molested child whose shame and guilt compound his trauma, so the American people have come to accept as, as fated, a life lived with this filthy family secret(8). The US Federal Government, now basing its authority on cruel and unusual punishment, cannot be considered legitimate by any reasonable man . The fundamental role that the application of force against citizens plays in defining legitimacy demands such a radical conclusion.

Warrior insurance will be a crucial tool in the triumph of honor over the political will that has so corrupted the rule of law. But honorable warriors need something to protect. Pioneers risk their lives creating new lands. Women then risk their lives giving birth to new folk. Finally, warriors risk their lives protecting their lands and their folk.

The burden of leadership falls, as it did after the feu fees that so motivated the Scotch-Irish, on pioneers.

The dilemma, facing those of us who value the heritage of those early Americans who risked so much to escape sadistic authority in the old world, is not whether we are willing to risk our lives for freedom from such tyranny, but whether we can pioneer a 'New World' where our love of freedom can bear fruit in the face of death.

References

(1) This is a consequence of the unlawful declaration that Federal Reserve Notes are "legal tender". "Legal tender" is called such because courts are required to accept it as money for legal purposes (by far, the largest legal purpose of money is payment of taxes). The US Constitution, under Article 1, Section 10 requires the States to use only gold and silver as payment for legally recognized debts. Article 1, section 8 does not give Congress power to make legal tender. Therefore, the declaration that Federal Reserve Notes are "legal tender for all debts public and private" is unlawful. The best counter arguments to this generally ignore the fact that the paper currency issued by the original central banks were presumed to not be backed by legal tender's value as protection against punishment, let alone cruel and unusual punishment.

(2) See http://www.spr.org/docs/stats.html

(3) The "Scared Straight" program from the 1970s is still going strong as evidenced by this April 5, 1997 article from the Lubbock Avalance- Journal: http://www.lubbockonline.com/news/040697/prison.ht m

An excerpt:

"DALLAS (AP) - A grand jury has refused to indict prison inmates in connection
with a ''scared straight'' prison visit during which several boys claimed to have been molested."

(4) Assistant U.S. attorney Gordon Zubrod from Harrisburg, PA made the following public statement to 3 suspects who fled to Canada (this statement was captured for the public record during a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation interview):

"You're going to be the boyfriend of a very bad man if you wait out your extradition."

(5) Look at the classic paper on the value of human life by Nobel prize winning economist George Stigler of the University of Chicago School of Business. He measured the effect of danger on wage rates in different professions. Prison is more of a danger in some lines of activity than others. We should be able to apply similar analytic techniques to the relationship between taxation and the prison system.

(6) "Prison Rape: Every Man's Greatest Fear", August 1995, Penthouse.

(7) Although the thesis of this paper does not necessarily predict it, an increase in the rate of prisoner suicide negatively correlating with the rate of inflation would be supportive.

(8) A final anecdote on silence: When the author of this white paper was called in for an audit by the IRS in 1994, he sought a tax attorney to represent him. During an interview with a prospective attorney the author told the attorney he thought the audit might have been politically motivated. When asked for details, the author related that the author had published articles on the Internet advocating a judical review of the legitimacy of the ratification of the 16th Amendment about one month prior to the notice of audit. The attorney then told the author that he could not represent the author. According to this tax attorney, he had attended a seminar given by the IRS in which the distinct impression was given that "tax protesters" were not to be defended and that any attorney who defended a "tax protester" would be subjected to a lifetime of audits. This was later confirmed during an interaction with a prominent southern California tax attorney when it became known that the IRS auditor had verbally admitted to his consulting accountant that the author was being audited because of his advocacy of a judicial review of the 16th Amendment's ratification.

In a related situation currently ongoing in China, a spokesperson for the Falun Gong Practitioners in North America has stated that: "lawyers in China have already been told not to defend these innocent civilians unless they agree with the government propaganda." The U.S. House and Senate unanimously passed resolutions on 1999-NOV-18 and 19 which criticized the Chinese government for its crackdown of the Falun Gong.

This is false. Money buys protection against punishment for nonpayment of taxes and taxes are not "collectively" collected -- they are collected by sadistic police-power:

Federal Reserve + IRS = The Protection Racket Coup of 1913

by Jim Bowery
Jim Bowery, January 13, 2001 -- The author grants the right to copy, without modification.

INTRODUCTION

Federal Reserve money buys protection from punishment. You are punished if you don't pay taxes. This has become the Federal Reserve's primary monetary authority. The moral hazard of basing monetary authority on punishment has now been realized in the systemic and out-of-control gang rapes of prisoners in the US. All other unlawful acts by US governments are now overshadowed by the murderous, sexually sadistic character of governmental authority that has developed in US penal systems. Federal Reserve money is now protection racket money, or, if you prefer "punishment protection money". Calling it "fiat money", "debt money" or even "legal tender" obscures its true character. The transition to this form of money began in 1913, when the 16th Amendment dramatically expanded the potential need for legal tender in the form of taxes while, in that same year, the Federal Reserve Act started the process of removing from legal tender any backing value other than the protection it affords against punishment. That the redefinition of "legal tender" was unconstitutional(1) has become only a minor dimension of the massive decay in legitimacy and moral leadership during the 20th century triggered by these acts of 1913. These acts were largely in the interest of continental European banking concerns doing business under the name of J. P. Morgan. As vital interests of the United States were sacrificed on their behalf, those foreign interests are reasonably called "enemies of the United States", the acts of U.S. citizens on their behalf "treasons", and all such citizens "traitors".

THE MORAL HAZARD OF GOVERNMENT AND MONEY

Legitimate governments provide assurance that we are secure in our lives and properties by protecting our legal rights in exchange for taxes and other duties. The most legitimate governments will even back up their commitment by providing some sort of compensation if our legal rights are breached, much the same as insurance companies do when they pay out on an insurance policy. But there is a fine line between protection rackets and insurance companies. Indeed, gangsters frequently call their protection rackets "insurance" and the payments they extort from their victims "insurance premiums". That fine line between protector and protection racket is crossed when "moral hazard" tempts the "protector" beyond the limits of his character.

In conventional insurance terminology, "moral hazard" is the temptation to artificially increase hazards. A classic case of moral hazard is an otherwise unprofitable business buying lots of fire insurance and then hiring an arsonist to burn down the place of business.

Insurers, too, can profit by increasing hazards if it is the uninsured who suffer the exposure to risk. A classic example of an insurer's moral hazard is the temptation to parasitize a productive business by threatening it with destruction unless the owners pay regular "insurance premiums".

And that brings us to the morality of governance.

The most profound moral hazard for governance is the penal system combined with taxation.

The framers of the US Constitution included prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment under the 8th Amendment. They also made it difficult to parasitize productive States. This they did by requiring that taxation on a State's citizenry be proportional to the State's population under Article. 1. Section. 2. Clause 3. and Article. 1. Section. 9. Clause 4. Making taxes proportional to State population helps control the moral hazard of governance at the Federal level by making it difficult for the Federal government to transfer wealth to States that are politically active from States that are economically productive. Also, States are more capable of defending themselves from the Federal government than are individuals. Unfortunately, the requirement for taxation proportional to State population ("with apportionment" and "with regard to the census") was removed by the 16th Amendment, thereby promoting political porkbarrel at the Federal level and punishing productivity. In the same year the Federal Reserve Act gave license to gradually reduce legal tender's reliance on gold and silver as backing value, leaving the protection legal tender afforded against government punishment it's primary backing value. (Shortly thereafter, the 17th Amendment also removed from the States the power to elect Senators, further eroding the States' ability to protect their citizens from the federal government.)

These acts of treason have produced profound moral hazard at the Federal level, and set the stage for the relentless and radical decay of moral leadership during the 20th century.

WARRIOR INSURANCE

The proper role of government is protection against force and fraud. Therefore, to keep it honest, government's source of revenue should be insurance premiums against loss due to force and fraud. Said premiums could be payable in notes issued by the insurer/protector, but the insurer/protector should merely cancel the insurance policy and cease protecting those who do not pay. An insurer/protector should not generate the market for their own notes by threatening to punish those who do not pay -- as that is a protection racket, even if the insurer/protector honorably indemnifies those who do pay in the event of a covered loss. Such insurance premiums and corresponding insurance coverage would, necessarily, stipulate other conditions under which the insurance/protection continued to be provided at the agreed upon rates. This amounts to taxation on asset value, adjusted for various conditions that may affect risk -- with the added guarantee of indemnification in the event that asset value is lost due to force or fraud.

Such a system actually eliminates governance, as we know it. I call it "warrior insurance".

Under warrior insurance, reinsurance networks take the place of existing international treaties and alliances. Intelligent warrior reinsurance networks will check loss of asset value resulting from gang, or "protection racket" formation well in advance of any need for warfare. Warrior insurance premiums eliminate taxation. Competition between warrior insurance companies creates checks and balances supporting liberty. Formation of mass armies on ideological/political grounds is suppressed by exposing the underlying quid-pro-quo of reciprocal altruism that actually exists between people and their sovereignties -- over-extended kin identification, the basis of political and religious warfare as well as one-world ideology, is rendered less viable. Warrior insurance companies are much like the original sovereignties that defended newly formed civilizations -- they are, in fact, quite traditional. Empires subsumed the original sovereignties because trade, communication and literacy were so centralized. In the information age, this is decreasingly the case. What is increasingly necessary is a strong, distributed militia living lives bonded to their communities and lands from generation to generation, who value honor above their own lives. Unlike systems of taxation, warrior insurers will compensate those who are bonded for conscription in time of war, or deputized in times of civil emergency. Those so bonded would naturally demand a vote, or representation, in declarations of war or civil emergency.

Under warrior insurance, the citizens' militias traditionally enjoy tax relief, since they are in effect, protecting themselves. In Scotland, rather than forming a Yeoman class from the "kindly tenants", "feu fees" were imposed to pay for foreign war debts during the Protestant Reformation, thereby dispossessing ancient families of their lands to make way for revenue generating land use such as wool-producing sheep. Kindly tenants were kindred or clan members who had traditionally been given relief from economic rent/taxation in exchange for sworn allegiance to their clans' militias under the command of their chiefs. But the clan chiefs were corrupted by the royalty which had become more interested foreign adventures than they were in allowing the clans to support and protect themselves and their families on their own lands. The royal war debts began consuming the livelihoods of the folk. Many were forced to flee for their lives. This was the primary origin of the Scotch-Irish pioneers who attempted to create a society in "the New World", free from such betrayals of clan loyalty. The earliest pioneers suffered a 25% mortality rate in the first year of migration in their desperation to create that "New World". This was not merely the moral equivalent of war -- it was death on a massive scale in a struggle with nature herself (war with natives was not the primary cause of these deaths), on the one hand, and tyranny on the other. As usual mostly men went to the frontier to risk everything for their new lands, but many women and children also suffered similar fates. As a consequence, the founders of the United States, folk memory still fresh, thought the avoidance of foreign wars to be common sense. This gave rise to the Monroe Doctrine and the avoidance of foreign wars.

Compare and contrast such a system to the internationally adventurous protection racket posing as a government we have today.


THE MURDEROUS, SEXUALLY SADISTIC BASIS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE

Forget the Clothes --The Emperor is a Murdering Rapist Run Amok

Many critics of President Clinton accused him of being a murdering rapist. But President Clinton was simply the by-product of an epic perversion that has overtaken the lawful government of the United States. It would be understatement to call this perversion a criminal gang. Criminal gangs only occasionally commit rape and murder against their own community. They don't pretend to be a lawful authorities in public. They don't issue their own currency as protection racket money and then demand it as "legal tender". They may rationalize their criminal conduct, but they don't convince themselves that what they are doing is lawful. They admit to themselves that they are gangsters. At least they are that honest. But, perhaps this is simply because gangsters are afraid to compete with the most massive criminal organization in history, whose roots extend back at least to 1913 when the Income Tax and Federal Reserve were created.

The Federal Reserve was created in the same year as the Income Tax for one simple reason:

The US Federal Government was shifting from Reward to Punishment Protection as the basis for its monetary authority.

Federal Reserve Notes are promises to reduce the bearer's risk of punishment for tax code violation, upon presentation to its collection agency, the IRS, in the form of Income Tax.

Note here that it is impossible to reduce the risk of punishment for violation of the income tax code to a level commensurate to the threat of prisoner gang-rape(5). This has become the foundation of the IRS/Fed's all-pervasive aura of fear(6) upon which their punishment protection money is based. The Income tax code is so complex that not even the IRS with all its private contractors from law and accounting firms, can reliably and reproducibly interpret it. This makes it possible only to _reduce_ the risk of punishment -- no matter how much wealth you turn over to the IRS.

In this manner the federal government creates demand for the Federal Reserve's otherwise worthless paper(7). Under the evil monetary basis of punishment protection, the government's monetary authority is limited only by the degree to which it can create pervasive terror of its prison system in the hearts of nonviolent potential tax code "offenders" -- and that means you.

With punishment protection as the basis of its monetary authority, and therefore its ability to buy votes, it was only a matter of time before the US Federal Government, as though an animal trained by operant conditioning, would find ways of increasing the severity and cruelty of its punishments.

But like rat in a maze, the US Federal Government had a problem to solve:

How to impose cruel and unusual punishment without arousing the wrath of a people whose ancestors had risked a 1 in 4 chance of dying in the first year of migration to the New World in order to escape just such evils?

The solution, reached without conscious intent (conspiracy) of individuals was a form of punishment so cruel and unusual -- SO TABOO -- that no decent human being would even want to think about it, let alone use freedom of speech and the press to talk about it:

Gradually cultivate prisoner rape as the basis of government authority.

By replacing pillory, open corporeal punishments and work restitution, so common before the 20th century, with an environment in which Mafiosi and other gangster types are protected from prisoner rape while the American pioneer cultures, less prone to prison gang formation, are systemically gang-raped, an ethnic bias was created against the very peoples who founded the country to escape government predation. The actual bias is apparent as at least 3 out of 4 prisoner rapes involve blacks victimizing men of Protestant heritage while Mediterranean Mafiosi are somehow immune.

The ruthlessly pragmatic and sadistically sociopathic genius of this is that its very intensity, both as physical trauma and moral outrage, rendered it invisible.

Such is the mentality of the child molester who relies on the traumatic nature of his crime to cover his tracks -- seemingly unable to control his subconscious urges. Such was the mentality of those men who, in 1913, gave us the Federal Reserve and the Income Tax.

CONCLUSION

As with a molested child whose shame and guilt compound his trauma, so the American people have come to accept as, as fated, a life lived with this filthy family secret(8). The US Federal Government, now basing its authority on cruel and unusual punishment, cannot be considered legitimate by any reasonable man . The fundamental role that the application of force against citizens plays in defining legitimacy demands such a radical conclusion.

Warrior insurance will be a crucial tool in the triumph of honor over the political will that has so corrupted the rule of law. But honorable warriors need something to protect. Pioneers risk their lives creating new lands. Women then risk their lives giving birth to new folk. Finally, warriors risk their lives protecting their lands and their folk.

The burden of leadership falls, as it did after the feu fees that so motivated the Scotch-Irish, on pioneers.

The dilemma, facing those of us who value the heritage of those early Americans who risked so much to escape sadistic authority in the old world, is not whether we are willing to risk our lives for freedom from such tyranny, but whether we can pioneer a 'New World' where our love of freedom can bear fruit in the face of death.

References

(1) This is a consequence of the unlawful declaration that Federal Reserve Notes are "legal tender". "Legal tender" is called such because courts are required to accept it as money for legal purposes (by far, the largest legal purpose of money is payment of taxes). The US Constitution, under Article 1, Section 10 requires the States to use only gold and silver as payment for legally recognized debts. Article 1, section 8 does not give Congress power to make legal tender. Therefore, the declaration that Federal Reserve Notes are "legal tender for all debts public and private" is unlawful. The best counter arguments to this generally ignore the fact that the paper currency issued by the original central banks were presumed to not be backed by legal tender's value as protection against punishment, let alone cruel and unusual punishment.

(2) See http://www.spr.org/docs/stats.html

(3) The "Scared Straight" program from the 1970s is still going strong as evidenced by this April 5, 1997 article from the Lubbock Avalance- Journal: http://www.lubbockonline.com/news/040697/prison.ht m

An excerpt:

"DALLAS (AP) - A grand jury has refused to indict prison inmates in connection
with a ''scared straight'' prison visit during which several boys claimed to have been molested."

(4) Assistant U.S. attorney Gordon Zubrod from Harrisburg, PA made the following public statement to 3 suspects who fled to Canada (this statement was captured for the public record during a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation interview):

"You're going to be the boyfriend of a very bad man if you wait out your extradition."

(5) Look at the classic paper on the value of human life by Nobel prize winning economist George Stigler of the University of Chicago School of Business. He measured the effect of danger on wage rates in different professions. Prison is more of a danger in some lines of activity than others. We should be able to apply similar analytic techniques to the relationship between taxation and the prison system.

(6) "Prison Rape: Every Man's Greatest Fear", August 1995, Penthouse.

(7) Although the thesis of this paper does not necessarily predict it, an increase in the rate of prisoner suicide negatively correlating with the rate of inflation would be supportive.

(8) A final anecdote on silence: When the author of this white paper was called in for an audit by the IRS in 1994, he sought a tax attorney to represent him. During an interview with a prospective attorney the author told the attorney he thought the audit might have been politically motivated. When asked for details, the author related that the author had published articles on the Internet advocating a judical review of the legitimacy of the ratification of the 16th Amendment about one month prior to the notice of audit. The attorney then told the author that he could not represent the author. According to this tax attorney, he had attended a seminar given by the IRS in which the distinct impression was given that "tax protesters" were not to be defended and that any attorney who defended a "tax protester" would be subjected to a lifetime of audits. This was later confirmed during an interaction with a prominent southern California tax attorney when it became known that the IRS auditor had verbally admitted to his consulting accountant that the author was being audited because of his advocacy of a judicial review of the 16th Amendment's ratification.

In a related situation currently ongoing in China, a spokesperson for the Falun Gong Practitioners in North America has stated that: "lawyers in China have already been told not to defend these innocent civilians unless they agree with the government propaganda." The U.S. House and Senate unanimously passed resolutions on 1999-NOV-18 and 19 which criticized the Chinese government for its crackdown of the Falun Gong.

This is false. Money buys protection against punishment for nonpayment of taxes and taxes are not "collectively" collected -- they are collected by sadistic police-power:

Federal Reserve + IRS = The Protection Racket Coup of 1913

by Jim Bowery
Jim Bowery, January 13, 2001 -- The author grants the right to copy, without modification.

INTRODUCTION

Federal Reserve money buys protection from punishment. You are punished if you don't pay taxes. This has become the Federal Reserve's primary monetary authority. The moral hazard of basing monetary authority on punishment has now been realized in the systemic and out-of-control gang rapes of prisoners in the US. All other unlawful acts by US governments are now overshadowed by the murderous, sexually sadistic character of governmental authority that has developed in US penal systems. Federal Reserve money is now protection racket money, or, if you prefer "punishment protection money". Calling it "fiat money", "debt money" or even "legal tender" obscures its true character. The transition to this form of money began in 1913, when the 16th Amendment dramatically expanded the potential need for legal tender in the form of taxes while, in that same year, the Federal Reserve Act started the process of removing from legal tender any backing value other than the protection it affords against punishment. That the redefinition of "legal tender" was unconstitutional(1) has become only a minor dimension of the massive decay in legitimacy and moral leadership during the 20th century triggered by these acts of 1913. These acts were largely in the interest of continental European banking concerns doing business under the name of J. P. Morgan. As vital interests of the United States were sacrificed on their behalf, those foreign interests are reasonably called "enemies of the United States", the acts of U.S. citizens on their behalf "treasons", and all such citizens "traitors".

THE MORAL HAZARD OF GOVERNMENT AND MONEY

Legitimate governments provide assurance that we are secure in our lives and properties by protecting our legal rights in exchange for taxes and other duties. The most legitimate governments will even back up their commitment by providing some sort of compensation if our legal rights are breached, much the same as insurance companies do when they pay out on an insurance policy. But there is a fine line between protection rackets and insurance companies. Indeed, gangsters frequently call their protection rackets "insurance" and the payments they extort from their victims "insurance premiums". That fine line between protector and protection racket is crossed when "moral hazard" tempts the "protector" beyond the limits of his character.

In conventional insurance terminology, "moral hazard" is the temptation to artificially increase hazards. A classic case of moral hazard is an otherwise unprofitable business buying lots of fire insurance and then hiring an arsonist to burn down the place of business.

Insurers, too, can profit by increasing hazards if it is the uninsured who suffer the exposure to risk. A classic example of an insurer's moral hazard is the temptation to parasitize a productive business by threatening it with destruction unless the owners pay regular "insurance premiums".

And that brings us to the morality of governance.

The most profound moral hazard for governance is the penal system combined with taxation.

The framers of the US Constitution included prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment under the 8th Amendment. They also made it difficult to parasitize productive States. This they did by requiring that taxation on a State's citizenry be proportional to the State's population under Article. 1. Section. 2. Clause 3. and Article. 1. Section. 9. Clause 4. Making taxes proportional to State population helps control the moral hazard of governance at the Federal level by making it difficult for the Federal government to transfer wealth to States that are politically active from States that are economically productive. Also, States are more capable of defending themselves from the Federal government than are individuals. Unfortunately, the requirement for taxation proportional to State population ("with apportionment" and "with regard to the census") was removed by the 16th Amendment, thereby promoting political porkbarrel at the Federal level and punishing productivity. In the same year the Federal Reserve Act gave license to gradually reduce legal tender's reliance on gold and silver as backing value, leaving the protection legal tender afforded against government punishment it's primary backing value. (Shortly thereafter, the 17th Amendment also removed from the States the power to elect Senators, further eroding the States' ability to protect their citizens from the federal government.)

These acts of treason have produced profound moral hazard at the Federal level, and set the stage for the relentless and radical decay of moral leadership during the 20th century.

WARRIOR INSURANCE

The proper role of government is protection against force and fraud. Therefore, to keep it honest, government's source of revenue should be insurance premiums against loss due to force and fraud. Said premiums could be payable in notes issued by the insurer/protector, but the insurer/protector should merely cancel the insurance policy and cease protecting those who do not pay. An insurer/protector should not generate the market for their own notes by threatening to punish those who do not pay -- as that is a protection racket, even if the insurer/protector honorably indemnifies those who do pay in the event of a covered loss. Such insurance premiums and corresponding insurance coverage would, necessarily, stipulate other conditions under which the insurance/protection continued to be provided at the agreed upon rates. This amounts to taxation on asset value, adjusted for various conditions that may affect risk -- with the added guarantee of indemnification in the event that asset value is lost due to force or fraud.

Such a system actually eliminates governance, as we know it. I call it "warrior insurance".

Under warrior insurance, reinsurance networks take the place of existing international treaties and alliances. Intelligent warrior reinsurance networks will check loss of asset value resulting from gang, or "protection racket" formation well in advance of any need for warfare. Warrior insurance premiums eliminate taxation. Competition between warrior insurance companies creates checks and balances supporting liberty. Formation of mass armies on ideological/political grounds is suppressed by exposing the underlying quid-pro-quo of reciprocal altruism that actually exists between people and their sovereignties -- over-extended kin identification, the basis of political and religious warfare as well as one-world ideology, is rendered less viable. Warrior insurance companies are much like the original sovereignties that defended newly formed civilizations -- they are, in fact, quite traditional. Empires subsumed the original sovereignties because trade, communication and literacy were so centralized. In the information age, this is decreasingly the case. What is increasingly necessary is a strong, distributed militia living lives bonded to their communities and lands from generation to generation, who value honor above their own lives. Unlike systems of taxation, warrior insurers will compensate those who are bonded for conscription in time of war, or deputized in times of civil emergency. Those so bonded would naturally demand a vote, or representation, in declarations of war or civil emergency.

Under warrior insurance, the citizens' militias traditionally enjoy tax relief, since they are in effect, protecting themselves. In Scotland, rather than forming a Yeoman class from the "kindly tenants", "feu fees" were imposed to pay for foreign war debts during the Protestant Reformation, thereby dispossessing ancient families of their lands to make way for revenue generating land use such as wool-producing sheep. Kindly tenants were kindred or clan members who had traditionally been given relief from economic rent/taxation in exchange for sworn allegiance to their clans' militias under the command of their chiefs. But the clan chiefs were corrupted by the royalty which had become more interested foreign adventures than they were in allowing the clans to support and protect themselves and their families on their own lands. The royal war debts began consuming the livelihoods of the folk. Many were forced to flee for their lives. This was the primary origin of the Scotch-Irish pioneers who attempted to create a society in "the New World", free from such betrayals of clan loyalty. The earliest pioneers suffered a 25% mortality rate in the first year of migration in their desperation to create that "New World". This was not merely the moral equivalent of war -- it was death on a massive scale in a struggle with nature herself (war with natives was not the primary cause of these deaths), on the one hand, and tyranny on the other. As usual mostly men went to the frontier to risk everything for their new lands, but many women and children also suffered similar fates. As a consequence, the founders of the United States, folk memory still fresh, thought the avoidance of foreign wars to be common sense. This gave rise to the Monroe Doctrine and the avoidance of foreign wars.

Compare and contrast such a system to the internationally adventurous protection racket posing as a government we have today.


THE MURDEROUS, SEXUALLY SADISTIC BASIS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE

Forget the Clothes --The Emperor is a Murdering Rapist Run Amok

Many critics of President Clinton accused him of being a murdering rapist. But President Clinton was simply the by-product of an epic perversion that has overtaken the lawful government of the United States. It would be understatement to call this perversion a criminal gang. Criminal gangs only occasionally commit rape and murder against their own community. They don't pretend to be a lawful authorities in public. They don't issue their own currency as protection racket money and then demand it as "legal tender". They may rationalize their criminal conduct, but they don't convince themselves that what they are doing is lawful. They admit to themselves that they are gangsters. At least they are that honest. But, perhaps this is simply because gangsters are afraid to compete with the most massive criminal organization in history, whose roots extend back at least to 1913 when the Income Tax and Federal Reserve were created.

The Federal Reserve was created in the same year as the Income Tax for one simple reason:

The US Federal Government was shifting from Reward to Punishment Protection as the basis for its monetary authority.

Federal Reserve Notes are promises to reduce the bearer's risk of punishment for tax code violation, upon presentation to its collection agency, the IRS, in the form of Income Tax.

Note here that it is impossible to reduce the risk of punishment for violation of the income tax code to a level commensurate to the threat of prisoner gang-rape(5). This has become the foundation of the IRS/Fed's all-pervasive aura of fear(6) upon which their punishment protection money is based. The Income tax code is so complex that not even the IRS with all its private contractors from law and accounting firms, can reliably and reproducibly interpret it. This makes it possible only to _reduce_ the risk of punishment -- no matter how much wealth you turn over to the IRS.

In this manner the federal government creates demand for the Federal Reserve's otherwise worthless paper(7). Under the evil monetary basis of punishment protection, the government's monetary authority is limited only by the degree to which it can create pervasive terror of its prison system in the hearts of nonviolent potential tax code "offenders" -- and that means you.

With punishment protection as the basis of its monetary authority, and therefore its ability to buy votes, it was only a matter of time before the US Federal Government, as though an animal trained by operant conditioning, would find ways of increasing the severity and cruelty of its punishments.

But like rat in a maze, the US Federal Government had a problem to solve:

How to impose cruel and unusual punishment without arousing the wrath of a people whose ancestors had risked a 1 in 4 chance of dying in the first year of migration to the New World in order to escape just such evils?

The solution, reached without conscious intent (conspiracy) of individuals was a form of punishment so cruel and unusual -- SO TABOO -- that no decent human being would even want to think about it, let alone use freedom of speech and the press to talk about it:

Gradually cultivate prisoner rape as the basis of government authority.

By replacing pillory, open corporeal punishments and work restitution, so common before the 20th century, with an environment in which Mafiosi and other gangster types are protected from prisoner rape while the American pioneer cultures, less prone to prison gang formation, are systemically gang-raped, an ethnic bias was created against the very peoples who founded the country to escape government predation. The actual bias is apparent as at least 3 out of 4 prisoner rapes involve blacks victimizing men of Protestant heritage while Mediterranean Mafiosi are somehow immune.

The ruthlessly pragmatic and sadistically sociopathic genius of this is that its very intensity, both as physical trauma and moral outrage, rendered it invisible.

Such is the mentality of the child molester who relies on the traumatic nature of his crime to cover his tracks -- seemingly unable to control his subconscious urges. Such was the mentality of those men who, in 1913, gave us the Federal Reserve and the Income Tax.

CONCLUSION

As with a molested child whose shame and guilt compound his trauma, so the American people have come to accept as, as fated, a life lived with this filthy family secret(8). The US Federal Government, now basing its authority on cruel and unusual punishment, cannot be considered legitimate by any reasonable man . The fundamental role that the application of force against citizens plays in defining legitimacy demands such a radical conclusion.

Warrior insurance will be a crucial tool in the triumph of honor over the political will that has so corrupted the rule of law. But honorable warriors need something to protect. Pioneers risk their lives creating new lands. Women then risk their lives giving birth to new folk. Finally, warriors risk their lives protecting their lands and their folk.

The burden of leadership falls, as it did after the feu fees that so motivated the Scotch-Irish, on pioneers.

The dilemma, facing those of us who value the heritage of those early Americans who risked so much to escape sadistic authority in the old world, is not whether we are willing to risk our lives for freedom from such tyranny, but whether we can pioneer a 'New World' where our love of freedom can bear fruit in the face of death.

References

(1) This is a consequence of the unlawful declaration that Federal Reserve Notes are "legal tender". "Legal tender" is called such because courts are required to accept it as money for legal purposes (by far, the largest legal purpose of money is payment of taxes). The US Constitution, under Article 1, Section 10 requires the States to use only gold and silver as payment for legally recognized debts. Article 1, section 8 does not give Congress power to make legal tender. Therefore, the declaration that Federal Reserve Notes are "legal tender for all debts public and private" is unlawful. The best counter arguments to this generally ignore the fact that the paper currency issued by the original central banks were presumed to not be backed by legal tender's value as protection against punishment, let alone cruel and unusual punishment.

(2) See http://www.spr.org/docs/stats.html

(3) The "Scared Straight" program from the 1970s is still going strong as evidenced by this April 5, 1997 article from the Lubbock Avalance- Journal: http://www.lubbockonline.com/news/040697/prison.ht m

An excerpt:

"DALLAS (AP) - A grand jury has refused to indict prison inmates in connection
with a ''scared straight'' prison visit during which several boys claimed to have been molested."

(4) Assistant U.S. attorney Gordon Zubrod from Harrisburg, PA made the following public statement to 3 suspects who fled to Canada (this statement was captured for the public record during a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation interview):

"You're going to be the boyfriend of a very bad man if you wait out your extradition."

(5) Look at the classic paper on the value of human life by Nobel prize winning economist George Stigler of the University of Chicago School of Business. He measured the effect of danger on wage rates in different professions. Prison is more of a danger in some lines of activity than others. We should be able to apply similar analytic techniques to the relationship between taxation and the prison system.

(6) "Prison Rape: Every Man's Greatest Fear", August 1995, Penthouse.

(7) Although the thesis of this paper does not necessarily predict it, an increase in the rate of prisoner suicide negatively correlating with the rate of inflation would be supportive.

(8) A final anecdote on silence: When the author of this white paper was called in for an audit by the IRS in 1994, he sought a tax attorney to represent him. During an interview with a prospective attorney the author told the attorney he thought the audit might have been politically motivated. When asked for details, the author related that the author had published articles on the Internet advocating a judical review of the legitimacy of the ratification of the 16th Amendment about one month prior to the notice of audit. The attorney then told the author that he could not represent the author. According to this tax attorney, he had attended a seminar given by the IRS in which the distinct impression was given that "tax protesters" were not to be defended and that any attorney who defended a "tax protester" would be subjected to a lifetime of audits. This was later confirmed during an interaction with a prominent southern California tax attorney when it became known that the IRS auditor had verbally admitted to his consulting accountant that the author was being audited because of his advocacy of a judicial review of the 16th Amendment's ratification.

In a related situation currently ongoing in China, a spokesperson for the Falun Gong Practitioners in North America has stated that: "lawyers in China have already been told not to defend these innocent civilians unless they agree with the government propaganda." The U.S. House and Senate unanimously passed resolutions on 1999-NOV-18 and 19 which criticized the Chinese government for its crackdown of the Falun Gong.

This is false. Money buys protection against punishment for nonpayment of taxes and taxes are not "collectively" collected -- they are collected by sadistic police-power:

Federal Reserve + IRS = The Protection Racket Coup of 1913

by Jim Bowery
Jim Bowery, January 13, 2001 -- The author grants the right to copy, without modification.

INTRODUCTION

Federal Reserve money buys protection from punishment. You are punished if you don't pay taxes. This has become the Federal Reserve's primary monetary authority. The moral hazard of basing monetary authority on punishment has now been realized in the systemic and out-of-control gang rapes of prisoners in the US. All other unlawful acts by US governments are now overshadowed by the murderous, sexually sadistic character of governmental authority that has developed in US penal systems. Federal Reserve money is now protection racket money, or, if you prefer "punishment protection money". Calling it "fiat money", "debt money" or even "legal tender" obscures its true character. The transition to this form of money began in 1913, when the 16th Amendment dramatically expanded the potential need for legal tender in the form of taxes while, in that same year, the Federal Reserve Act started the process of removing from legal tender any backing value other than the protection it affords against punishment. That the redefinition of "legal tender" was unconstitutional(1) has become only a minor dimension of the massive decay in legitimacy and moral leadership during the 20th century triggered by these acts of 1913. These acts were largely in the interest of continental European banking concerns doing business under the name of J. P. Morgan. As vital interests of the United States were sacrificed on their behalf, those foreign interests are reasonably called "enemies of the United States", the acts of U.S. citizens on their behalf "treasons", and all such citizens "traitors".

THE MORAL HAZARD OF GOVERNMENT AND MONEY

Legitimate governments provide assurance that we are secure in our lives and properties by protecting our legal rights in exchange for taxes and other duties. The most legitimate governments will even back up their commitment by providing some sort of compensation if our legal rights are breached, much the same as insurance companies do when they pay out on an insurance policy. But there is a fine line between protection rackets and insurance companies. Indeed, gangsters frequently call their protection rackets "insurance" and the payments they extort from their victims "insurance premiums". That fine line between protector and protection racket is crossed when "moral hazard" tempts the "protector" beyond the limits of his character.

In conventional insurance terminology, "moral hazard" is the temptation to artificially increase hazards. A classic case of moral hazard is an otherwise unprofitable business buying lots of fire insurance and then hiring an arsonist to burn down the place of business.

Insurers, too, can profit by increasing hazards if it is the uninsured who suffer the exposure to risk. A classic example of an insurer's moral hazard is the temptation to parasitize a productive business by threatening it with destruction unless the owners pay regular "insurance premiums".

And that brings us to the morality of governance.

The most profound moral hazard for governance is the penal system combined with taxation.

The framers of the US Constitution included prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment under the 8th Amendment. They also made it difficult to parasitize productive States. This they did by requiring that taxation on a State's citizenry be proportional to the State's population under Article. 1. Section. 2. Clause 3. and Article. 1. Section. 9. Clause 4. Making taxes proportional to State population helps control the moral hazard of governance at the Federal level by making it difficult for the Federal government to transfer wealth to States that are politically active from States that are economically productive. Also, States are more capable of defending themselves from the Federal government than are individuals. Unfortunately, the requirement for taxation proportional to State population ("with apportionment" and "with regard to the census") was removed by the 16th Amendment, thereby promoting political porkbarrel at the Federal level and punishing productivity. In the same year the Federal Reserve Act gave license to gradually reduce legal tender's reliance on gold and silver as backing value, leaving the protection legal tender afforded against government punishment it's primary backing value. (Shortly thereafter, the 17th Amendment also removed from the States the power to elect Senators, further eroding the States' ability to protect their citizens from the federal government.)

These acts of treason have produced profound moral hazard at the Federal level, and set the stage for the relentless and radical decay of moral leadership during the 20th century.

WARRIOR INSURANCE

The proper role of government is protection against force and fraud. Therefore, to keep it honest, government's source of revenue should be insurance premiums against loss due to force and fraud. Said premiums could be payable in notes issued by the insurer/protector, but the insurer/protector should merely cancel the insurance policy and cease protecting those who do not pay. An insurer/protector should not generate the market for their own notes by threatening to punish those who do not pay -- as that is a protection racket, even if the insurer/protector honorably indemnifies those who do pay in the event of a covered loss. Such insurance premiums and corresponding insurance coverage would, necessarily, stipulate other conditions under which the insurance/protection continued to be provided at the agreed upon rates. This amounts to taxation on asset value, adjusted for various conditions that may affect risk -- with the added guarantee of indemnification in the event that asset value is lost due to force or fraud.

Such a system actually eliminates governance, as we know it. I call it "warrior insurance".

Under warrior insurance, reinsurance networks take the place of existing international treaties and alliances. Intelligent warrior reinsurance networks will check loss of asset value resulting from gang, or "protection racket" formation well in advance of any need for warfare. Warrior insurance premiums eliminate taxation. Competition between warrior insurance companies creates checks and balances supporting liberty. Formation of mass armies on ideological/political grounds is suppressed by exposing the underlying quid-pro-quo of reciprocal altruism that actually exists between people and their sovereignties -- over-extended kin identification, the basis of political and religious warfare as well as one-world ideology, is rendered less viable. Warrior insurance companies are much like the original sovereignties that defended newly formed civilizations -- they are, in fact, quite traditional. Empires subsumed the original sovereignties because trade, communication and literacy were so centralized. In the information age, this is decreasingly the case. What is increasingly necessary is a strong, distributed militia living lives bonded to their communities and lands from generation to generation, who value honor above their own lives. Unlike systems of taxation, warrior insurers will compensate those who are bonded for conscription in time of war, or deputized in times of civil emergency. Those so bonded would naturally demand a vote, or representation, in declarations of war or civil emergency.

Under warrior insurance, the citizens' militias traditionally enjoy tax relief, since they are in effect, protecting themselves. In Scotland, rather than forming a Yeoman class from the "kindly tenants", "feu fees" were imposed to pay for foreign war debts during the Protestant Reformation, thereby dispossessing ancient families of their lands to make way for revenue generating land use such as wool-producing sheep. Kindly tenants were kindred or clan members who had traditionally been given relief from economic rent/taxation in exchange for sworn allegiance to their clans' militias under the command of their chiefs. But the clan chiefs were corrupted by the royalty which had become more interested foreign adventures than they were in allowing the clans to support and protect themselves and their families on their own lands. The royal war debts began consuming the livelihoods of the folk. Many were forced to flee for their lives. This was the primary origin of the Scotch-Irish pioneers who attempted to create a society in "the New World", free from such betrayals of clan loyalty. The earliest pioneers suffered a 25% mortality rate in the first year of migration in their desperation to create that "New World". This was not merely the moral equivalent of war -- it was death on a massive scale in a struggle with nature herself (war with natives was not the primary cause of these deaths), on the one hand, and tyranny on the other. As usual mostly men went to the frontier to risk everything for their new lands, but many women and children also suffered similar fates. As a consequence, the founders of the United States, folk memory still fresh, thought the avoidance of foreign wars to be common sense. This gave rise to the Monroe Doctrine and the avoidance of foreign wars.

Compare and contrast such a system to the internationally adventurous protection racket posing as a government we have today.


THE MURDEROUS, SEXUALLY SADISTIC BASIS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE

Forget the Clothes --The Emperor is a Murdering Rapist Run Amok

Many critics of President Clinton accused him of being a murdering rapist. But President Clinton was simply the by-product of an epic perversion that has overtaken the lawful government of the United States. It would be understatement to call this perversion a criminal gang. Criminal gangs only occasionally commit rape and murder against their own community. They don't pretend to be a lawful authorities in public. They don't issue their own currency as protection racket money and then demand it as "legal tender". They may rationalize their criminal conduct, but they don't convince themselves that what they are doing is lawful. They admit to themselves that they are gangsters. At least they are that honest. But, perhaps this is simply because gangsters are afraid to compete with the most massive criminal organization in history, whose roots extend back at least to 1913 when the Income Tax and Federal Reserve were created.

The Federal Reserve was created in the same year as the Income Tax for one simple reason:

The US Federal Government was shifting from Reward to Punishment Protection as the basis for its monetary authority.

Federal Reserve Notes are promises to reduce the bearer's risk of punishment for tax code violation, upon presentation to its collection agency, the IRS, in the form of Income Tax.

Note here that it is impossible to reduce the risk of punishment for violation of the income tax code to a level commensurate to the threat of prisoner gang-rape(5). This has become the foundation of the IRS/Fed's all-pervasive aura of fear(6) upon which their punishment protection money is based. The Income tax code is so complex that not even the IRS with all its private contractors from law and accounting firms, can reliably and reproducibly interpret it. This makes it possible only to _reduce_ the risk of punishment -- no matter how much wealth you turn over to the IRS.

In this manner the federal government creates demand for the Federal Reserve's otherwise worthless paper(7). Under the evil monetary basis of punishment protection, the government's monetary authority is limited only by the degree to which it can create pervasive terror of its prison system in the hearts of nonviolent potential tax code "offenders" -- and that means you.

With punishment protection as the basis of its monetary authority, and therefore its ability to buy votes, it was only a matter of time before the US Federal Government, as though an animal trained by operant conditioning, would find ways of increasing the severity and cruelty of its punishments.

But like rat in a maze, the US Federal Government had a problem to solve:

How to impose cruel and unusual punishment without arousing the wrath of a people whose ancestors had risked a 1 in 4 chance of dying in the first year of migration to the New World in order to escape just such evils?

The solution, reached without conscious intent (conspiracy) of individuals was a form of punishment so cruel and unusual -- SO TABOO -- that no decent human being would even want to think about it, let alone use freedom of speech and the press to talk about it:

Gradually cultivate prisoner rape as the basis of government authority.

By replacing pillory, open corporeal punishments and work restitution, so common before the 20th century, with an environment in which Mafiosi and other gangster types are protected from prisoner rape while the American pioneer cultures, less prone to prison gang formation, are systemically gang-raped, an ethnic bias was created against the very peoples who founded the country to escape government predation. The actual bias is apparent as at least 3 out of 4 prisoner rapes involve blacks victimizing men of Protestant heritage while Mediterranean Mafiosi are somehow immune.

The ruthlessly pragmatic and sadistically sociopathic genius of this is that its very intensity, both as physical trauma and moral outrage, rendered it invisible.

Such is the mentality of the child molester who relies on the traumatic nature of his crime to cover his tracks -- seemingly unable to control his subconscious urges. Such was the mentality of those men who, in 1913, gave us the Federal Reserve and the Income Tax.

CONCLUSION

As with a molested child whose shame and guilt compound his trauma, so the American people have come to accept as, as fated, a life lived with this filthy family secret(8). The US Federal Government, now basing its authority on cruel and unusual punishment, cannot be considered legitimate by any reasonable man . The fundamental role that the application of force against citizens plays in defining legitimacy demands such a radical conclusion.

Warrior insurance will be a crucial tool in the triumph of honor over the political will that has so corrupted the rule of law. But honorable warriors need something to protect. Pioneers risk their lives creating new lands. Women then risk their lives giving birth to new folk. Finally, warriors risk their lives protecting their lands and their folk.

The burden of leadership falls, as it did after the feu fees that so motivated the Scotch-Irish, on pioneers.

The dilemma, facing those of us who value the heritage of those early Americans who risked so much to escape sadistic authority in the old world, is not whether we are willing to risk our lives for freedom from such tyranny, but whether we can pioneer a 'New World' where our love of freedom can bear fruit in the face of death.

References

(1) This is a consequence of the unlawful declaration that Federal Reserve Notes are "legal tender". "Legal tender" is called such because courts are required to accept it as money for legal purposes (by far, the largest legal purpose of money is payment of taxes). The US Constitution, under Article 1, Section 10 requires the States to use only gold and silver as payment for legally recognized debts. Article 1, section 8 does not give Congress power to make legal tender. Therefore, the declaration that Federal Reserve Notes are "legal tender for all debts public and private" is unlawful. The best counter arguments to this generally ignore the fact that the paper currency issued by the original central banks were presumed to not be backed by legal tender's value as protection against punishment, let alone cruel and unusual punishment.

(2) See http://www.spr.org/docs/stats.html

(3) The "Scared Straight" program from the 1970s is still going strong as evidenced by this April 5, 1997 article from the Lubbock Avalance- Journal: http://www.lubbockonline.com/news/040697/prison.ht m

An excerpt:

"DALLAS (AP) - A grand jury has refused to indict prison inmates in connection
with a ''scared straight'' prison visit during which several boys claimed to have been molested."

(4) Assistant U.S. attorney Gordon Zubrod from Harrisburg, PA made the following public statement to 3 suspects who fled to Canada (this statement was captured for the public record during a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation interview):

"You're going to be the boyfriend of a very bad man if you wait out your extradition."

(5) Look at the classic paper on the value of human life by Nobel prize winning economist George Stigler of the University of Chicago School of Business. He measured the effect of danger on wage rates in different professions. Prison is more of a danger in some lines of activity than others. We should be able to apply similar analytic techniques to the relationship between taxation and the prison system.

(6) "Prison Rape: Every Man's Greatest Fear", August 1995, Penthouse.

(7) Although the thesis of this paper does not necessarily predict it, an increase in the rate of prisoner suicide negatively correlating with the rate of inflation would be supportive.

(8) A final anecdote on silence: When the author of this white paper was called in for an audit by the IRS in 1994, he sought a tax attorney to represent him. During an interview with a prospective attorney the author told the attorney he thought the audit might have been politically motivated. When asked for details, the author related that the author had published articles on the Internet advocating a judical review of the legitimacy of the ratification of the 16th Amendment about one month prior to the notice of audit. The attorney then told the author that he could not represent the author. According to this tax attorney, he had attended a seminar given by the IRS in which the distinct impression was given that "tax protesters" were not to be defended and that any attorney who defended a "tax protester" would be subjected to a lifetime of audits. This was later confirmed during an interaction with a prominent southern California tax attorney when it became known that the IRS auditor had verbally admitted to his consulting accountant that the author was being audited because of his advocacy of a judicial review of the 16th Amendment's ratification.

In a related situation currently ongoing in China, a spokesperson for the Falun Gong Practitioners in North America has stated that: "lawyers in China have already been told not to defend these innocent civilians unless they agree with the government propaganda." The U.S. House and Senate unanimously passed resolutions on 1999-NOV-18 and 19 which criticized the Chinese government for its crackdown of the Falun Gong.