Why the Press Is Seriously Called the Fourth Branch of Government

   We sometimes jokingly call the press the “fourth branch of government,” in addition to the first three, the legislative, the executive and the judicial, in that order. But this saying is quite serious in one sense: the press has the ears, and has often proven to be the eyes of the people.

   The purpose of the U.S. constitution is to prevent tyranny while still having a large nation. To this end, power is divided in America between the three branches, where interests are set to check and balance one another, preventing excesses that tend toward tyranny. The three branches, though, are only one of four ways in which power is divided and balanced in the American regime. The states participate in the national or “federal” government while retaining some sovereignty; in truth, the states retain all powers not explicitly delegated to the national government in the articles of the Constitution. The meaning of this, if dormant, is evident in the historical curiosity that Madison at first wondered if an explicit Bill of Rights was even necessary, since the national government had been given no power to violate any of the amendments spelling out, for example, the freedom of the press, etc. and Habeus corpus had been spelled out in parts of the un-amended text which are in fact like a proto- Bill of Rights in Article I. Jefferson set Madison straight, though, in a letter from France, and Madison set about crafting the amendments. The Bill of Rights spells out the principles of the second sentence of the Declaration within the Constitution, which otherwise lacks a reference to equality and rights in the statement of purposes in its preamble (“We the people, in order…,” written by Mr. Morris of New York). An example is that the two religion clauses of the First Amendment spell out the pursuit of happiness, which is a natural, before it is a civil, right.

   The two party system, which developed extra-constitutionally, is another way in which power is divided, and here especially we see how interests are set to counter interests. Office holders are disinclined to investigate and criticize themselves, but there is always the opposition party there to gain advantage from exposing crime and corruption, especially in the opposing party. This is especially convenient in the executive branch, where the chain of command prevents the agencies from any self critical reflection, summoning reason and penance only when put to the stretcher. Pride, for example, prevents the FBI from raising any questions about itself, until the opposition party goes to the press, who informs the people. The whole Watergate scandal may have remained a mystery, had the New York Times, with its “liberal media” point of view, not gone to the people with the story that the Democrats were being hacked, shrinks offices bugged, etc. But we are getting around to that fourth branch.

 We have then 1) The three branches of government, 2) The Division between the national and state governments, 3) The two party system, and 4) The division between the government and the people. The people, through their votes, are to be the ultimate check on government, when things are going well. Guys like me, who are nothing more than a single citizen, but indentured to absolutely no one, can shout like the street prophet named “Jesus” in the history of Josephus at the fall of the temple, just before 70 A.D. Until the advent of the internet, the free press was the eyes and ears of the people, without which they could not possibly function as a check upon their government.

   In America, the difference between the Constitution and statutory law is a fifth way in which the powers of government are divided and set to check and balance one another (if we have not strained complexity yet). America introduced these checks on law into world history, with the first written constitutions. These five ways overlap and intersect, giving us the marvelously complex “layered cake,” as Cummings and Wise, I think, call it. The word Constitution, of course, has a broader meaning, as discussed best by George Anastaplo in his commentary on the Constitution.

 

Second Amendment and U. S. Gun Promiscuity

The Second Amendment has yet to be “selectively incorporated,” and this is where reasonable gun measures might be enacted. The Bill of Rights did not originally apply to the states, though Madison, its author, wished it would. Gradually, each Amendment has been “Selectively Incorporated,” to assure, for example, that no state government forbid free speech or religion. The Amendments are funneled through the Fourteenth Amendment, the post Civil war requirement that states not violate the Fifth Amendment guarantee of liberty. The right to counsel, to have a lawyer, has, for example been required of the states following the Gideon v. Wainwright decision. Prior to this, the right to be represented by a lawyer applied to federal but not to state trials. The exceptions are the second and Eighth Amendments, which have not yet been selectively incorporated, according to our Cummings and Wise political science text. And this is where progress might be made on gun control. We have suggested state licensing similar to the driver’s licence, where those not meeting minimal conditions of safe driving can be excluded from the highways for the benefit of the other drivers they might injure. The answer was that we do not have a Constitutionally recognized right to drive, but we do have a guarantee that the right of the people to keep and bear arms will not be infringed. We will have to figure out what this means and how it might be partially incorporated with adaptations to the states. But the states are not bound by the Second Amendment directly, and this is where progress might be made. States can forbid gun shows, for example, and other forms of irresponsible sales, and we think the states can require licences like the permit required to carry a gun concealed. And if the states do the regulating, the conflict between the NRA and the federal government can be side stepped, and we will have to consider the meaning of the purpose of the second Amendment, pertaining to the need for a well regulated militia in a free state. And local differences can then be considered, with different laws in Florida, Detroit, New York and Montana each suited to the local circumstances. Once again, the federal system where some state sovereignty is retained on certain issues proves the resilliance of the U. S. Constitution.

Marijuana, Microsoft and the FBI

Microsoft, as the BBC informs us, has decided to get into the business of tracking Marijuana businesses, inventing programs that help regulate and for example control seeds, to make sure the seeds are from the legal rather than the “illegal” market. This is a very strange report, since such a program would be a very small part of the Microsoft business. But we have suspected a Monsanto style attempt to control seeds was in the works. Farmers, say, in India, are already having difficulty with the ten thousand year old practice of selecting and saving seeds for the following year, of every kind of plant, due to dominance of hybrids and the money to be made by controlling seeds. By “Illegal” market, I believe the report, taking their language from Microsoft, means nature.

Perhaps Microsoft will also help track the use of chemicals for profit in Marijuana growing, track which are carcinogenic, and who might be growing inorganic weed. Perhaps they will help the legislators figure out how not to encourage growing poisonous weed, as they did tobacco to increase yields once limits were set in acreage or number. Most of all, perhaps they will track where the illegal market leads kids to the heroin dealer, or track where corrupt police use the medicinal law to seize property contrary to the Constitution and divide the profits with organized crime and the municipalities, and even where these two are becoming less distinct.

It is time for a supreme Court decision recognizing that if one grows ones own weed and smokes it, no Constitutional law could possibly be violated. One simply avoids supporting organized crime, and that is the major effect on commerce, though this does prevent the corporate control of nature for profit as well.

In a separate report, the FBI was hiring, but, in addition to other stringent requirements, one may not have smoked weed in the past three years. The FBI, and society in general, have long selected for a certain kind of ignorance, the sort behind such sayings as “could not even pass a drug test.” The FBI has a culture, an in-group that treats pot smoking as a crime, now even above sodomy and gamory, which are allowed, while pot smoking, even as a part of religious exercise, is forbidden. We want the FBI, our FBI, and all law enforcement, to spend one tenth the effort they spend “enforcing the law wherever they see the law violated” to enforcing the law when they see corrupt police and judges giving and taking payoffs and kickbacks to pervert their badges and our courtrooms. Perhaps they might also watch for when corporations like Microsoft track human beings, exposing them to criminals, such as hit men or the Orlando shooter.

In our FBI, we have cultivated a certain kind of ignorance. I believe they have done a fairly good job of weeding out corruption in the FBI hiring process, but they also select for a certain kind of dumb jock. Thought and imagination are selectively excluded. Steve Jobs could not apply to work for the FBI. That is part of why crime is simply out-thinking us lately, not to mention the Russians in internet land. How many artists, say, will be running to apply for the FBI now, or musicians? These types of souls, if not necessarily these particular persons, are a portion of human ability, and they are too free to be able to live according to convention, where everything cultivated is artificial. Their categories sometimes do not match up with the suburban contemporary American categories, but they think of things the dumb jocks cannot even understand when they are directly told. Try calling the FBI to tell them of an obvious scam, say, that the bank is asking for the first five digits of our social security numbers, or that hit men are welcome for a bit of effort to track us using the internet and all modern technology that spies on us for marketing. Do not even try to ask how they expect to find the resources to keep us safe once we have bought such a world. The FBI phone operator will most likely ignore you, but if they pay any attention at all, they are more likely to spy on you because calling the FBI and saying things they do not understand is annoying to them, too much for them, that they are to understand, say, that we are often asked for the last four digits, 5 + 4 = 9 and all our phones are hacked, meaning that the bank is very likely taking kickbacks from someone selling social security numbers.

Senators Peters and Stabenow and Representative Walberg Refuse to Oversee the Executive Agencies

For four years, I have requested the assistance of my representatives in the national government in holding the CIA and FBI, or the responsible parties and agencies, accountable for having set my former fiance on me to spy in domestic matters, which is illegal. These senators and representatives can easily establish 1. that our government does do this sort of thing, 2. that the agencies are involved in education in the United States in the way that I suggest, 3. That proximity is entirely likely in my case, and to some extent certain, 4. That my circumstances include some very strange coincidences that indicate that what I suggest is likely, and 5. That my former professor ceased to speak to me immediately following the defense of my dissertation for no manifest reason, and will not give a reason to anyone. This is in complete contrast with the recommendations in my file, so that when they say I cannot spell or am a “gnostic” or somehow a harmful thinker, it is contradicted by the recommendations. The recommendations are public and they can be sued over them, but not responding when universities inquire for applications, this one cannot be sued over.  Such things, 6) would be a blacklisting if he were employed or influenced those or was influenced by those employed by these agencies. I could continue to list reasons that Congress ought ask the questions 1. Was that woman set on me, and 2. Why did that professor cease to speak to me. A third question is whether these two are connected, as a woman seems to have been set on me earlier while I was a student at the University of Dallas. So now I want them to tell absolutely everything they ever did to me throughout the course of my education. My other professor said that the excommunication from my professor was indeed very strange, and should not have occurred, and certainly not for something stupid like pot, or without my having some inkling of a reason. Some persons there were either told something slanderous by government or did not like me, perhaps because I did not apply for certain agency jobs to which I was invited to apply, (and can prove it). Congress should have asked me a few questions related to the persons involved, such as one couple of professors and what extracurricular positions these might have held. Having taken scholarship money in a tuition grant, it was perhaps expected that I would have no choice but to apply to repay the borrowed living expense money- a debt which has ruined my financial life, to go along with my friendship and romantic life. I will have no career and no family, although my failure as a writer might of course have many causes other than blacklisting. My Lear book has sold over 100 copies, but the price is kept so high that no one will buy the e-book, as though it were intentional to sell zero copies. And my search engine access is blocked, so that all my traffic is word of mouth, resulting in the failure of my self published e-book, a seven year project. I applied for full time teaching jobs, though, for ten years without ever gaining a single interview, and there is nothing wrong with my grades or work, except that it is perhaps too philosophical for the contemporary American University.

It is also strange that my academic files have disappeared from the University of Dallas, and that persons connected with the University are angry with me for having my representative ask for an account of the matter, and that the university is anything but forthcoming. An account was given after a year or more of persistent questioning, and after having Representative Walberg ask them directly, about 3 years ago. It is said that the files disappeared along with 19 others when they were sent to be put on microfilm and the originals thrown away, and this story we have in writing, though a FOIA request was ignored. Representative Walberg saw this occur, but as soon as it became clear that there were indeed federal agencies involved, he ceased to be of any assistance, his office referring me instead to try to find a lawyer (there are none accessible to the poor for federal matters) or go yet again to the agencies themselves, who think such practices are just fine and who cannot oversee themselves due to the chain of command. Whomever I speak to, in whatever agency including the Justice department, I am asking that they investigate their superiors.

It is very unseemly to discuss such things in public, but that is why 1. Congress should respond to complaints of this sort immediately to settle the matters, 2. We ought think twice about covert government involvement in education, and 3. We ought think twice too about setting women on people without warrant. You see, if a professor irrationally excommunicates a student and thereby destroys his career, that is part of education, and professors can do that, though their bosses might want an account of the matter. But if these professors are acting as government agents, the Constitution of the United States that they are sworn to uphold is seriously violated. I believe that it is extremely important that the citizens do something about this when it occurs, even if it is difficult to do so in a responsible manner. But one certainly does not want a circumstance like that of Mr. Snowden, where he tried every way imaginable to get Congress to do their job, and finally went to the Guardian newspaper and ended up in Moscow! Such irresponsible stonewalling by Congress and government is indeed a threat to national security, if we would remain a free people. The alternative is to have agencies without oversight, incompatible with a free people, the contradiction of liberty, which is in fact what we have now, due especially to the failure of Congress persons to do their jobs. It is in absolute frustration with government, as well as the assurance that such things ought not be done and cannot continue, that I appeal to the people through the press, again that fourth branch of the U. S. government that sometimes kicks in when the other three fail.

There is a no way to communicate this circumstance to anyone who does not care, at least enough to hear the points of the explanation. But what it means is that a terrible error was made and there is no way to correct it: The citizen must simply be destroyed because congress and the Senate Intelligence Committee cannot ask a few simple and direct questions and the agencies be bound or ordered by the President, if necessary, to tell the truth.

One cannot imagine what it means to fall in love with someone who was set upon you as a spy. Nor can one imagine the psychic confusion and romantic torture that results from their apparent M.O., which is to set these women between two friends. Police at all levels of government use women to spy on male targets, from small operations and “Confidential Informants” to prostitutes paid or rewarded to inform and spy, to serious foreign policy matters. Every Senator should know this. As the Sixty Minutes special on Confidential Informants demonstrates, there is great need for the oversight of the police in the use of civilians who have no lawyers. That show focused on two deaths that were caused when, for example, a petty weed dealing sophomore woman was sent to wear a wire to spy on heroin dealers, buying guns and heroin. To capture the love of a person and to cause friends to accuse one another would be a very effective method of spying, and this is in fact what seems to have occurred. If I were correct, it is clear that nothing at all would be done in the current illiberal system where there is no oversight. The CIA is free to suspect a student, set women on them, receive slanderous accounts drawn from misinterpreted phone taps by State or local police, in effect blacklist a PhD, effect something like rape, in a bizzare violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments so unique it has no name, and that is just fine with government: Nothing can or will be done about this, again because it is the job of congress and they will not do their jobs. I want the President to order the agencies to tell at least my representatives the truth about these matters, since it has been demonstrated that the agencies will lie to Congress. I want government to hold the bad actors accountable and set the damages straight before worse consequences result, as I will continue to press this issue in every political way, including publicizing enough of the matter to get something done about it. Or do you think one in my circumstance should allow what again is like rape for the purposes of spying, and like blacklisting to destroy a career?

Just a bit to add: It is also fine with Congress and the agencies if one receive death threats to prevent holding some powerful persons accountable, or for government bad actors to use such measures to cover up their crimes and errors. They might carry out or subcontract the carrying out of such threats, and Congress must admit that there is nothing our government is set up to do about it. They might also simply leave a person exposed or expose them, without doing another thing, allowing others to carry out such a threat for them. They are not stupid. And like the fellow killed lately by the Russians in London, they are sure to make it look like a natural death or accident. That nothing would be done about such a thing, characteristic of Russian tyranny but not free government, is agreed by all and just fine, apparently, with Congress and the President. That is a result of these sorts of matters, and is again why Congress needs to do its job from the beginning, or why we cannot have a tyranny of the unelected executive agencies justified by our terror or by the nuclear age. We must remain free regardless of these perils, and in truth, contrary to what most think, it is the only safe course, as tyranny would expose us to disaster far sooner than liberty.

Congress also does not seem to understand its own powers if it denies itself the right and duty to oversee and hold accountable these agencies. Every cent of American money spent, and that means every single thing the American government does, requires in principle an account to Congress.

I have of course taken the stigma of madness for trying to do something about these things. I will add the inconveniences of this, the social effect of saying something no one wants to hear or can believe, to my list of damages for which I would charge them, about 57 million dollars minimum, should there ever be oversight, accountability and meaningful recourse in such matters. Everyone agrees that if these things did occur much as I say they sure seem to have, absolutely nothing would be done about it, so that all things are just as if I were seeing quite clearly. But, needing the help of fellow citizens and friends, absolutely no one has offered to help, but it has been suggested of course that I “get help.” As I have told my father, I do indeed need help, but not that kind! I rather need the help of fellow free citizens, to insist that Congress do their job an inquire when there is so much reason to do so, and see to it that these things do not continue to occur. What if they did that to your son or daughter? Tim Walberg, when asked that, would not answer. I could get their psychodope even without saying such things, and I know the system would just love to drug me for saying things no one can think let alone believe, except for those who have for themselves seen these things done, and know well that I tell the truth about this sort of thing having become rather routine. But among the things no one can explain to me are why the simplest questions cannot be asked and honest answers required when I have already presented plenty of reason to raise the questions, and to present more reason will be harmful. It is objectively obvious that something strange did indeed occur, and the silence is more evidence that there is indeed a problem here.

One final point: Machiavelli indeed seems to us to teach the folly of the use of love and women in spying, since he has that wonderful teaching about how a tyrant can do anything to the liberty of men so long as he does not touch their patrimony. For this reason it does seem to me that Machiavellians would understand that if one prostitutes or rapes or tortures wrongly in the mistaken service of national security, the truth will come out. Machiavelli probably does not mention love, unless it is in the Mandragola, I’ll have to check. Or perhaps it is with his true teaching, in The Art of War. But Machiavelli also has that nice teaching about how many can see what one appears to be, but none can touch what you are, from The Prince. Once Machiavellianism enters American politics, the genuine or Socratic philosophers are called to counter its effects. For this, we must somehow “speak to the mariners,” as the boatswain says in The Tempest, “or we run ourselves aground.” We must show the people to stand upright, and these forces- even the seven dark powers or a “seven nation army” of Russia, ISIS, the mob, the Colombian type cartels, the Nazis and the Klan- can be beaten, along with the prescription drug and other huge transnational money interests. The Internet billionairs, who are decent and very powerful indeed, might be persuaded to help, while they are looking for philanthropic causes in their retirement. We, the American people, are like Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz, and Machiavelli is wrong in general, if he does have a point about how difficult it is to make these covert matters evident. No one will listen, and no one will believe you. Indeed, swept along by appearance and self-interest, no one will even ask the simplest questions.

Who Investigates the FBI and DHS?

For years, ever since Herbert Hoover, the FBI has been a sovereign unelected agency without oversight, whom no one has the power to investigate. The same will be true of the CIA and what we call the ETC., the departments few or none even know about. If one submits an inquiry then regarding FBI files, they can say there is nothing, while these are actually in the ETC. Congress has done little or nothing to oversee these agencies since the Church Committee investigations of the Seventies, and the members get all touchy, as though national security depended upon rogue agents being able to torture and do absolutely anything at whim, because you know one just cannot be too sure.

A few years ago, when we were not so paranoid- scared into believing that national security depends upon the suspension of the Fourth Amendment- our political science textbook had some interesting things to say about the Department of Justice and the FBI. The text is Cummings and Wise, Democracy Under Pressure, 2005. Here are some samples:

Senate and House investigations of the FBI during the seventies, in the wake of the Watergate scandal, revealed that for years- while the FBI enjoyed a highly favorable public image- the bureau had systematically engaged in illegal activities that violated the constitutional rights of American citizens. FBI agents, for example, engaged in hundreds of burglaries of individuals and groups to plant microphones or to photograph documents. From 1956-1971, the bureau, through its counterintelligence program (COINTELPRO), harassed American citizens and disrupted their organizations through a wide variety of clandestine techniques, some of which broke up marriages or endangered lives.

Moreover, it was disclosed that since the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt, the FBI had gathered intelligence on domestic groups and individuals with only the shakiest legal authority to do so. It had files on entertainers…even on justices of the U. S. Supreme Court. For years the bureau compiled various indexes or lists of people it considered politically unreliable who were to be rounded up in an emergency. And as the congressional investigations also disclosed, the FBI opened first class mail in violation of the law.

Even presidents respected Hoover’s power, and under his reign the FBI, although an arm of the Justice Department, became largely independent of the attorney general…

…other Americans worried about the concentration of power in the hands of the FBI, and they feared that its wiretaps and dossiers might be used for political ends, or to enhance the power of the director. Because Hoover’s political views were generally conservative, liberals feared that the FBI was more concerned about pursuing domestic radicals than organized crime…

…in prosecuting anti-war protesters, the government sometimes relied on informers who encouraged or committed the same acts for which their associates were later tried. During the same period, federal grand juries were used to gather intelligence against the peace movement and to suppress political dissent. And as mentioned earlier, through COINTELPRO, its domestic counterintelligence program, the FBI secretly harassed American citizens and in some cases even endangered lives…

Clearly the role and power of a secretive police agency raises disturbing problems in a democracy …

…or indeed in any free nation, especially a representative democracy.

Now, do you think, without any significant oversight from Congress, and with the President himself dependent upon the agencies for intelligence, things have become better in these respects, or worse? And do you seriously believe the door busting agents perspective that such things are necessary for national security? For God’s sake, Congress, grow some Kahunas and some subtlety of intellect to secure American liberty before it is simply too late! National security requires, in fact that these agencies not, for example, harbor KKK members or Nazis, and that the good cops be able to enforce the law to clear out the bad cops, who will do anything, without being told why they are doing it. Do mobsters peddle oxy and Heroin for the Russians, or vice versa, without asking what political scheme their little capitalist project is a part? And having softened up America for them, it will be too late by the time they realize their new obligation to bow toward Moscow or Mecca. Typical capitalists, forgetful of the political context of money-making. Machiavellianism assured of itself as the possessor of the philosophic truth about national security is again one of those tragic ironies, and will destroy security in a big and decisive way while appearing to preserve national security in some small way. Was John Lennon good or bad for America? And who was ever held accountable for what was done to Martin Luther King? And what are they doing now to the very citizens on whom American liberty depends, because they are not selected especially for their being able to tell the difference?

Get a Warrant!

CLC Campaign Finance Reform Solution

The Centrist Libertarian Constitutionalist Party will soon be a reality. I have decided that, tentatively, I will not accept any money as a campaign contribution at all, but rather, only goods that are used for offices or campaigns. If any people who earn more than subsistence join and want to contribute, than can ask us what we need, or see it for themselves, but apart from goods used for the campaign, we won’t take anything.

I believe that this habit solves the problem in America regarding Campaign finance and the system of Bribery that cannot be distinguished from free speech. When George Washington reached the end of his second term, he retired voluntarily. There was no law preventing him from being president for life, so long as he ran for re-election.

The problems of America are often caused by our assumption that we simply pursue self interest unless and until we are limited by a law, which we obey not for its own sake, but because of its power. Then, like adolescents, as soon as we are, or think we are, hidden from the law of have enough power to oppose the law, as with lawyers and corrupt prosecutors, we simply pursue our self interest in disregard of the law.

The habit of the CLC regarding campaign contributions will solve the problem of campaign finance in America without altering the constitution one iota.

As Adams said, the American constitution is made for a people that has virtue, and will work for no other. The problem of campaign finance and free speech is a good example. We need to solve these problems by standing upright and setting good examples that then become habits or conventions. And let the Republican and Democratic parties not follow this habit if they like, because we will get more advertising from this than from laminated junk mail and T.V. soundbites and attack adds. And the people will appreciate being free to get back to a good movie without being annoyed by spin and meaningless drivel

Rock Commentaries First Draft Finished!

Do You ever wonder about the meaning of songs? The last three Chapters of the Rock Commentaries were set here on WordPress today, and will be available free for a limited time. The list of Songs that are good to play at weddings should be helpful for DJ’s and those getting married, and the essay on Bloom should be helpful to philosophers. The articles on Aqualung, Quadrophenia, Ziggy Stardust and Creed I think are among the best things written on these, but writers always think that the day they print, till they get home and see all the errors! As said before, it’s because if we could think of anything better, we would include it! I expect to learn more soon from Sean Wilentz and Greil Marcus. But I still think I’m right about Sad Eyed Lady, and don’t want to hear that its about his wife instead, even from Dylan- ok, maybe both. Come visit!

Campaign Finance: A Constitutional Amendment

NPR had two guests on tonight, first former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Sarah Bell Cobb, and then Billie Corriher of the Center for American Progress. Suddenly it became clear that there is a common cause at the root of some of our systematic injustices, such as property seizures, Prescription Drug Abuse, and perhaps the system of Judicial fees as well. In my blog on the Pharmaceutical industry, I did not even get around to addressing the problem with the insurance system (because the recipient of services is not the one paying), and lawsuits, which in combination with the insurance companies, impel doctors to order tests to cover themselves in case of lawsuits. But these two together contribute to making a system of national health care un-affordable. I had only addressed the direct kickbacks and other incentives from the Pharmaceutical companies to the doctors and the hospitals. This is contrary to the Hippocratic oath, and need to stop.

Back to the courts. Chief Justice Cobb addressed the problem of elected judges, which ios that they must raise campaign funds into the millions, and then try cases before those they know have contributed, and secret P. A. C. money is untraceable publicly. The suggestion would seem to be appointed judges, though this may introduce other problems, and might only remove the problem to a different location. Mr. Corriher suggested stronger rules for judges regarding conflict of interest, and a more definite line of limits regarding campaign contributions, though the problem of secret contributions would remain.

Here is an obvious suggestion: forbid all campaigning, at least by judges. Let there be an official publication, a forum, like the League of Women’s Voter’s newspaper that allows each candidate to officially state their case. Then let the press come get their news, and eliminate the T. V. adds and laminated cow stuff that comes in the mail, with their opponent’s worst face right before the election. Unconstitutional? perhaps we are ready for a precisely worded amendment.

When new laws are made, or new constitutional arrangements made, there is always a new set of problems, usually unforeseen, that the legislators should try to foresee. Welfare and food stamps lead to category-diving and fraud. Every attempt to improve a circumstance with legislative measures leads, as if by its very artificiality, to a whole new set of problem. If the press and the official position forum were the locust of campaigns, all those corrupt would simply transfer their lobbying efforts to the press- which may be the least corrupt of the four branches of our government at present. This could be foreseen, though, and the press protected. America could replace the embarrassment of our campaigns and the slavishness of political office, which prevents the noble, (such as William Bennett seems to me), from wanting to take part in such a life, depriving America of her best source of talent and dedication.

Such an idea, of a public forum, trading post stove-type discussions around the table at the general store, is admittedly a bit like the flat tax-abolish the IRS idea. While it may not work literally, in just that simple a way, it is the right idea, which must then be adjusted in detail, admittedly toward the system we have now. But is it not time on some of these issues to wipe the slate clean and start over, before it is too late?

So here it is, the rough draft for Amendment XXVIII to the U. S. Constitution:

Freedom of Speech shall not be construed to allow campaign contributions indistinguishable from bribery. Henceforth, Congress may limit campaigning by the candidates for all elective offices of the United States to public forums provided for by non-partisan contributions, with entry to those forums subject to reasonable primary procedures. Such forums, as public speeches and debates, may be attended freely by the people and the press, but no money may be exchanged for the access of either the candidates, the people or the press.

Thomas Jefferson: Sayings

…the time for fixing every essential right on a legal basis is while our rulers are honest and our people united…the people…will be forgotten, therefore, and their rights disregarded. They will forget themselves but in the sole faculty of making money, and will never think of uniting to effect a due respect for their rights.

Notes on Virginia, Query XVII

 

Our legislators are not sufficiently appraised of the rightful limits of their power: that their true office is to declare and enforce only our natural rights and duties, and to take none of them from us. No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the natural rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought restrain him…The trial of every law by one of these texts would lessen much the labors of our legislators and lighten equally our municipal codes

To Francis W. Gilmer, Monticello, February 6, 1795

 

The tyranny of the legislatures is most formidable dread at present and will be for many years. That of the executive will come in its turn, but it will be at a remote period.

To James Madison, Paris, March 15, 1789

Property Seizures

 

…in framing a government that is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed, and in the next place, oblige it to control itself.

James Madison, Federalist 51

In case you have not noticed, over the past two decades, Police have begun to seize cars whenever possible. The practice began when laws were passed to allow the legitimate seizure of the proceeds and accessories of genuine crime. Seizure quickly spread to every car involved in any arrest, and then to whenever possible, or literally to every car broken down on the side of the road.

I discovered this when a fellow who roomed at the house here had his car impounded from the side of a dirt road in Green Oak Township, a mere 12 hours after it had broken down. I believe the law allows 24 hours. The police said it was impeding traffic, but I saw for myself the tracks of the flatbed off to the side where the car was loaded.

Inflated towing fees are then applied, and impound fees that rise daily. For the poor, these quickly exceed the value of their cars, and so their cars are lost. It was with some difficulty that my friend was allowed to retrieve his tools for roofing work- which is a bit harder than car impounding, though it pays a bit less.

These impound lots seem often to be owned by relatives of the police, as I believe was the case in the only two instances I have noted. Since I was teaching American Government at the time, I thought I would show the kid how in our system, justice can be secured with the right kind of effort. But when I called the State Police, and they would do nothing. I threatened to report the car stolen, and I was threatened with charges for filing as false police report. After all, we all knew where the car was, and what had just happened.

One sometimes knows corruption when one sees it, or rather smells it, as well as the abuse of power. It was not my car, or I would have surely bruised myself on it. No one can afford a lawyer, and the courts will not find the executive liable anyway. I wrote some letters, but that was the extent of the American Government demonstration.

On November 12th and 13th of 2009, the Detroit News ran a series of articles on the issue, by George Hunter and Doug Guthrie, with many examples and an attempt to indicate the legal bases on which these things are, in the courts, said to be done. In the worst case, which is now becoming famous, a party was raided by Detroit Police, no charges filed, but over 100 cars seized. That is 100,000 dollars for a single night’s work. It is a wonder they could not then balance the budget. In another case, also becoming nationally famous, one Red Cross worker waited in the street for another, and was accused of soliciting prostitution, literally for glancing at passers by. This case, I believe, went to the Michigan Supreme Court, and was pending when the article was written, but, has since been lost, like every other case on property seizures. The Supreme Court decided that officers are immune from actions that are part of their job, and the question of whether the police and city had a right to impound fees for nothing is not what was decided. The justices in the Supreme Court under whom these things have been done are Cliff Taylor, Cavenaugh, Weaver, Kelly, Corrigan, Young and Stephen Markman. We often do not know anything about the judges when we vote. We’ll have to see who made up the majority on that one.

In hindsight, we know that the Detroit police department was hopelessly corrupt. But back then, one could scream bloody murder, and the voters, as well as the executives, would shrug. Kym Worthy simply says that the law allows her office to seize property without filing charges. Tomika Smith, who had a large sum of cash seized because she was driving on I-94 and looked suspicious, says, “The Supreme Court decision gives the police unfettered right to stop and take people’s property for any or no reason. It’s shocking.”

Just a few weeks ago, now fifteen years after the car of my friend was impounded, a fellow hit a street sign, went for help, and found his car had been impounded before he returned. After paying the 1000$ fee, the car broke down due to damage from the accident. My friend helped him put the car in his driveway, to avoid another impound fee. I have since heard they would also charge him for damaging public property, the street sign.

It is an embarrassment to go into the no-brainer basis on which the courts should be deciding these cases. Again, I live in a shed and know these esoteric things, while those arguing and deciding the cases apparently do not have enough money yet. The Fourth Amendment requires that no property be seized without a warrant, and the Fifth that no property be taken without due process of law. In these cases, this means simply that Police do not have a right to use their powers to steal, even if the cities and police departments find stealing profitable. According to the 2009 Detroit News article, the Supreme Court decided that the property of one person may be seized if, even unknown, it is used by another to commit a crime. Following a decision to seize a Spanish ship that attacked us in war, the property itself is treated as though guilty, sidestepping that messy constitutional jargon about persons and rights.

The case of my father is a good example, too. While not flawless, he is a bit of a folk hero over there in Augusta Township. For over two years, he had insisted, even daily, that the Township obey the open meetings act and make the minutes of Township meetings accessible to the citizens according to law. The Township would call the police on him, and instead of enforce the open meetings act, the police would arrest him. Everyone thought he was merely a troublemaker, until his wife uncovered a 1.2 million dollar irregularity in the accounting. This was, as he suspected, the reason for the violation of the open meetings act- the minutes would be incriminating. A detective has since begun an investigation, computers seized and all.

A police memo was leaked in which my father was dangerously slandered. It is very difficult for the common man to try to correct government alone, and easy, in our times, to twist any statement any way one likes. In the face of naked injustice, people get angry. One error is to speak to police as though anything you say will be used in any way other than against you. An example: “McDonald’s tone was hostile and he made statements like “he knew exactly what he needed to do” and included the phrase “their dead asses.” The statement was that public officials doing nothing in the face of obvious abuses are like deceased donkeys. Again, “McDonald made statements that he shot and wounded someone in 1988 which so far is unconfirmed.” This is because he said he once “dropped” a guy who assaulted him with a chair. The memo even uses that he had “no problem giving his life for his country if he feels it would make a difference.” I’m sure the veterans will appreciate this in a list of “mental health issues” supposed to justify that police “use extreme caution when having contact with him or responding to his residence.” Were they setting him up to be shot without consequence? 1.2 million, a lot of people will do a lot for, and these police, every one that follows along, have demonstrated that they will pervert justice for chump change. There is your answer to the Sergeant who asked me if I too thought, like my deranged father, that there is corruption in government. I did not answer then, with the example of Serpico. He was fishing for how much I knew.

“The police” will end up keeping the 1.2 Million$ and his truck and trailer as well. In a recent decision, a judge has cited that same “immunity” familiar from the Odom case. If police have immunity from seizures being questioned, and this is the only question that appears in court, we have, ladies and gentlemen, no longer free government but a tyranny. Our tyranny, though, will not stand up to the Russian tyranny, as they have much more practice at it, nor the Isis tyranny, as they are much more unified and vigorous. So suddenly these domestic issues are the central national security threat. And we have been arguing these fifteen years now that national security requires an end to liberty and the establishment of majority tyranny.

Representative Tim Walberg is working to oppose property seizures by the IRS, and has included the horrendous article from the Free Press on February 23 describing the outright robbery of a legal Marijuana grower. The medicinal thing is looking more and more like a set up, and again, one has an obvious constitutional  right to stay off their handy list. And Jeff Irwin has proposed some correction to the two Michigan laws that allow every petty police department in the nation and their relatives in the chop shops to fleece the poorest of citizens. When the laws are abused, one thing the legislators can do is take away these laws and the powers they have given to police, until the circumstance can be corrected. If the laws and powers are being abused, we need to vote representatives into office who have more kahunas than those flag wavers and cheerleaders, who can take their blow-dried look and go work in advertising or some other job of primping appearances. And judges can just ignore the organized crime payoffs and even offers they can’t refuse. Like Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz, we the people can put an end to this rubbish being made of our police and courts, insist upon the support of our legislators for the constitution, and vote for those still willing to sacrifice for an America that is still free.

Finally, an interesting implication of the police department rules of procedure is that it allows for the seizure of the police departments themselves, by the FBI,  with far more justification than many of their property seizures. After all, they are in possession of all that contraband, and the FBI is “immune.” We can sort out later their legal right to posses it, and their personal property as well, and we will get them a public defendant for a lawyer, against the FBI’s whiz kids. They surely, by now, fit the description of an ongoing criminal enterprise under the RICO laws. Let them then try to get their property back, and while in prison, read the constitution that they never took time to read before being holstered with the power of life and death over their fellow citizens. This will take the cases out of the hands of our state judges who for a few buck can’t seem to understand the U. S. Constitution. Then we will have to take our chances that the FBI will listen and the Supreme Court judge, but one has to like their odds with the Feds better than these, petty tyrants emboldened by payoffs and favors from organized crime.