Saturday, October 15, 2005

Citizenship and Jurisdiction: Why Americans Get Screwed in Court

If you want to see some case law that will make you want to rush out and lynch some federal judges, go to and download and read the book The Federal Zone. In it author and attorney Paul Mitchel shows how the constitution provides for three basic meanings for the phrase "United States" and at least two meanings for "citizen." He demonstrates how the resulting confusion puts Americans in dire legal jeopardy, and how it makes judges and prosecutors complicit in stripping Americans of their rights, liberty, and property.

The impact of this confusion upon Americans is enormous. Let's analyze the issue a bit. First, let's address the meaning of United States.
1. Union - United States can mean the collection of states united by and under the Constitution. A better term would be the "Union of States". I shall refer to it herein as "Union" or "Union US"
2. Corporate - United States can also mean the corporate United states that includes federal enclaves, Washington D.C., territories and possessions (like Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, and the US Virgin Islands). I shall refer to it herein as "Corporate" or "Corporate US".
3. USA - the collection of 1 and 2 above, including geography and jurisdiction, a nation in the collection of nations throughout the world.

Why is this confusing? You cannot be sure from context in any discussion or legal dispute what "United States" means. If its meaning is not specifically declared by the communicants, one can be referring to Union US, and the other can be referring to the Corporate US.

Why is this a problem? It is a problem because supreme law over the Corporate US is different from that over the Union US. The constitution is the supreme law of the land over the Union US, but it allows Congressional acts and resolutions to be the supreme law over the Corporate US. Note here that Congress is not a republic. It is a majority-rule democracy, and that means people under the jurisdiction of congressional resolutions are protected only by those resolution, and not by the Constitution.

It is also a problem because of the nature of your citizenship. If you claim to be a United States Citizen or a citizen of the United States, to which United States are you referring? And how do your rights as a citizen of the corporate or union US differ? Some provisions of law apply to Corporate US citizens without the requirement of conformance Constitution's powers and restrictions, some apply to to Union US citizens, some apply to both, and some apply to to people who are neither. It should be obvious, but often it is not clear who or what is the subject of the law.

This confusion is over citizenship and associated rights is compounded by other facts about law, jurisdiction, juries, judges, and courts. I shall go into them in a little detail here so as to enable you to build a mental picture of elements and relationships.
1. The Constitution empowers the various branches of government, and it is a social contract between people, the states of which they are citizens, and the federal government. It specifically restricts the federal government to hold only the powers specifically defined within it, and it reserves to the states or the people, respectively all other powers.
2. The Statutes-at-Large (SAL) are the actual annotated statutes passed by Congress through acts and resolutions They are maintained by the National Archives after Congress passes them.
3. The United States Code (USC) is a body of 50 titles of the codified statutes in which Congressional attorneys actually implement the intent of the Statutes at Large. Since these are not actually the statutes, in order for them to have full force and effect, they must be passed into positive law by Congress. In reality about 12 of the 50 have not been passed into positive law (including Title 26, the Internal Revenue code, and Title 31, the Banking Code). In spite of this, all federal judges consider USC to be prima facie evidence that corresponding law exists in the SAL.
4. The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) is a body of law that should mirror the United States Code, but often does not. These are the regulations under which the Executive Branch governs America. A regulation is placed into the CFR by way of entry in the Federal Register. The CFR is in numerous places more restrictive or empowering than USC, but the courts have ruled that in order for a law to be binding, it must be in both the USC and the CFR.
5. The Uniform Commercial Code, adopted by all states, is a codification of equity law relating to contractual relationships. Even in criminal cases, this law can apply, particularly if you have, by your signature, agreed to perform to some contractual obligation. Any time you sign a government form, you are entering into a contract, and woe unto you if you do not properly reserve your common law rights to personal sovereignty in the process. For instance, when you sign a W-4 form to signify you are entitled to income tax exemptions, you are by implication attesting that you are a taxpayer for revenue purposes, and that subjects you to all the associated laws - it is an abrogation of your rights.
6. The "Common Law" of America is based on English Common Law and includes "case law" which makes it profoundly arduous and difficult to know what the law says in any given instance. Judges hate to overturn ruling of previous judges, even in cases two hundred years old when our society was completely different. So those old rulings become "precedents". In other words, regardless of what the words of the constitution, SAL, USC, or CFR say, an interpretation of one or more of those by a federal judge in an unrelated case many years ago actually becomes binding on all Americans today, even if the judge were drunk and derelict. This is one of the things that frightens so many citizens and legislators about Bush's nomination of Harriet Meyers to the Supreme Court. Nobody know her judicial tendencies because she has never been a judge. She might be one who will scoff at precedents, throwing massive confusion into our courts by opening the door to have every previous ruling challenged and overruled. Or she might be mindlessly subservient to precedent, no matter how illogical or inapplicable. She might see the constitution as supreme law, or some precedential ruling about it as supreme law. Nobody knows. It's scary. Worse than that, it's dangerous. In my opinion, precedent is highly over-rated, and too many judges use it as a convenient escape from freshly evaluating the constitution, statutes, and evidence to determine and render justice fairly.
7. In trials by juries, to which all Americans are entitled, the juries are supposed to be "peers" of similar background and social standing as the accused, and who know or are somewhat familiar with the accused personally. Otherwise, the juror is not a peer. Furthermore, juries are the last bastion of defense against high-handed usurpation of power and iniquitous rulings by judges, or collusions between prosecutors and judges who are paid by the same employer. They are entitled to evaluate and decide on matters of fact (whether various evidences are factual) and on matters of law (whether the law is understandable, the law is in accord with the constitution, the law is applicable in the case at hand, the judge and prosecutor are in collusion, or the defendant is innocent). The jury can overrule the judge. Unfortunately, most jurors are ignorant of this fact, and all prosecutors normally ask the judge to command the jury to consider only matters of fact (the judge tells the jurors what the law is and what it means, as though he is the only authority, an egregious usurpation of power). When defense counselors attempt to inform jurors that they have the right to throw the whole case out because it is unfair, the court is biased, the law does not apply, or the law is confusing, bad, or unconstitutional, judges clear out the jury and cite the defense counselor for contempt of court. Judges thereby effectively prevent justice from being done, and many innocent Americans are fined or sent to jail as a result.
8. The jurisdiction of a federal court can change based on the type of law over which it has the authority to rule, and that can change the entire nature of a case. In America there are courts of law, courts of equity, and admiralty courts. Courts of law and equity have been merged, to add to the confusion. The rules for these jurisdictions are different. Admiralty courts are supposed to govern maritime issues because they deal with interactions with foreign powers at sea, but they have jurisdiction only over international contracts. If you are "foreign" in citizenship status to the corporate United States, then jurisdiction switches from the rules of equity and law to the rules of admiralty. Quite often, you can be put into a situation of not knowing what kind of court you are in or which rules apply, and attorneys are often unaware of the issues too.
9. One's citizenship and residency status is unclear to most Americans. To the United States federal government, a State of the Union is "foreign." If you reside in the Corporate US (federal enclave, territory, or possession), you are a "resident." If you reside outside the Corporate US (in Texas, for example), you are a "non-resident." If you were born in the geographical area of a federal enclave, territory, or possession, such as Puerto Rico, you are a Corporate US citizen, but not a Union US citizen, and you are considered by the federal government of the United States of America to be a non-alien. If you were born in Germany and are a naturalized citizen, you are a federal non-alien because you are a Corporate US citizen. If you are a Union US citizen (by virtue of having been born in one of the states united under and by the Constitution), but you are not a Corporate US citizen, then you are an "alien" to the corporate United States. Note that a "state" is not necessarily one of the states of the union of states. 26 USC (and case law) indicates that a "state" can be one of the territories or possessions of the corporate US; the rules for them are different from the rules for states of the Union US. If you are both a natural-born citizen of a state of the Union US (Texas, for example), and you reside in a state of the Union US (Florida, for example), you are a Union US citizen, but not of the Corporate US, and from the Corporate US perspective, you are thereby a "non-resident alien." Most Americans are astonished by this revelation, about the same as they would be if they suddenly learned that they were adopted as infants. All of us Union US citizens tend to feel protected by the enormous and fatherly government of the USA, when in reality, that government of the USA is to us an "evil foreign empire," particularly when it comes to efforts to steal money from us through iniquitous tax laws like 26 USC.

What a nightmare this is if you get hauled into court and have to defend yourself, particularly if you are being prosecuted by a US Attorney on behalf of the IRS or some other agent of some department of the Executive Branch. Here's why:
1. You cannot trust the federal government, run by sometimes corrupt, bought-and-paid-for political officials elected by an increasingly ignorant and irresponsible constituency, to enact statutes that are in accord with the Constitution, nor can you trust attorneys working for non-elected officials appointed by a political president to encode the provisions of the acts into the CFR properly.
2. You cannot trust federal judges appointed by the president to explain the above realities to the defendant, nor to yield his authority to the jury.
3. You cannot trust a prosecutor to be more interested in justice than in seeing you in jail.
4. You cannot trust judges and prosecutors who are employees of the same corporate entity not to collude by secret or institutionalized unwritten agreement to deprive you of your rights.
5. You cannot expect a defense counselor, who is an officer of and by necessity to some degree in collusion with the court to give you a proper defense, or even to understand the subtle nuances of the above issues. A good defense counselor in federal court needs to study the Constitution, the statutes at large (a daunting task), the USC, the CFR, common law (including Uniform Commercial Code), case law, and the previous rulings of the judge before he is going to argue your case. I do not believe most attorneys are up to the task.
Clearly, the deck is intentionally stacked against your receiving justice in America's federal courts.

Let me give you just one example of the creeping injustice that is gradually enslaving all Americans. The Patriot Act imposes the requirement that banks get proper identification from patrons before allowing them to open accounts, and it requires that all foreigners show some kind of number similar to a social security number. However, it does not require that American citizens provide any such number to identify themselves. Attorneys for the various departments of the executive branch tore into the CFR to modify it so as to implement the Patriot Act. Many titles were changed. One was the title related to banking regulations. The CFR now requires Americans to have social security numbers to open accounts. Even though the SAL does not require the SSN, every bank will demand it or risk prosecution by US Attorneys at the behest of the Treasury Department of the Executive Branch of the United States government.

Maybe this doesn't bother you. It should. No law requires you to have a social security number. However, your life is made pure hell by such creeping encroachment on your rights if you don't have one. Your signature on a social security card application can be used as prima facie evidence that you are a Corporate US citizen, and therefore not protected by the Constitution as you otherwise would be if you were a Union US citizen.

Now, here's another example. When you sign a W-4 form to get income tax exemptions from your employee, you never indicate you are a non-resident alien and check the box that says "exempt." That is because you believe you are a resident non-alien, and you are an American citizen. Of course, the IRS officials advertise like crazy, sending tax forms to all Americans as though they owe direct income taxes in violation of the constitution's requirement that direct taxes must be apportioned among states. IRS officials and Treasury Department attorneys who advised congressional attorneys who drafted US code know that most people will think they ought to pay direct income taxes. So, no forms every clearly state that you aren't even subject or liable for to income tax as a non-resident alien of the Corporate US. But once you sign the binding W-4 contract without indicating you are a non-resident alien and therefore exempt from the income tax according to law, you have just confessed that you are a Corporate US citizen, and the IRS will take you at your word. Your employer, being utterly ignorant of these realities will happily take money from your check and hand it to the IRS.

When you go to court to dispute this, or for failing to file a 1040, or for failure to pay any tax owed, the US Attorney for the IRS will show the W-4 you signed, and the judge will accept it as evidence that are a Corporate US citizen, and therefore not protected by the Constitution's requirement that direct taxes be apportioned among states rather than taken directly from your pocket or paycheck. When your defense counselor ignorantly raises the issue about the apparent unconstitutionality of the law, the judge will tell him to shut up and threaten to cite him for contempt if he mentions the Constitution one more time. Why? Because the Constitution does not apply to or protect Corporate US citizens.

By this example you can see the reason 26USC has never been passed into positive law. It is a nightmare for hell for the typically ignorant Union US citizen and his ignorant attorney who barely studied these issues in law school.

I encourage all Union US citizens to clarify the nature of their citizenship on all government forms, and properly to reserve rights by signing "All rights reserved. Without prejudice. UCC 1-308" (note: it used to be UCC 1-207 but the text is the same). And if you get hauled into federal court you should say "no" when you are asked if you understand the charges against you, and never answer "yes." If you want more information on this, review Howard Freeman's comments at The Two United States and the Law, Free Yourself from Legal Tyranny, and The Zip Code Issue . And by all means, read The Federal Zone and its appendices (particularly Appendix A), the case law, and Paul Mitchell's and others' legal briefs and court filings at You are in for a revelation almost on a par with The Urantia Book.

# # #

Friday, October 14, 2005

Robert M Hurt III, Dead at 36

The photo shows my son Robert M Hurt III and Linda McIntire when they came from Virginia Beach to visit me and Maria in Clearwater Florida in June 2002. I'm writing to talk a little about Robby . He died at 10:45PM on 13 October 2005.

Robby was born 30 April 1969. He was 36 years old. He and Linda lived with her daughter Kayla (13) in their condo in Virginia Beach. Robby had two daughters - Jenny (13) who lives with her grandmother, my ex-wife, Cheryl in Blackwater, a rural southern suburb of Virginia Beach, and Kristen (8) who lives with her mother Rachel in Virginia Beach. Robby and Linda had been together for the past four or five years.

For the past several years, Robby had been an excellent foreign car salesman. He did his best to be a good and loving father to Kayla, Jenny, and Kristen. He is the type of man people like to love. He was outgoing, cheerful, gentle, and affable. He had a great sense of humor, was a good cook, and a sentient romanticist.

Late in 2004, Robby contracted pneumonia and just couldn't seem to shake it off for 5 months or more. Eventually, he was hospitalized and given antibiotics and rest, after which he returned home to recuperate. His problems began to mount, so he went back into the hospital for testing. The doctors concluded he had liver problems, and he was looking jaundiced. The medication they gave him didn't seem to work. Then they discovered he had a staphylococcus infection in his blood. They treated it with antibiotics, and he went back home to recuperate. His condition worsened, so he returned to the hospital for more diagnostics. The doctor found that he had a hole in his heart, but decided not to operate. Then, Robby suffered a stroke. A few days ago he began to bleed uncontrollably from the nose. On Tuesday, he suffered a violent epileptic seizure, even though he has no history of such seizures. The doctor performed a procedure to restrict blood flow to his nose so the bleeding would stop. Then the doctor informed Cheryl that Robby's liver was failing badly.

Cheryl did not believe Robby would live long. On his last day, he was sedated, on a respirator, and unable to answer phone calls. The only thing that could be done for him was to pray for a quick end to his suffering. He had requested not to have his life prolonged artificially, and Cheryl so ordered the doctor. Cheryl called to talk with me about it, and I agreed with her.

Cheryl and I shall not be alone in missing Robby. Nearly everybody who ever met him loves him, and he will be sorely missed. Robert M. Hurt III is survived by brothers and sisters Norman, Keith, Wendy, and Lorrie. As for me and Maria, we are facing our grief over the loss, knowing we do not feel it nearly as acutely as those who have witnessed his waning vitality. I am consoled in the knowledge that Robby's suffering has ended, and that he is passing through a period of rest to awaken in a new spiritual life where he is loved and able to love, and can enjoy the eternal adventure of coming to know, love, and be like God. He would wish that everyone could celebrate his entering the next phase of his spiritual existence.

# # #

My Complaints Against President GW Bush

Recently, a female friend of mine wrote:

" I, at least, have a basis in my opinions. Bush is an idiot, a zealot, a war monger, a spoiled little rich boy with real tanks and soldiers to play with, an imbecile who can't make change for $1.00 but can't live on a 300 billion dollar allowance. He is a thief, a lazy SOB, a coward, a liar and a fratboy who throws a mean BBQ. He is a college graduate who can't complete a sentence or compose a cohesive thought without the help of script writers. My opinion, of course. I believe at least 60% of the rest of the country agrees in all or in part with me."

This is my answer:

I mean no offense by calling you a YDD (Yellow Dog Democrat), meaning you'd rather vote for a yellow dog Democrat than a human Republican. That doesn't mean I'm calling you a dog, and it isn't like I'm calling you a slut. I'm sure if only you could find a Republican you thought were honest, loyal, etc, you wouldn't be voting for any dogs. I'm just saying you have no integrity when it comes to politics. You seek only to denigrate Republicans, regardless of who they are, what they stand for, or what they do. In other words, you're against them to the point of being irrational, disingenuous, and disagreeable.

Now, you CLAIM to have "basis in my opinions," but where's your proof? Your comments seem to come more from bias than basis. You have attacked Bush's character, not his actions or presidential philosophy, and you haven't proposed ANYTHING better than what he has done. Let's look at a few facts. Bush holds degrees from Yale and Harvard, so he is hardly an ignoramus, and he is a natural leader, having been president of his graduating class at Yale, run his own entrepreneurship, and made his own money from his own work. Plus, I am certain you cannot fault his choice for a wife, nor his moral character or religious devotion. He is true blue, does not screw around, and is loyal to family and friends. And, he has proven himself to be highly efficient and effective manager. In many ways, he is a model husband, father, and leader. So when you say all those bad things about him, I'm wondering where you get the data to support your beliefs.

Maybe you don't have the time or interest to discuss these issues honestly. That's okay. I have a lot more time on my hands than you do. And I study all the time, so I keep myself reasonably well informed. And when I discuss these issues, I nearly always do so with the intent to propose better solutions.

In point of fact, I believe Bush did the right thing in attacking Afghanistan and Iraq, regardless of the reasons he forwarded. Iraq planned and financed the destruction of the Murrah building 10 years ago in Oklahoma city (see for the lawsuit against Iraq on behalf of the victims - it documents the evidence), there were WMD in Iraq that were spirited out on the eve of the invasion via truck convoy to Syria (see for details), and militant Muslims have been trying to take over non-Islamic lands through insurrection, wars, and terrorism for 14 centuries. They've been quite successful, if you look at the map. Over 20% of the world's land mass is dominated by criminal Islamic governments that condon crimes against humanity like slavery, clitoral amputation (wouldn't you love that) to keep women chaste, and other heinous inhumanities. Don't you think it's about time some American president jumped in and started calling a screeching halt to it? How much more of America do you want to see destroyed before the problem is corrected?

In social issues, Bush's policies have resulted in record high home ownership by minorities, reduced taxes to rich and poor alike, reduced deficit as a percentage of GNP, increased GNP, prescription drug benefits for the old, assistance in Africa to combat AIDs (which I believe is what killed my son), amnesty overtures to the poor Mexicans who have come here illegally to escape the economic horrors of their homeland (hey, there are 20,000+ Mexicans from the state of Hidalgo living in the area of Clearwater Florida), record-breaking disaster relief money for the areas and victims of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and major results with North Korea and Gaza. These are all noble ambitions of any liberal. Frankly, I don't think any Democrat president could have done any better.

And maybe that is part of my problem with him. Just so you know I see both sides of his issues clearly, note these complaints:

1. Our monetary system is a sham, and a strong and resolute presidency can lead in its repair, but George won't do it. Nothing of intrinsic value backs our dollars, and when Saddam Hussein and Hugo Chavez began selling oil for Euros in 1999, the foreign demand for dollars began a nosedive, necessitating both a CIA-sponsored oil strike in Venezuela and the invasion of Iraq. The dollar plummeted in value from 87 cents per Euro to $1.35 per Euro in 4 years. Now that Iraq is selling oil for dollars again, the dollar is beginning to normalize, and its value is $1.20 per Euro. If the invasion had not happened, the Euro would cost $2 by now, so we are lucky. On the other hand, had Bush outlawed Federal Reserve Notes, nationalized all gold and silver mines and bullion reserves (even foreign-owned reserves), and made all currency redeemable in gold or silver coin, the value of the dollar would be both stable and high because it would actually be worth more than the cost of printing it (which is its only intrinsic value now).

2. The president should push for outlawing deficit spending. Every deficit reduces the value of the currency in circulation and that causes so-called inflation. While he reduced front-end taxes a little, the inflation that results from deficits is the same as a back-end tax, only it is worse. No only is your paycheck worth less in buying power, but your savings are worth less too. It would be far better to pay our taxes on the front end so our savings would keep their value. Throughout your entire life, you've never known anything but deficit spending from our nation's leaders, and therefore nothing but inflation ranging from 6% to 16% per year. Strong presidential leadership will be required to fix this problem, and George won't give it. Part of the problem is the social security payout, and it can only be fixed by investing social security taxes in indexed stocks while increasing the retirement age to the average lifespan (now 78). The enormous welfare, hospitalization (medicaid), housing, and other entitlements for the poor are bankrupting the nation because they represent not only the loss to taxpayers of their hard-earned income, but also the loss of the income welfare recipients would get if they were forced to get their butts to work. And most of the welfare abuse is a result of the existence of over 75 million stupid people in our society, many of whom resort to crime and welfare abuse to get by because they cannot compete for the better jobs. The only solution to that is to eliminate the stupid, and the only humane method to sterilize stupid parents so they can't procreate more stupid children. Of course, Bush will not discuss this, and he certainly will not do anything about it.

3. The president should completely halt illegal immigration (that is one of his main jobs - to prevent a foreign invasion), forcibly return illegal immigrants to their homelands (billing foreign governments for the expense), and set a minimum IQ limit of 90 for all legal immigrants. America simply does not need more stupid people to clog the criminal justice system and welfare roles, and subsist through theft, drug dealing, racketeering, and other crimes. Bush wants to leave the borders porous and give amnesty to illegals. I consider that to be humane to them, inhumane to the citizenry who must foot the bill, and economically insane.

4. The president should push for a Manhattan-style project to eliminate America's dependence on fossil fuels for energy. The enormous energy bill is languishing in Congress. I know of numerous inventors who have been suppressed or murdered to prevent their energy-efficient devices from reaching the marketplace, and energy companies and automobile manufacturers are complicit in buying up patents and sitting on them forever to protect their profits. I consider this to be evil to the point of criminality, and the president should push Congress to outlaw it. Any company that buys or develops a patent should be given a maximum of 5 years to produce a product based on the technology, and after that to be forced to hand over the technology into the public domain. The rule should be "Use it or Lose it." Of course, Bush's family and cronies earn a lot of money from the oil business, so he'll never promote such a sensible thing, nor work aggressively to squash anyone found guilty of suppressing technology for profit to the detriment of society. Possibly one of the major reasons is that state and federal governments earn windfall revenues from taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel. If water is fractured electrically to produce hydrogen and oxygen gas for fuel, there will be no further need for petroleum-based fuels, and that will kill the associated tax revenues, a hard pill for Congress to swallow.

5. The president should call a screeching halt to abuses by the IRS and Treasury Department against citizens. In fact it is a violation of the constitution for the government to tax people directly, but that is precisely what the IRS does every day. The grief and hardship to American families is enormous and outrageous. The president has a commission working on Tax reform proposals right now, but I know the IRS will be left in control of ruining Americans' lives.

These are my main complaints against Bush. Guess what? They are also my main complaints against Clinton, and all the other presidents since I was born. In my opinion, they are all derelict.

Now, the above are actual fact-based issues, really good reasons to be down on the president. All the name calling you did was disingenuous and only makes you look like a crackpot sourpuss YDD. Why not switch to fact-based issues that really are relevant? I'm sure the Republican party could use a few more people like you.

# # #

Friday, October 07, 2005

The Solution to Black Poverty and Oppression

The Solution to Black Poverty and Oppression

Jim Bernard wants to know:

As a fervent republican , how would you respond to this speech - if you were President Bush ?
NBA’s Etan Thomas, the Washington Wizards' Power Forward, delivered a blistering poetical speech as part of the weekend’s anti-war demonstrations in Washington DC.  While you peruse it, note the areas of bold typeface I added.
“ Giving all honor, thanks and praises to God for courage and wisdom, this is a very important rally. I'd like to thank you for allowing me to share my thoughts, feelings and concerns regarding a tremendous problem that we are currently facing. This problem is universal, transcending race, economic background, religion, and culture, and this problem is none other than the current administration which has set up shop in the White House.
In fact, I'd like to take some of these cats on a field trip. I want to get big yellow buses with no air conditioner and no seatbelts and round up Bill O'Reilly, Pat Buchanan, Trent Lott, Sean Hannity, Dick Cheney, Jeb Bush, Bush Jr. and Bush Sr., John Ashcroft, Giuliani, Ed Gillespie, Katherine Harris, that little bow-tied Tucker Carlson and any other right-wing conservative Republicans I can think of, and take them all on a trip to the average poor black neighborhood. Not to do no 30-minute documentary. I mean, I want to drop them off and leave them there, let them become one with the other side of the tracks, get them four mouths to feed and no welfare, have scare tactics run through them like a laxative, criticizing them for needing assistance.
I’d show them working families that make too much to receive welfare but not enough to make ends meet. I’d employ them with jobs with little security, let them know how it feels to be an employee at will, able to be fired at the drop of a hat. I’d take away their opportunities, then try their children as adults, sending their 13-year-old babies to life in prison. I’d sell them dreams of hopelessness while spoon-feeding their young with a daily dose of inferior education. I’d tell them no child shall be left behind, then take more money out of their schools, tell them to show and prove themselves on standardized exams testing their knowledge on things that they haven’t been taught, and then I’d call them inferior.
I’d soak into their interior notions of endless possibilities. I’d paint pictures of assisted productivity if they only agreed to be all they can be, dress them up with fatigues and boots with promises of pots of gold at the end of rainbows, free education to waste terrain on those who finish their bid. Then I’d close the lid on that barrel of fool’s gold by starting a war, sending their children into the midst of a hostile situation, and while they're worried about their babies being murdered and slain in foreign lands, I’d grace them with the pain of being sick and unable to get medicine.
Give them health benefits that barely cover the common cold. John Q. would become their reality as HMOs introduce them to the world of inferior care, filling their lungs with inadequate air, penny pinching at the expense of patients, doctors practicing medicine in an intricate web of rationing and regulations. Patients wander the maze of managed bureaucracy, costs rise and quality quickly deteriorates, but they say that managed care is cheaper. They’ll say that free choice in medicine will defeat the overall productivity, and as co-payments are steadily rising, I'll make their grandparents have to choose between buying their medicine and paying their rent.
Then I'd feed them hypocritical lines of being pro-life as the only Christian way to be. Then very contradictingly, I’d fight for the spread of the death penalty, as if thou shall not kill applies to babies but not to criminals.
Then I’d introduce them to those sworn to protect and serve, creating a curb in their trust in the law. I’d show them the nightsticks and plungers, the pepper spray and stun guns, the mace and magnums that they’d soon become acquainted with, the shakedowns and illegal search and seizures, the planted evidence, being stopped for no reason. Harassment ain’t even the half of it. Forty-one shots to two raised hands, cell phones and wallets that are confused with illegal contrabands. I’d introduce them to pigs who love making their guns click like wine glasses. Everlasting targets surrounded by bullets, making them a walking bull's eye, a living piƱata, held at the mercy of police brutality, and then we’ll see if they finally weren’t aware of the truth, if their eyes weren’t finally open like a box of Pandora.
I’d show them how the other side of the tracks carries the weight of the world on our shoulders and how society seems to be holding us down with the force of a boulder. The bird of democracy flew the coop back in Florida. See, for some, and justice comes in packs like wolves in sheep's clothing. T.K.O.d by the right hooks of life, many are left staggering under the weight of the day, leaning against the ropes of hope. When your dreams have fallen on barren ground, it becomes difficult to keep pushing yourself forward like a train, administering pain like a doctor with a needle, their sequels continue more lethal than injections.
They keep telling us all is equal. I’d tell them that instead of giving tax breaks to the rich, financing corporate mergers and leading us into unnecessary wars and under-table dealings with Enron and Halliburton, maybe they can work on making society more peaceful. Instead, they take more and more money out of inner city schools, give up on the idea of rehabilitation and build more prisons for poor people. With unemployment continuing to rise like a deficit, it's no wonder why so many think that crime pays.
Maybe this trip will make them see the error of their ways. Or maybe next time, we'll just all get out and vote. And as far as their stay in the Whitehouse is concerned maybe it will end soon. "
Bob Hurt responds:
Etan is driven to complain, as shown in the bold-faced areas of his speech, that blacks don't get enough free benefits from government, and that they cannot compete effectively for well-paying jobs. 
  1. He tries to blame it on flaws in the education system and on police brutality, but he neglects to mention that half the black children do not graduate from high school, and the reason is this:  many of them are unable to learn because they have low IQ because they were procreated by low-IQ parents who do not provide good role models, a proper diet, a sane environment, or a decent culture. 

  2. He fails to mention that 70% of those children have no father at home because black men are irresponsible, due in part to the enormous public assistance their mates and children receive from their rich uncle, Sam. 

  3. He ignores the reality that 20% of those children are born to children because parents do not rear their children to be moral and sexually responsible, and do not give them adequate supervision. 

  4. He sidesteps the fact most black mothers have four or more children, even though they cannot adequately feed and clothe them, because the mothers are sexually irresponsible.

  5. He acts as though all inner city blacks have an inalienable right to public assistance at the expense of others.  I do not see an inherent entitlement to welfare, nor a related government power to rob from the rich and give to the poor, enumerated in the constitution. 

  6. No where did Etan complain that the hundreds thousands of public charities (including local churches) in America are too selfish to give impoverished blacks a helping hand.  Of course, he has no complaint because few poor blacks avail themselves of such charities.  First of all, few of them attend church, and second, they don't bother asking because they see the federal government as a big fat udder laden with warm milk for them to suck whenever they like. 
Most people with any sense think it is both stupid and unethical to rely on government assistance for support.  The problem is:  people like Etan, and folks from communities like the one from which he hails, don't have very much sense.
The bottom line is this:  Most of the racial problems in America stem from gene-based low IQ, the general unwillingness to face that fact frankly, and the refusal to set up systems to accomodate the stupid of today while gradually eliminating the stupid from future generations.  In other words, the problem is not racial differences, but rather it is low IQ and the fact that people like Etan Thomas don't use their bully pulpit to get their listeners to face the facts about low IQ. 
Blacks aren't alone in their suffering.  Their IQ averages 85, but Mexican IQ averages 87, and there are about 30 million Caucasians with IQ below 85.  I consider all people with IQ 85 and below to be relatively "stupid".  The nation does not properly employ them because we have allowed manufacturing to run offshore where labor is cheaper.  And our nation's schools do not properly channel low-IQ children into apprenticeships and life-long vocational training after they finish the 8th grade, the highest level a stupid child can tolerate.
The low IQ of blacks, non-white Hispanics, and Caucasians doesn't just affect them.  It also adversely affects our nation and our civilization.  Gross National Product is directly proportional to IQ, limited only by the nature of government.  For details, read about the Smart Fraction Theory at La Griffe du Lion's web site.  Thus, an over-sized population of stupid people is a direct cause of low productivity (GNP).  Right now, there are about 90 million Blacks and non-white Hispanics (many of whom have black ancestry) in America, and about 40 million of them are in the stupid category.  Of the 200 million Caucasians, about 33 million are stupid. 
Since America's wage base has forced so many labor jobs offshore, America doesn't need as many stupid laborers as it once did. Since the stupid are the largest users of the criminal justice system and welfare, and therefore a terrible productivity burden on the nation, we should get eliminate them from future generations, humanely, of course.  The way to do that is simple:  don't let them procreate.  Within 3 generations, there will be virtually no stupid people in America.
By preventing America's 73 million stupid people from procreating, the average IQ of the USA (compared to the 100 norm of the UK) will gradually rise to 110 or 115 , making the USA the smartest country on earth.  With an average IQ of 98 (same as China and Australia), the USA already has the world's highest per-capita GNP (over $29,000).  If my recommended program (see below) were implemented today, within 75 years the USA's GNP would jump to 35,000 or $40,000 in today's dollars.  In the process, we'd see dramatic reduction in money money wasted on criminal justice, welfare, education, and lost productivity, and in loss of life and property to stupid criminals who cannot compete for the better jobs.  As a consequence, the actual spendable reserves of the GNP would become enormous, enough to retire our national debt within a generation.
I'm not a Republican.  However, if I were a second-term president like George Bush, I'd start pushing Congress to amend the constitution as necessary to pass  laws that require this: 
  1. Permanently sterilize all residents with an IQ below 90, all felons upon entering prison, and all insane people.

  2. Temporarily sterilize all fecund minors (until they reach the age of 21), and all indigents and welfare recipients (till self-sufficient for 5 years).

  3. Prohibit from voting all who are welfare recipients, felons, indigents, insane, under 25, or have an IQ less than 90.

  4. Incentivize parents with IQ above 100 to have 4 children per family, and those with IQ above 120 to have at least 6 children per family.

  5. Incentivize Northeastern Orientals, Ashkenazi Jews, and Europeans with IQ above 120 to emigrate to America.

  6. Prohibit all persons with IQ below 100 from entering the country for any reason, including asylum.

  7. Round up and eject all illegal aliens.

  8. Require all welfare recipients to work at community service projects under careful supervision in exchange for their welfare checks, food stamps, and subsidized housing.

  9. Incentivize state governments to set up separate vocational schools for students of IQ less than 90, and not educate such students acadamically beyond the 7th grade.

  10. Ban teachers unions and incentivize state governments to require all students to attend school 11 hours per day, 6 days per week, 11 months per year.

  11. Implement a crash program to eliminate the use of fossil fuels for energy.

  12. Re-establish the precious metals standard for currency, nationalize all precious metal resources, and return currency production to the US Treasury.

  13. Repudiate all indebtedness to the Federal Reserve and international banks.
I know what you're thinking:  "If there aren't any more stupid people left, who will do all the boring, labor-intensive jobs that will drive smart people crazy?"
Such a question ignores the reality that when the nation on the whole is smarter, it finds better ways to solve its labor problems than brute force.  A smarter population will handle most of its labor problems with technology.  Just one example is robotics.  Robotic vacuum cleaners are already available to clean floors in homes.
The question also ignores the fact that there will be sufficient people with IQs between 90 and 100 to handle the menial jobs with which technology has not already dispensed.  A college diploma is out of the question for nearly everyone of IQ below 110, and if primary education were properly rigorous, an IQ of 100 would be required to graduate from high school.  Because the population will be smarter, the standards of education will naturally rise, and that will still leave quite a few people in the lower IQ levels to fill available labor jobs.
In addition, the available labor jobs will also offer higher compensation because the society will be much more affluent.  As a result, laborers will not be inclined to resort to crime and welfare abuse to get by.
Oh, yes, I know some of the elements of are shocking, but so what?  For circumstances to improve, there must be changes. 
Here's the easiest intermediate step of reducing the ranks of the stupid in future generations:  A Cash-for-Gonads program.
The government could simply offer hard cash to low-IQ residents, welfare recipients, the indigent, and the insane in exchange for being permanently sterilized.  Most of them will be delighted.  I'd start with $10,000 per person.  A similar program could offer average and high-IQ fecund children $1000 for agreement to be sterilized temporarily via reversible vascectomy or tubal ligation.  Both programs should be promoted heavily on TV, Radio, newspapers, and so on.
A related program could offer large tax incentives to average and high-IQ parents to have more children.  Most such families have only 1 or 2 children, not enough to sustain the gene group.  They should be encouraged to produce 4 to 8 children, and as many as 20 if the family is wealthy.
The way to solve Etan Thomas' s complaints is to procreate fewer stupid and more smart Americans, not to give dwellers of black ghettos even more largess with which to breed ever larger families and commit ever greater abuses of our welfare, education, and criminal justice systems.
# # #

Tuesday, October 04, 2005

Why Hydrogen Power Won't Work

Why Hydrogen Power Won’t Work

I see a lot of discussion on hydrogen energy newsgroups about the benefits, reasons, etc, for hybrid (hydrogen from water and fossil fuels powering the automobile engine).  Frankly I think all of you are missing the point.  Numerous patents exist for cost-effective water electrolysis systems to produce hydrogen and oxygen.  Here are the reasons we don't have non-hybrid, water-only hydrogen power right now.

1.  Oil interests will murder, harass, or pay government to suppress anybody who invents a salient technology.  It is far cheaper to do that than to lose all their profits within the few years it takes to get the technology into wide spread use.

2.  State and federal governments raise enormous revenues from taxes on petroleum products, particularly gasoline and diesel fuel.  A water-only technology will destroy that tax base virtually overnight.  Government leaders are too short-sighted to plan for the tax-base shift, and too greedy to give up the money.

There you have it.  The two most powerful economic forces in the world, one with National Guard and military to enforce its inner sanctum dictums, and the other with its own private army of hooligans, will destroy anyone who threatens their revenues.

This reminds me of the story of Jesus.  His message was simple and easy.  God exists and is our heavenly father.  All humans are each others brothers and sisters, and we should love and serve them unselfishly and lovingly.  We should have faith in the effectiveness of the supreme human desire to do the Father's will - to work to become like God.

Of course, his story was immediately warped by his followers, for most Christians (his followers today) do not believe embracing the above gospel will give them eternal life.

But the message was so innocuous and compatible with all world religions that one must wonder why the Jewish Temple rulers conspired to have him arrested, convicted on false testimony of false charges, and executed.

The answer is simple.  Jesus' gospel was a dire threat to the Temple Treasury and to the wealthy Temple rulers and their minions.  Had people embraced the gospel, they would have seen no need to pay for sacrificial creatures or subscribe to a plethora of Temple services that made the Temple so prosperous.  Their treasury is estimated to have been worth a hundred million dollars in today's money.

They killed him to preserve their cushy cash flow.

We can expect any revelators of the gospel of water-only hydrogen fuel cells to meet a similar fate.