Mea Culpa, Mitt

I've been so busy with this blog lately that I missed reading the six news stories below. It seems I owe Mitt Romney an apology.

—Lord Halliburton has resigned his office and relinquished his peerage, in the wake of recent bribery, embezzlement and money-laundering scandals.

—Bobbie Blackwater, in a desperate attempt to escape notoriety, has married Prince Erik, thus changing her name to a symbol which cannot be spelled or pronounced.

—C. B. Esch, a victim of macular and dental degeneration, has sold all his assets to Enby and Abie Sea.

—Nick Exxon, convicted in the death of the Alaskan fishing industry, now sits on death row in Texas.

—Merrill Wahl Streep (for his role as acting CEO of the CIA), after narrowly escaping being lynched, was awarded with 100 years in prison for collapsing the global economy for profit, with time off for good behavior.

—Meyer Roth's child, heir to the world's largest fortune, has completed his leveraged buyout of all the world's assets, and is now accepting bets on the winners of the next U.S. presidential election. Asked if he had a personal favorite, he replied, "No. Who cares, as long as I control all the credit?"

I admit, Mitt, you were right—corporations are people.


(Please click here for another, more serious comment.)

Before the China Syndrome: Silkwood

Reviewing my last post (and the links I provided) about averting a further—and far greater—disaster at Fukushima, I remembered that the Wikipedia article on the 1979 film "China Syndrome" oddly portrayed the problems that the protagonist (Jack Lemmon's "Jack Godell") was having (in revealing what led to the near-disaster at the power plant where he worked) as coming from his fellow employees, not with management. While I don't recall his direct interaction with management in the movie, the actions of his fellow employees seem unlikely to have been in defiance of company policy and without management's knowledge (especially the efforts to silence him with deadly force).

One key scene is left out of the Wikipedia version of the plot line: on his way to do some whistle-blowing, Lemmon's character is nearly run off the road by a Plant security vehicle. (Earlier, he'd gotten a  reminder warning him that "we've got our own police force, Jack.") The China Syndrome came out just twelve days before the partial meltdown at TMI; this eerie coincidence jogged my memory of another movie, released four years later in 1983—"Silkwood." Based on the true story of Karen Silkwood, who died (or was murdered) in 1974, her story likely served, in part, as inspiration for the "China Syndrome" screenplay. An anonymous reviewer on Amazon observes that,

(The movie China Syndrome portrays) the very real problems of having the same people who promote commercial nuclear power (also be the people) in charge of plant security.

In reality the AEC did exactly that (a role now played by the NRC). The AEC were in charge of promoting commercial production of nuclear power while also being in charge of security at the plants. Talk about the classic case of the "mouse guarding the cheese".
Also, the scenes showing the futility of the antinuclear protests when faced with patronizing AEC-scientists are historically accurate. In fact, the concerns expressed in the movie about the lack of plans regarding nuclear waste disposal mirror concerns expressed by the antinuclear movement, and are in fact the very problems we are facing today.

Could such a conflict of interest be sufficient motivation for murder? Nuclear power is a multi-billion-dollar industry, intimately connected with the nuclear weapons division of the military-industrial complex. What do you think?

There are many safe, clean and economically-viable alternatives to nuclear power (or more plants burning coal, oil or gas), including the newest solar-power technologies that are promising to be more cost-effective than current technologies. There are some technologies we haven't heard of, because their patents have been classified as military secrets, by the same team that brought us Three-Mile-Island and Fukushima. If you still choose to advocate nuclear power (take note, Webster Tarpley), consider this: the team that promoted these governmental/industrial/military enterprises is still in place, still in charge of their promotion, security and safety, and highly unlikely to change their behavior.

They do not have our best interests at heart.

They do not deserve to be in charge of our energy future.

They deserve to be in prison, or in hell.

Remember Fukushima? Three Mile Island? The China Syndrome?

Depending on your source of information, the nuclear meltdown at Fukushima, Japan (on March 11, 2011) is either nothing to worry about any more, or is on the verge of becoming an unprecedented catastrophe. The damaged reactors continue to leak radioactive contaminants into the environment; that's bad enough, but another, even more severe catastrophe still has the potential to literally erupt. While the current official spin is that they have everything under control, with a "cold shutdown" accomplished, the problem remains that they have no way of sensing the current temperature at the very bottom of the "containment vessel"—and no way of knowing if that vessel has been breached. They do know that, in the most badly damaged of the three units, 100% of the fuel melted down. Once the cooling system fails and the fuel becomes molten, it will burn through everything—concrete, steel ,rock—continuously generating its own heat. Unlike a fire, no amount of water will "put it out." (The term "containment vessel" is an oxymoron in the current scenario.)

The "China syndrome" is the popular term for the aftermath of a nuclear power reactor core meltdown. The molten fuel, reaching temperatures high enough to melt rock (or concrete), would proceed to melt its way toward the earth's core ("on its way to China," from the point of view of a Yankee). An award-winning movie of the same name was released in 1979, an eerie12 days before the near-meltdown at Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island reactor; according to Wikipedia, "the studio attempted to avoid appearing as if it were exploiting the accident, which included pulling the film from some theaters." 

The melted fuel wouldn't reach China, of course, but nothing could stop it from descending to meet the earth's core, except for one thing: the water table which lies below every reactor. The China Syndrome should more properly be called "The this-molten-blob-will-never-make-it-to-China Syndrome," a name a bit too awkward to attain popularity. When the meltdown reaches the water table (according to what I've read), the molten fuel would boil the water so rapidly that a sort of  "radioactive volcano" would result, with the potential to cause global gene-frying pollution, at an incalculable cost in lives and wealth.

If Japan, or any nation, takes this threat seriously, they should be devising a way to defend our planet against such a disaster, instead of trying to reassure everyone that all is well (and minimizing the culpability, liability and expenses of responsible parties)—which are already on a scale that requires funding from the taxpaying victims  to remedy. Here's my humble suggestion: start planning now to build an underground wall to seal off the water table around the most-damaged reactor, and pump out all the water. Then, when the fuel reaches that level, there will be a chance to contain the relatively-limited amount of radioactive steam generated, and the fuel can keep on going to its ultimate destination.

The first step in this planning would be for Japan's TEPCO (or one of our oil companies) to use the newly-available high-tech robotic drilling technology (developed for oil recovery) to burrow under the Fukushima containment vessels and directly measure the temperature there (rather than relying on computer simulations, which are only as good as the assumptions the algorithms are based on). An innovative company such as Welltec might be happy to do the job, to let the world know the actual potential risk of a "China Syndrome" event at Fukushima (not to mention the once-in-a-lifetime marketing opportunity such a venture represents).

Such a water-table-confinement/water-removal project would be expensive, of course, but far cheaper than letting the disaster run its course, with the human and ecological disasters that would follow. If we can get temperature sensors in place below the damaged containment vessels, however, and find that the temperatures continue to drop, the project won't be needed. However, the need for massive cleanup efforts, as well as heightened efforts to stop the radiation leakages that continue to this day, is still essential to stop further damage. I hope the people of Japan will not be lulled into complacency by sweet-sounding reassurances from the men who built these plants, knowing that they could not withstand earthquakes of the magnitude of those which happened last March. 


An ounce of prevention, in this case, could be worth megatons of cure. Japan—and the rest of the planet—didn't escape the current disaster at Fukushima. Let's escape the next one.

Truthiness, meet Legalish

"Truthiness" is a word familiar to most fans of the sometimes-brilliant Stephen Colbert Report. For those readers who are not Colbert junkies, here's a definition from Merriam-Webster Online:

("Truthiness" was chosen as) the 2006 annual Word of the Year by the American Dialect Society, and defined by them as "the quality of preferring concepts or facts one wishes to be true (over) concepts or facts known to be true." Colbert himself defined it as "truth that comes from the gut, not books" (Comedy Central's "The Colbert Report," October 2005).

Many well-deserved accolades have been given to Colbert and his show for creating transparency in the wardrobes of emperors; sometimes the only proper response to a bald-faced lie is to draw a Snidely-Whiplash mustache on it, so that the less-assertive among us will feel free to give it the belly-laugh it deserves. Coining a word like Truthiness is a fine public service, providing a label for a concept that's not immediately obvious, and thus helping to expose a weapon of mass deception.

Speaking of such deceptions, there's one which Pete Hendrickson labored mightily to reveal in his book Cracking the Code. (The deceivers in question are those lackeys of the emperor known as "legislative draftsmen" who crafted the language of our laws, to enable deceptions of which most of us continue to be the unwitting victims, especially in the case of our income tax laws.)

Pete's books are not easy reading; they require that the reader try to follow the convoluted obfuscations built into the law and see through them to the truth. Unfortunately, this task is akin to visualizing the big picture while looking through a glass onion. The purpose of this article is to offer a solution to the problem of making this particular weapon of mass deception so transparent that anyone can see through it.

Just before the Foreword in his book, Cracking the Code, Pete provides a quote from Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland, which he hopes will speak for itself:

I don’t know what you mean by "glory,” Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. Of course you don’t—'till I tell you. I meant, "There’s a nice knock-down argument for you!”

But "glory" doesn’t mean "a nice knock-down argument,” Alice objected.

When I use a word, Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.

The question is, said Alice, whether you can make words mean so many different things.

The question is, said Humpty Dumpty, which is to be master—that’s all.

As one reads the book, the relevance of that quote becomes clear. The income tax law was written by legislative draftsmen in the employ of the Humpty Dumpty lawyers in Congress, with the intent to create tax laws which appear to mean one thing, but actually mean something else entirely. Pete never makes this case directly, but provides ample evidence for the careful reader to draw this conclusion using their own common sense.

The premise which Pete tries to guide the reader towards understanding is this: the holy grail of politicians has long been a method to provide an automatic, steady stream of funds which they could use to manipulate, for their own benefit, the electorate which they ostensibly served, without having to constantly make their case that money was required for this or that purpose before collecting it. Our nation's founders took pains to make such collection difficult and cumbersome, so as to deliberately maintain this burden on a central government—whose power they feared sufficiently (and with ample historical justification) to "bind it down with the chains of the Constitution" to restrict its power. One of those chains was a requirement that the central government could levy no direct tax on income that was not apportioned equally among the citizens of the states. In practice, this meant that the federal government was forced, on an annual basis, to request funding from the states, who would collect the tax (as they saw fit); each state would be assessed based on their population.

The federal government chafed under this requirement; the founders had made amending the constitution, the most direct approach to solving the "problem," far too difficult. The 16th Amendment is commonly recognized as having removed this requirement; however, many analyses of the actual meaning and effect of this amendment—including reasonable analyses of supreme court decisions since its passage—do not agree. (See Pete's website for some of these.)

While I don't have the minutes of the meetings to prove a conspiracy, it appears to me that eventually a goal was formulated: find ways to write tax laws that could not be challenged on a constitutional basis, yet achieved the desired results. This goal was met with the technique of changing the meaning of words used in the laws, by means of creating custom legal terms. The diabolically clever part was to create these custom legal terms using only commonly-understood words (or combinations of words), and give to them definitions which are entirely different from the meanings of those words as they are commonly understood. The spellings and pronunciations would not change, just the meaning of the phrases they formed, as these custom legal terms were created. The very existence of these terms would remain a secret to anyone who was unaware of how they were hidden in plain sight: in the "definitions" sections of the laws.

There you have it: the secret of controlling an entire legal system, and its tax structure: control the meaning of words within the tax laws, and conceal this control by hiding the technique in plain sight, for the ultimate in plausible deniability.

It's hard to conceive of a sweeter scam. Even though the secret has been thus revealed, a huge problem remains: demonstrating the workings of this scam to the average person (hell, even to most contemporary lawyers and legislators) is a daunting task. Although the true meanings of laws thus obfuscated can be demonstrated, to do so requires that the readers of the laws be fully aware of the existence of these custom-defined legal terms, as they read the laws, and translate the law back into plain English, when—to all appearances—plain English is exactly what they're reading!

To quote from the beginning of this article: "Coining a word like Truthiness is a fine public service, providing a label for a concept that's not immediately obvious, and thus helping to expose a weapon of mass deception." A catchy new word that encapsulates a useful truth-revealing concept is, indeed, a fine public service, provided that its meaning catches on and spreads until another glass onion is smashed, defeating those who benefit mightily from the mass deception. As my own public service, I offer this new word: "Legalish."

I offer my working definition below, and welcome any refinements which will increase its precision and clarity.

Legalish: 1) Noun: a pseudo-language found only within legal statutes, consisting of a colloidal* mixture of plain English and specialized legal terms masquerading as english.

2) Adjective: a Legalish term is a common word or phrase which has been custom-defined to create a legal term, and has the following four qualities:

1) It has the same spelling, pronunciation and appearance as the ordinary word or phrase it mimics. 2) The meaning of the term must be different from the word or phrase it mimics; otherwise, it would be unnecessary and superfluous. 3) The placement of the term within a law must serve a purpose which the ordinary word or phrase it mimics cannot serve. 4) The presence of one or more of these terms in a statute (or section) of law always changes the legal meaning and/or function of the statute within which it is specified to apply, into a meaning and/or function different from that which it would have without the term(s).

Nested Legalish: Legalish which has embedded within its text other Legalish terms. Nesting the terms within each other, like Russian dolls, exponentially compounds the obfuscation produced by a single term. The definitions of the Legalish terms are not nested, however, but scattered in different sections of the law to make their detection more difficult.

*Like a colloid, Legalish is a mixture so thorough that its components can't be separated by ordinary means, or even distinguished from each other, so that the authors of a law can plausibly deny the intent to deceive. The fraud will remain invisible until its victims become aware of its existence, and know where to look for it: in the "definitions" sections of statutes.

Unlike a spontaneous dialect of two languages blended together, such as "Spanglish," a strong case can be made that Legalish was created by the legislative draftsmen hired by our "representatives" for one diabolical purpose: to hide the essence of a law's meaning, so as to create a law which meets the legal requirement of meaning what it says and saying what it means, while simultaneously appearing to mean something it does not. Of course, it is possible for attorneys and legislators unfamiliar with the concept of Legalish to be fooled along with the rest of us. Hiding this weapon in plain sight is an aid to providing plausible deniability for those who know how it's used, as in "Oh, didn't you know that? It's right there in the law."

The primary practical use of Legalish is as a weapon of mass deception. It is not used to cloak an unconstitutional statute with a robe of apparent legality, but rather to cloak the true meaning of a law in order to comply with the constitution while appearing to flout or ignore the constitution, leading those who oppose the law (on whatever grounds) to imagine it unconstitutional, leading these opponents to a dead-end argument. The fog thus created by Legalish will mislead even legal scholars to imagine that they are not smart enough to parse the actual meaning of a law.

By creating specialized legal terms, applicable only within the context of a specified body of law, and concealing their very existence by wrapping them in the clothing of ordinary, commonly-understood words, the creators of Legalish have used it as a weapon against those whom they allegedly represent, to facilitate an end-run around the barriers to unlimited power wisely erected by our nation's founders when they formulated our Constitution. Further, by nesting Legalish words like Russian dolls within the definitions of other Legalish words, the masters of Legalish have hidden their deceptions in plain sight. They have distorted the apparent meaning of laws; just as the layers of a glass onion distort an otherwise-clear image, Legalish hides the actual meanings of Legalish-corrupted laws from everyone, including most government officials and attorneys.

Another way to describe"Legalish" is as a stealth weapon used by legislators, disguised as English. Its only use is to construct a law that does not mean what it appears to say, by changing the meanings of words without changing their spelling or pronunciation, disguising the true nature of laws which have been corrupted by the use of Legalish.

Legalish is deceptive, but nested Legalish is exponentially worse. Used to deadly effect in our tax laws, it compounds the obfuscation produced by each Legalish term alone. Pete Hendrickson provides the following example in his book, Cracking the Code" (note that legal terms are in italic):

"(Section 1607,) like section 1401 (by which a tax appears to be laid on the self-employed), relies on the definition of 'net earnings from self-employment' found in section 1402, despite being (about 1 million) words away from it . . . Remember (as detailed earlier) that the tax is imposed on 'self-employment income,' which term is later (in a different section of law) defined as the 'net earnings from self-employment,' (a term defined earlier as) the 'gross income derived by an individual from any trade or business,' a term custom-defined a few hundred thousand words later in the code...

Are we having fun yet?"

In the example above of nested Legalish, there are at least four co-dependent, custom-defined legal terms used in that section of law which appears to lay a tax on the "self-employed" (as those words are commonly understood). Three things are necessary to understand the true meaning of this section of law: first, that the italicized phrases are legal terms, and do not carry the same meanings as do the common words with which they are built; second, to know the definitions of these terms; third, to be able to parse the meaning of the law by emptying out the Russian doll so that all the dolls inside are visible—much like diagramming a sentence, constructing an algebraic formula and solving it to derive the law's meaning.

Are law students taught how to do this before they can pass the Bar exam, or are they as clueless as the rest of us about the obfuscating, menacing magic of Legalish?

Here's a project for an interested reader, a programmer who has worked with artificial intelligence projects, perhaps: develop a program which could perform the necessary steps to remove Legalish from laws in a systematic way. First, extract the text of all the definitions in a legal title (say, #26, the Income Tax Code). Second, search the code and flag all instances of the definitions which create custom-defined legal terms. Third, replace the (Legalish) terms embedded in a section of law with the definitions of these terms. Finally, normalize the syntax and grammar of the resulting text for readability and comprehension. Voila! Legalish decoded!

The first step in pulling the fangs from this viper is for a careful reader to detect the presence of Legalish in a title; it can be argued that Pete Hendrickson has already performed this task for Title 26. A second step could be simply modifying an electronic edition of the law by highlighting the Legalish words and terms (as hypertext links) everywhere they appear in the text; the hyperlinks would jump to the definitions of those Legalish words. 

I suggest marking Legalish, where it occurs in our laws, with a different color in all electronic versions—both for increased visibility and to avoid the confusion that might result from using other commonly-used visual modifiers (quotes, italics, boldface, all-caps, small caps, or different fonts  which might already be present in the text)—to mark its presence. It will be especially crucial to so highlight Legalish terms where they occur within the definitions of other terms, to reveal instances of nested Legalish. With that task accomplished, the parsing could be done manually without further computer assistance.

Reading a law corrupted by Legalish is like trying to get a clear view through a glass onion. Let's smash that onion by spreading a careful definition of this new word Legalish, far and wide. Awareness by ordinary people that Legalish is being used as a weapon against them, and awareness of the presence of Legalish in a particular law, should be enough to put supporters of that law on the defensive—even if the obscured, true meaning of that law is beyond the ability of that ordinary person to clearly see.

If this spiffy new word goes viral, facilitating the "decoding" of Legalish-corrupted laws, one of the most difficult-to-grasp concepts in Pete Hendrickson's book Cracking the Code could become so clear to everyone that the continuing fraud and disinformation campaigns by the IRS and its beneficiaries against the simple truths embedded in our tax laws will become unsustainable. Why, it could even fit on a bumper sticker: "Ban Legalish!"

A word to the wise: Pete Hendrickson is sure that everything you need to know about the true nature of the income tax, and everything you need to know about how to file your 1040 form in order to get the IRS to send you a complete refund of everything the feds withheld from your pay, including the "contributions" for Social Security and Medicare, is contained in his book, Cracking the Code (referenced above). I read his book (twice), took a deep breath, and followed his lead. Lo and behold, the IRS did exactly that for yours truly, for 2008 and 2009. (The history of my experiences with the IRS is right here on this blog, if you look for it.) 

The end (so far) to this story is, in my case, not so rosy. Almost a year after the 2009 refund, the IRS began sending scary letters; I took those in stride, as did many others who replied to each of the letters they received—and eventually got a "closing" letter from the IRS, in which they ended their pursuit and closed their collection activity (without explanation or apology). Then, they followed through on their announced intention to levy (seize) all our bank assets (all we had), a step they did not take even in Pete's case. We are now, with the help of an attorney, fighting to survive. The final chapter of our story has not been written.

Meanwhile, Pete Hendrickson is in federal prison, convicted by a jury of . . . something. (See his website for details.) He's working on his appeal, which he believes will ultimately succeed. He is also apparently still convinced that there are no fatal flaws in his analysis of the tax laws, that all the criticisms he has of the "tax protester" and "patriot" movements are correct, and that it is only judicial and government corruption that caused his conviction.

If you follow his path, or mine, you may meet a similar fate. It does not seem to matter, to our congressmen or our courts, that the IRS routinely violates the law and even their own procedures. There are some who have prevailed in court, but at significant cost; many more have lost. 

I will post on this blog the final chapters of the story of my own duel with the IRS, whatever they turn out to be. All I can say to those who would test their ability to prevail over the desire of the IRS to collect all they can, from whomever they can, by any means they can, is: good luck. Let me know how it turns out for you.

. . . it's here.

I was moved to write my last post ("Fascism isn't just around the corner . . .") before I finished watching Naomi Klein's video. I had been thinking that everything she spoke of was up-to-the-minute, and was in the context of the recent acts passed by the Senate, and signed by Obama (albeit with a "signing statement"), that give the president the power to designate anyone he chooses as a terrorist, and terminate that person without trial—and give the military the authority to indefinitely imprison anyone without charge or legal recourse, in secret. What better description of a totalitarian state exists?

Now, I've finished watching the video. Naomi concluded that the only appropriate course of action remaining for us, in order to avoid a final (and probably sudden) descent into fascist tyranny, was to press for impeachment.

Of Bush and Cheney.

You see, the video was made before the election of 2007.

Oh, how everything has changed!

Perhaps you, too, will be moved to look above (and below) the muppet show curtains to observe the strings being pulled, and see the faces of the unelected muppetmasters we are expected to pretend that we don't see. Or, perhaps (not being among those whose immediate interests are being threatened), you will decide on what seems to be a safer course, and pretend that the muppet show is real. If so, I wish you good luck, and that you manage to join the 1% before the rest of us are dead (or wish we were).

Perhaps you may now understand why I cannot put my faith in any of the candidates for the next set of muppets, and why the remedies I recommend do not involve elections.

Many of those like me, who are not among the 1% and cannot pretend any longer, will despair of finding any workable remedy against what seems to be an invincible foe. However, I believe the 99% hold the winning cards in their hands, and can only be defeated by continuing ignorance and inaction. Here's the basis for my belief:

The 1% only hold the power that we continue to give them. That power is our consent.


I'll explain the grounds for my belief in detail in a forthcoming post, How to defeat the oligarchs.

Fascism is not just around the corner . . .

I'm in the middle of watching an online video by author Naomi Klein, and something she said brought me up short.

She's relating how, after reading a stack of books a member of her audience thrust upon her, she was shocked by the parallels between the experiences portrayed in these books (about life in Europe before WWII) eerily foreshadowed what she sees all around us today in America; not just similar early pressures on a democracy by those intent on shutting democracy down, but actual "scenes," even dialogue that appeared to be purloined from these books by actors on the contemporary American stage; scenes from Mussolini's Italy in the 20s, Germany and Russia in the 30s, East Germany in the 50s, Czechoslovakia in the 60s, Pinochet's coup in Chile . . .

That's when it hit me. She could have said, "The CIA coup in Chile which put Pinochet in power."
She was really talking, not about what might happen here (if we don't watch out), but about what did happen here. Most of the architects of the coup are still around and wield power and influence today, including Henry Kissinger. This blot on history has "made in USA" all over it.

OK, you might reply, "That was then, this is now. We may have overthrown a foreign government or two, but it can't happen here." What could make it more clear that our Republic has been overthrown by our "democratic leaders" than the recent votes in the Senate to:

1) give the president the power to designate anyone, anywhere, as a "terrorist," and issue a death warrant for them—or

2) the recent vote to allow our military to arrest anyone in this country without charges and hold them indefinitely, in secret, without legal recourse of any kind? Is there anyone in today's government you would trust to treat all Americans fairly under all conditions, according to the limits set in the Constitution?

What Naomi is talking about is the growing evidence that World War II was not won by the "forces of Democracy," but by the forces of fascism. They have maintained effective control of our government since then, while preserving the illusion that fascism was defeated, by means of the puppet show we see all around us.

I'm going to finish watching Naomi's video now. You should watch it as well, buy her books, talk about them with your friends, then decide what you will do next, before you hear that knock at your back door.

All the news you haven't seen, yet

Here's what I just put on my Facebook page:

Now that multinational corporations own most of the media we hear, see and read, who will tell the stories that expose the abuse of the near total power they wield over the public's perception of reality? Who will cover stories that conflict with their financial, political and social interests? They even dominate the internet now, unless you actively search for topics of interest that are outside your comfort zone. If they have their way, this option will also be curtailed. See what members of congress, academics and former members of the corporate club say, when they are outside this circle of control, in the sobering documentary below (while you still can). 1984 is now 27 years in the past, but it seems Orwell's future will be here in 2012, unless you say NO. Happy New Year, and God save us, every one.

Here's an important point I left out:

The corporate media doesn't have to tell lies to deceive us and hide the truth; they merely need to decide what stories not to broadcast or publish.

Here's the link to the video that features men and women at the tops of their professions who are now free to tell their stories, available until someone takes it down. Watch it while you can.

On Ron Paul, and Bob Bowman

In the previous post, I commented on politics and elections in general, and mentioned Ron Paul in passing. I have never commented directly on any of his campaigns, and now that he might be (or become) the front-running Republican (despite the attempt to ignore or deny this fact by the corporate media whose interests he opposes), I feel it's time for me to state my position (for what it's worth) on his candidacy.

As I mentioned, I changed my party affiliation from Libertarian to Republican in time to vote for Ron Paul in the 2008 primary, and have never changed it back. If I have the opportunity, will I vote for him in the upcoming primary, and if he wins, will I vote for him in the general election? Yes, and Yes.

That said, he is not my first choice for President. At the present time, that would be Bob Bowman. Unfortunately, he's not running. If we had an electoral system that included instant-runoff voting (see my last post), Bob would be #1 and Ron would be #2. Why?

In my book, Ron comes up short in several ways. He is holding fast to the "blowback" theory of 9/11, in which we were attacked by "arab terrorists" not because "they hate our freedoms," but because we have (for example, between the attacks on Iraq by Bush Sr. and Bush Jr.) bombed their territory and starved their children to death with sanctions.

While these "preemptive"wars of choice were good reasons for the islamic world to hate us, Bob Bowman recognizes the attacks of 9/11 for what they were: a false-flag operation to rally the support of the American people behind the goals of PNAC for "full-spectrum dominance" of the globe. By contrast, Ron's statements regarding who bears the responsibility for the attacks of 9/11 essentially support the official government conspiracy theory, a legend which (while maintained and nourished by the mass media) is contradicted by all the available facts.

My second reason to be disappointed with Ron Paul is his economic proposals—what they are, and what they lack. An excellent critique of the Paul economic program can be found at Tarpley.net. Webster's view (and mine) is that the oligarchy behind Wall Street and the private, multinational banks of the Federal Reserve must be stopped before they destroy what's left of the global economy. If anyone should know that we need a real money system, under the control of our government as the Constitution mandates, based on value instead of debt, it's Ron Paul. He seems to have retreated in his public statements from "End the Fed" to "Audit the Fed." While Tarpley (and the serious elements of the #occupy movements) call for a Wall Street transactions tax (alias Tobin Tax, Robin Hood Tax, financial transactions sales tax, etc.) which could, because of the huge volume of daily transactions—most done by computer thousands of times per second, or faster—might eliminate the national debt in their first year, Paul's announced economic plan would cut federal expenditures unequally, ranging from 15% of the defense budget to 60% of some social safety net programs, at a time when most Americans are suffering and the Gordon Geckos of Wall Street pocket hundreds of millions each in "bonuses." We cannot "economize" our way out of the disaster that looms ahead, not when derivatives continue to swallow all the bailout money thrown at it like a black hole; not when finance oligarchs continue to buy derivatives, which are the profit kings on paper, but produce no wealth or jobs (except for the "elite"), instead of investing in infrastructure and industries of production; not when the Fed promotes "quantitative easing" that will, sooner now rather than later, render our Federal Reserve Notes (created from thin air by expanding debt) virtually worthless.

As a Libertarian, Ron is adhering to the Austrian/Chicago school of economics while the oligarchs of finance game the system in their favor. Defending a "free-market Capitalism" that never was, Paul seems to be willing to pass out "Get Out Of Jail Free" cards to genocidal kleptocrats. Tell me it ain't so, Ron!

I have heard from some Paul supporters that he can't take a stronger stand in these areas (before he's elected) because (a) he will suffer vicious attacks from the rich and powerful, (b) the American People can't handle the truth quite yet, (c) he will suffer a mysterious heart attack before he can take office, or a combination of the above. I do not doubt that Paul is a brave man of the highest integrity; if I was in his shoes, I would reject any "protection" from the Secret Service for the rest of my life, and recruit my own security force. Having done that, I would take lessons from Bob Bowman in confronting a body of truth that he, and I, are convinced the American people can handle.

For me, that truth includes the belief that there is no American alive who has not been systematically fed lies about who controls world affairs, and how our world really functions, since the day they were born. I remember where I was the day JFK was murdered, as does every American who was old enough to watch TV that day. I also remember, as the official story of Oswald as the lone assassin began to fall apart—and then stank on ice—my friends in high school voicing these thoughts: 1) If the President, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the news media could keep a straight face while maintaining this farce, and our parents, friends, teachers and neighbors were afraid to voice the obvious out loud, we had best be very careful what we say (and even think), because 2) all the people who were "in charge" of society were either complicit in the crime or afraid for their lives if they spoke their minds. A pall of self-censorship and/or denial of the obvious descended over the land that has never fully lifted, to this day. A new catchphrase was coined to tar anyone who doubted the official legend: "Oh, that's just a conspiracy theory." Most everyone was afraid that they would become outcasts unless they pretended that the Emperor was not naked.

As I recall, there was even a spin promulgated at the time that it was unpatriotic for anyone to question the official legend, lest America's status as moral leader of the free world be downgraded to that of just another "banana republic." Even if it was true that elements inside of (or more powerful than) our government were responsible for the President's murder, acknowledging this truth would be unthinkable for reasons of national security and historical necessity, although this rationale for the Big Lie was never explicitly stated.

Sad to say, more than 40 years later, that's still the state of our nation. I also remember where I was when I heard about the "collapse" of the Twin Towers on 9/11. Ten years have passed. The official legend has more holes than a foam mattress. While many are willing to risk their careers, reputations and even their ability to live unmolested within our borders by standing up for the truth about the black-ops false-flag operation that happened on 9/11, most people still prefer to deny the obvious truth, or keep their opinions secret. That's why I would much prefer to vote for a hero like Bob Bowman than any of our current candidates.

That said, I will vote for Ron Paul, if given the chance. If I believed that a political solution could avoid the economic and human holocaust to come, I would be campaigning full-time for Dr. Paul. Since I do not so believe, I will be working for an economic solution that will succeed, if enough people wake up in time to see what's being done to us by the kleptocrats of the one percent. (More to come about this solution, next year.)

Good night, good luck, and Happy New Year.

On politics and elections

Before the 2008 elections, many Libertarians changed their voter registration to Republican so they could vote for Ron Paul in the primaries; I was among them. I had hope that his election could be a force for change in our political landscape. Another politician took the slogan of "hope and change," emerged victorious, and has (for many) dashed all hope for change.

In pursuing my own persistent hope for change, I have looked away from politics and toward the economic and moral power that we all possess as individuals for viable ways to free ourselves from debt enslavement to the one percent. While I believe that this apolitical path is the one that can lead us to freedom, I recognize that the public's attention will continue to be drawn to the political contests now being thrust upon us by the media. Therefore, I feel the need to present a few comments on this perennial spectacle for your consideration.

First, is the current series of televised debates the best we can do to shed light (rather than generate heat0 on the nature of the problems we face, and who might lead us to workable solutions? The debates don't even seem to work as entertainment; they satisfy no one, leave everyone with a bad taste in their mouths, and strengthens the perception of politics as a dirty business from which the public wants to turn away. When the debates are over, the "pundits' only pontificate on who "won" (and why), and who leads in the polls (this week); a horse race which few viewers feel inspired to bet on.

To answer my own question: yes, we can do better. Here is my off-the-cuff proposal: invite everyone who wishes to run for president to participate in an ongoing internet forum, by first providing their qualifications, then answering an initial set of questions about what would make their tenure in office better for the country than would that of their competition. I would start by asking for a list of their top priorities for change which they could effect immediately on taking office, followed by those changes which they would urge Congress to act upon. These would include expanding or contracting current presidential powers, within the limits of the Constitution.

From there, the candidates could submit critiques of each other's proposals, and further the cases for their own. Finally, polls could be taken electronically (monitored by representatives of all the candidates) to gauge the relative popularity of the candidates among the poll respondents. Rather than asking for a single "winner," the polls would ask for a ranking of the top five choices of the respondents, then calculate results with the "instant runoff" method, where the lowest-scoring candidate in each round would be eliminated until only one choice per respondent remained. In this way, a single winner would emerge without the "but-can -they-win?' factor coming into play. No one would be forced to rule out a choice which they favor, but imagine would have a poor chance of winning—ruling out second-guessing the choices of others, as well as the party loyalty factor. Candidates would run without party affiliation and would be much less subject to major-party pressure to conform to a platform, and influence-buying by moneyed interests would be much more difficult.

Since this process would take place outside the current political machinery, there would be no need for "reform" before this electronically-assisted process of choice could take place. To further remove the process from current preferred-party prejudice, the first round of "debate" and polling could take place without revealing the identities of the candidates until the second round! Even candidates with funny names would have an equal chance of being heard. (George L. Tirebiter, are you there? How about you, Sam I. Am?)

The Bill Ron Paul Should Have Introduced

Nikki Alexander has a new post on her blog about a bill introduced by Dennis Kucinich, HR 2990—The National Emergency Employment Defense Act of 2011. The NEED Act will rebuild the productive economy by eliminating private control of the monetary system, restoring the government’s Constitutional authority to create money (without creating debt) by spending it into circulation.


Go there. Read it. Write and/or call your Congressman to urge him or her to co-sponsor it,


My biggest question at the moment: why didn't Ron Paul introduce this bill?

What to do about the banks?

While I'm working on some longer-term projects, I wanted to share this online article with you.

On her blog, Naked Capitalism, Yves Smith has posted a guest article by Matt Stoller, the former Senior Policy Advisor to Rep. Alan Grayson and a fellow at the Roosevelt Institute. It's all about the impending settlement being negotiated by the Attorneys General of the 50 States. Although several have dropped out in protest and disgust, the negotiations continue. An excerpt:

We’re talking about an ongoing case of criminal theft of private property by mortgage servicers charging illegal fees and then using fraudulent documents to foreclose. Now, a settlement implies that this practice is over, and that the banks are remediating past wrongs. It isn’t over, but the AGs and Federal regulators are treating it as if it is. Think about this incentive – why should a bank change its mortgage servicing once it has immunity for robo-signing, origination, pyramiding of fees, etc? The last consent decrees weren’t enforced, why would this one be enforced?

In other words, the managers of the institutions which are the biggest contributors to our President and most of the key legislators involved are asking for, and seem likely to get, a "settlement" that will legalize the crimes that these banks have admitted to, and will give away our rights to any redress.

In return, the banks will pay some token fines and continue with fraud-as-usual.

I offered this comment at the end of the article:

We don't need more comments about how badly the banks are behaving. We need to unite behind a meaningful solution. Webster Tarpley (Tarpley.net) has a 5-point program on his site that's a good place to start a dialogue about what can be agreed upon by a majority of the 99%. Chief among his 5 points: 1) The "too-big-to-fail" banks must be seized by the FDIC for Chapter 7 liquidation; Ban the CDS and ARM; levy a 1% Tobin (AKA "Robin Hood") tax on all financial transactions (especially derivatives). 2) Nationalize the Fed, and provide 0% credit for productive activities. 3) Launch public works programs to restore our crumbling infrastructure, and other measures to return the federal budget and foreign trade to surplus in 5 years. 4) Defend and expand the social safety net; cut healthcare spending by finding cures (and through prevention), and other measures. 5) Promote major sets of international initiatives, including a replacement for the IMF and a worldwide "Marshall Plan" that would stimulate business here as well as abroad. In summary, he says that "This program will create 30 million jobs in less than five years. It will end the depression, rebuild the US economy, improve wages and standards of living, re-start productive investment, and attain full employment with increased levels of capital investment per job. Most orders placed under this program will go to US private sector bidders. Because of the vastly increased volume of goods put on the market, inflation will not result."

Now what we need is a way to get legislators in office who are not owned by the powers that be, who are apparently fine with the coming worldwide collapse that is otherwise imminent, as long as they have their golden parachutes, a nice island to land on and a supply of bullion waiting for them when they touch down.

Please visit the above link, read the article, and submit your own comments. Better yet, read her book, ECONNED. You can also hear her interviewed on Harry Shearer's podcast of Oct. 2, available on iTunes.

I was right! Everything I knew WAS wrong!

When I penned a recent post, "A call for help, and no answers," I hoped that I would be able to report some progress in my quixotic quest for truth and justice. (I'm no longer sure of the meaning of the "American Way.") No such luck.

Going down the list:

The Chief of Staff of my Congressman (Joe Pitts) responded to my request for a comment on the two letters from former Congressmen I shared with you in that post. He said, in essence, "You are a tax protester. The Congressman has standing instructions not to respond to people like you, and I will not forward your request to him."

What happened with the "well-planned crime" mentioned in paragraph two? The crime took place on schedule; the bank forwarded all our assets to the IRS, first thing in the morning. However, later that day, my "advocate" at the IRS Taxpayer Advocate Office called to say that my pending request to have IRS Collections release the levy on our accounts (due to financial hardship and a medical emergency) had been approved, and that they had returned our money to our bank.

Except for $1,000.

The Advocate cautioned me, however, that their mercy was conditional. If I file my taxes for 2010 in a manner that displeases them (such as that my pay was not taxable), their generosity would vanish quicker than the Cheshire Cat's smile.

My appeal to the media? Not one taker. A reply from either brave (former) Congressman? No. Any feedback from the Office of the Inspector General? No. Encouraging words from an attorney? No.

Any comments left on my blog? No.

Support (in my battle with the IRS) from my family? My friends? My wife? No, No, and No. (She still loves me, but she can't take the physical and mental stress any more.)

So, I must choose between supporting the physical and mental health of my wife, and standing firm on my principles.

I must choose, as my father's son and namesake, as the only brother to three wonderful sisters, and as a loving and loyal husband, to choose my wife's welfare over what I still believe to be (in all other respects) the right choice.

Unless some kind of miracle happens, this is how this story ends.

Pete Hendrickson is still in federal prison, and I can't help my wife if I join him there.

As to the other battle I have joined (the one against Bank of America et al), there may still be hope. More Americans every day are waking up to the global crimes of the Banksters, aided and abetted by the Federal Reserve, the corrupt and kept duopoly that passes for our political system, and the global corporate media monopoly. Only if the people are willing to open their eyes to the truth (and not pretend that the corporate lies they wade through daily are not an open sewer) will our nation, and our planet, survive.

God help us all.

It's Time to Make Congress live like the rest of us.

A guest editorial:

It's Time to Make Congress live like the rest of us.

A call for help, and no answers

I composed a "press release" on July 6, sending it to most of the news outlets on my contact list (mainstream and otherwise). So far, I have received no press responses, even from those to which I made a followup phone call. Below is a revised, updated and condensed version, sans attachments. (Contact me, and I'll send you the latest, complete version, attachments and all.)

This message was originally sent to my Congressman, Joe Pitts, by email and phone. I may or may not get a response from his chief of staff when he returns to his office on Monday. As you will see, the deadline to prevent this well-planned crime is the next day, the 12th.

From: John Spencer <macaddictjay@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 7:05 PM

Subject: Is this a story, or what?

To: 2020@abc.com, 48hours@cbsnews.com, 60minutes@cbsnews.com, Alexandra.Martin@foxnews.com, Chesco912-list@meetup.com, Colmes@foxnews.com, contact@lawrence2010.com, dateline@nbc.com, donovan@cbs3.com,editor@freepatriot-press.com, editor@usatoday.com, esmith@dailylocal.com, evening@cbsnews.com,Foxreport@foxnews.com, Frank.mastropolo@foxnews.com, ftn@cbsnews.com, GGreenwald@salon.com,halsteadpam@hotmail.com, hardball@msnbc.com, info@cnbc.com, info@freedom-force.org, info@givemeliberty.org,info@westchesterteaparty.com, irsfight@yahoo.com, joe@msnbc.com, John.Stossel@foxnews.com,lawmen+owners@googlegroups.com, Mark@whatonearthishappening.com, Michael-Edward <ME@americansrestoringamerica.com>, newshour@pbs.org, nightline@abcnews.com, nightly@nbc.com,ombudsman@npr.org, ombudsman@washpost.com, Ontherecord@foxnews.com, pawethepeople@aol.com, Richard Mack <sheriffmack@hotmail.com>, Robinson@phillyhomehelp.com, ronpaul-314@meetup.com, RTR Site Admin <alerts@restoretherepublic.com>, RTR Site Admin <garyfranchi@gmail.com>, smithel@phillynews.com,Special@foxnews.com


This story features human interest angles (such as life or death consequences and gross injustice), lawbreaking by banks and the IRS, political controversy, attorneys who are prohibited by law from helping us, and a deadline of July 12; it's also an opportunity for a brave newsperson to cover the commission (or prevention) of a federal crime, as it happens.

Below is the gist of the two emails I sent to my Congressman (Joe Pitts) as an introduction to the story.

Any questions? I can be reached anytime at 610-883-2072.

July 6, 2011
Representative Joseph R. Pitts
Routes 82 and 926
Unionville, PA 19375

Last February, I sent your Washington office an email concerning problems I was having with the IRS, and got an almost immediate response from your Washington staff. you have never seen this email. You have never seen this email, because it was the judgment of your staff that, because the IRS has asserted that elements of my tax returns (for 2008 and 2009, and amended returns for 2006 and 2007) were "frivolous," there was nothing your office could do for me. Therefore, I did not pursue this issue further with your office.

Now, the IRS has moved beyond merely mailing me threats of dire consequences which I might face for maintaining "the position I have taken." They have now induced my bank to take actions which I believe can be easily documented to be clear violations of law. They sent my bank a standard form, on which they state that I have not paid them "what they have asked me to pay" (not the amount "which I owe"), and instructing them to freeze our accounts. Further, the IRS states that if they don't withdraw these instructions in writing within 21 days, my bank must forward all our assets to them, under color of law. This 21-day period will end on July 12.

The IRS claims they did not receive my responses to their unsigned "notice of intent to levy" form letters within the time limits they specified. Of the two legal options the IRS offered me in those letters (to contest their decision), one provides no avenue of appeal. The other requires us to prepay the fines, then sue for recovery of the money. Since we do not have the funds for this second "option," even if the levy is released, I did not choose either of these null options in my responses. (Unfortunately, I can't locate my certified mail receipts.)

Denied access to our own funds, we face an immediate financial and medical crisis. Not only do we now have no way to pay what the IRS does not even state that we owe, but we have no way to pay for anything else, including the medicine my wife needs to survive. (Of course, if we "cooperate" by arranging a payment plan, thereby tacitly pleading guilty to what we maintain are false charges, they will release the levy.)

Pursuing all available options in our defense, I have filed a complaint about this levy, a violation of law about which I have written documentation from your former colleague from Michigan, Dennis Hertel. I have met with agents of the Treasury Department's office of Inspector General for Tax Administration to discuss this matter, and they have filed their report, complaint number 69-1106-0079-C. In response to a question from his then-constituent, on his Congressional letterhead and over his signature, Hertel wrote that the IRS has no legal authority to levy our assets in this manner. I have tried to reach Dennis, without success, at The Livingston Group in Washington, DC, 202-289-9881. Perhaps he will answer your call as a former colleague to discuss this matter.

In addition, I have also consulted the Chester County Sheriff's office as well as numerous local attorneys. The Sheriff's potential involvement can only be to serve papers; none of the attorneys I have reached have the tax expertise and/or are able to promise results by next Tuesday's deadline. Some cannot help because they (or their firm) have Fulton Bank as a client.

We have also appealed to IRS collections (through the Taxpayer Advocate service of the IRS) to lift this levy, providing all requested documentation of our hardship status (including IRS form 433F and form 911, complete bank statements for 3 months and a 6-month statement from our pharmacy of our out-of-pocket expenses). In addition, I have sent them a letter from my wife's doctor stating the life-threatening consequences of our inability to obtain the medicines she needs. At present, it does not appear that the IRS will render their decision in time to help.

As I have been writing this, our situation has worsened. My wife is lying in bed coughing, and is having trouble breathing. Her rescue inhaler is empty; its replacement will cost $66 (more cash than we have left). If she loses her insurance due to nonpayment, her other annual prescription expenses will rise from $1414 to $3580.

Joe, I am now asking two things of you:

(1) intercede on our behalf in any way you can, to release the IRS lien on an emergency basis, and
(2) help me pursue with all possible haste a resolution of the same legal question which Dennis Hertel answered for his then-constituent: does, or does not, the IRS have the legal authority to levy our assets? (As you can see from the attached letter, Congressman Hertel's answer was no.)

I hope you can help us resolve this matter before there are fatal consequences. With that in mind, I am spending all my available time pursuing assistance from any source I can tap: the IRS itself, lawyers, the Chester County Sheriff's office, and the media.

(End of email)

A reporter I spoke with today told me that it was the policy of his news organization never to cover personal stories involving the IRS, because they cannot corroborate my story. (It is IRS policy not to confirm or deny my existence, let alone respond to questions in such cases, ostensibly because of privacy laws. How convenient!). However, as a reporter, perhaps you can obtain Dennis Hertel's comment on the attached letter (which he signed).

The law itself is, of course, available online for examination and analysis. What would your Congressman say about it? Here is a jpeg of Dennis Hertel's letter:

And, here is a similar letter from a Florida Congressman, from 2005.

What does Joe Pitts say about this matter of law? . . . Joe?

Finally, here's an answer to an even bigger question: "As a person employed in the private sector, are my earnings subject to the income tax?" The answer is alleged to be a forgery by its apparent author, Cynthia J. Mills, of the IRS Philadelphia office, circa 1996. Cynthia claims that another IRS employee wrote this letter and put her name on it. However, she has not, to my knowledge, disputed the conclusion of law stated by this "other person."

A Modified Virtual Presidential Campaign

In a recent post, I related an idea that had me so excited, my wife had to pull me off the ceiling: Give Papoon, the perennial presidential candidate of the Firesign Theatre (the patron saints of this blog), his own website, and actually run for office as a virtual candidate! I fleshed out the idea a bit, and managed to Facebook-friend all four crazy guys, posting the link above on each of their Facebook walls.

After reviewing the history of Papoon's campaigns, I saw that trying to become a virtual Papoon myself was the wrong approach, if I wanted to reach the goal I had in mind. Papoon was not the virtual candidate I wanted to portray; I should have been paying more attention when David Ossman offered help with a "Papoon campoon." Of course! All the Papoon campaigns have been lampoons. Papoon is a candidate for which no one in his right mind would vote. The only image of Papoon ever seen appears on his campaign button; he looks like a cross between Richard Nixon and Emmett Kelly. No wonder, when he made campaign appearances, he took the advice of his handlers and wore a paper bag over his head at all times. (Only his running mate, George Leroy Tirebiter, ever made public appearances without the bag.) As a candidate of the Natural Surrealist Party, Papoon's slogans, platform and personality (such as it was) represented the worst characteristics of every political campaign that ever was. Besides, the Fab Four had already established a Papoon for President website. What was I thinking?

I had an entirely different concept; although my political ideas are perhaps more radical than those of the Fab Four, we're basically singing the same tune. However, my virtual candidate was conceived as a leader that people would want to vote for, as a practical alternative to "none of the above." My candidate and Papoon had only four things in common: being fictional, surreal, truthful (in our fashion), and always right. Then, it hit me!

After covering the lump on my head with an icepack, I fleshed out the revised concept: my candidate would have a different name and an entirely different image, and the Fab Four could "help" (if they so chose) by making my virtual candidacy the prime target of Papoon's outrage and derision (which, I'm sure, will help my virtual campaign immensely, while giving Papoon a new focus).

What name should I choose for a candidate of the people, by the people, and for the people (he'd have to be, since he will literally be the people!)? Suddenly, it . . . no, it missed me. Whew!

Ladies and gentlemen, announcing the first genuine (and openly) virtual candidate for President: Sam I. Am!

Watch for his new website, which is already in progress . . .