The Secretary of State Ruth Johnson awaits a decision from the Director of Elections Christopher Thomas about the shenanigans of House Member Roy Schmidt, and Speaker of the House Jase Bolger here in Michigan.

Well Madam Secretary Will you and Director Christopher Thomas allow Melissa Malerman to issue one of her infamous determinations that states, yes there were violations of State Election Law, but what the heck it was all just a “misunderstanding”

Or will Ms. Malerman dally around for four months till after the Primary and issue her infamous declaration that the Secretary of State’s office shall attempt to solve known VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW informally?

This unbelievable ruse was used by Melissa Malerman to excuse the Election Law Violations of the former Muskegon Drain Commissioner Martin Hulka in Muskegon County back in 2008.

Ms. Malerman had determined YES Martin Hulka had willfully violated State Election Law. But hey, what the heck, he lost the primary. So, what the hey, since Martin Hulka lost the Primary to paraphrase Ms. Malerman violations of State law is okay with her, as long as you are an elected official.

NO this commentator is not making the commentary up, no one may make up such an outlandish statement. No you have to be an Election Law Specialist working for Director Christopher Thomas in the Bureau of Elections like Melissa Malerman to present such nonsense.

Here is Melissa’s Malerman’s administrative reasoning why breaking State Election law is okay here in Michigan, as long as you are an Elected Office Official as quoted from Lyn Moore’s Article in the Muskegon News from November 21, 2008:

“"The department is cognizant that Mr. Hulka will not remain the county's drain commissioner beyond the expiration of his current term, and thus further violations are not likely to occur," wrote Melissa Malerman, the administrative law examiner.”

Note the phrase “Further violations are not likely to occur”.

So in the Alice in Wonderland world of the Bureau of Elections, violations of State Election law are fine as long as you are an Elected Official who in this instant case lost his primary race in August of 2008.

Hard to believe that known violations of Election Law by elected officials is fine with Melissa Malerman? Well ask the incumbent Ionia County Clerk, whose election law violations were determined to be a “misunderstanding” by Melissa Malerman.

So to date, Roy Schmidt, and Jase Bolger’s “mischievousness” have been excused by the Kent County Prosecutor Bill Forsyth. This political sleight of hand decision issued by the Kent County Prosecutor has apparently cleared the way for an election law specialist such as Melissa Malerman to continue whitewashing what more and more appears to be known violations of State Election Law..

So in the end of this “administrative process” currently sitting in the Office of Christopher Thomas, Roy Schmidt and Jase Bolger more than likely will soon be reminiscing in the 97th Legislature about how they suffered a few weeks of bad press in the summer of 2012 about their mischievous “misunderstandings” that apparently violated the State Election Law.

But what the heck, it was all just a “misunderstanding”, eh Melissa Malerman?

http://www.mlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/07/secretary_of_state_ruth_johnso_1.html#comment-1343192860-228-865

The Reclamation Act of 1902

The Progressive have dominated the National and State political arena since the day of the Accidental Presidency of Theodore Roosevelt on September 14th 1901.

In 1902 Theodore Roosevelt stood upon the Bully Pulpit and proclaimed   the ideology of the Progressives by stealthy wrapping it within his proclamation that all deserved a “Square Deal”.

Theodore told one and all, the Federal Government is the solution and the Square Deal would be his tool of Social Justice.

The “Square Deal” was  designed to appeal to the ill informed by proclaiming all the evils of America were the directed actions of those who would exploit the resources of America for their unjust monopolistic gain.  

What Theodore Failed to share, is that these "exploiters" were in reality the local small business entrepreneurship that drove the American Economy.

The Square Deal was the policy implemented by Theodore Roosevelt to substantiate the federal necessity of intervening in the private affairs of Americans' Proprietorial Rights.

The Bully Pulpit was exploited to promote the Square Deal’s Progressive message that government is the solution. 

One "Solution" was to sell off Federal Lands to Homesteaders by constructing massive Reclamation Projects for water irrigation in the Western States.

This enabled Senator Francis Newland of Nevada to secure the passage of the National Reclamation Act on June 17th, 1902 (Public Law 57-161, 32 Statutes at Large 388).

The legislation specifically applied to Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.

The Congressional Legislation statutorily empowered the Secretary to set aside parcels of Federal Land for the Reclamation Project and sell off quarter sections in compliance to the Homestead Act of May 20 1862 wherein the owners would then be the paying beneficiaries of the Federal Reclamation Project.

The idea in spirit was to sell of the barren Federal Land, from where the Damming of the Rivers would provide inexpensive water to irrigate the Quarter Section Homesteads.

The first such project was the Salt River Project in Arizona, which began construction in 1903.  Over the following Four years, the Department of Interior United States Reclamation Service initiated another 29 projects in 17 States.

IN 1906 the Lone Star Republic jumped on the Project Gravy train with special Federal legislation, for Texas did not have any Federal owned land within its boundaries.

Engineering problems grew along with the expanding Projects which led to larger costs then anticipated.  The project was early on proved to be fiscal black hole.  IN response to pending economic calamity the Federal Government showed its administrative hand, by creating a new authority the Bureau of Reclamation in 1907, in lieu of shutting the project down.  So the Reclamation Act's fiscal albatross of ballooning costs escalated year after year, after year.

The problem as in all government managed projects was the cost was greater than the return provided by the Homesteaders.  The 1903 Reclamation Acts cost was over $85.00 per acre of a Quarter Section.  In 1903 dollars that was $13,600.00 per quarter section.  In today’s inflated dollars with gold at $1600 per ounce equates to $1,088,000.00 per quarter section.

The original legislation limited the users of the irrigation project’s water resources to owning no more than one quarter section which is 160 acres.  The Land Owners who managed their 160 acres farm with water from the Salt River Project along with the other 29 projects encompassing  17 other states by 1906, were to pay back the cost of the project out of their production. The cost of building the first Thirty Irrigation projects exceeded the Act's self funding premises for the quarter section farmer had no fiscal ability to pay for the cost of the “inexpensive" Federal water resource.

When the Reclamation Act’s self funding collapsed, in lieu of closing the operation, the Federal Congress increased Funding in 1910 by moving 20 million dollars in then current moneys from the General Fund to the account of the Department of Interior’s now three year old Bureau of Reclamation.  The Bureau’s administrative largess grew, as the quarter section Farmer's inability to pay was never overcome.

Over the next 85 years the Bureau of Reclamation became an agency with one focus build dams. The Bureau of Reclamation had built 180 projects by 1992.

One of the engineering problems was the underlying geology of the river beds.  The instability of the river beds appears to be a problem the Bureau of Reclamation routinely side stepped. This type of bureaucratic decision appears to be predicated on ignoring a potential problem which led to the collapse of the Grand Tetons Dam project on June 5th, 1976.

Then the other bureaucratic legacy arises in parallel, the Endangered Species Act comes to play which led to the Federally created dust bowl in the Klamath River Basin, when the Bureau of Reclamation turned off the water flow to the dependent farmers in 1992.

In 1992 the troubles began for the Land Owners in the Klamath River Basin in Oregon when the Fish and Wildlife Services turned down the water flow after the growing season to protect Shortnose and Lost River Sucker Fish.

The water spigot continued to be adjusted by the Federal Bureaucrats in 2001 to protect the River Salmon.

So in just under 100 years, the Reclamation Act built 180 Irrigation Projects, wherein the now dependent Farmers lose their Federal assured Water Rights on the whim of Environmental Groups, their Fisherman Allies and Federal Bureaucrats to protect "endangered" Klamath River Basin Salmon.

Not to be outdone the Delta Smelt became the political pawn in San Joaquin-Sacramento Delta, where the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service showed more concern for this four inch fish that lives a year, than landowners who invested their lifetime in running the farms with the water from the irrigation project.

Take note there is no press news outside the basins about the political maelstroms that have bankrupted landowners and kept litigators busy for nearly twenty years.

Welcome to the Bureau of Reclamation where the Federal Congress substantiates they knowingly will fund Bureaucratic Failure by “flooding” the failed agency with more of our Private Wealth.

Property in his own Person

Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state nature hath placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other men: for this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others.

John Locke, "A Treatise Concerning Civil Government

The Tariff Act of October 3, 1913 imposed an Individual Mandate upon the American State Citizen that shared the accretions of the Corporate Person’s disbursements of profit. The mandate was statutorily titled the Normal Tax. The profit was derived from the Individual American State Citizen who invests their private property in a Corporation or Partnership.

The Normal Tax Individual mandate

In addition to the income tax provided under this section (herein as the normal income tax) there shall be levied, assessed, and collected upon the net income of every individual an additional income tax (herein referred to as the additional tax) of 1 per centum per annum upon the amount by which the total net income exceeds $20,000 and does not exceed $50,000, and 2 per centum per annum upon the amount by which the total net income exceeds $50,000 and does not exceed $75,000, 3 per centum per annum upon the amount by which the total net income exceeds $75,000 and does not exceed $100,000, 4 per centum per annum upon the amount by which the total net income exceeds $100,000 and does not exceed $250,000, 5 per centum per annum upon the amount by which the total net income exceeds $250,000 and does not exceed $500,000, and 6 per centum per annum upon the amount by which the- total net income exceeds $500,000 . 63rd Congress Session I Chapter 16, § II page 166, October 3rd 1913

The statutory revision of the Corporate Excise Tax on October 3rd 1913 referred to as the Tariff Act secondly directly imposed a taxable liability upon the Individual American State Citizen, labeled the Additional Income Tax whose “income” was the residual derived from a Partnership after all expense had been secured.

An Individual’s profit is the return on his invested private property. Frank Brushaber was a stockholder in the Union Pacific Railroad. The Union Pacific Railroad withheld a percentage of Frank’s disbursement as the “Withholding tax” imposed as the individual mandate under the authorities imposing the Normal Tax.

A Corporate officer or associated member secures distributions through compensation, or other forms, which is statutorily taxed in compliance to the Additional Income Tax, which was the second element of the Tariff Act enacted in October 3rd 1913 to impose “income taxes” upon corporate profits, and those who directly secured a share of this accretion of wealth.

The provision of the Normal Tax imposed upon the Corporate Structure, and the Additional Tax imposed upon the Person, and Individual was enacted within the body of The Tariff Act, October 3, 1913, 67th Congress, Session I, Chapter 16, within Section II (A) Subdivision 2.

Within this Section II of the Tariff Act is found the individual l mandate that arose under the Normal Tax that was to be imposed upon the Individual who received compensation in any form from the Person. Secondly their arose the Additional Tax Mandate that was imposed which is one’s singular income that was derived from any sources as delineated in the Tariff Act Section II under the Normal Tax.

Individual Mandate taxing “non use”

Every person subject to this additional tax shall for the purpose of its assessment and collection, make a personal return of his total net income from all sources, corporate or otherwise, for the preceding calendar year, under rules and regulations to be prescribed.. by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and approved by the Secretary of the Treasury. For the purpose of this additional tax the taxable income of any individual shall embrace the share to which he Could be entitled of the gains and profits, if divided or distributed, whether divided or distributed or not, of all corporations, joint-stock companies, or associations however created or organized, formed or fraudulently availed of for the purpose of preventing the imposition of such tax through the medium of permitting such gains and profits to accumulate instead of being divided or distributed; 63rd Congress Session I Chapter 16, § II page 166, October 3rd 1913

John Robert’s Decision declaring the constitutionality of Taxing a Non Use was first silently imposed within case dicta by omission in the Brushaber v Union Pacific decision issued in January 1916 Decision. Frank Brushaber was challenging the withholding provisions imposed as the individual mandate under the Normal Tax.

This individual mandate statutorily compelled the Person disbursing accretions of wealth to first withhold the impending tax liability that attached to the profit in accordance to Section II Subdivision I (A). Frank challenge this subordination of his private property, and lost when Edward Douglas White’s fellow Justices stated this was all about taxing a “Use” of property, not the property itself.

Frank and his litigators were not concerned with the liability imposed upon the non disbursement of funds, which statutorily matriculates as a mandate to be imposed upon the individual’s non use of property by the Federal Congress.

 Individual Mandate taxing “non use”

Every person subject to this additional tax shall for the purpose of its assessment and collection, make a personal return of his total net income from all sources, corporate or otherwise, for the preceding calendar year, under rules and regulations to be prescribed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and approved by the Secretary of the Treasury. For the purpose of this additional tax the taxable income of any individual shall embrace the share to which he Could be entitled of the gains and profits, if divided or distributed, whether divided or distributed or not, of all corporations, joint-stock companies, or associations however created or organized, formed or fraudulently availed of for the purpose of preventing the imposition of such tax through the medium of permitting such gains and profits to accumulate instead of being divided or distributed; 63rd Congress Session I Chapter 16, § II page 166, October 3rd 1913

The twist and turns moved by John Roberts to declare that Patient Protection and Health Care Affordability Act may impose an Individual Tax Mandate for "non use" substantiates how corrupted the Supreme Court has become regarding its Constitutional responsibility to stand squarely within the Rule of Law.

The Corruption to the Rule of Law started with Hylton v Tyson from December 1796. This spurious legislation from the Bench was resuscitated by the Progressive Chief Justice Edward Douglas White in Stratton’s Independence, Ltd. v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399 (1913), and the Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad, 240 U.S. 1 (1916), case decisions for declaring a “Use Tax” is constitutionally viable when imposed upon Private Property.

This unconscionable and unconstitutionally statutorily imposed Individual Mandate for taxing "Use" and "Non Use" of Proprietorial Rights has finally been exposed for all Americans to comprehend following the actions of Chief Justice John Roberts.

Justice John Robert’s declaration is more confounding given that this Tax Bill originated in the Federal Senate. This fact substantiates what has been quietly known for over 100 years, Constitutional law is no longer taught in the Halls of Academia that matriculates Juris Doctorates.

Come this 3rd day of January 2013, it is time for the 113th Congress to emulate Thomas Jefferson’s response to the Hylton Decision, and statutorily close down these corrupted Federal Courts populated by Judges who legislate from the Bench.

Legislative Plunder

Here in Michigan the State Legislature took the lead from Governor G. Mennen Williams who in 1949 initiated the proposal for creating a new taxpayer funded program to first “study” the “problems” of “Older Adults”.

The progressive G. Mennen Williams supported statutory initiatives to mask the failures of Public Act 280 of 1939.

This led to the enactment of Public Act 11 of 1960 that established a Michigan Commission on Aging within the Department of Social Services.
This Public Act 11 established a new spending program that took off with Federal Subsidies garnered under the Federal Older Americans Act of 1965.

This Federal enactment public law 89-73, House Resolution 3708, titled “Older American Act of 1965” is a tax and spend program. Why a tax program? All the Federal Congress may do is appropriate funds which require taxation. Wrapped within these tax bills, is the promise of an administrative largess, which is put upon the fiscal stick and waived over the heads of the State Legislative assembly.

The result here in Michigan is the State Legislature jumped upon the tax and spend program and enacted corresponding law Federally defined as the State plan. Overnight the Legislature in Lansing pandering to the Federal Government enlarged the Commission on Aging’s reach at the State and local level under the guise of caring for “older Americans.

The political reality is this Federal Enactment came about due directly to the failure of the Social Security benefit program first enacted in 1935, as amended in 1939.

The Federal Social Security Law is completely reliant upon State Legislation to fund this troubling benefit program. The unspoken reasoning behind the Older Americans Act of 1965 was that the Social Security benefit matrix had collapsed in the early 1960’s.

The Actuaries had designed the 1935 Social Security tax and take program on the premise that elder Americans would not live past age 65.

State's Rights

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

The governmentally controlled schools no longer teach the history of the American Republic. Those who have no knowledge of what inspired our Founding Fathers to battle the administrative tyranny of the Britannic Majesty and his governmentally empowered ministers will not comprehend the State and Federal Political Class’s constitutional deceit.

The thirteen united Colonies of America unilaterally declared their united independence on July 4^th, 1776 as the thirteen united States of America.

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation

The thirteen united States of America sent representatives to sit in a Second Continental Congress during the Revolutionary (Civil War) Era during the eight years of armed rebellion for Independence against the British Crown.

The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union was presented to the States in the fall of 1777 by the Second Continental Congress, and adopted when the thirteenth State, Maryland ratified the document on or about March 1st of 1781.

The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union established an American Confederation of Sovereign and Independent States to be styled the United States of America. This Constitutional fact is articulated in Article II:

Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual was amended by adoption of the Constitution of the United States for the United States of America, which was the result of the Constitutional Convention that sat in Philadelphia from May to September of 1787. The amending document titled the Constitution of the United States for the United States of America contains Article IV and the 10th Amendment, which constitutionally substantiate the status of the Sovereign, and Independent States of the more perfect Union, which is known to this day as the Confederation of the United States of America.

The historical fact of constitutional continuity is no longer taught in American History. The Constitution of the United States amended the powers of the Federal Government and did not diminish the authority of the States. The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union established a body politic known as the United States. The United States is to this day, the administrative hand of the United States of America in Congress Assembled.

Under the Amended document titled the Constitution of the United Statesfor the United States of America, the Federal government was given a limited power of the purse as found in Article I § 2, § 8 and § 9.

The Federal government, which is the United States, is an administrative bureaucracy funded annually by the United States of America in Congress Assembled. Congress's legisaltive reach is Constitionally limited in accordance to Article I § 8 cls. 1-18, and Article IV.

Unfortunately, the State political class that sits under the State’s Capitol Dome has enacted State law, Federally defined as the State Plan, which has empowered the reach of the Federal Government to move within the exterior boundaries of the OUR Sovereign and Independent State.

What few Americans comprehend, is the constitutional fact that without the compliant hand of the State Legislature enacting what is federally defined as the State Plan, the Federal Legislative with its attendant bureaucrats stops at the State’s exterior Border.

Americans have been deliberately misled by the State and Federal Political Class, who have conspired together to trample our State’s Sovereignty and Independence by imposing tax and spend programs for the past Seventy Six years, which empowered the administrative reach of Federal bureaucrats under such innocuous programs as the “Family Independence Agency”.

Taxing Non Use

The improbable stitching of legalistic words by John Roberts constructed to “Constitutionally Authenticate” the taxing a “Use” was first presented in the Hylton Case dicta issued in December of 1796 by the Supreme Court.

The issue decided by the Five Progressive Justices inclusive of, and led by John Roberts, was to hide in plain sight the unconstitutional coercion of taxing the American State Citizen in an individual capacity by imposing the judicially legislatively created application of taxing “use” or in this instance, “non use”. John Robert’s historical legacy will be known as the Chief Justice that judicially created exaction of “non use”.

There is no constitutional authority for a sitting judicial bench to judicially legislate the imposition of fiscal exaction upon that which does not exist. Yet, John Roberts’ action was not the first time that the Court protected Congressional overreach. The first time was back in December of 1796 on behalf of Alexander Hamilton’s infamous Carriage Tax of 1794. This judicial legislation of taxing “use” was first presented in the Hylton Decision from December of 1796 which substantiated Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton’s desire to tax the “use” of Private Property as a way to overcome the restrictive Constitutionally limited Direct Tax.
The Hylton Decision issued in December 1796 by the statutory Judicial Panel of Six sitting as the Supreme Court , stated that the Federal Legislature may impose an excise tax for the Private “use” of Property.

It was another 113 years before the Court, now a statutory panel of Nine , once again stated the Federal Legislature may indirectly tax the “use” of Private Property. Chief Justice Douglas Edward White opined that the Corporate Excise Tax of 1909 was a tax upon the “use” of Private Property.

The little referenced case dicta is Stratton's Independence, Ltd. v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399 (1913) issued in December 1913. The Property in “use” that was subsequently “excised” was “Income”. This judicial sleight of hand was moved to overcome the Pollack Decision from 1894 where the Court had clearly affirmed wealth arising from Private Property fell strictly within the Constitutional realm of Direct Taxation. In the 1913 case dicta of Stratton’s Independence, Ltd, the Income arising from property was judicially legislated to be defined as “excisable use”.
There sat the Chief Justice Edward Douglas White, who artfully imposed the judicially legislatively created term of art “use” in 1913, as the judicial two step to surreptitiously surmount the Direct Tax restrictions for appointment when exacting Rights to Property.

The Corporate Excise Tax of August 5, 1909, 36 Stat. 11, 61st Congress Session I Chapter 6, § 38 page 112, was reliant upon the sleight of hand known as judicial “interpretation” of a legislative enactment. This Corporate Excise Tax enactment did not define the term that was applied by the Court to justify its artfully crafted Decision. The judicially applied term was “use”.

Imposing a tax upon a singular American State Citizen would be known as a Caption Tax, but alas, the statutory panel of nine has avoided that Constitutional Reality since Chief Justice Edward Douglas White artfully legislated from the Bench in the Brushaber decision issued in January of 1916 wherein the accretions of wealth disbursed by a Corporation to a singular American Individual was judicially legislated to be defined as a “taxable source derived” from a Corporate “use”.

This was the first time that the Court, in the Brushaber Decision, applied what is now known today to be the Congressionally enacted statutory mandate to Directly Tax a Singular American. In the instant case of Brushaber, the Court determined that the disbursement of the accretions of wealth, was “derived from a taxable source”, that had been judicially legislated by the Judicial bench, to be known and defined as “use”.
When John Roberts was confronted with the artfully crafted Patient Protection and Health Care Affordability Act he was facing down the historical reality of the judicially legislatively created term “use”, or as previously stated “non use” as an exactable source of property.

The judicially created concept that “non use” is intangible property of a singular American that then may subsequently be exacted is the end result of a judicially crafted corruption dating back to Alexander Hamilton’s Carriage Tax. Alexander Hamilton’s Carriage tax was one of the reasons that Thomas Jefferson secured the passage of the Judicial Act of 1802, wherein by legislative enactment fifty percent of the Federal Judiciary was terminated with statutory prejudice.

The Federal judiciary eventually recovered from Thomas Jefferson’s success. The Federal Judiciary then easily fell back into historical errors when it constructed its judicial presence to follow the ideologically driven processes designed by Frank J. Goodnow in 1911.

Frank J. Goodnow presented the expedient political concept of using Stare Decisis to overtly usurp constitutional limitations. The end result over the past 101 years is that the Federal Judiciary has become a repressive political tool from where the Progressives compel their oppressive reach of National Socialism by imposing the Statist hand of tyrannical oppression under the color of “judicial decisions”.
It is time we Americans once again stand up come this 113th Congress and require the newly elected Federal Legislature to put on their “Thomas Jefferson” and legislatively terminate the Federal Judicial System.

Then turn to Article III, and not clause 1 of said article, to, for the first time in the Republic’s History sit a Judicial Bench Constitutionally known as the one Supreme Court.

Soft Money Tryanny

WE suffer the insufferable evil of the Progressive Soft Money Tyranny in our Great American Republic.

Andrew Jackson had crushed the Second Bank of the United States in 1836. The Second Bank of the United States issued paper money, known as soft money that was capitalized by “Promises to pay”.

During this Federal legislative political battle over the Charter of the Second Bank of the United States, State Chartered Banks were expanding their issuing of soft money. The State Banks sought to profit in the market once dominated by the now defunct soft money Second Bank of the United States.

Andrew Jackson has been belittled by the Revisionist Historians for his infamous response to the Cherokee Nation Removal to the West, poignantly known as the Trail of Tears.

What the Revisionist Historians will not share, is the point that the Specie Circular Act Andrew Jackson issued on July 15th, 1836 put the United States of America back on the road to Hard Currency and economic expansion.

The Revisionist Historians dwell upon the “Financial Panic of 1837” which was the direct result of the soft money issuing State Chartered Banks collapsing when their currency was not accepted by the Treasury of the United States after December 1936.
The collapse of the soft money issuing State Charter Banks was a market correction, which resulted in the economic adjustments throughout 1837. The Economic Panic of 1837 did not move into 1838.

Quite the contrast we face today following the last Soft Money Financial Bubble Burst in September 2008. After Four years of the Trouble Asset Relief Program, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the burgeoning Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, our Economy is dominated by tens of millions of Americans turning to the American State taxpayer funded State Government administered entitlement offices.

The working American Economy is collapsing with a loss over nearly a million jobs a month for the past 40 months. Where do those forty million former workers go when there is no economic expansion? They head down to the local entitlement office, some out of choice, others out of dispirited necessity.

The Progressives have successfully closed down local faith based charity with the statutory suppression of private wealth dating from the New Deal, compounded by the Great Society and crushed under the Soft Money tax and spend polices of the Current Crop of Progressives that to this day dominate the leadership of the 112th Congress.
The Progressives that dominate our National and State Politics showed their collective and deceptive hands in September 2008 when the so called "Republican Conservative 110th Congress" enacted the Troubled Asset Relief Program.

Unlike Andrew Jackson who responded to soft money manipulation by reinstituting Constitutional Currency, George W. Bush chose to support the unconstitutional printing of Soft Money. This enabled the Secretary of Treasury Henry Paulson; former Soft Money King of Goldman Sachs, to brow beat the financial markets into Progressive compliance. There sat the Secretary of Treasury Henry Paulson in the Conference Room with unwilling Financial Managers, who were instructed to accept the TARP funds in order to covertly hide in plain sight the Federal Statutory Financial Reorganization of six major soft money centers that were bankrupted by the Collapse of the Derivative Market in September 2008.

The result was that in less than four months the radical Progressive Barrack Hussein Obama, sitting with his fellow Socialistic travelers Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid sitting collectively in the 111th Congress freely implemented the Progressive central management programs that expanded the economic tyranny of soft money tax and oppressive polices that have turned our once thriving liberty loving Republic into a culture dominated by Entitlement seeking Citizens.

The Progressive Despotism

The Progressives sitting in the 114th Congress manipulate the leadership within Our Federal House of Representatives and Senate whilst hiding behind the claim that they may stand as a Republican, and or Democratic.

The Progressives care not for what political party they may claim allegiance within, as long as they stand under the Federal Capitol Dome.

The National Democratic Party membership no longer hides its Progressive Ideology. The leadership of the National Democratic Party boldly stands their ideological driven preference for standing National Socialism as public policy under the color of law.

The National Republican party members who cling to the Progressive ideology hide within the shadows, yet their political actions expose them for what they refuse to proclaim themselves to be, and are readily identified as Republican In Name Only.

IN the past 115 years dating from the accidental Presidency of the First Progressive President Theodore Roosevelt the Progressives have successfully suppressed the Constitutionalists by allying with the Yellow Journalists. The Yellow Journalists today are better known to quote a Famous Conservative Radio host, as the “Drive by Media”.

The Yellow Journalists preyed on the base desires of an ill-informed reading Citizenry that populated the ever expanding urban landscape during the latter days of the 19th Century which enabled the Progressives to perfect their political standing within the Federal and State legislatures during the first three decades of the Twentieth Century.

The Progressives rose to political prominence by preying upon an ill-informed Citizenry awed by the modern marvels that spurred the economic dynamics of the ever expanding urban landscape. Once safety ensconced under the State and Federal Capitol Domes the Progressive political class put all educational authority within their legislative hands from primary schools to the University.

The Progressives were schooled in the post Civil War Radical Republicans political philosophy of National Socialism. The “intellectual progressive” Thomas Woodrow Wilson rewrote American History in 1902 wherein he championed the Radical Republicans’ political ideology of National Socialism, which was renamed Progressivism.

Frank J. Goodnow wrote in 1911 that the Progressive ideology would not work within the Constitutional Limitations of the Federal Governance. His solution was to promote the judicial usage of Stare Decisis.

Now the stage was set, wherein the Progressives aggressively and overtly subverted Constitutional limitations by moving under the color of statutory laws.

The result is what we suffer today. The rise of the Progressive political class subverted the Constitutionally Constituted Rule of Law, which enabled the Progressives to turn the Privilege of Public Service into a “professional career” whose legacy is best described as political thuggery funded by Legislative Plunder.

The Exaction of Non Use

The politicized decision handed down under the direction of “Chief Justice John Roberts” substantiates the success of 100 years of Progressive political deception and entrenchment within the elected and appointed offices of OUR Federal Governance. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is the largest tax legislation ever codified by the Federal Legislature within one statutory bill.

The issue was never about “health care”, it has always been about the Progressives extending the overreach of government by moving under the color of fiscal authority. The premise of Chief Justice John Robert’s decision is first and foremost penned upon the Progressive enacted Corporate Excise Tax on August 5th of 1909 which was subsequently amended by including the infamous tax imposed upon the accretions of wealth distributed to the “individual” under the statutory title “Normal Tax” enacted on October 3rd 1913 by the 63rd Congress.

Now 100 years after the Federal Legislature used fiscal enactment to trespass upon the Substantive Rights of individual Americans, we suffer the ultimate breach, the use of fiscal authority to COMPEL American State Citizens to purchase a product by statutory mandate. The inherent failure of American State Citizens to overcome the Progressive usurpation of limited government sitting under OUR Federal Capitol Dome has put our God Given Liberties in peril.

Today’s Supreme Court decision authenticating that the Federal legislature may use a fiscal authority to command American State Citizens shall buy a product should resonate here in America as the “Shot heard “round the World”.

WE American State Citizens have one clear choice, and that is this electoral season, to vote out the Progressives who sit within the shadows of both major political parties, or we shall truly discover the true meaning of the words penned within the Declaration of Independence from July 4th 1776: “that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”

Drive in Movie on a February Morning

A history forgotten was the Federal Government’s legislative response to the Arab Oil embargo in October of 1973.

The advent of the “Yom Kippur War” encourages the Oil Cartel, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries to EMBARGO shipments to Israeli Allies.

The legislative response by the Federal Congress to this energy crisis was to change the time of day, by Federal Enactment. Daylight Savings Time was imposed for ten months throughout 1974, and eight months throughout 1975. Under political pressure from the State’s the buffoons who enacted this nonsensical response repealed the legislation in late 1975.

The commons sense response would have been then to expand domestic oil production, yet the Progressive who dominated the Federal Legislature responded by changing the time of day by legislative fiat.

One of the results of this legislation was the promotion by Disc Jockey Dick Purtan here in Detroit to open the Oak Drive in Theater at 7 am on a very cold snow ground laden day on February 9th, 1974. The promotion was to expose the absurdity of the extended use of Daylight Savings Time in the middle of a winter in Michigan.

The unexpected result was the nearly 2000 car loads of early risers showing up to the Oak Drive in Movie Theater. The lot could only accommodate 400 automobiles as the drive in movie lot was covered in snow.

Profitable Eight Hour Day

Henry Ford knew a worker paid well would be productive. It was Henry Ford, not Union Shop Bosses that first paid HIS factory workers five dollars a day for an eight hour shift.

Henry Ford inaugurated this high pay eight hour day labor program on January 1, 1914.

Productivity climbed and the turnover of hourly employees in the Ford Plant labor force diminished. The 1914 hourly workers were NOT TAXED on their earnings, nor were they coerced by State statute to subsidize the politics and private life style of a Union Executive Committee.

Five dollars for an eight shift is 62.5 cents per hour. IN today's dollars adjusted for inflation using an ounce of gold as the economic measure, would be the equivalent of earning 50.79 dollars per hour. The Union Leadership and their Progressive Political allies have enacted a series of fiscal exactions since the "success" of the sit down strike in the General Motor plants in Flint in 1937.

This forty two day occupation of private property empowered the United Auto Worker’s Union Executive Committee to live off the sweat of others by promising all Union Members “benefits". These Unionized “benefits” have become the diminishing promise to retirees and current working members of the UAW.

The result is plain to see in every paycheck. Today the average coerced unionized worker looses first 30 percent to the income tax, and then is coerced to pay the union dues. Over thirty-five percent of the private Unionized Worker’s daily earnings are confiscated by an alliance between Progressives who populate the Legislature and the Union’s Executive Committee.

When the current "assured union wage" of 28.92 an hour is adjusted for inflation it equates to half of what Henry Ford Paid his non unionized work force in 1914 for an eight hour day. So what has the United Auto Workers provided the unionized worker? The answer is obvious; indentured servitude in support of the Progressives who populate both political parties and the Union Executive Committee from where they all have collectively turned productivity and wealth accumulation into the “Evils of Capitalism".

Detroit's once robust auto plants are now ghosts towns and the United Auto Workers Union has turned to organizing public sector employees here in Lansing, as the Private Unionized work force has fallen to less than seven percent of hourly workers throughout the United States of America.

This factual point substantiates the UAW Executive leadership is willing to abandon the private sector labor force as it appears it is more profitable to contractually pillage the public employee labor force to fund the growing cost of their political and private life style.

What the United Auto Worker Executive Leadership and the current administration sitting in the White House fail to disclose is the "Auto Bailout" was for UAW Unionized plants only. The southern auto Makers, who manage non Unionized Plants, did not need OUR REDISTRIBUTED PRIVATE WEALTH to keep their factory doors open.