|
What happens to someone in government who misuses his power?
Hollow Rules Larken Rose Everyone inside the system receives money or power from the game.
May 29, 2008 - A while back, George W. Bush was quoted as having said that the Constitution is only a "goddamn piece of paper." In a way, he was right. Though the Constitution talks about what the federal government is supposed to do, and what it's NOT supposed to do, the document is not self-enforcing. The Constitution itself is not going to come to life, jump up, and clobber a President or a Congress that do things they shouldn't. The document will just quietly sit there, as the ideas expressed in it are ignored or violated. My own adventures with the IRS and the federal court system -- as described in detail in my new book, Kicking the Dragon (Confessions of a Tax Heretic) -- give a fine illustration of the problem with expecting a supposed "authority" to play by any set of rules, including its own. What will happen to someone in "government" who misuses his power or oversteps his bounds? Almost everyone assumes that such things should and must be dealt with via the system itself. In other words, rather than the people having a revolution, or some other type of unpleasant clash with those claiming to be "authority," most people hope that someone INSIDE the system will enforce justice. Why people would expect that, I'm not sure. After all, everyone inside the system receives some measure of money and/or power from the game, and the bigger and more powerful "government" becomes, the more wealth and power each person in it has the potential of obtaining. So why would anyone inside the system ever want a "limited government," and why would they lift a finger to enforce any such limits? (I should note, however, that it was a pretty clever trick for the Founders to intentionally pit one power against another, both in the three separate branches of the federal government, and in the state governments versus the federal. For example, while state politicians may not actually care about individual liberty or any other principles, they will naturally want there to be limits on the federal power, because that leaves more power for themselves. In other words, their own megalomaniacal tendencies make them want to limit someone else's attempts at becoming an all-powerful tyrant. But even this trick fails, once the tyrants figure out how to cooperate to achieve power, instead of fighting each other.) Years back, I created a video and a written report, among other things, alleging that some inside the United States government, by way of the misrepresentation and misapplication of the federal "income tax," had committed the largest financial fraud in history. Whether you agree with my conclusions or not, there's no denying that such an accusation, if heard and believed by lots of people, would endanger the power of many inside the system. And so they set out to shut me up. As it happens, the First Amendment says that I have a right to "freedom of speech," and that the government has no right to stop me from speaking my mind. But in May of 2003, while IRS goons were raiding my home, stealing every copy they could find of my perfectly legal video and my perfectly legal report -- neither of which has ever been the subject of any injunction or other legal action, and neither of which has even been ALLEGED to be illegal -- the First Amendment didn't do a darn thing about it. When I afterwards pointed out that the Constitution, federal statutory law, and "case law" (rulings of the courts) all specifically condemn and forbid what the IRS did, everyone inside the system either looked the other way, or gave their blessing to the IRS' illegal and unconstitutional censorship campaign. (To add insult to injury, a ruling by Judge Michael Baylson said that it was "frivolous" for me to suggest that the IRS' actions were motivated by a desire to silence me, even though anyone with half a brain cell could see that that was the case.)
My case alone plainly shows those in power intentionally and continually violating the First Amendment, the Fourth, the Fifth, the Sixth, and the Ninth and Tenth, not to mention every basic principle of justice (not lying under oath, not suppressing exculpatory evidence, and so on). And what did "the rules" do to prevent that? Not a thing. What does the Constitution do to protect our "unalienable rights"? Not a thing. And what happens to those in "government" who intentionally and repeatedly violate those rights? Not a thing. (Actually, they are usually rewarded and promoted for it.) If there's one thing I hope my new book accomplishes, it's to open a few eyes to what a joke the myth of the "rule of law" and "due process" have become in this country. Whether those reading the book agree with, or even fully understand, my legal conclusions about the proper application of the federal income tax laws (i.e., the 861 evidence) is secondary. I didn't write the book in order to prove my positions on the tax laws to be valid (though I believe it does that as well), but to expose the true nature of those pretending to be "public servants," and those who pretend to be the agents of the law, the Constitution, and a system of "justice." If someone can read my book and still think that I'm some crackpot "tax protestor," so be it. What they WON'T be able to do, whatever they think of me, is to continue to believe that we live in "the land of the free," or that those who hold power today give a damn about what is true, what is legal, what is right, or what is just. As I've always said, no matter what else happens, my agenda is to do the right thing and to PUBLICIZE it when those in "government" do the wrong thing. And that is just what "Kicking the Dragon" does, to an extent which should and will infuriate anyone with a conscience. (To pre-order your own copy of the book -- orders will start to be filled in the next couple of weeks -- visit the Kicking The Dragon web site, or send $22 to: Larken Rose More Good Stuff:
|
STUMBLE IT!