--= New Powers =--

New powers of Government

Like the Energizer bunny, our government keeps growing, and growing, and growing. Most Americans do not have a full appreciation for just how much our government has grown in the past 150 years. Most people do not know that the federal government didn't have the power to collect income tax until the 20th century, or that government didn't always have the power to prohibit intoxicating substances. They just assume that since the government has these powers today, they must have always had this authority. But, as anybody even remotely familiar with American history can tell you, this was not always the case.

So, lets have a quick review of some of the more important powers that the feds have usurped over the last few years.

Income Taxes	FCC	Affirmative Action
Hate speech laws	ATF, FBI, DEA	The War on Drugs
Power to ignore the people	Power of Banks to rule the economy	Social Security
Government vs Tobacco	Power to control traffic	Government is better armed than citizens

Income Taxes - The power to collect income taxes was granted to congress by 16th Amendment to the constitution. Not only does this amendment give the state the right to confiscate almost 1/3 on an individual's earnings, it allows the government to see exactly how you earn (and spend) your money. (How do you think they nailed Al Capone?)

This amendment also spawned the I.R.S., which has the power to search company files and confiscate assets whenever they like. The IRS's total lack of regard for personal privacy would have horrified out founding fathers. The IRS's power will be magnified when the country finally moves to E-Money, unless we repeal the 16th Amendment now, and go back to a straight consumption/property tax system.

FCC - The primary purpose of this government agency is to regulate mass speech. Luckily, they have not taken control of the internet.....yet

Affirmative Action - This gives the government the power to regulate how private business hire people.

Hate speech laws - In a free country, you should have the right to hate whomever you want, for whatever reason you want, and have the right to say so.

ATF, FBI, DEA - NOWHERE in the constitution does it say that the federal government has the right to create its own police force. That power was supposed to be left to the states. The government has the power to create a military, but not a police force for use against its citizens. These forces are almost as well armed as the military.... but are not designated as such. But, of course, if the government used the military to invade citizen's homes and businesses, the people wouldn't stand for it. (On second thought... maybe they would)

The War on Drugs - These laws were enacted to help organized crime make up for the business that was lost when prohibition was repealed. Drug use has increase 1000x since the inaction of the "Marijuana Tax Act". It has turned this country from the most law-abiding nation in the world, to one of the most violent.

The inevitable side effect of this insane quest is the destruction of MANY of our freedoms. The notion that the Government can stop drug use is laughable. No matter how many laws are passed, or how many of our freedoms they take away, government will NEVER win the war on drugs. Even if we became a completely totalitarian police state, we would not be able stop drug use. Just look at the situation in America's ultimate "police state" -- Our nation’s prisons. Drugs still manage to get in there, in spite of barbed-wired, fences, guard towers, and policeman standing at every turn. If the police can't stop drugs from getting into prisons, how do they expect to stop it from getting into our country?

Power to ignore the people - When the constitution was first signed, each member of the House represented approx 10,000-30,000 people. The first amendment proposed to the constitution would have made sure that each congressman would represent no more than 50,000 people. Unfortunately, this amendment was never ratified, because today a congressman may represent over 1,000,000 people.

There is no way for a congressman to realistically represent all of their constitutes. Instead, they are really only representing the party they belong to. There is no way for a citizen to be heard, unless you are part of some extremist political group, a corporation large enough to afford to send lobbyist to Washington, or an individual rich enough to make enormous donations to a political party.

Had the first proposed amendment been ratified, and the ratios set to 1:50,000, there would now be over 5,200 members in the House. If the ratio had been set to 1:30,000, there would be almost 9,000 representatives. While increasing the number of members in the house would help assure that everybody in this country could have their opinions voiced on the floor of the house, it there would be too many voices for anybody to actually be heard. In addition, this number of representative would have been difficult to maintain, which is probably the primary reason this amendment was never ratified.

However, thanks to the Internet, such a body could easily be maintained.

Power of Banks to rule the economy - This is one power that the government has actually lost. At the time of our revolution for independence from England, the Bank of England controlled the English Parliament. Becoming concerned over the success of Franklin's debt free Colonial Script (Currency printed by the colonies), the bank caused Parliament to outlaw the Colonial Script. Within a year, poverty became rampant in the Colonies. For that reason Benjamin Franklin stated that the Bank of England caused the Revolutionary War, not the Boston Tea Party.

The constitution gave the government the power to print money for one reason... to prevent the government from having to borrow money from banks. When congress took the power to print money away from the government and handed it over to banks with the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, these banks were given direct control of our economy. The Federal Reserve Act gave the control of printing and regulating money over the Federal Reserve Bank. They have control of interest rates & the supply of money, and therefore, control of the inflation rate....basically... they have control of the entire economy.

The Federal Reserve is an international banking institution ... it is not a government agency, nor is it under the control of any branch of government. The Federal Reserve is no more "federal" than the Federal Express, yet it has complete control of our economy. At one time, law in most states prohibited banks because many of the early settlers were all too familiar with the practices of the European goldsmith banks. Goldsmith banks were safe-houses used to store client's gold. In exchange for the deposited gold, customers were issued notes (paper money), which were redeemable in gold. The goldsmith bankers quickly succumbed to the temptation to issue "extra" notes, (not backed by gold). Why? Because the "extra" notes enriched the bankers by allowing them to buy property with notes for gold that they did not own, gold that did not even exist.

Franklin & Jefferson often spoke on their desire to keep the US from becoming indebted to bankers in the way the English Parliament was indebted to the "Bank of England" ... in the same way our present government is indebted to the Federal Reserve Bank. Today, the Fed prints money un-backed by gold (in the same way the goldsmith banks of England once did), and are bankrupting our government in the process.

Because the Federal Reserve Bank (often referred to as the "Fed") prints the money, our government must pay the "Fed" whenever it needs money ... but where does the Fed get their money?... they simply print it. It is not real money! It is not backed by gold or silver as it once was in the earlier part of this century....it is just printed in the exactly the same way counterfeiters print their money, except it is legal! Despite the fact that the fed simply pulls the money out of thin air, our government must still pay the fed interest on the money the fed printed for them!

But what does this mean to you and me?.... It means that the fruits of our labor are being confiscated by the government and handed over to bankers on an enormous scale. In 1910, the U.S. Federal debt was only $1Billion (about $12 per person). But by 1920, after only 6 years of FED manipulations, the debt skyrocketed to 24 billion dollars (about $230 per person). In 1960, $9 of every $100 that individuals paid in federal income taxes went to pay the interest on the national debt. In 1991 it was $30 out of every $100. The interest payments represent the largest transfer of wealth ever, with the money going from middle-class, hard-working Americans to the holders of "U.S. Bonds"... The largest share of which is held by the Federal Reserve!

If the government had maintained their right to print money, there would be no national debt!! There would be inflation, but no more than what is already present thanks to the Fed's fabrication of currency. The only difference is that our government would not have to pay the Fed to do it for them.

For more info, read my quotes On Bankers and the National Debt...

Social Security - Just an excuse to confiscate 7.5% of what you make, and an additional 7.5% from your employer. If that money were put into a savings account, we would all be millionaires when we retired. This theft would have been impossible, of course, if we would have stood up to the idea of "income taxes" in the first place.

Government vs. Tobacco - The latest lawsuit against tobacco companies should be cause for serious alarm. Our government just successfully took 350 billion dollars from a company, just because the produced a product that was deemed "unhealthy". There are many things in this country which are considered "unhealthy"... Alcohol, OTC drugs, Prescription Drugs, Red Meat, Candy, Fast Food, Automobiles, TV.... which one of these industries will be attacked next using this case as the precedent?

Such a lawsuit would have been impossible, had the government not set up the "Medicaid" program. The fact that our government used its involvement in this "Welfare" program to help destroy an industry is just another example of why the government should be rigidly restrained to the powers granted to it in the constitution, no matter how "well intentioned" their motives may be.

Power to control travel. There were very few (if any) traffic laws when our country was founded. Traffic laws permit government to harass citizens, search citizens, and confiscate money (fines) in ways that would have been unthinkable to our founding fathers. If the government really just wanted to make the roads safer, they could just pass a law limiting the top speeds on all automobiles to 70mph, instead of wasting the everybody's time an money with speed traps, fines, helicopters, fines, unconstitutional searches, fines, .... And did I mention fines?

Traffic laws also gave the government an excuse to ID everybody. Recently some states (like Georgia) have even gone as far to allow the DMV to fingerprint citizens applying for driver's licenses (supposedly to cut down of forged licenses). The real reason for this law becomes transparent when you learn that the DMV may give these fingerprints to law enforcement agencies for use in criminal investigations.

The power for the government to have better weapons than its citizens - This may surprise some people, but at the time our country was founded, citizens had access to the exact same weapons as the military. The Second Amendment was written to ensure that the people would always have the power to revolt. This equality is what allowed us to revolt against our British oppressors in the first place. (Notice how the Brits no longer allow their citizens to carry weapons).

Some people suggest that the 2nd amendment is outdated..... That the right to bear arms was only meant to preserve "a well - regulated militia". But if one actually reads what the founding fathers said about the 2nd amendment, you see what their reason was for creating the 2nd Amendment ... They were guaranteeing our right to revolt. Although armed revolt may not be a necessity in our time, who is to say that it will NEVER be necessary. Forever is a long time. Don't be so quick to deny this right to future generations.

Of course, I'm not suggesting that citizens have the right to own Nuclear weapons ... But I believe they should have access to the same weaponry available to the common foot soldier, at the very least.