1 - 6
Actually, the US is not permitted to refuse entry per the 1947 US Headquarters agreement, which is a treaty and is law. Of course, if the US really wants to press the issue and refuse entry anyway, the US could get away with it if the other UN nations did not protest too much. It has been done before when the diplomat is obviously a bad actor. Here is the relevant text of the treaty: quote Agreement Between the United Nations and the United States Regarding the Headquarters of the United Nations, Signed June 26, 1947, and Approved by the General Assembly October 31, 1947 … ARTICLE IV. COMMUNICATIONS AND TRANSIT SECTION 11 The federal, state or local authorities of the United States shall not impose any impediments to transit to or from the headquarters district of (1) representatives of Members or officials of the United Nations, or of specialized agencies as defined in Article 57, paragraph 2, of the Charter, or the families of such representatives or officials; (2) experts performing missions for the United Nations or for such specialized agencies; (3) representatives of the press, or of radio, film or other information agencies, who have been accredited by the United Nations (or by such a specialized agency) in its discretion after consultation with the United States; (4) representatives of nongovernmental organizations recognized by the United Nations for the purpose of consultation under Article 71 of the Charter; or (5) other persons invited to the headquarters district by the United Nations or by such specialized agency on official business. The appropriate American authorities shall afford any necessary protection to such persons while in transit to or from the headquarters district. This section does not apply to general interruptions of transportation which are to be dealt with as provided in Section 17, and does not impair the effectiveness of generally applicable laws and regulations as to the operation of means of transportation. SECTION 12 … SECTION 13 (a) Laws and regulations in force in the United States regarding the entry of aliens shall not be applied in such manner as to interfere with the privileges referred to in Section 11. When visas are required for persons referred to in that Section, they shall be granted without charge and as promptly as possible. unquote The attempt to refuse a visa is a clear impediment.
Your Constitution puts your government in charge of enforcing the Constitutional duties and limits on itself. It also makes your government responsible for enforcing laws on itself. Do you think that is a good thing for your Constitution to be doing? You can fix this, you know, but it requires a willingness to make a repairatory amendment. Are you willing yet to do that yet?
In response to:

A Rivalry of Government Hackers

ScottAmorian Wrote: Mar 13, 2014 4:16 PM
Let’s straighten this out. First, the basics. The American people are independent. Being independent we have liberty. My young son is dependent on me, so I can tell him what to do. When he grows up and becomes an independent man I will no longer be able to tell him what to do. He will have liberty. The American people are at liberty to have and to hold a government. We can change or dissolve our government at any time, which makes us the absolute sovereign of the government. This is what Napolitano refers to “... we can replace the government when it fails to protect our freedoms.” I would go further than Napolitano and point out that we are also at liberty correct problems in the design of our government. I suggest that deep reforms of the design of our government are necessary to correct the many injustices we see in government. The people have a government and grant it rights through the Constitution. The Constitution cannot grant us rights, because it does not own rights to give to us. We are the source of the rights of governing, and we grant them to our government so it can perform useful duties. There is no bill of rights in the Constitution. The first ten amendments are a bill of safeguards. Read the preamble to the first ten amendments. It says point-blank that the first ten amendments are declarative and restrictive and that they do not modify the body of the Constitution. The whole idea of the bill of rights is a “the king has beautiful new clothes” kind of thing. This idea was a successful propagandizing by the New Deal progressives during the 1920's. Before then no one thought of the first ten amendments as a bill of rights. The New Deal progressives wanted a bill of rights, so they could be the enforcers of those rights, making them the rulers of the rulers. Their efforts failed, thank God, but they were able to stick that label on the first ten amendments. The legitimate right of the people with respect to government is the right of absolute sovereignty over government. The problem with the CIA is the problem of the members of the Legislature not being loyal to their electors. Rather, they are loyal to their party, their financiers, and the folks dependent on government first, and the rest of us last. Such an arrangement makes the Legislature an unauthorized power. Until the American people decide to fix the source of this problem it is and shall continue to be proper for the CIA to spy on that power.
This kind of article is really annoying. It ends, as so many do, by blaming problems of government on the people of the democracy, claiming that the people are stupid or lacking in virtue. Democracy does not work. It never has and it never will. Or at least, feral, undomesticated democracy doesn't. The problem of democracy is the problem of establishing a system which keeps democracy on a tight leash. Democracy must be limited in its powers. It must operate under strict controls. If proper limits are not in place, or the limits are not enforced effectively, feral democracy will not work. A feral democracy does stupid things. It is not a problem of the people. It is a problem of the structure of government. This habit of blaming the people is ineffective at best, but offense in general. You are not going to win people over by repeatedly telling them how stupid they are and how lacking in virtue they are. Virtue is not about blaming others for problems of flaws in the design of government as the author of this article did and the authors numerous other factionist articles have done. True virtue is when one recognizes those flaws, a badly considered limitations or a lack of effective enforcement of otherwise effective limitations, and takes actions to correct them. Reagan did not address problems such as the division of Germany into two countries by calling people offensive names. Instead, he addressed the structure of government. He did not say "Mr. Gorbachev, you are stupid and lacking in virtue!" Instead he said "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" He addressed the structure, not the person. Addressing the person rarely fixes any problem. If you want to address to these kinds of things productively, address the structural problemsinstead of destructively bellowing the flames of faction. That does not sell as many articles and subscriptions, I know, but doing so makes things better, not worse.
Good article (as always) Scott. You are very, very close on this one, but not quite there yet. The problems of government are flaws in the Constitution. Only our correction of those flaws will fix the problems of government. The Constitution allows our representatives to be loyal to someone other than us. The loyalty of representatives is to party first, financiers second, third to those dependent on government, and the rest of us last. Laws produced by this arrangement are unjust. They represent the will of non-sovereign powers, not the sovereign constituents. The method of appointment of Justices creates a biased Court. The President appoints and Congress tend to appoint Justices who support giving more power to themselves. Rulings of the Court are unjust. When laws are made by the Legislature, they are combined so that foolish laws are combined with useful laws, so the President cannot veto the bad law without also vetoing the good law. Accountability is absent. Such a system of law is unjust. I could go on. The problems caused by the various problems of government can only be fixed through constitutional amendments. As long as the loyalty of our representatives is not to their constituents the laws enacted by those representatives will always be unjust and harmful to society. As long as the method of appointment of Justices produces a biased Court, the Court will continue to deform and damage the Constitution. As long as the Legislature binds multiple laws into single bills, the sovereign people will be violated by improper and unnecessary laws. Flaws in the design of the Constitution cannot be worked around. Trying to get others to be more virtuous does not work. That theory has not been disproved by over two and a quarter centuries of American government. The loyalty of your representatives needs to be brought to heel so they are loyal to their constituents and no one else. The appointment of your Justices must be corrected so the Court is no longer biased in favor of granting more power to your ministers of government and less power to you the sovereign and proper ruler. The method of creating and approving laws must be modified so that Congress and President are accountable to you for each individual law. All the denying, whining and blaming in the world will not fix the problems in America. Only courageous and rational action can correct the very repairable flaws in our Constitution.
In response to:

50% Tax Rates Are Here

ScottAmorian Wrote: Jan 26, 2014 4:00 PM
There are a couple of weirdnesses in this story. First, Oregon has no sales tax. We make up for it with higher property and income tax. It cannot be compared to states with sales tax. But that is a trivial aside. Taxes on business profits, such as the small proprietorships that make up much of the top bracket, are really hidden sales taxes. These taxes get rolled into the price of products sold. The buying public pays these. The higher incomes of the top bracket folks are rolled into financial investments which make profits by selling products, which are taxed at the higher tax rates. They are a way to hide from the public how much tax we really pay. They are inherently dishonest. Because of their dishonest character, they are unconstitutional because they are a way to take from the people without due process. The partisan oligarchy running this country is a master of financial smoke and mirrors. The amount of real taxes paid by the average person is much higher than they think. As a guestimate, I would say it is above 80% of income, 50% of consumer product purchases, 25% of property value, and 3% of saved cash (from inflation). Maybe someone else has more info on this.
1 - 6