« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Who are the Real Criminals?

By: Ben Howe (Diary)  |  July 28th, 2011 at 09:00 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

The United States Federal Register adds an average of about 220 pages per day.  Yes, you read that right.  And yes, that means we are in the 80,000 pages per year zone.  These are the rules that govern our lives, that (some say) cost the country about $1.5 Trillion dollars per year.

Never forget that all of these laws, all of the agencies that enforce them, all of the regulations, and all of the investigations, arrests, and incarcerations that come with it, are paid for by the U.S. government using your tax dollars.  Worse yet, they have to borrow more and more money every year just to keep it going as they add ever increasing numbers of laws and regulations to manage the citizenry.

As has come to light recently, those administering the rules and regulations that we must all abide by, are themselves skirting that responsibility.  So while guns are being illegally sold to Mexican cartels, how are the law abiding citizens of the United States being treated?  Well, as it turns out..like criminals.

via “Are You A Criminal?”

A citizens tax dollars, forcibly taken, to pay interest on money that must be borrowed, in order to finance the administration of hundreds of thousands of pages of rules and regulations that end up throwing that very tax payer into jail for not abiding by bush hedging regulations.

So again I ask: Who are the real criminals?

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • http://dreamsfrommyforefathers.com RoguePolitics

    Jefferson said something about incomprehensible voluminous laws.
    Even the bureaucrats don’t understand the law.
    The IRS WILL officially prosecute you if you CALL and speak to a representative who gives you BAD information and you ACT on it.

    I know it is a dirty word around here but Jury Nullification is the correct answer.

    The forefathers understood this. Most if not all of their words dealing with jury nullification are supportive of the concept. The citizens last bastion of defense against an oppressive government.

    The trick is for good citizens to establish a good set of guidelines for when it is appropriate to use.

    OJ and other examples have given it a bad name because it was not used against an oppressive government or unjust law.

    One of the first guidelines should be the common sense guideline or the “Yes, ignorance is an excuse,” guideline. This doesn’t mean a defendant gets off for being stupid. Instead the application works like this…. If a good and reasonable juror did not know a particular action was against the law then they can assume the defendant didn’t either and acquit.

    Next is the sense of justice guideline. Even if you know that something was against the law, if in good conscience a guilty verdict would offend justice, you should acquit. This might mean you would NEVER vote to convict on a particularly bad law or it might simply mean in a given case the law is being applied poorly or unjustly.

    Juries rightly decide this everyday. Judges go ape when they do but they are powerless, so far, against it. Look out for professional juries.

    With literally millions of pages of rules and regulations across the country, I think by now we all realize that at any given time any of us could be charged with a crime.

    We are the last defense against tyranny so long as we have juries. Don’t count on that forever. Already many items, particularly regulatory “crimes” have been pushed into administrative courts.

    This is most true with tax law. Surprise!!!

    The IRS has been known to civilly pursue folks who were acquitted by juries because IRS Tax Courts almost universally side with the IRS. Another BIG surprise.

    • jccbin

      is still Tyranny.

      “They” can arrest and convict any of us for at least some felony crime, somewhere, somehow in those billions of words.

      That is un acceptable.

      Jefferson had wished for a new revolution every generation. Perhaps if only to throw out all the laws and start clean.

    • sarg01

      … I mean, why does it matter that I be judged by my peers if they’re only judging the facts and objective evidence?

      The whole point of a jury should be to say “I don’t give a crap about whether its legal or not. People don’t go to jail for eating french fries, no matter how maliciously they chew.”

      • http://dreamsfrommyforefathers.com RoguePolitics

        In most cases of determining facts and evidence.

        A jury of my peers can say, “This is stupid even if he did it, Not Guilty.”

        Professionals wouldn’t be professionals for long if they did that.

  • johnt

    Both in application and adjudication there appears to be dividing lines. There have always been privileged classes, an artifact of any society, and not totally without proper justification. Corruption sets in with the expansion of the State, with the growth of a bidding class, seeking favors, preference in an environment of increased government power.
    In the final stages of corruption distinctions in class are turned into mere opportunistic whim, lacking substantive reasons, only the prejudicial, emotive wishes of the power/ political class.
    At that point the corpse begins to smell.

    • http://dreamsfrommyforefathers.com RoguePolitics

      Are government today works overtime to ensure we have suspicions, dobts and contempt for our fellow Americans.

      DHS and TSA initiatives being two clear examples.

      I wonder why?

  • http://dreamsfrommyforefathers.com RoguePolitics

    Our government today works overtime to ensure we have suspicions, doubts and contempt for our fellow Americans.

    DHS and TSA initiatives being two clear examples.

    I wonder why?

  • http://teapartisan.wordpress.com Loren Heal

    Well, the second link. The first is that when government borrows, the private sector is crowded out of the market.

    But increased government spending results directly in overregulation. Government doesn’t just spend money, no strings attached. There are always strings. We call these strings regulations, and they have a way of applying themselves to more and more people and sticking around long after the initial reason for creating them, however flimsy, is long gone.

  • DGaines

    Because it points out that the real reason we are having the freaking fiscal debt debate in Congress shouldn’t be about money. For anyone who really understands the issues money and control are simply proxies for freedom and self determination. Simply put the loss of economic security pales in comparison to the degradation of free men with a thousand tiny chains that over time destory our innovation, flexibility and the unique nature of our country.

    Make no mistake – money and control for the goverment equals less money and control for you.

    • DGaines

      government.

    • redbadger

      I think a more accurate way of putting it would be less money and control for the government equals more money and control for unaccountable corporations and plutocrats. If only it meant more for the citizenry like you suggest, I could be more comfortable with conservative views on the roles of government.

      Also, we are having this deficit debate because its the only way for the Republicans to get something, anything, they want via legislation without the senate or presidency. All other reasons are secondary.

      • DGaines

        And I understand that perspective. However as a small business owner I would however offer this viewpoint. The complexity and stringency of government regulation is exactly what empowers the plutocrats and huge corporations to squeeze smaller players out and to create a less competitive and multi monopolized environment. Not because large corporations do a better job but rather because it is impossible for a small business to spend the time and resources on negotiating said regulations, codes etc. Thus large business and plutocrats are the only ones that have the resources to work effectively within the complex strictures government has created.

        I’m not against all government regulation; in fact economic regulation that creates competition is well within its purview from my perspective. However the vast majority of government spending is not based on creating competitive environments or the “pursuit of happiness” for all. Rather it is based on perpetuating a status quo in which government and large corporate interests are largely interchangeable regardless of most political rhetoric.

        You are correct that we are having the debate because it is the only way for Republicans to get something done. However I believe there are some like myself to who the economic issues are secondary and the ideological issues of smaller government are of greater importance. Thus it is my opinion that regardless of the “get something done” factor, the debate is larger. It is a clash if ideological positions about the size and role of government. This fact would be no less true if the senate or the presidency were in different hands. The only thing different at that point would be the people involved, not the question at hand.

        You see the funny and little mentioned fact is that most conservatives are not shills for large corporations however we may be played in the media. It’s the backbreaking burden on the ordinary citizenry and the redistribution of wealth from said ordinary citizenry that we so object to and that government so facilitates.

        • http://dreamsfrommyforefathers.com RoguePolitics

          nt

  • redbadger

    I see your point on large corporations warping the playing field to their advantage via their money and influence in the political arena to the detriment of the small business owners. I would add to the detriment of consumers, environment, workers, and markets as a whole as well. But I think that speaks more to the corrupting influence money has in our election process than it say about money and control in government resulting in less for everyone else debate we started with. That is part of what I was getting at. I see many instance where underfunded and under powered regulatory agencies allow more power, influence, and money to go to the corporate elite. The real question is how much power and what power is appropriate. Too much in the hands of government and business and citizens can suffer, too little in the hands of the government and that power center shifts to a different, non elected source whose purpose is profit and not public interest.

    I view wealth redistribution this way: it can go both ways. Broadly speaking you can change how we tax, how much we tax, who we tax and enact any number of laws that either directly or indirectly change who holds or gains wealth and how much. If taxes are lowered on the top earners causing either taxes to be raised on those less well off or services to be cut (services that are sorely needed and are of real value to many lower income people) isn’t that wealth redistribution (upwards) just as much as raising taxes on the rich to provide or enhance those services is redistribution?

    I very much believe you when you say most conservatives are not shills for large corporations but I have to ask you what party almost always sides with them? I don’t see the GOP as a party defending against an overbearing government that smothers business and harms our economy. I don’t doubt most elected Republicans have that intention and, here is the important part, see what they are doing in that light. I think the real effects of what they do (intentional or not) is to move more power and wealth away from the majority of people in this country and from accountability.

    • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

      Stop flunking it.