All major political parties want poverty for the US

by Don Hank

The below-linked report shows that of all factors studied, the one most strongly correlated with GDP, or national wealth, is strength of the rule of law.

Quote: …he mentioned that he had done a study based on analysis by an institution that looks at all sorts of “fuzzy” data, like how easy it is to start a business in a country, corporate taxes and business structures, levels of free trade and free markets, and the legal system. It turned out that the trait that was most positively correlated with GDP growth was strength of the rule of law. It is also one of the major factors that Niall Ferguson cites in his book Civilization as a reason for the ascendency of the West in the last 500 years, and a factor that helps explain why China is rising again as it emerges from chaos.

Amazingly, despite this strong correlation, not ONE of the 2 main parties supports the rule of law. Bush and his GOP cronies famously supported rewarding lawbreakers with amnesty. Obama has gone further, refusing to allow ICE to deport many alien felons (only the most egregious) and even suing Arizona for trying to protect itself from the invasion — even though Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution says the federal government is supposed to protect the states from invasion, literally.

Last but not least is the Libertarian party, which basically thinks borders are bad for liberty and is not much in favor of laws at all. Like the early communists, they think the state will melt away if we can just teach enough people how to behave in a lawless society (anarchy). I’m not making it up: If you go to the Von Mises Institute site you can see a proud invitation to sign up for a course in “Anarcho-Capitalism,” the favorite ideology of site founder Lew Rockwell, who is a mentor of Ron Paul.

America has given up on law, instead falling all over itself to protect the “rights” of minority criminals, like the black panthers who violated election law by intimidating voters and siding with petty thugs like Trayvon Martin while seeking to jail law and order activists like George Zimmerman. And suspending ICE agents for arresting illegal aliens ( This is a reflection of the back seat that science has taken in the public discussion, in the media and politics. We prefer catchy pandering slogans to facts. Slogans and pandering ensure poll success.

But as the law goes, so does GDP. It looks like our main political parties have all chosen poverty for us all.

Funny, none of them asked us either.

A day of reckoning is coming

by Don Hank

A recent article by Bob Unruh in WND shows how states are fighting back against federal encroachment – in the case in question, by declaring themselves unwilling to comply with federal detention orders under NDAA. This quiet revolution is merely an extension of other local and state muscle flexing, such as the pushback in Arizona by the state legislature and by Sheriff Arpaio, and the tough anti-invasion law in Alabama.

But I think this could be just the beginning.

The federal government has created a network of vested interests to keep the states in line, all long after the writing of the Federalist Papers and the Constitution, designed to prevent federal abuses. The biggest club they have created is grants to states. Every state gets millions of your and my money, duly shrunken after passing through the sticky fingers of Congress. This money is nothing more than a bribe, a cheap trick to make states grovel and behave like good little slaves. It has worked well thus far. And the money club is not the only weapon in the federal arsenal in its war on the states and the citizens. Obama has shown that states who fail to fall in line behind the dictator in chief don’t get needed non-monetary aid either. Texas, always a renegade stand-alone state, recently watched as its forests were reduced to cinders for lack of much-needed federal help, which eventually arrived after it was rather late.

Arizona saw a lawsuit filed against it by the lawyer in chief, who even went crying to the UN to help subdue the big bad Brewer. And some of the lower southern states found that, after they had sullied Big Daddy Washington, the illegal alien criminals and hit-and-run perps it turned in to ICE were no longer being dealt with. Some came back and killed and raped. That was the states’ payback for not liking the jackboot.

But what if:

What if the states turned the tables on the feds?

I mean, where did this federal money and power come from in the first place?

Why the people of the various and sundry states who pay taxes.

Now, what if the good people of the abused states got together and made a law that prohibited state citizens from paying the entire amount of the federal taxes in those instances when the feds were playing these dirty games? What if they were enjoined to withhold a certain percentage or a set amount corresponding to an estimate of the losses incurred?

What if the states calculated the amount of money it would take to incarcerate lawbreakers who were allowed by the feds to sneak into their state and cause trouble? And what if the states explicitly deducted this amount from the amount their state citizens were bound to pay to the feds?

What if they made it illegal for citizens of that state to pay the federal tax amount that, according to the calculations of the state comptroller generals, was owed them by the feds for dereliction of duty?

Suppose they calculated that X number of illegal aliens had entered their state as a direct result of the federal government’s failure to station an adequate number of border guards and provide them with the necessary equipment and training, and further, as a partial result of their hamstringing them with unreasonable rules of engagement and jailing those who failed to comply with said unreasonable rules.

Suppose they calculated the amount of damage to the state of improperly providing federal aid to people who repeatedly built their homes in areas repeatedly stricken by natural disasters — and then billed the feds for this?

Suppose they calculated the probable number of Mexicans fleeing their homes and entering their state due to AG Holder’s dirty game of Fast and Furious and the amount of money and human life this probably cost in that state?

Suppose they collected this money by the same method, forbidding their citizens to pay this amount to the fed and funneling it to state coffers instead.

And suppose some of the non-border states used a percentage of this money saved to help border states beef up their border security and pay for the detention and return of illegal alien criminals.

And suppose they blew off any unconstitutional and arbitrary federal laws in their state affairs that “prohibited” them from returning illegal aliens on their own? Without the intermediary of ICE, for example. A series of contiguous states could set up a kind of reverse “Underground Railroad” to return criminal aliens to Mexico.

Now, certainly some will say this is carrying things a bit too far.

Oh really?

Did you know what Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution says? Read it for yourself:

 … and [The United States] shall protect each of them [the States] against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence

The extent of the invasion of Mexican cartels is a well kept secret.

But there are numerous credible reports by people living in the border area showing that some areas are no longer safe for Americans to enter or live.

The Sonoran Desert National Monument in Arizona has areas that are closed off because the cartel has completely taken them over.

These situations fit anyone’s definition of an invasion. And the damage done by Latin gangs and drug dealers everywhere is certainly domestic violence, all traceable to a porous southern border, thanks to a negligent central government itching for a come-uppance.

The US Constitution is a contract between the States and Washington. In all of contract law, there is give and take. (Contracts with only “take” are deemed unlawful, as in the case of prenups). Each of the parties to the contract is both beneficiary and provider of rights. Whenever one party reneges on part of the contract, the counterparty who is hurt by this has a right to deny a corresponding part of its contribution to the bargain.

The states have not reneged in any way. They are a compliant partner. The US government, on the other hand, has completely reneged on parts of its contract — particularly its duty to protect the States against invasion but also with regard to undeclared — and hence unlawful — wars against countries that are not an enemy in any traditionally accepted respect, or the NDAA, which permits the federal government to detain Americans without charges or evidence. It must expect consequences, and if it won’t hold up its part of the agreement, then at least part of the agreement intended to benefit it is null and void by law.

There are 2 main things keeping the States as a counterparty from declaring part of the bargain null and void despite flagrant federal breach of contract:

1—Lack of knowledge of the law and how it applies to the parties.

2—Lack of will.

It is only a matter of time before all the states affected by the Federal government’s failure to perform its duty will understand that they are on the right side of the law and the fed is clearly in non-performance of its contract.

And in our economic crisis, as states find themselves increasingly strapped for cash, laying off employees, halting public works and closing down offices, they will eventually reach a point of desperation when a strategy such as I have outlined above will appear, if not attractive, then at least inevitable.

Transfer of billions to Mexico must stop (how you can help)

Sen. Russell Pearce of Arizona stood alone and did an incredibly brave thing when he proposed a law enabling police in his state to ask questions about the immigration status of persons suspected to be there illegally. Any illegal immigrants that were found would then be turned over to ICE.

Now the US Constitution states in Article 4 that the federal government must protect the States from invasion, and since a half-million illegal aliens including enough criminals to make Phoenix the town with the highest kidnapping rate in the US (almost 100% of their kidnappings are committed by illegal alien drug dealers), constitute an invasion no matter how you look at it, taking the illegal aliens caught under this law was not an option for ICE. It was a mandate.

But because the Chicago mob run the White House, they did the unthinkable. John Morton, Chief of ICE, said he reserved the right not to do his job — i.e., to continue to be paid but sit down on the job and refuse to deal with any illegal aliens caught in Arizona. This amounts to an insurrection on the part of Washington officialdom and a criminal dereliction of duty the brazenness of which (like so many other acts perpetrated by the Obama White House) was unknown heretofore.

But there is another way to deal with illegal immigration that does not rely on any federal agency, as you can see in my letter to Senator Russell Pearce, below. While Arizona may be the pioneer again, your state could be first. If you have a state senator or rep who is a reall firebrand, be my guest — go ahead and use my idea.

Don Hank

Dear Sen. Pearce,

I recently ran a column at Laigle’s Forum challenging lawmakers, particularly state lawmakers, to tighten up on security of money transfers abroad. Many of these transfers go to terrorists and many are sent by illegal aliens who work “under the table” and pay no taxes.

When they send part of this illegally gotten money abroad, they are in fact committing the crime of money laundering. Interestingly, the US is one of the countries that most vociferously decries money laundering in Latin American countries. Yet, when US banks and money transfer agencies like Western Union and Moneygram allow illegal workers to send money to their home countries (billions every year), the federal government looks the other way.

This lawlessness cannot be tolerated any longer.

Lawmakers like yourself who have been working hard to stop illegal immigration need to keep reminding the public that these uncontrolled, unmonitored money transfers aid and abet terrorists and allow billions of dollars earned illegally to be transferred mostly tax-free in a scheme we should be calling money-laundering because that is exactly what it is.

In turning a blind eye to this situation, the US government is party to the biggest money-laundering scheme in the world, making the US the number one money laundering nation!

Here’s what needs to be done:

Anyone wishing to send money abroad should have to show at least a valid drivers license issued by the state in which the transfer is to be made, or from a state that is known not to issue drivers licenses to undocumented aliens, or other proof of citizenship or legal residency. The presentation of false ID will be punishable by a prison sentence and fine.

I have heard that you had tried to introduce legislation of this kind but that there was little interest. However, in the meantime, federal officials, foremost among them ICE Chief John Morton, are threatening to completely deny you the constitutional protection they owe you (under Article 4) — in violation of their oath of office and their job description. This absolute lawlessness on the part of this current administration is so egregious, and so outrageous, such a slap in the face to your state and constituents, that I am certain you will agree it simply cannot go unanswered. I am also certain you know that the American public will back you in a proposal that is fair, does not in any way encourage racial profiling, and yet is tough on crime and illegal activity.

The tightening of state banking regulations to stop money transfers from illegal aliens is one area where, to my knowledge, no federal cooperation is necessary — at variance with Arizona SB 1070, which relies on a minimum of cooperation on the part of an uncooperative ICE.

I have heard from people who have already contacted you in this regard and understand that you have shown interest. I would be pleased to hear from you directly regarding your specific interest in, or plans for, combating the drain of US resources and US jobs and helping defend your state from terrorism through important legislation of the kind outlined above.

Needless to say, the rest of the nation will follow suit. You have paved the way before. That could be just the beginning. The eyes of the nation are on you now.

Best Regards,

Don Hank

After posting this article I received links to 2 videos showing how non-Mexican terrorists are pouring over our southern border into Arizona (click below). One of the most effective ways to stop the traffic into these border states would be state laws prohibiting foreign nationals from sending money from these states. Many, if not all, of the coyotes there would go out of business and there would be no one left to guide the terrorists across. This is a win-win idea.

Video 1

Video 2