Then you may be a criminal. At least, that’s what the Justice Department claims, and they want to strengthen the law to ensure that they have the power to prosecute you.

That’s why I sent a letter to my Representative and Senators to resist this power-grab and protect our freedom to use the Internet.

I hope you do the same, and you may borrow from or copy this letter…

I am disturbed that the Obama Administration wants to strengthen the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) to prosecute violators of “Terms of Service” (ToS) agreements on the Internet.

The CFAA was intended to outlaw hacking and identity theft. But its vague language has led three federal courts to rule that employees can be prosecuted merely for violating their employer’s “acceptable use” policy. The feds also prosecuted a woman under the CFAA for violating MySpace’s Terms of Service. (http://www.cdt.org/files/pdfs/CFAA_signon_ltr_2.pdf)

The Administration wants to go further, and make ToS violations explicitly illegal under federal law. There are at least five reasons to oppose this…

1. It criminalizes activities that would not be criminal in the physical world. You can assume a false identity at a party without breaking a law, but using a pseudonym on the Internet could be a felony.

2. The innocent will be unjustly punished. If someone is falsely accused of a real crime like hacking, prosecutors will also charge him or her with ToS violations in order to secure a conviction.

3. Since almost everyone is guilty of ToS violations, the law could be used by U.S. Attorneys to wage personal or political vendettas.

4. It threatens the First Amendment because it could be deployed to prosecute individuals who criticize the Administration or Congress in comments sections or forums.

5. A ToS is a PRIVATE agreement, and Internet hosts are free to ban violators. Trolls are often banned on websites. Fake profiles on social networks are often deleted. Employees who violate agreements and use their work computer for fantasy football can be fired.

The Justice Department claims it wouldn’t have the time or resources to go after trivial ToS violations, such as lying about one’s age on a dating site. And yet it calls “worrisome” an amendment by Sens. Franken, Grassley, and Lee that would protect most people from ToS prosecutions. (http://bit.ly/vMcl8v)

Criminalizing ToS violations won’t prevent serious computer crimes, but it WILL give the feds tremendous powers to abuse and harass harmless Internet users. Please support the Franken-Grassley-Lee amendment and provide other safeguards to protect the American people from an out-of-control Justice Department.

END LETTER

You can send your letter using DownsizeDC.org’s Educate the Powerful System.

We urge you to encourage your friends to take action and protect Internet freedom. “Like” and “Tweet” this post on our blog.

James Wilson
Policy Research Director
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

P.S. Tomorrow (Wednesday), Jim Babka returns to the guest-hosting seat of Jerry Hughes on his show Straight Talk.

Jim will be joined by Michael Boldin, the founder and executive director of the Tenth Amendment Center.

Boldin’s group was attacked in a “report” by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) on their Hatewatch blog. Is the Tenth Amendment Center a hater (racist) organization? Is this just an accident or misunderstanding, outside of the normal behavior of the SPLC?

Jim and Michael will talk about the Tenth Amendment Center, and also about the group’s Nullify Now tour.

You can listen live at 2:07 PM Eastern (1:07 PM Central, 12:07 PM Mountain, and 11:07 PM Pacific).

To hear the show on the web, or to find a local station, visit the network’s website.

Affiliates can be found in Alabama, California, Florida, Georgia, Missouri, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Utah, and Oregon.

D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h

Official email newsletter of DownsizeDC.org, Inc. & Downsize DC Foundation.

1. American citizens and lawful resident aliens, could be held, INDEFINITELY, jailed.
2. Other persons can be DISAPPEARED by the military, without benefit of habeas corpus or trial. And worse…
3. These other persons can also be shipped off to a foreign judicial system that might deliver a result the Justice Department wants.

The sponsors of this bill claim that this bill contains no new powers — that they’re merely codifying the behavior of two (renegade) administrations. 

Yet two of the bill’s Senate backers admit there is a new power: The ability of the military to engage in police work on American soil — Posse Comitatus be damned.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who backs the bill, indicated that the bill “basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield” and people can be imprisoned without charge or trial “American citizen or not.” Another supporter, Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) also declared that the bill is needed because “America is part of the battlefield.”

Here’s a link to a copy of the two offending sections, 1031 and 1032, which must be removed by amendment.

In 1031 the Federal State gains the power of indefinite imprisonment without trial. In 1032, American citizens and lawful resident aliens must be given civilian jails for their potentially permanent stays, and cannot be shipped off for a show trial by a convenient foreign power.

The sponsors of this bill, Senators Levin and McCain, are forgetting their Article I role as a protection against an overreaching and potentially tyrannical Executive Branch, and are instead rapidly inventing powers for that branch. They’re trading Liberty for Security because we’ve become so scared of the boogeyman.

We should stop being so cowering and fearful. We should tell Congress, loud and clear, “I Am Not Afraid.”

And the debate is occurring as I write this, Monday afternoon.

Why are we getting this crucial information to you so late?

There are lots of things to monitor. DownsizeDC.org doesn’t have the staff to follow all of it. Not many groups do. The Federal Leviathan is a large, unwieldy organization that moves in criminally clandestine ways. We’ve addressed this fact . . .

* This bill is over 600 pages long, and even according to its sponsors, covers a wide variety of issues. Something as important and unique as criminal justice should not be part of a military authorization bill, but should be the subject of its own bill, consistent with DownsizeDC.org’s “One Subject at a Time Act.”

* And these offending sections of this bill didn’t come to light until the ACLU published an article about it on the day before Thanksgiving. http://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/Carl%20Levin We found out about that article on Friday night. Every bill should be published online, after the entire bill has been read aloud to the Congress, for at least seven days before its final vote. These provisions of DownsizeDC.org’s “Read the Bills Act” would give watchdog groups and media personalities time to digest and disseminate the information to you, with sufficient time to register your dissent. 

When we first read 1031 and 1032, we didn’t understand them fully. We believe due diligence is important. We wanted to make sure that WE were telling the truth, not someone else’s incomplete opinion or ill-advised version. That’s one reason you read the Downsizer-Dispatch, isn’t it?

But it was hard to find adequate help to understand how these sections related to each other, on a holiday weekend — a weekend where our staff was also, “over the river and through the woods.”

We didn’t figure out how these sections related to each other until today.

Usually, we prepare our Dispatches the evening in advance, and sometimes even days earlier. Why? Because we want to be sure they’re properly researched, accurate, and tightly written. We don’t ever want to waste your time.

But you’re reading something, today, that’s been written in a hurry, just moments before it hit your inbox.

I cannot express, in polite words, how frustrated I am with the Senate Armed Services Committee, which brought this bill to the floor. Nor can I quantify how much it has bothered me, this weekend (when I should’ve been enjoying myself), that we might not be able to get this seemingly crucial news to you.

One sacrifice I’ve had to make in this hurriedly sent Dispatch is that there’s insufficient time to write a sample letter. In this Dispatch, we’ve linked to the,

* The “I Am Not Afraid” campaign
* The “One Subject at a Time Act” campaign
* The “Read the Bills Act” campaign

You can borrow from the points we’ve made in this message, and send an appropriate message from each of these campaigns. I hope you will.

But even more important, if you’re logged in, you can refer to Your Downsize DC Toolbox, on the home page of the DownsizeDC.org, on the link above your state map, labeled “District Information,” and you’ll see the phone numbers of your two Senators.

* Make a brief note of what you want to say so that your thoughts are organized.
* Be polite but firm, and be sure to identify yourself as a constituent.
* Be especially sure to tell them to remove Sections 1031 and 1032 from S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act, which has been placed on the Senate calendar.
* Then, call the numbers we provide on that page and give whoever answers your message. 

Thank you for your prompt action,

Jim Babka
President
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

P.S. By the way, both the Justice Department and the Defense Secretary oppose these provisions, and find them unhelpful. The President has even hinted at vetoing the bill, meaning we can win if we act.   

D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h

Official email newsletter of DownsizeDC.org, Inc. & Downsize DC Foundation.

Ten years ago this month, Congress passed the so-called Patriot Act without taking the time to read or debate it. It was signed into law on October 26, 2001. This tenth anniversary is the perfect time to call for its repeal.

That’s why I wrote the following letter. We encourage you to write a letter of your own, or copy or borrow from this…

The Patriot Act should never have been passed. Ten years later, it should be repealed for at least four reasons…

First, the Patriot Act attacks the First Amendment…

* Americans can be investigated for what they read and write, and what websites they’ve visited
* The Feds can “gag” my bank, my librarian, and my Internet Service Provider, preventing them from telling me if I’m under investigation

Second, it undermines the Fourth Amendment… (http://tinyurl.com/yehnak2)

* The Feds do not even have to show “reasonable suspicion,” let alone “probable cause,” to gain access to my records
* Because I can be investigated without my knowledge, I have no means to challenge illegitimate searches

Third, there is little reason to believe terror acts have been prevented by the Patriot Act…

* If the law was used to foil terrorist plots, the Administration would boast about such instances
* Instead, foiled terrorist plots are frequently sting operations using undercover operatives and informants

Fourth, there is reason to doubt whether protecting the people from terrorism was ever the Patriot Act’s real purpose…

* Expanded wiretap and search authority are used in ordinary domestic criminal investigations, not just in terror cases
* The Executive branch has a “secret” interpretation of the Patriot Act that is inconsistent with a plain reading of it (http://tinyurl.com/3nn47kn)
* Meanwhile, the FBI continues to collect data collection through National Security Letters — some 40-50 thousand are issued per year (http://tinyurl.com/3varjc9)

How is it permissible for the Executive to have “secret” interpretations of the law? What is the Executive doing with the information it secretly collects about us, without our knowledge? Shouldn’t citizens of a Republic be ASHAMED of this behavior by their “government?”

The Patriot Act attacks our freedom, our values, and our way of life — the very things its supporters claim it protects. It promotes secrecy and prevents accountability in our federal government. It has fostered a Big Brother culture throughout Washington DC that led to similarly egregious legislation like REAL ID and the FISA Amendments Act.

Put an end to this dangerous trend. Stand up and speak out on behalf of the Bill of Rights and against the Surveillance State. Introduce legislation to repeal the Patriot Act.

END LETTER

You can send your letter using DownsizeDC.org’s Educate the Powerful System.

If you want to increase the pressure on Congress, there’s one other thing you can do. Help grow the Downsize DC Army. And the best way to do that is to start a monthly credit card pledge. You can do so for as little as a dollar. Our top monthly pledger gives $250. Any amount you can do will help.

In fact, this is a great time to pledge, thanks to Bill Haynes, of CMI Gold & Silver.

Bill has agreed to match $2,500 worth of new monthly pledges with $5,000 of his own, by December 31. Think of it this way: Start a new pledge of $1, Bill’s contributes $2, tripling your first month’s investment. Remember, any amount will help us reach the goal.

Jim Babka
President
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h

Official email newsletter of DownsizeDC.org, Inc. & Downsize DC Foundation.

There has been a flurry of activity in the Supreme Court as the U.S. Department of Justice and other litigants have filed petitions seeking review by the nation’s highest court of the constitutionality of Obamacare. There is no doubt that the Court will agree to hear most of these cases. But one case might not make the cut.

The Commonwealth of Virginia has challenged the Obamacare provision that mandates individual Virginians must purchase a health insurance policy approved by the federal government.

The Virginia suit was decided on the merits, in favor of Virginia, in the district court, but was then reversed on appeal by the 4th Circuit Appeals Court. The appeals ruling was NOT on the merits (or Obamacare probably would’ve lost), but on the ground that Virginia had no legal “standing” to sue. This panel, all of whom were appointed by a Democratic President, ruled that . . .

• Virginia wasn’t harmed because the individual mandate doesn’t require the Commonwealth to do anything. 
• Virginia had no right to defend its citizens against unconstitutional federal laws.

Had these appeals court judges NEVER heard of the Tenth Amendment?

Can the various states move to protect, that is interpose or even nullify, those laws which . . .

• impeded on the individual liberties of their citizens, AND
• are beyond the enumerated powers of the Constitution?

Enter Bond v. United States. This recent June, 2011 decision has potentially monumental OPPORTUNITY written all over it. 

In a 9-0 decision the Court held that not only states, but also individuals have standing to challenge federal laws as violations of state sovereignty under the 10th Amendment. This decision could be a dramatic leap forward for liberty, reversing decades of decisions tracing back to the 1930′s.

Back then, Franklin Delano Roosevelt threatened to pack the court with more Justices who’d rule in favor of unconstitutional New Deal programs. In 1936, in order to protect the integrity of the high court, Justice Owen Roberts, the swing vote, started ruling in favor of FDR’s programs. It is called “The stitch in time that saved nine.”

While these rulings may have prevented Roosevelt’s judicial manipulation scheme, they eviscerated the limits of the Interstate Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution. They quickly brought us to the point that a man growing food in his own garden could be regulated by the FEDERAL government, because even though he wasn’t selling anything, his actions affected interstate commerce.

Talk about tortured logic! 

Since then, the logic has been tormented and stretched further, so that now the Obamacare forces are arguing that a FEDERAL mandate on individuals, requiring them to buy a private good or service (a health insurance policy), is constitutionally permitted under the interstate commerce clause.

Shouldn’t the various states intercede on behalf of their citizens? Can’t they see to it that their rights are protected from federal overreach? Can the states block an unconstitutional mandate?

The 4th Circuit said NO.

And the Bond decision just might be the reversal tool we’ve been waiting for. Bond is a green light from this Supreme Court for INDIVIDUALS, as well as states, to bring more cases under the Tenth Amendment.

In Bond, individuals are essentially being given standing. Old precedent held that Tenth Amendment arguments could only be raised by states. But here’s how the Court ruled in Bond . . .

“Federalism secures the freedom of the individual. It allows States to respond, through the enactment of positive law, to the initiative of those who seek a voice in shaping the destiny of their own times without having to rely solely upon the political processes that control a remote central power.”

In other words, individuals have a right to use their state government, to stand up to federal usurpations of power.

Indeed, Virginia interposed on behalf of its citizens. The state passed the Virginia Health Freedom Act, which prohibits any act by any person, even the federal government, to compel any Virginia citizen to purchase a health insurance policy.

We believe the Commonwealth’s petition to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court on the subject of Obamacare should be approved, over the 4th appeals court’s objections. Do you?

Providentially, our attorneys wrote a friend of the court brief in the Bond case. 

They are quite familiar with the controversy and the decision. They stand VERY ready to prepare an excellent brief.

Right now, we believe that . . . 

• Virginia needs all the help they can get in order to get the Supreme Court to take up their case with the other anti-Obamacare lawsuits
• The Commonwealth’s arguments are unique and important as to the constitutionality of Obamacare

But, we ALSO believe there’s something MORE at stake here . . .

. . . the future of state nullification as a tool to protect our rights.

A friend of the court brief could be very helpful to Virginia’s odds, if only we had the resources to file it.

Usually, when the Downsize DC Foundation presents an amicus brief project, we have partners already LEADING the project. Thanks to your generous support, we come in a supporting role, and pitch in.

But not this time! Sure, we will still have partners. But in this case, this project will NOT happen, unless WE take a LEADING role — which means we must contribute nearly three times the amount we normally do to the production and printing of this brief.

And to compound matters, we have to know what we’re doing by Friday, close of business.

Urgently, we need at least two people willing to invest $1,000 or more. We also need at least 100 responses of varying size.

• EVERY donor to this brief, who includes their email address in the contribution, will receive a pdf of the brief we submit to Supreme Court.
• Every donor of $200 or more will get the same printed and bound version we send to the Supreme Court.

And your contribution to this effort by the Downsize DC Foundation is TAX-DEDUCTIBLE. 

But if response seems weak, I’ll have to let our attorneys know we failed… that we can’t take the lead. And in that case . . .

We won’t trap your money. In order to slash your risk . . .

IF we fail to fund the brief, we will return your donation, AUTOMATICALLY, IF and ONLY IF you leave a comment in the comment box on the donor form or bottom of your check that reads, “Return if Virginia amicus brief is not filed.”

So there’s no reason to wait and see if we make it.

Of course, Downsize DC Foundation relies on your support, so if you choose to give unconditionally, in support of our other educational efforts, it will be appreciated. 

And if you’re sending a check (the mailing address is on the online contribution form), please hit Reply to this message and let us know the amount that’s on the way, so that we can add it to the count by Friday.

Will you help us fight Obamacare, and advance the cause of state nullification?

Thank you for your love of the Constitution.

Jim Babka
President
Downsize DC Foundation

D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h

Official email newsletter of DownsizeDC.org, Inc. & Downsize DC Foundation.

We have re-launched a campaign to impeach the President. The sample letter below will explain why we have done this.

WARNING: Those who maintain partisan loyalties may wrongly believe we are pursuing this campaign for partisan reasons, or out of personal animosity for the President. Nothing could be further from the truth. We want to make this clear . . .

• Our organization is legally non-partisan, and temperamentally ANTI-partisan.
• We distrust all political parties, and all politicians.
• We take NO position for partisan political reasons, for the simple reason that we have NO partisan political loyalties, AT ALL.

Instead, we are doing this because we think the legal situation requires it. The sample letter below will explain in more detail. But . . . out of respect for those who may disagree . . . we are placing this campaign on the “Heresies” page on our website. As always, you are a free to disagree with us, and to tell us you disagree.

On the other hand, if you strongly support our position, you may want to help us notify the media about it (see more details below the sample letter).

The hardwired portion of this campaign’s letter to Congress reads . . .

Please begin impeachment proceedings against the President.

I have added the personal comments that follow. Assuming you agree with our position, you may copy or edit my comments to send your own letter to Congress…

I’m asking you to impeach the President because I believe he is guilty of murder. The President ordered the military to kill an English-speaking, natural-born American citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki (ah-law-key), using a drone missile.

This is illegal. No citizen can be harmed by any agent of the state except through the application of legal due process (Fifth Amendment). President Obama violated this requirement. This makes him a murderer.

The only legal redress available when the President becomes a criminal, is impeachment by Congress. Therefore, the rule of law requires that you make use of this procedure now.

You may think that the President deserves the benefit of the doubt in this case, just because he is the President. I believe the exact opposite.

With great power comes great responsibility. The President must be held to an even higher standard, precisely because he is the President, and exactly because he has so much power over the lives of others. No person with the power to order missile attacks on individuals can operate free from the strong constraints of legal due process.

Remember, the President, and every other agent of the state, including all members of the military, were required to presume that Awlaki was innocent. The President assumed otherwise, and took upon himself the powers of a vigilante, making himself the judge, jury, and executioner (Separation of Powers).

The President has failed to honor his legal and moral obligations, so now the responsibility falls on you. You must use the impeachment process to prosecute the President for murdering an American citizen.

I well understand that the thought of this action must make you squeamish. I understand that you operate in a hypocritical and lawless environment, where citizens are held to high legal standards, but politicians are allowed to get away with anything and everything (except perhaps posting naked pictures of themselves). I understand that nearly all members of Congress violate the law, especially the Constitution, nearly every day. But this situation is unique . . .

* An American citizen has been murdered
* Congress, for once, is not complicit in the crime
* So this is Congress’s chance to be on the right side of the law for a change
* Democrats can show that they aren’t partisan hypocrites by leading the charge
* And Republicans can show that they’re through excusing wanton criminality in the name of national security

I am waiting to see if the political class will hold itself to the same standards you constantly apply to “mere citizens.” The President has confessed to murder. Impeach him.

END LETTER

You can send your own impeachment letter to Congress here.

This morning, during the 9 AM hour, DownsizeDC.org issued a press release to thousands of media outlets.

Your contribution can help us send more releases.

Perry Willis
Vice President
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

P.S. A call for the impeachment of any President is considered by many to be an overt partisan act. But it’s NOT in this instance. DownsizeDC.org President, Jim Babka, explains why on our blog.

D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h

Official email newsletter of DownsizeDC.org, Inc. & Downsize DC Foundation.

The House is considering H.R.2885, the “Legal Workforce Act.” This bill MANDATES that ALL employers use the “E-Verify” employment verification system. We strongly oppose this bill. It is REAL ID on steroids.

Many reading this have spent years fighting successfully against REAL ID. It seems a shame to lose the battle now simply because the politicians have finally found something — immigration — that scares enough people to make us submit.

We understand that some people who say they want to shrink the federal state just as much as we do, still support E-Verify. They claim this new dictate is needed to combat illegal immigration. We seem to be “heretics” in this case because we believe…

• E-Verify is a disease far worse than that which it seeks to cure; in fact…
• Illegal immigration is NOT the “problem” many politicians and pundits claim it to be.

That second bullet point may stun you. You may reject it immediately, or find it hard to believe. But we do NOT make this claim lightly. We base it on what we think is good evidence and reasoning. If you’re tempted to reject our position please take a moment to consider our evidence and arguments. You can always decide against us if you find our case unconvincing. James Wilson presents our analysis in an essay at the Downsize DC Foundation website.

But, even if you support strong immigration restrictions, E-Verify is still a terrible proposal. It infringes on YOUR right to work, injures small business, and encourages identity theft.

That’s why DownsizeDC.org is giving you a new campaign you can use to tell your elected representatives to oppose the E-Verify national ID system.

The hard-wired letter to Congress begins,

Please oppose H.R. 2885, the “Legal Workforce Act.” Fight any bill that mandates E-Verify or any other national ID system.

You may borrow from or copy these additional comments…

E-Verify is supposedly intended to crack down on illegal immigration. What it will REALLY do is crack down on law-abiding American workers and employers.

1. This Act would require each American to ask permission from the Federal Government when hiring or being hired.
2. The Social Security Administration estimates 3.6 million Americans would have to visit an SSA field office each year in order to KEEP their jobs (http://bit.ly/d0cEj6).
3. It creates a de facto National Identification System that could grow to include biometrics such as fingerprints, DNA and/or an iris scan. This is tantamount to an unconstitutional, warrantless search.
4. It won’t be long before employers will be required to verify whether employees are delinquent in the payment of federal, state, or local taxes, in compliance with child support or alimony decrees, on a terrorist watch list, or accused of a crime.
5. Errors in the verification process will be practically immune from timely legal redress.
6. This bill doesn’t protect employers from criminal prosecution should they employ an individual later proven to be in the U.S. illegally, or who has successfully assumed a fake or stolen identity.
7. The loss of jobs will be staggering as employers substitute machinery for employees or outsource employment to avoid the vexations and costs of compliance.
8. The loss of tax revenues will likewise be huge, as jobs go underground.
9. It will create a massive black market for fake identities, especially for short-term jobs where illegal workers will be long-gone before there is any chance of detection.
10. Finally, it will make it very difficult for law-abiding victims of identity theft to find work.

In summation, E-Verify will lead to both more bureaucracy and a bigger black market, greater surveillance and less freedom, plus higher unemployment and identity theft. Sometimes, the cure is worse than the alleged disease. Oppose E-Verify!

END LETTER

You can send your letter using DownsizeDC.org’s Educate the Powerful System.

We encourage you to tell us what you think about E-verify and our handling of this issue. You can do this by clicking “Reply.” We won’t be able to respond to everyone, but your comments will be read, and carefully considered.

Jim Babka
President
DownsizeDC.org

D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h

Official email newsletter of DownsizeDC.org, Inc. & Downsize DC Foundation.

Last week U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, chairman of the House Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology, held a hearing on his proposed Free Competition in Currency Act of 2011 (H.R. 1098), which would repeal legal tender laws, restrictions on private mints, and taxes on gold and silver, since such taxes interfere with the metals’ circulation as money. Testifying were the executive director of the Foundation for the Advancement of Monetary Education, Lawrence M. Parks, and George Mason University Economics Professor Lawrence H. White. Video of the hearing is not quite an hour long and you can watch it here:

The full text of the legislation is simple and concise and can be found here:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h112-1098

The legislation would seem to legalize the Liberty Dollar coins whose issuer recently was convicted on vague charges in federal court in North Carolina. Professor White quotes New York Sun editor and Wall Street Journal contributor Seth Lipsky to the effect that it doesn’t make much sense to suppress private money that is sound to protect money that is unsound.

Unfortunately the Free Competition in Currency Act has no co-sponsors and its introduction and this week’s hearing seem to be mainly an educational exercise. But that’s where everything starts.

CHRIS POWELL, Secretary/Treasurer
Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee Inc.

We’ve launched a new campaign. This one aims to trim the power of the FDA (the Food and Drug Administration).

The hardwired portion of the letter to Congress for this new campaign reads…

Make the FDA advisory, not mandatory.

We’ve placed this campaign under the Our Heresies tab on our website, because we know it will take the public time to catch up to the truth.

We think the evidence is overwhelming that the FDA is worse than bad. The FDA is evil. It kills people…

• It denies people access to life-saving treatments
• It treats unique human beings as if they were genetically identical clones with exactly the same needs and risks
• It hobbles research
• It creates barriers to entry for new companies
• It makes medicines and supplements more expensive than they need to be
• It serves the interests of Big Pharma at the expense of the consumer
• It violates the First Amendment, by restricting commercial speech
• It opposes prevention, preferring that people get sick first, before they can receive treatment
• It stands as a major obstacle to anti-aging research that could cure most of the ailments that still ravage mankind

So “evil” is perhaps too weak a word, but we have no stronger term to use. The evidence to demonstrate our heretical claims about the FDA will come to you in an avalanche over the months ahead.

We begin with a statement of principle, which I sent to my elected representatives this morning. If you agree with our position then please feel free to copy or borrow from the following sample letter . . .

I want to control what medicines I use. I DON’T want the FDA to do this for me. The FDA should make advisory recommendations only. It should NOT have the power to mandate which drugs I can buy, and which I cannot.

* If pharmaceutical companies value the FDA seal of approval, then they can pay the FDA to evaluate their drugs.
* If consumers value FDA approval, then they can decide to only buy FDA-approved medications.

If the FDA’s seal of approval is really so valuable, then it does NOT need to be mandatory. No coercion is necessary. Instead, the FDA should be able to sell its services through voluntary means, just like Underwriter’s Laboratory does.

Consumers and doctors should be free to consult available science, and make their own decisions about which treatments to try.

All human beings are unique. Treatments that might be dangerous for one person, could be the only possible solution for another. There is zero chance that one-size-fits-all dictates can possibly account for the vastness of human variability. Patients and doctors must have the flexibility to deal with individual human uniqueness.

The FDA should serve, not rule. And Congress should do the same. Stop trying to rule me. Instead, serve me. You can do this now by introducing legislation to make the FDA advisory, NOT mandatory.

END LETTER

Assuming that you agree with us, you can send your own letter to Congress on this issue using DownsizeDC.org’s Educate the Powerful System.

However, if you have a high degree of confidence in the kind of coercive regulation the FDA provides, we encourage you to read “How To Think About Regulation” at the Downsize DC Foundation website.

Finally, YOU have an offer from Bill Haynes of CMI Gold & Silver…

Bill will double the size of your one-time contribution or new monthly pledge to DownsizeDC.org.

We FREQUENTLY (and gratefully) hear from people who write, “I wish I could do more.” Well, here’s your opportunity! You’re $5 donation can be $10. Your $25 donation can be $50. Your $100 donation could be $200. And so on… 

Please, act NOW! We have a September 30 deadline.

Thanks for being a DC Downsizer,

Perry Willis
Vice President
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h

Official email newsletter of DownsizeDC.org, Inc. & Downsize DC Foundation.

Civil asset forfeiture is government seizure of property and cash, even when the owner isn’t charged of a crime. Innocent owners must go through a costly, time-consuming process to get their property back — and even then they may be denied. Police departments get to sell the seized property and keep most of the proceeds. If you’re unfamiliar with this form of legalized theft, we recommend you learn more on our End Asset Forfeiture page.

Back in May, 2009, we predicted that because of the bad economy and budget crunches, police will “increase searches, raids, and seizures to generate more revenue.”

As the letter below demonstrates, our prediction has been proven true.

That’s why I wrote to my Representative and Senators to end this evil practice.

You may borrow from or copy this letter…

According to the Wall Street Journal…

* In 2010, federal, state, and local government stole homes, cars, boats, and cash in more than 15,000 cases
* The total take topped $2.5 billion, MORE THAN DOUBLING IN FIVE YEARS
* More than 400 federal statutes allow for forfeiture, such as (suspected) violations of the Northern Pacific Halibut Act
* Which is double the number from the year 2000
* Top federal officials are also pushing for greater use of civil-forfeiture proceedings, in which assets can be taken without criminal charges being filed against the owner
* Unlike in criminal cases, the poor are not entitled to free legal representation to help them get their property back

This means, to anyone with common sense, that an individual’s property could be seized without due process of law, a CLEAR violation of the Fifth Amendment.

Recent victims include…

* James Leito, who hired an armored car company for his check cashing business. That company turned out to be under an FBI probe, and the FBI seized $392,000 that rightfully belonged to Leito. It took years for the money to be returned to him.
* Raul Stio, from whom the IRS took $157,000 of cash deposits in his bank account, even though these were proceeds from his legitimate businesses.
* Jorge Jaramillo, whose $16,000 was taken by authorities although he was going to buy a car from someone who wanted cash; he got the money back only because he had pro bono legal representation.
* Unknown thousands of similarly innocent people who can’t afford to fight for the return of their cash or property.

Asset forfeiture does NOT stop crime. Instead, it encourages government lawlessness. Under the federal government’s Equitable Sharing programs, local police departments can keep up to 80% of forfeiture proceeds if they work with the feds on seizures. This creates a conflict-of-interest by directing police attention away from law enforcement, and toward making money for their departments.

To restore justice and the Fifth Amendment, please introduce legislation…

* That ends federal civil asset forfeiture programs
* That terminates Equitable Sharing
* And that denies federal funds to any state or local government that continues asset forfeiture

Civil asset forfeiture is armed robbery, plain and simple. It should not be tolerated anywhere in the United States.

END LETTER

You can send your letter using DownsizeDC.org’s easy-to-use Educate the Powerful System.

Do your colleagues and neighbors know that their goods can be stolen by law enforcement? …that they don’t even need to be charged with a crime? Let them know: Share this Downsizer-Dispatch with them, and tell them you took action — that you sent a message to your representatives, and you want them to join you.

An Important Question: Do you want DownsizeDC.org to miss out on $3,899? Do you want DownsizeDC.org to miss its budgetary goal this month?

DC Downsizers have been given a challenge by Bill Haynes of CMI Gold & Silver.

He says, “I’ll match the first $5,000 of new contributions to DownsizeDC.org” (that’s NEW pledges and NEW one-time contributions; PayPal STILL accepted, but not counted towards the match). So far this month, DownsizeDC.org has received $1,101, which Bill has matched.

Please make Mr. Haynes part with $3,899 more of his money by September 30, and help YOUR DownsizeDC.org to meet its MODEST budget goal.

James Wilson
Policy Research Director
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h

Official email newsletter of DownsizeDC.org, Inc. & Downsize DC Foundation.

Isn’t this just more evidence that the TSA should be ABOLISHED, instead of reformed?

I wrote a letter telling Congress to do just that, and I invite you to do the same.

You may borrow from or copy this letter…

The TSA is under fire. So, it is trying to make some improvements, such as…

Transitioning away from “naked” body scanners. Their “reforms” even include a trusted flier program to enjoy a more streamlined screening experience. Sounds good, right?

But this proposal requires you to give up even MORE of your privacy.

It is fundamentally wrong that the people must request permission, from the federal government, to board an airliner.

The Supreme Court said in United States v. Guest (http://tinyurl.com/3dh25r8) that “The constitutional right to travel from one State to another, and necessarily to use the highways and other instrumentalities of interstate commerce in doing so, occupies a position fundamental to the concept of our Federal Union. It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized.”

The very existence of the TSA, however, spits in the face of the Constitution…

• In violation of the Fourth Amendment, it conducts unreasonable searches against EVERY flier, almost all of whom provide no cause for reasonable suspicion
• In violation of the Fifth Amendment, it denies the right to fly to those who refuse to cooperate — depriving them of liberty without due process of law

It is not surprising that an unconstitutional agency will abuse its power. Here’s just ONE list of ten TSA outrages: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/274033/ten-tsa-outrages-charlie-cooke

No wonder people don’t want to fly. According to the U.S. Travel Association (http://tinyurl.com/3canjfy)...

• On average, each person avoids two to three trips a year because of the hassles of airport-security screening
• Which amounts to an estimated $85 billion in lost business for hotels, restaurants, airlines, and other travel suppliers
• And there’s a huge loss of productivity from those who DO fly. Think of the time wasted at airports because travelers have to arrive early, uncertain about how long it will take to get through security

YOU know as well as I that if private screeners treated passengers the way the TSA does…

• They’d face lawsuits from the public and likely investigation by the Department of Justice
• And probable criminal prosecution under state laws

Heck, you or your colleagues would probably want to haul them up before a committee to demand answers!

Ironically, private screeners would NOT DARE treat their customers this way…

• Airlines have an interest in keeping their passengers safe
• Airlines also have an interest in making the passenger experience as enjoyable as possible

Under a private airline security system, airports, airlines, and their insurance companies would develop innovative, un-intrusive methods to keep passengers safe. The most effective methods would be adopted by more airlines, who unlike the TSA must satisfy customers.

Airline security may have been “private” before 9/11. But it was still tightly regulated. Congress should abolish the TSA, AS WELL AS federal regulations. Airlines and their insurance companies would be held liable for hijackings, terrorist attacks, or other mishaps.

I would feel safer on an airliner with PRIVATE security and DEREGULATED procedures.

END LETTER

You may send your letter using DownsizeDC.org’s Educate the Powerful System.

CHALLENGE: Make Bill Haynes of CMI Gold & Silver http://www.cmi-gold-silver.com/ pay out $5,000!

YOUR BENEFIT: Every NEW dollar you give will be worth $2, thanks to Bill. Start a pledge, or make a donation. If you give $10, then it’s value is $20 — $100, then it’s worth $200. 

THE GOAL: Existing pledges and PayPal support + Bill’s challenge + matched funds from generous donors like you = Budget Achieved!

Thank you for being a DC Downsizer,

Jim Babka
President
DownsizeDC.org

D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h

Official email newsletter of DownsizeDC.org, Inc. & Downsize DC Foundation.

My background lends itself to picking out oddities, or outliers, as well. When a poll released by CNN and Opinion Research Center (ORC) in late May showed political afterthought Rudy Giuliani leading the race for the GOP’s presidential nomination in 2012, I thought it was a bit bizarre. Here we had a candidate who failed to register a single victory in the party’s 2008 primaries, despite spending more than Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul – two candidates who soundly defeated him at the polls – combined. A candidate who had registered at 9% in two independent polls released in the previous month – a 9% number that was well outside ORC’s 4.5% margin of error. Were they saying that Giuliani had received at least a 3% bump from April to May? Based on nothing except, perhaps, the death of Osama bin Laden?

Fast forward to today, when a new poll of the 2012 GOP race was released, showing Rick Perry with a commanding lead at 27% as compared with Mitt Romney’s 14%. Perhaps most shocking in this most recent poll was a precipitous drop in declared support for Texas Congressman Ron Paul, who received just 6% as compared with 12% in a poll by the same company and news agency not even three weeks prior – a drop that falls outside the margin of error of 4.5% for the Republican sample. Did Ron Paul – who received a mixed bag of media attention, from his near-victory at the Ames Straw Poll to his jabs at FEMA on the eve of a hurricane to the stories of his being a non-story – really experience a statistically significant drop in support over these past three weeks? I had to check the cross-tabs.

The more I looked, the more suspicious I became. First of all, ORC decided to exclude cross-tabs on demographics and sample sections which were statistically insignificant – by my examination, it looks like anything with a margin of error greater than ± 8.5% was struck and replaced with “N/A”. This is an interesting methodology, and one that I’ve not seen any other major national pollster take – most report the cross-tabs without margin of error at all. However, having those MOE’s is vital to conduct the next analysis, since ORC apparently didn’t find it necessary to specify how they broke down their “Republican” sample into more detailed numbers.

At the top of Page 2 of the release, ORC claims to have a sample of 467 Republicans (registered? Likely voters? The world may never know.), to which they attribute a ± 4.5% margin of error. Using some quick statistical math (the binomial approximation to the normal distribution), I find that they are using a power of 0.62, which I used to perform subsequent calculations.

Scrolling down to the political party and political ideology cross-tabs (Page 8), we find a breakdown of the 467 polled, excluding the aforementioned Giuliani as well as former vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin. In this sample, “Republican” is assigned a ± 6.0% margin of error, and “Independent” is assigned a ± 7.0% margin of error. Using the 0.62 power of sample attained above, this yields 264 Republicans and 194 Independents for a total of 458 – slightly less than the 467 actually polled. We’ll assign the remainder proportionally, and assume 270 Republicans and 197 Independents are in the sample.

Remember the ± 8.5% cutoff that ORC is using to determine which sections they will not report? In the sample of 467, again using the 0.62 power of sample, this equates to a sample of about 132 – that is, if the cross-section of respondents in a category falls below 132, the category will be reported as “N/A”.

Let’s look at the section of cross-tabs just below the political parties and political ideologies. Here we have a breakdown of geographic regions and household location demographics. Whoa! Only the “South” region registers as statistically significant to ORC, and only “Suburban” households. For now, we’ll take for granted that this sample of “Republicans” is reflective of a national voting populace. Using the ± 7.0% margin of error on the “South” region, we estimate that 194 of the 467 respondents lived in the “South” region (however ORC defined it). That’s 41.5% of the sample – again, we won’t dispute this selection of the sample.

In the “South” region, Ron Paul received 10% support among those polled. Given that it makes up such a notable portion of the total sample, this earns Ron Paul roughly 4.15% of the total vote in the sample, regardless of what respondents say in other regions. Yet, Paul receives just 6% of the total vote in the sample. Doing the quick calculation, this means that Paul must have received just 3.16% of the vote in the other 3 regions – West, Midwest, and Northeast – combined.

As far as differences between these regions are negated, that’s effectively a national poll with Paul receiving just above 3% of the vote. The last national poll in which he registered so low (without the presence of Giuliani)? An ABC News/Washington Post poll dated April 14-17, which had Paul at 2%, and a full 50% of respondents offering Other/None/Undecided.

Needless to say, this result falls well outside the expected range of Paul’s support across the rest of the country. In fact, the most recent Gallup poll (which had Paul at a 13%, admittedly on the high end of his polling range) showed that Ron Paul actually performed better in the West, Midwest, and Northeast than he did in the South:

No matter which poll you believe, one thing is clear: Both of them can’t be correct. However, based on my statistical experience, as well as my political savvy built over the past decade, I’d say that any poll which puts Paul around 3% anywhere almost discredits itself. After all, Paul’s supporters haven’t been the small, devoted group of internet spammers the media made them out to be, in light of their successes in the past few months.

One final thought: Any polling company which is willing to be hired to run an unabashedly biased headline such as: “Keep the EPA Strong – Let Them Do Their Job” is probably not the company you want to rely on for a fair and unbiased poll.