Julia Davis was employed by the Department of Homeland Security and tasked with protecting our borders from incursion by terrorists. One day, she identified 23 people who may have been terrorists crossing the border into the U.S.. She tried to alert her superiors to the intrusions by the possible terrorists. Unfortunately, the DHS Intelligence office that should’ve received her information was closed so the Intel officers could have a picnic. Therefore, Ms. Davis reported her concerns to the FBI. The DHS regarded being exposed for being off the job while having a picnic as evidence that Ms. Davis was a “whistleblower”. DHS later responded by declaring her to be a “domestic terrorist” and even caused her to be arrested twice and then imprisoned.
Here’s her extraordinary story:
video 00:19:13 The interview runs a little slow at times, but this video is absolutely worth watching.
Under the “The State/this state” hypothesis, the term “The State” is intended to signify any one of the 50 States of the Union (such as “The State of Texas” or “The State of Florida”). The term “this state,” on the other hand, is intended to signify administrative districts (like “TX” or “FL”) of a singular territory that spans the entire U.S.. (For more insight into this hypothesis, see, “The States of the Union vs. The Territory” at https://adask.wordpress.com/2011/06/14/the-states-of-the-union-vs-the-territory/#more-7133).
According to the “The State/this state” hypothesis, the federal gov-co has supplanted “The States” of the Union with the administrative districts of a singular national territory. It is believed that the feds caused this change because, under Article 1 of the federal Constitution, Congress has limited and enumerated powers with regard to “The States” of the Union, but under Article 4.3.2 of the Constitution, Congress has virtually unlimited powers over the territories.
Here’s a curious little article concerning the actual boundaries of Washington DC. The article is interesting in the context of theories that the Zip Code and/or the “territories” have been expanded to essentially allow the federal government confined to Washington DC to exert an extra-territorial jurisdiction over the whole country. I.e., what would happen if you established that your venue was both physical and absolutely external to the physical boundaries of Washington DC? Could an express declaration of the physical boundaries of Washington DC enhance the strength of any lawsuits intended to keep the federal gov-co at bay? Once those boundaries are established, what is the gov-co’s authority to exercise “extra-territorial jurisdiction” beyond those boundaries?
The Arizona “speedy trial” act requires persons charged with a crime to be tried within 70 days. The influx of illegal aliens into Arizona has increased the number of crimes by 200% or more. The result is that some judges are now sitting on up to 1,200 criminal charges waiting for trial.
Result? A “judicial emergency” which has caused Arizona judges (not legislators) to extend its speedy trial act from 70 days to 180 days–at least for those who are charged but not actually being held in jail.
This story illustrates several points: 1) Illegal aliens pouring into Arizona include a disproportionate number of criminals who are predating upon the people of The State of Arizona; 2) the federal government refuses to perform its duty to protect the people of The State of Arizona against “invasion”; 3) the resulting increase in criminal activity is straining the Arizona criminal courts to the breaking point; and 4) under the pretext of an “emergency,” any law can be suspended (in this case, by judges rather than legislators).
Arizona judge Silver explains:
Alan Tonelson is an author and research fellow at the U.S. Business and Industry Council (a national business organization of small- and medium-sized domestic manufacturers). The Washington Times recently wrote about Mr. Tonelson in an article entitled “TONELSON: Obama doesn’t get trade finance”.
In that article, Mr. Tonelson observed that “President Obama wants to use international trade policy to generate a sustainable, private-sector-led recovery, and that’s a good idea.”
But Tonelson also argued that President Obama,
“. . . needs to learn some basic economics about how exports and imports affect growth and employment. Otherwise . . . initiatives like his oft-repeated commitment to double U.S. exports by 2014 and his pursuit of new trade agreements won’t create a penny more of output or a single new job. In fact, as indicated by the new government data for 2010, this trade-policy approach is likeliest to undermine recovery and increase the nation’s already dangerous debt load.”
On the one hand, I agree with much of Mr. Tonelson’s evidence. But on the other hand, I’m skeptical of Obama’s and Tonelson’s fundamental premise—that using international trade to bolster economic recovery is, or can be, a “good idea”. I think it’s, at best, a stupid idea–and, at worst, a treasonous idea.
In the last two weeks, I’ve warned that increasing economic efficiency inevitably leads to increased economic vulnerability; that, in a highly efficient, highly interdependent economy, one seemingly small adverse event (the failure of a Wall Street bank, a sub-prime mortgage debacle, or even a 16-year old kid hacking into a major industry’s computer) could conceivably collapse an entire, national economy. (See, https://adask.wordpress.com/2010/12/05/economic-efficiency-downside-no-1-increased-vulnerability/)
The relationship between increased economic efficiency and increased economic vulnerability is barely imagined by most Americans, but it’s well understood—and feared—by America’s governmental and corporate leaders. Knowing that the economy is increasingly vulnerable to seemingly trivial events, our leaders become increasingly paranoid and prone to regulatory fascism to control everyone and everything to protect the increasingly efficient—and increasingly vulnerable—economy. (See, https://adask.wordpress.com/2010/12/14/economic-efficiency-downside-no-2-fascism/)
This week I’ll explore the relationship between global free trade, economic efficiency and slavery.