A Phone Call with the Federal Reserve

The following is a conversation with Mr. Ron Supinski of the Public Information Department of the San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank. This is an account of that conversation.

CALLER – Mr. Supinski, does my country own the Federal Reserve System?

MR. SUPINSKI – We are an agency of the government.

CALLER – That’s not my question. Is it owned by my country?

MR. SUPINSKI – It is an agency of the government created by congress.

CALLER – Is the Federal Reserve a Corporation?

MR. SUPINSKI – Yes

CALLER – Does my government own any of the stock in the Federal Reserve?

MR. SUPINSKI – No, it is owned by the member banks.

CALLER – Are the member banks private corporations?

MR. SUPINSKI – Yes

CALLER – Are Federal Reserve Notes backed by anything?

MR. SUPINSKI-Yes, by the assets of the Federal Reserve but, primarily by the power of congress to lay tax on the people.

CALLER – Did you say, by the power to collect taxes is what backs Federal Reserve Notes?

MR. SUPINSKI – Yes

CALLER – What are the total assets of the Federal Reserve?

MR. SUPINSKI – The San Francisco Bank has $36 Billion in assets.

CALLER – What are these assets composed of?

MR. SUPINSKI – Gold, the Federal Reserve Bank itself and government securities.

CALLER – What value does the Federal Reserve Bank carry gold per oz. on their books?

MR. SUPINSKI – I don’t have that information but the San Francisco Bank has $1.6 billion in gold.

CALLER – Are you saying the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco has $1.6 billion in gold, the bank itself and the balance of the assets is government securities?

MR. SUPINSKI – Yes.

CALLER – Where does the Federal Reserve get Federal Reserve Notes from?

MR. SUPINSKI – They are authorized by the Treasury.

CALLER – How much does the Federal Reserve pay for a $10 Federal Reserve Note?

MR. SUPINSKI – Fifty to seventy cents.

CALLER – How much do they pay for a $100.00 Federal Reserve Note?

MR. SUPINSKI – The same fifty to seventy cents.

CALLER – To pay only fifty cents for a $100.00 is a tremendous gain, isn’t it?

MR. SUPINSKI – Yes

CALLER – According to the US Treasury, the Federal Reserve pays $20.60 per 1,000 denomination or a little over two cents for a $100.00 bill, is that correct?

MR. SUPINSKI – That is probably close.

CALLER – Doesn’t the Federal Reserve use the Federal Reserve Notes that cost about two cents each to purchase US Bonds from the government?

MR. SUPINSKI – Yes, but there is more to it than that.

CALLER – Basically, that is what happens?

MR. SUPINSKI – Yes, basically you are correct.

CALLER – How many Federal Reserve Notes are in circulation?

MR. SUPINSKI – $263 billion and we can only account for a small percentage.

CALLER – Where did they go?

MR. SUPINSKI – Peoples mattress, buried in their back yards and illegal drug money.

CALLER – Since the debt is payable in Federal Reserve Notes, how can the $4 trillion national debt be paid-off with the total Federal Reserve Notes in circulation?

MR. SUPINSKI – I don’t know.

CALLER – If the Federal Government would collect every Federal Reserve Note in circulation would it be mathematically possible to pay the $4 trillion national debt?

MR. SUPINSKI – No

CALLER – Am I correct when I say, $1 deposited in a member bank $8 can be lent out through Fractional Reserve Policy?

MR. SUPINSKI – About $7.

CALLER – Correct me if I am wrong but, $7 of additional Federal Reserve Notes were never put in circulation. But, for lack of better words were “created out of thin air ” in the form of credits and the two cents per denomination were not paid either. In other words, the Federal Reserve Notes were not physically printed but, in reality were created by a journal entry and lent at interest. Is that correct?

MR. SUPINSKI – Yes

CALLER – Is that the reason there are only $263 billion Federal Reserve Notes in circulation?

MR. SUPINSKI – That is part of the reason.

CALLER – Am I mistaking that when the Federal Reserve Act was passed (on Christmas Eve) in 1913, it transferred the power to coin and issue our nation’s money and to regulate the value thereof from Congress to a Private corporation. And my country now borrows what should be our own money from the Federal Reserve (a private corporation) plus interest. Is that correct and the debt can never be paid off under the current money system of country?

MR. SUPINSKI – Basically, yes.

CALLER – I smell a rat, do you?

MR. SUPINSKI – I am sorry, I can’t answer that, I work here.

CALLER – Has the Federal Reserve ever been independently audited?

MR. SUPINSKI – We are audited.

CALLER – Why is there a current House Resolution 1486 calling for a complete audit of the Federal Reserve by the GAO and why is the Federal Reserve resisting?

MR. SUPINSKI – I don’t know.

CALLER – Does the Federal Reserve regulate the value of Federal Reserve Notes and interest rates?

MR. SUPINSKI – Yes

CALLER – Explain how the Federal Reserve System can be Constitutional if, only the Congress of the US, which comprises of the Senate and the House of representatives has the power to coin and issue our money supply and regulate the value thereof? [Article 1 Section 1 and Section 8] Nowhere, in the Constitution does it give Congress the power or authority to transfer any powers granted under the Constitution to a private corporation or, does it?

MR. SUPINSKI – I am not an expert on constitutional law. I can refer you to our legal department.

CALLER – I can tell you I have read the Constitution. It does NOT provide that any power granted can be transferred to a private corporation. Doesn’t it specifically state, all other powers not granted are reserved to the States and to the citizens? Does that mean to a private corporation?

MR. SUPINSKI – I don’t think so, but we were created by Congress.

CALLER – Would you agree it is our country and it should be our money as provided by our Constitution?

MR. SUPINSKI – I understand what you are saying.

CALLER – Why should we borrow our own money from a private consortium of bankers? Isn’t this why we had a revolution, created a separate sovereign nation and a Bill of Rights?

MR. SUPINSKI – (Declined to answer).

CALLER – Has the Federal Reserve ever been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court?

MR. SUPINSKI – I believe there has been court cases on the matter.

CALLER – Have there been Supreme Court Cases?

MR. SUPINSKI – I think so, but I am not sure.

CALLER – Didn’t the Supreme Court declare unanimously in A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. vs. US and Carter vs. Carter Coal Co. the corporative-state arrangement an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power? [”The power conferred is the power to regulate. This is legislative delegation in its most obnoxious form; for it is not even delegation to an official or an official body, presumptively disinterested, but to private persons.” Carter vs. Carter Coal Co…]

MR. SUPINSKI – I don’t know, I can refer you to our legal department.

CALLER – Isn’t the current money system a house of cards that must fall because, the debt can mathematically never be paid-off?

MR. SUPINSKI – It appears that way. I can tell you have been looking into this matter and are very knowledgeable. However, we do have a solution.

CALLER – What is the solution?

MR. SUPINSKI – The Debit Card.

CALLER – Do you mean under the EFT Act (Electronic Funds Transfer)? Isn’t that very frightening, when one considers the capabilities of computers? It would provide the government and all it’s agencies, including the Federal Reserve such information as: You went to the gas station @ 2:30 and bought $10.00 of unleaded gas @ $1.41 per gallon and then you went to the grocery store @ 2:58 and bought bread, lunch meat and milk for $12.32 and then went to the drug store @ 3:30 and bought cold medicine for $5.62. In other words, they would know where we go, when we went, how much we paid, how much the merchant paid and how much profit he made. Under the EFT they will literally know everything about us. Isn’t that kind of scary?

MR. SUPINSKI – Yes, it makes you wonder.

CALLER – I smell a GIANT RAT that has overthrown my constitution. Aren’t we paying tribute in the form of income taxes to a consortium of private bankers?

MR. SUPINSKI – I can’t call it tribute, it is interest.

CALLER – Haven’t all elected officials taken an oath of office to preserve and defend the Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic? Isn’t the Federal Reserve a domestic enemy?

MR. SUPINSKI – I can’t say that.

CALLER – Our elected officials and members of the Federal Reserve are guilty of aiding and abetting the overthrowing of my Constitution and that is treason. Isn’t the punishment of treason death?

MR. SUPINSKI – I believe so.

CALLER – Thank you for your time and information and if I may say so, I think you should take the necessary steps to protect you and your family and withdraw your money from the banks before the collapse, I am.

MR. SUPINSKI – It doesn’t look good.

CALLER – May God have mercy on the souls who are behind this unconstitutional and criminal act called the Federal Reserve. When the ALMIGHTY MASS awakens to this giant hoax, they will not take it with a grain of salt. It has been a pleasure talking to you and I thank you for your time. I hope you will take my advice before it does collapse.

MR. SUPINSKI – Unfortunately, it does not look good.

CALLER – Have a good day and thanks for your time.

MR. SUPINSKI – Thanks for calling.

This is the GOP?

I honestly want to know how this mentality has invaded the GOP?  How far the party has strayed since the days of Goldwater…

America: Where are you?

“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

I open with the preamble of the United States Constitution to remind all what our government is supposed to do.  With this in mind, we posit the following:

Why is it when our country is in a conflict with no apparent end in sight is our Congress holding hearings on Major League Baseball?  Last time I checked determining if a baseball player did or did not use steroids does none of the above-mentioned duties of our government.

Why is it when our country is heading towards an economic crisis do we have members of Congress requesting a hearing on the Super Bowl? 

And most importantly, why is it that we, the people, allow our elected officials to run rampant and not address those issues which are under their proper purview?  Our Founding Fathers set up a system in which our Government derives it power not from business, political machines, or special interests but from the consent of the governed.

If you feel like I do, that Congress has gone off the reservation that they are no longer in touch with the “will of the people” I urge you to write your representatives and let them know about the issues that matter most to you.  You can find your representative and their mailing address here: http://whoismyrepresentative.com/

I leave you with the following excerpts from the Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

Taxpayers – 1 IRS – 0

The other day a jury in Louisiana ruled against the IRS. While many view those who refuse to pay taxes on the basis that it is unconstitutional as crackpots, Tom Cryer only asked the Government to show him where they get their authority to tax him and he would gladly pay all of his taxes. To this day the Government nor the IRS have provided him with any documentation to back up their claims.

Here is the article on the case as reported by World Net Daily:

THE POWER TO DESTROY
IRS loses challenge to prove tax liability
Lawyer is acquitted after arguing income levy lacks legal foundation

---

Posted: July 26, 2007
1:00 a.m. EasternBy Bob Unruh
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com The Internal Revenue Service has lost a lawyer’s challenge in front of a jury to prove a constitutional foundation for the nation’s income tax, and the victorious attorney now is setting his sights higher.“I think now people are beginning to realize that this has got to be the largest fraud, backed up by intimidation and extortion and by the sheer force of taking peoples property and hard-earned money without any lawful authorization whatsoever,” lawyer Tom Cryer told WND just days after a jury in Louisiana acquitted him of two criminal tax counts.And before you consign him to the legions of “tin foil hat brigades” who argue against paying taxes, and then want payment to explain how to do that, he addresses the issue up front.

“These snake oil peddlers have conned millions of dollars out of many well-intended patriots and left a trail of broken lives in their wake. … These charlatans should be avoided, not only because they will lead you to bankruptcy and prison, but because by association they discredit those who are telling the truth,” he said.

The truth, he said, is where he comes in, with the launch of a new Truth Attack website that is intended to build on his victory, and create a coalition of resources to defeat – ultimately – the income tax in the United States.

Although the legal citations in the case tend to run the length of paragraphs, Cryer told WND the underlying issue is not that complicated. Essentially, he argued that income is not necessarily any money that comes to a person, but rather categories such as profit and interest.

He said the free exchange of labor for compensation has been upheld as a right by the Supreme Court, but that doesn’t necessarily make the compensation income.

If ever such an argument were to be presented widely, Cryer said, the income to the federal government would plummet. But not to worry, he said, the expenses could be reduced equally by eliminating programs, departments and agencies that also have no foundation in the Constitution.

“The Founding Fathers intentionally restricted the taxing powers of the new federal government as a measure of restraint on its size. By exceeding that limited taxing authority the federal government has been able to obtain resources beyond its intended reach, and that money has enabled the federal government to exceed its authority,” he said.

For example, he said, the Constitution does not empower the federal government to regulate education, or employment, and agriculture, yet it does so.

The jury in U.S. District Court in Louisiana voted 12-0 to find Cryer, of Shreveport, not guilty of failure to file income taxes for two years. He had been indicted in 2006 on charges of failing to pay $73,000 to the IRS in 2000 and 2001. The next step in his personal case will be up to the IRS and prosecutors, if they choose to continue the issue, he said.

But for the rest of the nation, he’s working with Save-a-Patriot, the Free Enterprise Society, Live Free Now and his own Lie Free Zone to spread the message of the truth.

“There are three points that are important,” he told WND. “There’s no law making the average working man liable [for income taxes], there’s no law or regulation that allows the IRS to contend that earnings are 100 percent profit received in exchange for nothing, and the right to earn a living through any lawful occupation is a constitutionally protected fundamental right, and it is exempt from taxation.”

Spokesman Robert Marvin in Washington’s IRS office told WND the Internal Revenue Code provides for taxation on salaries or wages, but when pressed for a specific citation, or constitutional provision, he said, “I can’t comment.”

Cryer’s encounter with tax law began more than a decade ago when a friend told him the income tax was sham. Cryer started researching, hoping to keep his friend out of trouble. But his conclusions, after years of research, were exactly what his friend told him.

He researched not only tax laws, but also the documents pertaining to the drafting of the U.S. Constitution as well as the first income tax.

He said throughout his battle, he’s offered at every turn to pay taxes if the IRS could show him the authorization, and that never has happened.

“The Criminal Investigation Division and Department of Justice both responded only with ‘your position is frivolous.’ I had never stated a position, so how could they know whether it was frivolous?” he said. “Imagine my sending you a bill for $1,000 and when you call me and ask what the bill was for I simply said, ‘that position is frivolous, just write the check and send it in.’”

His acquittal, he said, was a precedent because it means “people can see and recognize the truth.”

He said multiple Supreme Court opinions have affirmed an individual’s ownership of his or her own labor, and “exercising your fundamental rights” is not taxable. “It is definitely a trade. What most people receive in the form of wages, salaries or in my case fees that they personally earned for their labor is not received in exchange for nothing.”

He said there might be a profit that should be taxable, but there might not.

“The IRS lets Wal-Mart sell a trillion dollars worth of goods, but they can back out their cost of goods [before being taxed,]” he said. “The IRS considers, in the case of a Wal-Mart wage earner, 100 percent of what he takes in is profit.”

“But he’s using his life, energy and work lifespan, and depleting it as he goes,” Cryer told WND. “[Working] is a God-given fundamental right that is protected under the Constitution and can’t be taxed any more than exercising freedom of speech.”

While he waits to see what, if anything, the IRS and Justice Department will do next in his case, he’s working to coordinate the groups that are battling taxation as unconstitutional.

“I have started a campaign to unify [the work] and we’ve got a number of organizations that are sponsoring and supporting this campaign,” he said. The goal is to get everyone “who is aware of the truth” organized so they can spread the word.

He warned without a restoration of constitutional basics, the nation is lost.

“Read your Constitution and you will see that the federal role does not include ANY authority to regulate or tax any citizen directly and that WE expressly reserved the right to rule and govern ourselves as States, not as mere political subdivisions,” his website says.

“The Constitution does not allow the government to run your lives, but the money it is stealing from millions of Americans is the fuel for its over-reaching and kibitzing. Take the money back and we and our states and communities can again be free,” he said.

The fight is over “our FREEDOM from rule by a DISTANT RULER, just as we fought to free ourselves of a distant England over 200 years ago,” he said.

Abolish the Federal Reserve

Today most Americans have accepted the devaluation of the U.S. dollar as commonplace. They believe it is just a consequence of having paper currency. However, this is far from the case. Devaluation only occurs when fiat currency, money which is only backed by a government, is used. The first national currency was created in 1861 under the Lincoln administration. While this was the first step towards the out of control fiat currency we have today the 1861 currency was still backed by a gold standard. It wasn’t until 1971, 110 years later, that our currency became in essence worthless.

Just to give a few examples of the devaluation of the U.S. dollar:

$23.61 (in 2006 dollars) is equal to $1.00 (in 1861 dollars)

$4.55 (in 1970 dollars) is equal to $1.00 (in 1861 dollars)

$5.19 (in 2006 dollars) is equal to $1.00 (in 1970 dollars)

These statistics are quite upsetting. Considering for the 110 years that U.S. currency was backed by the gold standard the purchasing power of the dollar changed by $4.55 – or a decrease of $.045 per year. However, from 1970 (the last full year the U.S. had the gold standard) to 2006 the purchasing power of the dollar changed by $5.19 – or a decrease of $0.144 per year.

Basically we have increased the devaluation of U.S. currency by 3 fold. In the 1st 110 years of our national currency our purchasing power decreased at roughly the same rate it did in the last 30 years. The worst part of this is that the decrease in U.S. currency is being controlled by a private bank, the Federal Reserve. They have a de facto power to destroy U.S. currency if they so wished.

To conclude here are some quotes from our Founding Fathers on national banks:

“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.” – Thomas Jefferson

“History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling the money and its issuance.” – James Madison

“Most Americans have no real understanding of the operation of the international money lenders. The accounts of the Federal Reserve System have never been audited. It operates outside the control of Congress and manipulates the credit of the United States” – Sen. Barry Goldwater (Rep. AR)

Okay, so the last one wasn’t from a Founding Father, but it is enlightening nonetheless.

Virginia: Freedom Lost

Recently, the Virginia Legislature passed (in its infinite wisdom) HB 3202, more commonly known as the Civil Remedial Fees Bill.  Now before I go into my Constitutional tirade against this bill let me point out there are a few good features.  First of all, it increases the cost of a DUI to $750 (misdemeanor) or $1,000 (felony) on top of the cost of the original ticket and court costs.  I believe this within the confines of the US and VA Constitutions and it is a good idea to further detract individuals from drinking and driving by exponentially increasing the costs one will incur when caught.  Where the Constitutional questions arise are:

1. $350 for failing to give adequate and timely signals of intention to turn, partly turn, slow down or stop.
2. Sec. 9 (VA Constitution) That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted;
3. 8th Amendment (US Constitution) Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
4. 14th Amendment (US Constitution) Section 1 … nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I believe it is obvious to any rational person that a fine of $350 for failing to give adequate and timely signals is a bit excessive.  As such this not only violates Sec. 9 of the Virginia Constitution (2) but the 8th Amendment to the United States Constitution (3).  This bill as written and passed by the Virginia Legislature is unconstitutional and must be repealed!  To think the same Commonwealth who gave us George Washington and Thomas Jefferson would fall so far from the ideals these men instilled in our country to pass a bill which is a blatant violation of our civil rights.

Let’s change gears for a second and play devil’s advocate…

Let’s assume that HB 3202 passes the Constitutional arguments stated above.  Even if that were the case it is clearly in violation of the 14th Amendment (4) as this bill only applies to Virginia residents.  I, as a resident of Virginia, am obviously being singled out on an arbitrary factor (place of residence).  Is there any difference between a drunk driver from Virginia and one from Maryland?  No!  The only difference is the VA driver is a bigger ATM to the state since they can rob them more.

It is unfortunate that my home state (actually a commonwealth), one which has such historical importance as to give us the Father of our Nation [George Washington], the creator of the Declaration of Independence [Thomas Jefferson], and the Father of the Constitution [James Madison] has abandoned these most noble of ideals.  The state would like us to believe these new fines are for criminal punishment however they really are for funding roadways.  The Virginia Legislature could not come up with a budget that satisfied everyone (concerning roadways) so they introduced this unconstitutional bill to solve the problem.  As usual our elected representatives fell back to the tax and spend mentality.  It is easy of course to get in this mentality when the money being spent isn’t yours – how much money would you spend if you were told you had an unlimited budget, none of the money was yours, and you didn’t have to worry about paying it back?  Exactly!

Sign the petition to Repeal the VA “Civil Remedial Fees” - over 146,000 other Virginians already have

I am America

Today is a sad day.  The senate passed S. 3930 which does many things but worst of all destroys the most cherished writ – the writ of habeas corpus (950j part(b)).  Without habeas corpus none of the Bill of Rights exist.  What good is the right to free speech, unlawful detainment, etc if one can’t enforce them?  Our government has pitted the very rights our country was founded while leaving an empty of those rights for show.  Write your Congressman and tell them to repeal this most un-American bill. 

Our country continues to be hijacked and run by a minority group of fear mongers.  These fear mongers play to the worst in Americans – their fear, hatred and prejudices.  The fear mongers have set up a false dichotomy of “us” vs. “them” – it is either America or the terrorists, you are either patriotic or a traitor.  This phenomenon is nothing new – our Founding Fathers understood the temptations that would come with government.  This is why in their infinite wisdom they decentralized our government with numerous checks and balances.  This worked for roughly 100 years until the power of the federal government increased so much it subverted the States to its will.  Since then it has been a downhill ride with the federal government gaining more power - especially the Executive branch. 

It is easy to understand why the politicians have usurped the rights of its citizenry - power is strong motivator.  It is almost just as easy to understand why most Americans have applauded and appreciated their government while they strip them of their birth rights.  Our government has played to the worst in you; the good news: there is still time to reverse the course.  Tell your Congressman they have no authority to usurp the Bill of Rights.  Remind your Congressman the government is subservient to the people.  Remind your Congressman they work for you and are to represent your views, not their own agendas. 

Remember: an individual can be silenced but an idea cannot be silenced.  An idea lives on independent of its messenger because words cannot be destroyed.  Our government hopes they can ignore any opposition as a “few malcontents” but they fail to realize the idea and message those opposed to the current course our government is taking cannot be silenced, imprisoned or destroyed.  Soon the day will come when the American Government is reminded the People are the masters and the Government is servant.

4th of July

Tomorrow millions of Americans will gather around the barbeque and celebrate the birth of our Republic. They will tell stories and pay homage to America by lighting off fireworks. But is today’s America the one our founders had in mind? If they were around today what would they say of the country they created?

Today’s America is a hollow shell of what our founders intended. Their America was one in which its citizens were free of an obtrusive government. Their America was one in which its government was accountable to its citizens. Their America was one in which all knew the consequences of tyranny. All one needs to do is listen to Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

Today’s America has abandoned this very premise. We used to hold as sacrosanct that the individual was paramount; We used to believe government was inherently evil; We used to believe the less government was better government. Today we hold the collective as sacrosanct; We believe the individual is inherently evil; We believe bigger government is better government.

In just 231 years we have pulled a complete u-turn from our founding principles. Our ancestors set up the best governmental system ever seen on the face of the planet. A system where government was a necessary evil, but one which was held in check and had limited authority. Today we have empowered our government to intrude and substitute “It’s” opinion for ours in any circumstance.

Later on in that greatest of all documents, the Declaration, Jefferson expouses on the duties of individuals when government becomes destructive. Unfortunately, these passages are less known.

“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…”

“…accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed…”

And finally the most motivational and influential line in the Declaration, in my opinion:

“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

So this 4th of July go about your normal activities. But, if you feel as many of us do I urge you to let your government know they no longer have immunity to do as they wish. They no longer have our consent to destroy our freedoms. They no longer have the moral authority to rule our every decision.

Judicial System encompassed by Executive Branch

Well it was no surprise but the current Executive Branch has once again made moves to encompass the Judicial system under its banner. President Bush today commuted Libby’s sentence. The sad part is the fact that he did so under the guise that the prison term was “extreme”, however the prison time was set by sentencing guidelines.

We used to be a country that believed all are equal before the law. However, this administration has once again proven that everyone is equal before the law except who they say. Below is the press release from the President.

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

The United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit today rejected Lewis Libby’s request to remain free on bail while pursuing his appeals for the serious convictions of perjury and obstruction of justice. As a result, Mr. Libby will be required to turn himself over to the Bureau of Prisons to begin serving his prison sentence.

I have said throughout this process that it would not be appropriate to comment or intervene in this case until Mr. Libby’s appeals have been exhausted. But with the denial of bail being upheld and incarceration imminent, I believe it is now important to react to that decision.

From the very beginning of the investigation into the leaking of Valerie Plame’s name, I made it clear to the White House staff and anyone serving in my administration that I expected full cooperation with the Justice Department. Dozens of White House staff and administration officials dutifully cooperated.

After the investigation was under way, the Justice Department appointed United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois Patrick Fitzgerald as a Special Counsel in charge of the case. Mr. Fitzgerald is a highly qualified, professional prosecutor who carried out his responsibilities as charged.

This case has generated significant commentary and debate. Critics of the investigation have argued that a special counsel should not have been appointed, nor should the investigation have been pursued after the Justice Department learned who leaked Ms. Plame’s name to columnist Robert Novak. Furthermore, the critics point out that neither Mr. Libby nor anyone else has been charged with violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act or the Espionage Act, which were the original subjects of the investigation. Finally, critics say the punishment does not fit the crime: Mr. Libby was a first-time offender with years of exceptional public service and was handed a harsh sentence based in part on allegations never presented to the jury.

Others point out that a jury of citizens weighed all the evidence and listened to all the testimony and found Mr. Libby guilty of perjury and obstructing justice. They argue, correctly, that our entire system of justice relies on people telling the truth. And if a person does not tell the truth, particularly if he serves in government and holds the public trust, he must be held accountable. They say that had Mr. Libby only told the truth, he would have never been indicted in the first place.

Both critics and defenders of this investigation have made important points. I have made my own evaluation. In preparing for the decision I am announcing today, I have carefully weighed these arguments and the circumstances surrounding this case.

Mr. Libby was sentenced to thirty months of prison, two years of probation, and a $250,000 fine. In making the sentencing decision, the district court rejected the advice of the probation office, which recommended a lesser sentence and the consideration of factors that could have led to a sentence of home confinement or probation.

I respect the jury’s verdict. But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby’s sentence that required him to spend thirty months in prison.

My decision to commute his prison sentence leaves in place a harsh punishment for Mr. Libby. The reputation he gained through his years of public service and professional work in the legal community is forever damaged. His wife and young children have also suffered immensely. He will remain on probation. The significant fines imposed by the judge will remain in effect. The consequences of his felony conviction on his former life as a lawyer, public servant, and private citizen will be long-lasting.

The Constitution gives the President the power of clemency to be used when he deems it to be warranted. It is my judgment that a commutation of the prison term in Mr. Libby’s case is an appropriate exercise of this power.

Keith Olbermann attacking George Bush