Offshore Asset Protection BLOG - Bob Bauman

Obama Continues Domestic Militarization of America

Quite a few of my readers who share my concern responded to my last blog entry that raised the question of whether the government of the United States was quietly being transformed into a potential presidential military dictatorship.

But what I did not know at the time I wrote about this a few days ago was that, in furtherance of the past militarization actions taken by President George W. Bush, President Barack Obama signed Executive Order 13528 on January 11, 2010 which added another major nail in the coffin of the dying U.S. Constitution.

Rubber Stamp

Among other things, Obama's Executive Order establishes a Council of Governors, an "advisory panel" chosen by the President that will rubber-stamp long-sought-after Pentagon contingency plans to seize control of state National Guard forces in the event of a "national emergency."

Clearly designed to weaken the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 which bars the use of the military for civilian law enforcement, EO 13528 is the latest in a series of maneuvers by previous administrations to wrest control of armed forces historically under the democratic control of elected state officials, and some public accountability.

Sweeping Change

One consequence of moves to "synchronize and integrate" state National Guard units with those of the U.S. armed forces would be to place them under the effective control of United States Northern Command (USNORTHCOM), created in 2002 by Bush legislators in both parties under the pretext of the "War on Terror." At the time, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld called USNORTHCOM's launch "the most sweeping set of changes since the unified command system was set up in 1946."

For extensive discussion of Obama's militarization order and the history behind it, along with links to interesting documents and reports, click here.

 

 The PATRIOT Act Report

In this special 44 page report I wrote (and have revised for the third time,), you learn all about the PATRIOT Act and its far-reaching invasion of your rights -- and what you can do to defend yourself.

Could America Become a Presidential Military Dictatorship?

I voted for John McCain for president, (did I have a choice?), but I'm wondering whether the senior senator from Arizona has taken leave of his constitutional senses.

Ten days ago McCain and his might-have-been 2008 vice presidential candidate, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Ct), introduced a bill entitled the "Enemy Belligerent, Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010."

A close reading of the bill suggests it would allow the U.S. military to detain U.S. citizens without trial indefinitely in the United States based on suspected activity. Read the bill here and then read below.

The bill sets out a comprehensive policy for the detention, interrogation and trial of suspected enemy belligerents who are believed to have engaged in hostilities against the United States by requiring these individuals to be held in military custody, interrogated for their intelligence value and not provided with a Miranda warning.

Amazing Legislation

But the bill makes no distinction between "U.S. persons," (defined as green card holders or U.S. citizens) and non-U.S. persons. Any of them (of us) could be arrested by the military!

The McCain-Lieberman bill would require all of these "belligerents" to be coded as "high-value detainees" to be held in military custody and interrogated for their intelligence value by a "High-Value Detainee Interrogation Team" established by the president.

Any suspected unprivileged enemy belligerents considered a "high-value detainee" would not be provided with any Miranda warning.

More Power to the President

The bill directs the President to determine criteria for designating an individual as a "high-value detainee" if he/she: (1) poses a threat of an attack on civilians or civilian facilities within the U.S. or U.S. facilities abroad; (2) poses a threat to U.S. military personnel or U.S. military facilities; (3) has potential intelligence value; (4) is a member of al Qaeda or a terrorist group affiliated with al Qaeda or (5) such other matters as the President considers appropriate.

In other words, President Obama, or any president afterwards, could order the military to arrest Americans within the United States as he sees fit!

Militarizing America

During the past 20 years there has been an increasing "militarization" of police departments across the United States. Armed with military gear and weapons, civil police SWAT teams have multiplied at a furious pace. Tactics once reserved for rare, volatile situations such as hostage takings, bank robberies and terrorist incidents increasingly have been used for routine police work, especially in the long lost "war on drugs."

In October 2006, in a little publicized maneuver, President George W. Bush signed a law which, according to Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt) at the time, actually encourages the president to declare federal martial law. It revised the Insurrection Act, a set of laws that limited the President's ability to deploy troops within the United States.

The Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C.331 -335) has historically, along with the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C.1385), helped to enforce strict prohibitions on military involvement in domestic law enforcement. But Public Law 109-364 that Bush signed allows the President to declare a "public emergency," station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to "suppress public disorder."
 
Before he left office Bush also signed a law that allowed the establishment within the U.S. military of an unprecedented special command unit located in and operating within the United States.

Unprecedented Power

A decision to dispatch U.S. troops to make arrests in the U.S. has few precedents in American history, outside the Civil War. That's because both the Constitution and the laws cited above restrict the military from being used to conduct domestic raids and seize property.

With these existing Bush-provided presidential legal powers, plus the radical powers suggested in the McCain-Lieberman bill, the president of the United States could well become a military dictator -- and who would stop him? The military?

Talk about a "police state"!

 

 The PATRIOT Act Report

In this special 44 page report I wrote (and have revised for the third time,), you learn all about the PATRIOT Act and its far-reaching invasion of your rights -- and what you can do to defend yourself.

 

Liz Cheney Is Wrong

How much do you know about the concept known as "the rule of law?"

You really should know a lot about it, because the rule of law is central to preserving your constitutional rights and your ability to live in freedom. If the phrase is new to you, it's time you engaged in some badly needed self-education.

Criminal Defendant

When I was a young attorney, just out of the Law Center of Georgetown University, I set up my solo law practice in my home town of Easton, in Talbot County on Maryland's beautiful Eastern Shore.

Back in the day, there was no Public Defender system to provide government paid lawyers for indigent criminal defendants. Instead the circuit judge, Hon. Harry Clark at the time, assigned representation on a rotating basis to the 25 or so local lawyers. But it always seemed to me that the newest lawyers got the most cases -- and there was no pay for this pro bono work.

Oh well, it was a chance for us newbies to polish our court room style and establish a Court House (see above) reputation.

State of Maryland vs. Bowzer

My first, and as it turned out, only assigned criminal case was that of a young African American named William Bowzer, who was from out of state, but had a lot of local Shore relatives.

Bowzer was charged with forgery and uttering, meaning he allegedly signed someone's name to a check and raised the amount. Because he was poor, he had been held in the Talbot Country Jail for months, unable to post bail.

Long story short: I hired a friend, a former county sheriff, who knew the African American community that centered on Port Street in Easton, and within days we had what we felt was enough evidence to defend our man. (A drunken bar friend had given him a check and told Bowser to go cash it).

After a two day trial, the jury was out for less than an hour and acquitted Mr. Bowzer on all counts. He was so shocked when the judge told him he was free to go, that he ran out of the court room without even thanking me.

And the judge never did assign another indigent criminal case to me.

Real "Conservatives" Believe In the Rule of Law

I thought of the Bowzer case today when I read an article in the New York Times that reported on what it called "a conservative advocacy organization in Washington," Keep America Safe. The group last week released a video that questioned the loyalty of U.S. Justice Department lawyers who worked in the past on behalf of detained terrorism suspects.

Beyond the expected liberal outrage, the tactics of the group, which is run by Liz Cheney, (left) the daughter of the former vice president, also split the world of conservative legal scholars.

Many conservatives, including members of the Federalist Society,  the quarter century old policy group devoted to conservative and libertarian legal ideals, have vehemently criticized Ms. Cheney’s video, and say it violates the American legal principle that even unpopular defendants deserve a lawyer.

A letter from leading conservatuves cited “the American tradition of zealous representation of unpopular clients,” including the defense by John Adams (left) of British soldiers charged in the 1770 Boston Massacre, and noted that some detainee advocates, who worked pro bono, have made arguments that swayed the Supreme Court.

I certainly agree with that view.

Ms. Cheney is no conservative when she is trying to play cheap politics with the fundamental right to counsel that attaches to anyone who comes within the criminal jurisdiction of U.S. courts, either civilian or military -- and that includes those accused of the broadly defined crime of "terrorism".

Important Definition

The rule of law is defined as adherence by government to "due process of law." This popular American and British phrase encompasses a requirement that laws must relate to legitimate government interests, such as crime prevention, and may not result in unfair or arbitrary treatment of an individual, known as the right to "substantive due process."

In more recent times, the right to be represented by an attorney in criminal cases has been added to these guarantees. All these rights, in theory, are explicitly guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

Look around the world and you can see how important the rule of law is.

On January 12, Freedom House released its findings from the latest edition of Freedom in the World, the annual survey of global political rights and civil liberties. According to the survey findings, 2009 marked the fourth consecutive year in which global freedom suffered a decline --the longest consecutive period of setbacks for freedom in the nearly 40 year history of the report.

In a year marked by intensified repression against human rights defenders and civic activists, declines for freedom were registered in 40 countries in Africa, Latin America, the Middle East, China and the former Soviet Union, representing 20% of the world’s total polities.

Major Factor

When we at the Sovereign Society recommend offshore financial havens for placement of bank accounts, asset protection trusts, annuities or life insurance the existence of a guaranteed rule of law always is a major factor in our choice.

Yet, dear reader, in the United States the Bush-Obama "anti-terror" laws and policies, especially the grotesquely misnamed PATRIOT Act, seriously have compromised the America rule of law.

So the question is: if our liberties are diminished, which is winning -- freedom or terrorism?

If we are forced by blind partisan politics to compromise further the rule of law, including the right to counsel, the terrorists have won.

Liz Cheney should know better.

You can learn all about "going offshore" and how to bank legally in legitimate offshore financial centers -- in my new 4th edition of Where to Stash Your Cash Legally: Offshore Financial Centers of the World. Find out how here.

The Sovereign Society is a recognized voice in the complex offshore world. Join the Sovereign Society and keep informed. 

Excessive Bipartisanship

Our guest column today is by Glenn Greenwald. Since it was published yesterday the U.S. House of Representatives passed the extension of this odious, unconstitutional PATRIOT Act, by a vote of 315-97, with little debate. Few in Congress seem to care about the destruction of our liberties. 

 

Mr. Greenwald's column follows:

One of the strangest prongs of conventional Beltway wisdom is the lament that there is not enough   bipartisanship.  The opposite is true:  many of the most damaging acts inflicted on the country by Washington are enacted on a fully bipartisan basis -- the most destructive political act of this generation, the invasion of Iraq, was fully bipartisan, as were most of the post-9/11 civil liberties abuses and other Bush-era initiatives-- and, at least in certain areas, the harmonious joining together of Republicans and Democrats continues unabated:

 Senate votes to extend Patriot Act : Democrats retreat from adding new privacy protections to the law

The Senate voted Wednesday to extend for a year key provisions of the nation's counterterrorism surveillance law that are scheduled to expire at the end of the month. In agreeing to pass the bill, Senate Democrats retreated from adding new privacy protections to the USA Patriot Act. The Senate approved the bill on a voice vote with no debate. It now goes to the House. . . . Supporters say extending the law enables authorities to keep important tools in the fight against terrorism. It would also give Democrats some cover from Republican criticism that the Obama administration is soft on terrorism. . . . Some Democrats, however, had to forfeit new privacy protections they had sought for the law. . . .

"I would have preferred to add oversight and judicial review improvements to any extension of expiring provisions in the USA Patriot Act," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. "But I understand some Republican senators objected."

A mountain of evidence has emerged over the last several years documenting pervasive, systematic abuse of the Patriot Act powers.  The proposed safeguards were extremely modest and would have provided minimal oversight on how those powers were exercised.  Leading Democrats such as Dianne Feinstein spent all years ensuring that the proposed reforms were weakened to the point of virtual meaningless. 

 
But as weakened as they were, "some Republican senators objected" and might have called Democrats "soft on terror," so that was the end of that.  The domestic surveillance law that Democrats spent years assailing as dangerously overbroad when out of power is renewed in full now that they are in power.  That's the Beauty of Bipartisanship, and the last thing we need is more of it.

 The PATRIOT Act Report

In this special 44 page report I wrote (and have revised for the third time,), you learn all about the PATRIOT Act and its far-reaching invasion of your rights -- and what you can do to defend yourself against this attack on our liberty.

What Are Americans Afraid Of?

Have Americans collectively become a bunch of weenies -- a herd of 300 million scaredy-cats?

Fear as an influential factor in the political and national history of nations is hardly a novelty. Historically, in democracies and dictatorships alike, fear has been used to whip up prejudices and to bend masses to a leader's will.

Fear is a "distressing emotion aroused by impending danger, evil, or pain, whether the threat is real or imagined." Fear is the feeling of being afraid.

In 1757, Edmund Burke wrote: "No passion so effectively robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear." Or as President Franklin D. Roosevelt assured shaken Americas at his first inaugural on March 4, 1933, during the depths of The Great Depression: "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."

A Nation of Scaredy-Cats

But Patrick Smith, writing in Salon.com recently, makes a creditable case that many Americans, and their supposed leaders, are wallowing in (and stoking) unjustified fears. He asks: "When did we become such a nation of scaredy-cats?"

Smith notes the recent case of a confused 57-year-old man who opened an emergency exit inside American Airlines terminal 8 at JFK airport in New York. Alarms blared and sirens flashed. The man, who had just deplaned from a flight from Haiti, later told police that he'd opened the door by accident.

For the next two hours the airport became a picture of mass bedlam, all flights halted, thousands forced off already loaded planes, herded through those stupid TSA security checks all over again.

Like the Emperor, TSA Has No Clothes

What is most shocking is throughout all the media coverage of the incident, including numerous interviews with ticked off passengers and somber voiced officials, not once did anybody raised the point that maybe -- just maybe -- they overreacted. Everyone, instead, was eager to blame the hapless traveler who opened the wrong door.

"As a result of the defendant's actions, thousands of people were required to evacuate and to be re-screened by TSA, causing substantial delays in the airlines' schedules," N.Y. District Attorney Richard Browne said in a stern statement, playing to the cheap seats.

No, I'm sorry, Mr. District Attorney, but that's not it. What caused the delays and what hassled so many travelers was not the defendant's actions -- but the mindless and hysterical response by airport officials.

The Fear Game

Columnist, Ross Gittins, writing about anti-terrorism for the Australian news service, The Age, addressed what he called: "The fear game, our latest sensation."

He made the point that: "We are more likely to die on the road than be killed by a terrorist act." He added: "It's well known to psychologists that humans have a tendency to overestimate small risks while underestimating big risks. The risk of being killed in a terrorist attack is very much lower than the risk of being killed on the road. Yet after the attacks of September 2001 in America, many people switched from traveling by air to traveling by road, presuming it to be safer."

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, the odds of an American dying in a terrorist attack are about one in 88,000.

The Bogeyman Will Get Us

In America the fear factor grows in influence when threats are amorphous, shadowy, unclear, yet perceived as very real, as in -- terrorism.

Politicians throughout history have employed fear as a controlling and guiding principle to achieve their ends. Offering themselves as protectors, national leaders often have touted their nostrums against alleged invasions, barbaric tribes, hated minorities.

These days too many Americans seem to be suffering from an official and media inspired fear malaise produced by terrorism and its implications; possible shoe and underpants bombers, hijackings, biological warfare, suitcase nuclear bombs, sabotage -- countless unknown (and unlikely) threats.

In order to counter these nameless, often unreasonable fears, the U.S. Congress, under President George W. Bush, enacted a series of laws that seriously curtailed constitutional freedoms to a degree unparalleled in American peace or war time.

Change You Can't Believe In

As a 2008 presidential candidate, Barack Obama attacked many of these unconstitutional Bush laws, including the horrendously misnamed "PATRIOT" Act. Once Obama became president he adopted as his own just about every one of Bush's questionable restrictions on our freedoms.

Indeed, the noted civil libertarian, Nat Hentoff, wrote an essay worth reading, entitled "George W. Obama"

As Hentoff notes: "...Bush's successor -- who actually taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago -- is continuing much of the Bush-Cheney parallel government and, in some cases, is going much further in disregarding our laws and the international treaties we've signed."

Do You Give a Damn?

But all this raises the question: just how far are Americans willing to go in surrendering their liberties and privacy? How much in treasure are we willing to pay for this promised, perhaps illusory defense? Are we willing to become Fortress America, akin to what Israel has become?

In a N.Y. Times Magazine article a few years ago the former El Al security chief said: "Security is a balancing act and there are always trade-offs. Give me the resources, and I can guarantee your safety. The question is, what are you willing to pay or put up with to stay safe?"

Americans had better emerge from the politician-nurtured cloud of fear, (if that's what it is), and start asking and answering that question -- before we enjoy neither safety nor liberty.

Anti-Terrorism Is Big Business

One important point that has been neglected in all the talk about terrorism should be obvious: many pressure groups have an interest in exaggerating the threat of terrorism. Governments and politicians recognize the natural tendency is to unite against an external threat. For them "anti-terrorism" is a windfall gain. As Gittins says, "Most politicians haven't resisted the temptation to play up the threat rather than calm us down."

Indeed, there is now in American what might be called an Anti-Terrorism Establishment that is willing to sacrifice the U.S. Constitution, our rights and liberties and certainly, our privacy.

Fear Mongers

So the politicians use fear to pass bad laws, the police and FBI use fear to justify bigger budgets, more powers and illegal searches, and the commercial news media, that loves to sell this fear claptrap, aids and abets these too often phony fears. More government, more police, more sensational TV and news coverage.

As Patrick Smith writes: "What is it about us, as a nation, that has made us so unable to remember, and unable to cope?"

It seems that Americans, ignorant of history, never learn. Yet we will live to regret that ignorance of the past.

 The PATRIOT Act Report

In this special 44 page report I wrote (and have revised for the third time,), you learn all about the PATRIOT Act and its far-reaching invasion of your rights -- and what you can do to defend yourself.

More PATRIOT Act Abuse

 The U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released yet another damning report today (PDF) on the FBI’s use of National Security Letters (NSLs). How shocking!!!.

NSLs allow the FBI to secretly demand sensitive customer information from telephone and internet communications companies, financial institutions and credit agencies without suspicion or prior judicial approval.

The statute was broadly rewritten in the Patriot Act. And the kicker: Anyone who receives an NSL is "gagged," so they can't tell anyone they got one. This violation of the First Amendment enshrined into the Patriot Act has made NSLs the FBI's go-to surveillance tool since 9/11.

The problem is, they've been abusing this tool. Repeatedly. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has testified about this abuse. They have sent letters to Congress. They sued over NSLs repeatedly. And yesterday the Washington Post reported in a preview of the OIG report:

The FBI illegally collected more than 2,000 U.S. telephone call records between 2002 and 2006 by invoking terrorism emergencies that did not exist or simply persuading phone companies to provide records, according to internal bureau memos and interviews.

It should surprise no one that the phone companies are forking over your info with as little as a "pretty please" from the FBI.

This is the third report in the last four years that details the bureau’s flagrant and institutionalized abuse of NSLs. The FBI assures us they have this under control. Though we’d love to take the agency at its word, I think we’ll go ahead and push for some outside oversight.

After a brief extension that passed last month, Congress is currently weighing how to deal with three expiring provisions of the Patriot Act. Sounds like a golden opportunity to revisit the NSL authority, right?

For years, Congress has stood by while OIG report after OIG report has been released. The bureau clearly cannot be trusted to police itself, so it’s time to stand up to the FBI's pick-and-choose approach to the rules. Congress must fulfill its oversight role and ensure that this power is reined in. There are several bills in both the House and Senate that would reform the NSL statute. Tell your representative and senator to reform the Patriot Act.

 

 The PATRIOT Act Report

In this special 44 page report I wrote (and have revised for the third time,), you learn all about the PATRIOT Act and its far-reaching invasion of your rights -- and what you can do to defend yourself.

Government Stupidity: Mikey Doesn't Like It

When I get up each morning one of my first chores, while preparing my breakfast, is to fetch the New York Times from my driveway. (After much struggle, I finally have convinced my deliveryman to double-bag the paper so it wont get wet).

I know. You're wondering why Bob Bauman bothers to read that left-wing rag? Well, in south Florida where I live, (and of late, shiver), the only other available newspapers are next to useless for real news and broad coverage.

This morning the front-page headline that caught my eye was: "Meet Mikey, 8: U.S. Has Him on Watch List "

That's the same brilliant government watch list that did not contain the name of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the underwear airplane bomber now in custody, about whom I had some choice words yesterday.

TSA - Terribly Stupid Actions

Frankly, I'm surprised that the Obama-loving Times gave such prominence to a story that disparaged his Administration; but then it's too good a story not to use. I urge you to read the article to appreciate the full flower of bureaucratic idiocy yet again displayed by the Transportation Safety Administration (TSA).

In short, since he was a two-year-old baby, Michael Winston Hicks, (left, now eight-years-old), has been repeatedly hassled, detained, questioned, patted down and generally harassed by TSA child molesters because someone with his same name is on the official government no-fly list.

"Up your arms, down your arms, up your crotch — someone is patting your 8-year-old down like he’s a criminal," Mrs. Hicks recounted. "A terrorist can blow his underwear up and they don’t catch him. But my 8-year-old can’t walk through security without being frisked."

Frustrated Thousands

The Hicks have done just about everything they can to get Mickey's name off the list, or at least recognition that he is not that Michael Hicks -- to no avail.

Over the past three years, 81,793 frustrated travelers have formally asked that they be struck from the watch list through the Department of Homeland Security; more than 25,000 of their cases are still pending.

Mrs. Hicks said the family was amused by the mistake at first. But that amusement quickly turned to annoyance and anger. It should not take seven years to correct the problem, Mrs. Hicks said..

Mikey Is Not Alone

Most of these questionable government actions are kept secret because the law that makes them possible, the so-called PATRIOT Act, also allows the FBI and other government police to hide what they are doing -- "security matters" they say.

If you want to know what is really going on in the so-called war on terror, as it used to be called pre-Obama, read the book, "Terrorism and Tyranny: Trampling Freedom, Justice, and Peace to Rid the World of Evil," by James Bovard.

Freedom Under Attack

American liberty continues under attack, not so much by terrorists, as by U.S. government bureaucrats that allow underwear bombers to board planes, while eight-year-old kids are detained.

U.S. Dept. of Justice, FBI and the National Security Agency (NSA) authority was granted in that wonderful 342-page law, The PATRIOT Act, passed sight unseen by a politically frightened U.S. Congress and hastily signed into law six weeks after the September 11, 2001 terror attacks.

The faulty computer systems that produce the no-fly lists that repeatedly blocks Mickey Hick's travels also are used by other government agencies.

IRS False Positives

The Internal Revenue Service uses similar NSA computer programs and data mining techniques "to sift through millions of tax refund requests and financial records" to analyze billions of phone calls, e-mails and other data. But while the NSA is looking for clues for terrorists, the IRS is mining data for fraudulent tax refund requests.

And because this type of wholesale search turns up tens of thousands of "false positives" -- people who are innocent of tax evasion are suddenly put on a list of accused by a mindless computer.

As one reporter wrote: "The IRS data mining program offers a chilling illustration of the danger. Under IRS policy, tax refunds identified as fraudulent are immediately frozen, sometimes permanently, based on no evidence except that their return matches the computer profile."

The same stupid computer approach has placed tens of thousands of Americans on banned air travel lists including, David Nelson (of Ozzie and Harriet TV fame), the police chief of Northfield, Minn., U.S. Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) and the late U.S. Sen. Ted Kennedy.

All were on these government secret "terrorist watch lists." They have no idea how they got on these lists, and even though more than 80,000 demanded their names be removed, the U.S. government refused to do so for years. Indeed, until recently the TSA refused even to explain or discuss these damnable lists.

Real Threat to Liberty

Wake up, folks. Open your eyes. All my life I have been a political conservative, but it is plain America has become a semi-police state. Most people are either too dumb to understand what's happening, or they just don’t care. Well, we do care and we will be fighting all the way.

Columnist Charlie Reese has written: "Absolute protection against terrorist attacks is an illusion. To swap liberty for promised security is to fall victim to a con game. You will lose your liberty for sure, but you will not gain the promised protection from terrorism."

As the disturbing cases of both Mickey Hicks and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab clearly show. 

 The PATRIOT Act Report

In this special 44 page report I wrote (and just revised for the third time,), you learn all about the PATRIOT Act and its far-reaching invasion of your rights -- and what you can do to defend yourself.

Obama as Bad as Bush-Cheney

That was the headline on a column by Nat Hentoff, (below) a senior fellow at the Cato Instutute and a principled person whom I consider to be one the foremost civil libertarians in America today.

Sen. Russ Feingold, (D-Wis), the only U.S. senator who had the courage to vote against the PATRIOT Act when it was first adopted in 2001, has been battling the Federal Bureau of Investigation's expanded surveillance guidelines. He also has continued to fight to revise the unconstitutional PATRIOT Act, parts of which are now up for renewal in the U.S. Congress.

In the recent U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee review of the Act, Republicans senators protecting the Act, in a closed-door session, formed an odd alliance working with Obama administration officials on amendments blocking any major changes.

Then all but three Democrats, pressured by the Obama administration officials, voted for a watered-down "compromise" bill by Senators Patrick Leahy and Diane Feinstein. Feingold, Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and newly minted "Democrat" Arlen Specter (Pa.) had the courage to oppose the committee bill that with few exceptions, leaves the Act intact without any meaningful revisions.

Two Faced Obama

Obama, who as a candidate repeatedly attacked the PATRIOT Act and called for its revision in order to protect civil liberties now has abandoned that stance -- as he has so many of his glittering promises of change.

Instead Obama, a former professor of constitutional law, working with so-called "conservative" Republicans, thwarted attempts by Feingold to restore the constitutional civil liberties Bush's PATRIOT Act destroyed.

"In the end," Feingold says. "Democrats have to decide if they are going to stand up for the rights of the American people" or "allow the FBI to write our laws."

Policeman, Prosecutor, Judge & Jury

Hentoff quotes my former House colleague, Don Edwards (D-Ca). "No federal agency," said Congressman Edwards, "the CIA, the IRS, or the FBI, can be at the same time policeman, prosecutor, judge and jury. That is what constitutionally guaranteed due process is all about. It may sometimes be disorderly and unsatisfactory to some, but it is the essence of freedom."

The Constitution, Edwards continued, does not permit "federal interference" with Americans' speech or associations, and other such citizen constitutional rights, "except through the criminal justice system, armed with its ancient safeguards." Read that as meaning the PATRIOT Act.

A Solemn Oath

Apparently the Senate Republicans are not concerned about redressing the constitutional violations contained in the PATRIOT Act, a law that is the worst legislative attack on the Constitution since President John Adams and the 1789 Alien and Sedition Laws.

When I was 15-years-old, I swore my first Oath to support and defend the United States Constitution when I served as a young page boy in the House of Representatives. Later, as a Member of Congress (a Republican and a conservative), I took that same oath to uphold the Constitution, to which every congressman and senator currently serving has also supposedly sworn their allegiance.

To Hell with the Constitution?

So knowing that, how can we explain the U.S. Congress continuing to support an unconstitutional law, the PATRIOT Act, that virtually repeals the guarantees against unreasonable search and seizure in the Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights?

My answer: fear. It's not justified fear of "terrorism " -- but cowardly fear of not politicians not getting reelected! Politics rules, to Hell with the U.S. Constitution!

 The PATRIOT Act Report

In this special 44 page report I wrote (and just revised for the third time, Sept. 2009), you learn all about the PATRIOT Act and its far-reaching invasion of your rights -- and what you can do to defend yourself.

Plus, you'll automatically receive a FREE subscription to the world’s most popular offshore e-letter, The Sovereign Society Offshore A-Letter. With more than 230,000 readers world wide, The A-Letter keeps you in touch with global events and investments that affect your wealth and safety. Learn more here.

IRS Numbers Game Rolls On

Indulge me a moment of wild supposition.

Suppose in an unlikely event the U.S. Department of Justice announced they were going to concentrate special efforts on investigating African Americans and Latinos because those groups commit more crimes statistically than other racial or ethnic groups.

Imagine the howl that such an audacious non-PC act would produce in the liberal media! The New York Times would have apoplexy and MSNBC's cables would melt down with molten invective.

But few bat that proverbial eye when the U.S. Internal Revenue Service [sic] continues to treat all Americans who engage in offshore financial activity as criminal suspects.

Built In Prejudice

Do you think the IRS might just be a bit prejudiced against any American who has the audacity to keep their finances beyond the immediate jurisdictional reach of the IRS, U.S. courts, the threat of lawsuits and the dark shadow of the PATRIOT Act?

The fact that offshore bank accounts, investments and other financial activity are all completely legal under American law, (at least at the moment), does not seem to deter the IRS from their overt prejudice against anything and anyone "offshore".

Big Deal?

As an example, last Wednesday, Doug Shulman, IRS commissioner, called a Washington press conference to announce that 7,500 Americans have volunteered information about unreported income hidden in overseas accounts ahead of the Thursday, Oct. 15 deadline for a U.S. government tax amnesty program.

According to Shulman, (below) that’s a number higher than the IRS expected. Under the amnesty program that began in September, Americans could declare unreported offshore accounts pay reduced fines and receive general immunity from criminal prosecution.

The IRS Fear & Awe program turned up undeclared income from offshore accounts ranging in amounts from $10,000 to more than $100 million, Shulman claimed. (The IRS always rounds its numbers to suit their own PR purposes).

Bigger Than 2003

When a similar offshore tax amnesty deal was offered in 2003, we were told that was the last chance, but few responded. That amnesty was built on a major IRS propaganda campaign that claimed as many as two million Americans were evading taxes using offshore bank issued credit and debit cards.

Than as now, the gullible U.S. news media widely reported an IRS press statement claiming success for the 2003 IRS partial amnesty program for taxpayers with unreported offshore bank accounts. A whopping 1,200 people turned themselves in!

Wow! -- But wait a minute. Was 1,200 such an impressive number? You be the judge after reviewing the IRS's own numbers.

A Million Here, A Million There

In 2000, the IRS officially estimated that 505,000 U.S. persons had unreported offshore bank accounts. By early 2002, the IRS figure zoomed to over 2 million, with only 100,000 to 200,000 reporting them.

But IRS Commissioner Charles O. Rossotti, in May 2001, demanding subpoenas for offshore credit card records, swore that offshore tax evasion was costing the government US$20 billion to US$40 billion in 2000 alone! No proof was offered, of course.

But when he retired in 2004, Commissioner Rossotti admitted in testimony before Congress that the IRS was able to show only 82,100 taxpayers had unreported offshore accounts.

And this last figure came after the IRS had grabbed thousands of offshore credit card records from Visa, MasterCard and American Express. He lowered the $40 billion estimate drastically down to an estimated the annual tax loss at US$447 million, about US$7,000 per taxpayer.

The IRS Commission apparently could not figure out whether it was US$447 million or US$40 billion that was lost. And they couldn't decide whether supposed offshore evaders number 82,000 or 505,000 or 2 million. (The numbers changed with every IRS press release).

Free the IRS 7500?

So last week's great IRS triumph, according to Shulman, was getting 7,500 unreported American offshore account holders to come in from the cold.

Yet this same IRS hounded the Swiss banking giant, UBS, for a year, demanding the names of 55,000 U.S. account holder at the bank, all of whom the IRS implied were evading millions in taxes.

 When that fracas ended short of President Obama declaring war on Switzerland, only 4,500 names were turned over by UBS. Are they part of the IRS 7,500?

Up the Panama Canal with Rod & Gun

Commissioner Shulman also said the IRS is expanding its offshore tax crackdown and will open new criminal tax offices in Beijing, Sydney and Panama.

A leading Panama attorney called his statement a "scare tactic," adding: "Panama has no tax treaty with the U.S. nor with any other country, so what could an IRS presence at the U.S. embassy here prove? Even if President Martinelli (left) were silly enough to sign an tax information exchange treaty, our legal system and the courts would block any attempted IRS fishing expeditions".

Shulman Outs Levin

We do have to give Commissioner Shulman his due when dealing with one highly bogus number.

Testifying before a U.S. House of Representatives appropriations subcommittee earlier this year the Commissioner in effect called Michigan's radical leftist Democrat U.S. Senator Carl Levin, (below) a liar.

Shulman said that claims that the U.S. government and the IRS lose $US100 billion annually because of tax evasion by Americans who use offshore tax havens are "wild estimates" that "don't have much basis".

Stay Tuned

Vern Jacobs CPA, (below) a leading offshore tax expert, notes that the IRS amnesty is the easy way out for that befuddled agency.

"When taxpayers come forward because the government has announced there won't be any criminal sanctions, it saves the IRS a lot of time, effort and costs. When the IRS has cleared the deck of the current 7,500 backlog, I would not be surprised to hear about another tax amnesty deal for the others who have not yet come forward."

And if the numbers thrown around by the IRS are to be believed, there still could be millions of Americans hiding cash offshore.

And Stay Legal

Make certain you are not one of them, and the Sovereign Society will help you comply with all tax and offshore reporting requirements on a continuing basis.

P.S. Reserve your spot at this year’s Offshore Advantage Academy before it’s too late. We’ve already got more reservations than any event before, and we may just be able to get a few more before the hotel cuts us off. IRS tax and reporting requirements will be major topics. Click here for more on your “last-minute” discount…

 　　

Bob Goes to Washington

I am always nervous, questioning my own beliefs, when I find myself in agreement with editorial stands taken by writers in The New York Times. Today I found myself in that unusual posture not just once, but twice.

Obama & Moral Duplicity

In a column entitled "America's Quest to Collect Taxes Abroad," Times columnists finally came close to being correct about what Obama is doing to Americans right to employ tax havens, to wit:

"The United States claims the moral high ground on taxes. But to some foreigners the combination of a crusade against foreign tax havens and the insistence that overseas companies help with American tax collection shows 'breathtaking moral duplicity.' Those were the words of Wegelin & Company, a Swiss private bank, as it pulled out of the United States. Not everyone would go that far. But Julius Baer, another Swiss bank, said it could live without American clients, and Lloyds Banking Group in Britain has started ditching some as well."

More Obama Promises Broken

And on The Times editorial page, in the lead entitled "Patriot Act Excesses" it was rightfully suggested that as the it considers renewal of parts of the patently unconstitutional PATRIOT Act, "That should be a chance for Congress to give serious consideration to curtailing some of the excessive powers it granted to the executive branch during the Bush years — without enough consideration in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 and later."

Obama repeatedly attack the PATRIOT Act and called for its revision as a candidate -- and immediately abandoned that stance once elected.

Instead of serious consideration, before today was over, the Senate Judiciary Committee, (where reportedly White House aides were working with so-called "conservative" Republicans), had thwarted most attempts by Democrats to restore the civil liberties Bush's PATRIOT Act destroyed.

Strange bed fellows, indeed! (For a copy of my newly revised PATRIOT Act Report, click here).

On to Washington!

 But the surprise is that Bob Bauman is going back to Washington -- not in any official capacity this time, but rather to speak at a meeting on Tuesday, October 20th, at the Cato Institute, the important topic being: "The Case for Tax Competition, Fiscal Sovereignty, and Financial Privacy."

The meeting is being jointly sponsored by the Cato Institute, the Center for Freedom and Prosperity, the Hayek Institute, and the European Center of Austrian Economics Foundation. I will be speaking along with many more distinguished folks than I, lead by our good friend and frequent speaker at Sovereign Society meetings, Dan Mitchell (left), the Cato Institute's tax expert.

His Serene Highness

Other speakers include H.S.H. Prince Michael von und zu Liechtenstein (right); my former House colleague, Hon. Dick Armey of Texas, chairman of Freedom Works and former Republican Majority leader, U.S. House of Representatives; Bruce Zagaris, partner, Berliner, Corcoran & Rowe; Anthony Travers, chairman of the Cayman Islands Financial Services Association, and tax haven expert, Professor Richard Teather, Bournemouth University, United Kingdom, among others.

I would be pleased to see you there - from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.. Tuesday, October 20th, at the Cato Institute. Click here for information and registration. All are welcome.