Cooperative agreements, one of the newer buzz phrases of the day is quite frankly nothing more than the sanctioning of paid bribes to state officials to implement unconstitutional mandates that violate civil rights and force the establishment of a police state. 

 Under the Unfunded Mandates Act of 1946, no state can be required to participate in, or be forced to comply with any federal law or program unless they receive some form of monetary payment to cover the anticipated costs.  No money….no compliance.  This is the reason that funding has to be approved specifically for any legislative assault on the public.  Understand that although money is approved, authorized and allocated, it does not and is most times not paid in full.  The federal government will make a grand stand announcement saying that x-amount has been allocated to the states based on needs and population, but it is seldom that money ever shows up in total. 

Keep in mind here that the federal government has virtually no admitted source of income other than tax revenues, so the money they are allocating to your state actually came from your state at least in part.  And of course this assumes that you are looking at the simplified budget which only lists limited incomes and liabilities.  If you were viewing the unified budget both sides would read drastically different and you would see the income derived from such things as unelected bureaucracies who fund themselves and profit by imposing fees, fines and property seizures; the sale of infra structure to foreign interests and the out right selling off of military equipment and other assets amounting to billions of dollars annually.   

Back to those cooperative agreements:  When it comes to the District of Criminals, legislative slight of hand, word-swaps that change the entire legal meaning while appearing to be innocuous changes, and outright deception are the rules of the day.  “Cooperative agreements” was the legitimizing of paid bribes and nothing less.  I would guess this beats getting caught shuffling money under the table to state officials to impose the constitutional breaches and illegal power expansions of the federal government.

A cooperative agreement is nothing less than a bribe paid by an agency or agent of the federal government to states.  It amounts to legislative or agency perpetrated racketeering.  I personally don’t believe any rational person could look at the activities of congress and not conclude these elected weasels are simply the new improved version of the old Mafia, using the same tactics for conducting illegal business. 

Regardless of what kind of soft, fluffy words are used to describe the payment of bribes, the intent is the same; to bypass the law and to profit even, as in this case, if it is just politically. 

Bribery is bribery regardless of who hands the money over or who accepts it.  It is a fee paid in violation of the law, to implement other violations of the law.  Calling it a “cooperative agreement” does not make it any less of a bribe and should make it subject to a RICO lawsuit.

The RICO act has not seen its full intended use.  Maybe its time we visited that underused law to see where and how it would apply to agencies and agents of the government who openly collude to defraud the rights and liberties of the people who pay their salaries. 

 

Marti Oakley © 2009