ENIGMA CURRY

Elections Hacked and 'Man of the Year'.

November 05, 2006 at 11:05 PM | categories: stupidity, liberty rants, security | View Comments

I get excited around election time. I hope for change in this country and I think that my vote matters. There are so many exciting candidates running this year. With such a principled platform, and so many good candidates running, I have every hope in the world that there will be at least one libertarian victory this year.

Oh, but aren't I so naive?

---

Elections Hacked

The Elections in this country are rigged. You might label me a conspiracy theorist for that statement, but before you do, watch this video: HBO's Elections Hacked. Here are just a few of the extraordinary things brought forth in this film:

• With unmodified 2004 Diebold voting machines, Blackbox voting was able to show that they could rig an election by replacing the memory card with one which was specially prepared to skew the votes. Also, there was no evidence of tampering and all of the security checks done by the unit itself passed both prior to and after the voting occurred. The memory cards also have an executable binary on them that could be modified to skew results while leaving no trace of the change besides the change itself. The votes on the paper log, those stored on the card, as well as the integrity checks performed by the machine would appear impeccable. The only way for someone to detect foul play would be to audit the memory card itself, which because it's detachable from the voting machine itself can easily be destroyed and/or replaced.
• The GEMS system, diebold's vote counting system can easily be hacked by simply changing values in an unencrypted, non hash value checked database. As long as you change the value outside of the GEMS system (ie with a hex editor) the GEMS system does not detect any foul play and assumes the value is correct.
• Diebold claims that the memory cards used in their systems contain no binary executable component. A forensic analysis of an actual diebold memory card proved otherwise. An executable on the memory card introduces the possibility of someone modifying the way in which votes are collected on the voting machines by simply replacing the memory card.

Do we have any proof of rigged elections in this country? No, and we probably never will -- there simply is no public access to scrutinize the voting process. But before labeling me a conspiracy theorist, please ask yourself: Isn't there enough evidence to prove that the elections COULD POSSIBLY be rigged without detection? If your answer is yes then we have common ground and we need to do something about it.. if your answer is no, prove me wrong, and if you're unable to do that.. then you're simply not paying attention.

I am a computer scientist and I am completely disgusted by what BlackBox voting was able to uncover in the above mentioned film. Here are very simple modifications that every Computer Science BS graduate I know of could implement with readily available and easy to use tools:

• Hash value checking. If you perform a hash value function (eg md5 sum) over the entire memory card (as well as a seperate hash specifically over the executable portion) before it is allowed to continue with the vote tabulation process, there is no way that someone could tamper with the memory card because the original hash value and the hash value of the card would not match. I am simply flabbergasted that this simple technique is not used in the diebold system. In the film it was obvious that the only audit trail left behind on the paper log was that the initial vote counts were all zeros. Certainly this is good information to have, but in addition to that, it should report that every single bit of memory on the card is in its original condition, including the binary executable portion of the card to insure that it hasn't been tampered with. Diebold should publish the md5 sum of the executables on a public website, have several independent arbiters audit the code with the same md5 sum as published, then the county should publish the md5 sum of a properly zeroed card on the election commission website, and then photographically scan and post on their website each signed paper log to show that the md5 sum printed on the log is exactly the same before vote tabulation occurs as the 'pristine' card's md5 sum. In case you didn't follow all that, if those guidelines were followed, it would PROVE that the card was not tampered with as long as the independent arbiters were of good character and had a solid understanding of the code.
• Encryption. Encryption is so incredibly easy to implement these days. As the video showed, the GEMS system database is obviously written in PLAIN TEXT. If the system were to simply apply a little basic encryption then modification of that data would be impossible unless the attacker were to know the key, which could be different at each precinct and generated just minutes before the polls open. Every computer science program in the country teaches at least something about encryption, so the fact that Diebold is not using it in their system shows they are either completely incompetent or completely fraudulent in their practices.

Certainly though, one of the absolute best practices for ensuring correct vote tabulation is to use paper ballots which have worked just fine for a good long time. But even if in the interests of performing vote counts rapidly, we desire an electronic voting system, an open-source public scrutinizable (sp?) voting system is a no brainer. Why do we, the taxpayers, purchase a very expensive voting system and then not demand access into it's internals?

---

Man of the Year

WARNING: movie plot spoilers ahead

Apparently, I am not alone in my view on electronic voting. Even the movies are talking about it. Last night I went to the theater and saw Man of the Year. The new Robin Williams movie about a third party candidate winning the presidential election is also all about how electronic voting might go wrong. It is also probably the worst movie I've seen this year. In all actuality, it is doing a superb job at misdirecting attention away from the fine efforts being done by Blackbox voting by showing how absurd a 'glitch' in the voting system might be. But before I tell you why I hated this film, let me tell you the few things I did like about this movie:

• Dobbs (Robin Williams' character) is a third party candidate
• He gets into the presidential debate (However, he does seem to get in with relative ease, which doesn't educate the public much on the problems third party candidates have in getting into the debates in the real world.)
• He touches on some interesting current event topics (His TSA joke about the old lady being labeled a terrorist was especially funny)

But here is why I really hated this film:

• Dobbs wins the election because of a 'glitch' in the electronic voting system. This 'glitch' is that any candidate with double letters in his name will win as long as those letters alphabetically precede any other candidates double letters. Dobbs wins because he has two B's in his name (beating out Kelogg with two G's and Mills with two L's because B comes before G which comes before L). As a computer scientist, I found this plot device to be totally, absurdly, stupidly distracting throughout the entire movie. There is absolutely NO WAY that a 'glitch' of this nature would ever occur, it would have to be deliberate, but when Dobbs tells america that his election was incorrectly chosen, he is quick to point out that no foul play was involved and that it was simply an accidental computer 'glitch'. Had it been malicious, it probably would have made for a much more entertaining film, but then they would still have had to come up with a more involved, more realistic method for changing the votes. This plot device simply insulted my intelligence.
• Eleanor, the voting system manufacturer whistle blower, meets Dobbs and has a grand old time with him, dancing, paintball shooting, a thanksgiving dinner, but takes her sweet-ass time (almost a month) to tell Dobbs that the vote was a fraud. Then once she does tell him, Dobbs immediately believes her. Eleanor offers no proof to him whatsoever. What could have been a political and technological intriguing point.. died with a thud.

The worst part of this movie is that, as absurd as it is, it could make some people believe that this sort of thing is what the whole problem with real-world elections is about, and if they ever realize the absurdity of the movie, the credibility of anyone who casts doubt on the real-world election systems goes away with it. It's called misdirection folks, and this movie has it bad.

---

So, we have elections in two days. Am I still excited? Even more so.

America: Freedom to Fascism on Google Video!

October 23, 2006 at 08:55 PM | categories: liberty rants | View Comments

My favorite documentry of late is America: Freedom to Fascism. I saw this a few weeks ago in the theatre but now it is available on DVD. I highly encourage everyone to see this film. If you are unaware of the terrible things that the Federal Reserve and the IRS has done to usurp power and control in this country, this will be an awakening experience for you. Even if you already are aware, it is very well presented and a good source to get a thorough review.

Best of all, even if you can't spare the $20 to buy the DVD, you can now watch it for free on Google Video! You have absolutely no reason not to watch this film RIGHT NOW. It is currently in the (bottom) top 100 videos on Google, so please vote for it there if you enjoy it so as to further it's presense online.

One more reason I'll never live in Taxachusetts.

October 19, 2006 at 04:56 PM | categories: liberty rants | View Comments

ATTLEBORO, Mass. - Tag, you're out! Officials at an elementary school south of Boston have banned kids from playing tag, touch football and any other unsupervised chase game during recess for fear they'll get hurt and hold the school liable.

I'm honestly surprised they didn't ban touching outright as it might be construed as sexual. Seriously. It makes about as much sense as banning it for 'fear they'll get hurt'.

Kids are kids. They should be allowed to play dammit. Oh.. I get it now. Massachusetts educators wants to teach their children how to be good little bureaucrats and all the natural goodness of recess counteracts all that big government conditioning.

Remember kids, Big Brother is watching.. Especially at recess.

Ugg.

October 17, 2006 at 11:55 PM | categories: liberty rants, videos | View Comments

Yea. I know. It's been a long time.

I've been kind of struggling to see the point of writing here. I feel totally helpless to affect any change. But then again, maybe I have the wrong idea. Maybe I shouldn't be attempting to change anyone's mind but my own. I've got a lot of spent up frustration, anger and fear right now. I probably need to let it vent off a little more often. So here goes.

So Bush signed into law the Military Commissions Act today. I've been pissed off at where this country is going before.. but I honestly have to say that I'm frightned now. Habeus Corpus is one of the last lines of defense against big bad government. Anyone that says otherwise has been totally brain washed. The president said over and over in early september that this act was of vital, imminent need. The Bush administration has been detaining people without a warrant and without showing cause for a long long time .. what then was the immediate need? And if it was so important why did it stay on his desk for practically two weeks after congress passed the bill? Obviously, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THE PRESIDENT SAYS.. IT MATTERS WHAT THE LAW SAYS. This is something former attorney general John Ashcroft just doesn't seem to get:

Are we seriously just supposed to trust Mr. Bush for not abusing this law? What's even the point of having laws then if we can place such implicit trust in our leaders? Jefferson, Franklin.. hell.. even Hamilton (even he supported laws!) would be rolling in their graves to see such rhetoric be accepted by the masses.

Last weekend I finally got to see AMERICA: From Freedom to Fascism. I really really enjoyed this film. I was amazed at how well it was put together and how credible it actually was. I could see a film like this easily stray into conspiracy theory hell, but this film doesn't. It calmly, but unrelentingly asks three simple questions (but with unbeliveably hard/non existant answers)

1. Where is the law that says we have to pay an unapportioned direct income tax? (Incredibly, as this film shows, no one is so far able to come up with an answer!!) Forget about tax protesters, we don't even need to protest the taxes to show the coruptness of the IRS, we just need to ask them a simple question: "Show me the law!" ... they can't even answer a simple question like that.
2. Where is our nations gold? Why is there no audit of our gold? Where does congress get the authority to delegate it's ability to coin money to a private company and then forget it's responsibility to regulate the value of the money and allow the Fed to produce a Fiat currency?
3. Will you let the government put an RFID tag first in your drivers license and then later on embed the same chip underneath your skin? It could happen sooner than you think. Scary, Scary stuff.

One point that this film ultimately pressed upon me: even though I already believe that this stuff is wrong.. I'm doing nothing to remedy the situtation. I need to re-read and re-think that last phrase in the 1st ammendment : the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances ... Think about that phrase for a minute. Voting for representatives is only going to have a limited effect. Is your liberty safe in the hands of a representative? Or should you (meaning I) be out there defending it personally? Something just rubs me the wrong way with the idea of relying on political representation for the really important rights. If you rely only on representation ... doesn't that really mean you are incompetent to do it yourself? One (again, meaning I) really should be out there protesting and affecting change directly. We need to organize marches on washington. We need to do it now before it's too late and we all get labled as enemy combatants.

The aftermath of Kelo v. New London

July 03, 2006 at 11:22 AM | categories: liberty rants, class work | View Comments

I have been severely neglecting this site recently, but I've just now finished my summer courses. I took an English writing course during June and it was refreshing to actually write something other than code for a change :)

I've been urged to post my final paper here on EnigmaCurry and I believe it will fit right in. The assignment was to write an argumentative essay on a topic of public interest with a viewpoint that many may not have considered. I'm sure most libertarians have heard about Kelo v. New London but it was an eye opener for many of my classmates and especially for my professor.

Here is the original version in PDF format

---

Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Property
The death of liberty in the aftermath of
Kelo v. New London

". . . Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." Most Americans recognize this phrase from the Declaration of Independence. Indeed, it is one of the founding principles of this country to protect these things. But, do people today still understand the importance of protecting these rights? Life and liberty are somewhat easy to understand, but the "pursuit of Happiness" has a bit more history to it. Two years prior to the Declaration of Independence, the First Continental Congress, in response to the Intolerable Acts, issued a Declaration of Colonial Rights. The document asserted that each of the British colonies in America "are entitled to life, liberty, and property, and they have never ceded to any sovereign power whatever, a right to dispose of either without their consent" (Roland; emphasis mine). The founders of this country understood that the right to property is claimed individually, that it is not a gift from government, and that property is the foundation of both life and liberty. John Adams has said "property must be sacred or liberty cannot exist" (qtd. in Wayne) A home is the quintessential property. With homes we raise our families - fostering life. With homes we grow, learn and create - fostering liberty. Our homes and our right to own and make them the way we want, is the most essential thing we have as human beings, and yet, we as Americans are slowly giving away our right to property despite its great importance.

Last summer, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled on one of the most important cases concerning property rights in history: Kelo v. New London. In 1998, the pharmaceutical company Pfizer announced its plan to build a $300 million complex in the New London, Connecticut, Fort Trumble area (Stevens 2). The New London Development Corporation (NLDC) saw this as an opportunity to revitalize the city's economy and quickly drew up plans for new development right along side the new Pfizer plant. The NLDC plans called for a new waterfront hotel, conference center, eighty new residences, research and development office space intended for Pfizer, as well as general office and retail spaces (Stevens 3). The only problem was that the intended area was already developed land, mostly residential area. The majority of the existing land owners saw an economic opportunity and quickly sold their land to the NLDC. However, Suzette Kelo, along with eight other home owners coerced into giving away their land, petitioned the state of Connecticut (and later the US Supreme Court) claiming "that the taking of their properties would violate the 'public use' restriction in the Fifth Amendment" (Stevens 5).

The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution was written specifically to prevent this character of abuse demonstrated by the city of New London. According to the preamble to the Bill of Rights, some states "expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of [the Constitution's] powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added." These states were afraid that the government would abuse its power and take away private property just as British forces had prior to this country's independence. The Fifth Amendment protects, among other things, individuals from the seizure of property unless the property is to be seized for "public use." Public use has been defined in prior Supreme Court cases. One such example is Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon. In this decision, examples of public places of use were hospitals, schools, highways, and railroads (Holmes). These are all very traditional public places. Nowhere in this list does one see office or retail space. How can one argue that office space built directly adjacent to the new Pfizer complex, which would obviously benefit Pfizer, should be considered a public place of use? The signers of the Bill of Rights were concerned with individual property rights. Clearly, they would never have approved of New London's definition of public use: taking away homes and giving the land to a private company. In Forbes magazine, Steven Forbes responded to the situation in New London: "on this issue the Constitution is clear - except to the Supreme Court - governments are supposed to exercise eminent domain only for 'public use,' such as constructing highways or building schools" (Forbes).

With Kelo v. New London, the Supreme Court ultimately developed a new definition for public use that strips the protections of private property from the Constitution. In June of 2005, Justice John Paul Stevens issued the majority opinion in favor of the city of New London. He justified New London's taking of land for "economic development" declaring that "[the court] embraced the broader and more natural interpretation of public use as 'public purpose'" (Stevens 9). If what happened in New London is to be the rubric for what "public purpose" is to entail, the power of the state just grew a hundredfold. Essentially, any local, state, or federal government can now take away any land they want if someone, anyone, could make better use of the land and provide "economic development" for the community. Certainly, no one can justify a powerful company stealing land directly from a low income family. How then, can one justify a government doing the same, vicariously, for the company? Justice Sandra Day O'Connor raised the point in her dissent to the court's decision:

Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded . . . Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory (O'Conner 10; emphasis mine).

If houses were computer software, this would be like your house being "upgraded" to their house version 2.0, only they didn't write the software. . . they stole your source code.

It should be obvious that the consequences of this new interpretation of the law will disproportionately benefit wealthy companies. Justice O'Connor, in the conclusion of her dissent notes that "the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms" (O'Connor 12-13). Exactly one year after the ruling on Kelo v. New London, the Institute for Justice issued a report chronicling the amount of eminent domain cases brought forward since the case. They found over 5,783 cases where eminent domain was used to take away homes, churches, and businesses to benefit new private commercial development. This statistic shows a 155% increase over the previous five year average of 2,056 cases per year (Opening the Floodgates 2). O'Connor's warning foretold of what is now the common practice of city and state governments. Even governments that publicly consider redeveloping allegedly blighted urban areas, areas that are so run down they cause a danger to society, those same governments create "self-fulfilling prophecies because individuals refuse to invest money in properties that could be taken from them by bureaucratic whim" (Opening the Floodgates 10). Such government involvement greatly discourages private redevelopment of blighted property if private owners know the government is simply going to bulldoze the entire area.

Regardless of the denial of property rights in the decision of Kelo v. New London, many refuse to give up the fight. In one example of dissent, a lobby group, called the Natural Rights Organization, took it upon themselves to demonstrate the new power of the Supreme Court decision. In the small town of Weare, NH, there exists the summer home of David Souter, one of the justices who voted in the majority in Kelo v. New London. The Natural Rights Organization, because of the new authority granted by the decision in Kelo v. New London, petitioned the Weare city council to seize Justice Souter's home to build a new hotel, the "Lost Liberty Inn." The hotel is to be a museum chronicling the history of lost liberties in America. The organization drew up blueprints for the hotel and argued how the hotel would bring new tourism and "economic development" to the small developing town (Lost). Even though no action has yet been taken by the city, the news of this maneuver spread quickly in the blogosphere. As of June 22, 2006, blog aggregator Technorati.com shows 1,501 posts containing the phrase "Lost Liberty Hotel."

Another organization, the Castle Coalition, has become a direct opposing force to abusive local governments. Shortly after the Supreme Court decision, the Castle Coalition published the Eminent Domain Abuse Survival Guide. This guide gives effective strategies that enable individuals to defend their own homes and to help spread information on property rights activism. Within the guide, there are resources for finding the relevant laws concerning eminent domain, advice for how to approach city counsels, how to find a good lawyer, and how to raise public awareness through the use of media. The Castle Coalition lists on their website over thirty different cases where the guide has helped property owners win against various city and state governments wanting to take away their property for private redevelopment ("Success Stories").

Kelo v. New London has created more public discussion than most Supreme Court cases. Due to the public's outrage, Congress has even introduced a bill to eliminate federal funding for economic development purposes for any state that also takes property from its citizens for economic gain. The bill, HR 4128, passed with a 91% majority in the House in November of 2005, but has since been delayed in the Senate (Boulard 30). Several states have enacted new laws to prevent eminent domain abuse, although the wording is different in each state and some protect private property better than others. Alabama, for instance, has completely outlawed the taking of private property for "purposes of private retail, office, commercial, industrial, or residential development; or primarily for enhancement of tax revenue" but Utah has only required that if such taking is being considered that the individuals who own the property must be informed of all meetings where the taking is being discussed ("Passed Legislation"). State legislators have been greatly influenced by the efforts of individual citizens writing letters to their representatives and setting up rallies and other events. It is not too late to contact our city and state governments expressing our desire for the protection of private property. The Supreme Court noted in its final decision: "[we] emphasize that nothing in our opinion precludes any State from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power" (Stevens 19). The States, representing the People, are still the ultimate policy makers. Luckily, many state legislatures realize they have retained this power and are seeking to limit their taking power. Our voice will help assure that end.

The power demonstrated by the Supreme Court in this decision clearly goes beyond its authority. The Supreme Court has, as Justice O'Connor put it, "effectively [deleted] the words 'for public use' from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment." The role of the Supreme Court is not to rewrite the Constitution; it is to interpret the Constitution. The framers embedded a method of amending the Constitution directly in its text. This process in no way involves the Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court has already ruled, and their decision will have lasting effects regardless of if they have legitimate authority or not. The Supreme Court has proven it is unwilling to protect property rights. Now, more than ever, is the time for the states and the individual to defend property rights. Thomas Jefferson wrote: "[The] rights [of the people] to the exercise and fruits of their own industry can never be protected against the selfishness of rulers not subject to their control at short periods" (Coates). Throughout the history of our country, we have fought to defend against the forces of property confiscation. We cannot allow America's guard to drop now. To do so trivializes the efforts of every American who has ever fought for the cause of liberty. The right to own property is essential for fostering and protecting liberty in this country and throughout the world.

The problems America is facing concerning property rights are not new; they have plagued society throughout history. For example, in 1733, England's House of Commons was considering the Walpole's Excise Bill, which some historians believed "raised up a small army of officials with powers of inspection over shops and warehouses, and even private dwellings" (Gabb). This prompted Sir William Pitt to pronounce one of history's most eloquent dissents on government interference concerning individual property:

The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the force of the Crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storms may enter, the rain may enter, -but the King of England cannot enter; all his forces dare not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement! (Bartlett)

This caliber of resistance forced the House of Commons to throw out the bill. The United States faced a very similar situation with Kelo v. New London. However, the William Pitt of our time has yet to emerge.

Public outcry has driven US legislatures to consider new laws, but there is still more to be done. The kind of passion shown by William Pitt, although prevalent in the early years of this country, has somehow been lost. Every American needs to find the desire for individual sovereignty that has been defended throughout this country's history, otherwise, the deaths of our countrymen will have been for nothing. The destiny of property rights in America is ultimately not up to any court or legislative body. Protecting property is dependent upon the action of the proper ruler of this country: the People.

---

Works Cited

• Bartlett, John. "William Pitt, Earl of Chatham." Bartleby.Com. 2005. 2 July 2006 .
• Boulard, Garry. "Eminent Domain--For the Greater Good?." State Legislatures 32.1 (2006): 29-31. Academic Search Premier. Southern Utah Univ. Lib., Cedar City, UT. 21 June 2006. http://search.epnet.com.proxy.li.suu.edu:2048
• Coates, Eyler R. "Thomas Jefferson on Politics & Government." University of Virginia. 2001. 29 June 2006 http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1550.htm.
• Eminent Domain Abuse Survival Guide. Arlington, VA: Castle Coalition, 2006. 30 June 2006
• Forbes, Steve. "Jettisoning Justices' Injustice." Forbes 176.12 (2005): 33-34. Academic Search Premier. 21 June 2006 http://search.epnet.com.proxy.li.suu.edu:2048
• Gabb, Sean. How English Liberalism Was Created by Accident and Custom, and Then Destroyed by Liberals : Historical Notes 31. London: Libertarian Alliance, 1998
• Holmes, Oliver W. "PENNSYLVANIA COAL CO. v. MAHON (260 U.S. 393)." FindLaw.com 11 December 1922. 28 June 2006. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=260&page=393
• "LOST LIBERTY INN." Natural Rights Organization. 29 June 2006 http://www.natural-rights.org/lostlibertyinn.htm
• O'Connor, Sandra D. "KELO V. NEW LONDON (04-108)." Cornell Law School. 23 June 2005. United States Supreme Court. 20 June 2006 http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/04-108P.ZD
• Opening the Floodgates. Arlington, VA: Castle Coalition, 2006. 30 June 2006 http://www.castlecoalition.org/pdf/publications/floodgates-report-low.pdf
• "Private Property Rights Protection Act." Congressional Digest. 2006; 85(1):12-12. Academic Search Premier. Southern Utah Univ. Lib., Cedar City, UT. 21 June 2006. http://search.epnet.com.proxy.li.suu.edu:2048
• "Passed Legislation." Castle Coalition. 29 June 2006 http://www.castlecoalition.org/legislation/passed/index.html
• Roland, Jon, comp. "DECLARATION OF COLONIAL RIGHTS." The Constitution Society. 30 June 2006 http://www.constitution.org/bcp/colright.htm
• Stevens, John P. "KELO V. NEW LONDON (04-108)." Cornell Law School. 23 June 2005. United States Supreme Court. 20 June 2006 http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/04-108P.ZO
• "Success Stories." Castle Coalition. 29 June 2006 http://www.castlecoalition.org/success/index.html
• "To Protect Private Property Rights." Library of Congress. 29 June 2006 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HR04128:@@@R
• United States. Commission of the Bicentennial of the United States Constitution. The Constitution of the United States. Washington DC, 1986.
• Wayne, Hage. "The Pursuit of Happiness." Cornerstone 3 (1996). 30 June 2006 http://www.stewards.us/cornerstone/aug1996/csaug96-5.asp