Today John McCain made his bid for the Presidency official by formally announcing that he will seek the office in the next national election. Why would anyone who believes in a Constitutional Republic support him?
It would be nice if Republican voters would realize at last that Republicans (in general) are simply a different side of the same Statist coin. The Republican Party recently has given us more Big Government and Big Spending by (among other things) creating the largest Executive Branch Department in our country's history (Homeland Security), and by generating monstrous budget deficits.
Once McCain lost the bitterly fought Presidential primary (in 2000) to King George, he became just another Party sycophant. His opposition to Bush melted away and he tagged along with the King like a whipped dog. It truly was sickening.
McCain is among the majority who believe that the Executive can put the country at war without a Congressional Declaration of War, merely a Congressional "resolution". That's not what the Constitution says. Those who believe that we should be able to go to war without a Declaration of War need to lobby for a Constitutional Amendment. But the Statists in both major parties won't do that---because they know that the Amendment would never pass. So instead, they simply bypass the Constitution. This has been going on ever since the Korean War, which by the way, was officially known as the Korean "Conflict"...just a sleazy way to make it appear to be Constitutional. The same was true of the Vietnam "Conflict".
I still remember McCain responding to a question about the Declaration of War issue from Jesse Jackson, Jr.---in a town hall type campaign meeting---by saying (paraphrased) something like, "That's not true [that we need a formal Declaration of War], it has been done several times in the past without a Declaration.". Unfortunately, Congressman Jackson did not follow up with something such as, "That doesn't make it Constitutional.".
The Republi-Crats (Republicans and Democrats) have abrogated the Constitution via Legislative Absolutism. In general, they are nothing more than professional, Establishment Statists who think that Big Government is a necessity; the only thing they really are interested in is getting re-elected.
What if they gave an election...and no one showed up?
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
National "Truck Out Rally": April 23-25
This national civil disobedience event is in protest of the Trans-Texas Corridor (which will run from Mexico to Canada) and the proposed North American Union. The rally will be April 23, 24, and 25, 2007, and will occur in DC, every State capitol, and on as many freeways around the nation as there are participants who will make it possible. Details are found at: http://www.saveamericafund.org/ .
The idea is for truckers (and others) to line up abreast and roll slowly, while displaying banners and placards with messages such as "Stop the N.A.U.", "Protect America's Sovereignty", etc. The event is being endorsed and promoted by Aaron Russo's "America: Freedom to Fascism" (AFTF) organization, which has issued its first "digital video alert" or call to action. See the message on Google at: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4702879741158038990 .
The hope is that a truckers' slow roll will tie up traffic, garner mainstream media attention, and let Americans know about the Trans-Texas Corridor (which will be eighteen lanes wide, consisting of roadways and pipeline routes) and the North American Union plans. The Fed Govt., of course, denies that there are any plans for the N.A.U.
It will be interesting to see how the protest plays out, and whether or not it is significant enough to gain the attention of the homogenized, mainstream, corporate media. Unfortunately, without the homogenized media's coverage, most Americans will never know anything about the N.A.U. and its danger to American sovereignty. The N.A.U. is something on which we or our representatives will never get to vote. Not that voting matters when it comes to Globalization...keep in mind that even though the European Union was voted down in most affected countries, it was implemented anyway.
The idea is for truckers (and others) to line up abreast and roll slowly, while displaying banners and placards with messages such as "Stop the N.A.U.", "Protect America's Sovereignty", etc. The event is being endorsed and promoted by Aaron Russo's "America: Freedom to Fascism" (AFTF) organization, which has issued its first "digital video alert" or call to action. See the message on Google at: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4702879741158038990 .
The hope is that a truckers' slow roll will tie up traffic, garner mainstream media attention, and let Americans know about the Trans-Texas Corridor (which will be eighteen lanes wide, consisting of roadways and pipeline routes) and the North American Union plans. The Fed Govt., of course, denies that there are any plans for the N.A.U.
It will be interesting to see how the protest plays out, and whether or not it is significant enough to gain the attention of the homogenized, mainstream, corporate media. Unfortunately, without the homogenized media's coverage, most Americans will never know anything about the N.A.U. and its danger to American sovereignty. The N.A.U. is something on which we or our representatives will never get to vote. Not that voting matters when it comes to Globalization...keep in mind that even though the European Union was voted down in most affected countries, it was implemented anyway.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Congress...On the Income Tax
Pay particular attention to # (8).
In 2002, HR 2525 entitled The Fair Tax Act, began with these words, "Congress finds [emphasis added] that the Federal income tax: (1) retards economic growth and has reduced the standard of living of the American public; (2) impedes the international competitiveness of United States industry; (3) reduces savings and investment in the United States by taxing income multiple times [emphasis added]; (4) slows the capital formation necessary for real wages to steadily increase; (5) lowers productivity; (6) imposes unacceptable and unnecessary administrative and compliance costs on individual and business taxpayers; (7) is unfair and inequitable; (8) unnecessarily intrudes upon the privacy and civil rights of United States citizens [emphasis added]; (9) hides the true cost of government by embedding taxes in the costs of everything Americans buy; (10) is not being complied with at satisfactory levels and therefore raises the tax burden on law abiding citizens; and (11) impedes upward social mobility."
Above are the findings of CONGRESS. Ask yourself, are they not in basic agreement with the Tax Honesty Movement? The fact is, not even our Government believes in the Individual Income Tax anymore. The charade must end.
In 2002, HR 2525 entitled The Fair Tax Act, began with these words, "Congress finds [emphasis added] that the Federal income tax: (1) retards economic growth and has reduced the standard of living of the American public; (2) impedes the international competitiveness of United States industry; (3) reduces savings and investment in the United States by taxing income multiple times [emphasis added]; (4) slows the capital formation necessary for real wages to steadily increase; (5) lowers productivity; (6) imposes unacceptable and unnecessary administrative and compliance costs on individual and business taxpayers; (7) is unfair and inequitable; (8) unnecessarily intrudes upon the privacy and civil rights of United States citizens [emphasis added]; (9) hides the true cost of government by embedding taxes in the costs of everything Americans buy; (10) is not being complied with at satisfactory levels and therefore raises the tax burden on law abiding citizens; and (11) impedes upward social mobility."
Above are the findings of CONGRESS. Ask yourself, are they not in basic agreement with the Tax Honesty Movement? The fact is, not even our Government believes in the Individual Income Tax anymore. The charade must end.
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
More on Legislative Absolutism
In a landmark Supreme Court case involving legislation beyond what is Constitutionally authorized, Justice Harlan issued a powerful dissent. Below is a portion of it, taken from Downes v. Bidwell, 182 US 244 (1901).
"The idea prevails with some, indeed it has found expression in arguments at the bar, that we have in this country substantially two national governments; one to be maintained under the Constitution, with all of its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside and independent of that instrument, by exercising such power as other nations of the earth are accustomed to…I take leave to say that, if the principles thus announced should ever receive the sanction of a majority of this court, a radical and mischievous change in our system of government will result. We will, in that event, pass from the era of constitutional liberty, guarded and protected by a written constitution into an era of legislative absolutism…IT WILL BE AN EVIL DAY FOR AMERICAN LIBERTY IF THE THEORY OF A GOVERNMENT OUTSIDE THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND FINDS LODGEMENT IN OUR CONSTITUTIONAL JURISPRUDENCE. No higher duty rests upon this court than to exert its full authority to prevent all violations of the principles of the Constitution." [emphasis in original]
For the last 100 years it has been "an evil day for American liberty", just as Justice Harlan predicted. Legislative Absolutism intrudes into almost all aspects of our lives, via national laws involving powers not delegated to the central Government by the Constitution. For some odd reason, most Americans actually believe that Congress can pass any law it so desires; and that it is up to the Supreme Court to strike down laws that are unconstitutional. The second half of that last sentence is true, but the first half is not. Congress is limited by the Constitution.
Congress has no Constitutional authority to authorize funding for---just a few examples---items such as: education (billions of dollars); an indoor rainforest project in Iowa ($50 million); the International Fund for Ireland ($18.5 million); HUD (over $500 billion); or, the Food Stamp Program (billions of dollars). If the central government stayed within its Constitutional limits, then there would be no national debt imposing the hidden tax of inflation, and all government operations could be paid for with corporate taxes, excise taxes, duties, and imposts.
[NOTE: It is important for each individual to realize that consumers are the ones who pay Corporate taxes (in addition to the misapplied Individual Income Tax). The amount of the tax is proportionately built into the price of each product. How many times do you want to pay income taxes?!]
"The idea prevails with some, indeed it has found expression in arguments at the bar, that we have in this country substantially two national governments; one to be maintained under the Constitution, with all of its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside and independent of that instrument, by exercising such power as other nations of the earth are accustomed to…I take leave to say that, if the principles thus announced should ever receive the sanction of a majority of this court, a radical and mischievous change in our system of government will result. We will, in that event, pass from the era of constitutional liberty, guarded and protected by a written constitution into an era of legislative absolutism…IT WILL BE AN EVIL DAY FOR AMERICAN LIBERTY IF THE THEORY OF A GOVERNMENT OUTSIDE THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND FINDS LODGEMENT IN OUR CONSTITUTIONAL JURISPRUDENCE. No higher duty rests upon this court than to exert its full authority to prevent all violations of the principles of the Constitution." [emphasis in original]
For the last 100 years it has been "an evil day for American liberty", just as Justice Harlan predicted. Legislative Absolutism intrudes into almost all aspects of our lives, via national laws involving powers not delegated to the central Government by the Constitution. For some odd reason, most Americans actually believe that Congress can pass any law it so desires; and that it is up to the Supreme Court to strike down laws that are unconstitutional. The second half of that last sentence is true, but the first half is not. Congress is limited by the Constitution.
Congress has no Constitutional authority to authorize funding for---just a few examples---items such as: education (billions of dollars); an indoor rainforest project in Iowa ($50 million); the International Fund for Ireland ($18.5 million); HUD (over $500 billion); or, the Food Stamp Program (billions of dollars). If the central government stayed within its Constitutional limits, then there would be no national debt imposing the hidden tax of inflation, and all government operations could be paid for with corporate taxes, excise taxes, duties, and imposts.
[NOTE: It is important for each individual to realize that consumers are the ones who pay Corporate taxes (in addition to the misapplied Individual Income Tax). The amount of the tax is proportionately built into the price of each product. How many times do you want to pay income taxes?!]
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Modern Day Book Burning & Gestapo Tactics
Larken Rose is the young fellow who researched and made the video "Theft by Deception", which is available on the internet (I've referred everyone to it before). According to him, some time ago he, his wife, and their young daughter were subjected to an IRS "raid" on their home---armed men burst in yelling and pointing weapons, proceeded to rummage through all their belongings, and seized about 200-300 copies of his video. The same thing happened to his producer (and family). It should be added that Rose has not paid the Individual Income Tax for about ten years, and has dared the IRS to "show me [him] the law" and charge him with any "crime".
He was not charged with any crime, either before or after the raid. He was not even arrested. When he asked for the return of his video discs, he was told by the IRS that they will never be returned. [This, in the United States of America! Every sovereign individual should be outraged.]
This whole event is described toward the end of the piece below. [If you have dial-up, don't bother unless you can do chores while each section is loading!]
http://www.3rdear.com/861info/
Also presented in the video directly above was this bit---
In 2002, the Govt took in $767 billion dollars in taxes other than individual income taxes (in other words, the revenues were from corp taxes, excise taxes, SS taxes, Medicare taxes, duties, etc.). That same year, total Federal spending (not counting supplemental, or "off-budget", appropriations---such as the Iraq War) was $746 billion. [During the Reagan era, the Grace Commission issued a study showing that 100% of Individual Income Tax receipts went to paying the interest on the national debt. None of it went for "government services".]
He was not charged with any crime, either before or after the raid. He was not even arrested. When he asked for the return of his video discs, he was told by the IRS that they will never be returned. [This, in the United States of America! Every sovereign individual should be outraged.]
This whole event is described toward the end of the piece below. [If you have dial-up, don't bother unless you can do chores while each section is loading!]
http://www.3rdear.com/861info/
Also presented in the video directly above was this bit---
In 2002, the Govt took in $767 billion dollars in taxes other than individual income taxes (in other words, the revenues were from corp taxes, excise taxes, SS taxes, Medicare taxes, duties, etc.). That same year, total Federal spending (not counting supplemental, or "off-budget", appropriations---such as the Iraq War) was $746 billion. [During the Reagan era, the Grace Commission issued a study showing that 100% of Individual Income Tax receipts went to paying the interest on the national debt. None of it went for "government services".]
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
The Individual Income Tax and the IRS
Some people may not be aware of this---
Many years ago, Melvin Belli (the famous attorney) attempted to locate the law requiring most Americans to pay an unapportioned direct tax on their compensation; he did so because a man by the name of Conklin offered $50,000 cash to anyone who could show him the law. Belli came up empty.
Ex-IRS agents Sherry Jackson and Joe Banister more recently attempted to locate the law, because the We the People Foundation also offered $50K to anyone who could locate such a law. Both Jackson and Banister came up empty.
As a side note, eight Supreme Court rulings (none of which have been reversed) between 1918 and 1923 concluded that the word "incomes" in the Sixteenth Amendment meant "gain from corporate activity" and that the Amendment "conferred no new taxing powers" upon the Fed Govt. [Example: Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Company, 1918.]
Disbelievers ask, "Why, then, has the Individual Income Tax not been thrown out?" The answer is simple: other than Congressional action, the only way to do that is to file a court case. Judges will not allow it to proceed----"frivolous", they maintain.
OR THIS---
In 2002, HR 2525, entitled, The Fair Tax Act, began with these words, "Congress finds [emphasis added] that the Federal income tax: (1) retards economic growth and has reduced the standard of living of the American public; (2) impedes the international competitiveness of United States industry; (3) reduces savings and investment in the United States by taxing income multiple times; (4) slows the capital formation necessary for real wages to steadily increase; (5) lowers productivity; (6) imposes unacceptable and unnecessary administrative and compliance costs on individual and business taxpayers; (7) is unfair and inequitable; (8) unnecessarily intrudes upon the privacy and civil rights of United States citizens; [emphasis added] (9) hides the true cost of government by embedding taxes in the costs of everything Americans buy; (10) is not being complied with at sati sfactory levels and therefore raises the tax burden on law abiding citizens; and (11) impedes upward social mobility."
Regarding point # (8) above, the Fourth Amendment guarantees that we shall be secure in our persons, houses, papers and effects unless a proper, lawful warrant is issued to seize something specific. In the 1950s, the outgoing IRS Commissioner, T. Coleman Andrews, made a speech in which he said that enforcement of the Individual Income Tax violates the Fourth Amendment---because the amount of your income is no one's business but yours. In addition, every time you sign a Form 1040, "under penalty of perjury", you are waiving your Fifth Amendment right to protection from self-incrimination. No sovereign individual should be forced to waive his/her Rights.
Highly recommended:
http://edbrown.org/wordpress/?cat=4 --- the first video is the one at the next link (below).
http://www.theft-by-deception.com/ --- available for purchase (may be viewed for free above at edbrown.org...).
http://www.3rdear.com/861info/
http://www.originalintent.org/edu/ --- left side of page, under "Video Archive"--- Income Tax, a series of short (two minutes or so) videos on the Individual Income Tax.
Many years ago, Melvin Belli (the famous attorney) attempted to locate the law requiring most Americans to pay an unapportioned direct tax on their compensation; he did so because a man by the name of Conklin offered $50,000 cash to anyone who could show him the law. Belli came up empty.
Ex-IRS agents Sherry Jackson and Joe Banister more recently attempted to locate the law, because the We the People Foundation also offered $50K to anyone who could locate such a law. Both Jackson and Banister came up empty.
As a side note, eight Supreme Court rulings (none of which have been reversed) between 1918 and 1923 concluded that the word "incomes" in the Sixteenth Amendment meant "gain from corporate activity" and that the Amendment "conferred no new taxing powers" upon the Fed Govt. [Example: Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Company, 1918.]
Disbelievers ask, "Why, then, has the Individual Income Tax not been thrown out?" The answer is simple: other than Congressional action, the only way to do that is to file a court case. Judges will not allow it to proceed----"frivolous", they maintain.
OR THIS---
In 2002, HR 2525, entitled, The Fair Tax Act, began with these words, "Congress finds [emphasis added] that the Federal income tax: (1) retards economic growth and has reduced the standard of living of the American public; (2) impedes the international competitiveness of United States industry; (3) reduces savings and investment in the United States by taxing income multiple times; (4) slows the capital formation necessary for real wages to steadily increase; (5) lowers productivity; (6) imposes unacceptable and unnecessary administrative and compliance costs on individual and business taxpayers; (7) is unfair and inequitable; (8) unnecessarily intrudes upon the privacy and civil rights of United States citizens; [emphasis added] (9) hides the true cost of government by embedding taxes in the costs of everything Americans buy; (10) is not being complied with at sati sfactory levels and therefore raises the tax burden on law abiding citizens; and (11) impedes upward social mobility."
Regarding point # (8) above, the Fourth Amendment guarantees that we shall be secure in our persons, houses, papers and effects unless a proper, lawful warrant is issued to seize something specific. In the 1950s, the outgoing IRS Commissioner, T. Coleman Andrews, made a speech in which he said that enforcement of the Individual Income Tax violates the Fourth Amendment---because the amount of your income is no one's business but yours. In addition, every time you sign a Form 1040, "under penalty of perjury", you are waiving your Fifth Amendment right to protection from self-incrimination. No sovereign individual should be forced to waive his/her Rights.
Highly recommended:
http://edbrown.org/wordpress/?cat=4 --- the first video is the one at the next link (below).
http://www.theft-by-deception.com/ --- available for purchase (may be viewed for free above at edbrown.org...).
http://www.3rdear.com/861info/
http://www.originalintent.org/edu/ --- left side of page, under "Video Archive"--- Income Tax, a series of short (two minutes or so) videos on the Individual Income Tax.
Monday, March 12, 2007
What is the Purpose of the U.S. Constitution, and is it a "Living Document"?
The Constitution serves two basic purposes: first, to limit the Federal Government; second, to enumerate our basic Rights as individuals. Limitation is accomplished by delegating certain powers to the various branches of our Government. This next concept often is not grasped by many people: if a certain power is not delegated to any branch of our Government, then no branch (or anyone in the Government) has that power. Example: the Government has been delegated the power to use the military for only two purposes---to repel invasions and/or to quell insurrections (in this country) . [NOTE: there is a third purpose, but it's very similar to "quell insurrections".] Nowhere in the Constitution is the Government delegated to use the military as a world police force. Those who believe that it should be used in such a manner need to lobby for a Constitutional Amendment. That amending process (or the holding of a Constitutional Convention) is the way our Constitution is legally changed. No other way is permitted.
Supporters of the dangerous theory that our Constitution is a "Living Document" believe that we need to re-interpret the Constitution from time to time...adapt it to our modern way of life... without using the Amendment process. Justice Antonin Scalia says that is dead wrong. I most certainly agree. To quote him, "The Constitution does not change in its meaning..."; unfortunately, his view appears to be in the minority in the halls of our Government today.
Over many years, one of the results of re-interpreting the Constitution has been the exponential expansion of the power of all three branches of our central Government. That has been accomplished, in large part, without any corresponding Amendments delegating new powers. An example is the area of education. Nowhere in the Constitution is power delegated to the central Government regarding education. A more recent example is the area of citizen identification via the REAL ID Act, which takes effect in May of 2008. Again, nowhere in the Constitution is the central Government delegated the power to have anything to do with ID. That's why we've never had a national driver's license, and why the Government stresses that your SS card is not to be used for ID. In both those examples, an Amendment is required for the Federal Government to have any power whatsoever. Those Amendments, to my knowledge, do not exist.
According to Justice Scalia, the "Living Document" concept took hold about fifty years ago. Other results of this concept have been numerous challenges to the Bill of Rights, especially the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments. The concept is dangerous because, as Scalia says, "...with such an approach, the Constitution can say anything you want it to. But this nation was not built on the principle that Judges, attempting to gauge the will of society, would interpret the Constitution differently as time goes by...". More from Scalia: "A Bill of Rights that means what the majority wants it to mean is worthless."...quotes from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, March 14, 2001.
The Rights of individuals never change (the Constitution does NOT grant us Rights, they are our birthright**) and the limitations on the Federal Government do not change without a Constitutional Amendment or Constitutional Convention. That's the way it should be, but that's not the way it is today.
**Someone needs to tell this to Attorney General Gonzales, who recently suggested that the Constitution does not GRANT us the Right of habeas corpus (the right to know in court of what we are being accused); therefore, according to him, the Government does not necessarily have to observe it.
Supporters of the dangerous theory that our Constitution is a "Living Document" believe that we need to re-interpret the Constitution from time to time...adapt it to our modern way of life... without using the Amendment process. Justice Antonin Scalia says that is dead wrong. I most certainly agree. To quote him, "The Constitution does not change in its meaning..."; unfortunately, his view appears to be in the minority in the halls of our Government today.
Over many years, one of the results of re-interpreting the Constitution has been the exponential expansion of the power of all three branches of our central Government. That has been accomplished, in large part, without any corresponding Amendments delegating new powers. An example is the area of education. Nowhere in the Constitution is power delegated to the central Government regarding education. A more recent example is the area of citizen identification via the REAL ID Act, which takes effect in May of 2008. Again, nowhere in the Constitution is the central Government delegated the power to have anything to do with ID. That's why we've never had a national driver's license, and why the Government stresses that your SS card is not to be used for ID. In both those examples, an Amendment is required for the Federal Government to have any power whatsoever. Those Amendments, to my knowledge, do not exist.
According to Justice Scalia, the "Living Document" concept took hold about fifty years ago. Other results of this concept have been numerous challenges to the Bill of Rights, especially the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments. The concept is dangerous because, as Scalia says, "...with such an approach, the Constitution can say anything you want it to. But this nation was not built on the principle that Judges, attempting to gauge the will of society, would interpret the Constitution differently as time goes by...". More from Scalia: "A Bill of Rights that means what the majority wants it to mean is worthless."...quotes from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, March 14, 2001.
The Rights of individuals never change (the Constitution does NOT grant us Rights, they are our birthright**) and the limitations on the Federal Government do not change without a Constitutional Amendment or Constitutional Convention. That's the way it should be, but that's not the way it is today.
**Someone needs to tell this to Attorney General Gonzales, who recently suggested that the Constitution does not GRANT us the Right of habeas corpus (the right to know in court of what we are being accused); therefore, according to him, the Government does not necessarily have to observe it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)