United States of America, RIP

I just received this e-mail. Professor Tyler was prescient, but he omits one point. In American democracy the ideology of freedom and the ideology of hard money had to be replaced before the ideology of Progressivism or socialism could replace them. This was done by ideologues posing as experts in fields like economics and sociology.  Also, American socialism does not even benefit the voting mob. It benefits a thin layer of super-rich, who have used Progressive and socialist ideologies to explain their money grab. The e-mail reads:

 

In 1887 Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinborough, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years prior:

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse over loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship."

"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage."
The Obituary follows:

Born 1776, Died 2012 
It doesn't hurt to read this several times.
           
Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law in  St. Paul , Minnesota , points out some interesting facts concerning the last Presidential election:

Number of States won by:          Obama: 19          McCain: 29
Square miles of land won by:      Obama: 580,000    McCain: 2,427,000
Population of counties won by:    Obama: 127 million  McCain: 143 million
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:  Obama: 13.2  McCain: 2.1 

Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory McCain won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country.

Obama territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in low income tenements and living off various forms of government welfare..."

Olson believes the  United States  is now somewhere between the "complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.

If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegal's - and they vote - then we can say goodbye to the USA  in fewer than five years.

If you are in favor of this, then by all means, delete this message.

If you are not, then pass this along to help everyone realize just how much is at stake, knowing that apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom.

This is truly scary! Of course we are not a democracy, we are a Constitutional Republic. Someone should point this out to Obama. Of course we know he and too many others pay little attention to The Constitution. There couldn't be more at stake than on November 2012.

If you are as concerned as I am, please pass this along.

Legacy Media's Standards Sink Lower: Case of Ezra Klein

 Contrairimairi sent me this video.  Ezra Klein, a guy who works as a reporter for the Washington Post, apparently thought that the Constitution was written over a hundred years ago when it was written over 200 years ago.  The thing that gets me isn't that Ezra Klein is ignorant or that the Washington Post hires ignorant reporters, but rather that anyone bothers to watch a television program on which ignoramuses like Klein appear.

Klein not only lacks basic historical knowledge.  His claim that the Constitution is not binding might come as a surprise to his friends at the American Civil Liberties Union, and, for that matter, Barack Obama, who derives the authority for his criminal administration from that tattered document.  If Mr. Klein and his Progressive comrades think that the central state is going to continue to be taken seriously, perhaps they might consider looking to the Constitution for the few shreds of remaining legitimacy that the sorry-ass government thugs in Washington can claim.

Origins of the Three Branches of Government in the US Constitution

A friend asked me to review the antecedents of the three branches of government in the US constitution.  This was not a new idea at the time of the founding.  In general, the best book to read to understand what the founders were thinking is the Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay.  It is evident in reviewing the Federalist Papers that the founders were students of the Enlightenment and in particular the ideas of Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu, who in 1748 finished one of the greatest works of political science, Spirit of Laws.  But Montesquieu was not the only important political scientist who informed the founders.  Aristotle, who wrote in the fourth century BC and whom the Englightenment famously rejected was still read.  It is important to understand that the education of that period and through the 19th century was religious in nature and emphasized the classics in the original Greek and Latin.  In political science and ethics students read Aristotle as part of the curriculum.  The founders were mostly knowledgable in Latin and Greek, and were certainly familiar with Aristotle's Politics.

Aristotle was one of the most important advocates of freedom in the history of ideas.  Unlike some of his Athenian contemporaries, he was not an abolitionist.  However, he responds thoroughly to the communist ideas of his professor, Plato.  He makes clear that it is fundamental to a state to have plurality and openness of exchange, and that excessive unity is deleterious.  He begins Book IV, Chapter 13 of his Politics as follows:

"Having thus gained an appropriate basis of discussion we will proceed to speak of the points which follow next in order...All constitutions have three elements, concerning which the good lawgiver has to regard what is expedient for each constitution.  When they are well-ordered, the constitution is well-ordered, and as they differ from one another, constitutions differ. There is (1) one element which deliberates about public affairs; secondly (2) that concerned with the magistracies--the questions being, what they should be over what they should exercise authority, and what should be the mode of electing to them; and thirdy (3) that which has judicial power."

Aristotle there refers to the three branches of government that correspond to the US Constitution, the deliberative or legislative; the magistracy or executive; and the judicial.  Aristotle was not unkind to democracy, but he saw it as flawed unless it contained elements of aristocracy, by which he meant selection of the most virtuous to rule. This could be done using republican methods. 

Montesquieu relies on Aristotle's framework in writing his monumental Spirit of Laws. The scope and scholarship of Montesquieu's book is still awe inspiring today. In Book XI Section 6 Montesquieu discusses the Constitution of England. England at that time was the freest country, and he admired it greatly.  He writes:

"In every government there are three sorts of power: the legislative; the executive in respect to things dependent on the law of nations; and the executive in regard to matters that depend on the civil law.  By virtue of the first, the prince or magistrate enacts temporary or perpetual laws, and amends or abrogates those that have been already enacted.  By the second, he makes peace or war, sends or receives embassies, establishes the public security, and provides against invasions.  By the third, he punishes criminals or determines the disputes that arise between individuals..."

In the Federalist Papers, which Hamilton and Madison published in several newspapers to drum up public support for the Consitution, Montesquieu is referred to numerous times. In general, the founding fathers were students of the Enlightenment and applied their understanding of Montesquieu, Locke, Hobbes, Smith and other Enlightenment thinkers to their conceptualization of the Constitution. 

The United States had been founded by religious sects fleeing persecution in Europe.  At least several of the original 13 colonies were founded by religious groups.  New York was not (it was founded by a commercial enterprise, the Dutch West India Company), nor was Virginia.  The founders differed considerably as to their religious orientations.  All were trained religiously, for education in those days was a religious enterprise.  However, not all were religious. George Washington was an observant church goer.  Benjamin Franklin was an atheist. Jefferson and Adams were Deists, which is not quite being a full Christian.  Jefferson re-wrote the Bible, taking out all of the miracles.  The Jefferson Bible is available to read.  Jefferson was an enlightenment rationlist. Deism is something like Unitarianism. On his grave Jefferson had three achievements listed:  (1) author of the Declaration of Indepdence; (2) author of the Virginia Statute of Religious freedom and (3) founder of the University of Virginia.  He did not list President or Governor of Virginia.  The Virginia Statute on Religious freedom concludes:

"Be it enacted by General Assembly that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of Religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities. And though we well know that this Assembly elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of Legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding Assemblies constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare that the rights hereby asserted, are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right."

Obamacare Unconstitutional, the United States Now a Tyranny

A reader makes the claim that Congress has the power to tax, and since the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act (Obamacare) is a form of taxation, that it is constitutional. This is mistaken. Obamacare is unconstitutional, as is much of the legislation that the federal government has passed since the New Deal of the 1930s. The Supreme Court has arrogated power to the federal government since then without concern for the Constitution. The separation of powers on which the Constitution is based broke down decades ago, as the Supreme Court is little more than a publicity wing for federal tyrants. The reason is that Franklin D. Roosevelt had threatened the Court that he would increase the number of justices and plant in the Court a large number of socialists who have no regard for freedom and the American way of life unless it declared several bills, including the National Labor Relations Act, constitutional. Before the threat the Supreme Court refused to do so. After Roosevelt's threat, they changed their vote.

Preferring power over legal concerns and decency, the Supreme Court since the 1930s has been willing to justify virtually any and every expansion of federal power, even those that obviously violate the Constitution. Internment of Japanese in concentration camps? No problem. Laws that cripple the American economy? No problem. Laws that allow government to steal citizens' land and give it to private developers? No problem. There has been scarcely an ugly, murderous expansion of government that the Supreme Court has not been willing to declare "constitutional".

The Supreme Court is not really a court in most peoples' understanding of the word. Rather, it is a propaganda agency along the lines of the Soviet state newspaper Izvestia whose aim was to justify tyranny.

Analysis

It is perfectly constitutional for the federal government to levy taxes on the states. This is permitted by Article I Section 8 of the Constitution, which states:

"The Congress shall have power To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

Article I Section 9 clarifies the last sentence, restricting the power to tax quite specifically:

"No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

The capitation tax that Obamacare charges is not proportioned. The sixteenth amendment was passed to allow income taxation that is not proportioned. However, the Obamacare tax is not an income tax. It is an unproportioned direct tax. Therefore, it is unconstitutional.

The sixteenth amendment, which eliminates the apportionment requirement with respect to income, does not apply to a health care capitation tax:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

Nor can other provisions of the Constitution be used to justify Obamacare.

The necessary and proper clause states:

"The Congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

Hamilton used the necessary and proper clause to justify the establishment of a national or central bank (the Fed). However, health reform is not relevant to the powers granted to the federal government by the Constitution. Fixing broken arms and knee surgery are not among the duties granted to Congress. Hence, the necessary and proper clause does not apply.

The Tenth Amendment is quite clear. It states:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Virtually all of the legislation that the federal government has passed in its history violates the Tenth Amendment, arguably including the Fed (in other words, many, such as President Andrew Jackson, have held that Hamilton was wrong).

Orwellian Claim of Interstate Commerce Regulation

Much of the federal legislation that has been passed since the 1930s has claimed to regulate interstate commerce, which is generally untrue. In other words, the Supreme Court and Congress have simply lied in order to justify passage of legislation that they deem expedient. Which is to say that the Constitution has been a dead letter for many decades, not that it is a living organism. The purpose of the Constitution is not to pretend that we have a legitimate government, but to separate and limit the powers of government so that the energies of the people can be directed toward progress. The federal government has been a serious impediment to progress since the 19th century, and in recent decades has been increasingly so. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has been eager to extend the powers of the state in every way inconsistent with the Constitution. Hence, the United States is no longer a Republic but a violent tyranny.

Free Course on Constitutional Law

Netty Weisbaum just forwarded this e-mail. Brooklyn Law School professor Henry mark Holzer has announced that he will be teaching a rare course in constitutional law, free of charge, on eight evenings in February and March. Holzer represented Ayn Rand.

> AN N O U N C E M E N T: An Internet Course On AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
Presented By Professor Emeritus HENRY MARK HOLZER rooklyn Law School

http://www.henrymarkholzer.com

Like many other Americans, I am deeply concerned about our nation’s future.

The Weekly Standard of December 21, 2009, reports that “a survey commissioned by the American Revolution Center” found that “when it came to a simple test of knowledge about the founding [of the United States of America], nearly 83 percent of . . . Americans failed.”

In the face of this woeful ignorance, the Constitution of the United States of America is under an unprecedented attack by Barack Obama and his runaway Democrat Party, aided and abetted by the complicit mainstream media.

Yet with a few notable exceptions there is hardly any knowledgeable defense of our founding document to be found anywhere.

Not on radio or television. Not in the press. Not at the grassroots. Certainly not in academia. Nor, sadly, among most Republicans, Conservatives and even Libertarians. Most of the Media’s “instant,” pontificating constitutional experts, especially those on national television, do more harm than good because they spread disinformation that is neither knowledgeable nor principled.

While many “tea party” activists and other patriots are valiantly trying to fight for core constitutional values, they’re disarmed because they have been taught little about American constitutional law. The fact is that everyone fighting for America today, in order to defend the Constitution, must know the answers to countless crucial questions.

Just a few examples:

· Can Congress constitutionally require Americans to buy medical insurance?

· Did Congress lack the constitutional power to give a lame-duck, unelected treasury secretary unchecked and unsupervised power to dispense a trillion dollars of taxpayer money?

· Does Obama have the constitutional power to appoint unaccountable “czars” to rule over virtually every aspect of our lives?

· How was a bare majority of the Supreme Court able to usurp constitutional control over America’s national security and the “War on Terrorism” from President George W. Bush?

· Why do even supporters of Roe v. Wade’s result admit that, as constitutional law, the decision is indefensible?

· What turned the Constitution into a “living” document that can mean anything Earl Warren, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor feel it should mean?

· Is the “fairness doctrine”—which could kill conservative talk radio programs, like Rush Limbaugh—a violation of the Constitution’s First Amendment?

· Are American citizens about to be stripped of their constitutional “right to bear arms”?

· What are “unenumerated” constitutional rights, and why have they never been recognized?

· Can racial quotas ever be eliminated entirely?

· Where does the Constitution say that convicts are entitled to law libraries?

The answers to these and scores of other questions about America’s Constitution will, for good or ill, determine much about the future of the United States of our nation.

Those who are committed to fighting for that future must acquire a basic understanding of the Constitution's origins and birth, its written text, the manner in which it has been deliberately violated, and the consequences of how it has been misinterpreted by collectivists and statists.

Because of the importance of this struggle, I have put aside most of my writing and legal work and early in 2010 will offer—strictly as a pro bono personal undertaking—an Internet course consisting of ten lectures on American constitutional law. You can learn about who I am, and understand why I’m doing this, simply by taking a look at my blog (www.henrymarkholzer.blogspot.com) and/or my website (www.henrymarkholzer.com).

Please help me get out the word about this course.

If you agree that it is essential today for laypersons--especially Conservatives, Libertarians and Independents--to understand basic American constitutional law ("Con Law 101," if you will), please forward the following Announcement to everyone you can, asking them to do the same. I am particularly interested in getting it to prominent Conservatives, Libertarians and Independents such as Palin, Paul and Independent teachers, clergy, columnists and others who have the public's attention. “Plugs” from leading talk show hosts and hostesses are most welcome.

Many years ago, one of my clients and friends—the author Ayn Rand— asked me a rhetorical question: “If we don’t fight for this country, who will?”

I gave the same answer to Rand as I do now: I will!

SYLLABUS

1. Formation of the American Republic

Events leading to the Declaration of Independence.
The text and meaning of the Declaration.
The Continental Congress.
The Constitutional Convention.
The Constitution’s structure and content.
The ratification battle in the Federalist Papers and elsewhere.
The achievement of the first Congress.
The Bill of Rights and debates over its ratification.

2. The American Constitutional System
A working definition of “constitutional law.”
How the Supreme Court came to be the Constitution’s final arbiter.

“Originalism” and other tools of constitutional interpretation.
Federalism: the relationship and tensions between the federal and state governments, with examples showing federal legislation affecting matters which should be within the powers of the states.

Separation of powers: the relationship and tensions between the three supposedly equal branches of government — legislative, executive and judicial — with examples of where the “more equal” branch, the Supreme Court, refereed battles between the other two branches and, in the bargain, expanded its own powers.

Judicial supremacy: primarily Chief Justice John Marshall's opinion in Marbury vs. Madison, which established the principle of Judicial Review.

Griswold v. Connecticut, illustrating federalism, separation of powers and judicial review.

3. Congress and Its Powers

The source, nature, and scope of Congress’s power.
Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce.
Congress’s war, foreign affairs, and related powers.
Congress’s other, miscellaneous powers.

4. The Presidency And Its Powers

The President's “chief executive” and “faithfully execute” power.
The President's power as Commander-in-Chief.

5. The Judiciary And Its Powers

The source, nature, and scope of judicial power. Limitations, if any, on judicial power.

6. Intergovernmental Relations

The “horizontal” relationship between the states, and the requirement of “full faith and credit.”

Constitutional Limitations on Congress's Power

Textual limitations on the power of Congress, including suspension of the writ of habeas corpus.
Constitutional Limitations On The Power Of The States
The few textual limitations of the power of the states, including the prohibition against impairment of contracts.

7. Prohibitions On Both Congress And The States: The Bill Of Rights

Introduction to the Bill of Rights.
Does the Bill of Rights apply against the federal government?
“Substantive” Due Process: contraception and abortion.


8. The First Amendment


Speech.
Religion.


9. The Eighth Amendment

Cruel and Unusual Punishment.
The Fourteenth Amendment
Genesis of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Procedural Due Process: Notice and opportunity to be heard.
Substantive Due Process, revisited.

10. The Fourteenth Amendment

Substantive due process, revisited.
Equal protection of the law:
Race.
Gender.
Sexuality.
Conclusion to lectures


GENERAL INFORMATION

Lectures/Schedule

The recorded course—ten two-hour lectures each week for ten consecutive weeks—will be available via (1) my website (www.henrymarkholzer.com) and (2) my blog page (www.henrymarkholzer.blogspot.com), from each of which the entire course can be downloaded free of charge.

It will available on those sites in the middle of the weeks beginning January 17, 24, 31; February 7, 14, 21, 28; and March 7, 14, 21 and will remain there indefinitely.

No Cost To Download Recorded Course

There is no cost to access this course in its recorded/downloaded form. (However, because listeners will be hearing a recording, they will not be able to ask questions.)

Cost To Participate In Live Course

The prerequisite to posting and maintaining the course on my website and blog at no cost is that the ten lectures first be recorded.

To do that, I will utilize the worldwide facilities of www.skype.com, an interactive computer-based communication system.

Using Skype, it will be possible for no more than 23 individuals to hear the course live, and ask questions, by downloading free software from Skype and using an inexpensive, off-the-shelf headset/microphone.

I will record by delivering the lectures live on Sunday evenings, from 6:00 PM to 8:00 PM Eastern Time on January 17, 24, 31; February 7, 14, 21, 28, March 7, 14, 21, 2010.

(To defray Skype, recording, posting, etc. expenses, I am charging $250 for this interactive participation. Persons interested in being among the 23 who listen to my lectures live should contact me at

http://www.henrymarkholzer.citymax.com/con_law_course_registration.html for full details).


Essential reading

There is no “homework” for this course. However, to benefit fully from it I recommend that prior to hearing the first lecture you obtain a hard copy of, and read, the Constitution of the United States of America. Also, the Supreme Court opinion in Griswold v. Connecticut, which can be found without cost at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=381&invol=479. You will find it helpful to have both available during the course.

Contact/Updates

Persons having questions about anything concerning the content of the course may submit them here. (Please, no questions about Skype!)

Persons wishing to receive additional information about this course, and future courses I may offer, must register to receive my blog (www.henrymarkholzer.blogspot.com). This will be my only way of communicating with you and the only place such information will be available.

This announcement appears in its entirety on my website http://www.henrymarkholzer.citymax.com/f/con_law_course.pdf

My Goal

Preparation of this course, and providing everything else that will allow it to remain posted and downloaded indefinitely, is my personal pro bono publico undertaking.

I am offering it in the hope that public education in American constitutional law will aid in our fight to rescue our nation from those who are destroying it.

(To guard against email changing the format, I have attached a Word version of this Announcement.)
____________________________________________________________________________

When I was in college I took a course called Civil Liberties taught by someone named John Nields who had helped represent a firm called Red Lion Broadcasting in a constitutional case that was brought before the Supreme Court. Mr. Nields had retired and was teaching full time at Sarah Lawrence College for $1 per year. I seem to recall he lived in Manhattan and made a short drive up there. I thought the course was one of the best I have taken. This one sounds just as good.

Montesquieu on the Constitution

Montesquieu published the Spirit of Laws in 1748 and died in 1755, 32 years before the United States Constitution was adopted. The Founding Fathers relied on Montesquieu in their thinking about federalism and the Federalist Papers quote Montesquieu as an authority. Moving the clock forward 120 years, one of the questions that the Progressives raised concerned the Constitution's value. For example, Charles Beard argued, likely accurately, that the participants in the Constitutional Convention were in part motivated by concern for their own economic welfare. The model that Herbert Croly and Walter Weyl offered was one of a powerful, rationally guided state that could address emerging social problems. The fly in the Progressive ointment is its claim that rationality is possible. The history of rationality offers mixed results. The history of monetary policy, the most fundamental of political policies, has been one of error and misstep. Education policy has been a standing joke for ten decades. Simple retirement programs like Social Security and regulation of private pensions have been full of error. The Progressives misunderstood the principle of rationality. Intelligence is not primarily derived through deductive logic, but rather is learned inductively. Pragmatic experimentation is far more useful than mathematical derivation of hypotheses from clear and distinct axioms.

The Constitution works, so it would be foolhardy to reject it or to be overly aggressive in modifying it. Judicial activism is a crap shoot, and judges are as guilty of the American vice of speculative risk-taking as are Wall Street executives and real estate developers.

Montesquieu (Book V, Section XV):

"After what has been said, one would imagine that human nature should perpetually rise up against despotism. But, notwithstanding the love of liberty, so natural to mankind, notwithstanding their innate detestation of force and violence, most nations are subject to this very government. This is easily accounted for. To form a moderate government, it is necessary to combine several powers; to regulate, temper and set them in motion; to give, as it were, ballast to one, in order to enable it to counterpoise the other. This is a masterpiece of legislation, rarely produced by hazard, and seldom attained by prudence. On the contrary, a despotic government offers itself, as it were, at first sight; it is uniform throughout; and as passions only are requisite to establish it, this is what every capacity may reach."

From Freedom to Fascism

Contrairimairi has forwarded the following 11-part Youtube video sequence by Aaron Russo. The one point I disagree with is that toward the end Russo seems to advocate governmental money creation. I don't think that would work. There needs to be a metallic standard. The Federal Reserve Bank is a barbaric relic, and the incompetence of economists to run the monetary system has firmly demonstrated a commodity based standard, gold or silver, is necessary.



The video argues that the 16th amendment was never approved by the necessary number of states. It has some excellent quotes of Woodrow Wilson. There is no law requiring the filing of income tax returns.



During his presidency, opponents of President Bill Clinton were singled out for tax audits. The federal government uses illegal force to require payment of income tax. Federal Judge Emmet Sullivan ruled that the IRS does not need to obey the law. The court system has gotten out of hand, and perhaps it is time to begin to resist the courts directly. Education is paid through property tax. Highways are paid for through gasoline tax. The corporate income tax pays for defense. The income tax is an instrument of totalitarianism and a method of control by which slow witted Congressmen manipulated by economic special interests reallocate wealth to those same economic special interests.



Interest payments on federal debt and government waste account for 100% of the federal income tax. The IRS refuses to respond to requests for documentation as to where it gets the authority to tax. "What if it's our own government we need to be afraid of?"

The Constitution says that direct taxes must be apportioned. All indirect taxes must be uniform throughout the states. The income tax is neither direct nor indirect. The Supreme Court held that the 16th Amendment conferred no new powers of taxation. In 1894 the Supreme Court held the income tax was unconstitutional. In 1913 the Supreme Court said that the 16th amendment conferred no new power of taxation. Therefore, the federal income tax is unconstitutional. There is no legal requirement for the average American to pay the income tax.

The government is involved in judicial blackmail. The IRS is a racketeering organization that imposes an illegal tax. The Internal Revenue Code enslaves the nation that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution freed.




The Internal Revenue Code says "compliance" is "voluntary". The government requires the form 1040, yet the Fifth Amendment says that the government cannot mandate self-incrimination. Yet, the government uses the form 1040 against the filer. The definition of income is gain. Labor is private property. The 16th Amendment did not extend Congress's taxing power. Former IRS commissioners do not show the law that requires payment of the income tax. Congress has failed to obey the law. Sheldon Cohen does not seem responsive. Sheldon Cohen says that Supreme Court decisions and the Constitution do not apply to the IRS. The IRS is a criminal protection racket.

The Constitution prohibits a direct, unapportioned tax on wages. Income taxes are taxes on profits and gains, not labor and wages.



The IRS and its supporters resort to defamation and insults in arguing with tax protestors. Law suits against the thuggish IRS and the criminal government it funds have been successful. Irwin Schiff's trial was a mockery, little more than a kangaroo court. No one should ever convict anyone of non-paymentof taxes. The IRS taxed Joe Louis on the money he donated to the US government.



IRS agents behave like storm troopers, attacking a restaurateur. The restaurateur was never charged, but the IRS wrecked his business based on false allegations. The IRS forced the restaurateur's family into bankruptcy. How did America stop being a free country?

The same people who backed the Federal Reserve system also backed the income tax. Why would the government borrow money when it can print money? The Democrats and Republicans are organized crime.

The Federal Reserve has converted America from a nation of freeholders to a nation of employees who are almost serfs. Americans have become serfs to the debt machine.



The Federal Reserve is illegal. Creating money out of thin air will destroy the money supply. The Federal Reserve is not audited and Congress fails to exercise intelligent oversight. The Federal Reserve is a swindle. The Fed has taken possession of Fort Knox gold (I'm not sure of that). America is becoming a police state. Today, you can't open a business, develop land, go to the doctor or whatever without interference from government thugs. Under President Bush's executive orders, you can be jailed without any court protection.



The government is using the right of eminent domain to steal property. Increasingly, the government ignores property rights in favor of fascistic government confiscation and violence. RFID chips transmit information and can be implanted in people as well as ID cards. There will be a massive data base identifying who buys what.



Software facilitates election fraud. America's domestic policy is run by the Fed and the international policy is run by the IMF. "A world system of financial control in private hands." The war on terrorism is a pretext for international finance's interest in international control.



David Rockefeller thanks the mass media for lying on behalf of the Council on Foreign Relations. Rockefeller advocates rule by an intellectual elite and international bankers. Fascism is the merger of corporate power and the state. The media supports this process.



"Will you choose freedom or slavery?" "Stop living in your fear of government." Call for civil disobedience. Revolutionary, anti-statist actions need to commence. Only vote for candidates who have signed an affidavit to shut down the Federal Reserve system and stop world government."