Greenmail
Income Tax, Flat Tax, or, No Tax?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
June 22, 2015

For those who believe that the federal government should tax us, either by income tax or a fair tax, or any other direct means of taxation, must understand that doing so only creates socialism among the states (taking from one to give to another), as the following table shows (A more complete table can also be found at Tax Foundation Special Report No. 158, “Federal Tax Burdens and Spending by State).

The table is from 2005 (I haven’t found a newer one, yet), so I would suppose that the only changes, absent minor redistributions of moneys, would be that the numbers have gone up, proportionately, in the last 6 years.

Note that $2,084,247,000,000 was taken in through taxes and that $2,210,184,000,000 was sent back to the states. This results in nearly $126 billion that was added back to the states’ side (to the benefit of the state). This additional money is likely a debt passed on to our posterity. And, this does not account for the many trillions spent by the federal government, each year, to support wars, foreign aid, and the expense of operating the government and its administrative agencies.

So, if the money never went to the federal government (income taxes), then the states would have had less revenue, even if they retained that which would have gone to the federal government for redistribution back to the states.

Now, there is also a loss in the administration of the distribution of the money. First, it is collected (IRS); then it has to go to the various agencies (accounting) for distribution back to the states (with all of the strings attached); then the state has to distribute the funds according to those strings, which, surely, requires a significant staff to assure that no money goes where the federal government does not want it to go, and vice-versa.

How much less would it cost if the states collected that money (and, being closer to home, might be more cautious in their raising taxes and spending recklessly, or to comply with federally mandated programs), and determined where it was to go, without federal intervention?

Now, if this does not convince you that a federal direct tax is unnecessary, and that it is used to manipulate social change and to bring the states into subjugation, then I would appreciate your explanation as to why it does not.

You should also note that Washington, D.C. gets back nearly six times, per capita, what it contributes, which amounts to over $65,000 per resident of that “model” city.

You can understand that rather than calling this blackmail, it is more appropriately defined as “Greenmail”.

* During fiscal years in which the federal government runs deficits some spending is financed through borrowing. This creates implicit tax liabilities for states that must be repaid eventually. To incorporate these implicit tax liabilities into the analysis, the following adjustment was made to state tax burdens: First, the total federal tax burden is increased by the size of the federal deficit. Next, this total burden is allocated among states based on each state’s proportion of the actual federal tax burden. Finally, adjusted spending-per-dollar-of-tax ratios are calculated by dividing actual expenditures by the adjusted tax figure, effectively making figures deficit neutral.

Source: Tax Foundation Special Report No. 158, “Federal Tax Burdens and Spending by State,” and U.S. Census Bureau’s Consolidated Federal Funds Report for 2005.

“None Dare Call It Conspiracy”
Understand what went wrong, forty years ago, and lead us to what we see, today.

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
December 2, 2013

In 1971, Gary Allen wrote a book, “None Dare Call it Conspiracy”. And though there are, currently, many who continue to yell “conspiracy”, the true conspiracy is laid out for us in explicit detail in this book. You will recognize much of what is discussed, and, you will see the beginnings of much of what you see, now.

First, some quotes from the book:

“We… most emphatically disagree with this network’s aim which the Professor [Carroll Quigley] describes as “nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole.” In other words, this power mad clique wants to control and rule the world. Even more frightening, they want total control over all individual actions. As Professor Quigley observes: “… his (the individual’s) freedom and choice will be controlled within very narrow alternatives by the fact that he will be numbered from birth and followed, as a number, through his educational training, his required military or other public service, his tax contributions, his health and medical requirements, and his final retirement and death benefits.” It wants control over all natural resources, business, banking and transportation by controlling the governments of the world. In order to accomplish these aims the conspirators have had no qualms about fomenting wars, depressions and hatred. They want a monopoly which would eliminate all competitors and destroy the free enterprise system.”

Well, there it is, the stated objective of the conspiracy.

Now, to understand how we have, so often, failed to comprehend just what was happening, because we only had a part of the story:

“Have you ever had the experience of walking into a mystery movie two-thirds of the way through? Confusing wasn’t it? All the evidence made it look as if the butler were the murderer, but in the final scenes you find out, surprisingly, that it was the man’s wife all along. You have to stay and see the beginning of the film. Then as all the pieces fall into place, the story makes sense.”

With this in mind, we are near the end of the story, however, the insight provided by this book will take you back to the beginning, so that you can understand without doubt, just what the whole story is.

In telling us about then President Nixon, a well respected conservative (Republican), and the beginning of “decentralized” government, we see the beginning of a process I often refer to as “Greenmail”, where our money is used to buy favor from the state government — to our detriment.

“The second major segment of the President’s “New Federalism” is revenue sharing with the states, touted as a step in the decentralization of power from the federal government. Actually, the program does just the opposite. The money must first go from the states to Washington before it can be shared.”

We can also see the seeds of the many government funded institutions whose objective is the denial of our form of government.

“John Gardner, a “Republican” and member of the C.F.R., has established a grass roots proletarian organization called Common Cause. This may become the biggest and most important organization in American history. Common Cause’s goal is to organize welfare recipients, those who have not voted before, and Liberals to lobby for Socialism.”

The examples given above are just of few of the insights provided within the book. As you read, you will find that many of the concerns that you have, now, had their seeds planted long before you became aware of the misdeeds that have lead us steadily down the course that we now find ourselves enslaved by.

If you cannot find time to read this book, you will simply have to remain without foundation, only conjecture, to explain the evils that beset us, today. However, armed with the knowledge presented therein, you may better be able to formulate a means of extricating us from the subjugation we find ourselves submitting to.

If there is no PDF attached to this email, the PDF can be downloaded at “None Dare Call It Conspiracy – PDF”

For those who would prefer a Kindle (PRC) version of the book, it is available at “None Dare Call it Conspiracy – Kindle“

The Supreme Dilemma

Posterity and Perpetual Debt

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
October 8, 2013

The Preamble to the Constitution for the United States of America, which sets out the purpose of the government therein created, concludes with the following, “and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

To “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”, is a mighty powerful phrase, if taken as intended by the framers of our government.

A concept that was advanced among the people, over 10 years prior to the Constitution, dwelt upon the fair and just contribution of the people to the expense of government.  The phrase most often use, with regard to this contribution, was “no taxation without representation.”  This meant that only those selected to represent the people could impose taxation upon them.  Unless directly represented, there could be no justification for the imposition of a tax upon the people.

Let’s look at how “Posterity” was viewed in the past:

Primogeniture, as a concept of birthright and inheritance, goes back, in Biblical times, to before Isaac and his two sons, Esau and Jacob. The oldest child inherits, and the siblings are, for the most part, at the mercy of the oldest, or are simply on their own.  Over time, the right to “testament” allowed the patriarch to divide his estate as he saw fit. Under both systems, there was no appreciable cost imposed upon the inheritance.

In 1215 the Magna Carta was signed.  Articles 2 through 11 address the rights of heirs.  Only descendents of Lords and Knights paid any fees (Lords, 100£ and Knights, 100 shillings) to retain the estate, which included subsequent pensions.  Those of lower social standing received the estate, providing that only debt, without interest, could be taken, and that land could not be taken so long as personal property was sufficient to cover the debt.

In 1898, the first inheritance tax was enacted in the United States.  However, at the time, it was only on personal property, not real estate, and was based upon amounts over $10,000 (a very large sum, at that time).

Since that time, we have seen an escalation in the destruction of an estate that provides that only the very wealthy can pass nearly the entire estate on to their children, unaffected by ‘contributions’ to the government.

Beginning in 1913, with the advent of the “income tax”, we find that the “income tax” becomes the source whereby money is taken from the family, for the general good. We also find that a direct tax, in contradiction to the intent of the original direct tax provision of the Constitution, begins to take more and more of the annual earnings, as well as substantial portions of the estate, upon the death of the parents.

Beyond that, based upon the Congress having the power “to pay the Debts…”,  we find, now, that even after we have had our earnings taken from us, the “Debt” extends to an obligation upon our posterity, which, at this time, we can see no end.

What effect does this have on our descendents, “our Posterity”?  If we look simply at the current publicly acknowledged $16 trillion current debt of this country, without consideration of interest, we are looking at an obligation of about $50,000 per man, woman and child.  However, this is based upon only external (money owed to those outside of government) obligations.

Just for starters, let’s look at what USA Today report, in May 2007, with regard to the true debt.  Their estimate was $59 Trillion (with a “T”, being $59,000,000,000,000), which would put the debt at about $200,000,000 for every man, woman, and child. But, that was 6 years ago.

Let’s look at what that current debt obligation, as explained in a National Review Article,  which is an average estimate at $106,000,000,000,000.  This gives an average debt of $331,000 for every man, woman, and child. So, without consideration of additional annual costs, which will have to be added on each year, for the operation of government, we see that if someone works 50 years, simply paying on the past debt, it will be an obligation of $6,600 per year, for each man, woman, and child.

Looking at the annual proposed 2013 budget, we see that outlays will amount to $3,803,000,000,000. This means that every man, woman, and child, will have to fork over nearly $12,000 to meet this annual expense. However, little, if any, goes to the reduction of the debt outlined above.

To put this in hopefully simple terms, if every man, woman and child paid, this year, $343,000 ($331,000 plus $12,000), we would relieve the debt, completely, and only have to pay $12,000 next year, and subsequent years, so long as Congress doesn’t begin spending, again, like a drunken sailor (my apology to all sailors, drunk or sober).

Now, it is true that the government has revenue from other sources, and those must be taken into account. However, we must also look at just where the money comes from to supply those other sources with the means to pay their share of the annual contribution. Quite simply, that money comes from “Excise, Impost and Duties”, which simply add that cost to what we pay for certain goods. So, though all of the $12,000 won’t be directly on you, it will, without a doubt, be indirectly upon you.

So, what does this have to do with “Posterity” and “No taxation without representation”? Well, the reality of the numbers presented above is that we, the People of the United States of America, and our Posterity, have an insurmountable debt. It is perpetual, as was only intended of the Union, though now it is also of the debt. It cannot be retired (paid off), by any means currently within the grasp of government. It can only result in either an increase in taxes, or, the perpetuation to even more generations, yet unborn, or both.

So, from the days of the Magna Carta, where posterity was protected, and unburdened by future debt, we have evolved, as a free people, to the point that the “Posterity”, which was of great concern to the founders of this nation, has now become the scapegoat, burdened with perpetual debt — that can be described as no less than slavery.  They are without representation, as clearly, those unborn can have none to speak for them.

We have gone from “Last Will and Testament”, intended to pass on to our heirs what remained of our fortune, to one where though there may be a small residual, it can never approach the obligation we have burdened them with.

Is this what the framers intended? Is this what we intend to leave to our Posterity? If not, what do we intend to do about it?

Dow closes at 14,253.77 – Celebrating Inflation

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
March 6, 2013

The news over the record closing of the Dow Jones Industrial Average, yesterday, March 5, 2013, is hailed as an achievement that demonstrates the recovery of the economy, in no uncertain terms.  The Dow, after all, is the indicator of the health of the economy – in most eyes, anyway.

So, let’s just look at what we are celebrating. The previous record of 14,164.53 set October. 9, 2007, nearly six years ago, became the benchmark for future records.  Six years to regain that which was lost, and has remained so, through the entire current administration. There is little doubt that the government was doing everything they could to demonstrate the success of their oft questioned economic policies.

So, is this really an advancement in the economy?  Well, I’m a not an economist, nor do I have a grasp of the complexity of economics. I am but a simple man who must endeavor to see the world in the dim light of my experience. So, put on your night vision goggles and follow me into the realm of reality.

In 1963 you could buy a nickel candy-bar for, well, 5 cents – hence the name, nickel candy-bar. The last time I bought a nickel candy-bar it cost me about $1.50 – that about 30 nickels. Now, I don’t really know what a nickel candy-bar costs, but I do know that the “purchasing power” of the nickel is now equivalent to what would then be 0.17 cents (5÷30).

In 1963, the Dow record was 714.81 (http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dow.html). Now, if we consider the 714.81 to be dollars, we can see that it would take 14,296 nickels to be equal to the value of the Dow.  Today, however, it would 285,075 nickels to equal the value of the Record Dow closing of 14,253.77.

Now, this might be a little confusing, so, let’s look at it from the other side. If we take the 14,253.77 and divide it by 30 (The approximate change in purchasing power), we end up with 475.13. That is just about two-thirds (66%) of the then closing of 714.81. So, in realistic terms, the exalted record of yesterday is not even close (“in current dollars”) to what the value of the Dow was just 60 years ago.

Now, this consideration does not address the manipulation of the content (included stocks) of the Dow. Over the years, certain stocks were removed since they were “volatile” (can you say lowers, which would bring the average down) and were replaced by more “stable” stocks (which kept the average up), making, from a pure economic standpoint, and even more drastic disparity between the then and now.

So, we must consider whether the economists who so cheerfully praised yesterday’s closing are really, in all honesty, celebrating a manipulation that has one appearance, though, in fact, celebrates the effect of inflation on the pure numbers of the New York Stock Exchange?

An Economic Solution

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
September 17. 2010

To return to a sound economic base, primarily a free market economy, a series of steps must be taken to achieve an understanding of where “existing” money is, and how it will be accounted in the conversion to the plan proposed herein.

To initiate the plan, fractional reserve banking must cease. Usury laws shall be enacted limiting interest to 3% per annum. All outstanding obligations to any financial institution will be held in abeyance, with no accruing interest, until the redemption process (2 years) has been completed.

The plan calls for the replacement of currency in two general areas, internal money and external money. Internal being that held by citizens of the United States or corporations operating solely within the United States. External being money held by any person not a citizen of the United States and any corporation operating internationally.

The sources of obligations are of three natures. First is the money circulating within the United States, currently, which will be identified as “A”. Next will be money circulating in the international realm based upon trade or other money legitimately held. This will be referred to as “B”. Finally, there is a lot of money which is circulating internally and internationally which was acquired by means considered illegal, such as the millions of dollars stacked in closets in Mexico, which will be identified as “C”.

The money of the “A” type will be redeemed as follows All coins and currency in circulation or on deposit , of an internal nature, will be identified based upon criteria to be developed, though will not include banking reserves, or any dollars not based upon real assets.

Replacement of value for internal money will be replaced . first, with US Greenback dollars, based on the full faith and credit of the United States. All redemption will require a physical return of Federal Reserve Notes in exchange for US Greenback dollars. This will become the interim money for internal use only, until the final resolution to specie based dollars.

Redemption will be conducted over a period of one year, with an additional years in which to hear appeals to decisions regarding whether the dollars are redeemable, or not, and any other petitions for consideration of redemption, all of which can only be presented by citizens of the United States.

For the sake of discussion, we will assume that the recognized type “A” money, Greenback Dollars ($), issued over this period amounts to $4 trillion.

The gold and silver on deposit at Fort Knox is to be audited and the actual dollar value determined based upon the original value of $20 per ounce of gold and $1 per ounce of silver. This will include only the assets of the United States held at Fort Knox. We will assume, then, that the value determined by this audit comes to $80 billion.

Gold and Silver Certificates will be issued based upon the value determined by the audit. The certificates are not redeemable for gold or silver, but are value based upon the deposit at Fort Knox, which will be audited every five years to assure that the sound backing of the United States Dollar (designated by $ ) continues, and that the internal money supply is limited, and cannot be expanded by other than additional gold or silver deposits made to the Depository.

Gold and silver may circulate as specie, though the United States government will not mint, guarantee, or participate in circulation thereof. Any specie made in payment to, or bought by, the United States government will be deposited in the Depository and Certificates ($) issued into circulation.

The existing United States Greenback Dollars ($) will be redeemed for the new United States Dollars ($) based upon the ratio of recognized type “A” money ($4,000,000,000,000.00) to the United States Dollar ($80,000,000,000.00), [ $/$ = 50 ], the Greenback dollars will be redeemed at the rate of $50 for one United States Dollar ($1). This would require an adjustment of the value of goods to 1/50th of their current value. For example, if something now costs $5, the new price would be $0.10 (10¢).

The new United States Dollars would only circulate within the United States. If returned from outside of the United States, they will be redeemed for United States Trade Credits (see below), at the value at the time of redemption.

Type “B” money and any type “A” money not redeemed as aforesaid shall be redeemed by redeeming all such outstanding obligations for United States Trade Credits. A determination will be made of each application to determine the rate of redemption. For Treasury Bills (full faith and credit of the United States), redemption should be at face value. For Federal Reserve Notes and other obligations based upon Federal Reserve Notes, redemption should be based upon the ratios determined for type “A” greenback to United States Dollars.

United States Trade Credits, while determined in dollars ($), will not be on par with the United States Dollar ($). Trade Credits will be used only for international commerce, and will not be circulated within the United States. They will be converted to United States Dollars upon entry into the country, based upon the aforesaid ratio, and United States Dollars will be converted to Trade Credits (even for citizens of the United States going abroad) upon leaving the country. United States Dollars returned to the United States will be penalized and redeemed at 50% of value.

Adjustments may be made to the Dollar to Trade Credit ratio, from time to time, to assure that a beneficial to the United Sates value is attached thereto.

Outstanding obligations in Trade Credits (existing outstanding obligations) will be assured, though no timely redemption is implied.

Balance of trade, in the international market, must be pursued to extinguish the outstanding debt in Trade Credits.

Type “C” money along with any type “A”: or type “B” money not redeemed timely, or determined to be ill-gotten, will not be redeemed, and will not become an obligation on the United States. This does not preclude actions against the Federal Reserve Board, which will, upon initiation of this plan, no longer have standing within the United States.

Some Thoughts on Taxation

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
November 24, 2010

 Introduction

Taxation is often considered one of the most burdensome and oppressive duties of government.  “There are only two things certain; Death and Taxes”, quite adequately describes the effect of taxes upon our daily lives.

Though far from truth, schoolbooks have, for generations, proclaimed that “No Taxation without Representation” was the cause of the Revolutionary War.  There is no doubt that the fact that the colonies had no representation in Parliament was one of many points of contention between colonies and Crown.  This very fact was the subject of many speeches, on both sides of the Atlantic.

It has been suggested, on the western side of the Atlantic, that if the colonies were allowed to raise their own taxes, based upon both their needs and requisitions from Parliament, this objection would have been overcome.  So, let’s keep that thought in mind as we look at our history with regard to the subject of taxation.

We need to understand that the Framers had to deal with the touchy subject of taxation based upon the role it played in leading up to separation from England as well as the brief history and problems posed between Independence and the Constitution.  The former has just been addressed, so we will look at the later.

Two situations provided the Framers some concern in dealing with the subject.  The first was that the requisitions imposed by the Continental Congress, both before and under the Articles of Confederation were ignored by a number of states, ultimately resulting in abandoning efforts to collect the requisitions and relieving those debts not paid.

The second situation was known as Shay’s Rebellion [1787].  Farmers in Western Massachusetts had been taxed by the State, the purpose being for the State to be able to pay its obligations to the Congress, as well as have operating funds for the function of the Massachusetts government.  This was compounded by the absence of specie (gold or silver) through the colonies.  Repayment of debt on foreign loans required specie.

Now, to source documents:

Constitution

Article I, Section 2, clause 3:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons…

Article I, Section 7, clause 1:

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Article I, Section 8, clause 1:

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, clause 1:

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

Article I, Section 9, clauses 4 & 5:

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

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

Article I, Section 10, clauses 1 thru 3:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Amendment 16 [1913]:

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.

Amendment [XVII] [1913]

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.  The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

Amendment 19 [1964]:

Section 1–The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Federalist Papers

The Federalist Papers are accepted as an indication of the intent to the Framers, and, of those who ratified that Constitution.

Federalist Papers #12, Alexander Hamilton:

The prosperity of commerce is now perceived and acknowledged by all enlightened statesmen to be the most useful as well as the most productive source of national wealth, and has accordingly become a primary object of their political cares….  It has been found in various countries that, in proportion as commerce has flourished, land has risen in value.

***

The ability of a country to pay taxes must always be proportioned, in a great degree, to the quantity of money in circulation, and to the celerity with which it circulates.  Commerce, contributing to both these objects, must of necessity render the payment of taxes easier, and facilitate the requisite supplies to the treasury.

***

But it is not in this aspect of the subject alone that Union will be seen to conduce to the purpose of revenue.  There are other points of view, in which its influence will appear more immediate and decisive.  It is evident from the state of the country, from the habits of the people, from the experience we have had on the point itself, that it is impracticable to raise any very considerable sums by direct taxation.  Tax laws have in vain been multiplied; new methods to enforce the collection have in vain been tried; the public expectation has been uniformly disappointed, and the treasuries of the States have remained empty.

***

No person acquainted with what happens in other countries will be surprised at this circumstance.  In so opulent a nation as that of Britain, where direct taxes from superior wealth must be much more tolerable, and, from the vigor of the government, much more practicable, than in America, far the greatest part of the national revenue is derived from taxes of the indirect kind, from imposts, and from excises.  Duties on imported articles form a large branch of this latter description.

***

Revenue, therefore, must be had at all events.  In this country, if the principal part be not drawn from commerce, it must fall with oppressive weight upon land.

Federalist Papers #30, Alexander Hamilton:

Let us attend to what would be the effects of this situation in the very first war in which we should happen to be engaged.  We will presume, for argument’s sake, that the revenue arising from the impost duties answers the purposes of a provision for the public debt and of a peace establishment for the Union.  Thus circumstanced, a war breaks out.  What would be the probable conduct of the government in such an emergency?  Taught by experience that proper dependence could not be placed on the success of requisitions, unable by its own authority to lay hold of fresh resources, and urged by considerations of national danger, would it not be driven to the expedient of diverting the funds already appropriated from their proper objects to the defence of the State?  It is not easy to see how a step of this kind could be avoided; and if it should be taken, it is evident that it would prove the destruction of public credit at the very moment that it was becoming essential to the public safety.

Federalist Papers #45, James Madison:

If the federal government is to have collectors of revenue, the State governments will have theirs also.  And as those of the former will be principally on the sea-coast, and not very numerous, whilst those of the latter will be spread over the face of the country, and will be very numerous, the advantage in this view also lies on the same side.  It is true, that the Confederacy is to possess, and may exercise, the power of collecting internal as well as external taxes throughout the States; but it is probable that this power will not be resorted to, except for supplemental purposes of revenue; then an option will then be given to the States to supply their quotas by previous collections of their own; and that the eventual collection, under the immediate authority of the Union, will generally be made by the officers, and according to the rules, appointed by the several States.

***

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined.  Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.  The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.  The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs; concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

Constitutional Intent

“Representation and Direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States” provides an insight into one of the methods of funding for the federal government.  Representation was to be based upon population, and, the funds needed in excess of those derived by other means were to be supplemented proportioned on the strength of voting power of each state in the House of Representatives.

Let’s look at the relationship between taxation, spending, and representation.  First, we have “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives“, giving that representative body the exclusive power to raise taxes, though concurrence by the Senate and the President were still required.

Now, let’s look at the Senate.  Senators were appointed by the State legislatures, prior to the adoption of the 17th Amendment, and, consequently, would look out for the interest of the State, while the representatives would look out for the interests of the people who comprised their constituency.  So, we have both the people and the state with representation to look out for their respective interests.

If the Representatives felt a need for raising revenue, the would “originate” a bill to that effect.  The Senate, if the burden were put upon the states to raise the revenue, might be concerned and refuse to approve the bill, saving the respective legislatures from having to raise taxes to raise revenues to meet the needs of the federal government.

In a sense, we would have three, independent bodies exerting caution over any increase in revenue; the House of Representatives ; the Senate; and, the respective state legislatures, which would have the responsibility of raising additional revenue, as well as the ire of the people in so doing. 

If we delve a bit deeper into this concept, we can see that there is a consistency with the feelings of the Founders when they coined the phrase, “No Taxation without Representation“.  If we equate the Parliament with the Congress, and, the state legislatures with the colonial assemblies, we can see a parallel, which would require the state legislature (colonial assembly) to enact revenue laws based upon requisitions by the Congress (Parliament).  Clearly, this concept has strong support from our history books.

To address the Founders concerns, perhaps it would be appropriate to have representatives in the Congress to enact and approve revenue bills, and then, requisition to the states; the state legislature to raise the revenues so required.

Also, the intent of the involvement of the states in collecting the revenue was made clear by James Madison (FP #45), when he said, “It is true, that the Confederacy is to possess, and may exercise, the power of collecting internal as well as external taxes throughout the States; but it is probable that this power will not be resorted to, except for supplemental purposes of revenue; then an option will then be given to the States to supply their quotas by previous collections of their own.” 

We need not wonder why this method, of the state paying quotas, was not primary.  The experience of the recent past had proven, under the Articles of Confederation, that collection would be, at best, difficult.  There had been no experience under the Constitution and strengthened federal government to dispel such concern.  Recent history, however, has demonstrated that the federal government is quite able to enforce compliance, which makes moot this concern.

Madison also points out, in the same number, that the primary need for additional revenue would be consistent with, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government [which] will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.”

Subsequently, in 1913, this whole concept of taxation was turned on end.  With the enactment of the 16th and 17th Amendments to the Constitution (coincidently, the same year that the Federal Reserve Act and currency contrary to the Constitution) were ratified, changing our whole economic structure by rendering gold and silver equal to, or subordinate to, promissory notes (Federal Reserve Notes).  Money was relegated to a system without value.

Clearly, the type of expenditures we have today were not within the scope imagined by Madison.  Quite possibly, if the tax structure was maintained along the original concepts, we would not have the enormous debt to repay.

Continuing on with the subject, let’s see what Alexander Hamilton thought should be the primary source of revenue. 

In Federalist Papers # 12, he said, “The prosperity of commerce is now perceived and acknowledged by all enlightened statesmen to be the most useful as well as the most productive source of national wealth, and has accordingly become a primary object of their political cares…” 

He continues, “The ability of a country to pay taxes must always be proportioned, in a great degree, to the quantity of money in circulation, and to the celerity with which it circulates.  Commerce, contributing to both these objects, must of necessity render the payment of taxes easier, and facilitate the requisite supplies to the treasury.”

He then advises that, “[i]t is evident from the state of the country, from the habits of the people, from the experience we have had on the point itself, that it is impracticable to raise any very considerable sums by direct taxation…”

In support of the use of commerce as the primary source of revenue, he says, “No person acquainted with what happens in other countries will be surprised at this circumstance.  In so opulent a nation as that of Britain, where direct taxes from superior wealth must be much more tolerable, and, from the vigor of the government, much more practicable, than in America, for the greatest part of the national revenue is derived from taxes of the indirect kind, from imposts, and from excises.  Duties on imported articles form a large branch of this latter description.”  Included in this is a comparison to England, where the rich are well defined, and a source of revenue.  Something that might be worthy of consideration.

Finally, in this number, he concludes with the significance of the burden on other sources than revenue, when he says, “Revenue, therefore, must be had at all events.  In this country, if the principal part be not drawn from commerce, it must fall with oppressive weight upon land.”

To demonstrate the nature of change in how government operates, we can look at the concerns that Mr. Hamilton placed upon the ability of the country to borrow money, should the need arise, in Federalist Papers #30:

Let us attend to what would be the effects of this situation in the very first war in which we should happen to be engaged.  We will presume, for argument’s sake, that the revenue arising from the impost duties answers the purposes of a provision for the public debt and of a peace establishment for the Union.  Thus circumstanced, a war breaks out.  What would be the probable conduct of the government in such an emergency?  Taught by experience that proper dependence could not be placed on the success of requisitions, unable by its own authority to lay hold of fresh resources, and urged by considerations of national danger, would it not be driven to the expedient of diverting the funds already appropriated from their proper objects to the defence of the State?  It is not easy to see how a step of this kind could be avoided; and if it should be taken, it is evident that it would prove the destruction of public credit at the very moment that it was becoming essential to the public safety.

Clearly, times have changed.  The ability of the government to borrow money on the “public credit” is, without question, indisputable.  So, many of the concerns of the Framers have fallen by the wayside.  Perhaps legitimate under the then circumstances, times, and the new federal government under the Constitution, have changed.  Perhaps, now, it is time to reevaluate the method of federal taxation to be consistent with what was expressed, then, though not put into service because of those concerns.

Some Definitions

From Webster’s 1828 Dictionary:

Apportion, v. t.
To divide and assign in just proportion; to distribute among two or more, a just part or share to each; as, to apportion undivided rights; to apportion time among various employments.

Duty, n.
Tax, toll, impost, or customs; excise; any sum of money required by government to be paid on the importation, exportation, or consumption of goods.  An impost on land or other real estate, and on stock of farmers, is not called a duty, but a direct tax.

Impost, n.
1.  Any tax or tribute imposed by authority; particularly, a duty or tax laid by governments on goods imported, and paid or secured by the importer at the time of importation.

Excise, n.
An inland duty or impost, laid on commodities consumed, or on the retail, which is the last stage before consumption; as an excise on coffee, soap, candles, which a person consumes in his family.  But many articles are excised at the manufactories, as spirit at the distillery, printed silks and linens at the printers, &c.

Capitation, n.
1.  Numeration by the head; a numbering of persons.
2.  The tax, or imposition upon each head or persons; a poll tax.

Income, n.
That gain which proceeds from labor, business or property of any kind; the produce of a farm; the rent of houses; the proceeds of professional business; the profits of commerce or of occupation; the interest of money or stock in funds.

Tarif, n.
1.  Properly, a list or table of goods with the duties or customs to be paid for the same, either on importation or exportation, whether such duties are imposed by the government of a country, or agreed on by the princes or governments of two countries holding commerce with each other.
2.  A list or table of duties or customs to be paid on goods imported or exported.

Considerations

There can be little doubt that the structure of government and apportionment had a purpose, in the minds of the Framers.  At the time of the Federal Reserve Act, 16th and 17th Amendments [1913], the national debt had remained relatively level with that of just after the Civil War, about 2.5 billion dollars.  Within just a few years, it has gone from that stable 2.5 billion to nearly 5,000 times that amount in 2010.  Can there be any question as to the ability of the government to borrow money.  The problem remains, however, that as we continue to borrow, can that debt be repaid.  Taxation has become a means to pay the interest, though it is not sufficient to retire the debt.

By having direct taxes, without apportionment, easily imposed upon us, we have implemented a direct line from our wallets to the government.  Considering that all direct taxes were intended to be apportioned, we can look at the Sixteenth Amendment to see what it really says.  Remember, the Constitution required apportionment, and, it anticipated that direct taxes would be on land, not on the earnings of a workingman.  The Amendment reads:

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.

Rather than going in to the legal ramifications of the Amendment, which has yet to be resolved by the courts, we can wonder what “gain” (definition of income) meant, then, as well as, if it was a direct tax upon something not previously granted, why it had to include the exclusion of apportionment.

If our debt had not grown since the civil war, and there was no need for additional revenue, why would Congress propose, and the states ratify, an amendment that created a completely new method of taxation.  After all, they had not exercised all of those taxes anticipated by the Framers, though in the slow evolution of the “income tax” to what it has become, invading our private records for information; multitudes of new officers to seize our property.  After all, from an historical perspective, we can look to the Declaration of Independence to see that such a means as was to be used to collect this new tax was well defined in the objections to the British Rule that resulted in our independency.  From the enumerated complaints in the Declaration, “He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance”.  What conceivable method of taxation could require more new offices and officers to harass our people and eat out their substance?

Now, with this in mind, what impelled Congress to establish the most burdensome and intrusive means of tax collection possible?  Duties are based upon tariffs, and easily collected at ports of entry.  Excise taxes are collected by those licensed for the particular activity upon which the tax applies.  Finally, land, which doesn’t move, is already assessed as to value, and has collection methods in place.  Instead, the Congress established a new form of taxation, never before conceived as to being practical, and at present, requiring review and collecting from over two hundred million people, along with the forces necessary to review, audit and collect those taxes.  To add to the idiocy of that system, how many of the people’s own hours of life are committed, each year, to the production of the necessary records to satisfy those tens of thousands of agents, taking that time away from them, their families, their leisure, and their productive pursuits?

We need to consider, too, a couple more events in our history that reflect on taxation.  First was the excise tax on WHISKEY, resulting in the Whiskey Rebellion in 1791.  The country needed money.  They imposed a tax on the production of whiskey.  Whiskey was a product of surplus grain. Since the producers of whiskey in Pennsylvania had very little in the way of circulating money, they were unable to pay the taxes.  So, they would either have to stop producing, which meant that they could not barter with the whiskey, or they would have to find some “hard currency” to pay the taxes.  They were put down by force, and all we have to gain from this event is the experience of the effect of misplaced excise taxes.

The other situation lead to the bloodiest war in our history.  Contrary to popular belief, the slave issue was not the primary event leading to the Civil War.  Slavery did not become an issue until well into the war, though states had seceded from the Union even before Lincoln was inaugurated.

Congress, however, had enacted tariffs that were unequal, and detrimental to the South and its economy.  High important tariffs forced them to buy manufactured goods from the North, paying more than what overseas source would require for the same products.  It was based upon forms of taxes more than slavery that forced the disjointing of the Union.

Conclusion

Federal taxes must be Constitutional, and should be as little burden on the people as possible.  Regardless of what the tax is imposed on, the people will ultimately be the source of that revenue.  If on import duties, the people will pay higher prices.  If on excise taxes, the people will pay higher prices.  The importers and manufacturers will simply add the cost to the product to recover the cost of the taxes.

Excise, impost and duties can be applied in an equitable manner if due consideration (not benefit for contributions to campaigns) of their source is considered. 

Let’s look at Duty taxes.  If the duty is on a product produced in a foreign country, and also produced in the United States, a duty tax that penalized the foreign importer in favor of the American producer might be warranted, unless it was high enough to be protective of the American product, allowing excessive profit to the American Manufacturer.  Balance of trade should also be considered with regard to import duties.  If we allow too many imports and reduce our exports, we create an imbalance of trade whereby we owe foreign nations more than they owe us.  Ultimately, this will have a detrimental effect on our whole economy.

Consideration should also be made as to whether a product is a necessity, or, for comfortable life, or, a luxury, something only desired by a small portion of our population.  Consideration of the circumstance that lead to the Civil War, where the duties tended to place an economic burden on an entire region should be avoided.

To provide fairness in such taxes, perhaps a list of general categories could be developed and all products within that category be taxed at the same rate, or a very small range within that category.

Excise taxes pose a different sort of problem.  When the tax is applied to one object, the price of that object is increased.  In many instances, today, the tax on an item may well exceed the cost to produce, distribute, and sell that item.  This amounts to an extremely unfair burden on those who use that product.  It might also provide an economic favor to a similar item that is not subject to the same excise tax.

* * *

Now, let us look at the direct taxes.  At the time of the Constitution, there were two forms of direct tax.  One was on land; the other was a capitation tax, which was an equal tax on each ‘head’.  One form of capitation tax was the poll tax, which was made illegal by the 19th Amendment.  The only tax even remotely similar to the Capitation Tax, that we have, today, though not envisioned by the Framers, is the income tax.  It is not apportioned, though the Framers considered apportioning to be absolutely necessary in both direct taxes and representation.  Surely, the impracticality, along with the expense associated with collecting the income tax, makes it a likely candidate for history, not for a means of efficiently and effectively raising revenue.

Perhaps an alternative in the method of collection, consistent with what Mr. Madison gave us, would be in order.  Suppose we realize that the federal government will never again face the difficulty in receiving monies due from requisitions to the states.  Can there be any doubt that the means, and, more than likely, the willingness to “pay up”, by the states, exists?  Especially, if the 17th Amendment is repealed, thereby returning to the state legislatures the means to resist excessive taxation that they will have to eat out [the] substance of their constituent’s pockets?  Clearly, they understand more than the federal government the economic abilities of their own state.  Clearly, they would best represent us in defending against excessive spending by the federal government.

We can include another benefit to this method of collection.  Today, the federal government collects taxes through their burdensome system.  They then establish a bureaucracy, which is assigned the responsibility to determine redistribution back to the states, based upon evaluation of need determined by people appointed, not elected, into that capacity.  How susceptible to undue influence is such a system?  And, how many dollars are squandered in the re-administration of funds that left the state only to be returned to them?  Finally, how much influence has the redistribution given to the state and local government by simply putting conditions, probably detrimental to the people, on those agencies that are the beneficiary of these returned funds?  Are not our local and state governments more qualified to determine where this money should go to support the needs of the state?  Need we pay federal people to ask state people, whom we also have to pay, to decide the what, where and how much will come back to the state, and pay both ends of this middleman when he is not even necessary if the State collects the funds before settling the requisition, and then retains that which is left?

The Demise of America

Gary Hunt
July 4, 2010 (and the 234th year of our Independence)

 [Note: I would like to acknowledge the assistance of Trey Tasker for review and editing this article.]

Where we began

America!  Just what is America?  Well, for a few centuries, it was the ideal of individual freedom and prosperity.  It was the hallmark of self-government, and it was the ultimate salvation of two major efforts of world conquest.  It was the deciding factor in both world wars, and was the refuge for those oppressed, elsewhere.  It was, for all intents and purposes, a great experiment that had proven itself over all other forms of government and a foundation of moral values, which, un-retarded, had provided a commitment to the rest of the world for aid in achieving similar prosperity, freedom, and moral value.

America is an overreaching name for what is, geographically, just another country in the world of countries, though it was also the name that applied to a Union of countries that had joined, for better, or for worse, to achieve those goals set out by the Founders, some 220 years ago.  America was manifest in the United States of America.  It was and remains that which is otherwise unachievable in other nations of the world.

A thorough study of the history of the United States will demonstrate, to all, that it had, after its inception, surpassed all expectations in establishing itself amongst the nations of the world as a formidable force with which to be reckoned.

Within 36 years of its separation from Great Britain, it had achieved the means of defending itself against the most powerful imperial power in the world.

Within the first century of its existence, it went through a tumultuous period of civil war, though it managed to avoid the separation, or change of government, that would otherwise have been the result of that upheaval.

Within just over a century, it had attained a position of esteemed prominence in the world of industry.

Within 150 years, it had become the economic center of the world whose dollar became the exchange currency most acceptable among the other nations of the world.

Looking back from the challenges of today, the questions that haunt us are:

1.  Has America lost its values — its moral compass — and those many aspects, as set forth by our Founders, that had set it out as a model to the remainder of the world?

2.  Has it outgrown its usefulness both to the people who call themselves Americans, as well as those who look, from afar, and envy that which was?

3.  If so, what has lead to the demise of that image of a better life, or, was it just the imagination of those who proclaimed its nature, for those two hundred years?

Political Correctness

Freedom of Speech is probably the most important and absolutely necessary enumerated right in the Bill of Rights.  The ability to express oneself, both to others and to the government, is fundamental in a country that is composed of self-governed people.

That freedom allows us to express ourselves to others, but also to ourselves.

So, what happened when the means by which we express our thoughts, concerns, ideas, beliefs, and, secrets, is curtailed, by any means, at all?

Let’s look at how this works.  Suppose you have had a religious upbringing, and a morality founded upon that belief.  You understand that heterosexual relationships are the only morally acceptable form of relationship.  You were raised understanding that homosexuals were immoral, and the idea of two people of the same sex having relations together was repugnant.  There was another word, a slang word that was used by most people including homosexuals, which was a reference to that type of relationship.  The word was “queer”, yet it was not necessarily derogatory.  After all, it meant odd, curious, or unexpected.  There is little doubt that the definitions fit, when compared with what was presumed to be the proper moral relationship.

Of course, the term “queer”, being odd, was indicative of someone who was not up to par with the morality and, as such, tended to exclude them from the acceptable norm.

Now, what if there was a concerted effort to abolish the terms queer and homosexual, through a policy of what is known as “political correctness”?  The substitute term would be “gay”, meaning light hearted, brightly colored, or carefree.  Under the social, political, and, in some cases, legal pressure, you succumb to the new phrase for what was considered immoral, not to very long ago.  You accept and use the term.  Over time, your mind follows that implied change in the character and nature of the word, and what used to be unacceptable, or immoral, behavior, has, both in the spoken word, and in your mind, attained a degree of respectability that, without political correctness, would never have been achieved.

Before long, you have adjusted your moral values to accepting what you knew to be unacceptable, though you are not sure just how that change occurred.

Another word that has come into common usage, though is now defined differently than it was, just a few decades ago, is “hate”.  Hate is defined a number of ways, such as, dislike intensively, or a strong distaste.  Often, hate is defined as the opposite of love.

Hate, however, need not have, and in most cases, at least in the past had, no connotation of violence.  Violence stood all by itself.

Recently, however, hate has changed from dislike of liver, or distaste from immoral behavior, to an adjective that is applied to certain crimes of violence, with the intention of providing more serious penalties, under certain conditions, usually unilaterally.  We have accepted this definition so that certain portions of our society are afforded more protection, under the law, than others, regardless of the extent, and, often, regardless of the cause of a violent act.  As a result, we have allowed ourselves to believe that crime perpetrated against some members of our society are worse than the same crime being perpetrated against other members of our society.

In both of the above examples, we have withheld our (freedom of) speech to avoid offending.  As a result, we have managed to allow our minds to be manipulated into accepting things that we clearly knew to be untrue.

By subtle manipulation, we are having our fundamental right of freedom of speech transformed into behavioral manipulation, a form of social engineering, and, consequently, a very serious encroachment upon that sacred right.

Education

A number of advocates promoted public Education, early on in the formation of this country.  Probably the most well known advocate would be Thomas Jefferson.

Jefferson has given us many quotations of his belief in the necessity of public education, and each will engender the consideration of the effect of the absence of education upon the morality, prosperity (of the community), politics and the necessity for the people to understand, and then, approve or disapprove that actions of the government.

Public Education, however, predates Jefferson.  In the Cape Cod area, for example, an annual tribute of fish was contributed to pay for the services of a teacher, available to all of the children, as compensation for his services.

However, after the formation of the new country, the United States of America, the promotion of public education was left to the county or other entity, at the local level.  It wasn’t until after the Civil War that the idea really took hold and the literacy rates of the population began to increase.

Very probably, the long war, the destruction of property and lives, was instrumental in the desire to assure that the population could consider all aspects of political decisions, so that their affirmation of the actions of government would be based upon being sufficiently educated so as to be able to properly judge those actions.

The following is from the Department of Commerce data, and reflects the literacy rate (of the white population) from 1860 through 1979.

Year                   White Literacy Rate
1870                   88.5
1880                   90.6
1890                   92.3
1900                   93.8
1910                   95
1920                   96
1930                   97
1940                   98
1947                   98.2
1950                   No data
1952                   98.2
1959                   94.4
1969                   99.3
1979                   99.6

Note that there was a continual progression of literacy from 1870 through 1947.  After the creation of the federal Department of Education, in 1953, we see a shift in education from the Public School System, which had achieved so much, over the previous century, to both federal and state entities.  We also see a shift in the upward rates of literacy.

During this period, we were experiencing a rapid growth in population, what would eventually be style the “Baby Boomers”.  These children, the byproduct of the attitude that prevailed after the victories of World War II, did put an increasing demand upon the educational resources, during that period from 1947 to 1952.  It also removed the traditional, and, demonstrably successful, method of education that had brought us what was later described as the “greatest Generation”, all of whom were educated under the former system of Public Schools.

With the intrusion of the federal government, as well as the state governments, replacing the decision making from the local School Board, whose interest was of the ability to educate the children of their own community, to the centralized, political and bureaucratic control of education, by those quite distant from what the needs, abilities, and resources of the community were, also provided a new means of measuring literacy.

Under the new guidelines for the determination of literacy, as it has evolved to the present time, the schools will teach, primarily, that information which is necessary to pass the competence (literacy) test created to measure the ability of the schools to educate our children.  Any education beyond the purpose of proving competence is secondary.

Arts, science, history, and many other areas of discipline have been subordinated to the effort directed to passing tests in which the answers have become the primary curriculum.

It has become abundantly clear that the average product of the government school system is, functionally, illiterate, though the statistics, revised to prove the efficacy of the centralized control of education, will prove to the contrary.

This deals strictly with education, though it does not deal, at all, with the morality, ideology, history, nature of government and the heritage of this once great nation.  Can we assume that the desired effect of the educational system has been achieved when, for the most part, the educational system has become a tool for government propaganda and the reduction of the average education to one of rote and compliance?

Is it in our best interest to put into the hands of those who would enslave us, the education of our children?  Or, should that responsibility be placed back in our own hands.

Religion

Those who first peopled the shores of America in the early Seventeenth Century were fleeing religious prosecution in Europe.  As they established themselves on those hostile foreign shores, they established equally sectarian societies from those that they had fled.  They were, however, more than willing to share the land with others and only endeavored to impose their religious sanctions on those in their immediate communities.

Originally, they were left alone, by the mother country, and allowed to practice as they saw fit.  Over time, however, the Church of England began imposing the tenets of that Church in many communities, effecting the government of entire colonies.  Other religions were allowed to practice, though all paid tribute to the master Church.

A turning point came in the late Eighteenth Century when the ties that had held the colonies to their mother, England, were severed.  The mother Church was allowed to continue, though it was relegated to the same authority as all of the other churches in the country.

Though all religions were allowed to be practiced, even Mohametism, the moral values of the country were firmly established in the Judeo-Christian ethic.  It was the foundation of the laws, the spirit and the prosperity that flowed from the people to make America a symbol of good and righteousness to the world.

It was the moral values that flowed from that religious source that inspired the courage, strength, and commitment, to enter two world wars, which tipped the balance of power and allowed the defensive powers to prevail against the aggressors.

America has, through its entire history, recognized the role of God in its foundations, establishments, and history.  Religious quotations are inscribed on most of the government, both state and federal, buildings built in its first two centuries.  Moses and the Ten Commandments are prominently displayed, many times, on the Supreme Court Building.  Prayers open every session of Congress and our currency bears a prominent “In God We Trust”.

More recently, however, those religious virtues have fallen to evil forces that are endeavoring to undermine the moral values and principles upon which that nation was founded.  And, it is coming from an area least expected.  It is coming through education — academia, and being fed to that country’s posterity, without the consent of the parents, and, as insidiously as if the Church of England were back in control of education, morality, and law.

Of course, it is couched in an innocuous term, evolution.  The term, however, permeates that society on levels that most have never even considered.  In ‘public’ schools, which used to utilize the Bible as a means of teaching reading, and, following the example of Congress, opened each school day with prayer.

In 1852, a forty-one year old Charles Darwin published “On the Origin of Species”.  It was, then, a theory put forth by Darwin that all life evolved from a single cell, which was formed by an accident.  Of course, Darwin knew nothing of DNA, or he may have reconsidered the complexity of a single cell — and its chance of creation.

Today, however, this “theory” has had no advancement, yet it is espoused by the academic community, the scientific community, and the courts (who no longer provide a Bible for swearing in).  They accept the “theory” of evolution over the accepted principle of creation, which now, in deference to the campaign against it, goes by the name of “Intelligent Design”.

The proponents of evolution call intelligent design a theory.  They claim that it is unsubstantiated and that no proof exists supporting the existence of God.  They advance their theories on the foundation of scientific proof that evolution is the means by which life, and man, came into being.  They have, through massive campaigns, removed that which was, Creationism, from the classroom, from the government (where it had comfortably resided for two centuries) and the search for the source of life, science.

The Evolutionists can best explain the effect, especially in the classroom, themselves.  Most will proclaim that they did once believe in God and were raised religiously, though upon their study of evolution, they determined that there is no God, so they became atheists.  Though, perhaps, not scientifically provable, they have laid claim to the proof of the lack of the existence of God to be a direct result of their studies.

They have created, by academic denial for those who believe in Intelligent Design, through establishing curriculum absent any mention of Intelligent Design, through refusal to consider Intelligent Design in any scientific research, and by pursuing legislative restriction on the discussion of Intelligent Design, an environment which is void of such teaching, or even the consideration of Intelligent Design, voiding the minds of our youth of any consideration of those sources of Providence to which the people, and this nation, owe so much.

Absent religion, which provides a moral foundation, we can expect that morality will become as individualistic and varied as the number of people in that country.  Situational ethics — doing what feels right — is becoming the morality of America, and, though not scientific, by any means, is best demonstrated by the very obvious changes in morality (out of wedlock birth rates, divorce, homosexuality, pedophilia, etc.) in recent decades.

The decline in morality and virtue is indicative of the failure of a society.  It loses its moral fiber that binds people together, its commonality, and its very binding sprit, which will, eventually, lead to its demise.

The final point to be made, here, is that the government has chosen to dictate what cannot be said from the pulpit, which has had sufficient impact upon the preaching of immorality.

Immigration

Immigration can be one of many lifebloods of a nation.  In the case of the United States, that lifeblood began flowing more than 350 years before the birth of that nation.  Immigrants from Europe came for many reasons, though most commonly, to practice their Christian faith, without obedience to a state/church government.  This Freedom of Religion, though restricted by community, was not restrictive to the practice of religion, as each saw fit.

Through those first few hundred years, the Anglican Church, from England, held absolute sway, in some of the colonies.  Other religions may have been allowed, by tithes (taxes) were paid to the Anglican Church for distribution only to the Anglican churches.

After the founding of the United States, religious freedom was guaranteed to all, and embodied in the Bill of Rights.  For those, then, and their posterity, the freedom of religion (absence of laws restricting the practice of religion) became assured for generations to come.

Time, however, and the lust for power in government (fear of opposition) generated a subtle change that would begin to diminish this significant right (birthright) of Americans.

It began with the simple gift of tax-exemption for churches.  With the imposition of taxes, which are questioned by many as even being constitutional, any organization requesting exemption from those taxes must file with the government claiming status as a religious, not for profit, corporation.

This, by itself, had no effect on the ability of the church to preach sermons that might favor a candidate, or a policy.  But, over time, those who controlled the purse strings wrote into the laws that the churches, in order to maintain their tax exemption, could not support candidates or policies, unless the government turned their back.  This meant that preaching could include support for anything that the government wanted, but excluded any sermon that would undermine the authority of government, by removing that exemption.

Churches were left to abandon any sermon, regardless of how well founded in scripture that was in opposition to government policy.  Morality had become subject to the approval of the government.  Consequently, church corporations began voting, by whatever form that had chosen, to abandon doctrines that were fundamental to their scriptures.

Few, however, have been willing to challenge the illegitimacy of such incursions into the practice of religion, though most of them are fully aware that sermons preached within the laws of the time (under British rule) offered no such limitation on the exercise of religion.

With banner held high, “Freedom of Religion”, we continue to accept that government is, as required by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, protecting that fundamental element of a person, and a nation’s, morality.

Manufacturing

Manufacturing and other industries were major elements in achieving prosperity, and attaining the recognition as the greatest industrial power on the earth.

In the Nineteenth Century, the availability of natural resources; open land; desire for expansion and settlement of those open lands; and the free market (uncontrolled by government) became the means by which that prosperity was achieved.

Industry was able to find a market place for its goods.  The availability of resources was unlimited, allowing for rates of production to meet demands.  Absence of governmental involvement gave a free hand for the free market to develop plants, seek new markets, and innovate new products, beyond anything the world had beheld before.  Tens of thousands of miles of railroad connected the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean and Canada to Mexico.  Each new mile added additional resources, land for settlement, and profit, which returned to expand the network, even further.

Innovation created new machinery for harvesting of crops, reducing manpower, and increasing productivity in the bread belt, thereby providing more than ample supplies of food to the growing nation.

Innovation also developed new methods of manufacturing, which would continue to lead the way in production, for decades to come.

At the beginning of the Twentieth Century, war encompassed the world.  The geographic isolation allowed product supplies to be increased to meet the demands of wartime goods.  Though our participation in WWI was not immediate, eventually, the spirit, ingenuity, and individualism that had lead to that prosperity provided an American fighting force that turned the tide of that war.

Just a few decades later, another war encompassed the world.  The productivity of that industrial giant was able to produce goods, and transport them across the seas, at a rate that was unachievable by all of the other countries, individually AND combined.  Once again, the American fighting force was the turning point in the war.

The demands of this second war had produced production lines incomparable to anything that preceded it.  Plants that produced toys were converted to the manufacture of weapons, within weeks.  Means were developed to adapt to any demand, and the production facilities went undamaged by war, providing a prosperity, post-war, that was later defined as the American Dream.

To this point in time, a philosophy of “A Good Product at a Fair Price” was the motivation, both in and out of war, to produce.  America was second to none in industry, and more than willing to share its knowledge and resources to rebuild the damaged countries resulting from that war — even the enemy’s country were rebuilt and their industry re-established, mostly along the lines of what America hand learned in the century preceding.

About this time, and in order to aid another country’s recovery, a practice of contracting foreign industry to produce certain goods lead to the denigration of a product by referencing the country or origin, “Made in Japan”.  These products, for the most part, were low profit, easily made, and required little technical ability to produce.

Over the next few decades, Industry continued to prosper, however, the philosophy shifted from “A Good Product…” to what became known as “the bottom line” mentality.

As a consequence, many of the industrial machines were produced, under contract to foreign nations, and then returned to the United States bearing the name of a United States corporation.  The same foreign manufactures also manufactured the same products for sale through different distribution systems, bearing their name, even though the products were otherwise identical.

Most of the raw materials (natural resources) to manufacture these products were mined in the United States, transported across Canada to Pacific ports, shipped overseas in foreign vessels, processed, manufactured to finished products, and then returned to the United States on foreign vessels.  Amazingly, these products would be for sale at less cost than they could be manufactured here.

One of the reasons for this gross disparity in cost of production was the proliferation of unions, demanding higher wages, more benefits, and job security, and, often, limiting production rates to ease the burden on the worker.

The government, by the end of World War II, legislated in favor of these unions, without regard to the consequences, and by venturing where the Constitution did not authorize them to go.

This fueled the fires of profit, at any cost, to the point that became destructive to American industry.  Quite the opposite of “protective tariffs”, the new course was actually beneficial both by support of unions and reduction of tariffs (e.g. Most Favored Nation status), resulting in the decimation of American industry.

Currently, less than 10% of the manufactured goods in the marketplace are made in this country, though they may well bear American names, such as Ford, General Electric, and Motorola.

Absent foreign imports, whether with, or without American names, our lives would approach third world status, unable to obtain goods for everyday household chores, workplace tools, and even industrial equipment.  Even obscure countries produce more for their own consumption than does America.

In less than one hundred years, we have gone from the apex of industry to a country almost void of industrial production.  We have become dependent for our daily lives upon those who may, at some time in the future, become our enemies.

Dependency

Dependency, by its very nature, makes one subordinate to that upon which it depends.  Children are dependent upon their parents, until they have reached an age and the competence in which they can depend upon themselves — independence.

Employees are dependent on their employers to provide both the wages that they earned, and a marketplace for the product that they provide, so that money is available for such wages.  Employers, in turn, are dependent upon the performance of their employees to provide quality products and services.

Governments are dependent upon their citizens to provide the guidance (by whatever means the construction of the government is based upon), and for revenue (again, based upon those means provided) for the operation of that government.

In turn, the citizens of a nation are dependent upon the government (in the case of the United States) for the protection of life, liberty, and property.

What happens when the government — the society — for which it is obliged to provide the means to protect, becomes dependent upon another government, or country, to assure that the means of daily living can be obtained in order for that society to survive?

If the government, for any reason, especially after having fully demonstrated that these means are readily available within the country, legislates in such a manner as to reduce, or even remove, those means, requiring that the society is now dependent upon another country for its daily means, has it transferred the primary responsibility for its citizens to another country — and government?

Has it, by these means, dissolved its entire purpose — in subordination to foreign interests?

Is it possible that the country which has relied upon its government to secure those means, by abrogating its responsibility, has destroyed the government and relegated its citizens to the mercy of the whims of another country?

We remain fully capable of providing some aspects of life, such as medicine, weapons of war and destruction, and a relentless line of politicians more than willing to reduce us, even further, into dependency upon others.

Catastrophic is an understatement of the effect, both short and long term that this transfer of dependence will have upon us.

Tradition

Every nation in the world is steeped in tradition.  Those traditions, whether good or bad in the eyes of outsiders, are a binding force in that nation’s culture and are necessary so that the longevity, coherence, and perpetuation of that culture to continue.  Absent that background, it is nothing less than a new nation without a foundation, course, or future.

The longstanding traditions of the United States have come under attack, recently, undermining the very fabric of that nation granted, by Providence (yes, that is a substantial part of the tradition), to the people who settled, then fought for the existence of it.

As the traditions are eroded away, under whatever guise might be undertaken to supplant them, so, too, is the personality, the character, the entire embodiment, of that nation.

When those traditions are eroded using the guise of the Founding papers, the Constitution, as an excuse for their erosion, the complacency of those who merely stand by and watch becomes as much of the destructive force as those who, by intent, are striving for the destruction of that nation.

Regardless of the ambitions of the latter, or the absence of objection by the former, the effect is the same.  They both allow a transition of government, as much as if conquered buy military force, though the means are far more subtle.  The intention is the same, and the result is as effective as the alternative.

Taxation

Though only a small part of what lead to the Revolutionary War, taxes, as they have through history, have become the means by which people are most often oppressed.

The French-Indian Wars had taken an economic toll on England.  Generally, the coffers of government are maintained, absent war, by a relatively small tax, intended to replace the debt incurred by war.  This was the case with the Stamp Act, in 1765.  In order to replenish the treasury, taxes were laid on the colonies.  This, along with the removal of charter government (See The End of the Revolution and the Beginning of Independence) incited sufficient concern in the colonists to begin down the pathway that, eventually, lead to separation from England.

The intention, as had been the practice, even under British rule, was to restore the Treasury and then to remove the taxes, with the need for replenishment no longer being necessary.

That practice served America quite well, during its first nearly two centuries.  The taxes imposed during World War II were in the single digit percentages, and the tax that had been imposed was, originally, imposed only for the duration of the war.

Instead, and by the time the America attempted to accomplish, in Vietnam, what the French had failed to achieve, the government had raised taxes, and they had become a way of life.  Twenty percent of income, or more, was the norm, nearly seven times greater, on all income, than the 3% taxes, only on certain items, that had roused the anger of the colonists.

Government had determined that they could maintain near perpetual war, if they were able to provide a constant and permanent flow of revenue, never allowing the coffers to be depleted.

Their President, Dwight Eisenhower, in 1961, in his Farewell Address, provided insight into what he had seen as a threat to the future of America, when he said, “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.  The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”

He realized that the “economic favors” bestowed upon those who made weapons of war, by the government who benefited, in one way or another, from perpetual war, was a danger to what our country stood for.

Leadership

The leadership in this country is recognized by that title, but have you considered what the word means?

Leaders are those who lead.  Just how do they achieve such significance that would warrant our following them?

Back in the late seventeen and early eighteen hundreds, there were many who had achieved their positions of leadership through demonstration of their ability to lead, and thereby justify our willingness to follow them.

Over the years, however, things have changed.  Now, the people that we are to follow come from a degree of obscurity.  Their respective parties, somewhere along the line, have decided that they have ‘achieved’ such prominence that they can be cast forth as leaders.  But, what criteria are used to determine that they have demonstrated their ability to lead?

Consider, if you will, that for them to garner the support of the party, they will have had to assure that the party is well satisfied with, well, their obedience to the party.  Let us take the current president of the United States.  He was obscure.  A senator from Illinois, who was nothing more than a yes man for the party.  Virtually all of his votes were on the party line, though he had something going for him:  the party, already satisfied with his obedience, determined that they could promote some aspects for their chosen candidate and convince the voters throughout the country that this man was worthy of the role of leader.  Nothing to demonstrate that he could, it is simply a matter of selling their candidate to the public.  This is accomplished by taking polls; analysis of the results; developing marketing strategies, not unlike those used to sell cereal or drugs; and, determining what people want to hear, in each region of the country, and assuring that their candidate says, in that region, what they have told him to say, in that region, and, likewise, in the other regions.  If you should have any doubts, recall what the candidates have said in the past, such as, “Read my lips, no New Taxes”, or, “I will have a transparent government.”

In the end, better leaders can probably be found by looking in your local community rather than looking at the television, which will bring you exactly what you want to see.

Government is designed to serve the people.  Understanding that it is impractical, and imprudent, for everybody to be involved in every decision required to be made at the top level of government, we have developed a system whereby the will of the people, through their chosen representatives, is made so, on the people’s behalf.

If you would, imagine an inverted triangle.  The base, being at the top, constitutes the people.  Below them are the representatives of the people, and at the very bottom, the point of the inverted triangle, is the President of the United States.  His purpose, according to the Constitution, is the chief executive of the country.  His job, then, is to carry out the will of the people (top of the triangle), as expressed through their representatives (middle of the triangle).  He is the lowest man on the triangle, and his job is to work for us, on our behalf.

For whatever reason, perhaps an inadequacy in the educational system, we have learned to accept the triangle in the wrong configuration.  We have allowed that the President is at the top of the triangle, master of all.  Below him is the Congress, our representatives, making decisions that are both contrary to, and against our will.  Finally, at the bottom, are we, the people, who find ourselves forced into obedience to the government, and, paying all the bills that they can accumulate, while attempting to tell us that what they are doing is in our best interest?

Where does this leave us?

Through a slow and meticulous process, events that are hardly noticed begin to have an effect on the people, and the future, by that same process, is modified in such a way that the people who have thought that they knew what freedom was, eventually, find that they are no longer free, nor are they what they thought that they were.

Those in control will exert their efforts to the point that a substantial majority will accept the conditions that they have imposed.

In time, the acceptability of what has been imposed, through these subtle means, becomes even more accepted, if not in years, in a decades or two, that which was, will be lost among the pages of history.  The newly accepted condition becomes the platform for the next generation of change, which, ultimately, will result in that which the United States was to be lost, and that which it has become to be accepted as that which always was.

When unlawful force or influence are used to undermine the obligations of government, the people subject to that government, are also slaves to that government.

This, unless we accept our responsibility of restoring that which was, will result in the Demise of America.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

Those who find this interesting might also appreciate Finding Freedom Again

.

.

 The
Outpost of Freedom
presents

MARTIAL LAW?

By
Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom

For years we have heard that the United States

was in bankruptcy,

that we are under Martial Law.

For years we could only suppose this to be true.

Dr. Gene Schroder,

American Agricultural Movement,

has done extensive research into the matter.

The results of his research prove that

these claims are, absolutely, true.

Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been

operating under a declared

National Emergency

as a result of that bankruptcy.

The effect is an erosion of our Constitutional protections.

All information contained herein
is Copyright by Common Law.

Reproduction rights are granted,
so long as proper credit is given.

MARTIAL LAW

by
Gary Hunt
May 24, 1994

It seems that we have all heard that “martial law” had been declared and that we have been living under it for most, if not all, of our lives. I, like many others, looked at the circumstances and assumed that this could be true. I have not, however, been able to find the documentation of this matter and, therefore, have been reluctant to claim such.

Thanks to a very close fiend from Dallas, Texas, that I have never met (he was my “alarm clock” during the siege in Waco — by virtue of calling me every morning, to wake me up), I now have most of the paperwork that supports this contention. This paperwork comes from a Citizens for Legal Reform meeting, January 18, 1994, “Abolition of the United States Constitution Under the War Powers Act”, by Dr. Gene Schroder.

It is important, since we now know this to be true, to understand exactly how it was that we came under “Martial Law.” It is one thing to assume that it is true, another to know that is true and quite another to KNOW why it is true. I will give quotes and refer to the documents from which they are taken.

WORLD WAR I

World War I, the War to end all wars, allowed the Congress to pass the “Trading with the enemy Act”. [SIXTY-FIFTH CONGRESS, Session I, Chapter 106, “An Act To define, regulate, and punish trading with the enemy, and for other purposes”.] The Act was passed on October 6, 1917. Portions of said Act are presented below:

Section 2(c) contains the definition of “enemy”, to include, ‘”Such other individuals or body or class of individuals as may be natives, citizens, or subjects of any nation with which the United States is at war, other than citizens of the United States, . . . may, by Proclamation, include within the tern “enemy” (emphasis mine)

Section 5(a) gives the President the authority to suspend the Act with regard to any ally of the enemy, as he shall determine to be appropriate. An interesting assumption that the President may allow continuation of trade with an enemy, indirectly, based upon his determination!

Section 5(b), however, allows the President to “. . . regulate, or prohibit . . . any transactions in foreign exchange, export or earmarkings of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency . . . by any person within the United States; and he may require any such person engaged in any s such transaction to furnish, under oath, complete information relative thereto, including the production of any books of account, contracts, letters or other papers, in connection therewith in the custody or control of such person, . . .”

 Interesting that he has also made testimony compulsory. This appears to be a direct violation of that portion of Article V, Bill of Rights, which states, “nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself”, and is the beginning of the decimation of our Rights protected thereunder.

Section 6 provides for “officials to he known as ‘alien pi property custodians”, who will be empowered to receive all money or property owned by, or owed to, any enemy or ally of enemy.” Has this become the IRS?

Interesting that the authority granted the President allowed such a broad degree of discretion, and that the “gold and silver” mandated by the Constitution would be an object of this Act. My recollection was that Habeas Corpus may be suspended only, “when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the Public Safety, may require it.”

The Writ of Habeas Corpus provision provides that no one may be arrested by the government, unless the arrest is made pursuant to the Constitution. Article 5 of the Bill of Rights, says, “No person .shall he held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces; or in the Militia when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person he subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall he compelled in any criminal erase to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Perhaps the intended meaning of this provision has been lost. Does it mean, among other things, that the government may not arrest anyone unless the determination that an arrest is to be made is made by a group of peers? That government, of and by itself, has not the authority to arrest anyone? Except, of course, in those times where a national emergency is declared.

So, perhaps the meanings given to the words by the Founding Fathers has been lost. Law enforcement officers make arrests, without indictments by the Grand Jury, and property is “seized”, under property forfeiture laws, daily. Perhaps we have found why these sacred protections have slowly eroded into what we have been led to believe is good “crime control.” Perhaps we have been LIED to by the very people chosen to represent us.

So much for this, however, because the War ended and all returned to normal — except the fact that Congress had allowed this Act, which was a step in denial of Constitutional protection, to continue to exist.

Did these Acts of Congress continue to affect our daily lives? Or, were they discontinued at the end of hostilities? Go to your local law library and read 12 USC §95(b).

DEPRESSION

History makes quite clear the existence of the Great Depression. Exactly when it began is subject to debate. However, the fact that Franklin D. Roosevelt became President in March 4, 1933 is not.

On Sunday, March 5, 1933, Franklin Roosevelt called for Congress to “convene in extra session” on March 9, 1933 [Proclamation 2038]. On the very next day, he declared, by proclamation, a “bank holiday” which ran from Monday, March 6 through Thursday, March 9, inclusive. In the proclamation, he makes some rather interesting claims. He states that “there have been heavy and unwarranted withdrawals of gold and currency . . . for the purpose of hoarding.” and this “has resulted in severe a drains on the Nation’s stocks of gold : and” 

“WHEREAS these conditions have created a national emergency; and”

He then goes on to refer to “Section 5(b) of the Act of October 6, 1917, (40 Stat. L, 411) as amended ‘That the President may investigate, regulate, or prohibit, under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of license or otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange and the export, hoarding, melting, or earmarkings of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency * * *’”

Further, “NOW, THEREFORE, I, Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the United States of America in view (f the national emergency and by virtue of the authority vested in me by said Act . . . “ (emphasis mine), and declares the “holiday”.

The “national emergency” that he spoke of was the extension of lending authority granted to the Federal Reserve Bank (FRB) just twenty years before. The FRB was unable to provide, in gold, the deposits on hand. The system of fractional banking had allowed them to extend credit well beyond the available “value” held in trust by the banks. This is the definition of bankrupt, “The state or condition of one who is unable to pay his debts as they are, or become, due.” (Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition)

Then curiously, on March 9, Roosevelt saw fit to continue the “bank holiday” [Proclamation No. 2040] until further “proclamation” by the President. Perhaps never to be rescinded by said proclamation.

Then, on March 9, 1933, Congress passed “AN ACT To provide relief in the existing national emergency in banking, and for other purposes”. [73^rd Congress, Public Law No. 1, March 9, 1933. (Title I, § 1, 48 Stat. I] (emphasis mine) “That the Congress declares that a serious emergency exists and that it is imperatively necessary speedily to put into effect remedies of uniform national application”. Congress, not to be outdone by the President, passed a joint resolutions which confirmed the existence of the emergency (March 9 Proclamation) and argued that the resolution was necessary; otherwise the payment in gold, of real debts, would “obstruct the power of Congress to regulate the value of the money of the United States.” That “every provision contained or made with respect to any obligation which purports to give the obligee a right to require payment in gold [the Constitution] or a particular kind of coin or currency [gold certificates], or an amount in money of the United States measured thereby; is declared to be against public policy; . . . Every obligation, heretofore or hereafter incurred, whether any such provision is contained therein  or made with respect thereto, shall be discharged upon payment, dollar for dollar: in any coin or currency [Federal Reserve Notes] which at the time of payment is legal tender. . .” (emphasis mine)

Within the Act they rewrote Section 5(b) of the “Trading with the enemy Act” of 1917. The first sentence is provided, in it’s entirety, to give you an idea of the change of mood of the government:

1933, Section 5(b)

During time of war or any other period of national emergency declared by the President, That the President may , through any agency that he may designate, or otherwise, investigate, regulate, or prohibit, under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of licenses or otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange, export or earmarkings of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency, transfers of credit between or payments by banking institutions as defined by the President, and export, hoarding, melting, or earmarking of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency, in any form (other than credits relating solely to transactions to be executed wholly within the United States); and transfers of evidence of indebtedness or of ownership of property between the United States and any foreign country, whether enemy, ally of enemy or otherwise, or between residents of one or more foreign countries, by any person within the United States or any place  subject to the jurisdiction thereof; and he the President may require any such person engaged in any such transaction referred to in this subdivision to furnish, under oath, complete information relative thereto, including the production of any books of account, contracts, letters or other papers, in connection therewith in the custody or control of .such person, either before or after such transaction is completed…”

Let me repeat this as, it has read since 1933:

“During time of war or any other period of national emergency declared by the President, the President may, through  any agency that he may designate, or otherwise, investigate, regulate, or prohibit, under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of licenses or otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange, transfers of credit between or payments by banking institutions as defined by the President, and export, hoarding, melting, or earmarkings of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency by any person within the United States or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof; and the President may require  any person engaged in any transaction referred to in this subdivision to furnish under oath, complete information relative thereto, including the production of any books of account, contracts, letters or other papers in connection therewith in the custody or control of .such person, either before or after such transaction is completed “

Interestingly, it appears that all reference to “enemy” is deleted, and the law now acts on “any person within the United States or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof” Have WE become the ENEMY?

Note, also, that if the President were to issue a “license”, the trading would be condoned. Have we been given a “license” to conduct our everyday activities of commerce? Many businesses, along with driving, hunting, fishing, etc., have become “licensed” activities. I leave to you to find the correlation.

The question might arise as to whether Roosevelt thought this out by himself The answer is a resounding NO! In a letter and recommended Resolution that Herbert Hoover received from Eugene Meyers, Governor of the Federal Reserve Board, dated March 3, 1933, we find the exact wording incorporated in the Act.’ This “advice” was finally followed by Roosevelt just a few days later, just after he was sworn in to office.

It is even more interesting to understand just what happened to all of the gold, at this point. Remember, this was predicated on the fact that the Federal Reserve Banks were unable to pay out the gold for which “certificates” had been issued. But, what happened to the gold? In “The Hoover Policies”,’ in discussing the affects of the New Deal, “This first  contact of the ‘money changers’ with the few Deal twined those who removed then money from the country a profit of up to 60 per cent when the dollar was debased [gold was $20 per ounce before, and $32 per ounce after the banking act].” It appears, then, that those “in the know” were able to “remit” their “gold certificates” for gold prior to these Acts. The result was the reduction of assets in the banks to repair those with money on account and the transfer of the real “money”, gold, to those who fled the country to profit from the misfortune of most of working America, throwing these working people into a dependency on government that resulted, in 1934, in the establishment of the Social Security Act, the beginning of “The New Deal” and the beginning of the demise of the “Great Experiment.”

Let’s check the validity of what we have just said. From the Congressional Record [March 9, 1933, page 79, by Steagall], “Section 2 confers upon the President the powers bestowed under the act of October 6, 1917, regardless of whether or not the county is involved in war.” Later, in that same document [page 82] Mr. McGugin says, “Anyone knows that this Government cannot now collect enough taxes to meet their expenses . . . there is only one thing left for them, and that is to print money. “

In a report “Contracts payable in Gold” [Senate Report, Document No. 43, April 17, 1933, Page 9], we read the following statement, “The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual so‑called ‘ownership’ is only by virtue of Government, i. e., law, amounting to mere user; and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State.”

 Well, this appears to be consistent with much that we have learned lately, we own NOTHING, not even our children. To bad they didn’t teach this lesson in “government school” history class, after all, this is an official government document, and is obviously what government believes to be true ‑ do you wonder whatever happened to what used to be called a “freeman”?

Let’s go a bit further on this thread — the United States Supreme Court said, in United States v. Russell [13 Wall, 623, 627] “Private property, the Constitution provides, shall trot be taken for public use without just compensation. . . . Extraordinary and unforeseen occasions arise, however; beyond all doubt, in cases of extreme necessity in time of war or immediate and impending public danger, in which private property may be impressed into public  service, or may be seized or appropriated to the public use, or may even be destroyed without the consent of the owner. . . .”

It appears that it had taken the Money Merchants just twenty short years to evolve from their first introduction, along with the 16th and 17th amendments, of the Federal Reserve Bank, into the history of the United States, to a position whereby their “currency” (fiat money) was made the “coin of the realm.”

OTHER ACTS OF 1933

On May 17, 1933, Congress enacted additional legislation [Public Law No. 10, 1933 (HR 3835)] entitled, in part, “An Act To relieve the existing national economic emergency by increasing agricultural purchasing powers, to raise revenue for extraordinary expenses incurred by reason of .such emergency, . . . ” This Act allowed Government to purchase cotton to prop up prices; store the cotton and borrow against it. They would then sell it back to the producers, so long as the producer did not buy more than that which, when added to his production for a given year, did not exceed the production for the previous year, and allowed government to prohibit the producer from growing any other crop on the land previously used for cotton production. The “licensing” of the “right” to sell cotton to foreign powers was also “given” to Government.

Part 2 of this Act extended the above to any agricultural product the Government wanted to get involved in, thereby becoming “partners” with the farmers of America. Of course, a “Processing tax” was also included to cover the cost of the Government’s participation. The Act, however, was a very significant and substantial beginning to partnerships between Government and private sector ‑ that which has culminated in the controls now imposed upon nearly every aspect of business today.

Section 13 of this Act declares that, “This title shall cease to be in effect whenever the President finds and proclaims that the national economic emergency, in relation to agriculture has been ended . . .”

Then we come to Section 43, “Whenever the President finds, upon investigation, that (I) the foreign commerce of the United States is adversely affected by reason of the depreciation in the value of the currency of any other government or governments in relation to the present standard value of gold, or (2) action under this section is necessary in older to regulate and maintain the parity of currency issues of the United States, or (3) an economic emergency requires expansion of credit, or (4) an expansion of credit is necessary to secure by international agreement a stabilization at proper levels of the currency of various governments, the President is authorized, in his discretion‑‑” then continues, under these criterion, to authorize the “creation” of money, out of virtually nowhere. This, in and of itself seems to defy logic and place an inordinate degree of authority within the office of President — and remove it from the legislative body of our representatives.

The conclusion of this Act, however, is the epitome of the desecration of the concept handed down by the Founding Fathers. Section 46 amends the existing Section 19 of the Federal Reserve Act by adding, “Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this  section [Section 19], the Federal Reserve Board, upon the affirmative vote of not less than five of its members and with the approval of the President, may declare a that an emergency exists by reason of credit expansion, and may by regulation during such emergency increase ease or decrease from time to time, in its discretion, the reserve balances required to be maintained against either demand or time deposits.” So, what has been accomplished is an “emergency” that is self sustaining and has a life of it’s own. The Act has created a means by which it can be extinguished., yet provides further provisions, and the creation of permanent agencies, which preclude that from ever occurring.

IS IT REAL?

The question will surely arise as to whether this “state of emergency” still exists. Well, we can go to 1973 and review the report of the Senate “Special Committee on the Termination of the National Emergency.[93^rd Congress, Senate Report No. 93-549, November 19, 1973]” From the Forward of that report:

“Since March 9, 1933, the United Starters has been in a state of declared national emergency. In fact, there are now four presidentially proclaimed states of national emergency: In addition to the national emergency declared by President Roosevelt in 1933, there are also the national emergency proclaimed by President Truman on December 6, 1950, during the Korean conflict, and the states of national emergency declared by President Nixon on March 23, 1970, and August 15, 1971.”

“These proclamations give force to 470 provisions of Federal law. . . . . delegate to the President extraordinary powers, ordinarily exercised by the Congress . . . confer enough authority [to the President] to rule the country without reference to normal constitutional processes.”

REALITY

There you have it! The Senate of the United States, in committee, determined that, in fact, a national emergency exists today. As a result of the committee recommendations there: was a suspension of some of the executive orders relevant to national emergencies. However the significant ones still stand, in particular, those of 1933. Perhaps there is a reason that the Senate saw fit NOT to discontinue the national emergencies back in 1973. The perpetuation of this act is absolutely necessary to sustain the fraud that we have been under, for most of us, our entire lives. Anyone born before 1933 probably doesn’t even realize what has happened to our country, our government, our laws and our Constitution There is no doubt, however, that at this time we are under a national emergency, and that we now understand why the system of laws and protections that we read about cannot be practiced. A foreign (Federal Reserve Board and Bank) enemy has descended upon us, and has acquired control of our government. That control would not be released until we demand, by whatever means necessary, Congress to return of our Constitution and the Great Experiment that the Founding Fathers granted us.

Divide and Conquer

Gary Hunt
August 16, 2009

In War — in battlefield combat, one of the most important strategies, especially if the enemy has superior numbers, is ‘divide and conquer’. Very briefly, it can be explained that if you have a force of 3,000 and the enemy has a force of 4,000, you will probably be defeated in combat. However, if you can cause him to divide his forces into 2 groups, each having about 2,000 men, is beneficial. You have gone from 25% less men, against his entire force, to a 50% advantage over one of the split units. Once the first unit is defeated, the second unit can be attacked, with much better odds than if an attack was made on the entire force, at the onset.

The same is true of the psychological warfare America is embroiled in, today, and the political warfare that has begun to divide the country.

Each unit that advocates an idea, solution, or objective is limited to the number of people in that unit against the joined forces of the Congress; the Executive administration; and, the multitude of Administrative Agencies. The effectiveness of our side is usually diminished further by forces in different states not coordinating their effort; units with the same objective or goal, not working in unison; and, variations of methods of achieving the objective sought.

I have compiled a list of singular objectives that are commonly pursued, today. Bear with me as we look at these issues, and discuss what they will achieve, in the end, if the groups are successful in their pursuit. The items presented are in no logical order, but the primary issues, I hope, are all included.

911 Truth Seekers – the truth seekers – The goal here is to prove that the government was involved in the planning and execution of the events, which destroyed the World Trade Center, and resulted in our involvement in war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Though the issues brought up by the group are ambiguous rather than tangible, let us suppose that they convince the majority of the people in this country that the government was involved. What happens then? Will it end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Or, have they established a totally separate identity from the World Trade Center? If the government does acknowledge culpability, they will throw out a few dogs to be devoured by the press and public, and go on with their evil ways — planning better, in the future.

Problem: Administrative Agencies have too much authority, often independent of the legislative and executive branches of government.

Birth Certificate pursuers – Suppose irrefutable proof of the bastard president’s birth elsewhere (disqualifying him from office) is brought forward. What will Congress and the Courts do? They have a dilemma. Every enactment or document signed by the President becomes void, nunc pro tunc (from the beginning), or, since the task of, say, recovery of the stimulus money approaches impossible, and the undoing of the troop allocations to Afghanistan cannot be undone, what is Congress to do. Nothing –is what they can do. It may cost the President his job. He may be charged with high crimes, and convicted and imprisoned. Who will take his place? The successor would be Joe Biden, as Vice-President, or, John McCain, as runner up in the election. So, you, at best, get a Republican President. Was Bush that much better than the bastard president? Or, are both parties in bed to bring this country to its knees. Remember, the first stimulus package was under Bush

Problem: The Congress has not ventured into qualifying Presidential aspirants, and the Court refuses to look at the matter. There is a qualification in the Constitution, but no direction as to who is to act as the qualifier. Congress has not, as was intended by the Founding Fathers, sought to fill the gap of omission in the Constitution. Congress has let us down.

Audit the Federal Reserve – Suppose there is an audit of the Federal Reserve. What audit standard would apply to an entity as unique as the Federal Reserve? So, first, a standard would have to be developed to assure that the audit provided the desired results. I would suggest that this would first be given to the Treasury Department to propose the standard. I can see Treasury taking a year or two to develop their proposal for a standard. Then, it would go to the Congress who would assign it to committee, and it would be in Congressional committees for at least two years. Once the standard was determined, the audit would be conducted. Most assuredly, at least some of the auditors would be people well versed in the practices and procedures of the Federal Reserve (inside men). Even if the audit, when (if ever) completed showed massive fraud, the result would be to enact laws to prohibit that sort of fraud in the future, and, at best, begin the process of looking for an alternative to the Federal Reserve Act.

Problem:  Congress was outside of its authority when it enacted the Federal Reserve Act in 1913. The effect of the subsequent years of entrenchment; loss of GOLD and silver as a means of paying debt; and, the enormous debt that has been created and mostly owed to the Federal Reserve makes a solution under the present system almost impossible. The Congress failed to adhere to the Constitution.

End the Federal Reserve – Even if ended abruptly, the effect on the economy, especially with regard to the National debt, would be devastating. What alternative to both dealing with circulating currency and payment of debt would be implemented to avoid such disaster?

Problem: The Congress abrogated their responsibility under the Constitution and allowed an Administrative Agency (Treasury Department) and a private (foreign) group of investors to control our economy.

Healthcare – Objections to national health care are late, and will do nothing to reduce costs. As has resulted from mandatory (in some cases) healthcare insurance, the costs have escalated because the marketplace was undermined. Once the captive audience (mandatory insurance) was implemented, costs could only go up. If healthcare were left in the free market, there would still be hospitals, doctors, and producers of prescription drugs. They would, however, have to provide their services at prices that were reasonable and manageable. Otherwise, they would have no customers. Absent customers, they would lower their prices, or look for new work. Supply and Demand is the best manager of costs. Supply and Demand allows us, the ”consumers”, to determine what appropriate and acceptable costs are. Once removed from our hands, the value of the service was also removed.

Problem: Congress usurped authority that was not granted by the Constitution, by adopting socialism as a means of buying votes. There is no Constitutional authority to require businesses to provide mandatory health insurance, not is there authority, now, to implement national healthcare.

Continental Congress – The First Continental Congress was called for by the New York Committees of Safety. The other colonies responded, in kind, by agreeing to the Congress. The primary result was the “Non-importation Agreement”, as well as some petitions, and, most importantly, they understanding that the colonies could work together for a common goal. The delegates were either existing members of the respective legislatures who were NOT on the side of the Royal Government, or delegates selected by the various Committees. This was true of the subsequent Continental Congresses. The Congresses were called for by the delegates, not the delegates being called for by the Congress. The current call for a Continental Congress is a small group (though, admittedly, growing) of people who have called for delegates to their Congress. This could never be construed to be an emulation of those first Congresses. Since their line of representation is downward and selective, anything that they do or ask for is nothing more than any other group could do or ask for. It bears no weight, and is not representative of the people or a constituency.

Problem: We have been denied Redress of Grievances, as guaranteed by the Constitution. In desperation, we are seeking ways to regain that right, but it will only come when the Rebel US government returns to its willingness to heed the will of the people.

Ron Paul – Ron Paul has come along and captured the hearts of many of those who believe that the Rebel US government has gone astray. He is right in much of what he says, and those who have adhered themselves to him, are also right in doing so. However, we must think, also, of what effect it would have if Ron Paul were elected President. What would change? The President cannot act without the consent of the Congress. If he does, he places himself in a position to be censured or overruled by the Congress. He has a multitude of administrative agencies to deal with (Over 1000), and most of them have already developed a mind of their own. Alone, or even with as many as one hundred members of Congress on his side, the changes on the nature of government, and the power of the political elite is such that there would be no substantial change in the operation of the government.

Problem: The nature of government has changed to the point that return to the confines of the limitations imposed by the Constitution is nearly impossible. Separation of powers has become ineffective because of the power of the political parties and the political elite.

FEMA Camps – Back in the nineties, a list of alleged FEMA prison camps surfaced and circulated via fax network and other methods that were common. That same list has resurfaced and circulated on the Internet. The list, at least part of it, was bogus. I personally investigated four of the sites and they were not what they were alleged to be. More recently, another list has begun to circulate. It is completely different, though it does mention locations near some of the older lists’ locations. This list may have more truth to it than the previous list. It appears that either bids have been taken, or even contracts let for restoration and/or construction on a number of World War II camps or internment centers. So, what if they are building these camps? What will we do about it? Can they be stopped? Yes, if the new construction is destroyed, but that will simply delay things. Will exposure to the public of the camps service any purpose? Yes, and NO People will be aware of them and maybe resentful that they are being built, but the government will, most assuredly, come up with a plausible explanation that will satisfy at least some, and nothing will be done to change the continuation of what they have already begun.

Problem: An Administrative Agency (FEMA) has been granted extraordinary power, authority and budget funds to ‘prepare for an emergency, whether man-made or natural’.

Codex Alimentarius & Genetically Modified Products (GMP) – The Food and Drug Administration has determined, without anymore than administrative consent from Congress, what is good, and what is bad in our food supply. Once those few people make the decision, regardless of the source or influence behind the idea, it becomes law — and, we have to eat it — unless we grow our own food. Some suggest that we will not be allowed to grow our own food, but that aside, we have lost quality food from retail sources (unless small and local) and, in most cases, cannot even find out, without extensive research, what they have been doing to that food supply. If we get rid of the agency, we still have thousands of food production companies that have implemented the programs, and will be reluctant to withdraw from what they have gotten used to.

Problem: An Administrative Agency (FDA) has been granted extraordinary power, authority and budget funds to decide what we eat, regardless of who benefits and who suffers because of their decisions.

Child Protective (sic) Services – Every state has, under suggestion or pressure from the Rebel US government, established a Child Protective Service, or equivalent. Though the name sounds good, in fact, the agency (with federal funding) has the right to determine whether you are a fit parent, or not. “Spare the Rod and Spoil the Child” has become criminal, when applied to disciplining your child. CPS can seize your children without due process of law, and then place them where they see fit. It is likely that some of these agencies have even found that putting children out for adoption can be profitable – beyond the already lucrative government funding. Were we to simply get rid of the agencies (an awesome task, in itself), that will not undo the damage, not the condition, of decades of these agencies affect.

Problem: The government, Congress and administrative agencies in Washington, D.C., have funded and encouraged the establishment of agencies within the states who are ‘legally’ qualified to determine if you are fit parent, or not. This has been destructive of traditional family values upheld in this country for centuries, and has put the state as parent, under color of law, of all children.

Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.) – The Uniform Commercial Code was adopted by nearly every state, back in the fifties or sixties. Its purpose who to have a set of rules, easily understood and established, with the purpose that consumers would be able to understand their relationship to merchants, lenders, etc., and know where they stood and what their rights were in transactions. It was implemented by being enacted, in near pure form into the statutes of the respective states. There were a number of provisions that, definitely, benefitted the consumer. One was that when you made a payment, the postmark date of that payment had to be accepted as the date of payment by the lender. This has been overridden by the legislatures and now the lender can even hold your payment for a few days before recording it, which often throws the borrower into an overdue status and attaches the penalties that apply to overdue payments. Though beneficial, when implemented, it has become more of a tool for the commercial interests and means by which they can screw us out of penalties, add charges on top of charges, and, generally run the show. This, like CPS, is administered by the states. Congress tends to support the changes to credit cards, with a total disregard for the consumer.

Problem: The Congress had, at first, encouraged enactment and acceptance of the UCC. Then, they turned their backs on the intended purpose and allowed lobbyists to encourage changes that took away the protections and passed laws contrary to the UCC.

Stop the New World Order – This is an admirable goal. However, the question is whether it is achievable? And, if it were achievable, how would we achieve it? There is no doubt that certain identifiable organizations are major players in the effort to create a New World Order. I believe that some organizations, though often included, are not, at least in rank and file memberships, supporters of the effort. Once identified and exposed, do you think anything will change? They sit in their positions of power and influence (backed by their wealth) and dictate what they perceive as the solution to all of man’s problems on earth. We can touch, feel, taste and see the accomplishments that they are making, every day of our lives. The only conceivable way of stopping this effort is to dispose of those who are participants. Let them know that their lives have as little value, or less, than the lives that are lost, every day, because of their programs

Problem: Congress, the Executive, the Courts and all of the principle Ministers of administrative agencies are pawns in the game of world domination. This extends, largely, into the state and local governments. Where that influence is not direct, it is, at least, indirect. So long as there is no accountability for public officials, officers and agents, there is no solution.

Kick Them All Out – So, who will fill their vacancy? Another programmed member of their political party, or the programmed member of the other political party. In the event that you do manage to get a third party candidate in office, it will, more likely, be a lowly office that offers no threat to the establishment power scheme. Further, if against all odds, your third party candidate ascends to a higher and more influential position, you can rest assured that he will either succumb to “the way that it’s done” by trading votes to get some of his items passed, or, being but one or two who vote against bad legislation because they believe it to be bad (Note: many votes are cast against certain programs which already have assured votes for passage, for the sake of impressing their constitutions that they are “not party men”).

Problem: The legislative system in this country, at federal, state, county, and city levels has, with few exceptions, become corrupted and the office is sought for personal gain and influence.

Drug Wars; Medical Marijuana – Drug wars are nothing more than an attention getter and a tool used to demonstrate to the naive portions of the public that government is doing all that it can to get rid of ‘crime’. Of course, there is no victim to the crime, except the person who spends thousands for their lawyers, thousand more in fines, and, perhaps a few years of his life in prison.

Problem: Administrative Agencies have been granted, by the Congress, the authority to enact policies that, a Constitutional Amendment could, only impose less than a century ago. They have also ignored the guarantee of Republican Form of Government [Art IV, Sec 4, Constitution] in the states by allowing their policy to override state enactments and initiatives that have removed penalties for certain drugs and persecuting those who they have managed to license, by removing licenses of those who violate their administrative policies.

Confederate States of America – This group of sincere patriots have endeavored to arise from the past. They have taken the mantle of those who, many years ago, tried to stop them, then beginning to grow, element of Congressional and Presidential tyranny. Though secession was not considered unconstitutional when the New England States met in Hartford, Connecticut, in 1814-1815, to, among other things, discuss secession, it was those same states that supported Lincoln in his claim that secession was unconstitutional. Therefore, the most damaging war in our history was conducted to ‘prove’ that secession was unconstitutional. The precedence having been established, just how far do you think that you will get with the current effort?

Problem: Congress and the Executive have, in effect, revised the Constitution effectively outlawing any attempt to remove oneself from the compact. Once in, you are stuck. There is no way out of the corrupted influence of government by secession.

American Party; Constitutional Party; Libertarian Party; Christian Conservatives – In terms of any of these entities achieving any successful political advancement, they are little more than any social organization. Though it may feel good to be among people who think like you, the ability to effect any change within the current political structure with a new party is non-existent.

Problem: The Congress has managed to manipulate the electoral and election processes to remove, or reduce to insignificant, the possibility of a challenging third party to achieve even a modicum of success.

Show me the Law (IRS – income tax) – Though there are a number of reasons why the Income Tax, as applied, is illegal or unconstitutional, there are many who have ended up in prison, or dead, in their efforts to avoid this unlawful imposition on our lives. To their credit, probably millions do not pay Income Taxes. Will this change anything other than how much of what one earns they are allowed to retain? It absolutely will not. With all of those who have moved out of the system, there has still been no substantial change to the nature of imposition and collection of this tax. The government needs the tax, the benefits, and deductions so that they can ‘social engineer’ the society. It has nothing to do with the government’s need for the money, and everything to do with ‘teaching us that they control our very lives’.

Problem: Congress has given an Administrative Agency (IRS) power over our lives, without regard to the Constitutional restrictions on taxation.

Freedom Communities – Wonderful ideas, in concept. Live amongst those with like minds. They will only serve as indefensible enclaves, if the government ever chooses to crack down and arrest resistors. They are quite capable of becoming their own prisons.

Problem: Congress has extended its authority beyond the scope allowed by the Constitution, and encroached upon the domains that were preserved to the States.

State Sovereignty – In the nineties, 17 states adopted sovereignty resolutions. To my knowledge, they were never rescinded. Today, states, once again, are adopting sovereignty resolutions. Most of them were the same states that did so, back in the nineties. Though nice proclamations, they end up having no merit. Whether they were passed out of sincerity, or to ‘convince’ the citizens of the respective states that they would not succumb to federal pressure, they failed then, and they will, most likely, fail now. States have relinquished their authority, under the Constitution, for contributions of money from the federal agencies. They have sold us down the drain. When we object, they pass resolutions as pacification, but will still continue to take the greenmail that is offered by the Rebel US government. If these resolutions passed, and then are forgotten we cannot expect the states to be a viable part of our efforts to restore the government to its proper role.

Problem: The federal government usurped constitution powers to control the states, and then bought the states into submission.

State Citizen (National) – A valid exercise that, when completed, frees you from US citizenship. Once freed, however, you have to be vigilant and careful. A misstep may land you in jail, or worse. If you manage to establish your credential in your home community, you will have to repeat the education of law enforcement and judicial officers, when you leave you local area. This will be a perpetual battle for Rights retained by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. If millions were to adopt this status, what would change regarding the other evils of government?

Problem: The unconstitutional Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, allowed by the Congress, the Executive, and the Courts, created a fictional relationship between our public servants and ourselves. The effect was to make them master and us the servant.

North American Union – If we do not stop the North American Union, we will be like the European Union and we will have foreign trucks and drivers driving through our country. Yep! Even if you do manage to stop it, how long do you think it will be until the steam goes out and it gets started, again?

Problem: Congress has, many times before, relinquished or sovereignty in favor of foreign alliances that do not come under the heading of “Treaty’, as the Founding Fathers perceived it. NATO, SEATO, United National, NAU, all of them are just car on a train toward one world government.

H1N1 vaccine – This subject has generated a disproportionate amount of debate. The facts appear to suggest that the ‘outbreak’ and the ‘death rate’ are substantially lower than many other sources of disease/death. This brings in to question (suspicion) the insistence of a vaccine. Quite simply, take the vaccine, or don’t take the vaccine.

Problem: The Administrative Agencies, in conjunction with United Nations agencies have determined a course of action to be implemented (forced) upon the American people. This application seems to be inconsistent with the facts, but there is no recourse (Redress of Grievances), as provided for by the Constitution).

Illegal immigration/aliens; Border protection – Our borders, especially the southern border, have become sieves which allow illegal entry (invasion) into the United States sovereign lands. This breech of responsibility by the federal Administrative Agencies required by law to enforce immigration laws has allowed access, without the security that is required even for legal entry, to our country by workers, drug dealers, criminal elements, and very probably terrorists. In the meantime, for the first time in our history, American citizens are required to have a passport and go through extensive security to return to their own country, from visits to Mexico and Canada.

Problem: Administrative Agencies, by the policy and failure to enforce existing law, provide a fertile ground of activity that is in conflict with our professed Foreign Policy. Since both foreign policy and execution of the laws of the land fall in the Executive Branch of government, there is an apparent conflict within that branch which can be demonstrative of nothing less than contempt for the laws of the land.

Education – Public Education has its foundation in this country prior to the Revolution. It has been held that an educated citizenry would be watchful of abuses by government. The concept, as implemented and conducted for over a century was that local school boards: raised revenue through ad valorem taxes; determined curriculum based upon the needs of the community; provided facilities for the purpose of education; received all of Section 16 in the Western lands (the only participation by the federal government); and, hired instructors to provide the education to the students. As time went on, the federal government created a new cabinet position (Administrative Agency) for Health Education and Welfare. Over e few decades, nearly all of the authority for the above listed responsibilities evolved to absolute control by the federal government.

Problem: An Administrative Agency has displaced community, county, state, and family from the determination of what their children will be taught. They have controlled who may teach; what material can be used to teach; and extended their control to matters outside of the realm of education.

Homeschooling – Public education was, historically, ‘”made available”. This left the parents of children to decide whether they want to allow their children to attend public school,; be taught at home (homeschooling); or, receive no formal education, at all. The state stepped in, first, to make education mandatory (truant officers). Now, many states have imposed their guidelines on what qualifications, what material and what guidelines parents must adhere to, if they choose to educate their own children.

Problem: State and federal Administrative Agencies have remove much of the responsibility that God gave to the parents, with regard to the rearing of their children, so that they can be indoctrinated in the ways of the government’s choosing.

Abortion – Abortion is a moral issue. It is not a federal matter, but is, or was, in the purview of state and/or local government. That is the nature of the Constitution, as understood by the Founding Fathers. Federal crimes were limited to those enumerated in the Constitution, and, those that were passed in accordance with Article I, Section 8, clause 17, of the Constitution. In Roe v. Wade [410 U.S. 113]. Justice Rehnquist, dissenting, said, ” the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment… in 1868, there were at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures limiting abortion… The only conclusion possible from this history is that the drafters did not intend to have the Fourteenth Amendment withdraw from the States the power to legislate with respect to this matter.”

Problem: The Supreme Court has become a legislative authority in their country. It has used its position of power to aid in the usurpation of both state and individual rights, reverting the people to the roll of subjects, as they were under British rule.

Eminent Domain – Eminent Domain has a long history in our English heritage. Eminent Domain was the means by which the entire community could be served with roads, canals, and other necessities for common use. It has been used for private gain, aided and abetted by city and county governments, since at least the 1960s. Its original intent is a benefit to the community, though the many of current applications are motivated by greed.

Problem: The courts, from local to supreme, have ignored the history and intent of the law by allowing ‘reinterpretations’ of previous cases (stare decisis). If the courts are allowed to change the meaning of a word or phrase top obtain their desired conclusion in a case, the will, by such action, remove Justice entirely from the courtroom.

Congress not reading the bills that the vote for – It has always astounded me the Congress seems to find more new need for legislation, every year. Over 3,000 pieces of legislation are enacted, every year. One would think that, if what Congress did to solve problems worked, there would be less need for new laws rather than more. Perhaps understanding, as they have recently admitted, that they do not read the laws that the pass, we can understand why things are getting worse rather than better.

Problem: Congress, whether a Senator or a Representative, is elected and paid to do a job for his constituency. That job is to represent our interests. Regardless of recent flagrant disregard with respect to spending, answering questions about why they support something, and, there general unwillingness to accept any responsibility for their action, it would seem that enacting laws because someone told them that they were good law (and, we don’t have any idea who told them), is as far away from “representation” as one could possibly imagine.

Balance the Budget – There has been for years an effort to force the federal government to ‘balance the budget’. Let’s just suppose that they did. The budget would of necessity, include debt service (payments on interest, and, hopefully, substantial amounts to reduce principal), along with the necessary expenses to conduct the business of government. Even if the operating expenses of the government were reduced to minimal, when added to the debt service, the amount required to continue the conducting of government would be well beyond the means of the current sources of revenue. This would require imposing a tax that would be unbelievable, and totally unacceptable to most Americans.

Problem: The debt is increasing at an alarming rate because Congress and the Executive have determined that if they want it, they will buy it. Consider that the debt, right now, is in excess of $38,000 for every man, woman and child in this country. Congress and the Executive have dug a hole so immense that it is nearly impossible to get out of it.

Militia (Civilian Defense) – Militia have been actively forming and then disbanding for the past 15 years. They generally participate in some combat training, establish a chain of command, and then get bored with their actions. There are some, however, who have retained their character. They, the ones that have stood the test of time, have also acknowledged that the Militia is subordinate to the civil authority. At this point in our history, that civil authority is the governor of the state in which the militia is formed. Similarly, the colonial militia were subordinate to the Royal Governor and to their local Committee of Safety, if they had one. The necessity was different, then. Indians were a major concern. The Committees would also establish night watchmen if the community might be subject to Indian attacks. Much of the activity of the militia was totally without knowledge of the Governor, and the right to bear arms, though unwritten, was without question.

Problem: The Rebel US government has done everything that they could to delegitimize the militia. Most states have followed suit, even to the point of trying to redefine militia as the National Guard. Most states, however, retain laws which make all able-bodied males between the ages of 15 and 45 (may vary from state to state) members of the militia, and require no registration.

Committee of Safety – There is an effort afoot that is attempting to build Committees of Safety from the top down, much like the Continental Congress (above). They claim that all of the Committees were composed of existing legislators. They have, however, put the cart before the horse. Their page refers to a book by Agnes Hunt about the Provincial Committees of Safety. These colony level Committees came long after the original Committees had called for and conducted the Continental Congresses. The Provincial Committees of Safety, for the most part, came after the Declaration of Independence. The foundation for organization, leadership, and, equipping of the militia came first from the local Committees of Safety. Relief for the people in Boston, during the embargo, was provided by the local Committees of Safety. They were, without a doubt, the foundation of the American Revolution. They were not supporters of candidates, nor did they support issues. They were a single focus group that was intent on providing guidance to the community for its own defense and well-being.

Problem: Through the educational process and the qualifying of text books, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare has managed to relegate, nearly to oblivion, the role played by the Committees of Safety. They have attempted to destroy any understand of true Grass Roots Activism, by so doing. The problem is — we do not have any Committees of Safety upon which we can depend for lawful guidance of our activities, should the need arise.

In reviewing the above issues, and realizing what the outcome of each will provide as a result, we can see that we are facing myriad task, none, or few of which will result in more than a very singular accomplishment — which might easily lead us down another path to pursue.

If the particular objective is reached and the results are adequate, this leaves us only to join another battle.

If, after years of effort, a battle, which has been waged, is won, leaving no residual to encumber us into a continuation of that battle, we can choose another battle to pursue.

However, who is to believe that if a battle is won, finally and decidedly, that another objective will not appear to take its place.

If a New World Order, dominated by a few, against the many, is truly being waged, the tactic of ‘divide and conquer’ will surely be continued. It will drain our resources from now to eternity, if we choose to pursue our goal, one issue at a time.

The division of our forces is inherent in the struggle that we are pursuing. Each, due to his personal ideology, has chosen one, or another, of the objectives, and is willing to give 100%, not realizing the futility of success, once the battle is completed.

If our forces are so divided as to assure the success of the New World Order, we are only passing time until, battle completed, or not, we realize that failure is the only course that we have pursued.

Is there an alternative course that can achieve all of the objectives?

If we were in a battlefield where an effort was made to divide the forces, giving advantage to the enemy, we would, if our objective was to win and we had superior forces, refuse to divide our force. The enemy would have anticipated being successful in creating the division (as they most certainly believe to be the case), and would not anticipate an all out attack on their main base, leaving them divided simply by believing that we were divided.

In this psychological, or, political war that we are engaged in, what strategy would overcome the division that has given such an advantage to the enemy? Could it be to concentrate our forces in a single issue (of those above mentioned)? Most assuredly, it would be unsuccessful, since even though that battle may be won, it would only lead us to the next battle. Each battle fatiguing us even more, as we trudge through dozens of issues, and leaving the door open for the creation of even more issues to string along our forces until exhaustion and frustration finally lead us to accept defeat.

Where could we concentrate our efforts to expect that we could ‘attack their headquarters’ and achieve success on all fronts?

Unfortunately, in this world of rapid and advanced communication, their headquarters are spread all over the world. There are, however, many identifiable ‘sub-headquarters’ where their leaders work, meet, relax, or live.

If we were to begin an effort to attack them on terms that were advantageous to us, rather than them, we would begin by going to these locations and finding the culprits. We would tar and feather them, and we would destroy the buildings that they used to enjoy that which they have reaped from our toil.

Yes, they will arrest us for doing such things. They have established a support base (police, courts, etc.) to protect them, since they realize that the Founding Fathers did not face such protection for the taxmen and politicians of the day. However, arrest is a small price to pay for the goal that we seek. And, if the juries are fully informed, there will be no convictions.

Create such discomfort and generate fear in their hearts, and, perhaps, they will find another country to plunder. It is for us to take back our country, and, in so doing, all of the problems enumerated above, along with the dozens unmentioned, will be capable of solution by We the People.

If we take to heart the last two mentioned items (Committees of Safety and Militia), we can begin forming a substitute government (as did the Founding Fathers), which, once installed as the true Government of the United States, we can dispense with the problems, one after another.

Would we rather pay lip service to George Washington? Or, would we rather do that which is necessary to achieve the removal of a despotic government? He was willing to do what was necessary to expel those who resisted allowing freedom and liberty to prevail in the land. He supported those peaceful efforts, when there was hope for them to succeed. When peaceful methods had convinced the Founding Fathers that they would be of no avail, the efforts were stepped up, as necessary, to force the hand of the despotic government. Retreat was not in the dictionary. How extensive an effort would be required was unknown, and every effort was made to escalate only to the extent necessary. The desire of the despots to retain control was the force that was needed to compel the colonists to risk all, when all else had failed.

We have tried petitions. We have tried demonstration. We have been ignored by those in power for every effort we have exerted. Perhaps, now is the time to extend our efforts into a minimal physical effort. Create displeasure and discomfort of those in power, and those who support them. In addition, we must be sincere and thorough, for if we fail in this effort, there remain but two choices – Victory by force of arms, or, defeat by failure to be willing to commit to the cause.

view Divide and Conquer on line

download a PDF of this article Divide and Conquer (PDF)