She fought for law, and the law won

The Juror Who Took On the IRS

by Mark Yannone

Marcy Brooks (bless her cotton socks), foreman of the jury that took on the IRS in the income tax trial of Whitey Harrell, relates some of the details of the trial and jury deliberations. Barely able to contain her emotion, she takes her audience back to the fateful yet inevitable decisions that shocked the judge and propelled her to international fame. [Watch] 14:24


Logan County Jury Acquits Harrell

Lincoln, Illinois (5/26/00) - Gaylon "Whitey" Harrell of rural Latham was acquitted by a 12-person jury of the 4-count criminal felony charges of willful failure to file an Illinois State Income Tax form.

The actual trial began on Wednesday, May 24, in the Logan County Circuit Court room, presided over by Senior Judge David "Slick" Coogan ("Slick" is how the judge identifies himself) and closed on Friday after four hours of deliberation when the jury returned with four consecutive "not guilty" verdicts.

"We were in a heated debate," reported one unnamed juror, "but when the court refused, after our specific written request, to furnish us copies of the actual statutes (that imposed the obligation on the defendant) it didn't take long for all of us to see that something was wrong with the state's case.

"That was not all the court refused to let the jury see," added Jerry Barringer, Harrell's attorney. "The court, at the request of the Illinois State's attorney, denied the jury access to evidence that already had been introduced and accepted."

"Astoundingly, even the Bill of Indictment was denied to the jury," chimed in Barringer's legal assistant, Lindsey Springer. "Also denied were jury instructions sanctioned by the Supreme Court and even a VCR recorder to play the video tape that Whitey had made of his meeting with the CID agent."

"I've seen a lot of tyranny in the courts, but never anything so blatant as what I saw here over the last two days," added Bob Minarik, an Indiana friend of Harrell's.

The 4 criminal felony charges had been brought against Harrell in 1997 and just came to trial this past week. Harrell had submitted numerous motions in a case that saw both assigned judges and assigned state's attorneys resign or recuse themselves. All Harrell's motions were denied.

The case started back in early 1997 when Harrell was approached by Illinois Department of Revenue Criminal Investigation Division (CID) agent Robert Craner, who asked him for an interview. The testimony was that Harrell refused until he had witnesses present and a video camera set up at the local library where he later video taped a 45-minute meeting with Craner. On the video, which was shown to the jury at the trial, Harrell specifically pointed out that he could find no section of the Illinois statutes that obligated him to file an Illinois income tax return. He presented Craner with numerous documents that he identified as outlines of statutes and regulations and "administrative code," which he said he searched without finding any obligation that would apply to him. Craner accepted the documents. The tape showed that Craner promised Harrell at least five different times to produce the statutes that made Harrell liable and would get answers to Harrell's questions.

The testimony later showed that Craner didn't do that and instead went back to the Grand Jury to testify that Harrell was a resident of Logan County who failed to file Illinois state income tax forms. Unbeknownst to Harrell at the time of the interview Craner was also acting as a Grand Jury investigator. "He never told me," said Harrell. "He never read me a Miranda warning. He just promised to get me the information, but instead went back to the Grand Jury to get an indictment."

Grand Jury transcripts show that Craner testified that Harrell, at the library meeting, had nothing to offer in his defense of why he didn't file a tax return, but the video tape brought Craner's credibility into serious question.

Harrell testified in his own defense and verified his many efforts to obtain the law that made him liable for the income tax or how his activity was privileged. The prosecution brought out on cross examination that Harrell had filed many law suits in the past and that those suits were dismissed in both the state and federal courts. In an attempt to prove knowledge, the state also elicited that Harrell had previously filed tax returns. Harrell's attorney, Barringer, likened that to believing in Santa Claus when you were a child and then gaining knowledge of the fact that Santa Claus is a fantasy as you got older and wiser. Barringer's questioning of Agent Craner as to his belief in Santa Claus brought an objection from the state's attorney, which was sustained by the judge without any recognition of humor.

Harrell, 62, had worked for the United States Post Office as a rural mail carrier and also received a pension from Caterpillar from where he retired in 1990.

Asked if his case will set a precedent, Harrell said, "Legally, no, but I certainly hope it sets the precedent that more people question the loss of their rights and property whenever government claims it's the law. I feel sure this jury will be thinking twice."

Interestingly, even after the specific request of the jury, neither the state nor the court ever did produce any statute showing Harrell had any obligation. "We don't have anything to say at this time other than Mr. Harrell was very lucky and we will be watching his activities carefully," stated an assistant State's Attorney, who asked not to be identified.

Harrell plans to keep up his efforts to expose what he says is the one of the largest frauds ever committed on the people of Illinois. "Al Capone couldn't hold a candle to these guys," Harrell said when talking about the state's claim of a requirement for wage earners and independent contractors to file a state income tax form.

Harrell's bail bond has been released, and the funds obtained from Harrell to guarantee the bond will be returned. No further court actions are pending against Harrell at this time, but Harrell anticipates further actions by himself against both the state Department of Revenue and the federal Internal Revenue Service.

[Source]

So you're living in a police state

Join Stephen Colbert in the bathroom as he shows you how invasion of privacy and loss of freedom can work for you. [Watch] 4:22

You weren't going to object . . . were you?

Educating juries for income tax trials

(January 27, 2007) - Dave Champion evaluates the jury instructions issued in Ed and Elaine Brown's tax trial. [Listen] 4:34

[Full show and complete archives]

Firing the man who tried to destroy America

The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office

by David Lindorff and Barbara Olshansky

In the first part of this video David Lindorff tells the tale of the book he and Barbara Olshansky were asked to write about the impeachment of the president, including an outline of the crimes with which Bush could be charged.

In the balance of the video Barbara Olshansky details the shocking violations of well-established law committed by the president and his administration in the kidnapping, incarceration, and torture of innocents from the United States and throughout the world. Details of the tragic case of Maher Arar are included.

The authors describe a lawless America that few American citizens would believe. Indeed, this is a level of government corruption and tyranny we have never known.

If You Don’t Like What Your Government Has Become

by Mark Yannone

If you don't like what your government has become:

Why do you send them your money? Why do you vote for them? Why are you so easily distracted by their news agencies? Why do you play the liberal vs. conservative, Republican vs. Democrat game? Why do you let them hook you by the nose by mentioning religion, race, or abortion? Why do you use your Social Security number when asked to? Why will you accept the Real ID card when they hand it to you? Why do you accept the schools they have imposed on you? Why do you cooperate with them? Why do you fight their wars? Why do you send your children to fight their wars for them? Why do you work for them? Why do you seek government contracts? Why do you ask government for anything? Why are you waiting for others to "wake up?" Why don't you just do the right thing--all by yourself--every time? You can do the right thing and be extremely powerful--all by yourself. Embarrass them. Yell at them. Confuse them. Lie to them. Corrupt their databases. Stay away from them. Vote against them all, every time. Make their lives a living hell. Waste their time when they interfere with you. Teach them. Use the media against them. Hurt them with logic and righteous indignation. These things you can do all by yourself. You don't need permission, a group, a leader, a meeting, an office, or flyers. Just stand up for yourself and do the right thing.

911: In Plane Site

Building the new Stalag USA

The Wild and Free Pigs of the Okefenokee Swamp

Some years ago, about 1900, an old trapper from North Dakota hitched up some horses to his Studebaker wagon, packed a few possessions--especially his traps--and drove south. Several weeks later he stopped in a small town just north of the Okefenokee Swamp in Georgia. It was a Saturday morning--a lazy day--when he walked into the general store. Sitting around the pot-bellied stove were seven or eight of the town's local citizens.

The traveler spoke. "Gentlemen, could you direct me to the Okefenokee Swamp?"

Some of the old-timers looked at him like he was crazy. "You must be a stranger in these parts," they said.

"I am. I'm from North Dakota," said the stranger.

"In the Okefenokee Swamp are thousands of wild hogs," one old man explained. "A man who goes into the swamp by himself asks to die!" He lifted up his leg. "I lost half my leg here, to the pigs of the swamp."

Another old fellow said, "Look at the cuts on me; look at my arm bit off! Those pigs have been free since the Revolution, eating snakes and rooting out roots and fending for themselves for over a hundred years. They're wild and they're dangerous. You can't trap them. No man dare go into the swamp by himself."

Every man nodded his head in agreement.

The old trapper said, "Thank you so much for the warning. Now could you direct me to the swamp?"

They said, "Well, yeah, it's due south--straight down the road." But they begged the stranger not to go, because they knew he'd meet a terrible fate.

He said, "Sell me ten sacks of corn, and help me load it in the wagon." And they did. Then the old trapper bid them farewell and drove on down the road. The townsfolk thought they'd never see him again.

Two weeks later the man came back. He pulled up to the general store, got down off the wagon, walked in, and bought ten more sacks of corn. After loading it up he went back down the road toward the swamp.

Two weeks later he returned and again bought ten sacks of corn. This went on for a month. And then two months, and three. Every week or two the old trapper would come into town on a Saturday morning, load up ten sacks of corn, and drive off south into the swamp. The stranger soon became a legend in the little village and the subject of much speculation. People wondered what kind of devil had possessed this man, that he could go into the Okefenokee by himself and not be consumed by the wild and free hogs.

One morning the man came into town as usual. Everyone thought he wanted more corn. He got off the wagon and went into the store where the usual group of men was gathered around the stove. He took off his gloves.

"Gentlemen," he said, "I need to hire about ten or fifteen wagons. I need twenty or thirty men. I have six thousand hogs out in the swamp, penned up, and they're all hungry. I've got to get them to market right away."

"You've WHAT in the swamp?" asked the storekeeper, incredulously.

"I have six thousand hogs penned up. They haven't eaten for two or three days, and they'll starve if I don't get back there to feed and take care of them."

One of the old-timers said, "You mean you've captured the wild hogs of the Okefenokee?"

"That's right."

"How did you do that? What did you do?" the men urged, breathlessly.

One of them exclaimed, "But I lost my arm!"

"I lost my brother!" cried another.

"I lost my leg to those wild boars!" chimed a third.

The trapper said, "Well, the first week I went in there they were wild all right. They hid in the undergrowth and wouldn't come out. I dared not get off the wagon. So I spread corn along behind the wagon. Every day I'd spread a sack of corn. The old pigs would have nothing to do with it."

"But the younger pigs decided that it was easier to eat free corn than it was to root out roots and catch snakes. So the very young began to eat the corn first. I did this every day. Pretty soon, even the old pigs decided that it was easier to eat free corn. After all, they were all free; they were not penned up. They could run off in any direction they wanted at any
time."

"The next thing was to get them used to eating in the same place all the time. So I selected a clearing, and I started putting the corn in the clearing. At first they wouldn't come to the clearing. It was too far. It was too open. It was a nuisance to them."

"But the very young decided that it was easier to take the corn in the clearing than it was to root out roots and catch their own snakes. And not long thereafter, the older pigs also decided that it was easier to come to the clearing every day."

"And so the pigs learned to come to the clearing every day to get their free corn. They could still subsidize their diet with roots and snakes and whatever else they wanted. After all, they were all free. They could run in any direction at any time. There were no bounds upon them."

"The next step was to get them used to fence posts. So I put fence posts all the way around the clearing. I put them in the underbrush so that they wouldn't get suspicious or upset. After all, they were just sticks sticking up out of the ground, like the trees and the brush. The corn was there every day. It was easy to walk in between the posts, get the corn, and walk back out."

"This went on for a week or two. Shortly they became very used to walking into the clearing, getting the free corn, and walking back out through the fence posts."

"The next step was to put one rail down at the bottom. I also left a few openings, so that the older, fatter pigs could walk through the openings and the younger pigs could easily jump over just one rail. After all, it was no real threat to their freedom or independence. They could always jump over the rail and flee in any direction at any time."

"Now I decided that I wouldn't feed them every day. I began to feed them every other day. On the days I didn't feed them the pigs still gathered in the clearing. They squealed, and they grunted, and they begged and pleaded with me to feed them. But I only fed them every other day. And I put a second rail around the posts."

"Now the pigs became more and more desperate for food. Because now they were no longer used to going out and digging their own roots and finding their own food. They now needed me. They needed my corn every other day. So I trained them that I would feed them every day if they came in through a gate. And I put up a third rail around the fence. But it was still no great threat to their freedom, because there were several gates and they could run in and out at will."

"Finally I put up the fourth rail. Then I closed all the gates but one, and I fed them very, very well. Yesterday I closed the last gate. And today I need you to help me take these pigs to market."
____________

The allegory of the pigs has a serious moral lesson. This story is about federal funds being used to bait, trap, and enslave a once free and independent people. Federal welfare, in its myriad forms, has reduced not only individuals to a state of dependency, but state and local governments are also on the fast track to elimination due to their functions being subverted by the command and control structures of federal revenue sharing programs.

Bush administration still punishing innocent victim of US and Syrian torture

"I wish I could buy my life back"

by Tonda MacCharles
Toronto Star

Maher Arar has a long-awaited formal apology finally in hand, $10.5 million, and official recognition at last of his innocence.

But there is one thing he lacks.

"I wish, if there is a way, if I could buy my life back. That's my biggest wish," said the 36-year-old computer software engineer and father of two.

. . . Falconer, an experienced civil litigator, became choked up, and Arar also appeared moved, when Falconer told of how Arar's wife insisted on an apology in writing from the Prime Minister from the beginning, "so that when her children are old enough they have written proof from the Prime Minister of Maher's innocence."

"No one should have to prove their good name to their children. That is simply abominable. The Prime Minister and his government deserve credit for helping to restore these people's lives," Falconer said.

But the Arar family's troubles have not ended. The U.S. government insists Arar will stay on its border watch list and be refused entry to that country, despite the findings of the O'Connor inquiry, which cleared Arar last fall of any suggested links to terrorism. [Full story]

[Background]

Math books designed for successful students

Twelve years of math

Elements of Arithmetic
Fractions
Decimals
Weights and Measures
Powers and Roots
Algebra
Geometry
Trigonometry
Logarithms

Today's students are issued books that are so big and heavy that schools have to issue them in pairs: one for school and one for home. This stack of books from 1945 covers twelve years of math yet an infant could hold it in one hand. What's missing? The pictures of butterflies, the introductions to the introductions, and the 1001 ways to discourage a good student. If you search you may still find these.

Law enforcement and criminal justice gone bad

[Extract] "Newly discovered evidence shows that key prosecution witness Bradley Kapp lied on the stand," said Barry Bachrach, Kahl's attorney. "Medical records withheld by government prosecutor Lynn Crooks unequivocally establish that Mr. Kahl did not shoot Kapp. Kapp was not shot by 'bullets,' but by a 'shot gun from 25 feet' as evidenced by 'small pellets.' Mr. Kahl—none of the defendants in this case—had shotguns. Kapp was shot by a fellow law enforcement officer."

The brief submitted today alleges that prosecutor Crooks knew or should have known that Kapp's testimony was untrue. "Crooks presented the testimony anyway, even vouched for the credibility of the witness. The prosecutor also withheld exculpatory evidence that would have shown that the witness wasn't telling the truth."

Other issues were raised in the court brief including juror misconduct. When juror Clara Voight was interviewed after the trial, she adamantly stated her belief that the defendants started shooting first. Her comments indicated, however, that this belief wasn't based on the evidence presented at trial but, as she made clear, because it ". . . came out in the papers, I mean right on TV right away. And I seen it."

"There should be a full hearing on these matters to determine the actual facts and their effects on the jury verdicts." Bachrach said. "Mr. Kahl did not receive a fair trial and I think it's time he got one."

Kahl is serving a life sentence (plus 15 years) in the U.S. Penitentiary at Terre Haute, Indiana. A previous petition, filed in September 2002 and also alleging misconduct that included an invalid arrest warrant, was administratively rejected and never heard by the Court.

In 1995, some 71 state supreme and superior court justices, state senators, attorneys, and other criminal justice experts and professionals signed an affidavit on their independent findings on the "shoot-out" at Medina and their belief that Kahl was wrongfully convicted: "We were, of course, not entirely unbiased in our investigation . . . as present and past members of the criminal justice system ourselves . . . [we] truly wanted . . . to find no fault and in favor of our slain fellow officers. It is unfortunate that this was not the case." [Full story] [Watch]

Yorie's account of the day

Interview with Yorie

The Murder of Gordon Kahl

A prescription for public education

On Public Houses of Lies

by L. Neil Smith

Shut them all down. Shut them down now. Drive the parasitic drones from their classrooms and hallways and into the streets with bullwhips, torches, and fire hoses. Let them sell pencils from a tin cup. Raze the buildings to the ground so that not one stone is left standing on another. And sow salt on the ruins.
____________

L. Neil Smith is co-author of The Probability Broach: The Graphic Novel and Roswell, Texas. He maintains a respectable and civilized blog right here. His daughter, as you might expect, has never attended a public house of lies.




Feedback from the field:

"The public ed teachers would end up getting jobs they deserve and work at Wal-Mart. Then I'd have to shop somewhere else." -Craig J. Cantoni, Arizona

Dumbing down requires central planning and concerted effort

A Child's Mind Is a Terrible Thing to Waste

by Joel Turtel

About two years ago, I became a volunteer reading instructor in a local public school. I wanted to teach kids to read for a few reasons. First, I think reading is a magic door that opens children's eyes to the world. Second, I was completing my second book, Public Schools, Public Menace: How Public Schools Lie To Parents and Betray Our Children. I thought I needed some hands-on experience in the trenches.

My first shock came at the public school's two-day training "seminar." Two teachers who ran the crash course gave us reading volunteers some "tips." One of their tips was, "don't waste time sounding out a word for your student—just read the word out loud to the child."

When I went to public school in the 1950's, they taught us to read with intensive phonics. Yet, here was this "reading instructor" telling us NOT to sound out the letters in the words to help our students read. I thought, "what is going on here?" I was soon to find out.

When I greeted Christopher's teacher the first day, I knew I was going to have an uphill battle on my hands. That's because the first thing she said to me was, "Christopher's not much of a reader." It seemed as if his teacher had already given up on Chris, yet this was only the first grade!

It turned out that Chris was one of the sharpest, most delightful children I ever met. He looked like a young Harry Potter. He wore round, black-rimmed glasses. He was an infectious talker and bright as a whip.

I asked Chris to read to me from one of his baby books so I could see what stage he was at. He quickly read some of the words out loud, but I noticed he wasn't sounding out the letters of the words. So I asked Chris to get me another book that he hadn't read yet, and then he got a nervous look in his eyes. When I pointed to simple words in the new book, he couldn't read them at all. He couldn't read new words because he couldn't sound out the letters of the words with phonics. So the clever little devil only wanted to "read" to me from books with words he had already "memorized."

In doing research for my book, I was shocked to discover that many public schools teach kids to read with a variation of the "whole-language" method (now called "balanced literacy," or some other name they dream up). This reading-instruction method teaches children to "read" by asking them to memorize words as if they were pictures, like Egyptian hieroglyphics. It is a reading-instruction method that can cripple a child's ability to read, and potentially condemn that child to a lifetime of failure.

In the first grade, a lot of bright kids can "memorize" a few hundred simple words from their picture books. When a child has trouble with a word he never saw before, one "strategy" whole-language teachers use is to tell the child to "guess" what the word is from pictures in the book or other "clues." To understand just how frustrating this can be for a child, imagine if you had to guess every other word in a simple newspaper article you were reading.

From my research for my book, I knew that many kids start running into trouble in the second grade when they have to read bigger, multi-syllable words in books with less pictures, words the child never saw before. When a whole-language instructed child encounters a word he never "memorized" before, he is lost. That's why so many kids' reading abilities go downhill after second grade—whole-language instruction, or any variation of it, is the culprit.

I wanted to help Chris to read, so I realized I would have to use phonics. I noticed that there was a computer sitting in a corner of the classroom, gathering dust. I thought that if I could teach Chris to read using some of the fun, clever, phonics software they've developed, maybe that would help. Chris, like most boys, loved to play video games, so learning on the computer might be a good idea.

I asked the teacher if I could work with Chris on the computer, as an experiment, and she agreed. As soon as Chris started playing with the phonics program, it was like a light went on in his head. He loved it, and he got so excited.

I then asked his teacher if I could spend all morning with Chris on the computer whenever I came to volunteer. She said "no" because she had to follow the daily curriculum set down by her school. The kids had to spend most of their day on other subjects far more valuable than learning to read with phonics.

For example, the kids had arithmetic class ("fuzzy" math), cooperative reading time (kids sitting on the floor in little groups having "socializing" conversations), art projects (building little houses out of popsicle sticks), and sometimes assembly programs (probably to please parents when the kids dressed up in costumes for school plays).

The teacher, while sympathetic to my request, told me I couldn't give Chris intensive phonics instruction on the computer, which he loved, because her hands were tied by the school's required "curriculum."

This made me angry because I realized that Chris might never learn to read if he stayed in public school. So I contacted Chris's parents and suggested that they think about homeschooling or low-cost Internet private schools as an alternative. At home, Chris could learn phonics on the computer all day to his heart's delight, learn at his own pace, and get individualized instruction.

Somehow my advice to Chris's parents got back to the principal. The next day I was called into the principal's office, and that was one angry woman. She asked if I had made this "outrageous" homeschooling suggestion to Chris's parents, and I told her that I did. She said that I had violated their school's "protocol." I told her that I was more concerned with Chris's life than her school's protocol. I also told her that if their school wasn't teaching Chris to read, why shouldn't his parents take Chris out of public school and try a better alternative? After getting a little red in the face, she ended that brief meeting by telling me to "get out of my building!"

That ended my career as a volunteer reading instructor in public schools. I just hope that Chris's parents took my suggestion, for Chris's sake.

By the way, for those parents reading this article, have you investigated YOUR public school to see if and how they are teaching your child to read? Have you had your child's reading abilities tested by an outside independent testing agency? That might be a good idea.

© 2007 Joel Turtel - All Rights Reserved

Joel Turtel, author of Public Schools, Public Menace: How Public Schools Lie To Parents and Betray Our Children, holds a degree in Psychology. For the last ten years he has served as an Education Policy Analyst, studying the climate of today's public schools and its effect on children and parents.

Is it a conspiracy, or is Diebold too stupid to breathe?

by Mark Yannone

As though there weren't enough controversy surrounding the security of Diebold's touchscreen voting machines, Diebold's death wish earned them a Darwin award this week by posting this picture on their web site. As one fellow suspected, a trip to Ace Hardware and a little filing using this picture as his guide enabled him to make a key that can open all of Diebold's touchscreen voting machines.

A company like this would not be the ideal choice to secure the nation's founding documents--the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights--so giving them this responsibility indicates that the intentional destruction of these documents may be imminent. Full sordid details are available here and here.

Preview: The assassination of Ed Brown

by Mark Yannone

A lawless government that uses coercion against its own citizens always results in deadly violence. We've seen it many times before, and we'll see it again. Only a society with the wisdom and character to reject such lawlessness can restore peace and ensure tranquility. [Watch] 1:54:05

The French have identified America's greatest threat

Oui, c'est vrai! [Regardez] 0:46

Principled politician says no to Pledge of Allegiance

by Mark Yannone



Mesa (AZ) city council member Tom Rawles (seated) pledges allegiance to the Constitution while the other government automatons--following in the footsteps of socialist Francis Bellamy--pledge their loyalty to the flag instead.

Some of the brighter government school graduates of the community who have yet to read the Constitution or anything other than a sports page or a stop sign, believed the correct response to Tom's silent statement against the American occupation of Iraq was to threaten Tom's life.

One of these government-educated liberty lovers was going to put a bullet in him, one was going to bury him in concrete, and another one was going to beat the shit out of him. Several more of these red-white-and-blue public school wonders, true patriots to the core, expressed similar sentiments, including a hope that his house is burned down.

Oh, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing.

[Listen as he tells his story on the Charles Goyette Show]

[Source] [Source]

Ed Brown is only a symptom

by Bob Schulz
Chairman
We The People Foundation

[Extract] The national interest is not served by the government’s continued silence to open murmurs. It breeds disaffection to the law and to the government among a free people.

Ed Brown is a symptom of the larger constitutional crisis this Foundation has been attempting to resolve: our servant government’s persistent refusal to be held accountable to the people for its unconstitutional actions, i.e., the refusal by the executive, legislative, and judicial departments to properly respond to a citizen’s petition for redress of constitutional torts.

These are serious matters, indeed. In many respects, they are the very same matters regarding governance and natural rights that drove our Founders to revolution.

Unless the government can be forced, by some non-violent means (such as the retention of money) to recognize its constitutional obligation to respond to the people’s proper petitions for redress of constitutional torts, we can expect to see more people like Ed Brown willing to defend their rights by violent means. Make no mistake: the government abhors opposition and will not voluntarily abandon its preference to act without accountability or constitutional restraint.

Ed Brown’s case is not so much about tax evasion as it is about the failure of the government to respond to his petitions for redress of grievances. [Full story]

The Best War Ever

by John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton

[Watch] 4:19

Bush's 2007 State of the Union address

An Exact Transcript

by Craig J. Cantoni

Bush: Blah-blah-blah ... tinker with the tax code and increase the power of the central government ... blah-blah-blah.

Democrats: Blah-blah-blah ... tinker with the tax code and increase the power of the central government ... blah, blah, blah.

Media: Blah-blah-blah ... Democrats care about the little people ... blah-blah-blah.

Stupid Dem Audience: Hooray, Democrats! Boo, Bush!

Stupid Rep Audience: Hooray, Bush! Boo, Democrats!

Smart Audience: Heads on pikes!
_______________

An author and columnist with a penchant for whittling, Craig J. Cantoni can be reached at ccan2@aol.com.

Complying with the Tax Law (Part 3)

by Larken Rose

[Back] [Next]

Suppose you were alive several decades ago, and you knew several well-respected zoology experts, each of whom declared to you that all mammals have live young. Since they were the "experts," you'd probably assume they knew what they were talking about. Then suppose someone visited you from Australia with his pet platypus--an egg-laying mammal. Then you'd have a conflict: little ol' you would have a piece of evidence (the platypus) that flew in the face of what the supposed "experts" told you. So which would you believe, your own eyes or the opinions of the professionals? Well, now you have a REAL example: you've seen the regulations saying that some income is exempt for federal income tax purposes because of the Constitution itself, while the vast majority of tax professionals have no idea that any such Constitutionally-exempt income exists. (Then you saw how, for some reason, those in government really don't like talking about the subject.)

How do our rhetorical zoologists above explain the platypus? To begin with, they don't. They didn't know it existed, so they didn't have an explanation for it. After they've been shown it, they either have to change their opinions, or deny that a platypus is a mammal, or deny that it lays eggs (with the latter two being rather silly things to argue). They can't just pretend it doesn't exist. Likewise, there aren't very many rational responses a modern tax professional can give to the regs we've seen, because he's never seen that evidence before. He could (and should) say "I didn't know it said that, and I'm not sure what income it's talking about." (Hopefully he'd be curious enough to want to then go figure out what it means before continuing to pass himself off as a tax "expert.") But he can't rationally just ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist . . . which I have found is what most of them do.

I mention all this to make something clear: when I give you my conclusions about the meaning of those regulations, I basically have no competition from the government or the tax industry "experts." You can poo-poo my conclusions all you want, but those who have tantrums about my beliefs DO NOT HAVE an alternative explanation for the evidence. Instead, they use the time-honored method of ignoring the evidence and vilifying anyone who would dare to contradict the provably false proclamations of the self-appointed "experts." So if anyone can come up with a DIFFERENT explanation of the evidence, I'd love to see it. (I've been begging the government to give me their explanation for the last eight years, and they won't.)

Now we finally get to the question, WHAT income might be non-taxable because it is, "under the Constitution, not taxable by the Federal Government"? Well, there is only ONE thing that the Constitution specifically says that Congress can't tax: state exports. But in Peck v. Lowe (before all the regulations we've looked at), the Supreme Court specifically said that just because the income tax gets applied to income from exporting things does NOT make it an unconstitutional tax on state exports per se, so that can't be what the regulations were talking about.

Nothing else in the Constitution specifically prohibits Congress from taxing anything. HOWEVER, the Supreme Court has stated that there are "certain virtual limitations" on the taxing power, arising from the principles of the Constitution itself [United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1]. As one silly example, the Constitution does not empower the U.S. government to tax everyone in China. Obviously the feds don't have jurisdiction over everyone in China, even though the Constitution doesn't bother to specifically say they CAN'T tax everyone there.

So, under the Constitution, what was Congress intended to tax? In Federalist #45, James Madison (often called "The Father of the Constitution") explained that under the new Constitution the federal government would have only a few, limited powers, and went on to say that the federal power "will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and FOREIGN commerce; with which last [foreign commerce] the power of TAXATION will, for the most part, be connected." So the Father of the Constitution said that federal taxes would primarily apply to FOREIGN commerce, meaning trade which crosses country borders.

But what does that have to do with an income tax? Anything? As you may or may not know, the Constitution specifically gives Congress jurisdiction over INTERNATIONAL trade (aka "commerce with foreign nations"). So that kind of trade IS Congress' business. On the other hand, "very different considerations apply to the internal commerce or domestic trade of the states. Over this commerce and trade Congress has NO POWER of regulation nor any direct control. This power belongs exclusively to the states. No interference by Congress with the business of citizens TRANSACTED WITHIN A STATE is warranted by the Constitution, except such as is strictly incidental to the exercise of powers clearly granted to the legislature" [License Tax Cases, 72 U.S. 462 (1866)].

So, as James Madison explained, under the Constitution Congress' powers mainly had to do with international matters, while purely domestic matters were the business of state governments. But again, does this have any relation to taxation? Well, in one of the earliest cases about the 1913 federal income tax (from which the current tax evolved), the Supreme Court ruled that because the Constitution grants Congress the general power to tax, AS WELL AS giving Congress specific jurisdiction over “commerce with FOREIGN nations,” the federal government could therefore "undoubtedly" apply an income tax to an American business engaged in INTERNATIONAL trade [Peck v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165].

(Before you bother writing any of this stuff down, I should let you know that at the conclusion of these messages, I'll be telling you how to download for free my complete "Taxable Income" report, with all relevant quotes and citations, which is a lot more thorough than what I'm trying to cover quickly here.)

Might that be the answer to our question about what is Constitutionally taxable? Might it be that Constitutionally, the income tax is only supposed to be applied to income which comes from "commerce with foreign nations"? Guess what. That's not for you or me to decide. Yes, you heard me right. It's not OUR job to decide the proper application of the law. Our system of written law is not supposed to be a guessing game, where we each theorize about what is or is not Constitutionally taxable. But if we don't do that, how are we ever to know what is taxable and what is exempt? If it's not our job to decide that, whose job is it? The answer is, it is the job of the government's regulation-writers. The law must be knowable and precise; the law books themselves must specifically TELL us what our legal obligations are. And the regulations published by the government are our official notice of what the law requires of us. So, rather than theorizing (like I just did), let's see if we can find where the regulations answer the question.

Once again, here is a link to scans of the old regulations defining "gross income." Last time we focused on where it talks about some income being excluded because it is, "under the Constitution, not taxable by the Federal Government." Okay, so what is to be included? Well, it says that all income is "gross income" unless exempted by law--which we are told means exempted by statute OR excluded because of the Constitution. See for yourself what the regulation says after that.

As you can see, the regs specifically say that income which citizens and domestic companies receive from FOREIGN commerce "must be included in their gross income." It then mentions nonresident aliens, foreign corporations, and certain matters involving federal possessions (e.g., Guam, Puerto Rico), but nowhere does it specifically mention the DOMESTIC income of the average American. (That matches my theorizing pretty well, don't you think?) Remember all those different years of older regs talking about some income being exempted by "fundamental law" (the Constitution)? Well EVERY YEAR those same regulations specifically explained that income from "FOREIGN commerce" was subject to the tax; NEVER did they mention purely domestic income. (The only time income from inside the U.S. was mentioned was when it was received by foreigners, which again constitutes international trade.)

But surely that just means that income from international trade is taxable in ADDITION to domestic trade, right? I mean, we can't just assume that our income isn't taxable because it's not mentioned there, right? Okay, it's a little weird that they didn't just say that Americans are taxed on income from "foreign OR domestic commerce," which would have been easy to say. But it can't REALLY mean that the tax only applies to international trade. Can it?

Once again, let me conclude today's message with the following: In what I've said above, do you see me encouraging anyone to break the law? Do you see me objecting to the law? Do you see me arguing anything "frivolous"? (No, no, and no.) Lastly, would you consider it okay for the government to try to forcibly stop me from telling you what I've told you so far, or to punish me for publicly talking about such things? (Me neither.) [Back] [Next]

Fred's 12-step program for military victory--guaran-damn-teed

Fred: A True Son of Tzu
Guderian Was the Mother

by Fred Reed

[Listen]

Being a military thinker of the profoundest sort, I offer the following manual of martial affairs for nations yearning to copy the American way of war. Read it carefully. Great clarity will result. The steps limned below will facilitate disaster without imposing the burden of reinventing it. The Pentagon may print copies for distribution.

(1) Underestimate the enemy. Fortunately this is easy when a technologically advanced power prepares to attack an underdeveloped nation. Its enemy's citizens will readily be seen as gadgetless, primitive, probably genetically stupid, and hardly worth the attention of a real military.

(2) Avoid learning anything about the enemy—his culture, religion, language, history, or response to past invasions. These things don't matter since the enemy is gadgetless, primitive, and probably genetically stupid. Anyway, knowledge would only make the enlisted ranks restive, and confuse the officer corps.

Blank ignorance of the language is especially desirable (as well as virtually guaranteed). For one thing, it will allow your troops to be seen as brutal invaders having nothing in common with the population; this helps in winning hearts and minds. For another, it will allow English-speaking officials of the puppet government to vet such information about the country as they permit you to have.

(3) Explain the invasion to the American public in simple moral terms suitable for middle-school children at an evangelical summer camp: We are bombing cities to bring the gift of democracy and American values, or to defeat some vague but frightening evil, perhaps lurking under the bed, or to get rid of a bad dictator no longer of service to us, or to bring freedom and prosperity to any survivors. (This doesn't work in Europe, which is honestly imperialistic.) The public can then feel a sense of unappreciated virtue when the primitives resist. Sententious moralism should always trump reason.

(4) A misunderstanding of military reality helps. Besides, comprehension would only lead to depression. As Napoleon said, or may have, in war the moral is to the material as three is to one, which implies that unpleasant facts should be played down in favor of cultivating a cheerful attitude. Most especially, it should not be noted that a few tens of thousands of determined, probably genetically-stupid primitives with small arms can tie down a cheerful force however gaudily armed.

Pay no attention to tactics, which are boring. It should never enter your mind that in this sort of war, if you don't win, you lose; if the enemy doesn't lose, he wins. Think about something else. Above all, do not understand that the enemy's target is not you, but public opinion at home. You don't need to remember this, as the enemy will remember it for you.

(5) Do not forget that a military's reason for existence is to close with the enemy and destroy him. An army is not in the social-services business. Do not let the mission be impeded by touchy-feely considerations. If you have to kill seventeen children to get a sniper, so be it. The enemy must realize that you mean business. Ignore cultural traits, which are of concern only to idealistic civilians. Grope the enemy's women. High-profile rapes are a good idea as they teach respect. It is better to be feared than loved. Be sure the embassy has a helipad.

(6) Intellectual insularity should be a primary goal, as it avoids distraction. This salubrious condition can be achieved by having officers read Tom Clancy instead of history. In military discourse it also helps to encourage the use of phrases like "force multiplier" and "multi-dimensional warfare," as these increase confidence without meaning anything.

Remember that doctrine and optimism should always outweigh history and common sense. Discourage colonels and above from reading about similar campaigns fought by other armies, as this might lead to nagging doubts, conceivably even to thought. Encourage the belief that other countries have lost wars by being inferior to the United States. "The French lost in Viet Nam? What else would you expect from the French? Never happen to us."

Some military philosophers favor actually removing from military libraries books on what happened to the French in Viet Nam, the Americans in Viet Nam, the Russians in Afghanistan, the Americans in Afghanistan (a work in progress), the French in Algeria, the Americans in Iraq (also in progress), the Israelis in Lebanon the first time, the Israelis in Lebanon the last time, the Americans in Lebanon 1983, the Americans in Somalia the first time, and so on. However, the best thinkers hold that it doesn't matter what books are in military libraries, as only those on stirring victories will be checked out.

(7) Keep up to date with the latest nostrums and silver bullets. Organize your military as a lean, mean, high-tech force characterized by lightning mobility, enormous firepower, and extraordinary unsuitability for the kind of wars it will actually have to fight. Flacks from the PR department of Lockheed will help in this. Recognize that an advanced fighter plane costing two hundred million dollars, invisible to radar, employing dazzling electronic countermeasures, and able to cruise at supersonic speed, is exactly the thing for fighting a rifleman in a basement in Baghdad. Such aircraft are crucial force multipliers in multi-dimensional warfare. Anyway, al Qaeda might field an advanced air force at any moment. It pays to be ready.

(8) It is a good idea to bracket your exposure. Be ready for wars past and future, but not present. The Pentagon does this well. Note that the current military, an advanced version of the WWII force, is ready should the Imperial Japanese Navy return. It also has phenomenally advanced weaponry in the pipeline to take on a space-age enemy, perhaps from Mars, should one appear. It is only the present for which the US is not prepared.

(9) View things in a large context. People who have little comprehension of the military tend to focus exclusively on winning wars, missing the greater importance of the Pentagon as an economic flywheel. Jobs are more important than wars fought in bush-world countries. An American military ought to think of Americans first. This is simple patriotism. It is essential to spend as much money as possible on advanced weapons that have no current use, and none in sight, but produce jobs in congressional districts. Good examples are the F-22 fighter, the F-35, the Airborne Laser, the V-22, and the ABM.

(10) Insist that the US military never loses wars. Instead, it is betrayed, stabbed in the back, and brought low by treason. For example, argue furiously that the US didn't lose in Viet Nam, but won gloriously; the withdrawal was due to the treachery of Democrats, Jews, hippies, the press, most of the military, and a majority of the general population, all of whom were traitors. This avoids the unpleasantness of learning anything from defeat. Further, it facilitates a focus on controlling the press, who are the real enemy, along with the Democrats and the general population.

(11) Avoid institutional memory. Not having lost of course means that there is nothing to remember. Instead, read stirring novels and cultivate a cheerful, can-do attitude unintimidated by primitives in sand-lot countries, who are probably genetically stupid.

(12) Do it all again next time.
____________

Fred Reed is author of Nekkid in Austin: Drop Your Inner Child Down a Well and the just published A Brass Pole in Bangkok: A Thing I Aspire to Be.

Copyright © 2007 Fred Reed

Bush's best speech ever

George Bush leaves the audience in stunned silence.
[Watch] 1:00

Are Iraqis grateful enough to America?

"We liberated that country from a tyrant. I think the Iraqi people owe the American people a huge debt of gratitude," said George W. Bush.

Judge for yourself whether Iraqis are as grateful as they should be to the American people. [Watch] 1:15:04

Complying with the Tax Law (Part 2)

by Larken Rose

[Back] [Next]

Just to remind you, the subject of this series of messages is how to properly COMPLY with the federal tax laws. For example, if your Uncle Fred gave you a gift of $200 last year, you should NOT have reported it on your tax return, because the tax code specifically says that gifts are NOT subject to the federal income tax (26 USC 102). It's not patriotic or noble to have reported such income on your return; it's an ERROR. It's income you're NOT SUPPOSED TO pay taxes on (because it's non-taxable).

As we saw in the last message, the older federal income tax regulations used to clearly state that, in addition to the types of income specifically exempted by the tax code, some OTHER income is also NOT SUPPOSED TO BE included in your taxable income, because such income is, "under the Constitution, not taxable by the Federal Government." Near the bottom of this link are scans of many different years of regulations saying so (look for links called "First," "Second," etc.).

As also stated in the last message, current tax professionals (with very rare exceptions) DO NOT KNOW that this is the case. They are completely unaware that ANY income is tax-free because of the Constitution itself. As a result, they NEVER tell their clients about it, and they NEVER take it into account when determining their clients' tax liabilities. We haven't yet considered WHAT income might be Constitutionally non-taxable (we will very soon), but whether it's some obscure kind of investment income that only a few people have, or something more significant, you HAVE TO KNOW what it is if you are to properly COMPLY WITH the law. Why? Because if you happen to have some of that Constitutionally non-taxable income, and you report it on your return as if it were taxable, you are MISAPPLYING the law, just as if you had reported that $200 gift from Uncle Fred.

The link above shows older tax regulations (many years' worth). An obvious question at this point would be, What about NOW? Are those Constitutional limits still applicable? Do the current regulations still mention them? Yes, and yes, though they make it a lot let obvious now. There have been no Constitutional amendments relative to Congress' taxing power since those older regulations were written. So anything that was, "under the Constitution, not taxable by the Federal Government" in 1956 (or 1925), is still not taxable today. The current regulations defining "gross income" (26 CFR 1.61-1) just say "gross income" includes all income from whatever source derived, "unless excluded by law." Unlike the older regs, however, they do not specifically explain that income can be exempted by statutory law OR by "fundamental law" (the Constitution itself). However, the current 26 CFR 1.265-1 does still show that something OTHER than the tax code can exempt income, and a fairly obscure regulation at 26 CFR 1.312-6(b) does still plainly speak of THREE types of income: 1) "all income exempted by statute"; 2) "income not taxable by the Federal Government under the Constitution"; and 3) income which is "includible in gross income under section 61." In case you think I'm making this up, you can see that regulation on the government's own web site, here.

(It should be noted that occasionally a tax professional will at least guess at something that might be Constitutionally non-taxable, such as the income of state governments, or interest on municipal bonds. However, those things have been exempted by STATUTE from the beginning (e.g., 26 USC 103, 115), so that is NOT what the regs (past and present) were talking about. Remember, they mention income exempted by statute, and then say that no OTHER income is exempt, except for what is, "under the Constitution, not taxable by the Federal Government.")

So while the older regulations were a lot more obvious about it (you can wonder why if you'd like), the principle still applies. Now, here is what may seem like a silly question: Do those in government WANT us to know how to OBEY the law? Presumably they would be eager to have us all understand the law so we can comply with it. In fact, the IRS' "mission statement" says that their reason for existing is to help people "UNDERSTAND" and comply with their tax responsibilities. So, in light of what we've seen above, wouldn't it make sense to ASK the government what the regs mean when they talk about some income being excluded because of the Constitution?

1. When I brought up that point at my first meeting with the IRS, they had no comment at all. (I'm not sure they even comprehended what the question was.) When we met again, same thing: I quoted the regulations saying that, and they had no response.

2. When I was a witness at someone else's meeting with the IRS, the person explained to the IRS that it was his position that "some of the income not specifically exempted by statute is nonetheless exempted from taxation by the Constitution itself," and cited the regs saying just that. The veteran IRS agent responded, "Without further research, I don’t really have a response for that one. I can’t really tell you without researching an answer to that question." (As of today, many YEARS later, he never answered that question.)

3. At another meeting with the IRS (at which they were looking for an excuse to shut down my web site), the following exchange occurred:

Me: "These are photocopies of two of the sections of the 1956 regulations. Again, we’re talking about 1956 at the moment. I’m about to tie it to the current. As you’ll see on the last page of that, exemptions from...exclusions from gross income. It’s on the right-hand side. It talks about the items exempted by statute, and then it says no other items may be excluded from gross income except "a," those items of income which are, under the Constitution, not taxable by the Federal Government. And then it mentions some other Acts of Congress and things that exempt other income. That’s one of the questions I have yet to hear anybody at the IRS or any tax professional give me an explanation as to what that could be talking about. If you’d like to offer any opinions, I’m open for it."

IRS Agent Chris Roginksy: "It’s an outdated regulation. Not going to comment on it."

Wow, that was a short discussion (or lack of one).

4. Since then, hundreds of people have sent letters to two IRS commissioners, two Secretaries of the Treasury, two Assistant Secretaries of the Treasury, IRS Chief Counsel, the Attorney General, the head of the Tax Division of the DOJ, and many lower DOJ and IRS offices, asking several basic questions about how we are to COMPLY with the federal tax laws. The last question was: "What types of income (if any) are not exempted from taxation by any statute, but are nonetheless 'excluded by law' (not subject to the federal income tax) because they are, under the Constitution, not taxable by the federal government?" (All six questions can be seen here.)

Guess how many answers to the question we got? If you guessed ZERO, you win.

5. When I went to trial, I filed a motion asking the judge to inform the jury that "gross income" means all income, except for what is exempted by statute OR exempted by the Constitution itself (aka "fundamental law"). He refused to tell them that. When the government called an IRS agent up to testify about the taxes they thought I owed, based on my financial numbers, the following exchange occurred:

Me: "When you go to total up these figures and get to the bottom, do you keep your eyes open for any sorts of income which may be specifically exempted by a section of the tax code?"

IRS witness: "I normally did, but I did not see that in this case."

Me: "Okay, but it's normal to keep your eyes open in case there's some item, and that would enter into the equation. Is that correct?"

IRS witness: "Sure, sure."

So far so good. This 24-year veteran IRS agent obviously knew about statutory exemptions. Then this happened:

Me: "My last question is, in coming to your total, did you subtract any amounts of income which are exempt from federal taxation because of the Constitution itself?"

DOJ attorney: "Objection."

Judge: "I'm not sure I understand the question."

IRS witness: "Yeah, I don't either."

Judge (to the witness): "Do you understand the question?"

IRS witness: "No, I do not."

Judge (to me): "Do you want to rephrase it?"

Me: "Did you subtract, to arrive at your bottom number, any amounts of income which are excluded from federal taxation due to the Constitution itself?"

DOJ attorney: "Objection."

Me: "Well, she either did or didn't. It's a fact."

Judge (to witness): "Well, you can answer that 'yes' or 'no,' if you understand it."

IRS witness: "I'm not sure I understand the question. I mean, if you're asking if I subtracted anything from these numbers, I did not."

Why is it that neither the IRS witness nor the JUDGE had any idea what I was even asking? Why did they not know that anything might be excluded because of the Constitution itself? The IRS' own regulations say it--why don't their employees know about it? And why does it seem that NO ONE in government is able (or willing) to say what income that might be, even when HUNDREDS of Americans politely ask them in writing? Why, when I cite their OWN regulations to them, are those in government so reluctant to discuss the matter?

Back to our seemingly silly question: Given what you've seen above, would you still assume that those in government WANT us to know how to properly COMPLY with the law? Shouldn't they WANT us to know what is and what isn't taxable? There must BE an answer to the question. Shouldn't they be not only able, but EAGER to explain such things to common folk like you and me? After all, it is literally IMPOSSIBLE to correctly determine your taxes without first knowing what is and what isn't taxable. So why are they unable (or unwilling) to tell us what is meant by some income being exempt because it is, "under the Constitution, not taxable by the Federal Government"? Is this all starting to seem a wee tad curious to you yet?

Once again, let me conclude this message with the following: In what I've said above, do you see me encouraging anyone to break the law? Do you see me objecting to the law? Do you see me arguing anything "frivolous"? (No, no, and no.) Lastly, would you consider it okay for the government to try to forcibly stop me from telling you what I've told you so far, or to punish me for publicly talking about such things? (Me neither.) [Back] [Next]

State of the Union 2007

by George W. Bush
White House resident,
world-class terrorist

"9/11, terror, Iraq, terrorism, security, terror, everything is fine, security, terror, things will get better, 9/11, security, energy independence, terror, radical Islamic terrorists, security, threats, education, war on terrorism, security, Iraq war, balanced budget in five years, war on terror, healthcare, security, 9/11, Iraq, thank the brave Americans who are dying for me . . . I mean you. I'm outa here. See ya."


Why is this man not on trial for crimes against humanity?

Ed and Elaine Brown, surrounded by federal scofflaws

Even though Title 26 (income tax law) specifically includes federal employees and excludes most of the private sector, almost a half a million active and retired federal employees owe almost $2.8 billion in back taxes for 2005. Among the many federal departments that have tax delinquents are these:


[Source]

Maher Arar's torture earns Attorney General Gonzales a tongue lashing by Senator Leahy

Senator Patrick Leahy grills US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales about the federal government sending Canadian citizen Maher Arar to Syria, where he was imprisoned in a 3-foot by 6-foot hole and tortured for ten and a half months. [Watch] 7:09 [Full story]

Ed Brown, in his own words

Ed Brown is interviewed by John Stoddard Klar at his home in Plainfield, New Hampshire, after his trial. [Watch] 29:25 (Ed begins speaking at 10:00)

Is Ed Brown wrong after all?

What the IRS Says



Like Ed Brown, many Americans have claimed the law does not require them to pay federal taxes.

But they're wrong, the IRS says.

The requirements are "clearly set forth" in the Internal Revenue section of U.S. Code, according to a November 2006 publication entitled, The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments. The article specifically cites sections 6011(a), 6012 and 6072.

Section 6012 (a), in particular, says "every individual" who does not meet certain exemptions shall make "returns with respect to taxable income."

Further down, section 6151 says the person making the return "shall pay such tax at the time and place fixed for filing the return."

The article also cites a number of court cases, such as U.S. v. Tedder, in which the court ruled, "Congress gave the Secretary of the Treasury the power to enforce the income tax laws through involuntary collection ... The IRS' efforts to obtain compliance with the tax laws are entirely proper." [Source]

Gee, I guess the IRS was right and Ed Brown is wrong!

Well . . . except for a couple of huge, non-frivolous details. Please look up the meaning of the term "taxable income" as defined in the relevant law. And while you're poring over all that tax law, you might dip into the several Supreme Court decisions that clarify the effect the 16th Amendment had on the constitutional prohibition of an unapportioned direct tax. And look into the meaning of "employer," "employee," "person" and all the other common words that are precisely defined in the relevant law.

I don't think Title 26, the related regulations, the Supreme Court cases, and the United States Constitution are too frivolous to read, do you? Just because they don't teach this in government school doesn't mean you can't read it for yourself, does it.

____________

. . . and the Prosecutor said, "these are all frivolous arguments your honor . . . the courts have already ruled . . ."

Yes, Mr. Prosecutor, the courts have ruled!

Congress has taxed INCOME, not compensation."
Conner v. U.S., 303 F Supp. 1187 (1969)

"Income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment and the Revenue Act means, gain . . . and, in such connection, gain means profit . . . proceeding from property severed from capital, however invested or employed and coming in, received or drawn by the taxpayer for his separate use, benefit and disposal."
Staples v. U.S., 21 F Supp 737 U.S. Dist. Ct. ED PA, 1937

"There is a clear distinction between `profit' and `wages', or a compensation for labor. Compensation for labor (wages) cannot be regarded as profit within the meaning of the law. The word `profit', as ordinarily used, means the gain made upon any business or investment--a different thing altogether from the mere compensation for labor."
Oliver v. Halstead, 86 S.E. Rep 2nd 85e9 (1955)

"The claim that salaries, wages, and compensation for personal services are to be taxed as an entirety and therefore must be returned by the individual who has performed the services which produce the gain is without support, either in the language of the Act or in the decisions of the courts construing it. Not only this, but it is directly opposed to provisions of the Act and to regulations of the U.S. Treasury Department, which either prescribed or permits that compensations for personal services not be taxed as a entirety and not be returned by the individual performing the services. It is to be noted that, by the language of the Act, it is not salaries, wages, or compensation for personal services that are to be included in gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal services."
Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930)

". . . whatever may constitute income, therefore, must have the essential feature of gain to the recipient. This was true when the 16th Amendment became effective, it was true at the time of Eisner v. Macomber Supra, it was true under Section 22(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1938, and it is likewise true under Section 61(a) of the I.R.S. Code of 1954. If there is not gain, there is not income . . . Congress has taxed income not compensation."
Conner v. U.S., 303 F Supp. 1187 (1969)

Stated: "The phraseology of form 1040 is somewhat obscure . . . But it matters little what it does mean; the statute and the statute alone determines what is income to be taxed. It taxes only income "derived" from many different sources; one does not "derive income" by rendering services and charging for them . . . IRS cannot enlarge the scope of the statute."
Edwards (vs) Keith, 231 F110, 113 (1916)

Establishes two separate jurisdictions within the United States Of America: 1. The "federal zone" and 2. "the 50 States". The I.R.C. only has jurisdiction within the "federal zone". "The exclusive jurisdiction which the United States have in forts and dock-yards ceded to them, is derived from the express assent of the states by whom the cessions are made. It could be derived in no other manner; because without it, the authority of the state would be supreme and exclusive therein," 3 Wheat., at 350, 351.
1818: U.S. v. Bevans, 16 U.S. 336

Defines labor as property, and the most sacred kind of property. "Among these unalienable rights, as proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant, the right any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give them their highest enjoyment...It has been well said that, THE PROPERTY WHICH EVERY MAN HAS IS HIS OWN LABOR, AS IT IS THE ORIGINAL FOUNDATION OF ALL OTHER PROPERTY SO IT IS THE MOST SACRED AND INVIOLABLE . . ."
1883: Butchers' Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746

Restricts jurisdiction of the federal government inside the states. "The law of Congress in respect to those matters do not extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force only in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government."
1894: Caha v. United States, 152 U.S. 211

Prohibits direct taxes on the income of individuals.
1895: Pollack v. Farmer's Loan and Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429, 158 U.S. 601

Defines the meaning of "direct taxes." "Direct taxes bear immediately upon persons, upon the possession and enjoyment of rights; indirect taxes are levied upon the happening of an event as an exchange."
1900: Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U.S. 41

Establishes that constitutional limits on the Congress do not apply within the "federal zone" and described where they do apply. "CONSTITUTIONAL RESTRICTIONS AND LIMITATIONS [Bill of Rights] WERE NOT APPLICABLE to the areas of lands, enclaves, territories, and possessions over which Congress had EXCLUSIVE LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTION"
1901: Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244

Defined the distinction between natural persons and corporations as it pertains to 5th Amendment protections within the U.S. Constitution. ". . . we are of the opinion that there is a clear distinction in this particular between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for an examination at the suit of the state. The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the state or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to criminate him. He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights."
1906: Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43

Defined income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment as "profit." Prohibited direct, unapportioned taxation of income of a stockholder. The Sixteenth Amendment must be construed in connection with the taxing clauses of the original Constitution and the effect attributed to them before the amendment was adopted.
1920: Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189

[More]

Keith Olbermann: Aside from this, Bush is perfect

You'll excuse us, Mr. Bush, if we don't believe a word you say, won't you? [Watch] 2:27

From Richard Clarke: America's own Downing Street memo

[September 11, 2001] "The president dragged me into a room with a couple of other people, shut the door, and said, 'I want you to find whether Iraq did this.' Now he never said, 'Make it up.' But the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said Iraq did this.

"I said, 'Mr. President. We've done this before. We have been looking at this. We looked at it with an open mind. There's no connection.'

"He came back at me and said, "Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection.' And in a very intimidating way. I mean that we should come back with that answer. We wrote a report."

Clarke continued, "It was a serious look. We got together all the FBI experts, all the CIA experts. We wrote the report. We sent the report out to CIA and found FBI and said, 'Will you sign this report?' They all cleared the report. And we sent it up to the president and it got bounced by the National Security Advisor or Deputy. It got bounced and sent back saying, 'Wrong answer. ... Do it again.'

[Full story from In These Times]

[Full story from 60 Minutes]

Originally posted here on June 8, 2005

The Federal War on Gold

by Jacob G. Hornberger

[Extract] The paper money of today still contains a hint of what it once represented--a promise to pay money, rather than money itself. Take a dollar bill out of your billfold. Notice that at the top it states, "Federal Reserve Note." Why is it called a "note"? Because it represents, somewhat perversely, what such a note once constituted for our American ancestors--a promise to pay something, namely gold. Today, such notes are what is termed "irredeemable"--that is, they cannot be redeemed in gold or silver coin. They are promises to pay nothing. [Full article]

Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.

Complying with the Tax Law (Part 1)

by Larken Rose

[Next]

In the series of messages to follow, I'd like to say a few things about taxes. First, just to prepare you, I'd like to tell you what I'm NOT going to talk about. I'm NOT going to whine and complain about taxes in general, nor will I opine about how taxes are unfair, unconstitutional, illegal, invalid, immoral, economically-destructive, or in any other way nasty. I'm NOT going to protest or object to any tax. I'm also NOT going to talk about how to get out of paying taxes, or how to use some loophole or financial or legal trickery to avoid or reduce taxes. And I'm NOT going to advocate that any law be disobeyed, or that any law be repealed, or that any tax law policy be changed. (It's easy to find plenty of other people who will be glad to talk about those things until they're blue in the face. I'm not going to.) The only topic I WILL be discussing in the following messages is how to COMPLY WITH THE LAW; in other words, HOW TO DETERMINE WHAT YOU OWE in federal income taxes. That may at first sound like a remarkably boring thing to discuss, but please bear with me; it will be worth it.

According to tax professionals, this is how one complies with the tax laws:

1. If you can find some section of the tax code specifically saying that some of your income is tax-free, congratulations. (For example, one section says that life insurance proceeds aren't taxable.) Otherwise, all of your income constitutes what is called "gross income," which is income subject to the federal income tax.

2. However, the tax pros know how to then apply various rules to increase your allowable deductions, or to arrange things to make certain income tax-deferred (or sometimes even tax-exempt), or to entitle you to certain tax credits. In these ways, they can lower your taxable income, and lower what you owe in taxes. They then put the numbers together, fill out the forms, and give them to you to sign.

If you read the preceding to your tax preparer, he will most likely agree that that's a fair summary of what it is he does. And tax professionals tend to be pretty good at step 2 (finding deductions, credits, and other tricks to reduce the bottom line of what you owe). The problem is with step 1. No matter how much you pay them, or how knowledgeable you assume them to be, the folks you look to for tax advice apply the law INCORRECTLY. This is not because they're sneaky or dishonest, but only because they're ignorant--not completely ignorant, but ignorant of one fundamental issue that is CRUCIAL to correctly determining what someone owes in federal income taxes.

Of course, your accountant can assert one thing, and I can assert another, but then it would just be a matter of who you choose to believe. So rather than me telling you how things are, I'm going to let the government's own official law books tell you how things are. (If you decide to give more credence to the so-called "tax experts" than you do to the actual LAW they are supposed to be applying, then you might as well skip the rest of this discussion. But if you're one of those crazy people who believe their own eyes, hang on to your hat.)

If you were to take a look at the official federal income tax regulations from a few decades ago, you would only need to go through a few pages to learn all of the following:

1. When it comes to the federal income tax, neither income exempted by statute (sections of the tax code) NOR income exempted by "FUNDAMENTAL LAW" (the Constitution itself), enter into the computation of one's taxable income.

2. There are several concepts important to determining one's tax liability: the concept of "income" in the broad sense, which means all wealth a person receives (except when he's just getting back what was already his); "gross income," which means all income except for any income that is exempted by statute or OTHERWISE exempt; and "net income," which generally means "gross income" minus allowable deductions.

3. The statutes of the tax code exempt certain types of income, and no OTHER income is to be excluded from one's taxable "gross income" EXCEPT for income which is, "under the CONSTITUTION, not taxable by the federal government."

For that last one, here is a scan of the regulation saying that. (I hope to have more complete, better-quality scans up soon.)

Okay. So what? Why is any of that worth mentioning? Because, in the span of a couple pages, those older regulations admitted THREE TIMES to a fact that your tax preparer is utterly unaware of. You see, just about every CPA and tax attorney you'll ever meet (except for a handful of wackos who have actually looked at the law) accepts as unquestionable tax doctrine that ALL income is taxable unless a specific section of the tax code says it isn't. (All of the tricks with deductions, deferments, credits, etc., are based on their ASSUMPTION that your income is taxable in the first place.) They believe that all income fits neatly into two categories:

1. Non-taxable: Income exempted by the statutes of the tax code.
2. Taxable: All other income.

But, as you can see for yourself, that is NOT what those older income tax regulations (expressing the government's official interpretation of the tax laws) say. They very clearly delineate THREE categories of income:

1. Non-taxable: Income exempted by the statutes of the tax code.
2. Also non-taxable: Income excluded because of the Constitution itself.
3. Taxable: All other income.

I can't stress this enough: the current tax professionals DO NOT KNOW that that second category exists at all. Soon enough we'll address the question of WHICH income might be excluded from tax because of the Constitution itself, but first it's important to let this sink in: SOME kinds of income are exempt (non-taxable), not because of any particular section of the tax code, but because of the Constitution itself--and your tax preparer DOES NOT KNOW THAT.

Feel free to go back to the link above and review those old regulations. See for yourself where the government's own law books say in plain English (at least as plain as their law books ever get) that there is some income you're supposed to LEAVE OUT of the calculation of your taxable income because such income is, "under the Constitution, not taxable by the Federal Government." Your tax preparer doesn't know that the law books ever said such a thing. YOU now know something about tax law that all those highly-paid tax "experts" DON'T. If you don't believe me, ask them. Pick someone who makes a living preparing tax returns, and ASK him, "What income is exempt from the federal income tax because of the Constitution itself?" He won't know what you're talking about, because he doesn't know that ANY income fits that description.

Just to be clear, I'm NOT saying there is anything unconstitutional about the income tax. Those regulations are just saying that because of the Constitution, certain income isn't subject to the tax, which means it would be a MISTAKE to report such income on a tax return, or to pay taxes on it, just as it would be a MISTAKE to report and pay taxes on life insurance proceeds (which the statutes say are tax-exempt). This isn't a protest of the law; this is the government's own law books telling you how to properly COMPLY with the law, and to do that you are SUPPOSED TO leave out of your calculations any income you may receive which is non-taxable due to the Constitution.

Why don't the tax pros know about this? Which income is it talking about? Why would some income be Constitutionally non-taxable? We'll get to all of those questions soon, but for today I'm just going to leave things hanging right there. But before I sign off for the day, there are a few questions I want you to ask yourself. (I'll include these after each message in this series.)

In what I've said above, do you see me encouraging anyone to break the law? Do you see me objecting to the law? Do you see me arguing anything "frivolous"? (No, no, and no.) Lastly, would you consider it okay for the government to try to forcibly stop me from telling you what I've told you so far, or to punish me for publicly talking about such things? (Me neither.) [Next]

US Senator describes the impact of voting for unread legislation

by Mark Yannone



Several United States Attorneys investigating government corruption have been forced to resign their positions without cause. Then the USA PATRIOT Act fun begins. Senator Dianne Feinstein explains one result of her voting for the USA PATRIOT Act without reading it. [Watch] 8:05


Update: 01/19/07

Surging and Purging

by Paul Krugman
The New York Times

". . . for the first time the administration is really worried about where corruption investigations might lead. Since the day it took power this administration has shown nothing but contempt for the normal principles of good government." [Full story]

Why the United States is attacking the Middle East

by Mark Yannone



As the perceived value of the dollar approaches zero and oil-producing nations refuse to accept it as payment for oil, the United States is using deadly force under many pretenses to try to keep the dollar alive where it has already been rejected as a legitimate currency. This expensive use of our military requires the creation of even more dollars out of thin air, which lowers the perceived value even further.

As Congressman Ron Paul states in this speech on the floor of the US House of Representatives, we are quickly approaching the day when only gold will buy Middle East oil. What we are witnessing in 2007 is the end result of fraud. [Watch] 34:49 (Dr. Paul begins speaking at 2:05)

Will Plainfield be another Waco?

by Mark Yannone

In defending themselves against a federal government they claim is operating outside the government's jurisdiction, Ed and Elaine Brown have filed 42 motions in Concord, New Hampshire's, US District Court and had every one denied. The couple then spent three days in court last week listening to the federal government try to build an income tax case against them.

"Of course the government failed. They didn't prove a thing. There's nothing to prove. We didn't violate a statute because there is no statute, and they don't even have jurisdiction. In fact, the court is operating out of a building that New Hampshire never ceded to the federal government--as the law requires in order to have jurisdiction over anyone who has ever been tried in that court!"

But it gets worse. When Judge McAuliffe gave the Browns a draft copy of the jury instructions he planned to deliver at the end of the trial, the contents convinced Ed Brown that McAuliffe would never let him present the kind of defense he planned.

Ed Brown called me on Saturday evening and said that it was clearly pointless for them to go back into that courtroom, and they will not go. Consequently, he fully expects an armed assault by law enforcement at his home on Tuesday, which he and his friend Michael believe will result in a Waco-type scenario. Quipped Michael, "At least we'll be warm."

Ed Brown said he had one simple message for America: "Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country."


Update: 01/14/07

The nationwide call has gone out on Rick Stanley's Standing Up For America Radio Show for Americans to peacefully assemble at Ed and Elaine Brown's property line--armed with weapons and cameras-- to protect them with a virtual "wall of Americans." Their address is 401 Center of Town Rd, Plainfield NH 03781, their phone number is 603-675-2909, and their e-mail address is Edward.L.Brown@valley.net. [Listen] 17:31

Those who will be able to go to Ed and Elaine's aid are asked to please notify Rick Stanley by e-mail, so he can publish every one of them in the "Scoop Newsletter" (initials only, to protect privacy) and let America know about this showdown and what they can do to help.


Update: 01/15/07, 6 p.m. EST

As of 6 p.m. EST, Ed and Elaine Brown were resolute in their decision to not appear in court tomorrow . . . or any other day. Given the enormous cost of being found guilty, many might be willing to compromise--to ignore the lack of federal jurisdiction, to stand quietly as the judge rejects defense witnesses and forbids the admission of lawful evidence, and, as the judge prejudices the jury with misinformation, to smile brightly and make the best of it.

Some might count on the jury knowing about the principle of jury nullification, knowing that they have the right and the duty to judge not only the facts of the case but the law itself, despite what the judge may tell the jury. Federal judges know that juries may judge the law and disregard their instructions to the contrary, but they are not required to inform them of that right. Sadly, this is not something that is taught in government school either. This is not to say that Title 26 needs to be ignored! On the contrary, it needs to be enforced as written rather than as rumored incorrectly by federal employees.

Others might hope that at least one of the jurors had the wisdom and character of Marcy Brooks, a juror who questioned the federal government's startling inability to identify the statute that would make most Americans liable for an unapportioned direct tax like the "income tax." (Marcy Brooks delivered four "not guilty" verdicts as a result.) [Listen]

But no. Although history does provide some examples of justice being served in such cases, the Browns are firmly convinced that Judge McAuliffe will not allow the truth to reach this jury, nor will he allow the jury to make an unbiased, informed decision. Having watched Judge McAuliffe thoroughly corrupt the jury, Ed Brown believes there is nothing to be salvaged in Concord's (yet-to-be-ceded) US District Court.


Update: 01/15/07, 10 p.m. MST

Rick Stanley: I just got off the phone with Ed Brown. He has had a busy day, making preparations for a standoff, talking with government representatives, and talking with his wife, Elaine.

Elaine Brown: Rick, tonight the US Marshall, Gary DeMartino, and Dan Gildea, the court probation officer, phoned us regarding tomorrow.

They gave us information about continuing the trial versus plea-bargaining versus not coming in at all. According to them, if we go to trial and are found guilty on all counts, the maximum sentence would be 31 to 41 months, and the financial aspect would probably be somewhere between $2 million and $500,000. They do not want our house, they can offer payment plans, and in cases where the person, after leaving prison cannot pay the amount because they can no longer earn enough money, the government may not even get paid. Sentencing would be 90 days or more after conviction, and we would be free and able to work during that time. My dental license would not be revoked until sentencing, so I could continue to work--if I have any practice left at this point.

Plea-bargaining would probably reduce the sentence to about two years, with financial arrangements realistically structured.

The prison time would involve spending half the time in a prison camp, where there are no cells, but we would be in a dormitory situation, we would have jobs there, libraries, etc. The last half would involve going to a halfway house, where we would go out into the community to work, but return to the half-way house at night.

We have been laboring under the assumption that we would be facing 30 years and the loss of all of our assets. The marshal and the probation officer assure us that that is nowhere near the reality, but is as I have outlined above.

I (Elaine) have decided to go back into court tomorrow and finish the trial. I decided not to plea bargain, as that would be admitting to guilt. So I will address the jury tomorrow and hope I can convince them that we truly believe how right we are and hope for a lesser sentence--maybe get acquitted on some of the charges.

Ed, on the other hand, has decided to stay here and stand his ground. He feels he can make a bigger statement about the unlawfulness of the IRS and the injustice system by defying and fighting them. He is a man of such great honor, courage, and principle, as I have ever known. I fear for his life, but his honor is more important to him than his life. Thousands of people across the country have called and e-mailed in support of him and his principles. He feels that he will be dishonoring his principles and his fellow countrymen by going back into court. I must respect his wishes, but I am so afraid for him. I pray that he will survive this, and that we can be together again in this life; surely we will be together in the next.

Ed talked with Gary (the US Marshall) for about an hour. Ed said it was a pretty good conversation, and a good relationship was being formed with Gary. Ed stated to Gary that he would keep communications open with him as long as everything is done with respect and honor. Marshall DeMartino let Ed know clearly that he has to do something about bringing him in, or it would probably be taken out of his hands and probably some "black ops" (Ed's words) team of about 200 agents would probably come in to arrest him with helicopters and all that paraphernalia. Ed asked Gary to please not do that, or if he intended to do that, that he himself should not come, as Ed told him that he did not want Gary to get injured in any way.

Ed also reluctantly warned Gary that under these unlawful circumstances, if in the event that he or his wife were imprisoned or he or his wife were killed, then the parties responsible--at some point in the future, I don't know when--would be held directly responsible and join us. Ed told him that he is fully aware that "it is lawful to warn, but it is unlawful to threaten." Ed said for every action there is an equal or greater reaction. For their action they will be held equally or more responsible.

Ed has to stand by his word at any cost, and as his wife, I know that he will. He feels he must, at any and all cost, protect his nation and the people thereof. If it means to go full measure and sacrifice his life, he WILL do it. Hopefully, America will wake up for themselves and begin to do the same thing in their own states, because if they don't they will have already lost their nation.

Ed says simply, "Semper fi. Live free or die. Death before dishonor." God bless all, Ed says, and if he can't see you after this, then he'll see you on the other side.

Pray for us both.

Elaine and Edward Brown

Rick Stanley: The call for support has been made. Ed and Elaine Brown have made some decisions. Ed Brown is staying and will not give up. He has done absolutely nothing wrong, and the judge has conducted a kangaroo court, with which we are all so familiar. Ed and his lawyer have made 42 motions to present various defenses to clear their names, all of which were denied by the judge. Even the OMB [number] defense involving the bogus 1040 form was not allowed as a defense, which is "absolute" for the defense. The court is a sham. All courts to date have been shams regarding rights. No patriot to the Constitution could accept this, and what will happen from now on is exactly what is happening here.

Notice has been served to the government. The defense of Ed Brown moves forward, and we are continuing to ask patriots to surround Ed Brown's property and life with a ring of armed Americans with firearms and video cameras to protect a fellow American who is demanding that his rights be upheld against the fraud of a government that has overthrown this nation from within. This is the line in the sand. This is the flashpoint. This is the time of raised pitchforks. This is the time for Americans from all across the nation to say, "Not this time! Not on our watch. No more Waco's. No more Ruby Ridges. No more Gordon Kohl's. No more."

Let the preparations begin. I talked with Ed. He is well prepared. He can outlast them if others will put up a wall of Americans. Make sure you let Ed know of your support before you come, and he will welcome you. After the phone is cut off, just come and do what you must.

Ed Brown's phone is (603) 675-2909. His e-mail address is Edward.L.Brown@valley.net until the power is cut. They told him they won't do that. (Right....) He is self-sufficient and can live for years. He will be alone (without Elaine) after tomorrow as Elaine is going to the court tomorrow. Ed has some people—defenders--with him. There are people defending him now and more coming.

This is it folks. It may go on for many, many months, or years. It could be over in a matter of hours if you do nothing. This is the call for Americans to make the stand. What will you do? You have been talking for years. Is now the time? Is now the time to say to the government, "NO MORE"? Or will you stand by again and do nothing? I would like to see Ed Brown one day, alive.

God bless the fighters for freedom and liberty.

LIVE FREE or Die! LIBERTY in our Lifetime!

Rick Stanley


Ed Brown (or a spokesperson, depending upon what happens that day) will be on The Peter Mac Show on Tuesday, January 16, from 5 to 6 p.m. CST.


Update: 01/16/07, 10 p.m. EST

I spoke with Ed Brown tonight about today's events. He remained at home rather than submit to the court's disputed jurisdiction, but was assured by law enforcement that they would not try to arrest him today or tonight. Several people showed up near his home to show support and offer him protection. His wife Elaine did appear in court as she intended, and the court appointed her an attorney. Further proceedings were postponed until tomorrow because several jurors did not appear. According to Ed, Elaine is no longer afraid; now she is angry. Sadly, he reported that this battle with the federal government has destroyed their marriage.


Update: 01/17/07, 8:46 p.m. EST

The trial resumed today with Elaine Brown appearing without Ed. She made her closing arguments to the jury, and the jury got the case. Jury deliberations will begin tomorrow morning. Also in the courtroom were her son and about thirteen strong supporters from the community, who applauded at the conclusion of her statement.

Doug Kenline interviewed Ed Brown in his home to get additional details of the day's events. [Listen]

Fred Smart's phone conversation with Ed Brown today is incorporated in an artistic activist video. Please bear in mind that the sole focus here is the administration of tax law, not the character or cost of government. [Watch] 11:02

Update: 01/18/07, 10:15 p.m. EST

I just spoke with Ed and confirmed that their jury found them both guilty of multiple felony counts today. Sounding as calm and as resolute as ever, he said, "The charges are bogus. It's over. Pretty soon they're going to try to get me."

I read him the headline and first sentence from tonight's Associated Press story, as follows:

Armed Man Guilty of Tax Evasion Barricades Himself in New Hampshire Home

CONCORD, N.H. — A man who has holed up with armed supporters in his fortress-like house for most of his tax evasion trial was found guilty Thursday, along with his wife, of engaging in an elaborate scheme to avoid paying federal income taxes for a decade. [Full story]

Ed Brown calmly responded, "That's it. That's the last time I'm going to talk to these reporters. They're not interested in the truth."

This has been a victory for the government's educational system and another very sad day in America. It's bad enough when governments ignore property rights, but when your neighbors no longer understand their own rights and fail to acknowledge the property rights of others, the nation is lost. America's bloodshed of revolution will begin anew.


Ed Brown was interviewed on Free Talk Live after the verdict. [Listen] 19:19


Update: 01/19/07, 8:00 p.m. MST

NECN provided this video in which the news anchor and the reporter both authoritatively lie to the unsuspecting audience that Ed Brown "didn't attend a single day of his trial." In fact, Ed Brown attended three days of his trial--Tuesday through Thursday--and only decided to stop going to court when it became obvious to him that he was not going to be allowed to defend himself, when his witnesses were rejected by the judge, and when he heard Judge McAuliffe biasing the jury. Nevertheless, state-owned media never let truth get in the way of their government-promoting agenda, and this gang produced their typical hit piece without the slightest curiousity about the underlying facts of the case.


Update: 01/20/07

Supporters say raid on tax evader may turn violent

by Philip Elliott
The Associated Press

CONCORD – A former militia man convicted of tax evasion prepared for a government siege Friday as his supporters called for more people to show up at his fortress-like home and fight his arrest.

Ed Brown said he was ready for a swarm of federal agents to descend on his property to execute an arrest warrant. His wife and his supporters said they believe a confrontation could turn violent.

U.S. marshals said they have no plans to attack Ed Brown’s home in Plainfield or act quickly on a warrant for his arrest.

Some supporters said government aggression could lead to another Waco, Ruby Ridge, or Oklahoma City bombing. [Full story] [Source 2]


Scofflaw 'to nullify' tax plight

by Kristen Senz
Union Leader

Plainfield resident Ed Brown, who along with his wife was convicted of multiple felony tax evasion charges this week, said yesterday he and a group of legal analysts are preparing to take legal action "to nullify the whole problem."

"We're working on legal matters and actions," Brown said during a telephone interview. "This court is totally off the wall for its actions, and the record will show that clearly." [Full story]


FLASH! The IRS is absolutely right! In a very recent story published here, the IRS revealed to the media exactly what sections of Title 26 make Americans liable for the income tax, as follows:

The requirements are "clearly set forth" in the Internal Revenue section of U.S. Code, according to a November 2006 publication entitled, "The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments." The article specifically cites sections 6011(a), 6012 and 6072.

Section 6012 (a), in particular, says "every individual" who does not meet certain exemptions shall make "returns with respect to taxable income."

Further down, section 6151 says the person making the return "shall pay such tax at the time and place fixed for filing the return."

Wow! The IRS was right all along!

Well . . . except for a couple of huge, non-frivolous details. Please look up the meaning of the term "taxable income" as defined in the relevant law. And while you're poring over all that tax law, you might dip into the several Supreme Court decisions that clarify the effect the 16th Amendment had on the constitutional prohibition of an unapportioned direct tax. And look into the meaning of "employer," "employee," "person" and all the other common words that are precisely defined in the relevant law.

I don't think Title 26, the related regulations, the Supreme Court cases, and the United States Constitution are too frivolous to read, do you? Just because they don't teach this in government school doesn't mean you can't read it for yourself, does it.


Update: 01/25/07

Bob Schulz, Chairman of We The People Foundation, provides a comprehensive analysis.


Update: 01/27/07

Dave Champion evaluates the jury instructions and offers a solution for all future income tax cases.


[Earlier stories]


See also: Quest for Fair Trial in Concord NH

See also: Index of coverage

Update 02/23/09: Browns face conspiracy, arms counts

When is it time to shoot the bastards?

What would it take for you to revolt?

by Craig J. Cantoni

My own answer to the above question is that I would grab my weapons and revolt against the government if the United States were ever to adopt a nationalized health care system like the Japanese model, which tyrannically keeps people from doing whatever they can to save their lives or the lives of their loved ones.

Call it an Italian thing, but my family is more important than the state or the common good, however that is defined. Hmm, maybe instead of revolting, I'll do what the Italians did to protect themselves against tyrannical government: form a Mafia.

Like nationalized health care in other countries, the Japanese system is based on the premise that the state owns your body, not you. As such, the state can dictate what medical care can be withheld from you, either by policy or by making you wait so long for care that you die in the meantime.

A chilling story in the January 11, 2007, Wall Street Journal detailed how Japanese cancer patients were denied treatment that is common in the United States. Worse, many patients were not even told that they had cancer. As a result, the Japanese are clamoring for a health care system more like the American system.

I can't think of anything that would motivate me more to grab a gun and shoot a politician or bureaucrat than the prospect of my wife or son dying of a curable cancer and being told that the treatment that would save her or his life is not permitted, even if I were to pay for it out of my own pocket. And I can't think of anything more distressing about contemporary America than the fact that many Americans want to adopt such a system. Their understanding of why this nation was founded and what it is supposed to be about is so foreign that they are un-American, not American.

Yes, the American health care system is unnecessarily costly and dysfunctional, due mostly to the government destroying a consumer market in health care 65 years ago, as well as to the fact that most Americans get their health insurance from third parties, either employers or the government, and are thus insensitive to costs. And yes, health care has a different demand curve than other products and services, in that people will spend anything to save their life or the life of a loved one. Also, because 80 percent of medical expenditures take place in the last 20 percent of life, it is necessary for people to save all of their working lives for the infirmities of old age.

However, these facts don't justify the government taking ownership of your body. Nor is the change in ownership justified by the fact that Japan spends about half as much per capita on health care as the United States, or by the fact that the Japanese have a longer life expectancy. I don't know about you, but I'm not turning my rights over to the government to save money for society. If rights can be taken for reasons of efficacy and cost, then no right is safe from do-gooders and busybodies, from politicians and bureaucrats, and from the tyranny of the majority.

Incidentally, the Japanese statistics are misleading, because Japan is a homogenous country with a different genetic make-up and diet than the United States, and without the medical problems associated with massive immigration from third-world countries and the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.

Oh, yes, Japan also has some of the most stringent gun control laws of all Western nations. Thus, it is much more difficult for the Japanese to revolt.

Gotta run now. The ammunition store will soon close for the day.
_____________

An author, columnist, and weekend sniper, Deadeye Cantoni can be reached at ccan2@aol.com.

United States v. America

Wow! This is the United States v. America, the federal government's illegal, head-on attack on the constitutional administration of justice. Charles D. Stimson (left) needs to be terminated and prosecuted for interfering with these cases and using his office to attempt to intimidate legal counsel. (Story credit: Citizens for Legitimate Government)

"This is prejudicial to the administration of justice." Official Attacks Top Law Firms for Representing Detainees 13 Jan 2007 The senior Pentagon official in charge of military detainees suspected of terrorism said in an interview this week that he was dismayed that lawyers at many of the nation’s top firms were representing prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and that the firms’ corporate clients should consider ending their business ties. The comments by Charles D. Stimson, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs, produced an instant torrent of anger from lawyers, legal ethics specialists and bar association officials, who said Friday that his comments were repellent and displayed an ignorance of the duties of lawyers to represent people in legal trouble.

Unveiled Threats --A Bush appointee's crude gambit on detainees' legal rights (The Washington Post) 12 Jan 2007 In a repellent interview yesterday with Federal News Radio, Mr. Stimson [Cully Stimson, deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs] brought up, unprompted, the number of major U.S. law firms that have helped represent detainees at Guantanamo Bay ...[I]t's offensive--shocking, to use his word--that Mr. Stimson, a lawyer, would argue that law firms are doing anything other than upholding the highest ethical traditions of the bar by taking on the most unpopular of defendants. It's shocking that he would seemingly encourage the firms' corporate clients to pressure them to drop this work. And it's shocking--though perhaps not surprising--that this is the person the administration has chosen to oversee detainee policy at Guantanamo.

Round Up the Usual Lawyers (The New York Times) 13 Jan 2007 ...[T]he administration’s new attack on lawyers who dare to give those prisoners the meager representation permitted them is contemptible. Speaking this week on Federal News Radio... Cully Stimson, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs, tried to rally American corporations to stop doing business with law firms that represent inmates of the Guantánamo internment camp. It does not seem to matter to Mr. Stimson, who is a lawyer, that a great many of those detainees did not deserve imprisonment, let alone the indefinite detention to which they are subjected as "illegal enemy combatants." And forget about the fundamental American right that everyone should have legal counsel, even the most heinous villain.

Plainfield couple say they aren't required to pay taxes

CONCORD, N.H. -- After a decade of not paying federal taxes, a dentist and her husband are in court this week trying to make their case that they have done nothing wrong.

"My husband and I challenged the application of the tax law to us," Elaine Brown said in her opening statement Tuesday. "We cannot find any statute that requires us to pay."

The Browns, who live in Plainfield, are representing themselves in U.S. District Court. They said the law does not require them to pay federal taxes.



Update: 01/10/07

Yesterday, shortly after jury selection, Ed Brown asked [Judge Steven] McAuliffe to promise that he would obey "the letter of the law" during the trial. McAuliffe responded by scolding Brown for challenging his authority.

"This is not a bully pulpit in which you get to filibuster," McAuliffe said. "You're now in trial." [More]


Update: 01/11/07

McAuliffe summarized his understanding of the Browns' strategy as: "'My irrational, peculiar, weird reading of law may be all of that, but I, in good faith, believe it.' That could be a defense," he said. [More]


Update: 01/13/07

Letter to the Editor (Concord Monitor)

I am watching this case of the Plainfield couple and the IRS very closely, especially after watching Aaron Russo's film America: Freedom to Fascism.

I know jurors are banned from any media while on a case (which seems ironic how it was never brought to the press until the trial actually started), but I appeal to future jurors on such tax cases as these to demand from the judge the law requiring private citizens to pay a tax on their wages.

I guarantee you they will be unable to comply because there is no such law. Title 26 in the IRS tax code specifically says "voluntary compliance."

The outcome of this case will truly show whether or not we live in a state that deserves a motto like Live Free or Die. - Danny Bumpus


Update: 01/13/07

Tax trial comes to a halt

The federal tax evasion trial of Ed and Elaine Brown suffered an interruption yesterday when the couple failed to appear in U.S. District Court in Concord. Ed Brown, who described the proceedings as a "kangaroo court" in a telephone interview yesterday, said that he's been disappointed with the judge's management of the case and doesn't intend to return. [Full story]

Is it immoral for the government to rob Peter to pay Paul?

by Craig J. Cantoni

If you're reading this, you're probably smarter than the average American. As such, perhaps you'll be gracious enough to answer two very important questions for me:

1. Is it immoral for the government to rob Peter to pay Paul?

2. Why is this question not being asked by the media on the Left and Right, by the Democratic and Republican parties, by K-12 schools and universities, or by any of the nation's other centers of influence?

Before you answer these questions, let me introduce you to Paul.

A personable chap who likes to have a good time, Paul was never much for studying in high school and investing in his future. Still, as a truck driver for a furniture store, he has a pretty good life. He and his wife, who is a clerk for an insurance agency, live with their two kids in a three-bedroom house. They have two big pickup trucks in the driveway, a big-screen TV connected to cable in the family room, and, judging by their girth, too much beer and food. Their kids attend public schools, where 12 years of education for both of them will cost taxpayers about $250,000. Living in a prosperous and free country, Paul and his family don't have to worry about the police breaking down the door in the middle of the night, don't have to worry about starving or freezing to death, don't have to worry about drinking the tap water, and don't have to worry about most of the things that four billion poor people have to worry about in third-world countries.

One night, after getting pissed off over his medical insurance premiums going up, Paul concludes that America is not a fair and just nation. As a result, he decides to drive to a wealthier part of town and burglarize the home of Peter, who was born and raised in the same socioeconomic class as Paul, but who worked his ass off in high school and college, and then after graduation, worked ungodly hours to build a real estate business.

Did Paul commit an immoral act?

That was an easy one. Now let's change the scenario and see if your answer is the same.

Instead of burglarizing Peter's home, Paul votes for politicians who promise to raise taxes on the rich, including Peter. Is this immoral? Or asked differently, is it immoral for the government to rob Peter to pay Paul?

Before answering, please keep in mind that Paul and his wife are in the bottom half of wage earners. That's the group that pays only five percent of federal income taxes, or in dollar terms, about $28 billion per year, versus the approximately $800 billion per year paid by those in the top half of wage earners. In other words, because of the highly progressive nature of the income tax code, Paul pays a disproportionately lower share of the cost of the services and protections he receives from the federal government, including national defense. Peter, on the other hand, pays a disproportionately higher share.

What's your answer now?

Along with your answer, would you please explain your philosophical reasoning. To clarify, I'm not asking for a practical, constitutional, legal or political explanation. I understand that what Paul did is legal and perhaps constitutional. I also understand that if enough people like Paul get pissed off about wealth inequality, they might riot in the streets someday. Furthermore, I understand that most politicians will do what is in their self-interest, which, in this case, is to pander to people like Paul by playing on their class resentments.

I'm well-versed in most of the great philosophers, including Plato, Kant, Rousseau, Hegel, Marx, Lenin, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Kierkegaard, Foucault, Jesus Christ, Adam Smith, John Locke, and Ludwig von Mises. Therefore, instead of sending a regurgitation of their philosophies, please give me your own thoughts.

Incidentally, there are a lot of people like Paul. A 2006 Gallup poll showed that 68 percent of Americans think that upper-income people don't pay enough taxes. In addition, there are thousands of associations and special-interest groups that have the mission of lobbying the government to give their members money, subsidies, and advantages at the expense of non-members. Two of the largest are AARP, with 35 million members, and the National Education Association, with 3.5 million members. Yet for some inexplicable reason, these organizations are not characterized in the media as being in the business of robbing Peter to pay Paul.

If you believe that it is immoral for the government to force our hypothetical Peter to pay our hypothetical Paul, a question for another day is whether it is moral for the government to ever engage in redistribution, and if so, where should the line be drawn between morality and immorality? Should the poverty line be the line? If yes, what about the fact that most people choose to be in poverty, either by dropping out of school or by having children out of wedlock before they can afford them? But like I said, these are questions for another day.

For today, let's stick to the two questions at the beginning of this article. I look forward to your answers.
____________

An author, columnist, and founder of Honest Americans Against Legal Theft, Mr. Cantoni can be reached at ccan2@aol.com.

George Bush just doesn't get it

The military of
the United States
has no right
to be in Iraq.

The video that IRS and DOJ don't want you to see

Theft by Deception

by Larken Rose



If this video was confiscated by gun-toting federal agents, then it must be promoting a tax-evasion scheme or something else illegal, right? Nope.

Maybe it's against the law for Larken to show it to you or for you to watch it? Is that it? No, not at all.

Then what is it? What's wrong with it? Why would government agents steal every copy Larken had in his house?

Here's why: This video does a very good job of presenting the income tax laws of the United States, and it answers questions that the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of Justice, the United States Treasury, the United States House of Representatives, the United States Senate, and the President of the United States have repeatedly refused to answer. [Here's what we heard from them.] Even in court--under oath--the United States federal government has been unable to answer the most basic of all tax questions: What law makes me liable? [Watch] 1:27:51

Those who stay will choke on the predictable misery of socialism and its unintended consequences

California Eyes Health Insurance for All

by Patricia Neighmond



Under the plan, businesses with ten or more employees would be required by law to provide health benefits. Those with less than ten employees would be exempt. But all state citizens would be required to have insurance. Those without it would have to buy it. They'd get a tax break. And if they're low income—but not low enough to qualify for Medical, California's version of Medicaid—there would be subsidies. [Full story] [More] [Watch]

Like lambs to the slaughter

Are Americans programmed to self-destruct?

More than 50 million Americans voted for this the first time.

More than 60 million Americans voted for this the second time. [Watch] 13:48

A soldier's first obligation is to the US Constitution

Against All Enemies, Foreign and Domestic

In solidarity with the Iraq Veterans Against the War, First Lt. Ehren Watada speaks at the Veterans for Peace convention about a new strategy to end the U.S. occupation of Iraq, in brave defiance of his corrupt commander in chief.
Watch: Part 1 (8:14), Part 2 (8:50)

Talking to a military recruiter is like dealing with the devil

Before You Enlist

Straight talk from veterans and their family members tells what is missing from the sales pitches presented by recruiters and the military's marketing efforts. [Watch] 14:31

See also: BeforeYouEnlist.org.

Our bastard senators

Senate Regrets the Vote to Enter Iraq

by Jake Tapper
ABC News



An ABC News survey shows that knowing then what it knows now, the 2002 Senate would vote against giving the president war powers.

According to the Associated Press, ABC News asked Senators if they would change their vote on giving President Bush the authority to wage war in Iraq. Only 43 of the original 77 senators said they would still vote to approve the use of force, and the measure would be defeated. [Full sordid story]

The reports from weapons inspectors in Iraq had no bearing whatsoever, and the lies of the Bush administration were more than sufficient to condemn 700,000 innocents to death and thoroughly destabilize the Middle East. "Oops! Sorry," won't bring any of them back to life. Let the trials begin.

"They kill people, then they say sorry. I hate them," said the sole survivor of the Haditha murders. [Watch] 3:08

Israel plans for the end of the world

Revealed: Israel plans nuclear strike on Iran

Uzi Mahnaimi, New York and Sarah Baxter, Washington
The Sunday Times

Israel has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons. [Full story]

Credit: CLG

[If it could make any difference I would advise peace-loving Israelis to leave their country now, because the weight of the world is about to descend on you. But it won't make any difference. Not this time. -mjy]

Why you should love the federal income tax

It's Time to Learn the Truth

by Pete Hendrickson
author of Cracking the Code

The surprisingly limited and benign legal character of the most hated tax in American history is revealed on film; including how the tax has come to be misunderstood and misapplied, and what each person can do about it. [Watch] 20:13

Pete Hendrickson, Responding to the Assault

One teacher wants us to reconsider America's public schools

The Gummint Skools

by Vin Suprynowicz



[Extract] John Taylor Gatto, a former New York City (and state) public school Teacher of the Year for multiple years, urges us to consider the possibility that "School may be a brilliantly conceived social engine that works exactly as it was designed to work and produces exactly the human products it was designed to produce"–fragmented adults who can’t imagine how to survive without the state. [Full story]

Some of you are thinking that Vin Suprynowicz's article is just libertarian hyperbole, merely mean-spirited ranting by an anarchist who doesn't want to pay his "fair share" of property taxes to fulfill his "social contract" obligations. Never mind that I have been every bit as critical of government schools in these pages. I'm probably just as unreasonable and biased as he is, right? Well, here's another account for you--a third opinion. Let's see what Joel Turtel has learned about public schools.

Turtles All the Way Down

by Stefan Molyneux

According to an apocryphal story, a well-known scientist was describing to an audience how the Earth orbits the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of his lecture, a little old lady got up and said, "This is all nonsense. Everybody knows that the world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant turtle."

The scientist smiled and said, "I see. Can you tell me, then, what is the turtle standing on?"

"You're very clever, young man," replied the old lady with a prim smile. "But it's turtles all the way down!"

This story neatly captures the logical foolishness of the "Infinite Regression." It is a tale pregnant with meaning for Libertarians, for we face some version of it almost every time we open our mouths.

The appeal to political authority in all its forms is really an attempt to bypass the black hole of Infinite Regression.

Here's a pro-state argument we are all intimately familiar with:

1. Bad people like to use force to prey on good people.
2. Good people require a government to protect them from bad people.
3. This government, in order to be the final arbiter, must possess overwhelming force.

The logical madness is clear. Since bad people like using force to prey on good people, and the government is the greatest concentration of force in society, it stands to inevitable reason that bad people will use the government to prey on good people.

This is the central problem of Infinite Regression: who will watch the watchers? There is, of course, no rational or political answer. (There is an anarchistic answer, which I discuss in my podcasts at www.freedomainradio.com.)

Unjust parental authority faces the same problem.

I say to my son, "I am right because I am your father."

He naturally asks, "Are you 'right' because you are my father–i.e., all fathers are right–or are you right because fathers possess some wisdom or knowledge that sons do not?"

"I am right because I am your father," I repeat.

"And who taught you this?"

"My father."

"And he was taught this by his father?" he asks.

"Yes."

"So who was the first father to say this? And did he not disobey his own father by teaching something new? And does that not make all subsequent teachings of this rule invalid?"

Here I am generally stumped, and call him a communist. Another argument is swallowed up by the black hole of Infinite Regression.

Here's another. People like to argue that the government should control the use of guns. Why? Because there are bad people who would use those guns to hurt us. What logical rule is this reasoning based on? Well, we need a gang with more guns (the government) to protect us from gangs with fewer guns (criminals). So naturally, when the government, having gotten rid of its competition, steals our money through taxes, we logically need a World Government to disarm the existing governments. Then we will doubtless need an Interstellar Federation to . . . well you get the idea.

Rejecting "arguments" based on the Infinite Regression fallacy can unleash prodigious creativity. What has been sometimes called the single greatest idea in the history of the world arose from Darwin's failure to be impressed by the Infinite Regression paradoxes of creationism. Free markets–and economics in general–arose from the failure of Ricardo and Smith to be impressed by the Infinite Regression argument that the nobility should manage resources on behalf of everyone else.

In the realm of morality, the problems of Infinite Regression are, literally, genocidal. The fantasy that a minority of men can justly force obedience from everyone else is responsible for more deaths than any other single delusion. In the realm of morality and the use of force, there is simply no solution to the problems of Infinite Regression. A stateless society is the only answer.

Rational thinkers must reject arguments that pass anywhere near the black hole of Infinite Regression. Appeals to the "virtuous violence" of the state instantly self-destruct, because of Infinite Regression. Demands for "obedience to gods" instantly self-destruct, since such obedience would require an infinite chain of more powerful gods, all obeying the "god above," which would instantly result in a truly bureaucratic cosmic paralysis. Even merely mortal parents who attempt to justify their commandments through appeals to power, biology, or position succumb to the error of Infinite Regression.

The three traditional power centers–politicians, priests, and most parents–justify their authority based on Infinite Regression fantasies. If mankind continues to believe in any moral authority except logical consistency and evidence, we will continue to sail blithely over the edge of the old lady's imaginary plate, falling forever.

As the turtles descend, so do we.
____________

Stefan Molyneux is host of Freedomain Radio and author of the 2004 novel Revolutions, many articles, and a blog. Listen to his highly rated podcast here, or, if you like iTunes better, you can click here. Topics range from philosophy to psychology to economics to art to how to achieve real freedom in the modern world.

Don't Let Them Trick Us into Another War

Lacking direct evidence, Bush administration officials argue that Iran's nuclear program must be a cover for bomb-making. Vice President Cheney recently said, "They're already sitting on an awful lot of oil and gas. Nobody can figure why they need nuclear as well to generate energy."

Yet Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, and outgoing Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz held key national security posts when the Ford administration made the opposite argument 30 years ago.

This is precisely what we have come to expect from the criminals who have occupied Washington, DC, since America's illegal dictatorship was installed in 2001. [Watch] 2:37

Larken Rose, free among America's slaves

Larken Rose, who, like Irwin Schiff, was erroneously convicted and sentenced to spend time in prison for no crime whatsoever, was released from federal custody on Friday, December 29, 2006. We look forward to hearing from him again.

Welcome back, Larken.

Using theft to justify theft is a disaster

Missing the point about illegals and college tuition

by Craig J. Cantoni

A controversy is raging in Arizona over a proposition passed in November that keeps illegal immigrants from getting a tuition break at state universities, thus forcing them to pay out-of-state tuition, which is three times higher than in-state tuition. Although a majority of Hispanics voted in favor of the proposition, immigration activists will be marching outside of the Glendale, Arizona, stadium where the college BCS National Championship Game will be played on January 8.

A local talk-radio station, KFYI, has been running a fascinating interview with an Arizona State University college student who has been living in this country illegally since her parents brought her here when she was three years old. The most fascinating part of the interview was not her lame excuses for not seeking citizenship, or her lack of critical-thinking skills, or her major in Chicano studies, or her lack of appreciation for taxpayers spending $120,000 on her K-12 education. The most fascinating part of the interview was that she thinks just like most native-born students about state-subsidized college education.

She believes that as a matter of justice and fairness, she is entitled to below-cost tuition because she and her parents have been paying taxes.

Ah, the power of socialized education to stop people from thinking about the injustice and unfairness of socialism. Even the talk-radio host missed the point, although he is a bright guy who professes to believe in freedom and free markets.

The point is that subsidized college tuition comes at the expense of other people, especially at the expense of people who don't attend college. For example, the Mexican national's Chicano studies are being subsidized by Mexican-Americans who cut lawns, wash dishes, work in construction, or pay private tuition to attend a technical school. Where is the fairness and justice in that? What gives her the moral right to mooch off of them so that she can obtain a degree and earn more money than they (assuming someone can earn more money by majoring in Chicano studies)?

The correct answer to these philosophical and moral questions is not that she and her parents have paid taxes. That's the correct answer only if the amount of their taxes that funds state universities is at least equal to the cost of her education. No doubt, that is not the case. And it is even less likely that it was the case for her K-12 education, which, again, cost taxpayers about $120,000.

The correct answer is that she doesn't have a moral right to mooch off of other people, unless each of the "moochees" has agreed to subsidize her education. To believe otherwise is to believe the Marxist philosophy that the collective has more of a right to an individual's labor than the individual has.

The standard counter-argument goes like this: It benefits all of us to subsidize the college education of some of us. Well, if that's true, why stop at college education? Why not subsidize the wages of a young man who works in construction and is learning a trade on the job? Why not buy a bull and several cows for a rancher who wants to raise cattle for a living? Why not rent a building for a young woman who wants to start a day-care business? After all, these occupations benefit all of us.

Incidentally, I'd like to know how it benefits me or the rest of society for someone to major in Chicano studies.

Another counter-argument goes like this: A college education would be out of the reach of most people if it were not subsidized. No, the converse is true: A college education would be in the reach of most people if it were not subsidized. As demonstrated by reputable economists, subsidies have driven up the cost of a college education. And to use an economic term, subsidized college tuition has also "crowded out" educational alternatives to brick-and-mortar universities.

On a related note, much of the curricula at state universities are devoted to remedying the sorry education received by graduates of government K-12 schools. And even with the remedial courses, nearly half of entering college freshmen will never graduate from college.

A closing note: Arizona's K-12 government schools rank near the bottom in test scores, primarily due to the state having a disproportionate share of legal and illegal immigrants from south of the border, almost half of whom have children out of wedlock, which is a surefire way of increasing poverty, lowering academic achievement, and fueling the high Hispanic dropout rate.

I wonder if such facts are taught in the ASU Chicano studies program. Clearly, the injustice and unfairness of socialized college education are not taught.
___________

An author and columnist, Mr. Cantoni can be reached at ccan2@aol.com.

Irwin Schiff's Secrets of Living an Income-Tax-Free Life

American hero Irwin Schiff, currently jailed once again as a political prisoner for no crime whatsoever (as always), has generously allowed the free release of this digitally mastered video on Google Video.
Watch: Part 1 (1:58), Part 2 (1:48)

Olbermann's Special Comment on "Sacrifice" in Iraq

Sacrifice, Mr. Bush? You're delusional. This has now become human sacrifice. Our meaningless sacrifice in Iraq must stop, and you must stop it. [Watch] 10:52