Friday, May 28, 2010

If you don’t know what the acronym OTM is, maybe you should!

If you don’t know what the acronym OTM is, maybe you should!
Al Ritter

So much emphasis is being placed on Mexicans being the culprit of the influx of the Mexican border. While it IS true they are the majority of the illegal immigrants crossing the border, they are not the only ones. The largest portion of illegal immigrants are either Mexican or from South American countries, but there are 1000’s of people who cross the border illegally classified as OTM or “other than Mexicans,” and by far they are the most dangerous of them all.

Reportedly terrorists from the Middle-eastern countries are now travelling to Mexico and South America sponsored by drug cartels to learn Spanish, and become mules for them to import drugs and terrorism into our country.

Channel 2 in Atlanta did an expose’ on this activity and in the process discovered some very revealing government documents that weren’t even available to The Homeland security committee members! It appears that this figures are not even released anymore, yet another cover-up from an Administration already sympathetic to Muslim issues.

Below are links to parts 1 and 2 of this report

Wednesday, May 26, 2010

Higher Authority

Higher Authority
Kevin Bryant

In the military, it does not matter who you are or what your rank is, you have a higher authority that you receive orders from and you must answer to. The federal and state constitutions were written in such a manner that each of our elected officials no matter at what office they may hold must also answer to a higher authority, the voters.

Over the past 90 plus years, many of those elected to serve at the federal level as well as those appointed to serve at the federal level have forgotten that they serve and answer to the voters of this nation. At the same time, the voters have been growing more reluctant to hold these individuals accountable for the actions. There are a few noted exceptions; the people wanted Richard Nixon impeached and the result was that he resigned from office. Nixon was pardoned by Gerald Ford and as a result, lost his election bid and Jimmy Carter became President.

In Arkansas, Bill Clinton was elected Governor of the state. His midnight deal to raise taxes on motor vehicles licenses cost him his reelection bid. He did get reelected two years later after swearing to the voters that he learned his lesson. As President, Bill Clinton again forgot that he was accountable to the voters and during the first two years of his presidency he governed from the far left. As a result of his thinking he was above being accountable, America saw the biggest swing of power in one election year than had ever been witnessed before or since. Democrats had lost not only the majority of the senate which they had enjoyed for several years but also lost the majority in the house, an institution that they held majority in for over 40 consecutive years.

Bill Clinton broke a few campaign pledges and he did lie to the American people about his affair with Monica Lewinsky, but unlike President Obama, I do not believe he intentionally lied to the American people during the campaign and I do not think he intentionally broke his campaign pledges. I do believe that candidate Obama intentionally mislead the people and had no intention of keeping any campaign pledge he may have made except that of spreading (stealing) the wealth and fundamentally transforming the United States.

President Obama, unlike that of Bill Clinton, has no concept of accountability to the voters of the United States. He gives every indication that he is above the masses in the same manner such as that of Joseph Stalin & Adolph Hitler. This is why I believe that he will be a one term president. That being said, this is not all good news for conservatives.

The Clintons are smart. Obama may have more appeal and charm than that of the Clintons, but I don’t think he has the ability of beating the Clinton Political machine one more time. Therefore I believe that if his approval rating dips below 40 and I think it will by tax time next year, he will again face Hillary for the nomination. Only this time I think he will lose.

Why is this not good news for conservatives? I wish I had started keeping the things I wrote a lot sooner than I did. Back during the 08 general election campaign, I wrote an article stating that if John McCain were serious about winning the election in November of that year, he should choose Hillary as his running mate. Many who read that piece thought I was nuts and was thinking too far outside the box. To this day, I still stand by my opinion that he should have offered her the position instead of Sarah Palin. Not because I dislike Mrs. Palin, I like her a lot., but because it made more political sense. The old adage that the enemy of my enemy is my friend would have served America’s interest a lot better than an Obama presidency.

Hillary is still a darling in the democratic circles. She has overtaken Obama overseas as being more popular. With Obama’s track record being what it is, she is now more popular than Obama in moderate democrat and independent circles and the press continues to love her. If she were to win the democratic nomination in 2012, she would be tougher to defeat than Obama in the general election in my opinion. Her biggest advantage she has over Obama, as President, she would know who she is accountable to after having seen her husband forget and serving in an administration who doesn’t care to acknowledge that they are accountable to anyone. She is capable of swinging enough independent voters her way that the thought of Hillary as the 45th President of the United States is not out of the question at all.

Yep, the 2010 and 2012 elections are going to be very interesting indeed.

Tuesday, May 25, 2010


William G. Burmer

At the onset of researching materials for this part of my book, I was initially forced to write “a short history” because finding any history relevant to the IRS was essentially none existent. Very little information was readily available from private sources our local library, and even less from the largest bookstores in the area. I had checked bookstores from Fresno California to Sacramento.

Of one hundred and ninety six books available, from or about the IRS, none were found to deal exclusively with its history. It has proven to be a task somewhat like a very large complex puzzle putting the pieces together so that a true picture may be viewed. I have read several books, periodicals, and reference material in order to expose the shroud of secrecy behind what is the largest monopoly annexed by our government. In every truth the inner actions of the IRS over the 150 years have been clouded by hard to find transcripts. “Personal destruction of evidence by the agency, and the extraordinary ability of this agency to interpret its own statutes to its singular benefit prevail.” (See “Unbridled Power” below) Those individuals who have successfully exposed, or portrayed, the IRS in the true light of day fear for their lives and livelihood.

Shelley L. Davis tells a true story in her book entitled “Unbridled Power inside the Secret Culture of the IRS.” She dared to go “public” about those at the highest levels of the agency who encouraged violation of Federal Law by destroying government records. In her own words: “This had been the gist of my beef with the IRS: that it negligently and deliberately destroyed its paper trail, shredded its records and trashed any chance for accountability, out of some ill-founded and irrational fear of exposure to public scrutiny.”

Because of people like Mrs. Davis our suspicions and worst fears about the IRS are exposed and validated. The use of the words, Secret Culture, and the IRS has an ominous tone when you think of it. I had to go to several books on the Civil War to at last find some information about the IRS.

The Bureau of Internal Revenue, as it was originally known, was created on the first day of July 1862 as an administrative agency under the direction of the Treasury Department. President Lincoln instituted the direct tax as an emergency measure, under a state of “Martial law,” to finance the Northern Army during the Civil War.

His Secretary of the Treasury, Salmon Chase, opposed any system of direct taxation; especially where it required revenue officers for collection purposes. Note that the Congress as constitutionally required did not craft the agency. Thus, this agency of government is, in reality not officially sanctioned by the Congress. Secretary Chase had preferred to finance the war through loans. However Chase felt about the tax measure, after its passage, he was obligated to support it once signed by the President.

The Congress was composed of two political factions known then as the “Conservative Republicans and the JACOBINS or Radical Republicans. The Jacobins were determined to crush the South by any means available; such was the veniality of the North for the South over secession. The word or acronym Jacobin Republican was a term derived from the French Revolution of 1793 through 1794. The Jacobins were a political society in France who advocated Democratic ideologies and most importantly National loyalty. When the Southern Representatives Walked out of Congress in 1861 their action was not considered by the Northern Representatives an act of National loyalty, no, they considered it an act of treason.

In any event the first Internal Revenue Act in 1862 was framed upon the theory that the Taxpayers were “natural enemies of the government.” Well duh, naturally the taxpayer expected taxation by representation, not by extortion and certainly not by coercion. For the first time in American history the Constitution was suspended, statutes replaced common law, which gave the Bureau police powers of visitation and inquisition of all Citizens. In addition the leaders of the Bureau were protected against interference from any judicial authority. These Police Powers (the N.D.P. or National Detective Police) were placed under the command of Lafayette C. Baker as a quasi branch of the Army. Baker was commissioned to the rank of Colonel and recruited more than 2,000 troops under his exclusive command.

Baker easily became a “law unto him-self,” and instituted a reign of terror not seen since revolutionary times. Such powers eventually led to 4th Amendment violations of search and seizure, and 5th Amendment violations of due process. This breech of Constitutional authority, again under the guise of “Martial Law,” also led to unrestrained corruption in the form of bribe taking, smuggling, defrauding the customs, and payoffs while the honest taxpayer were pursued for the most technical breaches of the law and driven “out of business.”

At the end of the Civil War Baker escalated hostilities against the South as it was over run by the Bureau of Internal Revenue Police. In testimony Mr. T. J. Mackay, then Provost Marshal assigned to Louisiana had this to say: “After the arrival of the Officials of the Treasury Department in western Louisiana I heard of frequent complaints made of their exaction’s . . . I ascertained that it was the common practice of the agents . . . to seize cotton on the pretext it

belonged to the late Confederate States; to refuse to give the party who owned the cotton a paper designating the weights of the bales, and . . . return to the claimant the same number of bales taken from him . . . .Treasury agents . . .exacte(d) bribes before they would permit it to be shipped.” (A). Corruption by the Treasury agents was universally known and actual revenue sent to the Treasury in Washington DC was estimated to be as low as 10%. While the poor Southerners were being financially sacked by high taxes, and the brutal abuses of the Internal Revenue agents, the merchants of the Northern States became richer and richer. (Emphasis added).

It needs to be clearly understood that the Radicals in the Congress and the Money Trusts in the North, which were their benefactors, had not the least compunction to refrain from debauching the Federal Constitution, or any Southern States Sovereignty and their Constitutions, during and after the Civil War. Their own political power and individual financial futures were their primary concern.

The assassination of President Lincoln and the impeachment of Andrew Johnson thereafter assured the Radicals in Congress along with the Money Trusts absolute power in Washington DC. Without Lincoln to hold back the powerful Eastern Banking interests, the Civil War would be the blood bath the Radicals in Congress wanted it to be. To spite Lincoln’s efforts it was a horrible slaughter nonetheless. J. P. Morgan’s control of all the railroads was laid over the bodies of young men of both the North and the South.

The 14th and the 15th Amendments were passed off on the American public through the efforts of the Radicals in congress along with military occupation of the Southern Legislatures. Properly elected Representatives from the South were denied seats within the Congress unless they were Black or avowedly Unionist voters. Reconstruction in the South was a means for the Radical Republicans in the North to remove the basic structure of government in the United States, circumventing Article V, particularly Section 3 regarding States rights.

The Tenth Amendment and Article V. formed what was to be an impenetrable boundary of federal power. The link of taxation and House representation is significant because all appropriation measures must start in the House; see U.S. Constitution, Article I. Section 7. To do otherwise is to deny the Citizen the ability to hold their elected officials accountable at the voting booth. However, the Radicals in Congress set out to do just that by the first reconstruction act, which aided the coercion of the ratification of the 14th Amendment over the resistance of the Southern States. To spite the Veto of President Andrew Johnson, the first reconstruction act was passed March 2, 1867.

See Unbridled Power inside the Secret culture of the IRS. By, Shelley L. Davis c1998. Harper Collins Publishers, Inc. New NY.

See Documentary history of Reconstruction, edited by Walter L. Fleming (McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, 1966), page 4.

Benson, B and Beckman M.(1985) The Law That Never Was. Vol. I, Vol. II Published by Constitutional Research Assoc. South Holland, IL

Treasury Department on Tax Reform Volume 1. p 75

For Good and Evil. The impact of Taxes on the Course of Civilization p 290-91Adams, Charles.

Encyclopedia Americana, The. (1991). International Edition Vol. 1-30. By Grolier Incorporated. Vol. 13 p 819-20.

Encyclopedia of the American Constitution. p 1423 Encyclopedia of the American Constitution. Vol. 2. Levy, Karst, Mahoney. Macmillan Publishing Company. New York, Collier Macmillan Publishers London.

Seligman, Edwin R. A. The Income Tax. A Study of the History, Theory, and Practice of, The Macmillan Company New York. Boston. Chicago. San Francisco.

Next: THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE A Short story. Continued.

“WE THE PEOPLE” and the American Constitution

By: William Grant Burmer ISBN 978-1-4363-2186-0

Available at Barnes and Noble and other fine book stores

Friday, May 21, 2010

Cloning Europe

Cloning Europe
Kevin Bryant

I have been experiencing a case of writer’s block like I have never experienced before. As I sit here I have no idea what to write. I know what I want to say but don’t know how to get the words on the screen to align themselves with my own personal thoughts.

Elena Kagen, President Obama’s choice to replace Justice Stevens. She has never been a judge and hardly a lawyer at all. I probably have more experience outside of college campuses in dealing with legal issues than she has. Even the press is hard pressed to find any accomplishments in her past that they can justify their own praise of why she would make a great choice for the Supreme Court. An accomplished poker player and a softball enthusiast is all they can come up with. That doesn’t even equal Sonia Sotomayor’s “compelling life story” that we all had to listen to and endure for a solid month.

To Obama, this is just another appointment he gets to make that will aid him in his bid to transform America into the fascist nation he thinks we should be.

Another push for is the American Power Act, or known to many as Cap & Trade. Fascists believe in maximum government control of private industry. If this act passes the house and senate, this act will place American government could almost equal to that of 1930’s Nazi Germany. Couple this with the Financial Regulatory Act currently making its rounds though congress, the value added tax that is being considered and the healthcare bill that recently passed and you have not a free America but a full blown Socialist America that is further left than any European Nation of the past 60 years.

The addition of Kagen to the Supreme Court will ensure 4 solid votes that all these acts are within the powers of the federal government. It also will give the federal government 4 solid votes to declare the internet a public utility thereby allowing government to control access and content of the internet. In Obama’s own words, the information being disseminated over the internet such as this website is a distraction and not good for America.

America is the last place on earth that people can come to enjoy freedoms anywhere close to what we have enjoyed during our lifetime. If 2 or more of these acts become law, then we are no longer will be a free and independent nation but just another country who’s population isn’t living but just existing. If this happens, I would rather live in Israel and die defending a nation from conquest of outside forces rather than die surrendering my freedoms to my own country.

Wednesday, May 19, 2010

Of course the Administration is prejudiced!

Of course the Administration is prejudiced!
Al Ritter

Last week we saw Eric Holder being questioned about Arizona Law sb1070, and he admitted he hadn’t read it, but that didn’t stop him from forming an opinion and commenting on it. With that being said, wouldn’t you think that any other member of the cabinet would take the time to read the bill before being caught with their collective pants down again?

Yesterday DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano was commenting on the bill to Sen. John McCain, when she admitted that SHE hadn’t read the bill either, but like Attorney General Eric Holder, she too had a formulated an opinion without knowing the facts.

This exhibits a very troubling history for the Administration in Washington, they are prejudiced plain and simple. If we look at the word prejudice we see that it is a “premature judgment based on bias.” The history of the last 18 months of this Administration has been one of prejudice.

President Obama commented on the Professor Gates issue with clear and intentional prejudice. Obama has clearly misrepresented the Arizona Law in his personal comments, and now he is being followed by two of his employees making equally offensive and prejudicial statements.

If Napolitano and Holder are having problems finding the actual wording of Arizona’s law SB 1070 here it is guys, read it, and try to understand it. Arizona Law SB 1070

Monday, May 17, 2010


William G. Burmer

The Constitution opened the doors to the emigration of a number of inventors, and scientists to develop and sell their ideas. They were able to receive personal patents, and to capitalize from their discoveries. For centuries European growth languished because any inventions or discoveries made, if exposed for use, became the property of the state. Little or no incentive was given to the provider of an invention or discovery to reveal their secrets. The new Union became a refuge for their talents.

“Congress shall have power to promote the Progress of Science and useful arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” (Article 1 Section 8, U.S. Constitution.)

This new industrial boon in the United States created immediate wealth for some individuals. However, divisions between those who provided the jobs, and those who provided the labor arose; small business successes lived and died at the whim of larger monopolies. There also arose divisions between the individual states over apportionment.

Apportionment meant that some states were required to pay higher excise taxes than another. The economic status previously enjoyed by the farmer declined in favor of urban industries. Railroads for instance were unrestricted on how they administered fees for service. Numerous social and economic ills developed not anticipated by leaders in government. In addition the nation’s money supply had not kept up with the population growth; and as a result was worth less. The nation was now experiencing growing pains, and was struggling to meet new and unanticipated demands upon government for solutions to these ills.

Beginning with Benjamin Harrison’s election in 1888: “The administration attempted to solve pressing economic problems by passing four important laws in 1890. The Sherman Antitrust Act, outlawing trusts and monopolies that hindered trade, met the demands of farmers and small businessmen who sought protection from corporations that controlled market prices and destroyed competition. The Sherman Silver Purchase act, increasing the amount of silver that could be coined, reassured farmers who believed that the free coinage of silver would avert bankruptcy and foreclosures, which were threatening because of failing farm prices. The McKinley Tariff Act, setting tariffs at record highs, was designed mainly, to protect American manufactures during a period of rapid industrialization. The Dependent Pension Act, which benefited all Civil War veterans who could not perform manual labor, was passed despite the fact that the resulting cost of pensions would rise from $88 million in 1889 to $159 million in 1893.”2.

The issue of silver coinage to boost the falling gold price during the 70’s and 80’s became moot with the discovery of gold in the Klondike in 1896 and in South Africa ten years previous. This new discovery eventually enlarged the national money supply. Silver thereafter remained a useful means of boosting the money supply in the United States. It has always been used as a medium of monitory exchange in Europe, most notably in Spain.

In the interim, Congress enacted legislation introducing a flat tax of 2% on all annual incomes over $4,000.00. This was the Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act, or the income tax act of 1894. Challenged in the Supreme Court under Pollock vs. Farmer’s Loan and Trust Co. 157 U.S. 429 and at 158 U.S. 601 (1895), this decision defined the issue of a direct tax.

Pollock filed a stockholders suit against the Trust Company to prevent it from complying with the Statute, which imposed a direct tax without apportioning it among the states on the basis of population. Mr. Chief Justice (Melville Weston Fuller 1833-1910) delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court:

“Our conclusions may, therefore, be summed up as follows: First: We adhere to the opinion already announced, that, taxes on real estate being indisputably direct, taxes on the rents or income of real estate are equally direct taxes. Second: We are of opinion that taxes on personal property, or on the income of personal property, are likewise direct taxes. Third: The tax imposed by sections 27 to 37, inclusive, of the act of 1894, so far as it falls on the income of real estate and of personal property, being a direct tax within the meaning of the Constitution, and therefore, unconstitutional and void because not apportioned according to representation, all those sections, Constituting one entire scheme of taxation, are necessarily invalid.” 3.

One needs to study carefully the entire text of Pollock vs. Farmers’ Loan and Trust Co., however, in brief; the Court held that the Congressional power to levy a direct tax was only to be used in cases of necessity such as in the Civil War, where greater sums of money were needed to support the troops. In addition, direct taxes were to be collected according to apportionment (Census). If a particular states population represented 2% of the total population, then the State would collect 2% from the taxpayers to be paid to the National treasury.

Another element, which controlled the Direct Tax, was that of Representation. The taxpayer requires their representative to qualify any continued need for the tax or risk a voter’s judgment, as to their devotion to duty, at the ballot box. Here again the people controlled the purse strings in the Congress. (Taxation with representation). The people determined the need to continue any direct tax.

“In his dissenting opinion Justice Harlin . . . complained that parts of the statute which were not unconstitutional, may be reenacted by Congress.

“The decision, said Brown . . . made the tax burden fall most heavily and oppressively upon those having the least ability to pay. “With the defeat of the 1894 Tax Act, (--the Pollock case—has never been challenged)

Congress raised almost all of its revenues from excise taxes and tariffs, whose burden fell mainly on the consumers. The Democratic Party, in the mean time, recommended an amendment to the Constitution vesting Congress with the power denied by the Supreme Court. For another 18 years while Congress, the legislators, educators, and bankers argued the merits of amending the Constitution, Americas misdistribution of wealth intensified while the great fortunes went un-taxed.” (Ital. Added)

President Theodore Roosevelt suggested that a “Graduated income tax of the proper type would be a desirable feature of federal taxation, and it is to be hoped that one may be devised which the supreme court will declare Constitutional.” 4

President Taft on June 16, 1909 said: “Although I have not considered a constitutional amendment as necessary to the exercise of certain phases of this power (the direct tax), a mature consideration has satisfied me that an amendment is the only proper course for its establishment to its full extent . . . I have become convinced that a great majority of the people of this country are in favor of . . . an income tax.” Spoken like a true politician. Ital. Added

Mr. McCall, of Massachusetts, in the Congressional record, Vol. 44, Part IV, p 4391 stated: “I imagine that nothing which I may be able to say will defeat the prearranged program . . . for the House to . . . pass a joint resolution without first considering it by committee, strikes me as a proceeding of extra ordinary levity.” Here again if the bill had gone to committee our representative would have been made aware and so might the taxpayer. “The object of the pending Constitutional Amendment is to simply remove this discrimination (direct tax) and to make it possible to tax incomes without apportionment.” Ital. Added

Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers, No35, said, “It is dangerous to use only one kind of taxation. If great revenues are needed in time of war or a national emergency, the tax rates for this single tax will become excessive. This will foster evasion and hurt commerce.” (Our income tax has certainly done that, that is,” foster evasion”)

Hamilton’s thinking is as sound today as it was then. When great revenues are needed Congress should have many sources, thereby spreading the burden over all wealth, not just income . . . Make our federal tax system indirect as much as possible. An indirect tax is one that is not assessed against the individual. See original intent as engrossed in the constitution, Article 1, Section 9, and Paragraph 4. Montesquieu, a French philosopher whose political ideas influenced the writers of our Constitution said: “Direct taxes are the badge of slavery, and indirect taxes the badge of liberty” 5.

“. . . A government may make all kinds of laws and regulations for the good of a society, but when it came to tax, tax laws had to have the consent of the taxpayer; other laws did not. Lord William Pitt, who tried hard to prevent the Revolution in the colonies, explained the concept with these words: “taxation is no part of the governing or legislative power. The taxes are a voluntary gift and grant of the Commons alone. 6.

“He was supported by a large number of leading British statesmen, one none other than the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Camden, who served from 1766 to 1770 and who helped in the repeal of the Stamp Act; Said Camden: “My position is this---I repeat it---I will maintain it to my last hour, ---taxation and representation are inseparable---this position is founded on the laws of nature; it is more, it is itself and eternal law of nature, for whatever is a man’s own, is absolutely his own; no man hath a right to take it from him without his consent, either expressed by himself or representative; whoever attempts to do it attempts an injury; whoever does it commits a robbery; he throws down and destroys the distinction between liberty and slavery. Taxation and representation are coeval (coexistent) with and essential to this constitution.’ Ital. Added

“. . . A hundred years later the concept was still alive, and had been very much alive in the nineteenth century. Thomas Cooley, the leading constitutional law scholar of the age, explained the meaning of arbitrary taxation: “Taxes are distinguished from arbitrary levies in that they are laid according to some rule which apportions the burden between the subjects thereof. An exaction, which is made without regard to any rule of apportionment, is therefore not a tax. “If it is not a tax, what is it? Justice Cooley, like so many in the nineteenth century, was probably a disciple of Adam Smith, or at least a scholar who respected the founder of modern economics. Smith had said when you abandon the principle of apportionment; you enter the realm of extortion.” 7.

2. Encyclopedia Americana, The. Vol. 13 p 819-20.

3. Encyclopedia of the American Constitution. p 1423

4. The income Tax pp. 471-2 York. Oxford University Press.

Seligman, Edwin R. A. The Income Tax. A Study of the History, Theory, and Practice of.

5. Ibid. p 468.

6. Ibid. p 282-3

7. The Income Tax pp. 464-465


“WE THE PEOPLE” and the American Constitution

By: William Grant Burmer ISBN 978-1-4363-2186-0

Available at Barnes and Noble and other fine book stores

Friday, May 14, 2010

Post- Colonial Taxation 1789 to 1895

Post- Colonial Taxation 1789 to 1895
William G Burmer

Taxation being at the very heart of our Declaration of Independence from Great Britain, gave leaders in our emerging government pause; for they were keenly aware of the damage they could do to their re-election plans by foolhardy taxation.

We The People should not hesitate to remind our elected servants from time to time that the government is not a producer of income or of wealth, but is the beneficiary of the labor of the people. Hence the people necessarily must control the Legislatures taxing policies in a Republic.

It only follows that the legislature should be limited in its power to tax or have any control over property, including the individual lives and liberty of our society. Article I sec 8 of the Constitution provides that “The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, . . . To borrow Money on the Credit of the United Sates; . . . To Coin Money, Regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; . . . To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States; . . .” Take special note that our currency was by design; tangible-- precious metals, Gold and Silver. Gold, for instance, is the most stable investment one can make. Its value has never changed.

As the colonies struggled under the Articles of Confederation to provide revenues for the revolution the sums of taxes were not enough. After the revolution, and under the new Constitution, individual States provided to the Federal Government funds by taxing property, excises, and tariffs. The burden became too much for some states to bear. The states thus burdened with taxing the Citizen inevitably ran the risk that its Citizens may rebel; and rebel they did.

Farmers were the chief instigators of rebellion; which would appear logical since they owned most of the property, which was taxed. Again, as when the colonies began to organize, Committees of correspondence began to appear among the several states and rebellion over taxes ensued. Beginning in Massachusetts, Courthouses were occupied by insurgents demanding redress of grievances, questioning the taxing authority of the Constitutional Government.

Between August of 1786 and February of 1787 Daniel Shays led a group of approximately 3,000 farmers and forcibly closed the courts of five counties in Massachusetts. Many farmers were losing their land over high taxes and foreclosures brought on by declining farm prices. The federal legislature had previously repealed the legal-tender status of paper money. Banks were requiring the farmers to pay their debt with hard to obtain specie (Gold and Silver). Some farmers were put in to debtors prison because of none payment.

A superior force of federal soldiers defeated Daniel Shay’s men when they tried to seize an arsenal in Springfield in January of 1787. They were again defeated at Petersham in February of the same year. The federal legislature met in Philadelphia later that month (February) and reduced court costs, paid interest on securities from excesses, and reaffirmed their commitment to the use of Gold and Silver coin as legal tender. In the spring John Hancock was elected Governor of Massachusetts.

With the help of the state legislature the governor reduced the poll and estate taxes, and ended jailing of debtors. The new Governor ultimately pardoned Daniel Shays and other leaders of the rebellion. Their cause had stirred up unrest in neighboring states creating a demand for a stronger national government. In the end, the American farmer insisted that taxes should be low. 1

During the Civil War, President Lincoln, in an effort to raise funds, enacted what was to be known as the Civil War Income Tax Law. The “Bureau of Internal Revenue” was born as a collector of the taxes. The Court ruled it Constitutional saying that “Direct Taxes as expressed in the Constitution, are only Capitation Taxes that taxes on real estate are excise or duty.” 2.

In 1863 Lincoln created the National Bank Act, which gave the country our first National Currency called “Green Backs”. There followed a long train of excise taxes on liquor and tobacco, manufacturer’s, professional men (doctors, lawyers, insurance companies) railroads and banks. Congress also enacted and income tax on inheritances. They relied on tariff duties and excise taxes for most of their revenue. This tax remained in effect until 1872 when the statutes regarding the war taxes were revised.

New sources of taxes were becoming available because of the rapid industrialization of our nation. Friction between the rich planters of the South and the rich industrialists of the North highlighted the struggles within the new nation for seventy-five years. Finally, in 1861, after Lincoln’s election, the southerners walked out of Congress and formed the Confederate States of America with a new constitution to check the power of their new government to tax.

Secession by the South was a reaction against Lincoln’s high-tax policy. In 1861 slavery was (at least in the administrations mind) not a critical issue. Lincoln and the Congress gave unequivocal assurance that slavery in the South would be respected; yet the South would not budge from its secessionist plans.

The Leaders of the South believed secession would attract world trade to Charleston, Savannah, and New Orleans, replacing Boston, New York, and Philadelphia as the chief trading ports of America, primarily because of low taxes. This was the pot of gold behind secessionist dreams. In addition the south stressed the importance of States Rights by opposing emancipation of slaves.

Economics in the south was dependent upon slavery; many in the south were not going to take any chances with this commodity. Slavery was a matter of ownership; slaves were property, and a way of preserving their economy and way of life.

1 The American Heritage Encyclopedia of American History, Ed. By John M. Faragher, Henry Holt and Co. Inc. pp. 45-46.

2. See Unbridled Power inside the Secret culture of the IRS. By, Shelley L. Davis c1998. Harper Collins Publishers, Inc. New York, NY


“WE THE PEOPLE” and the American Constitution

By: William Grant Burmer ISBN 978-1-4363-2186-0

Available at Barnes and Noble and other fine book stores

Wednesday, May 12, 2010

Only in America do pennies cost more to make than they are worth!

Only in America do pennies cost more to make than they are worth!
Al Ritter

According to The United States Mint’s 2009 Annual Report , the coins we use as currency are costing us more to make than they are worth! Because of the rise in cost of various metals pennies now cost us 1.6 cents apiece to make, and a reported 9 cents to mint a nickel.

All these additional costs pile up, in 2009 it cost us $32.2 million to mint 3.2 billion pennies, losing $19.8 million in the process. They minted 207 million nickels at a loss of $2.2 million dollars. Because of the physical size of dimes the mint made $15 million on them. Quarters were similar, raking in $132 million, and a huge profit of $318.7 million on dollar coins.

The commemorative coin sets serve to offset some of the current losses on circulated coins, but a break even point could be turned into a profit if the alloys are more closely monitored in the future. The most likely alloy to be used would probably be aluminum.

While the markets in metals rise and fall, the recipe or alloys can be changed, but require an Act of Congress to do so. There is some behind the scenes scrambling by the Obama Administration to have those alloys changed as we speak.

Monday, May 10, 2010

The War of 1812

The War of 1812
William G. Burmer

It is a temptation for me to elaborate upon the Napoleonic Wars and the War of 1812; however, I will avoid the urge and attempt to highlight their consequences instead. President Washington’s declaration of neutrality (specifically, Washington’s attitude towards relations of any kind with Europe were that of an Isolationist) with regards to involving itself with wars in Europe failed under President Jefferson and finally President Madison.

Our Congress and our nation’s first depression would, eventually, demand some actions against France and England for unprovoked aggressions. Between 1800 and 1815 European conflicts under France and its Monarch, Napoleon Bonaparte, spread across all of Europe. When England was threatened, they naturally defended themselves and became enemies of France.

Commercial intercourse between the United States, France and England were strained. Diplomatic resolutions failed. Neither England nor France believed that the U.S. should be doing business with their enemy. American ships were seized and sold by both countries; far greater abuses were had by Britain, where American sailors were coerced into British naval service for faced death when their vessels were captured at sea. These abuses coupled with the desire for war by certain members of the Congress forced America into conflict in 1812.

Wars, treaties, lawyers, Monarchs around the world, and bankers; those who could be bribed or paid off, all have had a hand at the destruction of our Republic. Was there a conspiracy to destroy Americas Republic? I am certain there was, as a historian I can see that all the events that have made “history,” especially wars, have been used for nefarious, and selfish ends by our politicians at home, as well as by foreign Monarchs in other countries. For those of us who grew up, witnessed, and participated in the events of the Vietnam era is an example of such tyranny sanctioned by our leaders in government. As Solders we wanted to win that conflict but the politicians drug the war on for 10 years, many became wealthy while 50,000 young men and women died in a protracted conflict a police action. Congress never declared war in East Asia!

When George Washington left office in 1796 he was weary, bound by events over which he had only limited control. Washington’s service to our country was, however, magnanimous in proportions. His example as a leader in war, as our first President, and as Chief Administrator over the federal government is incomparable in history. Above all, his integrity should be remembered. Few may leave this earth with their integrity intact President Washington would be one.

While the war was supposed to be confined within the borders of Canada, unexpected consequences brought the war into the very heart of American soil. In 1814 a large squadron of British ships entered Chesapeake Bay, landed their troops and marched through Maryland into Washington DC. The Capital was burned along with the White House before the British finally withdrew. Many important historical documents were consequentially destroyed. Coincidence?

In the end neither side could claim a victory. By December 1814 a treaty was finally signed in Ghent Belgium. This Treaty ended the war and restored the boundaries previously had between the U.S. and Canada. It had lasting effects on the United States, inspiring a spirit of nationalism among the people, and for a short time a return to isolation from Europe. By 1817 relations with Britain improved through diplomatic venues, and by other treaties, which disallowed war ships in the Great Lakes. Thus Canada, the U.S., and Britain were able to restore commerce and co-exist peacefully.

The United States increased its efforts to industrialize and move westward. These efforts shortly led to the adoption of the Monroe Doctrine in 1823, and a dim never the less, generally accepted respect for American sovereignty by all of Europe. The American Citizen should have learned from this experience that they ought to be about the business of seeing to it that they elect the best people possible to represent them; those who will preserve and protect their liberties, regardless of party affiliations, and or, political preferences. These notions may sound idealistic; however they of necessity need to be enforced if our Liberties are to be protected. We need to be especially alert during war, and during times of tragedy, when fear and emotions may cloud our reasoning. Politicians are most likely to work there tricks during these times, involving us in controversy with other nations, and invading our liberties with bogus legislation. George Washington once declared “The power under the Constitution will always be in the people. It is entrusted for certain defined purposes, and for a certain limited period, to representatives of their own choosing; and whenever it is executed contrary to their interest, or not agreeable to their wishes, their servants can and undoubtedly will, be recalled.” And at his inauguration “The Constitution of the United States, and the laws made under it, must mark the line of my official Conduct.”


Next: Our Republic


And The American Constitution


Available at

Friday, May 7, 2010

Republicans: Enough money and enthusiasm to go around in Maryland?

Republicans: Enough money and enthusiasm to go around in Maryland?
Al Ritter

Last weekend, the Republicans of Maryland had their spring get together in Ocean City, Maryland. The meeting didn’t have the same air of a conservative wave to take back America. Instead of an aim to replace a few democratic seats in the house and senate with Republicans, it took on more of a feeling of an Ehrlich pep rally.

Granted the seat of Governor is the most powerful seat in Maryland, but unless the Governor can garner the support of the legislature, his position becomes merely an exercise in futility. Unless Bob Ehrlich approves of a candidate for the legislature, that campaign is doomed to fail.

The spring meet for Republicans in Ocean City turned out to be a meeting for supporters of Ehrlich. The primary has yet to be decided and yet Mr. Ehrlich’s challenger was treated as an outsider. Ehrlich spoke at the meeting, and yet his challenger Brian Murphy, was not even handed the microphone the entire weekend.

Why is the Maryland Republican Party afraid to address this issue? Could it be that they would rather keep it a run between a moderate Republican vs. a far left Democrat? Is it not ironic that the only Republican candidate who has actually filed was the candidate who wasn’t allowed to speak at the state party function?

With a national message being sent to run more conservative candidates, why does Maryland ignore those very rumblings? Why would they ignore up and coming strong conservative candidates, to merely invest enthusiasm in one man, Bob Ehrlich, when his leanings are not 100% conservative?

What does the Republican Party, or for that matter, the republican voters in Maryland actually know about Brian Murphy? Why wasn’t he given a chance to stump for office in the spring meeting? Are all the Republican donations going to the governor’s race alone?

Is this the very same cronyism that plagues the Democrats, or a brand new “old boy’s club” started by Ehrlich?

Wednesday, May 5, 2010

Arizona Kool-Aid

Arizona Kool-Aid
Kevin Bryant

I wasn’t going to get into the Arizona Immigration Law debate. I seriously thought that people had enough common sense to know that if the Federal Government wasn’t going to do a job that they are responsible for, then the state has the not only the right to do it for them but the responsibility to their citizens to see that the job is carried out in the manner that it is supposed to be.

Kris Kobach, a lawyer in the Kansas City Metro and a candidate for Kansas’s Sec. of State is a frequent guest on Chris Stigall’s morning radio talk show here in KC. And sometimes fills in for Chris when he is on vacation. Kris Kobach helped draft the Arizona legislation and has repeatedly stated and backed up the claim that the Arizona Law is almost a mirror image of the federal immigration enforcement law.

If the federal immigration law is constitutional then why, under the 10th amendment isn’t a state law that only reinforces a federal law constitutional if it does not exceed the federal law or in violation of any other existing law? My favorite RINO Lindsey Graham (RINO-SC) can’t even answer that question. You would think that someone from South Carolina would be able to easily answer that question. The Civil War started in South Carolina. The Civil War was fought over in the idea of “State’s Rights.

The far out left is portraying this as some sort of “American Holocaust” only without the actual murdering of 6 million innocent people. Then you have those that want you to believe that this will lead to profiling, unlawful detention and illegal search and seizure. If anything, the Arizona law is more humane and protects the rights of individuals more than the federal law. The state law specifically states that you can not be sought out simply because of your nationality. You actually have to be in violation of an existing ordinance or law BEFORE your legal status can be questioned. The highest probability of a person here illegally being caught by state law enforcement is in a routine traffic stop. One of the first things a cop asked for is: License, Registration & Proof of Insurance. If I get pulled over for speeding and I do not have my license on me, the police have every right to take me into custody and hold me until I can satisfy the requirements of proving that I am who I claim to be. I am an American citizen and this is not violating my civil and constitutional rights. Sorry, but the federal law is specific. People who are here illegally do not have civil or constitutional rights. Law enforcement has the duty to treat that person with respect so long as they do not pose a threat to the officer. The officer also has the duty to keep that person safe from harm while in their custody and afford them the same rights and privileges as they would any other detainee.

You would think there would be a major uprising from Hispanics if they thought the Arizona law was racial. I have an acquaintance at work. His name is Carlos. Carlos works for a moving company here in KC that my employer frequently uses. He is the lead crew boss for this company and the company hires a lot of Hispanics. Carlos came to America when he was 19. He could barely speak a word of English. He applied for and received a work visa, primarily taught himself English and 6 years later became a legal citizen of the United States. Carlos is now in his upper 30’s, has a wonderful family, nice home & good income. He is living his dream, and that which many come here seeking. He, like so may others of his nationality, believes that Arizona is fully within their rights to enact this law and supports the law. After receiving his citizenship, he sponsored his parents and a few relatives, all of whom have since become citizens of this country. He will be the first to tell you that anyone who does not come here legally does not need to be here.

It’s OK for Carlos to think this way but if I or anyone who is not Hispanic believes as Carlos does, then we are called racist, bigots and Nazi’s.

Since when did enforcing the law itself become a crime? The federal government is quick to give constitutional rights to those who are not legally covered by the constitution but wants to strip the citizens of this country of their constitutional rights. The fed wants to impose more laws and restrictions on its citizens but is not willing to enforce the laws when it comes to non-citizens. There is something wrong here in the United States. What happened to the land of the free and the home of the brave? It has become the land subject to confiscation under eminent domain and the home of a government that thinks rights and freedoms are granted by the government and the government can take them away.

Monday, May 3, 2010

Creating a New Government

Creating a New Government
William G. Burmer

Creating a new government was a daunting task. For months there were heated debates amongst the delegates about procedures and content. Arguments ensued and tempers flared. The Convention seemed to be getting nowhere. On June 28, Benjamin Franklin made his famous speech recommending that sessions be opened with prayer: “The small progress we have made after four or five weeks . . . is methinks a melancholy proof of the imperfection of Human Understanding. We indeed seem to feel our own Want of political wisdom, since we have been running about in search of it . . . In this situation . . . groping as it were in the dark to find political truth . . . how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understanding? . . . I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of the truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid?” 3.

By mid-September the work of the Convention neared its end. The New York members, except Hamilton, had already withdrawn in disgust. Others, for various reasons, declared they could never sign. Governor Morris of New York cleverly devised a form to make it seem unanimous: “Done in Convention, by the unanimous consent of the States present the 17 September.” At 4:00 p.m., September 17, 1787. The members adjourned to the City tavern, dined together, and took cordial leave of each other. America now had its Republic, a government ‘of the people, by the people, and for the people.’ “The Federal Constitution gave new meaning to the term “federal,” by setting up a sovereign union of sovereign states,” this federal government is supreme and sovereign within its sphere, but that sphere is defined and limited by the constitution. Explicit in the Constitution is the statement (Article VI, section 2) This Constitution,

and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made under the Authority of the United States, Shall be the supreme Law of the Land; Implicit is the principle that the Tenth amendment of 1791 which made clear that “Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States are reserved to the States respectively or to the people.” The states are co-equally sovereign within the sphere of their reserved powers; in no sense are they subordinate corporations as the British insisted that the colonies must be. Both federal and state governments rest on the same broad bottom of the popular sovereignty.” 4.

“The first presidential and congressional elections were set for 4 March 1789. It however was the 6th when the electoral ballots were finally counted. Another week before Washington learned officially that he had been chosen. No one was sure the Constitution would work. As Ben Franklin stated at the conclusion: “Thus, I Consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure that it is not the best.” 5.

On the 30th day of April 1789, George Washington stepped onto the balcony of Federal Hall overlooking New York’s Wall Street and took the Oath of Office for President of the United States of America. Thus, he became our first President and the “Father of our Country.”

About one year later, sometime in 1790, our Capital was moved to Philadelphia. The new location was considered more befitting the status of a Capital city. Philadelphia in 1790 was popularly regarded as the jewel of the Union, quite modern and clean. To spite these amenities it was hot in the summer time and produced mosquitoes carrying yellow fever evidently brought in by ships from the West Indies. This intolerable situation plagued the city every year and in 1793 killed about 4,000 people in a two-month period. The yellow fever was not discriminatory and infected almost all who came in contact. Congress would leave town and government business ceased.

This consideration plus a practical need to locate the Capital closer to the southern boarders, where it could better serve the political interest of both the north and the south prompted a move of the Capital to the District of Columbia in 1800.


And The American Constitution


Available at