Monday, October 15, 2012

Dear Patriots

Dear Patriots:
William G Burmer

RE: Fair Share.
When we hear the often quoted term “Fair Share” by much of the media and our politicians our immediate reaction is that they are referring to the “Have” and Have-nots,” or the Rich vs. Poor. This is a programmed response for us to be sure as it relates to our current political climate.

During World War II the term was attached to the need for rationing. No one, regardless of ability, could just walk into a shop and buy as much sugar, butter, or meat as you wanted, nor could you fill up your car with gasoline whenever you liked. The government introduced rationing because certain things were in short supply during the war, and rationing was the only way to make sure everyone got their “Fair Share,” as it was called at that time.

I looked the term up in the dictionary just for fun and discovered, as you might deduce that like any other term or word, its definition would depend upon what situation or condition it is used. OK. As you are aware the leftist politicians and media alike use the term to divide “We the People” as to how much we all pay in taxes under our current unconstitutional system

Let’s review the constitution Article 1, Section 8, clause 1. “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises. . .” and in Section 9 clause 4, “No Capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.”

Be aware that the Congress is governed by delegated constitutionally authority to deal only with foreign nations which happens also to include Indian Tribes as they issue Tariffs , Duties and Excises charged on goods entering the individual States.

These two sections of the Constitution guaranteed the Sovereignty of the American Citizen from having to pay capitation or direct taxes. Taxes upon the Sovereign American Citizen were made indirect and the amount was determined by the Census. All Citizens regardless of personal wealth thus paid their “Fair Share” and nothing more.
Politicians would argue quite convincingly that Clause 4 of Section 9 was obliterated by the 16th Amendment, however, history correctly records that of the 35 states that supposedly ratified the amendment Most all failed to do so in its proper form, or it was not signed by the Governor, or both. History also records that Philander Knox knowingly and fraudulently certified that the 16th amendment was properly ratified February 25th 1913. He effectively terminated on paper the Peoples sovereignty, making them subjects of the very Government they created; turning the constitution figuratively, on its head.

It is also a historical fact that the Supreme Court has ruled in two different cases that the people retained their rights to sovereignty in 1886 by saying “Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law. For it is the author and source of the law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. And the law is the definition and limitation of power.” (The Supreme Law of the Land is the Constitution.)

In (1895), by a ruling of 5–4, the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed that the un-apportioned income taxes on interest, dividends and rents imposed by the Income Tax Act of 1894 were, in effect, direct taxes, and were unconstitutional because they violated the provision that direct taxes be apportioned. As late as 1926 the Supreme Court re-affirmed in Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170 , the 16th Amendment did not change any part of the Congresses Constitutional powers to tax.

So, my T-Party friends, our next step, after the elections this November, our goal ought to be to reclaim our rights of Sovereignty over our Constitution and remind our Legislators of their duty with regards to Article 1, Section 8 Clause 1, and Section 9, Clause 4 as originally framed. We will also need to repeal the 16th and the 17th Amendments. This will be no easy task without a united effort.

For those who are not aware our original U.S. Constitution gave state governments a strong voice in the national government by requiring them to select U.S. Senators to serve much like ambassadors today in foreign countries. Thus the U.S. Senator was created to be a political look out between state government interests and national government interests. This ability along with the 10th amendment made it possible for the individual States to have a form of veto power over the Federal Government’s ability to impose unjust authority over matters of social policy and taxation. The 17th Amendment in actual effect took away the states power to protect itself, and their Citizens from Federal tyranny. Today I think those differences are self evident such as we have seen in Arizona.

In Conclusion My Fair share means that all Americans have a right to equal opportunity under the Constitution, not equal outcomes; further, and most importantly, Fair Share means all American Citizens would pay the same apportioned tax, lastly you can save or invest your surplus’s in your own future Like Mitt Romney or any other Capitalist.  

Did you notice that Fair Share under the Constitution does not include IRS intercession? Did you also know that the IRS is in fact one of those foreign entities alluded to in Article 1, Section 8? The non citizen on the other hand would be subjects of the IRS (Their Foreign) just thought you ought to know.

I have studied these things for over 20 years; some call us Constitutionalists, government protestors and conspiracy freaks. I can tell you that if this were 1776 we would be on the side of George Washington and the Continental army. On the 17th day of September, 1787 our founders gave us our Constitution, a Republic, and our liberty. Today our duty is to recover what we have lost to apathy on our part, and to corrupt politicians over the past 120 years as they have never let a tragedy go to waste. It is past time for OUR FAIR SHARE under the law.

No comments: