The Fed

The Fed
William G Burmer

There was a time when one was expected to live within their means, saved, paid cash for their needs, and owed no one. They also mended socks and other clothing, made due and wore out. We each need to reevaluate our needs and set better priorities. Truth is we have become a debtor nation of people with little to no assets we can call our own. Essentially we have fallen prey to the first five planks of the communist manifesto. See chapter eight which contains the manifesto.


“No other banking system in the world was quite like it. It was the emancipation of the Treasury. New York bankers could not in the future go to Washington, as Mr. J.P. Morgan had done in 1895, and issue decrees to the President and people. Nor could there be holdup of the financial affairs of the country by business men who happened to have control of the New York bank reserves . . . the Secretary of the Treasury and the new Board would determine the movement and location of the surplus moneys in the country.” 4. On the surface it would appear that this act was legitimate in every respect. However, close investigation makes clear that “The Federal

Reserve Act is in direct violation of the Constitution, because no provision was ever made by the People for it. Congress by delegating this power to the Fed is in violation of the Supreme law of the land, the Constitution for the United States.” 5. The 10th Amendment says: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”


At the very least a referendum should have occurred prior to incorporation. More importantly incorporation of the Federal Reserve System violated state Banking Rights. We along with our Senators were asleep at the switch!


“Congress cannot delegate or sign over its authority to any individual, corporation or foreign nation. 16th Corpus Juris Secundum, No 141.’ In the words of chief justice John Marshall February 1803: “The powers of the legislature are defined, and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is the limitation committed to writing, if these limits may at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction, between a government with limited and unlimited powers, is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed, are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by and ordinary act,” U.S. Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 368.’


“The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, whether federal or state, though having the form and name of law, is in realty no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose, since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.” ‘16th American Jurisprudence, No 256.’ The supremacy of the Constitution as described in the Federalist papers #78 made it clear that “No legislative act . . . contrary to the

Constitution can be valid.” Its supremacy is to be preserved by the Supreme Court. (Ital. Added.)

“The Federal reserve Act, as passed by Congress December 23rd, 1913, has since become the (second) biggest fraud, (after the 16th Amendment,) in the history of this country. Its passage occurred because of self-serving politicians (admittedly, a redundant term) that were more interested in lining their pockets, than upholding their oath of office.’ (Ital. Added with parenthesis)


“All of our Founding Fathers had firsthand experience with bankers and paper money. They absolutely detested the notion that any man could issue notes based upon fractional reserves, thereby creating wealth for himself out of thin air. Most of the Founders were men of wealth, and they came upon that wealth by working hard for it, not by fraud, deceit, and plunder. Gold and silver are recognized around the world for their tangible wealth, because someone has to work very hard to get it out of the earth. How much effort does a banker expend in applying ink to paper to create a fractional reserve note? Not only did they abhor banks, they also disdained paper currency in general, because of their experience with the Continental Currency. In January 1779, The Continental Note was trading 8 to 1 against the Spanish milled Dollar, and by November of that year, it was trading 38 to 1. In January 1781 it was trading 100 to 1, and by

May of that year they ceased to pass as currency and quietly died in the hands of their bearers.


The Phrase “Worthless as a Continental” was widely heard in these times. It was for these reasons that the Founders forever mandated the use of an honest money system of gold and silver coin, and established it through the U.S. Constitution.’ “Prior to the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, the United States government coined, and issued our money debt free. The only lawful and Constitutional forms of money were (and still are) gold and silver coin. Acting upon the powers granted them by the Constitution, the Congress ratified the Coinage Act on April 2, 1792, which specified lawful money to be only gold or silver coin, and the denomination to be based upon a standard unit of weight---a Dollar (371.25 grains of fine silver), based upon the Spanish milled Dollar of silver, then widely in circulation in the sovereign States. The Coinage Act dramatically simplified the process of issuing a standard coin into circulation. At no cost, the individual could take his silver or gold dust, shavings, or bullion to the mint, and have it melted down and pressed into coin. Now it was guaranteed to be a standard weight and purity.’


“The Coinage Act specifies the weight and substance of the Dollar to be: ***Silver---412.5 grains, 90% pure, 10% alloy added for strength and durability. ***Gold---27.5 grains, 90% pure, 10% alloy added for strength and durability.” 6.


In the United States Code (USC Title 12 SS 152) “The terms “lawful money’ and ‘lawful money of the United States’ shall be construed to mean gold and silver coin of the United States.”

Some enlightening comments relative to the Federal Reserve come from some of our former leaders in the Congress: Representative Wright Patman from Texas, a Democrat of the 72nd to the 86th Congress (4 March to January 3, 1976), chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee said: “In the United States we have, in effect, two governments . . . We have the duly

Constituted Government . . . Then we have an independent, uncontrolled and uncoordinated government in the Federal Reserve System, operating the money powers which, constitutionally, are reserved to Congress. He further stated in the Congressional Record (May 5, 1975) . . . ‘the Federal Reserve System has never been subjected to a complete, independent audit, and it is the only important agency that refuses to consent to an audit by the Congress’s own agency, the General Accounting Office . . . GAO audits of the Federal Reserve will, moreover, fill the glaring gap that now exists in the information about the Fed’s activities and programs. As things now stand, the only information that we get on programs of the Fed is what they Fed itself wants us to have.” In truth much is available from the Federal Reserve about itself by just asking any bank. It is the Treasury Department that is most silent and secretive about its dealings with the Federal Reserve. Congressman Louis T. McFadden Republican, Banker while Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee, introduced a resolution indicting the Federal Reserve Board of Governors January 13, 1932. “The resolution preamble read: ‘Whereas I charge them,

jointly and severally, with the crime of having treasonably conspired and acted against the peace and security of the United States and conspired to destroy constitutional government in the United States.’ McFadden had good cause to level such charges, Section 19 of the Coinage Act States: “If any of the said officers or persons shall embezzle any of the METALS (Emphasis Added). Every such officer or person who shall commit any or either of the said offenses, shall be guilty of felony, and shall suffer death.” 7. “Only five Congressmen stood with Him and the resolution failed. The House Republican majority leader remarked, “Louis T. McFadden is now politically dead.” A whispering campaign that McFadden was insane swept Washington, and the press was more than happy to assist in the character assassination.


In the next Congressional elections, huge contributions found their way to his opponent, and as a direct result of being outspent and publicly vilified as a “fruitcake,” McFadden was overwhelmingly defeated. He was in fact more than just “politically dead.” McFadden “mysteriously died,” as the papers reported, in 1936, after three attempts on his life. Truth be known, he was poisoned.” In addition he once accused the Federal Reserve Board of “having caused the greatest depression we have ever known.” 8.


Our present Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank Alan Greenspan (in 2000) was once an ardent foe of the very system he now serves. In his own words: “The abandonment of the gold standard made it possible for the welfare statists (meaning the government) to use the banking system as a means to an unlimited expansion of credit . . .” In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. (Remember inflation is a tax) There is no safe store of value . . . Deficit spending (using FRNs) is simply a scheme for the “hidden” confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights.” Ital Added. (a) Mr. Greenspan enjoyed politics after becoming an advisor to Nixon and Ford he was hooked. He served on several boards of prestigious companies, and even owned his own consulting firm. He was eventually chosen for a directorship of J.P. Morgan and Company; for which “Fortune” magazine wrote as coming near to receiving “Knighthood.” He thereafter became very silent about his criticisms of the FED. In 1987 President Reagan appointed him as Chairman of the FED, a post he secretly coveted. Is it not interesting how positions of power, prestige and money can corrupt?


Chapter Six

1. Woodrow Wilson p307

2. Ibid. p307

3. Ibid. p 309

4. Woodrow Wilson and His Work. p 141

5. Economic Solutions. p 2

6. Ibid. pp. 8-9

7. Ibid. p 15

8. Who Was Who in American Politics? p 399

9. Constitutional Law. p 12



Next: The Communist Manifesto, just for fun.


“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

I’m confused Mr. President, could you please answer a question for me?

I’m confused Mr. President, could you please answer a question for me?
Al Ritter

If Russia, or Iran, or Afghanistan, or say Cuba was invading our southern border, would you defend us? Then why sir are you avoiding the situation and ignoring the very thing you swore an oath to do? During your inauguration you promised to uphold the Constitution and to protect the citizens of this country, and yet during your 18 months in office you have done neither!

You have continually violated the Constitution that the conservatives of this country hold dear. You view the Constitution as a “living document”……..aka a moving target, and yet most of the American people view it as the laws that govern us. You refuse to admit that according to even the liberal MSNBC online poll that 96% of America agrees with the Arizona law against illegal aliens. Why is it that WE see the need for Arizona to protect themselves when you won’t? Why is it that the Arizona law mirrors the federal law that YOU refuse to administer?

We see Americans being killed on their own property, while you insist on apologizing to a critical Mexican President. We see American citizens being denied the ability to even visit the Arizona areas south of Phoenix because of the Mexican drug lord invasion of our country.

What country has to invade us before we react to repel the invasion? Is any one country worse than another?

Our President has shown through his actions in the past that he wants to multi task, by shoving every social initiative down our collect throats, and yet he can’t seem to address an invasion of our country!

You wanted this job sir, now act like a leader and do something about it or we will find someone who will!

Women Leading The Way

Women Leading The Way
Kevin Bryant

The latest round of state primaries proved what many expected; women would be leading the resurgence of conservatism in America. I for one am glad to see it. In my own little humble opinion, America is tired of members of the same Good Ol’ Boy network of politicians running for office. Many have been stating that America needs to change direction in order to return to glory.

Again, in my humble opinion, women are by nature more conservative than men in most areas including politics. No, I am not saying that men are generally to the left of Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and Claire McCaskell as this trio tends to be more on the outer left fringe of the political spectrum. Just IMHO women are more likely to be more cautious, more conservative, more analytical and more likely to know what the pulse of America truly is.

Minorities are also starting to get deeper into politics. As anyone noticed that the rising political stars among minority men happen to be conservative? I have. Other than black theology churches, most black Christian churches speak more on traditional values, family unity and personal responsibility than white Christian churches do. I for one am glad to see minority politicians finally coming to the forefront of the political world and standing for the principals they were taught in church and at home.

America has needed a new direction to go in for quite some time, but as usual, the political parties have prevented this from happening. Take for instance the election in South Carolina GOP primary race. The establishment got burned badly by Nikki Haley and the people of South Carolina. Though she has not yet won the GOP nomination, she ran some 25+ points higher than the State GOP backed Gresham Barrett. The same held true in California and Nevada, the establishment candidate lost. Even though Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) is a democrat, even she came under attack from the far left for not being progressive enough by the Unions and left wing Community Organizations.

America is tired of the same old politics and sick of new faces coming to Washington and then doing and acting the same as the person they were elected to replace. Thomas Jefferson once wrote to James Madison on his views of why a little rebellion every now and then is a good thing. Now I won’t go as far as to say that it should be accompanied by armed conflict or other violent action as Jefferson did, but times are different now than they were is the 1780’s. Today we have media outlets, public assemblies and ballot boxes with which to wage rebellion against the government. America is witnessing a modern day rebellion. So long as the conservative rebellions continue to be non-violent, this rebellion will again in my humble little old opinion, continue to grow as we of this nation continue to sicken over an ever encroaching and increasing powerful federal government.

**Personal Note: It has been a wonderful 2+ years writing for Al’s page. I would like to thank all of you for reading my opinions and providing comments. I am going to be taking a couple of months off from writing and thinking about politics in general. Instead, I will be visiting the outer banks of North Carolina in a couple of weeks and then enjoying the summer with my wife, daughter, grand-daughter and our respective families.

I wish all of you a safe and happy summer and if Al will have me back, I will be back writing opinions in the fall.

Best Wishes
Kevin

Banking and Currency Reforms

Banking and Currency Reforms
William G. Burmer


For almost Twenty-Five years prior to ratification of the 16th amendment, the federal government received its revenues from property taxes, tariffs and excise taxes. Wealth was centered in the banking institutions, and large corporations. There resulted a growing division, spurred on by the politicians, among the classes. Banking interest prior to the beginning of the 20th century were privately controlled and concentrated in the hands of only a few wealthy financiers, known as the “Money Trusts” who used their positions to increase their own economic power rather than to serve the public.


The panic of 1907 had stimulated bankers, under the leadership of Republican Senator Nelson Aldrich, to try to substitute a centralized banking system that would replace the existing inelastic and unscientific credit structure. A National Monetary Commission studied the banking systems of the world and made a report to Congress in 1911 and 1912. A plan was drawn up by Paul M. Warburg, (a) of Kuhn Loeb and Company, and endorsed by the American Bankers Association. A large central institution (This information is taken from a modern text, the word “central, or centralized bank, was not a popular subject in the halls of Congress in 1911-12. Some in the Congress were still aware of what our founders knew about central banking) was proposed, with fifteen regional branches which would administer control over member banks, there would be no government controls.


“President Wilson desired to form a banking system controlled by a government board on which government appointees would manage its affairs. The United States (congress) was to supposed to be responsible for the issue of currency . . . secured by Solid Assets and a gold reserve. “Frank Glass rebelled against control of the reserve system by the government board; he dreaded the possibility of political interference with sound banking.” 1. Ital. added.


Sound banking means that any currency made or issued would be backed up with gold reserves. Wilson presented his plan to the joint session of Congress personally; the principles he espoused were clear, “There must be a currency “readily, elastically responsive to sound credit, a mobilization of (gold) reserves for legitimate uses, a ban on concentration of reserves for speculative purposes, and controls vested in the government, so that the banks may be the instruments, not the masters of business and of individual enterprise and initiative.” 2.


Paul Wartburg, then president of the American Bankers Association assailed Wilson’s plan to form a Federal Reserve as “an invasion of the liberty of the Citizens,” and ‘unjust and un-American.’ (Noble, however hypocritical words from one of the main architects of the Federal Reserve System, he and six other Bankers and Economist had three years previous secretly met and created it in November 1910; In addition, Wartburg had not received his U.S. CITIZENSHIP until 21 March 1911) (b) Elihu Root, a Republican senator from New York and Chairman of the RNC in 1912, feared that Wilson’s plan would: . . . “Bring inflation and create a vanishing gold supply.” Senator Root was correct; between 1913 and 1929 all of our Gold was used to pay interest to the Federal Reserve on all the money borrowed by our congress. The Central Banking system so despised by our founders was about to be unveiled. To spite all the political wrangling and predictions, above cited, the Carter Glass Bill was passed by Congress on December 19, 1913 with a vote of 54 to 34. The Senate passed the Bill on 22 December, and the Federal Reserve Act was on President Wilson’s desk for signature 23 December 1913.


Senator Robert Owen (R, OK), Chairman of the Senate Banking and Currency Committee and sponsor of the bill in the Senate was there with Carter Glass. We see here three of the four (c) principle players who formulated what John Adams warned about with regards to Central Banking at the Constitutional Convention in 1787. “The Central Bank is an institution of the most deadly hostility existing against the principles and form of our Constitution. I am an enemy to all banks, discounting bills or notes for anything but coin. If the American people allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.” 3.


The Federal Reserve Board was assigned quarters in the Building of the Secretary of the Treasury. Carter Glass was Treasury Secretary at the time. He was “an ex-officio” member of the Board. On November 16, 1914, 9:00 AM, the doors of 12 brand new Federal Reserve Banks opened for business with its main office in New York City.


(a) Paul M. Warburg’s earliest roots are found in Mr. Simon von Cassel who expired in 1556. Simon lived in a town called “Warburg” in central Germany. Because the German Jew was denied a sir name many took on the name of the town, village or farm they lived or were born in after liberation by Bismarck in 1862. Simons Great Grandson Juspa-Joseph took on the name of Warburg and moved his family north to Hamburg where they found refuge in a Jewish settlement in Antonia near the entrance to the Elb River. Here the family began to prosper and eventually, while mingling with the Dutch, Danish, and French cultures, their influence in commerce grew with each succeeding generation of the Warburg family. Paul was born the third child to Moritz M. Warburg and Charlotte Oppenheim in 1868. Paul moved to America to run the family’s’ Kuhn Loeb investment firm in New York. Here he wrote passionately about the virtues of the Central Banking system in an essay entitled “Defects and Needs of Our Banking system.”


(b) Shortly after Paul Warburg received his Citizenship he was assigned to chair a seat on a National Citizens League to promote a sound banking system. In January of 1912 he with twenty other bankers and economists lobbied Teddy Roosevelt for support of their plan. Paul testified before the House banking committee in January 1913; one month after President Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Bill. Warburg was nominated to share a seat on the new Board. He was sworn into office on August 10, 1914. See Chernow, The Warburgs, pp 135-40.


(c) The fourth person would be (R.) Senator Nelson Aldrich, however, the original bill was changed in order to take him out of the loop. The altered bill was passed primarily due to Democratic support under Wm. J. Bryans’ endorsement after giving it the appearance of public control and Government Issue but which, in fact, did neither. The Democratic leadership was in truth duped by the Republicans into accepting the Legislation as excluding any central banking controls. It was, of course, amended several times after passage and given those controls.


1. Woodrow Wilson p307 Dodd, William E. (1920). Woodrow Wilson and His Works.

Double Day, Page, and Company.

2. Ibid. p307

3. Ibid. p 309

“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

Expect an eventual BP bankruptcy

Expect an eventual BP bankruptcy
Al Ritter

The biggest question is… will British Petroleum declare bankruptcy due to the spill in the Gulf? They have lost close to $88 billion in market value in the recent month, and shares make drop to a point of a hostile take-over from of all places…….China! Yes China needs oil resources, and has the necessary funds to purchase those unwanted shares.

Obama and his hostile administration have actually added to this problem by his repeated comments on the situation. Recent comments from the Whitehouse of “keeping his boot on the throat of BP,” and “looking for someone’s ass to kick,” have only served to demean BP, and drive stock prices even lower than they would have normally gone.

It seems to serve Obama and his administration well to publicly lambast, and demonize BP to sway public opinion towards his cap and trade bill that already passed congressional muster, but up until now sat teetering on the senate desk.
As time goes on with a continued oil leak Obama’s approval rating continues to fall, but it is this writer’s fear that the cap and trade bill will eventually gain more traction with democrats and environmental activists.

It is also my feeling that with liabilities to American soil increasing hourly, that somehow the Obama Administration will find some way to lay claim to BP even though it is a foreign company. In much the same way the Administration laid claim to GM and Chrysler by circumventing the bankruptcy court, I fear the Administration will seize US assets of BP and hold them ransom.

From the past 18 months of tyrannical reign, is it so far-fetched to see this one the horizon?

Walking Our Own Path

Walking Our Own Path
Kevin Bryant

We have all done stupid things in our lives whether we want to admit it in public or not. Most of us at one point or another in our youth used the excuse that Johnny or Suzie did it and our parents had the classic response: “If they jumped off a building, would you?”

No one likes growing older, but hopefully, as we age, we get a little wiser during the process. We become able to make sound decisions that affect our lives. During this process, we also discover that sometimes there are no correct or incorrect answers. We come to understand that not everyone thinks the same, and that sometimes there is no such thing as one size fits all.

Children at a young age trust their parents to make the correct decisions for them. As they get older, they question why we sometimes have to say no and other times in similar situations we say yes. I know my kids did this quite often. As aggravating as it was sometimes, I always tried to give them the reasoning behind my decisions on a level that they could understand. Sometimes they got it and sometimes they didn’t.

I like to think that by me telling them the basis for many of the decisions I have made a difference in their lives and helped them to see beyond what was immediately in front of them and to think in big picture terms. Unfortunately, they still at times resort to the adage of living in the now and will deal with the consequences later. Since they are all grown and have moved out, the path that they walk is of their own making and by their own choices. Occasionally they ask for my opinion but as any parent would think, I don’t believe they ask it enough.

Everyone who is sitting at a computer screen reading this has chosen their own path in life. Many twist and turns are made based on circumstances but the direction most walk in life is founded on principal. It is what we choose to believe and believe in. It is how our morals and principals dictate to us what twists and turns we make to navigate through life. Almost every person reading this has these three things listed in their top five priorities in life: God, Country, Family. Their position of importance will vary from person to person and who is to say which order is correct? Again, it goes to our morals, principals and beliefs.

Those serving in congress have forgotten what their guiding principals are. Decisions are being made based on the priorities of party leadership than doing what is right based on morals, principals and the constitution. The expected large class of incoming congressional freshman from the 2010 elections will be hard pressed to drop the principals they ran on and adopt the party platform as their guide just as those currently serving have done.

Hopefully with such a large class of freshman, they will be able to walk their own path and not the path of the party. We must keep them from selling the public out in exchange for party support and favor. Keeping our eye on them, holding them accountable and not letting them off the hook for any decision made that goes against God, Country, Constitution and Family must be among our highest priorities. This goes for the old dogs of congress as well. They too must know that the path they choose to walk will seal their fate in all their future elections.

The Last Mile

The Last Mile
Kevin Bryant

I can’t recall a sitting president ever knowing that in only a year in office that he was going to be a one term president and a lame duck president during his last 2 years in office. I do believe that President Obama and the democrat leadership in congress have already figured it out.

Obama came strolling into office riding one of the highest waves in modern political history. He had to have had the impression that he was going to be in office for 8 years and with ease, he would be able to walk any piece of legislation through congress without so much as a minor hiccup. In less than 11 months in office, and with the Christmas Eve passage of healthcare reform, reality set in and he realized that his 2 year in office would be his last mile he would walk as president without barriers, insurmountable obstructions and congressional leadership clearing a path for him.

In 16 months he has gone from a job satisfaction rating of high 60’s to low 40’s. He repeatedly has forsaken the will of the people with almost every piece of legislation passed and executive order signed. He has made the phrase “The Chicago Way” a common household term in ways Sean Connery could never do in the movie “Untouchables”.

Now that he and his cabinet know they are on their last mile of having direct influence in congress, they have resorted to the tactic of overloading the system. Think of all the things congress (with the backing of the White House) is demanding to be finished before the New Year: Immigration Reform, Financial Reform, Cap & Trade (American Power Act), Stimulus III, Weapons Reduction Treaty, Net Neutrality Act, etc…….

Now add in the effects from the BP oil spill, lowering popularity, losing special elections (something the democrats never experienced during Bush’s last two years in office), global finance crisis and his own increasing burdens on the U.S. economy, the Sestak scandal, Americans increasingly becoming more knowledgeable to the political ways and now holding Obama accountable and not allowing him to pass the buck off on the Bush administration. He has resorted to stepping up his personal attacks on those who do not agree and support him. Many times he is doing the attacking himself instead of going through minions like he was last year.

It has been amusing these past couple of months watching Obama squirm a little more with each passing week. It’s comical watching Pelosi and Reid resort to telling more far reaching and improbable lies to the American people to try to push their radical socialist, nanny state policies.

Adolf Hitler once said, “Tell a lie, make it a big lie, repeat if often and people will believe it”. Obama and the democratic leadership tried this and now it is coming back to haunt them for the American people are no longer believing them, believing in them and have quit buying the hype they have been selling the public.

Censorship of Facebook, what's next?

Censorship of Facebook, what's next?
Al Ritter

It seems all that is needed to be investigated now by the FBI, is for someone to see another’s posts as offensive. William Hodges has long been a critic of the Obama Administration, but recently while posting a news article, his facebook account was deactivated, and merely 12 hours later an FBI agents and Secret Service Agents interviewed him and all his friends on facebook.

It seems that his posts were offensive to another member, obviously someone whom didn’t share his views. Is this what our country has become? Has the social networking venues such as Facebook, and My Space now become targets of the Obama Administration? It seems that not only did Mr. Hodges get investigated for his posts, but the FBI found that he had donated to Israeli cause, and they viewed that as donating to a questionable cause!

Since when has defending Israel (one of our best allies) become a questionable cause? Obviously the present administration sees Israel differently than all the past administrations. Have we become so politically correct in our actions that ANY comment offends us? I think the bigger question would be is has all dissent been outlawed by this administration, or does it just appear this way?

Actual posts by William Hodges after his account was restored by Facebook:
William Hodges

Facebook has unlocked my account. I was interviewed by the FBI and Secret Service for a week. Apparently, the First Amendment only applies when expressing the intellectual position of those in power. Also, be cautious of the charities you contribute to. If you donate to Israeli causes, you may be considered a "domestic terrorist" by the Obama Administration.

William Hodges
John & Roxanna, sincerely. I made critical statements regarding the Obama Administration. Someone reported me.

William Hodges
Lisa, remember the last evening I was online? I was in the middle of posting news articles when I was booted off of Facebook. In less than twelve hours, the FBI and Secret Service was knocking on my door. It was surreal.

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
http://www.wsbtv.com/video/23438021/

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.

THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE A Short story.

THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE A Short story.
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

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.

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

THE REASON FOR OUR NATIONS GROWTH and PROSPERITY

THE REASON FOR OUR NATIONS GROWTH and PROSPERITY.
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


Next: THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE A Short story.



“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

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


Next: THE REASON FOR OUR NATIONS GROWTH and PROSPERITY.




“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

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.

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.”


TELL THAT TO OBAMA.



Next: Our Republic



“WE THE PEOPLE”

And The American Constitution

WILLIAM G. BURMER

Available at www.xlibris.com

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?

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.

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.




“WE THE PEOPLE”

And The American Constitution

WILLIAM G. BURMER

Available at www.xlibris.com