Turncoat at the Gate
Consequences and Constitutionality of Taxes
(Excerpted from American Inquisition)
Natural-law copyright by Anthony Hargis
(Copyright notice: to lawfully reproduce all or part of this article, the following attribution must be included: “Natural-law copyright by Anthony Hargis, redressone.wordpress.com)
If a commander of a fortress, appointed to make defence against the approaches of an enemy, should breech about his guns and fire upon his own town, he would commence [to be a] tyrant and ought to be treated as an enemy to mankind.
Hyneman and Lutz, editors, American Political Writings… 100
A Son of Liberty, [Silas Donner]
A Discourse at the Dedication of the Tree of Liberty, Providence, 1768
Hargis, Maxims of American Law.
Two Classes of Taxes
A constitution is generally divided into two sections: a preamble and the main body. People declare in a preamble those purposes they intend to achieve by establishing a government; the main body of the constitution prescribes and limits the authority to be used to achieve purposes stated in the preamble. Where such authority is used in such a manner so as to violate a purpose declared in the preamble, such authority is unauthorized: it is unconstitutional. The preamble reads,
WE the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
These objects listed in the preamble, then, are the general goals of the federal government; they are listed more specifically, and limited, in various parts of the main body. To accomplish these goals, the government must raise money. The Constitution delegates authority to impose taxes, and sets limits on such authority, at Article I, section 8.
Congress shall have power [clause 1] To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States.
This power is required to be exercised for the express purposes to “provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States,” which is merely a reiteration of two purposes listed in the preamble. Thus, if any tax should operate against the common defence or general welfare, the tax would be unauthorized, or unconstitutional…
Taxes imposed by the federal government are divided into two categories: external and internal. External taxes are generally known as tariffs or duties on imports; internal taxes are all taxes imposed within the border…
Tariffs set beyond a revenue level (as opposed to protective and prohibitive tariffs) are unconstitutional because they a) disturb the public tranquility, b) constitute the exercise of judicial power by the legislative department of government and c) use the coercive power of government to enrich a few at the expense of the many.
All internal taxes are unconstitutional because a) they subtract from the general welfare and b) common defense; c) they retard commerce with foreign nations, d) they violate the duty to protect the rights, liberty and property of Americans, e) they penalize the exercise of the right to work.
Both external taxes (beyond revenue) and internal taxes are unconstitutional because they penalize the bonds of friendship and annihilate the right to pursue one’s happiness…
[In this excerpt, we examine two of these reasons as to why internal taxes are unconstitutional.]
Right to Earn a Living
Whenever a man is legally required to pay money because he engaged in a certain activity, the money paid is a penalty that operates – whether intended or not – to punish or discourage the activity.
It makes no matter what the money amount is called; whether known as penalty, reparation, fine or tax, they all have the same practical effect: they all operate to discourage the activity that triggered the money amount, and to brand the guilty party as a criminal – or, at least, as an undesirable member of society.
When a man, for example, is legally required to pay a fine because he sold liquor to a minor, the fine is intended to discourage the activity of selling liquor to minors.
Likewise, when a man is required to pay a tax because he engaged in the activity of earning a living, the practical effect of the tax is to discourage the activity of earning a living and to paint those who earn a living as criminal.
Such a tax operates to penalize life itself, and the effort to sustain it. Such a tax hunts and destroys men of industry and integrity; it enriches and lifts into positions of prominence and glory those who live by indolence, sleaze and plunder.
If we aspire to honesty and justice, we have a problem. When Americans establish governments, they do so to protect and secure their rights, “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the” people. (Declaration of Independence.)
I believe this language means that, when Americans establish a government, they do not give it authority to reduce those rights intended to be protected; it is not to be presumed that men are so stupid as to establish a government to protect their rights and then give it power to destroy those rights.
The right to support one’s life is probably the most fundamental of rights. Without it, a man must die, or endure a living death – otherwise known as slavery. One of the clearest and earliest declarations as to the right to earn a living appeared in Sam Adams’ ‘Circular Letter to the Colonial Legislatures’ of 1768 February 11.
That it is an essential unalterable Right in nature, ingrafted into the British Constitution, as a fundamental Law & ever held sacred & irrevocable by the Subjects within the Realm, that what a man has honestly acquired is absolutely his own, which he may freely give, but cannot be taken from him without his consent: That the American Subjects may therefore exclusive of any Consideration of Charter Rights, with a decent firmness adapted to the Character of free men & Subjects assert this natural and constitutional Right. ([Underline added.] Massachusetts House of Representatives, Circular Letter to the Colonial Legislatures, 1768 Feb. 11, Samuel Adams Writings, 1: 184-6; I Kurland 632-3.)
The purpose of this Letter was to begin a series of regular communications among the various colonial assemblies concerning “several acts of Parliament imposing Duties and Taxes on the American Colonies.” The Letter then went on to declare “this natural and Constitutional Right” to earn a living; and observed that the property gained by a man’s voluntary effort was his absolutely, and that no man, or group of men, could take it from him without his consent. Thus, the Letter reasoned, taxes imposed by Parliament on Americans were unconstitutional because they took Americans’ “property without their consent.”
Since this “Circular Letter” was an official enactment of a colonial assembly, the right to earn a living is one of those rights “not enumerated” in the Ninth Amendment.
And so, it was officially declared that the consent of the individual man is the basis of the “natural and Constitutional Right” to earn a living; where this right is impaired, and if men do not remove such impairment, the plundering class will invariably and inevitably ground both the right and its basis to dust. And this has enormous consequences relative to American governments. The legitimacy of every American government is the consent of the people.
In the Declaration of Independence, it was asserted that Americans had “certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness: that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
Prior to this Declaration, the inhabitants of Fairfax County enacted, “that… to extort from us our Money without our consent… is totally incompatible with the Privileges of a free People, and the natural rights of mankind…” (Fairfax County Resolves, Resolve #5, 1774 July 18, George Washington, Chairman, and Robert Harrison, clerk of the said Meeting. Mason Papers I: 203; I Kurland 633-4.)
Consent pertains to a man’s liberty, rights and property. If a man’s right to maintain his life is impaired, he falls into the status of slave; and, in every age and every land, history tells us that every body of law regards a minor, idiot and slave as having no will; they are legally incapable of expressing their consent. When the minor gains his reason, the law allows his “freedom”; not so for the other two. In other words, when men discuss a violation of rights, what they really mean is the violation of a man’s consent regarding his life, liberty or property. Without the capacity of consent, a man can have no liberty, no property, or any other right. With his consent legislated from existence, how can a man have property when he has no consent to apply to such property?
When a man lives by permission instead of by right, he has no consent to give; and the government, or church, that imposes such condition has no legitimacy.
The Law of Nature
We should observe that this Letter of the Massachusetts legislature (it was, actually, a First-Amendment assembly) placed the right to work in a natural-law status. It would be repeated numerous times in the years that followed.
In 1774, Thomas Jefferson was commissioned by the Virginia legislature to write a summary of the history of the grievances that led to the crisis then spreading over the colonies. He wrote, “Free people claim their Rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as a gift of a magistrate.” (Thomas Jefferson, A Summary View of the Rights of British America, 1774 July, Papers, I: 121-35; I Kurland, 441.) This sentiment, and many of Jefferson’s other ideas were carried by Virginia delegates to the Continental Congress; and found expression there in the Declaration and Resolves of 1774 October 14. The purpose of this Congress was to secure the “Religion, laws, and liberties” of their constituents, and to discover the best means to assure that such rights “may not be subverted.” Their first step toward this end was to “DECLARE, that the inhabitants of the English colonies in North-America, by the immutable laws of nature, the principles of the English constitution, and the several charters or compacts, have the following RIGHTS”; an enumeration followed, including rights to life, liberty and property. (Continental Congress, Declaration and Resolves, 1774 October 14, Tansill 1-5; I Kurland, 2.)
Almost two weeks later this same Congress issued an “Appeal to the Inhabitants of Quebec.” Its purpose was to persuade Canadians to join the American rebellion; it placed the right to defend property – the consequence of the right to support one’s life – in first place.
The first grand right, is that of the people having a share in their own government by their representatives chosen by themselves, and, in consequence, of being ruled by laws, which they themselves approve, not by edicts of men over whom they have no control. This is a bulwark surrounding and defending their property, which by their honest cares and labors they have acquired, so that no portions of it can legally be taken from them, but with their own full and free consent… (Continental Congress, Appeal to the Inhabitants of Quebec, 1774 October 26, Journals 1: 105-13; 1 Kurland 442-4.)
Near the end of this Appeal, Founders declared, “Our confederation… has no other objects than the perfect security of the natural and civil rights of all the constituent members… on the salutary and constitutional principles herein before mentioned.” [Bold and underline added.] (Id, I Kurland 444.)
Nearly two years later, this Continental Congress declared to the world, and ages to come,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. (Declaration of Independence, 1776 July 4, [Underline added.])
In 1778, The Essex Result was published, it declared, among many other things,
It has been observed, that each individual parts with the power of controlling his natural alienable rights, only when the good of the whole requires it, he therefore has remaining, after entering into political society, all his unalienable natural rights, and a part also of his alienable natural rights, provided the good of the whole does not require the sacrifice of them. Over the class of unalienable rights the supreme power [sic] hath no control, and they ought to be clearly defined and ascertained in a BILL of RIGHTS, previous to the ratification of any constitution. The bill of rights should also contain the equivalent every man receives, as a consideration for the rights he has surrendered. This equivalent consists principally in the security of his person and property, and is also unassailable by the supreme power [sic]: for if the equivalent is taken back, those natural rights which were parted with to purchase it, return to the original proprietor.
If a man surrender all his [natural] alienable rights, without reserving a control over the supreme power, or a right to resume in certain cases, the surrender is void. (The Essex Result, 1778 April 29, Handlin 324-40; 1 Kurland 115 [Brackets and underline added].
American Founders clearly and repeatedly demonstrated their intent to derive their rights from – and reserve their rights in – the law of nature.
The law of nature must be superior to constitutional law. When men delegate authority or reserve rights, it makes sense only if they make such transfers between a higher status and a lower status. Each status is different, and has a separate name. To the higher, we give the name natural law; to the lower, constitutional law. It is from the law of nature that men delegate authority, and, it is in the law of nature that men reserve their rights. The status from which they delegate authority and in which they reserve their rights must be superior to constitutional status, else the work of establishing a constitution is a pointless exercise.
This necessarily means that no American judge or legislator has authority to alter, amend or abolish any law of nature. If he had such authority, he would have power to alter, amend or abolish the source of his authority; he would have power to alter, amend or abolish every right reserved in the law of nature.
The right to support one’s life and its consequent right of consent, were declared several times by American Founders as two of the many rights they sought to establish and secure with the Revolution. They are fundamental parts of the American Social Contract.
However, the careful reader may notice that the right to earn a living is not enumerated in the first eight Amendments of the Bill of Rights. It is, therefore, reserved unconditionally and absolutely by the Ninth Amendment, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
Since the income tax represents a penalty on productive labor – and therefore, converts such labor to a criminal activity, such income tax is without constitutional status, as it pertains to preamble citizens. As the income tax is now written – but not enforced, it is enforceable only against “citizens of the United States”, who are not preamble citizens.
The General Welfare
The taxing power is delegated to Congress at Article 1, section 8, clause 1, “The Congress shall have power [clause 1] To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.”
Most people read this language and completely overlook the requirements necessary to make a tax constitutional. This power to “lay and collect taxes” is restricted in that it must be exercised in such a way so as to increase, or serve, the general welfare and common defence. The rule that excises must be uniform is added as an incidental, or subsidiary, requirement; and the rule that direct taxes must be apportioned is added elsewhere in the Constitution, also as an incidental requirement.
In other words, when testing the constitutionality of any tax, the first question to settle is whether or not the tax adds to or subtracts from the general welfare or common defense. If the tax subtracts from either the general welfare or common defense, we stop: the tax is unconstitutional and it is pointless to examine any other aspect of it.
If the tax adds to, or does not affect, the general welfare or common defense, we proceed to consider if the tax is properly made uniform – if it is an indirect tax, or if it is properly apportioned – if it is a direct tax.
If this procedure had been followed in examining most, or all, of the taxes currently imposed by Congress, probably every one of them would be found to be unconstitutional. I’ll give a demonstration relative to a Part of the Social Security Act.
The nation was suffering under the throes of the Federal-Reserve-orchestrated depression that began about 1929. (Murray Rothbard, America’s Great Depression; there may have been several co-producers of this depression, such as the Rockefeller and Rothchild banks, the pervasive influence of Judeo-Bolsheviks. However many there were, it seems the Federal Reserve was the main, and coordinating, instrument.) Millions of men were thrown out of work; and, in order to provide some relief, the federal government and several state governments provided money payments to some of the unemployed on the legal basis of necessity. These money payments were made from ordinary tax collections. As the crisis worsened – ten million, then sixteen million unemployed – several states considered imposing an unemployment tax on companies within their borders; but they all hesitated on the basis that a tax on their industries would place them at a competitive disadvantage relative to industries in neighboring states.
To remove this fear was the main driving force for the Social Security Act. It imposed a tax on every employer in the country with eight or more employees, with the understanding that a credit could be applied against this federal tax for taxes paid to a state unemployment compensation fund. This opened the flood gate and most states quickly enacted such taxes.
Shortly after the SS Act was passed, it was challenged by Steward Machine Co. Judging by the ineptitude of Steward’s attorneys, arrangements must have been made between Steward and the government for Steward, or its officers, to receive some kind of payoff if the company would challenge the Act on some frivolous issue, and lose the case.
The main contention of Steward was that the Act was unconstitutional because it used coercion to induce state governments to impose unemployment compensation taxes – a completely groundless contention.
The assailants of the statute say that its dominant end and aim is to drive the state legislatures under the whip of economic pressure into the enactment of unemployment compensation laws at the bidding of the central government. Supporters of the statute say that its operation in not constraint, but the creation of a larger freedom, the states and the nation joining in a cooperative endeavor to avert a common evil. Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548 @ 587 (1936).
Do you see anything wrong here? A private company alleging unconstitutionality on the basis that the Act compels state governments to impose taxes? Legislatures, kings and bishops never saw a tax they did not like; they perpetually search for new territory to plunder, and it has been the problem of history to limit their rapacity. No one needs to use coercion to persuade them to impose new taxes. That Steward employed such an argument means that either the March Hare was Steward’s lead attorney, or Steward received booty for losing the case.
If Steward had filed this case on its own initiative, it would have been dismissed immediately, with no more than a paragraph, for lack of standing – and Steward’s attorneys would have been immediately disbarred for idiocy.
Altho the government arranged a forum in which it controlled the issues and opponent (the circumstances don’t seem to allow any other alternative), the case is useful in that it demonstrates the government knows it is limited by certain constitutional principles. It knows, for example, that the government’s power to tax must be related to the general welfare; and that a tax imposed on a particular territory will place all industries in that territory at a competitive disadvantage relative to all industries outside that territory.
As to the general-welfare restriction, government attorneys made several declarations to this effect,
If an inquiry is made into the policies of this tax, they are reasonable, relate to the power conferred, and have been executed in the manner provided in Art. I, § 8, cl. 1, of the Constitution….
The power granted [@ Art. I, sec. 8, cl. 1] is the power “to tax for the purpose of providing funds for payment of the Nation’s debts and making provision for the general welfare.” Butler case, 297 U.S. 1, 65-6.
Unemployment compensation will meet the breakdown which takes place in the family of the individual worker who is unemployed, the cumulative effect of unemployment upon his health and upon the health of his family. The effect of unemployment upon crime and vagrancy is obvious; so is the effect upon the taxpayer. West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379, 399. The Federal Government is still spending vast sums for relief, and we say that since this Act will operate to relieve the drain upon the Federal Treasury, and will provide funds for the general welfare, it is reasonably related to the policies and purposes of the taxing clause….
When the Constitution was adopted the framers had in mind three different methods of raising revenue for the general welfare of the United States. Steward, supra, @ 558-9.
And the court knew,
Disaster to the breadwinner meant disaster to dependents. Accordingly the roll of the unemployed, itself formidable enough, was only a partial roll of the destitute or needy. The fact developed quickly that the states were unable to give the requisite relief. The problem had become national in area and dimensions. There was need of help from the nation if the people were not to starve. It is too late today for the argument to be heard with tolerance that in a crisis so extreme the use of the moneys of the nation to relieve the unemployed and their dependents is a use for any purpose narrower than the promotion of the general welfare. Cf. U.S.v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 65-6, Helvering v. Davis, decided herewith, post, p. 619. Steward, supra, @ 586.
But did you notice? There were two parts of the Act under contention: one that dealt with the collection of unemployment taxes and another part that dealt with the spending of the money raised.
The Constitution does not say spending tax money must contribute to the general welfare; it lays the restriction on the collection of taxes. And, neither party nor the court addressed this issue – at least not directly. We’ll pick up this issue later.
Both parties and the court then went on to show that a tax imposed within a particular territory subtracted from the general welfare of that territory by placing its industries at a competitive disadvantage relative to those of all other territories. Here are the government’s remarks,
The difficulties with the State’s going alone were numerous [imposing the tax while neighboring states did not]. In the first place, it was felt that if a State went alone, the economic disadvantage would be material for its own employers. That point was brought out again and again by the manufacturers’ associations and by various groups who had the interests of the employers as well as the general public at heart.
Moreover, it was felt that if a State went alone it could not protect itself by an embargo, under the decision of the Court in Baldwin v. Seelig, 294 U.S. 511, which well illustrates the point. It might not even include within its system, if it were a tax system, employers engaged in interstate commerce. It was also felt that in this field the technical resource of a single State were so inadequate that it might be dangerous to proceed without the benefit of technical advice furnished by some more wealthy government than the State governments. To solve this dilemma, three different proposals were actually brought forward. One suggested that the relief system of the United States be transmuted into an unemployment-compensation system, and that the Federal Government, instead of giving out money for relief, give out money for unemployment compensation on the basis of the willingness of the worker to take a job. Steward, supra, @ 555-6.
And the court,
But if states had been holding back before the passage of the federal law, inaction was not owing , for the most part, to the lack of sympathetic interest. Many held back through alarm lest, in laying such a toll upon their industries, they would place themselves in a position of economic disadvantage as compared with neighbors or competitors. See house Report, No. 615, 74th Congress, 1st session, p. 8; Senate Report, No. 628, 74th Congress, 1st session, p. 11.
(fn 9 The attitude of Massachusetts is significant. Her act became a law August 12, 1935, two days before the federal act. Even so, she prescribed that its provisions should not become operative unless the federal bill became a law, or unless eleven of the following states (twenty two states listed) should impose on their employers burdens substantially equivalent. Acts of 1935, c. 479, p. 655. Her fear of competition is thus forcefully attested. See also California Laws, 1935, c. 352, Art. I, § 2; Idaho Laws, 1936 (Third Extra Session) c. 12, § 26; Mississippi Laws, 1936, c. 176, § 2-a.) Steward, supra, @ 588.
And one of Steward’s attorneys, who had alleged the Act coerced states to impose the new tax, declared,
… an eagerness for this tax on the part of the States [was] evidenced by the fact that many bills had been introduced in other States, which failed of passage for fear of economic competitive disadvantage [and] that when these qualifying statutes were enacted, 35 of 43 enacting States provided an automatic exit. They enacted provisions that if and when the federal Act failed, instantly the state act should cease to operate. Steward, supra, @ 569-70.
How states can be compelled to do something they eagerly await is a dilemma that would escape the fine reasoning capacity of the March Hare. But when attorneys on both sides aim at the same thing – to fabricate a decision to validate a law – no contradiction or non sequiter is too obvious.
They all agreed: a tax in one state would place its industries at a disadvantage; they would be forced to layoff additional workers. And, government attorneys and the court went beyond and stated that loss of employment leads to the “breakdown of family,” adversely affects “health” and increases “crime and vagrancy”; that “Disaster to the breadwinner is disaster to his wife and children… [and subtracts from] the general welfare.” Steward, supra, @ 558-9, 586.
They justified the SS Act on the basis that it gave money to unemployed people. That is, if the government gives money to the unemployed, it “will meet” or counteract the breakdown of family, improve health and reduce crime and vagrancy.
But no one seems to have understood what was said here. Before money can be given to one man, it must be taken from others: if giving money to a man adds to his general welfare, it is equally true that taking money from a man subtracts from his general welfare; it leads to the breakdown of his family, to their ill health, and drives him to crime or vagrancy.
It is worse, the alleged purposes of social organizations are to reward good and punish evil: to encourage everything that advances society and to discourage everything that retards it. Unemployment compensation and related taxes set these purposes in reverse: they reward the indolent and punish the industrious.
The government correctly observed that a state unemployment tax would place its industries at a competitive disadvantage relative to industries in other states. That is, the tax would subtract from the general welfare of the state that imposed it and add to the general welfare of states that did not impose the tax. But, the government failed to carry this reasoning to the next level. Instead, the government imposed an unemployment tax on all states, thereby placing every American industry at a competitive disadvantage relative to all foreign industries.
Let us carry this reasoning a step further. All forty nine American legislatures (including the federal) correctly observed that a new tax imposed by one or a few states would place industries within their borders at a competitive disadvantage relative to all industries where the new tax was not imposed. It seems that it never occurred to a single legislature that a new tax imposed today becomes an old tax tomorrow. It never occurred to them that the removal of an old tax would give their industries a competitive advantage relative to all industries outside their territories. For a state, county or even city government to remove a tax is infinitely easer than to wait for all states to act in concert.
It would have been quicker also. When a tax is removed, people immediately are able to retain more of their money for their own purposes. Under the SS Act, no one could derive benefits from the unemployment compensation fund for two years after its enactment. Section 903 (a) (2) of the Act; reproduced at Steward, 575.
To prevent unemployment – and the social breakdown that follows, the first requirement is to remove obstacles to employment. If this had been the object of American governments in the 1930’s (or any other time period), they only had to abolish or reduce taxes – to abolish or reduce support of the indolent class.
It is a fundamental constitutional principle in this Union, whether written or not, that no tax may be levied or collected that subtracts from the general welfare. The Steward case, and others (Such as Butler v. U. S., 300 U. S. 1.) demonstrate very clearly that both federal and state governments understand this principle.
It is difficult to characterize the mentality of those who promoted the SS Act. They correctly identified that the imposition of taxes leads to unemployment – to a reduction of the general welfare; and failed, or refused, to proceed to the conclusion that lower taxes lead to an addition to the general welfare. They nebulously observed that the power to tax was connected to the general welfare, yet failed, or refused, to proceed to the conclusion that collection of a tax does ten times more damage to the general welfare than spending tax money will add to the general welfare.
Let us consider another perspective: when property is taken from a man without equal compensation, he is less able to provide material, ethical and emotional wants of his children. It makes no matter whether the property is taken by a house breaker or a tax taker. To replace the loss, he must work longer hours. The time he must spend in this extra work is time he does not have available for other needs; including companionship with his children. If the taking is done by an ordinary thief, his loss is a random wound that will heal soon; if by a tax taker, his loss is mandated by law followed by disastrous results. If the taking is perpetual, it can push a man to frustration or to anger, to unemployment, and, finally, to hopelessness. A man pushed to his limits of frustration or anger is likely to act violently against his children; when men are pushed to hopelessness, they are likely to just walk away from providing for their children. In other words, thru the imposition of taxes, it becomes a legal mandate for a man, effectively, to neglect, abuse or abandon his children. Where an action is mandated by law, consequences of that action are aims of such legislation.
The sovereignty of every state is divided into two functions: internal and external; by one, its duty is to make secure the lives, liberties and property of its creators; by the other, its duty is to guard against foreign invaders.
The American Revolution created thirteen sovereign states. How did they settle the problem of thirteen separate external sovereignties? If they left them standing, the new American states would send thirteen ambassadors to France, for example; maintain, thirteen separate armies. Instead, they decided to delegate the external sovereignty of each state to a single entity. The government of the United States, thus, became, effectively, the fourth branch of every state government.
The American federal government, in other words, was created to stand at the territorial limits of the United States and guard our rights against incursions by foreign enemies. It has, instead, breeched about its guns and commenced war against its creators; it has become a turncoat at the gate.
Timely, and related, pages,
White House petition to remove legalized impediments to child rearing.
Turn Back the Clock. I’m 68 but I have the health, vitality and body of a near-professional athlete, aged 25 to 35. I routinely have former pro and college baseball players tell me I would “do well” (a modest remark) if I played “men’s senior league”, a level of play equal to a major college. In other words, I’m living proof that people do not have to grow old; they can retain or recover the health and vitality of youth; they don’t have to suffer from arthritis, diabetes, kidney failure or any of hundreds of other ailments. Look what you’ll gain: more strength and a longer life to enjoy the adventures we all know are coming. You might even want to take part in them.
One in Ten Thousand. This relates how English rebels (1620-50) took down corrupt judges and tax-collectors, bishops and kings using procedures that would later guide American Founders. These examples represent some of the most dramatic and significant scenes in the long struggle from barbarism to civilized society – scenes that have almost been completely erased from current history and law books.
Will a Ron Paul Presidency be the Trigger for the Next Dark Age? I like most of the ideas Ron Paul promotes; but…
What Price Gold $7,000… $14,000… $60,000? How do 1) Mortgage-Backed Securities and 2) US Treasury securities held by central bank of Red China influence the price of gold?
Anatomy of a General Plunder, part 1. Beginning the first week of December, 2007, American bank reserves began to disappear on a system wide basis; within six weeks they had all disappeared. It was a modest beginning of a process that some have called, “beyond unprecedented”.
Anatomy… part 2. In prior centuries, paper money was issued into circulation in exchange for gold, which became the collateral for such issued currency. Today, collateral for issued currency is government debt securities. During the first week of December, 2007, some of the collateral behind the dollar went missing. This event was perfectly coordinated with the disappearance of American bank reserves, explained in Part 1. During following months, more such collateral went missing – leaving only 53% of the dollar collateralized. This is another “unprecedented” event relative to the financial crisis and never noticed by anyone else – according to my current knowledge.
Anatomy… part 3. About 2008 Sep 15, Secretary of Treasury Paulsen demanded $700 billion from Congress. Before the money could be delivered to Paulsen’s friends, it first had to appear in the Treasury’s checking account maintained at the Fed. At the time, only $5 billion was in this account. Where did the $700 billion come from? Answer: ‘It was a coordinated raid on the US Treasury by the combined effort of the Federal Reserve, nearly thirty foreign central banks, the US Treasury, Congress, the White House, and probably others’ – all documented by data published by the Federal Reserve… and seen by no one else.
Is the Mortgage Crisis the Mother of Opportunity? The mortgage crisis revealed that those banks too-big-to-fail produced 50 million mortgages with seriously clouded titles. It produced a situation where no one could provide lawful authority to collect or foreclose on such mortgages. In other words, property law 4,000 years old had been violated on a national scale. So far, solutions require that bank shareholders, bank depositors, and taxpayers suffer losses -while those who engineered the crisis waltz away each with millions in plunder. What can be done about it – without creating a new class of victims? Please see the full article.