A Republic, If You Can Keep It
I am reminded of a quote from Benjamin Franklin shortly after the Constitutional Convention:
A woman asked Benjamin Franklin what type of government the Constitution was bringing into existence. Franklin replied “A republic, if you can keep it.”
This quote highlights just how far we have strayed from our founding principles. The Founding Fathers understood the tendency of populism to take control and ignore the minority, this is why they strived so hard to create a republic, a form of government where the smallest minority cannot have its rights stripped from them. Our nationalized educational system has done a great job at convincing millions of Americans that our government is really a Democracy; however, if one were to read “The Federalist Papers” or even the definition of Democracy one would realize how idiotic this notion is. Below is a table listing the differences between a democracy and a republic, you be the judge:
| Democracy: a: government by the people; especially : rule of the majority. b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences |
Republic a: a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government. b: a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law. |
Apparently our elected representatives seem to have failed their Civics course. In closing, I shall leave you with a quote from James Bovard:
Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
It’s Not Yours to Give
With the current political landscape of a Nanny State doling out trillions of dollars a year of public money I thought it would be a good idea to post a story from “The Life of Colonel David Crockett” (1884). This excerpt sums up how government should run, unfortunately too many Americans have forgot the true sense of our government.
From The Life of Colonel David Crockett,
by Edward S. Ellis (Philadelphia: Porter & Coates, 1884)Crockett was then the lion of Washington. I was a great admirer of his character, and, having several friends who were intimate with him, I found no difficulty in making his acquaintance. I was fascinated with him, and he seemed to take a fancy to me.
I was one day in the lobby of the House of Representatives when a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support – rather, as I thought, because it afforded the speakers a fine opportunity for display than from the necessity of convincing anybody, for it seemed to me that everybody favored it. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose. Everybody expected, of course, that he was going to make one of his characteristic speeches in support of the bill. He commenced:
“Mr. Speaker – I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him. This government can owe no debts but for services rendered, and at a stipulated price. If it is a debt, how much is it? Has it been audited, and the amount due ascertained? If it is a debt, this is not the place to present it for payment, or to have its merits examined. If it is a debt, we owe more than we can ever hope to pay, for we owe the widow of every soldier who fought in the War of 1812 precisely the same amount. There is a woman in my neighborhood, the widow of as gallant a man as ever shouldered a musket. He fell in battle. She is as good in every respect as this lady, and is as poor. She is earning her daily bread by her daily labor; but if I were to introduce a bill to appropriate five or ten thousand dollars for her benefit, I should be laughed at, and my bill would not get five votes in this House. There are thousands of widows in the country just such as the one I have spoken of, but we never hear of any of these large debts to them. Sir, this is no debt. The government did not owe it to the deceased when he was alive; it could not contract it after he died. I do not wish to be rude, but I must be plain. Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much of our own money as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks.”
He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.
Like many other young men, and old ones, too, for that matter, who had not thought upon the subject, I desired the passage of the bill, and felt outraged at its defeat. I determined that I would persuade my friend Crockett to move a reconsideration the next day.
Previous engagements preventing me from seeing Crockett that night, I went early to his room the next morning and found him engaged in addressing and franking letters, a large pile of which lay upon his table.
I broke in upon him rather abruptly, by asking him what devil had possessed him to make that speech and defeat that bill yesterday. Without turning his head or looking up from his work, he replied:
“You see that I am very busy now; take a seat and cool yourself. I will be through in a few minutes, and then I will tell you all about it.”
He continued his employment for about ten minutes, and when he had finished he turned to me and said:
“Now, sir, I will answer your question. But thereby hangs a tale, and one of considerable length, to which you will have to listen.”
I listened, and this is the tale which I heard:
Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. When we got there, I went to work, and I never worked as hard in my life as I did there for several hours. But, in spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made homeless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them, and everybody else seemed to feel the same way.
The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done. I said everybody felt as I did. That was not quite so; for, though they perhaps sympathized as deeply with the sufferers as I did, there were a few of the members who did not think we had the right to indulge our sympathy or excite our charity at the expense of anybody but ourselves. They opposed the bill, and upon its passage demanded the yeas and nays. There were not enough of them to sustain the call, but many of us wanted our names to appear in favor of what we considered a praiseworthy measure, and we voted with them to sustain it. So the yeas and nays were recorded, and my name appeared on the journals in favor of the bill.
The next summer, when it began to be time to think about the election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up, and I thought it was best to let the boys know that I had not forgot them, and that going to Congress had not made me too proud to go to see them.
So I put a couple of shirts and a few twists of tobacco into my saddlebags, and put out. I had been out about a week and had found things going very smoothly, when, riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly, and was about turning his horse for another furrow when I said to him: “Don’t be in such a hurry, my friend; I want to have a little talk with you, and get better acquainted.”
He replied: “I am very busy, and have but little time to talk, but if it does not take too long, I will listen to what you have to say.”
I began: “Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and – “
“‘Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.’
This was a sockdolager… I begged him to tell me what was the matter.
“Well, Colonel, it is hardly worthwhile to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the Constitution to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest. But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is.”
“I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question.”
“No, Colonel, there’s no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?”
“Certainly it is, and I thought that was the last vote which anybody in the world would have found fault with.”
“Well, Colonel, where do you find in the Constitution any authority to give away the public money in charity?”
Here was another sockdolager; for, when I began to think about it, I could not remember a thing in the Constitution that authorized it. I found I must take another tack, so I said:
“Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.”
“It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week’s pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The Congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.”
I have given you an imperfect account of what he said. Long before he was through, I was convinced that I had done wrong. He wound up by saying:
“So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you.”
I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go talking, he would set others to talking, and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:
“Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it full. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said there at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.”
He laughingly replied:
“Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and, perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way.”
“If I don’t,” said I, “I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say, I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it.”
“No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you.”
“Well, I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-bye. I must know your name.”
“My name is Bunce.”
“Not Horatio Bunce?”
“Yes.”
“Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me; but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend. You must let me shake your hand before I go.”
We shook hands and parted.
It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible integrity, and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.
At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before.
Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before.
I have told you Mr. Bunce converted me politically. He came nearer converting me religiously than I had ever been before. He did not make a very good Christian of me, as you know; but he has wrought upon my mind a conviction of the truth of Christianity, and upon my feelings a reverence for its purifying and elevating power such as I had never felt before.
I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him – no, that is not the word – I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if everyone who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.
But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue, and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted – at least, they all knew me.
In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:
“Fellow citizens – I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only.”
I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation as I have told it to you, and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:
“And now, fellow citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.
“It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit of it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so.”
He came upon the stand and said:
“Fellow citizens – It affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today.”
He went down, and there went up from the crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.
I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.
“Now, Sir,” concluded Crockett, “you know why I made that speech yesterday. I have had several thousand copies of it printed and was directing them to my constituents when you came in.
“There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a week’s pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men – men who think nothing of spending a week’s pay, or a dozen of them for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased – a debt which could not be paid by money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $10,000, when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it.”
The Time for Liberty
Found this video, it is a bit old (from the last presidential election) but nonetheless still holds great information. We need more men like Bob Barr, Ron Paul, and all other men that agree with limited government and the safeguarding of our liberties.
The Looming Crisis
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that if current laws and policies remained unchanged, the federal budget would show a deficit of about $1.3 trillion for fiscal year 2010. (Source: CBO)
This excerpt from the latest CBO report highlights an extremely frightening situation facing America. According to TreasuryDirect the American debt as of 9/30/2009 is $11,909,829,003,511.75. In other words, that is a debt equal to $39,169.37 per every individual in the US (based off 2008 Census population of 304,059,724 citizens). Considering the previous figure accounts for individuals who are not of working age yet just compounds the problem. According to the 2007 Census data the median income per household was $50,740. This means if our government were to balance our budget today and rack up no further debt it would take 1 full year of salary by every U.S. worker to erase the current debt.
Unfortunately our leaders, on both sides of the aisle, are unwilling to accept the stark reality we are facing. The Democrats think the answer is just increased taxes, while the Republicans think the answer is just cutting entitlement programs (i.e. social security, medicare, etc). The problem with this linear thought is that both side is partially right and partially wrong. This graph illustrates the problems facing Medicare in the upcoming years. As shown, payouts will greatly increase over revenue sources in the coming years.
We cannot solve our national debt and deficit problems with just one little tweak. It will take a combination of both higher taxes and cutting/eliminating entitlement programs. However, this answer does not seem plausible due to the political flak that would ensue for cutting entitlement programs and raising taxes. But our politicians must remember they were not elected for popularity, they were elected to run our country and do what is best for America. We must urge our representatives to make the hard decisions that will be necessary to move America forward and ensure our country can remain a vital player on the global stage for years to come.
A Phone Call with the Federal Reserve
The following is a conversation with Mr. Ron Supinski of the Public Information Department of the San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank. This is an account of that conversation.
CALLER – Mr. Supinski, does my country own the Federal Reserve System?
MR. SUPINSKI – We are an agency of the government.
CALLER – That’s not my question. Is it owned by my country?
MR. SUPINSKI – It is an agency of the government created by congress.
CALLER – Is the Federal Reserve a Corporation?
MR. SUPINSKI – Yes
CALLER – Does my government own any of the stock in the Federal Reserve?
MR. SUPINSKI – No, it is owned by the member banks.
CALLER – Are the member banks private corporations?
MR. SUPINSKI – Yes
CALLER – Are Federal Reserve Notes backed by anything?
MR. SUPINSKI-Yes, by the assets of the Federal Reserve but, primarily by the power of congress to lay tax on the people.
CALLER – Did you say, by the power to collect taxes is what backs Federal Reserve Notes?
MR. SUPINSKI – Yes
CALLER – What are the total assets of the Federal Reserve?
MR. SUPINSKI – The San Francisco Bank has $36 Billion in assets.
CALLER – What are these assets composed of?
MR. SUPINSKI – Gold, the Federal Reserve Bank itself and government securities.
CALLER – What value does the Federal Reserve Bank carry gold per oz. on their books?
MR. SUPINSKI – I don’t have that information but the San Francisco Bank has $1.6 billion in gold.
CALLER – Are you saying the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco has $1.6 billion in gold, the bank itself and the balance of the assets is government securities?
MR. SUPINSKI – Yes.
CALLER – Where does the Federal Reserve get Federal Reserve Notes from?
MR. SUPINSKI – They are authorized by the Treasury.
CALLER – How much does the Federal Reserve pay for a $10 Federal Reserve Note?
MR. SUPINSKI – Fifty to seventy cents.
CALLER – How much do they pay for a $100.00 Federal Reserve Note?
MR. SUPINSKI – The same fifty to seventy cents.
CALLER – To pay only fifty cents for a $100.00 is a tremendous gain, isn’t it?
MR. SUPINSKI – Yes
CALLER – According to the US Treasury, the Federal Reserve pays $20.60 per 1,000 denomination or a little over two cents for a $100.00 bill, is that correct?
MR. SUPINSKI – That is probably close.
CALLER – Doesn’t the Federal Reserve use the Federal Reserve Notes that cost about two cents each to purchase US Bonds from the government?
MR. SUPINSKI – Yes, but there is more to it than that.
CALLER – Basically, that is what happens?
MR. SUPINSKI – Yes, basically you are correct.
CALLER – How many Federal Reserve Notes are in circulation?
MR. SUPINSKI – $263 billion and we can only account for a small percentage.
CALLER – Where did they go?
MR. SUPINSKI – Peoples mattress, buried in their back yards and illegal drug money.
CALLER – Since the debt is payable in Federal Reserve Notes, how can the $4 trillion national debt be paid-off with the total Federal Reserve Notes in circulation?
MR. SUPINSKI – I don’t know.
CALLER – If the Federal Government would collect every Federal Reserve Note in circulation would it be mathematically possible to pay the $4 trillion national debt?
MR. SUPINSKI – No
CALLER – Am I correct when I say, $1 deposited in a member bank $8 can be lent out through Fractional Reserve Policy?
MR. SUPINSKI – About $7.
CALLER – Correct me if I am wrong but, $7 of additional Federal Reserve Notes were never put in circulation. But, for lack of better words were “created out of thin air ” in the form of credits and the two cents per denomination were not paid either. In other words, the Federal Reserve Notes were not physically printed but, in reality were created by a journal entry and lent at interest. Is that correct?
MR. SUPINSKI – Yes
CALLER – Is that the reason there are only $263 billion Federal Reserve Notes in circulation?
MR. SUPINSKI – That is part of the reason.
CALLER – Am I mistaking that when the Federal Reserve Act was passed (on Christmas Eve) in 1913, it transferred the power to coin and issue our nation’s money and to regulate the value thereof from Congress to a Private corporation. And my country now borrows what should be our own money from the Federal Reserve (a private corporation) plus interest. Is that correct and the debt can never be paid off under the current money system of country?
MR. SUPINSKI – Basically, yes.
CALLER – I smell a rat, do you?
MR. SUPINSKI – I am sorry, I can’t answer that, I work here.
CALLER – Has the Federal Reserve ever been independently audited?
MR. SUPINSKI – We are audited.
CALLER – Why is there a current House Resolution 1486 calling for a complete audit of the Federal Reserve by the GAO and why is the Federal Reserve resisting?
MR. SUPINSKI – I don’t know.
CALLER – Does the Federal Reserve regulate the value of Federal Reserve Notes and interest rates?
MR. SUPINSKI – Yes
CALLER – Explain how the Federal Reserve System can be Constitutional if, only the Congress of the US, which comprises of the Senate and the House of representatives has the power to coin and issue our money supply and regulate the value thereof? [Article 1 Section 1 and Section 8] Nowhere, in the Constitution does it give Congress the power or authority to transfer any powers granted under the Constitution to a private corporation or, does it?
MR. SUPINSKI – I am not an expert on constitutional law. I can refer you to our legal department.
CALLER – I can tell you I have read the Constitution. It does NOT provide that any power granted can be transferred to a private corporation. Doesn’t it specifically state, all other powers not granted are reserved to the States and to the citizens? Does that mean to a private corporation?
MR. SUPINSKI – I don’t think so, but we were created by Congress.
CALLER – Would you agree it is our country and it should be our money as provided by our Constitution?
MR. SUPINSKI – I understand what you are saying.
CALLER – Why should we borrow our own money from a private consortium of bankers? Isn’t this why we had a revolution, created a separate sovereign nation and a Bill of Rights?
MR. SUPINSKI – (Declined to answer).
CALLER – Has the Federal Reserve ever been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court?
MR. SUPINSKI – I believe there has been court cases on the matter.
CALLER – Have there been Supreme Court Cases?
MR. SUPINSKI – I think so, but I am not sure.
CALLER – Didn’t the Supreme Court declare unanimously in A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. vs. US and Carter vs. Carter Coal Co. the corporative-state arrangement an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power? [”The power conferred is the power to regulate. This is legislative delegation in its most obnoxious form; for it is not even delegation to an official or an official body, presumptively disinterested, but to private persons.” Carter vs. Carter Coal Co…]
MR. SUPINSKI – I don’t know, I can refer you to our legal department.
CALLER – Isn’t the current money system a house of cards that must fall because, the debt can mathematically never be paid-off?
MR. SUPINSKI – It appears that way. I can tell you have been looking into this matter and are very knowledgeable. However, we do have a solution.
CALLER – What is the solution?
MR. SUPINSKI – The Debit Card.
CALLER – Do you mean under the EFT Act (Electronic Funds Transfer)? Isn’t that very frightening, when one considers the capabilities of computers? It would provide the government and all it’s agencies, including the Federal Reserve such information as: You went to the gas station @ 2:30 and bought $10.00 of unleaded gas @ $1.41 per gallon and then you went to the grocery store @ 2:58 and bought bread, lunch meat and milk for $12.32 and then went to the drug store @ 3:30 and bought cold medicine for $5.62. In other words, they would know where we go, when we went, how much we paid, how much the merchant paid and how much profit he made. Under the EFT they will literally know everything about us. Isn’t that kind of scary?
MR. SUPINSKI – Yes, it makes you wonder.
CALLER – I smell a GIANT RAT that has overthrown my constitution. Aren’t we paying tribute in the form of income taxes to a consortium of private bankers?
MR. SUPINSKI – I can’t call it tribute, it is interest.
CALLER – Haven’t all elected officials taken an oath of office to preserve and defend the Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic? Isn’t the Federal Reserve a domestic enemy?
MR. SUPINSKI – I can’t say that.
CALLER – Our elected officials and members of the Federal Reserve are guilty of aiding and abetting the overthrowing of my Constitution and that is treason. Isn’t the punishment of treason death?
MR. SUPINSKI – I believe so.
CALLER – Thank you for your time and information and if I may say so, I think you should take the necessary steps to protect you and your family and withdraw your money from the banks before the collapse, I am.
MR. SUPINSKI – It doesn’t look good.
CALLER – May God have mercy on the souls who are behind this unconstitutional and criminal act called the Federal Reserve. When the ALMIGHTY MASS awakens to this giant hoax, they will not take it with a grain of salt. It has been a pleasure talking to you and I thank you for your time. I hope you will take my advice before it does collapse.
MR. SUPINSKI – Unfortunately, it does not look good.
CALLER – Have a good day and thanks for your time.
MR. SUPINSKI – Thanks for calling.
This is the GOP?
I honestly want to know how this mentality has invaded the GOP? How far the party has strayed since the days of Goldwater…
America: Where are you?
“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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.”
I open with the preamble of the United States Constitution to remind all what our government is supposed to do. With this in mind, we posit the following:
Why is it when our country is in a conflict with no apparent end in sight is our Congress holding hearings on Major League Baseball? Last time I checked determining if a baseball player did or did not use steroids does none of the above-mentioned duties of our government.
Why is it when our country is heading towards an economic crisis do we have members of Congress requesting a hearing on the Super Bowl?
And most importantly, why is it that we, the people, allow our elected officials to run rampant and not address those issues which are under their proper purview? Our Founding Fathers set up a system in which our Government derives it power not from business, political machines, or special interests but from the consent of the governed.
If you feel like I do, that Congress has gone off the reservation that they are no longer in touch with the “will of the people” I urge you to write your representatives and let them know about the issues that matter most to you. You can find your representative and their mailing address here: http://whoismyrepresentative.com/
I leave you with the following excerpts from the Declaration of Independence:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable 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.”
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
Taxpayers – 1 IRS – 0
The other day a jury in Louisiana ruled against the IRS. While many view those who refuse to pay taxes on the basis that it is unconstitutional as crackpots, Tom Cryer only asked the Government to show him where they get their authority to tax him and he would gladly pay all of his taxes. To this day the Government nor the IRS have provided him with any documentation to back up their claims.
Here is the article on the case as reported by World Net Daily:
THE POWER TO DESTROY
IRS loses challenge to prove tax liability
Lawyer is acquitted after arguing income levy lacks legal foundation
Posted: July 26, 2007
1:00 a.m. EasternBy Bob Unruh
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com The Internal Revenue Service has lost a lawyer’s challenge in front of a jury to prove a constitutional foundation for the nation’s income tax, and the victorious attorney now is setting his sights higher.“I think now people are beginning to realize that this has got to be the largest fraud, backed up by intimidation and extortion and by the sheer force of taking peoples property and hard-earned money without any lawful authorization whatsoever,” lawyer Tom Cryer told WND just days after a jury in Louisiana acquitted him of two criminal tax counts.And before you consign him to the legions of “tin foil hat brigades” who argue against paying taxes, and then want payment to explain how to do that, he addresses the issue up front.“These snake oil peddlers have conned millions of dollars out of many well-intended patriots and left a trail of broken lives in their wake. … These charlatans should be avoided, not only because they will lead you to bankruptcy and prison, but because by association they discredit those who are telling the truth,” he said.
The truth, he said, is where he comes in, with the launch of a new Truth Attack website that is intended to build on his victory, and create a coalition of resources to defeat – ultimately – the income tax in the United States.
Although the legal citations in the case tend to run the length of paragraphs, Cryer told WND the underlying issue is not that complicated. Essentially, he argued that income is not necessarily any money that comes to a person, but rather categories such as profit and interest.
He said the free exchange of labor for compensation has been upheld as a right by the Supreme Court, but that doesn’t necessarily make the compensation income.
If ever such an argument were to be presented widely, Cryer said, the income to the federal government would plummet. But not to worry, he said, the expenses could be reduced equally by eliminating programs, departments and agencies that also have no foundation in the Constitution.
“The Founding Fathers intentionally restricted the taxing powers of the new federal government as a measure of restraint on its size. By exceeding that limited taxing authority the federal government has been able to obtain resources beyond its intended reach, and that money has enabled the federal government to exceed its authority,” he said.
For example, he said, the Constitution does not empower the federal government to regulate education, or employment, and agriculture, yet it does so.
The jury in U.S. District Court in Louisiana voted 12-0 to find Cryer, of Shreveport, not guilty of failure to file income taxes for two years. He had been indicted in 2006 on charges of failing to pay $73,000 to the IRS in 2000 and 2001. The next step in his personal case will be up to the IRS and prosecutors, if they choose to continue the issue, he said.
But for the rest of the nation, he’s working with Save-a-Patriot, the Free Enterprise Society, Live Free Now and his own Lie Free Zone to spread the message of the truth.
“There are three points that are important,” he told WND. “There’s no law making the average working man liable [for income taxes], there’s no law or regulation that allows the IRS to contend that earnings are 100 percent profit received in exchange for nothing, and the right to earn a living through any lawful occupation is a constitutionally protected fundamental right, and it is exempt from taxation.”
Spokesman Robert Marvin in Washington’s IRS office told WND the Internal Revenue Code provides for taxation on salaries or wages, but when pressed for a specific citation, or constitutional provision, he said, “I can’t comment.”
Cryer’s encounter with tax law began more than a decade ago when a friend told him the income tax was sham. Cryer started researching, hoping to keep his friend out of trouble. But his conclusions, after years of research, were exactly what his friend told him.
He researched not only tax laws, but also the documents pertaining to the drafting of the U.S. Constitution as well as the first income tax.
He said throughout his battle, he’s offered at every turn to pay taxes if the IRS could show him the authorization, and that never has happened.
“The Criminal Investigation Division and Department of Justice both responded only with ‘your position is frivolous.’ I had never stated a position, so how could they know whether it was frivolous?” he said. “Imagine my sending you a bill for $1,000 and when you call me and ask what the bill was for I simply said, ‘that position is frivolous, just write the check and send it in.’”
His acquittal, he said, was a precedent because it means “people can see and recognize the truth.”
He said multiple Supreme Court opinions have affirmed an individual’s ownership of his or her own labor, and “exercising your fundamental rights” is not taxable. “It is definitely a trade. What most people receive in the form of wages, salaries or in my case fees that they personally earned for their labor is not received in exchange for nothing.”
He said there might be a profit that should be taxable, but there might not.
“The IRS lets Wal-Mart sell a trillion dollars worth of goods, but they can back out their cost of goods [before being taxed,]” he said. “The IRS considers, in the case of a Wal-Mart wage earner, 100 percent of what he takes in is profit.”
“But he’s using his life, energy and work lifespan, and depleting it as he goes,” Cryer told WND. “[Working] is a God-given fundamental right that is protected under the Constitution and can’t be taxed any more than exercising freedom of speech.”
While he waits to see what, if anything, the IRS and Justice Department will do next in his case, he’s working to coordinate the groups that are battling taxation as unconstitutional.
“I have started a campaign to unify [the work] and we’ve got a number of organizations that are sponsoring and supporting this campaign,” he said. The goal is to get everyone “who is aware of the truth” organized so they can spread the word.
He warned without a restoration of constitutional basics, the nation is lost.
“Read your Constitution and you will see that the federal role does not include ANY authority to regulate or tax any citizen directly and that WE expressly reserved the right to rule and govern ourselves as States, not as mere political subdivisions,” his website says.
“The Constitution does not allow the government to run your lives, but the money it is stealing from millions of Americans is the fuel for its over-reaching and kibitzing. Take the money back and we and our states and communities can again be free,” he said.
The fight is over “our FREEDOM from rule by a DISTANT RULER, just as we fought to free ourselves of a distant England over 200 years ago,” he said.
Abolish the Federal Reserve
Today most Americans have accepted the devaluation of the U.S. dollar as commonplace. They believe it is just a consequence of having paper currency. However, this is far from the case. Devaluation only occurs when fiat currency, money which is only backed by a government, is used. The first national currency was created in 1861 under the Lincoln administration. While this was the first step towards the out of control fiat currency we have today the 1861 currency was still backed by a gold standard. It wasn’t until 1971, 110 years later, that our currency became in essence worthless.
Just to give a few examples of the devaluation of the U.S. dollar:
$23.61 (in 2006 dollars) is equal to $1.00 (in 1861 dollars)
$4.55 (in 1970 dollars) is equal to $1.00 (in 1861 dollars)
$5.19 (in 2006 dollars) is equal to $1.00 (in 1970 dollars)
These statistics are quite upsetting. Considering for the 110 years that U.S. currency was backed by the gold standard the purchasing power of the dollar changed by $4.55 – or a decrease of $.045 per year. However, from 1970 (the last full year the U.S. had the gold standard) to 2006 the purchasing power of the dollar changed by $5.19 – or a decrease of $0.144 per year.
Basically we have increased the devaluation of U.S. currency by 3 fold. In the 1st 110 years of our national currency our purchasing power decreased at roughly the same rate it did in the last 30 years. The worst part of this is that the decrease in U.S. currency is being controlled by a private bank, the Federal Reserve. They have a de facto power to destroy U.S. currency if they so wished.
To conclude here are some quotes from our Founding Fathers on national banks:
“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.” – Thomas Jefferson
“History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling the money and its issuance.” – James Madison
“Most Americans have no real understanding of the operation of the international money lenders. The accounts of the Federal Reserve System have never been audited. It operates outside the control of Congress and manipulates the credit of the United States” – Sen. Barry Goldwater (Rep. AR)
Okay, so the last one wasn’t from a Founding Father, but it is enlightening nonetheless.
Virginia: Freedom Lost
Recently, the Virginia Legislature passed (in its infinite wisdom) HB 3202, more commonly known as the Civil Remedial Fees Bill. Now before I go into my Constitutional tirade against this bill let me point out there are a few good features. First of all, it increases the cost of a DUI to $750 (misdemeanor) or $1,000 (felony) on top of the cost of the original ticket and court costs. I believe this within the confines of the US and VA Constitutions and it is a good idea to further detract individuals from drinking and driving by exponentially increasing the costs one will incur when caught. Where the Constitutional questions arise are:
- $350 for failing to give adequate and timely signals of intention to turn, partly turn, slow down or stop.
- Sec. 9 (VA Constitution) That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted;
- 8th Amendment (US Constitution) Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
- 14th Amendment (US Constitution) Section 1 … nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
I believe it is obvious to any rational person that a fine of $350 for failing to give adequate and timely signals is a bit excessive. As such this not only violates Sec. 9 of the Virginia Constitution (2) but the 8th Amendment to the United States Constitution (3). This bill as written and passed by the Virginia Legislature is unconstitutional and must be repealed! To think the same Commonwealth who gave us George Washington and Thomas Jefferson would fall so far from the ideals these men instilled in our country to pass a bill which is a blatant violation of our civil rights.
Let’s change gears for a second and play devil’s advocate…
Let’s assume that HB 3202 passes the Constitutional arguments stated above. Even if that were the case it is clearly in violation of the 14th Amendment (4) as this bill only applies to Virginia residents. I, as a resident of Virginia, am obviously being singled out on an arbitrary factor (place of residence). Is there any difference between a drunk driver from Virginia and one from Maryland? No! The only difference is the VA driver is a bigger ATM to the state since they can rob them more.
It is unfortunate that my home state (actually a commonwealth), one which has such historical importance as to give us the Father of our Nation [George Washington], the creator of the Declaration of Independence [Thomas Jefferson], and the Father of the Constitution [James Madison] has abandoned these most noble of ideals. The state would like us to believe these new fines are for criminal punishment however they really are for funding roadways. The Virginia Legislature could not come up with a budget that satisfied everyone (concerning roadways) so they introduced this unconstitutional bill to solve the problem. As usual our elected representatives fell back to the tax and spend mentality. It is easy of course to get in this mentality when the money being spent isn’t yours – how much money would you spend if you were told you had an unlimited budget, none of the money was yours, and you didn’t have to worry about paying it back? Exactly!
Sign the petition to Repeal the VA “Civil Remedial Fees” - over 146,000 other Virginians already have
